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

[dot]

So again, you ignore what I said and answered something else.

Question answered, you can't. As long as you're comfortable with your reds, Red.

You didnt prove anybody wrong, retard.

Have done so to you alone multiple times over because you can't admit facts as demonstrated yet again. Hack does hack things as always without fail.

[CHEEZY17]

You didnt prove anybody wrong, retard.

Have done so to you alone multiple times over because you can't admit facts as demonstrated yet again. Hack does hack things as always without fail.

You mean these facts?

the Department of justice and FBI say it isnt. Once again: never forget that it is YOU that is on the opposite side of the legal authorities. Seethe harder, retard.

Or the fact that you cant and wont address this very simple question?

Why are the DOJ and FBI wrong in their evaluation of the "facts of that day" but you are right?

Until you can address this your opinion means diddly squat.
Explain why you are right and the legal professionals are wrong. Failing an explanation (dodging) of why the United States Justice Department is wrong and you are right just proves that you dont want to contradict the professionals. Thats really the only option, retard: one of you is right and the other must be wrong. You simply want to pontificate your retardation without having to explain why people smarter than you came to a different conclusion.

[necronomous]

So again, you ignore what I said and answered something else.

Question answered, you can't. As long as you're comfortable with your reds, Red.

You didnt prove anybody wrong, retard.

Have done so to you alone multiple times over because you can't admit facts as demonstrated yet again. Hack does hack things as always without fail.

So you ignore what i said and answered something completely different. Got it.

[dot]

You mean these facts?

No. These:

Fact: You can't prove the insurrection was not an insurrection as you claimed, whether that's by facts on the ground or out of cowardice to even try.
Fact: You can't admit your boy's scheme to throw out over half the country's votes for his opponent and seize power illegally over an election he lost.
Fact: You can't prove Joe Biden is guilty of corruption despite months now years of insisting he is and claiming to have the proof of it.
Fact: You can't admit your bought and paid for legal pundit shot your corruption claim to pieces on live television.
Fact: You can't admit your case for corruption fell apart due to lack of evidence and foreign supplied disinformation.
Fact: You can't admit your criminal idol is guilty of 34 felonies for falsifying business records.
Fact: You can't admit he raped a woman and was found liable for that attack and defamation of his victim. Twice.
Fact: You can't admit he committed massive financial fraud to the tune of millions of dollars.

Because shifting goalposts and ignoring reality is never going to make these truths go away, no matter how many hack things you do as a deflection.

So you ignore what i said and answered something completely different. Got it.

I addressed the core issue, something none of you save one has tried to do. Not my fault you couldn't do that and chose to run with the goalpost shifters in the reds, Red.

[CHEEZY17]

You mean these facts?

No. These:

Fact: You can't prove the insurrection was not an insurrection as you claimed, whether that's by facts on the ground or out of cowardice to even try.
Fact: You can't admit your boy's scheme to throw out over half the country's votes for his opponent and seize power illegally over an election he lost.
Fact: You can't prove Joe Biden is guilty of corruption despite months now years of insisting he is and claiming to have the proof of it.
Fact: You can't admit your bought and paid for legal pundit shot your corruption claim to pieces on live television.
Fact: You can't admit your case for corruption fell apart due to lack of evidence and foreign supplied disinformation.
Fact: You can't admit your criminal idol is guilty of 34 felonies for falsifying business records.
Fact: You can't admit he raped a woman and was found liable for that attack and defamation of his victim. Twice.
Fact: You can't admit he committed massive financial fraud to the tune of millions of dollars.

Because shifting goalposts and ignoring reality is never going to make these truths go away, no matter how many hack things you do as a deflection.

Every one of those has been addressed by me or someone else multiple times; you just dont like the answers so you continue to inaccurately claim theyve never been addressed. This can be proven by scrolling through the handful of threads where you comically foment your retardation. Thus, you leave me no choice but to laugh a you once again.


Here is what actually has NEVER been addressed by you, which can also be evidenced by your habitual dodging and deleting, because you are a pathetic coward:
Explain why you are right and the legal professionals are wrong. Failing an explanation (dodging) of why the United States Justice Department is wrong and you are right just proves that you dont want to contradict the professionals. Thats really the only option, retard: one of you is right and the other must be wrong. You simply want to pontificate your retardation without having to explain why people smarter than you came to a different conclusion.

[dot]

Every one of those has been addressed by me or someone else multiple times

And yet each one remains true and you still promote your demonstrably proven false narrative for each point. Which is why we are where we are, you don't admit reality that each of these things is true and your narrative fell apart long ago. Bad faith partisan hacks don't deserve the time of day for their proven false deflections, only derision. That's what you earn for doing hack things, hack.

[necronomous]

You mean these facts?

