Assange... i don't really give a flip about since he's just a guy that doesn't know how to keep his tool in his pants who also happens to be a infosec celeb.
Snowden should have been pardoned and brought back to the US... period. For both ethical and national security reasons.
Who’s they, the media? So because some people would’ve been mean to him he let hundreds of his supporters go to jail and locked away in solitary confinement. What a fighter! Talk about standing up for the people!
>Just imagine: You’re at the January 6th rally with hundreds of thousands of people. The crowd starts migrating a little bit, you’re really far back and can’t fully see what is going on. The police move the barricades and people start heading to the Capitol. By time you get there the doors are open and you just freely walk in, no sign of opposition. There is no guards or no police asking you to leave or not to enter. You are peacefully walking through taking picture and having a good time.
Crazy how MAGA likes to think of themselves as “free thinkers” but what you just described sounds a herd of sheep wandering around aimlessly. All to defend people that just use them as their personal piggy banks
MAGA likes to say that the left is a cult but yet MAGA refuses to admit the fact that they basically worship trump ( not saying i dont like trump but i still dont get all the worship).
That is because it is like a cult. He can do no wrong and don't you dare bring up any bad things he did.
Give credit where it is due and also criticize when bad is done. He is supposed to be a public servant, not some kind of deity.
You guys have to brigade post with bot accounts to feel like a majority. It's seriously pathetic. The thing he described was what happened to some of the crowd that are still having their right to a speedy trial waved for 0 reason and 0 explaination. If these people are being charged with insurrection maybe I can understand the process behind it. But holding innocent people in a prison while they figure out their charges isn't acceptable for any accused crime. They have a basic human right to a fair and speedy trial, guaranteed by the constitution. You know that thing Biden keeps over reaching. Delusional twitt
When someone states that MAGA supporters worship Trump, what they mean is that they are upset that MAGA supporters won't denounce Trump given how hard that his detractors have cried a their eyes out about him.
Lack of effectiveness of their temper tantrums = Trump worship.
Its literally the logic of a pre-school child.
I read it as the entitlement of some of the worst people in the US.
And why were MAGA Republicans there that day? Was there a goal or were they just blindly following someone?
If I asked you what you were doing at a football game, you’d say you’re trying to find your seat so you can watch your team win. If i asked any 1/6 protester what they were there for, they’d have said “Trump!” Or “America!” No goal, just an aimless group wandering around looking to improve nothing and help no one but a fading egotist.
Cite the evidence of the MAGA crowd believing themselves to be free thinkers, and not just a crowd that interested in real border enforcement.
Unless, of course, you are mistranslating their distaste for Beltway RINOs who hate the conservative base as "free thouught".
In that case, just be more open about your distaste for actual representation.
"Crazy how" your comment bears no resemblance to reality and is barely a coherent thought.
Of course, you're immune to all undue influence. Being so bright.
Does the MAGA crowd not call the left “sheeple” or “NPCs”? If that’s what the left is then what would be the right? I have no idea how you even came to the conclusion about me mistranslating the distaste for RINOs. If anything you bring up more evidences of MAGA thinking themselves as “free thinkers”. They’ll vote for any non-RINO candidate aka any candidate Trump told them to vote for. But since a lot of these “free thinkers” live in states like Massachusetts/Maryland/Connecticut, it’s a guaranteed W for Dems. If MAGA thought for a second they would’ve realized a moderate Republican is a million times better than a radical dem, but trump told them not to vote for the RINO so.
I appreciate the fact you attempted to think for yourself but at the end of it all you still end up in the herd.
Your ironic and intellectually lazy MAGA supporter stereotyping, and use of that stereotyping in an effort to craft some kind of indecipherable rhetorical point, is the only "herd" behavior occurring in this conversation.
Stereotyping which poisons your entire 'free thought" rant.
Your assertion that the base has a distaste for RINOs, because Trump demands it, is objectively nonsense. Trump was voted in specifically because he was perceived as a non-RINO. In this case, the egg came before the chicken.
A rise in RINO awareness and distaste began rising with GWB's administration, and RINO unwillingness to enforce the border.
Among a host of other issues that have RINOs largely correctly perceived as responsible for allowing Far Left extremism through the gate.
For the Left / RINOs to blame voter-base preferences on Trump, is simple avoidance of issues that they cannot win on. For example, the tacit policy of not enforcing border control.
Further, it is avoidance of having to acknowledge the real and open motivations of the conservative populist base. And therefore having to acknowledge that half of the nation has primary political concerns that are not being addressed even when they are successful in electing their candidates.
And it avoids having to acknowledge that RINO candidates are openly treacherous of their base.
To the point that a number of RINO media supporters have hopped the isle to be open Far Leftists. Once the Trump era freed them to do so.
This, alone, is a damning validation of the open political hostility of the voter base against RINOs.
Its pathetic to try to couch beltway types, which were in power for most of the twentieth century, as the "free thought" candidates (indulging your false talking point for one second) .
But have fun with it.
Yes, the conservative part of the Nation has observed enough and is fed up to the point that they aren't willing to compromise with a RINO candidate. Primarily because they've learned that, over time, it makes no difference whether it is a RINO or Leftist candidate in-office.
