(04-23-2025 12:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 11:56 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Just helping this get to 1k

Done!

did ewe win another prize ... just, oh muh...

(04-23-2025 09:42 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:37 AM)hoopfan Wrote:  Illegal aliens are not Americans. Blindly throw them out at will.

Or just shoot em

Either way

+1

(04-23-2025 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not an opinion. Simple facts.

let me pose them to you. A simple yes/no for each line will suffice.

Did each J6er charged with one or more crimes have:

1. notice of what they are being charged with?
2. the ability to challenge the arrests and charges?
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
4. the ability to present their own evidence?
5. the ability to assert the right to quick trial, if they did not waive the statute?
6. the ability to have a right of trial by jury, if not waived?
7. the ability to be represented by counsel?

You are comparing US Citizens with ILLEGAL Immigrants. They are not the same. Why does the word ILLEGAL still seem to slip through all those cracks?

(04-23-2025 09:42 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:37 AM)hoopfan Wrote:  Illegal aliens are not Americans. Blindly throw them out at will.

Or just shoot em

Either way

I'm seeing the rebirth of the spaghetti westerns ...

(04-23-2025 12:47 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not an opinion. Simple facts.

let me pose them to you. A simple yes/no for each line will suffice.

Did each J6er charged with one or more crimes have:

1. notice of what they are being charged with?
2. the ability to challenge the arrests and charges?
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
4. the ability to present their own evidence?
5. the ability to assert the right to quick trial, if they did not waive the statute?
6. the ability to have a right of trial by jury, if not waived?
7. the ability to be represented by counsel?

You are comparing US Citizens with ILLEGAL Immigrants. They are not the same. Why does the word ILLEGAL still seem to slip through all those cracks?

Id suggest reading the post, and the post it was responding to.

3A brayed a whadabout about the j6ers not having due process.

Im asking him what due process rights were denied *to the J6ers* in particular, and in response to his whadabout cry about J6ers not receiving due process.

No comparison there Eldon. Questioning the veracity of his 'whadabout'.

I hope the next ‘mistake’ they make and give no due process to is somewhere down in Texas.

Don’t mistake that hope with the great song with the same title.

(04-23-2025 01:01 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  I hope the next ‘mistake’ they make and give no due process to is somewhere down in Texas.

Don’t mistake that hope with the great song with the same title.

Im sure most pinhead Trumpie fks think that same way, or similarly.

Just rendition anyone they disagree with -- cool cool.

(04-23-2025 12:47 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not an opinion. Simple facts.

let me pose them to you. A simple yes/no for each line will suffice.

Did each J6er charged with one or more crimes have:

1. notice of what they are being charged with?
2. the ability to challenge the arrests and charges?
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
4. the ability to present their own evidence?
5. the ability to assert the right to quick trial, if they did not waive the statute?
6. the ability to have a right of trial by jury, if not waived?
7. the ability to be represented by counsel?

You are comparing US Citizens with ILLEGAL Immigrants. They are not the same. Why does the word ILLEGAL still seem to slip through all those cracks?

Idiocy

Thats all it is. Responding to dei dimestore lawyer is a waste of time.

(04-23-2025 01:28 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 12:47 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not an opinion. Simple facts.

let me pose them to you. A simple yes/no for each line will suffice.

Did each J6er charged with one or more crimes have:

1. notice of what they are being charged with?
2. the ability to challenge the arrests and charges?
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
4. the ability to present their own evidence?
5. the ability to assert the right to quick trial, if they did not waive the statute?
6. the ability to have a right of trial by jury, if not waived?
7. the ability to be represented by counsel?

You are comparing US Citizens with ILLEGAL Immigrants. They are not the same. Why does the word ILLEGAL still seem to slip through all those cracks?

Idiocy

Thats all it is. Responding to dei dimestore lawyer is a waste of time.

Just more exhibition that basic English comprehension is *way* outside your wheel house. Cool cool.

