If Trump pardons all the rioters... how would the Senate react when deciding whether or not to convict ?

af773atmsp wrote:

What are the chances any of these rioters escape and never get caught? I assume they would have to be smart by wearing a mask covering their entire face, not having a phone on them, getting out of Washington that same day by car, bus, or train, not saying anything about being there on social media, and remaining undercover as much as possible during the riot so there aren't too many photos or videos showing yourself.

Also is it possible for Trump to pardon all of them, and if yes what are the chances he does that?

There may be some that get by. But I would be certain that SOME of their friends or accomplices that took part in this would be arrested.

This would likely discourage them from staging something as big in the future.

af773atmsp wrote:

What are the chances any of these rioters escape and never get caught? I assume they would have to be smart by wearing a mask covering their entire face, not having a phone on them, getting out of Washington that same day by car, bus, or train, not saying anything about being there on social media, and remaining undercover as much as possible during the riot so there aren't too many photos or videos showing yourself.

Also is it possible for Trump to pardon all of them, and if yes what are the chances he does that?

I'd say very high. The ones getting caught are probably just the foot soldiers aka the cannon fodder.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

What are the chances any of these rioters escape and never get caught? I assume they would have to be smart by wearing a mask covering their entire face, not having a phone on them, getting out of Washington that same day by car, bus, or train, not saying anything about being there on social media, and remaining undercover as much as possible during the riot so there aren't too many photos or videos showing yourself.

Also is it possible for Trump to pardon all of them, and if yes what are the chances he does that?

I'd say very high. The ones getting caught are probably just the foot soldiers aka the cannon fodder.

With that in mind, I wonder if the FBI is holding off charges on the masterminds until January 20, 1pm. Trump can't pardon people who haven't been identified, can he?

af773atmsp wrote:

Also is it possible for Trump to pardon all of them, and if yes what are the chances he does that?

In order to receive a pardon you need to admit to committing a crime and have remorse, something they probably don’t have

This is interesting: Capt Emily Rainey, 30, is assigned to the 4th Psychological Operations Group at Fort Bragg* was attending the riots.
She claims that she was just a peaceful protester but she is being investigated ("review") by the army for participation in the events at capitol hill.

The army is investigating a psychological operations officer who led a group of people from North Carolina to the rally in Washington that led up to the deadly riot
in the US Capitol by supporters of Donald Trump.

Commanders at Fort Bragg are reviewing Capt Emily Rainey’s involvement in last week’s events in the nation’s capital, but she said she acted within
military regulations and that no one in her group broke the law.
“I was a private citizen and doing everything right and within my rights,” Rainey told the Associated Press on Sunday.

This isn't the first she had problems with the law though:

Police in Southern Pines, a community about 30 miles (48km) west of Fort Bragg, charged her with injury to personal property over the incident. The police told WRAL-TV that they let her off with warnings twice before after she tore down the tape closing off the playground.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... pitol-riot

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Psychological_Operations_Group
More posturing over the robocalls (mentioned before by me) that went out from Republican Attorneys General Association/Rule of Law Defense Fund, robocalls
which encouraged Trumpists to march on the Capitol Hill:

Obviously the leaders/officials of those organisations are deny all kind of knowledge or authorization about the calls.

Leaders from the Republican Attorneys General Association face mounting criticism after sending out a robocall that urged supporters of Donald Trump to join the 6 January march on the US Capitol that resulted in a deadly insurrection.

The association’s chair, Georgia attorney general Chris Carr, is now among several officials who claim to have “had no knowledge or involvement in this decision”, distancing themselves from or outright condemning the call

However the Democratic are not impressed with the Republicans answers:

The Democratic Attorneys General Association has rejected the Republican defense, releasing a statement highlighting Republican leaders who they say incited the violence by taking up the president’s long-debunked claims of election fraud.

“The Republican [attorneys general] who blindly take their support have no legal or moral ground on which to stand here,” co-chairs Maura Healey of Massachusetts and Aaron Ford of Nevada wrote.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ll-capitol

My phone has Google Maps installed, I suspect most phones do.

That shows me where I am to within 10-20M.

I have always assumed that there is some way to access that information.

If I was up to no good, I would leave my phone at home..

SYRAVGEEK wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

Also is it possible for Trump to pardon all of them, and if yes what are the chances he does that?

In order to receive a pardon you need to admit to committing a crime and have remorse, something they probably don’t have

I don't believe that is accurate? Otherwise why is there even a discussion of Trump "pardoning himself" which would need to be for things he is not yet accused or convicted of not does anyone think he is going to list a series of things he "did" (admit to doing).

