Election Aftermath

[Spartanmack]

Good to know your enlightened response, but it seems pretty clear the blame rests entirely with the murderer.

 

[Johnny68]

Good to know your enlightened response, but it seems pretty clear the blame rests entirely with the murderer.

LOL but of course you're taking the side of the treasonous loon who attacked the Capitol and was calling for members of the government to be killed.

You are a walking cliche at this point, buddy.

 

[Spartanmack]

LOL but of course you're taking the side of the treasonous loon who attacked the Capitol and was calling for members of the government to be killed.

You are a walking cliche at this point, buddy.

When an unarmed person is murdered in cold blood, there's only one side to be on. Good job pushing more conspiracy theories - I just searched for evidence that she called for members of the government to be killed and shockingly, none came up. Can you check factcheck.org for us?

 

[Johnny68]

When an unarmed person is murdered in cold blood, there's only one side to be on. Good job pushing more conspiracy theories - I just searched for evidence that she called for members of the government to be killed and shockingly, none came up. Can you check factcheck.org for us?

Ahhhh yes, just a peace loving patriot who came to DC for a peaceful tourist visit to the Capitol.

?Nothing will stop us,? Babbitt tweeted Jan. 5. ?They can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light!?

https://apnews.com/article/ashli-babbitt-capitol-siege-a15c7e52a04d932972b7a284c7a8f7df

Now, go ahead and mock the AP as not being a credible source either. That's the favorite rebuttal of the conspiracy theorist.

 

[Spartanmack]

Ahhhh yes, just a peace loving patriot who came to DC for a peaceful tourist visit to the Capitol.

?Nothing will stop us,? Babbitt tweeted Jan. 5. ?They can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light!?

https://apnews.com/article/ashli-babbitt-capitol-siege-a15c7e52a04d932972b7a284c7a8f7df

Now, go ahead and mock the AP as not being a credible source either. That's the favorite rebuttal of the conspiracy theorist.

so the answer is no, there is no evidence she ever called for any government officials to be killed. Thanks.

Edit: if she had, how would the cop that murdered her have known that? If he had known that, would that justify not trying to subdue her by less lethal means before murdering her?

 

[Johnny68]

so the answer is no, there is no evidence she ever called for any government officials to be killed. Thanks.

Edit: if she had, how would the cop that murdered her have known that? If he had known that, would that justify not trying to subdue her by less lethal means before murdering her?

Among Q followers, ?The Storm? refers to the predicted day Trump would finally unmask the pedophile cabal, arrest and execute those deemed traitors and restore America to greatness.

So yes, she was advocating for murdering the very same politicians she was trying to gain access to when she decided to be the first traitor through the broken windown.

Of course the officer wouldn't have known about her tweets but that isn't the least bit relevant. He was holding the last security barrier between the mob and the Speaker's lobby, he was 110% justified in firing at the traitor to the Constitution who decided to F around. Well, she certainly found out, didn't she?

 

[Spartanmack]

Among Q followers, ?The Storm? refers to the predicted day Trump would finally unmask the pedophile cabal, arrest and execute those deemed traitors and restore America to greatness.

So yes, she was advocating for murdering the very same politicians she was trying to gain access to when she decided to be the first traitor through the broken windown.

Of course the officer wouldn't have known about her tweets but that isn't the least bit relevant. He was holding the last security barrier between the mob and the Speaker's lobby, he was 110% justified in firing at the traitor to the Constitution who decided to F around. Well, she certainly found out, didn't she?

seems a bit of a stretch to say she called for the killing of government officials. It's perfectly relevant and a valid question. All he knows about her is she's an unarmed woman who couldn't weigh more than 140lbs. She posed no threat justifying her summary execution.

I highly doubt "F around and find" is in any manual regarding the use of force by police. I'd be pretty surprised to find out it's department policy anywhere. It's an interesting philosophy though. It says a lot about your grasp of the issue here, your regard for human life and your IQ. Got anymore rap lyrics or whatever pop culture cesspool you pulled that garbage from to explain why it's OK for cops to murder unarmed people?

 

[Johnny68]

seems a bit of a stretch to say she called for the killing of government officials. It's perfectly relevant and a valid question. All he knows about her is she's an unarmed woman who couldn't weigh more than 140lbs. She posed no threat justifying her summary execution.

