MS 13 leader arrested in Omaha NE after Biden let him in

Poor Richard Saunders said:
It's OK to attack police officers if it's political?
Click to expand...
Like clockwork, you have come full circle. Show me videos of people attacking police officers who were arrested and arraigned for having attacked police officers. You couldn't do it before, you could only come up short on the requirements. But hey, now you are getting a second chance. Post the videos+mug shots+convictions.

The moral of the story: The only ones who attacked police were DNC operatives and FBI agents who were in on the tyranny. They are clearly on video as attacking the police and you won't find any arrest records for them. You can find convictions for peaceful protestors without any video evidence, despite the bajillion cameras taking video at any given moment, because it was a tyrannical witch hunt, a field day for punishing Trump supporters for daring to oppose the oligarchy and for supporting Trump in trying to make America great again.

You've got nothing, so get to showing it.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
www.documentcloud.org

gov.uscourts.tnmd.104622.43.0 3

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

I suggest you read the entire document to see how flimsy the case is. But the information is on page 26 about the two cooperating witnesses that have been released from prison and granted deferred action to stay in the US.
1. convicted of 2 felonies, been deported 5 times and now granted release and allowed to stay in the US.
2. avowed member of human smuggling organization, been deported once, currently charged with federal crime, expects to be released from prison and allowed to stay in US.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like this guy will do jail time. If that is the case, what is your point. The DOJ got two birds with one stone.
 
IBDaMann said:
Like clockwork, you have come full circle. Show me videos of people attacking police officers who were arrested and arraigned for having attacked police officers. You couldn't do it before, you could only come up short on the requirements. But hey, now you are getting a second chance. Post the videos+mug shots+convictions.

The moral of the story: The only ones who attacked police were DNC operatives and FBI agents who were in on the tyranny. They are clearly on video as attacking the police and you won't find any arrest records for them. You can find convictions for peaceful protestors without any video evidence, despite the bajillion cameras taking video at any given moment, because it was a tyrannical witch hunt, a field day for punishing Trump supporters for daring to oppose the oligarchy and for supporting Trump in trying to make America great again.

You've got nothing, so get to showing it.
Click to expand...
Like clockwork, you deny reality.
 
IBDaMann said:
Biden's handlers let hordes of criminals into the US, and gave them free cash and housing while bitch-slapping American citizens.
Click to expand...
Lie and gaslight.
IBDaMann said:
The protesters of the 2020 stolen election should never have been incarcerated in the first place, yet the illegitimately installed tyrannical Biden Oligarchy never liked the Constitution anyway.
Click to expand...
Propaganda justifying treason. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTT! Sorry, that's 2 fails. See you tomorrow!
 
T. A. Gardner said:
More like several million...
Click to expand...
Horse fucking shit. trump was having so much trouble finding these criminals he had to 1. - start slandering people he mistakenly disapears to torture prisons, and 2. - rounding up people trying to get their citizenship legally, then chasing strawberry pickers down in fields, and THEN:

3. - trump gets pressured by the food lobby and now - no more chasing down strawberry pickers and bus boys..

You have "cafeteria morality" my friend. You pick and choose the things you get outraged about - and WOW - it's ALWAYS about Democrats.
 
Lionfish said:
Sounds to me like this guy will do jail time. If that is the case, what is your point. The DOJ got two birds with one stone.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO. It seems you can't read.
DOJ has said a convicted felon that has been deported 5 times will now be free from prison and able to stay in the US indefinitely.
DOJ has said two criminal illegal aliens are free to stay in the country if they falsely testify against another person that has never been convicted of a crime.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO. It seems you can't read.
DOJ has said a convicted felon that has been deported 5 times will now be free from prison and able to stay in the US indefinitely.
DOJ has said two criminal illegal aliens are free to stay in the country if they falsely testify against another person that has never been convicted of a crime.
Click to expand...
In Jail? You're going to have to go a lot further to show us that both of these guys will not be doing jail time.
 
Last edited:
Poor Richard Saunders said:
www.documentcloud.org

gov.uscourts.tnmd.104622.43.0 3

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

I suggest you read the entire document to see how flimsy the case is. But the information is on page 26 about the two cooperating witnesses that have been released from prison and granted deferred action to stay in the US.
1. convicted of 2 felonies, been deported 5 times and now granted release and allowed to stay in the US.
2. avowed member of human smuggling organization, been deported once, currently charged with federal crime, expects to be released from prison and allowed to stay in US.
Click to expand...
Flimsy? After reading that long winded, drivel, I'd say the judge is doing contortions to justify her position.

For example, on page 18 she pulls a "Clinton" discussing the meaning of a single word (the original is "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...). It's minutia of the worst sort. I suspect she's going out of her way in those 51 pages of verbal vomit to do a CYA because of the high publicity the case is getting.

Then on page 23, she turns what hearsay evidence is into a Gordian knot. She states "While the body cam footage--which is itself hearsay..." How the hell is direct video of something "hearsay?"

The term “hearsay” refers to an out-of-court statement made by someone other than the witness reporting it.
https://legaldictionary.net/hearsay-evidence/#google_vignette

Does this stupid cunt really think the government can't call the Tennessee state trooper whose body cam footage they are using as a witness? She is out of her freaking mind there.

She's putting together every 'If' in the world to make her position. It's insane.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Flimsy? After reading that long winded, drivel, I'd say the judge is doing contortions to justify her position.

For example, on page 18 she pulls a "Clinton" discussing the meaning of a single word (the original is "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...). It's minutia of the worst sort. I suspect she's going out of her way in those 51 pages of verbal vomit to do a CYA because of the high publicity the case is getting.
Click to expand...
LOL. She is not the one involved and a Clinton like discussion of the meaning of a word. She is responding to the way the DOJ tried to change the meaning of the word "involved" from standard usage by multiple courts which is why she cites court cases contrary to the government's Clinton like attempt in discussing the word.
T. A. Gardner said:
Then on page 23, she turns what hearsay evidence is into a Gordian knot. She states "While the body cam footage--which is itself hearsay..." How the hell is direct video of something "hearsay?"
Click to expand...
It seems you didn't actually read the ruling if you want to make this claim. The only testimony to the court was presented by Agent Joseph. His testimony about what was in the video is hearsay. The court can only rule using actual testimony to the court. The court didn't see the video since the government never presented the video to the court. Then you don't seem to understand what the ruling is actually about. This is a hearing to determine wither there is enough evidence to hold a hearing to deny bail. The presumption is bail is to be granted unless there is enough evidence to show there is a flight risk or danger to the public. The video of the stop doesn't actually show there is a flight risk or that there is a danger to the public. Someone talking about the video doesn't show there is a flight risk or a danger to the public.
T. A. Gardner said:
The term “hearsay” refers to an out-of-court statement made by someone other than the witness reporting it.
https://legaldictionary.net/hearsay-evidence/#google_vignette

Does this stupid cunt really think the government can't call the Tennessee state trooper whose body cam footage they are using as a witness? She is out of her freaking mind there.

She's putting together every 'If' in the world to make her position. It's insane.
Click to expand...
Your arguments are ridiculous and only show you didn't read or understand the ruling. This is all the court is ruling on.
For all these reasons, the government has not, in the Court’s view, shown a risk of flightthat, by a preponderance of the evidence, rises to the level of “serious” to entitle the government to a detention hearing under § 3142(f)(2)(A).
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Then why is the DOJ allowing an illegal alien that has been deported 5 times and convicted of 2 felonies to stay in the US?
Click to expand...
Is there a rule that every illegal immigrant has to be deported? If you believe that, I support your position. If not, stop pretending you know what you are talking about.
 
Lionfish said:
Is there a rule that every illegal immigrant has to be deported? If you believe that, I support your position. If not, stop pretending you know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Trump said he was deporting the criminal aliens. And yet he isn't deporting them but is instead putting some of them on the streets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top