The Great Awakening of Logic: "Snap" Goes the Trump Trap!

Lenora Thompson, Patriotic Writer ^ | 1/17/2021 | Lenora Thompson, Patriotic Writer

[Secret Agent Man]

so thinking isn’t planning for you in this example

[bagster]

Yes, I’m sure people must be proud of her when she calls CJ Roberts an “alledged pedophile” without evidence. That’s certainly the Christian way, no? Oh wait, it’s not...

You're absolutely right.

Shoulda' took out the 'allegedly' part.

Amirite?

#SaveTheChildren

[Fury]

Not sure - maybe ask Lin Wood. He had access to smoking gun evidence of this sort, correct?

[veracious]

We shall find out soon enough...?

I.e., either way.

[bagster]

Hold on a minute there, Perry Mason.

Conspiracy (criminal) - Wikipedia

(excerpt)

In most U.S. jurisdictions, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy, not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime.

#JudgeBagsterPresiding

[ctdonath2]

The Constitution specifies:
- the process of receiving votes from states
- the process of objecting to those votes
- the process of dismissing those objections
- the process of deciding what votes to accept, count, and identify winner.

That (oversimplifying the precise verbose language) is the “safety valve” to handle & decide in the face of massive electoral fraud. Our representatives (broadly speaking) elected to the task decided the fraud was insufficient to discount votes.

Martial law is NOT authorized by the Constitution. Invoking martial law (not to be confused with putting down insurrection) IS insurrection.

Yes, our representatives (Congress/VP/Court) massively failed us. The solution is to replace them, not compel them at gunpoint.

And yes, Trump is not military dictator material.
As a vibrant businessman with a vendetta to [lawfully] impart, he may prove a formidable opponent of encroaching communism.

[cgbg]

invoking martial law is insurrection

Agreed.

I believe insurrection is morally justified in this particular case--but as I say, I have seen zero evidence that President Trump intends to go there.

[aquila48]

“That’s all we need. A sense of humor. A sense of proportion. Moral fiber. And a whole lot of logic.”

She forgot “will”. That is the most important thing we lack. We don’t have the will to do what it takes.

[gundog]

He said it of poets....

[upsdriver]

Spot on! The greatest sting operation in all if history!

[grey_whiskers]

Maybe you should have read more than the first sentence... /ba-dum t’sssh>

[amorphous]

Is there a better way to pen chickens than waiting for them to gather at their roost? Imagine the number of chickens that are going to be in D.C. on the 20th! ALL these Democratic roosters and cluckers in one coop is easy to work for the pluckers. And the number of pluckers gathered is in the thousands, with more on the way! What a day it may be!

Just sayin'...

[bagster]

We don’t have the will to do what it takes.

Have you met Donald Trump?

Have faith in humanity.
Q

[LastDayz]

“Wow. That’s three minutes of my life I won’t be getting back.”

Well..... maybe you don’t have much of a life to begin with.

[Hardastarboard]

Bingo!!!!!!!! Fully a third of the characters in this posting are exclamation marks!!!!!!!!

[Secret Agent Man]

you need to look at what actus rea means, how it is defined. scotus also states not all crimes have an actus rea but they are still crimes from your own wiki sources: n Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California law making it illegal to be a drug addict was unconstitutional because the mere status of being a drug addict was not an act and thus not criminal. Commentator Dennis Baker asserts: "Although lawyers find the expression actus reus convenient, it is misleading in one respect. It means not just the criminal act but all the external elements of an offence. Ordinarily, there is a criminal act, which is what makes the term actus reus generally acceptable. But there are crimes without an act, and therefore without an actus reus in the obvious meaning of that term. The expression 'conduct' is more satisfactory, because wider; it covers not only an act but an omission, and (by a stretch) a bodily position. The conduct must sometimes take place in legally relevant circumstances. The relevant circumstances might include consent in the case of rape. The act of human sexual intercourse becomes a wrongful act if it is committed in circumstances where one party does not consent and/or one or more parties concerned are below the age of consent. Other crimes require the act to produce a legally forbidden consequence. Such crimes are called result crimes. ... All that can truly be said, without exception, is that a crime requires some external state of affairs that can be categorized as criminal. What goes on inside a person's head is never enough in itself to constitute a crime, even though it might be proven by a confession that is fully believed to be genuine when i talk about conspiracy/planning its not just thoughts in someones head, they meet, or talk, together,figure out who's doing what, and formulate plans and goals and acquire things to carry out their plans those are actions

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

“Hope Porn! Get yer ice cold Hope Porn right here folks! $5 for a 6-pack. The Fat Lady has NOT sung. Trust Q-Anon’s Plan and wait for the Kraken. Any moment now ..... ignore all those Doubting Thomases.”

[xkaydet65]

If you buy this tripe I don’t envy you your life.

[aces]

Probably will get a scotus judge worried about epstein or robbery from the people
To swear him in at bidens porn palace..on video..

[LastDayz]

To each his own. At this point in time, my life is pretty good all things considered. How about yours?