Personally I think the Jan 6 debacle IS the distraction.
*shrugs* Take your pick. The administrations rating hit a new low, inflation, crime waves, gas prices, shortages, gun control is doomed in the senate, Roe v Wade is set to be turned back over to the states.
OK, you think trying to steal the presidency is a nothingburger. (It's not, it's a BFD.)
Why is "gun control is doomed in the senate"? Because not a single Republican will vote for it to be brought to a vote. Same with anti-gas price gouging legislation; it's much more fun to complain about it than to do anything about it.
What's the Republican plan to reduce the number of children who have to be identified by their DNA because their heads have been blown off? Or to reduce the price of fuel? Or to satisfy the 60%+ of people who want Roe to remain in place? Or to ameliorate shortages?
They have plans, right? For all those things? Right?
Republicans have many solutions for these issues that Democrats will never agree to. Personally I don’t think Americas differences can be rectified. There are multiple realities and both sides think the other is evil.
You forgot the new, "Caravan"!
thehill.com/.../
That will stop folks from watching the hearings.
Opinion
4Opinion
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
They're completely overplaying their hand. If they legitimately had anything tangible, then they wouldn't need to make a prime time spectacle out of the hearings. The more they scream, "Look at us!", the less there is to see.
Pick any political controversy or scandal since the dawning of television. Every broadcasted hearing and investigation was conducted during the day. Even the investigation into President Kennedy's assassination was done and shown during the day.
How many times are the media and politicians going to get it wrong? There's only so many times you get to "cry wolf" before everyone stops listening. When the media and politicians say, "Move along... nothing to see here.", that's when there's something to see.
Which leads me to ponder this: Why is there seemingly no media and politician interest in releasing the Epstein/Maxwell list?
Rubbish. It has to be shouted out loud because far too many Americans think they get news from Fox News. They really were going for "nothing to see here", they didn't even run commercials in case viewers might flick over and accidentally see the truth. Half of their anchors were trying to get Trump to call off his mob on Jan 6th. There's a massive effort to pretend there's nothing to see from the right. More than half the responses on here are trying that. Including yours. Watch it, or read the transcript.
www.npr.org/.../jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript
If these tax dollar wasting politicians had something legitimately tangible, they'd put it on C-SPAN during the day and not jam it into people's living rooms during prime time. They're trying way too hard. That means no matter what they say or show or claim, they've got nothing.
The Democrats - especially the liberals and socialists - are grasping at straws because they know they're going to be destroyed in the midterm elections because of their incompetence and the crippling inflation they've caused... and if Trump is elected again in 2024, it'll be the fault of the relentless paranoia and propaganda perpetrated by the media and the liberals and socialists in the government over the last few years. You reap what you sow.
And if it had been on C-SPAN, you'd be saying they had nothing so they hid it away, and you know it.
If you haven't watched it or read it, how do you know it's just "clutching at straws"? Why don't you watch it and point out all the times they lie? Or how their evidence is flawed?
Or would you rather trust the people who were telling their viewers it was Antifa (trying to stop their side from winning, for reasons never explained) rioting while texting to try to get Trump to call them off, knowing exactly who was in charge of them.
No, because C-SPAN is where Washington happenings belong. You get to see the sausage without hearing the unnecessary commentary.
I'm not listening to any side over the other, or anyone at all. The yearning for instant gratification makes no logical sense. The Watergate break-in took place on June 17, 1972. Richard Nixon wasn't forced to resign until August 9, 1974. That's more than 2 years later... and they had recorded evidence! It hasn't even been 2 years since the 2020 election.
The point is, if something happened with the 2020 election - IF -, eventually it'll come out... even if it takes years. Political underlings and henchmen can only stay silent in anonymity for so long before they want their talk show tours and book deals.
As for now, know matter what any individual on any side wants revealed, all this January 6th/election production is like having a staring contest with someone with no eyelids.
"I'm not listening to any side over the other, or anyone at all." That's sad.
"The yearning for instant gratification makes no logical sense."
And is also not happening. It's been 18 months since the 2020 election. And they have enormous amounts of recorded evidence, which you'd know if you watched the hearings.
If you find their production sponsored by my tax dollars that compelling, no one is stopping you from watching them. It's a free country. Or as free as the Union Of European Socialist Republics can be. I just find it interesting that you choose to find this so important while war is on your doorstep.
You just want big-ass unnecessary bloated government to coddle you through life, and you rail against anything that might disrupt that lazy and sad lifestyle.
Stop with the nonsensical unhinged fascism paranoia. Fascism isn't happening here, and it never will. A tide against woke progressive socialism nonsense IS what's happening here. That's the difference that you can't seem to comprehend, or you're just deliberately blurring the lines for the sake of propaganda. It's like your argument seems to be "Fascism is bad, so let's all be communists just to be on the safe side." It's childish and borderline psychotic.
More and more people here are tired of ridiculous liberal socialism gibberish. Chesa Boudin was recalled in a near landslide in very liberal San Francisco. The same is probably going to happen to George Gascón in Los Angeles very soon. Then just this week, a young Republican married mother of 4, Mayra Flores, who legally immigrated here from Mexico with her parents when she was 6 years old, just won a special election to the House Of Representatives in a district that's nearly 85% Hispanic and has voted Democrat since 1870.
So enjoy your little socialism show. I'm sure it's compelling and full of drama... as most soap operas tend to be.
No, a tide against the excesses of the Republican party is what happened in 2020, after which a large part of the Republican party supported stealing the election for Trump based on a pack of lies.
A tide is millions more people turning out to vote to protect their country, it is not the losing side refusing to accept elections they don't win. Republicans in charge of elections have already started refusing to do their jobs.
apnews.com/.../2022-midterm-elections-new-mexico-voting-election-recounts-general-54745f2169166e82090d0f7bc1ddc1b2
This is precisely how fascism comes to a country. Hitler failed the first time he tried, too.
😴💤 Don't you have a soap opera to watch?
Wah. You're just hoping to qualify for a Liz Cheney hug.
It looks like Fox News finally quit pretending to be a news network. But probably the correct answer is gas prices.
Normal people realizing it’s a propaganda pony show to distract from the utter failure of the democrat party.
Oh that stupid committee where they glorify a bunch of trespass violations.
You clearly didn't watch it. Not even flicking over during the commercials on Fox News? Oh, wait, they didn't run any for some reason. Quick précis: They laid out the case that there were months of planning for an attempt to steal the presidency that they knew Trump has lost. I'm sure it's on YouTube, go and watch it.
Or read the transcript www.npr.org/.../jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript
Goaded is desperate for someone to care about this horseshit.
Lmao. Those 20 million will fill their gas tanks this week, then they’ll remember who is responsible.
Lmao. As I said, I avoid propaganda.
@joeldalton Like I said, you love propaganda, hate facts.
Proud Boys have been charged with Seditious Conspiracy, as well as Oath Keepers. Funny how facts have a way of coming out, without massive obstruction of justice. There's video of a meeting between the heads of both groups on Jan 5th. As you'd know, if you'd watched the hearing.
"Austin Public Health has found two new COVID-19 omicron variants in Travis County. As of Friday, the two variants — known as BA.4 and BA.5 — combined to make up about 6% of the COVID-19 infections in the United States."
eu.statesman.com/.../
Where’s Ray Epps?
@joeldalton How many ways can you prove you love propaganda, hate facts? He never went into the Capitol. He was trying to convince people not to. He had nothing to answer for.
Ivanka didn't think the election was stolen. She says so on video in the Jan 6th hearing that sets out all the ways Trump tried to steal the presidency, up to and including the attack.
"From the available footage, it appears that Epps was in attendance at the rally but that he did not go into the Capitol or engage in any violence. One video actually shows Epps as he attempts to de-escalate a fight between police and protesters. "
lmao. So I guess the videos of him encouraging the group to go to the capitol were faked?
@joeldalton No. The video of him saying people should go to the Capitol (peacefully) the previous day were not faked. Nor was the video of him trying to calm tensions between the rioters and the police on the day. And there aren't any videos of him inside the Capitol. Nobody who didn't go in has been arrested for their actions that day, unless they were organising the sedition as part of the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys who were working together.
Right, the videos of him telling the crowd to go in the capitol…those were just made up, right? God, you’re sucking some big fed cock today.
@joeldalton Answered in the first sentence of my last post. It's almost as if you don't want people to know the fact that nobody who didn't go into the Capitol that day has been arrested for their actions, unless they were organising the sedition as part of the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys who were working together with Trump to steal the presidency.
The presidency was stolen the prior November
you just hate the truth.
@joeldalton You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the nose. Go and see the evidence that the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys took part in a seditious conspiracy (remember the good old days when your lie was that since nobody's been charged with sedition, there was no there there?). Go and see the evidence that Trump is either insane or incapable of understanding the truth that had been given him in no uncertain terms: he lost. If he did understand that and try to keep the presidency for himself, what does that make him?
@joeldalton As a matter of fact, no. The FBI has got their own investigations going on. Why don't you go at find out for yourself? You can see Bill Barr testifying under oath that the election was not stolen, and that he told Trump that their allegations against Dominion were groundless. You can see Ivanka Trump stating under oath that she didn't believe it was stolen. A journalist stating under oath that he was with a couple of hundred Proud Boys who were not at all interested in Trump's speech, just in the Capitol. (Their leaders have been charged with seditious conspiracy.)
Guess the FBI didn't want to investigate themselves.
@joeldalton @Juxtapose Yes, facts. Things you hate, preferring to believe and spread propaganda and lies instead.
Fact: there is no evidence of voter fraud that could possibly have affected the results of the 2020 presidential election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPriOpIek0E
There are pet food shortages as well, now. On top of the worst inflation in 40+ years, a looming recession, our borders are still being flooded with fentanyl... over 100,000 americans killed by it last year. Democrat cities and states are loosing population because crime is out of control. Housing is about to take a major hit, and most everyone's retirement savings have been decimated. Oh, and they had to move a speaking engagement for KAmala because she's so wholly unliked they couldn't sell enough tickets. A supreme court justice had an attempt on his life thanks to violent rhetoric by democrat polticians.
I noticed you can dispute nothing. Thanks for playing. But let's remember how scary it was to have a guy in a buffalo hat walking through congress!!! Pay no attention to the economy in shambles.
Right. That's much more important that 330,000,000 people being put under hardship. You are a fucking clown.
OMG you'd actually think an anti-price gouging (er, price controls) will work? Clown.
@joeldalton So what's the Republican answer? Oil was the same price in 2009-2014, why is the price at the pump higher today? You love those high prices because it gives you an excuse to try and change the subject from the fact that there's a hugh amount of evidence Trump tried to steal the presidency. And to con the people who support him out of hundreds of millions of dollars, while he was at it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPriOpIek0E
The answer is NOT to shut down pipeline projects. And you moron, I hate the high prices. I'm subsidizing my kids' gas tanks, now. I just know that a democrat is the cause of it. At this point you've posted that video so much I think you have a crush on Bill Barr.
@joeldalton Did you watch it yet?
Here's a different one (you can skip to 25:00):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CACKzSYpOE
"I just know that a democrat is the cause of [gas prices]." Why? How? Or do you not need a reason?
Like I said, the oil price in 2008-2014 was also between $100 and $120 (with occasional higher peaks). What was the price at the pump?
(US production is currently higher than at any time before 2018.)
www.macrotrends.net/.../crude-oil-price-history-chart
www.macrotrends.net/.../us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart
Remember I don’t watch stupid propaganda, so I’m not watching your videos. All they are is a pathetic distraction from the nightmare democrats have brought onto this country.
@joeldalton Remember, you do watch propaganda, as you cited 2000 mules. If you'd bothered to watch the video you'd have seen Barr laughing his ass off about it because it's so ridiculous (and it's produced by the convicted felon Trump supporter who started the whole "Nazis were communist" nonsense).
You really do have a man crush.
@joeldalton He's just one of the many Republicans who gave evidence under oath. None of which helped Trump. If I posted videos of a Democrat telling the truth about Trump, you'd be pretending they were just being partisan, it's a bit trickier for liars like you when they're Trump appointees (like many of the judges who found he was full of shit).
"IN THE COMING DAYS USE THE
2:25:54 COMMITTEE MOVE ON TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BROADER PLANNING FOR January 6th, COLLUDING HIS PLAN TO CUT THE DEPARTMENT OF
2:26:00 JUSTICE AND IS DETAILED PLANNING WITH LAWYER JOHN EASTMAN TO
2:26:06 PRESSURE THE VICE PRESIDENT, STATE LEGISLATURES, STATE OFFICIALS, AND OTHERS TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION."
" THIS IS THE TESTIMONY OF WHITE HOUSE LAWYER ERIC HERSCHMANN.
2:26:26 JOHN EASTMAN CALLED MR. HERSCHMANN THE DAY AFTER January 6th, AND HERE'S HOW THAT CONVERSATION WENT.
2:26:33 >> I SAID TO HIM ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR [F*]ING MIND?
2:26:42 I ONLY WANT TO HEAR TWO WORDS COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH FOR NOW, ORDERLY TRANSITION."
PLEASE BRO CARE ABOUT JAN 6! Forget the economy is in shambles and Biden is the worst president in history, please!!!
@joeldalton That's just your propaganda. Biden's not great, but he's a massive improvement over the loser. Ensuring that the next election isn't successfully stolen by the Republicans, who are working hard to "fix" the "problems" with the previous election (e. g. election workers who take their job of counting votes seriously) is important.
You already have one nutcase (Trump supporter and Capitol rioter) refusing to certify an election result based on his "belief" that Dominion machines are corrupt.
www.metro.us/.../
Biden is worse than Carter, and that’s saying something.
I've said it once and I'll say it again, there is no way Biden was the most popular presidential candidate in US history and got more black votes than Obama.
Look at how much people Obama drew, look at how he could play a crowd. Are you going to really tell me that Biden was more popular than him? The hope and change guy who came right after Bush? Come the fuck on..
"I've said it once and I'll say it again, there is no way Biden was the most popular presidential candidate in US history and got more black votes than Obama."
Of course he wasn't. What Biden was, was the only alternative to Trump, who was a liar, and a law- and oath-breaker who tried to steal the presidency away from the people when he lost the election.
Biden got the most votes of any presidential candidate ever because of that. It's not hard to understand.
81,000,000 votes for the 2nd least popular nominee ever. lol. The least popular being his VP pick. Who said she believed the victims of his sexual assault charges.
@joeldalton "2nd least popular nominee ever" (a) not true, (b) Trump lost to him, big time.
Trump managed to get millions of people out to vote who almost never do. Most of them were against him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_G5AYc_sg
Biden absolutely was at the back of the pack during the dem primaries. Not dead last (that was kamala)
@goaded Dude, there is no way Trump was seen as worse than Bush. I have lived in America my entire life, I know what people think about those two and Bush was fantastically worse, I would dare say astronomically worse. The devastation George Walker Bush bestowed upon this nation.. how does that compare to anything Trump could even dream of doing? Did Trump get us into an illegal war?
When did Bush come in to this?
Regardless, Trump did all the things he was impeached for, but his party chose power over country. He lost the election and lied and cheated and schemed to illegally stay in office, which would have been the end of American democracy. That is worse than an illegal war, it's the end of the country. (He hasn't stopped trying, either.)
@joeldalton @Juxtapose If Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong all had Tinder accounts, @goaded would be swiping right and scheduling an orgy.
@NYCQuestions1976 then they would find him and kill him since they were all anti-homosexual.
@joeldalton Damn. During Pride Month? That's sad.*
*I can't take credit for this last line. I'm with my brother right now, who's conservative and gay. He told me to type that. 😂
@NYCQuestions1976 So, if Pence had established the theory that a Vice President can choose the next president, ignoring the results of an election, do you think Republicans would ever have given up power again?
What kind of country would you have had, then?
If you or your brother thinks that's all peachy, you're not conservative, you're fascists.
@goaded Speaking of the previous Vice President, I heard that they're taking testimony from third party witnesses under oath about alleged conversations between Pence and Trump. That's hearsay, and inadmissible testimony. All the proof anyone needs that this entire process is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
@NYCQuestions1976 " I heard that..." Why don't you just watch the hearings? There's plenty of first hand testimony. Asking a witness if what someone else had heard happened in a meeting they were present at was true is not "hearsay", it's fact-finding.
Most of the depositions and witnesses are Republicans. Including the Republican appointed judge (that Eastman clerked for) who said:
"I have written that, as you said, Chairman Thompson, that today, almost two years after that fateful day in January 2021, that still Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy," Luttig said. "That's not because of what happened on January 6. It's because to this very day, the former president, his allies, and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024 if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican Party presidential candidate were to lose that election, that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020. I don't speak those words lightly."
*the laws *of* hearsay.
@NYCQuestions1976 The irony of you making this claim based on what you've heard was said is overwhelming. Just watch it.
https://youtu.be/Bnf4w6rocm8
Jan 6 just had another victim, I died of boredom watching 30 seconds of that video.
@joeldalton Précis: Trump and Eastman knew that what they were claiming was false and that what they were proposing was against the law. Eastman even wrote that what he would later go on to propose was illegal. Quite apart from anything else, there's no way the founding fathers would have put that much power into one person's hands.
Stick to ten minute children's cartoons, they're more your level.
@NYCQuestions1976 You're stating as fact something about an event that you've only heard described to you. And that something is that "it's all hearsay". Watch the hearing.
Or read the transcripts (and don't give me that "leftists can't write down words they hear" crap again). Right-wing outlets would provide the same text, except none of them want people to know what was said.
www.npr.org/.../transcript-jan-6-committee
Here's the previous one:
www.npr.org/.../heres-every-word-of-the-second-jan-6-committee-hearing-on-its-investigation
@NYCQuestions1976 "I've heard it's all hearsay" is a objectively ironic sentiment. Of course, you want to argue semantics than read what was actually said. If you're so sure there was hearsay, quote me where it happened. I'll wait.
While I'm waiting, chew on this: "And [Eastman] said, absolutely. Al Gore did not have a basis to do it in 2000, Kamala Harris shouldn't be able to do it in 2024, but I think you should do it today."
Here are the links again:
www.npr.org/.../transcript-jan-6-committee
www.npr.org/.../heres-every-word-of-the-second-jan-6-committee-hearing-on-its-investigation
@NYCQuestions1976 "Any third party person supplying testimony about a conversation between two other people is hearsay. Period."
It's absolutely not hearsay if the third party was present for the conversation.
When exactly did that happen in the hearing? Quote something.
"I heard them say..." is very different from "I was told they said...". The latter seems to be what you're doing about the hearings because you can't be bothered to watch or even read the transcripts.
@NYCQuestions1976 No it's not. Go and look it up. If you witnessed a conversation, you can testify that that's what the people (or person, if you can only hear one end of a telephone conversation) said.
Hearsay is when you report what you were told happened (and even that's acceptable evidence in some circumstances).
@goaded Let me help you out with the hearsay laws in the United States, then it's the start of the weekend here:
I testify under oath that @goaded and Stalin had a conversation in front of me, or I testify under oath that I heard a conversation between @goaded and Stalin. That's not hearsay.
I testify under oath about details in a conversation between @goaded and Stalin that I did not participate in. That is hearsay, and inadmissible evidence.
@NYCQuestions1976 No, you're completely wrong. If I hear you talk to someone, I can testify that I heard you say those words. I cannot testify that what you said was true unless I knew it some other way; that would be hearsay.
I'm waiting for you to provide a quote from the hearing that's hearsay.
www.npr.org/.../transcript-jan-6-committee
@NYCQuestions1976 Go and read what the US law actually says rather than what you think it says. If someone says they heard Trump call Pence a wimp for not stealing the election on the phone, that's evidence that Trump called Pence a wimp for not stealing the election on the phone. It is not hearsay.
If someone says they were told Trump called Pence a wimp on the phone for not stealing the election, that would be hearsay, but it would also be grounds for asking someone who was present for the call whether it was true or not. When they say it was true (because it was), that would be admissible evidence, not hearsay.
@goaded I'm done explaining the evidentiary hearsay laws in this country to you. Your goal is to be willfully ignorant on this subject. You need to find something better to do with your life. Now liberals have undermined their own circus by trying to coordinate a comedy routine during the ongoing hearings. If these hearings are so important and so serious, then why is Adam Schiff and Stephen Colbert coordinating a comedy routine while the hearings are still going on? I don't recall any comedians and politicians getting together and coordinating and performing comedy routines immediately after 9/11 at Ground Zero. If liberals aren't going to treat their own nonsense seriously, then why should anyone else? The question answers itself.
@NYCQuestions1976 You're not "explaining" anything to me, you're trying to distract from the fact that the hearings are packed full of evidence that the former president and his minions attacked American democracy in multiple illegal ways by pretending that the hearings are completely hearsay.
Firstly, it's an investigation, not a trial. Secondly, hearsay is allowed in some cases in trials. Thirdly, it's not hearsay when it's evidence that a person present for a conversation confirms what was said in that conversation (it's not evidence that what was said was true, it's evidence that it was said). Fourthly, when the evidence shows that Trump called Pence a wimp for not being willing to overturn the election, that's evidence that the president was trying to overturn the election.
@joeldalton I don't know where you found that definition, but "an out-of-court statement, made in court" makes it sound like it's made up. Even so, all it's saying is that proof of someone saying something is just proof that they said it, not that what they said was true (Trump said Pence was a wimp: proven. Pence is a wimp: hearsay).
As to coordinating with comedians, it's one of the best ways to get your message out to a large portion of the population:
https://youtu.be/Hri8Tr3Om_g
@NYCQuestions1976 Funny, because I've looked them up, and they match what I'm saying, not what you're saying. Trump has been proven to have called Pence a wimp for not stealing the election for him because someone who was present for that end of the conversation has testified under oath that they heard Trump say that. That is not hearsay, as I've explained multiple times.
@NYCQuestions1976 Yes, please, everyone ignore the testimony of the person who was close to all those people who are refusing to testify! If you want first hand testimony, why don't you pressure the witnesses to testify under oath? Is it perhaps because they're guilty as hell and knew it (which is why they asked for pardons)?
@goaded Two Secret Service agents, one being the driver in question, and the other also being in the car, have volunteered to testify to contradict the fourth-party hearsay. Yet the committee (as of now) has no plans on calling them. Why? Is it not a hearing to find out what really happened? Or is it a scripted soap opera spectacle?
Oh and before you respond and ask, "WhY iSn'T tHaT hEaRsAy?", it's because 1.) They wouldn't be testifying about conversation details between two other people, and 2.) It's corroborating testimony, because it'd be two witnesses testifying about the same event.
@NYCQuestions1976 Why am I not surprised that you're totally fine with the fact that Trump wanted to join the mob of his armed supporters at the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election?
Some anonymous person telling a journalist that the agents *would* say something *if* they were under oath is nothing like any of them actually testifying under oath. Besides, the story's been making the rounds of the secret service since the insurrection. "... two different sources have stories that are very similar to the one that Cassidy Hutchinson testified to in the hearing on Tuesday, saying that the President was mad and that he lunged toward the steering wheel in an effort to try and get the detail to take him to Capitol Hill."
I'm looking forward to Ornato and Engel's testimony, especially the bit where they're asked why they lied to their colleagues about it (assuming they're willing to lie under oath). I wouldn't be surprised if there was also a driver in the car, maybe someone who hasn't worked directly for Trump.
Your next two attempts to protect Trump are that he's too fat, or the car he wasn't in wouldn't allow him to lunge for the stearing wheel. Maybe you can come up with another one? His hands are too small?
@goaded Dude... give it up. She wasn't in the car. Meanwhile, two members of the Secret Service who *were* in the car (including the one who was DRIVING THE CAR) are willing to give sworn statements and testify under oath. Yet they're not being called on by the committee. Fascinating.
Not that it really matters, but since you brought it up, it IS another example on how liberals want things both ways. Liberals claimed for years that Trump was "old, fat, and slow", but somehow he found the Fountain Of Youth, maneuvered through the other Secret Service agents in the back of the car with the agility of a puma, and squeezed his fat self through a partition, and grabbed the wheel. It's one or the other. You can't have it both ways.
If the two Secret Service agents aren't called on to testify, then I've been correct all along. It's a farce and an utter waste of my tax dollars.
@NYCQuestions1976 Why would I "give it up", when every post you make shows how you don't understand hearsay or testimony? Oh, and that you're fine with the fact that Trump wanted to be there in person with his armed supporters illegally interfering in the election.
Hutchinson's testimony, under oath, included a lot of words that she heard people say. It is a fact that those words were said in her presence. The testimony does not prove that the things she heard were true, but that they were said. That is all acceptable in a court of law and doubly so in an investigation.
You, on the other hand, are making multiple unsupported assertions, like "two members of the Secret Service who *were* in the car... are willing to give sworn statements and testify under oath", and that "they're not being called on by the committee". You know neither of those things, and even if the former were true, you're implying that they would testify that the story was wrong, which is not necessarily the case at all. Especially as they'd have to explain why they made up that story on Jan 6th and told it to Hutchinson. Why would they do that?
Then you make stuff up that contradicts everything else you've said: "maneuvered through the other Secret Service agents" how many agents were in the vehicle? You seemed to think it was the driver plus one other, up until now. You misrepresent what is being claimed about Trump; fat people can lunge for a stearing wheel, they may not succeed, but they can try.
I expect the agents will be called on to testify (again), but this time with more pointed questions. The results will no doubt be educational. Until they do, we have one person whose office was yards from the Oval Office testifying under oath in front of the whole country compared to some vague comments to reporters and your misinterpretations of them. A witness, by the way, that Trump or his cronies tried to tamper with. Which is also illegal.
@NYCQuestions1976 An excellent response to being shown to be wrong from a man who's fine with the fact that Trump wanted to be there in person while his armed supporters illegally interfered in the election he lost.
Keep pretending that the evidence isn't damning. Even Fox News has had to admit that it is.
"BRET BAIER: This testimony, first of all, is stunning, because we have not heard this. Two, it’s compelling because of her proximity to power. All of these people directly having conversations with her. I think as we have seen before, it’s methodical. We always point out the caveat, there is not a minority here that’s pushing back or questioning the other way, but it leads up to January 6th.
…
This testimony was very compelling from beginning to end. She obviously had access to all of the players. We are now hearing from the former president on various posts where he questions her accuracy. He goes after her directly, says he doesn't know who she is, and said he didn't lunge at the Secret Service agent in the Beast, that didn't happen. He says he didn't throw his lunch against the wall, that didn't happen and that she's lying. Cassidy Hutchinson is under oath on Capitol Hill. The president is on Truth Social making his statements."
www.foxnews.com/.../cassidy-hutchinsons-january-6-testimony-stunning-and-compelling-bret-baier
@goaded If the committee doesn't subpoena the former Vice President about the phone conversation (or they don't get the phone recording itself, because every phone line in every government building in Washington is recorded), and/or they don't subpoena the Secret Service agents in the vehicle concerning the accusations about Trump's behavior, then it's all hearsay and a nonsensical waste of my tax dollars.
@NYCQuestions1976 why are we taking fourth level hearsay over the testimony of secret service officials?
The fuck? This is obviously a witch hunt..
@Juxtapose Yep, that's exactly my point. If both these things happened, call Pence or get the recording, and call the Secret Service agents that were in the vehicle. Anything else is bullshit.
@NYCQuestions1976 Hello! 2022, remember? Mobile phones are quite popular these days, and Trump is well known for using other people's phones. You're just whingeing because the truth is coming out that Trump sent a mob of people he knew were armed to the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election he lost. Ornato has already been interviewed twice, but he seems to be a true believer (he's the one who organised Trump rallies in the middle of the pandemic that decimated the secret service). Next time, there will be more pointed questions, and maybe other agents who were in the car will be more honest.
@Juxtapose "fourth level hearsay over the testimony of secret service officials?"
Firstly, it's not hearsay at all. Hutchinson is very clear about what she saw and heard, that's direct testimony. It doesn't prove that what she heard was true, just that it was said.
Secondly, they have not testified under oath that what she said was wrong. Until they do, and probably even afterwards since they are apparently unreliable witnesses, whatever they say should be ignored.
Sounds to me like you are picking and choosing who to believe instead of trusting the secret service agent. In American courts you are supposed to favor law enforcement agents and people similar to them over other people's testimony.
If this isn't official business in court then I don't care about these theatrics. Hit me up again when they actually decide to do something in court 😴💤
@goaded Do you really believe that the Secret Service allows random untraceable untracked burner cellphones around the President and Vice President? Every cellphone that clears that level of security for usage is tracked and recorded by the Secret Service and other government agencies. They can get the phone conversation.
She wasn't in the vehicle. Period.
Subpoena the Secret Service agents who were in the vehicle and get the phone recording or subpoena Pence himself, or it's a nonsensical farce and a waste of my tax dollars.
"Sounds to me like you are picking and choosing who to believe instead of trusting the secret service agent."
Who's picking and choosing, exactly? I'm choosing the one who has testified under oath over reports about one who hasn't (or have you seen Ornato quoted directly saying she's wrong or lying, and was that under oath?).
Do you really think Trump followed rules? Just search for "Trump unsecured cellphone". There have been stories about it for years.
"Subpoena the Secret Service agents who were in the vehicle"
Looking forward to it. I expect a lot of faulty memories if not invoking the fifth.
Trump knowingly sent an armed mob to illegally interfere in the election he lost. He wanted the secret service to stop taking weapons from supporters because they weren't coming for him, then he sent them at congress and Pence. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for either of you to address this crime.
@goaded
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another you been messin' around
They say you got a boyfriend
You're out late every weekend
They're talkin' about you and it's bringin' me down
But I know the neighborhood
And talk is cheaper when the story is good
And the tales grow taller on down the line
But I'm telling you, babe
That I don't think it's true, babe
And even if it is, keep this in mind
You take it on the run, baby
If that's the way you want it, baby
Then I don't want you around
I don't believe it
Not for a minute
You're under the gun
So you take it on the run
You're thinking up your white lies
You're putting on your bedroom eyes
You say you're coming home but you won't say when
But I can feel it coming
If you leave tonight, keep running
And you need never look back again
You take it on the run, baby
If that's the way you want it, baby
Then I don't want you around
I don't believe it
Not for a minute
You're under the gun
So you take it on the run
Take it on the run, baby
If that's the way you want it, baby
Then I don't want you around
I don't believe it
Not for a minute
You're under the gun
So you take it on the run
Take it on the run, baby
If that's the way you want it, baby
Then I don't want you around
I don't believe it
Not for a minute
You're under the gun
So you take it on the run
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another you been messin' around
@NYCQuestions1976 Yes, that's a very nice song, but it doesn't distract from the fact that Trump knowingly sent an armed mob to illegally interfere with the election he lost.
@goaded Saying it means nothing. It needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and without hearsay. That's how the Court system works in the United States.
Also, to play Devil's Advocate, let's just say Trump had a burner phone. What was Pence using on the other end? A tin can?
"And talk is cheaper when the story is good
And the tales grow taller on down the line"
@NYCQuestions1976 You're fine with Trump sending a mob of supporters to attack the Capitol, knowing they were armed, to illegally interfere with the election he lost, of course.
Still pretending Hutchinson's testimony is hearsay? Can't you get it through your think head that testifying that someone else said something isn't hearsay, it's evidence that that person said that thing? It's not proof that that thing is true (that would be hearsay), but it is evidence that that thing was said. Like there's evidence that Trump called Pence a wimp for not throwing out millions of American's votes because people heard him say it.
Even the New York Post reports the facts, although they're right-wing.
nypost.com/.../
@NYCQuestions1976 You have no feelings at all about Trump sending supporters he knew were armed to the Capitol to illegally disrupt the election he lost? Really?
Here's something to try: what woud you have felt if Obama did it to get Biden to certify Clinton in 2017? Or if Gore, with some justification, had refused to count Florida's result in 2001? Would you have felt something then?
@goaded Well, Gore didn't want to accept the Florida recounts in 2000. We'd still be counting if it was up to him. That's why the Supreme Court stepped in after the initial count, and two recounts. At the time, my opinion was basically this: If the results from each count were narrowing the gap, they should continue having counts until the same gap result happened twice. However, after each count the result gap wasn't getting closer. After three total counts, it was enough. The ol' baseball adage: "Three strikes, you're out."
Pelosi claimed the 2016 was stolen in May 2017 on Twitter. Of course you don't remember that. As for Biden, he would've fell off his triky and made a boom boom in his pants on Pennsylvania Avenue.
@NYCQuestions1976 Still perfectly OK with Trump sending a mob of armed supporters to illegally overturn the election he lost? Democracy is not important, in your eyes?
Gore accepted the result of the court's decision. But that's not the question I asked. I asked how you would have felt if he'd simply decided to not count Florida's EC votes and declared himself winner of the election. You know, like Trump wanted Pence to do for him. Of course, it would have only been one state, with obvious problems in the ballot counting and coming down to a few hundred votes, not tens of thousands in each of multiple states.
@NYCQuestions1976 You're still going with the "hearsay" argument that is clearly bogus?
It doesn't mean "I heard someone say something".
Someone saying under oath that "Joe said he was from New York" is a statement of fact that Joe said it, not that Joe was actually from New York. You can object to the latter, but not the former.
Trump had been told there was no evidence of voter fraud that could affect the result.
Trump was told his supporters were armed.
Trump sent them to the Capitol anyway.
Trump wanted to steal the presidency from the people of America.
