Guilty as charged.

And you thought all your guessing, presumptions, and theorizing means anything?
Thats funny

 

Sorry, when you decided to use word twisting and fake claims even when you know you have been proven wrong with your own media, your opinion has no further value.

 

3 federal felonies that carried a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine each, out of 24 felony charges.

 

Whomp whomp whomp

 

Which has what to do with your post again with your guessing, presumptions, and theorizing?
Oh, now I get it. You couldn't prove your own point with your own post so you thought someone elses post was speaking for you?
Thats hilarious since his post has NOTHING to do with your BS. lol

 

Nonsense. No one 'coerced' anyone into saying anything. In fact, the daughter didn't say anything at all - she didn't testify in court. Neither did the mother, but both told investigators about the threat, with the mother explaining how she had confronted her husband about it. The son did testify in court - he was the one who reported his father to the FBI, so obviously no coercion there. None of them said they believed their father would act on his threat but found it extreme and were disturbed - a fact which was noted at the time by investigators, so they obviously weren't interested in coercing them into saying that they did think he would act on his threat. It was enough that they said the the threat was made.

Because that's what counts - that he made the threat with the intent to prevent their communicating with law enforcement. Whether the recipient of such a threat believes it will be acted on, or not, is irrelevant. It is illegal to make such a threat.

 

So what you're saying is, you think you're right that he didn't get popped for intimidating a witness (his own child) with death threats.... because I misspoke.... despite the fact that he got popped for a felony level obstruction charge for intimidating a witness (his own child) with death threats.

 

And in DC if you're a Republican the motion will be denied.

 

Yea.... I am sure CNN has the same view and you are just repeating it..... She felt her right to take stand in defense of her dad was denied her ...

“I’m so upset that my right was taken away to give my testimony of the truth,” said Peyton. “They had me on the schedule for Monday but on Friday I spoke to the prosecution. I told them that I got to see more of my Dad’s vulnerably and his mind than Jackson did, and so I was more able to understand some of the things he was saying at the time. I don’t think they liked that. They realized that what I was going to say would help my dad and not hurt him like they wanted.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-january-6th-daughter-called-doj-prosecution/

 

And they still didn't say "savvy genius".

 

Dad's defense lawyer could've called her, let it go.

 

Please provide us with a link of audio of him threatening his kids.... That is only the boys statement... no audio of his dad said that ...... Jackson followed him around for days after Jan. 6 recording him.... he would have had that secret recording....
He contacted the FBI on Christmas eve before the Jan. 6.... the FBI phone called him while Jan. 6 was going on and Jackson was watching it... the FBI asked Jackson if his dad was there as it was going on.....

According to her Uncle Nathan Reffitt:

“Payton was saying the prosecution was feeding her what she needed to say on the stand, instead of Payton in her own words describing the events. She said she was not going to say what the prosecution was telling her to say. I am very sure they coached Jackson as well. That’s what they decided not to put Payton on the stand- because she was not going to do what she they wanted her to do.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-january-6th-daughter-called-doj-prosecution/

 

Nah... I am just bringing out the facts that you don't want to hear... let it go.

 

So you're not familiar with the rules of evidence I see: Statement by Party Opponent. The Jury as the finder of fact found that he did it, based on the testimony of the son.

 

Seriously: The defense attorney's job is to call witnesses that want to help the defendant. The prosecutor is under no obligation to call a witness who has lost their nerve.

 

Yet no charges for communicating threats to a minor which could have been another pile on charge.
Speaks for itself that federal prosecutors didn't buy into your theories

 

I didn't answer because I don't know. You probably already do so you're pressing the question to make a point. So make it.

From my perspective the guy committed a crime, was found guilty in a fair trail, and will be sentenced...........end of story. If you've got an ax to grind spit it out.

 

What part of he just caught a felony for obstructing justice based on witness intimidation for those statements was unclear dear?
The JURY bought it, hook line and sinker.

 

Thanks for making my point

 

You point being..... what exactly?
The jury believed his son when the son testified that dad obstructed justice by threatening the kid with violence IE that narcing would make him a traitor and traitors would be shot.
He caught a felony level obstruction charge for that witness intimidation.
Full stop.

 

Please visit the conspiracy theory section if that's what interests you.

 

"I dont know" is a fair and honest answer.

 

Dude do really think the lawyers for these people haven't already tried that?

 

it can be, yes

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/guilty-as-charged.597747/page-4#post-1073309897

I even highlighted in your post where you said it as that is what I was responding too

 

show me one that asked a judge for a speedy trial and was denied

that is like saying if people have a right to remain silent, why do so many talk