Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AntiFirstAmendment domestic terrorists trash Biden campaign office in Portland:

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DM206 View Post
    By any reasonable common-language definition, this was an insurrection.
    An "insurrection" with no plan (short-term or long) and no firearms? A mix of Antifa/MAGA/Q-Anon/Proud Boys/Oath Keepers and God knows what else all acting of their own accord? Not an insurrection. Not even by a "reasonable common-language" standard.

    https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...ction-legalese
    Insurrection also falls under the same suite of federal laws as sedition, and the two can be difficult to distinguish. But it is charged by federal prosecutors far more rarely—almost never in American history. It means, essentially, to incite, assist in or engage in a full-on rebellion against the government: a step beyond just conspiring against it, and requiring that significant violence be involved.
    In no stretch of even the most rabid leftist's imagination could you accurately portray the events of 6 Jan as a "full-on rebellion" against the US Government. No matter how you slice it, it wasn't an insurrection. Doesn't matter what Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon told you, it still wasn't an insurrection.

    Did the prosecutor formerly in charge of this investigation screw that up with his public comments? Yeah probably. That doesn't mean he was wrong.
    Bro, you need to book an appointment with a chiropractor like yesterday, all that reaching you're doing has undoubtedly wrenched your spine totally out of alignment. When the judge tells you publicly to put up or shut up, you're wrong. There is no other way to spin it. All credit to you, you're twisting yourself in knots to give it the old college try, but... no. It's not working.
    Be dangerous, and unpredictable... and make a lot of noise. - John Bush, Anthrax

    Comment


    • scotty_appleton814
      scotty_appleton814 commented
      Editing a comment
      John Sullivan has nothing to do with BLM and been kicked out of multiple BLM protests over his behavior. He has more ties to right wing groups.

    • DM206
      DM206 commented
      Editing a comment
      SOCAleo...I won't get dragged into a debate about what the FBI was or wasn't 5 years ago. Christopher Wray is by all accounts a stand up guy, and completely non partisan. So unless you've got something on him I haven't heard, I'll take him at his word.

    • SOCAleo
      SOCAleo commented
      Editing a comment
      Well Wray was complicit when it was discovered that several FBI agents lied to FISA judges. In IG Horowitz's report, the FBI agents lied in order to obtain a warrant to surveil the Trump administration over the Russia collusion hoax. The agents signed sworn affidavits attesting to the truth of the "Pee Dossier," knowing it was false or unverifiable (basically no probable cause). If you, or I did that, we'd be done bro. But Wray called it a "training issue" and refused to fire the agents.

      However, when Wray did not do anything about the agents, DOJ AG Barr stepped in and went after them and one just pled guilty.

      https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...sa-court.shtml

      Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence with me.

    • DM206
      DM206 commented
      Editing a comment
      You're taking the Horowitz report out of context I think. With the exception of the one lawyer who was later charged, the IG report did not find that the errors in the FISA applications were material or based on political bias. Horowitz actually found that the issues were not limited to the Trump investigation...there was a sloppiness across various FISA applications that again may not have been material but did not conform to standards. Which is why Wray called it a training issue.

      Regardless, even if you feel that he was being overly protective of the FBI and maybe downplaying the FISA problems, I don't really see how that relates to his assessment or honesty with regards to the Capitol or the threat of domestic extremism. His assessments on those two issues are consistent with findings from DHS and ODNI.

      You can boil his whole career down to your disagreement with him on one issue, but I still find him credible. And I find his statements on these issues to be supported by the available facts and evidence. And by the way, as someone who is distrustful of Trump, I was inclined to be distrustful of his pick to lead the FBI. But from everything I've seen, he was actually a good pick.

      Agree to disagree.
      Last edited by DM206; 04-05-2021, 03:34 PM.

  • Originally posted by DM206 View Post
    The charging documents show extensive planning, use of weapons, attacks on law enforcement, specific strategies to get through the crowd and into the building without drawing attention to their coordination, and the intent or belief that their actions would "stop the steal"..
    And yet the charging documents don't show any charges for sedition or treason. No matter how you slice it, it was a riot, not an insurrection. Period. End of story. Doesn't matter what Rachel Maddow told you.
    Be dangerous, and unpredictable... and make a lot of noise. - John Bush, Anthrax

    Comment


    • DM206
      DM206 commented
      Editing a comment
      "It's not me "calling it" trespassing, it is trespassing"

      So now it's a riot? I guess that's a kind of concession. A riot, in the Capitol, with the intent to obstruct or overthrow the government...but hey if that's what you want to call it I'm good with that. I concede (as I did previously) that there are no charges for sedition or insurrection, and there may not be any coming. Outside the courtroom though, I still think those are pretty good descriptors of the event. We'll agree to disagree.

  • Wow. Someone revived this thread????????? And it wasn't me?

    Comment


    • This absolutely meets the definition of insurrection which is:

      noun
      a violent uprising against an authority or government.

      It was violent. It was an uprising. It was an insurrection.

      Just because it was one of the worst, and most incompetent, insurrections in all of world history doesn't mean it wasn't an insurrection.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by iconoclaste View Post
        This absolutely meets the definition of insurrection which is:

        noun
        a violent uprising against an authority or government.

        It was violent. It was an uprising. It was an insurrection.

        Just because it was one of the worst, and most incompetent, insurrections in all of world history doesn't mean it wasn't an insurrection.
        Then that means anytime two or more individuals resist or obstruct police, it’s an insurrection...

        Comment


        • DM206
          DM206 commented
          Editing a comment
          That would rely on an overly broad interpretation of "uprising". Attempting to obstruct or evade or even assault a government official is not in itself an "uprising" by any reasonable definition.

          Conspiring to use violence to overtake a government building, to prevent the lawful certification of an election, for the purpose of maintaining or installing your preferred government, while indicating in private communication that you are committing an "insurrection" is all significantly different from "resisting police".

          Unless you are obtusely and perhaps politically resistant to viewing a particular event from a lens unfavorable to your predetermined position.

      • Originally posted by CCCSD View Post

        Then that means anytime two or more individuals resist or obstruct police, it’s an insurrection...
        Here's the Merriam definition of insurrection

        : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

        So, by these definitions yes. I mean clearly words also have connotative associations with them as well (some words are more loaded than others), so a definition is just as good as how you interpret that word through your filter, but yes, by definition an attempted revolt against the government by a group (no matter how small) would be considered insurrection. The degree to which the insurrection attempt is well planned and ultimately successful has nothing to do with whether it can be defined as an insurrection in the first place.

        But it would seem to me that thousands of people violently storming our capitol in the midst of our certification of an election would clearly meet the definition of insurrection.

        Comment


        • From Merriam

          UPRISING implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion. quickly put down the uprising

          Seems like exactly what happened

          Comment


          • So, for everyone who is actively arguing that the events at the Capitol were an "insurrection," I still wonder what your viewpoint is of the events in places like Portland and Seattle where large crowds have attacked and even occupied government buildings.

            Let's address a specific example...the so-called "CHOP/CHAZ zone" where rioters occupied a large section of Capitol Hill in Seattle, prevented government entry (including emergency services) into the area, set up their own ad hoc government, and burnt and occupied a police station. Was this an insurrection as well? If so, why are people not being prosecuted as such?
            "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
            -Friedrich Nietzsche

            Comment


            • DM206
              DM206 commented
              Editing a comment
              No, these examples are not insurrection or sedition. The use of violence to force a change in government policy or send a political message is terrorism. Words have meanings, and when we use them interchangeably or indiscriminately they lose all meaning. These examples may have common elements but they also have clear differences, just as simple theft is not the same as embezzlement or securities fraud.

              Look at the objective of each act. What would happen if the perpetrators got what they wanted? In Portland or Seattle you would have changes to public safety policy and possibly eliminating the police. In the Capitol incident you would invalidate a democratic election and install an unelected leader. And, possibly, you would have the public execution or murder or elected officials.

              They are not the same thing. And it's not just about the severity of the outcome. Oklahoma City and 9/11 are also not examples of sedition. We have different categories of crime and even different kinds of foreign attacks (ie not all attacks by a foreign entity are acts of war...some are simple crimes or terrorism).
              Last edited by DM206; 04-06-2021, 12:23 AM.

            • DM206
              DM206 commented
              Editing a comment
              Amending my answer to add that *some* individuals in the Seattle or Portland examples may fit under the definition of seditious conspiracy, to the extent that their motivation may have been to prevent the execution of federal law or take possession of federal property. Like the Capitol incident, these were heterogeneous groups with people acting from different motivations. There were certainly anarchists who just wanted to watch it all burn.

