ADVERTISEMENT

Speaker Johnson releases the Jan 6th tapes

Yet states are taking him off the ballot for inciting an insurrection and the Dems are fine with it.

The whole damn thing was a setup.
It's always been interesting to me on how the Jan 6 committee did not call Nancy Pelosi, who was in the security chain of command, to testify. Were they afraid of the uncomfortable questions she would get from republicans? Of course.
 
If you ask right-wing media nothing, if you read the report, plenty.
Seems like I remember Trump telling everyone to go home peacefully. "We are not them" (ie, BLM and Antifa) Then Twatter blocked his account.

200w.gif
 
Remember when @FresnoGator told us he had friends who were in town and going to attend, saw some sketchy BS prior and grabbed a quick flight out of town?:oops:
To recount, my buddy flew down with a group from New Hampshire from Boston Logan airport for Trump's speech. After being disappointed with Trump's speech, they started to leave and saw the police moving barriers and ushering the crowd toward the capitol.. he called me on his way to the airport and said we are getting the hell out of here. This is a set up.. watch the news tonight ...
 
Keep wearing the blinders. He requested National Guard prior to the fake insurrection. Nan refused, it would completely undermine the Deep State planned narrative. :rolleyes:
So it's a lie that he waited awhile watching on that day to do something?
 
Good reason for committee not to call Pelosi to testify?
This is what the bubble do to you guys. This is why conversations are tough to have because you guys start from a "it's a lie". So the person that would actually lead the order or make the order reach Pelosi was Chris Miller. So Trump would tell Chris and then Chris would tell Pelosi people. Trump would never speak directly to Pelosi. Chris Miller testified (see below) that he never got that request, therefore, he never told Pelosi. So why would Pelosi need to testify? Please answer.

And just the rest of his statement was, quote: That was a direct order from President Trump, and yet here is what we see, all kinds of blame going around, but not a whole lot of accountability. To be crystal clear, there was no direct order from President Trump to put 10,000 troops to be on the ready for January 6th, correct?


No. Yeah. That's correct. There was no direct -- there was no order from the president.
 
It's always been interesting to me on how the Jan 6 committee did not call Nancy Pelosi, who was in the security chain of command, to testify. Were they afraid of the uncomfortable questions she would get from republicans? Of course.
No, they were not worried at all. Pelosi didn’t allow any Republicans to be on the committee
 
  • Angry
Reactions: NavigatorII
Read my post #291
Already read it. Go back and read #285. 😂

xQrMJ.png

  1. Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.
 
Already read it. Go back and read #285. 😂

xQrMJ.png

  1. Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.
Mark Meadows didn't testify, so it's borderline but this wouldn't look good to a jury if Cheney was on trial.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: nail1988
No, they were not worried at all. Pelosi didn’t allow any Republicans to be on the committee
This is inaccurate. She didn't want any of the republicans that she felt could be potential witnesses. She approved 3 of the 5 but Kevin pulled them because he said, "all or none". She even gave Kevin the chance to choose 2 more. Jim Jordan was literally subpoenaed.

"Pelosi said she approved of the appointments of Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas."
 
This is inaccurate. She didn't want any of the republicans that she felt could be potential witnesses. She approved 3 of the 5 but Kevin pulled them because he said, "all or none". She even gave Kevin the chance to choose 2 more. Jim Jordan was literally subpoenaed.

"Pelosi said she approved of the appointments of Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas."


Why is this woman literally rubbing an onion in her face? Why would she use those words?

Keep defending blindly, please.
 
This is inaccurate. She didn't want any of the republicans that she felt could be potential witnesses. She approved 3 of the 5 but Kevin pulled them because he said, "all or none". She even gave Kevin the chance to choose 2 more. Jim Jordan was literally subpoenaed.

"Pelosi said she approved of the appointments of Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas."

 
She defended herself.

Trump can’t order the troops - don’t believe anyone who doesn’t understand the process. That would be illegal and he would have been guilty of something that day. It would be tantamount to the President putting tanks in the streets of cities he didn’t like.

The Mayor of DC and the speaker are in charge of security - Mark Miller, chief of staff, offered “whatever national guard help they needed” and in a later conversation the specific number of 10k was mentioned.

Bowser took a very small number to handle traffic. Pelosi took zero help.

We have firsthand knowledge of this - it’s one of the interviews the J6 committee hid from the public because it didn’t fit the narrative.
 
Trump can’t order the troops - don’t believe anyone who doesn’t understand the process. That would be illegal and he would have been guilty of something that day. It would be tantamount to the President putting tanks in the streets of cities he didn’t like.

The Mayor of DC and the speaker are in charge of security - Mark Miller, chief of staff, offered “whatever national guard help they needed” and in a later conversation the specific number of 10k was mentioned.

Bowser took a very small number to handle traffic. Pelosi took zero help.

We have firsthand knowledge of this - it’s one of the interviews the J6 committee hid from the public because it didn’t fit the narrative.
Come on fatman, no need for facts here.
 
Funny thing. If Trump had actually ORDERED the National Guard into DC, he would be guilty of insurrection.
EXACTLY.

The President doesn't have unilateral authority to put troops in the streets unless there's a declaration of war and we're being physically invaded.

Can you imagine the chaos if this wasn't the case?

On one hand they call him a dictator and a tyrant and the other blame him for not acting like a dictator and a tyrant. It's insane.
 
Worked for me. And it does look like an onion in the towel she is holding and rubbing her eyes with, while crying and claiming she was maced
I wouldn't be shocked is Meta isn't messing with it, and I bet it's down soon. I have to close IG and let that link open the program for it to work on my phone. I don't doubt @kalimgoodman is having issues opening it.

One theory was ice, but it's clearly a solid white round half circle.

You're telling the capital police walk around with large whiskey "rocks" in their pocket!? 🤣

Plus I looked it up - ice would be a very bad treatment for mace. She's a paid actor (and a pretty bad one).

Who paid her?
 
She also hid exculpatory interviews and evidence. Less than half of all interviews conducted went into the report.

You honestly believe she had no agenda in all of this? You think her and Kinsinger truly put their bias to the side and conducted an open and honest investigation?
The thing about politics, there is no such thing as an "open and honest' investigation. The other side will always believe that it's with an agenda.
 
The thing about politics, there is no such thing as an "open and honest' investigation. The other side will always believe that it's with an agenda.
But we aren’t talking about any other select committee investigations, we are talking about this one. The one where Republicans were not allowed to select their own representation. The one where exculpatory testimony wasn’t allowed to be heard or even documented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dezyDeco
But we aren’t talking about any other select committee investigations, we are talking about this one. The one where Republicans were not allowed to select their own representation. The one where exculpatory testimony wasn’t allowed to be heard or even documented.
Being objective. If you suspected somebody was involved in the "crime", would you allow them to be a part of the investigation?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT