Trump hearings

It's not that anyone particularly hates your position, they just don't want to be in it, lol. Dumb on. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Senile retard. Can someone please help Levi back to his “home”.

Senile retard. Can someone please help Levi back to his “home”. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Get back on your corner punk.

Not only is he a nasty old man, but a nasty old racist. What year are you living in LeviQanon?

Because their position is that if you despise Trump, you love Biden. You want all guns taken. You want the Diesel Engine eliminated.. You want ''open borders''.. These people are a Bore. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

No it just means you're talking out your fourth point of contact AGAIN. Who other than perhaps Tulsi Gabbard, among the Democrats does not want to disarm law abiding citizens? Who among them doesn't support so called "green" initiatives that hamstring coal, oil, and nuclear power? Who among Democrats is calling for the borders to be secured?

I'lll wait... because you're not gonna be able to find one that supports even those three points.

And as for Gabbard, we all saw how well she did in the Democrat primaries...so c'mon give us the leftard alternative that doesn't support those positions....

To be honest with you, I'll just wait until it's time for the debates to hear their agendas. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and only judge candidates by their merits that I consider to be both reasonable and acceptable. All I can say is that if they are a far left or a far right wing nut, they're not getting my measly inconsequential one vote.

If Trump is the Republican nominee again, then I'll vote for any Democrat other than Beto, Warren or any far left nut who is going to take away so much of my paycheck that I earned and give it to those who sit on their asses. I'd rather have Trump in office than a "share the wealth" POTUS. I don't believe that everyone deserves a trophy. I believe the people who earned a trophy should get one and everyone else should just get a pat on the ass for playing. Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

The moderate democrats (Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep Nancy Pelosi) still control the democratic party. I hope a moderate is at the top of the democratic ticket, instead of a Bernie Sanders. I won't vote for Trump under any scenario.

... You surely need to post more often, mate.

The simple fact YOU considour Pelosi and Schumer "moderates"
is absolute laugh-outloud amusing... ...

### Salty

seciton 5c8 hr 503

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...resolution/503

How’d those hearings go today. Bill Stefian admitted that Trump and the Trumpites are detached from reality on voter fraud. They all told him time and again that none of it was true. It wasn’t what he wanted to hear so he only listened to people that would keep lying with him.

How’d those hearings go today. Bill Stefian admitted that Trump and the Trumpites are detached from reality on voter fraud. They all told him time and again that none of it was true. It wasn’t what he wanted to hear so he only listened to people that would keep lying with him. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Bill Barr said the dumpter fire was the weakest element of the ticket in the Philadelphia or Pennsylvania race. I heard that.

I'm sure that will be repeated. Kevin McCarthy took over Barr's role as the inspector who kept lying for and to him.

We'll have to wait and see how today's hearings do in the ratings but the fact this is happening on a Monday morning at 10 am, will kill those numbers and add those that saw the first day and realized this was all stuff they had heard before and will not tune in again like after a first debate when numbers usually fall..


But since I did watch, I'll give you my review. If the purpose of the hearing is to make a criminal case against Trump, proving he is a narcissistic asshole detached from reality "on this particular issue", score one for the Dem's but proof of being a narcissistic asshole, detached from reality will get you nothing in a fair trial in a court of law which is what they are shooting for. And the whole "detached from reality" well, that would favor Trump's defense. "He didn't understand what might result from his words and actions since others have used similar words without this result, ladies and gentlemen of the jury". Never tried a case in a courtroom but one wouldn't really have to, to know that the prosecution should never paint a defendant as "detached from reality", that's a defense move.



Today's hearing was more of the same as the "primetime" hearing, trying to convince anybody listening, that Trump was told by his closest advisers and even family members, that the election was not stolen as Bill Barr, the new hero of the left who a few short years ago wanted him prosecuted and hanged for treason, told us but here's the thing and it's just an opinion/ observation, anybody tuning in, interested in all this political stuff, would have already heard all this, I certainly had. I didn't hear a single thing I didn't already know. "But what about those that didn't know all this before"? Then they probably aren't watching this if they weren't interested before and following this story.


I think the general consensus of any fair minded person who follows politics closely enough to be interested in watching this, is that no minds are being changed by what has been presented so far. None of this "testimony" is relevant to whether Trump committed a provable crime beyond any reasonable doubt.


I wish I had the future schedule of when they are going to present a case of an actual criminal case against Trump, like "today we will present a witness that Trump or his appointed representative, who met with and conspired with the leader of the Proud Boys and hear is the video and audio evidence of that meeting.


Now that would get my interest but of course such evidence doesn't exist or we would have heard about it long before now. No, all they have, that I'm aware of at this point, is that they keep repeating that Trump "motivated" the crowd to riot. But then that pesky one short sentence in the tweet Liz Cheney decided to open this one sided presentation with, was left out of the reading, "now go home with love and peace" the last line said. Would any good prosecutor present as evidence in the case you are trying to make, a tweet in it's entirety for the jury to read and leave out the last line of that tweet, which completely contradicts the narrative that you are trying to prove, that Trump encouraged them to go into the Capitol when he actually told them to "go home with love and peace"?


Everybody with even half a brain realized what Cheney had done and it became a source of discussion, surely not what she was going for I would think.


Then there was the repeated "if there are no objections" from Thompson the Chairman of the committee who wanted all Americans to know with his opening statement, that he was born in Mississippi, a part of our country steeped in slavery.......that there is nobody to object since Pelosi would not allow anybody from the Republican side, that would/ might object, because they weren't allowed on the committee.


Sure, they found 2 Republicans that voted to impeach Trump, that literally hate Trump, so much for an un-biased, fair committee, who already made up their minds about Trump's alleged involvement in the riot's. Each of these two Republicans had already made speeches to that effect and they were suppose to represent "the other side of the argument"? Please, this is a show trial with no chance of cross examining a witness that they might have "different" questions for. So Chairman Thompson, you can stop asking if anybody will object, they won't.



So, how'd those hearings go today? A complete waste of time going over one thought and one thought only, was Trump told by his closest advisers and family, that the election was not stolen, he didn't have the evidence to prove what he was saying as Barr repeatedly told him, and Trump did not win the election but continued to lie about it.


OK, is that relevant as to whether he conspired with the rioters? What is the legal standard that describes "motivating" people to do something illegal? Rather big 1st Amendment hurdle to jump there. I don't think you can prosecute a President for saying what he thought to be true, even though some of the closest people around him told him was not true. As I said in another thread, you have Chuck Shumer on TV, calling out the name of Justice Kavanaugh, telling him he will "reap the worldwind" if he votes against what Shumer wants and he will "pay the price". Months later a man tries to kill Kabvanaugh, perhaps motivated by Shumer's words.


So if we are going to prosecute Trump for "motivating" people to commit a criminal act, we would have to prosecute Shumer for the same thing. But I guess the Democrats can't qite wrap their brains around "equal justice under the law".

It's okay. I'm on "ignore" anyway.

I think actually hearing Trump staffers saying that everyone knew there was no voter fraud and were telling Trump that was the case except for a few idiots that wanted to use the lie to raise money, might even come as a surprise to some Trump supporters. Think about the Salty and Bambi’s who believe there was fraud because they think everyone in Trumps orbit believed it. They might realize they’ve been played for fools. Eccie’s Salty and Bambi won’t change because they are ridiculously stupid, but there are less stupid Trumpites that might wake up.

Literally everyone in the White House were telling him he lost and there was no fraud. Every claim of fraud he was relying on from the internet was debunked by his own people.

Also just a note, being crazy is not a defense to any crime. Trump was neither with respect to voter fraud lies. He just knew that his supporters were so dumb they’d believe the lie. And to this day millions continue to believe it because they can’t get off the stupid train.

The point today was that he knew. His only option eventually came down to a forceful defense of his power. Not legal.

e.g.:

“There was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were,” Barr told investigators at one point in the recorded testimony regarding Trump and election fraud.

“All the early claims that I understood were completely bogus and silly and usually based on complete misinformation.”

He tried to make the case for skepticism in a meeting with Trump on Nov. 23, 2020.

“The president said there had been major fraud and that as soon as the facts were out, the results of the election would be reversed,” Barr testified. But the focus of the meeting, he said, was on Trump’s frustration that the Justice Department wasn’t announcing fraud probes. Barr told Trump that his campaign had to raise such concerns with states — which, of course, had occurred without effect. That weekend, Trump went on Fox Business to complain about the Justice Department’s perceived inaction.

Barr sat down with a reporter from the Associated Press on Dec. 1 and explained that no observable rampant fraud had occurred. Predictably, Trump soon demanded to speak to Barr.

“You didn’t have to say this,” Barr says Trump told him. “You must have said this because you hate Trump. You hate Trump.”

Then, Barr says, he told Trump that his assertions about a surge in votes in Detroit were meritless. “Unlike elsewhere in the state, they centralize the counting process so they’re not counted in each precinct. They’re moved to counting stations. So another process would involve boxes coming in at all different hours,” Barr said. “I said, did anyone point out to you that — all the people complaining about it point out to you — you actually did better in Detroit than you did last time? I mean, there’s no indication of fraud in Detroit.”

After his meeting with Trump on Nov. 23, Barr ran into Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. “I said, ‘How long is he going to carry on with this stolen-election stuff? Where is this going to go?’ ” Barr testified he asked. Meadows responded, “ ‘Look, I think that he’s becoming more realistic and knows there’s a limit to how far he can take this.’ And then Jared said, ‘You know, we’re working on this. We’re working on it.’ ”