The Hill tries to defend sentencing a man, who wasn't even there and planned only to protect protesters, to 33 years, by writing the topic around attacking a politician who criticizing the UN-American double standard

submitted by SoCo from thehill.com

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]SoCo[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I remember when 200+ arrested 2016/2017 election rioters, when the rioters were no longer about BLM, were released all one one swoop, due to a successful coordinated DNC campaign to pressure and intimidate prosecutor to drop charges; stating that they could not prosecute protesters for civil disobedience on Constitutional grounds.

People forget that the Jan 6, 2017 electoral count was delayed due to protesters and stall tactics by Democrats, 11 of which attempted to object to electors, without proper Senate backing, effectively stalling the count. The protesters outside the door of the count, in the visitor's lounge of the Capitol Building, yelling loudly, also contributed to the delayed count. The media turned their cameras quickly and didn't not report it, but those of us who watched live, saw that at least one time, protesters attempted to bolt into the room were the electoral count was happening to prevent it. The electoral count was delayed and it had to be completed later during a special session. I think it was the next day. But there is video of two protesters that sneaked into, or were allowed into, the special session. They stood up inside the room where the electoral count had started again. They turned around and began yelling at Congress who was within feet of them. Congress likely was rained upon with their yelling spit. The enforcer did not beat them with his government prescribed mace. They were carried out gently by security. They were not shot dead.

[–]KyleIsThisTall 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don't goget the kavanaugh and acb hearings

[–]passionflounder 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But... but... but but butbutbutbbbbbb....

OrangeManBadBadBad®!!!!! Bad bad bad! I'm almost practically just about 100-ish% sure that it's in the constitution... uhh... somewhere.

[–]passionflounder 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Our system of "justice" is nothing more than a political weapon to be used against specific politicians and voters alike.

[–]Oyveygoyim 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

More like "the shill"...amirite?

[–]transbob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not a lawyer, but I can provide a general perspective on potential defenses that could be raised in a legal case like this. It's important to note that legal defenses can be complex and depend on the specific circumstances of the case. Some possible defenses that could be considered include:

Lack of Intent: Defense attorneys might argue that Mr. Trump and others did not have the intent to commit the alleged crimes and that their actions were taken in pursuit of legitimate legal challenges to the election results.

Constitutional Rights: They could argue that Mr. Trump and his associates were exercising their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to question and challenge election results.

Insufficient Evidence: Defense attorneys may challenge the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution and argue that it does not meet the burden of proof required for conviction.

No Direct Involvement: They might claim that Mr. Trump did not directly participate in the alleged criminal activities and that others acted independently.

Executive Privilege: In certain situations, former presidents have asserted executive privilege to protect certain communications and documents from being disclosed in legal proceedings.

It's important to remember that the effectiveness of these defenses would depend on the specific facts of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the judgment of the court. Legal cases can be complex, and the outcome is ultimately determined by the legal process and the courts.