The Atlantic: It Was Sedition
(archive.ph)
Comments (26)
sorted by:
Oh, well if 12 randos think it's true, it must be so. Every one of those people that the Innocence Project (a liberal favorite) has gotten out of prison were there because originally "a jury of their peers" found them guilty.
I love how when it's a decision they agree with the left is quick to point out things like "he was convicted", "the report concluded" or "the Supreme Court decided" as if that means the issue is closed forever. But when it's something they don't agree with, it's "wrongfully convicted" or "the court is illegitimate".
Blatant hypocrisy reflects a severe lack of introspection and self-reflection.
Federal jury, definitely not “of their peers”
The term itself is stupid. They should just say "fellow citizens".
"Peer" by definition means equal in status. We may not have a caste system, but we definitely have different classes based on geography, wealth, and education among other things. A true jury of your peers would only include people from your class.
Perhaps the founders originally meant equal in status, or people from your class. We may not always like it, and it would make it easier for corrupt politicians and police to get away with murder, but it's supposed to favor the defendant.
Randos?
I've genuinely seem a more fair jury pool out of an all-white jury in the Jim Crow South.
If it were up to the jury: the defendant, the defendant's family, the defendant's children, the defendant's attorney, the defendant's attorney's family, and the defendant's attorney's children would be all summarily executed. Facts mean nothing, evidence means nothing, charges mean nothing, and procedure means nothing.
Who knows? Maybe the prosecutors will still go for the death penalty for the attorney's family. No reason for them not to. It's not like they won't automatically succeed either.
These are basically Nazi show trails at this point. There's nothing even to talk about, the sentence was fixed before the defendant was arrested. I don't even really know why we're entertaining an actual trial since there's no point.
Hell, confessing serves no purpose. Going off of what happened with the QAnon Shaman: if you take a plea deal, the judge will accept the confession, then reject the plea deal, and then hit you with a harsher sentence. Is that even legal? Was being held without charge for 3 months legal: kill yourself.
Genuinely: we don't treat Al Qaeda like this.
I think the plea deals at least in Federal cases are not a sure thing. They make recommendations to a judge. But yes any confession will be accepted on its own merit whether or not your "deal" goes through.
America is basically the USSR in Gulag Archipelago now. "We"'ve let these Fed a-holes come and pick people up and throw them in jail and they never get out before a politically determine sentence.
That's the problem here. In order to get the deal, the guy had to not only confess, but confess in front of the judge, apologize to the judge, declare stuff about Donald Trump and the 2020 election, read several leftist books, and he assumed he would get the deal the prosecutor recommended. And he didn't. The judge literally stood there and said that he understood what the Shaman said, he believed him, he said it was genuine... but the guy had to have an example made out of him, so he couldn't just let him get away with only 20 some months in a federal prison and doubled his fucking sentence.
Yeah the judge can fuck you over in a political prosecution no matter what deal you strike with prosecutors. I suspect if that happened in a county in one of the actual states, you'd appeal. I dont' know what your options are in a federal case.
Yeah like I give a shit what 12 Washington DC residents think.
This is a perfect example of this is a jury that's not these guys peers at all. This is a jury that was pulled from the community where the "crime" occurred.
The reason that one anti-Trump DC judge who comes up all the time felt the need to defend DC jurors is because they need defending. More so than even normal juries they will convict a potato if it's white and the case is brought by the Federal government.
As far as I’m aware the Atlantic is still the only “news” outlet to employ a person who self admittedly committed a hate crime
And burning/looting/destroying cities is what?
Well it didn’t impact anyone of importance, you pull a hair off the king and it’s execution, you murder dozens of peasants and royalty won’t bat an eye if the crops keep coming in.
'Member the twitter thread of that one guy cheering the protesters on at first, and then the protestors got too close to his neighborhood and he started freaking out.
Still chuckle thinking of it, probably have it saved somewhere.
Those were peaceful but fiery protests against systematic injustice, so quintuple plus good.
And the cdc said it was ok to be out protesting.
Haha, I am always going to chuckle at that.
I kept up with how things went with my local rioters. The charges they faced were:
But let’s endlessly discuss Jan 6 smh
If they want to set that precedent I'm ready to go. Careful though, if you read the points of the statute apparently almost any crime the government doesn't like could fall under seditious acts.
With the “republicans” going full democrat, sedition is frankly appealing. Friendly reminder to get the fuck out of anything slightly blue, and that includes “red” that votes in rinos.
Hell, following the US Constitution as it was written is "sedition" now.
wow a dc jury said so, it must be true!
More than Democrats, they're people who basically owe their livelihood to the Federal government, whether they work for it or they are welfare cases. They can't judge fairly any federal defendant but especially a white man or a Republican.
It must be hard legally to argue that the trial shouldn't take place near where the charge occurred, but these juries are more biased than other cases in which I've seen judges move trials.
Come to think of it, how often do news stories even say "a jury of their peers"?