The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined variable $unreadreports - Line: 32 - File: global.php(961) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.27 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/global.php(961) : eval()'d code 32 errorHandler->error_callback
/global.php 961 eval
/showthread.php 28 require_once




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Love America Style Act"
#21
(07-28-2021, 10:22 AM)k.d. Wrote: Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor and not a federal crime, hence, it can not be insurrection.

That is false. Now if you want to pull up your pants and tell me the law you are referring to I can answer.

Until then. My answer up the thread will have to do:

Quote:The prosecutors charge alleged perps with crimes they could get a conviction for.
Reply
#22
Quote:An indictment after his arrest includes two counts of assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers; three counts of robbery of U.S. personal property; and one count each of civil disorder, disorderly conduct, obstruction of an official proceeding and act of violence inside the Capitol.

The recent felony conviction and eight month prison sentence of January 6th protester Paul Hodgkins is an affront to any notion of justice. It is a political charge and a political verdict by a political court. Every American regardless of political persuasion should be terrified of a court system so beholden to politics instead of justice.

We’ve seen this movie before and it does not end well.

Worse than this miscarriage of justice is the despicable attempt by the prosecutor in the case to label Hodgkins – who has no criminal record and was accused of no violent crime – a “terrorist.”

As journalist Michael Tracey recently wrote, Special Assistant US Attorney Mona Sedky declared Hodgkins a “terrorist” in the court proceedings not for committing any terrorist act, not for any act of violence, not even for imagining a terrorist act.

Sedky wrote in her sentencing memo, “The Government … recognizes that Hodgkins did not personally engage in or espouse violence or property destruction.” She added, “we concede that Mr. Hodgkins is not under the legal definition a domestic terrorist.”

Yet Hodgkins should be considered a terrorist because the actions he took – entering the Senate to take a photo of himself – occurred during an event that the court is “framing…in the context of terrorism.”

That goes beyond a slippery slope. He is not a terrorist because he committed a terrorist act, but because somehow the “context” of his actions was, in her words, “imperiling democracy.”

In other words, Hodgkins deserved enhanced punishment because he committed a thought crime. The judge on the case, Randolph D. Moss, admitted as much. In carrying a Trump flag into the Senate, he said, Hodgkins was, “declaring his loyalty to a single individual over the nation.”

As Tracey pointed out, while eight months in prison is a ridiculously long sentence for standing on the floor of the “People’s House” and taking a photograph, it is also a ridiculously short sentence for a terrorist. If Hodgkins is really a terrorist, shouldn’t he be sent away for longer than eight months?

The purpose of the Soviet show trials was to create an enemy that the public could collectively join in hating and blaming for all the failures of the system. The purpose was to turn one part of the population against the other part of the population and demand they be “cancelled.” And it worked very well…for awhile.

In a recent article, libertarian author Jim Bovard quoted from Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago about how average people turned out to demand “justice” for the state’s designated “political” enemies: “There were universal meetings and demonstrations (including even school-children). It was the newspaper march of millions, and the roar rose outside the windows of the courtroom: ‘Death! Death! Death!’”

While we are not quite there yet, we are moving in that direction. Americans being sent to prison not for what they did, but for what they believe? Does that sound like the kind of America we really want to live in?

While many Biden backers are enjoying seeing the hammer come down on pro-Trump, non-violent protesters, they should take note: the kind of totalitarian “justice” system they are cheering on will soon be coming for them. It always does.
Ron Paul
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply
#23
There are federal misdemeanors.

Constitutional courts are not infallible, but they are what the founders envisioned and have stood the test of time. Appeals are allowed in most cases. The laws the courts enforce are either directly in the Constitution or laws created by representatives elected by the people allowed under the Constitution.

What else do we have fer chrissakes ? Jeesus Christ. When you people agree with a verdict it's justice, when you disagree it's tyranny, period LOL.

There have been dismissals and from what I understand there will be a lot more prosecutions
Reply
#24
The Rule of Law. The idea that everyone is equal  under the law and that justice is blind. Well, if you think the people in D.C.  are being treated the same as the arsonists, murderers, and terrorists acting under the flag of BLM  you are simply not of sound mind.
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply
#25
It doesn't matter what I think.

Justice is justice. We have arbiters. And it ain't Lew Rockwell, Gateway Pundit or CNN
Reply
#26
Equal justice under the law. We don't have it. That is why the country is falling apart.
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply
#27
(07-29-2021, 11:00 AM)k.d. Wrote: Equal justice under the law. We don't have it. That is why the country is falling apart.

Then you can only deduce that we have never had "equal justice under the law"

Except, of course, for the "justice" you politically agree with.
Reply
#28
Maybe not, but until recently we've had the appearance of and belief in it.
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply
#29
(07-29-2021, 11:22 AM)k.d. Wrote: Maybe not, but until recently we've had the appearance of and belief in it.

Appearance ? Absolutely !

In reality, the basic structure of our judicial system has not changed. But our political divisiveness and rancor has gone off the charts. Thus allowing the media to create alternate realities.
Reply
#30
Quote:But our political divisiveness and rancor has gone off the charts.
And we know exactly who to blame for that.


Quote:Thus allowing the media to create alternate realities.
And we know exactly which side they're on.
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)