Interesting note on one of the rioters legal case:

https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrectio...-in-mexico

A judge is letting one of the rioters who entered the capitol take a vacation to Mexico while awaiting trial.

NPR fake news. Get with the times Holmes.

---

Interesting note on one of the rioters legal case:

https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrectio...-in-mexico

A judge is letting one of the rioters who entered the capitol take a vacation to Mexico while awaiting trial.

NPR fake news. Get with the times Holmes.

Matters of public record aren't fake news.  And this article merely states facts from a public record. 

Not fake.

I'm sure there are other reports on it from sources you aren't needlessly conditioned to distrust. 
I could quote another source saying the same thing, but your inability to glean the facts from varying press entities isn't my problem. It's yours. 

The only real point I was attempting to shed light on is the tack this judge is steering with this travel approval. Such approvals are commonplace for people awaiting trial but they are dependant upon the gravity of the case and potential consequences.  Just found it somewhat interesting that at least this particular judge isn't taking a hard line about it given the visibility of the case and defendant.

---

NPR fake news. Get with the times Holmes.

Matters of public record aren't fake news.  And this article merely states facts from a public record. 

Not fake.

I'm sure there are other reports on it from sources you aren't needlessly conditioned to distrust. 
I could quote another source saying the same thing, but your inability to glean the facts from varying press entities isn't my problem. It's yours. 

The only real point I was attempting to shed light on is the tack this judge is steering with this travel approval. Such approvals are commonplace for people awaiting trial but they are dependant upon the gravity of the case and potential consequences.  Just found it somewhat interesting that at least this particular judge isn't taking a hard line about it given the visibility of the case and defendant.

The level of offense varies for those who were there. Someone who simply entered the doors and yelled some slogans isn't as culpable as someone who assaulted security guards. 

The overreach in your assumption is that the left wants anyone who was within a half mile of the capitol, and doesn't agree with them politically, to be canceled from the world.

---

Matters of public record aren't fake news.  And this article merely states facts from a public record. 

Not fake.

I'm sure there are other reports on it from sources you aren't needlessly conditioned to distrust. 
I could quote another source saying the same thing, but your inability to glean the facts from varying press entities isn't my problem. It's yours. 

The only real point I was attempting to shed light on is the tack this judge is steering with this travel approval. Such approvals are commonplace for people awaiting trial but they are dependant upon the gravity of the case and potential consequences.  Just found it somewhat interesting that at least this particular judge isn't taking a hard line about it given the visibility of the case and defendant.

The level of offense varies for those who were there. Someone who simply entered the doors and yelled some slogans isn't as culpable as someone who assaulted security guards. 

The overreach in your assumption is that the left wants anyone who was within a half mile of the capitol, and doesn't agree with them politically, to be canceled from the world.

I've made no assumption and no overreach. 

I suggested a judge's decision may be "interesting."

My suggestion that another judge may rule differently on this matter due to visibility has zero to due with the left, the right, or cancel culture. It's simply based on what I've observed over the years in other legal cases that gain media coverage. 

I'm not painting the decision by this judge in any light whatsoever. It would be rather mundane if these cases weren't in the news so much right now.

---

Matters of public record aren't fake news.  And this article merely states facts from a public record. 

Not fake.

I'm sure there are other reports on it from sources you aren't needlessly conditioned to distrust. 
I could quote another source saying the same thing, but your inability to glean the facts from varying press entities isn't my problem. It's yours. 

The only real point I was attempting to shed light on is the tack this judge is steering with this travel approval. Such approvals are commonplace for people awaiting trial but they are dependant upon the gravity of the case and potential consequences.  Just found it somewhat interesting that at least this particular judge isn't taking a hard line about it given the visibility of the case and defendant.

The level of offense varies for those who were there. Someone who simply entered the doors and yelled some slogans isn't as culpable as someone who assaulted security guards. 

The overreach in your assumption is that the left wants anyone who was within a half mile of the capitol, and doesn't agree with them politically, to be canceled from the world.

QFT..

---

Very appropriate

---

On a different note, they can't find any security footage that shows the police officer being beaten. You know, the one that went to the hospital with unknown conditions. Not saying he wasn't, but as of now, they have yet to find the assault. It couldn't be that his death just help drive a narrative, could it? I will change my mind 100 if they find footage of it, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this whole story was just manufactured. That's how this works.

---

Interesting note on one of the rioters legal case:

https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrectio...-in-mexico

A judge is letting one of the rioters who entered the capitol take a vacation to Mexico while awaiting trial.

I'm not so sure why it is so "interesting".  There is after all the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.  She has so far followed all of the conditions placed on her after her arrest and her history doesn't indicate that letting her take a planned vacation poses any kind of risk.

The whole "rioter" and "insurrectionist" narrative pushed by the media has gotten so far out of hand that the terms don't have the usual meaning.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Interesting note on one of the rioters legal case:

https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrectio...-in-mexico

A judge is letting one of the rioters who entered the capitol take a vacation to Mexico while awaiting trial.

I'm not so sure why it is so "interesting".  There is after all the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.  She has so far followed all of the conditions placed on her after her arrest and her history doesn't indicate that letting her take a planned vacation poses any kind of risk.

The whole "rioter" and "insurrectionist" narrative pushed by the media has gotten so far out of hand that the terms don't have the usual meaning.

What nomenclature do you prefer for someone who trespasses on to federal property with the intention of disrupting the certification of an election?

---

I'm not so sure why it is so "interesting".  There is after all the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.  She has so far followed all of the conditions placed on her after her arrest and her history doesn't indicate that letting her take a planned vacation poses any kind of risk.

The whole "rioter" and "insurrectionist" narrative pushed by the media has gotten so far out of hand that the terms don't have the usual meaning.

What nomenclature do you prefer for someone who trespasses on to federal property with the intention of disrupting the certification of an election?

At least you have walked it back to "disrupting" from "murdering AOC". Progress.

---

In what other cases are folks charged with a felony allowed to travel out of country? Regardless of whether or not we think her actions were right or wrong, she was charged with a felony.

---

What nomenclature do you prefer for someone who trespasses on to federal property with the intention of disrupting the certification of an election?

At least you have walked it back to "disrupting" from "murdering AOC". Progress.

Don't put words in my mouth. 

Here are the facts for you so you can keep them straight:

The woman in question here (allowed to vacation - trial pending) had the admitted intention of disrupting the certification. 
Several of the idiots who also streamed into that building had more violent intentions - also by their own admissions.

---

I'm not so sure why it is so "interesting".  There is after all the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.  She has so far followed all of the conditions placed on her after her arrest and her history doesn't indicate that letting her take a planned vacation poses any kind of risk.

The whole "rioter" and "insurrectionist" narrative pushed by the media has gotten so far out of hand that the terms don't have the usual meaning.

What nomenclature do you prefer for someone who trespasses on to federal property with the intention of disrupting the certification of an election?

I would prefer the term "protester".  Or does that term only apply to people that loot, destroy property, set government buildings on fire, etc.?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

In what other cases are folks charged with a felony allowed to travel out of country? Regardless of whether or not we think her actions were right or wrong, she was charged with a felony.

At the time that she submitted her request to the court she was charged with 2 misdemeanors.  Again, just because a person is charged with a crime they are still innocent until proven guilty.

Why is this such a big deal?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

What nomenclature do you prefer for someone who trespasses on to federal property with the intention of disrupting the certification of an election?

I would prefer the term "protester".  Or does that term only apply to people that loot, destroy property, set government buildings on fire, etc.?

So - You want to call a rioter a protester because you didn't like the way a separate group of rioters and protesters were covered by certain media entities?

OK.

---

Mod fight!

---

If only Republicans had misused Congress and the Justice Department to conduct a phony investigation about claims of an illegitimate election like the democrats. The irony being there is no connection between Trump and Russia while the improprieties of the Bidens with China is considerable.

---

It was an insurrection. If you don't think so, consider this.
What if it wasn't Trump holding a rally on Jan 6? What if it was AOC holding a rally, and the angry crowd came instead to the white house, saying "heads on pikes!" and similar threats, and started charging the security guards' positions?
What would you have called that?

---

If only Republicans had misused Congress and the Justice Department to conduct a phony investigation about claims of an illegitimate election like the democrats. ...

Who led Congress when the Russia investigation started?
Who led the Department of Justice?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If only Republicans had misused Congress and the Justice Department to conduct a phony investigation about claims of an illegitimate election like the democrats. The irony being there is no connection between Trump and Russia while the improprieties of the Bidens with China is considerable.

Excuse me Sir, but you’re not allowed to say things like that anymore.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Oh, snap!

https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status...61248?s=20

---

It was an insurrection.  If you don't think so, consider this.
What if it wasn't Trump holding a rally on Jan 6? What if it was AOC holding a rally, and the angry crowd came instead to the white house, saying "heads on pikes!" and similar threats, and started charging the security guards' positions?
What would you have called that?

---

If only Republicans had misused Congress and the Justice Department to conduct a phony investigation about claims of an illegitimate election like the democrats. ...

Who led Congress when the Russia investigation started?
Who led the Department of Justice?

It was colluuuussiion!

---