Jump to content

Oath Keepers boss guilty of seditious conspiracy in 1/6 case


Monte1076

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Monte1076 said:

Remember that time when you were trying to diminish what happened on January 6th by mentioning that no one had been accused of this? I do. 

And his wife was quoted as being thrilled that he was facing justice for the first time in his life. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oath-keepers-founders-estranged-wife-030952893.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Remember that time when you were trying to diminish what happened on January 6th by mentioning that no one had been accused of this? I do. 

And his wife was quoted as being thrilled that he was facing justice for the first time in his life. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oath-keepers-founders-estranged-wife-030952893.html

I don't believe I specifically said that. Many who were charged at the time were charged with misdemeanors. I think this guy was charged later

Remember when you went along with "believe all women" until someone mentioned Tara Reade? Then you said, "don't believe her"?

Edited by Monte1076
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

I don't believe I specifically said that. Many who were charged at the time were charged with misdemeanors. I think this guy was charged later

Remember when you went along with "believe all women" until someone mentioned Tara Reade? Then you said, "don't believe her"?

Can always count on your 'whataboutism'. You were very dismissive because there weren't charges being filed. Then, there were, and they were found guilty. That change your view of what happened on January 6th? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Can always count on your 'whataboutism'. You were very dismissive because there weren't charges being filed. Then, there were, and they were found guilty. That change your view of what happened on January 6th? 

Moving the goalposts, are you?

Does it change my view of what happened? What do YOU think my "view of what happened" is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

Moving the goalposts, are you?

Does it change my view of what happened? What do YOU think my "view of what happened" is?

Think you were trying to stay away from the obvious FACT that this was an insurrection so as not to offend the quibbling 'conservatives' on here, while trying to subtly deflect and diminish what happened. You really left it where you didn't take a definitive stand, when there was clearly one to take. How about that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BarryLaverty said:

Think you were trying to stay away from the obvious FACT that this was an insurrection so as not to offend the quibbling 'conservatives' on here, while trying to subtly deflect and diminish what happened. You really left it where you didn't take a definitive stand, when there was clearly one to take. How about that? 

First unarmed "insurrection" in history of ever.  You must be preaching to your 2 little minions because anybody with any sense knows better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Think you were trying to stay away from the obvious FACT that this was an insurrection so as not to offend the quibbling 'conservatives' on here, while trying to subtly deflect and diminish what happened. You really left it where you didn't take a definitive stand, when there was clearly one to take. How about that? 

You avoid obvious FACTs all the time. You just won't admit it.

Here's a definition of "insurrection":

"an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government."

So here's the thing, Barry, and you as an educator ought to know this: There's a difference in an act and being charged with an act.

Do you consider the protests against the COVID mask mandates, etc. to be "insurrection"? Based on the definition above?

Were the people throwing Molotov cocktails at police during the "summer of love" and all the riots that were going on committing insurrection? Look at the definition and tell me.

So yes, you could argue that there were many people there who committed insurrection. There were also many people there who didn't. And many were charged. The difference between you and I, Barry, is that I tend to look at things a little more cynically and skeptically. Do I get things wrong? Sure. I'm sure you do, too. I'm in the "let's let the legal system work" camp. Do you not believe in "letting the legal system work"?

Here's a classic example of what I mean: Nick Sandmann. Or Kyle Rittenhouse. Or Derek Chauvin. You formed immediate opinions of the two of them, without looking into the facts of either case, based on media portrayal. "I don't like them" or "they look smug" or "they have a punchable face" is not a reason to find someone guilty of something, or accuse them of something they didn't do.

Jussie Smollett fabricated a story. You, Democratic politicians, and the MSM ate it up. Why? It fit your belief system. The story didn't add up from the beginning, and most of us knew it. My stance on it was IF it happened (note the word IF there) it's a terrible thing and the perpetrators should be charged and we let due process run its course.

watched the Rittenhouse trial. I heard the same testimony that the jurors did. Same with the Chauvin case, I watched it while I was working. Though I don't think I would have convicted Chauvin of murder. I might have gone with a lesser charge, based on what I heard and the evidence presented. Rittenhouse was clearly self-defense to me. A jury thought so as well, even though there were reports of possible jury intimidation.

But you believed things based on how you felt about the person, and what you heard about/read in the media. There are still people who believe Kyle Rittenhouse shot black men. He didn't. NONE of the people who were shot in that incident were black.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

You avoid obvious FACTs all the time. You just won't admit it.

Here's a definition of "insurrection":

"an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government."

So here's the thing, Barry, and you as an educator ought to know this: There's a difference in an act and being charged with an act.

Do you consider the protests against the COVID mask mandates, etc. to be "insurrection"? Based on the definition above?

Were the people throwing Molotov cocktails at police during the "summer of love" and all the riots that were going on committing insurrection? Look at the definition and tell me.

So yes, you could argue that there were many people there who committed insurrection. There were also many people there who didn't. And many were charged. The difference between you and I, Barry, is that I tend to look at things a little more cynically and skeptically. Do I get things wrong? Sure. I'm sure you do, too. I'm in the "let's let the legal system work" camp. Do you not believe in "letting the legal system work"?

Here's a classic example of what I mean: Nick Sandmann. Or Kyle Rittenhouse. Or Derek Chauvin. You formed immediate opinions of the two of them, without looking into the facts of either case, based on media portrayal. "I don't like them" or "they look smug" or "they have a punchable face" is not a reason to find someone guilty of something, or accuse them of something they didn't do.

Jussie Smollett fabricated a story. You, Democratic politicians, and the MSM ate it up. Why? It fit your belief system. The story didn't add up from the beginning, and most of us knew it. My stance on it was IF it happened (note the word IF there) it's a terrible thing and the perpetrators should be charged and we let due process run its course.

watched the Rittenhouse trial. I heard the same testimony that the jurors did. Same with the Chauvin case, I watched it while I was working. Though I don't think I would have convicted Chauvin of murder. I might have gone with a lesser charge, based on what I heard and the evidence presented. Rittenhouse was clearly self-defense to me. A jury thought so as well, even though there were reports of possible jury intimidation.

But you believed things based on how you felt about the person, and what you heard about/read in the media. There are still people who believe Kyle Rittenhouse shot black men. He didn't. NONE of the people who were shot in that incident were black.

 

Lots of extra there, which comes across as very defensive, with many assumptions made on how I saw things from beginning to end. Did you strain yourself patting yourself on the back for your 'objectivity'??? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

many assumptions made on how I saw things from beginning to end. Did you strain yourself patting yourself on the back for your 'objectivity'??? 

You make a lot of assumptions about how others see things, don't you? So, how DID you see things, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Monte1076 said:

All of it. Fill me in. What's your take? "Beginning to end", as you said?

Without plunging down into a rabbithole with you, I will say with great confidence that there was a coordinated effort on January 6th, planned over weeks, to completely shut down the voting confirmation of the presidential election. That response, instigated by Trump and his minions, was violent and was by every definition of the word an insurrection. I fully believe that there were bad actors, with firepower prepared, accessible to them, that would have been utilized, if certain things had occurred, such as Trump being able to go to the Capitol and not stopped by the Secret Service. Any attempt to diminish or deflect or straw man away the actions of what happened are cowardly and treasonous, in my opinion.  There Is ZIP comparison to it that is fitting. 

  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Without plunging down into a rabbithole with you, I will say with great confidence that there was a coordinated effort on January 6th, planned over weeks, to completely shut down the voting confirmation of the presidential election. That response, instigated by Trump and his minions, was violent and was by every definition of the word an insurrection. I fully believe that there were bad actors, with firepower prepared, accessible to them, that would have been utilized, if certain things had occurred, such as Trump being able to go to the Capitol and not stopped by the Secret Service. Any attempt to diminish or deflect or straw man away the actions of what happened are cowardly and treasonous, in my opinion.  There Is ZIP comparison to it that is fitting. 

Ok, I know you don't think it's relevant, but how about your opinions on the other examples I listed? Both at the beginning and end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

Without plunging down into a rabbithole with you, I will say with great confidence that there was a coordinated effort on January 6th, planned over weeks, to completely shut down the voting confirmation of the presidential election. That response, instigated by Trump and his minions, was violent and was by every definition of the word an insurrection. I fully believe that there were bad actors, with firepower prepared, accessible to them, that would have been utilized, if certain things had occurred, such as Trump being able to go to the Capitol and not stopped by the Secret Service. Any attempt to diminish or deflect or straw man away the actions of what happened are cowardly and treasonous, in my opinion.  There Is ZIP comparison to it that is fitting. 

Anyone else read this conspiracy theory? #blueanon if I’ve ever seen it. Wow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BarryLaverty said:

You really going to attack this as a 'conspiracy theory' when you are the King of all conspiracy theories? Thought you would be highly into it. 

How do you suppose this super planned attack was going to go down?  What was the plan?  THEY must have evidence with all the fbi plants and Jan 6 committee detective work.  Who had the guns?  Were they going to shoot all the congressman and just take over the country and military?  I'm SO curious...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ObiOne said:

Some fed "says" he saw guns in hotel.  Wow!  That is real seditious stuff.  How were they going to overthrow the gov?   I'd like to hear your words.

C'mon Obi, you know if CNN or Politico says it our resident libtard says it is fact...what did you expect...truth??? LOLOL!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...