Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

The arguement is as clear as your evidence.

---

I agree.

One area of interest to prosecutors was a Jan. 4, 2021, Oval Office meeting where conservative lawyer John Eastman pushed Mr. Pence, in Mr. Trump's presence, to either reject the electoral votes outright or suspend the proceedings and ask several state legislatures to re-examine the results.
Last month, Mr. Jacob testified at length before the Jan. 6 congressional committee about that meeting, which included Messrs. Trump, Pence, Short, Eastman and Jacob. During the meeting, Mr. Eastman admitted his proposals would violate the law but wanted to proceed anyway, Mr. Jacob said.
"During that meeting on the Fourth, I think I raised the problem that both of Mr. Eastman's proposals would violate several provisions of the Electoral Count Act. Mr. Eastman acknowledged that that was the case, that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions," Mr. Jacob told the committee.
A lawyer for Mr. Eastman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A federal judge last year found that Mr. Eastman and Mr. Trump "more likely than not" committed a felony in their efforts to block the 2020 election results.
Prosecutors also asked detailed questions about Rudy Giuliani, who forwarded to Mr. Pence's office letters from individual state legislators urging Mr. Pence to accept false slates of electors claiming Mr. Trump won from states he actually lost. A lawyer for Mr. Giuliani didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-questions-top-pence-aides-over-trump-bid-to-overturn-election-11658783628

---

I have no problem with Eastman doing that as an attorney for than President Trump. I also have no problem with Pence rejecting the strategy after talking to his counsel. I would also have no problem with the Supreme Court ruling on it if Pence did it. I do not see that as illegal, especially asking the State's to re-examine or confirm their Electors. This is politics, it has happened before and that is how questions are resolved and part of the design. In my opinion, the issue is that they moved Inauguration Day from March to January. That move, although decades ago, created the urgency as their is limited time to explore any of the legal questions.

I had no Problem with Gore and Bush. I have no problem with any of the questions of elections, that is how the system works. The Executive Branch makes a decision and the Supreme Court checks it against the Legislatures laws and the Constitution.

I have a BIG problem with short circuiting that process. I have a BIGGER problem with the Cheney Show trying to ban Trump from competing for asking questions that were within the process. I would have liked to see the Court rule on those issues, that would be interesting to determine if they are legitimate options.

---

You asked for evidence. You're a smart guy. You looked at it, saw it, and decided it wasn't illegal

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

The arguement is as clear as your evidence.

---

I agree.

One area of interest to prosecutors was a Jan. 4, 2021, Oval Office meeting where conservative lawyer John Eastman pushed Mr. Pence, in Mr. Trump's presence, to either reject the electoral votes outright or suspend the proceedings and ask several state legislatures to re-examine the results.
Last month, Mr. Jacob testified at length before the Jan. 6 congressional committee about that meeting, which included Messrs. Trump, Pence, Short, Eastman and Jacob. During the meeting, Mr. Eastman admitted his proposals would violate the law but wanted to proceed anyway, Mr. Jacob said.
"During that meeting on the Fourth, I think I raised the problem that both of Mr. Eastman's proposals would violate several provisions of the Electoral Count Act. Mr. Eastman acknowledged that that was the case, that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions," Mr. Jacob told the committee.
A lawyer for Mr. Eastman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A federal judge last year found that Mr. Eastman and Mr. Trump "more likely than not" committed a felony in their efforts to block the 2020 election results.
Prosecutors also asked detailed questions about Rudy Giuliani, who forwarded to Mr. Pence's office letters from individual state legislators urging Mr. Pence to accept false slates of electors claiming Mr. Trump won from states he actually lost. A lawyer for Mr. Giuliani didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-questions-top-pence-aides-over-trump-bid-to-overturn-election-11658783628

---

I have no problem with Eastman doing that as an attorney for than President Trump. I also have no problem with Pence rejecting the strategy after talking to his counsel. I would also have no problem with the Supreme Court ruling on it if Pence did it. I do not see that as illegal, especially asking the State's to re-examine or confirm their Electors. This is politics, it has happened before and that is how questions are resolved and part of the design. In my opinion, the issue is that they moved Inauguration Day from March to January. That move, although decades ago, created the urgency as their is limited time to explore any of the legal questions.

