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

[SimplyMe]

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.

I think you need to go back and read what you wrote. I'm definitely claiming she never said "convicted" -- it is kind of the main point in my post. It was you that claimed it, your posts stated, "Her own words indicate she was not being fully forthcoming and prove she is unable to speak for all the others who were convicted." (emphasis mine).

Thanks for pointing out that you agree, she wasn't trying to speak for everyone convicted, since she never said that. That was your addition that has no basis.

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.

Great, but as you point out, not only does she not claim anything about convictions, she doesn't say anything about charges. The fact remains, it was illegal for them to enter the Capitol building. Since they entered they broke the law. How they were prosecuted or what they were convicted of doesn't change that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Nope. I responded to *YOUR* claim about the FBI being unprofessional when they went to Trump's "home". That claim was false.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well.... let's see.

Yep. I sampled the court records.

They you should know what i said was true.

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)


.

I was rejecting the notion that you need to see all of the court cases to know if they were guilty. A simple article about the statistics of the Jan 6th cases would cover that fact all by itself. 1500 convictions and guilty pleas. They were all legally guilty. It isn't hard to know that. Why is it that Ms. Hemphill can know these basic facts available to anyone with a web browser or newspaper and you can't?

 

[FireDragon76]

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

I'm only partisan for the truth.

 

[Josheb]

I think you need to go back and read what you wrote. I'm definitely claiming she never said "convicted" -- it is kind of the main point in my post. It was you that claimed it, your posts stated, "Her own words indicate she was not being fully forthcoming and prove she is unable to speak for all the others who were convicted." (emphasis mine).

If they were not convicted then she is unable to speak for them. She used the word "guilty." She said, "We were guilty, period." Who is the "we"? Is the "we" all those entering the Capitol? If so then she is factually incorrect - she is wrong - because not everyone who entered the Capitol was guilty. Is she referring to those entering the Capitol who were charged with some crime? If so, then she is again wrong because not everyone charged with a crime was found guilty. Some were exonerated. Is she referring to those found guilty of the specific crime with which they were charged? If so then, again, she is factually incorrect because not everyone found guilty was found guilty of the same crime with which she was found guilty and some of them (we can assume for the sake of this discussion that it was a small percentage of the convictions) were innocent despite being found guilty.

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote.

Thanks for pointing out that you agree, she wasn't trying to speak for everyone convicted, since she never said that. That was your addition that has no basis.

It's not an addition. It is one of the potential contexts within which she was speaking. Please stop misrepresenting what I posted. She does not know everyone was guilty. She made a claim she cannot prove. Assuming CBS News accurately reported her comments (which I doubt), she did to the interviewer what she did to the police that day: she lied.

Great, but as you point out, not only does she not claim anything about convictions, she doesn't say anything about charges.

Which would mean she is making a claim about all others' guilt absent any charges filed, absent any prosecution, absent any finding of guy, and absent any legal (or objective) measure of guilt.

If she's an intelligent person then she knows this; she knows what she's saying. If that is the case then she is knowingly making claims she cannot justify (or prove) with any objective, legal grounds and she's doing so under the auspices of her belief the pardon is part of the same propaganda effort that got her into the offer of a pardon in the first place.

• You are I making a statement that is factually incorrect when we do not know the error is called a mistake.
• You or I making a statement we know to be factually incorrect is a falsehood.
• You or I making a factually incorrect statement with an intent to deceive or misrepresent the truth is called a lie.

Assuming CBS News accurately portrayed what she said, Ms. Hemphill is either cluelessly making a false statement or lying. The only other alternative is that she's an idiot or she is mentally ill and thereby incompetent.

No matter what the explanation is, it indicts CBS News. Of all the people pardoned (or presented with a pardon), why would they present a person speaking a mistake as news? Why would they present a person making false statements? Why would they present a person they know is lying?

The fact remains, it was illegal for them to enter the Capitol building.

That is incorrect.

I can drive into DC and walk into the Capitol without being charged with any crime. Court testimony revealed some of the people entering the Capitol did so only after being invited to do so by police. Ms. Hemphill does not who did what. St best, she is over-generalizing and thereby making a mistake, a thoughtless one, perhaps, but she's not an idiot she knows what she's saying and is, therefore, lying. We should not be surprised she's lying because she was convicted of lying! How many times does she have to lie before being acknowledged as a liar?

Since they entered they broke the law.

Incorrect. Now you are over-generalizing.

How they were prosecuted or what they were convicted of doesn't change that.

Nearly have of those who entered were neither prosecuted or convicted. Not everyone who entered the Capitol was guilty of anything.

I'm only partisan for the truth.

The truth (at least as far as it applies to this op) is as I just explained to @SimplyMe. Assuming CBS News did not misrepresent Ms. Hemphill in any way, then Ms. Hemphill is talking out her rear and that is not news. She's either cognitively, mentally ill, making a proverbial "honest" mistake, or she's lying (or some combination of the four). Since she knows at least some of the facts of other cases and she was convicted of lying it is most reasonable to think she is doing more of the same with CBS News. If Ms. Hemphill did not want to be part of the purported propaganda then she needn't have mentioned anyone but herself. The quote, whether an accurate portrayal of all she said or a quote mine, is ironic.

At best, the "news" story is, "Look, see for yourselves: the lying liars of J6 are still lying," and that is just as much part of the propaganda as anything else.

 

[Josheb]

Nope. I responded to *YOUR* claim about the FBI being unprofessional when they went to Trump's "home". That claim was false.

The facts in evidence prove otherwise. Lawyers' reports on both sides of that event, Congressional testimony, and FBI policy. The Department of Justice, which includes the FBI, has a policy that officers may use force only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist and, even then, only the level of force that a reasonable officer on the scene would use under similar circumstances is appropriate. Those are the words of the FBI's response to the accusation.


Anything else is a violation of DOJ/FBI policy and procedure and thereby unprofessional (not to mention unethical and potentially unnecessary grounds for an appeal by which any charges against the defendant might be dismissed).

Since then SCOTUS has decided Trump is not prosecutable. While those in charge of the FBI at that time did not know that would be the case, they did know that was a possibility and they knew there was no precedent for their actions and they knew two different POTUSes were being treated with two different standards (despite one of the two having violated the law prior to being POTUS). Every single bit of it qualifies as conduct that is not professional when measured by the FBI's own standards. It's not a left or right thing.



Mar a Lago is one example among many when the FBI did not always act professionally. However rare that occurrence may be, it is incorrect to say the FBI always acts professionally and that was the point being made earlier. The attempt to single out one example among many is lame.

 

[Josheb]

I'm only partisan for the truth.

Is Ms. Hemphill telling the truth?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The facts in evidence prove otherwise. Lawyers' reports on both sides of that event, Congressional testimony, and FBI policy. The Department of Justice, which includes the FBI, has a policy that officers may use force only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist and, even then, only the level of force that a reasonable officer on the scene would use under similar circumstances is appropriate. Those are the words of the FBI's response to the accusation.

What "use of force"? There is none.

Anything else is a violation of DOJ/FBI policy and procedure and thereby unprofessional (not to mention unethical and potentially unnecessary grounds for an appeal by which any charges against the defendant might be dismissed).

Since then SCOTUS has decided Trump is not prosecutable.

A decision that shall live in infamy for centuries.

While those in charge of the FBI at that time did not know that would be the case, they did know that was a possibility and they knew there was no precedent for their actions and they knew two different POTUSes were being treated with two different standards (despite one of the two having violated the law prior to being POTUS). Every single bit of it qualifies as conduct that is not professional when measured by the FBI's own standards. It's not a left or right thing.

The difference is that one "POTUS" cooperated with the FBI for the examination and return of classified information that he might have, and the other conspired with his employees to hid gobs of classified information *from* the rightful custodians and the FBI.

Mar a Lago is one example among many when the FBI did not always act professionally.

It isn't. They were more than accommodating to obstruction by Trump.

However rare that occurrence may be, it is incorrect to say the FBI always acts professionally and that was the point being made earlier.

I said no such thing about the general behavior of the FBI.

The attempt to single out one example among many is lame.

The only "example" I have discussed here is the Mar-a-Lago search, which I believe you brought up and falsely characterized as "unprofessional". It wasn't.

 

[SimplyMe]

If they were not convicted then she is unable to speak for them. She used the word "guilty." She said, "We were guilty, period." Who is the "we"? Is the "we" all those entering the Capitol? If so then she is factually incorrect - she is wrong - because not everyone who entered the Capitol was guilty.

Everyone who entered the capitol building that day, as part of the riot, broke federal law. That they may have not been charged, or that a jury may have judged them "not guilty" because of some mitigating factor does not change the fact they entered a closed government building without permission -- a federal crime.

Is she referring to those entering the Capitol who were charged with some crime? If so, then she is again wrong because not everyone charged with a crime was found guilty. Some were exonerated. Is she referring to those found guilty of the specific crime with which they were charged? If so then, again, she is factually incorrect because not everyone found guilty was found guilty of the same crime with which she was found guilty and some of them (we can assume for the sake of this discussion that it was a small percentage of the convictions) were innocent despite being found guilty.

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote.

It's not an addition. It is one of the potential contexts within which she was speaking. Please stop misrepresenting what I posted. She does not know everyone was guilty. She made a claim she cannot prove. Assuming CBS News accurately reported her comments (which I doubt), she did to the interviewer what she did to the police that day: she lied.

If it is "one of the potential contexts" (emphasis mine) that means it is an addition -- it is you speculating on what she might have meant and not what she actually stated.

Which would mean she is making a claim about all others' guilt absent any charges filed, absent any prosecution, absent any finding of guy, and absent any legal (or objective) measure of guilt.

If she's an intelligent person then she knows this; she knows what she's saying. If that is the case then she is knowingly making claims she cannot justify (or prove) with any objective, legal grounds and she's doing so under the auspices of her belief the pardon is part of the same propaganda effort that got her into the offer of a pardon in the first place.

• You are I making a statement that is factually incorrect when we do not know the error is called a mistake.
• You or I making a statement we know to be factually incorrect is a falsehood.
• You or I making a factually incorrect statement with an intent to deceive or misrepresent the truth is called a lie.

Assuming CBS News accurately portrayed what she said, Ms. Hemphill is either cluelessly making a false statement or lying. The only other alternative is that she's an idiot or she is mentally ill and thereby incompetent.

No matter what the explanation is, it indicts CBS News. Of all the people pardoned (or presented with a pardon), why would they present a person speaking a mistake as news? Why would they present a person making false statements? Why would they present a person they know is lying?

That is incorrect.

I can drive into DC and walk into the Capitol without being charged with any crime.

First, if you drive into DC and "walk into the Capitol," that is to vague -- since "the Capitol" can be defined as Washington, D.C. (the capitol city). If you mean you can drive into DC and walk into the Capitol building -- they may or not be true (there are hours when you can show at security and be allowed in the building, entering through the Capitol Building Visitor's Center. What isn't possible, short of having express prior permission, is to walk in one of the doors of the actual Capitol Building -- so your claim is mostly false.

Regardless, this is about like claiming that I can walk onto a military installation during a public Air Show, so that means it is always legal for me to just walk on a military installation (something that, should you try it, could lead to tragic results).

Court testimony revealed some of the people entering the Capitol did so only after being invited to do so by police. Ms. Hemphill does not who did what. St best, she is over-generalizing and thereby making a mistake, a thoughtless one, perhaps, but she's not an idiot she knows what she's saying and is, therefore, lying. We should not be surprised she's lying because she was convicted of lying! How many times does she have to lie before being acknowledged as a liar?

Incorrect. Now you are over-generalizing.

Nearly have of those who entered were neither prosecuted or convicted. Not everyone who entered the Capitol was guilty of anything.

90% of speeders are never charged or convicted, as such, did they not break the law. By your logic, illegal immigrants are not "illegal" since they have not been convicted. Again, guilt can mean that you have been convicted, but it often used more generally to refer to people who broke a law, even if never charged or convicted. Or are you seriously going to try and argue to me that OJ was not guilty? You are trying to push particularly meanings on words, despite the fact that they are often used in other ways, to push a political agenda. Your gaslighting is not working.

The truth (at least as far as it applies to this op) is as I just explained to @SimplyMe. Assuming CBS News did not misrepresent Ms. Hemphill in any way, then Ms. Hemphill is talking out her rear and that is not news. She's either cognitively, mentally ill, making a proverbial "honest" mistake, or she's lying (or some combination of the four). Since she knows at least some of the facts of other cases and she was convicted of lying it is most reasonable to think she is doing more of the same with CBS News. If Ms. Hemphill did not want to be part of the purported propaganda then she needn't have mentioned anyone but herself. The quote, whether an accurate portrayal of all she said or a quote mine, is ironic.

At best, the "news" story is, "Look, see for yourselves: the lying liars of J6 are still lying," and that is just as much part of the propaganda as anything else.

She never talked about people having to be convicted, though you can argue that she did mean others "like her" -- people who were convicted of being at the Capitol during the riot -- which would make her statement true. Last, even claiming she "lied" requires that she knowingly stated a falsehood. She likely believes that the group she was talking about being guilty (whether those who entered the Capitol as part of the riot, those found guilty in court, etc.), which might mean she is mistaken (again, depending on what group she actually meant and your interpretation of what she meant by "guilty" -- legally guilty or merely they broke a law but didn't necessarily get convicted) but does not show she was lying.

 

[SimplyMe]

The facts in evidence prove otherwise. Lawyers' reports on both sides of that event, Congressional testimony, and FBI policy. The Department of Justice, which includes the FBI, has a policy that officers may use force only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist and, even then, only the level of force that a reasonable officer on the scene would use under similar circumstances is appropriate. Those are the words of the FBI's response to the accusation.


Anything else is a violation of DOJ/FBI policy and procedure and thereby unprofessional (not to mention unethical and potentially unnecessary grounds for an appeal by which any charges against the defendant might be dismissed).

I want to echo the question, when was force used at Mar-A-Lago? My understanding is no FBI officers ever even drew a gun and the one picture commonly used to claim the FBI had guns, is a picture of Secret Service agents in the front of Mar-A-Lago apparently in the evening (the search warrant was completed in daytime), not of FBI agents. Without any used of force, which did not occur, your statement above is meaningless.

Since then SCOTUS has decided Trump is not prosecutable.

Actually, they haven't. They said Trump can't be prosecuted for actions as President and they likely would have, if it had come before them, stated that Trump can't be prosecuted while he is President (but that is already a standing Justice Department policy). As such, Jack Smith withdrew the charges once Trump was elected.

Trump can still be prosecuted since the actions he was charged with were not presidential duties and largely occurred when he was not President. They can be refiled once Trump leaves office.

While those in charge of the FBI at that time did not know that would be the case, they did know that was a possibility and they knew there was no precedent for their actions and they knew two different POTUSes were being treated with two different standards (despite one of the two having violated the law prior to being POTUS). Every single bit of it qualifies as conduct that is not professional when measured by the FBI's own standards. It's not a left or right thing.

There were not two different standards. The only difference is that Pres. Biden (as well as VP Pence, odd how he keeps being "forgotten") both allowed the FBI come and search, no search warrant required. Pres. Trump not only was not allowing federal officers to hide documents, there was evidence he was intentionally hiding documents from his own lawyers (which is how classified documents ended up in a Mar-A-Lago bathroom), so they wouldn't know he had them when they talked to federal agents.

Mar a Lago is one example among many when the FBI did not always act professionally. However rare that occurrence may be, it is incorrect to say the FBI always acts professionally and that was the point being made earlier. The attempt to single out one example among many is lame.

How did the FBI not act professionally? I want actual, verifiable actions taken by the FBI, not just random rumors passed around Trump supporters.

 

[Josheb]

The only "example" I have discussed here is the Mar-a-Lago search, which I believe you brought up....

Yes, and the context in which I broached the episode was ignored. You are trolling.

What "use of force"? There is none.

30+ FBI agents is a show of force, and an unnecessary one given the particulars of the incident. Court testimony proved the use of deadly force was included in the operations order. While a statement allowing the use of deadly force is commonly included in search warrants, this particular search warrant is unique because it occurs in a physical environment secured by the Secret Service, a federal agency. DOJ policies and procedure explicitly stipulate only the degree of force necessary is allowed. There is no need for a show of force, nor a use of force, in a federally secured facility with a former (now current) POTUS.

...and falsely characterized as "unprofessional". It wasn't.

The DOJ's own guidelines prove otherwise.

Actually, they haven't. They said Trump can't be prosecuted for actions as President.....

The documents were removed when Trump was president. Trump, as POTUS, had the authority to do so, unlike Biden who removed documents as both senator and vice president he had no power or authority to remove or store in an unsecured location (the seat of his car in his garage) and thirty FBI agents were not sent to his home. The charges against Trump were dismissed by a federal District Court judge six months before Trump was elected.

There were not two different standards. The only difference is that Pres. Biden (as well as VP Pence, odd how he keeps being "forgotten") both allowed the FBI come and search, no search warrant required. Pres. Trump not only was not allowing federal officers to hide documents,

????? Why would anyone allow federal agents to hide documents in their residence?

...there was evidence he was intentionally hiding documents from his own lawyers (which is how classified documents ended up in a Mar-A-Lago bathroom), so they wouldn't know he had them when they talked to federal agents.

Baloney. The locks on the doors where the documents were stored were put there by the FBI at Mr. Trump's invitation. The FBI had been to Mar a Lago multiple times without any resistance (other than that which was happening in the courts). They did not need to raid Mar a Lago, they did not need to raid it with 30+ agents, and they most definitely did not need to do so with

How did the FBI not act professionally? I want actual, verifiable actions taken by the FBI, not just random rumors passed around Trump supporters.

Already answered.

The fact remains, it was illegal for them to enter the Capitol building. Since they entered they broke the law.

That is incorrect. Many of the people there that day were invited into the Capitol by the police. They were authorized to do so. They did not trespass. They were not aggressive or violent. many of them did not enter prohibited areas. Ms. Hemphill is wrong and wrong in several ways. CBS News knows this but did not report that. CBS News lied by omission.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, and the context in which I broached the episode was ignored. You are trolling.

I don't do trolling, do you?

30+ FBI agents is a show of force, and an unnecessary one given the particulars of the incident.

Is it a show of force when no one outside the property even knew it happened until the property owner posted to social media about it? There were no flashing lights, no marked cars, no "FBI windbreakers". This is the least demonstrative "show of force" I've ever heard about. As for the size of the force, it was a large, private property with many rooms to search for classified information where all of the people who work their work for the defendant.

Court testimony proved the use of deadly force was included in the operations order.

Not court testimony, it was in the warrant filed on the court docket. (There was no testimony anyway as there was no trial.) It was a standard procedure boilerplate for a search.

While a statement allowing the use of deadly force is commonly included in search warrants, this particular search warrant is unique because it occurs in a physical environment secured by the Secret Service, a federal agency.

You knew that and still included a couple sentences about it? Good grief, they just didn't remove it from the standard formula.

DOJ policies and procedure explicitly stipulate only the degree of force necessary is allowed. There is no need for a show of force, nor a use of force, in a federally secured facility with a former (now current) POTUS.

This is pathetic.

 

[SimplyMe]

The documents were removed when Trump was president.

They were? For some reason, many of them appeared to be part of the shipment sent to Mar-A-Lago when Trump's Presidency ended.

Trump, as POTUS, had the authority to do so, unlike Biden who removed documents as both senator and vice president he had no power or authority to remove or store in an unsecured location (the seat of his car in his garage) and thirty FBI agents were not sent to his home.

And no, Trump did not have the authority to remove classified documents to an unsecured location. You can claim he had the right to declassify them but there is strong evidence he never did that. Additionally, Federal law states that all Presidential documents, which include any classified information, are to be returned to the Federal Government when the Presidency ends. While Trump had the right to the documents while he remained President, he lost any authority to keep the documents when he was no longer President.

The charges against Trump were dismissed by a federal District Court judge six months before Trump was elected.

Sure, but not because Trump was innocent. Instead, it was because she claimed that the Special Prosecutor had been illegally appointed; something pretty much every legal scholar disagreed with her about. The decision was being appealed -- and like previous pro-Trump rulings made by this judge -- was expected to be reversed.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the search. The search occurred in August and Jack Smith was not appointed until November. The case being dismissed because the judge decided Jack Smith was improperly appointed, and not because Donald Trump did not break the law (which it is clear he did), has zero to do with the search warrant.

????? Why would anyone allow federal agents to hide documents in their residence?

Why would an FBI search hide documents? No, the FBI searched Biden's properties to find documents, Biden invited them to search his house and did not make them get a search warrant.

Baloney. The locks on the doors where the documents were stored were put there by the FBI at Mr. Trump's invitation.

False. The documents that were locked in May -- roughly a year after Trump had been contacted by the government to return documents -- and not by the FBI. Trump had admitted to having something 38 classified documents to his lawyers, which confirmed them to the FBI. The FBI told Trump's lawyers to put extra locks on to fully secure the room until those documents could be picked up by the government.

This wasn't the documents that had been stored in a bathroom, and also stored on a stage at a different time; the hidden documents are the ones that caused the FBI to get the search warrants. An individual at Mar-A-Lago informed the FBI that Trump had hidden documents, ones that he had hidden not just from the FBI but also from his lawyers. Based on this information, the FBI went to a Federal Judge and got the search warrant, and they found 102 additional documents (in addition to the 38 that were in the locked room).

The FBI had been to Mar a Lago multiple times without any resistance (other than that which was happening in the courts). They did not need to raid Mar a Lago, they did not need to raid it with 30+ agents, and they most definitely did not need to do so with

Oh, and how many times were they allowed to look for Classified documents? There was no "raid." Again, they had a source who told them there were documents hidden at Mar-A-Lago, documents that Trump was denying that he had -- he was hiding them from his own lawyers. In fact, Trump caused his lawyers to lie themselves to swear there were no other documents at Mar-A-Lago, a lie Trump told them to certify to the Federal Government.

Already answered.

That is incorrect. Many of the people there that day were invited into the Capitol by the police. They were authorized to do so. They did not trespass. They were not aggressive or violent. many of them did not enter prohibited areas. Ms. Hemphill is wrong and wrong in several ways. CBS News knows this but did not report that. CBS News lied by omission.

Sorry, no, they weren't, nor were they "authorized." Instead, the Capitol Police being badly outnumbered and overwhelmed -- and having been unable to keep people out of the Capitol building after the protestors smashed windows and forced doors open -- quit trying to keep them out. That is what was argued in court, "At least 29 people arrested for their role in the Jan. 6 events have claimed they thought they were free to enter the Capitol because law enforcement authorities either didn't stop them from coming in or never told them they were not allowed to be there" It is about like if you had been at a BLM protest, saw people breaking into a Target, and decided you should check out the Target since they were now "open" and no one stopped you from going in.

 

[Josheb]

They were? For some reason, many of them appeared to be part of the shipment sent to Mar-A-Lago when Trump's Presidency ended.

Think that through. The word "some" necessarily means the rest were removed while he was POTUS. The premise the "some" were removed after his presidency ended necessarily means he entered the White House after someone else took over the presidency and removed those documents either unawares to the sitting president (which would mean that POTUS was neglectful and irresponsible) or against that POTUS' will. Have you got any evidence either of those options ever happened? If so, then please post it.

If, on the other hand, what you mean is some documents were removed between the time of the election and the time of the inauguration then that is still a period when Trump was POTUS and the protest is then baseless and erroneous. ANY newscaster or commentator failing to communicate those facts is, therefore, lying by omission and not to be believed. Any law enforcement person from any agency neglecting to observe those facts is, likewise, knowingly and willfully misrepresenting the truth and, therefore, lying.


Just like CBS News and their selective use of Ms. Hemphill who is, purportedly, used to say things that clearly are not and cannot be true when considered in light of all the facts.

 

[Ophiolite]

• You are I making a statement that is factually incorrect when we do not know the error is called a mistake.
• You or I making a statement we know to be factually incorrect is a falsehood.
• You or I making a factually incorrect statement with an intent to deceive or misrepresent the truth is called a lie.

Assuming CBS News accurately portrayed what she said, Ms. Hemphill is either cluelessly making a false statement or lying. The only other alternative is that she's an idiot or she is mentally ill and thereby incompetent.

If I try to put myself in Ms. Hemphill's position I find it quite natural to think. "We did wrong. What we did was wrong. I don't care about legal minutae, it's a matter of right and wrong. We were wrong. We were guilty."

Your demand that she use the word guilty in a precise legal manner seems obsessive and silly. Certainly the very practical alternative I have offered is not one of your three options. So, if your demand is not obsessive, or silly, it is at least demonstrably incomplete. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and classify your statement as a mistake.

 

[SimplyMe]

Think that through. The word "some" necessarily means the rest were removed while he was POTUS. The premise the "some" were removed after his presidency ended necessarily means he entered the White House after someone else took over the presidency and removed those documents either unawares to the sitting president (which would mean that POTUS was neglectful and irresponsible) or against that POTUS' will. Have you got any evidence either of those options ever happened? If so, then please post it.

If, on the other hand, what you mean is some documents were removed between the time of the election and the time of the inauguration then that is still a period when Trump was POTUS and the protest is then baseless and erroneous. ANY newscaster or commentator failing to communicate those facts is, therefore, lying by omission and not to be believed. Any law enforcement person from any agency neglecting to observe those facts is, likewise, knowingly and willfully misrepresenting the truth and, therefore, lying.


Just like CBS News and their selective use of Ms. Hemphill who is, purportedly, used to say things that clearly are not and cannot be true when considered in light of all the facts.

It means no such thing. The evidence was that he removed those documents as part of his personal effects from the White House, so technically his presidency was over and Biden was the President but while Biden was being sworn in. Now, you might claim that when they were packed up (since the goods would have been packed into boxes while Trump was President) that he had the right to do that; the issue is that all papers related to his Presidency were to be turned over to the federal government. It doesn't matter if they were removed from the White House while he was President or when his Presidency ended, they were required to be given back to the government, which he did not do. Once Trump was no longer President he no longer had the right to keep those documents, regardless of when they were removed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Jan. 6 Capitol rioter from New Hampshire asks to formally refuse presidential pardon​

"I caused a lot of hurt by being down there. I hurt a lot of people along the way, I said a lot of nasty things," said Jason Riddle, who is a Navy veteran, told WCVB-TV's sister station WMUR-TV in an exclusive interview. "I have to acknowledge that reality, and part of that is not taking any sort of pardon or pass or anything from Trump that denies that reality, because once you do that, I'm right back where I started."

"I clearly was obsessed with Trump. I was mentally being held hostage to something that was just sucking me dry," Riddle said.

Riddle, who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 90 days in prison and three years of probation, said that he believes he deserved to spend time behind bars.

"This was a horrible thing that happened, and I deserve to go to prison, and so does Donald Trump."

Previously in Jason Riddle.

 

[Josheb]

It means no such thing. The evidence was....

What's the op about?

 

[Josheb]

If I try to put myself in Ms. Hemphill's position I find it quite natural to think. "We did wrong. What we did was wrong. I don't care about legal minutae, it's a matter of right and wrong. We were wrong. We were guilty."

Perhaps, but that is not what she said, and you do not know her intent. You do know the cardinal rule of discussion boards is that if something can be misread then it is likely to be misread. I assume you are also familiar with the condition called attributional error and how accurate people imagine themselves to be when the research shows we are, in reality, abysmal at it (empirical research shows we correctly assign motive only 12% of the time! ). What a sentence states and what it can be made to say (or mean) are often two entirely different things. Taken as quoted (and I have already observed several potential problems therein) Ms. Hemphill is wrong in multiple ways.

Your demand that she use the word guilty....

Is your own invention. I never made any such demand of her. Please do misrepresent my posts.

 

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps, but that is not what she said, and you do not know her intent.

Correct, but neither do you, though your post implies that you think you do. You certainly reduce it to a couple of options, whereas - before you butchered my response - I debunked that limitation.

Is your own invention. I never made any such demand of her. Please do misrepresent my posts.

Very cute! Accuse me of misreperesenting your posts and then offer in evidence a portion of my post, said portion not reflecting what I actually said.
If I follow your mode of rhetoric I would conclude that either you are just set on being contrary, or your reading comprehension is sub-par. Fortunately, I believe there are other plausible explanations for your responses, but none that would encourage me towards further interaction.
Walk safe, smile occassionally, goodnight.