I was going to comment that 6.5 years is a pretty decent chunk of time for what he did, but after reading all the details about the statements he made and how brazen he was about literally overthrowing the U.S. government, I now agree with you–fucker should be locked up for life. He very intentionally committed high treason.
Honestly it’s not so much the sentence itself but the lifetime of “Well, I could hire this guy and throw him a bone, or go with my 80 other non convict applicants.”
I meant the “well, having it on his record is the main thing, ignore how brief the sentence was” idea. That’s not applied across all cases, and this traitor shit is getting preferential treatment from a likeminded judge.
Most businesses will immediately disqualify anyone that has a criminal history, no matter what it was for, how long ago, or how severe. They just see it as a liability, even when it isn’t. They’ll have plenty of other applicants to pick from with no criminal history.
Most businesses will immediately disqualify anyone that has a criminal history, no matter what it was for, how long ago, or how severe.
I’m aware. The idea that this means that this guy’s lenient sentence is sufficient only seems to work for traitor shit like this guy, and not, say, non-violent drug offenses that routinely get the amount indicated by sentencing guidelines.
Wish they’d quit getting lenient sentences from complicit judges.
I was going to comment that 6.5 years is a pretty decent chunk of time for what he did, but after reading all the details about the statements he made and how brazen he was about literally overthrowing the U.S. government, I now agree with you–fucker should be locked up for life. He very intentionally committed high treason.
And kids are locked up for life for selling weed. It’s a tragedy
Treason is aiding an adversarial power in a time of war.
This is sedition though, and if memory serves seditious traitors used to be handled the same way as actual treasonous individuals.
As they say, he needs a short rope and a long drop.
Honestly it’s not so much the sentence itself but the lifetime of “Well, I could hire this guy and throw him a bone, or go with my 80 other non convict applicants.”
When that logic starts being applied across the board, I’ll accept it.
I mean, other than places that deliberately hire ex cons, it mostly is. You ever job hunt post prison?
I meant the “well, having it on his record is the main thing, ignore how brief the sentence was” idea. That’s not applied across all cases, and this traitor shit is getting preferential treatment from a likeminded judge.
That makes sense. I can agree with that.
deleted by creator
Most businesses will immediately disqualify anyone that has a criminal history, no matter what it was for, how long ago, or how severe. They just see it as a liability, even when it isn’t. They’ll have plenty of other applicants to pick from with no criminal history.
I’m aware. The idea that this means that this guy’s lenient sentence is sufficient only seems to work for traitor shit like this guy, and not, say, non-violent drug offenses that routinely get the amount indicated by sentencing guidelines.