This time we've got him! No really we do. We're serious. Adam Schiff has all the evidence..

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, T master said:

 

As it should be every other NATO country should pay their own way. Before Trump came in the US was footing a much larger piece of the pie both in money & military every one has always had the US as the sheriff & that's not the way it should be !

 

If it's all for one & one for all then every one should put in equally have it mirror the NFL system in some way and that way they have everything equally split and no 1 country has the biggest burden weather it be militarily or monetarily .

In your scenario are we the New England Patriots? 😉

[T master]

4 hours ago, BillStime said:

🎯

 

 

 

As if the now numerous in the past & present Plagiarizing POTUS and the lying about "if you get the vaccine you won't get the virus & can't spread it" on national TV no less POTUS is any better ?? 

 

 

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

In your scenario are we the New England Patriots? 😉

 

Not quite . But if that's the way you see the meaning of my scenario so be it but that's not what i was implying at all .

[Doc]

15 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! 

 

That was meant to show that Trump is crazy.  It was stupid, but that was their goal.  Same with the "there were AR-15s at the rally" claim, which is immaterial because there weren't any outside the Capitol, much less inside.

 

10 minutes ago, T master said:

As it should be every other NATO country should pay their own way. Before Trump came in the US was footing a much larger piece of the pie both in money & military every one has always had the US as the sheriff & that's not the way it should be !

 

If it's all for one & one for all then every one should put in equally have it mirror the NFL system in some way and that way they have everything equally split and no 1 country has the biggest burden weather it be militarily or monetarily .

 

Yeah.  My point being that since Trump and the Repubs want all the countries to equally share it, the Dems will want the US to foot the entire bill.

[SoCal Deek]

13 minutes ago, T master said:

 

Not quite . But if that's the way you see the meaning of my scenario so be it but that's not what i was implying at all .

Keep your sense of humor T Master. None of this is, or should be, anything more than banter on a message board. 👍

[T master]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

That was meant to show that Trump is crazy.  It was stupid, but that was their goal.  Same with the "there were AR-15s at the rally" claim, which is immaterial because there weren't any outside the Capitol, much less inside.

 

 

Yeah.  My point being that since Trump and the Repubs want all the countries to equally share it, the Dems will want the US to foot the entire bill.

 

Got you !! 

[ChiGoose]

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.

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, T master said:

 

Yah great job Mr President pissing off our closest allie to the north by stopping the pipe line & them having them eat billions in product costs already built for the pipe line (selling it at scrap prices) then pissing off those countries that wanted the submarines built but couldn't because he screwed the pooch on that one .

 

Oh then don't forget how great a job he did when leaving Afghanistan pulling all military first then leaving all those innocent people there to face the taliban all by them selves oh yah & Putin probably only doing what he is doing because he knows the new POTUS has no balls to retaliate ah great foreign policy there Mr P !

 

If the expanding of NATO is a good thing & we don't have to pay for every body elses NATO bill or defend whoever else then it might be a good thing but i'm thinking we will probably wind up paying more than most others just because the US is such a nice country ...

 

But 1 out of 10 ain't bad !! Keep up the good work Mr Biden  

Hello T Master, hope your day is a good one. Stronger NATO. Putin/Trump armies being chewed up and spit out. He got us out of the mess in Afgahistan and has let it be known to China that Taiwan is our friend and we are going to fight for our friends. 

 

Good job Mr. Biden! 

[B-Man]

55 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Her testimony shows:

• Trump did not care if there were weapons in the crowd    False
• Trump wanted to be with the people marching on the Capitol     False

 

 

 

Her testimony was that she heard this from her boss, who heard it from the Secret Service.

 

You know......................Hearsay.

 

 

.

 

[Doc]

Vindwoman also said that Mark Meadows sought a pardon.  Meadows denies it. 

[ChiGoose]

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.

[JDHillFan]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Hello T Master, hope your day is a good one. Stronger NATO. Putin/Trump armies being chewed up and spit out. He got us out of the mess in Afgahistan and has let it be known to China that Taiwan is our friend and we are going to fight for our friends. 

 

Good job Mr. Biden! 

People just don’t appreciate him. You need to start spreading the word. 

[JaCrispy]

19 hours 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?

This could be a blessing in disguise, for those of us who don’t want Trump to run again…

[BillStime]

Oh the cult is scared - only reason why these pathetic threads exist.

 

And…oh:

 

 

[B-Man]

19 hours 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?

 

 

Of course.

 

 

 

 

 

LOL.          But people will remember were they were when she testified decades from now.

 

[BillStime]

 

19 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Of course.

 

 

 

 

 

LOL.          But people will remember were they were when she testified decades from now.

 

 

👆🤣🤡

 

The cult is scared

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

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.

Unfortunately you’re wrong. Her testimony doesn’t show whether he wanted to be with the crowd to stop them or urge them on. Since the ONLY words we have from the President were to March peacefully….we have to assume he was intent on stopping the violence.

The End

[ChiGoose]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Unfortunately you’re wrong. Her testimony doesn’t show whether he wanted to be with the crowd to stop them or urge them on. Since the ONLY words we have from the President were to March peacefully….we have to assume he was intent on stopping the violence.

The End

 

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?

[SoCal Deek]

24 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

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?

Short answer….yes, you’re good. Nobody is guilty of a crime because you think you know what they’re thinking. Our system doesn’t work that way no matter how much you seem desperate that it does. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Of course.

 

 

 

 

 

LOL.          But people will remember were they were when she testified decades from now.

 

What a great segment by MK. Fair criticism of Trump’s actions, with a devastating takedown of the dem dog n pony show. 
 

 

[ChiGoose]

26 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Short answer….yes, you’re good. Nobody is guilty of a crime because you think you know what they’re thinking. Our system doesn’t work that way no matter how much you seem desperate that it does. 

 

For the record, I think an incitement charge against Trump has a big hill to climb.

 

But to claim that simply saying "peacefully" negates any other context or history around his other words and actions is laughable. That would be a loophole so big as to allow criminals to run wild. "I want you to go deliver a message to that other gang, but do it peacefully..."

 

Ultimately, in the real world (not the fabulous world of criminal conspiracies being impossible to prosecute that you seem to think we live in), this would be up to a jury to decide. As I said, I am not confident they would decide it against Trump, but to dismiss it out of hand is ridiculous. 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Unfortunately you’re wrong. Her testimony doesn’t show whether he wanted to be with the crowd to stop them or urge them on. Since the ONLY words we have from the President were to March peacefully….we have to assume he was intent on stopping the violence.

The End

 

"March peacefully" were the last few words he said in public. Were you behind the scenes before and after?

[Wacka]

Heard it from a friend who....

Heard it from a friend who....

Heard it from another you've been messing around.

 

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

For the record, I think an incitement charge against Trump has a big hill to climb.

 

But to claim that simply saying "peacefully" negates any other context or history around his other words and actions is laughable. That would be a loophole so big as to allow criminals to run wild. "I want you to go deliver a message to that other gang, but do it peacefully..."

 

Ultimately, in the real world (not the fabulous world of criminal conspiracies being impossible to prosecute that you seem to think we live in), this would be up to a jury to decide. As I said, I am not confident they would decide it against Trump, but to dismiss it out of hand is ridiculous. 

 

It doesn't matter.  Again Kinzinger, speaking on behalf of the J6 farce, er, committee, said that telling people to break into the Capitol isn't a crime.  They have zero evidence he even did that.  And he's on videotape saying "peacefully and patriotically."  If they heard something different, that's on them. 

[ChiGoose]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It doesn't matter.  Again Kinzinger, speaking on behalf of the J6 farce, er, committee, said that telling people to break into the Capitol isn't a crime.  They have zero evidence he even did that.  And he's on videotape saying "peacefully and patriotically."  If they heard something different, that's on them. 

 

Ah, gotcha. We should believe members of the committee when they say things we agree with, but they are a farce when they say something we disagree with?

 

As I've stated, I am skeptical that the DoJ would or could secure a guilty verdict of Trump on incitement. But they have shown plenty of evidence that he committed other crimes.

[BillStime]

Once again, we have Cassidy under oath.

 

 @Doc, @B-Man and @DerangedRhino only show tweets of unnamed sources and conspiracy theories that blow up in their faces ever single day.

 

 

[Doc]

30 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Ah, gotcha. We should believe members of the committee when they say things we agree with, but they are a farce when they say something we disagree with?

 

As I've stated, I am skeptical that the DoJ would or could secure a guilty verdict of Trump on incitement. But they have shown plenty of evidence that he committed other crimes.

 

There's nothing to believe.  He actually said it, in defense of Ray Epps not being criminally charged.  And no one on the J6 sham, er, committee refuted him.  I would expect consistency even if Trump had told them to do it, which he did not.  Or I'd expect Epps to be put in jail immediately.  Kinzinger unwittingly FUBAR'd the whole thing before it ever began.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Doc

[BillsFanNC]

 

[ChiGoose]

21 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

There's nothing to believe.  He actually said it, in defense of Ray Epps not being criminally charged.  And no one on the J6 sham, er, committee refuted him.  I would expect consistency even if Trump had told them to do it, which he did not.  Or I'd expect Epps to be put in jail immediately.  Kinzinger unwittingly FUBAR'd the whole thing before it ever began.

 

This is some real tinfoil hat *****.

 

I have a golf course in Scotland I'm selling if you're interested...

[Doc]

9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

This is some real tinfoil hat *****.

 

I have a golf course in Scotland I'm selling if you're interested...

 

Tinfoil hat *****?  LOL.  OK Chi. 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Tinfoil hat *****?  LOL.  OK Chi. 

 

The Ray Epps stuff is dumb as ***** because even if it was true, Trump would still have committed crimes. It's just a distraction from people drinking from the right wing conspiracy fire hose.

[Doc]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

The Ray Epps stuff is dumb as ***** because even if it was true, Trump would still have committed crimes. It's just a distraction from people drinking from the right wing conspiracy fire hose.

 

Hey, you can be naive if you want.  It's no skin off my nose.

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Hey, you can be naive if you want.  It's no skin off my nose.

 

Right back at ya.

 

Would be really embarrassing for you if there were tapes of Trump committing a crime.

 

Oh wait...

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Right back at ya.

 

Would be really embarrassing for you if there were tapes of Trump committing a crime.

 

Oh wait...

 

Let's see them.

[Wacka]

30 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

Midnight and the kitties are sleeping.....

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Let's see them.

 

Here ya go

 

Trump quote from around 51:45:

Quote

All we have to do, Cleta, is find 11,000-plus votes. So we don’t need that. I’m not looking to shake up the whole world. We won Georgia easily. We won it by hundreds of thousands of votes.

 

Around 1:01:17:

Quote

And the real truth is, I won by 400,000 votes. At least. That’s the real truth. But we don’t need 400,000 votes. We need less than 2,000 votes. And are you guys able to meet tomorrow, Ryan?

 

Here's the text of 52 U.S.C. 20511:

Quote

A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office—

     (1) knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for—

          (A) registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to register or vote;

          (B) urging or aiding any person to register to vote, to vote, or to attempt to register or vote; or

          (C) exercising any right under this chapter; or

     (2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—

          (A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or

          (B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,

shall be fined in accordance with title 18 (which fines shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31), notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

 

So we have Trump on the record saying he won by 400,000 votes but asking the Secretary of State of Georgia to just add about 11,000 votes because that's what he needs to win.

 

If Trump truly believed that he won by 400,000 votes, that is a crime.

 

[Doc]

That's it?  But no charges because the DoJ is inept or too scared, is that right?

[ChiGoose]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

That's it?  But no charges because the DoJ is inept or too scared, is that right?

Well there’s a grand jury in Georgia looking at it now. 
 

But I imagine that professionals would want to make sure they could absolutely prove their case before they make a Durham of themselves…

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Here ya go

 

Trump quote from around 51:45:

 

Around 1:01:17:

 

Here's the text of 52 U.S.C. 20511:

 

So we have Trump on the record saying he won by 400,000 votes but asking the Secretary of State of Georgia to just add about 11,000 votes because that's what he needs to win.

 

If Trump truly believed that he won by 400,000 votes, that is a crime.

 

Wait so they could have charged him with an obvious felony almost two years ago and just haven’t gotten around to it? 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Wait so they could have charged him with an obvious felony almost two years ago and just haven’t gotten around to it? 

Maybe you should look into how prosecutions work…

 

Also, there is currently a grand jury in Georgia looking at this. 

[716er]