Speaker Johnson is an accessory to crime?

Good question. Yes, such as the Riddenhouse & the boy getting confronted by the "native american" who ended up suing. Two of many examples.

 

Load of hooey.

 

Yes they can, update us when they get in trouble for blurring faces and prove your case.

 

Ah I didn't think you would want to go down that road. Hard to defend it. Good deflection, I notice you have a habit of not responding to facts that destroy your narrative. Here I'll answer your question -->

What if Nancy Pelosi wanted to blur her copies of the Minnesota riots?

Sure, who cares? Why would it matter? I can simply get the unblurred versions readily.

 

See #49

 

Not the point, as you know. Saying this...We have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ....is the point.

 

I thought we were talking about Jan 6 videos????????? So let me try this again...
Has media and liberals in general wrongly targeted people from all of the original footage (Jan 6) we’ve all seen? If you claim yes, please provide your evidence of such.

 

The DOJ probably won't bother, not because it's not a crime, but because they have bigger fish to fry in the Trump fiasco.

 

Never did. See post #39.

 

See # 53

 

Need to be more clear. No, I think the people who from what I have seen have been fairly targeted. They were there, did the crime, pay the time.

 

Sure looks like you did buddy.

 

Right. So obtaining evidence from the FOIA, and then blurring faces from said evidence obtain through FOIA, is a crime. Sorry but you are wrong. Maybe in Brazil but not here.

 

I was very clear. So your claim that faces need to be blurred due possibly being unfairly targeted by liberal media and liberals in general was bullcrap. Cleary that never occurred from all of the original footage, which you agreed with above. Thanks!

 

If the Speaker of the House from either party saying the identity of criminals should be hidden from authorities does not pose a problem for you then you've irredeemably lost your ability not to see things through the dangerous lens of Trumpery.

 

Clear as mud

Nope

You're welcome!

 

It would be wrong. Whether it's a Dem blurring evidence or a Rep blurring evidence it's wrong.

 

Exactly. Notice all the "Trump Will Destroy Democracy and Establish Dictatorship" stories being run trying to dog whistle up assassins?

 

Getting judged by "lee Atwater" has zero impact on my day.

 

It's only mud to you. Christ...we had ONLY been talking about the Jan 6 videos. My bad for assuming you were paying attention to what we had been discussing. Wow...hahaha
Explains why your arguments are so illogical

 

Personal attacks just show you've run out of constructive arguments in debate. Your white flag of surrender is accepted.

 

That's a load and you're fooling no one. We DARE you to arrest and charge the Speaker of the House even as you try to jail the president running for re-election that is widely leading in the polls.

Trump is 11.8 points ahead of last cycle in the head to head vs Bribed Joe.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

We also know who the Bribed Crook is, who is selling his office to the Chinese Communists.

Payments to Biden Coincided With Chinese Transfers, Bank Inquiries

 

Arrest him. We dare you.

 

Probably can't arrest Johnson because of the "speech and debate" clause in the Constitution.

Trump is under indictment because he broke the law. If you think being a candidate for President should shield you from being prosecuted then you believe in a two tier justice system.

He had the documents
He wasn't supposed to have the documents
He refused to turn the documents over.

You can't have a more clear cut case of a violation of 18USC 793(e)

 

Except it really doesn't. I've already exposed your argument as bogus. You already admitted the liberal media and liberals in general didn't unfairly target people in the Jan 6 footage we've all seen. Therefore there is no reason to blur faces. You only support Johnson wanting to blur faces because you're hyper-partisan and must follow lock-step with whatever your party says. One day you'll start to think for yourself. Hopefully sooner than later.