B-Man Posted October 12, 2021 Share Posted October 12, 2021 Back to the (Faux) Insurrection. Hahahahahahahahaha ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 12, 2021 Share Posted October 12, 2021 1 hour ago, BillStime said: So why fight the subpoenas? Maybe...to not indulge the dog-and-pony show? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 12, 2021 Share Posted October 12, 2021 25 minutes ago, Doc said: Maybe...to not indulge the dog-and-pony show? Do they have a choice? How many people died that day? No justice for the American Taliban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 12, 2021 Share Posted October 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Doc said: Maybe...to not indulge the dog-and-pony show? Indulge is the correct word Doc, thanks. Too bad the Insurrection-fanatics here can't understand 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted October 12, 2021 Share Posted October 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Doc said: Maybe...to not indulge the dog-and-pony show? There’s not a lawyer in America who wouldn’t tell his client to fight a subpoena. Nothing good comes of it whether you’re guilty or innocent. Adults know stuff like this. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 12, 2021 Share Posted October 12, 2021 39 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: There’s not a lawyer in America who wouldn’t tell his client to fight a subpoena. Nothing good comes of it whether you’re guilty or innocent. Adults know stuff like this. Or friend who was retired law enforcement told me one time that if the police invited him in to talk about a situation (where he was not and independent witness w/re to facts) he would decline and get an attorney. When I told him that surprised me, he said bluntly “They are investigating a crime, they are not your friends, and they are counting on you to speak freely. It’s almost always a mistake. If you’re innocent you should take advantage of your right to counsel to avoid confusion, if you’re not well all the more reason”. Sidebar…the same guy bought a really nice piece of property on a lake in the Adirondacks from a whiskey boozing alchy. He cleaned the place up, put a ton of money into it and put a fence in to block access to his lakefront that the prior owner didn’t care about. Soon, his place was getting vandalized, though no other vandalism occurred to the neighbors property. Fence busted. Grill flipped over. Trailer tires punctured. Lawn mower stolen. Tractor pushed into the lake. He called the police, they canvassed and turns out no one knew nothing. He thought that was odd. Eventually though, the same thing started happening to the neighbors around him. Tells me the police and a neighbor came over one day to inquire about tires punctured and damage to the neighbors trailer. My friend tells me he said “Man, that is crazy. People were vandalizing my stuff and nobody saw or heard anything. Now, it’s happening to you. That’s weird, huh?”. He told the police he would keep an eye out but was sorry he couldn’t help. Then he stopped, looked at me and said for emphasis, “What are the chances?”. He said that was pretty much the end of vandalism at the lake. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 12, 2021 Share Posted October 12, 2021 2 hours ago, BillStime said: Do they have a choice? How many people died that day? No justice for the American Taliban? One person: an unarmed protestor. The government is protecting her killer. Your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 3 minutes ago, Doc said: One person: an unarmed protestor. The government is protecting her killer. Your point? How many people died that day? Why did the cop shoot Miss American Taliban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Doc said: One person: an unarmed protestor. The government is protecting her killer. Your point? He has no point. He is simply trying to distract you. Edited October 13, 2021 by B-Man 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: He has no point. He is simply trying to distract you. Sayz the master spammer - lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beach Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 BStime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 14 minutes ago, BillStime said: How many people died that day? Why did the cop shoot Miss American Taliban? I told you. For the same reason Chauvin killed George Floyd. 11 minutes ago, B-Man said: He has no point. He is simply trying to distract you. Come on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 9 minutes ago, Doc said: I told you. For the same reason Chauvin killed George Floyd. Come on! How many people died that day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 17 minutes ago, BillStime said: How many people died that day? You mean from non-natural causes? Again, one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 6 minutes ago, Doc said: You mean from non-natural causes? Again, one. How many people died that day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 24 minutes ago, BillStime said: Squirrels are becoming exhausted carrying Billzy's posts this page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 Just now, BillStime said: How many people died that day? Thousands of people across the country died of natural causes that day. Some did that day at the Capitol. But only 1 person was killed that day and she was an unarmed protestor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 8 minutes ago, Doc said: Thousands of people across the country died of natural causes that day. Some did that day at the Capitol. But only 1 person was killed that day and she was an unarmed protestor. ETTD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 Unarmed? Right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 TEA PAIN ALERT !!! Well Tea, perhaps you should actually read past the Headline. Was Jan. 6 an 'Armed Insurrection'? by Byron York It has become common in some circles to call the Jan. 6 Capitol riot an "armed insurrection." That leads to a few questions: How many rioters were armed? And what weapons did they have? What were the arms in the "armed insurrection"? The Justice Department maintains a website listing the defendants and the federal charges against them in the sprawling Capitol riot investigation. At this moment, about 670 people have been charged, many of them with misdemeanors like "Parading, Demonstrating or Picketing in a Capitol Building." Of the 670, I counted 82 who face weapons-related charges. That's about 12% of the total. And of course, the number of people charged with anything, 670, is far smaller than the number who were on Capitol grounds that day. The 82 face one or more of four possible charges: "Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon"; "Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon"; "Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon"; and "Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon." For each charge, prosecutors have specified the weapon the defendant is accused of using. Here is a representative list of those weapons: A helmet. A baton. A crutch. A walking stick. Handgun. Pepper spray. Flagpole. Knife. Baseball bat. Crowd control barrier. Police shield. Hockey stick. Axe. Metal sign. Desk drawer. Obviously, guns are the most serious concern. Of the 670, five suspects -- Christopher Michael Alberts, Lonnie Leroy Coffman, Mark Sami Ibrahim, Cleveland Grover Meredith Jr. and Guy Wesley Reffitt -- are charged with possessing firearms. But none are charged with using them during the riot. {snip} Were there more? Since few arrests were made on the scene, maybe so. We don't know. What is certain is that none of the suspects fired any guns at any time during the riot, even though the physical fighting became quite intense. The only shot that was fired during that time was by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, who shot and killed rioter Ashli Babbitt as she tried to force her way into an area near the House chamber. As for the other weapons, six defendants are charged with having a knife, although none are accused of using it on another person. Some weapons were clearly brought in anticipation of a fight. Some rioters thought they would be battling antifa. But most of the weapons were improvised on the scene. That does not mean they were not dangerous. But it does suggest that the rioters did not arrive at the Capitol bent on "armed insurrection." The big picture: Only a small percentage of the people at the "armed insurrection" were armed with anything. And just five of them -- less than 1% of those charged -- have been charged with possessing firearms, which are the traditional weapon of choice for modern armed insurrectionists. One of them didn't even arrive until after it was all over. And none fired the weapons. And that is the problem with the "armed insurrection" talking point. By any current American standard of civil disorder, what happened on Jan. 6 was a riot. There was fighting. There was property destruction. There were some instigators, and there were many more followers. And as the day went on, some people lost their heads and did things they should regret for a very long time. But a look at the Justice Department prosecutions simply does not make the case that it was an "armed insurrection." https://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2021/10/13/was-jan-6-an-armed-insurrection-n2597340 Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 1 minute ago, B-Man said: TEA PAIN ALERT !!! Well Tea, perhaps you should actually read past the Headline. Was Jan. 6 an 'Armed Insurrection'? by Byron York It has become common in some circles to call the Jan. 6 Capitol riot an "armed insurrection." That leads to a few questions: How many rioters were armed? And what weapons did they have? What were the arms in the "armed insurrection"? The Justice Department maintains a website listing the defendants and the federal charges against them in the sprawling Capitol riot investigation. At this moment, about 670 people have been charged, many of them with misdemeanors like "Parading, Demonstrating or Picketing in a Capitol Building." Of the 670, I counted 82 who face weapons-related charges. That's about 12% of the total. And of course, the number of people charged with anything, 670, is far smaller than the number who were on Capitol grounds that day. The 82 face one or more of four possible charges: "Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon"; "Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon"; "Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon"; and "Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon." For each charge, prosecutors have specified the weapon the defendant is accused of using. Here is a representative