Re: NBC Historian Takes Media's "Bloodbath" Insanity To A Whole New Level

On 3/21/2024 11:04 AM, FPP wrote:

On 3/20/24 10:42 PM, moviePig wrote:

On 3/20/2024 7:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 20, 2024 at 3:15:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Mar 19, 2024 at 8:26:17 PM PDT, super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

On 2024-03-20 02:46:53 +0000, BTR1701 said:

What if the cops held the door open for them. Is that still unauthorized?

>

Lie: The rioters were invited into the Capitol by police

>

There is clear video of the police holding the door open for people who were
later found guilty of unauthorized entry.

>

How does that logically hold up?

>
With that evidence, why wasn't the charge of unauthorized entry
withdrawn or dismissed? Seems to me that both the prosecution and judge
were obligated to do so.

>
One would think. Obviously this only applies to a very small number of people
who were there that day but for those to whom it did apply, it seems that as a
matter of law one cannot be guilty of unauthorized entry if the people in
charge of authorizing you let you in.

>
Indeed.  Not if one remains in the area he was let into.

  Jesus, pig... you don't believe that shit do you?  Judges and juries sure didn't.
 https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/politics/fact-check-capitol-insurrection-january-6-lies/index.html

I believe pretty much that whole article, including the admission that a couple of police might've allowed a couple of rioters in.  But what I was addressing is the fact that allowing them into the building doesn't equate to allowing them into Pelosi's office to shit on her desk.