About Those J6 “People”

[Correll]

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

I believe that was her name. So.... ? What does that matter? What is your point?

Or, are you just trying to derail the thread, as I pointed out you were?

 

[Correll]

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

And there you pretended to be too retarded to understand my post, thus you got to spam negs, while avoiding dealing with my point at all.

Very common behavior from leftards today.


They, almost universially, have given up serious discussion. THey know on some level that they cannot defend their policies or positions, or actions.

 

[Correll]

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.

YOU brought up an off topic point, and then when I addressed it, whined that I was off topic.

That was you being a dick.

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.

More personal opinions, not substantiated by facts.

Not when the "Assault" caused no injury and was by a harmless little old lady that was not a threat to society.

YOu are clearly not debating in good faith. You are here solely as DEFENSE for the deep state, adn their fascist goons.

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

That nuanced and conservative thinking is not the type of thinking or treatment that hte rest of the mob got.

You are treating him DIFFERENTLY than the rest of the "1/6" people.

YOu are doing that, because you believe, as I do, that he was a FBI asset.

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.

Wow. It's almost like government civil servants might know how to cover their asses and not leave a paper trail, when they know they are doing something wrong.

Are you shocked by this? Is this shocking to you?

 

[berg80]

I did. He said "tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol. Into the Capitol. Peacefully. Peacefully. Peacefully. We are freedom. We are peaceful. That’s what its about. It’s not about hurting people." How is that inciting violence?

He said a number of contradictory things, like you have to fight like hell to keep your democracy. Which was ironic since he was trying to kill it.

I prefer to focus on what he did, or in this case didn't do. He didn't call in the NG on J/6, Pence did. He didn't call off his mob until hours after they began attacking the Capital and beating policemen even though aides..............including Queen Ivanka...........pleaded with him to do so.

 

[berg80]

They, almost universially, have given up serious discussion. THey know on some level that they cannot defend their policies or positions, or actions.

IRONY ALERT!

 

[Correll]

He said a number of contradictory things, like you have to fight like hell to keep your democracy. Which was ironic since he was trying to kill it.

I prefer to focus on what he did, or in this case didn't do. He didn't call in the NG on J/6, Pence did. He didn't call off his mob until hours after they began attacking the Capital and beating policemen even though aides..............including Queen Ivanka...........pleaded with him to do so.

Moving forward, do you want more political violence, or less?

 

[Correll]

IRONY ALERT!

Moving forward, do you want more political violence, or less?

 

[Marener]

YOU brought up an off topic point, and then when I addressed it, whined that I was off topic.

That was you being a dick.

This is false, you may have me confused with a different poster. You claimed that the DoJ had documented admitting they violated the rights of individuals. To continue the conversation, I merely asked you to substantiate this point rather than accepting it outright. That's it. Rather than substantiate the point, you insulted me.

It was not off topic, and if it was, you brought it up first.

Not when the "Assault" caused no injury and was by a harmless little old lady that was not a threat to society.

YOu are clearly not debating in good faith. You are here solely as DEFENSE for the deep state, adn their fascist goons.

Assault is assault. There's no carve out in the law because someone is old. I don't think we live in a society where old women get to walk around punching cops without any repercussions. They should know better.

The law should apply to everyone.

That nuanced and conservative thinking is not the type of thinking or treatment that hte rest of the mob got.

You are treating him DIFFERENTLY than the rest of the "1/6" people.

YOu are doing that, because you believe, as I do, that he was a FBI asset.

Not in the slightest. Again, as far as I can tell, no one was prosecuted for incitement, and I searched. I find it hard to accept that Epps is being treated differently because he wasn't charged with something that no one else was charged with. Can you explain how that could be true?

Again, for the nth time, charging incitement is extremely difficult and often unsuccessful in the best of circumstances, and you don't have good circumstances with Epps, given he never called for anything explicitly illegal. Your response to this point was "do it anyway", but that makes no sense since the DoJ doesn't prosecute cases without a firm factual basis (at least that used to be the case, things are different now).

Wow. It's almost like government civil servants might know how to cover their asses and not leave a paper trail, when they know they are doing something wrong.

Are you shocked by this? Is this shocking to you?

Merely adding additional layers to the conspiracy, I see. I'm not shocked by your ability to use the lack of evidence as evidence of the conspiracy.

 

[berg80]

Moving forward, do you want more political violence, or less?

I am of the opinion the country can't truly move forward until we've dealt with the past. Meaning, there needs to be a reckoning regarding trump's culpability for what happened on J/6 and for his participation in the plot to steal the election.

The J/6 commission was a start, but their work and the work of Jack Smith remains unfinished.

 

[Lesh]

I believe that was her name. So.... ? What does that matter? What is your point?

Or, are you just trying to derail the thread, as I pointed out you were?

It matters because despite your bullshit claims… she never spent a day in jail

 

[Marener]

I believe that was her name. So.... ? What does that matter? What is your point?

Or, are you just trying to derail the thread, as I pointed out you were?

She was not charged with assault, which means your argument about her being charged with assault is false.

 

[jacksonlamb]

And there you pretended to be too retarded to understand my post, thus you got to spam negs, while avoiding dealing with my point at all.
Very common behavior from leftards today. They, almost universially, have given up serious discussion. THey know on some level that they cannot defend their policies or positions, or actions.

You are blathering again and saying nothing intelligble.

 

[Political-Junkie]

You are the one being dishonest. YOUR SIDE'S whole narrative is that the act of entering the capitol, was INSURRECTION.

Thus, he should have been arrested. And charged. That is the way that the rest of the mob was treated.

BUT, he got different treatment, that is the point.

You are arguing in his DEFENSE, when according to your narrative, him as a rabid 1/6er, is the next best thing to a ******* NAZI.


You are not doing that, because you think he was on my side, you are doing that becasue you think he was on YOUR SIDE, and thus you are giving him different treatment, than everyone else.


That is my point. That is my serious answer. YOU need to address it and stop stonewalling.

Your point is wrong then since I do believe he was on your side.

Being on Capitol grounds that day was criminal. Trump told people to go to the Capitol and he told them to fight like hell. Is that not inciting violence?

 

[Political-Junkie]

I believe that was her name. So.... ? What does that matter? What is your point?

Or, are you just trying to derail the thread, as I pointed out you were?

The point is you're saying Epps was treated differently than her and the Q Shaman guy, which he was. But you're using that difference as evidence that he was treated differently because he was affiliated with the government, when in fact, they were treated differently because their crimes were different.

Q Shaman guy was convicted on Civil Disorder; Obstruction of an Official Proceeding; Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building; Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct on in a Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building.

"Grandma" was convicted on Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building. (Not charged with assault as you claimed)

While Epps was only convicted on Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds.

They went inside the Capitol, Epps didn't. That's the difference. Almost nobody, though Epps was one, was charged with a crime unless the went into the Capitol or assaulted LEO's.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Your point is wrong then since I do believe he was on your side.

Being on Capitol grounds that day was criminal. Trump told people to go to the Capitol and he told them to fight like hell. Is that not inciting violence?

That too. The law says leave when told to do so, and thousands did not.

 

[Political-Junkie]

It matters because despite your bullshit claims… she never spent a day in jail

And she wasn't charged with assault.

 

[Correll]

I am of the opinion the country can't truly move forward until we've dealt with the past. Meaning, there needs to be a reckoning regarding trump's culpability for what happened on J/6 and for his participation in the plot to steal the election.

The J/6 commission was a start, but their work and the work of Jack Smith remains unfinished.

To me, and all of maga, and really, more adn more regular republicans,

that translates to MORE VIOLENCE.


Are you prepared for that?

 

[Correll]

She was not charged with assault, which means your argument about her being charged with assault is false.

So, was that charge dropped to get a plea deal? You know, standard stormtrooper terrorizing people into confession?

 

[Correll]

You are blathering again and saying nothing intelligble.

Moving forward, do you want more political violence, or less?

 

[Correll]

Your point is wrong then since I do believe he was on your side.

Being on Capitol grounds that day was criminal. Trump told people to go to the Capitol and he told them to fight like hell. Is that not inciting violence?

Look what you did there.

Your words, "TRUMP TOLD PEOPLE TO GO TO THE CAPITOL.... IS THAT NOT INCITING VIOLENCE".

That was not really a question. That was you asserting that it was. Please don't be a complete craven and try to weasel out of that.

Yet, Ray Epps did the same thing, and you are giving him a pass. The FBI, gave him a pass. ALL you lefties give him a pass...


The evidence is pretty compelling. There were fbi assets on hand, and they were inciting.