Cut and Dried

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anyone who thinks that Donnie is not guilty should crawl back under their rock since they don't have the mental ability to have anything to do with our country.

And that of course would be blind partisan Trump supporters.

 

[Marener]

When you have a one sided committee, you pretty much can frame and choreograph
the dog and pony show anyway you like.

This is pretty much the entirety of the counter narrative.

There’s no even an attempt to explain how the findings of the Jan 6th committee aren’t damming.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

been represented under oath? what does that even mean?

It means, "did he have a fucking lawyer?"...lol

Do you agree that the Constitution guarantees legal representation during a trial?

 

[blackhawk]

 

[themirrorthief]

The "Evidence" has and is being presented. You don't like it, too bad. Don't like the time, don't commit the crime.

if protests are outlawed....lots of democrats will have to shut their huge stupid commumist mouths

 

[Vrenn]

View attachment 709623

MAGA
Making Attorneys get Attorneys​

 

[themirrorthief]

And that of course would be blind partisan Trump supporters.

speaking of blind, you probably still think old Joe is functioning perfectly

 

[Vrenn]

if protests are outlawed....lots of democrats will have to shut their huge stupid commumist mouths

Protests are legal and even wanted by everyone. Insurrection Attempts should be condemned, tried, convicted and put to death. But as usual, you MAGA Maggots will get lesser and more favorable treatment. If you support the J6 and Rump then you need to go to the gallows along with them just like a good Traitor and Terrorist you are.

 

[Chillicothe]

CALL: Has the good poster 'Meister' watched any of the previous J6 hearings? Is he watching the 6th one today?

RESPONSE: "Unless Trump is fairly represented, (and he's not), it's one sided"

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

Umm, poster Meister, in the interest of time and efficiency lemme offer the following recent post as a way to better inform your understanding of what you watched in the previous 5 Committee hearings and the one you watched today:
(from post #101 in the 'Committee plans to vote..." thread):


"........these proceedings that you have faithfully followed....don't have 'defendants'.
Only witnesses.
It's a 'hearing' .... not a trial. Not an indictment.

However, what it does do is sets the marker of: "Look, we gave him a golden opportunity to come before the Committee and the American people and tell his side of the story."

Which, strive as they might, the Committee has struggled to get ALL of the players-in-the-know to come and 'tell-their-side'.
As we heard today over 50 people-in-the-know have plead the 5th Amendment right to not make statements that could incriminate them criminally.

So those 50+ didn't want to tell what they knew, or what they did. (for example, John Eastman plead the 5th...146 times. Roger Stone plead the 5th to every question. Jeffrey Clark plead the 5th to every question. Michael Flynn plead the 5th to every question from the J6 Committee. Alex Jones plead the 5th "almost 100 times.") Peter Navarro and Mark Meadows are fighting the subpoenas to testify.

Look, these folks know their side of the story better than anyone else.
Yet, they refuse to give their side of the story.....perhaps thinking that their side of the story will incriminate them in criminal activity?

Look, it is like this: The Committee is charged with investigating what happened so it can be prevented in the future.

There is no need for your defensiveness over DonT. He is only being asked with this subpoena to come before the Committee and share with them his side of the story."

 

[jc456]

And that of course would be blind partisan Trump supporters.

Of what?

 

[struth]

It means, "did he have a fucking lawyer?"...lol

Do you agree that the Constitution guarantees legal representation during a trial?

yes trump has constantly had a lawyer, and he’s never been on trial because the dembots can’t find a crime to indict him on

 

[Meister]

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

Umm, poster Meister, in the interest of time and efficiency lemme offer the following recent post as a way to better inform your understanding of what you watched in the previous 5 Committee hearings and the one you watched today:
(from post #101 in the 'Committee plans to vote..." thread):


"........these proceedings that you have faithfully followed....don't have 'defendants'.
Only witnesses.
It's a 'hearing' .... not a trial. Not an indictment.

However, what it does do is sets the marker of: "Look, we gave him a golden opportunity to come before the Committee and the American people and tell his side of the story."

Which, strive as they might, the Committee has struggled to get ALL of the players-in-the-know to come and 'tell-their-side'.
As we heard today over 50 people-in-the-know have plead the 5th Amendment right to not make statements that could incriminate them criminally.

So those 50+ didn't want to tell what they knew, or what they did. (for example, John Eastman plead the 5th...146 times. Roger Stone plead the 5th to every question. Jeffrey Clark plead the 5th to every question. Michael Flynn plead the 5th to every question from the J6 Committee. Alex Jones plead the 5th "almost 100 times.") Peter Navarro and Mark Meadows are fighting the subpoenas to testify.

Look, these folks know their side of the story better than anyone else.
Yet, they refuse to give their side of the story.....perhaps thinking that their side of the story will incriminate them in criminal activity?

Look, it is like this: The Committee is charged with investigating what happened so it can be prevented in the future.

There is no need for your defensiveness over DonT. He is only being asked with this subpoena to come before the Committee and share with them his side of the story."

Keep spinning your wheels.

 

[struth]

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

Umm, poster Meister, in the interest of time and efficiency lemme offer the following recent post as a way to better inform your understanding of what you watched in the previous 5 Committee hearings and the one you watched today:
(from post #101 in the 'Committee plans to vote..." thread):


"........these proceedings that you have faithfully followed....don't have 'defendants'.
Only witnesses.
It's a 'hearing' .... not a trial. Not an indictment.

However, what it does do is sets the marker of: "Look, we gave him a golden opportunity to come before the Committee and the American people and tell his side of the story."

Which, strive as they might, the Committee has struggled to get ALL of the players-in-the-know to come and 'tell-their-side'.
As we heard today over 50 people-in-the-know have plead the 5th Amendment right to not make statements that could incriminate them criminally.

So those 50+ didn't want to tell what they knew, or what they did. (for example, John Eastman plead the 5th...146 times. Roger Stone plead the 5th to every question. Jeffrey Clark plead the 5th to every question. Michael Flynn plead the 5th to every question from the J6 Committee. Alex Jones plead the 5th "almost 100 times.") Peter Navarro and Mark Meadows are fighting the subpoenas to testify.

Look, these folks know their side of the story better than anyone else.
Yet, they refuse to give their side of the story.....perhaps thinking that their side of the story will incriminate them in criminal activity?

Look, it is like this: The Committee is charged with investigating what happened so it can be prevented in the future.

There is no need for your defensiveness over DonT. He is only being asked with this subpoena to come before the Committee and share with them his side of the story."

the entire point of rhe 5th amendment is to protect innocent people from Starr Chambers like this.