US prosecutors Portland dropping almost all charges on rioters

Hello T. A. Gardner,

T. A. Gardner said:
The only reason the ones in Portland were is because the (somebody's in charge) administration is rife with radical Leftists who don't want to punish their own...
Click to expand...

Examples of 'radicals' in the Biden administration?

Sounds like exaggeration. Biden is a moderate.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello T. A. Gardner,



Examples of 'radicals' in the Biden administration?

Sounds like exaggeration. Biden is a moderate.
Click to expand...

Kristen Clarke
Biden’s pick to lead the Justice Department's civil rights division apologized last month for past comments on racial superiority and for hosting an event with a professor who espoused anti-Semitic views while a student at Harvard University.
In 1994, as the leader of Harvard University’s Black Student Association, Clarke invited the late Wellesley College professor Tony Martin to speak at an event where he attacked Jewish people for a “tradition” of targeting blacks.

Neera Tanden
Runs the Leftist think tank, the Center for American Progress, funded by a long list of corporate and foreign sponsors many of whom are quite anti-US and anti-American. Her tweets are some of the most vile, hateful, racist rants you can find. She quickly tried to erase them because of the firestorm they ignited, and even Democrats in the Senate had a hard time defending her.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14133088/what-did-neera-tanden-say-in-now-deleted-tweets/

Xavier Becerra
Biden's pick for HHS secretary. Has no background in the health sector, is by all accounts a true radical on abortion issues, is rabidly for universal government run healthcare, and has radical views on illegal immigration, and a whole host of other issues.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/connormcnulty/2021/02/23/xavier-becerra-greatest-hits-n2585140

Wendy Sherman
Second in rank at State. Lead negotiator on Obama's failed treaty with Iran. Defended China and Cuba on human rights issues when these were challenged. She's a longtime lobbyist for foreign corporations from a host of nations, including many that are at odds with the US.

Anita Dunn
Her favorite "philosopher" is Mao Tse-tung. She was an assistant to Harvey Weinstein before he fell from grace. Biden ended up appointing her to a "temporary" position in his inner circle because she is so radical and comes with so much questionable ethical issues he doesn't want her to face a confirmation hearing in the Senate.

How's that for starters?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Kristen Clarke
Biden’s pick to lead the Justice Department's civil rights division apologized last month for past comments on racial superiority and for hosting an event with a professor who espoused anti-Semitic views while a student at Harvard University.
In 1994, as the leader of Harvard University’s Black Student Association, Clarke invited the late Wellesley College professor Tony Martin to speak at an event where he attacked Jewish people for a “tradition” of targeting blacks.

Neera Tanden
Runs the Leftist think tank, the Center for American Progress, funded by a long list of corporate and foreign sponsors many of whom are quite anti-US and anti-American. Her tweets are some of the most vile, hateful, racist rants you can find. She quickly tried to erase them because of the firestorm they ignited, and even Democrats in the Senate had a hard time defending her.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14133088/what-did-neera-tanden-say-in-now-deleted-tweets/

Xavier Becerra
Biden's pick for HHS secretary. Has no background in the health sector, is by all accounts a true radical on abortion issues, is rabidly for universal government run healthcare, and has radical views on illegal immigration, and a whole host of other issues.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/connormcnulty/2021/02/23/xavier-becerra-greatest-hits-n2585140

Wendy Sherman
Second in rank at State. Lead negotiator on Obama's failed treaty with Iran. Defended China and Cuba on human rights issues when these were challenged. She's a longtime lobbyist for foreign corporations from a host of nations, including many that are at odds with the US.

Anita Dunn
Her favorite "philosopher" is Mao Tse-tung. She was an assistant to Harvey Weinstein before he fell from grace. Biden ended up appointing her to a "temporary" position in his inner circle because she is so radical and comes with so much questionable ethical issues he doesn't want her to face a confirmation hearing in the Senate.

How's that for starters?
Click to expand...

Great. You prefer fascism of Trump.
 
Hello T. A. Gardner,

T. A. Gardner said:
Kristen Clarke
Biden’s pick to lead the Justice Department's civil rights division apologized last month for past comments on racial superiority and for hosting an event with a professor who espoused anti-Semitic views while a student at Harvard University.
In 1994, as the leader of Harvard University’s Black Student Association, Clarke invited the late Wellesley College professor Tony Martin to speak at an event where he attacked Jewish people for a “tradition” of targeting blacks.
Click to expand...

If you have to go back to 94 when somebody was in college to dig up dirt on them, that means they have matured since then and may no longer hold such radical views. Let's give her a chance.

T. A. Gardner said:
Neera Tanden
Runs the Leftist think tank, the Center for American Progress, funded by a long list of corporate and foreign sponsors many of whom are quite anti-US and anti-American. Her tweets are some of the most vile, hateful, racist rants you can find. She quickly tried to erase them because of the firestorm they ignited, and even Democrats in the Senate had a hard time defending her.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14133088/what-did-neera-tanden-say-in-now-deleted-tweets/
Click to expand...

She withdrew. She is not in the Biden administration.

T. A. Gardner said:
Xavier Becerra
Biden's pick for HHS secretary. Has no background in the health sector, is by all accounts a true radical on abortion issues, is rabidly for universal government run healthcare, and has radical views on illegal immigration, and a whole host of other issues.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/connormcnulty/2021/02/23/xavier-becerra-greatest-hits-n2585140
Click to expand...

What makes Becerra a radical on abortion issues? Because he wanted a public health provider to provide a full complement of healthcare needs for the public? Look. If a church wants to be a church, that's fine. They can preach whatever they want in their own church. If a church wants to be in the hospital business it has no right to force religion on the patients who are only looking for health care services. Healthcare and religion are two very different things. Religion is voluntary. Nobody needs religion. Healthcare is a need. Becerra is correct that healthcare needs to be made an official right of the citizens of this great country. We can hardly be 'great' if we let people just die even as we can save them because we only save people for profit.

T. A. Gardner said:
Wendy Sherman
Second in rank at State. Lead negotiator on Obama's failed treaty with Iran. Defended China and Cuba on human rights issues when these were challenged. She's a longtime lobbyist for foreign corporations from a host of nations, including many that are at odds with the US.
Click to expand...

She is not a radical because she fought for peace and de-armament. She is a hero of peace and coexistence.

T. A. Gardner said:
Anita Dunn
Her favorite "philosopher" is Mao Tse-tung. She was an assistant to Harvey Weinstein before he fell from grace. Biden ended up appointing her to a "temporary" position in his inner circle because she is so radical and comes with so much questionable ethical issues he doesn't want her to face a confirmation hearing in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Again, here is somebody in her 60's and you have to go back to something she said in HIGH SCHOOL to claim she's a radical?

"In October 2009, she appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources and was asked to discuss a statement she made to Time magazine regarding Fox News, "it's opinion journalism masquerading as news."[17] She responded by saying, "if you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN. The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."[18] She added, "And it's not ideological. Obviously, there are many commentators who have conservative, liberal, centrist, and everybody understands that. But I think what is fair to say about FOX and certainly the way we view it is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party."[19]

Following her statements, Glenn Beck played on his show a portion of a speech Dunn gave at a high school graduation, during which she referenced Mao-Tse-Tung and Mother Theresa as two of her "favorite political philosophers".[20] Beck stated that the speech revealed Dunn as a Maoist, while Dunn stated that her reference was meant to be ironic, and was a quote borrowed from Lee Atwater.[21] "

wiki

You just don't like her because she spilled the beans on Fox. That doesn't make her a radical. That makes her grounded in reality.

T. A. Gardner said:
How's that for starters?
Click to expand...

Hardly unexpected.
 
Trumpanzees are rioters.
Humans are protesters.

It's both a simple concept and an easily demonstrable one.

Even the trumpanzees would possibly realize that if their so-called brains were larger than fava beans.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Red herring fallacy. In the case of the Portland federal courthouse, the protesters never gained entry so they couldn't be charged with trespass could they?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/...imes-committed-during-portland-demonstrations

However, there are charges on that list that are very serious felonies like arson and assault with a deadly weapon.



Then present that source. I shouldn't have to do your homework. As for the last sentence, it is nothing more than a complex question fallacy in the form of an ipse dixit (he said it himself) fallacy. Ipse dixitism is a form of political argument meant to provide an internal right - wrong conclusion from the statement itself.



Somehow you are wrong. And, don't think. You don't do it very well as it is.
Click to expand...

OK.. Link me to the actual indictments from Portland because the news reports on the names where charges are being dropped don't include arson or assault as any of the charges being dropped.

You don't recall that the Vice President is the person in charge of the counting of electoral votes? You don't recall that the VP's family was also at the Capitol? You don't know that a sitting VP has Secret Service Protection? You don't know that the family of a sitting VP also has Secret Service Protection? And you claim you know more than I do?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Then present that source. I shouldn't have to do your homework. As for the last sentence, it is nothing more than a complex question fallacy in the form of an ipse dixit (he said it himself) fallacy. Ipse dixitism is a form of political argument meant to provide an internal right - wrong conclusion from the statement itself.



Somehow you are wrong. And, don't think. You don't do it very well as it is.
Click to expand...

I wonder who the white haired man is in the video. Can you figure it out based on the title of the video?

It isn't an ipse dixit to not present the evidence for a well known fact. How can you be ignorant of the fact that the VP was in the Capitol on Jan 6? I was trying to lead you to remember but instead you decided to prove how ignorant you are. So tell me again how I am wrong about there being no one under Secret Service protection in the Capitol on Jan 6th. C'mon, man!
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello T. A. Gardner,

If you have to go back to 94 when somebody was in college to dig up dirt on them, that means they have matured since then and may no longer hold such radical views. Let's give her a chance.
Click to expand...

One word: Kavanaugh

She withdrew. She is not in the Biden administration.
Click to expand...

President Biden remains “committed” to naming Neera Tanden to his administration after her nomination to be White House budget director failed due to her insult-laden tweets attacking senators.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Friday at her daily press briefing that “the president remains interested in and committed to finding her position in the administration and taking advantage of all her talents.”
Click to expand...
https://nypost.com/2021/04/23/biden-committed-to-finding-neera-tanden-a-job-psaki-says/

What makes Becerra a radical on abortion issues? Because he wanted a public health provider to provide a full complement of healthcare needs for the public? Look. If a church wants to be a church, that's fine. They can preach whatever they want in their own church. If a church wants to be in the hospital business it has no right to force religion on the patients who are only looking for health care services. Healthcare and religion are two very different things. Religion is voluntary. Nobody needs religion. Healthcare is a need. Becerra is correct that healthcare needs to be made an official right of the citizens of this great country. We can hardly be 'great' if we let people just die even as we can save them because we only save people for profit.
Click to expand...

“I have never sued the nuns, any nuns,” Becerra said last week. “I’ve never sued any affiliation of nuns, and my actions have always been directed at the federal agencies.”
Click to expand...
During his Senate confirmation hearing...
https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/1...on-extremist-xavier-becerra-as-hhs-secretary/

If a private hospital chooses not to do an elective procedure, they should have the right to do so. You say "Religion is voluntary." Well, so is abortion. Very few people need an abortion for valid medical reasons. A person can also go elsewhere than that private hospital for care.
Don't leave out that he prosecuted pro-life groups for exposing Planned Parenthood's selling of organs from aborted fetuses...
Or, that he is against laws circumventing parental consent for minors to have an abortion including smuggling and trafficking them across state lines to avoid such laws.

She is not a radical because she fought for peace and de-armament. She is a hero of peace and coexistence.
Click to expand...

Anyone who defends human rights abuses in countries like China and Cuba is not a hero of any sort. Her deal with Iran, as we know now, did nothing to stop nuclear proliferation but instead likely sped it up. Today Iran is openly admitting enrichment to over 60% putting them most of the way to having weapons grade material.
https://apnews.com/article/iran-uranium-enrichment-60-percent-ed89e322595004fddc65fd4e31c1131b

Again, here is somebody in her 60's and you have to go back to something she said in HIGH SCHOOL to claim she's a radical?

"In October 2009, she appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources and was asked to discuss a statement she made to Time magazine regarding Fox News, "it's opinion journalism masquerading as news."[17] She responded by saying, "if you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN. The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."[18] She added, "And it's not ideological. Obviously, there are many commentators who have conservative, liberal, centrist, and everybody understands that. But I think what is fair to say about FOX and certainly the way we view it is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party."[19]

Following her statements, Glenn Beck played on his show a portion of a speech Dunn gave at a high school graduation, during which she referenced Mao-Tse-Tung and Mother Theresa as two of her "favorite political philosophers".[20] Beck stated that the speech revealed Dunn as a Maoist, while Dunn stated that her reference was meant to be ironic, and was a quote borrowed from Lee Atwater.[21] "

wiki

You just don't like her because she spilled the beans on Fox. That doesn't make her a radical. That makes her grounded in reality.
Click to expand...

Again, Kavanagh. As for her and FOX, I could care less. The reason Biden appointed her to a temporary position was to avoid her having to go through a confirmation hearing. The administration was that worried that she couldn't get vetted. She hasn't had to make her massive lobbying ties known this way because she doesn't have to make a financial disclosure statement for a temporary position. The position she's in right now is one that is the same as that of Karl Rove, David Axelrod, and others in the past with the President's ear. Unlike them, she was deliberately made a temporary position to avoid disclosure and scrutiny. Why?
Also anyone who thinks Mao's writing is worth studying that much should be taken with the same incredulity as someone who thinks Hitler's writing is worthwhile. After all, Mao is easily the most brutal and deadly dictator in all of human history.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I wonder who the white haired man is in the video. Can you figure it out based on the title of the video?

It isn't an ipse dixit to not present the evidence for a well known fact. How can you be ignorant of the fact that the VP was in the Capitol on Jan 6? I was trying to lead you to remember but instead you decided to prove how ignorant you are. So tell me again how I am wrong about there being no one under Secret Service protection in the Capitol on Jan 6th. C'mon, man!
Click to expand...

Okay, he was at the Capitol. Doesn't change my position on things.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Okay, he was at the Capitol. Doesn't change my position on things.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the facts you are ignoring either.

Fact - Capitol rioters were charged with crimes no one from Portland was charged with. (unauthorized in the Capitol, and unauthorized in area where someone protected by Secret Service is located.)

Fact - You accused me of an ipse dixit for pointing out facts that were well known.

Fact - The story you linked to clearly has 'facts' wrong. It claims the US attorney was fired by Biden. In fact Billy Williams did what almost every US attorney does when a new President takes office. He resigned. https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/09/billy-williams-to-resign-as-oregons-us-attorney-this-month/

Fact - No one who is getting deferred resolution agreement was charged with multiple crimes. Everyone who is getting a DRA was released at their first hearing. I can find no instances of anyone not being released at their preliminary hearing.

Fact - Some of the persons whose charges were dropped appear to have never been indicted after their preliminary hearing.
The first name mentioned in the article you posted - arrested in July, Preliminary hearing the next day and released. October- signed waiver of speedy indictment which is supposed to happen within 30 days. The next court date is in April when the charges are dropped "with prejudice."
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17382284/15/united-states-v-bouchard/

Fact - Charles Randolph Comfort was not indicted for attacking a police officer. He was indicted for 118 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3) which has a maximum penalty of 5 years.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.155029/gov.uscourts.ord.155029.1.1_1.pdf
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Doesn't change the facts you are ignoring either.

Fact - Capitol rioters were charged with crimes no one from Portland was charged with. (unauthorized in the Capitol, and unauthorized in area where someone protected by Secret Service is located.)
Click to expand...

This is a formal fallacy in the form of an illicit major. What you are arguing is essentially this:

Most (or all) Capitol rioters were charged with being in an unauthorized area where someone protected by the SS was located (All A are B)
No Portland rioters were so charged (No C are A)
Therefore no Portland rioters are the equivalent of Capitol rioters (No C are B)

That is excusing the Portland rioters from the 90% of what actually happened there that was an exact equivalent to the Capitol riot only far more violent. That is, the Portland rioters attempted to storm a federal building protected by federal police and security, fought with them, tried to force entry, and did things like destroy federal property. That the Portland rioters failed to gain entry doesn't change that.

Fact - You accused me of an ipse dixit for pointing out facts that were well known.
Click to expand...

No, I did that because you failed to prove your case right off. I didn't know Pence was in the building. When you finally demonstrated that, which you could have done from the start, I acknowledged I was wrong.

Fact - The story you linked to clearly has 'facts' wrong. It claims the US attorney was fired by Biden. In fact Billy Williams did what almost every US attorney does when a new President takes office. He resigned. https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/09/billy-williams-to-resign-as-oregons-us-attorney-this-month/
Click to expand...

This isn't true either. For example, Trump ordered ALL US attorneys appointed by Obama fired. Obama did the same thing to Bush. Clinton did it back in the 90's. Bush II was an exception keeping some and firing others. Williams might have resigned, but that doesn't change the outcome or direction of the story.

Fact - No one who is getting deferred resolution agreement was charged with multiple crimes. Everyone who is getting a DRA was released at their first hearing. I can find no instances of anyone not being released at their preliminary hearing.
Click to expand...

For which riot?

Fact - Some of the persons whose charges were dropped appear to have never been indicted after their preliminary hearing.
The first name mentioned in the article you posted - arrested in July, Preliminary hearing the next day and released. October- signed waiver of speedy indictment which is supposed to happen within 30 days. The next court date is in April when the charges are dropped "with prejudice."
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17382284/15/united-states-v-bouchard/
Click to expand...

Again, for which riot?

Fact - Charles Randolph Comfort was not indicted for attacking a police officer. He was indicted for 118 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3) which has a maximum penalty of 5 years.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.155029/gov.uscourts.ord.155029.1.1_1.pdf
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim
Click to expand...

Cherry picking. That one person, faced with overwhelming evidence of his crime was indicted doesn't make the case for the majority getting light sentences or having their cases dismissed in Portland while even the most minor charges in the Capitol riot are being pressed home with a vengeance.
 
All Capitol rioters were in an unauthorized area at the Capitol.
The Portland rioters were not.
Therefore, the Portland rioters were not at the Capitol.

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top