Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

Agreed. I hope you're correct about the number of people. I'm sure there's some research out there, but I'm curious as to what percentage of bad apples/supporters a leader needs to stay in power after being elected out of office.

 

Last-chance Hearing: Jan. 6 Committee Has Yet To Establish A Criminal Case Against Trump

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/...t-to-establish-a-criminal-case-against-trump/

excerpt:

It is not even clear, after seven hearings, what crime we are discussing.
​

more at the link

 

In Defense of the Justice Department

https://www.lawfareblog.com/defense-justice-department

excerpt:

Oh y’all of little faith! Take a deep breath, everyone. Maybe take another one. Drink a cup of warm tea. And allow me to say a few words in defense of the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the investigation they are conducting of the insurrectionary shanda that was Jan. 6.

The conventional wisdom—that the department is dragging its feet, focusing on the little guys for the less-important sort of crimes—seems to me very likely wrong. At a minimum, it is certainly not clearly correct at this stage. The criticism is at the very least premature.

No, Garland hasn’t kicked down the doors of Mar-a-Lago and dragged Donald Trump in the former president’s pajamas into a patrol car. He hasn’t frog-marched Mark Meadows or Rudy Giuliani in handcuffs into the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse. Indeed, he hasn’t—yet—taken any overt investigative steps against the figures at the top of the Trumpist totem pole.

But here’s the thing: In virtually no conceivable investigation conducted by the Justice Department would one have expected investigators to have done these things after a mere 19 months of a probe involving more than a thousand likely defendants scattered nationwide and suspected of a remarkable array of nonviolent, violent, and insurrectionary offenses.

The real story here is one of a remarkably quick and aggressive investigation, a probe that has brought enormous prosecutorial and investigative resources to the table, prosecuted an astonishingly large number of people in a short space of time, lost only a few cases, and crawled swiftly up the ladder of defendant importance. It is a probe that is today knocking on the doors of defendants within Trump’s inner circle and elsewhere in the political echelon of Trumpist politics. It is a probe that will only heat up more as the months grind on.

Let’s start with some basic principles.

Complex federal investigations always take a long time. Always. They take a long time because they involve a great deal of information, and the FBI and other investigators have to learn all of it. Federal prosecutors can’t have surprises at trial; they can’t afford to get blindsided with material they didn’t know about. A federal prosecution is not an environment in which “good enough” is good enough.

To bring cases that will stand up in court, they need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and they need it using admissible evidence only. They need it for every single element of every criminal offense they seek to charge, and they need it in a form that will convince each and every juror. In situations involving high-profile defendants and politically sensitive matters, the standards go up even further—not because the law is different for such people but because the capacity for institutional embarrassment induces a certain additional care.

These are the baseline realities. Now let’s add some factors particular to the Jan. 6 investigation. Here, after all, we are dealing with some untold number of thousands of investigative subjects. Nearly 850 have been charged, but that number actually understates the number who have faced investigation. Building that many cases takes time, personnel, and court resources. A lot of people seem to regard the Jan. 6 investigation as two separate investigations—one of the riot and other of Trump and his immediate coterie. But the Justice Department cannot separate them in this fashion, and it will not. The reason is that the two fact-patterns are intricately interlaced. Trump didn’t just summon and address the crowd. He acted in myriad ways in dialogue with the crowd—for example, ordering that the magnetometers be removed so that more people, even armed people, could get onto the Ellipse. He actively sought to join the crowd. He watched the mob on television all afternoon. Artificially separating Trump’s behavior from the riot as an investigative matter would be a serious mistake.
​

more at the link

 

this is a bad legal take

 

This!!!

 

Uhm, Curtis is ignorant or an idiot. The Colbert crew were invited in by a congressman and were never ordered to leave.

That is vastly different than what happened on Jan. 6th.

 

different in degree, not kind. Trespassing is trespassing

 

I urge you to stay away from people who act like victims in a problem they created. That applies here, and life in general.

 

Is it trespassing if a congressman invited them to be there? Very different.

 

from what I've been told congressmen AND police invited Jan 6 rioters to come into the Capitol building

 

Was Jan. 6 an Insurrection? Where the Left and Right Disagree

https://www.allsides.com/blog/was-jan-6-insurrection-where-left-and-right-disagree

 

Not correct. Police didn't invite them to be there even if they removed barricades or opened doors. Congressmen invited some prior to the riots but not at the time or ahead of time.

I know conservatives love to play the victim card and are really working hard to try make this seem like unfair treatment or a double standard but it simply isn't.

Conservatives would be better to just be accountable and hold those accountable who were in the wrong rather than trying to twist things to make themselves out to be victims of a double standard that doesn't exist in this case.

 

either you respect the law or you're acting in such a way as to end civilization as we know it. there is no middle ground.

 

The Colbert staffers didn't break the law. The Jan 6th mob did.

The situations aren't the same.

 

well, actually . . .

 

Prosecutors won’t pursue case against Colbert team at Capitol complex
‘We do not believe it is probable that the office would be able to obtain and sustain convictions on these charges,’ the U.S. attorney’s office said

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/18/colbert-capitol-police/

Capitol Police had charged the Colbert team members — who had entered the building on two separate occasions — with misdemeanor unlawful entry. Those arrested included the man who voices the Triumph the Insult Comic Dog puppet, who had come to interview members of Congress about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

***
Capitol Police had initially said members of the group had been asked to leave the building earlier in the day on June 16 but had returned.

In a statement Monday, Capitol Police said members of the group had been warned several times before they entered the Longworth building that they had to remain with a staff escort “and they failed to do so.”
​

that sounds like the "broke the law"

 

deciding not to press charges is not the same as "not breaking the law."

someone decides to beat the shitte out of their spouse, and the spouse doesn't press charges, well . . . it's still against the law to beat the shitte out of your spouse

 

Sounds like you got your JD from MAGA-U

 

It isn't the same. But they didn't break the law which is why charges were not pressed.

I am not sure why people are so desparate to try and paint this as a double standard.

 

I'm kinda (gently I hope) yanking your chain. Yes, they did break the law. No, it was not as serious as Jan. 6. Yes, they should have left when they were told.