The FBI's Secret Weapon In The Capitol Attack Manhunt

[Razor]

Ted Cruz told the truth and then ..............

On Wednesday, Sen. Ted Cruz told the truth about what happened at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, calling it "a violent terrorist attack on the Capitol, where we saw the men and women of law enforcement demonstrate incredible courage."

Within 24 hours -- so on the actual anniversary of the January riot -- the Texas Republican was furiously backpedaling in the face of criticism from the Trump wing of the GOP base.

Witness this back and forth between Cruz and Fox demagogue host Tucker Carlson on the latter's show on Thursday:

Carlson: "You called this a 'terror attack' when by no definition was it a terror attack. That's a lie. You told that lie on purpose, and I'm wondering why you did."

 

 

ruz: "Well, Tucker, thank you for having me on. ... The way I phrased things yesterday, it was sloppy, and it was, frankly, dumb."

Carlson: "I don't buy that. Whoa, whoa, whoa. I don't buy that. ... You take words as seriously as any man who's ever served in the Senate. ... I do not believe that you used that accidentally. I just don't."

 

It went on like that for a while but you get the gist: Cruz was groveling at Carlson's feet in hopes of getting on the right side of the Trumpers.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/07/politics/ted-cruz-jan-6-terrorist-attack-capitol/index.html

[Pastor Matt]

6 hours ago, Razor said:

My guess is that the charge of insurrection  would be harder to prove. Insurrection is defined as a violent uprising against authority or the government. The person can be fined and/or sentenced to 10 years in jail. 

The charge of insurrection and or sedition may be coming for some. Time will tell. I have read that there are more serious charges to come. Time will tell. 

I found this after posting the above.

 

So we're going to call J6 an insurrection without a single one being charged with insurrection? Maybe it should be renamed Obstruction. Makes absolutely no logical sense

3 hours ago, Razor said:

Fact check. Not one single person has been charged with insurrection. This meme needs to be retitled obstruction to be factually correct

[Razor]

30 minutes ago, PastorMatt said:

So we're going to call J6 an insurrection without a single one being charged with insurrection? Maybe it should be renamed Obstruction. Makes absolutely no logical sense

Fact check. Not one single person has been charged with insurrection. This meme needs to be retitled obstruction to be factually correct

Someone may be charged in the future. Will have to wait and see what plays out. Just because no one has been charged yet does not mean there was no insurrection. I knew a fellow who murdered his boss. All the evidence was there. Everyone knew he had done it, but the body was not found. No body? He can't be charged ... that is until about 4 years later when a body was found. 

The definition of insurrection is, a usually violent attempt to take control of a government. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

 

[BrotherTony]

51 minutes ago, Razor said:

Someone may be charged in the future. Will have to wait and see what plays out. Just because no one has been charged yet does not mean there was no insurrection. I knew a fellow who murdered his boss. All the evidence was there. Everyone knew he had done it, but the body was not found. No body? He can't be charged ... that is until about 4 years later when a body was found. 

The definition of insurrection is, a usually violent attempt to take control of a government. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

 

There is no statute of limitations on murder...there might be/probably is on insurrection.  You're comparing apples and bricks again, Bill. 

[Pastor Matt]

1 hour ago, Razor said:

Someone may be charged in the future. Will have to wait and see what plays out.

So in your own words then, you're calling it an insurrection based on what MIGHT happen on FUTURE charges. Talk about putting the cart in front of the horse. 

[Pastor Matt]

1 hour ago, Razor said:

I knew a fellow who murdered his boss. All the evidence was there. Everyone knew he had done it, but the body was not found. No body? He can't be charged ... that is until about 4 years later when a body was found. 

Yea, he can still be charged since there is no S-O-L on murder (at least in Ct.) In order to prove wrong doing...you NEED evidence. You kinda helped my point here.  If there is no body, then the lawyers have to rely on circumstantial evidence. You can't convicted someone on "I know he's guilty" or based on public approval.

In the case of J6, we have all the "bodies" on multiple video recordings, yet no insurrection charges. Go figure. If there is no evidence on insurrection, you then have to find another way to arrest those that entered, and that is exactly how it is playing out. 

[TheGloryLand]

1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

There is no statute of limitations on murder...there might be/probably is on insurrection.  You're comparing apples and bricks again, Bill. 

Is this the famous bouncing bill guy.

[TheGloryLand]

2 hours ago, Razor said:

Someone may be charged in the future. Will have to wait and see what plays out. Just because no one has been charged yet does not mean there was no insurrection. I knew a fellow who murdered his boss. All the evidence was there. Everyone knew he had done it, but the body was not found. No body? He can't be charged ... that is until about 4 years later when a body was found. 

The definition of insurrection is, a usually violent attempt to take control of a government. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

 

You do good work, and very professional. Just don't call anyone bad names around here.

[Razor]

2 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

There is no statute of limitations on murder...there might be/probably is on insurrection.  You're comparing apples and bricks again, Bill. 

Five years I believe. There is no statue of limitations on terrorism. 

Also, why charge them with insurrection when they can charge them with obstruction? Insurrection carries a maximum of ten years while the obstruction law carries a maximum of up to twenty years.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Razor
Clarification of statement

[Pastor Matt]

6 minutes ago, Razor said:

Five years I believe. There is no statue of limitations on terrorism. 

Also, why charge them with insurrection when they can charge them with obstruction? Insurrection carries a maximum of ten years while the obstruction law carries a maximum of up to twenty years.

Exactly, thank you so much. Thank you for clarifying that's an obstruction not an insurrection. 

[BrotherTony]

17 minutes ago, Razor said:

Five years I believe. There is no statue of limitations on terrorism. 

Also, why charge them with insurrection when they can charge them with obstruction? Insurrection carries a maximum of ten years while the obstruction law carries a maximum of up to twenty years.

If they're going to call it an "insurrection" they need to be consistent and charge them with that. Also, this WASN'T terrorism, domestic or otherwise. The Democrats will hopefully be thrown out of office soon, and the lunacy they're supporting will be over. Nobody "obstructed" anything...seems like life went on regardless of what happened without any obstructions other than what they Democrats and the Capitol police perpetrated.

[Razor]

27 minutes ago, E Morales said:

You do good work, and very professional. Just don't call anyone bad names around here.

I've been called a number of names. I don't know if any drew warnings to the writer or not. I am not at all sure what is considered a violation and what negative name is considered ok. 

I guess I won't call anyone anything I would not want to be called. 

Back to the topic.

Obstruction is a wide concept. 

 

"Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statue as an act that:...corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

There are basically three categories of obstructing justice.

1. Interference with judicial processes and court proceedings by:

• Obstructing, resisting, opposing, assaulting , or exposing process servers (18 U.S.C. section 1501) and extradition agents in the execution of their duties (18 U.S.C. section 1502).
• Attempting to influence, threaten, intimidate, or impede a juror, grand jury, court officer, judge, or magistrate (18 U.S.C. section 1503)
• Retaliating against a federal judge or federal law enforcement officer by making false claims against or slandering them (18 U.S.C. section 1521)
• Trying to influence a juror through written communication (18 U.S.C. section 1504) or by picketing or parading outside a courtroom (18 U.S.C. section 1507)
• Recording the deliberations or voting of a jury, or observing or listening in on a jury one is not part of (18 U.S.C. section 1508)
• Stealing, falsifying, or in other ways tampering with the proceedings of any court in the U.S. so that a judgment is reversed, made void, or fails to take effect (18 U.S.C. section 1505), or effects a false release or bail (18 U.S.C. section 1506)
• Tampering with (18 U.S.C. section 1512) or retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant in a trial or legal proceeding (18 U.S.C. section 1513), including killing or attempting to kill in order to prevent evidence from being shared. (To prevent witness tampering, the courts can issue a restraining order [18 U.S.C. section 1514].)
• Using threats or force to prevent, or obstruct, or interfere with the performance of a court order (18 U.S.C. section 1509)

2. Interference with law enforcement and investigation of a crime by:

• Obstructing a pending investigation by Congress, a committee of either House, a federal administrative agency, or a federal department (18 U.S.C. section 1505), or the Armed Forces (18 U.S.C. section 1518)
• Obstructing a criminal investigation by bribery, or for a financial institution officer to notify a customer of the contents of a subpoena (18 U.S.C. section 1510)
• Obstructing pending investigations involving:
  • The insurance industry (18 U.S.C. section 1515)
  • Federal audits (18 U.S.C. section 1516)
  • Financial institutions (18 U.S.C. section 1517)
  • Health care offenses (18 U.S.C. section 1518)
• Conspiring to obstruct law enforcement in order to facilitate illegal gambling (18 U.S.C. section 1511)

3. Destruction or concealment of evidence through:

• Falsifying records in federal investigations and in bankruptcy cases (18 U.S.C. section 1519) or destroying corporate audit records (18 U.S.C. section 1520)
• Bribery
• Threats, physical force, or assault
• Tampering with evidence: concealing, destroying, altering, or falsifying documents and written and oral testimony.
• False statements meant to mislead investigators by intentionally omitting relevant information, concealing material facts, creating a false impression, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on physical evidence that is false, forged, or altered
• Abuse of power to prevent or obstruct compliance by others with an investigator or judicial proceeding

 

Elements of an Obstruction of Justice Charge

The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge differ by code section. For a person to be convicted of obstruction of justice, they must have acted with the specific intent to create an obstruction. The statute criminalizes "endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede" the legal process, even if those endeavors were unsuccessful. Seemingly innocuous acts could become criminal activity if they have the intended effect of impeding justice.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/obstruction-of-justice.html

[Razor]

50 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

If they're going to call it an "insurrection" they need to be consistent and charge them with that. Also, this WASN'T terrorism, domestic or otherwise. The Democrats will hopefully be thrown out of office soon, and the lunacy they're supporting will be over. Nobody "obstructed" anything...seems like life went on regardless of what happened without any obstructions other than what they Democrats and the Capitol police perpetrated.

What constitutes terrorism in your view?

[BrotherTony]

5 minutes ago, Razor said:

What constitutes terrorism in your view?

You're the one who likes posting these "definitions" from Merriam Webster....Go ahead. I have told you more than once I'm not playing semantics with you since that seems to be one of your tactics to deflect. If you don't know what terrorism is at your age, I can't help you. As I've said before, I'm NOT doing your homework for you. Besides, there is no set, universal definition of that term.

Edited January 8, 2022 by BrotherTony

[Razor]

Terrorism -- the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

https://www.google.com/search?q=terrorism+defined&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS937US937&oq=terrorism+defined&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l6j0i22i30l3.3359j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Seems to fit what those folk were doing inside the Capitol Building. 

Well, outside as well. Sure looked like terror.

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Razor