Former Trump supporter Pamela Hemphill refuses Jan. 6 pardon; apparently the only one to do so (ETA: there is another...)

[essentialsaltes]

Though Hemphill was a defendant of the largest criminal prosecution in American history, she is seemingly standing alone now as the only Jan. 6 defendant to refuse the clemency Mr. Trump offered.

Speaking with CBS News from her home in Idaho, Hemphill said, "The pardons just contribute to their narrative, which is all lies, propaganda. We were guilty, period."

"We all know that they're gaslighting us. They are using January 6 to just continue Trump's narrative that the Justice Department was weaponized," she said. "They were not. When the FBI came to my home, oh my God, they were very professional. They treated me very good [sic]."

"How could you sleep at night taking a pardon when you know you were guilty? You know that everybody there was guilty. I couldn't live with myself. I have to be right with me. And with God," Hemphill said.

Hemphill sought assistance from Sen. James Risch to secure a formal acknowledgement from the Department of Justice that she will not accept her pardon. [And she has received it]

see also:

Trump pardons ~1,500 January 6th rioters in shocking minimization of assaults on LEO and seditious conspiracy

Usually first/only time offenders of a crime are shown leniency. Some folks however would like to see all of them thrown into the deepest darkest hole for life. Well, tough toodles. So, you believe that it is normal protocol to pardon and showing leniency for those who beat police with a bat...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Josheb]

Accepting a pardon typically implies an admission of guilt. Acknowledgment of guilt is not required, but I can understand why someone might not want to accept a pardon given the implications - especially in a world where rumors, speculation, lies, and propaganda pass for facts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Accepting a pardon typically implies an admission of guilt.

Well, that goes for the other 1499 or so J6 pardons.

I can understand why someone might not want to accept a pardon given the implications

She made her reasons plain.

 

[Josheb]

Well, that goes for the other 1499 or so J6 pardons.

And everyone Biden, Trump I, Obama, Bush II, Clinton, and every other POTUS pardoned.

She made her reasons plain.

Did she? Do you think CBS accurately reported her response - the response that indicted the "news" agency propagating the narrative? How does she know every one of the other 1499 or so (1575, according to Wiki and the BBC) J6ers were guilty? Do you think she even knows all 1499 of the others and all the crimes charged against them? Hemphill plead guilty to a misdemeanor crime: one count of demonstrating, picketing or parading in a Capitol building (and received 60 days). Was she guilty of any other crimes? Any of them felonies (like trespassing on federal property)? If so, then it is to that which she should have pled guilty if she meant what she asking how people can sleep at night knowing they are guilty, she couldn't live with herself, and has to be right with God? Her words do not make sense. She based her response on the FBI being very professional when they came to her home. I wonder if Siaka Massaquoi, Brian Burks, Luvelle Mendoza, Jesse Rumson, Gabe Watson, Trina Martin, Toi Cliatt, or Donald Trump would agree with her appraisal. J6 was supposedly an insurrection. Do you know how many people were charged with and found guilty of insurrection?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Did she?

Yes.

Do you think CBS accurately reported her response

Conspiracy Theories folder is thataway.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did she? Do you think CBS accurately reported her response - the response that indicted the "news" agency propagating the narrative? How does she know every one of the other 1499 or so (1575, according to Wiki and the BBC) J6ers were guilty? Do you think she even knows all 1499 of the others and all the crimes charged against them?

She's been presenting the same narrative since she realized she was wrong to go to the Capitol that day and plead guilty almost 4 years ago.

Hemphill plead guilty to a misdemeanor crime: one count of demonstrating, picketing or parading in a Capitol building (and received 60 days).

Correct.

Was she guilty of any other crimes?

No.

Any of them felonies (like trespassing on federal property)?

No. (And no one was charged with a trespass felony for Capitol attack. Not even sure if there is one possible.)

If so, then it is to that which she should have pled guilty if she meant what she asking how people can sleep at night knowing they are guilty, she couldn't live with herself, and has to be right with God? Her words do not make sense.

Makes perfect sense to me. Not sure what part of contrition you are having a problem grasping.

She based her response on the FBI being very professional when they came to her home. I wonder if Siaka Massaquoi, Brian Burks, Luvelle Mendoza, Jesse Rumson, Gabe Watson, Trina Martin, Toi Cliatt,

Don't know those J6 defendants.

or Donald Trump would agree with her appraisal.

The FBI didn't come to Trump' home over Jan 6th.

J6 was supposedly an insurrection. Do you know how many people were charged with and found guilty of insurrection?

Oh, good grief. Who was charged with "massacre" in the massacre, of rioting in the riot, etc. About 20 were charged and convicted of seditious conspiracy.

 

[ozso]

Conspiracy Theories folder is thataway.

Someone tell Hemphill that: "The pardons just contribute to their narrative, which is all lies, propaganda.

 

[Josheb]

Yes.

Incorrect. Her own words indicate she was not being fully forthcoming and prove she is unable to speak for all the others who were convicted. A lie of omission is still a lie. As far as the facts go, she may have made a proverbial "honest mistake," but if the facts are wrong (and they are) and she knows they are wrong then she has lied. Lies are never answers to the questions asked. They are the antithesis of an answer.
Unless she was present in every single one of the 1500+ court proceedings she has absolutely no ability to say everyone convicted was guilty. Almost as many people as were convicted were charged and had the charges dropped. The facts in evidence prove everyone was not guilty. Statistically speaking between 2 and 10% of all convictions are wrongful. That means as many as 157 of those convicted were convicted wrongfully and may, thereby, be innocent of any and all charges (most wrongful convictions are due to improper handling of the case).

Conspiracy Theories folder is thataway.

That is not an answer to my question. Nice red herring, though.

 

[Josheb]

The FBI didn't come to Trump' home over Jan 6th.

No, but they did go to his residence unprofessionally, and they have done so on many occasions.

Oh, good grief. Who was charged with "massacre" in the massacre, of rioting in the riot, etc. About 20 were charged and convicted of seditious conspiracy.

That is not an answer to my question. Ms. Hemphill claimed everyone was guilty. She has also politicized what she believes is already political. We already know she's a liar because her court testimony was that she feigned an injury to deliberately distract the police. There's no basis for believing a word the woman says.

Let me know when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation pertaining to Ms. Hemphill's personal response to her pardon. Nice false equivalence, though.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Incorrect. Her own words indicate she was not being fully forthcoming and prove she is unable to speak for all the others who were convicted.

No one asserted she was. Your original question was about her personal reasons for refusing the pardon. She spoke for herself.

You, however, have correctly asserted that accepting a pardon is tantamount to an admission of guilt.

 

[Say it aint so]

Hey, unlike a lot of the Jan6th pardoned, at least she is not winding right back in jail for after pardon charges.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, but they did go to his residence unprofessionally, and they have done so on many occasions.

The FBI went to Trump's residence on the stolen classified documents matter and were entirely professional about it every time. Even for the final "raid" they didn't use flashing lights or wear "FBI" windbreakers or interact with anyone who wasn't part of the club's staff.

That is not an answer to my question.

The question you asked was a false equivalence trying to assert that the Jan 6th wasn't an "insurrection" because no one was charged with that crime, when dozens were charged with the related crime of sedition. (They are literally adjacent sections in the Federal criminal code.)

Ms. Hemphill claimed everyone was guilty.

Guilty is a legal determination, and 1500 or so were found guilty legally, either through trials or pleas.

She has also politicized what she believes is already political. We already know she's a liar because her court testimony was that she feigned an injury to deliberately distract the police. There's no basis for believing a word the woman says.

It's odd that you know this much about a single, minor offender and get some of the big stuff wrong.

Let me know when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation pertaining to Ms. Hemphill's personal response to her pardon. Nice false equivalence, though.

This response wasn't the only false equivalence you posted today, let's not get out of hand here. I think I'll reply to your reply to @essentialsaltes today. You won't find anyone on this board that knows the Jan 6th criminals better than the two of us do.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Incorrect. Her own words indicate she was not being fully forthcoming and prove she is unable to speak for all the others who were convicted. A lie of omission is still a lie. As far as the facts go, she may have made a proverbial "honest mistake," but if the facts are wrong (and they are) and she knows they are wrong then she has lied. Lies are never answers to the questions asked. They are the antithesis of an answer.

Since you don't seem to think Ms. Hemphill knows the facts on her fellow defendants, let's see if you do...

Unless she was present in every single one of the 1500+ court proceedings she has absolutely no ability to say everyone convicted was guilty.

