Airedale260
Well-known member
we may not massively disagree with each other then. Perhaps only on a few smaller points.
I don't disagree that there were some bad actors in the crowd.
Some were antifa themselves, there to rile people up. Plenty were just angry right wingers. Also I don't give anyone a free pass just because provocateurs were in the crowd. They made their own choices.
But I do not agree with Largo's description of these events, or that they'd have killed a senator If they saw one.
And I don't agree with them being held without bail for 6 months, some without even having charges brought against them. This is a legal travesty and it's just wrong...because antifa/BLM rioters all summer were let free with charges dropped. A few right wingers step out of line? They're still in jail six months later. It's disgusting.
Also, I thoroughly reject the coup/insurrection narrative. Which we seem to agree on. My position is that this was a peaceful protest with a few assholes who got out of hand. That's actually an accurate description for (some of) the BLM demonstrations, too.
Yeah, sounds like we're mostly on the same page. I haven't seen much to convince me that Antifa or anyone else was there in any meaningful way to act as provacatuers, and I do believe that some of the people there quite possibly would have killed certain politicians if they'd bumped into them, I even think that some of the more militant loons may have hoped to do exactly that. I do agree that it's ridiculous to think of it as any kind of organised or planned situation though.
I'd want to know more about the specifics of someone being held 6 months without charge, because that sounds too insane on the face of it for me to not assume some misrepresentation or context, but if I do accept it at face value then I'd absolutely agree it's a travesty.
I'm quoting these in this thread because it's actually dedicated to this. Anyway...
As far as the "being held without charges" I believe what's being referred to is actually federal prosecutors misleading judges to deny bail on the basis that the defendants were actively involved in rioting (like the Q-Shaman or Babbitt*) as opposed to just wandering in and getting hit with a trespassing charge. It's one of those issues that's highly unethical but hasn't been actually declared unconstitutional because the courts haven't ruled on that (the procedure in place is SUPPOSED to be the DOJ OIG and internal ethics watchdogs slapping them down but that's kind of broken down). I remember reading it on National Review but I couldn't find the actual story.
I should add that this is not unique to cases related to 1/6; it's been an ongoing thing because federal prosecutors want to appear tough. They did the same thing with the wife of the Pulse Nightclub shooter, claiming she was involved, when not only wasn't she involved, but had been a domestic abuse victim for many years. Likewise it turned out that it wasn't a hate crime; the guy just Googled "closest nightclub" without knowing it was a gay bar. But that would have meant labeling it an "ISIS-inspired attack" and looking like they'd fallen down on the job again, whereas labeling it a hate crime and a random shooter means they can help advance two preferred narratives at once.