No. These:

Fact: You can't prove the insurrection was not an insurrection as you claimed, whether that's by facts on the ground or out of cowardice to even try.
Fact: You can't admit your boy's scheme to throw out over half the country's votes for his opponent and seize power illegally over an election he lost.
Fact: You can't prove Joe Biden is guilty of corruption despite months now years of insisting he is and claiming to have the proof of it.
Fact: You can't admit your bought and paid for legal pundit shot your corruption claim to pieces on live television.
Fact: You can't admit your case for corruption fell apart due to lack of evidence and foreign supplied disinformation.
Fact: You can't admit your criminal idol is guilty of 34 felonies for falsifying business records.
Fact: You can't admit he raped a woman and was found liable for that attack and defamation of his victim. Twice.
Fact: You can't admit he committed massive financial fraud to the tune of millions of dollars.

Because shifting goalposts and ignoring reality is never going to make these truths go away, no matter how many hack things you do as a deflection.

So you ignore what i said and answered something completely different. Got it.

I addressed the core issue, something none of you save one has tried to do. Not my fault you couldn't do that and chose to run with the goalpost shifters in the reds, Red.

So you ignored my question and answered something completely different. Got it.

[CHEEZY17]

Every one of those has been addressed by me or someone else multiple times

And yet each one remains true and you still promote your demonstrably proven false narrative for each point. Which is why we are where we are, you don't admit reality that each of these things is true and your narrative fell apart long ago. Bad faith partisan hacks don't deserve the time of day for their proven false deflections, only derision. That's what you earn for doing hack things, hack.

Riiiight. You coming to a different conclusion than the actual legal experts is a foundational problem for you, bud. Its not some fringe lunatic thing or grasping at straws; it gets right to the crux of the entire discussion. Thats why you cant and wont address that fact. You can continue to claim it doesnt deserve a response but your continual dodging simply proves your cowardice.

Here is what has NEVER been addressed by you, which can also be evidenced by your habitual dodging and deleting, because you are a pathetic coward:
Explain why you are right and the legal professionals are wrong. Failing an explanation (dodging) of why the United States Justice Department is wrong and you are right just proves that you dont want to contradict the professionals. Thats really the only option, retard: one of you is right and the other must be wrong. You simply want to pontificate your retardation without having to explain why people smarter than you came to a different conclusion.

[CHEEZY17]

Damn, its been a rough 24 hours for Dodgin' Dot

Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction charge against Capitol rioters, Trump
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme ... =111405443

[dot]

So you ignored my question and answered something completely different. Got it.

Are you at common ground status on reality yet or not? Still your call if you want to stand with the insurrectionists, bud.

Riiiight. You coming to a different conclusion than the actual legal experts is a foundational problem for you, bud.

Foundational problem, huh? Is that why you refuse to address what January 6 actually was? Cause you know, rulings investigations and the dictionary are all against you on that. See, that's the foundation I'm working off of here in reality. Since you refuse to admit such things, that makes it your foundation that's shaky. As always with the hack, projection. After all, I'm not the one that has to pivot to shifting goalposts to avoid answering the question or defending your assertion. That's a hack doing hack things move.

[CHEEZY17]

So you ignored my question and answered something completely different. Got it.

Are you at common ground status on reality yet or not? Still your call if you want to stand with the insurrectionists, bud.

Riiiight. You coming to a different conclusion than the actual legal experts is a foundational problem for you, bud.

Foundational problem, huh? Is that why you refuse to address what January 6 actually was? Cause you know, rulings investigations and the dictionary are all against you on that. See, that's the foundation I'm working off of here in reality. Since you refuse to admit such things, that makes it your foundation that's shaky. As always with the hack, projection. After all, I'm not the one that has to pivot to shifting goalposts to avoid answering the question or defending your assertion. That's a hack doing hack things move.

Nope. The only thing right in that pile of hot garbage is that yes, investigations took place. Namely, by the FBI and DOJ most importantly since, you know, its literally their job and their opinions are the only ones that matter. Do you know what the results of their investigations of the "facts of that day" were? Not insurrection.
Face it, bud. People smarter than you looked at the exact same facts and came to the opposite conclusion. Thats about as foundational as you can get as the choice is binary. Either you are right and the DOJ is wrong or the DOJ is right and you are wrong.
Which is it?

[necronomous]

So you ignored my question and answered something completely different. Got it.

Are you at common ground status on reality yet or not? Still your call if you want to stand with the insurrectionists, bud.

Riiiight. You coming to a different conclusion than the actual legal experts is a foundational problem for you, bud.

