the problem with this is typical. It isn't a perfect, black and white world where we easily draw lines of separation between various needs and wants and points of view. The football game was a school function. They should never run a play called 'Jesus Go Long', for example, unless that name was sort of a jest. If it was sort of a jest, who cares if some Muslim gets offended by it. Maybe they could insert a play called 'Allah Hitch and Go' just to appease the Muslim kids. But I digress.
Which sounds plausible? A young woman, devoutly republican with nothing to gain and everything to lose, goes before the January 6 Committee and lies under oath about a story she fabricated out of thin air, or a secret service agent who is described by his coworkers as an enabler and a yes-man for the former president who spoke out of turn and is now in denying it.
But only one of them could have happened. Let me rephrase it: which is more plausible?
Agree on trust in the court eroding, which is why politicians should come out and say the court's decisions should be respected. They shouldn't come out and trash the court and try to manipulate it through court packing. If the politicians don't like the decision, then they can always do something through legislation to fix problems. Of course that would require sanity and that doesn't exist much in politics. At least that's what the polls say.
Good luck proving that. Both of them COULD HAVE happened.
I see you haven’t performed even the most basic research on her. Is that due to laziness or stupidity? Or both?
They want this to be Watergate. But, Trump ain't Nixon.
They contradict each other, so both couldn't have happened. Someone is lying.
please don't put this kind of slop in the liberal trough any more, at least not here. Jesus, these guys are beyond ready for the Soylent Green truck to come and take them to the Soylent Green plant.
lol, I swear I had not seen this post when I posted something very similar. That's just hilarious.
since when do libs not believe that two things that contradict each other can't co-exist depending on which lie is most convenient at the time?
you are. Favorite pastime is making shit up.
As I said, good luck proving that.
It doesn't matter whether I or the January 6 Committee can or cannot prove it. It's not like anyone is trying to earn Trump a traffic ticket for reckless driving. And even if Engel or Ornato testify and deny it, how is she toast?
She's toast because it could be alleged that she lied... or, at least embellished. If it's either, then whatever she said can't be trusted.
She admitted it was second-hand info, right? So the committee had to know this would be questioned. I suspect there is more follow-up.
Politicians should represent their constituents. It has taken decades for the gawd-fearing GOP to get what they want on this one. So it is dumb for anyone to expect some counter overnight, but they need to represent what their constituents are paying them for. If SCOTUS is incredibly out of touch, it only makes sense for there to be a response other than "welp... constitution says so".
Did she??? I don't know. They dangle carrots all the time. This wasn't even a baby carrot.
At least Al Gore had the good sense to tell his entire campaign staff: "Don't trash the Supreme Court" after the ruling that stopped the count in 2000.
Their constituents are mostly ignorant when it comes to legal decisions and to be honest, so are the politicians (and to be more honest, you too). That's why you don't want the court listing to them. A lot of bad shit was popular at one point. They can still represent them and respect the court. It's not that hard to not attack the court. Constantly doing that is just asking for trouble. Or maybe you're looking for another January 6th style protest at the supreme court?
So now branches of gov can't be criticized?
She told the committee that immediately following Trump's speech on the Ellipse and return to the White House she was in the West Wing hallway when Tony Ornato waved her into an office and told her what had just happened in the SUV. She said Bob Engel was sitting in a chair looking a bit "discombobulated."
I would say it's already been alleged that she is lying by the secret service agents who won't admit the truth. What is the punishment for someone allegedly lying or embellishing? How many years in the clink do you think she'll get?
So wouldn't that be firsthand regarding Engel looking discombobulated, but second hand regarding Trump's actions? Either way, committee knew this, so surely they're expecting something else.
Regarding Trump's actions, yes, it would be secondhand since she wasn't riding in the presidential motorcade much less the same vehicle, but she didn't say in her testimony, "I saw the President grab the wheel and then grab Agent Engel."
I didn't say they can't be criticized. I said these dumbass politicians should tell people to respect the court's opinion instead of trying to ruin the court just because they don't like the ruling. You're trying to change the argument.
I'm not talking about her having to do any jail time. I'm just trying to emphasize that her testimony will appear to be... ummm... less than credible, if these people she claims told her these things in her testimony, come forth and testify themselves that they NEVER told her any of it. It will be hearsay. "He told me Trump did this!" "No, I never told her anything." There's nothing there that will hold up in any court, let alone public opinion. If they DON'T testify, then it will be a different situation. However, for people who approve of DJT, what she has said are all lies. Of course, they wouldn't believe anything he did that might paint him in a negative way.
It's just a further example of how the US governmental structure is like a marriage of two people that hate each other. They will debase any and everyone (or everything) around them in order to slander and denigrate their "adversary."
Not that it matters, strum, but absolutely nothing happened inside the Beast. It has already been discussed here that Trump was traveling in the presidential Escapade instead. What also doesn't really matter is who is telling the truth and who is lying in this grabbing-the-wheel saga. Like I said earlier, it's not like the committee is going to use her testimony in hopes of getting Trump a traffic ticket for reckless driving. It was more anecdotal than anything.
