Proof That J6 Was a Set-Up, Why Does FBI Not Want “We Gotta Fill Up the Capitol!” “Scaffold Commander?”

Gaetz was there, he said he saw Antifa there.
Well, that's the Gold Standard of credibility!
Almost as good as the Cyber Ninjas, eh lenny?

And maybe, if you are lucky lenny, poster Blaster will use Matt Gaetz as his source too.

That would be fun.
 
That was in the Mueller Report. You are engaged in criminal speech when you deny it.
Stop spreading fake bullshit you authoritarian prick.

Anyone that believes Mueller, who is in fact a spook, and has in fact disseminated many false, PROVEN lies before, including that Iraq had WMD when it did not. . . .

Robert Mueller helped Saudi Arabia cover up its role in 9/11 attacks: suit​


Robert Mueller on Iraq War and WMD's​



WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordan’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony​



Calling a spook a liar? That is every patriotic American's duty. In fact, YOU are a liar. Most of what you post on this site are lies.

The only "criminal speech," is as follows;

". . . Case law defines what constitutes criminal speech in the United States. The following are types of non-protected speech:
  1. Threats – speech that “encompass(es) those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat."[6] This is similar to the concept that “true threats” are not protected under the First Amendment.
  2. Incitement to Violence – set forth by the court in the case Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969). In this case, the Court found that the First Amendment did “not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy ... except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[7] The speaker must have intended for incitement to result. This overruled the previously held "clear and present danger" test in Schenck v. United States (1919).[8] The incitement to violence test is usually used when questioning the legal validity of hate speech.
  3. Defamation – as set forth in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), occurs when one publishes material, claiming its validity, that harms or maligns one’s character or reputation. An actual malice requirement must be proven for a public official to seek damages as a result of defamation. When defamation is in written word, it is called libel; when spoken, it is slander.
  4. Obscenity – speech that meets the following criteria is considered obscene and can result in criminal sanctions if any of the following are true:[9] (a) 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest;(b) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;(c) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.. . . . "
 
If he was a leader of the protest, you loons should be demanding he be in jail.
We are.............every one of them.
It's Trump and his cult that are trying to protect them.
They want all these so called "leaders" of Trump's gullible cult in jail but want Trump's gullible cult to go free.
 

Forum List

Back
Top