Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan


arts / rec.arts.tv / Re: Now here's a laugh!

SubjectAuthor
* Re: Now here's a laugh!moviePig
`* Re: Now here's a laugh!moviePig
 `* Re: Now here's a laugh!moviePig
  `- Re: Now here's a laugh!moviePig

1
Re: Now here's a laugh!

<wrdeK.5423$Xh%d.339@fx98.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142456&group=rec.arts.tv#142456

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!81.171.65.16.MISMATCH!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx98.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Now here's a laugh!
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <53bae582-0d1e-4a7e-94c2-c303fe490465n@googlegroups.com> <super70s-F382DF.18285108052022@reader02.eternal-september.org> <Yq-dnQqU4JaaxOX_nZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t59ojd$9apn$1@solani.org> <f7OdnY-8N5sD6-X_nZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <Zl9eK.8572$6iMa.6133@fx39.iad> <atropos-993D8E.10071409052022@news.giganews.com>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <atropos-993D8E.10071409052022@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <wrdeK.5423$Xh%d.339@fx98.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 18:54:20 UTC
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 14:54:19 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4587
 by: moviePig - Mon, 9 May 2022 18:54 UTC

On 5/9/2022 1:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <Zl9eK.8572$6iMa.6133@fx39.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2022 10:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On May 8, 2022 at 5:51:57 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2022 4:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <atropos-371A0B.14061008052022@news.giganews.com>,
>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <bGVdK.6300$RWva.1758@fx96.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 3:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <TbUdK.1992$7%M9.1525@fx12.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pig has made it his mission to ignore and minimize as much of the
>>>>>>>>>>> Summer of Love as he can get away with.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What I "ignore and minimize" is the glitter you keep flinging to
>>>>>>>>>> conceal the plain fact of an insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An 'insurrection' for which all defendants have not been charged
>>>>>>>>> with insurrection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A distinction without distinction. E.g., charges may be "impractical".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL! Charging someone with what they actually did is 'impractical'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ooooo-kaaayyy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prosecutors are only going to press charges they're confident they
>>>>>> have solid proof for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In April Jacob Fracker pleaded out after admitting he participated in
>>>>>> a conspiracy to "corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede" the
>>>>>> certification of Biden's electoral college victory. In March and April
>>>>>> Guy Reffitt and Thomas Roberts were convicted of all six charges they
>>>>>> faced, including "obstruction of an official proceeding, civil
>>>>>> disorder, and entering and remaining is a restricted building or
>>>>>> grounds while carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon."
>>>>>
>>>>> But no insurrection.
>>>>>
>>>> They don't have to call it that to press charges that amount to the same
>>>> thing.
>>>
>>> If the government can't prove it's an insurrection despite it being on
>>> thousands of cameras and broadcast on national TV, then it probably wasn't
>>> one.
>>
>> Correct me if I'm right, but proving "insurrection' requires
>> demonstrating "intent", i.e., mind-reading -- to a jury comprising
>> roughly half Trump-supporters.
>>
>> "Insurrection? I just wanted a selfie with the ballot box!"
>
> Sorry to have to correct you for being wrong instead of right, but if
> they're Trump supporters-- especially the caricature you describe here--

(there are no 'caricatures' any more, especially among GOPs...)

> they're not gonna be on your side no matter what the defendants are
> charged with. The fact that they're being prosecuted at all means what
> you describe isn't a concern to the DOJ.

I assume the charges brought will have supporting evidence placing
acquittal beyond the reach of anything but jury nullification. (Or a
packed SCOTUS waiting in the appeals wing.)

> Also, proving everything else they've been charged with instead of
> insurrection *also* requires intent. None of them are strict liability
> crimes.

'Intent to trespass' is a lower bar than 'intent to trespass in the
course of attempted overturn of a Presidential election".

Re: Now here's a laugh!

