Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
Updated Oath of Office for members of Congress and Presidency...
Building the case that Trump KNEW he lost the election (and that he started planning his lie BEFORE the election was over.
1. "The Trump campaign legal team knew there was no legitimate argument...to overturn the election, and yet President Trump went forward with his plan for January 6 anyway." -- Wyoming GOP Rep. Liz Cheney
2. "Mr. Trump decided before the election...that he would claim it was rigged." -- California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren
3. "The mayor was definitely intoxicated." -- former Trump adviser Jason Miller (when "the mayor" told Trump to declare victory even though the votes had not been counted.
4. "I don't know that I had a firm view of what he should say." -- Ivanka Trump
5. "My recommendation was to say that 'Votes were still being counted. It's too early to tell, too early to call the race but we're proud of the race we ran, and we think we're in good position.'" -- former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien
6. "Right out of the box on election night, the President claimed that there was major fraud underway. I mean, this happened, as far as I could tell, before there was actually any potential of looking at evidence." -- Attorney General Bill Barr
7. "Very, very, very, very bleak." -- Stepien (speaking of the chances Trump coiuld win)
8. "I didn't mind being considered part of Team Normal." -- Stepien (Team Normal were those trying to tell Trump the truth)
9. "Not the approach I would take if I were you." -- Jared Kushner (speaking about Trump declaring victory and telling the BIG LIE)
10. "The Department doesn't take sides in the election, and the department is not an extension of your legal team." -- Barr
11. "I told him that the stuff his people were shoveling out to the public was bullshit." -- Barr
12. "There was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were." -- Barr (speaking of Trump)
13. "The 2020 election was not close." -- GOP campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg
14. "The Trump campaign did not make its case." -- Ginsberg
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/13/politics … index.htmlIsn't this just sickening that so many people have been conned by Trump!!
About half or more of GOP voters have described the invasion of the US Capitol in positive terms, such as patriotism or defending freedom, and only a tiny percentage have said Trump deserves blame for the attack.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/14/politics … index.htmlRather than asking "How tight is tribalsim" one should be asking "Can a massive media effort convince a gullible public that something happened when it did not".
The ONLY instructions I have seen from Trump was to march peacefully, and yet this hanging committee desires us all to believe that Donald Trump masterminded a violent riot months before it happened. We will see, I guess, if professional media help will aid their lies."The ONLY instructions I have seen from Trump was to march peacefully," - You keep telling yourself that, it is the only way you will keep your sanity - believing in an alternate reality. They have got the evidence to send Trump away for 20 years if Garland has enough balls to prosecute him. They sealed that yesterday when they proved Trump knew he lost the election yet kept pushing the Big Lie in spite of it. That shows intent.
I saw the word 'only' and did a double take. When 'you've got to fight like hell or we won't have a country' isn't qualified in the same manner that 'march peacefully' is as instruction, maybe someone just doesn't understand what an instruction is.
Wait Wait Wait --- you said Mueller was going to send Trump to prison... Ho and then Stormy was going to send him packing, and then was it the AG of New York on taxes. There is more, but I will spare you the rest.
Trump clearly made the statement Wilderness offered. Hopefully, you are not holding your breath.You are making things up again,WHY? I never said Mueller was GOING to send Trump to prison. In FACT, I said the opposite - Mueller CANNOT send Trump to prison, he can't even indict him like he clearly wanted to.
"Mueller CANNOT send Trump to prison, he can't even indict him like he clearly wanted to."
Neither can this Jan 6th committee... And yes, Mueller could have asked the DOJ for indictments if necessary --- he did
Source of fact --- https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … grand-jury
And I think it would be tedious to look through HP archives, but anyone reading this conversation will recall all the many times you claimed someone would be sending Trump to jail.Is the Jan 6th committee claiming they CAN send Trump to jail? I missed that.
"And yes, Mueller could have asked the DOJ for indictments if necessary --- he did" -- "He did" what, exactly? And no, because of the DOJ opinion which he said he was beholden to, Mueller could not indict a sitting president. (Your Vox source does not address Mueller indicting Trump, btw.)
However, there is this:
"Lieu recounted the three elements needed for the crime of obstruction of justice.
"I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC (the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Lieu asked.
"That is correct," Mueller asked [sic]."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … s-n1033901
The Committee's next BIG reveal is linking Trump's illegal pressure campaign on Pence to overturn the election directly to the attack on the Capitol.
They have already PROVED there was an insurrection. They have already PROVED Trump was aware, or should have been aware, that he lost the election but nevertheless kept fomenting unrest with the stated goal of illegally overturning the election.
The House January 6 committee will use its third June hearing to make the case that then-President Donald Trump's pressure campaign on his vice president to overturn the 2020 presidential election "directly contributed" to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, which put Mike Pence's life in danger, aides said on Wednesday.
Committee aides said they also intend to demonstrate at the hearing that there's an "ongoing threat" to democracy from people advocating the false view that the 2020 election was rigged.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/15/politics … index.htmlYou forgot to mention that the stated goal was to overturn and illegal election (just ask Trump). Was that intentional, in an effort to raise an emotional response, or did you just happen to forget that small item?
That is the point that the committee is proving - that Trump KNEW the election wasn't illegal and therefore had corrupt intent to overthrow the election.
WELL FOLKS, it is finally happening, Trump's Big Lie is having a real world impact on our elections and democracy, along with being responsible for the insurrection - GOP county election officials in New Mexico refused to certify an election where a Democrat won because they foolishly believe the lies about the Dominion voting machines!!.
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico’s secretary of state on Tuesday asked the state Supreme Court to order the Republican-led commission of rural Otero County to certify primary election results after it refused to do so over distrust of Dominion vote-tallying machines. SCARY ISN'T IT (except to Trump Republicans)
The commission’s vote is the latest example of how conspiracy theories and misinformation are affecting the integrity of local elections across the U.S. Trump has continued to describe the 2020 election as “rigged” or “stolen,” despite a coalition of top government and industry officials calling it the “most secure in American history.”
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm … 7bc1ddc1b2Retired GOP Judge, who advised VP Pence,"J. Michael Luttig will tell the Jan. 6 panel today that Trump 'instigated' a war on democracy to try to retain the presidency"
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/16/politics … index.htmlTrump's loyaists are planning to rig the next election this analysis shows.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/16/politics … index.htmlDidn't you read what I posted about the GOP NOT CERTIFYING a New Mexico election. You just keep getting conned by right-wing media which omits things or lies.
CNN, on the other hand, reports on everything and tells the truth, so YES, "once again CNN", a reliable source.Have you read the Stacy Abrams alligations? She is still kicking her feet. LOL
You deflection sounds like you are minimizing (or worse, agreeing with) the GOP county election officials refusing to certify a Democratic win?
You betcha', CNN is definitely a reliable source. They are as respected and trusted as ABC, CBS, NBS, NPR, BBC, The Hill, Politico, and many other main stream media.
If you read CNN you would know some of the facts you are missing such as the Jan 6th Select Committee cannot put people, let alone Trump, in jail as you suggested earlier. In fact, you missed that there is discussion within the committee on whether to refer Trump to the DOJ at all.My comment, perhaps you did not see it.
ECO statement "Mueller CANNOT send Trump to prison, he can't even indict him like he clearly wanted to."
My comment -- Neither can this Jan 6th committee... And yes, Mueller could have asked the DOJ for indictments if necessary --- he did
Source of fact --- https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … grand-juryAnd my comment to your comment:
Is the Jan 6th committee claiming they CAN send Trump to jail? I missed that.
"And yes, Mueller could have asked the DOJ for indictments if necessary --- he did" -- "He did" what, exactly? And no, because of the DOJ opinion which he said he was beholden to, Mueller could not indict a sitting president. (Your Vox source does not address Mueller indicting Trump, btw.)
The danger to Pence was real. Trump knew the election plan was illegal. John Eastman wanted a pardon. Here's what we know.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/16/politics … index.html
HIGHLIGHTS:
Two witnesses testified at Thursday's hearing who advised Pence that he did not have the authority to subvert the election, former Pence attorney Greg Jacob and retired Republican judge J. Michael Luttig.
Trump was told Eastman's plan was illegal -- but tried it anyway - HE WAS TOLD REPEATEDLY (even by Eastman who concocted the illegal plan)
The panel tied the Mike Pence pressure campaign to January 6 violence!
Deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews testified in a taped deposition that was shown that a tweet Trump sent on January 6 helped escalate the situation.
"It felt like he was pouring gasoline on the fire," she added.
The danger to Pence was real as the mob got about 40 feet from the vice president
Capitol Rioters ‘Surged’ Immediately After Trump Bashed Pence on Twitter: Jan. 6 Hearing - It’s been well documented that people around former President Donald Trump advised him to do something to quell his supporters as they stormed the Capitol last Jan. 6. Instead, Trump made it worse, tweeting at 2:24 p.m. that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what was necessary.” The Jan. 6 committee revealed on Thursday that Chief of Staff Mark Meadows informed Trump of the riot before he sent the tweet, and that the tweet “immediately” caused rioters inside and outside of the Capitol to “surge.”
American democracy is on the lineTwelve Most Compelling Lines Today
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/16/politics … index.html
1. "He knew it was illegal. He knew it was wrong. We are fortunate for Mr. Pence's courage on January 6." -- Rep. Bennie Thompson
2. "He did his duty(speaking of Pence) . President Trump, unequivocally, did not." -- Rep. Liz Cheney
3. "The vice president's first instinct when he heard this theory was that there was no way that our framers ... would ever have put one person ... in a role to have decisive impact on the outcome of the election." -- former Pence counsel Greg Jacob
4. "Had the Vice President of the United States obeyed the President of the United States, America would immediately have been plunged into what would have been tantamount to a revolution within a paralyzing constitutional crisis." -- retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig
5. "There was no support whatsoever from the Constitution or the laws of the United States for the vice president, frankly ever, to count alternative electoral slates from the states that had not been officially certified." -- J. Michael Luttig
6. "I believe that Mark did agree. ... I believe that's what he told me." -- Pence chief of staff Marc Short
7. "Are you out of your effing mind? ... You're completely crazy." -- former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann
8. "You would have had an unprecedented constitutional jump ball." -- Greg Jacob
9. "Wouldn't it almost be cool to have that kind of power?" -- Donald Trump
10. "We were shocked and disappointed." -- Greg Jacob
This is a reference to a January 5 statement in which Trump insisted Pence was in "total agreement" that he had the power to intervene in the Electoral College vote count. Pence, in a meeting with Trump earlier that day, had made clear he believed the exact opposite, according to Jacob. So Trump simply lied -- because that's what he wanted to believe.
11. "Wimp." -- Donald Trump, according to testimony
Trump called Pence on the morning of January 6. It was, according to Ivanka Trump, who was in the Oval Office, a "pretty heated" conversation. Former White House assistant Nicholas Luna said he heard the President tell Pence that he would be a "wimp" if he didn't overturn the election results. Julie Radford, an aide to Ivanka Trump, testified to the committee that Donald Trump also had called Pence "the 'p' word" on that call.
12. "Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president's life was in danger." -- Rep. Pete Aguilar"Exactly seven democracy-damaging years later, the now ex-President was still at it on Thursday, dominating the political stage, his wildness and extremism still threatening to tear the country apart."
No truer words were ever written!!!The elements of proof that the Jan 6 committee must establish before DOJ can bring criminal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States are:
(1) an agreement of two or more persons; - That would be Trump and Eastman: CHECK
(2) to defraud the United States; - More on that later
(3) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy committed by one of the conspirators - Several come to mind. Two are Trump's attempt to get Pence to do an illegal act and the insurrection itself.: CHECK
So, what is "to defraud the United States"? Lot's of things, as it turns out as you will see in
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/cri … defraud-us
But of note is that one of them is TRYING to stop the function of government: CHECK
As one of the committee members said yesterday - the elements for conspiracy to defraud have been established.Trump and his trumpians need to learn about what democracy REALLY is from this 2nd world country. If former enemies can behave like this, why can't Trump and his millions of enablers?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/17/americas … index.htmlEx-Trump aide says Trump admitted privately that he lost the election
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … -politics/Trump might well have Georgia on his mind. He may be well be charged with racketeering in regards to his illegal attempt to affect the Georgia vote tally in 2020, stay turned. I might finally get this slippery serpent this time.
I had been thinking that the Georgia criminal investigation held the best chance of bringing Trump to the bar of justice, but now, given what the Jan 6 committee has revealed SO FAR, I find it hard to believe the DOJ won't indict him and many of his conspirators.
If you (or a court) can prove that statement is true, against Trump's statement that it is not, you might well indeed have him.
But if that "privately" was in a one on one conversation, one that was not recorded and saved. it will be very difficult to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that one man's word is superior to another's.I would presume that is in videotaped testimony (we will find out shortly). But she is not the only source of such information. If it goes to trial, I suspect the prosecution will subpeona everybody around Trump and ask that question.
Besides, the jury is allowed to determine knowledge based on circumstantial evidence such as multiple people telling Trump he lost. There comes a point where it is unreasonable to believe anything else.
Also, it is often true that statements between TWO people may be equal, it is NOT true that one person's word is superior to a dozen others. In addition, you have to take into account the know beracity of the speakers and Trump has proven himself to be a prolific liar. Only the very gullible believe anything he says."I would presume that is in videotaped testimony,,,"
What in the world does videotaping a testimony have to do with the truth of that testimony?
"Besides, the jury is allowed to determine knowledge based on circumstantial evidence..."
Yes, I get that. It is, after all, what this dog and pony show is all about, and why it is being done; present tons of circumstantial "evidence" without allowing any other view or opinion, until the viewer is overwhelmed and comes to believe it because that is all that is seen. I predict it will work, too - the refusal to allow any but negative assumptions, testimony or suppositions about Trump in these "hearings" will succeed and a political rival will be finally (after 3 previous unsuccessful attempts) removed.
"In addition, you have to take into account the know beracity of the speakers"
And here you will compare the veracity of a single statement from one to 4 years of political posturing from another and declare one is more honest? I really don't think that will work well. For me at least; bias is a powerful tool in deciding who has more veracity."What in the world does videotaping a testimony have to do with the truth of that testimony?" - First, most people aren't like Trump who lies at the drop of a hat. Second, it was sworn testimony subject to penalties for lying. Third, I have no doubt the committee has a lot of corroborating evidence.
I have no idea what you meant by the last paragraph, but what is known is that Trump LIES constantly and about virtually everything while the person(s) saying things you don't like has no known history of it.
I saw that Trump really got beat up today be Republicans and those he caused to be hurt.
I am begining to think, after today's testimony, that the DOJ should declare the MAGA movement and anybody associated with it a domestic terrorist threat. I think most who testified today would agree.ter·ror·ism
[ˈterəˌrizəm]
NOUN
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:
So would you also consider BLM as domestic terrorists? The protestors trying to intimidate the SCOTUS jurists? Those at CHAZ? All consider the unlawful use of violence and/or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims as just a normal part of their programs - are they all domestic terrorists or just any connected with Trump?I figured you would try to falsely equate BLM and MAGA. BLM protested - OTHERS took advantage and caused violence. The latter could certainly be considered domestic terrorists but not the former. With MAGA, on the other hand, you can't distingquish between those who are viiolent and those who intimidate from those who don't.
What identifiable group do those you are refering to belong? They aren't MAGA and they aren't BLM, Antiva, etc. either.
ALSO, you keep throwing up CHAZ - that is a false analogy. They attempted to live peacefully in an environment without police. A rediculous concept, I know, but they succeeded for a short while. When it proved to be impossible, the city shut it down. Learn your history please.Of course, BLM "protest" after "protest" turns into a riot, always due to the actions of "others".
But when a MAGA protest does it, the rioting and destruction is done by MAGA people. The looters, the building burners, the attacks on police are all by card carrying MAGA members. Sorry, but your bias is showing.
No, CHAZ attempted to take over a section of a city, complete with the residents that wanted nothing to do with them. "Peacefully" is hardly a reasonable term for people that refuse to allow any to pass, including police, EMS, etc.
And when it turned violent the city finally took notice and protect it's citizens who had seen their neighborhood taken over by anarchists. Again, your bias is showing.
The problem is not with MAGA folks wanting to see their country great again; it is with your hatred of Trump and anything at all that can be connected, however remotely, to him."Of course, BLM "protest" after "protest" turns into a riot, always due to the actions of "others"." - You seem to have a problem with people protesting racist white cops killing blacks. Why is that?
Further, not all that many protests turned violent. If fact 93% of BLM protests were peaceful. So you are letting the other 7% color your judgement about the other 93%.
https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/
MAGA doesn't protest, they seem to riot most of the time. But their insidiousness lies in the social media attacks threatening violence and death appears to what defines a MAGA.
Here, learn something about CHAZ/CHOP. The amount of violence during its short life depends on who you listen to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_H … ed_Protest
"The problem is not with MAGA folks wanting to see their country great again; " - I have no issue with that - IF THAT is as far as it went. But it isn't. To make "America Great Again" (after Trump destroyed it) they have resorted to massive lies, violence, insurrection, threats, intimidation and a host of other evil acts, up to and including some wanting a civil war. (ALL documented). THAT is today's MAGA."You seem to have a problem with people protesting racist white cops killing blacks. Why is that? "
Your recalcitrance (absolute refusal) to try and understand that empathy and understanding goes both ways, not just yours, is astounding. Nothing I have said would indicate that I don't accept protests - nothing at all - yet here you are trying to twist what I said into what it was not.
"MAGA doesn't protest, they seem to riot most of the time."
Explain that in view of over 100 nightly riots by the BLM in Portland, Or. alone. Explain how it is just MAGA that riots. With something other than "Well, it must have been someone else because we all know BLM would never riot even though most of their protests are violent".
Eso, you can pretend that CHAZ was not violent, that forcing anarchy on citizens of the US is not violent, that not allowing ambulances into "their" area does not cause harm to the residents. You can do all that, but you cannot pretend that it was not illegal or that anything they had complained about justified taking over a section of city, and it's residents, and forcing them to give obeisance to the anarchists.
LOL And because MAGA folks lie (but less than Biden does) you label them as "domestic terrorists". Not even your gross exaggeration ("insurrection") would suffice for that even if you could prove that most of the rioters (rioters, not insurrectionists) at the capitol were MAGA folks.
Once more, the problem is a 100% refusal to even try and understand their complaint. You'll accept that blacks have a real complaint, that their riots are necessary and proper, but never complaints from anyone connected to Trump."Nothing I have said would indicate that I don't accept protests" - I disagree. I think it is safe to say that you have never missed a chance to falsely equate the largely peaceful protestors to the rioters. I also think it is safe to say you have never put the BLM protesters in a good light or actively supported their cause even though you have had ample opportunity. With all of that as a reference plus the fact you are conservative, what other conclusion could I come to.
The actions of the MAGA crowd is what leads me to consider they may be domestic terrorists. Yes, MAGA folks lie less that Trump, but they lie orders of magnitude more than Biden ever thought of doing.
Insurrection is not an exageration, it is a fact established by the DOJ and common sense.
Besides Trump's army, the police, the Congresspeople, and their staff that was there at the Capitol, who else are you claiming was there?
How can I understand their so-called "complaint" when their grevence is knowingly based on what they know or shoud know is a lie.
I watched, on TV anyway, multiple black people die at the hands of racist white cops. NOT ONCE, did I see a piece of evidence to support Trump's lie. Why should I try to understand people living in a provable fantasy world who lie and threaten violence a lot of the time?
Holy cow, I don't care if Wilderness does beat me to it, that's nuts MyEsoteric: The organizers of CHAZ were just attempting to live peaceably without police?
Now that's some Master-level spin.
GAAnd I refer to you the same WIkipedia article I supplied Wilderness.
You may be right, if one looks at just right. All they wanted was the US government removed and to provide their own laws for themselves and everyone in the area they took over.
Just as you say Trump did, but of course Trump was evil and what they wanted was reasonable. Illegal, but understandable and even reasonable.
Insurrectionists, then, but it was reasonable where Trump attempting to abide by the laws of the nation was not. You do realize just how bad your Trump bias is when you take that kind of stance?You ahould have picked up that I didn't agree with what they did (I don't), but at the time, it may have been the lesser of two evils. But, what they had in mind was not evil, as you like to imply; but on the other hand, what Trump is up to is clearly evil, even if you refuse to recognize it.
"but it was reasonable where Trump attempting to abide by the laws of the nation was not" - Try rephrasing, that made no sense to me.
As to my so-called "bias" toward Trump. It is the same sort of bias that I hope you have toward Hitler, for it is born from the same reasons.
A "bias" is an unreasonable negative attitude toward someone or something.
Trump has given me, and every other non-cult member, all the reason in the world to think negatively of him. People SHOULD think negatively of him for he proven to the world that he doesn't have one redeeming quality about him.That's what I said: to remove the government by force, install their own laws (or anarchy) was not evil in your mind, but Trump trying to enforce the legal laws was. It's called "bias", Eso, and comes through quite clearly.
No, a bias does not have to be unreasonable. Of course, I find that forcibly removing US laws and installing anarchy IS unreasonable, you do not and make excuses for it.
"...he doesn't have one redeeming quality about him." Except that he gave the nation what it needed in more than a few ways. He understood our needs and attempted to fulfill them. A good quality even if you don't think a great economy, low illegal border crossings, companies returning to the country, etc. are a good thing. In that respect he has put Biden to shame, and in a massive way for Biden has continually taken actions that cause great harm to our country."That's what I said: to remove the government by force, install their own laws (or anarchy) was not evil in your mind" - If that were really true, I would agree. But it is not, is it? The gov't chose not to have a bunch of dead bodies around. Further, when those within the CHOP found out their "Utopia" wasn't going to work, the leaders either helped, or did not oppose, the gov't from taking down the barricades. That is not to say the criminals among them didn't try to stop it, but by and large the organizers didn't fight the gov't from reasserting its control over the park and a couple of blocks around it. Try reading the Wikipedia article rather than relying on your biased view of the situation.
" Except that he gave the nation what it needed in more than a few ways." - NO, he did just the opposite in almost EVERY way. There are only a very few things Trump did that helped rather than hurt the nation. He more than failed as president. He set the nation back generations.
Economy? I will give him credit for not destroying what Obama had built, although he tried in some respects with his tariffs. He bankrupt a lot of farmers with the decision and got NOTHING in return.
His border policy was an inhumane joke and ultimately didn't solve didly squat.
Bring back compaines?? Again, words not deeds and you believe his lies about that. The truth is this:
President Trump would have us believe that U.S. companies are flocking back to the U.S. from their offshore locations, “They’re all coming back now. They’re coming back to the United States.” Last week in Ohio he claimed, “…we’ve made extraordinary progress in reversing the tide…”. USTR Robert Lighthizer has proclaimed on more than one occasion, “The era of reflexive offshoring is over,” backing up the President’s pronouncement. The facts, however, indicate another story. https://www.goiam.org/news/departments/ … ffshoring/
What actions has Biden taken that caused GREAT harm to our country? - NONE come to mind. You make that claim often without providing a shred of evidence."There are only a very few things Trump did that helped rather than hurt the nation."
I understand that is your opinion...but it is not the opinion of a very large number of people. As far as Biden - it is at Biden's doorstop that our inflation lies. Biden helped produce the high gas prices we're seeing. Biden has slipped tens of thousands of illegal aliens into the country and refuses to deport any from the interior; aliens that we now must support. Now, I understand that you will deny all of these, but that does not make them false.
None of which has anything to do with the topic of our little discussion; whether or not you are willing, or even able, to get by your bias and try to understand those that disagree with you. Everything you have posted in this thread says no...yet we could go back and see where you posted that others should do so."I understand that is your opinion...but it is not the opinion of a very large number of people. " - Yes, that is sadly very true. It shows you how far gone so many Americans (said with the same meaning when so many Germans thought Hitler was great) are.
I hadn't really thought of this dynamic before Trump but it seems about 40% of any population want a tyrant for a leader. Using modern times as an example, look how many of each nations citizens blindly back horrible people to lead them:
Trump - America
Putin - Russia
Xi - China
Un - North Korea
Balasaria - Brazil
Maduros - Venezuela
Leaders in Iran
All of those leaders are cut from the same cloth and have massive amounts of people bowing down to them like they do Trump here in America.
As to my so-called "bias", I have already addressed that, Here, let me try again.
