I was thinking of the 1,000+ insurrectionists who have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of crimes.“MAGA people are often on the wrong side of the law”. Umm, actually they rarely commit crimes.
I was thinking of the 1,000+ insurrectionists who have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of crimes.“MAGA people are often on the wrong side of the law”. Umm, actually they rarely commit crimes.
"Trump brings garbage cases to court". Yet the DOJ coordinating with leftist prosecutors to scrounge up obscure, rarely used, and misused laws like the1917 Espionage Act, the 2002 Enron case, criminalizing the presidential records act, applying a law from 1869 pertaining to confederate soldiers, applying RICO against people challenging election results, and prosecuting the person that was extorted instead of the extortionist in a NDA.Key word: "potentially." It could just as potentially lead to a significant defeat.
I can see why this excites MAGA. Court victories for Trump and his followers are rare. That's because Trump brings garbage cases to court, and because MAGA people are often on the wrong side of the law. This item allows MAGA people have hope, hope placed in "potentially." That's fine. Take what you can get and get while the getting is good. "Potentially" will give way to an actual ruling soon enough.
Trump's history before this Supreme Court is terrible. I've been keeping track, and I do not know of a single time since Trump became president that any non-policy case he brought to these justices was decided in his favor. When Trump has a track record of losing 100% of the time at the Supreme Court, I would not entertain great hopes because Trump is there again. In this Fischer case, it's not Trump bringing the action, but he is there indirectly because the application question applies to his case too.
Oh, now you're inflating many that were maybe trespassing as " insurrectionists".I was thinking of the 1,000+ insurrectionists who have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of crimes.
We shall see. But three for three ( 100%) is a decent percentage.Trump's history before this Supreme Court is terrible. I've been keeping track, and I do not know of a single time since Trump became president that any non-policy case he brought to these justices was decided in his favor. When Trump has a track record of losing 100% of the time at the Supreme Court, I would not entertain great hopes because Trump is there again. In this Fischer case, it's not Trump bringing the action, but he is there indirectly because the application question applies to his case too.
Lots of people wax eloquently about what a court will do, only to find out different when the court actually rules.This is what’s called trying to put a square peg in a round hole by misapplying laws to alleged “crimes”.
How many have been convicted of insurrection?I was thinking of the 1,000+ insurrectionists who have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of crimes.
Zero, and you know that. Why do you ask?How many have been convicted of insurrection?
To emphasize the point that if they haven't been convicted of insurrection, they a can't be correctly labeled "insurrectionists". This gaslighting comes from the J6 committee and the Democrat party as part of their campaign against Trump.Zero, and you know that. Why do you ask?
Pretty broad brush, right?One needs not be charged and convicted....
Definition of INSURRECTION
an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
Pilgrim is quite good at discussing a subject with logic.When some can't discuss a subject with logic, they resort to stirring the pot.
Yes he is.... My mistake.Pilgrim is quite good at discussing a subject with logic.
There are numerous terms that can be said to apply or not apply, depending on how the term is defined, the person's behavior, other people's views of the definition or behavior, and whatever legal meaning one chooses to assign. Examples include rebel (as in Civil War rebel), Christian, weightlifter, and trucker. Additionally, for any such term, there are people who are fond of using "real" as an additional qualifier; as in he's not a real Republican or he's not a real athlete.To emphasize the point that if they haven't been convicted of insurrection, they a can't be correctly labeled "insurrectionists". This gaslighting comes from the J6 committee and the Democrat party as part of their campaign against Trump.