Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, July 03, 2022

Washington Post Editorial Board: After another week of riveting testimony before the House Jan. 6 committee, it is natural to wonder: How many laws were broken, by whom, and will there be prosecutions? Some argue that former president Donald Trump ...

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

LOL! Dems are trying 3 for 0.....

#1 | Posted by MSgt at 2022-07-03 05:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

LOL! Dems are trying 3 for 0.....

#1 | Posted by MSgt

You realize you're basically bragging about how your party has let trump get away with corruption and crimes without accountability right?

#2 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-03 05:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 6

@#1 ... Dems are trying 3 for 0..... ...

If the prosecution occurs this time, the Judge will be in Justice, not in Congress with the hyper-partisan Republican Party that the impeachment trials occurred under.

I wonder if Trump-appointed Judges would have to recuse themselves?

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 05:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

LOL! Dems are trying 3 for 0.....

#1 | POSTED BY MSGT AT

The only way to truly fail is to stop trying.

I'm sure you taught your children that.

But don't worry. You're right. Trump will never go to jail. He'll kill himself first, using some method that won't spoil his face or haircut.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-03 05:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This will be almost as fun as the 2nd Impeachment attempt - impeachment is an attempt to remove someone from office, so it was totally hilarious/ridiculous as President Trump was already out of office. Dems, doing show trials in an attempt vilify The Donald - LOL.

Have all the Trump haters looked at the number of those watching the Jan 6th charade? Guess what, not all that many dems are even paying attention to that total waste of out tax dollars. OF COURSE I do believe all the libbies here on the Retort are watching with 'baited breath' ; )

#5 | Posted by MSgt at 2022-07-03 05:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

LAMP

"I wonder if Trump-appointed Judges would have to recuse themselves?"

I hear that death threats are not limited to just witnesses.

#6 | Posted by Twinpac at 2022-07-03 05:31 PM | Reply

Zed,

Please brace yourself for tremendous disappointment. The likelihood that Trump isn't indicted is exponentially higher than Trump being indicted, much less convicted.

#7 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 05:32 PM | Reply

"I wonder if Trump-appointed Judges would have to recuse themselves?"

The answer would be no.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 05:33 PM | Reply

Have any of the Trump Humpers looked at the testimony of Trump's criminal insurrection conspiracy as sworn to by most of Trump's own lawyers?

I know, dumb question.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2022-07-03 05:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The likelihood that Trump isn't indicted is exponentially higher than Trump being indicted, much less convicted.

#7 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Trump is obviously bleeding. The more blood he spills the more likely an indictment and a conviction.

I mean, that's simple logic. Something you oppose with a sentimental fascist's faith in his Leader.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-03 05:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Interesting isn't it? The tighter the noose closes around Trump's neck, the more vigorously fascists deny a noose exists.

AT THE VERY LEAST Donald Trump is being prevented from having another term. AT THE VERY LEAST Donald Trump will announce a new candidacy for president 2.5 years ahead of the next election, as a trick to try and get Merrick Garland off his back.

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-03 05:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#8 ... The answer would be no. ...

Any reason for that opinion?


#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 05:47 PM | Reply

Now, I agree that DeSantis getting the Republican nomination is not much improvement. But a stake through Trump's heart is one of the few ways to make other fascists behave themselves.

Donald Trump will inevitably commit suicide just as he inevitably attempted his coup. I'm on the record with both predictions and have already gotten one of them right.

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-03 05:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Any reason for that opinion?

#12 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Not in his personal political interests.

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-03 05:51 PM | Reply

#10. I don't care if he's indicted. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I'm just trying to caution your enthusiasm. Hillary Clinton wasn't even POTUS abd she blatantly engaged in felonious behavior with her reckless handling of classified information and the destruction of her hard drive with Bleach Bit.

Nothing happened to her. Nothing. I don't like it but that's how things roll in DC. Same will likely be true of Trump. The committee building a one sided case with cherry picked testimony and evidence is one thing. Getting the DOJ, even one as corrupt as this one, to indict is quite another thing. With indictment comes the discovery process and proving incitement is extremely difficult with that pesky 1st Amendment. For years I was assured W would be charged with all sorts of war crimes, etc. nothing.

#15 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 05:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 4 | Newsworthy 1

For years I was assured W would be charged with all sorts of war crimes, etc. nothing.

#15 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

W didn't try to overthrow the United States.

You don't want to be labeled as a fascist, here's you're chance to agree that that's what Donald wanted and tried to do.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-03 05:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#12 cases regarding Obama's agenda came before SCOTUS and it was never even suggested BY REPUBLICANS that Sotomayor should recuse herself.

Zed might be the biggest projector of all time.

#17 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 05:56 PM | Reply

#15 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

W didn't try to overthrow the United States.

You don't want to be labeled as a fascist, here's your chance to agree that that's what Donald wanted and tried to do.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-03 05:58 PM | Reply

#16. I have little doubt he wanted to. As to whether he tried to ... impossible to discern without an actual trial. I know you oppose innocent until proven guilty when your political opponents are involved because that's what fascists do but I still believe in due process even when it involves Trump.

#19 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 05:58 PM | Reply

#16. I have little doubt he wanted to. As to whether he tried to ... impossible to discern without an actual trial

#19 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-07-03 05:58 PM |

So a trial is what we need?

Yes? No?

#20 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-03 06:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#20 if the DOJ believes it has sufficient evidence for a trial then yes.

Keep in mind the FBI has been investigating 1/6 since it happened and we have no hint of a trial for Trump.

Reality is it is incredibly unlikely Trump is not indicted.

#21 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 06:02 PM | Reply

#19 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-07-03 05:58 PM |

So a trial is what we need?

Yes? No?

I am addressing the living?

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-03 06:03 PM | Reply

I answered your question, Zed

#23 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 06:03 PM | Reply

Reality is it is incredibly unlikely Trump is not indicted.

#21 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022

Then we agree on something. That actually makes me feel good.

DOJ will not indict unless they are 98% certain they will win.

Someone tell MSGT.

#24 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-03 06:05 PM | Reply

Donald Trump does not have ice water in his veins (again, tell MSGT). His guts are already turning inside him like nasty, frightened worms. An indictment in and of itself may send him over the edge.

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-03 06:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

" The likelihood that Trump isn't indicted is exponentially higher than Trump being indicted"

You clearly don't understand the definition of "exponentially".

Should we add that to the list?

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-03 06:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

" Hillary Clinton wasn't even POTUS abd she blatantly engaged in felonious behavior with her reckless handling of classified information"

Meanwhile, Dubya "lost" over ten times the emails, and Bellringer didn't make a peep.

Could one of your faces talk to the other, and tell us if Dubya was ten times worse when it came to "but her emails"...?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-03 06:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#27 it was an example of the powerful in this country not being held accountable. Nothing more.

Quit projecting. Not everyone views every issue through an extremely partisan lens like you do.

#28 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 06:25 PM | Reply

#26. I said "exponentially" because it's incredibly rare (I can't think of a single example) for a president or ex being criminally indicted.

I get that the show trial is causing you to have wet dreams but I tend to use history as a guide when trying to predict a future outcome.

#29 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 06:27 PM | Reply

- her reckless handling of classified information

"But, but... her emails!"

lmao, that never gets old.

It's almost as bad as creating an armed riot to overthrow the elected US gov.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2022-07-03 06:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

&nnbsp

@#6 ... I hear that death threats are not limited to just witnesses. ...

You mean an occurrence like this...

N.J. federal judge whose son died in attack says shooter was also targeting Supreme Court justice (Frebrary 2021)
www.nj.com

...U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed by a gunman who was targeting her last summer, said the killer may also have been targeting a Supreme Court justice, the judge said in a recent "60 Minutes" interview.

Salas said the gunman, Roy Den Hollander, an anti-feminist attorney, had a dossier on Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

"Theyfound another gun, a Glock, more ammunition," Salas said, adding they were recovered after Den Hollander died of a self-inflicted gun shot wound. "But the most troubling thing they found was a manila folder with a workup on Justice Sonia Sotomayor."

"Whoknows what could have happened?" Salas continued. "But we need to understand that judges are at risk. That we put ourselves in great danger every day for doing our jobs."...


#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 06:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@#10 ... the more likely an indictment and a conviction. ...

One aspect that will make this interesting is whether or not fmr Pres rump throws his hat into the ring to run again in 2024.

There have been rumblings that he is getting ready to do so, some say to try to avoid being indicted.

#32 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 06:34 PM | Reply

#30. I already said it was an example of the powerful not being held accountable, Nimrod.

#33 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 06:36 PM | Reply

"I said "exponentially" because it's incredibly rare"

That's not the definition.

"I get that the show trial ... "

You mean Republicans testifying under oath to Republicans Behaving Badly?

Sounds like little baby can't handle the adult truth.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-03 06:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@#21 ... Keep in mind the FBI has been investigating 1/6 since it happened and we have no hint of a trial for Trump. ...

You need to explain why the FBI would tip its hand at this point.

We have seem indictments moving up the chain of command.

I would imagine that the DoJ getting the evidence from the Jan 6 Committee will only assist the DoJ in their investigation.

#35 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 06:37 PM | Reply

Zed,

Your ability to read Trump's mind is truly impressive.

#36 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 06:37 PM | Reply

@#29 ... I said "exponentially" because it's incredibly rare (I can't think of a single example) for a president or ex being criminally indicted. ...

But it has also been extremely rare (some say it has never occurred) for a sitting President to led an insurrection to overturn a valid election.

#37 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 06:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" You need to explain why the FBI would tip its hand at this point."

The only reason is the countless leaks I've seen as it pertains to all things Trump.

I guess a grand jury might have been convened, although I doubt it.

#38 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 06:40 PM | Reply

Any investigation lacking any kind of adversarial component, like this one, is to be treated with a high degree of skepticism.

#39 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 06:42 PM | Reply

" it was an example of the powerful not being held accountable"

Nonsense. It went through the legal system, and was found to be not of significant importance.

Why are you misrepresenting it?

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-03 06:43 PM | Reply

@#38 ... The only reason is the countless leaks I've seen as it pertains to all things Trump. ...

Perhaps the lack of leaks is an indication of the seriousness of the investigation.

#41 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 06:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#39 ... Any investigation lacking any kind of adversarial component ...

There is an adversarial component, the problem is that all it seems to be able to do is deflect. Lamely.

#42 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 06:46 PM | Reply

If that's your summation then you are the one doing the misrepresenting.

Regardless, it's ancient history. My point was and is that it's extremely difficult to hold powerful people in DC accountable which is why I've said the likelihood of no indictment is exponentially higher than the likelihood of an indictment.

#43 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 06:46 PM | Reply

" There is an adversarial component, the problem is that all it seems to be able to do is deflect. Lamely.

#42 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2022-07-03 06:46 PM | FLAG: "

There is not an iota of an adversarial component WITHIN the committee.

#44 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 06:47 PM | Reply

@#43 ... If that's your summation then you are the one doing the misrepresenting. ...

I notice that your comment provides no substantiation for your apparent disagreement with (I presume) #40.

Maybe cite some facts to show why you hold the opinion you do.

#45 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 06:49 PM | Reply

" Any investigation lacking any kind of adversarial component, like this one, is to be treated with a high degree of skepticism."

Anyone with any conflicting information has been welcomed forward since day one.

Republican after Republican after Republican have come forward, raising their right hand, willing to go under oath at the threat of perjury to bear witness to what they experienced.

Just because there are no witnesses defending the attempted coup doesn't mean there wasn't an attempted coup.

But if ANYONE disagrees with ANYTHING testified to by this point, there's a very easy remedy: Raise your right hand.

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-03 06:50 PM | Reply

" Any investigation lacking any kind of adversarial component ... "

Ooh, I want to hear this:

What would your adversarial tack be, and what witnesses would you call?

Start with trying to overturn certified results in AZ and GA.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-03 06:52 PM | Reply

@#44 ... There is not an iota of an adversarial component WITHIN the committee. ...

The Committee is just gathering evidence, mostly from Republicans, mainly from Republicans who were in the trump White House.

If there is an indictment and trial, there will be oodles of time for any adversarial component to step forward.

Until then, you might want to ask yourself why Rep McCarthy prevented such an adversarial component on the Committee? Did he want to leave an opening for criticism? If so, why would he want to do that?

#48 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 06:53 PM | Reply

Jesus effing Christ.

The people who have gone before the committee were chosen. I e seen the talking point that almost all of the witnesses are Republicans. Well,duh! Since this committee is actually a get Trump committee wanna take a guess as to which political party those who had close access to Trump belonged to? Is it some kind of show of good faith that the committee didn't seek out an AOC staffer to be interviewed?

#49 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 06:56 PM | Reply

" Until then, you might want to ask yourself why Rep McCarthy prevented such an adversarial component on the Committee? Did he want to leave an opening for criticism? If so, why would he want to do that?"

He's no saint by any stretch. Pelosi said no to his first two choices. "You can pick any Republican you want so long as they are rabidly anti Trump" - Pelosi

#50 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 06:58 PM | Reply

" The people who have gone before the committee were chosen. "

By a bipartisan committee. Why do you get to pretend there aren't Always Trumpers on that committee?

You don't get to pretend Cheney and Kinzinger didn't vote for Trump's initiatives 100% of the time.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-03 06:59 PM | Reply

"Pelosi said no to his first two choices"

Let's see if you can be intellectually honest: why did Pelosi say no to those two specific choices?

(Of course, leaving it out to start exposes your intellectual dishonesty anyway, so I don't know why I'm asking.)

But let's see if you have the nads to answer my direct question, directly.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-03 07:02 PM | Reply

Even if a pro a trump Republicans asked to be interviewed and the request was granted, it's still the committee members asking the questions and guiding the interview, without an adversarial component on the committee itself.

#53 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:03 PM | Reply

#52. She blocked those choices because she believes, or claims to believe, they are complicit.

Let me ask you this, how did Kinzinger and Cheney end up on the committee.

#54 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:05 PM | Reply

ZED @ #24

"DOJ will not indict unless they are 98% certain they will win."

I suspect there is more than one reason. That being, once Trump is indicted his attorney is entitled to discovery.

There's something to be said about the element of surprise.

#55 | Posted by Twinpac at 2022-07-03 07:13 PM | Reply

Are you actually claiming Cheney and Kissinger are "always Trumpers"?

Really???

Wow. I guess I'm really not surprised that you'd offer up such a dishonest take though.

But back to my question - How did they end up on the committee?

#56 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:14 PM | Reply

Lemme guess, next Danforth is going to claim that Rick Wilson, Bill Kristol and George Conway are always Trumpers too.

#57 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:14 PM | Reply

The Democrats pushed for a 9/11 type commission.
The GOP shot it down (actually voted it down).
The Committee was formed without any members but with the intention of it being bi-partisan.
McCarthy sent over a list of 5, two of which were insane pieces of ---- that had severe conflicts of interest, were owned by Trump, and were only put on so the Dems would say no to them or so they could do all they could to blow it up.
Pelosi said YES to the three, and NO to TWO of them.
McCarthy cried crocodile tears acted all put out, took his ball and said "We're not going to play no batter what! And nobody in the GOP better join you!"
Kinzinger and Cheney had the fortitude to say stuff it to McCarthy and Pelose appointed them to the committee so it would be legitimately bipartisan and would have critical voices in the search for what really happened that day.
You can throw a tantrum and pretend that those two aren't conservatives, aren't true Republicans, but they are exactly that.

Did I miss something?

#58 | Posted by YAV at 2022-07-03 07:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"#55 | POSTED BY TWINPAC AT 2022-07-03 07:13 PM"

It's more than just the discovery entitlement.

It takes an awfully high bar to criminally indict a president or ex-president. For example, out of expediency the CIA routinely breaks the law and oftentimes POTUS is not only aware but signed off. This is true for all presidents. It's an unspoken rule that presidents are not criminally prosecuted for stuff like that because, before we know it, EVERY single president will either end up facing indictment or be so gun-shy regarding making decisions that it harms the country. Democrats and Republicans both know this. To indict a president or ex the bar for the prosecution is simply much higher than indicting anyone else.

#59 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:19 PM | Reply

"Did I miss something?

#58 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2022-07-03 07:17 PM"

Were Cheney and Kinzinger on McCarthy's list of 5? No, they weren't. So, how did they end up on the committee?

#60 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:21 PM | Reply

@#50 ... He's no saint by any stretch. Pelosi said no to his first two choices. "You can pick any Republican you want so long as they are rabidly anti Trump" - Pelosi ...

Do you have a link for that quote, or is it a typical fabrication of your current alias?

For the record, Rep McCarthy submitted a list of 5 Republicans for the Jan 6 Committee.

Leader Pelosi rejected two and accepted the rest.

Rep McCarthy then took his ball and went home.

I can understand that facts seem to be foreign to your current alias here, even so, do try harder.


Kevin McCarthy names 5 Republicans to Jan. 6 select committee, including Jim Jordan
www.yahoo.com

...Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy selected five Republicans to join the House panel that will investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Thirteen members will make up the panel, created last month after the Senate blocked creation of a bipartisan commission. McCarthy's picks, announced Monday, include ranking member Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, plus Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, North Dakota Rep. Kelly Armstrong and Texas Rep. Troy Nehls.

All five congressmen voted against impeaching President Donald Trump in January.

Banks said in a statement that he accepted the appointment "because we need leaders who will force the Democrats and the media to answer questions so far ignored. Among them, why was the Capitol unprepared and vulnerable to attack on Jan. 6?"

He added, as other Republicans have, that the committee should be investigating the racial justice protests of last summer along with the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Jordan told Newsmax late Monday: "We know what this is. This is impeachment Round 3," adding that he joined the committee to "focus on the truth and to focus on the facts."...


#61 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 07:22 PM | Reply

Any investigation lacking any kind of adversarial component, like this one, is to be treated with a high degree of skepticism.

#39 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

apnews.com

The House Jan. 6 committee has interviewed more than 1,000 people who were directly or indirectly involved in the U.S. Capitol insurrection as it probes the violent attack and former President Donald Trump's unprecedented efforts to overturn his election defeat.

truth hurts

#62 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-03 07:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#58 ... Did I miss something? ...

From my understanding, your comment is spot on.


#63 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 07:25 PM | Reply

Pelosi said YES to the three, and NO to TWO of them.

Not her prerogative, at least in a normally functioning congress, which even she said was "an unprecedented decision".

You can throw a tantrum and pretend that those two aren't conservatives, aren't true Republicans, but they are exactly that.

They weren't selected by the Republicans, thats sort of the point, which makes it a partisan committee everyone knows this why is it in dispute?

#64 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-07-03 07:26 PM | Reply

From my understanding, your comment is spot on.

Which doesn't say much for your understanding.

#65 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-07-03 07:26 PM | Reply

Were Cheney and Kinzinger on McCarthy's list of 5? No, they weren't. So, how did they end up on the committee?

I told you they ended up on the committee because they bucked McCarthy's threats and took the consequences for choosing to be true to they oath they took to the Constitution. Cheney and Kizinger met with Pelosi, and then Pelosi announced they were being appointed to the committee.

I'm not sure how much plainer it could be. Cheney and Kizinger had both made it clear where they stood and they, unlike McConnell and McCarthy, didn't change their views on the horrible actions taken on January 6th.

Do you think no one pays attention?

How do you think they got appointed?

I can't believe I even had to answer such an obvious question, to be honest. It was in the press. Maybe Fox and Breitbart didn't cover it so you missed it?

Politico did an excellent job of covering it as I recall.

#66 | Posted by YAV at 2022-07-03 07:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

@#59 ... It takes an awfully high bar to criminally indict a president or ex-president. For example, out of expediency the CIA routinely breaks the law and oftentimes POTUS is not only aware but signed off. This is true for all presidents. It's an unspoken rule that presidents are not criminally prosecuted for stuff like that because, before we know it, EVERY single president will either end up facing indictment or be so gun-shy regarding making decisions that it harms the country. Democrats and Republicans both know this. To indict a president or ex the bar for the prosecution is simply much higher than indicting anyone else. ...

And now your current alias tries to fall back to Plan B --- the false equivalency argument. So typical.

That aside...

You need to explain why the equivalence of your supposition that the CIA breaks the law and POTUS signs off on it, with a sitting President actively encouraging an attack on the Capitol to negate the results of an election.

How are those two things equal?



#67 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 07:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This will be almost as fun as the 2nd Impeachment attempt - impeachment is an attempt to remove someone from office, so it was totally hilarious/ridiculous as President Trump was already out of office. Dems, doing show trials in an attempt vilify The Donald - LOL.

Have all the Trump haters looked at the number of those watching the Jan 6th charade? Guess what, not all that many dems are even paying attention to that total waste of out tax dollars. OF COURSE I do believe all the libbies here on the Retort are watching with 'baited breath' ; )

#5 | Posted by MSgt

Dems are doing trials to prove that this is still a nation of laws.

Do you think a fascist coup attempt should go uninvestigated and unprosecuted?

Why didn't your party vote to keep trump from running again when they had the change after they watched him try to overthrow democracy?

#68 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-03 07:30 PM | Reply

guys jeffj is just taking a page from the fascist handbook and obfuscating, it is what he does, cause he is a lazy lying piece of ----.

#69 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-03 07:30 PM | Reply

They weren't selected by the Republicans, thats sort of the point, which makes it a partisan committee everyone knows this why is it in dispute?

#64 | Posted by oneironaut

So you're saying that the 2 sides of partisanship aren't republican and democrat, they're trump cult members and non trump cult members. And to be bipartisan, it would need to include trump cult members who think jan 6th and the big lie were A-OK right?

I love how a bunch of REPUBLICANS UNDER OATH is called partisan. These people were trump loyalists and defenders when they weren't under oath. Put them under oath and suddenly they're not to be trusted and everything is unfair.

#70 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-03 07:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#60 ... So, how did they end up on the committee? ...

They were asked to participate, and they put their loyalty to the Constitution ahead of their loyalty to fmr Pres Trump. Unlike the three Reps that Rep McCarthy pulled back.

Had Rep McCarthy not pulled those three, there would have been three Trump loyalists on the Committee.

Maybe your beef is with Rep McCarthy? Have you written him a letter with your concerns?


#71 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 07:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

But back to my question - How did they end up on the committee?

#56 | Posted by BellRinger

By being the only 2 republicans with enough ethics and patriotism to say jan 6th was trumps fault and he should be held accountable.

What does that say about your party?

#72 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-03 07:34 PM | Reply

One would think that an attack on the Capitol and an attempt to overthrow an election would be worthy of a congressional investigation.

So, what is the problem here? That active participants in the overthrow attempt aren't on the committee doing the investigation?

I really can't understand republican logic, probably cause republicans are scum

#73 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-03 07:35 PM | Reply

"I told you they ended up on the committee because they bucked McCarthy's threats and took the consequences for choosing to be true to they oath they took to the Constitution. Cheney and Kizinger met with Pelosi, and then Pelosi announced they were being appointed to the committee."

So, the only Republicans on the committee are rabidly anti-Trump.

We are back to square-one - there isn't an iota of an adversarial component on this committee, which means everything the public sees is exactly what the committee wants the public to see, and nothing more.

#74 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:36 PM | Reply

@#64 ... Not her prerogative, at least in a normally functioning congress ..

The Jan 6 Committee is valid.

#75 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 07:37 PM | Reply

@#65 ... Which doesn't say much for your understanding. ...

And yet, your comment offers no reason or substantiation for that statement.

Do try harder.

#76 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 07:38 PM | Reply

"One would think that an attack on the Capitol and an attempt to overthrow an election would be worthy of a congressional investigation"

This isn't a broad, fact-finding investigation. It's a "get Trump" investigation and Pelosi's actions have made that abundantly clear. That's fine. Democrats have the majority and can investigate whatever they wish. But let's at least be honest about the end-game for this committee.

#77 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:39 PM | Reply

Maybe your beef is with Rep McCarthy? Have you written him a letter with your concerns?

Trump has.

#78 | Posted by YAV at 2022-07-03 07:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So, the only Republicans on the committee are rabidly anti-Trump.

We are back to square-one - there isn't an iota of an adversarial component on this committee, which means everything the public sees is exactly what the committee wants the public to see, and nothing more.

We're not back to square one. We've proven that you are a trump cultist that is obfuscating. You mischaracterize this committee's work as "trial." It is not, nor is any Congressional committee a trial. This is a hearing.

The work ot this committee is free of grandstanding, --------, lies, and garbage. You are excused in a small way given that the way your side has run "hearings" are exactly what you are wrongfully accusing the Democrats and Republicans (non-Trump over everything else'ers).

This is nothing like the eleven garbage Benghazi hearings which you thought were perfectly acceptable.

Hypocrite is such an understated term for what you are.

#79 | Posted by YAV at 2022-07-03 07:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

@#69 ... guys jeffj is just taking a page from the fascist handbook and obfuscating, ...

Oh that is obvious.

Especially when the oneironaut alias suddenly shows up to run blocking.

That sequence has happened so frequently here on this august site that it has become humorous.

Sometimes I sit here and wonder how many times do I need to prod the BellRinger alias before the oneironaut shows up.

Tonight it seemed to take a little longer than the usual. Maybe
 

@#69 ... guys jeffj is just taking a page from the fascist handbook and obfuscating, ...

Oh that is obvious.

Especially when the oneironaut alias suddenly shows up to run blocking.

That sequence has happened so frequently here on this august site that it has become humorous.

Sometimes I sit here and wonder how many times do I need to prod the BellRinger alias before the oneironaut shows up.

Tonight it seemed to take a little longer than the usual.





#80 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 07:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The Jan 6 Committee is valid.

#75 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2022-07-03 07:37 PM |"

It's every bit as valid as a Benghazi committee run by Darryl Issa. At least that committee had congressmen on it who were supportive of Clinton and the Obama administration.

#81 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

oops, sorry for the double post...

#82 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 07:45 PM | Reply

"#79 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2022-07-03 07:44 PM "

Your entire post is a straw man. And a big pile of projection to boot. Nice work.

Next!

#83 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:47 PM | Reply

@#74 ... So, the only Republicans on the committee are rabidly anti-Trump. ...

I would describe them as rabidly pro-Constitution.

If that happens to make them rabidly anti-Trump in your mind, well then maybe your comment has stumbled upon the reason why the Committee is investigating.

#84 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 07:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Lamplighter,

You are a passive-aggressive dolt. At this point I'm going to call it as it is.

#85 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

@#77 ... This isn't a broad, fact-finding investigation. It's a "get Trump" investigation ...

It is an investigation that started to look into what happened on Jan 6 and the days leading up to Jan 6.

As with all valid investigations, the Committee is going where the evidence leads them.

That the evidence seems to be pointing more and more towards fmr Pres Trump, well, no amount of your current alias' deflection attempts is not going to change that.

#86 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 07:51 PM | Reply

You despised both Cheney and Kinzinger, especially Cheney, until they went rabidly anti-Trump.

Justin Amash was and is rabidly anti-Trump too, but he was so from the get-go and didn't grandstand. He ultimately left his party over Trump. He didn't stick his finger in the wind with his opposition.

#87 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:53 PM | Reply

#86 I'm sure you've felt the EXACT same way about every Republican-lead investigation.

#88 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:54 PM | Reply

@#81 ... It's every bit as valid as a Benghazi committee run by Darryl Issa. ...

I have never said that the Benghazi Committee was invalid.

Indeed, I will say it here. The Benghazi Committee was valid.

There, happy?

I have also said that Republicans do not seem to know how to run valid investigative committees, and I use the Benghazi Committee as a prime example.

But this is just yet another deflection attempt of your current alias, no?


#89 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 07:55 PM | Reply

Yav is beyond hope. From what I gather, everything Democrats do is just and everything Republicans do is corrupt.

#90 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:55 PM | Reply

I never said the "get Trump" committee was invalid.

Indeed, I will say it here. The "Get Trump" committee is valid.

There, happy?

ALL committees are valid. You are engaging in a non-sequitur.

Some are better run and are more or less partisan than others.

According to Yav, this one is the best run and most bipartisan in the history of our country.

#91 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:58 PM | Reply

@#83 ... Your entire post is a straw man. And a big pile of projection to boot. Nice work.

Next!...

Wait.

Before we go on to the next, I have questions.

For starters, why is that entire post a strawman?

After that we can get into piles of whatever...

#92 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 07:58 PM | Reply

#92

Don't be Snoofy. I am not going to try and defend positions I've never taken. Stop with the passive-aggressive nonsense.

#93 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 07:59 PM | Reply

"It's every bit as valid as a Benghazi committee run by Darryl Issa. "

Horse manure. HRC was attacked for, among other things, military decisions she made about whether or not to send rescue missions. Just one problem: HRC wasn't in the military chain of command.

But that didn't stop Republicans.

Someone lacks a soul if they equate stuff based on lies, with stuff based on truth.

#94 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-03 08:05 PM | Reply

I love how Danforth fancies himself as the arbiter of truth.

#95 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 08:07 PM | Reply


@#85 ... You are a passive-aggressive dolt. ...

So, instead of answering a comment I pose about what your current alias posts, you resort to ad hominem attacks?

Are you really that unable to substantiate what you post here?

If your alias would prefer getting back on topic instead of the ad hominem attacks, here's the comment that was avoided...


@#74 ... So, the only Republicans on the committee are rabidly anti-Trump. ...

I would describe them as rabidly pro-Constitution.

If that happens to make them rabidly anti-Trump in your mind, well then maybe your comment has stumbled upon the reason why the Committee is investigating.


I can see why you might have trouble dealing with that.

But I'll give you a second try. :)

#96 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 08:07 PM | Reply

"For starters, why is that entire post a strawman?"

I have that question as well.

"You despised both Cheney and Kinzinger, especially Cheney, until they went rabidly anti-Trump. "

Thanks for proving my point: they were Always Trumpers until they pursued the truth.

Again, you don't get to pretend it's a partisan committee, just because the Republicans suddenly don't agree with YOU.

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-03 08:11 PM | Reply

Danforth,

I don't want to derail this page on a tangent. If I ask you a question about protests/investigations being based on a truth or lie on the nooner would you be willing to answer. It's not a combative question, it's seeking clarification.

#98 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 08:11 PM | Reply

#97 if they weren't chosen by Relublican leadership then it's absolutely partisan to the extent it's rabidly anti Trump. Please point to a single pro Trump member on the committee. And yes, McCarthy shoulders some blame for it.

#99 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 08:14 PM | Reply

@#87 .. You despised both Cheney and Kinzinger, especially Cheney, until they went rabidly anti-Trump. ...

No.

Let me say that again...

No.

As I have stated on this most august site previously, I had a strong disagreement with the political views of Rep Kinzinger and Rep Cheney. I still do.

However, when it comes to putting the Constitution over and above political views, in my view, Rep Cheney and Rep Kinzinger rose above the politics and the adulation of fmr Pres trump, and responded to the call of the Constitution.

The problem is not ~You despis[ing] both Cheney and Kinzinger, especially Cheney, until they went rabidly anti-Trump. ~

The problem, in my view, are those who place an unfettered adulation of, and loyalty to, fmr Pres Trump above their oath to the Constitution.

Let me say that again, because I think it is worth repeating...

The problem, in my view, are those who place an unfettered adulation of, and loyalty to, fmr Pres Trump above their oath to the Constitution.

#100 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 08:15 PM | Reply

@#90 ... Yav is beyond hope. ...

Again, an ad hominem attack with no substantiation.


#101 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 08:17 PM | Reply

#101 most posts directed at me are ad hominem. Tab's post was a combination of straw men and ad hominem.

#102 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 08:19 PM | Reply

@#98 ... I don't want to derail this page on a tangent. ...

And your aim for your past comments on this thread has been?

#103 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 08:20 PM | Reply

Tab = Yav

I absolutely despise my phone.

#104 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 08:22 PM | Reply

#97 if they weren't chosen by Relublican leadership then it's absolutely partisan to the extent it's rabidly anti Trump. Please point to a single pro Trump member on the committee. And yes, McCarthy shoulders some blame for it.

#99 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You don't see an issue with having a co-conspirator for -------- insurrection on the committee investigating said insurrection?

What a joke of a human being you are.

#105 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-03 08:22 PM | Reply

@#99 ... if they weren't chosen by Relublican leadership ...

Leader pelosi was willing to seat pro-Trumpers.

Rep Mccarthy chose not to put pro-Trumpers on the committee.

Have you written that letter to ask him why yet?



#106 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 08:23 PM | Reply

I absolutely despise my phone.

#104 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

It hates you too.

#107 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-03 08:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Leader pelosi was willing to seat pro-Trumpers.

Its not her choice.

#108 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-07-03 08:24 PM | Reply


It hates you too.
#107 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Wow really good come back ... You're killin it.

#109 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-07-03 08:25 PM | Reply

@#102 ... most posts directed at me are ad hominem. ...

You reap what you sow.

#110 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 08:26 PM | Reply

@#108 ,i> ... Its not her choice. ...

Whose choice is it?

#111 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 08:27 PM | Reply

"If that's your summation then you are the one doing the misrepresenting. "

You're FOS. The conclusion of the legal system was HRC had not committed serious crimes. Not liking a decision doesn't mean it's invalid; isn't that what you always remind others?

#112 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-03 08:30 PM | Reply

Leader pelosi was willing to seat pro-Trumpers.

Its not her choice.

Clearly it was. Duh.

#113 | Posted by YAV at 2022-07-03 08:58 PM | Reply

People who WHINE about the process are people who haven't seen and heard and read 90 percent of Trump's own lawyers testify to Trump having broken several criminal laws... AFTER he'd been told it was illegal.

Or to their sworn testimony that 10 percent of Trump's own lawyers helped him to plan and carry out what they and he KNEW were illegal actions.

But apparently those people just don't care that that's what happened... and is still happening.

#114 | Posted by Corky at 2022-07-03 09:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#113

One thing I noticed on this thread is that when either of the oneironaut or BellRinger aliases was confronted with a question about what they had posted, they seem to be a shrinking violet from answering, apparently preferring to deflect instead..

I've also seen similar behavior on other threads.

Maybe it is their bedtime. I've been there. I do need to go to sleep.

OK, let's chalk it up to that.

For now.

#115 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-07-03 09:50 PM | Reply

" And yes, McCarthy shoulders some blame for it."

Typical Republican: Republicans made 100% of the decision not to go with the first committee they would have ostensibly controlled, then McCarthy made 100% of the decision to put forth the two conspirators and the three others, and 100% of the decision to pull the three Trump-favoring Republicans ...

... so Bellringer has, magnanimously, admitted McCarthy shoulders SOME blame. Some.

Hack.

#116 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-04 12:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I've been telling y'all not to let your feelies get all wrapped up in Trump going to jail.

#117 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-07-04 09:45 AM | Reply

#116. Right. Pelosi nixing his first two choices played no role whatsoever.

Hack.

#118 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-04 10:39 AM | Reply

I've been telling y'all not to let your feelies get all wrapped up in Trump going to jail.

#117 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS A

Trump may or may not go to jail.

The question is: Are you fully behind his prosecution?

There is really only one good answer to that question.

#119 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-04 10:44 AM | Reply

Pelosi nixing his first two choices played no role whatsoever.

#118 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You know why they were nixed. Stop playing stupid.

Back to being a fascist already?

#120 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-04 10:46 AM | Reply

I still remember when DingDong and many others here said Roe would not be overturned and we were just being drama queens.

No reason to believe they have suddenly got a clue.

Trumpy will be indicted because his crimes can no longer be ignored.

What happens after that is anyones guess.

I also think he will be forced to announce his candidacy early in a attempt to head off the justice department and obstruct Justice as is his style.

#121 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-07-04 11:11 AM | Reply

Anyone who has a problem with Jim Jordan being on the committee but is totally fine with Adam Schiff being on it is a hack to the nth degree. Notice McCarthy wasn't given any veto power with Pelosi's choices. Darryl Issa never went that far.

#122 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-04 11:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

People like JeffJ demand Flat Earthers on the Science Committee.

Otherwise it isn't "fair and balanced."

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-04 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Anyone who has a problem with Jim Jordan being on the committee but is totally fine with Adam Schiff being on it is a hack to the nth degree. Notice McCarthy wasn't given any veto power with Pelosi's choices. Darryl Issa never went that far.

POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-07-04 11:43 AM | REPLY

GFYS you fascist.

#124 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-07-04 11:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

As I recall, Jim Jordan had a problem with Jim Jordan being on the committee.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-04 11:58 AM | Reply

This isn't a broad, fact-finding investigation. It's a "get Trump" investigation and Pelosi's actions have made that abundantly clear. That's fine. Democrats have the majority and can investigate whatever they wish. But let's at least be honest about the end-game for this committee.

#77 | POSTED BY BELLRINGE

Can you list some of the facts that the committee is ignoring? And please don't post the lie about epps

#126 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-04 12:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Anyone who has a problem with Jim Jordan being on the committee but is totally fine with Adam Schiff being on it is a hack to the nth degree.

#122 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Jordan was always implicated in Trump's crimes.

Why doesn't that matter to you, except that you support Trump's crimes?

#127 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-04 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#127 | POSTED BY ZED

Happy Fourth of July, supporting some of the worst Americans there ever were.

Remember not to replace your cigarette with that firecracker.

#128 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-04 12:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

please don't post the lie

You might as well ask him not to breath.

The moron's complaint is the criminals involved aren't allowed to serve on the committee.

He's a fkkking joke.

#129 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-07-04 12:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hack.
#116 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You're being too kind to that fkkking liar.

#130 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-07-04 12:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You might as well ask him not to breath.

#129 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

What's the harm in asking?

#131 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-04 12:15 PM | Reply

Can you list some of the facts that the committee is ignoring? And please don't post the lie about epps

#126 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

The point of the committee is to gather facts, if the facts are already known then we wouldn't need the committee.

It would be nice to know why security was so lax and weak. More important than who did this, wouldn't we want to prevent this from happening again? Do we think this will never happen again? Perhaps it was meant to probe our security?

This is why it's deemed a partisan committee, it's not about fact finding. Trump is guilty, now we just need to find some hearsay to back it up.

Everyone sees it for what it is, a show.

#132 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-07-04 12:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

" This is why it's deemed a partisan committee"

No it's not.

It's deemed partisan because McCarthy and the Republicans screwed up, and they have no one to blame but themselves ...

... which is NOT going to happen.

So Republicans are left with pretending long-time Republicans aren't real Republicans. So much for the party of responsibility.

#133 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-04 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The dems should go for it, because the one thing we know about him is that he loves winning and surely he'll get a kick out winning again : )

The more the dems try, the more they fail and show the world for the buffoons/losers that they are.

#134 | Posted by MSgt at 2022-07-04 02:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So, the only Republicans on the committee are rabidly anti-Trump.

We are back to square-one - there isn't an iota of an adversarial component on this committee, which means everything the public sees is exactly what the committee wants the public to see, and nothing more.

#74 | Posted by BellRinger

So your definition of "rabidly anti trump" is "anyone who doesn't buy the big lie".

You realize what that says about you and your party?

#135 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-04 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The more the dems try, the more they fail and show the world for the buffoons/losers that they are.

#134 | Posted by MSgt

You mean the more of trump's crimes the dems expose, the more the word sees the republican party for the cult of anti american cowards that they are.

#136 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-04 03:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The dems should go for it,"

Oh they are ... and they will. But when did respecting and enforcing the law become a responsibility only for Democrats???

#137 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-07-04 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There was an armed assault on the US Capital that got within 40 ft of assassinating the VP.

Had Trump said nothing after he lost the election none of the insurrectionists would have been in DC that day.

Yes we need to have a criminal investigation.

#138 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-04 04:47 PM | Reply

Maybe Fox and Breitbart didn't cover it so you missed it?

Politico did an excellent job of covering it as I recall.

#66 | Posted by YAV

Fox News' solution was to air what hearings they did with the sound off and blabbering mouthpieces jabbering nonstop.

And the couple of times I took a look they didn't even have a link on FoxNews.com to a single story about the hearings.

#139 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2022-07-04 06:10 PM | Reply

The point of the committee is to gather facts, if the facts are already known then we wouldn't need the committee.
I've been watching and so have those that have been reporting on the committee and there has been revealiation after revelation. It is amazing how much we didn't know.

It would be nice to know why security was so lax and weak. More important than who did this, wouldn't we want to prevent this from happening again? Do we think this will never happen again? Perhaps it was meant to probe our security?
This is proof you have no idea what's coming out in these hearings, and backs up my comment above. You are beyond clueless, and since you're on this site, that means it is intentional that you keep yourself so ignorant, or you know what's going on and you are choosing to lie.

This is why it's deemed a partisan committee, it's not about fact finding. Trump is guilty, now we just need to find some hearsay to back it up.
That's not the reason this committee exists, nor is that the focus of the hearings. Again you aren't paying any attention to what is ACTUALLY going on.

Everyone sees it for what it is, a show.
If you think this is a show then we all know what "news" you are listening to, you "liberal" (how f**king stupid do you think we all are?)

#140 | Posted by YAV at 2022-07-04 06:39 PM | Reply

Can you list some of the facts that the committee is ignoring?

It's truly a terrific question, and I'll wait for responses.

I'll add, the only facts that are not being addressed are known by those who refuse to testify or take the 5th. Why is that?

#141 | Posted by brass30 at 2022-07-04 11:02 PM | Reply

So, the only response to my question was that the committee, apparently, wasn't looking into security lapses on 1/6, which, if I remember correctly will be addressed in a future hearing-i.e. -------- actions on the day of the attack vis a vis security.

Is that it? Nothing on refuting the facts presented showing ------- tried a coup?

#142 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-04 11:15 PM | Reply

Why is all of the security camera footage being held at Fort Knox?

#143 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 11:52 AM | Reply

Why is all of the security camera footage being held at Fort Knox?

#143 | Posted by BellRinger

Why do you continue to spread conspiracy theories for a cult of fascists whose conspiracy theories have all been proven to be total lies?

#144 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 12:21 PM | Reply

You didn't answer my question, Speaksoftly.

#145 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 12:32 PM | Reply

Unless of course you are arguing that the footage has been released and I'm engaging in a conspiracy theory by alleging it hasn't.

#146 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 12:33 PM | Reply

Why do progressives oppose it being released?

#147 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 12:33 PM | Reply

Me thinks that is a conspiracy theory as google doesn't have any links (i.e. zero results) for a search-January 6, 2021 security camera footage stored fort knox

#148 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 12:36 PM | Reply

Why is all of the security camera footage being held at Fort Knox?

#143 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

Or Skinwalker Ranch?

#149 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-05 12:44 PM | Reply

It was hyperbole, Truthhurts.

It bothers me that the footage is being kept under lock and key. Given the stated importance of that event, we the public should be given as much information as possible.

I can't think of a single reason to hide the footage this long after the fact.

#150 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 12:44 PM | Reply

"stated" importance of that event?

#151 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-05 12:48 PM | Reply

You think Trump is being railroaded, which is something that Donald Trump, perhaps the biggest American criminal of the 21st Century, thanks you for.

#152 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-05 12:50 PM | Reply

You didn't answer my question, Speaksoftly.

#145 | Posted by BellRinger

No I categorized your question. Your question is intended to suggest that something is being hidden about jan 6th, just like all the questions about "antifa in disguise" and "nancy pelosi leaving the capitol unguarded on purpose"

The only things being hidden about 1/6 are from the people pleading the 5th. And funny story - they're all on trump's side.

You just want to find SOMETHING that hasn't been released and then use that as PROOF that your cult is somehow justified or didn't do anything wrong. Explanations dont matter, the implication is all you need. Same as how trump just wanted a DOJ official to call the election suspicious and he could handle the rest. Same as how trump just wanted ukraine to announce an investigation into hunter biden. Just need a HINT of something nefarious and repubs will blow it up into a full blown bengazi. That's what you're doing here with "HIDDEN VIDEOTAPES!" despite the record of the people you serve.

#153 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

HIDDEN VIDEOTAPES! is this weeks HUNTER BIDENS LAPTOP!

No discussion of what you're looking for on them, but it's got to be SOMETHING because they HIDDEN right?

#154 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 12:52 PM | Reply

#153 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Good exposition.

But you're reasoning with a fascist.

#155 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-05 12:52 PM | Reply

Given the stated importance of that event, we the public should be given as much information as possible.

#150 | Posted by BellRinger

Funny I dont remember you complaining about all the fascists who are pleading the 5th and refusing subpoenas.

You're JUST FINE with information being withheld if your cult is the one withholding it.

#156 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 12:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

HUNTER BIDENS LAPTOP!

#154 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Yeah, what happened to that laptop anyway? It appears to have melted away like dry ice. That's what happens to a conspiracy theory when it can't command a news cycle.

#157 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-05 12:55 PM | Reply

Pleading the 5th? So, you think your political opponents should lose their right to plead the 5th?

Talk about fascism.

Also, nice deflection. I take it you are opposed to having the footage released.

#158 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 01:01 PM | Reply

"Your question is intended to suggest....."

I stopped reading right there.

My question isn't "intending" anything. It's straightforward. WHY is this footage being withheld from the public? I would think you'd want to see the footage.

#159 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 01:02 PM | Reply

I can't think of a single reason to hide the footage this long after the fact.

#150 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2

You realize that some of that footage would be used in trials right?

Now think again

#160 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 01:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pleading the 5th? So, you think your political opponents should lose their right to plead the 5th?

Talk about fascism.

Also, nice deflection. I take it you are opposed to having the footage released.

#158 | Posted by BellRinger

YOu dont get to claim to be mr "we need all the info" while also defending the side that is hiding all the info they possibly can.

#161 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 01:05 PM | Reply

Do you have any theories on what exculpatory evidence could be on the unseen footage?

#162 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 01:05 PM | Reply


You realize that some of that footage would be used in trials right?
Now think again

#160 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

What about footage shown in the "J/6 show"? Is that now inadmissible?

So cops shouldn't have to release footage of their kills?

nice try ...

#163 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-07-05 01:07 PM | Reply

Do you have any theories on what exculpatory evidence could be on the unseen footage?

Doesn't matter.

#164 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-07-05 01:08 PM | Reply

#161 Why are you opposed to the footage being released? It's raw evidence.

#165 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 01:09 PM | Reply

"Do you have any theories on what exculpatory evidence could be on the unseen footage?

#162 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-07-05 01:05 PM | REPLY"

I have no theories at all. I haven't seen any of the security camera footage and am not speculating as to what it might reveal.

#166 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 01:10 PM | Reply

"You realize that some of that footage would be used in trials right?"

In one trial some footage netted an acquittal.

I do see your point which raises another question - why in the hell is it taking so long for these people to get a trial?

#167 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 01:12 PM | Reply

I stopped reading right there.

My question isn't "intending" anything. It's straightforward. WHY is this footage being withheld from the public? I would think you'd want to see the footage.

#159 | Posted by BellRinger

Of course you did. Because you cant deny that you're just a footsoldier participating in trump's cult latest propaganda effort - suggest dems are hiding something in order to discredit the undeniable overwhelming damning evidence.

Your cult uses the same play over and over - find one thing you don't have access to and imply that its the secret thing that would vindicate your cult and destroy your enemies and this is why it's unfairly being kept from you.

#168 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 01:13 PM | Reply

#161 Why are you opposed to the footage being released? It's raw evidence.

#165 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Because it's existence and dissemination would allow conspirators to change their stories

It is pretty basic police work

#169 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 01:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I do see your point which raises another question - why in the hell is it taking so long for these people to get a trial?

#167 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

1000 defendants 100,000 documents

#170 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 01:15 PM | Reply

#169 Honestly, I don't understand that particular argument........

#168 More straw men. Again, WHY are you opposed to the release of the footage. I sort of understand where Truthhurts is coming from - legal cases are still pending. I think it's criminal that these people have been languishing this long without a trial, but I do understand Truthhurts' position and it's probably the primary reason why the footage is being kept from the public eye.

#171 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 01:18 PM | Reply

"I think it's criminal that these people have been languishing this long without a trial"

Kalief Browder laughs at you from his grave.

#172 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2022-07-05 01:20 PM | Reply

People are entitled to a quick trial in this country.

Nevertheless, I think Truthhurts' explanation as to why the footage hasn't been released does make sense in the context of our legal system. And that explanation is probably why we don't have a massive outcry for the footage to be released at this time. I will say this - once the last legal case has been settled the footage absolutely should be released.

#173 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 01:21 PM | Reply

I assume we will not hear this argument for Jeff's again

Lol

#174 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 01:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

From jeffj

#175 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 01:22 PM | Reply

There are also national security concerns given the video is from inside the capitol

#176 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 01:24 PM | Reply

I find it strange that so many Trumpers such as Bellringer apparently have complete faith that Trump will not be indicted. Seems to me that such people are disconnected from the quickly evolving reality. It is starting to seem like desperate wishful thinking.

#177 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-07-05 01:31 PM | Reply

#168 More straw men. Again, WHY are you opposed to the release of the footage. I sort of understand where Truthhurts is coming from - legal cases are still pending. I think it's criminal that these people have been languishing this long without a trial, but I do understand Truthhurts' position and it's probably the primary reason why the footage is being kept from the public eye.

#171 | Posted by BellRinger

Speaking of straw men - where did I say I'm opposed to the release of the footage?

I didn't. I said you are following the trump playbook of searching for ANYTHING you dont have access to so you can imply that this is the thing that would exonerate you and destroy your opposition. Just like hunter biden's laptop.

Now that truthhurts has given you the no-duh common sense explanation, are you going to accept it or spend weeks whining about the "hidden footage" as if it's some sort of conspiracy?

#178 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 01:31 PM | Reply

People are entitled to a quick trial in this country.

#173 | Posted by BellRinger

Translation "can we wrap this up before even more horrible facts for my cult are discovered so we can make the bleeding stop?"

#179 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 01:34 PM | Reply

#177 I don't care if Trump is indicted. He's scum. I am simply pointing out how difficult it is in this country to secure a criminal indictment of a president or former president. That's not a partisan observation nor is it a pro (or anti) Trump statement. It's a statement of reality that history has borne out time and time again.

#180 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 01:35 PM | Reply

"Translation "can we wrap this up before even more horrible facts for my cult are discovered so we can make the bleeding stop?"

#179 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2022-07-05 01:34 PM | "

No. Unlike you and your fascist cult, I believe that justice should be evenly applied and that ALL who are prosecuted are entitled to a speedy trial as outlined in the Constitution.

#181 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 01:37 PM | Reply

#177 I don't care if Trump is indicted. He's scum. I am simply pointing out how difficult it is in this country to secure a criminal indictment of a president or former president. That's not a partisan observation nor is it a pro (or anti) Trump statement. It's a statement of reality that history has borne out time and time again.

#180 | Posted by BellRinger

No president has every tried to ovethrow the government on live tv before. Only the one that your cult worships more than any other leader.

#182 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 01:53 PM | Reply

No. Unlike you and your fascist cult, I believe that justice should be evenly applied and that ALL who are prosecuted are entitled to a speedy trial as outlined in the Constitution.

#181 | Posted by BellRinger

I'm sorry that your cult's conspiracy was so vast that it takes a long time to uncover it all. Maybe you could encourage them to cooperate instead of refusing subpoenas and pleading the 5th if you really want this to be over quicker.

#183 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 01:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I am simply pointing out how difficult it is in this country to secure a criminal indictment of a president or former president. "

After you apparently asked what's taking so long??

"People are entitled to a quick trial in this country."

Seriously. GFY and your stupid questions.

Trumpy will get his trial but he has to be indicted first.

When was the last President ever indicted?

I will answer. Never.

"In the 240 years since America's founding, no former president has been indicted for criminal conduct. This isn't because they were angels"far from it. And it isn't because post-term indictment is not legally allowed. Instead, it is because Americans don't like the idea of criminalizing politics."

But Trumpy loves to upend the political norms this country has observed for all of its existence.

So let's have at it. Time to break another Norm.

Just for Trumpy. He's earned it.

#184 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-07-05 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So let's have at it. Time to break another Norm.
Just for Trumpy. He's earned it."

Yep, time to make Trump the exception that proves the rule, and for the very reason Speaks stated:
"No president has every tried to ovethrow the government on live tv before."

#185 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-05 01:59 PM | Reply

Bears repeating:

I'm sorry that your cult's conspiracy was so vast that it takes a long time to uncover it all. Maybe you could encourage them to cooperate instead of refusing subpoenas and pleading the 5th if you really want this to be over quicker.

#186 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-05 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It's a statement of reality that history has borne out time and time again."

When?
Which Presidents was it hard to get an indictment against?

#187 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-05 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#187

What President has ever been indicted?

#188 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2022-07-05 03:18 PM | Reply

"Maybe you could encourage them to cooperate instead of refusing subpoenas and pleading the 5th if you really want this to be over quicker.

#183 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2022-07-05 01:54 PM"

I am talking about those who have been arrested for unlawfully entering the capitol building. It seems extreme that 18 months later some are still languishing in jail cells without a trial.

#189 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 04:56 PM | Reply

It seems extreme that 18 months later some are still languishing in jail cells without a trial.

#189 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Just imagine they are Black kids who knocked over a convenience store.

#190 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-05 04:59 PM | Reply

Zedd, bellringer has a point the insurrectionist that went into the Capitol Building should have been shot on site rather than put in prison.

#191 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-05 05:01 PM | Reply

#190 Do you have evidence to back that up?

#192 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 05:03 PM | Reply

I am talking about those who have been arrested for unlawfully entering the capitol building. It seems extreme that 18 months later some are still languishing in jail cells without a trial.

#189 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT

LOL

the approximately 40 defendants who are being held without bail are those with the most serious charges and those who were deemed a flight risk, so, no, not for unlawfully entering the capitol building. Why do you lie?

I am sure that you have the same concerns for the 37 people remaining in gitmo over 20 years without a trial.

#193 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 05:08 PM | Reply

OK, so they are deemed a flight risk. Why haven't they had a trial by now?

#194 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 05:11 PM | Reply

1,000 defendants, 100,000 documents

#195 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 05:12 PM | Reply

And why do YOU lie, Truthhurts?

"ore than 840 people have been arrested for storming the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, with charges ranging from obstruction of an official proceeding to assault. But 17 months after the attempted insurrection, a significant number of rioters are still awaiting their sentencing.

