• 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!

Bill Barr Says Evidence 'Building' Against Trump in DOJ's Jan. 6 Probe

ouch said:
"This suggests to me that they're taking a hard look at the group at the top, including the president and the people immediately around him who were involved in this," the legal expert said.
Click to expand...
This seems to be what every legal expert is saying, across the board.
 
The AntiDonald said:
I would agree with most if not all of this. The one thing I think is missing from all the public facing evidence is Trump's direct involvement in the capitol attack.

We still have two more hearings to go. And Alex Jones's texts and phone records are not yet in the hands of the committee or the feds. They will be soon.
The Willard War Room was not just for fun. And all the players were there. Stone was in constant contact with Trump. Jones predicted it on his pod cast before it ever happened as did Steve Bannon.

I believe the direct connection lies with Roger Stone, Alex Jones and Michael Flynn. Hopefully when all that is brought to light, we'll have the damning evidence.
Click to expand...
As you eluded to, there's more findings left in the 1/6Committee's tool box. This investigation could go into Oct. if folkd keep stepping up to the plate.

You left out Bannon from the Willard War Rm command post. There's even some confidence that Meadows will spill some beans. If we get those 4 folks puking their guts out before the Committee - yeah, damn close to case closed. (y)
 
Galactic Spin said:
Why? How is this going to change your commentary or perspective? give me a reason.
Click to expand...
Really? You claim that they refused and I want the link. YOU were the one making the clai. Not me. So, prove it and then we'll see.
 
Paradoxical said:
You claim that they refused and I want the link
Click to expand...
No, you want me to spoonfeed you the link. If you simple wanted the link, you would have Google it and read it already.

So, why should I bother? Tell me how your perspective could change.
 
Paradoxical said:
Really? You claim that they refused and I want the link. YOU were the one making the clai. Not me. So, prove it and then we'll see.
Click to expand...
Where are they if they want to testify? They all got lawyers and clammed up. Link to a site that says they are still going to testify. They are not going to perjure themselves.
 
ouch said:
From a serial liar - yup.
Click to expand...
But he did say that, amirite? So, he says stuff and tells them to leave and you say he's lying? LOL
 
Paradoxical said:
But he did say that, amirite?
Click to expand...
And yet that's not the message his insurrectionists took away. So you are wasting your time on this failed talking point that has never fooled anyone, not even the insurrectionists.
 
Galactic Spin said:
No, you want me to spoonfeed you the link. If you simple wanted the link, you would have Google it and read it already.

So, why should I bother? Tell me how your perspective could change.
Click to expand...
Not playin
 
Paradoxical said:
Not playin
Click to expand...
So you can't answer that simple question. I suppose I will answer for you then:

It will change nothing, you will find a contrived way to dismiss it, and this is just your way of wasting other people's time.
 
Galactic Spin said:
And yet that's not the message his insurrectionists took away. So you are wasting your time on this failed talking point that has never fooled anyone, not even the insurrectionists.
Click to expand...
Did they or did they not go home after he said that?
 
Paradoxical said:
Did they or did they not go home after he said that?
Click to expand...
Yep, they sure did, after he gave them the order, 3 hours later.

Definitive evidence he could have done the same 3 hours earlier.

Whoops, kinda stepped in it, there.

This is what happens to you, when you engage in a backwards think.
 
Galactic Spin said:
So you can't answer that simple question. I suppose I will answer for you then:

It will change nothing, you will find a contrived way to dismiss it, and this is just your way of wasting other people's time.
Click to expand...
So, you claim the SS men REFUSED to testify and that would be a big deal if they did. I am not disputing that they did. I have no time to follow this lynch mob tribunal. Just for my own edification, I want to see a link to their statements or their attorneys that they are refusing to honor a subpoena to testify. Is this board lying about this or just uninformed?
 
Paradoxical said:
Did they or did they not go home after he said that?
Click to expand...
They went home after they found that the elected politicians they wanted to apprehend were not available and their plot had failed. Then and only then did Trump do anything to stop the violence. They were like bank robbers who did not realize the safe could not be opened because of a time lock. I suppose you don't think bank robberies should be prosecuted if they don't get the money?
 
Paradoxical said:
So, you claim the SS men REFUSED to testify and that would be a big deal if they did
Click to expand...
Nope. I only claim they now refuse to cooperate with the committee, after publicly declaring they wanted to do so.

So yiu can stop propping up strawman, thanks.
Paradoxical said:
I am not disputing that they did.
Click to expand...
And yet you took their word while notnunder oath over the word of someone who was under oath. You even made the wild and false accusation that this means Hutchinson perjured herself, which was when you scraped the bottom of the barrel, here.

Does it not alter your stance that they refuse to repeat those claims under oath?
 
Paradoxical said:
So, you claim the SS men REFUSED to testify and that would be a big deal if they did. I am not disputing that they did. I have no time to follow this lynch mob tribunal. Just for my own edification, I want to see a link to their statements or their attorneys that they are refusing to honor a subpoena to testify. Is this board lying about this or just uninformed?
Click to expand...
They were not subpoenaed they volunteered and didn't show. They got lawyered up instead and then got cold feet. It appears that they decided not to perjure themselves on top of being liable for deleting their phone messages. I cannot believe they all have not been fired already for that.
 
iguanaman said:
They were not subpoenaed they volunteered and didn't show. They got lawyered up instead and then got cold feet. It appears that they decided not to perjure themselves on top of being liable for deleting their phone messages.
Click to expand...
Notice the pattern?

They call everyone else liars, when they can't be penalized for lying.

Then they get asked to speak under oath and change their stories or try to hide.
 
Paradoxical said:
But he did say that, amirite? So, he says stuff and tells them to leave and you say he's lying? LOL
Click to expand...
I'm saying most words that passes his lips are lies. imo

He ginned his mob up enough, with help from his operatives, that they, the mob, knew exactly what he wanted to happen. They, the mob, shouted commands to go after the Capitol throughout Capitol Hill after he finished his blathering at the Ellipse. I've stated this several times before, if Joe Biden had done what DJT did on 1/6/21 - I'd be saying here that ole Joe screwed up bigly because he'd be caught with his britches down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom