• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AIDE DETAILS TRUMP’S RAGE ON JAN. 6He Knew Crowd Was Armed, but Tried to Loosen Security, Testimony Recounts

What criminal charge do you see? Go ahead.
I'm not a lawyer. But here are three who are:

For a number of the possible crimes the committee has identified, it doesn’t matter what Trump believed about the election.
He still had no legal right to use forged electoral certificates or to pressure election officials in Georgia to “find 11,780 votes” that did not exist, or to engage in other extralegal means to try to hold onto power. That includes pressuring the vice president to assume powers he didn’t have. State and federal criminal laws prohibit these things. Vigilante justice is against the law, even if you (wrongly) believe you are a victim.
If [state and federal law enforcement agencies] focus on Trump’s efforts to engage in vigilante justice, the intent element of these cases is easily satisfied.
This article is written by:
Barbara McQuade, former U.S. Attorney,
Ryan Goodman, Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, and
Norman Eisen, who graduated from Harvard Law with honors.
 
Quite the contrary.

I put forth the credible claim that Trump has fed you lies. And then you proved me right here:







Are you ready to admit that you have been bathing in lies and loving every minute of it?
Well, it looks like a leftwing meltdown over their "major bombshell" turning out to be a "big fat dud". Tomorrow is a work day, think I will call it a night,
 
Whatever that is supposed to mean...
Ok I'll explain it.

The fact that the violence failed to achieve its objective is irrelevant.

The transfer WAS NOT peaceful. It WAS plagued by violence.

Anyone that says otherwise is lying or insane.
 
This woman is a bigger liar that Christine Blasey Ford.
So, she is willing to commit perjury and subject herself to threats and ridicule for what reason? She has no motive to lie. She was in a position to know and is credible.

I would suggest it’s your cognitive dissonance at play here. You reject truth because it cuts against what you want to believe.
 
Well, it looks like a leftwing meltdown over their "major bombshell" turning out to be a "big fat dud". Tomorrow is a work day, think I will call it a night,

Admitting you were lied to by a politician is harmless.
 
Well, it looks like a leftwing meltdown over their "major bombshell" turning out to be a "big fat dud". Tomorrow is a work day, think I will call it a night,
I’d love to see your face when Trump is led away, handcuffed behind his back and a jacket over his head.
 
What the hell are you even talking about?

I was asked why some of Trump's people would choose to plead the fifth instead of testifying before the committee.
Trumps people chose to plead the fifth WHEN testifying in front of the committee. It is incredibly obvious that you don’t know trumps people were in front of the committee and there are a lot of them who had asked for pardons in the past and plead the fifth when interviewed by the committee while a lawyer was by their side. and those who talked to the committee all had incredibly damning evidence showing that he masterminded a criminal conspiracy to overthrow a democratic election to install himself as a de facto dictator.

If you don’t think that’s a big deal you need to take a few days to come up with an absolutely next level creative explanation for why the founding fathers wanted our presidents to lead a group of domestic terrorists into the capital to murder congressmen. Pretty tall order, defending treason
 
Pence was not intimidated and certified the results. Peaceful transfer of power. If there had been armed government forces preventing Pence from certifying the results, that would have been a non peaceful transfer.
I didn’t realize that Turkey didn’t have a coup attempt in 2016. After all, the military did not take over the country, so obviously nothing happened.
 
Ok I'll explain it.

The fact that the violence failed to achieve its objective is irrelevant.

The transfer WAS NOT peaceful. It WAS plagued by violence.

Anyone that says otherwise is lying or insane.
Correct. With normal candidates, the loser concedes. That didn’t happen.
Then, the former president invites the president elect to the White House. That didn’t happen.
The current president tells departments to cooperate with the president elect’s transition team. Not only did that not happen but they were told to disrupt the transition.
Finally, the former president attends the inauguration. In this case, Trump scurried off to Florida as the inauguration was ongoing.
 
Like the woman today who's story was totally destroyed before she even left the building?
Nice try at gaslighting. Her testimony described how 1/6 wasn’t just a bunch of rioters attacking the Capitol with Trump an innocent bystander. It showed that Trump was behind the entire scheme.

Too bad you live in the upside down.

There is enough here to charge Trump with seditious conspiracy.
 
So, she is willing to commit perjury and subject herself to threats and ridicule for what reason? She has no motive to lie. She was in a position to know and is credible.

I would suggest it’s your cognitive dissonance at play here. You reject truth because it cuts against what you want to believe.
Saying Trump grabbed the steering wheel and then grabbed the throat of Secret Service Agent Bobby Engel. Why weren't the two Secret Service Agents there to testify? If the President physically tried to take control of the vehicle it would be the first thing I've seen tying Trump to the trespassers.
When she lied about that then her entire testimony is unreliable.
 
The portrayal of Mark Meadows is just so powerful. A coward staring into his phone pretending not to hear anything.
 
Trump wanted Pence to die from hanging.

Trump tried to obstruct justice.

Trump tried to defraud the Government.

Trump physically attacked a few people.

I’ve heard enough. Trump needs to be charged now. His passport needs to be taken away since he’s a flight risk. It’s over folks.
 
Saying Trump grabbed the steering wheel and then grabbed the throat of Secret Service Agent Bobby Engel. Why weren't the two Secret Service Agents there to testify? If the President physically tried to take control of the vehicle it would be the first thing I've seen tying Trump to the trespassers.
When she lied about that then her entire testimony is unreliable.
5C4927CF-82F2-441A-B6D7-CDA920D68225.jpeg
Do you really think they’d let Hutchinson testify if the agents account would conflict with her testimony?
 
Last edited:
Well, it looks like a leftwing meltdown over their "major bombshell" turning out to be a "big fat dud". Tomorrow is a work day, think I will call it a night,
Big fat dud.

Interesting turn of phrase
 
A Trump lunch with ketchup? Could've been nuggies, tendies, or even a steak.
Ketchup on fish sticks isn't too bad. I also like ketchup on bbq baked Lays.
 
Ketchup on fish sticks isn't too bad. I also like ketchup on bbq baked Lays.

I only do ketchup on fried potato products. Maybe a dab on a burger if I'm in the mood.
 
And how many of those witnesses are even attempting to rebut the narrative or challenge in any way, any previous testimony.

It is totally one sided. To deny this is just silly.

No one is stopping Mark Meadows from testifying except Mark Meadows (and maybe Trump and his lackeys).
 
Back
Top Bottom