(11-01-2023, 06:46 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(11-01-2023, 03:01 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: Tell me this is a comedy bit, please. The bold is some really thick hypocrisy. LOL
I mean - you spent pages telling me there was no way random Jan 6 riot guy wasn't an FBI agent. 
Of course he isn't. But you "believe" he is - don't you? 
Wow. Real discussion, my [BLEEP]. 

To the green:
Yes context matters. It's a shame you are completely not seeing the context of that phone call. He had no proof of any of those cockamamy accusations of fraud or we wouldn't be here right now discussing his indictment aftermath.
DUH! 

If you want to believe a grifter, and you want to accept a conspiracy theory about election fraud, and you want to challenge authority, great. You're a fool for two of those three - but you have every right to be one. 

What you can't do is falsify federal documents and create false electors for states based on some "belief" you can't prove.  What you can't do - is try to influence a government official to go against his oath to alter an election you "believe" didn't work out fairly without any proof of your "belief." 

That's where orange clown [BLEEP] up. 
Now he's finding out.

First of all, I didn't spend pages telling you there is no way he wasn't an agent.YOU DID 
I said it was perfectly plausible, and you can't seem to make a distinction between those two ideas. You struggled with it then, and you struggled with it now, because you're the type of person that just "knows." Secondly, the context of that phone call is a guy who is incredulous that people can't see what he sees... kind of like another New Yorker I've been dealing with. Must be something in the water. 
You didn't say "plausible" - you were incredulous that it wasn't obvious to everyone like it was to you and that one clown on a YouTube video. LOL  

It's perfectly plausible Trump wanted Raffensberger to investigate the election more thoroughly. THEY HAD ALREADY DONE THAT!! It's that simple. He never said make up votes. with what we KNOW now, it's a huge stretch to say he falsified federal documents. If you want to look up the word plausible and understand what that means, we could probably have a discussion about that in good faith.  But you seem incapable of entertaining any other ideas but your own. Have fun "knowing." I WILL!  Have fun believing lies!  I look forward to the testimony that's going to "expose" Trump. If there is anything tangible, I'll change my tune. I doubt it. At best, you're going to end up with hearsay, which I'm sure will be perfectly fine in this case (but definitely not others when it's convenient).