Proud Boys Charged With Sedition in Capitol Attack

It was NYT paywall

 

There's so many objections to this, where do I begin. First of all, what's crucial is the date of when the defendant posted the post. Luckily, the MSN article tells us and there's no doubt that this judge didn't miss it: After the debate. Mens rea for some riot wasn't even established at that point, because President Trump hadn't yet lost the election. indeed, for all purposes of the seditious charge, the President's statement lacks ANY evidential value whatsoever.

Secondly, for the prosecution to use this statement, the DOJ would have to abandon its position that it did not find the President to have authorized a 'legal order' or anything of the sort. Is the DOJ willing to cast aside its central tenet position to all other cases, including the prior case that held this exact charge? If so, then the defense would like to call Trump as a witness. They can't excuse it now, since they've shifted strategies.

 

So only the NYT received the video from the J6 Committee?

 

Watch from 3:17:00 on to see how the protestors are storming the Capital according to a news reporter. Storming? And yes the Capitol was opened at the time because a vote was taking place. The video does not show anyone breaking through the door.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...A421D14093846979BF17A4&FORM=VDRVSR&ajaxhist=0

 

IT was stock footage, I don't know where they got it but it was before "the committee".

 

Because Peloza broke in through the window and his co-insurrectioinists went around and opened the door for everyone else.

 

Republicans disrespecting the American flag and assaulting the police with them... sad!

 

some Trumpers still supporting what happened on j6, really?

 

Trump predicted he would lose
​

The Cry Baby Loser's impotence in honorably acknowledging the defeat he anticipated, his schemes to substitute fraudulent electors, his failed attempts to intimidate Republican governors and secretaries-of-state into faking the vote, in adition to his goon atack on Congress, all demonstrate a pattern of contempt for democracy that both predated and postdated the certified electoral vote of all fifty states and the District of Columbia.​

 

The moderator Wallace asked Trump if he would asked "white supremist to stand down". He did. How did that cause Jan 6?

Watch for yourself

 

He, tRaitor tRump, AbsaByGodLutely said NOTHING about "standing down". Chris Wallace said "stand down", not tRaitor tRump.

 

If Trump answering in the affirmative is used as defense, then Trump responding to Wallace in the same manner with the white supremacists can also be used as a defense. But ergo, contrary to this foolish judge NONE of this should be evidence regarding the 'seditious conspiracy' of the January 6th riots. To do that, they have to far more significantly tie in how this debate in particular, set the motions in planning.

Good luck with that, because the evidence on record https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/still-mystery-was-capitol-riot-planned-far-advance-n1261020
does not collaborate that theory. Hell, the first seditious conspiracy, uh, half-win established that the theory isn't plausible.

The defense needs to go on the offense, this is is an absurd proposition and even more absurd that a judge allowed it.

 

it give the context of a post that said "Standing by sir."

 

Which doesn't in any way reference meas rea(proof of intent of mind.). When it comes to the texts that were for example provided to the committee, we know that the riots were planned basically a couple of weeks before the 6th, but more or less a month after this statement. It's hard, if not nearly impossible to correlate the proud boy's text message to the events on the 6th. Unless one were to do so through inference.

And when one read's the judges's comments, that's exactly what he does: Inference. But one can't 'infer' a state of mind. That dwells into the realm of speculation. Meas rea has to be PROVEN, or at least shown. Not guessed. Anyone can infer anything, if we lower meas rea to inference, prepare for a lot more American prisoners in general.

 

it's just one piece of much the jury will have to look at

 

Sure, but the whole thing is hilarious: The judge doesn't realize that admitting this 'piece of evidence' contradicts the argument the DOJ has put on pretty much every other Capitol Riot case: The idea that Trump issued no 'legal order', and therefore can't be used as a defense. But this prosecutor actually falls out of rank and uses Trump as evidence for the riot.

I would have pounced HARD on this inconsistency and demanded: If he's not, then this is inadmissible as evidence. if he is, we would like to have Trump testify. I'm tired of the DOJ being able to talk out of its ass. Law is Philosophy, Philosophy is Law; Consistent arguments in a court room are important.

 

this shows the context of the post, what the posters meant by his post

it's not about Trump ordering it, it's about what the proud boy believed

the proud boy is free to take the stand and tell his version of events if he wishes

 

Sure, but using that text is a HUGE stretch, and critically again the DOJ until now, never endorsed such an argument. If they had, they would have enabled the defense to call Trump to testify. That honestly should be their next move. The prosecutor opened the door by admitting the text. And I'd take it a step further and tell the judge that if they accept BOTH DOJ arguments(that Trump was not involved, while also arguing that his comment during the debate was some triggering factor) then if I were the client's lawyer would immediately file for a mistrial.

 

all I want is Trump to be charged or not

 

This is all political theater. Every attempt by dems and Trump haters to "get him" is all about bad publicity. "Orange man bad" is the phony narrative here. It isn't about actual crimes.

Leftists are terrified of Trump because he is standing in the way of their plans for a totalitarian rule over others.

 

It is just another nothing burger and Trump haters always get French cries with it.

 

the jury will decide that

 

Trump would throw them under the bus so fast.. lol, they would not call him as a defense witness

 

I will not vote for Trump, but I did support some of his policies

 

Sentencing hearings begin the end of August.

Yikes!

'Justice Department seeks 33 years in prison for ex-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio in Jan. 6 case'

'The Justice Department is seeking 33 years in prison for Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader convicted of seditious conspiracy in one of the most serious cases to emerge from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to court documents filed Thursday.

The sentence, if imposed, would be by far the longest punishment that has been handed down in the massive Jan. 6 prosecution. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy in a separate case, has the received the longest sentence to date — 18 years.'

'Prosecutors are also asking for a 33-year-sentence for one of Tarrio’s co-defendants, Joseph Biggs of Ormond Beach, Florida, a self-described Proud Boys organizer.'

'They are asking the judge to impose a 30-year prison term for Zachary Rehl, who was president of the Proud Boys chapter in Philadelphia; 27 years in prison for Ethan Nordean of Auburn, Washington, who was a Proud Boys chapter president; and 20 years for Dominic Pezzola, a Proud Boys member from Rochester, New York. Pezzola was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but convicted of other serious charges.'


cont:
https://apnews.com/article/enrique-...s-sentencing-aa8fd5e8acbc5d173e6e462974014bc7