More J6 need to know info

[MrW]

You are making assumptions. Interviews are not automatic in FDCs. Often the location of prisoners are not even released (not the case here, but often the case).

And interviews are rarely, if ever, granted until the process is completed. We still have Jan 6 criminals being brought to accountability for their crimes. It would also impact those who may have been protesting (not criminals).

Of course there will be no prison interviews (at this time). Nothing special about Jan 6 thugs. No special treatment should be given.


One issue I have is cult followings. The "sheeple" of cults or cult-like organizations end up making heros of criminals. This is often done via assumptions, like assuming a person is mistreated or prisoners have the right to interviews with the press, or that the majority of people share a concern.

Why would interviews be granted? It serves no purpose. We know what those people did. The reason why they did what they did is not relevant.


My position regarding law enforcement has not changed since the Democrat city riots. Unlike the leftists and alt-right I am not anti-law enforcement.


Also, as a Christian, I cannot support people violating the law - whether destroying buildings, beating police officers or criminal trespassing....whether rioting in Democrat cities or at the US Capitol.


If those were protestors it would be different. But once they broke the law they ceased to be protestors and became criminals.


If there are people who did not violate the law (to include threatening and encouraging violence towards federal officers in Jan 6 at the Capitol....which Samsel did), but instead remained outside the Capitol and peacefully protested then I'd support those men and women.

Same with the Democrat city protests. I'd support those who simply held a sign but didn't beat people or destroy property.


The problem is the alt-right is EXACTLY like the leftists in ignoring illegal activity, in condoning the beating of police officers, in supporting the destruction of property, and in making criminals into heros.


For example....how many alt-right members on this forum have:

1. Condemned the rioters for destroying property
2. Condemned the rioters for beating law enforcement officers
3. Condemned the rioters for illegally entering the US Capitol
4. Acknowledged Babbitt was shot while climbing through a window in the Senate Lobby door
5. Condemned Samsel calling for violence on Jan 6 against law enforcement


As far as I can see, none of them have. They are like the liberals. They are like AOC that can't condemn Hamas because the rioters support their ideologies.

Kinda glad you weren’t in charge in 1776. We’d still be the Colonies.

 

[JonC]

Kinda glad you weren’t in charge in 1776. We’d still be the Colonies.

No comparison. But I get the similarities.

Yes, I am a patriot. I served in the Army for 23 years. So I believe that the US is worth defending. We disagree.

And yes, I am a constitutionalist, so I believe that the U.S. Constitution should remain the rule of law for our government. We disagree.


I also disagree that Jan 6 was an insurrection. It was a riot, but it was not designed to overthrow the U.S. government. Those involved were not patriots, but they were not traitors either. Most who were charged (by their own statements) were caught up in a movement, the moment, and deceived by political rhetoric. They were sheeple doing what sheeple do.

1776 was, in fact, an insurrection (one that was successful). Like the Jan 6 rioters the patriots rejected the government that had become oppressive - but unlike the rioters there was purpose (not just a type of violent protest).

The rioters were successful in beating law enforcement officers (over 100 injured). They were successful in damaging a public building. They were successful in expressing hate for the U.S. and the U.S. Constitution.

But it was just an expression....like a child having a temper tantrum. It was no different from the George Floyd riots in substance.

The Revolution was different. It was a nation leaving another nation. Those patriots were, in fact, traitors to Britain. Having won independence they drafted the Constitution.

I also disagree that the US Constitution should be an obsolete document. It is not something that should be overthrown but something that should be enforced.



So I get you comparing the rioters to a group of traitors committing insurrection against a government. But you are wrong in that the rioters (again, by their own statements) did not have that intent.


By your comparison (1776) Trump was an insurrectionist who was defeated on Jan 6. I believe you are incorrect. BUT if you are correct then all of the insurrections should be tried as traitors as the coup failed.

 

[MrW]

No comparison. But I get the similarities.

Yes, I am a patriot. I served in the Army for 23 years. So I believe that the US is worth defending. We disagree.

And yes, I am a constitutionalist, so I believe that the U.S. Constitution should remain the rule of law for our government. We disagree.


I also disagree that Jan 6 was an insurrection. It was a riot, but it was not designed to overthrow the U.S. government. Those involved were not patriots, but they were not traitors either. Most who were charged (by their own statements) were caught up in a movement, the moment, and deceived by political rhetoric. They were sheeple doing what sheeple do.

1776 was, in fact, an insurrection (one that was successful). Like the Jan 6 rioters the patriots rejected the government that had become oppressive - but unlike the rioters there was purpose (not just a type of violent protest).

The rioters were successful in beating law enforcement officers (over 100 injured). They were successful in damaging a public building. They were successful in expressing hate for the U.S. and the U.S. Constitution.

But it was just an expression....like a child having a temper tantrum. It was no different from the George Floyd riots in substance.

The Revolution was different. It was a nation leaving another nation. Those patriots were, in fact, traitors to Britain. Having won independence they drafted the Constitution.

I also disagree that the US Constitution should be an obsolete document. It is not something that should be overthrown but something that should be enforced.



So I get you comparing the rioters to a group of traitors committing insurrection against a government. But you are wrong in that the rioters (again, by their own statements) did not have that intent.


By your comparison (1776) Trump was an insurrectionist who was defeated on Jan 6. I believe you are incorrect. BUT if you are correct then all of the insurrections should be tried as traitors as the coup failed.

I love my country; I despise what our government has become, especially self-serving career politicians.

I fully support our Constitution as written, minus bogus misinterpretations by politically-biased federal judges.

I am a patriot, and believe those mostly peaceful demonstrators in Washington are, too. I also believe very strongly in the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of peers, with the right to confront one’s accusers and offer refuting evidence.

The fact many are still jailed three years later is a direct refutation of important Constitutional rights.

And I do believe the protest was largely orchestrated by a politically weaponized FBI, a federal police force, which is an institution uncreated by the Constitution.

Thank you for serving our failing nation so many years.

 

[JonC]

I love my country; I despise what our government has become, especially self-serving career politicians.

I fully support our Constitution as written, minus bogus misinterpretations by politically-biased federal judges.

I am a patriot, and believe those mostly peaceful demonstrators in Washington are, too. I also believe very strongly in the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of peers, with the right to confront one’s accusers and offer refuting evidence.

The fact many are still jailed three years later is a direct refutation of important Constitutional rights.

And I do believe the protest was largely orchestrated by a politically weaponized FBI, a federal police force, which is an institution uncreated by the Constitution.

Thank you for serving our failing nation so many years.

I may have misunderstood your post. It sounds like we hold similar positions.

Most of those involved have had speedy trials, most of these were charged with misdemeanors.

I believe it is a misapplication of the FBI to hunt down people who simply trespassed on Capitol grounds. Especially when some bad players beat police officers and damaged property. That, to me, sounds more political than anything else.

If anything, the local law enforcement could ticket identified people for trespassing.


The other issue (to me) is calling the riot an insurrection. It wasn't - AND most people were protesting without breaking any laws. Most who broke a law simply trespassed.


Hunt down and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who beat police officers and damaged property.

Get those who went to riot (who brought pepper spray, batons, guns, riot gear). These were a minority.


The Constitution is designed to limit the federal government. That is what people don't seem to understand.

 

[MrW]

I may have misunderstood your post. It sounds like we hold similar positions.

Most of those involved have had speedy trials, most of these were charged with misdemeanors.

I believe it is a misapplication of the FBI to hunt down people who simply trespassed on Capitol grounds. Especially when some bad players beat police officers and damaged property. That, to me, sounds more political than anything else.

If anything, the local law enforcement could ticket identified people for trespassing.


The other issue (to me) is calling the riot an insurrection. It wasn't - AND most people were protesting without breaking any laws. Most who broke a law simply trespassed.


Hunt down and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who beat police officers and damaged property.

Get those who went to riot (who brought pepper spray, batons, guns, riot gear). These were a minority.


The Constitution is designed to limit the federal government. That is what people don't seem to understand.

I can agree with the above.

Going off tangentially, it would seem a good thing to me if the Congress could pass legislation to define “speedy trial” within a specified time frame—for example, a person charged with a crime is guaranteed a trial in 90 days, or freed without bail, with trial at a future date.

I know there are pros and cons, but some people can’t afford bail costs. And think of a person truly innocent, but sits in jail three months before he’s let out, and then must still stand trial afterward.

On the other hand, a guilty person (who may commit additional crimes) knows he will be turned loose after 90 days. That’s not good.

Had the Sixth Amendment specified a time limit, or if a limit was codified now, the innocent and the guilty would have to go to trial within the time limit. I would add, no trial would last over, e.g., 60 days. Then, the guilty person would enter into his sentence, and those found innocent would have lost, at most, five months and lawyer fees rather than years.

Of course that would mean more courts, judges, and juries. Perhaps laws could be amended so trials could be conducted with six or eight jurors. If we care about swift justice, we would appoint the needed judges. See Ecclesiastes 8:11.

I have a somewhat distant relation in jail a year, with no trial so far. That’s cruel and (should be) unusual punishment, and that’s punishment without a conviction.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

[JonC]

I can agree with the above.

Going off tangentially, it would seem a good thing to me if the Congress could pass legislation to define “speedy trial” within a specified time frame—for example, a person charged with a crime is guaranteed a trial in 90 days, or freed without bail, with trial at a future date.

I know there are pros and cons, but some people can’t afford bail costs. And think of a person truly innocent, but sits in jail three months before he’s let out, and then must still stand trial afterward.

On the other hand, a guilty person (who may commit additional crimes) knows he will be turned loose after 90 days. That’s not good.

Had the Sixth Amendment specified a time limit, or if a limit was codified now, the innocent and the guilty would have to go to trial within the time limit. I would add, no trial would last over, e.g., 60 days. Then, the guilty person would enter into his sentence, and those found innocent would have lost, at most, five months and lawyer fees rather than years.

Of course that would mean more courts, judges, and juries. Perhaps laws could be amended so trials could be conducted with six or eight jurors. If we care about swift justice, we would appoint the needed judges. See Ecclesiastes 8:11.

I have a somewhat distant relation in jail a year, with no trial so far. That’s cruel and (should be) unusual punishment, and that’s punishment without a conviction.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

I agree....as long as criminal history and the severity of the crime is considered. Waiting longer than 3 months, in jail, is crazy.

 

[MrW]

I agree....as long as criminal history and the severity of the crime is considered. Waiting longer than 3 months, in jail, is crazy.

Yes, severity of crime is important. But if there is no trial, how can the "justice system" presume someone is guilty of a severe crime? Innocent until proven guilty is supposedly our system of justice. So if a person is accused and jailed for a severe crime, wouldn't it make sense to get them to trial as quickly as possible, so they can receive their punishment quickly?

Again, Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

That clearly tells me that the big reason people continue in crime is exactly because they are not tried, convicted, and punished speedily. A murderer was executed recently--it took 36 years. That's wrong. That itself is a crime against society.

 

[canadyjd]

I agree....as long as criminal history and the severity of the crime is considered. Waiting longer than 3 months, in jail, is crazy.

The suspect can wave a speedy trial if their attorney thinks it in their best interest. It’s not always possible to have a trail in 90 days.

With DT, despite having 4 cases going on at once, Smith dumped a million pages of discovery on DT, yet refused to agree to push the trial back to allow the defense time to go through it all.

I suspect it will be pushed back considerably now the supremes have taken up the case, maybe passed November.

Hummmm, if DT is elected POTUS what are the chances Smith is fired immediately?

peace to you

 

[MrW]

The suspect can wave a speedy trial if their attorney thinks it in their best interest. It’s not always possible to have a trail in 90 days.

With DT, despite having 4 cases going on at once, Smith dumped a million pages of discovery on DT, yet refused to agree to push the trial back to allow the defense time to go through it all.

I suspect it will be pushed back considerably now the supremes have taken up the case, maybe passed November.

Hummmm, if DT is elected POTUS what are the chances Smith is fired immediately?

peace to you

I am saying a trial should start in a Constitutionally specified time or Congressionally legislated—I suggested 90 days, but some concrete time should be specified by law. Political trials may take longer than my 60 day time frame to conclude.

 

[canadyjd]

I am saying a trial should start in a Constitutionally specified time or Congressionally legislated—I suggested 90 days, but some concrete time should be specified by law. Political trials may take longer than my 60 day time frame to conclude.

I appreciate your position and understand it. People spend too much time in jail before trial or too much time out of jail waiting for trial. I have no problem with hiring more judges/prosecutors to speed up the process.

I think the States should decide their own timelines. I wouldn’t be in favor of putting specific timelines in the constitution.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Yes, severity of crime is important. But if there is no trial, how can the "justice system" presume someone is guilty of a severe crime? Innocent until proven guilty is supposedly our system of justice. So if a person is accused and jailed for a severe crime, wouldn't it make sense to get them to trial as quickly as possible, so they can receive their punishment quickly?

Again, Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

That clearly tells me that the big reason people continue in crime is exactly because they are not tried, convicted, and punished speedily. A murderer was executed recently--it took 36 years. That's wrong. That itself is a crime against society.

When I say severity I mean things like a man arrested for murder, with a past conviction of robbery and assault, shouldn't be freed without bail and given a future trial date simple because a trial couldn't be set within 3 months.

There needs to be considerations. But, while 3 months may not always be sufficient, I do believe a timely trial is important. I'm just not sure of the criteria.

And, there are also considerations such as the person arrested causing a delay (like with Samsel repeatedly changing lawyers by his choice....this has to lengthen the time as each time new lawyers need to work on a suitable defense).

 

[MrW]

When I say severity I mean things like a man arrested for murder, with a past conviction of robbery and assault, shouldn't be freed without bail and given a future trial date simple because a trial couldn't be set within 3 months.

There needs to be considerations. But, while 3 months may not always be sufficient, I do believe a timely trial is important. I'm just not sure of the criteria.

And, there are also considerations such as the person arrested causing a delay (like with Samsel repeatedly changing lawyers by his choice....this has to lengthen the time as each time new lawyers need to work on a suitable defense).

That would be Samsel’s (whoever that is) fault, not the State.

I agree the time doesn’t need to be in the Constitution since it wasn’t already, but Congress perhaps could make it nationwide, or at least put a top limit on it. It should start somewhere. The Sixth Amendment effectively doesn’t exist.

 

[JonC]

That would be Samsel’s (whoever that is) fault, not the State.

I agree the time doesn’t need to be in the Constitution since it wasn’t already, but Congress perhaps could make it nationwide, or at least put a top limit on it. It should start somewhere. The Sixth Amendment effectively doesn’t exist.

I was referring to Ryan Samsel. He was arrested for his actions Jan 6 at the Capitol. At the time of his arrest he was on parole and had an active warrant for assault (he had 9 previous convictions involving assault, to include beating his pregnant girlfriend and tossing her in a canal). He then lied to the prison doctor attempting to get transferred to a medical facility and out of prison.

I mention him because some have made him into a hero and the thread concerned Jan 6.

And yes, it is his fault...but still I think there has to be some criteria for length of time. I don't know how that'd work though.

I can't understand why a trial couldn't be had within a few months (excluding things already mentioned). And I agree, it probably needs to be law and an amendment isn't necessary.

 

[MrW]

I was referring to Ryan Samsel. He was arrested for his actions Jan 6 at the Capitol. At the time of his arrest he was on parole and had an active warrant for assault (he had 9 previous convictions involving assault, to include beating his pregnant girlfriend and tossing her in a canal). He then lied to the prison doctor attempting to get transferred to a medical facility and out of prison.

I mention him because some have made him into a hero and the thread concerned Jan 6.

And yes, it is his fault...but still I think there has to be some criteria for length of time. I don't know how that'd work though.

I can't understand why a trial couldn't be had within a few months (excluding things already mentioned). And I agree, it probably needs to be law and an amendment isn't necessary.

Amen. I’m thinking I need to write to Congress. They need to spend some of our taxes on our ailing legal system.

 

[Wingman68]

Ray Epps sentenced: January 6th protestor who ordered people into the Capitol is sentenced to one years probation for his role in riot | Daily Mail Online

Probation………………

 

[MrW]

Ray Epps sentenced: January 6th protestor who ordered people into the Capitol is sentenced to one years probation for his role in riot | Daily Mail Online

Probation………………

Not even a slap on the wrist. Just a pretense.

 

[Wingman68]

Jan. 6 Defendant Ryan Samsel’s Court Case Begins Today, Listen In – Was Set-Up by Ray Epps at January 6 Protests

Set. Up.

 

[JonC]

Not even a slap on the wrist. Just a pretense.

I don't get the "ordered people into the Capitol" part. Was he a militia leader or something?

 

[Wingman68]

This is just the Deep State Leftists tossing a safety blanket over one of their hired assets to get the heat off of him.. They know full well that we know the what and why about Epps. This is an Obama judge.

 

[JonC]

So.....basically....a business owner and former marine (who never otherwise worked for the government) showed up on Jan 6.

There is a photo of Epps speaking to Ryan Samsel.

Ryan Samsel said Epps spoke to him telling him to calm down, that the police were doing their job.

But Epps had called to go to the Capitol. He did not enter the building and he didn't beat any officers.

Fox news speculated that Epps led the riot, but there was no evidence.

There is speculation that Epps was giving instruction to Samsel (Samsel claims Epps was telling him to calm down).

Epps is suing Fox for starting or spreading the conspiracy theory as he lost his business (he and his wife ran a wedding venue) and had to move due to death threats.

Epps did insist that the election was stolen and leftists insisted he be arrested for his claims and presence on Capitol grounds.

He was charged with disorderly conduct on restricted grounds.