Report: 26 FBI INFORMANTS in J6 protest, some entered the Capitol

[markef]

Whatever that was… what it wasn’t… was an attempted overthrow of the Federal government

Seizing private and government property by enemies of the US to form a separate nation is an act of treason.

 

[Lesh]

Seizing private and government property by enemies of the US to form a separate nation is an act of treason.

Look up treason stupid

 

[markef]

So out of all of that they found less than 400 illegal votes out of tens of millions… over what span of time?

Decades?

The record reflects there were thousands more possible illegal votes cast that Congress refused to look at for whatever reason, but that is not the point. Any American with intelligence and access to public news knows illegal immigrants have been voting illegally in US elections for decades and that democrats continue to fight like hell against securities like voter IDs that would stop that fraud.

 

[Marener]

Why would Trump supporters dress as antifa and commit violence? There are multiple examples of leftists pretending to be what they were not to slander their opponents but no such multiple examples of republicans pretending to be deranged democrats.

Of course there was no investigation of fraud or examination of evidence, which is exactly the result democrats were fighting like hell to achieve.

When your evidence is “this lady heard about fraud in a dream”, then there’s no investigation necessary.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/20/1158223099/fox-news-dominion-wackadoodle-election-fraud-claim

 

[hadit]

Yeah except for the fact that thousands who heard that speech JOINED IN

Right, they went to protest peacefully and got dragged reluctantly into a riot. Notice that the vast majority of them did nothing violent whatsoever.

 

[markef]

You’re lying again.

Russia didn’t donate $145 million to Clinton Foundation

An inaccurate attack about the Clinton Foundation and Russia gained renewed popularity on Facebook. One Nov. 13 post cla

www.politifact.com

Of course Russia did not donate $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Russians and businessmen tied to Russia donated more than $100 million to the Clinton Foundation. Some people just seem incapable of getting the facts straight.

 

[markef]

You believe morons and hacks.

No, Hillary, 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails - Center for Security Policy

Hillary Clinton in last night’s presidential debate tried to avoid talking about the substance of...

centerforsecuritypolicy.org

No, Hillary, 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails​

 

[ColonelAngus]

Of course Russia did not donate $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Russians and businessmen tied to Russia donated more than $100 million to the Clinton Foundation. Some people just seem incapable of getting the facts straight.

And donations dropped 95% when she lost!



Sooooooooooo weird.

It could not POSSIBLY BE THE CLINTON FOUNDATION WAS A PAY TO PLAY SCHEME TO LAUNDER BRIBES?

 

[Marener]

Of course Russia did not donate $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Russians and businessmen tied to Russia donated more than $100 million to the Clinton Foundation. Some people just seem incapable of getting the facts straight.

That’s a lie. No businessmen tied to Russia donated $100 million.

Stop lying.

 

[Marener]

No, Hillary, 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails - Center for Security Policy

Hillary Clinton in last night’s presidential debate tried to avoid talking about the substance of...

centerforsecuritypolicy.org

No, Hillary, 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails​

You need more up to date sources.

 

[Rand]

He has several.

1. Presidential immunity. I don't see that working. The first suit stems from him calling her a liar and not his type. Doesn't sound like official act of his office to me. The second suit was when he was no longer president, so no immunity there either.

2. Changing the defendant to be the US. That would nullify the case because the US can't be sued for defamation. This was already rejected because he waited too long to request it, but the SCOTUS could still give that to him.

3. Excessive damages.

4. Several indefensible evidentiary rulings. Possibly his best shot, I think.

I agree.

#4 is his best shot, although

#1 Presidential Immunity could have limited application in the Defamation aspect (his pettiness and crassness aside), since the accusations were levied against him as POTUS, and IMO, is valid, since I believe this case to have several motivations, including that of discrediting him as POTUS.

The lower Federal courts have rejected #1 as valid, but the objectivity of the Federal court system has become questionable.

IMO, #4 has validity that could result in a reversal.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Can someone remind me when St John’s church was set on fire?

It is on the other side of Lafayette Square from the White House.



Weird….that was May 29th! The NOT AN INSURRECTION WHEN TRUMP WENT INTO THE BUNKER AND WAS MOCKED AS A

 

[markef]

This dude gets nuttier by the post

CNN 'evidence' of American war crimes.

 

[Lesh]

Of course Russia did not donate $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Russians and businessmen tied to Russia donated more than $100 million to the Clinton Foundation. Some people just seem incapable of getting the facts straight.

Your own link says you’re lying

 

[Rand]

Not true, IMO. Raskin says "fight like hell" but there's no fighting like hell connected to it. Then we have Trump saying "fight like hell" and points them to the Capitol where they go and fight like hell. That's incitement.

Trump's use of "Fight like hell" is taken literally only because of the 'get Trump' factor and must be taken in context with the rest of his comments.

In example, why does the Left seize on 'fight like hell' and completely ignore his statement:

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

IMO, this should be the foundational statement that defines the 'fight' statement for what it was. The former (march peacefully) is definitive, the latter (fight), figurative.

We must treat his speech and the actions of the rioters as separate and unlinked from his comments.

And to add clarity, Democrats did encourage the "peaceful protestors" during the Summer of Love, which I consider to be actual incitation, or at least, encouragement and support.

 

[Rand]

So wait.

You don’t care about how badly cops were beaten on Jan 6 . They were of course

They lost eyes, fingers, had heart attacks from being tazed.

But you care deeply about cops injured in “democratic riots”.

Clearly it is not the cops you care about but rather the politics

In the interest of clarity, I'll say again: I don't condone in any form the riots that took place on Jan 6, nor defend the rioters.

That said, have you taken a stance here or elsewhere against the actions of protestors during those George Floyd riots?

 

[Marener]

Trump's use of "Fight like hell" is taken literally only because of the 'get Trump' factor and must be taken in context with the rest of his comments.

In example, why does the Left seize on 'fight like hell' and completely ignore his statement:

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

IMO, this should be the foundational statement that defines the 'fight' statement for what it was. The former (march peacefully) is definitive, the latter (fight), figurative.

We must treat his speech and the actions of the rioters as separate and unlinked from his comments.

And to add clarity, Democrats did encourage the "peaceful protestors" during the Summer of Love, which I consider to be actual incitation, or at least, encouragement and support.

Seems like Trump’s supporters took it literally since they proceeded to literally fight like hell.