A through line is emerging from 1/6 hearings testimony

[Mac1958]

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.

This is yet another fascinating psychological study.

The sheer volume of verifiable material and sworn testimony about what has happened just continues to expand like a balloon, and they're going to dismiss all of it as "fake news". They're not going to see it. It just isn't there.

Will the balloon finally burst for any of them? Almost certainly not for the people we see here (or they won't admit it), but maybe some of the more lucid folks. But this is deeply personal for them now, so it won't be easy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A through line is emerging from 1/6 hearings testimony​

Yeah....Straight line to this chump....

Ray Epps will be dragged back in shackles to testify once the WEF Flying Monkeys (democrats) are booted from office this November

 

[rightwinger]

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

Republicans routinely use that type of language to say what would happen if you try to take away guns

Second Amendment solutions

 

[SweetSue92]

This is yet another fascinating psychological study.

The sheer volume of verifiable material and sworn testimony about what has happened just continues to expand like a balloon, and they're going to dismiss all of it as "fake news". They're not going to see it. It just isn't there.

Will the balloon finally burst for any of them? Almost certainly not for the people we see here (or they won't admit it), but maybe some of the more lucid folks. But this is deeply personal for them now, so it won't be easy.

NBC cut away during the hearing yesterday....for golf

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Get busy!

 

[berg80]

It has done no such thing. It merely reiterates the silly and dishonorable false claims of the Democrats. A partisan committee presenting its one-sided yet thoroughly slanted views as if it’s factual or credible.

The evidence they are presenting is largely based on testimony from Republicans who served in the administration. Are you making the claim that the testimony is being misrepresented? Because I haven't read anything, anywhere to suggest that's the case.

 

[berg80]

If only half of the facts(?) are being presented, how do you know what's a myth and what's not a myth?

What I know is what is being presented is direct testimony, first person accounts of the people who were "in the room." Republican members of the former administration. For example, yesterday we learned Trump dictated a press release stating Pence was on board with the illegal plan to reject the electors. That press release was a lie. A story about it was published in the NYT and Trump lied again when he claimed Pence had agreed to the plot.
These actual events, showing Trump's desperation, his willingness to tell overt lies while illegally pursuing a second term, are forcing you folks to deny reality. Something you've had a lot of practice doing for the last 5 years.

 

[Weatherman2020]

WE GOT HIM NOW! PART CXXVII

 

[berg80]

WE GOT HIM NOW! PART CXXVII

Should I take that to be a refutation of the evidence against him? If so please begin. You can start anywhere. Refute Mueller's findings that Trump obstructed the investigation. Refute the fact Trump extorted Zelensky for political gain. Refute any of the witness testimony we've heard so far during the hearings. I look forward to your factual presentation, minus the snark.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Should I take that to be a refutation of the evidence against him? If so please begin. You can start anywhere. Refute Mueller's findings that Trump obstructed the investigation. Refute the fact Trump extorted Zelensky for political gain. Refute any of the witness testimony we've heard so far during the hearings. I look forward to your factual presentation, minus the snark.

I’ll file that under RUSSIA COLLUSION

 

[berg80]

I’ll file that under RUSSIA COLLUSION

So........it seems you have no ability to factually refute any of the things I listed. Imagine my surprise.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What I know is what is being presented is direct testimony, first person accounts of the people who were "in the room." Republican members of the former administration. For example, yesterday we learned Trump dictated a press release stating Pence was on board with the illegal plan to reject the electors. That press release was a lie. A story about it was published in the NYT and Trump lied again when he claimed Pence had agreed to the plot.
These actual events, showing Trump's desperation, his willingness to tell overt lies while illegally pursuing a second term, are forcing you folks to deny reality. Something you've had a lot of practice doing for the last 5 years.

The witness testimony that is verifying a lot of the reporting that has been done on this subject is one of the best parts of this. It shows just how accurate it has been.

Most of the information isn’t new. It’s the corroboration from witnesses that is new.

So much for the “ fake news”.

 

[berg80]

The witness testimony that is verifying a lot of the reporting that has been done on this subject is one of the best parts of this. It shows just how accurate it has been.

Most of the information isn’t new. It’s the corroboration from witnesses that is new.

So much for the “ fake news”.

I have thought the same thing since the first hearing. The evidence is a vindication of virtually all the reporting on the attempted coup and a total repudiation of the lies Trump, along with his right wing media defenders, have been spewing since day 1.

 

[Oddball]

Should I take that to be a refutation of the evidence against him? If so please begin. You can start anywhere. Refute Mueller's findings that Trump obstructed the investigation. Refute the fact Trump extorted Zelensky for political gain. Refute any of the witness testimony we've heard so far during the hearings. I look forward to your factual presentation, minus the snark.

There is no evidence against him, or there would already be charges leveled and the indictments would be flying.

Once again, you moonbats don't have so much as a popcorn fart.

 

[berg80]

There is no evidence against him

So..........you haven't been paying attention to what former Trump admin members have been testifying to under oath?

BTW,

NYT: DOJ Probes Trump Lawyers Over Fake Elector Scheme

Federal prosecutors are investigating the Trump attorneys who worked on the plan to send alternate slates of electors to Congress for Jan. 6, the New York Times reports. A D.C. federal grand jury has…

talkingpointsmemo.com

 

[Oddball]

So..........you haven't been paying attention to what former Trump admin members have been testifying to under oath?

BTW,

NYT: DOJ Probes Trump Lawyers Over Fake Elector Scheme

Federal prosecutors are investigating the Trump attorneys who worked on the plan to send alternate slates of electors to Congress for Jan. 6, the New York Times reports. A D.C. federal grand jury has…

talkingpointsmemo.com

Ooooooo....The leftloon blog tells us about yet another fishing expedition that will go nowhere.

Soooooo flashy.....sooooo shiny.

The various states appointed alternate electors, dimwit.

 

[Meister]

What I know is what is being presented is direct testimony, first person accounts of the people who were "in the room." Republican members of the former administration. For example, yesterday we learned Trump dictated a press release stating Pence was on board with the illegal plan to reject the electors. That press release was a lie. A story about it was published in the NYT and Trump lied again when he claimed Pence had agreed to the plot.
These actual events, showing Trump's desperation, his willingness to tell overt lies while illegally pursuing a second term, are forcing you folks to deny reality. Something you've had a lot of practice doing for the last 5 years.

I mean, remember when the Steele Dossier was fact???????

 

[BackAgain]

The evidence they are presenting is largely based on testimony from Republicans who served in the administration. Are you making the claim that the testimony is being misrepresented? Because I haven't read anything, anywhere to suggest that's the case.

The word “testimony” itself is misleading. Witness A can say “I told Trump x, y and z.” And? What follows from that assuming it is true? Nothing. What witness A told Trump doesn’t establish what Trump believed or “knew.”

Moreover, absent evidence that Trump sought the outcome or orchestrated the “mob,” why does it matter what anybody told him? The point of an alleged investigation is to ascertain facts about some event. This raises the question: why ask about what Trump allegedly “knew” if that doesn’t illuminate Jack shit about the facts of the incident?

 

[j-mac]

Republicans routinely use that type of language to say what would happen if you try to take away guns

Second Amendment solutions

That is much milder than what asshole Schumky was saying...

You just think it's OK when democrats target conservatives by name...

 

[rightwinger]

That is much milder than what asshole Schumky was saying...

You just think it's OK when democrats target conservatives by name...

No, Schumer only referred to backlash
Republicans repeatedly threaten violence if guns are taken away