GoCubsGo wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 11:25 pm
Why do they never actually defend the crimes and go straight to whataboutisms. :headscratch:
Yeah, that drives me nutz. But of course it's because there isn't any actual defense. In the "documents" case, no matter how you might waffle around Trump's taking the material to Mar a Lago, and no matter how you proclaim his authority to read, hold, and de-classify, once you've reached the point where he's no longer President* and has been formally asked to return the docs, he has no defensible answer.
I'm pretty sure that's NOT what "the law and standard is", but even if it were, there's that little problem of Trump not being President* any more and refusing to produce after subpoena.
When are these clowns going to realize that no matter what Trump was or they thought he was, Trump is damaged goods with no loyalty whatsoever to anybody. Not that I care if Jordan crashes and burns, but it can't possibly be in his own best interest to keep shilling for that albatross.
Interesting, and expected, that the RepuQ's are nit-picking their way to be able to say he's technically not guilty. No defense at all of the substance of the charges. In my (former) world, that would be like my client telling an employee "I don't promote black chicks I haven't (slept with)" and my first offered defense is "well, really, she isn't all that black."
O Really wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2023 2:24 pmInteresting, and expected, that the RepuQ's are nit-picking their way to be able to say he's technically not guilty. No defense at all of the substance of the charges. In my (former) world, that would be like my client telling an employee "I don't promote black chicks I haven't (slept with)" and my first offered defense is "well, really, she isn't all that black."
They also deny the criminality of the J6 terrorists. However, on this planet:
... Forrest Rogers, an American living in Germany on Jan. 6, first surfaced evidence that Rodriguez electroshocked (Capitol Police officer) Fanone after pouring over online footage frame by frame as part of his work for "Deep State Dogs," one of the groups of online "Sedition Hunters" that popped up in the wake of Jan. 6 to identify Capitol rioters. After Rogers tweeted footage of the incident, Rodriguez was identified by activists who knew the MAGA-hatted man from the protest scene in Beverly Hills.
More than 1,000 people have been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, and nearly 600 have pleaded guilty. Of the approximately 524 defendants who have been sentenced, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, about 310 have been sentenced to periods of incarceration that have ranged from a few days to nearly two decades in prison. The sentences continue on a nearly daily basis: D.C. chiropractor David Walls-Kaufman was sentenced to 60 days of incarceration after admitting that he "scuffled" with officers inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, including an officer who died by suicide nine days later.
The longest sentence for a Jan. 6 defendant to date — 18 years in federal prison — went to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy in November 2022. Federal prosecutors had sought a sentence of 25 years in federal prison in that case.
Two other Jan. 6 defendants who assaulted Fanone have received significant sentences. Kyle Young — a Jan. 6 rioter who was accompanied by his teenage son when he handed Rodriguez the electroshock weapon used to attack Fanone, whom Young grabbed during the attack — was sentenced to more than seven years in federal prison in September. Albuquerque Head — a Jan. 6 rioter who yelled "I got one!" when he seized Fanone and dragged him into the mob — was sentenced to 7.5 years in federal prison in October.
GoDoJGo
Trump LOST! America is winning.
The Truth Will Set You Free, But First It Will Piss You Off
-- Gloria Steinem
1312. ETTD. 86 47.
Did these moon-barking election deniers ever explain how it was that it was Republican-run states with Republican-run elections that were somehow "rigged" against Trump but not against the Republican senators and congresscritters that got elected? Rhetorical question.
O Really wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:13 am
Did these moon-barking election deniers ever explain how it was that it was Republican-run states with Republican-run elections that were somehow "rigged" against Trump but not against the Republican senators and congresscritters that got elected? Rhetorical question.
Deep State and New World Order don'tcha know.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
O Really wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:13 am
Did these moon-barking election deniers ever explain how it was that it was Republican-run states with Republican-run elections that were somehow "rigged" against Trump but not against the Republican senators and congresscritters that got elected? Rhetorical question.
Deep State and New World Order don'tcha know.
And nobody seems to find it strange that in all the years, nobody has spilled the beans on their deathbed or been caught or even credibly accused of being directly involved in any of that stuff. Oh wait - if anybody had been caught/charged, the "deep state" would have made the charge go away, destroy all records, and give the guy a selective loss of memory. Sure, that's the ticket.
O Really wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:13 am
Did these moon-barking election deniers ever explain how it was that it was Republican-run states with Republican-run elections that were somehow "rigged" against Trump but not against the Republican senators and congresscritters that got elected? Rhetorical question.
Deep State and New World Order don'tcha know.
And nobody seems to find it strange that in all the years, nobody has spilled the beans on their deathbed or been caught or even credibly accused of being directly involved in any of that stuff. Oh wait - if anybody had been caught/charged, the "deep state" would have made the charge go away, destroy all records, and give the guy a selective loss of memory. Sure, that's the ticket.
Haven't we all been beating our heads trying to explain the unexplainable with these people?
Ignoring facts that don't fit their narrative is one of their best things.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
Ignoring facts that don't fit their narrative is one of their best things.
And an essential skill too, as there are no facts that fit their narrative.
You've forgotten about "alternative facts."
Yeah, that was fun, and was created by somebody who tried to use a term they didn't understand. The correct term is "alternative set of facts".
Fact set 1:
Jean Valjean is caught breaking into the bakery and has a stolen loaf of bread in his hand. (totally factual)
Fact set 2:
Jean Valjean's child is starving and the baker owed Valjean for some work. (also totally factual)
Applying different fact sets in one's argument for guilt or innocence can make a big difference.
