Current Events > Capitol terrorist Jenny Cudd facing new felony charges

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cbs7.com/2021/02/04/first-on-cbs7-cudd-faces-five-new-criminal-charges-for-capitol-riot/

In a newly unsealed grand jury indictment, prosecutors charged the Midlander with corruptly obstructing an official proceeding of Congress; entering and remaining in a restricted building; committing disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building; committing disorderly conduct in a Capitol building; and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.
Cudd openly bragged about storming the Capitol on January 6 on her Facebook page. She told CBS7 that shed gladly do it again.
One of the conditions of her not serving any jail time right now is that she stay away from Washington except for anything dealing with her court case.

Apparently her request to go on vacation to Mexico hasn't been approved yet. They really shouldn't let her go.

---

Sounds like a flight risk

---

is she a cow?

---

I love that we are calling them terrorists. Because they are.

---

Sayoria posted...

I love that we are calling them terrorists. Because they are.

Terrorist is still a super politically charged term though.

It's really weird how 20 years ago people threw the word terrorist around a lot and then people stopped using it partially due to it being a racist dog whistle, but now that we can call white people terrorists they're definitely terrorists.

But yeah these people do fit the definition of terrorists so have at it

---

TommyG663513 posted...

Terrorist is still a super politically charged term though.

It's really weird how 20 years ago people threw the word terrorist around a lot and then people stopped using it partially due to it being a racist dog whistle, but now that we can call white people terrorists they're definitely terrorists.

But yeah these people do fit the definition of terrorists so have at it

Uhhh

The capitol riot was a super politically charged event

They aren't being called terrorists because they're white.

---

TommyG663513 posted...

Terrorist is still a super politically charged term though.

It's really weird how 20 years ago people threw the word terrorist around a lot and then people stopped using it partially due to it being a racist dog whistle, but now that we can call white people terrorists they're definitely terrorists.

But yeah these people do fit the definition of terrorists so have at it

MAGA board ----->

---

CableZL posted...

Uhhh

The capitol riot was a super politically charged event

They aren't being called terrorists because they're white.

So you didn't at all understand what I said then

Everyone who stormed the capitol fits the bill of a terrorist. I said that in my post that you quoted.

There is a difference between someone actually being a terrorist and people eagerly or hesitantly calling someone a terrorist.

The point was that the term terrorist stopped being thrown around so eagerly, because it became way too obvious of a racist dog whistle for "I think very little of Muslims."

---

ImAMarvel posted...

You mean it's weird how people are so reluctant to call terrorists 'terrorists' just b/c they're white?

Like literally no one has been reluctant to call the capitol rioters terrorists except maybe OAN and Newsmax.

I'm referring to the reluctance to use the term that occurred in the decade or so after 9/11

---

TommyG663513 posted...

I'm referring to the reluctance to use the term that occurred in the decade or so after 9/11

what fucking planet were you living on?


---

TheLiarParadox posted...

what fucking planet were you living on?

The planet where people stopped throwing the word terrorist around roughly a decade after 9/11 sometime after Obama was elected. I should say, speaking in liberal circles. The word terrorist morphed into a much more blatant dog whistle for racism and was more exclusively used by right wing people who thought Obama was born in Kenya.

---

TommyG663513 posted...

So you didn't at all understand what I said then

Everyone who stormed the capitol fits the bill of a terrorist. I said that in my post that you quoted.

There is a difference between someone actually being a terrorist and people eagerly or hesitantly calling someone a terrorist.

The point was that the term terrorist stopped being thrown around so eagerly, because it became way too obvious of a racist dog whistle for "I think very little of Muslims."

What you're referring to is people calling anyone who is a Muslim a terrorist just because of the way they look or dress. That has nothing to do with what's going on in this topic.

• The people who flew planes into the buildings on 9/11 are terrorists because they committed terroristic acts.
• The people who stormed the capitol are terrorists because they committed terroristic acts.

Calling someone a terrorist because they speak Arabic or dress in traditional Muslim clothing is a racist dog whistle. You're trying to conflate two different things and you know that.

---

Good. Im really hoping all of these terrorists are held accountable

---

CableZL posted...

What you're referring to is people calling anyone who is a Muslim a terrorist just because of the way they look or dress.

That has nothing to do with what's going on in this topic.

The people who flew planes into the buildings on 9/11 are terrorists because they committed terroristic acts.

The people who stormed the capitol are terrorists because they committed terroristic acts.

Calling someone a terrorist because they speak Arabic or dress in traditional Muslim clothing is a racist dog whistle.

You're trying to conflate two different things and you know that.

No you're just not at all understanding what I am saying at all

In 2004 "let's go to the middle east to fight terrorism..."

In 2012 "it's not fair to call people protecting their own country terrorists"

In 2016 "calling someone a terrorist is just a dog whistle for racism against muslims"

In 2021 "Look at all those terrorists doing terrorist things. They're all terrorists and I'm excessively using the word terrorist, because now I have no guilt of racism. All this pent up urge to use the word terrorist is coming out of me and I'm gonna keep saying terrorist. It feels so good to call Trumpers terrorist apologists now."

*Note* Yes indeed it is accurate to call the 9/11 hijackers and the capitol stormers terrorists. The difference is the eagerness to use each term and who is saying it.

In 2002 a rural white person would use the term terrorist with this weird eagerness that is similar to the way ultra left leaning people label the capitol rioters as terrorists.

Again, in neither of these examples is the one using the word terrorist incorrect, but their eagerness to use the term does communicate something else as well.

---

Wait I thought the lady they asked permission to go to Mexico on her vacation was approved? Was that the real estate lady?

TommyG663513 posted...

No you're just not at all understanding what I am saying at all

In 2004 "let's go to the middle east to fight terrorism..."

In 2012 "it's not fair to call people protecting their own country terrorists"

In 2016 "calling someone a terrorist is just a dog whistle for racism against muslims"

In 2021 "Look at all those terrorists doing terrorist things. They're all terrorists and I'm excessively using the word terrorist, because now I have no guilt of racism. All this pent up urge to use the word terrorist is coming out of me and I'm gonna keep saying terrorist. It feels so good to call Trumpers terrorist apologists now."

*Note* Yes indeed it is accurate to call the 9/11 hijackers and the capitol stormers terrorists. The difference is the eagerness to use each term and who is saying it.

In 2002 a rural white person would use the term terrorist with this weird eagerness that is similar to the way ultra left leaning people label the capitol rioters as terrorists.

Again, in neither of these examples is the one using the word terrorist incorrect, but their eagerness to use the term does communicate something else as well.

You're dealing with ego stroking, not a good faith doubt about your stance. I wouldn't bother.

---

Cowthief posted...

MAGA board ----->

XD

---

TommyG663513 posted...

No you're just not at all understanding what I am saying at all

In 2004 "let's go to the middle east to fight terrorism..."

In 2012 "it's not fair to call people protecting their own country terrorists"

In 2016 "calling someone a terrorist is just a dog whistle for racism against muslims"

In 2021 "Look at all those terrorists doing terrorist things. They're all terrorists and I'm excessively using the word terrorist, because now I have no guilt of racism. All this pent up urge to use the word terrorist is coming out of me and I'm gonna keep saying terrorist. It feels so good to call Trumpers terrorist apologists now."

*Note* Yes indeed it is accurate to call the 9/11 hijackers and the capitol stormers terrorists. The difference is the eagerness to use each term and who is saying it.

In 2002 a rural white person would use the term terrorist with this weird eagerness that is similar to the way ultra left leaning people label the capitol rioters as terrorists.

Again, in neither of these examples is the one using the word terrorist incorrect, but their eagerness to use the term does communicate something else as well.

There has never been a hesitancy to call a terrorist a terrorist. There was a backlash against using a terroristic act to assume all people who even look like they're Muslims terrorists. We went to war in Iraq after 9/11 for some reason. Bush even declared "mission accomplished" after Saddam Hussein was captured, even though Osama bin Laden was still out there.

Cesar Altieri Sayoc is Filipino and he was called a terrorist in 2019 when he mailed bombs to multiple people who were criticizing Trump.

Calling someone a terrorist was never inherently considered a dog whistle for racism against Muslims. Calling someone a terrorist just because they appear to be Muslim was and is considered a dog whistle for racism against Muslims.

---

CableZL posted...

There has never been a hesitancy to call a terrorist a terrorist. There was a backlash against using a terroristic act to assume all people who even look like they're Muslims terrorists. We went to war in Iraq after 9/11 for some reason. Bush even declared "mission accomplished" after Saddam Hussein was captured, even though Osama bin Laden was still out there.

Cesar Altieri Sayoc is Filipino and he was called a terrorist in 2019 when he mailed bombs to multiple people who were criticizing Trump.

Calling someone a terrorist was never inherently considered a dog whistle for racism against Muslims. Calling someone a terrorist just because they appear to be Muslim was and is considered a dog whistle for racism against Muslims.

You must have never ever hung around ultra liberal circles if you thought people never ever criticized the term terrorist in a very general context. Like you couldn't ever say the term terrorist ESPECIALLY if there was a muslim student in the room in any context. It's because the term had been used so extensively against them for so long that many felt the term shouldn't be used at all.

Like go ahead and talk to a Muslim person around 2012 and use the word terrorist and then tell me the conversation won't at best get very awkward. You could tell just hearing the word made a lot of Muslim people uncomfortable, because it carried memories of discrimination.

---

TommyG663513 posted...

You must have never ever hung around ultra liberal circles if you thought people never ever criticized the term terrorist in a very general context. Like you couldn't ever say the term terrorist ESPECIALLY if there was a muslim student in the room in any context. It's because the term had been used so extensively against them for so long that many felt the term shouldn't be used at all.

Like go ahead and talk to a Muslim person around 2012 and use the word terrorist and then tell me the conversation won't at best get very awkward. You could tell just hearing the word made a lot of Muslim people uncomfortable, because it carried memories of discrimination.

The word carried memories of discrimination because people were using it as if it applied to all Muslims. Some people still use it in that way today. You seem to have a hard time understanding this.

There was no issue with calling someone who had committed terroristic acts a terrorist at all.

---

Ruvan22 posted...

Wait I thought the lady they asked permission to go to Mexico on her vacation was approved? Was that the real estate lady?

I had read it was approved, too, but a couple articles I've read today say it hasn't been approved. I hope it hasn't been approved. Letting her go to Mexico in these circumstances is ridiculous.

---

CableZL posted...

The word carried memories of discrimination because people were using it as if it applied to all Muslims. Some people still use it in that way today. You seem to have a hard time understanding this.

There was no issue with calling someone who had committed terroristic acts a terrorist at all.

Just no dude.

There was a huge sensitivity around the word that developed because it has been so blatantly turned into a dog whistle for racism against Muslims.

The past couple years there have been a lot of attempts to label the actions of white people as terrorism (to be fair, this is correct) and downplay the actions of Muslims in other countries as terrorism.

Again, what ultra liberal university did you spend time at within the last decade? Because my ultra liberal university was filled with discussions like this. Anytime a person said the word terrorism/ist everyone's buttholes would tighten up waiting for that person to get much more explicit about their real feelings.

Now you see this weird flip where terrorism is ok to say now, because "actually white nationalists were the real terrorists all along, acts of terrorism committed by minorities is miniscule to that committed by white nationalists."

You're trying to act like this country doesn't have a weird hang up with the word terrorism and we've applied it the exact same way today as we did on 9/11. The reality is that the usage of the term has changed very dramatically in two decades.

---

TommyG663513 posted...

There was a huge sensitivity around the word that developed because it has been so blatantly turned into a dog whistle for racism against Muslims.

It was so blatantly turned into a dog whistle for racism against Muslims

Because people were using it as if it applied to all Muslims.

TommyG663513 posted...

The past couple years there have been a lot of attempts to label the actions of white people as terrorism (to be fair, this is correct) and downplay the actions of Muslims in other countries as terrorism.

And again, this is not "an attempt to label the actions of white people as terrorism." It's labeling people who committed terroristic acts as terrorists.

• Jorge Riley is a Native American man who participated in the capitol riot. He's a terrorist.
• Emanuel Jackson is an African American man who participated in the capitol riot. He's a terrorist.

Trying to act like this is some zealous attempt to label white people as terrorists is, plainly, idiotic.

---

A very common interpretation I heard in many classrooms "you know terrorism is all about perspective, the British thought of the American revolutionaries as terrorists, but today we look at them as the founders of this country."

Then came with that a complete deconstruction of the word terrorism to say the word had little value and was just there to rile people up.

Now people are super eager to call each and every person who stormed the capitol a terrorist when that could be debates. It'd be more accurate to label them all rioters, but that isn't 100%. Certain individuals like the ones with bombs, weapons, zip ties for hostage taking were definitely terrorists. Others like the real estate lady who took a private jet may be more accurately labeled a rioter.

I mean, at the end of the day they're all morons who committed massive federal crimes that should carry significant jail sentences and beyond that there is a degree of subjectivity as to how exactly you label them.

---

CableZL posted...

It was so blatantly turned into a dog whistle for racism against Muslims

Because people were using it as if it applied to all Muslims.

And again, this is not "an attempt to label the actions of white people as terrorism." It's labeling people who committed terroristic acts as terrorists.
* Jorge Riley is a Native American man who participated in the capitol riot. He's a terrorist.
* Emanuel Jackson is an African American man who participated in the capitol riot. He's a terrorist.

Trying to act like this is some zealous attempt to label white people as terrorists is, plainly, idiotic.

Ok initially you made the correct take

There was a big sensitivity to the word terrorist because it has been used for a long time as a dog whistle against Muslims so people have been hesitant to use the term.

We can agree on that right?

This isn't all just about this single incident as the attempt to reframe terrorism as a thing "white people do" has been happening for a few years.

A couple of anecdotes of minorities who stormed the white house doesn't really counter that narrative when the vast majority of the capitol stormers were white.

---

TommyG663513 posted...

I very common interpretation I heard in many classrooms "you know terrorism is all about perspective, the British thought of the American revolutionaries as terrorists, but today we look at them as the founders of this country."

Then came with that a complete deconstruction of the word terrorism to say the word had little value and was just there to rile people up.

Now people are super eager to call each and every person who stormed the capitol a terrorist when that could be debates. It'd be more accurate to label them all rioters, but that isn't 100%. Certain individuals like the ones with bombs, weapons, zip ties for hostage taking were definitely terrorists. Others like the real estate lady who took a private jet may be more accurately labeled a rioter.

I mean, at the end of the day they're all morons who committed massive federal crimes that should carry significant jail sentences and beyond that there is a degree of subjectivity as to how exactly you label them.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005#:~:text=Terrorism%20is%20defined%20in%20the,Section%200.85).

Terrorismis defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

They aren't being called terrorists because of some "degree of subjectivity." They're being called terrorists because they committed terroristic acts.

Jenny Cudd - "We did break down Nancy Pelosi's door :D"

• "Unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property..."

Emanuel Jackson was hitting capitol police officers with a bat.

• "Unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property..."

Jorge Riley - "We went into the door. We pushed our way in and then we just kept going further and further"

• Unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property..."

They're being called terrorists because their actions fit the FBI's definition of terrorism. That is not subjective.

---

TommyG663513 posted...

Ok initially you made the correct take

There was a big sensitivity to the word terrorist because it has been used for a long time as a dog whistle against Muslims so people have been hesitant to use the term.

We can agree on that right?

This isn't all just about this single incident as the attempt to reframe terrorism as a thing "white people do" has been happening for a few years.

A couple of anecdotes of minorities who stormed the white house doesn't really counter that narrative when the vast majority of the capitol stormers were white.

People were hesitant to use the term as if it applied to all Muslims. There was never a hesitancy to call someone who committed terroristic acts a terrorist.

TommyG663513 posted...

A couple of anecdotes of minorities who stormed the white house doesn't really counter that narrative when the vast majority of the capitol stormers were white.

Again, you're trying to act like the eagerness to call these people terrorists is just because they're white and again, that's flat out false. They're being called terrorists because they committed terroristic acts.

---

mobilebloechel posted...

It's like...i never quite know what I'm gonna get when I click these topics. But at the same time...i know what I'm gonna get.

Schrodinger's box of chocolates

---

So what ultra liberal university did you spend time in within the last decade or so?

Because I'm guessing you didn't spend any time around people who treated terrorist/ism like a thing you shouldn't say.