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

SYRAVGEEK wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

Also is it possible for Trump to pardon all of them, and if yes what are the chances he does that?

In order to receive a pardon you need to admit to committing a crime and have remorse, something they probably don’t have

I don't believe that is accurate? Otherwise why is there even a discussion of Trump "pardoning himself" which would need to be for things he is not yet accused or convicted of not does anyone think he is going to list a series of things he "did" (admit to doing).

Tugg

Well it stems from the Ford-Nixon pardon, which was unprecedented at the time, and unchallenged. It was unchallenged because it was obvious that Ford would have pardoned Nixon again following any conviction, so it's important to keep the context. I think it's safe to say that no such pardons, including a self-pardon, would be unchallenged in this situation.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

This is interesting: Capt Emily Rainey, 30, is assigned to the 4th Psychological Operations Group at Fort Bragg* was attending the riots.
She claims that she was just a peaceful protester but she is being investigated ("review") by the army for participation in the events at capitol hill.

The army is investigating a psychological operations officer who led a group of people from North Carolina to the rally in Washington that led up to the deadly riot
in the US Capitol by supporters of Donald Trump.

Commanders at Fort Bragg are reviewing Capt Emily Rainey’s involvement in last week’s events in the nation’s capital, but she said she acted within
military regulations and that no one in her group broke the law.
“I was a private citizen and doing everything right and within my rights,” Rainey told the Associated Press on Sunday.

This isn't the first she had problems with the law though:

Police in Southern Pines, a community about 30 miles (48km) west of Fort Bragg, charged her with injury to personal property over the incident. The police told WRAL-TV that they let her off with warnings twice before after she tore down the tape closing off the playground.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... pitol-riot

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Psychological_Operations_Group
More posturing over the robocalls (mentioned before by me) that went out from Republican Attorneys General Association/Rule of Law Defense Fund, robocalls
which encouraged Trumpists to march on the Capitol Hill:

Obviously the leaders/officials of those organisations are deny all kind of knowledge or authorization about the calls.

Leaders from the Republican Attorneys General Association face mounting criticism after sending out a robocall that urged supporters of Donald Trump to join the 6 January march on the US Capitol that resulted in a deadly insurrection.

The association’s chair, Georgia attorney general Chris Carr, is now among several officials who claim to have “had no knowledge or involvement in this decision”, distancing themselves from or outright condemning the call

However the Democratic are not impressed with the Republicans answers:

The Democratic Attorneys General Association has rejected the Republican defense, releasing a statement highlighting Republican leaders who they say incited the violence by taking up the president’s long-debunked claims of election fraud.

“The Republican [attorneys general] who blindly take their support have no legal or moral ground on which to stand here,” co-chairs Maura Healey of Massachusetts and Aaron Ford of Nevada wrote.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ll-capitol

If Capt Reiney was not in the group that stormed the Capitol and was just in the crowd that was expressing their first amendment rights what is the problem?

FBI warns 'armed protests' being planned at all 50 state capitols and in Washington DC

CNN) - The FBI has received information indicating "armed protests" are being planned at all 50 state capitols and the US Capitol in Washington, DC in the days leading up to President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration on January 20, according to an internal bulletin obtained by CNN.

www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/fbi-bul ... index.html

More video of the peaceful protesters:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-amer ... 56tca.html

If there is another round of protests, video will capture it clearly and everything that happens will be available as evidence.

OA260 wrote:

FBI warns 'armed protests' being planned at all 50 state capitols and in Washington DC

CNN) - The FBI has received information indicating "armed protests" are being planned at all 50 state capitols and the US Capitol in Washington, DC in the days leading up to President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration on January 20, according to an internal bulletin obtained by CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/ ... index.html

Yikes, Albany is gonna be locked down. Hopefully the same for Lansing and Harrisburg.

Stratosphere

You are of course assuming that she is telling the truth.

If these armed insurrections are attempted then the Police/National Guard will need to crush them.

Hopefully this CNN report will encourage these people not to turn up.

bennett123 wrote:

Stratosphere

You are of course assuming that she is telling the truth.

If these armed insurrections are attempted then the Police/National Guard will need to crush them.

Hopefully this CNN report will encourage these people not to turn up.

Look you can't sanction the destruction of the cities this summer from the BLM crowd and call it peaceful protesting and call this out. Now the ones who crossed the line and actually stormed the capitol they deserve what they get. I am sure this woman was part of the group that stormed the building or she would not have been shot. Like I said protesting =ok...You start destroying shit you get what's coming to you I don't care what your passion or reason is.

Angela Merkel criticises Twitter over Trump ban

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”.