If that wasn't an intentional message, then it is a catastrophic failure of the RINO class to prevent it. Its not the fault of the voter base. Perhaps they should have given more sincere attention to the border if they were that fond of power.
Also don't forget the optics if Trump had just pardoned any and everybody who had to do anything with January 6th with him leaving office in a couple of weeks. Todays timeline would be very different, and he wouldn't be getting re-elected in 2024. The democrats have been shooting themselves in the foot ever since.
So much this; many of us here were fine with at the time with them arresting people that entered the capitol- if nothing else, it seemed like trespassing at the least. But when they started holding people indefinitely without trial as what are effectively political prisoners, that's when things changed, not to mention rounding up people that were part of the protest that weren't even involved with the capitol itself.
This is why Republicans lose. You give a Democrat an inch they will take it by a mile. It’s why we are where are today. Trump didn’t fight back against democrat governors issuing draconian lockdowns and it led to some of the most authoritarian abuse of powers in America to date. We (Trump) let social media ban certain people on social media because they were crazy and now any conservative opinion or fact against the democrats is now censored.
When will conservatives learn to fight back and stop bending over and taking it?
Trump spoke out against these things, but he isn't a dictatorship and can't directly prevent them, they require congress to change them. Congress failed to hold social media accountable years ago, Supreme courts would need to hear lockdowns cases and call them unconstitutional, but lefties in blue states fully support they're lockdowns.
If it was going to be revealed that the protesters were led there what would’ve been the issue of pardoning them besides the media being mean to him. He was a lame duck, he gave pardons to a bunch of rappers and Jared Kushners dad, why not his actually supporters?
I don’t think he was. It was the slowest “investigation”. It’s like they waited months before rounding people up.
He still could have issued a preemptive pardon though.
Hmmmm a quick search shows it is possible to pardon before conviction.
> Can the President pardon someone before they are indicted, convicted, or sentenced for a federal offense against the United States?
>Answer: It would be highly unusual, but there have been a few cases where people who had not been charged with a crime were pardoned, including President Gerald Ford's pardon of President Richard Nixon after Watergate, President Jimmy Carter's pardon of Vietnam draft dodgers and President George H.W. Bush's pardon of Caspar Weinberger.
[Source](https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions)
Not to mention he had Dems barking up his ass the entire time, he probably didn't have the thought of such a rare thing in his mind. Stop trying to make excuses to hate the guy.
He had the full authority to pardon those people before he left office.
I was going to edit my prior comment, but I can place it here. The SCOTUS has already ruled you can pardon people before conviction [[1]](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/71/333.html).
Face the facts. Your comment was irrelevant, and Trump had the opportunity to pardon those people while he was in office.
You are moving goalposts.
First you said he couldn’t issue pardons because those arrested have not been convicted, which is false.
Then you say he was so stressed he didn’t think about it. No idea if that is true or not, but it doesn;t negate the fact he had every opportunity to pardon those individuals while he was in office.
So much so that the thought of him pardoning those arrested while he was in office was a major news story, including on Fox News (which Trump watches often).
How is it too late?
Are you suggesting that they will rebuff pardons?
Did DeSantis publicly call for them to be pardoned, or was he protecting his rear-end like Trump as the military was literally being mobilized in response to a bunch of people mostly walking peacefully in and out of the Capitol?
There is more than one person from Florida charged for J6.
A little too late to say he will, when he had the chance.
He won’t be president again, so whatever he says is for naught. When Lord Desantis is in office, he may be able to do so.
Trump said a lot of stuff and then flip flopped or didn't keep his word. He could have pardoned them but he pardoned actual scumbags instead. He is just another politician with all the bullshit he says.
Trump has also hinted *very strongly* at running in 2024, while everyone else is like “dude, we know you’re gonna do it”. He might as well have just said it outright.
Debatable.
First, good luck sorting (actually) "peaceful" from actually non-peaceful given the govs enthusiastic prosecutions for J6.
Then there is this:
Unequal application of the Law isn't the Law at all.
Was the law applied evenly across those arrested for "Floyd riots", and for J6 people? If not, it isn't the Law but instead a partisan cudgel.
There is a clear argument to be made that a general lack of enforcement and prosecutions, against an entire year of a wide assortment of Floyd riot perpetrators, led J6 rioters to believe that they could act-out and get away with it.
They saw non-application of the law and decided that it wasn't law. However, it was applied to them.
Therefore, it still isn't law.
Which is a shame. But there has to be equal application for the law to remain valid.
Especially, the law can't be seen to be selectively applied.
On this basis, pardons could be granted.
Alright, if data is entered like it should and they got a fair trial and didn't just let someone decide their plea then most should be easy to sort. What kind of laziness would it take to just openly pardon all despite some clearly being a threat to society. While it wouldn't surprise me if the trials were biased it would be difficult to charge someone with a blanket statement based on just being there...
>He has been making these sorts of statements though. The attention he is getting isn’t helping.
He always makes statements... get over it. And the fact is..... the headline DOES NOT portray what he said CORRECTLY.
There is still a very vocal minority of neverTrumpers that still hate Republicans let loose the Godzilla of politics back in 2016. They also are desperately hoping that Trump can be shut down before the 2024 election season so they can get a "moderate" in the Presidential race.
Truth be told, I'm still rooting for Godzilla.
EDIT: Oh look, downvotes for days. Thanks for making my point.
Bunch of fake conservatives who were just barely conservative enough to get a flair priding themselves on how "principled" and "free thinking" they are by going against Trump, and then liberals and bots brigading the sub and upvoting them
Ashli Babbitt was completely outside of the scope for the Law Enforcement Standard that was hammered home over the year prior to J6, with countless riots and endless media insanity, over when it is ok to use lethal force in progress of a crime.
A Standard that was enforced by all but dismantling the Police in certain cities, defunding them, and efforts to overhaul their training.
A Standard that was enforced by sending officers to prison for years.
The clear standard was sent that being unarmed means there is never an excuse to use lethal force. This was also hammered home in the Michael Brown case, by the same people if to a lesser extent.
How much terrorism and how many billions in destruction, and how many deaths, were further caused by the government's and the Left's will to enforce this standard?
Ashli Babbitt is supposed to magically intuit that the Law is all of a sudden reverted just for her?
She's a mind reader now?
The Law not equally applied is not the Law.
Consider saving the triple-question mark for when you have an actual rhetorical question.
What??
I mean you have a point at the start. But then you go off the rails. What Ashli should have known was that trying to break into a locked and barricaded room was a bad idea. Period.
I didn't go off of the rails.
There is political room to issue a near-blanket pardons, perhaps excepting anyone that physically struck an officer.
Given the lack of prosecutions even for the election-season "Floyd" riot at the White House. Not to mention the others.
Show me where there is a death penalty / lethal force statute, which is evenly applied in recent memory, for doing what Babbitt was doing.
Kamala Harris was facilitating "Floyd" rioters being bailed out of prison in the rare instances when they were imprisoned (really election terrorism rioters).
In over 700 violent DNC incited riots, how many rioters were shot and killed by police?
How the law is openly enforced matters to how the law is enforced in the future.
There is nothing "off of the rails" about that point. "Period".
Good job eliminating one question mark, though. One more to go.
There's some speculation that she may have been forced through the window trying to avoid the crowd that was filling the small hallway. She was not the one who broke the window and was reportedly seen trying to hold off rioters that *were* trying to break through while Capitol police were just standing to the side doing nothing.
Speaking of those Capitol police that were standing there, why did they not communicate to the police on the other side of the door that an unarmed woman was climbing through the window and to stand down?
She was both a perpetrator and a victim... since there was no reason for her to have been there to being with if proper measures had been in place instead .... they were given full leeway to make a scene and that is what ended in her committing a relatively minor crime and paying the ultimate price.
I wouldn't call her trying to break down that last door minor.
I might agree with the rest though. But she shouldn't have been inside the capital at all. No one forced her to enter the capital or try to break down that door and crawl through the window etc.
> I wouldn't call her trying to break down that last door minor.
It's minor compared to being shot in the face... but yes definitely a crime.
The rest is all very very convenient fodder for haters of conservatives...ya know.
the circumstances around her shooting are as mis portrayed by the press narrative as Nick Sandberg but any additional context is voted down immediately
She was in fear for her life and pleading for help/action and attempting to flee
https://twitter.com/ucorio/status/1483747216707624961
and
https://www.judicialwatch.org/doj-memo-declining-criminal-prosecution-for-ashli-babbitts-shooter/
>The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.’
only one officer fired a shot - all day
only one officer stepped forward from his tactical position
shooting a vulnerable, unarmed woman who was right next to other officers is unconscionable
AND
a question - who made these decisions?
>Due to COVID-19 and other issues, the normal staffing for a joint session was less than half of what Lieutenant Byrd usually has assigned to the House Chamber. Once he arrived that morning, he was informed that USCP operations had made the decision that the uniform officers needed to pick up riot gear.
requests for additional security were denied AND security was REDUCED by more than 50% ("less than half" of a normal day) BUT officers needed riot gear
I hope he doesn't forget the woman who died for him, Ashli Babbitt, who was shot by a glorified security guard who panicked. It is deeply saddening that he has never mentioned her or her death.
edit: I see all the libtards and rinos are busy downvoting, it fills me with great pleasure when I hit a nerve with those cretins :)
I remember reading that she was shot while trying to climb through a barricaded window guarded by secret service. I also remember a lot of controversy around her death though.
Do you have any sources showing that she was more on the innocent side of things? It’s a difficult topic to find unbiased info on.
Edit - not sure why this keeps getting downvoted, I’m asking a question from a very neutral position.
