Panther wrote on Mar 16^th, 2024 at 12:23pm:


Many of them have pleaded guilty to their crimes, dear   

More than 1,000 people have been charged with crimes linked to the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.

Over two years later, at least 476 people have pleaded guilty in connection to the riot.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 16^th, 2024 at 12:38pm:



Jon Schaffer, a guitarist who founded the metal band Iced Earth, was the first person to file a guilty plea and agree to cooperate with prosecutors, according to Department of Justice filings.

Schaffer is also a member of the Oath Keepers, a self-styled militia that prosecutors said planned and practiced its attack on the Capitol weeks in advance.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 16^th, 2024 at 12:44pm:



Schaffer, the lead singer and a guitarist of the heavy metal band Iced Earth, stormed the Capitol building, threatened Capitol police officers with bear spray, and espoused conspiracy theories about the presidential election, according to an FBI affidavit included in his case. He wore a baseball cap that read "Oath Keepers Lifetime Member," according to the affidavit.

Panther wrote on Mar 16^th, 2024 at 12:23pm:


That's right, Panther. A lot of people got far too angry & complained way too loudly because they didn't like the way an election went.

They assaulted police, using baseball bats, mace, cattle prods, tasers and flag poles. They broke into your House of Representatives and Senate, the most cherished chambers of your proud republic.

They spent the next three hours looting, trashing and ransacking one of your most beloved buildings. They broke windows, smashed furniture, sprayed graffiti, rifled through member's offices, trashing government records, shitting on the floor and smearing it onto the walls of your beloved Capitol, can you imagine?

The US Capitol, an architectural marvel, its foundation stone laid by George Washington himself, the symbol of the strength, liberty and glory of the American people, trashed before the world.

All because they didn't like the way an election went.

You ignored our last question, so I'm curious. Given the nature and gravity of these actions, heinous in the extreme, what should be done with such ne'er-do-wells?

We know you would abandon all support for your Dear Leader should he be merely charged with a felony, such is your stance on the fundamental importance of the rule of law.

What is your position on those who have been convicted of such crimes, actions that placed your entire government at risk, not to mention your beloved Constitution?

Police killed, your Capitol sacked, your representatives, senators and VP threatened with death and your Constitution, the most important document of all, a living document, the Spirit of the American people, one nation under God, smeared with shit before the world.

Thoughts?

Panther wrote on Mar 16^th, 2024 at 1:00pm:


I see. So you won't say.

I'm disappointed, Panther. I always saw you as our resident constitutional scholar. If you weren't always up on the chapter and verse, you at least expressed your commitment to its spirit: everybody equal under the law.

You've given all that up now, it's sad.

I must admit, I always found your threshold a little low. After all, we judge criminals by their convictions. Innocent until proven guilty, all that.

But we're measuring whether someone is worthy of being elected to office. Here, the threshold of criminality is ridiculous - of course you don't elect sentenced criminals president, but then, until DL, whoever would have voted for a candidate on trial?

We double-checked with you. We asked, you answered. Political impeachments mean nothing, you said. Your measure, you explained, was police evidence and a judge willing to issue a criminal indictment, based on a proper police investigation. If your DL was arrested and charged, you said, you'd abandon him immediately, no ifs or buts.

Presumably, your criminal threshold would prevent political show trials, or worse, trials by media. Take the big fella's documents case, one of his four felony indictments. Those boxes on the ballroom stage at Mar a Lago could contain anything. How do we know? Who can tell?

By your definition, the FBI have investigated. NARA reported the crime to the FBI, which they are mandated by the law to do. The FBI took the evidence to a grand jury, who voted to indict. The FBI took their evidence to a judge, who issued a search warrant.

The FBI carried out a search of Mar a Lago, and bingo! There were the documents, all in their boxes, in the basement, the bathroom, the pool room and piled high on the ballroom stage, a function room the club uses to host weddings. 

The FBI then went through all the boxes and made a list. Those documents pointed to more documents, so they raided a storage facility, uncovering even more boxes.

Inside those boxes were Top Secret records - foreign intel, military war plans, nuclear secrets, etc - the kind of stuff that gets locked away for 50 years. The big fella said he curtained off the stage when they had wedding receptions.

He had his maintenance guys move them around Mar a Lago and other places, so they were in safe hands - until the pool pump burst, but apart from them - oh, and the two suspected Chinese spies caught at Mar a Lago, arrested and deported. It's all good. The big fella had the Secret Service helping out too.

The FBI investigated more. They found that the big fella hadn't just been storing the records, but leaking them. They got the big fella on tape telling a writer all about a plan to invade Iran, and he had the original documents there to show him.

You see? He said. It's top secret. I'm not allowed to show you this, but I am. Cunning, no?

They all laughed at that. Oh-er, watch out, we might get into trouble!

There was the big fella admitting, on tape, that he was breaking the law, and having a chuckle about it.

As his own former Attorney General said, the FBI have a slam-dunk case. The big fella can't possibly win. Anyone else's lawyer would be forcing their client into rehab or some form of volunteer work. The sentencing range is double digits - look at Julian Assange.

