- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 24,391
- Reaction score
- 8,241
- Location
- Northern New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You are finally making sense, well, more sense, at least.Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
You are finally making sense, well, more sense, at least.Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
Well, I will give you points for now admitting it was indeed a "question", and not a "lie" as you fallaciously declared in your post# 9,766 up thread. Takes a bit courage to backtrack a fallacious positive claim, as you just did.I'll tell you what, I'll just dismiss your question, as it's not a real question, since Liz Cheney has been quite outspoken about who the committee is going after.
Great! Now tell us about more about how Trump is being persecuted with all those nasty videos and audio recordings and text messages and emails and testimony under oath by his own inner circle.You are finally making sense, well, more sense, at least.
The lie was you pretending not to know who they are targeting. That's still on you.Well, I will give you points for now admitting it was indeed a "question", and not a "lie" as you fallaciously declared in your post# 9,766 up thread. Takes a bit courage to backtrack a fallacious positive claim, as you just did.
They broadcast that farce in prime time, they've done a great job showing us that they have nothing, and this is just a Pelosi political operation.Great! Now tell us about more about how Trump is being persecuted with all those nasty videos and audio recordings and text messages and emails and testimony under oath by his own inner circle.
Should I assume it was under oath? His meeting with them was quite a while back. So is he contradicting or reiterating his testimony in the news article?
Yes, I already corrected you. Now you guys just resort to shooting the messenger and the standard "he's a liar!' Pathetic bullshit. He was there.Well, I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out. I was not aware that he had testified to the committee. Should I assume it was under oath? His meeting with them was quite a while back. So is he contradicting or reiterating his testimony in the news article?
Patel is one of the most disgraceful SOB liars.
Several sources said he was behind closed doors for more than 4 hours but no mention of taking the oath.
Patel has possibly been paying close attention to everything in the committee hearings and would have tips on avoiding perjury if called to testify again.
A few possibilities, he might have been straight with the committee and came out lying to RW media. He came out claiming he cooperated to MSM like cbs.
And the Epoch Times!! Omg
But I'm left with the guess that only a few people really know the answer to your second question.
That's pointless. Do you know why the committee would want to subpeona him now?Yes, I already corrected you. Now you guys just resort to shooting the messenger and the standard "he's a liar!' Pathetic bullshit. He was there.
Lovely. Now you're backtracking your previous backtrack, as well as improperly defining the word "lie." Better get a bigger shovel, and a dictionary, or simply admit your obvious defeat, and save further embarrassment. Your call, of course.The lie was you pretending not to know who they are targeting. That's still on you.
Well, hang on now. I said, in italics, under oath. Do you know for certain that he testified under oath? Or just spoke with the committee?Yes, I already corrected you. Now you guys just resort to shooting the messenger and the standard "he's a liar!' Pathetic bullshit. He was there.
The "interviews" are testimony and they are given under oath which is why video tapes can be shown in the hearings.Patel is one of the most disgraceful SOB liars.
Several sources said he was behind closed doors for more than 4 hours but no mention of taking the oath.
Patel has possibly been paying close attention to everything in the committee hearings and would have tips on avoiding perjury if called to testify again.
A few possibilities, he might have been straight with the committee and came out lying to RW media. He came out claiming he cooperated to MSM like cbs.
And the Epoch Times!! Omg
But I'm left with the guess that only a few people really know the answer to your second question.
Haha, the "farce"They broadcast that farce in prime time, they've done a great job showing us that they have nothing, and this is just a Pelosi political operation.
Now, now, Anthony60 is right. The Jan 6th Committee is a giant hit job on Trump....by Republicans.Haha, the "farce"
Which part was fake? The videos? The audio? The texts and emails?
Or was it the testimony, under oath, by trump's inner circle?
You keep sidestepping this.
Not much of a comeback, of course. At this point, you are just pathetic.Lovely. Now you're backtracking your previous backtrack, as well as improperly defining the word "lie." Better get a bigger shovel...
Can't give you an answer, not that it matters. What portion of the witnesses are they not putting under oath?Well, hang on now. I said, in italics, under oath. Do you know for certain that he testified under oath? Or just spoke with the committee?
What number of videos, audios, texts, and emails that they've paraded around means that someone is guilty of something?Haha, the "farce"
Which part was fake? The videos? The audio? The texts and emails?
Or was it the testimony, under oath, by trump's inner circle?
You keep sidestepping this.
No need for the personal attack. Just because we disagree, that doesn't make me "just pathetic."Not much of a comeback, of course. At this point, you are just pathetic.
What number of videos, audios, texts, and emails that they've paraded around means that someone is guilty of something?
Here's another number... 1.
Show us one piece of direct evidence that indicates Trump is guilty of a crime.
Should be very easy, since you boasted about the mountain of information they've harvested.
could well rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy."Mr. Trump’s efforts to block Congress from certifying Biden’s Electoral College victory
Direct evidence
Trump spoke with McCarthy while the riot was underway and chose to not respond to his pleas.
"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,"
Two Representatives have testified to hearing the call, they were huddled around the phone together with McCarthy.
Trump spoke with McCarthy, Jordan, but not Gen Milley nor the secdef , trump never called out the NG.
At about 2 pm , trump had the opportunity to tweet and send video to call off the riot and tell them to leave. But he chose to not do so.
"A federal judge ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump and Eastman most likely had committed felonies, including obstructing the work of Congress and conspiring to defraud the United States."
"It essentially ratified the committee’s argument that :
could well rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy."
That phone call to or from McCarthy is verified. What trump told him is direct evidence.
If you are correct, I'm sure he'll be arrested post haste. If not, well, my point stands.Direct evidence
Trump spoke with McCarthy while the riot was underway and chose to not respond to his pleas.
"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,"
Two Representatives have testified to hearing the call, they were huddled around the phone together with McCarthy.
Trump spoke with McCarthy, Jordan, but not Gen Milley nor the secdef , trump never called out the NG.
At about 2 pm , trump had the opportunity to tweet and send video to call off the riot and tell them to leave. But he chose to not do so.
"A federal judge ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump and Eastman most likely had committed felonies, including obstructing the work of Congress and conspiring to defraud the United States."
"It essentially ratified the committee’s argument that :
could well rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy."
That phone call to or from McCarthy is verified. What trump told him is direct evidence.
If you are correct, I'm sure he'll be arrested post haste. If not, well, my point stands.
Oh, the judge should be disbarred for making those comments.
A lot of the time you libs are just posting ridiculous stuff among yourselves, that is not worthy of a response, so don't sweat it.Oh Anthony, there you are, we missed you so much , until we realized you were still here.
And I noticed you didn't post any facts at all.
citation? something? anything?