Secret Service Deleted All Text Messages From Jan. 5-6th, After Inspector Generals Office Requested Them

[Delldude]

Ahh, gotcha. So they are subpoenaing people from the start. Okay.

I believe that's how you testify.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I believe that's how you testify.

I don't think they subpoenaed , for example, the Capitol Police officers. I do see why they would go right to subpoena for a member of the white house staff.

 

[Delldude]

I don't think they subpoenaed , for example, the Capitol Police officers. I do see why they would go right to subpoena for a member of the white house staff.

Not sure, you'd think they'd do it legal via subpoena.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Fight like Hell!" Yup...that was one of the Fat Former Guy's admonitions to a mob that was ready to battle. Now...he is distancing himself from the mob...because the coup attempt failed. trump is a GIANT orange POS.

"Peacefully and patriotically walk to the capitol "

 

[basquebromance]

holy fucking shit, the Secret Service was in on the coup. there need to be some fucking indictments, pronto

 

[San Souci]

An embarrassing cult lie.

That 1/6 Committee is the same as the fake Russia crap.

 

[San Souci]

"Fight like Hell!" Yup...that was one of the Fat Former Guy's admonitions to a mob that was ready to battle. Now...he is distancing himself from the mob...because the coup attempt failed. trump is a GIANT orange POS.

What a load of crap.

 

[beagle9]

Why? You don't know why someone should be held accountable for destroying evidence?

That's what he's asking.. DUH..

 

[beagle9]

I care. So like me you believe if we do not hold some accountable to the law, we should hold no one accountable?

Should hold everyone accountable to the the law, but the Clinton's along with other's over time had ended the presumptive thinking that most Americans are held accountable for their actions in life. These politician's of today are a mess, because over time it slowly became more tolerable to accept corruption on a certain level, otherwise if it somehow served a double purpose, wherefore the one side of that purpose somehow seemed worth it in order to tolerate the bad side of the purpose.

Then it just got out of hand.

 

[pknopp]

Should hold everyone accountable to the the law, but the Clinton's along with other's over time had ended the presumptive thinking that most Americans are held accountable for their actions in life. These politician's of today are a mess, because over time it slowly became more tolerable to accept corruption on a certain level, otherwise if it somehow served a double purpose, wherefore the one side of that purpose somehow seemed worth it in order to tolerate the bad side of the purpose.

Then it just got out of hand.

Hence, I support holding no one accountable.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That 1/6 Committee is the same as the fake Russia crap.

Yes, that's the line your cult is being spoonfed. We know.

 

[Delldude]

That 1/6 Committee is the same as the fake Russia crap.

You know, you gotta give the dems some credit here, during both of their failed impeachments against Trump, they had cross examination from the other party.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You know, you gotta give the dems some credit here, during both of their failed impeachments against Trump, they had cross examination from the other party.

Yes, those were actual trials. Well, kind of. Remember when McConnell refused to let the dems call witnesses or present evidence? That's was kind of weaselly.

I remember the republican outrage at that behavior at an actual trial. It far eclipsed their present outrage at the same thing in a hearing (not an actual trial).

Or not.

Also weird: the Republicans who admitted Donnie was guilty as charged, but thought he should not be convicted, because he had learned his lesson, and because the prescribed penalty for committing high crimes was just, ya know, a little harsh.

Just like you hear juries say all the time, haha

 

[iceberg]

I care. So like me you believe if we do not hold some accountable to the law, we should hold no one accountable?

Last time I asked you to hold someone accountable, you said Trump did it too and spin in circles.

Still spinning, I see.

 

[pknopp]

Last time I asked you to hold someone accountable, you said Trump did it too and spin in circles.

Still spinning, I see.

If you say so.

 

[Delldude]

Yes, those were actual trials. Well, kind of. Remember when McConnell refused to let the dems call witnesses or present evidence? That's was kind of weaselly.

I remember the republican outrage at that behavior at an actual trial. It far eclipsed their present outrage at the same thing in a hearing (not an actual trial).

Or not.

Also weird: the Republicans who admitted Donnie was guilty as charged, but thought he should not be convicted, because he had learned his lesson, and because the prescribed penalty for committing high crimes was just, ya know, a little harsh.

Just like you hear juries say all the time, haha

The McConnell thing was a little more complex than just refusing to let witnesses'....I believe there was a big compromise with the left on that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The McConnell thing was a little more complex than just refusing to let witnesses'....I believe there was a big compromise with the left on that

Yeah, the compromise went:

"You get nothing. No new witnesses or evidence. Because I am in charge of the Senate."

Remember the Republican outrage? Me neither.

 

[Delldude]

Yeah, the compromise went:

"You get nothing. No new witnesses or evidence. Because I am in charge of the Senate."

Remember the Republican outrage? Me neither.

Nah it was something about if the left wants that, the house failed their investigation.

Senate was to judge the evidence.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hence, I support holding no one accountable.

Of course you want to hold Trump and anyone close to him accountable for things you leftists have created that they did.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nah it was something about if the left wants that, the house failed their investigation.

Same thing, of course. In no real trial would a judge refuse newly declared evidence or witnesses before a trial even starts, based on, "Shoulda thought of all that before the trial". Because, as you may have noticed... it is still "before the trial". If new, material evidence or witnesses come forward, judges allow them via the same process of hearings.

So that was just his weaselly way of fooling people who don't know any better and to give them a talking point to regurgitate. Looks like it worked well.

McConnell knows better and knows exactly what he did.