Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Slow news day?

123468

Comments

  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 24,321
    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    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.

    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.
    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.
    Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bob_C
    Bob_C Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 13,209 Founders Club
    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    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.

    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.
    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.
    Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?
    Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • thechatch
    thechatch Member Posts: 7,483 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    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.

    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.
    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.
    Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?
    It wasn’t earlier in 2020 in Kenosha, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, LA, NYC, Baltimore…etc…etc…etc
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 24,321
    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    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.

    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.
    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.
    Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?
    Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?
    In connection with insurrection. But I guess he wasn't charged with everything he could have been so . . . WINNING!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bob_C
    Bob_C Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 13,209 Founders Club
    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    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.

    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.
    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.
    Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?
    Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?
    In connection with insurrection. But I guess he wasn't charged with everything he could have been so . . . WINNING!
    Yeah I'm sure it's just a kinder gentler justice department.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 24,321
    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    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.

    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.
    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.
    Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?
    Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?
    In connection with insurrection. But I guess he wasn't charged with everything he could have been so . . . WINNING!
    Yeah I'm sure it's just a kinder gentler justice department.
    Does anyone really need Daddy to spend seven lifetimes in prison?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • thechatch
    thechatch Member Posts: 7,483 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    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.

    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.
    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.
    Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?
    Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?
    In connection with insurrection. But I guess he wasn't charged with everything he could have been so . . . WINNING!
    Yeah I'm sure it's just a kinder gentler justice department.
    Does anyone really need Daddy to spend seven lifetimes in prison?
    Besides you and Mello?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 46XiJCAB
    46XiJCAB Member Posts: 20,967
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bob_C
    Bob_C Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 13,209 Founders Club
    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.

    RDS is already dead. HTH.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter