January 6th Protest/Stolen Election Thread (Was: Trump Nuts Storm the Capitol)

[dot]

since there is a specific crime relating to defying subpoenas, why do I pretend the absence of charges means the crime never happened?

[Animal]

since there is a specific crime relating to defying subpoenas, why do I pretend the absence of charges means the crime never happened?

i have asked you a million times, and you refuse to attempt an answer, but if there is a crime for defying subpoenas, then why weren't any of those people on your list charged with anything? Like they charged Bannon and Navarro? What was different about those other people you listed?

[dot]

Are you going to ever stop avoiding the question of what an insurrection is? Cause you and I both know that your deflection and its logical fallacy is never going to change what took place on January 6. The fact that only one of us will address the topic and the rest of the cons will run from it says more than enough, but I'm willing to let you keep demonstrating your collective cowardice.

[Animal]

Are you going to ever stop avoiding the question of what an insurrection is? Cause you and I both know that your deflection and its logical fallacy is never going to change what took place on January 6. The fact that only one of us will address the topic and the rest of the cons will run from it says more than enough, but I'm willing to let you keep demonstrating your collective cowardice.

notice how he always avoid the question and goes back to this?

[dot]

notice how he always avoid the question and goes back to this?

Notice how you can't answer the original and pertinent question of what is an insurrection and how does January 6 not qualify by your own claims? Rhetorical question, mind you, we already know why you won't answer. The one time you tried, you ended up fumbling the ball and couldn't explain away how insurrection does apply to January 6. But I'm willing to let you keep demonstrating cowardice.

[CHEEZY17]

You're the hack that is arguing against what words literally mean.

Once again, take it up with the legal professionals. We're simply agreeing with them.

[CHEEZY17]

Are you going to ever stop avoiding the question of what an insurrection is? Cause you and I both know that your deflection and its logical fallacy is never going to change what took place on January 6. The fact that only one of us will address the topic and the rest of the cons will run from it says more than enough, but I'm willing to let you keep demonstrating your collective cowardice.

notice how he always avoid the question and goes back to this?

Of course. It's all he's got.

[dot]

Once again

Yes, we know. Neither of you can actually answer the question, so you have to deflect. Or in other words, cowardly hacks does cowardly hack things.

[CHEEZY17]

notice how he always avoid the question and goes back to this?

Notice how you can't answer the original and pertinent question of what is an insurrection and how does January 6 not qualify by your own claims? Rhetorical question, mind you, we already know why you won't answer. The one time you tried, you ended up fumbling the ball and couldn't explain away how insurrection does apply to January 6. But I'm willing to let you keep demonstrating cowardice.

And again: Do you think the DOJ and FBI don't know or understand what an insurrection is? It boils down to this: YOU think you understand the "events of that day" better than the folks who do this for a living and are WAY smarter than you.
Why are you right and they are wrong?

[dot]

And again

If you're not going to answer the question, all you're doing is reiterating how much of a coward you are. If you believe January 6 wasn't an insurrection, prove it, make your case. Cause you're arguing against the literal definition of insurrection. But hacks do hack things and never man up.

[CHEEZY17]

The DOJ and FBI already answered the question you absolute fucking retard.
Why are you right and they are wrong?

[dot]

Charges filed is not and never was the question. The question is what is insurrection and how does January 6 qualify or not qualify? You say it doesn't but will never prove your claim. And there's a reason you will not touch it. Cowardly hacks do cowardly hack things.

[Who]

Never forget, retard, that it is YOU that is on the opposite side of the legal professionals.

I love how you like to parse words .

January 6th was a failed insurrection .

What the participants in the insurrection were charged with doesn’t change the fact that January 6 was an attempted coup.

since there is a specific crime relating to attempting an insurrection, why wasn't even one, of the hundreds of people arrested, charged with the crime of insurrection? Why did they charge them with lesser crimes instead?

I’m guessing you’ll have to ask the DOJ why, I don’t know

[Who]

The DOJ and FBI already answered the question you absolute fucking retard.
Why are you right and they are wrong?