But that's not even the crux of the case. Jack Smith is pushing the cover-up. There's the security guy, asked to erase the footage of the big guy and his flunkies moving the boxes out the day after the subpoena came in, demanding the records be handed back. The boxes were found

There's his lawyers, testifying he lied to them too. The treatment of classified national security intel is one thing, evading an FBI subpoena is another. All of it's evidenced - the tapes, the footage, the witnesses, and the boxes themselves.

The big fella has crossed your threshold: criminal charges for a felony crime/crimes, "indicted to stand trial in a court, or courts, of law, good luck with that". But who cares? Any ex-president who handles secure records like this should never be president again. Ask Bill Barr.

Instead of abandoning your DL as soon as he was charged as you said, you're now citing memory loss and playing the good old find-me-the-post game.

We've endured years of holier-than-thou lectures in italicised, Georgia font about your devout adherence to the law. Now we know: you supported rampant criminality all along, whatever it takes. You'll say or do anything to back your Dear Leader. You have no criminal threshold, no ethical code or compass and by your continued support, no political judgment.

After all that, you'd support him even if he was convicted, which he most certainly will be.

If there's one thing Trump's done, it's this. He's exposed his devotees' sanctimonious hypocrisy and virtue signalling.

goosecat wrote on Mar 16^th, 2024 at 4:47pm:


Of course. But we're hardly talking about any old crime.

Gandhi didn't pay his salt tax. Mandela was charged with organizing an illegal strike and with leaving the country without valid travel documents.

Theirs were acts of civil disobedience, although there's more to Mandela's background and his stance on the use of violence to overthrow corrupt regimes.

Trump's crimes were committed to promote his own interests. His charges are acts of corruption and self aggrandisement.

Our own constitution prevents candidates standing for parliament for criminal records with charges equivalent to a year or more in prison, so we're stuck with this.

Americans arent, a legacy of their revolutionary past. As decolonisers, Gandhi and Mandela went on to implement new constitutions. The American model is about preserving and upholding its existing constitution.

Either way, we're talking about ethical thresholds of political character, not constitutional law. Criminality is being used here as a measure of character.

We know, for example, that Trump has been found liable for rape. He is not a convicted rapist, which is a meaningless measure when we're discussing global leadership qualities. In that sense, terms like impeached, indicted, convicted and sentenced are only useful in setting up standards of evidence.

Trump's charges themselves are meaningful in applying justice. We don't need them to establish the facts. Many of these were shown by the Jan 6 Committee, which has no legal jurisdiction at all.

We know, for example, that he stole around two garagefuls worth of classified documents. We know he freely shared this information. There are signs he has plans to sell this information or use it as blackmail, revenge or just plain bragging, which Richard Pratt's testimony shows. We only found this out because Pratt's friendly with Australian government sources.

We haven't heard about information sold to the Russians, Chinese or Saudis, all of whom have memberships or are connected to members of Mar a Lago. We know Jared Kushner was entrusted with $86 billion in Saudi government investment funds, so there are clear money trails, arrangements and connections, so easily exploited.

While Trump's a clown and a clutz, I wouldn't underestimate the people around him. His valet Walt Nauta, for example, was entrusted with some of the US's biggest security secrets, which he could freely access, copy and sell to anyone who approached him.

NARA know of further missing White House documents, and Trump has evaded the question of whether we he's handed everything back. He's clearly forgotten how many documents he flushed down the Oval Office toilet, so NARA are unlikely to ever know what records are still out there in circulation.

During Trump's time in office, NARA employed two well-trained researchers who's job it was to sticky tape papers Trump had read back together, so as to protect the documents and uphold the presidential records act.. Whenever he was given something to read, Trump would tear it up when he was done. They could never get him to break this habit.

Still, if you think a person with such a character should be entrusted to run the US again, no worries. You must have a completely different measure of character, but do you know?

I would hope that you have a better excuse than Trump's just too dumb to be a criminal mastermind and well-paid foreign asset.

They used that one to get him out of Russia Russia Russia, and to be honest, I never felt it sat too well with him.

You?

AusGeoff wrote on Mar 16^th, 2024 at 6:29pm:


True, but I don't think Panther's really thought this through.

The insurrectionists on Jan 6 really were trying to bring down the elected government, even the non-violent ones. Panther himself wanted them to succeed. He calls them patriots.

Claiming you support your beloved constitution when you really want an unelected regime imposed is the height of hypocrisy.

The most patriotic act you can do is accept defeat when the other team wins. Hillary spelled this out in her 2016 concession speech.

I don't think any Never Trumper here ever tried to contest the 2016 election. Lost the popular vote, sure, rode in on Putin's foreign interference definitely, handed his win on a silver platter, absolutely.

But no one claimed Trump didn't win.

It may be your democratic right to tell lies, but you can't claim to be a constitutional conservative if you do.

.... any country in the United States will tell you that it has to be Biden......

Spot the reference.....

I'm going for Trump.