JBB

JBB

Live Commentary - January 6th Committee Final Repory - December 19th 2022

  
By:  JBB  •  Opinions  •  2 months ago  •  123 comments

Live Commentary - January 6th Committee Final Repory - December 19th 2022
"Trump lead a seditious conspiracy to defraud Americans".

What are your thoughts on today's hearing?

Tags

jrBlog - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  author  JBB    2 months ago

To indict or not to indict? That is the question!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  JBB @1    2 months ago

To indict or not to indict? That is the question!

Indict? Yes.  For insurrection?  Probably not.

Did he commit insurrection?  Absolutely, but that charge will be too hard to prove based on the evidence we have heard so far.  Unless they have evidence showing direct communication between Trump and the Oath Keepers found guilty or Seditious Conspiracy, it's not going to happen with Trump.

Hopefully I am wrong.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
1.1.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    2 months ago
Did he commit insurrection?  Absolutely,

How... But NOT jumping in front of the Bus personally ?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    2 months ago

I do think they can get him for that little Kabuki theater he played with Eastman

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2  Drakkonis  replied to  JBB @1    2 months ago
To indict or not to indict? That is the question!

It amazes me that you treat all this as if it is real, rather than theater. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2    2 months ago

Are you real? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.2  author  JBB  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2    2 months ago

January 6th was a violent insurrection, not a theatrical battle on TV or in the movies!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.3  Drakkonis  replied to  JBB @1.2.2    2 months ago
January 6th was a violent insurrection

A matter of perspective. From mine, January 6th was mostly made up of clueless people who did not have a plan but, rather, an excess of emotion. A riot, in other words. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.4  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    2 months ago
Are you real?

That's an interesting question. Are we going existential? 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
1.2.5  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @1.2.2    2 months ago
January 6th was a violent insurrection, not a theatrical battle on TV

No different than the 2016 Violent murderous  Riots (where folks were actually murdered and not "murdered" by the media's say so) that got a "Pass" as "Peaceful" Protesting. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.3    2 months ago

Was it wrong for Trump to exploit the influence of his office to push the blatant lie that the 2020 election was rigged, that he is the legitimate PotUS, and that his supporters need to act because they were disenfranchised?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.7  author  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.2.5    2 months ago

Don't be ridiculous! There is no comparing!

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
1.2.8  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @1.2.7    2 months ago
Don't be ridiculous! There is no comparing!

You are correct !

Burning of U.S. Citizen's Private Property/businesses and Murders of U.S. Citizens in the streets doesn't compare at all !

256

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
1.2.9  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.6    2 months ago

Was it wrong for Brandon to advocate the more than the same, and claim it as Justified, as was The VP of Brandon to run a "Bail" campaign for those that Hurt/Killed Private Citizens or Burned their Properties in quite a few States of these United States that they were supposed to govern too ?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.2.10  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.6    2 months ago

"Was it wrong for Trump to exploit the influence of his office to push the blatant lie that the 2020 election was rigged, that he is the legitimate PotUS, and that his supporters need to act because they were disenfranchised?"

How exactly did he do that? What were his exact words?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.10    2 months ago
What were his exact words?

What a pathetic deflection.  You cannot even acknowledge Trump's wrongdoing in his Big Lie campaign.   

One thing that is easy to find is Trump lying about the 2020 election;  you can watch him in his speeches — surely you are able to find a YouTube video where Trump was talking about the 2020 election.   Just pay attention.   

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  author  JBB    2 months ago

"Trump is unfit to hold any public office ever again" - Liz Cheney 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JBB @2    2 months ago

She ain't wrong. He was never fit to hold public office

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.1  author  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1    2 months ago

Trump is a contender for POTUS in 2024!

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
2.1.2  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @2.1.1    2 months ago
Trump is a contender for POTUS in 2024!

So is Dementia Joe.... as the "left" finds Brandon "The More Fit" of anyone else on the "Left" to run.

The "left" proposes to run "Dumbest of the Dumb" as their "BEST?" candidate. LMAO !

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.3  author  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.2    2 months ago

It the gop nominates Trump then Biden will easily whoop his ass again to win 2nd term!

Go For It! Make It Happen! Make My Day!

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
2.1.4  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @2.1.3    2 months ago

If ?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Masters Silent
2.1.5  SteevieGee  replied to  JBB @2.1.1    2 months ago
Trump is a contender for POTUS in 2024!

As a Democrat I should hope that he wins the GOP nomination but, I'm an American first.  This means that I put my country before my party.  I think the only way to get rid of Trump once and for all is for him to lose, badly, in the primaries.  Can't blame the Dems for losing a Republican primary.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.6  author  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.2    2 months ago

So you say, and yet Biden whooped Trump!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @2    2 months ago

Liz has already been proven to be unfit to hold office by her constituents in the Republican primaries- where she lost badly!

She is counting down the minutes before the Democrats finally declare her politically irrelevant; and drop their faux support.