Boy are you stupid

[Animal]

Charges filed is not and never was the question. The question is what is insurrection and how does January 6 qualify or not qualify? You say it doesn't but will never prove your claim. And there's a reason you will not touch it. Cowardly hacks do cowardly hack things.

for one thing an insurrection is a legitimate attempt, with a sufficient number of people and a sufficient amount of force to overthrow an established government.

it is not a parade of citizens demonstrating a public protest. It fails every test of being an actual insurrection and you know it. Because it was a protest and not an insurrection, people that were charged were given lesser charges that were more in line with the laws they broke during the protest.

If the people that day had actually had the intent to overthrow the US government, they would have, at a minimum, brought some weapons.

Now, if they had really had weapons and they had really taken hostages and they had really used their zip ties and weapons, then that would have been an insurrection and you would have a point. But they didn't and you don't.

[Animal]

Never forget, retard, that it is YOU that is on the opposite side of the legal professionals.

I love how you like to parse words .

January 6th was a failed insurrection .

What the participants in the insurrection were charged with doesn’t change the fact that January 6 was an attempted coup.

since there is a specific crime relating to attempting an insurrection, why wasn't even one, of the hundreds of people arrested, charged with the crime of insurrection? Why did they charge them with lesser crimes instead?

I’m guessing you’ll have to ask the DOJ why, I don’t know

you could take an educated guess, but that would require two things. neither of which are at your disposal.

[dot]

for one thing an insurrection is a legitimate attempt, with a sufficient number of people and a sufficient amount of force to overthrow an established government.

Sorry, but where are you coming up with that? That sounds like moving the goalposts, changing the criteria of how an insurrection is defined. Because the definition stands as a violent uprising against an authority or government. It says nothing about logistical number of people required or force employed. I appreciate that you finally grew even the tiniest set to address the question again at long last, but I laugh at the nonsensical attempt to again excuse what was perpetrated that day.

A violent uprising against an authority or government, keep this in mind, this is what you're working against.

it is not a parade of citizens demonstrating a public protest. It fails every test of being an actual insurrection and you know it.

We gonna do this again? Violence, check. Against authority or government, check. Now, do you wanna expand to use one of the other definitions? We can play that game again:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... surrection

insurrection
noun [ C or U ]
us /ˌɪn.sɚˈek.ʃən/ uk /ˌɪn.sərˈek.ʃən/
Add to word list
an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:

Organization, check. Maga election denial group, check. Attempt to defeat government and take control of their country, check. By violence, check. You tried this before, and I ticked off the boxes then that make it an insurrection. Are you gonna run again because I did it again?

Because it was a protest and not an insurrection, people that were charged

Violation, changing of argument detected. We are talking about what was committed on January 6 and charges filed do not change what took place. Stay on point, traitor apologist.

If the people that day had actually had the intent to overthrow the US government, they would have, at a minimum, brought some weapons.

There is no weapons tag in the definition of insurrection. But just because we like facts being presented here and not false rhetoric:

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/po ... 621149001/

PolitiFact: Tucker Carlson is wrong. Firearms, other weapons at Capitol on Jan. 6

Tucker Carlson: “Not a single person in the crowd on January 6 was found to be carrying a firearm. Not one.”

PolitiFact's ruling: False

Here's why: As the first House hearing dedicated to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol aired, Fox News host Tucker Carlson repeated the debunked claim that no one in the crowd was found with a gun.

"Just to be clear on terms, an insurrection is when people with guns try to overthrow the government," Carlson said during his June 10 segment. "Not a single person in the crowd on January 6 was found to be carrying a firearm. Not one," he said.

That’s wrong. Court documents, video evidence and news coverage directly contradict this characterization. Several rioters had firearms and dozens more wielded knives, bats and other real and makeshift weapons.

We reached out to Carlson for comment but did not hear back.

PolitiFact reviewed the case files for hundreds of defendants who were arrested and charged for their actions at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and found several defendants who police say were found to have brought firearms. Some were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds while others stashed them nearby:

Lonnie Coffman of Alabama was found with multiple weapons in his vehicle and on his person. Coffman’s truck, which he had parked in the vicinity of the Capitol on the morning of Jan. 6, was packed with weaponry, including a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, each loaded, according to court documents. In addition, the truck held hundreds of rounds of ammunition, several large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, a crossbow with bolts, machetes, camouflage smoke devices, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails. When Coffman was detained, questioned and searched, police found two more handguns on his person. None of the weapons were registered, documents state. Coffman pleaded guilty and was sentenced in April to 46 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.
Guy Reffitt of Texas was charged with bringing a handgun onto Capitol grounds. Court documents showed that Reffitt, reported to be a member of the Three Percenters militia group, told his family he brought his gun with him and that he and others "stormed the Capitol." A jury found Reffitt guilty of five felony charges in March, and he remains detained pending sentencing.
Christopher Michael Alberts of Maryland also brought his handgun onto Capitol grounds. An officer saw that Alberts had a gun on his hip and alerted fellow officers. When Alberts tried to flee, officers detained him and recovered the loaded handgun, along with a separate magazine. He has been indicted on ten felony counts.

In his conspiratorial documentary series "Patriot Purge," Carlson featured a man named Mark Ibrahim, a former agent for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and falsely claimed that Ibrahim was forced from his job and indicted for simply being near the Capitol protest.

But court documents show that Ibrahim had already submitted his intent to resign from the DEA weeks before Jan. 6 and was indicted because he brought a gun with him onto Capitol grounds and made false statements to federal agents.

The total number of people who carried firearms with them that day may not ever be fully accounted for because the majority of those involved in the siege weren’t arrested on-site but were tracked down by law enforcement days, weeks and months later.

It’s also important to note that an insurrection is a violent uprising against the government, and the definition of "armed" is not legally limited to guns; it refers to any weapon used for defense or offense and as a means of protection. Other items used as weapons on Jan. 6 included bats, crutches, flagpoles, skateboards, fire extinguishers and chemical sprays.

Our ruling
Carlson claimed that no one in the crowd on Jan. 6 was found with a firearm.

That’s inaccurate. Many of those involved in the attack were armed, and several had guns that police later seized.

We rate his claim False.

Now, if they had really had weapons

Weapons, check.

and they had really taken hostages

Because they failed doesn't mean they didn't attempt. Failure to commit murder doesn't mean you get away with trying to attempt murder. I would normally expect better from someone, but you failed to identify your own industry's tools of the trade so there's clearly a low intellect ceiling I'm arguing against here.

and they had really used their zip ties and weapons, then that would have been an insurrection and you would have a point. But they didn't and you don't.

Failing at their attempted coup and being called off by the coup leader because it failed doesn't absolve them of their crimes. So where did you end up at the end? You might notice that at every turn of this, you couldn't prove your claim. Every criteria of insurrection met. Success or failure isn't a measuring stick of whether it's an insurrection or not. Y'all keep making me ask this, but it keeps being ever so appropriate. Do y'all ever get tired of being so humiliatingly wrong?

you could take an educated guess, but that would require two things. neither of which are at your disposal.

Oh. The irony.

[Animal]

Gee. If only one authority, anywhere would agree with you then out of all of those hundreds of people they probably would have at least tried to charge one of them with insurrection. Just one authority out of the thousands that prosecuted those cases. what are the odds of that?

[dot]

Gee. If only one authority

Sorry, were you going to run away again from the actual issue of what is an insurrection or not? Because it looks like you couldn't refute a single data point again. But please, by all means, continue to prove me right.

[Animal]

Guy Reffitt of Texas was charged with bringing a handgun onto Capitol grounds. Court documents showed that Reffitt, reported to be a member of the Three Percenters militia group, told his family he brought his gun with him and that he and others "stormed the Capitol."

Since everyone knows that there weren't any weaopns at the protest, I decided to just look up one of your citations. Just one.

And guess what? This is from "Wikipedia"

Reffitt, alongside a mob of other rioters, approached the west side of the Capitol building armed with a holstered Smith & Wesson pistol, zip tie handcuff, a helmet with a video camera, and body armor.[4] His camera recorded him stating that they would take over the Capitol "before the day is over."[2] He used a megaphone to shout at police to let the mob through and for the mob to push past them.[3] An officer pepper sprayed him in the face, and he stayed back while waving other rioters on; these rioters later breached the building; he chose not to enter the building himself.[4][6][3]

Read the part where he never entered the building.

[dot]

Since everyone knows that there weren't any weaopns at the protest

Already proven false, but go on, coward.

I decided to just look up one of your citations. Just one.

And guess what? This is from "Wikipedia"

Reffitt, alongside a mob of other rioters, approached the west side of the Capitol building armed with a holstered Smith & Wesson pistol, zip tie handcuff, a helmet with a video camera, and body armor.[4] His camera recorded him stating that they would take over the Capitol "before the day is over."[2] He used a megaphone to shout at police to let the mob through and for the mob to push past them.[3] An officer pepper sprayed him in the face, and he stayed back while waving other rioters on; these rioters later breached the building; he chose not to enter the building himself.[4][6][3]

Read the part where he never entered the building.

Guy Reffitt of Texas was charged with bringing a handgun onto Capitol grounds. Court documents showed that Reffitt, reported to be a member of the Three Percenters militia group, told his family he brought his gun with him and that he and others "stormed the Capitol."

I, for one, will never get tired of making you guys admit how stupid you are with the slightest amount of effort. You wanna try again, or did you finally learn your lesson?

[CHEEZY17]

Why don't the DOJ and FBI agree with your conclusion?

[Animal]

Guy Reffitt of Texas was charged with bringing a handgun onto Capitol grounds. Court documents showed that Reffitt, reported to be a member of the Three Percenters militia group, told his family he brought his gun with him and that he and others "stormed the Capitol."

I, for one, will never get tired of making you guys admit how stupid you are with the slightest amount of effort. You wanna try again, or did you finally learn your lesson?

Look, dummy. He had a holstered gun and he stayed outside with a megaphone. Protesting. Now you would think a bunch of prosecutors so desperate to bring charges that they charged him with having a holstered firearm outside of the building, that they would have just gone ahead and charged someone with insurrection. why go after little charges like handgun violations down the street? WHy not go for the big fish and charge just one person with insurrection?

because there wasn't an insurrection. Face it dummy, you have nothing but a carefully worded definition that you only allow words that support your stupid point.

[Who]

Never forget, retard, that it is YOU that is on the opposite side of the legal professionals.

I love how you like to parse words .

January 6th was a failed insurrection .

What the participants in the insurrection were charged with doesn’t change the fact that January 6 was an attempted coup.

since there is a specific crime relating to attempting an insurrection, why wasn't even one, of the hundreds of people arrested, charged with the crime of insurrection? Why did they charge them with lesser crimes instead?

I’m guessing you’ll have to ask the DOJ why, I don’t know

you could take an educated guess, but that would require two things. neither of which are at your disposal.

So your conclusion I’m guessing is if the defendants don’t get charged with a particular crime it didn’t occur. Is that how you think?

I think about the logistics, finding the tourists, determining what attractions they participated in and bringing a charge or charges against them, then proving it in a court of law.

I’m not a lawyer but can additional charges be brought against those found guilty at a later date?

[Animal]

Never forget, retard, that it is YOU that is on the opposite side of the legal professionals.

I love how you like to parse words .

January 6th was a failed insurrection .

What the participants in the insurrection were charged with doesn’t change the fact that January 6 was an attempted coup.

since there is a specific crime relating to attempting an insurrection, why wasn't even one, of the hundreds of people arrested, charged with the crime of insurrection? Why did they charge them with lesser crimes instead?

I’m guessing you’ll have to ask the DOJ why, I don’t know

you could take an educated guess, but that would require two things. neither of which are at your disposal.

So your conclusion I’m guessing is if the defendants don’t get charged with a particular crime it didn’t occur. Is that how you think?

I think about the logistics, finding the tourists, determining what attractions they participated in and bringing a charge or charges against them, then proving it in a court of law.

I’m not a lawyer but can additional charges be brought against those found guilty at a later date?

Well since they did track down the "tourists" and they did determine whatever they had to determine to charge them with the smaller crimes, then most of that work was done. But, yes. The real problem for prosecutors was proving it in a court of law. That's where they decided against an insurrection charge. They knew that would never get through a trial, so they avoided it. In every single case.

And, as far as the statute of limitations. Depending on how you read the law that would either be 5 years or 8 years. So, in essence, they could still file those charges, but more than half the time has expired at this point.