*Where Is The Supreme Court, 5 Days After Biden Said Trump Need To Go Into The BullsEye, CIA/FBI/SS, Watch Some Crooks Take Aim And Fire Off 8 Rounds*

[Skylar]

Now they're convinced the Dems did this.

NOW? They were spewing this claim within minutes of it occuring.

MAGA is a political philosophy based on grievance and retribution. And grievance requires they be the victim.

 

[d0gbreath]

Any citizen who has their rights violated to a free and fair election has standing.

Yet, that hasn't happened to you. If it has, please explain it to me like I'm five.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Election interference is a flagrant violation of Americans’ civil rights to a fair election. Trying to have your opponent assassinated is the most blatant way to interfere with the election, and the SCOTUS could decide to hear argument that Biden’s WH was involved in setting up a clear path for it.

WHAT?? That is a bizarre boatload of inane wing-nuttery. The SCOTUS is not the FBI . They do not initiate investigations. A case - either civil or criminal- would have to be brought in a state court or lower federal court and then appealed up to SCOTUS by the loosing side. But first the question is who would bring such a case and on what basis ? Hint: There is no basis. It's total bovine excrement

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Any citizen who has their rights violated to a free and fair election has standing.

Good luck proving that shit.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Times rapidly running out on the Supreme Court standing up, and putting a halt to this bullshit, they attacked our President, or future President, its unheard of, all the agencies are in it, likely a few others, but these are the main ones, and they all work for the man, Biden, CIA/FBI/ SS there is no confusion about that, they are all three involved.
2. The Supreme Court has to do their job, this is trouble all the way around, no one can rule this, this governments in chaos, run by chaotic people, who tried to interfere with our elections, by assassinating our choice.
3. Its not right and those who did this are still in power, planning to try again.
4. Any fucking idiot can figure this out!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Skylar]

Sorry bout that,

1. Times rapidly running out on the Supreme Court standing up, and putting a halt to this bullshit, they attacked our President, or future President, its unheard of, all the agencies are in it, likely a few others, but these are the main ones, and they all work for the man, Biden, CIA/FBI/ SS there is no confusion about that, they are all three involved.

Yeah, you still don't understand what the Supreme Court does. Its not an investigative body. It adjudicates.

Your profound misunderstanding of the judicial power doesn't create any obligation by the Supreme Court to pretend to be Magnum PI.

2. The Supreme Court has to do their job, this is trouble all the way around, no one can rule this, this governments in chaos, run by chaotic people, who tried to interfere with our elections, by assassinating our choice.

Same problems as before. First, the Supreme Court doesn't investigate crimes. It adjudicates. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Second, you have no actual evidence to back your 'interfere with our elections by assassinating our choice' narrative. Its just a echo-chamber story that you and your ilk tell each other. But there's no real evidence to back any of it.

And without said evidence, you'll fail in ANY court. As your supposition, speculation, baseless accusation and fantasies do not constitute evidence

Try again. This time without ignoring the separation of powers and with actual evidence.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Yeah, you still don't understand what the Supreme Court does. Its not an investigative body. It adjudicates.

Your profound misunderstanding of the judicial power doesn't create any obligation by the Supreme Court to pretend to be Magnum PI.


Same problems as before. First, the Supreme Court doesn't investigate crimes. It adjudicates. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Second, you have no actual evidence to back your 'interfere with our elections by assassinating our choice' narrative. Its just a echo-chamber story that you and your ilk tell each other. But there's no real evidence to back any of it.

And without said evidence, you'll fail in ANY court. As your supposition, speculation, baseless accusation and fantasies do not constitute evidence

Try again. This time without ignoring the separation of powers and with actual evidence.

Sorry bout that,

1. So you are saying we need to take our grievances to the, FBI/CIA/SS?
2. Really those who tried to steal an election by killing one candidate?
3. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Skylar]

Sorry bout that,

1. So you are saying we need to take our grievances to the, FBI/CIA/SS?

I'm saying the same thing that I've been saying for about 2 days: the Supreme Court does not investigate crimes.

The Supreme Court doesn't investigate crimes. The SCOTUS does not investigate crimes.

Does it that cover it?

2. Really those who tried to steal an election by killing one candidate?

"those who tried to steal an election by killing one candidate"....says who? Backed with what evidence? Again, you're offering us accusation as evidence.

Inside the MAGA echo-chamber, that totally works. In the real world, its meaningless. It doesn't matter what you believe. It doesn't matter what you accuse. It matters what the evidence demonstrates.

And you've got no actual evidence that anyone other than Thomas Matthew Crooks took a shot at Trump.

You're kinda chasing your own tail here.

 

[chesswarsnow]

I'm saying the same thing that I've been saying for about 2 days: the Supreme Court does not investigate crimes.

The Supreme Court doesn't investigate crimes. The SCOTUS does not investigate crimes.

Does it that cover it?




"those who tried to steal an election by killing one candidate"....says who? Backed with what evidence? Again, you're offering us accusation as evidence.

Inside the MAGA echo-chamber, that totally works. In the real world, its meaningless. It doesn't matter what you believe. It doesn't matter what you accuse. It matters what the evidence demonstrates.

And you've got no actual evidence that anyone other than Thomas Matthew Crooks took a shot at Trump.

You're kinda chasing your own tail here.

Sorry bout that,

1. So where do we get this solid evidence, from the FBI/CIA/SS?

regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Skylar]

Sorry bout that,

1. So where do we get this solid evidence, from the FBI/CIA/SS?

regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Solid evidence of...what?

And if you don't have solid evidence to support your narrative, why do you have that narrative? "Everyone knows" is kinda groupthink.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Solid evidence of...what?

And if you don't have solid evidence to support your narrative, why do you have that narrative? "Everyone knows" is kinda groupthink.

Sorry bout that,

1. We need you Skylar to post a link where we can find the evidence.
2. If you are unable to do it, you by default are a shill, for the FBI/CIA/ SS.
3. Start posting shill!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sorry bout that,

1. Times rapidly running out on the Supreme Court standing up, and putting a halt to this bullshit, they attacked our President, or future President, its unheard of, all the agencies are in it, likely a few others, but these are the main ones, and they all work for the man, Biden, CIA/FBI/ SS there is no confusion about that, they are all three involved.
2. The Supreme Court has to do their job, this is trouble all the way around, no one can rule this, this governments in chaos, run by chaotic people, who tried to interfere with our elections, by assassinating our choice.
3. Its not right and those who did this are still in power, planning to try again.
4. Any fucking idiot can figure this out!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

You don't learn to good , do ya??

 

[Skylar]

Sorry bout that,

1. We need you Skylar to post a link where we can find the evidence.
2. If you are unable to do it, you by default are a shill, for the FBI/CIA/ SS.
3. Start posting shill!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Are you sure you wanna use that standard? Because its going to uno-reverse something awful.

Alright. Here's 5 hours of hearings going over most major details of the shooting.

Oversight of the U.S. Secret Service and the Attempted Assassination of President Donald J. Trump - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

oversight.house.gov

Here's an update of the FBI investigation:

Update on the FBI Investigation of the Attempted Assassination of Former President Donald Trump | Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI continues to investigate the shooting incident at the July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, as an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump and as potential domestic terrorism. The investigation is still in the early stages, and the FBI is providing the following updates.

www.fbi.gov

Now.....show us the link where we can find the evidence to back YOUR narrative. If you are unable to do it, you by default are a shill and hack.

You've got nothing to back your narrative that it was the 'people in the government' that tried to assassinate Trump. You're offering us your accusation as evidence of claims you can't factually back up. Which means, by your own standards, by default your a shill.

And you're going to get no where with any court at any level without actual evidence, shill.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. THIS JUST IN--- --- - ---- -- -- - - -
2. NEWS FLASH------ -- --- --- -- ---- ---- --
3. FBI HAVE LOCATED THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATEMPT-- -- - - - ---- --
4. ITS THE CIA AND THE SS GUYS INSTALLED TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT, FBI CLAIMS THEY DID NOTHING IN THIS ENDEAVOR.----- - --- ----- -- --- --- --- --- ==== ====. ====. ===. === =. == = ==.
5. NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING, SO WHAT WE SAY DID INDEED HAPPENED.
6. Basically we are awaiting for them to tell on themselves, who's comfortable with that concept?
7. They will still get a pay check, they can investigate for 20 years, just long enough to go into retirement.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Skylar]

Sorry bout that,


1. THIS JUST IN--- --- - ---- -- -- - - -
2. NEWS FLASH------ -- --- --- -- ---- ---- --
3. FBI HAVE LOCATED THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATEMPT-- -- - - - ---- --
4. ITS THE CIA AND THE SS GUYS INSTALLED TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT, FBI CLAIMS THEY DID NOTHING IN THIS ENDEAVOR.----- - --- ----- -- --- --- --- --- ==== ====. ====. ===. === =. == = ==.
5. NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING, SO WHAT WE SAY DID INDEED HAPPENED.
6. Basically we are awaiting for them to tell on themselves, who's comfortable with that concept?
7. They will still get a pay check, they can investigate for 20 years, just long enough to go into retirement.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

So you have nothing to back your narrative. No links. No evidence. Nothing.

Welp, you set the tune, you'll dance to it. By your own standards, no links and no evidence means you default to being a shill.

I'll stick with the FBI account and the Congressional testimony, thanks.

 

[chesswarsnow]

So you have nothing to back your narrative. No links. No evidence. Nothing.

Welp, you set the tune, you'll dance to it. By your own standards, no links and no evidence means you default to being a shill.

I'll stick with the FBI account and the Congressional testimony, thanks.

Sorry bout that,

1. Stick to the non truth with which will be provided, well perhaps in 10 years give or take a decade.
2. These are perilous times at best, you need to wake up now.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Skylar]

Sorry bout that,

1. Stick to the non truth with which will be provided, well perhaps in 10 years give or take a decade.
2. These are perilous times at best, you need to wake up now.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Show us your links, shill. Show us your evidence, shill.

You can't. You set the standards. You set the rules. You fail to provide links and evidence for your narrative, you default to being a shill.

Maybe next time you think a little before you try to apply those standards

 

[chesswarsnow]

Show us your links, shill. Show us your evidence, shill.

You can't. You set the standards. You set the rules. You fail to provide links and evidence for your narrative, you default to being a shill.

Maybe next time you think a little before you try to apply those standards

Sorry bout that,

1. If your talking for the whole USA, your just plain,.......... dumb.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Skylar]

Sorry bout that,

1. If your talking for the whole USA, your just plain,.......... dumb.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

So nothing to back any part of your narrative, shill?

That's what I thought.