Y’all remember when Congress tried to pass a bill that would have expedited these cases and given the justice department more resources so they could prosecute each on to the fullest extent of the law? And then Republicans blocked it.
A lot of good Reasons for the people to revolt, our part in climate catastrophe for private profit, economic servitude to capital concentrating extremists that have captured the government that was supposed to protect the people from them, etc.
Jim crow nostalgia/white nationalism wasn’t one of them. They set back any positive change for a long time, because any form of resistance, like a general strike, will be conflated with their willfully ignorant racist asses.
These fucking judges.
deleted by creator
Idk, it sounds about white to me
Today I learned they hanged Mumford for less than what some of these people did.
Today I learned they hanged Mumford for less than what some of these people did.
The irony is, the Trumpers want to be able to deploy this style of harsh and unjust justice at will.
They were gleeful at the chance to do it on Jan 6th and those police officers that died, oh well, casualties of their war for freedum to do exactly that as they want. It would also be great to shut up the BLM, gays, climate scientists, drag queens, minorities, immigrants, and especially Democrats and progressives.
They would love to hang all of these “evil” people that kill babies and drink their blood. It’s really terrifying what they are digesting inside their cult feedback loops when one begins to peel back the layers.
They are now more than a bunch of dolts being grifted, well there’s still plenty of them being grifted without a doubt, but the issues still remain with their reality and what they hope to do to clean up the world and to simplify everything down.
The irony is, the Trumpers want to be able to deploy this style of harsh and unjust justice at will.
So do people here arguing for harsh sentences because they don’t like them.
Mob Justice isn’t justice regardless of who the mob is
That was during wartime and it was a court martial. Courts martial are still notoriously harsher than civil courts today.
The headline upsets me on its face, and without question fuck these traitorous cult members, but immediately I go to thoughts of “how much lighter?” and “how much does it compare to typical trials?”
Thank you for a level-headed critical thought about the article, rather than the rest of the trash in this comment section which is nearly universally just knee-jerk mindless outrage.
That being said, I would be curious, like you, how this compares to typical trials.
Also, as some allude to in the article, this is actually a good thing because it absolutely undercuts the maga cultist outrage that this is an out of control judiciary handing out excessive punishments to political prisoners. Not that the facts will get to them, but at least I have the facts to confirm it.
I can’t be sure, but from what little I’ve seen of judges in action, I would guess substantially… but perhaps not for the reason we think.
Yes lack of remorse is a major component to sentencing, but so are a few other things that I think work on 1/6 rioters’ favor. Likelihood to reoffend is arguably low because 1/6 was uniquely stupid. Being told by a US president to commit the crime is arguably somewhat mitigating (to the person, not to the president). These crimes were committed in what ostensibly could (should) have been a peaceful protest that got out of hand, so judges might question the severity of premeditation. All of these are typically valid reasons to lighten up sentencing. And then there’s a sadly invalid one that probably mattered - light-skinned people are sentenced lighter than dark-skinned ones, and most of the 1/6 protestors were white.
In aggregate, there is value to going hard on all the traitors. Of individual offenders, it might be a more difficult place for a judge to sit, for both good and terrible reasons. But importantly, there’s a lot of argument that we’re not looking at judges that thought 1/6 was “perfectly fine”. Such a judge would more likely find an excuse to dismiss (with or without prejudice) if they think the case is moving towards prosecution. We have simply not seen a lot of that.
I can’t be sure, but from what little I’ve seen of judges in action, I would guess substantially… but perhaps not for the reason we think.
Can I ask what this is all based on?
One part a family obsession with streaming court recordings. The other part things I’d rather not answer.
Just being honest here, but I know nothing about you or your family, so I have no reason to take your claims at face value. This empty answer just leads me to believe it’s based on a gut feeling rather than any objective, educated analysis.
I don’t mean it as an attack, just expressing how it should be interpreted by an objective, rational observer.
Just being honest here, I don’t care what you think.
This empty answer just leads me to believe it’s based on a gut feeling
I said it was a gut feeling that they got more light sentences than we would like AND that I don’t (entirely, I do a little) blame the judges for that. So you’re right to believe what I said was a gut feeling was a gut feeling. (being quite literal, since you seem to need that, I used the words “I’d guess”). This is largely how court works. Here’s a quick high-level on mitigating circumstances, in case you think for some reason I’m making that part up, too.
rather than any objective, educated analysis.
