I get what you're saying. Sure, it wasn't worded very clear, but I know what you mean now. A lot of hand wringing going on here over much ado about nothing.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.
You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.
Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
No it's not.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
I give up...
that's how I took it too, tempo.
This last one didn't make sense?
The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
I get what you're saying. Sure, it wasn't worded very clear, but I know what you mean now. A lot of hand wringing going on here over much ado about nothing.
Couldn't disagree more, considering the events that inspired the thread.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
What a fucking kop out. You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant? Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
What a fucking kop out. You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant? Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?
That case?
Yes that case. Interesting, huh?
So you agree the reasoning is bullshit then, since you agree it was an insurrection?
Direct quote from me "I'd have voted yes" as to voting yes on the medals for the Capitol police.
Am I missing something?
Yes, you missed my direct question:
I asked if you agree the reasoning the republicans gave for voting against the bill is bullshit, since you agree it was an insurrection.
Got it. I do believe the language in the bill matters and I have said before that if the future "Prosecution" (not persecution ) of people on trial have the wording in this bill used against them then that is a problem.
I think that is a bullshit reason not to vote for this bill though and yes it was an insurrection.
this isnt a bill establishing criminal law with penalties etc....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I get what you're saying. Sure, it wasn't worded very clear, but I know what you mean now. A lot of hand wringing going on here over much ado about nothing.
Couldn't disagree more, considering the events that inspired the thread.
This is what the repubs are afraid of and why they're trying to define the insurrection as a "tourist visit" and are opposed to any kind of formal investigation. There are members of Congress and the POOTWH administration who are complicit in the events of that day (unlike Hillary and Benghazi) and likely are in violation of the law. First the definition:
Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Choose the Right Synonym for insurrection
REBELLION, REVOLUTION, UPRISING, REVOLT, INSURRECTION, MUTINY mean an outbreak against authority. REBELLION implies an open formidable resistance that is often unsuccessful. open rebellion against the officers REVOLUTION applies to a successful rebellion resulting in a major change (as in government). a political revolution that toppled the monarchy UPRISING implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion. quickly put down the uprisingREVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds. a revolt by the Young Turks that surprised party leaders an insurrection of oppressed laborers MUTINY applies to group insubordination or insurrection especially against naval authority. a mutiny led by the ship's cook
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Now, they'd have to be indicted, charged and face trial and be found guilty but me thinks there's enough evidence that we know about and more that we don't know about to get a conviction. It'd be nice if there were consequences for these fuckers (complicit members of Congress) but there won't be. And if the Horned Shaman, or any other treasonous POS, is convicted in a court where the prosecutor references the Medal of Honor bill as referencing the "insurrection" and he's convicted? Great, he/they got what he/they deserved because it was an "insurrection."
And if you don’t think this shit is going to get worse, you better wake up. These are elected members of Congress spewing this rhetoric on major communications outlets. They know who their/there/they’re message reaches. Someone should ask Lindsey Flimsy Flip Flop Faloozy Graham, Matt Getts Off and the rest of their ilk if their/there/they’re dues paying members or supporters of any white supremacist/nationalist organization. They need to be exposed.
Where’s LindaMaria and Muskydan and a whole koolaide pitcher full of PGA course pretend playing surfing kayaking teaching having heat hot water cooling descending down the escalator believing backing the blue brilliance of brilliant brilliancy blue lives matter constituency?
Oh yea, fifty of their own quit because one was charged. So much for being a “better man.”
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
What a fucking kop out. You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant? Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
What a fucking kop out. You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant? Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?
That case?
Yes that case. Interesting, huh?
So you agree the reasoning is bullshit then, since you agree it was an insurrection?
Direct quote from me "I'd have voted yes" as to voting yes on the medals for the Capitol police.
Am I missing something?
Yes, you missed my direct question:
I asked if you agree the reasoning the republicans gave for voting against the bill is bullshit, since you agree it was an insurrection.
Got it. I do believe the language in the bill matters and I have said before that if the future "Prosecution" (not persecution ) of people on trial have the wording in this bill used against them then that is a problem.
I think that is a bullshit reason not to vote for this bill though and yes it was an insurrection.
this isnt a bill establishing criminal law with penalties etc....
That is why I said "IF" it is used for that then it's bullshit...
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
I give up...
that's how I took it too, tempo.
This last one didn't make sense?
The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
I give up...
that's how I took it too, tempo.
This last one didn't make sense?
The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.
No one has been charged with fomenting an insurrection nor sedition. So why would a federal prosecutor use a congressional bill's language to accuse a defendant of insurrection?
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
I give up...
that's how I took it too, tempo.
This last one didn't make sense?
The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.
No one has been charged with fomenting an insurrection nor sedition. So why would a federal prosecutor use a congressional bill's language to accuse a defendant of insurrection?
think all are overlooking this is more resolution than legislation going to become law....
senate has already issued theirs. dont believe it requires a president's signature......
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
I give up...
that's how I took it too, tempo.
This last one didn't make sense?
The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.
No one has been charged with fomenting an insurrection nor sedition. So why would a federal prosecutor use a congressional bill's language to accuse a defendant of insurrection?
Correct.
Your second part has been my argument all along as a "what if scenario"
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
I give up...
that's how I took it too, tempo.
This last one didn't make sense?
The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.
Seems to me that your looking for an excuse to excuse 1/6 and the consequences for traitors of conducting an insurrection.
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
I give up...
that's how I took it too, tempo.
This last one didn't make sense?
The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.
Seems to me that your looking for an excuse to excuse 1/6 and the consequences for traitors of conducting an insurrection.
No, you're confusing me with someone else? Nowhere have I said anything of the sort.
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
I give up...
that's how I took it too, tempo.
This last one didn't make sense?
The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.
Seems to me that your looking for an excuse to excuse 1/6 and the consequences for traitors of conducting an insurrection.
No, you're confusing me with someone else? Nowhere have I said anything of the sort.
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
I give up...
that's how I took it too, tempo.
This last one didn't make sense?
The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.
No one has been charged with fomenting an insurrection nor sedition. So why would a federal prosecutor use a congressional bill's language to accuse a defendant of insurrection?
They wouldn't...it isn't even remotely possible, just an excuse some of those who voted against awarding the medals used to try and hide their true intent.
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
I give up...
that's how I took it too, tempo.
This last one didn't make sense?
The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.
No one has been charged with fomenting an insurrection nor sedition. So why would a federal prosecutor use a congressional bill's language to accuse a defendant of insurrection?
They wouldn't...it isn't even remotely possible, just an excuse some of those who voted against awarding the medals used to try and hide their true intent.
And perhaps the defendants should have thought that through. Last time I checked the GOP was backing the blue and tough on crime. Sounds like they are pro-criminal.
Aaron Blake June 18 at 12:12 PM ET Earlier this week, 21 congressional Republicans voted not to award Congressional Gold Medals to the police officers who protected the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. The stated purpose was often that they disagreed with specific language in the legislation — particularly that the riot constituted an “insurrection.” But increasingly, key elements of the conservative movement have expressed another relevant objection involving Capitol Police officers’ conduct that day: suggesting Ashli Babbitt was a martyr. Babbitt was the 35-year-old veteran whom a Capitol Police officer shot and killed while she was breaking into a sensitive area of the Capitol. In April, the Capitol Police officer who shot her was cleared of any wrongdoing in the shooting. But of late, pressing for answers on Babbitt’s death has become a cause celebre among some conservative activists. What’s perhaps most notable about the effort is how slowly it has built. We had the graphic video of Babbitt’s death almost immediately after the Capitol riot. Very little has been added to the record since then, beyond the officer’s being cleared two months ago. But as the questioning of the narrative of the Capitol riot has grown — and with authorities still declining to identify the officer involved — a chorus has swelled around the Babbitt issue as well. [‘The storm is here’: Ashli Babbitt’s journey from capital ‘guardian’ to invader] Shortly after the Capitol riot, Babbitt’s death was often held up on the right as a tragedy, but not necessarily one resulting from police misconduct or political persecution. Then-Fox Business host Lou Dobbs on Jan. 7 lamented Babbitt’s death but suggested that a backlash wasn’t likely or necessary. “Does anyone on the left this evening seriously believe the death of Ashli Babbitt at the hands of a Capitol Police officer justifies civil unrest for even a few minutes, or certainly months afterwards?” Dobbs said. “I do not. I don’t know anyone who does.” On Jan. 9, Fox News contributor Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, was asked specifically about how the Babbitt situation was handled, and he warned against “Monday morning quarterbacking.” “Well, in general, there are two big failures I see here that are obvious,” Bongino said. “Let me just say this, of course, it is always going to be Monday morning quarterbacking. I mean, there’s no other easy way to put it.” Indeed, at that point, there were few efforts to claim any wrongdoing in Babbitt’s death. The next month, though, that began to change. Fox host Tucker Carlson responded to a Nicholas Kristof column noting Babbitt was a viewer of Carlson’s show, which often featured the kind of baseless conspiracy theories about election fraud that spurred the Capitol rioters. Carlson leaned into the idea that perhaps Babbitt shouldn’t have been shot. “But what kind of country is it where nobody says, ‘Well, wait, that’s kind of sad,’” Carlson said. “They shot an unarmed woman? Is that really a death-penalty offense?” But it was still months before the effort to suggest Babbitt’s shooting might have been wrong truly took off. After the officer was cleared in April, Carlson lamented that “when you’re fighting insurrectionists, you don’t have to explain yourself; you just hyperventilate about QAnon and then you do whatever you want.” Carlson also upped the ante when it came to pitching the likes of Babbitt and her fellow rioters as tragic figures: “When a group of sad, disenfranchised people who have been left out of the modern economy show up at your office, you don’t have to listen to their complaints.” He also labeled the death a “homicide” — a word that implies criminality by the shooter: “Only one person actually was a homicide victim. That was Ashli Babbitt. She was a protester.” By May, the theory that Babbitt’s death was wrong gained a supporter in Congress, with Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) going so far as to claim at a hearing with FBI Director Christopher A. Wray that Babbitt was “executed.” (This was the hearing in which other Republicans who would eventually vote against the Congressional Gold Medals would also downplay the riot, including Georgia Rep. Andrew S. Clyde, who said early images of Trump supporters streaming into the Capitol looked like a “normal tourist visit.”) Gosar this week doubled down on the “executed” claim, adding that the police officer was “lying in wait.” This drew a rebuke from Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who said it was “disgusting and despicable to see Gosar lie about that day and smear the men and women who defended us.” Fox’s Laura Ingraham has also increasingly dabbled in this. On Jan. 6, she conducted a sympathetic but largely fact-focused interview with an eyewitness to the shooting. The witness said of Babbitt: “She wasn’t being violent; she wasn’t breaking anything. She just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Between then and now, Ingraham occasionally mentioned Babbitt as the only shooting victim of the riot — a regular argument to suggest the situation wasn’t actually that violent. But this month, Ingraham has repeatedly run segments calling for answers. Fox News host Mark Levin last week wdescribed Babbitt as essentially someone minding her own business when she was shot. “The only person killed that day was this veteran who was in the building, who didn’t have a weapon, who wasn’t threatening anybody,” Levin said. “She was walking around with the rest, and boom.” (Babbitt was, in fact, climbing through a broken window of doors that officers were struggling mightily to keep closed to rioters.) Carlson this week cited Russian President Vladimir Putin as having raised valid concerns about Babbitt’s death. (Whatever one thinks about the circumstances of her death, Putin’s record on human rights makes pretty clear this is less about justice and more about deflection.) And social media has practically exploded this week with fringe conservative figures — who have real followings — suggesting that Babbitt was a patriot who was unjustly killed. It’s all a logical progression of the effort to recast the Jan. 6 riot, for two reasons: It contributes to the narrative that it wasn’t that bad — and even that these were simply well-meaning protesters trying to make their voices heard
