"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me...
> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>
>>The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>exceptions.
>
> None of which disqualify him.

Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..

Kind of hard to disqualify him when NOTHING happened.

Oh, but then when did liberals EVER care about the facts.

Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> ...
>Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less convicted
>of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
> ...

Wrong again, Scout:
|
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>

|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>

--bks

In article <uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com>, bks@panix.com says...
>
> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> > ...
> >Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less convicted
> >of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
> > ...
>
> Wrong again, Scout:
> |
> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
> |
> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
> | ...
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>
> |
> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
> | ...
> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>
> --bks

But not Trump.

On 1/18/2024 4:18 AM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
> news:uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me...
>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>> exceptions.
>>
>> None of which disqualify him.
>
> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less convicted of
> insurrection for events on Jan 6th..

Not required, scooter. Disqualification via 14.3 does not require criminal
conviction. You've been instructed on this already, scooter.

On 1/18/2024 6:30 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com>, bks@panix.com says...
>>
>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less convicted
>>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>> ...
>>
>> Wrong again, Scout:
>> |
>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>> |
>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>> | ...
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>>
>> |
>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>> | ...
>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>>
>> --bks
>
> But not Trump.

No need. 14.3 doesn't require that.

"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> ...
>>Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>convicted
>>of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>> ...
>
> Wrong again, Scout:

First Rudy claims I'm wrong

> |
> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
> |
> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
> | ...
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>
> |
> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
> | ...
> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>

Then ends up proving I'm right.

Not a single person was charged much less convicted of insurrection.

Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>>convicted
>>>of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>> ...
>>
>> Wrong again, Scout:
>
>First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>
>> |
>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>> |
>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>> | ...
>>
><https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>>
>> |
>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>> | ...
>>
><https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>
>Then ends up proving I'm right.

No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>

--bks

David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:iOaqN.51021$Sf59.9103@fx48.iad:

> On 1/18/2024 4:18 AM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
>> news:uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me...
>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who
>>>> cannot. It says any American citizen can run for president, with
>>>> four big exceptions.
>>>
>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>
>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>> convicted of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>
> Not required, scooter. Disqualification via 14.3 does not require
> criminal conviction. You've been instructed on this already, scooter.
>
There have been LOTS of people charged with Seditious Conspiracy

In article <uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com>, bks@panix.com says...
>
> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
> >> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
> >>>convicted
> >>>of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> Wrong again, Scout:
> >
> >First Rudy claims I'm wrong
> >
> >> |
> >> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
> >> |
> >> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
> >> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
> >> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
> >> | ...
> >>
> ><https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
> >>
> >> |
> >> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
> >> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
> >> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
> >> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
> >> | ...
> >>
> ><https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
> >
> >Then ends up proving I'm right.
>
> No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>
> --bks

Still no insurrection charges against Trump.

"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>>>convicted
>>>>of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>>
>>First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>>
>>> |
>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>>> |
>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>>> | ...
>>>
>><https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>>>
>>> |
>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>>> | ...
>>>
>><https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>>
>>Then ends up proving I'm right.
>
> No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>

Yep, and is entirely different than insurrection under 18USC2383

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

Once again Rudy proves that even with the evidence right in front of him, he
just can't avoid being wrong...

So to be clear sedition and insurrection are two totally different crimes.

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uobgvb$2l57l$5@dont-email.me...
> David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
> news:iOaqN.51021$Sf59.9103@fx48.iad:
>
>> On 1/18/2024 4:18 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
>>> news:uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me...
>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who
>>>>> cannot. It says any American citizen can run for president, with
>>>>> four big exceptions.
>>>>
>>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>>
>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>> convicted of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>
>> Not required, scooter. Disqualification via 14.3 does not require
>> criminal conviction. You've been instructed on this already, scooter.
>>
> There have been LOTS of people charged with Seditious Conspiracy

Yea, and what does that have to do with insurrection?
We might as well complain about how many people have been charged with jay
walking.. just as relevant to the argument.

On 1/18/2024 8:34 AM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:uobgvb$2l57l$5@dont-email.me...
>> David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
>> news:iOaqN.51021$Sf59.9103@fx48.iad:
>>
>>> On 1/18/2024 4:18 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me...
>>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who
>>>>>> cannot. It says any American citizen can run for president, with
>>>>>> four big exceptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>>> convicted of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>>
>>> Not required, scooter. Disqualification via 14.3 does not require
>>> criminal conviction. You've been instructed on this already, scooter.
>>>
>> There have been LOTS of people charged with Seditious Conspiracy
>
> Yea, and what does that have to do with insurrection?

Functionally they are the same, scooter. The people charged with *and convicted
for* seditious conspiracy were participating in an event known as an
insurrection, scooter. They were charged with seditious conspiracy rather than
insurrection because the maximum penalty for the former is twice as long as for
the latter, scooter. Suppose you were to participate in a robbery and murder
someone in the course of it, scooter. If you were only prosecuted for the
murder, would that mean you were not a robber as well? Obviously not — you
participated ("engaged") in the robbery, during which you murdered someone, so
you are both a robber and a murderer, even though only tried and convicted for
the latter.

You're so fucking stupid, scooter.

In article <EveqN.210362$Ama9.179215@fx12.iad>, NoBody@nowhere.corn
says...
>
> On 1/18/2024 8:34 AM, scooter lied:
> >
> >
> > "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > news:uobgvb$2l57l$5@dont-email.me...
> >> David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
> >> news:iOaqN.51021$Sf59.9103@fx48.iad:
> >>
> >>> On 1/18/2024 4:18 AM, scooter lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me...
> >>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who
> >>>>>> cannot. It says any American citizen can run for president, with
> >>>>>> four big exceptions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> None of which disqualify him.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
> >>>> convicted of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
> >>>
> >>> Not required, scooter. Disqualification via 14.3 does not require
> >>> criminal conviction. You've been instructed on this already, scooter.
> >>>
> >> There have been LOTS of people charged with Seditious Conspiracy
> >
> > Yea, and what does that have to do with insurrection?
>
> Functionally they are the same, scooter. The people charged with *and convicted
> for* seditious conspiracy were participating in an event known as an
> insurrection, scooter. They were charged with seditious conspiracy rather than
> insurrection because the maximum penalty for the former is twice as long as for
> the latter, scooter. Suppose you were to participate in a robbery and murder
> someone in the course of it, scooter. If you were only prosecuted for the
> murder, would that mean you were not a robber as well? Obviously not ? you
> participated ("engaged") in the robbery, during which you murdered someone, so
> you are both a robber and a murderer, even though only tried and convicted for
> the latter.
>
> You're so fucking stupid, scooter.

No insurrection charges. That is settled.

"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
>Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> ...
>>Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>convicted
>>of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>> ...
>
>Wrong again, Scout:
> |
> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
> |
> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
> | ...
><https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>
> |
> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
> | ...
><https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>
> --bks
>

The Proud Boys are a bunch of minority idiots and louts. They're not capable
of overthrowing a government. So no valid conviction. That was staged to
send a message of fear and compliance to others.

--
Definition of an idiot/ignoramus: Someone who gets their information from
the mainstream media and calls it facts and evidence.

http://www.rumormillnews.com - The best alternative news site

"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
>Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>>>convicted
>>>>of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>>
>>First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>>
>>> |
>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>>> |
>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>>> | ...
>>>
>><https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>>>
>>> |
>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>>> | ...
>>>
>><https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>>
>>Then ends up proving I'm right.
>
>No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
>what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
><https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>
> --bks
>

When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u l l
s h i t.

--
Definition of an idiot/ignoramus: Someone who gets their information from
the mainstream media and calls it facts and evidence.

http://www.rumormillnews.com - The best alternative news site

On 1/18/2024 3:26 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling whore, lied:

> "Bradley K. Sherman"  wrote in message news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>
>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>>>> convicted
>>>>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>>>
>>> First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>>>
>>>> |
>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>>>> |
>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>>>> | ...
>>>>
>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>>>>
>>>> |
>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>>>> | ...
>>>>
>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>>>
>>> Then ends up proving I'm right.
>>
>> No, Scout,  the only thing proved is that you don't understand
>> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means.  Let me help you:
>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>>
>>    --bks
>>
>
> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists

No, it isn't, Andrea, you lying trolling whore.

"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
> "Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
> news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>
>>Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>>>>convicted
>>>>>of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>>>
>>>First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>>>
>>>> |
>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>>>> |
>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>>>> | ...
>>>>
>>><https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>>>>
>>>> |
>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>>>> | ...
>>>>
>>><https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>>>
>>>Then ends up proving I'm right.
>>
>>No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
>>what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
>><https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>>
>> --bks
>>
>
> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u l
> l s h i t.

Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to have been
tried and convicted under 18USC2383 for it to matter.

That's the law that covers insurrection.

A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus leftist have
NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of insurrection.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
>news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
>> "Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
>> news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>
>>>Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>>>>>convicted
>>>>>>of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>>>>
>>>>First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>>>>
>>>>> |
>>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>>>>> |
>>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>>>>> | ...
>>>>>
>>>><https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> |
>>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>>>>> | ...
>>>>>
>>>><https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>>>>
>>>>Then ends up proving I'm right.
>>>
>>>No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
>>>what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
>>><https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>>>
>>> --bks
>>>
>>
>> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u l
>> l s h i t.
>
>Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to have been
>tried and convicted under 18USC2383 for it to matter.
>
>That's the law that covers insurrection.
>
>A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus leftist have
>NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of insurrection.
>
>

You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.

"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
>>news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
>>> "Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
>>> news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>
>>>>Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>>>>>>convicted
>>>>>>>of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>>>>>
>>>>>First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>>>>>
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>>>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>>>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>>>>>> | ...
>>>>>>
>>>>><https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>>>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>>>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>>>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>>>>>> | ...
>>>>>>
>>>>><https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>>>>>
>>>>>Then ends up proving I'm right.
>>>>
>>>>No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
>>>>what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
>>>><https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>>>>
>>>> --bks
>>>>
>>>
>>> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u
>>> l
>>> l s h i t.
>>
>>Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to have
>>been
>>tried and convicted under 18USC2383 for it to matter.
>>
>>That's the law that covers insurrection.
>>
>>A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus leftist have
>>NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of insurrection.
>>
>>
>
> You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.

Yea, I just can't seem to distort my views of reality enough to see such a
twisted view...... must be the drugs they are on.

What's most amusing is how the DNC is showing they are like the Russian
Central Committee.... you can vote, but only for the candidate they select,
and will adjust the votes to produce that outcome.

Yea, we certainly how concerned the DNC is about the will of the people...

NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>>A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus leftist
>>have NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of
>>insurrection.
>>
>>
>
> You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
>

Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring tRump
under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.

Or maybe you hadn't noticed?

On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
> news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
>> "Bradley K. Sherman"  wrote in message news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>
>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>>>>> convicted
>>>>>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>>>>
>>>> First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>>>>
>>>>> |
>>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>>>>> |
>>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>>>>> | ...
>>>>>
>>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> |
>>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>>>>> | ...
>>>>>
>>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>>>>
>>>> Then ends up proving I'm right.
>>>
>>> No, Scout,  the only thing proved is that you don't understand
>>> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means.  Let me help you:
>>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>>>
>>>    --bks
>>>
>>
>> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u l l s
>> h i t.
>
> Even then it's still irrelevant.  The defendants would have had to have been
> tried and convicted under 18USC2383

No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.

On 1/19/2024 7:39 AM, Baxter wrote:

> Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring tRump
> under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.
>
> Or maybe you hadn't noticed?

*sigh* it doesn't matter to Kremlin Girl. You have to provide source
data and cites, or Kremlin Girl will whine incessantly until you get
bored and quit responding out of boredom.

In article <uoe53g$36mvn$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
>
> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
> > <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >>A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus leftist
> >>have NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of
> >>insurrection.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
> >
>
> Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring tRump
> under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.
>
> Or maybe you hadn't noticed?

Sure haven't seen any proof of it.

In article <uoebql$37vr1$1@dont-email.me>, anc@ie.nt says...
>
> On 1/19/2024 7:39 AM, Baxter wrote:
>
> > Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring tRump
> > under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.
> >
> > Or maybe you hadn't noticed?
>
> *sigh* it doesn't matter to Kremlin Girl. You have to provide source
> data and cites, or Kremlin Girl will whine incessantly until you get
> bored and quit responding out of boredom.

Why would we believe you kooks?

In article <VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
says...
>
> On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
> >
> >
> > "Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
> > news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
> >> "Bradley K. Sherman"  wrote in message news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
> >>>
> >>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
> >>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
> >>>>>> convicted
> >>>>>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
> >>>>
> >>>> First Rudy claims I'm wrong
> >>>>
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
> >>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
> >>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
> >>>>> | ...
> >>>>>
> >>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
> >>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
> >>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
> >>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
> >>>>> | ...
> >>>>>
> >>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
> >>>>
> >>>> Then ends up proving I'm right.
> >>>
> >>> No, Scout,  the only thing proved is that you don't understand
> >>> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means.  Let me help you:
> >>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
> >>>
> >>>    --bks
> >>>
> >>
> >> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u l l s
> >> h i t.
> >
> > Even then it's still irrelevant.  The defendants would have had to have been
> > tried and convicted under 18USC2383
>
> No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.

Yes, that's why he's not in jail.