Takeaways from the landmark sedition indictment against the Oath Keepers - CNNPolitics

  
Via:  Gsquared  •  6 days ago  •  273 comments

By:   Marshall Cohen (CNN)

Takeaways from the landmark sedition indictment against the Oath Keepers - CNNPolitics
The Justice Department on Thursday announced the first sedition charges related to the January 6 insurrection, a watershed moment in the year-long investigation.

Sponsored by group The Reality Show

The Reality Show


This article supplements the article I seeded earlier today:  https://thenewstalkers.com/trout-giggles/group_discuss/15043/oath-keepers-leader-and-10-others-charged-with-seditious-conspiracy-cnnpolitics#cm1721922

Trolling, taunting, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Justice Department on Thursday announced the first sedition charges related to the January 6 insurrection, a watershed moment in the year-long investigation.

The case resolves around the Oath Keepers, a far-right extremist group, and its leader Stewart Rhodes. Many of the defendants were already facing charges for storming the US Capitol building and deny wrongdoing. But the new indictment raises the stakes significantly and made public new details about their alleged plans for violence.

Attorney General Merrick Garland had balked at the earlier efforts to bring the seditious conspiracy charge. But in the months since, people briefed on the matter say FBI investigators and DC federal prosecutors have spent much time building the case, at least in part with the help of cooperators and the benefit of internal communications among the Oath Keepers.

Here are the key takeaways:

DOJ went there on sedition


Federal prosecutors have been slammed -- by legal experts, Democratic lawmakers, Donald Trump critics, and media pundits -- for going easy on the rioters. That criticism has now been answered in a big way with the charges of "seditious conspiracy."

Garland said in a major speech last week that prosecutors would go after the January 6 perpetrators "at any level... whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy." Thursday's indictment puts some meat on the bones. 

Sedition is difficult to prove in court, and an indictment is only the very beginning of a legal case. There are many hoops that prosecutors will need to jump through before they win convictions. But this is a critical first step.

It destroys, once and for all, the talking point from those downplaying the events of January 6 that the attack on the Capitol wasn't an insurrection because nobody has been charged with sedition.

It took a while to reach this point in the investigation. Last March, it seemed like former US Attorney Michael Sherwin, who initially led the investigation, got out ahead of his skis when he said there should be sedition cases. Months passed without anything materializing to back up his assertions. With the new indictment, Sherwin has been vindicated.

Extent of preparation for January 6


One of the most debated questions about January 6 has been over how much planning there was to invade the Capitol.

Thousands of Trump supporters breached Capitol grounds, and a couple thousand got inside the building. But was there a plan? And who knew about the plan?

It's clear from court filings that for many of the rioters, there was no organized plan. But that's not the full story. The sedition case against the Oath Keepers highlights that there were hardened groups of alleged criminals within the mob that essentially planned for war. 

Rhodes, the Oath Keepers' leader, is quoted as telling his supporters that they should prepare for a "bloody" operation and that they would need to "fight" in a "war."


One defendant allegedly took an early November trip to Washington to conduct recon for an upcoming "op." Communications about the "bloody" "fight" and "revolution" were accompanied by logistical planning, prosecutors alleged, with defendants discussing obtaining and bringing weapons to the Washington area.

It could have been worse


The indictment provided yet another reminder that January 6 could have been so much worse.

Shortly after getting inside the Capitol, one group of Oath Keepers tried to make a coordinated move on the Senate chamber, seemingly as if they were executing a mission. According to the indictment, they "tried to push their way through" a line of police, but the officers "forcibly repelled their advance." (Other rioters eventually breached the Senate floor and gallery.)

Prosecutors added more details of how the Oath Keepers allegedly stockpiled weapons at a nearby hotel in Virginia, just in case they needed to deploy a "quick reaction force" into DC.

The charging documents say one defendant, Joshua James, got a message from a friend saying, "I have friends not far from DC with a lot of weapons and ammo if you get into trouble." James replied, "that might be helpful, but we have a s***load of QRF on standby with an arsenal."

Rhodes also amassed weapons and other gear on his way to Washington, DC, before January 6, prosecutors said. He allegedly bought a rifle, a magazine, and other firearms equipment, including sights, mounts, triggers, slings, and an optic plate. Rhodes was on the Capitol grounds on January 6 but hasn't been accused of entering the building, though prosecutors have said he "directed" his supporters to do so.

The plot was bigger than Jan 6


Up to this point, federal prosecutors had been accusing conspiracy defendants of aiming to block Congress' vote to certify the election.

But Thursday's case ups the ante, widening the conspiracy past January 6. The indictment says the Oath Keepers aimed for more than disruption of Congress. This group, prosecutors say, wanted to stop the transfer of presidential power from Trump to Joe Biden.

After the insurrection, they gathered to celebrate, then continued talking.

"We aren't quitting!! We are reloading!!," one of the defendants wrote in a Signal chat.

In the week after the riot, Rhodes allegedly spent more than $17,500 on weapons, equipment, and ammunition. One member, according to the filings, said Rhodes should stay "below the radar," while another brought what he called "all available weapons" to Rhodes' home in Texas. 

Around Inauguration Day, January 20, Rhodes allegedly told associates to organize local militias to oppose the Biden administration. Another member allegedly said, "After this... if nothing happens...its war...Civil War 2.0."

"Rhodes and certain co-conspirators ... planned to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power by January 20, 2021, which included multiple ways to deploy force," the indictment says.

Hunting for the bigger fish


The Justice Department spent all of 2021 rounding up nearly two dozen alleged members of the Oath Keepers. They secured the cooperation of a few people charged in the original Oath Keepers conspiracy case -- the one without the sedition charges -- which was a significant breakthrough.

Now we know that prosecutors were building a bigger case, and moving up the chain, to the leader of the extremist organization. Rhodes has previously denied any wrongdoing regarding January 6. B

The big question is: Is this the end of the road? Could Rhodes have information that implicates anyone else higher up?

It has been widely reported that his organization was providing allies for Trump surrogates like Roger Stone and Ali Alexander. A major criminal case obviously ramps up the pressure on people like Rhodes to cut a deal with and become a government witness, if they have a story to tell.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
1  seeder  Gsquared    6 days ago

The conspiracy is real.  These people are definitely bad actors.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @1    6 days ago
"After this... if nothing happens...its war...Civil War 2.0."

just as stupid as they are pathetic.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @1.1    6 days ago

And dangerous.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2  bbl-1    6 days ago

Yes the conspiracy is real.  But the real Sedition began at Helsinki or maybe even the Oval Office when 'the man who now dwells in Mar-a-Lago' told the Russians, "I got rid of that nutbag Comey."

As far as Rhodes, he is the same category as a guard at  Nazi death camps.  The ones who made the death camps possible are the ones who are the conspiracy of sedition.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
2.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  bbl-1 @2    6 days ago

I would say that it began before Helsinki, although Helsinki is part of it.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Gsquared @2.1    6 days ago

[deleted]

Name one damn thing Trump did for Russia, just one? I have listed several actions the Trump administration took against Putin- with backup for each. If anyone one the left is really interested I am sure they can dig up one of my older posts. I only did the list 4 or 5 times. Want to find Putin's real puppet look no further than the human fuck up machine the Democrats put in the White House. 

Why the hell did Biden drop sanctions on the Nordic Stream II pipeline w/o getting anything in return from Putin? It would have been a great point of leverage on Ukraine with Russia, but Biden took it off the table w/o even being asked. Now Russia has free rein to demand concessions from NATO and the US that will damage the safety of for Soviet border states.   

[deleted]

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Senior Silent
2.1.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.1    5 days ago
Name one damn thing Trump did for Russia, just one?

Pulled out of Syria.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
2.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.2    5 days ago
Pulled out of Syria.

Yeah, no.  We are still in Syria.  Care to try again?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.4  devangelical  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.2    5 days ago

abandoned our allies the kurds...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
2.1.5  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @2.1.4    5 days ago

The abandonment of the Kurds was a real low point and a Trumpian stain on America.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.5    5 days ago

Took money from the military to build his wall...money that was sorely needed for construction projects

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.7  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.5    5 days ago

an inconvenient truth for america's new 2nd class citizens...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
2.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.5    5 days ago
The abandonment of the Kurds was a real low point and a Trumpian stain on America.

Not quite as low as leaving $500,000 in military equipment for the Taliban or abandoning hundreds of US Citizens in Afghanistan.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.8    5 days ago

but, but, but...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.10  CB   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.8    5 days ago
$500,000 in military equipment for the Taliban or abandoning hundreds of US Citizens in Afghanistan.

Was the 'hardware' and tech disabled and smashed, Jeremy? I think I read it so. What say you?

As for time and treasure. . . some conservatives might like to make a lot of NOISE about victory being the 'thing,' or a triumphant departures with smiles, banners streaming, flags waving, and confetti. . . but the fact remains. Managing a negligent territory ("empire building") has 'broken the backs' of many nations engaging in expansionism or 'over-aiding.'

It is better the U.S. left now, while this nation still has a 'shirt on its back' and shoes will soles! Proof is in the offing: Afghanistan remains not ready to be a democracy-we were burning our money while treading. . . .

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
2.1.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @2.1.9    5 days ago

Oh what's wrong.  I not follow the narrative and introduce facts?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
2.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @2.1.10    5 days ago
Was the 'hardware' and tech disabled and smashed, Jeremy? I think I read it so. What say you?

What was left after we had to go back was.  Initially?  No.  Many of the weapon systems were used against our service members when they went back to attempt to get out the abandoned US Citizens.

It is better the U.S. left now, while this nation still has a 'shirt on its back' and shoes will soles! Proof is in the offing: Afghanistan remains not ready to be a democracy-we were burning our money while treading. . . 

I'm not arguing about why we left.  That has been discussed for a long time.  It's HOW we left.  A total and utter clusterfuck under the direction of Biden and his incompetent administration.

The reality is, our mission in Afghanistan was successful.  Despite what the talking heads tell you, we weren't there to "rebuild a nation".  That's not the job of the military.  That's a concept brought on by the feckless politicians.  Our mission was to prevent another terrorist attack on US Soil.  We did just that.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
2.1.13  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.8    5 days ago

Yes, the abandonment of the Kurds was far, far lower than leaving some equipment in Afghanistan.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.14  CB   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.12    5 days ago
I'm not arguing about why we left.  That has been discussed for a long time.  It's HOW we left.  A total and utter clusterfuck under the direction of Biden and his incompetent administration.

To be clear, did the Trump Administration do something you are aware of (but not mentioning); like cut a contractual deal with the Taliban (that excluded the Afghan (coalition) government from its proceedings? Perhaps, those 'talking heads' you listen to mentioned something about a deal with the Taliban for the U.S. to leave setup by the Trump Administration. Going from memory here: Can you help me out with that, Jeremy?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.15  CB   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.12    5 days ago
What was left after we had to go back was.  Initially?  No.  Many of the weapon systems were used against our service members when they went back to attempt to get out the abandoned US Citizens.

What time period are you referring to, Jeremy? Are you saying the Taliban or ISIS (dared) attacked after the final troop withdrawal operation at the deadline agreed with the Taliban? Please be clear so I can check it out.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.16  bbl-1  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.2    4 days ago

Pulled out of Clifford and McDougal too.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
2.1.17  al Jizzerror  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.16    4 days ago

512

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.18  CB   replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.17    4 days ago

Okay I am trying to. . . to. . hold it toget—okay..I can do this. Wait. . . jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
2.1.19  Krishna  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.8    2 days ago

Aha-- I see that once again you are attempting to Play The Whattaboudism Card! jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Heh.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.8    yesterday

'Abandoning'?

That's some hyperbole right there Jeremy. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
2.1.21  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.20    14 hours ago

that's reality.  He ABANDONED hundreds of US Citizens in Afghanistan.  That is why we had to go back in August.  It sure as hell wasn't for the weapon systems and equipment Biden gave the Taliban.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.21    11 hours ago
ABANDONED

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. 

H/T Inigo Montoya

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
2.1.23  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.22    11 hours ago

I know exactly what it means and that's exactly what Biden did. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.23    9 hours ago

Um Jeremy, they weren't ABANDONED, as you admit, 'we' [Biden] went back for them.

Demanding to have it both ways is juvenile. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
2.1.25  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.24    9 hours ago

We wouldn't have to go back if they weren't abandoned in the first fucking place.  We also wouldn't have 13 dead servicemembers due to that incompetence.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @2    6 days ago
But the real Sedition began at Helsinki

[deleted]  

provide a single shred of credible evidence

[deleted]

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2    6 days ago

What are you protecting?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @2.2.1    6 days ago
What are you protecting?

Sanity.

[deleted

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
2.2.3  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.2    6 days ago

Obviously, you never heard the Trump-Putin press conference at Helsinki.  If you did hear it, and it didn't, at the very least, raise some serious questions or suspicions in your mind, that's a very bad look for you.

I liked the old days, and what we, thankfully, have now, where the President of the United States didn't kowtow and show obeisance to fascist dictators like your guy Trump did.

Your characterization of it as "silly" is in keeping with your total disregard for and persistent refusal to become educated about a topic of significant national concern.

As for the evidence you claim to want, you are well aware that over a year ago, and again more recently, I encouraged you to read a book by a pre-eminent scholar at Yale that would provide you with invaluable information.  Your response was to dismiss it out of hand without even bothering to find out or understand anything about it at all.  So, your complaints ring hollow.

As I said, it's a bad look for you and displays a lack of seriousness that tells us a lot.

Now, run along and play...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.3    6 days ago
Obviously, you never heard the Trump-Putin press conference at Helsinki.

Besides Trump siding with Putin over his own intelligence agencies he " went to "extraordinary lengths" to keep details from his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin secret – even from officials within his own administration. After meeting with Putin at the 2017 Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, Trump took his interpreter's notes and told him not to discuss the meeting with anyone, including other U.S. officials.

If Biden had done the same with Xi conservatives would have been screaming to high heaven and anyone with more than half a brain knows it. They wouldn't have let the fact that they didn't have any actual incriminating evidence against Biden to stop them from claiming his actions to hide the meeting were proof of nefarious anti-American activities. We saw how they went fucking nuts over a damaged laptop that supposedly said "10 held by H for the Big Guy" with exactly zero evidence of any criminality or evidence it was even Biden being mentioned so there's no doubt that if they believed Biden was hiding meetings with Xi they would be assuming the worst.

But with Trump and Putin? No, the secret meetings with Putin where the interpreter notes are taken and likely destroyed Trumps sycophants assume were perfectly innocent, nothing to see here. Sure, we see the American President basically kow towing to Putin, groveling at his feet rejecting the clear evidence that Russia did in fact meddle in the election and did so on Trumps behalf, but that must have a perfectly rational explanation that has nothing to do with Putin having something over Trump like financial ties and pushing through bank loan approvals or very possibly a disgusting pee tape of Trump getting urinated on by underage Russian prostitutes in a Kremlin hotel.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
2.2.5  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.4    6 days ago

It's a powerful indictment.  The Trump apologists will disregard all of it, and concentrate only on your mention of the tapes.  We may never know if the tapes actually exist, but if they do, they are well in line with other Russian/KGB style compromising material (referred to by the Russians as "kompromat" or "compromat") which result from intelligence and espionage operations known as "honey traps" used for blackmail.  They are used to entrap civilians that the Russians believe could be useful to them as well as diplomats, intelligence officers and members of the military.  However, I believe that the  possibility the tapes exist is overshadowed by far more serious potential issues including financial considerations, and even possible ideological affinities. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
2.2.6  Snuffy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.4    6 days ago
No, the secret meetings with Putin where the interpreter notes are taken and likely destroyed Trumps sycophants assume were perfectly innocent, nothing to see here

And that's the problem that some people have with the characterization of how the left portrays this. Without evidence you are accusing the right of saying it's all perfectly innocent but then there are people from the other side who without any proof either will accuse Trump of being a fascist.  And that's why it gets tiring, there's no proof and too many people just won't back up their claims with anything other than 'because I believe it'.  

And yes, you're right.  Had Biden held a secret meeting with Xi the right would have been screaming for his head, much like the left has been doing for the past several years. Doesn't make any of this right however, it's all just partisan bullshit IMO.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.6    6 days ago

Just out of curiosity, why do you think Trump has noticeably been impressed more by authoritarian leaders he has met or observed around the world than he has been been by the more traditional neo-liberal leaders of western Europe or Australia and Canada?

Also, to suggest Trump would not be likely to express a fascist bent is simply not clear yet. Trump is a sick man. This is never discussed nearly enough. He is a malignant narcissist. This is well known. He will do whatever he has to do to keep himself in the forefront of American public life. If that required becoming "fascist" he would become fascist to whatever extent he could get away with. He doesnt really know the meaning of the word, but he would know he liked the results. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
2.2.8  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.7    6 days ago
Just out of curiosity, why do you think Trump has noticeably been impressed more by authoritarian leaders he has met or observed around the world than he has been been by the more traditional neo-liberal leaders of western Europe or Australia and Canada?

I'm not in his mind or around him daily so I really cannot say. All I (and you I suspect) have to go on is what we can read in mainstream media. If you want to trust what's presented as news feel free, but I do not trust mainstream media to provide a simple truth. They have to add their analysis and their bias so that we cannot get a clean picture.  And if the information we have cannot be trusted then how can an honest interpretation be made? 

Is Trump a narcissist?  Yes.  But to say he would or would not express a fascist bent is not clear, because we are not with him on a daily basis. All we have to rely on is the word of others.  As a child did  you ever play the game of Post Office?  If yes then you know what I mean. Mainstream media tends to repeat stories from each other and they tend to move further into the individual bias of the reporter...   As for what I have to judge Trump by, I only have his words to compare to his actions.  As president he didn't do everything I liked but I did like some of his policy and some of his actions.  I can say the same thing about a lot of presidents.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.3    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
2.2.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.7    5 days ago
Just out of curiosity, why do you think Trump has noticeably been impressed more by authoritarian leaders he has met or observed around the world than he has been been by the more traditional neo-liberal leaders of western Europe or Australia and Canada?

Because he, like many of them, doesn't take shit off of anyone.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
2.2.12  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.11    5 days ago

That's bull crap and doesn't speak well of Trumpists acting as apologists for their autocratic Dear Leader.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
2.2.13  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.8    5 days ago
All I (and you I suspect) have to go on is what we can read in mainstream media.

Good grief, Snuffy.  Trump has been publicly vocal about his admiration for 'authoritarians', which btw, is too mild of a word for people like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin.

I was going to post videos of Trump praising people like Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, and a variety of other murderous dictators, but they were so abundant, I decided to let you discover and watch them at your leisure.

BTW, spank yourself for suggesting that the MSM has fabricated Trump's love for dictators.  The man has blabbed every thought and feeling he ever had and expected it to be applauded regardless of content.  Why?  Because that's what malignant narcissists do.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
2.2.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.12    5 days ago

Really? You sure as hell didn't see Russia moving on Ukraine when he was in office. You didn't see China shooting off hypersonic missiles, you didn't see 2 million plus illegals crossing the southern border, and Iran pulling a bunch of bullshit without retribution. And you didn't see North Korea willy nilly shooting off missiles.

And he isn't an autocrat by any means unless you consider a nationalist an autocrat.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
2.2.15  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.11    5 days ago
Because he, like many of them, doesn't take shit off of anyone.

You are likening Trump to murderous dictators who use execution to end a family disagreement or when asked to address a political concern.  Sorry dear, but it's straight-up disgusting for you to think that those kinds of human rights violations are simply not taking 'shit off of anyone'.  Read about Otto Warmbier sometime.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.14    5 days ago

Hitler was a nationalist....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.11    5 days ago

He took shit from Putin

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.18  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.17    5 days ago

... and lapped it up like ice cream.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
2.2.19  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.16    5 days ago

Godwin? Is that you? That aside, you cannot possibly compare the two and come up with equal to......................

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
2.2.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.17    5 days ago

Like?????

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.21  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.19    5 days ago

Well? Was Hitler a nationalist or not?

And you might want to read this link:

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.22  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.20    5 days ago

What was that fucking "speech" at Helsinki? He trusted the Russians more than he trusted his own CIA and other intelligence agencies? What do you think went on behind that closed door at Helsinki?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
2.2.23  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.21    5 days ago

Sure he was but reread 2.2.19 There are two completely different methods and desired outcomes by the two.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
2.2.24  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.22    5 days ago

You tell me. You seem to know..........You have never complimented a nemesis tongue in cheek to ultimately get what you wanted? I find that a bit hard to believe.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.25  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.23    5 days ago

Oh, I got your reference to Godwin, but even Godwin himself that sometimes it's ok to bring up Hitler.

My link doesn't work read this instead:

In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump , saying: "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician." [12] In August 2017, Godwin made similar remarks on social networking websites Facebook and Twitter with respect to the two previous days' Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia , endorsing and encouraging comparisons of its alt-right organizers to Nazis. [13] [14] [15] [16]
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
2.2.26  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.25    5 days ago

Your link worked just fine..................

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.27  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.24    5 days ago

No, I haven't. I pretty much wear my emotions on the outside and when I consider someone a nemesis, they know it and I steer clear of them. And if they know what's best for them, they stay away from me, too. I'm not a two faced bitch. Bitch, yes, two-face, no

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.28  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.26    5 days ago

It did? When I clicked on it all I got was vertical gray bar

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.3    5 days ago
Obviously, you never heard the Trump-Putin press conference at Helsinki.

Obviously, you don't have clue one as to what I have heard of. FFS, I have been on this site for years and heard ALL the crap spewed about Helsinki.

What I have asked for repeatedly and never got was ANYTHING even remotely related to proof for any of the asinine claims made.

Your post is no different than the usual responses I get when asking for real proof.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.30  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.16    5 days ago

Putin is a nationalist too.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.31  CB   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.14    5 days ago

So what do you want us to do: Explain like-mindedness? Extrapolate gooniness?  Elucidate 'mob-bossiness'?  Former president Donald J. Trump spoke to tyrants like they adore. . . and they responded in this manner: leave us alone and we will leave you alone.  Oh, and 'for real' thugs sent occasional 'floral arrangements' and oversized 'love letters.' (Okay, flowers might be rhetorical.)

President Biden comes from a different school of the West. His philosophy is 'straighten up and fly right' or else. . . The U.S. and its allies have something to do with you!

The approach is distinctly different. And autocrats, kings, dictators, and tyrants understand. The landing will be different also.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
2.2.32  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.29    5 days ago

Your repetitious disingenuousness is getting boring.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.33  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.32    5 days ago

post some proof and I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.34  CB   replied to  Gsquared @2.2.32    5 days ago

It is 'trying' some would say. Others might say: It's 'exhausting.'

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
2.2.35  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.4    5 days ago
If Biden had done the same with Xi conservatives would have been screaming to high heaven and anyone with more than half a brain knows it. They wouldn't have let the fact that they didn't have any actual incriminating evidence against Biden to stop them from claiming his actions to hide the meeting were proof of nefarious anti-American activities.

Sooo....  you are using this condemnation of bad behavior in a hypothetical situation to justify the same bad behavior in an actual situation?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.36  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.35    5 days ago

Well Jack in Texas, all of this would be somewhat (but not all?) moot - if former president (lower p) Donald J. Trump had followed established routine and let notes proceed "in accordance with" - he did not. Subsequently, we can speculate any damn thing about him and Putin's time together we wish!

Here is 'my thoughts' on the Helsinky meeting "quality time" vis-a-vis Donald and Vladimir.

Donald wanted to find out how Putin holds together a non-stop presidency. What are the steps to execute? How do you 'wean' a democratic people off democracy? How do you trivialize a vexing media establishment? How does one break up voting masses in opposition?

How have you done all these things, Vlad?

All on the down-low.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
2.2.37  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.2.36    5 days ago

You are, once again, totally missing the point.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.38  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.37    5 days ago

Really? Could it be you are attempting decidedly whether loosely to defend the indefensible. Presidential 'notes' are archival, at the least. If not classified, they are serviceable. However, once again, since common courtesy is extended leadership, who would expect a selfish, megalomaniac to ask, 'Why? I don't have to show it to anybody! And, I won't!'  That would be Donald for you.

And here you are telling us in so many words, if Donald does it - it's a new procedure and we should expect it of him (but not any democratic leader).

I think you are missing the point.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
2.2.39  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.2.38    5 days ago
Really?

Yes.  100%

Could it be you are attempting decidedly whether loosely to defend the indefensible.

Again...totally, completely missing the point.

I think you are missing the point.

Once again, you are not paying any attention whatsoever to what was actually written.  This is a bad habit, and it is how you come to dipshit conclusions like "Biden voting Trump supporter".  

Read it again.  Read only what is written and actually pay attention this time.  Do not try to interpret what is actually written to align with what you think I must have meant.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.40  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.39    5 days ago
2.2.35  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.4    2 hours ago
If Biden had done the same with Xi conservatives would have been screaming to high heaven and anyone with more than half a brain knows it. They wouldn't have let the fact that they didn't have any actual incriminating evidence against Biden to stop them from claiming his actions to hide the meeting were proof of nefarious anti-American activities.

Sooo....  [DP] are using this condemnation of bad behavior in a hypothetical situation to justify the same bad behavior in an actual situation?

I present you with your own words, since clearly I am too dense to understand "Jack_Tx" speak. Oh please help me out here, where am I getting into the 'dipshit' ? (Indeed, the more times I read your portion of the reply above, it seems more detached from what DP stated. Clearly, I am wrong. So please go on. . . )

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.2.41  bbl-1  replied to  CB @2.2.30    5 days ago

Actually Putin is more of an autocratic oligarch.  He cares nothing for the Russian people and uses Russian resources for power, power, power and profit for those that assure he is in power.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.2.42  bbl-1  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.39    5 days ago

On this I agree.  CB surmised a bit to much.

None the less, all of these other things concerning Trump is bad enough, but what ever he agreed to, provided, allowed and expected in return during his meeting with Putin at Helsinki will be the plunging 16 inch shell from a battleship to his presidency, his manhood, his life, his family and his future, all of which will be immediately extinguished with extreme and much deserved prejudice.  And what happened there will be known because Putin will reveal it in order to protect himself.  Trump's most grevious error is trusting Putin.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
2.2.43  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.14    5 days ago

Not an autocrat?  Think again.

"I have to the right to do whatever I want as president" 

"I alone can fix it" 

Since Day One, Donald Trump Has Been An Autocrat

Being a nationalist and being an autocrat are two different things, although autocrats often employ nationalistic demagoguery. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.2.44  1stwarrior  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.43    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.2.45  Nowhere Man  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.43    5 days ago
Not an autocrat?

Sure he fancied himself an autocrat not the first and certainly will not be the last...

Presidents who thought themselves autocrats:

Lyndon Baines Johnson; Richard Milhouse Nixon; George Walker Bush; Barack Hussein Obama 

If only we consider the modern era of the presidency.... There's more if you go back farther...

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.2.46  1stwarrior  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.44    4 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
2.2.47  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.46    4 days ago

The topic is the indictment of members of the so-called "Oath Keepers".  Your comment has nothing at all to do with that.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.48  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.14    4 days ago
Really?

Yes really. 

You sure as hell didn't see Russia moving on Ukraine when he was in office.

Putin was too busy moving on the US. 

You didn't see China shooting off hypersonic missiles,

China shot off hypersonic missiles throughout 2018, as did Russia and the US.

FAIL. 

you didn't see 2 million plus illegals crossing the southern border,

Oh but we did. 

and Iran pulling a bunch of bullshit without retribution.

What bullshit are you talking about? 

And you didn't see North Korea willy nilly shooting off missiles.

From Feb. 2017 North Korea shot off missiles 'will nilly' at a rate of at LEAST one a month. 

FAIL. 

And he isn't an autocrat by any means unless you consider a nationalist an autocrat.

Really? 

Autocrat: someone who insists on complete obedience from others; an imperious or domineering person.

Trump's picture is next to that definition.../s

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
2.2.49  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.2.40    3 days ago
I present you with your own words,since clearly I am too dense to understand "Jack_Tx" speak. Oh please help me out here, where am I getting into the 'dipshit' ? (Indeed, the more times I read your portion of the reply above, it seems more detached from what DP stated. Clearly, I am wrong. So please go on. . . )

DP was defending an indefensible behavior based on the logic that.... in a different situation, people for whom he/she has no respect would engage in that behavior....so that somehow makes the behavior acceptable.

The average six year old is smart enough to understand how and why that doesn't work.  

since clearly I am too dense to understand

My hope is that you'll start to read comments instead of reading into them.  Time will tell whether I'm unrealistically optimistic on that front.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
2.2.50  Jack_TX  replied to  bbl-1 @2.2.42    3 days ago
None the less, all of these other things concerning Trump is bad enough, but what ever he agreed to, provided, allowed and expected in return during his meeting with Putin at Helsinki will be the plunging 16 inch shell from a battleship to his presidency, his manhood, his life, his family and his future, all of which will be immediately extinguished with extreme and much deserved prejudice.

It's Trump.  And it's Putin.  For all you know they were comparing American v Russian porn sites, photos of the strippers they've slept with, or notes on how to get prostitutes in and out of their offices without the media seeing them. 

Now....as I sorta kinda joke about that, you're realizing how little you would be surprised if that turned out to be true.

  And what happened there will be known because Putin will reveal it in order to protect himself.  Trump's most grevious error is trusting Putin.

From whom are we assuming Putin needs protection?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.51  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.49    3 days ago

I still don't know what the heaven you mean to convey. No matter, you evidently don't give a damn about communicating that comment's content clearer. I will categorize it as abstract rhetoric. BYE!

And since you went small, let me say this: I won't bother six years old by dragging them into a couple of 'men of a certain age' miscommunications. Stay big!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
2.2.52  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.2.51    2 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
2.2.53  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.33    2 days ago

"Have to"?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3  Ender    6 days ago

I thought they already proved they were coordinating.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Ender @3    6 days ago

There is a lot of evidence.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @3.1    6 days ago

And that will be have to be presented in court as proof, correct?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Gsquared @3.1    5 days ago

What  evidence?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
3.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    5 days ago

I guess you're gonna have to ask Adam Schiff for it.  After all he's seen all the evidence, hasn't he?  I do remember him telling us he had seen it all and that it was damning...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.1.4  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.1    5 days ago

Yes, the evidence will be presented at the trial.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.1.5  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    5 days ago

Read the seeded article.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.1.6  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.3    5 days ago

Where did Adam Schiff discuss having seen evidence of co-ordination among the so-called Oath Keepers?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.7  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    5 days ago

the evidence being blocked by dozens of pending court cases brought by fascists in an attempt to stall the judicial consequences past the next election they erroneously think they will win.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Gsquared @3.1    5 days ago

Could you provide that evidence? If there is, it would be real news to the world.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1.9  bugsy  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.4    5 days ago
es, the evidence will be presented at the trial.

What trial?

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  bugsy @3.1.9    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.11  bbl-1  replied to  bugsy @3.1.8    5 days ago

Ever watch TV news?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.1.12  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  bugsy @3.1.8    5 days ago
Could you provide that evidence?

WTF?  Did you read the article?  The DOJ will present all of the evidence at the trial.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.1.13  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  bugsy @3.1.9    5 days ago
What trial?

What planet are you on?  Are you not aware enough to understand that there is going to be a trial based on the indictment?  

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1.14  bugsy  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.13    4 days ago

OK OK I made a mistake. I thought you were talking about something else.

My apologies

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.1.15  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  bugsy @3.1.14    4 days ago

OK

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
3.1.16  Krishna  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.3    2 days ago

Adam Schiff?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4  Ender    6 days ago

What gets me is these people planned this out and actually tried to pull it off.

And we still have some conservatives that act like they were tourists.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @4    6 days ago

Or like the seditionists are heroes.

Sad and unamerican.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Kavika   replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1    6 days ago

They might be hero's to the nut cases but to Americans, they are nothing more than traitors.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Kavika @4.1.1    6 days ago

Unamerican and traitors is an apt description.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
4.2  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @4    6 days ago
What gets me is these people planned this out and actually tried to pull it off. And we still have some conservatives that act like they were tourists.

While the tourists label being used by some is too much, you should include that this group was actually a small part of the overall riot. The people who broke into the Capital Building was a subset of the people who gathered on the Capital grounds, and that group was a subset of the people who attended the rally.  I think for a lot of people the implication is that everybody who was at the rally is guilty of these charges and that's no more true than the assumption from others that every BLM riot over last year was held by nothing but Antifa..   when the truth is the majority of those who attended the protests did so honestly and it was a small subset of that group that caused the problems such as setting fires and breaking windows and destroying property.  We should be more careful with our wording as it's way too easy to misunderstand the typed word and read more into it than what was initially meant.  

As far as this group of Oath Keepers, the courts will decide where it goes from here.  A charge of sedation is going to be a hard case so the prosecution will have their work cut out for them to get a conviction.  Only question I have is will we see the decision by 23?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Snuffy @4.2    6 days ago
I think for a lot of people the implication is that everybody who was at the rally is guilty of these charges

“Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits.” (1 Corinthians 15:33)

Guilt by association. If you get a ride home from some friends and they stop by a liquor store and rob it on the way, even if you don't participate you can be considered an accessory to the crime. The fact is even if half the crowd didn't participate in the attack, they certainly didn't try to protect the capital police from the other half of the violent crowd.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
4.2.2  evilgenius  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.1    5 days ago

I've seen you quote how only a fraction of people at BLM protests were looters & arsonists (I have too), so no one should hold the whole accountable. The same goes here. For the people there for a protest - those that did not clash with Capitol Police or enter the Capitol Building and not being charged - should not be condemned as criminals in our posts. There are plenty of other things to judge them on.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  evilgenius @4.2.2    5 days ago
For the people there for a protest

Protest of what ? There was NO legitimate protest on Jan 6. 

It would be like someone organizing a protest over which team won the Superbowl. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
4.2.4  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.3    5 days ago
Protest of what ? There was NO legitimate protest on Jan 6. 

In the minds of the people who were there for the rally and protest, they had a legitimate reason.  You don't get to tell other people what to think. I'm sure we could find people out there who would call all the BLM protests last summer as not having a legitimate reason either, would you agree with them or would you think the BLM protesters felt they had a legitimate reason?  

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
4.2.5  evilgenius  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.3    5 days ago
Protest of what ? There was NO legitimate protest on Jan 6. 

Don't be obtuse, John. People are free to peacefully protest anything they wish. Just because you and I don't agree with their positions on anything doesn't make it less legitimate. 

It would be like someone organizing a protest over which team won the Superbowl. 

Well, John there is a "tradition" of destruction by fans after sporting events.

...Eagles won Super Bowl LII, fans of the team rioted and destroyed a decent amount of property, an ugly tradition that quite a few fan bases have taken to participating in over the years. It’s stupid. It’s scary and it’s destructive, but for some reason, that word “riot” rarely makes its way into headlines.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  evilgenius @4.2.5    5 days ago

Because something is legal does not mean it is justified or "legitimate". 

Jan 6 participants, led by Trump, tried to justify the existence of this rally of course, but they have ho case. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.7  devangelical  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.4    5 days ago

false equivalency. name one BLM protest that obstructed a joint session of congress performance of a constitutionally mandated peaceful transfer of power by certification of a new POTUS.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.4    5 days ago
In the minds of the people who were there for the rally and protest, they had a legitimate reason. 

Ok, I'll ask you - protest of what?  Because someone felt like they had a legitimate reason does not mean they had a legitimate reason. When Jan 6 happened, Trump had already lost 60 some court cases about the election, every single state had certified their elections, and a number of them had done hand recounts. Trump had already asked the Sec of State of Georgia to "find" 11,000 votes (probably a crime). The alleged "illegality" of the election had entirely been created in the mind of Trump and Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. They are the ones that conspired against the American people.

Jan 6 was not a "legitimate" protest. It is ridiculous to say it was. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
4.2.9  Snuffy  replied to  devangelical @4.2.7    5 days ago
false equivalency.

Nope, you're wrong. The topic of conversation was the legitimacy of the protest. In the minds of the people who let the protest on Jan 6th, they felt the reason behind was legitimate. Now the individuals (subset of the protest if you will) who broke into the Capital used the protest as a vehicle for their actions.  Same as the rioters from the BLM protests who used the protests as their vehicle to damage and destroy property. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
4.2.10  evilgenius  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.6    5 days ago
Because something is legal does not mean it is justified or "legitimate". 

Words matter, John. You can't make up your own definitions. Those that were there to peacefully protest did "legitimately" do so. Those that clashed with LEOs and entered the Capital Building did not. THAT is the distinction. IF you don't want liberals painted in broad brush strokes, please don't do it to conservatives. 

le·git·i·mate
adjective
/ləˈjidəmət/
  1. conforming to the law or to rules.
    "his claims to legitimate authority"
 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
4.2.11  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.6    5 days ago

Go back and re-read 4.2.5.   Just because you don't agree with their reasoning doesn't make their protest any less legitimate.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.12  JohnRussell  replied to  evilgenius @4.2.10    5 days ago

according to Merriams , there are 5 definitions for legitimate. 

4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards a legitimate advertising expenditure a legitimate inference also : fair or reasonable : VALID She raised some legitimate concerns.

I have already agreed that the rally was legal (at first). I am talking about another form of legitimacy, as in justified by the facts. 

Definition of   legitimate  (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb
:   to make (someone or something) legitimate (see   LEGITIMATE   entry   1 ):
a (1) :   to give legal status or authorization to
( 2) to show or affirm to be  justified
(3) to lend authority or respectability to
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.11    5 days ago

see below

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.14  Gordy327  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.4    5 days ago

What "legitimate" reason was that? They violently protested an actual legitimate election. Insurrection against a duly elected government is only "legitimate" if the Insurrectionists win.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
4.2.15  evilgenius  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.12    5 days ago
I have already agreed that the rally was legal...

That's the end of it. There is nothing more to say about it. Everything else is irrelevant, as it pertains to those peacefully protesting.

I am talking about another form of legitimacy, as in justified by the facts. 

I don't care if they were protesting avocado toast points... It just doesn't matter why.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.2.16  Greg Jones  replied to  evilgenius @4.2.2    5 days ago

A bit of sanity in your comment!

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
4.2.17  evilgenius  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.14    5 days ago
They violently protested an actual legitimate election.

What we are trying to do is draw the distinction between those who were and were not engaging in criminal activity. As, I and others, were drawing a similar distinction on BLM protests.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.18  JohnRussell  replied to  evilgenius @4.2.15    5 days ago

I'm not going to argue with you anymore about it.  We disagree on the meanings of the word legitimate. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
4.2.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  evilgenius @4.2.17    5 days ago

But the problem in that whole thing falls as to what they appear to support and what they don't.  It appears they supported the BLM Protests and will make that distinction.  On the other hand it appears the do not support the Jan 6 Protest therefore they will not allow anybody to make that exact same distinction.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.20  Gordy327  replied to  evilgenius @4.2.17    5 days ago

If one is part of the insurrectionist mob, then one is engaged in criminal activity.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
4.2.21  evilgenius  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.19    5 days ago
It boils down to their own hypocrisy.

Please bare that in mind when I point it out elsewhere. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
4.2.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.18    5 days ago
We disagree on the meanings of the word legitimate.

Looks like you both agree on the MEANING of legitimate.  evilgenius provided the ADJECTIVE meaning and you provided the VERB meaning. 

Part of the problem is that you emphasized sections of the verb meaning.  You didn't emphasize ALL of the meaning.  You did miss 1st piece of it:

a(1):to gi legal status or authorization to
 Using the link you provided for the Merriam-Webster site, the definition evilgenius provided is listed as number 4 under the adjective definition.  Which seems to also be the piece you are ignoring. The LEGAL part in the verb definition and the adjective definition is what you are overlooking for some reason.
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
4.2.23  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  evilgenius @4.2.21    5 days ago

I will.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.24  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.22    5 days ago
4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards a legitimate advertising expenditure a legitimate inference also : fair or reasonable : VALID She raised some legitimate concerns.

Nope. Number 4 is not the verb meaning.  Number 4 does not refer to a meaning related to "legal".  fair or reasonable - see that?  The Jan 6 "protest" was neither fair nor reasonable. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
4.2.25  evilgenius  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.20    5 days ago
If one is part of the insurrectionist mob, then one is engaged in criminal activity.

I'm not disagreeing that point. Not even a little bit. I'm just saying that all the people in attendance WERE NOT part of an insurrectionist mob.

Or are you trying to say...

All those who protested in Minneapolis last year after George Floyd was murdered are criminals, because a couple people started looting and burning? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.26  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.1    5 days ago

DP, I agree with both points of view. Let people come forward and where possible clear his or her name and association, accordingly. Or, let him or her clear their name once asked. It could certainly be true that many lives were spared by actions, non-actions, and yes even spoken words (a calming effect) by some caught off-guard by the disastrous demonstrations. Clearly there were people there intend on wickedness and overthrow, but many as well to just small "p" protest, in my opinion. Case in point: There were people outside the capitol building asking as coordinators, and in Ashli Babbitt's case she was definitely part of a larger team effort.

Think of it in this small way: Outer ring - demonstrators, inner ring - assaulted the building and its members, center ring - conspirators bent on overthrow of governmental control. 3 rings.

Personal note: How nice of you to quote Corinthians unforced. It was a highlight moment for me.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.27  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.6    5 days ago

Friend JohnRussell, if I can call you friend, protest is constitutional. Wreakage can be nuanced based on circumstances. And yes, what happened January 6, 2021 at the capitol in D.C. was wrong for all the wrong reasons. It went well beyond any legitimacy and righteous cause.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.28  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.8    5 days ago

Protest is constitutional (legitimate). It is a means of letting "the people" vent (pressure valve). What one destroys in any protest is weighed and judged by degrees. For example, if one is defacing a building it can be nuanced, but if one is defacing a police officer charges are likely forthcoming as well they should.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.2.28    5 days ago
For example, if one is defacing a building it can be nuanced,

A crime is a crime.

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.30  CB   replied to  evilgenius @4.2.25    5 days ago

Your argument is well articulated, evilgenius. You have on the right side of this, particularly as DoJ facts and procedures are laying out its case. (The case that is being praised for its utility.)

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.31  Gordy327  replied to  evilgenius @4.2.25    5 days ago

Are they part of the mob or not? When $#it goes down, one had better run for the hills if they do not want to be part of it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.32  Gordy327  replied to  CB @4.2.28    5 days ago

Peaceful protest is constitutional and usually not a problem. But when things turn violent or destructive, then it crosses a line and is criminal.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.33  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.29    5 days ago

Yes and no. *Remember "nuance"?  And not all defacements are criminal, even so it may look to onlookers. Damages can be superficial and determined so ("No big deal") Another 'quickie" example:  In the L.A. area riot, where Reginal Denny was attacked see the video.

Uncut L.A. Riot Footage - Reginald Denny Beating / Looting

NOTE: To view this video you must click on the phrase, "Watch on Youtube" because of the age restriction warning.

This was a "dark day" and it was criminal. This activity was worst by magnitude.

And Texan, please stop with this pretense (all) crime is crime without any deferences or differentiations. It's why employ legal terms like misdemeanor and felony. And of course, why we need lawyers.

Let us be big about this.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.34  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.2.33    5 days ago

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but misdemeanors and felonies are all crimes.

Like I said, no sugar coating changes facts.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.35  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.34    5 days ago

I know that. Funny you keying in on that (tid-bit), while missing the point (gist) of the subject matter and this thread. Be big about this!!!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.36  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.2.35    5 days ago

I am big on prosecuting criminals!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.37  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.36    5 days ago

... and defending those participating in sedition.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.38  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.32    5 days ago

Emphatically. Note my video @4.2.33. Those individuals prosecuted were Mr. Reginald Denny's attackers (the worst of the lot), not those merely onsite. That is, you prosecute those who are prosecutable and hopefully convictable.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
4.2.39  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.24    5 days ago
Nope. Number 4 is not the verb meaning.

Did you miss the part where I stated:  Using the link you provided for the Merriam-Webster site, the definition evilgenius provided is listed as number 4 under the adjective definitionWhich seems to also be the piece you are ignoring.  Try reading the full comment before shooting your mouth off.

The Jan 6 "protest" was neither fair nor reasonable. 

And that would be your opinion.  An opinion not shared by everybody.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.40  Gordy327  replied to  CB @4.2.38    5 days ago

Best to get offsite once on-site shenanigans begins. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.2.63  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.40    5 days ago

This is not to Gordy,

All the meta has been cleaned up. Any further meta/ derailments will be ticketed. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.64  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.2.37    5 days ago
and defending those participating in sedition.

That comment is a flat-out lie.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.2.65  Nowhere Man  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.64    5 days ago
That comment is a flat-out lie.

yep, they have no proof of sedition in any way.. at least none that will pass legal muster yet...

All they have commented on is speech, and speech by itself under the constitution cannot by rule be seditious.. Sedition REQURIES an overt act to establish intent... Seditious conspiracy requires an overt act by two people working in concert...

In the last 60 or so years only a few sedition or seditious conspiracy indictments have been brought, ALL of them were dismissed while being heartily laughed at...

That includes those wonderful lunatics known as "The Order"

This whole mess to designed to get people OFF Garlands back and hence Biden's back... Political salve to the malcontents..

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.66  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.39    5 days ago
The Jan 6 "protest" was neither fair nor reasonable. 
And that would be your opinion.  An opinion not shared by everybody. 

So you think it was fair and/or reasonable. Good . It makes it makes it more clear what we are dealing with here. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
4.2.67  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.2.65    5 days ago
Sedition REQURIES an overt act to establish intent

Invading the Capitol constitutes an overt act.

Seditious conspiracy requires an overt act by two people working in concert

Read the article.

