Trump’s Second Term Would Be Even More Corrupt and Vindictive Than His First

[Hodad]

Quote

 

He stood on the corner to protest as he is allowed to do. He did not "accost" women in that he approached them to stop them or interfere with them, which would have been a violation of the FACE act. 

Remember, that is the issue here. The government vindictively went after him for violating the FACE act. 

That fact that you are here mocking Houck and cheering this on is EXACTLY why I cheer on Trump doing the same thing to the political left. You all clearly need a lesson. 

 

Of course he was accosting women. What do you think a self-identified "street counselor" does? Nobody shows up to his "street office" for counseling. He harrasses the women as they enter and exit. He was following women across the street as they left PP when the escort first approached him. 

5 hours ago, User said:

No dodge at all. The goon was not merely talking to them, assault IS threatening behavior and fighting words. When he continued to try to approach his son, that can be considered assault. 

You trying to characterize what the goon did as merely talking to them is pure dishonest spin. 

I am not claiming he violated federal law or any specific PA law, only using the generic description of what constitutes assault.

Oh, good. Doubling down on the dishonesty. Complete bullshit that "assault" generally describes a verbal exchange, which was all this was before Houck assaulted love. The only violence or threat of physical violence was from Houck. He committed the assault.  

You got the facts wrong again and instead of just owning up to it and moving on, you want to invent a new definition for "assault."🙄

Quote

 

 So here you are cheering on some goon saying trash to a child, all because how dare his dad think it is wrong to kill babies. Just like you support "protestors" violating the laws out in the streets, do not be surprise then when you cheer on a goon doing this to a 12 year old when the father stops them. That doesn't make him the bully here. 
 

Oh, I don't think any child should be put in a situation like that. It's pretty awful for them. That Houck would put a child in that situation over and over and over again is a good indicator of his "character." But that's not what makes him a bully. He's a bully because he goes out of his way to harass emotionally vulnerable women and assaults old men.

Quote

No, that is not how the FACE act works at all. The goon doesn't get to go instigate crap as if he has some immunity. The FACE act doesn't protect him, it protects the access to the abortion provider. Once the goon goes out of his way to go instigate crap, that is on him. 
 

FACE does indeed protect those seeking care and the staff providing it. That's why it explicitly calls out injury and intimidation--those are things done to people, not to doorways.

It probably should have been prosecuted as simple assault to avoid the question of whether Love was functioning in his capacity as an escort. But it's a point of fact that FACE does protect the escorts.

Quote

Where are you getting your information on the Jury?

"Now the family’s ordeal is finally put to rest after the jury took about an hour to find him not guilty. "

https://www.foxnews.com/media/pro-life-activist-mark-houck-shocking-planned-parenthood-encounter-acquittal

Actual news or even "Religious news"

Quote

Yes, clearly we need a debate here that merely shoving the goon who came over to instigate crap was not a violation of the FACE act. That did nothing to stop or interfere with any women getting access to an abortion nor was it intended to. 

Really? You don't think that watching a bully like Houck shove an escort to the ground outside of Planned Parenthood might intimidate people trying to access Planned Parenthood, as prohibited by FACE? That seems pretty obvious. 

 

Quote

The FBI doesn't tell anything specific at all, they only vaguely deny the characterizations of the arrest. They do not deny or confirm how many agents they sent, or if they had their guns drawn or not...

The fact is that he had long volunteered to turn himself in to them. There was no need for such a show of force for an arrest other than the fact that the DOJ was vindictively sending a message. The process is the punishment. 

Yet again, you cheer this on as you do, is EXACTLY why I cheer on Trump doing the same vindictive crap to the left. 

The FBI say that they acted professionally and according to standards. People are arrested in such a fashion every day. Again, there's nothing vindictive about arresting someone at their home. You want to claim motive for something that's clearly not in evidence. Apparently being arrested at home was an inconvenience for Houck. Boo hoo.

 

Quote

 

Again, the issue isn't if you think it is OK to shove some goon who is accosting a child or not... it is that such actions have nothing to do with the FACE act. Such actions were already investigated by local authorities and they did not find enough evidence to say it was illegal to push him because he was the one instigating something with a child. 

The issue is the governments vindictive use of force here to go after someone with the FACE act. 

Turn about is fair play and I hope Trump unleashes the DOJ on the left. 

 

You are trying to apply a very specious double standard here. Houck is there, literally, with the sole purpose of "instigating crap." He has no business there whatsoever except to harass women. When he goes up and talks to them, telling them things they don't want to hear, are the hearers legally entitled to shove, hit or kick him? 

Yet, when Love approaches Houck to say things he doesn't want to hear, you think it gives Houck license to assault the old man?

Houck in his own words (Listen to this snowflake b*tch): "I walk him there and tell him to stop talking to my son," the activist recalled. "He doesn't have any permission to talk to my son. Next thing I know, he turns around and he's talking to my son again and then you see the push." 

His whole farking purpose in being there is to talk to people he "doesn't have "permission" to talk to. But when it happens to him he thinks it's a free pass to assault an old man.

Like I said, you guys are classic bullies. You love to dish it out, but can't take it. 

 

[robosmith]

On 6/10/2024 at 11:26 AM, User said:

Not everyone did that. Your being ignorant or dishonest of this fact doesn't make me a liar. This is exactly my point. The folks who merely wandered around and left are being maliciously persecuted. The DOJ is trumping up charges to go after folks. 

They are charged with breaking and entering which is a crime.

On 6/10/2024 at 11:26 AM, User said:

 

Can you not read? I very specifically said "misdemeanor-level offenses", that is not violence. 

Just because you pretend they are "misdemeanor-level offenses", does not make it FACT. Duh

 

Quote

Typically, breaking and entering is a misdemeanor. Depending on the jurisdiction, however, it may be categorized as a felony.

Nov 8, 2023

https://www.legalmatch.com › ... › Criminal Law › Theft

 

California Breaking and Entering Law (Penal Code 459)

Under California Penal Code 459, “breaking and entering” commonly referred to as burglary, is a felony in California.

 

While illegal entry is a misdemeanor offense with a maximum penalty of 180 days in jail and a $1,000.00 fine, burglary is a felony offense. The main difference between unlawful entry and felony burglary is that the law requires someone to enter premises unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.

 

What You Need to Know About DC Unlawful Entry Lawyer

Scrofano Law

https://www.scrofanolaw.com › practice-areas › unlawf...

 

https://www.wklaw.com › practice-areas › breaking-and...

 

Breaking and Entering – California PC 459 | WK Law

 

 

Edited June 12, 2024 by robosmith

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

They are charged with breaking and entering which is a crime.

Just because you pretend they are "misdemeanor-level offenses", does not make it FACT. Duh

 

 

What comes around...goes around.

If and when Trump regains the Whitehouse, he'll pardon those political prisoners and proceed to undo all the damage Brandon has done.

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

What comes around...goes around.

If and when Trump regains the Whitehouse, he'll pardon those political prisoners and proceed to undo all the damage Brandon has done.

And you'll celebrate them getting away with FELONIES because YOU'RE a CROOK.

Just like you DEFEND all sorts of Trump's FRAUDS. 🤮

[User]

24 minutes ago, robosmith said:

They are charged with breaking and entering which is a crime.

No, not everyone did any breaking to enter, nor are those the charges many are facing at all. 

I am very specifically talking about the folks who literally did nothing more than wander around and leave. 

24 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Just because you pretend they are "misdemeanor-level offenses", does not make it FACT. Duh

Not pretending, the DOJ is in fact going after folks for the petty crime misdemeanor of illegal parading for doing nothing more than wandering around and leaving. 

 

[User]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

And you'll celebrate them getting away with FELONIES because YOU'RE a CROOK.

Just like you DEFEND all sorts of Trump's FRAUDS. 🤮

You are a complete waste of time. Seriously... 

The vast majority of charges brought are for misdemeanors and the vast majority to come are for misdemeanors. The vast majority of those charged were for illegal parading...

This is not complicated, most of the folks there who did anything illegal were not involved in a felony level offense. 

Approximately 1,186 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/36-months-jan-6-attack-capitol-0#:~:text=Approximately 11 individuals have been,restricted federal building or grounds.

[User]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Oh, good. Doubling down on the dishonesty. Complete bullshit that "assault" generally describes a verbal exchange, which was all this was before Houck assaulted love. The only violence or threat of physical violence was from Houck. He committed the assault.  

You got the facts wrong again and instead of just owning up to it and moving on, you want to invent a new definition for "assault."🙄

A justified "assault"

Again, you want to support goons getting up in kids faces to attack them verbally, be prepared for a parent to intervene. 

I have not invented anything here. It is not my fault you don't grasp these concepts. Many folks don't, they think everything is perfectly OK and find until you physically touch someone and that is not how the law works nor how it works conceptually. People are well within their rights to defend themselves and their personal space from threatening behavior well before the person acting like that actually touches them. 

Assault and Battery are often two different concepts, because there is the act of being threatening and then the act of actually causing physical harm or unwanted touching. 
 

You are just hell-bent on defending this goon, well, because you support killing 1 Million babies a year, and don't like that anyone says it is wrong. 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

FACE does indeed protect those seeking care and the staff providing it. That's why it explicitly calls out injury and intimidation--those are things done to people, not to doorways.

It probably should have been prosecuted as simple assault to avoid the question of whether Love was functioning in his capacity as an escort. But it's a point of fact that FACE does protect the escorts.

Again, for the millionth time, he has no FACE act protection when he is the one who instigates something. It was not Mark who went over to the goon to push him to interfere with anyone getting an abortion. Mark was on the corner protesting like he always does. It was the goon who went over to him and started crap with him and his son. 

The FACE act doesn't protect that. 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Really? You don't think that watching a bully like Houck shove an escort to the ground outside of Planned Parenthood might intimidate people trying to access Planned Parenthood, as prohibited by FACE? That seems pretty obvious. 

Context matters. He shoved that goon only AFTER that goon came over to instigate crap with him, shoving him had nothing to do with stopping anyone from accessing the abortion clinic. 

Seriously, you keep ignoring this fact. 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

The FBI say that they acted professionally and according to standards. People are arrested in such a fashion every day. Again, there's nothing vindictive about arresting someone at their home. You want to claim motive for something that's clearly not in evidence. Apparently being arrested at home was an inconvenience for Houck. Boo hoo.

Again, the FBI refused to answer any specific questions to refute, confirm, or verify any of the details. They just say they acted professionally. You claimed the FBI told a different story. They did not. 

Yes, it is quite vindictive to send armed FBI agents, guns drawn, to arrest a man in front of his family and children, when there was no need to. 

The fact that you sit here saying "boo hoo" is what proves you support this as a vindictive action and is EXACTLY why I will be saying "boo hoo" when Trump turns the DOJ on left leaning folks in the same way. 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Yet, when Love approaches Houck to say things he doesn't want to hear, you think it gives Houck license to assault the old man?

Again... None of this has anything to do with the FACE act. That is the point here. He was already investigated by local authorities and they did not press charges because... surprise surprise, when some goon gets in a kids face to say shitty things and a dad intervenes to protect his kid from the goon continuing to try to do so, that is not illegal. 

It certainly has nothing to do with the FACE act. You keep ignoring the entire point here. The DOJ dredging this up as some violation of the FACE act was a politically motivated use of the DOJ to send a message and target people, facts be damned. 

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, User said:

A justified "assault"

Again, you want to support goons getting up in kids faces to attack them verbally, be prepared for a parent to intervene. 

I have not invented anything here. It is not my fault you don't grasp these concepts. Many folks don't, they think everything is perfectly OK and find until you physically touch someone and that is not how the law works nor how it works conceptually. People are well within their rights to defend themselves and their personal space from threatening behavior well before the person acting like that actually touches them. 

Assault and Battery are often two different concepts, because there is the act of being threatening and then the act of actually causing physical harm or unwanted touching. 

Again, an entirely specious argument. There was no physical threat from the septuagenarian escort. He was not "in their faces." The Houcks testified in court that he was at least an arms length away. His language was critical and likely vulgar, but he did not threaten them with physical violence. Indeed, there was never any indication that this was ever going to be anything more than an exchange of unpleasantries. Nothing before Houck, the bully, snapped and decided to knock down an old man. That is not a legally "justified assault." 

You've been asked 3 times (at least) to present this mythical  law that includes any of Love's actions as assault--which was your original claim. You have failed to do so, because you cannot. 

Now you want to pivot to say that Houck's assault on Love was legal. Again, without any reference to a law that would authorize assault as a legally permissible response to critical or vulgar words. You cannot do so, because no such law exists. Yet you will claim it over and over again. Put up or shut up. 

 

Quote

You are just hell-bent on defending this goon, well, because you support killing 1 Million babies a year, and don't like that anyone says it is wrong. 

I actually do like some people who believe that abortion is morally wrong. I don't like any people who, regardless of personal opinion, seek to impose their morality and take from women the right to choose. And I definitely don't like any people who go out of their way to harass women seeking health care. 

And I'm "defending" Love because it's objectively and legally wrong to assault a person and Love is the person who was assaulted. And as a point of basic decency, you especially shouldn't assault the elderly. 

Quote

Again, for the millionth time, he has no FACE act protection when he is the one who instigates something. It was not Mark who went over to the goon to push him to interfere with anyone getting an abortion. Mark was on the corner protesting like he always does. It was the goon who went over to him and started crap with him and his son. 

The FACE act doesn't protect that. 

Context matters. He shoved that goon only AFTER that goon came over to instigate crap with him, shoving him had nothing to do with stopping anyone from accessing the abortion clinic. 

Is it likely that assaulting an Planned Parenthood escort in front of Planned Parenthood has the effect of intimidating people seeking services at Planned Parenthood? If yes, (and of course this is true) then FACE applies. Read the law.

And you continue this cowardly deflection. Love "started crap" with someone who was there exclusively to "start crap." Houck and Love's first interaction that day was when Love tried to get Houck to stop harassing women who were leaving PP. The whole point of his being there was to harass these poor women. Does Houck's "starting crap" give everyone else a license to attack him physically? No. 

FACE or no FACE, "starting crap" verbally does not create a license for retaliatory violence. Stop pretending like it does.

 

Quote

Again, the FBI refused to answer any specific questions to refute, confirm, or verify any of the details. They just say they acted professionally. You claimed the FBI told a different story. They did not. 

Yes, it is quite vindictive to send armed FBI agents, guns drawn, to arrest a man in front of his family and children, when there was no need to. 

The fact that you sit here saying "boo hoo" is what proves you support this as a vindictive action and is EXACTLY why I will be saying "boo hoo" when Trump turns the DOJ on left leaning folks in the same way. 

Bullshit. Houck claims the FBI was aggressive and vindictive. The FBI maintains that they were professional and followed standard protocols. That's a very different story.

If you don't want the "trauma" of being arrested, don't assault people. That's pretty easy to manage. 

Quote

 

Again... None of this has anything to do with the FACE act. That is the point here. He was already investigated by local authorities and they did not press charges because... surprise surprise, when some goon gets in a kids face to say shitty things and a dad intervenes to protect his kid from the goon continuing to try to do so, that is not illegal. 

It certainly has nothing to do with the FACE act. You keep ignoring the entire point here. The DOJ dredging this up as some violation of the FACE act was a politically motivated use of the DOJ to send a message and target people, facts be damned. 

You are just flat out making things up. You can call a 72-year old volunteer a "goon" all you want (although it's pretty clear that Houck is the goon in this scenario) but you shouldn't keep lying about love being "in a kid's face." Not even the Houcks make that claim in court. 

You don't get to assault people for saying things you don't want your kids to hear. As a parent, your recourse and responsibility is to remove the child from the situation--a situation that Houck is AT LEAST equally responsible for creating, though I'd argue far more responsible. 

It's clear how FACE applies here (does assaulting an escort intimidate patients? yes.) but as I've stated multiple times. I think it would have been better prosecuted as a simple assault simple to avoid any question. Then Houck could whine about his persecution complex from behind bars, where he belongs. 

Edited June 12, 2024 by Hodad

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

And you'll celebrate them getting away with FELONIES because YOU'RE a CROOK.

Just like you DEFEND all sorts of Trump's FRAUDS. 🤮

lol...

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

lol...

Well you must not be a very GOOD crook because you're bankrupt all the time apparently   

[Nationalist]

44 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well you must not be a very GOOD crook because you're bankrupt all the time apparently   

Its like arguing with a child.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Its like arguing with a child.

Sure. If the child was autistic. And had just been given a puppy and an espresso. And maybe dropped a few times, idk...