SCOTUS asks why prosecute J6 protesters but not Jamaal (fireman) bowman?

Text Drivers are Killers said:
No justice in america for conservatives while democrats are always above the law.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between pulling a fire alarm and being in a mob that stormed the Capital trying to prevent the electoral college vote and chanting about murdering the Vice President, however I do agree if intent on the part of the Congressman can be proven he should be prosecuted.
 
ExpressLane said:
Say what you want I have listened to the actual audio of the exchange. And the solicitor general response was basically because we say that doesn't count. That isn't going to fly with SCOTUS this is going to be a 6-3 vote and the government is going to lose. The ruling will gut Jack Smith's case against Trump.
Click to expand...

Right, you listened to the selection your right wing source provided, but had you continued on you would have seen that the solicitor general elaborated the position in response to questioning from Sotomayor. As I said, Gorsuch’s attempt was sophomoric

And there was never any doubt the Court will decide in Trump’s favor, it is his Court, but the ruling will only apply to those only charged with obstruction, and could, only could, throw out one of the four charges against Trump
 
RB 60 said:
But it did, I do agree...there seems to be two faces of justice.
Click to expand...

Do you agree that there is a huge difference in the actions of the mob that attacked police officers, trashed the capitol and chanted about murdering the VP and the actions of this Congressman?
 
Jarod said:
Do you agree that there is a huge difference in the actions of the mob that attacked police officers, trashed the capitol and chanted about murdering the VP and the actions of this Congressman?
Click to expand...

Yes, there's a difference. And justice should have been handed down according to participation. Simply just being there cost some of them their livelihood, not to mention a jail term. Bowman got nothing for trying to delay a senatorial vote.
 
I'm trying to understand how a fire alarm in an office a couple of blocks away from the Capitol building would hold up anything going on in the Chambers of Congress. SO, WTF was GORsucks thinking when he used Bowman as an analogy and trying to compare his action to those of the 1/6 thugs!

Bowman was attempting to go out an emergency exit in the Canon House office building, NOT THE CAPITOL BUILDING, whose doors would only become unlocked if the Fire Alarm goes off.

Here is a map of the Capitol, and shows where the Canon House office building is, in relationship to the Capitol building.

Not only that, pulling a fire alarm falsely, or going out an exit that sets off a fire alarm is a misdemeanor, as Bowman was charged and had to pay a $1,000 fine.

95% of the people tried in the 1/6 riot were convicted of misdemeanors with less fines than that! SO YOU SUCK GORSUCK! WHAT A FUCKING TRUMPTARDED IDIOT!

CVC_SystemMap_June2023_Web_0.png
 
Last edited:
QP! said:
You are showing your stupidity again as INTENT is key to these crimes and without intent THERE IS NO CRIME.

So if you, Terry, pull an alarm by accident that interrupts a proceeding there is no crime. But if you do it deliberately to interrupt the proceeding, it is a crime. But if a prosecutor believes he cannot prove your intent, he will not charge it.

Not every law requires intent, but most do.
Click to expand...

But that isn't the case with what's his name the congress critter. Unless you are brain dead or retarded, you know what a fire alarm is. It is clearly marked as such and you've seen more than a few in your lifetime. He knew what it was when he pulled it and knew what the response to it being pulled would be. It's no different than some kid pulling one in a school. The intent of the act is separate from the act itself.

Murder is murder, intent can only change the degree to which punishment is adjudged for having committed a murder. Your version would adjudge someone who accidently killed someone else innocent since there was no 'intent' to commit murder.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
But that isn't the case with what's his name the congress critter. Unless you are brain dead or retarded, you know what a fire alarm is. It is clearly marked as such and you've seen more than a few in your lifetime. He knew what it was when he pulled it and knew what the response to it being pulled would be. It's no different than some kid pulling one in a school. The intent of the act is separate from the act itself.

Murder is murder, intent can only change the degree to which punishment is adjudged for having committed a murder. Your version would adjudge someone who accidently killed someone else innocent since there was no 'intent' to commit murder.
Click to expand...

Again you said intent does not matter and you were wrong.

Now you are trying to switch to 'I know his intent'.

And that is fine that you think you know. You are one person.

Another person, on a jury who has to read his mind beyond any reasonable doubt could think it is possible someone in a different building did not suspect it would set off an alarm in another building. I have worked in connected buildings closer than those ones and an alarm in one did not automatically trigger an alarm in the other.

But again what i think does not matter either. This just is not a case any prosecutor would bring because of that possibility.

Quite different than what the Jan6 insurrectionists did and why they got charged.
 
Article I, Section 6

"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
 
RB 60 said:
Yes, there's a difference. And justice should have been handed down according to participation. Simply just being there cost some of them their livelihood, not to mention a jail term. Bowman got nothing for trying to delay a senatorial vote.
Click to expand...

Nobody went to jail for “just being there”. Silly.
 
Jarod said:
Nobody went to jail for “just being there”. Silly.
Click to expand...

460 have been jailed so far, and federal prosecutors have charged more than 1,265.

You go pull a (false) fire alarm and see if you don't get arrested. We'll wait...
Why did Bowman get away with it when he tried to purposely delay a congressional vote?
 
Flash said:
Article I, Section 6

"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Click to expand...

Pulling a (false) fire alarm on purpose to delay a congressional vote is a Breach of the Peace. DUH!
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
I'm trying to understand how a fire alarm in an office a couple of blocks away from the Capitol building would hold up anything going on in the Chambers of Congress. SO, WTF was GORsucks thinking when he used Bowman as an analogy and trying to compare his action to those of the 1/6 thugs!

Bowman was attempting to go out an emergency exit in the Canon House office building, NOT THE CAPITOL BUILDING, whose doors would only become unlocked if the Fire Alarm goes off.

Here is a map of the Capitol, and shows where the Canon House office building is, in relationship to the Capitol building.

Not only that, pulling a fire alarm falsely, or going out an exit that sets off a fire alarm is a misdemeanor, as Bowman was charged and had to pay a $1,000 fine.

95% of the people tried in the 1/6 riot were convicted of misdemeanors with less fines than that! SO YOU SUCK GORSUCK! WHAT A FUCKING TRUMPTARDED IDIOT!

CVC_SystemMap_June2023_Web_0.png
Click to expand...


Do you have proof of the statement in bold or did you just pull it out of your cloaca.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top