Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Nothing to hide
Comments
-
You’re not very good at this, Counselor.
Stick to pushing paper, Mr. Hands Up, Don’t Shoot! -
-
Friendly, free advice: take a fist full of Lorazepam before you testify, Jim.trublue said:You’re not very good at this, Counselor.
Stick to pushing paper, Mr. Hands Up, Don’t Shoot! -
2 years from now when this story too proves to be a figment of H's RAT fantasies, he'll say he never commented on Jim Jordan
-
The real question, Counselor, is if the FBI had feet on the ground, agents and informants, and were aware of what the plans were, why didn’t they have security increased at the “insurrection” instead of encouraging and participating in the event?HHusky said:
Hopefully, you’re smart enough to figure out who the unindicted co-conspirators are in the indictments.
Gawd, you’re a dumb fuck! -
Jim Jordan is either complicit or he heard Daddy say/admit to something. I'm not saying it will ever be proven, but at best, I think Jim may be faced with something you rubes like to call a "perjury trap" very soon. Perhaps he should just tell the truth or, if he's involved, invoke his right against self-incrimination.RoadTrip said:2 years from now when this story too proves to be a figment of H's RAT fantasies, he'll say he never commented on Jim Jordan
That boy is nervous. -
I'm going to need to see this proven in court Mr Lindell
-
The questions of what Jim and Daddy talked about and what the FBI knew or should have known are not mutually exclusive. But your attempted distraction is noted.trublue said:
The real question, Counselor, is if the FBI had feet on the ground, agents and informants, and were aware of what the plans were, why didn’t they have security increased at the “insurrection” instead of encouraging and participating in the event?HHusky said:
Hopefully, you’re smart enough to figure out who the unindicted co-conspirators are in the indictments.
Gawd, you’re a dumb fuck! -
You have quite a vivid imagination.HHusky said:
Jim Jordan is either complicit or he heard Daddy say/admit to something. I'm not saying it will ever be proven, but at best, I think Jim may be faced with something you rubes like to call a "perjury trap" very soon. Perhaps he should just tell the truth or, if he's involved, invoke his right against self-incrimination.RoadTrip said:2 years from now when this story too proves to be a figment of H's RAT fantasies, he'll say he never commented on Jim Jordan
That boy is nervous.
Be more specific about what YOU THINK Jordan is hiding, GOOFBALL.
