Guilty Pleas vs. Guilty Pleas

 

There is a lot of back and forth these days on Ricochet, Twitter, etc. about J6 defendants generally and Jacob Chanley in particular having entered guilty pleas. Some say the plea proves the justness of the charges, and others say the system coerced the plea.

At the heart of the debate is the “plea deal.” A plea deal is not necessarily a guilty plea motivated by remorse and a desire to be accountable. It is a negotiation where the State is willing to demand less in punishment (sometimes a lot less) to secure a conviction, and a defendant calculates that the outcome when weighing in multiple factors — cost (if any) of litigating, pre-trial confinement, sentencing, post-release status, type of incarceration — he/she is better off taking the deal than going to trial. A plea deal shortcuts the process and disengages the engine of due process, assuming as it does that the safeguards for the defendant are now rendered moot.

Plea deals are probably best in two circumstances: (1) processing repeat petty criminals, and (2) securing witnesses knowledgeable of a crime because they had a limited role in it. The former group are recidivists that need to be back in jail promptly and making a small deal expedites the process without a big “give” from the government. (The problem arises when a person appears to be escalating from property crimes to violence but the system just pleas away until a murder is committed.) Plea deals for the latter group is just if the person’s role was minor and they are not a career criminal. Note that a plea deal is not a grant of immunity, which is another tool to get witness testimony, but which enables the person to completely evade punishment.

Plea deals are not justice when the underlying basis for prosecution is weak. And here is where the J6 looks more like a political pogrom than a righteous rendering of justice for an attack on our democratic system of government. Defendants were arrested from around the country, sometimes by tactical units, and brought to a place where emotions ran high amongst a jury pool massaged by media to believe that the Trump Administration was a Russian coup and that tyranny had fallen on America. Many were put into solitary confinement for months on end. Few of the defendants had the financial means to obtain private counsel. In parallel, the media and Democrat political operatives were working diligently to warn off any attorney willing to represent a J6 defendant.

Faced with this circumstance, and represented by public defenders who may have sincerely thought (because they, too, lived where the jury pool lived) that your best interests were served by confessing the errors of political thinking that could have motivated your participation at any level in the J6 event, who wouldn’t accept a plea deal? Even if that deal required you to say something that did not happen, to confess to motivations and intentions you did not possess?

And when you compare the DOJ and federal law enforcement response to J6 to its response to the attack on the White House, the siege of federal courthouse in Portland, and other acts of politically motivated mayhem, there is a stark differential in the energy, zeal, and effort to incarcerate. Is it because it was the Capitol? I get the importance of the symbol. But it represents a fundamental difference between conservatives and Progressives: America does not reside in the Capitol, it resides in the beating heart of all Americans, not just the centers of power.

The Bible relates the story of Jesus expelling by force merchants and money changers from the Temple:

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.
John 2:15–16

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Matthew 21:12–13

Was he a terrorist attacking the symbol of Judaism, or a devout who wished to rid it of profane activity? Is not our Capitol a secular Temple? Should we be complacent about profanities that occur therein?

And therein lies the rub. If the J6 rioters wanted to correct a profanity, then they are not insurrectionists and should never have been characterized as such. Prior rioters have been there, in smaller numbers, attacking what they considered to be profanities. But those rioters — e.g., the Kavanaugh protesters — were not treated like the J6 defendants.

Are there J6 defendants who should be incarcerated for their acts? Yes, just as there are persons who attacked the White House and the courthouse in Portland and elsewhere who should be incarcerated; on the same basis and to the same extent. Are there J6 defendants who have been ill-used by the system? It appears that way because of all the malfeasance we have seen out of the DC office of DOJ during the last few years. One suspects, but cannot know, that had trials occurred in the various places where these defendants resided you would get a variety of outcomes rather than the seemingly certain liberty shredder of the DC courts.

If you were in the dock under these circumstances, what wouldn’t you say to suffer the least continuing harm?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 48 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Brian Wyneken Member
    Brian Wyneken
    @BrianWyneken

    @robtgilsdorf (“TBA”) commented in another post ( https://ricochet.com/1397255/losing-faith-in-tucker-carlson/comment-page-3/#comment-6698144 ):

    “At a certain intensity, revering the law is indistinguishable from worshipping government.”

    This made me think of Lincoln’s move from anguishing over the lawlessness of the mobs engaged in the physical conflicts over the expansion of slavery in the west to actually confronting corruption (see, the “Cooper Union” speech where Lincoln detailed the apparent conspiracy among Senator Stephen Douglas, President Buchanan, and Chief Justice Roger Taney).

