The Left's failed attempt to RICO and set up the Southern Baptist Church fails

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, West said:

You are welcome to purchase the book I recommened. But you won't. 

Tell you what. I'll send some kook book money if you share the receipt of donating an equal amount to the ACLU.

[West]

Just now, Hodad said:

Tell you what. I'll send some kook book money if you share the receipt of donating an equal amount to the ACLU.

So you come into the discussion not willing to consider the other persons sources? 

Sounds like you are coming at this discussion in good faith. 

[West]

17 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're making a lot of allegations which are unsupported by your cites.

Quote the CONTENT which supports your ALLEGATIONS.

They were never prosecuted nor investigated because of their RELIGION.

I've been following this story closely there's certainly more evidence this was Biden doing his lawfare bs than the Baptist church hiding pedophiles in the baptismal tanks just waiting to devour their next victim. 

[robosmith]

20 minutes ago, West said:

I've been following this story closely there's certainly more evidence this was Biden doing his lawfare bs than the Baptist church hiding pedophiles in the baptismal tanks just waiting to devour their next victim. 

^THIS is NOT content in support of your ALLEGATIONS. Duh

You can't cite ANY EVIDENCE of Biden's involvement. He has never publicly commented on prosecutions, except about Hunter when asked.

Edited March 17 by robosmith

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, West said:

So you come into the discussion not willing to consider the other persons sources? 

Sounds like you are coming at this discussion in good faith. 

You'd have to present some sources before I could be interested in them. 

This thread keeps getting dumber.

[West]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

You'd have to present some sources before I could be interested in them. 

This thread keeps getting dumber.

Do you believe it's just to sit on an investigation knowing the subjects of the investigation are getting pummeled in the press? 

Exactly the same playbook they ran with the collusion delusion. Hold the investigation during an election cycle so that the press can run an attack campaign, close it as if nothing happened. 

[robosmith]

22 minutes ago, West said:

Do you believe it's just to sit on an investigation knowing the subjects of the investigation are getting pummeled in the press? 

Exactly the same playbook they ran with the collusion delusion. Hold the investigation during an election cycle so that the press can run an attack campaign, close it as if nothing happened. 

Why do you keep REPEATING the LIE about "collusion delusion" when you've been shown the US Senate Intel committee report over and over, which CLEARLY details the Trump campaign collusion with RUSSIAN AGENTS like Kilimnik and oligarch Oleg Deripaska?

[West]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Why do you keep REPEATING the LIE about "collusion delusion" when you've been shown the US Senate Intel committee report over and over, which CLEARLY details the Trump campaign collusion with RUSSIAN AGENTS like Kilimnik and oligarch Oleg Deripaska?

There were NO CHARGES..duh

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, West said:

There were NO CHARGES..duh

So what? It STILL HAPPENED. Charges DEPENDED on the FEC having a quorum, and Trump gutted that right after taking office making FEC law enforcement impossible.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Duh

So are you in favor of Trump disabling the law enforcement by the FEC? Pro CRIME as long as your hero benefits?

[West]

17 minutes ago, robosmith said:

So what? It STILL HAPPENED. Charges DEPENDED on the FEC having a quorum, and Trump gutted that right after taking office making FEC law enforcement impossible.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Duh

So are you in favor of Trump disabling the law enforcement by the FEC? Pro CRIME as long as your hero benefits?

Yeah right. The left wing and the RINOs like Liz Cheney decided to use the legal system to create a headline and try to lie to the masses for election purposes. 

Election interference and bordering on treasonous behavior. 

Just like this story where they knowingly allowed a LIE to fester in the public discourse for a few years. There's many stories like this and you act like it's not intentional

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, West said:

Yeah right. The left wing and the RINOs like Liz Cheney

Cheneys are among the MOST conservative in the US. Of course Trump is NOT conservative.

1 hour ago, West said:

decided to use the legal system to create a headline and try to lie to the masses for election purposes. 

Where is your EVIDENCE of "lie to the masses"?

Almost all the J6 testimony was from WH INSIDERS.

1 hour ago, West said:

Election interference and bordering on treasonous behavior. 

NOT when it was the TRUTH about what HAPPENED.

1 hour ago, West said:

Just like this story where they knowingly allowed a LIE to fester in the public discourse for a few years. There's many stories like this and you act like it's not intentional

It is intentional to tell the truth about Trump's INTENTIONS of INCITING J6th RIOTS as PROVEN by his PARDONS of the MAGA GOONS that invaded the Capitol. He would not have done that if they'd gone against his interests.

You probably don't know the half of it cause you watch and believe ONLY FOS LIES.

[West]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Cheneys are among the MOST conservative in the US. Of course Trump is NOT conservative.

Where is your EVIDENCE of "lie to the masses"?

Almost all the J6 testimony was from WH INSIDERS.

NOT when it was the TRUTH about what HAPPENED.

It is intentional to tell the truth about Trump's INTENTIONS of INCITING J6th RIOTS as PROVEN by his PARDONS of the MAGA GOONS that invaded the Capitol. He would not have done that if they'd gone against his interests.

You probably don't know the half of it cause you watch and believe ONLY FOS LIES.

In this case they lied about senior leadership covering up child abuse and ran headliners in a variety of leftist media outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, West said:

In this case they lied about senior leadership covering up child abuse

Who "lied about senior leadership covering up child abuse" and where is YOUR QUOTE?

2 hours ago, West said:

and ran headliners in a variety of leftist media outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times

DoJ doesn't "ran headliners in a variety of leftist media outlets."

Thanks for proving you STILL don't understand how journalism works in America.

[West]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Who "lied about senior leadership covering up child abuse" and where is YOUR QUOTE?

DoJ doesn't "ran headliners in a variety of leftist media outlets."

Thanks for proving you STILL don't understand how journalism works in America.

If you aren't going to bother to educate yourself about this story, why participate in the discussion? 

[robosmith]

27 minutes ago, West said:

If you aren't going to bother to educate yourself about this story, why participate in the discussion? 

IF you aren't going to bother to provide EVIDENCE for YOUR CLAIMS, why PRETEND to DEBATE?

You're just here to treat this place like YOUR BLOG cause all you post is YOUR OPINIONS.

[West]

28 minutes ago, robosmith said:

IF you aren't going to bother to provide EVIDENCE for YOUR CLAIMS, why PRETEND to DEBATE?

You're just here to treat this place like YOUR BLOG cause all you post is YOUR OPINIONS.

I'm here to understand OTHER POINTS OF VIEW. 

If the only thing you have to offer is yelling about "sources" when I've given you a source including the former President's SOTU that I've used to establish my POINT OF VIEW, your purpose is only to TROLL. 

Be honest the only source you'll accept are the ones I reject because they are already DEBUNKED. 

Edited March 18 by West

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, West said:

I'm here to understand OTHER POINTS OF VIEW. 

If the only thing you have to offer is yelling about "sources" when I've given you a source including the former President's SOTU that I've used to establish my POINT OF VIEW, your purpose is only to TROLL. 

Be honest the only source you'll accept are the ones I reject because they are already DEBUNKED. 

Just cause you believe "my sources" have been debunked, doesn't make it true.

I have VERY MANY sources which routinely corroborate each other.

OTOH, there is STRONG EVIDENCE IN COURT that FOS LIES.

You're an lDIOT if you believe that debate rules are trolling.

Either quote your EVIDENCE or STFU cause you're not here to debate seriously.

[West]

17 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Just cause you believe "my sources" have been debunked, doesn't make it true.

I have VERY MANY sources which routinely corroborate each other.

OTOH, there is STRONG EVIDENCE IN COURT that FOS LIES.

You're an lDIOT if you believe that debate rules are trolling.

Either quote your EVIDENCE or STFU cause you're not here to debate seriously.

My evidence is a DROPPED criminal case against the leaders of the SBC who were falsely accused about covering up child sex abuse. 

Now that we know this wasn't true and was the basis for the DOJ opening investigation resulting in damage to reputation, there needs to be a FULL INVESTIGATION into this. 

This was provided in the first post. Duh

Edited March 18 by West

[robosmith]

52 minutes ago, West said:

My evidence is a DROPPED criminal case against the leaders of the SBC who were falsely accused about covering up child sex abuse. 

If the case was dropped, they were NOT ACCUSED. They were INVESTIGATED due to ALLEGATIONS made against them.

52 minutes ago, West said:

Now that we know this wasn't true and was the basis for the DOJ opening investigation resulting in damage to reputation, there needs to be a FULL INVESTIGATION into this. 

Sorry, that's not the way it works. However, the DoJ is not supposed to publicize investigations before INDICTMENTS like Comey did to Hillary.

52 minutes ago, West said:

This was provided in the first post. Duh

You haven't quoted anything which substantiates your claims. Naked links are not evidence, but they are barely better than NOTHING..

Edited March 18 by robosmith

[West]

44 minutes ago, robosmith said:

If the case was dropped, they were NOT ACCUSED. They were INVESTIGATED due to ALLEGATIONS made against them.

Sorry, that's not the way it works. However, the DoJ is not supposed to publicize investigations before INDICTMENTS like Comey did to Hillary.

You haven't quoted anything which substantiates your claims. Naked links are not evidence, but they are barely better than NOTHING..

The allegations ruined good people's reputations and destroyed their lives. Why do you defend that?

[robosmith]

27 minutes ago, West said:

The allegations ruined good people's reputations and destroyed their lives. Why do you defend that?

Who made the allegations? Quote that HERE.

[West]

18 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Who made the allegations? Quote that HERE.

The fact you are trying to do whatever you are doing here knowing full well someone made an allegations which kicked off a criminal investigation shows what I'm dealing with. 

You appear to have no issue with the reputations that were ruined so that the New York Slimes could grab headlines like this one

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/22/us/southern-baptist-sex-abuse.html

 

[robosmith]

19 minutes ago, West said:

The fact you are trying to do whatever you are doing here knowing full well someone made an allegations which kicked off a criminal investigation shows what I'm dealing with. 

You appear to have no issue with the reputations that were ruined so that the New York Slimes could grab headlines like this one

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/22/us/southern-baptist-sex-abuse.html

 

You're blaming the DoJ for investigating CRIMINAL allegations, which is THEIR JOB.

I suspect that the DoJ does not reveal who made the allegations as a matter of policy.

I KNOW that in SOME CASES they are not supposed to reveal investigations before an INDICTMENT.

The fact that they revealed the investigation indicates there was an INDICTMENT by a Grand Jury.

Since YOU don't know who made the allegations, the DoJ is off the hook for invalidly investigating the allegations.

And you can GPS.

[West]

24 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're blaming the DoJ for investigating CRIMINAL allegations, which is THEIR JOB.

I suspect that the DoJ does not reveal who made the allegations as a matter of policy.

I KNOW that in SOME CASES they are not supposed to reveal investigations before an INDICTMENT.

The fact that they revealed the investigation indicates there was an INDICTMENT by a Grand Jury.

Since YOU don't know who made the allegations, the DoJ is off the hook for invalidly investigating the allegations.

And you can GPS.

Look. 

There were many comments made during the Biden administration. 

Democrat states ie California targeted Catholic nuns with nonsensical lawsuits. 

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/45095/little-sisters-have-big-win-in-supreme-court-decision

I get you are hyper partisan but the track record of Democrats targeting Christians with lawfare is nothing new. Any reasonable people can look at the events over the past two Democrat administrations and come to the same conclusion as I did here. 

And to reiterate I'm merel reacting to my observations. 

 

Edited March 18 by West

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, West said:

Look. 

There were many comments made during the Biden administration. 

Democrat states ie California targeted Catholic nuns with nonsensical lawsuits. 

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/45095/little-sisters-have-big-win-in-supreme-court-decision

I get you are hyper partisan but the track record of Democrats targeting Christians with lawfare is nothing new. Any reasonable people can look at the events over the past two Democrat administrations and come to the same conclusion as I did here. 

And to reiterate I'm merel reacting to my observations. 

 

California state has nothing to do with Obama and his DoJ.

They didn't even lose the case before SCOTUS despite what you LINK says.

Quote

In 2016, a divided Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts and instructed both the administration and the non-profits to reach a compromise where cost-free contraceptive coverage could still be offered to employees while respecting the moral objections of religious groups.