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

exactly. the punishment doesn't fit the crime. She should be tried for treason and shot.

DD

 

Her last words? Did she die?

She did the crime and now will do the time. She pled guilty.

 

I'm only half joking when I say I fully expect a weird, new religion that's going to combine American catholics who don't like the current Pope, QAnon, and end of days prophecies where people like her are LITERALLY going to be canonized as martyrs.

 

If I robbed a bank right now, I’d be arrested while battling cancer too.

It’s not too difficult. Don’t break the law while battling cancer.

Unlike @Commodore i believe in following the rules I guess.

 

It reminds me when the mafia used to ask for their guys to go on house arrest because they were all of the sudden "ill, senile, and old" despite having no problem beating the crap out of people or running money laundering schemes. They actually used to get an evaluation at this hospital (which was conveniently build in the same swamp lands they'd bury people with mafia labor and mafia money.

God I miss Jersey sometimes.

 

good essay

Lies, Damned Lies, and …
How a truly ridiculous statistical notion played its part in the January 6 uprising

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/15/lies-damned-lies-and/

 

Would have already happened if Evangelicals decided to allow people to drink alcohol.

Seriously though I’ve seen a huge shift in the formalities of Catholicism breaking down in the right wing Catholic Churches and they’ve become night and day from the more traditional Catholic church’s like the one we attend. The biggest difference is the Homily (if that’s how you spell it). At the right wing Catholic Church we’ve attended the Homily resembles more of a sermon now like you’d see in an Evangelist church where politics are the norm. On two occasions Pelosi and Biden were called out by name.

However at the other Catholic Church they still follow the formalities closely and the homily is much more about the text and almost no opinion.

So I don’t think the Catholic Church is going to change drastically but I definitely do see coming that the southern and or other right wing Catholic Churches branching off into a new independent body that has no ties to the Vatican moving forward and becomes a political force for the Republican Party.

Keep in mind this is exactly what happened back in the 80’s and 90’s when people left the Southern Baptist Organization (which folded to the Republicans anyways) for the so-called “non denominational” religion which is basically a free for all brand and has no governance and ethical oversight at the top. It’s pretty much whatever you want it to be at each church which is why it almost always is just a convention hall for the Republican Party every Sunday.

 

I'm not Catholic but have been to mass a few times and have seen what you're talking about. I went to a Christmas Day mass at 7 AM once (it was the closet church to my parent's house) and the homily was more akin to an evangelical sermon about the evils of abortion. On Christmas.

 

I don't care if she was my grandma, you do the crime, you do the time...........its only 2 months and it will give her some time to think about finding a new group of friends to hang out with

 

What crimes has Biden committed?

 

illegal narcotics possession, solicitation of a prostitute (likely part of a human trafficking ring), illegal firearms possession

not to mention his shady dealings with foreign governments too numerous to count

meanwhile a senior citizen with cancer gets sent to prison for a nonviolent victimless misdemeanor trespassing charge

 

If you aren’t caught in the act with drugs or prostitutes, there’s no case.

 

Oh you meant Hunter.

A criminal that pled guilty and in return had several other charges for criminal offenses dropped, was sent to jail for 60 days. Her age, relatives, and health don't change the fact that she is an admitted criminal.

 

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

 

Should the J6 Committee Call Stewart Rhodes or Call it a Day?
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/16/should-the-j6-committee-call-steward-rhodes-or-call-it-a-day/

excerpt:

The hearings have succeeded in bringing to light much of what occurred in those critical days. The testimony has detailed extremely disturbing conduct and chilling proposals, but it has not established a clear criminal conspiracy. Indeed, much of the evidence has amplified what we already knew, rather than add significant new information on criminal conduct. If the committee is serious about such a referral to the Justice Department, it will have to make a quantum leap in evidence. Even former prosecutor and Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp said that the seventh hearing showed her “as a former prosecutor myself, everything that I’ve heard, I think it would be a very tough indictment to get.”

If the Committee seriously wants to convince Attorney General Merrick Garland to charge a former president, it must produce direct, unassailable evidence, not circumstantial evidence based on “will be wild” tweets or an anonymous former Twitter employee’s testimony that “It felt as if a mob was being organized.”

The seventh hearing spent a considerable amount of time on actions not taken by Trump — a curious way to build a criminal case. There was the draft tweet that was not sent and the executive order that was never signed.

Even more curious was the selection of the long-awaited witnesses from right-wing groups involved in the attack on the Capitol. One was Jason Van Tatenhove, a former Oath Keepers spokesman who quit the group years before the riot and had no involvement in any planning or protest on that day. Tatenhove called Rhodes a dangerous militia leader. The other was Stephen Ayres, who illegally entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 and later pleaded guilty to a federal charge of disorderly conduct. Both offered insights into the extremism of these groups but not clear criminal linkages to Trump.

The Committee is now faced with a rather bizarre offer from Rhodes. Indeed, I cannot recall any situation quite like this one.
​

more at the link

 

I agree if the 7th hearing was all there was, it wouldn't be worth prosecution. But there are 6 other hearings as well.

And offering immunity to one of the people that took the fifth could be all they need to piece that hearing into the mix.

There are professional prosecutors who are Republicans that believe the evidence is there. There are Democratic prosecutors who are Democrats that don't believe the evidence is there.

Part of it depends on which charge.

 

from what I read the feeling is strong that the case against Trump would have to be fool-proof, knock-down certain. I'm not seeing anyone suggesting that they're there yet

 

Isnt the crimes of Sedition and Obstruction of Congress easy ones in this case? The question really is just whether Garland would want to set precedent because the use of the crime could get abused in the future with a more partisan DOJ.

Sedition is such a broad crime too. Under the broad definition of course he committed that act. The issue is a prosecutor would want to show a jury a well planned out conspiracy that pretty much read “2021 Plans to Commit Sedition.. by Donald J Trump” with over plans laid out (see John Eastmans PowerPoint… which puts Eastman clearly in the prosecution territory but not necessarily Trump).

So I think this is less about “did Trump commit a crime” and from Garlands perspective of setting precedent and trying to shield history with an illusion of dignity and honor that reads like the Disneyworld Hall of Presidents presentation.

Garland is probably just asking for more solid evidence and setting the bar so high that it’ll never be reached because Trump isn’t that type of criminal. Like prosecuting a mob boss, you have to just hope that the jury uses common sense.

 

There is some political math going on here too, I don't think Garland is playing into that at all but the Democrats certainly are. I think this is why you see the anti-trump republicans ready to prosecute because politically it helps them if Trump is out of the way, entirely, it doesn't hurt them in any way...

But they do risk making Trump a Martyr if he's prosecuted and can't run for office. Right now, there is a big fight brewing between DeSantis and Trump and I know plenty of Dems think letting them fight it out might hand them 2024...imagine this scenario...

Trump is becoming more and more unpopular within his own party, imagine him losing to Desantis in the primary? What do you think Trump will do? Will he gracefully take his defeat and throw his support behind Desantis? Or will he instead talk about how it was all rigged and the GOP and ol' Mitch wanted to get rid of him all along and now they finally did it!

I think we know the answer to that, given Trump's history of losing in anything.

The GOP will be dancing in the streets if Trump is prosecuted and unable to run in 2024.

But I do think he's guilty and rules are rules and they should go after him for the precedent alone, it'll hurt Democrats for sure but I'm more concerned with this happening again than I am with Democrats losing in 2020 or 2024 but if the evidence is rock solid, 100%, then they might get away with charging him and having little political pushback from moderates.