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

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Steve Bannon is a true believer in his own cause, I don't think he will be cowed or detoured.  Trump was a vehicle for him, and an imperfect one at that.  If you check out Bannon's history, he has some definitive ideas about how a state should look and run.  It has nothing to do with will of the people or democracy.   If defiance won't get him what he needs, he will get tricksy, but he will not comply or be a reliable witness..

  Thanks.  that’s about what I figured .    He’s a spooky one.   I wonder if he DRINKS ?  :P       Haha! I googled the question….  He claims he swore it off in 1998.     ?

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Next hearing is this Thursday, @ 8pm Eastern time.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republican:  I'm so angry with "woke" corporations!

Democrat:  Lets raise their taxes.

Republican:  I'm not that angry.

 

We seem to have forgotten those 147 Republican members of the House of Representatives who voted to overturn the election.  It is long since time they were investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted.

We are also forgetting the wealthy corporations who initially pledged they'd quit financing these seditionists, but over the last year have donated more than $18 million to 143 of them.  Capitalism and democracy are compatible only when democracy is in the driver's seat.

Doug

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

2 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

We seem to have forgotten those 147 Republican members of the House of Representatives who voted to overturn the election.  It is long since time they were investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted.

Did they break the law? Did the democrats who refused to certify the 2016 election get investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Did they break the law? Did the democrats who refused to certify the 2016 election get investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted? 

Investigations are for the purpose of determining whether the law was broken.  If it is found that they did, then the investigated should be prosecuted.

I don't know what the statute of limitations might be, but if it has not expired, then the Dems should probably be investigated, too.  It would make a difference whether they voted against certification or whether they simply abstained.

Note that this would be a criminal investigation, not a poltical one.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

Investigations are for the purpose of determining whether the law was broken.  If it is found that they did, then the investigated should be prosecuted.

I don't know what the statute of limitations might be, but if it has not expired, then the Dems should probably be investigated, too.  It would make a difference whether they voted against certification or whether they simply abstained.

Note that this would be a criminal investigation, not a poltical one.

Doug

What crimes are they alleged to commit, what reason exists to investigate them? Last I checked,  what they did was within the law.  If you don't like the law campaign to change the law!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2022 at 1:04 PM, Gromdor said:

Well, let's use Desertrat for example- she either heard or thought that there was a glass panel between them.  Does that mean she is not credible to talk about other things she personally witnessed or knows about?

I'd say that even though she got the glass and limo parts confused, she was still generally aware of what happened enough to discuss it on this forum and that she is by no means a liar or deceitful.  The same is how I feel about this Cassidy Hutchinson.

I wasnt there but i have seen out trump acts and i could see him insisting to get up front in the pass seat rules or no rules like trump ever gave a S about rules.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2022 at 9:52 AM, Desertrat56 said:

He may have wanted to go  and he may have said let me drive, but if he was in that vehicle, he was in the back seat.   Maybe someone has purjured herself by embellishing the story OR Maybe the Media embellished it.  Did she tell that story on live tv?

I dont have a horse in this race and if trump had yet another tantrum ( he likely did ) is of little consequence, ive met a lot of people in my life some are a bit odd to me hard to work with hard to follow, my boss is like that.

I really do not know if the lady lied about trump or might believe the story she told if she lied and its proven she will face that if she believes what she told but its not true then not her fault but i really think where there is smoke there is fire and she didnt make it up out of no where.

I believe trump was in a state of unhinged meltdown facing the facts he is a loser, the american people were done with his bumbles and he lost fair and square to biden, look what he said about pence for not selling his soul bending knee and bowinf head to screw over the country just to placate trumps ego,

Its not a reach he would try to grab a wheel or grab a SS agent a self serving narssisist like him would have no problem doing stuff like that.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

What crimes are they alleged to commit, what reason exists to investigate them? Last I checked,  what they did was within the law.  If you don't like the law campaign to change the law!

We don't know that they broke the law.  That's what an investigation is for:  to find out if they did.

There's more to this than just voting for or against what may have been an illegal question (Illegal under parliamentary rules).  The way they voted may be an indictor of other, possibly illegal. activities.

Why are you trying to pick a fight over this?  I'm not advocating breaking any laws here or prosecuting an innocent person.  I would like to know if these folks really are innocent.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2022 at 11:04 AM, Gromdor said:

Well, let's use Desertrat for example- she either heard or thought that there was a glass panel between them.  Does that mean she is not credible to talk about other things she personally witnessed or knows about?

I'd say that even though she got the glass and limo parts confused, she was still generally aware of what happened enough to discuss it on this forum and that she is by no means a liar or deceitful.  The same is how I feel about this Cassidy Hutchinson.

Right, I assumed he was in a limo, I don't watch news so I get it from here or the local newspaper, which does not have any detailed information about what anyone said.     But I watched the video that was supposed to show trump trying to take the wheel and he was in the back and there was really no view of him, just the two secret service men who got into the SUV.   I can't even claim I Know Trump was in that vehicle because I saw no view of him in that video.    I watched the video that @DieChecker shared.   I don't know who Tony is, but she is repeating something someone else told her and that is hearsay.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this idea trump did or didnt grab at the wheel or an SS agent as smoke and mirrors scenery,

Did trump try to instagate an insurrection and did trump break laws thats what these 6th hearings are all about, imnsho trump has broken all kinds of laws but i dont think he will get busted on anything people like him walk between the rain drops.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

I see this idea trump did or didnt grab at the wheel or an SS agent as smoke and mirrors scenery,

Did trump try to instagate an insurrection and did trump break laws thats what these 6th hearings are all about, imnsho trump has broken all kinds of laws but i dont think he will get busted on anything people like him walk between the rain drops.

I think you are correct.  Everyone was focusing on the grabbing the steering wheel part when the important part of her testimony was that the secret service knew some of the protestors were armed, told Donald Trump that they were armed, and refused to take him there because of it.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I think you are correct.  Everyone was focusing on the grabbing the steering wheel part when the important part of her testimony was that the secret service knew some of the protestors were armed, told Donald Trump that they were armed, and refused to take him there because of it.  

Thing is i have made fun of trump as much as anyone he never stopped providing me fodder to do so i fully respect the office of potus but i do not respect trump the narcissistic man child.

People who worship trump will of course claim what im saying is because of some lame made up tds or i like coma biden neither are true,

What is true is many times trump driven by ego bumbled, his utter failure response to covid cost lives rhen his shenanigans on tge 6th like many i still havent sorted out but even if he thought even if there was electiin fraud trump didnt handle things in a professinal stately manner expected of the office he held no, he handled it like a sore loser man child having a tantrum.

But he very well might have overstepped this hearing while i have little faith in it is looking into that.

On the 6th trump was running amuck in the moment its very lucky for him that SS were there to babysit him and keep him from both getting in trouble or even hurt.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, lightly said:

 

Yep, not unlike the American people said to him last election which hes still in melt down over.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

We don't know that they broke the law.  That's what an investigation is for:  to find out if they did.

There's more to this than just voting for or against what may have been an illegal question (Illegal under parliamentary rules).  The way they voted may be an indictor of other, possibly illegal. activities.

Why are you trying to pick a fight over this?  I'm not advocating breaking any laws here or prosecuting an innocent person.  I would like to know if these folks really are innocent.

Doug

Because the police don't open up investigations for no reason, there needs to be some kind of evidence that a crime has been committed. The actions of the House Republicans in 2020 and the Dems in 2016 are within the bounds of the law, therefore I cannot see how there is any justification for opening an investigation against any of them. 

You are the one calling for an investigation, I am simply asking for the legal grounds under which you hope to open such an investigation. I'm "picking a fight" because there is no valid reason that I can see and I'm asking for your reasoning. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Because the police don't open up investigations for no reason, there needs to be some kind of evidence that a crime has been committed. The actions of the House Republicans in 2020 and the Dems in 2016 are within the bounds of the law, therefore I cannot see how there is any justification for opening an investigation against any of them. 

You are the one calling for an investigation, I am simply asking for the legal grounds under which you hope to open such an investigation. I'm "picking a fight" because there is no valid reason that I can see and I'm asking for your reasoning. 

https://www.govtrack.us/misconduct

Pick a few and follow where it leads.  Most people can't compartmentalize their lives enough to keep an investigation in one area from bleeding into another.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

https://www.govtrack.us/misconduct

Pick a few and follow where it leads.  Most people can't compartmentalize their lives enough to keep an investigation in one area from bleeding into another.

Doug

Dang, it's easy to see who is not the party of "Law and Order".

There really are two mindsets of people:

1) Unjust rules and laws are to be ignored.

2) Laws have to be followed and order maintained because to disregard them weakens the glue of a safe civil society.

Edited by Gromdor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2022 at 4:09 PM, Doug1066 said:

We seem to have forgotten those 147 Republican members of the House of Representatives who voted to overturn the election.  It is long since time they were investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted. 

Meh. I dont think any laws were broken in the voting. An investigation based on that premise would be a waste of resources IMHO. 

Quote

We are also forgetting the wealthy corporations who initially pledged they'd quit financing these seditionists, but over the last year have donated more than $18 million to 143 of them.

Meh. Drops in a bucket. Stacy Abrams running for Governor of Georgia has raised $50 for her campaign. Given that 18 million is across 143 legislators... 

If you mean each one was given 18 million, please post a link.

Quote

Capitalism and democracy are compatible only when democracy is in the driver's seat.

Doug

True enough, but democracy can't just scream, "Its my car, I make all the rules!".

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

https://www.govtrack.us/misconduct

Pick a few and follow where it leads.  Most people can't compartmentalize their lives enough to keep an investigation in one area from bleeding into another.

Doug

Because Republicans are more represented in past cases of corruption doesn't necessarily mean VOTING against election results must be criminal.

You started with the premise of voting against the election results should initiate investigation. 

Why? What is the crime?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Meh. I dont think any laws were broken in the voting. An investigation based on that premise would be a waste of resources IMHO. 

I question whether such a question can be submitted under the parliamentary rules of the House.  Voting on it is not illegal; it is the question that is illegal.  But that's another question.

The list only serves to identify people of interest.  By itself, it has little value.  Mostly because of those who are not on it.

Doug

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a ‘system’ we have.   Back and forth between Democrat and Republican presidents (with a 2nd term thrown in sometimes).. the nearly perfect  # split between the supporters..and the election results ..make me very suspicious about the legitimacy of the whole system.     With some minor tweaking ..the polls and voter support can be adjusted to suit any purpose.  Everything is always the fault of the   other   parties leaders, and followers.    Meanwhile …the owner-operators just keeep making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.       (no matter how bad The Economy gets…..LOOK @ the profits of the Richest people on top)

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, lightly said:

What a ‘system’ we have.   Back and forth between Democrat and Republican presidents (with a 2nd term thrown in sometimes).. the nearly perfect  # split between the supporters..and the election results ..make me very suspicious about the legitimacy of the whole system.     With some minor tweaking ..the polls and voter support can be adjusted to suit any purpose.  Everything is always the fault of the   other   parties leaders, and followers.    Meanwhile …the owner-operators just keeep making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.       (no matter how bad The Economy gets…..LOOK @ the profits of the Richest people on top)

I have had those suspicions since 1973.    The elections are fixed.  First by shutting out any one not registered in one of the parties for the primaries, second by collusion between the two parties.  It was obvious the second time Nixon won, just based on what went on in the demcratic "congress" or what ever it is called when the state representatives were not allowed to vote for the person they came to vote for.   And it was obvious when George H. Bush won and when Clinton won, and when Obama won and when Trump won.  It had nothing to do with who the people wanted, it had everything to do with what the party leaders wanted (based on who was paying them).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

The U.S. Secret Service has determined it has no new texts to provide Congress relevant to its Jan. 6 investigation, and that any other texts its agents exchanged around the time of the 2021 attack on the Capitol were purged, according to a senior official briefed on the matter.

Also, the National Archives on Tuesday sought more information on “the potential unauthorized deletion” of agency text messages. The U.S. government’s chief record-keeper asked the Secret Service to report back to the Archives within 30 days about the deletion of any records, including describing what was purged and the circumstances of how the documentation was lost.

Source: Washington Post

  • Like 2
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.