Y’all remember when Congress tried to pass a bill that would have expedited these cases and given the justice department more resources so they could prosecute each on to the fullest extent of the law? And then Republicans blocked it.
A lot of good Reasons for the people to revolt, our part in climate catastrophe for private profit, economic servitude to capital concentrating extremists that have captured the government that was supposed to protect the people from them, etc.
Jim crow nostalgia/white nationalism wasn’t one of them. They set back any positive change for a long time, because any form of resistance, like a general strike, will be conflated with their willfully ignorant racist asses.
These fucking judges.
deleted by creator
Idk, it sounds about white to me
Today I learned they hanged Mumford for less than what some of these people did.
Today I learned they hanged Mumford for less than what some of these people did.
The irony is, the Trumpers want to be able to deploy this style of harsh and unjust justice at will.
They were gleeful at the chance to do it on Jan 6th and those police officers that died, oh well, casualties of their war for freedum to do exactly that as they want. It would also be great to shut up the BLM, gays, climate scientists, drag queens, minorities, immigrants, and especially Democrats and progressives.
They would love to hang all of these “evil” people that kill babies and drink their blood. It’s really terrifying what they are digesting inside their cult feedback loops when one begins to peel back the layers.
They are now more than a bunch of dolts being grifted, well there’s still plenty of them being grifted without a doubt, but the issues still remain with their reality and what they hope to do to clean up the world and to simplify everything down.
The irony is, the Trumpers want to be able to deploy this style of harsh and unjust justice at will.
So do people here arguing for harsh sentences because they don’t like them.
Mob Justice isn’t justice regardless of who the mob is
So let’s imagine that standard were applied.
You have over a thousand citizens executed within 3 months of the event.
Do you think folks would have considered that a proportional response?
Turns out that 19th century military justice during wartime isn’t a good model for most people’s concept of justice.
That was during wartime and it was a court martial. Courts martial are still notoriously harsher than civil courts today.
The headline upsets me on its face, and without question fuck these traitorous cult members, but immediately I go to thoughts of “how much lighter?” and “how much does it compare to typical trials?”
Thank you for a level-headed critical thought about the article, rather than the rest of the trash in this comment section which is nearly universally just knee-jerk mindless outrage.
That being said, I would be curious, like you, how this compares to typical trials.
Also, as some allude to in the article, this is actually a good thing because it absolutely undercuts the maga cultist outrage that this is an out of control judiciary handing out excessive punishments to political prisoners. Not that the facts will get to them, but at least I have the facts to confirm it.
this is actually a good thing
No, I don’t think it’s a good thing that traitors got less than they deserved just so we can push back on an argument that magats don’t care two shits about and will parrot on and on anyway.
No, I don’t think it’s a good thing that traitors got less than they deserved
The vast majority of people on J6 were idiots in a mob situation, not traitors.
As OP said, fuck all of them, but aggressive prosecution here is not the way you want the law to work, the same way there’s no gain for imprisoning everyone who acted out of pocket during the Floyd protests.
You throw the book at the worst offenders, and you let people caught up in mob mentality off with a lesser sentence. That is justice working.
They were armed traitors looking to take control of the capitol in an organized way, cause the disruption of government, with the aim to capture and harm government officials. That’s literally the definition of a revolt against authority. It was done in their own stupid way but they tried it and failed because they were stupid. Aggressive prosecution is the precisely how you don’t let it happen again.
during the Floyd protests
Are you for real.
Aggressive prosecution is the precisely how you don’t let it happen again.
This has literally never been true about any crime
Are you for real.
Yes, Republicans notably used those riots to demand harsher penalties. You don’t remember the mythical burning cities?
This is not a regular crime and it isn’t fueled by an actual need that leads to any sort of direct personal gain, like drug trafficking or even murder. It’s the literal destabilization of a country. Republicans have learned that there are no real consequences to bad behavior, but that their role model Trump can behave badly and get preferential treatment which in my opinion fuels their belief that they have done nothing wrong.
I’m saying, are you for real invoking the Floyd Protests to gain some sort of reaction out of commenters? It’s quite the hot button issue to just casually name-drop without elaborating your point. People can get the wrong idea.
Okay I can see that position, I just happen to disagree. I don’t see any benefit from them getting very strict sentences, and I see a potential benefits from the leniency. This is actually how I generally feel about the legal system tho. You probably come from the philosophy that it should be very punitive.
Yes, I do “come from the philosophy” that one should not attempt an insurrection because a lying orange man said so. I wouldn’t extrapolate beyond that, though.
I think many of us simply struggle with the legal system being extra “punitive” to black, brown, and occasionally poor white people while being the opposite to white criminals, especially of the not-poor variety.
This is a well-reaearched academic legal theory known as critical race theory. It’s definitely worth looking up sometime.
Are you arguing that because the legal system is unjust to some people, we should cheer on more injustice? The fact that the system is biased against racial minorities, and what a failure that has been, is exactly why I think more lenient sentences make sense.
I think it’s less about the frothing at the mouth folks that are too far gone to rationally evaluate any circumstance.
It’s about every other person watching. It may sound ludicrous, but imagine if they had executed every last person that set foot in the capital building that day, and managed to do so within a few months of the incident. I think a lot of people might say “holy shit, they had a point, I thought they were crazy but that was an insane authoritarian response”.
Different people have different thresholds for their tipping point for “government is overreacting and threatening free speech”, and from what I’ve seen in the cases I could find, I think they did a fairly good job of typical judicial results. Some of the key people responsible got years in prison. Random people who just followed the crowd without any evidence of committing assault or vandalism or intent to do those things (just trespassing and repeating seditious channts), and for whom this was a first offense, ok they might have gotten probation.
Leniency is pretty common in the justice system under various circumstances, and this seems about the normal amount.
You know there are black and brown people sentenced to life in prison for having been arrested for having cannabis on them, right? In what world do you think Americans care about the encroaching police state? Or is that not an authoritarian response, for some reason?
It’s always nuts to see “certain” Americans struggle to see any of the melanin in their fellow countrymen’ skin or just blatantly ignore it.
It’s obviously because they’re all fuckin White, dude. How are some Americans still so damn clueless?
I’ve never said or implied that people of color get fair treatment.
You propose the solution is everyone should get imprisoned without nuance as a remedy? Seems messed up. Seems you’d want to make sure persons of color receive justice under the law rather to inflict more injustice on more folks.
I don’t think anybody in their right mind would call for an execution when the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. I don’t know where you got that idea. But more sensibly, people have gone to prison for longer for less and that’s what really makes no sense. You’re absolutely right, though, I do take an insurrection as seriously as we should.
I’m using an example, an example that almost anyone would take to be blatanty overreacting, and then say for different people, that threshold is different.
People in this thread are saying “hang them all” “during the Civil War, they would execute people like this” “they should all spend the rest of their lives in jail” “the judges are corrupt for ever letting them see the light of day”. Meanwhile these courts are being asked to rule on the nuance of the individual circumstances. Some pretty screwed up stuff happened, and people received reasonably harsh sentences in those contexts. There were also people who violated the law, but basically were walking with a group where only the leaders actively did anything and they almost looked like they were touring the building. They did wrong and they should have known better, but if it is an isolated incident for that person, and they have people in front of them and people behind them all going along with it, and they didn’t directly initiate or participate in theft, assault, vandalism, then maybe we should be willing to accept the court might do probation instead of a long prison sentence.
The courts are punishing pretty much everyone they got a hold of. Out of about 1,300 cases, like 2 resulted in acquittal, almost half received real prison time, a bunch more house arrest, and lots of probation. This seems a pretty reasonable mix of response given the large number of people, differing criminal records, variety of circumstance, and different levels of engagement with the activity.
Regardless of how granular you want to go with the argument or how fair you think the issuing of these sentences was, it’s still baffling how you can get more time for literal drug possession or even texting a minor without going so far as assault, than trying to disrupt government proceedings in the hopes of interfering in an election. That’s my whole point. This is some serious stuff. It’s baffling that you want to hand-wave the event like they were browsing the galleries at the local art museum. You really don’t need to do all that. I’m well aware that there were some passive participants. But the bottom line is that were groups planning it on Telegram and other social circles beforehand and they all willingly and consciously participated. It was premeditated and coordinated and in cahoots with some government officials who are still actively serving. Nobody was lost in Jan 6th or took the wrong bus and walked nosily along. A slap on the wrist is all you get for trying to stop a fair election because you didn’t like the results. What a precedent, it’s insane.
If the facts aren’t getting to them then how can you say this undercuts their outrage? They’re not going to moderate their extremism because you tell them the judges are actually going easy on them.
The election is going to hinge on people who are, amazingly, on the fence. The maga cultists are beyond reason at this point and are going to be convinced they are persecuted no matter what. But at least for those on the fence we have more to point to to say “look, their whining is unfounded.”
I can’t be sure, but from what little I’ve seen of judges in action, I would guess substantially… but perhaps not for the reason we think.
Yes lack of remorse is a major component to sentencing, but so are a few other things that I think work on 1/6 rioters’ favor. Likelihood to reoffend is arguably low because 1/6 was uniquely stupid. Being told by a US president to commit the crime is arguably somewhat mitigating (to the person, not to the president). These crimes were committed in what ostensibly could (should) have been a peaceful protest that got out of hand, so judges might question the severity of premeditation. All of these are typically valid reasons to lighten up sentencing. And then there’s a sadly invalid one that probably mattered - light-skinned people are sentenced lighter than dark-skinned ones, and most of the 1/6 protestors were white.
In aggregate, there is value to going hard on all the traitors. Of individual offenders, it might be a more difficult place for a judge to sit, for both good and terrible reasons. But importantly, there’s a lot of argument that we’re not looking at judges that thought 1/6 was “perfectly fine”. Such a judge would more likely find an excuse to dismiss (with or without prejudice) if they think the case is moving towards prosecution. We have simply not seen a lot of that.
In aggregate, there is value to going hard on all the traitors.
I’ll generally agree with your stance, but here I’d say there’s also value in not going too hard on the traitors. There’s a balance.
You go too hard (“fullest extent of the law”) and you may inspire some people to say “hmm, that seemed overboard, maybe they have a point about the government oppressing them after all”.
From what I’ve seen, almost half of the cases got real prison time, and the rest got probation or house arrest. Cherry picking a few cases and I think it’s consistent with your expectation. A serial offender that helped organize and incited violence would generally get years in prison. Someone who just walked with the crowd as others actually did the initial breaking in, who did not seem to commit violence themselves, who did not steal or vandalize anything, for whom this is a first offense, that seemed genuinely sorry or at least afraid of what they had done, that is the sort of person that got probation. As much as folks might find their cause unjust and their actions unreasonable, I think if we calm down and take a breath that we can agree that the circumstances just make sense for probation for some of those folks.
I can’t be sure, but from what little I’ve seen of judges in action, I would guess substantially… but perhaps not for the reason we think.
Can I ask what this is all based on?
One part a family obsession with streaming court recordings. The other part things I’d rather not answer.
Just being honest here, but I know nothing about you or your family, so I have no reason to take your claims at face value. This empty answer just leads me to believe it’s based on a gut feeling rather than any objective, educated analysis.
I don’t mean it as an attack, just expressing how it should be interpreted by an objective, rational observer.
Just being honest here, I don’t care what you think.
This empty answer just leads me to believe it’s based on a gut feeling
I said it was a gut feeling that they got more light sentences than we would like AND that I don’t (entirely, I do a little) blame the judges for that. So you’re right to believe what I said was a gut feeling was a gut feeling. (being quite literal, since you seem to need that, I used the words “I’d guess”). This is largely how court works. Here’s a quick high-level on mitigating circumstances, in case you think for some reason I’m making that part up, too.
rather than any objective, educated analysis.
Not exactly sure why you would come to that conclusion. Are you having reddit flashbacks or something?
I don’t mean it as an attack, just expressing how it should be interpreted by an objective, rational observer.
With all due respect, demanding evidence or proof from everything anyone says in a civil discourse is absolutely an attack. I said absolutely nothing that was inflammatory or problematic, or that might lead one to question the ernestnest of my testimony.
Are you acquianted philosophical principles of credulity (Swinburg, Reid?)? It is entirely reasonable to expect one’s testimony to be treated as credible if:
- They have nothing personal to gain
- They and you have no direct stake in the discussion
- Nothing they said directly contradicts reality as you know it.
Solipsism is absurd. Incredulity towards everything is absurd.
So why exactly do you find my explanation of my experiences incredible? What do I have to gain? What do you have to lose?
EDIT: The irony is that you seem to agree with much of what I said anyway. So why are you hitting me with over-the-top cynicism?
With all due respect, demanding evidence or proof from everything anyone says in a civil discourse is absolutely an attack.
I’m not demanding anything. I asked if anyone had an objective analysis to compare it to what happens generally. By your own admission, you are just going with your gut, and I’m explaining why your gut means nothing to me.
If you feel attacked, that’s your own doing, not mine.
Well, I’ll confess that I may not be “qualified” but I’ll say from what I’ve seen his analysis is consistent with what I have seen. Judges tend to take it easy on certain things (on top of the likelihood to reoffend, it was also for many their first offense). For a lot of the offenders, the only evidence was that they trespassed and said seditious stuff and was oblivious about assault or anyone having intent to ziptie some congressmen. If an offender had previous offenses, had done assault, had an organizing role, had stuff on their person implying a more violent intent, those folks from what I saw got real prison time.
If you are involved in someone’s random court case, maybe as a jury member, maybe as an extended family member, you are likely to see a fairly restrained judicial response, compared to the statutory maximums which are really intended for the worst of the worst contexts for that particular crime.
Traitors.
Weren’t a lot of them installed by the GOP leading up to Trump’s presidency? I know the GOP was pushing through a lot if confirmations when they had control of the senate.
That’s been the GOP M.O. for a while, but according to the info presented in the article the Dem appointed judges have actually been slightly more lenient (sentenced less than what prosecution sought 92% of cases, against the Trump appointed 90%).
I’m sure there’s more nuance to it if you look at it case by case, but it seems like across the board judges are handing out lenient sentences for Jan 6.
It’s because the vast majority of offenders are first time offenders, and are unlikely to repeat their actions.
This is a good thing, and should happen a lot. Our criminal justice system is fucked up.
I’m not so sure about it in this particular case. I could see them all doing this again in 2024
I could definitely see Trump supporters doing shit like this. I find it unlikely anyone at the Capitol, who has also been prosecuted, and given a light sentence, doing it again.
I very much disagree with this statement. I think if Trump wanted them all to do it again in 2024 almost all of them would join again.
The article points out that there are not large differences in leniency between judges appointed by different presidents,
and that, if anything, judges appointed by Republicans are harsher.and that, if anything, judges appointed by Republicans are harsher.
? I’m skimming the article but these passages seem to suggest the opposite:
Judges appointed by Trump have issued lesser sentences than prosecutors wanted at only a slightly higher rate than Obama appointees. Out of 173 cases, Trump appointees gave lighter sentences than the government requested in 156. Trump appointees agreed to the sentences recommended by prosecutors in 16 cases, while issuing a harsher sentence in one.
By contrast, judges appointed by President Bill Clinton have meted out the harshest sentences, yet they have still been more lenient than prosecutors recommended slightly more than half the time. George W. Bush appointed judges have issued lesser sentences than prosecutors sought in 50 out of 54 cases, or 92 percent, while judges appointed by Ronald Reagan issued more lenient sentences in 42 out of 68 cases, or 61 percent.
The most lenient individual judge handling January 6 cases was not appointed by Trump or Biden, but by George W. Bush. Judge John Bates, now on “senior” or semi-retired status, issued sentences more lenient than prosecutors sought in all 28 of the January 6 cases he handled, often turning down requests for prison time and letting defendants walk free.
The last point about GW Bush supports that Republicans were harsher. Regardless, I think I misread something, because I don’t see the sentence I thought I read earlier. However, the rates are close, and there’s no strong relationship between leniency and party affiliation of the president who appointed the judge. The authors unfortunately don’t summarize how much more lenient or compare the rates to similar sorts of cases unrelated to Jan 6.
Curiously enough, the plurality were appointed by Obama.
Not even the first time Obama appointees cut far-right idiots and assholes some slack. Still found it fucking hilarious that Eric Holder couldn’t find anyone in the Bush Administration worth prosecuting. Particularly when Bush goons like Ron DeSantis and Chris Christie would move right on over to state government positions in subsequent years.
If I remember correctly (and I admit I’m probably not lol), is that when Obama would nominate a judge and the GOP would say no until he nominated someone they wanted?
Merrick Garland was Lindsey Graham’s stated preference for Obama’s SCOTUS pick and Graham still blackballed him when Obama made the nomination.
Do you know who else got lenient punishment despite attempting a coup…
I think he wrote a. book in prison that the current coup artist kept in his bedside table.
Remind me again what the Constitutional punishment for treason is?
A light wrist slapping. Bad boy! Get in timeout.
The definition of treason in the COTUS is very narrow and this clearly does not meet that definition. Not that the facts matter when we’re trying to be outraged.
It is in no way clear that it doesn’t meet the definition. An armed group attacked our capital for the purpose of overthrowing the government.
“ Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. He stated: On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.”
There is nothing in that quote that contradicts my point. It’s just arguing that actually taking up arms is not a requirement.
In fact.
if war be actually levied
Actually supports my point because this was part of no war.
You’re deliberately interpreting “war” in the narrow sense of conflict between countries, but that’s not the extent of the definition in English common law where the phrase came from.
A group attempting to effect by force a treasonous purpose is sufficient, as clearly stated in the quote.
Show me in common law where war is interpreted in a way that would include this insurrection.
And, again, your quote isn’t about the definition of war or even force, but that one doesn’t need to take up arms in order to be guilty of treason.
The quote says “if war actually be levied, that is…”
So you see the phrase “that is”? In the English language, we understand that to mean defining the preceding term. The words following “that is” are therefore defining what it means to levy war in this context.
And it’s easier to find interpretations of the term by modern judges than to dig through English case law, so here’s one: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914a8e8add7b04934706331
why are you such an apologist for idiot seditionists that literally attacked the capitol and attempted to stop the peaceful transition of power?
every time you chime in it’s “yeah people want to be outraged it’s bullshit”
Fuck you. Seeing chuds smearing shit in the capital is an outrage, fuck outta’ here with your bullshit gaslighting.
that shit is fucked sideways.
How is understanding the constitution apologizing for anyone?
How is understanding the constitution apologizing for anyone?
how is answering questions with more questions that do nothing to answer the original questions count as a response?
Because you have nothing else. Your premise is weak, your assertions specious, your entire argument is a disgrace to debating, so your only means of response is “not me, you!”
go to bed, child.
You ask a leading question and I rightfully dismissed it with a question that exposed what a joke it is. The reality is that you can’t explain how understanding the constitution is apologizing for anyone, so you have to whine about the rhetorical device used to expose the glaring logical flaw in your “argument.”
GOP traitors one and all
You could have just said “well understanding the cotus is not apologizing for anyone” and this would have been a much shorter and reasonable conversation.
Just wait for when they let Trump off and run in Colorado and Maine despite the insurrection article. Should be interesting.
I am curious what they will let things off for. It is one thing to deny the term insurrection being accurate, it is another say he is immune to charges for trying to use fake electors. I think the denial of losing the election after even having an investigation come back hired by them and say it was legitimate, the fake electors and the multiple usages of the term fight with the constant we will give more information later is what adds up to the full grasp of it being undeniable that he intended to overthrow our system of government through stealing the election.
When they try to break it down into parts and minimize each, is what will assist them being able to deny terminology and make light of the situation.
Those rulings are just for the primaries in those states, not the general election. The RNC has already said they’ll do something different in those states so he’ll be the candidate, and on the ballot, in the general election
He’s not eligible for office. If they don’t want a candidate on the ballot, that’s fine by me.
Might be a good opportunity for a third party. The greens are run by Russia, right? Throw those traitors on there. They haven’t committed insurrection yet.
Well, that’ll teach them to ever try that again.
Probably cause they are all white.
Probably because their crimes paled compared to riots in major cities in the previous few years. How many of the people who took over Seattle are in prison? There was federal property there.
I’m pretty sure trying to overthrow the federal government doesn’t compare to any riot in the last few decades, let alone years. Or, you know, ever.
I can’t believe you’ve honestly thought through this idea that protestors who caused admittedly significant property damage and disruption are worse than protestors who intended to overthrow the government.
I find paraphrasing arguments helps you see if they make sense. Think about making that argument in court. “Sure the defendant intended to sabotage the election, but these other guys trashed a car and occupied a park! That’s definitely worse!”
I’m not bought in to this train of thought but I know many who are. I would say that I don’t think most people on the right think the protest was an attempt to overthrow the government though. They think it was a protest of what they perceived to be a stolen election. Obviously there were people involved with more nefarious intent though.
I know exactly one person who was there (that I know of), she’s a sweet retired little old lady who bought into the stolen election rhetoric and just went there to protest. Which is protected speech and shouldn’t be demonized as a blanket as if everyone there wanted to overthrow the govt.
Attempting to overthrow the govt doesn’t actually pale to what happened in Seattle but the level of violence involved actually did.
Yep, not a single person was arrested. https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/thousands-gather-capitol-hill-solidarity-with-demonstrations-portland/STVDEK5XUJHWLL2HQZT2NWDYVY/
I love this talking point every time it is brought up.
Yes there has been civil unrest. Yes there have been violent actors involved who have often turned an intended peaceful protest into a riot.
People do get arrested at these events. Many are convicted for crimes.
Protests are a form of civil unrest, they are not an attempt to take over or stop official, constitutionally prescribed procedures. J6 was a seditious action.
Here are a few more items to educate yourself on, and there are many other examples that show the fallacy in your what-about-ism about all the violent rioters who walked away.
Nobody took over Seattle you muppet. I live here and I’m pretty sure I would have noticed.
What you’re saying is literally insane.
One was for equal rights and the other was to overthrow the federal government. A lot of the perceived leniency for the protesters was due to the brutal arrests and a lack of Miranda rights. Don’t forget that they shot at the protesters and not the insurrectionists. The sentences were not out of the kindness of the judges hearts, it was due to the unlawful arrests.
Federal property was also involved in the insurrection so I don’t really follow your argument.
Yeah just attempting to overthrow democracy and install a dictator. Pales so much
Seattle is about 88 sq miles. A bunch of people blocked off 1/4 of 1% of 1 sq mile and mostly had a hippy dippy protest that didn’t harm anyone. During multiple days there were a few incidents during which a tiny number of people hurt each other or did bad shit and people were in fact charged.
Meanwhile Jan 6th was about overthrowing democracy and installing a dictator. An act which would almost certainly have lead to civil war, killed millions, and destroyed out economy. You need some perspective.
their crimes paled compared to riots
Does a riot
Okay, yes, sure. But it wasn’t like when THOSE PEOPLE do riots.
Perhaps the most surprising finding is that the judges appointed by President Joe Biden have been slightly more lenient than those appointed by former President Donald Trump. Biden appointees issued lighter sentences than prosecutors sought for January 6 defendants in 24 of the 26 cases they handled, or 92 percent, effectively tying with George W. Bush appointees as the most lenient. Judges appointed by Trump, meanwhile, have issued more lenient sentences in 90 percent of their cases.
Trump and his allies have repeatedly claimed that the federal judicial system has been unnecessarily punitive in its treatment of January 6 defendants, complaining that they are “political prisoners” who have been unfairly persecuted for trying to prevent the congressional certification of Biden’s 2020 election.
This was ABSOLUTELY the case in the fall of the Weimar Republic. One of the very notable things was that as political violence increased, punishment and severity of punishment of the left also dramatically increased. Meanwhile the fascists were often let off or given only a slap on the wrists. EXACTLY like Jan 6th.
Tolerance of the intolerant will get you, and everyone you loved killed. Never go easy on Nazis.
A short easy read: https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/comment-excusing-violence-as-patriotic-has-proved-dangerous/
You can draw a straight line between degree of sentencing and personal wealth/prestige in the Jan 6th prosecutions. The Right/Left dichotomy is far more often a simple Rich/Poor one, with better representation and more forgiving verdicts handed out to people with the means to pay for them.
Tolerance of the intolerant will get you, and everyone you loved killed.
We’re so far past the idea of the Tolerance Paradox. You get to show tolerance when you have the power to perform otherwise. But these are all petite bourgeois hacks keeping it chill inside the good ole’ boys club. None of us are issuing these verdicts. None of us have any kind of say as to how these insurrection cases are handled.
Stop doing that!
