ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,261 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
6 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
So does it all boil down to is it a crime to ask somebody to break the law regardless of the fact they either refuse or don't commit the act?
It is a crime for more than one person to plan to commit a crime and then for at least one of them to take an act towards that purpose. A plan to overturn the election where one member of the group actively pressures people to take illegal actions meets a prima facie case under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Additionally, the recorded phone call to Raffensperger meets the elements of GA Code § 21-2-604 (2016).
-
9 minutes ago, Demongyz said:
If we can find Trump caused the violence and tried to overthrow the government, great, other than that it's business as usual.
I would certainly hope that the President of the United States committing a crime on a recorded phone call isn't "business as usual." Otherwise, Nixon really got screwed.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Demongyz said:
Yeah, I think we all saw that happen in real time. The FBI conducted an investigation.
Why does this matter again?
We know Trump and his band of clowns came up with all sorts of trash to try to claim the election was stolen. He went to court and never once did they allege any voter fraud. He's full of ***** and he knows it. He planned a rally outside the capital on 1/6. He told people to go to the capital and peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard. Now, where did he organize the riot? What language said by Trump caused them to attack the police and break into the capital?
There is no meat here.
The only thing Trump caused to happen in all of this is for Georgia to have had enough of his trash and they elected 2 Dems to the Senate.
Honestly, if the Dems want to make sure Trump can't be president again, they should focus on their jobs and perhaps let Trump speak. That seemed to work last time.
It's not just the violence on January 6th, it's everything that led up to it as well.
We now have Trump on tape committing a crime.
We also have sworn testimony about people within Trump's orbit taking actions they knew were illegal.
I would say that matters.
-
1
-
-
I've been busy, so I didn't get a chance to finish watching this until this morning. Hopefully won't take as long for today's hearing.
RECAP
Rusty Bowers (GOP Speaker of the Arizona House):
- Wanted Donald Trump to win a second term of office, but Joe Biden won the election in Arizona
- Despite Trump’s assertions otherwise, Bowers never told Trump that he won the election nor that the election was rigged.
- Rudy called Bowers saying that he had proof of fraud, including illegal immigrants and dead people voting. Bowers asked for the evidence but Rudy never provided it.
- Rudy wanted Bowers to hold an official committee meeting to remove the electors and replace them with Trump electors. Bowers told them that they were asking him to violate his oath.
- Bowers asked Rudy and Jenna Ellis for the names of people who voted illegally, but they never provided any evidence.
- Giuliani: “We have lots of theories but we don’t have any evidence”
- Nobody every provided Bowers with evidence of fraud to question the outcome in Arizona
- John Eastman told Bowers to decertify the electors but Bowers replied that this would violate both his oath to the constitution and to the state of Arizona
-
Bowers has received 20,000 emails and 10,000 voicemails and texts. On Saturdays, groups will come by his home with video panel trucks and blaring loudspeakers proclaiming him to be a pedophile, pervert, and corrupt. This was when his daughter was gravely ill and living with him.
- One man had a shirt with three bars on it, carried a pistol and threatened his neighbor.
Brad Raffensberger (Secretary of State of Georgia):
- Wanted Donald Trump to win the 2020 election, but Joe Biden won.
- Ballots were counted three times: scanned, hand recount, and scanned again. All results were consistent.
- 28,000 Georgians skipped the presidential election and voted down ballot.
- The GOP congressmen got 33,000 more votes than Trump.
- Trump claimed that 5,000 dead people voted and filed lawsuits that 10,315 did, but the actual number was four.
- Trump claimed that there were 66,000 underaged voters, but the actual number was zero (17-year-olds can register so long as they will be 18 by election day).
- Trump claimed 2,424 non-registered people voted: actually zero
- Trump claimed 2,056 felons voted but it was really fewer than 75
- Raffensberger offered to send Trump a link to the entire election counting video that would disprove his claims but Trump responded that he didn’t need it since he had a “better” link.
- Trump (audio from phone call): The real truth is that I won by 400,000 votes at least. So what are we going to do here folks?”
- Trump (audio from phone call): “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state”
- Raffensberger was doxed and got threats from all over the country. His wife got threats that were sexual in nature. His daughter-in-law’s home was broken into.
- Raffensberger followed the law and the constitution. At the end of the day, Trump came up short.
Gabriel Sterling (COO in Georgia Secretary State of Georgia: in charge of voting systems and COVID voting):
- Received a call from a contact at Dominion who was audibly shaken. They were receiving threats.
-
On the claim of suitcases full of ballots:
- Investigated it and found it was normal ballot processing
- If you watch the entire video, the election workers were under the impression that they got to go home around 10pm so they were packing up and putting ballots to be counted into tamper proof containers. The election monitors were still there.
- The Secretary of State’s office called and told them to stay, and you can see the director slumping at his desk, not wanting to tell people they can’t go home. He tells them, and they take their coats off and resume counting.
-
On claims of double counting:
- Standard procedure for a miss-scan is to delete the count and rerun
- Any issues would be discovered during the manual tally
- Hand tallies can have a discrepancy of 1-2% but because of how Georgia runs elections, the hand tally was within 0.105% of the total votes cast and 0.0099% of the margin
Kenneth Chesebro (Trump Laywer) memo:
- Outlined a plan of competing slates of electors in the battleground states won by Biden. Then Pence can pick the Trump electors from those states.
Cassidy Hutchinson (Aide to Mark Meadows):
- Giuliani, Meadows, and some members of Congress were involved in the dual electors scheme
- White House counsel told them that the plan for alternate electors was not legally sound
Ronna Romney McDaniel (RNC Chair):
- Trump and Eastman called and told them it was important for the RNC to help with the dual electors.
Robert Sinners (Trump Campaign Staffer):
- We were useful idiots and rubes at that point [for working to get the dual electors]
- After hearing testimony from others on the campaign he was angry that nobody cared about putting people like him in jeopardy
- Would not have participated had he known the three main campaign lawyers were not on board
Laura Cox (Michigan Republican Party Chair):
- Was told the MI republican electors were planning to meet in the capitol and hide overnight so they could fulfill the law of casting their vote in the Michigan chambers
Documents from campaign:
- Electors had to cast ballots in secret
- Electors asked for the campaign to pay legal fees
- Fake electors signed certificates that they were the correct electors
- Wisconsin officials texted that the Trump campaign wanted someone to fly their fake electors docs to DC
- Staffer for Sen. Ron Johnson texted Pence staffer that Johnson wanted to hand deliver fake electors. Pence staffer said do not give them
Audio of call between Trump and Francis Watson (GA investigator):
- “I won by hundreds of thousands of votes. It wasn’t close”
- “Whatever you can do Frances it would be, it’s a great thing. It’s an important thing for the country, so important. You have no idea, it’s so important and I very much appreciate it.”
- “Do you think they’ll be working after Christmas, to keep it going fast? Because, you know, we have that date of the 6th, which is a very important date.”
Shaye Moss (Fulton Country department of registration and elections):
- In a decade of service, she had never received threats before
- Loved her job because she was told by her grandmother how important it was to vote and that people in her family didn’t always have that chance.
- Giuliani called out her and her mother as part of a scheme to run ballots through multiple times. This was not true
- Giuliani said they were passing around USB drives like cocaine. It was a ginger mint.
- Checked Facebook and there were a lot of death threats, telling her that she’ll be in jail with her mother. “Be glad it’s 2020, not 1920”
- Her mother, Ruby Freeman, helped with the election.
-
On Trump call to Raffensberger:
- “We had at least 18,000, that’s on tape, we had them counted very painstakingly, 18,000 voters having to do with Ruby Freeman, she’s a vote scammer, a professional vote scammer and hustler.”
- Moss: Felt it was her fault for wanting to be an election worker. Felt it was her fault to put her family in this situation where they were now getting threats
- Doesn't want anyone to know her name. She won’t go places with her mom in case she shouts her name. She won’t go out at all. Gained 60lbs. Second guess everything that she does. It has affected her life in a major way, all because of lies.
-
People showed up at her grandmother’s house. Grandmother called her screaming at the top of her lungs that people were at her home. They knocked on her door, she opened it and they pushed their way into the house claiming they were making a citizen’s arrest, looking for Shaye and her mom. Shaye had to tell her not to go out or answer the door
- At night, people would continually send pizzas over and over and she was expected to pay
- Nobody from the video is still a permanent election worker or supervisor. Shaye left her position.
Ruby Freeman’s recorded testimony:
- Used to wear a shirt with her name on it but now she won’t tell people her name. She’s worried about being identified or having to give her name in public. She’s lost her name and her sense of security
- Stayed away from her home for two months for her safety
- “There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere. Do you know how it feels to have the President of the United States target you? The President of the United States is supposed to represent every American, not to target on. But he targeted me, Lady Ruby, a small business owner, a mother, a proud American citizen who stands up to help Fulton County run an election in the middle of the pandemic.”
TAKEAWAYS:
This hearing mostly focused on the dual electors scheme and the threats made to the people involved in the elections. On the latter, I don't have much to say other than it's heartbreaking and that forcing people out of their jobs through threats and replacing them with the kinds of people making those threats is a danger to our country. Especially since those jobs are responsible for our elections.
On the dual electors scheme, it was clearly illegal, they knew it was illegal, and they tried it anyway. Some of the electors signed affidavits that they were the true electors. Those people should be prosecuted.
As to Trump himself, I've thought that Georgia has been his most pressing legal exposure and the evidence here definitely puts him in jeopardy. He is on the record saying he won the election by 400,000 votes but that he just wanted Raffensberger to add 11,800 to his tally. This is telling the Secretary of State to input a number he knows is false (because he thinks the real number is about 400,000 more) and meets the prima facie case for election fraud under Georgia law. That does not mean he will be indicted, or if he is, that he'll be found guilty, but this seems pretty clear to be a crime.
Finally, a lot of the pushback I've seen here on the hearing is that it is partisan because it's only the people who believe the Democrats. Given the actual witnesses, the two sides really seem to be who will testify under oath and who will not (which should give you a hint as to who is more believable). But most of the people testifying are Republicans that wanted Trump to win, people who worked to get Trump elected, or people appointed to their positions by Trump.
Here is the list of some of the witnesses and authors of documents so far:
- Jared Kushner
- Ivanka Trump
- Bill Barr
- Jeffrey Rosen (Acting Attorney General)
- Richard Donoghue (Acting Deputy Attorney General)
- BJ Pak (US Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia)
- Bill Stepien (Trump Campaign Manager)
- Jason Miller (Trump Campaign Senior Advisor)
- Matt Morgan (Trump Campaign General Counsel)
- Alex Cannon (Trump Campaign Lawyer)
- John Eastman (Trump Campaign Lawyer)
- Kenneth Chesebro (Trump Campaign Lawyer)
- Robert Sinners (Trump Campaign Staffer)
- Eric Herschmann (Trump White House Lawyer)
- Derek Lyons (Counselor to the President)
- Sarah Matthews (Trump White House Deputy Press Secretary)
- Mark Short (Pence's Chief of Staff)
- Greg Jacobs (Pence's General Counsel)
- Ben Williamson (Aide to Mark Meadows)
- Cassidy Hutchinson (Aide to Mark Meadows)
- Ronna Romney McDaniel (RNC Chair)
- Brad Raffensberger (GOP Georgia Secretary of State)
- Gabriel Sterling (GOP COO for Georgia Secretary of State)
- Shaye Moss (Georgia election worker)
- Ruby Freeman (Georgia election worker)
- Rusty Bowers (GOP Speaker of the Arizona House)
- Al Scmidt (GOP City Commissioner of Philadelphia)
- Laure Cox (Michigan GOP Chair)
- Ben Ginsburg (GOP Election Lawyer)
- Michael Luttig (Conservative judge)
- Chris Stirewalt (Fox News Politics Editor)
- Sean Hannity
And here are just some of the people the committee has subpoenaed that we haven't heard from:
- House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy
- Rep. Mo Brooks
- Rep. Ronny Jackson
- Rep. Andy Biggs
- Rep. Barry Loudermilk
- Rep. Jim Jordan
- Rep. Scott Perry
- Jeffrey Clark (Acting Assistant AG)
- Kenneth Klukowski (Senior Counsel to Jeffrey Clark)
- Mark Meadows (WH Chief of Staff)
- Christopher Liddell (WH Deputy Chief of Staff)
- Stephen Miller (WH Senior Advisor)
- Michael Flynn (National Security Advisor)
- Peter Navarro (WH Trade Advisor)
- Daniel Scavino (WH Deputy Chief of Staff for Comms)
- Judd Deere (Deputy WH Press Secretary)
- Kayleigh McEnany (WH Press Secretary)
- John McEntee (WH Personnel Director)
- Brian Jack (WH Director of Political Affairs)
- Kash Patel (Chief of Staff to Def. Sec.)
- Nicholas Luna (Trump's Personal Assistant)
- Molly Michael (Special Assistant to the President)
- Max Miller (WH and campaign staffer)
- Keith Kellogg (Pence's National Security Advisor)
- Steve Bannon
- Jenna Ellis (Trump Campaign Attorney)
- Boris Epshteyn (Trump Campaign Strategic Advisor)
- Angela McCallum (Trump Campaign National Executive Assistant)
- Sidney Powell (Trump Campaign Lawyer)
- Michael Roman (Trump Campaign Director of Election Day Ops)
- Gary Michael Brown (Trump Campaign Deputy Director of Election Day Ops)
- Robert Peede Jr. (Met with Trump on Jan 4 to plan rally)
- Kimberly Guilfoyle
If this was truly just a partisan witch hunt, any of these people could accept the invitation to testify and blow up the entire narrative of the Jan 6th committee. But most of them are fighting as hard as they can to avoid testifying under oath for some reason...
-
3
-
2
-
1 hour ago, Doc said:
Let me answer for them: "the DOJ is scared/incompetent/not as powerful as a committee of Senators..."
Unlike a Congressional committee, the DoJ has the ability to deprive us of life, liberty, and/or property. They have VERY different standards, and they should.
-
Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Yes, I understand that and have factored that into my analysis. I'd invite you, if you were so inclined (I believe you are not)to find any place in my posts where I declared DJT or anyone else innocent of anything. How the heck would I know?
What I can state emphatically and with purpose, is that the lack of criminal charges does not suggest that Trump is guilty of anything. I can also state, emphatically and with purpose, that simply because there is a political hearing of this nature that criminal charges are imminent or pending.
Still, when Tibsy is screaming in my ear that I stood with the Crown in 1776 among many other purported transgressions, and lobs accusations without source documents, I feel I am the aggrieved party.
Oh, for sure, I was not claiming you made such a statement about Trump's innocence. Just wanted to provide clarity on why we may not have seen more serious indictments yet.
A lack of charges at this stage obviously does not imply that Trump is guilty, but it also does not ensure that he isn't, given the length of these type of investigations.
I do not think the DoJ would rely on a congressional committee on whether or not to investigate or charge someone. They may find that the testimony provides color to what they already have, but by no means are they waiting for the committee to tell them who to indict. They have even rejected some of the committee's requests for prosecution.
The way that I look at it is that the DoJ has an investigation but it is generally under wraps because it is a law enforcement agency so even leaking that they are investigating someone is harmful to that person's reputation even if charges are not ultimately filed. The Jan 6th hearings can give us some insight into what the DoJ *might* be considering since they should have similar evidence (though they do not have as many teeth to get cooperation that the DoJ does).
-
4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Ok Tibs, this seems like a good time to ask.
Andrew Rainbow sends out a tweet referencing a film crew purported to have evidence that makes Watergate look like jaywalking. Wouldn't that particular stunning development that proves criminality on the part of DJT have been shared with the DOJ, FBI etc? Wouldn't they act on that?
Why all the cloak and dagger here? The VCR film screening, the dramatic build up? It sounds like more 1/6 flat earth truther material, no? Or, are is the thinking that the film crew is actually part of the cabal? Are they in on it, and the DOJ couldn't break them, so they put Schiffty on it?
Something to keep in mind is that DoJ investigations are generally fairly slow. Remember that Durham was appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the Russia probe in May 2019 but didn't indict Sussman until September 2021, more than two years later.
Given the sheer size of the January 6th inquiry and the difficulties with potential prosecutions of members of the Executive Branch, a lack of indictments at this time does not necessarily imply that there were no crimes by higher ups, even as high as Trump.
We're mainly in "wait and see" mode to see where it leads. That's why I find the hearings helpful because, unlike before, we are getting actual sworn testimony now. It's not just people talking to the media where they can lie as much as they want.
-
2
-
-
I'm not sure it matters too much if Trump's endorsed candidates don't win if the candidates that do win are still incredibly Trumpy and believe the Big Lie.
-
30 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Some folks love the wonkiness of all that stuff. I'm just not one of those people.
Fair enough, it's not for everyone. Personally, I love the wonkiness.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
When charges are brought under the more (hopefully) rigorous standards associated with our criminal justice system, I'm happy to revisit these and any other alleged activities. In the interim, I have precious little interest in watching political politicians politicking politically under the rules and guidelines of congressional committees.
You've mentioned along the way that there are difference aspects to these committee hearings, including one that's looking at the lack of security that day. That was pretty clearly a problem (though Colbert's puppet team people Mission Impossibled the %$#@ out it too) imo, but it seems to me that to get to the bottom of that, the last thing I would want to see is a bunch of amateurs long on wind and short on experience trying to figure anything out at all. I realize it's done, it just seems silly to me.
They've honestly been pretty good about keeping the chatter from the committee members to a minimum. The first 10-15 minutes are meh. but the rest is very tightly focused on the witnesses. Each session starts with statements from Thompson, Cheney, and whoever is leading the questioning that day. After that, it's almost entirely testimony from the witnesses, video from recorded testimony from other witnesses, with just a bit of context added by staffers.
Though in yesterday's session, Schiff was leading the questioning so I just zoned out during the opening statements and played Civ IV until the questioning actually started.
-
27 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I think a president (senator, congressperson etc) is afforded protection under rules and guidelines that are different than those that apply to regular folks like you and me. Some of those protections are the result of the laws on the books, some are due to political affiliation and the power structure in Washington (or any state in the Union) at given point in time.
I do not think that "trying to steal an election" is done by everyone. I've never attempted to steal an election. To my knowledge, @B-Man has never tried to steal an election. I don't believe you have attempted to steal an election, Tibsy. I could go on but while I don't know everyone, I know more than a few somebodies.
They are afforded extra leeway under the speech and debate clause, but that's really only applicable in the course of legislative debate.
I haven't finished watching yesterday's hearing (didn't get a chance to start until 9pm), but what I saw is testimony that directly ties Trump to the fake electors scheme. That potentially could constitute fraud or other crimes. But I agree that the political structure (not the law) is what protects Trump here.
5 minutes ago, BillStime said:But you're ok with Conald stealing an election...
"Conald" is a bit juvenile.
-
3 minutes ago, T master said:
What ever the amount that his 53 or so (29 + in the very first day) executive orders he signed in the first 100 days in office which is the highest in history .
I didn't actually read the orders so i don't know exactly which ones but if one would depend on the lame stream media to actually report about those particular actions we are being foolish & if one thinks that the price of fuel can over yes OVER double in the short time this man has been in office & he had absolutely nothing at all to do with it then they are a dam fool .
It just really strikes me as very strange that this administrations & it's clean energy agenda with change to electric vehicles is coinciding with this fuel price hike coincidence i think not but you go ahead & believe that Putin, Covid & the other reasons they spew are it.
I'll wait to see the BS uncovered like it was when Biden went on national TV & said & i quote "If you get the vaccine you cannot get or spread covid you are completely protected" which just gives me all the more reason to not believe this lying POS !!
Then there is this stuff that helps their stance why all the sudden why now ??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDOI-uLvTnY&t=2s
But i know none of this will make any sense to those that believe Biden is doing a great job .
I don't think Biden is doing a great job, but the argument that Biden has hampered US production of oil does not match the fact that our current domestic output is near historic highs.
Like I've said, there are multiple reasons why the price has skyrocketed and none of them are easily solved in the short term. There isn't much the president can do to make a big impact on prices in the short term.
-
24 minutes ago, Doc said:
Of course he did. I'm just surprised it isn't for 5 months...
Probably just to cover the summer, where there is more driving, and therefore more demand on gas.
-
2 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:
Humans are the salt, my man. 8 billion grains of salt all over this cube and rising.
The only thing we can do to help the Earth now is to leave it. That's why we're trying to find other habitable planets. Time to spread out again.
Again?
-
4 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
https://nypost.com/2022/03/09/why-biden-energy-policies-have-contributed-to-surging-oil-prices/
“It would have an immediate psychological impact on price,” Flynn said – noting a Keystone reboot announcement that would bring oil from the tar sands of Canada could knock off up to $10 from the price of oil just at the stroke of a pen, even if the pipeline were years away from production
You’ve got diplomacy on Ukraine. You’ve got diplomacy with Iran. Now you’ve got diplomacy with Venezuela,” Kloza said. “You know, it might be advisable to have some diplomacy with oil and gas companies.”
I'm sure it would have marginal impact on prices for something like that, but I'm not going to take the word of an oil industry exec arguing that the government should help his company as gospel.
Just a quick glance ate oil prices versus gas prices shows that in July, 2018 the price of oil was about $165 per barrel and gas was $4.11. In May 2022, the price of oil was $115 and the price of gas was $4.55. So even with oil being $50 cheaper per barrel, gas is $0.44 more expensive than it was during that peak.
So even if Biden gave a full throated endorsement of more drilling and domestic production, it may only move the needle a little in the short term.
Sources:
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, T master said:
So then it's all Putin & Covid that has made the price since Biden took over & has nothing to do with his executive orders to change what was which is the reason that it has OVER doubled the price in 2 yrs ?
No, it's not all Putin and COVID, though those do impact it. It's also not likely to be domestic oil production:
(Source)
There's no silver bullet for gas prices as the current prices are driven by multiple factors. It's just hard to argue that it's primarily driven by domestic production since that's still near historic highs.
This is why I do not believe there is a short-term solution. The US President cannot sign an order that fixes supply chain issues, eliminates price gouging, immediately increases production, and ends the war in Ukraine. A gas tax holiday is like spitting on a fire.
That's also why I think we should be focused on more medium to long term solutions. If we cannot fix this problem immediately, let's work to make sure it doesn't happen again.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, T master said:
All the ones that stopped domestic oil & natural gas drilling that would be a great start .
The timeline to bring new oil production online would not impact current prices. Additionally, there are thousands of permits already that are not being used. The government can issue as many permits as it wants, but if the oil companies don't drill, it won't do anything.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, T master said:
Just remove his executive orders that he did to stop all the things that were working before he took office & it would help but he couldn't do that because it wouldn't be part of what he is trying to accomplish .
Which executive orders should he revoke?
-
3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Seems like more rain in some areas, also. Warmer air holds more moisture and that means larger rain and snow events
From what I've seen, the Great Lakes basin will be least affected while the west will have more frequent wildfires and the south will have reduced crop yields.
There are some informative maps here: https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
-
1
-
-
I find this chart from The Economist to be helpful when trying to gauge some of the macro trends of climate change.
It's not that all places will always be warmer all of the time; it's that, on average, places will generally be warmer. Additionally, our current extreme heat events will become more common and we will begin to experience even worse heat events.
Sure, there will still be snow in the winter (though there may be less) and we will still have some nice weather in the spring and fall, but overall we are going to see more droughts, wildfires, heatwaves and other events that will negatively impact our crops, wildlife, and our lives.
-
Quote
Right now, the federal government charges an 18 cent tax per gallon of gasoline and a 24 cent tax per gallon of diesel. Those taxes fund critical highways and public transportation, through the Highway Trust Fund. But in this unique moment, with gas prices near $5 a gallon on average across the country, President Biden is calling on Congress to suspend the gas tax for three months...
Personally, I think this is a bad move. I do not think that most consumers will feel the impact of the gas tax holiday as the savings are more likely to be gobbled up by middlemen than passed down to customers.
I get that the president of the US has very few options to affect gas prices in the short term, but I would rather see strong investments in medium to long term plans to alleviate our reliance on gas indefinitely than a short term band aid that's more likely to help the gas companies than consumers.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:
Reading comprehension is your friend. Someone said only Republicans fall in line behind a specific leader and that if you openly criticize Trump, you’re an outcast. The same is 100% true of the Democrats with Obama….clear enough for you? The two major political parties are very much alike….even for those like you who choose to live in your DNC party line hypnotic fantasyland.
I don’t think that’s regularly true of either party. Hillary had detractors in the Dems and Biden can’t go a week without being called out by the far left for something.
I don’t think the GOP had a cult of personality around Bush or Romney, but there is something about Trump that ignites a fanatical base. The current party seems to be that you’re either fully supporting Trump or you’re a RINO. There is no actual policy, there is only Trump.
It’s definitely not true of all Republican voters, but it is with enough of them to drive the party and I don’t think it’s healthy.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
My problem with the perjury angle here is that every single witness testifying supports the States case.
I think this is important but not in the way you may agree with.
The committee wants testimony from those who publicly disagree but they refuse to testify. If it is all a partisan hack job, then they should testify and completely blow up the committee’s narrative, but they are doing everything in their power to avoid that.
Not to mention that any time one of them has been under oath, the do not say the same things they say publicly. They evade, plead the fifth, or admit everything said publicly was a lie.
And so far, basically every witness has been a Republican and many were very invested in Trump winning. They aren’t having the AOC’s of the world testify, they are getting Trump’s actual campaign manager, Ted Cruz’s mentor, and even the guy behind the plan to have Pence not certify the vote.
At what point does it start to seem that those publicly arguing against the committee’s case but privately telling a different story are acting in bad faith?
-
9 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
You are attempting to argue with the poster previously known as Deranged Rhino, or the poster currently spewing Deranged Rhino’s nonsense under the moniker DR’s Ghost.
Oh thank god. I thought DR stood for doctor and I was really worried we had someone dispensing medical advice without a brain.-
1
-
Recap of Fourth Jan 6 Hearing
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I think this is a somewhat helpful analogy. I would like you to consider the following addition:
They bounce ideas around and the attorney tells them one of the ideas is illegal. They keep pushing on it and the lawyer continues to respond that it is illegal and they have no basis for it. Afterwards, members of the board take actions pursuant to that idea they had been told was illegal.
What happens then?