Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Buc4415 t1_iyb4zy8 wrote

What do you call attacking the White House and forcing the president into an anti terrorism bunker?

I would argue they aren’t liberal, they are progressive/leftists though so yea, I can’t find a “liberal” who committed sedition.


glberns t1_iybav95 wrote

And what crimes were those people convicted of? Was it seditious conspiracy?


Because they were not trying to overthrow the government.

Also, Trump says that he wasn't in the bunker because of the protests, but for an "inspection"


[deleted] t1_iybuojk wrote



glberns t1_iyck8kt wrote

I was asking about the White House protests. None of those people were charged, nor convicted of seditious conspiracy.


Buc4415 t1_iybb6tv wrote

So crimes only happen when there is a conviction? That’s weird. Crimes are always measured in reports and not in convictions because of legal maneuvering and just because the offender hasn’t been caught, doesn’t mean a crime hasn’t been committed.


Buc4415 t1_iybd2sq wrote

You didn’t address anything I said at all. Lol. Convictions or lack there of don’t mean a crime hasn’t taken place.

Also, the first paragraph seems to have a part that is applicable

“destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof,”.

I’d imagine attacking the White House qualifies here…. Lol. You can try to explain this away though. I’m looking forward to “but actually this isn’t that bc trump was a fascist”


glberns t1_iybez72 wrote

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how anyone in that incident tried to overthrow the government.


Buc4415 t1_iybgw61 wrote

You are having trouble staying focused. Crime isn’t measured in convictions, it’s measured in reports. If person X gets murdered, and the killer is never found, person x still got murdered. Lack of conviction doesn’t mean crime wasn’t committed. Lol. You can keep trying to play semantics but it’s a weak game.

Let’s examine another source shall we.

The decision to physically move the President came as protesters confronted Secret Service officers outside the White House for hours on Friday -- shouting, throwing water bottles and other objects at the line of officers, and attempting to break through the metal barriers. At times, the crowd would remove the metal barriers and begin pushing up against the officers and their riot shields. The Secret Service continually replaced the barriers throughout the night as protesters wrestled them away. Protesters pushed hard enough a few times that officers had to walk away with what appeared to be minor injuries. At one point, the agents responded to aggressive pushing and yelling by using pepper spray on the protesters

Let’s be real, that’s not your burden of proof. If it was, you would be vying for 90% of the people who entered the capitol on 1/6 to be freed or charged with trespassing. You don’t actually care about “proof that anyone tried to overthrow the government”. Lol The people who attacked the White House are on your side and the people who attacked the capitol aren’t so it’s different.


glberns t1_iybjdzf wrote

I don't know what part you're missing.

  1. That most people at the Capitol were only charged with trespassing, assault, vandalism, etc. (I.e. not seditious conspiracy)

  2. That Rhodes and the Oath Keepers enacted a months-long plan to overthrow the government that included radio communications, weapons stockpiles, armed teams waiting to get called in, etc. You have shown none of this for the White House protests. No planning. No weapons. No organized violence. No explicit intent to overthrow the government. All of these were present on 1/6.


Buc4415 t1_iyblvtx wrote

So is it the norm for people to be held without bail for trespassing, assault, vandalism, etc… even those without any priors? This seems like a new thing for dems who have been championing bail reform even for people with prior felonies.

Yea cool. You are attacking an argument I never made. Awesome. I literally never said “no one planned to overthrow the government”. While I did say 90% didn’t, and I didn’t verify that number, I feel fairly confident you can’t connect any sort of criminal conspiracy to 90% of the people who entered the building.

So let’s bring this back full circle now. Should people charged with simple theft, trespassing, vandalism be held without bail? Do you think it is a miscarriage of justice to hold those people without bail? If you want to say simply attacking government property/ government employees isn’t sedition, then cool. I look forward to you appealing to Merrill Garland that it’s a miscarriage of justice to hold those people without bail.


glberns t1_iycveec wrote

I don't know what kool-aid you've been drinking, but most January 6th defendants have been released on bail.

>“Of the hundreds and hundreds of folks who have been arrested in the Capitol riots, the majority of them, most of them have received some sort of bail,” Rahmani said. “But the folks that engaged in the most violent acts, they are being detained without bond.”

And this isn't full circle. This started when you insisted that the White House protests constituted sedition. They didn't. You've made no effort to show that their actions fit that crime. You've only made the bizarre insistence that because a crime was committed, it's sedition. That makes no sense.

Nice try at moving the goalposts though. It's become abundantly clear that you aren't interested in having a good faith discussion, so I'm done here.


Buc4415 t1_iycw0j9 wrote

How long did they spend in jail, without bail set? You keep moving the goal post here. They were held for months without bail being set. They were treated like violent repeat felons. I just find it weird the party of bail reform kept so many non violent offenders in jail without setting a bail amount for them for such a long time.

You are a shifty one but I’m gonna nail you down on this.