Insurrection fallout

The question at hand is does the DOJ charge all who entered the capital building or just those who were violent, did damage and the leaders??

Do they not charge those who have no criminal record and could only be charged wt unlawful entry?

I'm torn on this -  I think they should throw the book at the leaders, those that did damage, stole stuff, made threats and were leaders. 

Some in the crowd, while 100% responsible for their actions just 'were along for the ride' and ended up where they shouldn't have.  My gut tells me and I lean towards that they should be charged as well as this should never happen again and a strong message needs to be sent.  However, all of those cases will clog up the courts- which is why it is under discussion.

Many are going to use  the "The Trump Defense"  - the president tool us to do it, therefore it is on him.  This also can be evidence in the impeachment trial. If enough people are claiming that defense it is hard for the Senate to not convict trump of leading the insurrection. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justice-department-fbi-debate-not-charging-some-of-the-capitol-rioters/ar-BB1d1Upf?ocid=uxbndlbing

Federal law enforcement officials are privately debating whether they should decline to charge some of the individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol this month — a politically loaded proposition but one alert to the practical concern that hundreds of such cases could swamp the local courthouse.

The internal discussions are in their early stages, and no decisions have been reached about whether to forgo charging some of those who illegally entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.

Justice Department officials have promised a relentless effort to identify and arrest those who stormed the Capitol that day, but internally there is robust back-and-forth about whether charging them all is the best course of action. That debate comes at a time when officials are keenly sensitive that the credibility of the Justice Department and the FBI are at stake in such decisions, given the apparent security and intelligence failures that preceded the riot, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss legal deliberations.
Click to expand...



 
TGHusker said:
The question at hand is does the DOJ charge all who entered the capital building or just those who were violent, did damage and the leaders??

Do they not charge those who have no criminal record and could only be charged wt unlawful entry?

I'm torn on this -  I think they should throw the book at the leaders, those that did damage, stole stuff, made threats and were leaders. 

Some in the crowd, while 100% responsible for their actions just 'were along for the ride' and ended up where they shouldn't have.  My gut tells me and I lean towards that they should be charged as well as this should never happen again and a strong message needs to be sent.  However, all of those cases will clog up the courts- which is why it is under discussion.

Many are going to use  the "The Trump Defense"  - the president tool us to do it, therefore it is on him.  This also can be evidence in the impeachment trial. If enough people are claiming that defense it is hard for the Senate to not convict trump of leading the insurrection. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justice-department-fbi-debate-not-charging-some-of-the-capitol-rioters/ar-BB1d1Upf?ocid=uxbndlbing
Click to expand...
I believe you charge every single one of them something. Even if it’s just trespassing. 

 
It is absolutely bonkers to me that so many people just believe that there was "widespread voter fraud" in the 2020 election despite never seeing any evidence. 

You gotta be some kind of brainwashed to never stop and think critically about the fact that not one piece of tangible information has been provided by trump or his lawyers. 

 
knapplc said:
It is absolutely bonkers to me that so many people just believe that there was "widespread voter fraud" in the 2020 election despite never seeing any evidence. 

You gotta be some kind of brainwashed to never stop and think critically about the fact that not one piece of tangible information has been provided by trump or his lawyers. 
Click to expand...


I agree that there have been ZERO credible instances that would lead to "widespread voter fraud". I don't agree that people who question the results are "brainwashed". If there was ever a scenario where the counts would be in question, it would be this election.

My election result denying friends say (to this day) it is obvious from the optics why they continue to doubt, and one of them provided this list when I questioned him on it. 

>Candidate is 47 year career politician that has done little or nothing other than be Obama's VP and a "nice guy". 

>Candidate called racist and out of touch by other candidates during debates and is panned by Dem public. 

>Candidate is not Dem's public first choice, and is about to drop out of the race until S Carolina. Is "ordained" by the DNC. 

>Picked running mate that is so unpopular she had to drop out before receiving a single vote during primaries. 

>Candidate appears to have some sort of mental decline issues, and is "quarantined" the majority of the year and hear nothing from him.

>Coverage of candidate campaign events show virtually no attendance and little to no interest. Candidate then waffles on issues when questioned. 

>Covid issues and BLM protests raise strife all year to pit left against right

>Debate over use of and popularity of mail in ballots for first time in POTUS election.

>On first night of coverage, it is reported that Trump is doing better than 2016.

>Long delays with "ballot dumps" in critical States only.

>Trump receives 10 million MORE votes than 2016 even with large number of R's defecting and not voting for Trump. 

>Week/10 day trends show virtually all late ballots for D candidate.

>Candidate receives more votes than any POTUS in history.  

>Critical States carry the EC. 

>R's start to circulate claims of voter fraud and indiscretions. 

>Trump claims he won.

That is why this continues to be an issue to many in my circle. If roles were reversed, would critical thinking Dems have doubts as well? I think they would.

But again, as you pointed out, no verifiable evidence. And without that, it becomes speculation and group think. 

 
DevoHusker said:
>Candidate is 47 year career politician that has done little or nothing other than be Obama's VP and a "nice guy". 

>Candidate called racist and out of touch by other candidates during debates and is panned by Dem public. 

>Candidate is not Dem's public first choice, and is about to drop out of the race until S Carolina. Is "ordained" by the DNC. 

>Picked running mate that is so unpopular she had to drop out before receiving a single vote during primaries. 

>Candidate appears to have some sort of mental decline issues, and is "quarantined" the majority of the year and hear nothing from him.

>Coverage of candidate campaign events show virtually no attendance and little to no interest. Candidate then waffles on issues when questioned. 

>Covid issues and BLM protests raise strife all year to pit left against right

>Debate over use of and popularity of mail in ballots for first time in POTUS election.

>On first night of coverage, it is reported that Trump is doing better than 2016.

>Long delays with "ballot dumps" in critical States only.

>Trump receives 10 million MORE votes than 2016 even with large number of R's defecting and not voting for Trump. 

>Week/10 day trends show virtually all late ballots for D candidate.

>Candidate receives more votes than any POTUS in history.  

>Critical States carry the EC. 

>R's start to circulate claims of voter fraud and indiscretions. 

>Trump claims he won.
Click to expand...


That list is nonsense. If people really believe any of that... yeah. Brainwashed. 

 
knapplc said:
That list is nonsense. If people really believe any of that... yeah. Brainwashed. 
Click to expand...


The list is nonsense because you say so? Or because it is not true? Or because...? It may lead to different views or conclusions, but the list is not nonsense. 

The guy is one of the smartest people I know, and while Conservative, is not a Trumper. So...not brainwashed. 

 
Back
Top