The damage she has done to Trump is incredible and she has righties seething and name calling, it's AWESOME!!!
USSC strikes down Roe v Wade
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
No, she's incredibly respected by all those in the WH who worked with her, including Mick Mulvaney who says he believes her.
The right wing world is collapsing around you and everyone is panicking.
Fox is scared shitless and pretending it never happened.
You've been backing racist shitheads who would put you on their lists and their world is crumbling.
Damage!
The USSS is willing to go on record and under oath to refute her claim. We will see if Nancy will let them. That will be your proof.Yes, she has a great working history and now she's just another lying cunt- like Professor Ford.
You are grabbing on to a second-hand accounting of which she was completely honest about it being second-hand and told to her. She has been one of the most credible witnesses to date and the right fears it. The only hope is a smearing campaign which will not work!!!Damage!
One more thing! You should be very very worried for your mentor Trumptard about what they find on Eastman's phone.
Oh, it's going to be a sweet sweet summer of watching the Donald squirm
Nah, though I'm sure her life is in danger now because of angry white supremacists and crooks. That's the reason they moved up her testimony, because rump's white supremacist base threatened to kill her.
The lying cunts are:
rump
Meadows
Eastman
Stone
Carlson
Bannon
Flynn
And every single one of the GOP backing the Big Lie
Calling these POS lying cunts is a compliment in my opinion.
I'm not worried at all. First, I'm a Canadian and second- an even better conservative is on stand by- DeSantis. But, if you think that this lying POS will change anything, you're right. She just exposed this "investigation " for what it is- a political circus.
Nice try, but swing and a miss.
First, you must be talking about the US. We don't have a "right" to bear arms in Canada. We do have the right to do anything we want, including own weapons, so long as that activity has not been made illegal by a law that conforms to the requirements of our constitution.
As to your analogy, you are correct that the right to bear arms does not include the right to force people to manufacture arms for you at a price you find acceptable. However, you certainly would have a right to make a weapon for yourself. So, if the "right to an abortion" meant the right to give yourself an abortion (force a miscarriage) you'd have something, but that's not what anyone means.
You fail this short course in analogies.
Doctors can't be required to perform medical procedures, regardless of what the price is or who set it, unless they have contractually obligated themselves to do so.
What you "think" doesn't matter. Real legal principles do. Hospitals may have a duty to provide care to members of the public who enter their doors, but only to the extent that they can. Every time they find themselves understaffed, they fail to provide someone care.
However, a public hospital's duties are established by statute. Doctors, by contrast, are not slaves. They do not have to treat all potential patients just because they have obtained a medical degree or a medical license. That's why medical procedures cannot be "rights". The closest you could come to that concept is if you had a "right to access whatever medical services the government makes available".
It's the same thing with other licensed professionals, like lawyers. A licensed lawyer does not have to act for any client who wishes to retain him.
Last edited:
Yeah, her testimony isn't bad at all for Trumpfart, you're right. ROTFLMFAO
Fox host abandons Trump ON AIR after devastating January 6 hearing
Very true. That's what Chrissy Wallace did during the Kavanaugh hearing , too- without noticing that Who, Where and When were absent from her testimony. Where is Chrissy, now? LOL!!
Except for you being completely wrong about my appreciation for how complex voters are, I agree here.
The suburbs are the main current battleground, and their preferences are not those of the most hard-core base of either party right now.
The amazing thing to me about the "so-called" January 6 hearings is the way that the media and pundits can so easily forget that the reason that real trials include such practices such as cross examination of witnesses, exclusionary rules of evidence, and right to call responding witnesses is that these practices are ESSENTIAL to any process pretending to be interested in arriving at the truth. Instead, the January 6 hearings are nothing but one side presenting the most slanted witnesses and evidence they can present, and then pronouncing their skewed presentation as "fact". Really shameful and embarassing, considering the number of lawyers sitting on the Committee.
That's why this is nothing more than a Star Chamber proceeding. There is nothing to balance the partisan skew. Ordinary voters may not make such a granular comparison to court proceedings, but they know a dog and pony show when they see one. That's why the vast majority of voters are ignoring this hearing.
Fair enough, but I think you might have criticized suburban White voters for their lack of empathy for others. If so, that might just be a milder form of "if you vote Republican, you are a racist."
To be fair, the republican cunt did not really lie. She said, that somebody told her that -------------------. That could be true, in which case she did not lie.Damage!
I've been thinking that. Everyone knows that Congressional committee hearings are theatrical presentations with distinct partisan tones. But for some reason, when people have passionate views of the proceedings they lose sight of this.
I'm still trying to figure out if Cassidy Hutchinson was in the car. If she wasn't, why was her testimony of what happened in the car even considered?
You're correct, but why is the Committee having her testify about what occurred in the car? Is it because they like her story?
By the way, don't call a woman a cunt unless she's done something egregious.
