I half agree. I think the retards that thought it was a good idea to break in should be prosecuted, and I think Trump really acted like a retard, but the whole circus that's happening seems entirely performative and not productive.
If anyone should be prosecuted they should be subjected to the legitimate legal processes (though I would be concerned with that too considering the feds are well documented to be biased against Trump). It is not within the scope of a congressional investigation.
Another fact about the committee that I found very telling is that they enlisted a TV producer as an advisor to sell their narrative:
Yeah, that's why I said I half agree.
didn’t mean to be rude or preachy, just expand on my position/reasoning
Yeah, I think I agree with you.
No there isn't lmao, especially not when you're dealing with a hyper-partisan, hyper-contentious Congressional and/or FBI investigation; the only time that appearing friendly or likable matters whatsoever is when you're arguing for leniency before a judge during sentencing. Nobody, certainly not Congress or the FBI, is going to let you off the hook or decline to thoroughly investigate you because you're just a really nice guy. I agree that cooperation and honesty can go a long way for other, less notable subjects of less notable investigations, but there is precisely nothing to gain from cooperating with Congress or the FBI if you're in Nick's position.
Yes you can, and that's why he was able to. The statement that Nick was reading stated that he was declining to answer on the basis that it "might tend to" incriminate him, and his attorney explained that answering benign questions could theoretically lead to a chain of conclusions that could be considered potentially incriminating. Pleading the 5th looks bad to juries and an investigating agency can use that to informally poison the jury's opinion of the defendant, but that a defendant invoked their Constitutional right to avoiding self-incrimination is absolutely not something that a judge would allow to be used against said defendant under any circumstances. If pleading the 5th automatically presumed guilt in the opposite direction, nobody would do so and it would go completely unused. The Rittenhouse trial was almost deemed a mistrial because the prosecutor dared to even comment on Kyle's post-arrest invocation of his right to remain silent. Also, you're reading an article from an attorney's website, which is designed to scare you into hiring them.
AGREED.
I agree. I meant that in referenced to "never talk with the police" or "always plead the 5th." In this situation, they want to fuck you, so your priority is to get out without giving them anything incriminatory or breaking the law.
So you shouldn't plead the 5A to EVERY question. I don't know why you're overcomplicating this.
Nigga, you can either answer seemingly benign questions that could put you in a courtroom 10 steps down the line, or you can shut up, not answer anything, and hope that doing so helps you avoid being charged with something to begin with. If they have enough evidence to take you to court, theoretical informal jury poisoning is not going to make a difference when it comes to proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - again, trying to bring up that they refused to give testimony in accordance with their 5th amendment rights to a jury in the first place would almost definitely result in a mistrial. There is quite literally no reason to give any testimony at any point.
You won't get 10 years for answering matter of fact questions like your age or work experience. Nick answered few of these questions, such as "where do you live?" Stop spazzing out.
Seems like this documentary thing is going to be pretty big and viral. Should probably make it a Thread imo.
No. What killed the alt-right was the alt-light. The AR hit a hard roadblock with the AL moderates. Even AF was born from Nick Fuentes cucking on the ethnostate since he saw that policy position rejected by the moderates. Now AF is in the same position as the AR. They've hit a roadblock because moderates like Alex Jones refuse to love Hitler. The core problem isn't censorship, it's the messaging and rhetoric.
You are so very wrong. It was the censorship that was a direct result of what happened at Charlottesville in the summer of 2017. I guess you could say it was the wignats that killed the alt-right really. They are the ones that started to the UTR rally in Cville. Catboy Fuentes and AF hit a roadblock because Fuentes is a cringe inducing faggot. He doesn't believe any of that wignat shit he says. He says it so he can milk money from a bunch of autistic socially retarded basement dwelling wignat tards.
Even without censorship, there is hard limit to the message. Richard Spencer failed to convert Styx, Sargon of Akkad (who has basically become a WN or Identarian now) , Lauren Southern, etc. Nick Fuentes has failed to convert Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes, Destiny, etc. You can't blame censorship when you have direct access to these people.
That's the problem. You keep thinking the alt-right had a leader or everyone in the alt-right was the same. Most people in the alt-right were not talking about something as autistic as an ethnostate. It was a stupid meme brought over to the alt-right by the wignat LARPers. Spencer was not alt-right and he wasn't the leader. Of course, Styx and Sargon never converted. They didn't have to convert, and they were doing their own thing just like everyone else. But most people in the alt-right watched Styx or at least knew of him. It's where I found out about Styx. I knew of Molyneux from his cringey Libertardian days and his attempts at trying to build a cult with his deFOO shit.
