What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

January 6th - what will happen? (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
It should be an interesting couple of weeks. Dems think thousands of troops are gathering to round up insurgents OUTSIDE the barriers to protect the constitution. Far right GOP followers think thousands of troops are gathering to round up insurgents INSIDE the barriers to protect the constitution.

 
krista4 said:
Pramila Jayapal tests positive for COVID and blames it on the lockdown where others refused to wear masks.  I'm not saying this is definitive, just reporting what she is alleging.  Edit for link.
Click to expand...
I would love if we could get tests and results for everybody in that room. As well as sequencing. 

We know Jake Laturner tested positive. I have to guess he was wearing a mask though, otherwise that would be the main story. 

We also know Gwen Moore announced she tested positive Dec. 28 and was in DC for pelosi vote. She claimed after the fact she had quarantuned for 14 days, but that makes announcement timing odd to say the least. Allegedly there was one more unnamed democrat that also had tested positive and came to DC for vote. I say allegedly, because i dont like to give too much weight to media reports with unnamed and anonymous sources. 

We also know Watson announced she tested positive yesterday. 

Would also like to know who had been vaccinated. 

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
krista4 said:
I’m not a magician

Saying out loud what every defense lawyer thinks, @Zow?
Click to expand...
:lmao:  Wow that's pretty candid.

While I appreciate him acknowledging and essentially admitting to multiple elements of the offense, when I've been in that spot it seems more prudent to say something like, "My client has pled not guilty and is presumed at this time to be innocent. All I can say is that I'm still getting disclosure from the state and I anticipate talking with the assigned prosecutor about this situation in the near future. I cannot comment any further at this time." 

 
Zow said:
:lmao:  Wow that's pretty candid.

While I appreciate him acknowledging and essentially admitting to multiple elements of the offense, when I've been in that spot it seems more prudent to say something like, "My client has pled not guilty and is presumed at this time to be innocent. All I can say is that I'm still getting disclosure from the state and I anticipate talking with the assigned prosecutor about this situation in the near future. I cannot comment any further at this time." 
Click to expand...
Yep, I thought it was incredible.   :lol:  

 
Zow said:
:lmao:  Wow that's pretty candid.

While I appreciate him acknowledging and essentially admitting to multiple elements of the offense, when I've been in that spot it seems more prudent to say something like, "My client has pled not guilty and is presumed at this time to be innocent. All I can say is that I'm still getting disclosure from the state and I anticipate talking with the assigned prosecutor about this situation in the near future. I cannot comment any further at this time." 
Click to expand...
Maybe a liberal public defender who belongs to an all-liberal chain of command all the way up? And this public defender feels emboldened in this specific situation to speak off the cuff because he's certain no one upstream will care a whit?

Otherwise ... one would think this attorney risks professional sanction and is aware of same. Don't know, though.

 
JAA said:
Something tells me there will be leniency for those who are honest with their intentions and situations.
Click to expand...
Almost surely everyone except people who killed the officer are going to get leniency. Everyone is going to get away with it and be emboldened to do it again. 

 
Ilov80s said:
Almost surely everyone except people who killed the officer are going to get leniency. Everyone is going to get away with it and be emboldened to do it again. 
Click to expand...
Well, let's put this into context. Something like ~95% of criminal cases plead out. Obviously to incentivize a defendant to plead the state needs to make an offer whereby the defendant would get less time than he would likely get at trial if found guilty. There is oftentimes mitigation in cases as well that the state by law must consider (e.g. age, lack of priors, a particular motive, etc.). So, in that sense, "leniency" occurs in most cases and is arguably built into the system.* So, yeah, I think "leniency" would be warranted here given the circumstances and would expect reasonable please offers to be made to most of those arrested but I also don't expect that to mean that these people are "going to get away with it." 

*I am of the opinion that legislatures either are aware that the sentencing ranges they create are overly harsh but will likely be pled down to something far more reasonable so they intentionally set them high or that they set them high to save face with their electorate and let the lawyers and judges sort it out. In other words, the outcome after a plea is likely far more just and consistent with the 8th Amendment than somebody "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" which is a phrase that always makes me chuckle because it doesn't really mean anything. 

 
Doug B said:
Maybe a liberal public defender who belongs to an all-liberal chain of command all the way up? And this public defender feels emboldened in this specific situation to speak off the cuff because he's certain no one upstream will care a whit?

Otherwise ... one would think this attorney risks professional sanction and is aware of same. Don't know, though.
Click to expand...
Huh? An all-liberal chain of command? What are you talking about?

 
Zow said:
Well, let's put this into context. Something like ~95% of criminal cases plead out. Obviously to incentivize a defendant to plead the state needs to make an offer whereby the defendant would get less time than he would likely get at trial if found guilty. There is oftentimes mitigation in cases as well that the state by law must consider (e.g. age, lack of priors, a particular motive, etc.). So, in that sense, "leniency" occurs in most cases and is arguably built into the system.* So, yeah, I think "leniency" would be warranted here given the circumstances and would expect reasonable please offers to be made to most of those arrested but I also don't expect that to mean that these people are "going to get away with it." 

*I am of the opinion that legislatures either are aware that the sentencing ranges they create are overly harsh but will likely be pled down to something far more reasonable so they intentionally set them high or that they set them high to save face with their electorate and let the lawyers and judges sort it out. In other words, the outcome after a plea is likely far more just and consistent with the 8th Amendment than somebody "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" which is a phrase that always makes me chuckle because it doesn't really mean anything. 
Click to expand...
Will be interesting to see in particular the people who had guns, zip ties on them and what their phone/ internet communication says as it relates to what kind of charges they get.

 
Ilov80s said:
Will be interesting to see in particular the people who had guns, zip ties on them and what their phone/ internet communication says as it relates to what kind of charges they get.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I suppose the "leniency" that's possible here would be with how they're originally charged. 

 
Zow said:
Yeah, I suppose the "leniency" that's possible here would be with how they're originally charged. 
Click to expand...
I would assume texts and social media posts would be important here for determining the charges, right? Someone who posted angry violent things before the event would likely have that used against them? Would that alter the charges brought against them? How specific would it need to be?

 
Zow said:
Doug B said:
Maybe a liberal public defender who belongs to an all-liberal chain of command all the way up? And this public defender feels emboldened in this specific situation to speak off the cuff because he's certain no one upstream will care a whit?

Otherwise ... one would think this attorney risks professional sanction and is aware of same. Don't know, though.
Click to expand...
Huh? An all-liberal chain of command? What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
... what I'm trying to get at is this:

Maybe the defense attorney is comfortable speaking that way publicly because of all the people that he knows for sure can sanction him, he's confident that none of them will care what he said.

"Chain of command" just means whoever it is he reports to in real life -- public defenders don't work independently, do they? I figured they'd be part of a bureaucracy.

 
Doug B said:
... what I'm trying to get at is this:

Maybe the defense attorney is comfortable speaking that way publicly because of all the people that he knows for sure can sanction him, he's confident that none of them will care what he said.

"Chain of command" just means whoever it is he reports to in real life -- public defenders don't work independently, do they? I figured they'd be part of a bureaucracy.
Click to expand...
It really doesn't work this way at all. Public defense genuinely isn't partisan. And, regards to his possible sanctions, it'd be the client making a complaint to the federal bar association - which also isn't a political body. 

I get that everything today seems partisan, but I think I can fairly say that for 99% of the lawyers that work in criminal justice that it really isn't at all a partisan endeavor. And frankly defense attorneys represent clients all the time with ideologies the lawyer may disagree with or have undertaken actions that are reprehensible. Most of us have the ability to set that all aside and do our jobs - and the few who can't probably don't have the job for long. 

 
Ilov80s said:
I would assume texts and social media posts would be important here for determining the charges, right? Someone who posted angry violent things before the event would likely have that used against them? Would that alter the charges brought against them? How specific would it need to be?
Click to expand...
Most likely yes to your first two questions, possibly to the third (that's so situation specific), and too hard to say to the fourth because the answer would likely vary for each situation. 

I'll put it this way though - if I'm the charging prosecutor I very much want to see each defendant's social media history.

 
My understanding is that a judge has granted an order for Angeli to be served organic food. 
 

im as guilty of the schadenfreude as anyone, considering the no-fly list stuff, but I do hope that instead of cheering when these guys face the type of draconian treatment so other criminal defendants face, that we don’t cheer it out of a sense of fairness. The discussion of the felony murder rule is another good example. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can feel the healing begin when Trump addresses the media and said

1. Big tech is doing a horrible thing our company says it will be a catastrophic mistake and that they are divisive. 

2. He sees more anger then he’s ever seen and we can’t have violence (ok that’s a start)

3. When asked about his role, he says all sorts of media are saying his speech was totally appropriate and says other people are the real problem because of BLM over the summer. Says “everyone to a T” analyzed Trumps speech and said it was totally appropriate. 
 

So we should heal from this idea he did everything right and has no blame for anything that’s happened but also big tech and the Democrats are the real problem? It doesn’t seem like he’s ready to come to Jesus with us on this.

 
  • Love
Reactions: JAA
Ilov80s said:
I can feel the healing begin when Trump addresses the media and said

1. Big tech is doing a horrible thing our company says it will be a catastrophic mistake and that they are divisive. 

2. He sees more anger then he’s ever seen and we can’t have violence (ok that’s a start)

3. When asked about his role, he says all sorts of media are saying his speech was totally appropriate and says other people are the real problem because of BLM over the summer. Says “everyone to a T” analyzed Trumps speech and said it was totally appropriate. 
 

So we should heal from this idea he did everything right and has no blame for anything that’s happened but also big tech and the Democrats are the real problem? It doesn’t seem like he’s ready to come to Jesus with us on this.
Click to expand...
And...there's the fact if you spend two months flat out lying and pretending, without any evidence, that the election was a grand fraudulent conspiracy, don't expect to get a lot of traction when your opposition to impeachment is based on needing "national unity."

 
urbanhack said:
And...there's the fact if you spend two months flat out lying and pretending, without any evidence, that the election was a grand fraudulent conspiracy, don't expect to get a lot of traction when your opposition to impeachment is based on needing "national unity."
Click to expand...
It’s going to take a lot more from him to makeup for the lies, dissension and rage he has both spread and refused to adequately confront. A casual “no more violence” slipped between his complaints about the same targets he’s been bashing for years and denying blame isn’t cutting it.
 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
My understanding is that a judge has granted an order for Angeli to be served organic food. 
 

im as guilty of the schadenfreude as anyone, considering the no-fly list stuff, but I do hope that instead of cheering when these guys face the type of draconian treatment so other criminal defendants face, that we don’t cheer it out of a sense of fairness. The discussion of the felony murder rule is another good example. 
Click to expand...
I agree with this sentiment in general, but I am okay with throwing the book at the insurrectionists.  This is the sort of thing that the government is correct to punish harshly IMO.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
My understanding is that a judge has granted an order for Angeli to be served organic food. 
 

im as guilty of the schadenfreude as anyone, considering the no-fly list stuff, but I do hope that instead of cheering when these guys face the type of draconian treatment so other criminal defendants face, that we don’t cheer it out of a sense of fairness. The discussion of the felony murder rule is another good example. 
Click to expand...
Dumb question: How does he know it's organic?

 
Zow said:
Wonder if he's an assigned attorney as part of the federal defense panel.
Click to expand...
fwiw both attorneys were on a show last night with Cuomo asking them questions.  After they bob and weaved some, Cuomo gave up and specifically said to the attorney that he was going light on him because he'd read about his background and thanked him for his service.  After they finished the interview Cuomo went on to say it's nice to have a wife/doctor who can afford that kind of legal team.

 
Rodrigo Duterte said:
fwiw both attorneys were on a show last night with Cuomo asking them questions.  After they bob and weaved some, Cuomo gave up and specifically said to the attorney that he was going light on him because he'd read about his background and thanked him for his service.  After they finished the interview Cuomo went on to say it's nice to have a wife/doctor who can afford that kind of legal team.
Click to expand...
Trying to find it but I cannot. 

 
One of the men that many right wing apologists on Twitter used as evidence of "Antifa" leading the riot has been arrested in Alabama. The basis for their belief was a supposed "hammer and sickle" tattoo on the back of one of his hands.

Shockingly, he isn't Antifa. In actuality, the tattoo is from the video game Dishonored. The man even complained on Snapchat that the "fake news" was calling him Antifa:

They wanna call me Antifa because I have a video game tattoo on my hand and I was pleading for peaceful discourse. Let em say what they will. The fake news won’t win against the thousands of patriots who recorded today.
Click to expand...
He also had a penchant for going to Instagram and sharing his ways of getting around mask requirements, alongside videos from Alex Jones and Infowars.

 
expo86 said:
One of the men that many right wing apologists on Twitter used as evidence of "Antifa" leading the riot has been arrested in Alabama. The basis for their belief was a supposed "hammer and sickle" tattoo on the back of one of his hands.

Shockingly, he isn't Antifa. In actuality, the tattoo is from the video game Dishonored. The man even complained on Snapchat that the "fake news" was calling him Antifa:

He also had a penchant for going to Instagram and sharing his ways of getting around mask requirements, alongside videos from Alex Jones and Infowars.
Click to expand...
NO WAY!

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dinsy Ejotuz
Updating the Electoral Count Act
Replies
8
Views
471
Dinsy Ejotuz
Dinsy Ejotuz
Joe Bryant
Election Deniers Are Bad, Right?
20 21 22
Replies
1K
Views
29K
knowledge dropper
knowledge dropper
massraider
Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states
2 3
Replies
147
Views
4K
Roy L Fewks
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top