dot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:32 am
Animal wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:03 pm
in Jack Smith's 50 pages report on Trump and Jan 6th, I'm not talking about charges filed. I am simply talking about Jan 6th and all of the things that Jack Smith had to say about the events of that day. Not a single mention of "insurrection". He never even typed the word.
What exactly do you think indictment means? Oh crap, we're talking definitions again. Ugh, your biggest weakness.
Animal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 7:56 pm
Jack Smith never even uses the word "insurrection" in that entire 45 page
indictment against Trump. He didn't use the word, because there was no insurrection that day and the word didn't fit anything he had to say about it.
It's real simple. Stop talking about what comes after. Discuss the day of. You did it once, try again but harder.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:41 pm
You continually fall back on "the definition!!!!!!!" bullshit
If it's such a problem, then why can't you refute it? You can't even start and now you have to reckon with your criminal idol calling it an insurrection too. Hack does hack things. Lemme know when you can address the facts of the insurrection on January 6.
I dont need to refute it because its already been refuted, analyzed and rejected by the DOJ in the form of hundreds of prosecutions-none of which were for insurrection.
Ok, lets try it again: What facts EXACTLY do you want to address? Try to actually give an answer this time.
The text messages?
The tweets?
The emails?
The gathering?
The entering the building?
The sporadic violence?
The phone calls?
The 3 year investigation?
The testimonies?
The definition?
The hundreds of prosecutions?
Any of these "facts of that day" or do you have something else in mind? Be specific please.
All of those are known by you, me and everyone else. Most importantly, all of those are known and have been "addressed" by the United States Justice department which doesnt agree with your conclusion. Until you can reconcile the fact that the legal authority of the United States Government does not agree with your judgement regarding the "facts of that day", you lose. Sorry, bud. Your beef seems to be with them as we are simply agreeing with the conclusion determined by the people who literally do this for a living.
What facts and evidence do you want to discuss? Be specific please.
We're back to this again:
So, in essence, you either think the authorities DID evaluate all of the evidence and they are wrong and you think you understand the evidence better than they do
or
They DIDNT evaluate all of the evidence and you know something they dont.
Which is it?
Try not to be a coward and actually address a question posed to you.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."