Nothing the Pelosi hand picked TDS suffering shill does or says means anything.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    one month ago

Liz  Cheney = Textbook example of RINO

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.2.1    one month ago

The GOP is far better served by those who do not suck up to Trump for a perceived short term political gain.   If more of the GoP had refused to play Trump’s game and refused to give Trump a pass at every turn (like Cheney), Trump would have long been disassociated from the GoP.

Instead, he remains a viable candidate for the nomination.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2.2.3  evilgenius  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.2.1    one month ago
Liz  Cheney = Textbook example of RINO

How do you figure? Cheney's congressional vote record is more conservative than Stefanik's who took her #3 spot in the party.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3  Greg Jones    2 months ago

Indict who? Trump? Many allegations have been made about the level of Trump's involvement, but nothing has been proven up to date.

Several people broke the law and are being prosecuted. Many others who were simply in the crowd have been illegally detained.

Personally, I couldn't care less. It's all been a smear campaign to go after a political opponent

An unplanned and un-orchestrated spontaneous demonstration got out of hand and turned into a half ass riot.

It was by no means an attempt at an insurrection in spite of all the hysterical claims to the otherwise by the left wingers, and our democracy never came close to being in danger.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Greg Jones @3    2 months ago
It was by no means an attempt at an insurrection in spite of all the hysterical claims to the otherwise by the left wingers, and our democracy never came close to being in danger.

Agree !

Which Government was actually successfully overthrown and the Political process of "Legal" voting diminished (Jim Crow 2.0) in this country ?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.1  author  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1    2 months ago

Are you watching the same hearing I am?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1.2  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @3.1.1    2 months ago
Are you watching the same hearing I am?

Apparently Not, since you seem to think Trump was the "cause" and "instigator" of the Jan. 6th. protest.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.3  author  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.2    2 months ago

Trump conspired in planning his January 6th Insurrection, he called the rioters to DC, incited them and directed them to the US Capitol to stop Congress from ratifying the Electoral College vote and in his lying words to, "Stop The Steal!"..

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1.4  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @3.1.3    2 months ago
he called the rioters to DC, incited them and directed them to the US Capitol to stop Congress from ratifying the Electoral College vote and in his lying words to, "Stop The Steal!"..

Like this:

“I know that a grief that dark and deep may at times feel too heavy to bear”. “I know. I also know that the only way to bear it is to turn all that anguish into purpose.” The Protests are right and necessary”.

Like that ?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.5  author  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.4    2 months ago

Yes, that was a tiny miniscule part of it...

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1.6  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @3.1.5    2 months ago
Yes, that was a tiny miniscule part of it...

Which part ?

The egging on or the promoting part ?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.7  author  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.6    2 months ago

Does all that irrefutable evidence against Trump burn? Seeing him in flames burn?

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
3.1.8  George  replied to  JBB @3.1.7    2 months ago

Do you have the ability to answer a simple question, Why hasn't Garland indicted trump with " all that irrefutable evidence"

Is he incompetent? 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1.9  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @3.1.7    2 months ago
Does all that irrefutable evidence against Trump burn? Seeing him in flames burn?

Hypocrisy is what "Burns", as it should for YOU Too !

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  George @3.1.8    2 months ago

Was it wrong for Trump to exploit the influence of his office to push the blatant lie that the 2020 election was rigged, that he is the legitimate PotUS, and that his supporters need to act because they were disenfranchised?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.11  author  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.9    2 months ago

No excusing Trump's sedition conspiracy!

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1.12  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @3.1.11    2 months ago

If the MSM and the Democrats can be excused for Allowing riots and murder to continue .... so can Trump can be excused too !

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.13  author  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.12    2 months ago

Nobody is being exused for any crimes. The George Floyd looters and rioters have been charged, prosecuted and jailed...

Still doesn't campare with January 6th!

Congress was forced to flee on Jan 6th!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @3.1.3    2 months ago
Trump conspired in planning his January 6th Insurrection

Well here is the problem for the DOJ: Of the hundreds of people they charged for various Jan 6th offenses, not 1 has been charged with "insurrection."  So how can they charge Donald Trump under section 3 of the 14th Amendment? Then there is the problem of appearances. (Not that democrats worry about that anymore). You have a partisan committee making criminal referrals to a very partisan DOJ serving the political opponent of the former President to be charged. I'm sure a DC Jury would convict Donald Trump of anything, but Merrick Garland will think long & hard before going down in history as the AG that stooped to that level.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1.15  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @3.1.13    2 months ago
The George Floyd looters and rioters have been charged, prosecuted and jailed...

Except for those folks in "Congress" that actually were sympathetic, and went on National TV, to Insite and proclaim their "Support" with the rioting murderers, and even helped "Bail them out" !

The Jan. 6th Protestors have been charged, prosecuted and jailed.. right ?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.16  author  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.15    2 months ago

Yes, only the conspirators await charges!

Trump, Eastman and Stone must be next.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @3.1.13    2 months ago
The George Floyd looters and rioters have been charged, prosecuted and jailed...

"Despite the large number of arrests, The Hill reported most of those protesters were booked not for violent crimes, but for low-level offenses such as violating curfews. Obstructing roadways and carrying open containers  were other reasons  for the arrests,  as well as  “failure to disperse.” 




Still doesn't campare with January 6th!

No, with 2 dozen deaths and $2 Billion in damage the Floyd riots were far worse.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.1.18  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @3.1.3    2 months ago
"Trump conspired in planning his January 6th Insurrection, he called the rioters to DC, incited them and directed them to the US Capitol to stop Congress from ratifying the Electoral College vote and in his lying words to, "Stop The Steal!"..

None of the above statement is true or verified.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2  author  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @3    2 months ago

January 6th Committee wants Trump indicted!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @3    2 months ago
Many allegations have been made about the level of Trump's involvement, but nothing has been proven up to date.

Do you think it was wrong for Trump to engage in his Big Lie campaign wherein he abused the authority and influence of his office to discredit the US electoral system and cause tens of millions to think their votes were disenfranchised and that Biden is an illegitimate PotUS?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4  author  JBB    2 months ago

The Congressional January 6th Committee voted unanimously to refer Trump for criminal charges!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @4    2 months ago

Now comes the real challenge.  They have to actually prove these charges and deal with an actual defense.  Something they have yet to do.  It may not end well for them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1    2 months ago

Was it wrong for Trump to continually insist that the 2020 election was rigged (even to the present)?

Was it wrong for Trump to not act to curtail his supporters for three hours while they were engaging in an armed breaking and entering of the Capitol building and disrupting the lawful working of Congress?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    2 months ago

And what does that have to do with these charges finally being challenged by a defense team?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.2    2 months ago

You need me to explain to you how a question of Trump's wrongdoing applies to charges being filed against him?

You still cannot bring yourself to acknowledge even wrongdoing by Trump in his Big Lie campaign.   

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.4  author  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1    2 months ago

The January 6th Committee has evidence to convict Trump of a Seditious conspiracy...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @4.1.4    2 months ago

He does not even acknowledge wrongdoing by Trump. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    2 months ago

MAGA people do not care about Trumps crimes. That is crystal clear. Those people must be left behind on the ash heap of history, so to speak. 

Many of them are beyond help. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.3    2 months ago
You need me to explain to you how a question of Trump's wrongdoing applies to charges being filed against him?

I don't need to explain a goddamn thing.  I ask you what your moronic deflection of a question has to do with these charges finally being challenged by a defense team? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.7    2 months ago

Everyone can see that you refuse to even acknowledge wrongdoing by Trump.   Pathetic, blind partisanship.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @4.1.4    2 months ago
The January 6th Committee has evidence to convict Trump of a Seditious conspiracy..

Evidence that has not been challenged by a defense team.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.10  author  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.9    2 months ago

The irrefutable evidence we've all seen?

Who to believe? Trump's lies or my eyes?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.8    2 months ago
Everyone can see that you refuse to even acknowledge wrongdoing by Trump.

Let me get this out here - You aren't important enough to demand an explanation from ANYBODY.  

It must really get under your skin that I won't play your pathetic little game.  What you fail to realize, or don't understand, is that many don't give a flying shit about Trump.  (That's YOUR infatuation.  Not mine.)  The problem many have is the way the system is incorrectly used.  You see that and immediately take that as a defense.  When you can differentiate between the two you might be able to have a conversation with others.  Until then, have a nice day.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @4.1.10    2 months ago
The irrefutable evidence we've all seen?

Evidence that has not been challenged by a defense team.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.11    2 months ago

You refuse to even acknowledge wrongdoing by Trump and instead consistently leap to his defense.

That is essentially proof of blind partisanship.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.14  author  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.11    2 months ago

Nobody who is right gets that agitated...

We realize all that proof is lots to take in.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
4.1.15  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @4.1.14    2 months ago
We realize all that proof is lots to take in.

As transparent as Adam "Schifty" Schiffs, irrefutable proof that has NEVER surfaced to date ?

Still waiting for that proof to show itself.

But Adam has it.... he promised !

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.13    2 months ago

Prove it and I'll acknowledge it.  Like I told you before, link the PDFs for these allegations and I'll take a look.  Until then, have a good day.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @4.1.14    2 months ago
Nobody who is right gets that agitated...

So you in the room with me?  No?  So you have absolutely no idea if I'm agitated or hysterically laughing at you.  

We realize all that proof is lots to take in.

When you show me the proof I'll take it in.  So far all we've seen are half cocked hoaxes and failed investigations.  Maybe you can work with TiG and link those PDFs.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.18  author  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.17    2 months ago

So why behave so angirly, out of control?

Chill. Take a breath and a pill. Calm down!

It was just Congress exposing evidence...

The cat is out the bag. Everybody sees it.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
4.1.19  George  replied to  JBB @4.1.18    2 months ago
It was just Congress exposing evidence...

So Garland should indict them for interfering in a criminal investigation. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.1.20  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @4.1.4    2 months ago

The "Committee" doesn't have the power to convict anyone, only to refer their findings to the DOJ

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.16    2 months ago
Prove it and I'll acknowledge it. 

That is what is so pathetic about your position:  you need someone to 'prove' that Trump engaged in wrongdoing.    You will not even acknowledge that Trump blatantly lied to the world that the US electoral system was rigged and that he was the legitimate PotUS.    We all have watched him engage in the lie repeatedly, even now, yet you always run away from even acknowledging that obvious reality.

It is pathetic to see this level of blind partisanship at play.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.21    2 months ago
you need someone to 'prove' that Trump engaged in wrongdoing

Are you actually think somebody would just arbitrarily agree with you without any thing to back up you claims?  Do you realize how utterly stupid that is?  And you ask about it over and over again.  Like attempted brow beating me will change my mind?  Sorry Skippy.  Not going to happen unless you can show me, without a shadow of a doubt that you are correct.  And to date, you haven't shown me anything.

Now, as I've ask you before - what, if anything, does that have to do with my original statement in 4?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.22    2 months ago

When it comes to Trump's wrongdoing on the Big Lie, the facts are beyond obvious and out there for everyone to see.   

Your repeated refusal to acknowledge even wrongdoing (right vs. wrong, not even criminal) on what Trump has done illustrates blind partisanship.   At this point it is stubbornly blind.   You will not even acknowledge that it was wrong for Trump to lie about the election being rigged.   

It is that (pathetic) support of Trump which enables him to remain relevant.    If he wins the nomination it will be solely because of people who behave as you do.   When he loses the general election and enables the D candidate to win the presidency, it will be the fault of those who stubbornly supported and defended him.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
5  George    2 months ago

What new evidence was produced from these hearings that Garland didn't already have at this point? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1  author  JBB  replied to  George @5    2 months ago

The point of public hearings was so the public is also informed of all the evidence against Trump, his co-conspirators and enablers in his White House and those in the gop in Congress...

Mission Accomplished! Trump will be indicted!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @5.1    2 months ago
Trump will be indicted!

Maybe.

The DoJ is political too.   If the Ds deem indicting Trump to be a political disadvantage we may never see an indictment.   And that would be further evidence of how our system is degrading.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.2  afrayedknot  replied to  JBB @5.1    2 months ago

“The point of the public hearings is that the public can also be informed…”

The detractors will label it ‘political’ as they have nothing else on which to hang their hat. This is a precedent. An important precedent.  

Do we allow a disgruntled ex-president to run roughshod over our electoral system or do we stand up for that system, even if it means indicting one bent on tearing it down? The answer is clear. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  afrayedknot @5.1.2    2 months ago
The detractors will label it ‘political’ ...

An entirely unpersuasive dodge of the facts.

The answer is clear. 

... to the rational.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @5.1    2 months ago
The point of the public hearings

The point of a hearing is to bring both sides together and go over the evidence and make a decision.  This wasn't a "hearing".  All you got was what the TDS driven wanted you to see and hear.  Not that this should be a surprise to any of us.

A hearing allows defense to challenge evidence.  Given that never happened, the question is will this evidence stand up to scrutiny by a defense team.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
5.1.5  George  replied to  JBB @5.1    2 months ago

You do know why the DOJ conducts their investigations in secret? Right?  What this committee has done it turn a criminal investigation by the DoJ into a political theater.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.6  author  JBB  replied to  George @5.1.5    2 months ago

Like the gop did with Hillary for 20 years?

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
5.1.7  George  replied to  JBB @5.1.6    2 months ago

I'm sorry, Can you point out where Hillary was under criminal investigation like you have been claiming trump was? and then point out where a republican Congress interfered in that criminal investigation.

If not, your deflection is as worthless as this congressional referral.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.8  author  JBB  replied to  George @5.1.7    2 months ago

The FBI investigation of Hillary's e-mails!

Plus the interminable gop investigations.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @5.1.8    2 months ago
The FBI investigation of Hillary's e-mails!

LMAO!

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
5.1.10  George  replied to  JBB @5.1.8    2 months ago

There was never a criminal investigation of Hillary into her emails. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5.1.11  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.1    2 months ago

It's not going to happen. Everyone nationwide knows this was a televised cheap political stunt

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.11    2 months ago

The Jan 6th committee is distinct from the DoJ.   Are you suggesting that the DoJ will not take this further because all of the under-oath testimonies by highly connected Republicans is all bullshit ... that none of it is true?    Are you suggesting that Trump actually did make an attempt to stop the insurrection within the first three hours it ensued?  

Pathetic denial in an ongoing support of Trump.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.13  afrayedknot  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.11    2 months ago

“…a televised cheap political stunt…”

…thus describing every single manufactured appearance since the loss. Welcome to Court TV…karma?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
5.1.14  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @5.1    2 months ago
he point of public hearings was so the public is also informed of all the evidence against Trump, his co-conspirators and enablers in his White House and those in the gop in Congress... Mission Accomplished! Trump will be indicted!

That's not actually how indictments work.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
6  George    2 months ago

So if trump isn't indicted, is Garland incompetent or a political hack?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1  TᵢG  replied to  George @6    2 months ago

If Trump is not indicted, and we have no good reason forthcoming to explain this, my conclusion will be that Garland is acting politically.   If so, he would be doing a great disservice to our nation.   Those who engage in wrongdoing —especially at the highest levels of office— need to be held accountable.  If not, the wrongdoing will lower the bar and encourage more people in the future to do likewise (or worse).

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    2 months ago

What wrongdoing are you talking about. Why all the vague generalities?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.1    2 months ago

I have spelled this out on this site for months.   Here:

Was it   wrong  for Trump to try to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution?  Was it wrong for Trump to:

  • claim that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud in the US electoral system?
  • agitate his supporters into falsely thinking their votes were disenfranchised?
  • try to get officials (e.g.  Raffensperger) to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia)?
  • try to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)?
  • try to get the Speaker of the AZ House (Bowers) to authorize fake electors?
  • try to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states?
  • encourage his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election)?
  • tweet that Pence had let them down in the middle of the insurrection?
  • refuse to take action to stop the insurrection for 3 hours?

This is a question of right vs. wrong.   It is obvious that Trump was wrong to do these things.   Denying the obvious just diminishes credibility.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
6.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    2 months ago
If Trump is not indicted, and we have no good reason forthcoming to explain this, my conclusion will be that Garland is acting politically.   If so, he would be doing a great disservice to our nation.   Those who engage in wrongdoing —especially at the highest levels of office— need to be held accountable.  If not, the wrongdoing will lower the bar and encourage more people in the future to do likewise (or worse).

I think we need to remember that there is an exceedingly high probability that Garland and the DOJ have mountains of information that we don't know about, at least some of which will show Trump's actions in a more favorable light than the information released by the Jan 6 committee, which was obviously very one sided.

Attempting to convict Trump and failing would quite possibly be more damaging to the nation than not attempting at all.  That idea becomes increasingly applicable as Trump loses ground to other Republican challengers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.3    2 months ago
I think we need to remember that there is an exceedingly high probability that Garland and the DOJ have mountains of information that we don't know about, at least some of which will show Trump's actions in a more favorable light than the information released by the Jan 6 committee, which was obviously very one sided.

We do not know what a good reason Garland might have to not pursue this.  I think the likelihood is low that the DoJ (or any entity) has mountains of information that counters the direct testimony from highly-connected Republicans whose political futures were on the line for testifying.   But, unfortunately, all one can do is speculate.

Attempting to convict Trump and failing would quite possibly be more damaging to the nation than not attempting at all.  That idea becomes increasingly applicable as Trump loses ground to other Republican challengers.

I can see why someone would shy away from even pursuing criminal charges against Trump if one looks at this in a purely political sense.    But what is politically best is not necessarily right or ... as I wrote:

TiG @6.1 ☞ Those who engage in wrongdoing —especially at the highest levels of office— need to be held accountable.  If not, the wrongdoing will lower the bar and encourage more people in the future to do likewise (or worse).
 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
6.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.4    2 months ago
We do not know what a good reason Garland might have to not pursue this.

No, but as you say, we can speculate, and it doesn't take long to come up with some plausible options.

I think the likelihood is low that the DoJ (or any entity) has mountains of information that counters the direct testimony from highly-connected Republicans whose political futures were on the line for testifying.

I didn't say counter.   I merely said such information could show Trump's actions in a more favorable light.  

I can see why someone would shy away from even pursuing criminal charges against Trump if one looks at this in a purely political sense.

I suspect it's significantly more complicated than that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.3    2 months ago

What is the "favorable light"  connected to Trump watching the riot on tv for three hours and not lifting a finger to stop it?

I'll tell you what the unfavorable light is - he wanted the riot to succeed in disrupting and delaying the vote to confirm the election , and thats why he wasnt interested in stopping it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.5    2 months ago
I merely said such information could show Trump's actions in a more favorable light.  

That correlates with what I mean by 'counter'.   Take an indisputable fact.   Prosecution will show the fact in an unfavorable light whereas defense will show it in a favorable light.

I suspect it's significantly more complicated than that.

No doubt; real world situations are almost always more complex than they appear to be.   Outside of the case being deemed insufficiently strong to clearly win, or a political calculation that dissuades the DoJ from proceeding, what do you have in mind?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    2 months ago
What is the "favorable light"  connected to Trump watching the riot on tv for three hours and not lifting a finger to stop it?

One of many very good questions one can ask.   Funny how there seems to be no hypotheticals offered (in general, not just here on NT) on how Trump would conduct a defense.   Maybe they want to hold their cards close.   More likely it is because they have nothing but a house of cards.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
6.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.7    2 months ago
That correlates with what I mean by 'counter'.   Take an indisputable fact.   Prosecution will show the fact in an unfavorable light whereas defense will show it in a favorable light.

Take an indisputable fact.  Then add additional facts that change the perspective of the first fact.

How about an example?

Start with a fact.  Let's say you shot your neighbor's dog.  Everybody saw you do it. You don't deny it. It's an indisputable fact.

Then let's add another fact:  The dog is a pit bull that had already mauled you so badly you couldn't stand.

And another fact:  The dog was charging toward a small child when you shot him. 

And another fact:  The dog has already attacked several other dogs on the street.

And another fact:  The children who live in that house regularly have bite marks on them.

Neither of the additional facts counter the first.  You shot the dog.  That's still indisputable.  But the perspective on the event is very different now that facts 2-5 are known.  

Now, if I were your enemy, I would talk loud and long all around the neighborhood about how you shot the dog.  I would keep using words like "undisputed" and "proven" and I might even say something like "those are the facts".  I might even recruit other people to report on how devastated the dog's owner is. I'd easily be able to convince lots of those emotional people that love dogs and insist they never do anything wrong that you're a murderous villain. 

I could then start accusing anybody who mentioned that there might be additional facts of being a dog-hating bastard, and all of those emotional people would join my lynch mob, probably enthusiastically.  Stupid, emotional people are easily swayed and love to think they're rescuing or defending something.

So when we look at the Jan 6 committee... which is obviously very biased and was obviously very careful in their selection of the tiny subset of facts they showed us... and then realize the DOJ has far more information and reviews it much more impartially, it doesn't take much effort to understand there is undoubtedly much more to all this than we've been told.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
6.1.10  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    2 months ago
What is the "favorable light"  connected to Trump watching the riot on tv for three hours and not lifting a finger to stop it?

We have no idea what he was told and by whom.  We don't know what limitations the Secret Service may have put in place.  We have no idea what he may have tried or not tried to do during that period. 

What we do know is that any evidence whatsoever that might make his actions less damning was absolutely never going to be a part of the testimony we heard. 

I'll tell you what the unfavorable light is - he wanted the riot to succeed in disrupting and delaying the vote to confirm the election , and thats why he wasnt interested in stopping it. 

That's certainly one possible outcome.   And given your 100,000,000 post history of Trump hatred, that's the only one I would ever expect you to consider.

But if all of the evidence pointed exclusively to that conclusion, he probably would have been charged by now.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.9    2 months ago
Take an indisputable fact.  Then add additional facts that change the perspective of the first fact.

You illustrated what I had just noted:  "Prosecution will show the fact in an unfavorable light whereas defense will show it in a favorable light."   Favorable light ≅ perspective.

The favorable light refers to the defense argument which will, of course, be based on facts (or should be).   Not sure what you think you are illustrating here unless you somehow did not understand what I meant by "favorable light".    

So when we look at the Jan 6 committee... which is obviously very biased and was obviously very careful in their selection of the tiny subset of facts they showed us... and then realize the DOJ has far more information and reviews it much more impartially, it doesn't take much effort to understand there is undoubtedly much more to all this than we've been told.

With this: "the DOJ has far more information and reviews it much more impartially" you confidently state that the DoJ has significant evidence to counter the perception established by the committee.   Not sure why you are so confident that the DoJ has evidence that would counter the testimonies (the core evidence) provided by the committee.  It is possible, but what besides pure speculation on your part suggests this is so?

Make a case.   Do you think a Trump defense can show that Barr was lying when he testified that he told Trump that DoJ investigations show no evidence of fraud that would change the election and that his claims were bullshit (yet Trump continued with his bullshit)?   Do you think they can show that Speaker Bowers was lying when he testified that Trump attempted to get him to submit alternate electors for AZ?   Can they provide persuasive reasons for why Trump knowingly refused to take any action to quiesce the violence at the Capitol for three hours?    Can they reasonably explain the constructive purpose of Trump tweeting to his supporters in the middle of the insurrection that Pence had let them down?   etc.  etc.  etc.

While I accept the possibility that a persuasive alternate perception can be made, I personally do not see one.    And since nobody has offered even a hint at what a Trump defense might be, I am at this point not persuaded in the least that the testimonies given under oath by highly-connected Republicans whose careers were compromised by testifying represent a partisan-distorted façade and that the 'real truth' will come out in a trial and exonerate Trump.   Rather, I am persuaded by all that I have seen (including and especially Trump's own words, deeds and the actions of his supporters) that the committee's presentation is much closer to truth than partisan spin.

So make a case in defense of Trump and let's see if it holds water.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
6.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.11    2 months ago
Not sure why you are so confident that the DoJ has evidence that would counter the testimonies (the core evidence) provided by the committee.  It is possible, but what besides pure speculation on your part suggests this is so?

It's simple statistics.  The committee has intentionally curated a set of evidence designed to support their very biased purpose.  Unless they're complete morons and wholly terrible at their job, any randomized sample of data is overwhelmingly likely to be much more generous to Trump.  

Make a case.   Do you think a Trump defense can show that Barr was lying

I don't think that's the relevant data point.  Do you think Barr was the only person Trump was listening to?

While I accept the possibility that a persuasive alternate perception can be made, I personally do not see one.

I'm not sure you actually do accept that possibility in any non-trivial sense.

But you also really don't seem to acknowledge the difference between proving something false and adding context that changes the nature of the situation.  You keep asking about people being proven as liars as if that is not the complete opposite of the point.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.12    2 months ago
It's simple statistics.  The committee has intentionally curated a set of evidence designed to support their very biased purpose.  Unless they're complete morons and wholly terrible at their job, any randomized sample of data is overwhelmingly likely to be much more generous to Trump.  

To hold that view, you would have to assume that the committee is strictly partisan (i.e. no sense of justice) and that they are intentionally presenting a false (not just biased, but FALSE) perception of Trump regarding the Jan 6th case.   That is, you would have to presume that they are flat out lying to the American people by omission;  that what they present runs counter to objective truth and that Trump really did not engage in the wrongdoing they claim.

The committee is biased by definition.   That does not mean that what they have presented to the American people is a distortion that can be easily countered by defense attorneys who can easily secure a random sample of objective facts and present a compelling defense.   I think you are over-emphasizing the bias and precluding the possibility that the committee may have presented a largely accurate depiction of reality.

Do you think Barr was the only person Trump was listening to?

Do you realize I simply offered an example? 

I'm not sure you actually do accept that possibility in any non-trivial sense.

I just told you that I accept the possibility.   I also stated that I do not see how that possibility might manifest.   That is my position.   I know my position better than anyone else on the planet ... that includes you.

But you also really don't seem to acknowledge the difference between proving something false and adding context that changes the nature of the situation. 

Then you are choosing to not read what I have been writing.   Again:

TiG @6.1.7Prosecution will show the fact in an unfavorable light whereas defense will show it in a favorable light.

Favorable light ≅ "adding context that changes the nature of the situation"

The term 'favorable light' refers, normally, to a presentation of facts (usually not lies) which creates a perception that is net good for the subject.


Make a case in defense of Trump and let's see if it holds water.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.13    2 months ago

at is, you would have to presume that they are flat out lying to the American people by omission;

How many times did the Committee highlight Trump's call for peaceful protesting? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.14    2 months ago

Let me know if he answers that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.14    2 months ago

They actually did show Trump calling for peaceful protesting.

The committee did not present everything that is possible to present nor did they provide a Trump defense.    Because of that, is it your position that the committee has flat out lied to the American people and that the wrongdoing they noted for Trump is a lie?

In short, show me the lies presented by this committee.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.15    2 months ago

You think that was a gotcha??

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
6.1.18  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.13    2 months ago
To hold that view, you would have to assume that the committee is strictly partisan (i.e. no sense of justice) and that they are intentionally presenting a false (not just biased, but FALSE) perception of Trump regarding the Jan 6th case.

Not at all.  What an odd conclusion.  I think they believed they had a job to do, and at least some of them believed that "justice" was best achieved by Trump being prosecuted in some way.

The committee is biased by definition.

We have a point of agreement.

That does not mean that what they have presented to the American people is a distortion that can be easily countered by defense attorneys who can easily secure a random sample of objective facts and present a compelling defense. 

It certainly doesn't mean it isn't a distortion, either.  The fact that we've gone two years with no charges filed by a Democratic controlled DOJ most certainly supports the idea that the full set of data makes it much more difficult to convict.

 I think you are over-emphasizing the bias and precluding the possibility that the committee may have presented a largely accurate depiction of reality.

And I think you are discounting that bias. 

Anybody who thinks the "biased by definition" committee was ever likely to present a representative set of data is just naive.  This was all orchestrated very carefully, including but not limited to timing the television productions during the peak of the campaign season.

Do you realize I simply offered an example?

Do you realize I did, also?

I just told you that I accept the possibility.  I also stated that I do not see how that possibility might manifest.   That is my position.   I know my position better than anyone else on the planet ... that includes you.

And I just told you I don't believe that you accept that possibility in any non-trivial sense.  You accept the possibility in the same sense that you accept the possibility that President Biden might be eaten by a bear in his sleep tonight. (as an example)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
6.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.16    2 months ago
The committee did not present everything that is possible to present nor did they provide a Trump defense.    Because of that, is it your position that the committee has flat out lied to the American people and that the wrongdoing they noted for Trump is a lie? In short, show me the lies presented by this committee.

Most real-life situations are not binary.  There are almost always more than two possible outcomes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.18    2 months ago
Not at all.  What an odd conclusion.  I think they believed they had a job to do, and at least some of them believed that "justice" was best achieved by Trump being prosecuted in some way.

So if you hold that the committee is not strictly partisan then why presume they are predominantly driven by partisan motives and portrayed a false narrative of Trump engaged in wrongdoing?   Is it really more likely to you that Trump was not informed that his people were breaking and entering the Capitol or that Trump tried to intercede but was unable to get to the Press room (or Twitter even) to communicate this for three hours?    Obviously I could go on listing examples.

Anybody who thinks the "biased by definition" committee was ever likely to present a representative set of data is just naive. 

Anyone who thinks that a politically biased committee is unable to rise to the occasion on matters of great important is unrealistically cynical.

And I just told you I don't believe that you accept that possibility in any non-trivial sense. 

Make a case.   Don't keep telling me that I will not accept any realistic possibility.   Present a realistic possibility and let's see.

The difference here is that I do not see an honest defense for Trump.   If you have one, then deliver it.   If not, then your argument is not persuasive.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.19    2 months ago
Most real-life situations are not binary.  There are almost always more than two possible outcomes.

Why dodge the question?

Is it your position that the committee has flat out lied to the American people and that the wrongdoing they noted for Trump is a lie? 

You are not required to answer yes | no and I would frankly prefer that you not provide a vague binary answer.   An answer with a supporting argument would be nice.

My position is that the perception of Trump painted by the committee via its under-oath testimonies by high-ranking, connected Republicans whose careers were compromised by testifying is likely to be significantly more accurate than inaccurate.    And until I see some persuasive evidence that Trump ultimately did not do any wrong I have no basis on which to modify this position.

Speculation on statistics and durations without an indictment are nice side notes, but certainly are not persuasive evidence.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
6.1.22  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.21    one month ago
Why dodge the question?

Because it's overly simplistic and unworthy of serious consideration.

You are not required to answer yes | no and I would frankly prefer that you not provide a vague binary answer.

Then stop asking overly simplistic binary questions.

My position is that the perception of Trump painted by the committee via its under-oath testimonies by high-ranking, connected Republicans whose careers were compromised by testifying is likely to be significantly more accurate than inaccurate.

Yes.  And I still disagree with that assessment.

And until I see some persuasive evidence that Trump ultimately did not do any wrong I have no basis on which to modify this position.

You're back to your binary thought process again.  Why would the only possible outcomes be that Trump either committed a crime or that he "did not do any wrong"?  Given the man's very public history, that seems a ridiculous supposition.

I also find it fascinating that you are unwilling to entertain seriously the idea that something can have a very high probability of existence even if you haven't seen it.  

Speculation on statistics and durations without an indictment are nice side notes, but certainly are not persuasive evidence.

Yet your "significantly more accurate than inaccurate" position relies largely on statistical speculation.  In order to hold that view, you must believe that the data sample you've seen is a reasonably accurate representation of the overall body of evidence.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.22    one month ago

Given you refuse to back up your abstract claims with a reasonable defense for Trump, and continue to dodge, we are done.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
6.1.24  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.23    one month ago
Given you refuse to back up your abstract claims with a reasonable defense for Trump, and continue to dodge, we are done.

That works.  It's not like you had any intention of being open minded about it anyway.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2  author  JBB  replied to  George @6    2 months ago

Except, Garland appointed a Special Prosecutor!

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
6.2.1  George  replied to  JBB @6.2    2 months ago

And??????????????, do you think he has more or less evidence than this Congressional hearing.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.2  author  JBB  replied to  George @6.2.1    2 months ago

Yes, the prosecutor has more evidence...

He is reticent to charge a former POTUS.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
6.2.3  George  replied to  JBB @6.2    2 months ago
Except, Garland appointed a Special Prosecutor!

And once again showing how incompetent he is, 20 months after the alleged crime he appoints a special prosecutor. Garland himself with his incompetence created a shadow on this entire investigation.

Trump announces 2024 run for president

Story by Max Greenwood     Nov 15
The attorney general unveiled the appointment of a special counsel for the investigations, which both have touched on Trump, who  announced this week   that he’s running for the White House in 2024.
So 22 months later, and ONLY after trump announced he was running for President, This is when Garland announces a special prosecutor? If you aren't a political hack this screams political prosecution.  Trump should have been brought up on charges a year ago, this has become nothing but theater because of the incompetence of Garland.  Mitch McConnel did the country a favor, Garland isn't fit to serve as a judge anywhere, let alone on the supreme court.
 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
6.2.4  George  replied to  JBB @6.2.2    2 months ago

So he is incompetent. I guess garland is making a mockery of the judicial system. Thank you Mitch McConnel for keeping this incompetent piece of crap off the supreme court.

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Quiet
7  independent Liberal    2 months ago

As much as I despise Donald Trump, watching democrats jerk off Liz Cheney the neocon has been disturbing to watch. Are these people real? The majority of the country watches ABC, NBC and CBS report on this in utter surprise to the commitment to something the majority does not care about.

We need issues, actual issues and policies that work, not this circus act.