• 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!

Trump proven unfit for power again by Washington Examiner

Well, given what we know about how the J6 committee is doing what they do, they interview the witnesses in private and then if they like what they hear they bring the witnesses before the cameras to ask them the parts they think we should hear.
So they knew what Hutchinson was going to say well ahead of their pubic testimony.
That would have been plenty of time to get the SS to corroborate her story.
In fact, they shouldn't have allowed her testimony without it ... should they?
I actually take your comments in a fair light. The best response that I have is that this is how politics are played on both sides. Even though a fact finding Committee picks out the best parts of depositions and testimonies to present, they do so to make the public aware of how something happened from A to Z. I know about myself that I could probably trim away approximately 10%-30% of the total from what's presented to the public that allows me to capture the road map. I do look for parts of testimonies that I wasn't aware of at all. There's even some in it that I once knew but had forgotten. That 10%-30% not needed in my opinion, I simply chuck it out of my mind.
 
I actually take your comments in a fair light. The best response that I have is that this is how politics are played on both sides. Even though a fact finding Committee picks out the best parts of depositions and testimonies to present, they do so to make the public aware of how something happened from A to Z. I know about myself that I could probably trim away approximately 10%-30% of the total from what's presented to the public that allows me to capture the road map. I do look for parts of testimonies that I wasn't aware of at all. There's even some in it that I once knew but had forgotten. That 10%-30% not needed in my opinion, I simply chuck it out of my mind.
Let's address the part about .....
"That would have been plenty of time to get the SS to corroborate her story.
In fact, they shouldn't have allowed her testimony without it ... should they?"

Would that be an example of what you would want to "trim away" yourself.

And about your comment that "... this is how politics are played on both sides", the thing is I don't believe the House has ever formed a Select Committee (or any other) all of whose members were chosen by one side. Have they? Don't bother bringing up Kevin McCarthy because you know that followed what Queen Nancy did.
 
Let's address the part about .....
"That would have been plenty of time to get the SS to corroborate her story.
In fact, they shouldn't have allowed her testimony without it ... should they?"

Would that be an example of what you would want to "trim away" yourself.
The trimmings actually begin with closed door taped interviews captured on tape. Without having heard or read what the SS may or may not have ever stated under oath prevents one from offering an example about your comments, in which are your opinions. Ms Hutchinson's testimony stands and no matter what I might not believe won't change what she testified about.

And about your comment that "... this is how politics are played on both sides", the thing is I don't believe the House has ever formed a Select Committee (or any other) all of whose members were chosen by one side. Have they? Don't bother bringing up Kevin McCarthy because you know that followed what Queen Nancy did.
Well, look at you trimming away one's ability to comment about how the T-GOP House's main agenda was to obstruct and control (and by control I really mean hi-jack the committee's every chance to construct a road map to the 1/6/21 Capitol assault) after you offered a question "Have they?" Apparently handing you a compliment about taking your comments in a fair light popped a fuse. :LOL: Here's a helpful clue that should help you get through the night. The 1/6 Committee's final report will be for the record and commented on by professional historians. We'll see how much they trim out of it or agree with on average.
 
The trimmings actually begin with closed door taped interviews captured on tape. Without having heard or read what the SS may or may not have ever stated under oath prevents one from offering an example about your comments, in which are your opinions. Ms Hutchinson's testimony stands and no matter what I might not believe won't change what she testified about.


Well, look at you trimming away one's ability to comment about how the T-GOP House's main agenda was to obstruct and control (and by control I really mean hi-jack the committee's every chance to construct a road map to the 1/6/21 Capitol assault) after you offered a question "Have they?" Apparently handing you a compliment about taking your comments in a fair light popped a fuse. :LOL: Here's a helpful clue that should help you get through the night. The 1/6 Committee's final report will be for the record and commented on by professional historians. We'll see how much they trim out of it or agree with on average.
That was all a mish-mash of evasive nonsense meant to proudly ignore the problems of how that Committee was formed and is being run.
So be it.
 
A little help here.

Not familiar enough with the Washington Examiner and their print relationship with DJT, but if it used to be a favorable one, it's no longer there. They've pegged him well today. imo

However, they do ask their readers to find a better Republican.




Hutchinson’s testimony confirmed a damning portrayal of Trump as unstable, unmoored, and absolutely heedless of his sworn duty to effectuate a peaceful transition of presidential power. Considering the entirety of her testimony, it is unsurprising that Hutchinson said she heard serious discussions of Cabinet members invoking the 25th Amendment that would have at least temporarily evicted Trump from office.

Trump is a disgrace. Republicans have far better options to lead the party in 2024. No one should think otherwise, much less support him, ever again.
The Washington Examiner is a right leaning publication. Just to add some perspective to your comments, her testimony was a second hand account from someone who was not in the car. So both she or her source were not there. Those that were there refute it. The point is that the facts on both sides can be believed or dismissed and are based on partisanship. That means the account should be ignored.

As for me, I think Trump is also unfit for office, mostly because of a toxic personality. If he runs, I think the democrats will have a decent chance of defeating him in 2024 as long as they don't run Biden or Harris.
 
That was all a mish-mash of evasive nonsense meant to proudly ignore the problems of how that Committee was formed and is being run.
So be it.
If possible, reverse the roles of why the Committee was formed those involved with how the 1/6 Committee was formed. Another words, the House would be in Republican control and the 1/6 assault on the Capitol would be by Biden supporters because they didn't want Trump to be certified as the next president of the US. McCarthy would have done as Pelosi did when forming that Committee. In fact, I honestly believe that McCarthy wouldn't have even offered Pelosi an option to place 5 members on that panel. That's because Republicans knows how to fight political battles down and dirty. The Dems are too damn polite. The attitude at that time soon after Biden tried to pull a coup to keep his ass in office by riling up a huge crowd of angry protestors who he summoned to be there on Capitol Hill 1/6/21 would make the Republican's blood boil - as it should!!!!! Therefore, the Republican led House would have shown that they were in full charge and screw you Dems!!

Now, back to actuality. Pelosi tried working with McCarthy while also not allowing the Committee probe to turn into a T-Republican led circus. That's fully understood by those with any good sense. No matter which party would be in control of the House, said party would always have an advantage with having their members sit on that panel. Pelosi tried to make it as fair as possible, being the House Speaker, and McCarthy played games and she called him on it. So, only two Republicans made it to the panel. End of story.

Regardless, DJT is full blown unhinged.
 
If possible, reverse the roles of why the Committee was formed those involved with how the 1/6 Committee was formed. Another words, the House would be in Republican control and the 1/6 assault on the Capitol would be by Biden supporters because they didn't want Trump to be certified as the next president of the US. McCarthy would have done as Pelosi did when forming that Committee. In fact, I honestly believe that McCarthy wouldn't have even offered Pelosi an option to place 5 members on that panel. That's because Republicans knows how to fight political battles down and dirty. The Dems are too damn polite. The attitude at that time soon after Biden tried to pull a coup to keep his ass in office by riling up a huge crowd of angry protestors who he summoned to be there on Capitol Hill 1/6/21 would make the Republican's blood boil - as it should!!!!! Therefore, the Republican led House would have shown that they were in full charge and screw you Dems!!

Now, back to actuality. Pelosi tried working with McCarthy while also not allowing the Committee probe to turn into a T-Republican led circus. That's fully understood by those with any good sense. No matter which party would be in control of the House, said party would always have an advantage with having their members sit on that panel. Pelosi tried to make it as fair as possible, being the House Speaker, and McCarthy played games and she called him on it. So, only two Republicans made it to the panel. End of story.

Regardless, DJT is full blown unhinged.
You lost me after "another words".
I'll assume you tried typing on your phone without looking at what was coming out cuz clearly no thinking went in.
 
The Washington Examiner is a right leaning publication. Just to add some perspective to your comments, her testimony was a second hand account from someone who was not in the car. So both she or her source were not there. Those that were there refute it. The point is that the facts on both sides can be believed or dismissed and are based on partisanship. That means the account should be ignored.

As for me, I think Trump is also unfit for office, mostly because of a toxic personality. If he runs, I think the democrats will have a decent chance of defeating him in 2024 as long as they don't run Biden or Harris.
In which we both agree that he's unhinged - or unfit - or both, that supports the Washington Examiner's view about DJT.

Once a serious purge is performed on the T-Party, I'll be automatically voting for just about anyone else but the T-Party buffoons.
 
In which we both agree that he's unhinged - or unfit - or both, that supports the Washington Examiner's view about DJT.

Once a serious purge is performed on the T-Party, I'll be automatically voting for just about anyone else but the T-Party buffoons.
Of course you can vote any way you wish.
 
Back
Top Bottom