Rather says it all in one picture.
And it was posted today on Twitter and it is the perfect response to the Leftist shrieks since Friday.
For goodness sake, just a little bit of common sense and some self control and your chances of having an unwanted pregnancy drop to near zero. And yet 63 million abortions have been performed in the United States…which shows that in our modern society responsibility is rejected. A pro-choice Righty I know on Twitter posted an article from a British newspaper about a woman with a 50 year old Down’s Syndrome child who states she wishes she had aborted: the comment on it was, “why don’t you pro-lifers think about this?”. As if we don’t. As if we hadn’t already worked that into the calculation. We are none of us promised an easy trip from the cradle to the grave – life, at times, can be very painful. And at the end of it, you die. Even those of us with strong faith don’t like that thing coming down the pike – because for all our faith, we don’t know. We’re not allowed certainty. But in doubt or in faith, we’re going to die. It is a bit of suffering we all must endure – so why do people think they can opt out of suffering? It is part of life. It is how you deal with it that reveals what sort of person you are. My parents could have institutionalized my autistic brother – that was the recommendation of the medical professionals. But, they couldn’t – as flawed as my parents were, they just couldn’t see consigning their child to a faceless, uncaring institution just so life would be a little easier for them at home. This is what humans are supposed to do – to reach out in pity and mercy when things are bad…not run and hide.
And, so, the picture – the smug, wealthy Westerner who holds all the right positions and is always in favor of The Current Thing…demanding not a moment of suffering. Zero sacrifice…all the while literally sitting on the backs of a horde of suffering people who provide the comforts the Westerner believes are a birthright. It really is sickening.
There’s another part of it, too: the people, allegedly on the Right, most of them, warning us that now we’ve won, we’re doomed! Doomed, they say! We’ve awakened the Sleeping Giant! Now instead of a Red Wave in November it will turn Blue as a surge of people rush to the polls to affirm their support for abortion, which is wildly popular and only opposed by a few inbred, hick morons. Never saw such amazing stupidity.
First of all, it is the gas prices, stupid. Yesterday, the lady in front of me at the grocery checkout put back several items after she was rung up because it ended up being more than she could afford. She wasn’t buying steak and lobster – her cart was nothing but common staples. And she had to make a hard and fast choice of which common items she would do without for a week. That is the reality – that is the working and middle classes being crushed and that is what will be on the mind in November.
But, absent that, was anyone paying attention? Over a 50 year period the Pro-Life movement worked for this moment – with massive social and political opposition from the most powerful people and institutions in America. And with their own supposedly pro-life leaders in politics stabbing them in the back every time they could (we still haven’t defunded Planned Parenthood, after all). They triumphed over it all because, at the end of the day, they were the more powerful political coalition. Make no mistake about it, if America really was a majority Pro-Choice nation, Roe would never go down…because there wouldn’t have been the GOP votes to put into the Supreme Court the necessary Justices to do so. Meanwhile, what of the Pro-Choice movement? Didn’t they fight? No, they didn’t – they coasted, coddled by a Ruling Class and MSM which never challenged them…so the point where most Americans still don’t know that the abortion laws of France and Sweden are vastly more restrictive than Roe…in fact, more restrictive than the Alabama law which was the instrument of Roe’s downfall.
Now the fight shifts to the States and Democrats are going to be asked if there are any legitimate restrictions on abortion – and they’ll have to dodge, because instead of fighting for 50 years like the Pro-Life movement, they coasted on Roe and their ability to say they were just defending “a woman’s right to choose”. Now they’re going to have to defend slaughtering a child in the birth canal…and they (and the world) will find out that while there probably isn’t a majority in favor of a nationwide ban on abortion, there is even a small number willing to fight for abortion on demand to the moment of birth.
We’re going to win, my friends. We were always going to win. It was never going to be easy. It might take even another century before we have a Culture of Life codified into American law – but we’re going to win. We’ll have setbacks and will suffer a lot on the way, but we’re used to that and are ok with it. We’re just going to keep rolling along, standing firm on the ideal that a human life is precious, regardless of condition.
Blogs For Victory 
Other benefits of the SC Roe reversal;
1.) Idiot leftist have or threatened to renounce US citizenship,
2.) Leftist females threaten sex strike (can’t overstate how laughable this is),
3.) Leftist business organizations expose themselves citing they will pay for out-of-state abortions for employees,
4.) There will be a lot less money flowing through PP and ultimately leftist politicians.
Plus all the Democrats who “claimed” they just wanted abortion “safe and rare but legal” may now finally get their wish.
Idiot leftist have or threatened to renounce US citizenship,
What is so funny about this is that the US has had the least restrictive abortion laws of any of the countries these losers might think would welcome them.
Another big SC win for religious freedom. The court ruled that removal of a former high school football coach from his position for kneeling after the game to say a silent 30 second prayer, violated both the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.
I’ve waited most of my life for when we’d have a SC that would actually rule based on the constitution and not leftist dogma falsely packaged as caring government intervention. It will uplifting to know that the SC makeup will have a stronger conservative bend for some time to come.
It’s going to be interesting to see how establishment Republicans (like George W. bush) who talked the pro-life talk but never quite walked the walk come down on this. I was more than a bit surprised that Liz Cheney praised the decision. That could make for some awkward moments on the 1/6 Commission.
Props to Liz Cheney for sticking to her guns on the Life issue…but while she has little chance of winning renomination, she doesn’t have no chance…and coming out against Dobbs would completely finish her in Wyoming. We’ll see once she becomes an MSNBC pundit in 2023 whether she “evolves” on the issue.
And the longer time goes on, the more disappointed I am in W…he refused to stick up for us in the 8 years of Obama; never helped us when Trump was President and now he’s been dead silent on the overturn of Roe. We might very well have been sold a bill of goods.
I’m sure they know she had to say that to try to salvage at least a tiny fleeting hope of remaining in Congress. I think the committee will care less than the foot soldiers out in the field flooding blogs and comments sections praising her for her unflagging dedication to her principles because they’re the ones who will have to balance that rhetoric with her alleged pro-life stance.
Another irony that just warms the cockles of my heart is the “living Constitution” position that the Left has subscribed to for at least a century has come back to bite them in the ass. Karma!
Judge Temporarily Blocks Utah’s Abortion Ban Following Dobbs Decision
How is it possible for lower court judges to block (override) a state law where the Supreme Court had just issued a ruling dictating that each state had the right to define when abortion could be performed? Apparently, this “temporary restraining order – TRO” was utilized to allow for several abortions already scheduled for today (Monday) prior to the SC ruling. I suspect this is just one of many tactics yet to be deployed to circumvent abortion bans in states that have already elected provisions for when R v W would be tossed. Any change this judge can be disbarred?
