Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
36 minutes ago, HenryJames said:
  Reveal hidden contents

image.gif.3e1b78a5b49f4708e50219200ce98815.gif

 

Why would these “tourists” take pictures of a “sconce” without the children posing with it? Just saying’…

Posted
10 hours ago, Satchel said:

Why would these “tourists” take pictures of a “sconce” without the children posing with it? Just saying’…

so, where are the pictures of the kid's artwork?

produce the pics and the cellphone and prove the EXIF metadata are a match.  no problemo.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

Has anyone asked this guy why he lied about giving tours in the first place? I mean, if it was so innocent. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that he gave a tour to an insurrectionist who a day later wanted to rip Pelosi out of the Capitol by her hair. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Has anyone asked this guy why he lied about giving tours in the first place? I mean, if it was so innocent. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that he gave a tour to an insurrectionist who a day later wanted to rip Pelosi out of the Capitol by her hair. 

He didn't just deny giving a tour, he and the rest of the Rs on his committee said they reviewed security footage and there are no tours by anyone. I'd love to see the explanation for this. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

He didn't just deny giving a tour, he and the rest of the Rs on his committee said they reviewed security footage and there are no tours by anyone. I'd love to see the explanation for this. 

There won't be one. Just continue to lie and deflect until everybody has either grown weary of the discussion or flat-out forgets (probably because the next mass shooting or something or other). The Republican Way!!!

Edited by C-Man
  • Rage+1 3
Posted

While I understand Ginni Thomas' comments that her work as a conservative lobbyist has nothing to do with her husband's work, does anyone not believe that she is only in the position of someone taking her phone call because who her husband is?

For some reason I would love to see Congress call her to testify and somehow she fight the testimony all the way to SCOTUS. Force Clarence to recuse himself. Of course, he wouldn't and the right will say he has the ability to be impartial.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, C-Man said:

There won't be one. Just continue to lie and deflect until everybody has either grown weary of the discussion or flat-out forgets (probably because the next mass shooting or something or other). The Republican Way!!!

And exactly why we will end up as a fascist state.  It's also the fascist way and absolutely proven to work. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Luttig is only 68.  I don't see any mention of health problems.  As a judge, he is perhaps trying to insure that his words are not twisted or mischaracterized.

Ironically for purposes of this hearing, he is a native of Tyler.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, Gourmand said:

Man Luttig is a terrible witness. He's as boring as listening to my dead uncle's slow, meandering story time at Thanksgiving dinner.

disagree. he is dry and slow, but he is laying out the framework of the fraud committed and how all of the "legal" basis TFG"s team was relying on was all bullshit

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

disagree. he is dry and slow, but he is laying out the framework of the fraud committed and how all of the "legal" basis TFG"s team was relying on was all bullshit

It doesn’t help when everyone falls asleep while he’s talking. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

disagree. he is dry and slow, but he is laying out the framework of the fraud committed and how all of the "legal" basis TFG"s team was relying on was all bullshit

he's not answering questions directly and emphatically. he's awful. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

someone needs to warn this guy that the crypt keeper is sitting behind him
 

image (32).png

Two of them. He did get a laugh out of her.

The point about Al Gore not being able to appoint himself President was a good one. Even though we would’ve been better off if he had. 

Posted (edited)

Lulz...Michael Luttig: “In short...” Dude, you’re not capable of saying anything “In short.”

Worst orator ever.

Nice tie, though. 

Edited by WhatTheBuck
Posted

I don't care how slowly Luttig speaks, he is trying to lay it out exactly.

The fact that Eastman previously held the opposite view to what he counseled Pence to do is pretty damning.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

It's just so clear to me, from a legal standpoint, that among other plans to disregard the election, Trump was all-in on convincing Pence to discard the electors of swing states, and when he failed to convince him to do so, he incited his minions to obstruct the electoral count instead.

I can't see how he defends this, other than an interpretation of the statute.

  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Lulz...Michael Luttig: “In short...” Dude, you’re not capable of saying anything “In short.”

Worst orator ever.

Nice tie, though. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

oh shit, they told Eastman what he was doing was illegal and he did it anyway. dude is fucked

Unfortunately, "Illegal" in that context doesn't necessarily mean in violation of criminal laws.  It's akin to "It's illegal to breach a contract" or "discrimination on the basis of race or sex is illegal."

A better word would probably be unlawful.

The importance, to me, of this evidence is that it demonstrates how committed Trump was to the notion of disrupting the electoral count by any means necessary, to include sending the 1/6 crowd to obstruct the count and sow chaos.

You have all this background, his comments at the rally, and the failure to rein back the rioters.  He absolutely intended that the count be obstructed and I think the evidence precludes reasonable doubt.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2


×
×
  • Create New...