JBB

JBB

Live Commentary - January 6th Committee Hearing Tuesday June 28, 2022

  
By:  JBB  •  Opinions  •  one month ago  •  348 comments

Live Commentary - January 6th Committee Hearing Tuesday June 28, 2022

What are your thoughts on today's hearing of the January 6th Committee?

Tags

jrBlog - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  author  JBB    one month ago

Trump aid Cassidy Hutchison is the surprise witness...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  Vic Eldred    one month ago

I just tuned in!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1  author  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    one month ago

Good!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    one month ago
I just tuned in!

Seven Years Late, no ?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.1  devangelical  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2    one month ago

57

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Split Personality  replied to  devangelical @2.2.1    one month ago

Is that a Heinz reference? LoL

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.2    one month ago

... the only way to salvage such a poor cut.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2    one month ago
"I just tuned in!"

Seven Years Late, no ?

Yavol!  Ya!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    one month ago

The witness testifies that both Giuliani and Meadows told her , beforehand, that Jan 6th would be "bad". 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one month ago

So much for a "spontaneous" protest. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.1  author  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago

Speaking of, Washington Sq last Friday...

What a "spontaneous protest" looks like!original

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one month ago

Well given the months leading up to it. DUH.............. I am sure they saw the writing on the wall. It wasn't like the country was silent during that time. A lot of people were pissed. Who wouldn't expect the shit to hit the fan in one form or another. Unfortunately the dumbasses went all super dumbass.

So much for a "spontaneous" protest.

How so???

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    one month ago

Trump had strong reason to believe there would be violence at the capitol, but told his followers to march up there anyway. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    one month ago

Prior to Trump's ellipse speech, Meadows had been informed by White House security that people at the Capitol had guns, knives and other weapons. 

A hour or two later Trump was telling his mob to march to the capitol. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.3  author  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    one month ago

Skipping right over Trump conspiring with the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers to stop the peace transfer of power to President Biden...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    one month ago

BOMBSHELL !

Trump was told directly that protesters at the Capitol had guns, knives and other weapons prior to him telling his mob at the Ellipse to march to the capitol.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @3.2.3    one month ago

Bullshit. Let's see some proof of the stated conspiracy............until then.............you don't have shit.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.4    one month ago

BOMBSHELL #2

Trump knew that there were attendees at the Ellipse event that were armed with guns and rather then send them away he told the secret service to turn off the magnetometers at the perimeter. 

Ferromagnetic materials generally contain iron, nickel, or cobalt. The presence of these materials in a number of objects (vehicles, electronic devices, weapons, etc.) allows for magnetometers to be used to detect someone carrying a weapon, or someone carrying a ferromagnetic object entering into an MRI suite.
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.4    one month ago

And they, for the most part at that site, were being confiscated. Or didn't you hear that part....................and one would hope that they DIDN'T turn them off as it is their job. What if one was there to shoot Trump? The shit would have hit the fan.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.7    one month ago

If you think this was responsible behavior on the part of President Trump you need your head examined. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.2.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.4    one month ago
Trump was told directly that protesters at the Capitol had guns, knives and other weapons prior to him telling his mob at the Ellipse to march to the capitol.

Not only that but he wanted those with weapons to be allowed into the main area because he knew they weren't there with weapons to hurt him. All he wanted was to have a packed rally, didn't care if they were armed, as he intentionally incited the crowd to march on the Capital to stop the election certification.

Knowing the crowd was armed, he still waited hours and hours after the violence and attack had happened to tell the insurrectionists to "go home. We love you. You’re very special.".

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
3.2.10  afrayedknot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.7    one month ago

“…for the most part at that site, were being confiscated.”

For the most part? At our Capitol? When our votes were scheduled to be ratified? Just wtf are you attempting to defend?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.11  devangelical  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.9    one month ago

a few rungs lower mentally than special olympics special...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.9    one month ago

indeed

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.13  devangelical  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.5    one month ago

what a willfully ignorant comment.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  afrayedknot @3.2.10    one month ago
“…for the most part at that site, were being confiscated.”

"For the most part? At our Capitol? When our votes were scheduled to be ratified? Just wtf are you attempting to defend?"

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.5    one month ago

fuck off

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.2.13    one month ago

All some have.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.15    one month ago

classy

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.17    one month ago

there is no need for me to be 'classy' at the moment

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.19  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.8    one month ago

Didn't say that now did I. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.15    one month ago

I wasn't talking to you. Take your own advice.................

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.21  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  afrayedknot @3.2.10    one month ago
Just wtf are you attempting to defend?

Not defending anything. Just stating what was happening and trying to get folks to stop clutching pearls and get up from the fainting couch. And see 3.2.4

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.20    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.23  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.18    one month ago

How come?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.24  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.22    one month ago

The day I need your advice, I'll ask you for it. mmmmmmmmmkay.

And I'm not defending anything. I'm pointing out that "he wanted" and "he told" without the confirmation that those things came to fruition is basically a losing proposition. Want in one hand and shit it the other JR. I am sure you know how that works after six years of "wanting" to get Trump

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.25  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.17    one month ago

fuck off

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.26  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.25    one month ago

x2

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.5    one month ago

It is pathetic watching Trump defenders deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible.   What drives people to such depths of disintegrity remains a sad curiosity.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.28  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.27    one month ago

Yes it is kind of sad...............................

Well you know what they say about curiosity and the cat. Perhaps you should not read any articles/comments with Trump in them or, perhaps, quit torturing yourself and ignore certain contributors. Just a thought. You know you're never going to change all (or probably any) minds to your way of thinking and looking at things. No one here is................if you haven't seen that over the years I feel sorry for you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.29  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.28    one month ago

Deflection. 

Defending Trump illustrates either an inability to acknowledge reality and/or dishonest blind support for a party.   Either way, the credibility of the defender takes a hit.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.30  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.28    one month ago

That was the most condescending comment ever to come from you

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.31  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.29    one month ago

There is no defense of Trump that corresponds with reality. I wish the good people of this country would acknowledge that and drive him from the public stage. 

Unfortunately I think we are still a long way from that. 

America is currently a degraded country. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.32  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.30    one month ago

Its time to stop being nice to these people. It is hopeless. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.33  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.30    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.34  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.30    one month ago

How so? It wasn't meant to be. Please explain.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.35  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.32    one month ago

I've already used up one of my fuck offs today

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.36  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.34    one month ago

"I feel sorry for you?"

TiG certainly doesn't need your pity...not when he can run rings around you in debate

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.37  author  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.5    one month ago

Where do you comment from? What planet?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.38  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.36    one month ago

I said "You know you're never going to change all (or probably any) minds to your way of thinking and looking at things. No one here is................if you haven't seen that over the years."

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.39  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @3.2.37    one month ago

[deleted]

Now, do you have proof of this conspiracy with the proud boys and path keepers? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.40  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.38    one month ago

and then you ended with...I feel sorry for you. Don't lie and don't weasel your way out. You're not cute enough to be a weasel

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.41  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.40    one month ago

If he doesn't fucking realize it (that he ISN'T changing any minds) ..............why do you keep leaving that off.?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.42  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.41    one month ago

because that really had nothing to do with it. You got your opportunity to condescend the best mind here and you took it

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.43  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.42    one month ago

It had EVERYTHING to do with it FFS. You don't know what I was thinking or saying and if he and you feel as though it was condescending, so be it. He pulls that shit all the time. Perhaps you don't read his posts with an open mind.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.44  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.41    one month ago
If he doesn't fucking realize it (that he ISN'T changing any minds) ..............why do you keep leaving that off.?

Where do you find me stating that I am changing minds?    My point was that your, et. al., comments in defense of Trump harm your credibility:

TiG@3.2.27It is pathetic watching Trump defenders deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible.   What drives people to such depths of disintegrity remains a sad curiosity.

See?   You have yet again resorted to bullshit (a strawman).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.45  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.43    one month ago
He pulls that shit all the time.

Make fewer bullshit / stupid / partisan comments and you will not get 'shit' from me.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.46  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.44    one month ago
harm your credibility:

That sounds condescending and as said on MANY an occasion, opinions do vary. Perhaps in your world. But you see, what you just did there, as stated, is NOT going to change my mind and that you think it will and keep harping on it, is, in itself, condescending commentary JUST because I don't think as you do. Period. Again if you can't see THAT...........................

I don't know who told you that you are the arbiter of the way all should think but THAT, no matter how intelligent you are (and you are there has never been any doubt) not everyone sees things the way you do. It seems you can't deal with that fact. Why differing opinions bother you so much will be a mystery to me forever.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.47  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.45    one month ago

And there you go again. It isn't just me. And you know it. And partisan? WTF are yours? You seem to think it is the word of law and gospel. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.48  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.47    one month ago
That sounds condescending

Everything to you (et. al.) is 'condescending'.   It is a buzzword that seems to be used whenever you are challenged.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.49  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.48    one month ago
It is a buzzword that seems to be used whenever you are challenged.

Funny I wasn't the one first using that buzzword. And you really don't see that YOU lecturing me, of different opinions and views, is condescending? hahaha okay.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.50  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.47    one month ago
And partisan? WTF are yours?

Do you see me complaining about Trump's policies?    I could, of course, complain about specifics but in general I found his policies to largely be the GoP platform.   So no surprise.

On the flip side, have I ever noted Biden failures?   Afghanistan withdrawal and border security (as two clear-cut examples) never register with you?  

My complaints about Trump dealt exclusively with his over-the-top pathological lying, abysmal character, irresponsible off-the-cuff rhetoric and the unconstitutional (and arguably criminal) acts he committed as PotUS.   There is no partisan element.   I do not care what party he was a member of;  his actions are what matter.   That means I would be as hard on Trump if he were a D or an R.   The party is irrelevant.

Further, I have argued for years now that the GoP is shooting itself in the foot and that this is bad for the nation.   That means, 'Just Jim', that I want the GoP to be an effective party (as I do for the Ds) to provide a partisan balance.   The reason is because we have only two major parties.   If one of them implodes we are stuck with single party rule.   NEVER A GOOD THING.    My preference is to have three or more viable parties.   But in lieu of that dream, I want both parties to be largely equal in power.   And to be even clearer, I would prefer both to be equally WEAK and ineffective.

See?  

So I have been arguing for the GoP to dump Trump for its own good.    Those who support Trump are, in my judgment, harming not only the GoP but the nation.   Thus I find Trump support to be irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.

On top of that, I can state that if the GoP puts forth a candidate who is not too extreme, is presidential, and cares about fiscal responsibility, border control and the environment that I would almost certainly (the details still matter so we must wait) vote for this person if the Ds put forth Biden or Harris.

My guess is that you cannot articulate a similar non-partisan reasoning process.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.51  devangelical  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.28    one month ago
Yes it is kind of sad

sadder still is watching those that swore to defend the constitution completely negate their past service to this country by the defense of trump's attempted insurrection with every keystroke.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.2.52  Right Down the Center  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.34    one month ago

It seems they are always finding ways to be offended, even if there is nothing there. They lose all credibility when they attempt to call someone out yet let their side get away with the same shit(including themselves).

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.53  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.52    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.2.54  Right Down the Center  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.53    one month ago

That was pretty funny. And it must be pretty insulting to all the liberals that believe they are the most intelligent person on the site.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
3.2.55  Gazoo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.46    one month ago

In other words, believe as i do or your credibility is in question. I’ve seen that move many times and it’s bullshit.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.56  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @3.2.55    one month ago

A failure on your part to read.   It is:  defend Trump (especially now) and your credibility suffers.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.57  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Gazoo @3.2.55    one month ago

Every damned day. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.58  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.56    one month ago

Your fucking opinion. What don’t you understand??? [deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.2.59  Right Down the Center  replied to  Gazoo @3.2.55    one month ago

Exactly. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.2.60  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.56    one month ago

As if they hadn't let credibility expire a few years back attempting to justify the guy responsible for 'stop the steal' LIE.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.2.61  Right Down the Center  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.58    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.2.62  Right Down the Center  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.60    one month ago

Not to mention the 84 constitutional crisis, 65 bombshells, 43 smoking guns and 4 years of Russian collusion that amounted to nothing. Now they want to believe they have enough credibility to take Americans down another rabbit hole.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.63  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.60    one month ago
As if they hadn't let credibility expire a few years back attempting to justify the guy responsible for 'stop the steal' LIE. 

As if Democrats have any credibility regarding Trump after 2 impeachments, years of accusations and innuendo, name-calling, and an utter failure to deliver what they demand and they control.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.64  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.58    one month ago

This goes well beyond opinion.

Defending Trump for his Big Lie behavior, with all that is known at this point, is an act of partisan futility.   Anyone who tries to defend Trump against his attempts to steal the election through coercion, suborning unconstitutional acts, lying (profoundly) to the American people about a rigged election, urging his supporters to 'fight' after telling them their votes have been disenfranchised and that Biden is illegitimate, etc. loses credibility.

And with the current evidence that Trump knew that his supporters were armed and insisted that the metal detection devices be removed so that armed supporters could add to the size of his crowd, followed by Trump making his march on the Capitol speech to that armed crowd, and then allow the breaking and entering of the Capitol to occur while refusing to act for three hours even when many of his family and staff (and others) pleaded with him to do so, this evidence now goes to sedition and possibly treason.

There is no defending Trump for the above.   Anyone who attempts has no ground to stand on and thus makes ridiculous, feeble arguments that are obviously nonsense at face value.

The loss of credibility is not opinion, it is pretty damn obvious fact.   

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.65  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.6    one month ago

BOMBSHELL # 3

"Two Secret Service agents are prepared to testify before Congress that then-President Trump did not lunge at a steering wheel or assault them in an attempt to go to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, a source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News. 

The  explosive new allegations  were made on Tuesday by Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows."




If she gets contradicted by others, this will really backfire on the committee and totally destroy it's credibility.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.66  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.65    one month ago
destroy it's credibility.

It's laughable that they even think they had credibility in the first place.  

Another report I saw stated "an unnamed Agent" referring to the SUV Driver.  I wonder how long before that Agent is Doxed and the threats from the left begin.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.67  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.65    one month ago

No one cares about that shit from Faux 'news'

Your usual deflection and denial.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.68  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.25    one month ago
jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.69  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.42    one month ago

"because that really had nothing to do with it. You got your opportunity to condescend the best mind here and you took it"

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.70  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.40    one month ago
"and then you ended with...I feel sorry for you. Don't lie and don't weasel your way out. You're not cute enough to be a weasel"

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.71  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.64    one month ago
"And with the current evidence that Trump knew that his supporters were armed and insisted that the metal detection devices be removed so that armed supporters could add to the size of his crowd, followed by Trump making his march on the Capitol speech to that armed crowd, and then allow the breaking and entering of the Capitol to occur while refusing to act for three hours even when many of his family and staff (and others) pleaded with him to do so, this evidence now goes to sedition and possibly treason."

THIS SAYS IT ALL AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED

All else is nonsense from the 'right' especially this SS agent claim deflection being thrown at the wall.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.72  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.65    one month ago

Naw, it's a dud.  Like all your other Faux 'news' deflections.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.73  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.64    one month ago

Again, your damn obvious OPINION  which is NOT damn obvious fact to everyone. You are NOT the artbiter of right and wrong in the universe. You and your high horse need to get off my damned porch.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.74  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.50    one month ago
My guess is that you cannot articulate a similar non-partisan reasoning process.

You guessed wrong........again. If they would come forth with Tulsi Gabbard, I would vote for her in a heartbeat.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.75  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.74    one month ago

Tulsi Gabbard is a crackpot who is a long time member of a religious cult. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.76  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.74    one month ago
If they would come forth with Tulsi Gabbard, I would vote for her in a heartbeat.

And who will you vote for if Biden or Harris, instead of the loon Gabbard, is the nominee? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.77  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.76    one month ago

Depends on who the GOP nominates. And I don't give a damn about your view of Tulsi Gabbard or ANYONE for that mater. You seem to have a propensity for wrong choices.

And if Biden or Harris is the nominee and I don't like the choice the GOP puts forth, I would definitely go GOP candidate............and hold my nose..... like you all seemingly did when you voted Biden

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.2.78  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.76    one month ago

Almost anyone

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.79  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.78    one month ago

Bingo

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.80  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.78    one month ago

We are not concerned with "almost anyone", we are concerned for people who will say they "had to" vote for Trump again. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.2.81  Right Down the Center  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.73    one month ago

 Well said

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.2.82  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.80    one month ago
we are concerned for people who will say they "had to" vote for Trump again. 

And what is your concern about them?  It will be their choice even if you don't like it and you can have no impact on the decision.  Rather than complain about them maybe you could nominate a better alternative.  The last couple elections has been the lesser of two evils, how about trying something different?

Or not

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.83  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.77    one month ago

[Deleted

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.84  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.82    one month ago

Donald Trump is a traitor. That makes those who would vote for him, even because they "had to", traitors too. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.2.85  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.83    one month ago

That would be his choice, it doesn't need to make sense to you.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.2.86  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.84    one month ago

You planning on charging them all with treason or just calling them names so you feel better about who you are voting for?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.87  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.75    one month ago

Seems the 'right' only supports whackjobs and batshitcrazies

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.88  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.87    one month ago

Tulsi Gabbard became a darling of the right shortly after she started spouting conspiracy theories. 

Love at first sight. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.89  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.84    one month ago
Donald Trump is a traitor. That makes those who would vote for him, even because they "had to", traitors too. 

That is some stupid shit right there.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.2.90  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.65    one month ago

So your 'BOMBSHELL' is from an anonymous 'source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News'. 

Well that sure refutes under oath testimony, corroborated by documents and photos. /s

Man, that's some weak shit Vic. 

The fact is, IF Hutchinson's testimony about Trump's actions in the car are false, it's because Ornato lied to her, and Engel didn't correct him. In short, if it's false the lie is on Ornato and Engle, NOT Hutchinson.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.91  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @3.2.90    one month ago
In short, if it's false the lie is on Ornato and Engle, NOT Hutchinson. 

Bullshit. If that is the case, she promoted false/mis/dis information. You know. That thing that lib/liv/dem/progs said was all over the place about the 2020 election.

Well that sure refutes under oath testimony, corroborated by documents and photos

So there are photos and documents of what went on in the limo? ..........Show 'em if ya got 'em.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.92  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.2.90    one month ago
So your 'BOMBSHELL' is from an anonymous 'source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News'.

They are willing to testify under oath!


Man, that's some weak shit Vic. 

Not as weak as your own.


The fact is, IF Hutchinson's testimony about Trump's actions in the car are false, it's because Ornato lied to her, and Engel didn't correct him. In short, if it's false the lie is on Ornato and Engle, NOT Hutchinson.  

So, we are hiding behind "it's what she heard?"  Haven't we been through all this before?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.93  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @3.2.90    one month ago
So your 'BOMBSHELL' is from an anonymous 'source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News'. 

I thought the Democrats and the left were all good with anonymous sources.  How many "bombshells" / "Smoking Guns" / "Final Nail In The Coffin" have the Democrats and the left that were anonymous?  Off the top of my head, there were quite a few.  

Couple this with this person willing to testify under oath, your complaints are all for nothing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.94  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.65    one month ago

Is it your desire for the committee to be discredited?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.95  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.71    one month ago

It is damning testimony.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.96  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.73    one month ago

Losing credibility by defending Trump —especially now— is beyond obvious.

Your repeated inability to put forth a cogent argument and instead resort to emotional personal attacks punctuates my point.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.2.97  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.89    one month ago

By their logic anyone that votes for a president whose main focus seems to be running the United States into the ground supports a traitor therefore they are also traitors.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.98  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.74    one month ago
You guessed wrong.....

You did not articulate a similar non-partisan reasoning process.   You merely claimed you would vote for a specific conservative D.   While I applaud your ability to think beyond party lines (at least technically) for at least one candidate, your response was nothing close to articulated reasoning.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.99  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.97    one month ago
By their logic anyone that votes for a president whose main focus seems to be running the United States into the ground supports a traitor therefore they are also traitors.

If a PotUS has clearly shown that s/he is determined to 'run the USA into the ground' then it would irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic to vote that PotUS back into office.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.100  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.92    one month ago
They are willing to testify under oath!

I hope they get the chance to do so.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.101  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.100    one month ago

So do I. I'm very doubtful

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.102  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.101    one month ago

They would potentially testify if a legal proceeding follows these hearings.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.103  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.94    one month ago
Is it your desire for the committee to be discredited?

Not really, but they seem to working at it with a passion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.104  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.103    one month ago

In what way is the committee discrediting itself?

All these days of testimony by Rs and you think that because some agents allegedly will refute testimony which was admittedly stated as 'this is what I was told' rather than 'this is what I observed' discredits the witness and thus the entire committee?

If this is indeed your basis for 'discrediting' then you get a mere whiff of potentially faulty information and you leap to the extreme.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.105  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.104    one month ago
In what way is the committee discrediting itself?

Lol, no TiG I don't really need to go over the obvious.


All these days of testimony by Rs and you think that because some agents allegedly will refute testimony which was admittedly stated as 'this is what I was told' rather than 'this is what I observed' discredits the witness and thus the entire committee?

Don't you understand, TiG, one of the people she heard say something is also ready to contradict her testimony. That excuse won't hold if that happens.


If this is indeed your basis for 'discrediting' then you get a mere whiff of potentially faulty information and you leap to the extreme.  

I let others judge where "the extreme" lies.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.106  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.105    one month ago
Lol, no TiG I don't really need to go over the obvious.

You have nothing.

... one of the people she heard say something is also ready to contradict her testimony.

I stated the situation in very clear language.   Read what I wrote rather than pretend I did not cover it.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.2.107  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.106    one month ago

Doncha know, they can make a declaration and stick with it. After a while they actually start to believe it...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.108  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.97    one month ago
By their logic

I refuse to lie and say they employ logic.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.2.109  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.91    one month ago
Bullshit. If that is the case, she promoted false/mis/dis information.

She was asked a direct question and she answered it to the best of her ability. She 'promoted' NOTHING.

You know. That thing that lib/liv/dem/progs said was all over the place about the 2020 election.

Blah, blah, blah. 

So there are photos and documents of what went on in the limo? ..........Show 'em if ya got 'em.

Obtuse. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.2.110  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.92    one month ago
They are willing to testify under oath!

Link? Oh and PLEASE don't rinse and repeat that 'Fox source' weak shit. 

Not as weak as your own.

My source testified under oath, yours leaked it anonymously to Fox. We obviously have different definitions of weak. 

So, we are hiding behind "it's what she heard?"

Who the fuck are this 'we' you speak of Vic. 

I am citing the FACT that she was asked about what Ornato said. 

Haven't we been through all this before?

No Vic. This is the very first time you and I have ever discussed this topic. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.2.111  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.93    one month ago
I thought the Democrats and the left were all good with anonymous sources. 

You've been wrong before. 

How many "bombshells" / "Smoking Guns" / "Final Nail In The Coffin" have theDemocrats and the left that were anonymous?  Off the top of my head, there were quite a few.  

I'm not the one that labeled it a BOMBSHELL Jeremy, Vic did.

Couple this with this person willing to testify under oath, your complaints are all for nothing.

Again, has Ornato stated as much? Link? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.2.112  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dulay @3.2.111    one month ago

i wouldn't trust Ornatos' testimony, as wasn't he the one attempting to have Pence wisked away from the Capitol, but Pence did his Patriotic Duty, and refused ?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
3.2.113  al Jizzerror  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.112    one month ago
i wouldn't trust Ornatos' testimony, as wasn't he the one attempting to have Pence wisked away from the Capitol

Pence didn't trust Ornato and he refused to "take a ride".

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4  author  JBB    one month ago

Was Cassidy Hutchison a RINO Never Trumper, too?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4    one month ago

Don't know, but how would you like to have her as an aide?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago

you mean an american with patriotism and integrity?

remember when all the trumpsters were saying that none of the J6 "protesters" were armed? ha ha ha ha ha ha

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @4.1.1    one month ago

I mean a "trusted" aide that may never get another job. Oh wait! CNN contributor!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.3  author  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    one month ago

Her testimony is devastating for Trump. He intended to lead the insurrection January 6th!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4.1.3    one month ago

That's High Treason!

She is the John Dean of our time!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    one month ago

Yes trumpturd is a traitor.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.6  author  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    one month ago

Agreed!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4.1.3    one month ago
Her testimony is devastating for Trump.

Only if it holds up. There are already 2 individuals ready to testify against her.

Didn't the Trump-haters vets her testimony?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.7    one month ago

Desperation is not a good look

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago
Don't know, but how would you like to have her as an aide?

Well since she kept Meadows from making a HUGE mistake by convincing him not to go to the Willard, I'd say she gave him great advice. Meadows was lucky to have her. 

Oh and BTFW, Scalise and Cruz must have had a lot of respect for her since she ended up on the WH staff. She was also the liaison between the WH/Chief of Staff and the Secret Service. So, it looks like she was well trusted on many levels. All the evidence shows that she EARNED that trust. 

I find it telling that you seem to question her 'loyalty' merely because she was forthcoming and truthful to the Committee. The fact is, she didn't owe any PERSON her loyalty, she owes loyalty to the country and the Constitution Vic. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.1.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dulay @4.1.9    one month ago
I find it telling that you seem to question her 'loyalty' merely because she was forthcoming and truthful to the Committee.

I doubt many right wing conservatives give two shits about loyalty to the constitution and our country, they demand loyalty to their party and to their dear Leader Cheeto Benito.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.10    one month ago

That seems to be the mentality of those who are attempting to intimidate witnesses also. Stay loyal to Trump, remember, he's reading transcripts. 

BTFW, they must be translating those transcripts to sharpy pictographs. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5  devangelical    one month ago

rally attrendees = armed insurrectionist mob

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @5    one month ago

Don't forget the altercation in the Presidential car!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    one month ago

... a petulant child throwing another tantrum. how presidential.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    one month ago

Yeah...........she wasn't even IN the car at the time. She was TOLD that that had happened. That would be thrown out in a court of law as hearsay. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @5.1.1    one month ago

Right up there with the tranquilizing of John Mitchell's wife.

.

I read somewhere long ago they gave her the shot in the ass.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.4  author  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.3    one month ago

Compared with olde Martha Mitchell Cassidy Hutchison is a veritable modern Joan of Arc!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    one month ago
8z9FImcv_bigger.png
The Associated Press
@AP
·
8m
Cassidy Hutchinson, in testimony before the House panel, said that on Jan. 6 then-President Donald Trump said armed rallygoers were "not there to hurt him" and that he wanted the metal detectors taken away. http:// apne.ws/BDa6Zzg
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
6.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6    one month ago

Did they take them away?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1    one month ago

kind of shoots the all antifa conspiracy theories in the ass, don't it.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.2  author  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1    one month ago

Of the hundreds and hundreds criminally charged for participating in Trump's Jan 6th Insurrection, just how many turned out to be ANTIFA or BLM?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
6.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @6.1.2    one month ago

Haven't heard. And I never said ANYTHING even resembling that it was antifa or blm. That was 2020 and the summer of love

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.4  author  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.3    one month ago

The answer is none zero zip nada. Not One!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
6.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @6.1.4    one month ago

Oh goodie gumdrops. As you should discern from my comment, I really couldn't care less about the makeup of the idiot squad.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.6  author  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.5    one month ago

original Obviously!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Capitol police will form an escort for her.

This is high drama!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago

do you think this young lady is lying?

the death threats are probably pouring in by the hundreds. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    one month ago
do you think this young lady is lying?

I really don't know. She did say others would corroborate.

The missing element is the normal cross examination by minority appointed Republicans.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.1    one month ago

you mean the slate of co-conspirators that was offered by mccarthy?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @7.1.2    one month ago

I mean the traditional protocols of decency that was dispensed with by Pelosi.

I don't think you would understand

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
7.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    one month ago
I mean the traditional protocols of decency

As projected by Jim Jordan? You are too funny.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    one month ago

legal technicalities went out the west wing window the afternoon of 1/20/17

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8  JohnRussell    one month ago

Trump tried to choke the head of his secret service detail when the man told trump he would not drive him to the capitol

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8    one month ago

Isn't that incredible!

You have to love the part where Trump wanted the crowd to be even larger!  Classic Trump!

I am fond of the part where Trump supposedly said "Well, they are not here to hurt me!"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    one month ago

you are making a fool out of yourself

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    one month ago

I thought a little levity might be appreciated.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
8.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.2    one month ago

You want levity? Try the twitter feed of Nicole Solas. I trust you recall her.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @8    one month ago

choke him as in actually put his hands around his neck?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.2    one month ago

the witnessed testified that she was told trump put his hands up toward the man's clavicles. 

that would indicate intention to choke

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.1    one month ago
In humans the two clavicles, on either side of the anterior base of the neck, are horizontal, S-curved rods that articulate laterally with the outer end of the shoulder blade (the acromion) to help form the shoulder joint.
 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.2.3  author  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.2    one month ago

Trump threw plates at the White House Butler!

Who does that? Flipping tables? Throwing shit?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
8.2.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @8.2.3    one month ago
Who does that? Flipping tables? Throwing shit?

Hilary Clinton................oh wait. She threw books and lamps...............at the President of the United States.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8.2.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @8.2.3    one month ago
Trump threw plates at the White House Butler!

The testimony was that he threw the plate at AG Barr, not the butler.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.2.6  author  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.2.5    one month ago

Which time? Apparently he did it all the time...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8.2.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @8.2.6    one month ago

I once worked for a general that threw shit.  He was an asshole too.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
8.2.8  Hallux  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.4    one month ago

Whatever Hillary threw at Bill was high, inside and righteous. Unless Barr was getting it on under the table with Melania your squirrel is undercooked. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
8.2.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Hallux @8.2.8    one month ago

Question was who does that shit. And we have already seen that allegedly Trump does so I gave another example. Hardly a squirrel..........

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8.2.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.1    one month ago

If the committee is smart, they will call Agent Robert Engel to testify and confirmed the story.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
8.2.11  Hallux  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.9    one month ago

I believe the question was rhetorical. Answering it, at best, introduces diarrhea to pablum.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
8.2.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Hallux @8.2.11    one month ago

Opinions do vary...............and no it wasn't rhetorical.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9  JohnRussell    one month ago

this is bigger than john dean

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9    one month ago

Then Trump wont be the nominee in 2024?

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
9.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    one month ago

That is your wish.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @9.1.1    one month ago

I'm putting all my faith in the same people and they have yet to nail him.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
9.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.2    one month ago

Nonsense, there is no reason to nail him this time around as he did the job by himself and you are happy about the Stations of the Cross being cleared for the Floridian Fool to follow. I fully expect you to be praising Liz Cheney come 2024 for paving the way.

512

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @9.1.3    one month ago

I wonder what Liz will be doing in 2024?

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
9.1.5  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.4    one month ago

Any number of things including interviews with historians and riding paliminoes across the Wyoming hills and dales. History is going to treat her most kindly.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.4    one month ago
I wonder what Liz will be doing in 2024?

being among a small handful of an endangered species, a patriotic american that's a republican.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.7  author  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.4    one month ago

Because honor and decency must be punished?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10  devangelical    one month ago

boo hoo hoo, it must suck being a republican on the wrong side of history for the last 50+ years.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @10    one month ago

I beg to differ. The past 50 years just got wiped out.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1    one month ago

that will get fixed, one traditional american way or another...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @10.1.1    one month ago

I'm waiting

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11  JohnRussell    one month ago

Trump is depraved and demented. People who still support him after this are too. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
11.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @11    one month ago
Hopefully they can find something to charge him with

afb062822dAPR20220628044504.jpg

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
11.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Greg Jones @11.1    one month ago

Branco is a talented editorial cartoonist, too bad he's a one trick pony. The great ones attack all sides.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @11.1.2    one month ago

as if any or all of those issues combined would equal an attempted coup by a fascist autocrat.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
11.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @11    one month ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @11    one month ago

Well, there is now this:

Two Secret Service agents are prepared to testify before Congress that then-President Trump did not lunge at a steering wheel or assault them in an attempt to go to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, a source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News. 

The  explosive new allegations  were made on Tuesday by Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3    one month ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
11.3.2  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3    one month ago

She clearly said she did not witness it but was told by someone else. I don't see a lot of attacks on her direct testimony or other republicans that testified.

Too bad more Republicans don't have a backbone.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
11.3.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Kavika @11.3.2    one month ago

Too bad there aren't any Republicans on the "committee" to cross examine.....................................Like Jordan and Banks. And there is, as we are seeing, one hell of a reason for that.

And don't even try the "yeah but Cheney and Kinzinger".............bullcrap

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.3.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.3.3    one month ago
And there is, as we are seeing, one hell of a reason for that.

Yeah, they are both known nutjobs who are lackeys to Donald Trump. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
11.3.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3.4    one month ago

And the remaining members are leftists and rino's who hate Trump. What's your point? Seems heavily weighted on one side.......... no doesn't seem, IT IS 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
11.3.6  Kavika   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.3.3    one month ago

I don't need to try anything it's you that doing the whining like most Trumpers.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.3.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @11.3.2    one month ago
She clearly said she did not witness it but was told by someone else.

Then the fair thing to do was get the somebody else and question him first.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
11.3.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Kavika @11.3.6    one month ago

Really? Would you want to go on trial knowing that all the jurors were hand picked ONLY by the prosecution? I think not and it isn't whining.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.3.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @11.3.6    one month ago

You've done a lot of whining as well. Mostly about the US government. Same thing right?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.3.10  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3.7    one month ago
Then the fair thing to do was get the somebody else and question him first.

Why are you assuming that didn't already happen Vic? 

Clearly fairness and legality doesn't interest many of you.  You are much too used to NT.

That's interesting since you stated that Barr's statements changed your mind about the election fraud allegations. You didn't wait for 'fairness and legality' before you walked back your more than yearlong crusade to support the Big Lie. Guess YOU are much too used to NT also. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.3.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @11.3.10    one month ago
Why are you assuming that didn't already happen Vic? 

I also assumed that O J killed his wife.


You didn't wait for 'fairness and legality' before you walked back your more than yearlong crusade to support the Big Lie

That may be the big lie. I never said the 2020 election was stolen. If you recall, (if you are honest) someone here used to ask that question. Every time he asked me if I thought the 2020 election was fair, I would say "I don't know."  That was my position back then, Dulay.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.3.12  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.3.3    one month ago
And there is, as we are seeing, one hell of a reason for that.

There is MORE than ONE reason for Jim Jordan not to be seated on the Committee. ONE of them is that he is a material witness. ANOTHER is that he participated in the planning of the 'war room'. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
11.3.13  Kavika   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.3.8    one month ago
Really? Would you want to go on trial knowing that all the jurors were hand picked ONLY by the prosecution? I think not and it isn't whining.

This isn't about me and it isn't a trial. Of course, Trump could appear in his own defense. LOLOL

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
11.3.14  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3.9    one month ago
You've done a lot of whining as well. Mostly about the US government. Same thing right?

I point out facts or challenge your bullshit comments like the ''left is evil'' which is about as ignorant a comment as one can get. 

Keep up the bs, Vic it's entertaining.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.3.15  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3.11    one month ago
I never said the 2020 election was stolen.

You just posted article after article saying it was....

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.3.16  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3.11    one month ago
I also assumed that O J killed his wife.

Do you think that you 'teach' anyone ANYTHING by posting snarky non-responsive replies Vic? 

That may be the big lie. I never said the 2020 election was stolen.

Yet you participated wholeheartedly in spreading the Big LIe. The number of 'But whatabout' seeds and comments you posted here proves that fact. If you didn't believe any of it, you were intentionally gaslighting members.

 If you recall, (if you are honest) someone here used to ask that question.

Unless you have documented evidence that I am NOT honest, STOP implying that I am NOT honest Vic. 

Every time he asked me if I thought the 2020 election was fair, I would say "I don't know."  That was my position back then, Dulay.

You're deflecting Vic. Your comment and article history illustrate that you supported the Big Lie at every turn.

Yet suddenly, based purely on Barr's deposition testimony, you stated that it "shows once and for all that the Trump claims were investigated and that they were "bull shit" claims, finally puts it all to rest." Of course, them being 'put to rest' didn't stop you from repeating that debunked bullshit in that very same comment. That was way back ONE WEEK ago. 

You wouldn't explain WHY you didn't believe Barr when he said that in Dec. 2020. Nor do you seem to want to admit that you disseminated the very allegations that Barr called bullshit throughout 2021. 

Trump seemed to recognize in Dec. 2020 that Barr's interview was the real 'BOMBSHELL'. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
11.3.17  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @11.3.16    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @11    one month ago
Trump is depraved and demented. People who still support him after this are too.

That is some stupid shit right there.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.4.1  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @11.4    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.4.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @11.4.1    one month ago

Your cartoon seemed to entertain your friends.

I considered it inane.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.4.3  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @11.4.2    one month ago

Yes, my meme is six times more entertaining than your lameass comment. Nothing new...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.4.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @11.4.3    one month ago
Yes, my meme is six times more entertaining than your lameass comment. Nothing new...

LOL!

Like it is hard to find 6 yahoos here to vote you up!

LMMFAO!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.4.5  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @11.4.4    one month ago

Why do you think you get so few thumbs up?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.4.6  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @11.4.5    one month ago
Why do you think you get so few thumbs up?

I don't think about it at all.

I have never been one of those that seek validation on the internet from strangers. It just isn't important to me.

Pay my bills and maybe I'll start to give a damn.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.4.7  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @11.4.6    one month ago

It's good you don't need positive reinforcement.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.4.8  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @11.4.7    one month ago
It's good you don't need positive reinforcement.

It's sad some do seem to crave and need it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12  JohnRussell    one month ago

Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows sought pardons for their actions related to Jan 6th. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @12    one month ago

But I thought they were innocent???

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13  JohnRussell    one month ago

It couldnt have been much worse for Trump today.

What will the MAGA mob say now? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
13.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @13    one month ago

"What will the MAGA mob say now?"

Not much.

Helps clear the way for DeSantis

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @13.1    one month ago

DeSantis is a Trump sucker and that will work heavily against him. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @13.1    one month ago
Not much.

Yup, never acknowledge the truth ... just ignore it and move on.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
13.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @13    one month ago
What will the MAGA mob say now? 

800

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
14  devangelical    one month ago

"I'm the fucking president, take me up to the capitol now!" - DT

... the antique wimp who would be king...

ha ha ha, add witness tampering to the list of crimes.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15  JohnRussell    one month ago
Donald Trump knew supporters had weapons when he urged them to storm the Capitol to overturn the 2020 election, a former White House aide has said.

Ex-aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified to the committee probing the 6 January riots that Mr Trump and his top staff knew the potential for violence.

But a planned rally, which attorney Rudy Giuliani said would make Mr Trump "look powerful", went ahead. Trump urged armed supporters to storm Capitol - aide - BBC News
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @15    one month ago

This is far bigger than Watergate. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
16  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    one month ago

Anyone who supports Trump after today, was, and is, complicit.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
16.1  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @16    one month ago

I would seriously question their patriotism as americans, along with their mental stability.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
17  JohnRussell    one month ago

FWXFA9EWYAUsB2X?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
17.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @17    one month ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18  Jack_TX    one month ago

Are we any closer to actual charges being filed?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
18.1  author  JBB  replied to  Jack_TX @18    one month ago

Yes...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @18.1    one month ago
Yes...

When? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
18.1.2  author  JBB  replied to  Jack_TX @18.1.1    one month ago

Soon...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @18.1.2    one month ago
Soon...

Please give a specific time frame for 'soon'. You know, just a ballpark figure like a matter of weeks, months, years?

I have heard 'soon' as long ago as 5 years ago, so I am curious what some consider 'soon'.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
18.1.4  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @18.1.3    one month ago

The leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have already been charged with conspiring to mount Trump's nsurrection.

I expect ancillary legal charges against John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows will be forthcoming within weeks. They are already charged with contempt of Congress.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @18.1.3    one month ago

You sound like someone who either hasn't watched a minute of the hearings or is burying his head in the sand. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @18.1.5    one month ago
You sound like someone who either hasn't watched a minute of the hearings or is burying his head in the sand. 

You sound like someone who bothered to respond to my comment but couldn't answer the question in it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @18.1.6    one month ago

when i dont answer you its not because i cant but because you are not interested in answers. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @18.1.7    one month ago
when i dont answer you its not because i cant but because you are not interested in answers.

Be logical about it.

If I didn't want an answer, I wouldn't ask the question.

I would just tell you what your opinion was.

You know, instead of assuming you would know better than I what 'soon' is to you.

Do you not know what 'soon' is to you better than I would since I have no clue what 'soon' is to you?

Or, since the question was directed to another, why not just give me JBB's description?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @18.1.4    one month ago
The leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have already been charged with conspiring to mount Trump's nsurrection.

Great.

I think everyone here (except perhaps you) would agree that Jack was asking about charges against Trump.

So, what you got on that front?

I expect ancillary legal charges against John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows will be forthcoming within weeks. They are already charged with contempt of Congress.

What you expect and what may happen may be two far different things. We will see.

Contempt of Congress may be enforced, may not. Ask Eric Holder if it really matters if no one enforces anything?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
18.1.10  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @18.1.9    one month ago

Americans have historically been reticent to criminally charge former Presidents for crimes committed while in office for both national security and reasons of precedent.

I definitely believe Trump should be charged with multiple crimes though he probably will not be. Everyone around him will be though.

Hunt, Liddy, Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman and John Dean all did time for Nixon's crimes!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @18.1.10    one month ago
Americans have historically been reticent to criminally charge former Presidents for crimes committed while in office for both national security and reasons of precedent.

But, this is so special a set of circumstances, how could Trump not be prosecuted? Wouldn't that be a monumental dereliction of duty?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
18.1.12  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @18.1.11    one month ago

In my opinion yes, Trump must be charged...

To set a precedent and for national security!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @18.1.12    one month ago

Would you vote for the President whose Justice Department failed to bring Trump to justice?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @18.1.8    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @18.1.4    one month ago
The leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have already been charged with conspiring to mount Trump's nsurrection. I expect ancillary legal charges against John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows will be forthcoming within weeks. They are already charged with contempt of Congress.

I'm not talking about henchmen.  Are we going to see charges on the fat man himself?

Define "soon".  It's a fair point that we've been hearing for a very long time about how Trump is headed to prison, and we have no progress to show.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @18.1.10    one month ago
I definitely believe Trump should be charged with multiple crimes

Such as?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
18.1.17  author  JBB  replied to  Jack_TX @18.1.16    one month ago

Obstruction of Justice, Witness Tampering, Conspiracy To Defraud The US Constitution, Incitement To Riot, Assaulting a Federal Agent, Dereliction Of Office, Constitutional Mischief, Littering, Bad Hair and Pulling The Tags Off Of Pillows and Mattresses...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
18.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @18.1.17    one month ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @18.1.17    one month ago
Obstruction of Justice, Witness Tampering, Conspiracy To Defraud The US Constitution, Incitement To Riot, Assaulting a Federal Agent,

Actual crimes.  Outstanding.  Why have none of these charges been filed?  When do we expect that to happen?  If the answer is "soon", define "soon".  

Dereliction Of Office, Constitutional Mischief, Littering, Bad Hair and Pulling The Tags Off Of Pillows and Mattresses...

It's a clever joke, but part of the issue we're dealing with here is the almost non-stop accusations and investigations of Trump that have produced zero consequences.  We very much have a "House Speaker who cried wolf" situation, where the accuser's credibility is absolutely in question.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
18.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @18.1.19    one month ago

All of those accusations occurred while Trump was in power and in charge of the Justice Dept. It's been repeated ad nauseum that Trump could NOT be prosecuted while in power.

So, Trump has ONLY been a civilian since Jan. 2021 and the DOJ has been pretty fucking busy investigating, arresting and prosecuting over a thousand insurrectionists. In FACT, the largest DOJ investigation ever. 

Oh and let's not forget that between the election and Jan. 6, Trump and all of his minions KEPT committing crimes. Hell, co-conspirators were defending Trump during Jan. 6th AND his second impeachment. 

Now the J6 Committee has stated that there is evidence of witness tampering. Will they EVER stop committing crimes long enough for justice to catch up? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
18.2  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @18    one month ago

Watching these hearings, I grow increasingly convinced that charges will be filed.  

What is your opinion?   Assuming you have watched and heard the evidence thus far, would you agree if charges were filed or would you find charges groundless?

To be specific, would you support charging Trump with knowingly encouraging and refusing (as PotUS and as the key leader figure involved) to stop the insurrection?   Assuming of course that this is expressed as a bona fide legal charge and that it is a crime or unconstitutional act for Trump to have acted in this way.

Today's testimony was powerful.   Unless, of course, one dismisses the witness as not credible.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.2.1  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @18.2    one month ago
Watching these hearings, I grow increasingly convinced that charges will be filed.  

I don't share your confidence.  I hope I'm wrong.

What is your opinion?   Assuming you have watched and heard the evidence thus far, would you agree if charges were filed or would you find charges groundless?

My opinion is that this venue is for political theater, what we're seeing is 100% political theater, and if there was serious evidence of criminal wrongdoing this would all be in the actual court system. 

"Suprise witness"?  "Bombshell testimony"?  C'mon.  Just stop.  They've been investigating this thing for 18 months.  They know exactly what everybody is going to say.  If by some miracle they didn't know about this girl until yesterday...what hope do we possibly have that these morons will be able to organize a prosecution?

Today was all about using drama to try to boost the TV ratings.

To be specific, would you support charging Trump with knowingly encouraging and refusing (as PotUS and as the key leader figure involved) to stop the insurrection?  Assuming of course that this is expressed as a bona fide legal charge and that it is a crime or unconstitutional act for Trump to have acted in this way.

"Bona fide legal charge...." That's really the rub, isn't it?   Even when you read the testimony from today, and assuming you accept it as fact...who broke what law?  

If it's an "unconstitutional act", what consequences follow?  

So to answer your question... IF he's broken a law, hell yes, charge his fat ass.  Right now.  With due haste and extreme prejudice. 

And I think if he had broken a law, they would have already charged him.   So I doubt they're going to.  Again, I hope I'm wrong.

Today's testimony was powerful.   Unless, of course, one dismisses the witness as not credible.

Define "powerful".  Are we talking "powerful" as in "now we have proof of illegal activity" or are we talking about "powerful" in the emotional sense?

Assuming every person she names corroborates her story, where does that put us with regard to criminal charges?  I just don't see us getting there.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.1    one month ago

[Deleted

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.1    one month ago

this is not strictly an issue of criminality or illegality

it is about someone betraying their country

not someone, a president of the united states

your acting like its all good unless he is charged is absurd and highly offensive

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @18.2.2    one month ago
you are as clueless as ever

Translated:  I refuse to get on your batshit train and validate your feelings.  

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.4    one month ago

like everyone who stretches reality to defend Trump or minimize his crimes, you are making a fool out of yourself

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.2.6  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @18.2.3    one month ago
this is not strictly an issue of criminality or illegality

We're all well aware that for you this is solely about your emotions.

it is about someone betraying their country

That would be treason, which is a crime, and they could charge him.  But somehow I don't think they will.

not someone, a president of the united states

Who is now a former president.  So removing him from office is kinda pointless. 

your acting like its all good unless he is charged is absurd and highly offensive

If rational conversation offends you, you're an emotional terrorist and you deserve to be offended.  I shall happily oblige.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.6    one month ago
We're all well aware that for you this is solely about your emotions.

lol. you have made a minor art form out of hiding your head in the sand / disingenuousness. 

the idea that Trump is irrelevant unless they can prove he committed felonies is nothing short of extremely bizarre. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @18.2.5    one month ago
like everyone who stretches reality to defend Trump or minimize his crimes, you are making a fool out of yourself

In fact, it is impossible to minimize or defend the man against crimes when nobody will actually identify them.

Name his crimes, John.  What laws has he broken? 

As we've been discussing among the sane people here, they haven't actually charged him with any crimes.  Nobody seems to be able to indicate what crime(s) have actually been committed.

So what crimes are we talking about, exactly? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
18.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.1    one month ago
My opinion is that this venue is for political theater, what we're seeing is 100% political theater, and if there was serious evidence of criminal wrongdoing this would all be in the actual court system. 

Forget about 'political theater' and just focus objectively on the evidence.

IF he's broken a law, hell yes, charge his fat ass.  Right now.  With due haste and extreme prejudice.  

Do you also hold, given all we now know and assuming it is true, that Trump has done wrong even if this is (somehow) not a crime?

And I think if he had broken a law, they would have already charged him.   So I doubt they're going to.  Again, I hope I'm wrong.

Trump, per the evidence, knew that his supporters were armed.   He wanted a bigger crowd so he demanded that they be allowed to enter with their guns.   He then gave his speech knowing full well that many in the greater audience were armed.    And then when the insurrection ensued, Trump refused myriad pleas from advisors, etc. to step in and stop it.   He let the insurrection fester for hours before finally stepping in and even then essentially told the insurrectionists that their cause was just.

If this is fair and correct depiction of what happened, it seems to me that it would be a travesty of the highest order to bypass justice and let a PotUS get away with such irresponsible and arguably treasonous behavior.

Finally, the fact that he has not been charged (yet) is not evidence that he is not guilty or that the charges would be weak.   Too much speculation.

Define "powerful". 

In terms of the facts.   It was 'what did Trump know and what did he do given that knowledge?' evidence.   How is it possible for a PotUS to know that his supporters are armed and then encourage them to march on the Capitol, allow an armed, violent insurrection to ensue with clear threats on the life of his own VP and refuse (in spite of pleas) to take any action to stop it and in all of this be both lawful and unconstitutional?   I am not an attorney but I find that to be unlikely.   If he is not brought to justice I will be both surprised and greatly disappointed.  

If Trump did indeed do what I have described here, I find this to be treason.   What harm comes to our nation by allowing a PotUS to engage in this behavior and not be held accountable?   The precedent alone is damaging.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.2.10  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @18.2.9    one month ago
If Trump did indeed do what I have described here, I find this to be treason.   What harm comes to our nation by allowing a PotUS to engage in this behavior and not be held accountable?   The precedent alone is damaging.

Yes, there is the opinion that it would be "divisive" to charge Trump with crimes.  Over half the public believes he committed crimes, and it would be divisive to not charge him. 

We should do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. I'm tired of all this coddling of MAGA crazies. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.2.11  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @18.2.7    one month ago
the idea that Trump is irrelevant unless they can prove he committed felonies is nothing short of extremely bizarre. 

Who said anything about felonies?  They can't even manage a jaywalking charge.... which... given how crooked everybody knows Trump is... has just got to be unbelievably embarrassing. 

As we've discussed....and I know it just breaks your heart.... Trump grows more irrelevant with every passing day.  This is a huge problem for the Democrats, who desperately need a supervillain to run against this fall, [deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
18.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.11    one month ago
Trump grows more irrelevant with every passing day.

When I see people NOT defend him and see candidates NOT seek his endorsement (as a rule, not as exception) and see the GoP follow a different defacto leader then the waning relevance will be significant.   Waning or not, Trump continues to have far too much influence over the GoP.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.2.13  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @18.2.9    one month ago
Forget about 'political theater' and just focus objectively on the evidence.

The theater is part of the evidence.  

Do you also hold, given all we now know and assuming it is true, that Trump has done wrong even if this is (somehow) not a crime?

Certainly.  For decades.  

Trump, per the evidence, knew that his supporters were armed.   He wanted a bigger crowd so he demanded that they be allowed to enter with their guns.   He then gave his speech knowing full well that many in the greater audience were armed.   

Side note....  My skepticism is having great difficulty with the idea that this allegedly heavily armed, demonstrably violent band of rioters supposedly attempted an insurrection... and nobody fired a shot.  That just seems wildly implausible, especially given the frenzy of the day and the kind of firearms these people were likely to have owned.   But that's not material to this particular point.

And then when the insurrection ensued, Trump refused myriad pleas from advisors, etc. to step in and stop it.   He let the insurrection fester for hours before finally stepping in and even then essentially told the insurrectionists that their cause was just. If this is fair and correct depiction of what happened, it seems to me that it would be a travesty of the highest order to bypass justice and let a PotUS get away with such irresponsible and arguably treasonous behavior.

OK.  So.  Treason.  Somebody has finally put something up the flagpole.  Thank you, BTW.  Now we have something real to talk about.

Finally, the fact that he has not been charged (yet) is not evidence that he is not guilty or that the charges would be weak.   Too much speculation.

Then why have no charges been introduced?  What do you believe is the delay?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
18.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.13    one month ago
The theater is part of the evidence.  

Not to me.   I do not consider videos of depositions, videos of Trump speaking or sworn testimony by Rs to be theater.   Especially given almost all of these were devoid of emotion.

My skepticism is having great difficulty with the idea that this allegedly heavily armed, demonstrably violent band of rioters supposedly attempted an insurrection... and nobody fired a shot. 

To me the labeling of insurrection is irrelevant.   They were an angry mob that broke into and entered the Capitol with the intent to do harm.   The behavior and the level of intent that can be evidenced matters;  the label does not.

Somebody has finally put something up the flagpole.  Thank you, BTW.  Now we have something real to talk about.

Note that I am speaking as a non-attorney using English semantics.   To me, given this:

Treason ≡ The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.  

I see Trump betraying the country by his actions.   The easy call for treason is when someone engages in disclosing secrets to enemy nations or attempting an armed coup to overthrow the government.   That is not the case here.   The treason here, if any, would be for the leader of the nation to work up his followers based on a demonstrable lie that the government has engaged in a fraudulent election and that they have been disenfranchised.    On top of this we have Trump directly attempting to coerce officials to break the law, their oaths and the constitution and suborning his own VP to engage in an unconstitutional act.   Then, as shown in today's hearing, we have the acting PotUS with full knowledge that many of his supporters were armed and angry, asking for the screening machines to be withdrawn so that they can join his audience and make it look bigger on camera.   And, with that same knowledge, give his march on the Capitol speech.   Then, with that same knowledge of an armed mob and with knowledge that they were overpowering Capitol police and breaking and entering the Capitol and threatening to hang Pence, refuse the myriad pleas of various people to step in and do something.   After three hours, Trump finally stepped in and even then suggested that the rioter's cause was just.

How acting against the government of this nation in that manner cannot be a form of treason is beyond me.   I would hope one of our resident attorneys might help us out here with a legal opinion.

Then why have no charges been introduced?  What do you believe is the delay?

I have only speculation, Jack.    My guess is that the committee decided they needed to get strong public support (by making the public aware of these details presented by R witnesses) to encourage the legal machine to take action against a former PotUS.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.2.15  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @18.2.14    one month ago
Not to me.   I do not consider videos of depositions, videos of Trump speaking or sworn testimony by Rs to be theater.   Especially given almost all of these were devoid of emotion.

Well... where things happen matters.  We don't play basketball on a soccer field.  We don't go swimming in a sandbox, and we don't prosecute criminals in congressional hearings.  I'm not sure that if they are able to ever find something to charge him with that they won't have ruined their chances of conviction with the current theater.

They were an angry mob that broke into and entered the Capitol with the intent to do harm.   The behavior and the level of intent that can be evidenced matters;  the label does not.

Fair enough.  I was more commenting on the supposed presence of so many guns in such a violent environment and the absence of actual shots fired.  Just seems unlikely.

Note that I am speaking as a non-attorney using English semantics.

Understood.  No worries.

I see Trump betraying the country by his actions.

That's certainly an interesting idea.  I don't know that it would work in an actual court, but I don't know that it wouldn't, either.

I have only speculation, Jack.    My guess is that the committee decided they needed to get strong public support (by making the public aware of these details presented by R witnesses) to encourage the legal machine to take action against a former PotUS.

We're all limited to speculation, so again, no worries. 

I do have a concern with the idea that public support could or should be able to sway that legal machine.  That seems to me to migrate from the rule of law to the rule of public opinion...or mob opinion.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
18.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.15    one month ago
I'm not sure that if they are able to ever find something to charge him with that they won't have ruined their chances of conviction with the current theater.

I did not suggest nor even imply charges can be made from this hearing.   I stated that this hearing is providing hard evidence.   This evidence however can be taken into a legal venue.

I do have a concern with the idea that public support could or should be able to sway that legal machine. 

I think that is the reality of the 'legal machine' and not limited to the highest level.   How much does a DA office consider public opinion when deciding which cases to prosecute and how?   My answer:  politics / optics is very much a consideration.

If the public is supportive of Trump I can easily see this disappearing.   If the public is in a 'WTF?' mode regarding what Trump actually did or, even better, outraged, I certainly can see that influencing the legal choice to bring charges.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
18.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.13    one month ago

And on the charges, if treason is too high a bar (I do not think so) then this is at least clear-cut sedition IMO.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
18.2.18  al Jizzerror  replied to  TᵢG @18.2.9    one month ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.2.19  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @18.2.16    one month ago
I did not suggest nor even imply charges can be made from this hearing.   I stated that this hearing is providing hard evidence.   This evidence however can be taken into a legal venue.

Why would they not start in a legal venue?

I think that is the reality of the 'legal machine' and not limited to the highest level.

You're probably right.  Still, I think it's something we should try to avoid.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
18.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.19    one month ago
Why would they not start in a legal venue?

I suspect, as I have noted, that this was done to get the public more involved and more supportive of legal actions.   

Public opinion, albeit this is wrong, has quite a bit to do with our legal system.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.2.21  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @18.2.20    one month ago
I suspect, as I have noted, that this was done to get the public more involved and more supportive of legal actions. 

I think that's where we're going to disagree.

I think that's a nice answer if we're trying very, very, very hard to avoid the idea that this is all political theater for Democrats, who are desperate about November and have an established history of using investigations and public hearings as attempts to undermine Donald Trump.  They even rolled out a mentally ill lady to accuse a Trump SCOTUS nominee on national television, so they're obviously willing to do pretty much anything.

So... Occam's Razor being what it is, I think this is 100% about the election and trying to rally the base to come out and vote against Darth Trump, even though he's not actually on the ballot.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
18.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.21    one month ago

I am not ignoring the political motivation.   I have stated that this clearly is at least partly politically motivated.

What I am doing is recognizing the nature of the evidence presented.   I cannot explain how it is possible for this evidence to not result in legal proceedings except for what I offered.

That is, I cannot see why all this evidence would not be offered to the justice department for criminal / constitutional investigation.   And I cannot see why the justice department would not act on the evidence that has been presented.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
18.2.23  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.21    one month ago

It is quite obvious as TiG stated, this was to educate the ignorant masses. This committee, which would have been fully bipartisan, if some of the members McCarthy put forth weren't part of the investigation. Believe it was established to bring forth ALL of the facts to enlighten ALL of the people, especially those ignorant to so much via the Fox "news" bubble and the far 'Right" media/.   Unfortunate as it is, the people of this country NEEDED to be educated of all of the facts surrounding Trumps latest and by far his most greatest, HIT on US. If TRUE, and i believe it is, Trump sent enflamed enraged ARMED protestors to "save" their country by attempting to stop HIS LIE of an election steal Trump PROMOTED for Months, and had singled out Vice President Pence as the main guy who he needed to go along with his biggest LIE, and i also believe Pence did come pretty close to being "hung" out to dry, and DIE, by words and silence issued by a former potUS who would put his inability to admit he was a LOSER, above what so many fought and died for to create, this Nation built upon the Pursuit of Freedom and the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and they had spoken, and Biden had WON. thus the expected peaceful transition of power, that which WAS DENIED. FUCK TRUMP     It is quite unfortunate that so many elected Republican Representatives and Sentators allowed him to remain in office after the first impeachment. Gutless Pussy's that sold out America in pursuit of power and their pathetic party, and i believe thye GOP should ( Figurative)D I E a not some slow Death, for they have been slowly killing US All with electing the stupidest and strangest, that Trump described as the "Best and Brightest" as he wanted his top Besty to DIE for not following his orders to LIE, and all you can spew is what did he do that he should be charged with.  Don't you think he;s done enough already.....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
18.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.21    one month ago

Since we are speculating ...

Another thought is basic political calculation.   As much as I hate to see it, there is no denying that our system of justice is influenced by politics.   Will the AG make a political calculation to try or not try Trump based on the fallout?

Trying Trump and ultimately convicting a former PotUS of a crime is a big deal and I would expect it to raise all sorts of concerns to those who would be responsible for executing this process.

The Ds might not want to see Trump tried due to potential political fallout.   This could easily cause pressure to not prosecute Trump.   Thus justice would fail (yet again) as a result of politics.

So that might be what is going on behind the scenes.   Another possibility, of course, is that the justice department has been processing this evidence and simply has not yet completed its process to the point where it will commit to an action.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.2.25  Jack_TX  replied to  igknorantzrulz @18.2.23    one month ago
It is quite obvious as TiG stated, this was to educate the ignorant masses.

To what end?  

especially those ignorant to so much via the Fox "news" bubble

*sigh*  I'm not sure you could be more predictable.  BTW, far less than 1% of Americans watch Fox News.  You're going to need to find a new villain.

Unfortunate as it is, the people of this country NEEDED to be educated of all of the facts surrounding Trumps latest and by far his most greatest, HIT on US.

To what end?

If TRUE, and i believe it is, Trump sent enflamed enraged ARMED protestors 

Who didn't actually shoot anybody.  And you don't find that strange?  No, of course you don't.  That would require questioning the approved party line.

thus the expected peaceful transition of power, that which WAS DENIED.

I think you'll find it wasn't.  I think you'll find that Joe Biden is actually the President of the United States.

FUCK TRUMP

Well we agree on something, at least. 

It is quite unfortunate that so many elected Republican Representatives and Sentators allowed him to remain in office after the first impeachment.

In the universe of "unfortunate" related to Donald Trump, that's not even in the top 10.

Don't you think he;s done enough already.....

This isn't about him.  It's about US. 

Understand clearly.... Trump being a complete bastard and totally detached from reality does NOT make it OK for anybody else to follow suit.  This is not some sort of metaphysical teeter-totter where you must match his level of irrational crazy bullshit to even out the universe.  

We are a nation of laws, not "feelings".  If the man did something illegal, then let's stop fucking around and lock his fat ass up. Otherwise, this is just another bullshit exercise where triggered liberals sit around and talk about how terrible Trump is like a bunch of 6 year olds tattling to a teacher.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.2.26  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @18.2.24    one month ago
Trying Trump and ultimately convicting a former PotUS of a crime is a big deal and I would expect it to raise all sorts of concerns to those who would be responsible for executing this process.

That's a valid point.

The Ds might not want to see Trump tried due to potential political fallout.

I think the political fallout they most fear is the loss of the single thing that has driven most of their votes for the last 2 elections.  Once Trump is in jail the supervillain is gone, and they're left to face the music on a terrible economy and several loud, militant leftists that that drive away centrists at every opportunity.

So they're hoping that if they can string this out long enough, they can make it feel like Trump is still a massive threat and scare some folks into voting for a Democrat or two.

Another possibility, of course, is that the justice department has been processing this evidence and simply has not yet completed its process to the point where it will commit to an action.

That's certainly a possibility.  Which still leaves the question...why the televised theater, complete with dramatic "surprise witness" and "shocking new testimony"?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
18.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.26    one month ago
So they're hoping that if they can string this out long enough, they can make it feel like Trump is still a massive threat and scare some folks into voting for a Democrat or two.

That would be a dumb strategy but that does not mean that a political party would not 'think' this way.

... why the televised theater, complete with dramatic "surprise witness" and "shocking new testimony"?  

Because the committee is trying to get a large audience.   It is marketing.   That does not surprise me at all.   Given this has a partisan objective too I fully expect them to be coordinating this for campaign ads.  

But none of that matters to me.   What matters to me is the evidence that has been presented.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
18.2.28  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @18.2.25    one month ago
We are a nation of laws, not "feelings".  If the man did something illegal, then let's stop fucking around and lock his fat ass up. Otherwise, this is just another bullshit exercise where triggered liberals sit around and talk about how terrible Trump is like a bunch of 6 year olds tattling to a teacher.

No, we are also a Snoweflake Nation of drops on the floor, cause "our collective 'feelings' seem to be capable of melting to override evidence and on the record, under oath, TESTIMONEY, cause there is not an equal from those who run and hide, after being subpoena handed, back handed does it not seem, how these Scumbags think they deserve some sort of special protection, because they were the main characters in an    attempted insurrection   that is the biggest threat this country has possibly seen in a century or so, or so what, or , i guess this wouldn't rate that high to one who would imply he must be charged to reach achievement, cause we both know, and are smarter than that, yety, you seem reluctant to show the entire picture and it is simple, Jack, hey, wasn't he a character....Jack ?  Just a simple ? Jack

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
18.2.29  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @18.2.24    one month ago
Another possibility, of course, is that the justice department has been processing this evidence and simply has not yet completed its process to the point where it will commit to an action.

As the J6 Committee Chairman said at the beginning of the hearing, they are only releasing the parts of the depositions used during the hearings. To 'complete the process' the DOJ will need every one of the depositions, in their entirety, before they can prosecute. If deposition testimony, in the hands of the government, contains exculpatory evidence for any defendant, the DOJ has a legal duty to release it to the defense. This is one of the major reasons that the DOJ has asked for the depositions and any underlying documents to be released to them. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
18.3  Split Personality  replied to  Jack_TX @18    one month ago

Perhaps it should run it's course, charging everyone involved.

Then Biden should offer Trump alone, a pardon.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.3.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @18.3    one month ago
Perhaps it should run it's course, charging everyone involved. Then Biden should offer Trump alone, a pardon.

Define "it".

What are we thinking has not already run its course?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
18.3.2  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @18.3    one month ago
Then Biden should offer Trump alone, a pardon.

Why?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
18.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @18.3.2    one month ago

As far as I'm concerned that's a 'no fucking way' regarding giving whatshisname a pardon.  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
18.3.4  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tessylo @18.3.3    one month ago

Trump should be prosecuted (Mexico will pay for it).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @18.3.4    one month ago
Trump should be prosecuted

So, why all the delays?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
18.3.6  Split Personality  replied to  Dulay @18.3.2    one month ago

So he can publicly admit his guilt by accepting a pardon.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
18.3.7  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @18.3.6    one month ago

WHY? 

I hope he NEVER admits to anything. Let him rot. 

Remember, Trump said he NEVER asked God for forgiveness. 

BTW, NONE of the people Trump pardoned publicly admitted to anything. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
18.4  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jack_TX @18    one month ago
Are we any closer to actual charges being filed?

This is a Congressional investigation.

Congress doesn't "file charges".

The DOJ will announcement the charges/indictments when they are ready.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.4.1  Jack_TX  replied to  al Jizzerror @18.4    one month ago
This is a Congressional investigation.

Congress doesn't "file charges".

The DOJ will announcement the charges/indictments when they are ready.

So these hearings are simply political theater.  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
18.4.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jack_TX @18.4.1    one month ago
these hearings are simply political theater.

You mean like the Watergate hearings?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.4.3  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @18.4.2    one month ago
You mean like the Watergate hearings?

No, he is specifically calling the current hearings that.

It's right there in his post.

The mention of Watergate is just a deflection, although I don't see why anyone would bother.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.4.4  Jack_TX  replied to  al Jizzerror @18.4.2    one month ago
You mean like the Watergate hearings?

The Watergate hearings resulted in action... i.e... the resignation of a sitting president.

Are you hoping these have similar effect?  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
18.4.5  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jack_TX @18.4.4    one month ago
Are you hoping these have similar effect?

No.

A loser can't resign.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.4.6  Jack_TX  replied to  al Jizzerror @18.4.5    one month ago
A loser can't resign.

It should be obvious that the sitting president wouldn't be the loser, now, would he?

So what action is it you do hope will come of these hearings?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
18.4.7  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jack_TX @18.4.6    one month ago

It's up to the DOJ to take action(s).

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
18.4.8  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jack_TX @18.4.6    one month ago
It should be obvious that the sitting president wouldn't be the loser,

It should be obvious that the sitting president is the winner, Joe Biden.

It's also obvious that Donald Trump is the loser and he is now just a whiney ass private citizen.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
18.4.9  Jack_TX  replied to  al Jizzerror @18.4.8    one month ago
It should be obvious that the sitting president is the winner, Joe Biden.

That is who I've been talking about.  Sitting.  President.  

It's also obvious that Donald Trump is the loser and he is now just a whiney ass private citizen.

Well....kinda.  He's an ex-president with Secret Service protection, just like Obama or W.  So he's definitely not a "private citizen" in the same way we are.  If he's ever kidnapped by terrorists we'll send Green Berets or Seals or whoever after him.  If one of us is ever kidnapped, they'll send condolence letters to our families. 

But that's beside the point.

You still haven't managed to describe what you hope will be the result of these hearings.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
19  Drinker of the Wry    one month ago
Then Biden should offer Trump alone, a pardon.

I  believe that Ford did for the country, not Nixon.  He paid the price and it probably cost his the 76 election.  Leadership involves self-sacrifice and taking Trump to trial and convicting him will further tear this country apart.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
19.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @19    one month ago

Sometimes things need to be torn down, before being rebuilt.  I wou;d start with the entire Republican Party.  how these fckrs accepted, defended, and dismissed any and all that Trump has done, should be there undoing, till it is not undone. There needs to be a CLEAR sign to these hypocritical heathens, that actions HAVE CONSEQUENCES  and there IS NEVER a reason to allow a party, to put itself ABOVE OUR COUNTRY !

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
19.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  igknorantzrulz @19.1    one month ago

Non-MAGA have been far more than patient enough with these assholes. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
19.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @19.1.1    one month ago

You’re a big man JR, a big man.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
19.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @19.1.2    one month ago

get lost

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
19.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @19.1.3    one month ago
Get lost?

I have both a compass and a map,  I’m not going to get lost.  Why would you want someone lost, company?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
19.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @19.1.4    one month ago

ok, then stop trolling

thatll work too

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
19.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @19.1.1    one month ago
Non-MAGA have been far more than patient enough with these assholes. 

Democrats have spent over 40 million this year trying to help MAGA candidates win.

Either they are lying about MAGA being a risk to the country, or they don't care about risking the country to help their party. 

If they are such assholes, why does your party spend so much time and money helping them?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
19.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @19.1.6    one month ago

[Drleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
19.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @19.1.6    one month ago
If they are such assholes, why does your party spend so much time and money helping them?

Is the above comment code for "okay, you figured out we are full of shit and only care about getting elected"?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
19.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @19.1.7    one month ago

The world is easy when all you do is blame Trump and never accept any responsibility for anything, isn't it? 

Such a Trump like world view. Everything you do to advance your interests is fine, right?  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
19.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @19.1.9    one month ago

I have been against Trump since 2015, long before he became president. I also predicted in 2015 that, long term ,Trump supporters would prove to be a bigger problem for the nation than Trump himself.  Now we see the truth of that.

this young lady gave smoking guns today

and we have MAGA coming out of the woodwork to defend him

Trump was the king birther in 2011. He was too stupid or dishonest to admit or realize that the state of Hawaii had, twice, definitively stated that Obamas birth certificate was in the state archives and had been inspected. Only a moron would have continued with it, and he did and did. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
19.1.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @19.1.10    one month ago
I have been against Trump since 2015,

What took you so long?  You were good with Trump when he was donating to Dems?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
19.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @19.1.11    one month ago

a lot of not so good people have donated to both parties

do you have anything actually relevant to say or are you just going to keep flapping your lips? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
19.1.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @19.1.12    one month ago
do you have anything actually relevant to say

I say that you didn't answer my question,

are you just going to keep flapping your lips?

What an old trite expression in a text forum.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
19.1.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @19.1.5    one month ago

I'm sorry that you see yourself as a troll victim.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
19.1.15  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @19.1.10    one month ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
19.2  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @19    one month ago

there's always room for compromise. for his part in the J6 insurrection, nullify any and all post presidential benefits he would ever receive, and then let him face the music in multiple courts of law on his remaining judicial problems.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
19.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @19.2    one month ago

That’s an option for Biden, maybe he will run on it.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
19.3  Split Personality  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @19    one month ago
I  believe that Ford did that for the country, not for Nixon. 

Agreed.

He paid the price and it probably cost his the 76 election.

Not sure it would matter for Biden, I don't think he has 6 more years in him.

  Leadership involves self-sacrifice and taking Trump to trial and convicting him will further tear this country apart.

Agreed, and there is precedent in American politics ( if precedent matters anymore ) 

even Jefferson Davis was pardoned by President Johnson in 1868.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
19.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @19.3    one month ago
even Jefferson Davis was pardoned by President Johnson in 1868.

and we've had die hard confederates for the next 150 years

no pardons

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
19.3.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @19.3.1    one month ago
and we've had die hard confederates for the next 140 years

Exactly, and we’ve had five Die Hard movies over the last 34 years.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
19.3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @19.3.2    one month ago

get lost

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
19.3.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @19.3.3    one month ago
get lost

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
19.3.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @19.3.4    one month ago
With GPS, get serious.

You do know what get lost means in the colloquial sense, dont you? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
19.3.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @19.3.5    one month ago
You do know what get lost means in the colloquial sense, dont you? 

You do know that it's a silly, outdated expression, don't you?  [Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
19.3.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @19.3.6    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
19.3.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @19.3.7    one month ago
old enough to know that you are a troll

Wisdom is knowledge through experience, not age, John.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @19.3    one month ago

I DISAGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY

FUCK HIM

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.4  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @19    one month ago
"Leadership involves self-sacrifice and taking Trump to trial and convicting him will further tear this country apart."

BULLFUCKINGSHIT

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
19.4.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @19.4    one month ago

You came up with a different term for a change, thanks.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
19.4.2  bugsy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @19.4.1    one month ago

Still very little thought process coming up with it, though.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal