Jan. 6 hearings 'are going to blow the roof off the House,' Rep. Raskin says

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  4 months ago  •  135 comments

By:   David Knowles·Senior EditorJanuary 14, 2022, 5:15 PM·3 min read (YahooNews)

Jan. 6 hearings 'are going to blow the roof off the House,' Rep. Raskin says
On a Thursday Zoom call with progressive activists, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said that the forthcoming hearings by the Jan. 6 Select Committee probing the riot at the U.S. Capitol staged by supporters of former President Donald Trump will "blow the roof off the House."

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


On a Thursday Zoom call with progressive activists, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said that the upcoming hearings by the Jan. 6 select committee probing the riot at the U.S. Capitol staged by supporters of former President Donald Trump will "blow the roof off the House."

"We are going to do everything we can to subpoena all the information we need and to enforce our subpoenas. But even if we don't get every last person in there, we are going to have hearings that I believe will be compared to the Watergate hearings, because they are going to blow the roof off the House in terms of explaining to America what actually happened in the attack on our democracy," Raskin, who sits on the select committee, told an audience of approximately 40,000 people who watched his remarks on Facebook.

While former Trump administration figures and supporters have defied subpoenas for information and testimony, Raskin said the committee had spoken with more than 400 witnesses to date who have already laid the groundwork for explosive hearings.

"I hope everybody will watch and I hope everybody will discuss it and then it will lead to a report that, I hope again, will be a game changer in terms of American history," Raskin said.

In response to questions about holding Trump personally accountable for pushing the disproven claim that he lost the 2020 presidential election due to voter fraud, which served as the motivation for the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, Raskin promised "a reckoning."

"But you know, the guy's a walking crime wave, and he has committed crimes all over the country, including sexual harassment and assault on a lot of people. There's bank fraud and there's real estate fraud and there's tax fraud," Raskin said.

"And there are prosecutors all over the country, looking at all that stuff. I don't want us to fetishize Donald Trump that much — he will meet you know, his maker, one place or another, there will be accountability and a reckoning with the law."

Story continues Rep. Jamie Raskin. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)

The committee has already made headlines by releasing text messages it has obtained that it says show that Fox News host Sean Hannity "had advance knowledge regarding President Trump's and his legal team's planning for January 6th," and that Ivanka Trump had urged her father to stop the violence at the Capitol.

The committee also said this week that it had interviewed Trump supporter Ray Epps and released a statement that attempted to discredit the assertion made by some conservatives that he was acting as an FBI agent or informant when encouraging people to enter the Capitol. Epps appeared on the FBI's Most Wanted list shortly after the Jan. 6 riot, only to be later removed, a fact that some Republicans say points to his involvement with the FBI.

"I'm not certain the FBI is totally competent with everything, but I'm totally certain that they would not be so incompetent as to put their own agent on the Most Wanted list," Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of two Republicans serving on the committee, told Yahoo News.

The Jan. 6 select committee has been conducting its investigation for nearly seven months, and plans to hold televised, primetime hearings to lay out its findings in the coming months. Raskin said he understood that many Republicans were simply trying to "run out the clock" on the investigation until the midterm election, when many political observers expect the Democrats to lose control of the House and, as a result, the Jan. 6 committee.

For now, though, Raskin, who served as a manager during Trump's second impeachment, sounded confident that the hearings that were soon to commence would have an impact.

"This is the most bipartisan committee I've ever been on, with a great Democratic chair and a great Republican vice chair and what I see is constitutional patriots working every single day and every single evening to get the truth out to the American people before it's too late."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 months ago

They are going to prove that Trump tried to overthrow his own government.  Its going to be big. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
1.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 months ago
Trump tried to overthrow his own government.

It was never Trump's "own government"; It was his administration.

The last sentence of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address defines the US Government:

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Trump wanted to make it HIS government butt, fortunately, the coup failed (so far).

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1    4 months ago

It was never Trump's "own government"

Trump never got that memo.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 months ago

Or not. It could go either way. My money is on it is it blowing up in the Democrat's faces, like other things have recently in the last year, but I'll wait for any legitimate reliable word.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 months ago
They are going to prove that Trump tried to overthrow his own government.

Even if they prove that beyond a shadow of doubt, the republicans won't give a shit and will still push for Trump to be re-elected.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
2  Gsquared    4 months ago

They have interviewed over 400 witnesses and received tens of thousands of pages of documents in what looks to be a very thorough and comprehensive bipartisan investigation.  Congressman Raskin is a serious individual.  If he says it will "blow the roof off the House", I believe him.  Restating John's observation above, it's going to be big.

 
 
 
Moose Knuckle
Freshman Participates
3  Moose Knuckle    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

Remember how many of you fell for all the hype about Mueller? 

Imagine taking Jaime Raskin seriously.  

 
 
 
Moose Knuckle
Freshman Participates
4.1  Moose Knuckle  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 months ago

I'm pretty sure if they were trying to overthrow the Government they would have been armed. We have 400 Million firearms in this country and not one was brought to the TDS insurrection. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 months ago
Remember how many of you fell for all the hype about Mueller? 

Remember how many of you fell for all the hype about Trump's Birther investigators in Hawaii?

Imagine taking Jaime Raskin seriously.  

Imagine taking bullshit about Mueller seriously. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2    4 months ago

.

agine taking bullshit about Mueller seriously. 

Pay attention. Try reading what I wrote again and respond with something that isn't nonsensical. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.1    4 months ago

Pay attention. Try reading what I wrote again and respond with something that isn't nonsensical. 

I did, hence my comment: 

Imagine taking bullshit about Mueller seriously. 

 
 
 
Moose Knuckle
Freshman Participates
5  Moose Knuckle    4 months ago

When your president's approval ratings are the worst in the modern era you investigate unarmed shirtless moose-hat wearing insurrectionists.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1  Dulay  replied to  Moose Knuckle @5    4 months ago

When your president's approval ratings are the worst in the modern era

Trump's approval ratings were worse that Bidens. 

FAIL!

you investigate unarmed shirtless moose-hat wearing insurrectionists.

Can't even get the kind of hat right. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @5.1    4 months ago
Trump's approval ratings were worse that Bidens. 

Took less than two seconds to prove you wrong. This is a straight up comparison comparing both of their first years. Given the fact Trump had to deal with TDS driven mighty mental midgets; his numbers would have even been higher. Guess the left is still sticking their head in the sand pretending that the human fuck up machine they put into office is still viable.

President Joe Biden 's approval rating is now lower than former President Donald Trump 's was at the same point in his presidency, according to a new Quinnipiac poll.

The poll, released on Wednesday, showed that the president's approval rating stands at 33 percent, while 53 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Biden is doing.

This represents a three-point decline since Quinnipiac's survey in November, 2021, which found Biden's approval at 36 percent with 53 percent of Americans disapproving of him.

The poll was conducted among 1,313 U.S. adults from January 7 to 11 and has a margin of error of +/-2.7 percent.

The figures were slightly different among registered voters, where Biden's approval was 35 percent and his disapproval stood at 54 percent.

Biden's approval rating in the most recent poll is lower than former President Trump's approval in a Quinnipiac poll at the same stage of his presidency.

A Quinnipiac survey released in January 2018 gave Trump an approval rating of 36 percent, while 59 percent of respondents disapproved of the job he was doing.

Biden has no where to go but down.

As for failures- the partisan Pelosi appointed committee has no legal or ethical standing. It violates several House rules. There isn't a single Republican on it. (Before you claim that the two TDS driven lap dogs Pelosi appointed are Republicans- no, they aren't. Liz Cheney has been removed by the state and national Republican party. Republicans in the House are trying to force McCarthy to remove both from the House Republicans. Kinzinger isn't seeking reelection- not that the Republicans would allow him to run again under their brand. 

Love all the Brandons on the left continuing to be true believers in the Democrat bullshit machine. I am sure this time they have Trump for sure./S

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.1    4 months ago

Base your opinion on ONE poll for ONE week if you like. 

MY statement is based on poll averages, during the same time in office. 

Ballotpedia's Polling Index: Comparison of opinion polling during the Trump and Biden administrations - Ballotpedia

  • President Biden's approval rating for the 50th week of his term was 43%, about the same as the week before. President Trump's approval rating at the same point in his term was 39.8%, up 1.5 percentage points from the week before.
  • President Biden's term wide approval rating average is 49.3%, with weekly averages ranging from 42% to 54.4%.
  • At this point in President Trump's term, his term wide approval rating average was 40.5%, with weekly averages ranging from 37.3% to 45.9%
 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.3  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.2    4 months ago

Nope. You responded to a post that cited ONE POLL, and Ronin proved you were wrong with another SINGLE POLL.

Bringing out averages of polls to try and cover your failure is disingenuous.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.3    4 months ago

Nope. You responded to a post that cited ONE POLL, and Ronin proved you were wrong with another SINGLE POLL.

What poll did Moose Knuckle cite bugsy? 

Bringing out averages of polls to try and cover your failure is disingenuous.

Being incapable of following a thread is sad bugsy. You're running around behind me spewing out kneejerk bullshit. Just stop. 

When you recognize your mistake, I'm sure you'll post your apologies. /s

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Dulay @5.1.4    4 months ago
When you recognize your mistake, I'm sure you'll post your apologies.

Good one...!  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.3    4 months ago

Hey bugsy, remember this post? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @5.1.4    4 months ago
"Being incapable of following a thread is sad bugsy. You're running around behind me spewing out kneejerk bullshit. Just stop." 

Well, when that's all you got, you go for it.  

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.7    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.9  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.6    4 months ago

You see, Dulay...

some of us have lives outside NT. I'm sorry you apparently are not one of those.

My post you decided to use was obviously using the same exact tactic you use to try and disparage someone for having a life outside here.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.8    4 months ago

It's telling that you came back to this thread to post that snarky crap yet failed to answer the question I put to you. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.11  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.4    4 months ago

I don't know, Dulay. Ask Moose Knucle. I'm sure it was the one that has Biden at 33 percent, which is the lowest in modern history. You know, they guy you and yours voted for.

No need to apologize as I am rarely, if ever, wrong on her, and when I am I admit it. Ask Gsquared for proof.

Have a nice evening s/

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.12  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.5    4 months ago
Good one...! 

No it wasn't. It was lame.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.13  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.10    4 months ago

Well, I did answer your question. I hate to tell you this, but this site does not rotate around Dulay, the queen of snark on here.

BTFW, Dulay, what makes you think the post was snark? Maybe I was asking Tessylo a legitimate question.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.14  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.9    4 months ago
You see, Dulay... some of us have lives outside NT. I'm sorry you apparently are not one of those.

Deflection. 

My post you decided to use was obviously using the same exact tactic you use to try and disparage someone for having a life outside here.

I don't use it to disparage anyone for having a life outside of here bugsy, I use it to point out that a member has spewed bullshit and then bailed. Which BTFW, is exactly what you did. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.15  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.11    4 months ago
I don't know, Dulay. Ask Moose Knucle.

Moose Knuckle isn't the one who made the claim, that was YOU. 

I'm sure it was the one that has Biden at 33 percent, which is the lowest in modern history. You know, they guy you and yours voted for.

So all you've got is deflection. 

No need to apologize as I am rarely, if ever, wrong on her, and when I am I admit it.

WTF are you blathering about bugsy. It's clear that your comment was bullshit. If you're incapable of manning up and admitting it, so be it. That's on you. 

Ask Gsquared for proof.

Proof of WHAT? 

Have a nice evening s/

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.16  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.13    4 months ago
Well, I did answer your question.

Why lie? 

I hate to tell you this, but this site does not rotate around Dulay, the queen of snark on here.

I hate to tell you this but your whining is comical. 

BTFW, Dulay, what makes you think the post was snark? Maybe I was asking Tessylo a legitimate question.

The fact that it was removed for trolling speaks for itself bugsy. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.17  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.14    4 months ago

Well, if you believe that, then you agree you did the exact same thing in your little post you tried to cite.

Nice to see you finally coming around

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.18  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.15    4 months ago

If you are unable to respond coherently, then maybe not posting at all would be your best route.

It would be for the rest of us.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.19  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.16    4 months ago
The fact that it was removed for trolling speaks for itself bugsy. 

Sure..because I was consulted prior to it being deleted s/

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.20  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.17    4 months ago
Well, if you believe that, then you agree you did the exact same thing in your little post you tried to cite. Nice to see you finally coming around

Your comments are becoming more and more incoherent. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.21  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.18    4 months ago
If you are unable to respond coherently, then maybe not posting at all would be your best route. It would be for the rest of us.

There's a saying:

Physician heal thyself. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.22  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.19    4 months ago
Sure..because I was consulted prior to it being deleted

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @5.1.20    4 months ago
"Your comments are becoming more and more incoherent."

They weren't coherent to begin with.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.1.24  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @5.1.12    4 months ago
No it wasn't.

Impasse.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.25  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.22    4 months ago

Impasse

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @5.1.14    4 months ago
"BTFW, Dulay, what makes you think the post was snark? Maybe I was asking Tessylo a legitimate question."

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6  Snuffy    4 months ago

For all the statements that this committee is to investigate what happened and insure that it doesn't happen again they do seem to be solely focused on Trump and the rioters.  Why is Pelosi and Bowser off limits for the committee?  If the Capital Police Chief requested additional support and National Guard, why was it turned down by the House Sgt at Arms?  Why is all of this off limits?  Sure, if Trump is legally liable for this hold him accountable. But the optics of this are a 3rd impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @6    4 months ago

Donald Trump tried to overthrow the government and all you can ask is why isnt Nancy Pelosi being investigated. [deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    4 months ago

Once again you are confusing party affiliation with political leanings.   As I stated before 

For the record, when I turned 18 and registered for the first time I registered as a Republican simply because my parents were registered as Republicans. Over time I felt the party did less and less to represent what my beliefs were (common for many people as they grow) and I changed my political party registration to independent.  So my party affiliation is independent.  

As to my political leanings (which really have little to do with party affiliation) I would say I'm mostly a mix of conservative and libertarian values, with a good sprinkling of progressive ideals mixed in.  I don't live in a world of black and white, there are many shades of grey that form my opinions and beliefs. And I find as I grow older that I have less tolerance for those who bask in their black and white world view. 

Stop saying you are an independent. You are embarrassing yourself.

Talk about the seed, not another poster.

The committee continues to state their function is to find out how & why Jan 6th happened and to prevent it from happening again.  If that is truly the purpose of the committee then everything should be looking at including the reports that the Capital Police Chief did request the National Guard and his requests were refused.

If the committee will not review ALL that occurred then as I said above the optics look like this is nothing more than a third attempt at impeachment.   And as I said above, if Trump is legally liable then by all means hold him accountable.  I think they will have a hard time proving he is legally liable and this will end up very similar to the Mueller investigation. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.1    4 months ago

They asked me what party I wanted when I had to register. I told them Independent and I believe they told me I had to pick one or the other. I said no and I think they left that part blank then.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @6.1.2    4 months ago

In Arizona if you are independent then your voter ID card shows    Party: NONE

Different states have different rules, but I think the end result is the same.  I am not a member of either the Rep or Dem parties and do not vote in the primaries.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.1    4 months ago
The committee continues to state their function is to find out how & why Jan 6th happened and to prevent it from happening again.  If that is truly the purpose of the committee then everything should be looking at including the reports that the Capital Police Chief did request the National Guard and his requests were refused.

You keep making that claim yet still haven't posted anything to support it. 

After reading your repeated unfounded claim, I can't help but wonder if you are intentionally ignoring the FACT that a Joint Committee investigation by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs and the Rules and Administration Committees, interviewed witnesses, reviewed documents, held hearings AND on June 8, 2021 released a 128-page bipartisan report entitled:

EXAMINING THE U.S. CAPITOL ATTACK: A REVIEW OF THE SECURITY, PLANNING, AND RESPONSE FAILURES ON JANUARY 6

Note that the report was released almost a MONTH before the Select Committee was formed. 

Within that report, it states: 

Opaque processes and a lack of emergency authority delayed requests for National 
Guard assistance
The USCP Chief has no unilateral authority to request assistance from the National Guard; the USCP Chief must submit a request for assistance to the Capitol Police Board for approval. Steven Sund never submitted a formal request to the Capitol Police Board for National Guard support in advance of January 6. Instead, Steven Sund had informal conversations with the House Sergeant at Arms, Paul Irving, and the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Michael Stenger, regarding the potential need for National Guard support. No one ever discussed the possibility of National Guard support with the Architect of the Capitol, the third voting member of the Capitol Police Board.

So it's clear that the Capital Police Chief did NOT request the National Guard before the attack on the Capitol. Sund needed the Capitol Police Board's authorization and NEVER sought it. 

But wait, there's MORE:

After receiving the Board’s 2:10 p.m. authorization, Mr. Sund urgently requested 
National Guard support. During a teleconference around 2:30 p.m. with Pentagon officials and D.C. government officials, including Mayor Bowser, Director of the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency Dr. Christopher Rodriguez, and Acting MPD Chief Contee, Mr. Sund pleaded for immediate backup.
According to the testimony of Mr. Sund, Acting MPD Chief Contee, and Commanding General Walker, officials from the Department of the Army at DOD headquarters—particularly Lieutenant Generals Walter Piatt and Charles Flynn—responded that it was not their best military advice to support the request because they did not “like the optics of the National Guard standing a line at the Capitol.”

Note that the initial breach started at 12:53 PM and it took over an HOUR to get the Capitol Police Board's authorization.

BAD!

It wasn't until 3:04 that the Acting SecDef transmitted the authorization to deploy the DCNG.

WORSE!

It wasn't until 5:22 that the DCNG actually ARRIVED at the Capitol.

HORRENDOUS!

Now let's not gloss over the FACT that it was officials from the DOD that didn't support the formal request based on the 'optics'. NOT either of the Sargent at Arms, DOD officials

In May, 2020, Acting SecDef, Christopher Miller testified to the House Oversight Committee and said this in his written statement:

My concerns regarding the appropriate and limited use of the military in domestic matters were heightened by commentary in the media about the possibility of a military coup or that advisors to the President were advocating the declaration of martial law. I was also cognizant of the fears promulgated by many about the prior use of the military in the June 2020 response to protests near the White House and fears that the President would invoke the Insurrection Act to politicize the military in an anti-democratic manner. And, just before the Electoral College certification, ten former Secretaries of Defense signed an Op-Ed piece published in the Washington Post warning of the dangers of politicizing and using inappropriately the military.  No such thing was going to occur on my watch but these concerns, and hysteria about 
them, nonetheless factored into my decisions regarding the appropriate and limited use of our Armed Forces to support civilian law enforcement during the Electoral College certification. My obligation to the Nation was to prevent a constitutional crisis.

So Snuffy, despite your unfounded claim, there is a boat load of evidence that Congress has and is indeed serious about finding out how and why Jan. 6th happened and much of that evidence is already ON THE RECORD, from Congressional investigations prior to the Select Committee's work. That's not to say that the Select Committee work is redundant. The prior investigations concentrated on security failures; the Select Committee is looking at POLITICAL failures and accountability. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Dulay @6.1.4    4 months ago

why do you think the insurrectionists are fighting so hard to keep their telecommunications with each other from law enforcement?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Dulay  replied to  devangelical @6.1.5    4 months ago

It's too late for most of the little fish. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
6.1.7  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Dulay @6.1.4    4 months ago
You keep making that claim yet still haven't posted anything to support it. 

Because there is no support for his repeated claims.  He needs to back them up or stop repeating them.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.1.8  Snuffy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @6.1.7    4 months ago

I couldn't respond previously because I have him blocked and don't see his comments.  But as you've copied them, allow me to present..

Quote from Nancy Pelosi on what the committee needs to do...

“It is imperative that we find the truth of that day and ensure that such an assault on our Capitol and Democracy cannot ever again happen,” Pelosi said in a statement Thursday.

Proof that the Capitol Police Chief did request national guard support, going thru the proper channels and the requests were denied.

Acting U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman, testifying remotely through a video link, told a House committee that her agency head had requested military backup about a half-dozen times in the first hour after the Capitol complex was breached on Jan. 6, the day of the insurrection.

Pittman based her assessment on phone records her agency obtained for then-Chief Steven Sund showing he reached out to the Capitol's top security officials starting shortly before 1 p.m. in the first of six calls requesting the National Guard to respond.

"Chief Sund spoke to both sergeants-at-arms to request National Guard support," Pittman told a House panel on Thursday in her first testimony in a public congressional hearing on the siege.

Pittman's and Sund's accounts now directly contradict one by the top House security chief at the time, Paul Irving, who told a Senate panel this week that he didn't get an early call for military aid.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.8    4 months ago
Proof that the Capitol Police Chief did request national guard support, going thru the proper channels and the requests were denied.

As we can all see, there is NO proof in that block quote that the CPC made his request thru 'proper channels' based on the findings in the report. 

It seems that some prefer to continue to post uninformed and unfounded bullshit rather than read the facts. 

Ignore away, it doesn't change the FACTS, all it does it prove that you aren't interested in them. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.1.10  Snuffy  replied to  Dulay @6.1.9    4 months ago
Proof that the Capitol Police Chief did request national guard support, going thru the proper channels and the requests were denied.
As we can all see, there is NO proof in that block quote that the CPC made his request thru 'proper channels' based on the findings in the report. 

It seems that some prefer to continue to post uninformed and unfounded bullshit rather than read the facts. 

Ignore away, it doesn't change the FACTS, all it does it prove that you aren't interested in them. 

Just in case you missed it .....   I bolded it for you,  it shows that the chief reached out to both sergeants-at-arms which is the proper channel.  

Acting U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman, testifying remotely through a video link, told a House committee that her agency head had requested military backup about a half-dozen times in the first hour after the Capitol complex was breached on Jan. 6, the day of the insurrection.

Pittman based her assessment on phone records her agency obtained for then-Chief Steven Sund showing he reached out to the Capitol's top security officials starting shortly before 1 p.m. in the first of six calls requesting the National Guard to respond.

"Chief Sund spoke to both sergeants-at-arms to request National Guard support," Pittman told a House panel on Thursday in her first testimony in a public congressional hearing on the siege.

Pittman's and Sund's accounts now directly contradict one by the top House security chief at the time, Paul Irving, who told a Senate panel this week that he didn't get an early call for military aid.

npr

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.10    4 months ago
Just in case you missed it .....   I bolded it for you,  it shows that the chief reached out to both sergeants-at-arms which is the proper channel. 

Well lookie there, you CAN see my comments. 

Alas, it's obvious you still don't understand them. 

I bolded the 'proper channel' for YOU Snuffy:

the USCP Chief must submit a request for assistance to the Capitol Police Board for approval. Steven Sund never submitted a formal request to the Capitol Police Board for National Guard support in advance of January 6. No one ever discussed the possibility of National Guard support with the Architect of the Capitol, the third voting member of the Capitol Police Board.

Then I posted:

After receiving the Board’s 2:10 p.m. authorization, Mr. Sund urgently requested 
National Guard support. During a teleconference around 2:30 p.m. with Pentagon officials and D.C. government officials, including Mayor Bowser, Director of the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency Dr. Christopher Rodriguez, and Acting MPD Chief Contee, Mr. Sund pleaded for immediate backup.

AGAIN, your block quote doesn't state that Sund was denied authorization for DCNG support by the sergeants-at-arms during the riot and the report refutes that claim. 

The initial breach was at 12:53 and Sund had the WRITTEN authorization by 2:10 AFTER going through the 'proper channels'. By statute, the request and the authorization MUST be in writing BEFORE the Chief has authority to go to the DOD. 

As the report states, it was the DOD that initially denied the Chief's request. 

I find it interesting that you hang your hat on Acting U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman testimony which your link states is based on Sund's phone records, while utterly ignoring the FACT that Chief Sund testified. 

Another thing, where is your outrage at Mitch McConnell?

You demand that Pelosi be investigated for her 'part' and you citing the sergeants-at-arms presumes some kind of accountability since the House sergeant-at-arms reports to Pelosi. Yet not a peep about investigating McConnell and holding him accountable for the Senate sergeant-at-arms.

Now, back to your disparagement of the Select Committe. I've documented that the investigation that you demand has ALREADY been conducted by the Congress, both in the Senate and the House. You actually posted a link to an article about that House investigation.

So that begs the question; WHY do you believe that the Select Committee REPEAT an investigation that has already been conducted by the appropriate Congressional Committees?

 
 
 
 
SteevieGee
Senior Silent
6.1.12  SteevieGee  replied to  Ender @6.1.2    4 months ago
They asked me what party I wanted when I had to register. I told them Independent and I believe they told me I had to pick one or the other. I said no and I think they left that part blank then.

When I register voters if they say independent I point out that the American Independent party is a bunch of Nazis and they should register 'decline to state'.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  Dulay @6.1.11    4 months ago

Ok, I made a statement and was asked to post a link.  So I posted a link and was told my block quote didn't say what I said it did.  So I reposted and bolded to show that it did say what I said it did.  So now you're saying my statement is wrong.  I'm not gonna play the moving goal game again, back on ignore you go.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.13    4 months ago

It does get old, doesn't it?

OIP.jVHGt-05uAT8rV3LZJ7MCwHaEL?w=293&h=180&c=7&r=0&o=5&dpr=1.25&pid=1.7

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.15  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.3    4 months ago

I have to differ with you here. I am looking at my voter registration card issued by Cochise County for the state of Arizona and it specifically states Independent under party affiliation.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.1.16  Snuffy  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.15    4 months ago

ok, Cochise County is different than Maricopa...   (in so many ways too)...   Mine just says NONE.   Interesting ...  but I don't remember when this card was issued, it has my correct address and I've only lived in this house for 13 years now...   so I could not tell you if things are changing over time or if the counties work it differently..

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.17  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.16    4 months ago

To be honest, it just did not occur to me that other counties in the state did their voter cards differently. My card was issued in 1996.  Live and learn I guess.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.18  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.13    4 months ago

Standard Modus Operandi.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.13    4 months ago

I can't explain it to you any clearer Snuffy. 

You claimed that the Chief followed the proper channels. 

I proved that the Senate investigation found that he didn't. 

You claimed that your link proves that he followed the proper channels.

I proved that it doesn't. 

Oh and BTW, based on your reply to me this morning in another seed, you don't have me on ignore, so just stop...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.18    4 months ago

Got something to say to me or do you only have back handed bullshit comments? 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
6.1.21  1stwarrior  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.15    4 months ago

So friggin' sad - I registered as an Independent in NM and got tagged as a DTS - Declined To State. 

In NM, there are three .affiliations allowed -

  • Democratic Party of New Mexico
  • Republican Party of New Mexico
  • Libertarian Party of New Mexico

Period.

So, if you ain't one of those three, you're a DTS.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @6.1.20    4 months ago
"Got something to say to me or do you only have back handed bullshit comments?"

The latter.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.23  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.22    4 months ago

That individual is on ignore. I don't read his comments so I could care less what he may say to me. He knows it and he still keeps sending me comments. Hillarious!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.23    4 months ago

GREAT, so my calling out your cowardly comments won't bother you a bit. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.23    4 months ago

Then you should have me on ignore also.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.26  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.25    4 months ago

Nah, why deprive you of your fun?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.26    4 months ago

What's fun about you deriding my sources and [deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.25    4 months ago

Likewise.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.28    4 months ago

You can have the last word now.  I know how important that is to some.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @6    4 months ago

Why is Pelosi and Bowser off limits for the committee? 

What fantasy do you have that Pelosi or Bowser had ANYTHING to do with what happened? 

If the Capital Police Chief requested additional support and National Guard, why was it turned down by the House Sgt at Arms? 

When do you allege this happened Snuffy? Please provide a link to support your claim. 

Why is all of this off limits? 

Well gee Snuffy, YOU seem to have overwhelming evidence of it 'all' so it sure as fuck looks like 'it' isn't 'off limits' at all. You MUST have some source for your claims right? 

Sure, if Trump is legally liable for this hold him accountable. But the optics of this are a 3rd impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

An Impeachment is a political remedy Snuffy. What Trump faces now are civil and criminal remedies. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
7  Greg Jones    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
8  bbl-1    4 months ago

When the time arrives that 'The Man Who Dwells at Mar-a-Lago' testifies under oath with the World watching, the implosion will happen.  He can't do it because he has everything to hide.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1  Thomas  replied to  bbl-1 @8    4 months ago

That shouldn't matter. He can't tell the truth if it is on his teleprompter..

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
8.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Thomas @8.1    4 months ago

Under oath the use of a teleprompter is replaced with The Fifth Amendment.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
8.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  bbl-1 @8    4 months ago

If he takes the 5th, every time he does, it should be accepted as an admission of guilt.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.2    4 months ago

Why not just get a rope and hang him now?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.1    4 months ago

Vic, did Donald Trump want Pence to follow the Eastman plan and declare him the winner of the election (based on not counting the electoral votes from "disputed" states) or not? 

The truth is Trump's intentions (and his actions) about all of this are indefensible. What should be done to him? Run him for president again because you like his policies? Where is "content of character" among those who continue to support Trump? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.2    4 months ago
Vic, did Donald Trump want Pence to follow the Eastman plan and declare him the winner of the election (based on not counting the electoral votes from "disputed" states) or not? 

What I want is for the Trump haters to continue their prosecution of Trump. Get him and all his bagage out of the way so that Ron DeSantis can win the 2024 election in a landslide.


The truth is Trump's intentions (and his actions) about all of this are indefensible. What should be done to him?

If you have evidence of a crime, bring him to trial. Free speech is still not a crime.


Run him for president again because you like his policies? 

He is still eligible, right?


Where is "content of character" among those who continue to support Trump? 

It's about 20,000 feet above those who found a way to finally beat Trump in 2020.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.3    4 months ago

He was the president of the United States , lost the re-election, and tried to stay in power through completely unethical and maybe illegal means. Those are the facts. 

That people continue to support this guy is an incredible blight on our national character. Find someone else to carry your banner and shun Trump. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.4    4 months ago

You have to prove that he used illegal means. If you don't he is liable to run again. The only thing that might have prevented him from running again is his vain fear of losing. That fear is all but gone due to Joe Biden bringing the radical theories of academia to real life America. It's been a total disaster. Now the Republicans are looking at a rotten door waiting to be kicked in. Thus, Trump is likely to run again. You guys may have shot yourselves in the foot. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.5    4 months ago

I dont want to cast you in a bad light but your ongoing defense of Trump trying to steal the 2020 election makes leaving you out of the bad light impossible. 

It doesnt matter whether or not Trump did anything "illegal".  He tried to steal the election. He is not remotely fit to hold office again. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
8.2.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.6    4 months ago
He tried to steal the election.

How?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.7    4 months ago

I take it you dont read newspapers. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
8.2.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.8    4 months ago

Answer the question please.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.6    4 months ago
"I dont want to cast you in a bad light"

Too late for that, by far!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.8    4 months ago

Isn't it absolutely ridiculous for someone to ask you 'how?' at this point?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.12  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.9    4 months ago

Nope. Its not that I cant, I dont want to enable Trumpster denialism any more. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
8.2.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.12    4 months ago

If you honestly could, it wouldn't matter who denied what in the end. Irrefutable fact cannot be denied. So.............give it your best shot and we can document it so that when the smoke clears, you will either be correct, or wrong.

And the reason you "dont want to enable Trumpster denialism any more" is due to the fact you have made up your mind that it is indeed the truth that he didn't beyond a reasonable doubt and you don't want to admit it due to your total disdain and hatred, unhealthy as it may be, for the man. 

So I will take your non answer and dismissal of the question as an "I can't".

Have a good day.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.14  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.13    4 months ago
So I will take your non answer and dismissal of the question as an "I can't".

I dont care what you take it as. If you werent ignorant on the subject you never would have asked the question.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.14    4 months ago

Why waste your time when they will just dismiss it anyway?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
8.2.16  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.14    4 months ago

Not ignorant on the subject. I know what took place and why. That you think it was he who caused it, like others here seem to, is the question. I want your take on it as I am sure it is bathed in truth with proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he tried to overthrow the government.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.17  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.16    4 months ago
Not ignorant on the subject. I know what took place and why.

GREAT!

Let's take just ONE example of Trump trying to steal the election. 

Trump's call to the SoS of Georgia. 

If you know what took place, you know the content of the phone call AND you know what the SoS Raffensperger said about Trump's delusional LIES. 

So, tell me, since you KNOW what took place, why question HOW Trump tried to steal the election?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.18  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @8.2.17    4 months ago

Some of these people are hopeless cases. Donald Trump has been a piece of shit human being for 50 years. But now he is their piece of shit so they feel compelled to defend him. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.2.19  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.16    4 months ago
That you think it was he who caused it, like others here seem to, is the question.

Bullshit.  The question is if he was involved in it, not if he was the cause of it.

  • Was he aware of what was going to happen?
  • Did he do any planning of what was going to happen?
  • Did he take any action in support of what was going to happen?

Basically, was he an accomplice before, during, or after the fact?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.20  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.16    4 months ago
Not ignorant on the subject. I know what took place and why. That you think it was he who caused it, like others here seem to, is the question. I want your take on it as I am sure it is bathed in truth with proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he tried to overthrow the government.

That comment doesnt even make much sense. A plan was proposed to trump, in the oval office , to have Pence declare that certain states would not be counted in the electoral vote on Jan 6. Trump approved of the plan. This is what is being referred to  when Trump tells people Pence didnt do what he was supposed to do on Jan 6. 

That is not all of it though. As Dulay pointed out , and other things as well, there were more things Trump did to try and steal the election. He continues up to this day to bring up some of the ridiculous aspects of it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.21  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.18    4 months ago

There is always hope for an epiphany John. I have some hard core RW friends that have had it. They've finally reached their limit on how much water they will carry for Trump. My RW neighbor [just moved here last year from AZ] is DONE. He may never vote for a Democrat but he sure as hell will never vote for Trump again and he's NOT happy about our IN Senators continuing to push the Big Lie. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.22  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @8.2.17    4 months ago
"So, tell me, since you KNOW what took place, why question HOW Trump tried to steal the election?"

I would LOVE to hear the answer on that one!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.7    4 months ago

Trump tried to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution:

  • He lied claiming that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud.
  • He tried to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — tried to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states.
  • He tried to get officials to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia).
  • He tried to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)
  • He encouraged his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election).

It is amazing that anyone still denies that Trump tried to steal the election.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.24  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.23    4 months ago
It is amazing that anyone still denies that Trump tried to steal the election.

Which begs the question: Are they true believers or are they still trying to convince themselves that they 'own the libs' by outwardly denying what they know to be true? 

Oh look, I just got a lib to post facts that I already know!

Where do I pick up my gold star?

Look at all my buddies that gave me a thumbs up. 

It has become tiresome and IMHO, it is disrespectful to members in pursuit of mature discussion.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.25  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.23    4 months ago

good comment

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.26  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @8.2.24    4 months ago
It has become tiresome

we blew past tiresome about nine months ago

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @8.2.24    4 months ago

Hard to say, Dulay.   All I can do is observe that many of these comments are clearly irrational.   I suppose some people are so bent on pushing a partisan position that they will forego honesty and credibility to do so.   That sure is not how I would seek to operate.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
8.2.28  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.23    4 months ago

Thank you. See JR. That wasn't so hard now was it?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.29  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.28    4 months ago

Never said it was hard. Said I wasnt going to do it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.30  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.28    4 months ago

Were you unaware of the events cited by TiG Jim? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.31  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.28    4 months ago

Okay, so what was the point of challenging JR to write the obvious down in a comment?

Do you think he was unaware of what took place?  

What you projected with your challenge was the notion that you did not know these facts.   And that you do not think Trump tried to steal the election.

I suspect that is not the impression you sought to leave.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.32  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.31    4 months ago

Acknowledged by 2 thumbs up buddies.

Goal achieved. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.2.33  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.28    4 months ago

Thank you. See JR. That wasn't so hard now was it?

Does this mean that you will never again question Trump's culpability over 1/6, or just that he attempted illegal means to overturn the Biden Presidency?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
8.2.34  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @8.2.33    4 months ago

No what that means is there was a lot of want without a chance in hell he would succeed. Typical baby. As the old saying goes, want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.35  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.34    4 months ago

He tried. He is still trying. You are in denial.  NO ONE should consider voting for Trump in any future election. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
8.2.36  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.31    4 months ago

I did know those facts BUT where in the hell does the overthrow the government over reaction come from? He wanted to remain PotUS and WANTED a lot of things to happen. Actually overthrowing the government is a pipe dream used by the left and those such as yourself to "Get Trump" at all costs even if we have to  make shit up and give him more credit than he deserves for being able to pull that shit off. 

We are now done sir. Good day.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
8.2.37  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.35    4 months ago

Let him keep trying. The only people that are going to bitch are the perpetually butt hurt because he won once and they are scared shitless that he may again. It is highly doubtful John unless Biden fucks things up even worse than he has already. And I won't vote for him but if he wins, he wins.

About time the left shuts the fuck up and let him fade into the sunset. What a bunch of "orange man scares me" pussies they are.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.38  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.34    4 months ago
No what that means is there was a lot of want without a chance in hell he would succeed.

Wow, I didn't get ANY of that from your prior comment Jim. 

As for your claim of Trump's 'a lot of want'. The list that TiG posted are all ACTIONS, as was the example that I posted that you are so desperate to ignore. Trump didn't just wish upon a star and leave it at that. 

Per statute [18 U.S. Code § 2384], the attempt is sufficient to prosecute. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.2.39  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.34    4 months ago
No what that means is there was a lot of want without a chance in hell he would succeed.

You don't have to succeed in a crime to be guilty of it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.2.40  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.36    4 months ago
I did know those facts BUT where in the hell does the overthrow the government over reaction come from?

If he had succeeded, would we have still been a democratic-republic?  We would have had installed a ruler that was resoundingly rejected by a vast majority of voters.

Attempting to overthrow our legal government is a very dramatic statement, but nonetheless it is accurate.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
8.2.41  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.5    4 months ago

Probably both feet!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.42  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.36    4 months ago
Actually overthrowing the government is a pipe dream used by the left and those such as yourself to "Get Trump" at all costs even if we have to  make shit up and give him more credit than he deserves for being able to pull that shit off. 

Again you stoop to making shit up.   What is wrong with sticking with honest facts and not making up your own reality?

Where have I ever used the language "overthrow the government"?    Answer:  nowhere.

And show me where I have made up anything about Trump?   Answer: nowhere.   (And even if I were inclined to make shit up, with Trump there is no need since the facts alone are bizarre and damning.)

We are now done sir. Good day.

Dismiss yourself.   You posted a failed challenge, then invented lies about me and now you run off.   Actually, good choice to run off.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
8.2.43  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.42    4 months ago

I didn't start out pointing the finger at you. You aren't the dumbass pushing the "overthrow the government" shit but decided to insert yourself into the fucking conversation with your post justifying his assertion. I made up jack shit. You made it unnecessary to do so. You are the guilty one by backing the person who keeps throwing that bullshit line out there. I didn't have to make anything up. Your posts show what and who you are and what you believe. And yes, we are done. [removed] condescension gets quite boring quite rapidly.

WE are done.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.44  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.42    4 months ago

It's so unreal to me that folks think this should just be swept under the carpet because trumpturd and his mob(s) of domestic terrorists failed their attempted coup/insurrection.  

Also that nothing is their fault.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.45  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @8.2.39    4 months ago
"No what that means is there was a lot of want without a chance in hell he would succeed."
"You don't have to succeed in a crime to be guilty of it."

Isn't it dumbfounding that because they didn't 'succeed' - nothing should be done.  

It's still a crime despite the fact that they didn't get away with it.

jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.46  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @8.2.38    4 months ago

About time the right shuts the fuck up and let him fade into the sunset.  What a bunch of pussies they are for sucking his . . . . and kissing his big fat ass!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.47  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.43    4 months ago
I didn't start out pointing the finger at you. You aren't the dumbass pushing the "overthrow the government" shit but decided to insert yourself into the fucking conversation with your post justifying his assertion.

John NEVER made that assertion Jim.

It looks to me that a glaring issue here is that you insist on making a strawman argument and continually demand that members address your strawman rather than the ACTUAL topic of THIS discussion Jim.

Above, you posted about 'the dumbass pushing the "overthrow the government" shit'.

Yet as members can see, this discussion started with your question:

He tried to steal the election.
How?

After disparaging John for not wanting to play 'the game' on your terms, you stated that you weren't 'ignorant on the subject' that you 'know what took place and why'.

Then you proceeded to move the goalposts and CHANGE the 'subject' by trying to shift the discussion from 'he tried to steal the election' to 'he tried to overthrow the government' 

Both TiG and I posted examples of HOW Trump tried to 'steal the election', providing you what you originally asked for.

Instead of replying to TiG or I on the merits, you posted a backhanded comment through TiG to John. BAD FORM. 

Then you deflect AGAIN by asking:

I did know those facts BUT where in the hell does the overthrow the government over reaction come from?

It came from YOU Jim. YOU are the one that inserted that term into THIS thread. 

I made up jack shit. You made it unnecessary to do so.

You made up your whole 'used by the left' assertion Jim. 

You are the guilty one by backing the person who keeps throwing that bullshit line out there. 

Oh the fucking irony. YOU are the one that 'keeps throwing that bullshit line out there' Jim. 

I didn't have to make anything up.

Yet you DID. 

Your posts show what and who you are and what you believe.

DITTO. 

Your comments make it pretty clear that the purpose of your question was to attack John rather than to have a substantive discussion. 

You got more than you hoped for. 

And yes, we are done. [removed]condescension gets quite boring quite rapidly.

I agree with you that condescension gets boring quite rapidly. This:

See JR. That wasn't so hard now was it?

was boring the second it was posted. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.48  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.43    4 months ago
I didn't start out pointing the finger at you.

But you wound up making it personal anyway so you got my response.

... but decided to insert yourself into the fucking conversation

Yeah, Jim, that is how 'fucking' social forums work.   Buy a vowel.

WE are done.

My response is the same as the last time you said that:  dismiss yourself.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.2.49  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.15    4 months ago

Says the person that dismisses every link provided her to prove how wrong she normally is.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.50  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @8.2.47    4 months ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.51  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @8.2.17    4 months ago
"Not ignorant on the subject. I know what took place and why."
"GREAT!

Let's take just ONE example of Trump trying to steal the election. 

Trump's call to the SoS of Georgia. 

If you know what took place, you know the content of the phone call AND you know what the SoS Raffensperger said about Trump's delusional LIES. 

So, tell me, since you KNOW what took place, why question HOW Trump tried to steal the election?"

Projection, deflection, denial - the only tools of the alleged conservatives/republicans/gop

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
9  Paula Bartholomew    4 months ago

I have almost given up hope of those involved will ever be charged....almost.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10  Tessylo    4 months ago

What's dumbfounding to me is that even though he and his domestic terrorist mobs didn't get away with it, lots of folks think absolutely nothing should be done.  Trumpturd supporters that is.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
11  Right Down the Center    4 months ago

After four years of "this is a bombshell that marks the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency" maybe someone should tell them Trump is no longer the president and most people are living in 2022 trying to make ends meet, not Jan 6 2021.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
11.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  Right Down the Center @11    4 months ago
most people are living in 2022 trying to make ends meet, not Jan 6 2021.

The title of this article is:

Jan. 6 Hearings 'Are Going To Blow The Roof Off The House,' Rep. Raskin

The topic IS Jan. 6th, 2021.

If you're all about 2022, then why the fuck are you commenting on this article? 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.2.1  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @11.2    4 months ago

... talk about how their brethren in the trump cult attempted to overthrow our duly elected government and obstructed the peaceful transfer of power on 1/6/21 makes them feel all icky, so they need to deflect...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
12  Right Down the Center    4 months ago

c9ebdd11-a448-41a3-bcdb-50fd68de9e41_text.gif

No one with a brain cell cares.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
12.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Right Down the Center @12    4 months ago
No one with a brain cell cares.

And, if they have more than one, they have better things to do that track the fizzle...

 
 

Who is online





Sunshine
Gulliver-Swift


34 visitors