The Capital Assault Hearings

Yes and when it happens to a skin color person who probably voted democrat if they voted then it is national tragedy and there are riots in the streets for months.

But if the person was a Trump supporter the person who shot him/or her is treated as a hero.

See if you can spot the difference.

Ashly Babbitt was an unarmed white woman shot by a black panickey officer. Just reverse that scenario and tell me how it plays out in America- ie. if a white male officer shot an unarmed black woman.

And yes, I get that she was involved in some trespassing, unruly behavior, and part of a crowd. But this country went through countless blm types of protests, trespassing, looting, threatening, scary crowd scenarios where those circumstances alone were not considered to be justification for officers to fire upon them, and where circumstances were threatening the officers were expected to bring a higher level of training and preparation to the crowd. Maybe even call in the National Guard when you admit to having intelligence about what was shaping up and where the President has approved.

Had Ashly Babbitt been a black woman, and the cop who shot her white, he would be looking at 20 years to life imprisonment. Since, the cop who shot her is black, he can do no wrong and cleared on the spot. Her estate should sue the cop and Washington, DC for wrongful death for $10,000,000. Since, it is a civil suit, the burden of proving wrongful death is lower.
 
Unarmed people get killed by law enforcement everyday for not obeying an officer’s directions. In America police are trained to assume anyone can be armed because we have so many loose guns. What happened to Ms Babbit is in truth unfortunate but no more unfortunate than what happens every day. She was a threat.

Where "not illegal" is defined as "Merrick Garland refusing to prosecute." Not necessarily the same thing. Otherwise, there are substantial issues to be addressed at trial.

Meanwhile, we just had an instance where one of your lefty ilk made a failed attempt to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice, after having been egged on by people such as Chuck Schumer.

Your media will not even report on it.

Let's review these types of scenarios again, as I did with the Ashley Babbit situation.

Theoretical Scenario A: A leading Republican says Ruth Ginsberg "will pay a price" for a certain court decision. Then, in the following days an armed person attempts to go to the Ruth's house for the purpose of killing her.

Theoretical Scenario B: A leading Democrat (Chuck Schumer) says "you will pay a price Kavanaugh" then in the following days an armed man crosses the country with the intention of accessing Kavanaugh and killing him.

Take a wild and crazy guess which one will be covered endlessly by the media and seen to be a threat to the country and democracy. And which one will have a 48 hour news cycle and then buried.

Speaking of illegal and legal, it is already illegal to demonstrate at the house of a federal judge for the purpose of influencing a court decision. Why is/was Merrick Garland not enforcing that and still allows it to be ongoing? And then ask yourself how long it would have been tolerated if Ruthie had been threatened.

Also, to help you with another of your jaundiced statements, objecting to the summary execution of Ashley Babbit is not "making a hero" of her.
 
Last edited:
Where "not illegal" is defined as "Merrick Garland refusing to prosecute." Not necessarily the same thing. Otherwise, there are substantial issues to addressed at trial.

Meanwhile, we just had an instance where one of your lefty ilk made a failed attempt to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice, after having been egged on by people such as Chuck Schumer.

Your media will not even report on it.

Let's review these types of scenarios again, as I did with the Ashley Babbit situation.

Theoretical Scenario A: A leading Republican says Ruth Ginsberg "will pay a price" for a certain court decision. Then, in the following days an armed person attempts to go to the Ruth's house for the purpose of killing her.

Theoretical Scenario B: A leading Democrat (Chuck Schumer) says "you will pay a price Kavanaugh" then in the following days an armed man crosses the country with the intention of accessing Kavanaugh and killing him.

Take a wild and crazy guess which one will be covered endlessly by the media and seen to be a threat to the country and democracy. And which one will have a 48 hour news cycle and then buried.

Speaking of illegal and legal, it is already illegal to demonstrate at the house of a federal judge for the purpose of influencing a court decision. Why is/was Merrick Garland not enforcing that and still allows it to be ongoing? And then ask yourself how long it would have been tolerated if Ruthie had been threatened.

Also, to help you with another of you jaundiced statements, objecting to the summary execution of Ashley Babbit is not "making a hero" of her.

What makes Ashley Babbit a hero is she served the US with 3 tours including, Iraq. She died protesting and exercising her rights. There is no justification for her to have been shot, none at all! None of you ET trolls have served your country if you are a US citizen. Worst, you seek to destroy the US from within after all it has given you? All you ass clowns keep doing is lying and spreading disinformation. All to destroy the US from within.
 
At worst the cop committed a crime and got away with it, at best he's terrible at his job and has no business
carrying a weapon if the best he can do is indiscriminately fire into an unarmed crowd.
 
FVJ3LvbVUAASSoE
 
[/QUOTE]
Nothing screams "something to hide" like burning documents after a meeting on overturning the 2020 election. Right, Mark Meadows?

Says the guy who voted for a presidential candidate who deleted 35,000 emails two days after receiving a court order to preserve them.
 
Solid focused day from what I saw, showed clearly how anyone honest person could see Pennsylvania was fine and Trump was just making as much smoke as possible on fraud with no basis. Nonsense embraced and amplified.

Trump's spent election night alone in the residence with a drunk as usual Gulliani.

They should have tied in his fundraising off the claims as motive to make them, perhaps I missed that. Edit: they covered it. By broadcasting the lies he made 100 million in tbe first week off supporters and 250M in the first few weeks.

So a combo of grifting and more stochastic terrorism* by Trump.


*death threats against Philly GOP official and family etc. after he was named in a Tweet for not finding what was not there to find.
 
Last edited:
Says the guy who voted for a presidential candidate who deleted 35,000 emails two days after receiving a court order to preserve them.

So tell me who this candidate is that I voted for who deleted 35,000 emails?

And then go back and read my previous posts over many years and tell me who I stated I voted for in the 2016 election.
 
Back
Top