Foundational problem, huh? Is that why you refuse to address what January 6 actually was? Cause you know, rulings investigations and the dictionary are all against you on that. See, that's the foundation I'm working off of here in reality. Since you refuse to admit such things, that makes it your foundation that's shaky. As always with the hack, projection. After all, I'm not the one that has to pivot to shifting goalposts to avoid answering the question or defending your assertion. That's a hack doing hack things move.

So you're ignoring completely what I'm saying and answering something else entirely. Listen to my words. If it's insurrection, fine, then they should charged with insurrection and treason, and if they are not doing that, then the people who should be charging them should be tried for treason for dereliction of duty. The alternative is, there is no insurrection and therefore they can't charge them. In other words, if there was treason someone should be charged with that. But the people they have arrested have not been charged. So either there was no insurrection or the people who should be convicting them should be charged. So which is it? I'm down for arresting treasonous assholes, so let's do this. Or it never happened. It can't be both.

[dot]

Nope. The only thing right in that pile of hot garbage is that yes, investigations took place.

Denial of reality strikes again. Hack can't resist ignoring that his narrative got shattered. Color me surprised.

So you're ignoring completely what I'm saying and answering something else entirely.

No, it's pretty clear that I'm not. It's an either or situation, and your words show how you're refusing to take a stand with reality.

Listen to my words. If it's insurrection, fine

It is. Pure and simple. Not a single one of you can dispute this, evidenced by the fact that none of you have or will try. If you can't prove the claim that insurrection isn't insurrection, then what we're left with is it is insurrection. But you can't even get to admitting facts as they stand. The entire question is whether January 6 was or was not an insurrection, what was actually done that day, or if the word itself is incorrectly defined. That's the core issue here, everything else y'all have conjured up is a distraction or deflection. I'm not ignoring what you say, I'm just taking everything into account. Remember the picture war you tried to pull off saying no violence took place that day despite video and photo evidence? Cause I do and I didn't force you to do that. You could've admitted reality before you tried that ridiculous excuse. But you didn't, and now here you are. Maybe if you cared about facts more than shtick, you wouldn't have dug yourself into the hole you're in.

[necronomous]

Nope. The only thing right in that pile of hot garbage is that yes, investigations took place.

Denial of reality strikes again. Hack can't resist ignoring that his narrative got shattered. Color me surprised.

So you're ignoring completely what I'm saying and answering something else entirely.

No, it's pretty clear that I'm not. It's an either or situation, and your words show how you're refusing to take a stand with reality.

Listen to my words. If it's insurrection, fine

It is. Pure and simple. Not a single one of you can dispute this, evidenced by the fact that none of you have or will try. If you can't prove the claim that insurrection isn't insurrection, then what we're left with is it is insurrection. But you can't even get to admitting facts as they stand. The entire question is whether January 6 was or was not an insurrection, what was actually done that day, or if the word itself is incorrectly defined. That's the core issue here, everything else y'all have conjured up is a distraction or deflection. I'm not ignoring what you say, I'm just taking everything into account. Remember the picture war you tried to pull off saying no violence took place that day despite video and photo evidence? Cause I do and I didn't force you to do that. You could've admitted reality before you tried that ridiculous excuse. But you didn't, and now here you are. Maybe if you cared about facts more than shtick, you wouldn't have dug yourself into the hole you're in.

Then where are the convictions? This is treason. Let's get it rolling. So now prove it so we can do this. Oh and you mean the picture war where I made you look stupid. Yeah I remember that. And I'm in no hole. I'm looking down in yours because you haven't proved shit yet you fucking nitwitted dumbass.

[CHEEZY17]

Nope. The only thing right in that pile of hot garbage is that yes, investigations took place.

Denial of reality strikes again. Hack can't resist ignoring that his narrative got shattered. Color me surprised.

The only one denying reality is YOU.
If "the facts of that day" so very clearly amounted to "insurrection" then thats exactly what the people whose job it is to determine those things would have concluded. They did not. Hundreds of times. This is factual and undeniable.
Face it, bud. People smarter than you looked at the exact same facts and came to the opposite conclusion. Thats about as foundational as you can get as the choice is binary. Either you are right and the DOJ is wrong or the DOJ is right and you are wrong.
Which is it?

[CHEEZY17]

Apparently Ketanji Brown Jackson is part of the "Corrupt Court" as she voted with the majority in that decision.
Oh man, Dodgin' Dot is not having a good couple of days.

[dot]

Then where are the convictions?

First, let's settle on whether we both agree on the crime. I've already made my position clear, being supported by rulings, investigations, and even the dictionary. Given you won't do that, you can see why I'm not wasting my time with the usual deflections.

The only one denying reality is YOU.

Says the guy that can't admit his corruption case and claims blew up on live television and by the words of your own bought and paid for pundit. We'll keep going around and around, but it won't make the facts go away. Hack can keep doing hack things, but it won't change the reality hack denies.

[necronomous]

Then where are the convictions?

First, let's settle on whether we both agree on the crime. I've already made my position clear, being supported by rulings, investigations, and even the dictionary. Given you won't do that, you can see why I'm not wasting my time with the usual deflections.

The only one denying reality is YOU.

Says the guy that can't admit his corruption case and claims blew up on live television and by the words of your own bought and paid for pundit. We'll keep going around and around, but it won't make the facts go away. Hack can keep doing hack things, but it won't change the reality hack denies.

I know what an insurrection is. But what happened wasn't one. Which is why no one was convicted of it. So we don't have to agree on the definition, we have to agree whether the people who should convict insurrectionists are inept and should be charged with treason themselves OR it didn't happen. That's the only two options. That's it. Nothing else.

[CHEEZY17]

Then where are the convictions?

First, let's settle on whether we both agree on the crime. I've already made my position clear, being supported by rulings, investigations, and even the dictionary. Given you won't do that, you can see why I'm not wasting my time with the usual deflections.

The only one denying reality is YOU.

Says the guy that can't admit his corruption case and claims blew up on live television and by the words of your own bought and paid for pundit. We'll keep going around and around, but it won't make the facts go away. Hack can keep doing hack things, but it won't change the reality hack denies.

Cut and paste. Its all been addressed, retard. I can cut and paste as much as needed. Ive bolded the area you seem to have particular trouble with. You can continue to misrepresent what he said and ignore the fact that he shot your ridiculous claim down specifically but thats OK because I'll be here to simply post his actual words shooting your claim down as often as needed.

Riiiight. You delete and dodge because

So not only are you a retard but youre a lying retard as well because every single one of those things you mention has been addressed by me or someone else many times over. I will do it again, right here, to once again prove your retardation.

You can't answer any of the things you avoid every single time it's brought up. If all you're going to do is ignore that your case for corruption blew up from lack of evidence and exposed fabrication,

Except that is just not true. There is still ample evidence and it is all gathered for you right here: https://oversight.house.gov/landing/bid ... stigation/
Just because you dont believe the shell companies, the bank records, the emails, the evidence on the laptop, the phone calls, the texts etc. doesnt make them go away. Sorry, retard. Your claim is simply false.

or that you can't acknowledge your claims of corruption were discarded on live television by your own bought and paid for guy,

Again, simply not true and has been proven to you multiple times. No matter how many times you make your retarded claim, Turleys actual statement is easily retrievable. Turley addressed retards like you misrepresenting what he said right here: "...Rep. Raskin (D., Md.) just stated that I testified with other witnesses that "nothing would approach" an impeachable offense in this inquiry. That again is not true. I said the opposite. I stated that there was ample evidence for the inquiry and, if proven, the allegations would amount to impeachable offenses."

or that you can't prove your apologist's excuse for insurrection,

My proof is that the legal authorities and actual legal experts have looked at all of the exact same evidence as you and came to a different conclusion. Unlike you, I dont think I understand legalities better than the United States Justice Department. You can go ahead and be retarded and think you understand "insurrection" better than the Justice Department but until you can explain why their conclusion is wrong and yours is right your opinion is simply a fart in the wind and means nothing.

then why give your bad faith partisan hackery any time it doesn't deserve? Hack did hack things again.

Its no ones fault but yours that you delete and dodge anything that doesnt fit your narrative. You can delete and dodge my answers and then claim I never address anything but I can copy and paste my same answers over and over, retard.
More copy and paste because thats all youre worth:
Except the only one ignoring anything is you. It seems you dont realize everyone can see you deleting and ignoring the question that you should easily be able to answer:

Why are the DOJ and FBI wrong in their evaluation of the "facts of that day" but you are right?

[Antknot]

The Supreme Court just downgraded ‘the insurrection’ to trespassing


https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-ju ... espassing/



Poor Dot.

[Animal]

the supreme court probably just needs Dot to read them the definition.

[necronomous]

the supreme court probably just needs Dot to read them the definition.

Something tells me, that isn't going to work.

[CHEEZY17]

Didn't someone tell them the FACTS OF THAT DAY!!!!!!1111!?

[Biker]

the supreme court probably just needs Dot to read them the definition.

[dot]

I know what an insurrection is. But what happened wasn't one.

Except it was. Which is why you can't say why it wasn't so you just have to insist that it wasn't. I've already shown how January 6 fit what an insurrection is, it falls on those of you saying in bad faith that it's not an insurrection to show how it's not.

Cut and paste. Its all been addressed, retard.

If that was true, then you wouldn't keep going back to proven lies and falsehoods when you can't address facts or reality. Hack still does hack things.