ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,259 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:
They've been trying to get him for a bit, but I'm surprised it took this long for them to subpoena him.
-
35 minutes ago, Andy1 said:
This is what will happen. I doubt that these legislatures are going to invite the medical community to help craft their laws. Instead they will say something stupid like “only allowed to save the life of the mother”. So if a fetus medically needs to be aborted, will doctors need to wait until the mothers life is in danger before doing the necessary procedure? Will the mother be denied medical care, increasing the risk to her health? They may have to tell women to “come back when you are about to die “.
They may eventually figure it out, but women will suffer until then.
This is exactly what has happened in other countries and led to the death of the mothers.
-
4 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
So are you saying a case where the election was really close and they ended up going through legal proceedings because it was so close, and the candidate that came out on the losing side of those proceedings concedes is the same as a case where it wasn't all that close there was a clear victor that also won the legal procedures that followed and the losing candidate not only doesn't concede but claims victory and continues to claim victory today?
GTFO with actual logic. You know it has no place here on PPP.
-
3 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:
That’s a dumb law that should be changed. (Probably pushed through while no one was paying attention)This will be up to the people to accomplish. Perhaps Medical personnel should leave the state and hospitals should leave the state. The democratic process will have an influence on the market for medical services.
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:
QuoteMissouri legislators held a public hearing on a bill that would make it a felony to "perform or induce an abortion" to treat an ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancies never result in a baby and can be fatal if left untreated.
While the Missouri bill is expected to fail, the legislation is an example of how ectopic pregnancy can get mistakenly swept up in efforts to target abortion access.
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...
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Her testimony was that she heard this from her boss, who heard it from the Secret Service.
You know......................Hearsay.
.
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.
-
22 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
You people crack me up with your ridiculous rabbit holes. So if I understand it correctly, this young lady testified that the President wanted to steer the car from the back seat? I’m pretty sure that’s not a crime. Note that she didn’t say that the President said anything even remotely close to anything about wanting to overturn the election, destroy ‘democracy’, or organize a coup. This is all such junior high garbage!
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.
-
2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
This isn’t complicated…Biden green lighted a small incursion. There’s no telling whether he saw this drawn out conflict coming, but he definitely did not make a move to stop it. Does it make it his fault? Of course not.
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?
-
3 minutes ago, Doc said:
Just playing the blame game. Dems think it's Trump's fault because he weakened NATO something or other.
Personally, I think it's Putin's fault.
But that's just me.
-
4 minutes ago, Doc said:
He had nothing to do with it, and even you know it. OTOH, if he'd only announced that Ukraine would not be joining NATO, it wouldn't look like a parking lot full of rubble.
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?
-
6 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Sure, no problem.
$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.
-
19 minutes ago, njbuff said:
Do you Trump-hating idiots actually have a life of your own or do you nutbags get off on having Trump live in your heads- RENT FREE????
Trump has been out of office a year and a half.... GET OVER YOURSELVES
He will be 78 in 2024, he is not running again. Again, get over yourselves.
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.
-
1
-
-
Hospital in Missouri no longer providing emergency contraceptives
QuoteUnder new Missouri law, doctors who perform or induce an abortion not related to a medical emergency can be charged with a Class B felony. That would result in their license being revoked, and a possible prison sentence of 5-15 years. The hospital system will still allow contraception and abortion-related care at its Kansas locations.
“First, the Missouri law is ambiguous, but may be interpreted as criminalizing emergency contraception. As a system that deeply cares about its team, we simply cannot put our clinicians in a position that might result in criminal prosecution,” a statement from St. Luke’s reads. “St. Luke’s will continue to monitor the situation to ensure the reproductive care we provide, including abortions for maternal medical emergencies, continues to comply fully with all applicable laws.”
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Well, that comes down to who are you trying to prove it to? A reasonable person would conclude he obviously incited an armed mob to march on capital to stop the peaceful transfer of power. But if the jury has one cult member on it they can easily protect this criminal
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.
-
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:
Short summary by Jen Rubin:
Spreading the “big lie”. Multiple Trump officials — including former attorney general William P. Barr, top Justice Department lawyers and White House counsel staff — diligently investigated allegations of voter fraud and repeatedly told Trump there was no evidence. So did multiple Republicans outside the administration, such as Arizona House Speaker Russell “Rusty” Bowers and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Yet Trump still pushed these claims all the way up to Jan. 6.
Attempting to enlist the Justice Department in overturning the election. Former Justice Department officials Richard Donoghue, Jeffrey Rosen and Steven A. Engel all testified to Trump’s scheme to replace Rosen with Jeffrey Clark, the low-level Justice official who was willing to send out a letter to states claiming there was evidence of fraud. Rosen was told if he signed the letter, he could stay. He refused.
Pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election. Former Pence aides Marc Short and Greg Jacob, as well as Justice Department lawyers, laid out the pressure campaign on Pence to halt the electoral vote count. Trump was repeatedly warned the scheme was illegal and unconstitutional. Richard Donoghue testified that former White House counsel Pat Cipollone called the plan a “murder-suicide pact.” Trump never relented.
Strong-arming state officials to change votes and devise phony slates of electors (parts 4 and 5). Bowers and Raffensperger in their live appearances, as well as Republicans from Pennsylvania and Michigan in video testimony, spoke about the pressure campaign. Trump was directly involved in calls to Arizona and Georgia officials.
Summoning the mob on Jan 6. From his invitation on Twitter to Hutchinson’s assertion that he demanded that armed supporters be allowed to pass through security checkpoints on Jan. 6, Trump was instrumental in gathering a dangerous mob to storm the Capitol. In his speech that day, he identified Pence as the person with the power to stop the transfer of power. He then told them to march on the Capitol despite warnings of violence.
Refusing to stop the violence once the Capitol attack was underway. In fact he did all he could to join them. Multiple aides, his daughter and members of Congress pleaded with him to call off the mob. It took him hours to make a statement.
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...
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Actually it is hearsay as it meets the definition (somebody told me something somebody else said or did) but hearsay is admissible here. The police might characterize such statements as "a lead". And if the intent of the Committee, beyond putting on a good show for the faithful, is to produce some sort of recommendation that gets forwarded to the DOJ to bring charges this kind of "evidence" and testimony won't be admissible in any judicial setting there. I suspect this witness wouldn't be called or wiling to testify in a courtroom setting. Already the statement about Trump lunging for the steering wheel has been refuted by the driver and Secret Service on duty that day. Something they've stated they're willing to testify to under oath. Will the committee call them?
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
-
-
3 hours ago, Westside said:
The “committee” cannot indict or prosecute anyone but they can try to destroy a persons life with lies and hearsay while posing as truth finders.
I’m actually shocked anyone would put any faith in such a political stunt as this “committee” is. You and your fellow far left radicals on this board have no sense of shame. How weak and pathetic the Democratic Party has become. Shameful.
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.
-
33 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
Everyone talking about the Maxwell sentence today?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha freaking dupes. New evidence!!!!!!
Reminder:
The economy is going to collapse and the Democrats response is "continue to try and win elections and make Trump as *toxic* as possible that he can't even endorse DeSantis in 2024."
These people are a joke that should be removed from power by any means necessary at this point.
Oh dam....did I suggest a coup? Am I an insurrectionist? What if I call the SCOTUS Illegitimate?
Joke. They are Maoists trying to brainwash the next generation of 20 somethings into GOP bad.....Dems good.
Their Democracy is under attack bull s*** started at the WAPO literally the day after Trump won. This has been their counter since that glorious November 2016 day.
They've parroted Democracy under attack like complete morons for over 6 years.
F them
Divorce is imminent. And it's all because they lost in 2016, and made up 67 genders. And chose it to be a hill worth dying on.
With apologies to @DRsGhost who I know works very hard at this, but this might be the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read. -
2 minutes ago, Doc said:
So since she was under oath, you sort-of believe that Trump lunged for the steering wheel while the car was moving? Or that there were AR-15s in the crowd because Trump never though there would be anyone there trying to hurt him (and really this is immaterial because there were no AR-15s at the Capitol, much less inside)? Because Trump is just crazy, right?
Again, all hearsay so she has cover if they miraculously allow the men in The Beast to testify. But again, they will not.
-
I believe that she believes Trump lunged for the steering wheel
- I am skeptical as to the truth of this as I would assume Trump sits at the back, not next to the driver. Unless he reached past the driver with his tiny little hands.
-
I believe that there were reports of AR-15s and other guns in the crowd.
-
I honestly have no idea as to the truth here. Seems like an AR-15 would be a difficult weapon to hide and they are so prevalent in our minds right now so people might just assume they see one.
- Could have been the stock of a carbine or not a gun at all but something that looked like one.
-
I haven't watched all of today's hearings but I would like to see a comparison between what was reported and what we have actual documentary evidence of.
- "Report of a man with a glock" is notable but very different from pictures or videos of someone with a glock or a confiscated glock.
- In any case, there were multiple reports of people in the crowd with guns, which is the fact she was testifying to.
-
I honestly have no idea as to the truth here. Seems like an AR-15 would be a difficult weapon to hide and they are so prevalent in our minds right now so people might just assume they see one.
-
It's not hearsay because this is not a court or a judicial hearing. The rules of criminal procedure do not apply.
-
However, if this were a court case against Trump:
- They would likely need testimony from someone inside the car to present that story to the jury
- Any testimony she had about what Trump actually said would be admissible as not hearsay under rule 801(2)(a)
-
However, if this were a court case against Trump:
If the men in the beast are so sure, they should offer to testify with no strings attached. If the committee refuses, they should be criticized for it.
6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:Serious question in all this silliness. Is the ultimate goal to make Trump less palatable to Republican primary voters in 2024?
Pretty sure Trump can handle that one all on his own.
The purpose is to create a record of what led to the events on January 6th. Despite what many on this board seem to believe, this committee has no ability to indict or prosecute anybody.
-
I believe that she believes Trump lunged for the steering wheel
-
1 minute ago, Doc said:
I did miss the "secondhand" part. But that doesn't make it any better because you should know better than to trust something that is secondhand. Or that sounds unbelievable. Which is why I mentioned the pee tape. Obviously that must have struck a nerve because I didn't address that post to you specifically.
When did I say I trusted it?
I said that secondhand sworn testimony is more trustworthy than something people say in the media.
If you had asked me, I'd say that I believe she believes she heard that, but not that I'd necessarily believe it was 100% accurate. I'd want more info from someone present who would testify under oath. Here is someone testifying under the penalty of perjury that she heard something. Was the thing that she heard actually true is another question.
Maybe it happened. Maybe the guy telling her exaggerated. Maybe one person interpreted it one way and another did another way. I do not know.
But what I do know is that people shooting their mouths off in the media are very difficult to believe over someone testifying under oath.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
This story wasn't even in the testimony I was recapping. Can you actually read? I'm beginning to think you're a bot trying to emulate the dumbest human being alive.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
I already offered him a bet around all the transcripts being released in full by September. The committee has already promised this apparently. He apparently believes them.
He declined the bet that would rid the board of me forever.
Because he's a coward.
You're so ***** dumb I'm amazed you're actually able to type on a keyboard.
"Debate me bro" "I'll put out this bet and if some rando on the internet doesn't accept, that means they're a loser."
JFC, get a damn life.
-
6 minutes ago, Doc said:
If I had a drink every time you said strawman...
Do you see the trick they pulled? I guess you missed it, but she said she heard this from someone (which is obvious because she wasn't/never would have been in The Beast at the time). If they were to bring people in to testify, with what could she be charged ? That's right, nothing. But they're not going to bring in the people who know her story is crap because it would be an incredible embarrassment to the J6 committee.
And please, save me the expected "I'm going to wait to see..." hope and fantasy stuff. Again I'll bet you they don't call them.
I literally said she heard it secondhand and then you say I missed that she heard it from someone else? Do you have reading comprehension problems?
You act like there are all of these people chomping at the bit to testify that the Jan 6th committee is wrong, but actually they all fall into the following categories:
- Fight subpoenas
- Plead the 5th
- Make demands that they know an investigative body would never accept
They know that people will eat it up when they talk to the media of the big bad Jan 6th committee but what they will never, ever, ever do, is actually testify under oath that what they are saying is true.
-
2 minutes ago, Doc said:
Bingo. But hey, they bought that there was a pee tape, so...
If I had a drink every time @Doc brought up a straw man, I'd have died a couple days after joining this board.
If she lied under oath, those that know she lied should come testify to that effect.
We are constantly demanding that everyone have an opinion about everything instantly all of the time about everything. She testified to a story under oath, but her testimony was secondhand. It should not be taken as an absolute fact. But because she was under oath, it should be given more weight than something said by someone who has no penalty for lying. I put my marker on "she is more believable than the keyboard warriors and media talking heads, but would be less believable than someone who witnessed it first hand also testifying under oath."
Once again, if she lied, someone who was there should testify to that effect.
-
1
-
1
-
This time we've got him! No really we do. We're serious. Adam Schiff has all the evidence..
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
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?