Protester convicted of assaulting NYPD cop during 2020 BLM violence gets slap on wrist: 'A repugnant verdict'

Injustice.

Not much to be found on Judge April Newbauer.

tell us again how many J6 cop beaters POS/POTUS pardoned ...

You mean alleged trespassers who spent over a year in jail waiting trials.

One of those "cops" you mention murdered one of them.

How does that compare to months of violent rioting that left two dozen dead?

How does that compare to months of violent rioting that left two dozen dead?

J6 can't be compared to anything else in US history ...

How many people died as a direct result of J6?

tell us again how many J6 cop beaters POS/POTUS pardoned ...

Right after you tell us how many murderers dementia boy pardoned

tell us how many murderers dementia boy pardoned

ask me again after trump leaves office and I'll refer you to a story with the grand total ...

Dementia boy left office a year ago. Maybe you can give me the totals based on that fact.

You mean because of the murder of Ashli Babbitt or the violation of rights to those charged with trespassing?

Oh, that has become the most lied about incident n US history.

These people were there to peacefully protest ?  ROFL. 

Ashli Babitt breached a locked and barricaded door a few feet away from the entrance to the US House Of Representatives.  Stevie Wonder could have seen what her fate was going to be . 

You mean alleged trespassers who spent over a year in jail waiting trials.

This is incredible.   These people broke and entered the US Capitol to disrupt the workings of Congress.

This is yet another example that just blows my mind ... (bizarre) partisanship that produces an entirely alternate reality versus what was —and can still be seen— on video.   The evidence is overwhelming, there is no denying what they did.

This people are merely 'alleged' 'trespassers'??

You mean because of the murder of Ashli Babbitt or the violation of rights to those charged with trespassing?

Breaking and entering the Capitol is not mere 'trespassing'.

How can you bring yourself to post such a profound whitewashing of history?

the murder of Ashli Babbitt

insurrectionists deserve to be immediately executed on the spot when caught in the act of treason.

You mean like these people?

aei

no, maga false equivalencies don't compare to the attempted obstruction of a constitutionally mandated act of a joint session of congress by insurrectionists ...

Maybe but you generically said insurrectionists.

Anytime someone or a group of people try and storm a state or federal capital, it is considered insurrection. 

Leftists are well known for their insurrection attempts.

Here is another one

politico

Would you repeat the same thing in 1.1.14 the next time leftists storm a capitol?

My guess is you would applaud it, ESPECIALLY if Republicans control that capitol.

Every leftist should watch this video. It is educational, and gives good tips throughout. The first 5 minutes hopefully will open their eyes.

twitter

To begin with the issue of the capitol protest was off topic. The left staged a violent riot for about 6 months that killed 24 people and few were ever held accountable.

If you and the others want to go off topic, explain that.

You mean alleged trespassers who spent over a year in jail waiting trials.

The SCOTUS knocked several of the egregious charges down.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday in Fischer v. U.S. struck down one of the most common charges against January 6 defendants. “Obstruction of an official proceeding” had been used in hundreds of cases, and those convictions are now invalid.

For years, calling January 6 an “insurrection” has been a litmus test for press, pundits and politicians. Members of Congress such as   Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)   claimed a conspiracy of “ armed and organized insurrectionists .” The claim is legally absurd but politically advantageous.

It now seems like the insurrection increasingly looks more like a legal case of mass trespass and unlawful entry. (emphasis mine)

thehill

How does that compare to months of violent rioting that left two dozen dead?

It's all in what they support.  Remember, they supported the riots over a drug overdose so they incorrectly called them "peaceful protests".  They don't support the protest on January 6, 2021 so they incorrectly call it a riot.

To begin with the issue of the capitol protest was off topic.

Then you should not have acknowledged it as part of the discussion with @1.1.1

There have been plenty of violent acts in our history, but only once has a PotUS used fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement (which ended with the breaking & entering of the Capitol to disrupt Congress and prevent the certification of the election).

So your request for me to explain your deflection is denied.

As expected.

You only have one subject. It is a counter-revolution.

They had grandmothers who were praying in the Capitol sitting in jail. AOC lied about where she was. They lied about police being "killed," they tried to intimidate the accused and the FBI even lied about the assets they had there. It was an example of a huge abuse of power.

The rest of this thread was removed for no value.

What makes you say that Ashley Babbitt was murdered?  

Ashley Babbitt broke through a locked and barricaded door after she and her friends bashed it in.  Why was the door locked and barricaded, and dont those measures men "keep out" ?

The locking and barricading of the door was a serious measure taken to protect the well being of the representatives. 

Was the cop supposed to let her enter a locked and barricaded area?  In your mind what was he supposed to do?  If Ashley Babbitt and her friends were 'peaceful" why did they bash the door in?  Bashing a door in and climbing through the window IS violence. She might as well have had a "shoot me" sign hung around her neck. 

Was the cop supposed to let her enter a locked and barricaded area? 

It would have been consistent with what all the other officers were doing.  Instead there was Barney Fife, with all his discipline problems commiting the ONLY murder that day.

I hope you're not surprised.

Not in the least. 

in a perfect DC, they'd still be scrubbing J6 insurrectionists off the floors, walls, and ceilings of the capitol ...

Your posts consistently put forth the ridiculous notion of some evil '~~the left~~' that is responsible for all ills in the world, yet they ignore all the wrongdoings and stupid moves by Trump ... in fact, your posts routinely praise Trump's words and deeds.

It would have been consistent with what all the other officers were doing.

Ridiculous. To my knowledge no cops there let the mob inside a locked and barricaded door.  Ashley Babbitt was carrying a knife, if the cop let her in she could have tried to slit his throat.  Is he supposed to be a mindreader?  He could assume that people who would bash down a door (violently) could and would be violent once they got in. 

Hardly looks like an insurrection to me.  Maybe their M4's are hidden in their backpacks.

Should the cop have let Ashley Babbitt and the mob into an area the authorities had locked and barricaded?  Why would he do that? His job was to protect the House of Representatives and the people inside it. He did his job.  If she had stayed on the other side of the locked and barricaded door she wouldnt have been shot. It is that simple. 

Death sentence warranted?  Good thing they killed her then, otherwise she would have ...............not much.

whatever that means

Hardly looks like an insurrection to me. 

Besides breaking & entering the Capitol to stop Congress (in session) from certifying the election, what more do you need to recognize an insurrection?

I asked ChatGPT to evaluate your comment:

The “maybe their M4s are hidden in their backpacks” line relies on a mistaken premise: an insurrection is not defined by whether participants carried military rifles. It is defined by a violent (or forceful) revolt against civil authority or an attempt to stop the government from executing its lawful powers.

What “insurrection” means in plain English and in U.S. law

• Dictionary meaning: “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” ( Merriam-Webster )

• Federal statute framing: 18 U.S.C. § 2383 criminalizes inciting, assisting, or engaging in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof.” Nothing in the statute requires firearms, much less M4s. ( Legal Information Institute )

So, as a matter of definition, “no rifles visible” does not rebut “insurrection.” The relevant question is whether there was an organized or collective effort, using force or intimidation, to obstruct the constitutional process and assert power against lawful authority.

Why Jan. 6 fits the definition even without “M4s”

On January 6, 2021, a mob:

• Used force to breach the U.S. Capitol , assaulting police and overwhelming security while Congress was performing a constitutionally required act (counting electoral votes). (Contemporaneous law enforcement accounts and the congressional investigation document the violence and the operational objective of stopping certification.) ( GovInfo )

That is “revolting against civil authority” in the ordinary meaning: it was a direct, force-based attack on the seat of government to stop it from executing the law. ( Merriam-Webster )

The “they didn’t have guns” claim is also factually shaky

Even if firearms were not the primary tool that day, it is misleading to imply “no guns” or “only imaginary M4s”:

• Reuters’ fact-checking notes that multiple Jan. 6 defendants were charged with possessing weapons, including firearms , in connection with the attack. ( Reuters )

• There were also explosives involved in the overall Jan. 5–6 event environment , including the DNC and RNC pipe bombs (which diverted law enforcement resources). ( Reuters )

To my knowledge no cops there let the mob inside a locked and barricaded door.

And that is why I question your "knowledge" of that day.  You obviously didn't pay attention.

Give it a little thought, or don't.

My statement was about a picture.  Once again you go to Chat gpt and ask nothing about the picture or if rifles were hidden in their backpacks.   Life is too short to play your games.

docs.house

Your statement implied that Jan 6 was not an insurrection; it's just absurd that you think you can walk that back.

I appreciate the frustration of dealing with tools like ChatGPT that can provide detailed fact-checking in an instant.   From my perspective, it is nice to be able to rebut nonsense without spending much of my time.

Their argument seems to be that because it failed, and there were no police officers shot, it cannot have been an insurrection.

You might as well say the second assassination attempt on Trump never happened because there were no bullets fired. 

There are numerous recordings of J6'ers recorded inside the Capitol building saying they were there to help Trump prevent the vote count. They broke into the building, which IS violence. Bashing down a door IS violence. Beating cops severely is violence (obviously). It was not a non violent event.  Just like they pretend or hallucinate that Trump didnt lie about the election results they also say that the capitol events were "peaceful". 

Their argument seems to be that because it failed, and there were no police officers shot, it cannot have been an insurrection.

And that of course is a stupid argument.   It simply redefines the word 'insurrection'; an ignoble, intellectually dishonest tactic.

Just like they pretend or hallucinate that Trump didnt lie about the election results they also say that the capitol events were "peaceful". 

This slavish devotion to Trump continues to defy reason.   What in hell is driving some to still support/defend Trump?

Hardly looks like an insurrection to me

I know right.

They're just all over the place tearing things up.

Your statement implied that Jan 6 was not an insurrection; it's just absurd that you think you can walk that back.

So once again you don't reply to what I said but what you believe I implied.

I appreciate the frustration of dealing with tools like ChatGPT that can provide detailed fact-checking in an instant. 

Only problem with that is that you used ChatGPT to fact check an incorrect assumption and not what was said.

 From my perspective, it is nice to be able to rebut nonsense without spending much of my time.

Yes, it is easy to rebut what you want to assume was said instead of what was actually said.  It is just doubling down on your game.  From where I sit that is just not to be taken as a serious response to a comment.

Shocking that it looks like the two cops got out alive.

So once again you don't reply to what I said but what you believe I implied.

You clearly were trying to pretend that Jan 6 was not an insurrection.    And I fed your exact words to ChatGPT.

'But it is not what I said' is a tired bullshit excuse.   

Here is what you wrote in response to a picture of Trump supporters scaling the walls of the Capitol:

RdtC@1.1.37 ☞ Hardly looks like an insurrection to me.  Maybe their M4's are hidden in their backpacks.

'Hardly':  you are sarcastically refuting that this is evidence of an insurrection.

'M4's are hidden':  you are claiming that this cannot be an insurrection because nobody in the picture was showing weapons

So let's hear it.   What were you 'trying' to say?

The left staged a violent riot for about 6 months that killed 24 people and few were ever held accountable.

I asked ChatGPT to fact check that statement:

Here’s a fact-checked look at the claim:

“The left staged a violent riot for about 6 months that killed 24 people and few were ever held accountable.”

1. Was there a 6-month “violent riot” by the left?

No credible evidence supports a claim that a single, continuous six-month violent riot was staged by “the left” in the U.S.

The most often invoked period that might resemble this description is the widespread George Floyd/BLM–related protests in 2020 and into 2021 , sparked by the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. These protests occurred in numerous cities and lasted weeks to months in some places, but they were not a single organized riot , nor were they directed or centrally led by a monolithic “left.” ( Wikipedia )

2. How many people died?

The specific number “24” as a death toll from these protests does *not match authoritative data:

• By June 2020, at least 19 people had died in relation to unrest following George Floyd’s killing. ( Wikipedia )

• A broader dataset tracking the period 2020–2023 lists at least 42 deaths associated with racial unrest. ( Wikipedia )

These deaths occurred under a variety of circumstances: clashes with police, shootings by bystanders or counter-protesters, vehicles driving into crowds, and other violence. They were not necessarily all due to rioting itself , but occurred in the context of unrest and demonstrations .

3. Were “few” people held accountable?

No: there were many arrests and prosecutions related to violence and property damage during the 2020 protests , and accountability varied by incident:

• Law enforcement made thousands of arrests in cities across the country by June 2020. ( Wikipedia )

• Some individuals were charged and convicted for arson, assault, and other crimes associated with the unrest. For example, federal prosecutions included multiple arson convictions tied to protests. ( Wikipedia )

• Other violent incidents within or adjacent to protests (such as shootings or vehicle-ramming) also led to individual prosecutions and sentences; one such case produced a 78-month sentence for a driver whose recklessness killed a protester. ( The Washington Post )

At the same time, enforcement and prosecution were uneven : some cases resulted in relatively mild sentences, and in other high-profile incidents, accountability (whether criminal, civil, or administrative) has been debated or challenged. But the notion that “few were ever held accountable” is an oversimplification; many arrests and prosecutions did occur across federal, state, and local jurisdictions.

4. Attribution to “the left”

The claim frames the unrest as being orchestrated by “the left.” This is misleading:

• Data on protests show that the vast majority of demonstrations associated with the racial justice movement were peaceful and did not involve organized violence . ( ACLED )

• Where violence occurred, analysts and law enforcement repeatedly found that violent acts were committed by a mix of actors — not a single political bloc — and often opportunistic individuals or groups, some with no clear affiliation. ( Wikipedia )

Summary

Claim	Fact Check
6 months of a violent riot	Misleading — there were widespread protests over months in many cities but not a single continuous “riot” organized by the left.
Killed 24 people	Not accurate — estimates vary: ~19 deaths by mid-2020 unrest, and broader counts over the full period exceed that.
Few held accountable	Not fully accurate — there were many arrests and prosecutions, though accountability varied by case and context.
Blame on “the left”	Oversimplified and misleading — actors involved in violence were diverse; a large share of demonstrations were peaceful.

Bottom line: The statement contains a mix of inaccurate numbers and misleading framing. Unrest following George Floyd’s killing was widespread and sometimes violent, but it was not a single organized riot by “the left,” the death toll is different from what’s claimed, and law enforcement actions included numerous arrests and prosecutions across multiple jurisdictions.

A perfect example of cherry-picking to continue with confirmation bias.

You put forth this as a representation of what took place on Jan 6.   You are suggesting there was no breach of the Capitol building, no violence, no disruption of Congress, etc.

Do you actually believe that??

What were you 'trying' to say?

I am trying to say exactly what I said

 Hardly looks like an insurrection to me.  Maybe their M4's are hidden in their backpacks.

         'Hardly':  you are sarcastically refuting that this is evidence of an insurrection.

I stated clearly that the picture shown as proof of an insurrection does not look like an insurrection.

'M4's are hidden':  you are claiming that this cannot be an insurrection because nobody in the picture was showing weapons

I stated clearly that there were no weapons shown in the picture that claims proof of an insurrection.

If that picture was supposed to be put forth as a representation of what took place on Jan 6 it fell flat.

Sorry "but it is not what I said" is so tiresome to you, maybe responding to what is said and not what you assume is meant would help.

As for me I am done trying to define what I meant for you.  It was two very clear sentences.

And look at all the destruction they left!  Horrorific!!!!!

I saw a guy with a flag move a couple barriers.  I hope he was held accountable to the full extent of the law.  S/

A perfect example of cherry-picking to continue with confirmation bias.

You mean like you using implied nonsense instead of what was actually said in your lazy shortcuts?  

You put forth this as a representation of what took place on Jan 6.

Prove it didn't.  All anybody has heard from you and others is just lips flapping.

You are suggesting there was no breach of the Capitol building, no violence, no disruption of Congress, etc.

Read my comment.  What I said is what I mean.  

So you are indeed trying to sarcastically refute that this is evidence of an insurrection because you could not see weapons.

Thus, as I noted, and as ChatGPT described in detail, you are trying to redefine the word insurrection to make the brandishing of weapons a defining characteristic.

Well, you are still wrong, and your attempt to yet again suggest there was no insurrection has failed.

RdtC@1.1.56 ☞ I saw a guy with a flag move a couple barriers.  I hope he was held accountable to the full extent of the law.  S/

And here you go again using sarcasm to suggest there was no insurrection.   That there was nothing more than someone moving a few barriers around.

This would be funny if the matter was not so serious.

I hope he was held accountable to the full extent of the law.

I'm surprised they didn't call for summary execution.

Another post that is nothing more than 'nuh-uh'.

Prove it didn't. 

Just amazing, you admit that you believe there was no violence and no breach of the Capitol on Jan 6.   Just amazing that you would post something so obviously, demonstrably wrong.

And here we go.  You talking in circles and not backing up a single thing. 

Have a good day.

Of course, you make a ridiculous claim pulled out of thin air and (with projection) claim I am the one who is not backing up my statements.   Better to just leave silently.

And you just proved my point.  Didn't prove a goddamn thing, just kept on flapping.  So tiresome seeing you do this over and over.  

There is no way you can 'make a valid point' when your claim is predicated on the fantasy that there was no breach of the Capitol building on Jan 6 and thus no disruption of Congress during its session to certify the election.

There is no way you can 'make a valid point'

Not when you allow your imagination to understand what was actually said.

Your claim is predicated on the fantasy that there was no breach of the Capitol building on Jan 6 and thus no disruption of Congress during its session to certify the election.

Case in point.  Show where I actually made that claim; pinpoint EXACTLY where I stated "no breach" and "no disruption of congress".

Not so fast. Per ChatGPT:

Here’s a verified, evidence-based assessment of whether the article you linked (a House GOP document titled “FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6” , found at the URL you provided) “squares with the legal definitions and case law on insurrection.”

---

1) What the House GOP article actually claims

The article circulating in conservative networks (and cited in that PDF) asserts that:

• The Cambridge Dictionary definition of “insurrection” requires an organized attempt to defeat the government and take control ,

• And that the FBI allegedly found no evidence that the January 6, 2021 attack was an organized insurrection. ( House Document Repository )

Important: This article originally appeared on Washington Examiner opinion pages and quotes an August 2021 Reuters report quoting unnamed law-enforcement officials saying the FBI saw limited evidence of centralized coordination among all participants. ( House Document Repository )

This is a political commentary piece , not a formal legal analysis or official FBI finding.

---

2) What dictionary/legal definitions actually are

a) Ordinary and legal meaning of “insurrection”
Legal and dictionary definitions broadly converge:

• “A rising against authority or government, usually involving organized resistance or force.” ( Encyclopedia Britannica )

• Federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) criminalizes inciting, aiding, or engaging in rebellion or insurrection against U.S. authority , but does not define the term . ( U.S. Code )

So the article’s reliance on a Cambridge Dictionary definition is a dictionary sense — not a comprehensive legal definition.

---

3) What case law says (in contrast to that article)

Federal and Supreme Court precedent indicates:

Insurrection is defined by conduct, not by dictionary labels. Cases like The Prize Cases (1863) recognize that:

• Insurrection exists where armed or forceful resistance to civil authority is sufficiently organized that ordinary law enforcement cannot control it.

• A formal plot or central leadership is not required; rather, the focus is on collective action that obstructs government authority .
  Courts assess actual behavior and impact on governmental authority , not whether participants had a master plan or “grand scheme.” (Summarized earlier.)

Case law does not require that every participant be part of a unified plot to qualify the event as an insurrectionary act.

Thus, a legal assessment of insurrection looks at the nature and effect of conduct — violent obstruction of government functions — rather than whether the FBI found a single, highly coordinated conspiracy.

---

4) The article’s claim about the FBI “confirmation”

The article cites a Reuters story where law enforcement sources said authorities did not find evidence that the January 6 attack was the result of a centrally organized plot involving all participants . ( Reuters )

That report did not say :

• The event was not an insurrection as defined in law;

• Nor did the FBI officially declare that the attack did not qualify as one under statute or case law.

It merely reflected one assessment of organizational structure among participants — not an authoritative legal conclusion about the legal meaning of insurrection.

---

5) Practical legal and prosecutorial context

Even despite limited centralized coordination:

• The DOJ charged some defendants with seditious conspiracy (which overlaps with insurrectionary conduct) and other serious offenses connected to obstructing an official government proceeding — reflecting prosecutorial judgment that parts of the conduct met elements of unlawful resistance to authority. ( U.S. Code )

• The House January 6 Committee and multiple federal legal analyses treated the events of that day as a violent attempt to obstruct the certification of an election — behavior relevant to insurrectionary analysis , irrespective of how coordinated it was across all participants. ( Wikipedia )

That context does not make every aspect of the article consistent with legal definitions .

---

Summary: Does the article “square with” legal definitions and case law?

Parts that align:

• It quotes a dictionary definition that highlights organized violence against government authority — similar in substance to legal understandings that emphasize force against authority.

• It correctly notes that the presence of some discrete organized groups (e.g., Oath Keepers, Proud Boys) was acknowledged by law-enforcement sources. ( House Document Repository )

Parts that do not align with legal definitions/case law:

• The article equates a lack of evidence for a unified, centralized conspiracy with the absence of any insurrection as a legal matter . That is not what legal definitions or Supreme Court precedent require.

• Case law focuses on force and obstruction of authority , not on whether the FBI found one overarching coordinated plot.

• An official dictionary definition does not supersede how courts interpret “insurrection” in statute and case law.

---

Bottom line

The article is a political opinion citing a particular news report , not a legal determination. Its narrow framing of “insurrection” does not fully align with how federal statute and case law define or interpret the term — which emphasize violent resistance to governmental authority and obstruction of law , not merely evidence of a unified plot.

On another and more important front, I asked ChatGPT about lying by omission. This is important because I see articles from the Washington Examiner cited quite frequently here, and the claim made that the articles are "highly factual". I would contest this characterization because I feel they leave some important facts out, especially in their choice of opinion articles that they publish. 

On the article you posted:

Short answer: yes — it fits the definition of lying by omission .

Here’s why, mapped cleanly to definitions and case law, without spin.

---

What the article does accurately say

The article accurately reports that:

• The FBI did not find evidence of a single, centrally coordinated conspiracy involving all January 6 participants.

• Some violence lacked unified command-and-control.

Those statements are true as far as they go .

---

What the article omits (and why that matters)

Omission #1 : Legal standards for “insurrection”

The article:

• Never explains that insurrection in law does not require centralized planning, unified leadership, or a formal conspiracy.

• Never mentions that courts evaluate conduct and effect on government authority , not organizational neatness.

This omission is decisive because a reasonable reader would assume:

“If there was no unified plot, it cannot legally be an insurrection.”

That inference is false under case law .

---

Omission #2 : Case law focus on objective conduct

The article omits that courts have long held:

• Insurrection can exist based on collective, forceful obstruction of government functions , even if improvised or loosely coordinated.

• Labels, self-descriptions, or lack of formal hierarchy are irrelevant.

By omitting this, the article substitutes a journalistic or dictionary threshold for a legal one , without telling the reader that it is doing so.

---

Omission #3 : FBI ≠ legal adjudicator

The article implies that:

• An FBI assessment about coordination is tantamount to a legal determination that no insurrection occurred.

It omits that:

• The FBI does not define constitutional or statutory terms .

• Courts and Congress do.

• The Reuters quote cited was not an official legal conclusion , only a status report on investigative findings at that time.

---

Why this qualifies as lying by omission

Using the standard definition you asked for earlier:

A lie by omission occurs when true statements are presented while leaving out essential context that would materially change the listener’s understanding.

That standard is met because:

1. The article selects true but narrow facts (lack of centralized coordination),

2. Excludes essential legal context (how insurrection is defined and analyzed),

3. Produces a foreseeably false conclusion (that “no insurrection” follows as a matter of law).

No false sentence is required.

---

A precise way to say this (usable verbatim)

The article does not lie by stating false facts; it lies by omission by equating the absence of centralized planning with the absence of insurrection, while omitting that neither statutes nor case law require centralized coordination for an insurrection to exist.

---

Have a nice day!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Show where I actually made that claim; pinpoint EXACTLY where I stated "no breach" and "no disruption of congress".

Then you acknowledge that a breach was made by Trump supporters to disrupt Congress!!

You are on record.

Your posts consistently put forth the ridiculous notion of some evil '~~the left~~' that is responsible for all ills in the world,

In my lifetime, the left has done major damage to this country. So, I guess we understand each other.

So you CAN'T pinpoint EXACTLY where I stated "no breach" and "no disruption of congress".  Not that I'm surprised really.  You continue to have this conversation in your own head and have a nice day.

In my lifetime, the left has done major damage to this country.

An opinion without supporting evidence.

Spelling this out for you ...

By insisting that you did not mean there was no breach and no disruption of Congress you acknowledge that a breach was made by Trump supporters to disrupt Congress!!

Given you acknowledge the breach of the Capitol and the disruption of a working session of Congress, you should now realize that Trump supporters engaged in an insurrection.

In my lifetime, the left has done major damage to this country.

How is it that you do not recognize the damage that Trump alone has done in a mere 11 months as PotUS??

I asked ChatGPT to chronicle (I limited it to 50 since many more are available) items illustrating the damage by Trump in 2025 alone:

Below is a damages-only list for 2025 . Each item is framed as an outcome or harm , with citations. I use “unconstitutional” only where courts (including SCOTUS or circuits) have blocked or found the action violates the Constitution , or where the government conceded illegality .

Economic damage

1. Household purchasing power reduction from 2025 tariffs, estimated around $1,200 per household (tariffs functioning as a broad consumption tax). ( Tax Foundation )

2. Higher overall price level from all 2025 tariffs (macro price impact modeled). ( The Budget Lab at Yale )

3. Effective tariff rate surge to historically extreme levels (Yale Budget Lab: highest since 1909 after 2025 actions), increasing economy-wide costs. ( The Budget Lab at Yale )

4. Input-cost inflation for U.S. firms reliant on imported components from Canada, Mexico, and China, reducing margins and investment confidence. ( The White House )

5. Trade relationship degradation with Canada and Mexico (major partners), increasing retaliation risk and reducing cross-border economic stability. ( The White House )

6. Business planning volatility because tariff policy is used as leverage, increasing uncertainty and discouraging long-horizon commitments. ( The White House )

7. Market volatility around trade and enforcement actions tied to the administration’s posture, increasing risk premiums. ( Reuters )

Domestic government services damage

1. Social Security service collapse indicators : major backlogs and transaction delays (millions of pending cases and field office items), harming beneficiaries. ( The Washington Post )

2. Reduced SSA accessibility due to new in-person/online transaction requirements that disadvantage elderly and disabled users and those with limited digital access. ( The Washington Post )

3. SSA staffing reduction of ~7,000 employees (12% of workforce) , reducing core capacity and increasing processing delays. ( Reuters )

4. SSA regional office consolidation (10 to 4) , reducing responsiveness and local service coverage. ( Reuters )

5. Loss of senior SSA expertise (reported senior staff departures), degrading institutional competence and continuity. ( Reuters )

Damage to rule of law and constitutional governance

1. Unconstitutional attempt to end or narrow birthright citizenship by executive order , triggering nationwide litigation and injunctions. ( The White House )

2. Judicial finding that the birthright-citizenship EO violates the 14th Amendment (as described by SCOTUSblog reporting on appellate decision), confirming constitutional overreach. ( SCOTUSblog )

3. Legal uncertainty for families and institutions (citizenship status and documentation) caused by the attempted EO and ensuing nationwide injunction posture. ( SCOTUSblog )

4. Illegal deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia (government acknowledged removal was barred; SCOTUS required facilitation of return), eroding confidence in immigration law compliance. ( Supreme Court )

5. Rule-of-law stress test created by executive resistance/slow compliance with court-ordered facilitation duties (documented by courts and coverage), signaling reduced judicial authority in practice. ( Fourth Circuit Court )

6. Weaponization concern : after return, Abrego Garcia faced criminal charges (reported sequence: return followed by indictment), reinforcing public perception that prosecution can be used to neutralize judicial defeats. ( Reuters )

7. Use of National Guard in domestic political conflicts repeatedly blocked by federal judges (findings that Trump exceeded authority), weakening norms against domestic military deployment for civic control. ( Reuters )

8. Supreme Court refusal to allow Chicago-area deployment (maintaining the block), validating limits on federalizing Guard for law enforcement and exposing attempted overreach. ( AP News )

9. Taxpayer cost of deployments reported at >$340 million for 2025 troop deployments, diverting resources from local governance and services. ( Reuters )

10. Politicization of the federal civil service via reinstating “Schedule F”-style mechanisms, increasing fear-based compliance and reducing neutral competence. ( The White House )

11. Expansion of removability for “policy-influencing” staff (merit protections weakened), increasing churn and decreasing institutional memory. ( The White House )

12. Creation of new non-career classifications (“Schedule G”) that increase patronage-like staffing and undermine continuity. ( The White House )

13. Executive retaliation against private legal representation capacity : EOs targeting named law firms (security clearances/access limits) chill representation and adversarial legal process. ( The White House )

14. Punitive suspension of security clearances at targeted firms reduces ability to represent clients in national-security-adjacent matters, shrinking effective access to counsel. ( The White House )

15. Broader institutional chilling effect : signaling that politically disfavored advocacy can trigger official punishment, damaging rule-of-law norms. ( The White House )

Foreign policy and international law damage

1. Lethal “drug boat” strike campaign (at least 30 strikes; 100+ deaths reported) with limited transparency, harming U.S. legitimacy on use-of-force norms. ( AP News )

2. Major legal controversy over whether the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with cartels (a necessary predicate for the administration’s legal theory), risking normalization of extrajudicial lethal force. ( AP News )

3. DOJ effort to justify immunity for troops involved in strikes (reported draft opinion) weakens accountability expectations for lethal force. ( Reuters )

4. Escalation risk with Venezuela from U.S. operations tied to drug-boat campaign and reported strikes on infrastructure, increasing regional instability. ( Reuters )

5. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement by EO reduced U.S. credibility on climate leadership and damaged alliances built around climate commitments. ( The White House )

6. Termination or revocation of climate-related financial commitments (as directed in the EO) reduced international cooperation and trust in U.S. commitments. ( The White House )

7. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization by EO reduced U.S. influence in global health governance and weakened collective pandemic readiness. ( The White House )

8. Stopping negotiations on WHO Pandemic Agreement / IHR amendments (directed during withdrawal process) undermined U.S. role in global health rules-setting. ( Winston & Strawn )

U.S. reputation damage

1. Measured decline in international confidence in U.S. leadership under Trump (Pew), weakening diplomatic leverage and coalition management. ( Supreme Court )

2. Measured decline in “confidence in Trump” among allied publics (Pew), reducing soft power and partner governments’ room to align closely with the U.S. ( Supreme Court )

3. Reputation damage from high-profile constitutional conflict over citizenship (birthright EO blocked as unconstitutional), signaling instability in core national identity guarantees. ( SCOTUSblog )

Corruption and ethics damage

1. Foreign-influence and corruption risk optics from accepting a ~$400M Qatari aircraft , raising Emoluments and gift-law concerns and undermining anti-corruption norms. ( Reuters )

2. National security risk concerns raised by lawmakers and experts about a foreign-provided aircraft used for presidential purposes. ( Reuters )

Damage to the presidency and national symbols (White House)

1. Demolition of the White House East Wing to build a Trump ballroom damaged a national symbol and triggered legal and public-process conflict. ( Reuters )

2. Circumvention-risk to established planning/preservation review norms (litigation and reporting around NCPC / review sequence) undermined confidence in lawful stewardship of protected federal property. ( Reuters )

3. Polarization and public anger costs : altering a historic civic monument for a personal legacy project intensified civic distrust and conflict around presidential ethics. ( Reuters )

Divisiveness and civic norm damage

1. Normalization of presidential contempt as public messaging (holiday messaging used for political attacks), increasing social hostility and degrading civic norms. ( Reuters )

Additional immigration due-process damage (separate from Abrego Garcia)

1. Deportations without hearings under the Alien Enemy Act found by a federal judge to violate due process, requiring a plan for returns to restore court access. ( Reuters )

2. Damage to confidence in procedural fairness in deportation policy (mass removals later needing court-ordered remediation), increasing fear and distrust in legal institutions. ( Reuters )

“EOs as a damage mechanism” (damaging outcomes attributable to specific 2025 EOs already cited above)

1. EO-driven constitutional overreach (birthright citizenship) produced nationwide injunction conflict and institutional strain. ( The White House )

2. EO-driven degradation of independent legal ecosystem (targeted law firm orders) chilled representation and undermined rule-of-law norms. ( The White House )

3. EO-driven withdrawal from global governance institutions (Paris and WHO) reduced U.S. diplomatic credibility and influence in 2025. ( The White House )

4. EO-driven patronage/politicization of government workforce (Schedule F / Schedule G mechanisms) degraded neutral administrative capacity and continuity. ( The White House )

but, but, but, he owns the libs ...

It seems that the support for Trump is substantially based on the fact that Trump is an asshole to those on 'the left'.    That Trump supporters want such an asshole and (apparently) do not care how much damage this asshole does to them or the nation as long as he continues to be an asshole to those on 'the left'.

By insisting that you did not mean there was no breach and no disruption of Congress you acknowledge that a breach was made by Trump supporters to disrupt Congress!!

Again with the conversations occurring in only YOUR head.  You pinpoint EXACTLY where I stated "no breach" and "no disruption of congress" because it was never said; so you are going on with some fictional bullshit.  

you should now realize that Trump supporters engaged in an insurrection.

I realize you THINK one happened.  I realize you THINK Trump incited it.  I realize your opinion is based in faulty reports.

... at least maga knows what treatment to expect from the rest of america when their hero vacates the office.

Your use of faux obtuseness is not fooling anyone.

Either you hold that a breach and disruption did take place or you hold that a breach and disruption did not take place.

You insist that you did not mean that there was no breach and no disruption of Congress and in so doing you acknowledge that a breach was made by Trump supporters to disrupt Congress!!

Given you acknowledge the breach of the Capitol and the disruption of a working session of Congress, you should now realize that Trump supporters engaged in an insurrection.

And this is the circular talking I have come to expect from you.  Deflect from backing up your claims only to circle back with the same nonsense at a later time.  Not to mention it involves conversations that don't actually take place anywhere except within your head.

You insist that you did not mean 

I mean exactly what you see on your screen.  Unlike you, there are no hidden meanings, no subtext.   And in this case, you are making shit up.  And for what?  

You continue with faux obtuseness.

Did Trump supporters breach the Capitol building?   Yes or No.

Did Trump supporters disrupt a session of Congress that was certifying the election?   Yes or No.

You expect me to answer your questions after dodging mine?  That's fkng hilarious. 

You cannot have it both ways, Jeremy, and it is blatantly obvious that you refuse to admit that Trump supporters did breach the Capitol and did disrupt a session of Congress.

For you to think that you are somehow fooling anyone is what is laughable.

it is blatantly obvious that you refuse to admit that Trump supporters did breach the Capitol and did disrupt a session of Congress.

I don't have to admit a goddamn thing to you. It's fkng hilarious that you think you are in ANY position of ANY authority over anybody.[✘]

What is maga?   who is "their" hero?

I don't have to admit a goddamn thing to you.

I agree, there is no need for you to admit that you recognize Trump supporters breached the Capitol and disrupted an active session of Congress.

Your words have already demonstrated this.

Now, if you want to claim that Trump supporters did not breach the Capitol and disrupt Congress, feel free to contradict yourself.

What is maga?   

'Maga' refers to those who continue to support Trump.

who is "their" hero?

Trump.

What is maga?   who is "their" hero?

maga is now a pedophile support group. their hero is the most famous child molester in american history.

I wonder if whoever you are talking about ever took showers with their pre teen daughter

trump preferred lap dances from his preteen daughter. did you want to see the pictures?

I’ve seen the pictures of Trump and his daughter, but nothing that accuses him of taking showers with him.

Now, if you want to know WHO has been accused…..by his daughter….of taking showers with them, let me know

Gee, that's quite a lot to counter all at once. You know all of it is opinion. ChatGPT was programed by those with such opinions.

I will come back to break it down but let me start with ChatGPT, which you and others use as the oracle on all things here:

ChatGPT  has  made  several  political  mistakes,  including  incorrect  statements  about  the  US  presidential  race  and  UK  general  elections  in  2024.  These  errors  have  led  to  OpenAI  implementing  a  fix  to  prevent  ChatGPT  from  answering  election  questions  that  have  not  concluded,  directing  users  to  authoritative  sources  of  information.  Additionally,  ChatGPT  gave  incorrect  or  incomplete  answers  to  questions  about  how  to  vote  in  battleground  states,  which  raised  concerns  about  its  reliability  in  providing  factual  information.  These  incidents  highlight  the  need  for  caution  when  using  AI  chatbots  for  political-related  queries.

"January 15, 2023, Opinion: "Launched just weeks ago, ChatGPT is already threatening to upend how we draft everyday communications like emails, college essays and myriad other forms of writing.  Created by the company OpenAI, ChatGPT is a chatbot that can automatically respond to written prompts in a manner that is sometimes eerily close to human.  But for all the consternation over the potential for humans to be replaced by machines in formats like poetry and sitcom scripts, a far greater threat looms: artificial intelligence replacing humans in the democratic processes — not through voting, but through lobbying. "

How ChatGPT Hijacks Democracy | Harvard Kennedy School

ChatGPT was programed by those with such opinions.

Again, you illustrate that you have not taken the time to understand how LLMs and AI interfaces like ChatGPT work.    If you think ChatGPT got something wrong then you can always challenge it with facts and reason.

As usual, since ChatGPT, et. al. typically will illustrate how Trump supporters get things wrong, the typical Trump supporter will try to claim that ChatGPT always is wrong by pointing out that it can be wrong.   (Something that ChatGPT claims on every prompt.)

Yeah, Vic, ChatGPT can indeed get things wrong.   Mostly, however, it is correct.   So, again, if you think it is wrong on a point, show it!   Deliver a specific argument on the point with facts and reason.

Yeah, Vic, ChatGPT can indeed get things wrong.

Good, now that we can agree on that let me try and address that long partisan list. The most glaring complaint seems to be: "Damage to rule of law and constitutional governance."  I find that quite ironic considering what the previous administration did and considering what the SCOTUS recently ruled about district judges exceeding their authority.

Item 1 under that heading claims that there was an: Unconstitutional attempt to end or narrow birthright citizenship by executive order, triggering nationwide litigation and injunctions. 

Actually, the executive order is subject to judicial review. Do you agree?

Has the SCOTUS decided whether Trump is right about what the 14th Amendment says?

When the SCOTUS renders its decision on whether Trump was right or wrong, Trump must follow their decision and if he does so he didn't violate any law. What he has really done was to get the long-debated issue before the Court so than it can finally be settled. If the Court rules that the congress that wrote the 14th Amendment right after the Civil War meant for anyone born in the US (even via people who were merely visiting) is automatically a citizen, so be it. I think it is absolutely stupid, but it will be enshrined as the law of the land.

So what is wrong with that?

Good, now that we can agree on that ...

Never suggested otherwise.  ChatGPT can make mistakes, so can people.  Nothing surprising here.

I find that quite ironic considering what the previous administration did ...

You start with deflection.

Actually, the executive order is subject to judicial review.

That does not make it legal.   Jus soli is in the CotUS.   It has a very long precedent and is established law.   The SCotUS can change this and improperly violate the CotUS as they did with presidential immunity.   But that is not an argument that Trump's EO is legal.

You have a lot more to try to debunk.

ChatGPT can make mistakes,

It is not the arbiter of anything.


You start with deflection.

A double standard is relevant here.


That does not make it legal.

But the process was legal. A lower court said stop and the President stopped. He has every right to appeal and he did. That has always been the process followed by Trump.


Jus soli is in the CotUS.   It has a very long precedent and is established law.

It did have precedent, but it is not totally accepted. As a matter of fact, legal experts are unsure of what exactly the first sentence of the 14th Amendment means. The sentence in question:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Who is it that falls under the jurisdiction of the United States? Did the congress during the Civil War era mean for it to include everyone including foreign nationals who happened to give birth while in the country or was it written specifically for the newly freed slaves who lacked citizenship for their decedents? If it was clearly unconstitutional to issue an executive order against foreign nationals using the law to gain citizenship for their children, the SCOTUS wouldn't even have agreed to hear the appeal. They would have simply backed up the lower court and Trump's EO would have been null and void and long ago discarded. Instead, the SCOTUS 1) admonished district court judges for exceeding their authority and 2) agreed to hear Trump's argument and finally determine who the citizenship clause refers to.

I think both results (regardless of what the court decides on citizenship) were good outcomes. In the meantime, Trump's EO is on pause and therefore is neither legal nor illegal. If the SCOTUS agrees with you (which is likely but not a sure bet) then Trump's EO is simply dead. If they agree with those who have long said that the original meaning of congress in 1868 was to grant citizenship to those born to newly freed slaves, then Trump's EO can go into effect and will be perfectly legal. Either way Trump followed a legal process. He stopped when a lower court raised objection and he appealed the decision to a higher Court.

You were wrong.


(P.S.  I think Jus soli is the stupidest, most self-destructive thing a country can do to itself.)

But the process was legal.

Sure, it is legal for a PotUS to sign an EO.   That does not change the fact that Trump is trying to change the CotUS with an EO.   Hello?

It did have precedent, but it is not totally accepted.

Very few laws are 'totally' accepted, so that is irrelevant.   What matters is the legal interpretation, and that is a function, in part, of precedent (notably Wong Kim Ark since 1898).   Jus soli is a long-established law that states a child born on US land is a citizen of the US by birth with exceptions such as children of accredited foreign diplomats because they are not subject to US laws.

For illegal immigrants, the precedent is that they are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the USA since they pay taxes, are subject to our laws ... no diplomatic immunity, etc.   

Did the congress during the Civil War era mean for it to include everyone including foreign nationals who happened to give birth while in the country or was it written specifically for the newly freed slaves who lacked citizenship for their decedents?

Already explained above.   What matters is the text and the long-standing precedent (how courts have ruled for over 125 years now).

... the SCOTUS wouldn't even have agreed to hear the appeal ...

For every SCotUS prior to this one, I would agree with your logic.   This SCotUS has already violated the CotUS with its presidential immunity ruling.   The gold standard of the SCotUS has been tarnished, and a shocking, extraordinary ruling is quite possible.

You were wrong.

About what?   You have not shown me to be wrong about anything in your post.

I think Jus soli is the stupidest, most self-destructive thing a country can do to itself.

I asked ChatGPT to explain why Jus Soli exists so that maybe you will think a little deeper rather than the apparent knee-jerk depth you have illustrated.   I provided your words as a quote:

That statement is wrong for both legal and historical reasons.

1. Jus soli is not a policy choice. It is a constitutional rule.

In the United States, birthright citizenship is not a discretionary immigration policy. It is a constitutional status rule written into the Fourteenth Amendment and settled by over 125 years of Supreme Court precedent starting with United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). It exists to prevent governments from creating a permanent hereditary underclass.

A country that abandons jus soli does not gain control. It gains stateless populations, social instability, and legal caste systems.

---

2. Countries without jus soli historically become unstable and fragmented.

Nations that restrict or abolish birthright citizenship repeatedly experience:

• Permanent non-citizen resident populations
• Intergenerational statelessness
• Social segregation and unrest
• Parallel underground economies
• Weak national cohesion

This is not theoretical. It is documented across Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia.

Jus soli is one of the most powerful stabilizers a republic can adopt because it forces every generation born on the land into full legal membership.

---

3. Jus soli strengthens national identity rather than weakens it.

Without jus soli, citizenship becomes hereditary rather than civic. National belonging becomes bloodline-based rather than law-based.

That undermines the entire American constitutional model, which is founded on shared law, not shared ancestry.

---

4. Jus soli prevents permanent second-class populations.

Removing it creates legally entrenched populations who are:

• Born in the country
• Raised in the country
• Culturally American
• But permanently excluded from legal belonging

That is the definition of internal instability.

---

5. The United States has prospered under jus soli for over 150 years.

It produced:

• National unity across massive immigration waves
• Stable assimilation
• One of the highest rates of social mobility in world history
• A unified civic identity

Jus soli did not weaken the country. It is one of the reasons the United States became cohesive instead of fragmented.

---

Bottom line

Jus soli is not self-destructive.

It is one of the primary legal mechanisms that prevents social fracture, stateless underclasses, and generational instability in republics.

Removing it would be destabilizing.

Already explained above.   

Many legal experts and the SCOTUS would say that it is not that simple. We need the Court to settle it now. Do they simply stand by precedent or do they explore original intent. We will know soon enough.


For every SCotUS prior to this one, I would agree with your logic.   This SCotUS has already violated the CotUS with its presidential immunity ruling.   The gold standard of the SCotUS has been tarnished, and a shocking, extraordinary ruling is quite possible.

You spoke of "mistakes" before and even the Court makes mistakes and when it happens a lot of precedent goes down with it as in "The Dread Scott decision" and "Roe v Wade."


 You have not shown me to be wrong about anything in your post.

Oh, that's very debatable. I'm going to let our readers decide on that. I'm going to dismiss all the additional far-left ChatGPT nonsense and let me turn to another outrageous claim by your initial ChatGPT post:

Deportations without hearings under the Alien Enemy Act  found by a federal judge to violate due process

That was activist Judge Boesberg. Tell us why ChatGPT did not inform us that another Federal Judge ruled the other way ruling that the U.S. can use the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members?

Trump can authorize the Alien Enemies Act for deportations

Many legal experts and the SCOTUS would say that it is not that simple.

What I illustrated is how it has worked for over 125 years.   Trump is trying to change that with an EO.   He has no authority to do so.

I'm going to dismiss all the additional far-left ChatGPT nonsense ...

Of course, Vic, dismiss all that which does not conform to your bias (confirmation bias in action).

Tell us why ChatGPT did not inform us that another Federal Judge ruled the other way...

You should try to reason this out yourself instead of just posting wild claims.   Per your link:

Judge Stephanie Haines, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, ruled that President Donald Trump has the authority to declare the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization and deport its members under the Alien Enemies Act. But she criticized the administration's practice of deporting people sometimes "within a matter of hours." Haines, appointed by Trump during his first term, ruled that the administration must give potential deportees at least 21 days' notice and the opportunity to challenge their removals, to avoid the possibility that people who are not gang members "may be errantly removed from this country."

From the ChatGPT Reuters link:

U.S. Judge James Boasberg ruled this week that President Donald Trump's administration must urgently arrange for the return of the hundreds of Venezuelans who were deported to El Salvador, saying their expulsion violated their due process rights and that they have the right to challenge their deportation in court.

...

The Venezuelans were sent to El Salvador from the U.S. in March after Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemy Act - a little-used wartime law - to deport people classified as members of the Tren de Aragua gang, without carrying out hearings or usual migration procedures.

Many lawyers and family members denied the men in question had any links to gangs and said they were often left in the dark about the location of the detainees.

... far-left ChatGPT ...

Disagree with you and of course you deem it "far-left";  this labeling of yours has become a ridiculous joke.

You should try to reason this out yourself

You can't answer my question?

You can't answer my question?

Read my post, Vic.  I gave you a detailed answer right after I suggested you reason it out for yourself.   

(Hint:  the judges agree.)

In response you engage in blatant dishonesty.

2020 Black Lives Matter demonstration

The author misspelled 2020 Black Lives Matter RIOT.

The light punishment comes after he was found not guilty by Judge April Newbauer of more serious felony charges and a misdemeanor criminal possession of a weapon count earlier this year.

It appears Newbauer is one of the judges allowing violent criminals to walk the street.  

Funny how some folks have trouble with definitions.  A riot does not exist.  It seems a riot is either a peaceful demonstration or an insurrection.

Funny how some folks have trouble with definitions

Remember, these are the same people who have trouble identifying a woman.

It seems a riot is either a peaceful demonstration or an insurrection.

It boils down to what THEY support. 

• If they support it, they will DEMAND you call it a "peaceful protest" despite the real definition.  
• If they don't support it, they will DEMAND you call it a "riot" despite the real definition.  

The last glass was shared by a righty and a lefty.

Thanks to the gods for the NYP, without them we would be at a loss to come up with daily squirels wielding broadstroke brushes. 

The J6 rioters who assaulted police officers got a presidential pardon.

Several of those rioters from J6 re-offended and are back in prison for a variety of felonies.

There is ZERO right wing outrage about J6 and the police officers who suffered, some of those officers committed suicide because of the trauma.

Several of those rioters from J6 re-offended and are back in prison for a variety of felonies.

I've been keeping an eye on the news for this - here's the latest article I can find.

At least 33 January 6th insurrectionists pardoned by President Trump have been rearrested, charged or sentenced for other crimes since January 6, 2021... citizensforethics

There is ZERO right wing outrage about J6 or Trump from the MAGA MESA headcases.

...in one case last month, Trump explicitly re-pardoned one insurrectionist for his unrelated weapons charges.

It's a good thing they don't eat the cats... (bolding mine)

Six of the pardoned January 6th insurrectionists are charged with committing child sex crimes , ranging from sexual assault to possession of child pornography. At least five were charged with illegal possession of weapons , including at least two who had a previous domestic violence conviction. Five were arrested or charged with driving while impaired or under the influence . In two of these cases, the defendant’s r eckless driving resulted in a fatality . Two were charged with rape . 

There's more including firing on police, b&e and violating a court order. 

There is no such thing as misdemeanor assault on a police officer

It sounds like he was just convicted of third degree assault and the victim happened to be a police officer. The crime probably lacked the mens rea to be “assault on a police officer.”

I think that some people failed to read this sentence: 

She said prosecutors didn’t prove during the trial that Banks’ actions caused serious physical injury to Mack.