AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 00:14
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 6,959
So, I shouldn't believe my lying eyes?there was you just ignored it.
Got it.
So, I shouldn't believe my lying eyes?there was you just ignored it.
When your lawyer is not on your side and the prosecutors are threatening you with 20 years and you can't afford a real lawyer, you plead. That's just the way it is. Pleading is the lesser evil. No Democrat would have been charged with a felony for what he did. That is the hyprocasy of the whole event. A thousand stupid people entered the Capitol building but to most of them, the doors were open. Chansley may have been one of them. Only some came through broken doors so only those people knew that a crime had been committed. For the others, if the Capitol police were allowing people in, how did they know they should just walk away.Chansley 's plea agreement
I tend to think it's when you dress up like a clown and commit your crime on just about every TV station in the world, Pleading out isn't that bad an idea.When your lawyer is not on your side and the prosecutors are threatening you with 20 years ...
So your implying, that if someone has what you believe to be mental concerns, that it is justified for them to be sent to prison for years instead of having them receive counseling. The original Hunter Biden plea agreement (assuming I remember correctly) involved the dropping of criminal charges provided that Hunter received counseling. With that in mind, you should be advocating that Chansley (in the name of compassion) should have received the same consideration. Sounds like the application of a double standard of justice.I tend to think it's when you dress up like a clown and commit your crime on just about every TV station in the world, Pleading out isn't that bad an idea.
The unconstitutional attempt by Democrats to remove Trump from the presidential ballot is yet another example "of Democrats not comprehending that they are establishing a precedent where they themselves ..." could be removed, in the future, from ballots by Republicans. Democrats, in their fevered Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) are obsessed with an immediate need to crucify an opponent even if it establishes an example were they themselves may become victims of their own blind arrogance.Executive Privilege is a well known historic privilege that allows the president and his staff to communicate in private. It would seem that every president would want to protect that fundamental privilege for effective governance. Surprisingly, the Biden administration, in terms of Trump, has apparently waived that privilege so that Democrats can obtain Trump's privileged communication to use it as ammunition for their bogus attacks on Trump. This is another flagrant example of Democrats not comprehending that they are establishing a precedent where they themselves could have all their (embarrassing) privileged communications dumped into the public domain when a Republican becomes president.
Maybe if the repubs have the stomach for it. They seem to cave on the big issues like the border, J6, Hunter etc.... is yet another example "of Democrats not comprehending that they are establishing a precedent where they themselves ..." could be removed, in the future, from ballots by Republicans.
I find that a terrifying statement from one who is part of the "justice" system. It explains fully how so many could go along with the outright persecution of the Jan 6 participants and why the FBI is still wasting resources that should be used tracking down actual criminals, to find people, any people, who were in the vicinity of DC on Jan 6. They are acting like it is a crime to go to a Trump rally.I tend to think it's when you dress up like a clown and commit your crime on just about every TV station in the world, Pleading out isn't that bad an idea.
And that's why I'm asking, do you believe that being a gun-lover makes her more probably guilty, even though she never even brought the gun to the supposed insurrection??I only posted a picture from the probable cause statement against her. She tied herself to her insurrection guilt by all her posts on social media
No. I carry everyday myself. I'm all for responsible gun owners.And that's why I'm asking, do you believe that being a gun-lover makes her more probably guilty, even though she never even brought the gun to the supposed insurrection??
Since when are you guilty because you say stupid things? What have you done to our "justice" system?I think her social media posts talking about it being war and the videos of her in the capitol would tend to convince a jury of her guilt.
That'll be the next thing on liberals weeping list of "things Insurrectionists did to us that terrible day!" ::: Dressing up as clowns!I tend to think it's when you dress up like a clown and commit your crime on just about every TV station in the world, Pleading out isn't that bad an idea.
It's funny how long it takes for the misinformation to get sorted, just long enough to derail a campaign, I reckon. The election interference started the day Donald Trump and Melania came down the escalator. The democrat machine sprung into action, and the rest is history.There does appear to be enough "evidence" floating quietly in the background that Pelosi and Bowser purposely withheld law enforcement support. One can therefore assume, injunction with embedded instigators, that a civil disturbance was "planned". Notice that the Democrats were extremely quick to come-out with a fully developed insurrection narrative and subsequent lawsuits. This narrative was rapidly pushed to get various Democratic officials to attempt to remove Trump from various election ballots. The US Supreme Court recently put an end to the ballot initiative to remove Trump. Conspiracy? Maybe not.
Jan 6 committee allegedly suppressed testimony showing Trump admin pushed for National Guard presence: report
A new report argued the Jan. 6 committee suppressed an interview that detailed how the Trump administration called for National Guard presence in 2021.www.foxnews.com
It was a toss-up where to post this. Decided this theme since there is such disparity between Bragg quickly releasing those rioting at Columbia University despite the existence of hard evidence and the federal government still spending significant resources attempting to hunt down every person they can who was in the vicinity of the Capital on Jan 6th. This includes looking at bank records and cell phone records to "discover" implicating "evidence".The district attorney’s office dismissed 31 people out of 46 charged with trespassing “largely due to a lack of evidence,” according to NBC News.
Seems that Bragg is overlooking the potential that the Columbia rioting actually constituted an antisemitic hate crime. That is a civil right violation. The US Department of Justice should be looking into charging the rioters with a hate crime.Students and their allies seized the building, known as Hamilton Hall, on April 30, barricading themselves inside with furniture and padlocks in a major escalation of campus protests against the Israel-Hamas war.
It's a good job nobody here knows of anyone who was there rioting.the existence of hard evidence and the federal government still spending significant resources attempting to hunt down every person they can who was in the vicinity of the Capital on Jan 6th. This includes looking at bank records and cell phone records