The Justice Department placed two D.C.-based federal prosecutors on leave after they filed court papers calling the Jan. 6 Capitol siege a “riot” perpetrated by a “mob,” three sources familiar with the matter told CBS News on Wednesday.
The papers were submitted Tuesday in the case of Taylor Taranto, who was pardoned by Trump on Capitol riot charges earlier this year but was later convicted of livestreaming a bomb threat. He was arrested in 2023 while livestreaming himself driving around former President Barack Obama’s D.C. neighborhood while armed, according to prosecutors.
The filing — which asked a judge to sentence Taranto to 27 months in prison at a hearing Thursday — mentioned Taranto’s Jan. 6 charges and briefly described the events of that day, writing that “thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters attacked the U.S. Capitol.”
That unsparing description of the Capitol riot was notable, as Mr. Trump has called Jan. 6 a “day of love” and referred to the rioters as “hostages.”
Biden wanted to make it look like it wasn’t political so he assigned a special counsel that he didn’t control to do those things. Trump doesn’t care about it looking political.
Removed by mod
Agitprop?
Apparently calling out the user spouting Russian both sides propaganda as an agitprop bot isn’t civil and my comment was removed. It’s a specific type of propaganda using rage bait to frame discussion. All their talking points boil down to the Democratics are actually worse than the literal nazi republican administration because they followed the rules and procedures and traditions and laws.
Rule 3:
“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.”
I’ll have to look that up. I’ve never heard that phrase before. Pretty wild that your comment got taken down. The person is clearly just trying to get into arguments with people.
Eh I’m kind of an aggressive asshole so I’m not surprised when I get removed, but lemmy in general has a lot of anti Democratic propaganda, mostly a Russian psy-op.
Huh?
Why do you think a president doesn’t control a special counsel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_counsel
Biden could have told Garland that it was taking too long and they need results
Garland could have replaced the Special counsel that was slow walking it.
If Garland refused, Biden could have replaced him. And told the new AG to do it.
The only reason Biden “couldn’t do anything” was he appointed someone that would tell Biden he “couldn’t do anything” and Biden accepted that. Because that’s what he wanted, or he was too ignorant of how the government works to know this was an option…
You’re ignoring not wanting it to look political. He wouldn’t do any of that because of that reason.
You’re ignoring that he got elected on the promise of holding Trump and others accountable…
If he didn’t want it to appear political, why did he make it the central part of his primary and general campaign?
Why did he only suddenly not want it to appear political after getting elected to do it?
Like. You keep saying stuff to defend him, but logically this is starting to feel like talking to a trumpet.
The only consistency in your comments is “Biden did nothing wrong” and I’m struggling to see why you keep trying to change everything but that result
I didn’t say any of those things.
He ran his entire primary and general campaign on how he was going to hold trump accountable…
He made it a political issue, the main reason people held their noses and voted for him, then as soon as he was elected he said he couldn’t do what he promised he do because that would be political.
I don’t know how much simpler to make it.
If you’re saying it’s ok he didn’t push to hold trump accountable, why are you ok with him campaigning almost exclusively on doing that?
How do you reconcile these contradictory points in your head?
I’m genuinely trying to understand your line of thinking.
You can keep repeating this message. But you’re replying to things I never said.
https://lemmy.world/comment/20224685
That’s not you?
That doesn’t say what you seem to think it does. You’ve added a whole lot of extra context that just does not exist in what I said. You’re really trying to have an argument with some fictitious version of me.