She's about as credible as Christine Blasey-Ford.4th and Inches said:you skipped parts.. she lied about writing a note. She lied about the assaulting a SS agent. She lied about a conversation. She lied about the plate throwing. She is an unreliable witness. Her story is falling apart, not just one thing.. we are only a few hours post testimony. Lets see what happens. Her testimony is opposing video evidence of Trump himself telling the crowd to peacefully demonstrate.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?CNN’s @jaketapper asks @RepRaskin about corroborating the shocking story, told by ex-aide of Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, about Trump’s physical attack on Secret Service detail to drive to the US Capitol on January 6. pic.twitter.com/z2ul9WvFcc
— CNN (@CNN) June 28, 2022
They dont have corroboration of her story.
Jan 6 committee
174,951 Views |
3026 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Harrison Bergeron
That's why I do not give this Stalin Show Trial any credibility. This same committee led by Shifty Shiff promised us mountains of evidence showing the Russians stole the 2016 election from Trump. They lied and doctored evidence in concert with the Clinton campaign and Obama's FBI. After two years and $40M we got a big nothingburger. Lie to me once ... lie to me twice.ScottS said:
Does anyone see the similarities between the Russian Dossier and the Jan 6 investigations?
So far we have:
1. Congressman gave a tour of the non-Capitol to non-protesters
2. A rejected former aide was told by someone Trump tried to grab a steering wheel
I mean that sounds like Russia in 1917 if anything does. I mean the horror.
People with severe TDS will believe anything that makes Trump look bad and morph every action into a wild-ass conspiracy theory.
Her motives are obvious. She did not get a job with Trump, so the best way to restart her career is to become a national hero for the Democrats. She has no repercussions if she lies. She'll get a nice job and a book deal that will be bought by 100 Upper East Side Karens and she'll be the toast of the D.C. cocktail circuit. Mission Accomplished.
You said nothing about context. You said he incited violence because he said "fight".Sam Lowry said:I'm just making the point that all his words and actions need to be taken in context.303Bear said:The very definition of "fight" means this is not at all a "case closed" situation. Not to mention the colloquial use of "fight" in many contexts not connected to physical violence. Such conclusory language is unbecoming someone who used to be a reasonable poster (and still is generally when it does not come to trump).RMF5630 said:You really are going to make that argument? That using the word "fight" incites violence? I think I could show that "fight" has many meanings. If that is what you are hanging your hat on, settle Counselor...Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
You're more than welcome to have your opinions, but don't state them as conclusions and then back away when challenged.
No, it's the law. Something you abandoned in your thirst to lynch Trump.Sam Lowry said:It's not my idea of proof. It's yours.Oldbear83 said:
Much more like mind closed if that is your idea of "proof".
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
But all the calls for actual violence during the summer of burning, looting, and murdering as well as calling for the murder and attack on SCOTUS must be "placed in context."303Bear said:You said nothing about context. You said he incited violence because he said "fight".Sam Lowry said:I'm just making the point that all his words and actions need to be taken in context.303Bear said:The very definition of "fight" means this is not at all a "case closed" situation. Not to mention the colloquial use of "fight" in many contexts not connected to physical violence. Such conclusory language is unbecoming someone who used to be a reasonable poster (and still is generally when it does not come to trump).RMF5630 said:You really are going to make that argument? That using the word "fight" incites violence? I think I could show that "fight" has many meanings. If that is what you are hanging your hat on, settle Counselor...Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
You're more than welcome to have your opinions, but don't state them as conclusions and then back away when challenged.
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.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 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.
I fully agree that words like "fight" do not necessarily mean a call to violence every time they are spoken. What is important for all of us to understand as much as we can the fuller context of the words and actions of Jan 6. According to yesterday's testimony, Trump knew that some in the crown had guns, he had been told that extreme groups identified by law enforcement as violent were present. At the close of the speech, after he said fight, and march peacefully, he said to the crowd, "You Will Never Take Back Our Country With Weakness". Extremist who were arrested have testified that they understood what Trump meant. The $mm question is, did he?303Bear said:The very definition of "fight" means this is not at all a "case closed" situation. Not to mention the colloquial use of "fight" in many contexts not connected to physical violence. Such conclusory language is unbecoming someone who used to be a reasonable poster (and still is generally when it does not come to trump).RMF5630 said:You really are going to make that argument? That using the word "fight" incites violence? I think I could show that "fight" has many meanings. If that is what you are hanging your hat on, settle Counselor...Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
This is why the DOJ is taking its time. Looks like they're focusing on Eastman at the moment, who is a key figure in the effort to overturn the election.4th and Inches said:real courts dont work like political theater courts.. much like the nonsense cases Trump had post election, I see them struggle post hearings against a decent defense lawyer with any case arising from thisC. Jordan said:No. I assure you that there are a few people out there who never visit this thread.4th and Inches said:great, now that you have tainted/biased the jury pool.. good luck with thatC. Jordan said:You also had Trump planning to lead a mob to the capital to disrupt a Congressional proceeding.Sam Lowry said:
If Trump knew there was likely to be violence, that's relevant to his intentions when he sent the crowd to the Capitol. Plus you've got the witness tampering, which is new information.
Cipalone was worried about that. But Trump planned to do it nonetheless.
The fact that he was stopped doesn't save him from a criminal conspiracy charge.
Trump himself will probably skate, but it appears Rudy, Meadows, Eastman, and others are in real trouble.
At the very least, today's testimony shows that the attack on the capital wasn't spontaneous, but planned. Probably coordinated by Rudy and others in the Trump gang.
LOL!
I don't doubt that Trump will skate. For two reasons:
First, it would be a really bad look for the administration of one president to prosecute the preceding prescient, though he may be guilty as hell.
We would have had a test for this with Nixon, but Ford pardoned him shortly after taking office.
Second, Trump isn't excessively smart, but he's smart enough to avoid criminal liability. In all this, he can simply claim that some of his legal counsel told him the fraud was real and that he was acting within the law. Though the bulk of his counsel, plus Pence's counsel, plus the acting AG said all this was BS, he had Rudy and Eastman in his ear, telling him what he wanted to hear.
But his minions, like Rudy, Eastman, Flynn, Stone, Meadows, and others have a lot to answer for legally. They have no defense. In fact, Eastman admitted to Pence counsel that what he wanted the VP to do was both illegal and unconstitutional.
Then you have all the congresspersons in that December 21 meeting at the Oval Office with Trump. What did they conspire to do?
I always thought that Trump intended to march with his supporters to the capitol, but that someone or a group stopped him. Now we know he did indeed intend to at least ride along with the crowd and join them at the capitol. Maybe we'll learn later what he intended to do.
We know that he was fine to have armed people in the crowd because they weren't there to hurt him.
This revelation has made capitol police officers feel really good. "Blue lives matter." LOL.
We also learned that Rudy, Flynn, and Stone set up a "War Room" at a hotel on the night of Jan. 5 and that Meadows was in communication with him.
Maybe the most stunning moment for me was when Flynn was being deposed and was asked if he believed in the peaceful transfer of power, he pled the fifth. Here was a three-star general pleading the fifth on a basic question of our democracy.
And, as the Donald has said often, "Why do you plead the fifth if you're not guilty?"
It's the old game of distraction and deflection.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?
It's like members of a cult in denial.
One thing she said was disputed. And it was hearsay.
These things were not disputed:
That Rudy, Flynn, and Eastman had set up a "War room" at the Hilliard on Jan. 5 to coordinate what would happen the next day. That Meadows was in communication with that group. That Flynn had connections with the Proud Boys, who led in the violence of Jan. 6.
That Trump wanted to take away the mags at the rally to allow armed people to be in the crowd.
That Trump was fine with armed people marching to the capitol to stop the final vote count.
That Trump incited the crowd to attack.
That Trump wanted to march with the crowd to the capitol but was stopped for doing so.
That Trump allowed the violence to go on for hours before finally stopping it.
That Trump had no concern for Mike Pence. In fact, felt he deserved to be hung.
The list goes on and on.
It's called sarcasm.303Bear said:You said nothing about context. You said he incited violence because he said "fight".Sam Lowry said:I'm just making the point that all his words and actions need to be taken in context.303Bear said:The very definition of "fight" means this is not at all a "case closed" situation. Not to mention the colloquial use of "fight" in many contexts not connected to physical violence. Such conclusory language is unbecoming someone who used to be a reasonable poster (and still is generally when it does not come to trump).RMF5630 said:You really are going to make that argument? That using the word "fight" incites violence? I think I could show that "fight" has many meanings. If that is what you are hanging your hat on, settle Counselor...Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
You're more than welcome to have your opinions, but don't state them as conclusions and then back away when challenged.
because fight never means take action in a respectful way that furthers the cause..Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
Adopt-a-Bear 2024
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
we trying to help you with your denial but I am afraid you remain one of the 38%..C. Jordan said:It's the old game of distraction and deflection.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?
It's like members of a cult in denial.
Adopt-a-Bear 2024
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
That was obviously not his intention.4th and Inches said:because fight never means take action in a respectful way that furthers the cause..Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
If that were so, why was he good with armed people being in the attack?
Stop trying to tell us we didn't see what we saw.
Why were some carrying firearms and refusing to go through magnetometer? Could the words "fight like hell" mean something different to rioter carrying a firearm?4th and Inches said:because fight never means take action in a respectful way that furthers the cause..Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
Sam Lowry said:
Cassidy Hutchinson's Testimony against Trump Is Devastating
By Andrew C. McCarthy
June 28, 2022 10:33 PM
Things will not be the same after this.
Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to Trump's White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, provided compelling testimony Tuesday that former president Donald Trump is singularly culpable for the Capitol riot.
Legal analysts, myself included, while not defending the speech -- which is indefensible -- have pointed out that it does not meet the demanding legal test for incitement. Trump makes grudging references to protesting "peacefully" -- and Cheney continues to damage her credibility by eliding mention of that (and it's gratuitous self-damage because, the more the evidence mounts, the more apparent it is that it's just a couple of throwaway lines -- which doesn't justify omitting it as if it didn't happen). Well, Trump's words may not have been incitement as a matter of law, but that doesn't mean they are not evidence of other potential crimes -- especially once you are informed about how fully aware the president was about the mob being lethally armed. It is a crime, to take just one example, to aid and abet the forcible intimidation of government officials, including the vice president and members of Congress.
We should understand, in any event, that what Cheney did with Hutchinson Tuesday is what prosecutors do with witnesses in grand juries every day: drawing out the witness's testimony with no obligation to provide the defense perspective. To be sure, no one gets convicted at the grand-jury stage, but an awful lot of people get indicted this way, and on far less evidence than the country heard today.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony-against-trump-is-devastating
Doc Holliday said:Sam Lowry said:
Cassidy Hutchinson's Testimony against Trump Is Devastating
"Yes Congresswoman, and that's when Brett Kavanaugh pooped in my bed, stole my sandwich and told me this is a MAGA bedroom. He then said Trump told him to do it. It's just all too awful to remember, which is why I just remembered it."
kinda like observing black holes and such by detecting abnormal GUYrations and cosmic perterbations, but not actually seeing (much of) anything.
I mean, the dude was a kook in a non-subtle queens hotel developer in a pottery barn kinda way, but.....
all this commotion.
methinks they doth protest too damn much.
maybe some smaller application of chandrasekhar's limit could be applied.
maybe The LFS Limit - the max centrifugal / destabilising force of a minor orange dwarf planet.
- kkm
but the rest of this 'scandal' is largely overblown. timed to distract and pour more sand and fill on The Outlier President.
kinda like the two impeachments, and the russia 'crisis'. etc.
D!
#SwainTheDramp
{ sipping coffee }
I mean, the dude was a kook in a non-subtle queens hotel developer in a pottery barn kinda way, but.....
all this commotion.
methinks they doth protest too damn much.
maybe some smaller application of chandrasekhar's limit could be applied.
maybe The LFS Limit - the max centrifugal / destabilising force of a minor orange dwarf planet.
- kkm
but the rest of this 'scandal' is largely overblown. timed to distract and pour more sand and fill on The Outlier President.
kinda like the two impeachments, and the russia 'crisis'. etc.
D!
#SwainTheDramp
{ sipping coffee }
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
4th and Inches said:we trying to help you with your denial but I am afraid you remain one of the 38%..C. Jordan said:It's the old game of distraction and deflection.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?
It's like members of a cult in denial.
That 38% is inflated, most likely. He's probaby remains one of the 25%
I like beer. I really, really like beer.Golem said:Doc Holliday said:Sam Lowry said:
Cassidy Hutchinson's Testimony against Trump Is Devastating
"Yes Congresswoman, and that's when Brett Kavanaugh pooped in my bed, stole my sandwich and told me this is a MAGA bedroom. He then said Trump told him to do it. It's just all too awful to remember, which is why I just remembered it."
Here's what's probably going to happen to Trump..... nothing.
Trump will probably run for 2024 and his name will appear on the primary ballot. The left will lose their collective **** twice... once for nothing happening and once for just his name on the primary ballot.
If he wins the primary, more will cities will burn - bigly.
Trump will probably run for 2024 and his name will appear on the primary ballot. The left will lose their collective **** twice... once for nothing happening and once for just his name on the primary ballot.
If he wins the primary, more will cities will burn - bigly.
And will have another Russia Hoax investigation.Rawhide said:
Here's what's probably going to happen to Trump..... nothing.
Trump will probably run for 2024 and his name will appear on the primary ballot. The left will lose their collective **** twice... once for nothing happening and once for just his name on the primary ballot.
If he wins the primary, more will cities will burn - bigly.
... more than likely the POTUS wanted to swing by an Arby's on the way back to the WH and was told no in calm tones by SS as they need to verify any stops at least a couple of hours in advance. Trump, dejected, sat in his seat and fidgeted a bit and was observed to be a downcast about the news but took it in stride. 'Fine, maybe someone can bring me a Beef-And-Cheddar combo meal, 2 horsey, two Arby's sauces, and a large fry w/ 4 ketchups. Diet cola.' 'We can do that sir' was the reply. The President was later observed receiving and enjoying his Arby's meal.
- KKM
- KKM
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
So, telling the group to demonstrate peacefully, after he blasted the Dems over the Summer of Love riots, holds no weight in determining whether he was responsible for the crowd breaking into Congress?Sam Lowry said:No, I'm not. Are you really going to argue that he's innocent just because he used the word "peacefully?"RMF5630 said:You really are going to make that argument?Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
Remember, he was horrified the Mayors and Governors let the mobs destroy those Cities. You really think he would then turn around and do the same thing???
I am saying that he had nothing to do with the mob breaking into Congress. Did he enjoy it, probably. Did he let them sweat, sure. Did he think there may be rioting outside Congress, he probably thought if ANTIFA showed up it was possible. Did he plan it or know they were going to break into Congress and do what they did, no way. He is not that crazy.
Was it a coup, no way. You really thought that was a serious overthrow of the Government and not just a demonstration?
If it was not a coup or planned by Trump, what is this all about? What crime is he guilty? Those that broke in were arrested 700+ and rightly so. You ask if he is innocent, the question should be why is he guilty?
“The Jan. 6 committee didn’t reach out to the Secret Service in the days before it aired explosive testimony about an alleged physical altercation between Donald Trump and his security detail on the day of the riot, according to an agency spokesperson.”https://t.co/EKjriKz1EG
— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) June 29, 2022
lots of headlines like this across multiple news networks breaking now.
"Secret Service agents are willing to testify that former President Donald Trump did not try to lunge at them or take control of the vehicle to direct the car to the Capitol as agents were driving on January 6, 2021, CBS News and NBC News reported."
https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agents-prepared-testify-trump-125704694.html
J6 jumping of shark confirmed.
neverTrumpers have soiled themselves and their reputations, permanently, never to be taken seriously again.
"Secret Service agents are willing to testify that former President Donald Trump did not try to lunge at them or take control of the vehicle to direct the car to the Capitol as agents were driving on January 6, 2021, CBS News and NBC News reported."
https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agents-prepared-testify-trump-125704694.html
J6 jumping of shark confirmed.
neverTrumpers have soiled themselves and their reputations, permanently, never to be taken seriously again.
Most of it isn't hearsay, and besides this isn't a trial.whiterock said: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.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 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.
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.
I'm not saying it carries no weight. I'm saying it's not dispositive, as many of you like to pretend.
Of course they didn't. This is all for show. Where are committee hearings over the summer of love riots?Cobretti said:“The Jan. 6 committee didn’t reach out to the Secret Service in the days before it aired explosive testimony about an alleged physical altercation between Donald Trump and his security detail on the day of the riot, according to an agency spokesperson.”https://t.co/EKjriKz1EG
— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) June 29, 2022
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.
BREAKING: “The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by [White House attorney] Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” said a spokesperson for Herschmann.
— Paul Sperry (@PaulSperry30) June 29, 2022
If Desantis was POTUS, the DC establishment would accuse him of the same things they're accusing Trump of and you'll buy every bit of it.
That's who you are now. Your loyalty lies with the system and the system is unbelievably corrupt.
What I'll buy depends on the evidence. I don't have much political loyalty other than the basic loyalty to the country and its Constitution that all Americans are supposed to have.Doc Holliday 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.BREAKING: “The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by [White House attorney] Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” said a spokesperson for Herschmann.
— Paul Sperry (@PaulSperry30) June 29, 2022
If Desantis was POTUS, the DC establishment would accuse him of the same things they're accusing Trump of and you'll buy every bit of it.
That's who you are now. Your loyalty lies with the system and the system is unbelievably corrupt.
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.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.
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.RMF5630 said: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.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.
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?
If everything is damning and as bad as you say, why haven't they pulled the trigger?Sam Lowry said:As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.RMF5630 said: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.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.
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?
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?Sam Lowry said:As McCarthy pointed out, grand juries have indicted on far less.RMF5630 said: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.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.
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?