    It may be the influence of legal training and practice that makes it so difficult to see beyond the theory of what it means to “plead guilty.” It surely is dispiriting, as an officer of the court, to come to a belief that a theory upon which so much is based can be so often horrendously abused.

    • #1
  2. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jason Chanley is a hero on the order of Donald Trump and Martin Luther King.

    They have acted in ways that have resulted in their having been charged with crimes that brought great attention to the misdeeds, even crimes, of their accusers. 

    These heroic acts have informed and in some cases brought great benefits to the American people. We may yet see greater benefits from their works.

    • #2
  3. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    I’d change the title of the post to “Guilty Pleas vs. Confessions.”

    As @rodin rightly notes, a guilty plea is generally coerced in some way, whether it’s a promise of no jail and a lenient probation or a cold calculation of probability of longer jail time. For example, General Flynn was innocent, but pled guilty because the government said they would not go after his family if he did.

    A confession is generally freely given and is given regardless of any offer of more lenient treatment. Thus it is an actual admission of guilt, at least in my mind.

    • #3
  4. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Here is a link I copied from theconservativetreehouse.com that goes to a tribute to those incarcerated without being granted their Constitutional rights:

    {Direct Rumble Link}

     

     

    • #4
  5. Brian Wyneken Member
    Brian Wyneken
    @BrianWyneken

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    I’d change the title of the post to “Guilty Pleas vs. Confessions.”

    As @ rodin rightly notes, a guilty plea is generally coerced in some way, whether it’s a promise of no jail and a lenient probation or a cold calculation of probability of longer jail time. For example, General Flynn was innocent, but pled guilty because the government said they would not go after his family if he did.

    A confession is generally freely given and is given regardless of any offer of more lenient treatment. Thus it is an actual admission of guilt, at least in my mind.

    I did not practice criminal law (so I could be incorrect about this), but accounts of pleading guilty very often involve a statement in court (sworn, I think) from the defendant to the effect that, “yes – I did the act to which I am now pleading guilty.” To that extent a guilty plea seems more like a confession. The institutional purpose of this act of contrition would seem to be to protect the “integrity” of the plea deal process.

    • #5
  6. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I have to think that some number of these Capitol protesters knew, at least by the time the acts were ongoing, that they were engaged in acts that were crimes and they might be charged and tried.

    I doubt any of them even imagined it would be what we have seen.

    • #6
  7. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    One of the most Soviet aspects of the J6 prosecutions was the public defender who used her position to indoctrinate defendants about “white privilege.” And another defendant was released in exchange for denouncing Trump.

    Josef Stalin is smiling up from Hell.

    • #7
  8. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Brian Wyneken (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    I’d change the title of the post to “Guilty Pleas vs. Confessions.”

    As @ rodin rightly notes, a guilty plea is generally coerced in some way, whether it’s a promise of no jail and a lenient probation or a cold calculation of probability of longer jail time. For example, General Flynn was innocent, but pled guilty because the government said they would not go after his family if he did.

    A confession is generally freely given and is given regardless of any offer of more lenient treatment. Thus it is an actual admission of guilt, at least in my mind.

    I did not practice criminal law (so I could be incorrect about this), but accounts of pleading guilty very often involve a statement in court (sworn, I think) from the defendant to the effect that, “yes – I did the act to which I am now pleading guilty.” To that extent a guilty plea seems more like a confession. The institutional purpose of this act of contrition would seem to be to protect the “integrity” of the plea deal process.

    I approve of you putting quotation marks around the word integrity.

    • #8
  9. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    Brian Wyneken (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    I’d change the title of the post to “Guilty Pleas vs. Confessions.”

    As @ rodin rightly notes, a guilty plea is generally coerced in some way, whether it’s a promise of no jail and a lenient probation or a cold calculation of probability of longer jail time. For example, General Flynn was innocent, but pled guilty because the government said they would not go after his family if he did.

    A confession is generally freely given and is given regardless of any offer of more lenient treatment. Thus it is an actual admission of guilt, at least in my mind.

    I did not practice criminal law (so I could be incorrect about this), but accounts of pleading guilty very often involve a statement in court (sworn, I think) from the defendant to the effect that, “yes – I did the act to which I am now pleading guilty.” To that extent a guilty plea seems more like a confession. The institutional purpose of this act of contrition would seem to be to protect the “integrity” of the plea deal process.

    Yes, the defendant must “allocute” in court, for the purpose of putting on the record that the plea is being made voluntarily, not under duress, that the plea agreement’s terms are the only deal that has been made, and usually also confirming that the defendant understands that the court is not bound by the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation (even if the court generally will adhere to it).

    • #9
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    The way of the entire J6 process has been an embarrassment to the country and a violation of everything we stand for. I’m always baffled at the lies people will tell to meet a political agenda, the more outrageous, the better.

    • #10
  11. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Fritz (View Comment):

    Brian Wyneken (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    I’d change the title of the post to “Guilty Pleas vs. Confessions.”

    As @ rodin rightly notes, a guilty plea is generally coerced in some way, whether it’s a promise of no jail and a lenient probation or a cold calculation of probability of longer jail time. For example, General Flynn was innocent, but pled guilty because the government said they would not go after his family if he did.

    A confession is generally freely given and is given regardless of any offer of more lenient treatment. Thus it is an actual admission of guilt, at least in my mind.

    I did not practice criminal law (so I could be incorrect about this), but accounts of pleading guilty very often involve a statement in court (sworn, I think) from the defendant to the effect that, “yes – I did the act to which I am now pleading guilty.” To that extent a guilty plea seems more like a confession. The institutional purpose of this act of contrition would seem to be to protect the “integrity” of the plea deal process.

    Yes, the defendant must “allocute” in court, for the purpose of putting on the record that the plea is being made voluntarily, not under duress, that the plea agreement’s terms are the only deal that has been made, and usually also confirming that the defendant understands that the court is not bound by the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation (even if the court generally will adhere to it).

    Yeah, but let’s be real here. Again, take the case of Gen. Flynn. He entered a guilty plea and “admitted” to the offense he was charged with. But as was later shown in court, he was actually innocent. He had been threatened with the government going after his son, and evidence had been withheld from his counsel. regardless of his “confession,” he was coerced. You know this, I know this, the judge knew this, etc. It was an abomination.

    • #11
  12. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Plea deals must be approved by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, the prosecutor, and the judge. When a prosecutor offers a plea deal the defendants attorney must present the deal to his client and advise the defendant on the outcome of an acceptance of the deal offered.

    The questions in the J6 video evidence, at least to me is did the J6 Committee provide all the videos to the DOJ that were recorded on J6. If the DOJ did receive all the videos did the DOJ provide all the videos to the attorney’s representing those charged with crimes on J6. I do not believe those questions have been answered at this point in time.

    • #12
  13. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    I have to think that some number of these Capitol protesters knew, at least by the time the acts were ongoing, that they were engaged in acts that were crimes and they might be charged and tried.

    I doubt any of them even imagined it would be what we have seen.

    Particularly as they had been trained from the treatment of other  protesters to expect a certain kind of treatment.

    • #13
  14. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    I have to think that some number of these Capitol protesters knew, at least by the time the acts were ongoing, that they were engaged in acts that were crimes and they might be charged and tried.

    I doubt any of them even imagined it would be what we have seen.

    Particularly as they had been trained from the treatment of other protesters to expect a certain kind of treatment.

    This kind of behavior makes me think that they think they are so solidly ensconced that they are beyond displacement. It may take longer than I have left on this earth, which makes me sad that I may not see it from here,  but I think it will happen and I’m hopeful of being able to observe it..

    • #14
  15. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    I have to think that some number of these Capitol protesters knew, at least by the time the acts were ongoing, that they were engaged in acts that were crimes and they might be charged and tried.

    I doubt any of them even imagined it would be what we have seen.

    Have any members of the Ricochet community intentionally violated the law in order to make a political statement?  

    What is the likelyhood that any members will do so in the future?  

    • #15
  16. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    I have to think that some number of these Capitol protesters knew, at least by the time the acts were ongoing, that they were engaged in acts that were crimes and they might be charged and tried.

    I doubt any of them even imagined it would be what we have seen.

    Particularly as they had been trained from the treatment of other protesters to expect a certain kind of treatment.

    This kind of behavior makes me think that they think they are so solidly ensconced that they are beyond displacement. It may take longer than I have left on this earth, which makes me sad that I may not see it from here, but I think it will happen and I’m hopeful of being able to observe it..

    Agree.

    • #16
  17. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    I have to think that some number of these Capitol protesters knew, at least by the time the acts were ongoing, that they were engaged in acts that were crimes and they might be charged and tried.

    I doubt any of them even imagined it would be what we have seen.

    Have any members of the Ricochet community intentionally violated the law in order to make a political statement?

    What is the likelyhood that any members will do so in the future?

    I haven’t. But that said, I think fair-minded people who think punishment is in order for those who break the law could see that advocacy for this principle by conservatives during the recent riots in several locations was indicated only for those who were identified as committing crimes and not for peaceful protesters. In those riots, few were punished and many violators were not punished but just the opposite in the Capitol riot. The same principle has been applied as to the severity of the charge and the penalties. The worst official behavior has been the uncalled for pretrial incarceration of Capitol protesters.

    • #17
  18. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    I have to think that some number of these Capitol protesters knew, at least by the time the acts were ongoing, that they were engaged in acts that were crimes and they might be charged and tried.

    I doubt any of them even imagined it would be what we have seen.

    Have any members of the Ricochet community intentionally violated the law in order to make a political statement?

    What is the likelyhood that any members will do so in the future?

    Fascinating questions. I do not recall violating the law to make a political statement. I participated in a California protest against Covid restrictions, but think the manner was lawful.

    One of the problems about predicting the future is the capacity of the powers that be to redefine normal behaviors as criminal (even though what we would regard as unconstitutional). Ricochet members I suspect are law abiding, but I do think things could go to the point was at least some of us will say “_____ it” and confront the powers that be. 

    • #18
  19. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Rodin (View Comment):
    Ricochet members I suspect are law abiding, but I do think things could go to the point was at least some of us will say “_____ it” and confront the powers that be.

    I wouldn’t want to be taken out of future possible action for a speech or thought crime.

    • #19
  20. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Basic elements of the law concerning trespass issues are all premises whether private or public is someone has lawful authority over that property. If you enter a premise and are told to leave, and you do so there is no crime to prosecute. If you refuse to leave and do not threaten to use violence or use violence to stay, then you have committed a crime.

    If you start smashing windows, breaking down locked doors, or assaulting those who have lawful authority who are refusing you entry you start moving from a misdemeanor to felonies.

    When you come to a locked door, and you have not been given a key that should be a clue that you should probably stop trying to gain entry. Those are the individuals that should be prosecuted.

    • #20
  21. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Many of the videos I saw in the days following January 6 have been disappeared by the Democrats so I cannot find them now, but in the video that I saw of Chanley, he said a quiet prayer, with arms outstretched to encircle the chamber. A young black Capitol police officer watched and bowed his head. No one felt threatened by this man.

    Very similar to the videos I saw on the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. Everyone was calm before the shooting, during the shooting, and after the shooting, both in the anteroom her small band of fellow protestors were in and the office she was entering. What jumped out at me was that her hands were on the desk she was trying to step onto through the already broken glass. She was not a threat to anyone that I could see. And she was shot from the side, so she wasn’t directly threatening the shooter. There was no chaos to speak of in that room. At least not that I could see.

    Postscript: This comment sounds like I was responding to Doug in the preceding comment, but I was not. We both posted at the same moment. :) :)

    • #21
  22. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    More like, ‘Guilty?… Please.”

    • #22
  23. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Interesting account from someone who was there:

    https://afnn.us/2023/03/10/my-1-11-2021-article-was-censored-by-big-tech-tucker-carlson-and-j6-videos-prove-i-was-correct/

    • #23
  24. KCVolunteer Lincoln
    KCVolunteer
    @KCVolunteer

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Interesting account from someone who was there:

    https://afnn.us/2023/03/10/my-1-11-2021-article-was-censored-by-big-tech-tucker-carlson-and-j6-videos-prove-i-was-correct/

    From the article.

    There was one fatality that has been confirmed as directly a result of a possibly unlawful act. That fatality was that of a U.S. Air Force Veteran who was shot by police while she was crawling through a hole in a door on her stomach and as such, absolutely no threat to anyone. My review of the stills taken at the scene, also showed law enforcement officers on her side of the door looking very relaxed as they made no effort to stop her…stop her before she was shot by another officer on the other side of the door.

    And having seen video of the incident within days of the event, my recollection is that this is correct, though he does not mention that these officers were clearly armed with long guns. Perhaps what could be properly called assault weapons. They clearly were not defending the door.  So, what can be made of their actions?

    • #24
  25. KCVolunteer Lincoln
    KCVolunteer
    @KCVolunteer

    When the British burned the Capitol and most of the city on August 24, 1814, did they manage to overthrow the government? Did the majority of protestors who showed up in Washington attempt to overthrow their government? Or were there a few dissidents and/or subversive agents taking advantage of the situation for their own ends? Including creating an event to undermine the opposition, and a false narrative.

    • #25
  26. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    KCVolunteer (View Comment):

    When the British burned the Capitol and most of the city on August 24, 1814, did they manage to overthrow the government? Did the majority of protestors who showed up in Washington attempt to overthrow their government? Or were there a few dissidents and/or subversive agents taking advantage of the situation for their own ends? Including creating an event to undermine the opposition, and a false narrative.

    I don’t think the possible things you raise in this comment have gotten any official consideration.

    • #26
  27. Metalheaddoc Member
    Metalheaddoc
    @Metalheaddoc

    The Government has unlimited money and unlimited resources to crush anybody they want. Judges always  defer to the Government. Plea deals are basically protection money to the Mob. In exchange for destroying your life a little less, you give in because the process is itself punishment. 

    Government prosecution is now indistinguishable from corruption, favoritism and vendetta-seeking.  Two tier justice is open and brazen. 

    I hope the next Republican President (metaphorically) burns the DOJ and FBI to the ground and pisses on the ashes. 

    • #27
  28. Brian Wyneken Member
    Brian Wyneken
    @BrianWyneken

    Metalheaddoc (View Comment):

    The Government has unlimited money and unlimited resources to crush anybody they want. Judges always defer to the Government. Plea deals are basically protection money to the Mob. In exchange for destroying your life a little less, you give in because the process is itself punishment.

    Government prosecution is now indistinguishable from corruption, favoritism and vendetta-seeking. Two tier justice is open and brazen.

    I hope the next Republican President (metaphorically) burns the DOJ and FBI to the ground and pisses on the ashes.

    Decorum suggests that the “metaphorically” should apply to both the burning and the disposition of the ashes.

    • #28
  29. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    And when you compare the DOJ and federal law enforcement response to J6 to its response to the attack on the White House, the siege of federal courthouse in Portland, and other acts of politically motivated mayhem, there is a stark differential in the energy, zeal, and effort to incarcerate. Is it because it was the Capitol? I get the importance of the symbol. But it represents a fundamental difference between conservatives and Progressives: America does not reside in the Capitol, it resides in the beating heart of all Americans, not just the centers of power.

    Up to this point in the comments, not enough attention has been given to this paragraph. 

    -I believe the Dems (and Repubs on the J6 committee) are arrogant enough to believe this. They took the attack personally. How dare we question them. The summer rioters were not seen as an assault on them or their values. 

    -Our system of government doesn’t exist solely at the top but also decentralizes governance to the states, also. I do not accept the Dems’ claim to be defending liberty and values because they do not apply those values universally. They only seem to exist when it benefits them. 

    -For far too long “the process is the punishment” has been a tool of the left. Ask those who worked for Gov Palin. Judges have become political agents as proven by the fight over whose judges can sit on the bench and the behavior of leftie judges on the bench. We all knew our side and their side would be treated differently by DC federal judges and juries. 

    -Dems use the process to make political talking points. Jailing people without bail and plea deals help create their talking points and help them get revenge against those who dare to challenge them. 

    • #29
  30. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    And when you compare the DOJ and federal law enforcement response to J6 to its response to the attack on the White House, the siege of federal courthouse in Portland, and other acts of politically motivated mayhem, there is a stark differential in the energy, zeal, and effort to incarcerate. Is it because it was the Capitol? I get the importance of the symbol. But it represents a fundamental difference between conservatives and Progressives: America does not reside in the Capitol, it resides in the beating heart of all Americans, not just the centers of power.

    Up to this point in the comments, not enough attention has been given to this paragraph.

    -I believe the Dems (and Repubs on the J6 committee) are arrogant enough to believe this. They took the attack personally. How dare we question them. The summer rioters were not seen as an assault on them or their values.

    -Our system of government doesn’t exist solely at the top but also decentralizes governance to the states, also. I do not accept the Dems’ claim to be defending liberty and values because they do not apply those values universally. They only seem to exist when it benefits them.

    -For far too long “the process is the punishment” has been a tool of the left. Ask those who worked for Gov Palin. Judges have become political agents as proven by the fight over whose judges can sit on the bench and the behavior of leftie judges on the bench. We all knew our side and their side would be treated differently by DC federal judges and juries.

    -Dems use the process to make political talking points. Jailing people without bail and plea deals help create their talking points and help them get revenge against those who dare to challenge them.

    You are absolutely right. Everything that has happened following the J6 event in the Capitol bears this out. First of all, the District of Columbia, that most Americans acknowledge as a large incorporated city distinctly different from all of our other large cities that get their charter and authority from their state government, is a creation of the federal government which in turn is a creation of the states. Some have pushed for DC to be granted statehood but that is a purely partisan political push and it is clear from the aftermath of J6 that the American justice concepts don’t fair well in the District which appears more like the image of a socialist state. Looks as if much corrective action is needed for the District to become part of America. Those charged with crimes from J6 are not being tried by their peers. The fix is in.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.