Q?
Jan 6 committee
126,947 Views |
3026 Replies |
Last: 5 mo ago by Harrison Bergeron
First example: He did not agree with the election outcome. This shows motive on Trumps part. He had a desire to overturn the election.Guy Noir said:You make good points in your bullets, but the you discount the evidence as if it is not important. I think that is false.RMF5630 said:All your examples were or would have been (Nixon resigned) brought forward under a process that had rules and allowed for both sides to be told with a Judge (THE HEAD JUSTICE) to ensure protocol was followed. This is NOT THAT!!! That is the problem, there are no rules and Liz Cheney is the Judge!Osodecentx said:No, they wouldn't charge him and IMO, they shouldn't. Nixon wasn't prosecuted, H Clinton wasn't prosecuted, B. Clinton wasn't prosecuted. We are divided enough. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
I'm not mad about the time frame. The whole thing is a non-issue that's been played up to distract from the evidence.
What evidence? Evidence of what??? We have a lot of hear say, speculation and interpretation. If there was evidence, they would charge him.
If you don't see evidence, I can't help you.
Evidence of what? You guys keep saying evidence, Then, we discuss everything under the sun up to and including Trump's lunch!As I said, I am not seeing evidence to warrant this fiasco. Personally, I think he is political poison and if I were a Republican I would not want him as the nominee. But, banned for life or jail over what we have heard or seen? No way. .
- He did not agree with the election outcome (Ok, he is a sore loser),
- Wanting the VP to reject the electors (which Pence did not do),
- He wanted to go to the Capitol (which I still don't see as how it is either a negative or positive),
- He wanted bigger crowds so he wanted mags turned off (they weren't, but massive ego. I get this one, it is a bad look but a non-issue nor illegal.),
- He threw his lunch when Barr told him there was no wide spread fraud (So, if throwing a tantrum when they get bad news was cause to not hold office 3/4s of "electeds" would be banned) point Trump,
- Response? Took too long? (Opinion, there is no definitive answer and there are points to be made on either side,)
First example: He did not agree with the election outcome. This shows motive on Trumps part. He had a desire to overturn the election.
Second Example: Wanting the VP to reject the electors. Whether Pense rejected the electors or not is on Pense. Asking Pense to do this was wrong in many ways. Trump was attempting to overturn the election. He was not successful in overturning the election, but he was trying to do something illegal.
Third example: He wanted bigger crowds so he wanted mags turned off. Turning the Mags off would have produced a vunerability that would allow weapons to be brought into the crowd.
Fourth example: Response? Took too long? Trump had encouraged this protest. When the protest went south, Congressional Members and staff were in a precarious situation. The USA people saw this on tv, but Trump was slow to take action to slow down a protest that had become a riot encouraged by him. I realize slow is a judgement call, but Trump was either very irresponsible, or he wanted some benefit from this riot.
Every loser of an election has a desire to overturn and win. Look at Gore! Look at Abrams! Look at H Clinton (of yeah, she never won)! On the day that mattered, Trump left peacefully and Biden took office.
Second Example: Wanting the VP to reject the electors. Whether Pense rejected the electors or not is on Pense. Asking Pense to do this was wrong in many ways. Trump was attempting to overturn the election. He was not successful in overturning the election, but he was trying to do something illegal.
Ok, this one is interesting. I don't find the Eastman path as insurrection or sedition. It was done before in the 1870's. Electors are challenged and there is a process for it. Trump wanting to pursue it after this election, I don't find offensive or illegal. There were significant rule changes and the pandemic allowed processes never allowed before. To question? I have no problem. I also believe Barr there was not enough fraud to change anything, but State process were not followed. Finally, Pence took in all the information, for and against, and certified. You keep downplaying that but Pence was Trump's VP, if not his VP he would not be President of the Senate. Trump's Administration hit every milestone on time, whether Donald agreed is irrelevant. Did his Administration save him from himself, absolutely. But, they still certified and they still left.
Third example: He wanted bigger crowds so he wanted mags turned off. Turning the Mags off would have produced a vunerability that would allow weapons to be brought into the crowd.
Once again, SS saving Trump from himself? Absolutely. But, it is not illegal to ask. Stupid? Sure. But when has that stopped politics?
Fourth example: Response? Took too long? Trump had encouraged this protest. When the protest went south, Congressional Members and staff were in a precarious situation. The USA people saw this on tv, but Trump was slow to take action to slow down a protest that had become a riot encouraged by him. I realize slow is a judgement call, but Trump was either very irresponsible, or he wanted some benefit from this riot.
Miller said Trump authorized him to take all steps to protect the demonstrators (under oath). If you want to go after Miller? Maybe, I guess? Although Miller said the Mayor did not want them there. Setting up one or two days before is much closer to how a Guard unit operates. They are not rapid response. I just don't see how Trump is to blame when there was a discussion before, he said to do what you need and there was coordination with the City with more than enough time to prepare. Trump can't do it for them. This isn't Jacksonian America!
The connecting pieces are missing from all the scenarios. There is nothing saying Trump colluted or worked with the Jan 6 rioters in advance. As long as that is not there. It is all speculation.
Biggest issue it the made for TV docu-drama that Liz is setting up. It is unfair and as such un-American. Even Trump deserves due process if he is accused.
Where I disagree with you is the very fact that a riot occurred inside the US Capitol Building on the very day the election results were to be ceritified. There is evidence that Trumps actions promoted this event. My question is: What should be done to prevent a future occurance of an event like this. Is it okay for a president to promote overturning an election in the future? What if that action turns into a riot?
I think the results of the committee should discourage future events of this type.
I think the results of the committee should discourage future events of this type.
Yes, and you fail to understand that applies to you.Guy Noir said:"There are none so blind as those that cannot see. "Oldbear83 said:If you see this crap show and think there is evidence there, God help you.Osodecentx said:No, they wouldn't charge him and IMO, they shouldn't. Nixon wasn't prosecuted, H Clinton wasn't prosecuted, B. Clinton wasn't prosecuted. We are divided enough. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
I'm not mad about the time frame. The whole thing is a non-issue that's been played up to distract from the evidence.
What evidence? Evidence of what??? We have a lot of hear say, speculation and interpretation. If there was evidence, they would charge him.
If you don't see evidence, I can't help you.
Little Donny Darkness - Butterflies are free
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I think the issue is more a security failure at the Capitol. Why was the security before something as "official" as the certification so light. Why was the Capitol closed? Why can't people watch? Maybe that would have created a situation where those that went nuts and rioted would have had a way to take part and the proper amount of security would be in place.Guy Noir said:
Where I disagree with you is the very fact that a riot occurred inside the US Capitol Building on the very day the election results were to be ceritified. There is evidence that Trumps actions promoted this event. My question is: What should be done to prevent a future occurance of an event like this. Is it okay for a president to promote overturning an election in the future? What if that action turns into a riot?
I think the results of the committee should discourage future events of this type.
You cannot set up a system where people can't peacefully demonstrate at the Capitol, but it is ok to storm Kenosha and Seattle.
As I said, you may think Trump played a part. But, the linking evidence has not been provided and no matter how much you dislike him he is innocent until proven guilty. There is no link to him and the idiots that broke in. There is actually video and tweets of him calling for peaceful demonstrations. To just say, oh they don't count. Ban him. Is BS.
Guy Noir said:
Where I disagree with you is the very fact that a riot occurred inside the US Capitol Building on the very day the election results were to be ceritified. There is evidence that Trumps actions promoted this event. My question is: What should be done to prevent a future occurance of an event like this. Is it okay for a president to promote overturning an election in the future? What if that action turns into a riot?
I think the results of the committee should discourage future events of this type.
Fix the incompetence in the D.C. Metropolitan police department and the Capitol police?
[Capitol Police had not planned for a riot or attack. The Capitol Police Board consisting of the Architect of the Capitol, the House Sergeant at Arms, and the Senate Sergeant at Arms has the authority to request the National Guard to the Capitol but made the decision on January 3 not to do so. On January 6, USCP officers deployed without "less lethal" arms such as sting grenades.
-The Washington Post reported that the Capitol Police were caught off guard by an overwhelming crowd whose size more than doubled the FBI's prediction and that the police lacked enough personnel to immediately detain all the intruders; the Post further noted that "some officers were captured on video appearing to stand back as rioters streamed inside."
-Police units were not asked by management to bring protective equipment (such as gas masks) that were issued to them, which left officers ill-prepared to fend off the rioters.
-Prior to the storming of the Capitol, the barriers erected were low and most officers were in regular uniforms rather than riot gear, aimed at managing a protest rather than deterring an attack.
-Policing experts criticized the Capitol Police's preparation and initial response, saying the agency had underestimated the potential threat from Trump supporters, unwisely allowed rioters to gather on the Capitol steps, and failed to immediately arrest the rioters, or otherwise respond to the disorder, after the forced entry.
-Capitol police had been experiencing shortfalls in staffing and hiring for years leading up the events.
-Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who chairs a committee responsible for Capitol security, said Capitol Police chief Steven Sund lied to her before the event about the preparations he had made and the readiness of the National Guard. In a February 2021 confidence vote organized by the U.S. Capitol Police Labor Committee, the union representing Capitol Police officers, 92 percent voted that they had no confidence in Acting Chief Yogananda Pittman.]
Also, don't have the Capitol police open the doors?
Remember that the Capitol Police has a budget of more than $500 million dollars and 2,249 employees.
The D.C. Metro police department has a budget of $544 million and nearly 6,000 employees.
So more than a billion dollars a year budget money and getting close to 9,000 law enforcement personnel between those two agencies... all in a 60 square mile radius from the Capitol Complex. More than enough to police the 10-12,000 protestors there that day.
Plus D.C. National guard has 3,500 personnel.
A question that the committee will continue to avoid:
1. Why were more security measures not taken?
2. What did the 200+ FBI agents do during the protests?
3. Why did Ray Epps get a pass from prosecution?
1. Why were more security measures not taken?
2. What did the 200+ FBI agents do during the protests?
3. Why did Ray Epps get a pass from prosecution?
4. Why was unarmed woman shot in the neck?
There are links to the idiots.RMF5630 said:Guy Noir said:
Where I disagree with you is the very fact that a riot occurred inside the US Capitol Building on the very day the election results were to be ceritified. There is evidence that Trumps actions promoted this event. My question is: What should be done to prevent a future occurance of an event like this. Is it okay for a president to promote overturning an election in the future? What if that action turns into a riot?
I think the results of the committee should discourage future events of this type.
As I said, you may think Trump played a part. But, the linking evidence has not been provided and no matter how much you dislike him he is innocent until proven guilty. There is no link to him and the idiots that broke in. There is actually video and tweets of him calling for peaceful demonstrations. To just say, oh they don't count. Ban him. Is BS.
Everything happened precisely as Trump intended. The mob was supposed to march to the Capitol. It was supposed to stop the certification. Why would Trump call it off when it was doing exactly what he wanted it to do?
There was advanced planning of a major disruptive event on Jan. 6. Trump planned the "rally" on Jan 6. Rudy Giuliani, on Jan. 2, said that Jan. 6 was "going to be a great day" and that they're going to the Capitol. The lady organizing Stop the Steal said on Jan 5 that Trump would call for the mob to march on the Capitol.
There was advanced awareness within the White House and a lot of people in the White House were worried.
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed. Tony Ornato mentioned Trump's awareness that they had knives, guns, body armor, and spears. Trump was furious that the enclosure where people could come hear his speech wasn't full. Trump said let's get rid of the magnetometers because "they're not here to hurt me." He's aware that they've got weapons and his reaction is, who cares?
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol. The mob actually launched its violent assault during and immediately after Trump's speech urging them to march to the Capitol.
Some offer the defense that Trump used words and tweets like march "peacefully and patriotically" and then later to "remain peaceful" and "stay peaceful." But that's not all he said or did. He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
If Trump truly wanted only a "peaceful" protest, why did he passively allow the violence to unfold? Why was it ultimately up to Mike Pence to skip the chain of command and call out the National Guard? These statements were backed up with testimony from Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, who said that Pence told Pentagon leaders to "get the Guard down here, put down this situation."
Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard on Jan 6 and he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets."
I end where I started: everything happened precisely as Trump intended.
I will believe you are psychic when you win 3 lotto's in a row.
But pretending you speak for Trump's intentions is not going to fool anyone with an IQ above Schiff-level.
Just give it up, your lynch failed.
But pretending you speak for Trump's intentions is not going to fool anyone with an IQ above Schiff-level.
Just give it up, your lynch failed.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
And it was not even interesting. At least the first impeachment was watchable.Oldbear83 said:
Just give it up, your lynch failed.
If all those people told everybody in advance it was gonna be a massive protest that day at the capital, why was there no security for it?
Trump told them to have NG there, they didnt.. took until 3pm on Jan 6th to approve NG and start to mobilize them. Those orders had to come from others, not Trump. He had already done his part and pre approved them..
In an attempt to cancel out one opposing arguement, you end up proving another opposing arguement.
Trump told them to have NG there, they didnt.. took until 3pm on Jan 6th to approve NG and start to mobilize them. Those orders had to come from others, not Trump. He had already done his part and pre approved them..
In an attempt to cancel out one opposing arguement, you end up proving another opposing arguement.
“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.’ “
–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.’ “
She knows she won't win. She's only interested in trying to derail Trump if he's on the ballot.Redbrickbear said:
Oldbear83 said:Yes, and you fail to understand that applies to you.Guy Noir said:"There are none so blind as those that cannot see. "Oldbear83 said:If you see this crap show and think there is evidence there, God help you.Osodecentx said:No, they wouldn't charge him and IMO, they shouldn't. Nixon wasn't prosecuted, H Clinton wasn't prosecuted, B. Clinton wasn't prosecuted. We are divided enough. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
I'm not mad about the time frame. The whole thing is a non-issue that's been played up to distract from the evidence.
What evidence? Evidence of what??? We have a lot of hear say, speculation and interpretation. If there was evidence, they would charge him.
If you don't see evidence, I can't help you.
Little Donny Darkness - Butterflies are free
The argument that the folks you disagree "do not understand" is a weak argument. Especially when you dismiss information without presenting an alternative view.
Do you have an argument?Oldbear83 said:
I will believe you are psychic when you win 3 lotto's in a row.
But pretending you speak for Trump's intentions is not going to fool anyone with an IQ above Schiff-level.
Just give it up, your lynch failed.
I'm waiting for a link for any of the above.4th and Inches said:
If all those people told everybody in advance it was gonna be a massive protest that day at the capital, why was there no security for it? Trump did nothing
Trump told them to have NG there, No, he didn't
Those orders had to come from others, not Trump. Right, that's why his COS was concerned about others ordering the NG
He had already done his part and pre approved them..No, he didn't, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
Everything happened precisely as Trump intended. The mob was supposed to march to the Capitol. It was supposed to stop the certification. Why would Trump call it off when it was doing exactly what he wanted it to do?
“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.’ “
–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.’ “
I am in no way obliged to respond to a braying donkey, much less treat the malice of a bully as a valid argument deserving of respect.Guy Noir said:Oldbear83 said:Yes, and you fail to understand that applies to you.Guy Noir said:"There are none so blind as those that cannot see. "Oldbear83 said:If you see this crap show and think there is evidence there, God help you.Osodecentx said:No, they wouldn't charge him and IMO, they shouldn't. Nixon wasn't prosecuted, H Clinton wasn't prosecuted, B. Clinton wasn't prosecuted. We are divided enough. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
I'm not mad about the time frame. The whole thing is a non-issue that's been played up to distract from the evidence.
What evidence? Evidence of what??? We have a lot of hear say, speculation and interpretation. If there was evidence, they would charge him.
If you don't see evidence, I can't help you.
Little Donny Darkness - Butterflies are free
The argument that the folks you disagree "do not understand" is a weak argument. Especially when you dismiss information without presenting an alternative view.
You tried for months to sell a weak, stupid lie, and now you are mad the adults won't buy your crap.
Go suck a lemon.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Yes. A passe but relevant point:Osodecentx said:Do you have an argument?Oldbear83 said:
I will believe you are psychic when you win 3 lotto's in a row.
But pretending you speak for Trump's intentions is not going to fool anyone with an IQ above Schiff-level.
Just give it up, your lynch failed.
Trump is innocent until proven guilty, and nothing - at all - you and your shrieking malcontents have thrown out comes within miles of "proof".
Ergo, you have failed, and if you had any decency you would apologize and shut up. At the least a reasonable man would realize it is useless to keep up the charade.
Be better, or be Sam. Your choice.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Trump isn't on trial, ergo, no innocent until proven guilty. That would be in a criminal trial. The committee continues to find new evidence from Republicans who were in the Trump administrationOldbear83 said:Yes. A passe but relevant point:Osodecentx said:Do you have an argument?Oldbear83 said:
I will believe you are psychic when you win 3 lotto's in a row.
But pretending you speak for Trump's intentions is not going to fool anyone with an IQ above Schiff-level.
Just give it up, your lynch failed.
Trump is innocent until proven guilty, and nothing - at all - you and your shrieking malcontents have thrown out comes within miles of "proof".
Ergo, you have failed, and if you had any decency you would apologize and shut up. At the least a reasonable man would realize it is useless to keep up the charade.
Be better, or be Sam. Your choice.
Are we allowed to ask questions? I guess the Jan 6 Committee is getting close to the nerve.
Ah. No link and no argument4th and Inches said:
Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"
Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions
RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do
The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.
But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.
Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.
Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.
Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions
RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do
The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.
But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.
Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.
Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"
Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions
RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do
The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.
But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.
Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.
Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.
Do you have an argument?
Oso: "Trump isn't on trial"
Oh yes he is. The Democrats and RINOs have fashioned a fine Soviet Style kangaroo court.
Notice how they phrase everything as 'witness testimony', 'evidence', and if you don't do as they want, like Bannon you will be charged with 'contempt'.
This is absolutely a rigged trial, and only a very dishonest person would pretend otherwise.
Oh yes he is. The Democrats and RINOs have fashioned a fine Soviet Style kangaroo court.
Notice how they phrase everything as 'witness testimony', 'evidence', and if you don't do as they want, like Bannon you will be charged with 'contempt'.
This is absolutely a rigged trial, and only a very dishonest person would pretend otherwise.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Rawhide said:She knows she won't win. She's only interested in trying to derail Trump if he's on the ballot.Redbrickbear said:
She is thoroughly unlikable, smarmy and has a very cold disposition. Kinda the anti Bill Clinton.
She won't win a primary and won't garner over 5% in any individual primary. What a waste of time.
As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"
Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions
RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do
The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.
But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.
Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.
Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.
Do you have an argument?
The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Osodecentx said:Ah. No link and no argument4th and Inches said:
“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.’ “
–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.’ “
This is where the insanity is molded. Let's be incredibly frank here. If you actually think Trump intentionally left security levels low in order to facilitate a capital storming or insurrection, you are full on jumping the shark. The reason the mayor, Trump, Sec Def etc. didn't add security, nor did they even make the suggestion to the President to consider it is because everybody figured a crowd of mostly old farts would act appropriately. It didn't happen.Osodecentx said:I'm waiting for a link for any of the above.4th and Inches said:
If all those people told everybody in advance it was gonna be a massive protest that day at the capital, why was there no security for it? Trump did nothing
Trump told them to have NG there, No, he didn't
Those orders had to come from others, not Trump. Right, that's why his COS was concerned about others ordering the NG
He had already done his part and pre approved them..No, he didn't, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
Everything happened precisely as Trump intended. The mob was supposed to march to the Capitol. It was supposed to stop the certification. Why would Trump call it off when it was doing exactly what he wanted it to do?
If it were an insurrection it would have been more logical to have had a large NG or military presence. You can't control a mob. You can control a military unit.
A giant story of woven together sub texts, nefarious characters, sore losers, and true believers of Trump including Trump himself has emerged. And still at its basest level, it's a riot gone wrong. No one, not even Trump, thought it would go this sideways, although the egotistical SOB probably reveled in the fact he had people this worked up on his behalf and his political foes were experiencing a little "get back". But we've certainly micro analyzed each possible circumstance that could be framed to fit the narrative, not to mention not one defending witness has testified or presented evidence,
So I ask again. Are we done yet?
Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"
Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions
RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do
The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.
But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.
Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.
Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.
Do you have an argument?
The arguement is as clear as your evidence.
1) Attempting to validate or reject votes or electors is not illegal. It is an elemental part of the process.He Hate Me said:Did Q send you? Was this all part of the Master Plan?Guy Noir said:You make good points in your bullets, but the you discount the evidence as if it is not important. I think that is false.RMF5630 said:All your examples were or would have been (Nixon resigned) brought forward under a process that had rules and allowed for both sides to be told with a Judge (THE HEAD JUSTICE) to ensure protocol was followed. This is NOT THAT!!! That is the problem, there are no rules and Liz Cheney is the Judge!Osodecentx said:No, they wouldn't charge him and IMO, they shouldn't. Nixon wasn't prosecuted, H Clinton wasn't prosecuted, B. Clinton wasn't prosecuted. We are divided enough. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
I'm not mad about the time frame. The whole thing is a non-issue that's been played up to distract from the evidence.
What evidence? Evidence of what??? We have a lot of hear say, speculation and interpretation. If there was evidence, they would charge him.
If you don't see evidence, I can't help you.
Evidence of what? You guys keep saying evidence, Then, we discuss everything under the sun up to and including Trump's lunch!As I said, I am not seeing evidence to warrant this fiasco. Personally, I think he is political poison and if I were a Republican I would not want him as the nominee. But, banned for life or jail over what we have heard or seen? No way. .
- He did not agree with the election outcome (Ok, he is a sore loser),
- Wanting the VP to reject the electors (which Pence did not do),
- He wanted to go to the Capitol (which I still don't see as how it is either a negative or positive),
- He wanted bigger crowds so he wanted mags turned off (they weren't, but massive ego. I get this one, it is a bad look but a non-issue nor illegal.),
- He threw his lunch when Barr told him there was no wide spread fraud (So, if throwing a tantrum when they get bad news was cause to not hold office 3/4s of "electeds" would be banned) point Trump,
- Response? Took too long? (Opinion, there is no definitive answer and there are points to be made on either side,)
First example: He did not agree with the election outcome. This shows motive on Trumps part. He had a desire to overturn the election.
Second Example: Wanting the VP to reject the electors. Whether Pense rejected the electors or not is on Pense. Asking Pense to do this was wrong in many ways. Trump was attempting to overturn the election. He was not successful in overturning the election, but he was trying to do something illegal.
Third example: He wanted bigger crowds so he wanted mags turned off. Turning the Mags off would have produced a vunerability that would allow weapons to be brought into the crowd.
Fourth example: Response? Took too long? Trump had encouraged this protest. When the protest went south, Congressional Members and staff were in a precarious situation. The USA people saw this on tv, but Trump was slow to take action to slow down a protest that had become a riot encouraged by him. I realize slow is a judgement call, but Trump was either very irresponsible, or he wanted some benefit from this riot.
2) Wanting bigger crowds at a political rally is something every politician wants at every rally.
3) Wanting easier rather than harder access to a political rally serves #2, not insurrection.
4a) Encouraging a protest is not an insurrection.
4b) Not trusting media coverage of what is happening is prudent, not insurrection.
4c) A delayed call for calm is still a call for calm, not a call for insurrection.
So much misinformation going on.......making completely outlandish statements which imply remedies that would be draconian restrictions on the 1st Amendment. The Insurrection Hoaxers are doing far more damage to the Republic than that which they rail against.
I agree.RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"
Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions
RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do
The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.
But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.
Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.
Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.
Do you have an argument?
The arguement is as clear as your evidence.
One area of interest to prosecutors was a Jan. 4, 2021, Oval Office meeting where conservative lawyer John Eastman pushed Mr. Pence, in Mr. Trump's presence, to either reject the electoral votes outright or suspend the proceedings and ask several state legislatures to re-examine the results.
Last month, Mr. Jacob testified at length before the Jan. 6 congressional committee about that meeting, which included Messrs. Trump, Pence, Short, Eastman and Jacob. During the meeting, Mr. Eastman admitted his proposals would violate the law but wanted to proceed anyway, Mr. Jacob said.
"During that meeting on the Fourth, I think I raised the problem that both of Mr. Eastman's proposals would violate several provisions of the Electoral Count Act. Mr. Eastman acknowledged that that was the case, that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions," Mr. Jacob told the committee.
A lawyer for Mr. Eastman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A federal judge last year found that Mr. Eastman and Mr. Trump "more likely than not" committed a felony in their efforts to block the 2020 election results.
Prosecutors also asked detailed questions about Rudy Giuliani, who forwarded to Mr. Pence's office letters from individual state legislators urging Mr. Pence to accept false slates of electors claiming Mr. Trump won from states he actually lost. A lawyer for Mr. Giuliani didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-questions-top-pence-aides-over-trump-bid-to-overturn-election-11658783628
You really seem to get into Cosplaying as the Red Queen.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Do you have an argument?Oldbear83 said:
You really seem to get into Cosplaying as the Red Queen.
I have no problem with Eastman doing that as an attorney for than President Trump. I also have no problem with Pence rejecting the strategy after talking to his counsel. I would also have no problem with the Supreme Court ruling on it if Pence did it. I do not see that as illegal, especially asking the State's to re-examine or confirm their Electors. This is politics, it has happened before and that is how questions are resolved and part of the design. In my opinion, the issue is that they moved Inauguration Day from March to January. That move, although decades ago, created the urgency as their is limited time to explore any of the legal questions.Osodecentx said:I agree.RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"
Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions
RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do
The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.
But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.
Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.
Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.
Do you have an argument?
The arguement is as clear as your evidence.
One area of interest to prosecutors was a Jan. 4, 2021, Oval Office meeting where conservative lawyer John Eastman pushed Mr. Pence, in Mr. Trump's presence, to either reject the electoral votes outright or suspend the proceedings and ask several state legislatures to re-examine the results.
Last month, Mr. Jacob testified at length before the Jan. 6 congressional committee about that meeting, which included Messrs. Trump, Pence, Short, Eastman and Jacob. During the meeting, Mr. Eastman admitted his proposals would violate the law but wanted to proceed anyway, Mr. Jacob said.
"During that meeting on the Fourth, I think I raised the problem that both of Mr. Eastman's proposals would violate several provisions of the Electoral Count Act. Mr. Eastman acknowledged that that was the case, that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions," Mr. Jacob told the committee.
A lawyer for Mr. Eastman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A federal judge last year found that Mr. Eastman and Mr. Trump "more likely than not" committed a felony in their efforts to block the 2020 election results.
Prosecutors also asked detailed questions about Rudy Giuliani, who forwarded to Mr. Pence's office letters from individual state legislators urging Mr. Pence to accept false slates of electors claiming Mr. Trump won from states he actually lost. A lawyer for Mr. Giuliani didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-questions-top-pence-aides-over-trump-bid-to-overturn-election-11658783628
I had no Problem with Gore and Bush. I have no problem with any of the questions of elections, that is how the system works. The Executive Branch makes a decision and the Supreme Court checks it against the Legislatures laws and the Constitution.
I have a BIG problem with short circuiting that process. I have a BIGGER problem with the Cheney Show trying to ban Trump from competing for asking questions that were within the process. I would have liked to see the Court rule on those issues, that would be interesting to determine if they are legitimate options.
Just because one Federal Judge thinks Eastman's strategy was illegal, does not mean it was. That is what the process is for to determine those issues. Ultimately, it would have been a SCOTUS call.
As for Guliani, I thought he was over the top and wrong on many counts. What he was doing, in my opinion, was outside the process.
You asked for evidence. You're a smart guy. You looked at it, saw it, and decided it wasn't illegalRMF5630 said:I have no problem with Eastman doing that as an attorney for than President Trump. I also have no problem with Pence rejecting the strategy after talking to his counsel. I would also have no problem with the Supreme Court ruling on it if Pence did it. I do not see that as illegal, especially asking the State's to re-examine or confirm their Electors. This is politics, it has happened before and that is how questions are resolved and part of the design. In my opinion, the issue is that they moved Inauguration Day from March to January. That move, although decades ago, created the urgency as their is limited time to explore any of the legal questions.Osodecentx said:I agree.RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"
Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions
RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do
The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.
But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.
Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.
Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.
Do you have an argument?
The arguement is as clear as your evidence.
One area of interest to prosecutors was a Jan. 4, 2021, Oval Office meeting where conservative lawyer John Eastman pushed Mr. Pence, in Mr. Trump's presence, to either reject the electoral votes outright or suspend the proceedings and ask several state legislatures to re-examine the results.
Last month, Mr. Jacob testified at length before the Jan. 6 congressional committee about that meeting, which included Messrs. Trump, Pence, Short, Eastman and Jacob. During the meeting, Mr. Eastman admitted his proposals would violate the law but wanted to proceed anyway, Mr. Jacob said.
"During that meeting on the Fourth, I think I raised the problem that both of Mr. Eastman's proposals would violate several provisions of the Electoral Count Act. Mr. Eastman acknowledged that that was the case, that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions," Mr. Jacob told the committee.
A lawyer for Mr. Eastman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A federal judge last year found that Mr. Eastman and Mr. Trump "more likely than not" committed a felony in their efforts to block the 2020 election results.
Prosecutors also asked detailed questions about Rudy Giuliani, who forwarded to Mr. Pence's office letters from individual state legislators urging Mr. Pence to accept false slates of electors claiming Mr. Trump won from states he actually lost. A lawyer for Mr. Giuliani didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-questions-top-pence-aides-over-trump-bid-to-overturn-election-11658783628
I had no Problem with Gore and Bush. I have no problem with any of the questions of elections, that is how the system works. The Executive Branch makes a decision and the Supreme Court checks it against the Legislatures laws and the Constitution.
I have a BIG problem with short circuiting that process. I have a BIGGER problem with the Cheney Show trying to ban Trump from competing for asking questions that were within the process. I would have liked to see the Court rule on those issues, that would be interesting to determine if they are legitimate options.