Supreme Court Gets Jan 6th Defendant Out of Jail.

[SkyFox76]

Where did you get this wrong idea from?

Please, provide supporting links.

It doesn’t, and they aren’t.

Pretty sure this is the same poster that doesn't understand how plea bargains work.

 

[Uriah]

Thread title is inaccurate and misleading.

Seefried and his fellow MAGAts still have a ways to go on the obstruction of an official proceeding charge, and even if that charge is overturned, the other charges stand.

I copied the thread title word for word.

 

[Uriah]

sicken to read posts that support treason here.
they ought to be banned

It's a Newsweek article.

 

[Athanasius68]

I missed your answer.

That was the answer.

Would all those people have showed up on J6?

Dont know what this means.

And I would hope you can understand that a single person (or even 3-4) showing up somewhere with a gun is not even a close comparison to an entire mob armed with all types of weapons.

The issue here though is the law.

Trump isn't being charged crimes of violence.

 

[Athanasius68]

Where did you get this wrong idea from?

Please, provide supporting links.

Trump is facing four charges in DC.
Two of them are conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding AND Obstructing an official proceeding.
These two are under constitutional scrutiny by SCOTUS.

Two is half of four.

It doesn’t, and they aren’t.

 

[SkyFox76]

That was the answer.



Dont know what this means.


The issue here though is the law.

Trump isn't being charged crimes of violence.

You mean deflection.

 

[Athanasius68]

You mean deflection.

Deflecting from what?

Can't hold Trump to a standard that you not willing to hold to anyone else.

 

[SkyFox76]

Deflecting from what?

Can't hold Trump to a standard that you not willing to hold to anyone else.

I would hold anyone responsible for bringing a large armed crowd using false pretenses. And especially if they just sat on their ass for several hours not stepping in and then adding insult to injury by praising that mob and telling them they loved them

He's got a new video over on TS where he says he backs the blue. So wtf was he backing them when they were being beaten by his angry mob?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Trump is facing four charges in DC.
Two of them are conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding AND Obstructing an official proceeding.
These two are under constitutional scrutiny by SCOTUS.

Two is half of four.

You very much misunderstand.

The elements of Traitor Trump’s obstruction charges are not at all the same as those that his brain dead cultists are being charged under.

Seefried and other MAGAts may slide on the obstruction charge.

Traitor Trump won’t.

Feel free to read/compare;

Loading…

www.justice.gov

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I copied the thread title word for word.

I know that.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Pretty sure this is the same poster that doesn't understand how plea bargains work.

There is much that poster doesn’t understand.

 

[DCCougar]

no connection between the rioters that day and Trump has been established.

We'll see about that, won't we?

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Yeah, but since half of Triumps DC charges concern this obstruction charge, it means those charges against him are thrown out...

Not at all. The charges against Trump are, for the most part, entirely dissimilar to the charges against Fisher, and are not likely to be dropped, even if Fisher' appeal is successful.

No fish case situation here - the Sarbanes-Oxley charges against Trump are much more in line with the intent of the legislation.

 

[Athanasius68]

You very much misunderstand.

The elements of Traitor Trump’s obstruction charges are not at all the same as those that his brain dead cultists are being charged under.

Seefried and other MAGAts may slide on the obstruction charge.

Traitor Trump won’t.

Feel free to read/compare;

Loading…

www.justice.gov

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

Sure-- The rioters supposedly obstructed Congress by rioting.

Trump obstructed by making a bad constitutional argument.

 

[Athanasius68]

Not at all. The charges against Trump are, for the most part, entirely dissimilar to the charges against Fisher, and are not likely to be dropped, even if Fisher' appeal is successful.

No fish case situation here - the Sarbanes-Oxley charges against Trump are much more in line with the intent of the legislation.

The appeal is whether the obstruction statute is constitutional

 

[Athanasius68]

We'll see about that, won't we?

It's been three years.

Hundreds of prosecutions.

The biggest DOJ case of all time.

If it existed, it would have long ago been found.

He'll, if it existed, the DEFENDANTS would have long ago produced the evidence for it.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

The appeal is whether the obstruction statute is constitutional

No, it isn't.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Sure-- The rioters supposedly obstructed Congress by rioting.

Trump obstructed by making a bad constitutional argument.

Wrong on both counts, but at least it appears now that you understand that the obstruction charges Traitor Trump faces do not mirror those that his brain dead cultists face.

 

[Athanasius68]

I would hold anyone responsible for bringing a large armed crowd using false pretenses.

I am not talking about your personal views.
I am talking about the law.

And especially if they just sat on their ass for several hours not stepping in and then adding insult to injury by praising that mob and telling them they loved them.

That's just politics.

He's got a new video over on TS where he says he backs the blue. So wtf was he backing them when they were being beaten by his angry mob?

More politics.

 

[Athanasius68]

Wrong on both counts, but at least it appears now that you understand that the obstruction charges Traitor Trump faces do not mirror those that his brain dead cultists face.

I didn't say they did.

I said Trumps charges are 'further away' from the charges the rioters faced.