A "bias" is an unreasonable opinion about someone or something. Notice the emphasis on unreasonable - I pointed that out last time I answered you.
My "opinion" is clearly not unreasonable. Consequently, I don't have a "bias". I have a realistic reaction to a terrible person.
You keep making UNSUPPORTED, FACTLESS claims like:
" Biden helped produce the high gas prices we're seeing. " - No, he hasn't. That is right-wing propaganda you are repeating
"Biden has slipped tens of thousands of illegal aliens into the country and refuses to deport any from the interior" - FALSE again. His stated policy is the humane version of Trump's. The reason so many people are coming to the border is because YOUR SIDE is lying to them about the border being open. Biden has kept the border closed which is one reason his poll numbers are so low.It looks like you displayed your bias in your definition of bias. The definitions I found used the qualifiers of prejudice and unreasoned. Neither equates to unreasonable. If you found a definition that says "unreasonable" then it wasn't one of the 'first listed' definitions, which can only mean that your bias turned unreasoned into unreasonable, or, your bias caused you to search for a definition that said what you wanted to hear.
Either way, your denial of bias is false, (as shown by your definition of bias).
And then the capper: "Biden has kept the border closed which is one reason his poll numbers are so low." That's more than bias, that's a denial of reality.
GA"unreasoned" does not equal "unreasonable"? Interesting.
Show me the policy where BIden opened the border. I bet you can't.
- Marian-Webster: : an inclination of temperament or outlook
especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE b: an instance of such prejudice
- Dictionary.com: a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned:
illegal bias against older job applicants; the magazine’s bias toward art rather than photography; our strong bias in favor of the idea.
Unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group; prejudice:
accusations of racial bias.
The rest I found were similar. So, I say again, there is nothing unreasonable about my opinion of Trump. He has more than earned it.This chart should speak for itself. Biden has ignored the border problem, and (IMO) sent out invitations to migrants to make the trip, while he is in office. Not sure how you can justify the mess at the border... But that is your right.
I feel this chart truely indicates a problem, a problem that is being ignored.
Please note the decrease of migrants during Obama and Trump's time in office. They both tried to uphold our immigration laws to some extent. They were successful in decreasing the numbers just walking into the country, yet still gave asylum opportunities.Why are apprehensions high? Because YOUR SIDE kept lying to the migrants that the borders were open when they were not. This is on you, not Biden.
Prove Biden is ignoring the problem.
I can inundate you with Conservative messages that the borders are open while you are stuck in doing the same for Biden.The chart picture I offered speaks a thousand words.
Please check out this link it shows the financial burden that migrants are costing their taxpayers. With recession pending can we afford to leave these borders open to admitting any more asylum seekers?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state … n-by-stateNot enough words, obvioulsy, because it didn't explain that those high apprehensions are because the border patrol was very efficient at picking up all of those migrants you Conservatives lied to in order to lure them to the border.
Please check out the links I provided to you previously which show the undocumented give more to American than they take.
If Conservatives kept their mouths shut, then we wouldn't have a problem at the border to worry about if there is a recession.We had very few border problems until Biden came into office. The number speak for themselves.
Not sure what you're talking about with your claim that "Conservatives lied to in order to lure them to the border."
Please just view the chart I posted, the numbers should help you understand the problem Biden's lack of ability to solve problems has caused.
He has the habit of blaming others for the problems he causes, but the numbers on the chart tell it all. The flash card president needs to retire for the good of the country."We had very few border problems until Biden came into office. " - Which is, of course, not true.
Now, if you had said "We had very few border problems until Conservatives started falsely declaring to the world, after Biden came into office, that the border was open" THEN you would be speaking the TRUTH.
Sighhhh, once again you misuse numbers and charts. The charts DO NOT explain WHY the numbers are high. They ONLY show that the numbers are high WITHOUT CONTEXT. Did you understand that?
Trump should finally do something good for the country and turn himself in to the local police for crimes against the nation."
Sighhhh, once again you misuse numbers and charts. The charts DO NOT explain WHY the numbers are high. They ONLY show that the numbers are high WITHOUT CONTEXT. Did you understand that?"
My chart did offer context --- it was to show we have a problem we did not have under previous presidents. The chart is very precise and clear.
Never made mentioned or offered facts on what is causing the problem. You're once again accusing, and perhaps just reading into your own assumptions. As I have mentioned before you don't pick up context well."My chart did offer context --- it was to show we have a problem we did not have under previous presidents. " - Show me where your chart explained WHY the numbers were as they appear. Until you can, all you have is a set of numbers with no context and consequently have no practical meaning.
"WHY the numbers were as they appear. Until you can, all you have is a set of numbers with no context and consequently have no practical meaning."
I disagree. However, the huge increase in border crossing does indicate a problem. These numbers speak loudly that we have a problem that is out of control. However, offering my view on what caused the problem under Biden, and did not seem to be such a large problem under other presidents would be only my opinion.I would disagree that it is out of control...to Biden. If anything he would like to see LESS control over who crosses.
I can agree, that Biden does not see the border as a problem, and does not address the situation. The numbers grow monthly, and it seems no one is at the helm.
Again, Biden IS at the helm, and getting what he wants. A nation full of illegal aliens draining the coffers of US citizens.
We really need to clean house quickly. We have a good chance of doing this in Nov. and get America back on steady ground.
I predict that Republicans just had a major monkey wrench thrown into their plans with the abortion flap. That a previous court decision was deemed wrong and unconstitutional will fall on Republicans, right or wrong, and it is going to hurt them.
Yes we do - every Trump Republican MUST GO in order to save America from Trump and his defenders.
Once again you spread disinformation.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … tributions
Same comment back to you. Your partisan blinders prevent you from recognizing it is the fault of Trump Republicans like yourself.
YOUR constant untrue refrain is why the numbers are up. Your lies are so loud they drown out Biden's message that borders are closed.
Since you refuse to address the question of WHY the numbers are high, it is clear you know that it is because Trump Republicans are the cause. And in order to maintain your factless, unsupported narrative, you are forced to put a blindfold on.
Clearly you have no interest, for partisan reasons, to get to the bottom of it. All you want to do is cast unfair stones.
You got me. I'm not going to get into a 'definitions' argument. I would lose.
For example, you post quoted definitions that read to support what I said, and then extrapolate them to really mean what you want it to say. And then you want a list of what Pres. Biden has done to cause the problem when the more important list is of what he hasn't done to fix the problem.
Those arguments have been done to death so we don't need to repeat them. You don't have facts to support the points of our exchange, you have opinions. Your mischaracterizations are beyond me.
GASorry, I have facts and I guess we disagree on the meaning of "unreasonable" and "prejudice". Mine centers around "without basis in fact". Yours apparently does not.
My so-called "bias" (I call it observations) is reasonable given Trump's behavious and actions. Sharlee's "bias" against Biden is unreasonable as she can't support the vast majority of her claims with facts.My view of 'unreasoned' is not the same as "unreasonable." One is a condition and one is a position. The same for prejudice, you have to add qualifiers to get the meaning you attach.
Before applying either to a particular point, is that base understanding wrong?
You say a bias is an unreasonable opinion, yet the definitions you supply don't say that. That seems to be a 'fact.' One that I presented, yet you say I don't have facts.
You say 'prejudice' also lacks a basis of facts, but without qualifiers, to a particular reference, it can also be just a condition without negative inferences. You have to attach your conditioners and connotations to make it unreasonable or without basis in fact. I can attach qualifiers that could make a prejudice reasonable and fact-based, and still be a form of prejudice: I have a prejudice, for or against, something because I like or dislike it. I made that decision based on the facts that are the reason I like or dislike the 'something'. So it is a reasoned prejudice.
Is that prejudice unreasonable or unsupported by facts? I say that rhetorically because, of course, I think it is neither.
Don't accuse me of sharpshooting or semantics, or deflecting with minutia, I am simply supporting my contention that your twisting of unreasoned into unreasonable requires added effort. That you chose to use the effort that you did clearly shows a bias. On that, we agree. It is your 'facts' part that is the disagreement.
GAOK, I buy your differentiation between "unreasoned" and "unreasonable", but both apply.
The "bias" to which Wilderness refers is an opinion that has not been thought through well (unreasoned) and therefore is "unreasonable" to have becasue the facts don't support it.
Finally, somebody else who understands the term "sharpshooting".I don't recall the comment Wilderness made, that you tagged, so I don't know the opinion or bias you're talking about.
Now you're playing with me, right? A trick statement, right? Of course, your "therefore" statement is correct, but you are applying it to different things.
It starts with a contradiction. If something is not well thought through, the message is that it has been thought through to some degree, so it is no longer unreasoned and you're right, it would be unreasonable without factual support. The second thing is that your application addresses the unreasonableness of having such a belief instead of the unreasonableness of the belief.
That's just the long way to make a simple point. Referring to the Jan 6th folks, that difference in application makes a difference.
The intended message is that the mob of supporters believed what they were hearing. They believed the stories they heard: from the mid-campaign claims that the Democrats were going to rig the election, all the way to the claims leading to Jan. 6th. And they believed Pres. Trump's speech claims.* They didn't 'reason' about the things they were hearing because they already believed those things. You know have mentioned this before; confirmation bias.
Boil all that down and I think it is a fair consideration that those folks, at a base level, were not acting on knowingly unreasonable beliefs.
If that makes any sense, (it's certainly not intended to defend their actions), it would be a good starting point for understanding the "whys", which I take to be the point you were arguing about when I jumped in. They are more important than the whos(?LOL)," which is also a point that was previously pushed.
If you start with a wrong or shaky premise, (the 'unreasonable' application), you can only have a shaky conclusion.
*It's pretty arrogant of me to say what "they" were thinking. It's only my perception. It could be wrong. But it is not intended to be negative.
GAWilderness has claimed many, many times that I have a negative "bias" against Trump and that is why I say all of those true things about him. I responded by giving him the definition of the term as he used it. Then you objected to my definition.
Bottom line, I am not "biased" against Trump. I only report things that are true about him. It is not my fault that his own actions puts Trump in a horrible light. He did it to himself.We have one point of agreement: relative to Jan. 6th I also think Pres. Trump did it to himself and is guilty as hell.
As for the perception of your bias, I can only say that my perception is that your Left bias is clearly shown through the years of our participation in this forum.
My perception is that your claims of 'facts' are usually just claims of opinion*. Our exchange about "bias" is an example. You present definitions that don't say what you claim to be a fact. Unreasoned does not equal unreasonable and your entire point is based on your biased interpretation that it does.
*Not stats-type facts, but your interpretations that you present as facts. Those "Jake" comparisons don't draw from thin air.
GABut is my so-called Left-bias (I bet Credence thinks I have a Right-bias). Is it unreasonable?
On the other hand, is the practice of being conservative in America unreasonabl overall? I will argue in my book that writ large, conservatism as practiced in America, is not reasonable. Why? Because the practice of it has led to many bad, and in some cases deadly, outcomes.
Two cases in point that will be in the preamble.
- Removing viturally all restrictions on the possession of deadly weapons and their related products will certainly lead to many additional, unnecessary deaths due to people possessing such weapons.
- Banning a woman's right to rule her own body before viability of the fetus will, as experience shows, certainly lead to additional, unwarranted deaths.It is not unreasonable for you to have a liberal bias, nor for me to have a conservative one. However, I think the strength of yours creates a 'tunnel vison' filter. The rhetoric, hyperbole, and 'massaging' of facts are not unreasonable, (we all do it to degrees). But your filter seems to deny entry to any possibility that other opinions can be as valid as yours.
I have optimism. Our exchange has been fun and reasonable. You even ended admitting that everything I said was right and that you do have a bias and that I am Master of the Universe.
There's hope for you. Let me send you some pamphlets.
GA
C'mon bud, you know all that last part was a joke, right?
**To your other points, I hope they are wrong. I have to work on this. I'm conflicted. Of what I know, I don't have a problem with the Court's decisions. They ruled on Constitutionality, not the results that would come from those rulings. On the other hand, I'm pro-choice, so . . ."But your filter seems to deny entry to any possibility that other opinions can be as valid as yours." - [i]I have to beg to disagree. Where my positions seem appear to be as you suggest is because what I am opposing are wholly unsupportable by the evidence and facts.
For example, Wilderness maintains that that the attack on the Capitol was not an insurrection. That is an absurd position on the face of it. By any definition you wish to use, legal or otherwise, to say what happened that day was not an insurrection is just being obtuse. If you want to say that I think no other position is as valid as mine, I stand convicted because I have truth on my side.
More than once over the course of these many forums I have had to conceed that my position was wrong. But that only happened when I was presented with facts that I could not deny. That even happened in my analysis of gun deaths. A strongly held preconcieved notion I had was blown to bits by the data I analyzed.
As to the Constitutionality bit - I would argue they ignored the Preamble as well as the basic tenents of the Declaration of Independence which is supposed to be the foundation of our Constitution.
In particular, they laid waste to the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Their ruling, in my opinion, violated all three rather violently.You see, there was reason for my optimism. Your concluded your response was your opinion, not facts. I think your opinion is valid. I disagree with it, but at least we are talking about the same thing.
To the point about the invasion being an insurrection, I want to eat my cake and keep it too. I agree with Wilderness, and I have to agree with you—technically. The actions of the mob do fit the book definition of an insurrection, but the reality I see is that it was a mob-mentality action, not a considered and planned overthrow of the government.
I am aware that is not a factually defendable perspective, but I think it is the right perspective. There is always more than just what the cover shows. The technical "cover" of what I saw doesn't match the reality of the efforts under that cover.
As for your perspective of your replies, (you think yours are always supported by facts), no worries, that's what political discussions are all about. We all think we are right or we wouldn't be arguing about it.
Also, (this is hard to say), I have seen you, (oh so rarely), recognize corrections, so, as mentioned, there is hope for you.
GA
Evangelicals prove again they are a sect with no real moral principals. First they embrace a sexual predator and filanderer who has no moral compass - TRUMP, and NOW they cheering Hershal Walker who apparently likes to have children out of wedlock, Also, researchers found:
- accusations that Walker repeatedly threatened his ex-wife’s life,
- exaggerated claims of financial success and
- alarmed business associates with unpredictable behavior.
- he has admitted he has multiple personality disorder.
- that he stalked a former Dallas Cowboys cheerleader. Later another woman made a similar complaint.
- Oh yes, Hershal Walker lies a lot.
https://politicalwire.com/2022/06/19/he … ngelicals/This is becoming typical of so-called "Repbulicans". REAL Republicans need to form a true American party.
Disturbing video from the Texas Republican Convention this weekend shows convention-goers mocking GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw -- a Navy SEAL veteran who lost his right eye to a bomb in Afghanistan -- with the term "eye patch McCain."
Fox News' Tucker Carlson coined the derisive nickname after the Texas lawmaker dared to express support for beleaguered Ukraine following Russia's barbaric attack on it.
But apparently even more heinous in the eyes of some attendees is that Crenshaw rejected former President Donald Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen.
One man wearing a red "Make America Great Again" hat can be seen yelling in an online video, "Dan Crenshaw is a traitor!" and "He needs to be hung for treason!"
I hope those Trump supporters on this site are not that far gone and will take the time and good sense to trash this conduct as much as they trash Biden.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/19/opinions … index.html
It goes on to say:
As despicable as the behavior toward Crenshaw was, even more alarming were the actions taken by the Texas GOP and the convention's 5,000-plus delegates.
The gathering rejected the outcome of a democratic election, supported bigotry toward the LGBTQ community and imposed far-right religious beliefs on others by seeking to have them enshrined into law. And that wasn't half of it.
In fact, the convention showed us one thing: Texas Republicans are no longer hiding their extremism. Instead, they are openly embracing it.
Even before the opening gavel, they gave us a glimpse of the party's extremism in the Lone Star State by banning the Log Cabin Republicans from setting up a booth at the convention.
The platform approved at the convention called for repealing or nullifying gun lawsalready in place, such as the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prevents felons and other dangerous people from being able to purchase a gun legally. Apparently, the Texas GOP believes that even dangerous people should have a constitutionally protected right to buy a gun.
AND, as we have seen occasionally on this platform:
"Donald Trump radicalized the party and accelerated the demands from the base." He added alarmingly, "There simply aren't limits now on what the base might ask for."
I agree -- in part. I don't think Trump radicalized the base -- rather [b]he simply gave people permission to be who they always wanted to be[b].
This is a position I have taken on this forum - that millions of people living and voting in America are this dispicable. This kind of sick person is the reason why Hitler came to power and is the reason Trump may return to power.COOL!! Trump's MAGA propaganda media outlets keep taking legal hits regarding their support of Trump's election lies.
Dominion has won three more battles, the biggest of which found that the Murdochs may have acted with actual malice by directing their companies to publish conspiracy theories and lies.
The most significant legal development on Tuesday was in regard to Fox. As Bloomberg's Erik Larson and Mike Leonard reported, a judge ruled that Fox Corporation, Fox News' parent company, can be sued by Dominion "because Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch may have acted with 'actual malice' in directing the network to broadcast conspiracy theories alleging the 2020 presidential election was rigged."
Meanwhile, the right-wing conspiracy channel OAN suffered a loss at the hands of a different voting tech company, Smartmatic. US District Judge Carl Nichols ruled against the media outlet on Tuesday, allowing Smartmatic's lawsuit to proceed, CNN's Tierney Sneed reported. OAN had sought a dismissal on grounds that Nichols' court didn't have jurisdiction. But Nichols rejected the argument...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/22/media/ma … index.htmlSome think "Shaye" was the most compelling witness so far at the insurrection hearing as she recounted what Trump and his lies did to her and her mother. They were innocent election workers that Trump took aim at.
It is truely sickening what probably tens of thousands of MAGA [fill in your own discriptor] did to hundreds and hundreds of people who simply did their job and count the votes that led to Trump's humilation.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics … index.htmlDid you know that the Lead Investigator for the Jan 6 committee is a Republican who clerked under Clarence Thomas? So much for this being a Democratic witchhunt.
DOJ is casting an even wider net over those who conspired to subvert our gov't.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/22/politics … index.html
Everyone of those Fake Electors and anybody involved in organizing them should be brought before a judge.
(Now, if I were acting like a MAGA person, I would have said they are all traitors and shouldbe hung by the neck until they are dead, like was done on conservative social media about the members of the Jan 6 committee)
I wonder if DOJ will subpeona Sen Ron Johnson for his role in trying to pass a list of the fake electors for Pence to use.At least one Republican has been listening to the Jan 6 insurrection investigation. Hopefully more have as well. It is impossible to watch it and NOT come away knowing Trump is guilty of conspiring against the Constitution of the United States.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … ju-vpx.cnnThe bottom line of this report is that:
1. Democrats want to know the truth about why America suffered an insurrection
2. Republicans, even those who do not support Trump anymore, don't give a damn.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics … index.htmlNot to be glib, but is it not very clear why a body of citizens (big or small) rise up to the point of carrying out an "insurrection"? Just the mere definition tells one why.
A violent uprising against an authority or government.
This is precisely why America suffered an insurrection. We had citizens that clearly were not satisfied with the election results. It would seem they thought fraud had occurred.
Maybe you meant something else?. I feel the committee wants to ascertain if the riot was planned or provoked by others.Are you now saying these MAGA people were justified in attacking Congress?
And yes, that is exactly what the committee is trying to do - to ascertain why the insurrection happened.They were as justified as BLM or the CHAZ folks were.
But you have to be kidding to say that finding the "why" of the riot is why that committee exists. It is there to remove a political opponent, nothing more."They were AS JUSTIFIED as BLM ..."?? ROFL -[i]Are you trying to equate the murders of blacks by racist white cops with attacking the seat of government because of a lie?
Give me a break!
If Trump didn't do anything, what has he got to worry about? Do you think all of those died-in-the-wool Republicans are lying?
It seems to me only non-Americans would notcare to know what was behind the third insurrection in America's history. I suppose you opposed the Watergate investigation and the 9/11 investigation.
Another very scary headline as Trump Republicans continue to undermine American democracy - this time in Colorado where an Election-Denier is wanting to become their Secratary of State.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics … index.htmlThe noose seems to be quickly tightening around Trump.
- His man to take over DOJ, Jeffrey Clark, had all of his electronics and documents seized by DOJ.
- His coup lawyer, John Eastman, had his phone seized and unlocked by DOJ.
- The Jan 6th Committee has presented evidence to support ALL of the elements of proof for Trump conspiring with Eastman to overthrow the election as well as other crimes.
When are Trump's blind defenders finally going to see the light about this criminal they adore so much?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics … index.html
And then, of course, is the Georgia criminal investigation into Trump's ILLEGAL attempt to change the results of their election.Here's one for you MyEsoteric. I dug this up to beat you to it.
I watched most of today's hearing. I wouldn't call it a 'smoking gun', it was more like a smoking RPG tube.
GAWell, for ANYBODY who just watched the testimony in front of the Jan 6 Select Committee today should have ALL DOUBT REMOVED about Trump and Company's culpability in conspiring to commit several crimes against the United States.
Trump is Toast (and also a lunatic).NBC News Chief White House Correspondent Peter Alexander tweeted, “A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.”
https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/stat … with-trump
There is now doubt that this woman was truthful.
This is why we needed someone to cross-examine and call other witnesses to corroborate testimony. We need to hear from the driver and the secret service that were in the car.First - why are you NOW believing an "unnamed" source when you discarded ANYTHING they said in the past.
Second, what was Hutchenson not truthful about? That somebody DIDN'T tell her about what happened in the Beast.?
I do agree we need to hear from the Secret Service and they repeated again that they will cooperate with the Committee.
I find it interesting that the ONLY thing you focused on was what Trump may or may not have done in the Beast.
Why didn't you want to comment on the fact that Trump KNEW his crowd was armed?
Why didn't you want to commenton the fact that Trump KNEW violence was likely to occur at the Capitol>
Why didn't you want to comment on the fact that Trump sent an armed, angry crowd to the Capitol?
Why didn't you want to comment on the fact that Trump tried very, very hard to be with his mob KNOWING they were armed and had already broken into the Capitol.
It seems to me you are missing the BIG picture.
And you don't think the Committee doesn't have coorborating testimony for this and most everything else they have presented? In any case, they don't need to since this Republican's testimony is in line with all of the other Republican testimony.
I don't want to even hear from the coward Pat Cippilone. The Committee doesn't need him anymore. He will be forced to testify though at Trump's trial.
There is no way DOJ cannot indict Trump now.
Does anyone remember how many times Wilderness said there were almost no guns at the insurrection? And how many of us gave information to prove him wrong. Now we have the aide to Meadows who testified under oath that Trump KNEW there were guns and knives there and facilitated them by directing the magnatometers be turned off so that more of his militia can bring arms to the Capitol.
So what? What reasonable person would need more proof of his role in this assault? Then again, what reasonable person would have voted for him in the first place?
Seven takeaways from Hutchison's devestating testimony.
1. Trump and his chief of staff were warned about violence -- including armed attendees of rally
2. Trump intended to go the Capitol and pushed to do so until the last minute
3. Aide recounts secondhand incident where Trump reached for steering wheel
4. Cipollone warned (Meadows): 'People are going to die and the blood's gonna be on your f**king hands'
5. 'There was a large concern' in White House of the 25th Amendment being invoked after riot
6. Trump's conduct on January 6 was 'un-American' and 'unpatriotic,' Hutchinson says
7. Committee teases evidence of witness tampering
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics … index.htmlAt least there are enough sane Republicans in Colorado that reject Trump and his lies.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics … index.htmlThis is from BEFORE the Hutchinson bombshells.
- 64 - 30 percent, say that the attack was planned rather than spontaneous,
- Democrats say 84 - 13 percent that the attack was planned.
- Iindependents say 61 - 30 percent that the attack was planned.
AND GET THIS!
- 49% of Republicans are saying the insurrection was planned
IMAGINE WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE TODAY!!
That shows the Committee is getting through to Americans even though Fake Fox News is minimizing the testimony and trying hard to undercut it.
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3850Personally, I think that the large majority of riots are planned, so this is no surprise. Anyone believing that over 100 nights of rioting in Portland Or. was "spontaneous" needs to seriously consider rethinking how they approach finding answers to problems.
I suspect, to a small degree, you may be right, there almost has to be among a few people - but not to the scale and detail that this insurrection was.
And yet my memory only includes a single incident (1!) where nightly rioting was allowed to continue for 3 months. I can't recall but only a single incident where rioters literally took over a section of town, forbidding any government employees entrance. I can't recall any other incident where police watched as rioters piled fuel against a federal building and set it on fire.
That's the scale of rioting in this country today, and it didn't come from Trump. It didn't come from the right. It came from the left and local Democrat "leaders" that found it reasonable and normal. And that scale helped bring forth the few hours of a riot at the Capitol.It's just downright odd how some can forget or reconstruct the "Summer of Love". They can forget the double-digit deaths, the nightly riots, burning luting, and rapes in Chaz... The damaging citizens' properties. The billions it cost across the board.
So, odd so many are willing to concentrate on Jan 6th, when our country is imploding. It tells me some are very much able to be controlled by media blurbs, while some see very clearly, and are not controlled by media.
The human mind is miraculous is it not? LOLSome have become completely fixated by Trump, with a hatred that is or will control them. It is sad.
And some don't give a damn whether Trump overthows the government or not. They prefer to let (actually help) it happen while defending a criminal.
Now THAT is SAD.We have watched one Trump investigation after another, all fizzling out. I can't imagine what all of these investigations have cost taxpayers.
The hate the left has for Trump is palpable and Must be difficult o live with.Which ones have failed???? Not one!!!! The fact that you had a bunch of cowardly Republicans who wouldn't impeach Hitler chose to violate their oaths of office (which means nothing anymore to Trump Republicans) wouldn't vote to convict does not mean the "investigations fizzled".
How much has Trump's incompetence cost in terms of money and lives?
The Hate you have for Biden is palpable and Must be difficult to live with. At least with Trump, he gave people a very good reason to hate him.If the investigations did not fizzle then either a court or Congress declared him guilty as charged.
None of the 4 (including the current circus) succeeded in doing that. Ergo, they failed.In my opinion, everyone has failed. Russiagate, two impeachments, and now we will see what happens with this investigation.
I have no hate for Biden, in fact, I feel very sorry for this man. He is a pitiful human being, that has been used.The majority of Americans are disappointed in Biden Republicans and Demacrats. You have seen the polls.
I'm not sure that means that most of us have faith in other parties though. As primaries are happening across the country, I don't see Republicans or Maga candidates offering anything new or tangible. I am hearing the big lie being repeated over and over as well as the culture war issues. The fire and brimstone speeches of certain politicians are not appealing to me.
I continue to be absolutely bewildered that we have so many in this country living in an alternate reality of a stolen election.
I'm equally unenthusiastic as far as what I've seen across the political spectrum. The country is increasingly moving in a fascist, far right Christian direction lead by the MAGA candidates. As a non- Christian in such a state, this it's the first time in my life I feel real fear for what's to come at the hands of our elected politicians.Well, we have two parties. All is getting worse day by day in Biden's world.
I don't think it's the far-right moving toward fascism. I believe the Democrats have just become a party not many care to associate with their socialist views. Americans, like American views --- the Dema just don't share the views of most Americans in any respect. They went overboard with their leftist ideologies in my opinion.
But, hey, November will say a lot.Like Faye (who is living in fear in Arkansas) said, so many Trump supporters clearly live in an alternate reality.
Much here I can identify with - I hate lying political speeches and I so seldom hear any candidate offering anything new or (most of the time) needed. Political speeches are, IMO, nothing more than pandering to local voters in order to maintain power and position. I also feel that much of the country lives in a fantasy world where anything that happens must be good for the nation.
But I would have to say that I see the country moving in a marxist, far left direction of anarchy, led by liberals buying votes by catering to the idiocy of a few vocal throats. I ALSO see it moving to the far right, Christian direction just as you do. A terrible combination of which nothing good can come.
And, just like you, I feel real fear for what's to come at the hands of our elected masters in DC. It does not bode well for America or Americans - whether far left or far right only a privileged few will benefit, with everyone else paying an enormous cost."Political speeches are, IMO, nothing more than pandering to local voters in order to maintain power and position. " - No question about that, regardless of party. Part of the reason for that, however, is us. We let the extremes on either side so belittle those who make even the smallest mistake by blowing it all out of proportion.
"But I would have to say that I see the country moving in a marxist, far left direction of anarchy, led by liberals buying votes by catering to the idiocy of a few vocal throats." - an you give examples of where that has happened? Is it the Green New Deal that most Democrats reject? Or is it Medicare-for-All, which most Democrats ALSO reject. Or maybe it is wanting to save the earth from climate change, that is a terrible one isn't it. Oh, oh, maybe the marxcist policies you are talking about is wanting fair voting rights. Are these the liberal policies you are thinking of?I hadn't realized that Karl Marx was concerned about a green new deal. Or climate change. Or voting rights. Perhaps he was and I just missed it.
But ObamaCare - that's right down the aisle of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which does come from Marx. So does the ever growing welfare system - when we declare that half our nation is too disabled, either mentally or physically, to support themselves, well, that's Marx in a nutshell.
I'm surprised you haven't heard that quote from Marx; it is perhaps the most famous thing he said.Not even close. Basic healthcare is a fundametal human right. And while conservatives are content to let people suffer needlessly, and therefore oppose accessable healthcare, Obama wasn't.
Now, if the gov't had taken over ALL of the healthcare systems in the US and run it themselves, like in England, now you would a point. That is not marxist, but it is socialist (and no, they aren't the same). http://www.differencebetween.net/miscel … d-marxism/
Since ACA didn't qualify as an example, we are back to you showing some examples to back up your claim that the American gov't is taking over all major industries (socialism) and confiscating everybodies land (marxism). You might point to Trump taking over border lands to build his stupid, useless wall."Basic healthcare is a fundametal human right."
If so, who guarantees it? Who provides it? We have decided that anything we don't have, but want, is a "fundametal human right"...and someone else must provide it for us. A basic fallacy as nature provides only the right to die.
If you don't see giving people things they won't earn themselves (ObamaCare) as falling under that "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" then there isn't much else to say.The same entitiy that guarantees the fundamental right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness I would think. It is a function of being born.
And as far as your marxist maxim goes, it doesn't apply does it. The fundamental difference between you and I is you don't believe you have a responsiblity to the society that allows you to succeed and I do. Effectively, you accept welfare from the very fact that society exists around you and the benefits that come with that without any desire to give back to that society.Which "entity" guarantees the right to property? Is it the entity guaranteeing the right to liberty the same one putting people in prison? Does that entity guarantee life, or does it let people die? Fine words. Upstanding words. Words designed to stimulate people. But words without any real meaning as none are guaranteed.
If these "rights" (or any others you choose to label as "fundamental") are a function of being born then let nature take care of them, guarantee them, and provide them.
Uh...yeah, it does apply. It is not I demanding that others provide that "success"; it is you, with the eternal "It's a right and you must guarantee it, and provide it, for others!".If you have to ask those questions, then you will never understand the answers because it shows a complete lack of understanding of what makes the world function peacefully.
It is when an individual rises to power by hook or crook like Putin and Trump who lives the values you express is when the world becomes disfunctional.
I need to ask, are you a member of the Proud Boys or similar organization?And if you refuse to answer it shows that you know as well as I do that no one is guaranteeing them. The worlds proclaiming that they are "fundamental rights" are empty of meaning...except as a means to excuse grabbing more of what people have worked to produce.
There is a difference between fantasy and reality, but you don't seem to grasp that, instead simply assuming that your fine words actually reflect reality instead of what you wish it were.I have answered. What I refuse to do is waste my time on people who don't listen.
I feel the same, but I do sometimes get a chuckle out of your responses; they are so far removed from any reality that it is funny. Like pretending that the world has guaranteed health care for everyone because it is a "fundamental human right".
No, nature has given us the only two "fundamental rights" we have; the right to take whatever we have the ability to take and the right to die. All others are but dreams as those making the claims try to shame others into picking the the bill. A nice philosophy, but not one reality recognizes.There you go fibbing again, you do that a lot. Find might quote where I said world has ;b'guaranteed[/b] health care for everyone because it is a "fundamental human right"
I take it that since you do not think humans have a fundamental right to health care, then you clearly do not believe (or understand) that people also have a fundamental right to life and liberty as well as property (and happiness either.
In other words you renounce the very things that others consider the fabric of this nation.Perhaps you and I have a different concept of what a "fundamental right" is. To me, it means anything you (or others) might decide is a "fundamental right" MUST be provided if the person does not do it for themselves. This, you will turn over to government, as the only entity that has the ability to FORCE others to provide it.
Am I wrong? Does the government not HAVE to provide everyone with their "fundamental rights"?
The other part of the question, of course, is just what is a "fundamental right". It seems to grow every time someone wants something but doesn't want to pay for it. Here is a short list; is there anything on there that isn't a "fundamental right"?
food
clothing, and not something from a decade ago that is way out of style.
clean water
clean air
free education, at a minimum to graduating college
free health care
heat and AC as necessary for comfortable living
housing, sufficient for a bedroom for every person in the family. Must include a kitchen, bath and living area as well.
A "living wage", whatever that might mean to the employee.
Is there anything there that is not a "fundamental right", guaranteed by government and paid for by those that earn their own way? Have I missed anything? Is daycare a "fundamental right"? At least some entertainment - a movie or dining out maybe? Internet? Telephone? Transportation? Are medical drugs a "fundamental right", too? A hairdresser appointment? Cosmetic surgery? Transgender surgery should the person decide they don't like the sex they were born with?
You might consider these things the "fabric of this nation": I consider the fabric to be the people that take responsibility for themselves and their family, that produce something of value, and add to the country rather than feed off of what others produce.
As just an example, it wasn't "fundamental rights" that opened up the west - it was people providing for themselves, without government doing it for them. It was the interstate highway system, built by people producing something of value for the nation instead of demanding their "right" to free health care and all the rest. It was Henry Ford, risking it all in building a new kind of factory, not simply demanding that government provide him with all his "fundamental rights". THAT is the kind of thing that has built our country, that is the fabric of what it is, not people demanding an ever growing list of "fundamental rights" that others must provide FOR them.That is an appropriate 4th of July answer. And I have a fundamental right to say so. ^5
GALOL I wondered about that, too, but would never have guessed the answer.
Perhaps you really ARE Young at Heart. Or at least your keyboard finger(s) are.OH! Makes sense. Although raising your comment to the fifth power sort of means the same thing, so I was on the right track, lol.
Perhaps HubPages will grant that right, by leaving your post up.
Please answer the question. Do you think the right to Life, Liberty, Health, Property (all from Locke's analysis), and Happiness (Jefferson's interpretation of Plato) are NOT fundamental human rights?
You seem to arguing that.Does a man dying of cancer have a right to life? Does a prisoner in jail, or a POW, have a right to liberty? Does that cancer victim have a right to health? Does the man having the government declare imminent domain on his property have a right to property? Does a man that just lost a child to an accident have a right to happiness?
No? Then they are not "fundamental human rights", guaranteed to all, are they? As I said, perhaps you and I have different meanings of that term."Does a man dying of cancer have a right to life? " - Non-sequitur
"Does a prisoner in jail, or a POW, have a right to liberty?" - When they were born, yes. Their subsuquent actions will determine if they can keep that right (and where they live)
"Does the man having the government declare imminent domain on his property have a right to property? " - Sort of like Trump stealing people's land to build his idiotic wall. But I digress. Yes, they do but no right is absolute - even Locke said so. (I personally think our gov't, let alone other gov'ts use imminent domain WAY too frequently. For example, Chevez Ravine for Dodger Stadium. That was a travesty.
"Does a man that just lost a child to an accident have a right to happiness?" - Non-sequitur
"Does that cancer victim have a right to health? " - Of course they do. The fact they are sick doesn't diminish that right and neither should gov't actions denying you the right to access healthcare like you want them to.
Finally, based on your response - I can only conclude you do not believe in our Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. And, as a corrolary, you would have to think the part in our Pledge of Alligence which says "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.". SAD.Then I am right. To me a "fundamental right" is one that is guaranteed by someone, and cannot be taken.
To you it is nothing but a method of redistributing wealth in order that all be equal (as possible, anyway).
We have very different definitions of the term, and I categorically reject yours as nothing but wealth redistribution. Nice words, fancy words, but in the end without any real meaning."Then I am right. To me a "fundamental right" is one that is guaranteed by someone, and cannot be taken." - No, you are wrong. You never explain why you keep sticking words like "guarantee" into the discusion. After all, it has nothing to do with fundamental rights.
"To you it is nothing but a method of redistributing wealth in order that all be equal (as possible, anyway)." - Non-sequitur as well as being absurd
I think I have mentioned elsewhere, that studies have shown the percentage of people in America who believe in demagogues like Trump is roughly the same as those who blindly followed any of these other dictators, even after their decepidness has become well known like with Trump: Hitler (is the closest analogy), but also people such as Maduro (of Venezuala , Ballisario (of Brazil), and Putin (of Russia) to pick modern analogies.,
[Also, as spell check stopped working for anybody else?]I just heard the governor of Connecticut tell the US that his state will help any women fleeing oppresive states like Texas to settle in his state.
He also wrote an open letter to small businesses in those states who feel uncomfortable with the direction their draconian laws are going, saying his state will help them relocate as well.
Once again I have to remind you that emotional responses to presidential poll questions often have no corrolation to presidential effectiveness.
Often you know when you are doing a good job is when nobody likes you.
Once again - full of gross exagerations. You are taking one raindrop and turning it into a torrent. As I told Wilderness, ONLY 7% of protests were accompanied by a riot.
I see you are DEFLECTING again to something different than the scale of the conspiracy to overthrow the election.
"And yet my memory only includes a single incident (1!) where nightly rioting was allowed to continue for 3 months. " - Then you are recalling wrong and minimizing the attack on our democracy as well
"I can't recall but only a single incident where rioters literally took over a section of town, forbidding any government employees entrance. " - Then you are recalling wrong and minimizing the attack on our democracy as well.
Also, define a "section".
Further, "forbid" is a gross mischaracterization. Didn't you learn anything from the article I provided you?
I see you are back to making things up about the fire. There is no mention of police standing by in this article. https://www.yahoo.com/video/rioters-set … 33860.html
"That's the scale of rioting in this country today," - Once again your standard gross exageration (especially with the use of the word "today". What was it I showed you? Only 7% of protests turned into riots. So I must wonder what alternate reality you are currently living in.
"It didn't come from the right. " - Then why was the Right there, killing protestors and rioting themselves. Funny you should have forgotten that.
And those "few hours of siditious conspiracy" almost killed the Vice President of the United States and several Congresspeople as well as obstructed Congress - ALL BASED ON A LIE. That is a far cry from protesting against the murders of black people by racist white cops.
Mysogonistic Republicans, some of them female, are doing their damnedest to discredit the VERY believable Cassidy Hutchenson whose testimony, most of it coorborated, crucified Trump.
Now we have the added thrill of seeing some of these unAmerican, unPatriotic, unDemocratic exlative deleteds get tried for witness tampering.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics … index.htmlIt was said a little differently a year or so ago but here is a truism.
"You can't be a Republican who is loyal to Trump and loyal to the Constitution at the same time".My, my, isn't this interesting. Maybe Deputy Chief of Staff Ornato (a known Trump-like liar and disgrace to the Secret Service) had it right when he told Hutchenson about the altercation between Trump and the Secret Service in the Beast. Now Secret Service sources are saying Then-President Donald Trump angrily demanded to go to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and berated his protective detail when he didn't get his way, according to two Secret Service sources who say they heard about the incident from multiple agents, including the driver of the presidential SUV where it occurred.
Could that "anger" and "beratement" turned into grabbing for a steering wheel and choking his lead agent? Could be. In any case, the Trump Republican unfair attack on Cassidy is disgusting.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/01/politics … index.htmlI looks like Hutchenson's testimony shook a few more truth-tellers from the tree. People who know Merrick Garland say they do not think he can do anything else now but to indict Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/03/politics … index.htmlI am not satisfied with them not calling the two FBI agents that claim Hutchenson was not being truthful. They need to clarify her testimony, otherwise, I in no respect intend even to consider watching another witness.
Why in the world would I take her word over three others who dispute her claims. The investigation is tainted in my view.
I have begun to even have some doubt about the others they presented.They should also call the two Secret Service agents (one being the driver) that said Hutchinsons retelling of the incident was mostly spot on.
"I in no respect intend even to consider watching another witness." - Of course you won't, to much chance of haing your mind changed about Trump.
It was always tainted in your view, even though you have no evidence to back that opinion up.The fact is both secret service men that were in that car have stated, (with the agency also putting out a statement) That these men would cooperate and testify under oath about what occurred on that ride.
First --- Politico - "The Jan. 6 committee didn’t reach out to the Secret Service in the days before it aired explosive testimony about an alleged physical altercation between Donald Trump and his security detail on the day of the riot, according to an agency spokesperson." https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/2 … e-00043164
Please note an actual name of a human being and his title that gave this statement, not a mysterious whoever... "Anthony Guglielmi, the service’s chief of communications, told POLITICO that select committee investigators did not ask Secret Service personnel to reappear or answer questions in writing in the 10 days before asking Hutchinson about the matter at the hearing."
So, I would like you to produce a source for your statement --- "They should also call the two Secret Service agents (one being the driver) that said Hutchinsons retelling of the incident was mostly spot on."
Either has made that statement.
I consider your statement may be misinformation. Not appropriate to make such a statement without verification. Either man has spoken to the media. So, I will await your source in regard to -- "They should also call the two Secret Service agents (one being the driver) that said Hutchinsons retelling of the incident was mostly spot on."
As I said I will give those committees a chance to clarify and rectify her testimony. They either do this or as I said the committee in my view has lost credibility. It would indicate to me, that they are willing to let untruths stand. As they did in both impeachments.
They certainly did not question or vet Hutchenson's testimony and need to do so, before they move on.
Hey, believe what you please, but I have researched this woman's testimony, and it appears it COULD be untrue."First --- Politico - " - What is your point, why should they. They have already said they have corroboration of Hutchensons truthful testimony.
If those two unidentified agents do anything, they will contradict Ornado, [b]not Hutchenson!!.
Why haven't you posted this story?? https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho … -rcna36405
So who is more credible? Your unidentified sources or my unidentified sources.
"They certainly did not question or vet Hutchenson's testimony and need to do so, before they move on." - And what little birdie told you that?"They have already said they have corroboration of Hutchensons truthful testimony."
This is misinformation
WAPO her story was not vetted by the committee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … t-pay-off/
"Secret Service: Jan. 6 panel didn’t reach out before Hutchinson’s explosive Trump testimony"
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/2 … e-00043164
"Why haven't you posted this story?? https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho … -rcna36405"
The article did not offer any information that cooperated with Hutchenson's story as truthful. And the article made the very claim the information could not be verified.
I don't respect unverified information. I look at it as gossip to stir public opinion.
I would not think you actually read the article you offered, it certainly in no way contributes any information that would cooperate with Hutchenson's story, in fact, it adds doubt to her account.
My sources actually add names of human beings and don't add a disclaimer. You may enjoy these types of articles, but I don't. Disclaimers speak volumes, all plant seeds of doubt.
I have come to the conclusion you don't really read articles, that are offered. I offered very reputable outlets, and as a rule, I keep better outlets, I have come to trust. My articles offered a very clear representation of Hutchenson's claims and the fact that two secret services that were in that car are willing to give testimony about what went on in that car. Your article offers no names, and these unidentified persons do not in essence cooperate with her story. Plus that disclaimer said it all...
I have once again offered two good media sources that claim Hutchenson's story was not vetted before she gave her account.
Politico - "The Jan. 6 committee didn’t reach out to the Secret Service in the days before it aired explosive testimony about an alleged physical altercation between Donald Trump and his security detail on the day of the riot, according to an agency spokesperson.
In a blockbuster Tuesday hearing, former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson described being told that the “irate” then-president was so furious agents wouldn’t drive him to the Capitol on Jan. 6 that he “lunge[d]” toward the head of his detail.
Anthony Guglielmi, the service’s chief of communications, told POLITICO that select committee investigators did not ask Secret Service personnel to reappear or answer questions in writing in the 10 days before asking Hutchinson about the matter at the hearing."
Note name, Anthony Guglielmi, and his account of what did not
happen...
It is very obvious you believe unverified information. I don't. I find this kind of mindset a problem, in this case, you are spreading unverified information.“We had interviewed Mr. Ornato several times,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and member of the panel. “His memory does not appear to be as precise as hers. We certainly would welcome them to come back if they wish to do that.”
I suppose we are just waiting for him to come forward and speak to the committee again.Faye, that's all I accept. Those that were in the car with Trump need to be put under oath and fully questioned. All I have gleaned from many reputable outlets is that the secret service is very willing to cooperate. At his point, before the committee goes on with their care, they need to clarify Hutchenson's hearsay testimony. her first hand will now be under doubt.
I feel all the other witnesses gave almost all first-hand information. I hope the committee will stick to this form of testimony. I don't feel secondhand hearsay should be entered, unless well vetted.
The committee has not come forward to say what they will do. I find this disturbing. As if they will just move on, and ignore the doubt that Hutchenson's testimony has presented.
This says a lot --- If their testimonies did not match, why in the world did they present this testamony. I would think his testimony would outweigh hers. He was in the care.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren Says She Was 'Surprised' DOJ Did Not Subpoena Cassidy Hutchinson
"Yet, Ornato is reportedly now denying Hutchinson’s account.
“We had interviewed Mr. Ornato several times,” Lofgren said. “His memory does not appear to be as precise as hers. We certainly would welcome them to come back if they wish to do that "https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rep-zoe-lofgren-says-she-113721918.html
Oranato went on record with WAPO Claiming she was not being truthful
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ersations/
This would seem odd at best. I would think if the president became out of control, and did what Hutchinson has accused him of doing that this secret service man would not remember such an attack.
This committee has a lot to answer for.I guess you missed the first dozen times I posted articles like this. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-s … son-2022-7
Where is your source that said both agents were in the car?
Why didn't you report this? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/secre … utchinson/
Or this one? https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-s … son-2022-7
Or this one? https://www.thedailybeast.com/secret-se … lls-maddow
You seem to have been fooled again.No, it seems once again you did not read the articles you offered.
Insider ---.
"Neither of them said they heard about Trump trying to grab the steering wheel. "Like I said you don't even read what you post ...
Neither of them said they heard about Trump trying to grab the steering wheel.
MSNBC is garbage and in the end gossip.
You need to look for facts, not "I heard this happened".
I have more than proved my point."MSNBC is garbage and in the end gossip." - Aren't you mistaken and really talking about Fake Fox News? MSNBC is a well respected, although liberal-leaning news channel, and is trusted by most unbiased people. Only Trump supporters don't like it, or CNN, because they always report the TRUTH about Trump
The delusional trust Fake Fox News, those grounded in reality trust MSNBC.
https://www.thewrap.com/msnbc-and-fox-n … udy-finds/
So, no, you didn't prove your point. I just proved mine.
Like I said you don't even read what you post ...
Neither of them said they heard about Trump trying to grab the steering wheel.
MSNBC is garbage and in the end gossip.
You need to look for facts, not "I heard this happened".Are you asking yourself the question as to what does the preponderance of evidence indicate?
Do you really think that Trump played no role in the activities of January 6th or all of the plotting since the 2020 election to illicitly change the outcome?
With all of this swirling around him in a way not seen for any chief executive since Richard Nixon, is he innocent, really?
Can it all truly have just been "made up"?We are talking about what happened on Jan 6th in the car that was taking Trump back to the WH. I like to think when a Congressional committee puts someone's testimony in the spotlight for millions to view, they would have vetted it. This kind of act first, serves to slander a person. Secondly, it stands to lie to America... My God --- time to stop! this kind of BS has caused a great split in the country, it has promoted a palatable hate one could cut with a knife. All the maybe, and unvetted, twisted accusations need to stop.
Can we turn back and respect truth, look for facts, not maybe's?
Yes, there is a ton of negative rhetoric that swirls around Trump.
Stop and think, about how much was vetted, how much was proven ever to be true. But left to add to the list, just as now this Hutchenson woman unvetted testamony.
All I am asking is --- we stop, this committee vetted her testimony. Yet it is obvious that so many have just gone ahead and added it to the list --- Trump did this...
Maybe it's time to stop in our tracks and believe.in facts once again.
I never let myself become involved in hearsay, I am proud of that.
I think Trump did provoke Jan 6th, but he did not plan it. It is as simple as that for me."I think Trump did provoke Jan 6th, but he did not plan it. It is as simple as that for me."
That is ok, but as the President of the United States, I would expect more and can see this as an abuse of his office. His provocation of such a melee is inciting to riot and can be considered a crime. This, in combination with all the events that he was clearly involved in prior to January 6th, takes my opinion in a different direction.I am not sure if he can be charged with a crime. I am not that acquainted with the law. My better judgment says he can't be charged,
He certainly continues to say, the election was fraudulent. He continues to site different fraudulent events. I have not seen any of his claims proven to be true.
At this point, he still has a base, and may even run for president in
2024. I have never witnessed anything like this.
However, I can openly say (which I doubt if many would admit this) if he runs against Biden, I will vote for Trump. I feel they are both of the same Character, but Trump does not try to hide his past. And I feel Biden and his son were and mat still be on the take.
Between the two, I still feel trump will look out for America, as he did while in office. As I have said I hope neither run. We need two new candidates.
This country is going down, and I really don't believe the general population recognizes the seriousness of our current situation.
We need to get our sh-t together and fast.On the contrary he should be charged, I believe. At a minimum, he should never be allowed to run for public office again.
Trump, in regards to election fraud, has never said anything that would hold water. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, his words mean nothing.
You are a Republican, of course you would vote for Satan himself then to subscribe to the values of any Democrat. I say the same thing about Democrats. But if I had someone in my ranks that behave as Trump has in yours, I certainly would not vote for him. I could only vote for another Democrat.
Trump only looks out for himself, he has proven that on timeless occasions.
I can't speak for the general population, but I take issue with any single person or political party that threaten the Democratic system we have had in place for so long. Politics aside, THAT is the greatest danger."On the contrary, he should be charged, I believe. At a minimum, he should never be allowed to run for public office again."
I do believe if he broke any laws the DOJ would and will take the opportunity to indite him. Just not sure of the law.
"Trump, in regards to election fraud, has never said anything that would hold water. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, his words mean nothing."
I agree thus far Trump has not produced any proof of vote fraud. Yet he continues to claim there was a fraud. So, if we have a red wave in the fall, will we see congressional investigations into the 2020 election? In my view, I want to move on, I want new blood in that White House.
But am I being realistic, in light of what we have witnessed over the last 6 years? We see gridlock, one party in one out, and many investigations that work to keep us all up in arms.
You are wrong, when I vote for a president, I do as much research as possible, and look at the pros and cons. I voted for Bill Clinton, and I voted for Obama during his first term. I admitted I would vote for Trump if he was running against Biden. I gave my reasoning.
If I see two new candidates in 2024, I will do what I always do, pros and cons on both. You're correct I do not agree with the Democratic ideologies., nI did back in the '60s.
"But if I had someone in my ranks that behave as Trump has in yours, I certainly would not vote for him. I could only vote for another Democrat."
So, it would seem you may vote for Biden next time around. Have you asked yourself if America could withstand 4 more years of what we are seeing at this point? I think we are flailing, and need the ship righted, and righted very quickly.
I don't feel Biden has the ability to be president. I am not willing to watch the country go down under poor leadership. America could truely fail, I don't think many are realizing this. Due to the media keeping many concentrating on what they want them to concentrate on.
I partially disagree with "Trump only looks out for himself".-- I feel he does care for America, and I feel he had all of our backs, he accomplished a lot in a short time and was saddled with a huge emergency (COVID). I think he did a good job with a tremendous problem. Yes, I have always had a hard time with his character, but his pros outweighed his cons in my view. The country was doing so well under his watch, and I think if he had won, we would be in a different position right now.
I can assure you if we have two new candidates in 2024, I will consider both. I always do.Have you been watching the GOP primary debates going on around the country? The candidates running as election deniers/trumplicans are crazy as all get out. From Wyoming, the general display was of complete incompetence on the debate floor, with Ms. Cheney appearing is the only rational adult on the stage.
I'd have to find footage of the Arizona debate, it was even more pathetic and detached from reality.
Wyoming has a serious, patriotic leader in Ms. Cheney that’ll vote their will 99% of the time, yet they can’t get over her telling the truth about the election and Jan 6? These folks are going to vote for one of these fools all due to fealty to Mr. Trump.
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/stat … t-20220701
Arizona.
https://youtu.be/2ftSGWqNnc4I can see your point. However, is this not where we are. More Americans are leaning toward America's first agenda. Especially in red states.
I think they see Democrats as being actually anti-American, people that truely hate America, and hope to take it down.
Whether they are right or wrong I feel this is the general feeling in red states. And Biden's performance in his short time in theWhite House enforces and silicifies their views.
The left agenda is not saleable to most Americans. I guess you could say they liked America under Trump, and are more than willing to vote for any Republican that pushes America First. MAGA...
I find it odd that of late the Dems in Washington are using the MAGA reference as a negative connotation. I find it so funny because don't they realize many are very prowed to say they support all that is MAGA.
Yes, it is revolting to some Dems, but many Americans will vote for candidates that will be willing to keep the MAGA agenda rolling.
If you have answers to how a severed society can be fixed, please share.
Hey, who knows what will happen by November? We live in a pretty messed-up country presently. For me, I don't see any real solutions right now, and I am going with the flow.
I guess one can say --- let the best man or woman win.Well, i don't know if "more Americans" are leaning toward the Trump vision.
We on the left see Republicans as autocratic, fundamentally opposed to the Democratic process.
I see its leader as a grifter and criminal from virtually every angle. A man who attempted to overturn an election. And regardless of how conservatives try to spin this, this is what he had done. A man that spends 2 years claiming to have had the election stolen from him without proof. He functions at the very height of dishonesty. The Republican Party are cowards that shake in their boots when Trump's very name is mentioned. The very few of the party that have an ounce of integrity are being savaged by Trump sycophants. We, on the Left, are pro-American and do not want to sit by while Republicans gradually replace democracy with despotism.
The Right that says things were going well under Trump would say in regards to Hitler, at least he made the trains run on time.
Combine that with white and Christian nationalism folks who completely embrace Trump and MAGA if not the more moderate RINO and you have the formula for a Molotov cocktail, right here in America, today. These people cannot be my friends.
Combine that with a Rightwing Tribunal Supreme Court that plan to turn women into the property of the states, controlling their reproductive processes at will. A court that will permit states to post jackbooted thugs in our bedrooms, use computer programs to track down women suspected of seeking abortions and who knows what else.
Conservative rule will be a despotic one, and yes, there will be conflict here to resist such an outcome.
I can't go with the flow but must make water run uphill if necessary to get the Righties out of American politics.
Whew, after all this I too, say may the best man or woman win.
Yes, we are trouble, as a nation, big trouble.
The Republicans are abhorrent to me and I will support Biden or any other Democrat as alternative.
We have to make sure that Democratic voters "bum rush" the polls in 2022 and 2024.In no way did I intend to say more Americans are leaning toward Trump --- More Americans are leaning toward America's first agenda. Especially in red states.
Funny we on the right see the left as attempting to tear democracy apart, and truly hate pretty much everything about America, and what America has stood for.
"I see its leader as a grifter and criminal from virtually every angle. A man who attempted to overturn an election. And regardless of how conservatives try to spin this, this is what he had done. A man that spends 2 years claiming to have had the election stolen from him without proof. He functions at the very height of dishonesty. The Republican Party are cowards that shake in their boots when Trump's very name is mentioned. The very few of the party that have an ounce of integrity are being savaged by Trump sycophants. We, on the Left, are pro-American and do not want to sit by while Republicans gradually replace democracy with despotism."
I think from the moment Trump came down that escalator that the media went into "let us school you mode". So, it's hard to know what is true, and what is not true in regards to Trump.
I truely feel and believe more citizens at this point in our history feel it's time to put America first for a bit, while we deal with our own growing problems. Problems that we have had for years and gone unsolved.
I feel that was, and still is Trump's lure.
With all the different problems we are having dealt with daily by the media, I see more discontent in the average citizen.
I think we will have historic numbers of voters get to the polls in Nov and 2024.What is the America first agenda? Honestly I never really understood that. Sitting in a red State I can tell you from my vantage point what some of my neighbors and community members think and I doubt it lines up with your vision. There's a lot of hateful, racist and xenophobic sentiments. Mr. Trump's lure? It's those who are attracted to Christian white nationalist ideologies. I think most people on this forum are from states that are actually more liberal with the exception of maybe one. I don't think people are really understanding what MAGA means to folks in the backwoods of deep red states. It's not pretty.
I will agree some here (actually not many ) do fully understand and appreciate what MAGA represents.
I can't comment on what MAGA means to "backwoods folks".
To me, it represents a country that is governed with strength, intelligence, and common sense, and strives to make logical decisions that benefit America and its people.
MAGA promotes civil rights, all should enjoy the freedoms, and opportunities America offers, and all should share in the opportunities America offers.
In regard to globalization --- it promotes good relations with all Nations, respects other Nation's differences, and expects respect in return. To be good neighbors when needed, as America has always done. To pull our weight while it is expected that other nations pull their weight in a fair manner.
Strong laws that are fair, and expected to be respected, and followed; Good education, with all children having a good opportunity to excel, and be able to thrive and prosper to the best of their ability. A hand-up, not a handout.
It is obvious MAGA would have individual meanings to others. I do think you are correct, many do have a different concept of MAGA.
"Conservative rule will be a despotic one" - "will be" or 'was"?
"I think they see Democrats as being actually anti-American, people that truly hate America, and hope to take it down." - No doubt they do, but it would be nice if they could point to solid evidence to justify that view like we, on the other side, can about them.
" I feel this is the general feeling in red states. And Biden's performance in his short time in theWhite House enforces and silicifies their views." - But wouldn't that be true even if Biden was as perfect as Christians think their God is?
To most Americans, MAGA is synonymous with tearing down America and I don't think we want any more of it.
Me, I can't go along with the flow, never have been. I need to find things I am capable of to make things right.
Some day, I hope it will be a woman. We had a great chance with Clinton and had she won, American would be in a much, much better place with hundreds of thousand of more Americans alive, that aren't now because of the choice America made in 2016.
I haven't, you must have a stronger stomach than I do.
These are the charges, at the moment, the DOJ has to choose from:
1. Obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress
2. Conspiracy to defraud the United States
3. Seditious conspiracy (On the 12rh, we will see if the Committee can tie Trump to the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys enough to warrent this charge)
4. Wire fraud (from his fund raising activity)
Personally, I think the committee has presented enough irrefutable evidence to meet all of the elements of proof for 1, 2, and 4.
What can the Altanta DA charge Trump with?
1. Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud;
2. Intentional interference with performance of election duties;
3. Conspiracy to commit election fraud; criminal solicitation; and
4. State RICO violations
Not enough has been reported that I have read to determine what evidence the DA has to charge him with these state crimes.
Also. Trump's toady, Sen Lindsey Graham has been subpeonaed by the Atlanta DA and is going to fight this criminal subpeona. On what grounds, nobody knows, but he will try to make fool of himself in any event. Further, I wouldn't be surprised that he doesn't end up as a target of this investigation.
"ave you asked yourself if America could withstand 4 more years of what we are seeing at this point? " - That is a legitimate question to ask about Trump, and we know the answer is no. There is extremely little foundation to ask that about Biden. Having said that, and since you asked, America could easily withstand four more years of Biden and be even better off for it, more so than we already are.
"I feel he does care for America, and I feel he had all of our backs, he accomplished a lot in a short time and was saddled with a huge emergency (COVID). " - You keep saying that but never offer any substantive evidence to back that up other than getting the vaccines off the ground. And Yes, Trump was saddled with the pandemic, yet you never say he made it much worse (which EVERYBODY but Trump supporters say is true, including your polls).
Boy, Sharlee must really hate America if she would vote for Trump after all she knows about him.
It is also clear from her absolute silence that she simply doesn't understand the danger America is in.She speaks alright, it is simply a danger that conservatives are taught to ignore in favor of the "strongman" taking control by whatever means necessary. I, for one, am not impressed by politicians who break the rules, regardless of the rationale.
I wouldn't vote for a Democrat who had Trump's record.Let me remind you --- I said I would vote for Trump if Biden was the Dem candidate.
I also said if we have new candidates I will look at both as I do every presidential election.
I realize you have a problem following conversations, as well as context. Hopefully, this clarifies my comment.
I will be voting for Trump if Biden runs --- take that to the bank
This is the permalink to the conversation Cred and I were having where I did explain my sentiment in regards to voting, how I come to choose a candidate, and why I would vote for Trump if he ran against Boden in 2024.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4252763
Who came up with the Big Lie? - Trump
Who perpetuated the Big Lie? - Trump
Who sent his lawyers to make false legal filings about a stolen election? - Trump
Who called all of those protestors to the Mall? - Trump
Whose minions carried out his biddings? - Trump's
Who sent his militia to the Capitol? - Trump
Who wanted to lead his militia into battle at the Capitol? - Trump
Yeah, he planned it alrightWho didn't have a militia to send to the Capitol? Trump.
Yet he planned it all. Did a pretty poor job, didn't he? Sending in the militia he didn't have without even arming them, let alone training them.
Exaggerations do nothing for your case. Except, of course, make it that much more unbelievable.What do you call the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the 3%ers? Cub Scouts? ROFL.
Then there are the thousands that responded to his call to arms and, as it turns out, bringing a lot of them. (Of course, I suppose you are not going call a flag pole with a knife fitted on the end a weapon)
No, he didn't do a "pretty poor job". It almost succeeded. And if it weren't for the heroic police on that day, they would have succeeded in killing Pence and a few Congresspeople.
And, what exaggerations. Decribing reality is not an exageration in our world, only in yours.
I am for TRUTH, no matter who tells it. I'm for JUSTICE, no matter who it is for or against. I am a human being, first and formost, and as such I'm for whoever and whatever benifits humanity as a whole.
Who said this? Trump, the Pope, or Malcolm X? Do you subscribe to this sentiment?"I’ve had enough of someone else’s propaganda..."
Malcolm X
I subscribe wholeheartedly.
Until the Hutchison bombshell at the Jan 6 committee hearing last month, the investigation most likely to lead to a Trump indictment was from the Fulton County, GA DA. She is hold a special grand jury looking into Trump's attempt to overturn the Georgia results.
The Grand Jury just sobpoenaed Sen Lindsey (always changing my story) Graham, Rudy (the disgraced America's mayor) Giuliani, John Eastman, and other Trump lawyers involved in pushing his Big Lie.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/05/politics … index.htmlOh my, another investigation --- go figure. Hopefully, you are not holding your breath all these many years and investigations went south.
I reminisce with the fond memory of you feeling Mueller would put Trump in stripes... And then the two failed impeachments. Let's not forget the big New York investigations. I will say you never give on.Shaking my head with a wry smile at how obtuse people can be.
Another aspect of the Republican coup on America - destroying voting rights and sending them back to the 1800s
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/05/politics … index.htmlBoris Johnson, the Trump-lite PM of England, has resigned (for some of the same reasons Trump is involved with - sex scandals). Now the next that needs to fall is Orban of Hungary.
https://www.cnn.com/uk/live-news/uk-bor … index.htmlHere is a minute-by-minute accounting of what took place on Jan 6, 2021, another day that will live in infamy as the President of the United States desperately tries to cling to power. It is something that the Trump cult members on this forum will ignore and deny every happening, but the rest of the world knows as an attempted coup of the United States.
This is for those who read this forum but do not comment.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/10/politics … index.html
HIGHLIGHTS
Before 10 a.m.
White House deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato informs Trump that authorities at the Ellipse, where Trump was going to hold a rally, encountered attendees with weapons, including pistols, rifles, bear spray and spears, according to Hutchinson's testimony.
10:47 a.m.
Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani begins his speech at the Ellipse rally, urges lawmakers to overturn the election, and tells the crowd, "let's have trial by combat." (NOTE - Trump didn't correct that!)
Before 12 p.m.
Trump tells his staff to "take the f***ing mags away," referring to the metal detectors at the security line for his Ellipse rally, because the rallygoers were "not here to hurt me,"
Around 1 p.m.
Pro-Trump rioters -- including members of the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group -- overrun the first set of barriers outside the Capitol and start rushing toward the building. Top White House staffers, including Meadows, are quickly alerted by the US Secret Service that the police lines are collapsing at the Capitol,
1:19 p.m.
Trump arrives back at the White House. - After sending the rest of the crowd to the Capitol - 19 minutes after knowing the attack was in progress
Around 2 p.m.
The Capitol goes on lockdown as some of the first rioters breach the building. Back at the White House, the White House Counsel Cipollone tells Meadows that Trump needs to take action to stop the riot, and that "something needs to be done or people are going to die," - 60 minutes after knowing the attack was in progress
Around 2:15 p.m.
At the White House, Cipollone again tells Meadows that Trump should intervene. Meadows responds by saying Trump "doesn't want to do anything" about the riot and that Trump agrees with the rioters who were calling for Pence to be hanged, - 75 minutes after knowing the attack was in progress and Trump STILL does NOTHING
2:24 p.m. to 2:32 p.m. - Multiple Trump cult members text Meadows to tell Trump to stop the attack
2:38 p.m.
Trump tweets that the rioters should "stay peaceful," but doesn't tell them to leave the Capitol. - 98 minutes after knowing the attack was in progress and Trump STILL does NEXT to NOTHING
Around 2:45 p.m.
Pro-Trump rioters invade the Senate floor and break into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office. - 105 minutes after knowing the attack was in progress and Trump continues to do NEXT to NOTHING
Sometime before 3 p.m.
Trump speaks on the phone with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who pleads with Trump to call off the mob, but Trump takes the side of the rioters, - 120 minutes after knowing the attack was in progress and Trump continues to do NEXT to NOTHING
3:13 p.m.
Trump tweets that his supporters at the Capitol should "remain peaceful," but again doesn't tell them to leave the premises. - 133 minutes after knowing the attack was in progress and Trump continues to do NEXT to NOTHING
4:15 p.m.
Biden delivers a televised address, saying Capitol attack "borders on sedition," and calling on Trump to tell his supporters to put "an end to this siege." - It no longer "borders" on sedition. We now know it WAS sedition.
4:17 p.m.
Trump tweets out a video, where he tells the rioters that "you have to go home now," but he also praises them and repeats the lie that fueled the attack itself -- that the 2020 election was stolen. - 197 minutes after knowing the attack was in progress and Trump FINALLY, but weakly, tells the insurrectionists to go home.
6:01 p.m.
Trump tweets that "these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots." - 4 hours and 1 minute after Trump knew the Capitol was under attack by his forces, he is STILL justifying the insurrection.
And after all of this, the TRUMP CULT will continue to deny the insurrection even happened and will continue to justify the assault on America.One final one -
Around 8 p.m.
US Capitol Police announces that the Capitol building is secure. the Senate reconvenes, and Pence returns to the dais, saying, "To those who wreaked havoc in our capitol today, you did not win." Sen. Mitch McConnell, the chamber's top Republican, calls the events of the day a "failed insurrection."
More Right-Wing assassinations - this time in Brazil where Trump-like Bolansaro is trying to cling to power.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 … the-world/(CNN) - The January 6 committee plans to show at its hearing Tuesday how right-wing extremist groups including the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers prepared to attack the US Capitol in the days leading up to January 6, 2021 -- and the groups' ties to Donald Trump associates, including Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, according to committee aides.
This should complete the loop with Thursday's sessions tying it all together and bringing it straight to Trump as the Godfather of it all.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/12/politics … index.htmlWell, the "Godfather" is at again - trying to intimidate witnesses. It seems Trump tried to call a witness that has not been made public yet not too long after Hutchinson testified. The witness would not take the call but told their lawyer about it.
The lawyer contacted the committee.
The committee turned it over to DOJ.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/12/politics … index.htmlYep, the great unwashed brainwashed are still brainwashed.
I wasn't able to watch the hearing, but in reading and listening to the analysis, there was apparently no "smoking gun" (not including the witness intimidation) that specifically shows Trump actually told somebody to send the extremists to physically attack Congress.
That he did, there is no question in mind, but the people who know won't talk to the committee. That said, DOJ certainly has enough to start an investigation and subpoena people like Bannon, Meadows, Stone, Flynn and others. Those are subpoena's they cannot ignore. While they can take the fifth, which admits guilt, they cannot lie because too many other people know the truth.
What did come out as a fact is that 1)Trump knew what he was doing was illegal, 2) that he lost the election, and that Pence had no legal authority to do what Trump ordered him to.ANALISIS
(CNN) As their final act nears, the House January 6 hearings have evolved from documenting a stain on history to warning of a violent and tyrannical future that awaits if Donald Trump is allowed to again unleash America's pent-up extremism.
This is certainly what we are facing with Trump as seen by what I take to be an ex-member of one of militia groups that answered Trump's Call to Arms.
"What else is he going to do if he gets elected again?" former Oath Keepers spokesman Jason Van Tatenhove asked during testimony in which he warned that the ex-President would "whip up a civil war among his followers, using lies and deceit" if he launches another campaign for the White House in 2024.
For those Trump cult members who don't actually prefer to see this happen, they will take their collective heads out of the sand and look around at what use to be America and say "I never say it coming."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/13/politics … index.htmlJanuary 6th rally organizer Dustin Stockton about his concerns in the lead up to the insurrection, and interference from former President Donald Trump's administration in his efforts to speak to the press in the aftermath.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC_NWBL1ZwIConservative Republicans who are NOT part of Trump's cult release their report about Trump's Big Lie. In it they say one of the main militia members just said that had they known Trump was lying to them, they wouldn't have heeded his call to arms.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/14/politics … index.html
The title is:
LOST, NOT STOLEN:
The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden
Won the 2020 Presidential Election
BY:
Senator John Danforth
Benjamin Ginsberg
The Honorable Thomas B. Griffith
David Hoppe
The Honorable J. Michael Luttig
The Honorable Michael W. McConnell
The Honorable Theodore B. Olson
Senator Gordon H. Smith
https://lostnotstolen.org//wp-content/u … y-2022.pdfWOW, just WOW. Secret Service deletes texts!!!! Not any texts mind you, but texts from Jan 5th and 6th !!!!!!!!!!! Making it EVEN WORSE is they were "deleted" shortly AFTER the Committee asked for them. I wonder if Tony Ornato, Trump's favorite agent. What is the Secret Service hiding.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/14/politics … index.html
And now the KICKER for those of you who said OR IMPLIED Hutchinson was lying about what she was told about Trump's insane actions in the limo. A metro police officer comes forward and adds corroboration to her testimony under oath. I wonder if you will watch the hearings now?
Further, those mysterious agents that some people here say will contradict Hutchinson are refusing the Committee's invitation to talk. At the same time, the Committee is in discussions with the driver of the limo to tell what he saw. Why is he fighting it?
Don't all of these doubters feel like fools now?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/14/politics … index.htmlIt hadn't occurred to me that Trump could have corrupted the Secret Service like he did DOJ and so many other Departments, but it sure is starting to smell like he did.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/15/politics … index.html(CNN) Prosecutors want the first US Capitol rioter convicted by a jury to spend 15 years behind bars -- nearly a decade longer than the most severe sentence a rioter has received so far.
In a court filing Friday, the prosecutors said Guy Reffitt, a Texas father and member of the right-wing militia the Three Percenters, should spend significant time in jail because he brought two guns to Washington, DC, guided the mob forward and planned for more violence after January 6, 2021.
"Initiated by the most fervent smaller groups and individuals within the crowd — individuals like Reffitt — and using the mob itself as a cloak for their actions, each blow helped the crowd penetrate further into the United States Capitol Police's defenses until the building itself was accessible and its occupants were at risk," prosecutors wrote.[/i]
He should get 20 years, the prosecutors are being nice. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/15/politics … index.html
Related Discussions
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 6 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 10 months ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 20 months ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 246
President Obama and his administration spied on President elect Trump?
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...Why is this not headline news?
- 19
Manafort to Cooperate with Mueller
by J Conn 5 years ago
If he's going to cooperate, that would assume that there's something of value to the investigation in there. Should be interesting to see what he shares.
- 16
The Trump Dossier revisited.
by Randy Godwin 6 years ago
Today Sen. Diane Feinstein released the transcripts of the Richard Steele interview against the wishes of Republican committee members. Steel was worried about Trump being possibly blackmailed if he became POTUS and contacted the FBI as he should have. This was before the election and before the...