Lawsuits against Trump over the Jan. 6 riot can move forward, an appeals court rules

a reply to: tanstaafl

So things like overriding vetos or declaring EOs unconstitutional don't exist?

Congress can't pass laws that limit the power of the President and the judiciary can't rule those laws are constitutional?

a reply to: frogs453

I was answering the question
"Who paid for it"
If you are talking about who paid for Pence and Pelosi insurrection.
I provided the who got paid part for us to figure out.
My excuse, as you frame it, is I saw Crisis actors setting up and preparing as if Trump was not even speaking.
The patriots were with Trump at that moment.
For me that was the biggest eye opener I missed and was unaware of until the recently released videos that put a lot of perspective to the chronology of the events.
I saw pics before but it lacked context until it was placed in the chronology of all the events.

It sets precedence and identifies so many players that are nameless but playing their role.
It now makes sense why Trump spoke offsite and also why he pleaded for a big turnout.
He separated the patriots from wolves in sheep clothing.
This is becoming so relevant to me.
Do you know how hard it was to get to DC that day and how expensive?
And you end up with a large group that could care less POTUS was speaking?

And I am going to say Trumps people had NSA type of insights to what was being planned by Pelosi.
And having a large peaceful group of patriots there completely negated the optics and narrative planned from violent influences.
Then when you add in the counter coup with SpaceForce agents that went into Senate chambers collecting evidence there and in Pelosis office where they grabbed her laptop where she had this events planning as well as the years lead up of riots she planned and had executed.
Well you have quite the party.

That second group though.
Set up at the Capitol WAITING for Trumps speech to end.
And he talked for almost an extra hour, is that correct?

Well that 2nd group just kept their 6' social distancing positions that entire time waiting.
Not for Trump. He was speaking.
They were waiting for their que from their handlers.
This could not be more obvious.
I do not know how I missed it the 1st time 3 years ago.
But in my defense it needed some context of the timeliness which was obfuscated by media narrative mixing video, narrative and timeliness of events.

But I see it now that MJ released the video and set the timeliness.
And we just got started.
When is .ore video coming that I can analyze?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Amphetamines could very easily mean medication for ADD. I think they also prescribe similar medications for narcolepsy. But the video I remember seeing was police beating her. I can't remember for certain, but it seems she was being beat with a night stick repeatedly while unconscious.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WingDingLuey

I'll ask again, who paid for the rally?

LOL what a great deflection again. 😀

Why don't you answer the question?

Who paid for the rally?

lol lol lol how should I know? 😀😀

Why don't YOU simply provide proof ?? lol lol lol

Because you make excuses and don't accept factual proof.

Factual proof to a diehard lefty is whatever they desire in their mind for it to be, just like Russian Collusion hoaxes, fabricated stuff proven now to have been non-factual, but that never stopped a diehard lefty from lying, or the lies they believe. All of the released footage proving Pelosi lied.

Long lists of lies, but those lies are never admitted to, never apologized for, or ever corrected for in the lying MSM because they want those lies to be true the same as you do. No apologies, or saying "Sorry I was wrong about that one because I really hate Trump and needed it to be true when it wasn't."

So far, not a single correction or anyone held accountable for lying about J6.

Only more prosecutions against Trump so these vermin can continue in power. The more devastation and poverty they create, the more those they hurt want more because Stockholm syndrome is a serious thing and proven real. (Add in a tinge of the Florence Nightingale effect, and you become theirs' for life.


It also doesn't stop them from lying more, because the only god they serve is the father of lies.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WingDingLuey

I'll ask again, who paid for the rally?

LOL what a great deflection again. 😀

Why don't you answer the question?

Who paid for the rally?

lol lol lol how should I know? 😀😀

Why don't YOU simply provide proof ?? lol lol lol

Because you make excuses and don't accept factual proof.

Certainly you are aware that all your one liner args and "I trust scientists" and "only accept factual" are nothing but excuses because you have nothing to support your opinion.
And that is all you ever bring.
And that's OK.
It really is.
I cannot imagine these politically motivated culture threads without you.
You have finally grown on me

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
a reply to: Threadbarer
The House CREATED the Judicial Branch.

Ummm.... no?

Facts About the Judiciary Act of 1789In the Constitution, Article III deals with the Judicial Branch and focuses only on the Supreme Court. Article III did not cover how the court system would be developed, so the First Congress created the Judiciary Act of 1789 to establish the federal Judiciary.Sep 24, 2023

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
a reply to: Threadbarer
The House CREATED the Judicial Branch.

Ummm.... no?

Ummm
Yes.
It was legislated into existance

Facts About the Judiciary Act of 1789In the Constitution, Article III deals with the Judicial Branch and focuses only on the Supreme Court. Article III did not cover how the court system would be developed, so the First Congress created the Judiciary Act of 1789 to establish the federal Judiciary.Sep 24, 2023

Common law courts existed before this.
See Blackstones Law Dictionary

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WingDingLuey

I'll ask again, who paid for the rally?

LOL what a great deflection again. 😀

Why don't you answer the question?