Twitter suspended Mr Trump’s account last week in the aftermath of the riots at the Capitol Building, citing “repeated and severe” violations of its civic integrity policies. Facebook has taken similar action.

www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/an ... 1?mode=amp

OA260 wrote:

Angela Merkel criticises Twitter over Trump ban

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”.

Twitter suspended Mr Trump’s account last week in the aftermath of the riots at the Capitol Building, citing “repeated and severe” violations of its civic integrity policies. Facebook has taken similar action.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/eu ... 1?mode=amp

I would read her comments much more closely.
“The fundamental right [of freedom of expression] can be interfered with, but along the lines of the law and within the framework defined by the lawmakers. Not according to the decision of the management of social media platforms,” was a comment made by one of the German government spokespersons. In other words, it shouldn't be on the companies, this framework should already be in the law.

https://www.politico.eu/article/angela- ... trump-ban/

OA260 wrote:

FBI warns 'armed protests' being planned at all 50 state capitols and in Washington DC

CNN) - The FBI has received information indicating "armed protests" are being planned at all 50 state capitols and the US Capitol in Washington, DC in the days leading up to President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration on January 20, according to an internal bulletin obtained by CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/ ... index.html

Why wait until the 20th? Trump is headed to the Rio Grande Valley and specifically Alamo, TX (east of McAllen, TX) tomorrow 1/12/21 to see how the wall's coming along. Let's see what chaos comes out of this.

Twitter is having a field day with Trump's planned trip to Alamo, Texas (Source: Houston Chronicle)

President Trump Speak After Big Tech Shutdown in Alamo, TX 1/12/20 (Source: Link to YouTube video for 1/12/21 Trump speech)

OA260 wrote:

Angela Merkel criticises Twitter over Trump ban

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”.

Twitter suspended Mr Trump’s account last week in the aftermath of the riots at the Capitol Building, citing “repeated and severe” violations of its civic integrity policies. Facebook has taken similar action.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/eu ... 1?mode=amp

Says the leader of a country which severely restricts the "fundamental right to free speech" in oh so many ways...

Trumps rights have not been restricted - he can still hold press conferences, march down a street talking to himself, build a website and post inane rants on it.

OA260 wrote:

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”.

She should rather read the US Constitution. A private company banning a person from their platform is not a violation of anyone's "freedom of speech". Period, end of discussion. It is amazing that so many people do not understand this concept.

Trying to overthrow a democratic process and commit a coup has been known in many instances to carry the death penalty.
I am not for the death penalty, but please do not even contemplate comparing one of the worst possible crimes to petty vandalization during a legal demonstration against the systemic abuse of power that was BLM. There aren't slight differences, those two phenomenons are at the complete opposite parts of the scale.
Please. Show at least some dignity. This is real now.

stratosphere wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Stratosphere

You are of course assuming that she is telling the truth.

If these armed insurrections are attempted then the Police/National Guard will need to crush them.

Hopefully this CNN report will encourage these people not to turn up.

Look you can't sanction the destruction of the cities this summer from the BLM crowd and call it peaceful protesting and call this out. Now the ones who crossed the line and actually stormed the capitol they deserve what they get. I am sure this woman was part of the group that stormed the building or she would not have been shot. Like I said protesting =ok...You start destroying shit you get what's coming to you I don't care what your passion or reason is.

The german chancellor doesn't neccesarily have the same understanding of free speech as defined in american laws.
Even so, she is still wrong, heads of state always have free speech. They can make the whole system listen at any time. They don't need social media to do their job or excercise their powers.

ArcticSEA wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”.

She should rather read the US Constitution. A private company banning a person from their platform is not a violation of anyone's "freedom of speech". Period, end of discussion. It is amazing that so many people do not understand this concept.

Nothing - NOTHING - is preventing Trump from standing in front of the cameras in the WH briefing room.
If a briefing is called, literally every camera in DC would be fighting to get into the room.
So anyone saying Trump's been "muzzled" or the like are delusional.

Was it an inside job?
12 (!) Capitol police officers are under investigation, 2 of whom have already been suspended
The Capitol police chief has also submitted his resignation
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics ... index.html

ArcticSEA wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”.

She should rather read the US Constitution. A private company banning a person from their platform is not a violation of anyone's "freedom of speech". Period, end of discussion. It is amazing that so many people do not understand this concept.

No, you should rather understand what she actually talked about, which had nothing at all to do with the specific US constitutional rights and rules.

The german constitutional order is based on fundamental human rights, not on selectively enumerated civic rights which is something very different.

