• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Gets Jan 6th Defendant Out of Jail.

Well he's not exactly "free", he is released pending the case.

But the seditionists better hope this doesn't backfire, if the SCOTUS ends up agreeing with the courts, their sentences could be set at consecutive instead of concurrent. We'll have to see though.
 
Uriah said:
Just the beginning. More to come when Trump is re-elected, if not sooner.

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
When Trump is elected...is that a prediction?
 
Uriah said:
Just the beginning. More to come when Trump is re-elected, if not sooner.

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...

WTF does this guy have to do w/ Trump?

This guy was waving a confederate flag.

So, obviously he was a Democrat, The Real Racists™.

Why is Trump going to help Demonrats get out of prison?

Did you just throw Trump's name in there to make Trump look like a piece of shit who helps racist Democrats?
 
1711560330696.gif

Waiting to watch those who hate releasing “criminals” at any time cheer this and those who champion bail reform and non-punative criminal justice cry foul.


This is the right call. While the legitimacy of the very charge is being reviewed and when the person isn't a flight or safety risk it's entirely reasonable to let the guy out on essentially bail.
 
Uriah said:
Just the beginning. More to come when Trump is re-elected, if not sooner.

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
If the Supremes rule in his favor, this will affect hundreds of similar cases...and will be a BIG black eye for the corrupt DOJ.
 
The party of sentencing reform isn't going to like this...
 
Simon W. Moon said:
WTF does this guy have to do w/ Trump?

This guy was waving a confederate flag.

So, obviously he was a Democrat, The Real Racists™.

Why is Trump going to help Demonrats get out of prison?

Did you just throw Trump's name in there to make Trump look like a piece of shit who helps racist Democrats?
Click to expand...
That's a great question.
 
Ugh. Okay, so the issue is de facto vs. de jure (by law). De facto, did anyone who entered the Capitol building obstruct an official proceeding? Absolutely. Here's where it gets tricky with de jure: Did he actually physically obstruct the proceeding? Well, if you are going by the strictest sense of the law (And an argument that a skilled or at least competent lawyer is able to make), then only the people who were by the chamber door were guilty of obstruction. Further, those that entered the chamber and actually sat in there (an even smaller fraction) essentially sent the House out of session. These were probably guilty of -tampering- with an official proceeding.

The picture shown does not appear to be the chamber, at least no the bottom of it, where the action is.

One other thing: As per FBI jargon (the phrase that shows up in press releases and court documents), the people who entered the Capitol were not insurrectionists (at least not by that name). Instead, they participated in the "January 6th siege on the Capitol building". Just so you guys know. Whether you prefer to call them insurrectionists/sedition, etc. - this is the legal phrase you will come across when the FBI announces an arrest in the "January 6th siege on the Capitol building."
 
poweRob said:
He speaks his opinions as facts. Then when pressed, admits it's just opinion.
Click to expand...
Here's a fact: Trump's electoral votes is about the same as Hillary's. Trump's way to the Presidency opened up because of a ballot measure on abortion. Makes me wonder if we'll see the same thing again.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
WTF does this guy have to do w/ Trump?

This guy was waving a confederate flag.

So, obviously he was a Democrat, The Real Racists™.

Why is Trump going to help Demonrats get out of prison?

Did you just throw Trump's name in there to make Trump look like a piece of shit who helps racist Democrats?
Click to expand...
"I may be wrong"
 
Mycroft said:
If the Supremes rule in his favor, this will affect hundreds of similar cases...and will be a BIG black eye for the corrupt DOJ.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would affect the hundreds of similar cases.
The common thread very well might be over charging in relation to those people's action on that day.
Some have been saying these cases had a bad case of overcharging for quite some time now.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes, it would affect the hundreds of similar cases.
The common thread very well might be over charging in relation to those people's action on that day.
Some have been saying these cases had a bad case of overcharging for quite some time now.
Click to expand...
Overcharging, perhaps, but most every single one of those J6 criminals had charges dropped or lowered when they chose a plea deal rather than a trial?

Also, I can't name a single solitary one of these criminals that got the MAXIMUM sentencing, or even came close to it, allowed for their crimes?

Frankly, I think if there was to be any truth to corruption of the DoJ, it would be what is happening now with what appears to be some attempted legislation from the Benches in order to mollycoddle these J6 criminals.
 
PoliSciPulse said:
Ugh. Okay, so the issue is de facto vs. de jure (by law). De facto, did anyone who entered the Capitol building obstruct an official proceeding? Absolutely. Here's where it gets tricky with de jure: Did he actually physically obstruct the proceeding? Well, if you are going by the strictest sense of the law (And an argument that a skilled or at least competent lawyer is able to make), then only the people who were by the chamber door were guilty of obstruction. Further, those that entered the chamber and actually sat in there (an even smaller fraction) essentially sent the House out of session. These were probably guilty of -tampering- with an official proceeding.

The picture shown does not appear to be the chamber, at least no the bottom of it, where the action is.

One other thing: As per FBI jargon (the phrase that shows up in press releases and court documents), the people who entered the Capitol were not insurrectionists (at least not by that name). Instead, they participated in the "January 6th siege on the Capitol building". Just so you guys know. Whether you prefer to call them insurrectionists/sedition, etc. - this is the legal phrase you will come across when the FBI announces an arrest in the "January 6th siege on the Capitol building."
Click to expand...
Fact is that the court sees some issues with how the DOJ and FBI and this administration went after anyone even close to the capital. Justice by democrats is like justice by the Nazi's. You are in our way, we will get you all.
 
PoliSciPulse said:
Ugh. Okay, so the issue is de facto vs. de jure (by law). De facto, did anyone who entered the Capitol building obstruct an official proceeding? Absolutely. Here's where it gets tricky with de jure: Did he actually physically obstruct the proceeding? Well, if you are going by the strictest sense of the law (And an argument that a skilled or at least competent lawyer is able to make), then only the people who were by the chamber door were guilty of obstruction. Further, those that entered the chamber and actually sat in there (an even smaller fraction) essentially sent the House out of session. These were probably guilty of -tampering- with an official proceeding.

The picture shown does not appear to be the chamber, at least no the bottom of it, where the action is.

One other thing: As per FBI jargon (the phrase that shows up in press releases and court documents), the people who entered the Capitol were not insurrectionists (at least not by that name). Instead, they participated in the "January 6th siege on the Capitol building". Just so you guys know. Whether you prefer to call them insurrectionists/sedition, etc. - this is the legal phrase you will come across when the FBI announces an arrest in the "January 6th siege on the Capitol building."
Click to expand...

A siege versus an insurrection.
 
Donatello said:
Surprised you're still here. Do you believe the States have enough safeguards in place to assure the next Presidential election votes will be counted fairly?
Click to expand...
Why are you surprised I'm still here?

Yes, I'm positive there won't be a midnight blackout again.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
WTF does this guy have to do w/ Trump?
Click to expand...
The guy was there on Jan 6th because trump said "Be there. Will be wild".

Simon W. Moon said:
This guy was waving a confederate flag.
Click to expand...
LOL. No. He was sentenced to three years in prison for a felony conviction of obstruction of an official proceeding, as well as 12 months and six months for misdemeanor charges. Or, as you describe it "waving a confederate flag".

Simon W. Moon said:
Did you just throw Trump's name in there to make Trump look like a piece of shit...
Click to expand...
Trump looks like a piece of shit anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom