Coup Coup Catchyou!

[billy backstay]

Dear inSurferable7 - the GOP don't do the GOP - that ended with Nixon resigning. Trump is now facing criminal charges and his attorneys are preparing for that. There are exactly 2 Republicans who have stood up to TFG and Liz Cheney is being punished by her party for it. One thing TFG said that is absolutely true - he loves the uneducated.

Heard on the radio this morning that a bunch of red states have Governors and/or Congress Critters who are solid Trump backers, accepting of and behind the Big Lie, and there are concerns that this could cause some major clusterfucks going forward for States as well as the Fed....
.

 

[solosailor]

No more responses from me

If only.

 

[Stingray~]

The argument about the 10K or 20K troops offer made to Pelosi is simply part of the effort to somehow blame her for the attack on the Capitol. Or Antifa. Or the FBI or the Deep State or anyone, please, anyone else!

 

[billy backstay]

IIRC, Trump was talking out of both sides of his mouth, at one point claiming the mob was Antifa, but then saying it was "his" people and wanting to have the magnetometers removed, so they could enter with their firearms....
.

 

[Mike G]

Trump says so many conflicting things so his supporters can pick the one that applies whenever they want to make a point.

'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore'​

'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen'​

'We are going to the Capitol'​

'We will stop the steal'​

Is one group of quotes from that day.
Also

'Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard'​

Just like a mob boss.
People heard what they wanted to hear.

The fact that while violence was happening he wasn't outraged and immediately doing whatever he could to stop
the violence shows what group of phrases he was backing that day.

 

[badlatitude]

If it was proven that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to illegally steal the 2016 POTUS election then why wasn't Trump criminally charged?

No more responses from me with opinion BS like that.

That report just happened to be the bipartisan, republican led, Senate Select Intelligence Committee, their 1,000 page report spelled it out. There was collusion.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

That report just happened to be the bipartisan, republican led, Senate Select Intelligence Committee, their 1,000 page report spelled it out. There was collusion.

Liddle Marco’s report.

 

[Ishmael]

IIRC, Trump was talking out of both sides of his mouth, at one point claiming the mob was Antifa, but then saying it was "his" people and wanting to have the magnetometers removed, so they could enter with their firearms....
.

Then later saying he would pardon all those antifas for some reason.

 

[Surfer7]

Isn't it odd that no one would confirm that "xxx Troops" story under penalty of perjury though, right?

Was anyone asked? I'm not aware of it, are you? If you know, who was asked and what was their response?

Why do you think that was?

Because this sham committee doesn't want to know the truth. Because that truth could basically wipe out the narrative they are trying to construct.

Isn't it important that we, as a country, not let a siege on the Capitol like that ever happen again? In order to prevent future occurrences this committee should be asking why there was insufficient police/guardsman protection, especially since it was offered well in advance. But this committee is apparently not interested in preventing future occurrences. Their only interest appears to be political theater to try to prevent Donald Trump from getting reelected in 2024. Why are they so afraid of Donald Trump?

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Was anyone asked? I'm not aware of it, are you? If you know, who was asked and what was their response?

if you like the way it smells, you find someone who testified to it under penalty of perjury and offer it in support. If it ain't sworn, it ain't real.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

if you like the way it smells, you find someone who testified to it under penalty of perjury and offer it in support. If it ain't sworn, it ain't real.

Ann Coulter needs to publish a new edition of "How to Talk to a Liberal if you Must". It will be two words long: "Under Oath."

 

[Surfer7]

if you like the way it smells, you find someone who testified to it under penalty of perjury and offer it in support. If it ain't sworn, it ain't real.

Don't you get it? The "you" in the "you find someone" is Pelosi or one of her followers. There are no real Republicans on that committee. Just Liz and another Trump hater.
Pelosi will never allow "finding someone" to testify to it because that could reveal the truth.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Don't you get it? The "you" in the "you find someone" is Pelosi or one of her followers. There are no real Republicans on that committee. Just Liz and another Trump hater.
Pelosi will never allow "finding someone" to testify to it because that could reveal the truth.

Oh I get it. You believe talking heads on TV over sworn testimony. That's what happens when your loneliness destroys your reasoning ability.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Bullshitter Levin been bullshitting to the bullshitter choir.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Don't you get it? The "you" in the "you find someone" is Pelosi or one of her followers. There are no real Republicans on that committee. Just Liz and another Trump hater.
Pelosi will never allow "finding someone" to testify to it because that could reveal the truth.

Have they refused to allow anybody to testify? Not heard any such thing. And everybody they have asked in to testify has been a Republican connected to the events.

If your man wants to tell the truth, he could walk into the J6 Committee interview room any time, they're on recess but their assistants are still keeping office hours. But guess what, none of the bullshit you're citing is true and nobody will swear to it for that reason.

 

[Surfer7]

@Steam Flyer @MR.CLEAN How can the committee speak the words or put in writing "we refuse to hear testimony about subject x from person y" when Pelosi won't allow it and ALL of the committee members are Trump haters and are careful to only ask questions from people that they know will sound damning of Trump?

Prove me wrong. I don't think you can.

 

[Surfer7]

@Steam Flyer @MR.CLEAN When the Jan6 committee was being formed Kevin McCarthy was asked to assign 5 Republicans to the committee. McCarthy did so. But Pelosi rejected two of his appointments: Jim Jordan and Jim Banks. No reason given.

Infuriated by this, and rightfully so IMO, McCarthy pulled out of the sham subcommittee completely, and said the following:

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken the unprecedented step of denying the minority party's picks for the Select Committee on January 6. This represents an egregious abuse of power and will irreparably damage this institution. Denying the voices of members who have served in the military and law enforcement, as well as leaders of standing committees, has made it undeniable that this panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility and shows the Speaker is more interested in playing politics than seeking the truth."

 

[Mrleft8]

The loser guy's supporters are ignoring requests, and subpoenas to appear. So you're left with people who aren't afraid to tell the truth. No one who has appeared before the 1/6 committee has been accused of perjury.... If the loser guy's supporters actually show up, will they tell the truth, plead the 5th, or perjure themselves?
Jordan and Banks were denied because they stated very clearly that their goal on the committee would be to stall the hearings at every chance and to disrupt the proceedings in every way that they could.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Mccarthy's decision didn't age well

 

[Mike G]

The difference between under oath and under Hannity.