ChiGoose

In @716er's defense, @DRsGhost is probably the single dumbest person on this board and has not only never added anything of value, but actively works to make the board as bad as possible. If the purpose of this board was to facilitate good discussion and discourage trolling, they would be banned.

I don't think that @DRsGhost could pass the Turing Test.

This is some real tinfoil hat *****. I have a golf course in Scotland I'm selling if you're interested...

I think that there is good room for common ground of a majority of Americans. Prevent unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions: Comprehensive sex ed Easy access to free contraceptives Make it easier to choose life: Re-enact the child tax credit from last year Universal free pre-natal and post-natal healthcare Parental leave Free or affordable childcare Free or affordable meals for kids If we focused on why we have abortions, we could make progress towards both reducing the number of abortions and starting a pro-natalist movement in the US. We could remove the messiness of doctors needing lawyers to tell them what they can and can't do to help their patients while making it far likely that someone would seek an abortion for non-medical needs. But if we leave it to the states, then women in some states are going to have to make some very difficult choices about their lives and their legal liability.

Ah, gotcha. We should believe members of the committee when they say things we agree with, but they are a farce when they say something we disagree with? As I've stated, I am skeptical that the DoJ would or could secure a guilty verdict of Trump on incitement. But they have shown plenty of evidence that he committed other crimes.

For the record, I think an incitement charge against Trump has a big hill to climb. But to claim that simply saying "peacefully" negates any other context or history around his other words and actions is laughable. That would be a loophole so big as to allow criminals to run wild. "I want you to go deliver a message to that other gang, but do it peacefully..." Ultimately, in the real world (not the fabulous world of criminal conspiracies being impossible to prosecute that you seem to think we live in), this would be up to a jury to decide. As I said, I am not confident they would decide it against Trump, but to dismiss it out of hand is ridiculous.

Personally, I don't think it should be up to politicians as to whether people live or die. But that's just me.

If you were correct, it would be impossible to prosecute mob bosses. "He said to take care of them! That doesn't mean that he wanted them dead!" Words certainly matter, but actions matter more. If I held a rally down the street from Tom Brady's house and spoke about how upset I was about Tom Brady, and told security that they should allow people to my rally with weapons, and told the audience that they needed to fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country any more, and then told everyone to march to Tom Brady's house, but threw in the word "peacefully" at the end, then I'm all good, right?

They've been trying to get him for a bit, but I'm surprised it took this long for them to subpoena him.

This is exactly what has happened in other countries and led to the death of the mothers.

GTFO with actual logic. You know it has no place here on PPP.

This is my major concern about Roe no longer being the law of the land. There is absolutely nothing preventing states from passing incredibly stupid laws or laws that are so vague that doctors do not know how to act. Mississippi drafted a law that said that removing ectopic pregnancies count as abortions and are there for illegal before they ended up removing that provision: Source: Under the regime of Roe and Casey, that law would have been tossed out had it been approved. Now that we are in a post-Roe world, the only thing stopping these sorts of laws is our voters and politicians. Which does not give me a ton of confidence...

Actually, she heard the magnometer comment herself. So that is not hearsay. She stated under oath that multiple people told her that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol. The next step would be to get that testimony from those people, like Mark Meadows. Unfortunately, Meadows won't testify because he is worried about perjuring himself.

Her testimony shows: Trump did not care if there were weapons in the crowd Trump wanted to be with the people marching on the Capitol You're right that neither of those things are a crime. You couldn't indict anyone on that. But you build a case through multiple witnesses and testimony. We had multiple people testifying in a previous hearing that Trump wanted to overturn the election and commit crimes. Hutchinson's testimony might be able to support other evidence and testimony, but I still think incitement is a steep hill for a prosecutor to climb. Everyone is playing the jump to conclusions game, here. Trump wanted the metal detectors at the ellipse removed and he wanted to be with the crowd marching on the Capitol. Those are important details. They are not nothing. But they're also not everything.

The Biden administration spent weeks publicizing intel about Russian movements and warning Ukraine about an imminent invasion even though Ukraine disagreed with the US position. That's a green light?

Personally, I think it's Putin's fault. But that's just me.

The idea that Russia only attacked Ukraine because it wanted to keep it out of NATO is just propaganda. Russia invaded Ukraine and has been occupying parts of it since 2014. Do you honestly believe they would have packed up and gone home if Ukraine and NATO agreed that Ukraine wouldn't join? Or do you think maybe they would have found another pretext?

$87,000,000,000: NATO's monthly budget $5,000,000,000: Monthly cost to grind the Russian army to shreds Sounds good to me.

I would think that the President of the United States trying to overturn an election based on debunked conspiracy theories is something worth wanting to know about. I would also think that seeing an entire political party swallow those lies and now campaign on them to ensure that they can overturn elections when they don’t like the outcome is newsworthy.

Hospital in Missouri no longer providing emergency contraceptives The silver lining here, is that their other hospital is in Kansas. So if you get raped in Kansas City, Missouri, you can still hop the border to get treated.

Even if you had a jury that didn't have Trump supporters on it, incitement to violence is a VERY difficult crime to prove. The overall difficulty with securing a guilty verdict against Trump is that many of the crimes you might charge him with are intent crimes. Juries can decide intent, but unless you have a smoking gun document, you better have a ton of circumstantial evidence of intent. For conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States, we have a mountain of sworn testimony and documentary evidence that Trump should have known that what he was doing was a crime. The evidence that he was intentionally setting the mob against the Capitol is much less overwhelming. There's certainly some evidence to support that claim, but a good defense attorney would be able to introduce enough doubt in the mind of the jury about the intent element that he could skate on that charge.

Incitement of the mob on Jan 6th is probably the hardest to prove and I'm not sure that there was an actionable duty for the president to make a statement to stop the violence once it started. That being said, even if we throw those out, there is ample evidence of Trump himself committing crimes. Would love to see the DoJ actually *do* something about it, but I'm not going to hold my breath...

You are correct that, in a judicial proceeding, her testimony about the limo would not be admissible as it is hearsay without an exception. If they wanted that to come in, they would need testimony from someone who was there. The Secret Service has released a statement that they will respond directly to the testimony, so it'll be interesting what they have to say. Her testimony about what Trump said, such as removing the metal detectors, would be admissible in a case against Trump under rule 801(2)(a): Statement by a party opponent. One of the frustrating things for me about the hearings is that what gets picked up and sensationalized in the media isn't always the most important thing. We knew Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and the story about him throwing his food against the wall like a toddler may be funny, but it's hardly dispositive of anything other than his temper. I have not finished watching yesterday's hearing, but so far in these hearings we have had ample evidence of Trump himself committing crimes but instead we are talking about this limo thing. It's a distraction.

Liz Cheney is not going to be president and she certainly is not a democrat. She’s doing what she believes is correct. There was an attempt to overthrow the results of an election and, unlike most members of her party, she thinks that’s a bad thing. However, she’s a Cheney, so however this ends up, she’ll be fine. The person we should be talking about is Adam Kinzinger. That guy has probably ended his career for this.

1. The only people who disagree with the direction the committee is going are the people who won’t testify or, if they do, just plead the fifth the entire time. That should tell you something. 2. It’s not hearsay. 3. Almost every witness has been a Republican. The only role Dems have played are opening statements, closing statements, and sometimes they ask questions. I’m actually shocked that anyone would put faith into people who only agree with them when there is no penalty for lying, but immediately change their tune when they could be in trouble if they lie. You and your far right radicals on this board are being hoodwinked by conmen. I feel bad for you.