Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
most of the American public based on ratings..Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
Forever Trumper cover up progressesOldbear83 said:Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
Maybe the planet identifies as flat, you bigot!!!!Guy Noir said:
Oldbear83, Have you heard about the discovery that the world is not flat?
Oh, you just found out?Guy Noir said:
Oldbear83, Have you heard about the discovery that the world is not flat?
Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about actual innocence, not presumption of innocence.RMF5630 said:Actually Sam, in the US it does. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove it, you are not guilty. Basis of our legal system, unless you are Trump. Or, is it the ******* rule, if you are not liked by enough people you must have done something illegal. We just haven't found it yet...Sam Lowry said:No, obviously it's not all new information being uncovered on TV. The investigation goes on behind the scenes, and the results are presented in the hearings. Liz does not have the power to charge Trump with anything.RMF5630 said:Now being uncovered? Come on, you really think this is all new information being uncovered on National TV? It is choreographed like you would any show, they even titled each rendition. This week - "Trump's disregard for Staff" Liz's special guest star is Cassidy Hutchinson, Assistant to the Assistant of the PIO for the Chief of Staff will answer all our questions.Sam Lowry said:It isn't the job of Congress or its committees to prosecute. Aside from that, there are strong considerations that weigh against prosecuting Trump. He's essentially built a whole career as a CYA artist, which makes him hard to pin down. More important, criminalizing political disagreement is the way of banana republics. To prosecute a former president would put us further down a dangerous road.RMF5630 said:"When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason."Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Yet, no official action versus anyone of note in the Administration? No, indictment. No charges. No arrests. Nothing. Supposedly, the White House Counsel knew there was going to be an insurrection and relied on a low level Assistant to prevent it, but no charges. No pictures of anyone in handcuffs after 700+ arrests and 15 months.
I suspect Sam, the law and facts are not against the past Administration. No matter how much pounding you do. If it was, we would be seeing official action, not this show trial...
Ultimately it will be the DOJ's decision based on the evidence that's now being uncovered.
- What does Trump have against spaghetti?
- Does Trump have combat skills we are not aware of as he takes on a Secret Service agent.
- Hear how Donald is able to commandeer a Limo from the backseat.
- Hear how White House Counsel relied on Cassidy Hutchinson to save Democracy.
All this an more. Same Liz time. Same Liz Channel...
It is closer to that, than a real investigation turning up evidence. They have all of this and if there was anything to it they would charge Trump and love it. By the way, CYA means no evidence or not guilty... Sort of like being almost late, the other word is on time.
CYA may mean technically not guilty, but it doesn't mean innocent. It means saying "march peacefully" when you know it's going to be anything but. That should matter to us as citizens even if it doesn't lead to prosecution. Trump is really a political problem, not a criminal one. The obviously correct, political solution was to impeach him and disqualify him from holding office again. The system failed in that regard, which leaves a dilemma: go the banana republic route, or let him get away with it? There's no good option. What we can do as voters is evaluate the evidence honestly, recognize the seriousness of what happened, and act accordingly.
You're not a very good reader, are you?Golem said:Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about actual innocence, not presumption of innocence.RMF5630 said:Actually Sam, in the US it does. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove it, you are not guilty. Basis of our legal system, unless you are Trump. Or, is it the ******* rule, if you are not liked by enough people you must have done something illegal. We just haven't found it yet...Sam Lowry said:No, obviously it's not all new information being uncovered on TV. The investigation goes on behind the scenes, and the results are presented in the hearings. Liz does not have the power to charge Trump with anything.RMF5630 said:Now being uncovered? Come on, you really think this is all new information being uncovered on National TV? It is choreographed like you would any show, they even titled each rendition. This week - "Trump's disregard for Staff" Liz's special guest star is Cassidy Hutchinson, Assistant to the Assistant of the PIO for the Chief of Staff will answer all our questions.Sam Lowry said:It isn't the job of Congress or its committees to prosecute. Aside from that, there are strong considerations that weigh against prosecuting Trump. He's essentially built a whole career as a CYA artist, which makes him hard to pin down. More important, criminalizing political disagreement is the way of banana republics. To prosecute a former president would put us further down a dangerous road.RMF5630 said:"When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason."Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Yet, no official action versus anyone of note in the Administration? No, indictment. No charges. No arrests. Nothing. Supposedly, the White House Counsel knew there was going to be an insurrection and relied on a low level Assistant to prevent it, but no charges. No pictures of anyone in handcuffs after 700+ arrests and 15 months.
