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.
It has two anti-Trumper Republicans hand picked by Democrats. They wouldn't allow any Republican who had not already stated Trump is guilty.
If you are convinced Trump is guilty, why the need to orchestrate a 100% anti-Trump committee? Why not let Republicans pick an equal amount of Representatives and allow them to call whatever witnesses they deem appropriate? You know, like as if it was a trial.
So far there has been nothing brought forth to show Trump directed anyone to go inside the Capitol Building. Everything points to a peaceful protest being asked for and from that point the Capitol Police ushered people in by holding the doors open and then some goof in a horned hat sat in Pelosi's chair.
So far the Justice Department has not seen fit to charge Trump in this case, just like they did not charge Trump on what we now know was a false Russian collusion story made up by the DNC and endorsed by Clinton. You may want to ask yourself why the department who has the best investigative resources and most tools to prosecute has decided not to do so.
Here's the bottom line. Trump running is the Democrat's best opportunity for them to win the White House again in 2024. If Trump does not run in 2024, Republicans stand an excellent shot at taking the Presidency back.
Based on that, here's hoping the political action committee can actually find something real they can charge Trump with so he can be prevented from running again, so Democrats can be booted from power in 2024.
Objectively speaking. There has been a witch hunt on Trump from before he was sworn in. You are smart enough to know this. Yes some Trump dirt is real, but there has been a witch hunt.
I think this is all, everything you mentioned, more witch hunt. For example, is Trump an obnoxious guy who pushed election nonsense? Yes. Did Trump actually incite a riot, especially to the degree the law requires for a conviction? Emphatically no.
Maybe the Democrats could get a charge in a very blue district with all democrats in the courtroom. But we are really approaching banana republic level stuff here.
I don't think Trump will run either, but many Democrats are afraid that he will and could win.
This J6 committee is a performance to damage Trump with innuendo and manipulations, with just enough truth sprinkled in.
There is no innuendo. There were people in the room witnessing his madness. Trump damaged himself with his actions.
Objectively speaking. There has been a witch hunt on Trump from before he was sworn in. You are smart enough to know this. Yes some Trump dirt is real, but there has been a witch hunt.
I think this is all, everything you mentioned, more witch hunt. For example, is Trump an obnoxious guy who pushed election nonsense? Yes. Did Trump actually incite a riot, especially to the degree the law requires for a conviction? Emphatically no.
Maybe the Democrats could get a charge in a very blue district with all democrats in the courtroom. But we are really approaching banana republic level stuff here.
I don't think Trump will run either, but many Democrats are afraid that he will and could win.
This J6 committee is a performance to damage Trump with innuendo and manipulations, with just enough truth sprinkled in.
Have you actually watched the January 6th Committee hearings? I'm not getting how you write off the testimony of state officials in Arizona and Georgia, Trump cabinet officers and administration officials, election workers, and all other witnesses the way you do.
Have you actually watched the January 6th Committee hearings? I'm not getting how you write off the testimony of state officials in Arizona and Georgia, Trump cabinet officers and administration officials, election workers, and all other witnesses the way you do.
We are both pointing out that there is an inherent inconsistency in having someone (Jordan) serve as committee member when he is, in fact, one of the subjects of the hearing. I don’t think most reasonable people would disagree that there is an apparent conflict of interest having someone who is “accused” also be a “jurist” simultaneously. That’s what.
Cassidy Hutchinson joined Trump post-team at Mar-A-Lago in January 2021?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AguaDulce
Doesn't anyone want to discuss Cassidy Hutchinson's motives for moving to Mar-A-Lago to work for Trump in late January 2021?
If not I'll start a thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball
i'm more interested in evidence that she did. trump claims she was never hired (...... and he barely knew her.....but she was horrible ).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AguaDulce
That's what is so strange about this "discrepancy." Here's a source, which is not great (still looking), but it does list names of people who could corroborate this (others listed as being on the team). I've got half a mind to reach out to each of them to ask for comment.
We are both pointing out that there is an inherent inconsistency in having someone (Jordan) serve as committee member when he is, in fact, one of the subjects of the hearing. I don’t think most reasonable people would disagree that there is an apparent conflict of interest having someone who is “accused” also be a “jurist” simultaneously. That’s what.
Political or criminal? Pelosi can't keep him out of a congressional hearing because it's not her call who the minority party selects in the committee.
It can't be more conflict of interest having all the panelists voted to impeached Trump. That isn't a conflict? You said this isn't a trial so why would having Jordan be a conflict of interest. He hasn't been charged of a crime and has full congressional access to enter and do his sworn duty.
Don't you find it odd that this same committee put a witness with hearsay testimony and they never verified her testimony with S.S. which they spoke? Isn't that bad faith from the committee? Congressional hearings have the same rules as a trial in witnesses and verifying hearsay.
The agents appear to be testifying as to what happened during Trump’s irate car ride after the rally - they are not disputing that Hutchinson either had a conversation or was in the vicinity of Tony Ornato as he recounted his version of the events in the car - with Bobby Engel in the room (who WAS in the car).
I have not seen anyone refute that the conversation Cassidy testified to happened nor that she incorrectly retold the details of such.
That does not appear to be in dispute by anyone. If the content of the conversation is inaccurate, that is on Tony Ornato not Cassidy Hutchinson. She recounts that Bobby Engel did not attempt to correct Ornato’s version of events either then or later.
If the agents in the car refute the versions of events as relayed to Hutchinson by Ornato, that’s a welcome clarification but it by no means points to Hutchinson lying.
Ornato and or Engel would have to testify that the conversation either never took place or that those statements were never made for her to be exposed as having perjured herself.
The upcoming first hand account of the car ride by the agents that were there do not dispute Hutchinson’s testimony that Ornato said Trump lunged for the wheel. They are two separate things entirely.
Wow, Mick Mulvaney was an acting Trump White House chief of staff for over a year.
A stunning 2 hours:
1)Trump knew the protesters had guns
2)He assaulted his own security team
3)There may be a line from ProudBoys to the WH
4)Top aides asked for pardons
5)The commission thinks they have evidence of witness tampering.
The agents appear to be testifying as to what happened during Trump’s irate car ride after the rally - they are not disputing that Hutchinson either had a conversation or was in the vicinity of Tony Ornato as he recounted his version of the events in the car - with Bobby Engel in the room (who WAS in the car).
I have not seen anyone refute that the conversation Cassidy testified to happened nor that she incorrectly retold the details of such.
That does not appear to be in dispute by anyone. If the content of the conversation is inaccurate, that is on Tony Ornato not Cassidy Hutchinson. She recounts that Bobby Engel did not attempt to correct Ornato’s version of events either then or later.
If the agents in the car refute the versions of events as relayed to Hutchinson by Ornato, that’s a welcome clarification but it by no means points to Hutchinson lying.
Ornato and or Engel would have to testify that the conversation either never took place or that those statements were never made for her to be exposed as having perjured herself.
The upcoming first hand account of the car ride by the agents that were there do not dispute Hutchinson’s testimony that Ornato said Trump lunged for the wheel. They are two separate things entirely.
Link please. You are putting bold statements. Where are you getting your "facts"?
USSS spokesperson Anthony Gugliemi confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that the committee did not contact it in the days ahead of the hearing, after it was first reported by Politico. The committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News.
So your source is saying the committee talked to them today and told you they back her story?
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.
Cassidy Hutchinson joined Trump post-team at Mar-A-Lago in January 2021?
You said this isn't a trial so why would having Jordan be a conflict of interest. He hasn't been charged of a crime and has full congressional access to enter and do his sworn duty.