• Trump Team Didn't Question Insurrection

    From Mike Powell@1:2320/105 to All on Monday, January 08, 2024 14:40:09
    During the Colorado proceedings, Trump's legal team did not question whether or not an insurrection took place.

    I have been reading the full text of the Colorado SC's decision. One interesting tidbit is that Trump's team didn't question whether or not an insurrection occurred. Rather, they only questioned whether or not "inciting" an insurrection is the same as "engaging" in one.

    To determine whether or not an insurrection took place (which, again, Trump's team did NOT question), the court cited the US Congressional January 6th report in determining he violated his Oath of Office in inciting the crowd that breached the US Capitol.

    The Jan 6 findings do not only cite his Jan 6 speech but several other statements (often tweets and retweets) he made between election day and that point which told his supporters such things as that if a Democrat were in his shoes the Democrats would "fight to the death." Trump also had knowledge that prior public gatherings regarding the election outcome (in November and December, 2020) had lead to violence. Despite this knowledge, he continued to invite his Twitter followers to come to DC on 1/6 "at least twelve times."

    Something else VERY interesting, as it has been discussed here before in relation to the elected Elite (i,e, that they don't serve us) is another argument that the Trump team made:

    "Indeed, even (Trump's team) do not deny that the Presidency is an office. Instead, they assert that it is not an office 'under the United States.' Their claim is that the President and elected members of Congress are the government of the United States, and cannot, therefore, be serving 'under the United States.'

    "We cannot accept this interpretation. A conclusion that the
    Presidency is something other than an office 'under' the United States is fundamentally at odds with the idea that all government officials, including the President, serve 'we the people.' A more plausible reading of the
    phrase 'under the United States' is that the drafters meant simply to distinguish those holding federal office from those held 'under any State.'"

    In addition to the Congressional Jan 6 findings, they also cited another US District Court of DC case where it was concluded that Trump did indeed "invite his supporters" to DC, he rCLplausibly [involved] words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment," and that his speech was rCLa positive instigation of a mischievous act." Although that case did not come to an outcome because the plaintiff failed to state a claim, these conclusions were determined by the DC federal court and were used by the Colorado SC in forming their opinion.

    I still think the weakest part of their case is whether or not there is enough prior court precedence to claim an insurrection took place and, if not, do they have jurisdiction to determine such. However, it is very interesting that the Trump team *DID NOT* question that one took place, just whether or not Trump "engaged" in it.

    #
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)
  • From IB Joe@1:342/200 to Mike Powell on Monday, January 08, 2024 14:56:35
    On 08 Jan 2024, Mike Powell said the following...

    During the Colorado proceedings, Trump's legal team did not question whether or not an insurrection took place.

    I have been reading the full text of the Colorado SC's decision. One interesting tidbit is that Trump's team didn't question whether or not an insurrection occurred. Rather, they only questioned whether or not "inciting" an insurrection is the same as "engaging" in one.


    Trumps team also didn't mention about the moon landing either.

    No-ONE to date has been charged with Insurrection... So why talk about something that didn't happen.

    NO-ONE to date... That means ANYONE... So... If trump aided in an insurrection who was found guilty of it?? Who?? names??

    It's like Trump being found guilty of assisting someone in robbing a bank and not bank was robbed...

    This has been said to you soooooooooooooo many times in the past... Trump's defense team would be talking about CONSTITUTIONALITY of Colorado making that choice... CONSTITUTIONALITY ONLY!!! The Supreme Court will only look at the constitution and how it relates to Colorado and Trump's name of the ballot.

    They won't bring up insurrection because no one at all ever was charged with insurrection. For Trump to assist in it.

    Now, constitutionally, Trump's team will talk about Due Process and the US standard that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of LAW... Trump hasn't... or ANYONE else for that matter, has been charged with insurrection. They'll discus things like Presidential candidates & Presidents are not included in Amendment 14... They'll talk about things like that. They won't bring up the moon landing or other irrelevant things like insurrection when not 1 person has been charged with or found guilty of said charge.

    Unlike you the Supreme Court will not make their decisions based on their Spidie Senses tingling... There maybe on descending vote... and that's the new Justice that can't define what a woman is...

    IB Joe, Pronouns (FJB/LGB)
    AKA Joe Schweier
    SysOp of 4A 6F 65 73 42 42 53
    -=JoesBBS.com=-

    ... Old musicians never die. They just decompose!

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/200)
  • From IB Joe@1:342/200 to Mike Powell on Monday, January 08, 2024 15:06:34
    On 08 Jan 2024, Mike Powell said the following...


    I still think the weakest part of their case is whether or not there is enough prior court precedence to claim an insurrection took place and,
    if not, do they have jurisdiction to determine such. However, it is
    very interesting that the Trump team *DID NOT* question that one took place, just whether or not Trump "engaged" in it.

    https://youtu.be/g2EEYeNK9AE?si=GCJdmRBecN5cCcfr

    Ran Paul explains why they are using the word insurrection when there wasn't one... I'd spend the 4 minutes to listen to him.... He was there...

    IB Joe, Pronouns (FJB/LGB)
    AKA Joe Schweier
    SysOp of 4A 6F 65 73 42 42 53
    -=JoesBBS.com=-

    ... Isn’t it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice"?

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/200)
  • From Mike Powell@1:2320/105 to IB JOE on Tuesday, January 09, 2024 12:12:00
    During the Colorado proceedings, Trump's legal team did not question whether or not an insurrection took place.

    I have been reading the full text of the Colorado SC's decision. One interesting tidbit is that Trump's team didn't question whether or not an
    insurrection occurred. Rather, they only questioned whether or not "inciting" an insurrection is the same as "engaging" in one.


    Trumps team also didn't mention about the moon landing either.

    No-ONE to date has been charged with Insurrection... So why talk about somethi
    that didn't happen.

    Trump wasn't being accused of landing on the moon. The trial centered on whether or not he was involved in insurrection. His team did NOT question whether or not there was one, just whether or not he *engaged* in it by *inciting* it -- i.e. his level of involvement in it.

    People have been charged with, found guilty of, and sentenced for Seditious Conspiracy. You NEED to look the definition of that up. It is INDEED an Insurrection charge.

    It MEANS that the person in question was found guilty of "conspiring to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the US, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority of, or to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of US law."

    In other words, they were found guilty of *plotting an insurrection*. The SCOTUS, in past, has determined that an insurrection does NOT have to be successful in order to be considered.

    Also important in this case was the admission of the Congressional January
    6th Report, and also the findings of the Federal District Court of DC.
    Note here, that is a Federal Court. Both confirm that a the execution of
    US law was opposed by force on January 6th, which meets the definition of insurrection.

    NO-ONE to date... That means ANYONE... So... If trump aided in an insurrection
    ho was found guilty of it?? Who?? names??

    One that has been all over the news is the former national chairman of the Proud Boys, Henry Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years for Seditious Conspiracy and other charges, for "conspiring to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power."

    At least 5 other Proud Boys, and several members of Oath Keepers, have
    either been found guilty of, plead guilty to, or are on trial for Seditious Conspiracy for conspiring to oppose, by force, the lawful execution of
    federal law -- i.e. to commit insurrection.

    It's like Trump being found guilty of assisting someone in robbing a bank and
    ot bank was robbed...

    The 14th Ammendment includes people who assisted. Plus, people who assist
    in robbing banks do get charged. Depending on their involvement, some get charged with being an accessory while others may be charged with actual bank robbery. Same with murder.

    This has been said to you soooooooooooooo many times in the past... Trump's de
    nse team would be talking about CONSTITUTIONALITY of Colorado making that choi
    ... CONSTITUTIONALITY ONLY!!! The Supreme Court will only look at the constit
    ion and how it relates to Colorado and Trump's name of the ballot.

    And it is constitutional. Colorado's legislature has put into place Election Codes (i.e. laws), per the delegation to states by the US Constitution, that state (among other things) that a candidate must be US Constitutionally eligible to hold the office in question, and that their SoS must follow
    said laws.

    In order to appear on the Colorado ballot, a candidate MUST SIGN and have notorized, a document that clearly states that they are eligble, by *all
    laws*, to hold the office. This means that:

    -- They must be of age
    -- They must meet the citizenship requirements
    -- They must not have already exceed a term limit
    -- They must be eligible by the 14th Amendment
    -- They must not have been stripped of eligibility via impeachment or
    other legal action.

    The Colorado delegates challenged based in part that this official document, which Trump signed and submitted, was not truthful and that the SoS could therefore not act on it.

    They won't bring up insurrection because no one at all ever was charged with i
    urrection. For Trump to assist in it.

    Insurrection was indeed brought up during the trial, and Trump's defense
    team DID NOT QUESTION THIS. They only questioned whether or not "inciting" counts as "engaging." YOU NEED to read the court documents.

    Now, constitutionally, Trump's team will talk about Due Process and the US sta
    ard that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of LAW...
    rump hasn't... or ANYONE else for that matter, has been charged with insurrect
    n. They'll discus things like Presidential candidates & Presidents are not in
    uded in Amendment 14... They'll talk about things like that. They won't bring
    p the moon landing or other irrelevant things like insurrection when not 1 per
    n has been charged with or found guilty of said charge.

    Trump's team only questioned DUE PROCESS during the trial in regards to the speed that it had to be held, and due to the length. The court documents
    cover this well. Trials involving elections must be held with deadlines in mind, and Trump's team was given the opportunity to extend the trial, but
    did not take it AND did not even use the full amount of time given to them.

    The court used the Congressional January 6th findings, and the findings of
    a Federal District court in DC, to determine that an insurrection did take place. AGAIN, TRUMP'S TEAM DID NOT QUESTION whether or not one took place, although they DID try to have the Congressional findings dismissed as
    hearsay.

    The court found that these documents were admissable.

    The 14th, per congressional debate at the time, was clearly meant to cover
    all offices under the United States. Congresspersons are specifically mentioned in the amendment because the US Constitution does not refer to
    them as "offices." On the other hand, it refers to the "Office" of the President of the United States, in multiple places, as an "office."

    Your the only one bringing up the moon landing or spiders.

    Unlike you the Supreme Court will not make their decisions based on their Spid
    Senses tingling... There maybe on descending vote... and that's the new Justi
    that can't define what a woman is...

    If they make it based on Constitutionality Only, it is not so cut and dried. They will need to determine whether or not "inciting" is "engaging," which is the Trump team argument.

    Trump does go on trial in March. Based on that outcome, this could all be moot.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Limit Congress to 2 terms: one in office, one in jail!
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)
  • From IB Joe@1:342/200 to Mike Powell on Tuesday, January 09, 2024 11:03:33
    On 09 Jan 2024, Mike Powell said the following...


    Trump wasn't being accused of landing on the moon. The trial centered on whether or not he was involved in insurrection. His team did NOT
    question whether or not there was one, just whether or not he *engaged*
    in it by *inciting* it -- i.e. his level of involvement in it.


    Okay... Help me understand what did Trump say or do... He was on tape saying go to the capital and let your voices be heard.... 1st Amendment stuff.

    No where did he say get gas lit and storm the capital...

    No where did he say I'm not leaving, he left January 20th on his own accord.

    Please support your claim...

    BTW, evidence is surfacing that Nancy Pelosi had more involvement than Trump.

    Other than your allegation show me the evidence...


    People have been charged with, found guilty of, and sentenced for Seditious Conspiracy. You NEED to look the definition of that up. It
    is INDEED an Insurrection charge.


    I have looked it up... and it is narrow in meaning....

    Please name one person who has been charged with and convicted of this....

    Ray Epp, someone who told people to enter the Capital was not charged with Insurrection...

    Please name one


    It MEANS that the person in question was found guilty of "conspiring to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the US, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority of, or to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of US law."


    No one on J6 has been charged with that... No one... and I have asked you to name one...


    In other words, they were found guilty of *plotting an insurrection*.
    The SCOTUS, in past, has determined that an insurrection does NOT have
    to be successful in order to be considered.


    That's funny how you said... FOUND GUILTY... because in America that has a specific meaning... Indicted, Charged, went to court... found guilty... appealed, if you can, and then and only then can someone say "Guilty Of"

    Please give me 1 name of some one who was charged with this business you talk about.


    Also important in this case was the admission of the Congressional
    January 6th Report, and also the findings of the Federal District Court
    of DC. Note here, that is a Federal Court. Both confirm that a the execution of US law was opposed by force on January 6th, which meets the definition of insurrection.


    There was no trial... Reports mean nothing... There were several reports out on the FBI and Hillary Clinton and the Deep State conspiring against Trump with the collusion... Buy your definition a lot of these actors should be in prison....

    One that has been all over the news is the former national chairman of
    the Proud Boys, Henry Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years for Seditious Conspiracy and other charges, for "conspiring to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power."

    At least 5 other Proud Boys, and several members of Oath Keepers, have either been found guilty of, plead guilty to, or are on trial for Seditious Conspiracy for conspiring to oppose, by force, the lawful execution of federal law -- i.e. to commit insurrection.


    Did Trump conspire with them...

    Listen.... There has been nothing you've said that will convince me you are right... It's you and not the facts. What we have on J6 was a protest gone wrong. Some people over stepped what they should have been doing... I'm not talking about the guys mulling around that day... If there were bad actors they should go to jail... after a court case...

    Even though it is 2023 and the Democrats with Joe Biden are trying to destroy the constitution... We still need to have the standard of innocent until proven guilty in a court of Law....

    IB Joe, Pronouns (FJB/LGB)
    AKA Joe Schweier
    SysOp of 4A 6F 65 73 42 42 53
    -=JoesBBS.com=-

    ... Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/200)
  • From IB Joe@1:342/200 to Mike Powell on Tuesday, January 09, 2024 11:04:46
    On 09 Jan 2024, Mike Powell said the following...


    -- They must be of age
    -- They must meet the citizenship requirements
    -- They must not have already exceed a term limit
    -- They must be eligible by the 14th Amendment
    -- They must not have been stripped of eligibility via impeachment or other legal action.


    Trump has never been found guilty of...

    IB Joe, Pronouns (FJB/LGB)
    AKA Joe Schweier
    SysOp of 4A 6F 65 73 42 42 53
    -=JoesBBS.com=-

    ... A book misplaced is a book lost

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/200)
  • From Ron L.@1:120/616 to Mike Powell on Wednesday, January 10, 2024 08:18:07
    Mike Powell wrote to IB JOE <=-

    People have been charged with, found guilty of, and sentenced for Seditious Conspiracy.

    And there are some serious questions as to the validity of those charges and the mock trials. Some of this is going through the appeals process now and some going directly to the SCOTUS.

    BTW: Ray Epps got only a suspended sentence. Can you say "fed"?

    How many other gov't people were involved in this? If there was an insurrection, and we now know that upwards of 200 FBI operatives were fomenting it, why haven't these FBI operatives been changed with treason?

    "Treason: The betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts."

    So either there was an insurrection, in which case we should start seeing FBI bodies piling up (the pentalty for treason is death).
    Or there was no insurrection and it was all staged.

    With the talk about now charging people who were simply in Washington D.C., but never in a gov't building, with "insurrection" it's sounding more and more like a staged event meant to harass and jail innocents who don't want to tow the uniparty line.


    ... Those with the weapons make the rules.
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)
  • From Mike Powell@1:2320/105 to RON L. on Wednesday, January 10, 2024 10:01:00
    People have been charged with, found guilty of, and sentenced for Seditious Conspiracy.

    And there are some serious questions as to the validity of those charges and the mock trials. Some of this is going through the appeals process now and some going directly to the SCOTUS.

    Some of them could be questionable. Others not as much.

    BTW: Ray Epps got only a suspended sentence. Can you say "fed"?

    Yes. ;) The fact that he is all over videos but it not charged says a lot.

    How many other gov't people were involved in this? If there was an insurrection, and we now know that upwards of 200 FBI operatives were fomentin
    it, why haven't these FBI operatives been changed with treason?

    Where did you see that there were 200 of them?

    "Treason: The betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts."

    So either there was an insurrection, in which case we should start seeing FBI bodies piling up (the pentalty for treason is death).
    Or there was no insurrection and it was all staged.

    If they were working for the government, like the guy who infiltrated the
    group that was suppposedly after your governor, I am guessing they don't
    get sentenced.

    With the talk about now charging people who were simply in Washington D.C., bu
    never in a gov't building, with "insurrection" it's sounding more and more lik
    a staged event meant to harass and jail innocents who don't want to tow the uniparty line.

    There were certainly a lot of litteral peaceful protesters there, but there were an awful lot of people who were less than peaceful. There are a lot
    of situations that have been shown that day where I could be convinced that
    a paid actor (i.e. one of your LARPers) was involved, but I cannot see
    anyone being paid enough to stand at the door of the house where two
    federal officers are pointing guns at them while they yell at the officers
    and at a Texas representative, all while some crazy lady is behind then shouting and pushing, and some other guy nearby is yelling through a
    megaphone about how the two officers can't shoot us all.

    LARPers would piss their pants before they'd do that.


    * SLMR 2.1a * The bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)
  • From Ron L.@1:120/616 to Mike Powell on Thursday, January 11, 2024 08:06:20
    Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-

    And there are some serious questions as to the validity of those charges and the mock trials. Some of this is going through the appeals process now and some going directly to the SCOTUS.

    Some of them could be questionable. Others not as much.

    I think they are going to mainly focus on "does the punishment fit the crime?".
    Recently a Navy? person was caught giving military secrets to the Chinese and got a lesser sentence than most Jan. 6 people.

    BTW: Ray Epps got only a suspended sentence. Can you say "fed"?

    Yes. ;) The fact that he is all over videos but it not charged says a lot.

    Oh, he got charged and they just had the trial. Like I said, he got 1 year, suspended sentence. Oh, "a good talking to".

    Where did you see that there were 200 of them?

    It was a recent Tucker interview. The estimate (on the low side) was 200 FBI operatives (which could mean agents and/or informants).

    If they were working for the government, like the guy who infiltrated
    the group that was suppposedly after your governor, I am guessing they don't get sentenced.

    I think the only reason that Epps got sentenced was that we have so much video of him "fomenting insurrection".

    There were certainly a lot of litteral peaceful protesters there, but there were an awful lot of people who were less than peaceful.

    Without a doubt. But how many of those less-than-peaceful people were feds. And, knowing mob mentality, how many went along because someone else (i.e. theh fed) did it? I think there's a bit of an argument for entrapment.

    There
    are a lot of situations that have been shown that day where I could be convinced that a paid actor (i.e. one of your LARPers) was involved,
    but I cannot see anyone being paid enough to stand at the door of the house where two federal officers are pointing guns at them while they
    yell at the officers and at a Texas representative, all while some
    crazy lady is behind then shouting and pushing, and some other guy
    nearby is yelling through a megaphone about how the two officers can't shoot us all.

    LARPers would piss their pants before they'd do that.

    But soooo much of that was staged. And now were back again to asking what was real and what was staged and not having enough information to really know.


    ... Every silver lining has a cloud around it.
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)
  • From Mike Powell@1:2320/105 to RON L. on Thursday, January 11, 2024 11:33:00
    And there are some serious questions as to the validity of those charges an
    the mock trials. Some of this is going through the appeals process now and
    some going directly to the SCOTUS.

    Some of them could be questionable. Others not as much.

    I think they are going to mainly focus on "does the punishment fit the crime?"
    Recently a Navy? person was caught giving military secrets to the Chinese and
    got a lesser sentence than most Jan. 6 people.

    What was he charged with and found guilty of? I know who are you are
    talking about. Maybe the Jan 6 people need to use his lawyer instead of whoever they've been using.

    BTW: Ray Epps got only a suspended sentence. Can you say "fed"?

    Yes. ;) The fact that he is all over videos but it not charged says a lot.

    Oh, he got charged and they just had the trial. Like I said, he got 1 year, suspended sentence. Oh, "a good talking to".

    Which still says "fed."

    Where did you see that there were 200 of them?

    It was a recent Tucker interview. The estimate (on the low side) was 200 FBI operatives (which could mean agents and/or informants).

    And who/what was Tucker's source? Tucker saying something, without
    anything to back it up, holds about as much weight as Madcow doing same --
    they are both members of the media who are going to say whatever they
    believe their listeners want to hear.

    If they were working for the government, like the guy who infiltrated the group that was suppposedly after your governor, I am guessing they don't get sentenced.

    I think the only reason that Epps got sentenced was that we have so much video
    of him "fomenting insurrection".

    Suspended sentence at that.

    There were certainly a lot of litteral peaceful protesters there, but there were an awful lot of people who were less than peaceful.

    Without a doubt. But how many of those less-than-peaceful people were feds. And, knowing mob mentality, how many went along because someone else (i.e. the
    fed) did it? I think there's a bit of an argument for entrapment.

    There is, but there is also this:

    "From only the attendees who went through security checkpoints at the Ellipse (approx. 28,000), the Secret Service confiscated hundreds of weapons and prohibited items.

    "About 25,000 additional attendees purposely remained outside the Secret Service perimeter at the Ellipse and avoided the magnetometers. They formed into a large crowd that extended to the National Mall and Washington Monument. Those attendees were not subject to any security screening."

    The crowd outside of the perimeter, who were not subject to security
    screening, were the ones that started towards the Capitol before Trump's
    speech was completed.

    There
    are a lot of situations that have been shown that day where I could be convinced that a paid actor (i.e. one of your LARPers) was involved,
    but I cannot see anyone being paid enough to stand at the door of the house where two federal officers are pointing guns at them while they yell at the officers and at a Texas representative, all while some
    crazy lady is behind then shouting and pushing, and some other guy nearby is yelling through a megaphone about how the two officers can't shoot us all.

    LARPers would piss their pants before they'd do that.

    But soooo much of that was staged. And now were back again to asking what was
    real and what was staged and not having enough information to really know.

    While possibly true, we also know for fact that at least one law
    enforcement official on scene was not "in the know" and shot someone dead.
    So, there again, I would be hard-pressed to believe a LARPer would be
    willing to stand their ground and continue to attempt to enter the chambers while assuming that the two armed officers pointing guns at their faces
    were "in on it."

    You could not pay me any amount of money to do that and be faking it.
    The only way I'd do it is if I really believed in what I was there protesting about -- in other words, if I was "for real" and not "playing along."


    * SLMR 2.1a * Bureaucrats cut red tape--lengthwise.
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)
  • From Ron L.@1:120/616 to Mike Powell on Friday, January 12, 2024 08:07:29
    Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-

    What was he charged with and found guilty of? I know who are you are talking about. Maybe the Jan 6 people need to use his lawyer instead
    of whoever they've been using.

    I think "espionage".

    What lawyer wouldn't have made a difference since the Elitists in charge purposely suppressed evidence. Which is another part of the appeals for the Jan. 6 political prisoners.

    And who/what was Tucker's source? Tucker saying something, without anything to back it up, holds about as much weight as Madcow doing same
    -- they are both members of the media who are going to say whatever
    they believe their listeners want to hear.

    I'd have to re-find the talk. It wasn't Tucker saying it. It was his guest who was more in the know.

    But I think, at this point, we know that:
    1. There were feds, or their operatives, in the crowd.
    2. The FBI has already been caught manufacturing crimes (like the Gov Whitmer "kidnapping").
    3. Many higher ups lied about things and suppressed evidence (ex: not releasing most of the surveillance video).
    4. Offerings of extra help (like Trump's offering of the military) were strangely declined.

    So I think saying that the Jan. 6 "insurrection" was at staged is a pretty far cry from "conspiracy theory". The only real question now is "who was involved and who did illegal things?"

    "From only the attendees who went through security checkpoints at the Ellipse (approx. 28,000), the Secret Service confiscated hundreds of weapons and prohibited items.

    But the question still remains, "confiscated from feds or non-feds".

    I don't think we'll ever get an answer to that.

    "About 25,000 additional attendees purposely remained outside the
    Secret Service perimeter at the Ellipse and avoided the magnetometers. They formed into a large crowd that extended to the National Mall and Washington Monument. Those attendees were not subject to any security screening."

    And they are about to be charged as well.

    The crowd outside of the perimeter, who were not subject to security screening, were the ones that started towards the Capitol before
    Trump's speech was completed.

    That smells of Narrative.

    While possibly true, we also know for fact that at least one law enforcement official on scene was not "in the know" and shot someone
    dead. So, there again, I would be hard-pressed to believe a LARPer
    would be willing to stand their ground and continue to attempt to enter the chambers while assuming that the two armed officers pointing guns
    at their faces were "in on it."

    But I think you are still working from the false Narrative that was pushed.

    The newly released security video doesn't show officers pointing guns. They show officers sheparding calm people around.

    The "gun pointing" didn't happen until time later when the "crowd" (again, the question of feds or not) for unruly and violent.

    Back to our problem of getting all the unadulterated facts.

    Right now, I can't fully trust any of the information that I have about who did what when.


    ... I'm not afraid of flying, I'm afraid of crashing.
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)
  • From Mike Powell@1:2320/105 to RON L. on Friday, January 12, 2024 11:50:00
    What was he charged with and found guilty of? I know who are you are talking about. Maybe the Jan 6 people need to use his lawyer instead
    of whoever they've been using.

    I think "espionage".

    What lawyer wouldn't have made a difference since the Elitists in charge purposely suppressed evidence. Which is another part of the appeals for the Jan. 6 political prisoners.

    But they all are not appealing. If they are all innocent, why not appeal?

    Per PBS, as of Jan 5 this year, here are some rough numbers:

    -- 1230 have been charged of federal crimes including misdemeanors
    (ex: trespassing) and felonies (ex: assulting a police officer, seditious conspiracy)
    -- 730 (over half) have plead-out guilty
    -- 170 have gone to trial, been tried and convicted of at least one charge
    -- 2 were acquitted of all charges
    -- of the approx. 900 convicted, 750 have been sentenced
    -- of the 750 sentenced, roughly 2/3rds got jail time
    -- in 82% of cases that resulted in conviction, Judges gave lighter
    sentences than what prosecutors requested.

    So over half of those charged (730/1230), and an overwhelming majority of
    those convicted (730/900), were convicted after *pleading-out guilty*. Why would so many plead-out guilty if they know they are innocent?

    So those roughly 730 people are not appealing their charges and apparently plead guilty because they knew they'd not get away with whatever they did.

    What I cannot find is how many are actually appealing their cases. The
    only results I could get when searching about Jan 6 appeals was that the
    DOJ is appealing the seditious conspiracy sentences of 4 Proud Boys on the grounds that they are not long enough.

    4. Offerings of extra help (like Trump's offering of the military) were strangely declined.

    This one here is a sticking point. I think it goes back to he suggested
    there be more military and police but didn't tell them why (i.e. his plans
    to suggest they march on the Capitol). Considering the tips the FBI
    received, which were referenced in the Congressional Jan 6 Reports, it was stupid to ignore his requests.

    Also, Trump has thrown out a large number of National Guard that he says he could have requested. Something like 20,000. However, the President only
    has authority over something closer to 2,000 troops (i.e. the ones from DC).
    He would have had to have contacted other states to get the number he
    claims he could have called in, but contact with other states was never
    made.

    That came out during the Colorado trial and may have also been in the Congressional Reports.

    So I think saying that the Jan. 6 "insurrection" was at staged is a pretty far
    cry from "conspiracy theory". The only real question now is "who was involved
    and who did illegal things?"

    I would agree if Trump had not persisted in encouraging his supporters to attend a rally on January 6th -- the day the electoral votes were to be certified, had not suggested that if a Democrat was in his shoes that
    Democrats would "fight to the death," (Twitter, 12/26/2020), and had not suggested that his supporters present at the rally needed to "fight like
    hell" and march to the Capitol.

    As is, I have to apply the same logic I applied back when the Democrats and lefties in this echo were trying to justify and defend the acts of the
    Summer 2020 rioters... paraphrased "if you do dumb things, you can expect
    that dumb things will happen and that you should be held accountable for
    them."

    "From only the attendees who went through security checkpoints at the Ellipse (approx. 28,000), the Secret Service confiscated hundreds of weapons and prohibited items.

    But the question still remains, "confiscated from feds or non-feds".

    I don't think we'll ever get an answer to that.

    If I was a smart Fed who was in on a plan to make a bad thing happen, I would not have gone through the Secret Service checkpoint. My guess is that
    those "hundreds of weapons and prohibited items" were taken from people
    who didn't think through what they were doing... going through a checkpoint.

    A smart Fed who was in on the bad plan would have stayed outside the
    perimeter.

    While possibly true, we also know for fact that at least one law enforcement official on scene was not "in the know" and shot someone dead. So, there again, I would be hard-pressed to believe a LARPer
    would be willing to stand their ground and continue to attempt to enter the chambers while assuming that the two armed officers pointing guns
    at their faces were "in on it."

    But I think you are still working from the false Narrative that was pushed.

    The newly released security video doesn't show officers pointing guns. They show officers sheparding calm people around.

    The "gun pointing" didn't happen until time later when the "crowd" (again, the
    question of feds or not) for unruly and violent.

    The newly released video was from a rioter who was filming their "trip" to
    the doors of the chamber. There is actually more than one... one is taken
    by someone right at the door and shows two feds with guns drawn and
    pointed, while another was taken by someone behind the first where you can clearly see the image of one fed with a gun drawn on the first guy's phone.

    Again, you honestly think that a LARPer, or now a FED, would risk that the
    guys on the other side of the door were "in on it" and would not shoot him?
    You seem now to be trippling-down on that.

    BTW, the first guy was convicted thanks to his phone video. Don't
    know about the second. The first guy, Damon Beckley, was found guilty of obstructing the certification and civil disorder. He is currently free
    pending appeal, provided he does not use the internet, and is from
    Kentucky.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Maybe I should cut the power before I-- ZZZAAPPOWWWWWW
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)
  • From Ron L.@1:120/616 to Mike Powell on Saturday, January 13, 2024 10:43:27
    Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-

    But they all are not appealing. If they are all innocent, why not
    appeal?

    Because all it takes is 1 appeal to succeed. Then that can be easily (and cheaply) applied to all others.

    Per PBS, as of Jan 5 this year, here are some rough numbers:

    PBS is not a reliable source.

    This one here is a sticking point. I think it goes back to he
    suggested there be more military and police but didn't tell them why
    (i.e. his plans to suggest they march on the Capitol).

    We seem to be straying into Narrative territory. The police knew why and Trump didn't have to explain it to them.

    President only has authority over something closer to 2,000 troops
    (i.e. the ones from DC). He would have had to have contacted other
    states to get the number he claims he could have called in, but contact with other states was never made.

    This smells of excuses after the fact.

    The fact remains: Trump offered help which was turned down.

    My take is that the Elitists wanted a situation where the police were "outnumbered" for their staged operation.

    I would agree if Trump had not persisted in encouraging his supporters
    to attend a rally on January 6th -- the day the electoral votes were to
    be certified, had not suggested that if a Democrat was in his shoes
    that Democrats would "fight to the death," (Twitter, 12/26/2020), and
    had not suggested that his supporters present at the rally needed to "fight like hell" and march to the Capitol.

    And we are getting deeper into the Narrative it seems.

    As is, I have to apply the same logic I applied back when the Democrats and lefties in this echo were trying to justify and defend the acts of
    the Summer 2020 rioters... paraphrased "if you do dumb things, you can expect that dumb things will happen and that you should be held accountable for them."

    And when were the 2020 rioters held accountable? Still waiting for that.

    The ones that were caught were almost immediately released by Soros-funded DAs.

    A smart Fed who was in on the bad plan would have stayed outside the perimeter.

    Probably. But then we have the non-fed "informants" that were also there at the behest of the feds.

    Again, you honestly think that a LARPer, or now a FED, would risk that
    the guys on the other side of the door were "in on it" and would not
    shoot him? You seem now to be trippling-down on that.

    Yup. Because the fed would know how to handle it and the LARPer would think it's part of the game.


    ... Every exit is an entrance into something else.
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)