UJRefugees.net

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.

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.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 2:20 am I dont need to refute it

Yeah you do, because if all you're going to do is argue any and everything else other than the facts of the January 6 insurrection, then you're conceding that your traitorous Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse is wrong and cannot hold up. So it's real simple, prove January 6 was or was not an insurrection, or prove the word insurrection is incorrectly defined. Normally from here, I would say "if you fail that," but it's been demonstrated repeatedly that you can't even begin so failure is about all you've got. And now you've even got your criminal idol calling it an insurrection, so I don't envy the pigeonhole you're dug into, hack.

dot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 8:07 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 2:20 am I dont need to refute it

Yeah you do, because if all you're going to do is argue any and everything else other than the facts of the January 6 insurrection, then you're conceding that your traitorous Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s excuse is wrong and cannot hold up. So it's real simple, prove January 6 was or was not an insurrection, or prove the word insurrection is incorrectly defined. Normally from here, I would say "if you fail that," but it's been demonstrated repeatedly that you can't even begin so failure is about all you've got. And now you've even got your criminal idol calling it an insurrection, so I don't envy the pigeonhole you're dug into, hack.

No, I dont because thats already been done by the legal professionals. What facts EXACTLY do you want to address? Be specific. Try to actually give an answer this time. I listed a bunch above...are there others you want to discuss?

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 8:36 pm No, I dont because thats already been done by the legal professionals.

Charges filed is not the same as commission of the crime. Argue the facts of the January 6 insurrection or admit you have no ground to stand on and your traitorous Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s premise is wrong, hack.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:39 am

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 8:36 pm No, I dont because thats already been done by the legal professionals.

Charges filed is not the same as commission of the crime. Argue the facts of the January 6 insurrection or admit you have no ground to stand on and your traitorous Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s premise is wrong, hack.

And again you delete and dodge.
What facts EXACTLY do you want to address? Be specific. Try to actually give an answer this time. I listed a bunch above...are there others you want to discuss?

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 2:26 am And again you delete and dodge.

If you're not gonna discuss the insurrection on January 6, then yes, I don't waste my time with your deflection and distraction attempts. You can keep accusing me of dodging but if you're never going to even start, all you're doing is confessing to the dodging, hack.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 7:36 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 2:26 am And again you delete and dodge.

If you're not gonna discuss the insurrection on January 6, then yes, I don't waste my time with your deflection and distraction attempts. You can keep accusing me of dodging but if you're never going to even start, all you're doing is confessing to the dodging, hack.

You've been asked and had several chances now to talk about the facts. What facts exactly do you want to discuss? That's not deflection. You keep claiming no one wants to discuss the facts. Here is me asking yet again: what specific facts do you want to discuss?

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 8:01 pm You've been asked and had several chances now to talk about the facts.

I've done my part. It's you that won't begin. Start with the events and facts of the January 6 insurrection. Or if you refuse, then prove it does not qualify as an insurrection as defined, or that the definition is incorrect. Tick tock, cultist hack.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:36 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 8:01 pm You've been asked and had several chances now to talk about the facts.

I've done my part. It's you that won't begin. Start with the events and facts of the January 6 insurrection. Or if you refuse, then prove it does not qualify as an insurrection as defined, or that the definition is incorrect. Tick tock, cultist hack.

I've provided a list of facts for that day that you've ignored for days now. I'm asking which you'd like to discuss. If that's not starting then what is you fucking retard?
Here is me asking yet again: what specific facts of that day do you want to discuss?

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 1:53 pm I've provided a list of facts for that day that you've ignored for days now.

Nothing is stopping you from starting except your own disingenuous partisan hackery. The events and facts of January 6. Prove it was or was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. Begin.

dot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:58 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 1:53 pm I've provided a list of facts for that day that you've ignored for days now.

Nothing is stopping you from starting except your own disingenuous partisan hackery. The events and facts of January 6. Prove it was or was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. Begin.

I've started numerous times already but hey, I guess I'll start again: what specific facts of that day do you want to discuss?
The text messages?
The gathering itself?
The emails?
Entering the building?
The walking through the building?
The videos of all of it?
Or something else?

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 11:40 pm I've started numerous times already

dot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:58 pm Nothing is stopping you from starting except your own disingenuous partisan hackery. The events and facts of January 6. Prove it was or was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. Begin.

Dodge and delete.
Dodge and delete.
Dodge and delete. It's the Dodgin' Dot method of posting.
What specific facts of that day would you like to discuss?
Tick tock, clocks ticking!

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 12:24 pm Dodge and delete.
Dodge and delete.
Dodge and delete. It's the Dodgin' Dot method of posting.
What specific facts of that day would you like to discuss?
Tick tock, clocks ticking!

dot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:58 pm Nothing is stopping you from starting except your own disingenuous partisan hackery. The events and facts of January 6. Prove it was or was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. Begin.

So were there no fake electors or was it just not a problem?

Geist wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 10:19 pm So were there no fake electors or was it just not a problem?

that alone is enough to ban Trump from running. Why can't we just cut out all of this cluttering bullshit (ie fraud trials over inflated asset values, fake insurrection, hush money to porn stars, documents at Maro Lago) and just go straight into the serious stuff about fake electors.

dot wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 6:06 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 12:24 pm Dodge and delete.
Dodge and delete.
Dodge and delete. It's the Dodgin' Dot method of posting.
What specific facts of that day would you like to discuss?
Tick tock, clocks ticking!

dot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:58 pm Nothing is stopping you from starting except your own disingenuous partisan hackery. The events and facts of January 6. Prove it was or was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. Begin.

Ive started multiple times now. Here, I'll start again: Here is a partial list of some "facts of the day" that we can discuss:
The text messages?
The gathering itself?
The emails?
Entering the building?
The walking through the building?
The videos of all of it?
Or something else?
What specific "facts of the day" would you like to discuss? This is me starting. Now is the part where you respond by replying with something specific you want to discuss. Pretty simple really. Tick tock!

Geist wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 10:19 pm So were there no fake electors or was it just not a problem?

Animal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 1:47 am that alone is enough to ban Trump from running. Why can't we just cut out all of this cluttering bullshit (ie fraud trials over inflated asset values, fake insurrection, hush money to porn stars, documents at Maro Lago) and just go straight into the serious stuff about fake electors.

There are so many things that should keep him from running, the fake electors scheme is just part of it. And it has to be ignored by the usual suspects here because like the insurrection, it can't be acknowledged or there is no support for ignoring the rest of scheme to overthrow our democracy.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 2:57 am Ive started multiple times now.

No, you haven't. You have your criteria, only your disingenuousness is keeping you from engaging. Animal didn't need to set needless parameters to discuss it the one time he was brave enough, despite all of you have filibustering from the beginning. But you, the proven disingenuous partisan hack, won't even begin. If he can figure out what we're talking about to discuss, so can you. Grow some balls, hack.

dot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 9:01 pm

Geist wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 10:19 pm So were there no fake electors or was it just not a problem?

Animal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 1:47 am that alone is enough to ban Trump from running. Why can't we just cut out all of this cluttering bullshit (ie fraud trials over inflated asset values, fake insurrection, hush money to porn stars, documents at Maro Lago) and just go straight into the serious stuff about fake electors.

There are so many things that should keep him from running, the fake electors scheme is just part of it. And it has to be ignored by the usual suspects here because like the insurrection, it can't be acknowledged or there is no support for ignoring the rest of scheme to overthrow our democracy.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 2:57 am Ive started multiple times now.

No, you haven't. You have your criteria, only your disingenuousness is keeping you from engaging. Animal didn't need to set needless parameters to discuss it the one time he was brave enough, despite all of you have filibustering from the beginning. But you, the proven disingenuous partisan hack, won't even begin. If he can figure out what we're talking about to discuss, so can you. Grow some balls, hack.

look, Karen. arguing about the insurrection is like women arguing over whether someone's outfit looks good. Its a stupid waste of time. There was no overthrow of the government. There was no insurrection. Its all just bending words and definitions around to try to create the outcome you are looking for.

But the fake electors was something that actually happened. It is exactly what it is. People can't try to say that the "fake electors" were just some harmless outcry from people that didn't know better. It was a plan laid out to actually change the outcome of the will of the people. It is much more diabolical than some people in buffalo costumes parading through the Capitol building like thousands of people had been doing all year in BLM marches across the country.

Animal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 9:28 pm look, Karen. arguing about the insurrection is like women arguing over whether someone's outfit looks good. Its a stupid waste of time. There was no overthrow of the government. There was no insurrection. Its all just bending words and definitions around to try to create the outcome you are looking for.

Just because it failed does not mean it should be swept under the rug and ignored. The man incited insurrection to help overturn an election he lost, with the attack being only one plank of the scheme, the fake electors were yet another. If the roles were reversed, you know damn well you would not be so willing to overlook having your vote thrown away to install the person who lost the election. Insurrection applies, as the act fits the definition that even you cited.

Animal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 9:28 pm But the fake electors was something that actually happened. It is exactly what it is. People can't try to say that the "fake electors" were just some harmless outcry from people that didn't know better. It was a plan laid out to actually change the outcome of the will of the people. It is much more diabolical than some people in buffalo costumes parading through the Capitol building like thousands of people had been doing all year in BLM marches across the country.

Indeed, it was all part of the same plan, to install the loser of the election as president and overturn the will of the majority of the people in this country who voted against him. The fake electors, the insurrection, the conspiracy to conjure votes out of thin air in Georgia, the pressure campaign to discard legal votes, the false claims of voter fraud, so many things with one goal in mind. To stay in power despite losing the election. As you said, that's something that actually happened. It should make someone ashamed of their intent to vote for him again.

dot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 9:45 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 9:28 pm look, Karen. arguing about the insurrection is like women arguing over whether someone's outfit looks good. Its a stupid waste of time. There was no overthrow of the government. There was no insurrection. Its all just bending words and definitions around to try to create the outcome you are looking for.

Just because it failed does not mean it should be swept under the rug and ignored. The man incited insurrection to help overturn an election he lost, with the attack being only one plank of the scheme, the fake electors were yet another. If the roles were reversed, you know damn well you would not be so willing to overlook having your vote thrown away to install the person who lost the election. Insurrection applies, as the act fits the definition that even you cited.

Animal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 9:28 pm But the fake electors was something that actually happened. It is exactly what it is. People can't try to say that the "fake electors" were just some harmless outcry from people that didn't know better. It was a plan laid out to actually change the outcome of the will of the people. It is much more diabolical than some people in buffalo costumes parading through the Capitol building like thousands of people had been doing all year in BLM marches across the country.

Indeed, it was all part of the same plan, to install the loser of the election as president and overturn the will of the majority of the people in this country who voted against him. The fake electors, the insurrection, the conspiracy to conjure votes out of thin air in Georgia, the pressure campaign to discard legal votes, the false claims of voter fraud, so many things with one goal in mind. To stay in power despite losing the election. As you said, that's something that actually happened. It should make someone ashamed of their intent to vote for him again.

it makes you look like you are just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. that's never a good look. and its part of the reason none of this is slowing Trump down. In fact, its doing just the opposite.

Animal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 9:48 pm it makes you look like you are just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. that's never a good look. and its part of the reason none of this is slowing Trump down. In fact, its doing just the opposite.

Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the apology tour you're now conducting. By all means, if you want to dispute each and every charge of his overthrowing democracy conspiracy, be my guest. Go ahead and tell us all how asking for votes to be manufactured out of thin air isn't a crime. Tell us how ordering states to throw out votes isn't a crime. Luckily, you don't have to tell us his cases for voter fraud were false, because every single one of them failed to have merit, so that is on the record. You're already admitting the fake electors is disqualifying. You've already had to concede the insurrection was an insurrection by your own definition. I am sure you hope that I don't have to get into the minutiae of his indictments to parse out things I generalized here, your workload is already pretty packed with this new burden you're taking on.

Did it occur to you that maybe it's not throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, but rather it's that he served up a smorgasbord of criminal activity against this country and its citizens? Instead of taking issue with the people who identify the crimes, maybe it's time you take issue with the criminal himself.

And now the not insurrection sentences were ruled improper.

Some Jan. 6 sentences were improperly lengthened, appeals court rules
The decision could force trial judges to recalculate sentences for more than 100 Jan. 6 rioters who were convicted of obstruction.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/0 ... s-00144403

dot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 10:04 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 9:48 pm it makes you look like you are just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. that's never a good look. and its part of the reason none of this is slowing Trump down. In fact, its doing just the opposite.

Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the apology tour you're now conducting. By all means, if you want to dispute each and every charge of his overthrowing democracy conspiracy, be my guest. Go ahead and tell us all how asking for votes to be manufactured out of thin air isn't a crime. Tell us how ordering states to throw out votes isn't a crime. Luckily, you don't have to tell us his cases for voter fraud were false, because every single one of them failed to have merit, so that is on the record. You're already admitting the fake electors is disqualifying. You've already had to concede the insurrection was an insurrection by your own definition. I am sure you hope that I don't have to get into the minutiae of his indictments to parse out things I generalized here, your workload is already pretty packed with this new burden you're taking on.

Did it occur to you that maybe it's not throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, but rather it's that he served up a smorgasbord of criminal activity against this country and its citizens? Instead of taking issue with the people who identify the crimes, maybe it's time you take issue with the criminal himself.

I'm convinced that people like you are paid trolls and people can't be this stupid. Is Russia paying you to appear this stupid? I mean why else would you willingly want to appear so fucking dumb?