Jump to content

POLICE STATE BIDEN TRIALS: Corrupt DOJ/FBI/GA DA/CO SC/ME SoS: Trump Indicted 4x.

BillsFanNC
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

All_Pro_Bills
All_Pro_Bills

Nothing said it better:  "Biden is the dictatorship they spent years pretending Trump was."

716er
716er
OrangeBills
OrangeBills

I'm quite confident that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.    Rule of Law, Freedom, Personal Responsibility, SMALL State, LESS Government, YOUR Money, YOU Earn It,

Posted Images

John from Riverside Hall of Famer

John from Riverside

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

You're right ill be watching exactly as much of it as I watched of the J6 sham hearings:

 

0.0 minutes.

Guarantee you’ll be coming with right wing takes after watching a three minute video from your favorite idiot, right wing commentators in your spam the board with it like you always do

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillsFanNC Hall of Famer

BillsFanNC

Posted
  • Author
Posted
15 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Guarantee you’ll be coming with right wing takes after watching a three minute video from your favorite idiot, right wing commentators in your spam the board with it like you always do

 

I guarantee you'll remain a useful idiot moron for the rest of your days.

 

Enjoy!

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillsFanNC Hall of Famer

BillsFanNC

Posted
  • Author
Posted
13 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

It’s interesting the way you put that disparaging me, but not in any way debunking what I claim you’re going to do that’s because you know you’re going to do it

 

1. You're a moron.

 

2. These are show trials. Like the Moscow trials of Stalin. Red meat for useful idiots like you.

 

3. Therefore, since I'm not a useful idiot like you I will not be watching the propaganda.

 

4. Non activist journalists who don't engage in propaganda will certainly cover the show trials. I will be citing them.

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
John from Riverside Hall of Famer

John from Riverside

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

1. You're a moron.

 

2. These are show trials. Like the Moscow trials of Stalin. Red meat for useful idiots like you.

 

3. Therefore, since I'm not a useful idiot like you I will not be watching the propaganda.

 

4. Non activist journalists who don't engage in propaganda will certainly cover the show trials. I will be citing them.

 

 

 

 

Did anybody accuse you of being useful?  By the way, you’re the first person on here to put up Dan Bongino so you already look like a ***** idiot

Edited by John from Riverside
  • Eyeroll 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillsFanNC Hall of Famer

BillsFanNC

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Did anybody accuse you of being useful?  By the way, you’re the first person on here to put up Dan Bongino so you already look like a ***** idiot

 

Again, it's a huge badge of honor to be "disparaged" by the likes of you.

 

Thank you very much.

Edited by BillsFanNC
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillsFanNC Hall of Famer

BillsFanNC

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Since we now unquestionably live in a police state, sound advice.

 

 

Let me add to this:  If the FBI comes to your doorstep or just gives you a phone call and asks you to come meet with them, do not answer questions without first contacting an attorney.

 

They are not there to listen to your side and include it in their decision-making.  Usually the decision re how to deal with you has already been made.  They are there to gather additional evidence in the form of any statement you might make.

You don't know what they already have -- and more importantly you don't know what they DON'T HAVE.
The reason for wanting to get you to talk is to fill in gaps where they lack evidence.  They will fill in those gaps with your own statements during questioning.  

 

You also don't know if they already have evidence re the questions they are asking.   What they are doing in that regard is trying to see if you will lie to them.  That will give them leverage to use against you later.

 

This is why you should never answer questions posed by the FBI in a surprise visit you are not expecting.
Same advice if they come with a search warrant.  You have to let them search -- but you do not need to talk to them or answer questions.

They are not there to be fair.  They are there to gather evidence.  Your answers to their questions is evidence and you are adding to the case they are trying to make when you give them information.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B-Man Hall of Famer

B-Man

Posted
Posted

No. Really ?

 

FBI Lies About ‘Highly Credible’ Source Claims Were Leaked To NYT And Spoonfed To Weiss

by Margot Cleveland

 

Emails obtained by the Heritage Foundation following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit  reveal that lies leaked to The New York Times about the origins of damning evidence implicating Hunter and Joe Biden in a bribery scandal were fed to Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss.

 

As I previously detailed, The New York Times reported those lies in its Dec. 11, 2020, article, “Material from Giuliani Spurred a Separate Justice Depart. Pursuit of Hunter Biden” — just a week after Americans first learned of the investigation of the now-president’s son. The Times’ reporting was “replete with falsehoods and deceptive narratives,”

 

https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/05/exclusive-fbi-lies-about-highly-credible-source-claims-were-leaked-to-nyt-and-spoonfed-to-weiss/

 

 

.

  • Shocked 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
B-Man Hall of Famer

B-Man

Posted
Posted

 

Reminder for those posters here still in heat.

 

 

 

There Is No Insurrection Case against Trump

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

September 5, 2023

 

 

 

If there were, the Justice Department would already have brought charges against him.

trump.jpg?w=789&ssl=1

 

 

You know insurrection is a crime, right?

 

Just to recap, under Section 2383 of the federal criminal code, a person is guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment, if he

incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.

 

And why do we need a refresher on this? Because the Department of Justice has been investigating Donald Trump and the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot for nearly three years, yet no insurrection charges have ever been brought against Trump or anyone else.

 

That should be in the front of our minds as anti-Trump obsessives, of the left and the right, proceed with their incendiary plot to disqualify Trump from seeking the presidency by inducing sympathetic state officials to brand him an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

 

The Justice Department — the arm of the United States government vested with responsibility to enforce the insurrection law — has not charged Trump with insurrection because it can’t prove Trump committed insurrection. Not with anything we would recognize as due process of law.

 

It’s not that Biden-DOJ-appointed special counsel Jack Smith hasn’t been trying. And it is obviously not that Smith is unwilling to stretch federal criminal laws to the breaking point to make a January 6 case against Trump. The insuperable hurdle is that the evidence does not support a charge of insurrection.

 

The Biden Justice Department, the most unabashedly political Justice Department in American history, has prosecuted about 1,100 people in connection with the riot, while blinking at the more lengthy and lethal rioting of the radical left. It has been moving heaven and earth to make criminal cases against the former Republican president, indicting him twice, even as it turns a blind eye to the Biden family influence-peddling scandal and willfully allows the statute-of-limitations on the crimes of the sitting Democratic president and his family to expire rather than filing indictments.

 

After years of investigating, Smith and the Biden Justice Department brought a January 6 indictment against Trump in the District of Columbia, which has the most Trump-hostile jury pool in the country. They then hit the jackpot by drawing an anti-Trump judge out of central casting — Obama appointee Tanya Chutkan, who, in a courthouse where the bench teems with Democratic appointees who’ve meted out harsh sentences to January 6 defendants, manages to stand out as the scourge of the Capitol riot. It is safe to say that Judge Chutkan has swallowed whole the Democratic Party hyperbole that our democracy stood on the precipice of doom due to a mere three hours of unrest — in which no security personnel were killed, which had not the remotest chance of reversing Biden’s victory, and which was so ineffectual that Congress was able to reconvene in the Capitol just a few hours later.

 

Nevertheless, gifted with this greatest home-field advantage of all time, Smith and his team haven’t charged Trump with insurrection. That’s because they don’t have a case. They desperately want to bring one, but they know that nothing would explode the Democrats’ January 6 myth-making like an acquittal of Donald Trump. And even with Judge Chutkan presiding and a Washington, D.C., jury, that’s what they’d get.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/there-is-no-insurrection-case-against-trump/

  • Agree 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tommy Callahan All Pro

Tommy Callahan

Posted
Posted (edited)

Even if/when these collapse.  Dirty money PACs will already be suing to keep him off the ticket. 

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/group-sues-block-trump-2024-ballot-citing-14th/story?id=102964534&cid=social_twitter_abcn

 

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/citizens-for-responsibility-and-ethics-in-washington/

Edited by Chris farley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
All_Pro_Bills Veteran

All_Pro_Bills

Posted
Posted
On 9/3/2023 at 6:04 PM, JDHillFan said:

One dumbass here says if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about. Who am I supposed to believe? 

It doesn't matter if you know you're innocent.  You still might have something to worry about.  Because what you think doesn't matter.  What matters is what the cops and investigators think.  That's why engaging legal counsel is a good idea.  And why making statements or answering questions beyond providing some basic information and being cooperative above level is discouraged.   

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALF All Pro

ALF

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Always trust the government.  They're there to help.

 

It still takes a unanimous jury to convict in a criminal case. I bet there will be a number of Republican jurors in the Georgia case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALF All Pro

ALF

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

 

 

In the big picture GOP or Dem shouldn't have anything to do with guilt or innocence.  

 

 

 

In this country people vote for their elected officials ,  juries are regular citizens, what other system do you prefer ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALF All Pro

ALF

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

its kind of basic.

 

Justice being blind to politics or money.

 

you know, why lady liberty is blindfolded.

 

 

 So you are saying it isn't with appeals . Again what better system do you propose for the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tommy Callahan All Pro

Tommy Callahan

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, ALF said:

 So you are saying it isn't with appeals . Again what better system do you propose for the US.

I don't propose a better system, I propose following the system as designed.

 

money in politics is destroying it. money and politics in the justice system, doesn't sound like a republic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Chris farley
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALF All Pro

ALF

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

I don't propose a better system, I propose following the system as designed.

 

money in politics is destroying it. money and politics in the justice system, doesn't sound like a republic.

 

Juries still have the final say regardless.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tommy Callahan All Pro

Tommy Callahan

Posted
Posted
Just now, ALF said:

 

Juries still have the final say regardless.

agree. and like I said at the very beginning of this. They should not be political.

 

or judging the case based on their politics. 

 

shoot, remember back when the Defense and DAs would recuse jurors for even knowing of the people or read about the story in the news?

 

Now they come on TV and brag.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
B-Man Hall of Famer

B-Man

Posted
Posted

 

The testimony by the first witness Trump's attorney John Eastman called to put on his side of the case in his disbarment trial has been nothing less than explosive.

 

The trial ended for the day with more bombshells. He revealed that the Zuckbucks, $8.8 million from Zuckerberg's Center for Tech & Civic Life (CTCL) provided to Wisconsin's five large cities, violated the law. He said he doesn't call them "grants," he refers to it as "employment contracts," since the CTCL employees actually go work with the clerks' offices and get to see information about voters that the public can't access as easily (the public has to pay $12,500 for voter roll info, only gets a snapshot of that instant, and usually has to wait 4-5 days for it, so there's no way to determine whether someone was made active 2 weeks before the election then deactivated 2 weeks after the election).

 

Also since if the clerks don't comply with CTCL's requirements, they have a huge penalty of giving money back. Those CTCL employees are able to determine if a voter was likely to vote for Trump or Biden. They were allowed to see voters who had requested ballots but hadn't returned them, then go chase them down to get their ballots. The CTCL employees were "embedded" in the clerks' offices and "running the elections." Yet the Zuckerbergs had made statements they wanted to defeat Trump. He also said votes were "illegally cast" that were dropped off in the drop boxes, since the drop boxes violated the law by not being placed near the clerks' offices - which the WI Supreme Court reaffimed; instead the clerks let CTCL dictate where they must be placed.

 

The guy the Zuckerbergs hired to run this had written a book on how to defeat Trump, where he said the election would be won dueling it out block by block in these types of big cities.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...