President Trump Indicted on Federal Charges

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • LeftyGunner

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 10, 2022
    657
    93
    Indianapolis
    Isn't that just a convenient way to ignore it? Back in 2020 during the george floyd riots, federal property was dammaged. Bar aggressively investigated and prosecuted the perpetrators. After Biden took office the DoJ dropped the cases. There were plenty of articles posted here.

    I didn’t pay much attention to the riots in other towns and, honestly the fate of the rioters didn’t interest me much, so this one slid right past me...my bad.

    The Portland rioters are still being prosecuted in state court for the laws they broke. I think state charges are most appropriate in the bulk of these cases…perhaps even all of them…local thuggery isn’t a federal issue.

    I'd add a little more complexity to that. Charges where charges are appropriate, and, prosecute everyone equally under the law. That's not happening. Saying you don't like the NDA's is a cop out. It's like throwing your hands up, well, whatdyagonna do? and then going back to caring about prosecuting the one you actually care about.

    I agree entirely with this. Everyone should be prosecuted equally under the law.

    For example, I agree that failing to follow through on valid criminal prosecutions is a miscarriage of Justice and a betrayal of the public trust.

    However, failing to prosecute Hillary for her crimes is not a valid reason to excuse Trump for his.

    …to the rest of your point, I’m not sure what you mean by a cop out. It my view that public business should be done in a public forum, subject to public record and public review…to me, this is especially important in the business of prosecuting criminals.

    Would be nice to have a legal definition of insurrection.

    View attachment 290736

    The law doesn't define it. It just refers to it.

    insurrection, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt. An insurrection may facilitate or bring about a revolution, which is a radical change in the form of government or political system of a state, and it may be initiated or provoked by an act of sedition, which is an incitement to revolt or rebellion.

    Okay, I can work with this. Fair.


    I think a few of the people who entered the capital could reasonably be charged with insurrection.

    So do I...that’s the point I have been arguing this whole time.

    But to say that J6 was entirely an insurrection is indeed hyperbole.

    …and I haven‘t. You and some other posters have made that leap for me. When I speak of insurrectionists I am not referring to the people who collected outside the capitol and then went home when things got out of control...those people were protestors.

    This was a protest that turned into a riot. Some people entered the building. Some were invited in by Capitol Police! Most of the people who entered the Capitol though acted more like tourists than insurrectionists.

    Tourists? Only if you ignore everything else going on around them.

    If you are going to accuse me of cherry picking my supporting facts, please do less of it yourself.

    Some of those people plead guilty because they were intimidated and threatened that they'd be charged with felonies if they didn't plea, when what they actually did was trespassing at most. Some were also charged with assault. Typical riot stuff. Most of the violence happened outside.

    So…this is what happens when you entangle yourself with law enforcement, you get treated as a criminal suspect.

    Every single one of those defendants had a right to a jury trial, a possible change of venue, appellate review of the handling of their case…etc.

    Instead, they chose to admit to having committed the crimes with which they were charged.

    At every step these consequences were their own choosing.
    I think this is unreasonably dismissive. Did you not get the part about a different set of rules for one side and a different set of rules for the other? How hard did the media, the DoJ, and Democrats go after the George Floyd Rioters who breached the White House grounds, destroyed property, set fires, and violently assaulted secret service officers? On White House grounds? Does that not fit your definition of an insurrection? And are you asserting that DC jurors would not be much more likely to convict than, say, Indiana jurors?

    Noted.

    There were dozens of arrests following the riots in DC.

    It should also be noted those criminal cases (or lack thereof) were prosecuted under the Trump administration, not Obama or Biden.

    I mean, look at the language you're using. You keep calling them insurrectionists while separating out the possibility that some insurrectionists didn't commit a crime? I mean, read that again and tell me that sounds like it's made in good faith.

    You admitted that some of them could reasonably be called insurrectionists based on their actions…let’s stick to those people.


    I know many firearms were confiscated. There was some discussion here recently about that even. What I'm addressing was that it was not an armed insurrection, even though some people got caught with weapons on Capitol grounds. Those people should be charged and were.

    We are in total agreement on these points.

    Let me just say this again, since you like to say that so often. It's hyperbolic to say the whole protest was an insurrection, which you seem to be doing. For a large majority of the people who participated on J6, they were just there to protest the election. Some people were there for for years nefarious purposes. I think as a whole, when you watch all the available video it's more accurate to call what happened a riot. And for a few it's probably fair to say they were insurrectionists. They intended to use violence to prevent the certification of electors.

    Then I’ll say this again…I am only referring to the rioters that entered the capitol and interrupted the joint session of congress as Insurrectionists.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    112,593
    149
    Southside Indy
    The Portland rioters are still being prosecuted in state court for the laws they broke. I think state charges are most appropriate in the bulk of these cases…perhaps even all of them…local thuggery isn’t a federal issue.
    Really?

    Rioters Set Fire to Federal Courthouse in Portland One Day after Fencing Removed​


    FBI Portland Statement on Reported Threats to Federal Building​


    Portland protesters barricade courthouse with federal officers inside, then try to set it on fire​


    This is what an insurrection looks like.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,355
    113
    Gtown-ish
    In a country with more guns than people, if the people had the intent to have an insurrection, nothing in DC would still have a pulse.

    They had a protest. This isn't debatable by any measure.
    Well, c'mon. It did turn into a violent riot. Property was damaged. People entered restricted spaces. No one tried to take over the government. A few people thought they were. Probably a lot of the violence was instigated.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,355
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I didn’t pay much attention to the riots in other towns and, honestly the fate of the rioters didn’t interest me much, so this one slid right past me...my bad.

    The Portland rioters are still being prosecuted in state court for the laws they broke. I think state charges are most appropriate in the bulk of these cases…perhaps even all of them…local thuggery isn’t a federal issue.
    I'm talking about the federal charges for destroying federal property in Portland. Well, and DC. And Minneapolis. And Atlanta. Etcetera.

    I agree entirely with this. Everyone should be prosecuted equally under the law.

    For example, I agree that failing to follow through on valid criminal prosecutions is a miscarriage of Justice and a betrayal of the public trust.

    However, failing to prosecute Hillary for her crimes is not a valid reason to excuse Trump for his.
    It's not an excuse. If they selectively prosecute political enemies it erodes public trust in the system. If you're going to prosecute one, prosecute all. If you're not going to prosecute yours, don't prosecute any.

    …to the rest of your point, I’m not sure what you mean by a cop out. It my view that public business should be done in a public forum, subject to public record and public review…to me, this is especially important in the business of prosecuting criminals.
    What I'm saying, if you just give lip service to, "ya, ya, equal protection and all that, but I've especially been looking forward to seeing Trump getting prosecuted for something so..."

    When someone calls you out for caring more about prosecuting the guy you hate, and you do that, yeah. That's a cop out.

    Okay, I can work with this. Fair.



    So do I...that’s the point I have been arguing this whole time.
    You've been referring to the entirety of J6 as "insurrectionists". That language does not fit what I just quoted.

    …and I haven‘t. You and some other posters have made that leap for me. When I speak of insurrectionists I am not referring to the people who collected outside the capitol and then went home when things got out of control...those people were protestors.
    Then use language that makes it clear. You even refered to insurrectionists who committed crimes as a subset of insurrectionists!

    Tourists? Only if you ignore everything else going on around them.
    In the Capitol building yes. Of course there was violence going on elsewhere in the building. In the blocked off hallway where Ashlee Bobbit was shot by Capitol police, for example. But a lot of the video was of people going through the tourist areas, even staying within the ropes! Of the video footage available, there were a lot more people walking around, taking it, than were actively engaging in violence and property damage.

    If you are going to accuse me of cherry picking my supporting facts, please do less of it yourself.
    I think I've represented the gist of what's available on video. What got cherry picked was the J6 committee version.

    So…this is what happens when you entangle yourself with law enforcement, you get treated as a criminal suspect.
    Asymmetrically, yes. They treated the George Floyd rioters like they had a right to burn **** down.

    Every single one of those defendants had a right to a jury trial, a possible change of venue, appellate review of the handling of their case…etc.

    Instead, they chose to admit to having committed the crimes with which they were charged.

    At every step these consequences were their own choosing.
    That doesn't excuse what looks to me like prosecutorial misconduct.

    Noted.

    There were dozens of arrests following the riots in DC.

    It should also be noted those criminal cases (or lack thereof) were prosecuted under the Trump administration, not Obama or Biden.
    Was that an insurrection? There were some prosecutions. Did they prosecute old ladies? I mean that one lady, all she did was trespass. That should have been a misdemeanor.

    What did Democrats and the media say about it? Did you even know the White House grounds were breached? It was reported, but in a way that those people were justified.

    You admitted that some of them could reasonably be called insurrectionists based on their actions…let’s stick to those people.
    Okay. Thank you. I will note that you'll modify your language to reflect that. So let's not refer to the "insurrectionists" who committed crimes as a subset of the "insurrectionists".

    We are in total agreement on these points.



    Then I’ll say this again…I am only referring to the rioters that entered the capitol and interrupted the joint session of congress as Insurrectionists.
    Then why didn't you say that? When referring to the people involved in J6 you did not make a distiction between the protestors, the rioters, and the few people who actually were insurrectionists. You referred to the whole lot as "insurrectionists".
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,355
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Really?

    Rioters Set Fire to Federal Courthouse in Portland One Day after Fencing Removed​


    FBI Portland Statement on Reported Threats to Federal Building​


    Portland protesters barricade courthouse with federal officers inside, then try to set it on fire​


    This is what an insurrection looks like.
    Plus, if we go back to the threads on the portland violence, we should find the links to the DOJ dropping federal charges against them after Biden took office. Barr had been prosecuting them under the Trump administration. Biden couldn't wait to drop it.
     

    Ingomike

    Top Hand
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    31,545
    113
    North Central
    Every single one of those defendants had a right to a jury trial, a possible change of venue, appellate review of the handling of their case…etc.
    That you believe those folks were given constitutional treatment is so naive and show a lack of engagement in the news.

    As a conservative I do not have the luxury of not hearing the left side of news, it is blasted at us from all corners, leftists on the other hand have no idea what is actually going on because they are never exposed to the other side.

    If one has not watched the J6 video not shown by the MSM they are at best uninformed and ignorant of knowing what actually happened but, just like you, they are so confident they know what happened before, during, and after…
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 7, 2021
    2,977
    113
    central indiana
    However, failing to prosecute Hillary for her crimes is not a valid reason to excuse Trump for his.
    But you never express giddiness about the prosecution of others, only Trump. It makes you look one-sided, a zealot, an ignorant leftist. Obviously this is only my opinion.

    Everyone should be prosecuted equally under the law.
    Allow me to agree with your statement. But I ask, can you not see the overt political bias and bastardized legal effort against Trump? Man, hounded for seven years..... meanwhile the sitting president is involved in extortion and bribery. This **** has been anything but equal under the law.

    Every single one of those defendants had a right to a jury trial, a possible change of venue, appellate review of the handling of their case…etc.
    Did every single one of those defendants have the means to exercise their rights? If they don't have the means, do they have the rights at all? Some of these people languished in jail for months/years before they ever got to a courtroom; some sat that long just waiting for the procecution to actually produce charges.

    To me, I don't think you're sincere about equal justice. You're either BSing for the interaction and reaction or you're a true leftist blinded with orange rage.
     

    LeftyGunner

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 10, 2022
    657
    93
    Indianapolis
    But you never express giddiness about the prosecution of others, only Trump. It makes you look one-sided, a zealot, an ignorant leftist. Obviously this is only my opinion.

    I have held a low opinion of Trump for decades before ran for president. Seeing him held accountable for his schemes after all these years does bring a smile to my face, I won’t lie.

    But, give me a chance to surprise you…start handing out indictments for insider trading to a few of the swampier congress critters and I’ll be smiles aplenty.

    I don’t have any sacred cows at any level of government. …and I am deeply anti-dynasty.

    Allow me to agree with your statement. But I ask, can you not see the overt political bias and bastardized legal effort against Trump? Man, hounded for seven years..... meanwhile the sitting president is involved in extortion and bribery. This **** has been anything but equal under the law.

    I think this is a place we will simply not see eye-to-eye, so I don’t really want to linger too long on this point…this is simply my opinion on this matter:

    Trump is as dirty as the day is long, but he has always been able to afford to out-lawyer anyone to would try to hold him accountable for his behavior…and it worked for him for decades.

    Unfortunately for him, he found the one opponent that is immune to this tactic…so these cases just keep stacking up rather than silently disappearing like they always did for him in the past.

    To you it may look like overt political bias, but to me it looks like 50 years of overdue accountability finally coming due.

    Did every single one of those defendants have the means to exercise their rights? If they don't have the means, do they have the rights at all? Some of these people languished in jail for months/years before they ever got to a courtroom; some sat that long just waiting for the procecution to actually produce charges.

    Penal reform? Now we’re talking!

    I‘m glad to finally see voices on the right speak up about the awful realities of the American Justice System.

    Is it fair to point out that the right only cared after MAGA found themselves in the crosshairs?

    To me, I don't think you're sincere about equal justice. You're either BSing for the interaction and reaction or you're a true leftist blinded with orange rage.

    I don’t think we know enough about one another to make these kind of judgements, and I can’t see how they would benefit the forum even if we did.

    Maybe we could just stick to discussing the topics, and save the personal judgements for a more appropriate forum…like a thunderdome or Instagram.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,294
    113
    Martinsville
    Well, c'mon. It did turn into a violent riot. Property was damaged. People entered restricted spaces. No one tried to take over the government. A few people thought they were. Probably a lot of the violence was instigated.

    That isn't a violent insurrection.

    That's a protest that got rowdy. If they wanted to change the outcome of the election, they would have brought guns.
     
    Top Bottom