Slow news day?
Comments
-
Was he in an accident today?Bob_C said:
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. -
Couple of months ago. Plug got pulled last week.46XiJCAB said:
Was he in an accident today?Bob_C said:
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. -
"The most jarring thing about this indictment is it basically just accuses him of disinformation — this is a disinformation indictment," said legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a Fox News contributor.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.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/legal-experts-slam-jack-smith-lousy-case-trump-disinformation-indictment
Good Lord even liberal news says it's bullshit. So you're not a legal expert or scholar of any kind...
-
So we like Turley again?Sledog said:
"The most jarring thing about this indictment is it basically just accuses him of disinformation — this is a disinformation indictment," said legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a Fox News contributor.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.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/legal-experts-slam-jack-smith-lousy-case-trump-disinformation-indictment
Good Lord even liberal news says it's bullshit. So you're not a legal expert or scholar of any kind... -
I missed it. How’s his family holding up?Bob_C said:
Couple of months ago. Plug got pulled last week.46XiJCAB said:
Was he in an accident today?Bob_C said:
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. -
Trump going to prison would be terrible for CNN. He is a ratings boon for them. CNN and Rachel maddow are salivating for a Trump presidency.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.
-
An absolutely absurd take.Sledog said:
"The most jarring thing about this indictment is it basically just accuses him of disinformation — this is a disinformation indictment," said legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a Fox News contributor.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.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/legal-experts-slam-jack-smith-lousy-case-trump-disinformation-indictment
Good Lord even liberal news says it's bullshit. So you're not a legal expert or scholar of any kind...
Submitting slates of phony electors, for example, is just a wee bit more than engaging in disinformation. -
There were Democrat funded commercials of celebrities telling Electors that they didn’t need to recognize the Election results and should vote with their heart in 2016.
-
And you are subpar even on this.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. -
Panels of counterfeit electors originated with dems. You should know more about your party. Fkn bootlicker.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. -
Pretty inapt comparison. Faithless electors are considerably different than fraudulent electors and the forgeries and perjuries that were necessary parts of that plot.Kaepsknee said:There were Democrat funded commercials of celebrities telling Electors that they didn’t need to recognize the Election results and should vote with their heart in 2016.
-
Do tellIce_Holmvik said:
Panels of counterfeit electors originated with dems. You should know more about your party. Fkn bootlicker.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. -
Almost like they are coordinated... oh wait.Bob_C said:
