Jan. 6 hearings have EXONERATED PRESIDENT TRUMP a second time

Grokmaster said:
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE HE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, JUST MADEUP HEARSAY AND LYING LEFTIST ASSHOLES CLAIMING TO KNOW WHAT HE WAS "THINKING".
Click to expand...

The evidence has been presented at every session of this committee, by multiple people who worked in the Trump White House. Each and every one was a devout Republican and trump supporter, until he went to far for anyone to support.
 
floridafan said:
The evidence has been presented at every session of this committee, by multiple people who worked in the Trump White House. Each and every one was a devout Republican and trump supporter, until he went to far for anyone to support.
Click to expand...

You are wrong and Grokmaster is right.
 
"Protest peacefully" DJT

nothing to demonstrate he had anything to do with the protestors.
no insurrection
no nothing...
 
Bigdog said:
There was no insurrection.
Click to expand...

What were the rioters trying to accomplish when they broke into the Capitol, assaulted police, and went looking for members of Congress?

If you don't like insurrection, use Ted Cruz's description: a "terrorist attack"
 
Flash said:
What were the rioters trying to accomplish when they broke into the Capitol, assaulted police, and went looking for members of Congress?

If you don't like insurrection, use Ted Cruz's description: a "terrorist attack"
Click to expand...

Your not going to overthrow the U.S. gov't with a flagpole.

There wasn't even an assassination attempt, like at the ballfield ... or when the lib mob stormed the white house.
 
Bigdog said:
Your not going to overthrow the U.S. gov't with a flagpole.

There wasn't even an assassination attempt, like at the ballfield ... or when the lib mob stormed the white house.
Click to expand...

What were they trying to accomplish? Didn't they want to delay the electoral vote count?
 
Flash said:
What were they trying to accomplish? Didn't they want to delay the electoral vote count?
Click to expand...

I assume most were there to protest the weirdest and most insecure election we ever had, and the corporate interference in the election. Corporations that were granted special immunity to censor anything their political cronies asked them to.

I didn't see anything that looked like an organized plan to overthrow the U.S. gov't. Did you?

The whole thing was a failure of U.S. intel and law enforcement. Why did they fail so miserably to protect the capitol? Why didn't they open fire on the crowd?
 
Bigdog said:
I assume most were there to protest the weirdest and most insecure election we ever had, and the corporate interference in the election. Corporations that were granted special immunity to censor anything their political cronies asked them to.

I didn't see anything that looked like an organized plan to overthrow the U.S. gov't. Did you?

The whole thing was a failure of U.S. intel and law enforcement. Why did they fail so miserably to protect the capitol? Why didn't they open fire on the crowd?
Click to expand...

None of it would have happened if Trump had not spread the phony election fraud story. He sought to prevent the electoral vote and keep Biden from taking office. He failed to uphold his oath to uphold the Constitution by seeking to thwart constitutional procedures.

No corporation got immunity to censor anything. The press is free to print or not print whatever they want--they don't need immunity to do so.
 
Flash said:
None of it would have happened if Trump had not spread the phony election fraud story. He sought to prevent the electoral vote and keep Biden from taking office. He failed to uphold his oath to uphold the Constitution by seeking to thwart constitutional procedures.

No corporation got immunity to censor anything. Dominion sued Fox and Newsmax for libel and they withdrew their claims.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of crap. None of it would have happened had U.S. intel and LE done their jobs right. If it was an insurrection then why didn't they open fire on the crowd? :dunno:

You have a very short, or very selective memory. Election results get challenged all the time. Pres. Trump followed the Constitution and facilitated a peaceful transfer of power.

Section 230 gives immunity to online platforms to censor any speech and news stories without any legal accountability.

Where is your evidence that Pres. Trump sought to prevent the electoral vote? :dunno:
 
Bigdog said:
What a bunch of crap. None of it would have happened had U.S. intel and LE done their jobs right. If it was an insurrection then why didn't they open fire on the crowd? :dunno:

You have a very short, or very selective memory. Election results get challenged all the time. Pres. Trump followed the Constitution and facilitated a peaceful transfer of power.

Section 230 gives immunity to online platforms to censor any speech and news stories without any legal accountability.

Where is your evidence that Pres. Trump sought to prevent the electoral vote? :dunno:
Click to expand...

That is not what section 230 does. It gives immunity for libel for things said by those posting on the social media site. The press has always been free to print or not print whatever they choose. If I libel you Facebook cannot be sued for what I say. It is not about censorship.

Elections get challenged but the president does not try to get the vice president to go against his constitutional duties, or spread stories about voter fraud with no evidence, try to get states to change their votes, and call for supporters to attend a rally to stop the count.
 
Flash said:
That is not what section 230 does. It gives immunity for libel for things said by those posting on the social media site. The press has always been free to print or not print whatever they choose.

Elections get challenged but the president does not try to get the vice president to go against his constitutional duties, or spread stories about voter fraud with no evidence, try to get states to change their votes, and call for supporters to attend a rally to stop the count.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.

Social media sites are NOT the "press". Why are you trying to say they are the same thing? NYpost laptop story was censored on the internet. I guess the press is not as free as you think under national socialism.




"The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2021
This is false.

Pence, in his role as president of the Senate, is scheduled to preside over Congress' certification of the results Wednesday, as detailed by the 12th Amendment. But he can't intervene in the process.

The law governing the certification process, the Electoral Count Act of 1887, specifically limits the power of the president of the Senate precisely because a president of the Senate had intervened in the count previously."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ence-can-t-overturn-election-results-n1252869




Stacey Abrams is still Gov. of Ga..


You have no evidence that President Trump gave orders to stop the electoral count.
 
Last edited:
Bigdog said:
Social media sites are NOT the "press". Why are you trying to say they are the same thing? NYpost laptop story was censored on the internet. I guess the press is not as free as you think under national socialism.
Click to expand...

The internet, movies, etc. have many of the same protections as free press. The laptop story was not censored. Choosing not to carry a story is not censorship because it is still available on many other sources. You could go to the New York Post website and read the laptop story, you could go to the NYPost Facebook page and read the laptop story, you could go to any message board or social media site and read and write about the story. Or, you could do an internet search and read any of the "About 1,580,000 results".

Only the right-wing sources claimed the story was censored. People who bothered to actually search knew that wasn't true. It is like the election fraud claim that some counties had more votes than registered voters. However, if you actually check the state records you cannot find a single county with more votes than registered voters. People just repeat false stories.
 
Flash said:
The internet, movies, etc. have many of the same protections as free press. The laptop story was not censored. Choosing not to carry a story is not censorship because it is still available on many other sources. You could go to the New York Post website and read the laptop story, you could go to the NYPost Facebook page and read the laptop story, you could go to any message board or social media site and read and write about the story. Or, you could do an internet search and read any of the "About 1,580,000 results".

Only the right-wing sources claimed the story was censored. People who bothered to actually search knew that wasn't true. It is like the election fraud claim that some counties had more votes than registered voters. However, if you actually check the state records you cannot find a single county with more votes than registered voters. People just repeat false stories.
Click to expand...

Twitter and Facebook, the two most viewed SM sites, censored the NYpost story. Before 230, they would have been liable.

"In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users.

However, in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., the court concluded that because Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and was legally responsible for libel committed by its customers.[20]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Good grief, man. We've been inundated with the Russian Collusion stolen election hoax for 6 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top