I do want violent criminals prosecuted. But the problem is that there is a very clear signal given that prosecution is highly selective.

I made my point earlier - if this administration cared about prosecuting violent criminals, they would never have even considered pardoning the J6 criminals. They would additionally call for swift and thorough investigations on the use of force against the killings of protesters in Minneapolis in order to ensure that law enforcement is seen as accountable to the public.

But none of that has happened. And won’t happen. It astounds me that this hypocrisy isn’t screaming like nails on a chalkboard!

I don't accept that J6 involved over one thousand violent criminals and you seem to be incredulous that others don't hold this prior.

You also seem unwilling to acknowledge severe differences in the grade of violence being discussed, even when you begrudgingly admit that such differences exist (but then caveat them with your own speculative conclusions)

If you constrain your analysis to: who is a violent actor, and how severe was the violent act in question, I think you can produce a more reasonable comment tbf. As is, your comment seems quite unreasonable as you don't believe anyone else can see these obvious and material differences.

The J6 crowd broke into and overran the legislature to prevent the Constitutional transfer of power from one President to another, following a rally organized by the President that was about to lose power. You are talking like it was a coincidence that they just happened to be there and spontaneously decided to do some trespassing for fun.

If you constrain your analysis to: who is a violent actor, and how severe was the violent act in question, I think you can produce a more reasonable comment tbf.

OK. Let's look at this case of a guy who actually murdered a security guard at a federal building in cold blood, for political reasons, in a drive-by shooting that was organized in advance using the internet. He got 41 years, vs this other guy getting 100 years for attempted murder.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/11/1080311940/alleged-boogaloo-m...

Ok sure not every of the 1500 people pardoned by Trump could be considered “violent”. Have you watched the videos? There’s definitely more than one.

And you’re shifting the goalposts by implying (falsely) that the person covered in the article also personally committed all the offences you mentioned earlier, including shooting a federal officer.

And don’t just take my word for it. There is a good amount of recidivism by those who received pardons. Almost 100 have subsequently been charged with other crimes, including child molestation. I’d consider someone who, after getting pardoned for the j6 riot, continuing on to diddle kids, a violent criminal.

> Perhaps most strikingly, five recipients of presidential clemency were arrested in connection with conduct that occurred at least in part subsequent to Trump’s freeing them from prison—meaning that Trump’s clemency order on the first day of his second term may have actively facilitated criminal conduct. These include:

> Andrew Paul Johnson, who was freed from prison as a result of the pardon in 2025, was convicted of five charges, including child molestation, in February 2026, and sentenced to life in prison. The criminal conduct for which he was convicted took place both before and after his pardon.

> Zachary Alam, who was convicted of felony charges of grand larceny and burglary just months after his pardon.

> Ryan Nichols, who was charged with deadly conduct and harassment on May 10, 2026, after allegedly threatening a person with a gun in a church parking lot.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-jan-6-pardons--how-...

J6 was organized as a violent insurrection from the beginning.

Btw -

> If you want to concede that it's fascist to want violent criminals prosecuted,

I believe it is fascist to bring trumped up charges for ridiculousness. Say for example the case of “sandwich guy” who the DoJ spent three attempts at a grand jury to bring federal charges. For throwing a fully loaded Subway sandwich at a kitted out ICE officer.

Started by sending a full swat team of twenty armed agents to his apartment. Complete with a slickly produced propaganda video for your enjoyment! https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1956114803295953325

Mind you this is, once again, for the violent crime of throwing an Italian hoagie at a federal officer with full body armor.

Then they failed to get a grand jury to indict him on felony assault … finally charging him with misdemeanor assault.

Thankfully he was acquitted.

Tell me that’s not fascist.

No, throwing a sandwich at a public employee in order to disrupt their legitimate work is a completely legitimate thing to legally classify as a type of assault and to legally punish. It should be completely irrelevant that the cop was in full body armor, it's not like a sandwich is likely to hurt an person wearing ordinary clothes either.

The guy was acquitted because the jury nullified because it was full of people who hate ICE agents and approve of assaulting ICE agents.

> I think if you append "with the intention to commit a violent crime" to each item on the list, you'll see the issue.

That's problematic as you could literally append that to any action and thus condemn it as illegal e.g. met to have some coffees and a chat ... with the intention to commit a violent crime.

The problem is that there's not necessarily any connection between the activity and the alleged violent crime - that's what needs to be proven such as highlighting specific signal conversations that were evidence of planning the crime.

Also, what is problematic about first aid kits? How is being in a "concealed" position problematic?

> met to have some coffees and a chat ... with the intention to commit a violent crime

I'm sorry, do you believe it's legal to meet someone for coffee and credibly plan the commission of a crime, which you then go on to commit?

My point is that there has to be evidence to link the "meeting up for coffee" and the commission of a crime. If a group of people meet for coffee and then later one of them commits a crime, it's not necessarily a conspiracy to commit that crime unless there's evidence (e.g. recorded conversation or witnesses) that the crime was being discussed and planned whilst having a coffee.

Simply appending the phrase "with the intention to commit a violent crime" should not be allowed without evidence of that intention.

ICE has behaved as violent criminals during Trump's 2nd term. Renee Good and Alex Pretty were murders. There have been other shootings ICE initiated. How many have died in ICE facilities under suspicious circumstances?

> I think if you append "with the intention to commit a violent crime" to each item on the list, you'll see the issue.

No, that doesn't fly, and the intent isn't clear. Even if there were intent, those three bullet points still are not an crime or valid charges. As a member of the jury, I would reject them 100%.

Extending your pitiful logic just a few steps, people would be locked up for 30 years just for being born.

> If you want to concede that it's fascist to want violent criminals prosectued

No relation. Violent crime must of course be prosecuted, but it shouldn't have to depend on trumped up charges or weak accusations of intent.

The actual members of the jury convicted the defendants though, accepting the .gov's evidence and witnesses that these individually innocuous elements together established their links to each other, collectively murdering an officer in the course of an attack.

What officer was murdered?

Ah, attempted murder since he surprisingly lived, it looks like. No harm, no foul, right?