Feds Crack Trump Protesters' Phones To Charge Them With Felony Rioting (thedailybeast.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Daily Beast: Officials seized Trump protesters' cell phones, cracked their passwords, and are now attempting to use the contents to convict them of conspiracy to riot at the presidential inauguration. Prosecutors have indicted over 200 people on felony riot charges for protests in Washington, D.C. on January 20 that broke windows and damaged vehicles. Some defendants face up to 75 years in prison, despite little evidence against them. But a new court filing reveals that investigators have been able to crack into at least eight defendants' locked cell phones. Now prosecutors want to use the internet history, communications, and pictures they extracted from the phones as evidence against the defendants in court. [A] July 21 court document shows that investigators were successful in opening the locked phones. The July 21 filing moved to enter evidence from eight seized phones, six of which were "encrypted" and two of which were not encrypted. A Department of Justice representative confirmed that "encrypted" meant additional privacy settings beyond a lock screen. For the six encrypted phones, investigators were able to compile "a short data report which identifies the phone number associated with the cell phone and limited other information about the phone itself," the filing says. But investigators appear to have bypassed the lock on the two remaining phones to access the entirety of their contents.

Comments

Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

"Prosecutors have indicted over 200 people on felony riot charges for protests in Washington, D.C. on January 20 that broke windows and damaged vehicles."

"protests ... that broke windows and damaged vehicles."

So... a riot. Not a protest, a riot.

Re:Not a protest

[elrous0]

Maybe they were protesting against windows.

Re:Not a protest

[msauve]

"Maybe they were protesting against windows."

As a trademark, I'm pretty sure Windows should be capitalized.

Re:Not a protest

[arth1]

So... a riot. Not a protest, a riot.

Some people being assholes doesn't make the rest rioters.
Depriving a single peaceful protester of his constitutional right to peacefully assemble and protest is a worse crime than someone else breaking a window.

Or do you mean to say that all 200 broke windows and damaged vehicles?

Re:Not a protest

[msauve]

Protip: If you find yourself in a rioting mob, leave.

Re:Not a protest

[fustakrakich]

Fucking gravity! Keeping everybody down!

Re:Not a protest

[unrtst]

Would you react the same way if someone were killed?

Great point. They're all murderers!

Yeah... that doesn't work either :-(

Re:Not a protest

[guises]

What if you find yourself in a protest, with a few people misbehaving? Then what do you do?

This isn't a rhetorical question, every large protest is this way. People are protesting, after all, because they're angry about something, and with any large group of people there are going to be some with anger issues. Saying, "Just leave." isn't any different from saying, "Just give up. Abandon whatever cause has brought you out here today, protests are an unacceptable form of political expression."

Allow me to anticipate your response: "So, what, you're saying that rioting mobs are just misunderstood people who have gotten a little overly passionate? So all of that is just A-okay?" No, of course I'm not saying that. What I'm really saying is that rioting is unacceptable behavior whether everyone is doing it or only a few people are doing it, but that when you're prosecuting people it's necessary (it should be necessary) to establish guilt on an individual basis and not merely claim that a person was part of a mob and therefore guilty.

Re: Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

A classic tactic in the US is to give these warnings and orders AFTER having boxed the crowd in from those same avenues of "walk away"

There is often very little time given between when the tear-gas is fired and when the warnings are given... if any are given at all before the arrests begin.

That's not even counting the likelihood of agents-provocateurs, something that we see here in Montreal nearly every major protest. Sometimes the first stone is cast by a policeman - sometimes it's even the only stone.

Re:Not a protest

[Evil Kerek]

Yeah, cause the police instantly started arresting people.

The people that got swept up had been there for a good while AFTER the rioting started. I'm really sick of the 'it was peaceful except for these 3 people.'. That's horse shit and you know it. That was a full on riot with a ton of people involved. Here's a suggestion: When the rioting starts, you need to leave. If you stick around with the crowds that are running around after being ordered to disperse...guess what? You're a rioter.

Re: Not a protest

[rtb61]

You do not have to leave, if you have business there. You are not a slave, law enforcers can no issue arbitrary orders and obtain immediate obediance, they are not slaver overseers and you are not a slave. They can only issue orders they are allowed to issue. They have to prove you broke windos, that you specifically rioted, just being there is not a crime.

Police do not beat protesters to death, do not charge people with committing a crime unless they have evidence those people did commit a crime. They arrest with minimum force those individuals they have evidence of committing a crime and not others for just being there. Just being in a public space is not a crime.

This is just another measure to silence the public, to force them to obey, to shut up and vote in pretend election or just shut up and stay home. Obey, do not claim your rights, obey or be destroyed by the state, the legality of the orders is arbitrary, obey or be what, hmm, torture is acceptable to authorities even in public (use of electric whips, chemical weapons, even weapons that will cause organ damage, ears, internal organs from missiles fired from shotguns, high pressure water, grenades. Shut up, obey or die, slave, now that's your message.

