not surprising. lots of cops will not do their job and give into their psychotic desires.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.
To do that, the pardoned person must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.
A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended ... A private deed, not communicated to him, whatever may be its character, whether a pardon or release, is totally unknown and cannot be acted on.[1]

United States v. Wilson (1833) established that it is possible to reject a (conditional) pardon, even for a capital sentence. Burdick affirmed that the same principle extends to unconditional pardons.

Maybe they were doing their jobs.

Why would undercover cops be involved in the riot in the first place. Seems a bit suspicious to me.

why would you think that?

so you're saying them and their bosses are in on it. Should we fire them all?

What's hilarious about this is all the kooks say this is proof that 1/6 was a setup to entrap Trumpers when it's pretty obvious they're just Trumper cops acting of their own volition.


And here we go...

You don't think it's suspicious that undercover cops are inciting violence in a riot and that they just happened to be in the right spot at the right time? And also their superiors didn't want the footage released.

So why haven't they been charged?

Because "something, something Nancy Pelosi," amirite?

Is that the best answer you can come up with? LOL

Try a bit harder dude. Your game is dropping.

What's up? As they get identified, they will be charged.

They have already been identified.

were their feet broken? why wouldnt they be able to walk there? I dont get it,sry

What are their names?
When were they identified?
When was the investigation?

Read the article.

I don't read Epoch Times.

lol Epoch Times. I'm all for considering alternative media, but you've got to do better than that.

They never have reasonable sources. Why would they? The ones they consume and share tell them what they want to hear. Typically they will make a case that who the source of their information is does not matter (regardless of how high on the derp scale), but of course extremely biased sources are pretty much useless as a reference, as their only functions are monetizing their passive consumers and spreading their fringy manifestos.

Overall, we rate TrendingPoliticsNews.com Right Biased and Questionable based on poor sourcing, promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and several failed fact checks by their parent source TrendingPolitics.com

I assume that most people like Brian James know that they are consuming unreliable garbage and simply don't care. If pressed, they simply point to some ****up by a more reliable source, with the implication being that we have no reason to believe that The Economist is more reliable than The Epoch Times.

That's right, when you can't refute the story discredit the source. Gee, I never saw that coming. LOL You guys are so predictable.

Actually, they often times do not bother doing that, as that requires some effort. Much easier to do what the poster did above (which is what I said they do in earlier posts) - they essentially mock people for talking about the derpy nature of their sources, suggesting the important thing is what they say, when of course an extremely derpy source will produce extreme derp that has no real value (except to those passively consuming that content as it tells them what they want to hear). Ironic that he suggests others are so predictable, when the whole situation is as predictable as it gets. 1) A person with a fringy alt-right posting history uses a very dodgy source 2) Others mention how dodgy the source(s) is/are 3) OP laughs at people discrediting the source(s) instead of accepting that source's hugely biased content. Not the hardest sequence to predict, even if some people can only see the 2/3 pattern instead of the 1-3 pattern.

Pointing out the unreliable source is refuting the story.

If it was possible to refute the story, how would someone go about doing it? For example, using public information, prove I wasn't at the Jan. 6 rally and instigating things.

Whom determines if the source is reliable when you do not know the source. Does it make it reliable when CNN says a reliable source? Or Fox ?

Exactly. If Don Lemon says it, it must be true.