Jan. 6 sentencing...

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Mar 11, 2006
4,751
2,529
1,743
Recommend to read what McDaniel actually said instead of a tweet headline from MSNBC's Kyle Griffin.

Her quote, in summary, was that the Trump lawyer advised the RNC to put together electors "in case any of these legal challenges that were ongoing changed the result of any of the states". Unless there is more meat in her deposition that was shown (and there certainly might be) --- that is hardly a smoking gun.

But the tweet headline and the associated MSNBC headline do help satisfy people who don't care about specifics.
 
Dec 9, 2013
1,846
633
743
52
1st - I was referring to the tweet and the multiple media stories about the documentary and the MSNBC bold headlines about this "explosive" documentary. So yes, people are absolutely hyping the documentary even without seeing a single second of it.

2nd - Your assumption of my position is mostly correct, but it is definitely not a full yawn --- but more of a "tell me something new". It is not new information or surprising to hear that the Trump team pressured Raffensberger to find votes --- that was reported over a year ago.
Trump is not a good dude. He is underhanded, revengeful, an incredible egomaniac, and I am certain was desperate to hold onto power. The key for the hearing is to uncover truth. But the need is to find items that are illegal (more than just misdemeanors) and not just unethical.
Many moderates and conservatives want Trump proven to do something illegal. That would be the best thing to keep him off the ballot and have a different candidate in 2024. Unfortunately, I am concerned Dems and liberals are just more focused about continued implications and innuendo that just prolongs this --- and the longer the better for them I mentioned the documentary because it is utterly fascinating that some media is salivating over something that they have never seen --- and that is exactly like what happened previously.
I am sorry and you are certainly willing to disagree w me but your copout of wanting him to be proven of something illegal so he is no longer on the ballot is an indictment of the lack of fiber the Rs need.

The Rs had the chance in 2016 to rid themselves of this guy. There were multiple far better choices in the primaries. But they chose him. They could have said no in 2020, but more voted for him than any other person in the history of our country except for 1 person, Biden. He’s been impeached twice but Rs would not remove him from office.

Do the work yourself. Both when it comes to voting for someone else and in regards to yesterday’s testimony.

Just to sum up the House Speaker from AZ. He was a trump supporter. They kept after him to basically decertify the AZ vote. They claimed fraud. He kept asking for evidence. They couldn’t provide it. Then when he told them he had taken an oath. That he would not put his state through the expense and divisiveness of the process they were asking for, they turned on him. Just like everyone on here complaining about protestors showing up at Sup Court Justices homes. Except this time they had video boards and loud speakers paraded through his neighborhood accusing him of being a pedophile. Accusing him of treason. All of this taking place while he was caring for, in his house, a daughter who was terminally Ill and would only months later pass from cancer.

These were his word and his emotions on display. Go watch the video of his testimony.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,751
2,529
1,743
I am sorry and you are certainly willing to disagree w me but your copout of wanting him to be proven of something illegal so he is no longer on the ballot is an indictment of the lack of fiber the Rs need.

The Rs had the chance in 2016 to rid themselves of this guy. There were multiple far better choices in the primaries. But they chose him. They could have said no in 2020, but more voted for him than any other person in the history of our country except for 1 person, Biden. He’s been impeached twice but Rs would not remove him from office.

Do the work yourself. Both when it comes to voting for someone else and in regards to yesterday’s testimony.

Just to sum up the House Speaker from AZ. He was a trump supporter. They kept after him to basically decertify the AZ vote. They claimed fraud. He kept asking for evidence. They couldn’t provide it. Then when he told them he had taken an oath. That he would not put his state through the expense and divisiveness of the process they were asking for, they turned on him. Just like everyone on here complaining about protestors showing up at Sup Court Justices homes. Except this time they had video boards and loud speakers paraded through his neighborhood accusing him of being a pedophile. Accusing him of treason. All of this taking place while he was caring for, in his house, a daughter who was terminally Ill and would only months later pass from cancer.

These were his word and his emotions on display. Go watch the video of his testimony.
1) Multiple far better choice in the primaries: 100% agree. Of the 17 candidates in the primaries he was my 17th choice
2) Twice impeached but Rs would not remove him from office: I want him gone, but the Ukraine item was silly to try to impeach. Trump did almost exactly what Biden did with Ukraine while Biden was VP. To claim otherwise is to be wholly partisan.
3) House speaker from AZ: Maybe this will be a way to prove he did something illegal ...I hope so. But showing me Trump is unethical and a bad person is not teaching me anything I don't already know.
4) Do the work yourself: I am doing the work myself. I think that is abundantly clear that I am far from being overly influenced by media. I am not close to being one that make assumptions based on media headlines or pundit's tweets. However, that is about 1/3 of what this 50 page thread is made of.

5) Copout of wanting proven to be illegal: This is most important. Yes, it is important that the hearings show some proof of illegality. Maybe not what you are meaning...and I don't think you are..., but disappointing others don't value proof more than insinuations that drive tweets/headlines.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,415
10,870
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Recommend to read what McDaniel actually said instead of a tweet headline from MSNBC's Kyle Griffin.

Her quote, in summary, was that the Trump lawyer advised the RNC to put together electors "in case any of these legal challenges that were ongoing changed the result of any of the states". Unless there is more meat in her deposition that was shown (and there certainly might be) --- that is hardly a smoking gun.

But the tweet headline and the associated MSNBC headline do help satisfy people who don't care about specifics.
We've spent a couple weeks now showing that they already KNEW there were no legal challenges and were lying to people to put together these "Fake electors" They ALREADY new they lost and went for it anyway KNOWING it was Illegal because the WH counsel had already TOLD them it was.

Yet TRUMP himself called this lady and then put Eastman on the line to sell her the bit.

THEY TOLD her a story that "in case there are legal challenges do this" but the evidence shows us 1000% they new it was illegal before the ask, AND they had been told multiple times it was illegal.


You are trying to argue that the BS Line Eastman fed her when he called her was the Truth......they were selling her an Illegal plot. OF COURSE THEY DIDN"T CALL HER AND SAY "Hey want to do something illegal with us" The committee has already shown us they Trump and his lawyer KNEW this was illegal before calling her. THEY KNEW THEY WERE LYING TO HER and KNEW it was illegal when they did it.

Doesn't matter what they told her when they called her. Eastman and TRUMP BOTH had already been told it was illegal and went forward with it anyway

You are jumping on the source of a headline because of who produced the headline and NOT considering what we know NOW
 
Last edited:
Oct 7, 2008
1,759
433
1,713
Recommend to read what McDaniel actually said instead of a tweet headline from MSNBC's Kyle Griffin.

Her quote, in summary, was that the Trump lawyer advised the RNC to put together electors "in case any of these legal challenges that were ongoing changed the result of any of the states". Unless there is more meat in her deposition that was shown (and there certainly might be) --- that is hardly a smoking gun.

But the tweet headline and the associated MSNBC headline do help satisfy people who don't care about specifics.
So they actually had others from the Trump campaign who testified yesterday that those who concocted this scheme told them they were only there in case of legal challenges, but the inner circle of Trump campaign lied to those they tasked with creating the fake electors and they tried to submit the fake slate anyway (in one state they went so far as trying to hide in the Capitol overnight to submit the next morning). Eastman even went so far as trying to say the existence of the fake slate they created was enough evidence of a dispute for Pence to not certify. Several lawyers from Team Trump told them this was all illegal btw, and refused to take part.
1655911687356.png
 
Dec 9, 2013
1,846
633
743
52
So they actually had others from the Trump campaign who testified yesterday that those who concocted this scheme told them they were only there in case of legal challenges, but the inner circle of Trump campaign lied to those they tasked with creating the fake electors and they tried to submit the fake slate anyway (in one state they went so far as trying to hide in the Capitol overnight to submit the next morning). Eastman even went so far as trying to say the existence of the fake slate they created was enough evidence of a dispute for Pence to not certify. Several lawyers from Team Trump told them this was all illegal btw, and refused to take part.
View attachment 96076
Here is where it’s going to get interesting. Eastman and Trump were told multiple times (1) there was no evidence of fraud to the level to support a change and (2) there were legal issues that should be considered.

It’s also been testified to that Eastman knew they had challenges that courts would likely go against them but that he wanted it get into the courts. Why? Why did he w knowledge what they were doing was not supported by evidence, had legal complications and would not prevail in the courts want it to end up being adjudicated?

Why were Eastman and the wife of a Supreme Court justice communicating during this time? How close were we to losing the Republic?

Someone knows whether this is all circumstantial or it’s really something dark. They need to testify under oath w documents.

This will be a great movie.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,751
2,529
1,743
Here is where it’s going to get interesting. Eastman and Trump were told multiple times (1) there was no evidence of fraud to the level to support a change and (2) there were legal issues that should be considered.

It’s also been testified to that Eastman knew they had challenges that courts would likely go against them but that he wanted it get into the courts. Why? Why did he w knowledge what they were doing was not supported by evidence, had legal complications and would not prevail in the courts want it to end up being adjudicated?

Why were Eastman and the wife of a Supreme Court justice communicating during this time? How close were we to losing the Republic?

Someone knows whether this is all circumstantial or it’s really something dark. They need to testify under oath w documents.

This will be a great movie.
I agree with you on almost everything you listed here ---- that information will be interesting --- and would (will) be a good movie.
I don't agree with the bolded part --- I guess my answer would be -- we were not close at all to losing the republic - not even remotely. Statements like that just seem to be hyperbolic and make people (me at least) roll my eyes. Perhaps that is the crux of my viewpoint difference.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,022
33,268
1,743
oklahoma city
I agree with you on almost everything you listed here ---- that information will be interesting --- and would (will) be a good movie.
I don't agree with the bolded part --- I guess my answer would be -- we were not close at all to losing the republic - not even remotely. Statements like that just seem to be hyperbolic and make people (me at least) roll my eyes. Perhaps that is the crux of my viewpoint difference.
What do you consider losing the Republic?

If Trump had figured out a way to get his way and either the Pence trick, pressure on a Sec of State, or a state congress flipped enough electoral votes for him to win would that be losing the republic?
 

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,859
4,450
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
I agree with you on almost everything you listed here ---- that information will be interesting --- and would (will) be a good movie.
I don't agree with the bolded part --- I guess my answer would be -- we were not close at all to losing the republic - not even remotely. Statements like that just seem to be hyperbolic and make people (me at least) roll my eyes. Perhaps that is the crux of my viewpoint difference.
I could not agree more re: the prevalence of way too much hyperbole on way too many things these days, but the thing you have to acknowledge is that the J6 Committee is showing with each hearing that we were closer than we realized to things being seriously (if not irreparably) compromised and/or damaged. What if Pence caved? What if Pence left town with his Secret Service detail? What if Raffensberger "found" the 12k votes Trump was pressuring him to find? What if the AZ Speaker acknowledged the alternate slate? Admittedly, I'm nothing remotely close to an expert in the Constitution or the law and could be understanding all of this incorrectly, but if even one of those things happened, my understanding is that the Constitutional process of electing presidents and validating elections could (I intentionally chose "could" instead of "would", but several of the witnesses - all GOP folks, FWIW - have used (or implied) the word "would") have been seriously compromised. Do you disagree? And if that's compromised, isn't the republic - the people electing their representatives - compromised as well?

If you aren't sure any of this was/is a great threat, you might consider taking the time to listen to/read Judge Lutig's statements (if you haven't done so). From what I understand, he has long been a star in GOP judicial circles.

My takeaways from all of this - (a) thank goodness we still have enough principled people in positions of power to check those whose only principle is having power; (b) screw any leader of any party who tries to end around the Constitution in order to gain (or maintain) power by some other means. I'm willing to see my preferred political side lose forever if that's the route they wish to take. Some things are more important than policy wins. Perhaps I'm looking at those poor folks in Ukraine and thinking how tragic it would be if our democracy is destroyed not by an outside enemy, but from within.
 
Last edited:

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
9,479
5,353
1,743
Somewhere
I agree with you on almost everything you listed here ---- that information will be interesting --- and would (will) be a good movie.
I don't agree with the bolded part --- I guess my answer would be -- we were not close at all to losing the republic - not even remotely. Statements like that just seem to be hyperbolic and make people (me at least) roll my eyes. Perhaps that is the crux of my viewpoint difference.
I roll my eyes at you minimizing what transpired when it certainly would have irreperably damaged the democratic process in our country. That is just about the only thing these hearings have made clear.

Hell, the ongoing accusations of voter fraud are damaging the democratic process as we speak also.

The kicker is, we all know that if the shoe was on the other foot, and the democrats had done this, you would be incessantly bemoaning the situation. Yet here we are.

Yet another opportinuty for you to own up to your double standard, and yet another time you will double down instead.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,751
2,529
1,743
I roll my eyes at you minimizing what transpired when it certainly would have irreperably damaged the democratic process in our country. That is just about the only thing these hearings have made clear.

Hell, the ongoing accusations of voter fraud are damaging the democratic process as we speak also.

The kicker is, we all know that if the shoe was on the other foot, and the democrats had done this, you would be incessantly bemoaning the situation. Yet here we are.

Yet another opportinuty for you to own up to your double standard, and yet another time you will double down instead.
Your reading comprehension continues to be poor. I have minimized nothing about what transpired.

What I have minimized is lack of new information and people jumping on things about a new documentary and making assumptions about what is on the video when reportedly no one has seen it.

It is not new information at all about Raffensberger — frankly I am shocked so many seem to think this is new info. That has been in the news for at least 12 months.
It surprised me none that testimony is showing the members of the Trump team pressured state electors. Again, not new information.

It does not phase me that Trump is being reported as doing something unethical. That is not new behavior.

I hope the hearings produce enough solid evidence to charge Trump, and or key members, with a crime. I want him charged as much as anyone. I am certain I want him charged much more than you —- hence why I am underwhelmed so far. Not underwhelmed at what transpired with election,, but undewhelmed because I feel that the game is just to play this out for as long as possible and nothing will actually occur.

But yes, I strongly disagree that our republic was ever in any danger.
 
Last edited:

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,859
4,450
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
Your reading comprehension continues to be poor. I have minimized nothing about what transpired.

What I have minimized is lack of new information and people jumping on things about a new documentary and making assumptions about what is on the video when reportedly no one has seen it.

It is not new information at all about Raffensberger — frankly I am shocked so many seem to think this is new info. That has been in the news for at least 12 months.
It surprised me none that testimony is showing the members of the Trump team pressured state electors. Again, not new information.

It does not phase me that Trump is being reported as doing something unethical. That is not new behavior.

I hope the hearings produce enough solid evidence to charge Trump, and or key members, with a crime. I want him charged as much as anyone. I am certain I want him charged much more than you —- hence why I am underwhelmed so far. Not underwhelmed at what transpired with election,, but undewhelmed because I feel that the game is just to play this out for as long as possible and nothing will actually occur.

But yes, I strongly disagree that our republic was ever in any danger.
You say potato, this leading (conservative) Constitutional expert says - under oath - "America’s democracy was almost stolen from us on January 6," and "Our democracy has never been tested like it was on that day," and "Today, America is in constitutional crisis."

https://www.thebulwark.com/a-stake-...-and-our-democracy-today-is-on-a-knifes-edge/

I would be interested to hear why you so strongly disagree with his assessment, beyond just stating it as fact. What is your basis other than saying that those who saw Trump's (and his associates) acts as a major threat are engaging in hyperbole? In your mind would Trump have actually had to succeed in his plan in order for the republic to be in danger? Is a person only in danger of being mugged if they actually get mugged?

FWIW, I understand Luttig to be saying that the Constitutionally delineated process for electing a president and validating the results of an election was stressed like never before, and while it may have held this time, to brush it off like it was no big deal is to basically whistle past the graveyard. I guess the other way of framing it is, if we brush this off and call reactions to it "hyperbole," are we saying we're willing to normalize and accept future extra-Constitutional efforts to gain and/or maintain the presidency? And, if so, how does that not already represent a sacrifice of what has made the republic what it is until now?

Regarding the rest. No one said the Raffensberger information was new, but that doesn't mean it isn't incredibly damning. I mean, do we have a lot (any?) examples of sitting presidents running for reelection using their office to strong arm local election officials and tell them to "find" 12,000 votes? Do we have a lot of examples of Chiefs of Staff bribing those same officials with campaign memorabilia (which is so comically vain it's almost unbelievable)? And those are just two examples.

And whether any of that is illegal, it seems part of the constant issue is whether or not a POTUS should or even can be prosecuted. And, again, I'm no legal expert, but I guess I'd assume that pressuring and bribing local election officials to "find" votes, and falsifying documents that purport to be official slates of electors would swing more in the direction of illegal vs. merely unethical. (I'd assume that if anyone else conducted themselves in this way, they'd be liable to prosecution.)

As for the Committee, I think expecting them to turn up something(s) illegal is possibly too big of an ask (even though they may have done it already). For one, what are they going to do about it anyway? Isn't it DOJ's (or the state justice departments) job to decide what's potentially illegal and prosecute?

What I understand the Committee to be saying about their job is that it is to get on the historical and public record what happened and why, which may be vitally important going forward given the attempts to reframe all of this as a "tourist visit gone awry" or "a humble president just trying to make sure everything was fair." (And certainly, one can say that getting this on the record isn't vitally important because Jan 6th and everything else really wasn't a big deal, but, if they do, don't they basically have to either: (a) say that any future attempts to usurp rather than win the presidency are kosher; or (b) admit that they're willing to accept such attempts by their guy but not the other?)

Regarding the documentary, I'm in complete agreement that folks would be wise to keep their powder dry until they've actually seen it. But the flipside of that argument is that we probably also shouldn't preemptively declare it a nothingburger. The media constantly gets out over their skis, but, IMO, the Committee hasn't really had a misstep yet. (I suspect Cheney and Kinzinger have had a lot to do with that). I don't really see them using the video unless there's something in it.
 
Last edited:
Dec 9, 2013
1,846
633
743
52
You say potato, this leading (conservative) Constitutional expert says - under oath - "America’s democracy was almost stolen from us on January 6," and "Our democracy has never been tested like it was on that day," and "Today, America is in constitutional crisis."

https://www.thebulwark.com/a-stake-...-and-our-democracy-today-is-on-a-knifes-edge/

I would be interested to hear why you so strongly disagree with his assessment, beyond just stating it as fact. What is your basis other than saying that those who saw Trump's (and his associates) acts as a major threat are engaging in hyperbole? In your mind would Trump have actually had to succeed in his plan in order for the republic to be in danger? Is a person only in danger of being mugged if they actually get mugged?

FWIW, I understand Luttig to be saying that the Constitutionally delineated process for electing a president and validating the results of an election was stressed like never before, and while it may have held this time, to brush it off like it was no big deal is to basically whistle past the graveyard. I guess the other way of framing it is, if we brush this off and call reactions to it "hyperbole," are we saying we're willing to normalize and accept future extra-Constitutional efforts to gain and/or maintain the presidency? And, if so, how does that not already represent a sacrifice of what has made the republic what it is until now?

Regarding the rest. No one said the Raffensberger information was new, but that doesn't mean it isn't incredibly damning. I mean, do we have a lot (any?) examples of sitting presidents running for reelection using their office to strong arm local election officials and tell them to "find" 12,000 votes? Do we have a lot of examples of Chiefs of Staff bribing those same officials with campaign memorabilia (which is so comically vain it's almost unbelievable)? And those are just two examples.

And whether any of that is illegal, it seems part of the constant issue is whether or not a POTUS should or even can be prosecuted. And, again, I'm no legal expert, but I guess I'd assume that pressuring and bribing local election officials to "find" votes, and falsifying documents that purport to be official slates of electors would swing more in the direction of illegal vs. merely unethical. (I'd assume that if anyone else conducted themselves in this way, they'd be liable to prosecution.)

As for the Committee, I think expecting them to turn up something(s) illegal is possibly too big of an ask (even though they may have done it already). For one, what are they going to do about it anyway? Isn't it DOJ's (or the state justice departments) job to decide what's potentially illegal and prosecute?

What I understand the Committee to be saying about their job is that it is to get on the historical and public record what happened and why, which may be vitally important going forward given the attempts to reframe all of this as a "tourist visit gone awry" or "a humble president just trying to make sure everything was fair." (And certainly, one can say that getting this on the record isn't vitally important because Jan 6th and everything else really wasn't a big deal, but, if they do, don't they basically have to either: (a) say that any future attempts to usurp rather than win the presidency are kosher; or (b) admit that they're willing to accept such attempts by their guy but not the other?)

Regarding the documentary, I'm in complete agreement that folks would be wise to keep their powder dry until they've actually seen it. But the flipside of that argument is that we probably also shouldn't preemptively declare it a nothingburger. The media constantly gets out over their skis, but, IMO, the Committee hasn't really had a misstep yet. (I suspect Cheney and Kinzinger have had a lot to do with that). I don't really see them using the video unless there's something in it.
We knew about the pressure campaign on the SoS of GA. I was not aware of what happened to the House Speaker in AZ. I think it was very important to have both testify at the same time even if they covered previously known info. First it mitigated what trump’s team has been doing and that’s painting some as a one off never trumpet out to get him. These were two former trump supporters who put their state and country over party and cult leader. They put their careers at risk and suffered bc of the truth.

But to some it’s unnecessary and tiresome and worthy of an eye roll. Get back to them when it’s illegal. The other side is full of hyperbole. It’s not just a yahoo n OP asking about the status of the republic. It’s Republican leaders and judges who are saying we were close.

What I don’t get is wanting someone to show us illegalities but acknowledge we are really not paying attention bc you know media/pundit bias.And it’s all just hyperbole. But yeah show me he did something illegal and I promise I won’t vote for him again.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,751
2,529
1,743
You say potato, this leading (conservative) Constitutional expert says - under oath - "America’s democracy was almost stolen from us on January 6," and "Our democracy has never been tested like it was on that day," and "Today, America is in constitutional crisis."

https://www.thebulwark.com/a-stake-...-and-our-democracy-today-is-on-a-knifes-edge/

I would be interested to hear why you so strongly disagree with his assessment, beyond just stating it as fact. What is your basis other than saying that those who saw Trump's (and his associates) acts as a major threat are engaging in hyperbole? In your mind would Trump have actually had to succeed in his plan in order for the republic to be in danger? Is a person only in danger of being mugged if they actually get mugged?

FWIW, I understand Luttig to be saying that the Constitutionally delineated process for electing a president and validating the results of an election was stressed like never before, and while it may have held this time, to brush it off like it was no big deal is to basically whistle past the graveyard. I guess the other way of framing it is, if we brush this off and call reactions to it "hyperbole," are we saying we're willing to normalize and accept future extra-Constitutional efforts to gain and/or maintain the presidency? And, if so, how does that not already represent a sacrifice of what has made the republic what it is until now?

Regarding the rest. No one said the Raffensberger information was new, but that doesn't mean it isn't incredibly damning. I mean, do we have a lot (any?) examples of sitting presidents running for reelection using their office to strong arm local election officials and tell them to "find" 12,000 votes? Do we have a lot of examples of Chiefs of Staff bribing those same officials with campaign memorabilia (which is so comically vain it's almost unbelievable)? And those are just two examples.

And whether any of that is illegal, it seems part of the constant issue is whether or not a POTUS should or even can be prosecuted. And, again, I'm no legal expert, but I guess I'd assume that pressuring and bribing local election officials to "find" votes, and falsifying documents that purport to be official slates of electors would swing more in the direction of illegal vs. merely unethical. (I'd assume that if anyone else conducted themselves in this way, they'd be liable to prosecution.)

As for the Committee, I think expecting them to turn up something(s) illegal is possibly too big of an ask (even though they may have done it already). For one, what are they going to do about it anyway? Isn't it DOJ's (or the state justice departments) job to decide what's potentially illegal and prosecute?

What I understand the Committee to be saying about their job is that it is to get on the historical and public record what happened and why, which may be vitally important going forward given the attempts to reframe all of this as a "tourist visit gone awry" or "a humble president just trying to make sure everything was fair." (And certainly, one can say that getting this on the record isn't vitally important because Jan 6th and everything else really wasn't a big deal, but, if they do, don't they basically have to either: (a) say that any future attempts to usurp rather than win the presidency are kosher; or (b) admit that they're willing to accept such attempts by their guy but not the other?)

Regarding the documentary, I'm in complete agreement that folks would be wise to keep their powder dry until they've actually seen it. But the flipside of that argument is that we probably also shouldn't preemptively declare it a nothingburger. The media constantly gets out over their skis, but, IMO, the Committee hasn't really had a misstep yet. (I suspect Cheney and Kinzinger have had a lot to do with that). I don't really see them using the video unless there's something in it.
Thanks for the link to the article. I certainly respect Luttig's views. It is a large article and I will read and digest. I have some initial thoughts, but you took the time to send a reasoned response and I will do the same, but will be a couple of days (will be out of pocket the next three days running a large basketball camp)
 

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,859
4,450
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
Thanks for the link to the article. I certainly respect Luttig's views. It is a large article and I will read and digest. I have some initial thoughts, but you took the time to send a reasoned response and I will do the same, but will be a couple of days (will be out of pocket the next three days running a large basketball camp)
Best of luck with the camp!

FWIW, I try to live by the motto of the Peanuts cartoon I have on my bulletin board: "Have you ever thought you might be wrong?" I assume you are trying to understand all of this in good faith, and I appreciate you assuming the same about me.
 

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,859
4,450
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
We knew about the pressure campaign on the SoS of GA. I was not aware of what happened to the House Speaker in AZ. I think it was very important to have both testify at the same time even if they covered previously known info. First it mitigated what trump’s team has been doing and that’s painting some as a one off never trumpet out to get him. These were two former trump supporters who put their state and country over party and cult leader. They put their careers at risk and suffered bc of the truth.

But to some it’s unnecessary and tiresome and worthy of an eye roll. Get back to them when it’s illegal. The other side is full of hyperbole. It’s not just a yahoo n OP asking about the status of the republic. It’s Republican leaders and judges who are saying we were close.

What I don’t get is wanting someone to show us illegalities but acknowledge we are really not paying attention bc you know media/pundit bias.And it’s all just hyperbole. But yeah show me he did something illegal and I promise I won’t vote for him again.
Yeah, all of the calls have been coming from inside the house. It's going to strain credulity for folks to say it's just a bunch of Never Trumpers/TDS sufferers.

I suspect that's why Trump isn't bashing the witnesses, but bashing McCarthy for pulling his members off the Committee.
 
Nov 6, 2010
3,439
1,207
1,743
Yeah, all of the calls have been coming from inside the house. It's going to strain credulity for folks to say it's just a bunch of Never Trumpers/TDS sufferers.

I suspect that's why Trump isn't bashing the witnesses, but bashing McCarthy for pulling his members off the Committee.
If nothing else comes of this hearing, I think it's safe to say that this phrase has absolutely no meaning in our political world anymore.
 
Nov 6, 2010
3,439
1,207
1,743
I roll my eyes at you minimizing what transpired when it certainly would have irreperably damaged the democratic process in our country. That is just about the only thing these hearings have made clear.

Hell, the ongoing accusations of voter fraud are damaging the democratic process as we speak also.

The kicker is, we all know that if the shoe was on the other foot, and the democrats had done this, you would be incessantly bemoaning the situation. Yet here we are.

Yet another opportinuty for you to own up to your double standard, and yet another time you will double down instead.
Absolutely this. We're talking like this thing is over, but it is ongoing, and possibly even gaining steam.