This is utter nonsense. The only thing you need to know if someone was found guilty or not is to read the verdict from the court docket. By definition convicted means found guilty in court.

Almost as many people as were convicted were charged and had the charges dropped.

Blatantly false, thought I don't expect you to know that. (Though since you don't know it you shouldn't claim it.) The US Attorney's office in DC only dropped a few cases because they didn't have the evidence to sustain a charge. Even when the Supreme Court made their bizarre ruling that obstructing a government proceeding under 18 USC 1512(c)(2) required documents to be interfered with they were able to sustain nearly all of the pending cases under that statute by arguing that documents had been involved, or switching to a "consipracy to injure a federal officer" charge. (And no I am not going to count the cases dismissed on the orders of their co-conspirator, Donald J. Trump.)

The facts in evidence prove everyone was not guilty.

I've seen the evidence in hundreds of cases and guilt on one or more charges was quite evident in virtually every one. The only thing that wasn't obvious in some cases was for misdemeanor trespass charges if the defendant could be demonstrated to be aware that their entry into the Capitol was not permitted. That is hard to determine from the simple charging documents and needed to be proved in court. The aquitals were largely due to that issue, but they were all clearly documented being in restricted spaces.

Statistically speaking between 2 and 10% of all convictions are wrongful. That means as many as 157 of those convicted were convicted wrongfully and may, thereby, be innocent of any and all charges (most wrongful convictions are due to improper handling of the case).

What kind of "improper handling" happened? I know of no cases that were overturned due to some aspect of handling the cases, though most of the convictions were less than 2 years old when Trump pardoned everyone.

 

[SimplyMe]

Incorrect. Her own words indicate she was not being fully forthcoming and prove she is unable to speak for all the others who were convicted. A lie of omission is still a lie. As far as the facts go, she may have made a proverbial "honest mistake," but if the facts are wrong (and they are) and she knows they are wrong then she has lied. Lies are never answers to the questions asked. They are the antithesis of an answer.
Unless she was present in every single one of the 1500+ court proceedings she has absolutely no ability to say everyone convicted was guilty. Almost as many people as were convicted were charged and had the charges dropped. The facts in evidence prove everyone was not guilty. Statistically speaking between 2 and 10% of all convictions are wrongful. That means as many as 157 of those convicted were convicted wrongfully and may, thereby, be innocent of any and all charges (most wrongful convictions are due to improper handling of the case).

That is not an answer to my question. Nice red herring, though.

Sorry, it is this response that is not accurate (dare we say a "lie"?). She never stated everyone convicted was guilty. She starts by saying "We were guilty" which clearly appears to be talking about those that entered the Capitol as part of the demonstration on Jan 6. If that isn't clear from the context, about how "they are gaslighting us" about what happened that day, her further comment clarifying that "everybody there was guilty" makes it absolutely clear who she was referring to.

And that claim would appear to be correct, as anyone that entered the Capitol, as part of the riot, was breaking federal law. But, perhaps you can point me to where she actually stated that everyone who was convicted was guilty, since her words appear to make it clear she was talking about those who entered the Capitol with her that day.

 

[FireDragon76]

Accepting a pardon typically implies an admission of guilt. Acknowledgment of guilt is not required, but I can understand why someone might not want to accept a pardon given the implications - especially in a world where rumors, speculation, lies, and propaganda pass for facts.

She admitted she was guilty, and the pardon is just a political stunt to further Trump's dishonest narrative about Jan. 6th.

 

[Josheb]

No one asserted she was.

She did!

Your original question was about her personal reasons for refusing the pardon. She spoke for herself.

Yes, and she - speaking for herself - claimed everyone was guilty and she - speaking for herself - asserted that belief as an explanation for her refusal to accept the pardon.

She's full of cr@p.

You, however, have correctly asserted that accepting a pardon is tantamount to an admission of guilt.

Well, legally speaking, it isn't (at least not according to a quick Google search of the matter). Admission of guilt as a concession is common but not required. More saliently, Ms. Hemphill has tied her decision to what she believes is Trumpian propaganda (not Leftist propaganda). The irony is the best response to propaganda is to note the propaganda as propaganda and then remain silent. We all know the cardinal rule: Do Not Feed the Trolls. The minute the troll is fed the feeder becomes part of the problem. She, and her inane words, are now part of the propaganda. Which is why I earlier asked in CBS News is reliable. We know they are not. ALL "news" agencies edit quotes and video footage to suit their agenda, not reality. None of us have any way of knowing whether the portions quoted are the whole account or representative of Ms. Hemphill's pov.

This was a misdemeanor case.

This was a misdemeanor case in which the convicted was convicted of lying.

Why was such a relatively trivial (by comparison) example chosen by the press, and why was one in which the liar lied chosen by the press as news?



Ms. Hemphill is not the story. CBS News would like its viewers to think that is the story, but it is not.

 

[Josheb]

She admitted she was guilty, and the pardon is just a political stunt to further Trump's dishonest narrative about Jan. 6th.

Are you an equal opportunity critic? Or are you a partisan critic?

 

[Josheb]

Sorry, it is this response that is not accurate (dare we say a "lie"?). She never stated everyone convicted was guilty. She starts by saying "We were guilty" which clearly appears to be talking about those that entered the Capitol as part of the demonstration on Jan 6. If that isn't clear from the context, about how "they are gaslighting us" about what happened that day, her further comment clarifying that "everybody there was guilty" makes it absolutely clear who she was referring to.

And that claim would appear to be correct, as anyone that entered the Capitol, as part of the riot, was breaking federal law. But, perhaps you can point me to where she actually stated that everyone who was convicted was guilty, since her words appear to make it clear she was talking about those who entered the Capitol with her that day.

She never said everyone convicted was guilty, but she said, "We were guilty."

Logic is supposed to be your friend. Try it sometime. Try not adding words to people's views they didn't speak, too. There's no mention of "convicted" in the op. Hemphill did not say everyone convicted was guilty and your own words contradict your post because "everyone there" was not convicted.

Some very important factors are neglected in that post, beginning with: Guilty of what? Guilty of entering the Capitol or guilty of some other crime? Ms. Hemphill was not convicted of entering the Capitol. She was charged with and found guilty of one count of demonstrating, picketing or parading in a Capitol building, not felony trespass. HUGE difference. Very important difference. The basis of her conviction - according to both court evidence and her personal testimony - was her deceitful effort to divert the attention of law enforcement. In other words, she's a liar, and a liar as a matter of public record. CBS News knew that before the chose to interview her and select her interview for broadcast over all the others they also interviewed. Additionally, almost as many people were found not guilty as were found guilty. Ms. Hemphill's appraisal is factually incorrect - or intellectually disingenuous because she knows not everyone was found guilty, not everyone was charged with a crime they actually committed, not everyone was found guilty of crimes they actually committed, and the government was unable to prove guilt "for crimes like insurrection and "entering the Capitol as part of the demonstration on Jan. 6." The charges and convictions are now a matter of public record.

To some small degree, every news report can now be checked for its veracity.

 

[Josheb]

The FBI went to Trump's residence on the stolen classified documents matter and were entirely professional about it every time. Even for the final "raid" they didn't use flashing lights or wear "FBI" windbreakers or interact with anyone who wasn't part of the club's staff.

The question you asked was a false equivalence trying to assert that the Jan 6th wasn't an "insurrection" because no one was charged with that crime, when dozens were charged with the related crime of sedition. (They are literally adjacent sections in the Federal criminal code.)

Guilty is a legal determination, and 1500 or so were found guilty legally, either through trials or pleas.

It's odd that you know this much about a single, minor offender and get some of the big stuff wrong.

This response wasn't the only false equivalence you posted today, let's not get out of hand here. I think I'll reply to your reply to @essentialsaltes today. You won't find anyone on this board that knows the Jan 6th criminals better than the two of us do.

You're wasting everyone's time (including your own) with non sequitur. The single point being made is that the FBI often does NOT act professionally. That was the claim made, and that claim is factually incorrect. Where and when they act professionally or unprofessionally is irrelevant.

 

[Josheb]

This is utter nonsense.

Well.... let's see.

The only thing you need to know if someone was found guilty or not is to read the verdict from the court docket.

Yep. I sampled the court records.

What evidence do you have Ms. Hemphill consulted the court records sufficiently to declare everyone there guilty? What proof do you have Ms. Hemphill knows everyone there was guilty given the fact almost as many twice as many people were charged but only slightly more than half were convicted?

More importantly, why would CBS News use Hemphill in the first place? (see post #16)


.