november 6th in~so called insurrection?

[snow1]

What do you guyz think about the 3 capitol police/suicide?last week,seems very suspicious.deep state protecting they're own?

 

[Zogman]

agree!

 

[LOV2HNT]

I think you mean January 6th...

 

[Migrator Man]

Regardless of why they committed suicide their deaths are still being blamed on the protesters, pretty f’ed up . They have no idea on the mental health history of these officers. What’s even more disturbing is the gushing support of the DC officers but in the same breathe shouting down the rest of America’s law enforcement.

What isn’t being talked about these guys were they the ones who let in the protesters? Why did they let them in? Were these the guys that took pictures with the protesters?

 

[JayKay]

I think you mean January 6th...

Had me confused too.

 

[BrokenBackJack]

Senior moment!

 

[snow1]

LOL no shit BBJ, was confused with all these november 6th audits going on I guess,lot's of chatter regarding these audits but nothing will be done or so it seems.

 

[Ruttin]

Speaking of the audits and election fraud, has anyone been tuned into Franspeech with Mike Lindell yet today? His symposium is going on right now in Sioux Falls as we speak! He has put up a $5 MILLION dollar prize for anyone who can prove his data about election fraud untrue...72 hours of straight facts in regards to election fraud!

- - - Updated - - -

https://rumble.com/vi1or5-rsbn-live.html

 

[Brian Renville]

The cabinet with the "shit people claim but never result in any consequence" in it seems to have an infinite amount of space these days.

 

[lunkerslayer]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...the_prosecution_of_january_6_defendants.html?
Prosecutors in the cases against the January 6 demonstrators are starting to run into some judicial pushback: Questions about exculpatory evidence in their possession not turned over as the law demands, lower courts assessing the defendant as more dangerous than the evidence warranted, and most significantly, whether the prosecution is overcharging defendants with the federal crime of obstruction.

Most of the defendants are charged with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted area -- a fancy way of saying trespassing. Defendants are entitled to see before pleading to the charges any materially exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession. Defense counsel have complained that the government has not been meeting this obligation, and the prosecution has been responding that it is unable to quickly assess all the evidence it has to meet this burden. As to those charged with trespassing, some are claiming they were invited in and, therefore, could not be guilty of the charges. The prosecution got one extension and the question is whether they should get another, a question complicated by the defendants’ right to a speedy trial. Sixteen of the defendants facing the most serious charges will not have their cases heard until next January.

This week, the Department of Justice seems to have conceded the very point of the inapplicability of some trespass charges.

In its pleading, it states: ”we possess some information that the defense may view as supportive of arguments that law enforcement authorized defendants (including Defendant) to enter the restricted grounds'. e.g., images of officers hugging or fist-bumping rioters, posing for photos with rioters, and moving bike racks, we are not in a position to state whether we have identified all such information.”
In a 2–1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ordered a lower court judge to reconsider his decision to keep Eric Munchel and his mother, Lisa Eisenhart, in jail while their cases go forward. US District Judge Royce Lamberth had ruled in February that Munchel -- who was photographed inside the Capitol wearing tactical gear and holding plastic zip-tie handcuffs -- and Eisenhart presented “a clear danger to our republic” and that there were no release conditions that would “reasonably ensure the safety of the community.” But DC Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins wrote Friday that Lamberth’s 17-page opinion failed to articulate how the two posed a danger when they hadn’t actually been charged with committing specific violent acts at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Lamberth wrote that the allegations against Munchel showed that he was “willing to use force to promote his political ends,” but the appeals court found that the judge didn’t explain how he reached that conclusion when there was no evidence Munchel hurt anyone or broke anything.

“In our view, those who actually assaulted police officers and broke through windows, doors, and barricades, and those who aided, conspired with, planned, or coordinated such actions, are in a different category of dangerousness than those who cheered on the violence or entered the Capitol after others cleared the way,” Wilkins, joined by Judge Judith Rogers, wrote.

Thank God is on our side he shows the one that follow him the truth against the evil who are trying to take away our God given rights.

 

[Mr. Stevenson]

15:40-31:50

https://youtu.be/AKHQPI6HpyA