Pudendum wrote:

BWE wrote:
Also, to make myself clear, I am saying you are simply too dishonest to even be interesting to me.

You too, but

Pudendum wrote:
The 'lie' you talk about is one perspective, but not his.

What is his perspective on it? Or have your media sources been purged of his statements, unless filtered and edited by his detractors?

Pudendum wrote:Just saw your Georgia post...right on cue! Is that some quote-mining from his detractors? Or his response, unfiltered by your media thought-leaders? I don't bother with videos, or most of your inane hogwash, to be honest.

June 16, 2022 (Thursday)

On CNN this morning, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, said: “New evidence is breaking every single day now. Suddenly, a lot of people want to tell the truth.”

After the committee’s third public hearing today, we can see why. The window for getting onto the good side of the investigation by cooperating with it is closing, and the story the congress members are laying out makes it clear that those sticking with Trump are quite likely in legal trouble.

It appears that the former president thinks the same thing. Before today’s hearing, he wrote: “I DEMAND EQUAL TIME!!!”

But it seems unlikely Trump wants to tell his version of what happened around January 6 under oath, and if he were misled by his advisors, who can doubt that he would already have thrown them under the bus?

And, so far, the committee has used testimony and evidence only from those high up in Trump’s own administration. Today was no exception. The committee covered the former president’s pressure campaign against his vice president, Mike Pence, to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Instead of following the law, codified in the 1887 Electoral Count Act, Trump wanted Pence to use his role as the person charged with opening electoral votes to throw out the votes that gave Democrat Joe Biden victory, or at least to recess the joint session of Congress for ten days to send the electoral slates back to the states, where pro-Trump legislatures could throw out the decision of the voters and resubmit slates for Trump.

In interviews with Pence’s former counsel Greg Jacob, as well as retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the committee established that this plan, advanced by lawyer John Eastman, was illegal. Indeed, Eastman himself called it illegal, first at length in October 2020, and then in both written and verbal admissions after the election. And the committee established that Eastman, as well as others, told Trump the plan was illegal.

The hearings today hammered home that the centerpiece of our government is that the people have the right to choose their leaders. That concept is central to the rule of law. And yet, Trump embraced an illegal and unconstitutional theory that, instead, the vice president—one man—could overrule the will of the people and choose the president himself. Such a theory is utterly contrary to everything the Framers of the Constitution stood for and wrote into our fundamental law.

And yet, by early December 2020, after their legal challenges to the election had all failed, Trump’s people began to say that Pence could throw out the electoral slates that states had certified for Biden, or could send those certified electoral slates back to the states for reconsideration so that Republican-dominated legislatures could then submit new slates for Trump. Judge Luttig hammered home that there is nothing in either legal precedent or historical precedent that gave any validation to the idea that one man could determine the outcome of the election.

Still, on December 13, the day before the Electoral College met, lawyer Kenneth Chesebro wrote to Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani arguing that Pence could refuse to count the votes from states that had “alternative” electors (we also know that he wrote about this idea for the first time on November 18, so that might have been the chatter Pence was hearing). At the time, the scheme to create second slates of electors was underway.

Eastman then took up the cause, saying that seven states had submitted “dual” slates of electors. When Jacob dismissed that claim, Eastman just said that Pence could just call them disputed anyway and throw the votes from those states out. Luttig reiterated that these fake electors had no legal authority whatsoever and that there is no historical or legal precedent at all to support the idea that the vice president could count alternative electoral slates to the ones certified by the states.

Both Pence’s counsel Jacobs and his chief of staff Marc Short believed that Eastman’s plan was bananas, and an avalanche of White House advisors agreed. According to today’s testimony, those agreeing included Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Trump lawyer Eric Herschmann, and Trump advisor Jason Miller, who testified that people thought “Eastman was crazy.” Herschmann testified that even Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani agreed on the morning of January 6 that Eastman’s argument wouldn’t stand up in court.

Nonetheless, Giuliani went out in front of the crowd at the Ellipse on January 6, insisted that the theory was correct, and lied that even Thomas Jefferson himself had used it.

