Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[Poopymonster]

Oh Look. Jan 6th defense lawyer fucked around and found out. Got disbarred in Virginia.

[Paranoid Android]

Fifty-two percent of Americans say Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election in the wake of recently revealed texts by Thomas' wife, Ginni, according to a Quinnipiac poll. https://t.co/RYILBGL004

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/15118...eCkbJ5R9w&s=19

What an effin disgrace. If you put much into polls or at least the Republicans understand how this leans, then possibly the second mostly egregious acts, behind the Trump of course, of a Supreme Court Justice covering up an insurrection.

[zorkuus]

At this point the general assumption is that if right wingers are really concerned about a crime "the left" is doing, they're doing the crime themselves. So, most of the Q crowd are probably pedo's with CP on their computers and phones and shit.

duh

If they're doing it, naturally they assume everyone else is doing it aswell.

[postman1782]

So, some news today from insurrectionist Proud Boys, regional leader from Florida pleads guilty on 2 counts.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/08/10916...erate-with-doj

Key excerpts from the article:

Under the deal, Donohoe pleaded guilty to conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding, and assaulting, resisting or impeding an officer. The government agreed to drop the remaining counts against him in the indictment.

Donohoe was aware of plans to use violence on Jan. 6, knew storming the Capitol was illegal
Donohoe joined the leadership of a new Proud Boys chapter called the Ministry of Self Defense on Dec. 20, 2020, according to the statement of offense that accompanied his plea. The chapter, known as MOSD, focused on national rallies, including the Jan. 6, 2021 one in Washington D.C..

Several of Donohoe's co-defendants — Henry Enrique Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl — had top leadership roles in MOSD, the court papers say. Donohoe worked on a regional level to recruit trusted Proud Boys into this specialized chapter.

As early as Jan. 4, 2021, "Donohoe was aware that members of MOSD leadership were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol," according to the court papers.

"Donohoe believed that storming the Capitol would achieve the group's goal of stopping the government from carrying out the transfer of presidential power," the statement of offense reads, which Donohoe testified under oath in court was correct and accurate. "Donohoe understood that storming the Capitol would be illegal."

The document contains information about the alleged steps Donohoe and the other defendants took leading up to Jan. 6, including exchanging text messages on the eve of the rally about their plans.

Yeah, Enrique Tarrio is fucked. He is already charged with seditious conspiracy, now they have the evidence of him doing it from someone that was in on the meetings.

[tehdang]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...tin-not-guilty



Yo, our justice system is completely, 100% broken. I hope this guy has his car stolen, and every replacement car stolen for the rest of his life.

Apparently if you're a white conserivative, being a literal illiterate retard is a strong enough defense to get away with crimes.

Non-hysterical version: He claimed that officers waved him in, video somewhat supports it, and he was only charged with misdemeanors. Some other websites have the video embedded.

The crux of Martin’s defense was that, in his own words, he was “let in” by two US Capitol Police officers who were standing in the doorway when he entered and made no attempt to stop him. He argued that one of the officers waved him through, and his lawyer showed a zoomed in video that appeared to show the officer making gestures with his hands; from the vantage point of the courtroom gallery, it wasn’t clear who the officer was gesturing to or why.

A little former prosecutor explanation, from NR:

Prosecutors fulminated that Martin’s testimony was “nonsense.” You can tell they knew it wasn’t, though: Their principal contention was that, notwithstanding how he might reasonably have interpreted his interaction with the police, he should have known it was wrong to enter the facility.

This was a sound argument, technically speaking. The indicia of lawlessness were all around Martin, including tear gas and alarms. Moreover, most people in his position would probably have figured that the police, who were outmanned and overmatched in the early stages of the rioting, simply decided at a certain point, after the real aggressors had breached the barricades, that it would be safer for all concerned if they allowed apparently nonthreatening people to mill around the Rotunda. That was probably the best way to restore a semblance of order. A reasonable person would realize that, while he could enter, he still shouldn’t enter.

But this was a criminal trial. Prosecutors can’t win by establishing what most reasonable people would do under the circumstances. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had criminal intent, that he understood the wrongfulness of his actions. That’s hard to do when the police can fairly be described as allowing entry, and perhaps even inviting it. As Judge McFadden observed, this was a close call, on top of the facts that Martin’s testimony was “largely credible,” and his conduct on January 6 was “minimal and nonserious.” In other words, in this case, unlike the many truly serious Capitol riot cases, prosecutors did not deserve to get the close call.

It was a close call either way, and the judge decided in the defendant's favor. This gang's insistence on "the justice system is broken if I don't get the results I want" just are broadcasting their own perverted notions of justice. Many criminal defendants on video engaging in altercations, and physical altercations, with police are getting convicted of (primarily) misdemeanor offenses. The people that walked in with police standing aside or gesturing to enter can plead innocent and have their lawyers show no activity consistent with criminal intent have a good case and may win.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/...-in-acquittal/

Read on to hear the stupidity of the prosecutor grandstanding to a judge instead of playing it straight.

I hope this guy has his car stolen, and every replacement car stolen for the rest of his life.

If this helps sate your mob justice ideal of injustice corrected, he was fired.

[Ripster42]

from NR:

Oh boy, an opinion from someone the national review would go to. I wonder what their bias is. I'm sure it's not coloring their opinion at all.

[Edge-]

Oh boy, an opinion from someone the national review would go to. I wonder what their bias is. I'm sure it's not coloring their opinion at all.

Surely the outlet that wrote a whole issue of their print magazine titled, "Against Trump" that has since nearly completely 180'd on that position isn't a biased source!

It's weird how "intent" is conveniently applicable with some laws. Let's look at it!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1361

Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:

Willfully...sounds like something you knowingly do, regardless of your knowledge of it being a criminal act or not. Just that you voluntarily do it, which this gentleman did. It seems to differentiate between say, if you were dragged there against your will, which is very reasonable!

Because he didn't seem dragged there against his will, but rather that he willingly entered, regardless of the actions of the officer.

[Endus]

Willfully...sounds like something you knowingly do, regardless of your knowledge of it being a criminal act or not. Just that you voluntarily do it, which this gentleman did. It seems to differentiate between say, if you were dragged there against your will, which is very reasonable!

Because he didn't seem dragged there against his will, but rather that he willingly entered, regardless of the actions of the officer.

Yep. If you tripped by accident and fell against a statue in the Capitol and broke it while on a tour, that would qualify as "depredation against property of the USA", but it wouldn't be willful, because you tripped by accident.

Taking a crowbar to the statue and causing the same damage is "willful". No matter how justified you might feel in doing so in the moment. Or how deluded you might be. Smashing a statue of Charlie Chaplin thinking it's a statue of Adolf Hitler (why would the Capitol have a Chaplin statue? I'm trying to come up with something where the mistake's not ridiculous), for instance, is still willful, and thus still a crime. Your ignorance is just a description of your motive and intent, not a defense.


Specifically on the case of this guy in question, whether he unlawfully entered the Capitol is a matter of record; he admitted it. He claims that he was given permission, but that's the kind of thing that's usually a positive defense; the defendant would have to establish that defense beyond any reasonable doubt for the courts to accept it. And if it's unclear what the guard's gesturing was, it seem pretty damned clear to me he can't actually make any such claim. I don't see a defense there. It's like claiming you totally saw Bigfoot and there's a shadowy blur on video that maybe could've been Bigfoot, but almost certainly wasn't; you don't have any concrete, meaningful evidence to support your case.

In this particular, it should be damned easy to get the Capitol officers in question to testify. If they won't back his account, defense failed. If they do, fuckin' prosecute them for complicity in an insurrection.

[tehdang]

Oh boy, an opinion from someone the national review would go to. I wonder what their bias is. I'm sure it's not coloring their opinion at all.

Politics does involve hearing opposing opinions with biases that you don't share. I hope you can intelligently debate their views while accounting for bias without begrudging others their bias, remembering your own.

- - - Updated - - -

Surely the outlet that wrote a whole issue of their print magazine titled, "Against Trump" that has since nearly completely 180'd on that position isn't a biased source!

It's weird how "intent" is conveniently applicable with some laws. Let's look at it!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1361



Willfully...sounds like something you knowingly do, regardless of your knowledge of it being a criminal act or not. Just that you voluntarily do it, which this gentleman did. It seems to differentiate between say, if you were dragged there against your will, which is very reasonable!

Because he didn't seem dragged there against his will, but rather that he willingly entered, regardless of the actions of the officer.

They're still against Trump, but strangely haven't stopped being conservative, which is a grave offense against some that now equate conservatism with Trump.

Let's look at some civil statute ... oh, it's not among the the charges against the man now free, and not applicable. Weird.

[uuuhname]

Liz Cheney says they have enough evidence to nail Trump, but no, that's just political grandstanding from a politician who has been all but pushed out of her own party for her part in this investigation.

- - - Updated - - -

also I do love trying to downplay the Jan 6th insurrection, really playing that nonpartisan fiddle like a drum.

[Endus]

Politics does involve hearing opposing opinions with biases that you don't share. I hope you can intelligently debate their views while accounting for bias without begrudging others their bias, remembering your own.

Some "opinions" are not rooted in reason in the first place, nor "bias", but simple unthinking hatred. A desire to inflict suffering for suffering's sake.

There is no room for "debate" with such views, because they do not have a debatable argument. They are not reasoned positions, in the first place. The only legitimate responses to bigots demanding "debate" of their bigotry is public censure, condemnation, and mockery.

If they want to enter into debate, they need to first come to the table with informed, reasonable, reason-based views. You can't "debate" with unthinking extremists.

To pick a specific instance; the homophobic "Don't Say Gay" bill in Florida. There's no "debate" to be had with it. The authors and their supporters are all sadistic abusers, and the bill exists solely to harm innocent people, primarily children, for the sake of inflicting that suffering and literally not a single other explainable reason. There's no "debate" to be had, there. They have no argument. No reasoning. No justification. Just a desire to see certain children suffer.

"Debate" is for settling issues like "should we build this new bridge or spend that money investing into better mass transit, to reduce our traffic problems in the downtown core". Not determining whether certain people have a basic right to live their lives in normalcy and without harassment and abuse. If you're expressing the latter, you deserve no consideration, other than by employers and such who are reconsidering whether they want to continue their relationship with you.

This "debate" malarkey is tossed around by extremists who think they can appeal to their enemies' senses of reason and fair play. Bigotry isn't interested in either; they seek only the false air of equivalence they can garner by being accepted for the debate at all. The bigots are the pigeons, trying to play chess. Their only interest is in shitting on the board.

[Edge-]

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...nal-guard.html

Risking losing your National Guard job and military benefits to attend an insurrection and own the libs.

Nobody has ever claimed that these rioters are smart people. Because they're not.

[Edge-]

Former Trump adviser Stephen Miller to testify before January 6 committee

But will he be wearing his finest spray-on hair for the House committee?

[Poopymonster]

Nothing can distract from the absolutely soulless look in his eyes. Might as well go ham with the spray-on hair.

They should have gone with the Zuckerberg model of humanoid robot.

[Edge-]

Nothing can distract from the absolutely soulless look in his eyes. Might as well go ham with the spray-on hair.

I wonder if contacts would help in that regard, but I doubt it. He's got a very, "Yes I tortured and killed your family and then fed their bodies to my pack of hyena's. What of it? It was the weekend, this is just what I do on weekends. Why are you so upset? This is totally normal!" vibes.

[PhaelixWW]

I wonder if contacts would help in that regard, but I doubt it.

When people talk about "a look in their eyes", it actually has nothing to do with the eyes themselves, and everything to do with how the muscles of the face affect the skin around the eyes. From a young age, we learn to subconsciously read those subtle cues when we look someone in the eyes.

So...

...ain't no contacts in the world going to be able to cover up what's wrong with Stephen "Goebbels" Miller.

[Paranoid Android]

New emails show two GOP lawmakers offered advice to Trump’s team on challenging election



I posted above and evidence has come out about Sen. Mike Lee, Utah. Sadly this traitor will suffer no consequences. Swore an oath, was looking to overturn an election and will keep trying.

At this point we the people, just want our government overthrown. Stated multiple times, that coups are not always successful the first time, but history has shown when those are not punished, they succeed on the second or more attempts.

More context to story:

In reality, Lee was aware of the gambit nearly a month before he claimed.

On Dec. 8, Lee texted Meadows, “If a very small handful of states were to have their legislatures appoint alternative slates of delegates, there could be a plan,” Lee wrote.

[PACOX]

Jesus. The worst thing about Republicans isn't their politics, it's their coordination and how they will cover for each other despite inner-conflict. The government is slowly uncovering a conspiracy by the government to subvert the government.

If this was going on in any other country there would be mass protests, forced resignations, recounts, other countries sending foreign aid while making UN speeches. Shamelessness.

[Endus]

Jesus. The worst thing about Republicans isn't their politics, it's their coordination and how they will cover for each other despite inner-conflict. The government is slowly uncovering a conspiracy by the government to subvert the government.

If this was going on in any other country there would be mass protests, forced resignations, recounts, other countries sending foreign aid while making UN speeches. Shamelessness.

Not "by the government". By a single private party organization.

That makes it, in dictionary terms, a "coup". There's an ongoing slow coup, and nobody's got the balls to prosecute the offenders for trying to suborn the government.

[Redwyrm]

But will he be wearing his finest spray-on hair for the House committee?

I really want to take a magnet to that image to see if the "hair" moves.