Oh….did you read it?
AAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
SERIOUSLY!?
That’s the best you’ve got to contradict it?!?

Who promised you a transcript honey? I bet no one. You get what you get. Because you say it’s missing leads me to believe it’s in the report, not that it’s inclusion/exclusion is even a slider, a 1/16 pounder….just a nothing burger from your fake news. Besides, no evidence could sway you, don’t pretend anything ever could, you’re dishonest enough without that obvious lie.

If all the evidence collected was included, it would be an 84500 page report with months of video. This is a summary. Derp.

The one person on film telling people to go in?!? You really need to learn to gaslight better. You can’t just jump in with easily disproven silly lies everyone knows are lies.

This is an attempt to fly a long ago debunked absolutely baseless conspiracy theory that Epps was an FBI agent that they accidentally put on the most wanted list (he denied it under oath) who was there to provoke the crowd all by himself into attacking because that would somehow benefit the fbi, and he’s to blame not Trump, a brain numbingly stupid conspiracy theory based on nothing more than the claim he was on then off the most wanted list (and that the fbi won’t confirm or deny anything) that you just heard from Mother Fucking Lying TED CRUZ!!!
AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA….HA….HA….AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

How many witches will this witch hunt catch and convict I wonder. Hundreds so far that confessed and pleaded guilty. No one has said they went in because Epps told them to. Not even the traitor Ashley Babbitt.

Translated:

A drink to the ground for those who left
Hit one and rola we are in game,
Feel what I shout your rage with the heart
for that it reached me
Mother this life touched us!
We are what we are
Nobody interferes
unless you want
Go out with the geta open
They wanted to shut us up before but they couldn't.
We are more than friends
Come and run into walls!
asses!
So take it!
If you feel that you can Atorele!
We are still standing!!
Without fear because there is nothing to lose
brothers we are
Born to multiple mothers
TO ALL MOTHER!!!
A DEEEESMOTHER!!
we are not ten
We are a Fist!
We hit hard
Who do you think you are?
do not interfere
because you are going to lose
You have a time to flee before it explodes
TO ALL MOTHER!!!
A DEEEESMOTHER!!

A wolf comes to hit them hard...
They show the fury that converge
we come down
To send you to hell
with clenched fists
And hold your head high!
They forge it strong!
This is the fury that converge!
we come down
To send you to hell
with clenched fists
And hold your head high!


TO ALL MOTHER!
A DEEEESMOTHER!
TO ALL MOTHER!
A DEEEESMOTHER!
TO ALL MOTHER!
A DEEEESMOTHER!


shut that snout
because for less than that
They would shovel your cesses
From the cement
the mouth of the wolf
crazy here we belong
Go back to your golden cage
And do not come to this Hell!
We provoke no one
But we fear no one
to be respected
You have to respect first
Here it is not worth your position or your money
Remember it asshole and don't come
To this Helloooooooo!

Absolutely. I eagerly look forward to every Thursday so I can watch each new episode.

So fantastically well done. The more serious tone is great, though not to to hint that I didn't also love the touch of humor in the past episodes.

In either case, the stories they explore are just really phenomenally crafted and really thought-provoking.

Dang I hope they keep making it. 🤞

"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape"

Warning shots seem to be enough for you to allow this kid to kill someone because they are so threatening. Warning shots seem like a reasonable means of attempting to escape. Warning shots were not exhausted by Rittenhouse, who is stuck having to exhaust all reasonable means of escape before using deadly force per Wisconsin law because he was engaged in unlawful behavior during the incident. If he doesn't exhaust all reasonable means of escape, self defense cannot apply. If he claims the shot fired in the air is threatening, he acknowledges that it's a means of escape through intimidation. Checkmate, dumbass.

Eh, it's debatable still

Here's the WI state code as that would apply here
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

===================================
Some likely applicable law from that link
From SUBCHAPTER III
DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
===================================
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
-------------------------------------------
> It's not up to the witnesses to determine if the actions were reasonable or not, that's a question for the jury.

====================================================
====================================================

"engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others to attack"

"Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>excerpted/emphasized (tldnr)
>"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape

============================
============================



He was able to run away... And while someone shot into the air they didn't shoot at HIM or point a gun at him. And the person who shot into the air isn't the one who lunged at him.

Seriously, what kind of world do you want to live in @bobknight33 ?? You want MF 17 year olds to be able to walk around with assault rifles and if you stutter-step at the wrong moment they can vigilante justice your ass ? And if that happens well they can just say

You!?
Think?!

Bwaaaahahahaha!! I think not.

No, dummy, I’ve been exceptionally clear that I’m happy when violent criminal cops get taken out….not any cop, not cops doing their jobs with honor. Your claim that this means I want all cops taken out means you believe that all cops are criminal thugs that should be taken out. Who’s anti cop?

I’m for taking out cops like these….. https://videosift.com/video/Boston-Cop-Brags-About-Driving-Through-Crowd

I just say they’re all in cahoots, one gang, which is antithetical to proper policing, but they aren’t all murderers. I’m happy when power tripping cops abusing their power get pushback. These cops were not abusing their authority, they weren’t even exercising their power, they abdicated it by not using deadly force against deadly armed attackers. Conversely, when dealing with ANTIFA, there was no such restraint, violence is met with escalated violence not mass retreat, and arrests are made on scene.

I’m quite disappointed that the cops didn’t open fire more than once. If ever it was called for, it was Jan 6. The fact that only one shot was fired is a good indicator of how racist the police are….a black armed violent crowd invading the capitol looking to murder representatives and officials would have been mowed down like a neglected lawn. With the warnings they had of a violent attack/coup, there should have been a few thousand police/national guards staged like when BLM peacefully marched at the white house, and we know how police responded then with no physical provocation. These extra guards were requested and denied against Trump’s mob. Who refused to provide security is a major question of the investigation…one you would think Republicans would have wanted an impartial, unbiased, apolitical team to investigate, but they were dead set against it, or any investigation. Kind of like they are afraid of finding the truth because the truth is they incited the attempted coup/deadly political riot.

Since I’m sure you need help,

Cahoots- acting together with others for an illegal or dishonest purpose
Antithetical- directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible
Abdicated- fail to fulfill or undertake (a responsibility or duty).
Provocation- action or speech that makes someone annoyed or angry, especially deliberately; incitement
Apolitical- not interested or involved in politics
Incitement- the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully

The quiz will be tomorrow, it is not multiple choice. Misspellings like “ANTIA” are considered wrong.

"Biden should have used Dominion golf balls. They make you win when you aren’t even playing."

So Bob, what're you lot going to do when Kraken Karen and Pillowboy can't produce any proof of fraud (because there is none) and end up on the hook for millions in undischarged damages? What will your story be then?

Also, funny how the GOP is suddenly very afraid of investigating their role in the terrorist attack on the US Capitol. I like how they're trying to equated the BLM protests with outright insurrection by the supporters of their party. Actually, I think they SHOULD investigate the riots that followed the George Floyd murder, especially the role right-wing terrorists played in the murder of police officers and their attempts to provoke a race war.

Trick with those, just never investigate. If you reach a conclusion, there's no more room to lie.

Wait, forget i said that.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------


"been fed wild falsehoods. Because he was angry he lost an election

"There is no question, none, that president Trump is responsible for provoking and the events of the day. No question about it

"The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president

"Having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president continued shouting into the largest megaphone on Earth.

"[He] manufactured an entire atmosphere of looming catastrophe. Increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election

"And I am voting to acquit
-Mitch McConnell

https://youtu.be/yxRMoqNnfvw

It is thought provoking and actually inspired me to look into some of the legitimate points and accurate perceptions, revisit Marx and chuckle at some of the later wild jumps and extrapolations.

Gamers would rule the world if they ever could be bothered to get up off the couch.

Also I was totally mesmerised by the story combined with the images, while it does get repetitive, would be an excellent 45 minute video if the crap could be cut out.

Lol. Still the best you've got is one poorly spoken statement you can intentionally misinterpret? So kindergarten Bob. Try using the same criteria on any Trump speech ever, you'll be horrified.

We had a fair election despite all the republican efforts to block and hide and deny votes. Trump lost. Bigly. Get over it and grow up.

There is zero evidence of any improprieties. None. Nada. Zip. Trump and Giuliani can lie on tv all they want, dishonest people can make all the accusations on the hotline they want. OAN can claim Trump got >400 electoral votes all they want. No one is willing to lie in court yet, they all recanted when placed under threat of perjury. The cases they submitted are based on supposition, suspicion, and idiocy (like using one states results compared with another states population to show fraud). There's zero evidence of fraud, and zero chance the courts will reverse the outcome. Get over it and stop the tantrums, threats, and terroristic behavior. It's 100% unpatriotic.

Edit:your little veritasesque video is more of the same bullshit. Liars who won't tell these same lies under oath....but you're happy to believe them if they support Trump no matter what nonsense they spout....like suggesting we just have another election because they lost this one...or because the trump crowd wasn't all allowed inside.

Trump has today to refile a real case in Pennsylvania, the state has one day to respond....to the same republican judge that unceremoniously tossed their last case with prejudice as a bag of jenkum the lawyers involved must be huffing. The interesting part is they are so incompetent that they didn't even request a stay of the order allowing Pennsylvania to certify today. Good luck with that.

Riddle me this....if Democrats are so capable that as the minority they can create a multinational conspiracy with tens of millions involved to commit the greatest crime in American history, leaving no trace, not a scintilla of actual evidence of this enormous world wide criminal conspiracy beyond untrustworthy people's accusations, don't you think they should be in charge? Don't you think their leadership would have to benefit America more than Republicans who can't make an agreement with foreign powers because no one trusts us to keep our obligations now? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, democrats are all baby drinking lizard people who have gone through this astonishing effort flawlessly because they hate America and only want to sell it out (contrary to the pedophile filled party that actually tried to sell Puerto Rico). 🤦‍♂️

Stop being a crybaby loser and grow up. Your tantrum is going to cost lives thanks to a delayed vaccine rollout and international crises we are creating by pulling out of the middle east and provoking war with Iran.
Trump lost by a massive landslide and you want him to ignore the clear will of the people and stage a coup. Remember that in 4 years when President Harris refuses to leave office because of how racist Trumpsters treated her, and claims she gets a preemptive do over of her next term because of expected obstruction and begins openly declaring she's going for four terms or more. I'm going to rub your nose in it so hard you're going to intentionally get covid to get rid of the smell.

Michigan just certified. D'oh!

Edit: the trump administration has just started the transition officially. Pretty much game over.

Harris 2021-2036 or longer! Lol.

Don't pretend to be so oblivious.
The gallery is one person making decisions on who to allow to hold private rallies in secret at her establishment, and she chooses Nazis and white power personalities. I thought you support taking individual responsibility.
The Nation of Islam, and I'm no fan at all, is a huge, multinational organization of millions I assume lead by some form of committee and encompassing a wide range of views and opposing extremes....They did not all choose to be associated with that one extremists nor did they all agree with him by far, then or now, only some did. That's similar to the same question but changing "nation of Islam" to "America". Obviously that's comparing apples to the president's drag queen makeup.

I won't comment much on Canada blm because I don't know them and don't choose to take the time needed to sleuth out some truths about them, but assuming what you say is correct it sounds like they have some racism in their midst that they should weed out before they become the monster they wish to destroy.

Brett Stevens, did you read any of the links? Or my quotes from them? Did you visit America.com, his website, or his blog amerika? (i won't) Do you have a clue who he is and the racist mass murderer he celebrates?

They have a right to speak, the crowd has a right to protest and take any civil legal action they choose to remove the soapbox from their neighborhood. I never said different. You must have confused me with the protesters.
They don't have a right to shout or hold their signs emblazoned with their stupid wrong things intended to provoke at a protest and attempt to spark violence, even if they cleverly camouflage it so on the surface their message seems agreeable, which is what I think was his intent. If successful, he would gain more fuel for the argument that the racists and Nazis planning a violent race war aren't the problem, it's the fascist liberal grandma shovers and sign thieves we should really be worried about....just like the boogaloos in America that caused many if not most of the riots, shot cops, and planned multiple mass murders and bombings all of which they intended to pin on blm.

They don't actually need any place to speak today, there's a soapbox in every cellphone.

But

This facility was holding their alt-right events in secret, hiding their speech itself. They wanted it hidden. You can't bemoan their voices being silenced while also defending their secret rallies which no one who might confront or correct them was told happened, can you?

And side note
The government isn't stopping them, so it's not censorship before that idea crops up.

Again, your bar for crying violence in this instance is subterranean. No one would ever be prosecuted for the level of violence without injury that he suffered, nor compensated for his miniscule loss of cardboard. Do you see him hit, kicked, punched, shoved hard, anything? Time stamp please. I'll change my tune if he was actually injured, I didn't see it anywhere, just his sign yanked after being slowly shoved away from one specific spot.

Could you honestly say ANY right wing event, especially any alt-right event infiltrated by a fairly quiet blm activist with a sign bemoaning police corruption would be as gentle and non violent? Edit: I doubt it.

The point of this video as presented is to pretend that's the case, that the shove from grandma is societies downfall, a direct attack on freedom not a rejection of a defender and facilitator of racists and Nazis (if he's not one himself). The Nazis and racists resurfacing and arming themselves (happening here in America) are nothing to be upset about or oppose....they're good people, not like disgusting anti free speech granny and those other freedom haters.
I'm astonished I'm apparently the only one willing to object to that long ago debbunked distortion of reality.

If the same standard applies, then yes, you are saying you expect a lone BLM activist at a clan rally to be treated better...because this treatment is unacceptable in your opinion.

His speech, or at least the speech he's defending, has been used to exactly that effect publicly and repeatedly in recent past, maybe just seconds earlier we don't know, so now it seems you've come around to my side. Am I wrong?

No, I never heard of this before this video, I have no other info, nor have I independently verified what I found. That said, a gallery that repeatedly hosts Nazis and white power speakers, surely bringing with them crowds of Nazis and white power groups into a neighborhood IS acting as a neo Nazi hq, at least during those multiple events.

I think if the gallery wasn't in a residential neighborhood but in the country, the "wrong think" would be fine, it's that they repeatedly turn the neighborhood into a race war zone by holding what amounts to white power rallies people would be outraged by, imo...but I'm not British, I can imagine they think worse about Nazis than Americans do and might be less tolerant.

I don't disagree that the gallery may have intended to just be an open space available to anyone, but what they became was a beacon to Nazis and racists, a safe place to hold rallies and events in a neighborhood that clearly doesn't want them. A place from which to provoke. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
When they saw how angry their neighbors were at the groups they brought to the neighborhood they should have changed how they operate, or where, but seemingly didn't.


So, while the gallery may not be specifically a Nazi HQ, by hosting the speakers and groups it does, it supports their ideologies and facilitated spreading their message by offering them a platform. That makes them complicit, intentionally so after the first protest when they were put on notice the neighbors are outraged.

Pure provocation.

Bullshit, he's not protesting in favor of free speech, he's instigating by supporting hate speech and violent hate groups as a spokesman for such groups inserting himself in a protest against them.
He is the equivalent of an Illinois Nazi marching in Skokie during an NAACP rally. That's a great description of what he's doing. He just isn't wearing a uniform.

I defend his right to hate speech, but not in a place and time designed to provoke violence. That's what this is, intentional provocation.

He was being a well known NAZI at an anti Nazi rally! I guess that's not enough for you to consider his presence legal provocation? It clearly was enough for the cops to think so. Before the cut he was probably telling them how subhuman they are, or race traitors supporting sub humans if they're whites. That's what his groups support, and is exactly the type of speech he was defending.

Could I go to the front of a church and hock statues of pagan gods raping Jesus without expecting a more violent reaction? No.

Provocation IS a defense to violence, not that I see any true violence in the video, but it would be justifiable if there were because his presence is definitely, undeniably, intentionally provocative.

Some ideologies are so disgusting that supporting them in public is legal provocation and does excuse violence legally. Advocating child rape would be an example, Nazism is another.

Do you honestly believe a BLM sign holder at a clan March would be treated better? What about at a Trump rally? If you claim to think either case wouldn't end in hospitalization, you're not being honest.

I'm just guessing, but I bet his chosen spot was right behind the speakers who were on camera...so would be stealing their soapbox. He could have been inside the gate, 3 ft away, and held his sign just as visibly....but nope, he had to be in the middle of the protest against Nazis telling them they're wrong, you just need to give those poor Nazis and white power organizations more of a platform and more time to espouse their hatred, and ignore the real violence and murders they commit.

Ok, you see a violent attack, mob violence, I see an older woman gently walking him out and others yelling, not touching.
You see a violent robbery of his sign, I see his tool for disruption being removed.
You act like his treatment was SO far over the line and 100% unacceptable. I see him treated with kid gloves in a way that his group wouldn't even fathom, because they use ACTUAL violence to do ACTUAL harm, not slow tender shoving without hands or feet out of the middle of their event, punches, kicks, machetes, torches, nooses, etc. This wasn't even turnabout, and turnabout is always fair play.

If this crosses your line, and this group needs some repercussions, what does his actually violent hate group need? More than a protest.

So, when is your child's next birthday party? I guess I can come and advocate for more incest pornography, and you would just let me be? Bullshit.
As you saw, the police were there and not getting involved. It's not honest to say "it's the police and court system you want to pull in" when the police were there.

Again, what park do your children have parties in, I'll be there with my sign before the party starts so I won't be "invading" your party and I expect you to protect me from all the angry parents....yeah right. That's asinine. If I intentionally provoke them to violence, that's on me.

He was the instigator. His sign amounts to "you will not silence our Nazi voice" at a rally pushing to silence their Nazi voice in their neighborhood. He is (in part) exactly what they are protesting. It's almost a certainty that before his heavily edited video starts he was being loud and disruptive, then acted reasonable and meek after instigating violence with his typical hate speech. Provocation actually is a legal defense to violence.

Can you at least admit the title and description are total lies? They called him a Nazi for being one, not for supporting free speech.
The liberals removed him from their event for being a well known Nazi, not the sentiment on his sign.
The way this is portrayed is absolutely bullshit. He's not a victim he's an instigator, he wasn't hurt, he's absolutely not interested in freedom of speech for everyone.

Lol. Yeah, right, more liberal (my liberal friends think I'm pretty conservative, I say I'm old school republican... socially liberal and fiscally responsible, definitely not a neocon)...but do you feel the same about BLM activists disrupting other events, they should be allowed to stay and speak, holding their anti police violence signs high even at anti BLM rallies? Would they be allowed?

I agree, getting slightly physical with him was stooping ever so slightly closer to his ilk's level, although the extent they got physical was pretty minor, wasn't it?
Oh no...they grabbed his cardboard sign equivalent to an all lives matter sign at a BLM march. VIOLENCE!! Pay him one cent in restitution if he sues. It's not a civil rights case, it's what he was hoping for.

When a known white power spokesman shows up at a protest against a white power organization he's associated with it's international provocation. Don't be naive.

Removing him by having an older woman slowly walk into him until he's out of the middle of the protest doesn't bother me one bit. I don't call that violence, I call it the opposite. If they punched him, violently grabbed him (not his sign), kicked him, or actually assaulted him I might think differently, but I saw none of that.

If he wasn't doing this in the middle of a protest against his pro Nazi racist organization in an effort to disrupt and distract from the anti racist crowd, I might feel differently. He has every right to his voice, but not their soapbox. No one stopped him from standing outside the active protest area with any sign.

They grabbed his cardboard, he was so intimidated that he held on and went back into the angry mob with it instead of letting them steal it, then cries for years about how he was attacked violently by an entire mob that didn't touch him. He was poking the bull, got a snort, and cries he got both horns.

What I saw was a person who was identified as a well known racist spokesman intentionally provoking anti racists at an anti racist event and being calmly moved out of the crowd without anyone laying hands on him.

I did not see what the title and description describes at all.

It was his well known public support of Nazism being considered support for Nazism, not free speech.

It was not the disingenuous words on his sign they found unacceptable it was his public support of racist positions that were the unacceptable sentiments. (disingenuous because I assume he doesn't think blacks should have a right to openly join discussions of ideas, but his sign meant Nazi/white supremacist opinions matter and you must let them espouse them whenever and wherever they wish including at anti racist events or you're anti free speech...which I find to be hypocritical nonsense).