Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Jan 6 public hearings Live


spartan max2
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

So, Trump tired to do something that he didn’t end up doing 

No, he tried something and failed, again.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, odas said:

No, he tried something and failed, again.

….And? Is that the key to piecing together and understanding all the pieces of this conspiracy theory? The distinction between “not” doing something and “failing” to do something? Split hairs all you want, if someone “tries” to do something and it doesn’t happen then they didn’t do it and they also failed to do it. 
 

Atleast he was only “trying” to end democracy this time. With the Russian Collusion thing he absolutely did end democracy. 

Edited by el midgetron
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Katniss said:

From what I saw, lots of horrible people in that crowd. What happened to those police officers was cruel.

And this is what I noticed to.  Rather than setting out a series of laws broken, and how they were going to prove who broke them they opened up with an emotional video and tear jerking personal testimony having nothing to do with trump.  That leads me to believe that any case they may bring against trump may be weak.  Remember people, it doesn't matter if you don't like what he did, it has to be clearly illegal and in direct violation of written laws.  Personally I hope they fry his dumb ass at least enough to preclude him from holding office again but judging by day one I'm not holding my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

….And? Is that the key to piecing together and understanding all the pieces of this conspiracy theory? The distinction between “not” doing something and “failing” to do something? Split hairs all you want, if someone “tries” to do something and it doesn’t happen then they didn’t do it and they also failed to do it. 
 

Atleast he was only “trying” to end democracy this time. With the Russian Collusion thing he absolutely did end democracy. 

Rudi, is that you? Do you understand the difference between not doing and attempting but failing? Someone thinking about killing somebody but not doing it and someone attempting to kill somebody but failing in this attempt? How would your reasoning hold up in real court?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

….And? Is that the key to piecing together and understanding all the pieces of this conspiracy theory? The distinction between “not” doing something and “failing” to do something? Split hairs all you want, if someone “tries” to do something and it doesn’t happen then they didn’t do it and they also failed to do it. 
 

Atleast he was only “trying” to end democracy this time. With the Russian Collusion thing he absolutely did end democracy. 

Cool.  Kamala Harris picks the next President.  

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


 

2 minutes ago, odas said:

Rudi, is that you? Do you understand the difference between not doing and attempting but failing? Someone thinking about killing somebody but not doing it and someone attempting to kill somebody but failing in this attempt? How would your reasoning hold up in real court?

Do I understand the difference? Yes, I understand that You are ignoring the fact that I predicated “not doing” something after “trying to”. They tried to but didn’t. Which you claim is significantly different than tried to but failed. 

21 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

So, Trump tired to do something that he didn’t end up doing and connecting the dots to a bunch of other things he didn’t end up doing it we get the conspiracy theory that he was trying to end Democracy? No one has ever accused Trump of being a Constitutional lawyer. 

Attempting to “kill someone” is different than “trying” to have someone do something they can’t. If you try to get a cashier at the grocery store to give you a discount and they say they can’t do that for you, that doesn’t automatically qualify as retail fraud. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

So what are you denying? That Trump pressed the department of justice to call the election fraud? That Trump then tried to replace that department of justice ? That Trump pressed the vice president to overturn the election? That Trump contacted officials in Georgia telling them to overturn the election? That Trump didn't call off his supporters who were storming the capital despite many calls to him telling him to do that and that? it was Mike pence coordinating the defense 

We have evidence for all these things.

It was a failed coup because other Republicans and conservatives had the integrity that Trump and company did not.

The problem is that as repulsive as some of those actions are they may not be against the law.  Can the president replace people in the justice department? Yes.  Can he ask them look for fraud? Yes.  Can he bring a case to the VP asking him not to certify the election?  Yes. The case in Georgia, depending on the how he worded it, I think so (see faithless electors)  Does he have to, by law, tell his supporters to go home?  No.  

As I stated above, that they didn't start with a list of laws that were broken but rather an emotional story, and that they have not simply turned this over to a prosecutor, does not give me much faith that there is really a strong enough case here to bring to trial.  Then again maybe I need to be more schooled about what the function of this committee is if it isn't to find what laws were violated and by who.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Cool.  Kamala Harris picks the next President.  

I don’t even know who that person is…?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, el midgetron said:

I don’t even know who that person is…?

The only vote that counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These made for TV  mini-series docudrama hearings are the entire purpose behind the investigation. It’s an operation aimed at influencing public opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

The only vote that counts.

The only Count that votes?

3FA715DA-EFF4-40E8-9289-AAE8F6271BB2.jpeg.a823b19121b7339029c834829458de9d.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

I don’t even know who that person is…?

Are you sure you are American?  (Hint: Kamela Harris is the person who becomes President if Biden dies.)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Are you sure you are American?  (Hint: Kamela Harris is the person who becomes President if Biden dies.)

I thought he El Midgetron is british, not american.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, el midgetron said:

If someone accused you of being a deplorable racist Nazi, would that lend credence to other claims they make?

So we should all ignore everything you have to say from now on? 

Because you've accused several posters here of exactly that for supporting Ukraine.

Quote
37 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

….And? Is that the key to piecing together and understanding all the pieces of this conspiracy theory? The distinction between “not” doing something and “failing” to do something? Split hairs all you want, if someone “tries” to do something and it doesn’t happen then they didn’t do it and they also failed to do it. 

 

So you're not familiar with the crime of attempted murder, for example?

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

I thought he El Midgetron is british, not american.

Not our monkey, he's your responsibility!

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Desertrat56 said:

I thought he El Midgetron is british, not american.

I thought he claimed he was from Michigan.  He does seem to have big gaps in information regarding certain aspects of America and it's culture, though.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, el midgetron said:

So, Trump tired to do something that he didn’t end up doing and connecting the dots to a bunch of other things he didn’t end up doing it we get the conspiracy theory that he was trying to end Democracy? No one has ever accused Trump of being a Constitutional lawyer. 

He tried to stop the results what he believed was an stolen election. As far as I’m aware everything he did was legal. The things “tired” or thought he could to do were stopped by people more astute to the working of government than Trump. 

It’s literally the same thing I listened to about the Russian Collusion Hoax for 2 years, Trump has a “connection” to a Russian Bank, don Jr met with some random Russian lady, there’s a pee pee tape, yadda yadda yadda.. Trump was most certainly guilty, going to jail and many argued he should even be executed. 

It’s not lost on a lot of people that these leaps of faith and false narratives are always slanted to one political side. 

A failed attempt is still an attempt.

Trump tried to overturn the election results. We all watched it happen and we have proof of it. 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The problem is that as repulsive as some of those actions are they may not be against the law.  Can the president replace people in the justice department? Yes.  Can he ask them look for fraud? Yes.  Can he bring a case to the VP asking him not to certify the election?  Yes. The case in Georgia, depending on the how he worded it, I think so (see faithless electors)  Does he have to, by law, tell his supporters to go home?  No.  

As I stated above, that they didn't start with a list of laws that were broken but rather an emotional story, and that they have not simply turned this over to a prosecutor, does not give me much faith that there is really a strong enough case here to bring to trial.  Then again maybe I need to be more schooled about what the function of this committee is if it isn't to find what laws were violated and by who.  

I don't think people understand how at the highest level of office legal and illegal are less clear terms than we are used.

Trump acted to do something that him and his lawyers knew would be ruled against by the courts (according to emails from Trump's law team).

Can you charge Trump for trying to overturn the election by doing things he knew would probably be unconstitutional? Probably not. 

Can you charge Trump for not calling off his supporters for storming the capital and for being happy about them doing it? Probably not.

However these are all things no one should defend him for. It was a coup. A failed coup. The fact he worked through enough people to avoid being convicted shouldn't matter to anyone who cares about a democracy.

The dude tried to go around the voters to take the presidency. That shouldn't be accepted by anyone.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, el midgetron said:

So, Trump tired to do something that he didn’t end up doing and connecting the dots to a bunch of other things he didn’t end up doing it we get the conspiracy theory that he was trying to end Democracy? No one has ever accused Trump of being a Constitutional lawyer. 

He tried to stop the results what he believed was an stolen election. As far as I’m aware everything he did was legal. The things “tired” or thought he could to do were stopped by people more astute to the working of government than Trump. 

It’s literally the same thing I listened to about the Russian Collusion Hoax for 2 years, Trump has a “connection” to a Russian Bank, don Jr met with some random Russian lady, there’s a pee pee tape, yadda yadda yadda.. Trump was most certainly guilty, going to jail and many argued he should even be executed. 

It’s not lost on a lot of people that these leaps of faith and false narratives are always slanted to one political side. 

So once again. Which of this list are you denying? Be specific. Don't hide behind vague statements. 

Quote

So what are you denying? That Trump pressed the department of justice to call the election fraud? That Trump then tried to replace that department of justice ? That Trump pressed the vice president to overturn the election? That Trump contacted officials in Georgia telling them to overturn the election? That Trump didn't call off his supporters who were storming the capital despite many calls to him telling him to do that and that? it was Mike pence coordinating the defense 

 

We have evidence for all these things.

 

It was a failed coup because other Republicans and conservatives had the integrity that Trump and company did not.

Are you denying them or just saying it's no big deal that Trump tried to go around the voters to stay president ? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I don't think people understand how at the highest level of office legal and illegal are less clear terms than we are used.

Trump acted to do something that him and his lawyers knew would be ruled against by the courts (according to emails from Trump's law team).

Can you charge Trump for trying to overturn the election by doing things he knew would probably be unconstitutional? Probably not. 

Can you charge Trump for not calling off his supporters for storming the capital and for being happy about them doing it? Probably not.

However these are all things no one should defend him for. It was a coup. A failed coup. The fact he worked through enough people to avoid being convicted shouldn't matter to anyone who cares about a democracy.

The dude tried to go around the voters to take the presidency. That shouldn't be accepted by anyone.

If it's not strictly illegal then good luck.  if all they have is innuendo and emotional appeals he will skate and possibly run again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Setton said:

So we should all ignore everything you have to say from now on? 

Because you've accused several posters here of exactly that for supporting Ukraine.

So you're not familiar with the crime of attempted murder, for example?

Bravo for that post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I thought he El Midgetron is british, not american.

No. He does not have a british accent while writing.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, el midgetron said:

Attempting to “kill someone” is different than “trying” to have someone do something they can’t. If you try to get a cashier at the grocery store to give you a discount and they say they can’t do that for you, that doesn’t automatically qualify as retail fraud.

Your comparison is poor because we are talking about the president pressuring departments that are supposed to function independently. Like the justice department and election officials (pressure by, you know, firing the guy for refusing to claim the election was fraud). Definitely a corrupt thing to do. 

Like if you ask and try to pressure someone to murder your wife. And that person says no I'm not going to murder your wife. Than yeah, you tried to have your wife murdered. 

Edited by spartan max2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, OverSword said:

As I stated above, that they didn't start with a list of laws that were broken but rather an emotional story, and that they have not simply turned this over to a prosecutor, does not give me much faith that there is really a strong enough case here to bring to trial.  Then again maybe I need to be more schooled about what the function of this committee is if it isn't to find what laws were violated and by who.  

Every drama needs a hook.  A dry recitation of Donald Trump crimes would have had people turning off the TV in 10 minutes.  If they are good at telling a story, they told us how bad the riot was, the reason we should be concerned.  Next comes the recitation of deeds.

Certainly no commentary on the Pro-Trump side uses facts but relies purely on emotion. It is what hooks people in.

Edited by Tatetopa
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Every drama needs a hook.  A dry recitation of Donald Trump crimes would have had people turning off th eTV in 10 minutes.  If they are good at telling a story, they told us whow bad the riot was, the reason we should be concerned.  Next comes the recitation of deeds.

Certainly no commentary on the Pro-Trump side uses facts but relies purely on emotion. It is what hooks people in.

An appeal to outrage and emotion did that to me (turning off the TV in 10 minutes) because what it said is "After a year we got nothin'"  I want to know the charges.  Now I'll be surprised if this isn't more of the same reeling in a guppy while the marlin runs free to puncture your life raft later, that we've had since they first hysterically started going after him years ago.  

 

I think this is a puppet show.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.