Jump to content

Trump Eyes Early 2024 Announcement as Jan. 6 Scrutiny Intensifies


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Can you think of any other so-called western country, for example Canada, the UK, Finland, Sweden etc, where there would be serious claims about questioning the legitimacy of elections?

Hillary Clinton in the US. Al Gore in the US.

Democrats Normalized Questioning the Legitimacy of Elections – PJ Media

Democrats showing early signs of questioning the legitimacy of the elections in 2022 and 2024 - American Thinker

For the record, I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning the legitimacy of elections. The claims may be totally baseless or there may be grounds for suspicion. 

It's a fact that prior to the 2020 election the Dems were raising doubts about the integrity of the election process. After election night they said it was the most secure election in history, no chance of fraud.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why people have so little trust in the MSM.

Trump demands NY Times, WaPo return Pulitzers for Russia hoax (nypost.com)

I didn't know they actually got Pulitzers for this false story. Doesn't say much for the Pulitzer organization does it?

As was pointed out by Greg Gutfeld on The Five yesterday, this apology? is kind of meaningless given that the author is now locked onto the Jan 6 Trump/insurrection hoax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1. WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

2. Epps was one of the guiltiest people on earth on Jan 6th. He never spent a moment in jail. 

3. The Jan 6th witch hunt reeks from top to bottom of political corruption by the party of violent riots. 

4. You can remain forever perplexed about why that might be, but other people figured that out in the very moment while Ray Epps was still standing there committing sedition - he was a plant.

5. If you have another theory I'm dying to hear it. You haven't trotted one out yet. You just pretend that he didn't do anything wrong when he's on camera committing a capital crime. 

6. Are you serious? Of course I know. The process went like this:

"Let's ignore all of the video evidence of this guy committing a crime that could get hm the death penalty in most countries and let him go."

You can guess why if you really don't already know. 

7. WTF do you mean by "get Trump out if it"?

8. There's literally zero evidence that Trump was involved in a plot to have armed insurgents overrun the capitol in an effort to thwart democracy. It's bizarre and stupid to entertain the thought that he was.  

 

1.  I guess you forgot that you posted this: "But they're not for beating up peaceful protesters who surrender on their knees".  Now, granted George wasn't on his knees and he wasn't beat up, but killed by a police sniper.

2. Pretty arrogant of you to just state that you know all the facts... based on some conspiracy rag that featured this story.  I would at least defer to stronger evidence but no, not you...

3. Including sworn testimony from Trump's own allies and his own public actions and statements supporting the conclusion that he tried to impede the confirmation vote on that day.

4. It's a strong allegation and therefore needs strong evidence.  You don't have that, only selected circumstances from what I have read.

5. Can we state that everyone in identical circumstances on that day has been charged for starters ?  I doubt it.

6. I'm thinking that you have never been involved in a legalistic process before that you feel you KNOW how it would turn out.  Even your lawyers would give you a 'likelihood' not a certainty.

7. Excuse Trump for what he clearly is responsible for is what I mean.

8. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'thwart'.  He definitely wanted the process delayed as much as possible, and Giuliani is on tape trying to convince senators to delay the vote after Trump's thugs invaded the capitol.


Anyway, these things are obvious but I feel you are too emotionally invested in Donald Trump to ever believe he could do something wrong.  Plenty of conservatives disagree with you though.

Have a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Guess what... I don't have the time to investigate your crackpot theories.

The Deep State did it and we're screwed I guess is your theory...

The answer then is to dismantle the state and install dear leader to clean it all up...

 

 

 

 

Typical Progressive.

An obvious observation of something that doesn't add up is necessarily a "crackpot theory." You couldn't live with the failures of "progressive" thought if you weren't trained to ignore the obvious I guess.

The idea it's incongruous that Ray Epps is ignored by the Jan. 6 committee while Cassidy Hutchinson is glorified by it is an obvious observation.

It's not the Moon landing's a fake or Holocaust denial. That should be obvious. You know you're dealing with a Prog when it's not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. The idea it's incongruous that Ray Epps is ignored by the Jan. 6 committee while Cassidy Hutchinson is glorified by it is an obvious observation.

2. It's not the Moon landing's a fake or Holocaust denial. 

1. Assuming that there's anything to it, of course.

2. Sorry, but I really have had my fill of looking into other people's conspiracies for them. Up to this point mainstream media is batting well over 99%, so I'll leave it to them to let me know if there's something to be looked at.  Of course you think that's different from how it should be, however this story came from media as well.. except your media is followed by a tiny minority of people that you identify with. Mine is general.

I'm sorry that I won't cater to your tastes in information.

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Assuming that there's anything to it, of course.

Video of Epps repeatedly urging crowds to enter the capitol building tells us there is something to it. 

Other than over and over repeating 'nothing to see here' and calling the observable filmed fact before your face a conspiracy what have you got to convince us we need to try to unsee what is front of our lying eyes? You've got the usual prog special of nothing, right?

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why do you think that's significant?  Did everyone who said that get charged

For inciting you mean? Isn't that what that phony, Mickey Mouse committee is trying to get Trump for?

Stephen Colbert maybe should have been charged for incitement but as you no doubt know but pretend you don't there's a two tier justice system in America during the Biden regime so being one of your fellow Progs he skated:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/69-year-old-cancer-patient-given-60-days-colbert-staffs-case-dismissed/

 

Meanwhile a 69 year old Grandmother went to prison on the same day after being convicted of some trumped up charge they're calling "Parading." 

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/208/sit-down-with-pam-hemphill-who-was-the-capitol-on-january-6/277-70b9504d-4eb6-4d6d-bf65-b3d334b506d9

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why do you think that's significant?  Did everyone who said that get charged

Ray Epps seems to be kind of a ringleader, or instigator depending on your point of view. From what I've seen, he's an instigator. I'm really curious as to why he is getting a pass for his actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yeah maybe more people listen to Trump than this guy?  Dunno, but the whattabout angle won't save Trump from charges if they are coming.

Buddy you asked me specifically for another example of proposed inciting then accuse me of whataboutism for giving you one. Are you for real?

They want to indict Trump for inciting but he never did it. Meanwhile they ignore the guy who actually was inciting as shown on multiple examples of video evidence. I'm not sure what your problem is. That it happened or that I noticed?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. Buddy you asked me specifically for another example of proposed inciting then accuse me of whataboutism for giving you one. Are you for real?

2. They want to indict Trump for inciting but he never did it.

3. Meanwhile they ignore the guy who actually was inciting as shown on multiple examples of video evidence. I'm not sure what your problem is. That it happened or that I noticed?

1. I mean another commoner.  It seems that many others weren't charged.  

2. They're going to determine that.

3. And countless others probably.  Is this about whatabbout the nobodies who said "hang pence" not getting charged?  If so, let's maybe look at what the law says.  Or is it about some idea that Epps was planted by law enforcement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. They're going to determine that.

Who's going to determine that? You mean Pelosi's third world style, witch hunt committee?

trump-j6-capitol.jpg

That meme above is the closest thing we've seen to cross examination concerning anything to do with that fake Jan. 6 committee. Without cross examination such a fake committee determines nothing. It's third world, banana republic, bad imitation, kangaroo court anti-justice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. Who's going to determine that?  

2. 

trump-j6-capitol.jpg

3. That meme above is the closest thing we've seen to cross examination concerning anything to do with that fake Jan. 6 committee. 

1. The Department of Justice.

2. Selected quote.  The counter evidence is greater.  Also noted that you seem to require a picture of Trump to quote him.

3. Falls short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The Department of Justice.

2. Selected quote.  The counter evidence is greater.  Also noted that you seem to require a picture of Trump to quote him.

3. Falls short.

there is no counter evidence

they have hearsay and mind reading

no proof whatsoever that he wanted a riot, let alone tried to deliberately create one

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. there is no counter evidence

2. they have hearsay and mind reading

3. no proof whatsoever that he wanted a riot, let alone tried to deliberately create one

1. There's a lot.

2. Or Trump on tape saying he won't say that the election is over.

3. You're part of the cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that the Dems and their shills in the MSM told us for years that there was lot's of evidence of the Russia collusion story. This was happening on a daily basis. It was all a lie and a Pulitzer winning lie at that.

They clearly will stop at nothing to get Donald Trump. They just want to get false stories out no matter how outrageous they are. Trump trying to grab the steering wheel in his limo? C'mon man!?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump claimed his people requested National Guard support for January 6. According to him the capitol police under Nancy Pelosi refused it.

Left friendly media behind what they laughingly call "fact checkers" called that false on the grounds they claimed there was no evidence.

But the right-wing media outlet, Just the News found this:

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf

They state it is an, "official timeline of the Jan. 6 tragedy assembled by Capitol Police shows that a Defense Department official reached out to a Capitol Police deputy chief, Sean Gallagher, on Jan. 2, 2021 to see if a request for troops was forthcoming, but the offer was quickly rejected after a consultation with then-Chief Steve Sund."

See, if Pelosi had allowed cross-examination at her sham hearing you would know about that, Mikey.

Not to worry. Hang on. When the Republicans take over the House in November you'll be hearing that and other evidence Nancy wouldn't let you know about as the Republicans come out with more balanced hearings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2022 at 9:02 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1.  I guess you forgot that you posted this: "But they're not for beating up peaceful protesters who surrender on their knees".  Now, granted George wasn't on his knees and he wasn't beat up, but killed by a police sniper.

You made an OT comment about respecting the police for whatever reason, and the topic of whether or not Epps committed a crime has nothing to do with respect of the police. 

Quote


2. Pretty arrogant of you to just state that you know all the facts... based on some conspiracy rag that featured this story.  I would at least defer to stronger evidence but no, not you...

I don't know all the facts. Never said I did. But if you saw a video of a guy sneaking up on someone and pushing them in front of a subway train you could say: "That guy pushed someone in front of a subway train." That's literally all that you'd need to know to make that claim.

Ray Epps committed sedition blatantly. I know that for a fact.

Why he wasn't charged remains a mystery for you to mull over, while you think about the fact that the Dems are grasping at straws to keep other people in jail.

Quote

3. Including sworn testimony from Trump's own allies and his own public actions and statements supporting the conclusion that he tried to impede the confirmation vote on that day.

By legal means. So what? 

The Dems cheated on the election and everyone on earth knows it. 

Quote

4. It's a strong allegation and therefore needs strong evidence.  You don't have that, only selected circumstances from what I have read.

There's video evidence of Epps committing sedition on multiple occasions.

Are you fucking kidding me that's not "strong evidence"?

The Dems are grasping at straws to put other people in jail but Ray Epps, caught on video multiple times committing sedition, has not been arrested. 

Those are facts for you to think about. 

Draw your own conclusions if you want, I don't care. 

I'm putting the pertinent facts here and people are free to mull them over. 

You can keep your head up your ass if you want, but everything I said is verifiable and true. The video is all in this thread ffs.

Quote

5. Can we state that everyone in identical circumstances on that day has been charged for starters ?  I doubt it.

Of course not. Charges are apparently random.

Quote


6. I'm thinking that you have never been involved in a legalistic process before that you feel you KNOW how it would turn out.  Even your lawyers would give you a 'likelihood' not a certainty.

I've never been charged with a crime, but I'm pretty sure that if I was caught on video trying to get people to enter the Capitol Building during "THE INSURGENCY THAT IS COMPARABLE TO PEARL HARBOUR AND 9/11!!!", I'd be charged for sedition. 

Would Americans who aided, abetted and convinced people to attack Pearl Harbour or the towers get charged with a crime? No, MH? 

For all we know Epps was all over in the Capitol Building as well, but the Dems who are charging people with crimes don't give any of the tens of thousands of hours worth of video footage out. 

Quote

7. Excuse Trump for what he clearly is responsible for is what I mean.

Trump is not responsible for any crimes that were committed. There's no need to excuse him for anything. 

Quote

8. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'thwart'.  He definitely wanted the process delayed as much as possible, and Giuliani is on tape trying to convince senators to delay the vote after Trump's thugs invaded the capitol.

Stop lying MH, Trump didn't have thugs invade the Capitol.

Who cares if he tried to delay the process LEGALLY? Are you on fucking glue?

You keep talking about "making excuses for Trump" when he didn't commit any crimes, and you act like there is no reason to charge Epp when there's video evidence of him committing a capital crime several different times during "THE INSURGENCY THAT IS COMPARABLE TO PEARL HARBOUR AND 9/11!!!"

Quote

Anyway, these things are obvious but I feel you are too emotionally invested in Donald Trump to ever believe he could do something wrong.  Plenty of conservatives disagree with you though.

You feel like things are obvious although you don't have any evidence of them, you should think about what's wrong with that.

You feel like things which were caught on video might not have happened, you should think about what's wrong with that. 

You are too emotionally invested in Donald Trump Derangement Syndrome to think critically and objectively about the incidents of Jan 6th. That's because CNN narratives have seized control of your brain. You're in a constant sate of mental hijack. You should think about what's wrong with that.

Have a good, stiff one MH. With some horse tranqs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Excuse me but...are you fucking kidding? 

True colors...your real ones are showing now Mike.

Or you could answer a question.

I know Trump is being investigated, and there's a hearing.. that's not a question.  I'm asking if other people from the crowd were all arrested for saying something seditious or whatever Epps did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1. You made an OT comment about respecting the police  

2. I don't know all the facts. Never said I did. But if you saw a video of a guy sneaking up on someone and pushing them in front of a subway train you could say: "That guy pushed someone in front of a subway train." That's literally all that you'd need to know to make that claim. Ray Epps committed sedition blatantly. I know that for a fact.

3. Why he wasn't charged remains a mystery for you to mull over, while you think about the fact that the Dems are grasping at straws to keep other people in jail.

4. By legal means.  

5. Are you fucking kidding me that's not "strong evidence"?

 

1. We were on the topic of police actions and I gave you some context to counter a quote you made.

2. Unless you are a US Constitutional Lawyer, or are well versed in US law then you are a little big for your britches.  I'm not an expert which is why I'm asking about other protesters being charged that day.  So far I'm getting answers like "Trump was" or even "Are you f*** kidding ??!?" which tells me I touched a nerve.

So I looked it up for you, since you don't need to, since you're so certain and all.  From a legal website:

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/sedition.html
 

3. It seems like some people were charged and some let go.  If you think that politicians are influencing individual cases let's see the cite.

 

Quote

In order to get a conviction for seditious conspiracy, the government must prove that the defendant in fact conspired to use force. Simply advocating for the use of force is not the same thing and in most cases is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. For example, two or more people who give public speeches suggesting the need for a total revolution "by any means necessary" have not necessarily conspired to overthrow the government. Rather, they're just sharing their opinions, however unsavory. But actively planning such an action (distributing guns, working out the logistics of an attack, actively opposing lawful authority, etc.) could be considered a seditious conspiracy.

So you would have to ask the Department of Justice why they feel Epps wasn't worth charging.  Maybe because he tried to talk people out of violence that day (as is reported and corroborated by a witness) or that he didn't enter the capitol.

4. If you think that they TRIED to delay the count then it's not legal.  You're actually conceding interference in your post.

5. Tone down your outrage.  You are way too emotional about this.  Also see #3.

I didn't read the rest of your post because you are hysterical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...