You are the one who brought up Kevin McCarthy. As though the Democrat Chair could not have afforded some procedural due process even in Kevin McCarthy's absence.Sam Lowry said:Cute, but you know it's not a question of rules. You can't confront a witness if you don't show up.He Hate Me said:Kevin McCarthy did not design the Committee rules. LOL.Sam Lowry said:That's exactly why McCarthy doesn't want it.He Hate Me said:Nothing like a lack of cross-examination to find the truth, eh?Sam Lowry said:It is like a continuation of the second impeachment in some ways. Impeachment has always been a political process. Until Mitt Romney in 2020, no senator had ever voted to convict a president from his own party. It's also like a grand jury in some ways. That process is notoriously one-sided.He Hate Me said:I know he is not in court, Sam. However, Congress is accusing him of something that is tantamount to criminal conduct. The committee is a continuation of the second sham impeachment. That is why the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to confront witness and put on evidence. The committee members would not apply these same standards to themselves.Sam Lowry said:He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.He Hate Me said:Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.Sam Lowry said:
Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.
Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
Because this isn't a trial, the format of the investigation doesn't allow Trump to confront witnesses. That was never going to change. The best he can do is testify himself, and the best his allies in Congress can do is send representatives to confront the witnesses. They have chosen not to do these things.
The result is a process that's more inquisitorial than adversarial. It has no validity as an ultimate determiner of truth. I'll go on to add that there's little logic in the way the narrative is being presented. It's difficult to see how the snippets of testimony relate to a coherent theory or how accurately they portray the events without fuller context. Because there's no confrontation, the hearings lack drama. They're obviously scripted, yet the production values are laughably bad (see for example Cassidy Hutchinson staring dumbly at a video screen for ten minutes while the audience at home wonders what she's looking at). The whole presentation feels amateurish and manipulative at the same time. Worst of all it's insufferably boring.
I get all this. It doesn't change the fact that these are credible witnesses testifying under oath. They're taking a real risk if they don't tell the truth. And they were in a position to know. You can find excuses to ignore it, but excuses are just that.
Jan 6 committee
174,554 Views |
3026 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Harrison Bergeron
It's not clear to me that she could have. McCarthy leads the House Republicans, and he basically announced they were boycotting the committee. There's little point in compelling them to be there, even if she could.
equivocation fallacy is typically found to be clever or add humor..Sam Lowry said:Equivocation fallacy.4th and Inches said:The endgame in all of the situations is to control the government. It worked better for some than othersSam Lowry said:So I'll ask the same question I've been asked -- what was the endgame? This was supposed to overthrow the government?Doc Holliday said:Sam Lowry said:Yes, if that really is the case. But if you're talking about someone like Schumer saying "you'll reap the whirlwind," it's not likely to fit the bill.Doc Holliday said:Ok, so you ban Trump from holding office based on his implicit rhetoric. Meanwhile harsher implicit and explicit rhetoric from several members of congress has been spouted for decades and based on the bar you set for Trump they should easily be held responsible.Sam Lowry said:
Whether explicit or implicit, it must still be directed to and likely to produce imminent lawless action. Compare with Hess v. Indiana.
Should current members of congress/senate who fit the bill also be disqualified from holding office?
If that fails to happen, is it irrational to claim that the rules don't apply to everyone?People carried out her wishes.Quote:
"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."
- Maxine Waters
Adopt-a-Bear 2024
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
In the absence of Republican participation, it would be Democrats that made the committee rules. Glad I could help you.Sam Lowry said:
It's not clear to me that she could have. McCarthy leads the House Republicans, and he basically announced they were boycotting the committee. There's little point in compelling them to be there, even if she could.
Well, there's no rule against cross-examining, is there? There's just no one to do it in the absence of Republican participation.He Hate Me said:In the absence of Republican participation, it would be Democrats that made the committee rules. Glad I could help you.Sam Lowry said:
It's not clear to me that she could have. McCarthy leads the House Republicans, and he basically announced they were boycotting the committee. There's little point in compelling them to be there, even if she could.
You have already said Trump has no standing to cross examine. Your words.Sam Lowry said:Well, there's no rule against cross-examining, is there? There's just no one to do it in the absence of Republican participation.He Hate Me said:In the absence of Republican participation, it would be Democrats that made the committee rules. Glad I could help you.Sam Lowry said:
It's not clear to me that she could have. McCarthy leads the House Republicans, and he basically announced they were boycotting the committee. There's little point in compelling them to be there, even if she could.
Trump himself and his lawyers don't. Committee members do, including Republicans. If McCarthy hadn't withdrawn his picks, they would be there asking questions.He Hate Me said:You have already said Trump has no standing to cross examine. Your words.Sam Lowry said:Well, there's no rule against cross-examining, is there? There's just no one to do it in the absence of Republican participation.He Hate Me said:In the absence of Republican participation, it would be Democrats that made the committee rules. Glad I could help you.Sam Lowry said:
It's not clear to me that she could have. McCarthy leads the House Republicans, and he basically announced they were boycotting the committee. There's little point in compelling them to be there, even if she could.
Spammy, that is not the same thing.Sam Lowry said:Trump himself and his lawyers don't. Committee members do, including Republicans. If McCarthy hadn't withdrawn his picks, they would be there asking questions.He Hate Me said:You have already said Trump has no standing to cross examine. Your words.Sam Lowry said:Well, there's no rule against cross-examining, is there? There's just no one to do it in the absence of Republican participation.He Hate Me said:In the absence of Republican participation, it would be Democrats that made the committee rules. Glad I could help you.Sam Lowry said:
It's not clear to me that she could have. McCarthy leads the House Republicans, and he basically announced they were boycotting the committee. There's little point in compelling them to be there, even if she could.
I don't know what you're getting at. Not the same thing as what?He Hate Me said:Spammy, that is not the same thing.Sam Lowry said:Trump himself and his lawyers don't. Committee members do, including Republicans. If McCarthy hadn't withdrawn his picks, they would be there asking questions.He Hate Me said:You have already said Trump has no standing to cross examine. Your words.Sam Lowry said:Well, there's no rule against cross-examining, is there? There's just no one to do it in the absence of Republican participation.He Hate Me said:In the absence of Republican participation, it would be Democrats that made the committee rules. Glad I could help you.Sam Lowry said:
It's not clear to me that she could have. McCarthy leads the House Republicans, and he basically announced they were boycotting the committee. There's little point in compelling them to be there, even if she could.
Repubs could have participated in full. McCarthy said "no".He Hate Me said:You have already said Trump has no standing to cross examine. Your words.Sam Lowry said:Well, there's no rule against cross-examining, is there? There's just no one to do it in the absence of Republican participation.He Hate Me said:In the absence of Republican participation, it would be Democrats that made the committee rules. Glad I could help you.Sam Lowry said:
It's not clear to me that she could have. McCarthy leads the House Republicans, and he basically announced they were boycotting the committee. There's little point in compelling them to be there, even if she could.
Sounds like self inflicted wounds. What is your complaint?
Trump can testify, if he only would. He refuses. What is your complaint.
"That black man was invited to our Klan rally."Osodecentx said:Repubs could have participated in full. McCarthy said "no".He Hate Me said:You have already said Trump has no standing to cross examine. Your words.Sam Lowry said:Well, there's no rule against cross-examining, is there? There's just no one to do it in the absence of Republican participation.He Hate Me said:In the absence of Republican participation, it would be Democrats that made the committee rules. Glad I could help you.Sam Lowry said:
It's not clear to me that she could have. McCarthy leads the House Republicans, and he basically announced they were boycotting the committee. There's little point in compelling them to be there, even if she could.
Sounds like self inflicted wounds. What is your complaint?
Trump can testify, if he only would. He refuses. What is your complaint.
Same logic.
Same hypocrisy.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
He Hate Me said:Trump does not get to call witnesses. I think we already agreed that was true.Booray said:Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?He Hate Me said:Right, Sam. Listen to yourself. Nothing like a lack of cross-examination to find the truth, eh?Sam Lowry said:It is like a continuation of the second impeachment in some ways. Impeachment has always been a political process. Until Mitt Romney in 2020, no senator had ever voted to convict a president from his own party. It's also like a grand jury in some ways. That process is notoriously one-sided.He Hate Me said:I know he is not in court, Sam. However, Congress is accusing him of something that is tantamount to criminal conduct. The committee is a continuation of the second sham impeachment. That is why the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to confront witness and put on evidence. The committee members would not apply these same standards to themselves.Sam Lowry said:He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.He Hate Me said:Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.Sam Lowry said:
Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.
Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
Because this isn't a trial, the format of the investigation doesn't allow Trump to confront witnesses. That was never going to change. The best he can do is testify himself, and the best his allies in Congress can do is send representatives to confront the witnesses. They have chosen not to do these things.
The result is a process that's more inquisitorial than adversarial. It has no validity as an ultimate determiner of truth. I'll go on to add that there's little logic in the way the narrative is being presented. It's difficult to see how the snippets of testimony relate to a coherent theory or how accurately they portray the events without fuller context. Because there's no confrontation, the hearings lack drama. They're obviously scripted, yet the production values are laughably bad (see for example Cassidy Hutchinson staring dumbly at a video screen for ten minutes while the audience at home wonders what she's looking at). The whole presentation feels amateurish and manipulative at the same time. Worst of all it's insufferably boring.
I get all this. It doesn't change the fact that these are credible witnesses testifying under oath. They're taking a real risk if they don't tell the truth. And they were in a position to know. You can find excuses to ignore it, but excuses are just that.
The only thing you might be on point about is that the committee is more like an inquisition than an adversarial forum. In adversarial forum, Trump would be permitted a process to defend himself from the accusers.
When I say " his witnesses" I mean witnesses who are on his side.
So if Trump could call witnesses to give his side of the story, who would he call that the committee did not?
That's kind of obvious, but irrelevant since the Committee hand-picked witnesses, the evidence allowed, and the media coverage.Booray said:He Hate Me said:Trump does not get to call witnesses. I think we already agreed that was true.Booray said:Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?He Hate Me said:Right, Sam. Listen to yourself. Nothing like a lack of cross-examination to find the truth, eh?Sam Lowry said:It is like a continuation of the second impeachment in some ways. Impeachment has always been a political process. Until Mitt Romney in 2020, no senator had ever voted to convict a president from his own party. It's also like a grand jury in some ways. That process is notoriously one-sided.He Hate Me said:I know he is not in court, Sam. However, Congress is accusing him of something that is tantamount to criminal conduct. The committee is a continuation of the second sham impeachment. That is why the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to confront witness and put on evidence. The committee members would not apply these same standards to themselves.Sam Lowry said:He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.He Hate Me said:Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.Sam Lowry said:
Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.
Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
Because this isn't a trial, the format of the investigation doesn't allow Trump to confront witnesses. That was never going to change. The best he can do is testify himself, and the best his allies in Congress can do is send representatives to confront the witnesses. They have chosen not to do these things.
The result is a process that's more inquisitorial than adversarial. It has no validity as an ultimate determiner of truth. I'll go on to add that there's little logic in the way the narrative is being presented. It's difficult to see how the snippets of testimony relate to a coherent theory or how accurately they portray the events without fuller context. Because there's no confrontation, the hearings lack drama. They're obviously scripted, yet the production values are laughably bad (see for example Cassidy Hutchinson staring dumbly at a video screen for ten minutes while the audience at home wonders what she's looking at). The whole presentation feels amateurish and manipulative at the same time. Worst of all it's insufferably boring.
I get all this. It doesn't change the fact that these are credible witnesses testifying under oath. They're taking a real risk if they don't tell the truth. And they were in a position to know. You can find excuses to ignore it, but excuses are just that.
The only thing you might be on point about is that the committee is more like an inquisition than an adversarial forum. In adversarial forum, Trump would be permitted a process to defend himself from the accusers.
When I say " his witnesses" I mean witnesses who are on his side.
So if Trump could call witnesses to give his side of the story, who would he call that the committee did not?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Curious to know whom you think he would call.Oldbear83 said:That's kind of obvious, but irrelevant since the Committee hand-picked witnesses, the evidence allowed, and the media coverage.Booray said:He Hate Me said:Trump does not get to call witnesses. I think we already agreed that was true.Booray said:Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?He Hate Me said:Right, Sam. Listen to yourself. Nothing like a lack of cross-examination to find the truth, eh?Sam Lowry said:It is like a continuation of the second impeachment in some ways. Impeachment has always been a political process. Until Mitt Romney in 2020, no senator had ever voted to convict a president from his own party. It's also like a grand jury in some ways. That process is notoriously one-sided.He Hate Me said:I know he is not in court, Sam. However, Congress is accusing him of something that is tantamount to criminal conduct. The committee is a continuation of the second sham impeachment. That is why the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to confront witness and put on evidence. The committee members would not apply these same standards to themselves.Sam Lowry said:He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.He Hate Me said:Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.Sam Lowry said:
Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.
Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
Because this isn't a trial, the format of the investigation doesn't allow Trump to confront witnesses. That was never going to change. The best he can do is testify himself, and the best his allies in Congress can do is send representatives to confront the witnesses. They have chosen not to do these things.
The result is a process that's more inquisitorial than adversarial. It has no validity as an ultimate determiner of truth. I'll go on to add that there's little logic in the way the narrative is being presented. It's difficult to see how the snippets of testimony relate to a coherent theory or how accurately they portray the events without fuller context. Because there's no confrontation, the hearings lack drama. They're obviously scripted, yet the production values are laughably bad (see for example Cassidy Hutchinson staring dumbly at a video screen for ten minutes while the audience at home wonders what she's looking at). The whole presentation feels amateurish and manipulative at the same time. Worst of all it's insufferably boring.
I get all this. It doesn't change the fact that these are credible witnesses testifying under oath. They're taking a real risk if they don't tell the truth. And they were in a position to know. You can find excuses to ignore it, but excuses are just that.
The only thing you might be on point about is that the committee is more like an inquisition than an adversarial forum. In adversarial forum, Trump would be permitted a process to defend himself from the accusers.
When I say " his witnesses" I mean witnesses who are on his side.
So if Trump could call witnesses to give his side of the story, who would he call that the committee did not?
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
You're funny. Duck the point of a Kangaroo court, then pretend I'm the one "deflecting".Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
We all know you wish you could be with your pal Hunter. Of course, he won't be anywhere near even a faux legal proceeding like this one.Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I would not legitimize it by my presence. The only "Republicans" who stoop that low no longer have a political career.Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
Democrats have usurped the power of Congress to conduct a Reichstag Fire play.RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
To be clear, they didn't stage the event, but they did actively prevent taking action which would have prevented it, and now they are using their power to push the envelope to the point where the GOP has no alternative but to engage in paybacks after they regain power in 6 months.
If statesmanship is what Sam and Oso and Booray ostensibly demand from our leaders, then they should be decrying the J6 cmee as roundly as Trump. But that's not what they want. I do give Sam credit for being honest enough to admit it, but it's still banana republic nonsense.
Completely false (and well documented as such).whiterock said:they did actively prevent taking action which would have prevented itRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
Completely false and well documented as such.Sam Lowry said:Completely false.whiterock said:they did actively prevent taking action which would have prevented itRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
Good point. Will edit accordingly.whiterock said:Completely false and well documented as such.Sam Lowry said:Completely false.whiterock said:they did actively prevent taking action which would have prevented itRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
Summary of the thread so far...RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
Pages 1-60: "Why can't Trump testify?"
Page 61: "Um, he can."
Page 62: "WHY SHOULD TRUMP TESTIFY???"
So much for Sam's "honesty"
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
So, Counselor. You would recommend that your client go on National TV and sit down with a Committee led by someone that has come out publicly hates you. In a forum that you have no recourse, no ability to ask follow up or cross-examination questions and the media will dissect every thing you say? You think he should go?Sam Lowry said:Summary of the thread so far...RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
Pages 1-60: "Why can't Trump testify?"
Page 61: "Um, he can."
Page 62: "WHY SHOULD TRUMP TESTIFY???"
If I were advising Trump, I would recommend he kept his mouth shut. If I were feeling especially hypocritical, I might even complain that he was being "excluded" from the hearings, knowing full well he could remedy that any time he wanted. But I'd have a reason for all that nonsense - I'd be on Trump's payroll.RMF5630 said:So, Counselor. You would recommend that your client go on National TV and sit down with a Committee led by someone that has come out publicly hates you. In a forum that you have no recourse, no ability to ask follow up or cross-examination questions and the media will dissect every thing you say? You think he should go?Sam Lowry said:Summary of the thread so far...RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
Pages 1-60: "Why can't Trump testify?"
Page 61: "Um, he can."
Page 62: "WHY SHOULD TRUMP TESTIFY???"
The question is, what's your excuse?
Dear Leader and Congressional Republicans refuse to participate and then ***** and moan about no recourseRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
Then don't gripe about refusing to participateHe Hate Me said:I would not legitimize it by my presence. The only "Republicans" who stoop that low no longer have a political career.Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
I am not griping about anything. I am noting the illegitimacy of the whole affair.Osodecentx said:Then don't gripe about refusing to participateHe Hate Me said:I would not legitimize it by my presence. The only "Republicans" who stoop that low no longer have a political career.Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
So many replies I though yesterday during Prime Time an intern testified she overhead at a cocktail party someone she did not know said something to the effect of President Trump threw something that might have been like a bottle of ketchup.