Hodad

The guy who drove hours out of his way to accost women was accosted by the guy who escorts the women? Cry me a river. Not to mention that Houck had already shoved Love earlier in the day. Nice dodge. What we have here is a tacit admission that you were, again, wrong about the facts. To recap: 1. You are incorrect. Talking to someone is NOT assault, regardless of what you are saying. There was no physical threat whatsoever. 2. You cannot cite PA or Federal law to support your bogus claim that Love "assaulted" the Houcks by talking to them. Again, Houck drove hours, dragging his kid along, to talk at people going into the clinic. To you, that's not instigation. But when the escort walks a few steps up the sidewalk to talk at Houck, that's instigation. lol Houck can say whatever he wants to emotionally vulnerable women seeking medical care, but gods forbid his son have to hear an exchange of unpleasantries! You guys are just classic bullies. Can dish it out, but can't take it. Nothing vindictive about it. Houck assaulted a senior citizen who, as an escort at planned parenthood, is protected by the FACE act. Really? You need me to spell it out in more detail than a direct quote of a few simple sentences? We really need to "debate" whether shoving and injuring an old man working for a reproductive healthcare provider qualifies as injuring and intimidating a person working to provide reproductive healthcare? Not to mention the intimidation of anyone seeking care who watched Houck assault the escort designated to help keep patients safe. What's to debate? Jeebus, man. And, again, your "alternative facts" are not correct. The jury did not find him "innocent" after an hour. They were deadlocked at the end of the first day of deliberations and eventually called in an alternate juror on day 2 in order to get to an acquittal. The FBI tells a different story, but regardless, there is nothing unfair about arresting someone at their home. If you don't want to be embarrassed by being arrested, don't shove old men. Lol. Sure, that was it. I'm sure you can point to the law that says it's okay to assault someone if they "instigate" it by saying something you don't like. 🤪

Spoken like someone who has never had a professional network--or a profession.🙄 I know my accountant. I know some other people who are clients of my accountant. I don't know anything about their business books or taxes. I'm sure you think that's implausible, but that's a "you problem."

That's good and thorough reporting. But it's rather naive to read more into it (as if we've just discovered, for the first time ever) than people work with people they've worked with and with the people those people have worked with. That's the whole premise behind "networking." Either Joe is involved (no evidence and everyone else says explicitly that he's not) or he isn't. If Joe is involved that's a problem, but if they share a lawyer or a PI or something, NBD.

You're making a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Do you have any special knowledge about what intelligence the FBI had collected regarding disinformation operations?

Sure. Pretending that it makes sense to call someone in their 40s and "old man" is obviously way more reasonable than admitting you just had the facts wrong.👍 Again, you have the facts wrong. Houck and his kid were just up the block from the doors of Planned Parenthood. No street crossing required. He can't heckle women effectively from across the street, after all. 🙄 False on two counts. He was not "in their faces." In fact, Houck came back to Love to finally shove the actual old man to the ground. You can watch the video. Feel free to enjoy Houck's lawyer's ridiculous color commentary. Won't change the actual footage of what happened. And your comment is also false because talking to someone, at someone or near someone is NOT the legal definition of assault. You simply made that up. That's why you can't cite the law-- PA or Federal. Love didn't touch or physically threaten anyone. Houck, a bully and a menace, decided to make it physical. Perhaps he was tired of verbally accosting women and looking to let off a little steam. 🙄 Bullshit. I DO care. Houck has become something of a folk hero in conservative circles, but his actions are indefensible. He physically assaulted an (actual) old man--twice. And his excuse is that he didn't like the language--the speech--his victim was using? GTFO. The man drove two hours--regularly--to harass people with his speech that they surely didn't want to hear. It's not an excuse for assault. He absolutely should have been arrested and he absolutely should have faced trial. That's not a question. Perhaps it should have been for simple assault rather than the FACE act, but the FACE act was triggered because the man he assaulted was an escort for women trying to access the facility. --Think about that for a moment, these women need an escort just to feel safe while trying to access health care, because of people like Houck. I don't know where you're getting--or cooking up--this information, but, again, Houck was not across the street from Planned Parenthood. He was just up the sidewalk from the gates where the escorts operate. And, again, if you think crossing the street to seek out conflict would have been a big deal, then you must be incensed at Houck for regularly driving two hours to verbally accost people. 🙄 Do decent people drive two hours--with a child in tow--to harass women who are just trying to access health care? No, that's pretty shitty. Noooope. Assault is, indeed, a federal crime. You are not allowed to attack someone for talking to you and saying things you don't like. My goodness, can you imagine? Protests and counterprotests would just be a legally permissible free-for-all. Where do you get this stuff? Like, YouTube comments? The FACE act goes beyond physically blocking access. (1)by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services; False, again, for multiple reasons. Houck wasn't across the street, but rather just up the sidewalk. And, of course, local authorities weren't going to charge him with FACE violations, so that's left to the feds. Again, I don't know the full rationale for charging with FACE rather than assault, but let's not pretend that Houck was the victim here. He's not a victim or a hero. Just a bully who can dish out words but can't take 'em. He assaulted an (actual) old man, and it was right to arrest and try him, even if the jury acquitted.

No, you daft twat. The NY State code is right farking there in the passage you're quoting. It's been provided and pointed out to you and even linked multiple times: NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 The predicate- the "other law" that elevates the misdemeanors to felonies is a NY state law. I've linked the jury instructions probably a half dozen times. You've quoted from them. So I know you got there. Just, you know, actually read them.

I'm going to stop your little tantrum right there, Dummy. Try reading before you start slinging insults. 🙄 "The DOJ is apparently using a laptop as part of their case against Hunter. I guess this would be the same laptop that they and the media had described as Russian disinformation."

I don't think they are under any obligation--or that there should be any expectation--that they provide "October surprise" campaign aid to candidates. Especially when they don't actually know and don't have the details. Comey made that "mistake" in 2016 and they seem to have learned from it. Remember that the FBI knew what the FBI had, but they didn't necessarily know what Giuliani actually had, or what condition it was in or what claims he would make about the contents. There is no reason for the FBI to give Giuliani and the NY post some kind of blanket endorsement for whatever they might say. The custody and provenance of that information ended up taking months to work out. And it turns out there was nothing incriminating Joe Biden in any way. So if the FBI had acted rashly to add fuel to Giuliani's claims it could have, in a repeat of 2016, interfered in the election. With just weeks to go before voting day, the FBI absolutely did the right thing to not endorse Giuliani's version.

To save time, Stupid, I'll just copy and paste from the reply from last time you told this lie. 🙄 "You lie. You've been corrected multiple times. You've been shown NY laws as instructed to the jury. You persist in lying. So, again, for the honest people playing along at home, the "other crime" is a violation of NY election law. From the damn jury instructions--literally the very next section from what WCM quoted NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct."

Despite the regular misinformation from posters on this site, the DoJ never called the laptop disinformation.

Yes, terrible, terrible examples. And your version of the Houck story is pure fiction. You have almost all of it backward. Houck is NOT an "old man." He's in his 40s. The person you call a "goon" (lol)--who Mark Houck assaulted-- is actually an old man-- a 72 year-old grandfather. The 72-year old did NOT assault Houck's son -- I assume you invented that for vividness? And, finally, Mark Houck can go fark himself. If he doesn't want his young son exposed to tense verbal exchanges and "vulgar language" he should stop bringing the boy along on his missions to harass women outside of Planned Parenthood. If you don't want your kid in that situation, don't deliberately put them in that situation over and over again. And yes, for any decent people playing along at home, when you escalate a verbal exchange to a physical assault of a senior citizen, you should be arrested and tried. Whether the jury lets him off the hook or not, trial was the right thing to do.

"Weaponized DoJ" is an alt-right meme, not a reality. The Trump DoJ probably prosecuted more Trump cronies than the Biden DoJ. Meanwhile, the Biden DoJ is not shy about prosecuting democratic lawbreakers. Trump pretends to be unfairly persecuted, but the simple fact is that he's always been a crook and he surrounded himself with similarly crooked people. -- And the decent people he hired bailed or were forced out. This nonsense about FACE and the false claim that left-leaning protesters are not arrested or prosecuted is another made-up red herring. And the people who attacked the capitol will always get stricter scrutiny than some random vandals. They attacked our system of government, so the government is paying attention. In the same way that terrorists are treated more harshly than basic murderers.

Wow, it's June 10th. I guess the "old" VAT thread you started on June 1 has passed it's expiration date? This is a bizarre obsession manifesting in bizarre behavior. WTF?

Oh good, a wildly false premise to rationalize fascistic "vengeance."

These people are incredibly gullible to buy this line of B.S. Trump had his DoJ all over the Clintons his whole term (and came up empty). Meanwhile the president's son and a democratic senator are on trial right now under a Democratic administration.

No, he understands it perfectly. It means you're the problem. Trump has always been a compulsive liar, but when he was a tabloid and TV clown good prevarication was relatively harmless. But when you rubes (or the American equivalent) bought into his absurd lies for the 2016 election, that's how the problem manifested as something actually harmful.

Whenever you people post things like this, it's like announcing to the world you have no idea how our government works. Like you were born yesterday and then started consuming memes from the alt-right infobubble. Try a little reality. A. You have no idea what the actual facts are, just a claim for which you've seen zero evidence. You're a sucker for those. B. Poorly maintained voter rolls is not evidence of cheating. It's usually evidence of budget constraints. C. This dude took over the job last year--from a Republican--so any implication that the poor maintenance is cheating would implicate Republicans. Maybe Republicans should have decided "enough is enough" when they should have been maintaining the rolls.🙄

You mean Sotomayor and Gorsuch, right? And you mean cases that the court didn't accept, right?

If they are committing crimes to cover it up, then yes, they should be in jail. But that's not usually the case.

What should have been a notable legacy is instead a tarnished tale of corruption. My goodness, what must the other justices think, sitting alongside him with their modest salaries, knowing that he's bought and paid for. Time to go.

Of course he's too old. Both of them are. But only one of them has tried to stage a coup, so the lesser of two oldies is a pretty easy choice

You people are exhausting. Is this the latest talking point? The house holds people in contempt. Those contempt cases go to court to be tried on the merits. All 3 cases went to court. The house can vote however they want. Not all cases are the same. Not all cases have equal merit. Not all cases will have the same outcome. Does this really need explaining? Have you compared the cases on any level, or are you just repeating the talking point? Holder was an executive privilege dispute, adjudicated but the court. Loomer was a 5th amendment claim, adjudicated but the court. Bannon simply elected not to show up--indefensible--also adjudicated by the court. Bannon was tried by a Trump appointee, BTW, not some liberal cabal.🙄

Okay. As long as you know their situation better than they do. Perhaps you could draft a letter reminding them that they're not actually desperate enough to undertake an incredibly difficult and dangerous journey in hope of a better life? I'm sure it's just an oversight.

You lie. You've been corrected multiple times. You've been shown NY laws as instructed to the jury. You persist in lying. So, again, for the honest people playing along at home, the "other crime" is a violation of NY election law. From the damn jury instructions--literally the very next section from what WCM quoted NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.

Link to how his daughter "made money off the trial." This is a very popular claim within the cult, but nobody had been able to produce any link yet--even a bogus one. I don't think donating $40 total across several campaigns (or something like that) counts as "ultra biased." That seems pretty silly.