KanchanaburiGuy

Y'know, I thought about this, and then I realized it may be much simpler than it first appears. First off, there are undoubtedly many attorneys with the proper clearances; if not in Florida, then certainly in and around Washington D.C. Secondly, the Special Master would not necessarily need to have the top security clearances. Why? Because any document requiring a security clearance............ automatically falls outside the Special Master's area of interest. No documents requiring a security clearance could be part of the "personal" or "privileged" documentation the Special Master is supposed to be on the lookout for. So the Special Master would not have a reason to be looking at them, anyway! So, even if the Special Master himself doesn't possess the proper clearances............. all that's needed is for the Special Master to be working along side a person who does. The Special Master filters out the privileged communications the government shouldn't be looking at............ and their high security-clearanced co-worker........... filters out the sensitive materials the Special Master shouldn't be looking at! Easy!

Sorry, which party controls Congress has nothing to do with anything. This is a DOJ investigation, which is Executive Branch, not Legislative Branch.

Of course Trump's request for a Special Master was granted. It was a perfectly reasonable request. And, since the DOJ claims they have already been sorting for personal and privileged material, the FIRST THING that should happen is for all those things that have already been sorted out............. be IMMEDIATELY returned to Trump! The Special Master should accept at face value anything the DOJ has already rejected themselves. The added benefit would be to reduce the number of documents the Special Master has to go through, perhaps saving a big chunk of time.

Subtleties. They matter sometimes. Yes, I believe he should have to pay the full price for his actions. Yes, I also believe the full price he's been given was excessive. These two things are not contradictory, though you seem unable to grasp that. (I'd bet money that on appeal, his sentence will be reduced; probably to less than 5 years. Only time will tell, though.)

Where did I ever say the anything like "the election has been stolen by fraudulent means". Link please. Every time I've said anything like that, it has always had a context. Every time, the context has been about what OTHER PEOPLE think and believe. Reading comprehension. It makes a difference.

Strawman. Your responding to things I never said.

I think if the election HAD BEEN corrupt and Joe Biden HAD BEEN an illegitimate President-Elect......... and the events on Jan 6th REALLY DID represent a last-ditch effort to make sure this illegitimate President-Elect did not take office.......... ............pretty much everyone in their right mind would be calling Webster a "Patriot" for participating in that day's events! But....... Was the election corrupt? No. Was Joe Biden an illegitimate President-Elect? No. Were the events of Jan 6th a "last-ditch effort to right a wrong?" No. So, how did Webster....... (and thousands of others there on that day, 2000 of which may have entered the Capitol).......... how did he get it so wrong? How? He got it so wrong because a person we are supposed to be able to believe......... someone no less than The President of the United States...... told him so! Webster is going to have to pay the full price for his own actions. That's fair. But it would be UNFAIR to hold him fully responsible for believing what he believed.......... when he believed it because it came directly from one of the people we are supposed to be able to believe---- The President of the United States!

Of course it is not the same. But it is close enough to the same if you understand that sometimes, there are higher purposes than the law alone can remedy. I believe that just like FDR and Lincoln, Trump and his ardent Supporters.......... (which number in the tens of millions, by the way!)......... believed they were truly and sincerely pursuing just such a "higher purpose"----an extra-legal "higher purpose." In their minds, they were not trying to "steal" an election. They were trying to remedy an error that had already been made! They weren't trying to circumvent legitimate election results! They were trying to correct the wrong done by ILLEGITIMATE election results! And if the election HAD BEEN "illegitimate?" If the wrong man HAD BEEN *cough*cough* "elected?" Then what happened on Jan 6th would have been a legitimate response to correct the error! It would not have been justifiable as a FIRST response, but would have become an appropriate response......if all other, less aggressive attempts failed! Because if an election results in a person getting elected ILLEGITIMATELY.......... it is the responsibility of the sitting President to make sure that that person cannot take office! (This is EXACTLY why it was okay for Mr Obama to investigate Mr Trump and his campaign, both before and after the election in 2016........ and especially BEFORE Trump took office! There WAS Russian interference. There may have been collusion. There may have been a coordinated conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, which Trump himself may have been a part of. Trump campaign officials DID lie on numerous occasions, denying their many contacts with Russia. It was critical that Obama have as many answers to these questions as possible BEFORE turning over the reins to a man who might have been a Russian Agent! Because doing nothing about it until afterwards; until AFTER Trump took office?.......... That would have been much, much worse!)

If you understand the philosophy of governance, you understand that sometimes you HAVE TO do things that are outsie the law, when the law becomes a hindrance rather than a help. That's why Lincoln suspended part of the Constitution during the Civil war, for example. That's why it was horrible....... but appropriate!....... to isolate the japanese in WWII! Sometimes you have to think BIGGER than what fits on a bumper sticker! *wink*

I am not a "trumpie." I LOATHE the man. But facts are facts and truth is truth. THAT'S the side I'm on. Facts first, opinions second. Not......... Opinions first, and inconvenient facts get selectively ignored. But here's where I've come from in THIS conversation......... I was taught............ "If you can't argue a topic effectively from both sides....... you should probably keep quiet and listen. You don't know enough about it, yet." Thus....... I can argue what some might call the "trumpie" point of view, because I've taken the time to try to understand it. I'm able to put my mind into their frame of mind, then express things that might fit that framework. Around here, so many mindless, ideologically-tainted things get said............ to which I think SOMEONE ought to step up and give reasoned and rational responses to. (Rather than just equally bloviated, ideologically-tainted responses from the other side!) That's what ~~I~~ try to provide. The one thing it almost guarantees me, though.......... is that I'll get hated by everyone........ at least at one time or another. But I'm okay with that! HAHAHA! (Loud, but not maniacal! 555)

If you've sworn to protect the Union and the Constitution and you believe the election has been stolen by fraudulent means.............. Which is the "Patriotic" way to go......... To let the person elected by fraudulent means become President anyway, because it's not POLITE to refuse to accept an outcome, even one you are confident was fraudulent? Is allowing what you believe is a crime to go unchallenged........... the "Patriotic" thing? Or............ Is righting-the-wrong by whatever means are available to you........... the "Patriotic" thing? See, to me, if the final delayed act of the Revolutiony War had been for a British General to subvert the election of George Washington and take control of the Presidency......... I'd say, upon learning what went wrong........ the Government would have been fully justified in removing him by any means......... even though he may have had the ballots to show he was "elected!" (Fraud then would have been incredibly easy!) What they shouldn't have done.......... what they never should have done............ is say, "Well, you cheated and we know you cheated. But we'll let you, Mr British General, remain our President, anyway!" -------------- If you believe Trump......... (and far, far, FAR too many do!).......... then helping him retain a Presidency that is *ahem*......... "rightly his"........... IS the "Patriotic" thing.......... (even if you have to break the law to do it!) (Because allowing a wrongly elected President to STAY in office......... would be an even greater wrong!)

Born in San Diego. Lived 59 of my 65 years in Washington, California, Arizona, Oregon, Maryland & New Jersey. (The remainder in Thailand.) I own houses in Prescott Valley, AZ, and Portland, OR. Yeah, sure, "a brit!" Good catch! HAHAHA!

The word "patriot" is open to interpretation. Who you believe is a "patriot" very much depends on your perspective. In a way, it's a lot like religion. Whether you are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Christian, et cetera, you will believe that YOU'VE got the right answers.......... and everyone else has it wrong. If you believe that things should basically stay the same or regress to an earlier percieved ideal......... (a Conservative, generally speaking)............ then you're never going to consider people who want to make wholesale changes......... "Patriots." If you think things can be a lot better than they have been and that we need to do away with the mistakes and attitudes of the past........... (a Liberal/Progressive, generally speaking).......... then you're never going to consider people who are hidebound and resistant to change........... "Patriots." Each perspective has their own definition of what a "patriot" is. Each perspective will deny that the other guy's definition of "patriot " is valid! -------------# In 1776, a "Patriot" was a person who was prepared to commit treason. That was the Founding Father's perspective. To the British, though, a "Patriot" was a person who would fight to keep the Colonies........... Colonies! Very different perspectives........ and very different understandings of what a "Patriot" was! --------------- To me, a "Patriot" is a person who's goal is to achieve a BEST VERSION of the United States. So-called "Conservatives" have certain ideas about what that means.......... and.......... so-called "Liberals/Progressives" have certain ideas about what that means. Both sides have some good ideas............ and........... both sides have some bad ideas! But whether ~~I~~ think their ideas are bad or good......... doesn't define for me whether or not I think they are a "Patriot!" If they sincerely want to work for the BETTERMENT of America.......... even if they want to do it in ways I personally do not believe in.......... I'm STILL willing to call them "Patriots!" So, the question is.......... Regardless of YOUR OWN views of the events of Jan 6th............ do you think the insurrectionists were trying to do harm, and nothing but............ or............ were they trying to do what the treasonous Founding Fathers......... (our ultimate definition of what an "American Patriot!" is)............ aimed to do in 1776? (Here's a hint: The quicker you come to an answer............ the less you've actually thought about it! Because it really isn't "as simple as all that!") Cheers!

Actually, the post you quoted added SEVERAL new things. You trying to shut me up most likely means nothing more than that you are incapable of responding. (You haven't so far!) I'm making reasoned, fact-based observations that some might realize are worth paying attention to............ while you apparently would prefer they cling to their knee-jerk emotional reactions, instead. If you find what I say "tedious"........ dont read it! How smart do you have to be to figure THAT out? Crikey!

I linked to where I got my information. To you, apparently, APNEWS (Associated Press) is a "right wingnut website [with] some bizarro conspiracy theor[ies]." (I wonder how often you yourself rely on AP information without realizing it........... because you see the name or masthead of the publication you happen to be reading............ and don't notice the little [AP] that precedes the article. Many, many, many, I'd guess! 555) --------------- By the way......... Here are the websites I looked at to inform myself: -- APNEWS (First and primary) -- CBSNews -- ABCNews ( the American one, not the Australian one!) -- CBCNews (Canada. To hopefully a less politically-tainted perspective.) -- New York Times There were others I opened while looking for specific pieces of information........... like "what were the six charges brought against Webster?"........ where, sorry, I didn't bother to notice the name. (When looking for raw facts like, "what were the charges," ANY source with the answer will do!) So, there you go. A list of my "right wingnut websites" who, of course, are all well known for their "bizarro conspiracy theor[ies]." (!!!) Pffft!

Webster was being verbally aggressive. Rathbun was the one who made things physically aggressive. Rathbun hit Webster before Webster had any physical contact with Rathbun. Because Webster himself was being aggressive........... aggressive in the same way a snarling dog is "aggressive," say.......... I don't think "self-defense" is a good argument. But a "self-defense" argument IS justified by the video-verified sequence of events. (Remember the 8% rule of defense lawyers......... you only have to convince 1 juror out of 12! So a weak argument is still better than having NO argument!) At no point in any of my posts in this thread have I said that Webster wasn't guilty. What I've said, in fact, was the sentence he deserved was 2 to 3 years. (Our newest Supreme Court Justice, Jackson, gave out sentences of less than 2 years for "assaulting an officer" convictions, when she was a Federal Judge.) It was the SENTENCE that was inappropriate, in my estimation; not the verdict. (And when the judge SAID that what he was guilty of was not just an assault on a person but an "assault on democracy"........... that proved to me that he was being sentenced not just for the crimes for which he had been convicted........ but for things the judge found personally offensive!) I believe: 2 to 3 years----appropriate. 10 years----inappropriate.

Things that are called "obvious" or "rational conclusions"........... often depend on how open or limited a person's thinking is. To me, for example, it might be perfectly "rational".......... perfectly "obvious"..........for a man who served in the Marine Corp.......... to want to carry a Marine Corp flag to the rally, to separate himself from the rabble.......... and be seen and recognised as a "TRUE PATRIOT!" See, to people who lack the imagination to consider the various other realistic possibilities........... answers become terribly easy. They think square pegs can only go into square holes......... and lack the imagination to realize that if the hole is big enough......... or the peg small enough......... it doesn't really matter WHAT shape the hole is! In my experience, "self-evident" and "obvious" and "only rational conclusion"......... are usually just cop-out words. They are just words people use to pretend they have answers that they don't really have! It's "obvious," so the person doesn't have to explain it! (Which, of course, they probably can't do, anyway!) Et cetera! Pffft!

Silly stuff! You have a point ONLY if you think people should be sentenced based on things they weren't charged with and weren't found guilty of! Because that's the only thing I said in the post you quoted, when you asked whether I knew about "federal sentencing guidelines"------- that people must be sentenced based ONLY on the things they HAVE BEEN charged and convicted of! LOL

You're asking a bunch of questions that you, yourself, can't answer.......... and somehow apparently thinking that I'm then going to be under some obligation to answer them. But all I'm seeing are rhetorical questions; questions with answers that could go both ways. If you'd like to answer your own rhetorical questions with something substantive........ something that confirms the things you seem intent on insinuating.......... (so far, without evidence).......... I'd be happy to see it. For example.........Do you have any evidence that the flagpole was intended to be used as a weapon and that the Marine Corp Flag.......... a flag he'd almost certainly have to throw away if he intended to use the pole as a weapon!.......... (ask a Marine about casually throwing away a Marine Corp Flag! Lol)......... was just camouflage, a way mask the fact that he was, in actuality, carrying a "weapon?" I say: Until you have evidence that says otherwise, the flag has to be taken at face value. Just like, until proven otherwise, a pen is just a pen, and a book is just a book! No jury should have considered a flagpole......... a flagpole holding a flag!......... a "weapon"........ based solely on hindsight. If they had no proof he intended it as a weapon beforehand.......... as opposed to it becoming one in the heat of the moment......... they had no business convicting him of felonies for "carrying a weapon" in places he wasn't supposed to!

