Shit changes when you're under oath.
The rest of this is pro wrestling and grifting, but the rubes don't/won't see it.
The rest of this is pro wrestling and grifting, but the rubes don't/won't see it.
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.
No~one is under oath in this pathetic kangaroo court.Shit changes when you're under oath.
The rest of this is pro wrestling and grifting, but the rubes don't/won't see it.
Democrats are liars.After the FAKE Russia Russia Russia BULLSHIT, and Hillary's FAKE Dossier, the demented avenger subverted demoralized zombies don't have a leg to stand on with this Soviet show trial!!
Oh? And he was signaling violence was acceptable.You are just making shit up
Schumer warned of a backlash if the court overturned Roe
He was right
Oh? And he was signaling violence was acceptable.
Watch TV. they have footage.Watch 2000 Mules.
He signaled the Justices that the public would be very upset
They were
Don’t be so quick to make these guys out to be heroes. They’re also Republicans and see the usefulness of the big lie in their efforts to take over elections at the state level.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.
There has been no evidence. Or testimony. You are being deceived.Yeah, it was....
I was not happy about the hearings...there was lots of concern on my part on how Cheney didn't mince words and her disgust for the man who lied to all these Americans and played on their love for country, to get them all frenzied up, and attacking our very nation, capitol and constitution, really pissed her off... and let's just say, she wore her emotions on her coat sleeve, when I would have liked to have seen a gentler approach....
That being said, the evidence and testimony presented in the hearings has been very informative, and has filled in the missing gaps, on the facts of what happened leading up to, and on, that terrible day in history.
It's worth watching, not for the narrative put on by the committee, but for the actual facts and testimony presented.
I agree, and while I'm not watching that clown show on TV, the value of the June 6 committee is simply showing anyone buying the Big Lie is a glue sniffer .... Trump asshole snifferMore 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.
I don't think the OP made them out as heros. Quite the opposite. They are cowards who stayed silent while Trump lied to his glue sniffers.Don’t be so quick to make these guys out to be heroes. They’re also Republicans and see the usefulness of the big lie in their efforts to take over elections at the state level.
Because you are not watching, you're clueless.There has been no evidence. Or testimony. You are being deceived.
Take Barr for example. I take him at his word that he saw no evidence of major election fraud and said so to Trump.
(A) that statement does not mean that there was no major election fraud.
(B) even if Barr was completely correct in his assessment, that doesn’t mean that Trump was obliged to believe that Barr hadn’t missed something.
(C) any person telling another person something doesn’t mean that the second person suddenly “knows” it. You can tell me that we live on Krypton, but I don’t “know” it just because I’ve “heard” it.
So far, therefore, what we’ve heard doesn’t amount to much of anything. Was Guilliani drunk on election night? Maybe. I don’t care. And it has fuck all to do with any of the criminal behavior of the 1/6 protestors who entered the Capitol, anyway.
Overarching all of this is an important question. “Evidence” of precisely what? What exactly is this hack committee pretending it is seeking to find? If the true answer is that what they are actually hell-bent on “demonstrating” is that Trump is somehow responsible for the bad actions of the 1/6 protestors who entered the Capitol, then their investigation is a sham and it has failed already.
They aren’t objectively looking for what did happen if they are merely looking to “show” their preordained conclusion. And nobody has shown a shred of credible evidence that Trump “plotted” the misbehaviors of any of the 1/6 protestors.
It’s also worth a lot more words about what the committee isn’t even attending too. But this post is already too long. I’ll just say it is telling that they didn’t interrogate Pelosi.
No. I’ve seen bits and pieces. And I’ve read accounts and some summaries. And frankly, nothing changes.Because you are not watching, you're clueless.
Barr is the AG, sent out his investigators, found nothing....
But cuz you're not watching so you can revel in your intentional ignorance, Barr was not the only person in Trumps administration that told the president the same thing, over and over again. You'd know that, if you were watching.
Wow, what did the judge say ? Oh, no judge got to hear the case…..funny. The wizard of Oz was a film fantasy too.Watch 2000 Mules.
There's evidence in 2000 Mules that should be brought before a judge.Wow, what did the judge say ? Oh, no judge got to hear the case…..funny. The wizard of Oz was a film fantasy too.
If a Republican had said that, used that kind of language, you’d be beside yourself in here…hack.He signaled the Justices that the public would be very upset
They were
So, why did Garland signal he wouldn’t be pursuing any of it?Shit changes when you're under oath.
The rest of this is pro wrestling and grifting, but the rubes don't/won't see it.
Is that what you're told he did?So, why did Garland signal he wouldn’t be pursuing any of it?
Right, nothing to see, other than triggered children shitting their pants.Is that what you're told he did?
Okay. Nothing to see here, then.