OK Lefties Here, you always state that if someone is innocent, he should agree to testify. Oath Keeper has agreed to testify if his testimony is live

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
28,445
24,670
1
Willing to take this risk? What? The risk of what? That he would admit to criminal activity in furtherance of a scheme to try to rob our nation of our democracy? Open testimony would just sanction another unsolicited Trumpism moronic, hate mongering, stop the steal tirade--only this time on national TV. Democracy has taken a beating (I am an attorney with 40 years experience) and the real shame of it is that many of the beaters ( I assume that you may be one) cannot fathom why our country succeeded for so long and how precious democracy is. Allowance to steal an election by those who simply WISH to stay in power in the antithesis of democracy. If you went to Penn State you should know what that word means. And...I am not a lefty. I have voted in the past for both parties--liberal on social matters and moderate on others. I am against this trash. I am against what has become a politicized, religious based Supreme Court. I am against people who try to take rights from women to protect 1 inch fetuses, knowing that these same people will do nothing to help when/if unwanted pregnancies lead to birth. I am against the proliferation of violence and the anti-social need for so many to have weapons of mass destruction (that's what they are). I am against hatred toward black people and Jews but I think that a lot of people who are pro-life, pro-gun do have those hatreds. I am very much in favor of religious freedom but I do not believe that religious freedom should be construed to mean that you can impose your religion on me or my son in a high school football huddle. It saddens me to see so many right wing undemocratic points of view on this site and saddens me further that a dangerous moron like Mastriano has a chance to be our governor and that Scott Perry represents people in counties where I practice.

What a load of crap.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,414
6,119
1
Everyone who has followed this knows the details. You obviously are lapping up the fraud of the Committee. Bing is your friend. "Anthony “Tony” Ornato, who served as White House's deputy chief of staff for operations, testified in January and then in March," https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ornato-previously-testified-jan-6-committee
Was the topic of the SUV ride included in his prior testimony? Was he under oath? Ornato has a reputation for spinning yarns (lying) and has been proven to be a liar in the past. Washington Examiner - doesn't even have circulation it used to be handed out free at Metro stations.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: maypole and psuted

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
11,233
16,023
1
Was the topic of the SUV ride included in his prior testimony? Was he under oath? Ornato has a reputation for spinning yarns (lying) and has been proven to be a liar in the past. Washington Examiner - doesn't even have circulation it used to be handed out free at Metro stations.
A deposition is by definition under oath. If he was a liar then his hearsay testimony is worthless. If there was a fair hearing people on both sides would be able to question and there would be a better chance of the truth coming out. However, since this is a Soviet style show trial, the truth will never come out in the official proceedings because the whole point of the proceedings is to lie and deceive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Ethanmason2

Member
Gold Member
May 14, 2021
24
40
1
Wow, how did you manage to squeeze so much bullshit into such a small package?
Its always boring trying to try to reason with certain illogical types. I should have known better. I give you facts. You give me Tucker Carlson-type B.S. There is no argument here. There is no discussion. I wish our future as a nation was brighter. With you, I'm done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maypole

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
28,445
24,670
1
Was the topic of the SUV ride included in his prior testimony? Was he under oath? Ornato has a reputation for spinning yarns (lying) and has been proven to be a liar in the past. Washington Examiner - doesn't even have circulation it used to be handed out free at Metro stations.
Tell me 2Lying, are you pulling you mask strings so tight that your cutting off blood flow to your brain?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: bourbon n blues

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,871
779
1
Almost certainly the Dem fraudsters will refuse the offer. Would be great to hear.

This brings us back to the offer of Stewart Rhodes (oath keeper) to testify live. That is an extraordinary offer for a criminal defendant. ...If the Committee is truly interested in getting to the truth, why wouldn’t it hold an open hearing? It has suggested that Trump was in collusion or a conspiracy with this group. It also alleged that the Oath Keepers came to Washington to commit an armed insurrection. We could now, for the first time, hear from one of the leaders of the two groups on that very subject. It would ideally allow him to make an opening statement and offer a full account on whether he coordinated with anyone in the White House on January 6th.

If Rhodes is willing to take this risk, the Committee should be willing to give up control over what the public can see and hear in the J6 investigation.
So count you on the side of the lying Nazi Oath Keepers? They would no doubt perjure themselves.
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,871
779
1
Almost certainly the Dem fraudsters will refuse the offer. Would be great to hear.

This brings us back to the offer of Stewart Rhodes (oath keeper) to testify live. That is an extraordinary offer for a criminal defendant. ...If the Committee is truly interested in getting to the truth, why wouldn’t it hold an open hearing? It has suggested that Trump was in collusion or a conspiracy with this group. It also alleged that the Oath Keepers came to Washington to commit an armed insurrection. We could now, for the first time, hear from one of the leaders of the two groups on that very subject. It would ideally allow him to make an opening statement and offer a full account on whether he coordinated with anyone in the White House on January 6th.

If Rhodes is willing to take this risk, the Committee should be willing to give up control over what the public can see and hear in the J6 investigation.
What can you expect from an ignorant buckeye? Go peddle your shit on an OSU site.
 
Last edited:

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,336
2,325
1
You can't be that naive. First of all, you have no idea that people like police or security guards are republican much less Trump supporters. Second, it's hardly a surprise that democrats would seek out disgruntled Trump supporters.

I think Trump took things too far. I think he played a role in 1/6 by getting people riled up. I hope he doesn't run in 2024 but I don't believe he "summoned" his followers to violently overthrow the government. If you think the select committee is bipartisan and seeking nothing but the truth you have serious issues.
I'm well aware that Brian Sicknick and Michael Fanone voted for Trump.
 

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
11,233
16,023
1
Its always boring trying to try to reason with certain illogical types. I should have known better. I give you facts. You give me Tucker Carlson-type B.S. There is no argument here. There is no discussion. I wish our future as a nation was brighter. With you, I'm done.
What a dunce. You are an Attorney and don't even know what a fact is. I am against..., I am against..., I am against...

As opposed to your superficial ranting, I have read the fraudulent FISAs and know the facts of intelligence agency coup attempt. (For instance the linchpin of the Mueller "investigation", Carter Page never even met the 2 Russians, he was alleged to have colluded with and had never even heard of one. Out of this cr*p, 2,800 subpoenas were fraudulently issued, showing ZERO collusion)

You stupid anti-Trumpers think your moralizing gives you some special moral right to make up and ignore facts.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
24,568
28,921
1
What a dunce. You are an Attorney and don't even know what a fact is. I am against..., I am against..., I am against...

As opposed to your superficial ranting, I have read the fraudulent FISAs and know the facts of intelligence agency coup attempt. (For instance the linchpin of the Mueller "investigation", Carter Page never even met the 2 Russians, he was alleged to have colluded with and had never even heard of one. Out of this cr*p, 2,800 subpoenas were fraudulently issued, showing ZERO collusion)

You stupid anti-Trumpers think your moralizing gives you some special moral right to make up and ignore facts.
Do you believe he’s really an attorney?
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,871
779
1
What a dunce. You are an Attorney and don't even know what a fact is. I am against..., I am against..., I am against...

As opposed to your superficial ranting, I have read the fraudulent FISAs and know the facts of intelligence agency coup attempt. (For instance the linchpin of the Mueller "investigation", Carter Page never even met the 2 Russians, he was alleged to have colluded with and had never even heard of one. Out of this cr*p, 2,800 subpoenas were fraudulently issued, showing ZERO collusion)

You stupid anti-Trumpers think your moralizing gives you some special moral right to make up and ignore facts.
An objective account.
<https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/u...G-Report-12.10.2019.myths-and-facts-FINAL.pdf>
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
24,568
28,921
1
I know many stupid attorneys. Also, it should be noted that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are attorneys and dumber than stumps.
Good point. Come to think about it, I’ve had similar experiences. When I see certain kinds of self certifying statements I immediately think bullshit.
 

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
11,233
16,023
1
I give you a little credit for trying to look into facts, albeit from an uninformed source. The reporting on Carter Page is all wrong. For example, this is all wrong:

"Page knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of Russia
that involved a violation of U.S. criminal laws;28 and [WRONG-- a false allegation by FBI]

6
· According to a confidential source, Page had met with a Russian official who
raised “‘kompromat’ that the Kremlin possessed on Candidate #2 and the
possibility of it being released to Candidate #1’s campaign.” [WRONG -- another false allegation by the writer treated as truth] 29
The FISA warrant application disclosed to the Court the fact that the FBI was relying in
part on information obtained from a source that had been hired to conduct research about
Candidate #1’s (Trump’s) ties to Russia.30 This information was provided by Christopher
Steele, a former British intelligence operative who was doing work on behalf of the
Clinton campaign. [The writer assumes that Steele has a shred of credibility when he had no personal knowledge and his main source Igor Danchenko had characterized the stuff in the dossier as gossip]

Page testified for about 4 hours in front of Congress and completely and absolutely denied any connections with the Russians he is alleged to have conspired with. He had called this complete garbage. If this was untrue, the FBI's vast surveilance powers would have proved he was lying. His testimony before Congress unequivocally and absolutely denying collaboartion with Russia is completely untouched.

Also, much of the article is about Russia's supposed intervention in the election, an allegation supported by many Republicans. However, I have yet to see one credible article showing that whatever interventions the Russians were doing affected the election. All Mueller came up with were lame social media campaigns.
 

Gorki224

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2021
1,839
2,214
1
No one is owed interaction. Try being smarter and I’ll be nicer .
I don't want nice from any pretentious idiot. Your true colors are what they are, always have been. You once said ALL lawyers are scum bags. Or it was cool when you mocked the death of Daunte Wright saying he was going to create cold fusion. Yeah you're a good guy. But then again Daunte Wright might not have been up to your standard, since people have to be what "you" call "smart" for you to have a shred of decency.

Has nothing to do with owing anyone interaction, but to stay shit like they offer nothing is false. You can't handle the opinion of the other side, so you take your ball and go home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maypole

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,871
779
1
I give you a little credit for trying to look into facts, albeit from an uninformed source. The reporting on Carter Page is all wrong. For example, this is all wrong:

"Page knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of Russia
that involved a violation of U.S. criminal laws;28 and [WRONG-- a false allegation by FBI]

6
· According to a confidential source, Page had met with a Russian official who
raised “‘kompromat’ that the Kremlin possessed on Candidate #2 and the
possibility of it being released to Candidate #1’s campaign.” [WRONG -- another false allegation by the writer treated as truth] 29
The FISA warrant application disclosed to the Court the fact that the FBI was relying in
part on information obtained from a source that had been hired to conduct research about
Candidate #1’s (Trump’s) ties to Russia.30 This information was provided by Christopher
Steele, a former British intelligence operative who was doing work on behalf of the
Clinton campaign. [The writer assumes that Steele has a shred of credibility when he had no personal knowledge and his main source Igor Danchenko had characterized the stuff in the dossier as gossip]

Page testified for about 4 hours in front of Congress and completely and absolutely denied any connections with the Russians he is alleged to have conspired with. He had called this complete garbage. If this was untrue, the FBI's vast surveilance powers would have proved he was lying. His testimony before Congress unequivocally and absolutely denying collaboartion with Russia is completely untouched.

Also, much of the article is about Russia's supposed intervention in the election, an allegation supported by many Republicans. However, I have yet to see one credible article showing that whatever interventions the Russians were doing affected the election. All Mueller came up with were lame social media campaigns.
trump was too stupid to run an effective conspiracy. Perhaps Russian cooperation didn’t affect the election but it wasn’t from lack of trying. Remember “Russia if you’re listening…”. Remember the Russian troll farms. Remember trump asskissing Putin for services rendered. Just because there wasn‘t a provable conspiracy doesn’t mean the Russians didn’t help out because they wanted trump to win.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections>
From the report above:
Mueller concluded that Russian interference was "sweeping and systematic" and "violated U.S. criminal law", and he indicted twenty-six Russian citizens and three Russian organizations. The investigation also led to indictments and convictions of Trump campaign officials and associated Americans.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Hotshoe

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
11,233
16,023
1
Perhaps it didn’t affect the election but it wasn’t from lack of trying. Remember “Russia if you’re listening…”.
If it doesn't affect the election who cares. Would add that the US installed an Anti-Russian regime in Ukraine in 2014 and has no moral or logical leg to stand on because the US has a long history of intervening in many elections. (Iran, Italy, Great Britain recently with respect to Brexit in addition to Ukraine)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
11,233
16,023
1
Mueller concluded that Russian interference was "sweeping and systematic" and "violated U.S. criminal law", and he indicted twenty-six Russian citizens and three Russian organizations
Yet he provided no proof of the Russian suppose actions affecting the election. Some of the charges were laughably stupid and were mocked by the defense attorneys for those charged. A fair amount of the charges against the Russians were that they engaged in a conspiracy against the United States, which is a catch-all nothing statute used when prosecutors have nothing substantive to prove with respect to Major wrongs.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
24,568
28,921
1
I don't want nice from any pretentious idiot. Your true colors are what they are, always have been. You once said ALL lawyers are scum bags. Or it was cool when you mocked the death of Daunte Wright saying he was going to create cold fusion. Yeah you're a good guy. But then again Daunte Wright might not have been up to your standard, since people have to be what "you" call "smart" for you to have a shred of decency.

Has nothing to do with owing anyone interaction, but to stay shit like they offer nothing is false. You can't handle the opinion of the other side, so you take your ball and go home.
Daunte Wright might not have deserved his fate but he had an outstanding warrant for a weapons violation, this kid was going down a bad road and UI doubt he was going to amount to much. Officers can make fatal errors, and be punished for them and the victim can still be no damn good.

This is your innocent victim, a history of violence, I think my sarcasm was warranted. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
As for all lawyers I do not believe I said it. However I'd rather most lawyers or the officer in that case, Kim Potter live next to me than Wright.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
27,389
44,365
1
I give you a little credit for trying to look into facts, albeit from an uninformed source. The reporting on Carter Page is all wrong. For example, this is all wrong:

"Page knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of Russia
that involved a violation of U.S. criminal laws;28 and [WRONG-- a false allegation by FBI]

6
· According to a confidential source, Page had met with a Russian official who
raised “‘kompromat’ that the Kremlin possessed on Candidate #2 and the
possibility of it being released to Candidate #1’s campaign.” [WRONG -- another false allegation by the writer treated as truth] 29
The FISA warrant application disclosed to the Court the fact that the FBI was relying in
part on information obtained from a source that had been hired to conduct research about
Candidate #1’s (Trump’s) ties to Russia.30 This information was provided by Christopher
Steele, a former British intelligence operative who was doing work on behalf of the
Clinton campaign. [The writer assumes that Steele has a shred of credibility when he had no personal knowledge and his main source Igor Danchenko had characterized the stuff in the dossier as gossip]

Page testified for about 4 hours in front of Congress and completely and absolutely denied any connections with the Russians he is alleged to have conspired with. He had called this complete garbage. If this was untrue, the FBI's vast surveilance powers would have proved he was lying. His testimony before Congress unequivocally and absolutely denying collaboartion with Russia is completely untouched.

Also, much of the article is about Russia's supposed intervention in the election, an allegation supported by many Republicans. However, I have yet to see one credible article showing that whatever interventions the Russians were doing affected the election. All Mueller came up with were lame social media campaigns.
This guy is a complete joke. It is a proven fact, Carter Page was working for the CIA. The FBI knew he was.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
27,389
44,365
1
Yet he provided no proof of the Russian suppose actions affecting the election. Some of the charges were laughably stupid and were mocked by the defense attorneys for those charged. A fair amount of the charges against the Russians were that they engaged in a conspiracy against the United States, which is a catch-all nothing statute used when prosecutors have nothing substantive to prove with respect to Major wrongs.
This clown believed in the pee tapes. Wonder where they are?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

jferretti

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2001
4,020
1,526
1
This isn't a search for the truth. It's a one sided attempt to discredit Trump and the Republican Party ahead of they elections.

Did the select committee corroborate Hutchinson's testimony? Why didn't the subpoena the secret service who were directly involved?

Here's the process Catch. The select committee looks for anybody who can make Trump and other republicans look bad. They dipose them in private. If they say something exculpatory you'll never see them again. If they say something that's incriminating you'll see them on TV. You won't see any cross examination by Trump supporters.
You do know that all those Republicans who were deposed are free to speak out and claim they are being misrepresented or cherry picked, right? Nobody has stepped forward so far.
 

jferretti

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2001
4,020
1,526
1
A deposition is by definition under oath. If he was a liar then his hearsay testimony is worthless. If there was a fair hearing people on both sides would be able to question and there would be a better chance of the truth coming out. However, since this is a Soviet style show trial, the truth will never come out in the official proceedings because the whole point of the proceedings is to lie and deceive.
Lots of Republican telling lies if that is what is happening. Most of these witnesses are/were Trump voters and loyalists. You just don't want to see it. What is the refuge you folks cling to: alternative facts?
 

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
11,233
16,023
1
Lots of Republican telling lies if that is what is happening. Most of these witnesses are/were Trump voters and loyalists. You just don't want to see it. What is the refuge you folks cling to: alternative facts?
The committee has been caught in blatant lies, as is the general practice of the Democratic party. Think for instance pelosi lying about officer Sicknick dying from blunt trauma. A 3-hour riot without a shot fired or a fire started is way less of an insurrection than what occurred in the Summer of 2020 where numerous cases of arson occur and people were actually shot.

Lefties need to weaponize obscure laws to have the fig leaf that something unusual happened in January of 2021. Even though there were months of real insurrections going on in the summer of 2020.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
62,023
39,031
1
You do know that all those Republicans who were deposed are free to speak out and claim they are being misrepresented or cherry picked, right? Nobody has stepped forward so far.
Players and coaches were free to speak out in defense of Paterno. Do you think they were all in on the alleged coverup? Or do think they were advised to keep quiet in order to stay out of trouble?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
24,568
28,921
1
The committee has been caught in blatant lies, as is the general practice of the Democratic party. Think for instance pelosi lying about officer Sicknick dying from blunt trauma. A 3-hour riot without a shot fired or a fire started is way less of an insurrection than what occurred in the Summer of 2020 where numerous cases of arson occur and people were actually shot.

Lefties need to weaponize obscure laws to have the fig leaf that something unusual happened in January of 2021. Even though there were months of real insurrections going on in the summer of 2020.
Exactly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
24,568
28,921
1
You do know that all those Republicans who were deposed are free to speak out and claim they are being misrepresented or cherry picked, right? Nobody has stepped forward so far.
I hope you’re not an attorney , because you’re either a stupid one or a dirty one. Would you tell a client to do the same? Hint , the answer is no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

Latest posts