All posts above have very much misrepresented Merkel's actual statement on the matter:

1. It was a very measured and differentiated remark, not at all "sharp criticism". That is an invention.

2. She has reserved her actual sharp criticism for Trump's incitement of violence and attack against the rule of law.

3. She was specifically talking about the complete ban being problematic, not the removal of problematic or outright illegal posts which would actually be mandatory in Germany.

4. She reiterated her criticism of truth-distorting and violence-inciting social media posts in general.

moo wrote:

Says the leader of a country which severely restricts the "fundamental right to free speech" in oh so many ways...

Especially nazi propaganda is banned in Germany for obvious reasons.

If you feel "restricted in oh so many ways" by that, then it may be time for some serious introspection.

bennett123 wrote:

My phone has Google Maps installed, I suspect most phones do.

That shows me where I am to within 10-20M.

I have always assumed that there is some way to access that information.

With Google Maps that is actually possible because Google will track you on their servers. With Apple Maps your position is only kept on the device itself and not even logged there.

But that is actually not how law enforcement will know where you were. The mobile operator by necessity knows where every mobile phone that's connected to their network is at any time because that is the only way mobile phones can even work, and law enforcement can of course request the position records and they do that routinely in criminal cases such as the current one.

If I was up to no good, I would leave my phone at home..

That wouldn't buy you much relief within a crowd spamming the net with photos and video recordings with your face in many of those.

Also since all supects' phones will be seized and at least most of those will be made accessible even unpublished photos and videos will become available for the identification of additional suspects, and since Trump supporters tend to refuse mask wearing even during a raging pandemic (the Darwin Awards will be busy this year!) there would be plenty of evidence of your presence whether or not you had your own phone online or not.

Right now there are already public web sites devoted to identifying participants in the coup attempt. It is to be expected that most of them will be identified directly or indirectly sooner or later.

Klaus wrote:

3. She was specifically talking about the complete ban being problematic, not the removal of problematic or outright illegal posts which would actually be mandatory in Germany.

I fully understand her point there, but in Twitter's defense, every single tweet he made since after the election was either a lie or a veiled incitement aimed at his followers to protest or outright rebel against the American democracy.

Plus, as suggested above, he has plenty of ways to address the American public should he want to, starting with the fact that as the President of the United States, he has access to a fully equipped and staffed communications department and guaranteed airtime whenever he pleases on network television.

That he chose to use a private company to do most of his communication to the public is his own decision. Likewise, he alone chose to go against their terms and conditions while using it. In fact, he only managed to stay on there as long as he did because he is the POTUS. Anybody else proffering the amount of inane and dangerous nonsense he did would have been banned long ago.
Additionally, the removal of problematic or illegal posts only would put the onus on Twitter to decide what is in fact problematic and illegal, which I'm guessing is a position they would much rather not find themselves in. Talk about a can of worm...

Following the Capitol MAGA riot, Twitter has purged 70k+ Qanon-related accounts from its platform since Friday.
This also explains why many Republican officials are whining about losing so many followers over the weekend.
https://www.engadget.com/twitter-remove ... 44100.html

Francoflier wrote:

Klaus wrote:

3. She was specifically talking about the complete ban being problematic, not the removal of problematic or outright illegal posts which would actually be mandatory in Germany.

I fully understand her point there, but in Twitter's defense, every single tweet he made since after the election was either a lie or a veiled incitement aimed at his followers to protest or outright rebel against the American democracy.

Angela Merkel would certainly agree with that.

Plus, as suggested above, he has plenty of ways to address the American public should he want to, starting with the fact that as the President of the United States, he has access to a fully equipped and staffed communications department and guaranteed airtime whenever he pleases on network television.

That he chose to use a private company to do most of his communication to the public is his own decision.

Indeed. It was a decision of personal convenience by Trump himself – which ultimately bit him in his own behind (if actually far too late).

Additionally, the removal of problematic or illegal posts only would put the onus on Twitter to decide what is in fact problematic and illegal, which I'm guessing is a position they would much rather not find themselves in. Talk about a can of worm...

That is just unavoidable when propaganda needs to be limited, which is a must in order to protect the rule of law as we've seen: The almost completely lacking oversight of media (both public and social) in the US was what got Trump into power and which he abused to the extent we all can see now (and many had warned against from the start).

The criteria for restrictions need to be as clear and consistent as possible which is never easy, but most countries have libel laws as well where similar criteria have to be applied, so it's not as if there weren't any limits in the USA either, and for good reasons!

Klaus wrote:

The criteria for restrictions need to be as clear and consistent as possible which is never easy, but most countries have libel laws as well where similar criteria have to be applied, so it's not as if there weren't any limits in the USA either, and for good reasons!