I had no Problem with Gore and Bush. I have no problem with any of the questions of elections, that is how the system works. The Executive Branch makes a decision and the Supreme Court checks it against the Legislatures laws and the Constitution.

I have a BIG problem with short circuiting that process. I have a BIGGER problem with the Cheney Show trying to ban Trump from competing for asking questions that were within the process. I would have liked to see the Court rule on those issues, that would be interesting to determine if they are legitimate options.

---

You asked for evidence. You're a smart guy. You looked at it, saw it, and decided it wasn't illegal

---

True, but I may have been wrong!

I would have loved to see it argued before the SCOTUS and a decision, that would have laid the issue to rest.

Whatever the outcome, I don't believe that the Trump Administration did anything illegal or criminal. If the ruling went against them, so be it. But, now we have turmoil, really don't know the answer and are stuck with the Liz Show.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

The arguement is as clear as your evidence.

---

I agree.

One area of interest to prosecutors was a Jan. 4, 2021, Oval Office meeting where conservative lawyer John Eastman pushed Mr. Pence, in Mr. Trump's presence, to either reject the electoral votes outright or suspend the proceedings and ask several state legislatures to re-examine the results.
Last month, Mr. Jacob testified at length before the Jan. 6 congressional committee about that meeting, which included Messrs. Trump, Pence, Short, Eastman and Jacob. During the meeting, Mr. Eastman admitted his proposals would violate the law but wanted to proceed anyway, Mr. Jacob said.
"During that meeting on the Fourth, I think I raised the problem that both of Mr. Eastman's proposals would violate several provisions of the Electoral Count Act. Mr. Eastman acknowledged that that was the case, that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions," Mr. Jacob told the committee.
A lawyer for Mr. Eastman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A federal judge last year found that Mr. Eastman and Mr. Trump "more likely than not" committed a felony in their efforts to block the 2020 election results.
Prosecutors also asked detailed questions about Rudy Giuliani, who forwarded to Mr. Pence's office letters from individual state legislators urging Mr. Pence to accept false slates of electors claiming Mr. Trump won from states he actually lost. A lawyer for Mr. Giuliani didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-questions-top-pence-aides-over-trump-bid-to-overturn-election-11658783628

---

I have no problem with Eastman doing that as an attorney for than President Trump. I also have no problem with Pence rejecting the strategy after talking to his counsel. I would also have no problem with the Supreme Court ruling on it if Pence did it. I do not see that as illegal, especially asking the State's to re-examine or confirm their Electors. This is politics, it has happened before and that is how questions are resolved and part of the design. In my opinion, the issue is that they moved Inauguration Day from March to January. That move, although decades ago, created the urgency as their is limited time to explore any of the legal questions.

I had no Problem with Gore and Bush. I have no problem with any of the questions of elections, that is how the system works. The Executive Branch makes a decision and the Supreme Court checks it against the Legislatures laws and the Constitution.

I have a BIG problem with short circuiting that process. I have a BIGGER problem with the Cheney Show trying to ban Trump from competing for asking questions that were within the process. I would have liked to see the Court rule on those issues, that would be interesting to determine if they are legitimate options.

---

You asked for evidence. You're a smart guy. You looked at it, saw it, and decided it wasn't illegal

---

True, but I may have been wrong!

I would have loved to see it argued before the SCOTUS and a decision, that would have laid the issue to rest.

Whatever the outcome, I don't believe that the Trump Administration did anything illegal or criminal. If the ruling went against them, so be it. But, now we have turmoil, really don't know the answer and are stuck with the Liz Show.

---

I think Trump did something illegal, but should not be charged. It would only divide us further.
The "Liz Show" is developing evidence that the American people need to know

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

The arguement is as clear as your evidence.

---

I agree.

One area of interest to prosecutors was a Jan. 4, 2021, Oval Office meeting where conservative lawyer John Eastman pushed Mr. Pence, in Mr. Trump's presence, to either reject the electoral votes outright or suspend the proceedings and ask several state legislatures to re-examine the results.
Last month, Mr. Jacob testified at length before the Jan. 6 congressional committee about that meeting, which included Messrs. Trump, Pence, Short, Eastman and Jacob. During the meeting, Mr. Eastman admitted his proposals would violate the law but wanted to proceed anyway, Mr. Jacob said.
"During that meeting on the Fourth, I think I raised the problem that both of Mr. Eastman's proposals would violate several provisions of the Electoral Count Act. Mr. Eastman acknowledged that that was the case, that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions," Mr. Jacob told the committee.
A lawyer for Mr. Eastman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A federal judge last year found that Mr. Eastman and Mr. Trump "more likely than not" committed a felony in their efforts to block the 2020 election results.
Prosecutors also asked detailed questions about Rudy Giuliani, who forwarded to Mr. Pence's office letters from individual state legislators urging Mr. Pence to accept false slates of electors claiming Mr. Trump won from states he actually lost. A lawyer for Mr. Giuliani didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-questions-top-pence-aides-over-trump-bid-to-overturn-election-11658783628

---

I have no problem with Eastman doing that as an attorney for than President Trump. I also have no problem with Pence rejecting the strategy after talking to his counsel. I would also have no problem with the Supreme Court ruling on it if Pence did it. I do not see that as illegal, especially asking the State's to re-examine or confirm their Electors. This is politics, it has happened before and that is how questions are resolved and part of the design. In my opinion, the issue is that they moved Inauguration Day from March to January. That move, although decades ago, created the urgency as their is limited time to explore any of the legal questions.

I had no Problem with Gore and Bush. I have no problem with any of the questions of elections, that is how the system works. The Executive Branch makes a decision and the Supreme Court checks it against the Legislatures laws and the Constitution.

I have a BIG problem with short circuiting that process. I have a BIGGER problem with the Cheney Show trying to ban Trump from competing for asking questions that were within the process. I would have liked to see the Court rule on those issues, that would be interesting to determine if they are legitimate options.

---

You asked for evidence. You're a smart guy. You looked at it, saw it, and decided it wasn't illegal

---

True, but I may have been wrong!

I would have loved to see it argued before the SCOTUS and a decision, that would have laid the issue to rest.

Whatever the outcome, I don't believe that the Trump Administration did anything illegal or criminal. If the ruling went against them, so be it. But, now we have turmoil, really don't know the answer and are stuck with the Liz Show.

---

I think Trump did something illegal, but should not be charged. It would only divide us further.
The "Liz Show" is developing evidence that the American people need to know

---

That is DOJ's job, investigate and forward a recommendation. Not a made for TV special in an official setting that offers no balance at all. It uses all the power of a trial, with none of the process or protections. Just think it is not a fair setting to determine anything but what has been predetermined, as there can be no surprises and no one that offers contrary testimony. Liz controls who is on the stand and what questions, all pre-screened by her. How much "real evidence" can be ascertained under these conditions?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Where I disagree with you is the very fact that a riot occurred inside the US Capitol Building on the very day the election results were to be ceritified. There is evidence that Trumps actions promoted this event. My question is: What should be done to prevent a future occurance of an event like this. Is it okay for a president to promote overturning an election in the future? What if that action turns into a riot?

I think the results of the committee should discourage future events of this type.

---

I think the issue is more a security failure at the Capitol.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

The arguement is as clear as your evidence.

---

I agree.

One area of interest to prosecutors was a Jan. 4, 2021, Oval Office meeting where conservative lawyer John Eastman pushed Mr. Pence, in Mr. Trump's presence, to either reject the electoral votes outright or suspend the proceedings and ask several state legislatures to re-examine the results.
Last month, Mr. Jacob testified at length before the Jan. 6 congressional committee about that meeting, which included Messrs. Trump, Pence, Short, Eastman and Jacob. During the meeting, Mr. Eastman admitted his proposals would violate the law but wanted to proceed anyway, Mr. Jacob said.
"During that meeting on the Fourth, I think I raised the problem that both of Mr. Eastman's proposals would violate several provisions of the Electoral Count Act. Mr. Eastman acknowledged that that was the case, that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions," Mr. Jacob told the committee.
A lawyer for Mr. Eastman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A federal judge last year found that Mr. Eastman and Mr. Trump "more likely than not" committed a felony in their efforts to block the 2020 election results.
Prosecutors also asked detailed questions about Rudy Giuliani, who forwarded to Mr. Pence's office letters from individual state legislators urging Mr. Pence to accept false slates of electors claiming Mr. Trump won from states he actually lost. A lawyer for Mr. Giuliani didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-questions-top-pence-aides-over-trump-bid-to-overturn-election-11658783628

---

I have no problem with Eastman doing that as an attorney for than President Trump. I also have no problem with Pence rejecting the strategy after talking to his counsel. I would also have no problem with the Supreme Court ruling on it if Pence did it. I do not see that as illegal, especially asking the State's to re-examine or confirm their Electors. This is politics, it has happened before and that is how questions are resolved and part of the design. In my opinion, the issue is that they moved Inauguration Day from March to January. That move, although decades ago, created the urgency as their is limited time to explore any of the legal questions.

I had no Problem with Gore and Bush. I have no problem with any of the questions of elections, that is how the system works. The Executive Branch makes a decision and the Supreme Court checks it against the Legislatures laws and the Constitution.

I have a BIG problem with short circuiting that process. I have a BIGGER problem with the Cheney Show trying to ban Trump from competing for asking questions that were within the process. I would have liked to see the Court rule on those issues, that would be interesting to determine if they are legitimate options.

---

You asked for evidence. You're a smart guy. You looked at it, saw it, and decided it wasn't illegal

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

If everyone had a moral compass, we wouldn't have threads like this. We'd all just agree that Trump is disqualified from holding office again and move on. No one is particularly interested in seeing him prosecuted.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

If everyone had a moral compass, we wouldn't have threads like this. We'd all just agree that Trump is disqualified from holding office again and move on. No one is particularly interested in seeing him prosecuted.

---

The difference is a question of democracy. Should the people decide or a cartoon communist show trial.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Where I disagree with you is the very fact that a riot occurred inside the US Capitol Building on the very day the election results were to be ceritified. There is evidence that Trumps actions promoted this event. My question is: What should be done to prevent a future occurance of an event like this. Is it okay for a president to promote overturning an election in the future? What if that action turns into a riot?

I think the results of the committee should discourage future events of this type.

---

I think the issue is more a security failure at the Capitol.

---

The more you say this, the worse it makes Trump look. Y'all are basically calling the whole law enforcement and military establishment up to and including the Secretary of Defense incompetent for not expecting Trump to set off an insurrection.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

If everyone had a moral compass, we wouldn't have threads like this. We'd all just agree that Trump is disqualified from holding office again and move on. No one is particularly interested in seeing him prosecuted.

---

The difference is a question of democracy. Should the people decide or a cartoon communist show trial.

---

When Republicans take the House, should a Congressional committee be allowed to exercise oversight of the Biden Administration?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

From WaPo
A book by former vice president Mike Pence due for publication in November will touch on "President Trump's severing of their relationship on Jan. 6, 2021, when Pence kept his oath to the Constitution," according to Simon & Schuster, its publisher.

That, of course, is a reference to Donald Trump's ultimately unsuccessful effort to get Pence to intervene in the counting of electoral college votes by Congress on Jan. 6 and Trump's irate reaction to Pence's unwillingness to help him overturn the presidential election results.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You really seem to get into Cosplaying as the Red Queen.

---

Do I have a functional brain?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

If everyone had a moral compass, we wouldn't have threads like this. We'd all just agree that Trump is disqualified from holding office again and move on. No one is particularly interested in seeing him prosecuted.

---

The difference is a question of democracy. Should the people decide or a cartoon communist show trial.

---

When Republicans take the House, should a Congressional committee be allowed to exercise oversight of the Biden Administration?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

If everyone had a moral compass, we wouldn't have threads like this. We'd all just agree that Trump is disqualified from holding office again and move on. No one is particularly interested in seeing him prosecuted.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Where I disagree with you is the very fact that a riot occurred inside the US Capitol Building on the very day the election results were to be ceritified. There is evidence that Trumps actions promoted this event. My question is: What should be done to prevent a future occurance of an event like this. Is it okay for a president to promote overturning an election in the future? What if that action turns into a riot?

I think the results of the committee should discourage future events of this type.

---

I think the issue is more a security failure at the Capitol.

---

The more you say this, the worse it makes Trump look. Y'all are basically calling the whole law enforcement and military establishment up to and including the Secretary of Defense incompetent for not expecting Trump to set off an insurrection.

---

There was no insurrection.

If you want to say Trump set off a dangerous riot...then fine we can argue that point.

But there is no where on earth...including in the US....where a two hour riot/breach of the peace has been called an insurrection up until now.

We had riots for several months during the summer of 2020...in more than 140+ cities...causing $2 billion in damages. And yet the the media and the establishment do not refer to those events as an "insurrection".

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You really seem to get into Cosplaying as the Red Queen.

---

Do I have a functional brain?

---

From your inability to advance the discussion Oso, and your stubborn devotion to the malicious premise of the Left, I'd have to say no.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

If everyone had a moral compass, we wouldn't have threads like this. We'd all just agree that Trump is disqualified from holding office again and move on. No one is particularly interested in seeing him prosecuted.

---

The difference is a question of democracy. Should the people decide or a cartoon communist show trial. That's the great and terrible thing about democracy. For the same people that want every uneducated moron to vote early and often seem really terrified of letting those people's voices be heard. I for one do not want Trump near the White House again largely because the Republicans have a lot of potentially great candidates. However, I would take Trump over any of the octogenarian, corrupt morons or unqualified intersectionals the Democrats will offer up.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

If everyone had a moral compass, we wouldn't have threads like this. We'd all just agree that Trump is disqualified from holding office again and move on. No one is particularly interested in seeing him prosecuted.

---

You are completely wrong, Sam.

A moral compass would require a sense of proportionality and context, of objective consideration of facts ahead of any presented theories, and no just man would countenance the abuse of Congress as a tool to punish a political opponent.

You hating Trump is not grounds to disqualify him from anything. The American position would be to let voters decide on the merits of his campaign, but for some reason you seem to fear and despise that precept.

It's telling that you admit you don't want him 'prosecuted' but you do want him punished. Whether you realize it or not, you just admitted in print you oppose due process in Trump's case.

You are neither a conservative nor an American in any effective sense.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

If everyone had a moral compass, we wouldn't have threads like this. We'd all just agree that Trump is disqualified from holding office again and move on. No one is particularly interested in seeing him prosecuted.

---

You are completely wrong, Sam.

A moral compass would require a sense of proportionality and context, of objective consideration of facts ahead of any presented theories, and no just man would countenance the abuse of Congress as a tool to punish a political opponent.

You hating Trump is not grounds to disqualify him from anything. The American position would be to let voters decide on the merits of his campaign, but for some reason you seem to fear and despise that precept.

It's telling that you admit you don't want him 'prosecuted' but you do want him punished. Whether you realize it or not, you just admitted in print you oppose due process in Trump's case.

You are neither a conservative nor an American in any effective sense.

---

The voters will decide. You just want to make sure they decide with as little information as possible.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Grand Dragon of the Trump cult"

Your idiocy is noted

It's been a long time since I saw a post that managed to be that far from true.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

If everyone had a moral compass, we wouldn't have threads like this. We'd all just agree that Trump is disqualified from holding office again and move on. No one is particularly interested in seeing him prosecuted.

---

You are completely wrong, Sam.

A moral compass would require a sense of proportionality and context, of objective consideration of facts ahead of any presented theories, and no just man would countenance the abuse of Congress as a tool to punish a political opponent.

You hating Trump is not grounds to disqualify him from anything. The American position would be to let voters decide on the merits of his campaign, but for some reason you seem to fear and despise that precept.

It's telling that you admit you don't want him 'prosecuted' but you do want him punished. Whether you realize it or not, you just admitted in print you oppose due process in Trump's case.

You are neither a conservative nor an American in any effective sense.

---

The voters will decide. You just want to make sure they decide with as little information as possible.

---

On the contrary, I love facts, I just resent your sneering malice and gaslighting. Had plenty of that under Obama, don't need it from his acolytes posing as Americans.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

If everyone had a moral compass, we wouldn't have threads like this. We'd all just agree that Trump is disqualified from holding office again and move on. No one is particularly interested in seeing him prosecuted.

---

You are completely wrong, Sam.

A moral compass would require a sense of proportionality and context, of objective consideration of facts ahead of any presented theories, and no just man would countenance the abuse of Congress as a tool to punish a political opponent.

You hating Trump is not grounds to disqualify him from anything. The American position would be to let voters decide on the merits of his campaign, but for some reason you seem to fear and despise that precept.

It's telling that you admit you don't want him 'prosecuted' but you do want him punished. Whether you realize it or not, you just admitted in print you oppose due process in Trump's case.

You are neither a conservative nor an American in any effective sense.

---

The voters will decide. You just want to make sure they decide with as little information as possible.

---

On the contrary, I love facts, I just resent your sneering malice and gaslighting. Had plenty of that under Obama, don't need it from his acolytes posing as Americans.

---

You resent anything that stands in the way of power for your political party. For all your outrage about 2020, you don't even have the integrity to answer whether you believe the election was stolen. The truth is that you don't believe it, but you're afraid to say anything against the guy you sold your soul to.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Grand Dragon of the Trump cult"

Your idiocy is noted

It's been a long time since I saw a post that managed to be that far from true.

---

Klavern meeting soon?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

If everyone had a moral compass, we wouldn't have threads like this. We'd all just agree that Trump is disqualified from holding office again and move on. No one is particularly interested in seeing him prosecuted.

---

You are completely wrong, Sam.

A moral compass would require a sense of proportionality and context, of objective consideration of facts ahead of any presented theories, and no just man would countenance the abuse of Congress as a tool to punish a political opponent.

You hating Trump is not grounds to disqualify him from anything. The American position would be to let voters decide on the merits of his campaign, but for some reason you seem to fear and despise that precept.

It's telling that you admit you don't want him 'prosecuted' but you do want him punished. Whether you realize it or not, you just admitted in print you oppose due process in Trump's case.

You are neither a conservative nor an American in any effective sense.

---

The voters will decide. You just want to make sure they decide with as little information as possible.

---

On the contrary, I love facts, I just resent your sneering malice and gaslighting. Had plenty of that under Obama, don't need it from his acolytes posing as Americans.

---

You resent anything that stands in the way of power for your political party. For all your outrage about 2020, you don't even have the integrity to answer whether you believe the election was stolen. The truth is that you don't believe it, but you're afraid to say anything against the guy you sold your soul to.

---

Again Sam, you are the one saying don't prosecute, just go ahead and punish your enemies, so you have zero credibility to pretend anyone else is a bad guy.

You're a god-damned fascist who will use any lie to advance the power of the state. You and your kind are the villains Washington and Franklin and Paine warned the people against.

Too damn bad for you the mask slipped and you showed your true face.

You sold your soul, claiming anyone else did is just pathetic spittle from you.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "Disqualification is no punishment"

It damn well is, especially without due process.

Not sure anymore where you are from, Sam, but it's as un-American as it gets, to rig things so the opponent you don't like is not even allowed to compete.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "Are we allowed to ask questions?"

Democrats on the committee are allowed to ask questions

RINOs on the committee are allowed to do what the Democrats tell them to do

The media reports what the Democrats tell them to say.


But the accused is not allowed a defense, there is no cross-examination or counter evidence. In fact, the "evidence" allowed by the Democrats cropped out anything that made Trump look good or at least better.


Of course we all knew that, but it doesn't matter to those who are only out to get Trump.

Go suck a lemon. Change is coming, pal.

---

Do you have an argument?

---

As repeatedly demonstrated, of course I do.

The real question is whether you and Sam have anything like a moral compass?

---

If everyone had a moral compass, we wouldn't have threads like this. We'd all just agree that Trump is disqualified from holding office again and move on. No one is particularly interested in seeing him prosecuted.

---

You are completely wrong, Sam.

A moral compass would require a sense of proportionality and context, of objective consideration of facts ahead of any presented theories, and no just man would countenance the abuse of Congress as a tool to punish a political opponent.

You hating Trump is not grounds to disqualify him from anything. The American position would be to let voters decide on the merits of his campaign, but for some reason you seem to fear and despise that precept.

It's telling that you admit you don't want him 'prosecuted' but you do want him punished. Whether you realize it or not, you just admitted in print you oppose due process in Trump's case.

You are neither a conservative nor an American in any effective sense.

---

The voters will decide. You just want to make sure they decide with as little information as possible.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "Disqualification is no punishment"

It damn well is, especially without due process.

Not sure anymore where you are from, Sam, but it's as un-American as it gets, to rig things so the opponent you don't like is not even allowed to compete.

---

I'm sure Trump is more than welcome, along with Bannon and whoever else you're saying would make him look good (if you actually had the boldness to say, which of course you don't). There's only one thing Trump's minions hate more than being silenced, and that's being asked to make their case. You and they have that in common.

---