• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

January 6 Hearings Live

Oleg.

This is what it comes down to.

Do you think Trump did not plan his actions ahead of the elction?
Do you think he did not intentionally draw people to the capitol with the intention to disrupt the transfer of power?
Do you think a planned and coordinated invasion of the capitol by arned peole is not an insurrection?
Do you think he should be reelected president?

These are yes no questions withoutt the republican hand waving and misdirection. I doubt you will answer directly.

After repeatedfaiures in court and no credible evidence how does thee election as stolen lie keep propagating?
 
Any Republican who acknowledged that Trump lost, there was no significant electoral fraud and there was an insurrection on 1/6, would have been welcome on the committee. Only those who proved themselves liars uninterested in the truth were “barred”.
 
Trump reveals himself to be a privilidged whinge teenager who can't get everything his way.
 
Is now a bad time to point out to Oleg that Republicans could have had their bipartisan committee like he wants, but they voted against it?

www.npr.org

Senate Republicans Block A Plan For An Independent Commission On Jan. 6 Capitol Riot

The bipartisan measure, approved by the House, failed to win enough votes to overcome a GOP filibuster. The plan called for an independent body styled on the one that investigated the 9/11 attacks.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

Let's cut the shit. Republicans are being represented in the committee and the only people testifying are either Republicans or people who worked for Trump. You've got to be a special type of inbred fucknut if you think it's a democrat hit job and you have to be equally moronic if you think these proceedings would have been equally fair if the show was on the other foot.
 
I might ask, how often in the history of elections have representatives voted against the certification of an election?

what is the history of this going back?
 
bilby said:
Elixir said:
The "opposition party" is the defendant in this case
Click to expand...
Indeed. Complaining that the hearing committee doesn't include Trump supporters is like complaining that your trial was unfair, because your lawyer wasn't empaneled as a juror.
Click to expand...
No. The "opposition party" is not yet a defendant. They are not defendants they are persons of interest to an investigation. Never in the history of investigations has it ever been wise or necessary to appoint persons of interest to an investigation into themselves.
 
Patooka said:
Let's cut the shit. Republicans are being represented in the committee and the only people testifying are either Republicans or people who worked for Trump. You've got to be a special type of inbred fucknut if you think it's a democrat hit job and you have to be equally moronic if you think these proceedings would have been equally fair if the show was on the other foot.
Click to expand...
Aha! Look! You accidentally used the word "show" instead of "shoe!" You admit it's all a show! Ha ha, checkmate, libs!

(seriously, Oleg thought I was admitting it was all for show because I used that word. However, I used it on purpose as if to say "enjoy watching your orange god facing legal consequences for the fist time in his life."

While the DOJ might not indict him on the insurrection he was clearly behind, they've got some very big fish to fry with the classified documents, and the NY AG's case against his org for fraud is about as open and shut as you can get.

It will be quite the shoe, indeed.
 
Oleg said:
"Accurate" historial accounting? Without cross-examination and the opposition party shut out from questioning and calling witnesses? You gotta be shittin me, Pyle.
Click to expand...
Look, I have a massive fetish for beating a dead horse so I'm going to point out what Bennie Thompson said.

When you look back at what has come out through this committee's work, the most striking fact is that all this evidence come almost entirely from Republicans. The evidence that has emerged did not come from Democrats or opponents of Donald Trump. Instead, look at who's written and testified and produced evidence.
Click to expand...
 
Oleg must be consulting with the moher ship for what to say next.

There is nothing good o TV tonight, I await an entertaining response.
 
Oleg said:
When there is no cross examination; no difference of viewpoint of the members of this committee; the opposition party denied its choice of members: You think this is about truth? LOL.
Click to expand...
Your side had the option and rejected it. Sounds like the guy charged with murdering his parents pleading for mercy because he's an orphan.
 
Oleg said:
It was a riot. Charge the rioters. But if you say you want to get at the truth, excluding potential evidence you may find unfavorable shows your doing it in bad faith.
Click to expand...
Nobody's excluding evidence. It's just the QOP doesn't actually have any evidence. They keep shouting their claims to the press--but behave very differently when there would be sanctions for lying.
 
Sources of evidence on the right.

Rudi Juliani, lost his law license.
Donald Trump. a lifelong liar and con artist. Multiple biliousness failures.
Alex Jones.
Sean Hannity, a professional sycophant.

I could work up a lengthy list of purveyors of falsehoods.

Given Trump's own words it was a conpsrcay to overthrough the elction. Calling stes to ask that votes be 'found'. That is right out of 1 1949s crime movie about political corrugation. Trump asked the president of Mexico for political over the border and his wall.He was told to fuck off. On camera he was give the finger by a past president.

Trump is both a business and political failure.

As to cintrary evidence as in the old Wendy;s burger commercial, ;Where;s the beef?'. Poking fun at fast food birgerswith large buns bbut little meat.
 
Oleg said:
excluding potential evidence you may find unfavorable shows your doing it in bad faith.
Click to expand...

Two things, Ollie:

1) “you’re”
2) “Potential evidence” is not the basis for ANYTHING. If you want evidence to be considered, come up with actual evidence. Excluding potential evidence is required if one wants any hope of arriving at the truth. Obviously arriving at the truth is no part of your agenda Ollie. Very transparent.
 
What a fucking child.



This isn't taking your ball and going home, this is slashing the ball up and demolishing the basketball court because you lost.
 
ZiprHead said:
PDF of the Trump response to the subpoena

It's as ridiculous as you suspect it will be.
Click to expand...
Wow. That's batshit crazy. What even more insane is that all these crazy conspiracies are mainstream thought to many republicans and their voters. I hear (some) previously moderate conservatives talk about this stuff as if it's reality. They just smooth out the edges a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom