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.
By the way, this “humping” for Trump notion, which YOU just brought into the discussion, is misplaced. The discussion has been about Bannon and not about Trump or Trumpism.no..... it means you are humping for trump, & it's amusing.
lol....
Good question. Give us you’re best prediction , Nostradumbass.A heart attack?
Police Union hack sez......
Why are the vast majority of the charges for trespassing etc instead of assaults on police officers?
Hmmmmmm..........
Like Holder?Rule of law? Like compliance with a lawful subpoena?
wake up, dope.
Because the assaults on police officers is a myth.Good question. Give us you’re best prediction , Nostradumbass.
Hutch and playtime can disagree and Laugh at the above all they want. But they cannot refute it.There is no duty of a pardoned person to accept a pardon. Good to know. That does NOT mean that accepting a pardon is the legal equivalent of admitting guilt. Of course a person can be concerned with that appearance. Therefore, the person is feee to assume that accepting the pardon will be taken as a tacit admission of guilt. That’s just a personal view of it. So what?
Not in any way.Like Holder?
Uh huh. All those mythical beatings captured in hours of video.Because the assaults on police officers is a myth.
I don’t know about that. I saw shit being thrown at the police — such as fire extinguishers. I saw one officer being almost crushed by a door in which he was pinned. I think that there is clear evidence of some criminal assaults against some of the Capitol police. And I have no qualm whatsoever in supporting the prosecution of anyone who behaved in that violent criminal fashion.Because the assaults on police officers is a myth.
He did refute it. Definitively and demonstrably.Hutch and playtime can disagree and Laugh at the above all they want. But they cannot refute it.
Wrong again. There was no refutation. You permit your desire to “believe” to overcome any chance at reason. Sucks to be as vapid as you. Seriously. I feel bad for one as ignorant and unintelligent as you muddling through life unable to grasp even obvious truths.He did refute it. Definitively and demonstrably.
You are just not competent enough to understand what was presented to you.
He gave you the standing ruling of the highest court. That is the legal view. Period. There is nothing else.Wrong again. There was no refutation. You permit your desire to “believe” to overcome any chance at reason. Sucks to be as vapid as you. Seriously. I feel bad for one as ignorant and unintelligent as you muddling through life unable to grasp even obvious truths.
Yes, exactly like Holder. He ignored a lawful subpoena and was held in contempt of Congress.Not in any way.
Let's see the videos.Uh huh. All those mythical beatings captured in hours of video.
Good job, fruitloop.
His claim was 140 cops assaulted, and yet he can't show the charges for these 140 assaultsI don’t know about that. I saw shit being thrown at the police — such as fire extinguishers. I saw one officer being almost crushed by a door in which he was pinned. I think that there is clear evidence of some criminal assaults against some of the Capitol police. And I have no qualm whatsoever in supporting the prosecution of anyone who behaved in that violent criminal fashion.
Charges need not have been lodged yet. I think an assault on a police officer is a felony. So maybe grand jury actions are still pending.His claim was 140 cops assaulted, and yet he can't show the charges for these 140 assaults
Oops, you're confused again. People babbling isn't evidence.You need to listen to conservative outlets like OAN and Fox News
Accepting a presidential pardon is an admission of guilt.Hutch and playtime can disagree and Laugh at the above all they want. But they cannot refute it.
Bullshit.Accepting a presidential pardon is an admission of guilt.
Refuted. Better luck next time.
Wrong. It’s not. Repeating your erroneous assertion does nothing to correct the fact that it remains wrong. Think for once in your life (with practice you might like it).Accepting a presidential pardon is an admission of guilt.
Refuted. Better luck next time.
Weli...if he did not plan the riot and he did not know about the attack on the Capitol...he should have not problem testifying to the Select Committee. I think we would all like to know what he meant when he said "all Hell is gonna break loose."And after Farty shares his skewed representation of the facts as “reality,” let us truly get back to reality.
Fact: Farty does not know what Bannon meant when he predicted on 1/5 that all helll would break lose the next day. I recognize that low intellect propagandists like the always laughable Fart Fun will always ASSUME that they “know” such things. Why be bothered to wait to find out?
in any event, truly rational folks wouldn’t pretend to “know” what Bannon meant when he made that statement. We can speculate. We might be right. But we don’t actually yet know.
All that said, whatever he meant, Bannon’s statement is odd. It does lend itself to interpretations especially in light of what did happen the next day. So, I can give Farty a pass on the conclusion he comes to. I’m just saying that despite his self assurance, Farty’s conclusion MAY not be the same thing as what Bannon was actually attempting to say.
