- Thread starter
- #241
He also was aware of the same intel briefing.Mc Connell has a deferent outlook HE WAS THERE. He blames Trump for a violent insurrection with beaten law Enforcement and destruction in the capital…
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He also was aware of the same intel briefing.Mc Connell has a deferent outlook HE WAS THERE. He blames Trump for a violent insurrection with beaten law Enforcement and destruction in the capital…
The J6 farce was a scripted, made-for-TV
Didja watch it?
Didja read the Final Report?
If you didn't do either....you should.
Be a better you, Hollie.
We’re you vacationing in Guatemala ?You were impressed by the cheap theatrics, right?
You were impressed by weepy Adam Kinzinger?
If you did either, you were a part of the Clown Show.
Maybe you can’t do better poster Chillicothe.
When was this march supposed to start?To march down Pennsylvania Avenue in the manner that crowd did....without a pre-issued permit by the authorities.....is not allowed.
Looked like the roads already were closed.It is illegal to do so, blocking commerce, traffic, and normal city business. Not to mention endangering citizens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------You were impressed by the cheap theatrics, right?
I don't know.When was this march supposed to start?
People in the real world don't approve of stolen elections.And some in MAGAland and QAnonistan wonder why they are snickered and laughed at by the citizens in RealPeople-world?
Homeland Security Bureau JST ACC Division Intelligence Branch Special Note:And, to that point, it appears the law enforcement forces that would be expected to know.....if a permit had been requested.....didn't know either.
They had a heads up in late December......they weren't prepared for it............which is obvious.Why weren't they alerted?
Does it really matter then?I don't know.
People in the real world don't approve of stolen elections.
Name names, Lenny.The Deep State is real.
Why did Trump and his enablers NOT apply for permits for a march, and instruct those who were in-the-know to not divulge of Trump's plan to order a march from the podium?They had a heads up in late December
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't observe your perceived "cheap theatrics".
Hardly.
I was impressed by the measured questioning, the measured openings & wrap-ups, and their respectful and professional questioning of witnesses. All of them.
'All of them'...being both the witnesses and the Republican and Democratic Representative's on that committee.
I believed the evidence.... and believed the witnesses were credible.
And....not unimportantly ..... those potential witnesses who could have provided rebuttal? ..
Well, they didn't.
They refused to provide any rebuttal under oath.
Rather, they seemingly felt they had no effective rebuttal.
(see the list of potential witnesses offered in post #231. )
To wit:
- Jim Jordan
- Mark Meadows
- Dan Scavino
- Steve Bannon
- Peter Navarro
- Scott Perry
- Andy Biggs
- And notably, Don Trump himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------"....the J6 made for TV movie as something other than a version of the 1936-38 Moscow Trials?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So, good poster Hollie, did you read the Final Report? (linked in several posts, but Google too, can find it for you).
And, did you actually watch the televised hearings?
If you did, which of the witnesses did you find the most compelling?
Which one the least?
Same type of question can be applied to the Committee members, which one was the most organized and incisive?
Which one the least?
Did you think the testimony of Trump's Attorney General, William Barr, when he told Don Trump his claims of a "stolen election was bullshit" was effective use of an eyewitness?
And were you disappointed, or even just surprised when all those eyewitnesses refused to testify in Don Trump's defense? to offer rebuttal to the Committee's findings and witnesses? (see the list in post #246).
- Jim Jordan
- Mark Meadows
- Dan Scavino
- Steve Bannon
- Peter Navarro
- Scott Perry
- Andy Biggs
- Don Trump himself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------"What point is served by copying and pasting your same post multiple times?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Poster Hollie, I was trying to be helpful in boiling down to questions that could signal to the forum the sincerity, and the seriousness of purpose of contributing posters.
In short, I think it more productive to the forum to have posters who have an 'informed opinion', i.e., those who had recognized their civic responsibility to America, and their adult responsibility to this forum to at least attempt to be informed. To have read the Final Report and/or viewed the hearings.
That is the 'point' of offering that list of key eyewitnesses who felt they had no rebuttal or no defense of Don Trump's attempts to steal the election from the American people, and the winning Democrat candidate.,,,,on January 6th, 2021.
That's all, Hollie. Trust me.
I have only a desire for responsible adult discourse.
-------------------------------------------------------------------"That is why a critical analysis of the J6 made-for-TV docudrama...."
Actually, both impeachment's were successful. Both in a bi-partisan fashion. Hence Don Trump is the only POTUS to have earned that rather disreputable identity."two failed impeachments of Trump"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You seemingly are missing the point, poster Hollie. Tho no disrespect intended. However, "critical analysis" while a good a worthy goal depends......well, it depends very very much upon homework. Upon due diligence. Upon knowledge of the subject being "critically analyzed". I am mildly convinced you should know that.
So, those who wish to offer "critical analysis" yet do not have the ambition, desire, or sense of responsibility to, at very minimum, examine at length the very thing they wish to offer "critical analysis" of...well then, they are likely imposters. Unserious wanna-be-taken-serious dilletantes.
In short, poster Hollie, homework really really does have utilitarian value in adult life....and in responsible adult discourse.
I am mildly sure you would have been exposed to such in your schooling.
So, at the end of the day, if you wish to offer "critical analysis" of the J6 Hearings......then do your due diligence.
Lest folks think you are just another big-hatted cowgirl who owns no cows.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, both impeachment's were successful. Both in a bi-partisan fashion. Hence Don Trump is the only POTUS to have earned that rather disreputable identity.
However, due to jury-nullification (think OJ Simpson) no conviction in the Senate was achieved.
In my humble opinion, poster Holly, you are not a serious poster. You offer only thin sloganizing and bumper-sticker political philosophy.
Respond only after you have either read the Final Report from the J6 Committee, or, watched the hearings (available on YouTube).
Homework is a useful thing.
Due diligence has value if one wishes to acquire gravitas or credibility.
Otherwise, there is no need for you to respond.
Good Luck to you.
C.