Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

retrofade

DOJ indicts Oath Keepers leader, members on seditious conspiracy charges

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, 818SUDSFan said:

NOBODY here is an expert on that obscure topic. Accordingly, NOBODY should be claiming indictment of the 11 men for committing that crime is ridiculous.

Well when you don’t know that 2 of the 11 are women, maybe you ought to listen to others.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

That’s like saying the windows that were broken was the important thing. Newsmax might ask you to contribute.

Just didn't see "privately owned" anywhere in the statute as written - Maybe there was a federal government employee inside that triggered the charge of sedition 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Orygun said:

You realize they invaded the capitol with an armed, prepared force during a time when we were one president and one Supreme Court shy of a State of the Union address, i.e. the most delicate moment of our democracy and the one where the most security is required.  When ANYONE breaches our capitol during a moment like that, they should PRAY they only see sedition charges.  
 

I really question how much you actually know about this case.  

I think you're letting your emotions cloud your judgment.  

No one here wants to see Rhodes walk. No one is defending him either. 

Surely, he's going to be found guilty of something.  

Do you honestly believe he's going to get convicted of sedition?   

 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Well when you don’t know that 2 of the 11 are women, maybe you ought to listen to others.

But 11 of 11 have the smarts of a naked mole rat - any chance they can use ignorance as a defense.............I see the minor offenders are using the "caught up in the moment" defense ............though that might be tougher when the 11 stock piled armaments in their hotel rooms :hmmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AndroidAggie said:

@Orygun

here's your initial strawman

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064283

"So we have you on record, prosecutions and convictions do not deter crime.  Ever."

this is a strawman.  that's not what he said and not what meant.

then he said:

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064292

"Prosecutions do not deter prosecutions. It must be hard to be so dumb. I’m here to listen whenever you need help, but not really."

that's when he called you dumb.

then you responded with

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064296

"WTF are you talking about?  Is this an aneurysm?"

you're now calling him dumb.

then he came back with:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064303

"No, that’s just your head hurting because you’re very dumb. It’s hard for you, we know."

and i chimed in:

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064315

"tbh i didn't understand what you meant by 'prosecutions don't deter prosecutions'

unless you were trying to say "if we let this prosecution go forward, we'll let others go forward too and that's bad" ...?"

and you joined with me, tho not in a way i'm in favor of:

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064319

"he doesn't know what he's talking about"

and then i told you that's not my style to be all "hahahaha ur dumb"
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064322

then you obliquely implied i'm a hypocrite, while painting yourself in a super innocent light.
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064326

"i made a remark that requested clarification, and he responded with more of his 13-year-old invective.  The "haha your dumb" shit only goes one way, I guess.  Have fun."

the - ahem - 'remark' of the style "did you have a brain aneurysm" on the heels of a long drawn history of yours of being a condescending twat to everyone who disagrees with you does not in any way shape qualify as a simple request for clarification.  an inverse straw man, if you will.

then i said you suck at responding in kind, that your responses are asymmetrically escalating in insult and tenor:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064333

"your sense of giving as good as you get is horribly asymmetric. for the tiniest tit you shoot back a 30 ton tat."

i also re-iterated that you didn't request clarification, you were a jerk about it:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064338

then you told me to take a hike and and hang with my homies:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064339

then you disagreed about what you i said you said and you said you said:

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064342

where you referenced your original strawman:
"So we have you on record, prosecutions and convictions do not deter crime.  Ever."

about this time you began saying you were owed an apology and that i was misrepresenting you or lying or not reading or selectively reading, or some combination of all that:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064347

then i got snippy and sarcastically apologized:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064363

i also told you that you do this straw man thing and it wears on people:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064374

this is where you accused me of lying:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064376

(there was no specific reference to the lie)

then i tried to recap:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064386

then you accused me of a second lie:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064502

i assert your comment: "So we have you on record, prosecutions and convictions do not deter crime.  Ever." is a straw man of lawlor's position because it is a gross exaggeration taken to the extreme.  it's not a fair characterization of his views.

and finally you quoted rick sanchez, which is (in my culture) considered a dick move:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064521

i didn't lie.  


https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064098
^^^ called lawlor stupid

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064100
^^^ called him a white nationalist

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064106
^^^ another 'lawlor is stupid' post

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3063964
^^^ another "they're just white and they like it" style comment

 

ok, that's it, i'm done

anchorman-will.gif

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

I think you're letting your emotions cloud your judgment.  

No one here wants to see Rhodes walk. No one is defending him either. 

Surely, he's going to be found guilty of something.  

Do you honestly believe he's going to get convicted of sedition?   