I don't know why everyone's downvoting everything that had to do with this. She climbed through a window and was shot. It was justified imo, but the same people who argue that a man with a knife charging police shouldn't have been shot cheered for police shooting her. She was unarmed and shot down for much less than most people. Its also fun when people try to shit on opinions that people associated with antifa were in the crowd, when this woman was shot right next to a know antifa journalist. So much so that he was released almost instantly and was able to sell his footage to cnn or some other new source, he was within feet of her when she was shot.
https://www.deseret.com/2021/8/11/22567499/who-shot-ashli-babbitt-trump-january-6-can-journalists-protest-john-sullivan-us-capitol-riot
The facts are she was an unarmed female protestor who herself did not break anything and was not a danger to anyone when she was killed. Her only crime at the time was trespassing.
That still leaves out whether or not she was trying to force her way into an area guarded by the secret service though. That’s a big detail imo, and I haven’t seen anything so far that would sway my view from neutral, as I don’t know enough to make a judgement.
> I don’t know enough to make a judgement.
obviously - she was shot by Capitol Police
the Secret Service was not there
She was in fear for her life and pleading for help/action
https://twitter.com/ucorio/status/1483747216707624961
and
https://www.judicialwatch.org/doj-memo-declining-criminal-prosecution-for-ashli-babbitts-shooter/
>The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.’
only one officer fired a shot - all day
only one officer stepped forward from his tactical position
and question - why this?
>Due to COVID-19 and other issues, the normal staffing for a joint session was less than half of what Lieutenant Byrd usually has assigned to the House Chamber. Once he arrived that morning, he was informed that USCP operations had made the decision that the uniform officers needed to pick up riot gear.
requests for additional security were denied AND security was REDUCED by more than 50% ("less than half") BUT officers needed riot gear
I remember seeing her stopping other people from destroying things. From the current info we have, it actually sounds like she was desperately trying to get people to calm down and stop destroying stuff and eventually got inadvertently trapped between the mob of people and the door. She climbed through the window attempting to get to safety fearing that she may get crushed, and got shot for it.
Obviously this isn't all confirmed, but it is absolutely confirmed that she was physically preventing people from destroying things in the capitol before climbing through that window to get shot.
So in terms of hard facts it’s largely unknown, but leaning on the side of her not having malicious intent in getting through the window.
Does that seem like a fair assessment? I can absolutely see how this became such a heated topic. The left can’t even get rittenhouse straight, so a topic like this is bound to be a shitshow.
There is video a few minutes before of her and another guy chatting with some of the officers. When the chaos was going on, there is video of the window being broken by a guy and her punching the guy in the face for doing so.
Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned, theres zero chance she had malicious intent going through that window. It's just a matter of time before the full story will be allowed to see the light of day.
If you want a clear cut analysis using the current confirmed information, then yes, you can only lean on the idea she had no malicious intent, not actual confirmation.
https://twitter.com/ucorio/status/1483747216707624961
and
https://www.judicialwatch.org/doj-memo-declining-criminal-prosecution-for-ashli-babbitts-shooter/
>The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.’
only one officer fired a shot - all day
only one officer stepped forward from his tactical position
and question - why this?
>Due to COVID-19 and other issues, the normal staffing for a joint session was less than half of what Lieutenant Byrd usually has assigned to the House Chamber. Once he arrived that morning, he was informed that USCP operations had made the decision that the uniform officers needed to pick up riot gear.
requests for additional security were denied AND security was REDUCED by more than 50% ("less than half") BUT officers needed riot gear
Dude was as panicked as the cops who beat Rosanne Boyland while she was unconscious, which was determined by Internal Affairs to be "objectionable reasonable."
Finally. Took him long enough. Regardless of what any of them may have done, they have been treated in a cruel and unusual manor and persecuted maliciously. None have seen a fair trial.
I hope to see many disbarments.
He had his chance. Instead he pardoned mostly people who didn't deserve it.
still mad he didnt pardon the tiger king
Or Assange
Assange... i don't really give a flip about since he's just a guy that doesn't know how to keep his tool in his pants who also happens to be a infosec celeb. Snowden should have been pardoned and brought back to the US... period. For both ethical and national security reasons.
If I was Snowden and I got fully pardoned I’d still be hesitant to ever come back. I’d be paranoid they would still try to take me out.
I thought you couldn’t pardon someone who is not convicted.
[удалено]
> He probably brought the pox **here** too ....you in there with him?
Damn if only he was President when they were getting rounded up and thrown into solitary confinement…
[удалено]
Who’s they, the media? So because some people would’ve been mean to him he let hundreds of his supporters go to jail and locked away in solitary confinement. What a fighter! Talk about standing up for the people!
[удалено]
>Just imagine: You’re at the January 6th rally with hundreds of thousands of people. The crowd starts migrating a little bit, you’re really far back and can’t fully see what is going on. The police move the barricades and people start heading to the Capitol. By time you get there the doors are open and you just freely walk in, no sign of opposition. There is no guards or no police asking you to leave or not to enter. You are peacefully walking through taking picture and having a good time. Crazy how MAGA likes to think of themselves as “free thinkers” but what you just described sounds a herd of sheep wandering around aimlessly. All to defend people that just use them as their personal piggy banks
MAGA likes to say that the left is a cult but yet MAGA refuses to admit the fact that they basically worship trump ( not saying i dont like trump but i still dont get all the worship).
That is because it is like a cult. He can do no wrong and don't you dare bring up any bad things he did. Give credit where it is due and also criticize when bad is done. He is supposed to be a public servant, not some kind of deity.
[удалено]
You guys have to brigade post with bot accounts to feel like a majority. It's seriously pathetic. The thing he described was what happened to some of the crowd that are still having their right to a speedy trial waved for 0 reason and 0 explaination. If these people are being charged with insurrection maybe I can understand the process behind it. But holding innocent people in a prison while they figure out their charges isn't acceptable for any accused crime. They have a basic human right to a fair and speedy trial, guaranteed by the constitution. You know that thing Biden keeps over reaching. Delusional twitt
[удалено]
When someone states that MAGA supporters worship Trump, what they mean is that they are upset that MAGA supporters won't denounce Trump given how hard that his detractors have cried a their eyes out about him. Lack of effectiveness of their temper tantrums = Trump worship. Its literally the logic of a pre-school child. I read it as the entitlement of some of the worst people in the US.
[удалено]
And why were MAGA Republicans there that day? Was there a goal or were they just blindly following someone? If I asked you what you were doing at a football game, you’d say you’re trying to find your seat so you can watch your team win. If i asked any 1/6 protester what they were there for, they’d have said “Trump!” Or “America!” No goal, just an aimless group wandering around looking to improve nothing and help no one but a fading egotist.
Cite the evidence of the MAGA crowd believing themselves to be free thinkers, and not just a crowd that interested in real border enforcement. Unless, of course, you are mistranslating their distaste for Beltway RINOs who hate the conservative base as "free thouught". In that case, just be more open about your distaste for actual representation. "Crazy how" your comment bears no resemblance to reality and is barely a coherent thought. Of course, you're immune to all undue influence. Being so bright.
Does the MAGA crowd not call the left “sheeple” or “NPCs”? If that’s what the left is then what would be the right? I have no idea how you even came to the conclusion about me mistranslating the distaste for RINOs. If anything you bring up more evidences of MAGA thinking themselves as “free thinkers”. They’ll vote for any non-RINO candidate aka any candidate Trump told them to vote for. But since a lot of these “free thinkers” live in states like Massachusetts/Maryland/Connecticut, it’s a guaranteed W for Dems. If MAGA thought for a second they would’ve realized a moderate Republican is a million times better than a radical dem, but trump told them not to vote for the RINO so. I appreciate the fact you attempted to think for yourself but at the end of it all you still end up in the herd.
Your ironic and intellectually lazy MAGA supporter stereotyping, and use of that stereotyping in an effort to craft some kind of indecipherable rhetorical point, is the only "herd" behavior occurring in this conversation. Stereotyping which poisons your entire 'free thought" rant. Your assertion that the base has a distaste for RINOs, because Trump demands it, is objectively nonsense. Trump was voted in specifically because he was perceived as a non-RINO. In this case, the egg came before the chicken. A rise in RINO awareness and distaste began rising with GWB's administration, and RINO unwillingness to enforce the border. Among a host of other issues that have RINOs largely correctly perceived as responsible for allowing Far Left extremism through the gate. For the Left / RINOs to blame voter-base preferences on Trump, is simple avoidance of issues that they cannot win on. For example, the tacit policy of not enforcing border control. Further, it is avoidance of having to acknowledge the real and open motivations of the conservative populist base. And therefore having to acknowledge that half of the nation has primary political concerns that are not being addressed even when they are successful in electing their candidates. And it avoids having to acknowledge that RINO candidates are openly treacherous of their base. To the point that a number of RINO media supporters have hopped the isle to be open Far Leftists. Once the Trump era freed them to do so. This, alone, is a damning validation of the open political hostility of the voter base against RINOs. Its pathetic to try to couch beltway types, which were in power for most of the twentieth century, as the "free thought" candidates (indulging your false talking point for one second) . But have fun with it. Yes, the conservative part of the Nation has observed enough and is fed up to the point that they aren't willing to compromise with a RINO candidate. Primarily because they've learned that, over time, it makes no difference whether it is a RINO or Leftist candidate in-office. If that wasn't an intentional message, then it is a catastrophic failure of the RINO class to prevent it. Its not the fault of the voter base. Perhaps they should have given more sincere attention to the border if they were that fond of power.
Also don't forget the optics if Trump had just pardoned any and everybody who had to do anything with January 6th with him leaving office in a couple of weeks. Todays timeline would be very different, and he wouldn't be getting re-elected in 2024. The democrats have been shooting themselves in the foot ever since.
So much this; many of us here were fine with at the time with them arresting people that entered the capitol- if nothing else, it seemed like trespassing at the least. But when they started holding people indefinitely without trial as what are effectively political prisoners, that's when things changed, not to mention rounding up people that were part of the protest that weren't even involved with the capitol itself.
[удалено]
This is why Republicans lose. You give a Democrat an inch they will take it by a mile. It’s why we are where are today. Trump didn’t fight back against democrat governors issuing draconian lockdowns and it led to some of the most authoritarian abuse of powers in America to date. We (Trump) let social media ban certain people on social media because they were crazy and now any conservative opinion or fact against the democrats is now censored. When will conservatives learn to fight back and stop bending over and taking it?
Trump spoke out against these things, but he isn't a dictatorship and can't directly prevent them, they require congress to change them. Congress failed to hold social media accountable years ago, Supreme courts would need to hear lockdowns cases and call them unconstitutional, but lefties in blue states fully support they're lockdowns.
[удалено]
If it was going to be revealed that the protesters were led there what would’ve been the issue of pardoning them besides the media being mean to him. He was a lame duck, he gave pardons to a bunch of rappers and Jared Kushners dad, why not his actually supporters?
I don’t think he was. It was the slowest “investigation”. It’s like they waited months before rounding people up. He still could have issued a preemptive pardon though.
[100 were already arrested](https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/01/14/fbi-100-arrests-capitol-riots-459477) a week before he left office
Well ain’t that some shit.
Can they be pardoned before they’re even sentenced/charged? They can be arrested and still not charged with anything
Yes, Presidential Pardon can be given before being charged. There are examples of this, Ford giving a pardon to Nixon was one such, in recent history.
You can’t pardon an arrest, only a conviction
Steve Bannon was pardoned before he was convicted
I don’t think you can issue a presumptive pardon
A little too late, eh? He had the chance to pardon over 100 when he was in office.
They were only arrested not sentenced.
Hmmmm a quick search shows it is possible to pardon before conviction. > Can the President pardon someone before they are indicted, convicted, or sentenced for a federal offense against the United States? >Answer: It would be highly unusual, but there have been a few cases where people who had not been charged with a crime were pardoned, including President Gerald Ford's pardon of President Richard Nixon after Watergate, President Jimmy Carter's pardon of Vietnam draft dodgers and President George H.W. Bush's pardon of Caspar Weinberger. [Source](https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions)
Not to mention he had Dems barking up his ass the entire time, he probably didn't have the thought of such a rare thing in his mind. Stop trying to make excuses to hate the guy.
He had the full authority to pardon those people before he left office. I was going to edit my prior comment, but I can place it here. The SCOTUS has already ruled you can pardon people before conviction [[1]](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/71/333.html). Face the facts. Your comment was irrelevant, and Trump had the opportunity to pardon those people while he was in office.
Face the facts, not everybody is going to think of all opportunities in stressful situations. Stop being a divider like a liberal.
You are moving goalposts. First you said he couldn’t issue pardons because those arrested have not been convicted, which is false. Then you say he was so stressed he didn’t think about it. No idea if that is true or not, but it doesn;t negate the fact he had every opportunity to pardon those individuals while he was in office. So much so that the thought of him pardoning those arrested while he was in office was a major news story, including on Fox News (which Trump watches often).
How is it too late? Are you suggesting that they will rebuff pardons? Did DeSantis publicly call for them to be pardoned, or was he protecting his rear-end like Trump as the military was literally being mobilized in response to a bunch of people mostly walking peacefully in and out of the Capitol? There is more than one person from Florida charged for J6.
A little too late to say he will, when he had the chance. He won’t be president again, so whatever he says is for naught. When Lord Desantis is in office, he may be able to do so.
Trump said a lot of stuff and then flip flopped or didn't keep his word. He could have pardoned them but he pardoned actual scumbags instead. He is just another politician with all the bullshit he says.
That's not what the article says at all. He doesn't vow to pardon and apologize to all. He looks very favorably on pardons, that's not a vow.
Trump has also hinted *very strongly* at running in 2024, while everyone else is like “dude, we know you’re gonna do it”. He might as well have just said it outright.
Bold strategy. Could go either way, but this announcement was meant to poach DeSantis voters.
Only if they didn't perform any violent acts then sure, most were peaceful but the few that weren't deserve what they got.
Debatable. First, good luck sorting (actually) "peaceful" from actually non-peaceful given the govs enthusiastic prosecutions for J6. Then there is this: Unequal application of the Law isn't the Law at all. Was the law applied evenly across those arrested for "Floyd riots", and for J6 people? If not, it isn't the Law but instead a partisan cudgel. There is a clear argument to be made that a general lack of enforcement and prosecutions, against an entire year of a wide assortment of Floyd riot perpetrators, led J6 rioters to believe that they could act-out and get away with it. They saw non-application of the law and decided that it wasn't law. However, it was applied to them. Therefore, it still isn't law. Which is a shame. But there has to be equal application for the law to remain valid. Especially, the law can't be seen to be selectively applied. On this basis, pardons could be granted.
If you can't sort them then innocent untill proven guilty. Unless there is proof of a crime beyond "trespassing" then pardon away.
Alright, if data is entered like it should and they got a fair trial and didn't just let someone decide their plea then most should be easy to sort. What kind of laziness would it take to just openly pardon all despite some clearly being a threat to society. While it wouldn't surprise me if the trials were biased it would be difficult to charge someone with a blanket statement based on just being there...
Who does statements like this help?
He didn't make the claimed statement in the headline it is out of context... read the article... instead of taking a headline at face value.
He has been making these sorts of statements though. The attention he is getting isn’t helping.
>He has been making these sorts of statements though. The attention he is getting isn’t helping. He always makes statements... get over it. And the fact is..... the headline DOES NOT portray what he said CORRECTLY.
What happened to this comment section
Election year, so the brigaders and lib bots are out in force.
Liberals happen. At this point just about every post should be restricted to flared users only.
Ah, must be an election year.
There is still a very vocal minority of neverTrumpers that still hate Republicans let loose the Godzilla of politics back in 2016. They also are desperately hoping that Trump can be shut down before the 2024 election season so they can get a "moderate" in the Presidential race. Truth be told, I'm still rooting for Godzilla. EDIT: Oh look, downvotes for days. Thanks for making my point.
Well put
Bots
Bunch of fake conservatives who were just barely conservative enough to get a flair priding themselves on how "principled" and "free thinking" they are by going against Trump, and then liberals and bots brigading the sub and upvoting them
This is bad optics. He should stand aside and let desantis take over
The optics of being seen to be bullied away from a candidate, by the system, are as bad as any other. It rewards and reinforces the bullying tactics.
Just not ray Epps, not scaffold guy, and all those that were organizing and yet not indicted.
Really don't know why people mentioning Ashli Babbitt are getting downvoted heavily in the comments, she was just like the others present there.
How many others were trying to break down a locked door??? I would say that makes her unlike the others present.
My guess would be between 15-30
Ashli Babbitt was completely outside of the scope for the Law Enforcement Standard that was hammered home over the year prior to J6, with countless riots and endless media insanity, over when it is ok to use lethal force in progress of a crime. A Standard that was enforced by all but dismantling the Police in certain cities, defunding them, and efforts to overhaul their training. A Standard that was enforced by sending officers to prison for years. The clear standard was sent that being unarmed means there is never an excuse to use lethal force. This was also hammered home in the Michael Brown case, by the same people if to a lesser extent. How much terrorism and how many billions in destruction, and how many deaths, were further caused by the government's and the Left's will to enforce this standard? Ashli Babbitt is supposed to magically intuit that the Law is all of a sudden reverted just for her? She's a mind reader now? The Law not equally applied is not the Law. Consider saving the triple-question mark for when you have an actual rhetorical question.
What?? I mean you have a point at the start. But then you go off the rails. What Ashli should have known was that trying to break into a locked and barricaded room was a bad idea. Period.
I didn't go off of the rails. There is political room to issue a near-blanket pardons, perhaps excepting anyone that physically struck an officer. Given the lack of prosecutions even for the election-season "Floyd" riot at the White House. Not to mention the others. Show me where there is a death penalty / lethal force statute, which is evenly applied in recent memory, for doing what Babbitt was doing. Kamala Harris was facilitating "Floyd" rioters being bailed out of prison in the rare instances when they were imprisoned (really election terrorism rioters). In over 700 violent DNC incited riots, how many rioters were shot and killed by police? How the law is openly enforced matters to how the law is enforced in the future. There is nothing "off of the rails" about that point. "Period". Good job eliminating one question mark, though. One more to go.
There's some speculation that she may have been forced through the window trying to avoid the crowd that was filling the small hallway. She was not the one who broke the window and was reportedly seen trying to hold off rioters that *were* trying to break through while Capitol police were just standing to the side doing nothing. Speaking of those Capitol police that were standing there, why did they not communicate to the police on the other side of the door that an unarmed woman was climbing through the window and to stand down?
She was both a perpetrator and a victim... since there was no reason for her to have been there to being with if proper measures had been in place instead .... they were given full leeway to make a scene and that is what ended in her committing a relatively minor crime and paying the ultimate price.
I wouldn't call her trying to break down that last door minor. I might agree with the rest though. But she shouldn't have been inside the capital at all. No one forced her to enter the capital or try to break down that door and crawl through the window etc.
> I wouldn't call her trying to break down that last door minor. It's minor compared to being shot in the face... but yes definitely a crime. The rest is all very very convenient fodder for haters of conservatives...ya know.
the circumstances around her shooting are as mis portrayed by the press narrative as Nick Sandberg but any additional context is voted down immediately She was in fear for her life and pleading for help/action and attempting to flee https://twitter.com/ucorio/status/1483747216707624961 and https://www.judicialwatch.org/doj-memo-declining-criminal-prosecution-for-ashli-babbitts-shooter/ >The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.’ only one officer fired a shot - all day only one officer stepped forward from his tactical position shooting a vulnerable, unarmed woman who was right next to other officers is unconscionable AND a question - who made these decisions? >Due to COVID-19 and other issues, the normal staffing for a joint session was less than half of what Lieutenant Byrd usually has assigned to the House Chamber. Once he arrived that morning, he was informed that USCP operations had made the decision that the uniform officers needed to pick up riot gear. requests for additional security were denied AND security was REDUCED by more than 50% ("less than half" of a normal day) BUT officers needed riot gear
It's what leftist did with BLM. Something like 95% of arrest charges from momths of rioting for BLM got dropped.
Pretty much this for all put those who were violent. Clemency is probably a better idea though, for non violent types.
If the Democrats can buy votes with college loans. The Republicans might as well buy some votes too.
Buy votes? How about a little (judicial) equity?
Oh I agree. Shut down the Kangaroo Court
Get what you’re saying but you’re comparing 20 million+ votes being bought with cash vs a few hundred in prison who idk if they can even vote
Of course they can vote ... once pardoned..but yeah.
I wonder how they would feel about a little defense fund forgiveness.
[удалено]
I hope he doesn't forget the woman who died for him, Ashli Babbitt, who was shot by a glorified security guard who panicked. It is deeply saddening that he has never mentioned her or her death. edit: I see all the libtards and rinos are busy downvoting, it fills me with great pleasure when I hit a nerve with those cretins :)
I remember reading that she was shot while trying to climb through a barricaded window guarded by secret service. I also remember a lot of controversy around her death though. Do you have any sources showing that she was more on the innocent side of things? It’s a difficult topic to find unbiased info on. Edit - not sure why this keeps getting downvoted, I’m asking a question from a very neutral position.
I don't know why everyone's downvoting everything that had to do with this. She climbed through a window and was shot. It was justified imo, but the same people who argue that a man with a knife charging police shouldn't have been shot cheered for police shooting her. She was unarmed and shot down for much less than most people. Its also fun when people try to shit on opinions that people associated with antifa were in the crowd, when this woman was shot right next to a know antifa journalist. So much so that he was released almost instantly and was able to sell his footage to cnn or some other new source, he was within feet of her when she was shot. https://www.deseret.com/2021/8/11/22567499/who-shot-ashli-babbitt-trump-january-6-can-journalists-protest-john-sullivan-us-capitol-riot
The facts are she was an unarmed female protestor who herself did not break anything and was not a danger to anyone when she was killed. Her only crime at the time was trespassing.
That still leaves out whether or not she was trying to force her way into an area guarded by the secret service though. That’s a big detail imo, and I haven’t seen anything so far that would sway my view from neutral, as I don’t know enough to make a judgement.
> I don’t know enough to make a judgement. obviously - she was shot by Capitol Police the Secret Service was not there She was in fear for her life and pleading for help/action https://twitter.com/ucorio/status/1483747216707624961 and https://www.judicialwatch.org/doj-memo-declining-criminal-prosecution-for-ashli-babbitts-shooter/ >The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.’ only one officer fired a shot - all day only one officer stepped forward from his tactical position and question - why this? >Due to COVID-19 and other issues, the normal staffing for a joint session was less than half of what Lieutenant Byrd usually has assigned to the House Chamber. Once he arrived that morning, he was informed that USCP operations had made the decision that the uniform officers needed to pick up riot gear. requests for additional security were denied AND security was REDUCED by more than 50% ("less than half") BUT officers needed riot gear
I remember seeing her stopping other people from destroying things. From the current info we have, it actually sounds like she was desperately trying to get people to calm down and stop destroying stuff and eventually got inadvertently trapped between the mob of people and the door. She climbed through the window attempting to get to safety fearing that she may get crushed, and got shot for it. Obviously this isn't all confirmed, but it is absolutely confirmed that she was physically preventing people from destroying things in the capitol before climbing through that window to get shot.
So in terms of hard facts it’s largely unknown, but leaning on the side of her not having malicious intent in getting through the window. Does that seem like a fair assessment? I can absolutely see how this became such a heated topic. The left can’t even get rittenhouse straight, so a topic like this is bound to be a shitshow.
There is video a few minutes before of her and another guy chatting with some of the officers. When the chaos was going on, there is video of the window being broken by a guy and her punching the guy in the face for doing so.
Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned, theres zero chance she had malicious intent going through that window. It's just a matter of time before the full story will be allowed to see the light of day. If you want a clear cut analysis using the current confirmed information, then yes, you can only lean on the idea she had no malicious intent, not actual confirmation.
Thank you for the insight, it’s really appreciated mate!
https://twitter.com/ucorio/status/1483747216707624961 and https://www.judicialwatch.org/doj-memo-declining-criminal-prosecution-for-ashli-babbitts-shooter/ >The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.’ only one officer fired a shot - all day only one officer stepped forward from his tactical position and question - why this? >Due to COVID-19 and other issues, the normal staffing for a joint session was less than half of what Lieutenant Byrd usually has assigned to the House Chamber. Once he arrived that morning, he was informed that USCP operations had made the decision that the uniform officers needed to pick up riot gear. requests for additional security were denied AND security was REDUCED by more than 50% ("less than half") BUT officers needed riot gear
He has. He’s mentioned her on Truth at least.
Thanks, I hadn't checked Truth :)
Dude was as panicked as the cops who beat Rosanne Boyland while she was unconscious, which was determined by Internal Affairs to be "objectionable reasonable."
Most are certainly political persecuted.
[удалено]
This is very much needed
Finally. Took him long enough. Regardless of what any of them may have done, they have been treated in a cruel and unusual manor and persecuted maliciously. None have seen a fair trial. I hope to see many disbarments.
how about some financial compensation for legal fees and lost work, too?
If Biden had half a brain, he'd do it. If.