Meanwhile, beginning in December, Trump had been pressuring Pence to go along with the scheme. Pence had refused, but Trump kept piling on the pressure. At rallies in early January, he kept hammering on the idea that Pence could deliver the election to Trump, and in meetings on January 4 and 5, he kept demanding that Pence overturn the election. When Pence continued to refuse, Trump appeared to try to lock him in by tweeting on January 5 that he and Pence were “in total agreement” that Pence could act to change the outcome of the election.

By then, Short was so worried about what Trump might do on January 6 that he told the Secret Service he was concerned about Pence’s safety.

On January 6, Trump called Pence on the phone and, according to witnesses, called him a “wimp” and a “p*ssy.” Pence then issued a statement saying it was his “considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.” Trump then went before the crowd at the Ellipse and added to his prepared speech sections attacking Pence.

After Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows told him that violence had broken out at the Capitol, Trump tweeted that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what needed to be done,” and violence ratcheted up. The committee showed rioters claiming they were there because Pence had let them down. “Pence betrayed us…the president mentioned it like 5 times when he talked,” one said. That 2:24 tweet was “pouring gasoline on the fire,” one White House press member told the committee. At 2:26, Pence and his family were evacuated to a secure location, where he would stay for more than four hours. The rioters missed the vice president by about 40 feet. A Proud Boy told the committee that if they had found Pence, they would have killed him.

Even after the crisis ended, Eastman continued to write to Pence’s people asking him to send the electoral slates back to the states. Herschmann advised him to “get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it.” Eastman then put in writing that he wanted a presidential pardon: “I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list,” he wrote. When he did not get a pardon, he took the Fifth Amendment before the committee, asserting his right against self-incrimination more than 100 times.

There were lots of places where Pence and his team were no heroes. They could have warned any number of people about what Trump was up to long before January 6, and Pence’s apparently noble stance was undoubtedly informed by a realization that if Pence did as Trump asked and it went wrong—even Eastman acknowledged the scheme was illegal—Pence would be the one holding the bag.

But the committee left all that unsaid. Instead, it went out of its way to make a very clear distinction between Trump, who was out for himself and damn the country, and Pence, who risked his own safety to follow the law. Indeed, that theme was so clear it appeared to have been carefully scripted. Today’s testimony highlighted the principles of Jacob and Short and their boss, Mike Pence. It even took a deliberate detour to let both Jacob and Short talk about how their Christian faith helped them to stand against Trump and do what was right, an aside that seemed designed to appeal to the evangelicals supporting Trump. And it highlighted how Pence continued to do the work of governing even while he was in the secure location, which looked much like a loading dock according to new photos shown today.

The committee seems to be presenting a clear choice to Republicans: stand with Trump, a man without honor who is quite possibly looking at criminal indictments and who is trying to destroy our democracy, or stand with Pence, who embraces the same economic and social ideology that Republicans claim to, without wanting to destroy our democracy.

The appearance of Judge Luttig today was in keeping with this theme. Luttig is such a giant in conservative legal circles that he was talked of for the Supreme Court in place of Samuel Alito, and his words bear extraordinary weight. Luttig hammered home that Trump’s scheme was an attempt to overturn the rule of law and to destroy our democracy. And, he warned, the danger is not over. Trump and his supporters remain “a clear and present danger to American democracy.”

Luttig’s testimony was powerful, but even more extraordinary was a statement he released before today’s hearing. Luttig, for whom both Eastman and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) clerked, warned that “January 6 was…a war for America’s democracy, a war irresponsibly instigated and prosecuted by the former president, his political party allies, and his supporters.”

That is, Luttig laid the responsibility for today’s national crisis at the door of the Trump wing of the Republican Party. He went on to warn that only it could reject the attempt of the president and his supporters to undermine the faith in our elections that underpins our democracy: “[O]nly the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war…. These senseless wars…were conceived and instigated from our Nation’s Capital by our own political leaders…and they have been cynically prosecuted by them to fever pitch, now to the point that they have recklessly put America herself at stake.”

Luttig urged Americans to remember that the fate of our democracy is in our hands and to reject the fever dreams of the Trump Republicans in favor of “a new vision, new truths, new values, new principles, new beliefs, new hopes and dreams that hopefully could once again bind our divided nation together into the more perfect union that ‘We the People’ originally ordained and established it to be.”

“The time has come,” Luttig wrote, “for us to decide whether we allow this war over our democracy to be prosecuted to its catastrophic end or whether we ourselves demand the immediate suspension of this war and insist on peace instead. We must make this decision because our political leaders are unwilling and unable, even as they recklessly prosecute this war in our name.”

Chair Bennie Thompson closed today’s hearing by asking anyone who might be on the fence about cooperating with the committee’s investigation, please to reach out.

gobshite wrote:

Pudendum wrote:
I don't know what happened, to cause such strong division between the political groups, but it is clear there are no Trump or Republican friendly people here.

That's because rationalists tend to have higher IQ than your average dumb-as-dog-shit Trumpist.

Spearthrower wrote:


Pudendum believes that Twitter should be obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack, rape videos, snuff videos, and pedophile networks.


I don't need to add any careful addendum that I might be inaccurate.

gobshite wrote:

Pudendum wrote:

And even if twitter was left-biased... so what? What's the point you are trying to make? That a private company (in the sense that it's not a public government service) can't moderate their forum to their liking?

They could, until they started making agreements with users about how those rules would be applied. Making agreements with those purchasing ads. Making statements to governments about things like shadow-banning or such.

Thanks for acknowledging it. It seems like pulling teeth sometimes just to get that across.

Acknowledging what? Twitter is left to me, but that's probably due to the algorithm feeding me what i associate most with. It might be entirely different for people of other political persuasions.

Spearthrower wrote:YOU LEFTIE!!!!!

Spearthrower wrote: your irrationality.

It's your central lie, and I've deconstructed it here publicly.

Spearthrower wrote:

Pudendum wrote:
The 'lie' you talk about is one perspective, but not his.

What is his perspective on it? Or have your media sources been purged of his statements, unless filtered and edited by his detractors?

The troll wants other people to go looking for evidence to corroborate his feelies

felltoearth wrote:No, it’s the ultimate dodge. It’s a post from Facebook. It can’t be believed because Facebook makes all leftie posts on its own. Facebook is devoid of actual people with actual knowledge and facts because of how Cunt feels about Facebook.

See also Twitter

The_Metatron wrote:Here are the words of our OP’s feuhrer’s attorney general, in his deposition to the Jan 6 committee:

“The election was not stolen by fraud, and I haven't seen anything since the election that changes my mind on that, including the '2000 Mules' movie," Barr said in his deposition, laughing. 

Time for you to shut the fuck up isn’t it, Pudendum?

Laughing. He was laughing at it. But, what the fuck would he know, eh?

Pudendum believes that Twitter should be obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack, rape videos, snuff videos, and pedophile networks.


I don't need to add any careful addendum that I might be inaccurate.

Why do you think Trump's response to this isn't worth hearing?

Spearthrower wrote:

Pudendum believes that Twitter should be obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack, rape videos, snuff videos, and pedophile networks.


I don't need to add any careful addendum that I might be inaccurate.

If anyone believes Pudendum's lies about this, I am more than happy to show where he directly contradicted himself across 2 posts. This isn't the first time he's said X in one post when it was necessary, then went back to Not X when it became convenient again.

I would submit it is, in fact, an excellent example of trolling.

When Mr Scalise asked if anyone from the “censoring department” was held accountable for the mistake, Mr Dorsey dodged the question.

“We don’t have a censoring department,” Mr Dorsey said.

He was then asked who made the decision to block the New York Post’s account.

“We didn’t block their account for two weeks, we required them to delete the tweet and then they could tweet it again,” Mr Dorsey said.

Pudendum wrote:

felltoearth wrote:No, it’s the ultimate dodge. It’s a post from Facebook. It can’t be believed because Facebook makes all leftie posts on its own. Facebook is devoid of actual people with actual knowledge and facts because of how Cunt feels about Facebook.

See also Twitter

Why do you think Trump's response to this isn't worth hearing?

felltoearth wrote:

Pudendum wrote:

felltoearth wrote:No, it’s the ultimate dodge. It’s a post from Facebook. It can’t be believed because Facebook makes all leftie posts on its own. Facebook is devoid of actual people with actual knowledge and facts because of how Cunt feels about Facebook.

See also Twitter

Why do you think Trump's response to this isn't worth hearing?

I would love to hear his response. He’s absolutely welcome to do it under oath. Do you think he will?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pudendum wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Pudendum believes that Twitter should be obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack, rape videos, snuff videos, and pedophile networks.


I don't need to add any careful addendum that I might be inaccurate.

If anyone believes Pudendum's lies about this, I am more than happy to show where he directly contradicted himself across 2 posts. This isn't the first time he's said X in one post when it was necessary, then went back to Not X when it became convenient again.

I would submit it is, in fact, an excellent example of trolling.

Do you think twitter has any legal obligation to their advertisers, users, shareholders or the governments who haul them before committees?

Spearthrower wrote:
So I answered your question.

And then you answered mine. Twice. In those two answers, you completely contradicted yourself - it's not possible to maintain a position that is both X and Not-X - this is impossible even in Post-Truth world.

Therefore, the current question is:

Do you agree that Twitter is not obligated to host all forms of speech?

Either it is obligated, and therefore Muslim terrorists etc.

Or it isn't obligated, and therefore you've destroyed your own absolutist position, and then there's just horsetrading about what should or shouldn't be hosted.

We all know that you actually agree with the latter, we all know that you don't think Twitter should be obligated to host all forms of speech, but you can't say that because it demolishes your own vapid and repetitive trolling.

You lost your own core point. So we know very well why you're wiggling about unable to answer it directly, but that doesn't mean anyone's obliged to stop asking just to make you feel more comfortable. Isn't that... also exactly what you've been arguing?

So anytime you like, and stop trying to distract people when no one's distracted and everyone recognizes you as a failed troll.

Pudendum wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Do you agree that Twitter is not obligated to host all forms of speech?

All the ones they have obligated themselves to host.

If you live outside the European Union, EFTA States, or the United Kingdom, including if you live in the United States, the Twitter User Agreement comprises these Terms of Service, our Privacy Policy, the Twitter Rules and Policies, and all incorporated policies.

1. Who May Use the Services

You may use the Services only if you agree to form a binding contract with Twitter...

3. Content on the Services

We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations or other intellectual property misappropriation, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment. Information regarding specific policies and the process for reporting or appealing violations can be found in our Help Center (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-p ... violations and https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-yo ... r-accounts).

Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Learn more about our violent threat and glorification of violence policies.

Terrorism/violent extremism: You may not threaten or promote terrorism or violent extremism. Learn more.

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.

In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open.

However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement.

Spearthrower wrote: resulting in numerous deaths and

Fenrir wrote:"The new owner said so".

Pudendum wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Pudendum wrote:

felltoearth wrote:No, it’s the ultimate dodge. It’s a post from Facebook. It can’t be believed because Facebook makes all leftie posts on its own. Facebook is devoid of actual people with actual knowledge and facts because of how Cunt feels about Facebook.

See also Twitter

Why do you think Trump's response to this isn't worth hearing?

I would love to hear his response. He’s absolutely welcome to do it under oath. Do you think he will?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think he is 'demanding equal time'. I think his communication would be as clear, partisan and accusatory as any politician.

As to what happened, we can all see that some dude in furs, with horns, busted into the capitol, and some were allowed in (who opened the rotunda doors?). Some see it as an attempted insurrection, with no guns, organized on Parler (SHUT IT DOWN!!!) and some see it as a riot, threatening nothing but a bit of vandalism and stupidity, organized on facebook (NOT FACEBOOKS FAULT!!)

Same facts, different conclusions.

Tough to say what really happened, but if Bannon really does get Pelosi on the stand, it'll be entertaining, at least.