January 6th 2021 FEDSURRECTION: The Corrupt Biden Regime: White House, FBI, DOJ, media, committee

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

He's been criticizing the committee for being completely one-sided.  Even you know it is.

 

1 hour ago, DRsGhost said:

 

The committee was picked fully and completely by democrats. Period.

 

The committee therefore has absolutely not in any way shape or form allowed anything other than what democrats want seen or heard.

 

I'd say the exact same thing if it was a committee wholly appointed by Republicans.  

 

So here is a place where I agree with Donald Trump: Kevin McCarthy completely misplayed the whole committee thing. Originally, it was going to be a bipartisan joint committee based on the 9/11 committee, but the GOP rejected that. So the next option was a House Select Committee. McCarthy suggested five names but Pelosi said two were unacceptable, though she would accept the other three. McCarthy withdrew all of the names instead.

 

If you're mad that there aren't enough Republicans on the committee, you have nobody to blame but the Republicans.

 

But this claim that the committee is one-sided is true, but not in the way you argue. The reality is the committee's story is the story of the people willing to testify under oath. The opposing side that I see brought up here is only supported by people who refuse to testify under oath, or if they do, they either say something completely different than what they are saying in public or they just plead the 5th for the entire interview.

 

These people talk a big game when there is no penalty for lying and then fight tooth and nail to avoid testifying. Even those that publicly claim they would testify generally either don't follow up on it or make demands they know that no investigative body would agree to (that way they can convince the rubes like @DRsGhost that it's all a big witch hunt when in reality they're saving their own ass from a perjury charge).

 

Almost every single witness has been a Republican. And most of them are people who were still working for Trump at the end of his tenure. Which is to say, these people saw everything the Trump administration was doing over the previous three years and felt that it would be good to be a part of that. Additionally, almost all of them owed their jobs to Trump. Were he to lose the election, they would soon become unemployed. They had every incentive to want to believe that Trump did nothing wrong and that Trump had won the 2020 election.

 

So while I see it claimed here that this is just a Dem committee doing Dem things, in reality it's a committee mostly (but not entirely) of Dems taking in sworn testimony from Republicans. It's not the Dem story vs the GOP story, it's the story of people who will testify under oath versus those who won't.

 

Quote

It has? Link?

 

Again, anything that even questions the mainstream media narrative and your auto response is..

 

Grifter! Debunked! Fake! Ban them!

 

You're a clown. 

 

The second committee hearing featured sworn testimony from Trump's DoJ, Trump's WH lawyers, and Trump's campaign that Trump lost the election, there was no widespread fraud and that conspiracy theories like 2,000 Mules were investigated and debunked.

 

Barr on 2,000 Mules

 

He also testifies about the other theories, debunking them as well. His testimony begins around the 53:15 mark of the second hearing.

 

We also have sworn testimony from WH Lawyer Eric Herschmann, Trump Campaign General Counsel Matt Morgan, Trump Campaign Manager Bill Stepien, Trump's Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, Counselor to the President Derek Lyons, Trump Campaign Lawyer Alex Canon, and Trump's Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue all testifying that they looked into the fraud claims and there was nothing there. All of that is just in the second hearing, so feel free to watch it there if you'd like.

 

These people, by and large, were handpicked by Trump and had a vested interest in him winning re-election. Because he lost, they were all shortly out of their jobs. They had every reason to want to find a way to say that Trump won. But when it came time to give sworn testimony, they said that Trump lost, and that they had investigated the claims that marks still throw around on internet forums and found them to lack merit.

 

If you still believe in stuff like 2,000 Mules, you've been taken for a ride by a conman. But do not worry, I am sure D'souza still has a promo code for some MyPillow products you can use to soothe yourself.

Edited July 6, 2022 by ChiGoose
Had Mike McCarthy instead of Kevin...

[Doc]

Just because it wasn't a bipartisan joint committee doesn't mean both sides shouldn't be fairly presented.  Especially when Republicans are on the committee.

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

Just because it wasn't a bipartisan joint committee doesn't mean both sides shouldn't be fairly presented.  Especially when Republicans are on the committee.

 

There are two republicans on the committee. Almost all of the testimony is from republicans. To make it truly bipartisan, they should get dems to testify.

 

As I've stated countless times before, the "other side" here isn't republicans, it's people who know they are lying so they are trying to avoid testifying under oath.

 

I would love for Mark Meadows to testify. But he won't, he's fighting testifying tooth and nail. Same for these other people. They talk a big game in the media because they can lie with impunity. But when push comes to shove, they do everything they can to avoid testifying.

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

 

So here is a place where I agree with Donald Trump: Kevin McCarthy completely misplayed the whole committee thing. Originally, it was going to be a bipartisan joint committee based on the 9/11 committee, but the GOP rejected that. So the next option was a House Select Committee. McCarthy suggested five names but Pelosi said two were unacceptable, though she would accept the other three. McCarthy withdrew all of the names instead.

 

If you're mad that there aren't enough Republicans on the committee, you have nobody to blame but the Republicans.

 

But this claim that the committee is one-sided is true, but not in the way you argue. The reality is the committee's story is the story of the people willing to testify under oath. The opposing side that I see brought up here is only supported by people who refuse to testify under oath, or if they do, they either say something completely different than what they are saying in public or they just plead the 5th for the entire interview.

 

These people talk a big game when there is no penalty for lying and then fight tooth and nail to avoid testifying. Even those that publicly claim they would testify generally either don't follow up on it or make demands they know that no investigative body would agree to (that way they can convince the rubes like @DRsGhost that it's all a big witch hunt when in reality they're saving their own ass from a perjury charge).

 

Almost every single witness has been a Republican. And most of them are people who were still working for Trump at the end of his tenure. Which is to say, these people saw everything the Trump administration was doing over the previous three years and felt that it would be good to be a part of that. Additionally, almost all of them owed their jobs to Trump. Were he to lose the election, they would soon become unemployed. They had every incentive to want to believe that Trump did nothing wrong and that Trump had won the 2020 election.

 

So while I see it claimed here that this is just a Dem committee doing Dem things, in reality it's a committee mostly (but not entirely) of Dems taking in sworn testimony from Republicans. It's not the Dem story vs the GOP story, it's the story of people who will testify under oath versus those who won't.

 

Hand waving. The committee was chosen by democrats. Period. The committee only releases the pieces of sworn testimony that they deem appropriate. Period.

 

In no fair and just universe will the above ever be a way to arrive at the truth.

 

Its a complete and total sham that you've swallowed hook, line and sinker.

 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

 

The second committee hearing featured sworn testimony from Trump's DoJ, Trump's WH lawyers, and Trump's campaign that Trump lost the election, there was no widespread fraud and that conspiracy theories like 2,000 Mules were investigated and debunked.

 

Barr on 2,000 Mules

 

Let's look at the one quote from Bill Barr in that piece that addresses the film.

 

"The cellphone data is singularly unimpressive," Barr added. "Basically, if you take 2 million cellphones and figure out where they are physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever, by definition, you're going to find many hundreds of them that have passed by and spent time in the vicinity these boxes. And the premise that if you go by five boxes or whatever it was, that that's a mule, is indefensible." 

 

You know what Bill? If that was the criteria used and the contention made in the film, then it would indeed be indefensible. But unfortunately it's not even close to what was presented in the film.

 

I'm in the position, unlike both you and Bill Barr apparently, where I've actually seen the film. So I actually know the data they presented and the criteria used to arrive at their data set. Crazy conspiratorial stuff I know!  

 

The truethevote people, as they said in the film multiple times, went out of their way to exclude false positives. They didn't want to include people who in the process of going about their daily lives happened to go by multiple drop boxes. In fact, you could have been identified as going to 500 drop boxes and you aren't in the data set. Why? Because you had to be identified as going to 10+ drop boxes and, and, AND!!!! 5+ stops at dem non profit organizations. 

 

So where did this criteria leave them in Atlanta?

 

Over a two week period:

 

242 people who on overage visited:

 

24 drop boxes

 

AND!!!!!!

 

8 democrat non profits.

 

Only an intellectually dishonest person can look at that and say ...nah that doesn't rise to the level of something stinks here.

 

So in the film they do some quick back of the napkin calculations based on the above..

 

242 mules × 24 average drop box visits x 5 ballots per drop box= 29k ballots. In a state decided by 11k votes.

 

Nowhere, absolutely nowhere in the film do they claim definitive proof of election fraud. They only present the data and argue that it supports further serious investigation. As it absolutely does.

 

There are 100s of pieces all over the internet like the one you cited here that claim to have debunked the film by building strawmen. I can do this indefinitely,  so what's your next one?

 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

He also testifies about the other theories, debunking them as well. His testimony begins around the 53:15 mark of the second hearing.

 

We are addressing 2000 Mules here so I'm not watching that one right now.

 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

We also have sworn testimony from WH Lawyer Eric Herschmann, Trump Campaign General Counsel Matt Morgan, Trump Campaign Manager Bill Stepien, Trump's Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, Counselor to the President Derek Lyons, Trump Campaign Lawyer Alex Canon, and Trump's Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue all testifying that they looked into the fraud claims and there was nothing there. All of that is just in the second hearing, so feel free to watch it there if you'd like.

 

Were any of them asked specifically about 2000 Mules, because that's what we are addressing here?

 

Or will we get that part of the testimony come September?

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

These people, by and large, were handpicked by Trump and had a vested interest in him winning re-election. Because he lost, they were all shortly out of their jobs. They had every reason to want to find a way to say that Trump won. But when it came time to give sworn testimony, they said that Trump lost, and that they had investigated the claims that marks still throw around on internet forums and found them to lack merit.

 

If you still believe in stuff like 2,000 Mules, you've been taken for a ride by a conman. But do not worry, I am sure D'souza still has a promo code for some MyPillow products you can use to soothe yourself.

 

 

Keep bringing your "debunkings" based on made up ***** that was never presented in the film. Keep proving that you're a clown.

[SoCal Deek]

45 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

There are two republicans on the committee. Almost all of the testimony is from republicans. To make it truly bipartisan, they should get dems to testify.

 

As I've stated countless times before, the "other side" here isn't republicans, it's people who know they are lying so they are trying to avoid testifying under oath.

 

I would love for Mark Meadows to testify. But he won't, he's fighting testifying tooth and nail. Same for these other people. They talk a big game in the media because they can lie with impunity. But when push comes to shove, they do everything they can to avoid testifying.

And here's where you have it all wrong. This is not about Republicans or Democrats.

[ChiGoose]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And here's where you have it all wrong. This is not about Republicans or Democrats.

 

Agreed. It's about who will testify under oath and who will not.

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Agreed. It's about who will testify under oath and who will not.

Sure it is.  If you use that three times in a sentence today, it'll be yours. 😉

[BillsFanNC]

Here it is @ChiGoose a clip directly from the film that specifically lays out the criteria and what data they pulled based on that criteria.  What Bill Barr and others have said doesn't come close to accurately representing what was put forth in the film. 

 

Amazing what you can learn about the the truth when you actually look at BOTH sides, isn't it?

 

Can't find these clips on YouTube by the way.  I wonder why?

 

https://rumble.com/v13wvx5-from-one-drop-box-to-another-to-a-nonprofit-to-another-drop-box-whats-up-wi.html

 

 

[716er]

Has the committee asked witnesses yet about 20000 Leagues Under the Sea? 

Edited July 6, 2022 by 716er

[ChiGoose]

19 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

Here it is @ChiGoose a clip directly from the film that specifically lays out the criteria and what data they pulled based on that criteria.  What Bill Barr and others have said doesn't come close to accurately representing what was put forth in the film. 

 

Amazing what you can learn about the the truth when you actually look at BOTH sides, isn't it?

 

Can't find these clips on YouTube by the way.  I wonder why?

 

https://rumble.com/v13wvx5-from-one-drop-box-to-another-to-a-nonprofit-to-another-drop-box-whats-up-wi.html

 

 

 

Ok, let's say this is right (and I don't think it is), and there were 242 people who went by drop boxes and these organizations:

 

1. What does that prove?
2. How did the "mules" defeat the verification procedures?

[Doc]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

There are two republicans on the committee. Almost all of the testimony is from republicans. To make it truly bipartisan, they should get dems to testify.

 

As I've stated countless times before, the "other side" here isn't republicans, it's people who know they are lying so they are trying to avoid testifying under oath.

 

I would love for Mark Meadows to testify. But he won't, he's fighting testifying tooth and nail. Same for these other people. They talk a big game in the media because they can lie with impunity. But when push comes to shove, they do everything they can to avoid testifying.

 

There are 2 never-Trump Repubs.  Pelosi rejected the non-never-Trump Repubs.  Is it any wonder people won't testify?

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Ok, let's say this is right (and I don't think it is), and there were 242 people who went by drop boxes and these organizations:

 

On what basis do you not believe that this is what came out of their data analysis?  Dinesh is a grifter? Geotracking technology isn't capable of it?  They made it all up?  You just don't want to believe it?

 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

1. What does that prove?
2. How did the "mules" defeat the verification procedures?

 

I guess you'll be shocked to learn that if you watched the film the above two points were indeed addressed.  The geotracking data which in many cases can be married to video evidence from surveillance cameras proves that there was a massive ballot trafficking scheme that took place in key areas of 5 swing states in the 2020 election.  The most secure election in US history mantra is proven to be complete garbage.  Does it prove that Trump actually won the election? No and they clearly state that in the film.  Could the ballot trafficking been enough based on the data they collected? Absolutely.  Signature verification procedures were not adhered to or completely done away with in some states like Pennsylvania.  Furthermore, even if they were looking at signatures, once a ballot is removed from it's envelope that contains the signature then there is no going back, the ballot is like very other ballot and there is no way to to determine if it was illegal or not.

 

The ground was fertile in 2020 for all of these shenanigans to take place when actual ballots and/or mail in ballot applications were sent out to corrupt voter rolls unsolicited. 

 

Let's recap:

 

Pre-2020: Bipartisan agreement that universal mail in ballots are a gargantuan invitation for widespread voter fraud.

 

2020:  Let's put in place massive mail in voting systems for the 2020 election, especially in swing states.  Because covid.

 

Post-November 2020:  This was the most secure election in US History.  Everywhere, everyday, all day.

 

Amazing how the messaging did a 180 overnight, isn't it?

 

You've been played massively.

 

 

[ChiGoose]

34 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

On what basis do you not believe that this is what came out of their data analysis?  Dinesh is a grifter? Geotracking technology isn't capable of it?  They made it all up?  You just don't want to believe it?

 

I am not a data scientist, so I am not able to determine the truth of what is being claimed. The reason I do not believe that this massive fraud happened is that Trump's DoJ, Trump's lawyers, and Trump's campaign looked into basically every crazy claim out there and were unable to find anything to corroborate the claims. It makes me dubious that someone like D'souza, a known hack and felon (until he got his pardon) found something that they all missed.

 

Most of the claims in the movie have also been debunked by other outlets, but given what I've seen you post here, I don't think you could be convinced by any outlet that made such claims.

 

Quote

I guess you'll be shocked to learn that if you watched the film the above two points were indeed addressed.  The geotracking data which in many cases can be married to video evidence from surveillance cameras proves that there was a massive ballot trafficking scheme that took place in key areas of 5 swing states in the 2020 election.  The most secure election in US history mantra is proven to be complete garbage. 

 

So where are the arrests? If the data is that good, they can easily identify who these people are. Follow their data back to the place the return home to every night. If it is a massive fraud against the United States and we have this kind of detailed evidence, why has nobody been arrested? Is literally every law enforcement agency in the country part of the big Dem cabal?

 

Quote

You've been played massively.

 

I guess I could just be smarter and give my money to D'souza and then maybe buy myself a nice set of pajamas using his promo code. That'd be the smart guy thing to do and definitely not the thing someone who fell victim to a grift would do.

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I am not a data scientist, so I am not able to determine the truth of what is being claimed. The reason I do not believe that this massive fraud happened is that Trump's DoJ, Trump's lawyers, and Trump's campaign looked into basically every crazy claim out there and were unable to find anything to corroborate the claims. It makes me dubious that someone like D'souza, a known hack and felon (until he got his pardon) found something that they all missed.

 

Many of the Trump lawyers claims were denied their day in court on standing,  not because any court ever took a case and seriously considered the evidence.  Take note that there will never be sufficient time between a Presidential election and inauguration day to litigate through the courts to prove anything.  That's why there were laws in place to have secure elections in order to prevent these kinds of issues happening in the first place...but instead we got laws being changed unconstitutionally.  You seem to be fine with all of it in 2020, but don't complain when the shoe is inevitably on the other foot. 

 

D'souza isn't a data scientist either.  Because of that he didn't collect or analyze any of the data presented in the film.  But you already knew that.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Most of the claims in the movie have also been debunked by other outlets, but given what I've seen you post here, I don't think you could be convinced by any outlet that made such claims.

 

 

You've read theses debunkings and you are the guy who is level headed and open to only seeking the truth, right?  Show your work then.  You posted Bill Barr laughing at the claims and I specifically showed that he knew nothing of what the movie actually showed on a key central point to their overall claim.  I wasn't convinced by that one because he was demonstrably incorrect in his analysis.  Bring me more and show me where the film has been debunked.

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

 

So where are the arrests? If the data is that good, they can easily identify who these people are. Follow their data back to the place the return home to every night. If it is a massive fraud against the United States and we have this kind of detailed evidence, why has nobody been arrested? Is literally every law enforcement agency in the country part of the big Dem cabal?

 

Again if you had actually watched the film then you'd know that they have indeed met with law enforcement with their data.  Let's just say that the wheels of investigation/justice tend to move like molasses for some reason....

 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

 

I guess I could just be smarter and give my money to D'souza and then maybe buy myself a nice set of pajamas using his promo code. That'd be the smart guy thing to do and definitely not the thing someone who fell victim to a grift would do.

 

Again with falling victim to grifters and charlatans? 

 

Dude you literally keep telling everyone that we need to wait on an exclusively democrat appointed committee to tell us what the truth is.  Politicians regardless of party are the absolute least trustworthy people in America.  Poll after poll confirms this.  And I'm the one who has fallen victim to a grifter?  You are on here daily telling everyone that you are waiting for the biggest grifters known to man to lead us to the truth. 

 

How about Catherine Englebrecht and Gregg Phillips?  You know the actual people who gathered and analyzed the data.  What do you got on them?

Edited July 6, 2022 by DRsGhost

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Doc]

How corrupt.  Shocker.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 7/6/2022 at 4:47 PM, ChiGoose said:

 

So where are the arrests? 

This question comes up a lot these days, on all sides of these debates.  It’s a fair question, just about always. 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

January 6 Committee Has Convinced Most Republicans That They Are Not Investigating an 'Insurrection'

 

 

As many have noted, the sole purpose of the bizarre clown show that is the January 6 Committee is political warfare.

 

It was designed by the Democrats to try to keep Donald Trump on the ballot for 2022 and 2024. It was a tool the Democrats thought could slander GOP politicians who wouldn’t “condemn” President Trump and his supporters and help them win elections.

 

The corrupt political agenda of this committee was telegraphed from its inception when Nancy Pelosi vetoed House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s appointments to the committee because they were not the stump-broke Republicans Pelosi needed. 

 

Things are not working out all that well.

 

A new Monmouth University poll carries some stark lessons for the work that lies ahead for the House Jan. 6 committee, to the extent that the panel seeks to convince conservative Americans that Trump committed a crime that day. That’s because they increasingly don’t even believe what happened that day — and what they formerly accepted as reality — actually happened.

 

The poll shows significant reductions in the percentages of Republicans who characterize Jan. 6 not just as an “insurrection” but also a “riot.” And it’s not the first to point in that direction.

 

The poll asked people in June 2021 and June 2022 whether each of those labels were appropriate descriptors for what transpired on Jan. 6, 2021. And the GOP shifts are pretty uniform:

 

While 33 percent of Republicans said in June 2021 that Jan. 6 was an insurrection, that number is now just 13 percent.

 

While 62 percent of Republicans called it a “riot” back then, that’s down to 45 percent.

 

While 47 percent said it was a “legitimate protest,” that’s now up to 61 percent.

 

So whereas more Republicans once said it was a “riot” than a “legitimate protest,” by a 15-point margin, that has been flipped, with Republicans favoring the “legitimate protest” label by 16 points. A majority of Republicans no longer even regard Jan. 6 as a “riot.”

 

 

https://redstate.com/streiff/2022/07/08/january-6-committee-has-convinced-most-republicans-that-they-are-not-investigating-an-insurrection-n591022

 

 

[BillsFanNC]