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

[B-Man]

41 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

When you count the number of words in the thread title…..

 

 

It shows that you would like to make your point.

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

14 hours ago, Tiberius said:

So you still saying the "Stop the Steal" rally was about celebrating the peaceful transfer of power? LOL 

I’ve never said that Tibsy.  Since I’ve never said that, either you are mistaken or you are being untruthful.  I would say the chances are better than 50/50 that you’re being untruthful deliberately.  
 

What I have said is that the “STS” rally was a political rally that represented day one of campaigning for future political events….mid terms, 2024, etc. I’ve also said I thought it was a mistake for DJT to run that particular rally on that day, and that those who broke the law should be criminally charged.  
 

 
 

 

[SectionC3]

16 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

When one loses and argument they typically change the subject, don't respond or resort to name calling.  You got two of the three. 

 

You've lost this one big time and you know it but you're too afraid to admit it.  I sure hope you're not involved in litigation.  If you are I would love to see your won/loss record.  Stick with personal injury.  It suits you better. 

 

You can save face buy telling us now what makes the GA law Jim Crow on steroids. 

 

Common man.....debate the issue or go home.  

Hoax.  You were told.  Maybe you're illiterate.  Or only moderately literate.  That might explain things.  

Just now, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  You were told.  Maybe you're illiterate.  Or only moderately literate.  That might explain things.  

 

Edit:  I forgot to add my wish that you have a nice day, Chef Jim Crow. 

[Tiberius]

9 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’ve never said that Tibsy.  Since I’ve never said that, either you are mistaken or you are being untruthful.  I would say the chances are better than 50/50 that you’re being untruthful deliberately.  
 

What I have said is that the “STS” rally was a political rally that represented day one of campaigning for future political events….mid terms, 2024, etc. I’ve also said I thought it was a mistake for DJT to run that particular rally on that day, and that those who broke the law should be criminally charged.  
 

 
 

 

No, it was literally what it said it was, an attempt to stop the election count. Stop trying to BS about this. Just be honest. 

18 hours ago, Irv said:

Insurrection!  

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No, it was literally what it said it was, an attempt to stop the election count. Stop trying to BS about this. Just be honest. 

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting the constitution limits those topics that The People can protest? I sure hope not. 

[Tiberius]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting the constitution limits those topics that The People can protest? I sure hope not. 

The rally was designed to pressure Congress and Trump sent them to the capital to "stop the steal" 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The rally was designed to pressure Congress and Trump sent them to the capital to "stop the steal" 

So? Let me repeat it…are you suggesting that the constitution limits what The People can assemble and protest against? I sure hope not!

[wnyguy]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So? Let me repeat it…are you suggesting that the constitution limits what The People can assemble and protest against? I sure hope not!

Tibs? Question above for ya

[Doc]

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The rally was designed to pressure Congress and Trump sent them to the capital to "stop the steal" 

 

Yup.  He wanted them to protest peacefully and patriotically from outside.  Which is their right.  

[Tiberius]

25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So? Let me repeat it…are you suggesting that the constitution limits what The People can assemble and protest against? I sure hope not!

Causing a riot is illegal. Duh. 

18 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

Tibs? Question above for ya

Are you allowed to call a person on the phone and threaten to kill them? Yes or no? 

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Causing a riot is illegal. Duh. 

Are you allowed to call a person on the phone and threaten to kill them? Yes or no? 

Unless the riot is about something that advances the Left’s march to unyielding power….correct? Give me a break!

[Irv]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Causing a riot is illegal. Duh. 

Are you allowed to call a person on the phone and threaten to kill them? Yes or no? 

But the riots in Portland were ok.  Duh.

[Doc]

22 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Causing a riot is illegal. Duh. 

 

True.  But correlation doesn't equal causation.  You still need to prove he told them to get violent, much less break into the Capitol.  And obviously they have nothing in that department.  

Edited December 17, 2021 by Doc

[Tiberius]

45 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yup.  He wanted them to protest peacefully and patriotically from outside.  Which is their right.  

Violently and unpatriotically. What patriot makes up lies to undermine our democratic system? 

 

Criminal 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

59 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No, it was literally what it said it was, an attempt to stop the election count. Stop trying to BS about this. Just be honest. 

There’s nothing to “BS” about.   It was a political rally designed for political effect.  
 

The decision to have the rally can and will be debated, and the question about transition/tradition  and allowing Biden his day can be debated as well.   
 

The reality was that Biden was going to president (even if he thought in the moment he was elected president of the local Rotary), and if I knew that, surely his team of lawyers and advisors knew it as well.   Likewise, it was clear early on in the Russia investigation that no cause existed, and nothing would come of it unless Trump was caught in a procedural misstep.  Same with Ukraine, same with the congressional committee immortalized with the slogan “if you exercise your rights you’re obviously guilty”. 
 

What is not debatable is watching da  Democrat morph in real time.  
 

If Schiff had hard evidence that Trump was a coup plotter, the DOJ would as well.  There would be no need to launch political  fishing expeditions, or attempt to criminalize what you all seem to characterize as apathy.  
 

Do you believe for a moment that the DOJ under the leadership of Supreme Court Almost Justice Garland would hold back? 
 

I’m happy to revisit this issue when hard evidence against DJT is presented in front of a judge where perjury and misrepresentation by all parties can have significant consequences.  That standard doesn’t apply to Congress, so toss out 80% as posturing and recognize that another 18% is manufactured.   
 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There’s nothing to “BS” about.   It was a political rally designed for political effect.  
 

The decision to have the rally can and will be debated, and the question about transition/tradition  and allowing Biden his day can be debated as well.   
 

The reality was that Biden was going to president (even if he thought in the moment he was elected president of the local Rotary), and if I knew that, surely his team of lawyers and advisors knew it as well.   Likewise, it was clear early on in the Russia investigation that no cause existed, and nothing would come of it unless Trump was caught in a procedural misstep.  Same with Ukraine, same with the congressional committee immortalized with the slogan “if you exercise your rights you’re obviously guilty”. 
 

What is not debatable is watching da  Democrat morph in real time.  
 

If Schiff had hard evidence that Trump was a coup plotter, the DOJ would as well.  There would be no need to launch political  fishing expeditions, or attempt to criminalize what you all seem to characterize as apathy.  
 

Do you believe for a moment that the DOJ under the leadership of Supreme Court Almost Justice Garland would hold back? 
 

I’m happy to revisit this issue when hard evidence against DJT is presented in front of a judge where perjury and misrepresentation by all parties can have significant consequences.  That standard doesn’t apply to Congress, so toss out 80% as posturing and recognize that another 18% is manufactured.   
 

 

 

 

It was designed to stop a steal that never happened. No fraud, and you say no BS? It was all BS. Pump up a bunch of idiots with lies and send them on the capital, and look what happens. You people are just the worst. Lying to protect this stuff. Go live in Russia 

[Doc]

55 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Violently and unpatriotically. What patriot makes up lies to undermine our democratic system? 

 

Criminal 

 

Ask your leaders, regarding 2016.  You/your party lost all moral high ground when you made up lies about Trump being a Russian agent, just to throw the election into doubt and get him out of office.  Unfortunately that didn't last for just a few hours on one afternoon.

[Tiberius]

Love it how you people were pulling out your short hairs over Hillary’s nonexistent “stand down” order. 

[Doc]

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Love it how you people were pulling out your short hairs over Hillary’s nonexistent “stand down” order. 

 

Holy non-sequitur, Batman!

[BillStime]

The actual events at the Capitol is just one of may facets the Trump administration took to overthrow a duly elected President.

 

The amount of evidence is indisputable and @Doc and all the rest of the anti democratic cult are deranged if they think downplaying what happened AND comparing it to the 2020 BLM protests and spinning Trumps collusion with Russia in 2016 justifies what happened leading up to and after the election.

 

ETTD