bear2034 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Trump pardoned ALL of the J6 "hostages" that injured 140 police officers.

Did you support his pardon?

Yes or No?

---

The ones that served prison time for actual charges?

---

Mike Wallace said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Trump pardoned ALL of the J6 "hostages" that injured 140 police officers.

Did you support his pardon?

Yes or No?

---

Supreme Court Says Prosecutors Overstepped With Jan. 6 Charge
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction.html

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that federal prosecutors had improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The ruling could affect the prosecutions of hundreds of rioters out of the more than 1,400 who have been charged with an array of offenses for taking part in the effort to block certification of the 2020 election results.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors had argued that the law applied to efforts to obstruct an "official proceeding" the joint session of Congress that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, to certify the Electoral College results.


But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, read the law narrowly, saying it applied only when the defendant's actions impaired the integrity of physical evidence.

---

---

Mike Wallace said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Mike Wallace said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Trump pardoned ALL of the J6 "hostages" that injured 140 police officers.

Did you support his pardon?

Yes or No?

---

Supreme Court Says Prosecutors Overstepped With Jan. 6 Charge
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction.html

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that federal prosecutors had improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The ruling could affect the prosecutions of hundreds of rioters out of the more than 1,400 who have been charged with an array of offenses for taking part in the effort to block certification of the 2020 election results.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors had argued that the law applied to efforts to obstruct an "official proceeding" the joint session of Congress that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, to certify the Electoral College results.


But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, read the law narrowly, saying it applied only when the defendant's actions impaired the integrity of physical evidence.

---

---

You really are trying very hard to dodge answering a yes or no question. Quoting Supreme Court rulings doesn't tell us what YOU think. Maybe no one so far has told you what to think.

---

I wasn't the person he directed the question to. Reading is an important skill if you want to keep your government job.

Charge all the people who entered the Capitol with trespassing? Fine. Charge the people who threw things at or otherwise assaulted police officers with assault? Fine. I don't know what the appropriate charge would be for the people who tried to get through the locked door where Ashley Babbitt ended up getting killed, but that's fine.

But charging people who weren't even at the Capitol? Creating made-up charges of interrupting an official proceeding based on a law that was about destruction of documents to be able to extend prison sentences to make an example out of people in a friendly jurisdiction? That is an abuse of power. And that's why I don't mind that some of the violent offenders got off easier than they maybe should have.

That's probably too much of a nuanced position for someone like you though.

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Mike Wallace said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Mike Wallace said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Trump pardoned ALL of the J6 "hostages" that injured 140 police officers.

Did you support his pardon?

Yes or No?

---

Supreme Court Says Prosecutors Overstepped With Jan. 6 Charge
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction.html

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that federal prosecutors had improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The ruling could affect the prosecutions of hundreds of rioters out of the more than 1,400 who have been charged with an array of offenses for taking part in the effort to block certification of the 2020 election results.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors had argued that the law applied to efforts to obstruct an "official proceeding" the joint session of Congress that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, to certify the Electoral College results.


But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, read the law narrowly, saying it applied only when the defendant's actions impaired the integrity of physical evidence.

---

---

You really are trying very hard to dodge answering a yes or no question. Quoting Supreme Court rulings doesn't tell us what YOU think. Maybe no one so far has told you what to think.

---

I wasn't the person he directed the question to. Reading is an important skill if you want to keep your government job.

Charge all the people who entered the Capitol with trespassing? Fine. Charge the people who threw things at or otherwise assaulted police officers with assault? Fine. I don't know what the appropriate charge would be for the people who tried to get through the locked door where Ashley Babbitt ended up getting killed, but that's fine.

But charging people who weren't even at the Capitol? Creating made-up charges of interrupting an official proceeding based on a law that was about destruction of documents to be able to extend prison sentences to make an example out of people in a friendly jurisdiction? That is an abuse of power. And that's why I don't mind that some of the violent offenders got off easier than they maybe should have.

That's probably too much of a nuanced position for someone like you though.

---

Fair enough, Yogi. The question wasn't originally asked of you, but you butted in and responded to it, so you became fair game. It sounds like we agree more than you might think, at least in your second paragraph of the four.

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Mike Wallace said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Mike Wallace said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Trump pardoned ALL of the J6 "hostages" that injured 140 police officers.

Did you support his pardon?

Yes or No?

---

Supreme Court Says Prosecutors Overstepped With Jan. 6 Charge
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction.html

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that federal prosecutors had improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The ruling could affect the prosecutions of hundreds of rioters out of the more than 1,400 who have been charged with an array of offenses for taking part in the effort to block certification of the 2020 election results.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors had argued that the law applied to efforts to obstruct an "official proceeding" the joint session of Congress that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, to certify the Electoral College results.


But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, read the law narrowly, saying it applied only when the defendant's actions impaired the integrity of physical evidence.

---

---

You really are trying very hard to dodge answering a yes or no question. Quoting Supreme Court rulings doesn't tell us what YOU think. Maybe no one so far has told you what to think.

---

I wasn't the person he directed the question to. Reading is an important skill if you want to keep your government job.

Charge all the people who entered the Capitol with trespassing? Fine. Charge the people who threw things at or otherwise assaulted police officers with assault? Fine. I don't know what the appropriate charge would be for the people who tried to get through the locked door where Ashley Babbitt ended up getting killed, but that's fine.

But charging people who weren't even at the Capitol? Creating made-up charges of interrupting an official proceeding based on a law that was about destruction of documents to be able to extend prison sentences to make an example out of people in a friendly jurisdiction? That is an abuse of power. And that's why I don't mind that some of the violent offenders got off easier than they maybe should have.

That's probably too much of a nuanced position for someone like you though.

---

Fair enough, Yogi. The question wasn't originally asked of you, but you butted in and responded to it, so you became fair game. It sounds like we agree more than you might think, at least in your second paragraph of the four.

---

Trespass is typically a misdemeanor. Assault is often a misdemeanor as well, especially if you take over the streets of Portland for over 3 months.

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Mike Wallace said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Mike Wallace said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Trump pardoned ALL of the J6 "hostages" that injured 140 police officers.

Did you support his pardon?

Yes or No?

---

Supreme Court Says Prosecutors Overstepped With Jan. 6 Charge
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction.html

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that federal prosecutors had improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The ruling could affect the prosecutions of hundreds of rioters out of the more than 1,400 who have been charged with an array of offenses for taking part in the effort to block certification of the 2020 election results.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors had argued that the law applied to efforts to obstruct an "official proceeding" the joint session of Congress that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, to certify the Electoral College results.


But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, read the law narrowly, saying it applied only when the defendant's actions impaired the integrity of physical evidence.

---

---

You really are trying very hard to dodge answering a yes or no question. Quoting Supreme Court rulings doesn't tell us what YOU think. Maybe no one so far has told you what to think.

---

I wasn't the person he directed the question to. Reading is an important skill if you want to keep your government job.

Charge all the people who entered the Capitol with trespassing? Fine. Charge the people who threw things at or otherwise assaulted police officers with assault? Fine. I don't know what the appropriate charge would be for the people who tried to get through the locked door where Ashley Babbitt ended up getting killed, but that's fine.

But charging people who weren't even at the Capitol? Creating made-up charges of interrupting an official proceeding based on a law that was about destruction of documents to be able to extend prison sentences to make an example out of people in a friendly jurisdiction? That is an abuse of power. And that's why I don't mind that some of the violent offenders got off easier than they maybe should have.

That's probably too much of a nuanced position for someone like you though.

---

Fair enough, Yogi. The question wasn't originally asked of you, but you butted in and responded to it, so you became fair game. It sounds like we agree more than you might think, at least in your second paragraph of the four.

---

Trespass is typically a misdemeanor. Assault is often a misdemeanor as well, especially if you take over the streets of Portland for over 3 months.

---

Hey! Look! It's the King of butting into conversations!

---

bearister said:

---

Firings and resignations at the Department of Justice in first weeks of the Trump administration - CBS News

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-department-firings-resignations-60-minutes-transcript/

---

bearister said:

---

"To be clear, the violent protesters were justifiably prosecuted and should not have been pardoned. But the vast majority of people charged were not in that category."

I can live with that.

What rationalization process must law enforcement officers go through that still support Trump after he sold out their brothers by pardoning even the J6'ers that violently assaulted cops?

I suppose they must view those beaten fellow officers as acceptable collateral damage in the Culture War pitting Good vs Evil.


*My maternal grandfather was OPD

*I think the Trump Administration didn't want to do the work and put in the time of going through the files and deciding who should not be pardoned, just like DOGE didn't want to do the work of deciding who should not be fired (which became apparent in the case of the nuke inspectors that were fired one day and rehired the next). They wanted to make an immediate headline splash.
Now Trump is working through surrogates like Cash and Tulsi to do something he is afraid to do…push back on Frankenstein's monster.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

"To be clear, the violent protesters were justifiably prosecuted and should not have been pardoned. But the vast majority of people charged were not in that category."

I can live with that.

What rationalization process must law enforcement officers go through that still support Trump after he sold out their brothers by pardoning even the J6'ers that violently assaulted cops?

I suppose they must view those beaten fellow officers as acceptable collateral damage in the Culture War pitting Good vs Evil.


*My maternal grandfather was OPD

*I think the Trump Administration didn't want to do the work and put in the time of going through the files and deciding who should not be pardoned, just like DOGE didn't want to do the work of deciding who should not be fired (which became apparent in the case of the nuke inspectors that were fired one day and rehired the next). They wanted to make an immediate headline splash.
Now Trump is working through surrogates like Cash and Tulsi to do something he is afraid to do…push back on Frankenstein's monster.

---

I'm sure whatever trepidations law enforcement have with respect to the 1/6 pardons pale in comparison to how law enforcement is treated by the Dem party, both in major cities and at the border. LA/SFO/Philly/NYC/Oakland and any other place with a Soros supported prosecutor come to mind. They remember the defund the police movement and who was behind it.

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

"To be clear, the violent protesters were justifiably prosecuted and should not have been pardoned. But the vast majority of people charged were not in that category."

I can live with that.

What rationalization process must law enforcement officers go through that still support Trump after he sold out their brothers by pardoning even the J6'ers that violently assaulted cops?

I suppose they must view those beaten fellow officers as acceptable collateral damage in the Culture War pitting Good vs Evil.


*My maternal grandfather was OPD

*I think the Trump Administration didn't want to do the work and put in the time of going through the files and deciding who should not be pardoned, just like DOGE didn't want to do the work of deciding who should not be fired (which became apparent in the case of the nuke inspectors that were fired one day and rehired the next). They wanted to make an immediate headline splash.
Now Trump is working through surrogates like Cash and Tulsi to do something he is afraid to do…push back on Frankenstein's monster.

---

I'm sure whatever trepidations law enforcement have with respect to the 1/6 pardons pale in comparison to how law enforcement is treated by the Dem party, both in major cities and at the border. LA/SFO/Philly/NYC/Oakland and any other place with a Soros supported prosecutor come to mind. They remember the defund the police movement and who was behind it.

---

Can you point out some examples of police agencies that were defunded? My recollection is that it was 1 or 2 isolated cases and most proposals to defund never went anywhere.

---