NashVol11
Gloomed to Fail
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 27,679
- Likes
- 11,256
I'm not being snarky either. I think a conviction on anything substantive is unlikely. I believe the best recourse is in civil court where the church is likely to win.Yes. Thank you. My bad. I was typing while on the phone.
I'm not trying to pester of be combative. They were genuine questions, asked in good faith. No worries if that was the limit of the conversation.
That's why I was pressing. I'm open to opinions as to why a conviction is unlikely, short of "No one's going to want this political hot potato". In my view, it seems pretty clear that he live streamed himself as part of the group that planned it (conspiracy), and took part while it was ongoing. I hate the idea that just because someone was a quasi-recognizable celeb, or because they are a liberal mouthpiece, they are exempt from the law. What would make him more protected than any other random YouTube streamer?I'm not being snarky either. I think a conviction on anything substantive is unlikely. I believe the best recourse is in civil court where the church is likely to win.
Glad we're in agreement on your issues. Good luck with that.![]()
word definitions:
NAZI - someone who disagrees with a liberal
RACIST - someone who disagrees with a liberal
FASCIST - someone who disagrees with a liberal
TRANSPHOBE - someone who disagrees with a liberal
MISOGYNIST - someone who disagrees with a liberal
