cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You dont think it's a big deal the President was in contact with people who admit they were hoarding guns outside DC waiting for his order to start shooting?
2022 Elections
- Thread starter Jaw
- Start date
You dont think it's a big deal the President was in contact with people who admit they were hoarding guns outside DC waiting for his order to start shooting?
He was in direct contact with them?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I dont know. Let's start with do you care first. If you dont then why should I even bother vetting it.
I don't care because its a pointless conversation because it never happened.
Tapate50
Well-known member
You made the claim why should you have to vet your own claim? I said "big if true"
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You made the claim why should you have to vet your own claim? I said "big if true"
First mention of that was your post sir. I assumed you were referring to something reported by the media. You are welcome to quote anywhere I said the Oath Keepers were in direct contact with Trump.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Nah, not at all. I was just going by your posts alone..which... seem to indicate a strong stance he was in cahoots with the Oath Keepers directly
sturg33
I
Much like how Trump definitely incited a riot to go kill people... even though he never actually said such a thing... it just happened maaaaaaaan
It's like when I showed him irrefutable proof that it's the feds' jurisdiction in handling the SCOTUS protestors, not the locals. He doesn't care about facts.
I had no idea he was using that much but the fact that he contradicts himself constantly told me something's wrong.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Again, you brought it up. I was asking if you even cared if it was true before I even bothered to look it up.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Incitement does not need to include a specific statement. All they need to prove is he intended for it to happen. Which is why theres been so much focus on his reaction to the riot. Nothing in the law about insurrection says anything about verbally encouraging. It reads....
"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the US or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto...."
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
The fact that you cant tell when I am mocking the MAGA people here and when I am being serious should tell you something to. Dont worry though, I started including disclaimers just for you so you domt have to strain all 1p brain cells you have.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Nothing is irrefutable anymore. We live in an era of alternative facts. That said, you cant be serious that you think the local police dont have jurisdiction to arrest those protesters if they wanted to. I bet the local police are even at these rallies providing security. That might as well be inviting them to be there which absolves them of any guilt. That's me using your logic, not what I believe. It really takes the fun out of mocking you that I have to explain it to you last you think I am contradicting myself.
sturg33
I
"It just happened maaaaaaaaaaan"
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Has he been charged with a crime? I am sorry I cant explain one of the most complicated laws to a person who purposely wants to be confused. When and if theres an indictment with some actual lawyers alleging facts and legal theory I could better explain it to you. Inciting an insurection isnt even the likely charge. Seditious conspiracy would be more accurate.
Tapate50
Well-known member
It was a question in response to your post….
It was pretty obvious
May need to dry out
sturg33
I
"It just happened maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan"