Tucker Carlson starts to divulge the Capitol video tapes

It's called adding 2 & 2 - unless you're in denial.

Why would they have to tell Trump something he already knew?

Does it really matter whether they were deluded or not? They refused to accept the election results, and came armed and looked ready for battle after a lame-duck rally. What does that tell you? A 'peaceful' protest?

The word 'peace' is not in their agenda.

Contact = communicated with.

That's why you shouldn't listen to people like Tucker.

Firearms, knives, stun guns, pepper spray, and baseball bats were brought, and flag poles were wielded as weapons too. Some were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds while others stashed them nearby. Plus the FBI released a video of the person they're looking for who placed pipe bombs near Capitol Hill between 7:30 PM and 8:30 PM on Jan 5 - but this could be anyone.

What difference does it make if he felt it unjust or not? He kept pushing the unsupported claim of rampant voter fraud & that the election was 'stolen' from him, and used this lie to incite his gullible followers.

I'm not aware of any other 1-term president who refused to leave office by trying to overturn the election.

 

How was it a 'farce'?

Why are you still beating this dead horse? I already covered this with you here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ol-video-tapes.608839/page-46#post-1074119048

But I'll add the following for reference:

(1) Still reeling from the impact of Jim Crow

Voter suppression in southern states raged in the form of laws to prevent poor and Black voters from participating in elections. These laws, known as Jim Crow laws, included poll taxes and literacy tests. Many of these voter suppression strategies remained in place until the 1965 passage of the Voting Rights Act. In 2013, the US Supreme Court removed key protections of the Voting Rights Act in the decision of Shelby v. Holder. Since then, a surge of anti-voter bills have swept across our nation– with many being legalized.
https://www.lwv.org/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression

(2) What is Voter Suppression?

Voter suppression is any effort that can prevent eligible voters from registering to vote or voting. Suppressing the vote is generally achieved by passing laws that restrict the right to vote, but it can also take the form of governments allowing private citizens to intimidate voters or elected officials spreading lies or misinformation to undermine faith in our electoral system.

Efforts to suppress the vote in America are primarily supported by Republican officials at every level of government so they can tilt elections in their favor or remain in power by making it difficult for voters to vote them out of office.

Regardless of party affiliation, most Americans support issues such as criminal justice reform, fair and equal wages, fighting climate change, protecting LGBTQ+ and BIPOC rights, accessible & affordable healthcare, and immigration reform. Unfortunately, today’s Republican Party is opposed to most, if not all, of these policies. In fact, their only focus seems to be remaining in power despite being unpopular with the majority of Americans. But, by making it harder to vote, they can still win elections despite only having the support of the minority of voters.

However, even though voter suppression is often discussed in terms of Democrats and Republicans, it isn't a conversation about "left versus right, but about right versus wrong."

The following are the methods used by the Right to suppress/manipulate elections:

Voter ID laws - Purging the voter polls - Limiting early voting - Felony disenfranchisement - Sabotaging election infrastructure - Gerry mandering - Underfund election day resources - Defying the law - Closing ID offices - Mis- & Disinformation - Voter intimidation - Off-year elections - Caging lists
https://www.demandthevote.com/what-is-voter-suppression

(3) Encyclopedia Britannica - Voter Suppression

The overwhelming majority of victims of voter suppression in the United States have been African Americans.
[...]
Voter suppression has been practiced in the United States since at least the end of Reconstruction (1865–77), during which African Americans in the states of the former Confederacy were briefly able to exercise their newly won rights to vote; to run for local, state, and federal offices; and to serve on juries.
[...]
In the first few months after the presidential election, in which the Democratic challenger, Joe Biden, defeated the Republican incumbent, Donald Trump, Republicans in state legislatures across the country introduced more than 350 bills designed to roll back pandemic-related changes to election procedures and to further restrict voting access in ways that would disproportionately affect minorities, young people, and other Democratic-leaning constituencies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/voter-suppression

(4) Top Trump adviser: Republicans have 'always' relied on voter suppression

Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump’s re-election campaign, made the remarks about voter suppression on 21 November as part of a wide-ranging discussion about strategies in the 2020 campaign, including more aggressive use of monitoring of polling places on election day in November 2020.
“Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Clark said at the [Republican National Lawyers Association’s Wisconsin chapter]. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/21/trump-adviser-republicans-voter-suppression

(5) For your interest, the following Bill Tracker page lists congressional bills in each state that impact voting & elections:

https://www.demandthevote.com/bill-tracker

Why is that a 'good thing'?

What the hell are they 'watching' or 'monitoring'? Are the security personnel not enough? LOL

It wouldn't have been relevant to Tucker's narrative in which context & history are left out, but it's entirely relevant if one wants to know the truth behind the story.

Well, obviously America's history of systemic racism, coupled with its predominantly white ownership of wealth & white socio-economic hegemony is the very inspiration behind Reid & Cross' narratives.

Anyone who watched/read news from any of the news outlets (both Right & Left) would've learned the truth long before Tucker's clown show. Was Tucker assuming (or hoping?) Sicknick's autopsy result was a bombshell revelation for most of the nation? Or was he just trying to discredit the Left news outlets for initially getting it wrong?

 

It's not that simple.

First, there is no 'covid' unless you wish to call 5G illness 'covid'.

Second, one has to look at each patient case individually.

All the alleged 'covid cases' in asymptomatic people are meaningless because (1) the 'tests' (PCR, rapid antigen, etc.) are meaningless as they cannot detect a microbe nor infection, and (2) the existence of viruses has never been scientifically established - so there's nothing to 'test' for. Hence, among all the allegedly 'positive covid cases', one should look only at those with symptoms and those who died.

Deaths: In those whose deaths were attributed to 'covid', what you'll find is that ~80% (in the US) were of the elderly, and also ~95% of the deaths had co-morbidities (pre-existing conditions). This leaves only ~5% of deaths with no co-morbidity. (These are the CDC's own figures.) However, deaths were attributed to 'covid' based only on meaningless 'tests' and/or clinical suspicion or assumption.

Symptoms: The only symptoms that matter are those associated with newer symptoms that are unlike that of typical flu, or other serious health issues that occur suddenly with no explicable cause (particularly in otherwise healthy people). These are the symptoms associated with hypoxia (oxygen starvation) & sudden/serious respiratory distress (which includes debilitating exhaustion) that are likely due to the new 5G technology. All other flu-like illnesses are simply 'flu' or 'cold' and may be due either to pre-5G technology & EMF and/or covid/non-covid vaccinations. The actual number of patients that experienced sudden & debilitating 5G illness are unknown. But those who exhibited flu-like symptoms and were admitted to the hospital were put at risk by simply being at the hospital & being treated. Because flu-like symptoms (serious or not) are strongly linked to EMF, it's unwise to expose a patient to a hospital environment where EMF intensity is much higher than at home. This can make an otherwise recoverable EMF illness more serious. Hospital care can also lead to a more serious condition (or death) if the patient is treated with one or a few of the many toxic covid drugs and/or a ventilator (a ventilator can damage the lungs and/or brain). And, recent vaccinations (particularly the covid vax) would worsen the patient's prognosis even more.

The best thing to do if one experiences 5G illness (hypoxia & acute respiratory distress) is to retreat to a location far outside the city where one is exposed to less EMF until recovery. Cell phones should be turned off with the battery removed. The beach or forest may be the best places to retreat to. And, of course, avoid all vaccines all the time. It's be advisable also to include the use of a natural/non-toxic blood thinner.

