Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I can call them whatever I want. I've seen the evidence and I'm giving my opinion based on that evidence. LOL thinking you can control what I say.You can't call anyone "traitors" unless the accusations in the indictment are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But you don't care about due process, you operate purely based on emotions alone.
They have to make their definitions as they go, because they hate the word.It doesn’t. Ever heard of a bloodless coup?
I can call them whatever I want.
I've seen the evidence and I'm giving my opinion based on that evidence.
I said he should get due process. I guess you missed that part when quoting my post. You disingenuous slob.That's my point. You don't care about his legal rights.
You are consumed by hatred and are bent on his destruction.
You don't care if the accusations are true or not.
"But muh traitors!"
We arent in a court room, boy. You sure do like giving instructions that I never follow, dont you?Post the evidence that doesn't include accusations made by the indictment. Post evidence supporting the accusations made in the indictment.
Or by all means, continue stamping your feet like an enraged, confused child.
But we care that you support and believe in a seditious conspirator. Are you a member of the lol "Oath Keepers" gang?
We arent in a court room, boy. You sure do like giving instructions that I never follow, dont you?
You do realize someone such as myself can believe he's guilty and still thinks he should get his due process? I guess you don't realize that.Nope. I am defending his right to due process. I have not made any commentary for or against his political beliefs.
My defense of his legal rights does not speak to my support or lack thereof of this person.
You do realize someone such as myself can believe he's guilty and still thinks he should get his due process? I guess you don't realize that.
So, not con-fident enough.
Not only defending the Oath Keepers but a supporter of someone who fantasizes about right wing death squads.......charming.You'd be dumb enough to jump out of one without a parachute.
I dont need to present anything, dipshit. I'm not the prosecution. Some of the evidence has already been presented to the public. Looks guilty to me. That's just my first thought. But hey if he provides a reasonable excuse as to why he was in a chat room talking about organizing what happened on 1/6, I'll of course listen. But I'm guessing A. His lawyer would never allow him on the stand and B. My guess is he'll plead out for a lesser sentence than 20 years.I operate based on evidence. If you can't provide evidence, you are nothing but an emotional political shill with no reasonable point to make.
So, do you have any evidence or not?
"Making bets is a sign of insecurity..." And in your world, up is down...black is white...and war is peace.I don't need to make bets to shore up confidence.
Making bets is a sign of insecurity on your part.
Keep on supporting those Oath Keepers.
Defending traitors makes you a traitor.Oh, you again.
Stewart Rhodes.
I thought you learned your lesson from last night.
I literally said he should receive due process. I dont know what else to say, dumbfuck. That SHOULD plainly state my position on whether he should get a fair trial or not. But you're stupid. You think this message board is a place to conduct official Federal trials. You cant get past that just because people not involved in a trial have opinions on guilt or innocence doesnt mean they dont want people to receive a fair trial. Evidently you will never be able to move beyond your illogical position.That's the thing, you have made it quite clear you don't want due process.
Belief in guilt and proof of guilt are two things entirely, and things you cannot comprehend the difference between.
The evidence against him are recordings from online meetings he held with other Oath Keepers where they planned their assault on the Capitol with the intentions of overturning the election.Post the evidence that doesn't include accusations made by the indictment. Post evidence supporting the accusations made in the indictment.
Or by all means, continue stamping your feet like an enraged, confused child.
It was neither — whether you admit it or not, see it or not or comprehend anything at all or not.They have to make their definitions as they go, because they hate the word.
Tough shit. This was sedition and insurrection, whether they like it or not.
Inaccurate ^ as always. Some of the so-called evidence does include (or so the indictment claims) some online messaging where there were some plans to meet at the Capitol. There were allegedly some discussions about weapons, too. And the latter were a bit non-specific.The evidence against him are recordings from online meetings he held with other Oath Keepers where they planned their assault on the Capitol with the intentions of overturning the election.