@goaded I just hope you're never in a court where a judge allows third-party and fourth-party hearsay as admissible evidence against you. Don't worry though. When your attorney objects and is overruled, I'll chime in from the gallery as an Amicus Curiae and tell your attorney on the record, "Don't worry. @goaded loves hearsay." and offer screenshots of this thread to the prosecution. 👍
@NYCQuestions1976 How many times are you going to tell that lie and make me explain once again that hearsay doesn't mean "I heard someone say something", it means using that sort of statement as proof that the something is actually true.
When Hutchinson, for example, said that Tony Ornato confirmed to Meadows that he'd informed the president that his supporters were carrying weapons, that's proof that Tony Ornato tole Meadows that he'd informed the president that his supporters were carrying weapons. It's not proof that he'd actually informed the president. But then, why would Ornato lie to Meadows (in Hutchinson's presence) about that? Or lie about what happened in the car, or any of the other things?
Ornato was either lying to people within Trump's inner circle for no reason, or he actually did tell the president that his supporters were armed before Trump sent them to illegally interfere in the election at the Capitol.
@goaded "Armed people were arrested." Where are the confiscated weapons?
"A phone call happened between Trump and Pence." Where's the testimony from Pence, or the call recording itself?
"Trump did something in a vehicle." Where's the testimony from the Secret Service driver, and the other Secret Service agent?
Nowhere? Oh okay. Now what? Third-party and fourth-party hearsay? Sure let's go with that.
You're a fool.
@NYCQuestions1976 What a lot of quotes, none of them words I typed or Ms. Hutchinson testified, as far as I can see. We've established that you don't think it was a problem that Trump knew his supporters were armed and sent them to the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election he's lost anyway.
Since there were five people arrested and charged with "Carrying a pistol without a license", I think it's fair to say that "Armed people were arrested."
"Where are the confiscated weapons?"
Why? What difference would it make? I imagine most people carrying weapons didn't try to get through the security at the ellipse, but the secret service apparently confiscated weapons from those that did, including "pepper spray, knives, brass knuckles, tasers, body armor, gas masks, batons, blunt weapons". Thousands chose not to go through security to see the president up close I wonder why?
"A phone call happened between Trump and Pence."
Are you calling Trump a liar? He talked about it in his speech.
"Where's the testimony from Pence, or the call recording itself?"
Why don't you ask Pence to testify? The committee certainly have. They have multiple people who were in the room testify about the Trump side of the conversation. Once again, that's *not* hearsay, it's witnesses recounting what they heard first hand. The recordings seem to be a figment of your imagination.
"Where's the testimony from the Secret Service driver, and the other Secret Service agent?"
We're still waiting for it. It will happen.
"Third-party and fourth-party hearsay? Sure let's go with that."
No. Try to understand what hearsay actually is. I've explained it to you often enough. If multiple people who were present for the phone call say they heard Trump call Pence a wimp for not being willing to steal the election for him, then Trump called Pence a wimp for not being willing to steal the election for him. It is not hearsay, it is testimonial evidence.
@goaded You cannot be this stupid. It HAS to be deliberate.
You have the audacity to ask "Why is it important?" when it comes to asking where did the confiscated firearms go? People were arrested and charged with carrying a firearm! Those firearms would be actual EVIDENCE! Not all of this hearsay bullshit masquerading as "evidence"! If the firearms are nowhere to be found, not only does it call into question what Trump knew about the event, it also calls into question the charges against those people!
I never claimed there wasn't a phone call. The content of the phone call is the question. Subpoena Pence or get the recording, or it's hearsay.
"Someone told me that they heard someone talk about something that happened somewhere else. Neither that person or myself were there." Subpoena the Secret Service agents, or it's hearsay.
You have know idea how hearsay and evidentiary laws work in this country. Your either obtuse or a fool. Go foam at the mouth somewhere else.
The following video has been censored three times, @NYCQuestions1976 please share this around:
https://youtu.be/3FqWFz6Tp-w
@Juxtapose The paranoia is unbelievable. Are they still doing this? The video is from 6 months ago. It's wrong at any time, but I'm curious if it's still happening now.
@NYCQuestions1976 OMG. Why would you think me or you not knowing where they physically keep the evidence against those people could possibly make a difference to their trials? People don't get charged with carrying a pistol without a license without the police having evidence.* Now even formal charges against people are "aLl hEarSaY!!1!"? Bullshit!
If there were recordings of all those phone calls, there wouldn't be any need to question witnesses, would there? And I know Trump is stupid, but he's not stupid enough to record himself planning the greatest crime in the history of the country, is he? Trump knowingly sent an armed mob to illegally interfere in the election he lost, but I suppose that's insignificant compared to finding out whether or not Trump actually managed to touch the steering wheel he lunged for while insisting he should be allowed to encourage the attack on the Capitol in person. Right?
It *is* hearsay that Trump lunged for the steering wheel, and the agents will be questioned again with that point in mind. It is not hearsay that they told the story of it happening, at the time, and in the presence of the witness. Reportedly, other agents have heard similar stories since it happened.
* Go to www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1 and filter for pistol, then click on the people's names and you can read the charges. Including the serial number for the firearm.
@goaded Until they subpoena Pence or get the recording, it's nothing more than a soap opera.
Until they subpoena the Secret Service, it's nothing more than a soap opera.
Do they show pictures of the confiscated firearms? Or just a bunch of numbers? Also, there's never overreach or heavy-handed charges? Then why was it necessary to have Criminal Justice Reform? Regardless, those people are doing their time for being stupid.
Right now the entire case is "I overheard one side of a conversation." and "Someone told me that they heard from someone else that something might've happened in a vehicle." Not interested.
You are correct about one thing. Trump wouldn't save his conversations. He's not Hunter Biden or Joe Biden.
@NYCQuestions1976 Trump knowingly sent an armed mob to the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election he lost.
There is no recording of every phone call made. That's your fever dream. Pence has been asked to testify, why hasn't he? Why should it need a subpeona?
And, OMG, courts have to show @NYCQuestions1976 everything he wants to see before he'll believe anything, now?
@goaded Every phone call is recorded, land and cell, in government buildings in Washington by any number of national and federal departments in the name of national security. It's probably personal privacy overreach, but it happens. If they wanted that recording, they could get it with ease. They could also subpoena Pence with ease. They've done neither, because doing those things don't support their soap opera script.
They don't just have to show ME. They have to show EVERYONE. Everyone with a functioning brain, anyway. That's the difference between HEARSAY and ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
@NYCQuestions1976 You're still making that unsubstantiated claim, even though it would be a huge breach of security? You do you.
"They don't just have to show ME. They have to show EVERYONE."
No, idiot, they have to show a jury.
@NYCQuestions1976 They have shown juries evidence, which is what led to those people's convictions for carrying firearms when they were knowing sent by Trump to attack the Capitol in order to illegally interfere in the election Trump had lost.
Almost NONE of this shit has anything to do with HEARSAY, which, yet again, is when a claim of the truth of a matter is based solely on what a witness has been told, like the story of Trump lunging for the steering wheel. We do not know if that happened, but we do have testimonial EVIDENCE that Ms. Hutchinson was told that story, and no reasonable explanation for why they would have told the story if it wasn't true. We also have EVIDENCE that Ornato told Mark Meadows about the weapons in the hands of the Trump supporters before Trump's speech and that Ornato told Mark Meadows that he'd told Trump about it. That is PROOF that Trump and his staff knew about the weapons before Trump sent the crowd to the Capitol.
There are 23 exceptions that allow hearsay to be used in court, and this investigation isn't even a court.
www.findlaw.com/.../hearsay-evidence.html
Here's one: "Present Sense Impression. A hearsay statement may be allowed if it describes or explains an event or condition and was made during the event or immediately after it."
@goaded "Present Sense Impression. A hearsay statement MAY be allowed if it describes or explains an event or condition and was made DURING the event or IMMEDIATELY AFTER it."
It's been 18 months. That doesn't qualify as "during" or "immediately after". It's bad enough that you don't understand the difference between hearsay and actual evidence. Now I have to explain the concept of time to you as well?
Let me help you out:
EVIDENCE: A time stamped e-mail between two people. A phone recording. A confiscated firearm (the actual firearm, not a list of lottery numbers). Testimony from someone who witnessed an action (or non-action). Testimony from someone who participated in a phone call of interest.
HEARSAY: I heard someone say something, but it wasn't said to me. Someone told me something that was supposedly told to them about something that might've happened somewhere.
Not to mention, none of these people have been cross-examined. "Did you receive immunity in exchange for your testimony?" "Were you offered a job or some other perk in exchange for your testimony?" "Other than Perjury and/or Contempt Of Congress, were you threatened or coerced into providing this testimony?"
Then again, I forgot that they don't cross-examine people during scripted soap operas. As for the definition of time, look it up on Wikipedia.
@NYCQuestions1976 She was told the story that Trump lunged for the steering wheel on the day of the insurrection. The exception is about reporting what was said "DURING the event or IMMEDIATELY AFTER it.", not when the court case is heard. Wow.
Of course, you're still ignoring the fact that Trump was told his supporters were armed before he sent them to illegally interfere in the election he lost. That's far less important to you than your fantasies about recordings and what hearsay means.
@goaded Really? She was told the day of the fancy trespassing? Is that what she said? Oh okay. Did she come forward that day? That week? That month? That year? Nope, she didn't. Well of course she was cross-examined right after that testimony to determine the validity of her statement, correct? Nope, she wasn't. I know she got a big hug afterwards. Did she get a lolly and a binky also?
I cannot wait for the midterm elections in November. Four months and one day away...
@NYCQuestions1976 Oh, just give it up and admit you were totally wrong about how hearsay works and that you don't care that Trump sent a mob of supporters he knew were armed to the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election he lost.
Oh, wait, I guess you just did! That's why you suddenly changed distractions, switching to implying that Hutchinson is somehow an unreliable witness, and that all that violence we saw on Jan 6 was a figment of everyone's imagination.
Didn't she recently change from a Trump-linked lawyer to one who works in her best interests instead of Trump's? Why, yes! Yes she did.
"Hutchinson’s former attorney, Stefan Passantino, has deep Trump World connections. Her new lawyer, Jody Hunt, is a longtime close ally of Jeff Sessions and served as his chief of staff when the former attorney general enraged Trump by recusing from the Russia probe."
www.politico.com/.../hutchinson-former-meadows-aide-replaces-lawyer-jan-6-hearings-00038439
@NYCQuestions1976 Thanks for admitting you were wrong and that you don't care that Trump knowingly sent armed supporters to the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election he lost.
@NYCQuestions1976 And there was I thinking you might actually have faced reality, and accepted that most of the evidence (of which there is an huge amount) is not hearsay, and that little bit that is would be acceptable in a court of law because the words were spoken "DURING the event or IMMEDIATELY AFTER it.".
As you know, the evidence shows that Trump knowingly sent armed supporters to the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election that he knew he'd lost.
I'm quite happy to keep letting you show yourself to be wilfully ignorant, and seemingly unable to cope with simple English, or logic.
@goaded
trends.google.com/.../daily?geo=US
Let me know how often "January 6 hearing" and/or "January 6 committee" comes up each day, and how much it was searched for each day. The one day Hutchinson was searched for (after she got hugged), everyone found her, the hearings, and the committee so compelling, that the next day everyone searched for Travis Barker. 😂
Four months, one day, and counting...
@NYCQuestions1976 Why? I've seen the evidence, and so could you. It's all clear, admissible in court, and shows that Trump knowingly send his armed supporters to illegally interfere in the election he knew he'd lost.
@NYCQuestions1976 Oh, for God's sake. All of it is admissible in court, and shows that Trump knowingly send his armed supporters to illegally interfere in the election he knew he'd lost. Even the few minor points that are hearsay would be admissible in court because they are accounts of words that were spoken at the time. It's been weeks now that you've been lying about everything in an attempt to distract, and it's getting stale.
@NYCQuestions1976 You've given up all pretense of rationality now, then.
Trump lost the election and lied and cheated and schemed to illegally stay in office, to the point of knowingly sending an armed mob of supporters to the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election. Had they been successful, it would have been the end of American democracy.
@goaded
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/diseases/rabies
Four months and counting...
@NYCQuestions1976 Well done, you didn't actually lie in that comment, you just ignored and tried to distract from the fact that the evidence shows that Trump knowingly sent armed supporters to the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election that he knew he'd lost.
Of course, you probably didn't even look at the evidence.
@NYCQuestions1976 Somehow I doubt that. You've done nothing but try to distract from the fact that the evidence shows that Trump knowingly sent armed supporters to the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election that he knew he'd lost. That was after all his other illegal attempts failed.
@NYCQuestions1976 Another distraction from the fact that the evidence shows that Trump knowingly sent armed supporters to the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election that he knew he'd lost?
@NYCQuestions1976 Oh, please don't bother coming back. You know Trump knowingly sent an armed mob of his supporters to illegally interfere in the election count in the Capitol, that's enough for me. And it seems you can spend weeks attempting to distract from that while proving yourself ignorant, which is a pretty clear answer to the original question: people like you.
@NYCQuestions1976 The only reason you're not going to watch it is to stay ignorant.
You know Trump knowingly sent an armed mob of his supporters to illegally interfere in the election count in the Capitol. It turns out the Oath Keepers had explosives, as well as caches of firearms.
@goaded I posted this as satire, but this is right up your intellectual alley:
Are Circles Round Enough? ↗
@NYCQuestions1976 Not the best attempted distraction, but a nice try.
There were military ordinance grenades in the Oath Keeper's weapons cache, ready to be used on Jan 6th when Trump knowingly sent an armed mob of supporters to the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election and steal the presidency. You learn something new every day, if you listen to the evidence.
@NYCQuestions1976 Yes, why would anyone bother turning out to vote against the criminal who tried to steal the presidency? He sent an armed mob of supporters to illegally interfere in the election. That was only after he'd tried an equally illegal but peaceful attempt using forged documents, and that was only after he tried legal lawsuits, some of which were so ridiculous the lawyers who brought them have been struck off.
And they're still tampering with witnesses, to cover it up. Not to mention Republicans changing laws so that their legislations can ignore the results of their state's ballots.
@NYCQuestions1976 It was very interesting. More and more evidence that Trump planned Jan 6th in advance, as far back as mid-December. You know, when he knowingly sent a mob of his armed supporters to illegally interfere in the election so he could steal the presidency.
@NYCQuestions1976 No, mostly I listened to the evidence that Trump decided to incite the Jan 6th attack back in December 2020, how he added in the parts attacking Pence in his speech, and how he'd been told in no uncertain terms that what he was planning was illegal.
@NYCQuestions1976 He’s not having a party, he’s wrapped in a blanket, rocking in the corner with the light from the TV being the only illumination in the room
@joeldalton That's him on that album cover?
@NYCQuestions1976 More and more evidence explaining exactly how Trump knew what he was doing was illegal, and how he sent an armed mod to the Capitol to interfere in the election anyway.
I found a picture of Trump on his way to the capitol
@joeldalton I found an October 2020 recording of Steve Bannon explaining what Trump was planning to do on election day.
https://youtu.be/OxNoUnxN_cs
"“What Trump’s gonna do, is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner,” Bannon, laughing, told the group, according to audio of the meeting obtained by Mother Jones. “He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”"
@joeldalton We should have our own hearing about @goaded. You claim he's rocking in the corner, wrapped in a blanket like a breakfast taco. I believe he's hiding under his bed, curled up in a fetal position, because Omicron doesn't go under beds. The only rules are no cross-examination, and only hearsay is admissible. Let's start taking "testimony".
@NYCQuestions1976 Ad hominem at its finest. Because you can't stand all the evidence of Trump trying to steal the presidency. Which you both apparently support.
@NYCQuestions1976 Sounds fantastic except I don’t want to smear my Hispanic friends by lumping them in with that. If he keeps getting boosters the problem will take care of itself.
@NYCQuestions1976 I’ve heard a lot about him. Should take 2-3 hours of prime time.
@NYCQuestions1976 I heard that, so it must be true.
@joeldalton
https://youtu.be/_3PUu88nOcw
@NYCQuestions1976 @joeldalton Why are you so desperate to avoid the truth? You're working so hard to avoid finding out that Trump was planning to steal the presidency of the United States.
@NYCQuestions1976 If you paid attention, you would know that that's a gross misrepresentation of the truth. But of course you do know that, that's the whole point of your distraction attempts.
@NYCQuestions1976 Because you're lying to distract from Trump's criminality which is in plain view and with copious evidence to back it up.
@NYCQuestions1976 No, because you're lying.
On the other hand, there are text messages like this one that prove Trump was planning the march on the Capitol to illegally interfere in the election he lost:
Ali Alexander, Jan 5: "Trump is supposed to order us to the Capitol at the end of his speech, but we will see."
@NYCQuestions1976 "POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol. ... It can also not get out about the march, because I will be in trouble with the National Park Service and all the agencies. But POTUS is going to just call for it, quote, unexpectedly."
@NYCQuestions1976 Q: "what is the Oath Keepers' vision for America and why should Americans be concerned about it?
JASON VAN TATENHOVE: I think we saw a glimpse of what the vision of the Oath Keepers is on January 6th. It doesn't necessarily include the rule of law. It doesn't necessarily include — it includes violence. It includes trying to — to get their way through lies, through deceit, through intimidation, and through the perpetration of violence, the swaying of — of people who may not know better through lies and rhetoric and propaganda that can get swept up in these moments."
Are you under oath? No.
@NYCQuestions1976 Your lies know no bounds. This guy worked for the Oath Keepers for years. Maybe you'd like to apply for his old job?
"JASON VAN TATENHOVE: There came a point — there were many red flags and I probably should have broke with them much earlier than I did. But the straw that broke the camel's back really came when I walked into a grocery store. We were living up in the very remote town of Eureka, Montana and there was a group of core members of the group of the Oath Keepers and some associates, and they were having a conversation at that public area where they were talking about how the Holocaust was not real.
And that was for me something I just could not abide. And you know, we were not — we were not wealthy people at all. We were barely surviving. And it didn't matter — I went home to my wife and my kids, and I told them that I've got to walk away at this point. I don't know how we're going to survive or where we're going to go or what we're going to do, but I just can no longer continue, and put in my resignation."
@NYCQuestions1976 "Mr. Ayres, why did you decide to come to Washington on January 6th?
STEPHEN AYRES: For me, for me personally, you know — I was, you know, pretty hardcore into the social media, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. I followed, you know, President Trump, you know, on all the websites, you know. He basically put out, you know, come to the Stop the Steal rally, you know, and I felt like I needed to be down here."
"And do you still believe the election was stolen?
STEPHEN AYRES: Not so much now. I got away from all the social media when January 6 happened, basically deleted it all. You know, I started doing my own research and everything. And for me — for me for something like that to be that — to actually for that to actually take place, it's too big, you know. There'd be — there's no way you can keep something like that quiet, as big as something like that.
You know, with all the, you know, all the lawsuits being shot down one after another, that — that was mainly what convinced me."
@NYCQuestions1976 "Mr. Ayres, I first want to ask you about what finally caused you to leave on January the 6th. We know that the medieval style combat with our police, the occupation of the building, this was going on for several hours until the President issued at 4:17 a tweet, I believe that included a video, telling people to go home.
Did you see that, and did that have any effect on what you were doing?
STEPHEN AYRES: Well, when we were there, as soon as that come out, everybody started talking about it and that's — it seemed like it started to disperse. You know, some of the crowd, obviously, you know, once we got back to the hotel room, we seen that it was still going on. But it definitely dispersed a lot of the crowd.
JAMIE RASKIN: And did you leave at that point?
STEPHEN AYRES: Yeah, we did. Yeah, we left.
JAMIE RASKIN: So, in other words, that was the key moment when you decided to leave when President Trump told people to go home.
STEPHEN AYRES: Yeah, yeah, we left right when that come out."
@NYCQuestions1976 "President Trump is still promoting the big lie about the election. How does that make you feel?
STEPHEN AYRES: It makes me mad because I — I was hanging on every word he was saying. Everything he was putting out, I was following it. I mean, if I was doing it, hundreds of thousands or millions of other people are doing it, or maybe even still doing it. It's like he just said about that, you know, you got people still following and doing that.
Who knows what the next election could come out, you know. It could end up being down the same path we are right now. I mean, just don't know.
... What lessons finally do you want the American people to learn from the way you and your family have suffered as a result of these events?
STEPHEN AYRES: The biggest thing is I consider myself a family man, and I love my country. I don't think any one man is bigger than either one of those. I think that's what needed to be taken, you know. People dive into the politics, and for me I felt like I had, you know, like horse blinders on. I was — I was locked in the whole time. Biggest thing for me is take the blinders off, make sure you step back and see what's going on before it's too late."
@NYCQuestions1976 "LIZ CHENEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me put what you have seen today in a broader context. At the very outset of our hearings, we described several elements of President Trump's multipart plan to overturn the 2020 election. Our hearings have now covered all but one of those elements, an organized campaign to persuade millions of Americans of a falsehood that the 2020 election was stolen by widespread fraud; a corrupt effort to pressure Vice President Pence to refuse to count electoral votes; an effort to corrupt the US Department of Justice; efforts to pressure state election officials and legislators to change state election results; a scheme to create and submit fake electoral slates from multiple states. And today, you saw how President Trump summoned a mob to Washington for January 6th, and then knowing that that mob was armed, directed that mob to the United States Capitol. Every one of these elements of the planning for January 6th is an independently serious matter. They were all ultimately focused on overturning the election, and they all have one other thing in common."
@NYCQuestions1976 "Donald Trump participated in each, substantially and personally. He oversaw or directed the activity of those involved. Next week, we will return to January 6th itself. As we have shown in prior hearings, Donald Trump and his legal team led by Rudy Giuliani were working on January 6th — delay or halt Congress's counting of electoral votes.
The mob attacking and invading the Capitol on that afternoon of January 6th was achieving that result. And for multiple hours, Donald Trump refused to intervene to stop it. He would not instruct the mob to leave or condemn the violence. He would not order them to evacuate the Capitol and disperse. The many pleas for help from Congress did no good."
@NYCQuestions1976 "His staff insisted that President Trump call off the attack. He would not. Here are a few of the many things you will hear next week from Mr. Cipollone. [Begin Videotape] [off-mic]
UNKNOWN: — is that right?
PAT CIPOLLONE: I was. And others were as well.
UNKNOWN: Ok. Was it necessary for you to continue to push for a statement directing people to leave all the way through that period of time until it was ultimately issued after --
PAT CIPOLLONE: I felt it was my obligation to continue to push for that and others felt that it was their obligation as well.
UNKNOWN: Would it have been possible at any moment for the President to walk down to the podium in the briefing room and — and talk to the nation at any time between when you first gave him that advice at 2:00 and 4:17 when the video statement went out? Would that have been possible?
PAT CIPOLLONE: Would it have been possible?
UNKNOWN: Yes.
PAT CIPOLLONE: Yes, it would have been possible. [End Videotape]"
@NYCQuestions1976 "WILLIAM BARR: No, just what I — I've been — I've had — I had three discussions with the president that I can recall. One was on November 23rd, one was on December 1st, and one was on December 14th. And I've been through sort of the give and take of those discussions. And in that context, I made it clear I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, which I told the president was bullshit. And, you know, I didn't want to be a part of it, and that's one of the reasons that went into me deciding to leave when I did. I observed, I think it was on December 1st, that, you know, how can we — you can't live in a world where — where the incumbent administration stays in power based on its view, unsupported by specific evidence, that the election — that there was fraud in the election."
If you're not going to go to the hearings, I'll bring the hearings to you.
@NYCQuestions1976 "JASON MILLER: I was in the Oval Office and at some point in the conversation Matt Oczkowski, who was the lead data person was brought on and I remember he delivered to the President pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose.
UNKNOWN: And that was based, Mr. Miller, on Matt and the data team's assessment of the sort of county by county, state by state results as reported?
JASON MILLER: Correct."
@NYCQuestions1976 "WILLIAM BARR: I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations, but they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public that there was this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn't count and that these machines controlled by somebody else were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense. And it was being laid out there. And I told them that it was — that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on that. And it was doing a great, grave disservice to the country."
I know you need hugs, maybe you can pay someone to give you one.
@NYCQuestions1976 No, just tons of proof that Trump tried to steal the election. e. g.
"ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Donoghue, did — did you eventually tell the president that mass resignations would occur if he installed Mr. Clark and what the consequences would be?
RICHARD DONOGHUE: Yes. So, this was in line with the president's saying what do I have to lose? And along those lines, he said, so suppose I do this. Suppose I replace him, Jeff Rosen, with him, Jeff Clark? What would you do? And I said, Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I'm not working one minute for this guy, who I had just declared was completely incompetent."
@NYCQuestions1976 "JOCELYN BENSON: And then about 45 minutes later, we started to hear the noises outside my home. And that's why my stomach sank. And I thought, it's me. And there — and then it's just we don't know what's gonna — the uncertainty of that was what was the fear. Are they coming with guns? Are they going to attack my House? I'm in here with my kid. You know, I'm trying to put him to bed. And so it was — yeah, that was the scariest moment just not knowing what was going to happen. "
@goaded You're so desperate for someone other than yourself to care about this hearsay crap. It's simultaneously hilarious and sad. No one with a functioning brain cares. No one important cares. What are you going to do with yourself when most of these tax wasting idiots are voted out of office? Besides reading about how much I'll be laughing at you.
@NYCQuestions1976 "WILLIAM BARR: And then at that point I left. And as I walked out of the Oval Office, Jared was there with Dan Scavino who ran his — who ran the President's social media and who I thought was a reasonable guy, and believe is a reasonable guy. And I said how long is — how long is he going to carry on with this stolen election stuff?
Where is this going to go? And by that time, Meadows had caught up with me and — leaving the office and caught up to me and said that — he said, look, I think that he's becoming more realistic and knows that there's a limit to how far he can take this. And then Jared said, you know, yeah, we're working on this.
We're working on it."
@NYCQuestions1976 It’s getting sad at this point. He’s so desperate for someone to give a shit.
@joeldalton You'd think he'd find comfort with his dragons and unicorns.
@NYCQuestions1976 maybe he’ll jump on the current thing outrage bandwagon since that dude called AOC a big-booty Latina.
@joeldalton I heard Cortez likes to hang out at "bow-guh-duhz" with @goaded and his dragons and unicorns.
https://youtu.be/94hdP5lNkg4
@NYCQuestions1976 si se pwodway
@joeldalton She has a Doctorate in education, but put the wrong emPHAsis on the wrong syLLAbles in her senTENCE. I feel bad for her though. You'd be losing your mind also if you had to schedule your significant other's diaper changes in between press conferences and meetings.
@NYCQuestions1976 “doctor” Jill biden. If you want a laugh, read her PhD paper.
@joeldalton That bad?
@NYCQuestions1976 It reads like a high schooler’s paper who is trying to hit a word count limit for the assignment.
Sorry, she’s not a PhD. EdD.
www.nationalreview.com/.../
@joeldalton Is there a link to the dissertation?
@joeldalton @NYCQuestions1976 "WILLIAM BARR: I felt the responsible thing to do was to be — to be in a position to have a view as to whether or not there was fraud. And frankly, I think the fact that I put myself in the position that I could say that we had looked at this and didn't think there was fraud was really important to moving things forward.
And I — I sort of shudder to think what the situation would have been if the — if the position of the department was we're not even looking at this until after Biden's in office. I'm not sure we would have had a transition at all."
@joeldalton "Five days after the insurrection, Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., sent an email with the subject line "Pardons" to the White House requesting a pardon for Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., himself and "every congressman or senator who voted to reject the electoral college vote submissions of Arizona and Pennsylvania.""
@NYCQuestions1976 @joeldalton "ZOE LOFGREN: Well, thank — thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stirewalt. I'd like you to explain a term that was thrown around a lot during the election and that's the so-called red mirage. What does that mean?
CHRIS STIREWALT: So in the 40 or 50 years, let's say, that Americans have increasingly chosen to vote by mail or early or absentee Democrats prefer that method of voting more than Republicans do.
So basically in every election, Republicans win Election Day and Democrats win the early vote, and then you wait and start counting. And it depends on which ones you count first, but usually it's Election Day votes that get counted first. And you see the Republicans shoot ahead. And then the process of — of bailing and binding and unbinding all those mail in votes in some states like Pennsylvania refused to count the votes first.
So you have to wait for all of that to come in. So in every election and certainly a national election, you expect to see the Republican with a lead, but it's not really a lead. When you put together a jigsaw puzzle, it doesn't matter which piece you put in first, it ends up with the same image. So for us, who cares?"
@NYCQuestions1976 "PAT CIPOLLONE: There was a real question in my mind and a real concern, you know, particularly after the Attorney General had reached a conclusion that there wasn't sufficient election fraud to change the outcome of the election when other people kept suggesting that there was. The answer is, what is it? And at some point you have to put up or shut up. That was my view."
@goaded
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@NYCQuestions1976 "PAT CIPOLLONE: To have the federal government seize voting machines? That's a terrible idea for the country. That's not how we do things in the United States. There's no legal authority to do that. And there is a way to contest elections. You know, that — that happens all the time. But the idea that the federal government could come in and seize election machines, no. That — that's — I don't — I don't understand why we even have to tell you why that's a bad idea for the country.
It's a terrible idea."
Keep it up. There's plenty more transcripts, all of which show Trump tried to steal the presidency.
ASHLEY BIDEN: ‘I remember having sex with friends @ a young age; showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate)’
@joeldalton "PAT CIPOLLONE: With respect to the whole election fraud issue, it to me is sort of if you're going to make those kind of claims — and people were open to them early on because people were making all sorts of claims. And the real question is show the evidence. Ok?"
Are you enjoying the sworrn testimony of Republican loyalists about how Trump tried to steal the presidency?
@goaded 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@NYCQuestions1976 "BENNIE THOMPSON: Absolutely. Ms. Hutchinson, this is a photo that shows the short distance between your office and the President's Oval Office. And it only takes 5 to 10 seconds or so to walk down the hall from your office to the Oval Office. Is that right?"
@joeldalton Can't see your video, sorry. Here's some more evidence Trump planned Jan 6th.
"Ms. Hutchinson, do you remember Mr. Giuliani meeting with Mr. Meadows on January 2, 2021?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I do. He met with Mr. Meadows in the evening of January 2, 2021.
LIZ CHENEY: And we understand that you walked Mr. Giuliani out of the White House that night, and he talked to you about January 6th. What do you remember him saying?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: As Mr. Giuliani and I were walking to his vehicles that evening, he looked at me and said something to the effect of, Cass, are you excited for the 6th? It's going to be a great day. I remember looking at him saying, Rudy, could you explain what's happening on the 6th? He had responded something to the effect of, we're going to the Capitol.
It's going to be great. The President's going to be there. He's going to look powerful. He's — he's going to be with the members. He's going to be with the Senators. Talk to the chief about it, talk to the chief about it. He knows about it.
LIZ CHENEY: And did you go back then up to the West Wing and tell Mr. Meadows about your conversation with Mr. Giuliani?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I did. After Mr. Giuliani had left the campus that evening, I went back up to our office and I found Mr. Meadows in his office on the couch. He was scrolling through his phone. I remember leaning against the doorway and saying, I just had an interesting conversation with Rudy, Mark. It sounds like we're going to go to the Capitol."
@joeldalton I've got seven tabs open on the transcripts, it takes a couple of seconds to find something that implicates Trump in trying to steal the presidency, and I post it in response to your attempts to dismiss it. e. g.
"The letter said quote, "It was impossible for Mr. Kerik and his team to determine conclusively whether there was widespread fraud or whether that widespread fraud would have altered the outcome of the election." In other words, even Rudy Giuliani's own legal team knew before January 6th that they hadn't collected enough actual evidence to support any of their stolen election claims."
@joeldalton Really? OK, then stop posting. Loser.
"UNKNOWN: So do you know what the examples of fraud — numbers, names, and supporting evidence — was that you sent to Mo Brooks' office. And I say you, I mean you or the campaign.
JASON MILLER: There are some very, very general documents as far as — as far as, say, for example, here are the handful of dead people in several different states. Here are explanations on a couple of the legal challenges as far as the saying that the — the rules were changed an unconstitutional manner. But it was — to say that it was spin is — is probably an understatement."
You're the loser with 7 tabs open of this bullshit, lol.
@NYCQuestions1976 Well done!
"ADAM SCHIFF: At some point, did one of them make a comment that they didn't have evidence but they had a lot of theories?
RUSTY BOWERS: That was Mr. Giuliani."
@goaded *YAWN*
🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄 🐉 🐲 🀄
@joeldalton 
"UNKNOWN: Did you believe that it was going to work, that you were going be able to get to see the President without an appointment?
SIDNEY POWELL: I had no idea.
UNKNOWN: In fact you do get to see the President without an appointment.
SIDNEY POWELL: We did.
UNKNOWN: How much time did you have alone with the President? I say alone, you had other people with you, but, I think from his aides before the crowd came running.
SIDNEY POWELL: Probably no more than 10 or 15 minutes.
UNKNOWN: Was in that --
SIDNEY POWELL: — I bet Pat Cipollone set a new land speed record.
PAT CIPOLLONE: I got a call either for Molly or from Eric Herschmann that I need to get to the Oval Office.
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: So that was the first point that I had recognized, Ok, there is nobody in there from the White House. Mark's gone. What's going on right now.
PAT CIPOLLONE: I opened the door and I walked in, I saw General Flynn, I saw Sidney Powell sitting there. I was not happy to see the people who were in the Oval Office.
UNKNOWN: Explain why.
PAT CIPOLLONE: Well, again, I — I don't think they were providing — well, first of all, the Overstock person I - - I've never met — never. I never knew who this guy was. Actually the first thing I did, I walked in, I looked at him, and I said who are you? And he told me. I don't think — I don't think any of these people were providing the President with good advice.
And so I — I — I didn't understand how they had gotten in."
@joeldalton "ERIC HERSCHMANN: And I was asking, like, are you're claiming the Democrats were working with Hugo Chavez, Venezuelans, and whomever else. And at one point General Flynn took out a diagram that supposedly showed IP addresses all over the world. And — or ISP — who was — who was communicating with whom via the machines and some comment about like Nest thermostats being hooked up to the Internet.
UNKNOWN: So it's been reported that during this meeting, Ms. Powell talked about Dominion voting machines and made various election fraud claims that involve foreign countries such as Venezuela, Iran, and China. Is that accurate?
MICHAEL FLYNN: The fifth."
Oh, and Epps never entered the Capitol, and he tried to defuse tension between traitors and police.
"UNKNOWN: In the short period of time that you had with the President, did he seem receptive to the presentation that you were making?
SIDNEY POWELL: He was very interested in hearing particularly about the CISA findings and the terms of 13848 that apparently nobody else had bothered to inform him of."
@goaded 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 🐉🐲🀄🦄 0 tabs.
@NYCQuestions1976 In a break from Trump's Treason: "The Mexican government has agreed to provide roughly $1.5 billion “modernizing” ports of entry and enhancing screening processes of immigrants trying to cross from Mexico to the U. S."
@joeldalton Didn't you spend months crowing about how protected you were against covid because you'd been infected?
"DEREK LYONS: I mean, at times there were people shouting at each other, hurling insults at each other. It wasn't just sort of people sitting around on the couch like chit chatting."
@goaded lol, I posted it to show you lunatics being just bald faced liars. And you ate it right up..
twitter.com/.../1547998907388506112
@joeldalton Christ, you're a fucking moron. The fewer people vaccinated, the fewer people wearing masks, the more people catching it and the higher the chance of mutations.
"PAT CIPOLLONE: I remember the three of them were really sort of forcefully attacking me verbally. Eric, Derek, and we were pushing back and we were asking one simple question as a — as a general matter. Where is the evidence? So.
UNKNOWN: What response did you get when you asked Ms. Powell and her colleagues where's the evidence?
PAT CIPOLLONE: A variety of responses based on my current recollection including, you know, I can't believe you would say something, like, you know, things like this. Like, "What do you mean where's the evidence? You should know." Yeah, I — things like that or, you know, a disregard, I would say, a general disregard for the importance of actually backing up what you say with facts."
@joeldalton Tell me you're a fucking moron while telling me you're a fucking moron. Reduce, not stop. Nobody ever said stop. (Covid is your attempted distraction? Cool.)
"ERIC HERSCHMANN: Which Derek and I both challenged what she was saying. And she says, well, the judges are corrupt. And I was like, every one? Every single case that you've done in the country you guys lost, every one of them is corrupt? Even the ones we appointed? And I'm being nice. I was much more harsh to her."
@goaded it's embarrassing for you at this point
boriquagato.substack.com/.../yes-the-vaccines-were-supposed-to
@NYCQuestions1976 He's gaslighting. Now that the covid shots are shown to be utter frauds, he's pretending we always knew this and that it's reasonable to mandate a vaccine that doesn't stop the spread.
@joeldalton No, he's pointing out that reducing the number of people catching a very mutatable virus, the less chance there is of it mutating. Also, that you're distracting from the copious evidence that Trump tried to steal the presidency, which you both clearly support.
"ALEX JONES: It's Saturday, December 19th. The year is 2020, and one of the most historic events in American history has just taken place. President Trump, in the early morning hours today, tweeted that he wants the American people to march on Washington DC on January 6th, 2021.
[The right's noted leftie] TIM POOL: And now Donald Trump is calling on his supporters to descend on Washington DC January 6th.
ALEX JONES: He is now calling on we the People to take action and to show our numbers.
MATT BRACKEN: We're going to only be saved by millions of Americans moving to Washington, occupying the entire area, if — if necessary storming right into the Capitol. You know, they're — we know the rules of engagement. If you have enough people, you can push down any kind of a fence or a wall.
TIM POOL: This could be Trump's last stand. And it's a time when he has specifically called on his supporters to arrive in DC. That's something that may actually be the big push Trump supporters need to say this is it. It's now or never."
@goaded More liberals like yourself who believe in dragons:
https://youtu.be/_1G9wO9-54c
@NYCQuestions1976 @joeldalton Your videos and emojis are much more convincing than Republicans testifying that Trump tried to steal the presidency.
"SALTY CRACKER: Ya better understand something, son. Ya better understand something. Red wave, bitch. Red wed — there's gonna be a red wedding going down January 6th.
TIM POOL: On that day, Trump says show up for a protest. It's gonna be wild. And based on what we've already seen from the previous events, I think Trump is absolutely correct.
SALTY CRACKER: Motherfucker, you better look outside. You better look out January 6th. Kick that fucking door open, look down the street. There're gonna be a million plus geeked up armed Americans.
ALEX JONES: The time for games is over. The time for action is now. Where were you when history called? Where were you when you and your children's destiny and future was on the line?"
@NYCQuestions1976 January 6 IS CALLING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE
@joeldalton Simply one for each hearing, that you're assisting me in posting here.
"Yes. I believe that Twitter relished in the knowledge that they were also the favorite and most used service of the former president, and enjoyed having that sort of power within the social media ecosystem. If President Trump were anyone else, would it have taken until January 2021 for him to be suspended?
Absolutely not. If Donald — if former President Donald Trump were any other user on Twitter, he would have been permanently suspended a very long time ago."
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
@joeldalton Yes, you are. When you feel like trying to make a cogent argument, ley me know. You've never managed one yet.
"UNKNOWN [Twitter employee]: It was — it felt as if — if a mob was being organized, and they were gathering together their weaponry and their logic and their reasoning behind why they were prepared to fight. Prior to December 19th, again, it was — it was vague. It was — it was nonspecific but very clear that individuals were ready, willing, and able to take up arms.
After this tweet on December 19th, again, it became clear not only were these individuals ready and willing, but the leader of their cause was asking them to join him in this cause and in fighting for this cause in DC on January 6th as well. I will also say what shocked me was the responses to these tweets, right?
So, these were — a lot of the locked and loaded, stand back, stand by, those tweets were in response to Donald Trump saying things like this, right? So, there would be a response that said big protest in DC on January 6th, be there, be wild, and someone would respond and say I'm locked and loaded and ready for civil war part two, right?
I very much believe that Donald Trump posting this tweet on December 19th was essentially staking flag in DC on January 6th for his supporters to come and rally. And you were concerned about the potential for this gathering becoming violent? Absolutely."
@joeldalton I'm not scared of either, but I am scared of assholes thinking that stealing the presidency is OK. People like you.
"UNKNOWN: Why did you first decide to go to DC for January 6th?
JIM WATKINS [owner of 8kun]: When — when the president of the United States announced that he was going to have a rally, then I bought ticket went."
Really, it's no effort posting this stuff, I just have to scroll down a page to find someone saying Trump planned and executed an assault on American democracy.
@NYCQuestions1976 You think I'm talking to you? That's sweet.
"JODY WILLIAMS: And people had been talking about going to DC since the election was over.
UNKNOWN: And do you recall whether or not the conversation around those dates centered on the 6th after the president's tweet?
JODY WILLIAMS: Oh, sure. Yeah. I mean after it was announced that, you know, he was going to be there on the 6th to talk, yes. Then — then anything else was kind of shut out and it was just gonna on the sixth."
@joeldalton Here's @goaded and with his dragons and unicorns when he has 7 tabs open:
https://youtu.be/kJ9eBJak3Rc
@NYCQuestions1976 what I don’t understand is that he’s claimed to be German. Why would a German be that invested in US politics. Unless he’s just another lefty in America who lies.
@joeldalton He's so far left and hates Trump so much that he refuses to see or understand or care that the hearings are nothing more than a scripted Hollywood soap opera. They're allowing hearsay as evidence and not cross-examining anyone giving testimony that they want to hear. They also still haven't called the Secret Service agents that were in the car. They're not allowing anyone to participate that might (and probably will) call into question the CREDIBILITY of all these people involved. The entire ridiculous spectacle is an absolute nonsensical farce, and a complete spit in the face of proper legal due process.
I seriously mentioned to him earlier in the thread that I sincerely hope that he never finds himself as a defendant in a court where the judge allows the prosecution to use hearsay testimony as evidence and refuses his right to cross-examine those who offered direct testimony against him under oath. As a current events example, don't you think that Brittney Griner would be happy to have some proper American due process right about now?
@NYCQuestions1976 And that’s the sad reality. His whole personality is based around hating trump, and supporting the current thing (covid, Ukraine) He couldn’t tell you one thing positive that Biden has done.
@joeldalton Only two things:
1.) He finally got the national infrastructure bill done, and without the vast majority of the stupid socialism nonsense. I know many Republicans and conservatives were against this, but I live near, and work in, New York City. I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that it's needed. We can't expect to exist in the 21st century with 20th century infrastructure.
2.) He just got the final signatures on the peace treaty that Trump negotiated during his administration.
Other than that? *GAME SHOW BUZZER*
@joeldalton "he’s claimed to be German" Lying again, dumbass?
"DONELL HARVIN: We — we got derogatory information from OSINT suggesting that some very, very violent individuals were organizing to come to DC, and not only were they organized to come to DC, but they were — these groups, these nonaligned groups were aligning. And so the rent - - all the red flags went up at that point.
You know, when you have armed militia collaborating with white supremacy groups collaborating with conspiracy theory groups online all toward a common goal, you start seeing what we call in, you know, terrorism, a blended ideology. And that's a very, very bad sign. Then when they were clearly across — not just across one platform, but across multiple platforms of these groups coordinating, not just like chatting, hey, how's it going?
You know what's the weather like where you're at? But like, what are you bringing? What are you wearing? You know, where — where — where do we meet up? Do you have plans for the Capitol? That operational — that's like pre operational intelligence, right? And that — that is something that's clearly alarming."
@joeldalton " @goaded you’re absolutely a scared little child. That’s why you want daddy government to take care of you. You’re scared to own your life. "
Even for you that's a particularly moronic way to describe expecting the government to enforce the law and protect the constitution and their citizens. I suppose all those tens of thousands of Floridians who died were entirely responsible for catching the disease that killed them and you like to drive down the wrong side of the road for fun. Dickhead.
Stewart Rhodes: "We need to know from you that you are with him, that he does not do it now while he is commander in chief, we're going to have to do it ourselves later in a much more desperate, much more bloody war. Let's get it on now while he is still the commander in chief. Hooah."
@NYCQuestions1976 It doesn't surprise me at all that you think "It says "Germany" on your profile" means I claim I'm German.
"A Washington, DC, police officer has corroborated to the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, details regarding a heated exchange former President Donald Trump had with his Secret Service detail when he was told he could not go to the US Capitol after his rally, a source familiar with the matter tells CNN."
@joeldalton In crowded indoor areas and on trains, yes. It's one of the reasons Germany has had half the deaths per million of 20 states, including Florida, and fewer deaths per million than all but three.
"Encrypted chats obtained by the Select Committee show that Kelly Meggs, the indicted leader of the Florida Oath Keepers, spoke directly with Roger Stone about security on January 5th and 6th. In fact, on January 6th, Stone was guarded by two Oath Keepers who have since been criminally indicted for seditious conspiracy.
One of them later pleaded guilty and, according to the Department of Justice, admitted that the Oath Keepers were ready to use, quote, lethal force if necessary against anyone who tried to remove President Trump from the White House, including the National Guard. As we've seen, the Proud Boys were also part of the Friends of Stone Network.
Stone's ties to the Proud Boys go back many years."
@joeldalton Try to understand: not all people in Germany are German. Fuckwit.
"STEPHANIE MURPHY: On January 2nd, Ms. Pierson's concerns about the potential rally speakers had grown serious enough that she reached out to Mr. Meadows directly. She wrote, Good afternoon. Would you mind giving me a call regarding this January 6 event? Things have gotten crazy and I desperately need some direction, please.
Please According to phone records obtained by the committee. Ms. Pierson received a phone call from Mr. Meadows 8 minutes later. Here is what Ms. Pierson said about that conversation. [Begin videotape]
UNKNOWN: So what specifically did you tell them, though, about other — other events?
KATRINA PIERSON: Just that there were a bunch of entities coming in. Some were very suspect, but they're going to be on other — on other stages, some on other days. A very, very brief overview of what was actually happening and why I raised the red flags.
UNKNOWN: And when you told him that people were very suspect, what — what — did you tell him what you meant by that? Or what did you convey to him about what — the problems with these folks?
KATRINA PIERSON: I think I even texted him some of my concerns, but I did briefly go over some of the concerns that I had raised to everybody with Alex Jones or Ali Alexander and some of the rhetoric that they were doing. I probably mentioned to him that they had already caused trouble at other capitols — or at the previous event, the previous march that they did for protesting.
And I just had a concern about it."
@joeldalton You really are remarkably stupid.
"UNKNOWN: We've received testimony from various people about this. One was Jason Miller, who was a campaign — said that the way it was communicated to me was that Pat Cipollone thought the idea was nutty, and at one point confronted Eastman, basically with the same sentiment, that --
PAT CIPOLLONE: I don't have a reason to contradict what he said."
@joeldalton You literally just said I have Nazi blood.
"The committee has learned from the White House phone logs that the president spoke to Steve Bannon, his close adviser, at least twice on January 5th. The first conversation they had lasted for 11 minutes. Listen to what Mr. Bannon said that day after the first call he had with the President. [Begin videotape]
STEVE BANNON: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. It's all converging and now we're on, as they say, the point of attack, right, the point of attack tomorrow. I'll tell you this, it's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen, Ok? It's going to be quite extraordinarily different. And all I can say is strap in. [End videotape]"
@joeldalton "JUDD DEERE: He asked if — if members of Congress would be with him tomorrow.
UNKNOWN: And what did you understand by — meaning voting in his favor as opposed to physically with him or anything like that?
JUDD DEERE: Yeah, I took that to mean not voting to certify the election.
SARAH MATTHEWS: Then he did look to the staff and ask for ideas of how — if I recall, he said that we could make the RINOs do the right thing is the way he phrased it. And no one spoke up initially, because I think everyone was trying to process what that — he meant by that.
SHEALAH CRAIGHEAD: The president was making notes that — talking then about we should go up to the Capitol, what's the best route to go to the Capitol."
WHERE is ray epps
@joeldalton Free, on account of not actually breaking any laws.
"STEPHANIE MURPHY: At 5:05 PM, as the Freedom Plaza rally was underway just blocks away, President Trump tweeted, Washington is being inundated with people who don't want to see an election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats. Our country has had enough. They won't take it anymore. To the crowds gathering in DC he added, we hear you and love you from the Oval Office.
The committee has learned that on January 5th, there were serious concerns at Twitter about the anticipated violence the next day. Listen to what the Twitter witness told us about their desperate efforts to get Twitter to do something."
You spelled “is a fed” wrong
@NYCQuestions1976 You're back to distract from your other distractions?
"LIZ CHENEY: General Flynn, do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?
MICHAEL FLYNN: The Fifth."
@NYCQuestions1976 "Mike Roman, then Trump’s 2020 director of Election Day operations, delivered those false elector certificates — signed by pro-Trump activists in Michigan and Wisconsin — to Rep. Mike Kelly’s (R-Pa.) chief of staff at the time"
@joeldalton So I guess you're covering the weekends and I've got Monday through Friday? LOL
@NYCQuestions1976 "DONALD TRUMP: We want all voting to stop. We don't want them to find any ballots at 4:00 in the morning and add them to the list. [End videotape]
ZOE LOFGREN: So when former President Trump said that it contradicted what his advisers had warned would happen. We all know that mail in ballots played an important role in the 2020 election. However, President Trump continuously discouraged mail in voting. Mr. Stepien was so concerned about the President's position on mail in voting that in the summer of 2020 he met with President Trump along with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy."
@NYCQuestions1976 "The Justice Department is in talks with the select committee about evidence specifically related to the false electors effort, Jan. 6 panel chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said this week."
@NYCQuestions1976 I'm sure you're following the Steve Bannon trial. Oh, and the Secret Service texts the dog ate will be with the investigation by Tuesday. The truth has a way of getting built on whereas your lies wither.
"The House select committee investigating the Capitol riot expects to receive erased Secret Service text messages from Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, 2021, by Tuesday, and will present testimony from new witnesses during Thursday's public hearing, its members said Sunday."
@NYCQuestions1976 You've been taken in by an obvious conman. Or you just like fascism.
"The House select committee investigating the Capitol riot expects to receive erased Secret Service text messages from Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, 2021, by Tuesday, and will present testimony from new witnesses during Thursday's public hearing, its members said Sunday."
@NYCQuestions1976 No, one month to two years in prison.
@NYCQuestions1976 Aren't you the disengenuous one? No, 1 month to 2 years for defying a congression subpeona. That's what Bannon's facing. It should be more.
@NYCQuestions1976 That doesn't even make any sense. Most of the evidence is not hearsay, we established weeks ago that you don't even understand what it means or when it's acceptable in court (which the investigation isn't anyway). And yes, subpoenas should be enforced or none of the people trying to cover up the crimes Trump committed in trying to steal the presidency would testify.
Last time Bannon testified in court, in the Roger Stone trial, his testimony helped lead to Stone's conviction on all seven criminal charges he was accused of (fun fact: one of the jurors wore her MAGA hat while commuting to and from court). Trump later corruptly commuted Stone's sentence, as well as corruptly pardoning Bannon, who had been convicted of conning right wingers out of millions.
@NYCQuestions1976 Former Trump National Security Council official will testify at Thursday 21st July January 6 hearing
@NYCQuestions1976 No, more evidence about how Trump didn't do a damn thing to stop the violence he incited.
@NYCQuestions1976 his buddy ray epps is telling him what to do.
@joeldalton The dragons and unicorns are their secret messengers.
@NYCQuestions1976 @joeldalton "Wisconsin Republican house speaker Robin Vos told a reporter on Tuesday that Trump called him "within the last week" to overturn the 2020 presidential election that took place 622 days ago." You three are made for each other, reality just doesn't exist for any of you.
@joeldalton You mean "arrested". 👍
@NYCQuestions1976 you didn’t know the US has new stealth handcuff technology?
@joeldalton Marvelous! It's about time my taxes went to something cool and useful.
"After Russia invaded Ukraine, the neutral countries of Sweden and Finland filed applications to join NATO in May.
In a vote taken by The House, which is mostly symbolic, 394 congresspeople voted to support their induction while a small team of Republicans voted against the two Nordic countries.
Can you guess which Republicans stood with Russia?
Biggs, Boebert, Cawthorn, Gaetz, Marge and Chip Roy, led the way for the other 12 Republicans.
All fervent MAGA cultists who supported the insurrection on January 6. "
@joeldalton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j9F3HwOha0
nope. Solely to send you into an autistic rage. And it worked.
u mad?
@joeldalton No, I'm used to you lying and distracting from important things, like the hearing this evening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbRVqWbHGuo
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Cry harder about it while you watch the hearings tonight alone in your bedroom.
Why are you having a freakout? Is it because deep down you know you're losing?
@joeldalton And yet I never deleted an opinion on this site. I wonder, if I were responding to your opinion, rather than @Juxtapose's, if you'd have deleted stuff you didn't like. Thin end of the wedge.
Right, so you're just a liar and having a fit. You might want to just go sit in the corner and have some quiet time.
Hey dummy. He claimed you won't get covid if you get the shots. You said the same thing. You both lied. AGAIN.
@Juxtapose Quote me, liar. 99.5% of the deaths at the time, when most of the elderly had been vaccinated, were unvaccinated. It's a damn sight more true than "masks don't work" or "vaccines will kill you". 4 hours until the hearing you're distracting from, which was the point of this question.
You brought up the bullshit vaccines that don't stop the spread of covid. You really need to go lie down.
@NYCQuestions1976 I found a photo of @goaded waiting for his reward from Biden for watching all the hearings
@joeldalton President Joey was just asking that kid if he can borrow his triky because he got a boo boo on his the other day.
@NYCQuestions1976 At least Biden can ride a bike. How about finally answering my question: What will happen when Republicans pass a federal abortion ban?
@goaded biden can ride a bike?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSm7bjGjEwM
@goaded So BLM supports and fights "for a good cause"? Like protesting the death of someone who had a SIX HOUR ARMED STANDOFF with police after he was shooting at his neighbor, this African American single mother, and her two young African American children, ages 2 and 4?
https://youtu.be/-BbBSRACOKY
@joeldalton Brandon Falls
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2zJJRffAHar6EJ157
@NYCQuestions1976 did you know that hispanic support of Biden is abysmal? It's down around 19%. No wonder Goaded is so desperate for people to care about this kangaroo court.
@NYCQuestions1976 And all 25 million people who turned out to protest police killings of innocent black men agree with this?
"we're here just to respect life any life and we're glad that we're we're not condoning we're not condoning anything but we just want full and police we want accountability... we're just saying we want the same treatment for us as they give white people we want the same treatment..."
@joeldalton Maya Flores won by over 8% in a district that's nearly 85% Hispanic and was held by Democrats since 1870. The coffee is brewing for November 2022.
@NYCQuestions1976 So Mexican immigrants are OK, as long as they're Republicans?
@NYCQuestions1976 You'd be surprised at how many Republican disagree with you on that. 2 hours until tonight's hearing.
@NYCQuestions1976 You're probably lying about that, too.
@goaded "We're here to protest blah blah blah whatever."
That's what you got from that video? That's the message? Not that they're there to protest the death of a violent armed criminal who almost killed a single mother and her two young children? Or how at least two of those piece of shit jerkoff "protesters" had the unmitigated gall to actually get in her face an call her a liar? She's the one who called the police on this guy who was shooting up her apartment. She didn't want her kids shot. She called the police to save her kids and herself. Like she screams at one point, "He had SIX HOURS to make a decision!" after the police arrived. He was proven to be armed, dangerous, unstable, and unpredictable.
You're lost and cognitively impaired.
@NYCQuestions1976 Oh, and by the way:
2:43 it's not the police's job
2:45 to execute people we don't have the
2:47 death penalty in minnesota
2:59 again though again we are
3:02 we're not excusing anything that happens
@NYCQuestions1976 Coming from someone believes Trump, that's rich. Practically all the witnesses in the investigations are loyal Republicans, but you choose to believe Trump and Guiliani instead. Muppet.
Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 3 more Xper points!
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions