All_Pro_Bills Posted April 2, 2022 Posted April 2, 2022 5 hours ago, B-Man said: No sh*t ! They have had this as the goal since 12/7 they aren't "conducting an investigation" Jan. 6 committee pushing Garland to prosecute Trump How do we know? Because Democrats (plus two rogue Republicans) have begun calling on Attorney General Eric Garland to “do his job” and get ready to prosecute Donald Trump and anyone else who’s name can in any way be tied to the January 6, 2021 riot on Capitol Hill. How Garland is expected to do that at this stage of the game was not explained. (Associated Press) What the committee has been relying on thus far is a lot of headlines without much underlying substance. For example, this week some of the members cited a judge in California (a Clinton appointee) who wrote that it is “more than likely than not” that Donald Trump committed some sort of crime related to the January 6 events. You’ll notice that no evidence is offered and no specific crime is specified. It’s not really even a suggestion that there is a charge available to file. It’s just “more likely than not.” https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/04/02/jan-6-committee-pushing-garland-to-prosecute-trump-n459576 When the threshold of guilt of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is replaced by some 3rd world junta standard of "more than likely than not" we can convict anyone of anything. This committee is a danger to freedom. As are those supporting them. 4 1
BillStime Posted April 3, 2022 Posted April 3, 2022 34 minutes ago, DRsGhost said: What was the outcome?
Doc Posted April 3, 2022 Posted April 3, 2022 9 minutes ago, B-Man said: If that's the sex and cocaine party Cawthorn was invited to and turned down...
B-Man Posted April 6, 2022 Posted April 6, 2022 (edited) I'm reading "Ivanka Trump Testifies to House Panel Investigating Jan. 6 Attack" in The New York Times. Key sentence: It was not immediately clear how revelatory her testimony was for the committee, but those familiar with the interview said Ms. Trump did not seek to invoke any privilege — such as executive privilege or the Fifth Amendment, as other witnesses have done — and broadly, if not garrulously, answered the panel’s questions. And what's with "not immediately clear how revelatory"? It sounds like she testified simply and straightforwardly, but there was nothing interesting. Why act like later something might be revealed? It's such lame titillation. What was unclear? What is the function of "if not garrulously"? It strikes me as vaguely sexist, as though you would expect her to chatter inanely. Posted by Ann Althouse https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/04/if-ivanka-wasnt-garrulous-why-bring-up.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/05/us/politics/ivanka-trump-jan-6.html?smid=url-share Edited April 6, 2022 by B-Man 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted April 6, 2022 Posted April 6, 2022 22 minutes ago, B-Man said: I'm reading "Ivanka Trump Testifies to House Panel Investigating Jan. 6 Attack" in The New York Times. Key sentence: It was not immediately clear how revelatory her testimony was for the committee, but those familiar with the interview said Ms. Trump did not seek to invoke any privilege — such as executive privilege or the Fifth Amendment, as other witnesses have done — and broadly, if not garrulously, answered the panel’s questions. And what's with "not immediately clear how revelatory"? It sounds like she testified simply and straightforwardly, but there was nothing interesting. Why act like later something might be revealed? It's such lame titillation. What was unclear? What is the function of "if not garrulously"? It strikes me as vaguely sexist, as though you would expect her to chatter inanely. Posted by Ann Althouse https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/04/if-ivanka-wasnt-garrulous-why-bring-up.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/05/us/politics/ivanka-trump-jan-6.html?smid=url-share Makes perfect sense, of course. They can't really say much about the testimony, but they can assure their readers that the Wharton School of Business graduate known for speaking eloquently and articulately yammered on like a giddy schoolgirl in front of the panel looking to destroy her, her family, her father and their entire way of life. You would really get better coverage reading People magazine.
B-Man Posted April 6, 2022 Posted April 6, 2022 (edited) This acknowledgement of reality — that it’s not a crime to walk through a door held open for you by police — is fatal to the corrupt government’s entire J6 narrative. It’s also why DOJ has criminally abused defendants to force plea deals: DOJ knows its cases are garbage. Edited April 6, 2022 by B-Man 1 1
BillStime Posted April 6, 2022 Posted April 6, 2022 (edited) 15 hours ago, DRsGhost said: Insurrection! Coup! ***** off. DR doing his best to distract from what Conald was really trying to accomplish: An all out coup and assault on our republic. Notice DR never actually comments on the real investigations? The ones involving all the players and crooks who surrounded Conald and enabled his plan to overthrow the government? Thats why DR created this thread. This thread serves as a pathetic attempt to distract his lemmings from the most corrupt administration in our lifetime. Notice how the most powerful and successful POTUS of our lifetime - you know - that one term loser who lost the popular vote TWICE and was impeached TWICE always plays the victim? This POS has manipulated his cult to lose all critical thinking capabilities and play victim to justify all his crooked ways - and his lemmings follow like good little terrorists. This cult is so conditioned - so brainwashed - they bend over backwards defending this: These idiots work themselves up so hard - just look at DRs opening - to convince THEMSELVES the lies they have been told are true Edited April 7, 2022 by BillStime
Tenhigh Posted April 7, 2022 Posted April 7, 2022 2 hours ago, BillStime said: DR doing his best to distract from what Conald was really trying to accomplish: An all out coup and assault on our republic. Notice DR never actually comments on the real investigations? The ones involving all the players and crooks who surrounded Conald and enabled his plan to overthrow the government? Thats why DR created this thread. This thread serves as a pathetic attempt to distract his lemmings from the most corrupt administration in our lifetime. Notice how the most powerful and successful POTUS of our lifetime - you know - that one term loser who lost the popular vote TWICE and was impeached TWICEl always plays the victim? This POS has manipulated his cult to lose all critical thinking capabilities and play victim to justify all his crooked ways - and his lemmings follow like good little terrorists. This cult is so conditioned- so brainwashed - they bend over backwards defending this: These idiots work themselves up so hard - just look at DRs opening - to convince THEMSELVES the lies they have been told are true You seemed to be the only one worked up, amigo.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted April 7, 2022 Posted April 7, 2022 2 hours ago, BillStime said: DR doing his best to distract from what Conald was really trying to accomplish: An all out coup and assault on our republic. Notice DR never actually comments on the real investigations? The ones involving all the players and crooks who surrounded Conald and enabled his plan to overthrow the government? Thats why DR created this thread. This thread serves as a pathetic attempt to distract his lemmings from the most corrupt administration in our lifetime. Notice how the most powerful and successful POTUS of our lifetime - you know - that one term loser who lost the popular vote TWICE and was impeached TWICEl always plays the victim? This POS has manipulated his cult to lose all critical thinking capabilities and play victim to justify all his crooked ways - and his lemmings follow like good little terrorists. This cult is so conditioned- so brainwashed - they bend over backwards defending this: These idiots work themselves up so hard - just look at DRs opening - to convince THEMSELVES the lies they have been told are true What’s your explanation for the lack of criminal charges against Trump?
Recommended Posts