politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Those aren't crimes though. Dude should get a sentence reflecting what he did, not reflecting his right to say political figures (and judges and prosecutors absolutely are) are fuckwits
Contempt of court is a crime. Also I like how you lumped the judicial and executive branches into "political figures" like there isn't a constitutional difference.
They're often elected. And it doesn't seem to mention a contempt of court charge
Brilliance personified.
I think the article makes it seem different than it is.
He was going to get a lighter sentence because he was showing remorse by playing guilty. Then his behavior between the plea and the sentencing showed that he wasn't actually remorseful, so they go back to what they would have sentenced him.
It's like if you get offered a discount on a bill if you pay early, then you pay late instead and have to pay the full amount. They aren't charging you more, they're just not offering the early discount because you didn't hold your end of the bargain up.
So, he's getting the sentence he deserved without credit for showing that he knows what he did was wrong.
Lesson for other defendants: the time to return to being an asshole is after everything has been settled.
He's still getting less than four months. It should be a lot worse to reflect the severity of what he did.
Article doesn't really say what he did, but the prosecutors only asked for twenty one days so probably fuck all
Why are you calling other people in this thread dumb for not reading the article when you haven't done the most basic amount of looking into it yourself?
Here is the sentencing memorandum from June (a few weeks prior to his sovcit outburst mentioned in the article, if I'm reading correctly) where the 21 day sentence was initially requested. It's reachable in two clicks from the article, and it describes in excruciating detail all of his participation in Jan 6, as well as the broader context around his social media posts.
He pleaded guilty to one of the four counts he was originally charged with, and the AP notes that over 400 Jan 6th defendants have done the same. It's unclear from the filing whether a plea agreement was offered; I would guess that it was, and that this is probably an effort to reduce the overall burden on the court system, because a) there are over 1200 individuals charges with crimes in connection with the events of Jan 6, and b) there is plenty of damning video evidence of most of it.
They got enough judges to throw black kids in jail for weed but not for Jan6 rioters lmao
Gee, what a mystery why I'd return an insult in kind. You must be as brilliant as the other guy