- Local time
- Today, 18:24
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 46,956
As I said, if they had anything, Trump would be in leg irons like Peter Navarro. This is all for show.
They've done that. They just didn't release it until now.And yet no one is investigating Ray Epps who's a real life person who has actually testified to his own personal and professional experience, with some audio and video evidence to boot.
None of the people were carrying weapons, what an insurrection!!!
In legal terms, “armed” means being in possession of any weapon, not just a firearm. While there are laws that specifically address firearms, weapons can include virtually any object used to threaten or cause harm.
According to a database compiled by NPR, of the people charged with violent offenses, including assault on police officers, 15 were armed with deadly or dangerous weapons during the riot at the Capitol.
Eight others facing civil disorder or property destruction charges also were charged with possessing weapons, according to the database.
Those weapons included baseball bats, chemical sprays, a captured police officer’s riot shield, a crowbar, fire extinguishers and a metal flagpole.
Thomas Webster, a retired New York Police Department officer, was charged with attacking a Metropolitan Police Department officer with a metal flagpole. The federal complaint says he struck at the officer “with the flagpole numerous times.”
Before and after the storming of the Capitol, NBC News reported, police seized a dozen firearms, including an assault rifle, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from seven people attending the rally for President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. Other weapons included a crossbow, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails.
While DC Police calmly followed him around indifferent to his supposed insurrection activities.Consider that Jacob Chansley, the so called 'QAnon Shaman', received a 41 month sentence for aimlessly walking around the Capital building like a tourist, a non violent activity.
All I can say is, I found her to be an utterly believable, incredible witness," Raskin continued. "It's possible that the story that she repeated, you know, may have some flaws according to somebody else's interpretation, who knows. But that's what the investigative process is about. I mean, we're not in a court of law where we're trying to prove all of these facts. We're trying to bring all of the witnesses in so the whole country can hear together, and we can all make a judgment. But I've found her to be a 100% credible witness." (emphasis added)
Hutchinson is merely a useful idiot for the Democrats re-invigoration of McCarthyism. Guilt by association, no questioning of the hearsay to seek the truth. Hutchinson was not a witness. It is a denial of the rule of law. For Democrats, the ends justify the means.It seems they belive Cassidy.
It seems they believe Cassidy.