Jan. 6 committee says probe shows Trump led and directed effort to overturn 2020 election

[Rimmer]

Troll post removed

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have any evidence of this? Not being convinced man descended from apes is not the same as denying evolution. 

Ben Carson touts creationism during Nashville speech
Republican presidential contender Ben Carson restated his views on creationism Sunday, wrapping up his weekend in Tennessee with a visit to one of Metro Nashville's largest churches.
Carson delivered two speeches Sunday morning at Cornerstone Church in Madison. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who's recently surged in GOP presidential polls, weaved between a litany of different themes during the speeches, including everything from economics to his background growing up in Detroit...
"They say, 'Carson, ya know, how can you be a surgeon, a neurosurgeon, and believe that God created the Earth, and not believe in evolution, which is the basis of all knowledge and all science?'," Carson said during his second speech.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/01/ben-carson-preaches-visits-at-madison-church/75005896/

 

Ben Carson: If You Accept Evolution, "You Dismiss Ethics," Can't Believe In God And Evolution

Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a noted creationist, once said those who believe in evolution "dismiss ethics" and believe you don't have to abide by a moral code.

"Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires," Carson told Adventist Review, the magazine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of which Carson is a member for a 2004 cover story.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/ben-carson-if-you-accept-evolution-you-dismiss-ethics

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Ben Carson touts creationism during Nashville speech
Republican presidential contender Ben Carson restated his views on creationism Sunday, wrapping up his weekend in Tennessee with a visit to one of Metro Nashville's largest churches.
Carson delivered two speeches Sunday morning at Cornerstone Church in Madison. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who's recently surged in GOP presidential polls, weaved between a litany of different themes during the speeches, including everything from economics to his background growing up in Detroit...
"They say, 'Carson, ya know, how can you be a surgeon, a neurosurgeon, and believe that God created the Earth, and not believe in evolution, which is the basis of all knowledge and all science?'," Carson said during his second speech.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/01/ben-carson-preaches-visits-at-madison-church/75005896/

 

Ben Carson: If You Accept Evolution, "You Dismiss Ethics," Can't Believe In God And Evolution

Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a noted creationist, once said those who believe in evolution "dismiss ethics" and believe you don't have to abide by a moral code.

"Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires," Carson told Adventist Review, the magazine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of which Carson is a member for a 2004 cover story.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/ben-carson-if-you-accept-evolution-you-dismiss-ethics

After reading through this thread, one realises that the trumpies explore just about every avenue with regards to half-truths, untruths and deflections to ignore what is in plain sight, and still they are thwarted at every turn.

 

According to these folk the insurrection at Capitol Hill was no more than a demonstration, despite many security guards and the like being injured and attacked, and one of the rioters being shot because she was breaking into the building itself through a smashed window, and of course eyewitness accounts and videos of the very attack.

 

Guns were found stashed nearby and indeed the rioters had various instruments by which to cause injury and even death, and such was the fear that was struck in the hearts of both the Republicans and Democrats in the house, that they sought sanctuary in safe places, in fact anywhere to get away from the mob, who in some cases were baying for blood and threatening to take lives.

 

There is no doubt about what happened because it is there for history, recorded on many mediums, as I said previously, BUT trump supporters refuse to see what the rest of the world can see, and that speaks volumes about the level of intelligence of these people, and the dumb crook that they worship, and the cult they follow.
 

[Jingthing]

Don't forget Georgia. 

Likely the easiest case to convict and Garland wouldn't be involved. 

Just like Watergate, they've got TAPES!

Only one felony conviction is needed to take him out, not ten.

 

Ex-Watergate Prosecutor: Trump Has 'Zero' Defense in Ga. Election Probe (businessinsider.com)

Quote

Ex-Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman on Sunday said that former President Donald Trump has "zero" defense against a criminal probe centered on his conduct regarding the 2020 election results in Georgia.

The Devil Called Down to Georgia?

 

[candide]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

Ben Carson touts creationism during Nashville speech
Republican presidential contender Ben Carson restated his views on creationism Sunday, wrapping up his weekend in Tennessee with a visit to one of Metro Nashville's largest churches.
Carson delivered two speeches Sunday morning at Cornerstone Church in Madison. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who's recently surged in GOP presidential polls, weaved between a litany of different themes during the speeches, including everything from economics to his background growing up in Detroit...
"They say, 'Carson, ya know, how can you be a surgeon, a neurosurgeon, and believe that God created the Earth, and not believe in evolution, which is the basis of all knowledge and all science?'," Carson said during his second speech.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/01/ben-carson-preaches-visits-at-madison-church/75005896/

 

Ben Carson: If You Accept Evolution, "You Dismiss Ethics," Can't Believe In God And Evolution

Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a noted creationist, once said those who believe in evolution "dismiss ethics" and believe you don't have to abide by a moral code.

"Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires," Carson told Adventist Review, the magazine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of which Carson is a member for a 2004 cover story.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/ben-carson-if-you-accept-evolution-you-dismiss-ethics

People like Carson have no morals. They are able to tell any B.S. if they think it can help them to be elected. They would even be ready to put feathers in their ass in order to attract voters! ????

Edited June 19, 2022 by candide

[Kenneth White]

On 6/19/2022 at 9:06 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Naturally so.

 

Trees are real things, they exist.

 

’The Big Steal’ is a lie.

As long as the liberal media whether video or print is evolved it will take a little time to expose the steal. Like the J6 committee hearings they only play snippets of videos leaving out damaging content and embarrassing the committee members. Just recently VP Pence has been put on the hot seat. We will see how this play's out. 

[Kenneth White]

On 6/19/2022 at 7:53 AM, placeholder said:

Sure. And Jesus is coming back any day now... If all you've got as evidence is predictons about the future, then you've got nothing.

There is a reality to running through a forest of trees, trees are real. You can run through this forest of trees with eye open or close, you will run in to one. Your comment about Jesus Christ is irrelevant. 

[Kenneth White]

On 6/18/2022 at 6:34 AM, heybruce said:

So you don't trust any news source?  And you think that leaves you better informed?  How?

No, I don't, but how else does one get information. You have to wade through all the fake news from both sides. Personally I use C-Span trying to find anything on the subject and person fake news are posting.

[heybruce]

45 minutes ago, Kenneth White said:

No, I don't, but how else does one get information. You have to wade through all the fake news from both sides. Personally I use C-Span trying to find anything on the subject and person fake news are posting.

Great.  What have you found on C-span that leads you to think the election was stolen?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Kenneth White said:

There is a reality to running through a forest of trees, trees are real. You can run through this forest of trees with eye open or close, you will run in to one. Your comment about Jesus Christ is irrelevant. 

I guess I'm going to have to use simple words to spell out to you why it is not irrelevant. You make predictions about the future as evidence in support of your arguments. The same way that devout Christians use as evidence prophesies about the return of Jesus.  Unless you have a time machine, such predictions are valueless. Unless, of course, you do have time machine. In which case, can you tell me who's going to win the next world cup?

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, Kenneth White said:

As long as the liberal media whether video or print is evolved it will take a little time to expose the steal. Like the J6 committee hearings they only play snippets of videos leaving out damaging content and embarrassing the committee members. Just recently VP Pence has been put on the hot seat. We will see how this play's out. 

That clip of Trump’s hand picked DoJ testifying under oath that he told Trump to his face that his claim the election has been stolen where ‘Bull…’.

 

Was Barr lying under oath?

 

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That clip of Trump’s hand picked DoJ testifying under oath that he told Trump to his face that his claim the election has been stolen where ‘Bull…’.

 

Was Barr lying under oath?

 

 

Hmmm

 

Barr telling Trump....... and Trump believiing him........... are two different things. 

 

One need only look at the things Trump had to say about Barr AFTER Barr was no longer his subordinate.......... to know which way that went! 

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

 

(Besides, given Barr's despicable behaviour throughout his tenure as Attorney General under Trump........... it's much more reasonable to believe that Barr........... at that moment

.......... was merely trying to scrape a sliver of his dignity off the side of the toilet bowl, before it ALL went down the drain, forever! 

