NYT- Trump telling aides he will testify to 1/6 committee if it is live

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Obviously, he isn't gonna testify before Eday, he responded by saying the exact same thing he is known to say all along the Eday was stolen whom wants to hear that in a diatribe in a public hearing and what make it so bad Bush W and Trump got in on 3rd party splits they didn't get in legitimately neither did Bill Clinton but he won a landslide, Trump and Bush W won but such a small majority

[emailking]

what make it so bad Bush W and Trump got in on 3rd party splits they didn't get in legitimately

The got in legitimately.

Trump and Bush W won

Correct.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

what make it so bad Bush W and Trump got in on 3rd party splits they didn't get in legitimately

The got in legitimately.

Trump and Bush W won

Correct.

Yeah they got in on they didn't count the Dimple chads in FL, and Bush W signed a law 2004 making provisions ballots a law, Trump was never an office holder and never lost before I am an Eday judge, the provisional ballots just like Dimple chads in FL went against Rs, if they counted dimpled chads Gore would have won FLORIDA, and the late breaking votes that pushed Biden ahead were provisional ballots, but again Trump never was an office holder before and only beat Hillary he doesn't realize provisional ballots go to Ds

That's why Scott Walker, Pence and Paul Ryan and Christie and Karl Rove told Trump to concede and Karl Rove was there when Bush W signed provisional ballots they knew Trump lost on provisions

Walker lost to Evers on provisions ballots he was ahead, Bevin lost to Beshear on provisions ballots too

[emailking]

You are not a judge lol.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I served pre Pandemic Eday judge from 2004/12 during the height of Provisions ballots it did matter in 2010 when Brady lost to Quinn

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

One of the strangest things to come out of this, is that while Jan 6 was clearly an impeachable offense as to which Trump should have been convicted and removed from office, there is no evidence so far, none, that Trump committed a crime, and he will almost certainly not be indicted for it.

On the other hand, the odds that Trump will go down for stealing government records, and then lying about it, and then trying to conceal some of the records, is now something where it is more likely than not that he will be indicted.

Isn't that really weird sh*t?

__________________________________

This last hearing offered up almost nothing that was new, other than Pelosi on the phone asking for law enforcement, and thus was anti climatic, unlike the previous hearings. It was a mistake to hold it. The Subpoena Trump bordered on show boating, and to me made the committee look kind or ridiculous.

Less is more.

There’s quite a bit of evidence for an inciting violence charge, but probably not enough that DOJ would treat Trump like any other American and indict him. I don’t really see how you can argue there’s no evidence after Cassidy Hutchison’s testimony.

I strongly agree with you regarding the most recent hearing though.

[Torie]

One of the strangest things to come out of this, is that while Jan 6 was clearly an impeachable offense as to which Trump should have been convicted and removed from office, there is no evidence so far, none, that Trump committed a crime, and he will almost certainly not be indicted for it.

On the other hand, the odds that Trump will go down for stealing government records, and then lying about it, and then trying to conceal some of the records, is now something where it is more likely than not that he will be indicted.

Isn't that really weird sh*t?

__________________________________

This last hearing offered up almost nothing that was new, other than Pelosi on the phone asking for law enforcement, and thus was anti climatic, unlike the previous hearings. It was a mistake to hold it. The Subpoena Trump bordered on show boating, and to me made the committee look kind or ridiculous.

Less is more.

There’s quite a bit of evidence for an inciting violence charge, but probably not enough that DOJ would treat Trump like any other American and indict him. I don’t really see how you can argue there’s no evidence after Cassidy Hutchison’s testimony.

I strongly agree with you regarding the most recent hearing though.

That is my best legal judgement shared by many other Trump hating lawyer types (God how I loathe the man). He never urged his gang to storm the capitol, there is no evidence that has hit the public square that he conspired with his gang to do that, or even knew in advance, and sitting on his hands with the attitude that let Rome burn baby burn, it deserves it, while a failure to honor his oath of office, is not a crime.

Absent evidence coming at as  conspiring (then the bastard is nailed), or knowing in advance and doing nothing (maybe, tough call for the DOJ), the odds imo of Trump being indicted for Jan 6 are asymptotically close to zero.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

One of the strangest things to come out of this, is that while Jan 6 was clearly an impeachable offense as to which Trump should have been convicted and removed from office, there is no evidence so far, none, that Trump committed a crime, and he will almost certainly not be indicted for it.

On the other hand, the odds that Trump will go down for stealing government records, and then lying about it, and then trying to conceal some of the records, is now something where it is more likely than not that he will be indicted.

Isn't that really weird sh*t?

__________________________________

This last hearing offered up almost nothing that was new, other than Pelosi on the phone asking for law enforcement, and thus was anti climatic, unlike the previous hearings. It was a mistake to hold it. The Subpoena Trump bordered on show boating, and to me made the committee look kind or ridiculous.

Less is more.

There’s quite a bit of evidence for an inciting violence charge, but probably not enough that DOJ would treat Trump like any other American and indict him. I don’t really see how you can argue there’s no evidence after Cassidy Hutchison’s testimony.

I strongly agree with you regarding the most recent hearing though.

That is my best legal judgement shared by many other Trump hating lawyer types (God how I loathe the man). He never urged his gang to storm the capitol, there is no evidence that has hit the public square that he conspired with his gang to do that, or even knew in advance, and sitting on his hands with the attitude that let Rome burn baby burn, it deserves it, while a failure to honor his oath of office, is not a crime.

Absent evidence coming at as  conspiring (then the bastard is nailed), or knowing in advance and doing nothing (maybe, tough call for the DOJ), the odds imo of Trump being indicted for Jan 6 are asymptotically close to zero.

I’m a lawyer as well and my view is my best legal judgement.  Reasonable minds may differ.  In any case, we agree he won’t be indicted for it and that’s what really matters here.  

[LostInOhio]

Giving this man a further platform would be a massive mistake. This is the kind of thing that people would read about in history books fifty years from now and think “what the hell was their problem?” He had over 70 million votes in 2020 who supported him even after everything that happened during his presidency. He is polarizing and insane but not unpopular.

I am reminded of a quote from one of Hillary Clinton’s campaign managers from the Hulu documentary about her candidacy. “We wanted to portray him as crazy and unhinged, but that’s what he was selling.”

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Yes, the carnival barker wants to showboat.  I guess that's fine; he won't be in charge of the proceedings and he'll be facing seasoned pros armed with all the bone-cutting questions they need.

It will be mutually beneficial for Trump and his Democratic questioners to promote their 2024 and 2028 presidential campaigns, respectively.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes, the carnival barker wants to showboat.  I guess that's fine; he won't be in charge of the proceedings and he'll be facing seasoned pros armed with all the bone-cutting questions they need.

It will be mutually beneficial for Trump and his Democratic questioners to promote their 2024 and 2028 presidential campaigns, respectively.

This looks likely.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, the carnival barker wants to showboat.  I guess that's fine; he won't be in charge of the proceedings and he'll be facing seasoned pros armed with all the bone-cutting questions they need.

It will be mutually beneficial for Trump and his Democratic questioners to promote their 2024 and 2028 presidential campaigns, respectively.

On MSNBC said that Trump isn't gonna testify unless Rs net the Senate as well the H that would prove he won but that's unlikely to Happen it looks like Ds are gonna keep the Senate with or without McMULLIN, we don't need 400 votes we only need 270 and we won 300 2012/2020 we don't need his testimony for blue state

If  he was gonna testify he wouldn't have answered the way he did they already responded with rehash information that he won the Eday by them not counting the votes right, that their inspectors wasnt given ample right to see how ballots were counted and too many convicted s voted etc and they counted too many provisional ballots that weren't in the right precinct, but Bush W won and they didn't count dimpled chads too, so fair is fair

[Saint Milei]

Frank Underwood is born

Wow. How did it all end for Frank Underwood?

Let's pretend the last season didn't happen

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Frank Underwood is born

Wow. How did it all end for Frank Underwood?

Let's pretend the last season didn't happen

I was so disappointed in that show.  I kept hanging in hoping it'd get better again but nope. 

[emailking]

I loved the first 5 seasons even though I seem to be a minority on that. But they had no idea what to do without Spacey. He made the show.