That was the most compelling Congressional hearing I have ever seen.
Tonight, no amount of Trump, Tucker or Fox bullshit could smother the truth. It will be told and it will be heard. goodnight Trump
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Steve Schmidt
-
That was the most compelling Congressional hearing I have ever seen.
That is how America will see it.
Congress may be mistrusted but the Select Committee will not be.
The Members will become iconic.
Americans love a trial drama and this was brilliantly done.
That is how America will see it.
Congress may be mistrusted but the Select Committee will not be.
The Members will become iconic.
Americans love a trial drama and this was brilliantly done.
All of the vandals, liars and MAGA extremists will be flushed out in a coherent story that people can understand. Those people are Americans and they like America. The facts and the presentation are going to hit MAGA like a Neptune missile piercing a Russian hull.
There must be such amazing insanity swirling about Trump right now. He is surrounded by a pack of yes men and women, losers and nuts. Even they know he is going to bleed out. Every MAGA Congress member who begged for a pardon should be expelled.
Tonight was different. Tonight, the truth prevailed in America for the first time in a long time. Tonight there was a coherent message and story. Tonight, no amount of Trump, Tucker or Fox bullshit could smother the truth. It will be told and it will be heard. goodnight Trump
Tags
Who is online
44 visitors
Liz Cheney is getting a lot of praise for making a blunt, fact based case that former President Trump is a criminal. She acted as a prosecutor would making an opening statement for a jury.
This is how history is going to treat Donald Trump. Disgraced and exposed.
And the author is very much a conservative.
some will think it is too bad her term in office will come to an end in jan .
you brought her up , i just made a simple statement based on the politics i see here in the state , i have never , no matter what state i have lived in , seen a politician get re elected once its announced they have a 71 % disapproval rating which is the case for her at the moment .
she obviously doesn't hold her public office, above her Constitutional Duty, GOOD FOR HER ! Maybe some others might realize this, cause i find the DENIAL, as an American, down right embarrassing !
So who in your view denying anything I don't think its me. I stated on jan 6th those responsible le should be prosecuted and so far those prosecutions are still ongoing. As for Cheney, I have never voted for her for my own reasons and being registered Indy I don t vote In the GOP primary I let that party choose whom they will offer up, if their choice isn't good the o don't have to vote for them. I have no dog in the GOP primary but o can and do pay attention to different candidates views and positions and projected chances from local sources.I simply relayed that information in my post.
guilty conscious much? I was referring to pols
first part nope , i have been told i have no concience , and for the most part thats mostly true .and you answered my question as to who you think are in denial , most politicians are with todays partisanship and division . its been that way for a very long , long time .
And she will continue to get alot of praise as long as she keeps saying what the producers of the circus want her to say. It is obvious her political career is over and she wants to go out "in a blaze of glory".
She is auditioning for her next job on the view; replacing the current conservative punching bag.
The show has to recast every so often as there is only so much bashing any conservative can take before their audience loses interest completely.
Biased, one sided committee. If these fools insist this riot was planned, why did Pelosi and the DC mayor not heed the warnings and refuse Trump's offer to send up the National Guard?
Because there is no evidence that Trump offered to send the National Guard?
No proof Trump requested 10,000 Guard troops for Jan. 6 or that Pelosi denied it
Why are you asking ridiculous questions?
Does that technique work where you come from?
Seriously, what is someone even supposed to say to something like that?
Greg, did you see Gen Milley, the highest ranking military officer in America, testify that Trump called NO ONE to send to the Capitol and end the insurrection.
Mike Pence had to step in and do that, after hours of Trump twiddling his thumbs.
Why are you still trying to pin this on Nancy Pelosi?
You said the other day that Democrats would lose fair and square for many terms to come?
WTF did you say that?
Try again. Politifact should be called Politishit.
When you want the truth don't trust leftist shit rags.
The only reason that there is no evidence that Trump extended the offer to Pelosi; is that the Queen Bitch has refused to turn over her emails- or be interviewed by the Jan 6th committee. She declared herself and Bowser off limits for questioning by the committee. Being the loyal lap dogs they are they complied.
It is a technique deployed to cast doubt, for doubt sake. Note: When making (false pronouncements and accusations against democratic officials and politicians these same people do not ask 'lawyerly' questions (designed to offer alternative paths out from getting to the truth). These republicans 'set' their talking point(s) in concrete, where democrats are involved.
What National Guard? When and who did Trump federalize?
When did Trump make this offer? Which National Guard? What authority does Pelosi have to accept or refuse National Guard?
You will want to read the entire article but it lays out how four days before Jan 6th the Trump administration was reaching out to Capital Police as well as the District of Columbia.
I also wonder if Liz Cheney had an unforced error in her opening statement. She stated
So if they had advance intelligence that there were plans to invade & occupy the Capitol why didn't the Capital Police take stronger action beforehand? Why was the assistance of NG troops turned down?
trumpturd told them to stand back and stand down and led/incited his domestic terrorist mobs that day and for months before the 'stolen election'
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.
Beside that is the fact that it is a lie.........................
How many times did the Committee state last night that Trump had led his people to attack the Capital.. No proof was offered by the Committee other than "They said so". Similar to how a lot of people on this board seem to operate, never offering any evidence for their comments but want us to believe them. When asked for evidence they deflect or slither away... Hard to have a discussion with that type.
I am going to respond to this one: This is not a court of law, and I presume you are not a lawyer and I am pretty sure you are not a jurist, so no proof beyond a reasonable doubt is needed in our exchanges.
I don't have to "slither away" from you, Snuffy. As for a recent gun discussion where you tried to compel me to take a deep-dive into a (cesspool of) gun rhetoric 'exercise,' when nearly everybody knows conservatives support relatively none or weak gun safety law, I refused you and "the chorus." And like the usual 'clockwork' time is moving gun rhetoric into the past. Soon, Robb Elementary children and teachers will join Sandy Hook Elementary in being just a memory.
The circumstantial evidence is that if we were to mark Columbine as a starting point, conservatives have knowingly and intentionally appeased the NRA, gun manufacturers, and gun lobbyists over and beyond gun safety.
Enough of your 'drumbeat' to demand fodder be responded to in place of substantive actions.
The Select Committee has not completed its work, and already you have turned up your defense posture to "High" for diminish and discount what your eyes (and brain) tells you.
So go ahead, keep calling truth a lie, it's common for some conservatives to not be convinced by truth anyway.
Perhaps this will help:
Jan 6 HSGAC Rules Report.pdf (senate.gov)
But the answer to your question is in the timeline @ your link.
This account is contradicted by the DoD IG Report
"GEN McConville wrote in an e-mail to LTG Piatt that it was important to have a well-defined plan for Mr. McCarthy if the decision was made to commit the DCNG. He stated that local, state, and Federal law enforcement should be committed first and that the DCNG should be the last resort, in a support role."
"Mr. Miller told us, “There was absolutely no way … I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period.” He cited media stories alleging that the President’s advisors were pushing him to declare martial law to invalidate the election and that Mr. Miller was an ally installed as the Acting SecDef to facilitate a coup. He also cited a January 3, 2021 open letter from 10 former Secretaries of Defense warning the DoD not to use the military in a manner antithetical to the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Miller stated that he “made a very deliberate decision that I would not put U.S. military people … East of the 9th Street, northwest. ... And the reason for that was I knew if the morning of the 6th or prior if we put U.S. military personnel on the Capitol, I would have created the greatest Constitutional crisis probably since the Civil War.”
Other witnesses concurred with Mr. Miller. Mr. McCarthy stated:
We were very conscious of the perception of military personnel near the Capitol and we’re trying to communicate to the Congress … and we wanted them to know that [DCNG] were in support of Metro PD, that we were not putting the[m] near the Capitol. We’re getting a lot of chatter on the news as well as the Congress of what is the military going to do that day [January 6, 2021]?
We found no standard that would have allowed the DoD to act preemptively or unilaterally before January 6, 2021, in response to projected civil disturbances in D.C. We determined that the DoD’s roles, planning, and actions taken were authorized and appropriate in response to the single and limited RFA the DoD received on December 31, 2020, to support civil authorities on January 5 and 6, 2021.
I don't see this as a contradiction from the timeline that I posted at all. The Trump administration cannot unilaterally place NG troops and that from the timeline is not what they were trying to do. They were reaching out to the Capital Police as well as the District of Columbia asking if they were going to be requesting the troops. I see both pieces as true in that all the administration can legally do is to make the offer but it's up to the receiving agencies to approve.
You're last paragraph there seems to indicate that the administration thru the DoD did just that, they reached out asking if there would be a Request for Action.
Some of us still remember what happened at Kent State.
And, Jackson State. Coincidentally, when the women's dorm there was riddled with bullets by the Mississippi National Guard, the college now university was holding a protest in support of Kent State!
The Mississippi National Guard weren't deployed in Jackson. Those were Jackson police and Highway Patrol officers.
Now then, the bolded words point out the Mississippi National Guard was deployed and on-scene. Unless, you think Major General Walter Johnson of the Mississippi National Guard was there sightseeing . Okay, the word is me being facetious. Of course, uniformed guardsmen were there on scene.
You are partially correct. I thank you for your fine attention to detail as to who did the shooting. You can do the same for me, if you are gracious, that is.
Here is your claim:
He pointed out the falsehood in your post.
Sorry if being accurate and truthful is such a chore.
You're right about them being in town, but they had nothing to do with the shooting.
Thank you. I am right about the Mississippi National Guard being at Jackson State campus though they were standing on the street and public access-way near or front of the dorm thereabouts-not just in town. (Note: The street is Lynch Street. It was gated off between the college property after this shooting. See picture above.)
You are right, and I graciously thank you for clarifying, it was officers from the all-white Mississippi Highway and Safety Patrol (MHSP) and the largely white Jackson police force opened fire on students in front of a women’s dormitory at Jackson State College.
The hearings are just the beginning. Truth matters.
