Anti-Trump agitators caught on video plotting to wreck inaugural ball plead guilty to conspiracy - Polidicks

[quote]Two anti-Trump activists have pleaded guilty to conspiracy after being caught on a Project Veritas video plotting to set off stink bombs and sprinklers at an inaugural ball in January. Paul “Luke” Kuhn and Colin B. Dunn were sentenced Thursday to community service but no jail time after entering guilty pleas in D.C. Superior Court on charges of unlawful conspiracy to commit an offense. A third defendant, Scott Ryan Charney, is scheduled to appear in court Tuesday. All three activists are affiliated with the D.C. Anti-Fascist Coalition, an arm of DisruptJ20, which describes itself as an “antifa,” or “anti-fascist,” protest group. Project Veritas President James O’Keefe said he was disappointed that Kuhn and Dunn were able to avoid jail sentences. The two will be required to complete 48 hours’ community service over the next six months, he said. “We are very happy our undercover videos were used to protect Americans,” Mr. O’Keefe said in a statement. “It is a shame, however, that they were let off with such a light sentence.” DisruptJ20, whose slogans include “no peaceful transition,” crowed on Twitter that “activists to serve no jail time from @JamesOKeefeIII’s failed sting operation.” The group, which held about a dozen “direct action” protests surrounding the Jan. 20 inauguration, has set up a legal defense fund for arrested activists. An undercover video filmed by a Project Veritas investigator showed the three men making plans to disrupt the DeploraBall — a sold-out, black-tie inaugural fete held at the National Press Building. “If you had a pint of butyric acid, I don’t care how big the building is, it is closing,” Kuhn said in the video, referring to an ingredient commonly used in stink bombs. Said Dunn: “I’m trying to think through how to get all the sprinklers to go off at once.” After the hidden-camera footage was released Jan. 16, DisruptJ20 argued that the activists were aware they were being filmed by a Project Veritas investigator and deliberately fed him false information. “Tell it to the judge,” Mr. O’Keefe responded. Organizers of the DeploraBall contacted the FBI and local law enforcement after finding that some activists affiliated with DisruptJ20 had purchased tickets to the Jan. 19 affair. Project Veritas brought the video to the FBI, Secret Service and D.C. police in what was described as “an unprecedented move for our organization.”[/quote] [url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/5/anti-trump-agitators-caught-on-video-plotting-to-w/[/url] [media]https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/837356917626454016[/media] Scott Charney pleads guilty. [quote]A 34-year-old activist admitted in court Tuesday to discussing a plot to disrupt an inaugural ball for Trump supporters with an acid attack inside the National Press Club in downtown Washington. Scott R. Charney, of Northwest Washington, pleaded guilty in D.C. Superior Court to conspiracy to commit assault, a misdemeanor. In an agreement with prosecutors, the criminal record will be expunged if he performs 48 hours of community service. The arrest of Charney hours ahead of the Jan. 19 DeploraBall attracted national attention, with police saying they had successfully foiled a dangerous plan to spread butyric acid through the press club’s ventilation system the night before Trump was inaugurated as president. The crux of the police case was a conversation secretly recorded by associates of conservative activist James O’Keefe, who caught Charney and two others discussing the plot over beer at a pizza restaurant in December. O’Keefe’s operatives took the video to D.C. police and posted portions of it on the Internet. Protest leaders maintained that Charney, who works at a local nonprofit group, and two others at the restaurant never considered carrying out an attack. They said the group knew it had been infiltrated and that the conversation was a ruse to distract from their real plans to identify the operative. Charney’s attorney, Shan Wu, said his client “had not intended to injure anyone in any way.” He said his client did not have any acid and added, “I certainly think the plea offer with no criminal conviction or record correctly reflects the innocuous nature of this offense.” Wu said Charney “apologized to the court, to law enforcement and to any other who might have been alarmed by his statements.” Bill Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office for the District, declined to comment beyond the plea agreement offered in court. Two other associates of Charney’s were also arrested in the same case; both pleaded guilty earlier and were also given 48 hours of community service. Charney’s arrest was among the first by police trying to head off or confront protesters who tried to disrupt the presidential inauguration. The day Trump was sworn in, a small group of protesters rampaged through a four-block area of downtown near Franklin Square, armed with hammers and crowbars, burning a limo and breaking windows of shops and cars. Rocks were thrown at riot-gear-clad police who countered with pepper spray and explosive “sting grenades.” Police arrested more than 230 people on charges of felony rioting. Prosecutors dropped charges against some, and a grand jury indicted 214 as authorities connected them to “black bloc” tactics of premeditated violence. Charney’s plea agreement identifies him as a member of the D.C. Antifascist Coalition/DisruptJ20 Movement, an umbrella organization representing a variety of groups that came to the District to protest Trump. In a statement released after his plea was entered in court, Charney called the charges political and said his arrest was more about “silencing dissent in Trump’s America.” “I have apologized in court and taken responsibility for carelessly speaking in a way that alarmed others,” the statement says. “But the far greater causes for alarm are the real acts of violence being perpetrated against Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Muslim Americans, Jewish Americans, and others targeted by Trump’s policies.”[/quote] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/protester-pleads-guilty-to-conspiring-to-disrupt-deploraball-for-trump-supporters/2017/03/07/3f55f3da-0347-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_story.html[/url] Looks like that "It was an elaborate joke" defense was full of shit.

