rtb72 wrote: ↑June 20th, 2022, 9:21 am
Just John wrote: ↑June 20th, 2022, 12:31 am
rtb72 wrote: ↑June 19th, 2022, 9:14 pm
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.