• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Surprise, surprise, Trump judge acquits January 6th defendant!!!

I don't know what Orwellian hellscape you live in, but don't expect us to live in it with you.

No one wants to know what you wanna do when you break free. Oppression is the side we're all on. You keep it.
 
No one wants to know what you wanna do when you break free. Oppression is the side we're all on. You keep it.
I'm already free, but if people listen to you, that is a condition that would change.
 
I'm already free, but if people listen to you, that is a condition that would change.

I told you no listening. We all support your oppression.
 
I told you no listening. We all support your oppression.
So much butthurt from you, you can't counter my assertion or this judge's ruling, so you just go about spewing nonsense.
 
So much butthurt from you, you can't counter my assertion or this judge's ruling, so you just go about spewing nonsense.

Are you often inappropriately sexual? Let's up that oppression factor.
 
So much butthurt from you, you can't counter my assertion or this judge's ruling, so you just go about spewing nonsense.

Since I cannot quote your post of only quotes, we'll all have to revisit your inappropriate sexual reference.

What I wanted to ask is, what does "Changing the law does not change the truth" mean?
 
Unintentional insurrection. Coulda happened to anybody.

McFadden said that Martin’s conduct was as “minimal and non-serious”as the judge could imagine for someone who went into the Capitol on Jan. 6. He said that Martin seemed to be a “silent observer” of the scene and didn’t try to crowd the police, protest, or wave the “Trump” flag that he was carrying. Martin appeared “quiet” and “orderly” as he walked inside the building, filmed video inside the Rotunda similar to how the media would behave, and didn’t appear to interfere with officers as he filmed a clash with rioters later in the afternoon on a north terrace of the building.

Some 'insurrection' you keep flogging on. :rolleyes:

Apparently a 'mostly' "quiet” and “orderly" one.

Just so much bullshit, political narrative pushing from the left, and most disgustingly all driven by perceived political advantage, and nothing more.
 
"Didn't appear to interfere with officers while he approvingly filmed fellow rioters."
 
Since I cannot quote your post of only quotes, we'll all have to revisit your inappropriate sexual reference.
butt·hurt
/ˈbətˌhərt/

INFORMAL•US
adjective
adjective: butthurt; adjective: butt-hurt
  1. overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful.
    "they're all butthurt that she released the album online first"
noun
noun: butthurt; noun: butt-hurt
  1. an excessive or unjustifiable feeling of personal offense or resentment.
    "it's time to get over the butthurt from last year's playoffs"
What I wanted to ask is, what does "Changing the law does not change the truth" mean?
That is for wise minds to ponder, sadly wisdom is a rare thing in any age.
 
That is for wise minds to ponder, sadly wisdom is a rare thing in any age.

No. It's Truther bs. That's why you're ashamed to say what it means. What law change were you a victim of?
 
No. It's Truther bs. That's why you're ashamed to say what it means. What law change were you a victim of?
Spewing more nonsense.

Like I say, wisdom is rare.
 
McFadden said that Martin’s conduct was as “minimal and non-serious”as the judge could imagine for someone who went into the Capitol on Jan. 6. He said that Martin seemed to be a “silent observer” of the scene and didn’t try to crowd the police, protest, or wave the “Trump” flag that he was carrying. Martin appeared “quiet” and “orderly” as he walked inside the building, filmed video inside the Rotunda similar to how the media would behave, and didn’t appear to interfere with officers as he filmed a clash with rioters later in the afternoon on a north terrace of the building.

Some 'insurrection' you keep flogging on. :rolleyes:

Apparently a 'mostly' "quiet” and “orderly" one.

Just so much bullshit, political narrative pushing from the left, and most disgustingly all driven by perceived political advantage, and nothing more.
It was an insurrection in support of a coup attempt.
 
Unless I'm mistaken, that's not possible. That would be double jeopardy. Once acquitted it's a done deal. Unless the prosecutor has new charges.
This is correct.

