Actual Charges of INSURRECTION in the "Insurrecton"

[CMD]

The question - is there sufficient evidence to warrant allegations of insurrection? - won't be answered by the fact that no charges to that effect have been laid.
No more than the question- is there sufficient evidence to warrant allegations of irregularities with Hilary Clinton's emails? - is answered by the fact that no charges to that effect have been laid.

That's what I was saying, I just didn't say it nearly as well.

[tabibito]

He does have a point.

Just because they aren't charged with insurrection doesn't automatically mean they weren't engaged in one.

But in that case, I'd still expect to see more charged with serious offenses rather than what we've seen and even what's pending.

I can't remember what the word is for when one person beats another to the punch with a similar post ...
so ...


SNAP!

[Cow Poke]

Where the law is impartial, that is so. In certain areas, from what your posts (and those of others) indicate, the law is not being administered impartially. If the administration of the law is so thoroughly politicised, nothing can be stated with certainty about the significance of charges being laid or not laid.

And I think that's my point --- this isn't a search for the truth, it's the liberals grossly abusing their power to punish Trump and his supporters.

Now, let me hasten to add - ANYBODY who violated the law that day should be arrested, charged, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And I have been very consistent about that.
Including the Capitol Police officer who killed an unarmed woman because he was in panic mode.

The question - is there sufficient evidence to warrant allegations of insurrection? - won't be answered by the fact that no charges to that effect have been laid.
No more than the question- is there sufficient evidence to warrant allegations of irregularities with Hilary Clinton's emails? - is answered by the fact that no charges to that effect have been laid.

Let's follow that up --- what was Hillary actually charged with (or accused of) that wasn't supported by a whole bunch of evidence? Even to the point that Comey laid out an iron-clad case against her, then preempted a trial by declaring that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her?

[tabibito]

That's what I was saying, I just didn't say it nearly as well.

Yup - I thought that was what you were saying. So this might be an opportunity to resolve a problem - where are you from?

[Cow Poke]

That's what I was saying, I just didn't say it nearly as well.

My apologies --- I knew it didn't sound like you, hence my "who hijacked" comment.

[Cow Poke]

I can't remember what the word is for when one person beats another to the punch with a similar post ...
so ...


SNAP!

Ninja'd!!!!

[tabibito]

And I think that's my point --- this isn't a search for the truth, it's the liberals grossly abusing their power to punish Trump and his supporters.

Seems that way to me - but I'm kind of insulated from the kerfuffle.

Now, let me hasten to add - ANYBODY who violated the law that day should be arrested, charged, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And I have been very consistent about that.
Including the Capitol Police officer who killed an unarmed woman because he was in panic mode.

You've made that clear enough - repeatedly. If the message hasn't been received by certain parties, it is because they are making sure it doesn't arrive.

Let's follow that up --- what was Hillary actually charged with (or accused of) that wasn't supported by a whole bunch of evidence? Even to the point that Comey laid out an iron-clad case against her, then preempted a trial by declaring that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her?

I remember that incident. From my distant remove, it seemed that politics (whether personal or "official") was permitted to influence the administration of the law. That kind of thing is reminiscent of banana republic procedures.

[Stoic]

Let's follow that up --- what was Hillary actually charged with (or accused of) that wasn't supported by a whole bunch of evidence? Even to the point that Comey laid out an iron-clad case against her, then preempted a trial by declaring that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her?

I'm not sure you want to go there, unless you *really* want to derail your thread.

[rogue06]

I can't remember what the word is for when one person beats another to the punch with a similar post ...
so ...


SNAP!

Ninja'd for one.


ETA: And ironically, I was ninja'd by my lovin' brudda

[tabibito]

Ninja'd for one.

CP ninja'd you. Thanks both.

[Mountain Man]

Where the law is impartial, that is so. In certain areas, from what your posts (and those of others) indicate, the law is not being administered impartially. If the administration of the law is so thoroughly politicised, nothing can be stated with certainty about the significance of charges being laid or not laid.

The question - is there sufficient evidence to warrant allegations of insurrection? - won't be answered by the fact that no charges to that effect have been laid.
No more than the question- is there sufficient evidence to warrant allegations of irregularities with Hilary Clinton's emails? - is answered by the fact that no charges to that effect have been laid.

Hillary's situation is completely different being that she's a powerful Democrat that nobody really wants to cross which affords her certain legal immunity not enjoyed by "commoners". There are people who have gone to prison for far less than what Hillary did.

As for these so called "insurrectionists", they are just "little people" without the protection offered by Hillary's political clout and who have prosecutors eager to throw the book at them and charge with the most serious crimes they possibly can, which have turned out to not be that serious at all.

[seanD]

Hillary's situation is completely different being that she's a powerful Democrat that nobody really wants to cross which affords her certain legal immunity not enjoyed by "commoners". There are people who have gone to prison for far less than what Hillary did.

As for these so called "insurrectionists", they are just "little people" without the protection offered by Hillary's political clout and who have prosecutors eager to throw the book at them and charge with the most serious crimes they possibly can, which have turned out to not be that serious at all.

Hillary was such a dumb analogy.

A better analogy CMD could have come up with is comparing the DA releasing BLM rioters without charges, only even in that scenario you could argue it was based on political partiality, being that BLM has so much more political support from the powers that be.

[Psychic Missile]

And I think that's my point --- this isn't a search for the truth, it's the liberals grossly abusing their power to punish Trump and his supporters.

Could you specify this gross abuse of power?

[Cow Poke]

Could you specify this gross abuse of power?

I have. Numerous times.