I don't hate HIM; I hate how he acts. I desperately want to mother him.
|
I don't hate HIM; I hate how he acts. I desperately want to mother him.
Megyn Kelly no Trump sycophant tears Hutchinson's testimony apart .
Megyn Kelly on the Problems With Cassidy Hutchinson's Supposed "Bombshell" Testimony at 1/6 Hearing - YouTube
So the story about the "Beast" is not second hand, but third hand.
She said, "something to the effect of," a LOT.
The fact that the two Secret Service agents will NOT be allowed to testify just settles completely the sham nature of this pathetic display.
There is still lawless rioting around the nation .
In NYC a french fry restaurant got wrecked and employees injured because a bunch of hoodlums did not want to pay $1.75 for extra condiments .
Destrucción total: Mujeres hacen pedazos un negocio Bel-Fries en Nueva York y dejan empleados heridos | Univision 41 Nueva York WXTV | Univision (www-univision-com.translate.goog)
Why anyone would open a business in NYC is beyond me . The girls involved were arrested so that is a plus .
But so was a bodega worker who while defending himself from an attack ,killed his attacker .
Fury over prosecution of 'hard working' NYC bodega employee | Daily Mail Online
Snoozeweek comments on the above
We're been wrong all along. We believed Manhattan's progressive District Attorney Alvin Bragg when he campaigned on a platform of decarceration. We took him at the word of his memo that he didn't believe in locking people up—even those with gun charges.
Turns out, we were wrong to believe him. DA Bragg does want to lock people up, it is just the wrong people. He's going after victims instead of criminals.
We Were Wrong About Progressive DAs. They Do Want to Lock People Up: Victims | Opinion (newsweek.com)
Today's hearing is going to focus on the fact that Trump was in a dining room watching television during the riot. woooooo hoooo !! now they got him ! This they call compelling evidence of criminal conduct.
First they went bananas over the fact that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol.
Now they will go bananas because he watched it on tv after the Secret Service refused to bring him there.
As you watch tonight's circus just remember that on Jan 4 ;Trump 3 times requested a force of 10,000 National Guard Troops to guard the Capitol during the Jan 6 rally .
It was Madam Mimi ,and the Mayor of DC Murial Bowser (who lately has been complaining about illegal aliens being sent to her city ) who refused the help.
Bowser instead asked for minimal Guard presence and that they should not be armed .
The hatred of Trump is really incredible. The bottom line seems to be this. Don't go into that swamp and threaten to clean it out. The swamp critters like their current situation a great deal. That was Trump's great offense.
Sitting there seething and snorting, his bp rising, furious because he couldn't be with "his" people. Why didn't he just read a thriller by John Grisham or Lee Child?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
here is the preview courtesy of Adam Kinzinger .RINO IL. (ignore the compliant press commentary)_
Kinzinger tweets out Trump staffers' testimony ahead of final Jan. 6 hearing - YouTube
And right on cue. "Sitting there seething and snorting, his bp rising, furious because he couldn't be with "his" people."Quote:
The hatred of Trump is really incredible.
There are real-time videos of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Where? You say you have these wonderful powers to search the web. Where is the video of Trump "seething and snorting" as he watched the TV coverage of the demonstration at the Capitol? This lady said he watched it "in glee" and claimed he was "enjoying the spectacle". You say the opposite. TDS at work??? Sure sounds that way, doesn't it?
Trump ‘gleefully’ watched Capitol rioters ‘fighting’ for him on TV: Grisham - Bing video
Stephany Grisham was working for the 1st Lady . There is no way she has access to him to report such an accusation.
The show trial has lived up to the description . There have been accusations without the benefit of cross examination . Sensational accusations go unrebutted . It isn't a committee as we generally recognize with both sides represented . There is no judge acting as a referee ;no rules of evidence ,no jury . It has been nothing but a slickly produced spectacle worthy of a fictional farce. Any John Grisham novel is based on more credibility .
The "justice system" is nowhere to be found on Capitol Hill. But it is at work having real trials and real process. No, I am not speaking of the treatment of the defendants .That has been a shameful abomination and miscarriage of justice I speak instead of the cases that have been processed either by plea or trial. The sentencing has generally been equal to the crime ...... time served ;house detention ;probation ,fines , Nothing as severe as you would believe an "armed " insurgency would warrant .
These are hearings ("an opportunity to state one's case" and gather evidence), not trials.
If evidence is what a person is after, then shouldn't that person proceed by using the rules of evidence?
When does a hearing become a witch hunt? What protections could be employed to protect against that?
These hearings are to GATHER evidence by means of personal testimonies by both Republicans and Democrats.
To be determined at a future trial*: which witch is really a witch.
*Trial: the judicial proceeding in which facts and evidences are examined, to find out the guilt or innocence of the accused.
But how can you gather reliable evidence without using the rules of evidence? For instance, people give their "personal testimonies", but there is no cross examination, so doesn't that render their personal testimonies as not much more than rumor mill material? And isn't that a critically important consideration considering that these "hearings" are televised and are plainly intended to gain some political advantage? If they wanted us to regard this as an honest enterprise, wouldn't they have allowed the repubs to select their own representatives?
It is C/P of testimony fed to an audience to advance a predetermined conclusion . A real hearing would've had opposition members selected by the minority party questioning the witnesses ;not hand picked by the majority based on their hatred of Trump.
Both repubs and dems are giving personal testimony (along with videos, photos, recordings, and text messages) as per the rules of a hearing. Arguments/cross examinations occur during a trial.
All you are really saying in your comments is that this is the show trial I have stated it was .
Every Congressional hearing until now allows the minority party members to question witnesses and present their case . [See for reference The Minority Witness Rule of the House . ]
Of course in this case the minority party was not permitted to even seat a Representative chosen by the party . The 2 Repubs(of 9 total committee members ) on the committee were hand picked by Madam Mimi based on their hatred of Trump and their vote to impeach Trump after the riot . There is no due process . The supposition is that if it hurts Trump it must be true . If it helps him it must be a lie.
Madam Mimi gave direction to the Committee as if she were the Red Queen ,sentence first verdict afterwards .
It. Is. Not. A. Trial!!! Minority party members are testifying at these hearings. Arguments will come later. Apparently you've never baked a cake from scratch.
Arguments will come later? When?
The repubs were not able to select their own reps. The repubs have not been allowed to cross examine witnesses. You really think this is a respectable hearing?
Which witnesses were the repubs allowed to call? Which repubs testified at the hearings?
Where is the real time video you referred to of Trump, "Sitting there seething and snorting, his bp rising, furious because he couldn't be with "his" people?" You claim you have superior skills in doing web research. Time to see some, don't you think?
Exactly correct.Quote:
,sentence first verdict afterwards .
you mean witnesses , If you compare it to a trial it would be if all the jurors were selected based on the assumption that the defendant is guilty . I am saying there is no REAL opposition members of the other party in the committee . You saw the Watergate hearings . There were 4 Dems and 3 Repubs . All 3 Repubs advocated for Nixon . Trump has no advocates on the committee at allQuote:
Minority party members are testifying at these hearings
It is by all definitions a show trial . They have already predetermined Trump's guilt . Many of them have openly stated that their intention is to see he never is permitted to run for President again.
I don't know where you are going with the cake comment . Suffice it to say I have made dozens of cakes from scratch and it you extend the comparison to my former career in pharmaceutical manufacturing ,I was following recipes on a daily basis .
You are playing semantics with the word trial . Ok A congressional hearing is not a "trial" . It is fact finding . This committee has a predetermined conclusions that they are supporting by cherry picking facts . We don't hear from all the witnesses .We only here from the ones that support the narrative they want to present .
It is a sham any way you look at it
It will be up to the repubs to counter this and testify at their own hearings that Trump is above reproach.
When the Repubs are the majority in January I am sure there will be more hearings . Unlike this one ,they won't be stacked without an opposing member of Congress .
The problem with this committee is that it has subpoena powers and can make recommendations to the AG for prosecution . Steve Bannon was found guilty today of Contempt of Congress for defying this kangaroo court's subpoena . He will most likely serve jail time for his defiance. So this goes well beyond so called fact finding .
I hope Bannon is given a sudsy shower before he goes to prison.
You have a bad habit of making claims you cannot support. You claimed months ago that you could make a legal case for immigration. You have not done so. You claimed there were videos of Trump watching the 1/6 demonstration. So far, nada. You claimed this today. "Both repubs and dems are giving personal testimony." You have presented no examples. You have claimed to be practically a world expert at using the internet. So far, not so much.
You sure do act like a liberal dem!!! (<:
I have no doubt he will come out of jail a winner ,This will be seen by half the country as an injustice by a partisan DOJ ,being done on political opponents .The Madam Mimi star chamber * deemed him guilty .
[*The Star Chamber became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.]
Bannon's crime ? He refused to participate in the charade
He is one of the most two-faced, creepiest politicians I've ever seen. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
yeah he's ugly and a political strategist . Reminds me alot of James Carville .
Carville is ancient history. Bannon is now.
Nope. I betcha a popular candidate will be Beto O’Rourke.
Having no major accomplishments in his life, O'Rourke would be a great dem candidate in the grand tradition of BO, HC and JB.
He's smart, he's handsome, he's well-spoken, he's young, and he has kept his sanity in a very politically polarized state, a seriously partisan state.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:26 PM. |