Michigan Militia Plotted To Kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, FBI Says

[Tapate50]

This case has done a lot to prevent future terrorist attacks by MAGA. Which makes it highly successful in my books.

Lol

Yeah that’s the takeaway

[cajunrevenge]

Would be nice if Republicans took this chance to back some legislation that repairs the damage done to a person who was acquitted. Instead they will just complain that these people suffered a lot of negative consequences despite being found innocent completely ignoring the millions of other people who have been in the same situation.

[thethe]

Would be nice if Republicans took this chance to back some legislation that repairs the damage done to a person who was acquitted. Instead they will just complain that these people suffered a lot of negative consequences despite being found innocent completely ignoring the millions of other people who have been in the same situation.

As opposed to the fools like you that persecuted these men based on the Feds inciting this whole plan?

[cajunrevenge]

Um, wut? The plan existed before the FBI was involved. And I have shown multiple instances where the FBI tried to do the same thing to BLM when there was no original criminal plot.

[thethe]

No BL take yet?

What a shame.

Expect his disappearance when the trump bull**** cases are thrown out as well.

[Garmel]

No BL take yet?

What a shame.

Expect his disappearance when the trump bull**** cases are thrown out as well.

The Trump cases are absolutely terrible but with blue juries there's a good chance for a conviction.

[thethe]

The Trump cases are absolutely terrible but with blue juries there's a good chance for a conviction.

Oh he will have his technicality but reasonable people know what’s happening. Polling is reflecting thst and the 24 election will be the landslide thst 2020 truly was.

[Garmel]

Oh he will have his technicality but reasonable people know what’s happening. Polling is reflecting thst and the 24 election will be the landslide thst 2020 truly was.

There aren't reasonable people sitting on a DC jury.

[thethe]

There aren't reasonable people sitting on a DC jury.

That’s not what I’m saying. He will have his technicality because a hyper partisan jury will convict trump based on anything. But reasonable people in the country understand what’s really going on.

[cajunrevenge]

The Trump cases are absolutely terrible but with blue juries there's a good chance for a conviction.

So you think literally everyone in DC in a Democrat? Out of voters, sure, but not everyone is involved in politics. You people will judge the jury based on the result they give and not anything else. Werent you telling us how the NY defamation case jury was the same and they voted no on the rape charge because it didnt fit the defintion of rape in NY law. You told us they would just vote guikty on everything because they hate Trump. You wont respect the verdict given by any jury unless its the one you want. So lets not pretend a jury having Democrats on it has anything to do with it. Florida is solid red and you wont respect that juries verdict unless its not guilty either. You have rigged the results in your own mind so that only verdicts that give what you want cant be accepted. All other details dont matter even the evidence.

[Garmel]

So you think literally everyone in DC in a Democrat? Out of voters, sure, but not everyone is involved in politics. You people will judge the jury based on the result they give and not anything else. Werent you telling us how the NY defamation case jury was the same and they voted no on the rape charge because it didnt fit the defintion of rape in NY law. You told us they would just vote guikty on everything because they hate Trump. You wont respect the verdict given by any jury unless its the one you want. So lets not pretend a jury having Democrats on it has anything to do with it. Florida is solid red and you wont respect that juries verdict unless its not guilty either. You have rigged the results in your own mind so that only verdicts that give what you want cant be accepted. All other details dont matter even the evidence.

They didn't vote for the rape charge because it didn't fit the definition of rape and would have caused an appeal, not due to any good graces from them. However, the whole thing was absolutely ridiculous as is. Basically it would be me accusing you of raping me 30 years ago and I told thethe and sturg about it at the time. No other evidence involved so where's my money? In all seriousness, on top of that her mental state is one that's not trustworthy. It was a ****ing joke and couldn't be pulled off in an area of sanity.

The evidence does matter in Florida and it all points to this being bull****. Trump has the law on his side. He won't be convicted in Florida unless something else pops up besides what we've seen.

I liked it that you didn't respond to me for awhile. How about you go back to doing that so I don't have to respond to your nonsense?

[cajunrevenge]

It would have caused an appeal? Its being appealed anyways. You told me the blue juries would vote for anything to convict Trump. Now your saying they wont vote for a charge if they think it will lose on appeal? Wtf. What you still dont understand is that this was a civil trial that only determines if something is more likely than not to have happened. On one hand you had Carrol testify about the alleged event and several people testify that she told them about it at the time. On the other side you had Trump who wouldnt even testify in his own defense. A man who has said that he can grab women by the pussy. And to top that off the moron said in deposition that he could do exactly what he was accused of and people like him are not held accountable. He probably would have lost without that statement but its almost literally the worst thing he could say in a deposition. The statement could be defended if he didnt add the " or fortunately" at the end. You talk about her mental state but the other person is Donald Trump. Not exactly the poster child for mental health.


He couldnt be more caught red handed if he walking into Nancy Pelosi's office and shot her in the head than he is in the Florida case. He destroyed any shred of a credible defense he could have with his obstruction. Even in a perfect world scenario for you where he wins the legal argument on the documents he would still lose on the obstruction charges because if he truly believed he was doing everything legally he had legal options to peruse. He could have sued and asked for an injunction on the subpoena. He certainly has the time and resources to file 100 frivolous lawsuits every year that get laughed out of court. There can and never will be any case that Trump is more guilty of according to the evidence than this one. You arent arguing his innocence you are arguing he is above the law.


And if you dont want me to reply to your posts then stop posting retarded **** and atleast try to be intellectually honest. I dont give two ****s if my calling your retarded **** retarded hurts your feelings.

[Garmel]

It would have caused an appeal? Its being appealed anyways. You told me the blue juries would vote for anything to convict Trump. Now your saying they wont vote for a charge if they think it will lose on appeal? Wtf. What you still dont understand is that this was a civil trial that only determines if something is more likely than not to have happened. On one hand you had Carrol testify about the alleged event and several people testify that she told them about it at the time. On the other side you had Trump who wouldnt even testify in his own defense. A man who has said that he can grab women by the pussy. And to top that off the moron said in deposition that he could do exactly what he was accused of and people like him are not held accountable. He probably would have lost without that statement but its almost literally the worst thing he could say in a deposition. The statement could be defended if he didnt add the " or fortunately" at the end. You talk about her mental state but the other person is Donald Trump. Not exactly the poster child for mental health.


He couldnt be more caught red handed if he walking into Nancy Pelosi's office and shot her in the head than he is in the Florida case. He destroyed any shred of a credible defense he could have with his obstruction. Even in a perfect world scenario for you where he wins the legal argument on the documents he would still lose on the obstruction charges because if he truly believed he was doing everything legally he had legal options to peruse. He could have sued and asked for an injunction on the subpoena. He certainly has the time and resources to file 100 frivolous lawsuits every year that get laughed out of court. There can and never will be any case that Trump is more guilty of according to the evidence than this one. You arent arguing his innocence you are arguing he is above the law.


And if you dont want me to reply to your posts then stop posting retarded **** and atleast try to be intellectually honest. I dont give two ****s if my calling your retarded **** retarded hurts your feelings.

Yes, but the appeal would be a win for Trump if the jury actually voted to do something illegal. As is who knows? Civil trials should still have standards and this didn't have any. This doesn't win in a red area. How can Trump have a defense if a day can't be named on when this occurred? One woman named the year but it was so long ago so who knows about her memory. The law actually had to be changed beforehand to allow this case(and others) over 25 years old to happen. WTH does that tell you? The whole case was stacked against Trump with no semblance of fairness.

Here's the difference between me and you is that I actually know the law and you don't. You can't have obstruction without a crime involved. Look it up, buddy. You can call that the Bill Barr rule I guess. On top of that all we have Jack Smith's word and his history points to that nobody sane would.

As I said I know the law WAY better than you. I'm not a lawyer but I have taken law classes and I read a lot of law which is more than you can say. Your version of law is whatever kook website tells you to think. . You can take your "retarded" comments and you can shove it up your ass. You're the stupidest person on here and the sad thing is you don't even know it. I can't wait for more future humiliation from you. Wanna tell me how the government can legally restrict speech during a covid epidemic again? lololololol. Wanna tell me how the Michigan Militia case has stopped MAGA terrorism. lololololol. You are the alpha moron.

[cajunrevenge]

Yes, but the appeal would be a win for Trump if the jury actually voted to do something illegal. As is who knows? Civil trials should still have standards and this didn't have any. This doesn't win in a red area. How can Trump have a defense if a day can't be named on when this occurred? One woman named the year but it was so long ago so who knows about her memory. The law actually had to be changed beforehand to allow this case(and others) over 25 years old to happen. WTH does that tell you? The whole case was stacked against Trump with no semblance of fairness.

Here's the difference between me and you is that I actually know the law and you don't. You can't have obstruction without a crime involved. Look it up, buddy. You can call that the Bill Barr rule I guess. On top of that all we have Jack Smith's word and his history points to that nobody sane would.

As I said I know the law WAY better than you. I'm not a lawyer but I have taken law classes and I read a lot of law which is more than you can say. Your version of law is whatever kook website tells you to think. . You can take your "retarded" comments and you can shove it up your ass. You're the stupidest person on here and the sad thing is you don't even know it. I can't wait for more future humiliation from you. Wanna tell me how the government can legally restrict speech during a covid epidemic again? lololololol. Wanna tell me how the Michigan Militia case has stopped MAGA terrorism. lololololol. You are the alpha moron.

If the jury voted to do something illegal? The jury cant vote to do something illegal. Even an inaccurate ruling on their part isnt illegal. Civil trials do have standards. I explained them to you. Once again, burden of proof is whether something is a better than 50/50 shot to have happened. That didnt just start with Trump. Thats every civil case in US history. I explained to you exactly why the jury found the allegations 50.0000001% or better to have happened. If one side is willing to take the stand and the other isnt. Guess who the jury is going to believe far more often? Trump weaponized the legal system to bankrupt people, the reason people like Carol dont come forward years ago is the same reason people didnt come forward about allegations against Weinstein. They used their wealth and influence to destroy or threaten to destroy people. Most people cant afford to spend millions of dollars on lawyers. Trump has a LONG history of doing this and threatening to do it. Which is ironic give his claims about weaponization of the law these days.



The difference between us is I know I am not a trained lawyer and am willing to be swayed by logical and factual arguments. If you took law classes you need to ask for a refund because you dont even understand the most basic things about law. I can accept when a court decision doesnt go my way even if I disagree with parts of it I accept it. You on the other refuse to accept any court decision unless it confirms what you believe. You dont move goalposts you refuse to even have goalposts even on court cases that havent even happened yet. You make retarded excuses like the case happening in a blue state but you still wont accept jury verdicts in red states. You say blue state juries will be biased against Trump but when given the option to convict on a charge not supported by the evidence in NY they voted not guilty. Theres always going to be excuses from your for your L's no matter what because you cant accept that your opinion was wrong. These arent even your opinions they are you just regurgitating what you hear from others. Maybe at some point you really should consider that the reason you keep getting every case wrong is not because of some nefarious thing. Sometimes your just wrong. Happens to the best of us. The same excues you make you would mock if anyone uses it when a jury agrees with your opinion.


How long ago was it you were claiming Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted for deleting her emails even though an aide had already confessed to doing it? Do you know what that charge would have been? Obstruction of Justice. She wasnt convicted of any underlying crime so she could have just said "yeah I deleted them but since theres no underlying crime its not obstruction" according to your expert legal opinion. And your big brain legal opinion thinks Hillary not only could get indicted but also convicted for this obstruction despite someone else confessing to doing it without her knowledge just because you dont like her. I dont like her either but even I know that wouldnt fly in a court of law. Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction despite securities fraud charges being thrown out. Scooter Libby was convicted of obstruction with no underlying crime. You use Trumps own AG's opinion that a President cant be charged with obstruction unless there is an underlying crime is laughable. Barr literally sent a memo to the DoJ which was given to Trump talking about how in his legal theory the President was basically above the law and Trump asked him to be his defense lawyer, which Barr refused, then accepted the AG position. Barr was smart enough to know it was easier to defend Trump if he held the position that got to decide if charges would be brought. Your side is going nuts about AG Garland having any role in deciding what if any charges to bring against Hunter but Trumps AG making decisions about whether to bring charges against Trump is proof Trump isnt guilty of obstruction, give me a break. I take back what I said about you legal arguments being retarded. Its an insult to retards. You are letting your personal biases dictate your legal opinion. I didnt take law classes but I would bet thats one of the first things they teach you not to do. I know you and a few others desperately need to paint me as some leftwing person who is biased against Trump but the reality is I have been ****ting on Hillary, Biden, John McCain, and Trump. I was cheering the "lock her up chants in 2016". I spent the 2020 primary season ****ting all over Biden and pleading for literally anyone but him. Those were my exact words. Literally anyone but Biden. But in your warped fragile little mind I just hate Trump and am biased against him.

[Garmel]

We've already discussed this several times so I know I'm wasting time with facts.

1) Hillary clearly broke statute 18 U.S. Code § 1924. She ran classified material through the server and had her maid who had no security clearance help her maintain the server. She's guilty as hell. Regardless of what the FBI said she had definite intent. If charged with the Espionage Act she wouldn't even need intent. This definitely can be gross negligence.

2) You have zero concept of respondeat superior. Employers can be held responsible for the actions of their employees. Using your insane logic every CEO who gets a troubling subpoena can just have their employee wipe data and claim it was wiped by accident. Although I didn't agree with the Fox News lawsuit Fox News couldn't just say it was their employees fault who brought up the "lies". They were held responsible for their employees' actions.

3) Barr's declaration is a binding legal opinion and it's a good one. You should be for prosecutors having their ability to ruin people's lives going on witch hunts and using the very broad "obstruction" to get people when the heart of their case fails.

Yeah, illegal was poor wording on my part. If the jury said it was rape the appeals court would knock it down and possibly the whole case.