Guest Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 On 7/26/2022 at 6:13 PM, Chris Davidson said: Risk vs. Reward: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1598594/vaccine-news-pfizer-modern-heart-problems-myocarditis-pericarditis As I have said to others, I can spam this thread with 1000 links characterising the truth on this but, it will make people feel neurotic. What I will say is; you have shown plenty of ability to critically think and challenge the Zapruder film. You would have found zero answers in the Daily Express, or any MSM news outlet, you had to think for yourself. Do the same on this topic; read the virologists and pariahs who are being censored and attacked by the media, and make your own mind up. Maybe start with questioning the Trusted Media Alliance that has been blocking any news that shines a negative spotlight on C19 measures or the V’s. Maybe look at how the fact checking sites are being funded. Who is funding these univaried papers, or papers that can’t be replicated under the same conditions. I get that people made a decision, under duress and that it's easier to swallow being right than wrong. This impacts my friends, family, etc, I’d rather be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 (edited) What seems to have started the actual move toward the insurrection was the battle inside the White House between the people who thought there could be an alternative set of electors, and those who thought Pence had no choice in the matter and had to accept those sent up. The fuel for this was clearly the idea that the election was rigged somehow. The people who supported Pence were Cipallone and Hershman. Those against it were Powell and Mr. Overstock. The latter two somehow got into the White House on the 17th, later joined by Rudy G. This trio began to urge Trump to go ahead and get Pence to accept the alternative electors and reject the ones sent in previously. When Cipallone and Hershman heard they were there, they were stunned. They walked in on the meeting and began to argue every point. Powell wanted Trump to seize the election machines and make her a special counsel to decide over their validity. Trump actually liked this idea. This meeting went on for six hours in something like three locations. It did not end until after midnight. People were yelling, screaming, swearing, there was even a challenge to a fight. When it was all over, Trump decided to issue his call to his rightwing allies. This is when the assault plan began. Edited July 27, 2022 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 Also important to remember that "rigged election" became Trump's de facto excuse for any election loss he doesn't like all the way back in the 2016 primaries. Trump's total disdain for the rule of law and our democracy meant he felt playing dirty in elections was a feature not a bug. The "Stop the Steal" scam goes all the way back to Roger Stone and Trump's battle with Hillary Clinton. These people are thugs and criminals and need to rot in prison for the rest of their days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 14 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: Also important to remember that "rigged election" became Trump's de facto excuse for any election loss he doesn't like all the way back in the 2016 primaries. Trump's total disdain for the rule of law and our democracy meant he felt playing dirty in elections was a feature not a bug. The "Stop the Steal" scam goes all the way back to Roger Stone and Trump's battle with Hillary Clinton. These people are thugs and criminals and need to rot in prison for the rest of their days. The circumstantial evidence that Trump, Giuliani, et.al., conspired to obstruct the Congressional certification of Biden's Electoral College victory on January 6th is overwhelming. A 20 year felony. But is there sufficient evidence that Trump conspired to obstruct Congress on January 6th? Giuliani certainly bragged to Cassidy Hutchnson about the impending fireworks on January 6th. And Steve Bannon also bragged about the impending fireworks in a January 5th podcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 38 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: But is there sufficient evidence that Trump conspired to obstruct Congress on January 6th? I reckon in an effort to make that charge airtight, DOJ got Meadows to flip. If one remembers Garland's previous prosecutorial victories against domestic terrorists (Unabomber, OKC, Atlanta Olympic bomber) Garland was known for no leaks, prosecutions so tight that no appeals were upheld, and pretty much the narrow focus of a skilled surgeon. That rare interview he gave to NBC yesterday, and the stories given to the NYT and WaPo, were coordinated, IMO. The 1/6 hearings primed and prepped the nation for the big-name indictments to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 27, 2022 Share Posted July 27, 2022 William: There were several congressman at the White House like a day before this meeting, including Jordan and Briggs. From my understanding, these guys were needed to make challenges to the electoral votes. In watching these hearings on YouTube, the thing that really is so interesting to someone like me is that it tears asunder the idea of "Well, c'mon, you really think you can have a conspiracy that big?" In watching several hours of these hearings, there were about two dozen people involved in this thing. What is giving it away is the people inside the WH who thought it was nutty from the get go. Even one of Trump's assistants, in an email exchange, she called them "the crazies". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 28, 2022 Share Posted July 28, 2022 (edited) I should also note, there was at least one supplementary meeting at a Trump hotel, with at least one of Trump's sons there. I am starting to watch these now at night. One a night for about three hours. I have to say that for a congressional hearing, they are not bad. Much better than the HSCA and Iran Contra. Edited July 28, 2022 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted July 28, 2022 Share Posted July 28, 2022 Interesting thought: The federal government had heavily infiltrated and even help organize and finance a group no one ever heard of before---the Wolverine Watchman. They were the Whitmer guys. A dozen of the 24 in the group were feds. Ergo, it stands to reason the federal government has heavily infiltrated and acted in similar capacities with the larger and more-prominent Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. The federal government is now charging those two groups with "seditious conspiracy" in relation to the 1/6 event. Does this make for an ugly dead-end for Biden-AG Garland Merrick? If the AG says "Trump started the riot at the Capitol," then Trump's defense can say, "We did not start any riot. In fact, the AG's office has said it was the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys instigated the riot, and we want the identities of federal assets in those two groups revealed." So...it will likely be revealed the federal government played instrumental roles inside the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, two groups the feds say instigated the 1/6 scrum. Thus, prosecuting Trump could get very tricky, and entirely different narratives could emerge if Trump has a defense. The defense narrative: The federal government inadvertently assisted the 1/6 scrum, and Trump had nothing to do with it. When it comes out in court how federal assets were active in the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys...and other federal assets were in the 1.6 scrum.... I doubt the Trump defense can uncover the reason the Capitol Police did not show up on 1/6 and then stood down, and I suppose it could be simple and unimaginably massive bungling. Unimaginable...but volitional? Hard to prove in court. As much as any of us may dislike Trump, as of yet there has been "no defense." We are getting the Warren Commission version of events---all prosecution, no defense. Even so, the case against Trump looks rather squishy. On what Trump did in Georgia---that strikes me as more concrete, less moving parts, and no questionable federal involvement. Anyway, let Trump stand trial, and let us all accept the results. Try to avoid the mindset that, "An accusation is better than a confession." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 28, 2022 Share Posted July 28, 2022 Here's a fairly comprehensive review from Media Matters today of the distorted coverage of the Congressional J6 hearings in the U.S. right wing media. It describes many of the erroneous talking points about the hearings that are being repeated in the M$M and amplified in the MAGA-verse by people who never watched the actual hearings. And it certainly explains why an astonishing 80% of Republicans in the recent Marist poll still don't believe that Trump was responsible for the J6 attack on Congress! I think that this is what Carl Bernstein was talking about when he said that Nixon probably would have survived Watergate if Fox News had existed in the 1970s. Right-wing media have been dismissing, downplaying, and attacking the January 6 hearings | Media Matters for America Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted July 28, 2022 Share Posted July 28, 2022 (edited) On 7/14/2022 at 12:14 AM, Benjamin Cole said: Bob Ness: Well, thanks for commenting, and we have different viewpoints, and that is fine. At least we agree that a congressional hearing is not a trial. Given the partisan nature of Washington, what is the purpose of scripted televised congressional hearings? I am happy to assent to however the courts dispose of Trump, or if they exonerate him. Sorry for the delay in responding. The hearings have a purpose because they can illustrate and reveal what happened so that citizens can judge the circumstances and engage in their civic responsibilities. Those responsibilities include writing their congressional representatives, voting, testifying where appropriate, providing evidence, and in general fulfill our obligation to stay engaged through greater understanding. This engagement encourages a healthy society and a better functioning government. What we actually have today is a significant percentage of the population who has replaced civic understanding with ignorance which was on display on January 6th. This isn't a "biased opinion" I have but in fact played out spectacularly and has many exemplars throughout history to compare to. The sociopath/pyschopath Trump, to this very day, has claimed through outright and easily provable lies (which take advantage of the ignorance of his followers) that the election was stolen. He has been claiming that for years before the election and I think he even claimed the same thing with HRC. His followers, like any person who has been badly conned, have doubled down on the original scam rather than admit they were wrong, learn from it, and move along. Trump and his circle (Flynn, Rudy, Stone, Hannity, Powell, Tucker etc) figured out a long time ago that these simple people would be vulnerable to a scam and use the soap box they have to rake money in over the transom. Their Republican counterparts such as Greene, DeSantis and so on ring the same bell as often as possible. Riling people up to take a fork to their wallets is common and the Republicans have been building the audience for at least a few decades. It's the primary reason they've attacked journalism, academics, and the "liberal elite". It's imperative for them to lower the understanding of their base by attacking those institutions, disqualifying them as viable sources of information and directing the sheep to contoured, tailored and limited information. I've been saying here for years now that Trump is a two-bit con man that Republicans saw fit to hire as a President of the United States. At the time he had more experience to qualify him to fly a 777 than be POTUS. That was true. Nobody in their right mind would board an airplane with him as a pilot. They shouldn't have selected Trump as their candidate. It was stupid and extremely dangerous. That fact alone proves my point. Edited July 28, 2022 by Bob Ness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted July 28, 2022 Share Posted July 28, 2022 3 minutes ago, Bob Ness said: Sorry for the delay in responding. The hearings have a purpose because they can illustrate and reveal what happened so that citizens can judge the circumstances and engage in their civic responsibilities. Those responsibilities include writing their congressional representatives, voting, testifying where appropriate, providing evidence, and in general fulfill our obligation to stay engaged through greater understanding. This engagement encourages a healthy society and a better functioning government. What we actually have today is a significant percentage of the population who has replaced civic understanding with ignorance which was on display on January 6th. This isn't a "biased opinion" I have but in fact played out spectacularly and has many exemplars throughout history to compare to. The sociopath/pyschopath Trump, to this very day, has claimed through outright and easily provable lies (which take advantage of the ignorance of his followers) that the election was stolen. He has been claiming that for years before the election and I think he even claimed the same thing with HRC. His followers, like any person who has been badly conned, have doubled down on the original scam rather than admit they were wrong, learn from it, and move along. Trump and his circle (Flynn, Rudy, Stone, Hannity, Powell, Tucker etc) figured out a long time ago that these simple people would be vulnerable to a scam and use the soap box they have to rake money in over the transom. Their Republican counterparts such as Greene, DeSantis and so on ring the same bell as often as possible. Riling people up to take a fork to their wallets is common and the Republicans have been building the audience for at least a few decades. It's the primary reason they've attacked journalism, academics, and the "liberal elite". It's imperative for them to lower the understanding of their base by attacking those institutions, disqualifying them as viable sources of information and directing the sheep to contoured, tailored and limited information. I've been saying here for years now that Trump is a two-bit con man that Republicans saw fit to hire as a President of the United States. At the time he had more experience to qualify him to fly a 777 than be POTUS. That was true. Nobody in their right mind would board an airplane with him as a pilot. They shouldn't have selected Trump as their candidate. It was stupid and extremely dangerous and has proven to be true. That fact alone proves my point. Thanks for you insights, and, some of which I agree with, but other parts not. But, hey, different outlooks are what makes the world go 'round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted July 28, 2022 Share Posted July 28, 2022 7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: But is there sufficient evidence that Trump conspired to obstruct Congress on January 6th? W., Yes. It lies in the speech he gave at the Ellipse on the morning of the 6th. He was urged several times beforehand not to include language about going to the Capitol. The original draft of the speech did not include this language. Trump adlibbed.and inserted it himself. The White House Counsel, Pat Cippelone, told Mark Meadows, Cassidy Hutcinson to make sure that they didn't go, because if they did, they would open themselves to being charged with "every crime imaginable". The original permit for the rally was only for the Ellipse. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted July 28, 2022 Share Posted July 28, 2022 1 minute ago, Steve Thomas said: W., Yes. It lies in the speech he gave at the Ellipse on the morning of the 6th. He was urged several times beforehand not to include language about going to the Capitol. The original draft of the speech did not include this language. Trump adlibbed.and inserted it himself. The White House Counsel, Pat Cippelone, told Mark Meadows, Cassidy Hutcinson to make sure that they didn't go, because if they did, they would open themselves to being charged with "every crime imaginable". The original permit for the rally was only for the Ellipse. Steve Thomas Right on Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted July 28, 2022 Share Posted July 28, 2022 Donald Trump appeals decision that he can be held civily liable for his actions and speech on January 6th. Declares he has absolute immunity because he was acting in his official capacity as President. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22122307-document-1-28 Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted July 28, 2022 Share Posted July 28, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said: W., Yes. It lies in the speech he gave at the Ellipse on the morning of the 6th. He was urged several times beforehand not to include language about going to the Capitol. The original draft of the speech did not include this language. Trump adlibbed.and inserted it himself. The White House Counsel, Pat Cippelone, told Mark Meadows, Cassidy Hutcinson to make sure that they didn't go, because if they did, they would open themselves to being charged with "every crime imaginable". The original permit for the rally was only for the Ellipse. Steve Thomas This strikes me as something of stretch. In his speech on 1/6, Trump explicitly said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Trump used other expressions, such as "show strength" that has been construed as endorsing physical violence. This makes a conviction of Trump based on his 1/6 speech nearly impossible (under rule of law anyway). Trump's other admonitions do not endorse violence but are general, such as "show strength" and "cheer our Senators on." These are expression used 1000 times by pols everywhere. This is why the case against Trump is so squishy. People say there was a meeting at the Willard Hotel of Trumpians (Bannon, Giuliani) and that must prove a 1/6 conspiracy. How? Do we have texts, recordings, paperwork, or eyewitness accounts of content from the meeting? Remember---people of any political stripe can devolve into witch hunts. I regard Trump as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Bret Stephens of the The New York Times now says Russiagate was an "elaborate hoax." Why was such a hoax perpetrated? Stay skeptical, demand incontrovertible evidence. Edited July 28, 2022 by Benjamin Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts