FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Your cited article is anonymously-sourced and is now over 13 months old. A lot has happened in the interim, including guilty pleas for seditious conspiracy by some of Roger Stone's buddies, a federal grand jury investigating the fake electors scheme and a Fulton County grand jury investigating election fraud in Georgia. A lot of shoes have yet to drop. Try to keep up, even if it means that your Fox-fed priors will be challenged.

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, you're saying that the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys prosecution, along with their connections to Roger Stone (and his communications with Mark Meadows) have nothing to do with J6? WTF? And are you also saying the fake electors scheme has nothing to do with J6 (the fake elector plan was integral component of Trump's attempted autogolpe).

You really should start reading some real news instead of the wingnut garbage that leaves you so comically misinformed. And BTW, the outdated, anonymously sourced article you cited is from Reuters, now affiliated with the Russian wire service TASS:

...and you need to get rid of your addiction to Mother Jones and MSNBC. The Reuters article references the FBI's report on their January 6th investigation. Several other outlets reported on it. Are you suggesting that the Reuters report was incorrect? As far as outdated, nothing has come forward of any factual nature (hearsay, innuendo, etc. don't count) that contradicts it. So, if it's "outdated" show me an authoritative source that contradicts it.

Originally Posted by finnbow

... including guilty pleas for seditious conspiracy by some of Roger Stone's buddies, a federal grand jury investigating the fake electors scheme and a Fulton County grand jury investigating election fraud in Georgia.

Again, innuendo and investigations don't equal "it definitely happened". In your world, someone gets accused and you and yours take off on a flight of fancy and dream of perp walks. It doesn't work that way.

You posted above the dictionary definition of "insurrection". So f'ing what?! When all this plays out in the courtroom, the judge won't be reading instructions to the jury from an internet dictionary. The judge will be reading the law, including the definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Finally, if Stewart Rhodes and company are tried and found guilty by the jury, fine and dandy. If they walk, it'll be because there was insufficient evidence, or because the prosecution stunk. Either way, there's much we don't know about what the evidence prosecution or the defense will present at trial.