Offered by a poster above:
"The Jan6’rs were for the most part 90% just trespassers that were thrown in jail without due process by a weaponized judicial system because of their political beliefs. Trespassing in a building owned by the public."
J6 and the rioters appears to be old news, but......if a poster wants to kick that can around still, so be it.
There are some wishwashy or 'fudgey, terms in the above quote, e.g., "for the most part".
I do not know what that means.
But I do know what 'due process' means.
So, if those folks were arrested by authorized law enforcement -uniformed or not, were arraigned, charged, tried, able to defend themselves by themselves or with qualified attorneys, found guilty, or maybe even confessed, and a judge or a jury decided they did the bad juju detailed in the indictment and passed judgment to convict....well, what little I know of our American judicial system, that sounds an awful lot like 'due process.
And as far as the seeming objection about 'trespassing-in-a-public-owned-building', well, OK, I can see a concern there.
However, would it be different if they broke a window or battered down a door to the Gem Room at the Smithsonian? Battered down a door at the gold depository at Fort Knox? How 'bout battering down the door to the Oval Office?
I suggest those locations as they are all.....all.....'buildings-owned-by-the-public'. Is there a substantive difference between restricted buildings owned by the public? Or, are all public buildings properly 'unrestricted'?
I dunno, just asking.
Can someone offer an informed explanation?
