Trump breaking off could do it, I suppose. Which is what he will likely do if he doesn't get the nomination in 2024. Of course, har dot predict anything about him or what the GOP is willing to do to keep him in the fold. 

Actually I guess it isn't too hard to predict. The GOP seems willing to do anything to keep his base in the fold.

some folks may recall the following story

FBI raids home of Project Veritas' James O'Keefe as part of investigation into Ashley Biden's 'stolen' diary

"The Project Veritas founder then explained that "tipsters" approached his group late last year alleging to have Ashley Biden's diary containing "explosive allegations" about her father, then the Democratic nominee, and that the diary was allegedly abandoned in a room that she had stayed at and that they stayed after. "

...

"Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett appeared on "Hannity" Friday and stressed there's a "huge difference" between what Ashley Biden's attorney has alleged that her diary was stolen versus what O'Keefe alleged about it being left behind in a room, saying "one's a crime and the other one isn't.""

""Project Veritas did the right thing," Jarrett told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "They didn't publish this because they couldn't verify the authenticity of the documents, but the other conservative website did publish it but they claimed they did verify it. What is so bewildering about this is why in the world would the feds even involved in it.""

first thing, gregg jarrett is talking out his arse in the story. interstate transport of stolen goods makes the situation fed jurisdiction. duh. 

second, 

from the first line o' the court response to james o'keefe's request for a special master to review evidence in the case:

"The Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence draws a clear and critical distinction
“between stealing documents and disclosing documents that someone else had stolen previously.”"

translation: the feds is straight up is calling bs on project veritas' claims they came by the diary innocent and is stating in no uncertain terms that there is enough evidence to support the conclusion project veritas were active participants in the initial theft.

is the kinda opening line which has a defendant's lawyer's invoking ralphie's famous exclamation from a christmas story.

HA! Good Fun!

ps added link to court response

Edited November 19, 20214 yr by Gromnir

Rittenhouse acquitted as I expected.  Hopefully the idiot doesn't repeat his actions. 

This is a cluster**** and everyone involved in getting that murderer off deserves to burn in hell.

46 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Rittenhouse acquitted as I expected.  Hopefully the idiot doesn't repeat his actions. 

It isn't so much about him repeating his actions, but this basically means it is open season on protesters. Every yahoo with an AR-15 is going to head on down to the next BLM march.

Everyone seems to think the prosecution was either hilariously or willfully incompetent, combined with going for too high of charges where lesser ones would have been significantly easier. Gromnir could probably tell us whether that was actually the case or not.

12 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

It isn't so much about him repeating his actions, but this basically means it is open season on protesters. Every yahoo with an AR-15 is going to head on down to the next BLM march.

Yah. I can see some people wanting to copycat him next there's a protest or riot or whatever and things get worse.  All the BLM people need to do is bear arms as much as the law allows, not only would be a deterrent to Bronson wannabes, but sure would be a lot of cops around then

Don't think it'd be that bad going forward with people abusing self defence to go kill someone (like the ones that ran down and killed Arbery)

Edited November 19, 20214 yr by Malcador

The Arbery case is the one I'm really watching. That was straight up murder. That poor guy ran 2-miles trying to get away from those people. I don't think people really understand what that means. They terrorized him before killing him. If they are cleared, I will understand why some people want to burn it all down.

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

 All the BLM people need to do is bear arms as much as the law allows, not only would be a deterrent to Bronson wannabes, but sure would be a lot of cops around then

This.  If everyone's carrying, that'll keep the Rittenhouse's at bay.  Stop being being a bunch of sally's and at least carry a concealed handgun.

I admit I am quite shocked at him being acquitted on ALL counts, but where there's a crisis there's an opportunity, and should encourage everyone to not be afraid to use deadly force if you feel your rights are being violated by anyone

2 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

should encourage everyone to not be afraid to use deadly force if you feel your rights are being violated by anyone

And then some pansy guns down a hostess telling him to put a mask on.

It is what it is, things are gonna get worse before they better so yeah, even hostesses should be proficient in some level of self defense and concealed carry I imagine.

We'll see if GTA Online is the future we should be aiming for.

38 minutes ago, Malcador said:

And then some pansy guns down a hostess telling him to put a mask on.

That's already happened. 

4 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Everyone seems to think the prosecution was either hilariously or willfully incompetent, combined with going for too high of charges where lesser ones would have been significantly easier

Not necessarily willfully incompetent, but fighting an uphill battle against a decision that was already made before the trial started. Both in the jury selection (the defense had all black jurors sans one removed) and the judges instruction to the prosecution before the trial. You are not allowed to refer to the victims as as victims, the defense can however refer to the victims as rioters and arsonists. Nevermind that the killer may not have known known that as a fact when he killed them.

Breivik would've walked if he were Amerikan tbh

42 minutes ago, Gorth said:

the defense had all black jurors sans one removed

Typo?

The judge also threw out the gun charges, even though those were the most clear.

Here's some comic relief.

comrade being comrade as usual. him and betsy devos perhaps hang out at the same club?

we all need guns to protect us from all the other people who have guns... oh and we need protect from grizzlies too. obviously not recognizing the circular logic.

*shrug*

however, reality is we got the second amendment. don't like the law? change the law. is all kinda stoopid laws which cause more harm than good. pretend such laws don't mean what they clear say is not helpful. solution is to change the laws and complain that legislators ain't doing their job is hardly a compelling reason to expect SCOTUS Justices or some other source to swoop in and magic change the law. 

as for the rittenhouse case, we did mention earlier how we had not followed the case and had almost zero interest in the outcome. got multiple armed people, at night, during a protest and somebody ends up dead? why is anybody shocked? were a whole lotta stoopid which predictable resulted in people dying. take same situation as happened, but if rittenhouse had ended up as the corpse, is likely his killer woulda' been able to claim self-defense as well. is so not surprising.

however, we read that the weapon charge were dropped and so we did delve a bit 'cause is an area o' the law 'bout which we is not uniformed.

Disqualification Based on Age
Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from
possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions
for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited
from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21
years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon. [ss. 29.304 and
948.60, Stats.]

top o' page 5.

before the rittenhouse case, lawyers, judges, congressmen and residents o' wisconsin all pretty much knew that minors weren't allowed to carry fireamrs save for a few exceptions. one judge changed the law?

quick explanation as to what happened--

wisconsin has a law which as stated 'bove made illegal for anybody under 18 to possess a firearm save for hunting, military service and target practice. however, a few years after passing the wisconsin law, youngsters linked with gangs started carrying sawed-off shotguns and when stopped they were always on their way to the shooting range or to go hunting... with their sawed-off shotguns? so the idjits in wisconsin does what legislators do and instead o' making a simple fix, they complicate a bit. a sub-section to the law preventing minors from carrying firearms were added to address the sawed-off shotguns, but for whatever reason, the age were lowered for those kinda weapons.

the subsection most assured did not nullify the law regarding the prohibitions o' firearms for minors. all it did was remove the exceptions for military service, hunting and target practice for sawed-off shotguns... but it lowered the age limit for such cases. *eye roll*

the judge in the rittenhouse case read the subsection as if wisconsin statute 948.60 were either non existent or invalidated by the short-barrel rifle/sawed-off shotgun sub-section, which is ludicrous.

in illinois, where rittenhouse acquired the ar-15, he were breaking law, 'cause while folks his age could possess such a weapon, they needed be registered to do so. rittenhouse were not registered. so rittenhouse acquires illegal in illinois and takes his ar-15 to wisconsin where the law is even more strict regarding weapon possession by minors and the judge somehow reads statute in a way most improbable.

as an aside, if we were defending rittenhouse we woulda tried to do same and suggest the legislation created a conflict o' interpretation. such conflicts is indeed decided in favor o' a criminal defendant. the thing is, we woulda' expected to lose. 

however, as we observed regarding SCOTUS fixing american gun laws in absence o' legislative action, most o' the liberals offended by the rittenhouse judge behavior need be self aware o' the potential hypocrisy. if is bad for judges to make or change law for rittenhouse, why is ok to do so regarding guns or taxes or speech? many laws is bad, but is not a judge's role to fix bad or harmful. the rittenhouse judge ignored any kinda ordinary legislative interpretation. Justices ignoring the Constitution to fix a problem is no more admirable.

gonna repeat we did not follow the rittenhouse case and we got little interest in learning more. a derpy teen from illinois illegal acquired a weapon (again, this ain't a question as kyle admitted on stand he were aware he didn't have the permit needed to posses such a weapon in illinois) and he took the weapon to wisconsin where before trial everybody save a handful o' militia members and apparently one judge were aware it were illegal for a minor to posses such a weapon for the purpose o' defending cars from protesters. cars? once we heard at least one of the folks confronting rittenhouse were also armed, we assumed there would be a good chance kyle would successful raise self-defense, but as we keep observing time and again, not being sent to prison for murder is hardly a judgment on kyle's character. dumb. reckless. callow. the actual case, viewed micro, is uninteresting. macro is a different matter. change rittenhouse age, race and whatnot and view as a statistic is worthy o' consideration, but the individual case is not worth your effort (edit: this is our opinion--you may disagree and is no reason to accept our pov as more valid) to spend additional time questioning the hows and whys o' the verdict.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Edited November 20, 20214 yr by Gromnir

52 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

him and betsy devos perhaps hang out at the same club?

