Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Cheney reveals what Trump was doing during January 6 insurrection" video.

@calvinthestormfreak Ivermectin treats WORMS. A virus is not a worm. What's fucking you up is the snorting of bleach and shooting up of hydroxychloroquine. Either of those is worse than LSD, but both together . . . !
6
@zennbubba You have no idea what "communism" is. Look at the South American countries with RIGHT-wing -- fascist -- gov'ts where they disappear people without trial or trace.
6
@bryanb3352 There is crime. And Congress investigates toward legislating; but if they find potential crimes it ROUTINELY refers the matter to the DOJ. If you Trumpeters weren't so ignorant of normal governing you wouldn't fall for the stupidities fed you.
5
@zennbubba I don't see anyone getting made about the rule of law being enforced -- except, of course, Trump and his fellow seditionists/traitors, AND the dumb-assed MAGA dupes.
5
The system is based on due process, which is premised on presumption of innocence. In other words, the system insures protection of the rights of the accused. That is why the burden of proof is on the prosecution/gov't. What we are seeing with the Select Committee is the system functioning as the Founders intended: above board. That is why the Watergate hearings were so riveting - and educational: the gov't functioned as intended.
4
@Shaz Actually he hasn't. For most of his career as a criminal the system didn't take a hard look. And when he sued others, he kept them in court by means of delay until they ran out of money.
4
@bryanb3352 Better to be insane than be a Trumpeting troll.
4
@kentcruz9546 It isn't possible to investigate a "steal" that did not happen. More than 60 courts DISMISSED the fraudulent claims of election fraud. And Trump's own Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal of his fraudulent claim to them.
4
@u2mister17 Another law-illiterate: When a case is filed in court, even if FRIVOLOUS, it is on the record, as is the disposition of the case. PAY ATTENTION: if ANY of the MORE THAN SIXTY cases filed had MERIT, they wouldn't have been dismissed. IN FACT, ALL were dismissed because NONE had merit because NONE provide EVIDENCE for the claim. And NO EVIDENCE was provided because there was and is NO EVIDENCE to support the LIE of election fraud. Rudy Giuliani himself testified UNDER OATH that he "didn't have time" to determine whether the "evidence" he submitted was valid. And remember that Giuliani said, "TRUTH ISN'T TRUTH!". Ask yourself: is that a TRUTH?
3
@ourcountrynotourselves3933 The DOJ has indicted 34 "Proud Boys" (and others of their ilk) for CONSPIRACY. In other words, the DOJ is working its way UPWWARDS, to those who have been and will be getting much longer sentences.
3
@ScoutsPatterson The crime of "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" is not limited to guns, jackass. Anything that can be used as a deadly weapon is within its scope. My favorite example of the CRIME of "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" is that of pointing an UNLOADED gun at another. "Assault" is defined in law as, "Putting another in fear of bodily harm". If a person points an UNLOADED gun at you, you are REASONABLE to fear that you are at risk of bodily harm from it, therefore that it is a deadly weapon. An insurrection is not defined according to weaponry; it is defined as an attack on gov't.
3
@Shaz The DOJ is not holding back. At the same time it indicted Bannon it knocked own the underlying bogus claim of "executive privilege". That outcome doesn't apply only to Bannon. And the DOJ has indicted 34 "Proud boys" (and others of their ilk) for conspiracy, and some have flipped. If you want to know what the DOJ is doing, look at what it is doing in the courts.
3
The first responsibility of gov't is protection of public health and safety.
2
@rider3859 The REASON they haven't ended the filibuster is BECAUSE they realize those consequences. That is why they are discussing a specific carve-out.
2
@rider3859 It is the fact. The 50 Republicans in the Senate represent much less than 50 per cent of the population. In fact, there are fewer Republicans than Democrats, and fewer Democrats than Independents.
2
@bryanb3352 Read this as many times as necessary to penetrate your ignorance -- ___ "No Collusion"? Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia. This is Webster's definition of "collusion": "Secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose". How many Trumpeters lied about their contacts with Russians during the Trump-Putin COLLUSION? THIS IS THE LAW: _The Model Penal Code defines solicitation as commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime (with the intent that the crime be committed). Model Penal Code S. 5.02(1) (1962). Generally the code provides that solicitation be as punishable as the crime solicited. Id. at S. 5.05(1). "Law Dictionary: Second Edition"_, Giffis, at 446. THIS IS THE EVIDENCE: We have Trump on video, in broad daylight, soliciting Russia: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." To "find" those emails required computer hacking. Computer hacking is a felony. In fact, he solicited a series of felonies, beginning with computer hacking and stealing private property, through to receiving and possessing that stolen property. And we know that on the same day as Trump's solicitation, within hours thereafter, Russia hacked computers and stole the emails. That made Trump a co-conspirator with Russia. That conspiracy is an additional felony. ____________ PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
2
@bryanb3352 Try again -- ___ "No Collusion"? Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia. This is Webster's definition of "collusion": "Secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose". How many Trumpeters lied about their contacts with Russians during the Trump-Putin COLLUSION? THIS IS THE LAW: The Model Penal Code defines solicitation as commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime (with the intent that the crime be committed). Model Penal Code S. 5.02(1) (1962). Generally the code provides that solicitation be as punishable as the crime solicited. Id. at S. 5.05(1). Law Dictionary, Giffis, at 446. THIS IS THE EVIDENCE: We have Trump on video, in broad daylight, soliciting Russia: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." To "find" those emails required computer hacking. Computer hacking is a felony. In fact, he solicited a series of felonies, beginning with computer hacking and stealing private property, through to receiving and possessing that stolen property. And we know that on the same day as Trump's solicitation, within hours thereafter, Russia hacked computers and stole the emails. That made Trump a co-conspirator with Russia. That conspiracy is an additional felony. ____________ PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
2
@pattymiller9040 Wrong. And Biden was elected. Pay attention to REALITY: every one of Trump's 60-plus fraudulent lawsuits alleging election fraud was DISMISSED for LACK OF EVIDENCE. LACK of EVIDENCE because the election was not stolen. And Trump's Supreme Court REFUSED TO HEAR his appeal of his same fraudulent claims of election fraud. Either stop the lying, or WAKE UP. As for your law-illiteracy: anyone within the United States, regardless status, is under jurisdiction of United States law -- both penalties AND PROTECTIONS. And due process applies, which is premised upon PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. That your racist hero ignores the rule of law and engages in gutter-level racist name calling does not change the fact that he's a career criminal and anti-American thug. I'm waiting for him to plead the 5th so he finally admits that he's a mobster.
2
There's a thin line between seditious conspiracy and treason.
1
@hazemkaram7111 Troll.
1
@funnybunny2515 Troll.
1
@bryantf8105 Troll.
1
@jimmcloughlin There has not been a filibuster in the US for all of its history. It was established after the Civil War.
1
@jimmcloughlin If your statement was false, as it is, then it is not accurate.
1
Martha Huls He wasn't talking about mine.
1
@marktesta6726 The strength of the law is that even if one planned it, but didn't go further or failed at it, one is still guilty.
1
@marktesta6726 And I suppose as a matter of ethics you refused the $1,400 check. Biden has done better than one could expect against the odds. But anyone who would consider voting for Trump is immune to fact and reality. He's a career criminal, and it intent on destroying the rule of law, but somehow you believe that the destruction of the rights secured by law is somehow a benefit to you. Oh --- you believe you're immune? First they came for fill-in-the-blank, but I didn't care because I wasn't a fill-in-the-blank.
1