Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your narrative is that the witnesses from Trump's administration have tailored their testimony to please the committee so they can "stay in office or get back into office in the future", and they won't "go against an administration and its counterparts lest they want to end their career now."
The problem with this is that you are accusing them of lying, yet providing no evidence whatsoever. Just speculating. Gotcha.
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
I don't know the truth about what happened and neither do you. My point in all of this is that the whole thing smells fishy. There are always two sides. We're not being shown the other side. Again, an attempt to create a leading narrative.
I'm not on either side of this but I AM on the side of the actual truth and not what one party or the other wants to try and convince us of. You seem to have made up your mind and there's no way that you could know the truth. It's pretty darn clear that what snippets we've seen do not directly line up with the picture they're trying to paint. How do you not see that?
I don't know the truth about what happened and neither do you. My point in all of this is that the whole thing smells fishy. There are always two sides. We're not being shown the other side. Again, an attempt to create a leading narrative.
I'm not on either side of this but I AM on the side of the actual truth and not what one party or the other wants to try and convince us of. You seem to have made up your mind and there's no way that you could know the truth. It's pretty darn clear that what snippets we've seen do not directly line up with the picture they're trying to paint. How do you not see that?
Thanks for the perspective. Point taken. I don’t believe everything, and I call out BS on both sides. I also spend hours researching source material, not punditry.
I don't know the truth about what happened and neither do you. My point in all of this is that the whole thing smells fishy. There are always two sides. We're not being shown the other side. Again, an attempt to create a leading narrative.
I'm not on either side of this but I AM on the side of the actual truth and not what one party or the other wants to try and convince us of. You seem to have made up your mind and there's no way that you could know the truth. It's pretty darn clear that what snippets we've seen do not directly line up with the picture they're trying to paint. How do you not see that?
If that is true then who would you call as a witness to present the other side. Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman?
This is all testimony from republicans, many of them Trump's own people. Their testimony under oath would be the same regardless of who sits on the Committee.
Actually if it is similar to the testimony of Barr on Monday that I saw, it is snippets of parts of different sentences artificially put together to prove a point. We have no idea what words were deleted from his conversation with the investigators as we were not privy to it. So what we are seeing is a highly edited version of the testimony.
We argue here ad nauseum about parts of a speech being used to prove a point that it was taken out of context from the whole speech. With the way Barr's testimony was chopped up so much, it is right to wonder what was eliminated from his testimony.
Again, a court case where the witness answers questions in full, presented live without editing, and stands up to questioning by prosecutors and defense attorneys is the gold standard in this country to finding guilt.
If you say the committee is not court and is more like the grand jury to "find information", then the question is why arent grand juries routinely televised and why isnt the DOJ's grand jury on this being televised? One could also wonder why the House Committee is being televised while the Senate's is not.
Personally I think this televised committee hearings are going to backfire. If they feel Trump should be charged his defense lawyers can now argue that due to the hearings the jury pool is tainted and he can't get a fair trial. No other cases gets the general public to see grand jury testimony until the trial starts.
I said it before and will say it again: let the prosecutors handle it.
Actually if it is similar to the testimony of Barr on Monday that I saw, it is snippets of parts of different sentences artificially put together to prove a point. We have no idea what words were deleted from his conversation with the investigators as we were not privy to it. So what we are seeing is a highly edited version of the testimony.
We argue here ad nauseum about parts of a speech being used to prove a point that it was taken out of context from the whole speech. With the way Barr's testimony was chopped up so much, it is right to wonder what was eliminated from his testimony.
Again, a court case where the witness answers questions in full, presented live without editing, and stands up to questioning by prosecutors and defense attorneys is the gold standard in this country to finding guilt.
I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly. What we take away is generally what we bring going in.
Nuance is the language of law. Of course, in the words of a former lawyer and leader, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
I don't know the truth about what happened and neither do you. My point in all of this is that the whole thing smells fishy. There are always two sides. We're not being shown the other side. Again, an attempt to create a leading narrative.
I'm not on either side of this but I AM on the side of the actual truth and not what one party or the other wants to try and convince us of. You seem to have made up your mind and there's no way that you could know the truth. It's pretty darn clear that what snippets we've seen do not directly line up with the picture they're trying to paint. How do you not see that?
But you have been shown the other side. That side attempted something like 60 lawsuits and never produced a shred of evidence for what they were stirring up people to believe would end as "fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore." The other side has had a year and a half to find one piece of evidence, have had recounts and re-recounts and audits, and nothing. Zip.
You have listened to the defensive right scream for a year and a half straight.
If that is true then who would you call as a witness to present the other side. Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSHL10
Actually if it is similar to the testimony of Barr on Monday that I saw, it is snippets of parts of different sentences artificially put together to prove a point. We have no idea what words were deleted from his conversation with the investigators as we were not privy to it. So what we are seeing is a highly edited version of the testimony.
We argue here ad nauseum about parts of a speech being used to prove a point that it was taken out of context from the whole speech. With the way Barr's testimony was chopped up so much, it is right to wonder what was eliminated from his testimony.
Again, a court case where the witness answers questions in full, presented live without editing, and stands up to questioning by prosecutors and defense attorneys is the gold standard in this country to finding guilt.
If you say the committee is not court and is more like the grand jury to "find information", then the question is why arent grand juries routinely televised and why isnt the DOJ's grand jury on this being televised? One could also wonder why the House Committee is being televised while the Senate's is not.
Personally I think this televised committee hearings are going to backfire. If they feel Trump should be charged his defense lawyers can now argue that due to the hearings the jury pool is tainted and he can't get a fair trial. No other cases gets the general public to see grand jury testimony until the trial starts.
I said it before and will say it again: let the prosecutors handle it.
NSHL10 said it perfectly. If you're going to use audio or video clips, play them in their entirety and do not edit them.
What Trump did say (and I watched this live on tv) was "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"
That has turned into him inciting violence and causing an insurrection. I can't yet make the connection between what he said and how that incited violence. I also can't make the connection that the protestors all stormed the capitol building when there were videos (in real time... again I watched this take place live on the news) where security literally opened the doors and let some of them in. Those videos stopped circulating in the media fairly soon after the event was over. Why? They happened. If you're going to play it, play it all so that we the public can come to our own conclusions.
I just think that this is a muddy mess and trying to paint a clear picture is not as easy as they are trying to make it out to be. I am not buying either side as being completely innocent or the victim. It does, however, paint a rather dire picture that we as general public are having our puppet strings pulled.
But you have been shown the other side. That side attempted something like 60 lawsuits and never produced a shred of evidence for what they were stirring up people to believe would end as "fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore." The other side has had a year and a half to find one piece of evidence, have had recounts and re-recounts and audits, and nothing. Zip.
You have listened to the defensive right scream for a year and a half straight.
You have seen both sides. (shrug)
No... I (as have you) have been shown the bits and pieces that the left and right want me to see. I watched the left stand by quietly (and some not so quietly, but cheering them on) while BLM protestors were allowed to burn down cities, riot, assault people, etc.. and not one word against those actions.
Then I watched as they lost their mind when people protested at the capitol building (not saying they did this correctly either) and are now trying to put the former president on trial because he made mention of a peaceful protest that didn't turn out that way.
My problem is that there are very clearly different rules depending on which side of the aisle you sit on. Why is that? Had the BLM protests/riots been handled with the same fervor as the capitol I would likely have a different outlook now. But it wasn't, and that is crystal clear to anyone who wants to see it.
No... I (as have you) have been shown the bits and pieces that the left and right want me to see. I watched the left stand by quietly (and some not so quietly, but cheering them on) while BLM protestors were allowed to burn down cities, riot, assault people, etc.. and not one word against those actions.
Then I watched as they lost their mind when people protested at the capitol building (not saying they did this correctly either) and are now trying to put the former president on trial because he made mention of a peaceful protest that didn't turn out that way.
My problem is that there are very clearly different rules depending on which side of the aisle you sit on. Why is that? Had the BLM protests/riots been handled with the same fervor as the capitol I would likely have a different outlook now. But it wasn't, and that is crystal clear to anyone who wants to see it.
The only part that is crystal clear is that Trump peddled the big lie, filed 50-60 fake lawsuits, and stole $250 million in donations based on that lie, and still continues to lie about it all.
However, I want to wait and see what the prosecutors say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
