Democratic Squad Member pulls fire alarm

[*pally*]

(10-01-2023, 04:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am saying that there is enough there to charge both with misdemeanor offenses of a similar severity given what we have seen. You are making assumptions about motives for Jamaal Bowman, but those are just assumptions. I think that if we are going to expel members of Congress for misdemeanor criminal offenses then it should apply evenly across the board and there will be many who would say the same thing in Congress, which is why this will not amount to anything. On its face, right now, with the available evidence, Bowman did nothing more severe than Boebert or any other member of Congress who has committed a misdemeanor offense.

Edit: Just for the sake of discussion, here are the things that have risen to the level of Congressional expulsion: felony bribery convictions, siding with the Confederate States of America, and trying to start a war between different tribes and Spain out west to try to let Great Britain obtain land. The bribery convictions were two people, one in 1980 and one in 2002, and the other non-Civil War one was in 1797.

heck they haven't even moved to expel George Santos, indicted on multiple felonies. Though Republicans have made noise about dumping Matt Gaetz, who is still facing the ethics committee

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2023, 04:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am saying that there is enough there to charge both with misdemeanor offenses of a similar severity given what we have seen. You are making assumptions about motives for Jamaal Bowman, but those are just assumptions. I think that if we are going to expel members of Congress for misdemeanor criminal offenses then it should apply evenly across the board and there will be many who would say the same thing in Congress, which is why this will not amount to anything. On its face, right now, with the available evidence, Bowman did nothing more severe than Boebert or any other member of Congress who has committed a misdemeanor offense.

Edit: Just for the sake of discussion, here are the things that have risen to the level of Congressional expulsion: felony bribery convictions, siding with the Confederate States of America, and trying to start a war between different tribes and Spain out west to try to let Great Britain obtain land. The bribery convictions were two people, one in 1980 and one in 2002, and the other non-Civil War one was in 1797.

I honestly can't see a person as intelligent as you not seeing this incident for what it obviously was.  His explanation is the epitome of ridiculous.  To claim he did nothing worse than trashy Boebert is legit insane to me.  The only parallel is there is video evidence of what each did, in contrast to others.

(10-01-2023, 06:13 PM)pally Wrote: heck they haven't even moved to expel George Santos, indicted on multiple felonies.  Though Republicans have made noise about dumping Matt Gaetz, who is still facing the ethics committee

Indicted is not convicted.  Santos sucks, but he hasn't been convicted of anything and deserves his day in court.  He's not Menendez, who's now been indicted for the same types of charges twice, earning a dubious hung jury for the previous indictment.  For all the talk of Trump saying he could shoot someone in broad daylight and still be supported the same could be said about you and literally any Dem.

It's amazing that our standards have fallen so low that this is even a discussion, and I say that about both sides.  We are legitimately doomed.

[GMDino]

(10-01-2023, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I honestly can't see a person as intelligent as you not seeing this incident for what it obviously was.  His explanation is the epitome of ridiculous.  To claim he did nothing worse than trashy Boebert is legit insane to me.  The only parallel is there is video evidence of what each did, in contrast to others.


Indicted is not convicted.  Santos sucks, but he hasn't been convicted of anything and deserves his day in court.  He's not Menendez, who's now been indicted for the same types of charges twice, earning a dubious hung jury for the previous indictment.  For all the talk of Trump saying he could shoot someone in broad daylight and still be supported the same could be said about you and literally any Dem.

Exactly. One was indicted and is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The other is indicted and already had his day in court...and wasn't found guilty. But he was indicted AGAIN so, uh, he doesn't need to go back to court?

Wait...are there different kinds of indictments?

(10-01-2023, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's amazing that our standards have fallen so low that this is even a discussion, and I say that about both sides.  We are legitimately doomed.

Indeed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2023, 07:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: Exactly.  One was indicted and is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The other is indicted and already had his day in court...and wasn't found guilty.  But he was indicted AGAIN so, uh, he doesn't need to go back to court?

Wait...are there different kinds of indictments?

Yeah, for the purposes of this discussion there are.  Menendez indicted for the same type of crime years ago.  He received a dubious hung jury, hardly an acquittal.  He is then, years later, again indicted for the exact same type of behavior.  You have officially lost your benefit of the doubt at that point.  Unless you're a complete partisan hack, that is.  Santos is very likely guilty (but then so was Menendez), but he deserves the benefit of the doubt the first time around. 

Quote:Indeed.

Indeed, indeed.  But you're just as much a partisan as Bfritz or Luvnit and don't see it.  I won't lie, seeing Bel have a similar position gave me pause, as he is not highly partisan.  But after giving his position a fair amount of thought I simply cannot agree with him.  At all.  Dude pulled a fire alarm to delay a key vote and you actually believe his bullshit excuse?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

[Belsnickel]

(10-01-2023, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I honestly can't see a person as intelligent as you not seeing this incident for what it obviously was.  His explanation is the epitome of ridiculous.  To claim he did nothing worse than trashy Boebert is legit insane to me.  The only parallel is there is video evidence of what each did, in contrast to others.

The other parallel is the fact that the offenses they could potentially be charged with are of the same seriousness. I get that his excuse is pretty flimsy, but it does not change the fact that your claims regarding his motives are assumptions. Also, none of this changes the fact that neither one of them has done something that should rise to the level of expulsion. Claiming so is truly the epitome of hyperbolic.

(10-01-2023, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's amazing that our standards have fallen so low that this is even a discussion, and I say that about both sides.  We are legitimately doomed.

There was a Representative who literally beat a Senator unconscious on the Senate floor and did not even get censured for his actions, let alone expelled. This idea that somehow the standards have been lowered for our elected officials is naive.

[GMDino]

(10-01-2023, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, for the purposes of this discussion there are.  Menendez indicted for the same type of crime years ago.  He received a dubious hung jury, hardly an acquittal.  He is then, years later, again indicted for the exact same type of behavior.  You have officially lost your benefit of the doubt at that point.  Unless you're a complete partisan hack, that is.  Santos is very likely guilty (but then so was Menendez), but he deserves the benefit of the doubt the first time around. 

So there ARE deferent types if indictments.  As long as the hung jury was "dubious" in your mind then he's no longer innocent until proven guilty.

(10-01-2023, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed, indeed.  But you're just as much a partisan as Bfritz or Luvnit and don't see it.  I won't lie, seeing Bel have a similar position gave me pause, as he is not highly partisan.  But after giving his position a fair amount of thought I simply cannot agree with him.  At all.  Dude pulled a fire alarm to delay a key vote and you actually believe his bullshit excuse?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

I don't remember saying I believed him.  In fact I didn't comment on what he did at all. 

[GMDino]

(10-01-2023, 07:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The other parallel is the fact that the offenses they could potentially be charged with are of the same seriousness. I get that his excuse is pretty flimsy, but it does not change the fact that your claims regarding his motives are assumptions. Also, none of this changes the fact that neither one of them has done something that should rise to the level of expulsion. Claiming so is truly the epitome of hyperbolic.


There was a Representative who literally beat a Senator unconscious on the Senate floor and did not even get censured for his actions, let alone expelled. This idea that somehow the standards have been lowered for our elected officials is naive.

TBF that kind of beating might be taken seriously today.  At least by the opposing party...lol.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2023, 07:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The other parallel is the fact that the offenses they could potentially be charged with are of the same seriousness. I get that his excuse is pretty flimsy, but it does not change the fact that your claims regarding his motives are assumptions. Also, none of this changes the fact that neither one of them has done something that should rise to the level of expulsion. Claiming so is truly the epitome of hyperbolic.

I cannot agree.  Pulling a fire alarm to delay an important vote is a few cuts above a normal misdemeanor.  I'm not talking about the criminal seriousness of the matter, perhaps I should have been clear about that.  Although I may have naively assumed that was understood.  As far as doubting his excuse, of course it's an assumption.  Unless you're Professor X and can read his mind, or he flat out states otherwise any analysis of someone's motives is an assumption.  You're stating this like it's the foundation of an actual defense.  It is not.  We solve major crimes on a daily basis on the basis of informed assumptions.

Quote:There was a Representative who literally beat a Senator unconscious on the Senate floor and did not even get censured for his actions, let alone expelled. This idea that somehow the standards have been lowered for our elected officials is naive.

Not being specifically aware of the exact incident you are referencing I'm going to guess it was in the era leading to the Civil War.  Regardless, your justified complaints about Boebert and Greene, coupled with this incident do indeed show that modern standards are falling.

(10-01-2023, 08:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: So there ARE deferent types if indictments.

Yeah, in regards to this topic.  Just like I said.  Thank you kindly repeater man.

Quote:  As long as the hung jury was "dubious" in your mind then he's no longer innocent until proven guilty.

No one mentioned guilty in a court of law.  You construct your own straw men and then attack them like you accomplished something.  It's quite the exercise in self delusional self esteem building.

Quote:I don't remember saying I believed him.  In fact I didn't comment on what he did at all. 

If you don't believe him then you think he pulled a fire alarm to intentionally delay an important vote.  You don't agree that that warrants expulsion?  Also, your meme, per the norm, doesn't make the point you think it does.  

[StoneTheCrow]

Just a reminder that there is absolutely not a functioning grown-up who pulls a fire alarm thinking it will do any other fucken thing than sound a fire alarm.

— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 2, 2023

[GMDino]

(09-30-2023, 07:40 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I have never defended the Jan. 6th defendants. My issue is BLM burned down cities, looted and ruined black businesses, yet they never were prosecuted in liberal cities. 

Now we get to see if the capital police are biased political hacks or real police. Guy is on tape, he should resign and go to jail.

Just wanted to back to this talking point that isn't true:

This story is from 2021 so a lot of the Jan 6th fools still had to be identified and charged, but the Floyd marches and associated riots had already happened.

And please note that Jan 6th was much the same in that there was a rally/march and then there were the rioters who are being charged and convicted. 

https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8

Quote:BY ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, MICHAEL KUNZELMAN AND JACQUES BILLEAUD
Published 5:59 AM EDT, August 30, 2021


It’s a common refrain from some of those charged in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and their Republican allies: The Justice Department is treating them harshly because of their political views while those arrested during last year’s protests over racial injustice were given leniency.
Court records tell a different story.

An Associated Press review of court documents in more than 300 federal cases stemming from the protests sparked by George Floyd’s death last year shows that dozens of people charged have been convicted of serious crimes and sent to prison.

The AP found that more than 120 defendants across the United States have pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial of federal crimes including rioting, arson and conspiracy. More than 70 defendants who’ve been sentenced so far have gotten an average of about 27 months behind bars. At least 10 received prison terms of five years or more.

The dissonance between the rhetoric of Capitol rioters and their supporters and the record established by courts highlights both the racial tension inherent in their arguments — the pro-Donald Trump rioters were largely white and last summer’s protesters were more diverse — and the flawed assessment at the heart of their claims.

“The property damage or accusations of arson and looting from last year, those were serious and they were dealt with seriously, but they weren’t an attack on the very core constitutional processes that we rely on in a democracy, nor were they an attack on the United States Congress,” said Kent Greenfield, a professor at Boston College Law School.
To be sure, some defendants have received lenient deals.

At least 19 who have been sentenced across the country got no prison time or time served, according to the AP’s review. Many pleaded guilty to lower-level offenses, such as misdemeanor assault, but some were convicted of more serious charges, including civil disorder.


In Portland, Oregon — where demonstrations, many turning violent, occurred nightly for months after a white Minneapolis police officer killed Floyd — about 60 of the roughly 100 cases that were brought have been dismissed, court records show.
Most of those defendants received deferred resolution agreements, under which prosecutors promise to drop charges after a certain amount of time if the defendant stays out of trouble and completes things like community service. Some Jan. 6 defendants have complained it’s unfair they aren’t getting the same deals.

