"Republicans largely have their fingers in their ears about these hearings."
And while 80% of Democrats think the Jan. 6 committee should recommend Trump be charged with crimes, 44% of independents feel the same and just 8% of Republicans do.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/january-6-hearing-day-6-takeaways-hutchinson/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/28/jan-6-hearing-key-takeaways-from-explosive-6th-hearing.html
Hutchinson also said Trump told aides he didn’t care if his supporters brought weapons to the Jan. 6 rally proceeding the attack.
Trump then said words to the effect of, “I don’t effing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me, take the effing mags away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here,” Hutchison said in prerecorded testimony.
She said Trump was fine with removing metal-detecting magnetometers because the president was convinced he wasn’t personally in danger.
Hutchinson told the committee that Trump indicated to his team that he believed then Vice President Mike Pence deserved to be hanged. Trump’s supporters repeatedly chanted “Hang Mike Pence” after the former vice president helped certify the results of the election.
“I remember Pat Cipollone saying, ’They’re literally calling for the VP to be effing hung,” Hutchinson told the committee in an interview to describe how the former White House counsel approached Meadows about the riot.
“You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong,” Hutchinson said in describing Meadows’ response to Cipollone.
metmike: Wow! This was actually the leader of our country! Unbelievable stuff!
I hope this puts to rest the huge lie that Nancy Pelosi called off the National Guard and she caused the Insurrection...........oh, that's right nobody that watches Fox will ever know what actually happened and will keep believing that lie as long as Fox repeats it.
Hutchinson, a top aide to chief of staff Mark Meadows, described Trump as determined to join rioters at the Capitol and revealed that Meadows and Rudy Giuliani sought pardons.
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/jan-6-committee-watch-live-tuesday-hearing
"They had weapons and other items that were confiscated pepper spray knives, brass knuckles, tasers, body armor, gas masks, batons, blunt weapons," Cheney said. "And those were just from the people who chose to go through the security for the president's event on the Ellipse, not the several thousand members of the crowd who refused to go through the mags."
It's incredible on so many levels.
Hutchinson is testifying under oath. Trump is on social media.
That Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and was stopped says 2 things to me. He is not as cowardly as I thought. And secondly, he wanted to exercise a treasonous coup. What is the penalty for that crime? Add to that, the revelations of witness tampering.
The lie about Pelosi being responsible is about as credible as "the dog ate my homework".
I just went to the FoxNews website. Nothing about Jan 6 revelations. Talk about living in a bubble!
joj said:
"I just went to the FoxNews website. Nothing about Jan 6 revelations. Talk about living in a bubble!"
-------------------------
However, check this out. Fox may finally be popping that bubble!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=Fkjf5sDJ9Ag&feature=emb_logo
Watch out for the MAGA side. They're now harping on this in one of their typical diversions:
"Sources close to the Secret Service and one of the individuals named by Cassidy Hutchinson told NBC News that the head of Trump's security detail and the vehicle's driver were prepared to dispute that account under oath."
I thought today was very damning for 45. Still, I hate to see diversion crap like this.
Brett Baier from Fox turned on Trump (otherwise known as "told the truth") during the first hearing!
June 10, 2022 https://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-anchor-bret-baier-trump-looks-really-bad/
June 24, 2022
https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-bret-baier-praises-110807562.html
Ohhh MAYUN!!!!! This looks like the beginning of the end for Trump fer SHURRRRRRR!!!
I hear it's quite possible the potential likelyhood of the DOJ possibly considering examining the potential for legal charges is almost increasing almost daily!!!
Tim,
Beat you to it at 11:19 PM EDT. See three posts above yours. Same thing.
From what I read this morning from some of the MSM, I'm still not feeling as good as I was yesterday afternoon. I hope this doesn't stop the momentum. The committee needs to be careful how they handle this so as not to jeopardize their overall credibility in the eyes of the undecided public because everything else in all of the hearings has been handled so well and totally damning of 45, including the bulk of Cassie's testimony. 45 is as guilty as can be in so many ways! He's horrible. They need to encourage the refuters to testify under oath. I'm a bit more concerned now about Herschmann, who has been a great witness, saying he rather than Cassie wrote that note as per this MSM source:
Beat you to it at 11:19 PM EDT. See three posts above yours. Same thing.
You mean where you called it "diversion crap"? And went on to be concerned about the "credibiility" of the commission?
I'm rollin here.
I find MM's continnued references to "captured brains" very relevant, in a very ironic way :-)
Tim,
As far as I'm concerned, the committee is very credible. Liz Cheney has especially been amazing. There's no doubt in my mind that 45 is a traitor. He pursued a coup. He said he thought Pence deserved to die. Nuff said! The committee credibility I'm concerned about is regarding the undecideds (who are probably relatively few in number). Also, I hope this doesn't delay the DOJ in pursuing 45. The DOJ has to know like most people that 45 is guilty as sin. The 45ers are already using this to divert from the overall message that their guy is horrible and is not suitable to hold office ever again.
Thanks Tim, for another opportunity to elaborate/illustrate.
And one of the biggest correlations with that view of "captured brains" is with people having political ideologies that completely define their belief systems. It almost always results in them being convinced, like people in a cult, that the other side has the captured brains and their side is ALWAYS right.
Capturedbrains
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/67714/
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86170/
"Neither political party has a franchise on the truth.
If you believe one party all the time......................you will believe in lies some of the time."
https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-cult-of-ideology-vs-the-cult
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2020/1102/Understanding-polarization
metmike: I would greatly adjust the place of several politicians on the chart above, based on a more extremely polarized environment in the last several years.
Biden is anything but a common ground seeker and is controlled by the far left on many to most issues.
Bernie Sanders seeking common ground?
Because the right typically dominates conversations here, we are usually only seeing one side of the extreme views.
People from the left bailed here because they couldn't stand the right and/or continually came to make personal attacks on the right.
In today's world of forum's and social media, you can only thrive if you provide bubbles and echo chambers for like minded birds of a feather to enjoy reading comments which line up with the belief systems of their side.
With the broadcast media........same sort of thing. Liberals don't go to Fox, for instance.
This is why Facebook is doing extremely well!
People are NOT going there to find out what the position is of the other side or to learn new things about the other side.
This is in fact a major contributor to the growing divisiveness in our country right now..........echo chambers for anybody that want's news or comments that tell them what they want to read and hear..........to reinforce what they think that they know and prove that they(their side) is always right about everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization_in_the_United_States
Political polarization is a prominent component of politics in the United States.[1] Scholars distinguish between ideological polarization (differences between the policy positions) and effective polarization (a dislike and distrust of political out-groups), both of which are apparent in the United States.[2][3] In the last few decades, the U.S. has experienced a greater surge in ideological polarization and effective polarization than comparable democracies.
The age of massive information and technology is also the age of abusing information to steal people's intelligence/brainwash them based on this:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86275/#86304
People are extremely gullible because their overwhelming desire to believe in things that line up with their political ideology is greater than their desire to fact check the things that line up with what they want to believe!
This weakness is well known by some people, especially gatekeepers of messages, that manufacture realities and false narratives that are repeated over and over and spread by like minded sources to capture the minds of those that want to believe in it.
I think most typical of this entire facade is JOJ's comment, copied from above. Not unique, just concise and conviniently available in this thread. There are 100's more.
That Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and was stopped says 2 things to me. He is not as cowardly as I thought. And secondly, he wanted to exercise a treasonous coup.
If he didn't want to go to the capital, he's a coward. If he did, he wanted to execise a treasonous coup!!
No option would have lead to a conclusion that he was innocent, because, well, he's guilty. We all know that, right? No choice would have been "right"
Meanwhile, at least a significant portion of the "testimony" of a "star" witness that lit y'all on fire has been seriously called into question. Set aside the fact that the testimony was hearsay to begin with. Two people who were actually there have called BS on it an are willing to testify to that under oath.
And the only concern I have seen over that is the hope that this will not have an affect on the credibility of the panel. A panel with Schiff and Pelosi as significant players. This certainly has an impact on the credibility of the witness in addition to the vetting process of the panel. Where is their due diligence? What's their criteria?
You folks are taking every word of this fabricated circus as gospel.
Captured mids indeed. :-)
Tim,
What do you think about Trump saying Pence deserved to be hung?
"fabricated circus"
Call it whatever name you need to in order rationalize ignoring the hundreds of independent sources of powerful evidence.
Only 8% of republicans think that Trump did something criminal.
I guess it's just another case of you being in those other 92% of republicans being completely right again to keep their/your track record spotless.
Always right, never wrong.
The left acts in similar fashion on many things but we are discussing Trump in this thread, not the left.
Call it whatever name you need to in order rationalize ignoring the hundreds of independent sources of powerful evidence.
MM: I'm certain you include yesterdays testimony in this "Hundereds of independent sources and powerful evidence." We've already discussed your interpretation of what constitutes evidence. This is another great example .
WX: Trump's comment about Pence deserving to be hung was reprehensible and in poor taste beneath the dignity of the office, but not illegal. You can express opinions of potentially illegal actions without breaking any laws.
| June 29, 2022 12:01 AM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again
Tucker started out his show by calling the hearings "Yesterday's debacle".
People that watch him and Hannity, all Trump cult members will be fed the same stuff they always get.
Most people either watch Fox and believe it all or they never watch Fox because they don't believe it.
I do watch Fox.
As full of crap as they are on anything that has to do with Trump and some other things.........they make good points on other things.
But I don't watch to get most of my news. I go to understand what's going on there and understand the minds of people that DO watch it. It's truly fascinating to analyze how they control the minds of millions of people and helps one to get better and better at recognizing DISinformation and propaganda and tactics used to steal peoples intelligence.
This is amazing. In spite of the fact that a significant part of her testimony has had serious questions raised (to put it politely) by eye witnesses, you feel it was a significant event. And then you say Carlson is full of crap? LOL
Next, you'll be telling us that the following from Liz Cheney's was new and exciting evidence.
"Republicans have to chose between Trump and the constitution".
And the crowd goes wild!!! Doesn't that Liz just send shivers down your spine? <G>
Thanks gawd that vast majority of voters see this for what it is.
Hannity tonight is continuing with his deception/made up story that "Donald Trump tried to protect the capital with national guard troops" and it was Nancy Pelosi that called them off.
Hannity: Why Did Pelosi Block the National Guard from Getting Deployed on Jan. 6th?
++++++++++++++++++++++++
By Jon Jackson
metmike: If you watch Fox for all your news or use other far right sources, you actually believe this rubbish!
Jun 9, 2022 at 9:32 pm ET
Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said that it was former Vice President Mike Pence, not former President Donald Trump, who called for the military to defend the U.S. Capitol during the riot.
Mr. Trump “placed no call to any element of the U.S. government to instruct that the Capitol be defended,” Ms. Cheney said.
She said Mr. Trump did not call his Secretary of Defense on Jan. 6, or speak to his Attorney General or the Department of Homeland Security.
“Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets,” Ms. Cheney said. “But Mike Pence did each of those things.”
She quoted testimony from Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said he got multiple calls from Mr. Pence on Jan. 6.
“He was very animated, and he issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders. There was no question about that. And I can get you the exact quotes,” Gen. Milley said. “But he was very animated, very direct, very firm to Sec. Miller. Get the military down here, get the guard down here. Put down this situation, et cetera.”
When Gen. Milley recalled his conversation with Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, on Jan. 6, he said Mr. Meadows told him: “'We have to kill the narrative that the Vice President is making all the decisions. We need to establish the narrative, you know, that the President is still in charge and that things are steady or stable.' … I immediately interpreted that as politics. Politics. Politics. Red flag for me, personally. No action. But I remember it distinctly. And I don’t do political narratives.”
The Democrats' deeply flawed Jan. 6 show (msn.com)
And then there's this: Engel, at least, has already spoken to the Jan. 6 committee. Just three weeks ago, Politico reported that Engel told the committee that in the SUV, he and Trump "discussed Trump's desire to go to the Capitol and took different views on the topic." Reporter Betsy Woodruff Swan noted that a Secret Service spokesperson said the Secret Service has "fully cooperated with the congressional January 6 probe" and that "Secret Service personnel appeared before the select panel without having to be subpoenaed."
At the hearing Tuesday, neither Cheney nor any other member of the Jan. 6 committee mentioned that Engel had already spoken to the committee. Indeed, even a casual listener would have heard Hutchinson's story and thought: I wonder what the Secret Service guys who were in the car have to say about this. Wouldn't it be a good thing to hear their versions of events? But the committee already had their versions of the events and did not tell the public about it.
That does not mean Hutchinson is lying. It just means that her testimony was not subject to the kind of basic scrutiny that witnesses receive in a normal congressional investigation. In a normal investigation, there is an opposition party to ask questions. There is an opposition party to note when the majority is trying to hide something. There is an opposition party to compare what one witness has said to what another witness has said. There is, in other words, an adversarial system that is essential to fact-finding. And the Jan. 6 committee, with all its members, including two Republicans appointed by Pelosi and all in lockstep on the questions at hand, does not have that essential system.
More problems with Hutchinsons "Blockbuster" testimony. Assuming you consider outright verifiable lies a problem. Maybe you don't
"The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021," Herschmann's spokesperson said.
"All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann," the spokesperson added.
This denial of 99% of the information and focus on certain details of certain information would be like defending Charles Manson because the 5th person that his cult killed was only stabbed 10 times and not 20 times like the prosecution states and we have evidence to prove it.
And because the panel is using extravagant tactics to show their authentic facts...........somehow, this makes them not really facts.
And as if it somehow negates what Trump actually did in real time that the entire world witnessed, including you for 2 months and continues to do to republican minds today.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85500/#85590
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85500/#85589
60-70% of people republicans still believe that Biden stole the election in June 2022.
In June, 2022, Trump continues to insist that Biden stole the election.
Gee, do you think there might be a correlation?
Do you think that the majority of a political party completely rejecting the results of a presidential election years after the election might be a problem for our democracy?
But the people that still believe that, 10's of millions will of course believe the person that has them convinced of that falsehood is somehow the victim in all of this and being unfairly targeted by those that use ANY facts showing what he did.
There is nothing unique about Hutchinson's testimony. It's been the common theme of this entire circus. This one is just a bit more blatant, easily verifiable. But the process is identical.
As I said above, the fact that the panel already knew about the version offered by secret service agents but chose to suppress it during this "blockbuster" testimony is more than telling. That is not sometjhing people on a genuine fact finding mission do. It is something people on an agenda driven mission woud do.
The only thing "blockbuster" about this is how badly it blew up in their faces.
Tim,
Your team is behind 70-0, late in the 4th quarter.
The opponents just scored another touchdown but your coach is challenging the call contesting it and they are looking at the video replay..........your side is acting as if it will be reversed and as if that means your team is winning the game.
We all know what happened and how it happened.
You are obviously unaware that fighting the facts, just draws more attention to the ones fighting the facts and giving the losing side delusional hope of something impossible that one side wants to believe in.
The team losing 70-0 should acknowledge............"ok, we got our arse's kicked in this game but let's focus on preparing for next week's opponent"
You're totally wasting resources and long term credibility by defending a person who is blatantly guilty by every objective measure.
I'm sincerely telling you this as a friend to help you out.
This isn't the Mueller investigation where they manufactured everything to get Trump.
Trump DID all these things because we witnessed his actions and words real time. The right can pretend it didn't happen and that it's just like the Mueller investigation but it DID happen.
Below, was corruption to get Trump.
You need to be able to tell the difference between that and this.
The far right sources are tricking you into thinking it's all the same thing!
More Mueller corruption!
Started by metmike - Sept. 11, 2020, 6:44 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/59031/
FISA report: DOJ watchdog releases findings on Russia probe surveillance Started by metmike - Dec. 9, 2019, 1:12 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/44076/
IG testimony today
Started by wglassfo - Dec. 11, 2019, 5:09 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/44129/
Alan Dershowitz: Stone indictment follows concerning Mueller pattern
Re: Re: Pardon for Michael Flynn
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/61735/#61805
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/60589/#60599
Reviewing Muellers corruption with facts:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/55925/#55961
They got away with this one too:
June 2016: Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24146/#24224
metmike: You should be ticked off at Trump and your far right sources for tricking you here. They specifically targeted you and others on your side of the political spectrum. Don't let them control your thinking, man.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#77012
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#77871
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#78919
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#79540
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#82438
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#78974
LOL!!
Never mind MM :-)
About half say Trump should be charged for 1/6: AP-NORC poll
Views on Trump’s criminal liability break down predictably along party lines, with 86% of Democrats but only 10% of Republicans saying Trump should be charged with a crime. Among Republicans, 68% say he should not be charged and 21% say they don’t know.
metmike: Lines up exactly with the same captured brains here and 70% of republicans.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85999/#86007
Same ones that listen to Fox and think that it was Nancy Pelosi's fault because she supposedly called off the National Guard and Donald Trump supposedly pleaded with the crowd to protest peacefully.
If you don't watch Fox, you might think this is made up because nobody could ever believe such an absurd story. Welcome to Trump's 2022 MAGA party:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86427/#86517
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85999/#86007
Close to 6 in 10 Americans — 56% — say they followed news about the congressional hearings. A smaller but still sizeable share -- 42% -- say they watched or listened.
metmike: Those 42% that watched, are the ones that actually saw the mountain of legit evidence and almost all of them feel that he should be charged. Of the ones that say he should NOT be charged, almost none watched the actual hearings but instead, got the bogus interpretations from Fox and like minded sources putting on the massive DISinformation campaign to defend the indefensibly.
For republicans, that actually witnessed much of this happening, and had 100+ crystal clear, indisputable clarifications from me on the objective facts....but want to delude themselves that they didn't and it was something different, it's like none of this happened.
I'm not deluding myself into thinking that they will ever change. However, the purpose of MarketForum is to always provide objective truths based on facts/data/evidence/science and it's not here to become an echo chamber for the far right.
More than anything, recently, as mentioned before, there is no debate going on about what happened. That's been clearly settled by the overwhelming facts long ago..........which I just need to link to every now and then. You will note that I don't waste much time trying to prove another brand new point, when there have been hundreds of convincing points already.
Much of my time is spend explaining why people actually think this way and identifying the diabolical schemes by people at Fox in the evening (and others like that) who target them for the political ideology.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86427/#86435
Somebody like me, that has serious POSITIVE objectives to make as many lives as possible better, in the later years of my life, would be an idiot to waste hours every day here having silly political battles on a little forum with people who will never change.
You can take this to the bank because only metmike knows why he's here.
The main reason that MarketForum still exists is this:
Use this to makeyourself a betterperson-guaranteed
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/82252/
That's in addition to the Trading Forum that has it's own, unique, market related, entirely beneficial impacts on people reading, learning and interacting/positively contributing there.
Ahh, so we're accepting polls as evidence now? Sorry, thought you said that was a bad idea.
But of course, we know Autopsies are flimsy evidence, right?
Just trying to keep up :-)
Tim, a poll is just a way to assertain people's opinion about a particular topic at that point in time, using responses to a particular question.
What do you think they are?
"There could be more than one criminal referral,” said Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., vice chair of the committee. “We’ll make a decision as a committee.”
Citing several officials, The New York Times reported last week that federal prosecutors were “astonished” by Hutchinson’s testimony. Asked about that, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif, another member of the committee, said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press”: “I was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised. What are they doing over there?”
Hutchinson's testimony certainly would certainly be "damning" had it not been so completely discredited by actual eye witnesses.
Very telling that MM continues to reference that nonsense.
Tim,
I mainly provide facts, data, evidence, measurements/science and news.
As an atmospheric scientist, I will interpret the weather/climate for readers and also with other science and commodities.
Most of the rest, (like in this thread) you can do with it what you want, including rejecting all of it.
However, I do express my personal opinion at times. Here's a recent example:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86638/
The facts that discredit her are in this thread with supporting links. That you chose to ignore them and continue to call her credible is nothing short of astounding.
The mere idea that Trump attempted to wrestle with secret service agents, who are essentially highly trained assassins, is preposterous.
That it didn't at least tickle your BS indicator is also very telling.
Once again Tim,
You try to focus on some really small detail about an isolated incident to battle over(which you should have noticed by now, I'm not wasting my time on) and ignore the rest of the Mt. Everest sized amount of evidence.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86427/#86435
And you should note, once again that I'm not debating with you on something proven over a year ago, that continues to accumulate massive new information for you to ignore.
I'm spending my time analyzing why 70% of Republicans do it, in between posting the latest news.
You continue to focus on Hutchinson's testimony, and then accuse me of focusing on it.
This thread is based on that BS. You even elaborated in it once again. It's hilarious. Really.
But perhaps I missed something. Is there a part of that BS you believe. You are claiming it is somehow damning
I mainly provide facts, data, evidence, measurements/science and news.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86427/#86708
Tim,
All I did was cut and paste a story that just came out. I didn't comment or defend it. YOU were the one drawing attention to it and then mischaracterizing me as doing such and trying to start an argument over it.
No arguing from me.
I'm just stating and analyzing what YOU just did...... again as I did on the previous post and half a dozen other ones recently.
When I "cut and paste" a news story, I usually have a reason, and I most ilkely agree with at least some of the content, or I will explain otherwise.
It appears you are saying you just randomly select articles whether or not you agree with them. Do you even read them?
I'm having a hard time understanding the motive.
But just for the heck of it, I'll ask, point blank. Do you think Hutchinson's testimony is credible?
Since you devoted an entire thread to the subject of her testimony, I'm gonna guess yes, but I'd like to hear it directly from you.
And once again, I strongly recomend you familiarize yourself with the difference between facts and opinion.
i would like to know how many criminal referrals are there going to be for telling lies under oath.....I would like to wager a large amount of money that that number will be somewhere close to zero
Tim,
It's not my fault the news tells a different story than what you want to believe but yes, you can assume that in this case, I don't have a reason to disagree.
I will sometimes post opposing news to bust it too but will usually comment.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86427/#86517
In this case, there's absolutely no reason to get into a pointless argument with somebody that is totally convinced that everything that comes from the committee which has hundreds of proven individual, authentic facts is fraudulent...........or we knew about it on 1-6-21.
It would be one thing if you had just 1 objective, non political brain cell in your brain. In that case, I could try to appeal to that 1 brain cell on anything to do with the Insurrection hearings.
Instead, it's best to just observe and analyze what all one sided brain cells do.
Show me one tiny sign, that's been completely absent that you're open minded or objective on this..........and we can have a conversation about authentic facts.
So far, it's all extreme right rhetoric, regurgitated without actually applying critical/objective thinking............again, we keep getting to the analysis.
Sorry but its the scientist in me.
My wife tells me that I have 3 faults.
1. I talk too much
2. I'm too analytical
3. I'm too honest.
Imagine having to live with me and be her (-:
I'm just being metmike here/who I am. Nothing personal. I like you a great deal, Tim and appreciate all your wonderful contributions and intelligence.
It would be one thing if you had just 1 objective, non political brain cell in your brain. In that case, I could try to appeal to that 1 brain cell on anything to do with the Insurrection hearings.
This is probably the funniest thing you have ever written MM, and that's going some. Thanks for the morning laugh.
Now, I have asked, on several occasions for you to present new "authentic facts" from this commision, you have either avoided the direct question or failed to present anything but "new Opinions" based on "Old facts". But no need to dwell on it, It's well documented in several threads. So, let's move on to the next direct question that you have so far avoided.
Do you think Hutchinson's testimony is credible?
Don't worry Tim. Jan 6th committee to focus on domestic terror next week. Finally we will see Pelosi, the FBI, Schiff and all the insiders finally come and tell the truth about what they did and didn't do leading up to and including that day. Ohhh wait, that should of been the very first thing this sham investigated so I expect it will not happen now.
Do you think Hutchinson's testimony is credible?
Thanks for asking Tim! We know the reason but thanks.
I think one side is placing too much significance on this one, very credible witness. They have hundreds of other facts that are totally consistent to support the case and this testimony is very consistent with all the other facts.
But it's not really a bombshell. It's just another of the hundreds of other facts that tell us a few more NEW details to help us be even MORE clear about what happened.
Knowing all that and applying OBJECTIVE basic critical thinking/common sense, the testimony makes complete sense and the witness has nothing to gain and is very consistent with every statement.
And OF COURSE there will be Trump loyalists to the end that will always deny that he ever did anything wrong at any time. Just look at the reaction here and multiply it by 30 million/70% of republicans who still insist that Trump won.
Do you think that people that actually worked for Trump might actually be affected even MORE than posters here and the other 70% of republicans who completely deny the truth of him losing the election?
Not only think that is the case. Of course that was the case for anybody with an objective brain.
Everybody in the Trump cult, is just continuing to believe anything/everything and everybody that defends Trump and not believe anything/everything that is evidence against him.
For petes sake. They still believe that Biden stole the 2020 election from him!
That should be a litmus test for somebody's credibility from square 1. Ask them "who do you think won the 2020 election?" If they say Donald Trump, then you know that everything else they believe and say about this topic is likely BS...and literally, there are 70% of the republicans that would fail that basic credibility qualifier.
They are not even capable of having the mindset that would be able to see any of the hundreds of authentic facts we've seen, including this one. I posted them tons of times here.
Even Trump knows this and was bragging about it and how he has a cult like following of tens of millions of minds that he is still manipulating and targeting with his mind control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTACH1eVIaA
I've never heard one Trump person ever condemn him for one thing. They act like he's akin to an infallible God and always the victim when other people don't see it that way.
Secret Service says it will make agents available to testify
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tony-ornato-jan-6-b2113434.html
metmike: So I'm happy to hear what this guy says. Then, it turns into a "he said-she said" situation where the OBJECTIVE observer has to consider all the other relevant facts to decide what story makes more sense.
too damn funny MM. "Has all the relevant facts" Now you know damn well that is not a factual statement so why keep repeating it over and over. Just like EVERYBODY ON THE RIGHT STILL THI9NKS TRUMP WON" another silly totally non factual statement you have repeated numerous time. I do not recall a single person on this forum who has said they believe Trump won. As to the facts if you only look at one side as this committee is doing please advise how ALL the facts are being shown. Then there is that word relevant....relevant by whose definition one may ask and never get an answer. This sounds way too much like Schiff and all the evidence he had, scratch that, all the evidence he said he had and of course never did, did he?
Just like EVERYBODY ON THE RIGHT STILL THI9NKS TRUMP WON" another silly totally non factual statement you have repeated numerous time.
mcfarm,
You are the quintessential example of somebody that completely turns their brain off when negative FACTS about republicans or Trump are shown here, then creates their own position to describe me which isn't true.
I never once said EVERYBODY, please stop mischaracterizing me to attack a position I don't have.
My positions, as always have been supported by autentic facts. This one, I've shown half a dozen times here:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85999/#86007
70% of Republicans mcfarm. Get it right or don't attack somebody for the position YOU want them to have. This is either very dishonest or a comprehension issue.
Again, for the umpteenth+1 time in these discussions.
You act like it's a debate. I'm using it more as an analysis for why you guys act this way.......defying all logic and facts..........which is what the above is doing.........again.
Here's my exact quotes from the previous post.......3 different times!
"and literally, there are 70% of the republicans that would fail that basic credibility qualifier."
+++++++++++++++++
"Do you think that people that actually worked for Trump might actually be affected even MORE than posters here and the other 70% of republicans who completely deny the truth of him losing the election?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"And OF COURSE there will be Trump loyalists to the end that will always deny that he ever did anything wrong at any time. Just look at the reaction here and multiply it by 30 million/70% of republicans who still insist that Trump won."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
metmike: To be more accurate with the last quote, the number might be more like 25 million republicans still insist that Trump won give or take a few million because of the level of confidence by individuals holding that belief that Trump won, has an extremely wide range.
Some are 100% certain. Some are 50% sure. Others suspect it but are not sure.
sorry...it was everybody in the trump cult believes anything and everything........I guess by deduction that would mean anything and everything including winning the election.
Thanks mcfarm!
I think one side is placing too much significance on this one, very credible witness.
So, I'll take that as a yes. You feel she is credible.
In spite of the claim she made that a handwritten note that she had written, was actually confirmed by multiple parties to have been written by someone else.
In spite of the fact that she made an, on it's face ludicrous claim that Trump tried to wrestle control of their vehicle from Secret Service agents. Testiimony that was based on hearsay and contradicted by the Sevcret Service agents on board.
You speculated as to the reason I wanted a point blank answer, and it's quite obvious. Anyone who could look at this witness as credible is not objective by any measure of the word.
But I'll go a step further. She is not a unique part of this poorly orchestarted docu-drama, she is typical of the whole thing
Here is what I think is a decent bipartisan and well informed opinion piece. And one of my favorite lines..
OPINION: The huge political mistake the Jan. 6 committee could easily avoid (adn.com)
But pretending a criminal referral is a big deal lends weight to the nonsense. If the committee was actually a criminal proceeding, it would be a grotesque violation of due process and a farce. But it’s not. It’s a poorly designed, but ultimately essential, fact-finding effort. And it’s pretty obvious who doesn’t want the facts to be found.
There’s ample blame to go around for the one-sided nature of the committee. But as much as I agree with the committee’s goals, there’s no disputing that it’s not giving the Trumpists anything like equal time. It’s nothing like a Stalinist show trial, as critics bleat and moan, but neither is it an impartial inquiry of the sort required to determine criminal guilt — or even the sort required to launch a criminal investigation.
