An insurrection requires intelligence

[BluesLegend]

So Dems lost all credibility because a Democrat made an objective remark that you disagreed with.

That is all it takes? Seditious conspiracy be damned, Chuck's opinion gave you the mads?

Chuck?? How many accounts does Schumer have here?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Chuck?? How many accounts does Schumer have here?

Is that some sort of weird evasion or are you mixing up thread topics?

I was responding to your statement in which you mentioned Chuck Schumer. Was I not supposed to use the name Chuck?

 

[BluesLegend]

Is that some sort of weird evasion or are you mixing up thread topics?

I was responding to your statement in which you mentioned Chuck Schumer. Was I not supposed to use the name Chuck?

You sound like Chuck, you talk like Chuck, you defend Chuck's absurd comparison to the attack on Pearl Harbor...pretty good chance you are Chuck or one of his shills.

 

[otto105]

You sound like Chuck, you talk like Chuck, you defend Chuck's absurd comparison to the attack on Pearl Harbor...pretty good chance you are Chuck or one of his shills.

blue


Your picture of the former fuckup needs more orange makeup.

 

[BluesLegend]

blue


Your picture of the former fuckup needs more orange makeup.

You may get accidently deported with the rest of Biden's illegals.

 

[otto105]

You may get accidently deported with the rest of Biden's illegals.

He actually looks like this.

 

[BluesLegend]

He actually looks like this.

Your childish posts are noted, run along I think your mom is calling you.

 

[Rigby5]

It's just bad wording.

They need to use sedition conspiracy instead.

Which do you think is worse? Insurrection or seditious conspiracy?

It can't be a "seditious conspiracy" either, because they were claiming voter fraud, which is a legal protest.
Sedition is an overthrow, and delaying the election does not achieve sedition.
There is no way Trump could remain president, no matter what the protestors did.
The any claim of insurrection of sedition is absurd.

 

[Rigby5]

The various convictions of seditious conspiracy contradict your claim.

Who was convicted of entrapment?

No, the convictions prove a wider executive and judicial conspiracy.
The protestors were told there was voter fraud.
Whether or not there actually was voter fraud, that justifies the action of the protestors as being the opposite of seditious, and makes them patriotic instead.

Whether or not there actually was voter fraud, we will never know because the corrupt judiciary prevented any investigation by enforcing a time limit.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It can't be a "seditious conspiracy" either, because they were claiming voter fraud, which is a legal protest.

Strawman.

Nobody was convicted of seditious conspiracy because they claimed voter fraud.

Sedition is an overthrow, and delaying the election does not achieve sedition.

No it isn't. Based on that logic, you could never have seditious conspiracy unless you succeeded...in which case you would not find yourself guilty of seditious conspiracy.

There is no way Trump could remain president, no matter what the protestors did.

Yes, he could have.

Are you not aware of the fake electors and the Eastman memo?

The any claim of insurrection of sedition is absurd.

Claims of seditious conspiracy are hardly absurd considering multiple people were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

As you can see below, seditious conspiricy does not have any of the stipulations you attempted to apply, in order to be seditious conspiracy. Whatever media outlet, blog or talking head that fed you that information lied to you.

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[LeroyDumonde]

The various convictions of seditious conspiracy contradict your claim.

Who was convicted of entrapment?

Have any of the defendants claimed entrapment? Serious question. I have no idea if any have.

 

[Catsnmeters]

No, the convictions prove a wider executive and judicial conspiracy.

They were convicted by a jury of their peers, not the executive or judicial conspiracy.

The protestors were told there was voter fraud.
Whether or not there actually was voter fraud, that justifies the action of the protestors as being the opposite of seditious, and makes them patriotic instead.

Being told their was voter fraud...and even believing it, does not excuse breaking the law.

What if I think my bank is stealing from me?

Whether or not there actually was voter fraud, we will never know because the corrupt judiciary prevented any investigation by enforcing a time limit.

An example please.

 

[Rigby5]

You sang a different tune a few years ago though.

This is you...

"The insurrection never happened because it was not an insurrection. No one has been charged with insurrection. Why is that?"

It is time to stop the Capitol insurrection hoax

Would any other obedient Trumpsters like to tell us why he's suing to avoid giving the Jan 6 commission their requested info? Have Hannity or Tucker provided you your spin for this?

www.usmessageboard.com

You had to move the goalposts into conspiracy territory to support your narrative.

Conspiracies are not illegal.
Insurrection and sedition are illegal.
But anyone claiming insurrection or sedition clearly are lying.
The goal of the protestors was a voter fraud investigation, which is patriotic.

 

[Rigby5]

Have any of the defendants claimed entrapment? Serious question. I have no idea if any have.

Yes, they all have.
You have heard of Ray Epps, right?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Have any of the defendants claimed entrapment? Serious question. I have no idea if any have.

I have no idea.

Not sure how entrapment applies to people who broke windows, attacked police and chanted hang Mike Pence.

They broke the law of their own free will.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Conspiracies are not illegal.

I didn't say they were.

Insurrection and sedition are illegal.

Yep.

But anyone claiming insurrection or sedition clearly are lying.

No. They are not lying because people were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

The goal of the protestors was a voter fraud investigation, which is patriotic.

None were convicted of investigating voter fraud so that point is moot.

 

[Rigby5]

They were convicted by a jury of their peers, not the executive or judicial conspiracy.



Being told their was voter fraud...and even believing it, does not excuse breaking the law.

What if I think my bank is stealing from me?


An example please.

Juries are easily swayed by lawyers who have a lifetime of learning how to lie.

Being told or believing there was voter fraud does totally excuse breaking the law because it makes them feel like the victim of the real crime.

Banks are required to keep detailed accounts that very rarely allow for bank fraud.
In contrast, voting seems designed to facilitate voter fraud.
Like whose bright idea was it to use easily hacked computers as voting machines?

Not a single court could ever have ruled that there was no voter fraud because there was never an official investigation, and only that would have access to the necessary resources.
But just like in FL in 2000, the courts ruled instead that it was just too late.

 

[Rigby5]

I have no idea.

Not sure how entrapment applies to people who broke windows, attacked police and chanted hang Mike Pence.

They broke the law of their own free will.

Wrong.
If a woman falsely claims rape and the accused gets lynched, the main criminal would be the woman.

Lynching is not as criminal of intent as the false accusation.
But breaking windows is trivial in comparison.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Juries are easily swayed by lawyers who have a lifetime of learning how to lie.

Perhaps, but there are lawyers on both sides in a criminal trial, and most of the convicted confessed, and others were convicted of various specific crimes. Very few convicted of “seditious conspiracy.” Seditious conspiracy would apply mainly to organizers. It is a perfect fit, in my view, for Trump himself. Much better than “insurrection,” which I personally never thought was appropriate.

 

[Rigby5]

I didn't say they were.



Yep.



No. They are not lying because people were convicted of seditious conspiracy.


None were convicted of investigating voter fraud so that point is moot.

Being convicted does not make the sedition claim true, but instead makes the government guilty of insurrection.

They were charged over their attempt to get a voter fraud investigation, so it is the prosecution that is in violation of the law.