January 6th Protest/Stolen Election Thread (Was: Trump Nuts Storm the Capitol)

[necronomous]

No it doesn't. Which is why they won't charge them. Noone factual determined anything. Some dumbasses getting together and saying, yeah he did it, is not a factual finding. Fucking dumb.

You shouldn't have any problem refuting it with facts then, just bear in mind that SCOTUS wouldn't despite being asked. But then again, you also refused to prove your defense of fraud and corruption allegations.

Damn, I do believe you are functionally retarded.
When I start the conversation with comments on some of "facts of that day" you say I am trying to set "parameters". Like when I attempted to start a conversation way back here:

A whole weekend and you still couldn't find it in yourself to catch up, do the work. As such, you still won't begin, thus proving you're a 3 month long coward. Disingenuous delusional intellectually dishonest functionally retarded hypocritical partisan hack mark.

The fact is, no one has been charged with insurrection. Case closed. And I already proved you don't understand how the case is fraud. We both agreed you were wrong like you are now. Great talk.

On the real, you answered no questions asked nor could you explain how taking a loan out works.

[Animal]

but...but....but....charges filed don't equal crimes committed.

[dot]

LOLZ. OK, retard.
As has been stated numerous times:

As has been stated numerous times, you will not do the work. Your apologist's excuse is that it wasn't an insurrection. The definition of insurrection has been provided, two different iterations with no real difference between them. For your excuse to hold water, you'd have to prove what happened that day (the facts) don't match the definition of the word, or if you prefer, prove the definition of the word is itself wrong. 3 months, you won't do that. The task you have before you is real simple if you think your excuse is worthwhile. Since you won't begin, it's clear that even you as a disingenuous intellectually dishonest hypocritical partisan hack know it is worthless.

The fact is, no one has been charged with insurrection. Case closed. And I already proved you don't understand how the case is fraud. We both agreed you were wrong like you are now. Great talk.

On the real, you answered no questions asked nor could you explain how taking a loan out works.

Charges filed will never be the argument, the argument is what took place that day. The factual finding of inciting insurrection in the court setting you wanted that you still can't refute stands. The fact that you boast fraud isn't fraud and corruption exists without evidence also proves it's you on the wrong side of the facts yet again. I'd say try again, again, but at this point your relentless defense of all things red just makes you look pathetic with how consistently wrong you are. But you're free to give any of those things a shot for real, be it proving fraud isn't fraud or corruption of the judge or January 6 wasn't an insurrection. Just do so with facts, not distractions as is typical Both Sides™ shtick.

but...but....but....charges filed don't equal crimes committed.

Not my fault you can't defend the actions or crimes perpetrated in any of the subjects you try to tackle without knowledge or research. You could always educate yourself first, but you won't. Thus you are where you are.

[necronomous]

LOLZ. OK, retard.
As has been stated numerous times:

As has been stated numerous times, you will not do the work. Your apologist's excuse is that it wasn't an insurrection. The definition of insurrection has been provided, two different iterations with no real difference between them. For your excuse to hold water, you'd have to prove what happened that day (the facts) don't match the definition of the word, or if you prefer, prove the definition of the word is itself wrong. 3 months, you won't do that. The task you have before you is real simple if you think your excuse is worthwhile. Since you won't begin, it's clear that even you as a disingenuous intellectually dishonest hypocritical partisan hack know it is worthless.

The fact is, no one has been charged with insurrection. Case closed. And I already proved you don't understand how the case is fraud. We both agreed you were wrong like you are now. Great talk.

On the real, you answered no questions asked nor could you explain how taking a loan out works.

Charges filed will never be the argument, the argument is what took place that day. The factual finding of inciting insurrection in the court setting you wanted that you still can't refute stands. The fact that you boast fraud isn't fraud and corruption exists without evidence also proves it's you on the wrong side of the facts yet again. I'd say try again, again, but at this point your relentless defense of all things red just makes you look pathetic with how consistently wrong you are. But you're free to give any of those things a shot for real, be it proving fraud isn't fraud or corruption of the judge or January 6 wasn't an insurrection. Just do so with facts, not distractions as is typical Both Sides™ shtick.

but...but....but....charges filed don't equal crimes committed.

Not my fault you can't defend the actions or crimes perpetrated in any of the subjects you try to tackle without knowledge or research. You could always educate yourself first, but you won't. Thus you are where you are.

That we put noone in jail for. For treason. Noone. Lol ...ok you're fucking stupid.

[CHEEZY17]

LOLZ. OK, retard.
As has been stated numerous times:

As has been stated numerous times, you will not do the work. Your apologist's excuse is that it wasn't an insurrection. The definition of insurrection has been provided, two different iterations with no real difference between them. For your excuse to hold water, you'd have to prove what happened that day (the facts) don't match the definition of the word, or if you prefer, prove the definition of the word is itself wrong. 3 months, you won't do that. The task you have before you is real simple if you think your excuse is worthwhile. Since you won't begin, it's clear that even you as a disingenuous intellectually dishonest hypocritical partisan hack know it is worthless.

The fact is, no one has been charged with insurrection. Case closed. And I already proved you don't understand how the case is fraud. We both agreed you were wrong like you are now. Great talk.

On the real, you answered no questions asked nor could you explain how taking a loan out works.

Charges filed will never be the argument, the argument is what took place that day. The factual finding of inciting insurrection in the court setting you wanted that you still can't refute stands. The fact that you boast fraud isn't fraud and corruption exists without evidence also proves it's you on the wrong side of the facts yet again. I'd say try again, again, but at this point your relentless defense of all things red just makes you look pathetic with how consistently wrong you are. But you're free to give any of those things a shot for real, be it proving fraud isn't fraud or corruption of the judge or January 6 wasn't an insurrection. Just do so with facts, not distractions as is typical Both Sides™ shtick.

but...but....but....charges filed don't equal crimes committed.

Not my fault you can't defend the actions or crimes perpetrated in any of the subjects you try to tackle without knowledge or research. You could always educate yourself first, but you won't. Thus you are where you are.

That we put noone in jail for. For treason. Noone. Lol ...ok you're fucking stupid.

The DOJ clearly didnt "do the work" or "look at the facts" in their 3 year long investigation. I mean, how could they not see "insurrection" when Dodgin' Dot says it is so plainly obvious? Its a real head scratcher.

[Animal]

i don't think it ever occurred to them. I bet they feel silly now.

[dot]

That we put noone in jail for. For treason. Noone. Lol ...ok you're fucking stupid.

So still unable to refute any of the facts. Got it. "But the charges" distraction tactic attempt noted.

The DOJ clearly didnt "do the work" or "look at the facts" in their 3 year long investigation. I mean, how could they not see "insurrection" when Dodgin' Dot says it is so plainly obvious? Its a real head scratcher.

"But the charges" distraction tactic attempt part deux noted. If hacks can't argue what happened, hacks pivot to argue something else.

i don't think it ever occurred to them. I bet they feel silly now.

Trifecta of dodges, not a single one of you attempt to prove your collective assertion that January 6 was not an insurrection, every one of you sidesteps and shifts the goalposts to argue anything else but what happened.

[Animal]

That we put noone in jail for. For treason. Noone. Lol ...ok you're fucking stupid.

So still unable to refute any of the facts. Got it. "But the charges" distraction tactic attempt noted.

The DOJ clearly didnt "do the work" or "look at the facts" in their 3 year long investigation. I mean, how could they not see "insurrection" when Dodgin' Dot says it is so plainly obvious? Its a real head scratcher.

"But the charges" distraction tactic attempt part deux noted. If hacks can't argue what happened, hacks pivot to argue something else.

i don't think it ever occurred to them. I bet they feel silly now.

Trifecta of dodges, not a single one of you attempt to prove your collective assertion that January 6 was not an insurrection, every one of you sidesteps and shifts the goalposts to argue anything else but what happened.

We are kind of like the 100's of courts, judges, DA's and prosecutors that all failed to attempt to prove there was an insurrection that day. those crazy goal post shifters. imagine trying to shift an insurrectionist to merely an intruder on public property.

[dot]

We are kind of like the 100's of courts, judges, DA's and prosecutors that all failed to attempt to prove there was an insurrection that day. those crazy goal post shifters. imagine trying to shift an insurrectionist to merely an intruder on public property.

Is that the reason you refuse to even try again to prove it wasn't an insurrection? Note that you are the only one to even try, so I give you credit for that. But you still failed to do it, only helping to bolster the case that it was an insurrection after all. So after all that, you now think failing to prove your apologist's excuse for January 6 validates said excuse? While you get credit for the attempt, you do not get credit for the failure. So once again, prove it wasn't an insurrection according to the definition, or that the definition itself is wrong. But if you can't do that, your premise is wrong, and arguing anything else is an admission that even you know it's wrong. In short, prove your claim, mental midget.

[Animal]

We are kind of like the 100's of courts, judges, DA's and prosecutors that all failed to attempt to prove there was an insurrection that day. those crazy goal post shifters. imagine trying to shift an insurrectionist to merely an intruder on public property.

Is that the reason you refuse to even try again to prove it wasn't an insurrection? Note that you are the only one to even try, so I give you credit for that. But you still failed to do it, only helping to bolster the case that it was an insurrection after all. So after all that, you now think failing to prove your apologist's excuse for January 6 validates said excuse? While you get credit for the attempt, you do not get credit for the failure. So once again, prove it wasn't an insurrection according to the definition, or that the definition itself is wrong. But if you can't do that, your premise is wrong, and arguing anything else is an admission that even you know it's wrong. In short, prove your claim, mental midget.

unfortunately, laws aren't based on definitions of words. laws are sets of rules created by legislators and enforced by courts. there happens to be a law pertaining to insurrection. And that law was deemed to not be applicable to anyone charged on Jan 6th. Not one single person was charged with violating that law. So, you are a drooling stupid fuck.

[dot]

unfortunately, laws aren't based on definitions of words. laws are sets of rules created by legislators and enforced by courts. there happens to be a law pertaining to insurrection. And that law was deemed to not be applicable to anyone charged on Jan 6th. Not one single person was charged with violating that law. So, you are a drooling stupid fuck.

Still shifting the goalposts, thus admitting you can't argue what January 6 was, which was an insurrection. Go ahead, square your own provided definition of insurrection with what took place on January 6. Not what was charged, because absence of charges still does not change whether a crime was committed or not. Your task is proving January 6 was not an insurrection by your own provided definition. There's a reason you won't touch that again, and we both know the reason for that. That's why your accusation is a glorious confession. It's your own fault, you choose to remain ignorant despite repeated advice to educate yourself on any given subject, mental midget. Fraud, bribery, court rulings, insurrection, just what is it gonna take for you to finally research something before you bleat about it?

[Animal]

unfortunately, laws aren't based on definitions of words. laws are sets of rules created by legislators and enforced by courts. there happens to be a law pertaining to insurrection. And that law was deemed to not be applicable to anyone charged on Jan 6th. Not one single person was charged with violating that law. So, you are a drooling stupid fuck.

Still shifting the goalposts, thus admitting you can't argue what January 6 was, which was an insurrection. Go ahead, square your own provided definition of insurrection with what took place on January 6. Not what was charged, because absence of charges still does not change whether a crime was committed or not. Your task is proving January 6 was not an insurrection by your own provided definition. There's a reason you won't touch that again, and we both know the reason for that. That's why your accusation is a glorious confession. It's your own fault, you choose to remain ignorant despite repeated advice to educate yourself on any given subject, mental midget. Fraud, bribery, court rulings, insurrection, just what is it gonna take for you to finally research something before you bleat about it?

so, in essence, what you are wanting to do is argue whether the events of Jan 6th can be defined by the word "insurrection" and not whether they break the law of insurrection. right?

[Animal]

see, here's the thing, Duped Dummy.

You fit the definition of mentally retarded. Because you are less advanced in mental development than is usual for one's age.

However, you probably wouldn't fit the legal definition of mentally retarded. Because you are not retarded in mental development, as determined by mental psychological examination and you have not been proven to be incapable of being educated efficiently and profitably through ordinary classroom instructions.

So, while you meet the definition of retarded, you are not deemed legally retarded.

[dot]

so, in essence, what you are wanting to do is argue whether the events of Jan 6th can be defined by the word "insurrection" and not whether they break the law of insurrection. right?

Charges filed was never my argument, it's what y'all wanted to shift it to because arguing what happened on January 6 and defend it was never going to work out for you.

see, here's the thing, Duped Dummy.

You fit the definition of mentally retarded. Because you are less advanced in mental development than is usual for one's age.

Another confession masked as accusation isn't going to help turn around your repeated flawed approach to proving your apologist's excuse. After all, I'm not the one that can't understand what fraud, bribes, hush money, court rulings, or insurrection means. The only thing that's going to right your course on this subject is proving January 6 was not an insurrection, mental midget. If you're not going to do that, or rather you can't do that, it's time to give up the charade and admit your premise is wrong. I didn't make you choose to defend an insurrection, that was your choice. If you feel the need to cope calling me a mental retard because you're unable to defend your claim given you will never educate yourself about anything you will talk about, that says more about you than it ever will about me.

However, you probably wouldn't fit the legal definition of mentally retarded. Because you are not retarded in mental development, as determined by mental psychological examination and you have not been proven to be incapable of being educated efficiently and profitably through ordinary classroom instructions.

So, while you meet the definition of retarded, you are not deemed legally retarded.

And yet through it all, you fight tooth and nail to argue anything but what the argument was. So unless your new post is not a eureka of the moment for you, congratulations for finally realizing what I've been saying the entire time. Because as I said, arguing what charges were filed was your side's escape hatch to avoid what I was addressing. Your side's collective nonsense for 3 months never hinged on what I said from the beginning and I gave the many reasons why what the lot of you did was a distraction tactic and a copout dodge. So despite calling me many iterations of retarded or stupid or dumb, how does it feel to be every one of those labels you threw out? But even more importantly than that, how does it feel to be defending an insurrection against our country?

[necronomous]

That we put noone in jail for. For treason. Noone. Lol ...ok you're fucking stupid.

So still unable to refute any of the facts. Got it. "But the charges" distraction tactic attempt noted.

The DOJ clearly didnt "do the work" or "look at the facts" in their 3 year long investigation. I mean, how could they not see "insurrection" when Dodgin' Dot says it is so plainly obvious? Its a real head scratcher.

"But the charges" distraction tactic attempt part deux noted. If hacks can't argue what happened, hacks pivot to argue something else.

i don't think it ever occurred to them. I bet they feel silly now.

Trifecta of dodges, not a single one of you attempt to prove your collective assertion that January 6 was not an insurrection, every one of you sidesteps and shifts the goalposts to argue anything else but what happened.

There is nothing to refute. There are no facts. You're basically saying we know someone murdered someone. We have the proof. We have all the facts. We even have a judge saying they definitely did it. But are we going to do anything about it? No.

Why? It doesn't make sense. It's bullshit. Clearly it's bullshit.

[dot]

There is nothing to refute. There are no facts. You're basically saying we know someone murdered someone. We have the proof. We have all the facts. We even have a judge saying they definitely did it. But are we going to do anything about it? No.

Why? It doesn't make sense. It's bullshit. Clearly it's bullshit.

Just because you don't like it, the finding of fact doesn't disappear. I'm saying the investigations, the findings, what unfolded in front of our eyes that day, what they did behind the scenes outside of public eye, it shows he incited insurrection among so many other things. But for this discussion, the focus is insurrection. It's up to you to prove what happened wasn't an insurrection if that's your apologist's claim. Enjoy defending a traitorous criminal conman, red.

[Animal]

so, in essence, what you are wanting to do is argue whether the events of Jan 6th can be defined by the word "insurrection" and not whether they break the law of insurrection. right?

Charges filed was never my argument, it's what y'all wanted to shift it to because arguing what happened on January 6 and defend it was never going to work out for you.

see, here's the thing, Duped Dummy.

You fit the definition of mentally retarded. Because you are less advanced in mental development than is usual for one's age.

Another confession masked as accusation isn't going to help turn around your repeated flawed approach to proving your apologist's excuse. After all, I'm not the one that can't understand what fraud, bribes, hush money, court rulings, or insurrection means. The only thing that's going to right your course on this subject is proving January 6 was not an insurrection, mental midget. If you're not going to do that, or rather you can't do that, it's time to give up the charade and admit your premise is wrong. I didn't make you choose to defend an insurrection, that was your choice. If you feel the need to cope calling me a mental retard because you're unable to defend your claim given you will never educate yourself about anything you will talk about, that says more about you than it ever will about me.

However, you probably wouldn't fit the legal definition of mentally retarded. Because you are not retarded in mental development, as determined by mental psychological examination and you have not been proven to be incapable of being educated efficiently and profitably through ordinary classroom instructions.

So, while you meet the definition of retarded, you are not deemed legally retarded.

And yet through it all, you fight tooth and nail to argue anything but what the argument was. So unless your new post is not a eureka of the moment for you, congratulations for finally realizing what I've been saying the entire time. Because as I said, arguing what charges were filed was your side's escape hatch to avoid what I was addressing. Your side's collective nonsense for 3 months never hinged on what I said from the beginning and I gave the many reasons why what the lot of you did was a distraction tactic and a copout dodge. So despite calling me many iterations of retarded or stupid or dumb, how does it feel to be every one of those labels you threw out? But even more importantly than that, how does it feel to be defending an insurrection against our country?

so, let me ask one simple question then. would you be willing to have a eureka moment and admit that what was done on Jan 6 does NOT fit the definition of the crime of insurrection? because then we would have two clearly defined differences of opinion on what this argument boils down to.

1. Did the events on Jan 6th meet the definition of the word "insurrection".
2. Did the events on Jan 6th meet the definition of the "law against insurrection".

I would be willing to go on record as "yes" to #1 and "no" to #2.

[necronomous]

There is nothing to refute. There are no facts. You're basically saying we know someone murdered someone. We have the proof. We have all the facts. We even have a judge saying they definitely did it. But are we going to do anything about it? No.

Why? It doesn't make sense. It's bullshit. Clearly it's bullshit.

Just because you don't like it, the finding of fact doesn't disappear. I'm saying the investigations, the findings, what unfolded in front of our eyes that day, what they did behind the scenes outside of public eye, it shows he incited insurrection among so many other things. But for this discussion, the focus is insurrection. It's up to you to prove what happened wasn't an insurrection if that's your apologist's claim. Enjoy defending a traitorous criminal conman, red.

It's not about like or not. It's common sense. According to you, we have proof people committed treason, we just aren't going to do anything about it. And I'm not defending anyone. If they committed treason, by all means put them in jail. YOU are defending the traitors by not demanding that they use this so called proof to put them in jail.

Either they have the proof and they themselves are committing treason by not putting them in jail.

Or they don't have proof, just pretending they have to make people like you feel good and can't do shit but lie. One or the other chuck.

[CHEEZY17]

LOLZ. OK, retard.
As has been stated numerous times:

As has been stated numerous times, you will not do the work. Your apologist's excuse is that it wasn't an insurrection. The definition of insurrection has been provided, two different iterations with no real difference between them. For your excuse to hold water, you'd have to prove what happened that day (the facts) don't match the definition of the word, or if you prefer, prove the definition of the word is itself wrong. 3 months, you won't do that. The task you have before you is real simple if you think your excuse is worthwhile. Since you won't begin, it's clear that even you as a disingenuous intellectually dishonest hypocritical partisan hack know it is worthless.

The fact is, no one has been charged with insurrection. Case closed. And I already proved you don't understand how the case is fraud. We both agreed you were wrong like you are now. Great talk.

On the real, you answered no questions asked nor could you explain how taking a loan out works.

Charges filed will never be the argument, the argument is what took place that day. The factual finding of inciting insurrection in the court setting you wanted that you still can't refute stands. The fact that you boast fraud isn't fraud and corruption exists without evidence also proves it's you on the wrong side of the facts yet again. I'd say try again, again, but at this point your relentless defense of all things red just makes you look pathetic with how consistently wrong you are. But you're free to give any of those things a shot for real, be it proving fraud isn't fraud or corruption of the judge or January 6 wasn't an insurrection. Just do so with facts, not distractions as is typical Both Sides™ shtick.

but...but....but....charges filed don't equal crimes committed.

Not my fault you can't defend the actions or crimes perpetrated in any of the subjects you try to tackle without knowledge or research. You could always educate yourself first, but you won't. Thus you are where you are.

Nope. It just comes back to this:
Dodgin' Dot, the single most important point you cant reconcile is this: Everyone knows all of the same facts you do; including the definition and legal standard. The people that matter actually know MORE than you do and they did not reach the same conclusion you did after evaluating and investigating the "events of that day" for 3 years.

Now, I'll save you the trouble because youre just going to trot out the same bullshit dodge about it not being about the charges. Where that argument fails time after time no matter how many times you try it is here: "the charges" are based on "the facts of that day". "the charges" are determined by the careful examination of "the facts" which include the definition and legal standard. "The charges" are EXACTLY what matters because those are where the facts have led. To put it as plainly as possible for you: "the charges" were determined by "the facts". You can argue that all you want but you'll simply again be arguing against the judgement and conclusion of the legal prosecutorial authority of the United States government.

Which leads us right back to yet another question you habitually dodge:
Do you think the legal authorities are wrong in their conclusion and how did they get to that conclusion?

[dot]

so, let me ask one simple question then. would you be willing to have a eureka moment and admit that what was done on Jan 6 does NOT fit the definition of the crime of insurrection? because then we would have two clearly defined differences of opinion on what this argument boils down to.

1. Did the events on Jan 6th meet the definition of the word "insurrection".
2. Did the events on Jan 6th meet the definition of the "law against insurrection".

I would be willing to go on record as "yes" to #1 and "no" to #2.

The argument was never about charges filed, it's about whether it was what it was. But I applaud you conceding the point that January 6 was an insurrection. Now time for you to self reflect and ask yourself why you and your ideological allies are so willing to defend the insurrection. Let's see what they say.

It's not about like or not. It's common sense. According to you, we have proof people committed treason, we just aren't going to do anything about it. And I'm not defending anyone. If they committed treason, by all means put them in jail. YOU are defending the traitors by not demanding that they use this so called proof to put them in jail.

Either they have the proof and they themselves are committing treason by not putting them in jail.

Or they don't have proof, just pretending they have to make people like you feel good and can't do shit but lie. One or the other chuck.

Your idea of common sense would dictate that because a crime is not charged, the crime is erased from being committed in the first place. That is not common sense, that is your irrational defense of the indefensible. Because if you are so dug in on the idea that because no charges were filed and thus what happened in front of our eyes didn't happen, then that means you are in fact defending what happened. This also demonstrates why the tactic of shifting the argument to whether charges were filed is nothing more than a distraction ploy. You can't prove January 6 was not an insurrection because you will never argue using the facts of what happened that day, you will only argue the aftermath which does not change what took place.

That's one that refuses to admit reality.

Nope. It just comes back to this:
Dodgin' Dot, the single most important point you cant reconcile is this: Everyone knows all of the same facts you do; including the definition and legal standard. The people that matter actually know MORE than you do and they did not reach the same conclusion you did after evaluating and investigating the "events of that day" for 3 years.

Now, I'll save you the trouble because youre just going to trot out the same bullshit dodge about it not being about the charges. Where that argument fails time after time no matter how many times you try it is here: "the charges" are based on "the facts of that day". "the charges" are determined by the careful examination of "the facts" which include the definition and legal standard. "The charges" are EXACTLY what matters because those are where the facts have led. To put it as plainly as possible for you: "the charges" were determined by "the facts". You can argue that all you want but you'll simply again be arguing against the judgement and conclusion of the legal prosecutorial authority of the United States government.

Which leads us right back to yet another question you habitually dodge:
Do you think the legal authorities are wrong in their conclusion and how did they get to that conclusion?

Once again, we see that disingenuous partisan hacks have no interest in actually proving their apologist's assertion that January 6 was not an insurrection. Shifted arguments, moved goalposts, that's all that's employed. Hack wants the argument to be about charges filed, and tries to head off the reason his shifted argument holds no water but fails in his logic conclusion. According to hack, charges filed are based on the facts of that day. But hack forgets that clear crimes were committed by his party reps and they escaped charges. The facts bear out that his reps defied subpoenas, that fact is indisputable. The facts bear out that those same reps were not charged and no one, not even the most partisan hack amongst you, is about to claim they didn't defy a lawful subpoena because charges were not filed. But applying hack's insurrection excuse logic to the defiance of subpoenas would mean the subpoenas were never defied, it didn't happen. Hack's insurrection escape hatch logic about charges being filed is therefore wrong on its face because the core facts do not change absent charges. Subpoenas defied and not charged are still defied subpoenas, much like insurrection not charged is still insurrection. The charges filed after the fact never change what took place. And what took place was an insurrection, and who incited that insurrection is still the same person all along because he did not win his election and tried to overturn it and usurp power in a multitude of ways. That is what is being defended with hack's distractions and dodges, because he and they refuse to actually acknowledge what took place.

That's two that refuse to admit reality. Disingenuous delusional intellectually dishonest functionally retarded hypocritical duped partisan hack mark.

[Animal]

so....

you aren't willing to admit that the events of Jan 6th don't meet the definition in the crime of insurrection?

[dot]

so....

you aren't willing to admit that the events of Jan 6th don't meet the definition in the crime of insurrection?

Was never my argument, copout distraction dodge tactic for the reasons outlined. You conceded the point, it was an insurrection, and I leave it to you to self reflect on why you would defend such a heinous act.

[Animal]

so....

you aren't willing to admit that the events of Jan 6th don't meet the definition in the crime of insurrection?

Was never my argument, copout distraction dodge tactic for the reasons outlined. You conceded the point, it was an insurrection, and I leave it to you to self reflect on why you would defend such a heinous act.

I didn't think you could man up. be careful how you throw around that "disingenuous hack" routine.

[CHEEZY17]

Thats some quality whining, bud, with another dodged question thrown in!
And once again you fail to rectify the most basic of facts (because you cant):
Dodgin' Dot, the single most important point you cant reconcile is this: Everyone knows all of the same facts you do; including the definition and legal standard. The people that matter actually know MORE than you do and they did not reach the same conclusion you did after evaluating and investigating the "events of that day" for 3 years.

Now, I'll save you the trouble because youre just going to trot out the same bullshit dodge about it not being about the charges. Where that argument fails time after time no matter how many times you try it is here: "the charges" are based on "the facts of that day". "the charges" are determined by the careful examination of "the facts" which include the definition and legal standard. "The charges" are EXACTLY what matters because those are where the facts have led. To put it as plainly as possible for you: "the charges" were determined by "the facts". You can argue that all you want but you'll simply again be arguing against the judgement and conclusion of the legal prosecutorial authority of the United States government.

Which leads us right back to yet another question you habitually dodge:
Do you think the legal authorities are wrong in their conclusion and how did they get to that conclusion?
Did the DOJ "refuse to actually acknowledge what took place"? Because that is what you are saying, retard. You cant seem to grasp that it is YOU that is in disagreement with the legal authorities: not us.
So, as we were since the beginning we have 2 options for you: you think the DOJ is wrong in their evaluation of the "facts of that day" and you understand insurrection better than they do or, conversely, their conclusion is correct. They are either wrong or they are right.
Which is it? Tick tock!

[CHEEZY17]

so....

you aren't willing to admit that the events of Jan 6th don't meet the definition in the crime of insurrection?

Was never my argument, copout distraction dodge tactic for the reasons outlined. You conceded the point, it was an insurrection, and I leave it to you to self reflect on why you would defend such a heinous act.

What a fucking pussy.