Legitimate Political Discourse?

[Binger]

So, was I correct that you want the members of one of the hooligan acts to be prosecuted by the AG? Or, are you retracting that short suggestion?

Criminal acts need to be prosecuted by the appropriate jurisdiction, for instance, misdeeds in Denver would not be prosecuted by the feds, unless there was some overriding federal interest involved. Insurrections at the Capitol are federal in nature.

Oh, so who should prosecute the hooligans who are demonstrating a position that is against the federal government or a federal government event on federal property? What about the same on state property? What about municipal property? What about in DC, which does not have statehood?

What about a federal courthouse? Should hooligans vandalizing federal property be prosecuted by the AG?

[canpakes]

Criminal acts need to be prosecuted by the appropriate jurisdiction, for instance, misdeeds in Denver would not be prosecuted by the feds, unless there was some overriding federal interest involved. Insurrections at the Capitol are federal in nature.

Oh, so who should prosecute the hooligans who are demonstrating a position that is against the federal government or a federal government event on federal property? What about the same on state property? What about municipal property? What about in DC, which does not have statehood?

What about a federal courthouse? Should hooligans vandalizing federal property be prosecuted by the AG?

Do you believe so?

Is smashing into the Capitol 'legitimate political discourse'?

[Binger]

I am basing this on his suggestion that the AG should prosecute one group of hooligans.

The others have been prosecuted. Even the Boogaloo Boi who murdered cops in California just before FOX News blamed Antifa.

Man who helped ignite George Floyd riots identified as white supremacist: Police

AP finds most arrested in protests aren’t leftist radicals

Your assumption that all the violence and all the fires during the Floyd protests were from people Moksha "likes" is unfounded nonsense.

Since you were on the topic of white supremacy. Joe Biden and Strom Thurmond were pals. Remember Strom? They wrote a law that put crack users in prison. Now, Joe Biden wants to provide free crack pipes to crack users. My question to you, K Graham, is it more racist to hand out free crack pipes in communities with black citizens, or in your community? I do not want to be racist, so I am politely asking where one can pass out these free crack pipes from Joe Biden without being racist.

[Moksha]

Oh, so who should prosecute the hooligans who are demonstrating a position that is against the federal government or a federal government event on federal property? What about the same on state property? What about municipal property? What about in DC, which does not have statehood?

What about a federal courthouse? Should hooligans vandalizing federal property be prosecuted by the AG?

It's like you are some repetitive computer program spitting out an endless stream of inane questions.

[Binger]

Oh, so who should prosecute the hooligans who are demonstrating a position that is against the federal government or a federal government event on federal property? What about the same on state property? What about municipal property? What about in DC, which does not have statehood?

What about a federal courthouse? Should hooligans vandalizing federal property be prosecuted by the AG?

It's like you are some repetitive computer program spitting out an endless stream of inane questions.

Is it?

Okay. So here is a question. If two hooligans each commit vandalism in a protest against the federal government, which one should the AG prosecute and why?

[Chap]

What evidence do you have that Moksha wants serious criminal acts by one lot of hooligans to be treated differently from serious criminal acts by another lot of hooligans?

Please cite some statement by him that show that to be his view.

I am basing this on his suggestion that the AG should prosecute one group of hooligans.

Oh, right. So if Moksha says

"The people who committed <criminal act A> should be prosecuted.",

but does not at the same time say

"The people who committed <criminal acts B, C, D, E .... Z> should also be prosecuted.",

that means he thinks that <criminal acts B, C, D, E .... Z> should not be liable to prosecution.

I do not think you will find that many people will be persuaded by that argument.

[canpakes]

It's like you are some repetitive computer program spitting out an endless stream of inane questions.

Is it?

Okay. So here is a question. If two hooligans each commit vandalism in a protest against the federal government, which one should the AG prosecute and why?

I don’t know how long that those folks who busted up that car will go to jail for, but this guy below thinks that the folks who busted into the Capitol should get 10 years.

[Binger]

I am basing this on his suggestion that the AG should prosecute one group of hooligans.

Oh, right. So if Moksha says

"The people who committed <criminal act A> should be prosecuted.",

but does not at the same time say

"The people who committed <criminal acts B, C, D, E .... Z> should also be prosecuted.",

that means he thinks that <criminal acts B, C, D, E .... Z> should not be liable to prosecution.

I do not think you will find that many people will be persuaded by that argument.

Oh. But if we ask if the crime committed by group A is prosecutable by the USA AG, can we also conclude that similar crimes made in the same jurisdiction are also prosecutable by the USA AG?

Forget the actors. You have moved the goalposts to actors. I am comparing crimes and hooliganism, and always have been. I agreed to have this conversation and to apply any description of the acts that Mokshy wanted.

[canpakes]

I am basing this on his suggestion that the AG should prosecute one group of hooligans.

Oh, right. So if Moksha says

"The people who committed <criminal act A> should be prosecuted.",

but does not at the same time say

"The people who committed <criminal acts B, C, D, E .... Z> should also be prosecuted.",

that means he thinks that <criminal acts B, C, D, E .... Z> should not be liable to prosecution.

I do not think you will find that many people will be persuaded by that argument.

It’s amazing how much effort is being expended by him to avoid answering the OP’s question of, “Was the January 6th Insurrection at the US Capitol a "legitimate political discourse" as the Republican National Committee contends?”

[K Graham]

Fug this guy is dumb.

"The United States Attorneys are statutorily responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases brought on behalf of the United States, the prosecution and defense of civil cases when the United States is a party, and the collection of debts owed to the federal government in certain instances."

Vandalized cars don't apply. Violent insurrections against the USA do.