Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Summary of these "hearings"

---

A Forever Trumper hopes

---

Every time you call me that, you prove your lack of attention, Oso.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not keeping track...how many Democrats have testified so far?

---

100% by my count. Of course, I judge by the content produced by the committee.

---

Precisely. You know not to accept what they say because they're Democrats, and you know they're Democrats because...you can't accept what they say. Classic circular reasoning.

---

Funny how Sam always has an opinion on what someone else posts, yet shows no interest at all in his own errors and arrogance.

Guy Noir said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

1 and 2 was duplicate. They are just different news sources.

There were definitely multiple firearms charges.

---

yeah.. 2 of them.

---

The first article stated that 3 other people had been charged with firearms violations. So now there are 4 people charged. You should read the stories before discounting the information. The stories present evidence that there is more to the story than 4 people getting charged with carrying a gun.

Example quote: "For example, Lonnie Coffman of Alabama was charged with 17 counts of gun charges. He allegedly brought guns, bombs and hundreds of rounds of ammunition to the Capitol with a list of "good guys" and "bad guys."

---

Maybe you should take an English class, near the capital is not at the capital. Cant help if your source sucks.. Check out my alt right wing source below

https://www.axios.com/2022/04/01/lonnie-coffman-sentenced-capitol-riot

Coffman was not charged with illegal entry of the capitol building

(Stupid. Type to text)

The spelling mistake was in the quote. It was not my quote. I am sure you can get the idea being communicated if you choose to accept it.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Sad to come here after that awesome speech by Chaney and read the same old party BS lines.

Hey. It's ok to love Trump's policies. It is not ok to do what the mob did lead on by your hero.

90% of those participating in the riots haven't read the Constitution or have any idea of how valuable our system is to all of us.

---

Since when does "demonstrate peacefully" mean storm the capital? Oh yeah, that part keeps being left out. We know he didn't mean it, right? Everything else he said was literal, except that...

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Sad to come here after that awesome speech by Chaney and read the same old party BS lines.

Hey. It's ok to love Trump's policies. It is not ok to do what the mob did lead on by your hero.

90% of those participating in the riots haven't read the Constitution or have any idea of how valuable our system is to all of us.

---

Since when does "demonstrate peacefully" mean storm the capital? Oh yeah, that part keeps being left out. We know he didn't mean it, right? Everything else he said was literal, except that...

---

What are some other examples of him telling the crowd not to be violent?

.

RMF5630 said:

---

Oso has fallen into a priori thinking. Once one defines J6 as an insurrection, then every single act gets perceived as part of a master plan.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Kinda like "systemic oppression." Once one accepts the premise of it, then every outcome serves the narrative.

---

Problem is there is no proof of a masterplan he or anyone in the Government were involved with developing, executing or even knowing about.

Let's look at him wanting to go to Congress, where Cassidy Hutchinson single handedly saved Democracy at the bequest of the WH Counsel. What are the reasons he could have gone?

1 - To lead a peaceful (as he is on tape instructing and confirmed with a Tweet later on), but loud demonstration to let Congress know he and his supporters did not agree with the 2020 election.

2 - To diffuse the attack on the Capital because any rational person knew nothing good was going to come from that.

3 - Lead the attack and go in Congress, which would have surely resulted in him being filmed breaking the law and lead to arrest.

4 - Leading a Coup of the US Government with 700 followers, limited weapons and no end game plan. If successful, do what? Forcefully tell Pence to not accept the electors? Which would have been accepted by the US Government, citizens and the world??? Best case, goes to Supreme Court and is found to be unlawful? What does the insurrection and coup accomplish?

Sorry, I just can't see a guy who has mastered CYA, according to many on here, to choose options 3 or 4 and end up in prison. His history does not support that type of behavior, right up to the edge, yes. Over the cliff, no.

If you this was a Clinton impeachment where Trump made an unwanted advance toward an aide, I would have an easier time with that, based on behavior, than this scenario.

---

So when a mob of thousands burns several square blocks of Washington DC near or adjacent to Congress and the WH, well it's just a peaceful demonstration that got a little heated. The crowd whipped itself up into a little too much of a frenzy. No bad actors there. No one who wouldn't liked to have burned down the whole city. No one who wouldn't have liked to have surged into the WH and carried out POTUS in pieces. Nope. Just noble citizens engaging in 1st Amendment freedoms. That property of innocents was destroyed is just the price of liberty. That it was mostly organized with monies raised on Democrat crowd-funding platforms is a detail never mentioned. That their protests were driven by the energy of ideological contrivances aim at delegitimizing the founding documents of the country is somehow fashionably noble rather than fundamentally insurrectionist.

---

Amazing that you or anyone could believe such stuff.

---

I do know here, they burned down several stores. I saw the remains of those buildings. I also know that the demonstrations were not very peaceful, my wife got caught in one on the way home from work. They started shaking her car and wouldn't let her pass. If local Police didn't clear the street, she was truly frightened. Those things happened and we were in a peaceful City where the Police kept control.

I also know that Kenosha was trashed because we used to live in Wisconsin and had friends there and Charleston's downtown because I got to go. The place was boarded up and graffitied, I saw that.

Not to mention the TV coverage where the guy said it was peaceful as fires raged behind him! Seattle where they took over a Police Station during the Summer of Love. Sort of hard to believe people deny that stuff happened.

---

Yet whiterock thinks there were no bad actors. It was all noble and fundamentally patriotic. Can you explain that?

---

Well, I don't know about White Rock. I can't go that far! They broke in and was a riot, no doubt there were bad actors and hopefully they were arrested. I do not deny that an appalling display occurred at Congress. The break-in was inexcusable and CANNOT be tolerated.

Where I diverge with many of the Democrats is that it was some Trump Administration/Associate inspired and controlled plot to overthrow the Government. I have not seen anything to support that narrative.

• I do believe Trump wanted to go to Congress with the crowd, but not to storm the building!
• I do believe if he saw them doing that he would have told them to stop, we are the party of law and order.
• I do believe he asked for the mag machines to be turned off for HIS rally, to get more numbers.
• I do believe he is disappointed in Pence not going with the alternate elector slates submitted.

I do not believe any of it is illegal and it is his prerogative to take those positions. I also believe he is political poison, if for no other reason that they will never stop coming after him.

---

Sam will wear you out with strawmen that are not terribly good facsimilies of either his opponent's position or reality, which happen to be the same in this particular discussion.

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5 said:

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

---

He wanted more armed people at his rally
He wanted them to March on the Capitol
He told them Mike Pence was a disappointment

NYT
He was not speaking metaphorically. It was not an offhand comment. President Donald J. Trump had every intention of joining a mob of supporters he knew to be armed and dangerous as it marched to the Capitol. And there had even been talk of marching into the House chamber himself to disrupt Congress from ratifying his election defeat.
For a year and a half, Mr. Trump has been shielded by obfuscations and mischaracterizations, benefiting from uncertainty about what he was thinking on Jan. 6, 2021. If he truly believed the election had been stolen, if he genuinely expected the gathering at the Capitol would be a peaceful protest, the argument went, then could he be held accountable, much less indicted, for the mayhem that ensued?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/new-insights-into-trumps-state-of-mind-on-jan-6-chip-away-at-doubts.html

---

Like I said, you are making jumps from his comments to he wanted to overthrow the Govt. Big leap from disappointed in Pence or let them in my rally to coup de tat with no direct evidence. Your speculation is not proof. Also, no one at the hearing us allowed to question or give opposing view.

---

Oso has fallen into a priori thinking. Once one defines J6 as an insurrection, then every single act gets perceived as part of a master plan.

Kinda like "systemic oppression." Once one accepts the premise of it, then every outcome serves the narrative.

---

Problem is there is no proof of a masterplan he or anyone in the Government were involved with developing, executing or even knowing about.

Let's look at him wanting to go to Congress, where Cassidy Hutchinson single handedly saved Democracy at the bequest of the WH Counsel. What are the reasons he could have gone?

1 - To lead a peaceful (as he is on tape instructing and confirmed with a Tweet later on), but loud demonstration to let Congress know he and his supporters did not agree with the 2020 election.

2 - To diffuse the attack on the Capital because any rational person knew nothing good was going to come from that.

3 - Lead the attack and go in Congress, which would have surely resulted in him being filmed breaking the law and lead to arrest.

4 - Leading a Coup of the US Government with 700 followers, limited weapons and no end game plan. If successful, do what? Forcefully tell Pence to not accept the electors? Which would have been accepted by the US Government, citizens and the world??? Best case, goes to Supreme Court and is found to be unlawful? What does the insurrection and coup accomplish?

Sorry, I just can't see a guy who has mastered CYA, according to many on here, to choose options 3 or 4 and end up in prison. His history does not support that type of behavior, right up to the edge, yes. Over the cliff, no.

If you this was a Clinton impeachment where Trump made an unwanted advance toward an aide, I would have an easier time with that, based on behavior, than this scenario.

---

So when a mob of thousands burns several square blocks of Washington DC near or adjacent to Congress and the WH, well it's just a peaceful demonstration that got a little heated. The crowd whipped itself up into a little too much of a frenzy. No bad actors there. No one who wouldn't liked to have burned down the whole city. No one who wouldn't have liked to have surged into the WH and carried out POTUS in pieces. Nope. Just noble citizens engaging in 1st Amendment freedoms. That property of innocents was destroyed is just the price of liberty. That it was mostly organized with monies raised on Democrat crowd-funding platforms is a detail never mentioned. That their protests were driven by the energy of ideological contrivances aim at delegitimizing the founding documents of the country is somehow fashionably noble rather than fundamentally insurrectionist.

---

Amazing that you or anyone could believe such stuff.

---

And yet I think he really does

---

1) there are truths in his post and 2) there is definitely some sarcasm yall clearly missed in his post..

Carry on!

---

I'm still incredibly shocked to see whiterock defending left-wing anarchists. I suppose it's possible he was being sarcastic and doesn't condone that sort of behavior at all except when it comes from the right. The trouble is, that would seem to make him one of those conservatives who want to "adopt rules when it suits them and get a pass at a later date." And we both know that's just not possible.

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.

---

100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.

---

Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Sad to come here after that awesome speech by Chaney and read the same old party BS lines.

Hey. It's ok to love Trump's policies. It is not ok to do what the mob did lead on by your hero.

90% of those participating in the riots haven't read the Constitution or have any idea of how valuable our system is to all of us.

---

Since when does "demonstrate peacefully" mean storm the capital? Oh yeah, that part keeps being left out. We know he didn't mean it, right? Everything else he said was literal, except that...

---

What are some other examples of him telling the crowd not to be violent?

---

what are some public statement examples of where he told them to storm the building and take over?

I will lead off with fight like hell.. what else you got..

---

All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they're doing. And stolen by the fake news media. That's what they've done and what they're doing. We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved.

Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with: We will stop the steal.

We will not let them silence your voices. We're not going to let it happen, I'm not going to let it happen.

(Audience chants: "Fight for Trump.")

Thank you.

We're gathered together in the heart of our nation's capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: To save our democracy.

We want to go back and we want to get this right because we're going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed and we're not going to stand for that.

If this happened to the Democrats, there'd be hell all over the country going on. There'd be hell all over the country.

You will have an illegitimate president. That's what you'll have. And we can't let that happen.

So when you hear, when you hear, while there is no evidence to prove any wrongdoing, this is the most fraudulent thing anybody has, this is a criminal enterprise. This is a criminal enterprise.

The Republicans have to get tougher. You're not going to have a Republican Party if you don't get tougher. They want to play so straight. They want to play so, sir, yes, the United States. The Constitution doesn't allow me to send them back to the States. Well, I say, yes it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can't vote on fraud. And fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules.

So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn't listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he's listening to.

If we allow this group of people to illegally take over our country because it's illegal when the votes are illegal when the way they got there is illegal when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.

---

100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.

---

Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

---

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.

---

100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.

---

Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

---

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.

---

Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.

---

100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.

---

Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

---

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.

---

Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.

---

Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not keeping track...how many Democrats have testified so far?

---

And how many Republicans have testified?

---

By proper definition, zero,

---

How many true Scotsmen?

---

Many more Republicans than Democrats have testified. By my count, Republican elected officials have testified, but no elected Democrats.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Sad to come here after that awesome speech by Chaney and read the same old party BS lines.

Hey. It's ok to love Trump's policies. It is not ok to do what the mob did lead on by your hero.

90% of those participating in the riots haven't read the Constitution or have any idea of how valuable our system is to all of us.

---

Since when does "demonstrate peacefully" mean storm the capital? Oh yeah, that part keeps being left out. We know he didn't mean it, right? Everything else he said was literal, except that...

---

What are some other examples of him telling the crowd not to be violent?

---

what are some public statement examples of where he told them to storm the building and take over?

I will lead off with fight like hell.. what else you got..

---

All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they're doing. And stolen by the fake news media. That's what they've done and what they're doing. We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved.

Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with: We will stop the steal.

We will not let them silence your voices. We're not going to let it happen, I'm not going to let it happen.

(Audience chants: "Fight for Trump.")

Thank you.

We're gathered together in the heart of our nation's capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: To save our democracy.

We want to go back and we want to get this right because we're going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed and we're not going to stand for that.

If this happened to the Democrats, there'd be hell all over the country going on. There'd be hell all over the country.

You will have an illegitimate president. That's what you'll have. And we can't let that happen.

So when you hear, when you hear, while there is no evidence to prove any wrongdoing, this is the most fraudulent thing anybody has, this is a criminal enterprise. This is a criminal enterprise.

The Republicans have to get tougher. You're not going to have a Republican Party if you don't get tougher. They want to play so straight. They want to play so, sir, yes, the United States. The Constitution doesn't allow me to send them back to the States. Well, I say, yes it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can't vote on fraud. And fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules.

So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn't listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he's listening to.

If we allow this group of people to illegally take over our country because it's illegal when the votes are illegal when the way they got there is illegal when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

---

one big long we fight like hell or there wont be a country any more speech.

Sounds like a typical campaign speech from either side..

We got to stop them is more aggressive than fight like hell but yall keep latching on to that one like it was testimony from Hitchinson

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.

Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.

---

Problem is it is a political committee that isn't actually gathering facts. It is merely publishing cherry-picked materials to support a conclusion that was reached prior to the formation of the committee.

You know this.

---

Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

Some "insurrection."

---

First you argue that there were no guns. We prove there were guns by the contemporaneous police audio.
Then you argue there were no gun charges. We prove there were charges.

What, exactly is your argument?

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Sad to come here after that awesome speech by Chaney and read the same old party BS lines.

Hey. It's ok to love Trump's policies. It is not ok to do what the mob did lead on by your hero.

90% of those participating in the riots haven't read the Constitution or have any idea of how valuable our system is to all of us.

---

Since when does "demonstrate peacefully" mean storm the capital? Oh yeah, that part keeps being left out. We know he didn't mean it, right? Everything else he said was literal, except that...

---

What are some other examples of him telling the crowd not to be violent?

---

what are some public statement examples of where he told them to storm the building and take over?

I will lead off with fight like hell.. what else you got..

---

All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they're doing. And stolen by the fake news media. That's what they've done and what they're doing. We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved.

Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with: We will stop the steal.

We will not let them silence your voices. We're not going to let it happen, I'm not going to let it happen.

(Audience chants: "Fight for Trump.")

Thank you.

We're gathered together in the heart of our nation's capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: To save our democracy.

We want to go back and we want to get this right because we're going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed and we're not going to stand for that.

If this happened to the Democrats, there'd be hell all over the country going on. There'd be hell all over the country.

You will have an illegitimate president. That's what you'll have. And we can't let that happen.

So when you hear, when you hear, while there is no evidence to prove any wrongdoing, this is the most fraudulent thing anybody has, this is a criminal enterprise. This is a criminal enterprise.

The Republicans have to get tougher. You're not going to have a Republican Party if you don't get tougher. They want to play so straight. They want to play so, sir, yes, the United States. The Constitution doesn't allow me to send them back to the States. Well, I say, yes it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can't vote on fraud. And fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules.

So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn't listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he's listening to.

If we allow this group of people to illegally take over our country because it's illegal when the votes are illegal when the way they got there is illegal when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

---

What's ironic is that if you, anti Trumpers and democrats were actually successful going for the 25th to stop Trump, which they have no legal avenues or logic to justify, you'd create retaliation that ACTUALLY runs the risk of threatening democracy.

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.

---

100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.

---

Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

---

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.

---

Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.

---

Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)

---

That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.

---

100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.

---

Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

---

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.

---

Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.

---

Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)

---

That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

---

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

Former White House counsel Cipollone to testify Friday after subpoena from Jan. 6 committee
It's unclear what limits, if any, there will be on Pat Cipollone's closed-door testimony. Cipollone had previously been reluctant to testify to the committee, citing presidential privilege, but he has been regularly mentioned in the hearings and is key to a number of episodes being plumbed by the committee. Individuals who confirmed the session spoke about the committee's plans on condition of anonymity to freely describe private deliberations.

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.

---

100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.

---

Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

---

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.

---

Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.

---

Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)

---

That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

---

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

---

Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.

When justice wasn't sought for Obama's pallets of cash, Benghazi, Russiagate, Bush WMD lies, etc....you signaled to the public that rules differ if you're part of the neoliberal world order.

Even today ya'll are content and completely fine that the elite who got children from Epstein aren't being prosecuted.

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.

---

100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.

---

Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

---

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.

---

Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.

---

Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)

---

That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

---

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

---

I think they found precedent for it. Here is what I found, there were four contested elections and only one involved submitting slates of different Electors. Of all four, in no situation was the VP the one making the decision.

1877 - Competing sets of election returns and electoral votes were sent to Congress, so Congress voted to create a bipartisan commission of 15 members of Congress and Supreme Court justices to determine how to allocate the electors from the three disputed states. Seven commissioners were to be Republican, seven were to be Democrats, and there would be one independent, Justice David Davis of Illinois.

The other three involved - Vote buying, Vote Harvesting/Delivering and the last was the "hanging chad". This is another reason why I find it not believable that Trump would risk prosecution to push for something that clearly was not possible. The one thing he never did was physically break the law. His legal issues have always been white collar.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.

---

100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.

---

Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

---

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.

---

Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.

---

Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)

---

That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

---

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

---

Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.

---

I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.

---

100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.

---

Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

---

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.

---

Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.

---

Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)

---

That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

---

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

---

Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.

---

I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"

---

If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.

---

100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.

---

Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

---

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.

---

Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.

---

Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)

---

That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

---

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

---

Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.

---

I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"

---

If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.

---

Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.

I have tried to approach the Jan 6th hearings with an open mind. I have learned some new things but I have not completely locked in with a full evaluation. I encourage you folks who have already made up your mind based solely on your political opinion to give this event an objective evaluation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.

---

100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.

---

Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

---

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.

---

Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.

---

Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)

---

That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

---

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

---

Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.

---

I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"

---

If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.

---

Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.

---

But you're glossing over the fact that they did do it. Where do you think Trump came up with the playbook? In 2016, the Democrats actively claimed the election was stolen, and I am old enough to remember Hollywood actors recording PSAs asking electors to void the will of the people and cast votes for Clinton BECAUSE RUSSIA! Then actively spent four years using a Clinton campaign dossier to undermine the effectiveness of the Trump Administration. That was in total a much bigger "threat to democracy" that a three-hour, unarmed riot. There was arguably more actual damage done to the riots around Trump's election and inauguration than the Capitol riot, but destroying lots of private property does not have the visual effect of people trespassing at the Capitol - especially those coup members who walked within the ropes.

The issues keep getting mixed - is the question about the Capitol riot or Trump's baseless election claims? One minute it is the riot and the next it is Trump's questioning the veracity of the election results.

Guy Noir said:

---

I have tried to approach the Jan 6th hearings with an open mind. I have learned some new things but I have not completely locked in with a full evaluation. I encourage you folks who have already made up your mind based solely on your political opinion to give this event an objective evaluation.

---

Well, Cippilone, the WH Counsel that supposedly instructed Cassidy Hutchinson to save Democracy after she cleaned up the spaghetti Trump threw, has agreed to testify under oath. A lot of question should be resolved. Nothing I have heard so far convinces me any action should come from this Committee. Will it after he testifies?

whitetrash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

I have tried to approach the Jan 6th hearings with an open mind. I have learned some new things but I have not completely locked in with a full evaluation. I encourage you folks who have already made up your mind based solely on your political opinion to give this event an objective evaluation.

---

Well, Cippilone, the WH Counsel that supposedly instructed Cassidy Hutchinson to save Democracy after she cleaned up the spaghetti Trump threw, has agreed to testify under oath. A lot of question should be resolved. Nothing I have heard so far convinces me any action should come from this Committee. Will it after he testifies?

---

Except he is testifying behind closed doors instead of preempting America's Got Talent to broadcast during prime time.

---

Under oath. Well, aren't they naming the Masked Singer? Can't mess with that...