antman123

well, she started the conversation, i thought that was important to you democrats

wouldnt a participant and co conspirator be a little scared that his own crimes would be uncovered if he became an informant

no, just his stake in the beatles catalog was 750 mil. looks like sony bought half of mj's catalog in 2024 for 600 mil

wow, being better than that kendrick lamar disaster of a performance is a high bar. but we get it bro, you like the bunny guy, thats nice for you

"The law requires redactions for personally identifiable information, including if in an email address." now i dont know the law, but assuming that this DA does, did you just ignore this part

if you click the tweet, he says he needs the victims to give him the names, so apparently he was lying when he said a few months ago that he had the names

im guessing he was told not to do that, plus they probably had him on a delay and had someone ready on the mute button.

if only it was possible for one person to make one post, and then a different person to make another post. too bad they havent invented that technology yet, maybe one day

i think he just didnt watch the whole video before he posted it

you kinda seem like the one throwing the tantrum. if you want to know why she said it maybe you should watch the interview and get context instead of screaming at the sky because a lawyer stated a law in a way that you didnt like

And i am saying that you are the one conflating it, "any kind of protest that you want" is not the same as any protest.

Like i asked you earlier, if i said you can lose weight but you cant eat any kind of food that you want, i am not saying you cant eat food. Patel is not saying that you cant take a gun to a protest. He is saying that you cant take a gun to "any kind of protest that you want."

You seem to be ignoring that parts where i explain his words to you. Now, if you had posted that Patel should spell everything out that he says so that there is no way people can twist his words to attack him, then maybe i could sort of agree, but not really, since his words seem pretty clear, unless you are trying to spin them just to complain about something.

You dont have to use the gun while you are committing the crime for it to be illegal for you to carry it.

He was disarmed like a second before other officers shot him. But im not arguing whether it was a good shoot or not. I'm just telling you that he was not legally carrying once he decided to interfere with a law enforcement operation.

also rittenhouse wasnt illegally protesting, so even more reason that the two situations have nothing to do with each other

As soon as he started committing the crime of interfering with federal law enforcement he was no longer legally carrying, his type of "protesting" thus made it illegal to carry a weapon.

the fbi already had the files, so why would them being released to the public have anything to do with people being arrested. his bill and people being arrested don't really have anything to do with one another