Phx-Suns.Net

JeremyG wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:05 am

In2ition wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 9:48 am

Most of the people were happy, singing, and praying and had nothing NOTHING to do with the Capitol and never even went there.

In direct defiance of their leader’s orders.

You don't think that could have been happening at all times, including before Trump started talking? Also, the attack on the Capitol started before he finished talking, and is about a 47 minute walk from the WH were the speech happened. Maybe we should think about the timelines.

You can talk yourself into believing just about anything if you try hard enough.

Which part am I wrong about?

You believe everything Trump is selling so, the list would be ten miles long. I’ll just say you are wrong about just about everything and keep it simple. The Jan6 hearings spelled out everything very clearly and 99.9999% of the witnesses were Trump employees.

The Maga spin of “Trump had absolutely nothing to do with Jan 6 and in no way could have prevented it and he tried real hard to stop it, but Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t let him.” line is total BS and I find it unfathomable that anyone could say that with a straight face.

The J6 hearings were a partisan farce with Hollywood production to solidify people's feelings negative toward Trump. It certainly wasn't created to open people's minds and get the truth. Complete Kabuki theater.

We're seeing now, that they didn't care about the only person that could have done major damage and serious harm to Kamala, in their search to find out what really happened.

Like I said, 99.99999999% of the witnesses were Trump employees. It did get to the truth. I would bet less than 1% Republicans watched any of it. That investigation directly led to the case against him by the Justice Department. You can call everything fake if you want. There is going to be a real trial that will settle it.

A major ruling set to happen tomorrow on this very subject at 10am by the Supreme Court that is being televised.

Nodack wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:47 am

Like I said, 99.99999999% of the witnesses were Trump employees. It did get to the truth. I would bet less than 1% Republicans watched any of it. That investigation directly led to the case against him by the Justice Department. You can call everything fake if you want. There is going to be a real trial that will settle it.

A major ruling set to happen tomorrow on this very subject at 10am by the Supreme Court that is being televised.

They’re letting TV cameras into the Supreme Court now?

Nodack wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:47 am

Like I said, 99.99999999% of the witnesses were Trump employees. It did get to the truth. I would bet less than 1% Republicans watched any of it. That investigation directly led to the case against him by the Justice Department. You can call everything fake if you want. There is going to be a real trial that will settle it.

A major ruling set to happen tomorrow on this very subject at 10am by the Supreme Court that is being televised.

I watched some of it, but it was ridiculously contrived.

I did watch the Impeachment trial though. It's always telling when the prosecution has such a great case that is has to present false & doctored evidence.

It happens tomorrow Thursday at 10 am and yes the Supreme Court is going out of its way to make sure it is televised.

I did watch the Impeachment trial though. It's always telling when the prosecution has such a great case that is has to present false & doctored evidence.

All those fake and doctored Trump employees testifying under oath. Feel free to post the doctored fake evidence.

Nodack wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 1:55 pm

I did watch the Impeachment trial though. It's always telling when the prosecution has such a great case that is has to present false & doctored evidence.

All those fake and doctored Trump employees testifying under oath. Feel free to post the doctored fake evidence.

Are you serious? You don't remember the doctored tweets & selectively edited videos? The house managers would have gotten reamed by the judge if they did this in a proper court of law, and possibly disbarred. On top of that, the entire case would have been thrown out.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps ... s-reporter

In2ition wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:15 am

JeremyG wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:05 am

In2ition wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 9:48 am

Most of the people were happy, singing, and praying and had nothing NOTHING to do with the Capitol and never even went there.

In direct defiance of their leader’s orders.

You don't think that could have been happening at all times, including before Trump started talking? Also, the attack on the Capitol started before he finished talking, and is about a 47 minute walk from the WH were the speech happened. Maybe we should think about the timelines.

What does any of that have to do with what I said.

You said most of the people never even went to the Capitol, and I pointed out that would mean they were defying the directions of their leader, who told them to march to the Capitol.

JeremyG wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:16 pm

In2ition wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:15 am

JeremyG wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:05 am

In2ition wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 9:48 am

Most of the people were happy, singing, and praying and had nothing NOTHING to do with the Capitol and never even went there.

In direct defiance of their leader’s orders.

You don't think that could have been happening at all times, including before Trump started talking? Also, the attack on the Capitol started before he finished talking, and is about a 47 minute walk from the WH were the speech happened. Maybe we should think about the timelines.

What does any of that have to do with what I said.

You said most of the people never even went to the Capitol, and I pointed out that would mean they were defying the directions of their leader, who told them to march to the Capitol.

When you said "direct defiance of their leader's orders", you were trying to implicate that the Capitol riot was 'order' by Trump. I was just pointing out that the timeline doesn't match and most people didn't even go, which was in line with how I was trying to describe how many people said it was a beautiful day, that was then tainted by the events at the Capitol.

Sorry if that comes off as convoluted.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:25 pm

JeremyG wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:16 pm

In2ition wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:15 am

JeremyG wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:05 am

In2ition wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 9:48 am

Most of the people were happy, singing, and praying and had nothing NOTHING to do with the Capitol and never even went there.

In direct defiance of their leader’s orders.

You don't think that could have been happening at all times, including before Trump started talking? Also, the attack on the Capitol started before he finished talking, and is about a 47 minute walk from the WH were the speech happened. Maybe we should think about the timelines.

What does any of that have to do with what I said.

You said most of the people never even went to the Capitol, and I pointed out that would mean they were defying the directions of their leader, who told them to march to the Capitol.

When you said "direct defiance of their leader's orders", you were trying to implicate that the Capitol riot was 'order' by Trump. I was just pointing out that the timeline doesn't match and most people didn't even go, which was in line with how I was trying to describe how many people said it was a beautiful day, that was then tainted by the events at the Capitol.

Sorry if that comes off as convoluted.

Many of them left before he finished speaking, many of them went after he finished speaking, and many of the people who were already at the Capitol no doubt heard/watched/read what he was saying in his speech even if they weren’t at the White House in person. It’s still incitement and yes the timeline holds. But the incitement also did not begin with just his speech.

Of course all of this is documented by the 1/6 House investigation.

Arguing this here is a waste of time. Maga will never believe anything they don’t want to hear. The courts will take care of this and if Maga doesn’t agree with any of the verdicts they can all complain the courts are all fake all they want. It won’t change the outcome.

I just didn't find J6 House committee all that compelling, as you all did.

You have an advantage of only having to argue your case with one person. I agree with you guys some of the time, I see your point when a good point is made, and there are times that I totally disagree. That's how life goes.

Even CodePink is on Pelosi's backside. She looks like she wants to fight them.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 07, 2024 4:24 pm

I just didn't find J6 House committee all that compelling, as you all did.

You have an advantage of only having to argue your case with one person. I agree with you guys some of the time, I see your point when a good point is made, and there are times that I totally disagree. That's how life goes.

Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection
https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/janu ... Collection


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/t ... surrection.


https://apnews.com/article/jan-6-commit ... 6d069af0e4
The 814-page report released late Thursday comes after the panel interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses, held 10 hearings and obtained more than a million pages of documents. The witnesses — ranging from many of Trump’s closest aides to law enforcement to some of the rioters themselves — detailed Trump’s “premeditated” actions in the weeks ahead of the attack and how his wide-ranging efforts to overturn his defeat directly influenced those who brutally pushed past the police and smashed through the windows and doors of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.


Jan. 6 attack was 'exactly' what Trump intended, special counsel claims in court filing
https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-6-attack- ... =105398386

He might have a drinking problem.

Congrats! Dems played this perfectly.