But President Joe Biden’s Justice Department has continued the vast majority of the racial injustice protest cases brought across the U.S. under Trump and has often pushed for lengthy prison time for people convicted of serious crimes. Since Biden took office in January, federal prosecutors have brought some new cases stemming from last year’s protests.
Conservatives have sought to equate the attack on the Capitol with the Black Lives Matter protests, accusing Democrats of being hypocrites for not denouncing the violence after Floyd’s death as loudly as the Jan. 6 insurrection. And some Republicans have seized on the handling of the protest cases in Portland to suggest that the Jan. 6 defendants are being politically persecuted.

That has not been borne out when comparing the sentences that federal judges have given to Jan. 6 defendants and those who are accused of crimes during the protests against police brutality across the country.

Only a handful of the nearly 600 people who’ve been charged in the insurrection have received their punishments so far, and just three people have been sentenced to time behind bars. The vast majority of the most serious cases — involving those accused of assaulting police officers or conspiring to block the certification of Biden’s victory — remain unresolved.
The catalysts for the riot and the demonstrations for racial justice were also fundamentally different.

The mob of Trump supporters whipped up by the former president’s lies about the election descended on the Capitol and pushed past police barriers, assaulted officers, smashed windows and sent lawmakers running in a stunning attempt to overturn the presidential election.

The demonstrations after Floyd’s death were largely peaceful calls to address racial inequality and police brutality that occasionally turned violent. In some cities, protests descended into chaos after dark, with people smashing windows, looting stores, setting fires and assaulting officers.

William Barr, who as attorney general led the Justice Department last year under Trump, pushed federal prosecutors to aggressively go after protesters who caused violence. Defense lawyers complained that many of the cases belonged in state court — punishments are typically lighter there — and accused Justice Department officials of carrying out a politically motivated effort to stymie the demonstrations.

Just this month, a man was sentenced to four years behind bars and ordered to pay what his attorney said is likely to exceed $1.5 million in restitution after pleading guilty to inciting a riot last spring in Champaign, Illinois.

Shamar Betts, who was 19 at the time, posted a flyer on Facebook on May 31, 2020, that said “RIOT @ MarketPlace Mall” at 3 p.m. and instructed people to bring “friends & family, posters, bricks, bookbags etc.” He participated in the looting, went live on Facebook during the riot and bragged about starting it, authorities said. More than 70 stores were looted, and the riot caused $1.8 million in damage, prosecutors said.

Betts’ lawyer, Elisabeth Pollock, said Betts was frustrated about police brutality across the U.S., had lost his job because of the coronavirus outbreak and never intended to hurt anyone. Prosecutors pushed for the maximum punishment of five years in prison and the maximum restitution amount for Betts, who had no criminal history, she said.

“They took into account not a single mitigating factor: nothing about how he grew up, nothing about about how the George Floyd protests had affected the community, nothing about how the pandemic had affected Shamar personally and the community. There was absolutely no quarter given to him at all,” his attorney said in an interview.

In another case this month, an Illinois man was sentenced to nearly nine years behind bars for lighting a Minneapolis cellphone store on fire in June 2020. A Charleston, South Carolina, man who livestreamed himself looting a store downtown was sentenced to two years in prison.

In the Capitol riot, dozens of defendants have been charged only with misdemeanors, and a standard plea deal has allowed many to plead guilty to a single count of demonstrating in the Capitol.

An Indiana woman who admitted illegally entering the Capitol but didn’t participate in any violence or destruction avoided jail time, and two other misdemeanor defendants got one and two months of home confinement. Two other people who were locked up pretrial were released after pleading guilty to misdemeanors and serving the maximum six-month jail sentence.

Only one defendant convicted of a felony has received his punishment so far. Paul Hodgkins, who breached the U.S. Senate chamber carrying a Trump campaign flag, was ordered to serve eight months behind bars.

The political fighting over the cases comes as some Republicans in Washington have tried to downplay the attack on the Capitol, with many of them portraying the siege as a mostly peaceful protest despite the shocking violence that unfolded on live TV.

In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland in June, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and four other Republican senators expressed concern about “potential unequal administration of justice” in how prosecutors have responded to the Jan. 6 riot and the Black Lives Matter protests.

Despite “numerous examples of violence” during last year’s protests, they said “it appears that individuals charged with committing crimes at these events may benefit from infrequent prosecutions and minimal, if any, penalties” and claimed the Justice Department’s “apparent unwillingness” to punish them stands in “stark contrast to the harsher treatment” of the Capitol defendants.

One Jan. 6 defendant has similarly accused the Justice Department of selective prosecution based on different political viewpoints, comparing his case with how the department has handled charges stemming from the Portland protests.

Garrett Miller, of Texas, was wearing a T-shirt that said, “I Was There, Washington D.C., January 6, 2021,” when he was arrested. Prosecutors say Miller posted threatening messages on Twitter directed at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, after the riot. His lawyer said Miller isn’t trying to excuse his actions.

“Nevertheless, Mr. Miller should not be treated differently based upon the political views he espoused viz-a-viz the political views espoused by the Portland rioters,” his attorney, F. Clinton Broden, wrote in recent court papers.

Federal prosecutors say Miller hasn’t presented any evidence that his case was politically motivated.

They also rejected comparisons between Miller’s actions and those of the Portland defendants, “who — despite committing serious offenses — never entered the federal courthouse structure, impeded a congressional proceeding, or targeted a specific federal official or officer for assassination.”

One Portland defendant who recently received a deferred resolution agreement was accused of using a wooden shield and hoses to hit an officer in the head. Another was accused of punching an officer in the side of her face. Other cases were dismissed after defendants agreed to plead guilty to similar charges in state court, records show.

“Our approach depends on the circumstances of the charged offense and unique characteristics of each defendant, rather than on any across-the-board standard being applied to all cases,” said Kevin Sonoff, spokesman for the Oregon U.S. attorney’s office.

Meanwhile, in Utah this month, a federal judge sentenced 25-year-old Lateesha Richards to nearly two years in prison for tossing a pair of basketball shorts onto an overturned, burning patrol car and hurling a baseball bat toward police officers during a May 2020 protest in Salt Lake City. There’s no evidence that the bat struck anybody.

Richards initially was charged with an arson count that carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison, but she avoided that possibility with a deal under which she pleaded to a charge of civil disorder.

The judge said Richards’ actions were dangerous and put hundreds of peaceful protesters in harm’s way. Richards didn’t start the fire that engulfed the police vehicle, but she did “add fuel to the flames,” he added.

Defense attorney Alexander Ramos, who had pushed for the judge to sentence Richards to the one year in jail she has already served, said the Floyd protesters appear to be getting even more scrutiny than comparable “run-of-the mill” cases.
“If it didn’t have this political background, I think more people would have been let out,” Ramos told the AP.

On the same day in May, Kelsey Donnel Jackson traveled to downtown Charleston, South Carolina, with a cousin to join a protest over Floyd’s killing. Hours later, as other protesters began flipping tables and taunting police officers, Jackson lighted a shirt on fire and tossed it onto the trunk of a vandalized police car.

Jackson also vandalized businesses and public property, assaulted two people and streamed a video of himself on Facebook Live in which he held a handgun and made threatening statements about police, according to prosecutors.

He was sentenced this summer to two years in prison after pleading guilty to maliciously damaging a police vehicle with fire.
Jackson’s lawyer wrote in court documents before his sentencing that many people who stormed the Capitol “with the clear intent to disrupt a session of Congress and overturn a lawful election” were charged only with misdemeanor offenses.

“We do not make reference to unrelated conduct in other jurisdictions in order to minimize (Jackson’s) conduct and culpability, but rather to point out that similar (and more egregious) conduct that was very obviously intended to intimidate law enforcement and interfere with government operations has been treated in a less heavy-handed manner elsewhere,” his attorney wrote.

[Belsnickel]

(10-01-2023, 09:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I cannot agree.  Pulling a fire alarm to delay an important vote is a few cuts above a normal misdemeanor.  I'm not talking about the criminal seriousness of the matter, perhaps I should have been clear about that.  Although I may have naively assumed that was understood.  As far as doubting his excuse, of course it's an assumption.  Unless you're Professor X and can read his mind, or he flat out states otherwise any analysis of someone's motives is an assumption.  You're stating this like it's the foundation of an actual defense.  It is not.  We solve major crimes on a daily basis on the basis of informed assumptions.

Yep, an important vote that the GOP was trying to rush through without giving members of Congress time to actually read the legislation and prevent Democrats from voting on by giving extremely short notice. Personally, tactics aimed at preventing voting members of Congress from making informed votes on legislation is just as nefarious, if not more so because of the abuse of a position of power, than what Bowman did.

As for the assumptions, yeah, I get that, but you and I both know that circumstantial evidence is extremely flimsy. That's all we have going for the motive, here. And regardless of all of that, it isn't grounds for expulsion just based on precedent.

(10-01-2023, 09:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not being specifically aware of the exact incident you are referencing I'm going to guess it was in the era leading to the Civil War.  Regardless, your justified complaints about Boebert and Greene, coupled with this incident do indeed show that modern standards are falling.

It was, and I don't think so. Congress as a whole, but especially the House of Representatives, does not have a history of having the most upstanding members.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2023, 12:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yep, an important vote that the GOP was trying to rush through without giving members of Congress time to actually read the legislation and prevent Democrats from voting on by giving extremely short notice. Personally, tactics aimed at preventing voting members of Congress from making informed votes on legislation is just as nefarious, if not more so because of the abuse of a position of power, than what Bowman did.

I can certainly agree with you in regards to the intent of such moves.  But if they fall within established rules and procedures then our issue is with the rules and procedures.  Pulling a fire alarm to delay a vote is not covered by any such rule or procedure.  What's next, calling in a bomb threat to delay a vote you don't like and then claiming "it's just a prank, bro"?

Quote:As for the assumptions, yeah, I get that, but you and I both know that circumstantial evidence is extremely flimsy. That's all we have going for the motive, here. And regardless of all of that, it isn't grounds for expulsion just based on precedent.

Circumstantial evidence is not inherently flimsy, and can, in fact, be extremely strong and compelling.  A person's fingerprints on a murder weapon is circumstantial evidence, as is finding guns shot reside on their hands and clothing.  Neither inherently prove that you were in possession of the gun at the time of the murder, or that you were present at the scene for the same, but they circumstantially tie you to the murder in a very strong way.

Quote:It was, and I don't think so. Congress as a whole, but especially the House of Representatives, does not have a history of having the most upstanding members.

Maybe we grew up in more collegial times, as I can't recall the same level of BS being a regular feature of Congress.  I suppose it boils down to where you draw the line.  For me engaging in an illegal act that has nothing to do with you job as a member of Congress (we are talking misdemeanors here) is a far different animal than one committed as part of your role in Congress, especially when said action directly affects the workings of Congress.  And even more so when you compound your action by so obviously lying about it.

I'll happily draw the line here and would advocate for the expulsion of any member of Congress who engages in similar behavior.  Any one who does not has rather lost the right to complain about or castigate the ridiculous antics of MTG or Boebert.

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2023, 12:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can certainly agree with you in regards to the intent of such moves.  But if they fall within established rules and procedures then our issue is with the rules and procedures.  Pulling a fire alarm to delay a vote is not covered by any such rule or procedure.  What's next, calling in a bomb threat to delay a vote you don't like and then claiming "it's just a prank, bro"?

I mean, in all seriousness it seems like pulling the fire alarm is a step back on the scale of these things given the events of January 6th.

(10-02-2023, 12:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Circumstantial evidence is not inherently flimsy, and can, in fact, be extremely strong and compelling.  A person's fingerprints on a murder weapon is circumstantial evidence, as is finding guns shot reside on their hands and clothing.  Neither inherently prove that you were in possession of the gun at the time of the murder, or that you were present at the scene for the same, but they circumstantially tie you to the murder in a very strong way.

You're also talking about circumstantial evidence about the individual taking the action, which is different than determining motive. What we have here is the difference, for example, of premeditated homicide versus a lesser charge. Would circumstantial evidence typically provide enough evidence for determining guilt of premeditate murder versus a lesser charge? You would need something more than that circumstantial evidence to really point to the motive.

(10-02-2023, 12:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe we grew up in more collegial times, as I can't recall the same level of BS being a regular feature of Congress.  I suppose it boils down to where you draw the line.  For me engaging in an illegal act that has nothing to do with you job as a member of Congress (we are talking misdemeanors here) is a far different animal than one committed as part of your role in Congress, especially when said action directly affects the workings of Congress.  And even more so when you compound your action by so obviously lying about it.

I think this is more due to me being where I am and having the background I do. My experiences have allowed me to see and hear about things that don't really hit the news cycle as much.

(10-02-2023, 12:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll happily draw the line here and would advocate for the expulsion of any member of Congress who engages in similar behavior.  Any one who does not has rather lost the right to complain about or castigate the ridiculous antics of MTG or Boebert.

C'mon, now. This is really hyperbolic. I mean, there was substantial evidence that Scott Perry and Paul Gosar were actively involved in the events of January 6, 2021, actions that could have put them in legal jeopardy would it not have been a political nightmare to prosecute such things. I could argue that not calling for their expulsion would lose their right to complain about Bowman. I am not, mind you, because I believe that the line for expulsion in Congress should be extremely high, but if we're going to start talking about these sorts of things we need to take it seriously and look at it with an objective eye.

[GreenDragon]

I love this quote:

"That any member of Congress would think it's appropriate to pull a fire alarm to try and delay Congress from doing its business is shameful," Lawler said. "It's unbecoming. And he should strongly consider resigning from Congress if he did that."

The same party that won't condemn the January 6 attackers.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-02-2023, 01:35 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: I love this quote:

"That any member of Congress would think it's appropriate to pull a fire alarm to try and delay Congress from doing its business is shameful," Lawler said. "It's unbecoming. And he should strongly consider resigning from Congress if he did that."

The same party that won't condemn the January 6 attackers.

If i did this at my work, i'd likely be fired no matter the excuse.

[StoneTheCrow]

pic.twitter.com/GUXZOxM3Ls

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) October 2, 2023

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2023, 01:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, in all seriousness it seems like pulling the fire alarm is a step back on the scale of these things given the events of January 6th.

I agree, they aren't comparable.

Quote:You're also talking about circumstantial evidence about the individual taking the action, which is different than determining motive. What we have here is the difference, for example, of premeditated homicide versus a lesser charge. Would circumstantial evidence typically provide enough evidence for determining guilt of premeditate murder versus a lesser charge? You would need something more than that circumstantial evidence to really point to the motive.

You'd be surprised how little motive plays a factor in a criminal investigation much of the time.  When it comes up it's far down the line, once most of the puzzle pieces are already in place.  As to your question about circumstantial evidence being used as evidence of pre-meditation, the answer is yes, all the time.  The vast majority of evidence used to solve crimes is circumstantial.  People often have a misunderstanding of what the term even means and take it as weaker or less than evidence.  One of my college professors had a great way for explaining it.  You go into a movie theatre, the ground is dry when you went in.  You come out and everything outside is wet.  You know it just rained, but you didn't see it rain.  The ground and everything outside being wet is circumstantial evidence that it rained.  Circumstantial evidence is very often the stuff that gets people convicted.

Quote:I think this is more due to me being where I am and having the background I do. My experiences have allowed me to see and hear about things that don't really hit the news cycle as much.

Dude, trust.  I know more about the dirty underbelly of LA politics than I care to know.  Why do you think I harbor such a deep loathing of the far left?  I'm sure my ire would have some different targets if I lived in Alabama, but I don't.

Quote:C'mon, now. This is really hyperbolic. I mean, there was substantial evidence that Scott Perry and Paul Gosar were actively involved in the events of January 6, 2021, actions that could have put them in legal jeopardy would it not have been a political nightmare to prosecute such things. I could argue that not calling for their expulsion would lose their right to complain about Bowman. I am not, mind you, because I believe that the line for expulsion in Congress should be extremely high, but if we're going to start talking about these sorts of things we need to take it seriously and look at it with an objective eye.

Being totally honest, I didn't follow the 01/06 information closely at all.  Outside of learning a few things to confront some of the more hysterical posters here I was completely turned off from the whole process.  It's personal, I am aware, but the Dems all of the sudden weeping tears for injured LEO's after figuratively shitting on us for two years (and still doing so in many places) made me nauseous and unable to follow the hearings.  I will say this, if anyone can be proved to have engaged in criminal acts to facilitate what happened then they should be charged and expelled from Congress as well.  Also, I don't buy the "political nightmare" excuse for not charging anyone.  That excuse was thrown in the trash permanently when they went after a POTUS for actions taken while in office.  The Rubicon has been crossed in that regard.

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2023, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Being totally honest, I didn't follow the 01/06 information closely at all.  Outside of learning a few things to confront some of the more hysterical posters here I was completely turned off from the whole process.  It's personal, I am aware, but the Dems all of the sudden weeping tears for injured LEO's after figuratively shitting on us for two years (and still doing so in many places) made me nauseous and unable to follow the hearings.  I will say this, if anyone can be proved to have engaged in criminal acts to facilitate what happened then they should be charged and expelled from Congress as well.  Also, I don't buy the "political nightmare" excuse for not charging anyone.  That excuse was thrown in the trash permanently when they went after a POTUS for actions taken while in office.  The Rubicon has been crossed in that regard.

I understand where you are coming from in this section, but to the part in bold there is a big difference. Someone who is currently in office is, right or wrong, more protected from criminal charges for their actions related to their office than they are after leaving office. This is why Trump rushed to announce his candidacy, we wanted to rely on the protections that even a candidacy typically affords. Personally, I am in favor of everyone being held accountable for their actions, but I also know that those holding public office are not typically held accountable by the judicial system for fear of the exact reason you have issues with the Trump indictments.

I would not be surprised to learn that Garland has had conversations about appointing a special counsel for the purpose of investigating a few members of Congress, but the potential costs of doing so are likely seen to outweigh the benefits, especially with a GOP led House.

[*pally*]

(10-02-2023, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree, they aren't comparable.




You'd be surprised how little motive plays a factor in a criminal investigation much of the time.  When it comes up it's far down the line, once most of the puzzle pieces are already in place.  As to your question about circumstantial evidence being used as evidence of pre-meditation, the answer is yes, all the time.  The vast majority of evidence used to solve crimes is circumstantial.  People often have a misunderstanding of what the term even means and take it as weaker or less than evidence.  One of my college professors had a great way for explaining it.  You go into a movie theatre, the ground is dry when you went in.  You come out and everything outside is wet.  You know it just rained, but you didn't see it rain.  The ground and everything outside being wet is circumstantial evidence that it rained.  Circumstantial evidence is very often the stuff that gets people convicted.



Dude, trust.  I know more about the dirty underbelly of LA politics than I care to know.  Why do you think I harbor such a deep loathing of the far left?  I'm sure my ire would have some different targets if I lived in Alabama, but I don't.



Being totally honest, I didn't follow the 01/06 information closely at all.  Outside of learning a few things to confront some of the more hysterical posters here I was completely turned off from the whole process.  It's personal, I am aware, but the Dems all of the sudden weeping tears for injured LEO's after figuratively shitting on us for two years (and still doing so in many places) made me nauseous and unable to follow the hearings.  I will say this, if anyone can be proved to have engaged in criminal acts to facilitate what happened then they should be charged and expelled from Congress as well.  Also, I don't buy the "political nightmare" excuse for not charging anyone.  That excuse was thrown in the trash permanently when they went after a POTUS for actions taken while in office.  The Rubicon has been crossed in that regard.

Maybe POTUS should have been thinking and behaving like a President instead of a mob boss.  His actions were on behalf of candidate Trump not the American people.  He tried to illegally stay in power.  Its something that shouldn't be ignored

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2023, 09:02 PM)pally Wrote: Maybe POTUS should have been thinking and behaving like a President instead of a mob boss.  His actions were on behalf of candidate Trump not the American people.  He tried to illegally stay in power.  Its something that shouldn't be ignored

I appreciate your comment, but it completely misses the point that is being discussed.