[stokesjokes]

I’m circling back here because it’s still crazy to me- we are existing in literally different worlds of facts. I have been super detailed in my summation of J6 committee testimony because I assume if your media diet is exclusively right-wing, you probably haven’t heard any of it.

And, don’t get me wrong, you guys seem to think the same of me, that I’ve been brainwashed by anti-Trump media, but it’s wild- we don’t argue over opinions about stuff anymore, we dispute basic, objective facts.

[rtb72]

Testimony? I refer you to JK's comments which pretty much sums up both the J6 committee and the Trump side. Both are fraught with conjecture. My suggestion to all.....move on. The left hates Trump ( and most Repubs), the right hates everybody on the left. It's all filled with heresay "testimony" which is essentially worthless in a criminal court of law. It a referral happens, it won't be admissable in a criminal court. Trump's a dolt...the Dem leadership are also a bunch of freaks. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. Move on! Good grief. How anyone can believe anything coming out of DC these days is beyond me. Furthermore, I would say anyone with even an iota of common sense and logic would say neither Trump nor Biden is a benefit on any political ticket.

Okay...sorry....that's off my chest. Carry on with the "debate"....

Both sides suck. Big time. But IMO, we should not ignore what, hyperbole aside, really was an attempt to subvert an election that at that time, had already been certified in each state. Not because it is Trump, because it is all our democracy and someone may try it in the future if we just "move on".

I do see value in reading the transcripts of the hearing. It's not like Democrats are testifying. These are Republicans under oath.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/11056836 ... -committee

ok...enjoy. And please for the sake of credibility, don't use NPR for anything political. That's like using Wikipedia on a term paper...or Fox, or CNN, or NewsMax, etc, etc, etc....

[JK37]

I’m circling back here because it’s still crazy to me- we are existing in literally different worlds of facts.

Now you’re starting to get it.

And, yes, you’re crazy for circling back.

[TH Spangler]

Everyone in DC is just trying to protect their little money grab. Cronies, looting us tax payers.

Let me guess, you donated to the “Election Defense Fund”

J6 made for TV is a distraction. That's the way they roll. In the mean time crony deals are happening behind our back. Our future is being sold to the highest bidder, China.

[JK37]

Testimony? I refer you to JK's comments which pretty much sums up both the J6 committee and the Trump side. Both are fraught with conjecture. My suggestion to all.....move on. The left hates Trump ( and most Repubs), the right hates everybody on the left. It's all filled with heresay "testimony" which is essentially worthless in a criminal court of law. It a referral happens, it won't be admissable in a criminal court. Trump's a dolt...the Dem leadership are also a bunch of freaks. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. Move on! Good grief. How anyone can believe anything coming out of DC these days is beyond me. Furthermore, I would say anyone with even an iota of common sense and logic would say neither Trump nor Biden is a benefit on any political ticket.

Okay...sorry....that's off my chest. Carry on with the "debate"....

Both sides suck. Big time. But IMO, we should not ignore what, hyperbole aside, really was an attempt to subvert an election that at that time, had already been certified in each state. Not because it is Trump, because it is all our democracy and someone may try it in the future if we just "move on".

I do see value in reading the transcripts of the hearing. It's not like Democrats are testifying. These are Republicans under oath.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/11056836 ... -committee

ok...enjoy. And please for the sake of credibility, don't use NPR for anything political. That's like using Wikipedia on a term paper...or Fox, or CNN, or NewsMax, etc, etc, etc....

This. This right here is why we cannot have a coherent, intellectual conversation anymore in this country. Because all sources of information have been compromised. This is exactly what I meant by people now CHOOSING their truth. Nothing is sacred. No info is reliable in the eyes of all.

Objectivity has been replaced by entertainment. We would rather choose to yo listen what we WANT to hear, than to search for objective truth. And when media figured out there was money to be made (because of OUR choices), the paradigm of journalism shifted.

Some talk about politicians selling us off to some Far East country. How about we citizens putting our morals up for sale to FoxNews and CNN? Or ABC, NBC and CBS for that matter?!

[Just John]

........


I do see value in reading the transcripts of the hearing. It's not like Democrats are testifying. These are Republicans under oath.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/11056836 ... -committee

ok...enjoy. And please for the sake of credibility, don't use NPR for anything political. That's like using Wikipedia on a term paper...or Fox, or CNN, or NewsMax, etc, etc, etc....

I KNEW someone would say "you can't trust NPR". I was just waiting to see who it would be. Obviously you didn't read my post clearly or look at the link. It is STRICTLY the transcripts. Nothing else!!!!!

If I weren't heading to church I would find a pic of an ostrich with head buried in the sand.

[rtb72]

........


I do see value in reading the transcripts of the hearing. It's not like Democrats are testifying. These are Republicans under oath.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/11056836 ... -committee

ok...enjoy. And please for the sake of credibility, don't use NPR for anything political. That's like using Wikipedia on a term paper...or Fox, or CNN, or NewsMax, etc, etc, etc....

I KNEW someone would say "you can't trust NPR". I was just waiting to see who it would be. Obviously you didn't read my post clearly or look at the link. It is STRICTLY the transcripts. Nothing else!!!!!

If I weren't heading to church I would find a pic of an ostrich with head buried in the sand.

You got me. I said you can't trust NPR. Or did I? Franky, I would say you can't trust any of them (except maybe partially the WSJ who I lean on for some actual "news')! So you can bloviate on that rather than your paltry assertion I said you can't trust NPR. You know me so well. The transcripts are....full of what....opinion and hearsay. Handpicked and of course heavily vetted and organized by....NPR. No I didn't read it. I don't have to read it. It's the same trash since 2016, actually, probably before that. You haven't figured that out yet and I'm the one with my head in the sand....hahahahaha! Okay...I'm going to back to my sand hole. You go look for rabbits. Have fun.

Also...I find it funny. You delayed your insult of me of posting an ostrich in the sand to go to church.....bless your heart!

[Just John]

ok...enjoy. And please for the sake of credibility, don't use NPR for anything political. That's like using Wikipedia on a term paper...or Fox, or CNN, or NewsMax, etc, etc, etc....

I KNEW someone would say "you can't trust NPR". I was just waiting to see who it would be. Obviously you didn't read my post clearly or look at the link. It is STRICTLY the transcripts. Nothing else!!!!!

If I weren't heading to church I would find a pic of an ostrich with head buried in the sand.

You got me. I said you can't trust NPR. Or did I? Franky, I would say you can't trust any of them (except maybe partially the WSJ who I lean on for some actual "news')! So you can bloviate on that rather than your paltry assertion I said you can't trust NPR. You know me so well. The transcripts are....full of what....opinion and hearsay. Handpicked and of course heavily vetted and organized by....NPR. No I didn't read it. I don't have to read it. It's the same trash since 2016, actually, probably before that. You haven't figured that out yet and I'm the one with my head in the sand....hahahahaha! Okay...I'm going to back to my sand hole. You go look for rabbits. Have fun.

Also...I find it funny. You delayed your insult of me of posting an ostrich in the sand to go to church.....bless your heart!

This is still a sports message board and we all share the commonality of rooting for LU so I was having a little fun, notice the "wink" at the end of my post. Point stands that inevitably someone was going to call out the source and you just happen to do it first. (They were posted in full and exactly as given at the hearing btw). I agree w/ you on the WSJ, except for some of their political opinion writers. (Looking at Kimberly Strassel).

At the end of the day, the hearing still is testimony under oath, not the same as "opinion". It is often corroborated by another person, under oath, and again, all people Trump hired. THAT, is incontrovertible fact. It is for this reason some want to minimize, obfuscate, or flat out misrepresent. They cannot defend it point by point.

Liar, lunatic, or the world's lousiest eye for "hiring only the best people"?

Hope you had a good Sunday and Father's Day.

[rtb72]

I KNEW someone would say "you can't trust NPR". I was just waiting to see who it would be. Obviously you didn't read my post clearly or look at the link. It is STRICTLY the transcripts. Nothing else!!!!!

If I weren't heading to church I would find a pic of an ostrich with head buried in the sand.

You got me. I said you can't trust NPR. Or did I? Franky, I would say you can't trust any of them (except maybe partially the WSJ who I lean on for some actual "news')! So you can bloviate on that rather than your paltry assertion I said you can't trust NPR. You know me so well. The transcripts are....full of what....opinion and hearsay. Handpicked and of course heavily vetted and organized by....NPR. No I didn't read it. I don't have to read it. It's the same trash since 2016, actually, probably before that. You haven't figured that out yet and I'm the one with my head in the sand....hahahahaha! Okay...I'm going to back to my sand hole. You go look for rabbits. Have fun.

Also...I find it funny. You delayed your insult of me of posting an ostrich in the sand to go to church.....bless your heart!

This is still a sports message board and we all share the commonality of rooting for LU so I was having a little fun, notice the "wink" at the end of my post. Point stands that inevitably someone was going to call out the source and you just happen to do it first. (They were posted in full and exactly as given at the hearing btw). I agree w/ you on the WSJ, except for some of their political opinion writers. (Looking at Kimberly Strassel).

At the end of the day, the hearing still is testimony under oath, not the same as "opinion". It is often corroborated by another person, under oath, and again, all people Trump hired. THAT, is incontrovertible fact. It is for this reason some want to minimize, obfuscate, or flat out misrepresent. They cannot defend it point by point.

Liar, lunatic, or the world's lousiest eye for "hiring only the best people"?

Hope you had a good Sunday and Father's Day.

Look, I'm not going to say that there are not pieces of accurate information involved. I'm sure there is. There is no doubt there is plenty of damning information. However, testimony under oath in a political theatre proves pretty much nothing to me in regards to "incontrovertible" truth. In DC..."under oath" means nothing compared to what it might to you and me. Additionally, just in a criminal court, mitigating elements must be disclosed if present. That is not going to happen here in the J6 forum. Whether you see that or not...I don't know, but it's a fact nonetheless. You think there will be ANY witnesses or testimony that in anyway counters the narrative, i.e. did Trump request the NG and if so why were they not allowed?

To take wholly at face value what is said at these hearings or on any mainstream "media" site is to truly be naive to where we are today in American politics. I would agree with you on Trump's ability to surround himself with the best people. While i do believe he made some great choices, Bill Barr, my man "Mad Dog" Mattis, and probably several others....he didn't heed their sound guidance, and he should have. Nevertheless, it will always stand that this present exhibition is nothing more than partisan theater. If Trump is guilty of what is alleged...then he should be indicted, and subsequently convicted. That's not going to happen. And why?......because this is not as clear cut as the left and the media want you to think it is. And if you truly invest in filtering and vetting what you see on TV and in the news... that is incontrovertible.

Thank you for the well wishes, and yes...I had a wonderful Father's Day. I hope you did as well.

[TH Spangler]

You got me. I said you can't trust NPR. Or did I? Franky, I would say you can't trust any of them (except maybe partially the WSJ who I lean on for some actual "news')! So you can bloviate on that rather than your paltry assertion I said you can't trust NPR. You know me so well. The transcripts are....full of what....opinion and hearsay. Handpicked and of course heavily vetted and organized by....NPR. No I didn't read it. I don't have to read it. It's the same trash since 2016, actually, probably before that. You haven't figured that out yet and I'm the one with my head in the sand....hahahahaha! Okay...I'm going to back to my sand hole. You go look for rabbits. Have fun.

Also...I find it funny. You delayed your insult of me of posting an ostrich in the sand to go to church.....bless your heart!

This is still a sports message board and we all share the commonality of rooting for LU so I was having a little fun, notice the "wink" at the end of my post. Point stands that inevitably someone was going to call out the source and you just happen to do it first. (They were posted in full and exactly as given at the hearing btw). I agree w/ you on the WSJ, except for some of their political opinion writers. (Looking at Kimberly Strassel).

At the end of the day, the hearing still is testimony under oath, not the same as "opinion". It is often corroborated by another person, under oath, and again, all people Trump hired. THAT, is incontrovertible fact. It is for this reason some want to minimize, obfuscate, or flat out misrepresent. They cannot defend it point by point.

Liar, lunatic, or the world's lousiest eye for "hiring only the best people"?

Hope you had a good Sunday and Father's Day.

Look, I'm not going to say that there are not pieces of accurate information involved. I'm sure there is. There is no doubt there is plenty of damning information. However, testimony under oath in a political theatre proves pretty much nothing to me in regards to "incontrovertible" truth. In DC..."under oath" means nothing compared to what it might to you and me. Additionally, just in a criminal court, mitigating elements must be disclosed if present. That is not going to happen here in the J6 forum. Whether you see that or not...I don't know, but it's a fact nonetheless. You think there will be ANY witnesses or testimony that in anyway counters the narrative, i.e. did Trump request the NG and if so why were they not allowed?

To take wholly at face value what is said at these hearings or on any mainstream "media" site is to truly be naive to where we are today in American politics. I would agree with you on Trump's ability to surround himself with the best people. While i do believe he made some great choices, Bill Barr, my man "Mad Dog" Mattis, and probably several others....he didn't heed their sound guidance, and he should have. Nevertheless, it will always stand that this present exhibition is nothing more than partisan theater. If Trump is guilty of what is alleged...then he should be indicted, and subsequently convicted. That's not going to happen. And why?......because this is not as clear cut as the left and the media want you to think it is. And if you truly invest in filtering and vetting what you see on TV and in the news... that is incontrovertible.

Thank you for the well wishes, and yes...I had a wonderful Father's Day. I hope you did as well.

J6 is nothing but never Trumpers (Trump is an outsider) crying wolf ….. again. No-one is listening to them anymore, except those with Trump derangement syndrome.

[paradox]

Testimony? I refer you to JK's comments which pretty much sums up both the J6 committee and the Trump side. Both are fraught with conjecture. My suggestion to all.....move on. The left hates Trump ( and most Repubs), the right hates everybody on the left. It's all filled with heresay "testimony" which is essentially worthless in a criminal court of law. It a referral happens, it won't be admissable in a criminal court. Trump's a dolt...the Dem leadership are also a bunch of freaks. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. Move on! Good grief. How anyone can believe anything coming out of DC these days is beyond me. Furthermore, I would say anyone with even an iota of common sense and logic would say neither Trump nor Biden is a benefit on any political ticket.

Okay...sorry....that's off my chest. Carry on with the "debate"....

Both sides suck. Big time. But IMO, we should not ignore what, hyperbole aside, really was an attempt to subvert an election that at that time, had already been certified in each state. Not because it is Trump, because it is all our democracy and someone may try it in the future if we just "move on".

I do see value in reading the transcripts of the hearing. It's not like Democrats are testifying. These are Republicans under oath.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/11056836 ... -committee

Insurrection stories are just something to fire up Dem base & maybe steal a gullible mind or two from the other side. If it were truth & not fiction, it would be advantageous to GOP, not Dems.

[stokesjokes]

[Just John]

This is still a sports message board and we all share the commonality of rooting for LU so I was having a little fun, notice the "wink" at the end of my post. Point stands that inevitably someone was going to call out the source and you just happen to do it first. (They were posted in full and exactly as given at the hearing btw). I agree w/ you on the WSJ, except for some of their political opinion writers. (Looking at Kimberly Strassel).

At the end of the day, the hearing still is testimony under oath, not the same as "opinion". It is often corroborated by another person, under oath, and again, all people Trump hired. THAT, is incontrovertible fact. It is for this reason some want to minimize, obfuscate, or flat out misrepresent. They cannot defend it point by point.

Liar, lunatic, or the world's lousiest eye for "hiring only the best people"?

Hope you had a good Sunday and Father's Day.

Look, I'm not going to say that there are not pieces of accurate information involved. I'm sure there is. There is no doubt there is plenty of damning information. However, testimony under oath in a political theatre proves pretty much nothing to me in regards to "incontrovertible" truth. In DC..."under oath" means nothing compared to what it might to you and me. Additionally, just in a criminal court, mitigating elements must be disclosed if present. That is not going to happen here in the J6 forum. Whether you see that or not...I don't know, but it's a fact nonetheless. You think there will be ANY witnesses or testimony that in anyway counters the narrative, i.e. did Trump request the NG and if so why were they not allowed?

To take wholly at face value what is said at these hearings or on any mainstream "media" site is to truly be naive to where we are today in American politics. I would agree with you on Trump's ability to surround himself with the best people. While i do believe he made some great choices, Bill Barr, my man "Mad Dog" Mattis, and probably several others....he didn't heed their sound guidance, and he should have. Nevertheless, it will always stand that this present exhibition is nothing more than partisan theater. If Trump is guilty of what is alleged...then he should be indicted, and subsequently convicted. That's not going to happen. And why?......because this is not as clear cut as the left and the media want you to think it is. And if you truly invest in filtering and vetting what you see on TV and in the news... that is incontrovertible.

Thank you for the well wishes, and yes...I had a wonderful Father's Day. I hope you did as well.

J6 is nothing but never Trumpers (Trump is an outsider) crying wolf ….. again. No-one is listening to them anymore, except those with Trump derangement syndrome.

And yet you, or anyone else here, has yet to comment on the fact that all of those whom we have seen testimony so far is from Trump aides or appointees, under oath? Why did Eastman claim the 5th over 100 times? Why did he ask for a pardon? You keep saying it's a "hoax", "crying wolf", etc. but you won't comment on the facts.

[paradox]

Dems continue to whine about it in order to rally up the base. But, that's all it is. Same with abortion hysteria. They have zero energy going into the midterms. So, expect much of the same.

Dem policy doesn't work and it's on full display. They definitely don't wanna talk about that. Hence, non-stop evasion of reality with focus on Trump and culture wars.

[TH Spangler]

Just John this might be a lesson about not crying wolf when there's no wolf. Noone beleives you when there is.

[paradox]

Both sides suck. Big time. But IMO, we should not ignore what, hyperbole aside, really was an attempt to subvert an election that at that time, had already been certified in each state. Not because it is Trump, because it is all our democracy and someone may try it in the future if we just "move on".

I do see value in reading the transcripts of the hearing. It's not like Democrats are testifying. These are Republicans under oath.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/11056836 ... -committee

ok...enjoy. And please for the sake of credibility, don't use NPR for anything political. That's like using Wikipedia on a term paper...or Fox, or CNN, or NewsMax, etc, etc, etc....

This. This right here is why we cannot have a coherent, intellectual conversation anymore in this country. Because all sources of information have been compromised. This is exactly what I meant by people now CHOOSING their truth. Nothing is sacred. No info is reliable in the eyes of all.

Objectivity has been replaced by entertainment. We would rather choose to yo listen what we WANT to hear, than to search for objective truth. And when media figured out there was money to be made (because of OUR choices), the paradigm of journalism shifted.

Some talk about politicians selling us off to some Far East country. How about we citizens putting our morals up for sale to FoxNews and CNN? Or ABC, NBC and CBS for that matter?!

Trying to unravel this. I guess what you'e trying to say is that there was supposedly a time when media simply reported things in a more neutral way and allowed the viewer to draw their own conclusions? That would be ideal. But, skeptical that it's ever actually existed as such.

[Just John]

Just John this might be a lesson about not crying wolf when there's no wolf. Noone beleives you when there is.

So you are saying there are some questions here that are hard to answer and there really may be some validity to this investigation? That would be a good first step...and truth is truth, regardless of what some think has been the case in the past.

[Just John]

You got me. I said you can't trust NPR. Or did I? Franky, I would say you can't trust any of them (except maybe partially the WSJ who I lean on for some actual "news')! So you can bloviate on that rather than your paltry assertion I said you can't trust NPR. You know me so well. The transcripts are....full of what....opinion and hearsay. Handpicked and of course heavily vetted and organized by....NPR. No I didn't read it. I don't have to read it. It's the same trash since 2016, actually, probably before that. You haven't figured that out yet and I'm the one with my head in the sand....hahahahaha! Okay...I'm going to back to my sand hole. You go look for rabbits. Have fun.

Also...I find it funny. You delayed your insult of me of posting an ostrich in the sand to go to church.....bless your heart!

This is still a sports message board and we all share the commonality of rooting for LU so I was having a little fun, notice the "wink" at the end of my post. Point stands that inevitably someone was going to call out the source and you just happen to do it first. (They were posted in full and exactly as given at the hearing btw). I agree w/ you on the WSJ, except for some of their political opinion writers. (Looking at Kimberly Strassel).

At the end of the day, the hearing still is testimony under oath, not the same as "opinion". It is often corroborated by another person, under oath, and again, all people Trump hired. THAT, is incontrovertible fact. It is for this reason some want to minimize, obfuscate, or flat out misrepresent. They cannot defend it point by point.

Liar, lunatic, or the world's lousiest eye for "hiring only the best people"?

Hope you had a good Sunday and Father's Day.

Look, I'm not going to say that there are not pieces of accurate information involved. I'm sure there is. There is no doubt there is plenty of damning information. However, testimony under oath in a political theatre proves pretty much nothing to me in regards to "incontrovertible" truth. In DC..."under oath" means nothing compared to what it might to you and me. Additionally, just in a criminal court, mitigating elements must be disclosed if present. That is not going to happen here in the J6 forum. Whether you see that or not...I don't know, but it's a fact nonetheless. You think there will be ANY witnesses or testimony that in anyway counters the narrative, i.e. did Trump request the NG and if so why were they not allowed?

To take wholly at face value what is said at these hearings or on any mainstream "media" site is to truly be naive to where we are today in American politics. I would agree with you on Trump's ability to surround himself with the best people. While i do believe he made some great choices, Bill Barr, my man "Mad Dog" Mattis, and probably several others....he didn't heed their sound guidance, and he should have. Nevertheless, it will always stand that this present exhibition is nothing more than partisan theater. If Trump is guilty of what is alleged...then he should be indicted, and subsequently convicted. That's not going to happen. And why?......because this is not as clear cut as the left and the media want you to think it is. And if you truly invest in filtering and vetting what you see on TV and in the news... that is incontrovertible.

Thank you for the well wishes, and yes...I had a wonderful Father's Day. I hope you did as well.

I did as well. Thanks.

I'll just make a couple of points.

1. Unfortunately McConnell scrapped the deal for a third-party investigation.

2, Trump, today or yesterday, said it was "very stupid" for McCARTHY to not put other Republicans on the committee. (Obviously after Jordan and other were pushed off by Pelosi),

3. The fact that there is corroborating evidence of Trump's aides/appointees under oath is meaningful. Jason Miller would have never admitted to some of what he did had he not been under oath. Not a chance.

4. Trump could defend himself on the panel and they would show it wall to wall. His chance to tell his side of the story unfiltered. He won't.

5. I believe I have only quoted directly from the unaltered transcripts and not that of any press reports or opinion pieces.

6. If they find enough (some think they already have), I do believe Trump should be indicted. I have read two points on this. One is it has to be done and the other is it really could foment serious unrest. I lean towards the first. 48 years later, Ford's pardon of Nixon before he went to trial seems like the right thing to do. If Trump were indicted, a president could do the same or Trump could insist he fight to clear his name.

7. Why did Eastman plead the 5th more than 100 times (under oath, showing it does have leverage) and ask for a pardon? I keep going back to that because of every legal aide/appointee other than Eastman told Trump Eastman's plan wasn't Constitutional, he still went with Eastman.

[thepostman]

This is what this discussion has turned into. I commend you for attempting to bring in actual facts to the discussion but it's a lost cause. You are seen as nothing more than a liberal by most on here even if your post record says otherwise. I've given up.

[paradox]

People are rarely conscious of their starting points. That's one of the reasons why individuals tend to view their beliefs as factual & objective, and dismiss the opposition as completely invalid.

[thepostman]

But there have been real facts presented here in this thread and others that are just dismissed with that response.

[paradox]

Say it plainly then. Honestly, I'd like to see Trump taken out of the game here. So, succinctly lay it out. I wanna believe.

[thepostman]

Someone shared entire transcripts with testimony from his own people and it was completely dismissed. It literally can't be spoonfed any more than that.

[paradox]

Can you summarize it for us?

[thepostman]

It literally already has. Read the thread.