I was going to chime in on the blatant hypocrisy of right wingers attempt to discredit this longtime republican that gave testimony yesterday. But then I notice they are now quoting the expertise of Dan Bingo, bongo, Bongino. Can we also get Alex Jones take on it too? When I see right wingers quoting those nuts my better judgment is not not take the bait and travel down the idiocy rabbit hole. Those cut and pasting those articles get the immediate ignore.
-
111
-
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
Daddy Donald wrote:
Leave it to you to have the dumbest take possible. Cheney is not a liberal. She is simply making a bet on a post Trump GOP. Signs of that are already happening. Trumpism was sound rejected in Nearby Colorado yesterday. Even your boy DeSantis doesn't need Trump anymore.
Going to be funny to see you sad pathetic dejected losers still wearing m a g a hats and barechested Trump T-shirts in a few months.
In WY she is. She will get destroyed in her primary next month. Again, her political career is over in WY politics.
Both parties are a disaster. However, this rhetoric that if you aren't an ardent Trump supporter and believe the "Stop the Steal" nonsense, you are a liberal isn't going to fly forever. Already a few of Trump's chosen ones have lost primaries pedaling this very same crap.
91 -
PSA: It's ok everyone. You don't HAVE to like or support either party. I remember when you could vote for whomever you wanted and it didn't 100% define you as a person in the minds of others.
42 -
Surprise! wrote:
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
In WY she is. She will get destroyed in her primary next month. Again, her political career is over in WY politics.
Both parties are a disaster. However, this rhetoric that if you aren't an ardent Trump supporter and believe the "Stop the Steal" nonsense, you are a liberal isn't going to fly forever. Already a few of Trump's chosen ones have lost primaries pedaling this very same crap.
I'm not a liberal and will likely vote for a Republican other than Trump if the Magas would just go away. They are collectively a bunch of idiots.
41 -
Wise Old Man wrote:
The right-wing National Review's legal guy says Cass has destroyed Trump.
62 -
The right-wing WSJ editorial board thinks the testimony was devastating to trump.
62 -
I’m going to be really sad if Trump is found to have committed seditious conspiracy, incitement of insurrection, obstruction of an official government proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the US, but not also on extortion, money laundering and rape. But that's just me.
01 -
Fox news Freddie wrote:
I was going to chime in on the blatant hypocrisy of right wingers attempt to discredit this longtime republican that gave testimony yesterday. But then I notice they are now quoting the expertise of Dan Bingo, bongo, Bongino. Can we also get Alex Jones take on it too? When I see right wingers quoting those nuts my better judgment is not not take the bait and travel down the idiocy rabbit hole. Those cut and pasting those articles get the immediate ignore.
In any legit proceedings, this person would not have been called on to testify.
She was not present at the alleged "lunging"
Her testimony was 2nd hand (or was it 3rd) aka hearsay and not allowed in a court of law. For good reason.
14 -
agip wrote:
The right-wing WSJ editorial board thinks the testimony was devastating to trump.
WSJ is Deep State.
26 -
agip wrote:
The right-wing National Review's legal guy says Cass has destroyed Trump.
Yes, McCarthy is far from a never Trumper. No, the jig is up. Roe is overturned. They have Desantis and others to carry the flag. The smart move would be to turn him out. This is just the politics of it. I’m conflicted about indictment. I think there’s little doubt he committed one or more crimes. More shoes will drop when we get testimony soon that Rudy, Stone and others were in direct contact and coordination with the Proud Boys and others, and more about witness tampering. However, the harm to the nation of indicting a former president for political crimes may be too great. It’s a tough call. It would be a lot easier if the Republicans simply turned on him and de facto made him ineligible for future office. Given what’s going on nationwide I don’t think they would lose anything doing this. It seems obvious to me that somebody like Desantis will be elected President than Trump. In fact, the democrats only hope to retain the presidency is if Trump is nominated. Isn’t this clear to everyone?
52 -
carmine9 wrote:
Fox news Freddie wrote:
I was going to chime in on the blatant hypocrisy of right wingers attempt to discredit this longtime republican that gave testimony yesterday. But then I notice they are now quoting the expertise of Dan Bingo, bongo, Bongino. Can we also get Alex Jones take on it too? When I see right wingers quoting those nuts my better judgment is not not take the bait and travel down the idiocy rabbit hole. Those cut and pasting those articles get the immediate ignore.
In any legit proceedings, this person would not have been called on to testify.
She was not present at the alleged "lunging"
Her testimony was 2nd hand (or was it 3rd) aka hearsay and not allowed in a court of law. For good reason.
How to say you don’t understand heresay without saying you don’t understand heresay, let alone the differences between a congressional inquiry and a trial.
30 -
Yessiree Bob wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
In any legit proceedings, this person would not have been called on to testify.
She was not present at the alleged "lunging"
Her testimony was 2nd hand (or was it 3rd) aka hearsay and not allowed in a court of law. For good reason.
How to say you don’t understand heresay without saying you don’t understand heresay, let alone the differences between a congressional inquiry and a trial.
This was hearsay. Don't know how you can dispute that. She was not there. Heard this from someone else. Please explain how it is not hearsay.
Hearsay testimony is not allowed in a trial for good reason. You can call this an inquiry if you wish, it does not change the fact hearsay evidence in unreliable.
Try spell-check.
04 -
carmine9 wrote:
Fox news Freddie wrote:
I was going to chime in on the blatant hypocrisy of right wingers attempt to discredit this longtime republican that gave testimony yesterday. But then I notice they are now quoting the expertise of Dan Bingo, bongo, Bongino. Can we also get Alex Jones take on it too? When I see right wingers quoting those nuts my better judgment is not not take the bait and travel down the idiocy rabbit hole. Those cut and pasting those articles get the immediate ignore.
In any legit proceedings, this person would not have been called on to testify.
She was not present at the alleged "lunging"
Her testimony was 2nd hand (or was it 3rd) aka hearsay and not allowed in a court of law. For good reason.
She didn’t claim to be a fact witness to that incident. She was to much else, however.
Yes, let’s get Engel to testify publicly about Jan 6. What will you say when he confirms 1) he told Trump the crowd was armed; 2) he told Trump the elements of the crowd intended to March on the capital and try to disrupt the electoral vote count (Engel was well aware of this as he had extensive intelligence on the make up and intent of the mob/crowd); 3) Trump wanted to accompany the crowd to the capital regardless and through a hissy fit when he was not allowed?
Do you think Engel’s testimony is going to help Trump? No, I’m afraid not. If Engel and Cipollone testify in public, Trump is going to be indicted for sure.
50 -
carmine9 wrote:
In any legit proceedings, this person would not have been called on to testify.
I think that's Trump's latest movement, "The Proceedings Were Not Legit", or TPWNL. He and Bannon have already raised 100 million from the poor gullible folk he loves so much from it. I sure he can count on your contribution.
50 -
Wise Old Man wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
In any legit proceedings, this person would not have been called on to testify.
She was not present at the alleged "lunging"
Her testimony was 2nd hand (or was it 3rd) aka hearsay and not allowed in a court of law. For good reason.
She didn’t claim to be a fact witness to that incident. She was to much else, however.
Yes, let’s get Engel to testify publicly about Jan 6. What will you say when he confirms 1) he told Trump the crowd was armed; 2) he told Trump the elements of the crowd intended to March on the capital and try to disrupt the electoral vote count (Engel was well aware of this as he had extensive intelligence on the make up and intent of the mob/crowd); 3) Trump wanted to accompany the crowd to the capital regardless and through a hissy fit when he was not allowed?
Do you think Engel’s testimony is going to help Trump? No, I’m afraid not. If Engel and Cipollone testify in public, Trump is going to be indicted for sure.
She was not witness to the thing she was testifying on.
The crowd was not armed.
Who decided Trump could not go on the march? I thought he was in charge.
Biggest bunch of BS since Russiagate
08 -
mex tex wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
In any legit proceedings, this person would not have been called on to testify.
I think that's Trump's latest movement, "The Proceedings Were Not Legit", or TPWNL. He and Bannon have already raised 100 million from the poor gullible folk he loves so much from it. I sure he can count on your contribution.
Good move then as these proceedings are a bunch of nonsense
12 -
32
-
carmine9 wrote:
She was not witness to the thing she was testifying on.
The crowd was not armed.
Who decided Trump could not go on the march? I thought he was in charge.
Biggest bunch of BS since Russiagate
She heard the agents tell Trump the crowd was armed and could not pass through security, and he didn’t care. She was in the tent behind the stage when this was discussed. But you know what, I’m with you. Let’s have special agent in charge Engel testify in public. I guess neither of us know 100% what he will say. I just want to have you agree that what he says is likely to be factual and accurate. You good with Engel telling us what went down?
60 -
carmine9 wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
She didn’t claim to be a fact witness to that incident. She was to much else, however.
Yes, let’s get Engel to testify publicly about Jan 6. What will you say when he confirms 1) he told Trump the crowd was armed; 2) he told Trump the elements of the crowd intended to March on the capital and try to disrupt the electoral vote count (Engel was well aware of this as he had extensive intelligence on the make up and intent of the mob/crowd); 3) Trump wanted to accompany the crowd to the capital regardless and through a hissy fit when he was not allowed?
Do you think Engel’s testimony is going to help Trump? No, I’m afraid not. If Engel and Cipollone testify in public, Trump is going to be indicted for sure.
Who decided Trump could not go on the march? I thought he was in charge.
Ultimately, that was the only mistake Trump ever made -- surrounding himself with insubordinates who violated their oaths and chain of command in exchange for media glory. Pence, Barr, the Secret Service limo drivers, Bolton, Sessions, Kelly, Comey. If Trump had been able to vet the loyalty of these people better, he'd still be President.
12 -
Wise Old Man wrote:
She heard the agents tell Trump the crowd was armed and could not pass through security, and he didn’t care. She was in the tent behind the stage when this was discussed. But you know what, I’m with you. Let’s have special agent in charge Engel testify in public. I guess neither of us know 100% what he will say. I just want to have you agree that what he says is likely to be factual and accurate. You good with Engel telling us what went down?
By the way, the special agent is empowered to overrule the President when the latters safety may be in jeopardy or the place potus wants to go is not adequately secure, ie the Capital during a riot. It’s not up the the President, it’s up the the special agent in charge. You know this, right?
41
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun