https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGy9hh4Obfs

Silly bot
Dept of Justice found that Russia “interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” including using social media. DOJ has access to classified info. Musk and Taibbi do not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump’s campaign manager admitted to colluding with the Russians.

Trump himself asked Russia to hack Hillary.

GOP operative convicted in scheme to funnel Russian money into Trump campaign

Shawna Chen
A former senior aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was convicted Thursday after being found guilty of helping to funnel illegal foreign campaign contributions from a Russian national into former President Trump's 2016 campaign.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Robert Mueller indicted 15 Russian 'companies' which his investigation found had meddled in the 2016 US presidential election. The Russians were assisted by Paul Manafort, who was paid $0 by Donald Trump to be his campaign manager. Manafort was obviously paid, but not by Trump!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump signed the Trump Tower Moscow memo in 2015, then lied about it for four years ("I have no business with Russia). He was working for Putin the entire time. We learned about this memo in 2019.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Russiagate wasn't about whether russian bots swung the election for Trump.

It was about whether the Trump camp was offered and accepted help more broadly from russia. The short answer to which is that they were and they did. This isn't speculation, it's proven fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Russiagate wasn't about whether russian bots swung the election for Trump.

It was about whether the Trump camp was offered and accepted help more broadly from russia. The short answer to which is that they were and they did. This isn't speculation, it's proven fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What was it about the video, exactly, that was wrong?

What was it about the video, exactly, that was wrong?

Nothing. Which is why he felt the need to change the subject.

What was it about the video, exactly, that was wrong?

Russia had far more than zero influence on the election and the Republican Party in general
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Russia had far more than zero influence on the election and the Republican Party in general
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

those totalitarian, commie republicans. They always want a huge federal government dictating every aspect of our lives.

you use lead paint in your house? that would
explain a LOT.

This falls right into Jim’s and others pattern of Logic

since the Russian influence and attempted interference didn’t change how people voted , or change the outcome of the election It didn’t happen

Just like Jan6th. Because it didn’t succeed in overturning the election
It didn’t happen …. so it didn’t matter

Just like Santos lies. because others have lied . It doesn’t matter

that’s their party’s platform until it’s about a Democratic

I heard Jams Comer claim the had no interest in looking into Trumps 300 plus documents case ! But now he’s issues Subpoenas
While making the claim Trumpand Biden have not been treated equally
Of course went on attacking the national archives the fbi and the justice department …

To cowardly and dishonest to admit the 2 issues take completely different paths after the discovery of the documents :faga: they should be treated equally


And yet Jim and detbunch. Love to suggest Hunters lap top would have and did influence the 2020 election if it wasn’t hidden which it wasn’t

Or Republican Leadership in the house. recently suggesting that that Biden’s classified documents story would have changed the midterms …

Trying to deflect from their failures, but their mindless base are easily re directed

This falls right into Jim’s and others pattern of Logic

since the Russian influence and attempted interference didn’t change how people voted , or change the outcome of the election It didn’t happen

Just like Jan6th. Because it didn’t succeed in overturning the election
It didn’t happen …. so it didn’t matter

Just like Santos lies. because others have lied . It doesn’t matter

that’s their party’s platform until it’s about a Democratic

I heard Jams Comer claim the had no interest in looking into Trumps 300 plus documents case ! But now he’s issues Subpoenas
While making the claim Trumpand Biden have not been treated equally
Of course went on attacking the national archives the fbi and the justice department …

To cowardly and dishonest to admit the 2 issues take completely different paths after the discovery of the documents :faga: they should be treated equally


And yet Jim and detbunch. Love to suggest Hunters lap top would have and did influence the 2020 election if it wasn’t hidden which it wasn’t

Or Republican Leadership in the house. recently suggesting that that Biden’s classified documents story would have changed the midterms …

Trying to deflect from their failures, but their mindless base are easily re directed

just tell us why santos’ lies are worse than bidens or bmumemthal’s? simple question.

crying “false equivalence” is’t an
answer.

just tell us why santos’ lies are worse than bidens or bmumemthal’s? simple question.

crying “false equivalence” is’t an
answer.

Jim a worldly man with real life experiences should not need that simple question answered .


And it has been answered again and again. By multiple different people.

You just don’t like the answer .

I’ve know many people like yourself they ask the same question to 99 people getting the same answer but when that 100th person answered the question the way they wanted answered.

The response was always the same back at the 99

See I told you I was right :wavey:

those totalitarian, commie republicans. They always want a huge federal government dictating every aspect of our lives.

you use lead paint in your house? that would
explain a LOT.

Since that’s the road you love to go down, you ought to know.

As Republicans now claim: Free trade, free immigration, and unregulated international finance - the 3 legs of communism.

Just being something fascists don’t like doesn’t turn anything into communism.

Your idea of freedom is dictating what teachers and professors can say and teach, removing book’s Christians don’t like, telling private companies what they can teach employees, telling women that they can’t bare arms and thinking thoughts and prayers are the solution to the highest gun violence in the developed world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump’s campaign manager admitted to colluding with the Russians.

That's not true. He never admitted to "colluding".
You purposely frame it that way to help create a false narrative. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/05/19/accused_russiagate_spy_kilimnik_speaks_-_and_evidence_backs_his_no_collusion_account_77732 8.html#!

Trump himself asked Russia to hack Hillary.

Again, framing a typical Trump sarcasm as factual evidence to support a false narrative.

GOP operative convicted in scheme to funnel Russian money into Trump campaign

Shawna Chen
A former senior aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was convicted Thursday after being found guilty of helping to funnel illegal foreign campaign contributions from a Russian national into former President Trump's 2016 campaign.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this what you're referring to?https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/18/gop-operative-convicted-of-funneling-russian-donation-to-trumps-2016-campaign-.html[/COLOR]

Most of the money went into Benton's pocket, not the Trump campaign. And the money came from a private Russian businessman who gave the money in order to be able to get for himself a picture of him with Trump in order to promote his own business. It was not funneled from the Russian government to the Trump campaign. Benton kept for himself $75,000 of the $100,000 given by the Russian businessman, and gave the remaining $25,000 to the Great America PAC, a super Pac supporting Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, as well as the campaigns of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Rand Paul, both Republicans from Kentucky, and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. Benton was convicted of a campaign finance crime and the Russian businessman got his picture with Trump.

This was not "Russian" (Russian government) interference in the election.

Silly bot
Dept of Justice found that Russia “interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” including using social media. DOJ has access to classified info. Musk and Taibbi do not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's a difference between "interfering" and "inflluencing." The twitter files demonstrate actual influence by government agencies on the flow of information to the American public.

Robert Mueller indicted 15 Russian 'companies' which his investigation found had meddled in the 2016 US presidential election. The Russians were assisted by Paul Manafort, who was paid $0 by Donald Trump to be his campaign manager. Manafort was obviously paid, but not by Trump!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is there verification that these "15 Russian 'companies'" influenced the outcome of the election? Were they indicted for "influencing" or "interfereing"? Were the found guilty and convicted?

Is this what you're referring to?https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/18/gop-operative-convicted-of-funneling-russian-donation-to-trumps-2016-campaign-.html[/COLOR]

Most of the money went into Benton's pocket, not the Trump campaign. And the money came from a private Russian businessman who gave the money in order to be able to get for himself a picture of him with Trump in order to promote his own business. It was not funneled from the Russian government to the Trump campaign. Benton kept for himself $75,000 of the $100,000 given by the Russian businessman, and gave the remaining $25,000 to the Great America PAC, a super Pac supporting Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, as well as the campaigns of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Rand Paul, both Republicans from Kentucky, and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. Benton was convicted of a campaign finance crime and the Russian businessman got his picture with Trump.

This was not "Russian" (Russian government) interference in the election.

So a crappie fisherman from the midwest knows exactly how money is or isn't funneled into a campaign, simply amazing. I'm certain the Russian government would never make an effort to funnel money into Trump's or anyone else's campaign, in a such a way that didn't look like the Russian government was involved. They are after all a very honorable and honest government after all, :rotf3:

There isn't a single person alive that can with 100% certainty say how much the Russian disinformation campaign impacted the results and you are a fool and a liar if you say otherwise. On a side bar since we are talking now about influence of that 2016 election and the GOP is all set to go after the weaponized AG, FBI and homeland security departments; isn't it ironic that the announcement they would be looking again into Hilary just ahead of the election seemed to hurt Hillary and the democrats and helpful in getting Trump and the GOP candidate elected.

Trump signed the Trump Tower Moscow memo in 2015, then lied about it for four years ("I have no business with Russia). He was working for Putin the entire time. We learned about this memo in 2019.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How did this influence the outcome of the election?

Russiagate wasn't about whether russian bots swung the election for Trump.

It was about whether the Trump camp was offered and accepted help more broadly from russia. The short answer to which is that they were and they did. This isn't speculation, it's proven fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your version of what Russiagate "was about" notwithstanding, it did not find sufficient evidence that Trump conspired with Russia in order to win the election.

Nor is there sufficient evidence that Russian "interference" influenced the outcome of the 2016 election.

What the twitter files release is about is OUR OWN government "deep state" interference, AND DIRECT INFLUENCE, in the flow of information to the public. That is, it's about the successful unconstitutional intrusion of the Federal Government and its successful attempts to censor public speech, and specifically--political speech.

That you prefer to dismiss that, especially in favor of trying to direct us away from unconstitutional suppression of speech, and instead focusing on inconclusively significant Russian "interference," raises questions about what you are ultimately loyal to.

You have openly, directly, supported the censorship of "conservative" speech. You have not denied that your view is authoritarian, is even unconstitutional. But, somehow, that it is right and just. Because you are certain that "conservative" speech will always lead to loss of freedom. In spite of the fact that your notion will, indisputably, lead to the loss of freedom for a good portion, maybe even most, of Americans.

You do not seem to think that your drastic, unconstitutional idea, could eventually, even quickly, become the precedent which validates authoritarian regimes. When government has such broad power to decide what speech is allowed, "freedom" becomes like a slogan on the entrance sign of a NAZI internment camp.

You have fairly consistently sided with Progressive notions of centralized bureaucracy--government or private. You sometimes give an equivocal nod to the constitution and its founders, but ultimately seem to, perhaps unconsciously, favor the notion that the Constitution no longer truly can be applied to "our time."

And you are willing to lie, slant, slander, do whatever it takes to overcome the restraints on government provided in the Constitution, in order to promote, in your opinion, the "good" for the people. That is usually the very notion promised to us by authoritarians who wish to rule us.

I am over with the Trump phenomenon. It has been enlightening. And what it has opened our eyes to, if we wish to see, is the gaping hole in that grand old parchment--and growing larger at the hands of Progressively created nearly untouchable, unconstitutional, government regulatory agencies--very visibly and specifically now--the security and intelligence agencies. Hey, Ike warned us. We liked Ike. My opinion is we should focus more on that than on the canard that Trump is Putin's puppet.

It's not anymore, really, about Trump or Democrat vs. Republican as it is filtered to us through the controlled eyes, ears, and lips of our news and information organizations. We should welcome the insights of independents such as Matt Taibbi, et. al., and be grateful to quirky figures like Musk who are willing to lose millions to expose clear and present dangers to "our democracy" or, as I prefer, to our Republic.

I don’t see anything on WAPO that justifies this thread title. In fact it just looks made up.

….

Your version of what Russiagate "was about" notwithstanding, it did not find sufficient evidence that Trump conspired with Russia in order to win the election.

Nor is there sufficient evidence that Russian "interference" influenced the outcome of the 2016 election.

What the twitter files release is about is OUR OWN government "deep state" interference, AND DIRECT INFLUENCE, in the flow of information to the public. That is, it's about the successful unconstitutional intrusion of the Federal Government and its successful attempts to censor public speech, and specifically--political speech.

That you prefer to dismiss that, especially in favor of trying to direct us away from unconstitutional suppression of speech, and instead focusing on inconclusively significant Russian "interference," raises questions about what you are ultimately loyal to.

You have openly, directly, supported the censorship of "conservative" speech. You have not denied that your view is authoritarian, is even unconstitutional. But, somehow, that it is right and just. Because you are certain that "conservative" speech will always lead to loss of freedom. In spite of the fact that your notion will, indisputably, lead to the loss of freedom for a good portion, maybe even most, of Americans.

You do not seem to think that your drastic, unconstitutional idea, could eventually, even quickly, become the precedent which validates authoritarian regimes. When government has such broad power to decide what speech is allowed, "freedom" becomes like a slogan on the entrance sign of a NAZI internment camp.

You have fairly consistently sided with Progressive notions of centralized bureaucracy--government or private. You sometimes give an equivocal nod to the constitution and its founders, but ultimately seem to, perhaps unconsciously, favor the notion that the Constitution no longer truly can be applied to "our time."

And you are willing to lie, slant, slander, do whatever it takes to overcome the restraints on government provided in the Constitution, in order to promote, in your opinion, the "good" for the people. That is usually the very notion promised to us by authoritarians who wish to rule us.

I am over with the Trump phenomenon. It has been enlightening. And what it has opened our eyes to, if we wish to see, is the gaping hole in that grand old parchment--and growing larger at the hands of Progressively created nearly untouchable, unconstitutional, government regulatory agencies--very visibly and specifically now--the security and intelligence agencies. Hey, Ike warned us. We liked Ike. My opinion is we should focus more on that than on the canard that Trump is Putin's puppet.

It's not anymore, really, about Trump or Democrat vs. Republican as it is filtered to us through the controlled eyes, ears, and lips of our news and information organizations. We should welcome the insights of independents such as Matt Taibbi, et. al., and be grateful to quirky figures like Musk who are willing to lose millions to expose clear and present dangers to "our democracy" or, as I prefer, to our Republic.

Next you can tell me about the power of sheriffs, sovereign citizens and how Tim McVeigh, Bannon, Flynn, Stone, Snowden, and Guo Wengui were and are working in the interests of Americans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t see anything on WAPO that justifies this thread title. In fact it just looks made up.

That’s because you have to read the OpEds, which have become fact in the eyes of the far right, as long as they fit their narrative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

….

I read that article, it’s not at all what it asserted.

Next you can tell me about the power of sheriffs, sovereign citizens and how Tim McVeigh, Bannon, Flynn, Stone, Snowden, and Guo Wengui were and are working in the interests of Americans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nah . . . I'll leave it up to you to show whose interests they serve. That sort of stuff is your bag. I may or may not comment on what you have to say about it.

I have consistently, first and foremost, been concerned on this forum about the erosion of the Constitution as the guiding principle of government in our country. The vast residuum of rights reserved to the people that Madison referred to, via the Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights was written, has effectively been erased or become dependent on the whim or desires of Progressive judicial "interpretation." Even, now, most of the "rights" in the Bill of Rights have been surrendered to that Progressive "interpretation." And the final surrender will be the First and Second Amendments. Those two lynchpins of American freedom are the ultimate prize to be captured and "interpreted" into whatever form, or existence, the federal government will allow.

On a basic level now, Federal "deep state" regulatory agencies, as the Twitter Files release is showing, are effectively curtailing First Amendment rights. And if we The People ignore, thus tacitly or willfully allow this to continue, it may eventually become in some future Supreme Court case a recognized fait accompli de jure, by a majority of Progressive SCOTUS Judges "interpretation."

In any case, it is de facto occurring now.

And I suspect you will be fine with all that.

Nah . . . I'll leave it up to you to show whose interests they serve. That sort of stuff is your bag. I may or may not comment on what you have to say about it.

I have consistently, first and foremost, been concerned on this forum about the erosion of the Constitution as the guiding principle of government in our country. The vast residuum of rights reserved to the people that Madison referred to, via the Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights was written, has effectively been erased or become dependent on the whim or desires of Progressive judicial "interpretation." Even, now, most of the "rights" in the Bill of Rights have been surrendered to that Progressive "interpretation." And the final surrender will be the First and Second Amendments. Those two lynchpins of American freedom are the ultimate prize to be captured and "interpreted" into whatever form, or existence, the federal government will allow.

On a basic level now, Federal "deep state" regulatory agencies, as the Twitter Files release is showing, are effectively curtailing First Amendment rights. And if we The People ignore, thus tacitly or willfully allow this to continue, it may eventually become in some future Supreme Court case a recognized fait accompli de jure, by a majority of Progressive SCOTUS Judges "interpretation."

In any case, it is de facto occurring now.

And I suspect you will be fine with all that.



Sure, Trump didn’t try to control all three branches of government, cast aside the results of an election and install himself as President for life like the “strongmen” he admired.

Tell me how impressed the people who wrote the Constitution would be impressed by that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nah . . . I'll leave it up to you to show whose interests they serve. That sort of stuff is your bag. I may or may not comment on what you have to say about it.

I have consistently, first and foremost, been concerned on this forum about the erosion of the Constitution as the guiding principle of government in our country. The vast residuum of rights reserved to the people that Madison referred to, via the Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights was written, has effectively been erased or become dependent on the whim or desires of Progressive judicial "interpretation." Even, now, most of the "rights" in the Bill of Rights have been surrendered to that Progressive "interpretation." And the final surrender will be the First and Second Amendments. Those two lynchpins of American freedom are the ultimate prize to be captured and "interpreted" into whatever form, or existence, the federal government will allow.

On a basic level now, Federal "deep state" regulatory agencies, as the Twitter Files release is showing, are effectively curtailing First Amendment rights. And if we The People ignore, thus tacitly or willfully allow this to continue, it may eventually become in some future Supreme Court case a recognized fait accompli de jure, by a majority of Progressive SCOTUS Judges "interpretation."

In any case, it is de facto occurring now.

And I suspect you will be fine with all that.

I see Stable Genius’s are taking action

The Albuquerque Police Department has arrested Solomon Pena, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for the House District 14 seat in the South Valley, in connection with the shootings at local Democratic politicians’ homes, the police chief announced Monday afternoon.

“Pena, an unsuccessful legislative candidate in the 2022 election, is accused of conspiring with, and paying four other men to shoot at the homes of two county commissioners and two state legislators,” Chief Harold Medina said.

APD had been investigating six shootings from Dec. 4 through Jan. 5 where bullets were fired into Democratic elected officials homes or near others offices.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, Trump didn’t try to control all three branches of government, cast aside the results of an election and install himself as President for life like the “strongmen” he admired.

Tell me how impressed the people who wrote the Constitution would be impressed by that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They would probably approve, as you say, that Trump didn't try to do that. Of course, they would strenuously disapprove if he had actually done it.

They certainly would consider your claim (that conservative speech should not be allowed) as a betrayal to the Constitution and nation they had established. They would probably consider you a threat to civil society, and disapprove of how you twist words and actions, lie, in order to attempt to bring about authoritarian, centralized government beyond what is limited in the Constitution.

And they would definitely rail against federal government agencies suppressing political speech of the citizens of this nation.

They would probably approve, as you say, that Trump didn't try to do that. Of course, they would strenuously disapprove if he had actually done it.

Sure, because only successful bank robbers get charged and successful ones get strenuous disapproval.
Isn’t that what Susan Collins was speaking of when at his first impeachment she thought he had “learned his lesson”?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, because only successful bank robbers get charged and successful ones get strenuous disapproval.
Isn’t that what Susan Collins was speaking of when at his first impeachment she thought he had “learned his lesson”?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is so successful about being charged? And if you don't rob a bank, why should you be charged? Sounds like a scam.

What is so successful about being charged? And if you don't rob a bank, why should you be charged? Sounds like a scam.

Classic Detbuch. Page after pages of how he loves the constitution :deadhorse:

But suggest Trump and his supporters never tried to overturn the election .. :faga:

I’ll bet someone was disappointed when it failed :bsod:

Classic Detbuch. Page after pages of how he loves the constitution :deadhorse:

Well, maybe you haven't noticed, but I have discussed "page after pages" of stuff other than the Constitution--a lot of it was with you. Not sure how you missed that. Well, yeah, I can see how after witnessing page after pages of you responding to me by changing the subject or accusing me of saying stuff I didn't say.
It's as if I wasn't really there and you were talking to yourself. As if you were beating your own dead horse.

And, since the Constitution should be the ultimate basis of political decisions, why is bringing it into a discussion on a political forum beating a dead horse? Perhaps you think it's not very relevant and politicians should just be able to do whatever you want them to do.

But suggest Trump and his supporters never tried to overturn the election .. :faga:

I never said they never tried. I have said, specifically, that they tried a legal process.

I’ll bet someone was disappointed when it failed :bsod:

Well, not disappointed, never really thought it would work (for various other reasons than legality).

So what was wrong with the video I posted to start the thread . . .? On the other hand, forget about it or you'll just beat your own dead horse.

Well, not disappointed, never really thought it would work (for various other reasons than legality).

So what was wrong with the video I posted to start the thread . . .? On the other hand, forget about it or you'll just beat your own dead horse.


I never said they never tried. I have said, specifically, that they tried a legal process.

Spoken like a True cult member.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never said they never tried. I have said, specifically, that they tried a legal process.

Spoken like a True cult member.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If having an opinion makes someone a cult member, then everyone on this forum is a cult member. And yet again, you go off on your idiotic tangent of swerving away from the subject of the thread--your repetitive beating of the dead horse of inability to rise beyond the narrow tunnel vision that blinds you from seeing the "big picture" you so often claim that others can't see.

Is it really your opinion that Trump and his inner circle only tried a legal process, even in light of all the testimony and written texts and emails?

Is it really your opinion that Trump and his inner circle only tried a legal process, even in light of all the testimony and written texts and emails?

I was replying to Wayne's charge that I "suggest Trump and his supporters never tried to overturn the election." I may have objected to the use of that loaded phrase, but I never said "never." As usual, he went to his old trick of responding to something I didn't say--the putting words in my mouth ploy. I allowed as I did once say (don't remember what I was responding to then) that they tried what they outlined as a legal procedure.

As for your question, I didn't say they ONLY tried a legal process. I don't know if "Trump and his inner circle" tried anything illegal," that would require some sort of trial. After seeing what was done to Trump while he was in office, I have absolutely no faith in the veracity nor the spin put on "testimony" and "written texts and emails." I wouldn't doubt if he or they did some shady things. If so, and the evidence is real, not just circumstantial or possibilities, conjecture, etc. . . . then just punishment is fine with me.

I have, to a great degree, moved on from that and am far more concerned about the destruction of our constitutional system. But I do get annoyed at Wayne's tactics. And if it is so dificult for him to stay on topic and incessantly wander off into whatever itches his fancy, put words in my mouth, respond to things I never said, why doesn't he just start another thread that deals with his personal peaves.

Yup proven cult member, even evidence won’t change your mind, it’s the MAGA way. I suspect even if he is charged and found guilty, will will think it was all political and the irony is they tried to erase the votes of countless Americans…….so constitutional right.

Yup proven cult member, even evidence won’t change your mind, it’s the MAGA way. I suspect even if he is charged and found guilty, will will think it was all political and the irony is they tried to erase the votes of countless Americans…….so constitutional right.

Actually, you sound like a cult member. You're for conviction before a trial.

Actually, you sound like a cult member. You're for conviction before a trial.

If that’s the definition of cult members, I haven’t heard rallies led by Democrats chanting “lock him up” , “hang Mike Pence” or Democrats leading those or similar chants.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If that’s the definition of cult members, I haven’t heard rallies led by Democrats chanting “lock him up” , “hang Mike Pence” or Democrats leading those or similar chants.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not a definition. And there's a whole lot of things you haven't heard, and that you refuse to hear when they stare you in the face--which fits in very well with your perverted notion that speech should be censured if it frightens or threatens what you prefer to believe. It's your three monkey way of creating the brave new world that conforms to your closed-minded world of supposedly benevolent chaos.

Actually, you sound like a cult member. You're for conviction before a trial.

I actually think the Jan 6th committee pulled so much evidence in interviews, emails, texts and video evidence, it was in my opinion (which by the way I asked you for before you dodged), was the essence of a trial. The only things missing was a judge and defense attorney and as a member of this jury, I vote guilty on multiple counts for Trump against the will of the people and his inner circle of nuts thinking they could keep Trump in power. You feel free to play the part of the defense team and show us evidence proving otherwise, good luck.

It's not a definition. And there's a whole lot of things you haven't heard, and that you refuse to hear when they stare you in the face--which fits in very well with your perverted notion that speech should be censured if it frightens or threatens what you prefer to believe. It's your three monkey way of creating the brave new world that conforms to your closed-minded world of supposedly benevolent chaos.

Ahh Saul, I see how you play it….
Goebbels would be proud
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahh Saul, I see how you play it….
Goebbels would be proud
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahh, blah-blah-blah

I actually think the Jan 6th committee pulled so much evidence in interviews, emails, texts and video evidence, it was in my opinion (which by the way I asked you for before you dodged), was the essence of a trial. The only things missing was a judge and defense attorney and as a member of this jury, I vote guilty on multiple counts for Trump against the will of the people and his inner circle of nuts thinking they could keep Trump in power. You feel free to play the part of the defense team and show us evidence proving otherwise, good luck.

"The only things missing was a judge and defense attorney" and an actual sworn in and vetted jury. Like a Kangaroo Court.

"The only things missing was a judge and defense attorney" and an actual sworn in and vetted jury. Like a Kangaroo Court.

Deflection and a non answer, we are all waiting for your defense, I guess all the testimony was coerced, all the texts and emails fabricated and the videos photo shopped. I know there was no insurrection, those were peaceful protesters and Trump and his expert legal crew were only attempting strictly legal avenues to change the results and I know it was all constitutional.

Deflection and a non answer, we are all waiting for your defense, I guess all the testimony was coerced, all the texts and emails fabricated and the videos photo shopped. I know there was no insurrection, those were peaceful protesters and Trump and his expert legal crew were only attempting strictly legal avenues to change the results and I know it was all constitutional.

I answered using your own words. There was no actual trial with defense attorneys to question, cross examine, and rebut. When and if that happens, depending on the jurisdiction, etc., we can have at least somewhat of a clearer and fairer understanding of what happened.

An "investigation" by Congress can be more politically oriented by a controlling party which selects who and what is said and what is allowed. The hyper political atmosphere that Jan6 created, and the one-sided representation of the committee running the investigation, does not instill in me any confidence in the process and outcome.

I answered using your own words. There was no actual trial with defense attorneys to question, cross examine, and rebut. When and if that happens, depending on the jurisdiction, etc., we can have at least somewhat of a clearer and fairer understanding of what happened.

“Depending on the jurisdiction, etc.”

Hopefully it’s coming, but you’ll still spin it…..because truth isn’t truth and there’s alternative facts.

And by the way from the WaPo
“Congressional investigators found evidence that tech platforms — especially Twitter — failed to heed their own employees’ warnings about violent rhetoric on their platforms and bent their rules to avoid penalizing conservatives,” particularly Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I answered using your own words. There was no actual trial with defense attorneys to question, cross examine, and rebut. When and if that happens, depending on the jurisdiction, etc., we can have at least somewhat of a clearer and fairer understanding of what happened.

An "investigation" by Congress can be more politically oriented by a controlling party which selects who and what is said and what is allowed. The hyper political atmosphere that Jan6 created, and the one-sided representation of the committee running the investigation, does not instill in me any confidence in the process and outcome.

Another deflection, are you not able to voice your opinion of whether Trump and his inner circle committed crimes? You have voiced your opinion on almost everything else, we have all enjoyed or been forced to endure your sesquipedalian speeches on a multitude of topics.

Another deflection, are you not able to voice your opinion of whether Trump and his inner circle committed crimes? You have voiced your opinion on almost everything else, we have all enjoyed or been forced to endure your sesquipedalian speeches on a multitude of topics.

Oh, I am very well able to voice my opinion on that. But I think that would be neither proper nor prudent. As in the Mueller Russia Gate investigation, I commented on various accusations and pointed out they were speculative more than probative as actual criminal acts. I waited for the special counsel to present probative evidence, which, as he admitted, he could not. Those on the left jumped on the bandwagon of "guilty" before the investigation was over, and they got the proverbial mud on their face when it was. And even that investigation did not afford Trump a means of defense--impeachment might have, but given the lack of proof provided by the investigation it probably would have been more politically driven and motivated than an actual "fair" trial.

But on whether Trump and his inner circle committed crimes re Jan6, I don't know if they did when they did not have their day in court where their lawyers were allowed to present all of their evidence and were allowed to get testimony from their own witnesses and allowed to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. Speculating on whether they committed crimes (on the basis of a highly politicized investigation run entirely by rabid anti-Trumpers) when they could not mount the kind of defense afforded in a real, legal trial, is foolish.

BTW, You actually supported my opinion on trusting or relying on a congressional criminal investigation. In another thread a professional environmentalists take on Hunter Biden laptop your post #4 you said "the crazy train leaders comprise the house oversight committee, think about that for a minute. Some of the key people outside of Trumps inner legal team supporting the attempt to illegally reverse the will of the people are now driving the train."

You cast doubt on a congressional investigation because of what you consider its political "train." That very much is the kind of train that drove the congressional Jan6 investigation. But from the opposing side--a "crazy train" of anti-Trumpers.

As in the Mueller Russia Gate investigation, I commented on various accusations and pointed out they were speculative more than probative as actual criminal acts. I waited for the special counsel to present probative evidence, which, as he admitted, he could not.
.

Tell me you never read the Mueller Report without telling me you never read the Mueller Report.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tell me you never read the Mueller Report without telling me you never read the Mueller Report.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tell me that you know more about the Mueller Report than Mueller. Tell me he was mistaken when he concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict Trump for conspiracy with Russia to influence the election.

Geez . . . do we have to keep going over this over and over and over . . .

Oh, I am very well able to voice my opinion on that. But I think that would be neither proper nor prudent. As in the Mueller Russia Gate investigation, I commented on various accusations and pointed out they were speculative more than probative as actual criminal acts. I waited for the special counsel to present probative evidence, which, as he admitted, he could not. Those on the left jumped on the bandwagon of "guilty" before the investigation was over, and they got the proverbial mud on their face when it was. And even that investigation did not afford Trump a means of defense--impeachment might have, but given the lack of proof provided by the investigation it probably would have been more politically driven and motivated than an actual "fair" trial.

But on whether Trump and his inner circle committed crimes re Jan6, I don't know if they did when they did not have their day in court where their lawyers were allowed to present all of their evidence and were allowed to get testimony from their own witnesses and allowed to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. Speculating on whether they committed crimes (on the basis of a highly politicized investigation run entirely by rabid anti-Trumpers) when they could not mount the kind of defense afforded in a real, legal trial, is foolish.

BTW, You actually supported my opinion on trusting or relying on a congressional criminal investigation. In another thread a professional environmentalists take on Hunter Biden laptop your post #4 you said "the crazy train leaders comprise the house oversight committee, think about that for a minute. Some of the key people outside of Trumps inner legal team supporting the attempt to illegally reverse the will of the people are now driving the train."

You cast doubt on a congressional investigation because of what you consider its political "train." That very much is the kind of train that drove the congressional Jan6 investigation. But from the opposing side--a "crazy train" of anti-Trumpers.

Easy answer one investigation sought the truth and I’m pretty sure in legal circles and in the court of public appeal, they did an outstanding job. This Hunter investigation will be headed up with liars, election deniers and will run it based on one premise; we must at all cost hurt the democrats this is our time for revenge.

You can’t even answer a simple question on whether you feel Trump and his inner circle committed crimes, so we already know which investigation you are routing for. Love your non answer, it would be inappropriate and speculative to answer, what a lame position. Like posting your opinion on a board with a handful of guys is somehow wrong, you are on the crazy train.

Easy answer one investigation sought the truth and I’m pretty sure in legal circles and in the court of public appeal, they did an outstanding job.

Good for you that you are pretty sure about legal circles and especially about the court of public appeal which no doubt you would be very happy to have it decide your fate.

This Hunter investigation will be headed up with liars, election deniers and will run it based on one premise; we must at all cost hurt the democrats this is our time for revenge.

Yes, well I'm not as sure as you that there will be any more liars on it than there were on the Jan6 thing. But, I guess, when you know something, you just know it. Congrats on your unflinching knowledge which is free of any speck of doubt about these sorts of things. I don't actually envy you, but, well, we crappie fishermen can't have as much ego as grand fishermen such as you need to maintain your grandeur.

You can’t even answer a simple question on whether you feel Trump and his inner circle committed crimes, so we already know which investigation you are routing for. Love your non answer, it would be inappropriate and speculative to answer, what a lame position. Like posting your opinion on a board with a handful of guys is somehow wrong, you are on the crazy train.

Why do you care what a crappie fisherman "feels"? You seem to have contempt for crappie fisherman. But, since you really want to know what I feel about Jan6, the whole thing disgusts me, from the riots to the investigation. I would think that you would know that from what I have said about it in several other posts.

And being fussy about the honest and accurate use of language, I hate all the labels thrown at it. I hate propagandistic language, especially when it blankets a whole group of people who have different views and motives.

But mostly, "feelings" are more heartfelt when they are about small groups or single people. There are many individual people who have been swept up, mercilessly, persecuted, killed, made to look like traitors and scoundrels, had livelihoods and reputations destroyed, by something that seems to be more than merely seeking justice for actual crimes.

If that's too vague for you, well, that's what you get when you wallow in the muddy water of "feelings."

I don't, if I can help it, discuss "feelings" if I'm engaged in serious discussion. I'll stick with as much facts as possible. And hold judgment till all the facts are in.

Why do you care what a crappie fisherman "feels"? You seem to have contempt for crappie fisherman. But, since you really want to know what I feel about Jan6, the whole thing disgusts me, from the riots to the investigation. I would think that you would know that from what I have said about it in several other posts.

And being fussy about the honest and accurate use of language, I hate all the labels thrown at it. I hate propagandistic language, especially when it blankets a whole group of people who have different views and motives.

But mostly, "feelings" are more heartfelt when they are about small groups or single people. There are many individual people who have been swept up, mercilessly, persecuted, killed, made to look like traitors and scoundrels, had livelihoods and reputations destroyed, by something that seems to be more than merely seeking justice for actual crimes.

If that's too vague for you, well, that's what you get when you wallow in the muddy water of "feelings."

I don't, if I can help it, discuss "feelings" if I'm engaged in serious discussion. I'll stick with as much facts as possible. And hold judgment till all the facts are in.

Not really just another dodge, here let’s make the question very simple, since apparently your having comprehension issues. Did Trump and his inner circle commit crimes.

Not really just another dodge, here let’s make the question very simple, since apparently your having comprehension issues. Did Trump and his inner circle commit crimes.

Have they been convicted of crimes?

Have they been convicted of crimes?

For a guy who said “Oh, I am very well able to voice my opinion” you just aren’t for some reason willing to offer your opinion on that specific question. Seems to me it’s an easy yes I believe crimes were likely committed or no I don’t see any evidence crimes were committed. Are you afraid the other lurking trolls of your ilk might see your opinion.

For a guy who said “Oh, I am very well able to voice my opinion” you just aren’t for some reason willing to offer your opinion on that specific question. Seems to me it’s an easy yes I believe crimes were likely committed or no I don’t see any evidence crimes were committed. Are you afraid the other lurking trolls of your ilk might see your opinion.

I said I was able . . . but a serious discussion about whether or not someone committed a crime should not be based on feelings. If you're asking me, simply as chit-chat if I think, or feel, or believe, that Trump and his inner circle committed a crime re Jan6, the simple answer is I DON'T KNOW. I SINCERELY, WITHOUT A DOUBT, DON'T KNOW. I SO MUCH DON'T KNOW THAT I DON'T EVEN HAVE A FEELING, OR BELIEF THAT THEY DID OR DIDN'T COMMIT A CRIME. (I have even said in this thread that I wouldn't be surprised if they did something shady.)

Nor do I come on the forum to chit-chat. You can opine, and believe, and think, and feel, and be "pretty sure" to your hearts content. Maybe it relieves some pressures or pestering doubt in your soul to gossip about your feelings, but that's really of no interest to me. That's not a criticism. Maybe, as a simple crappie fisherman, my mind is not expansive enough to dwell on all the ifs dancing on the head of a pin. At least not on a political forum. I don't come on the forum to discuss my feelings. I can do that at home and with personal friends having a good time. And even in those situations I can sometimes be contrarian when someone is so cocksure about something that has nuances--just to test their blind certainty.

But, in this case, however shocking or disconcerting it may be to you, I honestly don't have what would have to be a biased opinion (since I really don't know) on your question.

Also, be careful about referring to someone else on the forum as a troll. You have said several times that you just come on here to get a rile out of some people. That's what trolls do.