Except the question the officer was asked under oath was really a question of whether he hit Webster FIRST. (Important because Webster was making a "self-defense" claim!) The officer hid behind the word "punch"............. saying he didn't "punch" him.........when, in fact, whether it was a punch or a slap is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because both are forms of hitting! The first "assault" was the officer hitting Webster............not Webster "assaulting" the officer! Webster swinging the flagpole was, therefore, not an initiating act, but an escalating act! (And remember, when he swung the flagpole, he hit the bike rack, not the officer. Bike racks are only about waist high! So......... it might be guessed that Webster never intended to actually HIT the officer with the pole, but rather to intimidate him, only; to startle him. I mean, missing the person altogether and hitting something only waist high?......... That kind of suggests that something else was going on, to me.)

Very true. But when facts are used to shape one's opinions........ rather than using one's opinions to determine which facts you'll pay attention to......... That's makes one opinion far superior to the other! Cheers!

Four of which were essentially the same act, with four different names! When he went to the Capitol, he was carrying a Marine Corp flag; a flag on a pole. He was carrying a flag, not a "weapon!" After the officer slapped him, he swung the pole down and hit the bike rack/barrier. When he was charged, a couple of the charges revolved around him "bringing a weapon" to places he was not supposed to. Except he DIDN'T bring a weapon......... he brought a flag! A pen can be a "weapon." A shoe can be a "weapon." Keys can be a "weapon." A shirt can be a "weapon." A belt can be a "weapon." A water bottle can be a "weapon." A purse can be a "weapon." A magazine or book can be a "weapon." I'd bet everyone in that crowd had at least two or more of these things in their possession! The flagpole was not a "weapon." It was not a "weapon" until it was used as a weapon. Before that moment.......... meaning the whole time he carried it!......... it was NOT a "weapon." It was a flag! There was ZERO justification for charging him with a couple of different felonies for "carrying a weapon"........... when he had shown no intention of using it as a weapon........... until AFTER he was slapped [assaulted] by the officer! If he was guilty of "carrying a weapon" before it was used as a weapon............ than anyone who had a pen or keys in their pocket........... shoes on their feet or a shirt on their back........ would be equally guilty of those very same felonies! ("Carrying" as opposed to "using!") Sometimes juries make stupid decisions. In this case, I think the jury got caught up in the moment........ in the event......... and seriously considered felony charges that they never should have even seen!

You get elected President?

See, there you go. You're including things for which he was neither charged nor convicted, to make your conclusion. The court, on the other hand, is ONLY supposed to consider what penalty is appropriate for the things for which he was convicted! And, in my opinion, the crimes for which he was convicted........... only warrant 2 to 3 years jail time! (Especially since it was the officer who started the physical part of the confrontation, not Webster!)

Listen, what was done on Jan 6th was wrong. Webster assaulting an officer was wrong. Webster being a 20-year former police officer means he knew intimately that what he was doing was wrong! The jury finding him guilty was the right thing to do. Being sentenced to spend some time in jail is appropriate. But ten years? That is a ridiculous sentence for the crimes he committed! You see, the events of Jan 6th, bad as they were, are not part of his crimes. An "assault in democracy" is not a part of his crimes. The bad things done by other people at the same time.........are not part of his crimes! Those things should have had no bearing on the sentence he received......... though clearly they did! Given what he did......... what the police body cam shows he did.......... he should have gotten 2 or 3 years, max! APNEWS gives a pretty good description......... https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-prisons-new-york-donald-trump-presidential-elections-62ca153f4ecf3b7e2f3605c5b799582f * Webster shoves a bike rack "at" the officer (but it doesn't say it hit him! Just "at" him.) * The officer slaps Webster on the face (open hand.) * Webster swings the flagpole down and hits the bike rack. The pole breaks. He didn't hit the officer......... he hit the bike rack! * The officer takes the broken pole away from him. * Webster then tackles the officer and tries to remove his mask, which results in choking him. . If you look at the "six" things he was charged with, they basically took a single course of events, broke it down into tiny bits and pieces, and came up with "six" things to charge him with. (It's like if you were both treaspassing and loitering........ standing around where you didn't belong......... so they charged you with both, when one would have been sufficient!) Yes, Webster started out doing something threatening.......... (shoving the bike rack).......... but then the officer hit him! The physical confrontation was started by the officer, not Webster! (The officer who said inder oath that he didnt "punch" Webster.......... because he apparently distinguishes between a slap and a punch! (A distintion without a difference!) -------------- Shoulda been 2 to 3 years max!