- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Joe Kent just potentially derailed prosecutor case against Kirk assassin
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:30 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Nobody is listening to this Clown if he knew something, he should’ve said it he’s a fraud.
This post was edited on 3/24/26 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:30 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
This dude sucks a bag of dicks
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:31 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
That accusation could undermine the prosecutors’ case against Robinson.
In your own words, explain how his (stupid) comments would do this?
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:31 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
How would that statement undermine anything?
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:36 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
If he has information that the defense can use, why wouldn't you want him to give it? Are we not presumed innocent until proven guilty in this country anymore? If he has testimony that can prove a man innocent OR guilty, he should give it.
Nobody here knows what happened to Kirk. Yeah, we know he was shot, but nobody knows of someone other than the shooter was behind it or not.
I find it odd that you would slander a man who may be able to provide information in a court case that could determine whether a man lives or dies. As if we are just to shut up and accept what we have been told no questions asked. This is very un-American behavior.
Also, if his testimony does not help the man on trial, then what harm would there be in giving it?
People are jumping to way too many conclusions on this shite. Let the process play out. Both in Kent's investigation for leaking classified info and also in the trial of Kirk's assassin. Arguing for shutting this man up is concerning.
Nobody here knows what happened to Kirk. Yeah, we know he was shot, but nobody knows of someone other than the shooter was behind it or not.
I find it odd that you would slander a man who may be able to provide information in a court case that could determine whether a man lives or dies. As if we are just to shut up and accept what we have been told no questions asked. This is very un-American behavior.
Also, if his testimony does not help the man on trial, then what harm would there be in giving it?
People are jumping to way too many conclusions on this shite. Let the process play out. Both in Kent's investigation for leaking classified info and also in the trial of Kirk's assassin. Arguing for shutting this man up is concerning.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In your own words, explain how his (stupid) comments would do this?
“Joe Kent bad”
“So big bad it would undermine video evidence of tranny shooter”
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:38 pm to AlterEd
quote:
If he has information that the defense can use, why wouldn't you want him to give it?
Info from Candace Owens? Nah
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:38 pm to AlterEd
quote:
Nobody here knows what happened to Kirk. Yeah, we know he was shot, but nobody knows of someone other than the shooter was behind it or not.
How many times was Kirk shot?
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:40 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Info from Candace Owens? Nah
Who said anything about info from Candace Owens? This is a completely retarded statement. This man was head of counterintelligence. I promise you he knows a hell of a lot more than she does. And you know this.
Don't bring that shite into it.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:41 pm to kengel2
quote:
How many times was Kirk shot?
We are not here to litigate the trial. We are discussing whether someone is a "shite stain" for saying he would testify in a trial. Someone who very well may have information that is pertinent to said trial due to the nature of his fricking job as former head of counterintelligence.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:45 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
This is the hidden knowledge Bongino talks about. Always claiming something but never providing proof.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:48 pm to AlterEd
quote:
Nobody here knows what happened to Kirk. Yeah, we know he was shot, but nobody knows of someone other than the shooter was behind it or not.
There is 0% chance that kid acted alone. I'll never be convinced otherwise.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In your own words, explain how his (stupid) comments would do this?
Yeah, I see a bunch of twitter BS about this
How would this dude effect this case in any way?
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:51 pm to Tigerdew
quote:
There is 0% chance that kid acted alone.
Based on what
What makes someone susceptible to conspiracy theories when there are none
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:51 pm to Tigerdew
quote:
There is 0% chance that kid acted alone. I'll never be convinced otherwise.
I believe that's what he says he would be willing to testify to. And his position as head of counterintelligence should lend some substantial weight to whatever testimony he may give.
It's outrageous that anyone calling themselves an American wouldn't want him to provide what information he may have.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:51 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Based on what
That is what the frickin court case is for. Obviously.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:53 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Does he ever stfu? He’s on a mission to make himself a laughing stock with very serious implications
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:53 pm to AlterEd
quote:
I promise you he knows a hell of a lot more than she does.
About the Charlie Kirk shooting? I think he knows as much about it as most of us do.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 12:54 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
If he has actual relevant evidence, it should be considered. If it is not actual relevant evidence, it won’t make it into evidence at the trial.
This is not complicated.
This is not complicated.
Popular
Back to top


32








