Bob in Mich

Lenny, seriously? False pretense? He committed the acts that he was accused of at the impeachments and an unbiased jury would have had to convict him in both impeachment trials. And don’t claim Bill Barr as anything special. He was a complete Trump toadie his whole term but when things began to turn illegal he wisely bailed out. Barr is no one I trust. Having him under oath for these hearings made him significantly more trustworthy though Also, you seem to be all over the place when talking ‘political dirty tricks’. On one hand the pee tape talk (arguably a dirty trick) crippled Trump and that was unacceptably unfair in your eyes. On the other hand, if Trump can finagle 12,000 votes out of thin air, well that is just the game and how it is played. I would hope for more ethics all around here too but you are inconsistent here. There are political dirty tricks and there are acts way beyond a trick to the point it becomes a crime. Trump’s attempts to retain the office started out in the legal arena but when successive attempts failed he took things into the criminal realm, imo. To claim he was setting things up for the next election cycle has to be called ludicrous. Sorry Len but your blind spots have eclipsed mine

Weapons are not needed in some coups. Research auto coup https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6zjigTxfQ4

Yes, there is argument there. What you are describing, the Red Mirage, was discussed at length in today’s hearing. It is a phenomena that is well known - early returns will favor republicans and when the mail in ballots are counted, the Dems will gain ground. Trump was warned to expect this to happen. He deliberately ignored the warning and begun to claim this was suspicious. It was expected

Oh pulease! I find sometimes folks can’t admit the truth because they are too far dug in for far too long. I believe your desire to maintain your position has cost you your reasoning skills. Like I have told you before, you are a nicer guy than most here but you still wear the orange robe of the cult. Trump tried to stay in power when he knew he had lost. He was trying to disenfranchise millions of Biden voters. Do you recall that conversation with Raffensperger of Georgia? How in the hell could any American justify that attempt ? That is at the core of our country. There is no equivalency to legal impeachment proceedings. Had Trump been convicted, his running mate, Pence would take over. And quit with the unjust scrutiny angle. Trump has brought scrutiny on himself

There were recounts done in at least 3 of the contested states with Georgia doing more than one recount. In all cases where the votes were recounted, Biden’s win was confirmed. Do you realize why so many doubt the election results? The only reason is because they believe Trump’s accusations or those of his toadies. There has never been any substantial evidence shown, only Trump’s lie. There is no real doubt about any state results aside from the doubt Trump has planted. Today’s hearing had extensive footage of Bill Barr testimony. Watch it to see that he too told Trump there was no widespread fraud that would alter the results. Still Trump continued with this lie

No, election results may be predicted by news networks, but the official, signed-off results come from state election officials. It is their duty to certify results. In all of the states that Trump has contested, the election officials have stated that Trump lost in their states. It is not an unknowable ‘who gonna believe?’ issue.

Beach, thanks for the personal anecdote. Protests can be gratifying. If I had believed that the election was about to be stolen I might have gone out to protest too. The thing is, you need proof. Nearly every national election has its results determined by state election officials. This election many Trump supporters here want us to take the word of Trump over the sworn statements of those officials. If the shoe was on the other foot and today Biden was protesting his loss, would you take his word that he was robbed or would you demand evidence? I think it obvious the Jan6 date was chosen to allow protesters to delay certification. I don’t know who first announced that date but it was not just coincidental imo if you watched the first hearing you would have seen that the apparent plan had the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers starting the attack before Trump’s speech was even finished. These folks had the defined role to disrupt the proceedings and the masses that followed were largely just for cover, again, to my way of thinking. Beach, you needn’t have intended to disrupt but some protesters at the same event most certainly did

Deek, you have provided a possible explanation. I don’t believe it is the actual reason but thanks for the reply in my view Trump engaged in a multi-pronged attempt to invalidate the election in key states to try to stay in office. In order, he used court cases, the calls to the state election officials, and the meetings with state legislators all in unsuccessful attempts to overturn the votes. Jan 6 was a late game effort to push the key state elector decision back to state legislatures

Certainly some part of the hearings are done as political theater. I don’t believe though that the hearings have convinced me that Jan6 was an attempt to overturn the election. I have recognized that for a long time Have you any rational explanation for holding the J6 rally on a Wednesday morning other than to disrupt the recognition of electors?

Well, without naming names, almost all of the folks minimizing the seriousness of the J6 event or denying the intended goal of that event are essentially advocating that we ignore the central players’ guilt in orchestrating the event. They don’t want an investigation in my opinion because they don’t want further accountability

I am no lawyer but if what Schumer did is worthy of charging, then charge him. From what I know, those don’t seem like equivalent actions but if so, charge him See, that should be a simple decision. Those proven guilty should be punished. No asking what tribe he is in or what that would mean politically.

Ah-ha! Smoking gun!!! Lol

Well, if Schumer is guilty, go ahead and indict him. If there is proof of a crime, any person should be charged. What proof of what crime are you referencing?

You dare who? Go ahead and tell us the rest of your threat. I have not followed this thread closely so perhaps this has been asked already but, why was the Stop the steal rally scheduled on a Wednesday morning? Normally these type of events are held over a weekend but this one coincided with the Congressional procedures to recognize the state electors to facilitate transition, right? if taken alone the Jan 6 events could be, if one wanted to again give Trump the benefit of the doubt, just a rally that got out of hand. Of course if taken as part of the sequence of events that happened after Trump learned he lost the 2020 election, clearly this was yet another try at retaining power. Trump will never be convicted of anything in this political environment, imo. If proven to be involved with planning of the break in and interruption of the transition though, I think he should be indicted as that would be illegal. If not proven to be involved, he shouldn’t be indicted. Of course ‘proven’ is subjective and many who wear their orange robes are unable to fathom the leaders guilt in anything, so..... To advocate that he not be indicted when guilty would be to place him above the law.

Ever see this guy’s YouTube videos? He has some informative ones out there. Check out his take on why so many wonder whether or not to call the January 6th ‘event’ a coup. (One needn’t watch it all to get his take but the end of the video is worth watching too)

If we give Josh time in the pocket and keep him upright, we have an excellent chance of winning that game. So, my biggest concern is the ability of the offensive line to hold up and weather an injury or two.

Organ donor?

What about the long snapper? Could he be the holder?

Barkley is doubtful imo because he will likely be QB3 and won’t be activated on game day

Playoff hockey is much more physical than regular season games. If the young Sabres somehow manage a playoff spot in the near future, where will the toughness come from? Any guys in the pipeline for those roles?

At the risk of re-igniting the anti Jack torches, I found this breakdown of the Trade interesting Here is “The Hockey Guy’s” analysis of the Eichel impact on Vegas. Hasn’t been too good. The only issue I have with his take is he should mention, imo, that sometimes these things can look different over time. So far though, Jack clearly has not paid off https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CD6LFJ3i0Ds

That was a good win. Most of the game it felt like the bounces and the momentum were not going our way. It was good to see them be able to turn that around. When watching the Sabres games, just for fun at the halfway mark into the first period, I will make my prediction for the final score. For quite a while, those predictions were pretty good. If we weren’t going that night, it was obvious right out of the gate. Later this season I was pleasantly surprised several times that they were able to overcome slow starts and turn the game their way. This is a very good sign, imo.

He don’t need no stinkin nickname! We should just kick back and let James Cook!

Hey man, you’re welcome. Initially I thought it was a generational take but then you made me realize it was maturity

Well, here is what I actually posted “While the Eichel shots here are understandable, It would be nice to see that fade away with a bit more time. “ Keep in mind too that trades take time to evaluate so you may not get the last laugh. Tage has shown that. Gloat away! Enjoy the moment! Live your life around hopes for Jack’s misery, if you wish. Based on replies I guess, for this group, I was wrong to point out that I thought we should start to move on. I am just of the opinion that failing to do so reflects poorly on Sabres fans. I could be wrong