A Georgia congressional candidate convicted of a misdemeanor for illegally demonstrating inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, walked out of a televised debate with a fellow Republican on Sunday ahead of a June 18 primary runoff.
It was the latest volatile turn in southwest Georgia’s 2nd Congressional District, where Chuck Hand and Wayne Johnson are competing for the GOP nomination to take on 16-term Democratic incumbent Rep. Sanford Bishop in November.
Hand is one of at least four people convicted of Jan. 6 crimes running for Congress this year, all as Republicans. He was sentenced to 20 days in federal prison and six months of probation.
Nixon brought up a 2005 criminal trespass charge and a 2010 DUI charge against Hand, both of which were dismissed. Nixon also cited federal court documents to argue Hand’s participation in the Jan. 6 riot was more serious than Hand had claimed.
“This is where I get back in my truck and go back to southwest Georgia because I’ve got two races to win,” Hand said, walking out of the studio while cameras were rolling.
They really treat governance like the WWE. The candidates and the media, alike 😓
If you can’t play important parts of the game, you really shouldn’t be running for election.
I mean, I get it. There’s no way in hell I have the patience or diplomacy to be a politician. Because of that I would never run for office.
Maybe it’s time there’s some kind of requirement that prospective candidates take a short course that would help them to understand what the real non-monetary cost of running would be.
This guy gives of strong domestic violence energy.
Removed by mod
Thanks to trump, they think “debate” is just a fancy word for “argument”. They’re too dumb to even know what Robert’s Rules of Order are, let alone ever actually read them or understand how they apply in an actual debate. They just think that mockery and aggressiveness count as “debate strategies” thinking that winning an argument is about making the other person piss down their leg.
They literally can’t handle it when the other person doesn’t actually cower before their insanity.
Can you please elaborate how Robert’s Rules of Order can apply to debates? I quickly Googled it and read how it applies to group decision making, but no idea how it can apply to dialogue.
The basic idea of the moderated debate comes from Roberts Rules (I believe). Person 1 has 2 minutes to make his point. Person two has a minute to rebut. Person one than has another minute to respond to the rebuttal. Etc… Etc… That comes straight from parliamentary procedure, which follows Roberts Rules.
In parliamentary procedure, its moderated by the speaker of the house, but in one on one debates its just a moderator.
Debates are, at their core, very very structured. Something Trump and co. don’t handle well.
What a snowflake…
Wow, four convicted criminals running as republican… sounds about right for the party of criminals. Guess since dad was convicted, you’re not a cool republican if you don’t have a rap sheet?
Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three.
Snowflake.
This is where I get back in my truck and go back to southwest Georgia because I’ve got two races to win
What’s this a reference to?
(1) Chuck Hand and Wayne Johnson are competing for the GOP nomination (2) to take on 16-term Democratic incumbent Rep. Sanford Bishop in November.
Ah ok, I thought he meant he was running for some other elected position also. Thanks.
So, obviously this guy is an idiot. But maybe, after 3 decades, letting someone else have a go at it for a while wouldn’t be a terrible idea.
The one to the bottom and the one to the toilet.
He was trying to beat the crowds of people leaving the parking lot at the end of the debate.
His opponent’s smart he can use that. Talk about how Hand runs when the going gets tough. There’s a way to spin it.
I’m not sure why anyone that crossed the threshold on Jan 6 was charged with a felony and locked away for life.
Did you mean “wasn’t”?
Even then, “locked away for life” seems pretty extreme.
I don’t entirely disagree. Sentencing should be in accordance with the convicted person’s actions, taking into account that they were not acting as a group of individuals, but acting as a mob, and recklessly and negligently supported the actions of the entire mob.
They weren’t taking a tour of the US capital, they were actively participating in overthrowing the government. Everyone of them should he locked away in Gitmo to be forever forgotten.
I don’t think anyone should be locked away in Gitmo. It doesn’t matter how bad a person is, they’re still a person and shouldn’t be exposed to torture, abuse, etc.
That’s some real black and white thinking you’re espousing there, and when you paint as irredeemable with too broad a brush, all that happens is those people - or people who perceive themselves to be painted with that brush - are incentivized to do even worse things.
This is not to say that anyone should be relieved of consequences or not charged when they should be. It is to say that recognizing nuance and being truly fair are necessary, as is there being a path to redemption for many people.
tl;dr: It’s complicated.
There really isn’t nuance when attempting to overthrow a government?
Should we have given the planners of 9/11 a misdemeanor?
The Jan 6 folk wernt just walking down Constitution Ave NE and got swept up in the mob. They bought plane tickets, took time off work, and posted their intentions.
There’s no fucking nuance in those actions.
Get your centrist, we need to listen to both sides, ass out of here
Get your centrist, we need to listen to both sides, ass out of here
Yeah, you really need to check my comment history.
Every single person who marched on the Capitol on Jan 6, whether they went inside or not, whether they engaged in violence or not, was wrong.
Some of those people were criminally wrong, to varying degrees. Again, consequences for criminal actions should be commensurate with the degree of criminality. Again, taking into account that even minor criminal offenses were in support of the entire mob.
Once we’re all on the other side of this nonsense - if? - right-wing loons are still going to exist. They’re still going to be citizens. We still all have to live together and move forward. I’m quite certain that there will be more, and more widespread, violence between now and then.
I don’t know how to find common ground with people who reject reality, and I get real frustrated sometimes, too. (It gives me a MAGAraine.) But I also know that just giving up and taking the easy “throw them all in jail” route is counterproductive, and wholly at odds with how a fair justice system works. One of the things which separates me from them is that I want a fair justice system, regardless of who the accused is.
FYI, the Constitutionally-defined penalty for treason isn’t life imprisonment.
It sure as shit isn’t probation.
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Federal Crime of Treason Carrying a minimum prison sentence of 5 years, fines up to $10,000, and a possible sentence of death. 18 U.S.C.
Or sedition if you want to go that route.
10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
I definitely wasn’t implying probation.
News? I disagree
