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

[Phoenix Rising]

14 minutes ago, g man said:

where's the proof? I , you, we, they, anyone can say ANYTHING about ANYBODY under oath in a kangaroo court and NOW you have reality. LoL. OK. Try that nonsense in the court room setting and watch a 1st year law student eviscerate you.

You can bleat all the diversionary nonsense you like but even over at Fox they smell a putrefied rat. Sorry if this makes you uncomfortable.....well, sort of.

 

Andy McCarthy on January 6 committee hearing: 'They're building a very strong case'

 

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Phoenix Rising

[g man]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

You can bleat all the diversionary nonsense you like but even over at Fox they smell a putrefied rat. Sorry if this makes you uncomfortable.....well, sort of.

 

 

LOL, you watch FOX. Everybody does, ESPECIALLY democrats now, but too afraid to admit it.

Edited July 2, 2022 by g man

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, g man said:

Sorry, running out of time and more importantly something called "predicate". Precedent is a biggie too.

it's been about 19 months since the J6 event. What on earth could there be that HAS NOT BEEN investigated?

I can think of a few things the committee does not want to at least talk about in their presentations thus far.

Don’t worry the court cases are on their way.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, g man said:

LOL, you watch FOX. Everybody does, ESPECIALLY democrats now, but too afraid to admit it.

I watched it for their coverage of both Obama wins and the Biden win.

 

Unmissable.

[g man]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Don’t worry the court cases are on their way.

Okay, maybe for someone, just tell me who and what the likely crimes will be. Be sure to inform AG Garland too, he may want to know.

 I got to go.

 

This is too easy now.

[g man]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I watched it for their coverage of both Obama wins and the Biden win.

 

Unmissable.

How about when Hillary won the election, OOOOPS....I mean Trump?

[Phoenix Rising]

5 minutes ago, g man said:

LOL, you watch FOX. Everybody does, ESPECIALLY democrats now, but too afraid to admit it.

LOL, your diversions are becoming more and more lame.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, g man said:

How about when Hillary won the election, OOOOPS....I mean Trump?

who won the popular vote?

[Phoenix Rising]

3 minutes ago, g man said:

How about when Hillary won the election, OOOOPS....I mean Trump?

First you post you "gotta go", then you keep posting. Seems you have an issue with telling the truth, just like trump.

[Captain Monday]

19 minutes ago, g man said:

How about when Hillary won the election, OOOOPS....I mean Trump?

The 2016 election Trump won to his great surprise after telling the country he would lose because it was "rigged" for months. Then he told you for  a year  If he loses in 2020 it's because it was "rigged" and non existent voter fraud, like. broken record. This vulgar man who has been spewing a constant  stream of bold face lies since the 1980s, now we are supposed to believe him and a 26 year old GOP staffer lady with no reason to is "making up" stories.

 

I honestly can't believe the faux pearl clutching incredulity. Trump is a big baby who throws dishes and grabs a steering wheel like a petulant teen-age girl? You don't say?

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Captain Monday

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, g man said:

 

I find it fascinating how people pick on FOX News despite it's top leading ratings, especially Tucker, who easily blows away the competition.

 

Who is the Most Watched Host in All of Cable News For Young Democrats?

Its Tucker! And most people here despise him and FOX news.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/who-is-the-most-watched-host-in-all-of-cable-news-for-young-democrats-tucker-carlson/

https://time.com/6080432/tucker-carlson-profile/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2020/06/30/tucker-carlson-has-highest-rated-program-in-cable-news-history/

 

A little clarification............

 

FOX, as basically the only right-leaning channel that can make a living............. winds up having virtually ALL the right-wing viewers funneled to them.

 

On the left side, though, there are perhaps ten or more channels able to make a living.

 

So, because left-leaning viewers ultimately  have many more choices, they DON'T benefit from that funnel-effect that pushes all their viewes into one place with massive ratings! 

 

More important than simple  rating success, I think, is overall success. And when you compare the results that way, you see the left-side is able to keep a bunch of channels afloat.......... while the right-side is basically only able to keep one......... FOX!

 

Yes, FOX get the highest ratings.

 

But ultimately, A LOT more people watch left-leaning news outlets for their news........... than watch FOX!

 

If you're going to do an HONEST comparison........... you've got to compare FOX'S one number.......... to a comparable single number you'd get when all the left-leaning numbers are combined.

 

FOX's performance as a single channel being compared to other single channels...........is impressive. No doubt about it.

 

But if you compare overall viewership, instead........... left vs right........... there's no comparison. The number of people choosing one of many left-leaning outlets for their news instead of FOX....... completely blows FOX away!

 

I mean, haven't you ever wondered why viewership only seems able to support ONE right-leaning news channel? After all, if there was truly any real untapped opportunity out there........... wouldn't SOMEBODY  have jumped in to capitalize on it???

 

Hmmm?

 

Meanwhile, perhaps ten or more left-leaning outlets are cruising right along...........!

 

Lol

[candide]

50 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

A little clarification............

 

FOX, as basically the only right-leaning channel that can make a living............. winds up having virtually ALL the right-wing viewers funneled to them.

 

On the left side, though, there are perhaps ten or more channels able to make a living.

 

So, because left-leaning viewers ultimately  have many more choices, they DON'T benefit from that funnel-effect that pushes all their viewes into one place with massive ratings! 

 

More important than simple  rating success, I think, is overall success. And when you compare the results that way, you see the left-side is able to keep a bunch of channels afloat.......... while the right-side is basically only able to keep one......... FOX!

 

Yes, FOX get the highest ratings.

 

But ultimately, A LOT more people watch left-leaning news outlets for their news........... than watch FOX!

 

If you're going to do an HONEST comparison........... you've got to compare FOX'S one number.......... to a comparable single number you'd get when all the left-leaning numbers are combined.

 

FOX's performance as a single channel being compared to other single channels...........is impressive. No doubt about it.

 

But if you compare overall viewership, instead........... left vs right........... there's no comparison. The number of people choosing one of many left-leaning outlets for their news instead of FOX....... completely blows FOX away!

 

I mean, haven't you ever wondered why viewership only seems able to support ONE right-leaning news channel? After all, if there was truly any real untapped opportunity out there........... wouldn't SOMEBODY  have jumped in to capitalize on it???

 

Hmmm?

 

Meanwhile, perhaps ten or more left-leaning outlets are cruising right along...........!

 

Lol

It could be explained by the fact that these media are more "normal media" than left-wing propaganda media  and therefore are able to meet a broader audience.

[Hanaguma]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Curious, given that when right-wingers bring up the supposed left wing bias of MSM, I frequently point out that it is the right-wing media that has the highest audience numbers.

 

 

On cable tv yes, but not on tv as a whole. The Big 3 networks (which all lean left) get a total of 20 million viewers for their news shows, which dwarfs all cable news channels, Fox included. 

[Hanaguma]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

who won the popular vote?

Ain't a popularity contest, it is more like a chess match.  Winning the popular vote is irrelevant. It is like saying the team that gets the most hits should win a baseball game. Besides, both parties were well aware of the reality of the electoral college system when the election began.

 

In any case, not many countries use "popular vote" to choose their leader. Canada doesn't- in the last election the Conservative Party actually got more votes than the Liberals, but the Liberals won the election.  This can happen in any country that uses a parliamentary system. 

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

A little clarification............

 

FOX, as basically the only right-leaning channel that can make a living............. winds up having virtually ALL the right-wing viewers funneled to them.

 

On the left side, though, there are perhaps ten or more channels able to make a living.

 

So, because left-leaning viewers ultimately  have many more choices, they DON'T benefit from that funnel-effect that pushes all their viewes into one place with massive ratings! 

 

More important than simple  rating success, I think, is overall success. And when you compare the results that way, you see the left-side is able to keep a bunch of channels afloat.......... while the right-side is basically only able to keep one......... FOX!

 

Yes, FOX get the highest ratings.

 

But ultimately, A LOT more people watch left-leaning news outlets for their news........... than watch FOX!

 

If you're going to do an HONEST comparison........... you've got to compare FOX'S one number.......... to a comparable single number you'd get when all the left-leaning numbers are combined.

 

FOX's performance as a single channel being compared to other single channels...........is impressive. No doubt about it.

 

But if you compare overall viewership, instead........... left vs right........... there's no comparison. The number of people choosing one of many left-leaning outlets for their news instead of FOX....... completely blows FOX away!

 

I mean, haven't you ever wondered why viewership only seems able to support ONE right-leaning news channel? After all, if there was truly any real untapped opportunity out there........... wouldn't SOMEBODY  have jumped in to capitalize on it???

 

Hmmm?

 

Meanwhile, perhaps ten or more left-leaning outlets are cruising right along...........!

 

Lol

A little more clarification for you..............read the court ruling regarding a viewer trying to sue FOX for misleading information. The ruling found that as Fox was not considered a creditable NEWS outlet, and the views broadcast on it were only the presenters own views, that they shouldn't be taken seriously, and the case was dismissed.

 

A news outlet my derriere!! A faux news channel for the weak minded.

[g man]

33 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

On cable tv yes, but not on tv as a whole. The Big 3 networks (which all lean left) get a total of 20 million viewers for their news shows, which dwarfs all cable news channels, Fox included. 

Oh yeah. LOL

Fox News Channel crushes CNN, MSNBC viewership combined for 44th straight week

https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-channel-crushes-cnn-msnbc-viewership-combined-44th-straight-week

 

The Five, on which Gutfeld is a permanent co-host, topped the charts in the demo with 448,000 demo viewers.

Tucker Carlson landed in second place with 407,000 demo viewers, while Gutfeld! came in third with 379,000.

Gutfeld’s late-night show beat out the likes of Sean Hannity and Jesse Watters for the third spot in the demo.

https://www.mediaite.com/daily-ratings/cable-news-ratings-thursday-june-30-greg-gutfeld-has-2-of-top-3-shows-on-cable-news-in-the-demo/

 

 

[candide]

26 minutes ago, xylophone said:

A little more clarification for you..............read the court ruling regarding a viewer trying to sue FOX for misleading information. The ruling found that as Fox was not considered a creditable NEWS outlet, and the views broadcast on it were only the presenters own views, that they shouldn't be taken seriously, and the case was dismissed.

 

A news outlet my derriere!! A faux news channel for the weak minded.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' " ????

 

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

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

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

Edited July 2, 2022 by candide

[g man]

3 hours ago, Phoenix Rising said:

You can bleat all the diversionary nonsense you like but even over at Fox they smell a putrefied rat. Sorry if this makes you uncomfortable.....well, sort of.

 

Andy McCarthy on January 6 committee hearing: 'They're building a very strong case'

 

 

They're building a very strong case on this idea of corruptly impeding Congress from doing its job. And based on what I heard today, leaving incitement aside, you know, it's a federal crime to intimidate or assault members of Congress. And I continue to think the important testimony that came out today was just how much information President Trump had about how armed to the teeth this crowd was and his reaction that, well, what's the problem with that? They're not coming for me. I'm not the one who's threatened by all this. And then he encourages them. He not only encourages them to go to the Capitol, he wants to lead them. I kept thinking the thought of him leading a mob down to the Capitol. What would the Capitol Police have done if the president of the United States was leading the mob? How could they conceivably have contained that?

 

So many hypotheticals cited by Andy M and none of the above is even close to being corroborated. How about insurrection, has that topic faded off into the abyss? 

 

McCarthy does say this: "federal crime to intimidate or assault members of Congress."

He's probably made an accurate statement, assault is illegal, that's just brilliant. I direct your attention back to the illegal protests at SCOTUS justice homes after the roe v wade leak and prior to the ruling announcement, totally illegal under Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code but Garland slept right through it. You figure this out and when you do just holler at me at which time I will explain how and why the shouting and hollering about "insurrection" is gone silent now. Feel free to chime in with your insurrection analysis.

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by g man

[g man]

3 hours ago, Phoenix Rising said:

LOL, your diversions are becoming more and more lame.

You must watch FOX News channel otherwise why else would you get so triggered when I mention it and become somewhat agitated. If it bothers you so much, stop watching it. If you didn't watch it your critique of it ain't worth a hill of beans.

Edited July 2, 2022 by g man

[candide]

17 minutes ago, g man said:

He's probably made an accurate statement, assault is illegal, that's just brilliant. I bring ypu back to the illegal protests at SCOTUS justice homes, totally illegal under 18USc but Garland slept right through it. You figure this and when you do just holler at me at which time I will explain how the shouting and hollering about "insurrection" is silent now.

Which assault? Another lame MAGA propaganda argument!

Voices: Republicans wanted another January 6 after Roe v Wade was overturned. They didn’t get it

????

"They desperately want to create a moral equivalency between any violence that might be committed in the wake of the overturning of Roe v Wade — none of which has so far included riots, injuries or deaths — and the insurrection on January 6, during which multiple people were injured and died. Conservatives desperately want to draw a parallel because doing so would lead the public to believe that the violence on January 6 and the attempts to steal the presidency that preceded it are not unique to the American right’s bloodlust" 

https://news.yahoo.com/voices-republicans-wanted-another-january-212137813.html

Edited July 2, 2022 by candide

[Pattaya Spotter]

The Democrat Party dog and pony distraction show doesn't seem to be having its intended affect ???????? 

 

 

Source: Politico

Edited July 2, 2022 by Pattaya Spotter

[g man]

48 minutes ago, candide said:

Another lame MAGA

I assure you there is nothing lame about MAGA, it's an American staple now and loved same as apple pie and cheese. Just compare popularity polls of Trump and compare to Biden. See for yourself.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Ain't a popularity contest, it is more like a chess match.  Winning the popular vote is irrelevant. It is like saying the team that gets the most hits should win a baseball game.

Except........

 

That's how Senators get elected.

 

That's how Representatives get elected.

 

That's how Governors get elected.

 

That's how Mayors get elected.

 

That's how City Councils get elected.

 

That's how Boards of Supervisors get elected. 

 

That's how School Boards get elected.

 

That's how State Controllers get elected.

 

That's how Ombudsmen get elected.

 

That's how State Attorney Generals get elected.

 

That's how Lieutenant Governors get elected.

 

That's how State Senators and House Members get elected.

 

.

 

That's how........... well........... pretty much everyone gets elected........!

 

Except the President!

 

----------------

 

The challenge of course is..............

 

How do you make an argument that the President shouldn't be elected by "Popular Vote"............ without simultaneously making a mockery of the fact that literally every other election in America....... literally thousands of them!............ is done exactly this way!

 

How can a method of electing people be suitable for literally thousands of elections across the country every two to four years............

 

........... but then not be acceptable for this ONE?

 

--------------------

 

One Person, One Vote --- Nothing could be simpler; nothing could  be better!

Edited July 2, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[g man]

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

who won the popular vote?

Who won the electorate college (2016 election). After all, only it matters in US elections.

Edited July 2, 2022 by g man

[Hanaguma]

2 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Except........

 

That's how Senators get elected.

 

That's how Representatives get elected.

 

That's how Governors get elected.

 

That's how Mayors get elected.

 

That's how City Councils get elected.

 

That's how Boards of Supervisors get elected. 

 

That's how School Boards get elected.

 

That's how State Controllers get elected.

 

That's how Ombudsmen get elected.

 

That's how State Attorney Generals get elected.

 

That's how Lieutenant Governors get elected.

 

That's how State Senators and House Members get elected.

 

.

 

That's how........... well........... pretty much everyone gets elected........!

 

Except the President!

 

----------------

 

The challenge of course is..............

 

How do you make an argument that the President shouldn't be elected by "Popular Vote"............ without simultaneously making a mockery of the fact that literally every other election in America....... literally thousands of them!............ is done exactly this way!

 

--------------------

 

One Person, One Vote --- Nothing could be simpler; nothing could  be better!

Same in many countries. Local elections and national are treated differently.  Countries that use a parliamentary system such as in most of Europe, Canada etc., do so in an attempt for the leader to represent the entire nation, rather than small chunks. 

 

But you knew that. Also, so did Hillary Clinton in 2016 when she ran one of the worst campaigns in US political history.  Can't blame the system when both sides knew the rules beforehand. 

[candide]

35 minutes ago, g man said:

I assure you there is nothing lame about MAGA, it's an American staple now and loved same as apple pie and cheese. Just compare popularity polls of Trump and compare to Biden. See for yourself.

Ok  let's phrase it differently.

 

It's a MAGA lame argument. 

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What democratic norms? 

Seriously?  How about the democratic norm of the loser of an election acknowledging the loss?  The democratic norm of a peaceful transition of power?

 

I could go on about Trump's aversion to transparency, failure to follow the Presidential Records Act, revealing classified information to adversaries, etc., but you get the idea.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

It's only reasonable to you, and others that share your ideology and or hate for Trump. 

 

It's not reasonable to me, and others that do not share your ideology and or hate for Trump. 

Weak deflection.

 

You were asked to provide facts to support your assertion that the press could not be trusted.  You haven't provided facts because you can't.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Kind of a no win scenario for Democrats.  If Trump skates (like he usually does) then they look petty and vindictive. There is a bruising fight for the GOP nomination. Trump may win and is elected again.

 

If Trump gets tarred enough, he doesn't run. Then the GOP can relax and dig into their deeeeeeeeep bench of young, energetic, and charismatic presidential hopefuls.  The Democrats are forced to reckon with the prospect of an 80 plus year old Biden trying to fend off his nimble and photogenic opponent. The GOP wins again. 

 

Or the Democrats dump Biden/convince him to not run again. Who do they have? Can you see Kamala Harris trying again to win the nomination. She got zero delegates last time and was  a proven lightweight. Who is left? Revenge of the Hillary- third time is the charm? Lost to Obama, lost to Trump, now lose again to the GOP. Not a great legacy for her at all. 

As has been explained, Trump's actions on and before January 6 showed him to be a criminal or an idiot, or both.  He has been shown to be unfit for office.

 

The Democrats have plenty of potential candidates for President, and hopefully this time they will get the over 70's of the party to get out of the way and let younger candidates compete.  That's what they should have done in 2020.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, g man said:

Not sure what country you emanate from but most countries realize the threat of voter fraud can be exploited by mail in balloting hence proper safeguards such as those implemented by DeSantis help deter voter fraud. Mail in balloting is banned in many countries and locals.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3666259

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/developed-countries-ban-mail-in-voting-us-would-be-laughing-stock-report

 

If you didn't know that before, you do now.

 

You don't need to read this or reply, it's way off topic.

 

 

So much voter fraud!  Yet somehow the actual evidence of voter fraud has not been enough to swing the election for dogcatcher of Podunk village.