Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Here ya go:

 

 

Matt---

What evidence? I see some monkeys in the trees. I do not see any weapons. This is evidence? 

Can you do a circle and an enlargement on a weapon? 

And curiously, one man's face is blurred out. Why would someone's face be blurred out? Why would a monkey with a gun in a tree have his face blurred out? Except I see no weapon. 

Could it be the man with the blurred face is a federal asset? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 18.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Benjamin Cole

    2003

  • Douglas Caddy

    1990

  • W. Niederhut

    1700

  • Steve Thomas

    1562

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The committee hearings have become overwhelming.  A step up with each one.  It’s amazing that they have used Republicans exclusively.  Today was a bombshell.  I think more of both parties are beginning to pay attention, based on what I’ve read and a few conversations.

The AR15’s and Glocks are pretty damning alone.  His wanting them allowed in is worse.  Grabbing the wheel then the SSA’s shoulder/neck in the SUV was shocking for me.  Throwing his plate at the wall, a grown man?

Pleas provide a photo of a protestor holding an AR-15 or Glock at the 1/6 scrum. 

 

As a former potter and craftsman, I am shocked--shocked!---Trump threw White House porcelain against a wall. That stuff has a nice gold rim, very classy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Fox News tonight, Anthony Ornato, Bobby Engel and the Secret Service are all denying Trump ever did what Cassidy Hutchinson told the Jan. 6th committee Ornato told her he did in his office soon after Trump was brought back to the White House after his Ellipse speech.

So, Ms. Hutchison made the whole story up?

And in so doing risked committing perjury, that if proven, will ruin her the rest of her life?

The SS is demanding they be put under oath to prove their claim that Trump didn't do what Hutchinson claimed she heard he did to the committee.

If Ms. Hutchinson lied to the committee and 30 million American viewers about her claim to be waved into Ornato's office with Engel sitting on a seat there and then be told the Trump wheel grab story by Ornato ... shouldn't he, Engel and the SS come up with irrefutable evidence Hutchinson lied and/or made the whole story up?

Until then I will believe Hutchinson over anybody defending the mad man Trump.

Guess Ms. Hutchison made up the raging angry Trump plate and ketchup throwing incident as well?

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The Hutchinson lady, another very presentable witness, said what she heard other people say. There was a special TV show for this? 

Trump wanted to go to the Capitol on 1/6, and the Secret Service forcibly took him back to the White House.

Trump was justifiably angered at being held against his will, or he threw a temper tantrum, take your pick (based on the kool-aid you drink). 

As for guns in the crowd, that is a demented blue kool-aided dream...there is evidence for one gun.

No videos have surfaced of a single firearm in the heavily, heavily recorded 1/6 crowd, and only one person, out of more than 800 arrested, was carrying a firearm (and he was released within 24 hours). There are no reports of discarded firearms found in the Capitol in the wake of the breach. 

What scares me is what have partisan realities in America. 

You guys actually believe the Capitol breach crowd was heavily armed...because you want to believe it, as it fits a partisan narrative. 

The red kool-aid crowd...your mirror image? 

 

She testified under oath. Nobody denying it has. I'd be interested in Vince Palarama's thoughts on the events of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right Andrew, let's see if any of these Trump losers can exhibit any courage and testify.

But the plot thickens,  Tony Ornado (Knock 3 Times?) is a well known Trump sycophant.  He oversaw  the Secret Service detail on 1/6 that tried to remove Pence from the capitol, but Pence refused.

"The Pences went to a secure underground area to wait out the riot. At the White House, senior official Keith Kellogg reportedly discussed Pence with Tony Ornato, who "oversaw Secret Service movements."

Ornato told Kellogg that Pence's security detail was planning to move him to Joint Base Andrews but Kellogg told Ornato to leave Pence where he was because Pence was determined to stay and finish the job."

 

https://www.newsweek.com/mike-pence-refused-car-secret-service-capitol-riot-book-1610326

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Trump wasn't merely inciting a riot.  He was inciting potential homicides.

 

Trump said that perhaps Pence deserved to be hung by the rioters!

By not calling off the rioters for three hours, Trump was giving them that opportunity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

She testified under oath. Nobody denying it has. I'd be interested in Vince Palarama's thoughts on the events of the day.

So...there were guns in the 1/6 scrum because Hutchinson testified under oath she heard that somebody said that they had been told about a police report that said that there were Ar-15s and Glocks in the crowd? 

Meanwhile, despite the most intense video-recording of any civil disturbance in history, one that revealed not a single firearm...you believe the weight of evidence is that there were firearms in the crowd? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

As for guns in the crowd, that is a demented blue kool-aided dream...there is evidence for one gun.

 

According to Hutchinson, Trump's people read reports of his supporters arriving with weapons of all kinds, including guns(!). Trump directed his people not to use metal detectors for his 1/6 rally, saying that the weapons were not meant for him. Which of course means that he didn't mind having his supporters using weapons against those at the Capitol. Which they did.

~~~~~~~~

The fact that there appeared to be virtually no guns at all is an important clue. It tells me that the riot had to have been organized and the rioters told either 1) not to take guns, or 2) told to draw their guns only against certain targets... like Nancy Pelosi for example.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

According to Hutchinson, Trump's people read reports of his supporters arriving with weapons of all kinds, including guns(!). Trump directed his people not to use metal detectors for his 1/6 rally, saying that the weapons were not meant for him. Which of course means that he didn't mind having his supporters using weapons against those at the Capitol.

The fact that there appeared to be virtually no guns at all is an important clue. It tells me that the riot had to have been organized and the rioters told either 1) not to take guns, or 2) told to draw their guns only against certain weapons... like Nancy Pelosi for example.

 

Well, possibly. There has been zero evidence presented that the scrum was organized.

There may have been instigators or provocateurs in the crowd. I find it interesting that Matt's post above, of a man in a tree on 1/6, has the man's face blurred out. Now, why would anyone blur out a man's face in the 1/6 crowd? 

Meanwhile....

Secret Service lead and presidential driver are prepared to testify under oath that Trump did NOT grab steering wheel or lunge at agents to drive himself to Capitol on January 6

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10963183/Secret-Service-prepared-testify-oath-Trump-did-NOT-grab-steering-wheel.html

Of course, this inconvenient fact will not matter. 

The 1/6 Cheney-crat Committee says were guns in the crowd on 1/6 and that Trump tried to gain control of the Presidential limo. 

That's, 0 for 2 out of 2. Go for a trifecta? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

If Ms. Hutchinson lied to the committee and 30 million American viewers about her claim to be waved into Ornato's office with Engel sitting on a seat there and then be told the Trump wheel grab story by Ornato ... shouldn't he, Engel and the SS come up with irrefutable evidence Hutchinson lied and/or made the whole story up?

Until then I will believe Hutchinson over anybody defending the mad man Trump.

 

I trust Hutchinson.

However, it is possible that what she said about the limo incident is untrue. Consider the following possibility:

Someone on Trumps team realized that Hutchinson could blab and get them all in trouble. A solution is devised... have someone tell a false account of a limo incident to Hutchinson for the sole purpose of discrediting her.

IIRC, two of the witnesses of the event didn't deny the story to Hutchinson when she discussed it. So she thinks it was confirmed. Problem is, these so-called witnesses were in on it.

So later she testifies to the story.

Next step, have sworn witnesses deny the limo incident ever happened. (Which, remember, is the truth). And voila, Hutchinson ends up being a discredited witness.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There has been zero evidence presented that the scrum was organized.

 

That's not true. Evidence was introduced in one of the earlier 1/6 hearings indicating organization among the early arrivers at the Capitol. What the hearing didn't do was expose a link between them and the White House.

In addition, the fact that virtually nobody at the riot showed a gun is evidence that that the riot was organized.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Secret Service lead and presidential driver are prepared to testify under oath that Trump did NOT grab steering wheel or lunge at agents to drive himself to Capitol on January 6

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10963183/Secret-Service-prepared-testify-oath-Trump-did-NOT-grab-steering-wheel.html

 

The plot to discredit Hutchinson is working. At least in the minds of the plotters, it's working.

 

48 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Of course, this inconvenient fact will not matter. 

 

And it shouldn't matter. Hutchinson was obviously set up. There was no motive for her to make that incident up.

BTW, note that Hutchinson never said the incident happened. She said that she was told it happened. If it didn't happen, it's the guy who told her who is lying.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...