Just checking for consistency here....

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by FatBack, Jun 29, 2022.

  1. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK we will go with that.
     
  2. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,286
    Likes Received:
    48,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you don't mind backing up your claim about those metal detectors do you?
     
  3. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,286
    Likes Received:
    48,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have expressed my view I said that I will wait to express my opinion for actual evidence not he said that she said that he heard that she told him.

    Tell me if this were an actual court of law how far do you think all of that would fly?

    But since it's not a court of law they're not required to actually produce evidence but people like you and your colleagues will eat it right up
     
  4. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,286
    Likes Received:
    48,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh come off it....

    She didn't tell them to complain.... She said you get out and you form a crowd and you push back on them and you let them know that they are not welcome anymore anywhere.

    If Trump or any Republican would have said the same thing you would have had an absolute coronary combined with a heart attack and a stroke and your head would have exploded at the same time.

    But as expected you try to minimize that. It's okay to admit you have double standards it's political opinions and most of us have double standards but some are glaringly obvious to the point that there should be a little bit of shame.
     
  5. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of which is protected by the first Amendment. Telling an armed crowd to go overturn the result of a democratic elections is not.

    Give it up! Your lame excuse is not going to save Trump. You might want to try good ol' fashioned denial instead. Even though I don't think you'll have better luck with that one either, at least maybe it will help you sleep better... for now...
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2022
  6. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Trump proven unfit for power again
    by Washington Examiner | June 29, 2022 12:01 AM

    Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s Tuesday testimony ought to ring the death knell for former President Donald Trump’s political career. Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again.

    Hutchinson’s resume alone should establish her credibility. The 25-year-old had already worked at the highest levels of conservative Republican politics, including in the offices of Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (LA), before becoming a top aide for former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows.

    In short, Hutchinson was a conservative Trumpist true believer and a tremendously credible one at that. She did not overstate things, did not seem to be seeking attention, and was very precise about how and why she knew what she related and about which testimony was firsthand and which was secondhand but able to be corroborated.

    ... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again

    Wow! You've got to be a pretty colossal ****-up to get this kind of scathing opinion from the editorial board of the Washington Examiner.
     
    yardmeat likes this.
  7. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,140
    Likes Received:
    7,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When republicans do it.
     
  8. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,286
    Likes Received:
    48,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay.... So humor all of us here even your friends on the left even though they probably won't laugh out loud....

    Tell us the Trump had of said the same thing you would have no problem with it.
     
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's first hand testimony. That's as much as we know, she said she heard him say it.



    The point of her testimony isn't to prove anything, the point of her testimony is to tell her story under oath, under pain of perjury, to tell the truth to the best of her ability.

    She was on Team Trump, she is a Republican and wanted to promote the Trump agenda. Only when Trump betrayed his oath of office, which disgusted her, did she decide to come forward. She is very credible. Now then, in my view the committee's strategy was to have her testimony cajole Pat Cipollone to testify, and he was subpoenaed shortly after this hearing and he has acknowledge to testify, without camera, only sound or a transcription will be available. .

    So, with Cipilone's testimony will have either corroboration or denial of Hutchinson's testimony.

    Those who think she is lying must understand, she's a young woman, a Republican, she has her career and life ahead of her, and surely the concept of integrity must be of the utmost importance to a woman like her. She's on national TV testifying in front of millions of people, and anything think she is intentionally lying isn't thinking straight. If you are lying corroborating testimony will either hang you or back you up, surely she's not that stupid. She comes off as very professional, sober, articulate, and very good with details. And she did it knowing that Trump was going to attack her, and of course, he is and it's petty.

    \
     
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A court of law would call many witnesses and cross examine them. A hearing would just call many witnesses and let whoever is on the committee ask questions.

    Next in line is Pat Cipillone, the WH Counsel, and he will corroborate her testimony, or deny it. We shall see.
     
  11. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,286
    Likes Received:
    48,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So more claims of what she heard but no actual evidence beyond her saying what she heard.

    Is this committee ever going to come up with anything remotely resembling concrete hard evidence that would pass in a court of law?


    And you don't think it remotely odd that she's decided to "come forwards"...... Well over a year after the alleged events?

    If she felt so strongly about it what was she waiting for?
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2022
  12. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think you, and many others on the right, do not understand how hearings work or the function of the committee.

    No one is suggesting any one person's testimony is 'proof'.

    All claims made in testimony are subject to corroboration, which is the reason they want everyone at the WH staff to testify.

    Darndest thing, only those idealists who believed in Trump but realized, owing to his certain actions, he wasn't a man of good character, they realized he betrayed his oath of office so they came forward and spilled the beans. Now, I'm speculating on that point, but I think it's a fair assumption.

    The hard core Trumpsters, a few came forward and what kind of testimony did they give?

    They pled the 5th. Go figure. Numerous attorneys in media, including one notable one on Fox, are claiming Trump is in legal jeopardy. Now, they kinda have been saying that for a long time, since Mueller, but now, more than ever, they appear to be going out of their way to clarify the difference between what was known at the impeachment trials and what they know now. Now they goes some real hard evidence against Trump ( If Hutchinson's testimony is corroborated. I feel confident it will be. one thing I believe is true, it 's a predicate for investigation by the DOJ)

    But, beside all that, hearings are not a court of law.

    https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/c...tions-and-the-rules-of-the-117th-congress.pdf

    Although investigations may seem to proceed by familiar legal process—including document productions and witness testimony— there is actually very little due process in congressional investigations. There are no motions to dismiss, protective orders, or limited discovery orders. There are, however, some rules, and the rules that exist are important.

    The hearings are all about getting as many takes as possible on whatever claims are being made by as many relevant persons as possible, in order to get close as possible to the truth.

    Moreover, there are over 1000 witnesses who testified, and the committee is due out an interim report soon ( they told us this last March, for June, but apparently they are behind schedule ).

    And the other functions of the committee are stated on the authorizing document.





     
  13. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maxine Waters didn't organize an attempted coup.

    Someday you need to grasp the concept of significance.
     
  14. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,286
    Likes Received:
    48,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you believe it's totally insignificant when an elected Congress person tells people to go out and find any elected officials from the other side and harass them wherever they find them in public?

    If Trump or any Republican had done the same thing you would have been on here having fits and you know it.

    And the same goes for any other liberal here.

    I do not need the likes of you to tell me what I need to grasp. You should take your own advice
     
  15. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,286
    Likes Received:
    48,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm well aware that a committee is not a court of law. And it's a good thing it isn't because none of this would fly.

    Mark my words and mark them well.... There's no accident the committee fired up when it did and they're going to drag this out all the way to the midterms just to try to distract from the disaster that is this administration.

    Anything to keep the attention off of the abject failure of this administration.
     
  16. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump DID say the same thing. Except not about government officials (which is protected speech), but about private citizens (which is not protected). He told his mob to physically assault his opponents!

    I had no plans to continue in this dumb thread. But you keep making my case and undermining your own. And I have no other option but to laugh at that.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2022
  17. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,978
    Likes Received:
    28,443
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmm.. so, insurrection is, in your mind, protected speech. Got it. So you'll be defending the Trump now will you? And when you defend Maxine, if you choose to be inconsistent and not defend Trump, you'll be letting us know. Right?
     
    FatBack likes this.
  18. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,978
    Likes Received:
    28,443
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL.. So, you aren't going to be consistent. Got it. Oh, and your standard here is priceless. I'll keep this one on speed dial.
     
    FatBack likes this.
  19. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not surprising that when I say insurrection is not protected speech, you read exactly the opposite.

    There is a name for the condition in which people selectively skip words when they read. This is why I use bold sometimes. Like above, for example.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2022
  20. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,978
    Likes Received:
    28,443
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps it's because when you say it isn't protected, you then cite examples of it as something you'd protect. I know, consistency is hard, but....
     
  21. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,131
    Likes Received:
    30,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps some of us support the right to protest but not the "right" to overthrow the government and install an unelected dictator in power. This ain't rocket surgery.
     
  22. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,131
    Likes Received:
    30,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Answer honestly . . .

    If Waters told a group of people: "Hey, you need to go STOP what those republicans over there from having dinner, otherwise you won't have a country anymore. And I'm going to march over there with you!" And then the mob marched, waving flags with Waters' name on it, reading her tweets over megaphones, chanting for the death of those dinning republicans, all while she sat back and did nothing . . . worse than nothing as she kept egging them on after they had broken the windows of the restaurant, assaulted the police officers who tried to stop them as security tried to race the republicans to safety, all while her family and associates were begging her to call off her attack dogs, and when she did finally tell the mob to disperse, she did so without condemning them and in fact telling them that she loved them . . . if Waters did all of that, what would you think about her?
     
  23. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have a fundamental misunderstanding on the nature of congressional hearings. Testimonies are given under oath under pain of perjury, sworn to tell the truth to the best of their ability. They are there to testify, not 'prove' anything. Lying to congress carries some severe penalties, and if she is lying, she knows that she could easily be found out, and even if she is telling the truth, and we believe she is, Donald Trump is going to dis her in every way he can in his very immature ways. And I didn't even mention the fact that this 25 year old woman, who is just getting started in her career, risked going on national television, but, of course, none of that occurred to you, eh?

    It is the committees job to listen to testimonies from many people on order to get as close to the truth as possible and write a report, recommend legislation or policy updates, etc. But, the committee believes she is credible, and so do I.

    No one's liberty is at stake, hearings are not a court of law, they don't do 'cross examinations' at hearings. They only get many witnesses to testify and they attempt to hash out the truth that way. Cipillone's testimony will be transcribed and published, soon, and he will confirm or deny Hutchinson's stories.

    https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/c...tions-and-the-rules-of-the-117th-congress.pdf

    Although investigations may seem to proceed by familiar legal process—including document productions and witness testimony— there is actually very little due process in congressional investigations. There are no motions to dismiss, protective orders, or limited discovery orders. There are, however, some rules, and the rules that exist are important.

    That is the job of the DOJ, not congressional hearings. Hearings attempt to find the truth via the testimony of many people. Since no one's freedom is at stake, a committee has more leeway and formulating what the truth is, if it's not that clear or there are conflicting testimonies. In a court of law, the bar is much higher. There, with a defendant's liberty at stake, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty.

    We, the public listening to the hearing, are free to formulate our opinions on what we see. That is why I'm here, to debate what we saw and heard, and debate the credibility of the persons testifying and the process.
    Perhaps it was a 'straw that broke the camel's back' moment, and her being intimidated by the most powerful man on the planet.

    Ya think that might have something to do with it?

    Hmmmm?
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2022
  24. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,286
    Likes Received:
    48,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I already explained to you that I know the difference between a committee and a court.

    How utterly convenient for her that she doesn't have to testify that she heard it with her own ears so now she has a good excuse if it's found out to be a lie because the person that she was said to have heard it from is not under oath.

    How very convenient
     
  25. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a meaningless statement. NOTHING in any hearing would fly in any court of law. That's like saying 'nothing in a cricket game would fly in an American baseball game'. it's a meaningless statement that is trying to trivialise an important government function.
    Well, mark these words and inscribe them in bold letters on your brain:

    The investigation was unavoidable, as investigations of this nature are bound to take a couple of years thus increasing the likelihood of occurring during an election, of one kind or another.

    It would have happened whenever an attack on the capital happened, shortly thereafter.

    As to your implication that there are only political motives:

    I really don't give a damn what republicans think about that point.

    One thing is certain, this is a story that belongs in the public sphere, and since they had a vote for a bipartisan Senate investigation, and repubs filibustered it, you can't blame Pelosi for setting up a special committee to the task

    You can't blame Pelosi for McCarthy's pulling his selections for the committee and refusing to replace the two that were rejected.

    You can't blame Cheney and Thompson for the few hard Trumpsters who testified who, though they could have argued their case, they pled the 5th.

    You can't blame Cheney and Thomspons for the many WH staffers and key operatives who are refusing to testify, some of whom have been indicted.

    IF this whole scenario is turning out in a way that isn't flattering to republicans, I make the following suggestions:

    1. Don't elect a corrupt, criminal, vile, despicable Human being for president, because such a man is likely to attempt to subvert an election through deceit, fraud, and whose lies provoked an armed mob to want to attack the capitol when elections don't turn out his way.

    2. Next time there is a bipartisan investigation up for a vote in the senate, don't filibuster it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2022

Share This Page