4 ms·

Money of that quantity doesn't just disappear unless someone wants it to. Why isn't the DoJ involved threatening criminal action to put people in jail?

grecy 2y ago
Because rich people got richer, which is always ok
briandear 2y ago
[flagged]
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  J6 was an insurrection that should have been appropriately responded to with immediate and overwhelming national guard force (not necessarily lethal), not a protest. Much of the situation we are in is a result of treating everyone involved in J6 with kid gloves.
  - bboygravity 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - jimjimjim 2y ago
      as opposed to quite accurate parotting of extremist infotainment?
    - cancerhacker 2y ago
      Your contempt fails to bolster your argument. I would propose that both crimes should be investigated - the fact that J6 litigation consumed so many resources is unfortunate. But it was also well underway when this particular scheme collapsed. I do fear that the new administration stated aims of reducing regulations and oversight remaining in this space will make it even harder for the DOJ to pursue financial crimes (or even to be inclined to.)
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > J6 was an insurrection that should have been appropriately responded to with immediate and overwhelming national guard force (not necessarily lethal), not a protest. This is incorrect. It wasn’t an insurrection but also not a legally protected protest. It was a riot. No one has been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted for it. That word has only been used by news media, politicians, and private citizens. The most serious charge was seditious conspiracy but only a few people (like five) were charged with that. Most of the charges were for simple trespassing since most people on the Capitol grounds were not involved in any conspiracy and weren’t violent or destructive either.
    - atombender 2y ago
      The word "insurrection" — according to most dictionaries, meaning a "violent uprising against civil authority or established government" or some variation thereof — is perfectly fine to describe Jan 6. It has no legal meaning, so nobody can get charged for participating in an insurrection, but that is of course irrelevant to the question of whether the word is appropriate. There's no legal term for many words that we use colloquially or narratively to describe actions with which one may be legally charged with a crime. If you steal someone's wallet, you may be charged with "theft of personal property", not "pickpocketing", but what you did was pickpocketing. The fact that most participants were not violent is of course a red herring. They participated in an organized insurrection involving trespassing, destruction of property, conspiracy to commit treason (many participants were actively looking for Mike Pence and the crowd was chanting "Hang Pence"), and so on. "I was only at the party to have fun" is no excuse if the party was an violent, organized riot. You are the company you keep.
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        > The word "insurrection" — according to most dictionaries, meaning a "violent uprising against civil authority or established government" or some variation thereof — is perfectly fine to describe Jan 6. So every riot is an insurrection then. Do you personally use this word to describe the BLM riots in 2020? What about pro Palestine / anti Israel demonstrations in 2024 that involve blockades of airports and such?
- cg5280 2y ago
  I feel bad she was manipulated into being there, but being a fool is not a good excuse for breaking the law. We for some reason decided not to hold the real instigators accountable, which means I'm sure it will happen again.
UltraSane 2y ago
Because they only stole from poor people who can't lobby. The article even quotes someone saying as much.

grecy 2y ago

Because rich people got richer, which is always ok

briandear 2y ago

[flagged]

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
J6 was an insurrection that should have been appropriately responded to with immediate and overwhelming national guard force (not necessarily lethal), not a protest. Much of the situation we are in is a result of treating everyone involved in J6 with kid gloves.
- bboygravity 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jimjimjim 2y ago
    as opposed to quite accurate parotting of extremist infotainment?
  - cancerhacker 2y ago
    Your contempt fails to bolster your argument. I would propose that both crimes should be investigated - the fact that J6 litigation consumed so many resources is unfortunate. But it was also well underway when this particular scheme collapsed. I do fear that the new administration stated aims of reducing regulations and oversight remaining in this space will make it even harder for the DOJ to pursue financial crimes (or even to be inclined to.)
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > J6 was an insurrection that should have been appropriately responded to with immediate and overwhelming national guard force (not necessarily lethal), not a protest. This is incorrect. It wasn’t an insurrection but also not a legally protected protest. It was a riot. No one has been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted for it. That word has only been used by news media, politicians, and private citizens. The most serious charge was seditious conspiracy but only a few people (like five) were charged with that. Most of the charges were for simple trespassing since most people on the Capitol grounds were not involved in any conspiracy and weren’t violent or destructive either.
  - atombender 2y ago
    The word "insurrection" — according to most dictionaries, meaning a "violent uprising against civil authority or established government" or some variation thereof — is perfectly fine to describe Jan 6. It has no legal meaning, so nobody can get charged for participating in an insurrection, but that is of course irrelevant to the question of whether the word is appropriate. There's no legal term for many words that we use colloquially or narratively to describe actions with which one may be legally charged with a crime. If you steal someone's wallet, you may be charged with "theft of personal property", not "pickpocketing", but what you did was pickpocketing. The fact that most participants were not violent is of course a red herring. They participated in an organized insurrection involving trespassing, destruction of property, conspiracy to commit treason (many participants were actively looking for Mike Pence and the crowd was chanting "Hang Pence"), and so on. "I was only at the party to have fun" is no excuse if the party was an violent, organized riot. You are the company you keep.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      > The word "insurrection" — according to most dictionaries, meaning a "violent uprising against civil authority or established government" or some variation thereof — is perfectly fine to describe Jan 6. So every riot is an insurrection then. Do you personally use this word to describe the BLM riots in 2020? What about pro Palestine / anti Israel demonstrations in 2024 that involve blockades of airports and such?
cg5280 2y ago
I feel bad she was manipulated into being there, but being a fool is not a good excuse for breaking the law. We for some reason decided not to hold the real instigators accountable, which means I'm sure it will happen again.

UltraSane 2y ago

Because they only stole from poor people who can't lobby. The article even quotes someone saying as much.