The Washington Times is a tabloid rag with as much journalistic integrity as the Daily Mail, James O'Keefe is a living joke that lowers the integrity of journalists everywhere simply by calling himself one. Even the woman putting a spin on Japanese anime for the BBC has more a right to the title than that shitstain does. Got another source?

[QUOTE=Tudd;51930066]Looks like that "It was an elaborate joke" defense was full of shit.[/QUOTE] Or they plead since that's easier and more certain, but nah, that definitely never happens, couldn't be that.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51930107]Or they plead since that's easier and more certain, but nah, that definitely never happens, couldn't be that.[/QUOTE] Highly unlikely if you watched the tapes they were actually pulling off an elaborate joke. And either way, mega self-incrimination. [editline]8th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;51930094]The Washington Times is a tabloid rag with as much journalistic integrity as the Daily Mail, James O'Keefe is a living joke that lowers the integrity of journalists everywhere simply by calling himself one. Even the woman putting a spin on Japanese anime for the BBC has more a right to the title than that shitstain does. Got another source?[/QUOTE] Will update and add more sources if I see any, but I highly doubt this is one gigantic lie that these two didn't go to court and plead the way they did. Wouldn't take very long to counter that claim. Besides the Washington Times is not a Daily Mail, let's be real.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51930120]Highly unlikely if you watched the tapes they were actually pulling off an elaborate joke. And either way, mega self-incrimination.[/QUOTE] But you and I aren't them nor are we in contact with them, so I don't think either of us are really in a position to speak on what they truly were thinking. So how about we don't pretend that we know for certain everything that went on based on nothing but the work of a shitty "journalist" and their very possibly tactical court pleading (especially since doing so means ignoring their own words). 😙

[QUOTE=Octavius;51930107]Or they plead since that's easier and more certain, but nah, that definitely never happens, couldn't be that.[/QUOTE] This theory could be applied to literally any court ruling. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZSfhd1X_8"]Except this case literally has video evidence. They're charged with conspiring to do this. Here's literally a video of them conspiring to do that. Ignore the shitty narration and editing and it's still a video of people plotting, in different locales/times at that, to do this. This wasn't a one off throw away joke.[/URL] [QUOTE=archangel125;51930094]The Washington Times is a tabloid rag with as much journalistic integrity as the Daily Mail, James O'Keefe is a living joke that lowers the integrity of journalists everywhere simply by calling himself one. Even the woman putting a spin on Japanese anime for the BBC has more a right to the title than that shitstain does. Got another source?[/QUOTE] WT isn't exactly 10/10 but comparing it to the depravity of the Daily Mail is simply incorrect. If you seriously look at [URL="http://imgur.com/7va5wNE.png"]this (current DM front page)[/URL] and [URL="http://imgur.com/zHjR8hM.png"]this (current WT front page)[/URL] and go "these are the same level of shit" you might need to reconsider.

Oh, I don't doubt they pleaded guilty, I'm simply objecting to the sources cited.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51930143]But you and I aren't them nor are we in contact with them, so I don't think either of us are really in a position to speak on what they truly were thinking. So how about we don't pretend that we know for certain everything that went on based on nothing but the work of a shitty "journalist" and their very possibly tactical court pleading (especially since doing so means ignoring their own words). [/QUOTE] Hence I use words like probable and unlikely. Anyways here is the Washington Post because some people on here are skeptical to a ridiculous degree of anything too conservative. [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/protester-pleads-guilty-to-conspiring-to-disrupt-deploraball-for-trump-supporters/2017/03/07/3f55f3da-0347-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_story.html[/url] [quote]A 34-year-old activist admitted in court Tuesday to discussing a plot to disrupt an inaugural ball for Trump supporters with an acid attack inside the National Press Club in downtown Washington. Scott R. Charney, of Northwest Washington, pleaded guilty in D.C. Superior Court to conspiracy to commit assault, a misdemeanor. In an agreement with prosecutors, the criminal record will be expunged if he performs 48 hours of community service. The arrest of Charney hours ahead of the Jan. 19 DeploraBall attracted national attention, with police saying they had successfully foiled a dangerous plan to spread butyric acid through the press club’s ventilation system the night before Trump was inaugurated as president. The crux of the police case was a conversation secretly recorded by associates of conservative activist James O’Keefe, who caught Charney and two others discussing the plot over beer at a pizza restaurant in December. O’Keefe’s operatives took the video to D.C. police and posted portions of it on the Internet.[/quote]

[QUOTE=archangel125;51930167]Oh, I don't doubt they pleaded guilty, I'm simply objecting to the sources cited.[/QUOTE] So you believe the source is saying the truth (that they pleaded guilty) but you're still saying "get a better source?" What more do you want? It's clearly convinced you. Going in to an article, agreeing with the article, then deciding to go "this source sucks get a better one" is basically politically driven thread shitting. It's simply not contributing to the conversation at all.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51930167]Oh, I don't doubt they pleaded guilty, I'm simply objecting to the sources cited.[/QUOTE] Then what are you complaining about? If the Washington Times has reported on something that in your opinion has happened, why do I need to post another source?

[QUOTE=Sheer Visor;51930178]So you believe the source is saying the truth (that they pleaded guilty) but you're still saying "get a better source?" What more do you want? It's clearly convinced you. Going in to an article, agreeing with the article, then deciding to go "this source sucks get a better one" is basically politically driven thread shitting. It's simply not contributing to the conversation at all.[/QUOTE] What's wrong with having multiple sources confirm something? Especially when the WT is known for being occasionally shit-tier?

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51930184]What's wrong with having multiple sources confirm something? Especially when the WT is known for being occasionally shit-tier?[/QUOTE] Nothing wrong to have more sources, but this seems to be more of people being nitpicky because I posted Washington Times then what is the actual credibility of people pleading guilty to this court case.

Too bad they were caught.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;51930192]Too bad they were caught.[/QUOTE] So they should have been allowed to sabotage a filtration/sprinkler system to cover an event with Butyric acid? [t]https://s8.postimg.org/oa2e6aqud/acid.png[/t] [url]https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1334.html[/url] Considering this safety advisement on this chemical states that any contact should be reported to an doctor, and that it is awful for the environment, that would have gone swimmingly well. You are supporting a [b]conspiracy to commit assault[/b] by the way.

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51930184]What's wrong with having multiple sources confirm something? Especially when the WT is known for being occasionally shit-tier?[/QUOTE] I agree but my grievance is that arch literally only posted in this thread attacking the source. He has made no attempt to explain why he disbelieves, it, even stating that he agrees with it. He hasn't discussed the article in question. There has been 0 contribution to the discussion of these conspirators from him. He's done this before, just going in to a thread and saying "X is a rag fix it!!!!" and not discussing further than that. The great thing about this shitty argument is that how easy it is to move the goalposts. He know full well that no left leaning news source will report on anything remotely pro-Trump. Like lets be real now, US news is just pro-trump agencies saying what he did good, ignoring the rest and lying to make him look better, and anti-trump agencies saying what he did bad, ignoring the rest, and lying to make him look worse. I don't think anyone is even remotely trying to be impartial now. There are no left leaning sources for this, despite video evidence, because left leaning sources want ad revenue just as much as anyone, and "Trump is LITERALLY Hitler" is a better way to get it from their audience which is 99% people that hate Trump. There is 0 contribution. It's literally threadshitting whatever your political opinion is.

oh it's antifa was surprised. thought at first that it was actually regular liberals who planned the attack.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51930267]oh it's antifa was surprised. thought at first that it was actually regular liberals who planned the attack.[/QUOTE] Well you kind of no longer an "ordinary" person by definition when you commit conspiracy for assault politically. But you do have to keep in mind these guys were ringleaders for #DisruptJ20 groups and the movement. They exerted control and influence over the liberals who are going to protest under this tag.

I despise their methods because they are untargeted and general. They believe that legally hurtful violence in any form toward "fascists" is punishable by MORE VIOLENCE. Fuck you, violence breeds more violence. Violence is a hammer that drives the nail, that is people's convictions and beliefs, deeper within them. Congrats, you just made your "problem" worse by being on offense all the time. They have no clear goal, or leader to rally around. They just needed an excuse to exercise domestic terrorism and mask it as "antifascism". The ONLY thing I congratulate them for is having more of a spine to do something more concrete about a supposedly "unjust" system than most liberals. They just yell catchphrases in the streets and be an inconvenience.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;51930192]Too bad they were caught.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's a shame people were saved from being burned and blinded from acid.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;51930295]Yeah, it's a shame people were saved from being burned and blinded from acid.[/QUOTE] It is okay, because it would have hurt people meeting to talk about political issues that he disagrees with.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51930202]So they should have been allowed to sabotage a filtration/sprinkler system to cover an event with Butyric acid? [t]https://s8.postimg.org/oa2e6aqud/acid.png[/t] [url]https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1334.html[/url] Considering this safety advisement on this chemical states that any contact should be reported to an doctor, and that it is awful for the environment, that would have gone swimmingly well. You are supporting a [b]conspiracy to commit assault[/b] by the way.[/QUOTE] Oh I thought it was just stink bombs and turning on the sprinklers, nvm this is kinda really stupid. [editline]8th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;51930297]It is okay, because it would have hurt people meeting to talk about political issues that he disagrees with.[/QUOTE] Oh please, you're the one deflecting 24/7 by not posting actual policy decisions and posting these fucking anecdotes that legit don't affect 300 million Americans like your piece of shit candidate does.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;51930192]Too bad they were caught.[/QUOTE] I picture you foaming from your mouth every time anything Trump related is mentioned.

[QUOTE=Omesh;51930355]I picture you foaming from your mouth every time anything Trump related is mentioned.[/QUOTE] I do figuratively. Physically I just clench my sphincters a little bit in anger.

I feel like i'm one of the only people that likes Tudd and hates ANTIFA.

[QUOTE=AutismoPiggo;51930439]I feel like i'm one of the only people that likes Tudd and hates ANTIFA.[/QUOTE] Uh neither of those is mutually exclusive. I dislike anyone who uses violence or violent method to achieve their political goals, so I would certainly be against something like this. As is, you know, the majority of anti-Trump people. Doesn't mean I like Tudd. Though I don't hate him either.

Wasn't Tudd ragging on another thread's source despite using a shit one here? Anyway, glad that there were caught, and no surprise it's antifa. What a joke group.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51930143]But you and I aren't them nor are we in contact with them, so I don't think either of us are really in a position to speak on what they truly were thinking. So how about we don't pretend that we know for certain everything that went on based on nothing but the work of a shitty "journalist" and their very possibly tactical court pleading (especially since doing so means ignoring their own words). 😙[/QUOTE] It's true when he says [I]"either way, mega self-incrimination"[/I] though. When they were caught on tape saying those things, a lot of people brought up O'Keefe's reputation as a lying manipulator to support the possibility that it was taken out of context. But then they, directly on their website, admitted to saying those things fully intending to make the 'spy' believe it was real. Whether or not the plan [I]was[/I] real, it is still self-incriminating to intentionally make a spy believe that you are planning to commit a crime. It seems obvious to me that they really did plan to do this, and are just dumbfucks who hurt the perceived legitimacy of protesters and gave legitimacy to James O'Keefe. You don't have to even consider James O'Keefe's reputation to come to my conclusion. [I]They said themselves on their website[/I] that they knew the person was a spy, and decided to genuinely make him think they were conspiring to commit a crime, and not reveal the joke at any point in time. How believable is that story, honestly? Doesn't really matter who the spy works for, or if it even is a spy at all, that person is totally justified in going to the police, who in turn is totally justified in taking those statements seriously.

[QUOTE=Sheer Visor;51930214]I agree but my grievance is that arch literally only posted in this thread attacking the source. He has made no attempt to explain why he disbelieves, it, even stating that he agrees with it. He hasn't discussed the article in question. There has been 0 contribution to the discussion of these conspirators from him. He's done this before, just going in to a thread and saying "X is a rag fix it!!!!" and not discussing further than that. The great thing about this shitty argument is that how easy it is to move the goalposts. He know full well that no left leaning news source will report on anything remotely pro-Trump. Like lets be real now, US news is just pro-trump agencies saying what he did good, ignoring the rest and lying to make him look better, and anti-trump agencies saying what he did bad, ignoring the rest, and lying to make him look worse. I don't think anyone is even remotely trying to be impartial now. There are no left leaning sources for this, despite video evidence, because left leaning sources want ad revenue just as much as anyone, and "Trump is LITERALLY Hitler" is a better way to get it from their audience which is 99% people that hate Trump. There is 0 contribution. It's literally threadshitting whatever your political opinion is.[/QUOTE] Stop with the backseat moderation or you will be the one who ends up banned. Requesting better sources is not "threadshitting." Regardless of whether or not you believe or agree with the content of an article, if the article comes from a disreputable source it is well within reason to request a source with greater journalistic integrity.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;51930457]Wasn't Tudd ragging on another thread's source despite using a shit one here? Anyway, glad that there were caught, and no surprise it's antifa. What a joke group.[/QUOTE] Thinkprogress is a literal think tank/liberal news advocacy site. Referring to the source I was criticizing earlier in a different thread. Washington Times is hardly the in the same caliber except they admit to their own conservative bias, but even then that begs the question on why does it get more criticism on here despite being about as harmful as Washington Post's/Huffington Post's bias to the left. This is all subjective ofcourse, but here is what AllSides reports on them being "slight right." and another site that labels their "factual reporting" as high. I thoroughly implore others to find me similar site's commentary on their bias. Meanwhile Thinkprogress gets a hard left rating on most sites, cause surprise, that is what they are as a leftist think tank. [url]http://www.allsides.com/news-source/washington-times[/url] [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/[/url] But either way, Washington Post reported on this exact same story, and the story is that people got convicted/plead guilty at the legal hearing. It isn't like this story could have much political bias on reporting facts unless were arguing the whole trial never took place.

Good, You may hate Trump but Violence for your fellow countrymen is never the answer.