ALF Posted July 6, 2022 Posted July 6, 2022 'I hope you naturally die': Republican posts threats made against him Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) posted a series of voicemail threats made against him and his family in response to his work as part of the January 6 committee. Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) explains why this has him worried about the future of democracy. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/07/05/adam-kinzinger-voicemails-jim-himes-tsr-sot-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/
Nineforty Posted July 6, 2022 Posted July 6, 2022 (edited) On 7/4/2022 at 9:46 AM, B-Man said: Last 5 posts to the thread. You've chosen to ignore content by BillStime. Options Posted 13 hours ago You've chosen to ignore content by BillStime. Options Posted 11 hours ago You've chosen to ignore content by BillStime. Options Posted 2 hours ago You've chosen to ignore content by BillStime. Options Posted 1 hour ago You've chosen to ignore content by BillStime. Options Posted 59 minutes ago The panic at the "committee's" failure is obvious. . Mick Mulvaney former Chief of Staff under former President Donald Trump Quote "The significance of last week’s Congressional Jan. 6 committee hearings cannot be overstated. For the first time, evidence was presented that former President Trump knew some of the protesters were armed before encouraging them to go the Capitol, that right-wing extremist rioters communicated directly with the White House, that key Presidential advisers requested pardons, that the chief White House lawyer was concerned about getting “charged with every crime imaginable,” and that someone within Trump world may be trying to tamper with committee witnesses. Serious stuff. But roughly half the country — the Republican half — isn’t watching..." source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mick-mulvaney-on-jan-6-hearings-when-republicans-testify-against-other-republicans-republicans-should-pay-attention/ar-AAZgDpT?ocid=EMMX&cvid=453678d8ed924264948beb4cc39a9430 Edited July 6, 2022 by Nineforty
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 7, 2022 Posted July 7, 2022 On 7/4/2022 at 9:49 AM, ChiGoose said: I do not seem to recall George W. Bush conspiring with a small group of aides to take actions they knew were illegal in order to delay or prevent the certification of the election. In fact, contrary to your statement, I have a hard time recalling any president who wanted to prevent the certification of the election, was told that doing so was illegal, and still pushed his people to try to make it happen. You must have a short memory. Wasn’t W Bush the President accused of manufacturing evidence of WMDS to propel the country into a needless war, where young men and women died needlessly in pursuit of profit from oil? It’s hard to remember because not long after the D leadership accused him and a small group of aides of doing just that, and the election decided, we got these images of him not being investigated by a bi-partisan committee looking to flush out the facts. It’s weird how all this works. 1 1
ChiGoose Posted July 7, 2022 Posted July 7, 2022 30 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You must have a short memory. Wasn’t W Bush the President accused of manufacturing evidence of WMDS to propel the country into a needless war, where young men and women died needlessly in pursuit of profit from oil? It’s hard to remember because not long after the D leadership accused him and a small group of aides of doing just that, and the election decided, we got these images of him not being investigated by a bi-partisan committee looking to flush out the facts. It’s weird how all this works. Are you equating the actions taken by a president in the duties of their office (even if they are controversial) that they believe may help them get re-elected with the president acting against the advice of his lawyers to try to change the outcome of an election after it had been conducted? Because those are totally different things.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 7, 2022 Posted July 7, 2022 24 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Are you equating the actions taken by a president in the duties of their office (even if they are controversial) that they believe may help them get re-elected with the president acting against the advice of his lawyers to try to change the outcome of an election after it had been conducted? Because those are totally different things. Oh no, sir, I’m not talking about something controversial. I think we would all agree that energy policy, for example, can be controversial depending on who is offering the analysis. I’m talking specifically about a politician you mentioned by name, and your inability to recall allegations of “conspiring with a small group of aides”, in this case with respect to creating a false narrative of WMDs that lead to a war and the deaths of thousands of Americans and between 150,000-1,000,000 + Iraqis and others. Though, in fairness, the allegations related to “war for oil” had nothing to do with contesting an election. For that type of allegation, you have to go back to Gore contesting his election loss in 2000 and allegations of disenfranchised voters and serious irregularities in the process. I’m surprised you’d take issue with this sort of thing, but maybe you’re a Bush man. 1
SoCal Deek Posted July 8, 2022 Posted July 8, 2022 1 minute ago, BillStime said: Idiots lolz Wait…what? You were under the impression that the people were gathering to offer their support of Biden? Okie Dokie 1
BillStime Posted July 8, 2022 Posted July 8, 2022 4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Wait…what? You were under the impression that the people were gathering to offer their support of Biden? Okie Dokie Um what?
Tiberius Posted July 8, 2022 Author Posted July 8, 2022 Really? Are they sure they want to put this loon in front of an open mic?
ChiGoose Posted July 8, 2022 Posted July 8, 2022 31 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Really? Are they sure they want to put this loon in front of an open mic? This is like the Mo Brooks offer. It's an offer they know that no committee would accept and they expect it to get rejected. Then they can claim bias or whatever. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up fundraising off of it.
Doc Posted July 8, 2022 Posted July 8, 2022 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Really? Are they sure they want to put this loon in front of an open mic? Why not? I'm sure they've got Trump now... 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 11 hours ago, BillStime said: Idiots lolz We have new video from January 6th 2021? Wow that is amazing that it only took like 18 months to put in the special effects and edits.
BillStime Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 13 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said: We have new video from January 6th 2021? Wow that is amazing that it only took like 18 months to put in the special effects and edits. Oh is THaT what they are doing? smfh
B-Man Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 This should be the standard for anyone appearing before a Kangaroo Court Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes AGREES to Testify Before Liz Cheney and Jan. 6 Committee Next Week — BUT ONLY IF IT IS AIRED LIVE https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/breaking-exclusive-oath-keepers-founder-stewart-rhodes-agrees-testify-liz-cheney-jan-6-committee-next-week-aired-live/
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 1 hour ago, BillStime said: Oh is THaT what they are doing? smfh That is the most logical explanation according to Occam's Razor, do you have a better explanation on how they just "found" this footage 18 months after recording it?
Doc Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 13 minutes ago, B-Man said: This should be the standard for anyone appearing before a Kangaroo Court Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes AGREES to Testify Before Liz Cheney and Jan. 6 Committee Next Week — BUT ONLY IF IT IS AIRED LIVE https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/breaking-exclusive-oath-keepers-founder-stewart-rhodes-agrees-testify-liz-cheney-jan-6-committee-next-week-aired-live/ So IOW...he won't be called to testify.
Recommended Posts