Here is your chance to address the argument and facts presented.

Jarod said:
So far the "other side" is angerly arguing about the Congressional committee's report by attacking the messenger as predicted by claiming its a partisan witch hunt.

Lets put aside a dislike of the messenger for this thread and address the evidence and argument presented.....


They put forth evidence and an argument that:

1) Trump knew or should have known he lost the election.

The evidence they presented was Trumps Attorney General telling him that the claims of Fraud were "BULL SHIT".
That his Chief Lawyer in charge of fraud told him there was nothing to it.
That his official White House advisor and daughter believed he had lost.
That Mark Meadows, his Chief of Staff told him he had lost.
That his unofficial advisor Sean Hannity knew he had lost.

2) Being in the position to knowing of should have known that he had lost Trump continued to seek methods of staying in office after his term expired.

He told his supporters there was fraud.
He implored his supporters to do something about it.
He asked his supporters to show up in mass on January 6.
He attempted to push his Vice President to refuse to certify the official electoral votes.
He pushed and oversaw his employees to put together unofficial and uncertified electors to be ready to present electoral votes that he knew or should have known were not reflective of the vote.
He held a rally where he told his people to go, during the certification process and fight like hell.
While his supporters were illegally entering the Capital and violently fighting the police where the election was being certified he tweeted that Mike Pence had not done "the right thing",
While Congressmen were pleating with him to send help, he refused to do so for several hours until he found out Mike Pence had ordered it done.


How do you counter these two points from the Committee?
Click to expand...


"should have" ?
thats a long way from "did know" and immaterial as it has nothing to do with attempting to overthrow the government.
 
Celticguy said:
"should have" ?
thats a long way from "did know" and immaterial as it has nothing to do with attempting to overthrow the government.
Click to expand...

So if I claim I didn’t know a bullet in someone’s head would kill them, am I innocent of murder?
 
zymurgy said:
we don't really engage with tin foil hat bullshit

sorry. this thread should be put out the pasture
Click to expand...

Denial of facts makes you a loser

When you deny facts you have to replace them with lies


When you base your decisions on lies you fuck up bad


Lies are not magic


Lies are untrue information


They make your decision making full of holes


Then you make the wrong next steps


Then you fall on your fucking face and get ate by that gator you pretended wasn’t there


When you are lying in that gators belly and are all chomped into pieces remember I told you there was a gator there


Now if you would


Give us a phone call from the gators belly and apologize


We will then be kind enough to give the gator turd which contains at least most of you a proper burial
 
Celticguy said:
"should have" ?
thats a long way from "did know" and immaterial as it has nothing to do with attempting to overthrow the government.
Click to expand...

Dear fucking idiot


He had been sufficiently informed it was not true

People can lie

So that is why ignorance of the law doesn’t get one off


He had all the information to know there was no fraud

S he’s fucked you lame ass dick brain


Fuck you very much
 
Jarod said:
So far the "other side" is angerly arguing about the Congressional committee's report by attacking the messenger as predicted by claiming its a partisan witch hunt.

Lets put aside a dislike of the messenger for this thread and address the evidence and argument presented.....


They put forth evidence and an argument that:

1) Trump knew or should have known he lost the election.

The evidence they presented was Trumps Attorney General telling him that the claims of Fraud were "BULL SHIT".
That his Chief Lawyer in charge of fraud told him there was nothing to it.
That his official White House advisor and daughter believed he had lost.
That Mark Meadows, his Chief of Staff told him he had lost.
That his unofficial advisor Sean Hannity knew he had lost.

2) Being in the position to knowing of should have known that he had lost Trump continued to seek methods of staying in office after his term expired.

He told his supporters there was fraud.
He implored his supporters to do something about it.
He asked his supporters to show up in mass on January 6.
He attempted to push his Vice President to refuse to certify the official electoral votes.
He pushed and oversaw his employees to put together unofficial and uncertified electors to be ready to present electoral votes that he knew or should have known were not reflective of the vote.
He held a rally where he told his people to go, during the certification process and fight like hell.
While his supporters were illegally entering the Capital and violently fighting the police where the election was being certified he tweeted that Mike Pence had not done "the right thing",
While Congressmen were pleating with him to send help, he refused to do so for several hours until he found out Mike Pence had ordered it done.


How do you counter these two points from the Committee?
Click to expand...

Hold on.. getting my popcorn.. ok.. this should be fun :)
 
evince said:
Dear fucking idiot


He had been sufficiently informed it was not true

People can lie

So that is why ignorance of the law doesn’t get one off


He had all the information to know there was no fraud

S he’s fucked you lame ass dick brain


Fuck you very much
Click to expand...


well for once you got something a little right, lies and DC do go hand in hand.
 
Jarod said:
So far the "other side" is angerly arguing about the Congressional committee's report by attacking the messenger as predicted by claiming its a partisan witch hunt.

Lets put aside a dislike of the messenger for this thread and address the evidence and argument presented.....


They put forth evidence and an argument that:

1) Trump knew or should have known he lost the election.

The evidence they presented was Trumps Attorney General telling him that the claims of Fraud were "BULL SHIT".
That his Chief Lawyer in charge of fraud told him there was nothing to it.
That his official White House advisor and daughter believed he had lost.
That Mark Meadows, his Chief of Staff told him he had lost.
That his unofficial advisor Sean Hannity knew he had lost.

2) Being in the position to knowing of should have known that he had lost Trump continued to seek methods of staying in office after his term expired.

He told his supporters there was fraud.
He implored his supporters to do something about it.
He asked his supporters to show up in mass on January 6.
He attempted to push his Vice President to refuse to certify the official electoral votes.
He pushed and oversaw his employees to put together unofficial and uncertified electors to be ready to present electoral votes that he knew or should have known were not reflective of the vote.
He held a rally where he told his people to go, during the certification process and fight like hell.
While his supporters were illegally entering the Capital and violently fighting the police where the election was being certified he tweeted that Mike Pence had not done "the right thing",
While Congressmen were pleating with him to send help, he refused to do so for several hours until he found out Mike Pence had ordered it done.

How do you counter these two points from the Committee?
Click to expand...

Here is my rebuttal; prove me wrong: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?190343-The-January-6th-Clown-Show-and-HOAX-Part-1

It is amusing that dullards on the left, like yourself, think that Presidents who have opinions cannot express them and believe that the expression of opinions is somehow a crime.

I'm still waiting on evidence that Trump planned, executed and carried out this protest the Democrats Falsey and idiotically call an "insurrection." :palm:
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
So far they are too flummoxed to address it.
Click to expand...

There's nothing they can say. You've seen their arguments so far. Mostly that it's "partisan". Even if it was.. we have the videos.. we have Barr and Ivanka's confession they knew twump was planning a coup. We have the video of the traitors swearing, beating up cops.. we have the timeline..

I mean.. they're done.

So, all you're going to get from these diaper stains now, are :

1. Personal attacks. They will attack you for being a libtard for even bringing 1/6 up - they don't want anyone talking about it.

2. Attacking individual members of the committee.. same as above... it's a desperate attempt to muddy the message.

3. Claim there were no weapons, ergo, no riot. Well we saw everyone dressed in tactical gear.. some had and used bear spray on cops.

4. Claim it was a "bunch of funlovin' Americans that just got too riled up". Well, we saw he meeting with the proud boys leaders in the garage.. we saw twump and Bannon's Tweets telling their minions to come to attack the capitol on 1/6.

It's all on record now. Don't let the our cult members worry you. Know that any attack on your or on the committee comes from their own fear, racism, ignorance, and cynicism.

Stay strong and have fun fighting off the trolls! I'm having a great time :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top