I suspect Sam, the law and facts are not against the past Administration. No matter how much pounding you do. If it was, we would be seeing official action, not this show trial...
Ultimately it will be the DOJ's decision based on the evidence that's now being uncovered.
- What does Trump have against spaghetti?
- Does Trump have combat skills we are not aware of as he takes on a Secret Service agent.
- Hear how Donald is able to commandeer a Limo from the backseat.
- Hear how White House Counsel relied on Cassidy Hutchinson to save Democracy.
All this an more. Same Liz time. Same Liz Channel...
It is closer to that, than a real investigation turning up evidence. They have all of this and if there was anything to it they would charge Trump and love it. By the way, CYA means no evidence or not guilty... Sort of like being almost late, the other word is on time.
CYA may mean technically not guilty, but it doesn't mean innocent. It means saying "march peacefully" when you know it's going to be anything but. That should matter to us as citizens even if it doesn't lead to prosecution. Trump is really a political problem, not a criminal one. The obviously correct, political solution was to impeach him and disqualify him from holding office again. The system failed in that regard, which leaves a dilemma: go the banana republic route, or let him get away with it? There's no good option. What we can do as voters is evaluate the evidence honestly, recognize the seriousness of what happened, and act accordingly.
So you contend that the standard in the legal system is to declare someone "innocent "?
You aren't a very good lawyer, are you?
Just calling balls an strikes, Forever TOldbear83 said:
Even your name calling is false, stale and without much effect.
I hope you didn't work too hard on it.
Sam Lowry said:You're not a very good reader, are you?Golem said:Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about actual innocence, not presumption of innocence.RMF5630 said:Actually Sam, in the US it does. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove it, you are not guilty. Basis of our legal system, unless you are Trump. Or, is it the ******* rule, if you are not liked by enough people you must have done something illegal. We just haven't found it yet...Sam Lowry said:No, obviously it's not all new information being uncovered on TV. The investigation goes on behind the scenes, and the results are presented in the hearings. Liz does not have the power to charge Trump with anything.RMF5630 said:Now being uncovered? Come on, you really think this is all new information being uncovered on National TV? It is choreographed like you would any show, they even titled each rendition. This week - "Trump's disregard for Staff" Liz's special guest star is Cassidy Hutchinson, Assistant to the Assistant of the PIO for the Chief of Staff will answer all our questions.Sam Lowry said:It isn't the job of Congress or its committees to prosecute. Aside from that, there are strong considerations that weigh against prosecuting Trump. He's essentially built a whole career as a CYA artist, which makes him hard to pin down. More important, criminalizing political disagreement is the way of banana republics. To prosecute a former president would put us further down a dangerous road.RMF5630 said:"When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason."Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Yet, no official action versus anyone of note in the Administration? No, indictment. No charges. No arrests. Nothing. Supposedly, the White House Counsel knew there was going to be an insurrection and relied on a low level Assistant to prevent it, but no charges. No pictures of anyone in handcuffs after 700+ arrests and 15 months.
I suspect Sam, the law and facts are not against the past Administration. No matter how much pounding you do. If it was, we would be seeing official action, not this show trial...
Ultimately it will be the DOJ's decision based on the evidence that's now being uncovered.
- What does Trump have against spaghetti?
- Does Trump have combat skills we are not aware of as he takes on a Secret Service agent.
- Hear how Donald is able to commandeer a Limo from the backseat.
- Hear how White House Counsel relied on Cassidy Hutchinson to save Democracy.
All this an more. Same Liz time. Same Liz Channel...
It is closer to that, than a real investigation turning up evidence. They have all of this and if there was anything to it they would charge Trump and love it. By the way, CYA means no evidence or not guilty... Sort of like being almost late, the other word is on time.
CYA may mean technically not guilty, but it doesn't mean innocent. It means saying "march peacefully" when you know it's going to be anything but. That should matter to us as citizens even if it doesn't lead to prosecution. Trump is really a political problem, not a criminal one. The obviously correct, political solution was to impeach him and disqualify him from holding office again. The system failed in that regard, which leaves a dilemma: go the banana republic route, or let him get away with it? There's no good option. What we can do as voters is evaluate the evidence honestly, recognize the seriousness of what happened, and act accordingly.
So you contend that the standard in the legal system is to declare someone "innocent "?
You aren't a very good lawyer, are you?
Osodecentx said:Forever Trumper cover up progressesOldbear83 said:Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
The former agents are probably going to testify. I assume you trust them (I do). Since you won't be watching, I'll fill you in on the happenings
More like playing with your balls and your brain is on strike.Osodecentx said:Just calling balls an strikes, Forever TOldbear83 said:
Even your name calling is false, stale and without much effect.
I hope you didn't work too hard on it.
the purpose of my prior post was to emphasize the part in bold, in order to highlight that you are supporting exactly the kind of extralegal abuse of political power that you claim Trump poses to the Republic, but you are fine with it because....well.....Trump.Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Not true. I'm waiting to hear the theory under which this is an extralegal abuse of power. The fact that it's frustrating or politically inconvenient doesn't make it illegal or unconstitutional.whiterock said:the purpose of my prior post was to emphasize the part in bold, in order to highlight that you are supporting exactly the kind of extralegal abuse of political power that you claim Trump poses to the Republic, but you are fine with it because....well.....Trump.Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
You should post less on this subject until you can better control your emotions.Oldbear83 said:More like playing with your balls and your brain is on strike.Osodecentx said:Just calling balls an strikes, Forever TOldbear83 said:
Even your name calling is false, stale and without much effect.
I hope you didn't work too hard on it.
Let's hear from the SS agent and Ornato. Most of her testimony would be admissible in a court of law and there are corroborating witnesses. She knows a lot.Forest Bueller said:Osodecentx said:Forever Trumper cover up progressesOldbear83 said:Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
The former agents are probably going to testify. I assume you trust them (I do). Since you won't be watching, I'll fill you in on the happenings
I just want to hear from someone that actually knows what did happen.
Not someone who when interviewing with the committee stated that she had inadvertently"overhead a conversation" and thought she heard things. Then on the stand repeats such hearsay but always putting a slight disclaimer on her stronger points hedging the "under oath" aspect.
In a court of law her testimony is useless, however in a "show" trial and that's all this is so far, a show, you have an overnight celebrity and cult hero. It appears to me this person is very motivated by acclaim. She is certainly getting it.
Your evasion is as tiresome as your lack of compassion.Oldbear83 said:
Even your name calling is false, stale and without much effect.
I hope you didn't work too hard on it.
your wife told you to go to your boss at work and fight like hell for raise! Did you bring your gun or no?Osodecentx said:Let's hear from the SS agent and Ornato. Most of her testimony would be admissible in a court of law and there are corroborating witnesses. She knows a lot.Forest Bueller said:Osodecentx said:Forever Trumper cover up progressesOldbear83 said:Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
The former agents are probably going to testify. I assume you trust them (I do). Since you won't be watching, I'll fill you in on the happenings
I just want to hear from someone that actually knows what did happen.
Not someone who when interviewing with the committee stated that she had inadvertently"overhead a conversation" and thought she heard things. Then on the stand repeats such hearsay but always putting a slight disclaimer on her stronger points hedging the "under oath" aspect.
In a court of law her testimony is useless, however in a "show" trial and that's all this is so far, a show, you have an overnight celebrity and cult hero. It appears to me this person is very motivated by acclaim. She is certainly getting it.
She heard Trump say the armed demonstrators weren't there to hurt Trump. There is video of Trump telling the demonstrators to "fight like hell" and go to the Capitol.
Osodecentx said:Forever Trumper cover up progressesOldbear83 said:Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
The former agents are probably going to testify. I assume you trust them (I do). Since you won't be watching, I'll fill you in on the happenings
Osodecentx said:Let's hear from the SS agent and Ornato. Most of her testimony would be admissible in a court of law and there are corroborating witnesses. She knows a lot.Forest Bueller said:Osodecentx said:Forever Trumper cover up progressesOldbear83 said:Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
The former agents are probably going to testify. I assume you trust them (I do). Since you won't be watching, I'll fill you in on the happenings
I just want to hear from someone that actually knows what did happen.
Not someone who when interviewing with the committee stated that she had inadvertently"overhead a conversation" and thought she heard things. Then on the stand repeats such hearsay but always putting a slight disclaimer on her stronger points hedging the "under oath" aspect.
