• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Deeply Fractured US

Some good news for J6'ers.

JUNE 28, 2024

Supreme Court sides with January 6th rioters​




The article Fishbone posted on this yesterday was a pretty good one, and went to some length in the bottom half to note the limitations of this decision. It will undoubtedly affect some cases, but not most, nor is it likely to impact the viability of prosecuting Trump on that offense. Most of the J6ers were charged with multiple offences. Many of the convictions on this offense will still stand based on the fact patterns in the individual prosecutions. Fischer clarified the applicability and breadth of the obstruction offense, but doesn’t come close to striking it down or taking it out of play. From what I’ve read of it so far, it’s not an outlandish decision, nor was it a clean partisan split.
 
The article Fishbone posted on this yesterday was a pretty good one, and went to some length in the bottom half to note the limitations of this decision. It will undoubtedly affect some cases, but not most, nor is it likely to impact the viability of prosecuting Trump on that offense. Most of the J6ers were charged with multiple offences. Many of the convictions on this offense will still stand based on the fact patterns in the individual prosecutions. Fischer clarified the applicability and breadth of the obstruction offense, but doesn’t come close to striking it down or taking it out of play. From what I’ve read of it so far, it’s not an outlandish decision, nor was it a clean partisan split.

About 25% of Capitol riot defendants were prosecuted under the law, and according to Attorney General Merrick Garland, all of those faced additional charges. While most, many were hit with a number of charges, there were a number of people that plead their charges down to the single charge of obstruction. I don't know how many. While this might nullify their conviction, I don't expect the government to move very fast correcting things.

Barret, wrote the dissenting opinion for herself, Kagan and Sotomayor. Barret was a Trump appointee. The decision was 6-3 across party lines.
 
Eventually and unfortunately though, I think her entrance into the ring would put the question of her sexuallity front and centre before long. Politics at this level is cut throat, mean and dishonest. Maybe it's a conversation she's not willing to have.
Is that really an issue or just the Internet being the Internet?
 
Is that really an issue or just the Internet being the Internet?

Not an issue for me. However more and more people get their news from the internet which allows them to chase their favourite boogey man and participate in said news. I don't know if it will make a difference, but dollars to donuts, it's going to be out there.
 
Is that really an issue or just the Internet being the Internet?

Maybe the internet got bored with Birtherism.

Perhaps the internet should be more interested in, which of the two candidates should be trusted with the "Nuke codes".

I am, however, concerned about the potential for another bout of violence should he lose again.

 
Meanwhile, all eyes on the Supreme Court tomorrow. They are expected to deliver the long anticipated ruling out of one of the Trumpmprosecutions on whether a former president can be immune from subsequent criminal prosecution for crimes they are alleged to have committed in office. SCOTUS has basically slow rolled this matter and decision at every step of the way. No way they rule on absolute immunity, but I won’t be surprised if they return a decision kicking this specific case back to the trial court level to make some narrower determination on specific portions of Trump’s conduct and whether he still enjoys some degree of immunity.
 
The article Fishbone posted on this yesterday was a pretty good one, and went to some length in the bottom half to note the limitations of this decision. It will undoubtedly affect some cases, but not most, nor is it likely to impact the viability of prosecuting Trump on that offense. Most of the J6ers were charged with multiple offences. Many of the convictions on this offense will still stand based on the fact patterns in the individual prosecutions. Fischer clarified the applicability and breadth of the obstruction offense, but doesn’t come close to striking it down or taking it out of play. From what I’ve read of it so far, it’s not an outlandish decision, nor was it a clean partisan split.
The number I've heard bandied about is that it effect only about 30-odd people.
 

I won’t be shocked if they opt to replace him…

The Democratic party has its own procedures for dealing with death, withdrawal, or incapacity of a candidate between the nomination and election. It's the third one that gives them a defenestration option that doesn't involve a more creative rewrite of rules.

Someone said it reminded them when they finally had to take Old Yeller back behind the barn.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.
 
As a convicted felon, would Hunter, or the former guy for that matter, face any international travel restrictions?

Or, do presidents get a pass?
It’s always up to the receiving country to allow someone in, and I imagine it’s pretty universally an executive function of government where exceptions can be made with the right level approval. There’s probably something in the Vienna Convention that would cover it too.
 
Given how many fraudulent electors are being prosecuted for felonies in several states now, I don’t think anyone will be stupid enough to indulge that particular gambit again. I am, however, concerned about the potential for another bout of violence should he lose again. I don’t think the raw ingredients for ideologically motivated violent extremism are any less present now than they were before. I would have course hope and love to be wrong on this.

LePens victory in France has been met with the left rioting. If the same happens as other right leaning governments win around Europe, I fully expect the left in the US to riot when Trump wins. The right seldom riots the way the left does.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.
 
It’s always up to the receiving country to allow someone in, and I imagine it’s pretty universally an executive function of government where exceptions can be made with the right level approval. There’s probably something in the Vienna Convention that would cover it too.

Trump is an ex POTUS, so I would think most governments would wave the rule, depending on what the visit is for. Hunter not so much, officially he's a nobody. Especially now that the family business no longer has a viable product to sell.
 
Back
Top