But for those asserting the silly argument that he should not have been charged at all because he wasn't violent, if I sneak into your house, do I have to be violent in order to be guilty of trespass? I am not aware of any government building open 24/7/365 and if you enter when they are closed to the public, you have committed a crime.
 
It was an insurrection in support of a coup attempt.
:ROFLMAO: LOL. Yeah, you go with that, regardless of what the facts the court cases result in.
Fact less, as always, at least you are consistent there. <Hat Tip>
 
A Trump appointed judge acquits a defendant who entered the capital building on January 6th, there is a picture of him in the building, of all charges. This should surprise no one as this is the reason that the Federalist and Trump appointed these judges. The judge's excuse was that the defendant said he did not know he could not enter the building and that the government did not prove he knew it violated the law. First, as anyone with a brain knows, it is impossible to prove a negative, but even more, the police trying to keep you out might just be a sign that it is not legal to enter. I am sure all of the January 6th defendants will be lining up to get with this judge and receive their get out of jail free cards. Sometimes I wonder what this country is coming to, and then I see the right wing bringing on autocratic rules and shudder.

It doesn't help when some DC policemen removing barricades, then waving them inside. That sends the wrong message.
I know this is a simplistic question, were there signs posted?
 
if you enter when they are closed to the public, you have committed a crime.
Closing a public building while matters of public law and importance are being decided inside is the crime.
 
A Trump appointed judge acquits a defendant who entered the capital building on January 6th, there is a picture of him in the building, of all charges. This should surprise no one as this is the reason that the Federalist and Trump appointed these judges. The judge's excuse was that the defendant said he did not know he could not enter the building and that the government did not prove he knew it violated the law. First, as anyone with a brain knows, it is impossible to prove a negative, but even more, the police trying to keep you out might just be a sign that it is not legal to enter. I am sure all of the January 6th defendants will be lining up to get with this judge and receive their get out of jail free cards. Sometimes I wonder what this country is coming to, and then I see the right wing bringing on autocratic rules and shudder.

Did you actually review the facts of the decision?

Essentially in this case the video evidence showed that not only was this particular individual "waved in" by Capitol Police, but other video evidence showed him peacefully walking around in areas that would be normally open to the public, and just using his cellphone to take videos.

The good thing about this ruling is that the evidence used was the actual video showing both MANY people who were waved in through one door and also showing another side door opened by Capitol Police where they also waved people in.

You cannot be charged with "trespassing" if you are invited in.
 
With Trumpers, ignorance is a defense.

Perhaps part of the problem here was the ignorance of the DOJ: After all, the prosecutor stated during the trial that police officers died that day which was untrue and completely irrelevant to what Mr. Martin was charged with.
 
This is correct.

But for those asserting the silly argument that he should not have been charged at all because he wasn't violent, if I sneak into your house, do I have to be violent in order to be guilty of trespass? I am not aware of any government building open 24/7/365 and if you enter when they are closed to the public, you have committed a crime.

Mr. Martin lives 2,000 miles away-- in New Mexico. As the trial showed, he walked around the Rotunda for about 10 minutes AFTER the Capitol had been stormed, did nothing, and left.
So how did they find him? Well, somebody reported to the FBI that he was a Trump supporter who was not at work on the Jan 6 (the usual predicate of initiating an investigation...) They were able to track him using his cellphone and of course the video. Then they brought him 2000 miles for this trial.

So let me ask you this: Would it be reasonable for the government to do all that for non-violent 10 minute tresspasser into your house?
 
So the DoJ basically had trespassing on the guy but they decided to prosecute him as if he was a terrorist anyway.

This is nonsense; he wasn't charged with Terrorism; he was charged with relatively minor misdemeanors.
 
With Trumpers, ignorance is a defense.

That's the amazing part:

1] "I didn't know, so how can it be a crime?"

2] "The cop didn't stop me, so how can it be a crime"?


--

This is why these mental midgets cannot see through Trump's bullshit, and are so easily manipulated by him. Wanna' bet all these guys gave money to Trump? You know it!
 
Back
Top Bottom