Jan 6 Select Committee

static111

Did anyone see that under oath in the Dominion case Hannity said he never believed a word of his own reporting on rigged voting machines?

Halifax2TheMax

static111 said:

Did anyone see that under oath in the Dominion case Hannity said he never believed a word of his own reporting on rigged voting machines?

Does that surprise you?

Halifax2TheMax

For anyone wanting to lend credence to Gym Jordan’s bullshit repub 1/6 report that’s not worth the paper it’s written on. From WaPo.

Paul Irving, the House sergeant-at-arms who resigned the day after the attack on the Capitol, said he did not consider involving House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a decision to request National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on Jan. 6. Irving told the committee that the speaker’s office would be contacted “on the notification side,” saying he had the authority to act on his own.

This contradicts the report released by a group of House Republicans on Monday, which, in blaming Pelosi in part for the violence, said her office “micromanaged” Irving, who “succumbed to political pressures.”

mickeyrat

Halifax2TheMax said:

For anyone wanting to lend credence to Gym Jordan’s bullshit repub 1/6 report that’s not worth the paper it’s written on. From WaPo.

Paul Irving, the House sergeant-at-arms who resigned the day after the attack on the Capitol, said he did not consider involving House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a decision to request National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on Jan. 6. Irving told the committee that the speaker’s office would be contacted “on the notification side,” saying he had the authority to act on his own.

This contradicts the report released by a group of House Republicans on Monday, which, in blaming Pelosi in part for the violence, said her office “micromanaged” Irving, who “succumbed to political pressures.”

oh stop. you and your facts.

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

For anyone wanting to lend credence to Gym Jordan’s bullshit repub 1/6 report that’s not worth the paper it’s written on. From WaPo.

Paul Irving, the House sergeant-at-arms who resigned the day after the attack on the Capitol, said he did not consider involving House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a decision to request National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on Jan. 6. Irving told the committee that the speaker’s office would be contacted “on the notification side,” saying he had the authority to act on his own.

This contradicts the report released by a group of House Republicans on Monday, which, in blaming Pelosi in part for the violence, said her office “micromanaged” Irving, who “succumbed to political pressures.”

oh stop. you and your facts.

The thing is, do any of these corrupt POOTWH’ers think like that no one is going to fact check or request evidence to back their allegations? Do they think that if you just repeat it often enough that the people that you need to convince, secretaries of state, politicians, attorneys, judges, etc. will just go along? Or was it enough to just repeat it often enough, in the absence of facts and evidence, to convince the rubes? Is that all they thought that they needed to do?

Brilliant, brilliance in all its brilliancy with so much winning.

There needs to be major consequences for this shit. Oh Merrick, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

mickeyrat

Halifax2TheMax said:

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

For anyone wanting to lend credence to Gym Jordan’s bullshit repub 1/6 report that’s not worth the paper it’s written on. From WaPo.

Paul Irving, the House sergeant-at-arms who resigned the day after the attack on the Capitol, said he did not consider involving House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a decision to request National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on Jan. 6. Irving told the committee that the speaker’s office would be contacted “on the notification side,” saying he had the authority to act on his own.

This contradicts the report released by a group of House Republicans on Monday, which, in blaming Pelosi in part for the violence, said her office “micromanaged” Irving, who “succumbed to political pressures.”

oh stop. you and your facts.

The thing is, do any of these corrupt POOTWH’ers think like that no one is going to fact check or request evidence to back their allegations? Do they think that if you just repeat it often enough that the people that you need to convince, secretaries of state, politicians, attorneys, judges, etc. will just go along? Or was it enough to just repeat it often enough, in the absence of facts and evidence, to convince the rubes? Is that all they thought that they needed to do?

Brilliant, brilliance in all its brilliancy with so much winning.

There needs to be major consequences for this shit. Oh Merrick, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-special-prosecutor-jack-smith-has-a-history-of-indicting-presidents?ref=scroll

mickeyrat

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-special-counsel-jack-smith

static111

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

Did anyone see that under oath in the Dominion case Hannity said he never believed a word of his own reporting on rigged voting machines?

Does that surprise you?

Lol that he admitted it absolutely.  Nobody could prove otherwise.  He must have been real scared of losing all that money.

Halifax2TheMax

static111 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

Did anyone see that under oath in the Dominion case Hannity said he never believed a word of his own reporting on rigged voting machines?

Does that surprise you?

Lol that he admitted it absolutely.  Nobody could prove otherwise.  He must have been real scared of losing all that money.

Under oath, with the potential of perjury, and potentially spending 10 days in jail? With the “other?” Damn right he was scat. “Looking mighty fine in those jeans, boy!”

Halifax2TheMax

Here's some brilliant, brilliance in all its brilliancy. Only the best people, folks. Only the best people.

Eastman’s theory was related to other efforts overseen by President Trump (described in detail below, see infra) to create and transmit fake electoral slates to Congress and the National Archives, and to pressure States to change the election outcome and issue new electoral slates. Eastman supported these ideas despite writing two months earlier that:

 Article II [of the Constitution] says the electors are appointed “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” but I don’t think that entitles the Legislature to change the rules after the election and appoint a different slate of electors in a manner different than what was in place on election day. And 3 U.S.C. §15 [of the Electoral Count Act] gives dispositive weight to the slate of electors that was certified by the Governor in accord with 3 U.S.C. §5.1"

Even after Eastman proposed the theories in his December and January memoranda, he acknowledged in conversations with Vice President Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob that Pence could not lawfully do what his own memoranda proposed.'>* Eastman admitted that the U.S. Supreme Court would unanimously reject his legal theory. “He [Eastman] had acknowledged that he would lose 9-0 at the Supreme Court.” 
Moreover, Eastman acknowledged to Jacob that he didn’t think Vice President Al Gore had that power in 2001, nor did he think Vice President Kamala Harris should have that power in 2025.54

 In testimony before the Select Committee, Jacob described in detail why the Trump plan for Pence was illegal: [T]he Vice President’s first instinct, when he heard this theory, was that there was no way that our Framers, who abhorred concentrated power, who had broken away from the tyranny of George III, would ever have put one person—particularly not a person who had a direct interest in the outcome because they were on the ticket for the election—in a role to have decisive impact on the outcome of the election. And our review of text, history, and, frankly, just common sense, all confirmed the Vice President’s first instinct on that point. There is no justifiable basis to conclude that the Vice President has that kind of authority.'°* 

static111

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

Did anyone see that under oath in the Dominion case Hannity said he never believed a word of his own reporting on rigged voting machines?

Does that surprise you?

Lol that he admitted it absolutely.  Nobody could prove otherwise.  He must have been real scared of losing all that money.

Under oath, with the potential of perjury, and potentially spending 10 days in jail? With the “other?” Damn right he was scat. “Looking mighty fine in those jeans, boy!”

If I was a scum bag and I was under oath, I would just lie and say yes absolutely I believed it. Seriously I would lie all day if nothing could be proved. I don't think they can pry into your mind to find out what you believe yet.  Someone must have had him on tape talking shit about it, or he isn't as big of a scum bag as we think he is and actually has some respect for the court system.

mrussel1

static111 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

Did anyone see that under oath in the Dominion case Hannity said he never believed a word of his own reporting on rigged voting machines?

Does that surprise you?

Lol that he admitted it absolutely.  Nobody could prove otherwise.  He must have been real scared of losing all that money.

Under oath, with the potential of perjury, and potentially spending 10 days in jail? With the “other?” Damn right he was scat. “Looking mighty fine in those jeans, boy!”

If I was a scum bag and I was under oath, I would just lie and say yes absolutely I believed it. Seriously I would lie all day if nothing could be proved. I don't think they can pry into your mind to find out what you believe yet.  Someone must have had him on tape talking shit about it, or he isn't as big of a scum bag as we think he is and actually has some respect for the court system.

The problem is that Hannity may have written an email,  text,  said something else that was already picked up in discovery.  So lying gets very dirty dicey. 

Halifax2TheMax

Buh, buh, buh Hillary’s smashed, acid washed, microwaved, boiled, shredded, fed to the crocodiles hard drive!

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/27/politics/january-6-transcripts-key-findings/index.html

Gern Blansten

https://twitter.com/jgindel/status/1608469751625392132

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

https://twitter.com/jgindel/status/1608469751625392132

Obstruction of justice? Aiding and abetting an insurrection? You don’t say!

gimmesometruth27

good.

Halifax2TheMax

Those pesky, pesky facts. Pesky facts.

Executive Summary, 134 Pages: 762 End Notes
Chapter 1, The Big Lie, 68 Pages: 317 End Notes
Chapter 2, I Just Want to Find 11,780 Votes, 37 Pages: 378 End Notes

End Notes are citations to sources, whether witness testimony, public or obtained documents, sourced reporting, or witness/perpetrator quotations 

In other words, facts. Those pesky, pesky facts.

Halifax2TheMax

Chapter 3, Fake Electors and the President of the Senate Strategy, 31 Pages: 141 End Notes

josevolution

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/02/politics/january-6-text-messages/index.html

They did really think it was a great career move to work for Trumpolinni? 🤣🤣🤣 Avocado rocks 

OnWis97

Sleep with dogs; wake up with fleas.