Guilty as charged.

I am not speaking for @Lee Atwater. My interpretation of his post is that former President Trump manipulated the rally attendees into believing that then VP_Pence had the authority to overturn the election results and/or not certify the election results. He basically put a target on Pence's back by knowingly telling them a lie (Pence informed him that he consulted with his own attorneys and had no legal pathway to do what Trump demanded of him).

So, those people *believed* that Pence was the "traitor."

However, that's not accurate. Therefore, their actions constitute as "traitorous" because they acted on the statement they were standing on the *right* side of the law. They believed that former President was telling the truth. [They are clearly negligent for not Googling that before heading to the Capitol, but they didn't and things went off the rails].

But, the KEY is "patriotism" is loyalty to one's COUNTRY, not one man and/or one party, but to our Country and its foundation found in our Constitution. This is exactly what several judges have told various defendants arrested in connection with the Capitol riot or as accessories after the fact.

 

Going by the definition your provide here then this guy was not a traitor. Even if he believed the lie (obviously he did) he was trying to uphold the constitution by trying to stop what he believed to be a violation of the Constitution. A traitor is someone that fights against his/her country by helping another foreign power to try and take down his/her country or by levying war against the government. It can't even be invoked unless the US is officially in a war. A traitor does not fight to prevent a take over of government. Which is what this guy believes he was doing. He may have been wrong in that assessment. But his intent was not to take over the government, rather it was to prevent a take over.

Put yourself in his shoes. Look at it from his POV ("point of view" for those that don't like acronyms).

Calling him a traitor is nothing more than a political tactic imo meant to make "the other side" look as horrible as possible.

PS: As far as "googling"....why would he? Its well known that Big Tech leans liberal and towards Democrats. No one is going to believe what Google has to say on the subject because they're a part of the side that (in this guy's POV) was trying to steal the election via nefarious means.

 

speedy trail doesn't mean you're not waiting in jail and most people do not request a speedy trial

 

But if the prosecutors make you wait in jail for too long then the person can have the charges thrown based on their Right to a speedy trial. They do not have to ask for a speedy trial before then for it to apply.

 

yeah and OJ was just trying to get his sports memorabilia back, what you believe doesn't excuse the crime

 

yes, and often one side or the other will ask for more time, but the defendant can always fight it

 

that is what I said

just like if you demand a lawyer and the cops keep questioning you, that can be tossed out

or if they forget to read you your rights, a confession can be tossed out

 

Isn't this the nutsack who threatened to kill his own kids if they ratted him out?

 

yep

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

"Reffitt’s own son Jackson Reffitt, then 18, told the FBI about his father’s role in the riot within days, even after Guy Reffitt warned Jackson and his 16-year-old sister that they would be “traitors” if they reported his actions, and that “traitors get shot,” according to the son’s testimony at trial."

 

What nice people Trumpers are.

 

But he was part of an ATTACK on the United States Capitol in Washington DC, not a gas station in Minneapolis.

• He attempted to obstruct the certification of OUR Presidential election.
• He took a firearm (pistol) into the Capitol.
• He Obstructed Capitol Police and threatened them with Physical Force while they were attempting to stop an insurrection.
• And he topped it off with two counts of Civil Disobedience.
• Then went home and threatened his own family.

 

If you are going to make a point, at least make it accurate.

There were numerous deaths and injuries and they destroyed a federal office building. The dollar damage was orders of magnitude more.

 

Yet, not one of the BLM riots, more often than not instigated by white supremacists and other RW opportunistic anarchists - NOT, BLM protestors, NEVER were a threat to the Constitutional Foundation of OUR Nation. But, the Attack on the Capitol WAS!

 

Honest question, what is 'too long'?

 

The January 6th attack was never a threat. If our government can be overthrown by a few hundred disorganized thugs, we have a bigger problem than Jan 6.

 

That's your standard answer, we've been through this before. Last time.

There were over 2500 protestors, rioters AND Insurrectionists attacking the Capitol, January 6th.
Many were "disorganized", many were organized and plenty were HIGHLY ORGANIZED.
But, yes! We do have a bigger problem, Donald Judas tRump, his minions and followers.

 

And I have asked for the process which would make it happen and it was never adequately described.

Bottom line. At some point it would go to the supreme court and they would declare that the election was overturned under duress and would have declared Biden the winner.

If Trump had tried to use the military, they would have refused because we took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the president of the US.

How long do you think 2500 insurrectionists would have survived against our military no matter how well they are organized? If you think they have chance, then you better brush up on the capability of our military.

 

There is no such thing as a speedy trial in the U.S. Having a right to it is meaningless.

 

The attack on the Capitol was only part of a larger plan to subvert the election. IF, tRump could have gotten enough of his "minions" to play ball, coupled with the attack on the Capitol he could have declared martial law, and gotten the election decided in the House where he would have won because there are more red states than blue. Turned out that plenty of the minions weren't minions at all; the were patriots. Trump replaced the SecDef with a "minion" (he thought). Gen. Milley's concern about tRumps manic reaction to his loss speaks volumes of the disorder in the White House and the fear of what "the president" might do to retain power.

On tRump's orders the National Guard was "held in reserve", long enough for chaos to ensue, which was the goal. Benedict Donald didn't give a **** about the insurrectionists safety, if things had gone further and the Guard were unleashed it could have turned into a catastrophe; which would, to tRump's delight, only further served his purpose. Their only hope would have been for them, the insurrectionists, coming to their senses before the Guard was forced to use force. Thank God, someone talked some sense into tRump, and it didn't come to that.

 

More often than not that is due to the defendent's slow rolling their path to trial.

 

No point in repeating what I said.

 

After which, the Supreme Court would declare that it was done under duress and declared Trump the winner.

The national guard, just like the US Military has swore to uphold the Constitution.

 

Let us also not forget that DC is a town that votes 90% Democrat the I would ask of my lawyers would be a change of venue. Any Republican has about as much chance of getting a fair trial as I do of hiking upon the surface of the sun.

 

I believe you are looking at it from the incorrect end, Kai. Our legal system doesn't work in that direction.

1. The actions, themselves, are criminal. What he believed or didn't believe is irrelevant (in terms of committing a crime or crimes).

For example, several years ago our neighbor's son was arrested for shoplifting. The police took him behind the store and took turns beating him before taking him to jail. On the way to jail, he lost consciousness but they didn't take action to get him medical care. He called his mom to tell her what happened. He lost consciousness again and was taken to the ER before she could get there to bail him out. He never regained consciousness and died several days later.

He was shoplifting because he lost his job and he wanted to get his kids some toys and food for Christmas. What he tried to steal was less than $100 (a misdemeanor). His *intent* was basically harmless but it's the ACTION, not the intent that matters.


2. Years ago, a woman was arrested for passing a counterfeit bill. She was arrested for the ACTION although there is absolutely no way she could have successfully passed the bill because it was for $1M.



Immediately, we know that her INTENT was to get back real currency in change. Of course she is lying about thinking it was real because everyone knows (or should know) there is no such thing as $1M in circulation. The crime, trying to pass counterfeit money, is what matters even is she used colored Monopoly money that any cashier could spot as fake.

A traitor is someone that betrays. It can be betrayal of anything.

Here's a question: What if the guy snuck into the Capitol building and planted several bombs the night before the certification, called with the threat that he would detonate the bombs if then VP-Pence did not overturn the election results?

Would you say there is no crime if the guy..

1. detonated the bombs killing everyone because Pence refused the demand?
2. detonated the bombs but something malfunctioned and nobody got physically hurt?
3. did NOT detonate the bombs and nobody got physically hurt?

Upon arrest, he says that he thought then POTUS Trump told him the truth and he was trying to help save our country. In matters of the law, the question is "what would a reasonable person do in this situation?" Most reasonable people wouldn't plant bombs and threaten a seated elected official, so that argument fails right out the gate.

I'm not discounting that all media sucks. They need viewers and clicks and they will use buzzwords to get as many as they can.

However, you're doing the same thing in the other direction. You want to minimize the seriousness of his crimes because he didn't harm Pelosi or Pence and didn't shoot his kids. You have every right to do that but that's not how the laws work.

Ask yourself: If person X was a different gender, race, religion, sexuality, handicapped (mentally and/or physically) or any other variable that is not supposed to matter in the eyes of the law, would you reach the same conclusion? Sure, there are extenuating circumstances in all cases but why is **this** case worthy of being swept under the rug when we generally don't excuse other people's criminal behavior.

The reality is there are very, very few people that commit crimes for no reason other than just being evil to the core. Most people have what they believe are valid reasons for committing crimes. A large percentage of criminals have one or more mental illnesses but our society doesn't care about that and unless a person's mental illness is so severe that they have to be incarcerated in a mental health facility for the rest of their lives, we are essentially disposing of people (in our prisons) that need mental health services, not incarceration. We are doing a disservice to our society because released felons are not welcome back into a society where they can find housing, employment, credit or many of the things that non-felons have or can obtain. The equation doesn't work because a person is more likely to commit crime when they don't have a legal way to obtain the things we all need for survival. Basically, **every** non-life sentence IS a life sentence.

That question made me LOL. Thanks for that.

I like to learn and I'm always taking a class on something or trying things. It's just my nature. I've tried to put myself in the rioters' shoes and I can't make sense of it. I can't think of any crime that I would commit no questions asked with the exception of taking someone's life for hurting one or both of my children. And, unless it's an immediate threat to protect them, I would probably consider non-criminal ways to handle the situation.

Outside the above or protecting someone or an animal being abused, there is nothing anyone could say to me to make me lose the ability to reason through possible solutions that don't involve committing crimes.

Basically, this defense can't work in both directions.

Either, the guy believed then POTUS Trump and acted on what he trusted was accurate information (which makes Trump guilty) or the guy is just unhinged and has no ability to think like a rational and reasonable adult and probably shouldn't be outside a prison anyway. I guess we will see where the other rioters' cases go but this genius didn't do himself any favors threatening his children. That's more egregious than wanting to drag Pelosi down some stairs or "protect" our government in the dumbest possible way.

 

Possibly, but the "process" could have been looked upon, once a house vote was forced, as completely Constitutional.

Yep, and it could have been tragic for the insurrectionists.