Only around a quarter of those arrested"185 individuals"have received criminal sentences, while the rest are waiting for their trials or haven't yet reached plea agreements."

time.com

#196 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 05:13 PM | Reply

All it would have taken was a single submachine gun and we could have killed every insurrectionist on the second floor of the Capitol building.

Think of all the money we could have saved.

#197 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-05 05:14 PM | Reply

-Just imagine they are Black kids who knocked over a convenience store.

Interesting comparison. Somehow these folks walked into the Capitol building untouched and walked out....untouched.

Soon, it was determined that it was an event larger than 9-11.....but some black kids hitting a C-store wouldn't have gotten in and and out if law enforcement had been there.

so strange......

and I agree with Tor....they should have been shot on site.

#198 | Posted by eberly at 2022-07-05 05:16 PM | Reply

#197 I know, right.

A handful of submachine guns could have taken care of the protestors who remained outside the capitol building. Kill them all! You sound like Zed.

#199 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 05:16 PM | Reply

And why do YOU lie, Truthhurts?
"ore than 840 people have been arrested for storming the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, with charges ranging from obstruction of an official proceeding to assault. But 17 months after the attempted insurrection, a significant number of rioters are still awaiting their sentencing.
Only around a quarter of those arrested"185 individuals"have received criminal sentences, while the rest are waiting for their trials or haven't yet reached plea agreements."
time.com

#196 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

It seems extreme that 18 months later some are still languishing in jail cells without a trial.
#189 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You are so ------- stupid, you lying piece of ----.

from a quick search 40 remain jailed waiting trial because they are flight risk, face severe charges or broke the terms of their bail

Your concern now are those that are HOME awaiting trial?

1,000 defendants, 100,000 documents

add in covid and you get the picture of the challenge that the DoJ has to deal with, this being probably the largest criminal investigation in our nation's history.

#200 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 05:20 PM | Reply

I am talking about those who have been arrested for unlawfully entering the capitol building. It seems extreme that 18 months later some are still languishing in jail cells without a trial.

#189 | Posted by BellRinger

Ever heard of a traffic jam? How cars move more slowly when there are more of them on the road?

This is like that, but for fascists.

Idiot.

#201 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 05:20 PM | Reply

Jeffj, the lying pos, has to cry crocodile tears cause he has no other way to defend his fascist bretheren

#202 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 05:24 PM | Reply

I think the capitals Security Forces didn't have enough bullets for all the treasonous losers.

I think that was done to them by somebody who didn't want them to be able to defend congress or the vice president.

#203 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-05 05:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#200 I haven't been able to find how many are still in jail (as opposed to being released and awaiting trial). I've tried a couple of different searches.

I have no problem admitting I'm wrong if that ends up being the case.

#204 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 05:30 PM | Reply

Kill them all! You sound like Zed.

#199 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Killing Ashli Babbitt saved innocent lives.

If they'd breached the House Chambers prior to evacuation, killing a few more would have saved yet others. The guns were drawn.

Any rioter tries to break down my door gets shot. Now, that's a good use of the 2nd Amendment.

Trump's Traitors got off easy.

#205 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-05 05:31 PM | Reply

"Interesting comparison. Somehow these folks walked into the Capitol building untouched and walked out....untouched."

I heard Carol Leonnig mention last week that the cops didn't do more to stop the insurrectionists on January 6th because they feared a "bloodbath". She said this after the Cassidy Hutchinson hearing when the video was shown of insurrectionists with guns, some of them AR-15s, some of them with Glocks, some of them up in trees sniper-style. I'd like to know more about why the cops held their fire and why the national guard wasn't sent in, etc.:

Secret Service let down Capitol cops who feared a 'bloodbath' if they fired on Jan. 6 protesters: reporter

"There's a lot of oh, well, Donald Trump may have said that he wanted to take down the MAGs. He wanted to let people continue to carry weapons and come to his rally, but we just " we just dissed that. We'll never violate our protocols," Leonnig explained. "But where were the arrests of these people with weapons? Because the reason Capitol Police did not fire on anybody that day who were literally almost killing their own soldiers in arms, killing the police, they were almost at the stage of killing multiple police officers, heart attacks, spears, bear spray, heart attacks, everything. Why didn't they do that? Because they were afraid of a bloodbath. They were afraid if they pulled the trigger it would start all of the people who were armed who they knew were armed in the crowd firing back and then it would have been civil war on the steps of the Capitol."

www.rawstory.com

#206 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-05 05:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lets parse what jeffj argued in this thread alone

------- wouldn't be indicted
Deflection to Hillary
Deflection to W
Defense of ------- (implication no investigation of him)
Defense of ------- (all leaks are about him)
Attacks investigation
Criticizes Committee for not have ------- supporters on it-several posts defending the indefensible
Criticizes Kinzinger and Cheney being on committee
Compares 1/6 committee to benghazi hearings
Whine about being "attacked"
After getting his ass kicked on the make up of the committee changes tack to
Where is the missing video footage
After getting his ass kicked on why footage is being "withheld" he changes tack to
Concern for the poor poor insurrectionists being held without bail

What a pathetic sack of ---- jeffj is

#207 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 05:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#205 Some of Colbert's people twice illegally breached the capitol building recently. Should they have been shot dead?

#208 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 05:40 PM | Reply

Zed and everyone else just ignore the stupid Russians they are literally being paid to play dumb.

#209 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-05 05:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I see Douchehurts, after a brief hiatus. is returning back to D-Bag form.

At least everything feels normal again.

#210 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 05:40 PM | Reply

www.npr.org

While it doesn't say where all the insurrectionist charged currently are, this is a comprehensive list of the insurrectionists charged

#211 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 05:41 PM | Reply

Capitol Breach Cases

Below is a list of defendants charged in federal court in the District of Columbia related to crimes committed at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C, on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021.

Every case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. Following arrests, or surrender, defendants must appear before district court magistrate/judge where the arrest takes place, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

www.justice.gov

FBIs most wanted listed for Capitol Violence

www.fbi.gov

#212 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-05 05:42 PM | Reply

#205 Some of Colbert's people twice illegally breached the capitol building recently. Should they have been shot dead?

#208 | Posted by BellRinger

Were they violent and trying to overthrow demoracy?

Your WHATABOUTS are the most pathetic things ive ever seen.

#213 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 05:44 PM | Reply

I see Douchehurts, after a brief hiatus. is returning back to D-Bag form.

At least everything feels normal again.

#210 | Posted by BellRinger

He just slayed you and your record on this thread and all you can do is call names.

#214 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 05:45 PM | Reply

Zed and everyone else just ignore the stupid Russians they are literally being paid to play dumb.

#209 | POSTED BY TOR AT

Are you saying that these are cynical, mercenary, fanatics?

I need a moment...

#215 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-05 05:45 PM | Reply

They're closer to nihilists who like money.

They're only real ideology is whatever Putin tells them it is.

They're much like prostitutes really.

#216 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-05 05:47 PM | Reply

"Were they violent and trying to overthrow demoracy?"

Some of the people who were convicted for their actions that day were a misdemeanor charge of "unlawful parading". Some of those present were engaged in violent behavior and have received 4+ year sentences. Plenty have plead to misdemeanor 'unlawful parading' for entering an open door, walking around inside for about 15 minutes or so, and then leaving.

#217 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 05:48 PM | Reply

Some of Colbert's people twice illegally breached the capitol building recently.

Actually they were in a nearby office building, not the Capitol.

#218 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-07-05 05:49 PM | Reply

He's playing dumb redial ignore him.

#219 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-05 05:50 PM | Reply

#214 Um, no he didn't. Not in the slightest.

I do give him credit though. I was bothered by the withholding of the video footage and his explanation made complete sense and when I thought about the reason for the withholding based on the reasoning he laid out it made perfect sense to me.

It's called "having a discussion." I don't fancy myself as some kind of perfect human being. I have flaws and make mistakes. I try very hard to be open-minded but sometimes fail in that regard. When I do make an obvious mistake I make a point of admitting it.

#220 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 05:52 PM | Reply

"I think the capitals Security Forces didn't have enough bullets for all the treasonous losers.
I think that was done to them by somebody who didn't want them to be able to defend congress or the vice president."

So, you're asserting ammo was taken from them prior to the insurrection?

How much? By whom?

#221 | Posted by eberly at 2022-07-05 05:54 PM | Reply

The most likely culprit is the person who stood to gain the most if there was a successful insurrection.

#222 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-05 05:55 PM | Reply

"I'd like to know more about why the cops held their fire and why the national guard wasn't sent in, etc.:"

I would as well.

But as you can see, folks are willing to just fill in the blanks with their own theories.

#223 | Posted by eberly at 2022-07-05 05:56 PM | Reply

Some of the people who were convicted for their actions that day were a misdemeanor charge of "unlawful parading". Some of those present were engaged in violent behavior and have received 4+ year sentences. Plenty have plead to misdemeanor 'unlawful parading' for entering an open door, walking around inside for about 15 minutes or so, and then leaving.

#217 | Posted by BellRinger

...all in an effort to overthrow democracy. Not to celebrate the 4th of july. Funny how you leave that part out.

#224 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 05:57 PM | Reply

When I do make an obvious mistake I make a point of admitting it.

#220 | Posted by BellRinger

When do you admit your obvious mistake of spending years deflecting for trump, inventing false equivalencies for him, and giving him and his cult the endless benefit of the doubt?

On your death bed?

#225 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 05:59 PM | Reply

#214 Um, no he didn't. Not in the slightest.
I do give him credit though. I was bothered by the withholding of the video footage and his explanation made complete sense and when I thought about the reason for the withholding based on the reasoning he laid out it made perfect sense to me.
It's called "having a discussion." I don't fancy myself as some kind of perfect human being. I have flaws and make mistakes. I try very hard to be open-minded but sometimes fail in that regard. When I do make an obvious mistake I make a point of admitting it.

#220 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahahahAHAHAHA
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahahahAHAHAH
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahahahAHAHA
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahahahAHAH
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahahahAHA
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahahahAH
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahahahA
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahahah
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahaha
hAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahah
ahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhaha
hahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhah
ahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahha
hahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahh
ahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHah
hahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa
hhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
ahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahahahAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahahahAHAHAHAH

HA

#226 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 05:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It case it isn't clear I find Jeff's #220 post a tad amusing

#227 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 06:00 PM | Reply

"folks are willing to just fill in the blanks with their own theories."

You asked.

#228 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-05 06:02 PM | Reply

#226 That post, while interesting looking, probably violates this site's moderation policy.

#229 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 06:02 PM | Reply

FFS Trurhhurts,

I know you are incapable of taking the L, but are you also incapable of taking the W?

As it pertains to the sealed footage, I was bothered by its lack of release. You made a completely logical argument as to why and I credited you for it and adjusted my view. While I didn't view that particular discussion as a competition, if it was a competition, you got the W. Good for you. More importantly, through reason you were able to get me to alter my view on that particular issue. You should be happy about that outcome.

But apparently, that's not good enough for you.

#230 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 06:06 PM | Reply

I take it you are opposed to having the footage released.
#158 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You mean the CCTV footage showing Romney being guided away from the insurrectionist mob by a capitol police officer?

That footage? It's already been released.

#231 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2022-07-05 06:13 PM | Reply

I take it you are opposed to having the footage released.
#158 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER
You mean the CCTV footage showing Romney being guided away from the insurrectionist mob by a capitol police officer?
That footage? It's already been released.

#231 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH1

After reading the above, there is ZERO doubt in my mind but that Jeffy is trolling you. He knows how dishonest he is being. This constant moving of the goal post and throwing up of strawmen is insulting. No surprise so many of us have him plonked

#232 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-07-05 06:24 PM | Reply

FFS Trurhhurts,
I know you are incapable of taking the L, but are you also incapable of taking the W?
As it pertains to the sealed footage, I was bothered by its lack of release. You made a completely logical argument as to why and I credited you for it and adjusted my view. While I didn't view that particular discussion as a competition, if it was a competition, you got the W. Good for you. More importantly, through reason you were able to get me to alter my view on that particular issue. You should be happy about that outcome.
But apparently, that's not good enough for you.

#230 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I won't be satisfied until you stop lying.

You can start by admitting who your other sock puppet accounts are and who you were before bellringer

until then my job isn't done

#233 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 06:25 PM | Reply

As it pertains to the sealed footage, I was bothered by its lack of release. You made a completely logical argument as to why and I credited you for it and adjusted my view. While I didn't view that particular discussion as a competition, if it was a competition, you got the W. Good for you. More importantly, through reason you were able to get me to alter my view on that particular issue. You should be happy about that outcome.

But apparently, that's not good enough for you.

#230 | Posted by BellRinger

That's because your knee jerk reaction is to defend the fascist who tried to overthrow democracy.
And try to imply there is an anti trump conspiracy.
Before you even use the slightest big of logic.

#234 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 06:27 PM | Reply

"#226 That post, while interesting looking, probably violates this site's moderation policy."

Is that the post that has shot the margin lengths all to hell?

#235 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-05 06:35 PM | Reply

Don't you just love it when Jeff thinks he is sporting a codpiece. That's just yesterday's food creating a fart bubble in his drawers.

#236 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-07-05 06:36 PM | Reply

Is that the post that has shot the margin lengths all to hell?

Yes. He does that a lot.

#237 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-07-05 06:53 PM | Reply

Jesus effing Christ Truthhurts. Did you have to ---- up the fridge layout??

#238 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-07-05 07:58 PM | Reply

Retort layout of course. ------- phone.

#239 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-07-05 08:00 PM | Reply

#226 | POSTED BY DOUCHSQUIRTS

You stupid, unhinged Incel ----.

You ------ up the formatting

#240 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-07-05 08:16 PM | Reply

#226 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Please don't do this.

For us smartphone users, it ----- up the page formatting.

Thank you

#241 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-07-05 08:30 PM | Reply

#240 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

You really need to stop beating around the bush like that.

#242 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-07-05 08:36 PM | Reply

#242 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Not trying to be a dick, but for ----- sake.....

#243 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-07-05 08:40 PM | Reply

I hear ya.

#244 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-07-05 08:44 PM | Reply

#213

"Your WHATABOUTS are the most pathetic things ive ever seen."

What a frigging hypocrite. Check your responses on any story critical of Joementia. They're ALL whatabouts, 100% of the time.

#245 | Posted by willowby at 2022-07-05 09:02 PM | Reply

What a frigging hypocrite. Check your responses on any story critical of Joementia. They're ALL whatabouts, 100% of the time.

#245 | Posted by willowby

What a friggin liar. Ive ranted about joe being a delusional moderate on a daily basis.

But he temporarily saved the nation from the fascist con man that you can't stop defending.

#246 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-05 09:10 PM | Reply

#246

It should be easy for you then to post something from my history defending Trump, unless you're just a bald faced liar.

#247 | Posted by willowby at 2022-07-05 09:42 PM | Reply

#247 He's a proven bald faced liar.

#248 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 09:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Speaksoftly's been critical of Biden. In fact he posted that he's delusional and that Sanders has more energy and mental sharpness than Biden recently enough for me to remember it. It was in agreement with TruthHurts who IIRC was even more critical of Biden. You should be able to find it in his post history.

#249 | Posted by YAV at 2022-07-05 09:56 PM | Reply

@249 All true. Speaks has been highly critical of Biden, Garland and moderate Dems, so much so that it's almost like a mantra for him.

#250 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-05 09:59 PM | Reply

#249 Sighhhhhhh oh what could have been.

#251 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-07-05 10:02 PM | Reply

Speaksoftly was originally critical of Biden because he viewed him as Hillary 2.0. Biden has been even further left than Obama was (although not as far left as Obama wished to be albeit pesky checks and balances). Biden has at least temporarily implemented to the left of what Sanders could have accomplished.

#252 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 10:06 PM | Reply

I should have said comment, not story. Check that.

#253 | Posted by willowby at 2022-07-05 10:13 PM | Reply

Speaksoftly was originally critical of Biden because he viewed him as Hillary 2.0. Biden has been even further left than Obama was (although not as far left as Obama wished to be albeit pesky checks and balances). Biden has at least temporarily implemented to the left of what Sanders could have accomplished.

#252 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-07-05 10:06 PM | REPLY

You lie like a rug Jeff. None of the three are leftists. They are conservative Democrats. Can't you just be honest for once Jeff??

#254 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-07-05 10:18 PM | Reply

Biden has been even further left than Obama

Neither are "left".

They're just further left than you.

But that's not saying much.

#255 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-07-05 10:23 PM | Reply

#254 Conservative Democrats my ass. They are barely to the right of Hugo Chavez

#256 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-05 10:26 PM | Reply

#256 LOL I love it when you talk silly.

#257 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-05 10:56 PM | Reply

Please don't do this.
For us smartphone users, it ----- up the page formatting.
Thank you
#241 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Ya'll are being so polite. ---------, TH, knock it off with those stupid margin mucking up posts.

#258 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-05 11:00 PM | Reply

oh ---- all you all cant take a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:O)

#259 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-05 11:09 PM | Reply

Sorry: ya'll = y'all

Or could also be yall.

I should have gone with yinz.

;-)

#260 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-05 11:28 PM | Reply

#259 Let's just say, your punchline runneth over.

#261 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-05 11:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It should be easy for you then to post something from my history defending Trump, unless you're just a bald faced liar.

#247 | Posted by willowby

Complaining constantly about biden destroying the country and being mentally unfit,
while being silent on the far greater damage trump did and his far worse mental state
IS a defense of trump. You just lack the balls to come out and do it directly because
you want denyability.

If mental fitness is a problem for presidents, why would you be silent on the most
mentally unfit president we've ever had while whining constantly about biden?

#262 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-06 01:25 PM | Reply

#262. So any criticism of Biden is a defense of Trump? Nice logic.

#263 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-06 01:40 PM | Reply

#262. So any criticism of Biden is a defense of Trump? Nice logic.

#263 | Posted by BellRinger

Any criticism of biden in an area that trump was far worse on
without also criticizing trump is a defense of trump.

It's like the catholic church calling micheal jackson was a pedophile.
Sure it may be true, but if pedophiles are a problem the church
is the far worse issue that did way more damage.

#264 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-06 02:09 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort