Jan 6 Select Committee

Halifax2TheMax

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

They can claim anything they want. But unless it’s under oath before the committee, it’s meaningless. 35% of POOTWH’s base, the deplorables, wouldn’t believe it regardless. That’s not the committee’s target audience.

mickeyrat

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

spurned employee mad because the coup didnt allow her to keep her job?

mrussel1

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

Well when you refuse to participate in the committee, you lose the opportunity for the counter-narrative.  Even Trump has now realized what a terrible mistake they made.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/politics/trump-mccarthy-january-6-committee-mistake/index.html

Gern Blansten

benjs said:

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

there is going to be violence either way. no matter what happens, there will be violence.

people are going to be protesting in dc calling for trump to be arrested, and counter protesters will show up and there will be violence then.

there are sleeper cells all over the place. we know the proud boys and that type, but there are cells that are just lying low waiting to attack if trump gets arrested. 

in the end the government must send the message that a- what trump did was not okay and anybody involved is going to jail, or b- what trump did is not cool but whatever he was a president so he gets away with everything.

in my opinion, we have to go with option a, no matter how painful the repercussions. what he did must not be allowed to be unchecked. because the next person to try it will succeed knowing that they face no real consequences. sedition must not go unpunished ever.

Yeah, I hate to have to agree with this, but I don't see how it's avoidable.  I live in one of the most conservative counties in California (yes, folks, they do exist, and this one is definitely more Trump territory than not), and I can feel the anger and hate.   I don't get out a whole lot these days, but generally when I do, the anger is there.  It can be sensed it in the tones of voice, facial expression, body language of people. 

Another thing I've noticed:  the target shooting has scaled way back around here.  That's great news for my ears and my anxiety, but there's also a dark side to this.  Ammo is getting harder to come by and people are hoarding it.  I read one guy on another forum mention having the ability to produce hundreds of thousands of rounds.  A lot of the pro gun people know how to produce ammunition via "reloading". 
I go out of my way to not piss off people around here.  It sucks to be so wary, but it is what it is.  I think unless one is a warrior type, it is best to not stir the hornets' nest.  I admire the warriors (men and women) but I'm not built that way.

I also tend to go with option A.  If 45 just gets a slap on the hand, the door is wide open. 

To be honest, if a former POTUS actually gets charged successfully, I think it'll signal a new era that ceases to tolerate this nonsense. 

One more thing - I truly can't wrap my head around the presidential pardon. It's such an obvious opportunity for abuse, and this saga tells that story perfectly.

Agreed....it's insane but I don't think anyone ever thought that a piece of shit like tRump would ever get elected. 

Honestly he could have abused it much worse than he did. He is such an asshole I think he was punishing some people for not licking his boots hard enough.

static111

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

They can claim anything they want. But unless it’s under oath before the committee, it’s meaningless. 35% of POOTWH’s base, the deplorables, wouldn’t believe it regardless. That’s not the committee’s target audience.

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

spurned employee mad because the coup didnt allow her to keep her job?

We wouldn't be surprised if POOTWH or his team lied under oath.  Anyone can do it, especially if it can't be proved that they are lying, hell three SJs just did and nothing is going to happen to them.  What is to stop anyone else from saying under oath that she is lying?  Without evidence to back up her claims all we really have is a sworn "she said", which doesn't seem like strong enough evidence.  I mean even if there is a broken plate somewhere, it can't really be proven that it brke because POOTWH threw it, it could have fell on the floor, staff might have dropped it etc.  I certainly wouldn't want to set a precedent for one sworn testimony with no backing evidence being enough to send someone to be brought up on serious criminal charges and or sent to jail...no matter how much I dislike the person.  As far as I see it, there needs to be more solid proof if you really want to do anything more than let the guy continue golfing and swindling.

Mickey, Trump said on Truth that she was mad because he personally turned her down to be part of the post White House team. Though not a sworn testimony, if brought up on charges I can see Trump taking the stand and making a sworn statement that she is a disgruntled former employee.

static111

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

Well when you refuse to participate in the committee, you lose the opportunity for the counter-narrative.  Even Trump has now realized what a terrible mistake they made.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/politics/trump-mccarthy-january-6-committee-mistake/index.html

Interesting analysis. I still don't think there is enough to bring charges against Trump yet, unfortunately.

Merkin Baller

static111 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

They can claim anything they want. But unless it’s under oath before the committee, it’s meaningless. 35% of POOTWH’s base, the deplorables, wouldn’t believe it regardless. That’s not the committee’s target audience.

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

spurned employee mad because the coup didnt allow her to keep her job?

We wouldn't be surprised if POOTWH or his team lied under oath.  Anyone can do it, especially if it can't be proved that they are lying, hell three SJs just did and nothing is going to happen to them.  What is to stop anyone else from saying under oath that she is lying?  Without evidence to back up her claims all we really have is a sworn "she said", which doesn't seem like strong enough evidence.  I mean even if there is a broken plate somewhere, it can't really be proven that it brke because POOTWH threw it, it could have fell on the floor, staff might have dropped it etc.  I certainly wouldn't want to set a precedent for one sworn testimony with no backing evidence being enough to send someone to be brought up on serious criminal charges and or sent to jail...no matter how much I dislike the person.  As far as I see it, there needs to be more solid proof if you really want to do anything more than let the guy continue golfing and swindling.

Mickey, Trump said on Truth that she was mad because he personally turned her down to be part of the post White House team. Though not a sworn testimony, if brought up on charges I can see Trump taking the stand and making a sworn statement that she is a disgruntled former employee.

Trump or his team would first have to actually, TESTIFY UNDER OATH, in order to lie under oath, but you know... they're refusing to do that. 

Your logic is hard to follow. 

Halifax2TheMax

static111 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

They can claim anything they want. But unless it’s under oath before the committee, it’s meaningless. 35% of POOTWH’s base, the deplorables, wouldn’t believe it regardless. That’s not the committee’s target audience.

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

spurned employee mad because the coup didnt allow her to keep her job?

We wouldn't be surprised if POOTWH or his team lied under oath.  Anyone can do it, especially if it can't be proved that they are lying, hell three SJs just did and nothing is going to happen to them.  What is to stop anyone else from saying under oath that she is lying?  Without evidence to back up her claims all we really have is a sworn "she said", which doesn't seem like strong enough evidence.  I mean even if there is a broken plate somewhere, it can't really be proven that it brke because POOTWH threw it, it could have fell on the floor, staff might have dropped it etc.  I certainly wouldn't want to set a precedent for one sworn testimony with no backing evidence being enough to send someone to be brought up on serious criminal charges and or sent to jail...no matter how much I dislike the person.  As far as I see it, there needs to be more solid proof if you really want to do anything more than let the guy continue golfing and swindling.

Mickey, Trump said on Truth that she was mad because he personally turned her down to be part of the post White House team. Though not a sworn testimony, if brought up on charges I can see Trump taking the stand and making a sworn statement that she is a disgruntled former employee.

To your first paragraph, that wasn’t the final, closing argument in a criminal trial. That was evidence presented to the American people. There are at least 3 more presentations of evidence scheduled as well as continuing solicitations to come forward and tell the committee what you know or to correct or clarify previous depositions.

DOJ is also conducting a criminal investigation of potential charges and have obtained search warrants for that effort. This ain’t over yet but it’s tasty fruit from the poisonous tree and I must say, the made for tv production is brilliant brilliance in all its brilliancy.

Context, its all about the context.

static111

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

They can claim anything they want. But unless it’s under oath before the committee, it’s meaningless. 35% of POOTWH’s base, the deplorables, wouldn’t believe it regardless. That’s not the committee’s target audience.

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

spurned employee mad because the coup didnt allow her to keep her job?

We wouldn't be surprised if POOTWH or his team lied under oath.  Anyone can do it, especially if it can't be proved that they are lying, hell three SJs just did and nothing is going to happen to them.  What is to stop anyone else from saying under oath that she is lying?  Without evidence to back up her claims all we really have is a sworn "she said", which doesn't seem like strong enough evidence.  I mean even if there is a broken plate somewhere, it can't really be proven that it brke because POOTWH threw it, it could have fell on the floor, staff might have dropped it etc.  I certainly wouldn't want to set a precedent for one sworn testimony with no backing evidence being enough to send someone to be brought up on serious criminal charges and or sent to jail...no matter how much I dislike the person.  As far as I see it, there needs to be more solid proof if you really want to do anything more than let the guy continue golfing and swindling.

Mickey, Trump said on Truth that she was mad because he personally turned her down to be part of the post White House team. Though not a sworn testimony, if brought up on charges I can see Trump taking the stand and making a sworn statement that she is a disgruntled former employee.

Trump or his team would first have to actually, TESTIFY UNDER OATH, in order to lie under oath, but you know... they're refusing to do that. 

Your logic is hard to follow. 

If charges are actuallly made and brought against Trump based on sworn statement.  Would Trump not have to at least be present for the trial and wouldn't it be in his interest to take the stand and lie under oath?  Doesn't seem like a hard bridge to cross for me.  Then you are left with a real he said she said, not exactly grounds to make a sound judgement.  Of course that is assuming he doesn't lawyer up and stall  all the way to his high court.  My point is I don't think yesterdays testimony is as much of a slam dunk as people seem to be celebrating.

static111

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

They can claim anything they want. But unless it’s under oath before the committee, it’s meaningless. 35% of POOTWH’s base, the deplorables, wouldn’t believe it regardless. That’s not the committee’s target audience.

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

spurned employee mad because the coup didnt allow her to keep her job?

We wouldn't be surprised if POOTWH or his team lied under oath.  Anyone can do it, especially if it can't be proved that they are lying, hell three SJs just did and nothing is going to happen to them.  What is to stop anyone else from saying under oath that she is lying?  Without evidence to back up her claims all we really have is a sworn "she said", which doesn't seem like strong enough evidence.  I mean even if there is a broken plate somewhere, it can't really be proven that it brke because POOTWH threw it, it could have fell on the floor, staff might have dropped it etc.  I certainly wouldn't want to set a precedent for one sworn testimony with no backing evidence being enough to send someone to be brought up on serious criminal charges and or sent to jail...no matter how much I dislike the person.  As far as I see it, there needs to be more solid proof if you really want to do anything more than let the guy continue golfing and swindling.

Mickey, Trump said on Truth that she was mad because he personally turned her down to be part of the post White House team. Though not a sworn testimony, if brought up on charges I can see Trump taking the stand and making a sworn statement that she is a disgruntled former employee.

To your first paragraph, that wasn’t the final, closing argument in a criminal trial. That was evidence presented to the American people. There are at least 3 more presentations of evidence scheduled as well as continuing solicitations to come forward and tell the committee what you know or to correct or clarify previous depositions.

DOJ is also conducting a criminal investigation of potential charges and have obtained search warrants for that effort. This ain’t over yet but it’s tasty fruit from the poisonous tree and I must say, the made for tv production is brilliant brilliance in all its brilliancy.

Context, its all about the context.

I can take that to the bank

Halifax2TheMax

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

They can claim anything they want. But unless it’s under oath before the committee, it’s meaningless. 35% of POOTWH’s base, the deplorables, wouldn’t believe it regardless. That’s not the committee’s target audience.

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

spurned employee mad because the coup didnt allow her to keep her job?

We wouldn't be surprised if POOTWH or his team lied under oath.  Anyone can do it, especially if it can't be proved that they are lying, hell three SJs just did and nothing is going to happen to them.  What is to stop anyone else from saying under oath that she is lying?  Without evidence to back up her claims all we really have is a sworn "she said", which doesn't seem like strong enough evidence.  I mean even if there is a broken plate somewhere, it can't really be proven that it brke because POOTWH threw it, it could have fell on the floor, staff might have dropped it etc.  I certainly wouldn't want to set a precedent for one sworn testimony with no backing evidence being enough to send someone to be brought up on serious criminal charges and or sent to jail...no matter how much I dislike the person.  As far as I see it, there needs to be more solid proof if you really want to do anything more than let the guy continue golfing and swindling.

Mickey, Trump said on Truth that she was mad because he personally turned her down to be part of the post White House team. Though not a sworn testimony, if brought up on charges I can see Trump taking the stand and making a sworn statement that she is a disgruntled former employee.

Trump or his team would first have to actually, TESTIFY UNDER OATH, in order to lie under oath, but you know... they're refusing to do that. 

Your logic is hard to follow. 

If charges are actuallly made and brought against Trump based on sworn statement.  Would Trump not have to at least be present for the trial and wouldn't it be in his interest to take the stand and lie under oath?  Doesn't seem like a hard bridge to cross for me.  Then you are left with a real he said she said, not exactly grounds to make a sound judgement.  Of course that is assuming he doesn't lawyer up and stall  all the way to his high court.  My point is I don't think yesterdays testimony is as much of a slam dunk as people seem to be celebrating.

Lying under oath when confronted with evidence, either other sworn testimony or documentary evidence leads a jury to convict and separate, later charges of perjury. Again, he can say whatever he wants outside the courtroom but once POOTWH takes the oath and maybe the stand, it’s a whole other ball game.

Ever see footage of his previous depositions? Ever wonder why he refused to sit before Team Mueller? The P in POOTWH could stand for pussy and I’m not referring to a female reproductive pleasure organ.

Merkin Baller

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

They can claim anything they want. But unless it’s under oath before the committee, it’s meaningless. 35% of POOTWH’s base, the deplorables, wouldn’t believe it regardless. That’s not the committee’s target audience.

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

Uh.....hoping this is sarcasm. 

No it isn't.  I think it is harsh realism with a sprinkling of cynicism.  As far as The POOTWH and his legal team is concerned unless there is supporting evidence for her testimony, they can just claim it was a spurned employee with an axe to grind making up stories.

spurned employee mad because the coup didnt allow her to keep her job?

We wouldn't be surprised if POOTWH or his team lied under oath.  Anyone can do it, especially if it can't be proved that they are lying, hell three SJs just did and nothing is going to happen to them.  What is to stop anyone else from saying under oath that she is lying?  Without evidence to back up her claims all we really have is a sworn "she said", which doesn't seem like strong enough evidence.  I mean even if there is a broken plate somewhere, it can't really be proven that it brke because POOTWH threw it, it could have fell on the floor, staff might have dropped it etc.  I certainly wouldn't want to set a precedent for one sworn testimony with no backing evidence being enough to send someone to be brought up on serious criminal charges and or sent to jail...no matter how much I dislike the person.  As far as I see it, there needs to be more solid proof if you really want to do anything more than let the guy continue golfing and swindling.

Mickey, Trump said on Truth that she was mad because he personally turned her down to be part of the post White House team. Though not a sworn testimony, if brought up on charges I can see Trump taking the stand and making a sworn statement that she is a disgruntled former employee.

Trump or his team would first have to actually, TESTIFY UNDER OATH, in order to lie under oath, but you know... they're refusing to do that. 

Your logic is hard to follow. 

If charges are actuallly made and brought against Trump based on sworn statement.  Would Trump not have to at least be present for the trial and wouldn't it be in his interest to take the stand and lie under oath?  Doesn't seem like a hard bridge to cross for me.  Then you are left with a real he said she said, not exactly grounds to make a sound judgement.  Of course that is assuming he doesn't lawyer up and stall  all the way to his high court.  My point is I don't think yesterdays testimony is as much of a slam dunk as people seem to be celebrating.

I don't think anything is a slam dunk, and I don't foresee trump facing any punishments. 

With that being said, if testifying & lying under oath was no big deal as you seem to think it is, trump & his people wouldn't be as reluctant to testify. The claims about him not knowing the coffee girl or her being resentful for not getting invited somewhere mean nothing to me. He's a serial liar. 

Does that mean I believe 100% of what she said? Not necessarily,

But I'm also hard pressed to think someone would put themselves through the bullshit she's no doubt going to face due to her testimony simply out of spite. 

Cropduster-80

OnWis97 said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

One thing I’ve learned about Trump over the years is that he barely knows anybody.

He didn’t know his body man either.  The job title is pretty literal. The guy who is in the room with him everywhere he goes. 

And trump voters are worried about Biden’s mental capacity 

static111

Cropduster-80 said:

OnWis97 said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

One thing I’ve learned about Trump over the years is that he barely knows anybody.

He didn’t know his body man either.  The job title is pretty literal. The guy who is in the room with him everywhere he goes. 

And trump voters are worried about Biden’s mental capacity 

lol

talk about cognitive decline, imagine if Biden was claiming he didn't know someone/everyone that was constantly in the room with him, the other side would tear him to shreds.  With Trump its just because he is so busy running the country he can't focus on the little people.  Two realities

Cropduster-80

static111 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

OnWis97 said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

In a sane world, testimony under oath would carry more weight than claims made by people who won't / refuse to testify under oath. 


I understand it isn't a sane world, though. 

A sworn testimony from the coffee girl he barely knew that was mad at him for not letting her go to Marigoround

One thing I’ve learned about Trump over the years is that he barely knows anybody.

He didn’t know his body man either.  The job title is pretty literal. The guy who is in the room with him everywhere he goes. 

And trump voters are worried about Biden’s mental capacity 

lol

talk about cognitive decline, imagine if Biden was claiming he didn't know someone/everyone that was constantly in the room with him, the other side would tear him to shreds.  With Trump its just because he is so busy running the country he can't focus on the little people.  Two realities

I’m waiting for the guy who carried the nuclear football everywhere to testify.

Trump will say “who’s that, never heard of him”

that would be great 

mrussel1

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

Well when you refuse to participate in the committee, you lose the opportunity for the counter-narrative.  Even Trump has now realized what a terrible mistake they made.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/politics/trump-mccarthy-january-6-committee-mistake/index.html

Interesting analysis. I still don't think there is enough to bring charges against Trump yet, unfortunately.

I think I agree with you.  I'm not 100% sure what the charges would be.  But that matters little to me.  I'm interested in 1. damaging Trump to the point where he can't run and 2. Scaring the crap out of everyone else who might consider such a ham handed coup.  

Cropduster-80

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

Well when you refuse to participate in the committee, you lose the opportunity for the counter-narrative.  Even Trump has now realized what a terrible mistake they made.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/politics/trump-mccarthy-january-6-committee-mistake/index.html

Interesting analysis. I still don't think there is enough to bring charges against Trump yet, unfortunately.

I think I agree with you.  I'm not 100% sure what the charges would be.  But that matters little to me.  I'm interested in 1. damaging Trump to the point where he can't run and 2. Scaring the crap out of everyone else who might consider such a ham handed coup.  

They can probably charge him. 

However the bar on this has to be so high, they have to get a conviction so I think they shouldn’t charge anything at this point.

Witness tampering could get him(or should) 
ironic because it’s the coverup, not the crime 

subpoenas are easy to get. Search warrants aren’t. Those require probable cause a crime has been committed. They got one for Eastman. That’s probably the bigger story 

Gern Blansten

I think there is plenty of evidence for conspiracy. Pretty fucking serious charges that Cipollone was warning everyone about.

I would be satisfied to let tRump off if he agrees to never run or campaign for himself or anyone else again.

static111

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

Well when you refuse to participate in the committee, you lose the opportunity for the counter-narrative.  Even Trump has now realized what a terrible mistake they made.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/politics/trump-mccarthy-january-6-committee-mistake/index.html

Interesting analysis. I still don't think there is enough to bring charges against Trump yet, unfortunately.

I think I agree with you.  I'm not 100% sure what the charges would be.  But that matters little to me.  I'm interested in 1. damaging Trump to the point where he can't run and 2. Scaring the crap out of everyone else who might consider such a ham handed coup.  

I just wonder what level of damage it will take for him to go away and all of the cult to wake up or go back under their rocks.  Nazis only had 30 something percent support when they took power.  We have the two party system to keep that from happening, but I am not even sure a 50% threshhold is enough of a safeguard, though I tend to be overly pessimistic when it comes to these things. 

So far I haven't seen this sway the needle with the true believers, and the reality is that Rs need the cult to win elections. If that means maintaining fealty no matter how low Trump takes them, they will do what it takes to appease his supporters if it means getting power and winning elections.  

Gern Blansten

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Is there anything to corroborate the testimony?  So far this looks like a chance to sensationalize the TV aspect of the hearing.  It seems like a lot of people are spiking the ball and celebrating.  Am I missing something from this testimony that can't be denied or refuted by others?

Well when you refuse to participate in the committee, you lose the opportunity for the counter-narrative.  Even Trump has now realized what a terrible mistake they made.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/politics/trump-mccarthy-january-6-committee-mistake/index.html

Interesting analysis. I still don't think there is enough to bring charges against Trump yet, unfortunately.

I think I agree with you.  I'm not 100% sure what the charges would be.  But that matters little to me.  I'm interested in 1. damaging Trump to the point where he can't run and 2. Scaring the crap out of everyone else who might consider such a ham handed coup.  

I just wonder what level of damage it will take for him to go away and all of the cult to wake up or go back under their rocks.  Nazis only had 30 something percent support when they took power.  We have the two party system to keep that from happening, but I am not even sure a 50% threshhold is enough of a safeguard, though I tend to be overly pessimistic when it comes to these things. 

So far I haven't seen this sway the needle with the true believers, and the reality is that Rs need the cult to win elections. If that means maintaining fealty no matter how low Trump takes them, they will do what it takes to appease his supporters if it means getting power and winning elections.  

tRump will still have his 30%....those people are beyond reach