Slow news day?
Comments
-
Like I said discovery is going to be fun.HHusky said:
Message bored law?Sledog said:
Innocent until proven guilty consuelo. Miss that part in law school?HHusky said:
It hasn’t now either. The indictment already anticipated this feeble whine. You should read it.RaceBannon said:
I know that criminalizing calling the election rigged has never happened beforeMelloDawg said:
You probably know 2016 and 2020 are mildly different. Alternate electors does not equal faithless electors.RaceBannon said:
Well we survived it in 2016 so thanks for making my pointHHusky said:
Does anyone even want to live in country where your First Amendment right to appoint fake electors is under constant attack?RaceBannon said:If it is illegal to cry and bitch about an election where is the precedent of indictments of every fucking democrat this century
Of course our board fascist is all in
All you need against Trump is evidence that you don't have
But when you assemble panels of counterfeit electors, or try to strong arm public officials to change vote counts, you’ve gone well beyond merely kvetching about an election.
Why don’t you just admit you don’t care that he committed these felonies? The truth shall set you free . . . allegedly. -
I’ve got bad news for you.Sledog said:
Like I said discovery is going to be fun.HHusky said:
Message bored law?Sledog said:
Innocent until proven guilty consuelo. Miss that part in law school?HHusky said:
It hasn’t now either. The indictment already anticipated this feeble whine. You should read it.RaceBannon said:
I know that criminalizing calling the election rigged has never happened beforeMelloDawg said:
You probably know 2016 and 2020 are mildly different. Alternate electors does not equal faithless electors.RaceBannon said:
Well we survived it in 2016 so thanks for making my pointHHusky said:
Does anyone even want to live in country where your First Amendment right to appoint fake electors is under constant attack?RaceBannon said:If it is illegal to cry and bitch about an election where is the precedent of indictments of every fucking democrat this century
Of course our board fascist is all in
All you need against Trump is evidence that you don't have
But when you assemble panels of counterfeit electors, or try to strong arm public officials to change vote counts, you’ve gone well beyond merely kvetching about an election.
Why don’t you just admit you don’t care that he committed these felonies? The truth shall set you free . . . allegedly. -
-
Another “scholar” who can’t read an indictment. Long past his “best by” date.RaceBannon said: -
Just highlighting your hypocrisyHHusky said:
Another “scholar” who can’t read an indictment. Long past his “best by” date.RaceBannon said:
Thanks for playing
There's nothing to read. This is an unprecedented attack on free speech and a political opponent
Fascist pigs applaud -
Your whine is addressed in paragraph 3.RaceBannon said:
Just highlighting your hypocrisyHHusky said:
Another “scholar” who can’t read an indictment. Long past his “best by” date.RaceBannon said:
Thanks for playing
There's nothing to read. This is an unprecedented attack on free speech and a political opponent
Fascist pigs applaud
This has everything to do with conduct. -
Flag burning is conduct. So is stripping.HHusky said:
Your whine is addressed in paragraph 3.RaceBannon said:
Just highlighting your hypocrisyHHusky said:
Another “scholar” who can’t read an indictment. Long past his “best by” date.RaceBannon said:
Thanks for playing
There's nothing to read. This is an unprecedented attack on free speech and a political opponent
Fascist pigs applaud
This has everything to do with conduct. -
I don't care. Free finally.HHusky said:
It hasn’t now either. The indictment already anticipated this feeble whine. You should read it.RaceBannon said:
I know that criminalizing calling the election rigged has never happened beforeMelloDawg said:
You probably know 2016 and 2020 are mildly different. Alternate electors does not equal faithless electors.RaceBannon said:
Well we survived it in 2016 so thanks for making my pointHHusky said:
Does anyone even want to live in country where your First Amendment right to appoint fake electors is under constant attack?RaceBannon said:If it is illegal to cry and bitch about an election where is the precedent of indictments of every fucking democrat this century
Of course our board fascist is all in
All you need against Trump is evidence that you don't have
But when you assemble panels of counterfeit electors, or try to strong arm public officials to change vote counts, you’ve gone well beyond merely kvetching about an election.
Why don’t you just admit you don’t care that he committed these felonies? The truth shall set you free . . . allegedly. -
Then I will keep my clothes on.WestlinnDuck said:
Flag burning is conduct. So is stripping.HHusky said:
Your whine is addressed in paragraph 3.RaceBannon said:
Just highlighting your hypocrisyHHusky said:
Another “scholar” who can’t read an indictment. Long past his “best by” date.RaceBannon said:
Thanks for playing
There's nothing to read. This is an unprecedented attack on free speech and a political opponent
Fascist pigs applaud
This has everything to do with conduct. -
No you haven’t. You’re full of shit, as always.HHusky said:
I’ve been working my way through the indictment, Sally.Sources said:
You haven't read anything other than CNN headlinesHHusky said:
You haven’t read the indictment. Of course.EverettChris said:But of course.
Can’t beat him legitimately, so throw him in jail on bogus indictments.
——
@kylegriffin1
New on
@MSNBC
: The Trump case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan.
Chutkan, an Obama appointee, is the only federal judge in Washington, D.C. who has sentenced Jan. 6 defendants to sentences longer than the government had requested
You should too. But you won’t. -
Indictment is fantasyland. He threatened Pence with the crowd? That's funny.
-
-
Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
You mean why Ray Epps who was on the ground saying "We need to go into the Capitol" wasn't indicted? Ask the dazzler. Why weren't antifa/blm leaders indicted for inciting and funding violent protest during Trump's inauguration? I have no problem with indicting people who entered the Capitol as long as that it also applies to dem groups who invade the Capitol and that the sentences are proportionate. The summer of love riots had the full support of almost every dem Congressman and Blue State governors and city mayors.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
Your answer gets to basically what I think the reason is. Charge him for incitement in relation to the riot and the riot itself is on the table for actual examination.WestlinnDuck said:
You mean why Ray Epps who was on the ground saying "We need to go into the Capitol" wasn't indicted? Ask the dazzler. Why weren't antifa/blm leaders indicted for inciting and funding violent protest during Trump's inauguration? I have no problem with indicting people who entered the Capitol as long as that it also applies to dem groups who invade the Capitol and that the sentences are proportionate. The summer of love riots had the full support of almost every dem Congressman and Blue State governors and city mayors.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
You need to prove incitement. Asking for a peaceful protest with no mention of going into the Capitol Building isn't incitement and is protected as free speech. Where is Ray Epps? Complaining because you think the election was stolen (it was) can't be incitement if it's okay for major dem politicians to make the false claim that every Republican presidential victory since 2000 was stolen.Bob_C said:
Your answer gets to basically what I think the reason is. Charge him for incitement in relation to the riot and the riot itself is on the table for actual examination.WestlinnDuck said:
You mean why Ray Epps who was on the ground saying "We need to go into the Capitol" wasn't indicted? Ask the dazzler. Why weren't antifa/blm leaders indicted for inciting and funding violent protest during Trump's inauguration? I have no problem with indicting people who entered the Capitol as long as that it also applies to dem groups who invade the Capitol and that the sentences are proportionate. The summer of love riots had the full support of almost every dem Congressman and Blue State governors and city mayors.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
And yetHHusky said:
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
You suck at this -
Then frame it as inciting a riot and not an insurrection. We had a whole committee last summer that thought this was a big deal and that did a criminal referral over the capitol riot incitement.HHusky said:
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
Question #1
Wasn't Trump acquitted by the Senate in the second impeachment concerning Jan 6 insurrection.
Question #2
Are we crossing into double Jeopardy with this new indictment?
(Asking for a fren) -
-
Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?Bob_C said:
Then frame it as inciting a riot and not an insurrection. We had a whole committee last summer that thought this was a big deal and that did a criminal referral over the capitol riot incitement.HHusky said:
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?HHusky said:
Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?Bob_C said:
Then frame it as inciting a riot and not an insurrection. We had a whole committee last summer that thought this was a big deal and that did a criminal referral over the capitol riot incitement.HHusky said:
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
It wasn’t earlier in 2020 in Kenosha, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, LA, NYC, Baltimore…etc…etc…etcHHusky said:
Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?Bob_C said:
Then frame it as inciting a riot and not an insurrection. We had a whole committee last summer that thought this was a big deal and that did a criminal referral over the capitol riot incitement.HHusky said:
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
In connection with insurrection. But I guess he wasn't charged with everything he could have been so . . . WINNING!Bob_C said:
Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?HHusky said:
Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?Bob_C said:
Then frame it as inciting a riot and not an insurrection. We had a whole committee last summer that thought this was a big deal and that did a criminal referral over the capitol riot incitement.HHusky said:
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
Yeah I'm sure it's just a kinder gentler justice department.HHusky said:
In connection with insurrection. But I guess he wasn't charged with everything he could have been so . . . WINNING!Bob_C said:
Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?HHusky said:
Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?Bob_C said:
Then frame it as inciting a riot and not an insurrection. We had a whole committee last summer that thought this was a big deal and that did a criminal referral over the capitol riot incitement.HHusky said:
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
Does anyone really need Daddy to spend seven lifetimes in prison?Bob_C said:
Yeah I'm sure it's just a kinder gentler justice department.HHusky said:
In connection with insurrection. But I guess he wasn't charged with everything he could have been so . . . WINNING!Bob_C said:
Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?HHusky said:
Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?Bob_C said:
Then frame it as inciting a riot and not an insurrection. We had a whole committee last summer that thought this was a big deal and that did a criminal referral over the capitol riot incitement.HHusky said:
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
Besides you and Mello?HHusky said:
Does anyone really need Daddy to spend seven lifetimes in prison?Bob_C said:
Yeah I'm sure it's just a kinder gentler justice department.HHusky said:
In connection with insurrection. But I guess he wasn't charged with everything he could have been so . . . WINNING!Bob_C said:
Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?HHusky said:
Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?Bob_C said:
Then frame it as inciting a riot and not an insurrection. We had a whole committee last summer that thought this was a big deal and that did a criminal referral over the capitol riot incitement.HHusky said:
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.Bob_C said:Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
-
Poor Dazzler, he actually believes that these indictments are intended to bring about convictions.
Tangle Trump up in the courts, destroy RDS with lies about FDOE curriculum.
The stupid will believe anything. Meaning DIM voters.
Right now even with the corrupt media running interference for the criminal in the WH and doing everything they can to destroy the top-2 GOP hopefuls, both are in dead heats with the criminal.
The DIMS always go a bridge too far. It isn’t working Dazzler. -
RDS is already dead. HTH.46XiJCAB said:Poor Dazzler, he actually believes that these indictments are intended to bring about convictions.
Tangle Trump up in the courts, destroy RDS with lies about FDOE curriculum.
The stupid will believe anything. Meaning DIM voters.
Right now even with the corrupt media running interference for the criminal in the WH and doing everything they can to destroy the top-2 GOP hopefuls, both are in dead heats with the criminal.
The DIMS always go a bridge too far. It isn’t working Dazzler.