Once again on the more trivial side of repercussions for Trump, coach Belichick is turning down the Presidential medal of freedom he was offered from him.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/11/poli ... index.html

Trump has become so toxic that even the medals of freedoms he gives out are now pretty much worthless.

The National News has many times referred to the last time a President was impeached twice, for Historical Perspective, of course.

From ABC News "And the inauguration will look different from other presidential inaugurations because of last week's riot, with extremely tight security around the entire capital region. At least 10,000 National Guard troops will be in place by Saturday. Some will be obvious: officers in uniforms, checkpoints, metal detectors, fencing. Some won't."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-exclusive-biden-inauguration-theme-america-united-75176046

So, for historical perspective, since ABC News doesn't seem to have any regarding this, when was the last time that 10,000 or more troops were in place in DC?? Asking for a friend.

I don't know if anyone has posted this, but Trump and Pence met today and seems like they've agreed to serve the rest of their term.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... d-n1253743

Must have been an awkward meeting... "So how you doing Mike, how's the family?..."

Klaus wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

My phone has Google Maps installed, I suspect most phones do.

That shows me where I am to within 10-20M.

I have always assumed that there is some way to access that information.

With Google Maps that is actually possible because Google will track you on their servers. With Apple Maps your position is only kept on the device itself and not even logged there.

But that is actually not how law enforcement will know where you were. The mobile operator by necessity knows where every mobile phone that's connected to their network is at any time because that is the only way mobile phones can even work, and law enforcement can of course request the position records and they do that routinely in criminal cases such as the current one.

More than that, you don't even have to open an app on your phone for it to be discoverable by the nearest cell site or access point. Your cell phone always tries to connect to the nearest cell tower (or repeater), there is bluetooth LE beaconing, Wi-Fi triangulation...and all of this is logged. This is a fundamental way how the FBI, etc. track and take down suspects...and how the US military eliminates people overseas. Terrestrial cell and satellite phones are very traceable.

Klaus wrote:

moo wrote:

Says the leader of a country which severely restricts the "fundamental right to free speech" in oh so many ways...

Especially nazi propaganda is banned in Germany for obvious reasons.

If you feel "restricted in oh so many ways" by that, then it may be time for some serious introspection.

Ahh right, so its ok to restrict if you agree with it....

Personally I couldnt care less if Germamy bans things to do with its terribly history, they certainly have reason to, but you cannot deny the irony here - you can try, but you would just fail.

No introspection needed.

stratosphere wrote:

If Capt Reiney was not in the group that stormed the Capitol and was just in the crowd that was expressing their first amendment rights what is the problem?

Well we'll see if she was honest or if she is hiding something. It's like anyone would admit being part of the insurrections/terrorist activities.

---------

Meanwhile the blame game over the lack of police national guard continues. Capitol Police blames Pentagon DoD while the latter claims
that no requests where made. IMO at this point I wouldn't trust anything said by the Trump led DoD.

Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund says in an interview with Washington post that he asked for help from the national guard two days before the storming
took place but that his request was turned down.

WASHINGTON – Two days before Congress was set to formalize President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund was growing worried about
the size of the pro-Trump crowds expected to stream into the District of Columbia in protest.

House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving said he was not comfortable with the “optics” of formally declaring an emergency before the demonstration, Sund said. Meanwhile,
Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger suggested that Sund informally seek his Guard contacts, asking them to “lean forward” and be on alert in case Capitol Police needed their help.

Just before 2 p.m., the pro-Trump mob entered the Capitol, sending lawmakers and staffers scrambling for safety. D.C. police had quickly dispatched hundreds of officers to the scene. But it was not enough. At 2:26 p.m., Sund said, he joined a conference call to the Pentagon to plead for additional backup.

“I am making an urgent, urgent immediate request for National Guard assistance,” Sund recalled saying. “I have got to get boots on the ground.”

On the call were several officials from the D.C. government, as well as officials from the Pentagon. The D.C. contingent was flabbergasted to hear a top Army official say he could not recommend that his boss, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, approve the request.

“I don’t like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background,” the official said, according to Sund and others on the call.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... hief-says/

The National Guard did eventually arrive at the Capitol on Wednesday, but not until 5:40 p.m. -- after four people died and security was breached, according to The Washington Post.

Pentagon officials stated last week that Capitol Police never requested D.C. National Guard backup before Wednesday and later made an urgent request as the pro-Trump mob was about to breach the Capitol building, the newspaper adds.