My message, unhappy with your government, than protest the fuckers right out of business. Don't let them bog you down, keep your protest mobile. Law enforce prepare to attack, break up and relocate somewhere else, force the law enforcers to chase their own tales. Mobile protests, very mobile protests are the safest.

Re:Not a protest

[Wrath0fb0b]

Actually, the smart and well organized protest groups have their own security and will warn violent people to behave and, if they cannot be persuaded, forcibly eject them from the group. There are a huge number of benefits:

(1) By nipping violence early, the (literal) 'mob mentality' doesn't get a chance to catalyze
(2) By doing it it from within the protesting group itself, there is less reactionary violence against police intervention
(3) It demonstrates to those watching that the protesters are serious about non-violence and not tacitly condoning vandalism
(4) It demonstrates to the police that they can keep a safe distance and focus on separating protesters/counter-protesters
(5) It discourages opportunists that will join any protest as a cover for their pre-existing desire to smash shit (whether for political or just anger issues)
(6) It encourages people that might not feel safe or welcome in a violent protest to join in. A lot of people won't go out in the streets if people are smashing windows or if they fear being tear gassed by overreacting cops

So yeah, I don't advocate giving up and prosecuting everyone. Or shutting down the right to protest. But I also don't advocate allowing a very small percentage of the protesters to steal the spotlight and tar the entire thing as violent. Those folks ruin your public image, they ruin your relationship with the city, the police and the mainstream members of the group and they have no right to do so.

Re:Not a protest

[Boronx]

There are also smart people trying to infiltrate those groups so that they can commit violence in the groups' names and thereby discredit them.

Re:Not a protest

[liquid_schwartz]

Actually, the smart and well organized protest groups have their own security and will warn violent people to behave and, if they cannot be persuaded, forcibly eject them from the group. There are a huge number of benefits:

(1) By nipping violence early, the (literal) 'mob mentality' doesn't get a chance to catalyze (2) By doing it it from within the protesting group itself, there is less reactionary violence against police intervention (3) It demonstrates to those watching that the protesters are serious about non-violence and not tacitly condoning vandalism (4) It demonstrates to the police that they can keep a safe distance and focus on separating protesters/counter-protesters (5) It discourages opportunists that will join any protest as a cover for their pre-existing desire to smash shit (whether for political or just anger issues) (6) It encourages people that might not feel safe or welcome in a violent protest to join in. A lot of people won't go out in the streets if people are smashing windows or if they fear being tear gassed by overreacting cops

So yeah, I don't advocate giving up and prosecuting everyone. Or shutting down the right to protest. But I also don't advocate allowing a very small percentage of the protesters to steal the spotlight and tar the entire thing as violent. Those folks ruin your public image, they ruin your relationship with the city, the police and the mainstream members of the group and they have no right to do so.

I guess the anti-Trump protests are neither smart nor well run because all I hear about, even from networks with an obvious agenda like CNN, are antifa causing mayhem.

Re:Not a protest

[arth1]

Would you react the same way if someone were killed? Perhaps a member of your family?

Yes. i would feel terrible sadness. Not rage taken out on bystanders. That's such a chimpanzee thing to do.

Re:Not a protest

[Mashiki]

likely, false flaggers. folks who wanted this to 'look bad' and make the protesters sorry they voiced their opinions.

You mean like those peaceful antifa people who beat people over the head with bikelocks, and throw bottles and bricks at people? Yeah it wasn't false flagged, it was deliberate. The same way it was in berkeley, seattle, chicago and so on.

Re: Not a protest

[negRo_slim]

Sometimes the first stone is cast by a policeman - sometimes it's even the only stone.

Got any of that uhhhh source with that ramble?

Re:Not a protest

[SEE]

Ah, yes, who can forget about how all those angry Tea Party protesters, which of course included people with anger issues, resulting in all sorts of rioting.

Oh, wait. Apparently it's actually possible to have protests that don't descend into riots. It's not natural or inevitable, it's just an effect of whether the "protesters" are decent people or scum.

If rioting breaks out at a protest, it's because the "protestors" are choosing to aid and abet violence. There are no innocents at a riot, just co-conspirators. Lock up all the scum.

Re: Not a protest

[dcw3]

A classic tactic in the US is to give these warnings and orders AFTER having boxed the crowd in from those same avenues of "walk away"

With all the media, and cameras in DC, especially during the inauguration, there's little chance that that occurred in this case. There clearly was rioting going on, and there was video shown on the news...google "inauguration riots 2017" videos, there are plenty. So, let's not pretend that this was some trumped (pun intended) up case of the Po Po going wild.

Re:Not a protest

[AmiMoJo]

I guess the anti-Trump protests are neither smart nor well run because all I hear about, even from networks with an obvious agenda like CNN, are antifa causing mayhem.

Because peaceful protests are uninteresting and not newsworthy in their eyes. Crime gets much better ratings.

Re:Not a protest

[Mashiki]

So if someone turns up to a teabagger protest and lobs a brick through a window, the police should just lock everyone up because those scum failed to prevent it?

If someone turned up at a "teabagger protest" they would simply truss them up and call the police to come and collect them. That's the difference. It might be very difficult with the amount of biases and stereotypes you seem to believe in, but that's what has happened in the past. Just like when those "teabaggers" have held protests, and cleaned up after themselves, and the environmentalists who held a protest the following week made the same area look like a garbage dump.

You should probably fly to the US and experience the differences first hand, rather then what the media is telling you. They're fundamentally different. Just like how the left-leaning pundits tried pulling a "the berkeley riot was started by right-wingers, and the people burning stuff were republicans." Which was then carried on several prominent media outlets...until they were forced to either publish retractions, or they simply let that lie of a narrative fade away without saying anything else.

The vast majority of the political left have no problems with groups like antifa hiding in the ranks all masked up, and assaulting people. The vest majority of the political right have a serious problem with masked people showing up and assaulting people. And before you start the "but look at all those masked right-wing people..." I'll remind you that was in response to the police having been told to stand down, and not protecting them, or arresting those who were assaulting them. Why do you think there are multiple lawsuits against the mayor of berkeley right now? And universities over telling police not to arrest those communist agitators -- and yes, they are communist agitators.

Re:Not a protest

[Jason Levine]

I've been in two anti-Trump protests. Both were large (several thousand people) and both were peaceful. They didn't include acts of violence at all. Both were part of a series of national protests, most of which were peaceful as well. The news showed a couple clips of the protests and that was it. Had there been violence, though, the news coverage of it would have stretched for days. "A bunch of people peacefully protest" isn't very newsworthy. "A group of people rioted" is newsworthy. You could have a thousand anti-Trump protests run peacefully, but the one that has a small group of people rioting will get the news coverage - and thus will paint many people's views of the whole anti-Trump movement as a bunch of violent rioters.

Re:Not a protest

[Mashiki]

Group beatings at large protests don't generally get described as "truss them up".

Let's compare shall we? Can we find a tea party protest where that happened...nope. Can we find it where a antifa/leftist/etc group did that...yep. We can even find the cases where those antifa/leftist/anti-trump protestors have assaulted people for wearing hats that look like MAGA hats.

Re:Not a protest

[Enigma2175]

'Right' (god, I hate how those misguides idiots stole the word 'right' for themselves; they are anything BUT right!)

The terms "left" and "right" to denote political affiliation didn't originate in the US, so I don't know who you think "stole" that word. The terms come from the French revolution, supporters of the king sat on the right side of the national assembly and supporters of the revolution sat on the left side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Not a protest

[foghelmut]

Too old and fat to riot.

Re:Not a protest

[Anonymous Coward]

I was at the protest of the FCC in 2014 for net neutrality. There were probably 30 of us standing outside the FCC building in Duluth Georgia doing nothing more than holding up signs. One person showed up with a bull horn shouting and screaming at every person that walked in or out of the building. He then proceeded to yell and scream at the women in our protest group.

Homeland security was off in the distance and they were keeping an eye on us. We knocked the bullhorn out of the guys hand for putting it the face of one of us and escorted him down to Homeland Security where 10 of us professed that he was not one of us.

It turned out that the 5 o'clock news that day found out that he was paid to be there to incite violence in the group.... Who would have though???

Re:Not a protest

[Dread_ed]

If you are angry while you are protesting you are doing it wrong. If you are protesting to change people's mind, the first rule is to leave your anger at home. Your dedication to your cause is not going to spread to others if you express anger. Those that are as angry as you are already on your side. You need to persuade and to get publicity that ultimately leads to people hearing your message.

Anger in others is difficult to identify with if you aren't already negatively predisposed to the object of their anger. It has the potential to polarize and offends without regard for content, effectively stopping your message being delivered.

Organization, message, and publicity work better than appealing to sensationalism. When you run amok serious people won't take you seriously, at least in an ideological sense. They may take you seriously enough to have the police round you up and charge you with conspiracy, but not serious in the ideological sense of things. You will be dismissed as easily as last night's roadkill observed on the way to work: too messy to get involved with, distasteful in the extreme, and I've got shit to do and no time for this. A large showing, a cogent message, and a pretty face (preferably the subject of an undeserving truncheon blow or two) are infinitely better than angry ranting and smashing shit.

Misbehaving protestors or rioters (pick your phrase) are in many ways helping the position they are protesting against. People on the other side of the protestors will think "See! Those that disagree with us can't even act like rational humans! If they have to resort to violence they can't have a strong position. I could never side with people that act like that. That's un-American!" The thoughts go on and on, and are valid in most cases.

Therefore, if you are in a group of protestors that are "misbehaving" your first objective should be to extricate yourself from that protest. Your second objective should be to take as many of your friends or other protestors with you as quickly as possible. Violence and destruction of property does not persuade. It won't make your case stronger, it won't get you the converts you want, and it won't play well in the public eye. If you want to make a difference you shouldn't be where the violence is. That doesn't solve anything. It just pushes people into a corner, forcing them to decide whether or not they support your position. And, with such an eloquent delivery of the subject matter as smashing windows and breaking cars, who can blame them for looking at the protestors as fools?

Re:Not a protest

[Dorkmunder]

would you consider the Bundy groups left or tea party right? Cuz they trashed the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Desecrated stuff, left shit everywhere. Oh and they pointed rifles at Agents that confiscated illegally grazing cattle. Sounds like a peace-loving group to me. You are just making things up saying it only happens with leftist groups. Take responsibility would you.

Re:Not a protest

[dingleberrie]

So they were protesting against transparency?

Re: Not a protest

[rahvin112]

The initial ACLU lawsuit involving two of the corralled innocents is available, I suggest you read it for an accounting of what police did. I'd also suggest you read up on the recently appointed DC police captain who's done this before in protests where they corralled a bunch of innocent people and arrested and charged them all without any evidence whatsoever that any of them did anything.

https://www.acludc.org/sites/d...

Next time, try peaceful protests

[elrous0]

Worked for this guy.

Re: Next time, try peaceful protests

[elrous0]

Just remember that coups usually end with a lot of people getting hung. And not the good kind of hung either.

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[Gravis Zero]

Worked for this guy.

You do know he got assassinated, right?

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[Kargan]

Yes, peaceful protesting worked so well for Dr. King. How did that turn out again?

Oh, that's right. The whole "got murdered in broad daylight" thing.

But, less sarcastically, what I find to be so noble and admirable about his tactics is that he knew that would happen and incorporated it into his philosophy.

After the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, King told his wife Coretta, "This is what is going to happen to me also. I keep telling you, this is a sick society."

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[youngone]

It really didn't work for that guy, he was murdered by someone.

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[ShanghaiBill]

Are you saying violence is an acceptable form of protest?

Sometimes. It depends on your adversaries and what you are protesting against. MLK was non-violent, but he was successful in large part because others were not, and it was clear that the alternative to dealing with MLK was going to be a lot worse.

But the violence at Donald's inauguration was stupid and counterproductive. Conservatives already view liberals as entitled elitists who refuse to play by the rules. In the eyes of the right, this rioting confirmed all the worst stereotypes of the left. This is not the way to win people over.

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[nine-times]

It's worth noting that Dr. King wasn't really after "peaceful protests". To think he was looking for everything to be peaceful diminishes both how smart and tough the civil rights protesters were.

The story you were probably told was that MLK and other protesters just wanted to have a nice, peaceful sit-in, and then the police came in and ruined it by getting violent. That's not quite right. It's sort of true, but not quite. They went looking for venues of protest where they'd elicit a violent reaction. Having things turn violent was kind of the point. They wanted the public to see white supremacists beating up innocent black people. They were relying on the idea that there were a large number of Americans who would tolerate smaller injustices against black people (e.g. not being allowed to use a specific water fountain), but who would not tolerate larger injustices (e.g. being viciously beaten by police without any defensible reason).

So to achieve that goal, it was incredibly important that the protesters weren't violent. Any violence on their part would allow people to excuse the violence against them. If people see the police beating up or even killing violent rioters, most won't be too upset with the police, or feel too much sympathy for the rioters. However, if people see police beating up a nice, respectful, non-violent protester who doesn't even defend himself, then many of them will be upset with the police and sympathetic to the protester. The latter was the scenario that the protesters were trying to create.

So MLK demanded that his protesters be completely non-violent, but that's not the same as saying he wanted a non-violent protest. If he hadn't wanted violence, he could have had protests in safer ways and in safer areas. He could have protested among people who already agreed with his cause. instead, he protested among the KKK.

Re:Next time, try peaceful protests

[ckatko]

Holy shit you guys have tunnel vision.

How'd it work out for him? I don't know, why don't you ask your black coworkers that wouldn't be there if not for his protests embodying the civil rights movement?

