Text began coming in to Meadows on January 6th, begging trump to stop the Capitol attack

Too funny... the bombshell was a hyped-up nothing burger... Why am I not surprised...

Just a lot of leftists frothing at the mouth...
 

Talk about rocking off the porch! Wow! Bigly!!!
 
I am a registered democrat but voted for Trump. I am highly suspicious
of the JAN 6 testimony-----BOTH SIDES SEEM LIKE LIARS TO ME

I agree. They’re saying he tried to hijack The Beast, had to be restrained and then he tried to choke an agent. And THAT never leaked???? BS
 

White House Counsel Was Concerned About Obstruction Charges From March To Capitol

White House counsel Pat Cipollone was concerned with being charged with obstruction of justice, “defrauding the electoral count” “obstructing the Electoral College count,” if President Donald Trump pursued a march to the Capitol on Jan. 6, Hutchinson just testified.

Any questions about why Cipollone and Meadows don't want to testify?
Who cares?
 
The thrown-dinner and strangling-the-agent stories are glitzy and attention-grabbing, but to me the most damning testimony she has given so far is that Trump knew that the armed attendees of his rally were not there to hurt him. That implies strongly that he knew they were there to hurt someone else.
 
Yet none of these BOMBSHELL incidents leaked for 18 months despite dozens of witnesses.

I despise Trump and even I dont buy it. What a fucking waste of time. Democrats have actual power right now and THIS is what we use it for? Fucking no way we win 2024
The hype is drummed up BS and even democrats can see through it... Now that's bad.. these people are soooo screwed..
 
Charge him with a crime and let him call witnesses and defend himself.
Are you referring to trump?

If so, trump will defy
Claim the 5th.

Trump will never testify under oath,
but if he does........He will then have that Colonel Jessop moment.

I can hardly wait. Please defend yourself under oath mr trump.
 
I agree. They’re saying he tried to hijack The Beast, had to be restrained and then he tried to choke an agent. And THAT never leaked???? BS

They’re not saying anything.

A witness that was there with first hand information, is testifying under oath is saying it.

So you’re saying she is lying under oath?
 
I agree. They’re saying he tried to hijack The Beast, had to be restrained and then he tried to choke an agent. And THAT never leaked???? BS
The evidence of Watergate took longer than that. It's not unusual.
 
The thrown-dinner and strangling-the-agent stories are glitzy and attention-grabbing, but to me the most damning testimony she has given so far is that Trump knew that the armed attendees of his rally were not there to hurt him. That implies strongly that he knew they were there to hurt someone else.
You're taking the sugar-coated turd as fact...now that's funny...
 
The thrown-dinner and strangling-the-agent stories are glitzy and attention-grabbing, but to me the most damning testimony she has given so far is that Trump knew that the armed attendees of his rally were not there to hurt him. That implies strongly that he knew they were there to hurt someone else.
No it doesn’t, in fact, it assumes her testimony is honest or accurate. It might be neither. Let’s wait for the cross examination. Oh wait. There is of course no cross examination. Hm.

Maybe (if he had actually heard about anyone in the rally being armed at all), maybe he didn’t give it any thought. Maybe he thought it was a 2d Amendment “statement.” But, either way, there’s no reasonable inference that he imaginesd that anyone armed was planning to hurt anyone.
 
You're taking the sugar-coated turd as fact...now that's funny...
Well, you don't have to believe her, but a lot of other people will, especially if no one comes forward with a contradictory account that is as specific and detailed as hers.
 

Forum List

Back
Top