Oath Keeper Leader - Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy

He's busy with important events impacting the entire country.

What stopped the one who was in office when the event happened? June 2020

Certainly that sort of thing would have been on his radar? He felt comfortable enough starting an investigation and appointing a special counsel researching things that completely imploded..

I would have been fine with some serious punishments for those who impacted Seattle that summer, but we had an AG overly focused on defense instead of offense....

 

Exactly how were they going to achieve that? The United States government consists of three branches and a military force unequaled by any foreign country. In order to overthrow our government you would first have to cripple the military to squash any military action to defend the government from being overthrowned. So how was this ragtag mob going to overthrow our government -- exactly?

 

Depending....

Suppose people like the Trump haters on this forum slip on to the jury. You think they'll follow the law and give Trump the benefit of a reasonable doubt? Heed the presumption of innocence?

 

Anyone that won't suck at trump's teat is biased. You don't need no stinking' link

 

Oh, no doubt about that! It was like the Chauvin trial in that regard. As long as the jury was able to find one thing that MIGHT imply intent they would use that to dismiss all the other evidence. Such is the nature of "social justice". It turns the idea that the accuser must prove his claims beyond a reasonable doubt into the accused that must prove his defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We are now toast on that issue across huge swaths of this nation but that's what you get when half the nation or more believes that if 50%+1 of them choose one way then everyone else is done being represented.

 

You guys keep asking that like it’s some kind of defense. It’s not.

 

That may not be what he said. But he sure don't mind the double standard now does he?

And knock it off with the "oppose" BS. Even if they were wrong, they thought they were defending our Government. Your POV is not the only POV out there. Don't try and foist it onto others as if yours is the only one.

What a load of BS. We both know damn well that if Trump or Trump's DOJ had tried to arrest them and charge them with seditious conspiracy Democrats would have HOWLED bloody murder. And probably tried another impeachment for abuse of power. And you would have hollered bloody murder also. Nancy et al was already saying he was sending Storm Troopers in just for Trump defending a federal courthouse. Not to mention the riots would have intensified even more. So don't give me this BS.

As for the current AG being too busy? BS also. 2 seditious conspiracy's....out of 30,000 people that were there that day. The rest of the charges that happened have been minor charges. Of which was still a vast minority of the total people there.

 

Possibly because the evidence against him was so air tight and damming.

 

Don't put your evident confusion and lack of logical consistency on others.... if they broke the law, they should be punished...

Your guy didn't want to try and there it endeth...

You guys really need to stop relying on Democrats to clean up your messes and failures every 4-8 years...

 

Sure it is a defense. It speaks to the matter of "intent".

 

There is no double standard, the man conspired to overturn an election and attacked Congress to do it. That’s illegal no matter who you are.

I don’t buy any of them we’re trying to protect anything but tRaitor tRump.

I’m expressing my point of view, as you’ve expressed yours. That’s not foisting, that’s debate. Have you ever wondered how this place got its name?

2 seditious conspiracy convictions … so far.

 

Where have I said that they shouldn't be punished? Oh right. No where. In fact you won't find a single post of mine defending their actions.

And yeah, he didn't try because of the aforementioned reasons. We both know that those reasons are true. And of course your guy won't do anything about it because they will never go after one of their own.

 

No where did I say that what they did was not illegal. And you will not find a single post of mine objecting to the charges that ANYONE in that whole mess has gotten and been convicted of. Because I don't.

And it doesn't matter what you "buy". Your POV is not the only one out there. A debate actually requires one to acknowledge that. There's more to a debate than simply expressing ones view. Perhaps you should be wondering what a debate is rather than asking me if I wondered how this place got its name?

 

You didn't... but you seem to keep believing others on the liberal side of life wouldn't want them investigated and charged if warranted...

Your second sentence proves you'll never recognize that your general position on topics like this are crappola... The fact that Garland kept the laughable Durham and the Hunter Biden tax investigations going also prove you wrong...

 

And yet not a single investigation into seditious conspiracy for the leader and followers of Chaz/Chop.

Oh please. Per whistle blowers Hunter is being investigated in name only. His "investigation" and his fathers part in all of it is on a backburner at best. They sure as hell haven't been going after him like they did Trump from day one. And he didn't dare do anything about Durham due to optics.

 

It does not. It speaks to the stupidity of being so committed to tRaitor tRump that they were willing to attack The United States Capitol to, illegally, keep him in office.

 

This (from you) is an emotional response, not a legal one. Try harder.

 

Note the phrase "if warranted"....

I bet he wishes he had shut Durham down now, due to the optics of people laughing at Durham... Reflects badly on the whole DOJ when one of its rogue members flames out so spectacularly....

 

Now you're trying to back away from an untenable position; I don't blame you.

 

No it's not, there is nothing emotional about it. Rhodes committed a crime, and was convicted; why would I be emotional about it. I don't know him, I believe those involved should be tried and punished if convicted. <-period

You haven't a viable argument so you've gone on the attack. I don't care.

 

Back away from what position exactly? What position do you think I hold? Can you find ANY post of mine that backs up that position that you believe I hold?

 

I believe you began supporting Rhodes and were against his conviction. I think you've seen the folly in that.

 

And its never warranted when its on your side. As you've shown with all the excuses you've thrown out there.

Pretty sure he'd rather have this one than one in which he stops an investigation.

 

You really don't understand the emotionalism behind your own words?

Don't confuse being challenged to that of being "attacked". The fact that you're being defensive is a sure sign that emotions rule your thinking.

 

Provide a single post of mine that does what you claim here. One. Single. One.