A through line is emerging from 1/6 hearings testimony

[Mac1958]

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.

 

[SeaMajor7]

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!!

 

[SeaMajor7]

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.

No~one is under oath in this pathetic kangaroo court.

 

[scruffy]

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!!

Democrats are liars.

It's what they do.

 

[j-mac]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh? And he was signaling violence was acceptable.

He signaled the Justices that the public would be very upset
They were

 

[Dagosa]

Watch 2000 Mules.

Watch TV. they have footage.

 

[scruffy]

He signaled the Justices that the public would be very upset
They were

And I'm signaling you that the public is going to kick your motherfucking ass from here to Timbuktu if you threaten our children again.

You're into signal and symbolism? There's a big one for you. A gigantic red STOP signal hanging directly over the bed you made for yourselves.

I don't know anything about election theft, and I'm not a woman so I'm not going to wear the abortion issue on my sleeve.

But I'll tell you what, law and order is a 200% winning issue for the right in this election, leftist DA's are being recalled all over the country even as we speak, and leftist administrators and union officials are being systematically removed from the public schools

The leftards are unquestionably engaging in domestic terrorism. They're using violence and intimidation to achieve political ends, which is the DEFINITION of terrorism.

You can laugh all you want, but if you fuckers riot again you won't be going to jail, you'll be going to the other place with all the doctors in lab coats.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

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 **** 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.

 

[bendog]

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.

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 sniffer

 

[bendog]

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.

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.

Whatever the June 6 committee does will not change minds today. But they are making an historical record. And arguably, it may be harder for Trump to ever gain another nomination, let alone win an election in which the suburban women in AZ, GA, Pa, Wisc, and MI stay home.

 

[Care4all]

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 **** 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.

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.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

No. I’ve seen bits and pieces. And I’ve read accounts and some summaries. And frankly, nothing changes.

It is what it is regardless of your refusal to recognize it for what it is. Basically, you’re the one who is clueless precisely because you are watching a circus sideshow and taking it as though it were reality. Psssss! It ain’t.

As another example: I didn’t claim that Barr was the only one who “told” Trump that there was no evidence of a significant election theft. Your point is dull. Pointless.

If three people told you that this 1/6 committee is a fraud, you’ve been told that by three people. So, why don’t you now “know” that it’s a fraud? Probably because you don’t believe the representations of those who are telling you that it IS a fraud.

I saw evidence on election night. I’ve seen other evidence since then. My only hesitation in agreeing with the claim that this “election was stolen” is that I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to convince me that the election frauds I did see amounted to enough to alter the outcome of the vote (electorally) in any state.

You don’t see what’s under your own nose. That’s all on you, carebear.

 

[Dagosa]

Watch 2000 Mules.

Wow, what did the judge say ? Oh, no judge got to hear the case…..funny. The wizard of Oz was a film fantasy too.

 

[lennypartiv]

Wow, what did the judge say ? Oh, no judge got to hear the case…..funny. The wizard of Oz was a film fantasy too.

There's evidence in 2000 Mules that should be brought before a judge.

 

[j-mac]

He signaled the Justices that the public would be very upset
They were

If a Republican had said that, used that kind of language, you’d be beside yourself in here…hack.

 

[j-mac]

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.

So, why did Garland signal he wouldn’t be pursuing any of it?

 

[Mac1958]

So, why did Garland signal he wouldn’t be pursuing any of it?

Is that what you're told he did?

Okay. Nothing to see here, then.

 

[j-mac]

Is that what you're told he did?

Okay. Nothing to see here, then.

Right, nothing to see, other than triggered children shitting their pants.