(04-23-2025 12:35 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 12:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 11:56 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Just helping this get to 1k

Done!

did ewe win another prize ... just, oh muh...

Predicted by moi



Thousands of words of utter stupidity over illegal sub 80 gang members.

Pure retardia

(04-23-2025 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:24 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:37 AM)hoopfan Wrote:  Illegal aliens are not Americans. Blindly throw them out at will.

It’s as simple as that

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Its as simple as *that*, champ.

I find it really odd how the people who complain about others not following the Constitution, how others are trying to destroy the Constitution, how others ignore the Constitution -- are now too stupid as not understand that simple quote above, and seemingly champion not following the Constitution.

They *wrap* themselves as the champions of the Constitution -- then seemingly go out of their way to piss on it, most notably and currently the above. lmao.

But are they being deprived of life? Don’t think so. Are they being deprived of their liberty? No, they can have all the liberty afforded them by their country of citizenship. Are they being deprived of their property? No, they can carry everything they have back with them when they leave.
They are illegally here. Simple as that in less than 150,000 words. Cool cool champ sparky.

So much winning

The prog filth are so far of the rails they are defending wife beating gang banger illegal aliens

I
Am
Loving
It

(04-23-2025 01:28 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 12:47 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not an opinion. Simple facts.

let me pose them to you. A simple yes/no for each line will suffice.

Did each J6er charged with one or more crimes have:

1. notice of what they are being charged with?
2. the ability to challenge the arrests and charges?
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
4. the ability to present their own evidence?
5. the ability to assert the right to quick trial, if they did not waive the statute?
6. the ability to have a right of trial by jury, if not waived?
7. the ability to be represented by counsel?

You are comparing US Citizens with ILLEGAL Immigrants. They are not the same. Why does the word ILLEGAL still seem to slip through all those cracks?

Idiocy

Thats all it is. Responding to dei dimestore lawyer is a waste of time.

3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?

The claim that every January 6 (J6) defendant had the full ability to challenge the evidence presented against them is not entirely accurate. Some defendants have alleged that they faced significant obstacles in accessing evidence and challenging the prosecution's case. For example, in one case, it was revealed that the government had not provided all body-worn camera footage to the defendants, and key evidence like the "1776 Returns/Winter Palace" document was later found to be fraudulent.
Additionally, there were instances where the government was accused of improper conduct, such as destroying evidence and pressuring witnesses, which could have hindered defendants' ability to mount a proper defense.
Moreover, the grand jury process, which is a critical part of the criminal justice system, typically operates under a veil of secrecy, and defendants do not have the right to be present during grand jury proceedings. This secrecy can limit the ability of defendants to challenge the evidence presented against them.
Therefore, while the legal framework provides mechanisms for challenging evidence, practical and procedural issues have sometimes impeded defendants' ability to fully exercise this right.

4. the ability to present their own evidence?

The claim that every January 6 defendant had full ability to present evidence to counter the government is not accurate. According to an internal email reviewed by POLITICO, Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, likened the treatment of January 6 defendants to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, suggesting a lack of fair treatment.
Additionally, a coalition of news organizations said in a court filing that video exhibits from a January 6 riot case had "disappeared" from a government platform that provided access to evidence used in court.
This disappearance of evidence could hinder defendants' ability to present a full defense.

Dan O'Donnell
@DanODonnellShow
EXCLUSIVE: Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge Hannah Dugan is under FBI investigation for allegedly helping an illegal immigrant defendant evade ICE agents who came to arrest him in her courtroom during a hearing Friday morning.

The defendant's attorney was made aware of the arrest and told Dugan's clerk, who then told Dugan. She allowed the defendant to hide in her jury room (which is normally off-limits to everyone except the judge and members of the jury).

The ICE agents presented their warrant to Chief Judge Carl Ashley, who sent them back to Dugan's courtroom to arrest the defendant.

The FBI was notified about Dugan's apparent obstruction of justice and is currently investigating.
3:02 PM · Apr 22, 2025
·
43.1K
Views



They dont really gaf about the law.

(04-23-2025 01:47 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 01:28 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 12:47 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not an opinion. Simple facts.

let me pose them to you. A simple yes/no for each line will suffice.

Did each J6er charged with one or more crimes have:

1. notice of what they are being charged with?
2. the ability to challenge the arrests and charges?
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
4. the ability to present their own evidence?
5. the ability to assert the right to quick trial, if they did not waive the statute?
6. the ability to have a right of trial by jury, if not waived?
7. the ability to be represented by counsel?

You are comparing US Citizens with ILLEGAL Immigrants. They are not the same. Why does the word ILLEGAL still seem to slip through all those cracks?

Idiocy

Thats all it is. Responding to dei dimestore lawyer is a waste of time.

3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?

The claim that every January 6 (J6) defendant had the full ability to challenge the evidence presented against them is not entirely accurate. Some defendants have alleged that they faced significant obstacles in accessing evidence and challenging the prosecution's case. For example, in one case, it was revealed that the government had not provided all body-worn camera footage to the defendants, and key evidence like the "1776 Returns/Winter Palace" document was later found to be fraudulent.
Additionally, there were instances where the government was accused of improper conduct, such as destroying evidence and pressuring witnesses, which could have hindered defendants' ability to mount a proper defense.
Moreover, the grand jury process, which is a critical part of the criminal justice system, typically operates under a veil of secrecy, and defendants do not have the right to be present during grand jury proceedings. This secrecy can limit the ability of defendants to challenge the evidence presented against them.
Therefore, while the legal framework provides mechanisms for challenging evidence, practical and procedural issues have sometimes impeded defendants' ability to fully exercise this right.

4. the ability to present their own evidence?

The claim that every January 6 defendant had full ability to present evidence to counter the government is not accurate. According to an internal email reviewed by POLITICO, Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, likened the treatment of January 6 defendants to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, suggesting a lack of fair treatment.
Additionally, a coalition of news organizations said in a court filing that video exhibits from a January 6 riot case had "disappeared" from a government platform that provided access to evidence used in court.
This disappearance of evidence could hinder defendants' ability to present a full defense.

Yea, but we ever so close to losing our entire democracy ending that day so......

(04-23-2025 01:38 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 10:24 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:37 AM)hoopfan Wrote:  Illegal aliens are not Americans. Blindly throw them out at will.

It’s as simple as that

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Its as simple as *that*, champ.

I find it really odd how the people who complain about others not following the Constitution, how others are trying to destroy the Constitution, how others ignore the Constitution -- are now too stupid as not understand that simple quote above, and seemingly champion not following the Constitution.

They *wrap* themselves as the champions of the Constitution -- then seemingly go out of their way to piss on it, most notably and currently the above. lmao.

But are they being deprived of life? Don’t think so. Are they being deprived of their liberty? No, they can have all the liberty afforded them by their country of citizenship. Are they being deprived of their property? No, they can carry everything they have back with them when they leave.
They are illegally here. Simple as that in less than 150,000 words. Cool cool champ sparky.

When the government of the United States seeks to end the liberty right of, well, as the the 5th Amendment (and 14th Amendment) "anyone", and *here*, they must afford due process.

If the government wishes (and many times for good reason) to challenge that for *anyone*, they have to make a showing of it. Bummer for your twinkle toes two step attempt to rephrase the concept. Cool cool.

If they are illegally here, then the govt has to show it in some fashion.

Generally speaking, In the case of removal to their homeland, its through either one of two mechanisms under the appropriate administrative law provisions. In the case of revocation and back to their homeland, again through the appropriate process and burden specified by Congress. If being renditioned to a foreign prison, then through the appropriate application of due process and the various components of the 4tth, 5th, 6th, and maybe 8th Amendments as appropriate.

Not some bum**** idiot like some might on a website forum labeling them 'illegal' and mixing and matching whatever random thought floats through their pinhead brain, and not through through some dude in an office with a roast beef sandwich stain on his shirt, and bad toupee cluttering his vision.

As to the bolded, I guess your lil ol' short vision forgot that the current issue *isnt* about 'liberty in theire homeland', but being locked away with no process in a shitbird tinpot dictator's hellhole of a concentration camp. But that would have required you to actually *think* about your response.

Amazing ignorance all the way around, from the cha cha cha visage of due process, to actually forgetting what the current issue actually is.

Overall, an inspired comment if I have ever seen one. /sarcasm off.

(04-23-2025 01:58 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 01:47 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 01:28 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 12:47 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not an opinion. Simple facts.

let me pose them to you. A simple yes/no for each line will suffice.

Did each J6er charged with one or more crimes have:

1. notice of what they are being charged with?
2. the ability to challenge the arrests and charges?
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
4. the ability to present their own evidence?
5. the ability to assert the right to quick trial, if they did not waive the statute?
6. the ability to have a right of trial by jury, if not waived?
7. the ability to be represented by counsel?

You are comparing US Citizens with ILLEGAL Immigrants. They are not the same. Why does the word ILLEGAL still seem to slip through all those cracks?

Idiocy

Thats all it is. Responding to dei dimestore lawyer is a waste of time.

3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?

The claim that every January 6 (J6) defendant had the full ability to challenge the evidence presented against them is not entirely accurate. Some defendants have alleged that they faced significant obstacles in accessing evidence and challenging the prosecution's case. For example, in one case, it was revealed that the government had not provided all body-worn camera footage to the defendants, and key evidence like the "1776 Returns/Winter Palace" document was later found to be fraudulent.
Additionally, there were instances where the government was accused of improper conduct, such as destroying evidence and pressuring witnesses, which could have hindered defendants' ability to mount a proper defense.
Moreover, the grand jury process, which is a critical part of the criminal justice system, typically operates under a veil of secrecy, and defendants do not have the right to be present during grand jury proceedings. This secrecy can limit the ability of defendants to challenge the evidence presented against them.
Therefore, while the legal framework provides mechanisms for challenging evidence, practical and procedural issues have sometimes impeded defendants' ability to fully exercise this right.

4. the ability to present their own evidence?

The claim that every January 6 defendant had full ability to present evidence to counter the government is not accurate. According to an internal email reviewed by POLITICO, Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, likened the treatment of January 6 defendants to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, suggesting a lack of fair treatment.
Additionally, a coalition of news organizations said in a court filing that video exhibits from a January 6 riot case had "disappeared" from a government platform that provided access to evidence used in court.
This disappearance of evidence could hinder defendants' ability to present a full defense.

Yea, but we ever so close to losing our entire democracy ending that day so......

Many would call trying to toss out electoral votes for no reason other than being pissy that -- yes. Imagine that.

(04-23-2025 01:47 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 01:28 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 12:47 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(04-23-2025 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not an opinion. Simple facts.

let me pose them to you. A simple yes/no for each line will suffice.

Did each J6er charged with one or more crimes have:

1. notice of what they are being charged with?
2. the ability to challenge the arrests and charges?
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
4. the ability to present their own evidence?
5. the ability to assert the right to quick trial, if they did not waive the statute?
6. the ability to have a right of trial by jury, if not waived?
7. the ability to be represented by counsel?

You are comparing US Citizens with ILLEGAL Immigrants. They are not the same. Why does the word ILLEGAL still seem to slip through all those cracks?

Idiocy

Thats all it is. Responding to dei dimestore lawyer is a waste of time.

3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?

The claim that every January 6 (J6) defendant had the full ability to challenge the evidence presented against them is not entirely accurate.

Some defendants have alleged that they faced significant obstacles in accessing evidence and challenging the prosecution's case. For example, in one case, it was revealed that the government had not provided all body-worn camera footage to the defendants, and key evidence like the "1776 Returns/Winter Palace" document was later found to be fraudulent.

The important word is bolded above.

Quote: Additionally, there were instances where the government was accused of improper conduct, such as destroying evidence and pressuring witnesses, which could have hindered defendants' ability to mount a proper defense.

And again.

Quote:Moreover, the grand jury process, which is a critical part of the criminal justice system, typically operates under a veil of secrecy, and defendants do not have the right to be present during grand jury proceedings. This secrecy can limit the ability of defendants to challenge the evidence presented against them.

Lol. Every defendant has the absolute full ability to challenge every bit of evidence against them that the state presents against them in their trial.

What is presented at a grand jury may or may not be part of the case *at trial*. of that portion presented to the GJ is presented at trial, the defendants have full ability to counter it. Full stop. Evidence presented *only* in the GJ has zero weight on the determination of guilt or not guilty. Full stop.

Quote:4. the ability to present their own evidence?

The claim that every January 6 defendant had full ability to present evidence to counter the government is not accurate. According to an internal email reviewed by POLITICO, Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, likened the treatment of January 6 defendants to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, suggesting a lack of fair treatment.

Martin, also the attorney *for* numerous J6ers, you forgot to add.

Great, we have some attorney who has skin in the game to aid J6ers, write a broad-based email likening the prosecution of J6ers to Japanese Internment.

Thats like the attorney for GM writing a letter saying how GM is always being unfairly treated. Imagine that.

Second, while it as a broad email, it literally has no specific basis to that analogy. Just a conclusory statement. Are you seriously proffering that as *proof* of the bolded above?

Quote: Additionally, a coalition of news organizations said in a court filing that video exhibits from a January 6 riot case had "disappeared" from a government platform that provided access to evidence used in court.

And funnily, no defendant ever claimed any harm from that.

Quote: This alleged disappearance of evidence could hinder defendants' ability to present a full defense.

Fixed one portion, and highlighted another.

REVEALED: Kilmar Abrego Garcia Transported Fellow Illegal Aliens in a Van Owned by an Illegal Migrant Convicted of Human Trafficking

Quote:More damning information has emerged regarding the Democrats’ most beloved illegal alien and ‘Maryland man.’

As The Gateway Pundit reported, The Tennessee Star broke an explosive story last week, revealing that MS-13 gangster Kilmar Abrego Garcia was allegedly accused of engaging in human trafficking by a Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) officer back in December 2022 and detained by the officer. The cop alleged that the gangster was transporting seven passengers from Texas to Maryland.

The officer also discovered Abrego Garcia did not have a valid driver’s license. He then detained the illegal.

However, after the officer took Abrego Garcia into custody, the THP contacted the FBI, asking what to do next. Joe Biden’s FBI unsurprisingly ordered the THP to let Abrego Garcia walk free because they valued violent illegals more than innocent Americans. THP then complied with the order.

Now, The Tennessee Star reports that Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle registered to Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, a convicted human trafficker. Reyes previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to transport illegal aliens from across the country and was convicted in 2020. The outlet confirmed this information after obtaining court documents.

It’s unclear how Abrego Garcia obtained the vehicle or whether he ever worked with Reyes.

Reyes was imprisoned for 18 months, but then remanded to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As part of his release, he was barred from re-entering America.

Here are the details from the Tennessee Star:

Hernandez Reyes was convicted in 2020 after he pleaded guilty to smuggling fellow illegal immigrants into the United States following a traffic stop in Mississippi. He was operating a company named Trans Express at the time, according to an affidavit filed by a special agent with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in December 2019.

It was further revealed that Hernandez Reyes was traveling with eight people in the vehicle, the same number as Abrego Garcia, and that he advertised the business on newspaper and social media.

Police said it cost $350 per person to secure a seat in Hernandez Reyes’ Dodge Grand Caravan, and that his illegal immigrant passengers were able to travel from Houston to destinations in South Carolina and Virginia.

Hernandez Reyes apparently made at least five trips from Houston to other parts of the country.

Abregone