January 6 News (illegal, impeachment, lawyers, conspiracy)
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.
Tilt On, Donkey Odie! May you truly believe you have vanquished the windmill of your fondest dreams.
You know if the DOJ/FBI doesn't indict and gets a conviction many here will have bragging rights forever. You know that. That's what happens when you have blind faith in people like Pelosi and Schiff and their hacks.
Secret Service erasing text messages is pretty telling and adds something to Cassady Hutchinson testimony about what may have happened inside the presidential SVU.
So now you are accusing the warriors, the cream of the crop, S.S. of tampering with evidence because their story doesn't match Cassidy? You really think the DOJ is going to use Cassidy? Any of the ACLU lawyers will break her testimony in 15 minutes or less. Hell, any public defendant that passed them BAR exam. Only in a Kangaroo court would her testimony be a bombshell.
Some of us who think differently than you have also heard some guns go bang in anger and served in areas that earned us imminent danger pay.
Congratulations and thanks for your service. (I'm assuming)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant
Save the ‘I’m a veteran’ crap. There are vets on both sides of this issue.
You are like a child that wonders in the middle of a movie. Tell the other poster that. He said I don't have "gusts" to watch the hearing. He is speaking to a Veteran and I responded. Veterans don't attack other veterans and accuses them of being "gutless" or side with civilian pukes that insults veterans. I suggest you decide what team you are on when it comes to guts and service.
I never watched the OJ Simpson trial, the Clinton Impeachment, Trump impeachment and most of the congressional hearing unless you like watching C-Span all day . I read the transcripts and summaries of all evidence and testimonies and the views of lawyers to get their legal perspective. You don't need "guts" to watch a predetermined political hearing that is staged. For that you would need lots of time and a brain to know when you are being fed a 1 sided propaganda.
Last edited by SanJuanStar; 07-14-2022 at 07:09 PM..
we still haven't gotten the SS agents' stories. and don't forget hutchinson is relaying the story told to her by Ornado.
Why hasn't the committee confirmed the hearsay story with S.S. first before putting Cassidy. This should be a bang bang play. Real professionals at the committee. They had a year to prepare. Interesting but then again these are the same people that brought us the Russian hoax like Adam Schiff that lied everyday on t.v. for years, the Kavanaugh circus and the impeachments. These people are lawyers. I guess they forgot.
So now you are accusing the warriors, the cream of the crop, S.S. of tampering with evidence because their story doesn't match Cassidy? You really think the DOJ is going to use Cassidy? Any of the ACLU lawyers will break her testimony in 15 minutes or less. Hell, any public defendant that passed them BAR exam. Only in a Kangaroo court would her testimony be a bombshell.
I am not accusing anyone of anything. That the Secret Service erased texts rom January 5th and 6th is national news tonight.
Quote:
"First, the Department notified us that many US Secret Service text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021, were erased as part of a device-replacement program. The USSS erased those text messages after OIG requested records of electronic communications from the USSS, as part of our evaluation of events at the Capitol on January 6," Cuffari wrote in the letter first obtained by the Intercept.
Yes, they don't want secret operations in the public or the public to know how they talk or use codes or patterns. Have you served in the military with secret clearance? The committee should have verified Cassidy's testimony before putting her on and going public. The committee knows the S.S. are not civilians and any testimony has to be kept confidential and protect their work.
Congratulations and thanks for your service. (I'm assuming)
You are like a child that wonders in the middle of a movie. Tell the other poster that. He said I don't have "gusts" to watch the hearing. He is speaking to a Veteran and I responded. Veterans don't attack other veterans and accuses them of being "gutless" or side with civilian pukes that insults veterans. I suggest you decide what team you are on when it comes to guts and service.
I'm on the side of the people that don't trot it out to try to shut down the other side. You ought to come to this side. You'd like it.
Yes, they don't want secret operations in the public or the public to know how they talk or use codes or patterns. Have you served in the military with secret clearance? The committee should have verified Cassidy's testimony before putting her on and going public. The committee knows the S.S. are not civilians and any testimony has to be kept confidential and protect their work.
This is national security matter.
The office of the inspector general of the higher entity (DHS) was entitled to see those communications. The Secret Service was not authorized to erase them to prevent giving them to the higher because they might be worried about putting 'secret operations in the public.' That's a 12-year old's excuse. It's much more likely they were legitimately erased on accident.
If they were actually classified, they would be appropriately labeled, stored, and released only to people with the appropriate clearance and a need to know. If they could be exempt from public release due to a law enforcement exemption (what you were hinting at), it's a little bit of a different release process than classified information. In fact, the parts that are of concern would be carefully redacted before public release. Did you actually have a clearance? Because you're sure not acting like you remember any of how this stuff works.
The office of the inspector general of the higher entity (DHS) was entitled to see those communications. The Secret Service was not authorized to erase them to prevent giving them to the higher because they might be worried about putting 'secret operations in the public.' That's a 12-year old's excuse. It's much more likely they were legitimately erased on accident.
If they were actually classified, they would be appropriately labeled, stored, and released only to people with the appropriate clearance and a need to know. If they could be exempt from public release due to a law enforcement exemption (what you were hinting at), it's a little bit of a different release process than classified information. Did you actually have a clearance? Because you're sure not acting like you remember any of how this stuff works.
So you are accusing the S.S. of a crime erasing classified information by mistake? that's still a crime.
Any operation to protect the President 24/7 by S.S. is classified information. They only report to their superiors.
I really think to get information about Soviet Nuclear submarines and their movement and tactics and recordings of their operations, clearance is a must. Yeah, I'm pretty sure of that. LOL
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.
to get information about Soviet Nuclear submarines and their movement and tactics and recordings of their operations, clearance is a must. Yeah, I'm pretty sure of that. LOL