Jan 6 committee

126,953 Views | 3026 Replies | Last: 5 mo ago by Harrison Bergeron
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:09p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 1:09p, 6/29/22
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Aiding for what?
Reply Quote
1
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 1:11p, 6/29/22
Doc Holliday said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.
If everything is damning and as bad as you say, why haven't they pulled the trigger?
It's not their place. They're legislators, not enforcers.
Reply Quote
william
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:11p, 6/29/22
the SPAM (low) bar.

Appears to be the limit.

Ham, yes.

SPAM, no.

- KKM
Go Bears!
Reply Quote
1
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 1:12p, 6/29/22
RMF5630 said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Aiding for what?


Right. Congressional hearings are supposed to be about the legislative process not looking for evidence of crimes.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 1:16p, 6/29/22
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.
For what? What charges could you get a Grand Jury to indict Trump? Throwing a plate at a wall? Not believing the election? Telling the demonstrators to fight harder and to demonstrate peacefully? What has this shown that hasn't been scrutinized over the last 16 months?
You insist on reducing it to plate-throwing and pouting, but there are more serious implications. As an example already cited, aiding and abetting the forcible intimidation of government officials.
Reply Quote
3
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 1:20p, 6/29/22
He Hate Me said:
RMF5630 said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Aiding for what?


Right. Congressional hearings are supposed to be about the legislative process not looking for evidence of crimes.
Investigating illegal or unconstitutional conduct in the executive branch is part of Congress' oversight power.
Reply Quote
Golem
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:20p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.
For what? What charges could you get a Grand Jury to indict Trump? Throwing a plate at a wall? Not believing the election? Telling the demonstrators to fight harder and to demonstrate peacefully? What has this shown that hasn't been scrutinized over the last 16 months?
You insist on reducing it to plate-throwing and pouting, but there are more serious implications. As an example already cited, aiding and abetting the forcible intimidation of government officials.


And getting peed on by Russian prostitutes. And Russian collusion. And a whole host of other things fabricated by leftists like yourself.

I do like how you hang your hat on "implications". At least you admit obliquely that you have nothing, even if it wasn't intentional.
Reply Quote
2
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Golem • 1:24p, 6/29/22
Golem said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.
For what? What charges could you get a Grand Jury to indict Trump? Throwing a plate at a wall? Not believing the election? Telling the demonstrators to fight harder and to demonstrate peacefully? What has this shown that hasn't been scrutinized over the last 16 months?
You insist on reducing it to plate-throwing and pouting, but there are more serious implications. As an example already cited, aiding and abetting the forcible intimidation of government officials.


And getting peed on by Russian prostitutes. And Russian collusion. And a whole host of other things fabricated by leftists like yourself.

I do like how you hang your hat on "implications". At least you admit obliquely that you have nothing, even if it wasn't intentional.
It's a technical term. There are laws implicated, or necessarily involved, by the conduct.
Reply Quote
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:26p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Calls to the character of the witness, she can't remember if she wrote a note or not that is not even her handwriting.. but she recalls these other events with Crystal clarity and is totally believable..
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Reply Quote
2
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 1:29p, 6/29/22
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Calls to the character of the witness, she can't remember if she wrote a note or not that is not even her handwriting.. but she recalls these other events with Crystal clarity and is totally believable..
Could be the first time a witness ever got anything wrong. As a lawyer I know I'm flabbergasted. But hey, at least it's not boring!
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:30p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
Anyone else noticed how the entire conversation on this thread is now about the one contested allegation that Trump tried to grab a steering wheel, which may be the least interesting part of the testimony, instead of the more damning and so far undisputed evidence that he incited violence and tried to obstruct justice?
the reason the Dems have put up hearsay evidence about Trump grabbing the steering wheel is to distract the entire national conversation away from the fact that here is affirmative evidence he did not incite violence, zero evidence he tried to obstruct justice, and an insurrection manifestly did not occur.

The J6 hearings have finally jumped the shark with the Hutchinson testimony. It's admittedly hearsay, but they want it on the record to drive the news cycle and get you & JR & Oso and CJ and all the neverTrumpers all fired up. Of course, the Twitter reports on SS agents denying Hutchinson's claims are also hearsay, but we will never hear those other sources on the witness stand, because the J6 committee is not allowing cross-examination or defense witness testimony.


To paraphrase: "I say this to my neverTrumper colleagues who are promoting the indefensible J6 show trials. There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain."

Figured that was worth repeating.
Most of it isn't hearsay, and besides this isn't a trial.

I wouldn't feel too sorry for the Republicans. They're getting a lot more mileage from crying about not being able to cross-examine than they would likely get from cross-examining.


LOL don't feel sorry for Republicans.

Feel sorry for you.
Reply Quote
2
GrowlTowel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:32p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
RMF5630 said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Aiding for what?


Right. Congressional hearings are supposed to be about the legislative process not looking for evidence of crimes.
Investigating illegal or unconstitutional conduct in the executive branch is part of Congress' oversight power.
Really? Where are the hearings about the invasion at the southern boarder incited by Brandon? Far more damaging to our Republic than throwing a plate.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Reply Quote
3
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GrowlTowel • 1:44p, 6/29/22
GrowlTowel said:
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
RMF5630 said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Aiding for what?


Right. Congressional hearings are supposed to be about the legislative process not looking for evidence of crimes.
Investigating illegal or unconstitutional conduct in the executive branch is part of Congress' oversight power.
Really? Where are the hearings about the invasion at the southern boarder incited by Brandon? Far more damaging to our Republic than throwing a plate.
I keep hearing about the southern boarder and am curious who this person is. Is he a native southerner or a tourist? Is he staying in a bed and breakfast? Did he break in and overpower the innkeeper, or just refuse to leave at check-out time?
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
whitetrash
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:58p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:


I keep hearing about the southern boarder and am curious who this person is. Is he a native southerner or a tourist? Is he staying in a bed and breakfast? Did he break in and overpower the innkeeper, or just refuse to leave at check-out time?
It's Colonel Angus.

Reply Quote
2
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:59p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.
For what? What charges could you get a Grand Jury to indict Trump? Throwing a plate at a wall? Not believing the election? Telling the demonstrators to fight harder and to demonstrate peacefully? What has this shown that hasn't been scrutinized over the last 16 months?
You insist on reducing it to plate-throwing and pouting, but there are more serious implications. As an example already cited, aiding and abetting the forcible intimidation of government officials.
No Sam. There isn't. EVERYTHING brought up is either 3rd party, what Trump felt about something or what Trump believed.

So far the actions that can be attributed to him or his Administration so far are:
  • He spoke to the crowds and told the to demonstrate peacefully (on tape)
  • Pence certified the election
  • He left for Mira Lago on January 20th
  • He did not pardon anyone involved with Jan 6th

Here is another example of this being a witch-hunt. Trump told SecDef to "take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings." Than when they did, said Trump was not in the decision. Come on. You may disagree with timing, you may disagree with method, but he clearly told him to support and defend. That doesn't count. Why? Because we disagree with how long it took. That is playing games, he told him days before Jan 6th. Sorry, any reasonable person would take that as he told them to prepare. Except Trump, nothing he does it right.

Reply Quote
2
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 2:01p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
RMF5630 said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Aiding for what?


Right. Congressional hearings are supposed to be about the legislative process not looking for evidence of crimes.
Investigating illegal or unconstitutional conduct in the executive branch is part of Congress' oversight power.
Yeaaahhhh, if only Trump were still President.

Uh, Sam, I am gonna need you to put the new coversheet on your TPS reports from now on.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 2:26p, 6/29/22
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.
Reply Quote
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 2:26p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Calls to the character of the witness, she can't remember if she wrote a note or not that is not even her handwriting.. but she recalls these other events with Crystal clarity and is totally believable..
Could be the first time a witness ever got anything wrong. As a lawyer I know I'm flabbergasted. But hey, at least it's not boring!
i'm not sure I've ever struggled recall what my own handwriting looks like but hey the lawyer said its cool everybody!
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Reply Quote
3
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 2:27p, 6/29/22
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
RMF5630 said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Aiding for what?


Right. Congressional hearings are supposed to be about the legislative process not looking for evidence of crimes.
Investigating illegal or unconstitutional conduct in the executive branch is part of Congress' oversight power.
Yeaaahhhh, if only Trump were still President.

Uh, Sam, I am gonna need you to put the new coversheet on your TPS reports from now on.
It's not an investigation of Trump per se.
Reply Quote
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 2:29p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
RMF5630 said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Aiding for what?


Right. Congressional hearings are supposed to be about the legislative process not looking for evidence of crimes.
Investigating illegal or unconstitutional conduct in the executive branch is part of Congress' oversight power.
Yeaaahhhh, if only Trump were still President.

Uh, Sam, I am gonna need you to put the new coversheet on your TPS reports from now on.
It's not an investigation of Trump per se.
Rrrriiiiiigggghhhhhttttt!
Reply Quote
2
ScottS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:32p, 6/29/22
Russians peeing on a bed. Russian hookers grabbing the wheel. Are the dems looking into all of this??
Reply Quote
1
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ScottS • 2:34p, 6/29/22
ScottS said:
Russians peeing on a bed. Russian hookers grabbing the wheel. Are the dems looking into all of this??
If the J6 Committee was looking into these things, then at this point it would have plausible deniability that its investigation is about Trump per se.
Reply Quote
1
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wrecks Quan Dough • 2:37p, 6/29/22
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
RMF5630 said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Aiding for what?


Right. Congressional hearings are supposed to be about the legislative process not looking for evidence of crimes.
Investigating illegal or unconstitutional conduct in the executive branch is part of Congress' oversight power.
Yeaaahhhh, if only Trump were still President.

Uh, Sam, I am gonna need you to put the new coversheet on your TPS reports from now on.
It's not an investigation of Trump per se.
Rrrriiiiiigggghhhhhttttt!
RMF wanted to talk about standards of proof, so we did. You wanted to get technical about oversight, so we did that too. Y'all can keep trying. Or better yet, call Trump's lawyers and let them know this whole thing is unconstitutional. I'm sure they'll be glad to find out!
Reply Quote
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 2:38p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
RMF5630 said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Aiding for what?


Right. Congressional hearings are supposed to be about the legislative process not looking for evidence of crimes.
Investigating illegal or unconstitutional conduct in the executive branch is part of Congress' oversight power.
Yeaaahhhh, if only Trump were still President.

Uh, Sam, I am gonna need you to put the new coversheet on your TPS reports from now on.
It's not an investigation of Trump per se.
Rrrriiiiiigggghhhhhttttt!
RMF wanted to talk about standards of proof, so we did. You wanted to get technical about oversight, so we did that too. Y'all can keep trying. Or better yet, call Trump's lawyers and let them know this whole thing is unconstitutional. I'm sure they'll be glad to find out!
This is not anymore about oversight of the executive branch than if Congress was still investigating about cigars and blue dresses.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 2:39p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.
Didn't Trump tell the SS to confiscate weapons before letting them in and he wasn't concerned for his safety? Where is the illegal part? Telling them to get rid of the mags is illegal how? I am missing the point of this blockbuster testimony. Where does he say take away the mags so the weapons will be used to storm Congress and overthrow the Govt?? I am missing that. It was his rally.

If they wanted to arrest people with weapons why didn't law enforcement. What are the gun laws in DC? Did they have conceal & carry licenses. Still not seeing the conspiracy to overthrow the Govt.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 2:44p, 6/29/22
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.
Didn't Trump tell the SS to confiscate weapons before letting them in and he wasn't concerned for his safety? Where is the illegal part? Telling them to get rid of the mags is illegal how? I am missing the point of this blockbuster testimony. Where does he say take away the mags so the weapons will be used to storm Congress and overthrow the Govt?? I am missing that. It was his rally.

If they wanted to arrest people with weapons why didn't law enforcement. What are the gun laws in DC? Did they have conceal & carry licenses. Still not seeing the conspiracy to overthrow the Govt.
Magnetometers. He wanted them to stop confiscating the weapons.
Reply Quote
GrowlTowel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 2:44p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
GrowlTowel said:
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
RMF5630 said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Aiding for what?


Right. Congressional hearings are supposed to be about the legislative process not looking for evidence of crimes.
Investigating illegal or unconstitutional conduct in the executive branch is part of Congress' oversight power.
Really? Where are the hearings about the invasion at the southern boarder incited by Brandon? Far more damaging to our Republic than throwing a plate.
I keep hearing about the southern boarder and am curious who this person is. Is he a native southerner or a tourist? Is he staying in a bed and breakfast? Did he break in and overpower the innkeeper, or just refuse to leave at check-out time?
It's fun when people think themselves to be clever.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Reply Quote
2
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GrowlTowel • 2:46p, 6/29/22
GrowlTowel said:
Sam Lowry said:
GrowlTowel said:
Sam Lowry said:
He Hate Me said:
RMF5630 said:
He Hate Me said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Sam, I am talking legal burden of proof. If this Commission is going through this on TV without any standard but the slandering of the Trump Administration, than it is a political hatchet-chop that should have a disclaimer on it. So far all this Commission has done is say, see what an ******* Donald Trump is don't vote for him.

There has to be some standard of proof for this to mean anything, at least an impeachment that is a political event has a vote on the other side and the accused is allowed to defend themselves. This has neither and now we are being told that there really isn't a legal or Grand Jury level of burden on the Government. See the problem?
As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.


I thought this was about aiding the legislative process.
Aiding for what?


Right. Congressional hearings are supposed to be about the legislative process not looking for evidence of crimes.
Investigating illegal or unconstitutional conduct in the executive branch is part of Congress' oversight power.
Really? Where are the hearings about the invasion at the southern boarder incited by Brandon? Far more damaging to our Republic than throwing a plate.
I keep hearing about the southern boarder and am curious who this person is. Is he a native southerner or a tourist? Is he staying in a bed and breakfast? Did he break in and overpower the innkeeper, or just refuse to leave at check-out time?
It's fun when people think themselves to be clever.
Sorry, but I'm fresh out of anal sex jokes.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 2:49p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.
Didn't Trump tell the SS to confiscate weapons before letting them in and he wasn't concerned for his safety? Where is the illegal part? Telling them to get rid of the mags is illegal how? I am missing the point of this blockbuster testimony. Where does he say take away the mags so the weapons will be used to storm Congress and overthrow the Govt?? I am missing that. It was his rally.

If they wanted to arrest people with weapons why didn't law enforcement. What are the gun laws in DC? Did they have conceal & carry licenses. Still not seeing the conspiracy to overthrow the Govt.
Magnetometers. He wanted them to stop confiscating the weapons.
I got that. Was that his call?

I am seeing a lot of he said this, so he must have wanted that speculation.

He said he wanted more at his rally, totally consistent with his narcissit personality. I see him asking to let more in so he gets the number he wants.

What I don't see is how his asking to remove the mags is illegal. The jump from he wants a bigger crowd for his ego becomes a coup to overthrow the Govt.

He is an *******, no argument.
Reply Quote
TWD 1974
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 2:50p, 6/29/22
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.
Didn't Trump tell the SS to confiscate weapons before letting them in and he wasn't concerned for his safety? Where is the illegal part? Telling them to get rid of the mags is illegal how? I am missing the point of this blockbuster testimony. Where does he say take away the mags so the weapons will be used to storm Congress and overthrow the Govt?? I am missing that. It was his rally.

If they wanted to arrest people with weapons why didn't law enforcement. What are the gun laws in DC? Did they have conceal & carry licenses. Still not seeing the conspiracy to overthrow the Govt.
mags = magnetometers, supposed to scan everyone coming into the ellipse. Trump wanted them removed as not enough people were coming into the ellipse, apparently many of the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys were staying on the outside, avoiding being checked. We can only assume there were loaded up with coins for the laundry after the event. Not only did he not order secret service to confiscate, he still wanted the magnetometers taken away after being told they had located AR-15s and other weapons in the crowd outside the ellipse. His response, reportedly, "Do you think they're going to shoot me?"
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TWD 1974 • 3:13p, 6/29/22
TWD 74 said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.
Didn't Trump tell the SS to confiscate weapons before letting them in and he wasn't concerned for his safety? Where is the illegal part? Telling them to get rid of the mags is illegal how? I am missing the point of this blockbuster testimony. Where does he say take away the mags so the weapons will be used to storm Congress and overthrow the Govt?? I am missing that. It was his rally.

If they wanted to arrest people with weapons why didn't law enforcement. What are the gun laws in DC? Did they have conceal & carry licenses. Still not seeing the conspiracy to overthrow the Govt.
mags = magnetometers, supposed to scan everyone coming into the ellipse. Trump wanted them removed as not enough people were coming into the ellipse, apparently many of the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys were staying on the outside, avoiding being checked. We can only assume there were loaded up with coins for the laundry after the event. Not only did he not order secret service to confiscate, he still wanted the magnetometers taken away after being told they had located AR-15s and other weapons in the crowd outside the ellipse. His response, reportedly, "Do you think they're going to shoot me?"
I agree. He wanted numbers for his rally.

Where I am having trouble with this whole thing is the jump to him being the mastermind behind the Congress break in and the insurrection/coup against the Govt.

I will be first to say, ******* and wanted to stroke his ego with big numbers. I am not seeing the overthrow the Govt and attack on "our democracy". I see an egotistical *******, sore loser. A lot of undesirable traits, but nothing criminal. Even asking to remove mags, they said no, right? It was illegal to ask?
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 3:14p, 6/29/22
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
RMF5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.
Didn't Trump tell the SS to confiscate weapons before letting them in and he wasn't concerned for his safety? Where is the illegal part? Telling them to get rid of the mags is illegal how? I am missing the point of this blockbuster testimony. Where does he say take away the mags so the weapons will be used to storm Congress and overthrow the Govt?? I am missing that. It was his rally.

If they wanted to arrest people with weapons why didn't law enforcement. What are the gun laws in DC? Did they have conceal & carry licenses. Still not seeing the conspiracy to overthrow the Govt.
Magnetometers. He wanted them to stop confiscating the weapons.
What I don't see is how his asking to remove the mags is illegal. The jump from he wants a bigger crowd for his ego becomes a coup to overthrow the Govt.
Well, it was that and then also the fact there was this coup a little while later. Tends to raise suspicions.
Reply Quote
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 4:55p, 6/29/22
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.
Like this?

Reply Quote
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 5:05p, 6/29/22
Doc Holliday said:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.
Like this?

No, that's hearsay.
Reply Quote
1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.