"The Order"

If you like the so-called "Oath Keepers" you will love "The Order".

designed to get people OFF Garlands back and hence Biden's back

No, it's designed to get violent reactionary extremists off the American people's backs.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.68  CB   replied to  Nowhere Man @4.2.65    5 days ago

So you are defending those persons charged with sedition. Tell me is it because of their backgrounds or in  defense of guns? Please be clear, I don't want my liberal 'tint' to blur anything you really mean to convey.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.2.69  Nowhere Man  replied to  Gsquared @4.2.67    5 days ago
No, it's designed to get violent reactionary extremists off the American people's backs.

If they were unable to get "The Order" (a group that actually killed people) with Seditious Conspiracy, what make you think they are going to get  Oathkeepers who haven't killed anyone? They have tried many many times over the last 6 decades to get groups on Seditious Conspiracy with all such charges being dismissed for cause... Give us a link to otherwise and I'll read it....

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.2.70  Nowhere Man  replied to  CB @4.2.68    5 days ago

Not defending anything, trying to put these charges into a realistic light...  Sedition alone is the MOST difficult charge to prove, harder than perjury... Then to add Conspiracy on top of it?

In mountain climbing terms that is like climbing & summiting Mt McKinley, K-2 and Anna Purna all on one day...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.2.71  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  evilgenius @4.2.2    5 days ago
I've seen you quote how only a fraction of people at BLM protests were looters & arsonists (I have too), so no one should hold the whole accountable.

First, I've often pointed out how the vast majority of protests were not violent so those 93% of protests that didn't turn violent, obviously the participants should not be lumped in with the violent ones at other protests. And yes, I've said numerous times how those who took part in the violence and vandalism should be arrested and held accountable regardless of what side of the political aisle they're on.

However, in the case of the capital attack, anyone who entered the capital building is guilty of at least illegal trespassing. Those caught on film vandalizing or beating officers should of course be held accountable for their individual actions. Anyone who did not enter the capital but was there watching it happen and did nothing to help the capital police should be ashamed of themselves but no, they are not criminally liable, but they certainly do not choose their friends well which was what I primarily meant, if they frequent the same circles as the other right wing conservative extremists it wouldn't be unusual for them to be considered a part of that extremism.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
4.2.72  Snuffy  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.2.70    5 days ago

Yep, that's a very difficult conviction to get.  In the entire history of the US, only 12 people have ever been convicted of sedition.

Will they be able to get a conviction here?  We may not know the final answer until 23 or even 24..  Won't stop all the speculation and hyper-ventilating however.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
4.2.73  Snuffy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.71    5 days ago
but they certainly do not choose their friends well which was what I primarily meant

You are still blaming the whole group for the actions of part.  EG and I were quite clear from the beginning that we were differentiating between those who attended the rally vs those who marched on the capital to protest vs those who engaged in criminal acts at / in the Capital.  Just because they were standing on the Capital grounds to protest, did they know everybody else in the crowd?  As for those who stood watching it happen, isn't that kind of like why people normally slow down when driving by an accident so that maybe they can see something?  The shock of the actions can cause a lot of people to freeze up. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.74  CB   replied to  Nowhere Man @4.2.70    5 days ago
§2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

( June 25, 1948, ch. 645, ; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, ; title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, .)

Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §6 ( Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §6, ).

Editorial Notes

Amendments

1994 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $20,000".

1956 —Act July 24, 1956, substituted "$20,000" for "$5,000", and "twenty years" for "six years".

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.75  CB   replied to  Nowhere Man @4.2.70    5 days ago

See @4.2.74 and now I ask again, what/who are you defending here?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.76  CB   replied to  Snuffy @4.2.72    5 days ago
hyper-ventilating

Why we got to be "hyperventilating" or "hand-wringing"  or "sweating"? We are just following and discussing the news—together like you do. Apparently, we LIKE news and challenging  discussion as much.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.77  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.64    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
4.2.78  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @4.2.33    5 days ago

My job (Army Reserve Center) was not that far from the flash point.  We had a vault full of M16's (no rounds) and were afraid we might get overrun so we had to lock our gate and post roving guards (armed).  Even my colonel was given permission to carry a sidearm.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.79  CB   replied to  bugsy @4.2.77    5 days ago

Please stop. That reads as needy and desperate. We are not elected or appointed officials tasked with coming up with legal charges that will withstand wrangling or scrutiny. So, excuse us, if we won't concern ourselves with getting it near perfect every time here.

"Seditious conspiracy." Eureka!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.80  bugsy  replied to  CB @4.2.79    5 days ago

How is it needy and desperate? I pointed out something rather obvious, and you want to insult me.

Not a good look.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.81  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2.78    5 days ago

I watched it on television. It was a great sadness for me. I was horrifically ashamed of those boys and men.

It was one of those days when you feel like the next time you go out to work and about town you might be a target of someone's revenge.  I was both in awe and relieved that nothing came of it pervasively across the country.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.82  CB   replied to  bugsy @4.2.80    5 days ago

Please. Reread my comment. It states my meaning rather nicely. BTW, the charges are official. We are not expected to make official charges, nor can we.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
4.2.83  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.66    5 days ago
So you think it was fair and/or reasonable.

And exactly where did I say that?  I AM saying it was LEGITMATE.  Even with the definition YOU provided.  Notice how you are ignoring that.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
4.2.84  al Jizzerror  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.2.65    5 days ago
In the last 60 or so years only a few sedition or seditious conspiracy indictments have been brought, ALL of them were dismissed while being heartily laughed at...

In 1981, Oscar López Rivera , a Puerto Rican nationalist and Vietnam War veteran, was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for seditious conspiracy (among other offenses) for his involvement in FALN - a Puerto Rican independence group that carried out over 130 bombings in the United States. Rivera was tried for being a recruiter and bomb-making trainer.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.2.85  Nowhere Man  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.2.84    5 days ago

You are aware that he was offered pardons, he was offered to have his convictions vacated? (cause there was no real evidence) He is still (or remained) convicted cause he chooses to be... But yeah he was convicted so in 60 years you have one conviction that should be overturned...

Have any more? cause one faulty conviction serves more to prove what I'm saying more than anything else... Or, is it just an "I Gotcha" moment you think you've found? 

Anyone can search wiki, you think I didn't before I made my statement, well I did and several other actual legal databases which the common public doesn't have access to, westlaw being the most famous...

So I ask, you have anymore? Cause that case isn't dispositive of the question... (no where near of precedential value either)

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.2.86  Nowhere Man  replied to  CB @4.2.75    5 days ago
See @4.2.74 and now I ask again, what/who are you defending here?

Please answer me a question....

HOW does citing the statute change the question? or should cause a different response? The statute is irrelevant to the position of how difficult it is to gain a conviction... for that you look up relevant case law... which I already have...

Doesn't change my answer at  4.2.70..

Try again...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
4.2.87  al Jizzerror  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.2.85    5 days ago

Yes, "he was offered pardons".

Yes, "he is still convicted ".

Then you conclude:  " one faulty conviction serves more to prove what I'm saying more than anything else."

Really?   You said (4.2.65):

In the last 60 or so years only a few sedition or seditious conspiracy indictments have been brought, ALL of them were dismissed while being heartily laughed at...

I posted a simple cut&pastie from Wikipedia to document a seditious conspiracy conviction:

In 1981, Oscar López Rivera , a Puerto Rican nationalist and Vietnam War veteran, was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for seditious conspiracy (among other offenses) for his involvement in FALN - a Puerto Rican independence group that carried out over 130 bombings in the United States. Rivera was tried for being a recruiter and bomb-making trainer.  

You can spin your fucking ass off, butt that proves your statement is BULLSHIT!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.88  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.20    5 days ago

And if one is part of a rioting mob destroying property, then one is engaged on criminal activity.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.2.89  Nowhere Man  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.2.87    5 days ago

Absolutists are usually wrong... 

Still show us all the other convictions, I mean if I'm really really as wrong as you claim, there should be TONS AND TONS of convictions to show how wrong I am...

A single man went to prison for a crime he didn't commit, and that means it isn't hard to prove Seditious Conspiracy to anyone....

Good prove it...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.90  CB   replied to  Nowhere Man @4.2.86    5 days ago

I do not have "relevant case law" before me. I am pointing out a newsy portion of the charging document. Now, you will have to ask yourself if any descriptor in the statue is relevant to what this Oath Keeper caused or took place to occur. Caution: You do not have the 'case-file' documents and data that DOJ prosecutors possess. Picking other past sedition cases as indicative of this January 6, 2021 is presumption. Moreover, cases stand or fall on their own merit/s—especially unique cases.

Therefore, one has to ask (and so I will again): What/who are you defending here?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.2.91  Nowhere Man  replied to  CB @4.2.90    5 days ago

It's next to impossible to have a conversation on a subject which is how difficult it is to get a conviction on these charges, when one doesn't understand the system the charges originate from... the subject IS how difficult it is...  nothing else... 

At this point if you wish to keep asking a pointless question to the subject at hand there is no point to continue towards... Not defending anything but that is what you seem to want to force the discussion into... 

Sorry find someone else...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
4.2.92  al Jizzerror  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.2.89    5 days ago

You can spin until you puke and your statement is still WRONG!

You said:

that means it isn't hard to prove Seditious Conspiracy to anyone....

I never said that, you did.

You said (4.2.65):

In the last 60 or so years only a few sedition or seditious conspiracy indictments have been brought, ALL of them were dismissed while being heartily laughed at...

It doesn't  require "TONS AND TONS of convictions to show how wrong" you are.

You also said:

"Absolutists are usually wrong..."

Like when YOU said:

"ALL of them were dismissed while being heartily laughed at..."

Thanx for playing the game.  You have been owned.

Please don't post that stupid shit again. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.2.93  Nowhere Man  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.2.92    5 days ago

IMPASSE

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.94  CB   replied to  Nowhere Man @4.2.91    4 days ago

Yeah, another FAILURE to support a specific statement. No worries. I'm getting used to it. It's sooooooooo Trumpian. It well may be the case that this specific case may fail in court, but what is a proper alternative--trash the capitol building in D.C. the center of western democracy FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE any damn time a bunch of some conservatives get EMOTIONAL over 'troubled,' pampered, enabled, and spend all his time thinking up new hurdles to this democratic model, Donald J. Trump.

I ask you where you STAND because it matters. If you feel SQUEEZED or EXPOSED perhaps reserve comment or further elaboration. Still, the ASK is valid! Why? Because making blanket 'fit square in circle hole' statements may sound right, but we are talking about real people here and above all we, people matter, at the end of it all! Moreover, everybody knows this-when it comes to something 'everybody' wants in policy-making.

America! Defend the truth in 2022!

(Damn it!)

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.95  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.88    4 days ago

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.2.96  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @4.2    4 days ago

The new estimate by the FBI is that 2000+ people perpetrated prosecutable crimes at the Capitol on Jan. 6th. It could be as many as 2500. That's a pretty big 'subset of the people who gathered on the Capital grounds'. Technically, every person that entered the Capitol grounds committed a crime. The overwhelming majority of them will get away with it. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.97  CB   replied to  Dulay @4.2.96    4 days ago
Technically, every person that entered the Capitol grounds committed a crime. The overwhelming majority of them will get away with it. 

Though, a crime is a crime I 'valiantly' tried to get through to one of our 'regulars,' nuance and degree are features in theory and in practice for courts of law.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.98  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.95    4 days ago
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. 

Just like you did!!

Thanks!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.99  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.98    4 days ago

Happy to be of service

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.100  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.99    3 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.101  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.100    3 days ago

I'm not sure why a taunt was necessary.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.102  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.101    3 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.103  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.102    3 days ago

While I didn't see your post prior to deletion, it seems it was taunting, as it was flagged and deleted as such.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.104  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.103    3 days ago

deleted

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.105  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.104    3 days ago
Then you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

As I said, your comment was deemed taunting. That's what I have to go by. And given your history, I'm inclined to accept that assessment at face value.

And you don't have a fucking clue as to whether it was actually flagged or not.

Neither do you. But that's Irrelevant really. It's the end result that matters.

Deleted yes, but that is just a small person with a Napolean complex reveling in his "power" to delete.

And that's just an assumption. But if you feel your comment was wrongfully deleted, then you can ask Perrie or one of the other mods to review it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.106  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.105    3 days ago

deleted

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.107  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.106    3 days ago
Making assumptions about that which you don't have a clue is silly at best.  

My assumptions are based on your past and current posts, which continue to be deleted for various reasons. I'd say my assumptions are rather safe.

the end result is my post was deleted by someone with real issues.

That's your interpretation. But given your history, I'd say it's not someone else with the issues.

WTF have you been reading? It's a fact.

See previous statement.

Total waste of time--they all know exactly what is going on and seem to condone it in most cases.

If you're unwilling to stand up for your own posts, then that indicates others assessment of your questionable comments is accurate.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.108  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.107    3 days ago

deleted

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2.109  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.106    3 days ago

You make a case for why you should be banned 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.110  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.108    3 days ago

With each post, you only continue to prove me correct. Clearly, I'm not the only one who sees it too.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
4.2.111  al Jizzerror  replied to  JBB @4.2.109    3 days ago

NO!

Texan1211 should NOT be banned.

I enjoy feeding the trolls in Heated Discussions.

It can be mildly entertaining.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
4.2.112  al Jizzerror  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.110    3 days ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
4.2.113  Krishna  replied to  Snuffy @4.2    2 days ago

Your comment is actually a subset of inaccurate comment, that I can tell you.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
5  Split Personality    6 days ago

They are a tiny, tiny dichotomy.

One the one hand I believe that whether you took the oath as an enlisted person or an officer, or both,

that the oath you swore on the Bible ( Old or new ) or the Koran doesn't disappear into thin air when you quit,

resign or retire.

Just my opinion.

These people can't let the military go, even though most of them have been reduced to caricatures of themselves,

they meet and wear a hodge podge of 5 decades of USA military uniforms and gadgets while declaring themselves publicly

not to be militia, but privately practicing with live ammo for a political Armageddon.

Not the liberal vets, mind you, just the hardened conservatives.

I'm sure they mean well and believe their own nonsense

especially if egged on by the ( at the time ) sitting POTUS

What could go wrong? /s

Rhodes is just the latest version of Tarleton.

There will always be a well meaning Tarleton with misplaced loyalties willing to die for his convictions.

That's just the way life is.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1  CB   replied to  Split Personality @5    6 days ago

Tarleton? Who is, please.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @5.1    6 days ago

if its the one im thinking of , its the actual officer that british character in the patriot was based on , the cavalry officer .

even i had to look him up .

 i was thats the dude from the patriot with mel gibson ...., he didnt end up like in the movie though .

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
5.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  CB @5.1    6 days ago
Regardless of the extent to which they were true or false, the reports of British atrocities motivated Whig-leaning colonials to support the American Revolution. [12] On the other hand, Tarleton advocated repression of the civilian population, and criticized the mildness of Lord Cornwallis's methods, because moderation "did not reconcile enemies, but ... discourages friends". [15] In either event, on 7 October 1780, at the Battle of Kings Mountain , South Carolina, soldiers of the Continental Army, having heard of the slaughter at Waxhaw Creek, killed American Loyalists who had surrendered after a sniper killed their British commanding officer, Maj. Patrick Ferguson . [16]

Subsequent operations [ edit ]

In South Carolina, Col. Tarleton's British Legion were harried by Francis Marion , "The Swamp Fox", an American militia commander who practiced guerrilla warfare against the British. Throughout the campaigns, Tarleton was unable to capture him or thwart his operations. Marion's local popularity among anti-British South Carolinians ensured continual aid and comfort for the American cause. In contrast, Colonel Tarleton alienated the colonial citizens with arbitrary confiscations of cattle and food stocks. [17]

Tarleton materially helped Cornwallis to win the Battle of Camden in August 1780. [8] On 22 August, he was promoted to major in the 79th Regiment of Foot (Royal Liverpool Volunteers) . [18] He defeated Thomas Sumter at Fishing Creek , aka "Catawba Fords", but was less successful when he encountered the same general at Blackstock's Farm in November 1780. [8]

On 17 January 1781 Tarleton's forces were virtually destroyed by American Brigadier General Daniel Morgan at the Battle of Cowpens . Tarleton and about 200 men escaped the battlefield. [19] William Washington commanded the rebel cavalry; he was attacked by the British commander and two of his men. Tarleton was stopped by Washington himself, who attacked him with his sword, calling out, "Where is now the boasting Tarleton?"
Banastre Tarleton - Wikipedia

All of Tarleton's calvary & infantry were American Torys who believed in their cause.

As Mark indicated, he did not die at Cowpens, but escaped to England with Cornwalis and was elected to Parliament

despite his lack of popularity. He was missing fingers from the Battle at Guilliford Courthouse and used it as leverage

to sell books of his exploits and criticisms of Cornwallis.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Ender  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.2    6 days ago

Interesting.

When it talked about the American guerrilla warfare, it reminded me of Red Dawn. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Ender @5.1.3    5 days ago

oath keepers, proud boys, 3pers, teabags, magatards... pffft, that unamerican scum can't fight a guerilla war. my biggest fear is their brains getting splattered all over me.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.1.5  Nowhere Man  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.2    5 days ago
All of Tarleton's calvary & infantry were American Torys who believed in their cause.

Actually that is incorrect, British historical records show that only about half his troops were Tories (american loyalists) the rest were crack Irishmen sent to him by Cornwallis from out of his own personal regiments... In fact when he returned from Cowpens with only some 200 odd of his 1000 troops Cornwallis took his sword and broke it...

He was not a good field commander...

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
5.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.5    5 days ago
Actually that is incorrect, British historical records show that only about half his troops were Tories (american loyalists) the rest were crack Irishmen sent to him by Cornwallis from out of his own personal regiments...

Well I suppose it's possible that after several battles, replacements were not American Loyalists, but that's not in evidence.  Do you have a link?

In fact when he returned from Cowpens with only some 200 odd of his 1000 troops Cornwallis took his sword and broke it...

He and Cornwallis were never going to be friends but Cornwallis's success were all largely due to Tarleton

always being the tip of the spear and always covering the rear during rare retreats.

He was not a good field commander...

He may have been reckless and insubordinate, but he was pretty much the best field commander in the States,

bar none.

As to the sword incident when Tarleton returned and asked to retire and be court marshalled...

An American prisoner, Samuel McJunkin, related that as Tarleton reported, Cornwallis placed the tip of his sword against the sword and leaned into the hilt, harder and harder, until the blade snapped. Tarleton, in the wake of his defeat, wrote Cornwallis, asking permission to retire and for a court martial to determine responsiblity. Cornwallis refused, and Tarleton continued in service.  Banastre Tarleton (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)

In fact while Tarleton never led men in battle again, he remained in the British military achieving a rank of General.

His last hurrah was to try to get a command in the Peninsula Wars against Napolean. 

Wellington was awarded the post instead.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.1.7  Nowhere Man  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.6    5 days ago
Well I suppose it's possible that after several battles, replacements were not American Loyalists, but that's not in evidence.  Do you have a link?

Outside of wiki no, but I do have a source, my bookshelf... 

Buchanan, John. The Road to Guilford Courthouse: The American Revolution in the Carolinas. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1997

I'll look up the page reference for you if Wiki hasn't covered it already...

He may have been reckless and insubordinate, but he was pretty much the best field commander in the States,

Best British tactical commander I would probably agree, (but hard to judge between him and Burgoyne) but if you consider American commanders as well, Brig. Bendict Arnold comes to mind.... And Brig. Daniel Morgan whose Cowpens battle plan is still taught in most of the military academies around the world, ranked right up there with Cannae for tactical brilliance...

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
5.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.7    5 days ago

I might have it but I haven't unpacked 20 boxes of books yet, lol.

Only moved here 6 years ago....jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.1.9  Nowhere Man  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.8    5 days ago

Yep, I have two myself and I moved here 24 years ago... (library/study just isn't big enough to fit another bookcase)

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Krishna  replied to  devangelical @5.1.4    2 days ago

Brains 🧠? What brains?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
5.2  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Split Personality @5    6 days ago

It doesn't really seem that they mean well, depending on how you define that term.  At best, I would call them seriously misguided.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Ender  replied to  Gsquared @5.2    6 days ago

At best I would call them militant morons.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.2  CB   replied to  Gsquared @5.2    6 days ago
privately practicing with live ammo for a political Armageddon.

These people are 'preppers' geared up, 'pumped,' and "idling' for a revolution our government works to see never come! Like all 'organics' they are graying out and so it is with those expensive guns and storage facilities. Oh boy, and girl, those knees are 'shot' after all those field maneuvers to keep up.  And eyes, don't mention worsening sight.

With all this in mind, well these folks want shit to hit the fan (already). Before like grapes left out in the sun they rot or dry up!

Though, I make a light-hearted sincere point; it is no laughing matter. (If you have wondered why generally-speaking blacks and other people of color limit their time in the mountains and forest-woods, well, it has something to do with a 'kind' of human in the mountains and woods prowling-not just bears and mountain lions.)

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
5.2.3  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Ender @5.2.1    6 days ago

I can agree with that.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
5.2.4  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  CB @5.2.2    6 days ago

You are very right, CB.  It is no laughing matter.  They are a serious danger.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.5  CB   replied to  Gsquared @5.2.4    6 days ago

So as these so-called patriots 'age-out' they are getting antsy-at-large. Thus, they are willing to believe a "Big Lie" because it is a pretext to violent overthrow. Case in point: Majorie Taylor-Greene is actually doing her best to scratch some subset of so-called, "patriots" itchiness. Do not be mistaken or confused, that. . .woman, knows exactly what she is trying to provoke.  

It reminds me of any time you see a girl or woman cheering two boys or men fighting over something innocuous otherwise, and that girl or woman sees an opportunity to yell out excitedly repeatedly: "Kill him!" "Kill him."

She knows what she is trying to stir up!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
5.2.6  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  CB @5.2.5    6 days ago

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a reactionary extremist provocateur and a bully.  And a truly horrible person.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.7  CB   replied to  Gsquared @5.2.6    6 days ago

Emphatically.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
5.2.8  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.6    6 days ago
Marjorie Taylor Greene is a reactionary extremist provocateur and a bully.  And a truly horrible person.

That she has a megaphone and an audience, makes her worse.  In addition, I would love to mention her Adam's apple, but it would be in bad taste to do so, especially here.  I absolutely refuse to discuss her Adam's apple, so don't ask me to.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.9  CB   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.2.8    6 days ago
 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
5.2.10  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.2.8    6 days ago

That she has a megaphone and an audience makes her MUCH worse.

Don't worry.  We won't ask you to discuss her Adam's apple.  In fact, we will never mention her Adam's apple.  Her Adam's apple is not worth mentioning at all.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
5.2.11  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.10    6 days ago
We won't ask you to discuss her Adam's apple.

Good, because discussing her Adam's apple is something I simply will not do.  Thank you for not asking me to discuss her Adam's apple.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
5.2.12  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  CB @5.2.9    6 days ago

jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
5.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Split Personality @5    6 days ago
One the one hand I believe that whether you took the oath as an enlisted person or an officer, or both,

that the oath you swore on the Bible ( Old or new ) or the Koran doesn't disappear into thin air when you quit,

resign or retire.

il_794xN.2460920272_rl22.jpg

You are not alone in your thinking. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.3.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.3    5 days ago

My oath carried over even after I retired.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @5    5 days ago

pssstttt....One doesn't place a hand on a holy book when taking the Oath of Enlistment. You just raise your right hand and state your name and then....yada yada yada

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.4.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Trout Giggles @5.4    5 days ago

they also can omit any reference to god , most people dont know that.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
5.4.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.4    5 days ago

Yep.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.4.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.4    2 days ago

I may have not placed my hand on a bible when I took the oath, but that oath was just as important to me, book or no book.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
5.4.4  Krishna  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.4.1    2 days ago

So first we had The War on Christmas-- and no we have thr War on God!

Oh, the horror of it all! Will it never end?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.4.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Krishna @5.4.4    2 days ago

its like the song that never ends ......it goes on and on my friend.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
5.4.6  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @5.4.4    20 hours ago
War on God!

We won!

This was the song that was sung at God's funeral:

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
6  al Jizzerror    6 days ago

Stewart Rhodes is the leader of the Oath Keepers.  He told his minions that they should prepare for a "bloody" operation. 

Maybe he was planning to exercise his Second Amendment right to shoot himself in the face again.

512  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @6    5 days ago

gee, I always wondered what happened to poor little ralphie.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
6.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  devangelical @6.1    5 days ago

He needs to be properly dressed for court.  Perhaps Jerry can lend him a shirt to complete the look.

320

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
6.1.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.1    5 days ago

The Puffy Shirt episode!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @6.1.2    5 days ago

"I don't want to be the pirate!"

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
6.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  al Jizzerror @6    5 days ago

Lol.  I heard this guy is also a graduate of Yale law school.  I guess that bullet is still lodged in his cerebrum.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
6.2.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.2    5 days ago
I heard this guy is also a graduate of Yale law school.

He was disbarred for abandoning clients after he accepted their payments (retainer fees, deposits, etc.).

He seems to have a habit of abandoning people after he receives their financial support , usually disguised as some sort of donation to his Oath Keepers cause de jour.  Like Trump et al, it would seem that Stewart Rhodes depends on social media-created situations to support his lifestyle.  Trump does rallies.  Rhodes spanks up a new crowd-funding account.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
7  evilgenius    5 days ago

I think the House Committee is trying to find out if their any coordination OR conversations with anyone associated with Trump supporters setup at the Willard(?) hotel (with plans to bring in outside state electors) AND these Oath Keepers (I think some Proud Boys may also get similar charges). SO far I haven't heard of anything concrete, but multiple sources have stated Oath Keepers were at the rally as "security" for political Trump supporters like Roger Stone.

Questions are again being asked about  Roger Stone  after members of the Oath Keepers militia that he used as security on January 6 were charged with sedition over the Capitol riots.
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilgenius @7    5 days ago

Instead of asking questions about Roger Stone, why don't they subpoena his ass and ask him directly?

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
7.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1    5 days ago

If they haven't already I'm sure they will. I don't know, maybe the committee is waiting for the DOJ to find that connection first. That would make Stone's questioning a little more interesting. It seems the Feds have the Oath Keepers' phones... 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
7.1.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1    5 days ago
Instead of asking questions about Roger Stone, why don't they subpoena his ass and ask him directly?

Roger Stone is known for avoiding that kind of legal entanglement...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.3  CB   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @7.1.2    5 days ago

When Roger Stone is involved and comes to town you will hear a great amount of hissing and 'scales' dragging across the pavement. Signifying great deception ahead!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @7.1.3    5 days ago

AHA! You've identified The Beast in Revelation!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
7.1.5  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1    2 days ago
why don't they subpoena his ass and ask him directly?

Roger Stone would just drink the fifth.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8  JBB    5 days ago

The only takeaway is that Roger Stone conspired with The Oath Keepers, The Proud Boys and The Ku Klux Klan to plan and organize Trump's January 6th Insurrection at the clearly expressed behest of then President of the United States Donald John Trump!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9  CB     5 days ago

FelineDistantCottontail-max-1mb.gif     How about Attorney General Merrick Garland , did he get 'em seditionists in the new year?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
9.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  CB @9    5 days ago

Looking good, CB!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
11  al Jizzerror    5 days ago

512

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Silent
12  Right Down the Center    9 hours ago

The biggest takeaway?  This will give the dems and the media talking points for the next few months as they try to convince people the riot was more than it was.  Bad news guys. most people have moved on and less and less people are tuning in to listen to your endless propaganda.  

 
 

Who is online

Ed-NavDoc
GregTx
Steve Ott


41 visitors