Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Your concern is patently insincere. The people entering these agreements are being victimized and coerced by Trump's lawyers to act against their own best interests. And that's just fine with you as long as it protects Trump. Corruption, indeed.

---

Victimized by not voluntarily joining a JDA?


How about "victimized by not joining the prosecution?"

---

You're assuming the prosecution is corrupt. If that is the case (and during the Russia investigation I often argued that it was), then that's another issue which ought to be investigated in its own right. It does not excuse fraud or obstruction on the part of the accused...or do you disagree?

---

the prosecution as represented by the J6 cmee is manifestly corrupt.

as is your argument.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Your concern is patently insincere. The people entering these agreements are being victimized and coerced by Trump's lawyers to act against their own best interests. And that's just fine with you as long as it protects Trump. Corruption, indeed.

---

Victimized by not voluntarily joining a JDA?


How about "victimized by not joining the prosecution?"

---

You're assuming the prosecution is corrupt. If that is the case (and during the Russia investigation I often argued that it was), then that's another issue which ought to be investigated in its own right. It does not excuse fraud or obstruction on the part of the accused...or do you disagree?

---

the prosecution as represented by the J6 cmee is manifestly corrupt.

as is your argument.

---

Do you disagree?

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Your concern is patently insincere. The people entering these agreements are being victimized and coerced by Trump's lawyers to act against their own best interests. And that's just fine with you as long as it protects Trump. Corruption, indeed.

---

Victimized by not voluntarily joining a JDA?


How about "victimized by not joining the prosecution?"

---

You're assuming the prosecution is corrupt. If that is the case (and during the Russia investigation I often argued that it was), then that's another issue which ought to be investigated in its own right. It does not excuse fraud or obstruction on the part of the accused...or do you disagree?

---

the prosecution as represented by the J6 cmee is manifestly corrupt.

as is your argument.

---

Do you disagree?

---

I see no obstruction. Only an effort by Democrats to abuse power, to include explicitly limiting options for defense.

"Oh my goodness. You want to cross-examine? You are an insurrectionist."
"Oh my goodness. You hired a lawyer? You must be guilty.
"Oh my goodness. You entered a JDA? A conspiracy I see.

"Presumption of innocence, you say? (guffaws)"

Just watching and taking notes, Sam.
Turnabout is fair play.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Your concern is patently insincere. The people entering these agreements are being victimized and coerced by Trump's lawyers to act against their own best interests. And that's just fine with you as long as it protects Trump. Corruption, indeed.

---

Victimized by not voluntarily joining a JDA?


How about "victimized by not joining the prosecution?"

---

You're assuming the prosecution is corrupt. If that is the case (and during the Russia investigation I often argued that it was), then that's another issue which ought to be investigated in its own right. It does not excuse fraud or obstruction on the part of the accused...or do you disagree?

---

the prosecution as represented by the J6 cmee is manifestly corrupt.

as is your argument.

---

Do you disagree?

---

I see no obstruction. Only an effort by Democrats to abuse power, to include explicitly limiting options for defense.

"Oh my goodness. You want to cross-examine? You are an insurrectionist."
"Oh my goodness. You hired a lawyer? You must be guilty.
"Oh my goodness. You entered a JDA? A conspiracy I see.

"Presumption of innocence, you say? (guffaws)"

Just watching and taking notes, Sam.
Turnabout is fair play.

---

I'd like to talk about the substance of Abramson's claim, but you brought up the committee's supposed corruption, so let's deal with that first. If it excuses any fraud or obstruction that might have taken place on Trump's part, then Abramson's claim is moot and no more needs to be said. Is that your belief?

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Your concern is patently insincere. The people entering these agreements are being victimized and coerced by Trump's lawyers to act against their own best interests. And that's just fine with you as long as it protects Trump. Corruption, indeed.

---

Victimized by not voluntarily joining a JDA?


How about "victimized by not joining the prosecution?"

---

You're assuming the prosecution is corrupt. If that is the case (and during the Russia investigation I often argued that it was), then that's another issue which ought to be investigated in its own right. It does not excuse fraud or obstruction on the part of the accused...or do you disagree?

---

the prosecution as represented by the J6 cmee is manifestly corrupt.

as is your argument.

---

Do you disagree?

---

I see no obstruction. Only an effort by Democrats to abuse power, to include explicitly limiting options for defense.

"Oh my goodness. You want to cross-examine? You are an insurrectionist."
"Oh my goodness. You hired a lawyer? You must be guilty.
"Oh my goodness. You entered a JDA? A conspiracy I see.

"Presumption of innocence, you say? (guffaws)"

Just watching and taking notes, Sam.
Turnabout is fair play.

---

I'd like to talk about the substance of Abramson's claim, but you brought up the committee's supposed corruption, so let's deal with that first. If it excuses any fraud or obstruction that might have taken place on Trump's part, then Abramson's claim is moot and no more needs to be said. Is that your belief?

---

I can see why you like the J6 cmee so much. Just put up a narrative and run with it, no matter how illegal or unAmerican it might be, then accuse anyone who questions what you're doing as part of the insurrection. (yeah, I know you have done that last part yet, but you'll get there......)

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Your concern is patently insincere. The people entering these agreements are being victimized and coerced by Trump's lawyers to act against their own best interests. And that's just fine with you as long as it protects Trump. Corruption, indeed.

---

Victimized by not voluntarily joining a JDA?


How about "victimized by not joining the prosecution?"

---

You're assuming the prosecution is corrupt. If that is the case (and during the Russia investigation I often argued that it was), then that's another issue which ought to be investigated in its own right. It does not excuse fraud or obstruction on the part of the accused...or do you disagree?

---

the prosecution as represented by the J6 cmee is manifestly corrupt.

as is your argument.

---

Do you disagree?

---

I see no obstruction. Only an effort by Democrats to abuse power, to include explicitly limiting options for defense.

"Oh my goodness. You want to cross-examine? You are an insurrectionist."
"Oh my goodness. You hired a lawyer? You must be guilty.
"Oh my goodness. You entered a JDA? A conspiracy I see.

"Presumption of innocence, you say? (guffaws)"

Just watching and taking notes, Sam.
Turnabout is fair play.

---

I'd like to talk about the substance of Abramson's claim, but you brought up the committee's supposed corruption, so let's deal with that first. If it excuses any fraud or obstruction that might have taken place on Trump's part, then Abramson's claim is moot and no more needs to be said. Is that your belief?

---

I can see why you like the J6 cmee so much. Just put up a narrative and run with it, no matter how illegal or unAmerican it might be, then accuse anyone who questions what you're doing as part of the insurrection. (yeah, I know you have done that last part yet, but you'll get there......)

---

Not clear whether that's a yes or a no.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

You're assuming the prosecution is corrupt. If that is the case (and during the Russia investigation I often argued that it was), then that's another issue which ought to be investigated in its own right. It does not excuse fraud or obstruction on the part of the accused...or do you disagree?
the prosecution as represented by the J6 cmee is manifestly corrupt.

as is your argument.

---

Do you disagree?

---

I see no obstruction. Only an effort by Democrats to abuse power, to include explicitly limiting options for defense.

"Oh my goodness. You want to cross-examine? You are an insurrectionist."
"Oh my goodness. You hired a lawyer? You must be guilty.
"Oh my goodness. You entered a JDA? A conspiracy I see.

"Presumption of innocence, you say? (guffaws)"

Just watching and taking notes, Sam.
Turnabout is fair play.

---

I'd like to talk about the substance of Abramson's claim, but you brought up the committee's supposed corruption, so let's deal with that first. If it excuses any fraud or obstruction that might have taken place on Trump's part, then Abramson's claim is moot and no more needs to be said. Is that your belief?

---

I can see why you like the J6 cmee so much. Just put up a narrative and run with it, no matter how illegal or unAmerican it might be, then accuse anyone who questions what you're doing as part of the insurrection. (yeah, I know you have done that last part yet, but you'll get there......)

---

Not clear whether that's a yes or a no.

---

I'm not the one who's over-reached

Because you disagree with the committee's work, is it okay to commit fraud or obstruction of justice?

Does anyone think that Repubs are like me secretly hoping for a Trump indictment and conviction? Gets him out of the race, paving the way for a better candidate, and the blow back for Dems would be immense, as it would look like a political prosecution.

Lord, please let this happen.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Because you disagree with the committee's work, is it okay to commit fraud or obstruction of justice?

---

Work…lol!

The committee is a fraud and is attempting to obstruct a candidate from running. Your side is creating a banana republic.