Text began coming in to Meadows on January 6th, begging trump to stop the Capitol attack

Yeah, Trumps never been accused of rape, Russian collusion, hookers, not paying taxes.

All Leftard lies swept under the rug.

Not by me, other than rape. But then, I'm not delusional like you.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Trumps never been accused of rape, Russian collusion, hookers, not paying taxes.

All Leftard lies swept under the rug.

They have such short memories. It was only 2016 that Trump effectively plead guilty to fraud and theft through Trump University and the Trump charity.
Ask the 20+ women that have accused him of various sexual acts. Of course...the liar in Chief denies them all....uneven after the "grab them by the p*ssy" audio.
 
Poor snowflake

tell that to donny the losing loooooooooooser...........

giphy.gif
 
They have such short memories. It was only 2016 that Trump effectively plead guilty to fraud and theft through Trump University and the Trump charity.

& pardoned the human sausage casing, steve bannon with his 'build the wall fund' for intentionally ripping off the very flying monkeys who voted donny in.

what stupid cultish fucks.
 
Then why does it matter whose credibility is challenged? If what someone says is not credible, it's not credible.
Lol
You see it as not credible because it happens to be unfavorable for Trump.

The rest of the world sees Trump folks spilling the beans.
 
Lol
You see it as not credible because it happens to be unfavorable for Trump.

The rest of the world sees Trump folks spilling the beans.
I see a story as not being credible when someone swears a person was in a certain vehicle when he was in a different vehicle. And what crime are we talking about, anyway, being a meanie, a poopyhead, what?

Now, back to the salient point. Apparently, you thought that me not thinking a story told by "TRUMP! people" is not credible was somehow significant. Why is that? You thought you had a gotcha, but failed. You do understand that, right?
 
I see a story as not being credible when someone swears a person was in a certain vehicle when he was in a different vehicle. And what crime are we talking about, anyway, being a meanie, a poopyhead, what?

Now, back to the salient point. Apparently, you thought that me not thinking a story told by "TRUMP! people" is not credible was somehow significant. Why is that? You thought you had a gotcha, but failed. You do understand that, right?

She never swore he was in any vehicle.
 
I see a story as not being credible when someone swears a person was in a certain vehicle when he was in a different vehicle. And what crime are we talking about, anyway, being a meanie, a poopyhead, what?

Your point is wrong because the story was one of hearsay, not of first hand knowledge. So inaccuracies are traced to the originator of the narrative, not the one echoing the story. It's no different than an ear witness to Daunte Wrights murder, saying that Officer Kim Potter used her taser on him.
 
She never swore he was in any vehicle.
Correct, she swore she was told he was, and that's the problem with hearsay. This whole story should never have come from her. It just makes her look bad.
 
Your point is wrong because the story was one of hearsay, not of first hand knowledge. So inaccuracies are traced to the originator of the narrative, not the one echoing the story. It's no different than an ear witness to Daunte Wrights murder, saying that Officer Kim Potter used her taser on him.
The point is correct because I specifically said the STORY wasn't credible, and it's not.
 
Correct, she swore she was told he was, and that's the problem with hearsay. This whole story should never have come from her. It just makes her look bad.
In part that's the problem. The committee has asked everybody in the Trump administration to come talk to them. But many of them have refused, forcing the committee to put on witnesses to the eye witnesses.
 
In part that's the problem. The committee has asked everybody in the Trump administration to come talk to them. But many of them have refused, forcing the committee to put on witnesses to the eye witnesses.
Then, if they think they have enough evidence, they should proceed to trials, wherein they can compel testimony and the defendants have opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. I do not blame these for not wanting to take part in a kangaroo court where their presence is required for only one reason, to get at TRUMP!. They would be collateral damage, thrown to the liberal wolves who would delight in destroying their entire lives, and for nothing.
 
Then, if they think they have enough evidence, they should proceed to trials, wherein they can compel testimony and the defendants have opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. I do not blame these for not wanting to take part in a kangaroo court where their presence is required for only one reason, to get at TRUMP!. They would be collateral damage, thrown to the liberal wolves who would delight in destroying their entire lives, and for nothing.

Trials would come from the DoJ, not the Congress. The DoJ has begun investigating so we'll find out after these hearings if they're indicating anyone.
 
Elmer Fudds who self-identify as a gun ..too often misfire.
Some have said on this very venue that the 2nd Amendment is for 2nd raters who can't articulate and are scaredy cats.

I wouldn't say that. But some have.

So there is that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top