Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
What a fucking kop out. You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant? Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
What a fucking kop out. You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant? Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
What a fucking kop out. You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant? Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
What a fucking kop out. You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant? Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
What a fucking kop out. You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant? Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
What a fucking kop out. You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant? Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
What a fucking kop out. You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant? Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
What a fucking kop out. You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant? Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?
That case?
Yes that case. Interesting, huh?
So you agree the reasoning is bullshit then, since you agree it was an insurrection?
Direct quote from me "I'd have voted yes" as to voting yes on the medals for the Capitol police.
Am I missing something?
Yes, you missed my direct question:
I asked if you agree the reasoning the republicans gave for voting against the bill is bullshit, since you agree it was an insurrection.
Got it. I do believe the language in the bill matters and I have said before that if the future "Prosecution" (not persecution ) of people on trial have the wording in this bill used against them then that is a problem.
I think that is a bullshit reason not to vote for this bill though and yes it was an insurrection.
"Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., who voted against awarding police officers the Congressional Gold Medal for their bravery in protecting the U.S. Capitol against violent, pro-Trump rioters on Jan. 6, refused to shake hands with District of Columbia police officer Michael Fanone on Wednesday.
Fanone was beaten unconscious after he voluntarily rushed to the Capitol to help defend it from those who breached the building. He suffered a concussion and a mild heart attack. In the months since, Fanone has been one of the leading voices pushing back against Republicans who have sought to downplay the severity of what happened Jan. 6....
He said he recognized Clyde at an elevator and that he and Dunn hopped in with the congressman.
“I simply extended my hand and said, “How are you doing today, Congressman.’ I knew immediately he recognized me by the way he reacted. He completely froze. He just stared at me,” Fanone said in an interview.
Fanone said Clyde did not motion to shake his hand in return.
“I said, ‘I’m sorry, you’re not going to shake my hand?’ ” Fanone said he told Clyde.
He said Clyde answered, “I don’t know who you are.”
Fanone said he responded, “‘I’m sorry, sir, my name is Michael Fanone. I’m a D.C. police officer and I fought to defend the Capitol on Jan. 6.” He said he described being stunned repeatedly in the back of the neck and beaten unconscious, stripped of his badge and radio.
“His response was nothing,” Fanone said. “He turned away from me, pulled out his cellphone and started thumbing through the apps.” Fanone said Clyde turned on the camera app but did not point the phone in his direction. Fanone said he believes Clyde was trying to record audio of the encounter.
“After that, I just simply stood there,” Fanone said.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
Oh please. It was a bullshit defense and was only raised by the members that continually downplay and lie about the ferocity of the event. And they are the same ones that say Stop the Steal and voted against certification. In short, this defense is only being raised by the enablers of Jan 6th. Echoing their arguments does not serve you or anyone well.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
Oh please. It was a bullshit defense and was only raised by the members that continually downplay and lie about the ferocity of the event. And they are the same ones that say Stop the Steal and voted against certification. In short, this defense is only being raised by the enablers of Jan 6th. Echoing their arguments does not serve you or anyone well.
You asked, don't like my answer? Fine.
We agree with everything else on it.
Don't politicize the Medal of Valor Bill. That's all I want.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
the issue, I THINK (don't want to speak for anyone here) the issue is that you are saying the reason is bullshit, but you agree with their reasoning that if it gets politicized it's wrong, but their whole reason for not voting yes is because of that reason, so it sounds like you agree with them, even though you say you don't.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.
You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.
Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.
You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.
Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
No it's not.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
the issue, I THINK (don't want to speak for anyone here) the issue is that you are saying the reason is bullshit, but you agree with their reasoning that if it gets politicized it's wrong, but their whole reason for not voting yes is because of that reason, so it sounds like you agree with them, even though you say you don't.
Close.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.
You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.
Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
No it's not.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.
You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.
Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
No it's not.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.
You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.
Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
No it's not.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.
You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.
Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
No it's not.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.
You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.
Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
No it's not.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?
OK let's go through this again.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.
You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.
Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
No it's not.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
I give up...
that's how I took it too, tempo.
This last one didn't make sense?
The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Comments
So you agree the reasoning is bullshit then, since you agree it was an insurrection?
"I'd have voted yes" as to voting yes on the medals for the Capitol police.
Am I missing something?
I asked if you agree the reasoning the republicans gave for voting against the bill is bullshit, since you agree it was an insurrection.
I think that is a bullshit reason not to vote for this bill though and yes it was an insurrection.
"Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., who voted against awarding police officers the Congressional Gold Medal for their bravery in protecting the U.S. Capitol against violent, pro-Trump rioters on Jan. 6, refused to shake hands with District of Columbia police officer Michael Fanone on Wednesday.
Fanone was beaten unconscious after he voluntarily rushed to the Capitol to help defend it from those who breached the building. He suffered a concussion and a mild heart attack. In the months since, Fanone has been one of the leading voices pushing back against Republicans who have sought to downplay the severity of what happened Jan. 6....
He said he recognized Clyde at an elevator and that he and Dunn hopped in with the congressman.
“I simply extended my hand and said, “How are you doing today, Congressman.’ I knew immediately he recognized me by the way he reacted. He completely froze. He just stared at me,” Fanone said in an interview.
Fanone said Clyde did not motion to shake his hand in return.
“I said, ‘I’m sorry, you’re not going to shake my hand?’ ” Fanone said he told Clyde.
He said Clyde answered, “I don’t know who you are.”
Fanone said he responded, “‘I’m sorry, sir, my name is Michael Fanone. I’m a D.C. police officer and I fought to defend the Capitol on Jan. 6.” He said he described being stunned repeatedly in the back of the neck and beaten unconscious, stripped of his badge and radio.
“His response was nothing,” Fanone said. “He turned away from me, pulled out his cellphone and started thumbing through the apps.” Fanone said Clyde turned on the camera app but did not point the phone in his direction. Fanone said he believes Clyde was trying to record audio of the encounter.
“After that, I just simply stood there,” Fanone said.
He said Clyde bolted when the doors opened."
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2021/06/17/gop-congressman-refuses-to-shake-hands-with-d-c-police-officer-who-protected-the-capitol-on-jan-6-lawmakers-say/?p1=hp_featurestack
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
It was Antifa
It was BLM
It was the FBI
It was a normal tour
It wasn't an insurrection
Also, we don't want to investigate, we want to pretend it never happened, we can't dwell on the past we need to move forward.
JFC, come on already.
We agree with everything else on it.
Don't politicize the Medal of Valor Bill. That's all I want.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
Cheers,
HFD
It can’t be both.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
Easy question.
What is the bill for?
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.
Cheers,
HFD
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?