I highly doubt "F around and find" is in any manual regarding the use of force by police. I'd be pretty surprised to find out it's department policy anywhere. It's an interesting philosophy though. It says a lot about your grasp of the issue here, your regard for human life and your IQ. Got anymore rap lyrics or whatever pop culture cesspool you pulled that garbage from to explain why it's OK for cops to murder unarmed people?

I'm positive had it been someone protesting at a BLM rally, you'd be on the side of the police. Just a hunch, call me crazy.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm positive had it been someone protesting at a BLM rally, you'd be on the side of the police. Just a hunch, call me crazy.

That would depend on the circumstances. How about I just call you a useful idiot? I can?t say for sure that you?re crazy but it?s perfectly clear you?re a sheep incapable of thinking for your self.

 

[Johnny68]

That would depend on the circumstances. How about I just call you a useful idiot? I can?t say for sure that you?re crazy but it?s perfectly clear you?re a sheep incapable of thinking for your self.

Yeah, how crazy of me to listen to the people who do the stuff for a living.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!

 

[Spartanmack]

Yeah, how crazy of me to listen to the people who do the stuff for a living.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!

Yeah, they're the only ones who do this for a living. Good one.

 

[Spartanmack]

Nice try, but I'm not defending Chauvin's actions or saying either Garner or Floyd deserved to die but you need to reframe my position because you can't dispute any of this. I'm just interested in the facts and the truth - something you're not very familiar with. I have to say it's pretty funny that you're intentionally ignoring evidence and perfectly ok with a medical examiner caving to political pressure in order to falsely convict a guy of murder because he's an asshole and you think I'm the dickhead.

Yes, i watched the George Floyd video and as I said before, I'm not defending what Chauvin did. And I read the autopsy report which specifically states that George Floyd did NOT have life threatening injuries. The coroner waited until after finishing his report to watch the video and when he did, he changed his conclusion as to the cause of death despite the presence of a lethal dose of fentanyl, methanphetamine, a heart condition and the lack of life threatening injuries. Did you read that report? No, you read Wikipedia. Again, that is NOT a defense of what Chauvin did. No matter how much of an asshole he might be, based on the evidence, he's not a murderer.

And no, the cops didn't choke Eric Garner to death. Expert testimony indicated that no choke hold was used on Eric Garner, despite what the Wikipedia recap says. The move used to subdue Garner is called a seatbelt hold. Cops are trained to use it in the academy and it continues to be taught and a proper and legal use of force to this day as it is not lethal. And the coroner, under cross examination admitted there were no fractures of his trachea or other injuries seen in virtually every strangulation/choking death. And based on that evidence, a grand jury voted not to indict the cop.

Serious question for you, are you this much of an idiot in real life that you automatically believe every headline you read so long as it comports with your narrative that all cops are racist and every death involving a minority is intentional, racist murder?

Uh oh...

Looks like new evidence in the Chauvin case, along with renewed scrutiny of the ME's report and behind-closed-doors conversations with the prosecutors is coming to light.

So now an attorney, Amy Sweasy is suing the Hennepin County DA for sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation. As part of her suit, the Chauvin case and how the prosecutors handled it is getting renewed scrutiny. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned - Amy's pissed off, spilling the beans and bringing everyone down. Sadly and shockingly, not a single mainstream or leftist media outlet is covering this.

She testified about a conversation she had with the medical examiner about the case who told her "There were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr Floyd's neck. No medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation. He said to me 'Amy, what happens when the actual evidence doesn't match up with the public narrative that everyone's already decided on' and he said 'this is the kind of case that ends careers'" At trial the ME testified that if Floyd was found dead alone in an apartment building, his death would be certified as an overdose without a second thought.

Apparently, depositions from other attorneys in the office show that the decision to prosecute Chauvin was purely political and the prosecutors feared the mob and were more than happy to go after the police.

Sadly, as I argued at the time after reading the ME's report, most of this is not new. Although what is new (the testimony about what the prosecutors knew) is particularly damning for them. But that shouldn't really matter, the evidence alone should have prevented a conviction for murder. If they had charged him properly and gotten a conviction, Chauvin would be in jail and they wouldn't look like a bunch of partisan political hacks kowtowing to the mob.

Apparently Chauvin is or may have his case reviewed by the Supreme Court and if it gets overturned, he's not likely to face new charges for excessive force or whatever. These guys really f'd up and the City paid Floyd's family $36mm in large part because of that trial not to mention the billions of dollars of property damage, deaths, etc from the riots... Chauvin could end up walking - although if I'm not mistaken he was also convicted of violating Floyd's civil rights in a separate trial. I don't know what the outcome of that was.

 

[tomdalton22]

Uh oh...

Looks like new evidence in the Chauvin case, along with renewed scrutiny of the ME's report and behind-closed-doors conversations with the prosecutors is coming to light.

So now an attorney, Amy Sweasy is suing the Hennepin County DA for sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation. As part of her suit, the Chauvin case and how the prosecutors handled it is getting renewed scrutiny. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned - Amy's pissed off, spilling the beans and bringing everyone down. Sadly and shockingly, not a single mainstream or leftist media outlet is covering this.

She testified about a conversation she had with the medical examiner about the case who told her "There were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr Floyd's neck. No medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation. He said to me 'Amy, what happens when the actual evidence doesn't match up with the public narrative that everyone's already decided on' and he said 'this is the kind of case that ends careers'" At trial the ME testified that if Floyd was found dead alone in an apartment building, his death would be certified as an overdose without a second thought.

Apparently, depositions from other attorneys in the office show that the decision to prosecute Chauvin was purely political and the prosecutors feared the mob and were more than happy to go after the police.

Sadly, as I argued at the time after reading the ME's report, most of this is not new. Although what is new (the testimony about what the prosecutors knew) is particularly damning for them. But that shouldn't really matter, the evidence alone should have prevented a conviction for murder. If they had charged him properly and gotten a conviction, Chauvin would be in jail and they wouldn't look like a bunch of partisan political hacks kowtowing to the mob.

Apparently Chauvin is or may have his case reviewed by the Supreme Court and if it gets overturned, he's not likely to face new charges for excessive force or whatever. These guys really f'd up and the City paid Floyd's family $36mm in large part because of that trial not to mention the billions of dollars of property damage, deaths, etc from the riots... Chauvin could end up walking - although if I'm not mistaken he was also convicted of violating Floyd's civil rights in a separate trial. I don't know what the outcome of that was.

nothing to see here :lmao:

 

[tigermud]

Grandmas get the bars. Provocateur get off easy. Zero justice here on prision demon controlled planet godhead earth

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...on-community-service-telling-j6ers-go-capitol

 

[Spartanmack]

There is sworn testimony that Epps was trying to calm down people who were getting agitated and threatening the police. Additionally, Epps never assaulted anyone and didn't enter the Capitol. Sure would be nice if people relied on facts rather than wild conspiracy theories.

sounds a lot like what Trump did. Except, there's also video of Epps telling people they need to go into the capitol. I believe there is testimony to that fact as well.

 

[tigermud]

sounds a lot like what Trump did. Also, there's video of Epps telling people they need to go into the capitol. I believe there is testimony to that fact as well.

And all he got was probation. Disgusting

 

[Spartanmack]

sorry to bring up this right wing conspiracy theory again, but this is worth pointing out - unfortunately, mainstream media doesn't cover conspiracy theories so you may not have seen this...

DOJ confirms they knew Hunter Biden laptop was real all along...

in September 2019 Apple provided digital backups of Hunter's data in response to a search warrant and the laptop was "largely duplicative of information investigators had already obtained from Apple investigators had already."

It's OK though, because Orange Man bad - the end justifies the mean. Are there any conspiracy theories that haven't been proved true. The laptop, the Russian collusion hoax, the lab leak theory, masks work, the vaccine prevents infection, the vaccine prevents spread, vaccines are safe, Biden's Ukraine quid pro quo, US government conspiring with big tech to censor Americans, Biden meeting with Hunter's business associates (really, at this point we can safely say they're his business associates too)...

 

[Mitchrapp]

Yeah, he was so concerned with calming things down, he sat on the couch watching for 3 hours hoping things would succeed.

I get it though, being that you're a mentally unwell person that latches onto each and every conspiracy theory you come across, Epps is a Fed and Jan 6th was an Antifa plot led by Nacy Pelosi.

Keep the personal attacks out of it.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I must have.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yeah, he was so concerned with calming things down, he sat on the couch watching for 3 hours hoping things would succeed.

I get it though, being that you're a mentally unwell person that latches onto each and every conspiracy theory you come across, Epps is a Fed and Jan 6th was an Antifa plot led by Nacy Pelosi.

There you go with the timestamp again. At what time precisely or at least approximately did Trump become guilty of inciting a mostly peaceful insurrection? When should he have sent that tweet in order for you (and every other obviously not-at-all mentally unstable or obsessed person) to not declare him guilty of treason?