January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[ardilla secreta]

^^^ How surprising is it that a habitual liar has a problem with liars being forced to tell the truth?

Are you talking about Pete or Don?

[a fan]

Yes, what brilliant legal advice. Just show up to an adversarial and hostile group who aren’t interested in any facts, just a pre written narrative, exposing you to almost limitless legal liability if you happen to mix up an irrelevant time, name, or spot. ?

Hillary did it. And now that I think of it.....kudos to Hillary for showing up at those pointless Congressional hearings, and taking the heat.

Because apparently the new normal for Pete's neat-o Republican party is to run and hide, and not face the Representatives of the citizens who pay your salary.

Gotta say, Pete, you're a terrible salesman for this party that you think is so cool.

[Typical Lax Dad]

[Typical Lax Dad]

[a fan]

I pointed this out at the time. The sales pitch from Republicans was that they made up the story that they were attacked by spontaneous protesters because it 'sounded better".

I responded: what the F are you talking about? In what world does it sound better that that post was so poorly defended that couldn't withstand a piddly angry mob?

The truth sounds WAY better......that that post was overwhelmed by an entirely preplanned and coordinated attack from well armed nutjob terrorists.


And Congress spent a laughable four years chasing after this entirely irrelevant and pointless fact. Hillary, for once, is right: who cares WHY they attacked? They attacked, and Hillary' (if you want to blame her for security) or her State Department F'ed up, and Americans died. It was fixed within weeks of the attack....and the four years was theater to shut down Hillary's POTUS run.

And it worked, of course. But sure...it was about truth and National Security matters.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I pointed this out at the time. The sales pitch from Republicans was that they made up the story that they were attacked by spontaneous protesters because it 'sounded better".

I responded: what the F are you talking about? In what world does it sound better that that post was so poorly defended that couldn't withstand a piddly angry mob?

The truth sounds WAY better......that that post was overwhelmed by an entirely preplanned and coordinated attack from well armed nutjob terrorists.


And Congress spent a laughable four years chasing after this entirely irrelevant and pointless fact. Hillary, for once, is right: who cares WHY they attacked? They attacked, and Hillary' (if you want to blame her for security) or her State Department F'ed up, and Americans died. It was fixed within weeks of the attack....and the four years was theater to shut down Hillary's POTUS run.

And it worked, of course. But sure...it was about truth and National Security matters.

Old Sailor let this die shortly after Trump won. When is Durham going to release the indictments for his real investigation?

[a fan]

Old Sailor let this die shortly after Trump won. When is Durham going to release the indictments for his real investigation?

You and I know that Durham's right-as-rain, honest to goodness, non-Deep-State weaponizing of US Intel........will arrive as close to November as Durham can "coincidentally" release it.

And the more of a nothing burger it is? They closer he'll take it to the days before the election, to make sure no one can verify any of his claims.

Either that, or he'll pull the SOP, and hold of until October of 2024.

[ggait]

Butter e-mails seems even more ridiculous now.

How could anyone take that seriously as compared to the trump one-man crime wave from Election Day through 1/6.

Like comparing jaywalking to arson.

[old salt]

Look, over there. Her emails had nothing to do with the stupidity that killed 4 brave Americans.
She needed a deliverable before the next election. We came, we saw, he died.
Benghazi's just a punch line. Nothing done to save them. Sh!t happens.

[Peter Brown]

Yes, what brilliant legal advice. Just show up to an adversarial and hostile group who aren’t interested in any facts, just a pre written narrative, exposing you to almost limitless legal liability if you happen to mix up an irrelevant time, name, or spot. ?

Hillary did it. And now that I think of it.....kudos to Hillary for showing up at those pointless Congressional hearings, and taking the heat.

Because apparently the new normal for Pete's neat-o Republican party is to run and hide, and not face the Representatives of the citizens who pay your salary.

Gotta say, Pete, you're a terrible salesman for this party that you think is so cool.

Are you comparing the treatment of an establishment icon by a 50/50 balanced committee, to the treatment of a regular schlub by a 100% partisan committee?

Ayfkm???

[CU88]

Happy 4th of July!


THE POST'S VIEW
Opinion We can no longer avoid a criminal investigation into Donald Trump
Image without a caption
By the Editorial Board
July 2, 2022 at 7:00 a.m. EDT

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 is undoubtedly guilty of serious crimes and must be tried. Others insist that the criminal case against Mr. Trump still is not airtight, and that prosecuting a former president would tear apart the country. What is beyond doubt is that an intensive criminal investigation must proceed.

Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
The committee heard June 28 from Cassidy Hutchinson, who was a top Trump White House aide. Ms. Hutchinson said that Mr. Trump instructed his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to talk to conservative provocateur Roger Stone the night before the Capitol attack. Mr. Stone was photographed on Jan. 6 with members of the far-right Oath Keepers organization, multiple members of which were allegedly involved in the assault. She said that she heard mention of the Oath Keepers and the fringe Proud Boys group during the run-up to Jan. 6, when Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was around.

Ms. Hutchinson also testified that Mr. Meadows sought to attend a Jan. 5 “war room” that included Mr. Giuliani, former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon and other extremists. She said Mr. Meadows relented after she protested that the White House chief of staff should not be involved, but that he said he would dial in to the meetings.


This testimony underscores questions about precisely what Mr. Trump and his senior staff knew about what would unfold the next day.

Ms. Hutchinson testified that, on Jan. 6 itself, Mr. Trump was told that the crowd that he had assembled was armed. He nevertheless urged the mob to march on the Capitol, fight and show strength — and, according to Ms. Hutchinson and by his own admission, Mr. Trump wanted to accompany them.

The public needs more information. That requires the committee to hear from more witnesses, which in turn requires the Justice Department to prosecute those, such as Mr. Meadows, who have defied committee subpoenas. It also means the department should examine seriously concerns that Trump allies are trying to influence Jan. 6 committee witnesses.

And, yes, the department should conduct a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump himself. Attorney General Merrick Garland appears to be treating this prospect with a high degree of care, and appropriately so. A new administration prosecuting a former president of the opposite party would set a perilous precedent; one need only look at the long record of failed democracies abroad, in which new leaders tried those they deposed, to see the danger. Prosecuting Mr. Trump also risks helping him politically.

On the other hand, if Mr. Trump is clearly, unquestionably guilty of committing a serious crime — not just arguably so — the department might have little choice. Central to our system of justice is the principle that no one is above the law.

The Justice Department has investigative powers that the Jan. 6 committee does not, and there are critical questions that remain unanswered. Mr. Garland should have no higher priority than using these powers to investigate all of those involved in one of the darkest days in American history.

[a fan]

Look, over there. Her emails had nothing to do with the stupidity that killed 4 brave Americans.
She needed a deliverable before the next election.

So did Trump. It's why he didn't actually leave Afghanistan, and instead made deals to pull out to sound consistent with his American First BS. How many Americans died for no reason whatsoever because Trump was too worried about politics to actually pull them out, OS?

Want me to pull up the stats? Steak dinner says it was more than 5 US deaths under Trump.


Are you mad that Trump left them there because if he pulled them out, he'd pay a price politically?

You know: the price Biden paid because his pull out wasn't perfect?

Nope. Those soldiers don't get your pity, because Trump and his magic R.

Trump gets to play to play politics with those soldiers, and Hillary doesn't. Got it. Sounds like a great point of view.

[a fan]

Are you comparing the treatment of an establishment icon by a 50/50 balanced committee, to the treatment of a regular schlub by a 100% partisan committee?

Yes, what brilliant legal advice. Just show up to an adversarial and hostile group who aren’t interested in any facts, just a pre written narrative, exposing you to almost limitless legal liability if you happen to mix up an irrelevant time, name, or spot. ?

So let me get this straight, Pete. Your above legal advice is that it's a bad idea to show up to Congress if 100% of your inquisitors are an adversarial and hostile group who aren’t interested in any facts, just a pre written narrative, exposing you to almost limitless legal liability if you happen to mix up an irrelevant time, name, or spot

But it's a swell idea, and perfectly fine, as it was for Hillary..... if "only" 50% of her inquisitors were an adversarial and hostile group who aren’t interested in any facts, just a pre written narrative, exposing you to almost limitless legal liability if you happen to mix up an irrelevant time, name, or spot. ?


That's your advice, Pete? (snicker)

I have a question for you: are you good at ANYTHING? You're horrible at math, thinking, debating, and have the worst understanding of economics that I've ever come across in my adult life.

[old salt]

Look, over there. Her emails had nothing to do with the stupidity that killed 4 brave Americans.
She needed a deliverable before the next election.

So did Trump. It's why he didn't actually leave Afghanistan, and instead made deals to pull out to sound consistent with his American First BS. How many Americans died for no reason whatsoever because Trump was too worried about politics to actually pull them out, OS?
None. There were no US KIA from the time of the agreement with the Taliban (29Feb2020) until the bombing in the botched pullout.

Want me to pull up the stats? Steak dinner says it was more than 5 US deaths under Trump.
For Trump's 4 year term ? Compare KIA under Trump to prior years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... 0the%20war.
Trump didn't take us into Afghanistan. HRC braaged about taking us into Libya.

Are you mad that Trump left them there because if he pulled them out, he'd pay a price politically?
I'm glad that Trump left them there. Our Afghan casualties under Trump were negligible, compared to before.

You know: the price Biden paid because his pull out wasn't perfect?
Understatement of the century.

Nope. Those soldiers don't get your pity, because Trump and his magic R.
They all get my symapathy. You made it clear how much sympathy you had for the Benghazi 4. Sh!t happens.

Trump gets to play to play politics with those soldiers, and Hillary doesn't. Got it. Sounds like a great point of view.
The Benghazi comm was before Trump was in office. It started well before he was a candidate.
What decisions did Trump make that increased our casualties in Afghanistan ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Look, over there. Her emails had nothing to do with the stupidity that killed 4 brave Americans.
She needed a deliverable before the next election.

So did Trump. It's why he didn't actually leave Afghanistan, and instead made deals to pull out to sound consistent with his American First BS. How many Americans died for no reason whatsoever because Trump was too worried about politics to actually pull them out, OS?
None. There were no US KIA from the time of the agreement with the Taliban (29Feb2020) until the bombing in the botched pullout.

Want me to pull up the stats? Steak dinner says it was more than 5 US deaths under Trump.
For Trump's 4 year term ? Compare KIA under Trump to prior years.
Trump didn't take us into Afghanistan. HRC braaged about taking us into Libya.

Are you mad that Trump left them there because if he pulled them out, he'd pay a price politically?
I'm glad that Trump left them there. Our Afghan casualties under Trump were negligible, compared to before.

You know: the price Biden paid because his pull out wasn't perfect?
Understatement of the century.

Nope. Those soldiers don't get your pity, because Trump and his magic R.
They all get my symapathy. You made it clear how much sympathy you had for the Benghazi 4. Sh!t happens.

Trump gets to play to play politics with those soldiers, and Hillary doesn't. Got it. Sounds like a great point of view.
What decisions did Trump make that increased our casualties in Afghanistan ?

Killed is killed.

[a fan]

None. There were no US KIA from the time of the agreement with the Taliban (29Feb2020) until the bombing in the botched pullout.

So move the goalposts to where the agreement started. Really? I'd bet that squares in your mind, doesn't it.

For Trump's 4 year term ? Compare KIA under Trump to prior years.

Nope. The context is: compare the KIA under Trump to the Benghazi mess. Trump kept our troops there for political reasons. We have NO military reason to be there. The mission was: get Bin Laden and those who hit us on 9/11. That mission was accomplished YEARS ago. Move on.

Trump didn't take us into Afghanistan.

I see, so if a President doesn't take us into a country...what happens there on his watch isn't his responsibility in your eyes? Great. I need you to remember this opinion of yours for, oh, about 20 seconds.

I'm glad that Trump left them there. Our Afghan casualties under Trump were negligible, compared to before.

I don't care if YOU are happy they are there. He said we were getting them out, and then didn't follow through for political reasons.

Making military decisions based on politics is bad, according to you. We're not allowed to use our military as a toy, and to put politics before American lives.

Understatement of the century.

First of all, remember how I asked you to remember your position for 20 seconds? Well, here we are. Do you STILL believe that the troops aren't Biden's responsibility because "Biden didn't invade Afghanistan"?

And we've been over the withdrawal before. I asked you to come up with a plan to get us out of Afghanistan quickly, while guaranteeing fewer than five KIA's.

Your answer? Hilariously it was: leave a few thousand troops behind permanently. Surprisingly, I was unimpressed by your plan.

They all get my symapathy. You made it clear how much sympathy you had for the Benghazi 4. Sh!t happens.

No, they DON"T all get your sympathy. Just in the sentences above, you're trying to diminish casualties on Trump's watch as no big deal "comparatively". But these casualties under Hillary's watch? Oh, those five are a SOOPER big deal, and it's just a coincidence (for the 1000th time) that Hillary just happens to be a Democrat, and you just so happy to be placing those deaths at her feet.

What decisions did Trump make that increased our casualties in Afghanistan ?

Are you serious? Trump left them in Afghanistan. You're acting like that's not a decision. You of all people know that not making a decision, or not changing the status quo.... is in itself a decision.

What hilarious here, is that what you're telling me is that the President isn't responsible for our troops. Oh, and especially so if the President in question didn't invade the country. Unless, of course, you're Joe Biden. Or Obama, naturally, who didn't invade Iraq, yet that didn't save him from your nonstop criticism. Oh, or Hillary Clinton----who somehow gets the blame as SoState, instead of Obama.

But Trump? Well, obviously, NONE of the KIA's under Trump count. Because of course they don't.

[Typical Lax Dad]

None. There were no US KIA from the time of the agreement with the Taliban (29Feb2020) until the bombing in the botched pullout.

So move the goalposts to where the agreement started. Really? I'd bet that squares in your mind, doesn't it.

For Trump's 4 year term ? Compare KIA under Trump to prior years.

Nope. The context is: compare the KIA under Trump to the Benghazi mess. Trump kept our troops there for political reasons. We have NO military reason to be there. The mission was: get Bin Laden and those who hit us on 9/11. That mission was accomplished YEARS ago. Move on.

Trump didn't take us into Afghanistan.

I see, so if a President doesn't take us into a country...what happens there on his watch isn't his responsibility in your eyes? Great. I need you to remember this opinion of yours for, oh, about 20 seconds.

I'm glad that Trump left them there. Our Afghan casualties under Trump were negligible, compared to before.

I don't care if YOU are happy they are there. He said we were getting them out, and then didn't follow through for political reasons.

Making military decisions based on politics is bad, according to you. We're not allowed to use our military as a toy, and to put politics before American lives.

Understatement of the century.

First of all, remember how I asked you to remember your position for 20 seconds? Well, here we are. Do you STILL believe that the troops aren't Biden's responsibility because "Biden didn't invade Afghanistan"?

And we've been over the withdrawal before. I asked you to come up with a plan to get us out of Afghanistan quickly, while guaranteeing fewer than five KIA's.

Your answer? Hilariously it was: leave a few thousand troops behind permanently. Surprisingly, I was unimpressed by your plan.

They all get my symapathy. You made it clear how much sympathy you had for the Benghazi 4. Sh!t happens.

No, they DON"T all get your sympathy. Just in the sentences above, you're trying to diminish casualties on Trump's watch as no big deal "comparatively". But these casualties under Hillary's watch? Oh, those five are a SOOPER big deal, and it's just a coincidence (for the 1000th time) that Hillary just happens to be a Democrat, and you just so happy to be placing those deaths at her feet.

What decisions did Trump make that increased our casualties in Afghanistan ?

Are you serious? Trump left them in Afghanistan. You're acting like that's not a decision. You of all people know that not making a decision, or not changing the status quo.... is in itself a decision.

What hilarious here, is that what you're telling me is that the President isn't responsible for our troops. Oh, and especially so if the President in question didn't invade the country. Unless, of course, you're Joe Biden. Or Obama, naturally, who didn't invade Iraq, yet that didn't save him from your nonstop criticism. Oh, or Hillary Clinton----who somehow gets the blame as SoState, instead of Obama.

But Trump? Well, obviously, NONE of the KIA's under Trump count. Because of course they don't.

Hillary didn't open the embassy in Benghazi.

[a fan]

Hillary didn't open the embassy in Benghazi.

Oh, good point.

Does she get a pass now, OS?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Hillary didn't open the embassy in Benghazi.

Oh, good point.

Does she get a pass now, OS?

One could argue that a poorly designed air exchange system was to blame..... if someone wanted to use Old Partisan's logic.

'On the night of September 11, about 150 Islamic militants associated with an al-Qaeda affiliate stormed the compound and set fire to the main building. Stevens, information technology specialist Sean Smith, and a security officer hid in a safe room. By the time rescuers arrived, Smith had died of asphyxiation, and Stevens could not be found in the heavy smoke before the rescue team was driven out. Stevens was later recovered by local Libyans and taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.'

[Peter Brown]

Are you comparing the treatment of an establishment icon by a 50/50 balanced committee, to the treatment of a regular schlub by a 100% partisan committee?

Yes, what brilliant legal advice. Just show up to an adversarial and hostile group who aren’t interested in any facts, just a pre written narrative, exposing you to almost limitless legal liability if you happen to mix up an irrelevant time, name, or spot. ?

So let me get this straight, Pete. Your above legal advice is that it's a bad idea to show up to Congress if 100% of your inquisitors are an adversarial and hostile group who aren’t interested in any facts, just a pre written narrative, exposing you to almost limitless legal liability if you happen to mix up an irrelevant time, name, or spot

But it's a swell idea, and perfectly fine, as it was for Hillary..... if "only" 50% of her inquisitors were an adversarial and hostile group who aren’t interested in any facts, just a pre written narrative, exposing you to almost limitless legal liability if you happen to mix up an irrelevant time, name, or spot. ?


That's your advice, Pete? (snicker)

I have a question for you: are you good at ANYTHING? You're horrible at math, thinking, debating, and have the worst understanding of economics that I've ever come across in my adult life.

Do you get anything correct? I mean, anything? I didn’t say it was ‘fine’ or a ‘swell idea’ for Hillary to go in front of a 50/50 panel. I said it was a much worse scenario for Ornato to show up to a 100% hostile committee.

If this happened to Hillary with her wealth, at 50/50 friendly/hostile, presuming she told the truth, what are the odds it or worse would happen to Ornato, a man with only a government pension?

https://www.rollcall.com/2016/08/15/hou ... d-herself/

Seriously, something is wrong with your debate skills. You consistently insert words and ideas into peoples mouths, which is incredibly dishonest.