Your number 2 is also completely misleading. From the article [1],
By the end of the year, 725 people had been charged with federal crimes.[2][3] That number rose to 1,000 by the second anniversary of the attack,[2] to 1,200 by the third anniversary (three-quarters of whom had by then been found guilty)[4][5] and to 1,500 before the fourth anniversary.[6]
It's not political persecution to charge people with crimes they committed while storming a government building. I almost didn't respond because you're living in some fantasy land, but since Trump has already removed what happened from government websites, I think it's important we don't forget what really happened.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_the_January_6...
From an archived DoJ page[1] at the year 3 (January 2024) mark, ~1200 defendants were charged and 171 were convicted (32 without a trial). 749 were sentenced in total.
So that's presumably still more than several hundred defendants waiting for what should be a speedy trial.
Again, that is not how we should operate in this country. If you accuse (charge) someone of a crime their trial should be brought as swiftly as possible as mandated by the Constitution. That this was not done is by itself enough cause to pardon them, let alone the exaggeration of the charges presented.
Also, to close things out:
>The 'back the blue' and 'tough on crime' party is a total farce.
Trump and Republicans enjoyed and continue to enjoy the approval and cooperation of law enforcement agencies across the country both before and after the pardons were issued.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20240108135705/https://www.justi...
The number sentenced cannot be higher than the number convicted (and the source document, unlike your summary, does not make that impossible claim), since sentencing requires conviction.
> So that's presumably more than several hundred defendants waiting for what should be a speedy trial.
Many of them were charged substantially after the event, “Speedy trial” refers to the time from charging to trial (the time from event to charges is governed by statute of limitations, not speedy trial rights.)
I'll just say this:
>correct this significant, and as far as I'm aware unprecedented, abuse of the judiciary and he delivered on that promise.
This is extremely common because "speedy" was simply never defined. Taking months over minor non-violent crimes like drug usage as an example. Given the chaos in identifying all suspects (IIRC they were never all fully discovered, an atrocity in and of itself in our police system), I'm not too surprised it took years to try everyone caught.
No one's probably chomping at the bit to re-define "speedy" better:
>a trial conducted according to prevailing rules and procedures that takes place without unreasonable or undue delay or within a statutory period.
but I think we both agree this is a very vauge, insufficient definition.
I also appreciate that we can have a peaceful, friendly, normal conversation about this unlike how these things would usually transpire up until just recently, so thanks.
There are a few different reasons:
1. The presentation of January 6 by the Left and especially the media were completely overblown and exaggerated, even taking artistic license into account. Live or close-to-live videos and images of what all happened were readily available and it was nothing like how the Left and media presented it.
2. The Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial.[1][2] Many of the accused were still waiting literally four years after the fact for their trials to begin while incarcerated when the pardon went into effect. This is completely ridiculous regardless of how the accused should be regarded; waiting four years and likely many more had Trump not pardoned them is patently not a "speedy" trial and a gross violation of Constitutionally guaranteed human rights.
3. With the above, the whole process was practically a political persecution for daring to think and speak the wrong things. That is not how we operate here in the United States of America, land of the free and the home of the brave.
4. The founding of the United States of America stems from a violent uprising against the incumbent government. Rebellion is in our blood and DNA, without it there is no USA; rejecting the concept of rebellion wholesale is tantamount to denying the very essence of our country and the Founding Fathers.[3]
Trump during his campaign promised pardons to correct this significant, and as far as I'm aware unprecedented, abuse of the judiciary and he delivered on that promise. I voted with and for that promise, among many others, so I am satisfied. Promises made, promises kept should be mundane, but surprisingly Trump is one of the few politicians if any who exhibit this common sense.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Clause
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Act
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_I...