I think you know full well that I do not align with the American Republican Party because of their love affair with Israel.  Like a good communist, I stay over there (In Russia, KPRF, 1st sergeant tech com, sworn to protect you).

Im not surprised at all with  the Kyle verdict, the evidence and view from some that he was guilty before the actual court case meant their were several misperceptions about this particular shooting. For example  his father lived in Wisconsin and he had reason to be their and he did feel his life was threatened when he was attacked and had a gun pointed at him

Its been an emotional case made more difficult by the political grandstanding of people on the left and right who like to hijack these type of events to score political points but overall justice was done and the final verdict was correct IMO 

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

 For example  his father lived in Wisconsin and he had reason to be their

what?

did he have a reason to be there with a gun he acquired illegally, at night, confronting protesters?  you are looking for excuses not to condemn kyle's behaviour. why? having a "reason to be their(sic)" is irrelevant to the jury verdict, but it does speak to whether or not kyle were reckless. 

HA! Good Fun!

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

what?

did he have a reason to be there with a gun he acquired illegally, at night, confronting protesters?  you are looking for excuses not to condemn kyle's behaviour. why? having a "reason to be their(sic)" is irrelevant to the jury verdict, but it does speak to whether or not kyle were reckless. 

HA! Good Fun!

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/joe-biden-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-204522881.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Sorry Gromnir but even Biden supports this verdict, we should try not to cherry-pick what verdicts we support because its undermines the importance of the overall court system in the US

This case was relatively simple outside the  bedlam and bias of the arena of public opinion. The prosecutor had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Kyle didnt act in self-defense, they failed to convince the jury of this because he acted in self-defense. Its a fair and reasonable outcome 

54 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/joe-biden-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-204522881.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Sorry Gromnir but even Biden supports this verdict, we should try not to cherry-pick what verdicts we support because its undermines the importance of the overall court system in the US

This case was relatively simple outside the  bedlam and bias of the arena of public opinion. The prosecutor had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Kyle didnt act in self-defense, they failed to convince the jury of this because he acted in self-defense. Its a fair and reasonable outcome 

The act of going there, perhaps stupid, was certainly not unlawful. 

By the logic of 'provocations' it was the unlawful, aggresive and destructive mob, which provoked 'protective' behavior of individuals such as KR. Once you start going who was the instigator for such a dangerous situation, perhaps, just perhaps, you should point to people devastating properties. 

 

I wonder what's the stance on the newest wave of rioting, devastation and looting in various cities last night and most likely a one, which will persist throughout the rest of the weekend. Just because people didn't like a verdict. In their minds it'd probably be best if KR was mauled to death during the original riot. 

Edited November 20, 20214 yr by Darkpriest

1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:

The act of going there, perhaps stupid, was certainly not unlawful. 

By the logic of 'provocations' it was the unlawful, aggresive and destructive mob, which provoked 'protective' behavior of individuals such as KR. Once you start going who was the instigator for such a dangerous situation, perhaps, just perhaps, you should point to people devastating properties. 

 

I wonder what's the stance on the newest wave of rioting, devastation and looting in various cities last night and most likely a one, which will persist throughout the rest of the weekend. Just because people didn't like a verdict. In their minds it'd probably be best if KR was mauled to death during the original riot. 

I wonder what is everyone's view on the violent protests we seeing throughout the USA because of this verdict ?

 

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/joe-biden-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-204522881.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Sorry Gromnir but even Biden supports this verdict, we should try not to cherry-pick what verdicts we support because its undermines the importance of the overall court system in the US

This case was relatively simple outside the  bedlam and bias of the arena of public opinion. The prosecutor had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Kyle didnt act in self-defense, they failed to convince the jury of this because he acted in self-defense. Its a fair and reasonable outcome 

you are not paying attention.

re read our posts. am not surprised by the verdict and we keep pointing out how once it were apparent guns were possessed by both rittenhouse and the protesters, self defense was likely. if rittenhouse had been the victim, instead o' the killer, the assailant likely woulda' been able to raise self defense in this situation. notice we didn't address your verdict comments and we specific noted that a reason for being in wisconsin were immaterial to the verdict.

you aren't getting it. rittenhouse done wrong. he aquired a gun illegal in illinois and took it to wisconsin to protect cars. he were not standing outside his father's home with his ar-15 when the shooting took place. he were on the streets at night most assured not defending his father when the shooting occurred. 

am most assured not talking 'bout the verdict, 'cause the verdict don't matter when asking whether kyle were a tool bag for taking an ar-15 to wisconsin to confront protesters. why is anybody defending that behaviour? why are you finding excuses?

oh, and biden supports a  jury verdict-- he supports the system and is asking for calm. he is saying the right things. serious bruce, try and stay focused. 

HA! Good Fun!