Jan. 6th commission

[Remorseless1]

"So" you're saying the Proud Boys are guilty, but deserve to be freed on a legal issue afforded them by the very same government they were trying to destroy??

 

[JollyRoger]

not just one case, and several defense lawyer teams for proud boys have been trying to follow up on it. considering it involves perjury and evidence tampering and that the proud boys are all alleged to have been involved in the conspiracy with each other, one would expect they'd all have a right to see what exactly the fbi hasn't disclosed about them yet.

in functional courts, that is.

there are also allegations of fbi having a "confidential informant" of some kind that continued to be one after being named a witness for the defense, in essence spying on the defense team. those are only allegations at this point, but along with the evidence tampering above, this would also be grounds for a *lot* more information demanded and/or insta-mistrial.

there's a heck of a lot more smoke wrt fbi involvement with proud boys than the shaman's case. the defendants have a right to know exactly how much, and what information they have. "confidential" isn't valid now. if has even the slightest relevance to 1/6 involvement, an honest court will compel the fbi to provide it.

i don't have much faith in that happening.

If this is fire and not just smoke, then the Proud Boys are getting the same level of treatment that less pale defendants often get in the system. I agree it isn't right, but the Supreme Court and the higher courts in most confederate states pretty much let this stuff slide under harm analysis.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"So" you're saying the Proud Boys are guilty, but deserve to be freed on a legal issue afforded them by the very same government they were trying to destroy??

they might or might not be guilty, and it depends which charges and person you're talking about.

but yes, when the prosecution commits crimes and tampers with evidence, it's mistrial.

not govt as whole, but some of these alphabet agencies have had enough criminal misconduct that they specifically should be "destroyed", though by that i just mean completely replacing them (or close). "we plan to steal anything in this place worth more than x regardless of involvement" is not the conduct of a legit organization. neither is plotting a conspiracy to kidnap a government official and then pinning it on randos. same deal for altering recorded details about who was at which meeting, lying on the stand, deleting evidence, or claiming exculpatory evidence as "confidential". these are the actions of a criminal organization, not law enforcement. that these actions are being performed by what is ostensibly federal law enforcement is a much more competent threat to democracy than anything the clown show of politics can produce.

i now want to see exactly to what degree they infiltrated proud boys, and what actions they took. we know they did to some extent, and we also know that in the whitmer case, they more or less were the conspiracy plotters. how much of the proud boys conspiracy was proud boys, and how much was fbi? that's a legit question, and i want it answered. we can easily have two or more guilty parties, and if so the public should know it and to what extent each was guilty.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you are dumb enough to join a fake conspiracy to kidnap a government official, you deserve prison.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Of all the branches of government, I respect Congress the most. (And get angry at them the most)

They are a collection of our peoples' representatives.

When they flee to the basement because a crowd is rioting, I consider that 300 million people being forced to flee on some level.


The Jan. 6th rioters need to be made an example of.
I don't care what kind of prosecutorial discretion shenanigans need to occur to make that happen.

The congressional committee has my support even if they put a kangaroo or parrot on the witness stand.

Some day, I want to see historians bemoaning on the History Channel that jeez, they went a bit overboard punishing the Jan. 6th rioters.

It has been 21 months since I was howling for blood over this thing.

Starting to feel a bit of pause over it now.

How strong is this claim about Brady violations lately?

 

[Arakhor]

I have no idea, but given that it's Tucker Carlson, I'd say that the answer is "weak to none".

 

[Gori the Grey]

How strong is this claim about Brady violations lately?

Chansley hasn't filed for a mistrial, for whatever that may be worth.

I don't know how quickly people tend to do that when there's genuine exculpatory evidence.

But if he never does, then we know that the most interested party has concluded that this doesn't exonerate him for the crimes he was convicted of.

I rather think it doesn't. But I'll wait to see how it plays out.

 

[Birdjaguar]

not just one case, and several defense lawyer teams for proud boys have been trying to follow up on it. considering it involves perjury and evidence tampering and that the proud boys are all alleged to have been involved in the conspiracy with each other, one would expect they'd all have a right to see what exactly the fbi hasn't disclosed about them yet.

in functional courts, that is.

there are also allegations of fbi having a "confidential informant" of some kind that continued to be one after being named a witness for the defense, in essence spying on the defense team. those are only allegations at this point, but along with the evidence tampering above, this would also be grounds for a *lot* more information demanded and/or insta-mistrial.

there's a heck of a lot more smoke wrt fbi involvement with proud boys than the shaman's case. the defendants have a right to know exactly how much, and what information they have. "confidential" isn't valid now. if has even the slightest relevance to 1/6 involvement, an honest court will compel the fbi to provide it.

i don't have much faith in that happening.

Please pick a specific case and show me the details of how any of this has been applied and ruled by a judge. Without that, it is all just speculation. It is easy to cry foul in the press and on social media. What matters is what happened if and when a defense attorney raised the issues before a judge. Let's look an actual case with the Proud boys where that happened.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you are dumb enough to join a fake conspiracy to kidnap a government official, you deserve prison.

you are claiming the stupid should be jailed in posting that.

a fake conspiracy is not a crime, because it is fake. they had neither means nor will to carry it out, yet were charged for a criminal conspiracy where the only actual criminals were with "law enforcement".

matters is what happened if and when a defense attorney raised the issues before a judge

already happened. not a question of if or when

 

[Birdjaguar]

already happened. not a question of if or when

Please cite the case so we can check the details

 

[Lexicus]

you are claiming the stupid should be jailed in posting that.

Well, there's stupid and then there's so stupid you literally trip and fall into a domestic terrorism plot?

I have serious reservations about what the FBI seems to have done in the Whitmer kidnap plot case but those guys aren't exactly innocent victims either.

 

[Birdjaguar]

"Lock her up!"
Jan. 6 Rioter Sentenced To 3 Years in Prison
BY JAN WOLFE

WASHINGTON—A Pennsylvania woman who led a mob into Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office suite during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot received a three-year prison sentence Thursday, after the judge rejected defense arguments that she was young and naive.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson imposed the sentence on 24-year-old Riley Williams at the end of a three-hour hearing. “The defendant’s conduct that day was utterly reprehensible,” said Judge Jackson, noting that Ms. Williams encouraged other rioters, hurled insults at police officers, bragged on social media about her actions and tried to cover her tracks once the Federal Bureau of Investigation was looking for her.

The judge said she was un-convinced by the efforts of Ms. Williams’s lawyers to present her as a “little girl” because of her age and physical appearance, citing the vigor with which she led and encouraged other rioters that day. “She was not just a little waif blowing in the wind,” Judge Jackson said, adding that “to the extent her appearance suggests she’s small and weak, that all goes out the window when you hear her talk.”

Ms. Williams has been jailed since a jury convicted her in November. She briefly addressed the judge on Thursday before learning her sentence. She said she was remorseful and attributed her actions to an “internet addiction” to far-right rhetoric that she has since shaken. “I want to first apologize to the court, the police and the people working at the Capitol,” Ms. Williams said.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

It has been 21 months since I was howling for blood over this thing.

Starting to feel a bit of pause over it now.

How strong is this claim about Brady violations lately?

I have no idea where we are on this discussion,
but just to comment on this video,
I find it strange that anyone would say the police are "leading" this guy around the capitol. They look like they're just sort-of following him intensely so he doesn't trip and impale himself on anything; they probably thought he was on some drug.

"leading" someone, to me, would be them gesturing as if to say "look here's this, look here's that"

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have no idea where we are on this discussion,
but just to comment on this video,
I find it strange that anyone would say the police are "leading" this guy around the capitol. They look like they're just sort-of following him intensely so he doesn't trip and impale himself on anything; they probably thought he was on some drug.

"leading" someone, to me, would be them gesturing as if to say "look here's this, look here's that"

in other footage they apparently attempted to unlock doors for him, which is closer to "leading" than simply "following intensely".

 

[Senethro]

in other footage they apparently attempted to unlock doors for him, which is closer to "leading" than simply "following intensely".

Who do you think told them to do that?

 

[danjuno]

Shouldn't the takeaway from cops helping the Jan/6 rioters be that they are accessories to what happened, rather than making the people entering legal? Seems doubtful that officers on the ground would have unilaterally authority to let random people in.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Shouldn't the takeaway from cops helping the Jan/6 rioters be that they are accessories to what happened, rather than making the people entering legal? Seems doubtful that officers on the ground would have unilaterally authority to let random people in.

there's a case to be made for this approach. in general, cops are considered official themselves in some capacity, and people are certainly treated differently for actions against them vs others. if people are doing something they shouldn't, then unless cops are undercover or doing some kind of entrapment plan, there is a reasonable expectation others have that they'd instead be doing their jobs.

that said, imo while they need some protections, qualified immunity and the ability to commit crimes themselves have been way too over-broadly applied to police. yes, to the extent that officials acted in a way that encouraged more people entering the building/where that happened, they should in principle be penalized at least as much as the non-violent subset of trespassers, if not more so.

 

[JollyRoger]

you are claiming the stupid should be jailed in posting that.

a fake conspiracy is not a crime, because it is fake. they had neither means nor will to carry it out, yet were charged for a criminal conspiracy where the only actual criminals were with "law enforcement".

Conspiracy essentially means that a person has made an agreement with another person to commit a criminal act. There’s no requirement for the government to prove that the actual offense occurred just that there was an agreement for the offense to occur. Thus, the penalties for conspiracy often are the same as the penalties for the underlying offense.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Conspiracy essentially means that a person has made an agreement with another person to commit a criminal act. There’s no requirement for the government to prove that the actual offense occurred just that there was an agreement for the offense to occur. Thus, the penalties for conspiracy often are the same as the penalties for the underlying offense.

bit more to it than that. is has to be credible. like even if you and i were to agree to combine telekenetic powers and launch a patient 500km into the atmosphere, which will kill the person and is very definitely not legal...we would not successfully be convicted of conspiracy to murder. we would not be charged. perhaps, if others thought we believed it possible, we'd go to a mental help facility, but nobody would believe we would or could act out the conspiracy.

that's an extreme example. but what about the whitmer case? the plan was designed by the fbi. the plan *required* access to resources and expertise provided by the fbi. it's not even clear how willing some of the accused were to go through with it. but for the fbi's involvement, the people charged were only slightly more likely/capable of acting out a kidnapping plot on whitmer than we are of flinging her into the sky with mind powers. the "plan", insofar as it existed, was impossible w/o the fbi doing it.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yes - you have discovered prosecutorial discretion. I guess you can make the argument that the Pride Parade Boys should be hauled off by the guys in the white coats, but most of us see clearly that this is more properly a task for the men with the guns and badges.