pdt409231

> You either pardon a person declared guilty by a judge and jury or a person who pled guilty themselves.

Exactly. So if you plead not guilty but later got convicted as guilty, then subsequently accepted the pardon, it is NOT the same as admitting guilt.

> Political violence spirals, and anyone who seeks to excuse it because it's their side, and their side can't be the violent ones, is childish at best and malevolent at worst.

You sought to pin political violence from 'your side' onto the opposition. Just like Kimmel did recently. Is that closer to childish, or malevolent?

> I get that you need this to make sense in your head, but just understand not a single person is convinced by your babbling.

More proof you are being cynical. Not a single person? 77 million people would like to have a word with you.

> The special counsel publicly said he had enough evidence to convince a jury that a premeditated

Great. And as we have already established, that case went nowhere. Anybody can accuse someone of anything.

Otherwise, going by your standards, if you want to accept everything prima facie, then Jack Smith is already guilty as sin of being a partisan hack on behalf of the bidens:

https://xcancel.com/SenTomCotton/status/1950616831397642291

Who needs proof when an accusation will do? Until it's proven in court, it's meaningless, and then there are appeals anyway.

> The shooter in question was a registered Republican.

It's called crossvoting, where the Democrat registers as a republican in order to vote in their primaries. https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-crossover-voting-gop-prim...

He donated to ActBlue, but you already knew that. Trying to frame is as anything other than a deranged leftist shooting the republican presidential candidate is - well, whats that word again? Cynical? Not a word you're saying is accurate, but you don't care. And never did you explain the other 3+ shooters.

> So I prove you wrong, you move on like it never happened, rinse, repeat. This is a boring game. I don't feel like playing.

You've proved nothing, and acting like you have, and as you have nothing now you want to balk.

What evidence do you have that "j6 was the kinetic attack"? That "the special counsel agreed" So now we should take something written by a partisan-appointed lawyer as gospel? "clearly coordinated" is about as clear as mud. There is no evidence trump intended a violent insurrection. He quite literally told people to go home.

> Wrong again. His findings were not thrown out. He ended the case himself https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/15/judg...

And at the end of the day, again, Smith didn't prove anything. As Trump is innocent until proven guilty, he is innocent.

You snark does not change the facts.

> You can't believe that your side are the violent ones

You have got to be kidding me. "Your side" literally shot at Trump and just murdered an influencer. Another shot at a DHS facility and killed some innocent bystanders. All due to rhetoric like yours.

I have to assume you're just trolling in bad faith at this point.

>Accepting a pardon is a formal admission of guilt. You literally cannot pardon an innocent person. That's the whole point.

Wrong. Pleading guilty is an admission of guilt. Being convicted is not the same as admitting guilt. That is why there are things called appeals. Pardons can be a tool to overcome miscarriage of justice. And that's exactly what happened there. A partisan conviction by the regime they were protesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon

>And again, justifying or excusing political violence guarantees that more will come, which is why I'm particularly angered by what you're doing.

Strawman after strawman with you. Nowhere at all am I justifying political violence, because what happened was a mostly peaceful protest. I'm particularly angered by YOUR rhetoric, and it is amusing there isn't a shred of self awareness with that statement. If you haven't noticed, YOUR narrative has led to multiple high profile assassination attempts by leftists convinced Trump is a fascist or something. It hasn't merely guaranteed political violence, it has already happened. Multiple times.

> You could have just said you didn't read the John Eastman memo

Show me where exactly in the Eastman memo, the so called "coup plot", it calls for a group of protesters to go into the Capitol?

Spoiler: It doesn't. So it's actually you who hasn't read the memos. If anything, it shows Trump sought to remain president by legal means, a gray area at worst, but nothing to do with the "violent insurrection" claimed.

> Jack Smith findings

You mean the cases that were thrown out by the courts? And another that he closed himself? In other words, they had 4 years and found nothing. You are innocent until proven guilty, and ultimately he proved nothing.

Just say you have no clue what you're talking about next time.

> Just a stroll, seeing the sights.

Literally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHN4smAcjR4

> You do know they were convicted in court?

You do know they were subsequently pardoned?

No, the BLM comparison is necessary to provide context for what the country was going thru at the time, and to define what constitutes a peaceful protest. Most on the right disapproved of BLM riots, and J6 was partly a counter protest.

"Your guy" created those legal problems out of thin air for the purposes of political persecution.

> "He avoided prison by overcoming the legal system"

Interesting way of saying he won many of those cases on appeal, then won the election and the popular vote - after which his opponents closed those cases.

That is a strawman argument, or perhaps you misunderstand the comparison. Nowhere did I say it was a poor insurrection attempt. I said it was not an insurrection at all. They were set up and led into the capitol for the cameras, in a ploy to frame it as an insurrection. And ultimately, that's what happened.

To this claim that "5 people died" - how many were shot by the "violent insurrectionists"?

The answer: none.

1 policeman had a stroke and 4 committed suicide. You cannot blame the J6ers for the policemen's pre-existing conditions or suicidal tendencies. None of the suicides were coerced. The only person who was killed was the aforementioned pro trump woman.

Bear in mind these people are very much pro-gun and believe the 2A is there to protect against the govt. If they had intended to violently overthrow the govt, it would have been very apparent. Yet not a single bullet was fired from the protestors. As you pointed out, the only ones doing the shooting was from the police towards the pro-trump people.

Lots of people, esp on HN, will say J6 was some kind of insurrection, but the BLM riots were peaceful protests. From the other perspective, what happened was a bunch of disgruntled republicans saw the riots that summer, among many other things, and rather than burn down Minneapolis, they took their grievances to the one place that actually could make a difference - the politicians in DC. Instead they were led thru the halls of the Capitol (by the police!) and the resulting footage used to frame the whole debacle as an insurrection. Certainly they were some angry protesters, but the premise that they intended to overthrow the govt by stopping the certification ceremony doesn’t even make sense, since nobody would have recognized it.