Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

They lose any and all credibility the instant they refer to a riot as a "domestic terrorist attack". How can you not see that they people are lying and grossly exaggerating the circumstances? These people were in the wrong and broke the law, but to call them domestic terrorist is a little bit of a stretch. If you consider their actions to be domestic terrorism and you don't consider the actions of BLM and Antifa domestic terrorism, then you are a hypocrite.

---

We aren't talking about antifa and blm. Please stay on topic and quit trying to derail the thread.

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

ShaggySLC said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Read the official election thread, it's full of information if you really want to know. I'm not doing your homework for you. I don't for a second believe that you are arguing in good faith.

---

Oh I watched the first two committee hearings. People who even dare to doubt now are experiencing a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on clinical.

---

So that makes you some kind of expert? This has all been known and debated since the start, and it was known what the narrative trying to be spun a year and a half ago. The highlighted part made me laugh, that you really think you are all knowing now.

---

If any thinking person watched them there is no other conclusion they could come to unless they are lying to themselves.

---

This is a committee made up of Democrats and Trump hating Republicans and the hearings were produced by a DNC propaganda outlet. They can craft a message to make it look like whatever they want. Any "thinking person" would recognize propaganda and a one sided show trial when they see it. This is Norko dear leader level propaganda. The election was conducted in highly unprecedented, unsecure and extremely shady methods (especially in the urban areas of swing states) and there's no covering that up. Nor can they cover up the hypocrisy of the Democrats crocodile tears for 1/6 while ignoring the swath of death and destruction caused by left wing rioters in 2020. You have to be a troll, there's no way you're on this site and as poorly informed as you appear based on your posts.

---

Except none of that is true. No real credible election expert or official agrees with you. There is no grand conspiracy. All of these officials aren't lying. Your rhetoric is similar to those who questioned the patriotism or honesty of the individuals on The Warren Commission.

---

So we didn't have mass mail in ballots, unsecured drop boxes, illegal election law changes, and organizations like CTCL that donated more money per urban voter than rural voters in swing states with clawback provisions dictating the handling of the election? How about news organizations and social media companies suppressing negative stories about Biden while promoting stories about Trump they knew were untrue? All of those are verifiable facts and no credible election expert would disagree. Anyone solely relying on Trump or his organization to provide them with information about the election is a low information voter. Your assumption that claims of election fraud were dependent on Trump's claims show how poorly informed you really are. Your primary source of information is a committee made up exclusively of habitual liars and scum bags.

---

This was addressed specifically in the hearings. Mail in ballots being counted later is typical. You have no idea what you are talking about and you have yet to provide any evidence for your claims. If you want to see what happened, make a cocktail/coffee and watch the committee hearings. The witnesses are Trumps children and his cabinet.

---

I've given you the source of evidence, but you're clearly too lazy to research it yourself. It's not my problem if you choose to remain ignorant, which is clearly the case. There's a lot more to ballot harvesting and box stuffing than counting late ballots.

Again everything that happened in this committee is a one sided portrayal of events and that includes questioning witnesses. If the Democrats wanted this committee to have ANY credibility then they shouldn't have rejected the Republican members that they knew would question their narratives. They didn't want a committee that used opposing sides to get to the bottom of the truth. They wanted a show trial using selected members of congress that could produce sound bytes to sway the minds of low information voters.

This committee is similar to a grand jury hearing where a prosecutor presents evidence without any rebuttal or even the presence of a defense attorney. It could be used to create an indictment but has not been scrutinized by opposition at all. A trial where exculpatory evidence can be produced by defense council and witnesses will likely tell a very different story.

Would you think you would be fairly portrayed if your greatest enemy got to put on a public hearing to tarnish your image using only their witnesses and their evidence, with no chance for you or your representations to rebut their claims or produce evidence and witnesses to counter their arguments? You know the answer to that question, is no, but you won't answer it or you'll try to spin it.

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

ShaggySLC said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Read the official election thread, it's full of information if you really want to know. I'm not doing your homework for you. I don't for a second believe that you are arguing in good faith.

---

Oh I watched the first two committee hearings. People who even dare to doubt now are experiencing a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on clinical.

---

So that makes you some kind of expert? This has all been known and debated since the start, and it was known what the narrative trying to be spun a year and a half ago. The highlighted part made me laugh, that you really think you are all knowing now.

---

If any thinking person watched them there is no other conclusion they could come to unless they are lying to themselves.

---

This is a committee made up of Democrats and Trump hating Republicans and the hearings were produced by a DNC propaganda outlet. They can craft a message to make it look like whatever they want. Any "thinking person" would recognize propaganda and a one sided show trial when they see it. This is Norko dear leader level propaganda. The election was conducted in highly unprecedented, unsecure and extremely shady methods (especially in the urban areas of swing states) and there's no covering that up. Nor can they cover up the hypocrisy of the Democrats crocodile tears for 1/6 while ignoring the swath of death and destruction caused by left wing rioters in 2020. You have to be a troll, there's no way you're on this site and as poorly informed as you appear based on your posts.

---

Except none of that is true. No real credible election expert or official agrees with you. There is no grand conspiracy. All of these officials aren't lying. Your rhetoric is similar to those who questioned the patriotism or honesty of the individuals on The Warren Commission.

---

So we didn't have mass mail in ballots, unsecured drop boxes, illegal election law changes, and organizations like CTCL that donated more money per urban voter than rural voters in swing states with clawback provisions dictating the handling of the election? How about news organizations and social media companies suppressing negative stories about Biden while promoting stories about Trump they knew were untrue? All of those are verifiable facts and no credible election expert would disagree. Anyone solely relying on Trump or his organization to provide them with information about the election is a low information voter. Your assumption that claims of election fraud were dependent on Trump's claims show how poorly informed you really are. Your primary source of information is a committee made up exclusively of habitual liars and scum bags.

---

This was addressed specifically in the hearings. Mail in ballots being counted later is typical. You have no idea what you are talking about and you have yet to provide any evidence for your claims. If you want to see what happened, make a cocktail/coffee and watch the committee hearings. The witnesses are Trumps children and his cabinet.

---

I've given you the source of evidence, but you're clearly too lazy to research it yourself. It's not my problem if you choose to remain ignorant, which is clearly the case. There's a lot more to ballot harvesting and box stuffing than counting late ballots.

Again everything that happened in this committee is a one sided portrayal of events and that includes questioning witnesses. If the Democrats wanted this committee to have ANY credibility then they shouldn't have rejected the Republican members that they knew would question their narratives. They didn't want a committee that used opposing sides to get to the bottom of the truth. They wanted a show trial using selected members of congress that could produce sound bytes to sway the minds of low information voters.

This committee is similar to a grand jury hearing where a prosecutor presents evidence without any rebuttal or even the presence of a defense attorney. It could be used to create an indictment but has not been scrutinized by opposition at all. A trial where exculpatory evidence can be produced by defense council and witnesses will likely tell a very different story.

Would you think you would be fairly portrayed if your greatest enemy got to put on a public hearing to tarnish your image using only their witnesses and their evidence, with no chance for you or your representations to rebut their claims or produce evidence and witnesses to counter their arguments? You know the answer to that question, is no, but you won't answer it or you'll try to spin it.

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

ShaggySLC said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Read the official election thread, it's full of information if you really want to know. I'm not doing your homework for you. I don't for a second believe that you are arguing in good faith.

---

Oh I watched the first two committee hearings. People who even dare to doubt now are experiencing a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on clinical.

---

So that makes you some kind of expert? This has all been known and debated since the start, and it was known what the narrative trying to be spun a year and a half ago. The highlighted part made me laugh, that you really think you are all knowing now.

---

If any thinking person watched them there is no other conclusion they could come to unless they are lying to themselves.

---

This is a committee made up of Democrats and Trump hating Republicans and the hearings were produced by a DNC propaganda outlet. They can craft a message to make it look like whatever they want. Any "thinking person" would recognize propaganda and a one sided show trial when they see it. This is Norko dear leader level propaganda. The election was conducted in highly unprecedented, unsecure and extremely shady methods (especially in the urban areas of swing states) and there's no covering that up. Nor can they cover up the hypocrisy of the Democrats crocodile tears for 1/6 while ignoring the swath of death and destruction caused by left wing rioters in 2020. You have to be a troll, there's no way you're on this site and as poorly informed as you appear based on your posts.

---

Except none of that is true. No real credible election expert or official agrees with you. There is no grand conspiracy. All of these officials aren't lying. Your rhetoric is similar to those who questioned the patriotism or honesty of the individuals on The Warren Commission.

---

So we didn't have mass mail in ballots, unsecured drop boxes, illegal election law changes, and organizations like CTCL that donated more money per urban voter than rural voters in swing states with clawback provisions dictating the handling of the election? How about news organizations and social media companies suppressing negative stories about Biden while promoting stories about Trump they knew were untrue? All of those are verifiable facts and no credible election expert would disagree. Anyone solely relying on Trump or his organization to provide them with information about the election is a low information voter. Your assumption that claims of election fraud were dependent on Trump's claims show how poorly informed you really are. Your primary source of information is a committee made up exclusively of habitual liars and scum bags.

---

This was addressed specifically in the hearings. Mail in ballots being counted later is typical. You have no idea what you are talking about and you have yet to provide any evidence for your claims. If you want to see what happened, make a cocktail/coffee and watch the committee hearings. The witnesses are Trumps children and his cabinet.

---

I've given you the source of evidence, but you're clearly too lazy to research it yourself. It's not my problem if you choose to remain ignorant, which is clearly the case. There's a lot more to ballot harvesting and box stuffing than counting late ballots.

Again everything that happened in this committee is a one sided portrayal of events and that includes questioning witnesses. If the Democrats wanted this committee to have ANY credibility then they shouldn't have rejected the Republican members that they knew would question their narratives. They didn't want a committee that used opposing sides to get to the bottom of the truth. They wanted a show trial using selected members of congress that could produce sound bytes to sway the minds of low information voters.

This committee is similar to a grand jury hearing where a prosecutor presents evidence without any rebuttal or even the presence of a defense attorney. It could be used to create an indictment but has not been scrutinized by opposition at all. A trial where exculpatory evidence can be produced by defense council and witnesses will likely tell a very different story.

Would you think you would be fairly portrayed if your greatest enemy got to put on a public hearing to tarnish your image using only their witnesses and their evidence, with no chance for you or your representations to rebut their claims or produce evidence and witnesses to counter their arguments? You know the answer to that question, is no, but you won't answer it or you'll try to spin it.

---

You'll recall there was an attempt to have an independent commission which was blocked by Congressional Republicans.

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

ShaggySLC said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Read the official election thread, it's full of information if you really want to know. I'm not doing your homework for you. I don't for a second believe that you are arguing in good faith.

---

Oh I watched the first two committee hearings. People who even dare to doubt now are experiencing a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on clinical.

---

So that makes you some kind of expert? This has all been known and debated since the start, and it was known what the narrative trying to be spun a year and a half ago. The highlighted part made me laugh, that you really think you are all knowing now.

---

If any thinking person watched them there is no other conclusion they could come to unless they are lying to themselves.

---

This is a committee made up of Democrats and Trump hating Republicans and the hearings were produced by a DNC propaganda outlet. They can craft a message to make it look like whatever they want. Any "thinking person" would recognize propaganda and a one sided show trial when they see it. This is Norko dear leader level propaganda. The election was conducted in highly unprecedented, unsecure and extremely shady methods (especially in the urban areas of swing states) and there's no covering that up. Nor can they cover up the hypocrisy of the Democrats crocodile tears for 1/6 while ignoring the swath of death and destruction caused by left wing rioters in 2020. You have to be a troll, there's no way you're on this site and as poorly informed as you appear based on your posts.

---

Except none of that is true. No real credible election expert or official agrees with you. There is no grand conspiracy. All of these officials aren't lying. Your rhetoric is similar to those who questioned the patriotism or honesty of the individuals on The Warren Commission.

---

So we didn't have mass mail in ballots, unsecured drop boxes, illegal election law changes, and organizations like CTCL that donated more money per urban voter than rural voters in swing states with clawback provisions dictating the handling of the election? How about news organizations and social media companies suppressing negative stories about Biden while promoting stories about Trump they knew were untrue? All of those are verifiable facts and no credible election expert would disagree. Anyone solely relying on Trump or his organization to provide them with information about the election is a low information voter. Your assumption that claims of election fraud were dependent on Trump's claims show how poorly informed you really are. Your primary source of information is a committee made up exclusively of habitual liars and scum bags.

---

This was addressed specifically in the hearings. Mail in ballots being counted later is typical. You have no idea what you are talking about and you have yet to provide any evidence for your claims. If you want to see what happened, make a cocktail/coffee and watch the committee hearings. The witnesses are Trumps children and his cabinet.

---

I've given you the source of evidence, but you're clearly too lazy to research it yourself. It's not my problem if you choose to remain ignorant, which is clearly the case. There's a lot more to ballot harvesting and box stuffing than counting late ballots.

Again everything that happened in this committee is a one sided portrayal of events and that includes questioning witnesses. If the Democrats wanted this committee to have ANY credibility then they shouldn't have rejected the Republican members that they knew would question their narratives. They didn't want a committee that used opposing sides to get to the bottom of the truth. They wanted a show trial using selected members of congress that could produce sound bytes to sway the minds of low information voters.

This committee is similar to a grand jury hearing where a prosecutor presents evidence without any rebuttal or even the presence of a defense attorney. It could be used to create an indictment but has not been scrutinized by opposition at all. A trial where exculpatory evidence can be produced by defense council and witnesses will likely tell a very different story.

Would you think you would be fairly portrayed if your greatest enemy got to put on a public hearing to tarnish your image using only their witnesses and their evidence, with no chance for you or your representations to rebut their claims or produce evidence and witnesses to counter their arguments? You know the answer to that question, is no, but you won't answer it or you'll try to spin it.

---

You'll recall there was an attempt to have an independent commission which was blocked by Congressional Republicans.

---

You're surprised that a group of politicians blocked an independent commission that was being commissioned to be used as a political weapon against them? Welcome to politics.

That doesn't excuse the fact that Democrats blocked the Republicans that would question their narratives from this commission. At that point the commission and it's findings were inexorably tainted. I'm sorry your politicians choose the low road and made their committee into nothing more than a partisan wedge instead of focusing on the truth. Obviously they knew the truth would have been bad for them or they would have welcomed opposing viewpoints.

---

My Truth Social account was just permanently suspended for talking about the January 6th Committee hearings. pic.twitter.com/MBNTSNe4Z8

— Travis Allen (@TravisAllen02) June 10, 2022

aggieforester05 said:

---

Again, you are lying. I've maintained all along that we do not know if there was enough fraud to say the election went one way or another. NO ONE DOES! Anyone that claims without a doubt the election was stolen or that there was no fraud is lying. Just quit lying.

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

I've told you where to look, but again you're not interested in finding the truth. I'm not doing your homework for you. You've chosen to only research one side of the issue and that's on you.

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

I've told you where to look, but again you're not interested in finding the truth. I'm not doing your homework for you. You've chosen to only research one side of the issue and that's on you.

---

...release "evidence" that supports the Dem narrative. Unrelenting, uncritical and enthusiastic partisan support from every sector of the news media. Standards of "evidence" that amplify and endorse unsubstantiated - but damning - accusations and statements by partisan...

— Jason Beale (@jabeale) June 14, 2022

etxag02 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

ShaggySLC said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Read the official election thread, it's full of information if you really want to know. I'm not doing your homework for you. I don't for a second believe that you are arguing in good faith.

---

Oh I watched the first two committee hearings. People who even dare to doubt now are experiencing a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on clinical.

---

So that makes you some kind of expert? This has all been known and debated since the start, and it was known what the narrative trying to be spun a year and a half ago. The highlighted part made me laugh, that you really think you are all knowing now.

---

If any thinking person watched them there is no other conclusion they could come to unless they are lying to themselves.

---

This is a committee made up of Democrats and Trump hating Republicans and the hearings were produced by a DNC propaganda outlet. They can craft a message to make it look like whatever they want. Any "thinking person" would recognize propaganda and a one sided show trial when they see it. This is Norko dear leader level propaganda. The election was conducted in highly unprecedented, unsecure and extremely shady methods (especially in the urban areas of swing states) and there's no covering that up. Nor can they cover up the hypocrisy of the Democrats crocodile tears for 1/6 while ignoring the swath of death and destruction caused by left wing rioters in 2020. You have to be a troll, there's no way you're on this site and as poorly informed as you appear based on your posts.

---

Except none of that is true. No real credible election expert or official agrees with you. There is no grand conspiracy. All of these officials aren't lying. Your rhetoric is similar to those who questioned the patriotism or honesty of the individuals on The Warren Commission.

---

So we didn't have mass mail in ballots, unsecured drop boxes, illegal election law changes, and organizations like CTCL that donated more money per urban voter than rural voters in swing states with clawback provisions dictating the handling of the election? How about news organizations and social media companies suppressing negative stories about Biden while promoting stories about Trump they knew were untrue? All of those are verifiable facts and no credible election expert would disagree. Anyone solely relying on Trump or his organization to provide them with information about the election is a low information voter. Your assumption that claims of election fraud were dependent on Trump's claims show how poorly informed you really are. Your primary source of information is a committee made up exclusively of habitual liars and scum bags.

---

This was addressed specifically in the hearings. Mail in ballots being counted later is typical. You have no idea what you are talking about and you have yet to provide any evidence for your claims. If you want to see what happened, make a cocktail/coffee and watch the committee hearings. The witnesses are Trumps children and his cabinet.

---

I've given you the source of evidence, but you're clearly too lazy to research it yourself. It's not my problem if you choose to remain ignorant, which is clearly the case. There's a lot more to ballot harvesting and box stuffing than counting late ballots.

Again everything that happened in this committee is a one sided portrayal of events and that includes questioning witnesses. If the Democrats wanted this committee to have ANY credibility then they shouldn't have rejected the Republican members that they knew would question their narratives. They didn't want a committee that used opposing sides to get to the bottom of the truth. They wanted a show trial using selected members of congress that could produce sound bytes to sway the minds of low information voters.

This committee is similar to a grand jury hearing where a prosecutor presents evidence without any rebuttal or even the presence of a defense attorney. It could be used to create an indictment but has not been scrutinized by opposition at all. A trial where exculpatory evidence can be produced by defense council and witnesses will likely tell a very different story.

Would you think you would be fairly portrayed if your greatest enemy got to put on a public hearing to tarnish your image using only their witnesses and their evidence, with no chance for you or your representations to rebut their claims or produce evidence and witnesses to counter their arguments? You know the answer to that question, is no, but you won't answer it or you'll try to spin it.

---

You'll recall there was an attempt to have an independent commission which was blocked by Congressional Republicans.

---

You're surprised that a group of politicians blocked an independent commission that was being commissioned to be used as a political weapon against them? Welcome to politics.

That doesn't excuse the fact that Democrats blocked the Republicans that would question their narratives from this commission. At that point the commission and it's findings were inexorably tainted. I'm sorry your politicians choose the low road and made their committee into nothing more than a partisan wedge instead of focusing on the truth. Obviously they knew the truth would have been bad for them or they would have welcomed opposing viewpoints.

---

We have a live feed of the opposing viewpoint.

My Truth Social account was just permanently suspended for talking about the January 6th Committee hearings. pic.twitter.com/MBNTSNe4Z8

— Travis Allen (@TravisAllen02) June 10, 2022

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

I've told you where to look, but again you're not interested in finding the truth. I'm not doing your homework for you. You've chosen to only research one side of the issue and that's on you.

---

So you don't have evidence then and are accusing people asking you to provide it of indolence and mendacity?

---

Quote:

---

Now the Jan. 6 panel led in part by the Russian collusion advocate Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. has been called on the carpet for falsely suggesting a GOP lawmaker ran a reconnaissance mission inside the Capitol for Jan. 6 protesters the day before the riot.

Ironically, the man who blew that whistle is the new Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, who got his job on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's watch but handed Republicans vindication on an allegation they long claimed was a smear.

Manger wrote in a letter Monday to Congress, which Just the News obtained, that an exhaustive review of security footage found no evidence that Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia did anything other than give constituents a tour of some congressional office buildings.
In fact, the chief said, the congressman didn't even enter the U.S. Capitol with the group.

---

Quote:

---

Manger's letter directly undercuts allegations made a month ago by Reps. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the chairman and vice chairwoman of the Democrat-led Jan. 6 committee.

They sent a letter released to the media in May demanding Loudermilk volunteer testimony and explain why he was giving a tour of the Capitol the day before the riots, suggesting it could be part of an effort to help case the Capitol building before the Jan. 6 protests.

"Based on our review of evidence in the Select Committee's possession, we believe you have information regarding a tour you led through parts of the Capitol complex on January 5, 2021," Cheney and Thompson wrote. "The foregoing information raises questions to which the Select Committee must seek answers. Public reporting and witness accounts indicate some individuals and groups engaged in efforts to gather information about the layout of the U.S. Capitol, as well as the House and Senate office buildings, in advance of January 6, 2021."

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Somebody planned the Kavanaugh assault and encouraged others to participate in it expressly in order to revolt against the legal authority of the peoples representatives in order to overthrow him from being installed

Sounds like it meets your definition again

Buuuuuut

Let me guess:

It's STILL (D)ifferent

---

I am not clear on the facts of what you are calling "the Kavanaugh assault" so I am not sure it is an apt comparison. Did it force Congress to shut down, clear the House chamber, and force Congress to go into hiding? Was it targeted towards all members of Congress, or only specific ones? That is, was it a revolt against the whole of Congress, or a protest against aimed at specific representatives? I really don't know, so if you can elaborate on the specifics you might have a point. I can't seem to be able to find anything on it.

Regardless, just for the sake of argument, if you feel there were seditious actions taken against the US Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, you would need to find out who the 'somebody' was who planned it and encouraged others to participate as well as evidence of these actions. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to be able to find anything. Again, if you could provide more information, you might have a point.

But, for the record, if a Democrat planned and encouraged a coordinated attack on the Congress on the United States, I would hope they would be indicted, and if found guilty, punished as prescribed by law. The rule of law (in the US, anyway) should not concern itself on political affiliation. I realize that many Republicans feel that political affiliation should be considered when applying the rule of law, but I think that those people are wrong.

---

Do you have any self awareness at all? Do you not understand that the primary reason Conservatives are so upset with the political climate is the exact reasons you described above, but in the opposite direction? The problem for example is that we have a 1/6 committee, but there was no Kavanaugh assault hearings. Nobody bothered to get to the bottom of the latter, because it was perpetrated by liberals. If conservatives had done the same they would be imprisoned for decades. The rule of law in todays age absolutely concerns itself with political affiliation and we want that to stop. If conservatives/Republicans or liberals/Democrats break the law or engage in malicious/corrupt activities they should be treated the same, but they are clearly not. The American left is rotten to the core and is completely content weaponizing federal law enforcement to punish their political enemies for crimes that wouldn't even make a news article if it were committed by a lefty. Trying to deny that there is a double standard is akin to being a flat earther at this point.

---

Such an old trick, it should be called the GOT (Grand Old Trick). Accuse you opponents of your strategies, either before or after you employ them. That way, you can support your "both sides do it" claim.

As for the bolded part, Dr. Ford did testify in front of Congress. Not just a deposition, but in person. Why is it that the Republicans are afraid to testify in front of Congress, and will only submit to depositions? Perhaps they are trying to hide something?

---

I should have stated in my original response, that neither the Kavanaugh Assualt or 1/6 warranted a politicized committee used to only to sling mud. It would have been stupid and transparently partisan for Republicans to do it as it is for Democrats to do it now.

That being said, WTF are you talking about? Who is afraid to testify in Congress? Why would any Republican agree to testify in front of a transparently partisan witch hunt, where a bunch of lying dirt bag Democrats and Rhinos are going to twist facts into something that fits their narratives and leaves the public with a grossly distorted view of reality? Which will then be selectively edited and played on repeat eleventy billion times to manipulate the simple minds of low information voters. Maybe Republicans would be more apt to take part in these proceedings if they were treated fairly by the committee members and the media. They would be crucified regardless of their statements or the facts of the events in question. The lack of credibility of this committee is the fault of unbelievably dishonest Democrat/Rhino politicians, DNC propaganda outlets, and the ethically devoid liberals that support them.

Dr. Ford was a lying POS that should be in prison for perjuring herself in front of congress. Can you imagine the consequences if a Conservative supported by Republican senators came out and falsely testified in front of congress that a Democrat appointed nominee had sexually assaulted them in a transparent attempt to prevent a confirmation? There'd be committees, a special prosecutor, IRS audits, and the FBI stuck up their ass so far they'd look like a puppet.

It's (D)ifferent has never been more true. The American left doesn't care one iota about the rule of law and they sure as hell hate every word of our constitution because it is the foundation the most successful example of capitalism and freedom the world has ever seen. The antithesis of the progressive/communist agenda.

---

The bottom line is that any reasonable person should have believed the election was lost. That isn't the case. A deliberate false narrative was utilized to energize the insurgents on January 6th, money was raised that is unspoken for and people died during the insurgency. No spin doctoring can get in the way of these facts.

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Somebody planned the Kavanaugh assault and encouraged others to participate in it expressly in order to revolt against the legal authority of the peoples representatives in order to overthrow him from being installed

Sounds like it meets your definition again

Buuuuuut

Let me guess:

It's STILL (D)ifferent

---

I am not clear on the facts of what you are calling "the Kavanaugh assault" so I am not sure it is an apt comparison. Did it force Congress to shut down, clear the House chamber, and force Congress to go into hiding? Was it targeted towards all members of Congress, or only specific ones? That is, was it a revolt against the whole of Congress, or a protest against aimed at specific representatives? I really don't know, so if you can elaborate on the specifics you might have a point. I can't seem to be able to find anything on it.

Regardless, just for the sake of argument, if you feel there were seditious actions taken against the US Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, you would need to find out who the 'somebody' was who planned it and encouraged others to participate as well as evidence of these actions. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to be able to find anything. Again, if you could provide more information, you might have a point.

But, for the record, if a Democrat planned and encouraged a coordinated attack on the Congress on the United States, I would hope they would be indicted, and if found guilty, punished as prescribed by law. The rule of law (in the US, anyway) should not concern itself on political affiliation. I realize that many Republicans feel that political affiliation should be considered when applying the rule of law, but I think that those people are wrong.

---

Do you have any self awareness at all? Do you not understand that the primary reason Conservatives are so upset with the political climate is the exact reasons you described above, but in the opposite direction? The problem for example is that we have a 1/6 committee, but there was no Kavanaugh assault hearings. Nobody bothered to get to the bottom of the latter, because it was perpetrated by liberals. If conservatives had done the same they would be imprisoned for decades. The rule of law in todays age absolutely concerns itself with political affiliation and we want that to stop. If conservatives/Republicans or liberals/Democrats break the law or engage in malicious/corrupt activities they should be treated the same, but they are clearly not. The American left is rotten to the core and is completely content weaponizing federal law enforcement to punish their political enemies for crimes that wouldn't even make a news article if it were committed by a lefty. Trying to deny that there is a double standard is akin to being a flat earther at this point.

---

Such an old trick, it should be called the GOT (Grand Old Trick). Accuse you opponents of your strategies, either before or after you employ them. That way, you can support your "both sides do it" claim.

As for the bolded part, Dr. Ford did testify in front of Congress. Not just a deposition, but in person. Why is it that the Republicans are afraid to testify in front of Congress, and will only submit to depositions? Perhaps they are trying to hide something?

---

I should have stated in my original response, that neither the Kavanaugh Assualt or 1/6 warranted a politicized committee used to only to sling mud. It would have been stupid and transparently partisan for Republicans to do it as it is for Democrats to do it now.

That being said, WTF are you talking about? Who is afraid to testify in Congress? Why would any Republican agree to testify in front of a transparently partisan witch hunt, where a bunch of lying dirt bag Democrats and Rhinos are going to twist facts into something that fits their narratives and leaves the public with a grossly distorted view of reality? Which will then be selectively edited and played on repeat eleventy billion times to manipulate the simple minds of low information voters. Maybe Republicans would be more apt to take part in these proceedings if they were treated fairly by the committee members and the media. They would be crucified regardless of their statements or the facts of the events in question. The lack of credibility of this committee is the fault of unbelievably dishonest Democrat/Rhino politicians, DNC propaganda outlets, and the ethically devoid liberals that support them.

Dr. Ford was a lying POS that should be in prison for perjuring herself in front of congress. Can you imagine the consequences if a Conservative supported by Republican senators came out and falsely testified in front of congress that a Democrat appointed nominee had sexually assaulted them in a transparent attempt to prevent a confirmation? There'd be committees, a special prosecutor, IRS audits, and the FBI stuck up their ass so far they'd look like a puppet.

It's (D)ifferent has never been more true. The American left doesn't care one iota about the rule of law and they sure as hell hate every word of our constitution because it is the foundation the most successful example of capitalism and freedom the world has ever seen. The antithesis of the progressive/communist agenda.

---

The bottom line is that any reasonable person should have believed the election was lost. That isn't the case. A deliberate false narrative was utilized to energize the insurgents on January 6th, money was raised that is unspoken for and people died during the insurgency. No spin doctoring can get in the way of these facts.

---

Are you talking to us or your cats?

---

Neehau said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Somebody planned the Kavanaugh assault and encouraged others to participate in it expressly in order to revolt against the legal authority of the peoples representatives in order to overthrow him from being installed

Sounds like it meets your definition again

Buuuuuut

Let me guess:

It's STILL (D)ifferent

---

I am not clear on the facts of what you are calling "the Kavanaugh assault" so I am not sure it is an apt comparison. Did it force Congress to shut down, clear the House chamber, and force Congress to go into hiding? Was it targeted towards all members of Congress, or only specific ones? That is, was it a revolt against the whole of Congress, or a protest against aimed at specific representatives? I really don't know, so if you can elaborate on the specifics you might have a point. I can't seem to be able to find anything on it.

Regardless, just for the sake of argument, if you feel there were seditious actions taken against the US Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, you would need to find out who the 'somebody' was who planned it and encouraged others to participate as well as evidence of these actions. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to be able to find anything. Again, if you could provide more information, you might have a point.

But, for the record, if a Democrat planned and encouraged a coordinated attack on the Congress on the United States, I would hope they would be indicted, and if found guilty, punished as prescribed by law. The rule of law (in the US, anyway) should not concern itself on political affiliation. I realize that many Republicans feel that political affiliation should be considered when applying the rule of law, but I think that those people are wrong.

---

Do you have any self awareness at all? Do you not understand that the primary reason Conservatives are so upset with the political climate is the exact reasons you described above, but in the opposite direction? The problem for example is that we have a 1/6 committee, but there was no Kavanaugh assault hearings. Nobody bothered to get to the bottom of the latter, because it was perpetrated by liberals. If conservatives had done the same they would be imprisoned for decades. The rule of law in todays age absolutely concerns itself with political affiliation and we want that to stop. If conservatives/Republicans or liberals/Democrats break the law or engage in malicious/corrupt activities they should be treated the same, but they are clearly not. The American left is rotten to the core and is completely content weaponizing federal law enforcement to punish their political enemies for crimes that wouldn't even make a news article if it were committed by a lefty. Trying to deny that there is a double standard is akin to being a flat earther at this point.

---

Such an old trick, it should be called the GOT (Grand Old Trick). Accuse you opponents of your strategies, either before or after you employ them. That way, you can support your "both sides do it" claim.

As for the bolded part, Dr. Ford did testify in front of Congress. Not just a deposition, but in person. Why is it that the Republicans are afraid to testify in front of Congress, and will only submit to depositions? Perhaps they are trying to hide something?

---

I should have stated in my original response, that neither the Kavanaugh Assualt or 1/6 warranted a politicized committee used to only to sling mud. It would have been stupid and transparently partisan for Republicans to do it as it is for Democrats to do it now.

That being said, WTF are you talking about? Who is afraid to testify in Congress? Why would any Republican agree to testify in front of a transparently partisan witch hunt, where a bunch of lying dirt bag Democrats and Rhinos are going to twist facts into something that fits their narratives and leaves the public with a grossly distorted view of reality? Which will then be selectively edited and played on repeat eleventy billion times to manipulate the simple minds of low information voters. Maybe Republicans would be more apt to take part in these proceedings if they were treated fairly by the committee members and the media. They would be crucified regardless of their statements or the facts of the events in question. The lack of credibility of this committee is the fault of unbelievably dishonest Democrat/Rhino politicians, DNC propaganda outlets, and the ethically devoid liberals that support them.

Dr. Ford was a lying POS that should be in prison for perjuring herself in front of congress. Can you imagine the consequences if a Conservative supported by Republican senators came out and falsely testified in front of congress that a Democrat appointed nominee had sexually assaulted them in a transparent attempt to prevent a confirmation? There'd be committees, a special prosecutor, IRS audits, and the FBI stuck up their ass so far they'd look like a puppet.

It's (D)ifferent has never been more true. The American left doesn't care one iota about the rule of law and they sure as hell hate every word of our constitution because it is the foundation the most successful example of capitalism and freedom the world has ever seen. The antithesis of the progressive/communist agenda.

---

The bottom line is that any reasonable person should have believed the election was lost. That isn't the case. A deliberate false narrative was utilized to energize the insurgents on January 6th, money was raised that is unspoken for and people died during the insurgency. No spin doctoring can get in the way of these facts.

---

Are you talking to us or your cats?

---

No, my cats would only need to be told once=)

---

Neehau said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Somebody planned the Kavanaugh assault and encouraged others to participate in it expressly in order to revolt against the legal authority of the peoples representatives in order to overthrow him from being installed

Sounds like it meets your definition again

Buuuuuut

Let me guess:

It's STILL (D)ifferent

---

I am not clear on the facts of what you are calling "the Kavanaugh assault" so I am not sure it is an apt comparison. Did it force Congress to shut down, clear the House chamber, and force Congress to go into hiding? Was it targeted towards all members of Congress, or only specific ones? That is, was it a revolt against the whole of Congress, or a protest against aimed at specific representatives? I really don't know, so if you can elaborate on the specifics you might have a point. I can't seem to be able to find anything on it.

Regardless, just for the sake of argument, if you feel there were seditious actions taken against the US Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, you would need to find out who the 'somebody' was who planned it and encouraged others to participate as well as evidence of these actions. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to be able to find anything. Again, if you could provide more information, you might have a point.

But, for the record, if a Democrat planned and encouraged a coordinated attack on the Congress on the United States, I would hope they would be indicted, and if found guilty, punished as prescribed by law. The rule of law (in the US, anyway) should not concern itself on political affiliation. I realize that many Republicans feel that political affiliation should be considered when applying the rule of law, but I think that those people are wrong.

---

Do you have any self awareness at all? Do you not understand that the primary reason Conservatives are so upset with the political climate is the exact reasons you described above, but in the opposite direction? The problem for example is that we have a 1/6 committee, but there was no Kavanaugh assault hearings. Nobody bothered to get to the bottom of the latter, because it was perpetrated by liberals. If conservatives had done the same they would be imprisoned for decades. The rule of law in todays age absolutely concerns itself with political affiliation and we want that to stop. If conservatives/Republicans or liberals/Democrats break the law or engage in malicious/corrupt activities they should be treated the same, but they are clearly not. The American left is rotten to the core and is completely content weaponizing federal law enforcement to punish their political enemies for crimes that wouldn't even make a news article if it were committed by a lefty. Trying to deny that there is a double standard is akin to being a flat earther at this point.

---

Such an old trick, it should be called the GOT (Grand Old Trick). Accuse you opponents of your strategies, either before or after you employ them. That way, you can support your "both sides do it" claim.

As for the bolded part, Dr. Ford did testify in front of Congress. Not just a deposition, but in person. Why is it that the Republicans are afraid to testify in front of Congress, and will only submit to depositions? Perhaps they are trying to hide something?

---

I should have stated in my original response, that neither the Kavanaugh Assualt or 1/6 warranted a politicized committee used to only to sling mud. It would have been stupid and transparently partisan for Republicans to do it as it is for Democrats to do it now.

That being said, WTF are you talking about? Who is afraid to testify in Congress? Why would any Republican agree to testify in front of a transparently partisan witch hunt, where a bunch of lying dirt bag Democrats and Rhinos are going to twist facts into something that fits their narratives and leaves the public with a grossly distorted view of reality? Which will then be selectively edited and played on repeat eleventy billion times to manipulate the simple minds of low information voters. Maybe Republicans would be more apt to take part in these proceedings if they were treated fairly by the committee members and the media. They would be crucified regardless of their statements or the facts of the events in question. The lack of credibility of this committee is the fault of unbelievably dishonest Democrat/Rhino politicians, DNC propaganda outlets, and the ethically devoid liberals that support them.

Dr. Ford was a lying POS that should be in prison for perjuring herself in front of congress. Can you imagine the consequences if a Conservative supported by Republican senators came out and falsely testified in front of congress that a Democrat appointed nominee had sexually assaulted them in a transparent attempt to prevent a confirmation? There'd be committees, a special prosecutor, IRS audits, and the FBI stuck up their ass so far they'd look like a puppet.

It's (D)ifferent has never been more true. The American left doesn't care one iota about the rule of law and they sure as hell hate every word of our constitution because it is the foundation the most successful example of capitalism and freedom the world has ever seen. The antithesis of the progressive/communist agenda.

---

The bottom line is that any reasonable person should have believed the election was lost. That isn't the case. A deliberate false narrative was utilized to energize the insurgents on January 6th, money was raised that is unspoken for and people died during the insurgency. No spin doctoring can get in the way of these facts.

---

Are you talking to us or your cats?

---

No, my cats would only need to be told once=)

---

Neehau said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Somebody planned the Kavanaugh assault and encouraged others to participate in it expressly in order to revolt against the legal authority of the peoples representatives in order to overthrow him from being installed

Sounds like it meets your definition again

Buuuuuut

Let me guess:

It's STILL (D)ifferent

---

I am not clear on the facts of what you are calling "the Kavanaugh assault" so I am not sure it is an apt comparison. Did it force Congress to shut down, clear the House chamber, and force Congress to go into hiding? Was it targeted towards all members of Congress, or only specific ones? That is, was it a revolt against the whole of Congress, or a protest against aimed at specific representatives? I really don't know, so if you can elaborate on the specifics you might have a point. I can't seem to be able to find anything on it.

Regardless, just for the sake of argument, if you feel there were seditious actions taken against the US Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, you would need to find out who the 'somebody' was who planned it and encouraged others to participate as well as evidence of these actions. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to be able to find anything. Again, if you could provide more information, you might have a point.

But, for the record, if a Democrat planned and encouraged a coordinated attack on the Congress on the United States, I would hope they would be indicted, and if found guilty, punished as prescribed by law. The rule of law (in the US, anyway) should not concern itself on political affiliation. I realize that many Republicans feel that political affiliation should be considered when applying the rule of law, but I think that those people are wrong.

---

Do you have any self awareness at all? Do you not understand that the primary reason Conservatives are so upset with the political climate is the exact reasons you described above, but in the opposite direction? The problem for example is that we have a 1/6 committee, but there was no Kavanaugh assault hearings. Nobody bothered to get to the bottom of the latter, because it was perpetrated by liberals. If conservatives had done the same they would be imprisoned for decades. The rule of law in todays age absolutely concerns itself with political affiliation and we want that to stop. If conservatives/Republicans or liberals/Democrats break the law or engage in malicious/corrupt activities they should be treated the same, but they are clearly not. The American left is rotten to the core and is completely content weaponizing federal law enforcement to punish their political enemies for crimes that wouldn't even make a news article if it were committed by a lefty. Trying to deny that there is a double standard is akin to being a flat earther at this point.

---

Such an old trick, it should be called the GOT (Grand Old Trick). Accuse you opponents of your strategies, either before or after you employ them. That way, you can support your "both sides do it" claim.

As for the bolded part, Dr. Ford did testify in front of Congress. Not just a deposition, but in person. Why is it that the Republicans are afraid to testify in front of Congress, and will only submit to depositions? Perhaps they are trying to hide something?

---

I should have stated in my original response, that neither the Kavanaugh Assualt or 1/6 warranted a politicized committee used to only to sling mud. It would have been stupid and transparently partisan for Republicans to do it as it is for Democrats to do it now.

That being said, WTF are you talking about? Who is afraid to testify in Congress? Why would any Republican agree to testify in front of a transparently partisan witch hunt, where a bunch of lying dirt bag Democrats and Rhinos are going to twist facts into something that fits their narratives and leaves the public with a grossly distorted view of reality? Which will then be selectively edited and played on repeat eleventy billion times to manipulate the simple minds of low information voters. Maybe Republicans would be more apt to take part in these proceedings if they were treated fairly by the committee members and the media. They would be crucified regardless of their statements or the facts of the events in question. The lack of credibility of this committee is the fault of unbelievably dishonest Democrat/Rhino politicians, DNC propaganda outlets, and the ethically devoid liberals that support them.

Dr. Ford was a lying POS that should be in prison for perjuring herself in front of congress. Can you imagine the consequences if a Conservative supported by Republican senators came out and falsely testified in front of congress that a Democrat appointed nominee had sexually assaulted them in a transparent attempt to prevent a confirmation? There'd be committees, a special prosecutor, IRS audits, and the FBI stuck up their ass so far they'd look like a puppet.

It's (D)ifferent has never been more true. The American left doesn't care one iota about the rule of law and they sure as hell hate every word of our constitution because it is the foundation the most successful example of capitalism and freedom the world has ever seen. The antithesis of the progressive/communist agenda.

---

The bottom line is that any reasonable person should have believed the election was lost. That isn't the case. A deliberate false narrative was utilized to energize the insurgents on January 6th, money was raised that is unspoken for and people died during the insurgency. No spin doctoring can get in the way of these facts.

---

Are you talking to us or your cats?

---

No, my cats would only need to be told once=)

---

Quote:

---

RealClearInvestigations has developed the comparison database below allowing readers to draw their own conclusions -- including the all-but-forgotten riot in Washington on Inauguration Day 2017, as protesters challenged Trump's election and legitimacy.

Highlights:

• The summer 2020 riots resulted in some 15 times more injured police officers, 23 times as many arrests, and estimated damages in dollar terms up to 1,300 times more costly than those of the Capitol riot.
• Authorities have pursued the largely Trump-supporting Capitol rioters with substantially more vigor than suspected wrongdoers in the earlier two cases, and prosecutors and judges alike have weighed Capitol riot defendants' political views in adjudicating their cases.
• Dozens of accused Capitol rioters have been held in pretrial detention for months, where they have allegedly been mistreated.
• In the summer 2020 riots, the vast majority of charges were dismissed, as they were in the Inauguration 2017 unrest.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

RealClearInvestigations has developed the comparison database below allowing readers to draw their own conclusions -- including the all-but-forgotten riot in Washington on Inauguration Day 2017, as protesters challenged Trump's election and legitimacy.

Highlights:

• The summer 2020 riots resulted in some 15 times more injured police officers, 23 times as many arrests, and estimated damages in dollar terms up to 1,300 times more costly than those of the Capitol riot.
• Authorities have pursued the largely Trump-supporting Capitol rioters with substantially more vigor than suspected wrongdoers in the earlier two cases, and prosecutors and judges alike have weighed Capitol riot defendants' political views in adjudicating their cases.
• Dozens of accused Capitol rioters have been held in pretrial detention for months, where they have allegedly been mistreated.
• In the summer 2020 riots, the vast majority of charges were dismissed, as they were in the Inauguration 2017 unrest.

---

Link

---

Ted Cruz FINALLY demands answers from the FBI about Jan 6th — the FBI’s answer is chilling

pic.twitter.com/zPGHjAzSba

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) June 14, 2022

Quote:

---

KEY POINTS RE QUESTIONABLE ELECTION RESULTS IN FIVE STATES

The U.S. Constitution gives absolute authority to State Legislatures to determine the "manner" of how a federal election is run.

The U.S. Constitution gives absolute authority to State Legislatures to appoint presidential electors. State Legislatures have enacted election laws that permit citizens to participate and express their will regarding the selection of presidential electors.

Under the U.S. Constitution, however, State Legislatures always have final authority regarding how presidential electors are chosen.

Democratic Party committees and left wing allies circumvented numerous state election codes by filing lawsuits and seeking executive agency actions to pressure judicial and executive branches of numerous state governments to "rewrite" their election codes without legislative action.

In its election lawsuits, the Trump campaign documented thousands of illegal votes that were cast, counted, and included in the final tabulation of these five states.

These votes violated the Election Codes adopted by the State Legislatures, which also violates the U.S. Constitution.

These illegal votes were outside the margin of victory in all five states.

Time is short for the courts to remedy these wrongs and declare the elections null and void.

There is also a constitutional remedy: -The U.S. Constitution vests in State Legislatures absolute authority to choose presidential electors. If the "manner" chosen by the State Legislature is not followed, which occurred in the 2020 presidential election

in these five states, then the State Legislature must reclaim its constitutional authority and responsibility to do what the constitution requires: appoint the presidential electors. -In the alterative, the State Legislature can decide not to certify any presidential electors because the "manner" of voting was illegal and unconstitutional. The election than goes to the U.S. House of Representatives. -Congress has the ultimate responsibility for receiving and counting the electoral college votes. -There is no constitutional obligation for Congress to accept fraudulent vote and electoral votes.

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Keep up the good fight. You got this.

---

CM Trump Voter said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Keep up the good fight. You got this.

---

Must be difficult coming to the realization that it was all lies.

---

CM Trump Voter said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Keep up the good fight. You got this.

---

Must be difficult coming to the realization that it was all lies.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

CM Trump Voter said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Keep up the good fight. You got this.

---

Must be difficult coming to the realization that it was all lies.

---

Guess you haven't been keeping up with the latest Dominion Voting System news.

Hint: It's not good for them.

---

Neehau said:

---

CM Trump Voter said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Keep up the good fight. You got this.

---

Must be difficult coming to the realization that it was all lies.

---

He is having trouble accepting the truth.

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Keep up the good fight. You got this.

---

CM Trump Voter said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

CM Trump Voter said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Keep up the good fight. You got this.

---

Must be difficult coming to the realization that it was all lies.

---

Guess you haven't been keeping up with the latest Dominion Voting System news.

Hint: It's not good for them.

---

Oh come on! You are an experienced attorney. Are you thinking that Trump stood alone and was right on this? His own kids testified against him.

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Neehau said:

---

CM Trump Voter said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Keep up the good fight. You got this.

---

Must be difficult coming to the realization that it was all lies.

---

He is having trouble accepting the truth.

---

Why don't you brag about your president?

---