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

[Antknot]

I am going to remind you, but have no doubt it won't matter.

there were no charges available to prosecutors, at the time Capone was charged, for racketeering or running a criminal enterprise and getting other people to commit the crimes (being a mafia boss). They had to create racketeering laws, RICO laws, in 1970 in order to do that. Capone was arrested in the 1930's or 1920's. You stupid, dumb, fucking idiot.

Which might be relevant if this hinged on whether charges were filed like your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse does. It doesn't. What matters is the crime committed. So no matter how many times you want to come at this regarding charges being filed, it does not and will never change what happened on January 6 because charges filed does not alter the facts of what took place. But, I can't expect someone who couldn't figure out fraud to figure that out either.

Charges filed is not the same thing as committing the crime. Don't like it? Prove me wrong. Or take a seat. Dumb partisan hack.

Unless someone is convicted of a crime they are innocent. If they’re innocent there was no crimeYour opinion is just that your opinion

[Reservoir Dog]

Unless someone is convicted of a crime they are innocent. If they’re innocent there was no crime.

O.J. Simpson is on line 1.

[dot]

if you are dumb enough to think the comparison to Capone proves you are in any way right, which I just completely torched and you know it, then I fully expect you will never understand how wrong you are about charges filed meaning every fucking thing about the crime committed.

Except you didn't. What Capone did was on the books, and furthermore, even if we took what you said at face value with full credibility that you don't deserve, does it change that he did what he did? No, it does not. Which is the fundamental problem with your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse, everything the lot of you keep arguing does not change what happened that day. That leaves your only recourse to be arguing the facts of what happened that day and whether it fits the definition of insurrection. Now I've shown why it does. No one has shown why it does not. You have your invitation. Have at it.

Its actually a grand slam fucking home run you retard.

No, it isn't. Stating your changing of the argument does not and will not alter the facts of January 6. Argue the facts, or take a seat, hack.

Unless someone is convicted of a crime they are innocent. If they’re innocent there was no crimeYour opinion is just that your opinion

This simpleton opinion flies in the face of reality and still ignores the fundamental truth of the matter. The crime is not erased because charges are not filed. People who defied subpoenas and weren't charged still defied the subpoena. All that happened is they weren't punished for breaking the law. People who have killed other people and who either weren't charged or got acquitted, the killing still happened. It wasn't erased. Zimmerman, Kennedy, Anthony, countless others, it's understood they all did the crime but they avoided punishment for that crime. And yet people on this board to this day call Kennedy a murderer because of political gamesmanship. So until you want to take a swing at the facts of January 6 without moving the goalposts to argue something that doesn't alter the facts of that day, yes it's gonna be you dodging said facts.

O.J. Simpson is on line 1.

First one I thought of but I felt it was too easy. There's no shortages of examples that disprove their house of cards.

[Animal]

if you are dumb enough to think the comparison to Capone proves you are in any way right, which I just completely torched and you know it, then I fully expect you will never understand how wrong you are about charges filed meaning every fucking thing about the crime committed.

Except you didn't. What Capone did was on the books, and furthermore, even if we took what you said at face value with full credibility that you don't deserve, does it change that he did what he did? No, it does not. Which is the fundamental problem with your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse, everything the lot of you keep arguing does not change what happened that day. That leaves your only recourse to be arguing the facts of what happened that day and whether it fits the definition of insurrection. Now I've shown why it does. No one has shown why it does not. You have your invitation. Have at it.

My god, you stupid fuck. No it doesn't change what he did. What it changes is that there was no law against it at the time he did it. They knew what he was doing was wrong but they had no laws to charge him for breaking. So they had to use tax evasion. Face it, stupid. You once again used a dumb example that does more to disprove your stupid theory than to support it. In fact, it just goes to show how stupid you are about the whole topic.

It was 40 years later that they finally wrote a law that they could use against people like him.

[CHEEZY17]

Dodgin' Dot, do you think the United States Justice Department understands what "insurrection" is?
If your answer is "yes" then you have to reconcile the fact that after examining all of the evidence they think differently than you do in their conclusion.
If your answer is "no" then you have to admit that you think you understand "insurrection" better than the legal authorities.
Do you see why this is a losing argument for you?

[dot]

My god, you stupid fuck. No it doesn't change what he did.

If you'd just stopped there, you'd have been so much closer to realizing the fallacy of your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse. But you had to stick to defending it instead of focusing on what you had to admit again.

What it changes is that there was no law against it at the time he did it. They knew what he was doing was wrong but they had no laws to charge him for breaking.

Except his crimes were still illegal back then. With the exception of bootlegging and prohibition, you might have had an argument if murder or prostitution or gambling was legal and if I was arguing charges filed to begin with. I'm not, that's y'all's flawed excuse. I'm arguing about the acts themselves, not the punishment and aftermath. I'm talking about what the insurrection was, not how people got punished for it. Two different things that you are required to conflate for your argument to hold water. But as you admitted, it is irrelevant. Waiting on your counterpoint still.

Dodgin' Dot, do you think the United States Justice Department

And here we see the reliably dumb disingenuous partisan hack resorting to his repeatedly failed Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse of "but the charges."

[CHEEZY17]

And here we see the reliably dumb disingenuous partisan hack resorting to his repeatedly failed Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse of "but the charges."

NO. Its about the process. Its about examining the evidence. Its about legal professionals arguing the facts of that day and reaching a conclusion of how to categorize it. After that THEN its about the charges.
You want to ignore the first part, which destroys your argument, which is: People smarter than you already decided that the facts and evidence of that day dont rise to the level of insurrection. In other words people smarter than you, whose literal job is to determine what crime is committed, looked at the videos, definitions and legal standards, testimony and evidence and decided "insurrection" didnt fit. THAT is what proves you wrong; you just dont want to admit it. Keep crying, bud, maybe someday someone will care.

[Animal]

My god, you stupid fuck. No it doesn't change what he did.

If you'd just stopped there, you'd have been so much closer to realizing the fallacy of your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse. But you had to stick to defending it instead of focusing on what you had to admit again.

What it changes is that there was no law against it at the time he did it. They knew what he was doing was wrong but they had no laws to charge him for breaking.

Except his crimes were still illegal back then. With the exception of bootlegging and prohibition, you might have had an argument if murder or prostitution or gambling was legal and if I was arguing charges filed to begin with. I'm not, that's y'all's flawed excuse. I'm arguing about the acts themselves, not the punishment and aftermath. I'm talking about what the insurrection was, not how people got punished for it. Two different things that you are required to conflate for your argument to hold water. But as you admitted, it is irrelevant. Waiting on your counterpoint still.

do you know why John Gotti was convicted under the RICO act and not for tax evasion? Because they had the RICO act in 1992. Do you know why Capone was convicted of tax evasion instead of the RICO act in 1931? Because they did not have the RICO act in 1931. Would they have charged Capone under the RICO act if they had it in 1931? Of course they would have.

Guess what law they had on Jan 6, 2021? The Law against Insurrection. Why would they not have used that law to charge anyone for crimes on Jan 6th? Because no one's crime on Jan 6th met the definition of that law. MYTH BUSTED!

[dot]

NO. Its about the process. Its about examining the evidence.

If you'd apply that logic to the day of January 6 and what happened there, maybe you might get somewhere. Instead you rely on a flawed Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse that will never change the facts of what happened that day.

Its about legal professionals

Annnnnd there it is. No matter what, you will only pivot to change the argument, never argue the facts. Dumb disingenuous partisan hack things.

do you know why John Gotti was convicted under the RICO act and not for tax evasion? Because they had the RICO act in 1992. Do you know why Capone was convicted of tax evasion instead of the RICO act in 1931? Because they did not have the RICO act in 1931. Would they have charged Capone under the RICO act if they had it in 1931? Of course they would have.

Guess what law they had on Jan 6, 2021? The Law against Insurrection. Why would they not have used that law to charge anyone for crimes on Jan 6th? Because no one's crime on Jan 6th met the definition of that law. MYTH BUSTED!

That's a whole lot of words that don't change the facts or reality of the crimes committed. See, you're the one hinging your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse on charges and convictions. Me, I'm arguing the facts of the crimes themselves. So since you seem to need reminding, you need to argue the facts of the insurrection itself or that the definition of insurrection is wrong. You can use either definition at this point, mine or yours. But charges filed or not filed still will not change the events of what happened that day.

[Animal]

You can use either definition at this point, mine or yours. But charges filed or not filed still will not change the events of what happened that day.

it would be "charges not filed".

[dot]

it would be "charges not filed".

But charges filed or not filed still will not change the events of what happened that day.

[Animal]

it would be "charges not filed".

But charges filed or not filed still will not change the events of what happened that day.

there were no charges for insurrection filed. so it would be "But charges not filed still will not change the events" in your wrinkle free brain.

[CHEEZY17]

NO. Its about the process. Its about examining the evidence.

If you'd apply that logic to the day of January 6 and what happened there, maybe you might get somewhere. Instead you rely on a flawed Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse that will never change the facts of what happened that day.

Logic applied right here in post 2107:

And as I said: I'll be happy to keep pointing out to you that the legal authority of the United States government has already argued the facts of January 6th. They used your definition, the videos, the testimonies and all of the other evidence and decided "insurrection" didnt fit.
Until you can reconcile that very simple and basic fact you'll just have to keep whining, hoping that someday someone will care.
You saying our questions are "not relevant" is you simply admitting you cant answer them.

How the legal authorities arrive at their conclusions is absolutely relevant and the fact that you dont want to admit that shows how weak and pathetic your premise is.

How do you think the Authorities came to their decision on how to proceed?
Do you think they referred to the definition and legal standards?

Its about legal professionals

Annnnnd there it is. No matter what, you will only pivot to change the argument, never argue the facts. Dumb disingenuous partisan hack things.

which brings us back to post 2160:

Dodgin' Dot, do you think the United States Justice Department understands what "insurrection" is?
If your answer is "yes" then you have to reconcile the fact that after examining all of the evidence they think differently than you do in their conclusion.
If your answer is "no" then you have to admit that you think you understand "insurrection" better than the legal authorities.
Do you see why this is a losing argument for you?

Face it bud, YOU are on the opposite side of "arguing the facts" because that is literally the job of the authorities in deciding how to proceed. They "argued the facts" and their conclusion was "not insurrection". YOU cant seem to grasp that people smarter than you have already "argued the facts".
Try to not be a coward and actually address the question above (or ANY question posed to you) before you trot out "tHe dEFiniTion!!!!1" or "it doesnt matter!!!!1" again.

[dot]

there were no charges for insurrection filed. so it would be "But charges not filed still will not change the events" in your wrinkle free brain.

Yeah, see, whether charges were filed or not filed, the end result is the facts of the crime do not change. Both branches lead to the same outcome, the crime itself does not change. And that's why your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse is irrelevant and refuted, because it doesn't matter which way your excuse would land. The facts of the crime do not change either way.

You really should learn to take note when I warn you "this won't work out for you" especially when trying to call anyone else a smoothbrain.

Logic applied right here in post 2107:

Throwing tantrums and changing the argument is not applying logic. It will never change what happened that day, hack.

which brings us back to post 2160:

Echo.

Face it bud, YOU are on the opposite side of "arguing the facts" because that is literally the job of the authorities

Annnnnd there it is. No matter what, you will only pivot to change the argument, never argue the facts. Dumb disingenuous partisan hack things.

Echo x 2.

[CHEEZY17]

Yes, the events of that day happened. Nothing can change that. No one is saying otherwise.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that people smarter than you have evaluated those events.
People smarter than you have looked at all of the evidence.
People smarter than you have looked at the definitions and legal standards to determine how to categorize "the facts" and proceed.
All of this was done BEFORE your dumb argument of "The facts!!!!!1". Because thats how it works: People smarter than you look at all of the evidence and THEN decide how to proceed BASED ON THOSE FACTS AND EVIDENCE. I'll dumb it down farther for you: The people smarter than you look at everything BEFORE the topic of what charges to levy even comes up. You cant put the cart before the horse. Basically your argument is useless because the facts that have been examined are what determines how things proceed.
Ask yourself WHY there are no charges. I'll help you out since you are incapable of seeing the larger picture:
People smarter than you used your definition, the videos, the testimonies (you know, the stuff you say makes your case rock solid) and all of the other evidence and decided "insurrection" didnt fit so they went a different route.
Thats it. Thats the bottom line, bud.

Which brings us back to this yet again

Dodgin' Dot, do you think the United States Justice Department understands what "insurrection" is?
If your answer is "yes" then you have to reconcile the fact that after examining all of the evidence they think differently than you do in their conclusion.
If your answer is "no" then you have to admit that you think you understand "insurrection" better than the legal authorities.
Do you see why this is a losing argument for you?

Keep crying, bud, maybe someday someone will care.

[dot]

Yes, the events of that day happened. Nothing can change that. No one is saying otherwise.

Except for you guys who keep insisting that charges not being filed changes what happened that day. And what happened that day was insurrection. Don't like it? Prove it wasn't an insurrection. You've got two definitions to work off of. But somehow hacks won't tackle that.

[Animal]

Yes, the events of that day happened. Nothing can change that. No one is saying otherwise.

Except for you guys who keep insisting that charges not being filed changes what happened that day. And what happened that day was insurrection. Don't like it? Prove it wasn't an insurrection. You've got two definitions to work off of. But somehow hacks won't tackle that.

literally everyone has "tackled it". and everyone has come to the same conclusion, but you. Every time a person that was arrested for that day, they had to decide what crime to charge them with. Guess which one they never concluded fit the crime of a single person? insurrection. not even one person.

your entire premise that a crime doesn't equal a charge is moot once an actual charge is filed. Prosecutors don't bring charges that they think they might lose. The only way the charge wouldn't equal the crime is if they agreed to lessen the charge for some leverage of some kind (testimony against a bigger target). Now if you can point out a single case where that was done, post it. Otherwise you are just flat out wrong. What is even more bizarre, is that you are insinuating that every person committed insurrection that day, and yet not one of the hundreds were charged with that crime. Not one. Not two. or three. but hundreds. why is that? just stop yourself from typing "a crime doesn't equal a charge" for one second and give this some real thought.

[dot]

literally everyone has "tackled it".

Literally no one has. You came close, but when it didn't pan out, you fell back to the changing of the argument. So either pick up where you left off in arguing the facts of what January 6 was, or find a way to invalidate the definition even you were willing to accept. But arguing the aftermath that does not change the facts of what occurred that day is irrelevant, and you've admitted as such. So try again.

[Animal]

literally everyone has "tackled it".

Literally no one has. You came close, but when it didn't pan out, you fell back to the changing of the argument. So either pick up where you left off in arguing the facts of what January 6 was, or find a way to invalidate the definition even you were willing to accept. But arguing the aftermath that does not change the facts of what occurred that day is irrelevant, and you've admitted as such. So try again.

why was no one charged with insurrection?

[CHEEZY17]

"The facts" have been tackled. They've been addressed. They've been examined. They've been scrutinized. Any other synonyms you want to throw in there? Go ahead and add them to the list. What they all mean is the people smarter than you concluded that insurrection didnt fit.

[dot]

why was no one charged with insurrection?

Charges filed or not filed does not change the facts of the insurrection. Anytime you change the argument from the insurrection to argue anything else, it always comes back to:

it wouldn't have anything to do with January 6th.

So if you want to argue the facts of January 6, you're gonna have to talk about January 6 and not the aftermath.

"The facts" have been tackled.

Not by you, and definitely not in any way that actually addresses said facts. Changing the argument will never change the facts of what happened that day which you refuse to talk about. Disingenuous intellectually dishonest dumb partisan hack.

[CHEEZY17]

"The facts" have been tackled. They've been addressed. They've been examined. They've been scrutinized. Any other synonyms you want to throw in there? Go ahead and add them to the list. What they all mean is the people smarter than you concluded that insurrection didnt fit.
Do you disagree with the DOJ's "tackling" of the facts?

[Animal]

why was no one charged with insurrection?

Charges filed or not filed does not change the facts of the insurrection. Anytime you change the argument from the insurrection to argue anything else, it always comes back to:

it wouldn't have anything to do with January 6th.

So if you want to argue the facts of January 6, you're gonna have to talk about January 6 and not the aftermath.

Here is a fact about Jan 6. No one involved was charged with the crime of insurrection. I will argue that is because no one thinks their crimes met the definition of the law that applies to insurrection. prove me wrong.

[CHEEZY17]

why was no one charged with insurrection?

Charges filed or not filed does not change the facts of the insurrection. Anytime you change the argument from the insurrection to argue anything else, it always comes back to:

it wouldn't have anything to do with January 6th.

So if you want to argue the facts of January 6, you're gonna have to talk about January 6 and not the aftermath.

Here is a fact about Jan 6. No one involved was charged with the crime of insurrection. I will argue that is because no one thinks their crimes met the definition of the law that applies to insurrection. prove me wrong.

Dodgin' Dot thinks his facts are somehow different than the facts the authorities have, 3 years of investigating said facts dont matter and that the people that do this for a living dont understand "insurrection".

[dot]

3 followup dodges, not a single one addressing the facts of the insurrection. Hacks gonna hack.