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.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,561 posts, read 12,525,568 times
Reputation: 10475
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
What article? There is no article in your post #1647. Had you attached one, I would have read it before I posted.
Please advise.
The link was in post #1608 which you quoted and responded to...which was what started this particular discussion between us about the committee refusing to give their info to the DOJ, etc. I should not have to include that link in every with single response I make to you about that particular subject when I know you've already seen the link and you've had the opportunity to read it. Perhaps I have given you far too much credit in thinking that if you're going to discuss something then you'd first learn about what it is that you're discussing...silly me, I won't do that again.
The link was in post #1608 which you quoted and responded to...which was what started this particular discussion between us about the committee refusing to give their info to the DOJ, etc. I should not have to include that link in every with single response I make to you about that particular subject when I know you've already seen the link and you've had the opportunity to read it. Perhaps I have given you far too much credit in thinking that if you're going to discuss something then you'd first learn about what it is that you're discussing...silly me, I won't do that again.
If you had noted the link was in #1608 I would have checked it out. When I refer to one in past links I always try to include the post# so there is no mistake what I'm talking about.
Your article and my article have the same information, BTW. It's your taking "refusing" out of context and making it mean something it doesn't that is causing the problem.
I don't know how Trump survives to run in 2024 based on just the Pence evidence but you know tribal politics runs deep.
There is about 1/3 of the voting public that will never step down from the Big Lie regardless of the information being presented (that's his base). There is about 1/3 of the voting public that hate Trump with every cell in their body, and there is about 1/3 of the voting public that are more concerned about everyday matters they are facing...inflation, the economy...world affairs...that are somewhat ambivalent to what happened on 1/6 and why...but the clarity being presented by the panel...is clearing up any doubt that the election was stolen with these people. It's very easy to follow and it's Trump's inner circle testifying under oath. You can't put that Genie back in the bottle. How this plays out politically??....you got me. But it is safe to say that this will be one of many issues that will be on voters minds in 22 and 24.
The legal context of the words "knowingly" and "willingly" will be in play at the DOJ.
I don't see how they make a case for Trump not knowing there was no election fraud, plenty of testimony in that respect and haven't heard anyone claim the opposite inside or outside he committee hearings. Most of the actions revolved around stopping the certification.
Missing from the hearings are Hawley and Cruz who claimed we needed to stop the certification all without proof. Still amazing that even after the riots 8 senators and 139 GOP congressmen that voted against certification all without proof.
Today is the 50th anniversary of the Watergate break in. That was a simple burglary and coverup, and a lot of people went to prison for their role in it. I think we are going to see a large number of indictments of the people involved in planning and coordinating 1/6, at whatever level they happen to be.
There was no planning or coordinating, it just happened.
If these hearings have been a one-sided affair, it's because all of the people who could tell another side have either refused to show up, or have pled the Fifth Amendment when questioned. They're liable to start coming forward now in an effort to save their own hides, but the evidence of what went down on Jan.6 is becoming more irrefutable every day.
Nope, but nice try. That's clearly and patently false. The hearings are one-sided because the majority prevented the minority from fielding its own members of the panel, which is standard practice for hearings and investigations. The majority set up their own criteria for membership and they blessed off every member. In fact, numerous members recommended by the minority were explicitly prohibited by the majority from being a part of the committee.
Why? Did it resonate with you and you think it might do the same with him?
As Trump said in 2016: "You see the mob takes the Fifth," he said during one rally in Iowa. "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"
Nope, but nice try. That's clearly and patently false. The hearings are one-sided because the majority prevented the minority from fielding its own members of the panel, which is standard practice for hearings and investigations. The majority set up their own criteria for membership and they blessed off every member. In fact, numerous members recommended by the minority were explicitly prohibited by the majority from being a part of the committee.
Even if true..it doesn't matter....Stephen Hayes tweet
Quote:
The question was: Can they trust the findings of the Jan 6 panel?
The answer, still obvious: They don't need to trust the findings of the panel. They can observe with their own eyes what participants, eyewitnesses and realtime audio/video tell them.
Nope, but nice try. That's clearly and patently false. The hearings are one-sided because the majority prevented the minority from fielding its own members of the panel, which is standard practice for hearings and investigations. The majority set up their own criteria for membership and they blessed off every member. In fact, numerous members recommended by the minority were explicitly prohibited by the majority from being a part of the committee.
The people kept off the panel were very involved in the events of Jan. 6. There were plenty of other GOP senators and representatives who were not involved in the insurrection and who could have served on the panel, but lacked the courage of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
Do you have reason to believe that the panel has kept anyone from testifying who has indicated a desire to do so? Why doesn't Trump testify, under oath, about what happened?
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.
