CSNbbs

(09-09-2022 01:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]That all you got, Tom? Pathetic, weak response because you know I'm correct on this.

MHBronco -- you are correct that the J6 Committee was a one-party affair. And had a unitary message because of that. And I think that was a defective part of it, absolutely.

Some quick questions, not meant to be antagonistic.

1. Given the style of the committee, what prevents Trump from addressing what he is alleged to (not) have done on that day? Trump has a big base and a big stage to say what exactly was incorrect about *his* (in)actions that day, and *why* he decided to try to beg Senators to delay the vote pretty much to the exclusion of anything else.

I would personally love to see the explicit comments from him on how he acted differently on that day. To this point in time, he has never done so in an explicit or specific manner (aside from the general hue about how bad the J6 Committee was). Seems to me Trump can do that without restriction if he wants.

2. What information do you think would have been proferred to counter the J6 monolgue? (note, I agree it was a slickly produced monologue.)

It was done with very good editing that put the emphasis on the timeline of events instead of specific witnesses -- that is many witnesses were presented to show the events in a time sequential manner. That product told a very cohesive, very believable story.

Given that, why cant Trump/Republicans 'counter program' with their own 'tale of the day', and/or 'tale of the events from election day to inauguration day'?

To be clear, I'll tell you my specific stance on Trump and Jan 6:

I'll be honest, some of the suits Trump filed in wake of the election were garbage, for various reasons. I dont critique Trump for doing this. It is his right to fight as long as the timetable permits him.

I do critique the Trump aspect when they latched onto the Eastman idea to have Pence 'gavel out' the electors by fiat. That was shallow, and quite frankly, disgusting. I *really* critique Trump for his actions (and inactions) subsequent to the speech on the morning of the 6th.

(09-09-2022 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 01:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]That all you got, Tom? Pathetic, weak response because you know I'm correct on this.

MHBronco -- you are correct that the J6 Committee was a one-party affair. And had a unitary message because of that. And I think that was a defective part of it, absolutely.

Some quick questions, not meant to be antagonistic.

1. Given the style of the committee, what prevents Trump from addressing what he is alleged to (not) have done on that day? Trump has a big base and a big stage to say what exactly was incorrect about *his* (in)actions that day, and *why* he decided to try to beg Senators to delay the vote pretty much to the exclusion of anything else.

I would personally love to see the explicit comments from him on how he acted differently on that day. To this point in time, he has never done so in an explicit or specific manner (aside from the general hue about how bad the J6 Committee was). Seems to me Trump can do that without restriction if he wants.

2. What information do you think would have been proferred to counter the J6 monolgue? (note, I agree it was a slickly produced monologue.)

It was done with very good editing that put the emphasis on the timeline of events instead of specific witnesses -- that is many witnesses were presented to show the events in a time sequential manner. That product told a very cohesive, very believable story.

Given that, why cant Trump/Republicans 'counter program' with their own 'tale of the day', and/or 'tale of the events from election day to inauguration day'?

To be clear, I'll tell you my specific stance on Trump and Jan 6:

I'll be honest, some of the suits Trump filed in wake of the election were garbage, for various reasons. I dont critique Trump for doing this. It is his right to fight as long as the timetable permits him.

I do critique the Trump aspect when they latched onto the Eastman idea to have Pence 'gavel out' the electors by fiat. That was shallow, and quite frankly, disgusting. I *really* critique Trump for his actions (and inactions) subsequent to the speech on the morning of the 6th.

You're an attorney, and you are asking us why Trump doesnt cooperate with a committee that he correctly says is illegitimate?

To show how fair and impartial they are, the DOJ makes recommendations of two DNC political hacks to become the special master.

Shades of communist Russia, or China, or any despotic authority out there.. These people are truly vile and evil. It's all about power and they'll do whatever it takes. Maybe the Demon(crats) are right, maybe there is a civil war brewing out there. It seems that they're trying their best to bring about one.

I guess you havent vetted Trump's selections at the same time.

Raymond Dearie greenlit the Carter Page FISA warrant.

Paul Huck is married to one of Trump's SCOTUS short list.

(09-10-2022 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I guess you havent vetted Trump's selections at the same time.

Raymond Dearie greenlit the Carter Page FISA warrant.

Paul Huck is married to one of Trump's SCOTUS short list.

Dont care who he chooses. I do care that the banana republic is digging up DNC donor hacks.

(09-10-2022 12:56 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]Shades of communist Russia, or China, or any despotic authority out there.. These people are truly vile and evil. It's all about power and they'll do whatever it takes. Maybe the Demon(crats) are right, maybe there is a civil war brewing out there. It seems that they're trying their best to bring about one.

The final sentence above is absolutely accurate.

The Dems are pushing HARD to instigate/force/create a reaction from the Repubs to at minimum "claim" that "reaction" initiated a "war" or "conflict". They really want to shut the country down for the midterms and promulgate 100% mail in voting.

(09-09-2022 02:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 01:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]That all you got, Tom? Pathetic, weak response because you know I'm correct on this.

MHBronco -- you are correct that the J6 Committee was a one-party affair. And had a unitary message because of that. And I think that was a defective part of it, absolutely.

Some quick questions, not meant to be antagonistic.

1. Given the style of the committee, what prevents Trump from addressing what he is alleged to (not) have done on that day? Trump has a big base and a big stage to say what exactly was incorrect about *his* (in)actions that day, and *why* he decided to try to beg Senators to delay the vote pretty much to the exclusion of anything else.

I would personally love to see the explicit comments from him on how he acted differently on that day. To this point in time, he has never done so in an explicit or specific manner (aside from the general hue about how bad the J6 Committee was). Seems to me Trump can do that without restriction if he wants.

2. What information do you think would have been proferred to counter the J6 monolgue? (note, I agree it was a slickly produced monologue.)

It was done with very good editing that put the emphasis on the timeline of events instead of specific witnesses -- that is many witnesses were presented to show the events in a time sequential manner. That product told a very cohesive, very believable story.

Given that, why cant Trump/Republicans 'counter program' with their own 'tale of the day', and/or 'tale of the events from election day to inauguration day'?

To be clear, I'll tell you my specific stance on Trump and Jan 6:

I'll be honest, some of the suits Trump filed in wake of the election were garbage, for various reasons. I dont critique Trump for doing this. It is his right to fight as long as the timetable permits him.

I do critique the Trump aspect when they latched onto the Eastman idea to have Pence 'gavel out' the electors by fiat. That was shallow, and quite frankly, disgusting. I *really* critique Trump for his actions (and inactions) subsequent to the speech on the morning of the 6th.

You're an attorney, and you are asking us why Trump doesnt cooperate with a committee that he correctly says is illegitimate?

He may not be a defense attorney...

(09-10-2022 01:46 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 02:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 01:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]That all you got, Tom? Pathetic, weak response because you know I'm correct on this.

MHBronco -- you are correct that the J6 Committee was a one-party affair. And had a unitary message because of that. And I think that was a defective part of it, absolutely.

Some quick questions, not meant to be antagonistic.

1. Given the style of the committee, what prevents Trump from addressing what he is alleged to (not) have done on that day? Trump has a big base and a big stage to say what exactly was incorrect about *his* (in)actions that day, and *why* he decided to try to beg Senators to delay the vote pretty much to the exclusion of anything else.

I would personally love to see the explicit comments from him on how he acted differently on that day. To this point in time, he has never done so in an explicit or specific manner (aside from the general hue about how bad the J6 Committee was). Seems to me Trump can do that without restriction if he wants.

2. What information do you think would have been proferred to counter the J6 monolgue? (note, I agree it was a slickly produced monologue.)

It was done with very good editing that put the emphasis on the timeline of events instead of specific witnesses -- that is many witnesses were presented to show the events in a time sequential manner. That product told a very cohesive, very believable story.

Given that, why cant Trump/Republicans 'counter program' with their own 'tale of the day', and/or 'tale of the events from election day to inauguration day'?

To be clear, I'll tell you my specific stance on Trump and Jan 6:

I'll be honest, some of the suits Trump filed in wake of the election were garbage, for various reasons. I dont critique Trump for doing this. It is his right to fight as long as the timetable permits him.

I do critique the Trump aspect when they latched onto the Eastman idea to have Pence 'gavel out' the electors by fiat. That was shallow, and quite frankly, disgusting. I *really* critique Trump for his actions (and inactions) subsequent to the speech on the morning of the 6th.

You're an attorney, and you are asking us why Trump doesnt cooperate with a committee that he correctly says is illegitimate?

He may not be a defense attorney...

UstateWhatever didnt even fing bother to read my comments. No, Im not asking what the fing idiot says Im asking.

(09-10-2022 01:46 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 02:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 01:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]That all you got, Tom? Pathetic, weak response because you know I'm correct on this.

MHBronco -- you are correct that the J6 Committee was a one-party affair. And had a unitary message because of that. And I think that was a defective part of it, absolutely.

Some quick questions, not meant to be antagonistic.

1. Given the style of the committee, what prevents Trump from addressing what he is alleged to (not) have done on that day? Trump has a big base and a big stage to say what exactly was incorrect about *his* (in)actions that day, and *why* he decided to try to beg Senators to delay the vote pretty much to the exclusion of anything else.

I would personally love to see the explicit comments from him on how he acted differently on that day. To this point in time, he has never done so in an explicit or specific manner (aside from the general hue about how bad the J6 Committee was). Seems to me Trump can do that without restriction if he wants.

2. What information do you think would have been proferred to counter the J6 monolgue? (note, I agree it was a slickly produced monologue.)

It was done with very good editing that put the emphasis on the timeline of events instead of specific witnesses -- that is many witnesses were presented to show the events in a time sequential manner. That product told a very cohesive, very believable story.

Given that, why cant Trump/Republicans 'counter program' with their own 'tale of the day', and/or 'tale of the events from election day to inauguration day'?

To be clear, I'll tell you my specific stance on Trump and Jan 6:

I'll be honest, some of the suits Trump filed in wake of the election were garbage, for various reasons. I dont critique Trump for doing this. It is his right to fight as long as the timetable permits him.

I do critique the Trump aspect when they latched onto the Eastman idea to have Pence 'gavel out' the electors by fiat. That was shallow, and quite frankly, disgusting. I *really* critique Trump for his actions (and inactions) subsequent to the speech on the morning of the 6th.

You're an attorney, and you are asking us why Trump doesnt cooperate with a committee that he correctly says is illegitimate?

He may not be a defense attorney...

patent litigation at best...

(09-09-2022 02:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 01:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]That all you got, Tom? Pathetic, weak response because you know I'm correct on this.

MHBronco -- you are correct that the J6 Committee was a one-party affair. And had a unitary message because of that. And I think that was a defective part of it, absolutely.

Some quick questions, not meant to be antagonistic.

1. Given the style of the committee, what prevents Trump from addressing what he is alleged to (not) have done on that day? Trump has a big base and a big stage to say what exactly was incorrect about *his* (in)actions that day, and *why* he decided to try to beg Senators to delay the vote pretty much to the exclusion of anything else.

I would personally love to see the explicit comments from him on how he acted differently on that day. To this point in time, he has never done so in an explicit or specific manner (aside from the general hue about how bad the J6 Committee was). Seems to me Trump can do that without restriction if he wants.

2. What information do you think would have been proferred to counter the J6 monolgue? (note, I agree it was a slickly produced monologue.)

It was done with very good editing that put the emphasis on the timeline of events instead of specific witnesses -- that is many witnesses were presented to show the events in a time sequential manner. That product told a very cohesive, very believable story.

Given that, why cant Trump/Republicans 'counter program' with their own 'tale of the day', and/or 'tale of the events from election day to inauguration day'?

To be clear, I'll tell you my specific stance on Trump and Jan 6:

I'll be honest, some of the suits Trump filed in wake of the election were garbage, for various reasons. I dont critique Trump for doing this. It is his right to fight as long as the timetable permits him.

I do critique the Trump aspect when they latched onto the Eastman idea to have Pence 'gavel out' the electors by fiat. That was shallow, and quite frankly, disgusting. I *really* critique Trump for his actions (and inactions) subsequent to the speech on the morning of the 6th.

You're an attorney, and you are asking us why Trump doesnt cooperate with a committee that he correctly says is illegitimate?

Please explain how the committee is illegitimate? What rule did they break in assembling it?

The committee is the committee for one reason and one reason alone, the malfeasance of Kevin McCarthy.

(09-12-2022 07:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 02:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 01:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]That all you got, Tom? Pathetic, weak response because you know I'm correct on this.

MHBronco -- you are correct that the J6 Committee was a one-party affair. And had a unitary message because of that. And I think that was a defective part of it, absolutely.

Some quick questions, not meant to be antagonistic.

1. Given the style of the committee, what prevents Trump from addressing what he is alleged to (not) have done on that day? Trump has a big base and a big stage to say what exactly was incorrect about *his* (in)actions that day, and *why* he decided to try to beg Senators to delay the vote pretty much to the exclusion of anything else.

I would personally love to see the explicit comments from him on how he acted differently on that day. To this point in time, he has never done so in an explicit or specific manner (aside from the general hue about how bad the J6 Committee was). Seems to me Trump can do that without restriction if he wants.

2. What information do you think would have been proferred to counter the J6 monolgue? (note, I agree it was a slickly produced monologue.)

It was done with very good editing that put the emphasis on the timeline of events instead of specific witnesses -- that is many witnesses were presented to show the events in a time sequential manner. That product told a very cohesive, very believable story.

Given that, why cant Trump/Republicans 'counter program' with their own 'tale of the day', and/or 'tale of the events from election day to inauguration day'?

To be clear, I'll tell you my specific stance on Trump and Jan 6:

I'll be honest, some of the suits Trump filed in wake of the election were garbage, for various reasons. I dont critique Trump for doing this. It is his right to fight as long as the timetable permits him.

I do critique the Trump aspect when they latched onto the Eastman idea to have Pence 'gavel out' the electors by fiat. That was shallow, and quite frankly, disgusting. I *really* critique Trump for his actions (and inactions) subsequent to the speech on the morning of the 6th.

You're an attorney, and you are asking us why Trump doesnt cooperate with a committee that he correctly says is illegitimate?

Please explain how the committee is illegitimate? What rule did they break in assembling it?

The committee is the committee for one reason and one reason alone, the malfeasance of Kevin McCarthy.

Seriously? Pelosi kicked two of the 5 GOP'rs selected off the committee out of hand. BTW 8D/5R isn't an accurate reflection of the makeup of the House. It was reasonable that the remaining 3 rejected the committee as illegitimate and then to make matters worse Pelosi appointed two GOP members who voted to impeach Trump, we see how one has fared - she was kicked out of the GOP.

There is nothing bi-partisan about that witch trial and you know it. There is nothing impartial about it, there is nothing fair about it. There is nothing about it that doesn't reek of a political hatchet job and you know it even if you can't or won't admit it.

Do better. At least give the appearance of trying to objective.

(09-12-2022 07:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 02:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 01:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]That all you got, Tom? Pathetic, weak response because you know I'm correct on this.

MHBronco -- you are correct that the J6 Committee was a one-party affair. And had a unitary message because of that. And I think that was a defective part of it, absolutely.

Some quick questions, not meant to be antagonistic.

1. Given the style of the committee, what prevents Trump from addressing what he is alleged to (not) have done on that day? Trump has a big base and a big stage to say what exactly was incorrect about *his* (in)actions that day, and *why* he decided to try to beg Senators to delay the vote pretty much to the exclusion of anything else.

I would personally love to see the explicit comments from him on how he acted differently on that day. To this point in time, he has never done so in an explicit or specific manner (aside from the general hue about how bad the J6 Committee was). Seems to me Trump can do that without restriction if he wants.

2. What information do you think would have been proferred to counter the J6 monolgue? (note, I agree it was a slickly produced monologue.)

It was done with very good editing that put the emphasis on the timeline of events instead of specific witnesses -- that is many witnesses were presented to show the events in a time sequential manner. That product told a very cohesive, very believable story.

Given that, why cant Trump/Republicans 'counter program' with their own 'tale of the day', and/or 'tale of the events from election day to inauguration day'?

To be clear, I'll tell you my specific stance on Trump and Jan 6:

I'll be honest, some of the suits Trump filed in wake of the election were garbage, for various reasons. I dont critique Trump for doing this. It is his right to fight as long as the timetable permits him.

I do critique the Trump aspect when they latched onto the Eastman idea to have Pence 'gavel out' the electors by fiat. That was shallow, and quite frankly, disgusting. I *really* critique Trump for his actions (and inactions) subsequent to the speech on the morning of the 6th.

You're an attorney, and you are asking us why Trump doesnt cooperate with a committee that he correctly says is illegitimate?

Please explain how the committee is illegitimate? What rule did they break in assembling it?

The committee is the committee for one reason and one reason alone, the malfeasance of Kevin McCarthy.

Pull your head out of your ass. This is old news.

(09-12-2022 08:00 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2022 07:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 02:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2022 01:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]That all you got, Tom? Pathetic, weak response because you know I'm correct on this.

MHBronco -- you are correct that the J6 Committee was a one-party affair. And had a unitary message because of that. And I think that was a defective part of it, absolutely.

Some quick questions, not meant to be antagonistic.

1. Given the style of the committee, what prevents Trump from addressing what he is alleged to (not) have done on that day? Trump has a big base and a big stage to say what exactly was incorrect about *his* (in)actions that day, and *why* he decided to try to beg Senators to delay the vote pretty much to the exclusion of anything else.

I would personally love to see the explicit comments from him on how he acted differently on that day. To this point in time, he has never done so in an explicit or specific manner (aside from the general hue about how bad the J6 Committee was). Seems to me Trump can do that without restriction if he wants.

2. What information do you think would have been proferred to counter the J6 monolgue? (note, I agree it was a slickly produced monologue.)

It was done with very good editing that put the emphasis on the timeline of events instead of specific witnesses -- that is many witnesses were presented to show the events in a time sequential manner. That product told a very cohesive, very believable story.

Given that, why cant Trump/Republicans 'counter program' with their own 'tale of the day', and/or 'tale of the events from election day to inauguration day'?

To be clear, I'll tell you my specific stance on Trump and Jan 6:

I'll be honest, some of the suits Trump filed in wake of the election were garbage, for various reasons. I dont critique Trump for doing this. It is his right to fight as long as the timetable permits him.

I do critique the Trump aspect when they latched onto the Eastman idea to have Pence 'gavel out' the electors by fiat. That was shallow, and quite frankly, disgusting. I *really* critique Trump for his actions (and inactions) subsequent to the speech on the morning of the 6th.

You're an attorney, and you are asking us why Trump doesnt cooperate with a committee that he correctly says is illegitimate?

Please explain how the committee is illegitimate? What rule did they break in assembling it?

The committee is the committee for one reason and one reason alone, the malfeasance of Kevin McCarthy.

Seriously? Pelosi kicked two of the 5 GOP'rs selected off the committee out of hand. BTW 8D/5R isn't an accurate reflection of the makeup of the House. It was reasonable that the remaining 3 rejected the committee as illegitimate and then to make matters worse Pelosi appointed two GOP members who voted to impeach Trump, we see how one has fared - she was kicked out of the GOP.

There is nothing bi-partisan about that witch trial and you know it. There is nothing impartial about it, there is nothing fair about it. There is nothing about it that doesn't reek of a political hatchet job and you know it even if you can't or won't admit it.

Do better. At least give the appearance of trying to objective.

I will give you that 'there is nothing bipartisan about [it].'

What prevents Trump *right now* from using his soapbox, or using any other means from getting his version of what he did on Jan 6 out?

I think it would be terrible for Trump to do it himself (not with his big mouth and off the cuff style), but nothing prevents him from having an organized message put out of *why* he did or didnt do stuff on Jan 6.

The committee cannot really even do anything about the subject matter. It cant indict, it cant try, it cant charge. It cannot do anything substantive.

What it did do was put 'stuff' out in the harsh light of day. Some was stupid (Hutchinson's testimony 'blowup' about the wrassling the SS). Some of it was on point. Trump has zero impediment of countering that display of facts with his own -- and he has not in the slightest.

It seems that the Trump attorney Christine Robb, who handed the FBI a false sworn statement on that no classified documents remained at MaL has now gotten herself an attorney for the matter.

With Powell, Giuliani, Cohen, and about a dozen others finding themselves in serious need of attorneys themselves, maybe MAGA should really represent Making Attorneys Get Attorneys.

Meh, given the stakes and how giddy people are to “get” others getting a lawyer is hardly the actions of a guilty person but rather that of a prudent one.

This is all getting so nasty with each side seeking to abuse a system to hurt others.

Oh yea, the raid and warrant couldn’t have been done more poorly.

(09-12-2022 08:39 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Meh, given the stakes and how giddy people are to “get” others getting a lawyer is hardly the actions of a guilty person but rather that of a prudent one.

This is all getting so nasty with each side seeking to abuse a system to hurt others.

Maybe Robb shouldnt have given the DOJ a false sworn statement. Just a thought.

Play a stupid game, win a stupid prize.

(09-12-2022 09:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2022 08:39 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Meh, given the stakes and how giddy people are to “get” others getting a lawyer is hardly the actions of a guilty person but rather that of a prudent one.

This is all getting so nasty with each side seeking to abuse a system to hurt others.

Maybe Robb shouldnt have given the DOJ a false sworn statement. Just a thought.

Play a stupid game, win a stupid prize.

How do you know she signed a false statement?

(09-12-2022 09:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2022 09:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2022 08:39 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Meh, given the stakes and how giddy people are to “get” others getting a lawyer is hardly the actions of a guilty person but rather that of a prudent one.

This is all getting so nasty with each side seeking to abuse a system to hurt others.

Maybe Robb shouldnt have given the DOJ a false sworn statement. Just a thought.

Play a stupid game, win a stupid prize.

How do you know she signed a false statement?

MSM said so...

(09-12-2022 09:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2022 09:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2022 08:39 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Meh, given the stakes and how giddy people are to “get” others getting a lawyer is hardly the actions of a guilty person but rather that of a prudent one.

This is all getting so nasty with each side seeking to abuse a system to hurt others.

Maybe Robb shouldnt have given the DOJ a false sworn statement. Just a thought.

Play a stupid game, win a stupid prize.

How do you know she signed a false statement?

Tanq, don't feed the troll.