FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Your cited article is anonymously-sourced and is now over 13 months old. A lot has happened in the interim, including guilty pleas for seditious conspiracy by some of Roger Stone's buddies, a federal grand jury investigating the fake electors scheme and a Fulton County grand jury investigating election fraud in Georgia. A lot of shoes have yet to drop. Try to keep up, even if it means that your Fox-fed priors will be challenged.

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, you're saying that the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys prosecution, along with their connections to Roger Stone (and his communications with Mark Meadows) have nothing to do with J6? WTF? And are you also saying the fake electors scheme has nothing to do with J6 (the fake elector plan was integral component of Trump's attempted autogolpe).

You really should start reading some real news instead of the wingnut garbage that leaves you so comically misinformed. And BTW, the outdated, anonymously sourced article you cited is from Reuters, now affiliated with the Russian wire service TASS:

...and you need to get rid of your addiction to Mother Jones and MSNBC. The Reuters article references the FBI's report on their January 6th investigation. Several other outlets reported on it. Are you suggesting that the Reuters report was incorrect? As far as outdated, nothing has come forward of any factual nature (hearsay, innuendo, etc. don't count) that contradicts it. So, if it's "outdated" show me an authoritative source that contradicts it.

Originally Posted by finnbow

... including guilty pleas for seditious conspiracy by some of Roger Stone's buddies, a federal grand jury investigating the fake electors scheme and a Fulton County grand jury investigating election fraud in Georgia.

Again, innuendo and investigations don't equal "it definitely happened". In your world, someone gets accused and you and yours take off on a flight of fancy and dream of perp walks. It doesn't work that way.

You posted above the dictionary definition of "insurrection". So f'ing what?! When all this plays out in the courtroom, the judge won't be reading instructions to the jury from an internet dictionary. The judge will be reading the law, including the definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Finally, if Stewart Rhodes and company are tried and found guilty by the jury, fine and dandy. If they walk, it'll be because there was insufficient evidence, or because the prosecution stunk. Either way, there's much we don't know about what the evidence prosecution or the defense will present at trial.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

The theory being that since no one has been charged and convicted of "insurrection", it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Chicks

McConnell rebukes RNC, calls Jan. 6 ‘violent insurrection’

https://apnews.com/article/donald-tr...b67d45df6195f7



A quote for the benefit of our village idiot.

Perhaps his objection to the use of the word "insurrection" is because we haven't been using the "violent" adjective with it.

I can imagine the last three words out of our dear whell's mouth as he's about to slip this mortal coil "It didn't happen" just so he can get in the last word.

[whell]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

I can imagine the last three words out of our dear whell's mouth as he's about to slip this mortal coil "It didn't happen" just so he can get in the last word.

January 6th happened, genius. The point is that Federal law specifies misdemeanor and felony penalties for things like trespassing and unlawful activities occurring in and around the Capitol building.

However, the Feds have charged Rhodes and company with seditious conspiracy. That's obviously a much higher legal bar than trespassing. The Feds want to send a message with this case and the conviction, thus the pursuit of the conviction for a heavier duty crime. Whether or not the Feds have sufficient evidence for a conviction has yet to be seen.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

January 6th happened, genius. The point is that Federal law specifies misdemeanor and felony penalties for things like trespassing and unlawful activities occurring in and around the Capitol building.

However, the Feds have charged Rhodes and company with seditious conspiracy. That's obviously a much higher legal bar than trespassing. The Feds want to send a message with this case and the conviction, thus the pursuit of the conviction for a heavier duty crime. Whether or not the Feds have sufficient evidence for a conviction has yet to be seen.

And I bet that Rhodes and his minions are far from the last people who are going to be indicted for serious J6 related crimes. The DOJ/FBI is working its way up the food chain for those who engaged in election fraud for the fake electors scheme and illegally tampering with state election hardware (as is Fani Willis in GA) as well as those engaged in wire fraud for the fraudulent fundraising for Trump's fake election defense fund. I predict that all hell is going to break loose in Spring 2023.

And no, the charge against Rhodes is not a higher legal bar than criminal trespassing. It may be a more serious crime with a stricter penalty, but the legal bar is identical - beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

And I bet that Rhodes and his minions are far from the last people who are going to be indicted for serious J6 related crimes. The DOJ/FBI is working its way up the food chain for those who engaged in election fraud for the fake electors scheme and illegally tampering with state election hardware (as is Fani Willis in GA) as well as those engaged in wire fraud for the fraudulent fundraising for Trump's fake election defense fund. I predict that all hell is going to break loose in Spring 2023.

If the oath keepers use the defense that they were following Trump’s orders, don’t they have to prove it? If so, that implicates Trump as the SIC, Seditionist In Chief? Trump will be happy, as long as he is the chief.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

When all this plays out in the courtroom, the judge won't be reading instructions to the jury from an internet dictionary. The judge will be reading the law, including the definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Lots of corrupt Trump-appointed Federalist judges who simply don't follow the law, sadly, including at the SCOTUS level. I'm sure you're just fine with that, but those of us capable of rational thought aren't.

Case in point:
A thorough rebuke of Judge Aileen Cannon’s pro-Trump order
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...o-trump-order/

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by whell

January 6th happened, genius. The point is that Federal law specifies misdemeanor and felony penalties for things like trespassing and unlawful activities occurring in and around the Capitol building.

However, the Feds have charged Rhodes and company with seditious conspiracy. That's obviously a much higher legal bar than trespassing. The Feds want to send a message with this case and the conviction, thus the pursuit of the conviction for a heavier duty crime. Whether or not the Feds have sufficient evidence for a conviction has yet to be seen.

Thanks for the compliment whell. I am smart but not quite a genius, I think. The "It didn't happen" that you'll surely utter with your last breath will be in reference to "the insurrection". I absolutely will not chisel those three little words on your tombstone that go
"Yes it did"

[Chicks]

HR Makes Employees Take A Skill Test Designed For New Hires, They Maliciously Comply, HR Ends Up Scoring The Lowest
https://www.boredpanda.com/hr-forces...dardized-test/

No surprise whatsoever. HR folks are just downright clueless.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

And no, the charge against Rhodes is not a higher legal bar than criminal trespassing. It may be a more serious crime with a stricter penalty, but the legal bar is identical - beyond a reasonable doubt.

C'mon. There's no question a lesser charge of trespassing would be the low-hanging fruit here, at least for the other four. Rhodes didn't go into the Capitol, so you couldn't hang trespassing on him.

As for Rhodes and the seditious conspiracy charge, you'd need to prove to the jury that Rhode's intent was to "conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States". And that's real proof, not conjecture or hearsay evidence.

That said, there is some interesting evidence out there against Rhodes and the company. It'll be interesting to follow this trial.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

HR Makes Employees Take A Skill Test Designed For New Hires, They Maliciously Comply, HR Ends Up Scoring The Lowest
https://www.boredpanda.com/hr-forces...dardized-test/

No surprise whatsoever. HR folks are just downright clueless.

Really? Based on a sample size of one person in the article you posted, you condemn more than 800,000 HR professionals in the US? Or put another way, you're drawing a conclusion from the info in the article that's based on a sample size of 0.000125% of the population of HR professionals.

I can see now why your opinions on things are so....uh...interesting.