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/57-gop-officials-at-capitol-insurrection_n_6026e5e2c5b6f88289fb90a6

(click "State Bills", then search for sponsors/co-sponsors)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repub...ng_the_2020_presidential_election#State_bills

(click a state to see GOP sponsors/co-sponsors)
https://www.demandthevote.com/bill-tracker

https://www.businessinsider.com/gop...marshall-law-after-2020-defeat-report-2022-12

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...adows-ralph-norman-2020-election-marshall-law

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...e-death-penalty-for-women-who-have-abortions/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...nationalist-religious-right-legislation-bills

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...the-united-states-a-christian-nation-00057736

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/c...tween-christianity-and-right-wing-nationalism

By supporting politicians (including Trump) who support, among other things, voter suppression, Christian nationalism, right-wing extremist/hate/white supremacy groups, marginalization of minorities, defunding of social programs, authoritarianism, bizarre conspiracy theories targeting political enemies, xenophobic & anti-Muslim policies, aiding/funding/supporting Israeli's militant oppression, military incursions into foreign nations, and so on.

More here for your reading pleasure:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/28/racism-survey-prri-maga-republicans/

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12882796/trump-supporters-racist-deplorables

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...omplete-psychological-analysis-trumps-support

Unfortunately we only have establishment/corporate Democratic presidents to compare to Republican presidents. No Greens, Independents, Progressives, Libertarians, or others have been voted into office - which would reveal a much starker comparison.

However, there's often a stark contrast between a Dem president and Dem lawmakers. The Dem party is typically occupied by more anti-war, anti-defense, and anti-corporate public officials. You won't ever find a Progressive in the Republican party, for example.

Green, Progressive, and Independent elected officials will be found more in state & local govts than in the Dem party. It'd be nice to have only Greens & Progressives, and trash the Repubs & Dems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Green_politicians_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States

Why is being pro-green energy & pro-environment stupid?

Go ask a 'woker'. I'm just giving you the generally accepted definition.

But I'd guess they're concerned with issues relating to environmental protection & clean-up, banning toxic pesticides/other chemicals, promotion of green energy, promoting local farms & small businesses/co-ops/collectives that benefit society, greening of cities, expansion of corporate regulations, eliminating corporate subsidies, banking/monetary reforms, avoidance of all armed conflicts, slashing defense spending & shutting down foreign bases, reigning in geopolitical intrigue/covert ops & corporate 'hit men', addressing wealth/income gap, breaking up corporate monopolies, affordable housing, healthcare, education, addressing unfair/systemic discriminatory practices & laws, infrastructure, voting rights, decriminalizing recreational drugs, reforming gun laws, re-instituting Roe v Wade, reforming the medical industry, removing the two-party monopoly, ensuring equal campaign exposure, outlawing lobbyists/political donors, improving cities, improving access to transportation, etc...etc...etc.

 

You said, "abusive parents." Really? Always? The article you posted below by Jamie Reed even tells us that, "Another disturbing aspect of the center was its lack of regard for the rights of parents — and the extent to which doctors saw themselves as more informed decision-makers over the fate of these children."

So I guess parents generally DO care & are not so abusive. But the doctor's persuasive abilities & authoritarian position, coupled with the child's wishes will tend to win out.

The citation on the CDC's site can be found here (see Table 2 - "Attempted Suicide").

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6803a3.htm

The Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) has even worse figures:

Suicidality among sexual minority and transgender adolescents: a nationally representative population-based study of youth in Canada
Compared with cisgender, heterosexual adolescents, transgender adolescents showed 5 times the risk of suicidal ideation (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.63 to 6.75; 58% v. 10%) and 7.6 times the risk of suicide attempt (95% CI 4.76 to 12.10; 40% v. 5%).
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/194/22/E767

More stats here:

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/facts-about-lgbtq-youth-suicide/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/

These dismal figures, coupled with the article you posted seems to demonstrate a simple fact: that trannies are damned if they DO and damned if they DON'T. They're just not happy campers whether they receive medical alteration or not.

Further, the author of your article, Jamie Reed, mentioned something interesting. She writes: "The girls who came to us had many comorbidities: depression, anxiety, ADHD, eating disorders, obesity. Many were diagnosed with autism, or had autism-like symptoms. A report last year on a British pediatric transgender center found that about one-third of the patients referred there were on the autism spectrum."

For consideration, the common co-morbidities associated with what's called 'gender dysphoria', particularly autism/autism-like symptoms is in keeping with growing data linking gender dysphoria to vaccines. If we want to help children (and people in general) we should outlaw vaccinations.

Autism Spectrum Disorder and Gender Dysphoria - Twin Epidemics of Concordant Neuropsychiatric Disease
https://petermcculloughmd.substack....id=112344921&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

Massive meta-analysis finds definitive link between autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria; “vaccines” were the catalysts that precipitated it all
https://thecovidblog.com/2022/12/29...-were-the-catalysts-that-precipitated-it-all/

Reducing a child's exposure to wireless radiation/EMF & cell phones would help greatly as well.

 

Why do you care? That's an issue between them. Are you really that concerned about it, or are you being sucked into more right-wing virtue signaling? Do you really think any GOP lawmakers care about these tranny children? Of course not - but it makes for great fish bait to snag a large following from America's white Christian population.

If the GOP cared so much for children they'd do something about the rate of gun violence.

Child and Teen Firearm Mortality in the U.S. and Peer Countries (see Table for comparison)
The U.S. Is the Only Country Among Its Peers in Which Guns Are the Leading Cause of Death Among Children and Teens (1 - 19 years old)
https://www.kff.org/global-health-p...earm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/

And if they cared so much for children they also wouldn't continuously block progressive proposals to address the impact of corporate corruption on our medical system, education, economic system, and the environment.

 

Companies don't matter. Improvements targeting the environment, society, and governance in the nation are of greater import. In fact, a study by the Global Strategy Group found that most Americans support environmental, social and governance (ESG) initiatives. Hmm - I wonder why?

You're right. This embarrassing event pales next to the 'stolen election' myth that so many right-wingers got sucked into, as well as the Jan 6 fiasco undertaken on behalf of fuhrer Trump. Maybe Marjorie Taylor Green and George Santos will set 'em straight. LOL

One cannot help but wonder why right-wing extremists always choose to run as Republicans rather than as Dems.

Far right groups and their silent Christian/conservative allies represent a major part of the GOP's voter base. The GOP knows better than to alienate themselves from these groups.

They were all mentioned.

LOL @ "They disobeyed him."

Yeah - Trump must've been VERY upset & disappointed in his followers because they 'disobeyed' him & violently stormed the Capitol. Trump is a man who honors the rule of law and favors negotiations & peaceful civil protests over violence. LOL

"Inciting blind loyalty & insanity."

Does Jim Jones fit that bill?
Does Heaven's Gate fit that bill?
Does Jan 6 fit that bill?
Does "Stop The Steal!" fit that bill?
Does "Hang Mike Pence!" fit that bill?

I can't recall. Did some people cry because the electoral college stole the election from Hillary? Or because another opportunity to have the first female president was lost? Or both?

Essentially - YES!

I cannot honestly say Trump wanted to become president in order to implement policies for the a priori purpose of truly benefiting the people & the nation. I view his desire to be (and remain) president as purely a projection of his malignant narcissism, self-aggrandizement, megalomania, and greed. Perhaps he became intoxicated with the feeling of power during his The Apprentice show, and wanted more - as if the show stirred some beast within him. LOL

However, despite what a president's agenda may be, various policies WILL be carried out for better or worse because we still have a nation to maintain, and the Dem party & its Progressives will continue to oppose the GOP's pro-fascist agenda. Hence, one will likely find at least a few 'positive' results even in an otherwise disastrous presidential administration.

 

Top generals.

Including air support wasn't mentioned as part of the 2500 contingent requested by the generals. So we don't know what the post-evac contingent plan was supposed to entail.

But even if air support was planned as part of the 2500 contingent (post-evac), it still doesn't address the fact that the contingent would never be able to leave without allowing the Taliban to dominate the Afghan govt & its security forces. Either the US leaves completely, or never leaves at all. There's no way to get around the presence of the Taliban who live there and can play the waiting game forever. Imperial powers never learn from history - invasion is the easy part; occupation is another matter.

Not from what I read. Biden only rejected the post-evac contingent of troops (that's why it was called a "CONTINGENT"). I didn't read anything about Biden dictating how exactly the evac itself would be carried out. That would be up to the military planners.

Trump wasn't president when the FBI initiated the investigation, and was alerted to and began monitoring Carter Page's interactions with Russians as early as 2013 - Page, who would later become Trump's campaign advisor. After becoming president, Trump even fired FBI director James Comey for refusing to go along with Trump's wishes regarding Flynn & Steele, and later tried to get Robert Mueller fired.

Well, he said it was a "success" - although it really wasn't thanks to poor military planning.

I believe the statute of limitations (5 years?) had run out. The investigation began before Trump was even president.

Mueller's job was to oversee the investigation and submit a final report to the AG which could include his recommendations. The report, as Mueller stated, was his testimony - so his answers during his testimony in front of House members were in reference to what the report outlined.

Mueller therefore had the right to recommend charges be brought (on obstruction) against Trump to the AG, but declined to do so due to (1) the OLC's recommendations regarding a sitting president, and (2) because it would be unfair to accuse a person of a crime before they had a chance to contest it in court (ie, after Trump left office).

Here are the major differences:

* ALL (45) Democratic Senators on both Articles, plus 10 Republicans on Article One and 5 Republicans on Article Two voted to aquit Clinton.

* With Trump, not all the Republicans were on board with acquitting Trump. 10 Republican House members voted to impeach Trump, and 7 Republican Senators voted to convict Trump. What does that tell you?

* Independent Counsel Ken Starr was on a war path to get Clinton (and later regretfully admitted to it). By contrast, Robert Mueller (also a Republican) was level headed, professional, impartial & exceedingly fair.

* Unlike Trump's violations, Clinton's violations were not of the type that would've interfered with carrying out his duties of office.

Mueller (in his report) could've made a judgment & recommendation, but declined to do so. Mueller's report said his team declined to make a prosecutorial judgment on whether to charge Trump on obstruction for the two main reasons I listed above. And, on 'collusion', the report declined to make a determination based on insufficient evidence - but in no way was this an exoneration of the president.

It's not that none was found, but that there was insufficient evidence/data to reach a determination on whether there was or was not 'collusion' between Trump & Russia. That's why the report didn't outright accuse or exonerate Trump (which Cover-Up General Barr lied about). Mueller was even asked if the report exonerated Trump, and he replied "No", and admitted he would've stated there was no criminal wrongdoing had he had the confidence to do so.

Still, 35 individuals linked to Trump (and 3 companies) were charged by Mueller on matters relating both directly & indirectly to alleged Russian interference in the election.

But more importantly were the multiple instances of obstruction of justice committed by Trump detailed in the report and for which there was no question of criminal wrongoing.

As usual per the American Way - always guilty, yet never charged. Americans have long had a love affair with corruption, authoritarians, violence & war as long as it comes wrapped in the American flag.

 

'Solid evidence' (eg, texts, emails, call records, documents, etc.), as you call it, is preferred - but not always necessary. The weight of circumstantial evidence can be sufficient. Intent is the question at hand, and intent need not always require tangible evidence. One needs to be able to integrate & make sense of all forms of material & non-material evidence.

That's not the point. The point is intent. If one is planning a protest at the Capitol, there's no reason to carry weapons (nor be dressed for combat) unless one's intent is to cause trouble. One has to look at (1) who's protesting, (2) purpose behind the protest, and (3) where the protest takes place.

Nope. Just adding 2 & 2 - which means knowing Trump's mentality & agenda based on his words, actions, and history - and that of his militant followers & loyalists whom he backs & has connections with. I'm also a human - not some alien that just landed on earth - and so I'm well familiar with human patterns of thought & behavior. None of us lives in a vacuum.

Intent is relevant only if some action is carried out pursuant of said intent. Intent is irrelevant if no verbal or physical action is taken.

Planning is not the same as intent. Planning is an action pursuant of the intent behind it, and can indeed be a crime (depending on its nature). People have gone to prison for planning all kinds of crimes they failed to carry out. Didn't some Jan 6 Proud Boys go to prison for seditious conspiracy?

How will Trump being charged change your opinion of whether Trump knew or didn't know his mob would become violent? You don't have an opinion?

No - not behind the construction of the hangman's contraption. That's just MAGA mob mentality & hate - no different than the white lynch mobs.

I'd say say very likely, yes, because everything had to be timed - from months of pushing the 'stolen election' narrative, to pressuring his VP to "do the right thing", to Trump's December tweets calling on his supporters to show up on Jan 6, to those who planned out the Jan 6 armed 'protest', to Trump's pre-protest rally, and finally to the coordinated effort to storm the Capitol.

I'd guess Trump was the primary instigator, with his closest allies planning/coordinating the armed gathering with Trump's Jan 6 rally.

Keep in mind, Trump got away with with a litany of crimes for decades before & during his presidency without ever being indicted. He and his allies probably felt he was absolutely untouchable at this point and that they would be successful in somehow re-installing Trump as permanent president/dictator on Jan 6. And having the support of various lawmakers/politicians & retired high-ranking military officers, along with right-wing militias & millions of MAGA heads likely armed them further with such confidence.

Timed perfectly with Trump's Jan 6 lame-duck rally - of course because it was all planned out months before Jan 6.

Does it matter?

The fact is he knew he officially lost the election and there was no means by which to reverse it other than by lying, cheating & force. It started with endless lies about voting machines & fake voters/voter fraud, then sixty times his Trump-appointed judges dismissed his voter fraud cases, there were the fake electors scheme, the Georgia call for 11,700+ votes, pressuring his VP to "do the right thing", and finally Jan 6.

The Trump campaign even commissioned a study looking into voter fraud and found no widespread election fraud. So yes, Trump knew - but he just couldn't stomach it. Afterall, Trump believes he's the "Chosen One" - which makes losing his re-election bid the biggest blow to his ego.

Trump knew:

Trump privately admitted he lost 2020 election, top aides testify
Donald Trump privately admitted to losing the 2020 election even as he worked to undermine and change the results, according to two top aides (Alyssa Farah and Cassidy Hutchinson) who testified before the January 6 committee.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/13/trump-admission-election-aides-january-6-panel

Because he was on TV and had been repeatedly urged to condemn the violence of far-right groups like the Proud Boys. So he had to appease the opposing side without alienating his supporters & the Proud Boys. After all, in Trump's thinking, it would be his supporters & far-right extremist groups that he'd have to rely on to get him re-installed as president/dictator.

 

Do you mean moderate leaning towards Republican, or moderate leaning towards Progressive?

If you mean leaning towards Progressive, Mark Pocan & Ro Khanna are two I'd say are in that camp - not to mention the known Progressives (Bernie, Warren, AOC, etc.). I'm not familiar with all the lawmakers though.

 

And what about moderate leaning towards Republican?

 

Yes, it CAN be sufficient. Until it IS actually sufficient, and Trump is convicted of masterminding a conspiracy to riot at the Capitol on Jan 6, you are engaging in a conspiracy theory, plain and simple.

As in, intent with zero evidence can lead to a guilty verdict?

No, there is also the reason of self-defense, regardless of how unreasonable, and unjustifiable the fear of needing that self-defense may be.

So you trust his "words?"

It's not about what Trump "KNEW." He could have been behind it all, planned for the violence, and still not KNOW whether or not the violence would happen. How could he be certain that his "mob" would carry out his demands? What matters is if he did in fact plan it. So I will wait until he is charged. So far, no charge.

What does this have to do with the Secret Service being aware of plans for violence on Jan 6?

That's a nice summary of how the conspiracy theory goes.

Looks like you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Well I'm sure that you are aware that there is a legitimate legal process by which an election can be challenged. Now, obviously Trump's legal challenge went precisely nowhere. But at the time that the legal challenge was initiated, can you really say that there was absolutely no voter fraud that occurred? How could you possibly know that there was none?

This study means that Trump knew, at the time of his legal challenge, leading up to Jan 6? Were the results of this study released before Jan 6?

Correct.

This is not the same as admitting that there was no voter fraud.

Why do you think he communicated this to the Proud Boys?

 

How the hell can you know that?

What does this have to do with the Mueller investigation? I said: The Trump DOJ initiated the Mueller investigation didn't it?

Specifically he called it an "extraordinary success." So Biden said the same thing that you say that Trump would've said about the evacuation!

Yes, so you agree that it wasn't Mueller's job to state that Trump did not commit crimes, but rather to ascertain whether he DID commit crimes.

From Mueller during 2019 House Judiciary Committee testimony:

"Now, before we go to questions, I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, “You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.” That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

FULL TRANSCRIPT of testimony: Mueller testimony before House Judiciary, Intelligence committees (nbcnews.com)

He did not give this as a reason for not indicting. As you can see from the below report extract, Mueller is talking about the approach that they took at the outset of the investigation before their findings:

"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes." - https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

I did not claim that the Trump and Clinton impeachments are identical. I simply said that Clinton was impeached but avoided being removed from office because the Democrats controlled the Senate.

Can you quote Starr saying this?

It wasn't Mueller's job to exonerate Trump. This is where he overstepped, into an area that he has no business. From his report:

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

Since when was 'exoneration' a Special Counsel's job exactly?

If there was insufficient evidence/data to reach a determination on whether there was or was not 'collusion' between Trump & Russia, then how can such collusion/conspiracy be found? Clearly it means the same thing. Insufficient evidence = no collusion/conspiracy was found. Simple.

Of course it's in question.

How does this mean that he would not have made that money regardless?

Billions in profit from China because of his Presidency? Either way, what are these "profitable opportunities that arose because of his presidency?"

 

How does one conservative freezing on this question, mean that the entire right cannot define it?

Probably the same reason that left-wing extremists always choose to run as Democrats rather than as Republicans. They see the respective parties as the closest to their demented worldview.

Do you have even a SHRED of evidence that:

1) Far right groups have "silent Christian/conservative allies?"

2) Far right groups represent a major part of the GOP's voter base?

I can easily make the counter claim that far left groups represent a major part of the Democrats' voter base.

Are you actually denying that Trump ordered them to be peaceful?

I would say that initially it was all about the fact that another opportunity to have the first female president was lost, and how the loss was exacerbated by who exactly it was that she lost to. It was certainly a bitter blow. And the tears? Well, they were JUST DELICIOUS!

So, "literally zero policies", or "various policies?" It can't be both. Perhaps you meant: literally zero policies that you don't like!

"Pro-fascist agenda" meaning: agenda that I don't like.

"One will likely find?" Who is this "one?" I'm pretty sure that a Republican "one" would find more than a FEW 'positive' results.

Well, are the Republicans FOR the genocide of black people and Jews?

I can easily make the counter claim that the Democrats are the far left's only political ally and propaganda mouthpiece on Capitol Hill. There is no other party that's willing to give these crackpots an audience.

So what right wing hate are Republican politicians engaged in exactly?

 

I will say that they aren't necessarily aware that they are being abusive, but rather duped by the culture and the doctors.

Are you okay with this authoritarian position of the doctors? And why should a CHILD'S "wishes" be granted? Can kids consent all of a sudden?

The article that you cited said: "A lack of acceptance of one's gender identity also can be devasting. Compared to non-transgender youth, transgender youth who are not supported by their families are three times more likely to attempt suicide, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and have much higher rates of anxiety and depression."

The CDC page that you cited does not say anything about this. Can you quote from it?

I'm not disputing the higher suicide risk than so called "cisgender" people. But the seemingly bogus claim was that non-supportive families make it three times more likely that the kid will attempt suicide.

Unfortunately, this is the case with a vast swath of them, though this is not to say that it's impossible to get out of it. There are those who 'detransition', and this is a particular trend now with many people 20-30. You should hear some of their stories. Look up Chloe Cole and Helena Kerschner. Absolute HORROR stories!

The more that I read of your reply, the more it appears that you have reconsidered your position. Just days ago, you seemed to have no problem with what you referred to as "youth gender surgery."

So why shouldn't parents be able to beat the hell out of their kids as punishment? Why do you care? After all, "that's an issue between them."

Yes I do care. It turns out that I take serious issue with the mutilation of children, as I'm sure you do.

What exactly is the connection between "tranny children" and "America's white Christian population?"

Is it only the GOP blocking these proposals?

 

HEADLINE: "57 GOP State And Local Officials Were At The Capitol Insurrection." So because they were there, this means that they broke into government buildings?

Is the below what you mean by "suppressing voters?"

From the Wikipedia page:

"The bills are largely centered around limiting mail-in voting, strengthening voter ID laws, shortening early voting, eliminating automatic and same-day voter registration, curbing the use of ballot drop boxes, and allowing for increased purging of voter rolls."

So very Christian States will impose Christian values. You mean like very liberal States will impose liberal values?

You're not being specific about 'hateful' and 'racist' policies. And I do love your inclusion of "aiding/funding/supporting Israeli's militant oppression, military incursions into foreign nations", when I know that you do not limit this to Republicans only.

"The connection between racism and the right-wing movement is apparent in a new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute. The survey asked respondents about 11 statements designed to probe views on racism. For example: “White Americans today are not responsible for discrimination against Black people in the past.”"

So then presumably, if a non-braindead, non-white guilt ridden person says that they do not believe that they are responsible for discrimination against Black people in the past, this is an indicator that they are a vicious racist!

"The majority of Trump supporters hold unfavorable views toward Islam." What's the problem here exactly? Is there a problem with being against a particular ideology? You don't strike me as someone who is particularly religious! It would seem that you are against all religion. Or do you hold extremely favourable views toward Islam? Also, do you really think that Muslims are likely to hold extremely favourable views toward Christianity?

You wouldn't say FDR and/or LBJ?

It's the associated policies that are stupid. What is it that you think should happen? We switch to 100% green energy by some arbitrary date? How realistic is that?

Wait, so these are not YOUR issues?

 

They assured us for three years that some giant conspiracy would be uncovered.

They were all leftist sources. It would be like me giving you Fox News, New York Post and Washington Times as sources for negative claims that I make about voter fraud by Democrats.

Just because LWV and Demand the Vote don't like certain voting laws, doesn't make them "voter suppression" laws.

Why should pandemic-related changes to election procedures remain in place when there is no more pandemic?

Some random dude likely just trying to get attention. Why do you believe this Trump loyalist?

Well if it was a popular vote, that would not be representative democracy.

I have no idea. I just thought that both parties have poll watchers.

The Rwandan genocide was not actually the focus of Carlson's segment! He just used it as an illustration for his point about the radical racists Cross and Reid on MSNBC.

And do you agree with their narratives?

Uh, how exactly? Was there blanket coverage of the corrections from each media outlet which got the reporting wrong?

Probably both.

 

Those would be the 'DINOs' or 'Blue Dogs.'

 

Not many of them, right?

 

"Adding 2 & 2" is not actually how the law works I'm afraid.

How would he have already known it? Again, apparently you think that Trump is some sort of Constitutional scholar.

You're lumping tens of thousands of people all into the one box. You're pretending that there were not thousands of perfectly peaceful protesters who did NOT come armed and looking ready for battle.

Oh, so you know the details of every protest that these groups have ever done? And the protests were all violent, or a majority of them were?

Do you actually think that Trump does not believe that there was voter fraud?

That does not answer the question: Can you name any who DID?

 

Then you are unaware of the Biden EQUITY agenda.

 

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The simple fact is that the only race that it's legal to discriminate against in law is white people and asians, mostly to do with college admissions.

No, I said:

You then somehow interpreted that as:

 

I was taking the reverse roll - a non-white person talking like a white person denying discrimination.

I admit affirmative action isn't the solution. But I guess we wouldn't be in this situation had discrimination against blacks/natives/others minorities been legal for most of the nation's existence. Bad behavior tends to have a way of coming back to bite people in the ass.

Oh sorry. I misread. I'm a bit dyslexic. LOL

 

Correct. What about it?

 

I wouldn't know.