BillsFanNC

⬆️ Two supporters of weaponizing the justice system against a political opponent. Aka useful idiots. TDS has broken them.

⬆️ A useful idiot. Fact check: True

Fact check: True

Are you ready? This is the new narrative. Trump, yes Trump, is getting preferential treatment from the justice system.

FuQ with a ridiculous apples to oranges comparison to try to make a hand waving trash lawyer point? How refreshing! Next it will try to make the measles vs. covid vaccine apples to asteroids comparison again. Keep digging FuQ. 😂

⬆️ Finding Q must have confused my direct question to Billsfuk.c as a question to it I'm guessing? Don't care what either of the blob acolytes has to say.

This has all been gone over dozens of times already, so useful idiots will always parrot their masters narrative no matter what. Yuri Bezmenov, ideological subversion and all that.... But here is Kash Patel's testimony to J6 committee. Lying to Congress, at least for conservatives, is no small matter these days. How come Kash got away with "lying" to Congress Billsfuk.c? https://archive.org/details/january-6th-committee-witness-testimony-20211209-kashyap-pramod-patel/page/38/mode/2up?q=guard Oh, so you remember stuff like that. So, going off just the memory, and we can go back to the article when you bring it up, there was a meeting with the President of the United States, Acting Secretary Miller, and some others -- | can't recall off the top of my head -- where we were discussing, as the article states, something related to Iran. And, in that same meeting, | believe it was on or around January 4th, 3rd, 4th, or 5th, the -- as | stated earlier, in order for the Department of Defense's National Guard to be activated in any way we needed Presidential authorization. And President Trump at that -- [Discussion off the record.] BY Q Sure. Go ahead. A Okay. And so this question appears to implicate core executive privilege concerns. I'm prepared to answer it, but | want the record to reflect my serious concerns about congressional overreaching of this matter. So what | remember is that we knew, in order to get the National Guard even mobilized, we needed the President to at least say yes first. So what -- my recollection of that meeting is the President preemptively authorized 10 to 20 National Guardsmen and -women around the country -- sorry? 10- to 20,000. Mr. Sofer. You said 10 to 20. The Witness. Sorry, 10- to 20,000 National Guardsmen and -women to be utilized around the country. The second part of that, of course, would have to be the Governors, the Federal agencies, and the mayors would have to ask us for that to satisfy the law. But what he, | believe, and the Acting Secretary at the time were working out was we would not need to come back to the President should Mayor Bowser or anyone ask for 100, a thousand, 5,000, up to 20,000. Here's the memo where Mayor Bowser refused NG dated 1/5/21 and the memo outing multiple denials from Capitol police. The Capitol Police official timeline provides the most succinct summary of a series of events around Sund's request, some of which have been disputed and at times misreported in the news media. "COP Sund asks Senate Sergeant at Arms (SSAA) Michael Stenger and House Sergeant at Arms (HSAA) Paul Irving for authority to have National Guard to assist with security for the January 6, 2021 event based on briefing with law enforcement partner and revised intelligence Assessment," the timeline recorded. "COP Sund's request is denied. SSAA and HSAA tell COP Sund to contact General Walker at DC National Guard to discuss the guard's ability to support a request if needed."

Marxist playbook blatant and out in the open.

How come I didn't need to read it to know the above fact check is true?

Not from the multitude of lying sources documented over the years in the link below. Useful idiots consume, then parrot, all of those very same lying sources with religious zeal. Therefore there's absolutely nothing to discuss with a single one of them. Mocking? Absolutely.

⬆️ Paralegal / attorney? who loves ignoring 1st ammendment issues of its political opponents.