Topic: How to piss off Matt with one simple statement
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #119,477
Jan 6 defendants get obstruction charges dropped.
Hahahahaha
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/16/jan-6-defendants-obstruction-charges-drop/
Hahahahaha
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/16/jan-6-defendants-obstruction-charges-drop/
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later[^] [v] #1,309,744
This should piss off all Americans.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,747
So the Justices that Trump appointed are cult members who are changing law just to help Trump. Big surprise.
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 27 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,756
@previous (C)
They didn't obstruct anything. You got your four years of dessicated corpse Biden so shut up and be thankful.
They didn't obstruct anything. You got your four years of dessicated corpse Biden so shut up and be thankful.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,757
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,759
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,760
@1,309,747 (C)
I bet if the tables were turned, and it was the left who did Jan 6, you'd be cheering and beating off to a picture of Biden, if obstruction charges were dropped.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I bet if the tables were turned, and it was the left who did Jan 6, you'd be cheering and beating off to a picture of Biden, if obstruction charges were dropped.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,765
@1,309,759 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Your honor, I tried to murder him yes, but I didn’t succeed, so I should get off.
Your honor, I tried to murder him yes, but I didn’t succeed, so I should get off.
Toilet Seat !tr.t4dJfuU (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,766
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,768
Why are liberals so fucking dense?
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,770
@1,309,765 (C)
And, in that case, the criminal charge would not be murder, right? Because no death happened.
Now to be clear I do not think the Capitol protestors should get off scot-free. I think those who stayed after they were asked to leave should be charged with misdemeanor trespassing.
And, in that case, the criminal charge would not be murder, right? Because no death happened.
Now to be clear I do not think the Capitol protestors should get off scot-free. I think those who stayed after they were asked to leave should be charged with misdemeanor trespassing.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,791
oh cool another trump threadAnonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 33 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,792
@previous (F)
Technically, it's not about Trump. It's about those wrongfully arrested and imprisoned.
Technically, it's not about Trump. It's about those wrongfully arrested and imprisoned.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 10 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,885
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,904
@1,309,759 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
No, it's because of the recent court ruling that narrowed the scope of the federal statute.
"The court ruled that the law applied only to impairing or destroying evidence such as records or documents."
No, it's because of the recent court ruling that narrowed the scope of the federal statute.
"The court ruled that the law applied only to impairing or destroying evidence such as records or documents."
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,922
@1,309,759 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> And they didn't come anywhere close to succeeding, so nothing was obstructed.
Ashley Babbit cunt no longer functions as a result of that event.
> And they didn't come anywhere close to succeeding, so nothing was obstructed.
Ashley Babbit cunt no longer functions as a result of that event.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,936
@1,309,770 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
A number of them already served time in prison. It would be so petty to go back and also press charges for a misdemeanor trespass, if they didn't already throw that charge down in the proceedings. It would be double jeopardy, at least in spirit, if not the letter of law.
A number of them already served time in prison. It would be so petty to go back and also press charges for a misdemeanor trespass, if they didn't already throw that charge down in the proceedings. It would be double jeopardy, at least in spirit, if not the letter of law.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,309,946
@previous (J)
> A number of them already served time in prison. It would be so petty to go back and also press charges for a misdemeanor trespass, if they didn't already throw that charge down in the proceedings. It would be double jeopardy, at least in spirit, if not the letter of law.
I mean with credit for time served (which even like one day would cover it). The penalty should be equal to what Chris Chan gets for not leaving Target after being asked to leave.
> A number of them already served time in prison. It would be so petty to go back and also press charges for a misdemeanor trespass, if they didn't already throw that charge down in the proceedings. It would be double jeopardy, at least in spirit, if not the letter of law.
I mean with credit for time served (which even like one day would cover it). The penalty should be equal to what Chris Chan gets for not leaving Target after being asked to leave.
(Edited 1 minute later.)