Trump supporters behaving like the bags of ass that they are
- Thread starter PliggaNease
- Start date
This guy is in college? He looks 40 years old.
I did an improv show at an elemtary school one time. It was the easiest show because I didn't have to be clever, didn't have to have a strong character, I just had to make voices and fall down a lot. It's really easy to entertain children, or people with the brains of children.
J6 terrorists
Who are the 1,000 alleged rioters?
The defendants – who came from nearly all 50 states – are a tough group to generalize. Most of them appear to be white men, though not entirely.
About 15% of the defendants have a background in the military or law enforcement. For context, about 7% of the U.S. population are military veterans. Police and sheriff patrol officers make up less than 1% of the population.
The difficulty in categorizing this group has caused some experts concern. One in four defendants are facing assault or some other violent charge, yet the vast majority of people facing charges – nearly 85% – do not have any known connection to extremist groups.
"It's not like they all had previous convictions for violence or this kind of long running history of violent assault against political individuals or law enforcement. They were just willing to commit violence on that day," says Jon Lewis, a research fellow at George Washington University's Program on Extremism. "They truly thought the election was stolen. They truly thought that was their day in the sun, that they were the patriots. They were the heroes of that story."
"It's not just the scary Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Communities are learning that one does not have to be so far gone, and such a follower of extremist movements, to still be animated to some pretty dangerous efforts to undermine our democracy," adds Oren Segal, vice president of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism. "Does that mean extremism is becoming mainstream, which sounds a little bit like an oxymoron? Does it mean that the in-roads, the agendas, of those who are the farthest, most extreme, are now becoming normalized? I think the answer is yes."
An overview of the cases so far
Who are the 1,000 alleged rioters?
The defendants – who came from nearly all 50 states – are a tough group to generalize. Most of them appear to be white men, though not entirely.
About 15% of the defendants have a background in the military or law enforcement. For context, about 7% of the U.S. population are military veterans. Police and sheriff patrol officers make up less than 1% of the population.
The difficulty in categorizing this group has caused some experts concern. One in four defendants are facing assault or some other violent charge, yet the vast majority of people facing charges – nearly 85% – do not have any known connection to extremist groups.
"It's not like they all had previous convictions for violence or this kind of long running history of violent assault against political individuals or law enforcement. They were just willing to commit violence on that day," says Jon Lewis, a research fellow at George Washington University's Program on Extremism. "They truly thought the election was stolen. They truly thought that was their day in the sun, that they were the patriots. They were the heroes of that story."
"It's not just the scary Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Communities are learning that one does not have to be so far gone, and such a follower of extremist movements, to still be animated to some pretty dangerous efforts to undermine our democracy," adds Oren Segal, vice president of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism. "Does that mean extremism is becoming mainstream, which sounds a little bit like an oxymoron? Does it mean that the in-roads, the agendas, of those who are the farthest, most extreme, are now becoming normalized? I think the answer is yes."
An overview of the cases so far
- Number of people charged, federal: 994
- Number of people charged, D.C.: 24
- Number of people who have pleaded guilty: 541
- Number of individuals who have had jury or bench trials: 67
- The number convicted on all charges: 42
- The number acquitted on all charges: 1
- The number with mixed verdicts: 24
- Number of people sentenced: 445
- The percentage of people sentenced who have received prison time: 58
- The median sentence for those who received prison time, in days: 60
- The prison sentence range: 7 days to 10 years
- The number of cases dismissed: 5 federal; 8 D.C. Superior Court
They all loss?
Judge rejects Trump's privilege claims over Pence testimony in Jan. 6 probe
A federal judge has rejected Trump's assertion of executive privilege.
ByKatherine Faulders,John Santucci andAlexander Mallin
March 28, 2023
abcnews.go.com
The top federal judge for the D.C. district court has issued a swift rejection of former President Donald Trump's assertion of executive privilege to prevent former Vice President Mike Pence from testifying before a grand jury investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
At the same time, the judge issued a ruling that narrowly upheld parts of a separate legal challenge brought by Pence's attorneys, who have argued Pence should be exempt from providing records or answering certain questions that align with his duties as president of the Senate overseeing the formal certification of the election on Jan. 6, 2021.
According to sources, D.C. Chief Judge James Boasberg ordered that Pence should have to provide answers to special counsel Jack Smith on any questions that implicate any illegal acts on Trump's part.
Pence's team had argued that such communications could run afoul of the Speech and Debate Clause that shields officials in Congress from legal proceedings specifically related to their work.
"The DOJ is continuously stepping far outside the standard norms in attempting to destroy the long accepted, long held, Constitutionally based standards of attorney-client privilege and executive privilege," a Trump spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News.
"There is no factual or legal basis or substance to any case against President Trump," the statement said. "The deranged Democrats and their comrades in the mainstream media are corrupting the legal process and weaponizing the justice system in order to manipulate and influence an election in which President Trump is dominating all across the board."
The special counsel's office declined to comment to ABC News. A spokesperson for Pence did not immediately respond.
Boasberg's rulings came just four days after his and Pence's lawyers appeared at the district court to argue their challenge to the subpoena from the special counsel.
It was not immediately clear whether Trump or Pence's legal teams are planning to appeal the rulings.
Pence has previously vowed to fight the subpoena to the Supreme Court if necessary, most recently telling ABC's Chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl, "We're going to respect the decisions of the court, and that may take us to the highest court in the land."
The February subpoena to Pence demanded he provide documents and testimony related to the failed attempt by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election and followed months of negotiations between federal prosecutors and Pence's legal team.
Boasberg's orders followed upon another recent ruling by his predecessor in the role as D.C.'s chief judge, Judge Beryl Howell, who similarly rejected Trump's claims of executive privilege over the testimony of multiple other top aides, including his former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
In a letter reviewed by ABC News, White House special counsel Richard Sauber informed Jack Smith that President Joe Biden would not be asserting executive privilege over Pence's testimony.
"These events -- which reflected the most serious attack on the operations of the Federal Government since the Civil War -- threatened not only the safety of Congress and others present at the Capitol, but also the principles of democracy enshrined in our history and our Constitution," Sauber wrote to Smith in February, after Smith had reached out the White House to determine whether the president planned to assert privilege over Pence's grand jury appearance.
"In light of these unique circumstances, President Biden has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the public interest with respect to the efforts to thwart the orderly transition of power under our Constitution."
A federal judge has rejected Trump's assertion of executive privilege.
ByKatherine Faulders,John Santucci andAlexander Mallin
March 28, 2023
Judge rejects Trump's privilege claims over Pence testimony in Jan. 6 probe
A judge has rejected former President Trump's assertion of executive privilege to keep former Vice President Pence from testifying about efforts to overturn the election.
The top federal judge for the D.C. district court has issued a swift rejection of former President Donald Trump's assertion of executive privilege to prevent former Vice President Mike Pence from testifying before a grand jury investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
At the same time, the judge issued a ruling that narrowly upheld parts of a separate legal challenge brought by Pence's attorneys, who have argued Pence should be exempt from providing records or answering certain questions that align with his duties as president of the Senate overseeing the formal certification of the election on Jan. 6, 2021.
According to sources, D.C. Chief Judge James Boasberg ordered that Pence should have to provide answers to special counsel Jack Smith on any questions that implicate any illegal acts on Trump's part.
Pence's team had argued that such communications could run afoul of the Speech and Debate Clause that shields officials in Congress from legal proceedings specifically related to their work.
"The DOJ is continuously stepping far outside the standard norms in attempting to destroy the long accepted, long held, Constitutionally based standards of attorney-client privilege and executive privilege," a Trump spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News.
"There is no factual or legal basis or substance to any case against President Trump," the statement said. "The deranged Democrats and their comrades in the mainstream media are corrupting the legal process and weaponizing the justice system in order to manipulate and influence an election in which President Trump is dominating all across the board."
The special counsel's office declined to comment to ABC News. A spokesperson for Pence did not immediately respond.
Boasberg's rulings came just four days after his and Pence's lawyers appeared at the district court to argue their challenge to the subpoena from the special counsel.
It was not immediately clear whether Trump or Pence's legal teams are planning to appeal the rulings.
Pence has previously vowed to fight the subpoena to the Supreme Court if necessary, most recently telling ABC's Chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl, "We're going to respect the decisions of the court, and that may take us to the highest court in the land."
The February subpoena to Pence demanded he provide documents and testimony related to the failed attempt by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election and followed months of negotiations between federal prosecutors and Pence's legal team.
Boasberg's orders followed upon another recent ruling by his predecessor in the role as D.C.'s chief judge, Judge Beryl Howell, who similarly rejected Trump's claims of executive privilege over the testimony of multiple other top aides, including his former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
In a letter reviewed by ABC News, White House special counsel Richard Sauber informed Jack Smith that President Joe Biden would not be asserting executive privilege over Pence's testimony.
"These events -- which reflected the most serious attack on the operations of the Federal Government since the Civil War -- threatened not only the safety of Congress and others present at the Capitol, but also the principles of democracy enshrined in our history and our Constitution," Sauber wrote to Smith in February, after Smith had reached out the White House to determine whether the president planned to assert privilege over Pence's grand jury appearance.
"In light of these unique circumstances, President Biden has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the public interest with respect to the efforts to thwart the orderly transition of power under our Constitution."
"Based on what you know" is a sign that they know they're polling people that exist in right wing bubbles.
I thought it was a dyke lesbian, but a dyke lesbian wouldn't have a purse. This idiot looks like he's transitioning from a woman to a man, and hadn't gotten the top surgery yet. Look at those moobs.The fact that this idiot has a purse around his neck is Irony worthy of his idiocy
Last edited:
This is why I hate these bitch ass talking heads. They never leave their safe spaces, so they can create their own reality.
