January 6th prime time shit show

User avatar
D-train
Posts: 67888
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:33 am
Location: Quincy, MA

Re: January 6th prime time shit show

Post by D-train » Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:01 pm

What is the end game. Is it to prevent future riots or prevent Trump from running again or both. Or just to make the Right look bad. :shock:

OBVIOUSLY adequate security would have solved everything but that is too easy of a solution so they have to go through all this nonsense instead. :roll:
dt

User avatar
douche
Posts: 2065
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:41 pm

Re: January 6th prime time shit show

Post by douche » Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:25 pm

The end game is every politician's end game. Remain in power.

I remember when politics used to be more subtle. Now it's simply glaringly obvious. No attempt to hide anything. No effort to have their dumb ideas make even the tiniest bit of sense.

:evil:

User avatar
D-train
Posts: 67888
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:33 am
Location: Quincy, MA

Re: January 6th prime time shit show

Post by D-train » Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:55 pm

Here you go Gil. lol
dt

Mel Bradford
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:37 pm

Re: January 6th prime time shit show

Post by Mel Bradford » Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:52 pm

The shit show is a cover for the egregious prosecutions by Garland and Co. A long drawn out process to pin 'felon' on all the attendees and send the clear message:
1) only government sanctioned riots are allowed.
2) Donald Trump is to blame for everything.

User avatar
seattlefan-daBronx
Posts: 12607
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 9:37 pm

Re: January 6th prime time shit show

Post by seattlefan-daBronx » Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:32 pm

Mel Bradford wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:52 pm
The shit show is a cover for the egregious prosecutions by Garland and Co. A long drawn out process to pin 'felon' on all the attendees and send the clear message:
1) only government sanctioned riots are allowed.
2) Donald Trump is to blame for everything.
Perfect summary....I would only add to point #2 that D.J.T. haunts their dreams and simply cannot be allowed to run for the Presidency again.
Pronouns: Kiss/My/Ass

User avatar
gil
Posts: 1443
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:50 pm

Re: January 6th prime time shit show

Post by gil » Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:23 pm

D-train wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:55 pm
Here you go Gil. lol
I definitely would like to see "the other side" represented. But my wish (call me naive) is that everyone would engage in facts. I think the committee is doing a fairly good job of this, but I'd like to see what an opposing evidence-base view would look like. Not "they are out to get Trump". Not "we have all heard this shit show before. Not ad hominem attacks. But evidence and logic.

OK, back to my fantasy world. lol

User avatar
gil
Posts: 1443
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:50 pm

Re: January 6th prime time shit show

Post by gil » Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:28 pm

Walla Walla Dawg II wrote:
Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:01 pm
All the SS is denying the claim.

Another question regarding "grabbing the wheel"....how long are President Trump's arms. That is a stretch limo, and he is in the back. It's also safe to assume there is a wall (partition) between the cab and the passengers.

How fucking stupid do the Democrats think we are?

And.....

Come on Gil. I give you the benefit of the doubt, and you still disappoint me with your attitude that this is "actually" the truth.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I don't know if it's the truth. I doesn't affect my overall assessment of the evidence that has been presented at the hearings. It's a minor detail, although (I think I said this) it's lurid and sensational and obviously that drives eyeballs for the media.

I tend to believe the Secret Service. But Hutchison is the one who testified under oath, and what she testified to is what the two people told her happened. If they testify under oath that they did not tell her that, I accept that. I don't know why she would perjure herself on this.

I don't think it's worth going down this rabbit hole. Trump was pissed, as I would have been too. Any embellishing doesn't matter to me.

User avatar
ddraig
Posts: 5190
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 1:17 am

Re: January 6th prime time shit show

Post by ddraig » Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:17 pm

Hutchinson stated in an email on February 1 that the J6 hearings were "BS." Then too, I saw the video of the Beast before it was pulling away. You can see hands on the back of the front seat, but you can't see who those hands were connected to or whose hands they were.

So why did Hutchinson decide to testify on something that was so much hearsay? She wasn't in the car and at best couldn't see in the vehicle. And she's not worried about perjury because if they brought her up on charges, she'd have to tell everyone who fed her this story. Adam Schiff? Liz Cheney?

User avatar
gil
Posts: 1443
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:50 pm

Re: January 6th prime time shit show

Post by gil » Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:29 pm

ddraig wrote:
Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:17 pm
Hutchinson stated in an email on February 1 that the J6 hearings were "BS." Then too, I saw the video of the Beast before it was pulling away. You can see hands on the back of the front seat, but you can't see who those hands were connected to or whose hands they were.

So why did Hutchinson decide to testify on something that was so much hearsay? She wasn't in the car and at best couldn't see in the vehicle. And she's not worried about perjury because if they brought her up on charges, she'd have to tell everyone who fed her this story. Adam Schiff? Liz Cheney?
I'm only seeing this (her calling the hearings BS) on sites that I consider pretty much right wing leaning. But doesn't it make sense? She is a Republican and served in the Trump administration. That position (the hearings are BS) is pretty much what everyone here (other than me) is saying, isn't it? I don't see why her saying that in a private text would be at all surprising.

It also makes sense that she only testified because she was subpoenaed. The texts I read on the daily caller website said she felt that she had to testify after she was served the subpoena. I mean, if I were a political operative and in her position, I'd feel that I had to tell the truth. But I would not stretch the truth or make things up in any way to be unfavorable to the party I worked for.

From what I heard of her testimony, Hutchinson was very clear what she saw firsthand and what she heard. She never testified that she was in or near the Presidential vehicle. She did testify about what people told her happened in the vehicle. She testified about conversations with Mark Meadows (Trump's Chief of Staff) as well as things she heard Trump say. These are not hearsay. I heard only part of the testimony, but I think the hearing was 2 hours and the vehicle thing (which I did hear live) was ... what, 1 minute of testimony?

auroraave
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 9:35 pm
Location: Beverly Hills, Ca.

Re: January 6th prime time shit show

Post by auroraave » Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:35 pm

gil wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:29 pm
ddraig wrote:
Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:17 pm
Hutchinson stated in an email on February 1 that the J6 hearings were "BS." Then too, I saw the video of the Beast before it was pulling away. You can see hands on the back of the front seat, but you can't see who those hands were connected to or whose hands they were.

So why did Hutchinson decide to testify on something that was so much hearsay? She wasn't in the car and at best couldn't see in the vehicle. And she's not worried about perjury because if they brought her up on charges, she'd have to tell everyone who fed her this story. Adam Schiff? Liz Cheney?
I'm only seeing this (her calling the hearings BS) on sites that I consider pretty much right wing leaning. But doesn't it make sense? She is a Republican and served in the Trump administration. That position (the hearings are BS) is pretty much what everyone here (other than me) is saying, isn't it? I don't see why her saying that in a private text would be at all surprising.

It also makes sense that she only testified because she was subpoenaed. The texts I read on the daily caller website said she felt that she had to testify after she was served the subpoena. I mean, if I were a political operative and in her position, I'd feel that I had to tell the truth. But I would not stretch the truth or make things up in any way to be unfavorable to the party I worked for.

From what I heard of her testimony, Hutchinson was very clear what she saw firsthand and what she heard. She never testified that she was in or near the Presidential vehicle. She did testify about what people told her happened in the vehicle. She testified about conversations with Mark Meadows (Trump's Chief of Staff) as well as things she heard Trump say. These are not hearsay. I heard only part of the testimony, but I think the hearing was 2 hours and the vehicle thing (which I did hear live) was ... what, 1 minute of testimony?
So.... why didn't they subpoena the people she claimed to have heard these things from - and corroborate her 'testimony"? This is basic cross examination stuff here. She makes a claim - then they don't follow that up by asking the people directly? In what world would that ever happen? If this was a court - 100000000000% those people would be compelled to testify. The ONLY reason you would NOT call them is if you KNEW they would not corroborate it. Why would they NOT corroborate it? Because it's not true. In any real court, her testimony would be considered hearsay - period. "Oh, I heard this..." is not admissable, but you can get away with it in a congressional hearing - a perfect platform if you are trying to smear someone. Remember - NO ONE has ever been called to testify in support of Trump. Again, this would never happen in a real court.

This is where we get the "but she testified under oath!" The Secret Service agents would also be under oath - and they said they would be glad to testify - so - why not call them? Funny how only one side, one narrative, is heard in this "fair and unbiased" hearing. :lol:

It's the dagger to the heart of her hilarious "testimony" - NO ONE can corroborate it. If they could - they would issue a subpoena and compel them to. Any good litigator knows what the compellant will say - that's why you cross examine them. Clearly they know NO ONE will corroborate her story - UNDER OATH. ALL of her testimony is perfectly couched to allude to things, while not crossing into perjury with blatant lying - that's why she can use the "oh, I heard this...." which would never be admissable in a real court - hence why the Dems are doing it now - a game played on their turf where the opposition gets NO shot at rebuttal.

The fact I have to even point out something so basic and fundamental - is sad. No one can possibly be this obtuse.

I LOVE how it's all "right wing' sites when you don't like the content - meanwhile you are on record on here trying to sell Nancy Pelosi as 'trying to put together a fair and unbiased" committee in which only ONE side is heard and ALL members are anti Trump. You are literally regurgitating CNN/MSNBC talking points. You insult people's intelligence. You want to believe all this nonsense because you already do - you just want people to think you're unbiased so you can try to sell your positions as reasonable, but the problem is all your posts prove you aren't unbiased at all. That's fine - just stop with the sales pitch BS. It's embarrassing.

We will all wait with baited breath for you to answer the most basic and common sense question:
Why didn't they compel the SS agents to testify to corroborate her story?

My guess is you won't answer that - it blows your story apart - so you'll duck, dodge, deflect, change the convo, anything but use basic common sense to see this for what it is. It's cool, we get it.

Post Reply