Obstructing a proceeding of Congress is a serious charge.

Is that the charge they've been convicted for? If not it legally doesn't count no matter how much you want it to.

Yes, there have been convictions under that charge. Assaulting a police officer is another felony charge that some Jan 6 folks have been convicted of.

---

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

The problem is Trump, his insurrectionists, and a huge number of Republican voters still think the election was stolen.

I think the percentage of Republicans who believe the election was actually ''stolen" is quite small and the numbers are exaggerated by the media.

If no individual is ever convicted of (or even charged with) the crime of insurrection, at what point will it be appropriate to stop calling it an insurrection?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Is that the charge they've been convicted for? If not it legally doesn't count no matter how much you want it to.

Yes, there have been convictions under that charge.  Assaulting a police officer is another felony charge that some Jan 6 folks have been convicted of.

Re-read my post that I added some info to after doing some research. It's possible what they are charged with is not what they'll be convicted of as we go along.

---

Yes, there have been convictions under that charge.  Assaulting a police officer is another felony charge that some Jan 6 folks have been convicted of.

Re-read my post that I added some info to after doing some research. It's possible what they are charged with is not what they'll be convicted of as we go along.

They always throw a butt load of charges at you to get you scared and plead to the lesser charges. 

***Lessons I learned while watching Law & Order

---

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

Re-read my post that I added some info to after doing some research. It's possible what they are charged with is not what they'll be convicted of as we go along.

They always throw a butt load of charges at you to get you scared and plead to the lesser charges. 

***Lessons I learned while watching Law & Order

LOL.

---

Re-read my post that I added some info to after doing some research. It's possible what they are charged with is not what they'll be convicted of as we go along.

They always throw a butt load of charges at you to get you scared and plead to the lesser charges. 

***Lessons I learned while watching Law & Order

I just assumed you had a good lawyer.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

The problem is Trump, his insurrectionists, and a huge number of Republican voters still think the election was stolen.

I think the percentage of Republicans who believe the election was actually ''stolen" is quite small and the numbers are exaggerated by the media.

If no individual is ever convicted of (or even charged with) the crime of insurrection, at what point will it be appropriate to stop calling it an insurrection?

We still call Al Capone a mobster, even though he was only convicted of tax evasion.

---

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

Is that the charge they've been convicted for? If not it legally doesn't count no matter how much you want it to.

Yes, there have been convictions under that charge. Assaulting a police officer is another felony charge that some Jan 6 folks have been convicted of.

The problem is Trump, his insurrectionists, and a huge number of Republican voters still think the election was stolen.

I think the percentage of Republicans who believe the election was actually ''stolen" is quite small and the numbers are exaggerated by the media.

If no individual is ever convicted of (or even charged with) the crime of insurrection, at what point will it be appropriate to stop calling it an insurrection?

Re-read my post that I added some info to after doing some research. It's possible what they are charged with is not what they'll be convicted of as we go along.

They always throw a butt load of charges at you to get you scared and plead to the lesser charges. 

***Lessons I learned while watching Law & Order

Not one of them have been convicted, they all pled guilty to get out of jail. The feds don't go to court unless they are sure they can win. They cannot win because of all the video that exists that shows them being let in. There is also precedent of all the liberals breaking in, sit in or whatever, etc and them either not being charged or get misdemeanor charges with no jail time.

The conviction is semantics but as long as they aren't dealing with felony stuff, they should be able to plead guilty without a conviction record. Not that it matters too much here but would if there are civil trial issues.

These people would all have been convicted in a trial if they could actually do it. They are just denying them bail, denying speedy trials, etc until they just give in and plead guilty.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Yes, there have been convictions under that charge.  Assaulting a police officer is another felony charge that some Jan 6 folks have been convicted of.

I think the percentage of Republicans who believe the election was actually ''stolen" is quite small and the numbers are exaggerated by the media.

If no individual is ever convicted of (or even charged with) the crime of insurrection, at what point will it be appropriate to stop calling it an insurrection?

They always throw a butt load of charges at you to get you scared and plead to the lesser charges. 

***Lessons I learned while watching Law & Order

Not one of them have been convicted, they all pled guilty to get out of jail. The feds don't go to court unless they are sure they can win. They cannot win because of all the video that exists that shows them being let in. There is also precedent of all the liberals breaking in, sit in or whatever, etc and them either not being charged or get misdemeanor charges with no jail time.

The conviction is semantics but as long as they aren't dealing with felony stuff, they should be able to plead guilty without a conviction record. Not that it matters too much here but would if there are civil trial issues.

These people would all have been convicted in a trial if they could actually do it. They are just denying them bail, denying speedy trials, etc until they just give in and plead guilty.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

A woman here in NC has been convicted and will spend 3 months in federal prison and 3 years on probation. She starts serving time 25 February. Read my previous response to Mikesez for more info if you're interested.

---

What a joke of a justice system.

---

I think the percentage of Republicans who believe the election was actually ''stolen" is quite small and the numbers are exaggerated by the media.

If no individual is ever convicted of (or even charged with) the crime of insurrection, at what point will it be appropriate to stop calling it an insurrection?

We still call Al Capone a mobster, even though he was only convicted of tax evasion.

Weak response.  For as long as you continue to call it an insurrection, you should expect to hear others call it a stolen election.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Not one of them have been convicted, they all pled guilty to get out of jail. The feds don't go to court unless they are sure they can win. They cannot win because of all the video that exists that shows them being let in. There is also precedent of all the liberals breaking in, sit in or whatever, etc and them either not being charged or get misdemeanor charges with no jail time.

The conviction is semantics but as long as they aren't dealing with felony stuff, they should be able to plead guilty without a conviction record. Not that it matters too much here but would if there are civil trial issues.

These people would all have been convicted in a trial if they could actually do it. They are just denying them bail, denying speedy trials, etc until they just give in and plead guilty.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

A woman here in NC has been convicted and will spend 3 months in federal prison and 3 years on probation. She starts serving time 25 February. Read my previous response to Mikesez for more info if you're interested.

She pled guilty to a misdemeanor, so it doesn't automatically mean a conviction.

No one has had a trial start but some of the people stuck in jail have won some hearings and suits to get evidence turned over.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

---

We still call Al Capone a mobster, even though he was only convicted of tax evasion.

Weak response.  For as long as you continue to call it an insurrection, you should expect to hear others call it a stolen election.

My choices don't have that much impact.  Neither do yours.  I'm glad you agree that it wasn't a stolen election, at least.

---

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

Weak response.  For as long as you continue to call it an insurrection, you should expect to hear others call it a stolen election.

My choices don't have that much impact.  Neither do yours.  I'm glad you agree that it wasn't a stolen election, at least.

I'm not the one in denial.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

My choices don't have that much impact.  Neither do yours.  I'm glad you agree that it wasn't a stolen election, at least.

I'm not the one in denial.

DoJ is deciding how to charge the offenders based on what will get the shortest, simplest court case with the longest possible sentence.  Congress' proceedings were stopped for about 5 hours as a result of the building being invaded.  Obstruction of Congress is self evident.  Insurrection, you have to prove that the offenders had a specific plan to permanently change the government.  It's obvious that those who entered the Capitol wanted to do much more than simply observe the proceedings, but you can't prove specifically what they wanted to do.  Some of them hunted for Pence and Pelosi, some of them just wanted to get in the House chamber.  We know that a gallows for Mike Pence was set up, but can you prove who set it up? Can you prove that they were serious? Etc.  I think you'd have to be blind to not look at the whole thing and say it was an insurrection, but I can see where you would have difficulty proving the intent of each individual.

DoJ is obviously not going to base its decisions on bolstering random internet forum arguments.

---

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

I'm not the one in denial.

DoJ is deciding how to charge the offenders based on what will get the shortest, simplest court case with the longest possible sentence.  Congress' proceedings were stopped for about 5 hours as a result of the building being invaded.  Obstruction of Congress is self evident.  Insurrection, you have to prove that the offenders had a specific plan to permanently change the government.  It's obvious that those who entered the Capitol wanted to do much more than simply observe the proceedings, but you can't prove specifically what they wanted to do.  Some of them hunted for Pence and Pelosi, some of them just wanted to get in the House chamber.  We know that a gallows for Mike Pence was set up, but can you prove who set it up? Can you prove that they were serious? Etc.  I think you'd have to be blind to not look at the whole thing and say it was an insurrection, but I can see where you would have difficulty proving the intent of each individual.

DoJ is obviously not going to base its decisions on bolstering random internet for arguments.

They should have shot more of them.  There's no excuse for invading the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow an election.

---

I'm not the one in denial.

DoJ is deciding how to charge the offenders based on what will get the shortest, simplest court case with the longest possible sentence.  Congress' proceedings were stopped for about 5 hours as a result of the building being invaded.  Obstruction of Congress is self evident.  Insurrection, you have to prove that the offenders had a specific plan to permanently change the government.  It's obvious that those who entered the Capitol wanted to do much more than simply observe the proceedings, but you can't prove specifically what they wanted to do.  Some of them hunted for Pence and Pelosi, some of them just wanted to get in the House chamber.  We know that a gallows for Mike Pence was set up, but can you prove who set it up? Can you prove that they were serious? Etc.  I think you'd have to be blind to not look at the whole thing and say it was an insurrection, but I can see where you would have difficulty proving the intent of each individual.

DoJ is obviously not going to base its decisions on bolstering random internet forum arguments.

I think they were all looking for AOC so they could ask her out on a date. Which is probably a crime now in most states.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption