3 ms·

Quoting from your source, "setting fires inside the fence" (what kind of fire?) and cutting through a fence is not the same thing as setting a building on fire.

Quoting from your source, "setting fires inside the fence" (what kind of fire?) and cutting through a fence is not the same thing as setting a building on fire. To be frank, any statement by Bill Barr must be treated with skepticism. He has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to exaggerate, omit context, and just make things up in his public statements. I don't know what happened with that Reinoehl guy. He sounded mentally unstable to me, and should not have had access to guns. But from what I have read he was a random independent dude who showed up to protests, not part of an organized group. He claimed he shot the white supremacist in defense of his friend who was being held at knifepoint. Instead of investigating and charging him with a crime in a court of law, police went and assassinated him. We might never find out exactly what happened.

refurb 6y ago
Alright dude. If you see nothing wrong with setting fires at a federal courthouses (does it matter if it’s inside or outside a fence) and shining lasers in cops eyes, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s clear that even if they burned the building down you’d find some way to weasel out of condemning it. And surprise, surprise the initial reports about “kidnap and kill squads” during the Capitol riots turned out to be false. No doubt the mainstream media will print retractions...right? ”The comments by Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin appeared to be an effort to walk back claims federal prosecutors in Arizona had made in a court filing late on Thursday, in which they alleged there was evidence that rioters intended “to capture and assassinate elected officials.”” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-capitol-arrests/u-s-now-says-no-evidence-of-kill-capture-teams-at-u-s-capitol-idUSKBN29K0K7?il=0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-capitol-arrests...
- jacobolus 6y ago
  No shit prosecutors don't want to make public statements that are even potentially stronger than what they can support in court, while in the middle of an active investigation. The DOJ has opened hundreds of investigations, arrested or put out warrants for dozens of people, and are still gathering evidence. There is little doubt that some of the MAGAs intended to harm or kill civilians in the Capitol building, including the Vice President. They repeatedly said so on tape, shouted it to the public, bragged about it to each-other, etc. Whether some groups of them constituted "kill squads" per se (whatever that means precisely) has not yet been proven out. > you see nothing wrong with setting fires at a federal courthouses Nobody said that. Literally every comment you make moves the goalposts and makes unfounded accusations, and you seem fundamentally incapable of admitting repeated misstatements. I just said that "starting a fire inside the fence" is categorically different from your previous characterization that they "set the building on fire". To be honest this conversation is going nowhere. I recommend you find some other interlocutor if you want to keep going.
  - refurb 6y ago
    No shit prosecutors don't want to make public statements that are even potentially stronger than what they can support in court, while in the middle of an active investigation. But that's EXACTLY what they did. Turned out to be a massive exaggeration with no evidence to actually back it up. Didn't stop it from being covered broadly in the media and the "correction" getting no press at all. I just said that "starting a fire inside the fence" is categorically different from your previous characterization that they "set the building on fire". But why did you say that? And it's disingenuous when the article I linked to showed a burned out door to the building. And I know exactly why you quibble over "inside the fence/outside the fence" because you're trying to split hairs in an effort to downplay what it is - arson committed against federal buildings. Again, proving my point you're treating the antifa/BLM side with kid gloves, but believing (without question) every single rumor and innuendo about the Capital Riots and ready to slap labels on them like "seditionists" or "domestic terrorist" and use phrases like "kill squads".
    - jacobolus 6y ago
      > Turned out to be a massive exaggeration This is a gross mischaracterization, like almost everything else you have written. > But at a hearing for Chansley later in the day in Phoenix, another prosecutor, Todd Allison, struck the line from the memo. > Allison said the statement may very well end up being appropriate at Chansley’s trial, but said prosecutors didn’t want to mislead the court and don’t have to rely on the stricken statement to argue that he should remain in jail. Ultimately, a judge on Friday ordered Chansley to be jailed until his trial. * * * > quibble [...] split hairs There is a dramatic difference between "lit the building on fire" vs. "started a fire in the vicinity of the building". Using the former language to describe the latter is grossly misleading. I don't really know the details here (maybe they did in fact light the building on fire?). I am just comparing the language you used vs. the language used in the source you linked, which do not agree. If people get charged and tried for arson or attempted arson in Portland in open court, that seems entirely reasonable to me. Prosecutors and defense attorneys will present their evidence, and a judge and/or jury will decide the merits based on the evidence and the text of the relevant statutes. > every single rumor and innuendo When a huge crowd is chanting "Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!" near the gallows they just constructed that is not a "rumor". > ready to slap labels on them like "seditionists" or "domestic terrorist" and use phrases like "kill squads". I didn't use any of those labels above. However, I am happy to agree with you that what many of the MAGA insurrectionists did almost certainly meets the legal definitions of both "seditious conspiracy" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 and "terrorism" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/101#18 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/101#18 * * * I'm out. Have fun with yourself.

refurb 6y ago

Alright dude. If you see nothing wrong with setting fires at a federal courthouses (does it matter if it’s inside or outside a fence) and shining lasers in cops eyes, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s clear that even if they burned the building down you’d find some way to weasel out of condemning it. And surprise, surprise the initial reports about “kidnap and kill squads” during the Capitol riots turned out to be false. No doubt the mainstream media will print retractions...right? ”The comments by Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin appeared to be an effort to walk back claims federal prosecutors in Arizona had made in a court filing late on Thursday, in which they alleged there was evidence that rioters intended “to capture and assassinate elected officials.”” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-capitol-arrests/u-s-now-says-no-evidence-of-kill-capture-teams-at-u-s-capitol-idUSKBN29K0K7?il=0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-capitol-arrests...

jacobolus 6y ago
No shit prosecutors don't want to make public statements that are even potentially stronger than what they can support in court, while in the middle of an active investigation. The DOJ has opened hundreds of investigations, arrested or put out warrants for dozens of people, and are still gathering evidence. There is little doubt that some of the MAGAs intended to harm or kill civilians in the Capitol building, including the Vice President. They repeatedly said so on tape, shouted it to the public, bragged about it to each-other, etc. Whether some groups of them constituted "kill squads" per se (whatever that means precisely) has not yet been proven out. > you see nothing wrong with setting fires at a federal courthouses Nobody said that. Literally every comment you make moves the goalposts and makes unfounded accusations, and you seem fundamentally incapable of admitting repeated misstatements. I just said that "starting a fire inside the fence" is categorically different from your previous characterization that they "set the building on fire". To be honest this conversation is going nowhere. I recommend you find some other interlocutor if you want to keep going.
- refurb 6y ago
  No shit prosecutors don't want to make public statements that are even potentially stronger than what they can support in court, while in the middle of an active investigation. But that's EXACTLY what they did. Turned out to be a massive exaggeration with no evidence to actually back it up. Didn't stop it from being covered broadly in the media and the "correction" getting no press at all. I just said that "starting a fire inside the fence" is categorically different from your previous characterization that they "set the building on fire". But why did you say that? And it's disingenuous when the article I linked to showed a burned out door to the building. And I know exactly why you quibble over "inside the fence/outside the fence" because you're trying to split hairs in an effort to downplay what it is - arson committed against federal buildings. Again, proving my point you're treating the antifa/BLM side with kid gloves, but believing (without question) every single rumor and innuendo about the Capital Riots and ready to slap labels on them like "seditionists" or "domestic terrorist" and use phrases like "kill squads".
  - jacobolus 6y ago
    > Turned out to be a massive exaggeration This is a gross mischaracterization, like almost everything else you have written. > But at a hearing for Chansley later in the day in Phoenix, another prosecutor, Todd Allison, struck the line from the memo. > Allison said the statement may very well end up being appropriate at Chansley’s trial, but said prosecutors didn’t want to mislead the court and don’t have to rely on the stricken statement to argue that he should remain in jail. Ultimately, a judge on Friday ordered Chansley to be jailed until his trial. * * * > quibble [...] split hairs There is a dramatic difference between "lit the building on fire" vs. "started a fire in the vicinity of the building". Using the former language to describe the latter is grossly misleading. I don't really know the details here (maybe they did in fact light the building on fire?). I am just comparing the language you used vs. the language used in the source you linked, which do not agree. If people get charged and tried for arson or attempted arson in Portland in open court, that seems entirely reasonable to me. Prosecutors and defense attorneys will present their evidence, and a judge and/or jury will decide the merits based on the evidence and the text of the relevant statutes. > every single rumor and innuendo When a huge crowd is chanting "Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!" near the gallows they just constructed that is not a "rumor". > ready to slap labels on them like "seditionists" or "domestic terrorist" and use phrases like "kill squads". I didn't use any of those labels above. However, I am happy to agree with you that what many of the MAGA insurrectionists did almost certainly meets the legal definitions of both "seditious conspiracy" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 and "terrorism" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/101#18 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/101#18 * * * I'm out. Have fun with yourself.