They tried it with Trump, after all

Hmmmmm . . . let's run a series of patented leftist tests to determine if she even could EVER be guilty of ANYTHING: Skin Tone Test (Black means NEVER guilty), Gender Test (Female means SELDOM guilty), Political Test (Nation Hating leftist means that she's NEVER guilty), I.Q. Test (Negative Results).

Testing determines that it will be an ice age event in hell before leftists hold her to account for the blatant crimes she has committed.

She asked for more confrontation and someone shot at guardsmen a few hours later. If Trump was guilty then she is definitely guilty. She’s from California. She flew to Minneapolis got a police escort to go into Minnesota to incite more violence, then flew home to California. She’s guilty of Trump is otherwise STFU hypocrite liars.

I’m saying exactly what I said. If he is guilty and was brought up for impeachment or censure then she should as well. Be consistent you f**king hypocrites.

Stay mad, baby. You guys said it wasn't a crime, so it's not. We're just playing by your rules, don't be mad that we beat you at your own game QQ

If she told the people to peacefully make their voices heard, then yeah, I'd say that's not incitement to violence.

Yup Drumpft Failed President of the United States, twice impeached, lost popular vote twice, didn't do that, either.

Twice impeached by a politically biased House determined to influence an election, but not removed.

Or,, twice voted against impeachment by a politically biased house minority, see what I did there?

Wow. What a deflection. Literally has nothing to do with the conversation.

Also if you deny the fact that Donald Trump told people to peacefully make their voices heard, you're lying to yourself.

So, where did Maxine tell people to riot?

"We need to get out on the streets" "Get more confrontational" "Show them we mean business."

"You have to fight for your country is 100% true. Why do you think the military exists? ;P

Trump was impeached for calling people to peacefully make their voices heard. I'm holding this to that same standard."

No, the allegation was not that he peacefully called people to make their voices heard. The allegation was that he incited the capitol riot. The issue surrounding his speech was tried in court and voted on. It was found that he wasn't guilty as the riots could not be contributed to his speech. Thereby, Waters who had used proactive and peaceful speech telling people to be more confrontational (as 92% of ALL BLM protests were peaceful) to continue to be confrontational. As someone who supports BLM, I see this as a call for more peaceful protests, were this trial to swing in favor of corruption (thank god it didn't.)

So, I see where you're coming from, but it's not the same thing, and you're starting from a place of intellectual dishonesty saying that Trump was impeached for calling people to peacefully protest. That wasn't the allegation.

Trump was impeached because they said he incited a riot. What he said in the speech was to peacefully make your voices heard, so that was basically what they impeached him for.

92% peaceful (a statistic I've never seen)? 8% has still been a whole lot of burning, looting, and murdering.
What % of cops do you think are good?

This trial did swing in the favor of corruption because it didn't matter what evidence was presented. If the verdict had been anything else tons of riots would've broken out. So the verdict wasn't going to be anything else, even though he probably only should've been charged with negligence -> manslaughter. (I've seen no evidence that he intended to murder George Floyd. Likewise seen no evidence that it was racially motivated like the media pushed.)
But there have still been some people rioting I guess because they want Chauvin lynched?

No more dangerous than "you have to fight for your country." So, can you show me where she called for riots? Or are you going to point at quotes that could infer such action?

We did this with Trump.

You have to fight for your country is 100% true. Why do you think the military exists? ;P

Trump was impeached for calling people to peacefully make their voices heard. I'm holding this to that same standard.

You guys made the accusation and brought charges. Be consistent hypocrite. It’s a crime or it isn’t. Apologize or charge her with articles.

"You can’t set precedent without a judgement. The fact the senate found not worth a trial is not a judgment. Bring the accusations and see if the Result is the same. There is no precedent you fool. You are completely wrong and still a hypocrite. If you are so confident have democrats bring up the charges and see if they are dismissed. We know already that they won’t because like you they are liars and hypocrites."

>>noun
/ˈpresəd(ə)nt/
an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Donald Trump found not guilty for his speech and incendiary rhetoric which had been accused to be linked to the instigation of the capitol riot. So, stop gaslighting, and being a sorry excuse for a debater. Your defense is so shallow, I often wonder why I bother. It reminds me of when I used to work with autistic children; trying to teach them new skills. Lots of rejection and outright denial.

The precedent of bringing charges was set by leftist hypocrites who now refuse to bring charges in a similar case. Your the nitwit trying to justify a different response to what you felt was a deep conviction when it was the opposition. Not surprising as everyone knows leftist scum are hypocrites.

You don't know what precedent is. Today you have really put on full display that for all your verbosity, you have no idea what you're talking about xD Welp, I'm done here, I can't fix stupid.

You don’t know what hypocrisy is yet you are a hypocrite. I don’t buy your explanation of precedent in This case. I can’t help your stupid and obtuse

And was found not guilty, therefore for this instance with this precedence where there is ambiguity to state whether or not a call for a riot was made, has shown us that she cannot be found guilty per the verdict of the Trump impeachment. No direct call for a riot was made by her and therefore we cannot assume a strawman argument to convict her.

Be consistent, hypocrite. We will not apologize as we don't need to. We brought our charges, we did our duty, the people made their decision and we move on. Like you should.

No direct call from trump for a riot was made either. Yet articles made the accusation liar. Be consistent draw up the articles for Maxine or be what you are. A fu*king hypocrite!

No, because there was no direct call for a riot from Maxine. So, if that's the precedent you want to set, what's the point in drawing up articles when we will follow the precedent you set? Stop being a hyper-partisan shill

There was no direct call for a riot from Trump. The articles brought were for incitement. It wasn’t for direct call because Trump didn’t make a direct call. If what he did qualified as incitement then Maxine did the same so she needs to be held accountable as well. Bring up the charges hypocrite.

Just as there was no direct call from Maxine.

The Senate ruled that what Trump did, was not a qualification of incitement. Ergo, Maxine is not charged.

Learn to government, hypocrite :) I don't even think you're a hypocrite, I just think that at this point you're just not that bright xD

I'll light a candle for you.

You can’t set precedent without a judgement. The fact the senate found not worth a trial is not a judgment. Bring the accusations and see if the Result is the same. There is no precedent you fool. You are completely wrong and still a hypocrite. If you are so confident have democrats bring up the charges and see if they are dismissed. We know already that they won’t because like you they are liars and hypocrites.

"You can’t set precedent without a judgement. The fact the senate found not worth a trial is not a judgment. Bring the accusations and see if the Result is the same. There is no precedent you fool. You are completely wrong and still a hypocrite. If you are so confident have democrats bring up the charges and see if they are dismissed. We know already that they won’t because like you they are liars and hypocrites."

I forgot how much it bugs you not to have the last word, due to some mental insecurity. Enjoy it hypocrite :) Enjoy your double standards.

I think it is pretty clear that he is calling the hypocrisy of the left.

By your own reasoning that Trump was guilty of a crime, why have you not called out Waters?

That’s the open hypocrisy they ignore.

Look up the word precedent, that's how this applies. Precedent is something that congress has followed since it could be followed. Trump set the precedent. Therefore, the same arguments and principles would apply to Waters.

You say hypocrisy to ignore precedent because the precedent doesn't suit your agenda.

No articles of impeachment were drawn up by democrats so until they draw up similar articles to impeach or censure the old scumbag Maxine they are hypocrites. Your twisted logic might work if no articles were brought by Democrats, but they were so you set the precedent of drawing up articles for said incitement and then violate the precedent you set because it’s your team. HYPOCRITE!

Stay mad. There won't ever be articles of impeachment because the precedent has already been set by Trump. For you to say that we should void that precedent and prosecute her not him, is signaling racism and/or hypocrisy. We warned in the impeachment that letting the president go for this type of speech was dangerous and would set a dangerous president. And you said "That's okay with me, so long as we don't hold him accountable for what happened as he is our lord and savior." So, you spared him, and opened pandora's box. You can't close pandora's box once it's been opened. Reap what you sow. But please, tell us more how we should hold her accountable and NOT Trump. Seriously Blue, your arguments have gone limp these past few months.

We aren't the Hypocrites.

You are.

Nice try, I never said prosecute her not him. I said if you bring up charges to prosecute one not the other then you are a hypocrite.You can’t escape with a fake precedent argument. You set the precedent by bringing articles. Precedent requires you bring the same articles again nat Mad Maxine unless your a hypocrite. Which you are. See the consistency says you do the same thing in the situation regardless of political affiliation hypocrite.

But, that's the problem, try to keep up! You don't. If you bring up charges for one and then charges for another on the same grounds, you follow the precedent. Otherwise, it's a waste of tax payer money.

If Trump was convicted, then yes, we would also charge Maxine. :)

Keep trying to weasel your argument. It won't work. It's probably your weakest argument yet. Laughably so.

Your defense is literally the definition of hypocrisy. The filing of the charges is the precedent. Not being able to prove the charges isn’t. Precedent is set when a judgment is handed down. There was no judgment handed down fool.

"Your defense is literally the definition of hypocrisy. The filing of the charges is the precedent. Not being able to prove the charges isn’t. Precedent is set when a judgment is handed down. There was no judgment handed down fool."

>>noun
/ˈpresəd(ə)nt/
an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

l2politicc.

Again the precedent set was bringing politicians up on incitement charges. So continue your precedent hypocrite

Lol you don't know what precedent is.

You don’t know what hypocrisy is yet you are a hypocrite. I don’t buy your explanation of precedent in This case. I can’t help your stupid and obtuse

"You don’t know what hypocrisy is yet you are a hypocrite. I don’t buy your explanation of precedent in This case. I can’t help your stupid and obtuse
"I forgot how much it bugs you not to have the last word, due to some mental insecurity. Enjoy it hypocrite :) Enjoy your double standards.

Look up the word precedent, that's how this applies. Precedent is something that congress has followed since it could be followed. Trump set the precedent. Therefore, the same arguments and principles would apply to Waters.

Exactly, so Democraps should bring her up on the same incitement accusations they brought up the president on. The fact they couldn’t prove it isn’t the precedent the fact they attempted it is.

Nope. Because there is no more incendiary speech in what she said than what Donald Trump said. So, it would be a waste of taxpayer money and time when a precedent is already put in place.

precedent
noun
an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

l2politicc

Right you set the precedent of bringing charges stay consistent hypocrite

Lol you don't know what precedent is.

You don’t know what hypocrisy is yet you are a hypocrite. I don’t buy your explanation of precedent in This case. I can’t help your stupid and obtuse

I forgot how much it bugs you not to have the last word, due to some mental insecurity. Enjoy it hypocrite :) Enjoy your double standards.