Jump to content
Essential Maintenance Nov 28 :We'll need to put the forum into "Under Maintenance" mode from 9 PM to 1 AM (approx).GMT+7

Trump pledges to free Jan. 6 rioters in early act as president if elected


Recommended Posts

Posted
9 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

What they did was as UNPATRIOTIC as it gets and shame on those who defend such criminals.

 

Keep your shirt on, it was sarcasm. 

My compass needle points to those jolly fellows who put together the Charlottesville tiki-torch rally in 2017.  A week or two later the authorities caught up with the guy who organized it and he literally shed tears while being arrested, saying he didn't mean all that stuff he posted and so on.  So much for the blood of patriots and all that snot.

Every so often a political movement will seize a word and not many will realize it has been redefined.  First one I recall catching was mandate, back in the Reagan years:  whenever the GOP came out ahead it was a mandate, even if they won by only 1%.  "Pro life" is a great one, notice that most who oppose abortion tend to support the death penalty.

I hope people realize a US patriot is now someone against having an ordered and democratic government, and wants to increase Russian and not quite post Soviet Eastern European authoritarian influence in the US. 

IMO if DT manages to get re-elected he will be brought to heel from within his administration by the likes of Flynn and Harlan Crow.  Those most fervent MAGA fans will be the first to go, I refer you to how that little guy with the moustache cleansed his regime of the loyalists that got him installed back in the 1930s.

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, candide said:

Yes. It's much more efficient.

not sure how, it's cctv footage.

 

Edited by frank83628
really cant be arsed with this guy
Posted
8 hours ago, candide said:

Lame deflection. Even according to Fox News, you were wrong! 😀

Lame deflection? If you bothered to read your own link you would see that Fox basically repeats the same story as I linked. The only thing that contradicts it, is Cheyney! I'll stay where I am for now and see what develops.

  • Confused 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Trumps entire campaigns raison-d'etre is to remove the rule of law, destroy the justice system and remove democratic norms.

 

He is after all "on the run" from the rule of law. Long accustomed to cheating, lying, bullying and getting away with questionable sexual behaviour, the Presidency led him to believe his own hubris. When he lost the Presidency, despite a blatant attempt to "remove democratic norms", and found himself facing the consequences of both that and the years of lying, cheating, fraud and groping, his only recourse was to regain the Presidency, and try to use it to overturn the rule of law, and destroy the justice system that is after him.

 

If he gets in, the rule of law and the justice system will be finished. You won't get it back! 250 years of work pissed up against the wall to serve the ego of a corrupt fraudulent bully.

 

I don't like Biden, he is a foolish "plastic paddy", but he is not a corrupt fraudulent bully!

 

Hopefully, we'll find out the truth of your last line some day.

  • Confused 1
  • Agree 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

If you care to read your own link properly, you might see that your claim is false. The GOP are not trying to fabricate anything but they have been trying for months to gather evidence. As Comer has repeatedly said, that gathering process has been continuously slowed by the stonewalling of the Biden-sympathetic FBI & DOJ. 

Of course they aren’t.

 

They just lose witnesses and the witnesses they food have turn up to deny they have any evidence.

  • Confused 1
  • Agree 2
Posted
33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Of course they aren’t.

 

They just lose witnesses and the witnesses they food have turn up to deny they have any evidence.

 

Well that's certainly food for thought! 

  • Haha 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:


By the same argument he’s not losing your vote.

 

He is however losing the votes of moderate Republicans and the swing voters he would need to win the election.

 

 


If you say so it must be true.

  • Confused 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
4 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Shot whilst battering down the door behind which people the rioters were "coming for" were sheltering!

You need to provide a link for that or you are making it up.

  • Confused 2
Posted
4 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Shot whilst battering down the door behind which people the rioters were "coming for" were sheltering!

Actually you are making it it up. Took me just a couple of minutes to find the true version.

 

I bet you don't apologise for making it up though.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/14/officer-who-killed-capitol-rioter-ashli-babbitt-wont-be-charged-doj-says.html

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, candide said:

 

I checked in your linked source. Pelosi is never mentioned. (Which makes sense as she had never been in charge of security at the Capitol).

 

I showed a quote from Ornato's testimony, from the Fox News article. He said:

 

"And not anywhere near the Capitol, this was just out on the mall area or at the event"

 

I find it funny that MAGA's sources confirm Trump was lying (if needed). He did ask for the national guard's support but:

- it was not to protect the protest,

- and Pelosi was not inolved

 

Even after your convenient editing you interpretation misses the mark.

 

Here, try this direct piece from the link:

 

Mr. Ornato’s testimony proves what Mr. Meadows has said all along: President Trump did in fact offer 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol, which was turned down," Georgia Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk said in a statement on Friday.

  • Haha 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, candide said:

 

I checked in your linked source. Pelosi is never mentioned. (Which makes sense as she had never been in charge of security at the Capitol).

 

I showed a quote from Ornato's testimony, from the Fox News article. He said:

 

"And not anywhere near the Capitol, this was just out on the mall area or at the event"

 

I find it funny that MAGA's sources confirm Trump was lying (if needed). He did ask for the national guard's support but:

- it was not to protect the protest,

- and Pelosi was not inolved

 

Pelosi was mentioned in this one:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jan-6-committee-allegedly-suppressed-testimony-showing-trump-admin-pushed-national-guard-presence-report

 

Twice

Posted
5 hours ago, johng said:

They are significant because they where found near to the vice president on the day,  when they where reported to police stationed nearby outside the vice presidents office  they casually dealt with the situation  even letting some school children pass right by the bench

the area should have been swept for bombs etc in the hours before but weren't found   the timers on the bombs could only have been set a few hours before hand.  It's been postulated that these bombs where known about before hand  hence the casual  police actions and that they may have been a backup plan in case "insurrection day"  at the Capitol failed to materialise.

 

Strangely  Kamala Harris and MSN never mention this grave threat to her life on "insurrection day"

 

The person setting the bombs is on CCTV footage but  yet to be apprehended.

Are you suggesting the deep state under Trump was attempting to disrupt the proceedings to certify the election results so Trump could remain President?

 

I don't think so, but it is certainly a more credible conspiracy theory than most.

  • Haha 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Even after your convenient editing you interpretation misses the mark.

 

Here, try this direct piece from the link:

 

Mr. Ornato’s testimony proves what Mr. Meadows has said all along: President Trump did in fact offer 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol, which was turned down," Georgia Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk said in a statement on Friday.

Lol! That's what Loudermilk said, not Ornato! 😀

This is becoming pathetic....

 

Ornato said:

"I remember he had – he was on the phone with [Bowser], and we – I had walked in for something, and I was there, and he was on the phone with her and wanted to make sure she had everything that she needed. Because I think it was the concern of anti and pro groups clashing is what I recall. And not anywhere near the Capitol, this was just out on the mall area or at the event; and wanted to know if she needed any more guardsmen," Ornato responded, according to the transcript reviewed by Fox News Digital. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jan-6-committee-allegedly-suppressed-testimony-showing-trump-admin-pushed-national-guard-presence-report

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Pathetic, indeed!

 

She was cited....by Trump! 😀 😀

 

"Trump has long claimed that he requested the National Guard but that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., failed to act on the request."

  • Thumbs Up 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, candide said:

Pathetic, indeed!

 

She was cited....by Trump! 😀 😀

 

"Trump has long claimed that he requested the National Guard but that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., failed to act on the request."

however the offer of the guards was made.

Posted
41 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Are you suggesting the deep state under Trump was attempting to disrupt the proceedings to certify the election results so Trump could remain President?

No I think you got hold of the wrong end of the  stick.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Announcements





×
×
  • Create New...