The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation being sought under a federal warrant after being called by his wife and asking him to do so. The warrant was for documentation after the protesters shot fireworks to bring out first responders from the ICE facility, and allegedly one of the group shot a responder in the neck instead of the head.
A lot of stuff to scrutinize and complain about in the sentence, but it wasn't just "transporting Zines"
As far as I can tell, the moving of zines (he was pulled over and had a box in his car) is what's being presented as "hiding documentation" - not something beyond that.
> being sought under a federal warrant
Timeline seems to be that a warrant was obtained after pulling him over ("Sanchez-Estrada was then arrested on state traffic offenses, and officers obtained a search warrant [...]"). Can't find a source saying there was a warrant prior to this.
> The warrant was for documentation after the protesters shot fireworks to bring out first responders from the ICE facility, and allegedly one of the group shot a responder in the neck instead of the head.
It's true that demonstrators were setting off fireworks, and it's true that Benjamin Song later shot at a police officer who had drawn his gun. But it's just the government's narrative/speculation that the intent of the fireworks was to draw out first responders to ambush, and that Sanchez-Estrada's zines were in some way documentation of this despite him not being at the protest and his wife not being the shooter.
A sentence of 30 years in prison for obstructing an investigation is excessive, especially when compared to the "base offense level" of Involuntary Manslaughter (section 2A1.4 found here[0]) being between 12 and 22, roughly translating to between 10 and 51 months in prison[1] (assuming no prior felony convictions).
Not 360 months, which is the length of this sentence.
0 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...
1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...
If I am interpreting this question correctly, it assumes the same person whom commits an offense being investigated also obstructs investigation into same. These would be two different offenses and are charged as such AFAIK.
For the situation where one party obstructs an investigation, but is not a party to what is being investigated, then the premise of "a default strategy to beat the base offense" is inapplicable.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.[0]
In it, there is no "pick and choose individual cases".
Lucky you. You have a "justice" system. We all got legal system or some sort of kangaroo systems in our corner of the world.
> Conspiracy to Conceal Documents (Count 12) and other objects that would implicate Maricela Rueda in the riot and shooting at the Prairieland facility.
> Defendants convicted: Sanchez Estrada and Maricela Rueda
Obviously prosecutors always present things in the worst possible way for defendants, but I think the GP poster's point is pretty valid:
> Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime.
True, that is their job.
Problem is, it is the judge's job to determine appropriate punishment for the crime once it is proven the defendant is responsible for same.
30 years (360 months) for a first time offender is roughly equivalent to Second Degree Murder (see section 2A1.2 here[0]). Even assuming the defendant has 13 or more felony convictions, this sentence would be roughly equivalent to Child Exploitation Enterprises (see section 2G2.6 here[0]).
The calculation of sentence length is based on the 2025 guidelines published here[1].
0 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...
1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...
Probably. But put yourself in the defendant's shoes when the sentence was handed down. And then imagine what comfort is had by someone saying it "likely won't hold up on appeal".
> That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly.
Agreed. I do not think the commenters were defending the sentencing and perhaps not considering it. What I sought to provide was recognizing the punishment must fit the crime.
Like how is this complicated? Somebody commits a crime and then calls you and says "Hey can you hide X so the cops don't find it?" Always a crime to hide X in these circumstances.
...maybe to the so-called Department of Justice, but not in any moral sense.
Prosecutors produced group chat logs showing that the participants had debated at length whether they should bring guns. The former reservist allegedly wrote that "Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle, so it tends to make them back off." Other chat participants argued that a noise demonstration was low risk and the assumptions about how police would respond were "way over the top".
Especially when the crux of this entire case was that the convicted are members of a terrorist organization - a fact that was declared at the whim of this same president.
I'm not saying that some of the people convicted don't deserve consequences for their actions, especially violence like shooting at officers. I'm not saying that this was a lawful assembly, especially given the documented intent to breach the facility and use pyrotechnics offensively. I am saying that this is an extreme escalation in action against dissent against the Republican agenda, with a highly visible inequality in enforcement against those who dissent similarly against the Democratic agenda.
If this kind of heavy-handed action was taken against everyone who challenges our government, I would still be concerned, but it is doubly concerning that some members of our society appear to have the permission to do these things, while we destroy the lives of others with different politics.
> that same government hands life-ruining prison sentences to people who weren't even present for conspiring against ICE
I don't understand what distinction you're drawing between this and the January 6th cases. The same happened. For example, Enrique Tarrio was not even in DC, but he was handed a 22-year prison sentence.
And he got less of a sentence. I don’t think your argument equating these 2 is arguing what you think it is.
Zines related to a shootout and murder by an armed group after retrieving them from the home of one of the parties involved, discussing it on a jail call, and placing them in a third person's apartment.
For example one may demonstrate to get a law changed, on the premise that they will not be shot on sight or otherwise extrajudically punished for assembling. Why would you expect entities of the state that behave illegally to engender an opposition to follow legal norms?
This is not new in America. 250 years ago the Declaration was preceded by the olive branch. To the people that founded this country, the distinction meant everything.
No it doesn’t. It’s enshrined in the constitution. The entire point of the United States is to be able to change the system. I’m struggling to imagine a worse take than this.
Have you read about the Continental Congress? They thought pretty hard about these questions. They did not engage in insurrection (what would surely today be called "terrorism") against the crown lightly and without great consideration.
You should take the opportunity of the 250th anniversary to educate yourself as opposed to writing such comments. Nothing about your comment makes any sense in almost any legal context, in America or otherwise. How could something like laws of armed conflict even be comprehensible under your standard? Truly I am sad for the state of your mind that you wrote such a comment.
I meant more along the lines of "30 years for hiding a zine" being a weird take. It is logically inconsistent, IMO, to both want to fight a system, and want to be afforded its privileges.
Why do we read people their rights or formally charge them? If someone has committed a crime is that not in some sense "fighting [the] system"? Why would then the same apparent contradiction you highlight in your last sentence not arise?
Even in cases of extreme conflict, there is a certain base state of "rights" or "privileges" one wants to be afforded, and it is not contradictory of people to do so. See the laws of armed conflict. Even if someone is a complete psychopath and doesn't respect these laws, the law itself usually does not respond in kind.
That is the nature of the law. If the law could allow for a situation where "legality goes out the window and any outrage about punishment becomes moot" then its no longer law. The only state this exists is one of anarchy. Far more likely in some situation would be the state tries to exercise some emergency power, itself sanctioned by law. In such an extreme case the contradiction no longer applies because the "privileges" have been legally suspended. However, now society has entered a dubious state re the nature of the law itself. Alternatively, take the Codes of Hammurabi. But then the proposed contradiction also does not apply. For in an eye for an eye there are far less afforded privileges to appeal to.
A state of dubious legality was essentially the state of affairs that convinced the founders revolution was inevitable. But there was never - and is usually never - a state where "legality goes out the window". That is anarchy. Even if the founders had lost, surely they would have a right to be outraged if instead of simply being hung (as was the legal remedy for their acts at the time) the British soldiers had rioted and killed all of them and their families on sight.
There is no contradiction here. It would not be a "weird take". Frankly if some among them were also outraged at being hung, I'm not sure that is a "weird take" either. It certainly doesn't strike me as "logically inconsistent". Its not like the "privileges" of life and liberty are granted by the government after all. If you believe in the principles as the founders did, those rights are given by a power beyond that of any terrestrial government. You may be deprived of them by such an entity, but it is not something the state gave you. Therefore once again, your proposed contradiction doesn't really make sense. I guess your position boils down to "if you do wrong against someone, you should have no expectations about your treatment in return"? But I don't think this is ever actually seriously considered as an ethical position when it comes to a people and their government. At least not since divine right and the like went out of fashion. At the end of the day, one can both transgress and be entitled to outrage about how the state acts in response. I fail to see how the alternative is anything less than barbarism.
Inside the US though? No, clearly the state’s account is definitely accurate, the citizen is obviously guilty, it’s not only correct they are being jailed it is actually good, free speech - oh it’s not relevant because they committed unrelated crimes (we’re told. By the state’s account).
US propaganda/copaganda on its own citizens really is something else to behold
FAFO.
This case is crazy, but it's not insane for free speech reasons.
That's complete bullshit. Anitfa is merely being anti-fascist, something every good American is. That tells me all I need to know about this lies. Sorry, but if that's your source, it's 100% a lie.
However, we can't afford to let the government's position dictate the particulars of all the facts here.
The theory that the fireworks were lit to "bring out first responders" is just that - a theory, from the government's lawyers.
The undisputed facts are that these people were working to disrupt an ICE facility, which is to say a facility of a lawless, criminal organization which, given its placement entirely outside any constitutional limitations, renders it, at least at a moral/ethical layer, ineligible for any sort of civic protections of its property or activities. A third party, who was employed by a police department, then aimed a firearm at these people, and one of them fired, in apparent self-defense at this person who was training a firearm on them. Again, I hate that they shot this dude who was just going his job. But it's certainly not tantamount to attempting a premeditated mruder.
All of this 'moving zines' business is downstream of this basic fact pattern. I'm not willing to buy the government's advocacy that this was a crime to society in the first place, so I certainly don't have any ruffled feathers about moving zines.
When the state brings its lawless armed kidnappers to heel and follows its own rules with the unrelenting strictness befitting a nation of laws and not of men, then we can talk about whether those same laws can be applied to persons attempting to disrupt its activities.
Does anyone have a link to details on the case because there must have been more details, like these two were accused of planning a murder in advance, because otherwise this seems insane. It seems insane no matter what, but if this was a judge making a bunch of logical leaps while guided by DOJ lawyers, something is really broken
The feds case, which they did win convictions based on, was that they were terrorists who set off fireworks to lure police into an ambush, and there weren't more casualties because one of the members shot early and only injured one cop. An accessory to this who hid evidence is also part of the crime in the Feds case
Is this embellished by the Feds? I think so, it seems some of the group did not think this was the plan. But there did seem to be a plan and it did involve bringing guns, setting off fireworks, opening the gate and trying to break out the prisoners, and "not going quietly"
So it's hard to take their characterization seriously when they have demonstrated that there is a clear double standard, depending on whether you are a FoT (Friend of Trump).
Oscar R. Benavides
- coordinating using a Signal group
- bringing firearms, body armor, and first aid kits to a location just outside a federal facility
- taking up a concealed position along a tree line
- throwing fireworks to distract and lure agents
- shooting a police officer in the neck
Readers should be aware of these facts: they bear on whether your comparison here is offered sincerely.
- were a group of at least 1000 people
- who, among other things, erected a noose on the capitol grounds, brought zip ties and weapons
- forcefully overran several capital police barricades intended to deter their entrance
- used any weapon available including poles etc to violently attack any police in their way
Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents with a firearm, but in the J6 case, I’d say I’d lay blame for the subsequent deaths of the police officers who did die at the hands of the rioters.
To be clear I do not condone violence in either case.
However those 1000+ individuals on January 6 were ultimately pardoned for their actions. The family of one was in fact paid $5 million in taxpayer money because she was shot in a vain attempt to repel the crowd.
Why then should these defendants be treated completely differently? One gets the law, the other has their convictions overturned completely and history rewritten in their favor.
Btw I do not believe the individual who was charged in the article shot the federal agent or was part of the “concealed position” etc. So bringing that up is just an appeal to brush that individual with the actions of others.
The disparity in sentencing is likely that they credibly set an ambush to murder law enforcement
The Jan 6 rioters did "get the law". They got sentenced collectively to thousands of years in prison, and many of them served 3 years of that.
Then they "got the law" again when someone sympathetic to their aims was democratically elected to the one position that can grant federal pardons. That power has a history of being used for political allies long before Trump. Perhaps that will happen to some of the ICE protestors too.
> - were a group of at least 1000 people
> Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents with a firearm, but in the J6 case, I’d say I’d lay blame for the subsequent deaths of the police officers who did die at the hands of the rioters.
Oh ok, so you grant we're talking about completely different scales of intention, personal responsibility, and outcomes, but you want to keep making this comparison? Because you think it's nuanced and informative?
Have you seen the footage from the riots? They clobbered the shit out of the police trying to protect the lawmakers inside the capitol.
For example this guy: https://i.insider.com/6009c83521f52a0018cb9e21?width=1200&fo...
I’m sure he was just on his way to rebundle some loose cat5 cable down the hall with his zip ties.
And the person who is the subject of this article, did he personally commit all the acts you listed?
(Note for clarity, almost everybody posting in this thread on every side is doing this kind of thing. Just move on to the “years of lead” phase already.)
It was stupid for many reasons, but it was a riot, not some preplanned ambush with weapons like is being talked about in the OP.
Don't forget, an actual noose was erected on the capitol grounds: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/politics/jan-6-gallows.... Do I think they intended to literally drag Mike Pence out and physically hang him? No. But damned if that doesn't send a clear message.
"180 defendants were charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon, which includes firearms and other types of weapons." [0]
What you described as a riot is considered by others to be part of a "fake electors" plot, to keep Trump in power after he lost the election [1], a plot which Pence didn't go along with. Trump even tweeted that day about it:
"If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency." [2]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/us-capitol-attack-rioters...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
[2] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-6-2...
I'm dead serious. I assume every event like this is lousy with feds egging people on.
Until then - to say at the same time - the Feds are so incompetent and also the Feds are organizing an elaborate secret network of agitators to be at all major protests and riots - let’s just say the logic doesn’t logic.
Um, like half of all these "attack the government in some capacity" plots in the last 40yr. Probably more if you count all the "radical islamic terrorists" they riled up in the 00s and 10s when that was the cool thing for law enforcement to be entrapping.
The Michigan Fednapping is probably the most hilarious case since it turned out there were more feds than not who were in on it.
And although the second amendment may not cover first aid kits, that's a super lame justification for sending people to prison for the rest of their lives. I guess it's a good thing Boy Scout troops don't coordinate over signal or they'd all be locked up.
- coordinating using a Signal group
- bringing firearms, body armor, and first aid kits to a location just outside a federal facility
- taking up a concealed position along a tree line
For you to even list them shows a fascist bent.
As for fireworks, they might not be illegal either. The only possible crime is the shooting, and only if it was not done in self defense.
Edit: downvoting me doesn’t answer the question. If you have a definition please reply! If nobody can define “antifa” how the heck can you prosecute someone for being a member of it?
Antifa is the group of people that identify as being part of Antifa, which is a far left group. And just like the Democratic People's Republic (and similar variations) of ______, just having something as your name doesn't mean that's what you actually are.
Are you talking about the guy that brought a gun to the protest in Minneapolis?
Bringing guns to protests ups the ante considerably.
Are you implying that simply carrying a legal firearm while at a protest means you can be murdered, without any subsequent investigation?
Again the Overton window has shifted so far just in my lifetime. This would have been front page news with congressional investigations just 10-15 years ago.
Pictures of protesters openly carrying weapons at demonstrations who were not subsequently murdered by federal agents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/politics/michigan-stat...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/us/kyle-rittenhouse-ar15-...
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/black-armed-protesters...
Picture of Alex pretti before he was murdered.
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/ice-shootin...
The event itself demonstrates it is dangerous to carry a pistol, even legally, around armed police, if you're potentially gonna get in a tussle with said police.
In fact, the federal government is using intimidation tactics to individuals who do nothing other than try to name the ICE agents who have murdered US citizens. Just a few days ago, armed ICE agents confronted a poll worker at a polling site in Syracuse NY to warn her about a social media post where she simply named the ICE agent who killed Renee Good: https://apnews.com/article/ice-poll-worker-syracuse-fa082f8a... (post in question here: https://www.instagram.com/p/DTQ1FYDkyua/)
Back to Alex, his pistol was concealed and at no point did he attempt to reach for it. There are at least a half dozen angles of video showing the entire interaction (thanks smartphones!) so it's not too hard to see for yourself from multiple vantage points.
Also worth noting that the husband did not conceal evidence of the wife committing a crime. Having political zines isn't illegal. The zines were circumstantial evidence that the prosecution wanted to use to characterize her general political views. They had no direct relation to the events at the ICE detention center.
The irony of The Intercept requiring my identity is funny.
In what way would a box of magazines be evidence of any one of those crimes? I very much doubt there was an article called "My plan to commit an act of violence by Maricela Rueda" in any of them. The ones they choose to photograph for inclusion in their criminal complaint (likely because they were the most scary looking ones) appear to have been written many years ago. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Literatu...
Two of those pictured are on archive.org and War in the streets : the story of urban combat from Calais to Khafji is available at amazon.com
https://dn790008.ca.archive.org/0/items/ItsVacantTakeIt/its-...
https://ia601803.us.archive.org/29/items/the-anarchist-libra...
It sounds to me like she was just making arrangements with her husband from jail to handle their property. She told him to have her car towed because it was left on the street by someone else's house and she told him to "move whatever you need to from the house" which is a pretty sensible heads up to give someone when you know that their house will likely be ransacked later by police who could take or destroy anything.
The 30 years is for evidence tampering. The rest have been convicted of various terrorist charges. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...
It's really funny because all of this has played out in the past with people that actually conspired to do all that and more and walked away free. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Smith_sedition_trial
That case, the incredibly bad handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco put a real freeze on the FBI dealing with domestic terrorism, and then the focus moved outward with 9/11.
But now "domestic terrorism" is priority number 1. Enjoy your choices folks.
Describing such an act without the obvious context is a pretty good way to point out that it's partisan text and likely misrepresents other things. Listen, we've all been on the Internet a few decades. This kind of understatement of things is not new to any of us. "Oh so just because your country thinks it's not a big deal for someone to go to America to fly a plane means it should get bombed?" No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC and subsequent sheltering of the guy who planned it that does that.
I am also not a proponent of absolutist free speech if you check my comment history, but I cannot imagine a realm where the details linked in the small part of the article that's not walled off and the details in this thread don't align to the government trying to prevent bad thought.
I am open to more detail if anyone has some to provide
Sir, a second zine has struck the south tower
Not quite the right framing.
Look at the chain of events in the probable cause affidavit:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.41...
Rueda was in the jail following arrest in an armed group after a firefight at the detention center where 20-30 rifle rounds had been fired, with police officer killed as a result.
In jail, Rueda called her mother to contact Sanchez because he would know what was going on. Rueda later directly called Sanchez and said, 'whatever you need to do, move whatever you need at the house'. Sanchez indicated to Rueda he had already been to her house.
Sanchez was then observed leaving his house with zines and was observed moving the zines to an apartment of someone else's. The zines were the same TTPs for anti-gov, anti-LE civil unrest topics as seen before and thus considered likely to be connected.
All in all, moving evidence from an investigation involving armed groups engaging in firefights with ICE isn't a stretch once we don't omit the facts known.
Did he move the items because he believed that they were evidence being sought by the police?
I don't really care if they are actually evidence of something or not. I care if the accused believed they were and moved them for that purpose.
Was this person speeding or not? Should a cop ticket them for thinking they're doing something wrong, even if everything they were doing was legal?
Did they even think the zines were implicated as evidence? Were the zines implicated as evidence? What crimes were being committed by ownership of these zines?
If there's a warrant issued to search a house, and a resident of that house eats a ham sandwich for lunch while the cops are on their way, did they destroy evidence?
If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police, I've now implicated myself in the crime, whether or not my trying to hide them actually caused them to get away with it.
And yet when Trump does it with classified documents its not a problem. Where's his 30 years?
Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents?
Are these zines even relevant evidence? Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal? What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense?
> If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police
Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets. If they were shredding financial documents while being charged with financial crimes I'd agree. If they were hiding guns with a gun trafficking charge, I'd understand. Flushing drugs down the drain, sure. Moving political zines though? Really? What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes?
Let's say you hide someone who didn't actually commit a crime but you thought they did. Are you still guilty of hiding a suspect in the crime that wasn't a crime?
The standard was:
> I care if the accused believed they were and moved them for that purpose
So to that poster what matters was that the zines being useful or not to the investigation was not relevant, it was if the person thought it was potentially relevant or not.
The wife owning some zines is evidence of a crime? Really? Owning some zines is evidence of criminal activity these days?
There is a difference between incorrect belief in what the law is vs incorrect belief in what actions you are taking. Although maybe that is not the most compelling. If you see the speed limit is 40, but you want to go faster so you hit the gas until you are going 60 and then brag with photo evidence about how you don't believe in speed limits on on facebook. Unbeknownst to you your spedometer was broken and you only hit 40. Should you get a ticket?
That seems like a tougher call, but still a bit silly to give a ticket.
a different example.
You intend to murder someone. The intended victim puts their clothes on a manequin in hopes of distracting you while they make their escape. You shoot the manequin. Did you commit a crime?
And if they are, what crime was owning the magazines involved in? That you happen to read some of the same articles as someone else who committed a crime? Is sharing the same books as others now implicating you as a terrorist?
Not at all.
Committing an act with the intent to murder is a crime. Actual intent alone isn't.
> One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation).
Uh, I think firing a gun at someone is a bit more than "inciting violence", more like attempted murder?
The article doesn't say what the actual charges were. Was it tampering with evidence? Although 30 years for just tampering with evidence doesn't seem right either. Maybe there's more that they're leaving out?
Another comment in another HN thread shared this quote and link:
> "Prosecutors said that the group launched a premeditated terror attack on the detention facility inspired by antifa ideology, by setting off fireworks, vandalizing property, and shooting at police officers who responded. One officer was struck in the neck with a bullet and survived."
https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/ice-detention-attack-defe...
Perhaps the cop getting shot in the neck is why they're throwing the book at them.
The shot cop had drawn a gun on someone who was running away.
The judge didn’t even permit the defense to argue “defense of self or others” as a justification.
If it can't, the second amendment is even more pointless than it already appears to be.
This was shortly before two people got murdered on camera by cops in Minneapolis, and after/around the same time as several other attempted murders (that would have been successfully spun as something chargeable on the victim, if not for video evidence showing plainly that the cops were lying)... so... it doesn't seem like a totally crazy notion to me, that a person might have shown up armed intending only to fire if it looked like a cop was going to shoot someone without a great reason. Maybe a jury would still have convicted (there was a bunch of fuckery with jury selection on this case, incidentally, and I mean way more than usual, even, it's worth reading about; like after what the court selected for on the jury, I believe they almost certainly would still have convicted) but not even being able to raise that defense seems nuts.
Prosecutors openly acknowledge strategically filing cases in his court for conservative causes.
It isn't a mistake that he was the judge here, and there is a very good chance the sentences will be overturned if not entire cases.
Of course, that doesn't matter to these defendants, some of whom probably do deserve punishment for what they did, and all of whom will suffer through years of appeals, stress, etc. because some prosecutor wanted to make their career on a big case, and will have moved on years before this is all resolved.
In short, the case was made for headlines, and after putting the defendants through hell, appeals will invalidate most of those headlines after incurring great expense on behalf of the taxpayers and defendants.
This article seems a bit based though. Political violence can obviously not be tolerated in a democracy.
Political violence is mandatory in a democracy, or you get what you have.
Texas man sentenced to 30 years for transporting pamphlets
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48659703
Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines
The proud boys leader, that spent 5 years in prison for J6, wasn't even at the protest.
shrug
You know what they say about glass houses and stones, right?
It's sickening how this could even possibly happen.
Effective propaganda needs to be subtle so that most people don't realize they're being deceived. These authors clearly have no idea what they're doing.
> https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capitol-rioters-jailed-se...
The longest sentence of an actual rioter was 22 years.
Compare that to this and explain why he got more for less