Yeah, he got assassinated. All victories are meaningless unless you personally get to gain from them! If only we could go back in time and tell him how "enlightened" you are, and how stupid he was.

Frouther Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it didn't.. What got the Man's attention is when he got folks to boycott the buses. He hit them in the pocket book.

Protests - marching in the street do nothing. When King protested, the authorities gave him the permits, let him protest, and the protestors cleared out and life went on - unchanged.

And as far as the Trump protestors are concerned, just what did they think they'd accomplish? Really, what?

The folks who voted for him dug their heels in - and many still have no doubts.

The folks who hate him felt good seeing the protests or participated in them.

The folks who became violent were jerks and hurt their cause. The black hoody folks who smashed shit are just assholes and deserve to have their faces bashed in by the cops.

And sorry, Trump won according to our laws. Like it or not, he did. We are country of the rule of law and if we start applying them to what is popular only, we will be headed for some serious upheaval and unrest.

Don't like the situation? Well, voter turnout is still only a fraction of the eligible voters. And if those folks spent the time voting and doing the leg work that the Tea Party Republicans are so good at, maybe they too can make changes.

But it will be slow and tedious.

See, those protestor people want a revolution - they want their way to happen overnight. But if they grew up and took their lesson from the Tea Party, they'd see how to do it.

And now, the Fourth Amendment is yet being shredded even more. All thanks to assholes who don't know how our system works and refuse to work in it.

Re:Frouther Amendment

[Bing Tsher E]

It was Hillary's turn. Just like it was Bob Dole's turn.

Who didn't see it coming?

Re:consumer-grade encryption is that

[ScentCone]

consumer-grade encryption is that upon which one cannot rely

No, it's having violent tantrums as lefty social currency and expecting that since it's put up with in places like Berkeley that it'll all be just fine, since one got that rockin' balaclava shipped Prime from Amazon ... upon which one cannot rely.

Everyone should be terrified by this

[rahvin112]

When the violence took place (those involved in the violence should be caught and prosecuted) the FBI closed of an entire city block without warning and arrested EVERYONE within the block (this included people going to work, journalists covering the protest, people legitimately protesting and others but not rioting) and charged every single person with rioting whether or not they have any evidence of rioting. They are trying to charge them all as a group and use the evidence against the handful they have evidence of to convict the rest. This is a massive violation of rights.

I pray to god a Judge throws this whole case out and lets the guilty get away with it because of the tactics the FBI and Justice are using to convict innocent people of felonies they did not commit by being on a street when a riot they weren't involved with took place. Make no mistake if Justice is allowed to do this, the next time there is something they can call a riot they will be out there arresting every single person again and YOU might be the one caught up in it by being on a block where something happened.

Re:Everyone should be terrified by this

[nedlohs]

It wasn't the FBI is was the city police. I'm not sure what you class as a reputable source but here's a spectrum of biased ones:

https://www.usnews.com/news/na...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoeti...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
https://www.acludc.org/sites/d...

The anarchists rioted at trumps inaguratio just as they rioted at obama's inaguration. The local police finally had enough, and most likely went too far (as police tend to do).

Re:Everyone should be terrified by this

[rahvin112]

You're right, it was DC police, but the prosecutors going along with the abuse are federal Justice. Mod parent up.

Rioters, not protesters.

[sethstorm]

They crossed the line when they decided to riot.

Re:Rioters, not protesters.

[ScentCone]

They crossed the line when they decided to riot.

That almost sounds like something that a protest turned into. No. These clowns planned violence for months - it was their purpose in gathering together. It's a shame that some of their idiotic fellow protesters either were or pretended to be so dumb that they were standing around in the middle of a bunch of them and got caught up. But since the rioters were broadcasting their intentions well in advance, and were dancing around with black masks on smashing stuff ... well, too bad if you hang out with those tools.

Did you read the whole thing?

[rsilvergun]

You know he dies at the end, right? Oh, and while we're linking Wikipedia articles how about this one? Only problem is the use of 'was' in the opening line...

Re:Convict these people for breaking windows!

[ScentCone]

If by "breaking windows" you mean things like "trashing a poor guy's car, the thing he uses to make a living" and whatnot, yeah, convict. Especially since they planned, in advance, to commit violence and then did it. Unlike your Russia delusion, these people actually DID commit crimes, and got caught doing it, violently, on video.

If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking device

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Officials seized (rioters) cell phones, cracked their passwords, and are now attempting to use the contents to convict them

If you're dumb enough to wear your tracking device to the scene of the crime, then what do you really expect? Cops have been using location, texts and social media posts to pin perps for at least a decade now.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's ok to trample the bill of rights for some people because some Windows got smashed?

Gee this is a fun* game.

*actually dull as he'll.

Re:trump won according to law

[ScentCone]

You keep telling yourself that.

