BillsFanNC Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Fact and legal check: True January 6th was a lawful protest, permitted by the National Park Service, that devolved into a riot. There are 3 categories of protesters, including those who: 1. Follow the rules, even if you think they’re wrong or even crazy = protected. 2. Trespass = charged. 3. Violent = treated more severely. But we can’t have different rules, based upon political views, like Biden does for his base of BLM, antifa, Hamas, trans, and abortion terrorists. It is unforgivable Biden, his Justice Department, hyper-partisan Democrat judges, and incredibly weak and dumb Republican judges maliciously misapplied our federal laws to destroy political enemies. January 6th defendants, their families, and their attorneys owe a special thanks to @julie_kelly2. There is no chance in hell the Supreme Court would have taken the Fischer case, but for Julie’s dogged reporting for years exposing this grave injustice—which changed the politics of these January 6th persecutions. Many criminal convictions will almost certainly get tossed after the Supreme Court rules before the end of June. Julie is the driving force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 Presidential Records Act v. Espionage Act: The Presidential Records Act of 1978 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201 through 2209, generally controls the handling of the President's records. Generally, records created or received by the President or this White House staff are presidential records. This includes classified records sent to advise the President or his White House staff. Before the Presidential Records Act, Presidents owned their presidential records. Congress changed the law after Nixon won a legal fight on this issue. After the Presidential Records Act, the U.S. government owns Presidents' presidential records. Per the 2012 Obama judge ruling in the Clinton sock-drawer case, where President Clinton stuffed 8 years of highly classified audio recordings of his presidency in his sock drawer (see picture 1 below), the President solely decides what are: - "personal" (belong to him) v. - "presidential records" (belong to government). And if the President doesn't designate them as presidential records and then takes them when he leaves office, they are deemed personal records. (Read news story and linked opinion here: justthenews.com/politics-polic…) But even if people think this 2012 Obama judge ruling protecting Clinton is incorrect or Trump (somehow) shouldn't have the benefit of this ruling (because they hate and fear Trump): "[T]he Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President's designated representative." 44 U.S.C. § 2205(3) (see picture 2 below). Former Presidents do not have the right to have any classified record they want. But they have the absolute statutory right to have (not own) their presidential records, classified or not. There is no criminal component to the Presidential Records Act. Disputes are settled with negotiations and civil lawsuits. Not unprecedented and unlawful raid and indictments. How can Trump violate the Espionage Act for retaining his presidential records he is allowed to have (not own) under the Presidential Records Act? Garland must allege and prove more than mere retention, in order to charge a former president for espionage for having his presidential records he's allowed to have (not own) under the Presidential Records Act. One way a court may attempt to harmonize the Presidential Records Act with the Espionage Act is requiring the government to allege and prove the former President intended to cause "injury to the United States or aid to a foreign nation result from the disclosures." United States v. Rosen, 520 F. Supp. 2d 786, 793 (E.D. Va. 2007). There is zero evidence--not even an allegation--Trump intended to harm America by retaining his presidential records. It is not a crime to be a jerk. It is not "espionage" to fight with librarians and other bureaucrats. We do not send former presidents, who happen to be your boss's chief political enemy, to die in prison over presidential-records disputes. This is one key reason Garland's indictment of Trump is fatally flawed as a matter of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 13 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: January 6th was a lawful protest, permitted by the National Park Service, that devolved into a riot. Hoax Group that planned Jan. 6 rally lied about Capitol march plans, government report says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 Fact check: True Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 SOROS FUNDED DA’s‼️‼️‼️ Don’t you love how these MAGGOTS always blame a Jew for all their problems? Fkn Nazis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 Fact check: True 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMetheHeadofLeonLett Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 "January 6th was a lawful protest" You've got to be ***** kidding me, not just that someone brain-farted that onto a page, but that someone read it and thought, 'yeah, I agree'. I don't know you, but apparently that someone is... you. Good luck in life, but not on my dime. and I love the opening bit about blaming the National Parks Service... I mean how little thought and accountability can Mike Davis and his chum have in life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 2 hours ago, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said: "January 6th was a lawful protest" You've got to be ***** kidding me, not just that someone brain-farted that onto a page, but that someone read it and thought, 'yeah, I agree'. I don't know you, but apparently that someone is... you. Good luck in life, but not on my dime. and I love the opening bit about blaming the National Parks Service... I mean how little thought and accountability can Mike Davis and his chum have in life? You really don't know what the bolded was trying to say? 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Doc said: You really don't know what the bolded was trying to say? No it doesn't. It dutifully skipped the part that J6 was permitted and sanctioned to occur on Capitol grounds just like any other protest. You know that pesky 1st ammendment and all. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Again for the useful idiots who will point out "peaceably," that of course is what parts 2 and 3 of Davis' post addresses. Those who either trespassed or were violent should be APPROPRIATELY charged. Those who remained peaceful are PROTECTED. This is why you morons are commies. Edited March 25 by BillsFanNC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 38 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: It dutifully skipped the part that J6 was permitted and sanctioned to occur on Capitol grounds just like any other protest. Hoax Why do you lie all the time? 'Basically she lied to all of us' The report found that the organizers from Women for America First failed to provide information about Trump's likely attendance at the rally and that they actively concealed information about the plans to follow the event with a march to the Capitol. Karen's gonna psyop as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 Fact check: True Link to permit issued by the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE below. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: Fact check: True Link to permit issued by the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE below. Fact Check: FALSE From Mike's NPS link above: This permit authorizes the use of the Ellipse southwest quadrant, west of the vista site line and south of the tree lighting site starting on Saturday, January 2 at 6:30 am until Wednesday, January 8, 2021 at 7:30 pm. This permit does not authorize a march from the Ellipse. And from the Department of the Interior: Review of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Actions Related to January 6, 2021 In addition, we found WFAF intentionally failed to disclose information to the NPS regarding its knowledge of a post-demonstration march. Karen, you try so hard. lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: Fact check: True Link to permit issued by the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE below. The mob wants it's pound of flesh. And that's all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 8 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: The mob wants it's pound of flesh. And that's all that matters. Hoax - we demand the TRUTH - you freaks play with fkn psyops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 35 minutes ago, BillStime said: Hoax - we demand the TRUTH - you freaks play with fkn psyops. You want the truth? Then tell me why Pelosi and the DC mayor REFUSED Trump’s offer for 10,000 National Guard troops 2 days before January 6th? This is NOT a right wing lie (as you would put it). It’s well documented about Trump’s offer. The refusal of the troops is all I need to know about what BVLLSHIT January 6th was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 11 minutes ago, njbuff said: You want the truth? Then tell me why Pelosi and the DC mayor REFUSED Trump’s offer for 10,000 National Guard troops 2 days before January 6th? This is NOT a right wing lie (as you would put it). It’s well documented about Trump’s offer. The refusal of the troops is all I need to know about what BVLLSHIT January 6th was. Hoax - where is the exact order from Trump? It seems you would have this documentation handy, but no one has ever shared it. Why is Mitch McConnell never mentioned? If Pelosi "allegedly" had the right to accept Trump's offer (which she doesn't, as she is not in the chain of command), why is the focus only on Pelosi? It's amusing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 minute ago, BillStime said: Hoax - where is the exact order from Trump? It seems you would have this documentation handy, but no one has ever shared it. Why is Mitch McConnell never mentioned? If Pelosi "allegedly" had the right to accept Trump's offer (which she doesn't, as she is not in the chain of command), why is the focus only on Pelosi? It's amusing. Face it Billsy, your narrative has hit a snag. What will you do now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 2 minutes ago, wnyguy said: Face it Billsy, your narrative has hit a snag. What will you do now? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 This has all been gone over dozens of times already, so useful idiots will always parrot their masters narrative no matter what. Yuri Bezmenov, ideological subversion and all that.... But here is Kash Patel's testimony to J6 committee. Lying to Congress, at least for conservatives, is no small matter these days. How come Kash got away with "lying" to Congress Billsfuk.c? https://archive.org/details/january-6th-committee-witness-testimony-20211209-kashyap-pramod-patel/page/38/mode/2up?q=guard Oh, so you remember stuff like that. So, going off just the memory, and we can go back to the article when you bring it up, there was a meeting with the President of the United States, Acting Secretary Miller, and some others -- | can't recall off the top of my head -- where we were discussing, as the article states, something related to Iran. And, in that same meeting, | believe it was on or around January 4th, 3rd, 4th, or 5th, the -- as | stated earlier, in order for the Department of Defense's National Guard to be activated in any way we needed Presidential authorization. And President Trump at that -- [Discussion off the record.] BY Q Sure. Go ahead. A Okay. And so this question appears to implicate core executive privilege concerns. I'm prepared to answer it, but | want the record to reflect my serious concerns about congressional overreaching of this matter. So what | remember is that we knew, in order to get the National Guard even mobilized, we needed the President to at least say yes first. So what -- my recollection of that meeting is the President preemptively authorized 10 to 20 National Guardsmen and -women around the country -- sorry? 10- to 20,000. Mr. Sofer. You said 10 to 20. The Witness. Sorry, 10- to 20,000 National Guardsmen and -women to be utilized around the country. The second part of that, of course, would have to be the Governors, the Federal agencies, and the mayors would have to ask us for that to satisfy the law. But what he, | believe, and the Acting Secretary at the time were working out was we would not need to come back to the President should Mayor Bowser or anyone ask for 100, a thousand, 5,000, up to 20,000. Here's the memo where Mayor Bowser refused NG dated 1/5/21 and the memo outing multiple denials from Capitol police. The Capitol Police official timeline provides the most succinct summary of a series of events around Sund's request, some of which have been disputed and at times misreported in the news media. "COP Sund asks Senate Sergeant at Arms (SSAA) Michael Stenger and House Sergeant at Arms (HSAA) Paul Irving for authority to have National Guard to assist with security for the January 6, 2021 event based on briefing with law enforcement partner and revised intelligence Assessment," the timeline recorded. "COP Sund's request is denied. SSAA and HSAA tell COP Sund to contact General Walker at DC National Guard to discuss the guard's ability to support a request if needed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Immune to parody: In the Chicago thread, a poster points out the absurdity of the City of Chicago suing Hyundai and Kia for making cars easier to steal, leading to destruction. In this thread, the same poster says "but you didn't deploy the National Guard to stop me from breaking the law! How can you blame me?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts