'I’m facing a prison sentence': US Capitol rioters plead with Trump for pardons

Jenna Ryan, a Texas real estate broker who took a private jet to Washington to join the attack on the US Capitol, has pleaded with Donald Trump to pardon her after she was arrested by federal authorities.

After surrendering to the FBI on Friday, Ryan said: “We all deserve a pardon.”

“I’m facing a prison sentence,” she told CBS11 at her home. “I think I do not deserve that.”

Turning to look into the camera, she said: “I would ask the president of the United States to give me a pardon.”

...

Ryan said she had been “displaying my patriotism”, adding: “I listen to my president who told me to go to the Capitol.”

...
A lawyer for Jacob Chansley, an Arizona man who wore horns, animal skin and face paint while carrying a spear and entering the Senate chamber, said Trump should do the “honourable thing and pardon those of his peaceful followers who accepted the president’s invitation”.

Albert Watkins said his client had no criminal history and was an “active practitioner of yoga”.

I think the above will be very problematic for Trump.

First off he cannot pardon them while saying he thinks they were Antifa as any blanket pardon would stop the FBI cold in 'getting those Antifa infiltrators'.


Also with regards to any Insurrection and Sedeition charges if they are brought, they are difficult to prove, due to it being difficult to prove the intent of the speaker, but a pillar of that prosecution is 'what a reasonable person would infer from the speech'.

So if you have dozens and maybe hundreds of charged people all using as defense "what I heard was a call to arms by Trump and a call to invade" that matters. It does not matter that someone can say it was not conclusive. It is based on what they reasonably believed and if you think another person in that spot might believe similar. That is proven when it is dozens or hundreds saying the same thing.

There are indeed too many to sort through right now, even if Trump wanted to pardon the right ones (whatever that means) and not the Antifa guys, who are not Antifa, but need to be Antifa for those who need to blame Antifa.

The horned guy will be an interesting case, because assuming he is pretty much a non violent guy, the odds are it is a person with a genuine mental medical condition. Still, he charged in with the Nazis and zip ties guys (maybe they are Antifa as well) with potentially more violent intentions, even against someone like Pence (who might also be Antifa).

I assume Trump ignores the horn guy and the moron real estate agent who flew in, because what do they do for him (and they are Antifa), but how much time should horn guy and real estate lady spend in prison. I have no idea on this, and would be curious to hear other opinions as to the potentially different levels of time each category of rioters should receive.

Will be interesting to see if Bannon can beg his way to a pardon, assuming he is not considered Antifa now. I will actually predict he gets tossed one. Not so much for horn guy. Sorry horn guy.

The Shaman is in more trouble than one would think. He is supposed to have left some sort of threatening letter on Pence's desk. Not the innocent organic after all.

But what I really wanted to know is, can Trump pardon someone who has not yet been convicted?

Won't cause him the least bit of a problem. I assume he has zero intention of pardoning any of them, unless there are some individuals that actually have a personal connection or some political or financial value to him. Blanket pardon definitely not happening.

But if for some reason he wanted to pardon a bunch of rioters, the cognitive dissonance that would be displayed is completely standard for Trump, and has been seen many, many times before. No one that matters to Trump would blink an eye at it.

Yes, a POTUS can pardon someone not yet convicted. He can even pardon someone 'not yet charged' as we discussed prior with Jimmy Carter pardoning all 'Vietnam Draft dodgers' whether they had even been identified or not.

One can imagine some nightmare scenario where a blanket pardon could create a loyal militia beholden to him (both directly and indirectly by influencing others). While an outlandish scenario, events that have occurred have been dramatic enough to consider it as a possibility for the future.

But I think such a move for Trump would fast-track both the 25th and / or impeachment, force states to take legal actions of their own and open legal liabilities after his term is over. I also don't think he really likes or feels any connection to most of those who were involved in the attack, but merely enjoyed their adoration of him.

The bigger 'problem' i was alluding to that Trump might face is if he is charged with the incitement around the sedition and insurrection. Again a major component as to whether it is protected speech versus convictable incitement is a reasonable man test on how a person might percieve the comments.

A near impossible bar when you say 'I did not intend it that way' and maybe a person or two says 'that is how I took it'. That is more of a he said, she said. But if hundreds go into court saying 'what I heard from Trump was march to the Capital, and invade, and fight', then it makes it harder to see that as proving the 'reasonable man test' of it being incitement.

The pardon power is obviously problematic and needs to be revised.
I know, it's in the constitution and won't be easy. But how can it be possible for someone to commit treason and simply be pardoned.

Man, I've been missing out on an awesome thread. This is some good stuff!

ya or the military industrial complex.

I do think that a good lawyer should be able to fire up a very strong defense for these people. I mean, the president and dozens of other leaders asked them to do this.

It may pose an interesting conundrum for Trumpsters.

The most likely ones to donate to the defense of these fellow Trumpsters are fellow Trumpsters thru a Go Fund Me. If that person gets competent defense they will almost certainly point the finger at Trump and possible put him in jeopardy if he is put on trial.

Thus the Trumpsters might fund indirectly the prosecution of Trump.

Who is Antifa in that scenario if it happens? The person being prosecuted, the people donating or all of them?

I don't think any of this is a surprise. This is pretty much what I would have guessed the plan was.

As if that would be a valid legal defense.

The devil made me do it.

https://navarroreport.com/#342e5f15-...8-9051a9397783


Dr. Peter Navarro received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and is a professor emeritus of economics and public policy at the University of California, Irvine. He was an economic and trade advisor for President Donald J. Trump during the 2016 Presidential campaign, and joined the White House staff on Inauguration Day.

duecestamed , report from a white house director . maybe your the conspiracy theorist ?

dueces , this is from a while ago but im sure no one here has watched as it wasnt on cnn or salon .

MIT PhD Analysis of Michigan Votes Reveals Unfortunate Truth of U.S. Voting Systems.

So rather than reply to posts in the thread where you know this belongs, you come back from your ban to post this nonsense here. Seems like you learned a lot ...not sure how long your time with us is going to be.

But if you think a Peter Navarro "report" and a broken video link from Dr. Shiva (Inventor of email! LOL) were going to suddenly convince everyone that there's some deep truth that Trump's team has been unable to share with the courts, you're even more deluded than I thought.

[QUOTE=Bobo Fett;56851204]So rather than reply to posts in the thread where you know this belongs, you come back from your ban to post this nonsense here. Seems like you learned a lot ...not sure how long your time with us is going to b

But if you think a Peter Navarro "report" and a broken video link from Dr. Shiva (Inventor of email! LOL) were going to suddenly convince everyone that there's some deep truth that Trump's team has been unable to share with the courts, you're even more deluded than I thought.[/.

that’s fine , If you ban people for differing opinions I’m not sure I’d like to be anymore , are you sure this is what sklanski and mason want from there mods on there platform? I’ve kept it civil the entire time deucestamed banned me because he had no relevant reply to what I was showing and deleted my comments . What are we North Korea..

And yea I do think a phd whitehouse economists opinion matters more than Jim Acosta or what ever cnn pundit that says different but understand I’m not the conspiracy theorist if you think Navarro reports are false that’s makes you the theorist.

Also I’ll repost the broken link it’s a phd from MIT who breaks down the data from Wisconsin , is that not Credentialed enough for you. Or do you prefer hatchet job opeds.

I prefer Lizard People. When you come back from your latest ban - try to include them in your beliefs. Thanks in advance and enjoy your holiday.

All the best.

I don't ban anyone in this forum, and I'm not talking about differing opinions.

Just the other day, Mat expressed either here or in the mod forum how happy he is with this forum now. So, yeah.

No, he banned you for the same reason I assume he has again this time - you keep posting your election riggie theories where they don't belong. This time was quite perplexing, because the conversation was going on in this thread, and you decided to post it back where it didn't belong again.

Now you're just acting like a ****ing idiot, comparing an oppressive communist regime with a private forum where you got temp-banned for breaking the rules.

WTF does him being an economist have to do with knowledge of election fraud?

No, there is no conspiracy required to believe in a free and fair election.

LOL, I don't need a link to renowned wingnut Dr. Shiva's video. I've watched a couple of them before. Your appeal to authority fails badly when it involves someone like him, or Navarro. The fact that a PhD in economics and a PhD in biological engineering believe the election was rigged doesn't change the fact that Trump's team can't even present evidence in court.

It's over, dude. Time to move on.

fishfood's LOL appeal to authority is even more ridiculous when you consider that Phds from elite universities who believe that the election was NOT rigged probably outnumber riggie Phds by 1000 to 1.

fishfood,

My wife has a Phd from an Ivy League university in a field that has nothing to do with voting security. Will you be persuaded if she makes a YouTube video about how she doesn't believe the election was rigged.

Not this Peter Navarro?

"White House Advisor Peter Navarro Releases Dubious Voter Fraud Report"

OMG