Jump to content

The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection


Tiberius
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems like just yesterday folks like Pelosi and Schumer called edited videos, propaganda.  but in this case, an ABC produced edited video, is evidence?  in a kangaroo court?

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Seems like just yesterday folks like Pelosi and Schumer called edited videos, propaganda.  but in this case, an ABC produced edited video, is evidence?  in a kangaroo court?

 

It's only OK (to them) when they do it.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Wow, Trump can cause strokes now? Oh wait you are still over a year behind the times and believe he died from the riot.

Looks like it. He stirs up a violent mob and causes injuries that killed a cop. 

 

 

You could care less. You are proud of running cover for this garbage 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tiberius said:

Looks like it. He stirs up a violent mob and causes injuries that killed a cop. 

 

 

You could care less. You are proud of running cover for this garbage 

The coroner says that the riot has nothing to do with his death but I like facts, what are you basing your on?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

The coroner says that the riot has nothing to do with his death but I like facts, what are you basing your on?

mental illness

  • Agree 1
  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Looks like it. He stirs up a violent mob and causes injuries that killed a cop.

 

So did Dems in 2020.  Where is the committee on that? 

 

As for the cop, never happened.  You can't injure (and they didn't even do that) someone into a stroke caused by a blood clot.

Edited by Doc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

ROGER KIMBALL: 

The ‘Get Trump’ Show: It is never the pretext—-putative Russian collusion or protests at the Capitol—-that is at issue but rather the ontological unacceptability of Trump and all he stands for. 

 

“The Democrats went all-out with this entertainment. I cannot, however, pronounce it an unqualified success. Nor did the public, which mostly reacted with a yawn.”

 

Plus: “The January 6 Committee has taken up where the Mueller show left off. The great difficulty for both shows is their utterly incredible premises. Donald Trump did not ‘collude’ with Russia or kowtow to Vladimir Putin. With every passing month we know with greater clarity that that entire $34 million entertainment was cooked up by Hillary Clinton and her agents. Which is why former Attorney General Bill Barr, no friend of Donald Trump, just opined on Glenn Beck’s podcast that Clinton might be guilty of sedition in her covert attack on Trump. . . . It’s the same with the January 6 jamboree. The whole raison d’être of the January 6 committee is to show that Donald Trump colluded with various nefarious forces—in this week’s episode, it’s the paramilitary group called the Proud Boys—to stage a ‘coup’ and ‘overturn’ the 2020 election.

 

The problem is that the unruly protest at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was neither an ‘insurrection’ nor an attempted coup.”

 

https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/11/the-get-trump-show/

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

I am surprised it is Tibs and not Billstime using quotes like this. This is the whole quote "You can make the case, and I would agree, that he's politically, morally responsible for much of what has happened" he did not say Jan 6th and he was discussing the direction of the country 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Doc said:

Please, please, please try and indict Trump.  I dare you.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

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.

All very well said. So, Schumer is guilty as well then? No?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

All very well said. So, Schumer is guilty as well then? No?

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

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?

He publicly threatened Supreme Court justices….didn’t they cover that in Michigan?

  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...