Contempt Pt. II: Just in case it wasn't Antifa, prominent Fox News personalities, members of congress, and Donald Jr, who somehow couldn't get ahold of his father any other way, reach out to Mark Meadows on 1/6 to try to get Trump to stop the insurrection

[716er]

 

[Irv]

Insurrection.  Poor demented Biden.  What a joke.  Smoke screen to cover Demented Biden never-ending failures. What a mess.  

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Irv

[T master]

If nothing else this shows that his team were not involved in any type of coup against the gov't and even though Trumps words were definitely inflammatory to get people riled up he didn't tell them point blank you need to go attack the capital but i do agree he should have said something to deescalate the problem i don't know if it would have helped in any way at that time .

 

Liz Cheney being as bad as Romney i don't put any faith in either of them so as long as what she is reading is fact i'm all in on bringing in those that need to testify as long as they do the same to all involved in the fake Russian BS that they used for 4 yrs to try & accuse Trump of things that never happened .

 

Bring Trump in too to ask him why he didn't say a thing for how ever long as long as you bring in Obama, Hillary and those that had something to do with the Russian BS to testify rather than letting them skate free as if they did nothing at all in that fiasco .

 

If your going to do this kind of thing to place blame for what could be a ridiculous came then dammit get all of them that pull the same crap and has been proven don't just cherry pick what they want to be wrong & right nail all their asses to the wall what's good for the goose is good for the gander & hold them all no matter who that might be accountable for lying .

 

Oh wait if they did that they would half to fire 95% of those in Washington ... GO FOR IT THEY ARE ALL NOTHING BUT A POS ...

[Tiberius]

17 minutes ago, T master said:

If nothing else this shows that his team were not involved in any type of coup against the gov't and even though Trumps words were definitely inflammatory to get people riled up he didn't tell them point blank you need to go attack the capital but i do agree he should have said something to deescalate the problem i don't know if it would have helped in any way at that time .

 

Liz Cheney being as bad as Romney i don't put any faith in either of them so as long as what she is reading is fact i'm all in on bringing in those that need to testify as long as they do the same to all involved in the fake Russian BS that they used for 4 yrs to try & accuse Trump of things that never happened .

 

Bring Trump in too to ask him why he didn't say a thing for how ever long as long as you bring in Obama, Hillary and those that had something to do with the Russian BS to testify rather than letting them skate free as if they did nothing at all in that fiasco .

 

If your going to do this kind of thing to place blame for what could be a ridiculous came then dammit get all of them that pull the same crap and has been proven don't just cherry pick what they want to be wrong & right nail all their asses to the wall what's good for the goose is good for the gander & hold them all no matter who that might be accountable for lying .

 

Oh wait if they did that they would half to fire 95% of those in Washington ... GO FOR IT THEY ARE ALL NOTHING BUT A POS ...

What about his phone call to all the states he lost asking them to find votes? Put these together and "coup" seems like the right term 

20 minutes ago, Irv said:

Insurrection.  Poor demented Biden.  What a joke.  Smoke screen to cover Demented Biden never-ending failures. What a mess.  

 

 

 

Biden isn't sucking up to the KGB 

[T master]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

What about his phone call to all the states he lost asking them to find votes? Put these together and "coup" seems like the right term 

 

Biden isn't sucking up to the KGB 

 

You can ask what ever you want but if there is no evidence to it then it's BS ! Just like all the stuff they asked about the Russian collusion thing they asked spent a S**T ton of money while doing it but it was all nothing but a S**T Ton of BS ... So it's kind of tit for tat if you ask me !

 

The guy has a ego & hates to lose and although i don't know if it's true i have heard that (which it is to late now & not enough to make a difference) that Az. & PA have found enough votes that they could have been Trumps again i don't know that to be positive just here say from people i know .

 

But with that you don't know unless you ask and find out & with the ego he has and hatred of losing being a multi billionaire that fueled his distaste for losing which does not in any way give him a pass but to go as far as a coup i just take it him being him self a loud mouth but that's just me you say tomato i say tomoto.

 

And although Biden may not be sucking up to Russia he sucking something else of the Pres. in China !! 

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, T master said:

 

You can ask what ever you want but if there is no evidence to it then it's BS ! Just like all the stuff they asked about the Russian collusion thing they asked spent a S**T ton of money while doing it but it was all nothing but a S**T Ton of BS ... So it's kind of tit for tat if you ask me !

 

The guy has a ego & hates to lose and although i don't know if it's true i have heard that (which it is to late now & not enough to make a difference) that Az. & PA have found enough votes that they could have been Trumps again i don't know that to be positive just here say from people i know .

 

But with that you don't know unless you ask and find out & with the ego he has and hatred of losing being a multi billionaire that fueled his distaste for losing which does not in any way give him a pass but to go as far as a coup i just take it him being him self a loud mouth but that's just me you say tomato i say tomoto.

 

And although Biden may not be sucking up to Russia he sucking something else of the Pres. in China !! 

Theres evidence all over the place. You are just wearing blinders. 

 

Are you afraid that if you just accept obvious evidence your Conservatives friends will turn on you for accepting the truth? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

They show the President knew and did nothing. The commander and chief sat on his fat azz. 

That question was for @716er because he started the “Contempt Part II+” thread.  I assume he used “Part II” because the info he shared sorta blows up the Part I message points where Team Trump had formulated a devious plot to overthrow the govt.  

 

Still, in your case, it seems like you’re making the case that if you’re correct and Trump was just sitting around, apathy is criminal.  It isn’t.  

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That question was for @716er because he started the “Contempt Part II+” thread.  I assume he used “Part II” because the info he shared sorta blows up the Part I message points where Team Trump had formulated a devious plot to overthrow the govt.  

 

Still, in your case, it seems like you’re making the case that if you’re correct and Trump was just sitting around, apathy is criminal.  It isn’t.  

You admit he did nothing, right? You are just saying that that is not a crime. Like when an arsonist starts a fire, he is not committing a crime by not helping put it out. Right? 

 

I disagree. (Hey, I get he will get away with his crimes, just want to say that,) But it's his job to preserve and protect the constitution and he organized a threat against that constitution and wouldn't stop it. That's criminal. 

 

And I suppose this won't stop now, just like the Beer Hall Putche, Hitler's first run. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You admit he did nothing, right? You are just saying that that is not a crime. Like when an arsonist starts a fire, he is not committing a crime by not helping put it out. Right? 

 

I disagree. (Hey, I get he will get away with his crimes, just want to say that,) But it's his job to preserve and protect the constitution and he organized a threat against that constitution and wouldn't stop it. That's criminal. 

 

And I suppose this won't stop now, just like the Beer Hall Putche, Hitler's first run. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, no.  Your analogy is silly, Tibs.  Arson is a crime, so the act of setting an intentional fire is the problem for the arsonist.  “Not helping to put out a fire” is not a crime for anyone, ever, is it?  Or, in your future world, are we rounding up all the rubber-necker at fire and accident scenes across the country?  
 

It seems to me you’ve tapped out on the analysis that Trump was part of a grand conspiracy and I applaud you for this awakening.  It’s important to know the genesis of one’s outrage.  
 

Once you move past that, the only real question is whether or not a political witch hunt is time money well-spent in Congress.   
 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Well, no.  Your analogy is silly, Tibs.  Arson is a crime, so the act of setting an intentional fire is the problem for the arsonist.  “Not helping to put out a fire” is not a crime for anyone, ever, is it?  Or, in your future world, are we rounding up all the rubber-necker at fire and accident scenes across the country?  
 

It seems to me you’ve tapped out on the analysis that Trump was part of a grand conspiracy and I applaud you for this awakening.  It’s important to know the genesis of one’s outrage.  
 

Once you move past that, the only real question is whether or not a political witch hunt is time money well-spent in Congress.   
 

 

Starting a riot is a crime, but I get you will say all Trump's rhetoric didn't start it, which is not true, but ok. 

 

Obstruction of an official act, is a crime. Trump did that, on many fronts, The riot (Yes, you say that just happened, evidence to the contrary) was part of obstrution effort. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Starting a riot is a crime, but I get you will say all Trump's rhetoric didn't start it, which is not true, but ok. 

 

Obstruction of an official act, is a crime. Trump did that, on many fronts, The riot (Yes, you say that just happened, evidence to the contrary) was part of obstrution effort. 

Your people already tried the “phony treason oh no it was obstruction” grift with Russiagate.  You can’t keep going back to the well in this one.  
 

Your attempt to conflate political rhetoric to an arsonist setting a fire was sad, but I’m happy for you that you dropped it quickly when called on it.   
 

Trump has not been charged nor convicted of obstruction in any way, shape or form beyond some dopey politicians in political  committees suggesting he has been.  You don’t have to be their huckleberry, Tibs.  
 

As for fomenting a riot, we have specific laws for that and to

my knowledge, Trump has not been charged in a criminal proceeding with anything remotely approaching that, has he?  (Hint:  I know the answer, and I know you know the answer as well). 

[716er]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That question was for @716er because he started the “Contempt Part II+” thread.  I assume he used “Part II” because the info he shared sorta blows up the Part I message points where Team Trump had formulated a devious plot to overthrow the govt.  

 

Still, in your case, it seems like you’re making the case that if you’re correct and Trump was just sitting around, apathy is criminal.  It isn’t.  

 

Contempt Part I was Bannon, silly. 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, T master said:

 

You can ask what ever you want but if there is no evidence to it then it's BS ! Just like all the stuff they asked about the Russian collusion thing they asked spent a S**T ton of money while doing it but it was all nothing but a S**T Ton of BS ... So it's kind of tit for tat if you ask me !

 

The guy has a ego & hates to lose and although i don't know if it's true i have heard that (which it is to late now & not enough to make a difference) that Az. & PA have found enough votes that they could have been Trumps again i don't know that to be positive just here say from people i know .

 

But with that you don't know unless you ask and find out & with the ego he has and hatred of losing being a multi billionaire that fueled his distaste for losing which does not in any way give him a pass but to go as far as a coup i just take it him being him self a loud mouth but that's just me you say tomato i say tomoto.

 

And although Biden may not be sucking up to Russia he sucking something else of the Pres. in China !! 

You sound like a true Independent. Just like your friend @Over 29 years of fanhood.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

Contempt Part I was Bannon, silly. 

Oh.  That would have made a better title.  
 

As for the context of the texts and information you shared, it seems Team Trump was horrified by the rioting, huh?  

[Tiberius]

17 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Your people already tried the “phony treason oh no it was obstruction” grift with Russiagate.  You can’t keep going back to the well in this one.  
 

Your attempt to conflate political rhetoric to an arsonist setting a fire was sad, but I’m happy for you that you dropped it quickly when called on it.   
 

Trump has not been charged nor convicted of obstruction in any way, shape or form beyond some dopey politicians in political  committees suggesting he has been.  You don’t have to be their huckleberry, Tibs.  
 

As for fomenting a riot, we have specific laws for that and to

my knowledge, Trump has not been charged in a criminal proceeding with anything remotely approaching that, has he?  (Hint:  I know the answer, and I know you know the answer as well). 

Since he does so many undemocratic, unethical and criminal acts the law should be going after him. That you use his actions with Russia as a defense to other illegal acts is silly. He is a serial wrong doer and yes, he has protection because of his position, that does not equal innocence. He did work with Russia 

 

You do not think he stirred the riot, correct? I say thats you pro-Trump bias showing. You are wearing political blinders 

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Oh.  That would have made a better title.  
 

As for the context of the texts and information you shared, it seems Team Trump was horrified by the rioting, huh?  

Rightly so, right? 

[Irv]

Riot?  What a mess.  

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

26 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Since he does so many undemocratic, unethical and criminal acts the law should be going after him. That you use his actions with Russia as a defense to other illegal acts is silly. He is a serial wrong doer and yes, he has protection because of his position, that does not equal innocence. He did work with Russia 

You are making less sense here than you did on the your “The arsonist’s biggest crime is not fighting the fire” theorem. 
 

When he was vindicated on Russia in a complete bully beat down of epic proportions, it was because the democrat party, with assurance of entrenched establishment republicans set it up.   
 

I have been vocal on the wrongdoing of the people who rioted at the Capitol and the need for criminal charges.  
 

IMO, however the greater assault on our democratic process took place with the attempt to unseat President Trump than some numbnuts in deer skin wheeling around a baby gallows.  

 

Your characterization of Trump and alleged wrongdoing fails the most basic test imaginable. 70+ years in the public eye and he’s still standing, laughing, not a criminal indictment for anything. 
 

But, you know, with the  release of this incredible treasure trove of documents detailing the exact opposite of what you’ve been lead to believe—-🤣🤣🤣🤣—-maybe this is it.  
 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

You do not think he stirred the riot, correct? I say thats you pro-Trump bias showing. You are wearing political blinders 

I don’t think he “stirred” anything.  He held a political rally following the same strategy that worked very well for your leaders for nearly 5 years.  I think the texts and emails confirm that, which is why I pointed it out here. 
 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Rightly so, right? 

I’ve condemned the rioters in Washington from day one.   I’m glad they did as well, which is the whole point.  
 

My question for you is why you and key dem  leadership support rioting, death and destruction everywhere outside of Washington?  

 

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You are making less sense here than you did on the your “The arsonist’s biggest crime is not fighting the fire” theorem. 
 

When he was vindicated on Russia in a complete bully beat down of epic proportions, it was because the democrat party, with assurance of entrenched establishment republicans set it up.   
 

I have been vocal on the wrongdoing of the people who rioted at the Capitol and the need for criminal charges.  
 

IMO, however the greater assault on our democratic process took place with the attempt to unseat President Trump than some numbnuts in deer skin wheeling around a baby gallows.  

 

Your characterization of Trump and alleged wrongdoing fails the most basic test imaginable. 70+ years in the public eye and he’s still standing, laughing, not a criminal indictment for anything. 
 

But, you know, with the  release of this incredible treasure trove of documents detailing the exact opposite of what you’ve been lead to believe—-🤣🤣🤣🤣—-maybe this is it.  
 

 

 

I don’t think he “stirred” anything.  He held a political rally following the same strategy that worked very well for your leaders for nearly 5 years.  I think the texts and emails confirm that, which is why I pointed it out here. 
 

 

 

I’ve condemned the rioters in Washington from day one.   I’m glad they did as well, which is the whole point.  
 

My question for you is why you and key dem  leadership support rioting, death and destruction everywhere outside of Washington?  

 

Why did he hold a rally on the day congress was certifying his loss? 
 

Hint, to overturn the loss by violence and intimidation. 
 

Take off your political blunders 

[JaCrispy]

17 hours ago, Doc said:

Combine this useless thread with the other one. 

Hard to believe anyone is still following this “dog and pony show”...just an extension of the comical impeachment trials, and the Establishment’s attempt to distract from the actual destruction of the country from within...😉

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by JaCrispy

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 minutes ago, Irv said:

Riot?  What a mess.  

 

 

I think the assault on 1/6 included rioting.  Those r*tards assaulting police and breaking the glass at the checkpoint need to be charged.  
 

But, that’s on them, not Trump.