Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It will be interesting to see how these cases turn out. Ignorance of the law is generally not justification for committing a crime. "I was just doing my job" also is not generally a justification.
No.
It's a lie. The President and all of Congress have several layers of professional protection; the Secret Service, the Capitol Police, the U.S. Marine Corps, the Washington D.C. Police Dept., and many others. All of them are at instant disposal, and all they need is a phone call and an order.
Trump never needed Oath Keepers for any security job.
But he sure liked to have them as hangarounds, because he liked the idea of possessing a private paramilitary force at his beck and call.
His professional security people would never allow themselves to be joined with the Oath Keepers at his command, but the Proud Boys sure would!
Both groups slathered for violence like hungry dogs drool for flank steak.
Both would crawl on broken glass just to kiss their messiah's butt if he ordered them to. Trump wanted that. A lot.
No.
It's a lie. The President and all of Congress have several layers of professional protection; the Secret Service, the Capitol Police, the U.S. Marine Corps, the Washington D.C. Police Dept., and many others. All of them are at instant disposal, and all they need is a phone call and an order.
Trump never needed Oath Keepers for any security job.
But he sure liked to have them as hangarounds, because he liked the idea of possessing a private paramilitary force at his beck and call.
His professional security people would never allow themselves to be joined with the Oath Keepers at his command, but the Proud Boys sure would!
Both groups slathered for violence like hungry dogs drool for flank steak.
Both would crawl on broken glass just to kiss their messiah's butt if he ordered them to. Trump wanted that. A lot.
I don't believe that it's a lie. I think she has a valid claim. He is the president. If the president calls you to defend the constitution you heed the call.
Trump told all those people to march to the Capitol, and they followed his orders. He was the commander in chief afterall!
Responsibility ultimately falls on Trump.
The riot was not an insurrection though, as the democrat loonies have claimed.
If it was an insurrection, the crowd that stormed the Capitol would have been armed with guns.
You can't have an "unarmed insurrection", no such thing exists.
No.
It's a lie. The President and all of Congress have several layers of professional protection; the Secret Service, the Capitol Police, the U.S. Marine Corps, the Washington D.C. Police Dept., and many others. All of them are at instant disposal, and all they need is a phone call and an order.
Trump never needed Oath Keepers for any security job.
But he sure liked to have them as hangarounds, because he liked the idea of possessing a private paramilitary force at his beck and call.
His professional security people would never allow themselves to be joined with the Oath Keepers at his command, but the Proud Boys sure would!
Both groups slathered for violence like hungry dogs drool for flank steak.
Both would crawl on broken glass just to kiss their messiah's butt if he ordered them to. Trump wanted that. A lot.
You are speculating on what Trump likes or dislikes. You have zero clue. Step away from the news, it's poisoned your mind. Your post spews hate.
I'm as liberal and progressive as they come and I believe she has a valid case. Opinions.
Quote:
Prosecutors previously said Watkins had waited for direction from Trump -- and believed she had received it before she joined the siege, allegedly leading several others into the Capitol building to fight against Congress' certification of the Electoral College vote
Good up until that point. If you're hired by some bank robbers to provide security to and from the bank, you robbed the bank.
It doesn't particularly matter how misguided she was. She could have thought the President was going to order the bank's assets seized and that the bank robbers had a role to play in seizing the assets for the government. Still robbed the bank. That could be a mitigating circumstance that could result in a better plea bargain or a judge going on the lower end for sentencing in the case of a conviction. In this case I doubt it does anything of the sort. The conspiracy to smuggle weapons in particularly does not look good for Watkins. If they prove that, she's going away. In comparison the rioters who just were there to vandalize and steal things will get off lighter. They'll probably be fairly lenient and not toss those people away for ten years. Watkins, yeah, going away for a while if convicted on the weapons conspiracy.
Not going down that rabbit hole.
Will though cut the grass.
Her flaw is the ambiguity.
Met with secret service ? Sure maybe . The same way I 'met' president Clinton while he did a speech at one of our local manufacturer company.
The devil is in the details.
Good up until that point. If you're hired by some bank robbers to provide security to and from the bank, you robbed the bank.
It doesn't particularly matter how misguided she was. She could have thought the President was going to order the bank's assets seized and that the bank robbers had a role to play in seizing the assets for the government. Still robbed the bank. That could be a mitigating circumstance that could result in a better plea bargain or a judge going on the lower end for sentencing in the case of a conviction. In this case I doubt it does anything of the sort. The conspiracy to smuggle weapons in particularly does not look good for Watkins. If they prove that, she's going away. In comparison the rioters who just were there to vandalize and steal things will get off lighter. They'll probably be fairly lenient and not toss those people away for ten years. Watkins, yeah, going away for a while if convicted on the weapons conspiracy.
Unless you can push it as far as "by reason of insanity," certainly a possibility for some, I don't see how claiming to be duped works as a defense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.