It raises claims of a double standard and hypocrisy when it comes to police shootings. (“Well, we certainly didn’t hear that when the tables were turned,” Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson said on Levin’s show. “Again, it’s the concern about the unequal application of justice and a lot of concern.”) And for those reasons, the chorus seems likely to keep growing. Thus far, it’s mostly relegated to social media, fringe members like Gosar and conservative talkers (who pitch this as just raising questions, while being sympathetic to Babbitt). But there’s little doubt the revisionism will only mushroom from here — despite the lack of any new real evidence beyond what we all saw five months ago.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Aaron Blake June 18 at 12:12 PM ET Earlier this week, 21 congressional Republicans voted not to award Congressional Gold Medals to the police officers who protected the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. The stated purpose was often that they disagreed with specific language in the legislation — particularly that the riot constituted an “insurrection.” But increasingly, key elements of the conservative movement have expressed another relevant objection involving Capitol Police officers’ conduct that day: suggesting Ashli Babbitt was a martyr. Babbitt was the 35-year-old veteran whom a Capitol Police officer shot and killed while she was breaking into a sensitive area of the Capitol. In April, the Capitol Police officer who shot her was cleared of any wrongdoing in the shooting. But of late, pressing for answers on Babbitt’s death has become a cause celebre among some conservative activists. What’s perhaps most notable about the effort is how slowly it has built. We had the graphic video of Babbitt’s death almost immediately after the Capitol riot. Very little has been added to the record since then, beyond the officer’s being cleared two months ago. But as the questioning of the narrative of the Capitol riot has grown — and with authorities still declining to identify the officer involved — a chorus has swelled around the Babbitt issue as well. [‘The storm is here’: Ashli Babbitt’s journey from capital ‘guardian’ to invader] Shortly after the Capitol riot, Babbitt’s death was often held up on the right as a tragedy, but not necessarily one resulting from police misconduct or political persecution. Then-Fox Business host Lou Dobbs on Jan. 7 lamented Babbitt’s death but suggested that a backlash wasn’t likely or necessary. “Does anyone on the left this evening seriously believe the death of Ashli Babbitt at the hands of a Capitol Police officer justifies civil unrest for even a few minutes, or certainly months afterwards?” Dobbs said. “I do not. I don’t know anyone who does.” On Jan. 9, Fox News contributor Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, was asked specifically about how the Babbitt situation was handled, and he warned against “Monday morning quarterbacking.” “Well, in general, there are two big failures I see here that are obvious,” Bongino said. “Let me just say this, of course, it is always going to be Monday morning quarterbacking. I mean, there’s no other easy way to put it.” Indeed, at that point, there were few efforts to claim any wrongdoing in Babbitt’s death. The next month, though, that began to change. Fox host Tucker Carlson responded to a Nicholas Kristof column noting Babbitt was a viewer of Carlson’s show, which often featured the kind of baseless conspiracy theories about election fraud that spurred the Capitol rioters. Carlson leaned into the idea that perhaps Babbitt shouldn’t have been shot. “But what kind of country is it where nobody says, ‘Well, wait, that’s kind of sad,’” Carlson said. “They shot an unarmed woman? Is that really a death-penalty offense?” But it was still months before the effort to suggest Babbitt’s shooting might have been wrong truly took off. After the officer was cleared in April, Carlson lamented that “when you’re fighting insurrectionists, you don’t have to explain yourself; you just hyperventilate about QAnon and then you do whatever you want.” Carlson also upped the ante when it came to pitching the likes of Babbitt and her fellow rioters as tragic figures: “When a group of sad, disenfranchised people who have been left out of the modern economy show up at your office, you don’t have to listen to their complaints.” He also labeled the death a “homicide” — a word that implies criminality by the shooter: “Only one person actually was a homicide victim. That was Ashli Babbitt. She was a protester.” By May, the theory that Babbitt’s death was wrong gained a supporter in Congress, with Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) going so far as to claim at a hearing with FBI Director Christopher A. Wray that Babbitt was “executed.” (This was the hearing in which other Republicans who would eventually vote against the Congressional Gold Medals would also downplay the riot, including Georgia Rep. Andrew S. Clyde, who said early images of Trump supporters streaming into the Capitol looked like a “normal tourist visit.”) Gosar this week doubled down on the “executed” claim, adding that the police officer was “lying in wait.” This drew a rebuke from Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who said it was “disgusting and despicable to see Gosar lie about that day and smear the men and women who defended us.” Fox’s Laura Ingraham has also increasingly dabbled in this. On Jan. 6, she conducted a sympathetic but largely fact-focused interview with an eyewitness to the shooting. The witness said of Babbitt: “She wasn’t being violent; she wasn’t breaking anything. She just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Between then and now, Ingraham occasionally mentioned Babbitt as the only shooting victim of the riot — a regular argument to suggest the situation wasn’t actually that violent. But this month, Ingraham has repeatedly run segments calling for answers. Fox News host Mark Levin last week wdescribed Babbitt as essentially someone minding her own business when she was shot. “The only person killed that day was this veteran who was in the building, who didn’t have a weapon, who wasn’t threatening anybody,” Levin said. “She was walking around with the rest, and boom.” (Babbitt was, in fact, climbing through a broken window of doors that officers were struggling mightily to keep closed to rioters.) Carlson this week cited Russian President Vladimir Putin as having raised valid concerns about Babbitt’s death. (Whatever one thinks about the circumstances of her death, Putin’s record on human rights makes pretty clear this is less about justice and more about deflection.) And social media has practically exploded this week with fringe conservative figures — who have real followings — suggesting that Babbitt was a patriot who was unjustly killed. It’s all a logical progression of the effort to recast the Jan. 6 riot, for two reasons: It contributes to the narrative that it wasn’t that bad — and even that these were simply well-meaning protesters trying to make their voices heard
It raises claims of a double standard and hypocrisy when it comes to police shootings. (“Well, we certainly didn’t hear that when the tables were turned,” Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson said on Levin’s show. “Again, it’s the concern about the unequal application of justice and a lot of concern.”) And for those reasons, the chorus seems likely to keep growing. Thus far, it’s mostly relegated to social media, fringe members like Gosar and conservative talkers (who pitch this as just raising questions, while being sympathetic to Babbitt). But there’s little doubt the revisionism will only mushroom from here — despite the lack of any new real evidence beyond what we all saw five months ago.
Fox News host Mark Levin last week wdescribed Babbitt as essentially someone minding her own business when she was shot. “The only person killed that day was this veteran who was in the building, who didn’t have a weapon, who wasn’t threatening anybody,” Levin said. “She was walking around with the rest, and boom.”
Did this guy even watch the videos? Breaking through a barricaded door to gain access to the members inside. Walking around with the rest?
Man this guy is something. Talk about a troublemaker...
That was no 'regular site seeing tour" the way some on the right would like people to see it retroactively. It was a straight up attack on the the Capitol with the intention of disrupting the legal certification of an election at best, and inflicting harm or worse on elected officials. Babbit was part of a mob breaking down the doors to get to congress people, and ended up dead because of it. She was not just walking around taking in the sites.
Judge: No car show trip for man arrested in Capitol riot
18 Jun 2021
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A federal judge on Friday said he won't allow an Arkansas man arrested after he was photographed sitting at a desk in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office during the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot to travel for a classic-car swap meet.
U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper rejected the request by Richard Barnett to loosen the restrictions on how far he can travel while he's awaiting trial.
Barnett is allowed to travel only up to 50 miles (80 kilometers) from his residence while he is on home detention awaiting trial. Barnett's attorney said the Gravette, Arkansas, man needed to be able to travel to make a living buying and selling classic cars.
Petit Jean Mountain, where the car show is being held, is 200 miles (320 kilometers) from Gravette.
“The Court is not persuaded that the defendant cannot pursue gainful employment within a 50-mile radius of his home as permitted by the current conditions," Cooper's order said.
Barnett, 61, was among supporters of President Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol as lawmakers assembled to certify Joe Biden’s victory over Trump. Prosecutors say Barnett was carrying a stun gun when he entered the building.
Federal prosecutors opposed Barnett's request and said his conduct while awaiting trial — including an interview with Russian State Television — indicates more conditions, not fewer, were needed.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Judge: No car show trip for man arrested in Capitol riot
18 Jun 2021
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A federal judge on Friday said he won't allow an Arkansas man arrested after he was photographed sitting at a desk in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office during the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot to travel for a classic-car swap meet.
U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper rejected the request by Richard Barnett to loosen the restrictions on how far he can travel while he's awaiting trial.
Barnett is allowed to travel only up to 50 miles (80 kilometers) from his residence while he is on home detention awaiting trial. Barnett's attorney said the Gravette, Arkansas, man needed to be able to travel to make a living buying and selling classic cars.
Petit Jean Mountain, where the car show is being held, is 200 miles (320 kilometers) from Gravette.
“The Court is not persuaded that the defendant cannot pursue gainful employment within a 50-mile radius of his home as permitted by the current conditions," Cooper's order said.
Barnett, 61, was among supporters of President Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol as lawmakers assembled to certify Joe Biden’s victory over Trump. Prosecutors say Barnett was carrying a stun gun when he entered the building.
Federal prosecutors opposed Barnett's request and said his conduct while awaiting trial — including an interview with Russian State Television — indicates more conditions, not fewer, were needed.
I see signs for businesses hiring all over the place. My guess is that he would consider it an insult what is being offered for pay, while still being against raising wages for workers.
Judge: No car show trip for man arrested in Capitol riot
18 Jun 2021
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A federal judge on Friday said he won't allow an Arkansas man arrested after he was photographed sitting at a desk in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office during the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot to travel for a classic-car swap meet.
U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper rejected the request by Richard Barnett to loosen the restrictions on how far he can travel while he's awaiting trial.
Barnett is allowed to travel only up to 50 miles (80 kilometers) from his residence while he is on home detention awaiting trial. Barnett's attorney said the Gravette, Arkansas, man needed to be able to travel to make a living buying and selling classic cars.
Petit Jean Mountain, where the car show is being held, is 200 miles (320 kilometers) from Gravette.
“The Court is not persuaded that the defendant cannot pursue gainful employment within a 50-mile radius of his home as permitted by the current conditions," Cooper's order said.
Barnett, 61, was among supporters of President Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol as lawmakers assembled to certify Joe Biden’s victory over Trump. Prosecutors say Barnett was carrying a stun gun when he entered the building.
Federal prosecutors opposed Barnett's request and said his conduct while awaiting trial — including an interview with Russian State Television — indicates more conditions, not fewer, were needed.
I see signs for businesses hiring all over the place. My guess is that he would consider it an insult what is being offered for pay, while still being against raising wages for workers.
The guy is a hero of the Kremlin now!
The interview with with Russian State Television is the cherry on top of this shit sundae.
Comments
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
this isnt a bill establishing criminal law with penalties etc....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Definition of insurrection
Choose the Right Synonym for insurrection
REBELLION, REVOLUTION, UPRISING, REVOLT, INSURRECTION, MUTINY mean an outbreak against authority. REBELLION implies an open formidable resistance that is often unsuccessful. open rebellion against the officers REVOLUTION applies to a successful rebellion resulting in a major change (as in government). a political revolution that toppled the monarchy UPRISING implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion. quickly put down the uprising REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds. a revolt by the Young Turks that surprised party leaders an insurrection of oppressed laborers MUTINY applies to group insubordination or insurrection especially against naval authority. a mutiny led by the ship's cook
Insurrection | Definition of Insurrection by Merriam-Webster
Now, the law:
§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §4 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §4, 35 Stat. 1088).
Word "moreover" was deleted as surplusage and minor changes were made in phraseology.
