Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Or... he sat on it for over a year. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/report-says-doj-resisted-investigating-trumps-role-in-jan-6-for-over-a-year

Do you believe the states of New York and Georgia have the same level of resources available as the feds?

Your stanning for Garland is annoying.

I don't believe that reporting anymore than I believe what that "IRS Whistleblower" says about the Hunter Biden investigation.

Someone looking at an investigation can see what they want to see.

And, as to resources, DOJ has been busy securing convictions against 485+ out of 1033 arrested and charged on January 6.

Resources are relative.

Your bashing of Garland is annoying.  As I recalll, you were number one or close to it on the nattering nabobs of negativity.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

@TwiceHorn what’s your take on the free speech defense?

Also, skimming the indictment, the funniest part was when Raffenberger tried to explain to Trump the State Farm video he watched was doctored, and he would send Trump a link to the undoctored video, Trump said I don’t need your link, I have a much better link. 😂 

 

image.png.7c5d7d9b326bd1a1654f05832408f2f7.png

Edited by Neonmoon
to add screenshot
  • Haha 3
Posted
[mention=248]TwiceHorn[/mention] what’s your take on the free speech defense?
 


DOJ made sure to put right at the top that they don’t challenge his rights to lie and complain

f55cfc3079af52e34a806080a2530432.png
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

@TwiceHorn what’s your take on the free speech defense?

Also, skimming the indictment, the funniest part was when Raffenberger tried to explain to Trump the State Farm video he watched was doctored, and he would send Trump a link to the undoctored video, Trump said I don’t need your link, I have a much better link. 😂 

 

 

Not going to work.  It might get a little traction if they hadn't alleged the conspiracy and were relying only on the 1/6 speech alone as some kind of incitement.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

Yeah, things are really falling apart economically.

If they just keep repeating it, people will believe them. Trump introduced this practice of just speaking whatever reality he wanted into existence and it worked for him. So now the whole party has adopted that strategy. Trump was campaigning in 2016 saying the economy was in the shitter when in reality it was doing fine. Just three weeks into his presidency a positive jobs report came out and he took credit for it, as if he had anything to do with those numbers, and said, “They may have been phony in the past, but it’s very real now.” Just speak whatever bullshit you want because the GOP base will fall for it  

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-monthly-jobs-numbers-sean-spicer-235936

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

@TwiceHorn what’s your take on the free speech defense?

Also, skimming the indictment, the funniest part was when Raffenberger tried to explain to Trump the State Farm video he watched was doctored, and he would send Trump a link to the undoctored video, Trump said I don’t need your link, I have a much better link. 😂 

 

 

Free speech is a press conference at Four Seasons Lawncare and crying like a bitch titty baby that they cheated. Pressuring the Vice President and others in power to commit crimes to carry out your facist fantasyland isn’t free speech. It’s why it’s important they keep hammering that he knew that there was zero evidence of fraud.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted
Not going to work.  It might get a little traction if they hadn't alleged the conspiracy and were relying only on the 1/6 speech alone as some kind of incitement.
Is that why we aren't seeing other Republicans who did make speeches on J6 (Cruz & Hawley) not getting any dirt on them?
Posted
9 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Free speech is a press conference at Four Seasons Lawncare and crying like a bitch titty baby that they cheated. Pressuring the Vice President and others in power to commit crimes to carry out your facist fantasyland isn’t free speech. It’s why it’s important they keep hammering that he knew that there was zero evidence of fraud.

Using fake electors and violence to stay in office after losing also isn't free speech. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

It seems to me that arguing Trump's efforts to overturn the election were protected free speech is akin to arguing that armed robbery of a liquor store is legal because the thief held an open carry license.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not going to work.  It might get a little traction if they hadn't alleged the conspiracy and were relying only on the 1/6 speech alone as some kind of incitement.

Also, they fuckin promoted it as the "Stop the Steal" rally for weeks in advance.  

This wasn't merely a mob caught up in someone's words.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Incitement of lawlessness (which likely will occur) and fraud are longstanding exceptions to the First Amendment's protection of speech.  

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It seems to me that arguing Trump's efforts to overturn the election were protected free speech is akin to arguing that armed robbery of a liquor store is legal because the thief held an open carry license.

More like claiming free speech when you asked a hit man to kill your wife.

Posted
8 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Pence has stuff to say

 

 

This mother fucker really has a death wish. He'll be sucking that mushroom dick by this time next year, guaranteed.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, tchookem said:
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:
Not going to work.  It might get a little traction if they hadn't alleged the conspiracy and were relying only on the 1/6 speech alone as some kind of incitement.

Is that why we aren't seeing other Republicans who did make speeches on J6 (Cruz & Hawley) not getting any dirt on them?

Yeah, this has significant preparation and purpose, as well as specific intended unlawful result.

Posted

Much like DT posters, my FB feed is incredibly quiet about the indictment. Not a single Trumper I know has commented.

Anyone got anything good from pissed off Trumpers they could share?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, speed817 said:

 

What's the bigger lie in that tweet: his innocence, or dotard claiming to be 6'5" tall?

I'm surprised they didn't include an inset claiming his mushroom dick was 12" and thick as a beer can.

Edited by GhostOfTomJoad
Fuck trump
  • Haha 5
Posted
[mention=248]TwiceHorn[/mention] what’s your take on the free speech defense?
Also, skimming the indictment, the funniest part was when Raffenberger tried to explain to Trump the State Farm video he watched was doctored, and he would send Trump a link to the undoctored video, Trump said I don’t need your link, I have a much better link.  
 
image.png.7c5d7d9b326bd1a1654f05832408f2f7.png

Even though you aren’t asking me, my legal opinion is that the free speech “defense” doesn’t pertain at all to what the actual indictment is for at all, but instead, addresses what a huge chunk or folks (on both sides, TBH think the “January 6 case” is about. This whole free speech “thing” is, IMO, just a talking point to further the entire victim/pariah persona that TFG uses to raise funds.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Maybe, just maybe, it takes some time to put together a criminal case.

Especially when you wait nearly two years to appoint someone to do it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
1 minute ago, The Dog said:

DOJ was investigating and Garland had to appoint the special counsel once the GOP took over the house. 

Garland is never ever ever going to get credit because he didn't do it the day he was confirmed by the Senate.

Doesn't matter why.  He's an easy target.  WHY NOT DONE

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Garland is never ever ever going to get credit because he didn't do it the day he was confirmed by the Senate.

Sure, because it's just absolute crazy talk to suggest that the USAG make investigating an attempted fucking coup a priority.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

Sure, because it's just absolute crazy talk to suggest that the USAG make investigating an attempted fucking coup a priority.  

And if he rushed it to make you happy, and Trump gets off on a technicality...

There's no winning.  Engaging with people who just want to bitch about it is pointless.  Jack Smith is getting it done, after BEING APPOINTED BY GARLAND. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

And if he rushed it to make you happy, and Trump gets off on a technicality...

Yes, because the only two choices were:

1.  Rush the investigation and be sloppy.

or

2.  Wait nearly two years to appoint a prosecutor.

It's like you're doing a slorch bit.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 5
Posted
17 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

giphy.gif

 

12 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

 

Unless Rudy is acting, guess we can assume he's not cooperating with Jack Smith and his team.

 

6 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

It's a shame that it took the Committee hearings spoon feeding this shit to Garland before he got off his ass and appointed Smith to get after it.

 

Once this is over, if Biden or another D is elected, Garland needs to step down and Smith needs to be AG.

Jack Smith for VPOTUS.

 

5 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Lot of y'all need to go get your annual eye exam.

 

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Dude.  Most of the posters here are in their late 30s to 50s (excluding Armybrat, who's from the 1750s).  If we were at a neighborhood pool party, and a gal who looked like Jen Psaki walked out onto the deck in a tight swimsuit and one of those gauzy wraps, her red hair shining in the sun.....every damned head here would damn well turn and smile to check her out.  She's not a 20 yr old Instagram model.  Cool.  She's a very attractive, smart, and witty 45 yr old woman.  Sign.  Me.  Up.

To get this back on topic....She is at least 90 IQ points too high for Trump to ever find attractive.  Trump's type is easy to figure out: moneygrubbing grifting whores, just like him.

I'm 50 and I think she's ok. Smart AF, which is nice but nothing to garner the response given in last nights string of posts.

 

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

This mother fucker really has a death wish. He'll be sucking that mushroom dick by this time next year, guaranteed.

Is it wrong that sometimes I fantasize the insurrectionists HAD found Pence on J6? (Of course if they had, there's no telling how things might've gone in that alternate timeline.)

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted

So Pence is throwing Trump under the bus. He sees how unappealing DeSantis is and decides to lean into the “they wanted to kill me” on J6 so he can have a better shot at the GOP nomination. 

Posted

How is anyone but Trump going to get the nomination?  I understand the theory that polls tighten as time goes on, but he's so far ahead I find it almost impossible to imagine DeSantis or Pence or whoever moving ahead.  It ain't happening.  Trump will either have to die or withdraw, and he'll never withdraw.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
So Pence is throwing Trump under the bus. He sees how unappealing DeSantis is and decides to lean into the “they wanted to kill me” on J6 so he can have a better shot at the GOP nomination. 

Morgan Freeman good luck gif.
Posted
How is anyone but Trump going to get the nomination?  I understand the theory that polls tighten as time goes on, but he's so far ahead I find it almost impossible to imagine DeSantis or Pence or whoever moving ahead.  It ain't happening.  Trump will either have to die or withdraw, and he'll never withdraw.

I think we could see somebody decide to run late and swoop in if Trump is eliminated in one way or another.

I think @BamaATL said she’s heard that many are encouraging Brian Kemp to do just that. She’s also warned that would be a very bad thing in that he’s just as terrible as the rest but also knows how to politic.
Posted
14 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I'm 50 and I think she's ok. Smart AF, which is nice but nothing to garner the response given in last nights string of posts.

spacer.png

  • Haha 2
Posted
41 minutes ago, The Dog said:

DOJ was investigating and Garland had to appoint the special counsel once the GOP took over the house.

Yes, how in the world could Garland have had any inclination at all that GOP might take over the House and a special counsel would be needed?



×
×
  • Create New...