<pieeK.7596$VwRc.2646@fx01.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142458&group=rec.arts.tv#142458

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx01.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Now here's a laugh!
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <53bae582-0d1e-4a7e-94c2-c303fe490465n@googlegroups.com> <super70s-F382DF.18285108052022@reader02.eternal-september.org> <Yq-dnQqU4JaaxOX_nZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t59ojd$9apn$1@solani.org> <f7OdnY-8N5sD6-X_nZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <Zl9eK.8572$6iMa.6133@fx39.iad> <atropos-993D8E.10071409052022@news.giganews.com> <wrdeK.5423$Xh%d.339@fx98.iad> <atropos-0EB1FD.12332009052022@news.giganews.com>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <atropos-0EB1FD.12332009052022@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <pieeK.7596$VwRc.2646@fx01.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 19:52:53 UTC
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 15:52:52 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6083
 by: moviePig - Mon, 9 May 2022 19:52 UTC

On 5/9/2022 3:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <wrdeK.5423$Xh%d.339@fx98.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/9/2022 1:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <Zl9eK.8572$6iMa.6133@fx39.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2022 10:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On May 8, 2022 at 5:51:57 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 4:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <atropos-371A0B.14061008052022@news.giganews.com>,
>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <bGVdK.6300$RWva.1758@fx96.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 3:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <TbUdK.1992$7%M9.1525@fx12.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pig has made it his mission to ignore and minimize as much of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summer of Love as he can get away with.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What I "ignore and minimize" is the glitter you keep flinging to
>>>>>>>>>>>> conceal the plain fact of an insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An 'insurrection' for which all defendants have not been charged
>>>>>>>>>>> with insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A distinction without distinction. E.g., charges may be
>>>>>>>>>> "impractical".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL! Charging someone with what they actually did is 'impractical'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ooooo-kaaayyy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prosecutors are only going to press charges they're confident they
>>>>>>>> have solid proof for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In April Jacob Fracker pleaded out after admitting he participated in
>>>>>>>> a conspiracy to "corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede" the
>>>>>>>> certification of Biden's electoral college victory. In March and April
>>>>>>>> Guy Reffitt and Thomas Roberts were convicted of all six charges they
>>>>>>>> faced, including "obstruction of an official proceeding, civil
>>>>>>>> disorder, and entering and remaining is a restricted building or
>>>>>>>> grounds while carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But no insurrection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> They don't have to call it that to press charges that amount to
>>>>>> the same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the government can't prove it's an insurrection despite it being on
>>>>> thousands of cameras and broadcast on national TV, then it probably
>>>>> wasn't one.
>>>>
>>>> Correct me if I'm right, but proving "insurrection' requires
>>>> demonstrating "intent", i.e., mind-reading -- to a jury comprising
>>>> roughly half Trump-supporters.
>>>>
>>>> "Insurrection? I just wanted a selfie with the ballot box!"
>>>
>>> Sorry to have to correct you for being wrong instead of right, but if
>>> they're Trump supporters-- especially the caricature you describe here--
>>
>> (there are no 'caricatures' any more, especially among GOPs...)
>
> Riiighhhht....

Yes, that was my oblique venting about a SCOTUS now comprising wind-up
toys who have performed exactly as the Dems previously caricatured them
(...which I'd naively taken to be an unrealistically cynical view).

>>> they're not gonna be on your side no matter what the defendants are
>>> charged with. The fact that they're being prosecuted at all means what
>>> you describe isn't a concern to the DOJ.
>>
>> I assume the charges brought will have supporting evidence placing
>> acquittal beyond the reach of anything but jury nullification.
>
> Jury nullification is exactly what you were describing above with your
> cartoonish description of half of America.
>
>> (Or a packed SCOTUS waiting in the appeals wing.)
>
> The Court still only has nine justices. It hasn't been packed. That's
> the Left's wet dream.

Right (I guess). Is "not packed" the strength of your argument?

>>> Also, proving everything else they've been charged with instead of
>>> insurrection *also* requires intent. None of them are strict liability
>>> crimes.
>>
>> 'Intent to trespass' is a lower bar than 'intent to trespass in the
>> course of attempted overturn of a Presidential election".
>
> So despite hundreds of videos of the incident-- most uploaded by the
> defendants themselves-- the security cameras peppered all throughout the
> complex, and the media broadcasting it to the entire nation, along with
> testimony of hundreds of witnesses and forensic evidence out the ass,
> the DOJ doesn't feel it can confidently prove even *first* element of
> the offense of insurrection.
>
> Interesting...

Does the element of 'intent' come first or last? ('Cuz, in between sips
of Kool-Aid, 'intent' is what we all know happened...)

Re: Now here's a laugh!

<zefeK.7000$Jex1.1455@fx35.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142460&group=rec.arts.tv#142460

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx35.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Now here's a laugh!
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <53bae582-0d1e-4a7e-94c2-c303fe490465n@googlegroups.com>
<super70s-F382DF.18285108052022@reader02.eternal-september.org>
<Yq-dnQqU4JaaxOX_nZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t59ojd$9apn$1@solani.org>
<f7OdnY-8N5sD6-X_nZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Zl9eK.8572$6iMa.6133@fx39.iad>
<atropos-993D8E.10071409052022@news.giganews.com>
<wrdeK.5423$Xh%d.339@fx98.iad>
<atropos-0EB1FD.12332009052022@news.giganews.com>
<pieeK.7596$VwRc.2646@fx01.iad>
<atropos-000A2B.13235509052022@news.giganews.com>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <atropos-000A2B.13235509052022@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <zefeK.7000$Jex1.1455@fx35.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 20:57:03 UTC
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 16:57:02 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7185
 by: moviePig - Mon, 9 May 2022 20:57 UTC

On 5/9/2022 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <pieeK.7596$VwRc.2646@fx01.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/9/2022 3:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <wrdeK.5423$Xh%d.339@fx98.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/9/2022 1:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <Zl9eK.8572$6iMa.6133@fx39.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 10:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 8, 2022 at 5:51:57 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 4:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <atropos-371A0B.14061008052022@news.giganews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <bGVdK.6300$RWva.1758@fx96.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 3:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <TbUdK.1992$7%M9.1525@fx12.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pig has made it his mission to ignore and minimize as much of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summer of Love as he can get away with.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I "ignore and minimize" is the glitter you keep flinging to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceal the plain fact of an insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An 'insurrection' for which all defendants have not been charged
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A distinction without distinction. E.g., charges may be
>>>>>>>>>>>> "impractical".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL! Charging someone with what they actually did is 'impractical'.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ooooo-kaaayyy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prosecutors are only going to press charges they're confident they
>>>>>>>>>> have solid proof for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In April Jacob Fracker pleaded out after admitting he participated
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> a conspiracy to "corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede" the
>>>>>>>>>> certification of Biden's electoral college victory. In March and
>>>>>>>>>> April
>>>>>>>>>> Guy Reffitt and Thomas Roberts were convicted of all six charges
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> faced, including "obstruction of an official proceeding, civil
>>>>>>>>>> disorder, and entering and remaining is a restricted building or
>>>>>>>>>> grounds while carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But no insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They don't have to call it that to press charges that amount to
>>>>>>>> the same thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the government can't prove it's an insurrection despite it being on
>>>>>>> thousands of cameras and broadcast on national TV, then it probably
>>>>>>> wasn't one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct me if I'm right, but proving "insurrection' requires
>>>>>> demonstrating "intent", i.e., mind-reading -- to a jury comprising
>>>>>> roughly half Trump-supporters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Insurrection? I just wanted a selfie with the ballot box!"
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to have to correct you for being wrong instead of right, but if
>>>>> they're Trump supporters-- especially the caricature you describe here--
>>>>
>>>> (there are no 'caricatures' any more, especially among GOPs...)
>>>
>>> Riiighhhht....
>>
>> Yes, that was my oblique venting about a SCOTUS now comprising wind-up
>> toys who have performed exactly as the Dems previously caricatured them
>> (...which I'd naively taken to be an unrealistically cynical view).
>
> As if the left wing of the Court doesn't perform the same lock-step
> ideological dance exactly as Republicans have caricatured them.
>
> But that's okay because Democrats, amirite?
>
>>>>> they're not gonna be on your side no matter what the defendants are
>>>>> charged with. The fact that they're being prosecuted at all means what
>>>>> you describe isn't a concern to the DOJ.
>>>>
>>>> I assume the charges brought will have supporting evidence placing
>>>> acquittal beyond the reach of anything but jury nullification.
>>>
>>> Jury nullification is exactly what you were describing above with your
>>> cartoonish description of half of America.
>>>
>>>> (Or a packed SCOTUS waiting in the appeals wing.)
>>>
>>> The Court still only has nine justices. It hasn't been packed. That's
>>> the Left's wet dream.
>>
>> Right (I guess). Is "not packed" the strength of your argument?
>
> It refuted your claim. It only needs to be strong enough to serve that
> purpose.

You mean it only needs to help you evade the point...

>>>>> Also, proving everything else they've been charged with instead of
>>>>> insurrection *also* requires intent. None of them are strict liability
>>>>> crimes.
>>>>
>>>> 'Intent to trespass' is a lower bar than 'intent to trespass in the
>>>> course of attempted overturn of a Presidential election".
>>>
>>> So despite hundreds of videos of the incident-- most uploaded by the
>>> defendants themselves-- the security cameras peppered all throughout the
>>> complex, and the media broadcasting it to the entire nation, along with
>>> testimony of hundreds of witnesses and forensic evidence out the ass,
>>> the DOJ doesn't feel it can confidently prove even *first* element of
>>> the offense of insurrection.
>>>
>>> Interesting...
>>
>> Does the element of 'intent' come first or last? ('Cuz, in between sips
>> of Kool-Aid, 'intent' is what we all know happened...)
>
> So we all supposedly know it happened and we have more evidence than
> most prosecutors can dream of when walking into court, yet *still* no
> charge of insurrection.
>
> Curiouser and curiouser...

"More evidence" of *what*? The weather on Jan 6?

Re: Now here's a laugh!

<17keK.18511$7%M9.18265@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142463&group=rec.arts.tv#142463

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Now here's a laugh!
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <53bae582-0d1e-4a7e-94c2-c303fe490465n@googlegroups.com>
<super70s-F382DF.18285108052022@reader02.eternal-september.org>
<Yq-dnQqU4JaaxOX_nZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t59ojd$9apn$1@solani.org>
<f7OdnY-8N5sD6-X_nZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Zl9eK.8572$6iMa.6133@fx39.iad>
<atropos-993D8E.10071409052022@news.giganews.com>
<wrdeK.5423$Xh%d.339@fx98.iad>
<atropos-0EB1FD.12332009052022@news.giganews.com>
<pieeK.7596$VwRc.2646@fx01.iad>
<atropos-000A2B.13235509052022@news.giganews.com>
<zefeK.7000$Jex1.1455@fx35.iad>
<atropos-CF563A.14555209052022@news.giganews.com>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <atropos-CF563A.14555209052022@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 163
Message-ID: <17keK.18511$7%M9.18265@fx12.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 02:30:21 UTC
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 22:30:20 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 8140
 by: moviePig - Tue, 10 May 2022 02:30 UTC

On 5/9/2022 5:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <zefeK.7000$Jex1.1455@fx35.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/9/2022 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <pieeK.7596$VwRc.2646@fx01.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/9/2022 3:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <wrdeK.5423$Xh%d.339@fx98.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/9/2022 1:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <Zl9eK.8572$6iMa.6133@fx39.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 10:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 2022 at 5:51:57 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 4:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <atropos-371A0B.14061008052022@news.giganews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <bGVdK.6300$RWva.1758@fx96.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 3:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <TbUdK.1992$7%M9.1525@fx12.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pig has made it his mission to ignore and minimize as much of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summer of Love as he can get away with.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I "ignore and minimize" is the glitter you keep flinging
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceal the plain fact of an insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An 'insurrection' for which all defendants have not been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A distinction without distinction. E.g., charges may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "impractical".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL! Charging someone with what they actually did is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'impractical'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ooooo-kaaayyy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Prosecutors are only going to press charges they're confident they
>>>>>>>>>>>> have solid proof for.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In April Jacob Fracker pleaded out after admitting he participated
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> a conspiracy to "corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede" the
>>>>>>>>>>>> certification of Biden's electoral college victory. In March and
>>>>>>>>>>>> April
>>>>>>>>>>>> Guy Reffitt and Thomas Roberts were convicted of all six charges
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> faced, including "obstruction of an official proceeding, civil
>>>>>>>>>>>> disorder, and entering and remaining is a restricted building or
>>>>>>>>>>>> grounds while carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But no insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They don't have to call it that to press charges that amount to
>>>>>>>>>> the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the government can't prove it's an insurrection despite it being
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> thousands of cameras and broadcast on national TV, then it probably
>>>>>>>>> wasn't one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm right, but proving "insurrection' requires
>>>>>>>> demonstrating "intent", i.e., mind-reading -- to a jury comprising
>>>>>>>> roughly half Trump-supporters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Insurrection? I just wanted a selfie with the ballot box!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry to have to correct you for being wrong instead of right, but if
>>>>>>> they're Trump supporters-- especially the caricature you describe
>>>>>>> here--
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (there are no 'caricatures' any more, especially among GOPs...)
>>>>>
>>>>> Riiighhhht....
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that was my oblique venting about a SCOTUS now comprising wind-up
>>>> toys who have performed exactly as the Dems previously caricatured them
>>>> (...which I'd naively taken to be an unrealistically cynical view).
>>>
>>> As if the left wing of the Court doesn't perform the same lock-step
>>> ideological dance exactly as Republicans have caricatured them.
>>>
>>> But that's okay because Democrats, amirite?
>>>
>>>>>>> they're not gonna be on your side no matter what the defendants are
>>>>>>> charged with. The fact that they're being prosecuted at all means what
>>>>>>> you describe isn't a concern to the DOJ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume the charges brought will have supporting evidence placing
>>>>>> acquittal beyond the reach of anything but jury nullification.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jury nullification is exactly what you were describing above with your
>>>>> cartoonish description of half of America.
>>>>>
>>>>>> (Or a packed SCOTUS waiting in the appeals wing.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The Court still only has nine justices. It hasn't been packed. That's
>>>>> the Left's wet dream.
>>>>
>>>> Right (I guess). Is "not packed" the strength of your argument?
>>>
>>> It refuted your claim. It only needs to be strong enough to serve that
>>> purpose.
>>
>> You mean it only needs to help you evade the point...
>
> You made a false claim. I refuted it. If you want to discuss something
> else, maybe dispense with the gratuitous lies and there will be no need
> for anyone to waste time refuting them.

No, I didn't make a "false claim". I used 'pack' in the sense of
"jury-packing". Hide under that if you must.

>>>>>>> Also, proving everything else they've been charged with instead of
>>>>>>> insurrection *also* requires intent. None of them are strict liability
>>>>>>> crimes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Intent to trespass' is a lower bar than 'intent to trespass in the
>>>>>> course of attempted overturn of a Presidential election".
>>>>>
>>>>> So despite hundreds of videos of the incident-- most uploaded by the
>>>>> defendants themselves-- the security cameras peppered all throughout the
>>>>> complex, and the media broadcasting it to the entire nation, along with
>>>>> testimony of hundreds of witnesses and forensic evidence out the ass,
>>>>> the DOJ doesn't feel it can confidently prove even *first* element of
>>>>> the offense of insurrection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting...
>>>>
>>>> Does the element of 'intent' come first or last? ('Cuz, in between sips
>>>> of Kool-Aid, 'intent' is what we all know happened...)
>>>
>>> So we all supposedly know it happened and we have more evidence than
>>> most prosecutors can dream of when walking into court, yet *still* no
>>> charge of insurrection.
>>>
>>> Curiouser and curiouser...
>>
>> "More evidence" of *what*?
>
> Of what actually happened there.


Click here to read the complete article
1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor