Guilty as charged.

Ah no that's you.

 

If your son threatens to narc on you, and you say that would make you a traitor and traitors get shot, that's a direct threat dude.
He was convicted of obstruction by tampering with witnesses, continue to complain all you'd like.

 

nope, that seems to be a misunderstanding of what I said on your part, as I never said that

 

they could demand a speedy trial, but they are hoping for better plea deals and that the more time that passes, the less raw it is in the public opinion would be my guess, so they wait, plus they know they get time served when sentenced

 

There is no denying what you claimed

And if that were true attorneys would be using it every day. But they don't because its nonsense.

 

Where was he convicted or charged with communicating threats to a minor?
I rest my case

 

Yet another Cybred fabrication dashed on the rocks of reality

 

If that were the case, one thing we can say with certainty, that the person was not motivated by Biden.

But Reffit was motivated by Trump, therefore, no equivalency can be made, a detail which appears to be lost on you.

 

Its no different than when the left claimed Trump said Putin was a savvy genius

Did trump say putin is a genius, yep
Did trump say putin is savvy, yep
Did the left say trump said putin is a savvy genius, nope.

 

But neither was he discouraged by Biden as he should have been.

 

You gave a hypothetical.

In a hypothetical' you can't say 'neither was he discouraged', it's a tense error.

And who cares about hypotheticals, anyway, they are a fool's errand.

 

Apparently you are the one who cares about hypotheticals. What does that make you?

 

I agree, you just misunderstood

 

I'd spend way to long addressing your whole post. Sorry. If there is something really specific you want me to address feel free to point it out please. But for now I'm going with what I see as the main points of your post.

Anyways, the law does consider intent. Indeed many of our laws requires intent to be determined. For example when determining whether a Speaker at a protest incited a riot or not, intent matters. In the killing of someone intent determines the differences between 1st Degree Murder and Self Defense, or manslaughter etc etc.

So yes, when determining whether this guy should be considered as a "traitor" or not...his intent matters. And while yes, the word "traitor" can refer to many things...in this instance its referring to betraying his country in order to overthrow a duly elected government. At least that is what those on the left are using it as. They've outright said that of the 1/6 rioters.

 

You don't get out much, do you.

NBC News
Trump praises Putin's 'genius' as GOP fissures grow on Ukraine crisis
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...us-gop-fissures-grow-ukraine-crisis-rcna17259

CNN
Donald Trump calling Vladimir Putin a 'genius' was no mistake
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/03/politics/trump-putin-russia-ukraine-graham/index.html

POLITICO
Trump calls Putin 'genius' and 'savvy' for Ukraine invasion
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923

 

Misunderstood what?
Did you not claim?
if you ask for a speedy trial and are denied, the case can be thrown out

Which is utter nonsense

 

Still no savvy genius.

 

Did he point that gun at anyone in the menacing manner or is simply carrying a gun now evidence of your intent?

 

Yup

 

I agree, you just misunderstood

yes, what I did not say is "you got the idea that no attorney on the planet knew about it but somehow you did?'

 

he took zip-tie cuffs and a gun, just cause he never got a chance to use them as they could not find them, doesn't make him innocent

 

Then he had to have violated some law that he could be charged with which he evidently did.

Did he break a law bringing a gun to that area?
You can't simply declare that he had a gun therefore he must be guilty of something.

 

yep, the jury said guilty guilty guilty guilty guilty

per this he was

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/08/jur...-6-capitol-riot-defendant-to-stand-trial.html

"Hardie, who had belonged to the right-wing group Texas Three Percenters with Reffitt, said Reffitt was armed with a handgun and also was carrying zip ties when he tried to enter the Capitol building."

 

Yes. That's true, but the problem in this specific case is the long-term implications of what took place that day.

You take umbrage at the word "traitor" while simultaneously minimizing what happened. I don't immediately recall any of your (personal) comments about the riot or rioters at the time but I've heard and seen many of the following:

"They were invited"
"Guided tour in a public building"
"Nobody got hurt"
"Trump didn't tell them to..." (but he didn't do anything to help when it was apparent they weren't "peacefully protesting" either).
"It was a 'lovefest'"

If the Capitol police officers inside the building did not do what they did and *any* of our elected officials had been taken hostage, hurt or killed, the seat of our government would be in jeopardy. To not address that is tantamount to giving the people that think it was some harmless guided tour a green light to try again. He and some of his supporters are so blinded by his BS that they've flipped from their own stated values to keep him in a cloak of untouchability. That's simply not okay.

I fully agree with you that the media sensationalism is out of control. However, that doesn't change the fact that the people that can AND SHOULD take a stand against the one person responsible for all the chaos and destruction apparently won't.

 

One doesn't have to brandish a weapon menacingly (or even touch it) for it to be a crime. It is a combination of him having the weapon on his person, making the threats against Pelosi and whatever else dumb@ss things he said and threatening to shoot his own kids.

I wasn't on that jury but I wouldn't be surprised if the assault against his kids was the deal breaker. One, he may or may not be able to locate and harm Pelosi but he certainly had access to his own children.