Ok, so now I gotta wait until all appeals have been exhausted?
I'm a patient man.
third time: you cool with brady violations?
But to keep denying that there was a conspiracy to overthrow the US government
question is how much of this conspiracy to overthrow the government came from...the government. the whole reason i expressed doubt in the first place was that the fbi was already caught doing nearly all the work of a "plot" to kidnap a governor. to the point of sourcing the only means anybody involved had to actually execute the plot, smoking pot with the suspects, and having more feds than willing participants in the plot. they secured pleas and (using mistrial) convictions with this disgraceful fact pattern.
that, plus other confirmed fbi criminal misconduct, was the backdrop under which i had doubt regarding 1/6. and *what a surprise*, it looks like they had pre-involvement in 1/6 too. and *what a surprise*, knowingly withheld evidence that would benefit defendants.
at some point, "maybe these people did exactly what we caught them doing previously again, and there's evidence for that" isn't a "theory" any longer.
But convictions can be a result of prosecutorial misconduct (it turns out), so now I have to wait another while to see whether TMIT will make good on his boast regarding his intellectual honesty: that he would change his mind if there ever appeared a written record of such a conspiracy.
meanwhile, you seem to be disregarding lots of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, and some questionable practices regarding people being held w/o bond for long periods. if you're actually cool with brady violations (?), i don't think i'm where the fingers should be pointing wrt intellectual honesty.
2) no jury reaches a verdict "on the word of prosecutors"; the defense gets to make its best arguments as well
numerous people get convicted with no evidence beyond the claims made in the usa, even in unrelated/non-political cases
3) the prosecution has to convince twelve people; the defense only one; they couldn't do that in this case
it's a lot easier to secure convictions when you willfully exclude evidence inconvenient the prosecution. which isn't legal, and reeks of the same conduct as prosecutors moving to block dna evidence clearing previously (and wrongfully) convicted felons.
if you're not cool with that sort of behavior, and you're not cool with brady violations, why are you okay with the convictions as they presently stand?
MLK died roughly 55 years ago, before most of us were even born.
our alphabet agencies have not exactly maintained clean hands in that period, and probably didn't have clean hands prior.
it was actually this forum that first alerted me to some of cia's worst history wrt banana republics, courts upholding theft by government (civil forfeiture w/o conviction), and at one point it was a bit less controversial to point out the fbi's track record. but i guess politics dominates the mindset and blatant recent history of misconduct, recent history of entrapment, and evidence of it happening in this case are all disregarded and we're supposed to feel good about a "conviction" obtained through misconduct. dc courts are also some of the worst in the country, unsurprisingly. since the misconduct in this case was blatant, i'd hope even they realize how bad a look it would be to not have a mistrial. but it wouldn't surprise me if they don't care. enough other people seem not to care, so why should they?
What would the FBI involvement be that's alleged? That they infiltrated and lead people to insurrect?
Is this the same case when they literally had guns on standby?
reports are that 8 fbi agents were involved in months
and after 1/6. also that they withheld information from this involvement during the prosecution, which is illegal
given that the fbi literally offered weapons that would be impossible for the "whitmer kidnappers" to procure otherwise, and that fact came out in court, i don't think it's prudent or even reasonable to rule that out in this case too. especially given prosecutorial misconduct.
Yes, that's the insinuation. There were some FBI agents in the crowd. I believe that has been established. It's because some of the members of the crowd were under FBI surveillance.
it seems there was involvement well before there was a "crowd". like, month+ before.
I gave a good faith effort at exactly this. After the goalpost was moved multiple times I concluded that bad-faith had been conclusively established, and I was dealing with rank partisanship rather than any sort of intellectual honesty. I'm satisfied that there's no fig leaf.
you guys seem to be treating a conviction with an apparent brady violation as meaningful. it's odd to claim my rejection of it as bad faith. unless you're cool with brady violations?
But there was. Here's why I think this is a meaningful development. It has now been legally established, through a conviction not a plea, that there was a seditious conspiracy. Now, if the evidence is there for it, you can draw other conspirators into that: Stone, etc. (Not likely Trump himself, because he's careful never to put anything in writing.)
are you cool with brady violations?