Jump to content

January 6th Committee Hearings Thread of Dominance

Longhorn_Fan68

By Longhorn_Fan68
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Born to Run

Born to Run 6569

Posted
Posted
YEP.  This is why the in laws are flabbergasted when we tell them things about dotard and the GOP.  Their immediate reaction is "no way that happened" because their only news source is Fox.  They try to claim it's not, but it 100% is.  MIL strangely "doesn't watch Fox News", but has every single moron talking point ready to go at a moment's notice.  
This is my mom. She doesn't watch FN, but her neighbors do, as does the local news director, the local paper crew and of course Uncle Fwd Fwd: and all the idiots on Facebook. And those "I did that" Joe Biden meme are Fire.
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Chuckie Finster
Chuckie Finster
Pig Bellmont
Pig Bellmont
Make em eat Taco Bell
Make em eat Taco Bell

this is really boring and overhyped.  Most of the country doesn't care about topic, I'd say a 3 hour special on inflation would get more eyeballs.  Or a bikini contest. 

Posted Images

WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28781

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

YEP.  This is why the in laws are flabbergasted when we tell them things about dotard and the GOP.  Their immediate reaction is "no way that happened" because their only news source is Fox.  They try to claim it's not, but it 100% is.  MIL strangely "doesn't watch Fox News", but has every single moron talking point ready to go at a moment's notice.  

My mom has fallen into the Fox hole. She’ll be quick to tell you just how many times Bill Clinton flew with Jeffrey Epstein. She admits to hearing “Judge Jeanine” snarl “Demon rats!” and didn’t change the channel thinking ‘this isn’t a news network.’ I once casually mentioned that David Koch was worth $50 Billion when he died and he thought high taxes and over regulation were a problem for him. She interjected, “What about George Soros?!” I just had to laugh at her.

This is another phrase that came out of her mouth: “I don’t like what they say on those other channels.” Goddamnit, woman. You’re not supposed to “like” the news. You’re supposed to want to be informed, not just be told what you want to hear. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31471

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Even if this one part is wrong, what does that have to do with any of the rest?

In some ways it doesn't.  In other ways it does.  Glaring example is Amber Heard. Did she lie about every, single, goddamn thing?  No, probably not, but she lied about a lot and enough to trash her own credibility.

Trials, especially criminal trials, are all about the credibility of witnesses.  It is often where reasonable doubt lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29191

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

That’s literally what I do with my dog when he gets out the front door and wants to go bounding through the neighborhood. Wanna go for a ride? Open the door, he hops in and that’s that

what i thought of exactly when she said it is taking my dog to the vet. whoa whoa whoa, this is not the dog park what is happening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29191

Posted
Posted

can we also have a separate conversation about how some 22-23 year old girl (presumably not fresh out of a top-tier law school) just gets elevated into the inner circle of the west wing?  she was composed and impressive today and i can't imagine someone that young dealing with what she was dealing with in 2020-2021. 

i've met a couple of 22 year old girls and i can't seem to wrap my head around this.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hermanator

Hermanator 7050

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

great!  come on down guys.  tell your story.  i find it hard to believe they weren't included in the initial scope when they interviewed 1000 people or whatever the fuck, but yeah, let's get it on.

to all those, "nothing will happen" people, let's just game it out, best case scenario.  what is the (realistic) goal from these early hearings?  the goal is to get more people to testify - higher up people, possibly people who declined earlier and are having a change of heart, or people who feel the need to go on the record to correct what someone else said.  cheney's close today was all about this - come forward, tell your story.

so let's back up a sec.  were crimes committed?  yes.  jailable felony types of crimes?  yes. 

ok, so bringing a bunch of little people or 1/6 capitol stormer morons won't get you anywhere, we know that.  so they start bringing in people like today.  then maybe it gets the secret service guys to talk.  shit, there were rumblings today that this might get meadows to talk.  or cipollone to talk.  between the fake elector scheme and the conspiracy to interfere with/overturn the certification of a presidential election, people need to go to prison. 

can you bring charges on trump and nail him for that shit?  of course not.  not yet.  i've seen fucking goodfellas.  shit, i got arrested by people hoping i would "tell what i know" so they could put somebody else in prison. 

"with a conspiracy like this, you build from the outer edges and go step by step." 

ok, so you bring in lower people in hopes they'll implicate the middle range people.  are those middle range people willing to go to prison to protect the bigger people?  i have no idea.  are the big people willing to go to prison in order to protect trump, knowing how exhausting all of this shit is?  again, this is unknown, but i wouldn't want to be asking myself that question in the mirror or to my family when the bracelets come out.

so to answer the question, "what is the point of all of this?" - this is the point.  get people on the record, implicate others, work your way up the ladder, hoping you get some people to flip and tell what they know.  this isn't political theater and it doesn't matter who's watching or whose minds won't get changed or what fox news is saying.  this is about people committing crimes and people going to prison. 

people will go down for this.  will it be people we give a shit about?  probably not.  but tomorrow is another day.

Once the Republicans get control of the white house again anything federal will just go away. 

I guess the only good this does in the long run is hope to sway enough Americans to not vote for Trump. Or enough where Trump loses the primaries. But I've lost all faith in Americans. This whole fiasco has shown our system of government is not viable anymore. The constitution is meaningless now. It's purely who has power and what are they going to force down our throats from here on out. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27562

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Seems there is some doubt being raised about the Beast story.  

This entire testimony getting negated in the court of public opinion because of one comment is par for the course in this fucking country.  

 

Oh man I hope they testify

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goofyboy

Goofyboy 3293

Posted
Posted
can we also have a separate conversation about how some 22-23 year old girl (presumably not fresh out of a top-tier law school) just gets elevated into the inner circle of the west wing?  she was composed and impressive today and i can't imagine someone that young dealing with what she was dealing with in 2020-2021. 
i've met a couple of 22 year old girls and i can't seem to wrap my head around this.

Who is she connected to? Daughter of?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PhillyD

PhillyD 1257

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Oh man I hope they testify

I wish so badly there was video of the fat fuck struggling against a seat belt embedded into his fat while he cries about not leading his band of morons to hang Pence.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6938

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Honestly, I know that and the ketchup story got the headlines, but I was/still am confused why they were mentioned in the testimony. It was really just a juicy piece of gossip to throw out there. It doesn't do anything to tie January 6th together. 

He wasn’t in the big Beast. He was in the SUV Beast he rode in while spreading COVID in ‘20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cairn Horn88

Cairn Horn88 8264

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

can we also have a separate conversation about how some 22-23 year old girl (presumably not fresh out of a top-tier law school) just gets elevated into the inner circle of the west wing?  she was composed and impressive today and i can't imagine someone that young dealing with what she was dealing with in 2020-2021. 

i've met a couple of 22 year old girls and i can't seem to wrap my head around this.

Good point…I too, wondered how she got this job….not that it changes the facts, but boy, she’s got balls for such a young lady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8718

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

Good point…I too, wondered how she got this job….not that it changes the facts, but boy, she’s got balls for such a young lady.

Is it really a stretch that the Trump admin would hire unqualified 20something women to all kinds of senior positions?

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cairn Horn88

Cairn Horn88 8264

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, PhillyD said:

I wish so badly there was video of the fat fuck struggling against a seat belt embedded into his fat while he cries about not leading his band of morons to hang Pence.

Seat belt?  Seat belt?  Trump ain’t wearing no stinking’ seat belt.  Are you serious, Vern?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29191

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Forget the executive.  If they get back the House in 7 months and keep the Senate, that's all she wrote.

for the committee, sure.  but the committee should be done by then.  they've already uncovered enough for doj to pursue, even if they're lazy and shitty.

6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Who gives a fuck about the Limo shit?

yeah, the limo shit is weird and pointless, and the idea that trump said he was going to the capitol, told people he was going to the capitol, and then threw a fit when he was told he wasn't going to the capitol is extraordinarily consistent with everything we already know about this toddler. 

the narrative was that he was unhinged.  if a secret service agent wants to testify that trump never made contact with him or the steering wheel, i'm all fucking ears.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hermanator

Hermanator 7050

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

2.5 years seems like a long time.

Not when it comes to trying to prosecute a president and top political figures. They'll string that shit out for years knowing if they win the next election it'll be pardon city. 

Yeah some low level shitheads may stand trial and go to jail but they were just idiots following orders not realizing they were going to be set up to be fall guys if it all went south. 

Not to mention it's almost a certainty the democrats won't aggressively pursue criminal charges and a quick as possible trial for Trump and people like Meadows because they're still playing by the old rules and don't want to be  accused of witch hunting a former president by the republican masses. That's who they are and they've show it at every turn about every single thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hermanator

Hermanator 7050

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Who gives a fuck about the Limo shit?

He knew the crowd had weapons. He wanted them to have weapons, and wanted them to march on the capital. That was FIRST HAND testimony 

I may be off on this but isn't the DOJ outside of the scope of Congress for the most part and more at the feet of the President? What would congress do to shut down an actual federal criminal trial if the president and his DOJ pursued it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StassneyHorn

StassneyHorn 6576

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Not when it comes to trying to prosecute a president and top political figures. They'll string that shit out for years knowing if they win the next election it'll be pardon city. 

Yeah some low level shitheads may stand trial and go to jail but they were just idiots following orders not realizing they were going to be set up to be fall guys if it all went south. 

Not to mention it's almost a certainty the democrats won't aggressively pursue criminal charges and a quick as possible trial for Trump and people like Meadows because they're still playing by the old rules and don't want to be  accused of witch hunting a former president by the republican masses. That's who they are and they've show it at every turn about every single thing. 

It’s literally the strategy. String along, get tired, lose cause you don’t have the money. Chicago tribune did a great article years back about one of his tenants who was a grandma that never gave up and won

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44051

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Honestly, I know that and the ketchup story got the headlines, but I was/still am confused why they were mentioned in the testimony. It was really just a juicy piece of gossip to throw out there. It doesn't do anything to tie January 6th together. 

Yeah I didn't think that offered much of value and overshadows the conversation that she heard at the ellipse (where Trump knew the crowd was armed and wanted to let them through). 

That's the real meat from this testimony. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cairn Horn88

Cairn Horn88 8264

Posted
Posted

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Meaning: "It is usually safe to identify somebody as a particular type of person when his or her appearance, behavior, and words all point to the same conclusion."
— Source for meaning: Martin H. Manser (2007). The Facts on File Dictionary of Proverbs. Infobase Publishing. 
— Reportedly coined by James Whitcombe Riley, sometime before his demise 1916. He wrote: When I see a bird that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.
— Made famous by the then Governor Ronald Reagan's use of the expression 1967, in an interview with a journalist.


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31471

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

don't bother. he's on a roll.

However, assuming Trump is indicted around or after midterms, there is a high likelihood that the trial, or an appeal, would extend into the next administration.

It wouldn't make a shit for Trumpists, but I think a fair amount of the less "committal" American public will have a hard time voting for a candidate under indictment, or convicted and on appeal.

And a pardon for Trump or executive interference with the prosecution is pretty likely, but those things will be campaign issues for non-Trump candidates, as well.  And may be pretty treacherous for them.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
softlynow

softlynow 1814

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

However, assuming Trump is indicted around or after midterms, there is a high likelihood that the trial, or an appeal, would extend into the next administration.

It wouldn't make a shit for Trumpists, but I think a fair amount of the less "committal" American public will have a hard time voting for a candidate under indictment, or convicted and on appeal.

And a pardon for Trump or executive interference with the prosecution is pretty likely, but those things will be campaign issues for non-Trump candidates, as well.  And may be pretty treacherous for them.

How will those non-committals react to another Hillary candidacy? It’s coming, along with the chaos and distraction it will bring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45685

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

However, assuming Trump is indicted around or after midterms, there is a high likelihood that the trial, or an appeal, would extend into the next administration.

It wouldn't make a shit for Trumpists, but I think a fair amount of the less "committal" American public will have a hard time voting for a candidate under indictment, or convicted and on appeal.

And a pardon for Trump or executive interference with the prosecution is pretty likely, but those things will be campaign issues for non-Trump candidates, as well.  And may be pretty treacherous for them.

What makes you think this is a problem for his voters?  To my earlier point, if the Rs control the House and Senate, they will absolutely not certify the election of Dotard doesn’t win. We’ve been watching them set up for this since the coup didn’t work. But yeah, nevermind me. I’m just being hysterical. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44051

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

What makes you think this is a problem for his voters?  To my earlier point, if the Rs control the House and Senate, they will absolutely not certify the election of Dotard doesn’t win. We’ve been watching them set up for this since the coup didn’t work. But yeah, nevermind me. I’m just being hysterical. 

Trump isn't going to be the R nominee. It's going to be DeSantis and if Trump runs it will be as a third party and they won't give a shit what he has to say at that point. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29672

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

However, assuming Trump is indicted around or after midterms, there is a high likelihood that the trial, or an appeal, would extend into the next administration.

It wouldn't make a shit for Trumpists, but I think a fair amount of the less "committal" American public will have a hard time voting for a candidate under indictment, or convicted and on appeal.

And a pardon for Trump or executive interference with the prosecution is pretty likely, but those things will be campaign issues for non-Trump candidates, as well.  And may be pretty treacherous for them.

That hasn't stopped Texas Republicans from continuing to vote for Paxton.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...