Jan 6 Hearings Update

Status
Not open for further replies.

Globe

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2017
816
365
126
Just kidding! The cult doesn't care what's going on. You'd just dismiss it or go straight to the Biden's senile card anyway.

Just wanted to say good morning. Only about 2 months til the Lincoln Riley era kicks off! Fight on!
 

Gold Trojan

Well-known member
Aug 27, 2017
5,070
5,696
226
 

aimeedee

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2017
12,927
2,200
226
Can someone please explain the MAGA obsession with the Depp/Herd trial? They seemed really invested in it for some reason. I don't get it.
 

aimeedee

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2017
12,927
2,200
226
He must be referring to the latest “witness” to perjured herself.

He must believe that Trump grabbed the steering wheel from the backseat of a limousine. That would be quite a trick, if it were true.
She's repeating what she was told. If someone has "alternative facts," he or she is welcome to testify. But it is really cute how y'all are focused on that and not a word about the fact that he was told the crowd was armed, yet insisted that the metal detectors be removed because the armed people weren't after him. Or that, yet another person, has testified that Trump said Pence deserved the "Hang Mike Pence" threats.
 

aimeedee

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2017
12,927
2,200
226
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It’s interesting that hearsay is the concern of people commenting on a hearing they admittedly didn’t watch.</p>&mdash; Melvin E. Edwards (@edwards21228) <a href="">June 29, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

troypwr

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2017
1,991
2,144
131
Conjob defense mechanism.

1656519624093.png

I mean there's no way that the Manchurian Moron, their hero, could have done anything wrong. 🙄


1656519729029.png
 
  • Haha
Reactions: aimeedee

DaFireMedic

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2017
17,157
20,922
226
She's repeating what she was told. If someone has "alternative facts," he or she is welcome to testify.
This is not true. There are no Republican appointees to this committee, and despite there being plenty of contradictory testimony, none is being allowed. There are people who DO have contradictory testimony, but they are NOT being allowed to testify.

This farce of a committee hearing is a disgrace, and contradictory to American values. It’s just amazing that after 6 years of proven lies and hoaxes from these same people and the MSM that anyone would take anything being said at this “hearing” at face value.
 

aimeedee

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2017
12,927
2,200
226
This is not true. There are no Republican appointees to this committee, and despite there being plenty of contradictory testimony, none is being allowed. There are people who DO have contradictory testimony, but they are NOT being allowed to testify.

This farce of a committee hearing is a disgrace, and contradictory to American values. It’s disgraceful that after 6 years of proven lies and hoaxes from these same people and the MSM that anyone would take anything being said at this “hearing” at face value.
Once again, you are mistaken. Despite killing a proposal at a bipartisan commission, Pelosi allowed the GOP to seat 5 people in addition to Cheney and Kinzinger. Pelosi blocked TWO of the five McCarthy proposed -- one of whom has now been directly implicated as a material witness. McCarthy decided to pull all his appointees, rather than replace the two rejects.

If you aren't going to believe me, surely you believe Dear Leader:

And Engle has already testified before the committee. I'm sure he is welcome back, if he wants to clarify anything under oath:
 

xuscx

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2017
10,932
3,387
226
Once again, you are mistaken. Despite killing a proposal at a bipartisan commission, Pelosi allowed the GOP to seat 5 people in addition to Cheney and Kinzinger. Pelosi blocked TWO of the five McCarthy proposed -- one of whom has now been directly implicated as a material witness. McCarthy decided to pull all his appointees, rather than replace the two rejects.

If you aren't going to believe me, surely you believe Dear Leader:

And Engle has already testified before the committee. I'm sure he is welcome back, if he wants to clarify anything under oath:
 
  • Like
Reactions: aimeedee

SouthbayTrojan91

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2017
9,625
4,461
226
Now can we move on to the Hunter Laptop and the millions that he and the current sitting president were paid by the Chinese and Ukrainians?
Or maybe we can move on to Hillary and the fact she paid to have a political opponent smeared and investigated and spied on by the US government?
Or maybe we can finally take a look at how f'ed up the FBI is in the extremely partisan handling of cases and evidence.

These three topics are actually very significantly important.
And the fact that nothing will happen shows how far this country has slipped into the territory of being a banana republic.
 

DaFireMedic

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2017
17,157
20,922
226
Once again, you are mistaken.

Actually, I was correct, once again. There are no Republican appointees on this committee. Believing Pelosi when she says “they had their chance” is naive. It was never Pelosi’s intention to allow the other side to be presented and have a legitimate committee. She made that quite clear in how she formed it and in how it’s being run.

As TheRealAirbns said in another thread, there is a process in this country for determining the truth, and it doesn’t involve a presumption of guilt as in this “hearing”. It involves discussion from both sides, challenges to the claims, evidence is examined, and the claim is either supported or rejected. Looking at just the claim, without the crossexamination, challenges, and evidence review, doesn't tell us anything about the truth. That is not being allowed here.

It’s a “show trial” for political purposes.
 

SoCalN8tiv

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2017
24,495
6,988
226
Actually, I was correct, once again. There are no Republican appointees on this committee.
100% correct. The RINOs on the sham committee were not appointed by McCarthy. Not sure but didn't Nanshee reject McCarthy's selections and appointed RINOs Crying Kinzinger and Drag Cheney?
 

troypwr

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2017
1,991
2,144
131
YOU don't need visuals. Everyone knows YOU need to get YOUR head out of YOUR rear end. There, I wrote YOUR cheat sheet for YOU.
You're a Trump supporter and defender. There's absolutely NOTHING that I could post, either in text or in picture, to ridicule you more than you do yourself. Check and mate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aimeedee

DaFireMedic

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2017
17,157
20,922
226
100% correct. The RINOs on the sham committee were not appointed by McCarthy. Not sure but didn't Nanshee reject McCarthy's selections and appointed RINOs Crying Kinzinger and Drag Cheney?
That’s exactly what happened. Republicans were not given the chance to have their appointees on the committee, even in a minority. They were going to be allowed only five, two of which were rejected by Pelosi, and all had to be cleared by Grand Inquisitor Pelosi. That is how a star chamber is formed, not a bi-partisan committee.

When McCarthy recognized that this was not going to be a legitimate committee for the purpose of discovering the truth, but rather a Dem dog and pony show as just another way to go after Trump, he pulled out rather than give it any kind of credibility and allow Pelosi to falsely call it a “bi-partisan” committee.

The founders would be turning over in their graves if they knew what a mockery the Dems were making of the process.
 

Cacadetoro

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2018
1,414
2,337
131
The republicans rejected the bipartisan committee, what is more to be said
This is about as bipartisan as Henry the VIII and Anne Boleyn ....LMAO. Because this whole thing has been a joke. "Sources said."....LMFAO. There are only selective witnesses that have been favorable to this clown fest. It does not matter if it is dem or republican. Most everyone on this commission and witness have a hard on for Trump. This is not a court of law. If it does ever go to court which I doubt discovery will hear the other side. We can start with the two secret service guys who claimed that Trump never reached for the steering wheel and the note which Hutchinson claims she wrote was actually written by Trump's attorney. Do you really think this will all come out in this sham hearing. People think because many people are former Trump people that whatever they say has to be gospel. This is a meaningless hearing where the Trump haters get to bloviate. If this was a court of law a lot of this nonsense would not be admissible and discovery would bring out things these mutts would rather keep hidden.
 

Socrates

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2021
1,418
2,272
113
“Lie often enough and boldly enough, and people will find it difficult not to believe you” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Why, in the interest of credibility, wouldn't Nancy allow opposition testimony?
If she truly believes she has a case for a DOJ criminal referral, wouldn't she want to cover her bases and show how ironclad her case is?
Nah!!! Never mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts