Ted Cruz Asks Impeachment Managers if Kamala Harris Incited Riots from Black Lives Matter Protests

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then you're #ing blind...

It's like you think there aren't hundreds if not thousands of pictures out there of the violence and destruction....

Austin post has the damages being greater than the Rodney King beatings. Although the death toll has been exaggerated by many sources.

www.statesman.com...


Both sides want the other side to be thought of as violent.

It turns out the officer who died after the invasion of the Capital building also was probably not killed by the protesters.

www.cnn.com...

A chemical agent is possible, but it was not blunt force trauma, as several papers have falsely/mistakenly claimed.

His family said it was a blood clot. And those are not caused by mace.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yeah... They "proved" it so well that the Senate aquitted. Well done.

What this was, was an attempted kangaroo court that completely failed in its objective.

Color it however you wish...they failed.

The pettiness is obvious, and was obvious, from minute one of this travesty. Of course, given the movers and shakers behind it, and those who supported it...pettiness comes as no surprise.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

Legally, there's a difference.

Harris incited a series of mobs at a local level over a local issues. What she did is a state issue to be dealt with at a state level. If an individual police force wants to take her to court for encouraging a mob to storm a local precinct then they are free to do so.

What Trump is accused of doing is inciting a mob to storm the capital over a national issue. Which makes it a federal issue to be dealt with at the federal level.

Not saying that one case has moreless merit than the other. Only that Trump is accused of a federal crime but Harris is accused of a state level crime.

Inciting violence and inciting insurrection are considered different crimes.

Harris openly supported the riots in DC last summer. DC is Federal Property. The same should apply there.

She didint just incite violence. She funded it.

Does aiding and abetting people who figh the police matter.
Nope the Democrats control all aspects. Can do stuff like this

a reply to: Snarl

No she did not! PERIOD!

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: Snarl

No she did not! PERIOD!

Indian-American, Harris, AOC, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and other Dims most definitely did.

PERIOD!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There is no proof that Trump pre-planned a riot at this event. If you think there is, then where is it? Again people are explaining there is no proof of it and of his motive before the event. On the other hand, there is likely to be some connection to Soros, as he is known to fund Antifa and other front groups for the communist conspiracy to overthrow our government and duly elected officers.
Antifa was said to be behind the storming of the Capitol Building, but it could be more than Antifa themillenniumreport.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Snarl

Ah! Gotta love the whataboutism.

Your hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.

By the standards they attempted to use against Trump, every politician that has supported BLM/ANTIFA must undergo an impeachment trial so the American public can see the evidence.

You know, the destruction of businesses, the burning of property, the casualties of LEO/Civilians.

Kamala publicly funded these criminals.

Time to pay the piper!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SeektoUnderstand

You just used “whataboutism” in this post☝️

As in: When one cites Ted Cruz' statement/question to back an argument against Harris, and I say "what about when he said the same thing about Trump?", who is the person who is on trial right now.

But, it isn't whataboutism being used as deflection, as in, you can't impeach Trump because you haven't impeached Harris.

Perhaps you can see the difference. Perhaps not.

In fact, what Cruz' question/statement actually was, was a not so veiled threat to extract revenge on Democrats if they impeach Trump.

Wait, when did Cruz say that Trump incited insurrection while using the term "fight" over and over to stir up the Antifa and BLM protesters????

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Snarl

Ah! Gotta love the whataboutism.

Your hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.

By the standards they attempted to use against Trump, every politician that has supported BLM/ANTIFA must undergo an impeachment trial so the American public can see the evidence.

You know, the destruction of businesses, the burning of property, the casualties of LEO/Civilians.

Kamala publicly funded these criminals.

Time to pay the piper!

It goes farther than that. According to liberals, if you don’t repeatedly denounce specific groups, then you support them...

DONALD TRUMP WILL NOT CONDEMN WHITE SUPREMACISTS, BECAUSE HE IS ONE

www.highsnobiety.com...

So I guess those that don’t denounce clearly the summer of riots must support the sacking and torching of the US, the illegal occupation of autonomous zones, the insurrection that forced police officers to abandoned precincts, feds having to guard federal courthouses, and the spin off violence and murders.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yeah and they will be smarter than you because they will actually read the speech in question

LOL
They'll be smarter than you, because they'll read that it was about weeks, even months of cultivation, not one speech.

What McConnell said doesn't mean $h!T. Same as when a prosecutor tries to put an innocent man in jail they will drum up a story to fit their case.

Except McConnell wasn't the prosecutor, he WAS the brilliant defense that got Trump off. He delayed the trial and then claimed that the delay made the trial out of the Senate's jurisdiction, even though the Senate voted otherwise, and the Senate sets the trial rules.

It's been a few days and no reply. I'll ask again.

Do you suppose those people will read the part where it says Trump was acquitted? Yes or no.

a reply to: neutronflux

So I guess those that don’t denounce clearly the summer of riots must support the sacking and torching of the US, the illegal occupation of autonomous zones, the insurrection that forced police officers to abandoned precincts, feds having to guard federal courthouses, and the spin off violence and murders.

Aye, the best part of this, imo, is that it is all about to boomerang back on them.

Their own words and actions will be their own undoing, Karma comes quick as we exit the Kali Yuga cycle!

a reply to: elementalgrove

Talking about boomerangs(t)... Teddy and his terror organisation label for Antifa wasn't a very slippery slope to take, either. Amirite? But here we are, with very fine people sucking up the medicine on both sides.

I wont say we told ya, but ya know... welcome to the New Age?

:shotsfired:

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Harris incited a series of mobs at a local level over a local issues.

That's a stretch. What I saw was Harris encouraging protests at a local level over local issues.

How so? Harris was at the federal level then, and the "innocent protesters" were attacking and destroying federal property. It just don't get much more "federal" than that.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yeah I didn't think you could summon the courage to answer my question.