This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I again admire and commend your thoroughness. At the big picture level, I'm unclear what we exactly disagree about. I don't deny that various factors played a role regarding Ray Epps's specific outcome. You mention two incriminating factors for Epps that appeared to have been ignored. He did indeed initially blame Antifa, but then also fully cooperated with law enforcement by calling the FBI on January 8th, and then sitting down for an interview on March (with a lawyer) where he admitted what he did was wrong. I don't see how having tourniquets can possibly be viewed as incriminating, it's normal for anyone attending a protest/rally to bring first aid supplies, especially with how violent 2020 was. I would concede your point slightly if he brought some offensive capabilities like a weapon, but even that is justifiable as self-defense precaution given how violent 2020 was.
I don't deny that the other cases you referenced had some odd outcomes, but it's still not demonstrating the original assertion: Ray Epps was treated with unusual leniency. Finding people with outcomes that are more lenient than Epps's doesn't tell us anything about that assertion. What would illuminate that question is someone with comparable conduct who nevertheless received a harsher sentence, and then ensuring that this hypothetical person wasn't just an outlier. I haven't seen this attempted, and people keep rejecting the comparisons I bring up on the other side by claiming those people (Fuentes, Jones) are probably feds too. This should be very easy if it was so obvious.
I agree that outcomes would have been very different had protestors tried to storm the Washington Monument or something, but as the classic saying goes if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike. I wouldn't expect any other location to have spawned 1000+ prosecutions, unless they also had the critical "very important government proceeding taking place" element. Regarding evidence of pre-planning, the most illustrative would be everything outlined in the Proud Boys sentencing memo. They created hierarchies, chain of command, recruitment standard, guidelines for communication, etc etc
If I'm understanding your arguments correctly, your position is that we have no evidence that Epps is a fed because he was not treated uniquely or unusually. My argument is that he has been treated unusually and possibly uniquely, but that this is not strong evidence he is a fed because there's enough of a spread of possible selection bias to pick such outliers.
Epps continued to state the possibility of antifa infilitrators over a year later during congressional hearings. Maybe that's not enough to overcome the question of remorse, and after all that's what sentencing is supposed to rest on. I can't even say, since the final reasons for sentencing from the judge are (afaict) almost always sealed in these cases. But there's a few people who did that sort of ambivalence -- albeit usually on social media rather than before Congress -- and it was read as evidence of insincerity.
I agree with you, but the DoJ does not. There are several informations or sentencing requests that highlight first aid, non-weapon personal protection such as body armor, or other non-weapon preparation (painter's mask!, sometimes explicitly to describe culpability or planning. Now, I can't prove how many other cases don't mention such a thing despite it being present -- we only know for Epps because he discusses it before Congress, after all! And yet back to the start we go again.
Yet in practice, it's impossible to show anyone charged with the same conduct. Only a handful of people were sentenced after pleaing or being found guilty of the same offense and only the same offense: I provided a list: 10 of the 14 include jail time, including no small number of plea bargains -- but almost all of them entered the Capitol proper, so that's not a fair comparison.
Same for 18 USC 1752(a)(1): I can easily show cases that showed similar or greater levels of remorse and admission of culpability but received home detention and longer probation, but the overwhelming majority entered the Capitol building, if only for minutes. The only cases I can show didn't enter the Capitol proper was a nutjob with a long criminal history, who brought her kid with her and tried/helped moved barriers, or maybe that one moron who ran for Michigan governor. They all got significantly harsher sentences, but there are easy ways to pull them as unique in their own various ways, and they're certainly either less remorseful or more plainly two-faced in their fake 'remorse'. Kepley is probably the closest, but you could readily argue (and I might agree!) that her sentence reflected assumptions her 'remorse' was especially fake or she had closer responsibility to attacks on police than shown in the indictment or sentencing memo, or just that she drew a hanging judge.
((You can even flip this analysis: there are a lot more sole-1752(a)(1) sentences, so out of all of them, you can pull three that received 12-month probation, though their fact patterns in turn (sorry, the courtlistener for this one is nearly empty) are drastically different. And that'd even be fair, although in turn I can readily point to the same nitpicks or exclusions.))
You can (and as far as I can tell, do) hold that this must mean Epps was charged unusually harshly. After all, I can only find three people with comparable sentences who didn't enter the grounds! (though, uh, that's not a deep search). But you're demanding a remarkable amount of rigor, here: trying to break apart whether they're the only three at all is rough enough. Figuring out and proving whether that means they were the only people to commit that particular offense but no further, if those others who did either weren’t caught yet or have yet to be sentenced, or if the DOJ decided to do some sub-criminal investigation punishment, would range from incredibly difficult and expensive to impossible at a philosophical level.
((This, on top of their long-proposed fedishness, is part of why Ali Alexander and Fuentes seem like distractions. They fit into AshLael's defense of not-committing-technical-crimes closer than Epps, who plead and had long admitted to crossing into restricted grounds.))
That's fair. I've got some quibbles about it, but got more weight as evidence than the vaguer assessments of non-uniqueness. As I’ve said, I don’t buy the Epps theory. But it’s easy to dismiss as not-even-wrong when you aren’t really engaging with it.
I think I understand the disagreement here. First, I would state my position on whether or not Epps is a fed is almost entirely divorced from whether or not he was treated leniently. That can sometimes be a factor, but it's barely relevant here. On whether or not he was treated leniently, I agree with your point that there's enough of a spread for outlier cases that it's difficult to do a 1:1 comparison. Defendants are not cloned mimes after all.
For what I understand you focus significantly on how rare his charges are, and I should have said this more explicitly but the specific statute he's charged with barely matters because he entered a plea. The fact that he plead guilty 2 days after his indictment was filed indicates his plea deal was negotiated ahead of time. Two days is not enough to send out a summons notice, and federal court definitely does not move fast enough to have allowed a plea deal negotiation to take place. If a defendant already agrees to plead, the prosecutor doesn't really care which specific statute they plead guilty to, because fictional pleas are very very common (and legally sanctioned!). In my work, prosecutors regularly ask me to suggest a charge my client would plead to.
It's less the specific charge -- you note fictional pleas, but even beyond that the relevant statutes are just vague and open-ended enough that a good half-dozen can fit pretty easily -- and more the behavior I'm trying to isolate down, and with things like charges and sentences are the closest proxies that the USAO DC page you linked actually exposes. I bring 40 USC 5104(e)(2)(G) and 18 USC 1752(a)(1) because they're the only other convictions that have similar or lesser sentencing that what Epps faced in the entire spreadsheet.
In an ideal world, we'd filter by what the alleged (or actual) behaviors were, but I tried throwing a couple scripts at the full USAO DC setup, and between missing pdfs (Andrew Morgan's courtlistener page makes him look like he got slapped more for his political views... but only because his sentencing request is still pacer-locked; taking it from other sources makes clear he behaved unusually poorly), heavily obfuscated descriptions, or bizarre descriptions... well, I got those three I mentioned last post out who didn't enter the capital building proper, but I also got another ten that did go into the building, and I'm 90%+ sure there's some false negatives.
((And I'm still finding typos and misfiles and stupid case citation errors, but that's more typical.))
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link