Great article Tim!
Glad to see that you are no longer suggesting a similarity to the Stalin trials.
Stalin's show trials.
14 responses |
Started by TimNew - June 22, 2022, 7:34 a.m.
most shocking news I have heard since this started was today. Heard Andy McCarthy {one of the brightest judicial minds left in this country} say Trump could be open to criminal charges. But the most shocking thing was when he said he based this on the women's testimony who had not 1 word of first hand information. Maybe they cut the interview off early but that is what was said. Used to be you could not use hearsay in this country and had the right to face your accusers....simple things that makes a guy wonder why the left is using under handed methods, If they had the goods they would be rushing them out.
mcfarm,
Like I said earlier, this is just one tiny piece of evidence that wouldn't mean didly squat if there wasn't hundreds of other pieces of evidence that I wont copy the threads to again.
You guys wanting to battle over this piece of evidence would be like a football coach, after losing 70-0, claiming that a really bad call by a ref late in the 4th quarter is what caused his team to lose.
How about the Mt. Everest sized pile of evidence outside of this testimony?
Glad to see that you are no longer suggesting a similarity to the Stalin trials.
It's a real shame if that's all you got from the article/exchange, but not at all surprising.
FTR, I never suggested similarities to the Stalin Trials. I posted an article on them and never added anything to it particularly in reference to current events.
Any similarities infered were of your doing, which I find highly entertaining as well as interesting.
You guys wanting to battle over this piece of evidence would be like a football coach, after losing 70-0, claiming that a really bad call by a ref late in the 4th quarter is what caused his team to lose.
FInally, once again proving that you don't don't read the majority of what I write with another poor analogy, I am not arguing over this one "piece of evidence". I am stating point blank that it is a glaring example typical of the entire show.
From the article I referenced above..
If the committee was actually a criminal proceeding, it would be a grotesque violation of due process and a farce.
That one line sums up what I have been saying, and you have been denying for months. That you look at this farce as substantuial shows that you once again are looking for confirmation of your preconcieved notions.
Tim,
I see that you are still locked into your "argue and debate" mindset and missed the headline of my comment:
"Great article Tim!"
..........for the umpteenth+2 time, you guys like arguments/fighting..........I prefer analysis.
And when possible, resolving differences and/or agreeing on some points based on authentic facts/science.
This divisive mindset is being intentionally programmed into the heads of both sides by their information sources that are intentionally interpreting every situation as their side is always right and the other side is always wrong and "we need to unite" to stop what the wrong side is doing or they will destroy the country.
Just like the fake climate crisis false narrative/battle cry "save the planet for our childre!"
As the planet greens up from the increase of CO2, the building block of life/a beneficial gas0 and most life, including humans does BETTER from the slight warming.
That brainwashing tactic is extremely effective.
1. Define a compelling cause that has political or financial rewards
2. Manufacture convincing reasons to make it read/sound legit.
3. Repeat the reasons over and over and over.
4. Declare that your side has the science and facts based on manufactured science and facts and vilify/discredit anybody that disagrees......call them selfish deniers that are trying to sabotage the altruistic efforts of caring people trying to save the planet. Us vs them mentality, good vs evil. Our side MUST unite because we are completely right and they are completely wrong mentality and everything is at stake.
5. Repeat it over and over and over to those who come to your site to have their political ideologies defined and messages on how to apply them.
Sound familiar?
Yeah, all the tv stations and media sources..............that disagree with the ones that we trust to give us our views but NOT our sources (-:
The cool thing is that we don't have to be victims of the propaganda and DISinformation put out by extreme political sides/sites.
When I watch Fox or CNN or listen to PBS ramble on with bs climate crisis rhetoric.........I don't get upset and I don't get pulled in.
I think "wow, I don't have to believe this because I was created with a free will".
But I still listen because besides the bs, both sides often have extremely legit and important positions that we can't get from the other side.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86170/
"Neither political party has a franchise on the truth.
Ifyoubelieve one party all the time......................you will believe in lies some of the time."
Capturedbrains
"Neither political party has a franchise on the truth.
Ifyoubelieve one party all the time......................you will believe in lies some of the time."
If you believe all the half truths and the out and out lies from the Jan 6th commission, you will believe lies all of the time.
Fixed it for ya again.
