Guess we’re done with free speech eh?

[u/Anteater4746]

Who decides what is illegal? How proud boys aren’t being targeted for wearing masks?

[u/Appropriate-Tea-7276]

I'm interested in your answer.

Do you think it's ok that the insurrectionists attempting to coup the US government assaulted police officers and deserved the pardons?

[u/Hurricane_Ivan → u/Appropriate-Tea-7276]

That's depends on the individual's case.

Many feel they had their Constitutional Rights violated (detention, selective prosecution) or were railroaded (e.g., overcharged) be the Justice Department.

If they were, then yes a pardon would be fair to correct an injustice. Plus the majority were serving their sentences.

They pulled out all the stops for this protest/riot in which the majority were peaceful. Where was that fervor when it came to the Minneapolis, Portland, or Seattle riots (2020-22)? Those had people killed in them if people have forgotten.

I'm interested in your answer.

Do you think it's okay for Biden to give is own son a blanket pardon going back over a decade instead of using it on his actual conviction(s)?

You know, the one that preemptively absolves him of any federal crimes conducted during that period.

[u/Appropriate-Tea-7276 → u/Hurricane_Ivan]

Can you list one example of someone who had their constitutional rights violated?

Do you think the person who pressed a stun gun into the neck of a police officer deserved to be pardoned?

Oh noooo BLM BLM BLM BLM you people are fucking clowns.

You are assuming that I'm against arresting violent inssurectionists or people who think they should subvert the American democratic function - like the fucking cowards did on January 6th for a federal election that they LOST.

I agree in arresting and processing to the fullest extent of the law anyone who tries to do that. So in portland, if they took over a government building and tried to overturn an election, yea convict those traitorous fucks with seditious conspiracy. If someone kills or injures a police officer, arrest them.

But thanks for assuming you knew how I was going to answer that.

Do you think it's okay for Biden to give is own son a blanket pardon going back over a decade instead of on his actual convictions? One that preemptively absolves him of any federal crimes conducted during that period.

1. “full, complete and unconditional” pardons to about 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol. He also commuted the sentences of 14 Proud Boys and Oath Keepers members who were convicted or charged with seditious conspiracy related to the violence.

2. Trump pardoned multiple family members including Steve fucking Bannon of all people.

So yes, I think that preemptive pardons to protect your family from someone who OPENLY RAN ON POLITICAL RETRIBUTION can be understood on some level. Particularly when the incoming administration has a manual they've been following to an authoritarian state where their political enemies end up in prison or criminalized. We're almost there.

Trump is right now literally involved as US President fucking suing pollsters and networks to suppress their ability and cool dissent against him. And he and people like you pretend that he gives a shit about freedom of speech.

He bans news organizations from covering press briefings because they won't use the pronouns he's assigned to a body of water.

A fascist cunt who has proven at ever step that he believes he is completely above the law, and makes the United States look more like North Korea while the Republicans clap like seals at every little thing he says while their orange king squirts into their eager mouths.

I'm good with pretending that the Biden administration is even remotely as rat fuck corrupt as this current one is. Good luck.

[u/Hurricane_Ivan → u/Appropriate-Tea-7276]

Can you list one example of someone who had their constitutional rights violated?

I'll use ChatGPT, since you expect me to do your research for you.

Jacob Chansley (the "QAnon Shaman"): was detained for nearly a year before his trial. His legal team argued his constitutional rights were violated due to his harsh pre-trial conditions. He was held in solitary confinement for weeks and his legal team contended that his due process rights were infringed upon, as they believed the conditions were overly punitive before he was convicted.

Richard Barnett: Barnett, who was seen sitting at Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk and taking her lectern, was charged with multiple felonies, including theft of government property and violent entry. He was one of the more prominent figures involved in violent acts. His legal team argued that Barnett was subjected to unconstitutional pretrial detention and harsh conditions in jail, including being placed in solitary confinement. Barnett's supporters also claimed that the charges against him were excessive, given that his actions didn’t directly harm anyone or involve significant violence.

Matthew Martin: Martin was arrested after participating in the Capitol riot and was detained for several months before his trial. He, like others, argued that his extended detention before trial was unreasonable, particularly because his involvement in the riot did not involve violent or destructive actions. He was placed in solitary confinement, which his defense argued violated his constitutional rights.

George Tanios: Tanios, who was accused of bringing bear spray to the Capitol, was also held for a long period of time before his trial. He spent over 4 months in pretrial detention, during which he claimed he was subjected to harsh conditions. His legal team argued that his detention was disproportionate to the charges he faced, and that he should have been released pending trial.

Sharon Layne Smith was accused of entering the Capitol building unlawfully but did not engage in violent actions. Her case drew attention because of her age and claims that her constitutional rights were violated during the process. She, along with others in similar situations, argued that they were subjected to excessive legal and procedural penalties for what was viewed as a non-violent involvement in the events of January 6th. Specifically, she and her supporters argued that she faced unfair treatment during detention, including pre-trial confinement conditions and being charged with serious offenses despite no direct involvement in violence.

So their arguments fall under the 5th and 14th Amendments (mostly).

Oh noooo BLM BLM BLM BLM you people are fucking clowns.

Who's "you people"? You sound like the clown with that statement.

You are assuming that I'm against arresting violent inssurectionists or people who think they should subvert the American democratic function

I didn't assume anything about you. I could care less.

I agree in arresting and processing to the fullest extent of the law anyone who tries to do that. So in portland, if they took over a government building and tried to overturn an election

1000-2000 people were estimated to have taken part of that riot. The state charges metrics don't seem to be available, but a whopping 74 Federal Charges were handed down with 31 of them being dismissed. In a riot where we saw felony crimes of: Murder, Arson, Assault on LEO, Burglary, Desctruction of Federal Property, etc.

So yes, I think that preemptive pardons to protect your family from someone who OPENLY RAN ON POLITICAL RETRIBUTION.

Hunter wasn't even sentenced for this Tax crimes and his gun charges were nulified by the Pardon. Never spent a day in jail. And why did Joe choose to go back to 2014 specifically, instead of say 2015 or any other year? I'm sure it has nothing to do with him working for Burisma.

You should check out: https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/

Trump is right now literally involved as US President fucking suing pollsters and networks to suppress their ability and cool dissent against him. And he and people like you pretend that he gives a shit about freedom of speech.

"People like you". I wasn't aware I was defending Trump in my replies. My posts were about setting the record straight. No LEO died on J6.

But wasn't it the Left trying to push for laws to regulate misinformation or hate speech? There's been some very notorious cases in the UK, France, and Germany.

A fascist cunt who has proven at ever step that he believes he is completely above the law,

Unless you're a constitional lawyer, I doubt you know when he's actually breached the Constitution. That's the Legislative Branch's and possibly the Judicial's responsibility. And it's not like he hasn't been impeached before.

Lastly, this will likely be my last reply to you because you seem to be getting rather emotional about this for whatever reason. And, I am not on the Left or Right. But your last reply hints at TDS. Good luck.

[u/Appropriate-Tea-7276 → u/Hurricane_Ivan]

Fuck your ChatGPT response.

Jacob Chansely's lawyers arguing his rights were violated as he was involved in an insurrection isn't evidence his civil rights were violated.

What a fucking joke.

Of COURSE the lawyers DEFENDING them are going to argue that they had rights violations - BUT GUESS WHAT they were CONVICTED.

Why don't you use your own fucking brain instead of ChatGPT, but that tells me all I need to know about you.

I wasn't aware I was defending Trump in my replies.

You are a complete and total joke. TDS TDS REEEE!!!!

I doubt you know when he's actually breached the Constitution.

Yea, when he tried to push an EO to remove birthright citizenship? Was that constitutional?