 

This is the most important aspect.........throw the sedition charge at them & let them sweat & even plead down to a charge where they are convicted ...........plus how many might squeal about the deeper ties to this conspiracy - The end is to get to the highest level offenders 

I say that this ends with trump seeking asylum in Russia sometime in the next 20 months 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, UNLV2001 said:

Just didn't see "privately owned" anywhere in the statute as written - Maybe there was a federal government employee inside that triggered the charge of sedition 

It’s right at the beginning of the constitution. It wasn’t the building he was making war on.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, UNLV2001 said:

But 11 of 11 have the smarts of a naked mole rat - any chance they can use ignorance as a defense.............I see the minor offenders are using the "caught up in the moment" defense ............though that might be tougher when the 11 stock piled armaments in their hotel rooms :hmmm:

They’re screwed on counts 2-17. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AndroidAggie said:

@Orygun

here's your initial strawman

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064283

"So we have you on record, prosecutions and convictions do not deter crime.  Ever."

this is a strawman.  that's not what he said and not what meant.

then he said:

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064292

"Prosecutions do not deter prosecutions. It must be hard to be so dumb. I’m here to listen whenever you need help, but not really."

that's when he called you dumb.

then you responded with

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064296

"WTF are you talking about?  Is this an aneurysm?"

you're now calling him dumb.

then he came back with:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064303

"No, that’s just your head hurting because you’re very dumb. It’s hard for you, we know."

and i chimed in:

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064315

"tbh i didn't understand what you meant by 'prosecutions don't deter prosecutions'

unless you were trying to say "if we let this prosecution go forward, we'll let others go forward too and that's bad" ...?"

and you joined with me, tho not in a way i'm in favor of:

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064319

"he doesn't know what he's talking about"

and then i told you that's not my style to be all "hahahaha ur dumb"
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064322

then you obliquely implied i'm a hypocrite, while painting yourself in a super innocent light.
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064326

"i made a remark that requested clarification, and he responded with more of his 13-year-old invective.  The "haha your dumb" shit only goes one way, I guess.  Have fun."

the - ahem - 'remark' of the style "did you have a brain aneurysm" on the heels of a long drawn history of yours of being a condescending twat to everyone who disagrees with you does not in any way shape qualify as a simple request for clarification.  an inverse straw man, if you will.

then i said you suck at responding in kind, that your responses are asymmetrically escalating in insult and tenor:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064333

"your sense of giving as good as you get is horribly asymmetric. for the tiniest tit you shoot back a 30 ton tat."

i also re-iterated that you didn't request clarification, you were a jerk about it:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064338

then you told me to take a hike and and hang with my homies:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064339

then you disagreed about what you i said you said and you said you said:

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064342

where you referenced your original strawman:
"So we have you on record, prosecutions and convictions do not deter crime.  Ever."

about this time you began saying you were owed an apology and that i was misrepresenting you or lying or not reading or selectively reading, or some combination of all that:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064347

then i got snippy and sarcastically apologized:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064363

i also told you that you do this straw man thing and it wears on people:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064374

this is where you accused me of lying:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064376

(there was no specific reference to the lie)

then i tried to recap:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064386

then you accused me of a second lie:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064502

i assert your comment: "So we have you on record, prosecutions and convictions do not deter crime.  Ever." is a straw man of lawlor's position because it is a gross exaggeration taken to the extreme.  it's not a fair characterization of his views.

and finally you quoted rick sanchez, which is (in my culture) considered a dick move:
https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064521

i didn't lie.  


https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064098
^^^ called lawlor stupid

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064100
^^^ called him a white nationalist

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3064106
^^^ another 'lawlor is stupid' post

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/95111-doj-indicts-oath-keepers-leader-members-on-seditious-conspiracy-charges/&do=findComment&comment=3063964
^^^ another "they're just white and they like it" style comment

 

ok, that's it, i'm done

He is a white nationalist and he is stupid.  And he did say he thinks sedition prosecutions won’t stop sedition, ergo prosecution of crime won’t deter crime.  You really didn’t need to spend three hours on a 5th grade essay to nowhere just to prove me right.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, UNLV2001 said:

This is the most important aspect.........throw the sedition charge at them & let them sweat & even plead down to a charge where they are convicted ...........plus how many might squeal about the deeper ties to this conspiracy - The end is to get to the highest level offenders 

I say that this ends with trump seeking asylum in Russia sometime in the next 20 months 

 

Maybe if ALL republicans faced the same judicial system that poor and black people face, they’d be for reform.  Sure, let them face sedition charges and negotiate downward.  Welcome to the America YOU wanted, cowboys.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Because I read the indictment and if that’s proof of sedition we are totally screwed. Somebody who casually shoots their mouth of should be especially cognizant.

Where’s you quiver loaded with “tHaTs a StRaWmAn” now, @AndroidAggie?

or do you think he’s being sincere when he says one sedition conviction would mean none of us can “shoot our mouths off”?  Are you ready to admit he’s being insincere yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

My stance on the 2nd is long established here and has put me at odds with the right leaning members for years. Heller was wrongly decided, the 2nd was specifically meant to bar the federal government from making any laws regarding the bearing of arms, it’s the province of the states to decide what, where and when arms are to be allowed, and if the state wants to ban their idiot citizens from the means to protect themselves well that’s up to them.

ever since the due process clause of the 14th amendment was enacted, it’s well established that all civil rights amendments apply equally to the states.   How can you possibly find support for that position (and keep in mind, I’m FOR states rights to restrict guns)

Quote

You’re missing the point here. Just by communicating that idea it’s evidence of our, or at least my, conspiracy to sedition. By saying things that contravene federal law, we are taking steps towards overthrowing the government.
 

This is the wildest slippery slope you’ve got yourself on.   So any objection to any federal law is sedition? Lol ok

Quote

If you go out and buy a gun tomorrow, we are being in the wrong place at the wrong time, when somebody else does something violent, away from being equivalent with the blind sheik. That’s what the indictment says. They had dumb ideas that they agreed upon (protected by the first amendment), they owned weapons legally (protected by the 2nd amendment), they committed misdemeanors (trespassing), and people around them were violent.

no, they prepared, planned, and coordinated to stop the peaceful transition of power during a joint session of Congress.  They weren’t in the “wrong place at the wrong time.”   How stupid do you have to be to so radically and wildly misinterpret simple fact patterns?

Quote

For the record FBI guy monitoring the board, I do not want to overthrow the government or murder a bunch of people by collapsing a skyscraper.

Still mystified as to why you brought 9/11 into this.  You have zero understanding of all laws.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, IanforHeisman said:

What about the definition of the sedition charge doesn’t fit in this case? Sounds like it does to me but I’m open to the idea that it may not be.

 

20 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The sedition charge is the problem. These dopes are almost certainly guilty of every thing else they’re accused of. But the sedition charge opens the door for more sedition charges. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the last person successfully prosecuted for sedition was a mass murderer that almost killed thousands. If this isn’t called out for what it is, those that don’t like the American right need to prepare their anus. The door is now open.

They are not charged with sedition. They are charged with seditious conspiracy.  This constant misidentification of the charge in this thread appears to be unintentional however the arguments against this non-existent sedition charge are just strawmen and red herrings for the existing seditious conspiracy charge.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, toonkee said:

 

They are not charged with sedition. They are charged with seditious conspiracy.  This constant misidentification of the charge in this thread appears to be unintentional however the arguments against this non-existent sedition charge are strawmen for the existing seditious conspiracy charge.

 

 

 

 

My bad, I know almost nothing about it so I’m asking questions. Seditious conspiracy, got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, toonkee said:

 

They are not charged with sedition. They are charged with seditious conspiracy.  This constant misidentification of the charge in this thread appears to be unintentional however the arguments against this non-existent sedition charge are just strawmen and red herrings for the existing seditious conspiracy charge.

 

 

 

 

 Seditious Conspiracy is often called sedition. It's the same charge. 

 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orygun said:

ever since the due process clause of the 14th amendment was enacted, it’s well established that all civil rights amendments apply equally to the states.   How can you possibly find support for that position (and keep in mind, I’m FOR states rights to restrict guns)

This is the wildest slippery slope you’ve got yourself on.   So any objection to any federal law is sedition? Lol ok

no, they prepared, planned, and coordinated to stop the peaceful transition of power during a joint session of Congress.  They weren’t in the “wrong place at the wrong time.”   How stupid do you have to be to so radically and wildly misinterpret simple fact patterns?

Still mystified as to why you brought 9/11 into this.  You have zero understanding of all laws.  

This is not going well for you. Go get your jizz mop.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

This is not going well for you. Go get your jizz mop.

Dude you're not helping your own argument when you respond with non sequitur dismissiveness to what reads to me like an honest attempt to engage you on the substance of your argument.

I read O's reply to you over coffee earlier and am rather disappointed in your dismissive, ad hominem attempt at invalidating what read as (mostly) solid, substantive questions/points. 

While I personally think your argument is horseshit, I am still following the discussion and was honestly looking forward to reading a reply that was something other than what you chose to go with - you're better than that.*

 

 

 

 

 

*Cue you responding with, "no I'm not." :D

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...