Who paid for the rally?

lol lol lol how should I know? 😀😀

Why don't YOU simply provide proof ?? lol lol lol

Because you make excuses and don't accept factual proof.

Certainly you are aware that all your one liner args and "I trust scientists" and "only accept factual" are nothing but excuses because you have nothing to support your opinion.

I have all the other posters that know more about this than me -- posting factual information.

Where I come in is -- I can discern and differentiate between facts -- excuses -- and BS.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WingDingLuey

I'll ask again, who paid for the rally?

LOL what a great deflection again. 😀

Why don't you answer the question?

Who paid for the rally?

lol lol lol how should I know? 😀😀

Why don't YOU simply provide proof ?? lol lol lol

Because you make excuses and don't accept factual proof.

Certainly you are aware that all your one liner args and "I trust scientists" and "only accept factual" are nothing but excuses because you have nothing to support your opinion.

I have all the other posters that know more about this than me -- posting factual information.

Where I come in is -- I can discern and differentiate between facts -- excuses -- and BS.

ahhh, the old lady excuse for not understanding her own args

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

He specifically said "we're working on getting" the stuff "declassified and out to the people". Because it "was blocked from being declassified". Just a slip of the tongue then I'm sure.

How far is that from:

"we're working on getting the stuff THAT WAS declassified out to the public" ... ?

I'd like to listen to the facebook chat in question and see if this is just not more gaslighting from the TDS crowd...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WingDingLuey

I'll ask again, who paid for the rally?

LOL what a great deflection again. 😀

Why don't you answer the question?

Who paid for the rally?

lol lol lol how should I know? 😀😀

Why don't YOU simply provide proof ?? lol lol lol

Because you make excuses and don't accept factual proof.

lol lol lol so now it's my fault you are failing to present facts lol lol lol

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WingDingLuey

It's such a great deflection it actually gets to the heart of the matter.

The event was planned and paid for by Trump's campaign. How is that not a campaign event?

Still cheap talk and no proof of anything 😀✔️

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WingDingLuey

I'll ask again, who paid for the rally?

LOL what a great deflection again. 😀

Why don't you answer the question?

Who paid for the rally?

lol lol lol how should I know? 😀😀

Why don't YOU simply provide proof ?? lol lol lol

Because you make excuses and don't accept factual proof.

lol lol lol so now it's my fault you are failing to present facts lol lol lol

Guess we'll just have to disagree what a fact is.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
The event was planned and paid for by Trump's campaign.

So, you've gone from 'who paid for it' to 'it was paid for by Trumps campaign, without any evidence whatsoever... interesting...

Suing Trump over Jan. 6 is like suing Obama over losing your doctor lol lol lol 😀

Or suing Obama for having The Supreme Court gut a main part of The PPACA before it even took effect lol lol lol 😀

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WingDingLuey

I'll ask again, who paid for the rally?

LOL what a great deflection again. 😀

Why don't you answer the question?

Who paid for the rally?

lol lol lol how should I know? 😀😀

Why don't YOU simply provide proof ?? lol lol lol

Because you make excuses and don't accept factual proof.

lol lol lol so now it's my fault you are failing to present facts lol lol lol

Guess we'll just have to disagree what a fact is.

Good exit strategy on your part 😀

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: tanstaafl

So things like overriding vetos or declaring EOs unconstitutional don't exist?

I spoke too soon and stand corrected...

Congress can't pass laws that limit the power of the President and the judiciary can't rule those laws are constitutional?

Congress cannot pass laws limiting powers delegated to The President by the Constitution. They can, of course, try to pass any ind of garbage they like, doesn't make it Constitutional, even if some bozo in a black dress says it is.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Checks and Balances are Subjective to the Intent of Ones Position .

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WingDingLuey

I'll ask again, who paid for the rally?

LOL what a great deflection again. 😀

Why don't you answer the question?

Who paid for the rally?

lol lol lol how should I know? 😀😀

Why don't YOU simply provide proof ?? lol lol lol

Because you make excuses and don't accept factual proof.

lol lol lol so now it's my fault you are failing to present facts lol lol lol

Guess we'll just have to disagree what a fact is.

Good exit strategy on your part 😀

Get me on a different subject.

a reply to: Annee

The Lord has Blessed Mr. Trump , No Harm will Befall Him in his Eyes.......+



“The gates of hell will not prevail against him. We speak this over him. Lord, I pray for protection over him; I pray for protection over his family,” the faith leader said.

He also prayed, “All the weapons formed against him will not prosper, and lord, they will come to nothing, and the traps that have been laid against him.”

The moment came after more than 150 faith leaders in Iowa endorsed Trump for president on November 23.

“The overwhelming support from Iowa’s faith leaders is a clear indication of President Trump’s unwavering commitment to the principles and values that are important to people of faith,” said Pastor Dan McCoy, Senior Pastor at First Baptist Church in Urbandale in an email press release from the Trump campaign.

“This announcement is not just a number; it’s a powerful message that faith communities trust President Trump to lead our nation forward with integrity and moral clarity,” McCoy added. "


www.breitbart.com...