TERB In Need of a Banner

USSC strikes down Roe v Wade

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
77,392
92,366
113
ROTFLMFAO!! Yeah, they had to secure her lies. Thanks for the Canada Day laugh!!!
I always know when you're losing another argument, because you write "ROTFLMFAO!!"
😸

So your theory is that they ran the 2 secret service guys who contradicted what she said and then pushed her forward despite the fact that they knew her testimony was contradicted? And held back the contradictory testimony so as not to be embarrassed?

How does that make sense?
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,670
6,839
113
I always know when you're losing another argument, because you write "ROTFLMFAO!!"
😸

So your theory is that they ran the 2 secret service guys who contradicted what she said and then pushed her forward despite the fact that they knew her testimony was contradicted? And held back the contradictory testimony so as not to be embarrassed?

How does that make sense?
Keep the faith(in lies) brother. Happy Canada Day!
 
  • Like
Reactions: danmand

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
77,392
92,366
113
I'm not exactly sure. They could impeach him again. I'm not trying to be coy, but I'm never really sure what Congressional Committees are trying to accomplish.
It's been explained to you a few times just on this board, huh?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,880
22,924
113
Oh, but they did.

“Here’s the thing. The committee has Secret Service testimony that would seemingly corroborate or dispute what Cassidy Hutchinson said today, but it wasn’t played. Unclear why,” according to The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey.

“Engel and Ornato have both testified to the committee behind closed doors, but their statements were not used in Tuesday’s hearing,” according to CNN.
Here's the thing.
Its not a trial, its a committee.
If she lied, she can be charged with perjury.

But its still evidence that will likely be used in trials, hopefully soon.
If Engel and Ornato testified under oath they would have that as well and if they lied, they can be charged.
Let the trials begin!
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
7,546
2,257
113

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,670
6,839
113
Here's the thing.
Its not a trial, its a committee.
If she lied, she can be charged with perjury.

But its still evidence that will likely be used in trials, hopefully soon.
If Engel and Ornato testified under oath they would have that as well and if they lied, they can be charged.
Let the trials begin!
You mean like the Avenatti's cunt at the Kavanaugh confirmation? Remind us, again, what was her punishment?
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,490
60,409
113
Many in the general public might be expecting the 1/6 Committee to come up with something more substantive on Trump that would lead the DOJ to charge him. If the Committee is just exploring into the events of what led to the Capitol riot, fine. I'm not sure that's what the expectation is though.
Finding out what happened and whether new laws, policies, or standards can be implemented to prevent it from happening again.
It's even on their web page.

That people are trying to lead the general public to think they are supposed to make the DOJ charge Trump and therefore would "fail" if they didn't do that does sound like goal post shifting, yes.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,490
60,409
113
Doesn't he have immunity for acts done when president?
No.
There is a memo suggesting that he can't be prosecuted while he is sitting as President. Not that he has immunity for anything he does while President.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,490
60,409
113
Interesting.
So no one is challenging that the note exists and was sent to Trump.
That's pretty damning.

“Engel and Ornato have both testified to the committee behind closed doors, but their statements were not used in Tuesday’s hearing,” according to CNN.
And you have to ask yourself why that is.

1) The statements confirm what she said but were considered redundant.
2) The statements contradict what she said and they are hiding them.
3) They weren't ask about the things she was asked about.

Since this specifically involves the details of the "Trump grabbed the wheel" story, the most likely is 3, since the committee is unlikely to have asked Ornato whether or not he told that story to her.
The important question is did they ask about what Trump did in reaction to being told he couldn't go to the Capitol and what Engel and Ornato said in response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,490
60,409
113
One thing. Trump stood on the stage and called out Bush. The rest of the field stood by and refused to say the war was a mistake. Both then and after the first debate.
Trump was very happy to call out Bush on Iraq, I quite agree, it was a big moment.
I don't recall everyone else refusing to call it a mistake, though.
You should show me that.

And his numbers shot up and continued to do so. Trump was happy to throw shit at the wall and see what stuck.
Yes, which is why your thought that the contractors would be against him for shit he threw at the wall is so odd.
By your own admission he wasn't a threat to them in any way.
Especially since, as I said, he repeatedly said he wanted a bigger military that would be more feared, and that people could pay the US to use.

His rallies were a stream of randomness that when the crowd reacted he went with it. I said before it was like watching a Wrestling Shoot( first 20 minutes of Monday Night Raw). With some evangelical flavor thrown in.

But imo it was the Iraq War call out that made him. That is the turning moment to his numbers rightvafter the first TV debate.
That's interesting.
I thought he was the front runner long before the first debate.

The contractors, party bosses, media, and others couldn't pin him down. They had no idea what he would do in office. Thats what they hated most.
That he was uncontrollable in many ways was absolutely something people worried about.
But that has nothing to do with him being "anti-war" in any way.
Like I said, if you want to argue that they were worried he would fuck up their contracts and give them to other cronies or that he was so unstable he would start a war for stupid reasons or cause other things that would make their comfortable lives miserable, then sure. They all worried about him doing that and they were right. They had to work real hard to figure out how to deal with him (which turned out to be mostly easy, just flatter and bribe him).

But you are going to have to do a lot more work to convince me that :

1) His anti-Iraq statement is what caused him to win in the Primary or in the General (significantly more than all his other positions).
2) He was opposed by "military contractors" and so on because they thought he was anti-war/anti-military.

Yes, there are some VERY stupid people who believed in the whole "Donald the Dove" thing (See Peggy Noonan, I believe, for an example) but Trump himself repeatedly said he was pro-war and pro-military, he just thought wars should be fought more brutally and without pretense of nation building. Kill the bad guys, do war crimes so that they surrender, and then take their stuff to fund the war of conquest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,670
6,839
113
Interesting.
So no one is challenging that the note exists and was sent to Trump.
That's pretty damning.



And you have to ask yourself why that is.

1) The statements confirm what she said but were considered redundant.
2) The statements contradict what she said and they are hiding them.
3) They weren't ask about the things she was asked about.

Since this specifically involves the details of the "Trump grabbed the wheel" story, the most likely is 3, since the committee is unlikely to have asked Ornato whether or not he told that story to her.
The important question is did they ask about what Trump did in reaction to being told he couldn't go to the Capitol and what Engel and Ornato said in response.
LOL!
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,998
10,351
113
Toronto
The left right clearly has an agenda. If anyone disagrees with their agenda, the left right will stalk, harass, persecute and cancel that person. With them there is no middle ground.
That was a totally disingenuous post. Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and Mark Meadows' aide who testified at the Jan. 6 last week, among others, have all received death threats.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,998
10,351
113
Toronto
Maybe I missed it. All I hear is "her body, her choice", but what is the reason(s) behind making that choice? Here below are reasons from a survey.
It's not that you missed it. It's that you don't get it.

Whatever her reasoning is, it is valid. If she does not want to carry a child and/or raise a child then nobody can force her to do it. Her body, her choice wins every time.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
30,863
5,023
113
Trump was very happy to call out Bush on Iraq, I quite agree, it was a big moment.
I don't recall everyone else refusing to call it a mistake, though.
You should show me that.



Yes, which is why your thought that the contractors would be against him for shit he threw at the wall is so odd.
By your own admission he wasn't a threat to them in any way.
Especially since, as I said, he repeatedly said he wanted a bigger military that would be more feared, and that people could pay the US to use.



That's interesting.
I thought he was the front runner long before the first debate.



That he was uncontrollable in many ways was absolutely something people worried about.
But that has nothing to do with him being "anti-war" in any way.
Like I said, if you want to argue that they were worried he would fuck up their contracts and give them to other cronies or that he was so unstable he would start a war for stupid reasons or cause other things that would make their comfortable lives miserable, then sure. They all worried about him doing that and they were right. They had to work real hard to figure out how to deal with him (which turned out to be mostly easy, just flatter and bribe him).

But you are going to have to do a lot more work to convince me that :

1) His anti-Iraq statement is what caused him to win in the Primary or in the General (significantly more than all his other positions).
2) He was opposed by "military contractors" and so on because they thought he was anti-war/anti-military.

Yes, there are some VERY stupid people who believed in the whole "Donald the Dove" thing (See Peggy Noonan, I believe, for an example) but Trump himself repeatedly said he was pro-war and pro-military, he just thought wars should be fought more brutally and without pretense of nation building. Kill the bad guys, do war crimes so that they surrender, and then take their stuff to fund the war of conquest.
Saw after interviews with Graham, Rubio and others where the question was put forth and waffling was profound.

No he wasn't the frontrunner, he was still the joke/fringe candidate. Up to then it was Jeb Bush. And throwing shit at the wall in general, not just one topic. He never gave a canned speech. The press hadn't seen that, well ever really. And it was in hindsight I realized how similar they were to the wrestlig shoots. (He was WWE involved) Add in his salesmanship for selling big dreams(thats what he does) and the crowd loved it. The press couldn't figure out why Trump would vilify them, the crowd would boo them, then come up for photos and such after with the press. Its because they were the "Heel" to Trump's "Babyface". And the crowd were in on the gag, just like at a wrestling show. The press however, were to sensitive, and used to being given preferential treatment, to get it.

And I don't think it was actively planned, it was just Trump being himself.

But the anti Iraq war statement was unique in the he Essentially told the truth, and one of the few times he did. Every other politician towed the Iraq war line. Thats is the plain truth. And don't underestimate how war weary the public was. It also propelled Obama as well. Remember millions voted for both men. It was one of the few common denominators they both had.

The contractors wanted stability. Someone they had in their pockets. Don't doubt that. Trump was chaos. Shareholders don't like that.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
77,392
92,366
113
Oh, but they did.

“Here’s the thing. The committee has Secret Service testimony that would seemingly corroborate or dispute what Cassidy Hutchinson said today, but it wasn’t played. Unclear why,” according to The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey.

“Engel and Ornato have both testified to the committee behind closed doors, but their statements were not used in Tuesday’s hearing,” according to CNN.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,998
10,351
113
Toronto
Not according to the science of DNA. Genetically, it is a completely different unique and distinct human entity from the moment of Conception. It may be taking up residence in her body, but that embryo is not her body. It is its own.
Then she has a right to say that I don't want it in MY body.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,880
22,924
113
I'm sure the right wingers will be cheering for their success at the SC today.
 
Toronto Escorts