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

In article <17bed5b715bf3f58$7434$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
  moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
 

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withdrawn or dismissed?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-janu
ary-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.

 Which would be relevant if the people who were let in were actually the
desk-sitters.