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.
Which charge there are 34 you know …Please list the ones who have been found guilty of "insurrection".
no !!! you go look them up …I’m not your research person … it’s a know fact that you could easily find if you feel you need their names …there’s 480 fucking people you think I’m going to list every one of them ??? what a dumb fuck you are …As I never tire of explaining to Democrats in the thrall of their own media:
It is not a crime to put pressure on elected officials to do things you want them to. There is a whole job of doing nothing but that. It's called "lobbyist."
It is not a crime to express doubts about the fairness and legality of an election. Democrats do it nearly every single time they lose.
It is not a crime to tell your subordinate how to do their job. Again, there is a whole job of doing that, called "boss."
It is not a crime to ignore your own staff. How could it be when powerful people often get contridictory advise from different staffers.
It is not a crime to ignore naysayers in general. Nearly every unusually successful person in history has had to do that.
In the unlikely event that they can "prove" that Trump knew the election was squeaky clean - ok, the impossible event, because it was not - it is not a crime for a politician to lie. If it were the hoosegow would be full of nearly every president we've had in the last fifty years.
As I explained above, nothing that you described him doing is a crime.
It strains credulity to think that an outgoing president wishing to start an insurrection would offer to send the nation guard to stop any potential violance and would tell his followers to be "peaceful and patriotic."
How many people have been charged with insurrection so far, and how many found guilty?
Uh, insurrection.Which charge there are 34 you know …
Are you someone's sock, to jump into a debate like that? I don't remember asking you a GOD damned thing.no !!! you go look them up …I’m not your research person … it’s a know fact that you could easily find if you feel you need their names …there’s 480 fucking people you think I’m going to list every one of them ??? what a dumb fuck you are …
Pull your panties out of your crack. It’s just fine to jump into debates on a public forum. If you can’t hang then that’s on you. Shouldn’t matter who you’re talking toAre you someone's sock, to jump into a debate like that? I don't remember asking you a GOD damned thing.
So are you Billyrock, or Slade now?Pull your panties out of your crack. It’s just fine to jump into debates on a public forum. If you can’t hang then that’s on you. Shouldn’t matter who you’re talking to
You make false assumptions. I don’t give a hoot about what the media says. I see what’s happening in court and Trump is absolutely charged with many dozen crimes. I then see you on here repeating a media narrative and right wing talking points.So are you Billyrock, or Slade now?
Of course anyone can respond to any thread anytime. But the way Billyrock said "no !!! you go look them up …I’m not your research person …" was as if I had asked Billy Rock a question directly. Otherwise why would he think I was asking him to be my research person?
Well, you have no response to what I said about Trump not committing any crimes.
What tripped you up was believing the media. Their technique has been to describe actions by Trump that are no crimes as if they were crimes. Same with the prosecutors. You should learn to think for yourself so you can win sometimes, and not just send a sock to cuss out any poster who bests you in an argument.
You tried listing his “crimes” and they all turned out to be non-crimes.You make false assumptions. I don’t give a hoot about what the media says. I see what’s happening in court and Trump is absolutely charged with many dozen crimes. I then see you on here repeating a media narrative and right wing talking points.
Yoire either lying or confusing me with a different poster. I told you that none of his charges were for giving a speech. All of his charges are for actual crimes as defined by our legal system.You tried listing his “crimes” and they all turned out to be non-crimes.
Care to try again?
If we are talking about the Jan 6th case against Trump, actions such as applying political pressure to an offical is not a crime in itself. In fact much of the evidence that is going to be introduced is not a crime. It is when you put all the pieces together that you get a clear picture of a crime that a jury will not just understand but will have answers to questions they might have. It's pretty rare to have a criminal case in which every piece of evidence is a crime.As I never tire of explaining to Democrats in the thrall of their own media:
It is not a crime to put pressure on elected officials to do things you want them to. There is a whole job of doing nothing but that. It's called "lobbyist."
It is not a crime to express doubts about the fairness and legality of an election. Democrats do it nearly every single time they lose.
It is not a crime to tell your subordinate how to do their job. Again, there is a whole job of doing that, called "boss."
It is not a crime to ignore your own staff. How could it be when powerful people often get contridictory advise from different staffers.
It is not a crime to ignore naysayers in general. Nearly every unusually successful person in history has had to do that.
In the unlikely event that they can "prove" that Trump knew the election was squeaky clean - ok, the impossible event, because it was not - it is not a crime for a politician to lie. If it were the hoosegow would be full of nearly every president we've had in the last fifty years.
As I explained above, nothing that you described him doing is a crime.
It strains credulity to think that an outgoing president wishing to start an insurrection would offer to send the nation guard to stop any potential violance and would tell his followers to be "peaceful and patriotic."
How many people have been charged with insurrection so far, and how many found guilty?
The jury won’t buy that.If we are talking about the Jan 6th case against Trump, actions such as applying political pressure to an offical is not a crime in itself. In fact much of evidence that is going to be introduced is not a crime. It is when you put all the pieces together that you get a prosecutable crime.
disorderly conductAnother repub-lie-clown that hasn't a clue ... he says nobody has been convicted of insurrection must of missed these guys 3 years later, Jan. 6 by the numbers: More than 1,200 charged, more than 460 imprisoned for a role in the Capitol attack you seem to missed the 460 3 years later, Jan. 6 by the numbers: More than 1,200 charged, more than 460 imprisoned for role in Capitol attack
Apparently you do not understand this case. The prosecution will present evidence of Trumps actions to derail the approval of the certification of the election results in the states which will included providing states with proven false information about the election results, smear campaigns against election officials coming from the White House, proven false information presented in a number of cases brought before the courts, encouraging demonstrations that would likely lead to violence and disruption of congressional approval of the election results, and refusal to do anything to stop the violence when it started.The jury won’t buy that.
Show me.Apparently you do not understand this case. The prosecution will present evidence of Trumps actions to derail the approval of the certification of the election results in the states which will included providing states with proven false information about the election results, smear campaigns against election officials coming from the White House, proven false information presented in a number of cases brought before the courts, encouraging demonstrations that would likely lead to violence and disruption of congressional approval of the election results, and refusal to do anything to stop the violence when it started.
This is just stuff that came from the indictment. I'm sure Smith has quite a bit more.
Show me.
For your link to be clickable, you'd have to cut off all before "https."chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
disorderly conduct
unlawful entry
trespassing
disrupting Congress
theft and other property crimes and weapons offense.
No one was charged with insurrection not even Trump. Apparently no here has read the indictment.
The First Amendment provides no license to conspire to overturn an election.Every time I read about these Jan 6th hearings, all I ever hear is that they are building a case that the so-called insurrection happened because Trump kept on saying that the election was stolen, his supporters believed him, and then some of them rioted, attacking the Capitol. They are finding evidence after evidence after evidence to prove that Trump claimed the election was stolen (not that we didn't know that in the first place) but the kangaroo hearing has to prove Trump repeatedly said the election was stolen even though everyone already knows he's said that many times. What a farce!
So what? Trump has a first amendment right to say the election was stolen, as many times as he wants to say it. That doesn't make him legally responsible if others believe the so called "big lie" and then riot and attack the Capitol. That's on them, not on Trump. Democrats called the 2016 election stolen for years and took steps to overthrow Trump. Where are the investigations of them? Oh, wait a minute. I spoke too soon. Those investigations are coming when Republicans take over the House after the midterms.
Again, none of which is illegal.Apparently you do not understand this case. The prosecution will present evidence of Trumps actions to derail the approval of the certification of the election results in the states which will included providing states with proven false information about the election results, smear campaigns against election officials coming from the White House, proven false information presented in a number of cases brought before the courts, encouraging demonstrations that would likely lead to violence and disruption of congressional approval of the election results, and refusal to do anything to stop the violence when it started.
This is just stuff that came from the indictment. I'm sure Smith has quite a bit more.
Correct. Apparently, a prosecutor is allowed to put non-crimes in indictments. I don't know why they would if they had actual crimes to charge him with. I think that should cause him or her to be disbarred.Again, none of which is illegal.
Well, Democrats have done that several times. Where are their charges?The First Amendment provides no license to conspire to overturn an election.