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2022/06/27/judge-temporarily-blocks-utahs-abortion-ban-following-dobbs-decision-n2609418
Judges can pretty much do as they please, as long as they don’t mind being struck down…and these State judges issuing injunctions will all be struck down…or, like in Kentucky, will run afoul of a ballot initiative this fall which will insert into the State Constitution an amendment stating that nothing in the Constitution shall be construed as to secure a right to an abortion, nor require funding of same.
There will be these fights and these actions are just reactionary…now it really depends on where the pro-aborts want to go? If they retreat to bans after 15 weeks, they’ll get a lot of success, even in some Red States.. But I don’t think they can do that right now – the ideological enforcers are already out and demanding that every Democrat running for office assert there can be no restrictions on abortion. Meanwhile, Laxalt here in Nevada, Youngkin out in Virginia are positioning themselves – and by extension – the GOP into the Moderate lane…it is sort of calling for “common sense abortion regulations”.
Keep in mind that probably not 25% – and hardly any of those who are pro-choice – know that Roe legalized abortion to birth. The MSM simply hasn’t let that cat out of the bag. They don’t know that “a woman’s right to choose” was extended right up to the birth canal. And as Democrats stake out the extremist position, people will find out about this and come to trust the GOP to be the reasonable party on the issue.
Whom the gods would destroy…
I just read that it cost $200 million to make the Disney / Pixar movie “Lightyear”. What the F…?? It’s a friggin cartoon! No astronomical head actor / actress salaries to pay, no heavy-duty special effects, no offsite filming, etc. By comparison, “Top Gun: Maverick” had a reported production budget of $152 million.
Given that Top Gun 2 is a major financial success and Lightyear is a financial bust (in large part because of the LGBTQ propaganda), it will be interesting to see if the movie industry continues to push leftist ideology or if they’ll go back to making quality family movies. Disney used to exemplify family entertainment in many forms where there was never any concern for parents when a new Disney movie came out. You knew you’d be able to laugh and enjoy a couple hour of entertainment. That also use to be much the same for major league sports. These days, not so much. Seems all too many corporations, professional sports institutions, major movie industries, etc… want to indoctrinate or confuse kids values and ideas about sex, politics and lifestyles and intentionally undermine wholesome living.
We’ve already had six sci-fi movies from Hollywood based on the “Transformers” franchise. Will next year’s blockbuster be “The Transgenders”?
Welcome to the upside down world of leftist ideology. They pollute everything they touch and are intent in eroding basic freedoms, productive, responsible living. Their version of “diversity” is nothing more than a race to the bottom. They used to be clever in hiding their agenda, but have basically dropped all pretense in a rush to destroy anything that even resembles real progress. In spite of their easily disputed inflammatory lies, people still march lock-in-step with them, probably in large part because they are too lazy to do anything that requires more effort than licking the crumbs off the ground.
Education is one of the great equalizers, but only if it’s not infused with corrupted history and dumbed down indoctrination. While the left used COVID as an instrumental means to steal the presidential election, they also inadvertently created a boom in homeschooling. Once parents were forced to be more involved in their kid’s education did they see what was really taking place in the public schools and their school boards. I’ve no doubt this will end up being a significant “unintended consequence” for the left in years to come.
The Obama years was instrumental in giving us Trump. The Trump years was responsible for 3 Supreme Court justices whose influence will be felt for years. COVID and the Biden years will no doubt lead way to many things that will send the left in a downward spiral. Though it never seems to happen fast enough, several recent SC rulings is sure a good sign. God Bless America!!!
Judge Rules New York City Election Law Unconstitutional
Another court victory, though it’s sad we need to use the court for these kinds of victories. The NY city council tried to push through a law allowing non-citizens to vote. Leftist are hell bent on giving up sovereignty for individual power & control. That in my opinion is what defines traitors.
Until these leftist individuals are made an example of with significant financial impact and/or jail time or both, they will continue to push. We need to always be diligent.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2022/06/27/court-strikes-down-noncitizen-voting-in-new-york-city-n2609385?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=52ce413f6fb58c7873c6b911b92d704d389047e1deec5d09abd903754eeb0b1f&recip=26664402
This ruling, agreeable as it is, means absolutely nothing when the enforcers are the very same people it is supposed to be enforced against.
Did I say that correctly?
I think you did.
This just in – Brett Baier is a complete piece of shit.
Are you referring to his interview of Kari Lake?
YES. He showed his true DC colors in that interview and I will never watch him again. Plus, he’s had plastic surgery done too so he wants to look good at the cocktail party this weekend.
I always have to laugh at your concept of DC just being one big “cocktail party”. I don’t think they even have “cocktail parties” any more—they sound so 1950s. I think these days it is power lunches and dinners.
Was any of what he asked her about the drag queen even remotely true? There’s a big difference between covering a drag queen for the news and endorsing a drag queen interacting with little kids.
It just shows you how dishonest and stupid people are. Kari was a long time morning anchor and yes, she was sent out on assignments all over the Valley, covering what her bosses wanted her to cover which at one time included drag queens. That’s it. But now they want to make that into something bigger including Baier. What a piece of botoxed fuck he is.
Is she likely to win the nomination?
She will win big. And has my vote
What did he do?
Probably that Baier had the audacity to call today’s Jan 6 hearing testimony “really, really powerful,” to which he literally got blank stares from his fellow panelists.
…because they knew that by “really really powerful” he was referring to yet another steaming pile of BS. It didn’t take any deep political analysis to see from the get-go that this latest twinkie was spouting hearsay as if it was either relevant or admissible. Baier is supposed to be a political analyst so his gullibility hurt him.
I like his glib comment that Hutchison was under oath while Trump was merely commenting on Truth Social…as if anyone who lies under oath for the Democrats would ever suffer any consequences.
I mean, come on! We know the game – our guy misremembers something and he’s facing 20 years…their guy malevolently lies and is given hero treatment.
LOL, 40. Another good day for Ron DeSantis.
Cluster here is your guy Baier. OMG wait until the end.
Per CNN, “‘This is basically a campaign commercial for (Florida Gov.) Ron DeSantis 2024,’ said the Trump ally.”
