Im not voting for Trump because he didn't crush the gimp well enough.GAC06 said:
He crushed himself. Any competent adult should have been able to crush Biden. Trump does well in front of adoring crowds, not when he has to actually provide facts and policy knowledge thinking on his feet. This committee appearance wouldn't go well for him, but likely he knows it's never going to happen
The committee cannot exist past 01/03/2023 unless the next Congress decides to reconvene it.Maroon Dawn said:
Just slow roll until GOP controls Congress and replaced all the Dems on the committee
Should be fun to let them have a taste of their own medicine
Central Committee said:
The Jan 6 Kangaroo Committee will never allow Trump to appear in person. He would make them look foolish and call them out on the partisan gamesmanship and outright lies.
I am sure Trump would also say some cringeworthy stuff and personal insults most of us do not want to hear. But he would make them look as stupid as they actually are.
Proof?HTownAg98 said:Central Committee said:
The Jan 6 Kangaroo Committee will never allow Trump to appear in person. He would make them look foolish and call them out on the partisan gamesmanship and outright lies.
I am sure Trump would also say some cringeworthy stuff and personal insults most of us do not want to hear. But he would make them look as stupid as they actually are.
The only time he's in control is when he gets to give an opening statement. Otherwise, he has to sit there and answer questions under oath and he's definitely not in control then. It would be a complete ****show if he tries to testify.
There's no way in hell he's going to sit for questioning. As someone else said, it's a gigantic perjury trap that he's not smart enough to keep himself out of. He would get slaughtered if he goes through with this.
Disagree.rgag12 said:
Misstep IMO. Should've ignored the farce and let it die.
But Trump gonna Trump, can't pass up a publicity opportunity.
That's why he agreed to do it. This thing won't even exist next year.Ag with kids said:The committee cannot exist past 01/03/2023 unless the next Congress decides to reconvene it.Maroon Dawn said:
Just slow roll until GOP controls Congress and replaced all the Dems on the committee
Should be fun to let them have a taste of their own medicine
My money is on that this will absolutely not happen. Not if Trumps attorneys are worth their salt. It would be a perjury trap and Trump won't be able to help himself take the bait. He should just answer questions in written form (of course not written by him specifically). Dumb move if he lets his ego get the best of himdamiond said:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-january-6-subpoena-alina-habba-lawyer-1754726
if this does happen the goat is going to have a field day with those crazed leftist and rinos and will have eaten all their lunches
You mean the first one where Chris Wallace sabotaged on Sept 29, 2020 (and set back race relations as well) and Trump was just coming down with covid? Or the second where it had many Dems apparently wanting to know how to change their early vote because of Biden's anti- O&G speeches before it? Or maybe the third.GAC06 said:
For those claiming Trump will "crush" the committee, did you not watch his debates against Biden?
Which you just glossed over to VERY large reasons that debate went badly. He was sandbagged, and also not at full speed. Whatever you think about Trump, what really was called for that day is for him to say "Hey Chris, how about you go stand over by Biden and let a member of the audience come up and moderate? If I am going to debate you both I need it to be more clear."GAC06 said:
The first where Trump torpedoed his chances looking completely unhinged, petty, and petulant. I know he has lots of excuses but he lost the election in the first debate
He's lied under oath before. This time would be no different, because he's at the disadvantage of going later, when many other people's statements are already on the record. People that don't testify under oath for a living do not understand how difficult it is to keep details straight when you're being questioned for 4-6 hours straight.fka ftc said:Proof?HTownAg98 said:Central Committee said:
The Jan 6 Kangaroo Committee will never allow Trump to appear in person. He would make them look foolish and call them out on the partisan gamesmanship and outright lies.
I am sure Trump would also say some cringeworthy stuff and personal insults most of us do not want to hear. But he would make them look as stupid as they actually are.
The only time he's in control is when he gets to give an opening statement. Otherwise, he has to sit there and answer questions under oath and he's definitely not in control then. It would be a complete ****show if he tries to testify.
There's no way in hell he's going to sit for questioning. As someone else said, it's a gigantic perjury trap that he's not smart enough to keep himself out of. He would get slaughtered if he goes through with this.
He may be a lot of things, mostly good, some bad. But the man is not dumb or stupid.
The "not smart enough" folks are the ones who are well... not smart enough to separate their personal hate of the man (TDS) vs his mental acuity and depth of knowledge.
There is not one soul on that committee that is wiser or smarter than DJT. To think otherwise is showing limited intelligence or extreme emotional bias.
Closed session, no tv, no reporters, no cameras on Nov 4 afternoon... Nothing to grandstand for Dems...0LOYAL AG said:
Must see TV for sure. It won't change anything but it'll be entertaining.
titan said:Which you just glossed over to VERY large reasons that debate went badly. He was sandbagged, and also not at full speed. Whatever you think about Trump, what really was called for that day is for him to say "Hey Chris, how about you go stand over by Biden and let a member of the audience come up and moderate? If I am going to debate you both I need it to be more clear."GAC06 said:
The first where Trump torpedoed his chances looking completely unhinged, petty, and petulant. I know he has lots of excuses but he lost the election in the first debate
Another rules for thee but not me. I understand both sides do it, but Team Blue led by Schiff and friends have taken it to an extreme.HTownAg98 said:He's lied under oath before. This time would be no different, because he's at the disadvantage of going later, when many other people's statements are already on the record. People that don't testify under oath for a living do not understand how difficult it is to keep details straight when you're being questioned for 4-6 hours straight.fka ftc said:
Proof?
He may be a lot of things, mostly good, some bad. But the man is not dumb or stupid.
The "not smart enough" folks are the ones who are well... not smart enough to separate their personal hate of the man (TDS) vs his mental acuity and depth of knowledge.
There is not one soul on that committee that is wiser or smarter than DJT. To think otherwise is showing limited intelligence or extreme emotional bias.
There may not be anyone on the committee that's smarter than he is, but that's not saying much. They have the advantage because all they have to do is ask questions. They're not under the threat of perjury.
Yes they want this, but they are WAY overestimating the impact it would have. Poll after poll shows that nobody cares about Jan.6. The ones that don't like Trump will still not like Trump. The ones that do still will. Jan.6 is already 'baked in' in the public's mind, and this event, should it take place, will change nothing.Quote:
The libs just want the optics of having Trump appear on their committee being grilled by them. That by itself would be a win for them.
THIS. And have it subject to draconian penalties if violated. Officials should be held to a higher standard, not none at all, compared to layman Main Street.fka ftc said:
And the Speech or Debate Clause is prime for a challenge in front of SCOTUS for clarification. Schiff and subsequent DimLibs should NOT be able to hide behind this clause to spread lies, misinformation or mislead the public using their position in office as a protection.
That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers and over the years the abuse has continued to grow and become ever more pervasive. If Congress wants to conduct investigations of individuals who are NOT members of Congress, then the member doing the questioning should also be sworn and subject to perjury for lying under oath. Period.
I also believe that investigators should not be able to lie and/or fabricate evidence to illicit information in the investigation of a crime. Its a totally separate discussion but one I would like to see challenged with the current makeup of SCOTUS.
He lied just last week when he signed a sworn statement about election numbers. He lied numerous times in a deposition he gave back in 2007. He just lies because it's either convenient or he has a bad memory, but I don't think he's ever been charged with perjury.fka ftc said:Another rules for thee but not me. I understand both sides do it, but Team Blue led by Schiff and friends have taken it to an extreme.HTownAg98 said:He's lied under oath before. This time would be no different, because he's at the disadvantage of going later, when many other people's statements are already on the record. People that don't testify under oath for a living do not understand how difficult it is to keep details straight when you're being questioned for 4-6 hours straight.fka ftc said:
Proof?
He may be a lot of things, mostly good, some bad. But the man is not dumb or stupid.
The "not smart enough" folks are the ones who are well... not smart enough to separate their personal hate of the man (TDS) vs his mental acuity and depth of knowledge.
There is not one soul on that committee that is wiser or smarter than DJT. To think otherwise is showing limited intelligence or extreme emotional bias.
There may not be anyone on the committee that's smarter than he is, but that's not saying much. They have the advantage because all they have to do is ask questions. They're not under the threat of perjury.
When did he lie under oath and why has he not been prosecuted and arrested for it?
I know you like to be boastful about your deep legal knowledge, but you seem to be a lightweight on these sorts of topics.
You let TDS defeat any knowledge and experience you may have. Its sad really.
Exactly. All Biden had to so is say "deboonked" and everybody just moved on. No, I don't want to end fracking in PA, despite what I have been saying previously.Layne Staley said:Where Biden was able to lie his ass off while the moderators put their thumb on the scale helping out the Dems? Yep, saw it.GAC06 said:
For those claiming Trump will "crush" the committee, did you not watch his debates against Biden?
You didn't enjoy the long Q&A he held with the press all the time, where he spoke extemporaneously on a wide variety of topics?GAC06 said:
He crushed himself. Any competent adult should have been able to crush Biden. Trump does well in front of adoring crowds, not when he has to actually provide facts and policy knowledge thinking on his feet. This committee appearance wouldn't go well for him, but likely he knows it's never going to happen
It would be great if the Rs take the house, reauthorize the committee, then have Trump keep his January date to testify, but under R leadership.Ag with kids said:The committee cannot exist past 01/03/2023 unless the next Congress decides to reconvene it.Maroon Dawn said:
Just slow roll until GOP controls Congress and replaced all the Dems on the committee
Should be fun to let them have a taste of their own medicine
Here you go.fka ftc said:
Okay, without specifics on his lies I will just assume you just do not like Trump.
I hope to God you are kidding or that you a joking about being a lawyer.HTownAg98 said:Here you go.fka ftc said:
Okay, without specifics on his lies I will just assume you just do not like Trump.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202210/1277612.shtml
Lawyers aren't supposed to lie, as they are officers of the court. If they get caught doing it, they can be sanctioned for it. And I would assume a judge could be removed from the bench for lying, but I can't think of a situation why a judge would lie. The closest thing I can come up with is the judge who had a prosecutor writing orders for him on cases the prosecutor was working on.fka ftc said:
Can prosecutors and judges lie in a court of law? Regarding prosecutors, I am not talking about supposition or a conclusion based on facts that may turn out wrong. I am talking lying Schiffty Schiff style with no repercussions.
