A through line is emerging from 1/6 hearings testimony

[Hang on Sloopy]

Nope, she said YOU are full of shit. You just can’t read as English is not your first language.

Go crawl back in your hole Dago. Ain't a soul talking about 1/6......lololol.........................Stupid fucking idiot. Who the fuck are you anyway?

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

I bet you're just shuddering in anticipation of another one of their selectively edited fan fiction videos!

Copied. Thank You...lolol

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Obviously people disinterested in Trump's criminal, treasonous activities do not.

What a TDS poor excuse of a human you are

 

[Polishprince]

More so than we realized, people inside the admin told Trump his batshyte crazy belief the election was stolen from him was batshyte crazy. Personally, I'm a bit surprised. I imagined his inner circle being too afraid to tell him the truth. After all, many who tried were summarily fired (like Chris Krebs).

But the testimony contradicts my belief. Everyone from his campaign manager to his AG to the guy in charge of election day data told him he lost. Except the drunk known as Rudy and the other glue sniffers like Meadows.

Here's the thing. None of them went public with their first hand accounts of Trump refusing to accept the truth. None of them wrote op-eds stating without equivocation that Trump had repeatedly been told the Big Lie was a big lie. I can't help wondering if the outcome of impeachment #2 would have been different if those on the inside came forth as witnesses to say Trump orchestrated the 1/6 riot based on a lie he told his followers that he knew to be a lie. Would the country have been spared 1/6, and the attempted coup plot, if a number of admin insiders had gotten together to write an open letter to Trump followers. One stating the obvious. That while the election had the usual, anecdotal instances of voter fraud and human error, there was no evidence of fraud on a scale large enough to change the outcome. Not even close. We'll never know. What we do know is they uniformly showed a disappointing level of cowardice in not coming forward when it mattered most.

Why do you think its a "criminal offense" to disagree as to the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election anyhow? Trump's dissent is now "treason"?????

Do you really think that Brandon is doing such a tremendous job?

A lot of international observers have doubts about the election you should know.

America's allies in the Tremendous Nation of Brazil have expressed doubts most recently, and they aren't the only ones.

 

[berg80]

Aw, poor baby....The establishment didn't do what you wanted....boo freaking hoo....

If they had, the point is the country might not have had to go through one of the most gut wrenching events in our history. A riot in the Capital and a plot to steal the election could, potentially, have been avoided but for the cowardice of those men.

 

[two_iron]

It so easy to believe that a feeble, stuttering shit clown that remained in the basement for an entire campaign received 12 million more votes than the Kenyan Faggot whose only specialty was campaigning. And those 12 million votes came from 6 (and only 6) blue shitholes at 4am, in exactly 6 swing states, each after shutting down the counting operation. And he was losing significantly in each state during waking hours. And the stammering fuck had already failed at 2 presidential bids and was well on his way to failing for a 3rd time.

And just coincidentally, Josef Stolen's opponent also got more votes than had ever been cast for POTUS..... ever.

Yeah, sounds legit. Statistically, it's in that .0000000000000003 percentile. Yeah, sure.

 

[justoffal]

Of course it's false . Trump was hell bent to have a second term regardless of the US Constitution or the rule of law. You should be furious.

The election theft was totally real....what was unreal was expecting to reverse it. That was never possible.
Trump was 100% correct in assuming that he had been robbed.....but seriously mistaken in thinking he could fix it.
That was not smart at all. The Same thing happened to Bernie just a few years earlier, same players same machines.
Bernie knew it...he also knew he could do nothing about it.

JO

 

[Oddball]

A follow on was his attempt to force Mike Pence to overturn the States EVs
He was repeatedly told that a VP had no such power.
Yet, he enraged a mob and told them he could.

100% lie - par for the course from you.

Three states asked Pence to give them ten days to review their results and the validity of their certifications, before counting their electors....A power that he did have.

 

[berg80]

What a TDS poor excuse of a human you are

With Congress undertaking landmark hearings on all of that, our new Brookings report “Trump on Trial: A Guide to the January 6 Committee Hearings and the Question of Criminality” is a comprehensive guide to the proceedings. The report covers the Committee’s work to date, the key players in the attempt to overturn the election, the known facts regarding their conduct that are expected to be covered at the hearings, and the criminal law applicable to their actions.

The report goes beyond prior analyses to provide the first in-depth treatment of the voluminous publicly available evidence and the relevant law, including possible defenses. It reviews the evidence as to whether Trump as a matter of law conspired with his outside counsel John Eastman, administration lawyer Jeffrey Clark, and others to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 by scheming to block the electoral count on January 6, 2021 and to subvert the Department of Justice’s election enforcement work. The report similarly reviews the evidence as to whether Trump and Eastman violated 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) with their scheme to obstruct the congressional count.

Trump on Trial: A Guide to the January 6 Hearings and the Question of Criminality​

A report reviewing the substantial evidence that Donald Trump conspired to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, by scheming to block the electoral count on January 6, 2021.

www.brookings.edu

Have you heard of John Eastman?

A Federal Judge Found That Trump “Likely” Committed Serious Crimes—Now What?​

“A coup in search of a legal theory.”

www.thebulwark.com

 

[Oddball]

The election theft was totally real....what was unreal was expecting to reverse it. That was never possible.
Trump was 100% correct in assuming that he had been robbed.....but seriously mistaken in thinking he could fix it.
That was not smart at all. The Same thing happened to Bernie just a few years earlier, same players same machines.
Bernie knew it...he also knew he could do nothing about it.

JO

He was also robbed the same way in '20.

 

[Oddball]

With Congress undertaking landmark hearings on all of that, our new Brookings report “Trump on Trial: A Guide to the January 6 Committee Hearings and the Question of Criminality” is a comprehensive guide to the proceedings. The report covers the Committee’s work to date, the key players in the attempt to overturn the election, the known facts regarding their conduct that are expected to be covered at the hearings, and the criminal law applicable to their actions.

The report goes beyond prior analyses to provide the first in-depth treatment of the voluminous publicly available evidence and the relevant law, including possible defenses. It reviews the evidence as to whether Trump as a matter of law conspired with his outside counsel John Eastman, administration lawyer Jeffrey Clark, and others to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 by scheming to block the electoral count on January 6, 2021 and to subvert the Department of Justice’s election enforcement work. The report similarly reviews the evidence as to whether Trump and Eastman violated 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) with their scheme to obstruct the congressional count.

Trump on Trial: A Guide to the January 6 Hearings and the Question of Criminality​

A report reviewing the substantial evidence that Donald Trump conspired to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, by scheming to block the electoral count on January 6, 2021.

www.brookings.edu

Have you heard of John Eastman?

A Federal Judge Found That Trump “Likely” Committed Serious Crimes—Now What?​

“A coup in search of a legal theory.”

www.thebulwark.com

Brookings.....Swamp Central.....ROFLMFAO!

 

[berg80]

Why do you think its a "criminal offense" to disagree as to the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election anyhow?

See post 89.

 

[berg80]

Brookings.....Swamp Central.....ROFLMFAO!

You folks are well practiced at disparaging the source of information. Not so good at refuting, in any way, the facts they report.

 

[Oddball]

You folks are well practiced at disparaging the source of information. Not so good at refuting, in any way, the facts they report.

Nobody fucking cares about speculation from your hack-a-rama "think" tanks, moonbat.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The fauxbertarian Golfing Gomer Pyle has a bad case of Stockholm syndrome.

Oh come, now. You know full well that G.G. is a real libertarian!!





Just like you know that the Pope is a real Hindu.

 

[two_iron]

I love this picture. Kinzinger is about to cry again, Cheney is working on her budget with unemployment just around the corner, the black dude is thinking "DO NOT SAY I HATE WHITE MOTHER FUCKERS OUT LOUD!!", the blonde beast is wondering why her kids hate her, and Schitt is thinking about little boys....

 

[rightwinger]

100% lie - par for the course from you.

Three states asked Pence to give them ten days to review their results and the validity of their certifications, before counting their electors....A power that he did have.

Which three states?
Pence has no power to delay the count

The Constitution requires Jan 6
Ten days would be only four days before the inauguration

 

[Care4all]

I suspect the cancellation has a lot to do with this.

Jan. 6 committee will not make any criminal referrals, chairman says

I expect a walk-back.

The walk back already took place, shortly afterwards, he clarified his statement.

But, there is no need for them to recommend criminal charges, if they even can for crimes not related to subpoenas, because the AG said yesterday, they were closely watching the hearings....

 

[rightwinger]

LOL....Did he say "bad publicity"?

Did he say attack the Justice?

Whirlwind is very vague and can mean a lot of possible outcomes that don’t mean violence

Schumer was telling the court there would be public outcry over their decision
And there was

 

[Care4all]

I love this picture. Kinzinger is about to cry again, Cheney is working on her budget with unemployment just around the corner, the black dude is thinking "DO NOT SAY I HATE WHITE MOTHER FUCKERS OUT LOUD!!", the blonde beast is wondering why her kids hate her, and Schitt is thinking about little boys....

Thanks for the good chuckle! Your commentary was pretty darn funny!