Jump to content

Identifying Trump rioters

Tuco

By Tuco
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

PenelopeWitherspoon
PenelopeWitherspoon
Pancho
Pancho
PenelopeWitherspoon
PenelopeWitherspoon

I am doing my job with this cunt. Seriously, fuck her. She fucked around, and she is sure as shit finding out.

Posted Images

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13584

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

 

Democrats didn't impeach when Mueller testified Trump was guilty of the same offense Clinton was impeached for, only on a matter of national security and not a consensual blow job, and a mere year and a half later his supporters are trying to kidnap and execute democratically elected lawmakers. It's easier to argue the lack of impeachment and consequences ESCALATED the situation and allowed him to drive the Hoax narrative -same lack of consequences due to the GOP's decision to ignore all sworn testimony in the Ukrainian impeachment and not convict. As long as Trump supporters believe the election was stolen, this will remain a powder keg. If you want to de-escalate this existential crisis, you need to be publicly calling on the president to acknowledge his electoral defeat. Without that, Trump supporters have demonstrated it doesn't matter what Democrats do.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTCzech III

UTCzech III 2907

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

The twitters is thinking that the megaphone lady directing people like she had a layout map looks like Congressbitch Boebert's mom. 

I will see if I can find more twitters of her to see if this is possible....because dayum.

I mentioned it on the last page, Boebert's mom is too old and fat to be bullhornlady.  Talk now she may be out of California, there were two other "bullhorn" ladies, they all seemed to be taking turns with the megaphone, the other two have been ID'd, both out of Cali...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89656

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Now, add the following wrinkles: imagine I have a long history of how I am going to make Sela Ward mine, whether she wants it or not.  My posts get more frenetic every day.  And today, I post several times about "today is the day, Sela will be mine, she can't stop me."  And the cops arrest me as I'm sneaking in her back yard, heading for a door or window.....carrying blades, small screwdrivers, rope, and duct tape.

Meanwhile, Sela and I will be laughing at you from the bedroom window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hagbard Celine

Hagbard Celine 10854

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The exact same "innocent explanation" tools, given context, are absolutely evidence that makes a violent criminal conspiracy charge stick.

Fucker SAID he was gonna do bad shit to elected officials.  Then he illegally entered the building where they were doing their job, carrying a tool designed for one thing -- to restrain people that you have in your custody.  Fuck that dude to hell.

his alibis/excuses were professionally prepared very very quickly.

i believe the new yorker article outing him appeared friday morning, and he _willingly_ and _readily_ gave the following statements:

In an interview, Brock confirmed that he was the man in the photos and videos. He denied that he held racist views and echoed Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud, saying that he derived his understanding of the matter principally from social media. He told me that he had gone to Washington, D.C., to demonstrate peacefully. “The President asked for his supporters to be there to attend, and I felt like it was important, because of how much I love this country, to actually be there,” he said. Brock added that he did not identify as part of any organized group and claimed that, despite the scenes of destruction that day, he had seen no violence. When he arrived at the Capitol, he said, he assumed he was welcome to enter the building.

Brock denied that he had entered Pelosi’s office suite, saying that he “stopped five to ten feet ahead of the sign” bearing her title that insurrectionists later tore down and brandished. However, in the ITV video, he appears to emerge from the suite. Brock said that he had worn tactical gear because “I didn’t want to get stabbed or hurt,” citing “B.L.M. and Antifa” as potential aggressors. He claimed that he had found the zip-tie handcuffs on the floor. “I wish I had not picked those up,” he told me. “My thought process there was I would pick them up and give them to an officer when I see one. . . . I didn’t do that because I had put them in my coat, and I honestly forgot about them.” He also said that he was opposed to vandalizing the building, and was dismayed when he learned of the extent of the destruction. “I know it looks menacing,” he told me. “That was not my intent.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AUinHsv

AUinHsv 579

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, fakebusiness said:

So were the panic buttons removed or is it a conspiracy theory at this point? That seems pretty cut and dry, either they were removed or they weren't. If they were holy fuking shit.

I have only read that they were missing in one office. If it was deliberate I would think thye would have removed them in a lot of offices

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13511

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Jenna seeking a pardon. 

 

 

 

She’s consistent. I would expect someone that flies private to insurrections to be blunt that she deserves a pardon because she’s facing prison. White woman entitlement at its finest.

she better be worried. She only has 3.5 days of Trump left. Initially I thought that trump would blanket pardon the rioters. However his upcoming senate trial presents challenges. Trump has zero reasons to save Jenna. Pelosi and the quick impeachment doomed Jenna’s pardon.

also local CBS in DFW isn’t the right venue to alert Trump but even Fox & friends won’t touch her.

the only thing remaining to save Jenna is a jury that will have just enough white people who buy her perfected (by then) crying apology act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13511

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, AUinHsv said:

Not going back to search but has anyone answered the quesiton on blanket pardons? Can you say everyone in the capitol is free or does it have to be by name and crime?

There are 2 main examples of previous unnamed, blanket pardons: confederate soldiers and vietnam draft dodgers.

I think there are positive arguments that blanket pardons can help to wash away crimes in which the govt really has no interest in identifying the criminals and they want to move on.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

I am not familiar with the ins and outs of newsrooms, but as a layperson, I seem to recall that the headline writers are not the byline reporters, correct? I am noticing that after the DOJ came out with their briefing this week, a growing number of agencies are running with this "FEDS BACK AWAY FROM ASSASSINATION PLOT" in some form or other. The article contains this phrase below, among others which is presumably where the headline was derived. Since the article is from the Associated Press, I'm not sure if they write the headlines or if the newsrooms that are service purchasers do.

Quote

Earlier on Friday, Michael Sherwin, acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, backed away from the assassination claims, saying they have “no direct evidence at this point of kill, capture teams.”

This ties in with @TwiceHorn and the discussion of the prosecutor, but I am a little uneasy about it. The investigation is still underway, very early stages and the quote  'No direct evidence at this point' isn't the same thing as 'backing away,' in my book. I figure that the talking points people will take this and run with it, turning it into a giant LARP on the Capitol grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

Also, I haven't seen this elsewhere, but a very sad but very good photo essay of the Capitol destruction and aftermath:

I was able to view it w/o a sub, so I'm putting the link here. Heartbreaking to think of what happened here--lives lost, relics destroyed, all built on lie after lie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/photography/2021/01/07/photos-aftermath-capitol-riot/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31452

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

There are 2 main examples of previous unnamed, blanket pardons: confederate soldiers and vietnam draft dodgers.

I think there are positive arguments that blanket pardons can help to wash away crimes in which the govt really has no interest in identifying the criminals and they want to move on.

I don't believe either of those events is properly categorized as a pardon.

Confederate veterans were granted amnesty by a law after Grant had ordered federal prosecutors to dismiss charges against them, or discontinue prosecutions.

Vietnam draft dodgers were granted amnesty, conditioned on two years public service, by Ford, by presidential proclamation.  Carter made that unconditional in what is called a "pardon," but was also a proclamation and executive order, so more like a directive to federal authorities not to prosecute.

I think the key difference between an actual pardon and what Grant, Ford, and Carter did, is that their proclamations or policies could have been reversed, either by them or by subsequent presidents.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:


Dumb bitch should have thought about the consequences before she went into the fucking building. Dumb cunt makes me ragey.

Setting aside her brainwashed gulliblity, she strikes me as someone who viewed it all as a lark. As if one simply says, 'I'm bored. Bored of this pandemic. Bored of being told what to do. I wanna dance."

The private plane, the photos, the outfits. It was the travel agency destination trip of a lifetime: go to DC and see all the sights and instagram for your friends back home. They'll be sooo jealous. "Look what I did over winter break, top this!" and it ends up in the yearbook with all the other cool kids.

So, yeah. She didn't think of the consequences. If she's ever had to face them, in her mind they've never been her fault.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31452

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I am not familiar with the ins and outs of newsrooms, but as a layperson, I seem to recall that the headline writers are not the byline reporters, correct? I am noticing that after the DOJ came out with their briefing this week, a growing number of agencies are running with this "FEDS BACK AWAY FROM ASSASSINATION PLOT" in some form or other. The article contains this phrase below, among others which is presumably where the headline was derived. Since the article is from the Associated Press, I'm not sure if they write the headlines or if the newsrooms that are service purchasers do.

This ties in with @TwiceHorn and the discussion of the prosecutor, but I am a little uneasy about it. The investigation is still underway, very early stages and the quote  'No direct evidence at this point' isn't the same thing as 'backing away,' in my book. I figure that the talking points people will take this and run with it, turning it into a giant LARP on the Capitol grounds.

Here's a law that might find some application.  Assassination, kidnapping, and assault of Congresspersons. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/351

I think most of it is going to have to be an "attempt," since no congresscritters were assasinated, kidnapped, or assaulted AFAIK.    And attempt may be too wide a gulf to get across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's a law that might find some application.  Assassination, kidnapping, and assault of Congresspersons. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/351

I think most of it is going to have to be an "attempt," since no congresscritters were assasinated, kidnapped, or assaulted AFAIK.    And attempt may be too wide a gulf to get across.

Where would section d) apply?

Quote

If two or more persons conspire to kill or kidnap any individual designated in subsection (a) of this section and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished (1) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or (2) by death or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if death results to such individual.

What counts as 'effect'? Does it have to be 'harm' or does the disruption of the ballot procedure count? If someone texts another person and says let's go into the Capitol building and hang the VP if we find him, is that a conspiracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
Posted

Wrt pardon talk, keep in mind that reporting this week that said Trump is not interested in giving out pardons unless he gets his first. He has been strongly advised not to do that because that would assuredly force the DOJ under Garland to charge him with a federal crime as a means of testing the legality of a presidential self pardon in the courts. Also, it would ratchet up pressure on states to go after him as well. He's probably not going to do that so I think Frisco Jenna is kinda fucked. Unless, of course, he resigns on Monday and gets Pence to pardon him, in which case Pence would be the biggest cuck ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31452

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Where would section d) apply?

What counts as 'effect'? Does it have to be 'harm' or does the disruption of the ballot procedure count? If someone texts another person and says let's go into the Capitol building and hang the VP if we find him, is that a conspiracy?

That's pretty close to a common-law conspiracy, which requires an agreement among two or more, and some affirmative step toward committing the crime agreed upon.

So what is "effect the object?," well it depends on what you allege was agreed to. If it's to kidnap or murder someone, disrupting the vote ain't gonna do it.

Because that section deals with killing or kidnapping, they're going to have to prove an agreement for that express purpose, and an affirmative step.  Showing up to the capitol is an affirmative step, but whether it's enough is a tough question.  Also, a conspiracy can be renounced by a member.  Like chickening out.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31452

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't believe either of those events is properly categorized as a pardon.

Confederate veterans were granted amnesty by a law after Grant had ordered federal prosecutors to dismiss charges against them, or discontinue prosecutions.

Vietnam draft dodgers were granted amnesty, conditioned on two years public service, by Ford, by presidential proclamation.  Carter made that unconditional in what is called a "pardon," but was also a proclamation and executive order, so more like a directive to federal authorities not to prosecute.

I think the key difference between an actual pardon and what Grant, Ford, and Carter did, is that their proclamations or policies could have been reversed, either by them or by subsequent presidents.

Also, a pardon pardon that does not identify the person pardoned with some specificity is problematic as hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's pretty close to a common-law conspiracy, which requires an agreement among two or more, and some affirmative step toward committing the crime agreed upon.

So what is "effect the object?," well it depends on what you allege was agreed to. If it's to kidnap or murder someone, disrupting the vote ain't gonna do it.

Can it be both? I haven't performed a deep dive into exactly what folks were displaying on their various feeds (Parler etc) or shouting in videos, but along the lines of a small group agreeing they're 'going to DC to disrupt the vote and do X to specific elected officials' seems rather like an attempt. Does it have to involve specific floor plans and the like or can it be a general sentiment? Perhaps I'm assuming that if someone says to you, "hey TwiceHorn, get in the car we're going to go rob a bank," and you get in the car and then enter the bank and hold up the teller, it isn't going to matter that you had given it much more thought than that, nor whether it was a success for you to find yourself behind bars for awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31452

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Can it be both? I haven't performed a deep dive into exactly what folks were displaying on their various feeds (Parler etc) or shouting in videos, but along the lines of a small group agreeing they're 'going to DC to disrupt the vote and do X to specific elected officials' seems rather like an attempt. Does it have to involve specific floor plans and the like or can it be a general sentiment? Perhaps I'm assuming that if someone says to you, "hey TwiceHorn, get in the car we're going to go rob a bank," and you get in the car and then enter the bank and hold up the teller, it isn't going to matter that you had given it much more thought than that, nor whether it was a success for you to find yourself behind bars for awhile.

Yeah, those are classic questions involving proof of a conspiracy and what's enough.  It can be difficult.  The more specific the agreement, and documented, and the less ambiguous the affirmative step, the more likely you have proven a conspiracy.

There's probably a ton of caselaw setting out what's enough and what isn't.  And that's beyond my scope.

Some of it is just a pure jury question, is it a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, or not?  But some of the case law is going to provide some guardrails on that question.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, those are classic questions involving proof of a conspiracy and what's enough.  It can be difficult.  The more specific the agreement, and documented, and the less ambiguous the affirmative step, the more likely you have proven a conspiracy.

There's probably a ton of caselaw setting out what's enough and what isn't.  And that's beyond my scope.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

 

I saw this too and it's a little maddening because Fuentes was one of those who riled folks up but knew not to get his hands too dirty:

and how do we know he knows where the line is? Because:

 

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
  • Rage+1 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...