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.
I offered that as a possible explanation for why the records aren't public. If you have a better idea, let's hear it. Find out who ran the organization and you'll have your answer.
If you read fully the article it states:
Quote:
The news organization, which initially filed its FOIA requests in early 2021, said the Biden administration-led GSA was in violation of federal law by failing to publicly release a full accounting of staff members for the post-presidency offices of both Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence.
They blame Biden and his administration. TDS explains a lot about your posts.
The MAGA supporters willingness to accept at best unethical behavior at worst felonious behavior is stunning.
That a right wing Christian like Rusty Bower is being driven out of the GOP because his faith does not allow him to support illegal activity is insane
But ask the MAGA about:
republicans appointed by trump to attorney general ,White House counsel, trump campaign lawyers, leaders of the DOJ all told trump there was no election fraud. CISA and FBI found no evidence of fraud
also republican state elected officials and state republican election officials all testifying no election fraud occurred
Trump and his supporters lost 63 court cases many with republican judges in which Trumps own lawyers in open court said there was no election fraud even Giuliani and Sydney Powell deny fraud in court pleadings and in open court.
Fox News and OAN aired retractions saying no fraud
cyber ninjas said Biden won Arizona
Peter Navarro told ari melber in front of a national audience about the false elector scheme
Eastman and other lawyers involved wrote emails acknowledging the false elector scheme was illegal
A White House lawyer told Eastman he will need a criminal defense lawyer because of his scheme
Eastman asked for a pardon
The fbi executed search warrants for Eastman and Clark electronic devices
They obfuscate in response. Wow.
Yeah but there was plenty of rigging and it will continue. Retirement homes where 100% voted, some of the residents can't even talk.
Ballot boxes all over in Democrat areas, very few in Republican areas.
Democrats going around helping people fill out their ballots and then collecting them.
And on and on.
Don't you find it a little funny that for 6 years they have been playing you like a violin. You know how many times We heard the term: "the lid is going to blow"?
Last edited by SanJuanStar; 08-01-2022 at 09:07 PM..
Yeah but there was plenty of rigging and it will continue. Retirement homes where 100% voted, some of the residents can't even talk.
Ballot boxes all over in Democrat areas, very few in Republican areas.
Democrats going around helping people fill out their ballots and then collecting them.
And on and on.
If that is true how do you explain that republicans appointed by trump to attorney general ,White House counsel, trump campaign lawyers, leaders of the DOJ all told trump there was no election fraud. CISA and FBI found no evidence of fraud
also republican state elected officials and state republican election officials all testifying no election fraud occurred
Trump and his supporters lost 63 court cases many with republican judges in which Trumps own lawyers in open court said there was no election fraud even Giuliani and Sydney Powell deny fraud in court pleadings and in open court.
Fox News and OAN aired retractions saying no fraud
how do you know that Trump didn't PERSONALLY reject her?
because the evidence shows she continued to work for trump.
Quote:
You know how easy is to destroy your point in court?
i'm citing prima facie evidence, you're citing that hutchinson was disgusted with her boss. explain exactly how that would destroy prima facie evidence in court?
because the evidence shows she continued to work for trump.
i'm citing prima facie evidence, you're citing that hutchinson was disgusted with her boss. explain exactly how that would destroy prima facie evidence in court?
You again. No. It doesn't prove that Trump didn't personally rejected her to move to Florida and work for him. That's your wishful thinking.
Again, it shows that she wasn't disgusted with Trump like she testified in the Kangaroo court and she was getting paid until April/1/ 2021. It took her 9 weeks getting paid to feel disgusted at Trump after cashing the checks? Did she return the money?
From the article that ends: " Hutchinson and her lawyers did not respond to Insider's requests for comment."
They want her to explain but she won't. A key piece of evidence that the committee ignored and didn't bring up. I wonder why. It would question her testimony.
Quote:
Cassidy Hutchinson, the former Trump White House aide who emerged as a star witness for the US House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, continued working on the former president's behalf for nine weeks after he left office, according to government records exclusively obtained by Insider.
Hutchinson served as a "coordinator" for Trump's official, taxpayer-funded post-presidential office from about January 20, 2021, to April 1, 2021, earning an annualized salary of $90,000, the General Services Administration documents state.
The documents establish that Hutchinson continued to earn a government paycheck for work in support of Trump for weeks after she witnessed his actions — and lack of action — on January 6, 2021, even as other colleagues soon thereafter resigned.
By the way, she was getting paid GOVERNMENT CHECKS for working on the behalf of Trump. It wasn't personal checks. So who hired her for her to work to support Trump after he became a private citizen and left D.C. and who in government signed the checks? It wasn't Trump.
Last edited by SanJuanStar; 08-01-2022 at 09:58 PM..
Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with my question, which you'd quickly away run from.
Not only did you intentionally dodge my question, but you also seem to believe the DOJ isn't paying attention to the committee's investigations.
If he gave two contradictory testimonials under oath, it’s called ”perjury.” If you knew how to ask a better question, you might get better answers.
I’m not going to read 203 pages of testimony to satisfy your whim. Narrow you subject down a bit, rephrase your question coherently, and get back to me. Or don’t. No biggie either way.
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.
