Donald Trump Jr tried

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by bgreene

Answering question with question - hahahahah that’s destroyer !!!
Spin it destroyer spin !!!

Answering WHAT question? What question did you ask me? Asking a question is not spin. If you can't answer it then just say so, instead of making one of your snarky replies.

.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

Answering WHAT question? What question did you ask me? Asking a question is not spin. If you can't answer it then just say so, instead of making one of your snarky replies.

.

Good grief Charlie Brown.

Anyway, this post thread about the FACT that trumps son and many others pleaded with Mark Meadows to get trump to tell the violent insurrectionists to stop !!!!
They pleaded because trump remained silent - WAY too long .
Trump jr likely pleaded with Meadows too because his father either ignored him or he couldn’t reach trump sr. Either way - his text is FACT and he’s not denying it.

Mr “ law and order “ President clearly PREFERRING the violent attack go on.
You know it, I know it.

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by bgreene

Good grief Charlie Brown.

Anyway, this post thread about the FACT that trumps son and many others pleaded with Mark Meadows to get trump to tell the violent insurrectionists to stop !!!!
They pleaded because trump remained silent - WAY too long .
Trump jr likely pleaded with Meadows too because his father either ignored him or he couldn’t reach trump sr. Either way - his text is FACT and he’s not denying it.

Mr “ law and order “ President clearly PREFERRING the violent attack go on.
You know it, I know it.

No one is denying the fact that the texts were sent. But you are injecting your opinion into the equation by referring to the texts as "pleading" or of the President as "preferring" the violent attack when in fact you don't know that as truth since you were not there.

.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

No one is denying the fact that the texts were sent. But you are injecting your opinion into the equation by referring to the texts as "pleading" or of the President as "preferring" the violent attack when in fact you don't know that as truth since you were not there.

.

I wasn’t there to witness the a bomb over Japan either - but it happened.
The result was clear and factual.

Same as what occurred at our Capitol on Jan 6 , who did what, and who didn’t.
Connect those dots as you choose and I’ll follow the facts that continue to be uncovered.

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by bgreene

I wasn’t there to witness the a bomb over Japan either - but it happened.
The result was clear and factual.

Same as what occurred at our Capitol on Jan 6 , who did what, and who didn’t.
Connect those dots as you choose and I’ll follow the facts that continue to be uncovered.

Hmmm... You know, I didn't witness the bomb over Japan either. But I've seen it many times on TV. I accept that it happened. As you said, the result was clear and factual.

As for the demonstration and the riot that occurred on Jan 6, I also wasn't there, but I've seen news footage and heard reports, and I accept that it did happen. Again, the event and results are clear and factual.

However, you are injecting your opinion into the text issue by referring to the texts as "pleading" or of the President as "preferring" the violent attack, when in fact you don't know that as truth since you were not there. Nor has there been any (to the best of my knowledge) video footage of President Trump sitting watching the TV while Meadows got those texts, so you don't really know what he was doing. You cannot substantiate your claim. You are merely stating your opinion without any proof to back it up. So your statement is neither clear nor factual.

.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

Hmmm... You know, I didn't witness the bomb over Japan either. But I've seen it many times on TV. I accept that it happened. As you said, the result was clear and factual.

As for the demonstration and the riot that occurred on Jan 6, I also wasn't there, but I've seen news footage and heard reports, and I accept that it did happen. Again, the event and results are clear and factual.

However, you are injecting your opinion into the text issue by referring to the texts as "pleading" or of the President as "preferring" the violent attack, when in fact you don't know that as truth since you were not there. Nor has there been any (to the best of my knowledge) video footage of President Trump sitting watching the TV while Meadows got those texts, so you don't really know what he was doing. You cannot substantiate your claim. You are merely stating your opinion without any proof to back it up. So your statement is neither clear nor factual.

.

Well at least you’re no longer referring to the trump supporting violent insurrectionists as a few who got “ rowdy” .

As for Trump Jr’s desperate sounding text plea for Donald to “ stop this Sh.t” it’s just more evidence of trumps delay to act - and by the way it’s already been reported that he was watching it on tv .

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by bgreene

Well at least you’re no longer referring to the trump supporting violent insurrectionists as a few who got “ rowdy” .

As for Trump Jr’s desperate sounding text plea for Donald to “ stop this Sh.t” it’s just more evidence of trumps delay to act - and by the way it’s already been reported that he was watching it on tv .

Yep. He was watching it on TV. And I'm sure that he was also getting reports from advisors as well. As far as I know, watching something on TV is not yet a crime.

Although the damage that was caused was minimal, especially when compared to the "mostly peaceful" protests that happened during the previous summer, I figured that riot was a better word than rowdy. Thank you for noticing. Maybe I should call it urban violence?

.