 

Barr's words would only carry weight if he had retained any integrity. But he had thrown all that away, even before he started the job! ) 

[ozimoron]

22 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Hmmm

 

Barr telling Trump....... and Trump believiing him........... are two different things. 

 

One need only look at the things Trump had to say about Barr AFTER Barr was no longer his subordinate.......... to know which way that went! 

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

 

(Besides, given Barr's despicable behaviour throughout his tenure as Attorney General under Trump........... it's much more reasonable to believe that Barr........... at that moment

.......... was merely trying to scrape a sliver of his dignity off the side of the toilet bowl, before it ALL went down the drain, forever! 

 

Barr's words would only carry weight if he had retained any integrity. But he had thrown all that away, even before he started the job! ) 

said it before and will say it again as you keep not getting the point. It's what a jury believes Trump knew and believed, not what Trump says he believed.

Edited June 21, 2022 by ozimoron

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Hmmm

 

Barr telling Trump....... and Trump believiing him........... are two different things. 

 

One need only look at the things Trump had to say about Barr AFTER Barr was no longer his subordinate.......... to know which way that went! 

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

 

(Besides, given Barr's despicable behaviour throughout his tenure as Attorney General under Trump........... it's much more reasonable to believe that Barr........... at that moment

.......... was merely trying to scrape a sliver of his dignity off the side of the toilet bowl, before it ALL went down the drain, forever! 

 

Barr's words would only carry weight if he had retained any integrity. But he had thrown all that away, even before he started the job! ) 

Barr was Trump’s golden boy when he was doing Trump’s bidding, Trump only attacked Barr when he advised against Trump’s ‘Big Lie’.

 

But there’s another problem for Trump and his MAGA followers, Barr is not the only witness.

 

Stay tuned.

 

 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

said it before and will say it again as long as you keep not getting the point. It's what a jury believes Trump knew and believed, not what Trump says he believed.

Also, there's the issue of Trump's lawyers telling him that some of the strategy he was pursuing in regards to the vote was illegal. It's not a valid defense to say Trump didn't believe his attorneys.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Also, there's the issue of Trump's lawyers telling him that some of the strategy he was pursuing in regards to the vote was illegal. It's not a valid defense to say Trump didn't believe his attorneys.

The point the poster was trying to make is that Trump is free to just say he didn't believe anybody. I pushed back against that. It's just not how jury trials work. The principle of mens rea isn't that you can just say you didn't know it was illegal to rob a bank, you have to make a reasonable case that you didn't know.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

said it before and will say it again as you keep not getting the point. It's what a jury believes Trump knew and believed, not what Trump says he believed.

Kind of a pointless point, isn't it, when THERE IS NO JURY! 

 

Happy to revisit the question.......... when there is one...............!

 

Your jury will inevitably have Republicans on it. And an ungodly number of Republicans believe Trump!!!)

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

42 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The point the poster was trying to make is that Trump is free to just say he didn't believe anybody. I pushed back against that. It's just not how jury trials work. The principle of mens rea isn't that you can just say you didn't know it was illegal to rob a bank, you have to make a reasonable case that you didn't know.

The actual judicial test is ‘can it be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused did know’.

 

Multiple corroborating sworn testimony from the people who’s job it was to advise Trump is exactly the kind of evidence that achieves ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Kind of a pointless point, isn't it, when THERE IS NO JURY! 

 

Happy to revisit the question.......... when there is one...............!

 

Your jury will inevitably have Republicans on it. And an ungodly number of Republicans believe Trump!!!)

Keep grasping at straws.

[Yellowtail]

So when do we expect the indictment?

 

I'm betting mid-October...

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So when do we expect the indictment?

 

I'm betting mid-October...

Which indictment?

 

There are several on the way.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The point the poster was trying to make is that Trump is free to just say he didn't believe anybody. I pushed back against that. It's just not how jury trials work. The principle of mens rea isn't that you can just say you didn't know it was illegal to rob a bank, you have to make a reasonable case that you didn't know.

But in the case of a bank robbery someone is pleasing ignorance of the law. And a very obvious law.

In the case of Trump's election denialism, he's denying facts but that isn't illegal. He could well believe that he won.

But in the case of certain acts, like conspiring to send fake electors to Congress, he was warned that it was illegal by attorneys. So he knew or absolutely should have known he was committing a crime. Courts don't look kindly on someone who ignores legal counsel.

[ozimoron]

44 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Kind of a pointless point, isn't it, when THERE IS NO JURY! 

 

Happy to revisit the question.......... when there is one...............!

 

Your jury will inevitably have Republicans on it. And an ungodly number of Republicans believe Trump!!!)

Your point about not being able to prove Trump knew what he was doing was illegal was clearly premised on there being a trial. We all know that the committee hearings are not a trial and so that point is irrelevant. You are trying to have it both ways here.

 

Juries can also be directed by a Judge to accept or reject certain evidence based on the law. It's not simply a matter of one or more recalcitrant jurists deciding to let Trump off the hook because of their political biases. In the jury selection, any such biases will be uncovered as well and the person disqualified from being seated on the jury.

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

In the jury selection, any such biases will be uncovered as well and the person disqualified from being seated on the jury.

Exactly, this is how the January 6 committee was selected. For anything as critical as convicting Trump, the presumption of  innocence  must be ignored. There can be no dissenting views on the committee nor in the court. 

[bannork]

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

I guess I'm going to have to use simple words to spell out to you why it is not irrelevant. You make predictions about the future as evidence in support of your arguments. The same way that devout Christians use as evidence prophesies about the return of Jesus.  Unless you have a time machine, such predictions are valueless. Unless, of course, you do have time machine. In which case, can you tell me who's going to win the next world cup?

Wales.

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Exactly, this is how the January 6 committee was selected. For anything as critical as convicting Trump, the presumption of  innocence  must be ignored. There can be no dissenting views on the committee nor in the court. 

There's been plenty of posts here about how the Republicans under McCarthy refused to participate after Jordan was excluded as being an accused co-conspirator. There's also been posts here about how Trump himself said that the non-participation was a huge mistake. The committee bears no resemblance to a trial, no jury selection and no presumption of innocence as it's not a trial, just a fact finding committee which is now reporting the facts.

 

This continued rubbish about it being illegitimate because it doesn't contain more Republicans is nothing more than a right wing talking point. Furthermore, as also has been pointed out on numerous occasions, ALL the witnesses have been Republican appointees. The problem for Trump is that the committee is framing its presentation of evidence with a view to prompting the DoJ to lay charges based on that evidence. If it does then things become really interesting.

[placeholder]

[Trump] doesn't get a pass because he believed what was moral took priority over what's legal. If he opposed the election of Biden on moral grounds, that doesn't excuse him from suffering the leqal consequence. People who practiced civil disobedience in opposition to segregation, understood that they were violating the law and faced legal consequences. They felt the sacrifice was justified. When has Trump ever demonstrated that he understands self-sacrifice?

[Jingthing]

Trying to defend the indefensible requires an unsustainable level of mental.gymnastics. 

[onthedarkside]

Several posts with emoticon trolling have been removed, along with one ensuing reply.

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

46 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Your point about not being able to prove Trump knew what he was doing was illegal was clearly premised on there being a trial. We all know that the committee hearings are not a trial and so that point is irrelevant. You are trying to have it both ways here.

 

Juries can also be directed by a Judge to accept or reject certain evidence based on the law. It's not simply a matter of one or more recalcitrant jurists deciding to let Trump off the hook because of their political biases. In the jury selection, any such biases will be uncovered as well and the person disqualified from being seated on the jury.

Funny, you said "knew" and I said.......... many, many times.......... "believed." Those are very different things.

 

You getting that wrong is probably why you mistakenly believe I "want it both ways." 

 

In the Trump Era, haven't you seen enough evidence yet that what Trump BELIEVES............ is far more important to him than facts?

 

Why then would you believe that just because someone "told" him............ that he would accept that as something he "knows?" 

 

No, more likely he would interpret it as more deception and lying (which is how he interpreted what Barr had to say about it............. despite Barr's nearly two years of almost blind loyalty and fealty to Trump.)