I wonder if DeSantis might be the one to break from Trump, and soon. I mean, at this point conservatives got what they wanted from Trump, which was the overturning of Roe v. Wade. They all held their noses and voted for him, knowing what he was, because abortion (as if Trump was the only conservative who would have stuck to the Federalist Society dictating Supreme Court justices). Now why stick with him? Because of his “base”? For some of that base, these revelations, combined with another “attractive” candidate, could be enough for them to finally move on. Of course, there will always be the deadenders, but I suspect their numbers are decreasing.
at this point conservatives got what they wanted from Trump
Yeah, that’s all we wanted. The economic prosperity, the move away from dependence on China, the strengthening of our southern border and by extension our national sovereignty, the reduced tax burden, the optimism that comes from knowing there is still opportunity, the rejection of the global tyranny represented by the Paris Accords, the move toward educational freedom with the expansion of school choice, the refusal to tempt poor desperate people to risk their lives to cross an open border and the associated refusal to use politics to enable the enrichment of drug cartels and their businesses of human trafficking and sex slavery, the international respect we were regaining after the Apology Tours of groveling Obama—we didn’t care about any of that.
Don’t get me wrong—this correction of a gross example of abuse of power and expansion of federal authority is very welcome because it signals a possible return to a clearer sense of true Constitutional governance. And that is a welcome change.
Now we want to get out of the deepening rut of Bidenville and see daylight again, and Trump is one who can accomplish that. He did it once, and he can do it again. And that is what has the Left peeing down its collective leg.
His recognition of the stealthy acquisition of power through the shifting of legislative authority from Congress to the de facto fourth branch of government, that of federal agencies run by mostly Leftist politically appointed bureaucrats who use their power to bypass Congress and essentially enact their own legislation posed—to use a favorite phrase of the breathless Left—am EXISTENTIAL THREAT to its creeping advancement toward total control. This is what freaked out the Left, which had been able to coast through other mildly Republican administrations with little damage or slowing of its progress. Suddenly the guy in charge got it, and was doing something about it, and that had to be stopped—by any means possible.
IMHO Ron is in the driver’s seat to be our next President. A lot can happen between now and Nov 2024 but sheesh I don’t like it.
OF COURSE you don’t like it—-it looks like the nation had a taste of life under the boot heel of a massively powerful Central Authority and didn’t like it, and might be swinging that pendulum back toward a saner, more constitutional, form of government.
That is, no more government destruction of an entire industry to force people to accept its agenda of wind and solar power for all.
That is, no more government power exerted to force people to be injected with experimental drugs that don’t do what they are supposed to do but show increasing evidence of danger and even lethality
That is, no more having to choose between driving and eating
That is, no more grooming of our very young children to sexualize them at a young age
That is, no more racist indoctrination in our schools, masquerading as “education” while reducing everyone to little more than the credits given or taken away based on the melanin content of the skin
That is, no more silencing of opposing points of view, in the media or in schools or in social media
That is, more focus on the purpose and structure of good government and less on Identity Politics
That is, a Department of Justice that is focused on prosecution of real crimes and not on advancement of social engineering
That is, a military dedicated to being strong enough to defend the country and not on pandering to cultural fads
That is, a nation in which state sovereignty is real and a guiding force in the way we govern ourselves
That is, a nation in which the de facto unconstitutional fourth branch of government, that of bureaucratic agencies run by political appointees, which essentially legislates without the oversight or participation of Congress, much less the people
That is, a nation with a strong and defined southern border which does not allow the unfettered passage of lethal drugs to kill our people
That is, an immigration policy that does not lure poor and desperate people to put their lives at risk to try to get into a country where they can be assured of cradle to grave support, education and health care
That is, an immigration policy which does not result in enrichment of brutal drug cartels and enable murder, sex slavery and human trafficking.
That is, a government and a nation prioritizing personal liberty, the freedom to succeed, and the economic prosperity that comes with them.
That is, an administration that respects its people, and does not denigrate them or judge them based on skin color or ethnicity
And more
In other words, the lessons of Leftist governance and the utter foolishness of choosing a president based not on who he is but on who he isn’t have started to sink in, and that leaves advocates of both, like you, a little nervous.
I am genuinely curious what RetiredSpook has to say about the revelations from JUST this afternoon. According to his bio here, he worked in Naval intelligence for decades. Presumably he took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, similar to the one that Donald Trump took. I wonder how he squares that oath with Trump’s behavior in office.
You don’t like that DeSantis is likely to be our next President, or you don’t like what may happen between now and November, 2024? I’d love for Ron DeSantis to be #47. All the positives of Trump without the baggage and drama.
DeSantis can’t fill a room like Trump does. Trump still gets record turn outs wherever he goes because people love him and he definitely knows how to run a country. And I don’t give a fuck who he offends or what the media thinks of him. Trump will run again and win, then it will be time for DeSantis
I don’t want Ron to be our next President. But I think right now he is most likely next one.
” All the positives of Trump without the baggage and drama.”
See? A lot of conservatives, given the choice between Trump and DeSantis, will think the same way. Besides, Trump may will be up to his neck in legal entanglements by the time the next election rolls around.
What you don’t get is that concern about Trump running again has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the total wreckage the Left is quite happy to create in this country to try to keep him out of office.
Trump represents another tumultuous election cycle, but that’s not on him, it’s on the rabid, savage, unprincipled Left and its eager foot soldiers and cannon fodder like you, who will happily create as much division and conflict and hostility as you can in your relentless pursuit of power.
I am genuinely curious what RetiredSpook has to say about the revelations from JUST this afternoon.
I’ve never been wedded to Donald Trump as the be all/end-all. I’ve never cared much for him as a person, but I thought he was the right man at the right time in 2016. He made a lot of promises that aligned with my philosophy and kept nearly all of them, which was refreshing in and of itself. I have no problem agreeing that he’s a deeply flawed individual, but compared to Joe Brandon he’s a Boy Scout. That said, you have to take what’s happened in the January 6th Committee hearings with a grain of salt. Much of the proceedings wouldn’t be allowed in a normal court.
I think the oath means more than merely dismissing presidential violations of it as the deeds of a “deeply flawed individual,” but that’s me.
No one is claiming that the Jan 6 Committee is a courtroom; it’s a Congressional hearing. The grain of salt that I take away is that Cassidy Hutchinson testified under oath. She didn’t take the Fifth, and she didn’t ask for a pardon. (It is astounding to me that Mike Flynn had to take the Fifth in response to the question, “Do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?”)
Mark Meadows, Pat Cipollone, and others, are free to testify under oath as well, but Meadows asked for a pardon, implying that he knows he has criminal exposure, so I wouldn’t hold my breath for him to testify truthfully, under oath or not.
Anyway, the bottom line is that you will vote for whomever has the R behind their name, no matter how “deeply flawed” they are.
Nobody gives a fuck what you think
I wonder what Michael Stenger would have said today
” Meadows asked for a pardon”
Really? He did? When? How do you know?
If you’re going to breathlessly repeat lies, at least try to repeat something someone actually said. Your latest “whistleblower” twinkie Cassidy merely said he WANTED a pardon, as she once again consulted that cracked old crystal ball the Dems loaned her so she could testify about what other people thought and what they might have thought and what they might have said if they thought what they might have thought
Judging by Twitter, nobody cares what you think either. lol
How would you know? Do you follow me? Or are you just making shit up again like you and democrats always do. Jan 6 was an FBI led operation and you have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. And in case you didn’t know, that’s a fishing metaphor. Not sure if you’re one of those urban soy boys
Dude, you whined about it right here. And then you blamed Fielding for somehow rigging Twitter against you. hahahaha
According to Ms. Hutchinson’s sworn testimony, “Mr. Meadows did seek a pardon, yes ma’am.”
Just how did Meadows “seek” a pardon, and how would a low-level administrative aide know about it? Did he ask Trump for a pardon in front of her? Did she see a signed letter in which he made the request?
Or is this another of her interpretations of partially overhead conversations among other people she then took to appear to be like something?
Little Miss Hutchinson is learning the hard way that when you try to play with the big boys you can quickly get in over your head.
A “low level” administrative aide? She was Mark Meadows’ principal aide. As for Meadows’ pardon, he is free to testify under oath and describe what happened with respect to a pardon for himself (and others).
I find no fault with this statement except for the fact that shit is useful as a fertilizer. IIRC, there is no use for BB. That is all.
A simple question, if you all don’t mind. Which, if any, of these j6 testimonies have been done under oath?
Let me restate that. Which, if any, of these j6 testimonies have been done under oath and have video or transcripts to prove it?
All testimony before the Select Committee to Investigate the January Sixth Attack on the United States Capitol have been under oath.
Forty, I’m sure that you fell for the Jussie Smollet story, the Russia Collusion hoax, the J6 “coup”, and all other ruling class narratives so you’re entirely predictable as to what you say and think … and you’re boring. So run along, get your booster and go play with your non binary friends.
Does your belief in conspiracy theories also apply to your day to day life, Cluster? You must be a lot of fun at restaurants. “This steak looks cooked, it smells like it was cooked, it’s even hot to the touch, but… I didn’t actually see them cook it, so it’s not cooked. I’m not eating it.” Meanwhile, Mrs. Cluster enjoys her meal while Cluster stares glumly at his phone, doom scrolling Twitter in the hopes that someone will like one of his tweets.
I wonder what Michael Stenger would have testified to?
He is on record as saying there were professional agitators at the riot, and wanting investigations into who they were, where they came from, how they got there and who paid them.
That would have been very inconvenient testimony.
But I’m sure they’ll read it into the record. //sarc off
lol Another conspiracy theory. So on brand.
That’s not a “conspiracy theory”, dummy! That’s what are called “questions”.
Honest people answer questions.
As always, One must wait for the whole story. 24-48 hours is a good time. It appears that cassidy’s testomy has changed. President Trump was not in the beast but in a Secret Service SUV. Now, if she was under a real oath, which I cannot find any transcript of, she perjured herself in front of congress.
I do believe that is a crime. She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Not like the owner of the merrick gulag will ever do that.
P.S. I can find transcripts of congress critters saying that witnesses have been sworn in but no transcripts of any witness’s actual swearing any oath.
I would be more than happy to be corrected on this.
Can anyone say “kangaoo???
It’s quite the media production isn’t it?
Amazona, we know y’all are floating consipracy theories about Michael Stenger’s death. It’s cute that you are trying so hard to parse words.
You “know” that, do you? Did you borrow Cassidy’s crystal ball?
I quoted testimony of Michael Stenger, and pointed out that this would have been inconvenient testimony if he had been able to testify. That’s it. I haven’t “floated” anything, except maybe skepticism that this committee would have the integrity to read his transcript into the record to show that there was serious concern about the presence and roles of professional rioters.
Kinda touchy, ain’t cha? Little twitchy on the paranoia trigger.
Here’s something you clearly don’t know about me—I am pretty blunt and I say what I think. I don’t tippy-toe around murmuring sly innuendo or “floating” theories so subtly that no one but a paranoid could find anything to fret about.
A simple google search shows that y’all (as in, you conservatives) are spreading conspiracy theories about the death of Michael Stenger.
Well, cue the big-eyed surprise when someone whose testimony could blow up a major Leftist plot like using the status and power of the United States Congress to rig a presidential election is “found dead in his home” and this leads to a few questions.
When people die of cancer it is usually as the last stage of a process and not just a sudden and unexpected death, which is what is implied by the term “found dead in his home”.
Instead of the predictable blame game you people find so essential to your very existence, you might take a step back and look at yourselves, and take some responsibility for the perception that your side will stop at nothing in its obsessive quest for power.
Some of the most powerful and vindictive people in our government are deeply invested in trying to make this freak show of a “hearing” appear legitimate so it is perfectly natural to wonder how far they would go to support their claims, protect what there is of their tattered reputations, and achieve their goals of sliming the Right and rigging the next presidential election.
And then you blamed Fielding for somehow rigging Twitter against you. hahahaha
So I was just listening to Jimmy Neutron, aka Joe Scarborough on MSNBC aka State propaganda TV, declare unequivocally that the J6 protestors were armed!! Despite the fact that not one protestor had a gun. But that doesn’t stop a piece of shit Democrat from lying. Just has forty has lied here. I never any hinted that Fielding was messing with my Twitter, I “suggested” that the Twitter folks may be messing with my account but again that doesn’t stop a Democrat from lying.
They lie as easily as they breathe. They have no honor, no dignity, no decency, and they don’t deserve life.
You said you “know” you’re not being seen, then asked Fielding why that is and called him a loser.
That’s not even close to true. Next
“I have made three tweets in the last two days and not one like, so I know I’m not being seen which is just typical of Leftists. Why is that fielding? Why are you and your friends so emotionally incontinent that you can’t handle opposing opinion? You’re such a loser.”
What is it with your side’s obsession with bickering?
Twitter is known for its interference in messaging from those it deems politically unacceptable. So when something odd occurs involving messaging from someone in that category, stop with the stunned amazement that there might be questions about why.
If you (plural “you”) don’t want to be suspected of doing bad stuff, stop doing bad stuff. If you insist on doing bad stuff then at least man up and own it. But stop this whining, sniveling, whimpering bickering over being suspected of what you are known to do.
But, why not post the link to your Twitter feed right here so that the multitudes of readers can go and like your tweets? We don’t have to follow you on Twitter to be able to read your tweets. Anyone can read them, even if you don’t have a Twitter account. They show up on Google searches, for instance.
This has to be said, and I’ve seen this meme a lot and it’s very true. It says, “if you’ve ever wondered if you would have complied in 1930’s Germany, you now know”. And Forty – you would have made a very brown shirt. That’s a fact. You’re a mob follower.
And you remember what happened to the Brown Shirts after their usefulness to Hitler faded.
Jeff Childers has a pretty comprehensive take on Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony before the January 6th Committee:
I wonder if Ms. Hutchinson will be prosecuted for perjury. Any bets?
Here’s a counter point from Andrew McCarthy from NRO. Not exactly a Biden bro.
https://t.co/k7wthTNXJU
In any event, Hutchinson explained that the speech, like all presidential speeches, was carefully vetted by staff. White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his staff pleaded for removal of the exhortations Trump was insistent on including — “fight for me,” “fight for the movement,” and so on. They were too close to the legal line of incitement.
LOL! Do you realize how wealthy you’d be if you had a dollar for every time a politicial promised to “fight” for you if elected?
Hutchinson’s testimony is only impactful if you believe what she said. I don’t. She said so many things that are blatantly NOT true, that her whole testimony is in question, IMHO. You can believe it if you want, or you can sort through it and select which parts you want to believe. That belief and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
You don’t believe her testimony but you do believe Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was stolen, correct? Even though he has failed to provide any serious evidence of his assertion in the last 18 months, correct?
Watch 2000 mules. And if you and forty ever wondered what side you would have been on in 1930’s Germany. You now know. You both ruling class losers. Just like Mitt Romney.
If 2000 Mules is so dispositive why doesn’t Fox News trumpet it every chance they can? Dinesh is pissed they don’t have him on to plug it. Ann Coulter said it is a pile of shit movie.
You don’t believe her testimony but you do believe Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was stolen
I believe it in the same way you believe that a guy who rarely left his basement and couldn’t string two coherent sentences together got 16 million more votes than Obama did in 2012.
Actually, my view of what happened in the 2020 election is a bit more nuanced than there was just massive cheating on the part of Democrats. Let’s say, for the sake of argument that there was only garden variety cheating (dead people voting, people voting more than once, people voting in more than one state, etc. – something that pretty much everyone acknowleges) These are the areas that Bill Barr’s Justice Department investigated and found that, while there was fraud, it was not enough to change the results of the election.
Prior to the election, Dr. Robert Epstein (a Liberal Democrat) did an exhaustive analysis of Big Tech’s ability (and intent) to affect the election through selective reporting/suppression of news that might impact the election either positively or negatively and concluded it could have as much as a 15 million vote effect on the outcome. Subsequent to the election he has testified that news manipulation changed a minimum of 6 million votes. Couple that with tens of millions of unsolicited mail-in ballots over which there were few controls (signature recognition softwarw set as low as 40%), resulting in a massive reduction in the error rate compared to previous elections, and several key states that arbitrarily changed their election laws in violation of the U.S. Constitution as well as their own state constitutions, and I think you’ve got more than enough to change the outcome of the election. ON TOP OF THAT, YES, I do think there was massive cheating, but I don’t think there is the desire on the part of those who would eventually rule on any evidence to actually do so. That’s probably the most dangerous ramification of what transpired in the 2020 election.
Excellent points, Spook.
The Left has cleverly narrowed the scope of election fraud to simply counting votes and then recounting them. But as you point out, if we stop using their narrative and their limited scope of fraud we see a widespread coordinated plot to rig the election., one enacted on many levels.
So while we had Big Tech colluding with the Agenda Media to edit what the public was told, both in covering up ugly facts about Biden and smearing Trump, we also had actions in the states. We had a legislature passing new last-minute election laws in violation of its own state constitution—in normal times this would automatically have disqualified every ballot submitted under the illegal law, but in this case all these ballots were accepted, and then when they were folded into the mass of legal ballots and counted as votes the Dems were fine with having them counted again. Why not?
We had the millions of unsolicited mail-in ballots you mention, often sent out in violation of state laws, we had the massive acceptance of ballot envelopes without any signature at all in addition to the acceptance of illegible signatures, we had a total failure of control over ballots when they were delivered, and we had multiple sworn affidavits of witnesses to hundreds of thousands of ballots being delivered in the dead of night, some from other states, and being counted after Republican watchers were sent home. We had ballots accepted that were mailed before they should have been legally accepted, and ballots accepted after the supposed cut-off times.
I think what is significant is what was not allowed in post-election analysis. For example, no one was allowed to examine envelopes for signatures–in fact, many had been “lost” and courts refused to allow examination of others. No one was allowed to examine the actual original mailed-in ballots, just the pictures taken of them, in spite of (or more likely because of) awareness that metadata in photocopies can identify the printers involved and because there was testimony that many of them had never been folded and looked as if they had been filled out by machines.
The obvious question is why these avenues of investigation were blocked. And some of the “answers” seemed to raise more questions. For example, in response to reports of some people in Arizona voting more than once, the report “found” that 30,000 people in Arizona just happen to have the exact same first, middle and last names—-and birthdates. First and last, I can buy. Middle, maybe. But birth dates? If you divide the approximate number of people in the state—say four million—by 365 days you find that approximately 11,000 are likely to have the same birthday. Then filtering by last name, then first name, then middle name, are you really likely to find 30,000 people with identical personal data?
My questions (or what forty might call a “conspiracy theory) are these:
(1) Why were ballots cast under illegal election laws accepted and counted as valid votes?
(2) Why were ballots cast either before voting was allowed or after it ended still accepted and counted as votes?
(3) Why were ballots received that violated other election laws, such as signatures, still accepted and counted as votes?
(4) Why were ballots which were not properly supervised in acceptable chain of custody processes still accepted and counted as votes?
(5) Why were hundreds of thousands of ballots counted as votes and entered into the vote total when opposition monitors had been sent home?
(6) Why was there opposition to recounting votes?
(7) Why was there denial of requests to examine envelopes and collate envelopes with the number of “mail-in” ballots counted?
(8) Why was there denial of requests to examine the actual original ballots cast as “mail-in” ballots
(9) Why were some counting venues linked to the internet when this was not supposed to be allowed?
(10) Why were vote tallies changed soon after they appeared on screens?
How many of these questions have been answered?
And finally, as it was accepted that many states had vote tallies that were known to be inaccurate (and the statement “we can’t change anything because there is no way to know who got those votes or who should have gotten them” is blatantly an admission of not knowing who got how many valid votes) how could those states then “certify” vote counts they knew were not true?
Why was there absolutely NO move to point out to the various entities responsible for state certification (legislatures, secretaries of state, etc) that “certification” is a specific and legal term stating affirmation of accuracy? False certification is a crime. If I certify an odometer reading I know is not accurate, even if I don’t know what it should be, I have committed crime. But in the vitally important decision of who will run the government the concept of certification as guarantee of accuracy was simply ignored, and the vote tallies given, even when known to not be accurate, were rubber-stamped in gross violations of basic civil responsibility as well as the law.
You have to ask yourself why Democrats are so terrified of a recount. That doesn’t pass the smell test, but then again neither do they.
We’ve been debating losers like fielding and forty for how long now? And they never stray from the narrative and never will. I’m sure they still believe Hope and Change, and Covid, and Russia collusion, and, etc., etc. Everything the ruling class wants them to believe, they obey. The irony is that in the process of the last 15 years, they’ve gone from what they perceive themselves to be as “enlightened” and the “future” that predictably has boiled down to fascism and intolerance. How many times have Democrats called Clarence Thomas the N word over the last couple of days??
That’s who they are.
Why did the Trump campaign lose every court challenge but one—over sixty in all? This question was answered repeatedly in courts of law: Because the Trump campaign could not provide any evidence to support their challenges.
Why did the Trump campaign lose every court challenge
We’ve gone over this many many times. Basically over and over we had a single person, a judge, simply refusing to allow full-fledged hearings with testimony and evidence, essentially controlling the outcome of challenges by the sheer force of their status as judges. Thanks for reminding us of this grotesque subversion of the judiciary.
But as you are picking up the fallen flag of claiming that Trump “LOST” all these challenges, go ahead and tell us which were actually allowed to proceed. allowed to present witnesses and evidence, and the names of the courts and the judges in these alleged incidents.
In other words, support your lie that the Trump campaign could not provide any evidence to support their challenges. Because we know better. We know that election rules were changed at the last minute, sometimes in violation of state statutes or constitutions. We know that unsigned ballots were accepted and counted as valid votes. We know—but we’ve gone over this and you know it, too. You just think it was far enough in the past you could exhume that stinky old carcass and trot it out again, and maybe drag us into more of the incessant bickering that you people feed on.
It wasn’t a single rogue judge, it was multiple judges, dozens of cases. No evidence. Here’s just one:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/12/04/trump-campaign-has-no-credible-or-reliable-evidence-proving-voter-fraud-nevada-court-rules/?sh=27b3904012c4
Another:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/federal-judge-rejects-trump-campaigns-pa-lawsuit-prejudice/story?id=74340354
Another:
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/us-judge-rejects-pro-trump-election-suit-speculation-and-conjecture
I could go on…
What I said—-individual judges opining on the validity of evidence without testimony and using evasive wording such as claiming there was insufficient evidence that the election in Nevada “was affected by fraud”—-another way of saying “not enough to change the outcome”, not “no fraud”—–with the caveats of what the JUDGE found “not credible or reliable evidence”.
But without looking into it, there could be no way of knowing if the outcome could have been affected or not, and evidence has to be examined and tested before one man can simply proclaim that it is not credible or reliable.
You go on, as you note you can do, to cite two other federal judge opinions—not a hearing with testimony, just opinions that sneeringly dismiss the allegations. It takes an orderly presentation and explanation of evidence in a courtroom ruled by the rule of law for the details to come out and fit into a pattern, and this process was denied by arrogant judges who either did not want to get dragged into the inevitable riots, threats and hysteria of going against the Left or just backed the Left’s play.
Basically, people who liked the outcome dismissed any observation of any wrongdoing, while people who were concerned about elements of the election that they felt/feel pose threats to future election integrity as well were insulted, demeaned and ridiculed. This has continued, and will continue, even as we are burdened with the consequences of this refusal to accept the fact that there WERE irregularities that were ignored for political, not legal or patriotic reasons.
forty, stop with the silly tap dancing of avoiding questions by just asking different questions.
I asked a series of serious questions, each of which deserves an answer. One answer to most of them is that these things happened in the furtherance of election fraud. Those of you who so passionately insist that there WAS no election fraud should be able to answer those questions in a way that supports your position.
The effort to dodge answering by bringing in the tired old “Trump LOST every lawsuit” is a transparent if tacit admission you can’t answer any of these questions.
So you have to snap to the default Leftist position of shifting from fact to personality.
I ask simple straightforward questions about actual proven events, and what do you come back with?
“Why did the Trump campaign lose every court challenge but one?”
This game-playing is why you people have repeatedly been kicked off this site. It’s not because you offer a different point of view, it’s because you flat-out refuse to engage in actual discourse, instead treating this site like a litter box where you can deposit your ideological excrement. But it doesn’t even rise to the level of IDEOLOGICAL excrement because under the thin veneer of allegedly political belief all you have is petty Identity Politics on steroids.
Ideological excrement would at least be a defense of a political structure you find superior to the Constitutional model we believe in. But no, there is never an explanation of why the system you support by attacking its opponents (not its ideas) is better. All you have is plain old shit, as much as you try to dress it up as a pretense of political discussion.
You are constant reminders of the wisdom of the observation “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.
We here try to discuss ideas and often discuss events but it takes your ilk to drag the blog down into nothing but talking about people. And before you get all indignant and start to sputter “but….but….but YOU TALKED ABOUT CASSIDY HUTCHINSON !!!!!!” that was in the context of the event, discussing the relevance or lack of same of her testimony to the core issue of the idea that the House is subverting the Constitution by using its powers to rig a presidential election, suborning perjury in the process.
I realize this gives you ammunition to start in on more bickering, but I think it’s time for you to figure out you have to have something of substance to bring to the table here or you’ll be sent back to the kid’s table where you can play with your food all you want, while the grownups talk about grownup stuff.
The unseriousness of these responses is summed up by them asking, “Why not call Meadows himself?” It is well known that the Committee subpoenaed Meadows to testify and that he refused, resulting in him being held in contempt of Congress. He did, however, turnover thousands of text messages.
These responses also give equal weight to statements under oath and statements that are not. Complaining to the press, or claiming you would testify to this or testify to that, holds little weight here.
Furthermore, according to a Politico scoop dated June 8, Bobby Engel did testify under oath and told much the same story regarding Trump wanting to go to the Capitol.
So basically they are quibbling with the details. Fine. According to CBS this morning, Ornato has also testified under oath, and his testimony as well as that of Engel’s were recorded. If they are saying something different now (while not under oath) from their testimony, I’m sure the committee will be happy to show us the relevant video.
According to CBS this morning,
LMAO. You don’t get it, do ya?
That’s a pretty loose description of “much the same story”.
And “quibbling over details” is an interesting way to describe “not saying the same thing at all”.
Engel said the president raised the question, not violently and profanely demanded. And the vehicle was not “the Beast” but an armored Suburban.
Why claim a citation supports your assertions when it does the opposite?
… why doesn’t Fox News trumpet it every chance they can?
LOL, um … well because Fox is owned by the Murdoch wives who are DC socialites and don’t want to be excluded from this weekends cocktail party.
Haven’t figured that one out yet??
Isn’t it amazing that in light of unaffordable gas prices, food shortages, baby formula shortages, double digit increases in crime and drug overdoses, increases in drug trafficking, sex slave trafficking, and not to mention the real prospect of nuclear war, our resident brown shirts think Americans are worried about Trump !!!!
YCMTSU
Oh and I forgot the best one of all – do you still believe Christine Balsey-Ford?? LOL. Remember her?? And if so, why would you allow a serial rapist to remain the Supreme Court??
Cassidy Hutchenson is Balsey-Ford part 2, the sequel – but go ahead and lap it up. It’s fun to watch
Forty and fielding – you need to pay attention this woman. She gets it.
Dan Bongino spent nearly his entire 3 hour radio show today taking apart Hutshinson’s testimony piece by piece. He spent ten years in the Secret Service and is long-time personal friends with Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel, the agents named by Hutchinson. Bongino agreed that Trump probably wanted to go to the Capitol, but pretty much debunked the rest of her testimony. And, as Cluster notes, Trump left the rally in a black SUV, not the Presidential Limo, calling into question the veracity of the Politico “scoop” cited by Forty.
I have a question for Fielding and Forty: are non-adversarial hearings a good thing for the rule of law?
It gets even better. The judge, the jury, the executioner, all hugging the star witness.
There is no conflict there, now is there?
Media production? paliwood producers are taking notes from daughter warcock.
Here is what Ms. Hutchinson testified to regarding the president demanding to go to the capitol and the Secret Service not letting him:
You guys are clowning yourselves making it an issue about whether the proper term for the presidential vehicle at this event was “the beast” or the SUV. But I get that you need to latch onto something. Let Mark Meadows and others testify under oath if they have something to say.
This is what your criticism of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony amounts to: Trump may well have incited a riot against Congress based on a lie, to try to obstruct its constitutionally required activity and to overturn a presidential election, but he did not grab the wheel of his limo (I mean SUV) in the course of doing so. Good luck with that.
You clearly have a lot of experience in being wrong, because you are so good at it.
(1) There is not a scintilla of evidence that Trump incited a riot or even a very strong disturbance, and the goal of the protest was not “against Congress”. His recorded statement proves this. There is no other record or testimony to contradict the audio and video we have seen and heard.
(2) An opinion is not a lie just because you don’t like it.
(3) The purpose of the crowd was not to “obstruct its (Congress’s) constitutionally required activity” but to lend support in the form of approval of Senator Ted Cruz’s thoughtful and orderly request of Congress that it TEMPORARILY postpone its certification process for the brief period of TEN DAYS, to give it time to look into some of the disturbing issues surrounding the election.
(4) There was no effort or intention to ” overturn a presidential election” but merely to examine the serious allegations, many of them supported by sworn testimony, of the kinds of things that cast doubts on the legitimacy of any election.
Wow. Four big lies in about two lines of text. Clearly you have a lot of practice in lying like this.
This is just rich. Some of us have actually paid attention to the Jan. 6 hearings. You obviously have not.
An opinion based on falsehoods is—okay, I won’t use the word “lie.” Would falsehood make you feel better?
As to the purpose of the crowd, you really haven’t kept up, have you. I suppose all those armed folks were there to support “thoughtful” Ted Cruz in his mission to TEMPORARILY postpone the certification process based on no evidence whatsoever, just “an amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation.”
More nonsense about the legitimacy of the election, again based on no evidence at all.
Present actual evidence that withstands scrutiny, not “an amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation,” as one judge put it. So far, you and your pals have been unable to do so.
Look at what you people demand we accept as fact:
(1) That Donald Trump, convinced that the outcome of the election was not valid due to a plethora of witnessed irregularities and misdeeds, knew that his only chance of getting this evidence examined would be to convince Congress to temporarily postpone its certification.
(2 ) That he believed a crowd of middle-aged middle-America tourists could by force overcome a police force and that when they did this and managed to invade and take possession of the Capitol building this would amount to the overthrow of the government and allow him to assume its powers. (This means, of course, that after four years of the presidency he still didn’t understand what it would take to overthrow the government and assume its powers.)
(3) That while planning to send an untrained, unarmed, disorganized bunch of amateur protestors into BATTLE with trained law enforcement, he also requested that 20,000 trained military personnel be dispatched to the scene of his future attempt to overthrow the government and assume its powers—because this would aid the cause of overthrowing the government and assuming its powers?
(4) That he did this knowing, as a president would know, that the massive doors of the Capitol could not be breached from the outside even with heavy equipment and armament, but that their magnetic locks could only be released from inside a secure security booth within the building, by someone with the appropriate magnetic key.
(5) And that he did this with the knowledge that a violent riot would play into the hands of his opponents and totally trash any hope he might have of convincing Congress to listen to his plea.
in other words, to buy the BS the Loony Left has been peddling for a year and a half one would have to be an intriguing combination of batshit crazy and profoundly stupid, not to mention driven by a toxic stew of malice and vitriol.
“all those armed folks”???
Which “armed folks”? Armed with what?
The FBI has been pretty good at identifying Trump supporters (though when it comes to professional rioters known to them from many other riots across the country, not so much) so you should be able to easily find information on known Trump supporters who were armed.
Let me put this another way—-how many people have been proved to be armed AND Trump supporters?
Because even with the hundreds of hours of riot so lovingly repeated throughout the Agenda Media, I don’t recall seeing any guns. Or knives. Or swords. Or anything but the standard professional rioter/agitator supply of things like frozen water bottles.
Well, there WAS the gun used by a Capitol cop to murder an unarmed young woman trying to get away from the crowd, and the club used by a Capitol or DC cop to beat an unconscious woman to death.
I think that we’ve had this upsurge in comments because people traced me back to this blog from my Tweet:
I merely pointed out that Hutchison’s testimony was obvious drivel and little, old me who normally might get 10 or 20 Retweets suddenly had one get 107 Retweets and 399 likes – along with 63 comments…all of the Prog comments being blocked because I don’t interact with the Left on Social Media as they tend to the rabidly insane there.
“Which “armed folks”? Armed with what?”
Again, you just don’t keep up. If you watch yesterday’s Jan 6 Committee testimony, you would have heard law enforcement radio transmissions calling out the locations of people with weapons, including a group of men with assault rifles just off the Ellipse.
If you kept up, you would know that the Oath Keepers stashed a cache of rifles and ammunition just outside of Washington, D.C., plus 30 days of supplies.
If you kept up, you would know that law enforcement has seized the guns of many protestors, and many protestors have been indicted for carrying weapons to the Capitol and its grounds.
If you kept up, you would know that President Trump wanted to the magnetometers turned off because he was worried that not enough people were getting through to his speech and the optics wouldn’t look good. You would know that sworn testimony has it that he said, “Take the effing mags away; they’re not here to hurt me.” Do you really think he’d say that if it was a bunch of Antifa people out there?
There is a scene in the book “Catch-22” in which a wounded airman is in a hospital bed, wrapped literally head to toe in bandages, with a bottle feeding fluid into the end near his head and another bottle collecting fluid from the other end–and every hour or so a nurse comes in and switches the bottles.
I am always reminded of that imagery when I run into the insistent repetition of Leftist lies and fallacies and distortions as they struggle to overcome reality. It’s always the same old same old, always with the same level of stridency and conviction, and never with anything new or compelling.
I never know if they believe their crap or not. It’s hard to think they do, given the determined dismissal of opposing information and evidence, and it often feels more like a commitment to a plot more than real conviction of its accuracy.
These are people who see politics not as an analysis of the best blueprint for governing the nation but as a cage match, in which a side is chosen and a jersey is donned and then from that point on the goal is to destroy the other side, by any means possible.
This is a grotesque distortion of true politics and is Identity Politics run amok. I think it is probably the single most destructive element of our culture today as it is corrosive and wholly unproductive when it comes to effective government.
We saw it in 2020 as millions of people totally ignored the reality of Joe Biden—his history of abuse of power and corruption in office, his sordid family history and criminality, his unbroken political history of wrong decisions and policies, his history of ridiculous lies, his Leftist political allegiances—and chose him for one reason and one reason only—-he was not Donald Trump, who had been so thoroughly demonized that the resulting election was a cartoonish choice between All That Is Evil and—–anyone else.
And we are now living with, and struggling with, the consequences of that kind of short-sighted superficial approach to what is the most important decision we, as citizens, are asked to make.
“If you kept up…” blah blah blah. My oh my, what a peevish little rant!
Many of us knew from the get-go that this DC “protest” was a terrible idea, fraught with potential disasters and a magnet for every Trump hater, every professional rioter and agitator, every lunatic looking to make a name for himself, every Leftist eager to discredit Trump and his efforts—in general a guaranteed clusterfark. But Trump’s admittedly vast ego led him to be convinced that another mass outpouring of support for him shown by the presence of tens of thousands of people traveling to cheer him on would somehow, for some reason, resonate with those with his political fate in their hands.
And we were right. The event was a massive disaster, infiltrated by nefarious agents from every anti-American group, every anti-Trump group, every intelligence agency and several law enforcement agencies and with a lot of overlap among those categories. We will never know how many undercover agents witnessed and even promoted and even instigated violence, for whatever reasons including the cheap thrills of vandalism. It was a perfect storm of dysfunctional society writ large, and mingled with these bad actors were tens of thousands of naive Middle Americans who were sincere and earnest and excited to be part of a huge expression of Constitutional activism. Because the First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of wrongs, and that is why the vast majority of those there that day had attended.
That is the basis for what happened. So–back to Oath Keepers, or to be more accurate what became of Oath Keepers when it was taken over by loony tunes radicals and scorned by its original members. So there was an element of that, possibly with weapons, with who knows what kind of goofball intentions. But for the sake of discussion about the House “hearing” it doesn’t matter because they had nothing at all to do with Trump.
The same thing is true of every other lunatic fringe group, from lone wolf losers to organized and well funded professional rioters and agitators. There were troublemakers in the crowd, no doubt about it.
But that is all just noise, to generate confusion and a general sense that somehow, in some way, this was tied to Trump. And it wasn’t.
There was no organized effort or even intent to overthrow the government and assume its powers—which is, by the way, case law defining “insurrection”. There was no organization, period, other than what mystery man Ray Epps and a couple his buddies tried to keep together as they went from group to group inciting violence and instructing people who were just standing around to go swarm the Capitol and so on.
The FBI even said so.
There was a riot, or to be more accurate several riots, as different factions expressed their unrelated disorganized fantasies. There were thousands of people inadvertently caught up and pushed into places they never intended to go. There were a few instances of attacks on police officers, but more of police attacking the crowds for simply being caught in surges of people from behind.
There were also many reports of people dressed in black changing their clothes to jackets and hats in red and blue, and I saw one video of men changing behind some bushes and then joining Trump supporters once they got rid of their black clothing.
In other words, there were LOTS of moving parts, and only some of them were related in any way to Donald Trump and his reasons for asking people to go to DC on January 6. Any honest effort to sort it all out has to acknowledge that. But what we are seeing is the profoundly DIShonest determination to conflate it all into a single narrative which is then edited, twisted and distorted into an elaborate effort to destroy Donald Trump and rig the next presidential election.
The FBI has found no evidence that Trump was directly involved in organizing Capitol-riot violence.
The FBI hasn’t found any evidence that the January 6 assault on the US Capitol was part of an organized plot to overturn the election results, Reuters reported, citing law-enforcement officials.
The officials also said that the FBI has “so far found no evidence” that former President Donald Trump or “people directly around him were involved in organizing the violence,” Reuters reported.
“Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” a former law-enforcement official familiar with the investigation told Reuters.
Six more women have come forward with allegations that Trump tried to grab their steering wheels
You are getting snarky in your old age.
🙂 🙂
No, I’ve always been snarky when it comes to Leftists and their toxic nonsense
We’re all gonna die, that’s for sure … and we can celebrate for those who have passed on who were one with Christ, because they’ll be in a much better place!
On the other hand, it’s not for the government to decide if we live or die, the only exception being for those who have committed the capital offense of murder.
It also should not be up to the woman who is carrying another person inside of her belly, with his or her own unique DNA.
I’m so thankful to Roe gone, what a time to be alive!
I see that the “hearing” has called for the big guns like forty to come in to flood blogs with professional-looking propaganda and attacks.
Given that while the stated goal of the hearing is to rig the next presidential election by not allowing strong candidates to run, it has always had a secondary role, which is distraction from the dumpster fire of the nation under the man the Left preferred to Trump.
The worse things get in the nation, the more frantic are the efforts to distract from them and the more necessary the bogus “emergency testimony” like Hutchinson’ little melodrama and the services of people like forty to shore up troll postings.
That reminds me—have you noticed how the claim of Hutchinson’s appearance was the melodramatic claim of “new evidence” calling for an “emergency hearing”? OK, they are right, what they call “evidence” IS new as it hadn’t appeared in her three or four prior interviews till it suddenly surfaced once she got a different lawyer, but—“emergency”?
And why would a witness who had never had anything of interest to say in prior interviews suddenly need a new lawyer? That seems like a strange call for an unemployed former low level assistant.
And it has come out that she wanted to work for Trump after the election and she might have even had a job with him for a while. This is another of those Amarosa moments, another “Hell hath no fury…” examples.