Not exactly sure why you would come to that conclusion. Are you having reddit flashbacks or something?
I don’t mean it as an attack, just expressing how it should be interpreted by an objective, rational observer.
With all due respect, demanding evidence or proof from everything anyone says in a civil discourse is absolutely an attack. I said absolutely nothing that was inflammatory or problematic, or that might lead one to question the ernestnest of my testimony.
Are you acquianted philosophical principles of credulity (Swinburg, Reid?)? It is entirely reasonable to expect one’s testimony to be treated as credible if:
- They have nothing personal to gain
- They and you have no direct stake in the discussion
- Nothing they said directly contradicts reality as you know it.
Solipsism is absurd. Incredulity towards everything is absurd.
So why exactly do you find my explanation of my experiences incredible? What do I have to gain? What do you have to lose?
EDIT: The irony is that you seem to agree with much of what I said anyway. So why are you hitting me with over-the-top cynicism?
With all due respect, demanding evidence or proof from everything anyone says in a civil discourse is absolutely an attack.
I’m not demanding anything. I asked if anyone had an objective analysis to compare it to what happens generally. By your own admission, you are just going with your gut, and I’m explaining why your gut means nothing to me.
If you feel attacked, that’s your own doing, not mine.
Traitors.
Remind me again what the Constitutional punishment for treason is?
The definition of treason in the COTUS is very narrow and this clearly does not meet that definition. Not that the facts matter when we’re trying to be outraged.
It is in no way clear that it doesn’t meet the definition. An armed group attacked our capital for the purpose of overthrowing the government.
“ Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. He stated: On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.”
There is nothing in that quote that contradicts my point. It’s just arguing that actually taking up arms is not a requirement.
In fact.
if war be actually levied
Actually supports my point because this was part of no war.
You’re deliberately interpreting “war” in the narrow sense of conflict between countries, but that’s not the extent of the definition in English common law where the phrase came from.
A group attempting to effect by force a treasonous purpose is sufficient, as clearly stated in the quote.
Show me in common law where war is interpreted in a way that would include this insurrection.
And, again, your quote isn’t about the definition of war or even force, but that one doesn’t need to take up arms in order to be guilty of treason.
The quote says “if war actually be levied, that is…”
So you see the phrase “that is”? In the English language, we understand that to mean defining the preceding term. The words following “that is” are therefore defining what it means to levy war in this context.
And it’s easier to find interpretations of the term by modern judges than to dig through English case law, so here’s one: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914a8e8add7b04934706331
Just wait for when they let Trump off and run in Colorado and Maine despite the insurrection article. Should be interesting.
I am curious what they will let things off for. It is one thing to deny the term insurrection being accurate, it is another say he is immune to charges for trying to use fake electors. I think the denial of losing the election after even having an investigation come back hired by them and say it was legitimate, the fake electors and the multiple usages of the term fight with the constant we will give more information later is what adds up to the full grasp of it being undeniable that he intended to overthrow our system of government through stealing the election.
When they try to break it down into parts and minimize each, is what will assist them being able to deny terminology and make light of the situation.
Those rulings are just for the primaries in those states, not the general election. The RNC has already said they’ll do something different in those states so he’ll be the candidate, and on the ballot, in the general election
He’s not eligible for office. If they don’t want a candidate on the ballot, that’s fine by me.
Might be a good opportunity for a third party. The greens are run by Russia, right? Throw those traitors on there. They haven’t committed insurrection yet.
Perhaps the most surprising finding is that the judges appointed by President Joe Biden have been slightly more lenient than those appointed by former President Donald Trump. Biden appointees issued lighter sentences than prosecutors sought for January 6 defendants in 24 of the 26 cases they handled, or 92 percent, effectively tying with George W. Bush appointees as the most lenient. Judges appointed by Trump, meanwhile, have issued more lenient sentences in 90 percent of their cases.
Trump and his allies have repeatedly claimed that the federal judicial system has been unnecessarily punitive in its treatment of January 6 defendants, complaining that they are “political prisoners” who have been unfairly persecuted for trying to prevent the congressional certification of Biden’s 2020 election.
Stop doing that!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Federal judges handling the criminal cases of hundreds of people charged in connection with the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol have overwhelmingly issued sentences far more lenient than Justice Department prosecutors sought, an analysis by The Intercept reveals.
In 82 percent of the 719 January 6-related cases that have been resolved, and in which the defendants have either pleaded guilty or been convicted, judges have issued lighter sentences than federal prosecutors requested, the analysis of Justice Department data through December 4, 2023, shows.
Trump and his allies have repeatedly claimed that the federal judicial system has been unnecessarily punitive in its treatment of January 6 defendants, complaining that they are “political prisoners” who have been unfairly persecuted for trying to prevent the congressional certification of Biden’s 2020 election.
The January 6 defendants have been charged with a wide range of crimes, including low-level violations like disorderly conduct and unlawful entry that would be forgettable if they were not committed with the aim of derailing the peaceful transfer of power.
On his way to Washington, Minuta filmed a video of himself warning that “millions will die” in a looming civil war; just before the Capitol riot began, he and Meggs were part of a security detail for Trump adviser Roger Stone.
Judge John Bates, now on “senior” or semi-retired status, issued sentences more lenient than prosecutors sought in all 28 of the January 6 cases he handled, often turning down requests for prison time and letting defendants walk free.
The original article contains 3,829 words, the summary contains 251 words. Saved 93%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Do you know who else got lenient punishment despite attempting a coup…
Weren’t a lot of them installed by the GOP leading up to Trump’s presidency? I know the GOP was pushing through a lot if confirmations when they had control of the senate.
The article points out that there are not large differences in leniency between judges appointed by different presidents,
and that, if anything, judges appointed by Republicans are harsher.and that, if anything, judges appointed by Republicans are harsher.
? I’m skimming the article but these passages seem to suggest the opposite:
Judges appointed by Trump have issued lesser sentences than prosecutors wanted at only a slightly higher rate than Obama appointees. Out of 173 cases, Trump appointees gave lighter sentences than the government requested in 156. Trump appointees agreed to the sentences recommended by prosecutors in 16 cases, while issuing a harsher sentence in one.
By contrast, judges appointed by President Bill Clinton have meted out the harshest sentences, yet they have still been more lenient than prosecutors recommended slightly more than half the time. George W. Bush appointed judges have issued lesser sentences than prosecutors sought in 50 out of 54 cases, or 92 percent, while judges appointed by Ronald Reagan issued more lenient sentences in 42 out of 68 cases, or 61 percent.
The most lenient individual judge handling January 6 cases was not appointed by Trump or Biden, but by George W. Bush. Judge John Bates, now on “senior” or semi-retired status, issued sentences more lenient than prosecutors sought in all 28 of the January 6 cases he handled, often turning down requests for prison time and letting defendants walk free.
Curiously enough, the plurality were appointed by Obama.
Not even the first time Obama appointees cut far-right idiots and assholes some slack. Still found it fucking hilarious that Eric Holder couldn’t find anyone in the Bush Administration worth prosecuting. Particularly when Bush goons like Ron DeSantis and Chris Christie would move right on over to state government positions in subsequent years.
If I remember correctly (and I admit I’m probably not lol), is that when Obama would nominate a judge and the GOP would say no until he nominated someone they wanted?
Merrick Garland was Lindsey Graham’s stated preference for Obama’s SCOTUS pick and Graham still blackballed him when Obama made the nomination.
Probably cause they are all white.
Probably because their crimes paled compared to riots in major cities in the previous few years. How many of the people who took over Seattle are in prison? There was federal property there.
their crimes paled compared to riots
Does a riot
Okay, yes, sure. But it wasn’t like when THOSE PEOPLE do riots.
This was ABSOLUTELY the case in the fall of the Weimar Republic. One of the very notable things was that as political violence increased, punishment and severity of punishment of the left also dramatically increased. Meanwhile the fascists were often let off or given only a slap on the wrists. EXACTLY like Jan 6th.
Tolerance of the intolerant will get you, and everyone you loved killed. Never go easy on Nazis.
A short easy read: https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/comment-excusing-violence-as-patriotic-has-proved-dangerous/
You can draw a straight line between degree of sentencing and personal wealth/prestige in the Jan 6th prosecutions. The Right/Left dichotomy is far more often a simple Rich/Poor one, with better representation and more forgiving verdicts handed out to people with the means to pay for them.
Tolerance of the intolerant will get you, and everyone you loved killed.
We’re so far past the idea of the Tolerance Paradox. You get to show tolerance when you have the power to perform otherwise. But these are all petite bourgeois hacks keeping it chill inside the good ole’ boys club. None of us are issuing these verdicts. None of us have any kind of say as to how these insurrection cases are handled.