list of those weapons: A helmet. A baton. A crutch. A walking stick. Handgun. Pepper spray. Flagpole. Knife. Baseball bat. Crowd control barrier. Police shield. Hockey stick. Axe. Metal sign. Desk drawer. Obviously, guns are the most serious concern. Of the 670, five suspects -- Christopher Michael Alberts, Lonnie Leroy Coffman, Mark Sami Ibrahim, Cleveland Grover Meredith Jr. and Guy Wesley Reffitt -- are charged with possessing firearms. But none are charged with using them during the riot. {snip} Were there more? Since few arrests were made on the scene, maybe so. We don't know. What is certain is that none of the suspects fired any guns at any time during the riot, even though the physical fighting became quite intense. The only shot that was fired during that time was by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, who shot and killed rioter Ashli Babbitt as she tried to force her way into an area near the House chamber. As for the other weapons, six defendants are charged with having a knife, although none are accused of using it on another person. Some weapons were clearly brought in anticipation of a fight. Some rioters thought they would be battling antifa. But most of the weapons were improvised on the scene. That does not mean they were not dangerous. But it does suggest that the rioters did not arrive at the Capitol bent on "armed insurrection." The big picture: Only a small percentage of the people at the "armed insurrection" were armed with anything. And just five of them -- less than 1% of those charged -- have been charged with possessing firearms, which are the traditional weapon of choice for modern armed insurrectionists. One of them didn't even arrive until after it was all over. And none fired the weapons. And that is the problem with the "armed insurrection" talking point. By any current American standard of civil disorder, what happened on Jan. 6 was a riot. There was fighting. There was property destruction. There were some instigators, and there were many more followers. And as the day went on, some people lost their heads and did things they should regret for a very long time. But a look at the Justice Department prosecutions simply does not make the case that it was an "armed insurrection." https://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2021/10/13/was-jan-6-an-armed-insurrection-n2597340 Amen. Yes, it was an insurrection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 1 minute ago, BillStime said: Yes, it was an insurrection. Someone can't read. and by someone, I mean my little shadow, Billstime. 😆 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 14 minutes ago, B-Man said: Someone can't read. and by someone, I mean my little shadow, Billstime. 😆 LMAO - the definition of insurrection has nothing to do with arms - but as it turns out - ARMS were present... How many people died and injured that day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 17 minutes ago, BillStime said: LMAO - the definition of insurrection has nothing to do with arms - but as it turns out - ARMS were present... How many people died and injured that day? I knew that you didn't read the earlier post. The big picture: Only a small percentage of the people at the "armed insurrection" were armed with anything. And just five of them -- less than 1% of those charged -- have been charged with possessing firearms, which are the traditional weapon of choice for modern armed insurrectionists. One of them didn't even arrive until after it was all over. And none fired the weapons. Fortunately, You have answered yourself earlier. 20 hours ago, BillStime said: You like to read more into everything to help build an argument that doesn’t exist. 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 21 minutes ago, B-Man said: I knew that you didn't read the earlier post. The big picture: Only a small percentage of the people at the "armed insurrection" were armed with anything. And just five of them -- less than 1% of those charged -- have been charged with possessing firearms, which are the traditional weapon of choice for modern armed insurrectionists. One of them didn't even arrive until after it was all over. And none fired the weapons. Fortunately, You have answered yourself earlier. 😂 I don't have to read everything you parrot - as you and the cult have been trying to rewrite the narrative of 1/6 to help minimize the significance of the events leading up to the election, after the election and the cherry on top: 1/6. Dude, you are on the WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY (on EVERY ISSUE) - but Trump's quest to retain power at all cost will NEVER BE FORGOTTEN. Keep trying Bonnie - it's hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 1 hour ago, BillStime said: LMAO - the definition of insurrection has nothing to do with arms - but as it turns out - ARMS were present... How many people died and injured that day? A lot fewer than the insurrections all last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 Fired from the Whitehouse in 2017. Subpoenaed to talk about events at the White House in 2020. They are that stupid . . . Oh no ! How can we keep our charade committee in the news ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamSandwhich Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 58 minutes ago, BillStime said: This is going to be fun, I'm not sure how they are going to prosecute them but it would be in their best interests not to. It would have wide ranging and perilous effects on free speech that would hamper politics and politicians in general if they try to take a former president down for speech. Speech which can only be loosely tied to the Jan 6th riot and only if you introduce partisan "feelings". As we all know, feelings are not facts. No politician will be able to publicly speak for fear it would start a riot. I think it's just a show trial to try and keep it front of mind in hopes it will help their chances in the interim. New flash, it is not work, Americans don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDD Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 (edited) 33 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said: No politician will be able to publicly speak for fear it would start a riot. And that's a bad thing?? Maybe they would just STFU and do their jobs then. Edited October 15, 2021 by LDD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamSandwhich Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 6 minutes ago, LDD said: And that's a bad thing?? Maybe they would just STFU and do their jobs then. Interesting take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 2 hours ago, BillStime said: LOL. The "may subpoena" bullschiff promise for the extremists here. Anyone with an IQ can tell you that this isn't going to happen. But I am sure that BillZtime enjoyed reading and posting it. Just don't forget to clean up your tissues you used. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 57 minutes ago, B-Man said: LOL. The "may subpoena" bullschiff promise for the extremists here. Anyone with an IQ can tell you that this isn't going to happen. But I am sure that BillZtime enjoyed reading and posting it. Just don't forget to clean up your tissues you used. Bonnie afraid... really afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 1 minute ago, BillStime said: Bonnie afraid... really afraid. I trust that’s sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 2 hours ago, HamSandwhich said: This is going to be fun, I'm not sure how they are going to prosecute them but it would be in their best interests not to. It would have wide ranging and perilous effects on free speech that would hamper politics and politicians in general if they try to take a former president down for speech. Speech which can only be loosely tied to the Jan 6th riot and only if you introduce partisan "feelings". As we all know, feelings are not facts. No politician will be able to publicly speak for fear it would start a riot. I think it's just a show trial to try and keep it front of mind in hopes it will help their chances in the interim. New flash, it is not work, Americans don't care. Nothing to do with the actual speech and everything leading up to and his role in executing this insurrection. Newsflash - no one expects Trump will ever see a jail cell... unlike the cult's disappointment with "LOCK HER UP!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamSandwhich Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 1 hour ago, BillStime said: Nothing to do with the actual speech and everything leading up to and his role in executing this insurrection. Newsflash - no one expects Trump will ever see a jail cell... unlike the cult's disappointment with "LOCK HER UP!" Actually, in this type of scenario, if he were to have direct connections to sending those rioters for the expressed reason of interrupting our democratic process, then I would be all for locking him up. That didn't happen, it would have been found by now, there have been investigations. This is just another witch hunt that will only serve to create the optics the Dems hope to create (the dems are and will fail this optic). For the record, I didn't like her but I was never part of the "lock her up" crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 2 hours ago, HamSandwhich said: Actually, in this type of scenario, if he were to have direct connections to sending those rioters for the expressed reason of interrupting our democratic process, then I would be all for locking him up. That didn't happen, it would have been found by now, there have been investigations. This is just another witch hunt that will only serve to create the optics the Dems hope to create (the dems are and will fail this optic). For the record, I didn't like her but I was never part of the "lock her up" crowd. Then if nothing happened - and Trump had nothing to do with the planning of the insurrection - then no reason for Trump to obstruct justice telling his cult not to honor their subpoena. Put your seatbelt on this is far from over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamSandwhich Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 39 minutes ago, BillStime said: Then if nothing happened - and Trump had nothing to do with the planning of the insurrection - then no reason for Trump to obstruct justice telling his cult not to honor their subpoena. Put your seatbelt on this is far from over. Same thing can be said about election and making sure of the integrity of the election. If you don’t have anything to hide then what is wrong with an audit? I’ll bet your were in the other side of that. We all know they are just looking for dirt or to slant something to what they want it to look like Ala Russia hoax. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts