# Will you watch?



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The Democrats are producing a prime time docudrama.

On Thursday night, most major broadcast networks and cable-news outlets are slated to shake up their evening programming grid to show what is expected to be a shocking report from the U.S. House Select Committee, which has spent months investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and what may be coordinated efforts behind it.​







TV News Shakes Up Schedules to Cover Jan. 6 Committee Report on Capitol Attack


One of the most consequential events in the recent history of the U.S. is set to be dissected on Thursday night during TV’s primetime schedule. Journalists slated to cover it will have to hop…




variety.com


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

*Bennie Thompson, committee chairman*
*State:* Mississippi, 2nd District 

*Zoe Lofgren*
*State:* California, 19th District 

*Adam Schiff*
*State:* California, 28th District 

*Jamie Raskin*
*State:* Maryland, 8th District 

*Pete Aguilar*
*State:* California, 31st District 

*Stephanie Murphy*
*State:* Florida, 7th District 

*Elaine Luria*
*State: *Virginia, 2nd District 

*Liz Cheney*
*State: *Wyoming, at-large district 

*Adam Kinzinger*
*State:* Illinois, 16th District 









Here are the 9 lawmakers investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack


Seven Democrats and two Republicans — all selected by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — make up the committee tasked with investigating the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.




www.npr.org


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

This does not "feel" right. I am not speaking to the investigation, but to the made for TV prime time viewing. 

This leaves no doubt of the media's support of a political agenda.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

No I wont watch that garbage. You know dang well it will not be 3rd party truthful. it will be full of twisted one-sided and manipulated perceptions put fourth in a way to push the lefts narrative. 


No thanks!


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

No thanks


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

No. Won’t watch.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

This is a continuation of the Rusian Conspiracy to keep Trump and other conservatives from running for office pushed by Mark Elias. The left has used false accusations against conservatives for years and it is time to put a stop to this.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Will you watch it?


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

No I will not… the people you listed are among the many Traitors in DC.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Watch a taxpayer funded Leftist political add? Nah and every one of these Leftist grifters should be in jail for fraud.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

HDRider said:


> This does not "feel" right. I am not speaking to the investigation, but to the made for TV prime time viewing.
> 
> This leaves no doubt of the media's support of a political agenda.


It's political theater.
there's an election coming up y'know, and the Democrats don't have time to fix the problems they've caused, they have to make sure Trump doesn't get in in '24 and fix their mess.
It's disheartening to see how corrupt the Democrats are and even more disheartening to see how some people believe everything they say.
They are jackals, thieves and communists, the epitome of evil


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

po boy said:


> This is a continuation of the Rusian Conspiracy to keep Trump and other conservatives from running for office pushed by Mark Elias. The left has used false accusations against conservatives for years and it is time to put a stop to this.


The Russians know which politicians they can buy cheap, see the list. There's more, but the list is a good start


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

How retro, "TV's prime time schedule" and cable news programs. 

They should send out telegrams as well.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

po boy said:


> This is a continuation of the Rusian Conspiracy to keep Trump and other conservatives from running for office pushed by Mark Elias. The left has used false accusations against conservatives for years and it is time to put a stop to this.


We haven't done televised congressional hearings for a long time. Maybe that's because we have C-SPAN now. But public perception can go either way after televised public hearings.

Two hearings come to mind; Watergate and Iran-Contra, which had very different outcomes. Watergate laid bare the activities and coverup of the White House "Plumbers." The brazen illegal acts shocked the public, ending Nixon's presidency.

Iran-Contra had a very different outcome. From a legal standpoint, they all got away with it. Despite blatant illegal acts, the culprits were somehow elevated to hero status. The public saw one of the primary offenders, Oliver North, as exactly the kind of Marine we wanted to defend our country. But more importantly, Reagan's men kept the president out of it. We now know that the president was suffering from Alzheimer's at the time of the hearings, which the White House was keeping out of the news. An appearance by the president might have had disastrous consequences. To that end, Admiral Poindexter took the fall for Reagan. Poindexter testified that he did it without the president knowing about it. But Poindexter got away with it because he was given immunity in exchange for testimony.

I'll probably watch it to see how it's going. Provided no server problems arise, I may have time to watch it all.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

Nope, won’t watch.
In fact, the ONLY time our TV is on is for the Indy 500, and the World Series.
That’s it, that’s all. Nothing more.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

link30240 said:


> No I wont watch that garbage. You know dang well it will not be 3rd party truthful. it will be full of twisted one-sided and manipulated perceptions put fourth in a way to push the lefts narrative.


What else does the left have?


Cornhusker said:


> It's political theater.


Political kabuki theater.


Nevada said:


> I'll probably watch it to see how it's going.


We know.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> No I will not… the people you listed are among the many Traitors in DC.


They should be the ones investigated


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But public perception can go either way after televised public hearings.


Chances are, the only people viewing this will be those, much like yourself, seeking to have their personal bias confirmed.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

If Trump is re-elected in '24, I hope he pardons everyone caught up in this.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Hell no.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I see that most here don't intend to watch the hearings. Are you not interested in how J6 was planned?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I see that most here don't intend to watch the hearings. Are you not interested in how J6 was planned?


Absolutely. 

When they investigate the correct perpetrators, I will watch.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

We could fill you in right here Nevada and you wouldn't have to miss any sleep.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

Of course I will watch it, in the spirit of Isaiah 10.

I tried to watch the Watergate hearings, but every time it came on some good old boys in our area would cut the power to the tv tower that beamed the signals. The very fact they did not want us to hear them caused me to change my registration from the party in power to independent.

The only person I worship is Jesus Christ. When it comes to government office, I try first to look at the policies and then at the person. But when a person shows me I cannot trust them, I listen.

I listened when I was told this last election was stolen. I'm still listening, but have not heard any proof of that. What I have heard is a phone call that suborned fraud and should result in jail time. 

There was an armed insurrection on January 6th. I would agree one side may try to magnify it. I believe the other side is trying to deny it.

I think we should admit it happened and weed out the bad actors. If there were a few, deal with them. If many, deal with them. If it was plotted by underlings, deal with them. If it came from the top, deal with it.

One thing I learned early on: those that cry "I was cheated" the loudest are usually the ones trying to cheat.

Second thing I learned early on came from the Bible: those that don't want light shined on actions already know those deeds were wrong, and just don't want it to be shown to the whole world.

Absolutely nothing to fear from shining some light.

Third thing I learned: if I do something wrong, I am guilty. I am not somehow less guilty if I point out your wrong doings.

I wanted to drain the swamp. Still do. Let's drain it, no matter who gets caught.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I see that most here don't intend to watch the hearings. Are you not interested in how J6 was planned?


Not much interested in political propaganda.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I see that most here don't intend to watch the hearings. Are you not interested in how J6 was planned?


Sure, but, all we are going to see on this political add are Leftist lies.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

nodak3 said:


> I think we should admit it happened and weed out the bad actors.


Yes, but, you don't do that by allowing Leftist political swamp critters to shape the narrative. 


nodak3 said:


> Absolutely nothing to fear from shining some light.


This is an attempt to shield not shine. 


nodak3 said:


> I wanted to drain the swamp. Still do. Let's drain it, no matter who gets caught.


You don't drain the swamp by allowing swamp critters to shape a false narrative. 


nodak3 said:


> There was an armed insurrection on January 6th


No, there wasn't, unless you are calling Capital police "Insurrectionists". There were no armed folks in the Capital other than the cops.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I can see nature tv out my picture window. No need to try to mess with... Not watching!!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> No, there wasn't, unless you are calling Capital police "Insurrectionists". There were no armed folks in the Capital other than the cops.


Three insurrectionists have been charged with gun crimes.









Fact checking claims January 6 was not an armed insurrection | CNN Politics


The question of whether rioters were armed on January 6 has been among the most debated issues surrounding the insurrection -- with some Republicans claiming the assailants were not armed, despite court documents alleging otherwise.




www.cnn.com


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Three insurrectionists have been charged with gun crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First off CNN, so, there is that, but, even they don't say guns were taken into the capital which makes what I said true. It is all for the narrative. All of the over charging of the idiots, to trying to link them to Trump and other Republicans. It is all Leftist propaganda and lies like we have been seeing for years, and no matter how many times their lies blow up in their faces, there will always be idiots who will lap up whatever they say and puke it back out. Sad really.

But, lets ignore reality and say that what CNN said was true. 3 people had guns on the grounds. So, that would blow any "conspiracy" talk out of the water. If there was a plan, there wouldn't have been only a smattering of armed individuals, there would have been hundreds.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

nodak3 said:


> There was an armed insurrection on January 6th.


I must have missed that part. Exactly who was it that was armed?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I see that most here don't intend to watch the hearings. Are you not interested in how J6 was planned?


I think most of us already know that for the most part it wasn't planned, plus we know that what will be presented is a twisted version of the truth. A very small number of people, maybe 200-300 at most, were involved in violence or property damage. At least 99% of the people who attended the rally did not participate in violence or property damage.

The purpose of the report is to try to destroy the America First movement and ensure Trump does not win in 2024. it will have the opposite effect.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Just think...they could be doing something useful.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

kinderfeld said:


> Just think...they could be doing something useful.


When it comes to government, nothing is usually the best thing they can do.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nope. Watching a rerun of Gunsmoke, would be time better spent. And closer to reality.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Remember when Alec Baldwin gave his first sit down interview after shooting the movie employee on the set of "Rust"?
As he gave his version of events, somber yet dramatic music was dubbed. 
This was a supposed news event.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> Remember when Alec Baldwin gave his first sit down interview after shooting the movie employee on the set of "Rust"?
> As he gave his version of events, somber yet dramatic music was dubbed.
> This was a supposed news event.


Yeah. WWE does the same thing from what little I've seen. Music, drama, exaggerated plots and twists, bad acting. Difference is, they are honest enough to call it "sports entertainment" rather than a sport. This Jan 6 BS event should be called "news entertainment".


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> When it comes to government, nothing is usually the best thing they can do.


Right now I would agree with an "operation warp speed" effort to bring fuel prices down. That would go a long way to un-"F" the economy. Won't fix it all. But, it would help.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Tax dollars for a network President to "produce" the event and ensure it's "watchability".
Interesting.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Interesting also.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I will be watching this one.

*The Truth About January 6th Documentary*


The Truth About January 6th Documentary - Rumble


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> Tax dollars for a network President to "produce" the event and ensure it's "watchability".
> Interesting.


Do we know if there will be any celebrity cameo appearances? I may check it out if Ozzy makes an appearance!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Rumors are that play by play and color commentary will be presented from Keith Olbermann and Joy Behar.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Rumors are that play by play and color commentary will be presented from Keith Olbermann and Joy Behar.
> View attachment 111119


We are officially in HELL!!! Tell all all of them to come and work on that street I bailed off of...


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Musical guests include Snoop Dog, Madonna, Bette Midler, Neil Young, & Jada Pinkett Smith (Will to wait in the car),
to be followed by public executions of Republican old ladies and passers by of the White House that 1/6.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> We haven't done televised congressional hearings for a long time. Maybe that's because we have C-SPAN now. But public perception can go either way after televised public hearings.
> 
> Two hearings come to mind; Watergate and Iran-Contra, which had very different outcomes. Watergate laid bare the activities and coverup of the White House "Plumbers." The brazen illegal acts shocked the public, ending Nixon's presidency.
> 
> ...


The left is definitely needing sway public opinion after 2 years of incompetence, corruption and self serving, lying, treasonous deception.
Surely even you don't buy the whole "insurrection" farce?
I mean, I know you want to believe, but be honest with yourself. Whoever heard of an unarmed insurrection?
Of course, the hand picked committee will find Trump guilty of whatever they want to find him guilty of. Everybody knows it's a dog and pony show to convince the simple minded Joe is a good president.
I don't know how people support the Nazi left in this country.


----------



## wkndwrnch (Oct 7, 2012)

Mish said:


> How retro, "TV's prime time schedule" and cable news programs.
> 
> They should send out telegrams as well.


Made me laugh, we have not watched prime time or cable tv for a Loong time!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Tax dollars for a network President to "produce" the event and ensure it's "watchability".


FORMER network president.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

I have a working bs meter. I want to hear what they say. I don't want to hear what cnn says they say, or what josh hawley says they said, or what tucker carlson says they meant when they say whatever they are going to say. I want to know what they say. Then I can judge for myself what I think about what they say.

To say I won't listen because leftists are speaking would be as dumb as saying I won't listen to something if the right wing is speaking. I need to know what they say. Doesn't mean I agree or disagree with them. But I need to hear what they have as "evidence."

I have been waiting for the other side to reveal their "evidence" and so far none has appeared. If this group has "evidence" bring it on. If it is truly evidence it will be provable, not alleged, and let the chips fall where they may. In the same spirit, I will listen to the right wing also if they bring forth "evidence."

Dems, GOP, all of them are swamp rats in my opinion. I think it is high time we stop upholding our "side" no matter what, and start actually jailing the cheats and frauds. Which probably would leave us needing a whole 3rd party with all the top Dems and Gop in jail, lol.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

nodak3 said:


> I have a working bs meter. I want to hear what they say. I don't want to hear what cnn says they say, or what josh hawley says they said, or what tucker carlson says they meant when they say whatever they are going to say. I want to know what they say.


I agree. I will watch the playback on YT.

My point was not so much about watching, but rather how DC has taken political theater to its highest level to date. Once new ground is plowed there is no returning to its earlier state. How far does this go?

I suspect our elections will someday be like American Idol.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

nodak3 said:


> Dems, GOP, all of them are swamp rats in my opinion. I think it is high time we stop upholding our "side" no matter what, and start actually jailing the cheats and frauds. Which probably would leave us needing a whole 3rd party with all the top Dems and Gop in jail, lol.


I agree.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I suspect our elections will someday be like American Idol.


We need a nation full of Simon Cowells.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> We need a nation full of Simon Cowells.


Instead we have too many Simple Simons


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nevada said:


> FORMER network president.


Will his commitment to unbiased journalism also be considered "former"?
I'm going to recommend you record it and view the highlights later and stay with Thursday nights episode of "Police Story."


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

HDRider said:


> I suspect our elections will someday be like American Idol.


Someday? 

Seem like we are already there.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

I won't watch it, because I have little tolerance for propaganda and baldfaced lies.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

The dem-socialists need something BIG in order to steal another election.

Maybe they will just simply declare the public incompetent Super MAGAs and disqualify US?


----------



## Liza007 (Mar 12, 2020)

HDRider said:


> The Democrats are producing a prime time docudrama.
> 
> On Thursday night, most major broadcast networks and cable-news outlets are slated to shake up their evening programming grid to show what is expected to be a shocking report from the U.S. House Select Committee, which has spent months investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and what may be coordinated efforts behind it.​
> 
> ...


Nope not interested in the dog and pony show. Wasn't interested in Brandon on Kimmel either


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

Remember the State of the Union address in 2019? I watched the whole shebang. I listened as the then potus spoke on abortion. What he said at one point was "Give me a bill (insert APPLAUSE) that ends (insert APPLAUSE) late term abortions. (Wild APPLAUSE.)

What CNN spun was that he promised to end abortions when they recapped it. Took out segments of his sentence. Claimed it would infringe on women's rights. Much drama and hand wringing.

What Fox spun was that he promised to end abortions. Did the same cut and paste CNN did. Exalted him for promising to protect babies. Much praise and glorifying.

He did neither. He spoke clearly, and it was in the muddy middle.

I want to hear what this committee actually says, not what the left or right spin it to be. I want to watch carefully, may even record it. I want to look for "continuity breaks" which will be tells for when and if they cut and paste to change a message. 

Just so nobody thinks I am on one side or the other, I would like the same kind of openness about actions of a certain lady who ran for president, and actions she took while secretary of state. I am beginning to be of the firm belief we have at least 3 former potus that likely should face jail time, along with one their wives. It crosses party lines.

The lies and spin need to stop on a whole lot of issues.


----------



## stacieh (Jul 21, 2016)

Not wasting my time or giving them a viewer.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Brought to you by agents who held STAR CHAMBERS meetings behind closed doors, in a basement.


----------



## JRHill02 (Jun 20, 2020)

I had to chuckle when Fox said they would NOT cover it.

But to answer the question, we wouldn't watch it regardless of the network. We have a HBO freebie for a few months and they are showing the new (yuck) and older Starwars movies. Much better for relaxation time. Sad note: Has Solo (Harrison Ford) got killed last night.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Chance of me watching it... Not a shot in Hades.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Maybe they will have funny commercials and big name entertainers during the breaks.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

With costume failures.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> With costume failures.


That part I might watch... depending on who is wearing the costume. (you made me snort coffee up my nose )


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Dem Jan 6 Witness: ‘Someone in Authority Left the Door Open’ at Capitol


The Democrat’s star witness for the January 6 Committee’s hearing claimed that “someone in authority left the door open” at the Capitol.




www.breitbart.com


----------



## Csmith (8 mo ago)

And why do we want to watch liberal crap? Thought this was a homesteading forum.


----------



## Csmith (8 mo ago)

kinderfeld said:


> If Trump is re-elected in '24, I hope he pardons everyone caught up in this.


He needs to execute them for treason. Over 1 million people died from that bioweapon injection.


----------



## Magus_333 (11 mo ago)

Please read the rules posted at the top of the forum.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Magus_333 said:


> Mod deletion


If you're going to pop in here and post crap... at least *try* to say something intelligent... or funny... or something.

But I suspect you are a banned member that _thinks_ you're being clever... in reality, even if I were to agree with you... it's truly just plain pathetic.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Did this guy have a chance in Michigan? 

LANSING, Mich. — A Michigan candidate for governor, Ryan Kelley, has been charged with four misdemeanors related to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack at the U.S. Capitol.

Kelley was arrested by the FBI Thursday at his home in Allendale in western Michigan and was released after his arraignment without having to post bond.








Michigan candidate for governor, Ryan Kelley, charged for Jan. 6 involvement


On Thursday, Ryan Kelley was charged with four misdemeanors related to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He's one of five candidates on the Republican primary ballot for governor.




www.npr.org


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

“None of us asked to be victims of and witnesses to this attack. But we feel an obligation that the story be told,” said Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.), a member of the group who plans to be there Thursday night.

*Inside the "Gallery Group": *Kuster and others are part of what they’ve dubbed “the Gallery Group” — an iPhone group chat of about two dozen members who were trapped in the House gallery that has since emerged into a kind of a support group. Since last January, the members have done group counseling sessions and potlucks as they’ve worked through mental health struggles resulting from the Capitol attack.

“Many of the people who were in the gallery have experienced post traumatic stress, and have had treatment for post traumatic stress, myself included,” Kuster said. “We know that this is a triggering experience.”








A group of Democrats who were trapped inside the House chamber on Jan. 6 will have reserved seats at Thursday night’s hearing.


News and analysis from Capitol Hill for when you only have a few minutes, from POLITICO.




www.politico.com


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Pretty sad that Fox News/Entertainment won't air the hearing. I guess they may be surprised by what is shown or told.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

susieneddy said:


> Pretty sad that Fox News/Entertainment won't air the hearing. I guess they may be surprised by what is shown or told.


Nah... they just don't want to air liberal propoganda. If this were to be a real attempt to investigate Jan. 6, I'd be all over it. But I've seen enough of these contrived witch hunts to know what a waste of time it is.

If you don't know that, then you must be either too young, too inexperienced or too politically partisan to know.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> “None of us asked to be victims of and witnesses to this attack. But we feel an obligation that the story be told,” said Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.), a member of the group who plans to be there Thursday night.
> 
> *Inside the "Gallery Group": *Kuster and others are part of what they’ve dubbed “the Gallery Group” — an iPhone group chat of about two dozen members who were trapped in the House gallery that has since emerged into a kind of a support group. Since last January, the members have done group counseling sessions and potlucks as they’ve worked through mental health struggles resulting from the Capitol attack.
> 
> “Many of the people who were in the gallery have experienced post traumatic stress, and have had treatment for post traumatic stress, myself included,” Kuster said. “We know that this is a triggering experience.”


What a bunch of losers.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> What a bunch of losers.


The losers are the conservatives that admitted on the senate floor that it was a failed violent coup and have run from their own recorded words for over a year because they are afraid to stand up to Trump.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> The losers are the conservatives that admitted on the senate floor that it was a failed violent coup and have run from their own recorded words for over a year because they are afraid to stand up to Trump.


No. We are the loser. They are actors. They act like they care.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I think you are reading from last months Democratic bulletin. Run out and check your mailbox before the show starts.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> No. We are the loser. They are actors. They act like they care.


Pathetic aren't they? They could actually be doing something useful.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The losers are the conservatives that admitted on the senate floor that it was a failed violent coup...


And the people who actually believe that.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

kinderfeld said:


> Pathetic aren't they? They could actually be doing something useful.


They fenced, wired and armored up around Pennsylvania avenue like never before, for pick a reason. Meanwhile a bill for more protection around the SCOTUS's homes so, I don't know, lunatic liberal hitmen don't walk up and kill them and their families, has been pushed off to the side.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> Pathetic aren't they? They could actually be doing something useful.


We have the leadership we elected.

I was sitting at a hotel bar a couple of nights ago, run by a young man 23 years old. We talked a lot. All he cared about was that his $10,000 student was paid. He was as clueless as my chickens. He voted for me to pay his debt.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Cruz on Jan. 6 Hearing: ‘The Event Tonight Is a Democratic Campaign Ad’


Sen. Ted Cruz voiced his disapproval of the January 6 Committee's highly publicized primetime hearing set to air on multiple news networks.




www.breitbart.com





_“Democrats have hired a Hollywood producer to put on a campaign ad. They’re not seeking the truth. They’re not interested in what actually happened,” Cruz said. “They’re engaged in politics, and the reason they’re engaged in politics is they desperately want to change the subject because the Democrats’ policies have been [a] miserable failure.”_


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)




----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Four Police Officers committed suicide after January 6. One Officer died of a stroke. No officers were killed during the occupation of the Capital building. 

D.C. Metropolitan Police Officers Gunther Hashida, Kyle DeFreytag and Jeffrey Smith and U.S. Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood all died by suicide after responding to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6.

The fifth officer, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, suffered strokes and died of natural causes one day after clashing with rioters.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

35 year old Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed by Capital Police. 

Protesters Benjamin Phillips, 50, from Greentown, Pennsylvania; Kevin Greeson, 55, from Athens, Alabama; and Roseanne Boyland, 34 of Kennesaw, Georgia all died. Greeson died of a heart attack. I do not know why Phillips and Boyland died.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

This isn't the video I saw, but she was beaten to death.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Was Ray Epps interrogated on this show?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

this one

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1520031750520381441


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

It does not makes sense that Epps has not been charged


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1481007564188012544


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

_"The truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself." _~St. Augustine


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HDRider said:


> It does not makes sense that Epps has not been charged
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1481007564188012544


I like how they called it an "unsupported claim" then went on to give evidence to support the claim.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> It does not makes sense that Epps has not been charged
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1481007564188012544


Epps has not been charged because he was doing what the Feds paid him to do. There are at least 5 others that were part of this operation to entrap citizens that have not and will not be charged.

We live in a Banana Republic.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Watched a little of the "new" footage. Of course if the shoe were on the other foot you know the conservatives would be 

howling for democrat blood. It will enforce the perception of a treachery going on in this country. And the voting booths

will bleed blue.....


----------



## RockOn (Jun 12, 2021)

I don't have enough time to watch all that.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web Of Unindicted Operators At The Heart Of January 6

Out of all of the thousands of January 6’s protesters, and the thousands of hours of publicly available footage from that fateful day, Ray Epps has turned out to be perhaps the only person nailed dead to rights confessing on camera to plotting a pre-planned attack on the Capitol. On both January 5 and January 6, Epps announced multiple times, at multiple locations, his upcoming plot to breach the US Capitol. He then spent hours attempting to recruit hundreds of others to join him. On top of it all, Epps was seen leading key people and managing key aspects of the initial breach of the Capitol grounds himself. more​


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

KC Rock said:


> Watched a little of the "new" footage. Of course if the shoe were on the other foot you know the conservatives would be
> 
> howling for democrat blood. It will enforce the perception of a treachery going on in this country. And the voting booths
> 
> will bleed blue.....


The shoe has been on the other foot, over and over and over again. Very little howling. The "hearings" themselves are the treachery and anyone with brain stem will realize that.


----------



## JRHill02 (Jun 20, 2020)

I didn't want to watch but the DW was intent on seeing the dog-and-pony-show. Enough was enough when Lester Holt and more came on afterward to babble about what we should've learned. Of course there were lots of our tax$ spend to put this together and format it to fit an agenda but I have to say that it hurt me to see the crowd in action. I have seen clips where fallen officers were protected by some folks in the protest. Of last night's clips there was one that almost showed an instance of aid rendered by protesters but the video was clipped - can't have that.

I don't support how this demonstration was carried out. The people that died or injured on both sides and the property damage is without justification - to me. It is frustrating. I AM NOT a passivist and I share a lot of grievances of the protesters but this was substantially a crowd out of control. 

If the demonstration was to spur a larger call to action it failed dramatically and, in my opinion, was counter productive.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Farmerga said:


> The shoe has been on the other foot, over and over and over again. Very little howling. The "hearings" themselves are the treachery and anyone with brain stem will realize that.


(laugh!) Another flatulence and unsubstantiated comment. Name any occurrence where liberals desecrated and 

assaulted our countries capital. An occurrence where we attempted to overthrow the government by force.

You can't do it with any solid evidence. But hey that's never stopped conservatives from believing the lies their

"leaders" told them.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

homesteadforty said:


> Nah... they just don't want to air liberal propoganda. If this were to be a real attempt to investigate Jan. 6, I'd be all over it. But I've seen enough of these contrived witch hunts to know what a waste of time it is.
> 
> If you don't know that, then you must be either too young, too inexperienced or too politically partisan to know.


Or you don't want to know what really happened. If you watch the video from that day and think it was okay for what they did then you are part of the problem.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

I watched with an open mind (at 2.5x speed to get through it faster). They should have brought the most damning evidence they had for the opening night. If that was it, it was a flop. Even with their professional TV producer they weren't able to produce compelling TV. All of the "new" video was stuff I've seen, maybe slightly different angles is all that was new.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Did this guy have a chance in Michigan?
> 
> LANSING, Mich. — A Michigan candidate for governor, Ryan Kelley, has been charged with four misdemeanors related to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack at the U.S. Capitol.
> 
> ...


Yes, but not much of a chance. He's the current leader on the ballot but only because others got disqualified from the ballot for bogus signatures on their nominating petitions. The incumbent leads all GOP challengers by wide margins except for one, and he was one of those disqualified from the ballot but running as a write in.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> The incumbent leads


Whitmer?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

kinderfeld said:


>


Stunned might be the word, but they ain't stunned by her brilliance. Assuming any of the five people in the room even are democrats....


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Whitmer?


Yep.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> Yep.


For some reason I thought she was not so well liked.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> For some reason I thought she was not so well liked.


She's not in most of the state. But a small part of the state, mostly just three counties, elects our governors.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

Ill be watching 2000 Mules instead.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> She's not in most of the state. But a small part of the state, mostly just three counties, elects our governors.


A number of states are like that


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

When Bennie Thompson talks, nobody listens.

(And when folks try talk to Bennie, he only listens if they have a deal for him.)


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Pathetic.








House Offers Staffers Counseling After January 6 Hearing


The House offered counseling to all staffers after the January 6 committee aired "graphic new footage" related to the January 6 protests.




www.breitbart.com


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

KC Rock said:


> (laugh!) Another flatulence and unsubstantiated comment. Name any occurrence where liberals desecrated and
> 
> assaulted our countries capital.


How about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_Senate_bombing

This wasn't at the capital but, still: Five people shot, including Republican congressman, at baseball practice

Oh, lets not forget these movers and shakers in the Leftist party: Weather Underground Bombings | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Why let the Legislative branch have all of the fun? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/brett-kavanaugh-threat-arrest.https

While this take into account the riots that were nation wide, they did include DC and were approved by many current Dem officials. George Floyd Riots Caused Record-Setting $2 Billion in Damage, New Report Says. Here’s Why the True Cost Is Even Higher | Brad Polumbo

That was just a few, off the top of my head.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> If you're going to pop in here and post crap... at least *try* to say something intellegent... or funny... or something.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> View attachment 111181


Well, that is something.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

kinderfeld said:


> Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If they need counseling after watching a few creatively edited films, they may not have the stones to be DC gofers.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Farmerga said:


> How about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_Senate_bombing
> 
> This wasn't at the capital but, still: Five people shot, including Republican congressman, at baseball practice
> 
> ...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

KC Rock said:


> View attachment 111185


Sure sure. Most, from the left, were actually planned.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

New congressional hearings targeting Americans:

Nancy is mad.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

It appears about 20 million people did watch. I don't know if that is a lot considering it was on most channels. I can't find how many people watched Fox during the same time slot. Fox did not broadcast the House show. 

About 12 million people watched the June 2 NBA finals. It was on ABC


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Turns out that I was dealing with a thing during the hearing, but I watched highlights later.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> It appears about 20 million people did watch. I don't know if that is a lot considering it was on most channels. I can't find how many people watched Fox during the same time slot. Fox did not broadcast the House show.
> 
> About 12 million people watched the June 2 NBA finals. It was on ABC











19 Million Watched January 6 Hearing, Preliminary Figures Show


The Democrats' effort to saturate the airwaves with its primetime January 6 show trial on Thursday yielded 19 million viewers across five networks -- a preliminary figure that fell short of similar blanket-coverage political events, like this year's State of the Union address, which drew 38...




www.breitbart.com





_The total of 19 million viewers is unimpressive when compared to other political events that receive blanket media coverage, like the State of the Union address and presidential debates. _


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Turns out that I was dealing with a thing during the hearing, but I watched highlights later.


Learn anything you weren't already told about from cnn? I did....lol


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Learn anything you weren't already told about from cnn? I did....lol


Having watched the insurrection in real time, I saw nothing new regarding violence. But there was more preplanning than I realized before.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Having watched the insurrection in real time, I saw nothing new regarding violence. But there was more preplanning than I realized before.


Yup, Pelosi and her band of miscreants had many plans. You just think it was all the fault of conservatives because thats what the liberals are telling you to think. This "committee" isn't interested in the truth. Not one bit, that much is very clear. Their only interested in preventing Trump from running again. That, is the only reason for this spectacle. You fell for it to because of your TDS. But the fact is, Trump has other plans and we will have another Trump in the Whitehouse very soon. The democratic party is imploding as we speak. More and more folks are waking up to the disgusting display of partisan politics, and their not supporting your party any longer. They have become...enlightened to the truth. Some remain ignorant and will never change no matter what the democrats do to destroy America. You, fall into the last category, clearly you do not think for yourself as your posts reflect.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But there was more preplanning than I realized before.


And not from those being blamed.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

HDRider said:


> It appears about 20 million people did watch. I don't know if that is a lot considering it was on most channels. I can't find how many people watched Fox during the same time slot. Fox did not broadcast the House show.
> 
> About 12 million people watched the June 2 NBA finals. It was on ABC


That is how Commucrats skew reality. 20 million people watched TV during that time slot. If the Useful Idiots want to believe they all watched the witch trial, so be it.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Trump Pentagon first offered National Guard to Capitol four days before Jan. 6 riots, memo shows


Official Capitol Police timeline validates Trump administration's account, shows Democrats' fateful rejections of offers. "Seems absolutely illogical," one official wrote about security posture hours before riot began.




justthenews.com


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

kinderfeld said:


> And not from those being blamed.


ever hear the term 'false flag'


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

I watched. I am about as far from a liberal as you get. And I thought the committee did a pretty good job. Not great, but pretty good. What became very clear is that the former POTUS KNEW the election was lost. Re examine everything you might be seeing or have seen since Jan 6 in light of that fact. Lost. Knew it. Loser. Knew it.

I will agree the Dems have messed up almost everything since coming into office. I am expecting a turnover in the house, and for the gop to take over the senate come Nov. But none of that has one iota of mattering when it comes to Jan 6. The issue is NOT who is worse.....a lot of folks might give that one a run for the money.

What is of vital importance is did the former POTUS, members of his staff, members of his family, or other GOP leaders actually break the law? If yes, they deserve whatever the law dictates. If no, this should clear their names.

But here is something I find chilling: most of those I know personally (and that is exactly no one on this forum!) who are livid and incensed about the committee hearings, or who refuse to watch them, are in general saying the exact same things I find in my old (not current rewritten drivel) history books that the losers in the Civil War said way back when. Same rhetoric now from those that either took up arms, or became a violent mob, or supported those that did do so against the United States government. Same ideas: we tried to bring down this government because we don't like it or agree with it. We lost but we will never admit defeat. And we are going to do it again and take it down for good this time unless you let us come back in and run it. And it usually runs on the same track: we were for "states rights" and not slavery but we want slavery anyway. (back then) or we are for "states rights and our freedoms" now and anti black. It is usually couched BLM but then the assumption becomes that all blacks support BLM which they do not.

Honestly leaves me wondering if we need a third party, a fourth party, or maybe just a good old fashioned Holy Ghost revival. Because we sure ain't got our heads screwed on straight.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

nodak3 said:


> I watched. I am about as far from a liberal as you get. And I thought the committee did a pretty good job. Not great, but pretty good. What became very clear is that the former POTUS KNEW the election was lost. Re examine everything you might be seeing or have seen since Jan 6 in light of that fact. Lost. Knew it. Loser. Knew it.
> 
> I will agree the Dems have messed up almost everything since coming into office. I am expecting a turnover in the house, and for the gop to take over the senate come Nov. But none of that has one iota of mattering when it comes to Jan 6. The issue is NOT who is worse.....a lot of folks might give that one a run for the money.
> 
> ...


This committee is the same squad that ran the fake Ukraine phone call hoax and the same squad that ran the fake Russia collusion hoax. The same fake testimony drawn up by the committee and their hollywood advisors. We already know they have admitted the whole National Guard story was a complete lie. Really? Do you really believe anything any Commucrat says about anything?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> Nah... they just don't want to air liberal propoganda. * If this were to be a real attempt to investigate Jan. 6, I'd be all over it*. But I've seen enough of these contrived witch hunts to know what a waste of time it is.
> 
> If you don't know that, then you must be either too young, too inexperienced or too politically partisan to know.





susieneddy said:


> *Or you don't want to know what really happened.* If you watch the video from that day and think it was okay for what they did then you are part of the problem.


Sorry to confuse you... let me explain it a little more slowly. Since I clearly stated: *"a real attempt to investigate Jan. 6"*, I thought it was clear that I *"want to know what really happened."* Was your statement: *"Or you don't want *to know what really happened" a typo... 'cause that happens to me once in a while too?

Or did you just make a massive, erroneous leap and speciously conclude that because I think the hearings are political theater that I believe the whole debacle was o.k.?

BTW... I did decide to spend some of my precious radio time listening to the hearing. There was a single bit of information that told that the attack was quite probably palnned and intentional.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I don't Liz Cheney enumerated what she called Trump's sophisticated seven point plan


A committee source provided the details of the "sophisticated seven-part plan" to CNN:

1. President Trump engaged in a massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information to the American public claiming the 2020 election was stolen from him.

2. President Trump corruptly planned to replace the Acting Attorney General, so that the Department of Justice would support his fake election claims.

3. President Trump corruptly pressured Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count certified electoral votes in violation of the US Constitution and the law.

4. President Trump corruptly pressured state election officials, and state legislators, to change election results.

5. President Trump's legal team and other Trump associates instructed Republicans in multiple states to create false electoral slates and transmit those slates to Congress and the National Archives.

6. President Trump summoned and assembled a violent mob in Washington and directed them to march on the US Capitol.

7. As the violence was underway, President Trump ignored multiple pleas for assistance and failed to take immediate action to stop the violence and instruct his supporters to leave the Capitol.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

homesteadforty said:


> BTW... I did decide to spend some of my precious radio time listening to the hearing. There was a single bit of information that told that the attack was quite probably palnned and intentional.


What was that single bit that told you the occupation of the Capital was planned? And, planned by whom?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

HDRider said:


> What was that single bit that told you the occupation of the Capital was planned? And, planned by whom?


I should have been more precise and used the word indicated rather than "told". Who planned what and at whose direction is still unclear.


The _vast_ majority of the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers initially met well away from Trump's speech location. 
They then headed directly to the Capitol building... before Trump started speaking. 
Just a touch of further research shows that a large group were at the Capitol as early as 10:30 a.m.
The violence at the Capitol, led by the OK's and PB's, started before 1:00 p.m.
Trump did not tell the crowd at the speech to head to the Capitol until after 1:10
Question 1: If the OK's and PB's were not interested in the speech... why were they there?

Question 2: How did the two disparate groups know to meet up at the same location and time... unless it was planned?

Question 3: Why did they head directly to the Capitol building?

Question 4: If the PB's and OK's were there simply to protest... and there was already a large crowd at the Capitol... how is it that the violence started as the two groups arrived?

I expounded a bit but it all stems from the fact that the groups did not attend the speech and instead met up and headed directly to the capitol... before the speech.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Seditious conspiracy, exactly what they have been pleading guilty to.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> But there was more preplanning than I realized before.


Of course. Pelosi's refusal of offered NG troops prior to Jan 6 should be seen as evidence of pre-planning.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

_"The Washington Post _and _USA Today_ have both debunked Trump's claim. _USA Today_ wrote that Pelosi's office was never contacted by the president regarding such a recommendation, and the Pentagon has denied having record of the request. Additionally, the Department of Defense's timeline of the events leading up to the Capitol riot also makes no mention of a National Guard request, and the former House sergeant-at-arms said he had no discussions with congressional leaders about the matter, according to _USA Today_ "









GOP Doubles Down on Claim Pelosi Rejected National Guard Before Jan. 6 Riot


"People were warned ahead of time," Representative Kevin McCarthy said about the riot, adding that there was "an offering of National Guard."




www.newsweek.com


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> _The Washington Post _and _USA Today_ have both debunked Trump's claim.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Seditious conspiracy, exactly what they have been pleading guilty to.


And how many guilty pleas out of over 800 hundred arrested and some 80,000+ at the rally?... 2? ...3?

The rest of the hearing was basically political bull 💩 . A huge difference between you and me is that I don't eat the b.s. either side tries to feed me... you, otoh, seem to relish it as long as it's served from your preferred side.

BTW... seeing indications and having questions in no way, shape or form means I believe or disbelieve *either *side


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Of course. Pelosi's refusal of offered NG troops prior to Jan 6 should be seen as evidence of pre-planning.


Was it obvious ahead if time that Trump supporters were going to storm the capitol building?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Farmerga said:


>


Like so many... just two sides of the same coin.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Was it obvious that Trump supporters were going to storm the capitol building ahead of time?


You would be accurate if your vocabulary included just two more words... _seemingly _and _some_. Want me to show you where they fit in???


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Was it obvious ahead if time that Trump supporters were going to storm the capitol building?


They knew there was going to be a very large crowd and, as happens often in very large crowds, many times a riot may break out. Just like in the summer of 2020.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Seditious conspiracy, exactly what they have been pleading guilty to.


Utter nonsense.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Farmerga said:


> Of course. Pelosi's refusal of offered NG troops prior to Jan 6 should be seen as evidence of pre-planning.


Are you implying that the attack was o.k. because the N.G. wasn't there?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> You would be accurate if your vocabulary included just two more words... _seemingly _and _some_. Want me to show you where they fit in???


What I mean is, how was Pelosi apprised of information that indicated that proud boys and oathkeeper members would meet at the capitol. How did she know what they had in mind, or that Donald Trump would whip the crowd into a frenzy?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

homesteadforty said:


> Are you implying that the attack was o.k. because the N.G. wasn't there?


Not at all. I am implying that Peloisi and the Left HOPED it would happen and, for that reason, refused the N.G.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> What I mean is, how was Pelosi apprised of information that indicated that proud buys and oathkeeper members would meet at the capitol. How did she know what they had in mind, or that Donald Trump would whip the crowd into a frenzy?


Summer of 2020 should have served as a warning of what can happen when you have a large crowd of angry folks in the same place at the same time. And no, Trump didn't "whip the crowd into a Frenzy" It seems that the PB and OK weren't even there to be whipped.

Or, are you saying that Pelosi and the Left didn't expect it because this crowd was mostly white while the BLM riots were mostly non-white? That would, at least be a believable defense knowing what we know of the Left.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> It seems that the PB and OK weren't even there to be whipped.


Are you suggesting that none of the people listening to Trump took the walk to the capitol, as Trump instructed them to do?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that none of the people listening to Trump took the walk to the capitol, as Trump instructed them to do?


Sure when Trump told them to walk "Peacefully and Patriotically" to the capital. Yep thems whippin words there!!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The timeline seems to suggest that the Oath keepers and Proud boys were at the capital before Trump's speech ended. They were pushing through the barricades before the speech ended. Then the people from the speech showed up. Looks like the proud boys and Oath keepers had a plan and went through with it. The others from the speech got caught up in the melee and maybe some joined in.

That is why the Proud boys and Oath keepers were the ones charged with seditious conspiracy.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Nevada said:


> What I mean is, how was Pelosi apprised of information that indicated that proud boys and oathkeeper members would meet at the capitol. How did she know what they had in mind, or that Donald Trump would whip the crowd into a frenzy?


The FBI told her. And help arrange the false flag attack.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> The timeline seems to suggest that the Oath keepers and Proud boys were at the capital before Trump's speech ended. They were pushing through the barricades before the speech ended. Then the people from the speech showed up. Looks like the proud boys and Oath keepers had a plan and went through with it. The others from the speech got caught up in the melee and maybe some joined in.
> 
> That is why the Proud boys and Oath keepers were the ones charged with seditious conspiracy.


Epps and his coconspirators had removed the signs and snow fence as the Proud Boys arrived. Let us not forget the bull horn man directing the crowd has not been arrested or charged either. This was orchestrated and coordinated by the US Government with nefarious intent.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Epps and his coconspirators had removed the signs and snow fence as the Proud Boys arrived. Let us not forget the bull horn man directing the crowd has not been arrested or charged either. This was orchestrated and coordinated by the US Government with nefarious intent.


Yet they pushed through the barriers and they have pleaded guilty. Your version of events is looking pretty lame.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> What I mean is, how was Pelosi apprised of information that indicated that proud boys and oathkeeper members would meet at the capitol. How did she know what they had in mind, or that Donald Trump would whip the crowd into a frenzy?


As I have said... the PB's and OA's did not attend the speech and therefore could not have been "whipped up" by Trump.

If Pelosi didn't get direct intelligence... she's certainly been around politics long enough to surmise. Besides her own political career, her father was Mayor of Baltimore City during the riots in the late 60's and early 70's. As politicians are want to do, she likely had pretty good intel., downplayed it, underestimated it and was more worried about the optics. There's no great conspiracy with this... these people (politicians, celebrities, etc.) do exactly that all the time.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> And how many guilty pleas out of over 800 hundred arrested and some 80,000+ at the rally?... 2? ...3?


300+. Not to seditious conspiracy, but guilty pleas.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Farmerga said:


>


I agree, that was hilarious!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Was it obvious ahead if time that Trump supporters were going to storm the capitol building?


What was obvious is that the democrats would do ANYTHING to get their way. The Capitol police were clearly involved.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Farmerga said:


> Summer of 2020 should have served as a warning of what can happen when you have a large crowd of angry folks in the same place at the same time. And no, Trump didn't "whip the crowd into a Frenzy" It seems that the PB and OK weren't even there to be whipped.
> 
> Or, are you saying that Pelosi and the Left didn't expect it because this crowd was mostly white while the BLM riots were mostly non-white? That would, at least be a believable defense knowing what we know of the Left.


This kind of thing has been happening long before 2020... even beforen America was a thing. Look up Crispus Attucks and see.

What does being white... or black have to do with any of this?????

Right or left also has nothing to do with it... high profile people, from _all_ walks of life tend to not take security seriously enough... anybody that has worked personal protection and security knows that.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that none of the people listening to Trump took the walk to the capitol, as Trump instructed them to do?


Are you suggesting that the BLM never rooted or looted or killed? Are you suggesting that no liberals ever committed crimes against tptb?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Yet they pushed through the barriers and they have pleaded guilty. Your version of events is looking pretty lame.


Even though it's true. Pretty lame to refute things you know nothing about....lol


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> What was obvious is that the democrats would do ANYTHING to get their way. The Capitol police were clearly involved.


Please, enlighten us... please be precise as to proof.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> The timeline seems to suggest that the Oath keepers and Proud boys were at the capital before Trump's speech ended. They were pushing through the barricades before the speech ended. Then the people from the speech showed up. Looks like the proud boys and Oath keepers had a plan and went through with it. The others from the speech got caught up in the melee and maybe some joined in.
> 
> That is why the Proud boys and Oath keepers were the ones charged with seditious conspiracy.


All absolutely true 👏


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Are you suggesting that the BLM never rooted or looted or killed? Are you suggesting that no liberals ever committed crimes against tptb?


And that Sir has absoluetly, nothing, nada, 0.0%, zero, naught, nil, zilch (etc.) to do with ANYTHING that happened on or around Jan. 6 in D.C,


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Sure when Trump told them to walk "Peacefully and Patriotically" to the capital. Yep thems whippin words there!!


He also told them to "fight like hell." At best, it was a mixed message.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> He also told them to "fight like hell." At best, it was a mixed message.


True, but I seriously doubt anybody not already inclined saw that as a rallying cry to actual violence.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> True, but I seriously doubt anybody not already inclined saw that as a rallying cry to actual violence.


I agree. The problem is the faction that was inclined to violence took that as an okay they were carrying out Trumps wishes and that just helped them justify their actions.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Yet they pushed through the barriers and they have pleaded guilty. Your version of events is looking pretty lame.


When you, your spouse, your children, and your grandchildren are threatened by the Gestapo, most will capitulate.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

painterswife said:


> I agree. The problem is the faction that was inclined to violence took that as an okay they were carrying out Trumps wishes and that just helped them justify their actions.


Except, those words were AFTER the events at Pelosi's Gulag were already in action.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I agree. The problem is the faction that was inclined to violence took that as an okay they were carrying out Trumps wishes and that just helped them justify their actions.


I've seen nothing but blather and bluster about how much Trump was actually involved _with the OK's and PB's. _Time will tell.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> He also told them to "fight like hell." At best, it was a mixed message.


You are grasping at straws. It was a riot started by some folks who didn't even attend the Trump rally. Some from the rally came upon the violence and a few entered the Capital building. Most of those were not even violent when they entered. It was a riot, not a planned insurrection.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Vjk said:


> ...the Gestapo...





Vjk said:


> Pelosi's Gulag...


You're mixing your metaphors. If you're going to post such tripe I wish you'd at least do it intelligently. My gosh man... is this your most intellectual debate language


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Tyranny is tyranny, whatever feeble minded Useful Idiots call it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

homesteadforty said:


> This kind of thing has been happening long before 2020... even beforen America was a thing. Look up Crispus Attucks and see.


Yes, I am aware, Humans will riot given the right conditions. 


homesteadforty said:


> What does being white... or black have to do with any of this?????


Not a thing, but, Dems see everything through the prism of race and the summer of 2020 should have been seen as a warning as what is likely to happen if a large crowd of emotionally charged people come together. The fact that she didn't means she is deeply stupid or wanted it to happen for political gain.


homesteadforty said:


> Right or left also has nothing to do with it... high profile people, from _all_ walks of life tend to not take security seriously enough... anybody that has worked personal protection and security knows that.


And anyone with any knowledge of crowd control should have seen it coming and prepared accordingly.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Fraudulent elections often lead to voter unrest.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

One whistle blower, who refused to sign the affidavit, which was written by Adam Shiff's staff leads to impeachment. Btw, the affidavit was illegal on multiple counts.
Tens of thousands of signed affidavits alleging election rigging, most of which are from Democrats, are waived off .... move along ... nothing to see here. CW11 will be apocalyptic.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

homesteadforty said:


> Please, enlighten us... please be precise as to proof.


Russian collusion, Kavanagh confirmation hearings, Barrett hearings, Stormy, covid, about a dozen other things. You can search for more details if you want more precision. As for the collusion between the democrats and the Capitol police, I listened to what they had to say. You can too! That, is as precise as your going to get. Do your own research....
Just so you know, I most always post from my phone because I'm walking around my manufacturing plant and I'm not skilled enough to post links from it, I don't care enough to learn.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

homesteadforty said:


> And that Sir has absoluetly, nothing, nada, 0.0%, zero, naught, nil, zilch (etc.) to do with ANYTHING that happened on or around Jan. 6 in D.C,


Just pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

homesteadforty said:


> True, but I seriously doubt anybody not already inclined saw that as a rallying cry to actual violence.


Reading the sum total of your posts on this subject it appears you think one party using the power of the Justice department and the House to investigate the other party is a fair process. Am I understanding you correctly?


----------



## JRHill02 (Jun 20, 2020)

Gotta watch this hearing:









Miley Cyrus To Perform Halftime Show At Jan. 6 Committee Hearings


WASHINGTON, D.C.—The nation is abuzz with anticipation of the televised January 6 Committee hearing making its prime time debut at 8 p.m. ET. To top off the excitement of the House select committee's investigation, producers of the star-studded extravaganza have announced that Miley Cyrus will...




babylonbee.com


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

I watched 2000 mules. What an enlightening documentary, very clearly demonstrates massive election fraud in the 2020 election. On a scale never before witnessed in this country.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

homesteadforty said:


> Sorry to confuse you... let me explain it a little more slowly. Since I clearly stated: *"a real attempt to investigate Jan. 6"*, I thought it was clear that I *"want to know what really happened."* Was your statement: *"Or you don't want *to know what really happened" a typo... 'cause that happens to me once in a while too?
> 
> Or did you just make a massive, erroneous leap and speciously conclude that because I think the hearings are political theater that I believe the whole debacle was o.k.?
> 
> BTW... I did decide to spend some of my precious radio time listening to the hearing. There was a single bit of information that told that the attack was quite probably palnned and intentional.


Interesting you left this out which you said earlier: ". But I've seen enough of these contrived witch hunts to know what a waste of time it is." 
so do you think what they did was right and justified?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

susieneddy said:


> Interesting you left this out which you said earlier: ". But I've seen enough of these contrived witch hunts to know what a waste of time it is."
> so *do you think what they did was right and justified?*





HDRider said:


> Reading the sum total of your posts on this subject it appears you think one party using the power of the Justice department and the House to investigate the other party is a fair process. *Am I understanding you correctly?*


It's interesting that I can answer both sides in the same reply... hmmmm. The direct short answer to *both* questions is... not at all.

The liberal wants to think that because I don't denounce conservatives absolutely I must...


susieneddy said:


> think what they did was right and justified?


The conservative has the view from the other side of the coin...


HDRider said:


> you think one party using the power of the Justice department and the House to investigate the other party is a fair process.


Just a little something you may want to reflect on:

MYOPIA

my·o·pi·a
/mīˈōpēə/

_noun_


nearsightedness.
lack of imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight.


I only have a couple of minutes today but I will expound further in the next day or two... if you wish


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

homesteadforty said:


> if you wish


I don't


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Stating the obvious fact that the so-called committee that is "Investigating" Jan 6th is a Leftist witch hunt in no way implies that one believes the riot or the idiots who participated in it are justified. We simply see it being used to smear and inhibit political enemies who had nothing to do with the acts of a few morons. 

Any "Committee" that includes the known liar Adam Schiff has no credibility, none, nada, zip.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Farmerga said:


> Stating the obvious fact that the so-called committee that is "Investigating" Jan 6th is a Leftist witch hunt in no way implies that one believes the riot or the idiots who participated in it are justified. We simply see it being used to smear and inhibit political enemies who had nothing to do with the acts of a few morons.
> 
> Any "Committee" that includes the known liar Adam Schiff has no credibility, none, nada, zip.


"As for who is killing whom and throwing whom in jail, people came to the U.S. Congress with political demands, Some people died. And one of the people that died was shot on the spot by the police, although they were not threatening the police with any weapons."


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Vjk said:


> "As for who is killing whom and throwing whom in jail, people came to the U.S. Congress with political demands, Some people died. And one of the people that died was shot on the spot by the police, although they were not threatening the police with any weapons."


DC is enemy held territory and has been for some time. Hold out for the Lexington/Concord moment. George Washington didn't try to persuade London by marching on it.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Noteworthy is, nowhere in your comment or anyone supporting the star chambers games was any mention made of:

1) The WELL DOCUMENTED election tampering. That includes, for the idiots who say there was none, actual court cases, in which the charged were found guilty; and,

2) A REAL proceeding seeking justice would not have Nancy controlling who is on the committee, and insuring only RHINOS are allowed to represent the other side of the isle. It would allow interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Denials and Production of documents. It would allow witnesses that counter the claims of the same asses who ran the previous star chambers court gambit.

But these are just some of the things that judicial branch group do, to insure actual justice is dealt.



nodak3 said:


> I watched. I am about as far from a liberal as you get. And I thought the committee did a pretty good job. Not great, but pretty good. What became very clear is that the former POTUS KNEW the election was lost. Re examine everything you might be seeing or have seen since Jan 6 in light of that fact. Lost. Knew it. Loser. Knew it.
> . . . .


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I don't


O.K.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Even if there were guilty pleas, they were plea bargains and do not reflect fact so much as how broken our justice system can be.

When I worked in law, I saw prosecutors REGULARLY use extortion to get plea deals. They would tell the accused they were going to stack on more charges, if they didn't agree to a lesser charge, and an easy win for the prosecution.

It's a catch 22 - the person has been, unlawfully, held in prison since arrest, under the guise of an weaponsless insurrection, and is facing year more holding time, as the prosecution brings out its best milking stools. Once the plea is accepted, then the prosecutions fellow anti-American P'sOS point at the admission, cackling "see, see."

Every court business day, someone is suckered into a plea deal. Their public pretenders pretend to represent them, but, instead, convince them to plea out. Otherwise, the public pretender would actually have to work, and it would affect their profit margins. In truth, most who plea bargain suffered from ineffective assistance of counsel and could have sued their attorneys for injuries. As well, they could have had an actual day in court, and a good attorney, more likely than not, would have won.

Sadly, justice really is a purchased thing. Even then, paying a lot of money doesn't not guarantee a competent representation in court.

I wrote up a notice for a fellow to give to his appointed counsel. He did. It informed the counsel he was to conduct meaningful discovery, rather than just relying on what the prosecution sent over. It informed the counsel he was to introduce evidence, THEN MOVE IT INTO EVIDENCE. He was to make objections, such as when opposing counsel introduced issues not properly before the court, and which he was not hired to defend against. In short, it directed him to build a record on which an appeal could be had. Finally, it demanded the pretender's Omissions and Errors Insurance, in event his counsel was ineffective and resulted in injuries.

This started an avalanche of events that prove the person sitting on the bench, just another attorney, who got there via the magic of politics, was incompetent too.

Well into the case, the first attorney asked to be allowed to withdraw, "due to conflict." Convenient, but it worked for him. The genius at the head of the court appointed another public defender. Thirty days later, at the next hearing, the fellow who served the first and second attorneys notice, pointed out the fact finding one attorney in a law firm was conflicted meant the entire firm was, AND a public defender's office is treated as a law firm.

The same game (conflict) replayed five more times. The prosecutions threats/extortions grew. They were made into affidavits and entered into the file, with a note the extortion attempts would be entered into evidence.

In the end, the court and the prosecution, CONVENIENTLY, discovered they'd ran out of time and dismissed the case.

For those not aware, a procedural win is a win, and prosecution uses them every day.




homesteadforty said:


> And how many guilty pleas out of over 800 hundred arrested and some 80,000+ at the rally?... 2? ...3?
> 
> The rest of the hearing was basically political bull 💩 . A huge difference between you and me is that I don't eat the b.s. either side tries to feed me... you, otoh, seem to relish it as long as it's served from your preferred side.
> 
> BTW... seeing indications and having questions in no way, shape or form means I believe or disbelieve *either *side


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Maybe better yet, those [American] time honored words "reasonable doubt."




homesteadforty said:


> You would be accurate if your vocabulary included just two more words... _seemingly _and _some_. Want me to show you where they fit in???


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

In real life and law, we have things like, "negligence," "contributory negligence," "proximate cause," "willful and knowing," "failure to act," "incompetence," "failure to train and supervise," . . . .



homesteadforty said:


> Are you implying that the attack was o.k. because the N.G. wasn't there?


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

or that "taking a walk to the capitol" is, in any way, illegal?



JeffreyD said:


> Are you suggesting that the BLM never rooted or looted or killed? Are you suggesting that no liberals ever committed crimes against tptb?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bill Barr's testimony is tearing apart all of Trump's claims.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Barr was unimpressed with the 2000 Mules movie. He laughed at it. The cell phone evidence was indefensible. Photographic evidence did not establish widespread ballot harvesting.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Barr was unimpressed with the 2000 Mules movie. He laughed at it. The cell phone evidence was indefensible. Photographic evidence did not establish widespread ballot harvesting.


I'm listening.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

REAL law does not work that way ("Bill said, and it was on the Net so. . . . "). The other side can introduce witnesses who have first hand knowledge and who counter RHINO Barr's claims. 

In the end, an IMPARTIAL jury would decide the facts. There is no impartial jury here. The deck was stacked by an agenda driven side.

In a real case, documents supporting the litigants claims would be introduced, then moved into evidence. Statements made for which there was no first hand knowledge would be challenged and tossed if lacking that qualification. That includes speculations, such as what Trump was thinking.

Barr, were this an honest proceeding, would be easy to impeach, as a witness. All one has to do is, start with his record. Hard facts were in front of him, but he did nothing. He, willfully and knowingly, sat on his hands. Later investigations prove this fact out.




painterswife said:


> Bill Barr's testimony is tearing apart all of Trump's claims.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Kelly Craig said:


> In a real case, documents supporting the litigants claims would be introduced, then moved into evidence. Statements made for which there was no first hand knowledge would be challenged and tossed if lacking that qualification. That includes speculations, such as what Trump was thinking.


Apparently, like those who believe Pro Wrestling is real, one or two here accept these hearing as bonified.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Kelly Craig said:


> REAL law does not work that way ("Bill said, and it was on the Net so. . . . "). The other side can introduce witnesses who have first hand knowledge and who counter RHINO Barr's claims.
> 
> In the end, an IMPARTIAL jury would decide the facts. There is no impartial jury here. The deck was stacked by an agenda driven side.
> 
> ...


Come on, even Trump's lawyers under oath, admitted they could not provide proof of their election fraud claims


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Isn't it cute how the trolls strive to bend and twist words to create a bastard version of Russia, Russia, Russia, even as they ignore video evidence that, AT THE LEAST, creates probable cause to inquire deeper into the matter. 

Let us not forget to include the video evidence the Never Trumpers went out of their way to ignore, which showed LGB bragging about extorting the Ukraine government, with our money, to fire the prosecution going after his son's business associates.

MEANWHILE, indictments have, already, come out of the information in the 2000 Mules documentary.

Of course, there will remain the corrupt and mentally deficient claiming there was no election tampering, even the the public curtain (record) shows several people have already been charged and convicted of election fraud.



homesteadforty said:


> I'm listening.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Kelly Craig said:


> Isn't it cute how the trolls strive to bend and twist words to create a bastard version of Russia, Russia, Russia, even as they ignore video evidence that, AT THE LEAST, creates probable cause to inquire deeper into the matter.
> 
> Let us not forget to include the video evidence the Never Trumpers went out of their way to ignore, which showed LGB bragging about extorting the Ukraine government, with our money, to fire the prosecution going after his son's business associates.
> 
> ...


Do you have links to those idictements?


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

As others have suggested, get off yours and do an actual, sincere search of public records. Law reports of cases taken on to appeal are easy to access via the Net. There, you will find case after case of individuals charged and convicted of such crimes.

After that, there are the thousands of courts found throughout our land, where cases were had that were not taken to appeal, so do not show in law reports. 

We could flavor all that with that only a percentage of those who tampered with elections were caught, just as cops do not catch ever thief, murder, rapist and so on.

A HINT: My next door neighbor cannot testify to such things either. The best he could do is as I suggested you do, pull up some appellate and supreme court rulings.

Attorneys CANNOT file criminal charges on behalf of their clients. Only prosecutors can do that. Even then, the action would be brought in the name of the People, for the peace and dignity of the public, rather than the victim.

It is disingenuous to build your world around the fact Trumps attorneys could not testify to election fraud. ALL testimony MUST be based on first hand knowledge. All they can do is, for example, enter public records into evidence, since they can be certified, to compel the judge to take judicial notice of them. However, they would do that as an attorney, with attorney-client privilege, not as a witness.

You are out of your league. Go study law for several years and get an inkling of how it really works.




painterswife said:


> Come on, even Trump's lawyers under oath, admitted they could not provide proof of their election fraud claims


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Again, as others said [get off your lazy. . . . and] actually do some searches, rather than solidifying the fact you know nothing about the things of which you speak.



painterswife said:


> Do you have links to those idictements?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Kelly Craig said:


> Again, as others said [get off your lazy. . . . and] actually do some searches, rather than solidifying the fact you know nothing about the things of which you speak.


Your claim. I understand if you don't have links.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Kelly Craig said:


> Again, as others said [get off your lazy. . . . and] actually do some searches, rather than solidifying the fact you know nothing about the things of which you speak.


In other words, if it isn't in their CNN cereal spoon, you will have to find it for them.
Mondays are made for smiles like this!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Kelly Craig said:


> Again, as others said [get off your lazy. . . . and] actually do some searches, rather than solidifying the fact you know nothing about the things of which you speak.


I have looked. I can find no indictments that are the result of the 2000 Mules movie. "MEANWHILE, indictments have, already, come out of the information in the 2000 Mules documentary. "

Can you provide a link to the info? It would be appreciated.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

It's sad. Typing is like speaking slow for someone, yet it's still wasted on certain people. Take things like searches using phrases like "election fraud indictments," or "federal election convictions." They appear too complicated for them, or one should be suspect of anything that comes out of their mouths.





__





Loading…






search.brave.com













EXCLUSIVE: Arizona Election Worker Details Voter Fraud Investigation


In an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times, the recorder at the Yuma County, Arizona, Sheriff's Office offered ...




www.theepochtimes.com









__





SPECIAL REPORT: ‘Ballot Harvesting’ Charges In Arizona Tied To ‘2000 Mules’ | Tea Party







teaparty.org








painterswife said:


> I have looked. I can find no indictments that are the result of the 2000 Mules movie. "MEANWHILE, indictments have, already, come out of the information in the 2000 Mules documentary. "
> 
> Can you provide a link to the info? It would be appreciated.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Kelly Craig said:


> EXCLUSIVE: Arizona Election Worker Details Voter Fraud Investigation
> 
> 
> In an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times, the recorder at the Yuma County, Arizona, Sheriff's Office offered ...
> ...


That is not about the 2020 election. It also shows no incitements because of the 2000 Mules movie.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Fifteen seconds of searching and this is ONE OF THOUSANDS of hits. 

Are you somehow uniquely disabled that you are unable to do any meaningful searches?




painterswife said:


> That is not about the 2020 election.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Kelly Craig said:


> Fifteen seconds of searching and this is ONE OF THOUSANDS of hits.
> 
> Are you somehow uniquely disabled that you are unable to do any meaningful searches?


It is neither a result of the 2000 mules movie , nor is it an indictment. Insulting me does not make your previous statements true.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

This indictment kind of fits the description originally given: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/docs/press-releases/2020/indictments/bh indictment.pdf

It is not a result of the film since it happened before the film came out, but I've read that someone involved with the film tipped off the attorney general about those two people months before the indictment, and the film reportedly talks about the case, but I haven't watched it myself. The crime was from the 2020 primary, not the general, and it's only single digit number of ballots.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> This indictment kind of fits the description originally given: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/docs/press-releases/2020/indictments/bh indictment.pdf
> 
> It is not a result of the film since it happened before the film came out, but I've read that someone involved with the film tipped off the attorney general about those two people months before the indictment, and the film reportedly talks about the case, but I haven't watched it myself. The crime was from the 2020 primary, not the general, and it's only single digit number of ballots.


Yet we were told there were indictments as a result of the movie. That is what I am asking about.

I have never stated there has not been cases of voter fraud.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Kelly Craig said:


> You are out of your league. Go study law for several years and get an inkling of how it really works.


Oh yes, oh great one in lawyers robes... are we to bow at the feet of such a master of jurisprudence? Lawyers are bigger pieces of 💩 than politicians in my book.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Yet we were told there were indictments as a result of the movie.


Not exactly. His post didn't say "as a result" of the movie. It said something about indictments coming from information that's in the movie. Could cover that one since the indictments did come from info in the movie, just happened before the info was in the movie.

Either way, it's almost nothing...only 4 ballots in a primary.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Actually, you insult yourself. You expect everyone to treat your written word as something near gospel, providing no facts to support your statements, THEN expect everyone to produce proof of even the most obvious of things that run counter to your leftist, or pro Joe posts. 

Then there is that you are, relatively speaking, never wrong, or are unwilling to admit it. You'd learn a lot, if you could change that part of your character, instead of seeming intent on annoying anyone fact facts counter to your opinions.

Believe it or not, other people read a lot of things, but don't hit PRINT SCREEN and save an image, or even save the Net address of everyone. You know, like you.

The other day a [non-CNN] article published and it was about a blatant violation of election laws brought to light in the 2000 Mules video.

All that aside, it is noteworthy you did not comment on my remarks, for example, about Trumps appointment mistake not testifying.




painterswife said:


> It is neither a result of the 2000 mules movie , nor is it an indictment. Insulting me does not make your previous statements true.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Kelly Craig said:


> Actually, you insult yourself. You expect everyone to treat your written word as something near gospel, providing no facts to support your statements, THEN expect everyone to produce proof of even the most obvious of things that run counter to your leftist, or pro Joe posts.
> 
> Then there is that you are, relatively speaking, never wrong, or are unwilling to admit it. You'd learn a lot, if you could change that part of your character, instead of seeming intent on annoying anyone fact facts counter to your opinions.
> 
> ...


More insults. I guess you not being able to provide links to your assertions has got you all stirred up.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Kelly Craig said:


> All that aside, it is noteworthy you did not comment on my remarks, for example, about Trumps appointment mistake not testifying.


Dear Sir Lawyer Craig,

Please elucidate as to where one might find your remarks...



Kelly Craig said:


> about Trumps appointment mistake not testifying.


I wish to view them verbatim in order to form an accurate rebuttal.

I assume Sir that you know that "discovery" is a required process in legal proceedings.


----------



## Csmith (8 mo ago)

Nevada said:


> Having watched the insurrection in real time, I saw nothing new regarding violence. But there was more preplanning than I realized before.


Insurrection was a con. Try doing a search for real footage not the dog and pony show they are shoving down your throat on the msm. And who gives AF about anyway. Remember all that BLM. Antifa burning down buildings including federal buildings. “Crickets”. Sheep will be sheep.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

BLM and Antifa was blessed to have pallets of bricks and riot goodies left along curbs and sidewalks as well as buses that brought in the professional grade anarchists that parked a few blocks out of CNN range. Occasionally you could find one authentic protestor who said the bad apples are ruining their message and they should be getting kicked out of their marches, yet no one locked up the old black woman who just happened to be present while the Circle K got lit up and burned to the ground. No 3 letter agency or Pelosi drone has collected the violence inducing facebook and twitter posts and tracked down the authors to lock them up and file charges.
Yes, insurrection is a con and the suckers just keep coming back for more.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> BLM and Antifa was blessed to have pallets of bricks and riot goodies left along curbs and sidewalks as well as buses that brought in the professional grade anarchists that parked a few blocks out of CNN range.


Don't forget having a VP paying bail.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I guess the hearing is such a dud they have postponed the next one.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

So far watched two. Did not find them duds, and did get new info. It becomes increasingly clear that the election was not stolen, that the former POTUS knew he lost, and continues to lie about it. 2000 Mules was pretty soundly debunked. Also clear not from the hearings, but from his reaction to them, that he continues to appear to be stalked by his own mental illness.

Still pulling for a new 3rd party, centrist, or a new 3rd and 4th party. We don't still have Whigs and Tories, so these current two are not sacrosanct.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nodak, are you saying you have had no means of gathering information regarding these events until the Democrats held this production?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Nodak, are you saying you have had no means of gathering information regarding these events until the Democrats held this production?


and I would also like to ask, @nodak3 Do you trust these hearings are fair?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

A decade or so back, a law firm was defending victims of the public pretender system. For reference, part of the problem was and is public pretenders get their contracts via bids. If they actually defended any significant number of their clients, they wouldn't make enough money to pay their car payments, mortgages or rent, and run their businesses.

I noted some things they failed to make issues in their trial, and emailed them details about those things. Some several months later, they won a case using those very things. I didn't get any credit, or even a response, but it was obvious the legal representatives did use the information.

Saying 2000 Mules did not result in any charges at all, or affected only a few votes, is like saying Barr wouldn't testify about election fraud, so it didn't happen. Only the ignorant and idiots would go down that road.

A few hundred million couldn't testify to any of the crimes happening across the land, but that, damn sure, does not make some any less dead, injured, suffering financial loss and so on any less real.

To help those who don't understand such things, look to RCW 9A.72.080 and other relative codifications in that section. It states "[a]ny statement not known to be true is false." That is what affidavits and declarations are all about. Only facts known to the declarant/affiant can be incorporated into such things. 

That is why police reports rely on declarations - to hold the complainant accountable, if he or she lies, which could cause another an injury (jail, fine, etc.).

In the end, the film can be said to be prima facie evidence of crimes having taken place, and probable cause to go after certain individuals.

Part of the problem in knowing how much an effect the weighty evidence in the film had is, much of the stuff being done would be at local levels. That means it did not yet go on to appeal, if at all, so would not have made it into a law report. To know about it, one would have to start digging through records of district and superior courts using judicial reporting systems. A much weightier task that just pulling up a WestLaw publication.




ryanthomas said:


> This indictment kind of fits the description originally given: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/docs/press-releases/2020/indictments/bh indictment.pdf
> 
> It is not a result of the film since it happened before the film came out, but I've read that someone involved with the film tipped off the attorney general about those two people months before the indictment, and the film reportedly talks about the case, but I haven't watched it myself. The crime was from the 2020 primary, not the general, and it's only single digit number of ballots.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

On so called fair hearings:

1) I can start a Baptist church and run it like a Catholic church. So to it goes for the world of RHINOs. Like the ones Peloser chose for her bastardized star chamber proceedings.

2) There is an obvious reason administrations try to appoint judges on their watch.

3) If agents of We The People could be trusted, we wouldn't have or need FIFTY-ONE constitutions purposed to secure individual liberties.

4) Our law books have, literally, millions of cases in which a judge's ruling(s) was/were overturned. In turn, many of those get overturned by a yet higher court.

5) We have thousands upon thousands of pages of laws purposed to keep agents (legislators, judiciary, executive branch agents) from performing various act, and requiring them to do others.

6) Thousands of public agents are doing jail time for rape, murder, extortion, arson, theft and so on, because they broke our laws.

7) Police catch only a small percentage of public and private criminals.

8) Agents, OFTEN, use the power trusted to them to make themselves immune from laws that would land you, me AND Martha Stewart in jail or prison.

Nast v Michaels, a Washington case, it a perfect example - the judiciary claimed they are exempt from the Public Records Act, because they are not, specifically, mentioned in the Act, just like thousands of other agencies are not.

The Washington Supreme Court backed their decision, about case files, with that we already have a common law right of access (though they didn't get specific, a constitutional protection of our right to access courts). The Nast Court did say a one day turn around on case files was not reasonable. Conveniently, they apply the alleged exemption [to disclosure] to administrative records, but don't think a several days turn around problematic.

And, they do all this as they report their campaign finances and business dealings, as required by the Act [as if they really are subject to it], to avoid the ten thousand dollar fines they, otherwise, could suffer.

9) CONgress people are all geniuses and can make millions off paltry salaries (paltry, when you think of their overhead costs).

. . . . .



HDRider said:


> and I would also like to ask, @nodak3 Do you trust these hearings are fair?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Kelly Craig said:


> On so called fair hearings:
> 
> 1) through 9) . . . . .


That's pretty incoherent ramblings for a barrister.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Kelly Craig said:


> On so called fair hearings:


It doesn't matter what it's called. The problem with these live hearings is that it's isn't a good show. The very first hearing should have been directed at the heart of the matter, which would have captivated the interest of the country. Instead the hearings are moving too slowly. Even worse, Luttig's slow speech isn't going to make the hearing interesting. In short, it's putting on a lousy show that can't captivate the interest of the country.

Making a presentation interesting is something that democrats could learn a lot about from Trump.

As I was typing this post NBC news ended live coverage of the hearing. I'm not surprised...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It is amazing the amount of testimony they have and how apparent it is that Trump was told over and over that what he was asking Pence to do was illegal.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> It is amazing the amount of testimony they have and how apparent it is that Trump was told over and over that what he was asking Pence to do was illegal.


It's sure lookin' that way, ain't it?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> It is amazing the amount of testimony they have and how apparent it is that Trump was told over and over that what he was asking Pence to do was illegal.


Fraud vitiates everything. It was a fraudulent election.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> It's sure lookin' that way, ain't it?


Well, it sure looks like all his staff and advisors new it was illegal. Only Trump, Eastman, Giuliani and one or two others kept pushing it even though they knew it was illegal. No wonder Eastman wanted a pardon.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Hiro said:


> Fraud vitiates everything. It was a fraudulent election.


Maybe... maybe not... still waiting for more testimony on that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Fraud vitiates everything. It was a fraudulent election.


The same advisers and Whitehouse staff who knew what he was trying to get Pence to do was ill also testified it was not a fraudulent election.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> The same advisers and Whitehouse staff who knew what he was trying to get Pence to do was ill also testified it was not a fraudulent election.


There had to be people with R's behind their titles in on it for it to work. It was a team effort of DC demons and fraudsters in key counties. No worries, others have tried to destroy this nation before and they will again. Most of them get what they deserve....


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> The same advisers and Whitehouse staff who knew what he was trying to get Pence to do was ill also testified it was not a fraudulent election.


So far I've counted a grand total of 6 close advisors that told or agreed with him that the election was fraudulent. There have been about 15 (sorry, lost track of exact number for now), including Jared and Ivanka, that disagreed with him.

I'm not saying fraudulent or not... I've not seen enough either way yet. But when the absolute closest advisors, that are also your closest family, are packing to move out of W.H. while your arguing you won, it may be time to rethink your position.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Hiro said:


> There had to be people with R's behind their titles in on it for it to work. It was a team effort of DC demons and fraudsters in key counties. No worries, others have tried to destroy this nation before and they will again. Most of them get what they deserve....


Does that include Jared and Ivanka??? Pretty bad when your own kin turns on you that way???


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

painterswife said:


> It is amazing the amount of testimony they have and how apparent it is that Trump was told over and over that what he was asking Pence to do was illegal.


It's as serious as it gets.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's as serious as it gets.


Bwaaahaaa as long as it's a Republican. Hillary got no investigation....yet!
Fascists hate the truth, that's why there are no Republicans on that panel. Cheney and the other guy are democrats posing as Republicans. Wonder why Nancy didn't allow real Republicans on the panel? What are they afraid of....the truth of course! Most folks can see the bs and the Democrats are going to pay biggly at the ballot box. We voted for politicians to make our lives better, their not doing that and they should pay by losing their jobs....and maybe their immunity to prosecution!!


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

TRANSLATION: I confuse easily, dealing with things I know little about.



homesteadforty said:


> That's pretty incoherent ramblings for a barrister.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Should be interesting today.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Should be interesting today.


We'll see.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Wear those Smith & Wesson Boots while you watch Nevada, and lace them up as high as you can.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MPD transmissions

Reports of men with rifles and glock style weapons near the elipse during the rally. Three men with AR 15's.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

10 am Jan 5 Mark Meadows was aware of the reports that the rally attendees were armed. Many weapons gathered at the magnetometers from those that entered the area where Trump's rally was. Many with weapons outside did not surrender their weapons.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The President was informed about these weapons in the morning before the rally. The President did not act on these concerns.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Trump was angry the area around his rally was not full for the pictures. He told them to take the magnetometers away because he did not care they were armed.

Trump knew they were armed before he sent them off to Congress.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The violence at the Senate started before the end of Trump's speech. Yet Trump sent them marching knowing they had weapons.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony is burying Trump and Meadows.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony is burying Trump and Meadows.


I wonder what she got in return


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

She was deposed 4 times already....this is a partisan joke....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I wonder what she got in return


She is telling the truth and that is all she needs to get. There is more than enough corroboration from other Trump staffers.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

All to prevent Trump from running again...
Liberals are terrified....roflmao....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> All to prevent Trump from running again...
> Liberals are terrified....roflmao....


They are scared to death

They never thought it would happen in 2016. Never.

Now they will do anything to make sure it does not happen again.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Im curious, how do you know she's telling the truth?
Her testimony is kind of out there....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Not scared at all. Republicans are testifying the truth and taking down their own boss.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Even Fox News is admitting the truth of this testimony.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Mark Meadows told Pat Cipollone that Trump did not think anyone calling for the hanging Mike Pence were wrong. Trump said Mike deserved it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cassidy Hutchinson was disgusted with Trump's subsequent tweet about Pence.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> She is telling the truth and that is all she needs to get. There is more than enough corroboration from other Trump staffers.


In a court of law, what she's saying is called "hearsay". It's not backed up by any evidence. Trump wasn't a front seat sitting kind of guy. He liked the back seat in his limos. It would have been pretty hard for him to reach all the way around the driver to try to get to the steering wheel. I thought there was a divider between the front seats and the rear passenger area in the presidential limo. This is just a partisan ploy by the liberals to try to prevent Trump from running for president again. The liberals would look very very bad if he did win and made our country prosperous again like he did once before.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> In a court of law, what she's saying is called "hearsay". It's not backed up by any evidence. Trump wasn't a front seat sitting kind of guy. He liked the back seat in his limos. It would have been pretty hard for him to reach all the way around the driver to try to get to the steering wheel. I thought there was a divider between the front seats and the rear passenger area in the presidential limo. This is just a partisan ploy by the liberals to try to prevent Trump from running for president again. The liberals would look very very bad if he did win and made our country prosperous again like he did once before.


It is backed up with notes and texts. This is first hand testimony and is legal in a court of law. Don't worry they have testimony from the secret service guy he lunged at.

The only ones still covering up for Trump are the ones that have legal liability along with him.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony is burying Trump and Meadows.


Her "testimony" is hearsay... she's merely relating what she was told was happening or had happened. In essence anything she says is worthless gossip.

BTW... you do remember that I'm open minded about the hearings... don't you? (Just heading off your likely response )


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Her "testimony" is hearsay... she's merely relating what she was told was happening or had happened. In essence anything she says is worthless gossip.
> 
> BTW... you do remember that I'm open minded about the hearings... don't you? (Just heading off your likely response )


Are you watching? Most of what she has said is what was said to her or in meetings she was part of. Don't worry they will back up the repeated conversations with the testimony of those in the actual conversations.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Just remember, these people were under oath.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

I'm listening while doing other things, only hearing bits here and there. It's interesting, and in previous times would be quite damning. I don't think it will have much effect at all in these times, though.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Terrific hearing. Hutch's candor was over the top,and she said it without any sign of fear. Trump will really tear into her, and she knows it.

Hopefully today's hearing will spark new interest in J6.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Terrific hearing. Hutch's candor was over the top,and she said it without any sign of fear. Trump will really tear into her, and she knows it.
> 
> Hopefully today's hearing will spark new interest in J6.


Half the country will care until mid-November, then no one will


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Are you watching? Most of what she has said is *what was said to her* or in meetings she was part of.


Listening... and the part I bolded is the very definition of hearsay:

hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/

_noun_


the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

The only time it's allowed is in the case of a dying declaration.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Half the country will care until mid-November, then no one will


This is what most care about right now.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

If you personally witnessed it, It is not hearsay. She was in the majority of conversations or in the room when they took place. She heard it directly. That is not hearsay in court.

Maybe this video will help










Hearsay Concept, Examples & Exceptions in Law | What is Hearsay? - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com


Read about hearsay. Learn the hearsay definition and meaning and understand hearsay evidence. Explore the exceptions to the hearsay rule and see...




study.com


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> If you personally witnessed it, It is not hearsay. She was in the majority of conversations or in the room when they took place. She heard it directly. That is not hearsay in court.
> 
> Maybe this video will help
> 
> ...


She heard what others said... she DID NOT see anything actual event with her own eyes.

From the video YOU posted:

"hearsay occurs when a witness testifies about something he or she heard about but did not witness personally" (video timestamp 44 seconds)

She witnessed conversations about events... she did not witness the event themselves.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> She heard what others said... she DID NOT see anything actual event with her own eyes.
> 
> From the video YOU posted:
> 
> ...


You did not watch, that is obvious. Most of her testimony was about events she was actually at. For example the rally and her hearing Trump directly about the weapons.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> You did not watch, that is obvious. Most of her testimony was about events she was actually at. For example the rally and her hearing Trump directly about the weapons.


I said I listened... not watched. Since I was in and out of the truck it's possible I may have missed something relevant. I just downloaded the full video of her testimony for review when I get home tonight.

Unlike some here... if I'm incorrect I'll admit it and apologize when I next have the chance (hint... hint). If I'm not wrong I would hope I get the same courtesy.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Oh my, I hate to ruin anyone's sleep tonight, after all that orgasmic testimony today but...Christine Blasey Ford anyone?
Secret Service agents willing to testify that Trump didn't lunge at steering wheel during Capitol riot: source


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

The steering wheel thing doesn't even sound plausible unless he was in the front passenger seat for some reason. The president normally sits in the back seat, which is quite a ways from the steering wheel. And they want us to believe he actually had his hand on the wheel at one point?

That part of her testimony was clearly hearsay, since she wasn't in the car. And it might be double hearsay, as it's not clear whether Ornato was in the car or if he was recounting what Engel told him. Engel was in the car, and he was in the room as Ornato told Hutchinson the story, but Engel apparently just sat there and didn't say anything.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Yesterday was illuminating. I think most of us thought, oh yeah, not surprised. While others were wonderin 

why the s.s.even bothered with protecting the rabid clown.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> That part of her testimony was clearly hearsay


True, but this isn't a criminal trial, it's a fact-finding mission. Credible hearsay is acceptable.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

Fact finding mission? Or did you mean more Propaganda? This whole process has no more credibility then when they brought out the Steels Dossier garbage that you leftist swore was true and so damning.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

link30240 said:


> Fact finding mission? Or did you mean more Propaganda? This whole process has no more credibility then when they brought out the Steels Dossier garbage that you leftist swore was true and so damning.


This is serious. If you listened to the testimony you learned that Trump and everyone around him knew that violence was on the agenda that day. There is no question about that.

But what I found the most shocking was that Trump wanted to let his supporters with guns to be allowed to bypass metal detectors because he was concerned about the optics of the size of the crowd. He told staffers that he knew those guns weren't there to be used on him.

So who and what were the guns to be used for? Capitol police? Congress? Mike Pence?


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

Nevada said:


> This is serious.


Same BS they said about the steele BS. that was 100% unfounded and made up. You believe their garbage if you want, some never learn , I suspect you're in that category.

They lie to you everyday about everything, for their political gains! You probably believe inflation and Gas prices are because Putin invaded Ukraine, the FACT that everything was already rising quickly and shortages were everywhere BEFORE the invasion was what a coincidence?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nevada said:


> True, but this isn't a criminal trial, it's a fact-finding mission. Credible hearsay is acceptable.


Now Nevada, someone should have already told you that the testimony was done prior to what is the equivalent of a televised and produced Grand Jury. Nothing that is being said on tv wasn't already put down on paper first.

If witness one states that Trump grabbed him around his throat with one hand and was reaching for his duty pistol with the other, you get a tingling in your leg. But when two other agents who were present say nothing of the sort occurred, which statement becomes credible? The first? The other two? Neither?

You should trust the tingle in your leg means rain rather than what you are really really really wanting it to mean.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

GTX63 said:


> You should trust the tingle in your leg means rain rather than what you are really really really wanting it to mean.



Urinary incontinence?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

GTX63 said:


> Oh my, I hate to ruin anyone's sleep tonight, after all that orgasmic testimony today but...Christine Blasey Ford anyone?
> Secret Service agents willing to testify that Trump didn't lunge at steering wheel during Capitol riot: source


Unfortunately, they won’t. Had there been a defense, or even a dissenting view allowed at these “hearings”, there would have been someone there to call them to testify.

That’s not what this is, though. This isn’t about getting to the truth of what happened. If it were, Pelosi would have allowed the Republicans to appoint their own members to the panel. She didn’t. She couldn’t. Had she done that, the CNNNBCCBSNPR zombies would have had to hear the other side of the events.

If CNNNBCCBSNPR was going to spend good money on a flashy, steaming batch of indoctrination soup, to be severed for dinner on prime time television, she wasn’t going to mess up their recipe my allowing even a single ingredient that would make it less tasty for her pet tin men.

The people saying that they’ve “learned” anything from this scripted TV drama are so shamelessly partisan that they think it’s a fair representation of facts since there were a couple doody-head Rs on the panel. Nevermind the fact that they were hand-picked by the Ds as Rs who likewise hate the bad orange man. They were still Rs, and all Rs are doody-heads, so it must be fair. _We heard from the doody-heads, and it turns out we were right all along. _

Not a single “fact” to come out of these proceedings can be taken as fact because no one was allowed to dispute any of it…. but, the tin men get to slurp their tasty soup.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

So Joe works at the local Quik Lube and his wife Janie does part time at the Dollar General while they raise a couple of kids. Maybe they make 25k a year and from that they have to fill up their truck, buy groceries, find baby formula, pay insurance and utilities and rent and still try to put a little in the bank so they can eventually own something.

Do you think they are sitting around their tv like addicted gamers rubbing their crotches everytime a new witness claims Trump ordered them to blow open the doors to Congress?
These "leaders" gave trillions of our dollars away to corporations and donors and then passed off a couple $600 checks to Joe and Jane and called it a "Rescue" package.

Joe and Jane give two Fs about these hearings.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

If by this time you cannot see Trump is seriously mentally ill, and still throwing baby tantrums, nothing will convince you. I fear greatly if this man ever again is anywhere near the nuclear codes and red phone.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

Do you think the world is in a safer and better place under Biden?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

nodak3 said:


> If by this time you cannot see Trump is seriously mentally ill, and still throwing baby tantrums, nothing will convince you. I fear greatly if this man ever again is anywhere near the nuclear codes and red phone.


Nodak, I knew who Trump was before he won his office.
We knew who Clinton was before he was President.
We knew who Biden was before he was President.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Now Nevada, someone should have already told you that the testimony was done prior to what is the equivalent of a televised and produced Grand Jury. Nothing that is being said on tv wasn't already put down on paper first.
> 
> If witness one states that Trump grabbed him around his throat with one hand and was reaching for his duty pistol with the other, you get a tingling in your leg. But when two other agents who were present say nothing of the sort occurred, which statement becomes credible? The first? The other two? Neither?
> 
> You should trust the tingle in your leg means rain rather than what you are really really really wanting it to mean.


I think the most important takeaway from yesterday's hearing is that the capitol riot wasn't a spontaneous response to Trump supporter frustration. Trump and his staff knew ahead of time there was going to be violence on the 6th.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I'm reading transcripts when I can get them, not made for TV shows. Much more informative when I have the info available to cross check. 🙂


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

I detest Biden's policies, but yes, I believe it is a safer world with Trump not being in the Oval office.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

nodak3 said:


> I detest Biden's policies, but yes, I believe it is a safer world with Trump not being in the Oval office.


Tell that to the illegals dying at the border. Found two on my property in the last week.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

no really said:


> Tell that to the illegals dying at the border. Found two on my property in the last week.


Not to mention

The Ukrainians
Everyone in Europe
The Koreans
The Japanese
The people in Taiwan
All the countries in the Middle East

Geeese I cant believe Nodak3 could have even said that with a straight face. Trump derangement syndrome runs deep there


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

nodak3 said:


> If by this time you cannot see Trump is seriously mentally ill, and still throwing baby tantrums, nothing will convince you. I fear greatly if this man ever again is anywhere near the nuclear codes and red phone.


Trump is a narcissistic POS, but, somehow, he’s still managed to be the best president we’ve had this century. I despise the man, but his policies were better for American than anything we’ve seen in a long time- and that has been proven through practice.

That’s said, this “_Bad Orange Man, the Rs are all doody-heads because they aren’t Ds_” crap is actually worse than Trump, himself.

Trump didn’t want to accept the results of the election because the election was an orchestrated dumpster fire. Trump didn’t stir up the riot at the Capitol, the never-Trumpers did. The American people chose their president, as distasteful as he may have been, and the other side did everything in their power to delegitimize that choice. Then, when it came time to decide again, those same bad actors did everything they could, legal or otherwise, to tip the scales against the people being allowed to repeat that choice.

I think a riot at the Capitol was due. I wasn’t there, but I 100% understand the sentiment of most who were there. If I was there, I would have participated, and it certainly wouldn’t have been on behalf of Donald Trump. Our Congress needed to hear from the people they’d disenfranchised, and, unfortunately, this “hearing” is proof that it fell on deaf ears.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I think the most important takeaway from yesterday's hearing is that the capitol riot wasn't a spontaneous response to Trump supporter frustration. Trump and his staff knew ahead of time there was going to be violence on the 6th.


If they did, so did Pelosi. So what’s your point?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

link30240 said:


> Not to mention
> 
> The Ukrainians
> Everyone in Europe
> ...


Not to mention all the Americans that will die of the suicide spike that inevitably follows an economic crash.

But, hey, look on the bright side: we get to tally that as “gun violence”, so it’s all for the greater good!


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> True, but this isn't a criminal trial, it's a fact-finding mission. Credible hearsay is acceptable.


The depositions were the real fact-finding mission. The hearings are trying to make a case. If they didn't interview people with more direct knowledge to corroborate her claims, they should have. Maybe they tried and those people refused. I don't know.

No, the criminal court standards about hearsay aren't particularly relevant, but yes it is still quite relevant that it's hearsay. They are trying to convince us of a narrative and they're using 2nd and 3rd hand information. It's like a game of telephone...person A said person B told them XYZ happened to person C. That's not nearly as credible as getting person C to tell us what happened.

I doubt the steering wheel thing happened the way Hutchinson told it, and I'm not saying she's lying, just that she doesn't know because she wasn't there. But I don't doubt that Trump was irate in the car when they wouldn't take him to the Capitol. He said in the speech that he would be there with the crowd. He has said publicly since that he wanted to go but the Secret Service wouldn't let him.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I agree. I doubted that he would reach for the steering wheel from the beginning. She did say that was what she was told and that the person who was in the vehicle was present when she was told that and did not refute it or corroborate it.

I don't think that information was really relevant to anything though. I don't care if he was irate enough to though things either. That does not matter. What matters is that he knew the crowd was armed and still wanted them to march on the Capitol. She heard that directly, out of Trump's own mouth.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> I'm reading transcripts when I can get them, not made for TV shows. Much more informative when I have the info available to cross check. 🙂


OK, fair enough. But don't forget to read the part where the president knew the crowd was armed but encouraged them to go to the capitol anyway.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

Nevada said:


> OK, fair enough. But don't forget to read the part where the president knew the crowd was armed but encouraged them to go to the capitol anyway.


You sure do seem to get hung up on people being armed a lot
And yet it was only the Capital Police that illegally used one to shoot and kill an unarmed person.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> OK, fair enough. But don't forget to read the part where the president knew the crowd was armed but encouraged them to go to the capitol anyway.


Verifiable proof, not hearsay is the only info that is important.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Verifiable proof, not hearsay is the only info that is important.


We have testimony under oath that Trump demanded that the metal detectors be removed before his speech. Has anyone denied it, under oath or otherwise?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> True, but this isn't a criminal trial, it's a fact-finding mission. Credible hearsay is acceptable.


And to be clear, there's no cross examination either.
The SS said she lied and they are willing to testify.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This is serious. If you listened to the testimony you learned that Trump and everyone around him knew that violence was on the agenda that day. There is no question about that.
> 
> But what I found the most shocking was that Trump wanted to let his supporters with guns to be allowed to bypass metal detectors because he was concerned about the optics of the size of the crowd. He told staffers that he knew those guns weren't there to be used on him.
> 
> So who and what were the guns to be used for? Capitol police? Congress? Mike Pence?


She lied. You do understand that don't you?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> We have testimony under oath that Trump demanded that the metal detectors be removed before his speech. Has anyone denied it, under oath or otherwise?


Link would be helpful but only if it can be proven. Otherwise it's hearsay.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I think the most important takeaway from yesterday's hearing is that the capitol riot wasn't a spontaneous response to Trump supporter frustration. Trump and his staff knew ahead of time there was going to be violence on the 6th.


Kind of like we knew that Biden and Harris were not fit for office. But you voted for these failures instead the guy who actually did some good for our country. The truly sad thing here is that your soooo blinded by your hate, that you can't see the epic failures of this administration. Admit it, Biden is the worst president America has ever had.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Reminds me of the time the rolling stones hired the hells angles to be security for a large outdoor concert.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> And to be clear, there's no cross examination either.
> The SS said she lied and they are willing to testify.


They did not say she lied.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> They did not say she lied.


Yes, they did. They said she wasn't even there. They said Trump never tried to grab the steering wheel. Start with that. She lied.. Her testimony was bogus from the very beginning. The msm lapped it up slurping their lies like the fools they've proven themselves to be.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, they did. They said she wasn't even there. They said Trump never tried to grab the steering wheel. Start with that. She lied.. Her testimony was bogus from the very beginning. The msm lapped it up slurping their lies like the fools they've proven themselves to be.


No, they have not. They have not testified under oath and all you have read or heard is anonymous sources saying that her story is not true.

They did not say that it was a lie that she was told that. They have not even said it did not happen. At this point, the official statement is that they are willing to testify about what happened to them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> She lied. You do understand that don't you?


How do we know that she lied? Because what she said puts Trump in a bad light?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How do we know that she lied? Because what she said puts Trump in a bad light?


Because the SS that was there said she wasn't there and that Trump didn't do what she said he did. The SS are willing to testify. Trump is your boogie man. You hate everything about him. You won't even acknowledge his accomplishments. Biden, who can't even speak without his teleprompter and notes is a hero to you. That, is the definition of insanity.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> No, they have not. They have not testified under oath and all you have read or heard is anonymous sources saying that her story is not true.
> 
> They did not say that it was a lie that she was told that. They have not even said it did not happen. At this point, the official statement is that they are willing to testify about what happened to them.


Be yourself, by yourself, stay away from me.
The SS agent that was with Trump said she's a lier and is willing to testify to that effect. Are you calling him a lier? Remember, he was there, she was not.
These hearings are fictional at best. They are proving to the world just how unbalanced the democratic party is and the insane lengths that they will go to to get their perverted ways.
Were you in the car with Trump?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Be yourself, by yourself, stay away from me.
> The SS agent that was with Trump said she's a lier and is willing to testify to that effect. Are you calling him a lier? Remember, he was there, she was not.
> These hearings are fictional at best. They are proving to the world just how unbalanced the democratic party is and the insane lengths that they will go to to get their perverted ways.
> Were you in the car with Trump?


Can you provide proof that the SS agent said so it are you going with an anonymous source said so? I am not calling him a liar or her. She said that was what she was told and we don't have anyone on the record saying that she lied about being told that.

If I quoted an anonymous source about Trump you would shoot it down very fast. So right now neither of us really know if she was told that or not.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

She never said she was there, so anyone saying she wasn't there isn't contradicting her.

If they say the incident she described didn't happen, they're saying she's wrong, not that she's lying. But at this point, we don't know what they're saying because we haven't heard them say it. The reports about what SS agents are saying are, wait for it...hearsay!


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

Hearsay about hearsay LOL, leftist hearsay is ok because its at a staged event, but any rebuttal is not ok and must be the bad type of hearsay. LOL.. Now i understand Finally  its all on the up and up


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

link30240 said:


> Hearsay about hearsay LOL, leftist hearsay is ok because its at a staged event, but any rebuttal is not ok and must be the bad type of hearsay. LOL.. Now i understand Finally  its all on the up and up


I said both were hearsay and I said the woman's story was not very plausible or credible.

I have no opinion yet on the other hearsay because I don't even know where it's coming from. If the SS agents testify or even talk to a reporter on the record, then I can evaluate their credibility, but so far it hasn't happened.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

So you admit the staged event that is allowing hearsay to go unchecked and does not allow any rebuttal doesnt have alot of credibility and is nothing more then a waste of tax payers money. What is the true purpose of this event? 


Clearly its not about finding the truth, so what are they actually trying to do? It wouldnt be a political event scripted and designed as an attempt to discourage voters from possibly voting for Trump much like a the bad political commercials we all are seeing on the TV for the coming midterms? If so why are tax payers paying for this farce?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

I decline to engage with people who try to put words in my mouth, especially if those words have no basis in reality. Have a nice day.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

Funny, leftist have been playing word games for years, but you all sure dont like it when it get sent right back at you


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

I'm about the furthest thing from a leftist as one can be. Anyone who thinks otherwise based on anything I've said is a total moron.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Can you provide proof that the SS agent said so it are you going with an anonymous source said so? I am not calling him a liar or her. She said that was what she was told and we don't have anyone on the record saying that she lied about being told that.
> 
> If I quoted an anonymous source about Trump you would shoot it down very fast. So right now neither of us really know if she was told that or not.


It’s a non issue, given that the committee is not only not going to call them to testify, but wouldn’t let them speak if they showed up of their own accord.

Your side (and, yes, it is _your_ side, being as you side with them on every single issue) is putting together a very one-sided narrative, intended to swallowed, thoughtlessly, by the Tinmen of your side. I know it’s not possible for you to feel shame at tactics like this, but just know that every one of us watching them thinks even less of you and your ilk for being so willing to shamelessly accept them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cassidy Hutchinson has released a statement saying she stands behind everything she testified to.

I bet she or the committee has receipts.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The War room at the hotel. The next basis for criminal charges. Giuliana, Stone and likely more.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Cassidy Hutchinson has released a statement saying she stands behind everything she testified to  someone else told her.


Well then, sounds good to me!


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Biden has got to be the worse president ever. Certainly, in our lifetime. I encourage him to take frequent bicycle rides on the roof of the Whitehouse, near the edge of the building. And if there are any impediments to his view, such as fences or protective barriers, they should be removed.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Cassidy Hutchinson has released a statement saying she stands behind everything she testified to.
> 
> I bet she or the committee has receipts.


Oh it is getting better isn't it?

This young woman with a rock solid testimony based on, what she was told, dumps her Trump lawyer for a Democratic lawyer, who educates her on the use of repeating the phrase "something to the effect of" before stating what she claims she overheard or was told by someone else. 
Was Michael Avenetti not available?
Now why would someone do that? Why keep repreating "something to the effect"?
Why, well so they cannot be charged with perjury of course.

The agent that she claims told her such damning information says he did no such thing. This agent has been with the bureau for 23 years. Yet the committee has not called him as a witness. In fact, he isn't even on their list. 
Oh my Mr. Schiff! Such due diligence. Such fact finding.

By the way, Mr. Trump wasn't even in the vehicle known as "The Beast" as the nice young junior staffer claims she was told. He was in another black Chevrolet SUV.
So while she says she "was in the general area" when she "overheard" and "something to the effect of" Trump reaching over the seat and grabbing the wheel with one hand while choking an agent with the other, nobody wants to interview the source. Hmmm.

MsWife, please continue to support this woman, she needs you. This thread needs you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Don't worry, she doesn't need me. You just illustrated that very well.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

gilberte said:


> Biden has got to be the worse president ever. Certainly, in our lifetime. I encourage him to take frequent bicycle rides on the roof of the Whitehouse, near the edge of the building. And if there are any impediments to his view, such as fences or protective barriers, they should be removed.


Brandon has mastered bicycle riding already. He needs to take up skydiving.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Do we have any parachute packers here on the forum?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This is serious. If you listened to the testimony you learned that Trump and everyone around him knew that violence was on the agenda that day. There is no question about that.


They knew that there was a possibility. 
If only Trump had offered to increase security....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> They knew that there was a possibility.
> If only Trump had offered to increase security....


Did he really? or are you spreading Hannity's lies for him? Trump did not even call for the National guard on the 6th. Pence had to because trump was missing in action.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> So who and what were the guns to be used for? Capitol police? Congress? Mike Pence


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541834384822738946


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Looks like 33% of Americans think Idiocracy is a documentary


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

HDRider said:


> Looks like 33% of Americans think Idiocracy is a documentary



Its even less then that. its 33% of CBS News viewers, those viewers are typically left leaning. So if they were to poll right leaning or even neutral people that dont even watch any news that number would plummet


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

no really said:


> Tell that to the illegals dying at the border. Found two on my property in the last week.


I grew up in the NM desert. We had illegals dying under Ike, JFK, LBJ, and everyone who followed them, including under Trump.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

HDRider said:


> and I would also like to ask, @nodak3 Do you trust these hearings are fair?


Glad you asked that. Yep, I do think they are fair. Much more fair than what Trump has done.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

nodak3 said:


> I grew up in the NM desert. We had illegals dying under Ike, JFK, LBJ, and everyone who followed them, including under Trump.


Yep, they did, but not in the numbers they are now thanks to biden's stupid comment to come on in. We have basically an open border policy, which includes criminals, child sex traffickers, drug runners and those that have infectious diseases, including covid.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> If you personally witnessed it, It is not hearsay. She was in the majority of conversations or in the room when they took place. She heard it directly. That is not hearsay in court.


You are correct, that is not hearsay in court... much of what she testified to was double hearsay... she heard person 2 say that person 1 told them something.



painterswife said:


> You did not watch, that is obvious. Most of her testimony was about events she was actually at. For example the rally and her hearing Trump directly about the weapons.


Her testimony re. events at the rally was unremarkable. (as was most of her testimony).



homesteadforty said:


> I said I listened... not watched. Since I was in and out of the truck it's possible I may have missed something relevant. I just downloaded the full video of her testimony for review when I get home tonight.
> 
> Unlike some here... if I'm incorrect I'll admit it and apologize when I next have the chance (hint... hint). If I'm not wrong I would hope I get the same courtesy.


As stated I watched the recorded testimony. I have amended my original thoughts slightly. Almost all of Miss Hutchisons testimony was inconsequential and not just hearsay but in some cases double hearsay.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> True, but this isn't a criminal trial, it's a fact-finding mission. Credible hearsay is acceptable.


Seems like their blockbuster, allstar, urgent new witness they had to have a special session for, may not be as new and blockbuster as they hoped. If she was… how did they have recordings from four different depositions she gave???

The whole “special session” thing is mere showmanship. Miss Hutchinson’s testimony was mostly hearsay and hardly earth-shattering.

As with all these political hearings they are in no way, shape or form meant to find facts… if they were they wouldn’t tell you their version of the facts before you heard from witnesses. And, yes, they accept hearsay (a.k.a. gossip), though it’s no more credible or reliable in these hearings than it would be in criminal court (there’s a reason it’s not allowed there) or the local coffee shop or hair salon. There’s no such thing as “credible” hearsay.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

So earth shattering they needed a two week break to go home on vacation and fund raise.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Why would a "fact finding mission" (see Nevada) rely on hearsay and 2nd hand hearsay without even having the person who allegedly witnessed the actions and comments appear?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

nodak3 said:


> Glad you asked that. Yep, I do think they are fair. Much more fair than what Trump has done.


So just a simple question, why isn't this committee calling up the folks who allegedly heard and witness these bombshell acts? Why, after all of this time are they relying on he said and she said testimony. Wouldn't the prime outcome be 1st hand documented accounts?
We are all free to draw our own conclusions; I would just expect that folks would be wary to watch the magicians off hand when viewing the trick.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, they did. They said she wasn't even there. They said Trump never tried to grab the steering wheel. Start with that. She lied.. Her testimony was bogus from the very beginning. The msm lapped it up slurping their lies like the fools they've proven themselves to be.


Sorry JeffreyD... she did not lie. She never said she was there. She merely repeated a story she was told by her boss. That story was ostensibly related to her in front of the Secret Service agent in question.

At worst the information related to her was incorrect... that in no way means she lied.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

She personally witnessed Trump telling them to get rid of the magnetometers. To let the armed people in.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> She personally witnessed Trump telling them to get rid of the magnetometers. To let the armed people in.


So???


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> She personally witnessed Trump telling them to get rid of the magnetometers. To let the armed people in.


I just personally witnessed a guy order two Big Macs... it's of the same importance.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

homesteadforty said:


> I just personally witnessed a guy order two Big Macs... it's of the same importance.


In his defense they're smaller then they used to be  got to love inflation


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

The testimony about the supposed altercation in the car was a blunder. They should have left that out if they couldn't corroborate it, but it was just too juicy not to use. Now it's a distraction from the info they were trying to get out there.

But it might end up working out for the committee. I think they'll end up calling at least one of the SS witnesses, let them dispute the car story, but then ask them a bunch of other questions. There's a chance they could fix the blunder if they play it right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> The testimony about the supposed altercation in the car was a blunder. They should have left that out if they couldn't corroborate it, but it was just too juicy not to use. Now it's a distraction from the info they were trying to get out there.
> 
> But it might end up working out for the committee. I think they'll end up calling at least one of the SS witnesses, let them dispute the car story, but then ask them a bunch of other questions. There's a chance they could fix the blunder if they play it right.


Her testimony will get them corroboration if they don't already have it. It also is getting them Pat Cipollone on the record.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

Its the same political theater they put on when the Steele Dossier came out. it is not fact finding its political theater. nothing more. Im sorry you cant see that, but apparently Trump derangement syndrome is hard to kick


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> The testimony about the supposed altercation in the car was a blunder. They should have left that out if they couldn't corroborate it, but it was just too juicy not to use.


That begs the question: is this a search for the truth or a search for "juicy". It also brings up: if they're not bright enough to have an aide make a single, simple phone call to check out the veracity of a claim... what else are they screwing up??? this was much more than a blunder!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The constipated moaning and straining of those who are trying to will it true makes it all the more important to search for the juice. 
Prune.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Her testimony will get them corroboration if they don't already have it. It also is getting them Pat Cipollone on the record.


Every news source... including the most liberal, are saying that the Secret Service agents are willing to testify that the limo incident never happened.

Regarding Cipollone, are you saying _her_ testimony on what he said is getting _him_ on record?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> The constipated moaning and straining of those who are trying to will it true makes it all the more important to search for the juice.
> Prune.


Why can't we like something ten times


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Every news source... including the most liberal, are saying that the Secret Service agents are willing to testify that the limo incident never happened.
> 
> Regarding Cipollone, are you saying _her_ testimony on what he said is getting _him_ on record?


Every news source says that is from an anonymous source. We don't know if that is pushback or that it is truth.

Yes, I am saying her testimony is part of getting Cipollone on the record. They sent him a subpoena right after her testimony because of the new information she provided.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Every news source says that is from an anonymous source. We don't know if that is pushback or that it is truth.


Until we know, it is useless blather. As I already said... a simple phone call would have avoided the issues completely.



> Yes, I am saying her testimony is part of getting Cipollone on the record. They sent him a subpoena right after her testimony because of the new information she provided.


You really don't understand how this works do you??? Her testimony gets her on the record regarding Cipolloni... it does nothing to get Cipolloni himself on the record. Sending him a supoena does nothing to get him on the record until he follows it... or not.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Every news source... including the most liberal, are saying that the Secret Service agents are willing to testify that the limo incident never happened.


Put them under oath and see what they say when a prison sentence is at stake.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Would this be every Trump hating liberal after Cassidy Blase Ford concluded her "something to the effect of", testimony?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Put them under oath and see what they say when a prison sentence is at stake.


Now Nevada, that is a great idea! Why didn't they think of that sooner?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Until we know, it is useless blather. As I already said... a simple phone call would have avoided the issues completely.
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't understand how this works do you??? Her testimony gets her on the record regarding Cipolloni... it does nothing to get Cipolloni himself on the record. Sending him a supoena does nothing to get him on the record until he follows it... or not.


First, how do you know she did not tell the truth of what she was told? Do you have proof they don't have corroborating testimony already?

Cipolloni is negotiating his testimony with the committee. He already talked with them off the record a few months ago. Now he will do it on the record. He is after all a working lawyer with a good reputation who will follow the law. In fact, I believe that the hearing was set up just so he could get on the record with as little pushback from Republicans as possible.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

you cant even see the irony of your post can you LMAO


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Put them under oath and see what they say when a prison sentence is at stake.


It's ludicrous on it's face...

the interior of the beast is roughly 10' long.
the front seat is a "bench" style seat... ie. the back of the seat runs in one piece from drivers door to passenger door.
there is a divider behind the front seat that even when lowered still reaches the headrests of the front seat.
there is a rear facing, full width seat behind the divider... invariably filled with executive staff.
there is a fold down "jump seat" on each side just in front of the rear doors... normally occupied by Secret Service agents.
the President's seat is set back from the rear doors to allow clear egress and eliminate any chance of firing straight into the limo.
the President sits about 6' behind the driver with all those obstructions between.
the President never rides in the front seat... any agent that moved the beast with the President in the front would be gone in a heartbeat (barring emergency of course).
the driver is never the only agent in the vehicle.
Secret Service is never the only personnel in the vehicle.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

I had been thinking it could be a strategic move to pull in others like the SS agents, but I doubted it because their moves so far haven't appeared to involve much smart strategy. I almost think it was an accident that could end up working out for them. If it was intentional, it was quite brilliant, getting the other side to demand testimony from some witnesses the committee wanted to testify all along.

I don't know how much Cipollone can say. Of course they wouldn't bother with the subpoena if every answer is going to be privileged, so it should be interesting to see what comes of it.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

In what legal proceeding would this be allowed?



painterswife said:


> First, *how do you know she did not tell the truth of what she was told?* Do you have proof they don't have corroborating testimony already?
> 
> Cipolloni is *negotiating his testimony* with the committee. He already talked with them off the record a few months ago. Now he will do it on the record. He is after all a working lawyer with a good reputation who will follow the law. In fact, I believe that *the hearing was set up just so he could get on the record with as little pushback from Republicans as possible.*



Political Theater, not a legal hearing of any type.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cipollone won't testify about the car thing. He will be testifying about what he told Hutchinsinon with regards to possible criminal charges against Trump. He can also testify to anything he told Meadows and other Trump staffers. I don't believe he will testify to anything he told Trump directly.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

link30240 said:


> In what legal proceeding would this be allowed?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is a legal proceeding, testimony under oath.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> First, how do you know she did not tell the truth of what she was told?


I don't. I believe she did tell the truth of what she was told... as best as she recalls it. The point is, despite that, she has absolutely no first hand knowledge *of the event*. Are you incapable of making that distinction? 



> Do you have proof they don't have corroborating testimony already?


You are getting totally ridiculous now. Of course I have no proof, only the evidence that they have not presented any corroborating testimony to date... just as you have no proof of corroborating testimony coming. Geez.. are we back in grade school... prove it... nuhuh, you prove it first 



> Cipolloni is negotiating his testimony with the committee.


Prove it.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Where is Robert Mueller when you need him?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> It is a legal proceeding, testimony under oath.


Beyond hope and beyond help.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> It's ludicrous on it's face...
> 
> the interior of the beast is roughly 10' long.


It turns out it wasn't the beast, it was just an SUV, looked like maybe a Chevy Tahoe or Suburban. But the steering wheel story still doesn't make sense. Even from the back seat of a Tahoe, a fat old dude like Trump isn't getting his hand on the steering wheel easily.

The story is Engel who was in back with him put his hand on Trump's arm and told him to remove his hand from the steering wheel. If his hand is on the wheel, half of his body is over the front seat. And then he "lunges" at Engel's throat with his free hand while the other is still on the wheel? None of it makes sense. Even if he had grabbed the wheel and kicked a SS agent in the balls, that wouldn't be a smoking gun anyway.

I believe he probably acted like a petulant child and demanded they do what he wanted, maybe flailed his arms toward the front or something, and Ornato (who was apparently not in the car) may have embellished Engel's story when he retold it, although he reportedly is saying off the record that he didn't tell Hutchinson that story. He's a bit of strange character in the whole thing. He was originally on Trump's security detail but he got a leave of absence from the SS to work in a political role in the Trump admin.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> I don't. I believe she did tell the truth of what she was told... as best as she recalls it. The point is, despite that, she has absolutely no first hand knowledge *of the event*. Are you incapable of making that distinction?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is it with you? You go out of your way to make derogatory statements about me. 

I already said that statement was told to her by someone else. I already said I don't believe it happened as it was told to her. I have also said it does not matter in the scheme of things. It is not something that will make a difference to anyone. She had first hand knowledge of other things that do count. Trump saying he knew that many of the crowd was armed.

Cipploni will testify in my opinion. That is what I said.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> I had been thinking it could be a strategic move to pull in others like the SS agents...


Agents have a strongly held interest is retaining their qualified immunity. They are loathe to speak on such matters regarding their protectees public or private actions. I doubt any will testify.



> I don't know how much Cipollone can say. Of course they wouldn't bother with the subpoena if every answer is going to be privileged, so it should be interesting to see what comes of it.


Claiming Executive Privilege or pleading the 5th are often used to try to besmirch the witnesses making the claim... more Kabuki theater.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

painterswife said:


> What is it with you? You go out of your way to make derogatory statements about me.


You really do believe your a victim dont you? Just because people point out that you are not seeing the whole picture and are blinded by your hate and ideologies, does not mean your being picked on. 

You state opinion seldom back by facts and then get upset and or ignore any rebuttal. 

If you choose to carry on like that, thats your choice, but there is no point on pulling the victim card everytime someone disagrees with you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

link30240 said:


> You really do believe your a victim dont you? Just because people point out that you are not seeing the whole picture and are blinded by your hate and ideologies, does not mean your being picked on.
> 
> You state opinion seldom back by facts and then get upset and or ignore any rebuttal.
> 
> If you choose to carry on like that, thats your choice, but there is no point on pulling the victim card everytime someone disagrees with you.


I am not a victim, That does not change the fact that some posters can't have a discussion without throwing out insults.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> It turns out it wasn't the beast, it was just an SUV, looked like maybe a Chevy Tahoe or Suburban.


Hadn't heard that.



> I believe he probably acted like a petulant child and demanded they do what he wanted, maybe flailed his arms toward the front or something, and Ornato (who was apparently not in the car) may have embellished Engel's story when he retold it, although he reportedly is saying off the record that he didn't tell Hutchinson that story. He's a bit of strange character in the whole thing. He was originally on Trump's security detail but he got a leave of absence from the SS to work in a political role in the Trump admin.


That, I can believe.

Engles is an interesting character. I can get very little information on him and his role.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> Hadn't heard that.


He was not in the vehicle she claimed he was in.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I am not a victim, That does not change the fact that some posters can't have a discussion without throwing out insults.


Some weigh lies as worse than hurting feelings.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Some weigh lies as worse than hurting feelings.


Sorry, your feelings are hurt. What lies did you tell?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I am not a victim, That does not change the fact that some posters can't have a discussion without throwing out insults.


Asking you to elaborate on your assertions... is not an insult.
Explaining how my understanding is different from yours... is not an insult.
Giving evidence that your assertions are wrong... is not an insult.
Giving evidence to support my assertions... is not an insult.
Questioning your understanding of a point... is not an insult.
Flat out disagreeing with you and telling you that... is not an insult.
Being amazed and astonished at some of the things you post... is not an insult.

Where are the insults?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Asking you to elaborate on your assertions... is not an insult.
> Explaining how my understanding is different from yours... is not an insult.
> Giving evidence that your assertions are wrong... is not an insult.
> Giving evidence to support my assertions... is not an insult.
> ...


You post childish remarks about me. You don't seem to really want discussion but to try to insult me. You do it all the time. If you don't like my responses or I don't respond when you expect me then too bad. You don't get to tell me what or when to post and especially with that kind of remarks.

Learn something from Ryanthomas. He never puts people or their posts down even if he does not agree with them. He is always civil and welcomes discussion.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Sorry, your feelings are hurt. What lies did you tell?


Oh my... more grade school playground stuff. (you deserve any insult you feel for that one... geez, we gonna come out with nah, nah, na, poopy do next?).


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> Agents have a strongly held interest is retaining their qualified immunity. They are loathe to speak on such matters regarding their protectees public or private actions. I doubt any will testify.


According to many reports, citing unnamed sources "close to the SS," it sounds like they're eager to testify to dispute the car story. The reports could be wrong, or they could be bluffing, but if it's a bluff, the committee is calling their bluff.

Qualified immunity? That has nothing to do with it. That BS might get you heart eyes from the mental midgets among us, but it's not making any legitimate point.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

From the NeverTrumpers like Andrew McCarthy, David French, Steve Hayes, Tim Carney and Mona Charen 

_You have to wonder how Cassidy Hutchinson was raised. What did her parents do to instill a conscience and courage in such a young person? The most frightening thing we’ve learned over the past six years is just how indifferent the vast majority of the Republican party is to the rule of law, the Constitution, basic decency, and truth. But there have also been ordinary men and women who met the moment with grace and integrity. Their examples prove that the flame of liberty has not been extinguished. If this republic survives, Liz Cheney will be remembered as a heroine who ensured that it could. And Cassidy Hutchinson will deserve a place of honor for showing a party of cowards what courage looks like._​




__





Loading…






amgreatness.com






All RINO stalwarts


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Globalism daughter


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I know that The TDS sufferers are salivating at the "testimony" about Trump lunging at SS agents and trying to grab the wheel. I know it may be difficult, but, think about what is being said. Trump, riding in the back of the most secure vehicle on the planet, lunged at a SS agent and tried to grab a steering wheel? How? Trump, by Leftist accounts is a fat old man who likely can't walk up a flight of stairs. Do you really think this fanciful, supposedly, second had story could possibly be true? Face it, the "committee" has been caught in a lie. Of course the SS agents in question deny this ever happened.
It reminds me of a 6 year old kid's story where the lie sounds reasonable until the kid brings up a spotted dinosaur being involved. You rightly begin to doubt the entire story. Leftists, how many times do you have to be subjected to pure Bull Schiff before you stop lapping it up?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Rreactionary. rightists sure seem to focus on the car thing. I guess they are trying to distract themselves from the testimony about Trump knowing the crowd was armed and sending them off to the capital anyway.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Globalism daughter


At one time I held her father in high regard. That was until he proved himself to be a war criminal. That his daughter is part of this "truth finding committee" shows some irony.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Rreactionary. rightists sure seem to focus on the car thing. I guess they are trying to distract themselves from the testimony about Trump knowing the crowd was armed and sending them off to the capital anyway.


Pretty sure they were focusing on your focusing on that car thing.
Link to some hearsay for us please.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Rreactionary. rightists sure seem to focus on the car thing. I guess they are trying to distract themselves from the testimony about Trump knowing the crowd was armed and sending them off to the capital anyway.


I thought she was very pretty, well spoken and extremely photogenic


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Rreactionary.


Yes, reactionary. Good choice. It reminds me of your response to the man killed inside of that school last week. You replied that the only reason he was killed, wasn't because he carried a gun into the school, but because he "shot it off". Lol.

Fridays word of the day is "Critical Thinking".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Yes, reactionary. Good choice. It reminds me of your response to the man killed inside of that school last week. You replied that the only reason he was killed, wasn't because he carried a gun into the school, but because he "shot it off". Lol.
> 
> Fridays word of the day is "Critical Thinking".


I did not imply that. You just assumed that because it fit your warped view.

How do you feel about Trump knowing the crowd was armed and sending them off to the capital anyways?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Rreactionary. rightists sure seem to focus on the car thing. I guess they are trying to distract themselves from the testimony about Trump knowing the crowd was armed and sending them off to the capital anyway.


Except no guns were seen or confiscated from the capital. The only person shot was unarmed and shot by capital police


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

coolrunnin said:


> Except no guns were seen or confiscated from the capital. The only person shot was unarmed and shot by capital police


Did they say they were only armed with guns? Are you sure no guns were seen at the Capital? We saw new video evidence at the elipse the other day. I expect they also have new video evidence of the Capital that you have not seen as well.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I thought she was very pretty, well spoken and extremely photogenic
> 
> View attachment 111817


All witnesses for events like this are coached. It doesn't matter who or what side they are on.
When they aren't used to being in the public eye ie national tv, they will be taught how to sit, to speak in measured monotones, avoid looking down and to the side (it is an indicator of not being truthful), avoid smiling when recollecting important events, pause to infer thought, what to wear and what colors, how and when to drink your water, etc.
Some a very good at it and are a natural.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I did not imply that. You just assumed that because it fit your warped view.
> 
> How do you feel about Trump knowing the crowd was armed and sending them off to the capital anyways?


I agree it was not implied. That was a quote from your post.

I don't "feel" about what ifs; I prefer knowing what the proven facts are with direct witness statements.
Wishing and hoping is just the title to a song and what seems to keep you in front of the tv and awake at night.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

GTX63 said:


> All witnesses for events like this are coached. It doesn't matter who or what side they are on.
> When they aren't used to being in the public eye ie national tv, they will be taught how to sit, to speak in measured monotones, avoid looking down and to the side (it is an indicator of not being truthful), avoid smiling when recollecting important events, pause to infer thought, what to wear and what colors, how and when to drink your water, etc.
> Some a very good at it and are a natural.


Probably had hair and wardrobe professionally done for them and the script of course with plenty of practice with professionals.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> I don't "feel" about what ifs; I prefer knowing what the proven facts are with direct witness statements.


Except when it comes to believing election results...


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You run for Mayor out there and I'll mail my ballots out asap. I promise to abide by whatever the final tally should be.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Rreactionary. rightists sure seem to focus on the car thing. I guess they are trying to distract themselves from the testimony about Trump knowing the crowd was armed and sending them off to the capital anyway.


The "car thing" was a lie that was quickly called out by the people actually involved. The whole "testimony" was likely written by Schiff and his staff. It is not like lies of "damning evidence" haven't been make up by ole Schiff before. The lies have blown up in the face of this partisan witch hunt, just like they did for all of the other which hunts thrown at Trump before.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> How do you feel about Trump knowing the crowd was armed and sending them off to the capital anyways?


Why believe any of the lies that have been thrown at Trump over the past 6 years?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Why believe any of the lies that have been thrown at Trump over the past 6 years?


It;s a bad sign when someone needs as many lawyers as Trump has. It's an even worse sign when your lawyers need lawyers.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> The "car thing" was a lie that was quickly called out by the people actually involved.


If by called out, you mean an unnamed source "close to" the agency they work for, says they dispute it, then yes it was called out. I haven't seen anything where any of the agents have spoken publicly yet. I'm hoping they do. I already don't believe the "car thing" but I'd like to hear their version of events.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> It;s a bad sign when someone needs as many lawyers as Trump has. It's an even worse sign when your lawyers need lawyers.


It's really not. Biden likely has just as many lawyers, and his lawyers have lawyers, too. Goes with the territory.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> If by called out, you mean an unnamed source "close to" the agency they work for, says they dispute it, then yes it was called out. I haven't seen anything where any of the agents have spoken publicly yet. I'm hoping they do. I already don't believe the "car thing" but I'd like to hear their version of events.


The question isn't whether they will speak publicly, the real question is whether they will say it under oath.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> It's really not. Biden likely has just as many lawyers, and his lawyers have lawyers, too. Goes with the territory.


The difference is that Trump's lawyers have criminal defense lawyers.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nevada said:


> The question isn't whether they will speak publicly, the real question is whether they will say it under oath.


Nevada, what if they should say they were told or overheard it wasn't true?
Under oath.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> The question isn't whether they will speak publicly, the real question is whether they will say it under oath.


Yeah, under oath would be ideal. But let's not pretend an oath is some magic spell...people lie under oath all the time, and most get away with it.

I believe they've already testified under oath, but not publicly. I'm not entirely sure they were under oath for their previous interviews with the committee lawyers, but probably.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> The difference is that Trump's lawyers have criminal defense lawyers.


That is an interesting distinction, but probably not as meaningful as it appears on its face. Hopefully some of them also have good psychiatrists.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> It;s a bad sign when someone needs as many lawyers as Trump has. It's an even worse sign when your lawyers need lawyers.


If someone is gunning for you, it is nice to have protection, and protection for the protection. It is a bad sign that we let this Leftist charade continue.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Nevada, what if they should say they were told or overheard it wasn't true?
> Under oath.


MY point is that the only reason we're hearing so much hearsay testimony is because Trump's people don't want to testify. For example, If Pat Cipollone voluntarily testified to the J6 committee then we would have it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I don't care how many lawyers anyone has. It is another misdirection. It is like saying someone is taking the fifth. It is interesting but it is not part of the equation when someone is sitting in court after being charged with a crime.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nevada said:


> MY point is that the only reason we're hearing so much hearsay testimony is because Trump's people don't want to testify. For example, If Pat Cipollone voluntarily testified to the J6 committee then we would have it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.


Or, it is possible that the hearing is a ****e show that no one near their crosshairs would want to participate in.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nevada said:


> MY point is that the only reason we're hearing so much hearsay testimony is because Trump's people don't want to testify. For example, If Pat Cipollone voluntarily testified to the J6 committee then we would have it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.


Pat is a lawyer and he should not voluntarily agree to testify. He should follow the procedures he would expect his clients to follow. Waiting for a subpoena is the smart thing to do.

I say that because he needs to demonstrate to his clients that he also follows procedure. He is still a working lawyer and prospective clients want to know that he does.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> Yeah, under oath would be ideal. But let's not pretend an oath is some magic spell...people lie under oath all the time, and most get away with it.


Most get away with it because lying under oath can be perfectly legal. To me perjury:


He had to know it was a lie.
It has to be factual, not an opinion.
It has to be material to the dispute.
It has to be done with the intent to mislead.

For example if someone lied about his or her age underoath. but his or her age was not a material fact in the trial, then it would not be perjury -- or even against the law.

So sure, there's a lot of lying under oath.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Pat is a lawyer and he should not voluntarily agree to testify. He should follow the procedures he would expect his clients to follow. Waiting for a subpoena is the smart thing to do.


No doubt. But still, if he showed-up and testified then Cass wouldn't have had to use hearsay to tell her story.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Most get away with it because lying under oath can be perfectly legal. To me perjury:
> 
> He had to know it was a lie.
> It has to be factual, not an opinion.
> ...


I think we should put the members of the witch....er committee under oath prior to their spouting off. I mean, if they are interested in the Truth, it shouldn't matter, right?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nevada said:


> No doubt. But still, if he showed-up and testified then Cass wouldn't have had to use hearsay to tell her story.


She did not testify hearsay about him. She testified what he told her directly. He can be corroboration. He still really needed to wait to be subpoenaed to go on the record. He is a lawyer and should follow the correct procedure.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I think we should put the members of the witch....er committee under oath prior to their spouting off. I mean, if they are interested in the Truth, it shouldn't matter, right?


What would be the point of putting committee members under oath? They aren't testifying.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> What would be the point of putting committee members under oath? They aren't testifying.


They are telling the American public all sorts of stuff every day. Shouldn't we have some legal recourse should they spout off load after load of Bull Schiff?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> They are telling the American public all sorts of stuff every day. Shouldn't we have some legal recourse should they spout off load after load of Bull Schiff?


Better yet get Trump to go under oath first.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> The difference is that Trump's lawyers have criminal defense lawyers.


Yea, that's what u need when criminals make false claims against you.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> So sure, there's a lot of lying under oath.


OK, but all your distinctions aside, there's also a lot of perjury and most get away with that, too.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Better yet get Trump to go under oath first.


Trump is a private citizen. Should we not expect these office holding gallant dragon slayers to be the paradigm of truth? Are they afraid of truth? If they are not going to lie, why would it be a big deal to take an oath not to lie? It is not like they aren't there by their own free will already nor are they being forced to speak and truth in government is important, so, why not?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Trump is a private citizen. Should we not expect these office holding gallant dragon slayers to be the paradigm of truth? Are they afraid of truth? If they are not going to lie, why would it be a big deal to take an oath not to lie? It is not like they aren't there by their own free will already nor are they being forced to speak and truth in government is important, so, why not?


Trump was the President and one of the architects of whatever happened on Jan 6th. Something that has several people pleading the fifth and asking for pardons. I think his testimony under oath is very important.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

no really said:


> Probably had hair and wardrobe professionally done for them and the script of course with plenty of practice with professionals.


And her career has now been secured on a fast track


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

An anonymous source has just released Beastcam footage to Adam Schiff. Impeachment 3.0 is impending.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542320284216299526


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Trump was the President and one of the architects of whatever happened on Jan 6th. Something that has several people pleading the fifth and asking for pardons. I think his testimony under oath is very important.


You mean he was the primary antagonist in the latest work of Leftist fan fiction being worked on by the Jan 6th "committee.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

GTX63 said:


> An anonymous source has just released Beastcam footage to Adam Schiff. Impeachment 3.0 is impending.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542320284216299526


Far more compelling than the so called evidence that the Jan 6 sham trial has put forward.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> You mean he was the primary antagonist in the latest work of Leftist fan fiction being worked on by the Jan 6th "committee.


LOL, you hang onto that with your fingernails.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

This may or may not have been on Hunter Biden's laptop.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Did they say they were only armed with guns? Are you sure no guns were seen at the Capital? We saw new video evidence at the elipse the other day. I expect they also have new video evidence of the Capital that you have not seen as well.


Well guns would be the weapon of choice for an armed insurrection.. I don't think pocket knives would be taken seriously. 

Face it, there was no insurrection. This crap is nothing but political theater


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> LOL, you hang onto that with your fingernails.


How many times do you have to be lied to by these Leftists before you stop lapping it up? 
It is like "Sure, x and y have been found to be total lies, but, I still, with my whole heart, believe z as long as it is against BOM."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

coolrunnin said:


> Well guns would be the weapon of choice for an armed insurrection.. I don't think pocket knives would be taken seriously.
> 
> Face it, there was no insurrection. This crap is nothing but political theater


LOL. That will have me chuckling for weeks. Many of the posters on this site have been telling us for years that all arms count not just guns and then you post that. I think that might become a meme.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> How many times do you have to be lied to by these Leftists before you stop lapping it up?
> It is like "Sure, x and y have been found to be total lies, but, I still, with my whole heart, believe z as long as it is against BOM."


Another desperate redirection. Keep up the good work for your comrades in arms.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Another desperate redirection. Keep up the good work for your comrades in arms.


No, serious question, unless you really believe that Schiff has the evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion and is just waiting for the right time to let us all in on it?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> LOL. That will have me chuckling for weeks. Many of the posters on this site have been telling us for years that all arms count not just guns and then you post that. I think that might become a meme.


I guess one could be armed with pixie sticks, but, I doubt one would be taken seriously.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> No, serious question, unless you really believe that Schiff has the evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion and is just waiting for the right time to let us all in on it?


This thread is about Jan 6, yet you keep bringing up the past. I call that misdirection and I stand by it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I guess one could be armed with pixie sticks, but, I doubt one would be taken seriously.


The Secret service who were supposed to be protecting Trump took it seriously.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> This thread is about Jan 6, yet you keep bringing up the past. I call that misdirection and I stand by it.


The same people who lied to us in the past are now suddenly seeking the "Truth" on this Committee? I mean Chester the Molester wants to start a babysitting gig, and is very upset that people keep bringing up the past.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> The Secret service who were supposed to be protecting Trump took it seriously.


Their job is to take any rumor they hear to heart when it comes to protecting the President.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The same people who lied to us in the past are now suddenly seeking the "Truth" on this Committee? I mean Chester the Molester wants to start a babysitting gig, and is very upset that people keep bringing up the past.


Did all those republicans testify under oath, lie for this committee?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Their job is to take any rumor they hear to heart when it comes to protecting the President.


They have video. Are you discounting the video and their eyewitness reports?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Did all those republicans testify under oath, lie for this committee?


I am sure that many did under threat to themselves and their families.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> They have video. Are you discounting the video and their eyewitness reports?


They didn't at the time.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I am sure that many did under threat to themselves and their families.


Well, I guess we will see. It seems that there is evidence that they were threatened to not tell the truth by the Republicans around Trump.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> They didn't at the time.


They didn't what? There showed video and the secret service talking about all the arms they saw on people at the elispse. They have the arms that were surrendered by those that went through the magnetometers.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Well, I guess we will see. It seems that there is evidence that they were threatened to not tell the truth by the Republicans around Trump.


The Left has often been found to accuse others of what they are doing. I believe some of their favorite philosophers suggest that they do that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> LOL. That will have me chuckling for weeks. Many of the posters on this site have been telling us for years that all arms count not just guns and then you post that. I think that might become a meme.


You have always been an absurd partisan, but you have never contorted yourself as much as you have on this subject.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> They didn't what? There showed video and the secret service talking about all the arms they saw on people at the elispse. They have the arms that were surrendered by those that went through the magnetometers.


So they have evidence that they disarmed a few people.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> So they have evidence that they disarmed a few people.


And evidence that Trump was upset about that. Even more interesting is how upset Trump was that they would not let the armed crowds through the magnetometers.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> And evidence that Trump was upset about that. Even more interesting is how upset Trump was that they would not let the armed crowds through the magnetometers.


Perhaps Trump doesn't want to disarm law abiding citizens?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Perhaps Trump doesn't want to disarm law abiding citizens?


Maybe, he did say they were not there to hurt him. Then he sent them off to the Capital where they called for hanging Pence. Then he did not send in help or call off the mob breaking into the building.

Good for you though, you seem to understand that they were armed.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Maybe, he did say they were not there to hurt him. Then he sent them off to the Capital where they called for hanging Pence. Then he did not send in help or call off the mob breaking into the building.


He offered help days before and Pelosi refused. He asked them to to go PEACEFULLY to the capital. The VAST Majority did exactly that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> He offered help days before and Pelosi refused. He asked them to to go PEACEFULLY to the capital. The VAST Majority did exactly that.


That is the lie that is spreading. The truth is he would not call for help on Jan 6th. Pence had to because Trump would not. Trump did not call them off when the violence started.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> That is the lie that is spreading. The truth is he would not call for help on Jan 6th. Pence had to because Trump would not. Trump did not call them off when the violence started.


What lie? The administration DID offer troops a couple of days prior and Trump is on tape telling rally attendees to proceed peacefully.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> What lie? The administration DID offer troops a couple of days prior and Trump is on tape telling rally attendees to proceed peacefully.


It was discussed. Trump did not give the order. Pelosi did not refuse because she was not actually offered them or even had the ability to refuse them.
Trump did not follow through and send troops when he knew Pence was in danger as well as all the rest who worked at the Capital even though he knew the rioters were armed. Trump instead sat in the WH dining room watching the chaos and doing nothing to stop it. The President of the US watching and doing nothing.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> It was discussed. Trump did not give the order. Pelosi did not refuse because she was not actually offered them or even had the ability to refuse them.
> Trump did not follow through and send troops when he knew Pence was in danger as well as all the rest who worked at the Capital even though he knew the rioters were armed. Trump instead sat in the WH dining room watching the chaos and doing nothing to stop it. The President of the US watching and doing nothing.


The big lie is that it was his place to do that. It was Pelosi's The administration did give the option and Pelosi did refuse. For all Trump knew, the "rioters" had been disarmed by SS.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The big lie is that it was his place to do that. It was Pelosi's The administration did give the option and Pelosi did refuse. For all Trump knew, the "rioters" had been disarmed by SS.


That is the lie and you are buying into hook line and sinker.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> That is the lie and you are buying into hook line and sinker.


Did Schiff tell you that?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Did Schiff tell you that?


There you go again. You can't even prove your claims so you try to misdirect.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> There you go again. You can't even prove your claims so you try to misdirect.


No, you are going to believe whatever tripe that Schiff et. al. flop down in front of you and nothing that anyone says or shows will change your mind.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> No, you are going to believe whatever tripe that Schiff et. al. flop down in front of you and nothing that anyone says or shows will change your mind.


You have it wrong again. I don't listen to Schiff. Your misdirections are fails. Come on provide the proof that Trump and his team did anything more than talk about troops before the 6th.

I do believe that Trump and his cronies talked about needing Troops on the 6th. They were very aware there would be problems as they were working with the Proud boys and Oath Keepers in the war room. You know those people charged and pleading guilty to seditious conspiracy.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I do believe that Trump and his cronies talked about needing Troops on the 6th. They were very aware there would be problems as they were working with the Proud boys and Oath Keepers in the war room. You know those people charged and pleading guilty to seditious conspiracy.


If there was a conspiracy with the PB's and OK's why would the Administration say they need troops?

And that is what I said. The administration asked Pelosi (likely through talking) if she wanted troops, and she said "No". Her circus, her monkeys.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Rreactionary. rightists sure seem to focus on the car thing.


13 newsnow, CNN, Guardian News, CTV News, ITV News, reuters, CNN (again), Yahoo News... which Rreactionary rightists are in this list from the first page of a google search (search terms... trump steering wheel)???

A youtube search using same terms gives us... CNN (yet again), MSNBC, CTV, ITV, Global News, AFP News, The Telegraph, NewsWeek, CBS, CNN (one more time)... 

Whew... I'm getting tired of typing all these _Rreactionary rightist_ sources... do you want more???


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> If there was a conspiracy with the PB's and OK's why would the Administration say they need troops?


That is a good point. I don't know. Just like I don't know why Trump did not bother to call out the Nat G on the 6th when he is the one who has control of them. Maybe it was misdirection because even though he knew there would be trouble if Pence did not spike the election results like he wanted him to, he was pretending to be concerned.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

painterswife said:


> LOL. That will have me chuckling for weeks. Many of the posters on this site have been telling us for years that all arms count not just guns and then you post that. I think that might become a meme.


Reading comprehension problems? I said weapon of choice for an insurrection, but I can't expect much out of you considering.

Carry on


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> That is a good point. I don't know. Just like I don't know why Trump did not bother to call out the Nat G on the 6th when he is the one who has control of them. Maybe it was misdirection because even though he knew there would be trouble if Pence did not spike the election results like he wanted him to, he was pretending to be concerned.


Or, perhaps you have been lied to. 

The control of the DC NG has been delegated to the Sec. of the Army since 1949


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> Yes, reactionary. Good choice. It reminds me of your response to the man killed inside of that school last week. You replied that the only reason he was killed, wasn't because he carried a gun into the school, but because he "shot it off". Lol.
> 
> Fridays word of the day is "Critical Thinking".





painterswife said:


> I did not imply that. You just assumed that because it fit your warped view.


*You are absolutely correct... you did not imply it... you flat out said it:*



painterswife said:


> What was there to learn from this event? The man *did not really go there to kill anyone but he did shoot off a gun *so it ended in his death.


_bold in quote added for emphasis_


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Or, perhaps you have been lied to.
> 
> The control of the DC NG has been delegated to the Sec. of the Army since 1949


Well, I know that Trump has lied about the election and continues to lie about it. So who is really being lied to.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

It sounds like you are, and solely responsible for it. Again.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Well, I know that Trump has lied about the election and continues to lie about it. So who is really being lied to.


I have said from the start that there was no way that Leftists were smart enough to steal a national election. Trump simply gave them too much credit. You can look back at my comments if you don't believe me.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

There's no evidence other than Trump's own claims that he offered troops to Pelosi. He changes the number, sometimes it's 10k, sometimes 20k. Even if he did offer, Pelosi had no authority to refuse. Trump could have put them there with or without her consent. He chose not to, for whatever reason.

He also chose not to send them during the melee. Pence requested or ordered them, which may not have been legal. Perhaps there was a coup on Jan 6.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Farmerga said:


> No, you are going to believe whatever tripe that Schiff et. al. flop down in front of you and nothing that anyone says or shows will change your mind.


This committee did a young woman, Cassidy, a big disservice and they hung her out to dry. They took her statement and then didn't disclose her until the last minute. 
Why? Because they did not want anything to leak out.
Why didn't they want the details surrounding her to leak out? Because they were going for impact and emotion over their search for truth. 
The two SS agents are on video. They have their comments already. They could have played that, but they chose not to for obvious reasons.
So now you have a woman who was put out there and used by this committee, of her own will, whose testimony started falling apart as quickly as it left her lips. It served the committee's purpose, which was to get the TDS crowd and the low absorption voter to swallow the bait and go all in to carry their water, but it has no shelf life and stinks already.
They did plenty of coaching but they seemed to neglect to inform her what happens after you put a comedian on stage with no punchlines.
They have nothing else to prop Cassidy up with other than the gullible who can't help themselves and will look more more and more foolish as they continue to beat their January 6 Bible.

I wish her the best. Maybe she can write a book.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Perhaps Trump doesn't want to disarm law abiding citizens?


Nobody was trying to disarm them. They were just denied entry to a venue where the president was speaking. That's standard operating procedure for the secret service.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Nobody was trying to disarm them. They were just denied entry to a venue where the president was speaking. That's standard operating procedure for the secret service.


No, they did disarm them if they came through the magnetometers. They willing gave up their arms to enter.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

painterswife said:


> No, they did disarm them if they came through the magnetometers. They willing gave up their arms to enter.


Did they get their guns back when the left?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Did they get their guns back when the left?


I expect not, though I don't believe any with a gun would have gone through the magnetometers and given up a gun.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

No guns but some were carrying Antifa sticks.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> No, they did disarm them if they came through the magnetometers. They willing gave up their arms to enter.


So, the people at Trumps speech were NOT armed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> So, the people at Trumps speech were NOT armed.


The people inside the magnetometers surrendered their arms. Many, many more, ( 100,000 according to Trump) would not come into the eclipse because they would not surrender their arms.

Trump was livid that the secret service would not let the armed into the elipse.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

These were weapons seized from several antifa mostly peaceful protestors in Portland. These were the weapons that were voluntarily surrended.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Trump was livid that the secret service would not let the armed into the elipse


Not that it really matters, but says who?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Did they get their guns back when the left?


None of the 3 (as in 1, 2, 3) who had firearms confiscated had them returned.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Farmerga said:


> Not that it really matters, but says who?


You are correct, all that matters is that he must have been livid.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Not that it really matters, but says who?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


>


I thought it had been well established she is a liar


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


>


So, a liar. What I thought.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Trump was livid that the secret service would not let the armed into the elipse.





Nevada said:


>


Sorry, I don't understand the point of either post... what are you trying to show?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


>


That is as stupid as the golden showers crap.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> I thought it had been well established she is a liar


If by well established, you mean some people said she's a liar, then yes. Otherwise, not well established at all yet. No sworn testimony contradicting her, not an affidavit, not even a word spoken on the record to a reporter by anyone who was there.

One thing that has been pretty well established is this Ornato guy denies conversations that others claim to have had with him. Either he's a liar, has a very bad memory, or a really familiar face so people mix him up with someone else....


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Either he's a liar, has a very bad memory, or a really familiar face so people mix him up with someone else....


Or.... wait for it..... _he's_ telling the truth and his dem. detractors are, ummm... misunderstanding (being generous).


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

ryanthomas said:


> No sworn testimony contradicting her, not an affidavit,


Would you expect the show trial to let someone contradict their star act....err witness? 
You seem to think that these Leftist hacks and their pet RINO's are actually after truth and justice.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Farmerga said:


> Would you expect the show trial to let someone contradict their star act....err witness?
> You seem to think that these Leftist hacks and their pet RINO's are actually after truth and justice.


misapprehension

_noun_


a mistaken belief about or interpretation of something.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> Or.... wait for it..... _he's_ telling the truth and his dem. detractors are, ummm... misunderstanding (being generous).


Yeah, that's another possibility. Just seems unlikely that several people would randomly make up similar stories about the same guy and nobody else, before he was ever mentioned in these hearings. And they're all people who worked in the Trump WH with him.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> Would you expect the show trial to let someone contradict their star act....err witness?


Anyone can swear an affidavit any time, no congressional hearing needed. And the committee says they're welcome to testify.



Farmerga said:


> You seem to think that these Leftist hacks and their pet RINO's are actually after truth and justice.


Nope. If that were their priority, they'd still be doing it behind closed doors.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Yeah, that's another possibility. Just seems unlikely that several people would randomly make up similar stories about the same guy and nobody else, before he was ever mentioned in these hearings. And they're all people who worked in the Trump WH with him.


Ever hear about the Steele dossier... the pee tapes... etc.... etc.... etc. I don't know but I would never think it "unlikely".


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The question isn't whether they will speak publicly, the real question is whether they will say it under oath.


It's ironic the liberals keep saying that folks are under oath and must tell the truth. It seems that oaths don't apply to liberals considering all the lies they tell.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Most get away with it because lying under oath can be perfectly legal. To me perjury:
> 
> 
> He had to know it was a lie.
> ...


Like Clinton?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> Ever hear about the Steele dossier... the pee tapes... etc.... etc.... etc. I don't know but I would never think it "unlikely".


Well that's just too stupid to entertain. Yeah, I'm sure several people who worked for Trump made up lies about some coworker the rest of us never heard of before, to destroy his credibility before a committee that nobody expected him to testify at. Sounds about as likely as the pee tape.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> This thread is about Jan 6, yet you keep bringing up the past. I call that misdirection and I stand by it.


You, can call it anything you like. They are in fact, points of contention that are very similar and therefore very relevant. Schiff is a proven lier...remember his "letter" he said Trump wrote?
He got called out and said it was a joke....3 days after he read it to the world. I won't mention all the times he said he had proof. Wonder why, as head of the house intelligence committee, did he not investigate Swalwell's Chinese spy girlfriend Fang Fang. Or Feinsteins Chinese spy driver?
Yet, you believe everything these proven liers tell you.
Bwaaahaaa...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> They have video. Are you discounting the video and their eyewitness reports?


Lets see it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> That is the lie and you are buying into hook line and sinker.


Your embarrassing yourself....again. makes me chuckle in a sad and pathetic way.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> If by well established, you mean some people said she's a liar, then yes. Otherwise, not well established at all yet. No sworn testimony contradicting her, not an affidavit, not even a word spoken on the record to a reporter by anyone who was there.
> 
> One thing that has been pretty well established is this Ornato guy denies conversations that others claim to have had with him. Either he's a liar, has a very bad memory, or a really familiar face so people mix him up with someone else....


Since only one side is allowed to call witnesses do we expect the possibility of contradicting testimony? 

How could anyone defend something so one-sided and clearly for show?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Well that's just too stupid to entertain. ...Sounds about as likely as the pee tape.


Don't know what's so stupid about it, you said:



ryanthomas said:


> Just seems unlikely that several people would randomly make up similar stories about the same guy and nobody else


Did not several people make up similar stories about the "same guy" regarding both the Steele dossier and the pee tapes???

Maybe some outside had never heard of Ornada but he was very, very well known in the halls of the White House.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Since only one side is allowed to call witnesses do we expect the possibility of contradicting testimony?


The committee says the SS agents are welcome to testify. And supposedly they're willing to testify and the SS says they will be made available. One side or both might be bluffing, but if the agents are truly willing to testify, they should say so publicly so the committee can't blame them for not showing up.



HDRider said:


> How could anyone defend something so one-sided and clearly for show?


I'm not defending the hearings at all. It's a crap show.

If they were doing a solid investigation, when they got the stupid car story (which isn't even particularly consequential even it was 100% accurate) they would have called back the other witnesses and asked them about it separately, ideally at the same time so the first one asked couldn't call the other and tell him how he answered. You don't take a witness statement on national TV and _then_ ask the other witnesses about it. It was done because it's a juicy story and they wanted to get it out there.

I don't know the full truth any more than anyone else who wasn't there, but some like you seem to believe whatever fits their preferred narrative. You believe Hutchinson is a liar because you don't like her story. The only thing you have to back up your chosen belief at this point is anonymous sources saying people involved dispute her account. That's weak.

I don't particularly care one way or the other, but I _try_ to believe only the truth. I don't have a "side" in this. I don't like Trump, but I don't hate him either. I expect him to be president again if he chooses to run and doesn't kick the bucket first, and I'm fine with it.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> Don't know what's so stupid about it, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, that guy was running for president at the time. Just getting stupider if you can't see the difference. You gonna pull another "qualified immunity" non sequitur out of your rear end next?

Nobody in the WH knew Ornato was going to end up being a key witness about an event that doesn't really matter, so it wouldn't make any sense to publicly name him and only him as a liar to a public that mostly didn't know he existed. And he's not even really a key witness. All he can say is whether or not he told Hutch the story, not whether the story is true. There's a better witness, Engel who was in the car for whatever did or didn't happen, and who also was supposedly in the room for the retelling. If Hutch was lying, it was stupid of her to put another witness in the room who could say it didn't happen.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> The committee says the SS agents are welcome to testify. And supposedly they're willing to testify and the SS says they will be made available. One side or both might be bluffing, but if the agents are truly willing to testify, they should say so publicly so the committee can't blame them for not showing up.


Two former Trump White House aides are accusing a top Secret Service official and key defender of the then-president's actions during the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection of being a political loyalist with a history of lying. 








Two former White House aides say top Secret Service official defending Trump on Jan. 6 has history of lying


Two Trump White House aides publicly question whether a top Secret Service official is lying to protect the former President



www.usatoday.com


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Since only one side is allowed to call witnesses do we expect the possibility of contradicting testimony?


You can't really complain about the hearings being one-sided. After all, most republicans refused to serve on the panel.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> You can't really complain about the hearings being one-sided. After all, most republicans refused to serve on the panel.


I can complain about it. I think it was a mistake. 

I am not sure what the rules are concerning a hearing conducted by the majority party, maybe it neutered the minority's influence and still operated as one sided as the one in force now.

I can only defer to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy decision.

All that said, most Republicans want Trump silenced as much as the Democrats do.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

There are Republicans on the committee and the majority of those testifying are republicans. Still not good enough for some.

Don't worry those who end up being charged criminally can bring their own witne to trial. Better yet those with different stories now can volunteer to go under oath with the committee. The committee has asked for anyone with info to come forward.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> There are Republicans on the committee and the majority of those testifying are republicans. Still not good enough for some.
> 
> Don't worry those who end up being charged criminally can bring their own witne to trial. Better yet those with different stories now can volunteer to go under oath with the committee. The committee has asked for anyone with info to come forward.


I will wager no one is convicted of anything substantial because of the muppet hearing.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I will wager no one is convicted of anything substantial because of the muppet hearing.


Criminal conviction is not the objective of the J6 committee. The objective is to determine what happened and what needs to be done to avoid the same thing happening again.

That said, the committee will be making criminal referrals to the DOJ. In fact referrals have already been made, mostly for refusal to honor subpoenas. We'll see more referrals before this is over.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Criminal conviction is not the objective of the J6 committee. The objective is to determine what happened and what needs to be done to avoid the same thing happening again.
> 
> That said, the committee will be making criminal referrals to the DOJ. In fact referrals have already been made, mostly for refusal to honor subpoenas. We'll see more referrals before this is over.


There is no need for them to make referrals. The DOJ is already investigating and has all or will the evidence from the hearings as well as more that they have gathered on their own.

I expect several people will be charged regarding the fake electorates and many of those in the "war room" as well.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Criminal conviction is not the objective of the J6 committee. The objective is to determine what happened and what needs to be done to avoid the same thing happening again.


You are half correct. Criminal conviction is not the objective of the sham show. The objective is to keep Trump from running in 24 because these "defenders of democracy" are scared of the possible results....of democracy.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Criminal conviction is not the objective of the J6 committee. The objective is to determine what happened and what needs to be done to avoid the same thing happening again.
> 
> That said, the committee will be making criminal referrals to the DOJ. In fact referrals have already been made, mostly for refusal to honor subpoenas. We'll see more referrals before this is over.


The Committee is looking to hire a writer(s) to assist in creating a multi media presentation, along with narration and dramatic music to help tell the story of what really took place on January 6th. They want to add some pizzaz to the program rather than some clunky committee report. This is in part from Jamie Raskin, a Democrat Representative.
They are hoping this will help some of the less familiar understand why the Republicans need to be removed from Washington DC.
The report will leave no stone unturned and coincidentally, should be ready for prime time about 6 weeks before the midterms.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Two former Trump White House aides are accusing a top Secret Service official and key defender of the then-president's actions during the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection of being a political loyalist with a history of lying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a pretty good summary, but the bottom line (buried somewhere in the middle) is still this: "Neither Ornato nor Engel have spoken publicly yet"

Let's hear their side directly from them, not through anonymous sources who supposedly have talked to them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> You are half correct. Criminal conviction is not the objective of the sham show. The objective is to keep Trump from running in 24 because these "defenders of democracy" are scared of the possible results....of democracy.


Trump running in 24 would be a gift to the Democrats. In fact he should announce right away.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Trump running in 24 would be a gift to the Democrats. In fact he should announce right away.


Well, they sure are doing their best to prevent it. Polls say that Trump would beat Brandon today. I doubt he will run. Democrats thought the same thing in 2016 until that glorious night in November.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Smart Republicans are doing eve they can to make sure he does not run.  They are the ones finally telling the truth.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I see the mission of the J6 committee as a very serious matter. The former president took extraordinary steps, possibly illegal steps, to remain president after an election that he undoubtedly lost. Judging by the rhetoric he used during his presidency, he is planning on remaining president for the rest of his life.

_*"We're gonna win four more years in the White House, and then we'll negotiate, because based on the way we were treated, we're probably entitled to another four years after that*_*" -- Trump*

Unless he's stopped Trump will seek and remain president by any means necessary, including violence, misinformation, or even saving American lives from a pandemic. We know he'll do those things, because he's done them before. We all know what he's capable of.

Trump is also disappointed in the power the president has, so he'll take more. He honestly believes that he's entitled to absolute power.

_*"When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way it's got to be. It's total."*_* -- Trump*

Yes, this is a serious matter.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Smart Republicans are doing eve they can to make sure he does not run.  They are the ones finally telling the truth.


You mean telling the story you have been desperate to hear for several years. The sham's star witness wasn't even at the supposed events she was testifying about.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I see the mission of the J6 committee as a very serious matter. The former president took extraordinary steps, possibly illegal steps, to remain president after an election that he undoubtedly lost. Judging by the rhetoric he used during his presidency, he is planning on remaining president for the rest of his life.
> 
> _*"We're gonna win four more years in the White House, and then we'll negotiate, because based on the way we were treated, we're probably entitled to another four years after that*_*" -- Trump*
> 
> ...


Recognizing hyperbole is not your strong suit, is it?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Recognizing hyperbole is not your strong suit, is it?


I don't believe it was hyperbole. I might have believed it before J6, but not now.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I don't believe it was hyperbole. I might have believed it before J6, but not now.


Sure sure. It is just that you have been saying things along these lines for years prior to J6th This is just the latest in a long line of trying to pin something on Trump that just doesn't apply.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> You mean telling the story you have been desperate to hear for several years. The sham's star witness wasn't even at the supposed events she was testifying about.


Sure she was. She testified to what she saw, heard and was told. She was clear about all three and no one has testified under oath the opposite of those things.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> That said, the committee will be making criminal referrals to the DOJ.


I repeat - I will wager no one is convicted of anything substantial because of the muppet hearing. The referrals will fall flat


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Sure she was. She testified to what she saw, heard and was told. She was clear about all three and no one has testified under oath the opposite of those things.


If you notice her testimony it was peppered with the phrase "something to the effect of" That is a lawyer trick to protect one from charges of perjury. Trump's supposed ninja moves to try and force the SS to take him to the capital is fun to hear and all, but, come on, really? And again, this, being a sham show, one would not expect anyone to testify (be allowed to, at least not in front of a camera) opposing her fanciful tales.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> And again, this, being a sham show, one would not expect anyone to testify (be allowed to, at least not in front of a camera) opposing her fanciful tales.


If the committee allows someone to testify opposing her story, will you then believe it's not a sham show? Of course you won't.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You can't really complain about the hearings being one-sided. After all, most republicans refused to serve on the panel.


You mean were not allowed to sit on the panel. Only those who agreed with this Pelosi bs were allowed to be on the panel....2 people. Both not republicans but rings. Answer me this, Jim Jordan wanted to be on this partisan panel, why wasn't he allowed to be there? Answer...because he is seeking the truth, not bs like the democrats. 
These hearings have no teeth and are causing democrats to flee your party at an astonishing rate never seen before. You once said that the Republican party was imploding....
So wrong about so much so often...remember that?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Trump running in 24 would be a gift to the Democrats. In fact he should announce right away.


These hearings are a gift to the Republicans. Democrats are fleeing their own party by the hundreds of thousands!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I see the mission of the J6 committee as a very serious matter. The former president took extraordinary steps, possibly illegal steps, to remain president after an election that he undoubtedly lost. Judging by the rhetoric he used during his presidency, he is planning on remaining president for the rest of his life.
> 
> _*"We're gonna win four more years in the White House, and then we'll negotiate, because based on the way we were treated, we're probably entitled to another four years after that*_*" -- Trump*
> 
> ...


You always make everything out to be more than it is...it's because your a partisan hack. You don't care about the truth....not at all. You talk about violence yet it's your party that commits violence at an astonishing rate. You won't see it because your biased. Your so blinded bu your hatred for conservatives, you won't see what your own party is doing to our country. 
So wrong about so much so often...smh


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Sure she was. She testified to what she saw, heard and was told. She was clear about all three and no one has testified under oath the opposite of those things.


Yet she wasn't there to hear anything for herself. 
That, is hearsay. And just because she was under oath, doesn't mean she wasn't lying. Liberals lie....
A lot because there is no punishment. They know that.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> These hearings are a gift to the Republicans. Democrats are fleeing their own party by the hundreds of thousands!


Yeah, that's why Republicans are so happy the hearings are happening....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> Yeah, that's why Republicans are so happy the hearings are happening....


Why are you happy they are happening?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Why are you happy they are happening?


Who says I am? Happiness is not something to be gained from any government action.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

ryanthomas said:


> Yeah, that's why Republicans are so happy the hearings are happening....


Because the Republicans are gaining support from the Democrats that have/are fleeing the Democratic party by the hundreds of thousands. 
Republicans and democrats are disgusted by the Democrats charade. You, apparently like these hearings that will end up just like the Russian collusion deal that the democrats cooked up.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> Who says I am? Happiness is not something to be gained from any government action.


Are you unhappy it is happening?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Smart Republicans are doing eve they can to make sure he does not run.  They are the ones finally telling the truth.


What are intellectually challenged Democrats doing?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Are you unhappy it is happening?


Nope. My happiness is completely unaffected by it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

ryanthomas said:


> If the committee allows someone to testify opposing her story, will you then believe it's not a sham show? Of course you won't.


I doubt it will come up.
But, say it did. It is difficult to take anything involving Adam Schiff seriously.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> I doubt it will come up.


Care to place a wager?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> Nope. My happiness is completely unaffected by it.


Benign ambivalence I guess.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

ryanthomas said:


> Care to place a wager?


No. I said "doubt" not "won't"


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> No. I said "doubt" not "won't"


It won't. Democrats have nothing to gain by entertaining opposing views.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Because the Republicans are gaining support from the Democrats that have/are fleeing the Democratic party by the hundreds of thousands.
> Republicans and democrats are disgusted by the Democrats charade. You, apparently like these hearings that will end up just like the Russian collusion deal that the democrats cooked up.


My post was sarcasm...most Republicans do not seem happy to be receiving this "gift."

I like these hearings the same as I like any other TV show I watch. I'm not hoping for any particular outcome, just watching to see what happens.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HDRider said:


> It won't. Democrats have nothing to gain by entertaining opposing views.


If they see their charade falling apart, I can see them putting up someone they can beat up on.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> No. I said "doubt" not "won't"


I know, just offering a fun way to make it more interesting. You're obviously not a gambler and that's fine. I never know how my bets will turn out, but once in a while I pick a 30:1 horse that wins the derby.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> It won't. Democrats have nothing to gain by entertaining opposing views.


Ah, but they do. They let the SS agents testify that the car thing didn't happen the way it was described, then they get to ask other questions that have nothing to do with the car thing.

The committee says the agents are welcome to testify. The agents say they're willing to testify. Let's see who's bluffing.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

ryanthomas said:


> I know, just offering a fun way to make it more interesting. You're obviously not a gambler and that's fine. I never know how my bets will turn out, but once in a while I pick a 30:1 horse that wins the derby.


Yeah, I have only ever gambled with $20 at a casino. Lost it all in about 5 min and never placed any type of bet again.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

ryanthomas said:


> Ah, but they do. They let the SS agents testify that the car thing didn't happen the way it was described, then they get to ask other questions that have nothing to do with the car thing.
> 
> The committee says the agents are welcome to testify. The agents say they're willing to testify. Let's see who's bluffing.


That is likely true, and they may be the reason they put her up to tell such an obviously false and silly story.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Are you unhappy it is happening?


I don't think anyone honestly willing to look at government in its current form, and I mean this generation of government, is happy with such proceedings. The only ones who can say they are, are deceiving themselves and those whose emotions rise and fall with the soap opera of partisan politics. A good day or bad day and personal happiness shouldn't be measured with whether Hillary is still outside of a prison or someone gets to say "gotcha" to Trump.
Depending on "winning" for your happiness is well, sad.
Yes, it is a ****e show. Yes it is a sham. It is just more tit for tat for tit for tat and the gallery continues to fall for it.
Durham will come out with indictments sometime in the future, and the ones that support the flimsy standards and testimony now will scream and demand iron proof then, with each charge requiring multiple direct witnesses who are with the opposing party and their voting records laid forth as evidence.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> anyone honestly willing to look at government





GTX63 said:


> is [not] happy


I admire your optimism.


GTX63 said:


> Durham will come out with indictments


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> It is difficult to take anything involving Adam Schiff seriously.


I agree 100%.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188277132918542337

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188277132918542337


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

_*Cheney says January 6 committee could make multiple criminal referrals, including of Trump*_









Cheney says January 6 committee could make multiple criminal referrals, including of Trump


The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection could make multiple criminal referrals, including of former President Donald Trump, the panel's vice chair, Rep. Liz Cheney, said in an interview broadcast Sunday.




www.cnn.com


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> _*Cheney says January 6 committee could make multiple criminal referrals, including of Trump*_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hope you're not putting her up as an example of a Republican. She's a traitorous disgrace and she ought to go home for vacation and have her father take her hunting.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> I hope you're not putting her up as an example of a Republican. She's a traitorous disgrace and she ought to go home for vacation and have her father take her hunting.


The only traitor to this country is Trump and his cronies trying to steal an election he lost.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> The only traitor to this country is Trump and his cronies trying to steal an election he lost.


Was HRC and other Democrats, traitors when they tried to get the electors to not vote for Trump in 2016, or, was that a worthy goal? How about when they spied on an opposing candidate and then a sitting President? What about when they conspired with Foreign agents to make up lies about the President. What about the Dems using those lies to attempt to throw out a sitting President? Now, all of that happened. Why is it so far beyond the pale to think that those very same Dems wouldn't conspire to steal an election against that same President who they tried, over and over, to remove?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> The only traitor to this country is Trump and his cronies trying to steal an election he lost.


A lot of us know who the traitors are and their supporters.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> The only traitor to this country is Trump and his cronies trying to steal an election he lost.


and you wonder why I pick on you... go figure


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> and you wonder why I pick on you... go figure


Because you can't pick on the post, so you pick on the person. I figured that out long ago. Why you feel the need to be ugly to other posters I expect is deeper seated than you not being able to debate the post instead of the person.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The only traitor to this country is Trump and his cronies trying to steal an election he lost.


The only traitors are the liberals who hate the freedom America gave them. Liers...every single one of them. 
So Trump lost....big deal. Ok, it is to liberals. But look at all the lies they've pushed on the world, their not right in the head. They actually think the country is doing better now than when Trump was president!
That's the definition of insanity. 
Happy 4th!! 🎆🎇✨


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Because you can't pick on the post, so you pick on the person.


Actually, I and others have factually rebutted and refuted your comments, opinions and assertions many times over... that has gotten boring. Trying to have a discussion with you is like wiping your a$$ with a wagon wheel... it doesn't work and it's endless. If someone shows proof that you are incorrect, one of two things happen... either you disappear or you claim victimhood.

You have made it easier to just "pick on" you than it is to try debating with you.



> Why you feel the need to be ugly to other poster I expect is deeper seated that you not being able to debate the post instead of the person.


Oh yes... it's absolutely pathological


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Actually, I and others have factually rebutted and refuted your comments, opinions and assertions many times over...


That's only because we're too stupid to believe that ballots for Biden were run through the counting machines several times, they pulled suitcases of fake ballots from under the tables, and dead people voted, just because there is no definitive proof that any of that happened.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> That's only because we're too stupid to believe that ballots for Biden were run through the counting machines several times, they pulled suitcases of fake ballots from under the tables, and dead people voted, just because there is no definitive proof that any of that happened.


You said it!... but the election is only one of myriads of subjects y'all are mistaken about


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> You said it!... but the election is only one of myriads of subjects y'all are mistaken about


Sure, like brushing off the pandemic as not a big deal, tax cuts for the wealthy, and separating children from their parents at the border. Of course if you liked those things you see it differently. But still, he holds the distinction of being impeached more times than any other US president.

History won't be kind to him, and he's not done yet. Today, historians say his presidency will be defined by his disastrous handling of the pandemic, but I believe that when all is said and done his quest to overturn the 2020 election will define his presidency.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Sure, like brushing off the pandemic as not a big deal


Who issued travel bans in the first months of the Wu Flu? Who yelled and screamed that it was racist to issue said bans??



> ...tax cuts for the wealthy


Debatable...



> ...and separating children from their parents at the border.


That policy has been in effect for decades, long before DT got into office. It has been followed by both sides. The 1997 Flores case made it worse.



> Of course, if you liked those things, you see it differently.


I neither like nor dislike them... they are merely facts to contend with.



> But still, he holds the distinction of being impeached more times than any other US president.


That is merely a bragging point for the left... it actually means nothing. If you think that is some profound point you are far too easily impressed.



> History won't be kind to him, and he's not done yet. Today, historians say his presidency will be defined by his disastrous handling of the pandemic, but I believe that when all is said and done his quest to overturn the 2020 election will define his presidency.


Another inane point that has no real or effective implication. I generally don't care what someone says about someone else... even what others say about me. To me that is just a bunch of gum flapping.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

homesteadforty said:


> Who issued travel bans in the first months of the Wu Flu? Who yelled and screamed that it was racist to issue said bans??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nevada doesn't care about the truth. He's proven it here time and time again. He is the ultimate liberal fanboy. Everything liberals do get a pass, no matter how illegal or degusting they get a pass. He likes the economy the way it is now. He likes the inflation. He likes the fact that this administration left our troops and billions in assets to our enemies. He likes the destruction that the antifa do to our cities. He like the destruction caused by the blm. He thinks that the republicans are guilty of the Russian collusion. He couldn't see the Barrett hearings for the shame that they were or the Kavanaugh hearings either. There's a lot more....So wrong about so much so often!


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Sure, like brushing off the pandemic as not a big deal, *tax cuts for the wealthy*, and separating children from their parents at the border. Of course if you liked those things you see it differently. But still, he holds the distinction of being impeached more times than any other US president.
> 
> History won't be kind to him, and he's not done yet. Today, historians say his presidency will be defined by his disastrous handling of the pandemic, but I believe that when all is said and done his quest to overturn the 2020 election will define his presidency.


Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that 3% is more than 2,7%.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> Actually, I and others have factually rebutted and refuted your comments, opinions and assertions many times over... that has gotten boring. Trying to have a discussion with you is like wiping your a$$ with a wagon wheel... it doesn't work and it's endless. If someone shows proof that you are incorrect, one of two things happen... either you disappear or you claim victimhood.


It is interesting that on the day we celebrate our freedom there are still those bitter enough to continue their angst, rather than just enjoy our country and what we are.
I would suggest in the future that when she hides away that you just pose the same questions to KCrock.
I value his opinion as an extension of hers and he tends to give her a bit of credibility.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

GTX63 said:


> It is interesting that on the day we celebrate our freedom there are still those bitter enough to continue their angst, rather than just enjoy our country and what we are.
> I would suggest in the future that when she hides away that you just pose the same questions to KCrock.
> I value his opinion as an extension of hers and he tends to give her a bit of credibility.


Ms. Wife isn't American, so that makes the explanation simpler. KCrock ..... well, ze explains zimself with virtually every post.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Hiro said:


> Ms. Wife isn't American, so that makes the explanation simpler. KCrock ..... well, ze explains zimself with virtually every post.


Not an American citizen?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Not an American citizen?


Canadian


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Interesting.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Canadian


I think she is naturaized citizen


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)




----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Tens of thousands attended the rally










__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1545059704161718280


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cipolonne testified for 8.5 hours today and did not take the 5th. Bannon might be trying to make a deal to testify. Next Tuesdays hearing may be interesting.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Next Tuesdays hearing may be interesting.


I'll watch.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Cipolonne testified for 8.5 hours today and did not take the 5th. Bannon might be trying to make a deal to testify. Next Tuesdays hearing may be interesting.


Missed it and can't find video of it... just talking head stuff which means nothing to me.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Missed it and can't find video of it... just talking head stuff which means nothing to me.


I believe he testified behind closed doors.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I believe he testified behind closed doors.


Thanks


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Anonymous Leaker or his spokesman should be creating/giving details shortly. Take a few Tums while they work on the narrative.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

This is what an insurrection looks like.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1545693026705719296
Thousands of protesters in Sri Lanka’s commercial capital Colombo stormed the president’s official residence and his secretariat on Saturday amid months of mounting public anger over the country’s worst economic crisis in seven decades. 








Sri Lanka president to step down, parliamentary speaker says, amid storm of protests


It comes after a day of violent protests in which demonstrators stormed the president's official residence and set fire to the prime minister's home in Colombo.




www.cnbc.com


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Prosecutors seek 15-year sentence for armed Capitol rioter


Federal prosecutors say Guy Wesley Reffitt was a militia member who took a central role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.




www.latimes.com





"Prosecutors argue that an “upward departure for terrorism” is warranted in Reffitt’s case, which would lead to a significantly longer sentence if the judge agrees to apply it. They say the trial evidence showed that Reffitt planned for weeks ahead of January to travel to Washington, “with the specific intent of attacking the Capitol and taking over Congress.”


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

You have to know that all of this made for TV sham is an attempt to convict Trump in the court of public opinion. If they actually had anything they wouldn't bother, they would simply send their FBI storm troopers to take him to jail. They have nothing, they know they have nothing, they knew there was nothing before this sham committee was formed.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Farmerga said:


> You have to know that all of this made for TV sham is an attempt to convict Trump in the court of public opinion. If they actually had anything they wouldn't bother, they would simply send their FBI storm troopers to take him to jail.


Like Ray Epps.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The mini series that never ends


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

HDRider said:


> The mini series that never ends


Final episode 11-07-2022, There could be a sequel of two or more.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

They subpoenaed text messages from SS agents a few days back. (The messages have been deleted but are probably still available somewhere.) This suggests they're preparing to take testimony from SS. I hope so. I'm tired of all the boring testimony, let's get a hostile witness or two...better TV.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I want to know who Trump was trying to contact about their testimony. Maybe one of the two white house staff that are supposed to testify this week. Looks like the guy that let in the crew to the Dec 18th meeting is being deposed today.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I want to know who Trump was trying to contact about their testimony. Maybe one of the two white house staff that are supposed to testify this week. Looks like the guy that let in the crew to the Dec 18th meeting is being deposed today.


Trump shouldn't be contacting any witnesses for any reason, and I'm confident that's what his lawyers are telling him. Evidently Trump is secure in the belief that he will never be charged with a crime so he can do anything he wants to do.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Trump shouldn't be contacting any witnesses for any reason, and I'm confident that's what his lawyers are telling him. Evidently Trump is secure in the belief that he will never be charged with a crime so he can do anything he wants to do.


Evidently for sure.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Trump shouldn't be contacting any witnesses for any reason, and I'm confident that's what his lawyers are telling him. Evidently Trump is secure in the belief that he will never be charged with a crime so he can do anything he wants to do.


How do you know he knew they were a witness?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Evidently for sure.


The DOJ is reluctant to charge Trump because they don't want to start imprisoning former presidents they way they do in banana republics. It will have to be a pretty blatant crime for that to happen. But let's not forget that Nixon resigned and demanded a blanket pardon from Ford out of concern that he could be charged.

Let's also acknowledge that Trump may already be holding a pardon that he issued for himself. There's no telling how many pardons Trump might have issued that we won't know about until needed. There's no requirement that pardons be made public when they are issued.

It could be that a conviction in Georgia is a bigger concern to Trump than the DOJ.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> How do you know he knew they were a witness?


Because Liz Cheney said it was a witness. It's a short clip, only 41 seconds.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Liz Cheney said it was a witness.


Before Trump contacted them? Did she tell Trump? How did she notify Trump?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Before Trump contacted them? Did she tell Trump? How did she notify Trump?


I'm certain that Trump knows more about the J6 hearings than we know.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I'm certain that Trump knows more about the J6 hearings than we know.


So you can't say he did know they were a witness


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Let's also acknowledge that Trump may already be holding a pardon that he issued for himself.


I'm quite certain that hypothetical pardon would be laughed out of court. Even the current SCOTUS would rule at least 7-1 against it, probably unanimous.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> I'm quite certain that hypothetical pardon would be laughed out of court. Even the current SCOTUS would rule at least 7-1 against it, probably unanimous.


We won't know that for sure until it happens. Remember, during confirmation hearings none would say they would overturn Roe v Wade, but they did it anyway.

The problem with laughing it out of court is that there are no qualifiers in the Constitution about pardons, and there is nothing to speak of in case law regarding pardons. The president's power to pardon is virtually absolute, and that includes pardoning himself.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> The problem with laughing it out of court is that there are no qualifiers in the Constitution about pardons, and there is nothing to speak of in case law regarding pardons.


There's a lot that isn't in the constitution, but we have thousands of pages of case law about what is constitutional or not. Case law about a president pardoning himself doesn't exist because it's never happened. If it does happen, they'll create the case law right then and there by addressing the case. It most likely still won't come up, and your concern about this is fantastical. Are you one of those people who was certain GWB wouldn't leave office at the end of his term?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> There's a lot that isn't in the constitution, but we have thousands of pages of case law about what is constitutional or not. Case law about a president pardoning himself doesn't exist because it's never happened. If it does happen, they'll create the case law right then and there by addressing the case. It most likely still won't come up, and your concern about this is fantastical. Are you one of those people who was certain GWB wouldn't leave office at the end of his term?


Why wouldn't Trump have pardoned himself. What would he have to lose?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Why wouldn't Trump have pardoned himself. What would he have to lose?


Well for one he would have to admit to his crimes and write them down. All the while not knowing if it would work and that written pardon could be used to convict him. Also the pardon would not stop state crimes and the pardon document would be a slam dunk for conviction in those crimes.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Nevada said:


> We won't know that for sure until it happens. Remember, during confirmation hearings none would say they would overturn Roe v Wade, but they did it anyway.


That’s a lie, NV, and, if you watched anything other than CNN, once in a while, you would know that.

Tradition states that the Senators won’t ask a justice appointee how they would rule on any given case, and an appointee asked such an inappropriate question could refuse to answer with their integrity in tact.

They were all asked whether or not they respected the inclusion of precedent in the deciding of a legal opinion, to which they all answered in the affirmative. That, however, does not mean that they believe that all existing law will stand in all cases. There is counter-precedent, and even (_clutch your pearls real hard, Sweetie_) the actual text of the Constitution, which definitively trumps ALL precedent.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Why wouldn't Trump have pardoned himself. What would he have to lose?


I don't know that he didn't. I am just pretty certain that it wouldn't work if he did.



painterswife said:


> Well for one he would have to admit to his crimes and write them down.


Could do some kind of blanket pardon like Ford did for Nixon, without any admission of guilt. Not how it's supposed to work, but it's kind of uncharted waters. The blanket self-pardon would probably be even more likely to be laughed out of court.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> I don't know that he didn't. I am just pretty certain that it wouldn't work if he did.
> 
> 
> Could do some kind of blanket pardon like Ford did for Nixon, without any admission of guilt. Not how it's supposed to work, but it's kind of uncharted waters. The blanket self-pardon would probably be even more likely to be laughed out of court.


I think it is Georgia that Trump needs to worry about with regards to the alternate electors who are now the target of an investigation.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I think it is Georgia that Trump needs to worry about with regards to the alternate electors who are now the target of an investigation.


It always the next thing


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> But let's not forget that Nixon resigned and demanded a blanket pardon from Ford out of concern that he could be charged.


Just for the sake of historical accuracy... Ford had no thoughts of pardoning Nixon until his first press conference. Ford wanted to discuss the economic crisis but when he opened for media questions, he was immediately asked about a Nixon pardon. Even after trying to guide the presser away from Nixon/Watergate the rest of the questions were about Watergate. He then decided that the only way to get any of his agenda done was to "yank off the bandage" and get it over with.

Just by chance NPR replayed their interview with Ford (circa 2000???) just this past Sunday. But Ford is on the record a number of times explaining his reasoning.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Just for the sake of historical accuracy... Ford had no thoughts of pardoning Nixon until his first press conference.


Issuing a pardon was the reason Nixon picked Ford to be him VP. Nixon admitted that during the Frost interviews. Ford tried to wait for awhile to not leton how transactional the appointment was but Nixon became angry.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Trump admitted it? Your Freudian slip is showing.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Trump admitted it? Your Freudian slip is showing.


Fixed it.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Issuing a pardon was the reason Nixon picked Ford to be him VP. Nixon admitted that during the Frost interviews. Ford tried to wait for awhile to not leton how transactional the appointment was but Nixon became angry.


I think you're misremembering history.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Issuing a pardon was the reason Nixon picked Ford to be him VP. Nixon admitted that during the Frost interviews. Ford tried to wait for awhile to not leton how transactional the appointment was but Nixon became angry.


Don't know for sure 'cause I wasn't there, but that is definitely NOT what Ford stated in the interview. Ford said he was approached by Nixon supporters to issue a pardon, but he was unwilling to do that.

He said he knew that it was a political hot potato and he hoped that things would calm down on their own after Nixon resigned... but the presser made it obvious that it wouldn't.

I was a young teen at the time so I don't recall much personally and if that replay of the actual interview hadn't happened to be on this past weekend, I wouldn't have any information at all.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I owe Jimmy Carter a big apology


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Last night's was the best episode yet. The witnesses were ho-hum, nothing new. But the committee got better at story-telling. And they included Trump's bloopers from his speech about J6 which was pretty funny. Looking forward to the next episode after the intermission!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A president sending his militia to take down the Vice president and other members of Congress because he lost an election and could not accept that should be in jail.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

painterswife said:


> A president sending his militia to take down the Vice president and other members of Congress because he lost an election and could not accept that should be in jail.


True.

But we can't put the president in jail because he's above the law. We've seen lawlessness in the past from both democrats and republicans, but there were never any legal consequences. In fact no president (or former president) has even been charged. Knowing that, why would a president have any concern at all about illegal conduct?

I don't like that the president is above the law, but it's time we started admitting it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nevada said:


> True.
> 
> But we can't put the president in jail because he's above the law. We've seen lawlessness in the past from both democrats and republicans, but there were never any legal consequences. In fact no president (or former president) has even been charged. Knowing that, why would a president have any concern at all about illegal conduct?
> 
> I don't like that the president is above the law, but it's time we started admitting it.


The Federal government may not get him but I expect Georgia will. The alternate electorates will take him, Guilanni, and a few others down.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

painterswife said:


> The Federal government may not get him but I expect Georgia will. The alternate electorates will take him, Guilanni, and a few others down.


I hope you're right about that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I hope you're right about that.


I am hoping the federal government will charge him as well. They would have charged Nixon if he had not gotten a pardon.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

I haven't been following the GA thing closely, but I just don't see it taking him down. Indictment maybe, but that's not enough to stop Trump. Even a conviction probably wouldn't do it, and I see conviction as unlikely. If convicted, he might be the first president elected while in prison.

Giuliani, on the other hand...I don't see how he has stayed out of prison the last 20 years. He's been up to some shady stuff long before this. But I guess he knows the right people, so that helps.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> I haven't been following the GA thing closely, but I just don't see it taking him down. Indictment maybe, but that's not enough to stop Trump. Even a conviction probably wouldn't do it, and I see conviction as unlikely. If convicted, he might be the first president elected while in prison.
> 
> Giuliani, on the other hand...I don't see how he has stayed out of prison the last 20 years. He's been up to some shady stuff long before this. But I guess he knows the right people, so that helps.


There are reports that Trump is being told to declare before Lindsay Graham testifies to the Georgia grand jury.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> There are reports that Trump is being told to declare before Lindsay Graham testifies to the Georgia grand jury.


There are reports that say prostitutes urinated on his Trump's bed.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Issuing a pardon was the reason Nixon picked Ford to be him VP. Nixon admitted that during the Frost interviews. Ford tried to wait for awhile to not leton how transactional the appointment was but Nixon became angry.


I did some more reading on this last night. As far as I can tell, that did not happen. I haven't watched the Frost Nixon interviews in a while, but no source I can find mentions Nixon admitting it.

The only thing I saw about a deal was once Ford was already VP, Haig approached him with a proposal for Nixon to resign if Ford would agree to pardon him, and Ford vehemently refused.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bannon guilty on both counts.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Bannon guilty on both counts.


Two misdemeanor counts of contempt. He'll get no jail time and pay $1000 fine. That's hysterical. All because he didn't want to appear before a shame investigation. Liberals have become the laughing stock of the world. Good luck this November..LOL


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Two misdemeanor counts of contempt. He'll get no jail time and pay $1000 fine. That's hysterical. All because he didn't want to appear before a shame investigation. Liberals have become the laughing stock of the world. Good luck this November..LOL


Each count is a minimum of 30 days in jail.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> True.
> 
> But we can't put the president in jail because he's above the law. We've seen lawlessness in the past from both democrats and republicans, but there were never any legal consequences. In fact no president (or former president) has even been charged. Knowing that, why would a president have any concern at all about illegal conduct?
> 
> I don't like that the president is above the law, but it's time we started admitting it.


Obama should be in jail for his Constitutional violations along with Holder...Fast and Furious ring a bell. Illegal war too! ... Syria.
Yet.....nothing!
Didn't Biden leave our assets(billions of dollars worth) to our enemies in Afghanistan? It's called....treason. Adding and abetting the enemy.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Each count is a minimum of 30 days in jail.


At the discretion of the sentencing judge. LOL
Good luck in November....LOL


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

painterswife said:


> A president sending his militia to take down the Vice president and other members of Congress because he lost an election and could not accept that should be in jail.


Apparently reality does not hinder your opinions.

Militia, murder, jail, get a grip!


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

painterswife said:


> Each count is a minimum of 30 days in jail.



We know how you feel about the law, that no one is above it, SO, 
how do you feel about Hunter and Sleepy Joe working the Russians, Ukranians, and Chinese (not to mention Uzbekistan) for kickba, uh, funds?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Each count is a minimum of 30 days in jail.


Probably served concurrently, which never made sense to me, but it's the norm. I wonder if the sentence can be affected by his prior criminal history since he was pardoned for it. ETA: I guess probably not, because I think he was pardoned before trial on that one.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)




----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> Probably served concurrently, which never made sense to me, but it's the norm. I wonder if the sentence can be affected by his prior criminal history since he was pardoned for it. ETA: I guess probably not, because I think he was pardoned before trial on that one.


He can get up to two years, though I doubt that would happen. I think he will be facing more charges around Jan 6th though.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Biden calls the real, pretend President.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DOJ probing Trump's actions on January 6 as part of criminal probe


The Department of Justice is investigating former President Donald Trump 's actions as part of its criminal probe on the January 6 Capitol attack, The Washington Post reported.




www.dailymail.co.uk





The Department of Justice is investigating former President Donald Trump's actions as part of its criminal probe on the January 6 Capitol attack, The Washington Post reported Tuesday evening. 

Sources told the paper that federal prosecutors have interviewed witnesses before a grand jury and asked them about conversations between Trump, his lawyers and members of his inner circle regarding a plot to replace Electoral College members with pro-Trump alternate electors in states President Joe Biden won. 

Prosecutors have asked detailed questions about meetings Trump held in December 2020 and January 2021, gathering information on his pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence, and what instructions - if any - Trump gave his team about the fake electors scheme.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> DOJ probing Trump's actions on January 6 as part of criminal probe
> 
> 
> The Department of Justice is investigating former President Donald Trump 's actions as part of its criminal probe on the January 6 Capitol attack, The Washington Post reported.
> ...


Brandon didn't win Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan. We all, by and large, know it. You probably know it, yet won't admit it to yourself.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Brandon didn't win Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan. We all, by and large, know it. You probably know it, yet won't admit it to yourself.


Still believing Trumps big lies I see.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Still believing Trumps big lies I see.


Still believing the Daily Mail i see! Lol


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Still believing Trumps big lies I see.


I knew it that night when they quit counting. They counted long enough to know how many ballots they had to create. No one else had to tell me anything as I am not a NPC.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I'm sure there were those who enjoyed getting a British newspaper for the real news when the ships rolled in back in 1776.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I am hoping the federal government will charge him as well. They would have charged Nixon if he had not gotten a pardon.


Most likely Nixon committed a crime… complete with evidence…. there is a difference.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

painterswife said:


> DOJ probing Trump's actions on January 6 as part of criminal probe
> 
> 
> The Department of Justice is investigating former President Donald Trump 's actions as part of its criminal probe on the January 6 Capitol attack, The Washington Post reported.
> ...



Bla, bla, bla the dem partei will do as it wishes, after all, they only work for themselves and the ccp.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Most likely Nixon committed a crime… complete with evidence…. there is a difference.


The J6 committee has also uncovered evidence -- compelling evidence.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Conspiracy with regards to the fake electorates.









Lawyer Called Electors ‘Fake’ in Email to Trump Campaign Official: Report


“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes...”




www.thedailybeast.com





"In emails obtained by _The New York Times_, a lawyer for Donald Trump’s campaign acknowledged that a scheme to overturn the former president’s election defeat involved “fake” electors. “We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, who helped organize pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a December 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a Trump campaign adviser. In a follow up email, Wilenchik clarifies, saying that “alternative” votes is a better term. Other emails obtained by the newspaper show that lawyers were aware that the scheme to have “alternate” electors claim Trump won in some key states might not be legal."


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> I'm sure there were those who enjoyed getting a British newspaper for the real news when the ships rolled in back in 1776.


To be fair, even though it is a rag, the Daily Mail often posts news stories that our media closes their eyes tightly to and turns away from. I've read more than a few articles there about things going on here that I would have had no clue about perusing the American media.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I agree with you Mish that the Daily Mail is a rag.
I'm sure the British are convinced about the character of their Prime Minister based on an article from the LA Times.
I have read interesting pieces from the UK, just nothing pertinent when it comes to American politics.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The J6 committee has also uncovered evidence -- compelling evidence.


Hope is great I suppose. 
these hearings might be more convincing if it weren’t the same bunch that claimed to have evidence of Russian collusion for going on three years.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Evons hubby said:


> Hope is great I suppose.
> these hearings might be more convincing if it weren’t the same bunch that claimed to have evidence of Russian collusion for going on three years.


That's where I am at. I have heard so many smoking guns out of the left that were never true these last 4 years. I don't bother to listen to any of it. 

Your supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. That just doesn't seem to apply to people on the right anymore. If they have something on him, they should prove it once and for all then let's get on with the sentencing phase. Until then they are just P.T. Barnham ringmasters guiding this low rent circus. 

Just my 2 cents


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The J6 committee has also uncovered evidence -- compelling evidence.


Schiff has been saying he has evidence that will prove Trump did something, for years. Yet no one has ever seen it....ever. He also wrote a letter he said Trump wrote, read it in front of the world, got caught lying about it, and he's head of the house intelligence committee! Explain that....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Your supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.


They are innocent until proven guilty. Why? Did someone say they weren't?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> They are innocent until proven guilty. Why? Did someone say they weren't?


Democrats did. They won't even allow cross examination. They don't want an impartial panel, and they provided it to the world. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see what their doing, some are willfully blind.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Democrats did. They won't even allow cross examination. They don't want an impartial panel, and they provided it to the world. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see what their doing, some are willfully blind.


Don't worry, when Trump and his cronies are charged they will be able to cross examine every one. All those conservatives that were right there while they planned and schemed even though they were told it was illegal.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Democrats did. They won't even allow cross examination. They don't want an impartial panel, and they provided it to the world. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see what their doing, some are willfully blind.


The J6 committee hearing is not a trial. Nobody is charged with anything. It's just an information gathering exercise. The most they can do is forward their findings to the DOJ for consideration. Once a DOJ referral is made they will do their own investigation to see if prosecution is appropriate.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Here is a source that some here might like better. Fox news themselves.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The J6 committee hearing is not a trial. Nobody is charged with anything. It's just an information gathering exercise. The most they can do is forward their findings to the DOJ for consideration. Once a DOJ referral is made they will do their own investigation to see if prosecution is appropriate.


My point is that this committee is not interested in the truth or facts. The only information their concerned with is what they want to hear,, not the truth.. Remember the testimony of whats her face that fell flat because she lied? The only truth here is just how embarrassing this committee has become.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> My point is that this committee is not interested in the truth or facts. The only information their concerned with is what they want to hear,, not the truth.. Remember the testimony of whats her face that fell flat because she lied? The only truth here is just how embarrassing this committee has become.


So embarrassing that the majority of those working in the Whitehouse for Trump are telling all about Trump's failed coup even though they are proud of much of the work they did while in the Whitehouse. They understand how important it is that the truth is told even though it reflects so badly on Trump and some of his cronies.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

I believe. that when President Trump is re-elected again, he will not spend all of his time on witch hunts like the democrat partei seems to like, 
but rather he will get this country back to running on all cylinders again.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> So embarrassing that the majority of those working in the Whitehouse for Trump are telling all about Trump's failed coup even though they are proud of much of the work they did while in the Whitehouse. They understand how important it is that the truth is told even though it reflects so badly on Trump and some of his cronies.


Did Adam Schiff ever lie about Trump?
Yes or no...
Russian collusion? No lies there, right?
Kavanagh hearings...no lies there either.
Barrett....no lies there, right?


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

JeffreyD said:


> Did Adam Schiff ever lie about Trump?
> Yes or no...


The shorter answer might be "Has Adam Schiff ever told the truth about President Trump?"


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Did Adam Schiff ever lie about Trump?
> Yes or no...


Did Trump lie about winning the 2020 election?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> I believe. that when President Trump is re-elected again, he will not spend all of his time on witch hunts like the democrat partei seems to like,
> but rather he will get this country back to running on all cylinders again.


Nonsense. If Trump is re-elected he will spend a lot of time and effort extracting revenge from those he believes have crossed him. Fear of Trump's revenge is the primary source of his power. It's what he does.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Did Trump lie about winning the 2020 election?


We don’t know because no thorough investigations were conducted in key voting districts, and there was no way to turn back the clock and see the results had multiple states not broken their own election laws in an effort to get Biden elected.

No one can say who would have won the 2020 election, had it been fair, because laws were broken and the election was conducted in such a way that the results of a fair election can never be known.

That was done by design.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> We don’t know because no thorough investigations were conducted in key voting districts, and there was no way to turn back the clock and see the results had multiple states not broken their own election laws in an effort to get Biden elected.
> 
> No one can say who would have won the 2020 election, had it been fair, because laws were broken and the election was conducted in such a way that the results of a fair election can never be known.
> 
> That was done by design.


You don't know because it did not happen. The election was fair and all those conservatives that won their seats know it was.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Nonsense. If Trump is re-elected he will spend a lot of time and effort extracting revenge from those he believes have crossed him. Fear of Trump's revenge is the primary source of his power. It's what he does.


He didn’t go after Obama and Clinton when he won the first time. If he had, properly, the results of 2020 probably would have been different.

If Trump had fired every employee of the DOJ the day he took office, and built it back without the corruption, we’d have seen both Obama and Clinton in cuffs for all the laws they broke in office.

Instead, one planned result of Obama and Clinton’s plot against candidate-Trump was that there was an “ongoing investigation” for nearly his entire presidency, and he couldn’t tear down the DOJ without creating a cloud that he was trying to hide his own crimes.

In fact, we listed to you, in this very forum, tell us _to “let there be no doubt that Trump will fire soandso next week_” for four solid years- and, yet, it never happened. Your television, and your willingness to do, say, and think everything it tells you made you part of the conspiracy.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> You don't know because it did not happen. The election was fair and all those conservatives that won their seats know it was.


The 2020 election was a lot of things, and Biden may have legitimately won it, but the one thing it wasn’t was “fair”.

Here is a (partial) list of the irregularities alleged in the 2020 election, none disproven:

Illegal use of absentee ballots, including dead voters, back-dating and double-voting.
Opposition observers kicked out of vote counting stations.
North Korean-style turnout in areas where one candidate earned 98-100% of votes.
Mobile ballot box fraud and ballot harvesting.
Computer data “glitches” that only benefited one candidate.
All those things happened, either in mass or as exceptions in our election, except that list is from a US Department of State assessment of the 2004 Ukrainian election, which the DOS rejected.




__





Ukraine's Election: Next Steps







2001-2009.state.gov





Couple all of that with states that broke their own election laws, and a media and big-tech that conspired to hide the Hunter-Laptop story until after the election, and the election we held in November of 2020 was anything but “fair”.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The 2020 election was a lot of things, and Biden may have legitimately won it, but the one thing it wasn’t was “fair”.
> 
> Here is a (partial) list of the irregularities alleged in the 2020 election, none disproven:
> 
> ...


No election fraud has been proven to be done in numbers that would change Biden's win. You can't even prove that if they did happen they would have not been done to help Trump.

Biden won. Many conservatives in the same areas won. It was fair and taken to the courts where conservatives threw everything they could at the wall and could not back up any of it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Many conservatives in the same areas won. It was fair and taken to the courts where conservatives threw everything they could at the wall and could not back up any of it.


When I used to sneak cookies as a kid, I would take only even numbers. That way it would avoid suspicion that even any cookies were taken.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> When I used to sneak cookies as a kid, I would take only even numbers. That way it would avoid suspicion that even any cookies were taken.


Well my Mom was smart enough to count the cookies when she figured out they were being sneaked.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> He didn’t go after Obama and Clinton when he won the first time. If he had, properly, the results of 2020 probably would have been different.
> 
> If Trump had fired every employee of the DOJ the day he took office, and built it back without the corruption, we’d have seen both Obama and Clinton in cuffs for all the laws they broke in office.
> 
> ...


Trump doesn't go after democrats. He understands that democrats are on the other side, so he expects opposition. But being crossed by a republican, or worse yet an appointee, he'll be looking for revenge. Trump took Jeff Sessions from being one of the most powerful men in the country to not even able to get his old senate seat back. Barr and Pence have yet to be targeted, but will if either of them try for public life again.

Revenge isn't just something he enjoys doing, although he seems to like bragging about it. It's something he has to do. Without the fear of revenge he has no power. In other words, Trump HAS TO extract revenge. Trump's political life is modeled after New York mob bosses of the past. And Trump seems to be pretty good at it. 'm just surprised that no republican has figured out a way to beat him at his own game. Who knows, maybe Liz Cheney has a plan.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Trump doesn't go after democrats. He understands that democrats are on the other side, so he expects opposition. But being crossed by a republican, or worse yet an appointee, he'll be looking for revenge. Trump took Jeff Sessions from being one of the most powerful men in the country to not even able to get his old senate seat back. Barr and Pence have yet to be targeted, but will if either of them try for public life again.
> 
> Revenge isn't just something he enjoys doing, although he seems to like bragging about it. It's something he has to do. Without the fear of revenge he has no power. In other words, Trump HAS TO extract revenge. Trump's political life is modeled after New York mob bosses of the past. And Trump seems to be pretty good at it. 'm just surprised that no republican has figured out a way to beat him at his own game. Who knows, maybe Liz Cheney has a plan.


You have it bad.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Well my Mom was smart enough to count the cookies when she figured out they were being sneaked.


You missed point. On purpose I think.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> The only traitor to this country is Trump and his cronies trying to steal an election he lost.


You might have a valid point. Election stealing attempts are being done in a variety of ways. Allowing illegal aliens to vote on state and lower elections is one way. Allowing illegal aliens into the country for long terms is another, as their offspring start voting.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> Sure, like brushing off the pandemic as not a big deal, tax cuts for the wealthy, and separating children from their parents at the border. Of course if you liked those things you see it differently. But still, he holds the distinction of being impeached more times than any other US president.
> 
> History won't be kind to him, and he's not done yet. Today, historians say his presidency will be defined by his disastrous handling of the pandemic, but I believe that when all is said and done his quest to overturn the 2020 election will define his presidency.


As time has proven the general methods attempted for pandemic prevention has proven to be a waste of time. Not to mention the results of the efforts. Especially by the administration currently in power. 

No families separated if they do not come. It’s just that simple. 

On another note, what makes you think that the separations are not desired ?


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

Would it not be more productive to discuss the failure of our present government and the ramifications of it's effects on our society here?

Saying the same stuff back and forth about the past that will not change, while helpful with dealing with the frustration of a corrupt government, doesn't help our future.

the present administration wants to fundamentally change our way of life, and we have no say in it.

Two more states, pack the Supreme Court, inflation, recession. Has anyone looked into Camalea's 🐫 eyes when she talks her word salads? Is she high? Joe doesn't blink.

What the hell is going on?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> Would it not be more productive to discuss the failure of our present government and the ramifications of it's effects on our society here?


But it's a thread about the J6 hearings.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

Nevada said:


> But it's a thread about the J6 hearings.


true, but 35 pages, is that a record?

My point is We Have Problems, where do we go from here?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> true, but 35 pages, is that a record?
> 
> My point is We Have Problems, where do we go from here?


Maybe that is a separate thread.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> Would it not be more productive to discuss the failure of our present government and the ramifications of it's effects on our society here?


Judging by the many many threads discussing that, no it's not more productive. None of this is particularly productive, it's just chat. We're not solving the world's problems here. Occasionally, we learn a thing or two along the way.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Did Trump lie about winning the 2020 election?


Can't or won't answer the questions posed to you?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Can't or won't answer the questions posed to you?


Why bother you are just trying to respond to a post I made about Trump and his cronies lies by saying others lie instead of admitting in the first place the reality of Trump's big lie. You are the one trying to change the topic.  How about you deal with my post first. Will you or won't you?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> No election fraud has been proven to be done in numbers that would change Biden's win. You can't even prove that if they did happen they would have not been done to help Trump.
> 
> Biden won. Many conservatives in the same areas won. It was fair and taken to the courts where conservatives threw everything they could at the wall and could not back up any of it.


The one nice thing about the idea of Biden’s election being valid is that I can set back and have a laugh at every single person that voted for him and thus are partly responsible for this mess our current economy is in and the horrible national worldwide standings we now have.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Redlands Okie said:


> The one nice thing about the idea of Biden’s election being valid is that I can set back and have a laugh at every single person that voted for him and thus are partly responsible for this mess our current economy is in and the horrible national worldwide standings we now have.


There are plenty of outspoken liberals; not so many that I can find claiming they voted for their current leader. None I can find with a bumper sticker, hat, yard sign or Kamala t shirt.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

He is not in his right mind. Suing for defamation when his children and his WhiteHouse staff have testified under oath that he has been repeatedly told he lost and there was no widespread fraud.





__





Loading…






news.yahoo.com







Former President Donald Trump said in a statement Wednesday that he had notified CNN he was intending to file a defamation lawsuit against the news outlet for its refusal to back his discredited claims that election fraud accounted for his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential race.
“I have notified CNN of my intent to file a lawsuit over their repeated defamatory statements against me,” Trump's statement said. “I will also be commencing actions against other media outlets who have defamed me and defrauded the public regarding the overwhelming evidence of fraud throughout the 2020 election.”


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> He is not in his right mind.


He is living in yours.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> He is living in yours.


If that makes you happy to believe that then go for it. I wonder why conservatives here won't admit to his lies and how that impacted Jan 6th.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I don't think you do.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Redlands Okie said:


> The one nice thing about the idea of Biden’s election being valid is that I can set back and have a laugh at every single person that voted for him and thus are partly responsible for this mess our current economy is in and the horrible national worldwide standings we now have.


Now, THAT is a silver lining.

Thank for that, Red.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> The one nice thing about the idea of Biden’s election being valid is that I can set back and have a laugh at every single person that voted for him


My vote wasn't so much a vote for Biden as it was a vote against Trump.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> My vote wasn't so much a vote for Biden as it was a vote against Trump.


Why do you hate him so much?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Why bother you are just trying to respond to a post I made about Trump and his cronies lies by saying others lie instead of admitting in the first place the reality of Trump's big lie. You are the one trying to change the topic.  How about you deal with my post first. Will you or won't you?


Here's my answer....so what! Now answer my question. Bet you won't. The games you play are really really stupid. Biden is the biggest liar of them all. What's really sad is that he is so clueless, he doesn't even know what he's talking about most of the time. But you love him.....says a lot about you.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

JeffreyD said:


> Why do you hate him so much?


He was told to.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Hiro said:


> He was told to.


That's the only thing that makes sense!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Here's my answer....so what! Now answer my question. Bet you won't. The games you play are really really stupid. Biden is the biggest liar of them all. What's really sad is that he is so clueless, he doesn't even know what he's talking about most of the time. But you love him.....says a lot about you.


So what. That is your answer. Mine as well. The only thing I love about Biden is he beat Trump and how much conservatives hate that.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> So what. That is your answer. Mine as well. The only thing I love about Biden is he beat Trump and how much conservatives hate that.


Hating the country that much that allowed you in speaks volumes.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Hating the country that much that allowed you in speaks volumes.


I don't hate this country. Not one bit.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I don't hate this country. Not one bit.


Your posts tell a different tale.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> So what. That is your answer. Mine as well. The only thing I love about Biden is he beat Trump and how much conservatives hate that.


Biden didn’t beat Trump.
The media cabal, in conspiracy with the Branch Covidians within the deep-state, and the leftists state-level judiciaries who allowed their own state election laws to be broken, unchecked, beat Trump.

In fact, if you want to send some “love” to the single person most responsible for Biden’s “victory”, send your best twerking selfie to Jack Dorsey.

…oh, wait… you have dutifully taken up camp against Elon Musk, haven’t you? Well, then, carry-on, Comrade.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Your posts tell a different tale.


Your bias is what makes you think that.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Your bias is what makes you think that.


Your posting history is what makes me know that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Your posting history is what makes me know that.


Well, you also believe Trump won .


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Why do you hate him so much?


It's not a question of hate. It's a question of abuse of power.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Nevada said:


> It's not a question of hate. It's a question of abuse of power.


You’re talking about when Obama and Clinton weaponized the USDOJ against an opposition-party candidate, right?

I agree fully. That was a heinous abuse of power, and I hate that we let our ruling class get away with crap like that.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> In fact, if you want to send some “love” to the single person most responsible for Biden’s “victory”, send your best twerking selfie to Jack Dorsey.


Either I missed it or I've forgotten...how was Dorsey responsible?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

ryanthomas said:


> Either I missed it or I've forgotten...how was Dorsey responsible?







__





Loading…






news.yahoo.com





Twitter is the brainlessest of the brainlessness that is social media, but it serves as the pivot point for all other social media. When Dorsey killed the Hunter’s Laptop story, it essentially kept it out of FB and IG as well.

They knew that Biden could never be elected if the public found out that Hunter had been employed as a washing machine for the foreign money Joe Biden (“the Big Guy”) was grifting as his actual compensation for making it all the way to VPOTUS, and that it would prevent him from beating the bad orange man, so they called it Russian-meddling and fake news until they could drag Joe Biden’s walking-braindead corpse across the finish line.

That reduced the number of votes they had to create after they stopped the counting on election night, and, once Joe was installed as “president”, they no longer needed to hide that story, so it was allowed to come out.

Now, the story of Hunter’s laptop only serves as a contingency plan in the event that Joe won’t get out of the way in time for them to install their next sock-puppet in his place.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh yeah, I did forget that. Dorsey doesn't seem like the type who would have made that decision himself, but he was in charge when it happened, so I guess it does fall on him.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

ryanthomas said:


> Oh yeah, I did forget that. Dorsey doesn't seem like the type who would have made that decision himself, but he was in charge when it happened, so I guess it does fall on him.


You’ll note that he conveniently gave up his control of Twitter roughly half-way in between them shamelessly spiking the laptop story and Musk making his play to buy Twitter. That timing is interesting, to say the least.

But I get your point that he probably didn’t make that decision for himself. These people don’t tend to think for themselves. It all trickles downhill, most likely from Klaus Schwab… or whoever tells him what to think.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He wasn't elected the first time.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You’ll note that he conveniently gave up his control of Twitter roughly half-way in between them shamelessly spiking the laptop story and Musk making his play to buy Twitter. That timing is interesting, to say the least.


Yeah, and Dorsey encouraged Musk to buy Twitter.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

ryanthomas said:


> Yeah, and Dorsey encouraged Musk to buy Twitter.


Is that so? I hadn’t read that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> My vote wasn't so much a vote for Biden as it was a vote against Trump.


And here we are.

Our international standing has never been lower. Our debt has never been higher. Our confidence in DC has never been lower.

We have you to thank for that.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

It seems to me that the jist of the Jan 6th circus is that President Trump is not allowed what every other person in tis country is allowed: An opinion, and the question the conclusions of others.

As in, we (the liberals) can question everything down to what sex you are, but NO!, you cannot even ask for a person to identify themselves...


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

HDRider said:


> And here we are.
> 
> Our international standing has never been lower. Our debt has never been higher. Our confidence in DC has never been lower.
> 
> We have you to thank for that.


A Prez with dementia, and a VP & Leader of the house, that seem to have a drinking or drug problem. Oh, and than there is Chucky, the voice of death.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> A Prez with dementia, and a VP & Leader of the house, that seem to have a drinking or drug problem. Oh, and than there is Chucky, the voice of death.


The list is endless. Joe and @Nevada got us here


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> My vote wasn't so much a vote for Biden as it was a vote against Trump.


WOW! I have never considered voting against a candidate I didn't want! You are a trailblazer!


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Is that so? I hadn’t read that.


Yeah, Dorsey didn't like the censorship and was at war with his board of directors. He and Musk have been friends for years, and he was kind of pulling strings behind the scenes and making public comments to try to get the takeover in motion.

Still interesting background even now that it has fallen apart: How Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey aligned behind Twitter deal


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> So what. That is your answer. Mine as well. The only thing I love about Biden is he beat Trump and how much conservatives hate that.





Nevada said:


> It's not a question of hate. It's a question of abuse of power.


No, it's not. In your case it's pure hate. You dismiss anything Obama did, even when it's blatantly un constitutional. You dismissed the fact that Biden lied and left our people to die in Afghanistan. If what you said was true, you'd be all over Biden and his kid for the collusion they are part of...but all we get is ....
Silence...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> No, it's not. In your case it's pure hate. You dismiss anything Obama did, even when it's blatantly un constitutional. You dismissed the fact that Biden lied and left our people to die in Afghanistan. If what you said was true, you'd be all over Biden and his kid for the collusion they are part of...but all we get is ....
> Silence...


Telling lies about me just reflects badly on you.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Telling lies about me just reflects badly on you.


I could care less what you think. That response was to Nevada, not sure how I quoted your post there. But it does indeed apply to you too. The hate is strong in you. Not a lie, just a fact. Prove me wrong. Also, since you responded here, you didn't answer my question, I answered yours?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Telling lies about me just reflects badly on you.


Which part is the lie?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I can't leave this forum for even a minute without a hate & discontentment melt-down. Sheesh!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I can't leave this forum for even a minute without a hate & discontentment melt-down. Sheesh!


I am showing some uncharacteristic restraint right now


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I can't leave this forum for even a minute without a hate & discontentment melt-down. Sheesh!


You lead by example!! TDS...


----------

