[paradox]

TBH, most of this is long-winded & emotionally-charged. It should be cogent and clear if it's as plausible as some have claimed. Again, I'd like to see Trump taken out by Dems. Make the case.

[stokesjokes]

Follow the testimony. This isn’t about having questions about the integrity of the election. We have testimony from multiple advisors, from Trump’s attorney general, and from his own daughter that everyone knew that his fraud claims were, in the words of Bill Barr, “bullsh*t”, and told the president repeatedly that they had no basis in reality.
Now, knowing that, he didn’t just publicly muse about the integrity of the election, he deliberately pressured the Vice President to reject the states electors and install his own, despite being told repeatedly by everyone involved (save John Eastman) that doing so was illegal and seditious. When Pence vehemently refused, he mounted a public pressure campaign and knowingly incited violence against the proceedings.

It’s a clear, cut and dry case of trying to overthrow the government to have himself installed as president. He knew without a shadow of a doubt that he had literally zero evidence that the election was stolen. If he still believed it, he was delusional and unfit to be president. But he didn’t just wonder if it was an unfair election, he conspired to prevent the rule of law from being followed.

This is the case the committee is making through testimony so far. I hope it’s clear enough.

[rtb72]

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.

Let's see here...

1. 3rd party would have been better. Objective would have been ideal.Not gonna happen on left or right in Washington. He can move unilaterally?
2. Pretty much was stupid.
3. Means nothing. Corroborating what? Hearsay? Not admissible...just means he heard her say he said he heard her say it.
4. You are delusional if you think he could defend himself to this committee. No matter how strong his case was. That's like having Hillary state her case before a Republican hearing...oh wait....
5. Yep...you quoted transcripts from witnesses vetted by the committee and orchestrated for affect. Yep...that's what you did.
6. Should be? Sure. Will be? No! Trump will not be indicted if this is all they have. Sorry...but a criminal court is VERY DIFFERENT than what you are watching. Indicted in DC...maybe (very tentative)...convicted....not a chance.
7. Don't know...don't care...but it's his right. Do we really want to get into 5th Amendment pleas when questioned under oath??? #Benghazi

Don't misunderstand...I have NO love for Trump. Wish he would just go away frankly. Nevertheless...I find the position of many on the left making hay about this to be disingenuous at best.

Finally...I really don't care. I just find it interesting what people will wholly believe versus what they'll dismiss. Both sides. You made a comment earlier that "truth is truth". I agree, but would add one key addition to ensure its veracity. "Absolute" truth.....is truth.

[paradox]

Follow the testimony. This isn’t about having questions about the integrity of the election. We have testimony from multiple advisors, from Trump’s attorney general, and from his own daughter that everyone knew that his fraud claims were, in the words of Bill Barr, “bullsh*t”, and told the president repeatedly that they had no basis in reality.
Now, knowing that, he didn’t just publicly muse about the integrity of the election, he deliberately pressured the Vice President to reject the states electors and install his own, despite being told repeatedly by everyone involved (save John Eastman) that doing so was illegal and seditious. When Pence vehemently refused, he mounted a public pressure campaign and knowingly incited violence against the proceedings.

It’s a clear, cut and dry case of trying to overthrow the government to have himself installed as president. He knew without a shadow of a doubt that he had literally zero evidence that the election was stolen. If he still believed it, he was delusional and unfit to be president. But he didn’t just wonder if it was an unfair election, he conspired to prevent the rule of law from being followed.

This is the case the committee is making through testimony so far. I hope it’s clear enough.

Yeah, but you're sayin' that he hypothetically would have blocked the election if key figures went along with it. But it never actually happened. Not a crime. Although, really bad intensions.

[stokesjokes]

You keep saying hearsay, which, technically it is, but it’s not the hearsay you’re suggesting here. Its people literally in the room with Trump, et. al reporting what they heard Trump, et. al say. It’s not “I heard somebody say that Trump said…” It’s the kind of hearsay that can actually used as evidence since it’s from direct observation.

I think Eastman goes down, which should mean Trump goes down since Eastman was doing Trump’s bidding, but I don’t really see it going that way. I think the best shot of Trump being convicted of a crime is going to be his interference with state elections since that’s on tape. Hard to weasel your way out of recorded phone calls.

[stokesjokes]

Follow the testimony. This isn’t about having questions about the integrity of the election. We have testimony from multiple advisors, from Trump’s attorney general, and from his own daughter that everyone knew that his fraud claims were, in the words of Bill Barr, “bullsh*t”, and told the president repeatedly that they had no basis in reality.
Now, knowing that, he didn’t just publicly muse about the integrity of the election, he deliberately pressured the Vice President to reject the states electors and install his own, despite being told repeatedly by everyone involved (save John Eastman) that doing so was illegal and seditious. When Pence vehemently refused, he mounted a public pressure campaign and knowingly incited violence against the proceedings.

It’s a clear, cut and dry case of trying to overthrow the government to have himself installed as president. He knew without a shadow of a doubt that he had literally zero evidence that the election was stolen. If he still believed it, he was delusional and unfit to be president. But he didn’t just wonder if it was an unfair election, he conspired to prevent the rule of law from being followed.

This is the case the committee is making through testimony so far. I hope it’s clear enough.

Yeah, but you're sayin' that he hypothetically would have blocked the election if key figures went along with it. But it never actually happened. Not a crime. Although, really bad intensions.

It’s textbook criminal conspiracy.

Relevant tweet:

[paradox]

So, it's a conspiracy? Or maybe a conspiracy about a potential conspiracy. Or even worse yet... a travesty of a mockery of a sham. Or maybe a hypothetical sham mockery of a conspiracy.

[JK37]

You keep saying hearsay, which, technically it is, but it’s not the hearsay you’re suggesting here. Its people literally in the room with Trump, et. al reporting what they heard Trump, et. al say. It’s not “I heard somebody say that Trump said…” It’s the kind of hearsay that can actually used as evidence since it’s from direct observation.

I think Eastman goes down, which should mean Trump goes down since Eastman was doing Trump’s bidding, but I don’t really see it going that way. I think the best shot of Trump being convicted of a crime is going to be his interference with state elections since that’s on tape. Hard to weasel your way out of recorded phone calls.

What do you want to happen? Honestly.

[Just John]

So, it's a conspiracy? Or maybe a conspiracy about a potential conspiracy. Or even worse yet... a travesty of a mockery of a sham. Or maybe a hypothetical sham mockery of a conspiracy.

One can choose to be obtuse but the laws about "conspiracy to commit" are pretty clear.

"A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. A person may be convicted of conspiracy even if the actual crime was never committed."

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/crimin ... iracy.html

[Just John]

Follow the testimony. This isn’t about having questions about the integrity of the election. We have testimony from multiple advisors, from Trump’s attorney general, and from his own daughter that everyone knew that his fraud claims were, in the words of Bill Barr, “bullsh*t”, and told the president repeatedly that they had no basis in reality.
Now, knowing that, he didn’t just publicly muse about the integrity of the election, he deliberately pressured the Vice President to reject the states electors and install his own, despite being told repeatedly by everyone involved (save John Eastman) that doing so was illegal and seditious. When Pence vehemently refused, he mounted a public pressure campaign and knowingly incited violence against the proceedings.

It’s a clear, cut and dry case of trying to overthrow the government to have himself installed as president. He knew without a shadow of a doubt that he had literally zero evidence that the election was stolen. If he still believed it, he was delusional and unfit to be president. But he didn’t just wonder if it was an unfair election, he conspired to prevent the rule of law from being followed.

This is the case the committee is making through testimony so far. I hope it’s clear enough.

Yeah, but you're sayin' that he hypothetically would have blocked the election if key figures went along with it. But it never actually happened. Not a crime. Although, really bad intensions.

Not true. "Intent to Commit" only has to have an agreement between one or two people, an understanding the act they agree on is illegal, and an advancement towards the criminal act. This doesn't even have to be a criminal act in itself. The government is not required to prove that any of the members of the conspiracy were successful in achieving any or all of the objective(s) of the conspiracy.

[Just John]

You keep saying hearsay, which, technically it is, but it’s not the hearsay you’re suggesting here. Its people literally in the room with Trump, et. al reporting what they heard Trump, et. al say. It’s not “I heard somebody say that Trump said…” It’s the kind of hearsay that can actually used as evidence since it’s from direct observation.

Indeed. Many a criminal has been convicted on such "hearsay".

[Purple Haize]

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.

Well you’re just a Poopey Head!!

[thepostman]

Follow the testimony. This isn’t about having questions about the integrity of the election. We have testimony from multiple advisors, from Trump’s attorney general, and from his own daughter that everyone knew that his fraud claims were, in the words of Bill Barr, “bullsh*t”, and told the president repeatedly that they had no basis in reality.
Now, knowing that, he didn’t just publicly muse about the integrity of the election, he deliberately pressured the Vice President to reject the states electors and install his own, despite being told repeatedly by everyone involved (save John Eastman) that doing so was illegal and seditious. When Pence vehemently refused, he mounted a public pressure campaign and knowingly incited violence against the proceedings.

It’s a clear, cut and dry case of trying to overthrow the government to have himself installed as president. He knew without a shadow of a doubt that he had literally zero evidence that the election was stolen. If he still believed it, he was delusional and unfit to be president. But he didn’t just wonder if it was an unfair election, he conspired to prevent the rule of law from being followed.

This is the case the committee is making through testimony so far. I hope it’s clear enough.

Can you summarize this into one sentence?

[stokesjokes]

Orange man indeed bad

[stokesjokes]

You keep saying hearsay, which, technically it is, but it’s not the hearsay you’re suggesting here. Its people literally in the room with Trump, et. al reporting what they heard Trump, et. al say. It’s not “I heard somebody say that Trump said…” It’s the kind of hearsay that can actually used as evidence since it’s from direct observation.

I think Eastman goes down, which should mean Trump goes down since Eastman was doing Trump’s bidding, but I don’t really see it going that way. I think the best shot of Trump being convicted of a crime is going to be his interference with state elections since that’s on tape. Hard to weasel your way out of recorded phone calls.

What do you want to happen? Honestly.

Based on the testimony, I want Trump and Eastman indicted. I think they knowingly committed crimes against the constitution and should have to answer that. I also think Trump testifying in court under oath would help break our national fever. It’s that type of setting where the mask can really come down and Trump will show who he is. Of course, I think he’s shown plenty already and people have found a way to dismiss it, so maybe it’s misplaced hope.

Part of me also wants to see Trump run in 2024 if only to force top republicans to campaign against him. I think the party writ large realizes Trump 2024 would be a guaranteed loss and would have to publicly stamp his campaign out instead of trying to let him quietly fade away.

[paradox]

It was never criminal for HRC and the Dems to "believe" that the Russians "installed" Trump. Nor was any of the demagoguery, protests, or trials that followed. it was just politics at its worst.

[stokesjokes]

Yes, because they didn’t commit any crimes in doing so. Trump can believe he won the election until the day he dies, that’s not a crime. Conspiring to reject the states’ electors and install his own because of that belief is a crime. It’s not a hard concept.

[paradox]

....and Ted Cruz's dad played a role in the JFK conspiracy. Joe Scarborough conspired against his lover. And now this. What's this world coming to? Oh, and Putin. Don't get me started, right?

[stokesjokes]

One can choose to be obtuse but the laws about "conspiracy to commit" are pretty clear.

"A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. A person may be convicted of conspiracy even if the actual crime was never committed."

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/crimin ... iracy.html

Pretending to not know the difference between a criminal conspiracy and a conspiracy theory even after it’s been explained? I’m going with choosing to be obtuse for $200, Alex.

…I feel like I’m feeding a troll again.

[thepostman]

You are

[paradox]

The only argument you guys seem to be making is of the emotional partisan variety. Would love to see your collective dream come true though. Trump gone w/blood mostly on Dem's hands.

[Just John]

The only argument you guys seem to be making is of the emotional partisan variety. Would love to see your collective dream come true though. Trump gone w/blood mostly on Dem's hands.

This is really funny. We are the ones point out facts and testimony. No one else is doing that. RTB at least tried to refute some of those points. Everyone else is just posting phrases similar to yours. Barely lukewarm and no light.

[Just John]

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.

Let's see here...

1. 3rd party would have been better. Objective would have been ideal.Not gonna happen on left or right in Washington. He can move unilaterally?
2. Pretty much was stupid.
3. Means nothing. Corroborating what? Hearsay? Not admissible...just means he heard her say he said he heard her say it.
4. You are delusional if you think he could defend himself to this committee. No matter how strong his case was. That's like having Hillary state her case before a Republican hearing...oh wait....
5. Yep...you quoted transcripts from witnesses vetted by the committee and orchestrated for affect. Yep...that's what you did.
6. Should be? Sure. Will be? No! Trump will not be indicted if this is all they have. Sorry...but a criminal court is VERY DIFFERENT than what you are watching. Indicted in DC...maybe (very tentative)...convicted....not a chance.
7. Don't know...don't care...but it's his right. Do we really want to get into 5th Amendment pleas when questioned under oath??? #Benghazi

Don't misunderstand...I have NO love for Trump. Wish he would just go away frankly. Nevertheless...I find the position of many on the left making hay about this to be disingenuous at best.

Finally...I really don't care. I just find it interesting what people will wholly believe versus what they'll dismiss. Both sides. You made a comment earlier that "truth is truth". I agree, but would add one key addition to ensure its veracity. "Absolute" truth.....is truth.

[
*]McConnel stopped a third party. the House had agreed.

*I think we had adequately explained that "hearsay" is really corroborated testimony by first-person witnesses. (You still may not agree).

*Hillary gave testimony to the Benghazi investigation for 13 straight hours. It was televised. Would be the same for Trump

*Orchestrated for attack? does that mean an organized investigation?

*You say Trump will not be indicted "if this is all they have". I think the problem is it doesn't seem like you, and especially others. really care if there is more. It's "let's move on", "No one cares". Hard to have it both ways, unless the goal is to avoid an investigation, which of course it is for many.

[jbock13]

A puppet nearly orchestrated a coup and would have become the President of the United States. A puppet and six others nearly destroyed our precious, beautiful democracy. We need an investigation.

[paradox]

The only argument you guys seem to be making is of the emotional partisan variety. Would love to see your collective dream come true though. Trump gone w/blood mostly on Dem's hands.

... We are the ones point out facts and testimony. No one else is doing that...

Presenting material from prestige communicators, who loosely use "facts" and partial truths to spin partisan information, doesn't hold as the undisputed truth. Accusation is not evidence.