Jump to content
Cloaca du jour

Media Event!! Jan 6th Propaganda!! Tonight!! Official Thread!!

Recommended Posts

Did they get to the part where Trump coordinated with those guys to make sure they wear their best Dungeons and Dragons Viking outfits?

That right there I'm sure is some riveting TV.¬†¬†ūüćŅ

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they covered why the Security police let all those rioters in??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2022 at 1:32 PM, taco breath said:

From 1933 to 1945, Nazi Germany carried out a campaign to ‚Äúcleanse‚ÄĚ German society of individuals viewed as biological threats to the nation‚Äôs ‚Äúhealth.‚ÄĚ Enlisting the help of physicians and medically trained geneticists, psychiatrists, and anthropologists, the Nazis developed racial health policies that began with the mass sterilization of ‚Äúgenetically diseased‚ÄĚ persons and ended with the near annihilation of European Jewry. With the patina of legitimacy provided by ‚Äúracial‚ÄĚ science experts, the Nazi regime carried out a program of approximately 400,000 forced sterilizations and over 275,000 euthanasia deaths that found its most radical manifestation in the death of millions of ‚Äúracial‚ÄĚ enemies in the Holocaust.

You're talking about eugenics. It actually started here in the US in the 1880s. 

The Germans/Nazi's did not invent this, everyone seems to believe it started there, but we were doing it years before them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2022 at 7:20 PM, Fnord said:

Jesus Christ. Get over your persecution complex. Most of this keyboard vomit is at best one-sided drivel blasted into your brain by some AM radio talking head, or, in the case of the bolded, a flat-out lie. I can't vouch for every company everywhere, but I can vouch for mine, which would be considered "woke" by someone like you. I'm in charge of hiring for my department. I DGAF what color/religion/orientation/nationality they are. The entire institution is the same way.

How about we keep the topic on Jan. 6th, where none of you has been able to defend a single thing going on in the hearing, just deflect about how the Dems did some bad stuff too, and Hillary Antifa BLM blahblahblah so that makes it okay to try to violently subvert a free and fair election. I would ask you if you ever actually want to know the truth, but you don't. You want to reinforce your own belief system and blame everyone else for your own sh!tty choices.

These two bolded statements are contradictory.  Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this thing still happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Have they covered why the Security police let all those rioters in??

Good question.  I admittedly am not following it in detail at this point, so I'm also wondering if they played the quote from Barr saying he doesn't see any evidence that Trump did anything illegal?  :dunno: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Good question.  I admittedly am not following it in detail at this point, so I'm also wondering if they played the quote from Barr saying he doesn't see any evidence that Trump did anything illegal?  :dunno: 

Barr resigned 2 weeks before January 6th and he said in the hearings it was because of the baseless election claims that Trump wanted him to pursue---which were then used to try to get the election not certified.  So I'd be really interested in seeing where he said Trump didn't do anything illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Barr resigned 2 weeks before January 6th and he said in the hearings it was because of the baseless election claims that Trump wanted him to pursue---which were then used to try to get the election not certified.  So I'd be really interested in seeing where he said Trump didn't do anything illegal.

talking about an election being illegitimate is a crime now?

they can arrest trump after hillary then

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Barr resigned 2 weeks before January 6th and he said in the hearings it was because of the baseless election claims that Trump wanted him to pursue---which were then used to try to get the election not certified.  So I'd be really interested in seeing where he said Trump didn't do anything illegal.

Quote

Former AG Barr says he wouldn't have prosecuted Trump for Jan. 6 or taking classified documents

Dareh Gregorian
March 7, 2022·9 min read
 

Former Attorney General William Barr said he believes former President Donald Trump is morally responsible for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol but isn't legally culpable.

Asked by NBC News' Lester Holt whether he considered Trump "responsible" for the violence at the Capitol, Barr said: "I do think he was responsible in the broad sense of that word, in that it appears that part of the plan was to send this group up to the Hill. I think the whole idea was to intimidate Congress. And I think that that was wrong."

But, he added, he hasn't seen evidence that Trump committed an actual crime. "I haven't seen anything to say he was legally responsible for it in terms of incitement," Barr said.

Holt interviewed Barr for a prime-time special airing Sunday at 9 p.m. ET on NBC. It's Barr's first television interview since he stepped down as attorney general in December 2020 after 22 tumultuous months as the country's top law enforcement official.

Barr, in an interview on Monday morning with NBC's “TODAY" show, said he doesn’t think Trump should be the GOP nominee and plans to support another Republican candidate. But asked if he would vote for Trump if he wins the party nomination in 2024, Barr suggested he would.

‚ÄúBecause I believe that the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party, it‚Äôs inconceivable to me that I wouldn‚Äôt vote for the Republican nominee,‚ÄĚ he said.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/former-ag-barr-says-wouldnt-011822408.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I'm guessing that the objective truth-seeking committee didn't play the above clip.  :dunno: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Good question.  I admittedly am not following it in detail at this point, so I'm also wondering if they played the quote from Barr saying he doesn't see any evidence that Trump did anything illegal?  :dunno: 

 

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

There is a big difference between '' doesn't see any evidence that Trump did anything illegal?" and¬†But, hÔĽŅe added, he hasn't seen evidence that Trump committed an actual crime. "I haven't seen anything to say he was legally responsible for it in terms of incitement," Barr said.¬†¬†Barr was only referring to the riot itself, not everything connected to it and that's what the hearings are investigating.

But if Barr doesn't see anything making him legally culpable maybe he should review sedition laws:  Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

You're talking about eugenics. It actually started here in the US in the 1880s. 

The Germans/Nazi's did not invent this, everyone seems to believe it started there, but we were doing it years before them. 

Eugenics has been around since ancient Greece. Trust me I know, I'm a huge fan (of eugenics not ancient Greece).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

There is a big difference between '' doesn't see any evidence that Trump did anything illegal?" and¬†But, hÔĽŅe added, he hasn't seen evidence that Trump committed an actual crime. "I haven't seen anything to say he was legally responsible for it in terms of incitement," Barr said.¬†¬†Barr was only referring to the riot itself, not everything connected to it and that's what the hearings are investigating.

But if Barr doesn't see anything making him legally culpable maybe he should review sedition laws:  Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

so you support democrats who did way more damage at the hands of the current adminstration being punished?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

There is a big difference between '' doesn't see any evidence that Trump did anything illegal?" and¬†But, hÔĽŅe added, he hasn't seen evidence that Trump committed an actual crime. "I haven't seen anything to say he was legally responsible for it in terms of incitement," Barr said.¬†¬†Barr was only referring to the riot itself, not everything connected to it and that's what the hearings are investigating.

But if Barr doesn't see anything making him legally culpable maybe he should review sedition laws:  Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

I'm sure the two-time AG appreciates your legal advice.  Did you learn this from "The Thing?" :dunno: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'm sure the two-time AG appreciates your legal advice.  Did you learn this from "The Thing?" :dunno: 

No, don't be ridiculous, I learned it here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Have they covered why the Security police let all those rioters in??

Good thing we have Eagle eye Honcho keeping tabs on this so he can answer easy questions like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Good thing we have Eagle eye Honcho keeping tabs on this so he can answer easy questions like this. 

You'll never learn if I keep giving you the answers though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

You'll never learn if I keep giving you the answers though.  

You don’t have one. It wasn’t provided for you. And you don’t even wonder why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

No, don't be ridiculous, I learned it here:

 

Impressive, they barely mentioned sedition and didn't define it in that clip.  :thumbsup: 

Also, I take it they did not play that Barr clip.  Still believing it is an objective search for truth? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Impressive, they barely mentioned sedition and didn't define it in that clip.  :thumbsup: 

Also, I take it they did not play that Barr clip.  Still believing it is an objective search for truth? 

Barr offering an opinion really doesn't add much to the scales of truth.  

I thought it was impressive---you asked if I learned about sedition in a movie and dang it, I brought the sedition movie clip.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mike Honcho said:

Barr offering an opinion really doesn't add much to the scales of truth.  

But the retired Judges does though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

Barr offering an opinion really doesn't add much to the scales of truth.  

Funny, they sure seemed interested in his opinions against Trump.  That's a head scratcher.  :dunno: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

Funny, they sure seemed interested in his opinions against Trump.  That's a head scratcher.  :dunno: 

No, they were interested in what Trump said and what he told Trump, not his opinions...this is why you need to be paying more attention. You know actual facts and evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

No, they were interested in what Trump said and what he told Trump, not his opinions...this is why you need to be paying more attention. 

And the retired judge? Why was his opinion so important? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth a shot. :dunno:

Democrats Announce 'January 6th Hearings On Ice'

WASHINGTON, D.C.‚ÄĒAs ratings continue to fizzle for the January 6th hearings, Democrats are trying a new format to bring the committee's¬†scandalous findings to a wider audience.¬†

"We are proud, so proud, to announce January 6th Hearings On Ice," said Pelosi while attempting to squeeze into a silver leotard. "We invite parents and children of all ages to come witness this delightful spectacle as my colleagues and I dance to delightful musical numbers and spin our narrative as we spin on the ice!" 

The show will take place on a rink of frozen tears supplied by AOC herself, and will feature the talents of Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and Adam Schiff, as he comically attempts to stay upright under the weight of his large watermelon-shaped head. 

Democrats hope the new show will give more Americans a chilling picture of just how evil Trump and his supporters are. 

At publishing time, the show had to be put on hold after every member of the committee slipped and broke their hips within the first 5 minutes of the first performance. 

https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-announce-january-6-hearings-on-ice?utm_source=The+Babylon+Bee+Newsletter&utm_campaign=63199d107d-Sponsored_Newsletter_6%2F22%2F22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_62f636e998-63199d107d-42735511&mc_cid=63199d107d&mc_eid=811fff1d67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

And the retired judge? Why was his opinion so important? 

Well, for one, he was Vice-president Pence's advisor in the run up to January 6th.  He was the one who told Pence that he had no constitutional authority to reject electors and the legal theory being pushed by the President and his advisors was not on sound legal ground. So, yeah, it's pretty important for him to be there and testify.

Maybe it's time for you to also listen to the hearings so you wouldn't ask these very easy to answer questions, but congrats, you did get one free one off me.  No go out, learn for yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

No, they were interested in what Trump said and what he told Trump, not his opinions...this is why you need to be paying more attention. 

Should be at the 5:44 mark.  A few seconds in he says "to date we have not seen fraud on a scale that would have effected a different outcome in the election."  Help me understand how that is different from "I haven't seen anything to say he was legally responsible for it in terms of incitement"?

Not to mention numerous comments throughout regarding his perception of Trump's state of mind.

Also that Ms. Lofgren does a great job of objectively summarizing throughout the video, no bias there.

You've gotta be trolling, right?  Do you honestly think this thing is a pursuit of objective truth?  I'm incredulous of that, you are not that gullible.  :thumbsup:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

Well, for one, he was Vice-president Pence's advisor in the run up to January 6th.  He was the one who told Pence that he had no constitutional authority to reject electors and the legal theory being pushed by the President and his advisors was not on sound legal ground. So, yeah, it's pretty important for him to be there and testify.

Maybe it's time for you to also listen to the hearings so you wouldn't ask these very easy to answer questions, but congrats, you did get one free one off me.  No go out, learn for yourself. 

So his take is important, but only some of the former attorney generals opinion is important. Got it. Anyway, why did the security police let all of those rioters in? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Should be at the 5:44 mark.  A few seconds in he says "to date we have not seen fraud on a scale that would have effected a different outcome in the election."  Help me understand how that is different from "I haven't seen anything to say he was legally responsible for it in terms of incitement"?

Not to mention numerous comments throughout regarding his perception of Trump's state of mind.

Also that Ms. Lofgren does a great job of objectively summarizing throughout the video, no bias there.

You've gotta be trolling, right?  Do you honestly think this thing is a pursuit of objective truth?  I'm incredulous of that, you are not that gullible.  :thumbsup:

 

You do know the difference between an opinion and statement of fact.  The first one is a statement, "was there evidence of fraud, yes or no--the second one is him drawing a conclusion that the evidence didn't reach a legal standard,  other people, lawyers and judges have said the opposite---it's an opinion, that's the differnce.

As to Ms. Lofgren-the committee is presenting there findings, so of course it's biased at this point, it's their conclusions.  It was there job to reach a conclusion on how this occurred. If it is referred to DOJ on a criminal recommendation the other side will get to present an alternative view. So if and when that happens, and we find out that the committee didn't pursue  exculpatory evidence---then you might have something about bias.  But until I see evidence like that, no I"m not going to say they were biased. 

And I think for someone who has admittedly not watched much of this to come to any conclusion and call others gullible is just as incredulous.  :cheers:

34 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So his take is important, but only some of the former attorney generals opinion is important. Got it. Anyway, why did the security police let all of those rioters in? 

 No, you don't have it.  And I don't know why the police let in SOME of the rioters---guessing tactical safety decision. It's a minor consideration 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

You do know the difference between an opinion and statement of fact.  The first one is a statement, "was there evidence of fraud, yes or no--the second one is him drawing a conclusion that the evidence didn't reach a legal standard,  other people, lawyers and judges have said the opposite---it's an opinion, that's the differnce.

As to Ms. Lofgren-the committee is presenting there findings, so of course it's biased at this point, it's their conclusions.  It was there job to reach a conclusion on how this occurred. If it is referred to DOJ on a criminal recommendation the other side will get to present an alternative view. So if and when that happens, and we find out that the committee didn't pursue  exculpatory evidence---then you might have something about bias.  But until I see evidence like that, no I"m not going to say they were biased. 

And I think for someone who has admittedly not watched much of this to come to any conclusion and call others gullible is just as incredulous.  :cheers:

 No, you don't have it.  And I don't know why the police let in SOME of the rioters---guessing tactical safety decision. It's a minor consideration 

They are the same thing, don't be obtuse.  To use your wording:  "Was there evidence of fraud" and I'll add, since he said it, "sufficient to effect the outcome."  No.  Equally, "was there evidence of Trump acting in a legally responsible way to be called incitement?" No.  You don't think a statement from the AG on this subject, being both close to the situation and not shy about his disdain for Trump, is relevant?  

Also, since I admitted not watching a lot of it, but have easily found video of the parts I had seen to present to you, I invite you to provide a single piece of evidence which exonerates him.  It should be easy for somebody following it as closely as you are.

Unless part of your point above is that they already concluded he was guilty without trial and are presenting a case to that effect, in which case we already agree.  :cheers:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

They are the same thing, don't be obtuse.¬† To use youÔĽŅr wording:¬† "WÔĽŅas there evidence of fraud" and I'll add, since heÔĽŅ said it, "sufficient to effect the outcome."¬† No.¬† EqualÔĽŅly, "was there evidence of Trump acting in a legally responsible way to be called incitement?" NÔĽŅo.¬† You don't think a statement from the AG on this subject, being both close to the situation and not shy about his disdain for Trump, is relevant?¬†¬†

Also, since I aÔĽŅdmitted not watching a lot of it, but have easily found video of the paÔĽŅrts I haÔĽŅd seen to present to you, I invite you to provide a single piece of evidence which¬†exonerates him.¬† It should be ÔĽŅÔĽŅeaÔĽŅsy for somebody following it as closely as you are.

Unless part of your point above is that they already concluded he was guilty without trial and are presenting a case to that effect, in which case we already agree.  :cheers:

 

Quote

They are the same thing, don't be obtuse.¬† To use youÔĽŅr wording:¬† "WÔĽŅas there evidence of fraud" and I'll add, since heÔĽŅ said it, "sufficient to effect the outcome."¬† No.¬† EqualÔĽŅly, "was there evidence of Trump acting in a legally responsible way to be called incitement?" NÔĽŅo.¬† You don't think a statement from the AG on this subject, being both close to the situation and not shy about his disdain for Trump, is relevant?¬†¬†

This is just wrong. There was or wasn't fraud enough to affect the election, is not the same as (IMO) he didn't clear the hurdle for legal capability for a riot. 

I just said the committee has reached a conclusion and they presenting the evidence for how they reached that conclusion. Guilty if for courts to decide, but the hearings are the committees conclusion, supported by evidence that Trump and others committed crimes to warrant an indictment. I haven't seen exculpatory evidence and I'm not sure why you think at this juncture the committee would be presenting it. My point was that they didn't work from a conclusion and are only presenting the evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion while ignoring/supressing exculpatory evidence---that would be bias. 

Are the hearings at this point biased toward a conclusion, yeah, of course...as long as they weren't biased on the journey, that's fine.

ETA: It just occurred to me on the ride home that you and HT think that these hearings have been confined to Trump's and other's speech, the rioters and what happened on January 6th.  They are about so much more than that. And frankly, I think people ignoring them, not listening to the volumes of evidence be presented about an attempted coup on our executive branch, at a the very minimum are ignoring their civic duties as Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

This is just wrong. There was or wasn't fraud enough to affect the election, is not the same as (IMO) he didn't clear the hurdle for legal capability for a riot. 

I just said the committee has reached a conclusion and they presenting the evidence for how they reached that conclusion. Guilty if for courts to decide, but the hearings are the committees conclusion, supported by evidence that Trump and others committed crimes to warrant an indictment. I haven't seen exculpatory evidence and I'm not sure why you think at this juncture the committee would be presenting it. My point was that they didn't work from a conclusion and are only presenting the evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion while ignoring/supressing exculpatory evidence---that would be bias. 

Are the hearings at this point biased toward a conclusion, yeah, of course...as long as they weren't biased on the journey, that's fine.

No, it's quite right.  You can almost never prove a negative.  He hasn't seen evidence of sufficient voter fraud... and he hasn't seen evidence of Trump acting illegally.  Neither statement means that neither occurred, but merely are his conclusions based on the data he has seen.  And in each case he was in a better position to make those conclusions (from proximity, access, and legal knowledge) than anyone in the world.  

You can choose to believe that the committee started on an unbiased objective search and ended with 100% damning evidence (BTW, did they present his plea to people to be peaceful and end it?).  I believe otherwise.  Note that those are opinions.  :cheers: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Chuck Todd and Meet the Press sums it up nicely.

https://rumble.com/v19glsw-booom.html

Yup, just a little red meat for their decreasing base. Just take a look at our local community, it's very easy to tell who this was for. They know their base extremely well.

Doh and pony show, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

fun fact: Alec Baldwin has killed more people than the 1/6 protestors.

:lol: You stole that from me damnit. Although, it's still true. :banana:

And baldwin is not in solitary confinement like all the selfie takers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×