looks like it? hilarious.Sure looks like it to me. As for the guy - HE'S an "insurrectionist" - why isn't he in custody? For the same reason the FBI operatives who were leaders in the Whitmer "kidnapping" aren't? Probably, almost certainly.
looks like it? hilarious.Sure looks like it to me. As for the guy - HE'S an "insurrectionist" - why isn't he in custody? For the same reason the FBI operatives who were leaders in the Whitmer "kidnapping" aren't? Probably, almost certainly.
It has been explained to you time and time again. The intent was to stop the count and intimidate congress into letting states appoint new electors.@PhilFish
If anyone of the protestors had waved a gun in the air brandishing it about, we would have seen it on security camera or smartphone clips. How do you carry out an insurrection meant to overthrow the government without a single gun?
The Sixers were patriots trying to stop a stolen election from being validated. What else would you expect after the Supreme Court abrogated its duty and refused to hear the case of a number of states brought against Pennsylvania regarding the election?
Members of Congress had to escape to a secure part of the building and hide from them.They got inside and nothing like that happened. So you're probably more like propagandizing than truth saying.
Sorry, citizens who are not of your race and live in big cities have a right to vote too and they don’t always vote Republican.The election was stolen in Philadephia, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Atlanta.
The intent was to demonstrate widespread dissatisfaction with an election surrounded in controversy.It has been explained to you time and time again. The intent was to stop the count and intimidate congress into letting states appoint new electors.
Even when they don't show up or mail in a ballot...Sorry, citizens who are not of your race and live in big cities have a right to vote too and they don’t always vote Republican.
As if they would have peacefully submitted to going through security or limiting the number allowed in.They were denied entry when others have been let in. They broke in and once inside did little violence. Had they been allowed inside after going through security likely nothing would have happened.
The Supreme Court did its duty. States do not have a right to try to get courts to second-guess other states’ elections for arbitrary reasons.@PhilFish
If anyone of the protestors had waved a gun in the air brandishing it about, we would have seen it on security camera or smartphone clips. How do you carry out an insurrection meant to overthrow the government without a single gun?
The Sixers were patriots trying to stop a stolen election from being validated. What else would you expect after the Supreme Court abrogated its duty and refused to hear the case of a number of states brought against Pennsylvania regarding the election?
Try proving anything a lie other than your own posts.It's not even in this thread... ha ha. Desperate are you?
Perfectly idiotic to suggest the AG of Texas had standing to challenge PA's election laws.The Supreme Court did its duty. States do not have a right to try to get courts to second-guess other states’ elections for arbitrary reasons.
Note that a number of people took Trump’s advice to vote twice. Note also that people who did that were easily caught since it is virtually impossible to cast a ballot unless you are an eligible voter with a legal right to do so.Even when they don't show up or mail in a ballot...
Unless you are ward boss in the inner big cities - then you can vote thousands of times, and not get caught.Note that a number of people took Trump’s advice to vote twice. Note also that people who did that were easily caught since it is virtually impossible to cast a ballot unless you are an eligible voter with a legal right to do so.
And that is all? So they needed to attack the police to demonstrate that dissatisfaction? Other protests weren't enough. The controversy was sadly stoked by Trump, Giuliani, Powell, Woods and others. When the evidence showed they were wrong and Trump conceded, would the riot have happened?The intent was to demonstrate widespread dissatisfaction with an election surrounded in controversy.
99% of the people there did not "attack the police."And that is all? So they needed to attack the police to demonstrate that dissatisfaction? Other protests weren't enough. The controversy was sadly stoked by Trump, Giuliani, Powell, Woods and others. When the evidence showed they were wrong and Trump conceded, would the riot have happened?
How would the mob "stop the steal" without stopping the process of counting the electors? Why were they there on that specific day?
Trump knew what he was doing. He gathered a mob. He stirred them up with lies about the election....Then he told them to march to the capitol and fight like hell to stop the steal. Any attempt to minimize what Trump did or to pretend the rioters were patriots is reprehensible.
About 2,000 people did.99% of the people there did not "attack the police."
By drawing attention to the need for a mandatory nationwide election audit.
Then why isn't Trump, you know, charged?
Link to 2000 people arrested for assaulting a police officer.About 2,000 people did.
Trump was impeached. The riot is now being investigated and Trump is delaying the investigation by fighting against the people who were around him being called to testify.
Ask yourself why he thinks his conversations with people like Bannon are protected? He has committed obstruction in both impeachments and now.
Over 700 have been arrested. Are you thinking they got everyone that breached the building? Did they arrest all of the guys who dragged the cop out and tazed him? Looked to me like a dozen could have been charged.Link to 2000 people arrested for assaulting a police officer.
Those cities don't get to cheat.Sorry, citizens who are not of your race and live in big cities have a right to vote too and they don’t always vote Republican.
No guns, no insurrection.Members of Congress had to escape to a secure part of the building and hide from them.
Watch the tie that binds fade.The Supreme Court did its duty. States do not have a right to try to get courts to second-guess other states’ elections for arbitrary reasons.