Garland, "I am not the president's lawyer"

[Dante Reawakened]

That never happened.

Fort Fun Indiana

This moron says there was no violent mob, and we did not see videos of Trump supporters assaulting police officers and chanting death threats.

Why bother with IT?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Never saw one.
Did you attend?

Nope. But I thought of buying some shitty steaks.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Never saw one.
Did you attend?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That never happened.

Except when it did, on video.

 

[Votto]

The lying sonofabitch may not claim to be Potatohead's lawyer but we know for a fact he runs the enforcement branch of the filthy Democrat Party.

He will go down in history as one of the villains that made this country the Banana Republic that it is today.

He is not hit lawyer, rather, he is Potatohead's tool.

Yea, we all know.

 

[Mac1958]

Fort Fun Indiana

This moron says there was no violent mob, and we did not see videos of Trump supporters assaulting police officers and chanting death threats.

Why bother with IT?

That's the question. How is any progress made when you're dealing with someone who is that far down the rabbit hole?

 

[August West]

I'm glad they exist.
People should be able to associate with who they want to.

Why do you think ratings matter?

You do understand that it wasn't an actual fact finding mission, I hope.

If this was Monday Night Football, we would be at the end of the opening drive. The receiving team took the ball. Marched down the field and scored a touchdown.

Would you think that anything at all had been decided at that point?

It was my MAGA friend who thought ratings matter and the low viewership for the televised hearings, in his MAGA mind, was proof that Dear Leader did nothing wrong.
Who was the politician who said he loves the uneducated? The hearings were indeed a fact finding mission and that`s why, in the words of former AG Barr, Trump is "Toast".

 

[Mac1958]

Amazing to watch. MAGA World™ is now so completely manipulated and paranoid, that if ANY government entity does ANYTHING they don't like to ANY of them at ANY time, it's just another example to them of an evil and conspiratorial "Deep State" that must be destroyed.

Obliterate anyone and anything that can hold you accountable for your actions. And they claim to be Constitutionalists.

 

[BluesLegend]

How many of Biden's regime will claim they are not a crook?

 

[August West]

View attachment 831968

Cartoons you have, but a candidate for 2024, you don`t.

 

[martybegan]

No, the violent mob we saw on video, assaulting police officers and chanting death threats. Duh. What a stupid question.

Look at the videos of the shooting, heavily armed officers IN THAT ROOM were there seconds after she was shot, mingling with the protesters/rioters and none of them were attacked.

 

[Marener]

Look at the videos of the shooting, heavily armed officers IN THAT ROOM were there seconds after she was shot, mingling with the protesters/rioters and none of them were attacked.

Those officers were not visible or apparently from inside the hallway.

It’s irrelevant to the shooting.

 

[Burgermeister]

“I am not the president’s lawyer,” Garland said in his opening statement. “I will also add that I am not Congress’s prosecutor. The Justice Department works for the American people.”

Hey dummy, in the government, Congress represents the American people.

 

[martybegan]

Those officers were not visible or apparently from inside the hallway.

It’s irrelevant to the shooting.

They were mingling with the supposed people who were going to "kill congress"

None of them shot anyone.

It is 100% relevant to the shooting. Only that one guy decided to use deadly force. On an unarmed woman hanging halfway through a door window.

 

[Marener]

They were mingling with the supposed people who were going to "kill congress"

None of them shot anyone.

It is 100% relevant to the shooting. Only that one guy decided to use deadly force. On an unarmed woman hanging halfway through a door window.

Nope. It’s irrelevant. The courts ruled that the justification for use of deadly force is only dependent on what is known to the person at the time of the shooting.

If there is a reasonable threat to that person at that time based on what they know, it justifies use of force.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. It’s irrelevant. The courts ruled that the justification for use of deadly force is only dependent on what is known to the person at the time of the shooting.

If there is a reasonable threat to that person at that time based on what they know, it justifies use of force.

The courts were in the can for not prosecuting the shoot, even if it was a bad shoot.

Deadly force can only be used in the face of a deadly threat, and she wasn't a deadly threat.

Again, "encouragement pour les autres" isn't a deadly force justification under US law.

So next time Anti-fa riots, the local cops can just plink a few of them to encourage the rest to stop what they are doing?

 

[Marener]

The courts were in the can for not prosecuting the shoot, even if it was a bad shoot.

Deadly force can only be used in the face of a deadly threat, and she wasn't a deadly threat.

Again, "encouragement pour les autres" isn't a deadly force justification under US law.

So next time Anti-fa riots, the local cops can just plink a few of them to encourage the rest to stop what they are doing?

Deadly force and be used for threats of death or serious bodily harm.

It’s reasonable to believe someone violently breaking into the Capitol as part of a mob that has been engaging in acts of violence constitutes a threat of death or serious bodily harm.

Hell, conservatives believe someone constitutes a threat of death or serious bodily harm because they threw popcorn at them.

If popcorn is a threat, surely breaking into the Capitol is.

 

[martybegan]

Deadly force and be used for threats of death or serious bodily harm.

It’s reasonable to believe someone violently breaking into the Capitol as part of a mob that has been engaging in acts of violence constitutes a threat of death or serious bodily harm.

Hell, conservatives believe someone constitutes a threat of death or serious bodily harm because they threw popcorn at them.

If popcorn is a threat, surely breaking into the Capitol is.

At the time of half hanging through the window? It's the same as shooting someone in the back.

I don't believe the popcorn thing, and the law doesn't either. a bad shoot is a bad shoot.

 

[Marener]

At the time of half hanging through the window? It's the same as shooting someone in the back.

Cops shoot people in the back all the time, it’s deemed justified. Hell, they can shoot people serving a search warrant on the wrong house without announcing themselves and it’s justified.

She was coming through the window, coming at them. It’s literally the opposite of shooting someone in the back who is running away.

I don't believe the popcorn thing

The jury did.

 

[martybegan]

Cops shoot people in the back all the time, it’s deemed justified. Hell, they can shoot people serving a search warrant on the wrong house without announcing themselves and it’s justified.

She was coming through the window, coming at them. It’s literally the opposite of shooting someone in the back who is running away.

The jury did.

Those people were usually armed and still an immediate threat. She wasn't.

She wasn't an immediate threat to anyone.