Breaking News January 6th Stop the Steal Rally & Capitol Breaching/Storming

[Typhonis]

Sources: ‘Conversations’ Pelosi Had With Sgt At Arms About National Guard Presence Factored Into ‘Blender Of Decision Making’ That Led Up To Riot | The Daily Caller


Does anyone have any alternate sources on this?

 

[Husky_Khan]

Prosecutors are asking for more time to build a case against those already in custody for the Capitol Riots.

Prosecutors request delay in cases related to Capitol riot, 'likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted' by the DOJ

They certainly didn't need much time to impeach Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection.

twitchy.com

It's being called the most complex prosecution ever executed by the DoJ. Which strikes me odd on a few levels. Anyhow no swift or speedy trial when the DoJ is involved apparently.

 

[LindyAF]

Hey, speaking of, if any of these guys are being held, are there any good sources / lists for where we could write to them?

 

[LindyAF]

Found a list of those charged from npr, will start looking into if any are actually imprisoned yet and if so where they can be reached, since npr doesn't say.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Prosecutors are asking for more time to build a case against those already in custody for the Capitol Riots.

Prosecutors request delay in cases related to Capitol riot, 'likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted' by the DOJ

They certainly didn't need much time to impeach Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection.

twitchy.com

It's being called the most complex prosecution ever executed by the DoJ. Which strikes me odd on a few levels. Anyhow no swift or speedy trial when the DoJ is involved apparently.

If you look at the overall statistics, this isn't exceptionally slow for a federal prosecution. State prosecutions can be even worse, with New York taking the cake --in 2015, the average wait for an inmate at Riker's Island to actually see trial was 593 days.

 

[DarthOne]

In which a long, rambly NPR article attempts to redefine the everyday concept of "armed" into something else.

 

[Vaermina]

If you look at the overall statistics, this isn't exceptionally slow for a federal prosecution. State prosecutions can be even worse, with New York taking the cake --in 2015, the average wait for an inmate at Riker's Island to actually see trial was 593 days.

Must be people who lack lawyers, because nearly two years is way over the eight month speedy trial standard that would have voided the case.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Must be people who lack lawyers, because nearly two years is way over the eight month speedy trial standard that would have voided the case.

Eight months is a rule of thumb, not an absolute standard.

New York state law actually requires the prosecution to be ready for trial within six months or the case is automatically dismissed without prejudice; however, this *only* applies to felonies other than murder. Since the massive glut of arrestees held in Riker's Island is due to aggressive prosecution of accused misdemeanors, tied to so-called "broken windows" theory, it doesn't apply to them.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

So we allow the state to arrest and murder regular people exercising their first amendment rights but a bunch of violent black separatists and groomers can set cities on fire and hold pride parades where they force children to stripper dance in BDSM garb and there's no legal follow up?

Amazing.

If you are unable to draw a distinction between a police precint and the US Capitol, then you are trolling or just a moron. As shown by the fact that you're just trying to weasel around instead of flat out saying what they're doing is good. At least LordsFire has the courage to say that Congress gets what it deserves, instead of your Sophistry.

The Capitol building is our house and elected officials are the Help, they're serfs, they're the stupid beast of burden we select to exercise our will.

They have no value as human beings except for their performance as vehicles for our will.

Public servants, especially elected officials aren't a clerical class. They're barely sentient brutes who have long ago convinced themselves they rule us and not the other way around.

They were reminded of their place on January the sixth and in response to that they have turned the FBI lose on the their constituents.

That is perverse and if you defend the actions of these...animals. then you don't really love America and you don't really care about your fellow citizens.

The only thing that these people did wrong was slap around cops.

Thats it.

Conversely BLM perpetrated a nation wide Kristalnacht and they are being praised for it.

 

[Vaermina]

Eight months is a rule of thumb, not an absolute standard.

New York state law actually requires the prosecution to be ready for trial within six months or the case is automatically dismissed without prejudice; however, this *only* applies to felonies other than murder. Since the massive glut of arrestees held in Riker's Island is due to aggressive prosecution of accused misdemeanors, tied to so-called "broken windows" theory, it doesn't apply to them.

The Sixth Amendment applies to everyone living in the US.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The Sixth Amendment applies to everyone living in the US.

It does, however, the Constitutional interpretation of that right is *not* defined in a clearcut manner.

The primary precedent on this matter is the 1972 Supreme Court ruling in Barker v. Wingo, a case in which a man's murder trial was delayed for over five years because the prosecution wanted to first convict his alleged accomplice. Because the case against the accomplice was weak, he was tried six times before finally being found guilty, and then the trial was even further delayed by the lengthy illness of a key witness.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the defendant had waived his right to a speedy trial because he had not objected to the first eleven continuances granted to the prosecution, because the clock for a "speedy trial" did not start ticking until the defendant actually objected to a continuance, and that had only been eight months before trial.

(Note that the Court of Appeals made a serious factual error here, ruling that it had only been eight months from Barker's first objection to his actual trial, when it had in fact been twenty months.)

SCOTUS upheld the Court of Appeals ruling, with three key points to the precedent:

1. The right to a speedy trial is "generically different" from other Constitutional rights because it is not purely an individual right, but a right that was created for the greater good of society and the justice system as a whole.

2. There is no way to create a "firm distinction" between what is and is not a speedy trial, because every trial has unique circumstances.

3. Whether or not the right to a speedy trial has been violated requires a "balancing test" of four key factors: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice towards the defendant*.

*note that this is a legal jargon use of the term "prejudice" -- it is not saying that minority defendants are entitled to extra speediness, but that the courts must consider how much the delay in trial has negatively affected the defendant's life/case. A defendant who had been held in jail for years awaiting trial has suffered greater "prejudice towards the defendant" than a defendant who was out on bail for the same period.

 

[Vaermina]

It does, however, the Constitutional interpretation of that right is *not* defined in a clearcut manner.

The primary precedent on this matter is the 1972 Supreme Court ruling in Barker v. Wingo, a case in which a man's murder trial was delayed for over five years because the prosecution wanted to first convict his alleged accomplice. Because the case against the accomplice was weak, he was tried six times before finally being found guilty, and then the trial was even further delayed by the lengthy illness of a key witness.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the defendant had waived his right to a speedy trial because he had not objected to the first eleven continuances granted to the prosecution, because the clock for a "speedy trial" did not start ticking until the defendant actually objected to a continuance, and that had only been eight months before trial.

(Note that the Court of Appeals made a serious factual error here, ruling that it had only been eight months from Barker's first objection to his actual trial, when it had in fact been twenty months.)

SCOTUS upheld the Court of Appeals ruling, with three key points to the precedent:

1. The right to a speedy trial is "generically different" from other Constitutional rights because it is not purely an individual right, but a right that was created for the greater good of society and the justice system as a whole.

2. There is no way to create a "firm distinction" between what is and is not a speedy trial, because every trial has unique circumstances.

3. Whether or not the right to a speedy trial has been violated requires a "balancing test" of four key factors: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice towards the defendant*.

*note that this is a legal jargon use of the term "prejudice" -- it is not saying that minority defendants are entitled to extra speediness, but that the courts must consider how much the delay in trial has negatively affected the defendant's life/case. A defendant who had been held in jail for years awaiting trial has suffered greater "prejudice towards the defendant" than a defendant who was out on bail for the same period.

You seem to have missed an important bit of reasoning here.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the defendant had waived his right to a speedy trial because he had not objected to the first eleven continuances granted to the prosecution

 

[Captain X]

Which is pretty bullshit if you ask me.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Which is pretty bullshit if you ask me.

It definitely is. For so many reasons. And it opens the door for so much procedural abuse.

 

[LindyAF]

Per Gateway Pundit here is a campaign for fighting the charges against at least one of the Capitol Hill protestors. The website does appear to charge more in terms of processing than GoFundMe would.

I've been largely unsuccessful in determining which of the people currently charged are being held (e.g. have been denied bail), and if there is any way to reach them. I've heard of at least some cases of them being denied bail, but have been unable to find a general list or any way to write to them or donate to any other legal campaigns on our guys behalf.

Obviously not everyone is going to be in a situation to do so, and there are serious concerns to think through, but if your personal and financial situation permits, remember to do what you can for our political prisoners.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

You seem to have missed an important bit of reasoning here.

No, I didn't miss that reasoning. That's the "defendant's assertion of the right" element in the four factors test that SCOTUS laid out; it's present but not an absolute.

Which is pretty bullshit if you ask me.

While SCOTUS upheld the Court of Appeals verdict as a whole, they did not wholly accept that particular argument. None of the four factors is treated as an "I win" absolute; it's supposed to be a nuanced consideration, and in practice is pretty vague.

 

[The Phule]

The Court of Appeals ruled that the defendant had waived his right to a speedy trial because he had not objected to the first eleven continuances granted to the prosecution.

Moral of the story: It's usually a good idea to immediately object to any continuances that are requested by the prosecution and, as soon as your defense stands reasonably prepared, demand a speedy trial.

 

[Arch Dornan]

 

[Arch Dornan]

 

[Captain X]

Wait, that was a mother and son? And, I have to say, the guy with zip-ties was one of the more concerning ones there.