[USC02] 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES (house.gov)
Now, they'd have to be indicted, charged and face trial and be found guilty but me thinks there's enough evidence that we know about and more that we don't know about to get a conviction. It'd be nice if there were consequences for these fuckers (complicit members of Congress) but there won't be. And if the Horned Shaman, or any other treasonous POS, is convicted in a court where the prosecutor references the Medal of Honor bill as referencing the "insurrection" and he's convicted? Great, he/they got what he/they deserved because it was an "insurrection."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://apple.news/AJEp4mDSvQy22eJM8BZJu-w
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Sounds like BLM to me.
No, No, sounds like ANTIIIIIIIIFA to me.
No, no,no, sounds like a tourist tour.
yup that’s it. Maybe Laong Island? Aight?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Im sure it’s a crisis. Like Seattle has fallen.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
-EV 8/14/93
Your second part has been my argument all along as a "what if scenario"
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/18/slow-building-conservative-effort-turn-ashli-babbitt-into-martyr/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
June 18 at 12:12 PM ET
Earlier this week, 21 congressional Republicans voted not to award Congressional Gold Medals to the police officers who protected the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. The stated purpose was often that they disagreed with specific language in the legislation — particularly that the riot constituted an “insurrection.”
But increasingly, key elements of the conservative movement have expressed another relevant objection involving Capitol Police officers’ conduct that day: suggesting Ashli Babbitt was a martyr.
Babbitt was the 35-year-old veteran whom a Capitol Police officer shot and killed while she was breaking into a sensitive area of the Capitol. In April, the Capitol Police officer who shot her was cleared of any wrongdoing in the shooting. But of late, pressing for answers on Babbitt’s death has become a cause celebre among some conservative activists.
What’s perhaps most notable about the effort is how slowly it has built. We had the graphic video of Babbitt’s death almost immediately after the Capitol riot. Very little has been added to the record since then, beyond the officer’s being cleared two months ago. But as the questioning of the narrative of the Capitol riot has grown — and with authorities still declining to identify the officer involved — a chorus has swelled around the Babbitt issue as well.
[‘The storm is here’: Ashli Babbitt’s journey from capital ‘guardian’ to invader]
Shortly after the Capitol riot, Babbitt’s death was often held up on the right as a tragedy, but not necessarily one resulting from police misconduct or political persecution.
Then-Fox Business host Lou Dobbs on Jan. 7 lamented Babbitt’s death but suggested that a backlash wasn’t likely or necessary.
“Does anyone on the left this evening seriously believe the death of Ashli Babbitt at the hands of a Capitol Police officer justifies civil unrest for even a few minutes, or certainly months afterwards?” Dobbs said. “I do not. I don’t know anyone who does.”
On Jan. 9, Fox News contributor Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, was asked specifically about how the Babbitt situation was handled, and he warned against “Monday morning quarterbacking.”
“Well, in general, there are two big failures I see here that are obvious,” Bongino said. “Let me just say this, of course, it is always going to be Monday morning quarterbacking. I mean, there’s no other easy way to put it.”
Indeed, at that point, there were few efforts to claim any wrongdoing in Babbitt’s death.
The next month, though, that began to change. Fox host Tucker Carlson responded to a Nicholas Kristof column noting Babbitt was a viewer of Carlson’s show, which often featured the kind of baseless conspiracy theories about election fraud that spurred the Capitol rioters. Carlson leaned into the idea that perhaps Babbitt shouldn’t have been shot.
“But what kind of country is it where nobody says, ‘Well, wait, that’s kind of sad,’” Carlson said. “They shot an unarmed woman? Is that really a death-penalty offense?”
But it was still months before the effort to suggest Babbitt’s shooting might have been wrong truly took off.
After the officer was cleared in April, Carlson lamented that “when you’re fighting insurrectionists, you don’t have to explain yourself; you just hyperventilate about QAnon and then you do whatever you want.”
Carlson also upped the ante when it came to pitching the likes of Babbitt and her fellow rioters as tragic figures: “When a group of sad, disenfranchised people who have been left out of the modern economy show up at your office, you don’t have to listen to their complaints.”
He also labeled the death a “homicide” — a word that implies criminality by the shooter: “Only one person actually was a homicide victim. That was Ashli Babbitt. She was a protester.”
By May, the theory that Babbitt’s death was wrong gained a supporter in Congress, with Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) going so far as to claim at a hearing with FBI Director Christopher A. Wray that Babbitt was “executed.” (This was the hearing in which other Republicans who would eventually vote against the Congressional Gold Medals would also downplay the riot, including Georgia Rep. Andrew S. Clyde, who said early images of Trump supporters streaming into the Capitol looked like a “normal tourist visit.”)
Gosar this week doubled down on the “executed” claim, adding that the police officer was “lying in wait.” This drew a rebuke from Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who said it was “disgusting and despicable to see Gosar lie about that day and smear the men and women who defended us.”
Fox’s Laura Ingraham has also increasingly dabbled in this. On Jan. 6, she conducted a sympathetic but largely fact-focused interview with an eyewitness to the shooting. The witness said of Babbitt: “She wasn’t being violent; she wasn’t breaking anything. She just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Between then and now, Ingraham occasionally mentioned Babbitt as the only shooting victim of the riot — a regular argument to suggest the situation wasn’t actually that violent. But this month, Ingraham has repeatedly run segments calling for answers.
Fox News host Mark Levin last week wdescribed Babbitt as essentially someone minding her own business when she was shot.
“The only person killed that day was this veteran who was in the building, who didn’t have a weapon, who wasn’t threatening anybody,” Levin said. “She was walking around with the rest, and boom.”
(Babbitt was, in fact, climbing through a broken window of doors that officers were struggling mightily to keep closed to rioters.)
Carlson this week cited Russian President Vladimir Putin as having raised valid concerns about Babbitt’s death. (Whatever one thinks about the circumstances of her death, Putin’s record on human rights makes pretty clear this is less about justice and more about deflection.)
And social media has practically exploded this week with fringe conservative figures — who have real followings — suggesting that Babbitt was a patriot who was unjustly killed.
It’s all a logical progression of the effort to recast the Jan. 6 riot, for two reasons:
It contributes to the narrative that it wasn’t that bad — and even that these were simply well-meaning protesters trying to make their voices heard
It raises claims of a double standard and hypocrisy when it comes to police shootings. (“Well, we certainly didn’t hear that when the tables were turned,” Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson said on Levin’s show. “Again, it’s the concern about the unequal application of justice and a lot of concern.”)
And for those reasons, the chorus seems likely to keep growing. Thus far, it’s mostly relegated to social media, fringe members like Gosar and conservative talkers (who pitch this as just raising questions, while being sympathetic to Babbitt). But there’s little doubt the revisionism will only mushroom from here — despite the lack of any new real evidence beyond what we all saw five months ago.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
“The only person killed that day was this veteran who was in the building, who didn’t have a weapon, who wasn’t threatening anybody,” Levin said. “She was walking around with the rest, and boom.”
Did this guy even watch the videos? Breaking through a barricaded door to gain access to the members inside. Walking around with the rest?
Man this guy is something. Talk about a troublemaker...
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A federal judge on Friday said he won't allow an Arkansas man arrested after he was photographed sitting at a desk in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office during the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot to travel for a classic-car swap meet.
U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper rejected the request by Richard Barnett to loosen the restrictions on how far he can travel while he's awaiting trial.
Barnett is allowed to travel only up to 50 miles (80 kilometers) from his residence while he is on home detention awaiting trial. Barnett's attorney said the Gravette, Arkansas, man needed to be able to travel to make a living buying and selling classic cars.
Petit Jean Mountain, where the car show is being held, is 200 miles (320 kilometers) from Gravette.
“The Court is not persuaded that the defendant cannot pursue gainful employment within a 50-mile radius of his home as permitted by the current conditions," Cooper's order said.
Barnett, 61, was among supporters of President Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol as lawmakers assembled to certify Joe Biden’s victory over Trump. Prosecutors say Barnett was carrying a stun gun when he entered the building.
Federal prosecutors opposed Barnett's request and said his conduct while awaiting trial — including an interview with Russian State Television — indicates more conditions, not fewer, were needed.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The guy is a hero of the Kremlin now!