"We rely on Capitol Police and federal law enforcement to provide an assessment of the situation," Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman was quoted as saying. "And based on that assessment that they had, they believed they had sufficient personnel and did not make a request."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/capitol-poli ... fore-riots

stratosphere wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Stratosphere

You are of course assuming that she is telling the truth.

If these armed insurrections are attempted then the Police/National Guard will need to crush them.

Hopefully this CNN report will encourage these people not to turn up.

Look you can't sanction the destruction of the cities this summer from the BLM crowd and call it peaceful protesting and call this out..

there where 14.000 arrests at BLM protests in Summer, and 93% off all protests went without any violence whatsoever.

And different from the attack on the Capitol, there where actually agent provocateurs from the right involved in the violence, even though it is unlikely that it was a majority of the cases.

They where also not whipped up by a political party leader, president or multi-year media campaign.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Stratosphere

You are of course assuming that she is telling the truth.

If these armed insurrections are attempted then the Police/National Guard will need to crush them.

Hopefully this CNN report will encourage these people not to turn up.

Look you can't sanction the destruction of the cities this summer from the BLM crowd and call it peaceful protesting and call this out..

there where 14.000 arrests at BLM protests in Summer, and 93% off all protests went without any violence whatsoever.

And different from the attack on the Capitol, there where actually agent provocateurs from the right involved in the violence, even though it is unlikely that it was a majority of the cases.

They where also not whipped up by a political party leader, president or multi-year media campaign.

best regards
Thomas

All racist see BLM and the White Supremacists Attack/Trump Insurrection as similar events, because the concept of Equal Rights can't belong Blacks nor can Justice.
"We want our country back" means exactly that..it is why it's shouted so frequently at their gatherings.

It is exactly why voter suppression exist.
It's why trump went after heavily Black population voters in all his lawsuits.

Perhaps this guy can explain it better...

Cop union head faces resignation calls for equating Capitol terrorism with Black Lives Matter
https://www.rawstory.com/police-union/

Too anyone understanding rights and equal justice..this is a none issue.

But it is a problematic bridge for racists and the selectively ignorant.


BN747

https://twitter.com/melissablasius/stat ... 39841?s=21

Will she come and give him a spit wash before being in court? If your mum pulls you up by your bootstraps does that still count?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BN747 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

Look you can't sanction the destruction of the cities this summer from the BLM crowd and call it peaceful protesting and call this out..

there where 14.000 arrests at BLM protests in Summer, and 93% off all protests went without any violence whatsoever.

And different from the attack on the Capitol, there where actually agent provocateurs from the right involved in the violence, even though it is unlikely that it was a majority of the cases.

They where also not whipped up by a political party leader, president or multi-year media campaign.

best regards
Thomas

All racist see BLM and the White Supremacists Attack/Trump Insurrection as similar events, because the concept of Equal Rights can't belong Blacks nor can Justice.
"We want our country back" means exactly that..it is why it's shouted so frequently at their gatherings.

It is exactly why voter suppression exist.
It's why trump went after heavily Black population voters in all his lawsuits.

Perhaps this guy can explain it better...

Cop union head faces resignation calls for equating Capitol terrorism with Black Lives Matter
https://www.rawstory.com/police-union/

Too anyone understanding rights and equal justice..this is a none issue.

But it is a problematic bridge for racists and the selectively ignorant.


BN747

The cop is right from his perspective. For law enforcement the motivation behind breaking the law must not matter. Storming and vandalizing a building must be the same regardless if done by the MAGA crowd or BLM. That is important for the rule of law. Sadly the motivation and skin colour of the offender should also not matter for law enforcement, which is often not the case, but that is a different problem.

seahawk wrote:

BN747 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

there where 14.000 arrests at BLM protests in Summer, and 93% off all protests went without any violence whatsoever.

And different from the attack on the Capitol, there where actually agent provocateurs from the right involved in the violence, even though it is unlikely that it was a majority of the cases.

They where also not whipped up by a political party leader, president or multi-year media campaign.

best regards
Thomas

All racist see BLM and the White Supremacists Attack/Trump Insurrection as similar events, because the concept of Equal Rights can't belong Blacks nor can Justice.
"We want our country back" means exactly that..it is why it's shouted so frequently at their gatherings.

It is exactly why voter suppression exist.
It's why trump went after heavily Black population voters in all his lawsuits.

Perhaps this guy can explain it better...

Cop union head faces resignation calls for equating Capitol terrorism with Black Lives Matter
https://www.rawstory.com/police-union/

Too anyone understanding rights and equal justice..this is a none issue.

But it is a problematic bridge for racists and the selectively ignorant.


BN747

The cop is right from his perspective. For law enforcement the motivation behind breaking the law must not matter. Storming and vandalizing a building must be the same regardless if done by the MAGA crowd or BLM. That is important for the rule of law. Sadly the motivation and skin colour of the offender should also not matter for law enforcement, which is often not the case, but that is a different problem.

According to you (and all other racists who make it their life cause to justify racial disenfranchisement at every juncture).

The White Supremacist Attackers/Trump Insurrectionists make their objective very clear.

Equal Justice Under Law is merely scribbling above the Supreme Court Bldg (I think) but MOST cops know that such enforcement is very very far from reality.
Which is why " law enforcement the motivation behind breaking the law must not matter. Storming and vandalizing a building must be the same regardless if done by the MAGA crowd or BLM"

holds no truth in reality.

Reality is where we all live...not inside feel good slogans.....MAGA people however have no problem living in trump's reality, it's why they are who they are.

Law Enforcement's historical record speaks for itself.

The White Supremacist Attackers/Trump Insurrection's objective is to find a way to make an Enormous Lie into the truth.
Trump told them lies and they chose to believe him at every turn and act on it.

White Grievance is a falacy, BLM must continue for it's benefits from the struggle benefits everyone of every persuasion.

White Grievance has no standing except within every white racist mind...and it's embodiment was demonstrated on Jan 6. 2021 at the US capitol.


BN747

BN747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

BN747 wrote:

All racist see BLM and the White Supremacists Attack/Trump Insurrection as similar events, because the concept of Equal Rights can't belong Blacks nor can Justice.
"We want our country back" means exactly that..it is why it's shouted so frequently at their gatherings.

It is exactly why voter suppression exist.
It's why trump went after heavily Black population voters in all his lawsuits.

Perhaps this guy can explain it better...

Cop union head faces resignation calls for equating Capitol terrorism with Black Lives Matter
https://www.rawstory.com/police-union/

Too anyone understanding rights and equal justice..this is a none issue.

But it is a problematic bridge for racists and the selectively ignorant.


BN747

The cop is right from his perspective. For law enforcement the motivation behind breaking the law must not matter. Storming and vandalizing a building must be the same regardless if done by the MAGA crowd or BLM. That is important for the rule of law. Sadly the motivation and skin colour of the offender should also not matter for law enforcement, which is often not the case, but that is a different problem.

According to you (and all other racists who make it their life cause to justify racial disenfranchisement at every juncture).

The White Supremacist Attackers/Trump Insurrectionists make their objective very clear.

Equal Justice Under Law is merely scribbling above the Supreme Court Bldg (I think) but MOST cops know that such enforcement is very very far from reality.

Law Enforcement's historical record speaks for itself.

The White Supremacist Attackers/Trump Insurrection's objective is to find a way to make an Enormous Lie into the truth.
Trump told them lies and they chose to believe him at every turn and act on it.

White Grievance is a falacy, BLM must continue for it's benefits from the struggle benefits everyone of every persuasion.

White Grievance has no standing except within every white racist mind...and it's embodiment was demonstrated on Jan 6. 2021 at the US capitol.


BN747

Could you please point out how my remark was racist? I said law enforcement must not consider the political motivation or any other factor when dealing the a crime or a suspect. I am all for treating the MAGA crowd exactly like the BLM protestors and vice versa.

seahawk wrote:

BN747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The cop is right from his perspective. For law enforcement the motivation behind breaking the law must not matter. Storming and vandalizing a building must be the same regardless if done by the MAGA crowd or BLM. That is important for the rule of law. Sadly the motivation and skin colour of the offender should also not matter for law enforcement, which is often not the case, but that is a different problem.

According to you (and all other racists who make it their life cause to justify racial disenfranchisement at every juncture).

The White Supremacist Attackers/Trump Insurrectionists make their objective very clear.

Equal Justice Under Law is merely scribbling above the Supreme Court Bldg (I think) but MOST cops know that such enforcement is very very far from reality.

Law Enforcement's historical record speaks for itself.

The White Supremacist Attackers/Trump Insurrection's objective is to find a way to make an Enormous Lie into the truth.
Trump told them lies and they chose to believe him at every turn and act on it.

White Grievance is a falacy, BLM must continue for it's benefits from the struggle benefits everyone of every persuasion.

White Grievance has no standing except within every white racist mind...and it's embodiment was demonstrated on Jan 6. 2021 at the US capitol.


BN747

Could you please point out how my remark was racist? I said law enforcement must not consider the political motivation or any other factor when dealing the a crime or a suspect. I am all for treating the MAGA crowd exactly like the BLM protestors and vice versa.

When you said 'he's right'...reality proves that he is not.
The double standard is nationwide.

However in the BLM summer of '20 we did finally, FINALLY see some police join in support, and not just police..police chiefs.
They are in the minority, but their numbers are increasing.

But as we saw last Wednesday many Law Enforcement were embedded in the attackers....we've a ways to go be his 'he's right' becomes reality.


BN747

seahawk wrote:

BN747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The cop is right from his perspective. For law enforcement the motivation behind breaking the law must not matter. Storming and vandalizing a building must be the same regardless if done by the MAGA crowd or BLM. That is important for the rule of law. Sadly the motivation and skin colour of the offender should also not matter for law enforcement, which is often not the case, but that is a different problem.

According to you (and all other racists who make it their life cause to justify racial disenfranchisement at every juncture).

The White Supremacist Attackers/Trump Insurrectionists make their objective very clear.

Equal Justice Under Law is merely scribbling above the Supreme Court Bldg (I think) but MOST cops know that such enforcement is very very far from reality.

Law Enforcement's historical record speaks for itself.

The White Supremacist Attackers/Trump Insurrection's objective is to find a way to make an Enormous Lie into the truth.
Trump told them lies and they chose to believe him at every turn and act on it.

White Grievance is a falacy, BLM must continue for it's benefits from the struggle benefits everyone of every persuasion.

White Grievance has no standing except within every white racist mind...and it's embodiment was demonstrated on Jan 6. 2021 at the US capitol.


BN747

Could you please point out how my remark was racist? I said law enforcement must not consider the political motivation or any other factor when dealing the a crime or a suspect. I am all for treating the MAGA crowd exactly like the BLM protestors and vice versa.

"motivation" can make the difference between legal and illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_(law)

Killing someone in self defense is legal, killing someone you wanted to kill anyways, with an attack on you just giving you a convenient excuse to do so is still murder.

best regards
Thomas

Fun fact. 18 USC 373 makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or “endeavor to persuade” another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

BN747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

BN747 wrote:

According to you (and all other racists who make it their life cause to justify racial disenfranchisement at every juncture).

The White Supremacist Attackers/Trump Insurrectionists make their objective very clear.

Equal Justice Under Law is merely scribbling above the Supreme Court Bldg (I think) but MOST cops know that such enforcement is very very far from reality.

Law Enforcement's historical record speaks for itself.

The White Supremacist Attackers/Trump Insurrection's objective is to find a way to make an Enormous Lie into the truth.
Trump told them lies and they chose to believe him at every turn and act on it.

White Grievance is a falacy, BLM must continue for it's benefits from the struggle benefits everyone of every persuasion.

White Grievance has no standing except within every white racist mind...and it's embodiment was demonstrated on Jan 6. 2021 at the US capitol.


BN747

Could you please point out how my remark was racist? I said law enforcement must not consider the political motivation or any other factor when dealing the a crime or a suspect. I am all for treating the MAGA crowd exactly like the BLM protestors and vice versa.

When you said 'he's right'...reality proves that he is not.
The double standard is nationwide.

However in the BLM summer of '20 we did finally, FINALLY see some police join in support, and not just police..police chiefs.
They are in the minority, but their numbers are increasing.

But as we saw last Wednesday many Law Enforcement were embedded in the attackers....we've a ways to go be his 'he's right' becomes reality.


BN747

It would have been much easier to understand that the problem is not about the tweet of the cop, but about which tweet and by whom he shared. Not everybody knows Andy Ngo. This is obvioulsy not acceptable.

seahawk wrote:

BN747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Could you please point out how my remark was racist? I said law enforcement must not consider the political motivation or any other factor when dealing the a crime or a suspect. I am all for treating the MAGA crowd exactly like the BLM protestors and vice versa.

When you said 'he's right'...reality proves that he is not.
The double standard is nationwide.

However in the BLM summer of '20 we did finally, FINALLY see some police join in support, and not just police..police chiefs.
They are in the minority, but their numbers are increasing.

But as we saw last Wednesday many Law Enforcement were embedded in the attackers....we've a ways to go be his 'he's right' becomes reality.


BN747

It would have been much easier to understand that the problem is not about the tweet of the cop, but about which tweet and by whom he shared. Not everybody knows Andy Ngo. This is obvioulsy not acceptable.

Agreed.

ArcticSEA wrote:

Fun fact. 18 USC 373 makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or “endeavor to persuade” another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

While we're on the topic of fun facts...

Amendment 14 of the Constitution, section 3, says:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

(My emphasis)
https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... the%20laws.

Oops, the 'politicians' (light use of the term here) who voted to challenge the election result might start to get hit where any politician hurts the most: money.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55628946