- Joined
- Nov 25, 2019
- Messages
- 82,152
- Reaction score
- 21,753
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Oh, OK. I wasn't aware someone had proof that their facts were wrong. You must have a link with an excerpt, amirite?
Oh, OK. I wasn't aware someone had proof that their facts were wrong. You must have a link with an excerpt, amirite?A report by the REPUBLICAN committee operation undermine all facts.
Oh, OK. I wasn't aware someone had proof that their facts were wrong. You must have a link with an excerpt, amirite?
Speaking the truth here on this since January 2021.Forever victims tell us what victims they are.
[^ above emphasis added by bubba]Exculpatory evidence. If we are to have a pretense that the rule of law still exists, she has no choice but to dismiss.
Trump believed he could make the decision and he decided he won the election. Does the president or vice president choose the winner of a presidential election?
Then, after his decision, he committed crimes.
Some of those crimes are in the indictment.
Ornato's transcript doesn't have much to say about any of that.
The paid FBI liar who went off the reservation and FBI threw under the bus when it became strategically beneficial. The once revered FBI has jumped the shark.No, this is just more lies from the right, sort of like when they took Smirnov seriously.
Good luck getting an answer.[^ above emphasis added by bubba]
precisely what was found exculpating about ornato's deposition?
Mr. Trump thought the vice president picked the winner. Silly Mr. Trump.The facts indicate that Mr. Trump thought the Constitution and law allowed the VP to have a say in that decision ie-- acting in his role of actually counting the electoral votes.
Mr. Smith doesnt actually cite the statute that Mr. Trump supposedly violated ie the actual criminal act he did.
As above-- Mr. Smith argues that a compilation of lawful actions by Mr. Trump amount to the crimes he indicted on.
The reason why Ornato transcript matters here is that it undermines the progressive political narrative as to the events of Jan 6.
That's a weird take.The paid FBI liar who went off the reservation and FBI threw under the bus when it became strategically beneficial. The once revered FBI has jumped the shark.
OK, I see a few opinions in your post. I asked for FACTS. I thought you had some evidence. I am disappointed. I see nothing in your post that refutes the Republican-led House committee report. I trust you will research that link and ferret out the facts instead of just grumblings by angry old Senators who don't like what it says. Thanks in advance.A Republican-led House committee on Monday released a report attempting to undermine the work of the Jan. 6 select committee.
Why it matters: The report pushes back against the select committee's focus on former President Trump, as the presumptive GOP presidential nominee reasserts his grip over the Republican Party.
- A senior Democratic congressional aide called the report "yet another attempt to rewrite the history of January 6th and whitewash the events of that horrible, bloody, and violent day."
- Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the former chair of the Jan. 6 committee, said in a statement that the report is "dishonest."
Tsunami of maga tears since 2021. Forever throwing punches while simultaneously crying.Speaking the truth here on this since January 2021.
Excellent rebuttal to the nonsensical Lawfare indictment by Jackboot Smith. He fails to prove that attempting an alternate slate of electors is fraud and/or that conversations about potential actions to take are unlawful even if they are discussing things that are or could be illegal when those actions were not taken. His case is just like the Leticia James and Fani Willis case. No crime, no victims.The facts indicate that Mr. Trump thought the Constitution and law allowed the VP to have a say in that decision ie-- acting in his role of actually counting the electoral votes.
Mr. Smith doesnt actually cite the statute that Mr. Trump supposedly violated ie the actual criminal act he did.
As above-- Mr. Smith argues that a compilation of lawful actions by Mr. Trump amount to the crimes he indicted on.
The reason why Ornato transcript matters here is that it undermines the progressive political narrative as to the events of Jan 6.
Man you love being purposely obtuseOK, I see a few opinions in your post. I asked for FACTS. I thought you had some evidence. I am disappointed. I see nothing in your post that refutes the Republican-led House committee report. I trust you will research that link and ferret out the facts instead of just grumblings by angry old Senators who don't like what it says. Thanks in advance.
Really. Perhaps you can show me one rebuttal containing proof the Republicans lied in their report then? If not, then who is being obtuse?Man you love being purposely obtuse
Standing ground, confident in my position. No cryingTsunami of maga tears since 2021. Forever throwing punches while simultaneously crying.
You want and need this Jan 6 committee to be undermines and minimized, MAGA hate reality based situations.Really. Perhaps you can show me one rebuttal containing proof the Republicans lied in their report then? If not, then who is being obtuse?
Mr. Trump thought the vice president picked the winner. Silly Mr. Trump.
That silly man Trump. Who will Kamala select?It was indeed silly.
Not at all. He seems to have appropriated several hundred million dollars so far.It was also silly for Biden to think he can appropriate funds.
Neither what? Neither the crime nor the appropriation of funds is a crime?Neither are crimes.
No, he talks of the events prior to Jan 6th as relates to the OPThe reason why Ornato transcript matters here is that it undermines the progressive political narrative as to the events of Jan 6
That's your legal theory but I don't think it relates to the indictment.The facts indicate that Mr. Trump thought the Constitution and law allowed the VP to have a say in that decision ie-- acting in his role of actually counting the electoral votes.
Mr. Smith doesnt actually cite the statute that Mr. Trump supposedly violated ie the actual criminal act he did.
As above-- Mr. Smith argues that a compilation of lawful actions by Mr. Trump amount to the crimes he indicted on.
If we remove Ornato the riot would still have happened. If we removed trump the riot would never have happened.The reason why Ornato transcript matters here is that it undermines the progressive political narrative as to the events of Jan 6.
He fails to prove that attempting an alternate slate of electors is fraud and/or that conversations about potential actions to take are unlawful even if they are discussing things that are or could be illegal when those actions were not taken.
Lawfare does not produce indictments. Lawfare produces noise.Excellent rebuttal to the nonsensical Lawfare indictment by Jackboot Smith. He fails to prove that attempting an alternate slate of electors is fraud and/or that conversations about potential actions to take are unlawful even if they are discussing things that are or could be illegal when those actions were not taken. His case is just like the Leticia James and Fani Willis case. No crime, no victims.
Mr. Trump thought the vice president picked the winner. Silly Mr. Trump.
Stop. Everything Loudermilk is yammering about was in the public domain. Now you boys in your silos may not have seen it. NOT MY PROBLEMThe point is that this information was NOT readily given by the 1-6 committee because they wanted people to believe that Trump was some deranged lunatic. I see with you....it worked. It proves the committee was there to get votes for 2022 and disbanded right after it. They were not interested in exonerating Trump at all, but in convicting him in the eyes of We, The People.
Who would that be?The paid FBI liar who went off the reservation and FBI threw under the bus when it became strategically beneficial. The once revered FBI has jumped the shark.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?