Jan 6 public hearings Live

[+Hammerclaw]

10 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

It would be admissible as evidence for a jury to consider when determining if I was guilty or not.

There have been historical cases where a person went missing and someone was convicted of murder before:  10 Murder Victims Who Turned Up Alive - Listverse

This includes people who have confessed to killing that person even though they didn't.

So to answer your question- "yes".

What's that got to with someone saying someone said this or that and the party(s) in question deny it, or saying something happened somewhere that the people on site say didn't happen? Sounds to me like throwing mud and hoping some of it sticks.

[Gromdor]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

What's that got to with someone saying someone said this or that and the party(s) in question deny it, or saying something happened somewhere that the people on site say didn't happen? Sounds to me like throwing mud and hoping some of it sticks.

Sounds like you need to reread the last few pages of this thread.  I think you were so focused about hearsay, that you forgot what the conversation was about. 

[+Hammerclaw]

36 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Sounds like you need to reread the last few pages of this thread.  I think you were so focused about hearsay, that you forgot what the conversation was about. 

The jan 6 hearings and the hearsay evidence therein, from my perspective. You, on the other hand, were pulling all sorts of gobbledy gook out of thin air, or don't you proof read your posts?

[Gromdor]

24 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

The jan 6 hearings and the hearsay evidence therein, from my perspective. You, on the other hand, were pulling all sorts of gobbledy gook out of thin air, or don't you proof read your posts?

<shrugs>  If you still believe everything is hearsay, so be it.  I have nothing to gain trying to pull someone out of a hole if they like it in there.  The only part of her testimony that was pure hearsay was over something irrelevant anyways.  The important bits that Tiggs quoted are admissible to a jury that wouldn't have you on it anyways (if they bother to prosecute).

[Grim Reaper 6]

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I've seen several articles on the same subject. If you go look at the Democrat PACs you'll see it is true, their "attack ads" are designed to get the voters to back the far right candidate by portraying them as far right. Solidifying the R voters behind them. Kind if like the MAGA King thing that backfired.

I'll post a few others. I think one was Politico.

Edit:

Example:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/09/dems-meddle-in-colorado-senate-gop-primary-00038294

AND:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/democrats-stop-funding-right-wing-candidates/

AND:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-primary-season-fund-conservative-advertsing-illinois-colorado-11655326924

AND:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/politics/democrats-midterms-trump-gop.html

But. I'm sure your research suggests this isn't happening??

Thanks for updating your Opinion Article your new links are much more appropriate!

[Grim Reaper 6]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

The jan 6 hearings and the hearsay evidence therein, from my perspective. You, on the other hand, were pulling all sorts of gobbledy gook out of thin air, or don't you proof read your posts?

Trump’s White House Counsel Gives Day-Long Testimony to Panelhttps://www.msn.com/enus/news/politics/trump-s-white-house-counsel-gives-day-long-testimony-to-panel/ar-

 

Hersay, I don’t think so at all the testimony below is from a highly ethical man known for his integrity and total honesty. What he confirmed from first hand experiences ( being present while things were being said and occurring) along with new unknown information never heard before is going light up Washington. You know they are talking about preventing Trump from leaving the country until after the investigation and DOJ charges are filed against Trump because it’s becoming clear he is a flight risk!
 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Manwon Lender

[+Link of Hyrule]

28 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

You know they are talking about preventing Trump from leaving the country until after the investigation and DOJ charges are filed against Trump because it’s becoming clear he is a flight risk!

Who is "they" and do you have a source for this? I've checked Google and it appears this isn't the first time such a claim has been made. Two years ago Politico suggested Trump might flee the country if he lost the election. How is your claim here more valid?

[Grim Reaper 6]

12 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Do you have a source for this? I've checked Google and it appears this isn't the first time such a claim has been made. Two years ago Politico suggested he'd flee the country if he lost the election. How is your claim here more valid, and is there an actual source other than an always-nebulous "they" to whom you refer. 

Seems you must have some difficulties doing web searches, if you need some help I will teach you.

Article dated 6 July 2022
Seize Trump’s passport: No greater flight risk than an unmasked con fleeing “every crime imaginable: https://www.nationofchange.org/2022/07/06/seize-trumps-passport-no-greater-flight-risk-than-an-unmasked-con-fleeing-every-crime-imaginable/

Edited July 9, 2022 by Manwon Lender

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Sure, I think it would be worth tossing out the dreggs. Now, how to do that?? Humm... Maybe round people up and brand them on the fforehead?

Seriously, anyone can get a voter registration and register for whatever party they wish. Should there be a blacklist of names notballowed to vote Republican? WTF kind of idea is that. Seriously. Think Psyche, you can force people not to register R or D. Even if they could, it would be horrendously misused by the Rs, or Ds, in individual voting situations. Completely impossible idea.

You still seem to be missing the point I am trying to make 

If those values are good, why do the majority of bad people find them "close enough" to their own values to support them. 

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

You do also realize it is exclusively the Ds working to allow criminals, even those still in prison, to vote. So Ds want rapists, murderers, and child abusers, to vote. Any problem with that? Why do the Ds want rapist/murderer/child abusers to be voters for them? Simple, voters = control. Theres no virtue there with the Ds. They're as bad, or worse, behind their "caring smiles", as any R.

No, that doesn't sound like a good idea and why such decisions should go to a high court to set a precedent. Those people gave up their rights and freedoms when they took law into their own hands. 

What reasons are they putting forward? It sounds like something that could easily be challenged. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

5 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Seems you must have some difficulties doing web searches, if you need some help I will teach you.

Article dated 6 July 2022
Seize Trump’s passport: No greater flight risk than an unmasked con fleeing “every crime imaginable: https://www.nationofchange.org/2022/07/06/seize-trumps-passport-no-greater-flight-risk-than-an-unmasked-con-fleeing-every-crime-imaginable/

Hey, at least we know who "they" is now. Clearly no one in any kind of authority to actually do what was suggested, but instead a left wing activist journalist who wants to share his opinion for the world to see on a left wing news source! 

[Grim Reaper 6]

31 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Hey, at least we know who "they" is now. Clearly no one in any kind of authority to actually do what was suggested, but instead a left wing activist journalist who wants to share his opinion for the world to see on a left wing news source! 

Please you asked for a link I provided one, you says it’s left bias provide a fact check, because that’s not an opinion piece that’s journalism man, like 'I said if you need some help doing searches I will be glad to help!

Donald Trump a ‘flight risk’ if criminal charges filed, experts say:  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/13/donald-trump-flight-risk-if-criminal-charges-filed/

 

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Trump’s White House Counsel Gives Day-Long Testimony to Panelhttps://www.msn.com/enus/news/politics/trump-s-white-house-counsel-gives-day-long-testimony-to-panel/ar-

 

Hersay, I don’t think so at all the testimony below is from a highly ethical man known for his integrity and total honesty. What he confirmed from first hand experiences ( being present while things were being said and occurring) along with new unknown information never heard before is going light up Washington. You know they are talking about preventing Trump from leaving the country until after the investigation and DOJ charges are filed against Trump because it’s becoming clear he is a flight risk!
 

So sad and so delusional.

[preacherman76]

No one cares. Most of this country doesn’t believe any of the leftwing radical BS about racism and whatever other crap you guys pull out of thin air daily. 
 

This is a trial where only one side is allowed to speak. It easy to convince when you can’t be challenged. It’s all a BS show. No one cares. 
 

We care about why it cost a100 bucks to get to work every week. You know things that are really happening. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

Please you asked for a link I provided one, you says it’s left bias provide a fact check, because that’s not an opinion piece that’s journalism man, like 'I said if you need some help doing searches I will be glad to help!

Donald Trump a ‘flight risk’ if criminal charges filed, experts say:  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/13/donald-trump-flight-risk-if-criminal-charges-filed/

 

What I asked for was the identity of the people who are saying Trump should have his passports confiscated. You made it sound like there was a serious attempt within the DOJ or other organisation to make this happen. You described someone as "a highly ethical man known for his integrity and total honesty". Literally one sentence later you wrote "they are talking about preventing Trump from leaving the country". Any reasonable person would assume that "they" is someone in connection to the committee, considering EVERYTHING you wrote about before that was within that context. Instead, it turns out "they" is the author of an opinion piece (not journalism) printed by a website with a very strong progressive/democrat bias.  

Intentional or not it was hugely misleading and I think it was very fair to point that out. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

19 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

What I asked for was the identity of the people who are saying Trump should have his passports confiscated. You made it sound like there was a serious attempt within the DOJ or other organisation to make this happen. You described someone as "a highly ethical man known for his integrity and total honesty". Literally one sentence later you wrote "they are talking about preventing Trump from leaving the country". Any reasonable person would assume that "they" is someone in connection to the committee, considering EVERYTHING you wrote about before that was within that context. Instead, it turns out "they" is the author of an opinion piece (not journalism) printed by a website with a very strong progressive/democrat bias.  

Intentional or not it was hugely misleading and I think it was very fair to point that out. 

You asked for a source I provided a source, you called it left wing I asked for a fact check of media bias you provided none. Yet you still continue to call it left wing reporting prove it?

Prove it’s a opinion piece, why does it say that? Here is the link it’s no opinion piece: https://www.nationofchange.org/2022/07/06/seize-trumps-passport-no-greater-flight-risk-than-an-unmasked-con-fleeing-every-crime-imaginable/

That should be very simple to do, it only requires a web search, now your twisting your original question here is the post you first quoted. You are confused you may want to reread our previous exchange.

Here is the first quote you made to me and the question you asked!

“”Who is "they" and do you have a source for this? I've checked Google and it appears this isn't the first time such a claim has been made. Two years ago Politico suggested Trump might flee the country if he lost the election. How is your claim here more valid?””

Which I answered with a link to source!

Here is your next quote to me!

“”Hey, at least we know who "they" is now. Clearly no one in any kind of authority to actually do what was suggested, but instead a left wing activist journalist who wants to share his opinion for the world to see on a left wing news source! “”

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Manwon Lender

[+Link of Hyrule]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

You asked for a source I provided a source, you called it left wing I asked for a fact check of media bias you provided none. Yet you still continue to call it left wing reporting prove it?

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nation-of-change/

Calling nationofchange.org a left-wing source is about as close to stating the bleeding obvious as one can get, I wasn't aware I needed to fact check it! 

To be clear, in the space of just one post you went from: 

* Initial post: "the hearings are interviewing some highly ethical and trustworthy people, they are now talking about preventing Trump from leaving the country". 

* Follow up post #1: "a left wing journalist floated the idea of taking away Trump's passport, written as an article in a left wing website, but no one with any real authority is suggesting it". 

You were overstating your case and got called on it, even the best of us overstate our case on occasion, it's not a huge deal  

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

16 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nation-of-change/

Calling nationofchange.org a left-wing source is about as close to stating the bleeding obvious as one can get, I wasn't aware I needed to fact check it! 

To be clear, in the space of just one post you went from: 

* Initial post: "the hearings are interviewing some highly ethical and trustworthy people, they are now talking about preventing Trump from leaving the country". 

* Follow up post #1: "a left wing journalist floated the idea of taking away Trump's passport, written as an article in a left wing website, but no one with any real authority is suggesting it". 

You were overstating your case and got called on it, even the best of us overstate our case on occasion, it's not a huge deal  

 

Ok so it’s a left bias source which I already was fully aware of, just wanted you to do diligence but you forgot the most important fact about the source and I suspect you did so intentionally, however it’s also given a factual rating!

 

I am over starting the case, well as I have proven in previous posts from you based upon this conversation your still twisting the facts paragraph 3 proves lt perfectly and can’t admit the fact check reported factual reporting!  Yet, however like you said it’s certainly not big deal just a little amoral but hell what else can be expected from a Internet forum anyway, you certainly meet all kinds don’t Ja! 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Manwon Lender

[+Link of Hyrule]

5 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Ok so it’s a left bias source which I already was fully aware of, just wanted you to do diligence but you forgot the most important fact about the source and I suspect you did so intentionally, however it’s also given a factual rating!

I didn't miss that, but it doesn't change the fact that the guy hasn't done his research properly, there's heaps of legal issues the guy hasn't considered. The author is entitled to his opinion, and it is one possible opinion to make based on the law. But it is not the most likely legal option, and just because he says it doesn't make it either reasonable or something that the DOJ is going to suddenly follow through on without opening a whole other legal can of worms. 

My point in bringing up the source was to point out that "they" to whom you referred is not someone with any authority or decision-making powers, but just an author writing for a publication with a known anti-Trump bias. You don't have to like that fact, I'm simply asking you to acknowledge it.  

 

5 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I am over starting the case

Thank you, now that we agree there's nothing more to discuss  

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I didn't miss that, but it doesn't change the fact that the guy hasn't done his research properly, there's heaps of legal issues the guy hasn't considered. The author is entitled to his opinion, and it is one possible opinion to make based on the law. But it is not the most likely legal option, and just because he says it doesn't make it either reasonable or something that the DOJ is going to suddenly follow through on without opening a whole other legal can of worms. 

My point in bringing up the source was to point out that "they" to whom you referred is not someone with any authority or decision-making powers, but just an author writing for a publication with a known anti-Trump bias. You don't have to like that fact, I'm simply asking you to acknowledge it.  

 

Thank you, now that we agree there's nothing more to discuss  

You are as amoral and deceptive as the day Is long I bet you steal the change from your kids piggy banks, very sad!

Edited July 9, 2022 by Manwon Lender

[+Link of Hyrule]

9 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

You are as amoral and deceptive as the day Is long I bet you steal the change from your kids piggy banks, very sad!

Ever heard the phrase "Accuse your opponent of that which you are guilty"? 

[+DieChecker]

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You still seem to be missing the point I am trying to make 

If those values are good, why do the majority of bad people find them "close enough" to their own values to support them. 

That's like asking why is a 10 closer to 7 then 4? Why is a communist closer to a democrat then a republican? 

Many ideologies are great for society, IN Moderation. Anything taken to an extreme can be wrong for society.

You're trying to use a fallacious parallel, that since Nazism is wrong, and racism is wrong, then if Nazis and Racists vote Republican usually, then ipso facto, all Republicans are Nazi Racists.

If a Nazi is closer to a Republican then a Democrat, that doesn't make the Republicans wrong, just as Antifa rioters are closer to Democrats then Republicans, doesn't necessarily reflect directly on Democrats. 

I think another term to use is "False Equivalency ".

Edited July 9, 2022 by DieChecker

[Grim Reaper 6]

40 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

That's like asking why is a 10 closer to 7 then 4? Why is a communist closer to a democrat then a republican? 

Many ideologies are great for society, IN Moderation. Anything taken to an extreme can be wrong for society.

You're trying to use a fallacious parallel, that since Nazism is wrong, and racism is wrong, then if Nazis and Racists vote Republican usually, then ipso facto, all Republicans are Nazi Racists.

If a Nazi is closer to a Republican then a Democrat, that doesn't make the Republicans wrong, just as Antifa rioters are closer to Democrats then Republicans, doesn't necessarily reflect directly on Democrats. 

I think another term to use is "False Equivalency ".

I think if someone is using blanket terms to describe either group, they are foolish and completely lost! There are no absolutes, and only a narcissistic personality would group people in that manner cut and dry! 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Manwon Lender

[Duke Wellington]

Biden`s approval ratings are now down to 29%.

Can any Americans confirm thats the lowest of any president ever?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Biden`s approval ratings are now down to 29%.

Can any Americans confirm thats the lowest of any president ever?

No, your polling is inaccurate. 
100% of Democrats specifically chosen to be polled people think Biden is amazing.

[Duke Wellington]

1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

No, your polling is inaccurate. 
100% of Democrats specifically chosen to be polled people think Biden is amazing.

Well just watch in amazement as he gets 200 million votes.

Including twice and even three times the number of votes as per living in certain states lmao.