              Another example to consider is the Malheur occupation several years back. They used force to take over a federal facility. Sedition maybe, but not an insurrection (nothing they did would overthrow the government).

          • No, these examples are not insurrection or sedition. The use of violence to force a change in government policy or send a political message is terrorism. Words have meanings, and when we use them interchangeably or indiscriminately they lose all meaning. These examples may have common elements but they also have clear differences, just as simple theft is not the same as embezzlement or securities fraud.

            Look at the objective of each act. What would happen if the perpetrators got what they wanted? In Portland or Seattle you would have changes to public safety policy and possibly eliminating the police. In the Capitol incident you would invalidate a democratic election and install an unelected leader. And, possibly, you would have the public execution or murder or elected officials.
            I'm rather concerned to see someone describe the potential outcome of CHOP/CHAZ in Seattle as "changes to public safety policy and possibly eliminating the police." The organizers and participants wanted MUCH more than "changes to public safety." Permit me to link their demands (bear in mind, this is the published demands from the organizers of CHOP/CHAZ, not come media-tweaked story). https://medium.com/@seattleblmanon3/...e-ddaee51d3e47

            Now, if you look through that list, you can see that there's much more than just a "change to public safety" being demanded. Permit me to hit some of the highlights...

            "The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition."
            "We demand reparations for victims of police brutality, in a form to be determined."
            "We demand a retrial of all People in Color currently serving a prison sentence for violent crime, by a jury of their peers in their community."
            "We demand decriminalization of the acts of protest, and amnesty for protestors generally, but specifically those involved in what has been termed “The George Floyd Rebellion” against the terrorist cell that previously occupied this area known as the Seattle Police Department."
            "We demand that the City of Seattle and the State Government release any prisoner currently serving time for a marijuana-related offense and expunge the related conviction."
            "We demand the City of Seattle and State Government release any prisoner currently serving time just for resisting arrest if there are no other related charges, and that those convictions should also be expunged."
            "We demand the abolition of imprisonment, generally speaking, but especially the abolition of both youth prisons and privately-owned, for-profit prisons."
            "We demand in replacement of the current criminal justice system the creation of restorative/transformative accountability programs as a replacement for imprisonment."
            "We demand a decentralized election process to give the citizens of Seattle a greater ability to select candidates for public office such that we are not forced to choose at the poll between equally undesirable options."


            This isn't even all of their "demands."

            Let's look at the scope of the ones I've listed. They want to abolish the police and the court systems (ie, elimination of the Executive and Judicial branches, at least in part). They want to create their own laws, without the input of the Legislature (so they're essentially neutering the Legislative branch). They want to make past legal criminal prosecutions and convictions null and void...in fact, they just want to get rid of incarceration all together. And they want to alter how people are elected. And they were made these demands after seizing an area (including a police department) of Seattle BY FORCE and holding it, establishing their own autonomous "government," and preventing the legal government from enforcing the laws within its borders.

            Now, let me be clear, I absolutely deplore what happened at the Capitol and believe that those who participated should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, we clearly saw what could just as easily be defined as seditious or insurrectionist acts be the Left in the months leading up to the election that were not prosecuted. That lack of prosecution and the media bias in how these acts were reported brings into question whether there is preference given according to political leanings...and that brings into question the legitimacy of the entire system.
            Last edited by Bing_Oh; 04-06-2021, 10:37 PM. Reason: Put Portland instead of Seattle...oops.
            "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
            -Friedrich Nietzsche

            Comment


            • Bing_Oh
              Bing_Oh commented
              Editing a comment
              Equal criminal conduct requires equal prosecution. As I said, failure to do so brings into question the legitimacy of the entire system.

              That you're claiming that what I documented above constitutes demands for "changes in government policy" but what happened at the Capitol doesn't is minimization. BOTH were, arguably, attempts to restrict or overthrown a legitimate standing government. Arguably, the incident in Portland was MORE organized and certainly longer-lived than what happened at the Capitol (for "insurrectionists," those at the Capitol had both the means and opportunity to hold the building if they had wished, but that didn't happen, bringing into question whether it was organized or not, whereas CHAZ/CHOP was clearly so as evidenced by their behavior).

              I'm not making a "false equivalence" here (and it has nothing to do with OK City or 9/11...both of which were, in fact, terrorist attacks without the intent to replace a government...so you can stop strawmanning those). You're claiming that the incidents in Seattle and the incidents at the Capitol were different, so I challenge you to explain HOW. I've shown, using their own demands as evidence, that CHAZ/CHOP were attempting to replace a legitimate government by violence. If you're claiming that's not insurrection/sedition but what happened at the Capitol was, then (to use my old math teacher's favorite phrase) "show your work."

            • DM206
              DM206 commented
              Editing a comment
              I can't comprehend how you are twisting the demands you cited into "replacing a legitimate government by violence". Even if they literally got every single thing they wanted, the government would not be replaced at any level. No elected representative would be deposed nor any unelected person installed. Those same demands, made without violence or obstruction of government, would be viewed as just another liberal protest in a liberal city.

              By contrast, the rioters on 1/6 wanted to hang the sitting vice president, called for the Speaker of the House to be brought out to them (I'm sure they just wanted to chat), and their ultimate demand was to stop the legislature from certifying the newly elected president so that their chosen leader could be installed instead. If you can't see the difference it's because you don't want to.

              If people in CHAZ held the East Precinct hostage to demand that the mayor step down, you'd have a point. And if that was one of the demands they made using violence, I'll concede that point. I'm not aware of that being the case.

              Regardless, I'm done with the discussion. Only so many times you can go back and forth on these things. Internet debates rarely change minds...it just really bothers me to see the propaganda taking root, especially in a community like this one that was so directly targeted and harmed by the attack. It's disappointing.

            • Levithane
              Levithane commented
              Editing a comment
              DM206 Just to be objective in Portland those who were rioting, and throwing explosive devices at the court house did call for the mayors removal (even before he won re-election). The same people also consequently lit the inside of the building of his apartment complex on fire.

              No one on here is going to dispute the people who went to the capital on the 6th should receive a form of punishment. You won't see me stick up for them, most of them came off as crazy people to me. The point is that its apparent that there seems to be a lack of wanting to effectively deal with extremism on the opposite side of the political spectrum. My personal opinion is that that's due to the lack of mental fortitude various officials have to deal with the manipulative language games those people play "we're attacking a courthouse for the sake of racial justice along with the people in it".

            • Bing_Oh
              Bing_Oh commented
              Editing a comment
              I can't comprehend how you are twisting the demands you cited into "replacing a legitimate government by violence". Even if they literally got every single thing they wanted, the government would not be replaced at any level. No elected representative would be deposed nor any unelected person installed. Those same demands, made without violence or obstruction of government, would be viewed as just another liberal protest in a liberal city.
              Abolishing the police and the courts, re-trying convicted criminals under a newly-formed system consisting of a "jury of their peers in the community," eliminating duly-passed laws, and altering the electoral system (their words, mind you, not mine) isn't replacing a government?! Seriously?

              ...it just really bothers me to see the propaganda taking root, especially in a community like this one that was so directly targeted and harmed by the attack. It's disappointing.
              Yea, I am too. Especially considering that I've never defended the actions of the rioters at the Capitol (I did, in fact, state that I supported their prosecution to the fullest extent of the law). Yet, there are so many apologists for those who participated in the riots preceding the election that were supported by other political factions and did as much if not more harm to LE in the process.

          • Originally posted by Bing_Oh View Post

            Now, let me be clear, I absolutely deplore what happened at the Capitol and believe that those who participated should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, we clearly saw what could just as easily be defined as seditious or insurrectionist acts be the Left in the months leading up to the election that were not prosecuted. That lack of prosecution and the media bias in how these acts were reported brings into question whether there is preference given according to political leanings...and that brings into question the legitimacy of the entire system.
            When comparing the Jan 6th disturbance with the highly orchestrated and sustained violent nationwide armed assaults perpetrated by BLM/Pantifa which, despite what ole pudding brain Quid Pro Joe tells us, is MORE than just "an idea", it's not even remotely close. On one hand you have acts of violence that have resulted in multiple deaths and billions of dollars of damage. On the other you have an "insurrection" in which nary a shot was fired by any of the supposed "insurrectionists", and the only death that was clearly a homicide was that of a diminutive an unarmed woman (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-four-capitol/). Brian Sicknick's cause of death is still under wraps, nobody has been charged with his death. The dearth of information is information. If he was murdered, somebody would be charged with it. Clearly he wasn't. If they can't prove it by three months after the fact, they'll never prove it. Despite all the left's hand wringing and sudden faux concern for cops and supposed the sanctity of "the Peoples' house", the "insurrection" narrative has withered and died in the face of facts and the law. There are a few dyed-in-the-wool hard core leftists who are feverishly trying to keep it on life support, but alas 'tis dead as a door nail. You'd have as much luck performing CPR on a mannequin.



            Be dangerous, and unpredictable... and make a lot of noise. - John Bush, Anthrax

            Comment


            • Originally posted by iconoclaste View Post
              This video is purported to show the death of Officer Sicknick. I don't kmow if that's true. I've seen conflicting reports. Some are saying this was DC Metro police and he survived.

              Any circular logic implying the capitol siege was peaceful has been thoroughly debunked by subsequent video evidence in the past 24 hours. This was a violent and deadly attempt to overthrow the certification of our electoral process.

              https://twitter.com/RepRiggleman/sta...618035203?s=20
              Much like the rest of what the media told us about January 6th, the story that Officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by Trump supporters was an outright bald-faced lie. Thus far, the only fatality from Jan 6th directly attributable to homicidal violence is the death of Ashli Babbitt, a 5'2", 110 lbs unarmed woman who was not behaving in a threatening manner in any way and who was, in fact, surrounded by multiple heavily armed cops the moment she was shot without warning.

              https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/0...lt-of-assault/

              Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes a day after he confronted rioters at the Jan. 6 insurrection, the District’s chief medical examiner has ruled.

              The ruling, released Monday, likely will make it difficult for prosecutors to pursue homicide charges in the officer’s death. Two men are accused of assaulting Sicknick by spraying a powerful chemical irritant at him during the siege.

              In an interview with The Washington Post, Francisco J. Diaz, the medical examiner, said the autopsy found no evidence the 42-year-old officer suffered an allergic reaction to chemical irritants, which Diaz said would have caused Sicknick’s throat to quickly seize. Diaz also said there was no evidence of internal or external injuries.



              Be dangerous, and unpredictable... and make a lot of noise. - John Bush, Anthrax

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Georgetime View Post

                Much like the rest of what the media told us about January 6th, the story that Officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by Trump supporters was an outright bald-faced lie. Thus far, the only fatality from Jan 6th directly attributable to homicidal violence is the death of Ashli Babbitt, a 5'2", 110 lbs unarmed woman who was not behaving in a threatening manner in any way and who was, in fact, surrounded by multiple heavily armed cops the moment she was shot without warning.

                https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/0...lt-of-assault/




                Play stupid games win stupid prizes. I'm quite sure that anyone that has multiple firearms trained on them expects to win the ultimate prize if their behavior continues. She chose poorly.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by retired137 View Post
                  Play stupid games win stupid prizes. I'm quite sure that anyone that has multiple firearms trained on them expects to win the ultimate prize if their behavior continues. She chose poorly.
                  Do you apply this to all officer-involved shootings? Daunte Wright? Adam Toledo?
                  "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
                  -Friedrich Nietzsche

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by retired137 View Post

                    Play stupid games win stupid prizes. I'm quite sure that anyone that has multiple firearms trained on them expects to win the ultimate prize if their behavior continues. She chose poorly.
                    We don't shoot people for "playing stupid games" or "choosing poorly", we shoot them to prevent death or serious bodily injury, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. If you think that a 5'2 110 lbs unarmed woman who is ringed by cops deserves to be shot for merely climbing through a window while numerous officers who are in a position to intervene do nothing, then you are a gutless coward. You are most definitely not a man.
                    Be dangerous, and unpredictable... and make a lot of noise. - John Bush, Anthrax

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Georgetime View Post

                      We don't shoot people for "playing stupid games" or "choosing poorly", we shoot them to prevent death or serious bodily injury, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. If you think that a 5'2 110 lbs unarmed woman who is ringed by cops deserves to be shot for merely climbing through a window while numerous officers who are in a position to intervene do nothing, then you are a gutless coward. You are most definitely not a man.
                      Depends on who you ask. I was zapping people before your stool became solid. I'm quite the members on my squad have a different viewpoint., for some reason everyone matured quickly or died. I'm still here.
                      Last edited by retired137; 04-20-2021, 12:48 PM.

                      Comment

                      MR300x250 Tablet

                      Collapse

                      What's Going On

                      Collapse

                      There are currently 4784 users online. 260 members and 4524 guests.

                      Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                      Welcome Ad

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X