ChrisWeigant.com

The House January 6th Select Committee Hearings [Episode 4]

[ Posted Tuesday, June 21st, 2022 – 17:44 UTC ]

Today was the fourth in the series of June hearings televised by the House Select Committee, and it turned out to be one of the most effective yet. The emotional tension in the room started somber but built into outrage and fear at the end. The subject at hand today was Donald Trump and his henchmen attempting to interfere in the election process at the state level, the illegal scheme to create out of whole cloth fake slates of electors, and the impact all of this had upon the people who stood firmly for the United States Constitution and the rule of law.

While the first three witnesses -- all Republican state officials at the time -- outlined exactly what the president and his "legal team" were trying to strongarm them into doing, the final witness stood in for the thousands of elections officials across the country that in one way or another have had their lives impacted for the worse as a direct result of Trump's Big Lie. She (and the others) gave powerful testimony as to the personal toll it has taken upon her and her entire family.

The hearing lasted for around two-and-a-half hours, with one break in the middle. As has become usual, the hearing was a mix of live testimony from the witnesses as well as previous videotaped testimony from them and others involved, and contemporary media reports and videos from the scenes. Today there was more live testimony and less video testimony, since all the witnesses were in such crucial spots in the process that they really had no problem telling their own stories and didn't need a lot of background information provided.

As usual, both Chair Bennie Thompson and Vice-Chair Liz Cheney started off with opening statements that, in essence, laid out what was going to happen today. Then they turned the questioning over to Representative Adam Schiff, who conducted the entire rest of the hearing (except for brief closing statements at the end). Schiff, also as usual, did a good prosecutorial job and kept the proceedings very serious and very focused.

There were really two star witnesses at the end, a mother and daughter from Georgia who both got swept up in the tsunami of lies and false accusations that swirled around the Georgia election. Both told their stories in gripping and emotional ways, and both will long be remembered for their courage and righteousness, both back in 2020 as well as today for coming forward to testify publicly.

 

Public Hearings of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol [Episode 4]

The underlying theme of today's hearing was a simple one: This was not a victimless crime. This was not some legal argument that played out in wood-panelled rooms, this was not some abstract political theory, this was (as Liz Cheney so aptly put it) an attempt to make America "a nation of conspiracy theories and thug violence."

Today we heard from three state officials who resisted the pressures brought to bear on them by Trump and his minions, as well as a Georgia election official who was personally targeted by the president for correctly and dutifully doing her job.

The day started off with an impressive witness, the Republican speaker of the house of Arizona, Russell ("Rusty") Bowers. Schiff began by pointing out that what Trump and his team were asking for was completely unprecedented in American history -- for a state's legislature to be called into session and vote to overturn the will of the voters of their state, based on nothing more than completely unsupported theories and moonbeams. The clip of Bill Barr saying: "The claims of fraud were bullshit" was run once again, just to remind everyone what Trump's own attorney general thought about the validity of such theories.

The other half of the scheme was to get a group of Republicans in each of the battleground states to proclaim themselves the official slate of electors from their state, so their "votes" would somehow replace the valid and certified slate of electors. Schiff pointed out that no state officials in any of these states issued bogus certification for any of these sham "slates of electors." He then pointed out a hard, cold reality -- this was a naked attempt to commit fraud against the United States. It was a conspiracy. We were all just lucky that none of the Republicans actually in power in these states (whether in the legislatures, the governors' offices or the secretary of states' offices) went along with this illegal conspiracy. Next time, of course, we might not be so lucky.

Rusty Bowers stood in for a lot of Republicans (and Democrats, in some states) that absolutely refused to go along with this harebrained and illegal plot. Arizona wasn't the only place where members and leaders of the legislatures were heavily pressured, in other words, but it was a good representative example.

Bowers was firm and decisive in his answers, as he absolutely and unequivocally stated that he never entertained doing what Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump and the rest of his (as Bowers put it) "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" were trying to get him to do.

Bowers was first asked about what was apparently a very recent Trump statement where Trump claimed he had talked to Bowers and that "during the conversation you told me the election was rigged and I won the election." Bowers responded: "I did have a conversation with the president, [but] that was certainly not it." He later emphasized this further: "That would not be true," and: "That is also false."

Bowers spoke of getting a call from Rudy Giuliani where Rudy claimed there were over 200,000 votes from illegal immigrants and over 5,000 from dead people in Georgia. Bowers asked him for proof, but it never appeared -- he never got any evidence from Giuliani at all ("No one provided me, ever, such evidence"). Later Bowers stated that Rudy even admitted to him: "We've got lots of theories, we just don't have the evidence." Rudy then asked Bowers to call an official committee in the legislature, to which Bowers replied: "I refused.... I didn't want to be used as a pawn." Rudy asked Bowers to remove the certified electors and replace them with electors for Trump, to which he replied: "You are asking me to do something that is counter to my oath to the Constitution.... I will not break my oath." Rudy tried schmoozing him with: "...aren't we all Republicans here?" but this had no effect on Bowers whatsoever.

Bowers then stated that his faith was important to him and likewise his oath of office. You could tell, just by his voice and his repeated insistence upon his loyalty to that oath just how important this is to him.

Schiff drifted off for a while into explaining the entire "fake electors" scheme, and how things legally work. He revealed the head of the Republican National Committee admitting that the Republican Party "helped them in that role" of pushing for all the fake electors, although she tried to distance their involvement as being minor.

A Trump campaign staffer admitted what he was being asked to do made him feel: "We were just kind of useful idiots or rubes at that point." He later stated how he feels about it now: "I'm angry, because I think, in a sense... no one really cared if people were potentially putting themselves in [legal] jeopardy."

To become officially certified electors in certain states, certain conditions must be met -- such as holding the meeting on a certain day inside the statehouse. The former head of the Michigan Republican Party testified that she heard there was a plot by some Republicans to hide out overnight in the statehouse, so that they couldn't be barred from entering the next day, just to meet this requirement. She called this scheme "insane and inappropriate."

Nevertheless, even though none of them had any sort of prayer of being seen as legitimate slates of electors, in seven battleground states, groups of Republicans met and issued and signed fake certificates, which they then mailed to Congress and the National Archives. This was supposed to somehow give Mike Pence the ability to toss out the legitimate electors on January 6th.

One of the biggest reveals of the day was Senator Ron Johnson's role in all of this. One of Johnson's staffers communicated with an aide to Vice President Pence on January 6th, saying Johnson had two states' fake elector certificates and that he wanted to hand these to Pence during the proceedings that day in Congress. The New York Times reported this full exchange of messages:

"Johnson needs to hand something to VPOTUS please advise," Sean Riley, an aide to Mr. [Ron] Johnson, texted an aide to Mr. [Mike] Pence, according to messages released by the committee.

"What is it?" Chris Hodgson, the aide to Mr. Pence, replied.

"Alternate slate of electors for MI and WI because archivist didn't receive them," Mr. Riley said.

"Do not give that to him," Mr. Hodgson texted back.

Pence and his staff wanted no part of the fraudulent scheme.

Schiff then wrapped up his questions for Bowers and the committee took a short recess, a little over an hour after they had started. One of Bowers's final statements showed once again how deeply he feels about all of this:

I do not want to be a winner by cheating. I will not play with laws I swore allegiance to with any contrived desire towards deflection of my deep foundational desire to follow God's will as I believe he led my conscience to embrace.

After a short break, they returned.

Next on the program was what happened in Georgia. Two of the witnesses were key to refusing Trump's demands to somehow just "find" enough votes for him to win the state: Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his chief operating officer, Gabriel Sterling.

Once again, while Raffensperger and Sterling were probably the most visible of the elections officials in the battleground states, they were not the only ones. They were presented as all the witnesses were today, as being representative of others who went through similar experiences.

Sterling, in particular, was a welcome addition to the committee's witness table. It was he who most poignantly called upon Trump to stop inciting violence among his followers, in one of the most shocking political speeches I have ever witnessed. It stunned me so much I devoted the entire talking points segment of a Friday Talking Points column to transcribing every word he said. A very small portion of this (in video clips) was played for the committee today, but I feel a longer excerpt is necessary, because Sterling was so personally upset by the threats of violence to his elections workers:

A twenty-something tech in Gwinnett County today has death threats and a noose put out, saying he should be hung for treason because he was transferring a report on batches from an E.M.S. to a county computer so we could read it.

It has to stop.

Mr. President, you have not condemned these actions or this language. Senators, you have not condemned this language or these actions.

This has to stop.

We need you to step up and if you're going to take a position of leadership, show some.

My boss, Secretary Raffensperger, his [home] address is out there. They have people doing caravans in front of their house. They've had people come on to their property. Tricia, his wife of 40 years, is getting sexualized threats through her cell phone.

It has to stop.

This is elections. This is the backbone of democracy. And all of you who have not said a damn word are complicit in this.

It's too much.

Yes. Fight for every legal vote. Go through your due process. We encourage you. Use your First Amendment. That's fine.

Death threats, physical threats, intimidation, it's too much. It's not right. They've lost the moral high ground to claim that it is.

I don't have all the best words to do this because I'm angry. The straw that broke the camel's back today is again, this 20-year-old contractor for a voting system company, just trying to do his job. Just there. In fact, I talked to Dominion today and [they] said he's one of the better ones they got. His family is getting harassed now. There's a noose out there with his name on it.

That's not right.

. . .

I can't begin to explain the level of anger I have right now over this. And every American, every Georgian -- Republican and Democrat alike -- should have that same level of anger.

Mr. President, it looks like you likely lost the state of Georgia. We're investigating. There's always a possibility. I get it, and you have the rights to go through the courts. What you don't have the ability to do, and you need to step up and say this, is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence.

Someone's going to get hurt.

Someone's going to get shot.

Someone's going to get killed.

And it's not right.

It's not right.

Trump, of course, never did urge his supporters to avoid violence, even though doing so at the time (the first week of December) might have avoided January 6th altogether.

The committee walked through, with both Raffensperger and Sterling, how each and every one of the claims Trump and his stooges was making about supposed election fraud in Georgia was a complete fantasy.

Raffensperger, at one point during all this, laid out why it was all swamp dreams: "the numbers are the numbers and the numbers don't lie." Trump claimed there were "a minimum of 18,000 [fake] ballots, all for Biden." The number of ballots counted during the period Trump was making this claim for was actually only 8,900. Raffensperger shot down all of Trump's claims in similar fashion. There were 66,000 underage voters? "We found that there was actually zero." Another 2,423 nonregistered voters? "There were zero." Over 2,000 felons had voted? The actual number was 74. There were 5,000 dead voters? In actuality, there were four. "The numbers were the numbers and we could not recalculate" the way that Trump was begging them to do.

Of course, the main exhibit in this segment was Trump's recorded phone call with Raffensperger and other Georgia officials, where he blatantly asked: "I just want to find 11,780 votes" -- one more than he needed to win the state. Raffensperger's response: "There were no votes to find." This call lasted 67 minutes, but (obviously) only short clips were played at today's hearing.

There was another big reveal in this segment, from Adam Schiff:

The subcommittee has received text messages indicating that Mark Meadows wanted to send some of the investigators in her office, in the words of one White House aide, "a shitload of POTUS stuff," including coins, autographed MAGA hats, etc. White House staff intervened to make sure that did not happen.

In other words, the chief of staff of the president of the United States wanted to bribe the Georgia investigator's office (whose responsibility it was to investigate election fraud claims) on the cheap -- with "a shitload of POTUS stuff." The first witness was right -- this truly was the gang who couldn't shoot straight.

The final witness of the day was the most emotionally powerful, as she testified to what she and her family have gone through ever since they were singled out by the president as somehow nefariously throwing the Georgia Election for Joe Biden. Wandrea ArShaye ("Shaye") Moss and her mother Ruby ("Lady Ruby") Freeman worked in the elections department, and were two of the people shown on the video that Trump and his ilk claimed showed "a suitcase" pulled from under a table and votes being run through the counting machines multiple times. Neither claim was remotely true. Moss and Freeman were referenced by name by Donald Trump in that 67-minute phone call a total of 18 times. Rudy Giuliani was shown addressing Georgia state senators claiming that Moss and Freeman were seen on video the night of the election "surreptitiously passing around USB ports as if they were vials of heroin or cocaine." In his infamous call, Trump called Freeman "a professional vote scammer and hustler." Freeman and Moss are Black, it's worth mentioning. Moss testified that what was passed between the two women was actually "a ginger mint."

But the truly gut-wrenching part of the two women's testimony (Moss testified live, while her mother's testimony was all on tape, although Freeman was sitting right behind Moss at the hearing) concerned what happened to them after they were singled out by the right-wing conspiracy brigade. First, from Moss:

A lot of threats wishing death upon me, telling me that... I'll be in jail with my mother and saying things like, "Be glad it's 2020 and not 1920," A lot of them were racist, a lot of them were just hateful.

I felt horrible, I felt like it was all my fault. People are lying, attacking my mom, going to my grandmother's house. I felt so bad, I just felt bad for my mom, and I felt horrible for picking this job. For being the one who always wants to help.

It has turned my life upside down.... I don't go to the grocery store at all... I second-guess everything that I do.... It affected my life in every way... over lies... for doing my job, the same job I've been doing forever.

Freeman's testimony was even worse, as she recounted how her life has changed:

Now, I won't even introduce myself by my name anymore. I get nervous when I bump into someone I know in the grocery store who says my name. I'm worried about who's listening.

I've lost my name, and I've lost my reputation. I've lost my sense of security, all because a group of people, starting with Number 45 [Trump] and his ally, Rudy Giuliani, decided to scapegoat me and my daughter.

There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere. Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you? The president of the United States is supposed to represent every American, not to target one. But he targeted me, Lady Rudy, a small-business owner, a mother, a proud American citizen who stands up to help Fulton County run an election in the middle of the pandemic.

This is not a victimless crime!

Freeman recalled that "The F.B.I. told me I have to leave my home for safety." She spent two months away from her home and she "felt homeless.... It was hard, it was horrible."

When asked what specific threat made the F.B.I. tell her to leave her house, Freeman responded: "January 6th was about to come" and that they told her to stay away "at least until the inauguration."

 

A sordid conclusion

Liz Cheney was right to use the phrase "thug violence" to describe what happened. This is not a victimless crime. These threats were widespread. Once again, Freeman and Moss stood in for hundreds if not thousands of other elections officials across the country who experienced similar threats and bullying. But it didn't end with just the officials. Moss testified what happened at her grandmother's house, as thugs showed up and terrorized her: "She [Moss's grandmother] called me screaming at the top of her lungs... people at her home... pushing their way through, claiming they were coming in to make a citizen's arrest" of Moss and Freeman, who they thought were hiding there. Moss told her grandmother: "Close the door, don't open the door for anyone.... you can't do that, you have to be safe."

Moss also testified that of all the elections workers on the videotape Trump and his goons kept falsely making claims about, "none of them" still work for the elections office anymore, because they were terrified for their own safety if they had kept their jobs.

Time after time today we witnessed the brutal threats people had to experience for doing their jobs and upholding their oaths of office to the U.S. Constitution.

Rusty Bowers spoke emotionally about threats to his family, while his daughter was "gravely ill" (she died in January, 2021).

Also in Arizona, the infamous "QAnon shaman" showed up at the statehouse and refused to leave, with a pack of his buddies and "Proud Boys with rifles just outside the entrance."

Bowers also recounted how, even to this day, people show up outside his house (usually on Saturdays) with video trucks proclaiming him to be a pedophile (a big QAnon conspiracy theory) and how a man with "three bars on his chest [who] has a pistol" confronted his neighbor (the symbol he is describing is of the Three Percenters).

Gabriel Sterling was moved to give his shocking speech (calling on Trump to denounce the violence and threats, which he never did) because a young elections worker was flooded with threats, including one with a moving image of a noose twisting in the wind.

Brad Raffensperger testified about the threats to him and his family, his wife getting graphic threatening "sexualized" texts that "were disgusting" and that "some people broke into my daughter-in-law's home. My son has passed and she's widowed and has two kids, so we're very concerned about her safety also."

Moss and Freeman both testified how their lives became a living hell in the aftermath as well.

Donald Trump tweeted out the personal information about some of these people. Never once did he denounce the violence or threats of violence his own supporters were flooding these people with. He egged them on instead.

Thompson summed it up the best, in his closing statement. He repeated Ronald Reagan's line about how the peaceful transfer of power in American elections was "a miracle" -- a quote that Rusty Bowers had included in a public statement he put out while all this was playing out. Thompson said quite accurately that "other countries use violence to seize and hold power, but not in the United States. Not in America." Trump, however, "broke that centuries-old covenant," and his doing so was "unconstitutional, unpatriotic, and fundamentally un-American." He also called it "downright dangerous" and pointed out that if the president can single out two women working for an elections office in Georgia for such treatment, "who among us is safe?" Death threats "is not who we are. It must not become who we are."

Thompson finished with the biggest question of them all: "The system held -- but barely. The question remains, will it hold again?"

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

110 Comments on “The House January 6th Select Committee Hearings [Episode 4]”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Not a good idea to pal around with terrorists.

  2. [2] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Sterling was one of the best witnesses, from a video point of view. The first speech they showed of him when he was angry was wild.

    Even cooler though, was his ASL interpreter. He looked like a cross between Ben Kingsley and John Fetterman (a presence). What was awesome was how, when Sterling showed anger, this guy showed ANGER. It was wild to see how much angrier than even Sterling he seemed.

  3. [3] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    CW I watched tape of the whole thing and I'm happy to report that we were both watching the same J6C hearings. Parallel right-wing universe and all that.

    **MY THOUGHTS**

    Production values (specifically making a very complicated situation and breaking it down into digestible bites) remained excellent. In tested and true fashion the Committee told us what they were going to show and tell us, they showed and told us and then they repeated what they'd just covered. They once again added a version of a closing tidbit of intrigue, in this case Cheney's begging WH Counsel Pat Ciplone to testify to the J6C to answer sooo many questions.

    If i had any quibble it was that I felt former Prosecutor Adam Schiff "lead" the witnesses entirely too much, especially early on when he had State officials -- perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, I would think. He may get away with in the Court of Public Opinion but never in a Court of Law. Harumph. Time will tell.

    HAVING said that Rep. Schiff made up for it with his closing remarks. He hit it out of the park, summarizing with power and speaking with just the right amount of indignant outrage.


    No way DoJ doesn't indict. No way.

    mortem tyrannis!

    gloria in Ucraina!

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    G'Nite, Gracie.

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    In J6C style I hereby tease a coming attraction, namely Ukraine... namely tomorrow, Elizabeth.

    I've copied these arguments you've made regarding the Russo-Ukraine War. Which, for the record has been ongoing since Russia annexed Crimea in the post-Maidan chaos in early 2014. Ninth year now -- just saying.

    I've posted them in chronological order and tomorrow I'll address your arguments point by point and I'll try to be very specific, like any and all Weigantians that want to be of some damn use to their Brother and Sister Weigantians ought to be.

    Ahem.

    ONE

    MtnCaddy and Friends,


    Lizsplaining 101 - the Russian War in Ukraine

    Okay, I’m going to explain why I think this war could have and certainly should have been avoided and who I think is to blame for inviting the start of it.

    But, first, to be clear and for the record, Putin and Russia are solely responsible for starting this ridiculously unnecessary and unjustified war against Ukraine, for the death of civilians and for committing obvious war crimes about which the ICC is investigating and rightly so. Such a declaration, here in Weigantia and among friends, should go without saying.

    Now, you will recall that when the Berlin wall fell and the disintegration of the USSR began, NATO, which was set up to counter the Soviet Union, began “assessing” that it would be a good idea to expand to ensure the continuing security of Europe.

    For one brief shining moment, the Yeltsin government in Moscow entertained the idea of Russia joining this strategic security arrangement, in some form or fashion. I even recall advocating for the same during the very early nineties when NATO began in earnest to consider expanding its security zone across Europe and, indeed, its sphere of influence. However, old ideas and patterns die hard sometimes and the Russians didn’t pursue joining NATO.

    As Russia embarked on its fledgling democracy, there were many Russians who felt a distinct sense of humiliation in the aftermath of the break-up of the Soviet Union. It was, after all, quite a shock to the system. And, in this environment when Russia was down and out and trying to emerge from a yolk of totalitarianism and economic hardship, NATO decides that this would be an opportune time to expand and, eventually, right up to Russia’s border.

    For thirty years, Russia has declared that Ukraine is a red line for them in terms of NATO expansion. Why would NATO wish to welcome Ukraine into the fold and have NATO forces just hundreds of miles from Moscow? Why, indeed. I would argue that Ukraine provides a security buffer for both Russia and NATO and space for continuing dialogue on the security concerns of both parties, especially given the nature of nuclear arms control negotiations that have been ongoing for decades, not to mention the general dynamics of the Cold War.

    So, knowing and understanding the real and ultimately manageable security concerns of Russia in the midst of NATO expansion up to its border, the US and NATO open the door to the possibility of Ukraine membership, leaving NATO's muscular force structure and weaponry, thanks to the US, right at Russia’s doorstep, only a few hundred miles from the heart of Moscow. Ukraine, in a move that helped to seal its current fate, enshrined in its constitution an aspirational intent to become a NATO member and all that is entailed with entering into such a security arrangement.

    Despite clear and consistent messaging from the Kremlin - over the course of the last thirty years, no less - the West refused to take Russia's security concerns seriously and Putin moved to recapture Crimea. Studying the history of this parcel of land, by the way, is instructive but, I will leave that complicated story to others.

    Later, with Ukraine, the US and NATO still stubbornly clinging to the notion that their public stance remain open to Ukrainian membership (“sovereign nations have the right to choose their alliances”, never mind the fact that NATO also has the right to choose its members and there was no logical reason nor realistic chance that Ukraine would ever actually be admitted) Putin moves to control the separatist regions of the Donbas in eastern Ukraine, thus creating facts on the ground to counter the real and imagined NATO threat.

    Fast forward to February 2022 and the amassing of Russian troops along its western border with Ukraine and in Belarus. And, still, Ukraine and the US and NATO refuse to accept reality on the ground or even discuss the real and manageable security concerns of Russia that have led to this troop build-up.

    In fact, Biden, in a historically stubborn and obtuse move, publicly declares that the idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO is sacrosanct and, as such, is off the negotiating table to diffuse the potential crisis. Which, of course, is all about NATO expansion into Ukraine. Adding fuel to the flames would be an apt phrase to describe this wholly irresponsible behavior on the part of an American president, NATO and Ukraine, who should all know better.

    And, here we are.
    ***

    TWO

    You know what Joshua, talk to me when Ukraine wins the war against Russia. Heh.

    This war should never have happened. If Ukraine hadn't listened to the bad advice it was getting from the US and NATO, it probably wouldn't have happened. Of course, Biden made sure we'd never find out if this stupid, unnecessary war could have been avoided!

    But, now that war has been raging for a few months, Ukraine is losing more territory than it would have had to had it negotiated with Russia - before or even shortly after the war started.

    Nothing you can say to me or imagine in your fantasy world can change the facts on the ground - before, since and after this war.
    **

    THREE

    Joshua,

    Ukraine's insistence on its future membership in NATO - at the behest of the US, I hasten to add - made this stupid war unavoidable. I'm beginning to believe that the US never wanted to avoid this conflict with Russia - mostly because none of this makes any sense, otherwise.

    Do you really think that Ukraine will win this war and regain ALL of its territory, including Crimea? The only way that happens is if the US and its NATO allies engage in all out war with Russia. Then do you want to guess how THAT ends?

    If Ukraine had instead acted in its own best interests and negotiated to avoid war and softened its stance on NATO membership (as Zelensky has already done and then backtracked more than once since this thing began) it may well have ended up with most of its territory intact. Now, when all the parties are finally ready to end this war with a political settlement, Ukraine will surely not be so fortunate.

    I can't understand why you choose to ignore geopolitical reality and facts already on the ground vis-a-vis NATO enlargement and Russian concerns ... pre-24 February, let alone for the past thirty years. These things won't go away just because you refuse to see them.

    As for your silly Canadian scenario ... the US can go right ahead and conquer Canada and take beautiful British Columbia just as soon as Canada pulls out of NATO and declares its wish to be aligned with Russia in a defense alliance and even go so far as to put this wish in writing in our constitution. You see how non-serious your analogy is?

    You put great effort into stating your views, something I respect. I'm publishing them in order to let you review them in one (MtnCaddy love) convenient place. And to recind and repent anything you've since reconsidered.

    That way I can focus on our areas of disagreement.

  6. [6] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And I mean sincerely repent.

    Ya gotta make me feel it Liz ;D

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    There. That will defined NOT shut her up.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    First Take...

    Even the Weigantian commentaries push the 6JC as some kind of Hollywood MADE FOR TV fiction..

    "EPISODE 4"??? :D

    Perfectly portrayed.. Nothing but a Hollywood production...

    Kabuki Theater fiction...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Not a good idea to pal around with terrorists.

    You mean, like Odumbo pal'ing around with Bill Ayers??

    You mean like that??

    Hell one of Democrats' favorite progressives was RAISED by terrorists...

    Democrats en masse even SUPPORT terrorist groups like the Palestinians, BLM and AntiFa...

    I mean, if you REALLY want to talk about those who "pal around with terrorists", by all means..

    Let's have that talk.. :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    More proof that the 6JC is SOLELY and COMPLETELY about taking down President Trump..

    Why bother having any testimony about state elections??

    State elections have absolutely NOTHING to do with a riot that occurred on the capitol grounds...

    That is all the 6JC is about.. Taking down President Trump and preventing him from running in 2024...

    Because Democrats KNOW they can't beat President Trump is a FAIR election without fraud and cheating..

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the mental health as it pertains to guns bill passed the Senate.. :D

    Let's see if Occasional Cortex makes good on her threat to oppose the bill... :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dem ‘show trial’ undermines case against Trump

    To Democrats, they’re still just “deplorables.”

    Hillary Clinton’s infamous slur of Donald Trump’s supporters in 2016 likely played a role in the election outcome. Six years later, it’s worth asking if her party has learned anything about why Trump beat her and why he retains such a vast following.

    To judge by the January 6 hearings, the answer is no, hell no. Were they wiser, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen would have realized a kangaroo court treatment of the Capitol riot would not be persuasive because it would not be trusted by nearly half the country.

    Her ignorance is America’s loss. Many of the gritty details the investigation panel has presented would have wider impact if the members were not so one-sided. But because they are, the proceedings smack of another partisan exercise, a Trump Impeachment, Act 3.

    Democrats just DON'T get it...

    In their hysteria to take down President Trump, Democrats simply don't get how it's that EXACT hysteria that is turning REAL patriotic Americans against the Democrats...

    Does ANYONE here honestly and truly believe that the 6JC will accomplish it's goal of putting President Trump in jail and preventing President Trump from running again in 2024...

    Does ANYONE here honestly believe that??

    Speak up...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    How do we know that this is nothing but a show trial??

    Witnesses are not cross-examined... There is no advocacy of ANY other theory but the one theory that Democrats and their Trump/America hating GOP 'useful idiots' want to concoct..

    Jean Luc, you asked before how I could POSSIBLY compare the 6JC show trial to a Cardassian trial.

    Because they are BOTH exactly the same..

    In Cardassian trials, the prosecutor and the defense work TOGETHER to make the State's case without *ANY* consideration for the facts.. The defendant has already been found guilty and the entire proceeding (both in a Cardassian trial and in the 6JC) is simply designed to get the defendant to co-operate in his own demise...

    That is EXACTLY what is happening with the 6JC....

    Which simply PROVES beyond ANY doubt that a Cardassian "trial" and the 6JC are identical..

    Don't take my word for it..

    Watch the episode TRIBUNAL (Season 2 Episode 25) for yourself and you'll see..

    Democrats = Cardassians

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    And by going after President Trump in such a blatantly hysterical way, the Cardassians (Democrats) are making the EXACT same mistakes they made with the bogus impeachments and the Russia Collusion delusion...

    They are making President Trump STRONGER with his own supporters..

    And when the Cardassians (Democrats) fail AGAIN, just like they failed with their bogus impeachments and failed with their Russia Collusion Delusion, they are making MORE President Trump supporters...

    The Democrats are ALL about failure.. JUST LIKE Cardassians..

    And every time Democrats fail, they make President Trump stronger...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here are the ONLY relevant FACTS of 6 Jan...

    #1 President Trump offered to deploy the national guard...
    Democrat leadership refused.

    #2 President Trump told his supporters to march PEACEFULLY on the Capitol.

    The FACTS prove President Trump's complete and utter innocence of ANY of the claims of the Cardassian-esque 6JC show trial...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are losing ground with the fastest-growing political bloc: Asian Americans

    Democrat approval is down across the board.. Even with black Americans..

    But it's asian and hispanic Americans that Democrats are losing ground the fastest...

    And that losing is going to continue right up until the November elections..

    Because let's face it.. Democrats are a cult of failure..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Asian Americans are the fastest growing minority in the US..

    But they are becoming a power-house of the electorate..

    The biggest political earthquake of the year was the recall of Uber-Democrat Chesa Boudin...

    And asian Americans were at the forefront of that effort...

    Democrats are losing asian Americans hand over fist...

    This is fact....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    If i had any quibble it was that I felt former Prosecutor Adam Schiff "lead" the witnesses entirely too much, especially early on when he had State officials -- perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, I would think. He may get away with in the Court of Public Opinion but never in a Court of Law.

    Exactly..

    It's a Cardassian court, pure and simple..

    The Prosecution and the "defense" (which is really just another prosecutor) work together to create a narrative that the defendant is guilty...

    This isn't a "fact finding" mission.. It's a Cardassian court pursuing a pre-determined finding of GUILTY...

    And it's SOLELY designed to take down President Trump and prevent him from running again in 2024..

    That is *ALL* the 6JC is..

    I am glad you see that as well..

    Democrats = Cardassians

    And boy do they love their hot fish juice...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    "No way DoJ doesn't indict. No way."

    Amazing how much that sounds like

    "No way PUTIN invades.. No way..."

    :D

    hehehehehehe I know, I know, I give you grief about it..

    But we all can't be right all the time... :D

    But the simple fact is, there is no way the DOJ will indict...

    Irregardless of the fact that there is no factual EVIDENCE beyond rumor, innuendo, hearsay and outright BS brought about by Trump/America hate, the simple fact is that setting THIS kind of precedent will definitely come back and bite the Democrats on the arse...

    We're already going to see monthly impeachments of Joe Biden because Democrats set the precedent that impeachments are to settle political scores...

    NOW Democrats are going to set the precedent that the DOJ is going to indict SOLELY to settle political scores??

    I just don't think Democrats could be THAT stoopid and THAT short sighted..

    But hay.. I could be wrong about that... It IS a definite possibility that Democrats COULD be that stoopid and short sighted...

    I mean, Garland's DOJ has already PROVEN it's nothing but a Democrat toadie by not prosecting Democrat protesters who are obviously and blatantly breaking federal law by protesting at SCOTUS Justices' residencies...

    So, Garland has already sullied the required independence of the Department Of Justice..

    So, yea.. It IS possible that Garland will simply throw the DOJ's reputation into the gutter and pursue unprove and non factual criminality SOLELY to settle a political score...

    I would hate to be an un-armed and un-trained Democrat if that happens though, I can tell you that...

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Caddy,

    Let's take the Ukraine stuff elsewhere where it isn't completely off topic!

  21. [21] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m

    There are many reasons why your cardassian analogy doesn't hold water, but the main one is that there are no actual punishments. The only way one could possibly get punished by a Congressional committee hearing is if they refused to show up.

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    For those unfamiliar with the star trek universe, cardassian trials generally end in torture and death.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those unfamiliar with the star trek universe, cardassian trials generally end in torture and death.

    Which is EXACTLY what Democrats are trying to do to President Trump's political career..

    Democrats are trying to kill it..

    Democrats ARE Cardassians..

    One only has to watch the episode TRIBUNAL to see the facts that prove the 6JC and a Cardassian are identical...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, meanwhile in Israel...

    Netanyahu prepares for a comeback in Israel’s next elections

    It's gonna be great to welcome BiBi home again.. :D

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and whatever criticisms one may level at the style of the j6c's presentation of findings, I've yet to hear any substantial challenge to a single specific fact they presented.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Biden's Handlers' goal was to choke off Russia's selling of oil to make Putin capitulate on Ukraine..

    But that simply drove oil per barrel prices HIGHER and India and China were more than happy to pick up the slack in sales..

    Result???

    Russia is STILL selling the same amount of oil they were before, but due to Biden's Handlers' ineptitude, Putin is make MORE MONEY than ever before!!!

    Biden's Handlers are obviously morons... :eyeroll:

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    and whatever criticisms one may level at the style of the j6c's presentation of findings, I've yet to hear any substantial challenge to a single specific fact they presented.

    Oh, that's easy...

    They haven't presented any relevant facts that prove that President Trump master-minded the 6 Jan riot...

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA....

    It's all been nothing but rumor, innuendo, hearsay and outright BS...

    And *I* produced 2 facts that PROVE President Trump didn't.. :D

    So I am way ahead of the Cardassian-esque 6JC.... :D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those unfamiliar with the star trek universe, cardassian trials generally end in torture and death.

    While that is factually accurate, the salient similarity between the 6JC and Cardassian trials is not the torture/death result..

    The salient similarity is that, in Cardassian trials, GUILT is already predetermined..

    In that respect, the 6JC and Cardassian are IDENTICAL..

    "I...DENTICAL"
    -Jim Trotter III, MY COUSIN VINNY

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    In that respect, the 6JC and Cardassian trials are IDENTICAL..

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Biden's Handlers' goal was to choke off Russia's selling of oil to make Putin capitulate on Ukraine..

    But that simply drove oil per barrel prices HIGHER and India and China were more than happy to pick up the slack in sales..

    Result???

    Russia is STILL selling the same amount of oil they were before, but due to Biden's Handlers' ineptitude, Putin is make MORE MONEY than ever before!!!

    It's funny... Biden's Handlers' moves were supposed to inflict pain on Putin and Russia..

    But we Americans are the ones feeling all the pain and Putin and Russia are actually BETTER OFF than they were before..

    Typical Democrat Keystone Kops maneuver :eyeroll:

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which means, of course, Putin has absolutely NO INCENTIVE to stop the war..

    Which means, it's up to Biden's Handlers to do the smart thing...

    Oh gods, we're doomed!!

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:


    WEEKEND AT BIDENS

    hehehehehe

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    And continuing the humor theme..

    Who knew that Dolph Lungren was more of a scientist than Bill Nye... :D


    DOLPH LUNGREN vs BILL NYE

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    And one more for humor.. :D


    Democrats Are So Silly

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The president has been very clear in making sure that he does everything that he can to elevate — to alleviate the pain that American families are feeling when it comes to gas prices."
    -White House Press Secretary Jean Claude

    She was factually accurate the first time... :^/

  36. [36] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    They haven't presented any relevant facts that prove that President Trump master-minded the 6 Jan riot...

    well i could have told you that. donald couldn't mastermind a two year old's birthday party, nevermind an insurgent coup attempt.

    While that is factually accurate, the salient similarity between the 6JC and Cardassian trials is not the torture/death result..

    except for THAT, mrs. lincoln...

  37. [37] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    the point is not to ignore the facts on the ground. of course the annexation of BC to the US is silly, that's the point. canada has its own national identity, which the US respects, and therefore has no need of any external alliance to protect it from US invasion.

    ukraine, quite obviously, doesn't have those advantages. but it does have a national identity to protect, and the russian attack proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that their desire to be part of NATO was justified.

    JL

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    well i could have told you that. donald couldn't mastermind a two year old's birthday party, nevermind an insurgent coup attempt.

    So, you concede that President Trump is NOT responsible and the whole 6JC is a farce..

    Cool.. :D

    The salient similarity is that, in Cardassian trials, GUILT is already predetermined.. Just like the 6JC...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    ukraine, quite obviously, doesn't have those advantages. but it does have a national identity to protect, and the russian attack proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that their desire to be part of NATO was justified.

    And yet, Zelensky discarded that desire to join NATO when he needed that desire most..

    And once that desire to join NATO was so casually cast aside, what was there left to fight for??

    Beyond Zelensky's pride and ego, that is??

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, you concede that President Trump is NOT responsible and the whole 6JC is a farce..

    not having planned it isn't the same as not being responsible for it. and it's not a farce, it's a factual narrative. nothing they're presenting is false or fabricated.

    (unlike the claim that donald "offered" troops on january 3rd or that anyone in congress refused said offer, both of which are demonstrably false.)

  41. [41] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[39],

    zelenskiy did not permanently withdraw ukraine from consideration for nato, he said he had to give up that aspiration.

    His exact words were:

    “Ukraine is not a member of Nato. We understand that. We have heard for years that the doors were open, but we also heard that we could not join. It’s a truth and it must be recognised,”

    my guess is that it was also offered in the hopes that russia might limit their objectives as a result, and stop trying to attack the entire country.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, let hijack yet another column.

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    Your Canadian analogy is not only silly - it's wholly non-serious and therefore makes no point.

    There would only be grounds for discussion concerning that analogy if Canada decided to pull out of NATO and align strategically and defensively with Russia. A notion not entirely illogical, given the geography.

  44. [44] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    it's a fictional scenario, and it's germane precisely because russia does NOT recognize ukraine's national identity and sovereignty.

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    ukraine ... does have a national identity to protect, and the russian attack proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that their desire to be part of NATO was justified.

    I disagree. And, I don't understand how you can be so certain that Ukraine's desire to be part of NATO has been justified by current events. I see it in quite another light.

    Unfortunately, we will never know - beyond a shadow of a doubt or otherwise - if this war could have been avoided or if Ukraine could have rectified the situation on the ground as it stood post-2014 if Zelensky had opened serious discussions with Russia and recinded its desire to be a part of NATO. Because, president Biden and his NATO allies made quite sure that we would never know by insisting that Ukrainian membership in NATO was OFF of the negotiating table right from get-go.

    First, let me be clear. Of course, Ukraine has a national identity to protect.

    Ukraine also has neighbours and a long history with them to consider. Going along with US dreams of NATO expansion right up to the front door of Russia, a few hundred miles from Moscow, was most decidedly NOT the way to go about protecting that identity. And, in the end, dreams of being a part of NATO (something that the US and its NATO allies, if they are honest about it, would admit is not likely to ever happen, anyways) resulted in a devastating war that is currently in the process of destroying the country with all of the horrors of war, killing civilians and completely upending the lives of Ukrainian citizens who are left and who have already fled.

    My assertion is that the US push for NATO expansion has proven to have been screwed up from the start.

    I was once a big supporter of expanding NATO during the heady days of the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. You may be surprised to learn that I was even postulating at one point the idea of including a democratic Russia in NATO! Well, if Russia was ever considering that possibility, it didn't last long. But, that's a whole other discussion - perhaps a whole other blog!

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    it's a fictional scenario, and it's germane precisely because russia does NOT recognize ukraine's national identity and sovereignty.

    No, it is not germane. Not in the least. You can't just leave out all of the pertinent facts and expect to be taken seriously.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:
  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You shouldn't go around defacing public signs.

  49. [49] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [42]

    Okay, let hijack yet another column.

    Excuse you, Board Mother.

    You continue to pal around with Comment Spammer Michale and then you say something stupid like this?

    Are you effing kidding me?

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No pie????? Bite your tongue! No, seriously. Bite it. Doesn't pie taste better?

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you need some pain killers, Caddy?

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Caddy,

    Will you just keep reposting my Ukraine comments or do you have something useful to add?

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    not having planned it isn't the same as not being responsible for it. and it's not a farce, it's a factual narrative. nothing they're presenting is false or fabricated.

    Show me the FACTS that prove President Trump is responsible for ANY of it..

    You can't because none exist..

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You can't just leave out all of the pertinent facts and expect to be taken seriously.

    That reads less like a carefully reasoned dismissal of an argument than an excuse not to address it. If the facts of the hypothetical scenario don't read like apples to apples yet, fill in the blanks so they do.

    The point caddy made by initially positing this scenario is that you're not fully considering where Ukraine and its president are coming from. Until 2014, Ukraine WAS the most corrupt country in Europe, and was nearly a vassal state to Russia. The population rebelled against Russian influence and has made a real effort to clean up its system. There's more at stake to them than treaties or ideological conflict. To them, ceding to Russian influence is to be denying their own national sovereignty.

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That reads less like a carefully reasoned dismissal of an argument than an excuse not to address it. If the facts of the hypothetical scenario don't read like apples to apples yet, fill in the blanks so they do.

    I did 'fill in the blanks' ... right here in this thread! Did you miss it?

  56. [56] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [12]

    @m you blockquoted (yet another) looong passage.

    Why didn't you credit whatever right-wing site you lifted it from?

    Bad form! If you didn't write it and then you quote it you should attribute the source. If it's something interesting it'd be lovely if you provided the link to the article so people like me can check out the source. C'mon man.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    You continue to pal around with Comment Spammer Michale and then you say something stupid like this?

    Says the guy who encourages me to post original rants and then whines and cries when I do..

    Are you effin' kidding me!!?? :D

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    I don't wish to waste any more time on foolish analogies.

    I would like to know, though, how you see this war working out for Ukraine, in terms of its fight to retain its identity and sovereignty and clean up the corruption, not to mention dealing with the very serious problem it has with its practice of integrating right-wing extemists like the Azov regiment into the Ukrainian military and other institutions.

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    Fact: Donald had all the authority in the universe to send troops to protect the capitol from the riot.

    Fact: he chose not to use his authority to send help, even after hearing that Congress was besieged and the police were undermanned.

    The rest of these hearings are just the why and how, but at the heart of it is just those two things; Donald had a duty as president and refused to do it.

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @Liz,

    It's too soon to know how the conflict will end. My hope is that Ukraine eventually holds a line and it's able to secure its borders.

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    Until 2014, Ukraine WAS the most corrupt country in Europe, and was nearly a vassal state to Russia. The population rebelled against Russian influence and has made a real effort to clean up its system. To them, ceding to Russian influence is to be denying their own national sovereignty.

    Ukraine still ranks very high on the corruption list. And, that problem has become even harder to tackle under conditions of war.

    Ukraine doesn't have to 'cede' to Russian influence. And, in future, it shouldn't be taking any, ah, advice it gets from the US at face value, either.

    Ukraine needs to better assert itself and act in its own best interests. Prolonging this war is not a great path forward.

  62. [62] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ukraine is not prolonging the war, Russia is.

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, the US and its NATO allies are doing a very good job of prolonging this war. To what end, I wonder ...

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I also wonder how Ukraine really feels about being sacrificed on the altar of the desires of the West to weaken Russia ...

  65. [65] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    [63] freedom!

    [64] it ain't the altar of weakening Russia, it's the altar of freedom! I'm quite certain most Ukrainian people know and accept that sacrifice because they value their freedom. Why don't you?

    Andy: how can you be so obtuse?
    Norton: what did you call me?

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's not the sacrifice I was talking about.

    You've heard the term, sacrifical lamb ... well, I'm still wondering how Ukraine is feeling about being the sacrifical lamb in this US/NATO versus Russia and friends war ...

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We can continue this discussion so long as we can respect each other.

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Shawshank Redemption is one of my all time favourite movies!

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Here's a question for the peanut gallery??

    Is it legal to vote in 2 primary elections??

    Meaning, could a Democrat vote in the Democrat Primary, then change their registration and then vote in a GOP Primary???

    Or would that be like voting twice in a regular election??

    Yunno.. Illegal as hell...

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shawshank Redemption is one of my all time favourite movies!

    Never saw it...

  71. [71] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i don't think the ukranians give a sheep who the help comes from, nor why.

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    that should be on your bucket list. one of the greatest movies of all time.

  73. [73] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as a matter of fact, see it before you even compose another post on this blog.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fact: Donald had all the authority in the universe to send troops to protect the capitol from the riot.

    All that "proves" is that President Trump had the authority..

    It's ALSO a fact that President OFFERRED National Guard Troops and Democrat leadership refused them..

    It's not any proof that President Trump orchestrated the 6 Jan riot..

    Fact: he chose not to use his authority to send help, even after hearing that Congress was besieged and the police were undermanned.

    Again, he offered the help.. Democrats refused..

    It's STILL not PROOF that President Trump orchestrated the riot..

    The rest of these hearings are just the why and how, but at the heart of it is just those two things; Donald had a duty as president and refused to do it.

    Not factually accurate.. President Trump offered the troops.. Democrat leadership refused to deploy the troops..

    Even if what you say is factually accurate, it's NOT a crime..

    And it's NOT proof that President Trump orchestrated or caused the riots..

    If THAT were proof, then Odumbo is guilty of all the BLM and AntiFa riots under his watch...

    Thank you for proving my point for me..

    President Trump is completely and 1000% INNOCENT of all accusations..

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    i don't think the ukranians give a sheep who the help comes from, nor why.

    True. But, that kinda misses the point. Which was to say that they are getting just enough help to ensure that the war is prolonged and no more.

    Why doesn't the US and its NATO allies want total victory for Ukraine?

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jean Luc,

    So... You concede that President Trump is not guilty of planning or orchestrating the 6 Jan riot..

    At worst, according to your own claims, President Trump is guilty of not responding forcefully enough to respond to the riot...

    Is that an accurate assessment of your position???

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I think you would really like the Shawshank Redemption, even the ending. And, that's all I'm gonna say about that.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is that an accurate assessment of your position???

    Ah, do you want me to answer that? Heh.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    It's too soon to know how the conflict will end. My hope is that Ukraine eventually holds a line and it's able to secure its borders.

    But WHICH borders??

    The Pre-2014 borders??

    The Pre-Feb 2022 borders??

    The current borders???

    THAT is the question...

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ah, do you want me to answer that? Heh.

    Sure.. Do you agree with JL that President Trump is NOT GUILTY of planning or orchestrating the 6 Jan riot??

    That, AT WORST, President Trump is like Odumbo and simply did not deploy protection to lessen the effects of the riot??

    Is that your position as well??

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    as a matter of fact, see it before you even compose another post on this blog.

    Too late.. :D

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    NO! That is NOT our position!!!

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That hanging 'indeed' up there was meant in response to [79] ...

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Ukraine is not prolonging the war, Russia is.

    It takes 2 to tango...

    Or, in this case, tangle...

    If Zelensky has already conceded the right of self-determination, what the hell is he prolonging the fighting for???

    Pride?? Ego???

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    His US handlers!!!

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    But there is great..

    An epiphany-esque event..

    Weigantians concede that President Trump is NOT GUILTY of planning or orchestrating or causing the riot..

    At worst, according to Democrats and Trump/America haters, President Trump was derelict in his duties...

    I disagree, but Dereliction Of Duty is a far FAR cry from treason...

    We have common ground.. :D

  88. [88] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m [76],

    that's my position on donald's LEGAL (or perhaps constitutional) culpability. he refused to do his job, full stop.

    i think he's MORALLY culpable for a lot more, because he was incredibly irresponsible in the ways he tried to overturn the election and the ways he revved up his supporters, some of whom he should by virtue of his office have known to be violent terrorists. he may not be legally guilty of inciting the violence, but he was, as james comey once said of hillary's email server, "extremely careless."

    JL

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    That hanging 'indeed' up there was meant in response to [79] ...

    That's why it's always best to QUOTE the comment you are responding to..

    This eliminates the confusion.. :D

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What Joshua said!

  91. [91] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If Zelensky has already conceded the right of self-determination, what the hell is he prolonging the fighting for???

    i don't think he's conceded self-determination, i think he just soured on NATO because they weren't being particularly helpful. (or perhaps to show the world that russia would keep fighting for domination even after their professed goal for starting the conflict had already been addressed.)

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Fair enough... Morally, I know where ya'all stand..

    But, since we're talking about the 6JC, we can stick with the LEGALLY....

    So, you would agree that President Trump has no LEGAL culpability for the riot planning or riot starting or anything..

    Your beef, LEGALLY, is SOLELY based on President Trump's response to the riot..

    A response, as I pointed out, is nearly identical to Odumbo's response to the BLM and AntiFa riots..

    he may not be legally guilty of inciting the violence,

    That's all I wanted to know.. :D

    We have an accord... :D

  93. [93] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Pride?? Ego???

    freedom!

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    i don't think he's conceded self-determination, i think he just soured on NATO because they weren't being particularly helpful.

    On that we agree..

    Once it became clear that Putin was deathly afraid of fighting NATO, Biden's Handlers should have pushed an ALL IN response..

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    What Joshua said!

    Great... We have an accord...

    President Trump is guilty for not responding forcefully enough to riots..

    Just like Odumbo is with the BLM and AntiFa riots..

    So, we won't see any more of this talk that President Trump planned the riots and started the riots and all that BS, right???

    That President Trump's SOLE "guilt" is his lack of response to the riots..

    And, since it's been established as FACT that President Trump offered to deploy the National Guard and was rebuffed....???

    The sole charge of dereliction of duty is proven false..

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which means that whomever **cough**cough, cough** PELOSI *cough* refused to deploy the guard is actually the one responsible..

    Boy, it's a good thing for Pelosi that she nixed ALL questions about HER involvement, eh??

    Lucky break for her...

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pride?? Ego???

    freedom!

    What freedom??

    Russia is dictating to Ukraine that Ukraine can't join NATO..

    How is that "freedom"??

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    he refused to do his job, full stop.

    He refused to do his job as YOU saw his job to be..

    Just like Odumbo didn't do his job as *I* saw Odumbo's job to be..

    But THAT is a far cry from actually planning and orchestrating the riot, which *I* thought was what ya'all were accusing President Trump of..

    Imagine my relief when I realized that ya'all HADN'T gone off the deep end..

    That it was just a misunderstanding.. :D

  99. [99] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    [95-96] the only factual reference to trump suggesting increased capitol security was an offhanded comment on january 3rd, with no congressional leaders present. furthermore, the president does not need any congressional leader's consent to deploy the national guard. i.e. there's exactly zero evidence to support your defense.

    [97] russia didn't dictate that ukraine can't join nato, ukraine decided based on nato's ho-hum support (on this i agree with you that biden blew the chance) that it couldn't achieve its objective and had to chart a different path.

    [81] start anytime you like, but by this time tomorrow i expect your homework to be complete, young man.

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum indicted on conspiracy, wire fraud charges

    Andrew Gillum narrowly lost to Ron DeSantis in the 2018 Florida gubernatorial election

    Whew!!!!

    Looks like Florida dodged a bullet, eh??

    We almost got THAT Democrat as our governor...

    Whew!!!

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    The OFFICIAL TIMELINE says different..

    Trump admin was ready to deploy National Guard on Jan 6, Capitol Police timeline shows

    I am not allowed links to support my claims, so you'll just have to find it for yourself..

    The report IS from NBC which is FAR from a Trump friendly source..

    The facts are clear... The Trump admin reached out but was rebuffed..

    Irregardless of that fact, the simple fact is things are murky enough that NO CRIMINAL CHARGES should be filed..

    Can we agree on that???

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    [81] start anytime you like, but by this time tomorrow i expect your homework to be complete, young man.

    I just remembered.. I hate homework! :D hehehehe

    Tell ya what... When my lovely wife gets home, we'll watch it together... I have the new Doctor Strange movie and a couple new episodes of OBI WAN KENOBI to watch.. :D

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am not allowed links to support my claims, so you'll just have to find it for yourself..

    OK that was a little snarky.. :D

  104. [104] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Irregardless(sic) of that fact, the simple fact is things are murky enough that NO CRIMINAL CHARGES should be filed.. Can we agree on that???

    not at all. criminal charges should ABSOLUTELY be filed against MULTIPLE people.

    i'm not yet certain if donald is one of those people, but i'd like to see what additional evidence the hearings present before considering it.

  105. [105] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [26]

    So, Biden's Handlers' goal was to choke off Russia's selling of oil to make Putin capitulate on Ukraine..

    But that simply drove oil per barrel prices HIGHER and India and China were more than happy to pick up the slack in sales..

    Result???

    Russia is STILL selling the same amount of oil they were before, but due to Biden's Handlers' ineptitude, Putin is make MORE MONEY than ever before!!!


    Not for long.

    Infrastructure is the key:

    Most of Russian oil and gas is exported via pipeline. In 2020 78% went to Europe with 22% split between Asia and everybody else. So naturally most of their pipelines run west to where the Deutschmarks are.

    But now Europe has started weaning itself off Rooskie energy and there isn't nearly enough pipeline capacity going to Asia to just swing the production to India and China. And neither ocean nor railroad shipping can make up the difference.

    But wait -- it gets worse for Putin!

    It turns out that oil has to have somewhere to go from the well. Once Russia can't export all its production it's bottlenecked distribution system will back up. When that backup reaches the well they'll have to cap it off. Once capped it's capped for good and they'd essentially have to start over from scratch, re drill et al. Without Western expertise? Good luck, Vlad!

    So yes, Vlad and the Saudis and your political bosses over at BigOil are making money right now. It won't last.

    Just a little warmup for Elizabeth. Thanks for this opportunity Michale. Yeah, I watch the deep dive 45-90 minute videos about this stuff. Eat it up.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    not at all. criminal charges should ABSOLUTELY be filed against MULTIPLE people.

    i'm not yet certain if donald is one of those people, but i'd like to see what additional evidence the hearings present before considering it.

    Once again... We have an accord.. :D

  107. [107] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    about double voting, the short answer is it depends on the state or states involved. voting and elections are powers that for the most part are still reserved to the states, so each state has its own rules.

    https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/double-voting.aspx

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Russia is dictating to Ukraine that Ukraine can't join NATO..

    No, Ukraine should have freely made that decision all by itself, a long time ago, if it is interested in its own well-being/sovereignty/national identity and interests.

  109. [109] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [19]

    No way DoJ doesn't indict. No way.


    Amazing how much that sounds like

    No way PUTIN invades.. No way...


    :D

    hehehehehehe I know, I know, I give you grief about it..

    But we all can't be right all the time... :D

    No kidding we can't be right all the time!

    You'll recall,

    Trump will be reelected! No way he loses to #BasementJoe!

    Or here's kind of a lowlight for you,

    Trump will win so many new black voters that I'll accept your wagers... ;D

  110. [110] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy,

    There were definitely crimes committed, but one of the tough things about prosecuting a former president for his actions while in office is that it massively blurs the lines between different areas of jurisprudence. If he's guilty of dereliction of duty, should the remedy be a military court martial? A criminal charge? A civil suit by the government? An additional article of impeachment? Cracks in the law are where Donald has always operated, and done so very successfully.

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]