But Hillary's lack of being crowned as she demanded and expected was just the latest in a series of events that cost the Democrats nearly a thousand legislative seats, both houses of congress, most of the governorships, and millions of two-time Obama voters who were disgusted by Clinton/DNC overt behavior, never mind reading their obnoxious internal communications. Comey didn't cause Hillary to call millions of the people over whom she wanted to preside irredeemably deplorable racists. Neither Comey nor the Russians used mind control rays to cause Hillary to somehow forget to even set foot in Wisconsin to try to tell the people there something vaguely coherent about why she and her husband should once again get the executive power they craved and with which they enriched themselves.

But please, keep blaming it all on everything except the Democrats' years of snark, sneering condescension and their hatred for the people in flyover country ... you know, the ones who denied her the electoral college.

Rioters who destroy property deserve no sympathy.

[Anonymous Coward]

This mess has nothing to do with Trump.

The law is the law, and you don't get an exemption to break it because you're upset about Trump ( or anything else ).

If you riot and trash cars and you get caught, you will be punished, AND YOU WILL DESERVE IT.

The people who are wondering about encryption should know that ANY encryption you can get at your amateur level can be cracked, though parallel construction may be used to avoid revealing that your encryption was broken. Welcome to the adult world. The government has nuclear weapons and you don't. The government can crack your encryption. Don't conspire to do illegal things and you will have no problems.

Some of you who frequent this website seem to think life is a contest in which you can outwit the people or entities you don't like. I can tell you from 40 years of practicing law that very few people are able to pull this off. A lot of people think they can, and nearly all of them end up in prison or on the run. Life is hard enough without behaving in ways that society doesn't accept. Truly intelligent people realize this early on and they live accordingly. People who learn the hard way have tough and unpleasant lives. Chew on that for a while and decide whether you want a shitty life or a good one.
And learn to accept that there are things you are utterly powerless to change. This is the case for all of us humans. There will always be something you don't like, and sometimes you won't be able to do anything about it. People who are adults in the truest sense of the word understand this and deal with it.

Re:trump won according to law

[XeXeN]

Ignoring the fact that Donald Trump didn't make Hillary run an illegal private email server that contained classified information.

Re:Good

[Frobnicator]

Maybe good.

Did the investigators get proper warrants? Did they present accurate probable cause statements to magistrates? Did they follow the rules and procedures of law, and ensure the rights of the individuals were protected during the process?

If so then I agree: Good. The people were accused of some severe vandalism and destruction of property, and people who smash windows and damage vehicles deserve suitable legal consequences.

However, if the investigators did not follow the rule of law, did not follow the rules protecting individual rights, or otherwise violated the rights of citizens, then the investigators deserve to not only have their entire investigation dumped by the courts but to be fired from their jobs for incompetence. They have had over six full months to ensure they took the relatively simple steps to follow the law, and if they didn't do them they deserve to be blocked from the profession.

Re:trump won according to law

[Grishnakh]

You totally forgot to mention how her DNC cohorts stabbed Bernie in the back and colluded with her, which is what was shown in those DNC emails. And then when DWS stepped down, Hillary doubled-down on her and hired her to a high position in her campaign, effectively thumbing her nose at all the Bernie supporters.

As a result, Dem turnout was low, especially among the Bernie-voting demographic. Many of them who did bother to vote instead voted for a 3rd party (which both saw HUGE gains over the last presidential election), or even for Trump out of spite. According to my recollection, if Hillary had gotten most of those 3rd-party votes, she would have won.

She ran an incredibly condescending campaign, and her supporters were especially smug and condescending. Honestly, I think I'd rather be associated with moronic Trump voters than with the condescending assholes who were vocal Hillary supporters.

Personally, I voted for Stein. Hillary's supporters specifically told me that they didn't need my vote to win, so I didn't give it to her.

Re:United States of Trump

[jedidiah]

This is precisely the kind of distorted nonsense that erodes trust when it comes from "professional journalists".

Let's remember what is at stake

[OYAHHH]

Peaceful protest is one thing, I've done it myself.

But there was a plot uncovered for an acid attack to occur during the inauguration activities. That is not protest. Certainly not even remotely a peaceful protest planned.

Since the article is sorely lacking in details as to what is being searched for, they state a "riot", I am sticking with they are looking for the acid attack planners. And that is a worthwhile pursuit.

If not, guess what, throwing rocks, bottles, and pipes is a worthwhile reason to search a phone. It's no different from searching a home for hidden child pornography, or a knapsack for molotov cocktails or a car for a cache of guns that a suspected criminal might possess.

If it's felonious behavior, which rioting with acid is, then absolutely search the phones.

75 Years? Really?

[Arzaboa]

I get it that most folks don't appreciate the rioting. I certainly don't approve by any stretch of the imagination.

75 years is insane for this. They broke some windows. If the internet wasn't around, they would have used a phone. Conspiracy for some windows breakers? That's ridiculous. Make them fix a few windows and pay a fine. Keep their phones.

Re: United States of Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

That would certainly describe Obama perfectly.

Re:Good

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Assuming proper procedure, I think it would be more productive for the actual rioters to be sentenced to community service rather than prison time. That is, if evidence shows the decision to riot was impulsive and not carefully planned.

Re:trump won according to law

[Grishnakh]

At least the Trump voters had good reason to be angry: they were doing poorly economically. They didn't pick very well in their search for someone to alleviate their problems, but to be fair, the mainstream Democratic party (Hillary and friends) really offered them nothing at all. Bernie's camp was the one talking about income inequality, but Hillary's camp was clearly all in favor of it, since the mainstream Dems are so cozy with wealthy elitist donors and of course the financial sector. It wouldn't have made any sense for the rural conservative voters to vote for Hillary; at least if Bernie were on the ticket we would have spoken to them and offered them something (remember, he's quite popular in rural Vermont).

Hillary's supporters were just plain smug and condescending. Who the hell wants to hang around assholes like that? I'd rather hang around a bunch of dumb, uneducated, but well-meaning hicks than pretentious, smug assholes any time.

There's a good reason almost no one had a Hillary 2016 bumper sticker on their car, even in the very blue areas I frequent. By contrast, I saw tons of 4- and 8-year old Obama campaign stickers, but very very few Hillary ones. That really says something. I'm sure I'm not the only one totally turned off by Hillary's nasty supporters (just like the AC asshole who also replied to me here: he's a perfect example of those condescending shitheads).

Your house-burning analogy makes no sense. I'm talking about people and social dynamics here, not house colors. You can repaint an ugly house easily. You can't turn pretentious, smug dickheads into decent human beings.

Re:trump won according to law

[93 Escort Wagon]

yeah, if you ignore that his narrow victory was clearly pushed over the top by the illegal interference in the election by the head of the FBI, who was using as ammunition against the Democrat contender a set of emails related to emails which were originally made public by illegal hacking of Democrat computer systems by agents of a foreign power.

This seems almost as silly as the crap Trump says.

Hillary is a thoroughly unlikeable person...and her own worst enemy. Even now, she somehow polls more unfavorably than Trump. Like a lot of people, I held my nose and voted for her, given the alternative - but let's not pretend she was adored by the masses. Even without the emails the Russians hacked and released, Trump still might have won the Electoral College.

Re:Convict these people for breaking windows!

[Waffle Iron]

So these guys face up to 75 years in prison for trashing a poor guy's car.

In other news this week, they report that drunk girl who live-streamed wrecking her car and killing her little sister is facing up to *thirteen* whole years in prison.

Re:No I think he's a failure

[fafalone]

Oh come on, I hate the orange menace and his evil goblin AG as much as anyone (as my comment history would show), and they represent a great threat to many important areas where we've made progress (the tiny bit of drug policy reform Obama managed inc. civil asset forfeiture (legalized theft), trans protections, womens health coverage, DOJ oversight of local out-of-control police depts, etc), but you can't seriously be claiming that Trump and Sessions are in any way going to move us back to blacks-only bathrooms, lunch counters, and back of the bus.
The absolute worst you're going to get is encouraging states to have voter ID laws which have a disparate impact on poor voters, which then in turn hurts minorities more because they're more likely to be poor. It does no one any good to discredit grievances about the countless serious abuses of this dumpster fire presidency by claiming they're bringing back Jim Crow.

Making America Great Again!!!

[LostMyBeaver]

Look up U.S. statistics on prisons.

Now, be warned... Googling this topic puts out more fantastic and exaggerated headlines than searching for Trump on the NY Times. Well in both cases, let's be honest, headlines in general are generally the best way to misinform a population who don't read the articles with part-truths. Trump hasn't figured out that it isn't fake news that's a problem for him, the problem is, he refuses to read anything longer than a Tweet so he stops after the headline and name of the author. Watching Trump and the New York Times fight is like watching two knuckle-draggers in a boxing ring.

So... here's the way we make America great again... it's easy.

1) Decrease unemployment... wait.. why am I numbering... it's the only point I have.

How do you decrease unemployment the fastest?

- Increase the number of people who can't work.
- Increase the number of people required to care for them

So, if you increase the prison population from about 1% to 2% of adult Americans... you can remove at least a few million people from the job market. You can also increase the number of prison jobs by quite a bit. Not only that, but consider all the additional post-prison jobs like folding laundry that can be made.

Prisons are profitable as all hell to politicians. Keep in mind that American prisons are not correctional facilities. A correctional facility tries to take a person who made a wrong turn (like running over a few lawyers with a bus... this should't actually be illegal) and then help raise them up to be something more after some time. American prisons are penal facilities. They exist to extract revenge.

America LOVES REVENGE!!!!

Nothing has ever gained more votes than revenge... especially when you can combine revenge with righteousness. Nothing has ever made Americans more excited than finding retribution by doing at least 10 times more wrong to someone else than has been done to them! Some asshole bombs you, a friend or even talks about bombing you... that's ok... if every single person involved with a bombing you is dead, we'll bomb your entire country or even your entire religion... and we don't even need to know what your religion is... we'll judge by skin color and guess.

So... we can work towards making America great again through honesty.

"You have been sentenced to three years in super-max for paying a parking ticket late. We are placing you in prison, not because you should be there. In fact, you shouldn't even be in this court room. But the US has 4-5 times more people passing the bar exams each year than it can employ. Those people (myself included) didn't actually study anything other than law and most of our jobs have been replaced with software already. In fact, we couldn't even work as paralegals.If we weren't representing the people, the plaintiff or the defendant, we'd be out of work and praying for a managerial position at a local McDonald's. So therefore, we need to keep the court full as much as possible and avoid due process wherever possible as to increase double and triple billable hours.

In addition, we have recently struck agreements (me, the prosecution and .. the defense) with the privately owned prison system to send more prisoners their way. They aren't concerned about the crimes themselves, they will gladly treat everyone as poorly as possible. They agreed to pick up the majority of the cost of upkeep and maintenance of the court house which leaves more money in the budgets for my raises. They cut a deal with the mayor too and I actually get bonuses now when I reach certain quotas for sending people to specific prisons. I've been asked recently to increase female inmate populations. Apparently this is great for the prisons who have to supply "special needs" but awesome for the Las Vegas community afterwards.

We also got a great deal from a prison telephone company that my buddy down the hall actually sued. They had to pr

Re: Rioters who destroy property deserve no sympat

[ShoulderOfOrion]

Civil disobedience is refusing to sit at the back of the bus, or chaining oneself to a tree. Such an act puts the person engaged in it at risk, but that makes it a noble effort. Rioting, burning and destroying property puts others at risk and is the act of a selfish coward, particularly when done while wearing a mask. Antifa and KKK, same difference. Rioting is not civil disobedience.

you can't leave after the riot police comes.

[gl4ss]

you can't leave after the riot police comes.

and if the protest was organized, then you will be apparently prosecuted for tens of years in prison.

basically, feds could get a few stools in there to riot and throw the lot of them in prison for decades? even if there was no bodily harm or whatever even done by any of them except the stools.

your prison sentences in usa are stupid. 20 year old woman meets a 14 year old "boy" in a bar of all places, potentially 50 years.

stand near a protest: decades potentially.

shoot the woman who called 9/11: nothing.

vehicular manslaughter while drunk: basically nothing.

and we all know nobody of them is going to do 75 years, its just the usual tactic to get them to confess so evidence isn't needed.

Re: Burner. Phones.

[rickb928]

"If you are opposed to a president who is committed to roll back every single socialist policy since 1901 and a president who declares America First, and you resort to violence to express that opposition, you deserve to be ploughed under."

FTFY.

"Cracked"?

[acoustix]

How many of these "cracked" phones used fingerprint or facial recognition locks? These authentication types don't need to be cracked. The device owners can be compelled to unlock without cracking the device.

Re:Its about damn time!

[e_pluribus_funk]

The antifa people are using fascist tactics of violence and intimidation against 1) a democratically elected government and 2) supporters of that government. In terms of ideology, sure, the antifa people have more in common with straight up 1917 Marxist-Leninists.

Re:trump won according to law

[penandpaper]

the 'right' has had a grudge ever since 'that black guy' got into office.

I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 but I remember distinctly the day after the election that CNN and other news talking heads generalize the election to racism. "What we learned last night is that there are not enough racists to defeat Obama.". Any time I disagreed with Obama for any reason during the last 8 years I was called a racist.

Maybe that grudge is because a lot of people are tired of being called a racist because they vote for the other guy. What is the point in trying to have a discussion if you will call me racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic when we disagree?

I know more people that are fed up being called *ist because they have different needs and wants from the federal government then actual *ists.

Re:trump won according to law

[ganjadude]

keep running on "the other side is racist" it just means you guys will keep losing

Re:Good

[HornWumpus]

_Prison_ for any rioter that brought a molotov, a weapon or was involved in any text conversations about planned violence, arson or vandalism.

_Prison_ for any rioter that actually struck a person, except in self defense (not 'defense' from 'hate speech').