Unfortunately there is a sizable percent of the electorate that does not honor truth. In the long run they will become not relevant.
Trump's worst destiny, assuming he never has to testify publicly under oath for hours, will be when he simply becomes nothing more than the pasty faced New York incompetent real estate flim flam man he always was. When that happens I wonder who it will be that'll pick up the MAGA flag? MJT or Louie Gohmert?
Trump is beaming more irrelevant by the day.
Next up....DeSantis and/or Haley
If you think Trump is going to allow DeSantis or Haley take his place you are dreaming.
He won't have a choice.
Sure he will. Heard of scorched earth? It is childs play for him to muddy up De Santis and any other Republican that runs against him.
The only way this wont be the case is if Trump grows a conscience and decides not to run. Good luck with that.
Trump's problems are just beginning. The dirty money looms...........and it's dirty. Real dirty.
The Mar-a-Lardo man ain't going nowhere except to use his kompromat to save his broke arse.
Well could we bring them forward a bit?
We've been promised varying versions of Trump's demise for about 5 years now. The longer this all drags out, the more feeble it gets.
Are they going to wait so long nobody gives a shit anymore, like they've done with this Jan 6 business?
many more are aware and care, than will please your patheticism.
The left will keep him relevant. He lives in their heads. Just look how much they fawn over him here on NT.
Notice how the ad nauseum "he incited it in his speech" bullshit got shit canned last night? Seems the proud boys and oathkeepers were "setting up" long before the speech even started. Key point right there that shows it had little to do with the speech and was planned well in advance of the 6th
trumpturd was inciting his domestic terrorist mobs/supporters for months with the 'stolen election' lies.
Bald faced lie.
Nope. He was clinging to the idea that it was stolen and he was pissed, like an idiot would be, but in no way shape or form could he have anticipated it would escalate as it did. No one did. Not the DC police, not the mayor, no one in Congress. The blame and source goes to interpretation of "the mob". The proud boys and oath keepers were on scene setting up prior to the speech. And the gallows weren't something that was thrown together that morning. Quite well planned and built.
I know all you have is projection, deflection and denial so Fuck off.
We on the other hand deal in reality.
Can always tell when you lost. You use your PDD, then become part of a fictitious group named "we" and to cap it off, the new FO fad.
And you hardly deal in reality it seems to most people with a brain most of the time.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what YOU think it means.
To be honest, we all knew that was going to happen. It was a garbage allegation from the start.
So in your mind the Proud Boys, et. al. were planning an insurrection of the Capitol and this planning had nothing to do with Trump's Big Lie and his constant repeating that the election was stolen by fraud??
Can I assume that you also hold Schumer responsible for the nut planning to kill Kavanaugh, based on his incendiary speech?
No. But words by public officials do inspire people and public officials should be aware of that.
How can you make a comparison of an isolated speech versus a campaign that started before the election and continued in fury after Trump had lost?
Consider the magnitude of the effort by Trump to convince the public that our system is rigged and that their votes were disenfranchised. Comparing that to a speech, Texan, is a fundamental category error.
Okay, double standard duly noted.
Carry on.
You fail to comprehend a clearly written explanation.
Expected bull.
Carry on.
What is expected is the demonstrated blind, robotic denial of the obvious by Trump supporters.
just another of those tens of thousands of coincidences, that to the (not)"right", never a correlation make.
Feel free to elaborate on what you read in my post that denied anything at all.
Should be interesting to see what you invent!
Just where the hell did I say that?...........Other than in your mind.
Tried and true method--debate what you didn't say.
Okay Jim, you either hold that Trump's words and deeds had nothing to do with the insurrection or that his words and deeds did influence the insurrection.
Which is it? Take a stand rather than hide in ambiguity.
Would the Proud Boys have planned an insurrection if Trump had conceded and acknowledged the election (and our system) was fair and that he legitimately lost?
I'm sorry. I don't remember Biden telling a group of domestic terrorists to "Stand down and stand by". Btw, I didn't approve of what Biden or Schumer said, but he didn't aim it at a specific group.
Sure a lot of people listened to Trump and his butt hurt. No doubt. I didn't say his repeated bleating didn't turn on a light bulb, no matter how dim, in some radical dumbasses and put ideas in their heads. Tough shit. There are sheep everywhere. Crazy fucking sheep at that. You saw that, or should have, when he called Covid the Chinese flu and supposedly attacks on Chinese people increased because of it.
It isn't as though he was emulating Michael Brown's dad with "Burn this motherfucker down". He honestly thought he got screwed.
You're welcome for the response but don't fucking "Which is it" me, ever.........I owe you jack shit. Comprende?
I haven't mentioned Biden in my posts.
I made absolutely no claims about Biden.
I am not even sure what exactly you are talking about in relation to what I have posted.
That is what I was referring to.
I specifically referenced Schumer's remarks when he threatened SCOTUS members.
Not one thing to do with Biden in any way, I am sorry I didn't connect my Schumer remark with your Biden remark.
'Tough guy' behind a keyboard.
In short, Just Jim NC TttH acknowledges that Trump's Big Lie campaign that started well before the election and then went into full gear with lawsuits, massive lying, attempts to suborn the V.P, attempts to coerce officials, etc. established a narrative with supporting actions by Trump and associates that clearly motivated nutcase groups like the Proud Boys to plan and execute a Capitol insurrection.
To wit, the Proud Boys would not have planned an insurrection if Trump had done the right thing and admit that he lost in a fair election.
Or are you going to jump back into ambiguity now?
We fawn over justice for all. Trump stinks and you would know if you just took a long, deep, breath!
Complete nonsense. Trump has never been involved in an election where he didnt accuse someone of trying to cheat him. He is a malignant narcissist, so if he loses an election he thinks it must be because the opponent cheated.
Donald Trump accuses Ted Cruz of voter fraud, demands ‘new
February 3, 2016 Trump accused the Cruz campaign of misleading caucus-goers by circulating a false election-night rumor implying that retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was planning to drop …
========================================================
When are you people going to wake the hell up to this guy?
You mean like Democrat loud mouth Maxine waters telling people to get in the faces of people who supported Trump?
Or are supposed to ignore Democrats actually doing what you ACCUSE Trump of doing? You know, creating that double standard.
Biden was mentioned so I made comment to it, as to cover all bases. I do mention Schumer's remark.
Do something other than deflect. It is pathetic.
Politicians that opens their mouths and makes incendiary comments are operating irresponsibly. They should not do that because with 330 million people in the nation it is easy to motivate a bunch of nutcases to act.
Now, Jeremy, do you comprehend the difference between a single speech and a multi-month campaign that started before the election and went into high gear after the loss which established the narrative that our electoral system is rigged and that Trump supporters were disenfranchised by said system. And this is all led by the acting PotUS?
Do you or do you not see the difference of potential impact between the Big Lie campaign and a single speech??
I'm sorry... I didn't hear where Walters tells a group of domestic terrorists to "Stand down and stand by". And for the record, I don't approve of what she said either. The two wrongs DON'T make a right, in any case.
www.msn.com /en-us/news/politics/trump-e2-80-99s-voter-fraud-claims-are-growing-more-outlandish/ar-AAXVAfC
Trump’s voter fraud claims are growing more outlandish
7-8 minutes Invalid Date
By now, the trend is abundantly clear: No matter the election, no matter the evidence and sometimes no matter whether his side wins or not, former president Donald Trump is going to claim or suggest widespread voter fraud. It happened in 2012 and 2016. It happened in 2020. And it happened in two of the highest-profile elections since 2020: the California recall and the Pennsylvania primary.
It’s always baseless, and often someone has already debunked either his exact claim or a version of it. But rarely is it as dubious as the latest iteration.
In an email from his political action committee Tuesday, Trump promoted an analysis that suggested former senator David Perdue’s loss in the Georgia governor’s primary, by 74 percent to 22 percent, somehow was the result of voter fraud.
Among the claims made in the piece the former president sought to promote:
The author of the piece Trump cited, which was originally posted on Substack, declined to respond to questions about the substance of the claims.
Trump’s effort to blame his Georgia losses on fraud is merely the latest evidence of something that has become increasingly evident since 2020: that without a true rebuke from his party, Trump is just going to keep undermining democracy through more and more outlandish claims.
But it’s worth a look at just how that progression has taken place.
It seems like eons ago, but on Election Day 2012, with GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney headed for predictable defeat, Trump baselessly tweeted about “reports of voting machines switching Romney votes to Obama.” Late that night, with Romney having lost, Trump called for people to rise up. “We can’t let this happen,” he tweeted at 11:29 p.m. “ We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided! ”
By 2016, Trump was a candidate in his own right. And his baseless allegations of fraud began after the first votes were cast. After initially conceding his loss in the Iowa caucuses, Trump two days later falsely blamed it on fraud allegedly committed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) . Trump later walked back the claim that Cruz had done something illegal .
Trump went on to win the 2016 general election, but even in victory he cried “fraud” — because he had lost the popular vote. Trump cited a social media conspiracy theory in claiming that 3 million to 5 million undocumented immigrants had illegally voted , and that somehow every one of them had voted for Hillary Clinton , with none for him. As we wrote back then :
Once you get past the lack of a factual basis for Trump’s strange and incredible claim, this is what really doesn’t make sense about it. Trump is alleging that as many as 3.6 percent of the votes cast in a 2016 contest decided by even fewer votes may have been illegitimate. He’s saying the number of illegal votes may have been larger than the populations of 38 states. He’s saying that as many as 30 to 40 percent of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States cast ballots.
(For some reason, despite this large degree of supposed fraud and its having been enough to change the outcome , Trump did not doubt the legitimacy of his win. He delayed calling for an investigation until after he was in office. The investigation turned up no evidence of widespread fraud.)
The 2020 election, of course, is what sparked Trump’s most infamous claims of voter fraud. That’s in large part because of how concerted his effort was and its consequences, including the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and a majority of Republicans coming to believe the general thrust of Trump’s claims.
By 2021, all eyes turned to the California recall, where Trump ally Larry Elder appeared to have a fighting chance against Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). Even before Election Day, Elder’s website blamed voter fraud for Newsom being “reinstated” as governor , and Trump claimed the election was being “totally rigged.” But when Elder lost by a huge margin — 62-38 percent — they largely backed off the claim.
An even larger margin in the Georgia governor’s was apparently not enough to exempt it from this treatment. And that treatment comes two weeks after Trump urged his preferred candidate, celebrity physician Mehmet Oz, to declare victory in a very tight race before many votes were even counted . Trump argued that doing so would somehow prevent the election from being stolen.
Oz did not heed that advice, but he did not publicly reject the argument from his benefactor. And that’s how the GOP has generally handled these things: They won’t completely echo Trump, but they’ll either treat him like he’s just some guy spouting off on the Internet or offer a watered-down version to make it sound as if they’re on the same page.
As an anonymous White House official infamously said a week after the 2020 election, “ What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time? ” The biggest downside was soon revealed to be the Jan. 6 insurrection. But the party hasn’t stopped humoring him. And apparently that means he’ll cry foul even after elections in which his side is defeated by more than 3 to 1.
Philip Bump contributed to this report.
Microsoft may earn an Affiliate Commission if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.
Brilliant sharing. (Inknorantzrulz and TiG.)
No, you are the first to mention Biden in the thread, (post 3.1.28) and your original post (which is what I responded to) did not mention Schumer at all, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to respond at all.
You added the "and Schumer" after I had already responded.
Ya think? That's pretty damned obvious now isn't it. FFS he doesn't have control over half wits. He honestly felt he got screwed. That some people liked the way he governed, it in turn pissed them off too.
And you cannot possibly say the pure and simple fact he lost, and even had admitted it, that some dumbasses wouldn't have protested. That these particular dumbasses did was probably first and foremost the reason for the carried away reaction and breach.
BTW, there is a hidden implication that needs teasing out from the Proud Boys and others audacity to invade the capitol: Why did they assume that their relative small numbers would not be 'put down' by the 'man at the top'?
Why did the insurrectionists assume they could pull this off, and not end up in jail or in legal 'hell' as they are today? Did they just pursue futility? Who gave them 'odds' of winning that day?
Not a deflection. Just calling out the hypocrisy.
And yet you all were silent on this. But the opposition does it and you all lose your collective mind.
Maybe if you'd pay closer attention to what was actually said before the Jan 6 protest you'd notice it was stated to PEACEFULLY protest.
Wide fucking awake already John. That you don't care for him is NOT a priority to ANYONE but you. He throws shit out there to see if it will stick. Common in business people at the top. Even though he knows he's full of shit. Don't care. I wouldn't mind having him in the White House right now rather than the shitshow that sits there and his handlers and puppeteers. My life was great under the previous administration.
Otherwise known as an unethical pathological liar.
Yes he does. He controls them by his words. Once again if he hadn't been blathering on for months about how he actually won the election, the half wits wouldn't have had any reason to be there
Another good question
So when you see people claiming that Trump had nothing to do with inciting the Proud Boys, you will tell them "that's pretty damned obvious" that he did indeed influence them?
I can say that if he had simply conceded and not engaged in his Big Lie that any actions by the Proud Boys, et.al. was not inspired by his words.
Given he did the polar opposite of that and maintains to this day that our electoral system is rigged, it seems utterly delusional for some to claim they do not see the connection between what Trump said and did and the insurrection.
Your tactic is pathetic.
I have stated that no politicians should use incendiary language. It is irresponsible. And personally I think Maxine Waters is one of the worst offenders and have been waiting for the day she is out of office.
You attempt to equate a lie with a lying campaign by the PotUS that sought to discredit our electoral system and steal an election. When I note the category error you call that hypocrisy. That is the best you can do?? A pathetic tactic at best.
You presume I am a D? Buy a fucking vowel Jeremy.
Last time. It is there for everyone to see. That some took it upon themselves to try something that any sane person would have known as an exercise in futility is a fool's errand. What he said and how someone else interpreted it is not his problem. Was it stupid? Yes FFS. At least after all the smoke and bullshit and checks and rechecks had cleared he should have let it go. But to hold him solely responsible is totally disingenuous.
I'll let my boss know that's what he is. Here all this time I thought the success of the business was due to thinking outside the box.
Last time? Pretending that I did not acknowledge what you wrote??
Where did the 'solely responsible' come from? Who has alleged that Trump is solely responsible for the insurrection, etc.? The allegation is that Trump encouraged and supported the insurrectionists. Nobody has claimed that Trump had absolute mind control over these people.
Trump was complicit in the insurrection. That is the allegation. The allegation is NOT that Trump solely controlled the insurrection.
Of all the people who claim to be an independent only you and Perrie actually display those qualities
I don't think it was the actual system as much as it was the human factor in charge of said system.
And you HAVE to know that NEVER could have or would have happened. There was no military involved. The laws of the land would have negated the attempt. Trump is a narcissist granted, but even he isn't so stupid to think any attempt wouldn't be thwarted.
Oh, c'mon! Yes he is! The man thought he had been crowned king when he was elected
His tactic isn’t pathetic, he’s spot on.
The hypocrisy at play here is exponential. Most of the people trying to hang Jan 6th rioters actions on Trumps comments were completely silent or even cheering incendiary comments made by idiots like Schumer and Waters.
There’s your pathetic right there .....
No. It is a "for the last time, it is there for everyone to see" statement so that you would understand I feel the same way.
That's what this whole thing is about. Getting Trump Period. Yes there are arrests and trials and sentences for the perpetrators who are directly responsible for their own actions.
I'd like to see that evidence.......supported?
See 3.1.49
It is amazing that you, et. al. cannot comprehend the difference in scale between a speech with incendiary language and a campaign of speeches with incendiary language, allegations of fraud throughout the government, allegations of outside control over our voting machines, attempts to suborn the VP to engage in unconstitutional acts, attempts to coerce government officials to find votes, etc.
To argue that a single lie is equivalent to a campaign of deception at the highest level of government is pathetic.
Trump's lies should be exposed. Trump should be discredited so as to encourage his supporters to NOT be so gullible. And Trump should be charged with the attempt to steal an election, suborn VP, etc.
Try asking Trout if she means that Trump has total control over these people. I am confident Trout will explain to you that Trump sycophants are greatly influenced by Trump but that she does not mean they are robots.
They are 'woke,' John. Trump is who these conservatives want. Do not become frustrated. These conservatives we are 'going around' with choose this man time and time again to equip, to promote, to enable, to complete (them). Think of it this way: There were conservatives who staged an interview of 2016 candidates and Trump won over the interviewers! Trump supporters have no daylight between themselves and Donald!
Therefore, they are as 'woke' as they plan on being for the duration.
i claim to be independent of thought and reason, or, so i'm often told
[deleted]
Based on the comment that you addressed with this, I really don't think you have a grasp of what that means.
And you're welcome that I provided that for you. Now, learn what it means.
Of course they're not robots...they're flesh and blood humans. I think most of them have a small ability to think for themselves. They're not robots...they're lemmings
[deleted]
And yes, people should protest (and get in the faces of people) when the cause is just. No apologies for doing so. Because, it is not acceptable to make public policies which make life worse for some citizens-while making life more enjoyable for others. We're all in this together. Time to get on with the reality of it.
That being said, still, I do wish democrats would stand and stop at certain parameters for which when they go beyond them its reckless, even if only because of how it will be used against them and other liberals.
And I suppose you get to decide for all what they should consider just?
You wrote "felt" - the past tense. Donald is tweeting today that it was a rigged and stolen election. Why do you support a delusional man? More importantly, isn't it juvenile of Donald to keep tweeting (after Bill Barr (AG) told him voter fraud in 2020 was bull shit) he was robbed of a victory?
I suspect you won't touch this one. . . so drive on by! Yo! See you later!
Just Jim is trying to use your comment as an example of someone saying that Trump is 100% to blame for the insurrection and that the insurrectionists themselves have no culpability. Whereas the actual allegation is that Trump inspired and encouraged his supporters to take action against the gross injustice of a rigged election and the disenfranchising of their votes.
If one does not have truth on one's side, spin seems to be the go-to solution.
As there is a just war, there is a just cause. Jeremy, do not confuse unjust wars (I hope you don't) and unjust causes with their opposites.
And Donald said this on January 6, 2020 rally (protest):
Jeremy, when have you ever equated anything going on in Hell as being peaceful? Donald says he thinks 360 degrees around. That means he knows what he is accomplishing with his rhetoric! That is, it is no accident what he lets 'slip' out of his mouth.
Well Jim, life in this country is not just about your or my joys, passions, aspirations and successes. You and I, we, have to share those good feelings with 350M citizens who are facing hard-times, strife, and sacrifice. A chunk of this country is about you-but it ain't all about conservatives!
Learn to get by with less for the good of the whole!
Quite frankly, until your comments show up in my PN inbox, I always drive on by. I have you on ignore due to the fact your inane commentary gets quite boring.
And I really don't give a flying fuck if he is tweeting today, yesterday, or tomorrow. I just pay no attention to the man anymore as his existence and my everyday life don't rely on it. I suggest you and a few others here should heed that advice.
I see that. I do think that some of these people hang on his every word. But they made that choice to go to DC that day based on the words of trmp.
LOL 350M facing hard times, strife and sacrifice?? You be you meanwhile, I will help those that I can and those who deserve my attention.
If you have him on ignore...how do you know what he wrote?????
Same way as you do. Shows up in my PN inbox. Did you miss that part of my reply?
And when that happens and I think it warrants a response, I unignore temporarily. Otherwise, his commentary to others doesn't do anything for me.
Well Jim, see what time it is? You just got tangled-up in telling a damn. . . . . . untruth! You want Donald back in a 'bad' way. That means you support him and you do give a "flying fuck" of your attention to him getting back into office—despite everything you have read, been told, and have explained (tediously) to you!
So, now that you have exposed yourself Trump lover— be free in your love for the man .
"Untruthing" is boring too. Don't be an "untruther."
Funny...I gave that same answer when some not so nice people kept trolling me about it. Veronica even tried to explain it but for some reason that explanation was unacceptable and we both got trolled.
The problem for now at least with this is obvious: For the time being, some republicans and conservatives have displaced many proper republicans and conservatives in the republican party. What is there now is corrupt to its core (and continuing to fester and rot).
Independents, please, study long and critically what the right thing is to do in supporting some republicans and conservatives this November. They will 'intake' your support as consent!
Yes, it's pathetic. Because grown-ass people are accepting for the sake of political combat, "chicken-brains" rhetoric and making it a substantial daily 'diet' to sustain themselves. The worse part is conservative think-tanks and FOX News Corporaton where funding ends up feeding 'the House' know better than to ingest any of this nonsense. Executives pull the strings, make the 'product,' but are too smart be consumers of their own 'poisoned' merchandise.
These are the same conservatives would assert that we have all the (gun) laws we need already on the books if we would just properly utilize them, but won't say the same for laws against subversion, election tampering, and so on.
Hilarious that she said the same exact thing in HD a few weeks ago when it was asked how she can see posts if that person is on ignore. Another of her friends who failed attempt at defending her said the same.
"Deserve" is an interesting word choice. Would I be wrong to think you mean: Selfishness? Self-interests?
Yeah, Trout'G! See how that works. . . I 'warrant' a response! How about that?!
All I have to do is say something about "Trump" and "hard times" and I score territory inside the mind of JJ!
Why? What do they hope to accomplish? Also, why is their version of a "just cause" inherently superior to the person whose face they are in?
So when my taxes go up and that money is taken from my family (making life worse for us) and given to another family (making life more enjoyable for them), that's not acceptable? Are you sure you want to go with that?
There is a lot of reckless and stupid in politics today, on both ends of the spectrum.
That's only half of the problem.
The other half is that in many places, one cannot vote against the lunacy of the far right without embracing the deeper lunacy of the far left.
Do I like Ted Cruz? Hell no. So naturally I'll vote for Beto O'Ro...... Oh for fuck's sake. Cruz it is, then.
Spin? Is that what they're calling it these days?
The complete and utter denial of reality with some here is completely mind boggling and dumbfounding to me. Unreal
You're incapable of providing anything of worth to me.
Your incessant whining is tiresome.
You're incapable of handing me my ass.
Fuck off
Oh, it happens
Every single day.
We have found that most facts are.
Jeremy, forgive me, because something you wrote last 'time' on a gun article stuck with me. So tell me clearly (if you don't mind) why a man who serves his country in warfare, would think that all causes are equal? It must have been impressed upon you (in service) that some causes are more important, ranked higher, decent, and more decent than some other causes. I can ask this, because if you really think that your cause is no better or greater than those other guys with guns where you cleared buildings-why didn't you ask the generals ("the leadership") to join on the front-line? (All things being equal.)
I don't write this to bring up bad memories for you. I respect your service-especially after I 'saw' you in my mind's vision letting some of us anyway in on a bit of your past dealings with warfare. So I ask this with much respect!
You should read more. The whole principle of right and wrong hinges on 'just' causes. It is essential that you do not let transactional politics (the politics of selfishness) rule over your life. Because, there may come a time in this life (happens every day somewhere on the planet) when you need will have need of a friend who is not a part of your personal 'group.' But, they are no there for you to get help from, because you did something to ERADICATE their ability to 'lend' a hand to you-then, the philosophy of whole system cohesiveness may be sensible to you.
I want justice for all, not just those who look like me-and I want to do right by you too! (But not just right by you and your views alone.)
As for our politicians they have been told all their lives from childhood to watch out for appearances (of evil), and yet they are mostly 'bathing' in the same 'pit' and stuff is getting on them rightly or wrongly. Somebody in the political arena with some say-so has to start bringing out the other pols - out of the pit - one by one and in small groups!
Pray on it with a sincere heart and mind.
You should research the concept of irony.
As determined by whom? It was a simple question.
How sweet. Still haven't answered why your version of "just" would be more valid than anybody else's.
How do you define justice?
If it that damn simple why don't you answer it: You seem to love the 'sound' of your 'voice'! And for shits and giggles who or what determines justice (just causes) in your world? You can tell us-we don't bite.
As doing the right thing, for the right reasons, as stewards of protecting the lives and livelihood of others. I could go on. . . but, right now as I mentioned already, I am distracted by another matter. But, as I make a brief departure-you are free to give us your version of justice just like me.
Nah but what is truly pathetic is people with a double standard.
Acceptance of one incendiary comment while admonishing another over sophomoric partisan biases.
Truly sad and pathetic.
Are you implying that I condoned the incendiary comments of Waters?:
Pay attention.
Pay attention..... did I say you were implying that?
Pay attention. I asked you a question. Your comment (a reply to me) spoke of accepting one incendiary comment while admonishing another. If you did not mean to suggest I was doing that then why include that in your reply?
See, Sparty, most interpret a REPLY to a comment to mean that the content of the comment applies to the person/comment replied-to. If you want to make a general comment then do not REPLY.
Which I answered. If you don’t like the answer don’t hit the REPLY button
Why not? Everything is not about you tig. If I meant to say you, I would have said you.
Again, I’m not really interested in your preaching. Preach to someone who is impressed with your opinion. You’ve been told many times that I am not one of those people. Especially when you question people’s patriotism over BS like this.
On that, once again, you don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about. Not a clue ....
You couldn't match wits with TiG on his worst day or your best, or both, lol.
Beto is running for Governor (against Abbott). I hope Beto wins!
Ted Cruz's senate term expires in 2024. He'll probably run for his Senate seat and he may also run for President if Trump is in jail.
Lol ...... another worthless opinion from one of our angst filled liberals. Better stock up on butt cream. All y’all are gonna need it in a few months.
Badly
If your comment does not apply to an individual's comment then do not REPLY to that comment ... make a new thread instead.
All my replies here, to others comments, have to do with the comment I am responding to. 100%.
What I don’t have control over is how others here may try to spin, twist, redefine, complicate or otherwise attempt to misinform about said reply.
Which is hilarious.
I'm sure you do.
So many of the Democrats who run here are ridiculous. Kinky Friedman for governor?? WTF?? They're people who can only operate on the fringe and would obviously be completely catastrophic if they ever win.
In Beto's case, he's a teenage tech bro who never grew up.
Not likely after his stunt regarding Uvalde.
And Democrats' positions on immigration aren't widely liked down here.
Precisely.
My favorite is still Wendy Davis and her famous little pink tennis shoes--who Democrats were sure to turn Texas purple if not blue.
Despite loads of out-of-state money poured in by Democrats, she lost by a bigger margin than the Democrat before her did.
What I find strange is how Democrats, especially here, lambaste Texas at every chance and consider Texans to be idiots, but then they always try to win the state over.
Thus your REPLY to me was not in general but rather it applied to my comment. As I noted and as I properly interpreted.
Again with the 'butt' talk. When republicans had power. . . life still sucked, in the manner that is becoming all too routine.
That's their normal mode of operation. They throw tantrums and then don't understand why people take offense.
My daughter was like that.... in junior high school.
It's worth mentioning that this isn't limited to Texas.
They've spent decades criticizing, deriding and blaming working class Americans for all sorts of ridiculous shite. They angrily demand that a guy who busts his ass installing light switches for a living repent for his role in slavery and rant about how he's a misogynist because he makes more than his wife. Then they start on about his "white privilege", which is apparently found somewhere between his white skin and his sweat-soaked Carhart t-shirt. Then they demand he pay off their student loans.
And then they're astonished when that guy is fed up enough to vote for Trump.
Has it always sucked for you?
Trump is crap. And those who vote for crap get crapped on. If your white privilege offends you, try being a minority for a change. Oh, you can't make that happen can you? You have nerve to tell the people your party oppresses and diminish on a daily basis about your problems-majority 'man'? If you want someone to fill sorry for your having the best opportunities and access to the best this country can give past and present, then stop with interfering with and laboring to REGRESS women and minority rights across this country. That Jack_TX is the antithesis to freedom and success for all!
Trump is shit. Here is an alternative to "shit-head pathological liars who demand your devotion as well as your vote: A proper conservative. Want more? Okay, Liz Cheney or Alex Kinzinger. These people have standards, at least.
Trump is just all 'balls.' You can do better than voting for someone who pours fire into a container with a roaring fire already.
Victim card played again--check.
Racism card played again--check.
[Deleted]
Do you understand the use of the 3rd person in the English language?
You wouldn't have nearly as many tantrums if you bothered to read carefully.
If you are advocating for 'that' guy or gal out there (and not yourself) that white privilege has not 'produced' the necessary results, then I assume you agree white privilege has done 'nice' things for you, but not that other guy or gal. Did I get that right? Where am I wrong?
Necessary results??
The point is that anyone who thinks a guy who "installs light switches for a living" is benefitting from "white privilege" is a rampaging idiotic lunatic.
That guy goes to work before dawn every day. He works in the cold, the heat, the dirt, on ladders to put in fixtures and on his knees to put in plugs. And he has it waaaaay better than the plumber does. He busts his ass to put a roof over his family and food on their table. He pays his taxes and tries to save enough to put his kids through college. What a complete bastard.
Whether the "white male privilege" lunatics mean to or not, they include him when they use the term. They either imply or state outright that he didn't have to work as hard because he's white and male. These same rampaging idiotic lunatics.... most of whom have never had a job that wasn't air-conditioned.... are then astonished when they learned they pissed him off enough to vote for Trump.
I don't have a blue-collar job. And I have never voted for Trump.
As for "white male privilege" in general, I think it's a phenomenally convenient excuse for people whose economic situations are not living up to their expectations and who aren't willing to undertake the effort and risk necessary to achieve the lifestyle they want.
Most of these people using the term know exactly as much about being a white male as I do about being a Muslim female. They've seen it done but have little idea how it actually works.
Looks like he is handling his own just fine...
No different or more difficult than it is to handle you
Of course you do.
Most losers feel the same
sorry if the butt talk excited you. That was not my intention.
Yeah, that pre COVID Republican economy really sucked compared to the slice of heaven Biden is carving out for all Americans today. /S
The mere exercise of any opportunity to name-call repeatedly 'soils' your delivery. If you are not 'that' guy (who does get more opportunity in the present than minorities and women got in the past AND present), then it is likely some conservatives like you (first-person) work in air-conditioned offices. . . where you diligently work to instill in 'that guy' that the 'others' in the same or worse financial and quality of life state than he or she is in is 'getting over'!
It's called divide and conquer. You (first person) might have heard of that kind of thing.
BTW, you have stated you are a former educator. In about the time of your 'service' to black athletes did you 'encounter' or ever know about "Very Exceptional" or "Enrichment classes" for white students (no matter their level of achievement) and "Remedial Classes" for black students (no matter their level of achievement) or anything relatable to the aforementioned if by another name?
You will vote for Trump though, right?
I wouldn't comment on butts (and creamy ones at that) as often as you do because its 'juvenile.' You do understand "juvenile" eh?
PreCovid economy. . . wow, is that anything like 1,000,000 dead from "Covid political wars" and Covid disinformation 'combat' fatigue? We had a continuation of a great economy from that lying, deceitful, twisted caricature of a human being you like to call: Donald J. Trump. Oh yeah, 'it' was a former president too.
The ability to communicate effectively earns me many opportunities.
As does the ability to retain information.
When you can demonstrate either, please do make another attempt.
Jack has repeatedly stated that he has never voted for Trump and has no intention to do so in the future.
Communicate this effectively: You have stated you are a former educator. In about the time of your 'service' to black athletes did you 'encounter' or ever know about "Very Exceptional" or "Enrichment classes" for white students (no matter their level of achievement) and "Remedial Classes" for black students (no matter their level of achievement) or anything relatable to the aforementioned if by another name?
Pretty sure you are the former educator, or do I have the wrong man? If you are the one, then what do you know and when did you know it?
I am speaking to the future possibly 2024, because Jack_Tx is defending conservatism and damning liberalism: And the conservatives are largely supportive of Trump at the head of the ticket. So, I am compelled to ask a leading question, as passions can change abruptly.
Understood. Jack does seem to support many conservative notions (I do too, by the way) but unlike many other conservatives he strikes me as an independent (could be a registered R and an independent) who objectively considers issues and candidates and votes accordingly.
It does not surprise me at all that Jack did not and would not vote for Trump. That is entirely consistent with his collective posts, IMO. What surprises me (understatement) is that anyone today would even consider helping that proven miserable human being secure a position of power much less the most powerful office in the world.
Some of the conservatives here have stated their intention to NOT vote for Trump. Most, however, seem to hold the position that they will vote for Trump rather than ANY D. I find that irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic.
Donald Trump is the biggest loser so I guess you think he supports Beto too.
Don't bother to point out that you qualified your stupid statement with "most".
Most Republicans are assholes.
I have said it quite often, actually. Thanks for noticing.
but then you make sweeping generalizations about dems and brown shirts.
I oft wonder which comment is more representative
or is it just the seed at hand?
Asinine comment.
Are you capable of understanding that this is not a binary situation?
Are you capable of understanding that some conservative ideas are quite good, some liberal ideas are quite good, some conservative ideas are quite stupid and some liberal ideas are quite stupid?
Cite me using the term "brown shirt".
Are you asking about the comments I made or the comments you're misattributing to me?
I don't need you wasting my time trying to obfuscate with patronizing remarks. You are not that complicated to understand. But, like some conservatives here you do try and say as little as possible and let vain insults do the 'rest' of the work for you. Dig? I see that plain and clear.
I asked you twice already: (And since you like to be condescending here: "Reading is fundamental" 'Mr. Communicator.')
You have stated you are a former educator. In about the time of your 'service' to black athletes did you 'encounter' or ever know about "Very Exceptional" or "Enrichment classes" for white students (no matter their level of achievement) and "Remedial classes" for black students (no matter their level of achievement) or anything relatable to the aforementioned if by another name?
A yes or no will suffice. And we can move on. Otherwise, the silence is 'telling.' Hopefully, this third 'ask' will be the charm.
Pretty sure you are the former educator, or do I have the wrong man? If you are the one, then what do you know and when did you know it?
He HAS.
He has also told you more than once he did not vote for Trump, but you still insist he did or will.
Why?
How can he 'communicate effectively' with someone who wants to only believe what he believes despite being set straight?
Which is easier to argue?
So that's a "no" on the "capable of understanding question. If I was really so simple for you to understand, you would not be so wrong so often.
You really think I say as little as possible??? I suspect you are alone in that opinion.
You merely keep copying and pasting the same rambling string of nonsense, pretending it's somehow clearer.
At this point, I'm losing confidence that if you are able to manage better phrasing, you won't understand the answer or wouldn't believe it anyway.
You really need to up your game here, CB.
Yeah, so many words, Jack_TX. Jack, who is so big on talking about what black people lack and the 'breaks' black and other minorities don't get in life-until Jack_Tx is not! So 'big' on talking that is.
You seem to talk pretty big--provided it is about some conservatives, race, or victimhood.
YOU are the expert on asinine comments.
Why, thank you for recognizing my expertise on calling out your asinine comment!
I guess that means you think I am right!
[✘]
OK It was somebody else's comment which you copied and pasted
before it was deleted
You replied
So it certainly appears to be not only that you approved Ronin's comment but
then doubled down with another negative sweeping generalization.
In any case, I find the partisan comments out of character for you, neighbor.
Enjoy the heat, but stay cool today.
[✘]
The comment has apparently been deleted....which of course simply reinforces the point. The old saying goes "if you ever wonder who's in charge, just look at who you're not allowed to criticize."
While I agree the brown shirts comment is a generalization, my response was directed specifically at those who attempt to excuse acts of domestic terrorism, like bombing a medical clinic. I can see how the distinction was unclear.
Any person who excuses such behavior (and somebody did), has adopted a moral code consistent with other terrorists, like those found in Islamic terror groups.
Yes, I think you're a far right spamming stalker/troll.
I didn't presume a goddamn thing. I pointed out the hypocrisy and YOU took offense at it. You don't like the reality of what I pointed out then YOU need to work through it. I'm not going to cater to you.
When you reply to a comment that implicitly means you are addressing the content of that comment.
If you use the phrase 'you all' that means you are including the author of the comment you are addressing.
Learn how social forums work.
If I use the phrase "you all" then, YES, I am including the author of the comment. If I didn't want to include the author of the comment a different phrase would be used. (I can't believe I have to explain that to a supposed adult).
You are not explaining to me, you are repeating what I just explained to you. And you just admitted that you did indeed include me and thus you did indeed falsely presume, as I noted.
I've seen Jack make SGs about Dems but I've never seen him use the term brownshirts. That term is used quite often by some of the less ethical and moral characters at NT
Why did Trump do nothing for hours while the savagery unfolded?
Because he liked it.
I dont know how people can continue to defend him in light of sworn testimony that he did nothing and Mike Pence had to step in and order LE reinforcements to the scene.
He wanted it to succeed.
You could say he was depending on it.
Steve Schmidt is so right.
The hearing was riveting. Factual, concise, instructive, and very well presented.
Capitol Police Officer Edwards was very impressive and her testimony was heart-rending.
The video of the insurrection was brutal and devastating.
Bill Barr's video testimony was extremely significant, and Trump's daughter agrees with Barr, that the Big Lie is bullshit.
Chairman Thompson handled the hearing appropriately.
Liz Cheney, a true conservative Republican, was beyond excellent. Her patriotism will be long remembered.
We can expect the reactionaries to continue to deny the truth.
Only to those TDS driven fools that like having the same tired information the committee has leaked and spoon fed everyone since the start.
Political theatre always is for the side that believes it.
And seen a thousand times already.
So the fuck what? Has nothing to do with the Jan 6th riot.
He is getting plenty of practice after two impeachments of Trump. Of course it is easy when the opposition is silenced; and all the BS flows one direction only.
Bullshit, once Pelosi and the Dems are done with her they will toss her to the side as so much rubbish. Her political career is over. The View, CNN, and MSNBC can compete for "talents" after this. She isn't a Republican any longer- WI shit canned her long ago. She can call herself whatever she wants; but a Republican she isn't.
We can expect TDS suffering idiots to continue to claim the committee is bi-partisan (it is not, and never has been); doing a real investigation (real investigators look at all the evidence. The committee refuses to look at anything; or question anyone; that doesn't support their get Trump at all costs agenda); hasn't overstepped it's bounds (Investigations into the election have already been done. The committee is supposed to be looking at improving DC security so this never happens again. But that was never their intent; and they will make no recommendations to do so.) Wasting tax payer money is a full time job; and Democrats are the best in the business at it.
You ostensibly observed the facts showing the degree of violence at the insurrection along with Trump's spoken and tweeted words of inspiration (his Big Lie: "they stole the election"). You, like everyone else, can see that Trump let this fester for three hours while refusing to listen to advisors asking him to take actions to stop the insurrection. You observed Trump's attempts to suborn Pence to commit an unconstitutional act and the public humiliation he used to try to pressure Pence to do this.
You can see all of this and certainly can be knowledgeable of all that took place during the Big Lie and still you somehow think that acknowledging these obvious facts is "TDS".
That is what is amazing (and sickening).
Isn't evidence something that is (and has been) lacking when it comes to the left / Democrats "get Trump at all costs investigations"?
Is there evidence of Trump suggesting methods of stopping the certification of the election? Yes.
Is there evidence of many contacts between Trump campaign staff and Russian operatives? Yes.
Is there evidence of tax and bank fraud by Trumps business? Yes.
Is there evidence Trump spent time with and considered Jeffrey Epstein a friend? Yes.
Is there evidence Trump misused funds from his charity which led to it being fined millions and closed? Yes.
Is there evidence of multiple attempts by Trump to obstruct justice in the Mueller report? Yes.
Is there evidence of Trump attempting to extort a foreign government for dirt on a political opponent? Yes.
Is there evidence that Trump paid multiple porn stars nearly half a million out of campaign funds to keep their mouths closed about his affairs during the 2016 campaign? Yes.
Is there evidence that many of those who attacked the capital believed they were doing it at the behest of Donald Trump? Yes.
Is there evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential election. No.
Only those who are either extremely stupid or irredeemably corrupt would ignore all the actual evidence and refuse to believe the obvious while at the same time still sticking to the belief in the one thing there was zero evidence of.
And before any foaming at the mouth right wing conservative jumps in trying to claim that because Donald wasn't convicted of criminal conspiracy then that means there was "no evidence" and the whole investigation was a "hoax", do go read the actual senate investigation findings. While there was not enough evidence to prove criminal conspiracy, there was lots of evidence of multiple connections which is why it needed to be investigated. Just because OJ wasn't convicted doesn't mean there was no bloody glove or other evidence of him being involved in the crime. Just because Trump wasn't found guilty of criminal conspiracy, and a partisan Republican Senate refused to convict after impeachment, that doesn't mean the mountain of circumstantial evidence that would lead anyone not shoved up Donald's ass to demand an investigation didn't exist.
As I correctly stated:
How long should I wait for you to produce this supposed "evidence"? Because you know I'm not taking you at your word.
How long do you think they will continue? I got a fiver on til Armaggedon
Yeah I bet the fireballs from heaven will be the main attraction
" Hours before the deadly attack on the US Capitol this year, Donald Trump made several calls from the White House to top lieutenants at the Willard hotel in Washington and talked about ways to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win from taking place on 6 January."
Trump called aides hours before Capitol riot to discuss how to stop Biden victory | US Capitol attack | The Guardian
" The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers."
Senate panel finds Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election | PBS NewsHour
" The New York attorney general's office late Tuesday told a court that its investigators had uncovered evidence that President Donald Trump's company used "fraudulent or misleading" asset valuations to get loans and tax benefits."
New York's attorney general says Trump's company misled banks, tax officials : NPR
“He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” - Donald Trump
"A New York judge has ruled that President Trump must pay $2 million in damages to settle claims that the Trump Foundation misused funds." "The Trump Foundation has shut down, funds that were illegally misused are being restored, the president will be subject to ongoing supervision"
President Trump Ordered To Pay $2 Million For Misusing Trump Foundation Funds : NPR
" Former Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller told lawmakers Wednesday he could not exonerate President Donald Trump of obstruction of justice" "Mueller found “substantial evidence” to support multiple counts of obstruction of justice, including 10 episodes involving President Donald Trump interfering with the investigation."
Did Trump and His Team Successfully Obstruct Mueller’s Investigation? (justsecurity.org)
" The acting ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, told the inquiry that Mr Trump had made the release of the military aid conditional on Ukraine opening an investigation into the Bidens' dealings."
" Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union" "told Congress that he was working at the "express direction" of the president when pressure was put on Ukraine to investigate the Bidens."
Trump impeachment: The short, medium and long story - BBC News
" President Donald Trump has been identified as “Individual-1” in a federal criminal probe. “Individual-1” (the president) directed Cohen to make payments to two women to conceal his sexual relationship with them."
Michael Cohen named Trump as 'Individual-1'. Here's why prosecutors haven't identified him in court. (nbcnews.com)
" An Ohio man charged with storming the U.S. Capitol and stealing a coat rack testified Wednesday that he joined thousands of protesters in ransacking the building last year on what he thought were orders from the president, Donald Trump."
Capitol riot defendant from Ohio says he was following Trump (spectrumnews1.com)
And before the idiot brigade jumps in proclaiming that anything that isn't ironclad video confession of a crime can't be considered 'evidence', I made no claims that evidence was concrete or that they conclusively confirm guilt of a crime, but the evidence exists and the investigations are clearly warranted. In fact it's clear that far more concrete evidence exists on every point above than there is for any Biden or Hillary criminality yet conservatives seem to cling to their wispy straws they claim are evidence they should both be "locked up".
Oh, I forgot to ask, would you like to provide the evidence for the supposed widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election that the majority of Republicans still believe in?
Very nicely, and thoroughly, well done.
about 2 hours
I'm going to swim in the lake of fire (if it's heated).
I'll ask again - How long should I wait for you to produce this supposed "evidence"? As cute as it may seem, "news" articles don't prove a damn thing.
We've been waiting over 4 years for the proof of everything else they claimed.
Where is your proof of voter fraud? Just saying there was too much mail-in voting in 2020 is not proof of anything, let alone voter fraud.
Trump alleged voter fraud in every single swing state he lost. (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia). Does that make even the slightest sense to you? Who co-ordinated all this. All of these states had the electoral votes certified by Republicans.
How long are the right wing clowns of this nation going to put everyone through this idiocy?
It is obvious that you will not accept anything as evidence. By categorically ignoring all that DP wrote you are simply projecting that your confirmation bias is in full gear.
I doubt anyone is impressed.
You want to present evidence, link the government sites that is supposedly collecting this evidence. What I don't accept as "evidence" are news reports. I'm not going to play a game of "Telephone" with you or anybody else. I'm too old for childish games like that.
Yeah, you are demanding a video confession by Trump. Anything other than that is not 'evidence'.
[THIS IS TROLLING. THERE HAS BEEN MORE THAN AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT COMES FROM GOVERNMENT SOURCES. PEOPLE DONT HAVE TO ENDLESSLY GIVE YOU "LINKS" JUST BECAUSE YOU CANT DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE.]
I've taken the liberty of numbering your statements for ease of reference. Hope that's OK.
For items 1,2,4,8, and 9... which of those are illegal and what laws specifically have been violated?
For item 3... if fraud was indeed committed, what charges have been filed?
For items 5, 6, and 7.... if these actions actually broke the law, why have charges not been filed, or have they and I missed it?
Which government agency are you claiming that you trust to collect and present this evidence Jeremy? Please be specific.
I didn't state one. But apparently you feel there is a need to need to ask. Looks like you distrust certain agencies.
Hense the question.
Apparently you feel the need to avoid answering. Why?
Which of my comments are you basing your unfounded assumption on Jeremy?
So if there was one don't you think I would have stated that?
5.1.23
Well there you have it Jeremy.
Now, since you admit that there is NO government agency that you will trust to collect or present evidence, WHY THE FUCK are you asking TiG for links to government agencies doing so?
I'll wait.
BTFW, where does my comment say anything about ME distrusting agencies. Please make an attempt to be cogent.
Liz Cheney to the republicans:
"There will come a day when Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain."
I have a feeling Republicans stopped listening to Liz quite a while ago.
An error they will eventually pay dearly for.
Midterms will prove otherwise.
Cheney will be gone; and Pelosi and the Democrats will be negotiating with Republicans not to retaliate against them by censuring members and removing them from committee assignments. Paybacks are a bitch; and Pelosi is the Queen Bitch- so her's will be the largest.
An error they will eventually pay dearly for.
How? Please be specific.
Read Liz's lips. The Trump-republicans scorned her and now she will scorch them.
(apol. to William Congreve)
The error is that democrats will be finishes with this charade in a matter of weeks, and the mid terms will still be months away.
What that means is the vast majority of Americans will forget about this clown show and still be reeling from inflation, gas and food prices and illegals pouring into the country every day.
Democrats are fucked this November,.
The error is that democrats will be finishes with this charade in a matter of weeks, and the mid terms will still be months away.
What that means is the vast majority of Americans will forget about this clown show and still be reeling from inflation, gas and food prices and illegals pouring into the country every day.
Democrats are fucked this November,.
Sassy!
It is highly likely its going to get far worse for Trump. Tonight the evidence was just laid out in outline. In the subsequent hearings they are going to go into more detail. None of the details are good for Trump.
Yeah. And wait until the MAGA bots find out how much money he's been grifting from them. Trump, the purely transactional flim flam man.
Saw a couple clips of Jared. There are more on the way. I got a feeling Ivanka is going to save her dignity the best she can. She is a Trump after all. Bye bye Jared.
Grifting?
That’s a Biden family business not Trump.
Some people suffer so badly from UBH (Unhinged Biden Hatred) that they aren't capable of recognizing the truth.
Sad.
The hive minded drones for trumpturd are pathetic and sad and desperate.
All they got is projection, deflection, and denial and lies.
[deleted]
Not sure that is the case. Last night was to try and get people to watch the future circus since it will be televised at 10:00 and not prime time (I believe). It would seem they would have put more actual proof forward to tease people to tune in to the rest of the shows. Time will tell if they were successful.
Anyone who accepts this hearing as fair and unbiased, is a total idiot.
Truth is always fair and unbiased.
So............you are saying that everything everybody testified to under oath is lying? Really? Is that what you're saying?
My. My oh my.
True, too bad spin always renders “truth,” unfair and biased.
Only a fool can’t see it in this trial.
Lordy, Lordy!
This wasn't a trial. It was a Congressional hearing.
Anyone who disputes the clear, factual presentation is a deranged partisan hack as well as a complete idiot.
MAGA is a social disorder. You're aligning with the, "Hang Mike Pence" crowd. Why? Is Trump really worth all of that?
And if there is spin---------please point it out. Just do it and stop being a Trump toadie.
So when are we going to see this "clear, factual presentation" from the partisan hacks making up this committee?
This whole presentation is nothing more than the Democrats trying to distract everybody the travesty of the Biden Administration.
Your "arguments" on this forum are pathetic.
I watched it last night, kind of reminded me of driving by a car accident. I don't know how many times the committee told us that Trump was directly responsible for everything that happened on Jan 6th. They offered no proof other then their word that it was true, maybe in the remaining 6 or 7 presentations they can provide some actual evidence to show it? The closest they seemed to get to showing such proof was a video of some idiot (don't know if he was a Proud Boy or an OathKeeper) who said he came to Washington because Trump asked him to in the tweet.
But what I saw last night convinced me that the Democrats are really scared of Trump and will do anything they can to keep him from running again in 24. For that I hope they are successful but I also wonder what the cost to the Democrat party will be from this?
Right, that is exactly what I’m saying. This house selective committee isn’t fact finding but rather just selectively picking what supports their hateful narrative.
Fact finding means all the facts are brought to light. Good or bad. Not just selectively cherry-picking bits and pieces. So as I’ve said and you’ve supported. This is easy for anyone to see that isn’t a complete fool/total idiot. Thx for reaffirming that.
[deleted]
Why dont you summarize Trumps side of the story for us in a couple paragraphs?
So are the articles you seed but yet, here we are.
Be happy you are on Newstalkers where you are allowed to present empty thoughts as a point of view.
Even in the next few episodes they won't offer any proof.
That was evident in 2016. This is their feeble attempt to stop a run in 24 but, like everything else they've tried against him, it will fail.
How about you Jeremy? Why dont you give us Trumps side of this story. Go into as much detail as you can.
Throughout her presentation, Liz Cheney kept saying "we will show you-----"referring to later hearings in the series. Last night was not intended to go into great detail, it was an opening argument. This is going to get far worse for Trump than what we saw last night.
We'll see. Let's just say I'm skeptical that any real proof will be shown. The closest they got to any direct proof was some idiot (don't remember if it was a ProudBoy or an OathKeeper, doesn't matter) stated that he was in Washington because Trump "asked" him to be there. The ask was in a tweet saying come to the Rally.... Hardly a direct link.
There has been an "opening argument" being put forward for about 18 months now. People are tired of it already and you think a show that says "stay tuned, we will really show you next week" is going to peak peoples interest? We shall see.
BINGO!
You should be happy about that.
Are you done trolling me?
Opening arguments are presented at trial.
Do you suffer under the impression this was some sort of trial?
Everything under the sun is always going to "make things worse for Trump" or "is the smoking gun sure to bring Trump down" to those fixated on all things Trump, it is laughable nonsense.
Best be careful with those words--it is considered skirting the C of C.
deleted
[deleted]
I wonder who they will blame when the SC reverses Roe and the loon, rabid leftist storm the SC, possibly doing harm to one or more justices.
Probably Trump.
Well, Trump and Republicans in general, especially McConnell.
We will get to hear some more bitching about how Obama was denied his pick and how Republicans approved Trump's selections.
What we won't hear is how Chuckie Schumer incited anyone with his foul remarks.
Guaranteed.
Actually, you're saying the exact opposite.
That is a strawman Sparty. Gsquared didn't mention 'fact finding'.
Nope, fact finding doesn't mean that.
Facts are neither good nor bad, they're just facts.
You specifically cited the first hearing. Are you aware that hearing was represented as an 'opening statement'?
I find it ironic that prior to ANY investigation, the GOP leaders BOTH placed the responsibility for the Capitol attack at the feet of Trump. Of course, since then, illustrating their cowardice, they have back peddled and without one iota of exculpatory evidence, they've tried to immunize Trump.
I invite you and yours to produce exculpatory evidence as the hearings continue.
That is at best misleading, at worst, a lie.
wrong
No it isn’t
Yes it does
Depends on your perspective. One person good is another’s persons bad.
Again, why you afraid of seating Jordan and Banks? Your case is open and shut right? Keep spinning baby. Keep spinning
It’s an inconvenient fact for the looners on the left pushing this joke of a committee. Useful idiots they are .... one and all.
Can you provide a link some of those quotes Snuffy?
So, you don't think that the documented evidence that Trump's representatives coordinated with state GOP operatives and legislators to submit counterfeit elector certifications proves a conspiracy to defraud the government?
Yes your claim is wrong Sparty.
Also, your comment IS a strawman. I note that you didn't block quote the FACT that I stated:
You tried to make it about 'fact finding' which members can see for themselves wasn't argued by Gsquared. That is the very definition of a strawman.
Only if your perspective lacks maturity. Others understand that facts can't be characterized as such. Their effects are a different question entirely.
Claiming that I am spinning after posting that deflective strawman comment is the height of hypocrisy.
As for your 'again' bullshit. You never asked me that question prior to today Sparty. Just stop.
Secondly, I have no authority to seat anyone or fear to seat anyone.
Thirdly, I have no case, I'm just a member here just like you.
Why lie Sparty.
You claimed that Gsquared 'supported' and 'reaffirmed' your comment. That is a lie.
Now you try to deflect from that lie.
Disgusting.
This pathetic clown show will have zero effect on the midterms or the 2024 election.
It will have zero effect on the brain dead and those with their heads firmly stuffed in their dear Leaders colon. Truth, facts, evidence, reality, an attempted insurrection, none of that matters to the poorly educated conservative floaters bobbing along denial river...
Trumpers can see pyramids from that river!
Seems a sweeping defamation of all the people who will not change their votes based on these hearings... especially considering you won't be changing your vote based on these hearings....
Those who believe Trump legitimately won the election and thus is correct in deeming the election rigged should, based on a clear presentation of facts, change their minds.
I think you, DP and I (among others) believe that they will not change their minds no matter what is presented to them.
To wit, seems to me that you agree with DPs expectation that they will dismiss these facts.
Yeah.... I'm just too pragmatic to expect any movement on that.
But I'm also too much a centrist to condemn one set of extremist morons while giving the opposing set a free pass.
Can you please dispute any of the facts that the Jan. 6th committee has presented so far? Calling it a, "clown show" doesn't do shit to refute their facts.
We'll wait.
Not me. I just considered that yet another emotional comment. No matter what is presented, some will deem it a 'clown show' or equivalent as they cover their eyes and ears and shake their heads.
Denial is a real thing with these people. Is it ego? Unable to admit they are wrong or, is it shame in having to admit that the guy they thought was perfect is really just a POS?
For sure it's worth a few pages in someone's book.
In the end, be it shame, ego or denial, it will not change the facts.
It's not just them.
Nah. It's anger. The same anger that Trump recognized and rode to the WH is still out there and we've done pretty much nothing to address it.
You can't sit here and demand that they acknowledge one set of facts.... which will absolutely not be the complete set about this Jan 6 riot... while simultaneously demanding they ignore all the facts you find inconvenient.
What are the inconvenient facts about Trump that people are demanding be ignored?
That the economy grew during his first 3 years in office? That his policies were largely basic GOP? Facts like that?
That's not what I said. I said you cannot demand they acknowledge one set of facts while simultaneously demanding they ignore others.
There is a galactic size double standard inherent in all of this, and people are not willing to embrace it.
No. Facts like "a man with gender dysphoria is not actually a woman." Or "people who are in the United States without proper immigration filings in place and current are, in fact, actually criminals". Or "an assault weapons ban will cause a significant reduction in gun violence....even though almost none of it is actually committed with assault weapons".
We can add... "a protest with buildings on fire is not actually a peaceful protest".
How about "an accusation of sexual assault where the woman has been mentally ill for decades and none of the witnesses she names have any idea WTF she's talking about is not "credible" simply because she's accusing a white male Trump appointee."
Lest we forget... "when an old man walks up to you in a park playing his drum, smiling at him is not actually a racist act, even if you're a white kid in a MAGA hat.
There are thousands of examples. This could go on for a long time. You can't say shit like that and expect people to believe you when you say something else, even if it's true.
I asked a question for clarification:
I still do not know what you have in mind when you speak of inconvenient facts that are demanded to be ignored. My question to you seems appropriate to me.
Okay, you are really talking in general. Basically observing that ideological / political motivations are inherently hypocritical. While I agree with that, that does not help when we are talking about something specific like Trump's role in the insurrection. There are clear facts on the table. Regardless of the motivations of committee members, those facts are there for objective analysis.
It's much more than that. We're talking about a constant and ongoing pattern over several years of intentionally antagonistic behavior toward a sizeable segment of society. Things like accusing anyone who disagreed with Barack Obama's policies of racism, or labeling Hillary Clinton's detractors as misogynists. If you don't want your kids taught that they were born racist, you must be one. Don't see why you should have to give up your rifle because some guy you've never met shot up a school? You're an "ammosexual" and a terrible person. Think it's OK for birth control to have a co-pay like all the other drugs, you're waging a "war on women". Don't think it's fair your daughter has to play basketball against a 6'4" "girl" with a beard and a penis? You're "transphobic".
It worked. A large segment of Americans are officially alienated to the "fuck you" level. Common sense should tell anyone that you can't continually piss on people and then expect them to see things your way, but that's what a number of Democrats are demanding.
For some of these folks, it doesn't matter if we're trying to get them to agree that water is wet. Their answer is still "fuck you".
There are lots of clear facts on the table regarding lots of issues. Yet we only seem to be concerned about a very limited set that very conveniently favors the people in power.
There is no "regardless". The motivations of the committee members are part of the facts. Those motivations dramatically increase the probability that the set of data the committee will present will be deeply biased. They increase the likelihood that any data which may reflect positively on Trump will be excluded.
We're seeing a sales pitch. And like every sales pitch, part of "the facts" is the fact that they're only going to tell you the set of facts they want you to hear.
I agree. And, again, your thinking is way beyond the context of this article so naturally your comment did not make sense to me (I assumed you were operating within this context).
For Jan 6th, the key question to answer is who are culpable for the insurrection and what should be done in response? Other legitimate questions apply but we first need to get this key answer.
Not to me. I presume all members are biased and thus ignore their opinions. Thus 'regardless' absolutely applies to my position. What matters to me is the evidence and the facts that are supported by said evidence.
What facts, presented yesterday, do you consider to be improper or false? What relevant facts have been, in your opinion, intentionally hidden?
You think republicans do not do the same thing?
Of course it is done and to a worse degree (possible now). They have severely fractured their party over the selection of a "one-man" Trump philosophy.
Well, the context of the specific conversation was Frost's comment about "denial", so that's what I was addressing. I do think the issue is much broader than the article, the Jan 6 riot, and certainly the committee.
Meh. Maybe. I think if that culpability finding results in Trump being convicted and sent to prison, then OK, yeah, that's important. I can imagine no scenario where that happens and we wouldn't already know. Other than that, it's pretty much political theatre.
I'm not talking about their opinions. I'm talking about what they choose to include and exclude in their evidence.
Again, it's not about presenting falsehoods. I like to think they're not stupid enough to do that, but I also won't be surprised. It's specifically about facts they omit.
They've had a team of people on this for over a year, so you know they've compiled hundreds of thousands of pages of data and they can't possibly present it all. The nature of omission means that we'll never know what they choose to omit.
That's how sales pitches work. Transamerica may have the best life insurance policy on the planet, but the Mass Mutual agent sure as hell isn't going to tell you that.
So will we ever know the full story? Of course not. We're going to hear the version chosen for us by the party in power that has a vested interest in shaping our opinions. Any analysis of any evidence that ignores that overriding fact is simply half baked.
Hang on... Is this where we get to roll out groovy lefty terms like "whataboutism" and "false equivalency"?
The issue is this: We're all that each other have. We're 'all' shipped here (voluntarily or forcibly) centuries ago-except for the Indian peoples. And, some of us are not nice to them! What has happened is politicians have gotten themselves caught up in 'game' of politics! Worse, we have 'whole' states decided that a component of the whole country should be the 'head' making decisions for all of us. Our nation union is a marriage of 'policies.'
We can't afford to just say, "fuck you/it" and go our separate ways, because we are one solidified whole. So what do we do at this point? We, congress, states, and citizens remember what we CAME here aspiring to be: That is, a better place than those places "we" departed from. All 330-350 million diversified members of "Us."
We're stronger when we put down our 'rocks,' and think about peace mostly.
(Yeah, this is a little sappy, but I am distracted right now.)
I just figured you can reasonable. I can admit when I see it on my supposed side. I admit it. Yet I am not so blind to think one side is innocent and picked on while the other side is not.
You're not wrong.
But we're not headed in that direction.
It's easier to let our emotions take over, pout, and vilify those with whom we disagree. So that's the path we take. Our representatives work for us, so they have a tendency to tell us what we want to hear.
Sorry. I've run into a couple of childish assholes today. I'll reset.
To answer your question, yeah, obviously it happens on both sides. Disturbingly, it wins votes on both sides.
The sad thing is that it's easier to be stupid than it is to be intelligent, and it's easier to follow your feelings than your brain. So we do that, and then we rationalize about how it's somehow justified.
Our politicians need help from 'back home.' The constituents have got to let the politicians think mostly for themselves about what works or can work if given time. For example, I think about congress. . . literally, republican and democrats, just waiting for their moment in the leadership to do . . . basically "nothing" in two year increments. All because somebody/ies in the abstract is wrong as two level shoes. But, leadership has forsaken honor and become wimps and chumps who are soulless.
For example, it was so weird, sad, and pathetic to watch Trump's Kellyann Conway almost destroy her family and especially her daughter's sanity over Kellyanne trying to finesse living in an alternative reality based on Trumpism.
One thing I will agree with you on. Not a popular opinion in these circles yet I think this show and prime time special was weird.
They only have themselves to blame for making it look like political theatre.
I think on things like this, the hearings should all just be shown live on CSPAN.
It was not political theater. That is what people who criticize democrats would like it to be known as. But, keep in mind, republicans wanted to turn this serious panel into political theater -using "theatrics" by placing strategic bombastic die-hards on the panel. Then, you would have a 'ball of confusion' yesterday. These two republicans were 'still' by comparison.
CSPAN is a quiet little hub for nerds (like me), and generally people don't know how to find the site or connect to its menus. Besides, can CSPAN handle 20 million viewers at one time or more (I don't know). Moreover, in the past, one of the chief criticisms of democratic party officials is their lack of hiring professionals to ask questions instead relying on their own 'relaxed' questioning which does not drill down deep enough to get proper answers and second to this, an inability to 'make coherent' statements that all classes can follow along.
Television producers, accustomed to making 'appointment tv' happen through weekly episodes and across seasons can fix the democrats' coherence problem.
I am not saying the content is political theatre, I am saying how it is presented can come off that way and I can see how a lot of average people will just look the other way.
Okay. I hope not all the same. In a weird kind of way, if you look at the violence footage without the sound up. . . it looks kind of laughable. There were people running to and fro, Trump making a speech with his usual 'dainty' hand maneuvers (gloved), and folks falling everywhere, stuff being broken, "man with horns bellowing, and the surreal-ness that this is the Capitol and even a woman getting shot for trying to step through a shattered glass door and at the moment of her falling, then state police in riot gear enter scene.
It was all so 'dramatically comical and whimsical, but my my all so gravely serious too!
1. This was probably written two weeks ago and tweaked as necessary.
2. As if his whole career, particularly his enabling of a child molester, isn’t enough to discredit him, Steve Schmidt is crazy. He’s been having a very public meltdown on Twitter for weeks.
For over three hours Trump failed to order any type of reinforcements for the besieged Capitol Police. Evidently Mike Pence stepped in and gave the orders. Yet many on the right completely ignore these devastating facts and keep trying to blame Pelosi.
And you think Steve Schmidt is crazy?
Not excusing what Trump did and didn't do during the attack. And I don't see where Sean is doing that either.
Why are you giving Capitol leadership (which included Pelosi) a pass on their failures to properly prepare for the day?
And according to Liz Cheney from last nights committee presentation..
So they had advance intelligence showing there were plans to invade and occupy the Capitol Building, the Trump administration had reached out to Capital Police on Jan 2nd. Why do you give Pelosi a pass on her inaction?
You do realize protocol in these situations do you not? He can authorize if asked to do so. He cannot initiate. As I pointed out yesterday, that is what took FEMA so long during Katrina. The mayor of New Orleans NOR the governor of Louisiana asked for days and that caused the delay. It wasn't Bush.
This is the new version of "Jersey Shore". Only more pathetic and predictable.
Shoot the messenger time. Diminish, damn, and demonize. Then, go back to leaving with yourself.
The Donald is still crying into his "my pillow" this morning.
It is kinda funny. I think the best thing that could happen for the Republican party is if Donald is taken down by this circus. It will put an end to any in fighting within the party so they can move forward and get behind a different candidate. The question becomes can the circus convince people it is the whole republican party that is to blame. That may very well be their ultimate goal,
While I agree that it could be the best thing if Trump were delegated to the sidelines, somehow I doubt that the Democrat Party is interested in helping out the Republican Party.
That is why I think they may try to make this an 'all Republicans are complicit' thing. Either that or it may be a case they are so focused on trump they may have missed the ramifications of what will happen if they get what they want. That may become evident in 2024.
True.
The Retrumplicans need to condemn The Donald before it's too late.
No. Actually they dont need to condem him at all. Much easier if the dems take him out (politically speaking) for them. That will unify the Republicans behind someone else.
Not to mention piss off Trump's base enough to ensure they will vote for the next Republican nominee- no matter who it is. Just so they can get a chance to pay Democrats back.
Its already too late for many of them
That would be the best thing for everyone, the sooner the better.
I agree but I would be a little concerned about the people with TDS having to quit him cold turkey.
As we can see on several articles, the TDS driven have nothing more to say than to call the hearings bullshit.
Or call Pelosi drunk, or to call Liz Cheney a Dem. Anything to deflect away from what happened.
Anything to say it is nothing but a witch-hunt against poor donald...
I suppose it's no different than the people with ODS, CDS or BDS.
They do have a bit of a history with ineptitude resulting in unintended consequences that should have been easily foreseen.
Look at the home page on Gab.com. The first seven or eight posts are donald squealing like a pig stuck under the gate, lol.
Its going to get worse for Trump.
Just scrolling through the comments so far, I see no one refuting the evidence that was presented by the Jan. 6th Committee yesterday. No one. Calling it a shitshow, clown show, or propaganda will do nothing to change the facts.
Comic relief has arrived, y'all! Take a five minute intermission. Enjoy RDtC's segment for what it's worth and then get back at it!
Oh, this came down from 'Leadership.'
I just want to commend you for twice being Comic RDtC and now RDtRight! Just letting us know where your heart resides. PRICELESS!
What does gas prices (and what is affecting it) have to do with domestic terrorism and insurrection? It's shady when you try to conflate issues, RDtRight!
LMAO!
Maybe it is a comment on what is,and is not,important to the American people right now. But if it has to be explained to you chances are you won't get it. We will see how true it is in nov.
Still, conflating issues is conflating issues. Perhaps while conflating and 'clashing' in congruent issues together, RDtRight—you can explain what the war in Ukraine and Russia is doing to the world's gas market. That's a hefty portion of this mess. What, too much for you?
Oh my goodness! Duck erotica, really -RDtRight?
Only if it gets you excited.
Lol ... nice one.
Now. . .what?
Must be an insider 'thing.' Of course, if it does not connect with its intended, then it can't be an insult, slight, or 'fun moment', right?
You are really not familiar with "Weekend at Bernies"?
Maybe he/she wants to fuck a duck.
Many Retrumplicans do.
Maybe he/she is a necrophiliac.
Many Retrumplicans are.
Oh you friend Al Jizzerror! (Can you tell I'm blushing)?
I added a video to 15.1.10
Hmmm. That was. . . interesting. Never heard the song or seen the video before. "Ethyl " had some moves there for a 'stiff.'
Asinine comment.
Asinine comment.
Thanks for the stalker/troll Spam.
I needed a snack.
[✘]