About Those J6 “People”

[Correll]

I'm actually responding to claims you are making. That by definition is not bogging down or derailing the discussion. If anything, you're the one bogging down the discussion by not letting me know who you're talking about when you talked about "grandma." Q Shaman I know about, but I have no idea who you mean by "grandma." The ball is in your court to keep the discussion going.

I don't need to keep the discussion going. I've made my point and the evasions of the lefties in this thread, have proven it.

If one of you have something to say to move the discussion past that, I am happy to hear it.

 

[Marener]

I would not think that calling a lefty a lefty would be insulting. I would not be insulted if someone called me a rightie, or right leaning.

Indeed, it would be absurd for me to even pretend to care about it. CLEARLY I am a right leaning individual.

Referencing that, would be fine. I would be fine with anyone doing that.

So...yeah.

Still not sticking to the topic. Your accusation remains unsubstantiated.

Now there's some irony. You talk shit about ME not being taken seriously and then you lie about something we all saw. ie people being held without charges.

The fact that there was no injury to the young and armored cop. And that any real man would be embarassed to file those charges, against someone old enough to be his grandmother.

Whether the "young and armored cop" was injured has no effect on whether the crime was committed. The fact remains that an "elderly grandmother" can factually have committed assault and therefore makes sense that they would be charged based on the facts.

My point stands. THAT is how a lefty justice department goon, would charge Epps.

Your point is not logical. The facts matter, not your emotions. If the facts show that an elderly grandmother committed assault, they're charged with assault. If the facts do not show that Epps did not commit incitement, he won't be charged with incitement.

You seem to have assumed the DoJ would not care about facts when charging individuals, but that's clearly not the case.

ie just do itt, no matter how it looks.

How it looks is not relevant. The facts are relevant.

Instead, they gave him a pass. For over a year.




if it was so hard to charge him and that is why he was not arrested,

why was he FINALLY arrested, after a year? What changed?

Other than the Justice Department being a laughing stock for clearly lying?

 

[Correll]

Methinks you doth protest too much. So much deflection and bullshit to try to pretend January 6th wasn't a violent insurrection, instigated by Donald Trump for the purpose of overturning Joe Biden's election.

I watched it on TV. ALL of it.

You're the one lying, spamming the thread, and attempting to deflect blame onto the FBI, or anyone really, except Trump.

I'm not the one that made this thread "too much".

That was your fellow lefties that got evasive adn refused to answer simple and clear questions.


That lead to me having to DRAG teh information out of them over days, instead of just them giving it to me and me making a simple point.


So, as standard, you are trying to blame ME for your side's bad behavior.

 

[Correll]

Still not sticking to the topic. Your accusation remains unsubstantiated.

YOU made a point about me calling you a lefty. I addressed YOUR point. Now you whine that I went off topic.

That was a bit of a dick move there.

Whether the "young and armored cop" was injured has no effect on whether the crime was committed. The fact remains that an "elderly grandmother" can factually have committed assault and therefore makes sense that they would be charged based on the facts.

Except the justice department often discussed how the scale of the investigation and all the charges, was a burden on their resources.

So, in that context, teh decision to move forward, with charging an elderly woman with assault, looks not so much like JUSTICE but POLITICAL.

Your point is not logical. The facts matter, not your emotions. If the facts show that an elderly grandmother committed assault, they're charged with assault. If the facts do not show that Epps did not commit incitement, he won't be charged with incitement.

Except that the intent was to send a POLITICAL MESSAGE, one of intimidation and fear.

Epps was not even arrested. With the stormtrooper mindset that was clearly in charge at that time, he should have been arrested and held.

Unless... there was a reason NOT to. Like he was a FBI ASSET.

You seem to have assumed the DoJ would not care about facts when charging individuals, but that's clearly not the case.

How it looks is not relevant. The facts are relevant.

They didn't even arrest him. for over a year.

I'm happy to point that fact out, as many times as you want.

That is him being a fbi asset.

And he was inciting an "insurrection".

 

[Lesh]

Oh Jesus

Ask your questions one at a time and they will be refuted

Engaging in the “Gish Gallop” is a loser’s debate tactic.

As far as your grandmas… which one was jailed ?

Answer this for starters

 

[Political-Junkie]

You asked me a question. HOw can you look at "that" and call it inciting violence.

I gave you the answer.

You ignored the answer, to ask about something else, to DISTRACT from my answer to your question.

You are dropping your own point, as you move on to next attack.


This is a form of EVASION, and DEFLECTION.


The point has been well made. Your libs are not here to discuss this issue, but to defend the political arrest of your political enemies.


Ray Epps got a pass becasue you agree with me, ie that he is not one of your politcial enemies, but an agent of the government PRETENDING to be one of your enemies, to infiltrate them.

You did not answer my question honestly. I showed you word for word what he said. He clearly stated they go into the Capitol "peacefully." He said it 3 times. He added the goal was to not harm anyone. That means I showed he did not incite violence. The only honest answer to my question would have been something like, 'you're right, he didn't incite violence.' For what ever reason, and that reason is known only to you, you couldn't bring yourself to do it.

 

[Fang]

At least 33 pardoned insurrectionists face other criminal charges—but many are now going free - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least 33 January 6th insurrectionists pardoned by Trump have been rearrested, charged or sentenced for other crimes since January 6, 2021.

www.citizensforethics.org

Child sex crimes

Assault

Weapons charges

Yeah. Pardon em and give em taxpayer money

Way to go Trump

As if assaulting cops and smashing their way into the Capitol wasn’t enough

Sounds like perfect Democratic voters.

 

[Lesh]

Answer this for starters

That simple direct question seems to have stumped our wordy friend

 

[Political-Junkie]

Here the lefty pretends to be a FLEDGLING, ie born only a few hours ago, ignorant of recent history that he and all those reading, lived though and recall just fine.



IF Epps had been arrested adn held for a year without charges, while the feds struggled to come up with a case that would pass muster, even in their kangeroo courts,

Then that argument would hold weight.

But he wasn't. He walked free while he supposed fellow rioters, were held without charges and terrorized.



Same way you charged that elderly grandmother with assault. YOu just do it, no matter how embarassing it would be to a person with a soul.

That is how the rest of the 1/6 accused were treated. But not Epps.

When you say "that elderly grandmother with assault," do you mean Rebecca Lavrenz?

 

[jacksonlamb]

You get told repeatedly where other posters stand and you simply ignore it or lie about it because it doesn’t fit your warped narrative

Correll is such a poor

That was not the point of my post, that you responded to.

So, your spamming of negs, is irrelevant to everything.

There was no incitement or entrapment. Your claim, your burden.

 

[jacksonlamb]

You get told repeatedly where other posters stand and you simply ignore it or lie about it because it doesn’t fit your warped narrative

Correll is such a poor

My questions were neither of those. They were designed to reveal a point, ie that you lefties are here to DEFEND incitement and entrapment, IF it occurred. If your answer was such that it did not support my argument, that would have been, shocking to me. But, there is no reason it could not have happened.

Your denial is rejected as a lie.

 

[jacksonlamb]

POinting out your reason for being here is not irrelevant. Indeed, it is the MOST relevent thing.

I pointed out nothing of the sort. But I will out your lies every time.

 

[BlindBoo]

He never said go inside the Capitol

In fact he said to peacefully and patriotically protest

Moreover folks were already breaching the Capitol before the rally was even over

Trump ended his speech at 1:10 by urging his supporter to march on the Capitol Building with these final words.

• If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore....We're going to try and give them [Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country...The Democrats are hopeless—they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

The protesters broke through the police barricades and began fighting with the police on the Capitol grounds 10 minutes before he ended his speech. About the same time the Vice President refused to follow Benedict Donald's demand that he refuse certain states certified EC votes. The riot was declared at 1:45 while the fighting was still outside the Capitol building while the counting process was still going on inside. The rioters didn't bash their way into the Capitol and shut down the joint session of Congress until after 2.

 

[Political-Junkie]

I don't need to keep the discussion going. I've made my point and the evasions of the lefties in this thread, have proven it.

If one of you have something to say to move the discussion past that, I am happy to hear it.

True, you can leave false claims on the table without proving them, such as your false claim that Ray Epps incited violence.

 

[Marener]

YOU made a point about me calling you a lefty. I addressed YOUR point. Now you whine that I went off topic.

That was a bit of a dick move there.

I made a point about you not substantiating your argument, instead replying with insults (not lefty, but saying I was ignorant). I'm not whining by pointing out that you failed to substantiate your argument and instead chose to be insulting. I'm just stating facts.

Except the justice department often discussed how the scale of the investigation and all the charges, was a burden on their resources.

So, in that context, teh decision to move forward, with charging an elderly woman with assault, looks not so much like JUSTICE but POLITICAL.

That's a personal opinion which I disagree with. The burden on resources meant they prioritized prosecutions to more serious charges.

Assault on a police officer is clearly a much more serious charge.

Except that the intent was to send a POLITICAL MESSAGE, one of intimidation and fear.

Epps was not even arrested. With the stormtrooper mindset that was clearly in charge at that time, he should have been arrested and held.

Unless... there was a reason NOT to. Like he was a FBI ASSET.

More personal opinions, not substantiated by facts.

The intent was to prosecute crimes based on facts, and Epps could not be charged with anything serious based on the facts.

They didn't even arrest him. for over a year.

I'm happy to point that fact out, as many times as you want.

That is him being a fbi asset.

And he was inciting an "insurrection".

Factually, the case that Epps was citing an insurrection is practically non-existent. To this point, you seem to agree because you're not even making an argument about the facts, rather claiming that the DoJ would have no problem prosecuting him without facts, a contention which I do not think has any basis in reality.

To this day, there has been no confirmation that Epps was an FBI "asset" even though Kash Patel has been director for over a year.

 

[struth]

Trump ended his speech at 1:10 by urging his supporter to march on the Capitol Building with these final words.

The protesters broke through the police barricades and began fighting with the police on the Capitol grounds 10 minutes before he ended his speech. About the same time the Vice President refused to follow Benedict Donald's demand that he refuse certain states certified EC votes. The riot was declared at 1:45 while the fighting was still outside the Capitol building while the counting process was still going on inside. The rioters didn't bash their way into the Capitol and shut down the joint session of Congress until after 2.

So 10 mins before that there was already breaching

Hard to say that inspired it if it was already happening

 

[Delldude]

But there was no reason for the National Guard to not be mobilized immediately when rioting broke out at the Capitol.

Why weren't they?