Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Looks like a cookie jar. I feel like you've posted this picture before...
A cookie jar...I hadn't thought of it as a container before. That makes sense. I guess there could be something else inside it. Or is it just an empty jar, serving a purely decorative purpose? Such are my thoughts.
A cookie jar...I hadn't thought of it as a container before. That makes sense. I guess there could be something else inside it. Or is it just an empty jar, serving a purely decorative purpose? Such are my thoughts.
That's Kimberly Guilfoyle at the Republican National Convention at the end of August, 2020, with the presidential and other national elections on November 3, 2020, not far ahead.
Guilfoyle was a publicity-savvy San Francisco (and Los Angeles) city prosecutor, the former spouse of California governor Gavin Newsom and known most recently as "Junior's" (Donald Trump, Jr.'s) girlfriend. She's been derided in certain quarters as (among other things) a "vengeful banshee."
Former Congressman Denver Riggleman (R, Virginia) has been an advisor to the House Select Committee to investigate Jan. 6. He was dismissed by the Committee after he went public with some remarks about the evidence that the Committee did not want publicized in advance of the TV hearings.
Earlier today, Riggleman referenced Guilfoyle and her "Best Is Yet To Come" moment in a trolling or satirical kind of way, as if Guilfoyle's dramatic utterance at the RNC in August 2002 was a foreshadowing of the House Select Committee and its series of televised hearings.
I had to check. I thought it was something that Guilfoyle had just said or Tweeted, but it's just that moment from the RNC Convention in August, 2020.
This has been today's "J6 Moment", brought to you by... "yours truly."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-22-2022).]
it means you have NOTHING to defend the 1-6 attack
so what about this that and something else
how about staying on subject
the Gop tryed to revolt and failed
if you want to attack hunter start a new thread on him
Why not discuss crimes of the Brandon's? Seems perfectly relevant to me because neither you nor anyone else has proven that this Jan6 trespassing is being defended by members of PFF. The process is being mocked for the political joke that it is. The Jan6 clown committe are nothing but political haters who aren't interested in truth, because if they were they would call pelosi up to testify along with the CIA who were in the President'scar at the time and even Trump himself. After all he is their primary target, but he would show them up with his unbeatably brilliant sense of comic one liners, the democrats fear him like truth itself.. Also, they would not allow rumors and gossip as "evidence". I will add that the clown show committee hasn't even proven their primary goal of linking Trump to it. LOLOLOLOL they are a joke.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 07-22-2022).]
Obviously, and I know that Rick is as well aware as I am, any criminal indictments of former President Trump would have to be charged by the U.S. Department of Justice, or (possibly) the Fulton County (Georgia) District Attorney's office.
But it's not just about going after Trump, personally.
The proposed changes to the Electoral Count Act (of 1887) could be said (loosely) as a way of "Trump-proofing" the next presidential election in 2024 and all the ones that will follow.
These changes are paired with legislation that is intended to help voters and election officials.
It's not a long "read."
I guess this is not a direct output from the Committee, but obviously, they are helping to define these proposed legislative reforms.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-22-2022).]
It used to be that they investigated a crime, trying to find out who did it. Now they investigate a person, trying to find a crime. Nobody is safe when the investigation is the crime.
It used to be that they investigated a crime, trying to find out who did it. Now they investigate a person, trying to find a crime. Nobody is safe when the investigation is the crime.
Why is trespassing considered an insurrection but a recession is ... you know like whatever you want to decide what it is and happening under the consensus definition since beginning of modern economics, but just not this time because politics say it isn't.
Is economic identity dysphoria considered part of the 3BLGBTQBTWL+ community now?
Originally posted by williegoat: It used to be that they investigated a crime, trying to find out who did it. Now they investigate a person, trying to find a crime. Nobody is safe when the investigation is the crime.
quote
Originally posted by Wichita: Why is trespassing considered an insurrection..?
Two forum members that are singing off key.
Go back to "Bla Bla Bla What About the Democrats?" That, at least, has a kernel of truth, even though it doesn't free the air of the overpowering criminal stench that is Donald John Trump.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-26-2022).]
Go back to "Bla Bla Bla What About the Democrats?" That, at least, has a kernel of truth, even though it doesn't free the air of the overpowering criminal stench that is Donald John Trump.
I am going to ask two questions which you will not be able to answer.
1) What crime has Trump committed? Please cite the statute.
2) How did Trump make your life worse? Please provide tangible evidence.
I am going to ask two questions which you will not be able to answer.
1) What crime has Trump committed? Please cite the statute.
2) How did Trump make your life worse? Please provide tangible evidence.
I don't need to have a specific statute to feel good about calling Trump a "criminal."
He is not subject to any criminal penalties until and unless he is indicted and convicted (or pleads guilty) in a court of law, and that requires due process to determine that he has violated one or more criminal statutes. I'm "down" with that. Of course.
Of all the ill deeds that I believe Trump is responsible for, the first one that comes to my mind at this point is the one that was recounted during the J6 committee hearings. About the election worker or workers in Georgia ((I think it was Georgia) where there was a video recording that was played up by Trump and Giuliani as evidence of election shenanigans to give Biden an unfair advantage as ballots were being processed and counted. Allegations of a suitcase stuffed with fake or fraudulent ballots or something of that kind.
Giuliani continued to hype these allegations, even after the Georgia Bureau of Investigation reported that they had investigated and debunked the allegations.
Giuliani and Trump used Twitter to put a target on these election worker(s) backs (so to speak), calling out the election workers by name, and callously endangering their lives.
This is an example of "stochastic terrorism", which anyone can look up online.
That, of course, is only the particular episode of Trump's criminality that comes first to my mind. It's one of the most egregious. Tied, perhaps, with other episodes, for most egregious.
As far as my describing how Trump made my life worse—-he didn't. That's just circumstance. It has more to do with the minutiae that define my own life than with anything about Trump. But that doesn't determine my hugely negative estimation of him as a President (now former President) of the United States and a continuing Republican Party eminence and highly public figure.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-26-2022).]
Go back to "Bla Bla Bla What About the Democrats?" That, at least, has a kernel of truth, even though it doesn't free the air of the overpowering criminal stench that is Donald John Trump.
Yes, there are two forum members 'singing off key'.
I don't need to have a specific statute to feel good about calling Trump a "criminal."
He is not subject to any criminal penalties until and unless he is indicted and convicted (or pleads guilty) in a court of law, and that requires due process to determine that he has violated one or more criminal statutes. I'm "down" with that. Of course.
Of all the ill deeds that I believe Trump is responsible for, the first one that comes to my mind at this point is the one that was recounted during the J6 committee hearings. About the election worker or workers in Georgia ((I think it was Georgia) where there was a video recording that was played up by Trump and Giuliani as evidence of election shenanigans to give Biden an unfair advantage as ballots were being processed and counted. Allegations of a suitcase stuffed with fake or fraudulent ballots or something of that kind.
Giuliani continued to hype these allegations, even after the Georgia Bureau of Investigation reported that they had investigated and debunked the allegations.
Giuliani and Trump used Twitter to put a target on these election worker(s) backs (so to speak), calling out the election workers by name, and callously endangering their lives.
This is an example of "stochastic terrorism", which anyone can look up online.
That, of course, is only the particular episode of Trump's criminality that comes first to my mind. It's one of the most egregious. Tied, perhaps, with other episodes, for most egregious.
As far as my describing how Trump made my life worse—-he didn't. That's just circumstance. It has more to do with the minutiae that define my own life than with anything about Trump. But that doesn't determine my hugely negative estimation of him as a President (now former President) of the United States and a continuing Republican Party eminence and highly public figure.
So, you "feel good" about calling Trump a criminal because he has produced evidence of the criminal activity of others.
the rump is very active it disputing the fairness and accuracy of the the homelands election process
so far I have seen far less evidence of fraud or irregular process or cheating by anyone NOT allied with the rump then the blatant lies frauds deception and pure BS from the rump his agents and followers
in that alone he has hurt our nation perhaps far more then those who support him understand
for that alone he should answer he has lessened faith in our elections
So, you "feel good" about calling Trump a criminal because he has produced evidence of the criminal activity of others.
I have to say, that is absolutely absurd.
What would be absurd is anyone who would try to minimize or deny the dangerous malfeasance of Trump and Giuliani in this case. The recklessness of using social media (like Twitter) to publicize the allegations, going so far as to publicize the election workers' names (I think it was two, a woman and her mother) instead of pursuing the matter discretely with Georgia election officials and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. And then continuing to use social media to publicize the allegations, now tied to the names of the two election workers, even after the Georgia Bureau of Investigations reported that the allegations were unfounded.
That's not a one-off or outlier. One of the connecting themes or through lines of this series of televised committee hearings is the evidence that the violence at the Capitol Building on January 6 was stochastic terrorism orchestrated by the "former guy" himself. Or "stochastic insurrection."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-26-2022).]
What would be absurd is anyone who would try to minimize or deny the dangerous malfeasance of Trump and Giuliani in this case. The recklessness of using social media(like Twitter) to publicize the allegations, going so far as to publicize the election workers' names (I think it was two, a woman and her mother) instead of pursuing the matter discretely with Georgia election officials and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. And then continuing to use social media to publicize the allegations, now tied to the names of the two election workers, even after the Georgia Bureau of Investigations reported that the allegations were unfounded.
That's not a one-off or outlier. One of the connecting themes or through lines of this series of televised committee hearings is the evidence that the violence at the Capitol Building on January 6 was stochastic terrorism orchestrated by the "former guy" himself. Or "stochastic insurrection."
Are you talking about Adam Schiff, Christopher Steele, Peter Strzok, Lev Parnas or someone else?
I think it's more likely that Trump will face criminal charges after 2023 is underway, and less likely (by comparison) that the Durham probe will pan out (so to speak).
Having seen a fair amount of Peter Strzok as a guest on MSNBC, I can say that he has "grown on me." I wouldn't hesitate to talk to him or even shake his hand if (in some absurd scenario) I were to cross paths with him. His indiscretions involving the use of his FBI device(s) for text messaging of a personal nature with Lisa Page were an embarrassment to the FBI and to the Mueller investigation, but I do not believe that he skewed the investigation or moved it in any false direction.
As far as Trump being an "astute capitalist", I'm very skeptical about that, considering what I believe he was given by his father. Some have said that if Trump had just taken what he was given by his father and bought into investment funds that would have been managed for him, his personal fortune would be much larger than what he has. The personification of "the easiest way to make a small fortune is to start with a large fortune."
But I'm open to the possibility that he may have done slightly better with his various projects and enterprises than if he had just passively invested his inheritance. (Without even getting into whether Trump and his father could have been prosecuted for tax code violations on the money or other assets that went from father to son.)
Aside from anything that he did during his presidency, Trump's legacy as an entrepreneur, real estate magnate and builder will be defined by bankruptcies, undistinguished architecture, golf resorts and kitsch. A perfect expression of the man's fundamental banality.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-26-2022).]
I think it's more likely that Trump will face criminal charges after 2023 is underway, and less likely (by comparison) that the Durham probe will pan out (so to speak).
I am reminded of the adage of the fox guarding the hen house.
quote
Aside from anything that he did during his presidency, Trump's legacy as an entrepreneur, real estate magnate and builder will be defined by bankruptcies, undistinguished architecture, golf resorts and kitsch. A perfect expression of the man's fundamental banality.
A boring guy with such poor taste should never be allowed at the helm of the ship of state. How gauche. If he wore a bow tie and attended a few Broadway musicals, would that redeem him?
1. Trump attempted a planned insurrection. 2. Okay, loosely planned. 3. Okay, not planned, but he encouraged it. 4. Okay, he didn't encourage it, but he didn't try to stop it. 5. Okay, he did try to stop the violence, but he should have done more, and sooner, during fog of war.
1. Trump attempted a planned insurrection. 2. Okay, loosely planned. 3. Okay, not planned, but he encouraged it. 4. Okay, he didn't encourage it, but he didn't try to stop it. 5. Okay, he did try to stop the violence, but he should have done more, and sooner, during fog of war.
6. Okay, he authorized deployment of the National Guard before the event, but the proper authorities didn't follow up.
Originally posted by olejoedad: 6. Okay, he authorized deployment of the National Guard before the event, but the proper authorities didn't follow up.
I just used Google to search for "January 6" and "National Guard" and "Trump", limiting the search to reports from the last 24 hours.
Google showed me several news reports.
There's a Twitter message of 24 hours ago from the House Select Committee on January 6.
quote
To remove any doubt: Not only did Donald Trump fail to contact his Secretary of Defense on January 6th (as shown in our hearing), Trump also failed to give any order prior to January 6 to deploy the military to protect the Capitol.
Here is Secretary Miller’s testimony—
That's followed (in the Twitter message) by some video of Jan. 6 committee testimony from Christoper "Chris" Miller, who was the Acting Secretary of Defense. Miller was designated as the Acting Secretary of Defense on November 9, 2020, after Trump fired the Senate-confirmed Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper.
It was reported some time ago that 45 authorized the National Guard, prior to the events of the 6th, but did not have the authority (or responsibility) to deploy them. That responsibility fell to the Speaker or the Mayor.
You spend a lot of time on Google, so you look it up.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 07-27-2022).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: Yo, rinse! What did you find when you investigated the veracity of your comments? Asking for a friend.....
If your friend is online, he (she, they, ...) can use Google or another online search engine in the same way as I described in my previous remark (#71) on this thread.
If your friend is not online, he (or whatever pronoun is called for) would be well served to equip themselves to go online.
Once online (if your friend is not already online) he (she, they; whatever) can make their own determination about who could or should have done what, and when, with respect to the National Guard, and how that fits into the overall picture of events and how to interpret it.
I believe that President Trump was made aware of the violence at the Capitol Building on January 6 as soon as there was violence at the Capitol Building on January 6, which (if memory serves me) was shortly after 1:00 pm in the District of Columbia on January 6.
I believe that President Trump had the opportunity, at that very moment, shortly after 1:00 pm, to expedite a National Guard deployment to help the Capitol Police and DC Metropolitan Police in their efforts to get the situation at the Capitol Building under control. I believe he did no such thing, either promptly, or even belatedly, on January 6.
I believe that it was Mike Pence that finally stepped into the vacuum (so to speak) and used his authority and influence as the nation's Vice President to clear the last of the procedural requirements that were necessary to lawfully authorize the National Guard to deploy and "SERVPRO" the situation and make "Like it never even happened" happen at the Capitol Building on January 6. But President Trump, had he wanted to, could have expedited the National Guard deployment and made "Like it never even happened" happen well before Vice President Pence was both finally able to do it and of a mind to do it, using his own (Mike Pence's Vice Presidential) voice call capabilities, during the afternoon of January 6.
So I believe, based on all that I have read, seen or heard about it, up to this moment. And now a reminder from Bay Area Alarms... "What do you have to lose?"
"January 6... wow. Talk about a Swing and a Miss. It was like Spring Training suddenly broke out in the middle of the Regular Season. What were your thoughts, Mike?"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-29-2022).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: You're free to believe whatever non-factual information your masters feed you. Perhaps you should also brush up on the actual chain of command for deploying the National Guard under various circumstances. Meanwhile, you do provide some ( but not much, anymore ) entertainment value to the rest of us.
If President Trump did not actually have the authority to expedite a "quick reaction" National Guard deployment to the Capitol Building on January 6, immediately after the violence there had started, why did he use Twitter towards the end of January 6 (or during the day after) to create a Twitter message in his name that said, in substance—I think it's a lie, but he said it—"As soon as I became aware of the violence at the Capitol Building, I used my Presidential voice call capabilities to authorize a 'quick reaction' deployment of the National Guard..."..?
I don't think it would be hard to find that Twitter message from President Trump. It was on TV again, just the other day.
Or do you not believe he went on Twitter towards the end of January 6 or (more likely, I think) on January 7 and said such a thing?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-30-2022).]
Originally posted by olejoedad:You're free to believe whatever non-factual information your masters feed you. Perhaps you should also brush up on the actual chain of command for deploying the National Guard under various circumstances. Meanwhile, you do provide some ( but not much, anymore ) entertainment value to the rest of us.
Perhaps? Perhaps this...
Chris Miller was the Acting Secretary of Defense on January 6 and during the weeks leading up to January 6. In sworn testimony to the committee, Miller called "bull pucky" on claims that in the last day or days before January 6, President Trump issued orders or directives to have a large National Guard force on standby and ready to deploy very quickly to the White House or Capitol Building in the event of large scale violence on January 6.
quote
Former President Donald Trump’s last acting secretary of defense has denied Trump’s claims that he requested thousands of National Guard troops be deployed to the Capitol ahead of the riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
“There was no direct, there was no order from the president,” Christopher Miller said in video from his deposition released Tuesday by the House select committee investigating last year’s violence.
Miller also denied a suggestion by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in February 2021 that 10,000 National Guard troops were at the ready before Jan. 6.
“I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature,” Miller said. “So I was surprised by seeing that publicly but I don’t know the context or even where it was.”
The former acting Pentagon chief added that there were plans in place for activating more troops, but “that was not anything more than contingency planning.”
Published just 3 days ago... before these televised committee hearings, the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post had been one of the more "Trump friendly" news media venues. Also from that same report:
quote
Trump has repeatedly claimed that he requested thousands of National Guard forces to secure the Capitol, but was turned down by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). There is no evidence for such a claim apart from Trump’s word, and Pelosi’s office has stated that she had no authority to decline any offer of military assistance.
That's germane to what Trump is known to have said and done before January 6. But what about on January 6, as the rioters began to lay siege to the Capitol Building?
quote
Numerous reports and statements from defense officials show Trump was not involved in the deployment of the D.C. National Guard to quell the riot at the Capitol.
Acting Defense Secretary Miller used vague instructions that Trump [had] given days before the riot to "take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings."
Reports show Trump initially was hesitant to get the D.C. National Guard involved, forcing officials to look to [Vice President Mike] Pence for White House support.
The deployment of the National Guard was not "immediate." It took multiple requests for troops from D.C. and out-of-state law enforcement to gain authorization from federal defense officials to assist at the Capitol.
