January 6 Committee…what a joke!

[Roudy]

you are very opinionated. Actually this is one of the most thorough and methodical bipartisan hearing our nation has ever had.

You seriously didn’t say that. Ha ha ha. Bipartisan…and we’ll thought out?! What planet do you live on.

All the sitting members have voted for Trump getting impeached twice, and Nancy Mussolini refused to allow the republicans choices to participate. This kangaroo committe belongs in Iran’s Islamic republic, not a Western style democracy.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

What sort of "defense" would you like to see the "opposing party" present?
Because they are always welcome to present this "defense" or theirs to this committee
Publicly
And under oath.
That seems to be the problem....the under oath part.
So far they are simply refusing lawful subpoenas to appear or they are appearing and pleading the fifth.
I wonder why?
I mean, if as you say, they have this great defense they just aren't allowed to present.
Hmmm....
Go figure.

Here’s the simple explanation… your side has no crime to defend against.

 

[Rigby5]

Its not a court.

Don't let that stop you though. Wow.

And that is the problem.
It should have been done in a court, with rules, safeguards, etc.
That is why grand juries are secret, so that they do not prejudice any future jury pool.
This televised stunt is all wrong, in every way.

I dislike Trump, do not think the election was stolen, and am way more leftist than even Bernie Sanders, but the democrats look really, really bad with this.
They look worse than Trump.

 

[Rigby5]

Why do so many Trumpsters think this is a trial?

Is that what you're being told in your world?

Because it is SUPPOSED to be conducted like a trial.
It is supposed to be bipartisan, have cross examination, not allow hearsay or anything prejudicial, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

The 1-6 committee keeps dropping bomb after bomb. Trump needs to be put on trial.

You totally miss reality.
Now that these obvious emotional propaganda claims have been televised to the whole country, trials are no longer possible. The entire jury pool has been compromised.
If Trumps could have been charged before, now that this have all be televised, any trial is no longer possible.
It was the stupidest thing I have ever seen.
We could have gotten rid of Trump, but now we made him a martyr, and he likely will be around for a long time.

 

[scruffy]

There is a lot of evidence now coming to light. It will be a light in the glowing darkness of how we saved our democracy.

With Stalinism?

You cocksuckers are too goddamn stupid to save ANYTHING.

Everything you touch turns to shit.

You and your fucked up clown show are leaving town. And THAT will be in the history books.

 

[forkup]

/——-/ Pence had the power to send the results back to the state legislators, something he refused to do. That’s not overturning an election. Geeeze

No, he doesn't. They were certified election results, by the states, he has no justification to send them back. He has no legal right to do anything with them besides reading them. As I said, quantum physics to a toddler.

 

[forkup]

You totally miss reality.
Now that these obvious emotional propaganda claims have been televised to the whole country, trials are no longer possible. The entire jury pool has been compromised.
If Trumps could have been charged before, now that this have all be televised, any trial is no longer possible.
It was the stupidest thing I have ever seen.
We could have gotten rid of Trump, but now we made him a martyr, and he likely will be around for a long time.

Unless you know of a jury that is shielded from TV, the internet, and radio, by your logic they wouldn't be able to have a trial on any high-profile case. Yet those kinds of cases happen all the time.

 

[Mac1958]

Poor lying retarded Mac. Mad that his new hero’s bullshit was debunked by men who were there. He calls them cowards, yet his hero Piggy Cheney and her fellow clowns won’t let them testify in public.

I'm talking about Bannon, Flynn, Stone, Navarro and pals, Trumpster.

Those manly men who are hiding under their beds like you would.

You can't possibly be this dense. I'll assume you're kidding.

 

[Mac1958]

Because it is SUPPOSED to be conducted like a trial.
It is supposed to be bipartisan, have cross examination, not allow hearsay or anything prejudicial, etc.

What? Who says a congressional hearing is supposed to be conducted like a trial? Hannity? Tucker? Alex Jones?

While Bannon, Navarro, McCarthy and their scared little bunny pals are hiding under their beds, afraid to man up?

 

[SweetSue92]

And that is the problem.
It should have been done in a court, with rules, safeguards, etc.
That is why grand juries are secret, so that they do not prejudice any future jury pool.
This televised stunt is all wrong, in every way.

I dislike Trump, do not think the election was stolen, and am way more leftist than even Bernie Sanders, but the democrats look really, really bad with this.
They look worse than Trump.

At best this is a wash for them. But it's looking more and more with this country figuratively on fire, they can do nothing more than play around with their Trump obsession. So yea, agree.

 

[SweetSue92]

What? Who says a congressional hearing is supposed to be conducted like a trial? Hannity? Tucker? Alex Jones?

While Bannon, Navarro, McCarthy and their scared little bunny pals are hiding under their beds, afraid to man up?

This proponent of "fixing the system" via The Forward Party says hey, we don't need anything to be fair or impartial. When I'm ON FIRE with RAGE against the other side, GO GET EM

You're a trip Mac

 

[Cellblock2429]

No, he doesn't. They were certified election results, by the states, he has no justification to send them back. He has no legal right to do anything with them besides reading them. As I said, quantum physics to a toddler.

/-----/ It's a moot point now, but please read this column by a Constitutional Lawyer. It is how I based my opinion.

Constitutional lawyer: Vice President has power to overturn fraudulent election

by WorldTribune Staff, December 24, 2020 Constitutional lawyer Ivan Raiklin on Dec. 22 sent out a tweet urging Vice President Mike Pence to inform the secretaries of state in six contested states t…

www.worldtribune.com

Constitutional lawyer Ivan Raiklin on Dec. 22 sent out a tweet urging Vice President Mike Pence to inform the secretaries of state in six contested states that he cannot accept their certified electors because they were not legally appointed due to overwhelming evidence of election fraud.

Raiklin contends that the U.S. Constitution grants the Vice President the power to overturn a manifestly fraudulent election.

 

[konradv]

Clinton is a rapist, Obama was a failure and Drop Dead( Can you believe he said it) *Joe is the worst president we’ve ever had.

Thanks for confirming your and the right’s obsessions.

 

[konradv]

If Nancy and Obammy had just one crime he would already have been prosecuted. The only option they have is to prosecute him in the minds of the weak and and gullible. That’s why you tune in every night.

LOCK HIM UP!

 

[forkup]

/-----/ It's a moot point now, but please read this column by a Constitutional Lawyer. It is how I based my opinion.

Constitutional lawyer: Vice President has power to overturn fraudulent election

by WorldTribune Staff, December 24, 2020 Constitutional lawyer Ivan Raiklin on Dec. 22 sent out a tweet urging Vice President Mike Pence to inform the secretaries of state in six contested states t…

www.worldtribune.com

Constitutional lawyer Ivan Raiklin on Dec. 22 sent out a tweet urging Vice President Mike Pence to inform the secretaries of state in six contested states that he cannot accept their certified electors because they were not legally appointed due to overwhelming evidence of election fraud.

Raiklin contends that the U.S. Constitution grants the Vice President the power to overturn a manifestly fraudulent election.

I read your opinion. I'll summarize it and you judge if it sounds right to you?

He argues that since most of the election challenges didn't get past an initial hearing. The Vice-President is entitled to assume those challenges have merit anyway and as such is allowed to refuse to recognize the election results. So in other words, the only thing a losing side must do, if they have the Vice-President on their side, is file a whole bunch of frivolous lawsuits that are dismissed, and voila, the elections don't matter anymore.

Also, "Andrea Widburg noted in a Dec. 24 analysis for American Thinker. “Notably, more than 50 courts have refused to examine the mountains of evidence attesting to illegality in the elections. The cases were decided only on procedural grounds. Thus, no authority within these states has ever properly ruled upon election fraud.”
When faced with actual legal challenges to their assertion American Thinker did this.
Retraction

"These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims."

There are more factual inaccuracies in your opinion but these alone should be enough to convince any non-toddler they are pissing in the wind.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I read your opinion. I'll summarize it and you judge if it sounds right to you?

He argues that since most of the election challenges didn't get past an initial hearing. The Vice-President is entitled to assume those challenges have merit anyway and as such is allowed to refuse to recognize the election results. So in other words, the only thing a losing side must do, if they have the Vice-President on their side, is file a whole bunch of frivolous lawsuits that are dismissed, and voila, the elections don't matter anymore.

Also, "Andrea Widburg noted in a Dec. 24 analysis for American Thinker. “Notably, more than 50 courts have refused to examine the mountains of evidence attesting to illegality in the elections. The cases were decided only on procedural grounds. Thus, no authority within these states has ever properly ruled upon election fraud.”
When faced with actual legal challenges to their assertion American Thinker did this.
Retraction

"These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims."

There are more factual inaccuracies in your opinion but these alone should be enough to convince any non-toddler they are pissing in the wind.

/——-/ You missed my point. Claiming Trump told Pence to overturn the election is a false flag. It’s how the left tries to frame the argument.

 

[forkup]

/——-/ You missed my point. Claiming Trump told Pence to overturn the election is a false flag. It’s how the left tries to frame the argument.

If something de facto has a certain result it's not "framing an argument". The states wouldn't have had a solution to deal with electors being sent back. Not legally. The elections were certified. This is providing the Vice-President had such authority. Which he didn't.

You are trying to support some outlandish legal theory by citing an opinion piece by someone who justifies that legal theory by citing a source that had to retract the information a few days later in the face of a massive lawsuit.

As I said. DO YOU THINK THE VICE-PRESIDENT HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO IGNORE CERTIFIED ELECTION RESULTS ON THE BASIS THAT ELECTION CHALLENGES DON'T GET PAST AN INITIAL HEARING, OR ANY OTHER FOR THAT MATTER?

 

[konradv]

/-----/ It's a moot point now, but please read this column by a Constitutional Lawyer. It is how I based my opinion.

Constitutional lawyer: Vice President has power to overturn fraudulent election

by WorldTribune Staff, December 24, 2020 Constitutional lawyer Ivan Raiklin on Dec. 22 sent out a tweet urging Vice President Mike Pence to inform the secretaries of state in six contested states t…

www.worldtribune.com

Constitutional lawyer Ivan Raiklin on Dec. 22 sent out a tweet urging Vice President Mike Pence to inform the secretaries of state in six contested states that he cannot accept their certified electors because they were not legally appointed due to overwhelming evidence of election fraud.

Raiklin contends that the U.S. Constitution grants the Vice President the power to overturn a manifestly fraudulent election.

But the courts ruled that there was no manifest fraud, therefore he had no basis for rejecting electors.

 

[Cellblock2429]

But the courts ruled that there was no manifest fraud, therefore he had no basis for rejecting electors.

/——-/ Which courts took the case, heard the evidence and then ruled? Go ahead and gather your notes. I’ll wait.