In a court of law her testimony is useless, however in a "show" trial and that's all this is so far, a show, you have an overnight celebrity and cult hero. It appears to me this person is very motivated by acclaim. She is certainly getting it.
She heard Trump say the armed demonstrators weren't there to hurt Trump. There is video of Trump telling the demonstrators to "fight like hell" and go to the Capitol.
Trump knew they were armed. He wanted to go to the Capitol to lead them.RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Let's hear from the SS agent and Ornato. Most of her testimony would be admissible in a court of law and there are corroborating witnesses. She knows a lot.Forest Bueller said:Osodecentx said:Forever Trumper cover up progressesOldbear83 said:Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
The former agents are probably going to testify. I assume you trust them (I do). Since you won't be watching, I'll fill you in on the happenings
I just want to hear from someone that actually knows what did happen.
Not someone who when interviewing with the committee stated that she had inadvertently"overhead a conversation" and thought she heard things. Then on the stand repeats such hearsay but always putting a slight disclaimer on her stronger points hedging the "under oath" aspect.
In a court of law her testimony is useless, however in a "show" trial and that's all this is so far, a show, you have an overnight celebrity and cult hero. It appears to me this person is very motivated by acclaim. She is certainly getting it.
She heard Trump say the armed demonstrators weren't there to hurt Trump. There is video of Trump telling the demonstrators to "fight like hell" and go to the Capitol.
As for "fight like hell", that is a call to storm Comgress? Really, you guys are making every jump to Trump guilty, but disregarding ANYTHING he did that was telling the crowd not to be violent.
Case in point, "go to Congress", you leave out the part where he said to go peacefully and demonstrate in the same comment. That is ok? That doesn't count. Why? Because the ONLY allowable outcome is Trump is not innocent, period.
He used the word "peacefully" one time. Give me some other examples.RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Let's hear from the SS agent and Ornato. Most of her testimony would be admissible in a court of law and there are corroborating witnesses. She knows a lot.Forest Bueller said:Osodecentx said:Forever Trumper cover up progressesOldbear83 said:Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
The former agents are probably going to testify. I assume you trust them (I do). Since you won't be watching, I'll fill you in on the happenings
I just want to hear from someone that actually knows what did happen.
Not someone who when interviewing with the committee stated that she had inadvertently"overhead a conversation" and thought she heard things. Then on the stand repeats such hearsay but always putting a slight disclaimer on her stronger points hedging the "under oath" aspect.
In a court of law her testimony is useless, however in a "show" trial and that's all this is so far, a show, you have an overnight celebrity and cult hero. It appears to me this person is very motivated by acclaim. She is certainly getting it.
She heard Trump say the armed demonstrators weren't there to hurt Trump. There is video of Trump telling the demonstrators to "fight like hell" and go to the Capitol.
She was an aide. She has absolutely no idea of anything but her assignments. Her testimony is laughable, the White House Counsel went to an Aide and told her to save Democracy? As if she had control over POTUS movements? That shows an over developed sense of self-importance.
As for "fight like hell", that is a call to storm Comgress? Really, you guys are making every jump to Trump guilty, but disregarding ANYTHING he did that was telling the crowd not to be violent.
Case in point, "go to Congress", you leave out the part where he said to go peacefully and demonstrate in the same comment. That is ok? That doesn't count. Why? Because the ONLY allowable outcome is Trump is not innocent, period.
Osodecentx said:Trump knew they were armed. He wanted to go to the Capitol to lead them.RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Let's hear from the SS agent and Ornato. Most of her testimony would be admissible in a court of law and there are corroborating witnesses. She knows a lot.Forest Bueller said:Osodecentx said:Forever Trumper cover up progressesOldbear83 said:Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
The former agents are probably going to testify. I assume you trust them (I do). Since you won't be watching, I'll fill you in on the happenings
I just want to hear from someone that actually knows what did happen.
Not someone who when interviewing with the committee stated that she had inadvertently"overhead a conversation" and thought she heard things. Then on the stand repeats such hearsay but always putting a slight disclaimer on her stronger points hedging the "under oath" aspect.
In a court of law her testimony is useless, however in a "show" trial and that's all this is so far, a show, you have an overnight celebrity and cult hero. It appears to me this person is very motivated by acclaim. She is certainly getting it.
She heard Trump say the armed demonstrators weren't there to hurt Trump. There is video of Trump telling the demonstrators to "fight like hell" and go to the Capitol.
As for "fight like hell", that is a call to storm Comgress? Really, you guys are making every jump to Trump guilty, but disregarding ANYTHING he did that was telling the crowd not to be violent.
Case in point, "go to Congress", you leave out the part where he said to go peacefully and demonstrate in the same comment. That is ok? That doesn't count. Why? Because the ONLY allowable outcome is Trump is not innocent, period.
But hey. Good news of great joy in Forever Trumperville:
Trump Eyes Early 2024 Announcement as Jan. 6 Scrutiny Intensifies
Donald Trump has accelerated his campaign planning, hoping a White House bid will blunt a series of damaging revelations. Some Republicans are worried.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/us/politics/trump-republicans-campaign-2024.html
That's always been the glaring hypocrisy in this thing:whiterock said:the purpose of my prior post was to emphasize the part in bold, in order to highlight that you are supporting exactly the kind of extralegal abuse of political power that you claim Trump poses to the Republic, but you are fine with it because....well.....Trump.Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
I will remind you of this post the next time you virtue signal how you never resort to cheap shots.Osodecentx said:Your evasion is as tiresome as your lack of compassion.Oldbear83 said:
Even your name calling is false, stale and without much effect.
I hope you didn't work too hard on it.
Sorry to see that your integrity implant procedure failed.
I agree with every sentence aboveRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump knew they were armed. He wanted to go to the Capitol to lead them.RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Let's hear from the SS agent and Ornato. Most of her testimony would be admissible in a court of law and there are corroborating witnesses. She knows a lot.Forest Bueller said:Osodecentx said:Forever Trumper cover up progressesOldbear83 said:Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
The former agents are probably going to testify. I assume you trust them (I do). Since you won't be watching, I'll fill you in on the happenings
I just want to hear from someone that actually knows what did happen.
Not someone who when interviewing with the committee stated that she had inadvertently"overhead a conversation" and thought she heard things. Then on the stand repeats such hearsay but always putting a slight disclaimer on her stronger points hedging the "under oath" aspect.
In a court of law her testimony is useless, however in a "show" trial and that's all this is so far, a show, you have an overnight celebrity and cult hero. It appears to me this person is very motivated by acclaim. She is certainly getting it.
She heard Trump say the armed demonstrators weren't there to hurt Trump. There is video of Trump telling the demonstrators to "fight like hell" and go to the Capitol.
As for "fight like hell", that is a call to storm Comgress? Really, you guys are making every jump to Trump guilty, but disregarding ANYTHING he did that was telling the crowd not to be violent.
Case in point, "go to Congress", you leave out the part where he said to go peacefully and demonstrate in the same comment. That is ok? That doesn't count. Why? Because the ONLY allowable outcome is Trump is not innocent, period.
But hey. Good news of great joy in Forever Trumperville:
Trump Eyes Early 2024 Announcement as Jan. 6 Scrutiny Intensifies
Donald Trump has accelerated his campaign planning, hoping a White House bid will blunt a series of damaging revelations. Some Republicans are worried.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/us/politics/trump-republicans-campaign-2024.html
I dont want him to run. He is poison. From 2016 until the election of 2020 i have no problem with Trumps policies. I really don't see the issue with his policies. Personality, I agree. He is an ******* and his hyperbole and exagerration was ridiculous.
Just because I don't like him and don't think he should be the nominee doesn't mean he is guilty of whatever it is they are trying to hang on him. Just like Ukramiam call was not worthy of impeachment. If there was, he would have been charged all ready.
OldOldbear83 said:I will remind you of this post the next time you virtue signal how you never resort to cheap shots.Osodecentx said:Your evasion is as tiresome as your lack of compassion.Oldbear83 said:
Even your name calling is false, stale and without much effect.
I hope you didn't work too hard on it.
Sorry to see that your integrity implant procedure failed.
Can't read the article. Did Trump tell the NY Times he was hoping to blunt the J6 committee or is that the NYT assuming things or worse, making theings up?Osodecentx said:Trump knew they were armed. He wanted to go to the Capitol to lead them.RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Let's hear from the SS agent and Ornato. Most of her testimony would be admissible in a court of law and there are corroborating witnesses. She knows a lot.Forest Bueller said:Osodecentx said:Forever Trumper cover up progressesOldbear83 said:Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
The former agents are probably going to testify. I assume you trust them (I do). Since you won't be watching, I'll fill you in on the happenings
I just want to hear from someone that actually knows what did happen.
Not someone who when interviewing with the committee stated that she had inadvertently"overhead a conversation" and thought she heard things. Then on the stand repeats such hearsay but always putting a slight disclaimer on her stronger points hedging the "under oath" aspect.
In a court of law her testimony is useless, however in a "show" trial and that's all this is so far, a show, you have an overnight celebrity and cult hero. It appears to me this person is very motivated by acclaim. She is certainly getting it.
She heard Trump say the armed demonstrators weren't there to hurt Trump. There is video of Trump telling the demonstrators to "fight like hell" and go to the Capitol.
As for "fight like hell", that is a call to storm Comgress? Really, you guys are making every jump to Trump guilty, but disregarding ANYTHING he did that was telling the crowd not to be violent.
Case in point, "go to Congress", you leave out the part where he said to go peacefully and demonstrate in the same comment. That is ok? That doesn't count. Why? Because the ONLY allowable outcome is Trump is not innocent, period.
But hey. Good news of great joy in Forever Trumperville:
Trump Eyes Early 2024 Announcement as Jan. 6 Scrutiny Intensifies
Donald Trump has accelerated his campaign planning, hoping a White House bid will blunt a series of damaging revelations. Some Republicans are worried.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/us/politics/trump-republicans-campaign-2024.html
Doesn't change the character of your posts, Oso.Osodecentx said:OldOldbear83 said:I will remind you of this post the next time you virtue signal how you never resort to cheap shots.Osodecentx said:Your evasion is as tiresome as your lack of compassion.Oldbear83 said:
Even your name calling is false, stale and without much effect.
I hope you didn't work too hard on it.
Sorry to see that your integrity implant procedure failed.
This is a quote of your old posts. When you turn nonsensical I dust them off and serve them up. For example:
You're even more bitter now. Maybe you should just stay away from the hearings.
You've been an ass on this board for more than two months, surely you can take a break and act like an adult.
"OH I know, and you do too. But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none."Oldbear83 said:Doesn't change the character of your posts, Oso.Osodecentx said:OldOldbear83 said:I will remind you of this post the next time you virtue signal how you never resort to cheap shots.Osodecentx said:Your evasion is as tiresome as your lack of compassion.Oldbear83 said:
Even your name calling is false, stale and without much effect.
I hope you didn't work too hard on it.
Sorry to see that your integrity implant procedure failed.
This is a quote of your old posts. When you turn nonsensical I dust them off and serve them up. For example:
You're even more bitter now. Maybe you should just stay away from the hearings.
You've been an ass on this board for more than two months, surely you can take a break and act like an adult.
You make such a point of honesty. seriously take a step back and look hard at your posts in June.
You're a damned hypocrite and it's well beyond obvious.
Osodecentx said:Let's hear from the SS agent and Ornato. Most of her testimony would be admissible in a court of law and there are corroborating witnesses. She knows a lot.Forest Bueller said:Osodecentx said:Forever Trumper cover up progressesOldbear83 said:Anyone with decency, a sense of fair play, or who is sensitive to piles of feces in office.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Commission, Committee, Stalinist Show Trial, all the same thing here.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:
Oso: "The facts are well documented."
Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.
What commission?
Who has avoided the committee hearings?
The former agents are probably going to testify. I assume you trust them (I do). Since you won't be watching, I'll fill you in on the happenings
I just want to hear from someone that actually knows what did happen.
Not someone who when interviewing with the committee stated that she had inadvertently"overhead a conversation" and thought she heard things. Then on the stand repeats such hearsay but always putting a slight disclaimer on her stronger points hedging the "under oath" aspect.
In a court of law her testimony is useless, however in a "show" trial and that's all this is so far, a show, you have an overnight celebrity and cult hero. It appears to me this person is very motivated by acclaim. She is certainly getting it.
She heard Trump say the armed demonstrators weren't there to hurt Trump. There is video of Trump telling the demonstrators to "fight like hell" and go to the Capitol.
