- Oct 2, 2020
- 31,878
- 16,224
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I haven't taken a position on that one way or the other.Is it your position the DOJ is impartial now and not weaponised?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I haven't taken a position on that one way or the other.Is it your position the DOJ is impartial now and not weaponised?
Really? That seems very weird for someone who seem to follow politics.I haven't taken a position on that one way or the other.
One tiny detail: The DOJ didn't convict any of them. Not a single one.
-- A2SG, that isn't, and wasn't, its job....
Please note that I never said otherwise.The DOJ has deleted hundreds of public press releases and case updates tracking the arrests, charges, and convictions of J6 defendants from its official website. The DOJ has dominion over their own website.
Let's stick to the topic of this thread instead of talking about me.Really? That seems very weird for someone who seem to follow politics.
"One tiny detail: The DOJ didn't convict any of them. Not a single one.". What does that have to do with the DOJ removing content from their own website? What is the point of the statement? It reads as a non sequitur.Please note that I never said otherwise.
You may also want to note what I actually did say.
You quoted: "We are proud to reverse the DOJ's weaponization under the Biden administration. We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes. This includes stripping DOJ's website of partisan propaganda.""One tiny detail: The DOJ didn't convict any of them. Not a single one.". What does that have to do with the DOJ removing content from their own website? What is the point of the statement? It reads as a non sequitur.
Why ask me? I'm not the DOJ.You quoted: "We are proud to reverse the DOJ's weaponization under the Biden administration. We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes. This includes stripping DOJ's website of partisan propaganda."
How was the DOJ weaponized by the convictions and guilty pleas of these individuals? Also, how does taking the (publicly available) information about these convictions and guilty pleas from the DOJ website "reverse" anything?
Fortunately, it has no dominion over the truth.The DOJ has dominion over their own website.
That's an erroneous conclusion. Also you're focusing on me again instead of on the topic.Well, no one from Trump's DOJ is here, and you're attempting to defend them.
The problem with the DO"J"s statement here is that the old site and hundreds of PR postings is that they were aggressively bland about the nature of the Capitol Breach (I believe that was the title they gave), so that even if some persons had been more or less aggressively investigated by the Washington Field Office of the FBI and prosecuted by the US Attorney for the District of Columbia they weren't letting on. The press releases were matter of fact and did cast about for motives of the charged, convicted, and sentenced. The tone of the press releases did not change between the first arrests which took place under the first Trump Administration and the ones a week later under Biden. Trump himself was almost never mentioned, and even in the court charging documents (affidavits for arrest warrants and indictments) the word "Trump" was almost always used to refer to objects used by the rioters: "Subject was identify by jacket with 'TRUMP 2020' in large letters on the back" or "Subject is show assaulting officer with flag reading 'TRUMP' ".You quoted: "We are proud to reverse the DOJ's weaponization under the Biden administration. We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes. This includes stripping DOJ's website of partisan propaganda."
How was the DOJ weaponized by the convictions and guilty pleas of these individuals? Also, how does taking the (publicly available) information about these convictions and guilty pleas from the DOJ website "reverse" anything?
-- A2SG, unless the DOJ website comes with a "stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalala" option for other google results....
Most of the people injured was due to a Capitol cop shooting into the peaceful gathering, starting a riot of people trying to get cover.1. There weren't 1500 people "jailed". 1500 were convicted. Many got probation or fines for their minor crimes.
2. There were over 100 people injured, some very seriously.
3. The whole thing was a wrapper around Trump's coup against the United States to gain a presidency he had not been elected to.
No. It was done so they could get out of jail where they had. Even sitting for over a year without even being charged and given the right to defend themselves over, at most, misdemeanor activity.Many pled guilty.
Acceptance of the blanket pardon issue by the incumbent President, also acknowledged their own culpability.
Most of the people injured was due to a Capitol cop shooting into the peaceful gathering, starting a riot of people trying to get cover.
Most of the world has now acknowledged that there was no coup. There was no insurrection. There was a large gathering of people who were told by the president to go peacefully and make their voices heard that might have had less than a handful of people there to start trouble, and a bunch of undercover FBI agents goading people to break the law so they can then claim “see how violent they are”. Unlike the leftists politicians who tell their people to take out their competition and harass their followers.
I really have to laugh that Michelle Obama said “When they go low, we go high”, considering there is no lower that the left can go.
What’s wilder is what you are not willing to believe because it tears down your narrative.
Did you see the footage of the crowd ahead of Ashlee Babbit bashing on the barricaded doors and breaking the windows? Did you see her climbing through the window on that barricaded door? Why were the folks in that crowd trying to get through that door to where all the legislators were?What’s wilder is what you are not willing to believe because it tears down your narrative.
What I SAW was all the video footage taken from all the journalists who were there that day that they didn’t use to craft their phony narrative and try to convince the world that an insurrection was taking place. A lot of it was released a couple years ago, but again, because you hate the deliverer more than you love truth, you still deny it.
I doubt that.Most of the people injured was due to a Capitol cop shooting into the peaceful gathering, starting a riot of people trying to get cover.
What a surprise.I doubt that.
I saw an unarmed woman crawling through a broken glass door and I saw the other cops lower their guns because they did not believe she was a threat. And I saw a big man with a bulletproof vest on shoot her while she was still crawling through the window. Pathetic.Did you see the footage of the crowd ahead of Ashlee Babbit bashing on the barricaded doors and breaking the windows? Did you see her climbing through the window on that barricaded door? Why were the folks in that crowd trying to get through that door to where all the legislators were?
The insurrection claims have to do with the attempt to overthrow the election, which isn't denied by anybody as far as I'm aware. Trump led a months-long con to convince people that it was stolen; he had people trying to submit fraudulent documents to overturn; he publicly encouraged Pence to use whatever power he had to overturn it.
What did you find “pathetic” about the officer’s actions?I saw an unarmed woman crawling through a broken glass door and I saw the other cops lower their guns because they did not believe she was a threat. And I saw a big man with a bulletproof vest on shoot her while she was still crawling through the window. Pathetic.