Trump pardons 1,500 criminal Jan 6th defendants

It seems this board is devolving into a designated fact-free zone. Wonder it that is as planned?

 

So no credible source. Figures.. Keep spouting the bullshit though.

 

You are correct, pardon

you are correct. I should have used commute.

 

But GOP was strongly against J6 on J6, then they saw that Trump was keeping his base and they all folded. After a month of talking points, the public opinion will change.

 

Some of the same gop politicians who were running for their lives that day are now celebrating the mob as heroes. No hypocrisy there at all.

 

Republicans support mob violence if it helps them achieve their goals.

 

The Dilbert guy

 

January 6th-benniethompson

I’m not going to engage in the silliness of what this thread has devolved into, but …

All the evidence is still there (read, it while you can).

 

Heck, I went and downloaded the 850 page Report for those who seriously think it has been deleted by the Committee:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf

 

And the one person intentionally killed was not part of the agitators…



I will say this. I disagree with pardoning the agitators who were violent and assaulting people/officers.

But that is not what most of the people in Washington were doing that day.

 

Yeah, one big problem with that narrative that you are presenting: Ashli Babbitt climbed through the broken window into the restricted area and was then shot. Why exactly did she do that according to your little attempt to rewrite history? It is funny how few right wingers seem to know that basic fact but have very big opinions on what happened.

 

Many good Republicans pushed back against Trump, and are now out of office.

Unfortunately, the reason behind the violence is more nefarious and a recurring theme in history: use violence to maintain power. It’s striking how, in the U.S., we assume, “That can’t happen here.” But Trump is breaking through that assumption. Pardoning the rioters is just one more step.

 

I think you know she was not a threat. But I guess it was okay to kill her?!

 

I noticed that you didn't address my question. Is it because you can't provide an answer to it that matches your attempt to rewrite history?

 

How do you know that she or any of the others were not a threat? They were trying to get to where elected officials were. Should security just let them lynch Representative and senators?

 

I am not trying to rewrite anything. Babbitt was not a threat where lethal force was necessary. No one was where lethal force was necessary. Hence only one person was intentionally killed. And it was unnecessary. How much you want to bet the Babbitt Family wins big with their lawsuit?

 

I noticed that you still didn't answer my question. I will ask it again: why was she climbing through that broken window into a restricted area?

 

We will never know. Because she was killed.

 

Thanks to the revisionists and apologists, this has now been normalized; at least for them. Good times.