https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/01/jan-6-terrorism-sentencing-penalty-00048922?cid=apn
“Friedrich also said she worried that Reffitt not be unduly punished for deciding to go to trial, rather than enter into a plea bargain with prosecutors.” Hmmm, some young miscreants that have tried that locally got long sentences if they wanted a trial over plea bargaining.
This felon was armed with a gun and attacked the Capitol, engaging with police. He was a gang member. Both before and after the attack, he said he was going to drag legislators by ropes down the steps.
The judge decided to soften what prosecutors were demanding. A man who willingly participated in an effort to overturn the election should be relieved he lives in our country. Somehow I doubt he realizes or appreciates what we have here.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
The judge’s reasoning seems sound.
Harvard found that only 8% of those involved in the riot intended anything that could be thought of as insurrection, and that most, though perhaps misled, thought they were there to defend democracy.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/07/31/harvard-study-only-8-of-capitol-rioters-wanted-insurrection/
LikeLike
During the protests in 2020, the provocateurs were few in number, but they got the protesters riled up.
Like a lynching in the old days, a few leaders would get a mob of citizens to follow them to the jail.
“Mob mentality” is a weapon, unfortunately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does that in any way justify sentencing those swept up in the moment at the same level as the handful who really meant violence?
LikeLike
But they are not. The majority are getting
probation or minimal jail terms. Like you might get if you broke a store window or refused to obey a cop on the street or trespassed by breaking a barrier.
Read the actual study as reported in the Crimson. It only studied the documents of about 1/2 the cases.
“… researchers found that 20.6 percent of the rioters, a plurality, were motivated to take part in the riot because they supported Trump. Another 20.6 percent of the rioters cited Trump’s fraudulent claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged as their primary reason for participating in the Jan. 6 riot.”
The other 8% were the hardcore. 4% were Q nuts. So what were the other almost 50%? Tourists?
They just studied the arrested files. Estimates were that there were 1000 that entered the Capitol and 10,000 on the grounds.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/7/26/trump-jan-6-hks-study/
There are damning connections among Bannon, Stone, et.al. with gangs. Stone even joined one. Both, of course, were close confidants of the president. And they were in the war room at the Willard on and just before 1/6. That is the meat of the investigation that is starting to surface.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” The majority are getting
probation or minimal jail terms.”
There you go with your facts, again. How dare you? 😇
LikeLike
The few hundred hardcore gang members used the mob as “cannon fodder”. Modus operandi for most coups and attempted coups.
Prosecutions were a wake up call to many of the “misled” that they were, in fact, misled.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now that is hilarious, by your own words, you honestly think a “few hundred hard core gang members” were even remotely capable of conducting a coup against the US? That is what is so stupid abt this whole phony narrative of a coup or insurrection. It was an out of hand riot with cell phones and doobies as “weapons”, not a coup or insurrection which would have been literally impossible to execute without at least half the nation armed and storming the capital with the military participating. You democrats are cracking me up, especially phony Luria trying to act all patriotic in relection ads that she claims are for reelection. Sure….
LikeLike
The goal was to force Pence to delay the count or reject the electors. We know that from sworn testimonies of Trump loyalists.
But you can believe what you want, of course.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was a disagreement over who won in a suspicious election full of irregularities and last minute illegal changes to election law. Trump never gained much traction in contesting it so no matter how you try to paint it, it was far from a coup or insurrection. I recall a similar contesting of an election between Bush and Gore.
LikeLike
…”a suspicious election full of irregularities”
Unproven in over 60 lawsuits. Not to mention audits and other normal procedures to verify election results.
The similarities between Bush and Gore and Trump are not even close. It was ONE state and SCOTUS decided in favor of Bush, thanks to the Brooks Brothers Mafia. And Gore conceded shortly thereafter. Trump’s attempts were in several states, with lawsuit after lawsuit tossed not only on merits, but on lack of evidence. Remember what Rudy told Arizona? “We have lots of theories, just no evidence.” And Trump still has NOT conceded. And don’t forget about the Cyber Ninjas who found MORE votes in AZ for Biden and FEWER votes for Trump.
If you are living in a theoretical world, nothing will EVER be proven to those who don’t want to believe in facts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you have solid evidence of issues with the election or are you just relying on Trump?
There were some changes made to election procedures to deal with the pandemic. There were no challenges before the election by either Republicans or Democrats. And challenging procedures after losing is bogus. Especially if neither party addresses that beforehand. A judge, one of about 60, said as much.
This was probably the most transparent and analyzed election in history. Two post election forensic investigations, AZ and WI both found nothing. Both were ordered and run by Republicans. Other states had multiple recounts, and sampling tests of key districts. Signature verification was shown to be accurate also. A million dollar challenge by Texas’ Lt. Governor was met with just a few Republicans who voted their dead parents. (He reneged on the payout, too.)
There is a case before SCOTUS regarding a legal interpretation of the “independent legislature theory”. This might address what body can or cannot be the final arbiter of state election laws and procedures. A ruling will be out next summer probably.
There was no “disagreement” about the election, just an attempt to overturn it without evidence. We know this was the plan before the election and before any results were known.
A rally was planned, “it will be wild” and “all hell will break loose” were promised by Trump and Bannon. A March on the Capitol was also planned and “ordered” by Trump, as related by the attackers in testimony. One has to wonder what Trump was expecting to do at the Capitol had he actually gone himself as he said he wanted to do.
The White House lawyers knew that could lead to a Constitutional crisis and did all they could to prevent it.
And we know even after begging by staff and threatened Congressmen, the president did nothing for over 3 hours. Except a tweet during the rampage and while the mob was chanting for Pence’s hanging. A tweet that said the VP has no courage to turn over the election.
You can disagree with what I wrote, but unless you have evidence for your position, I’ll stand by mine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Evidence? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Theories are good enough. Just ask Rudy.
LikeLike
Correct, Mr. Smith. Ty
LikeLike
He is NOT correct. But you just keep up the parrot-troll act.
LikeLike
Personal attacks…again. When do you plan on being the virtuous soul you claim to be? Or is it or the truth just not in you? Of course I’m correct.
LikeLike
Calling a troll a troll, is NOT a personal attack. If he wants to say something meaningful, fine. But parroting YOUR BS is troll-like behavior.
And I NEVER claimed to be a saint. And why are you so vigorous in your defense of RE? Family member? Cult acolyte? Or yourself?
LikeLike
“Personal attacks…again. When do you plan on being the virtuous soul you claim to be? Or is it or the truth just not in you? Of course I’m correct.”
Correct again, Mr. Smith…ty
LikeLike
As I have said in the past, I would be interested to “hear” what you have to say if it weren’t simple parrot trolling.
Defend yourself. Unless You and Mr. Smith ARE yourself. Of course I am correct also.
LikeLike