And yeah in theory, if those rioters were successful in taking over the government and establishing a brand new government that stood over a hundred years later then the textbooks about that incident would not refer to them as terrorists.

What the US military has done in countless other countries could be considered various acts of terrorism such as bombing a hospital, but we call it "military occupation" or whatever stupid buzz word of the week.

So yeah the word terrorism can be subjective

But I do agree with calling many of the people who stormed the capitol as terrorists though some of them would be more accurately labeled as rioters depending on their level of activity.

---

CableZL posted...

People were hesitant to use the term as if it applied to all Muslims. There was never a hesitancy to call someone who committed terroristic acts a terrorist.

Again, you're trying to act like the eagerness to call these people terrorists is just because they're white and again, that's flat out false. They're being called terrorists because they committed terroristic acts.

Again, what ultra liberal university did you spend time at within the last decade?

I'm going to guess that you didn't go to an ultra liberal university in the last decade, because you already graduated or maybe you went to a not so liberal school or attained a not so liberal degree.

I'm literally communicating to you the type of stuff I saw in class discussions frequently.

---

Is Tommy one of the MAGA board refugees or something? What is his deal

---

TommyG663513 posted...

So what ultra liberal university did you spend time in within the last decade or so?

Because I'm guessing you didn't spend any time around people who treated terrorist/ism like a thing you shouldn't say.

You're ignoring the nuance, and I'm not sure why.

What people feel like you shouldn't do/say is apply the word terrorist as if it applies to all Muslims like people were doing after 9/11.

If someone commits a terroristic act, that individual is indeed a terrorist. That does not mean that anyone who looks like that person who committed a terroristic act is also a terrorist.

---

Will_VIIII posted...

Is Tommy one of the MAGA board refugees or something? What is his deal

Sounds like it to me.

---

Will_VIIII posted...

Is Tommy one of the MAGA board refugees or something? What is his deal

I quite literally don't hold a single right wing political position at all. I am a democrat across the board and have always voted democrat. I'm also LGBT. Yet, here people imply I might be a MAGA type.

---

CableZL posted...

Schrodinger's box of chocolates

Interestingly enough, a discussion about a dead cat would be about as relevant to this topic as Muslims.

---

CableZL posted...

You're ignoring the nuance, and I'm not sure why.

What people feel like you shouldn't do/say is apply the word terrorist as if it applies to all Muslims like people were doing after 9/11.

If someone commits a terroristic act, that individual is indeed a terrorist. That does not mean that anyone who looks like that person who committed a terroristic act is also a terrorist.

And what you aren't understanding is that I'm communicating to you countless discussions people had on the term terrorism that I witnessed. People were against using the word terrorism at all in any context. This is something you don't seem to grasp. I'm not staying my opinion here. I'm reporting on arguments I heard in countless discussions that apparently you never personally witnessed.

---

TommyG663513 posted...

Again, what ultra liberal university did you spend time at within the last decade?

I'm going to guess that you didn't go to an ultra liberal university in the last decade, because you already graduated or maybe you went to a not so liberal school or attained a not so liberal degree.

I'm literally communicating to you the type of stuff I saw in class discussions frequently.

Your anecdotal example of people who struggle to have mature adult-oriented conversations doesn't really counter the actual nuance surrounding the use of the word terrorist.

Again

After 9/11, there was a dramatic increase of people using the word terrorist as if it applied to all Muslims. This was and is frowned upon.

After 9/11, there were still people committing terroristic acts and were referred to as terrorists. There is no problem with this.

Not a hard concept.

---

TommyG663513 posted...

So what ultra liberal university did you spend time in within the last decade or so?

Because I'm guessing you didn't spend any time around people who treated terrorist/ism like a thing you shouldn't say.

And yeah in theory, if those rioters were successful in taking over the government and establishing a brand new government that stood over a hundred years later then the textbooks about that incident would not refer to them as terrorists.

What the US military has done in countless other countries could be considered various acts of terrorism such as bombing a hospital, but we call it "military occupation" or whatever stupid buzz word of the week.

So yeah the word terrorism can be subjective

But I do agree with calling many of the people who stormed the capitol as terrorists though some of them would be more accurately labeled as rioters depending on their level of activity.

Please reread this one again because you must have missed it and/or you are struggling with reading comprehension.

---

TommyG663513 posted...

Please reread this one again because you must have missed it and/or you are struggling with reading comprehension.

You're the only one struggling to understand here. The capitol rioters aren't being referred to as terrorists because of subjectivity. They're being referred to as terrorists because their actions fit the definition of terrorism. It isn't because most of them are white. It's because of their actions.

And again

CableZL posted...

Your anecdotal example of people who struggle to have mature adult-oriented conversations doesn't really counter the actual nuance surrounding the use of the word terrorist.

No one cares if you went to college with people who clench their butt cheeks when they're expected to participate in a conversation about terrorism. You're trying to act like people are eager to call the capitol rioters terrorists "just because they're white" while also accepting that their actions fit the definition of terrorism. That's idiotic.

---

CableZL posted...

You're the only one struggling to understand here. The capitol rioters aren't being referred to as terrorists because of subjectivity. They're being referred to as terrorists because their actions fit the definition of terrorism. It isn't because most of them are white. It's because of their actions.

And again

No one cares if you went to college with people who clench their butt cheeks when they're expected to participate in a conversation about terrorism. You're trying to act like people are eager to call the capitol rioters terrorists "just because they're white" while also accepting that their actions fit the definition of terrorism. That's idiotic.

Again, when a white redneck type refers to the Muslims as terrorists and eagerly says the word terrorist over and over with seething anger he is communicating something different from a history professor who simply uses the word terrorist to refer to the 9/11 hijackers.

They are both accurately labeling someone as a terrorist, but there is a difference in their eagerness and their level of emotion attached to it that communicates something different.

What about this do you not understand?

---

TommyG663513 posted...

Again, when a white redneck type refers to the Muslims as terrorists and eagerly says the word terrorist over and over with seething anger he is communicating something different from a history professor who simply uses the word terrorist to refer to the 9/11 hijackers.

They are both accurately labeling someone as a terrorist, but there is a difference in their eagerness and their level of emotion attached to it that communicates something different.

What about this do you not understand?

A white redneck referring to "the Muslims" as terrorists isn't accurately labeling someone as a terrorist. That's an example of someone using the word terrorist as if it applies to all Muslims.

A history professor using the word terrorists to refer to the 9/11 hijackers is an example of someone labeling specific people who committed terroristic acts as terrorists.

---

Imagine going through all this effort to downplay calling terrorists terrorists.

---

It's like I know a Qanon type on my FB feed. He talks a lot about hating pedophiles so much and how he wants to hurt them.

That is very different as to how the average person hates pedophiles and wants them put in jail.

There is a person who just matter of factly calls someone a terrorist and then there's someone who says terrorist over and over again like using that term gives them a great sense of power and talks about how they'd like to go after terrorists.

---

CableZL posted...

A white redneck referring to "the Muslims" as terrorists isn't accurately labeling someone as a terrorist. That's an example of someone using the word terrorist as if it applies to all Muslims.

A history professor using the word terrorists to refer to the 9/11 hijackers is an example of someone labeling specific people who committed terroristic acts as terrorists.

I mis typed that and meant to refer to the redneck white dude referring the the 9/11 hijackers as terrorists and not Muslims as a whole

But bringing up a white redneck is also playing on a stereotype to counter a different stereotype.....


---

Tmaster148 posted...

Imagine going through all this effort to downplay calling terrorists terrorists.

---

TommyG663513 posted...

I mis typed that and meant to refer to the redneck white dude referring the the 9/11 hijackers as terrorists and not Muslims as a whole

But bringing up a white redneck is also playing on a stereotype to counter a different stereotype.....

Regardless, you're still trying to ignore the nuance that I've explained repeatedly.

Not acceptable: Using the word terrorist as if it applies to all Muslims based on the actions of a few people.
Acceptable: Applying the word terrorist to people who commit terroristic acts.

It's really that simple.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

Imagine going through all this effort to downplay calling terrorists terrorists.

Imagine hearing for years how the term terrorism can be problematic and then once there are white people you can refer the term to people act like there is nothing problematic about the term whatsoever

All I'm doing here is pointing out a weird inconsistency and people accuse me of being a MAGA type

For the record, anyone who stepped foot in the capitol building should be seeing a lengthy prison sentence.


---