January 6 .. What happened

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,189
5,323
113
I do not think Cheney could win the Republican nomination.

But it could be one of those rare times that an Independent run could have a real chance and make a real impact. The tough thing is money and getting on all the state ballots.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,478
5,761
113
So you're saying we should conduct an investigation where there will be no hearsay. You would be the world's worst detective. Sorting through the sea of hearsay for the truth is kind of the point of any investigation.
Let’s be clear, the production we are watching isn’t an investigation. It’s the presentation of an investigation. Every witness has already been questioned and provided what exactly they will be testifying to on camera. Once you interview a witness and they tell you something they’ve heard you then go to the source and have them confirm the hearsay on the record. It’s not complicated. We should not be relying on hearsay at this point. We should be hearing testimony from the declarants….period. The people testifying should also be subjected to questioning…if the goal is the truth. It’s a political made for tv presentation….which is fine. Especially if it prevents Trump from winning the Pub nomination. The ends do justify the means…as long as it works.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TU 1978

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
23,176
8,871
113
It will be interesting to see Cheney on a primary podium against Trump with Cheney (who is very right wing) as a 'centrist'.

She's going to lose her seat in Congress for sure, but she will probably pick up broader support to run against Trump + Biden. I might consider voting for her vs. Biden if she did win the Republican nod. Even if I disagreed with her on many issues, I would know she's not inherently malicious towards our nation.
54% of democrats already want someone other than Biden. That % will increase. 77% of independents want somebody else. In the end, I don't think Biden will run. I'd vote for Cheney. I hope she runs in the primary and kicks Trumps ever lovin butt. He would be so embarrassed.

Actually I wish he would spend the rest of his days in jail. I was hoping that when he won, cuz I knew he would pull some illegal shenanigans in office. He has been doing that all his life.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
Let’s be clear, the production we are watching isn’t an investigation. It’s the presentation of an investigation. Every witness has already been questioned and provided what exactly they will be testifying to on camera. Once you interview a witness and they tell you something they’ve heard you then go to the source and have them confirm the hearsay on the record. It’s not complicated. We should not be relying on hearsay at this point. We should be hearing testimony from the declarants….period.
I think the point is that, Congress, is presenting the hearsay to the American people for them to form an opinion on what behavior we are willing to accept from our elected officials and their entourage.

I kind of see it as an investigator or prosecutor presenting a case to a grand jury to determine if there should be an indictment. From Title 9 of the DOJ manual on criminal justice.

9-11.232 - USE OF HEARSAY IN A GRAND JURY PROCEEDING​

As a general rule, it is proper to present hearsay to the grand jury, United States v. Calandra 414 U.S. 338 (1974). Each United States Attorney should be assured that hearsay evidence presented to the grand jury will be presented on its merits so that the jurors are not misled into believing that the witness is giving his or her personal account. See United States v. Leibowitz, 420 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. 1969); but see United States v. Trass, 644 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1981).
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
23,176
8,871
113
I wish we could get away from these 'lesser of two evils' style contests. I wish we could go back to the 2008 election. The candidates on both sides had class, and ethics, and both would have probably been competent leaders.
Pre Trump, most(not all) of our presidential contests were not the lesser of two evils. I want that.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
54% of democrats already want someone other than Biden. That % will increase. 77% of independents want somebody else. In the end, I don't think Biden will run. I'd vote for Cheney. I hope she runs in the primary and kicks Trumps ever lovin butt. He would be so embarrassed.

Actually I wish he would spend the rest of his days in jail. I was hoping that when he won, cuz I knew he would pull some illegal shenanigans in office. He has been doing that all his life.
It would be easy and understandable for Biden to bow out due to his age. (Even if it's an excuse for him being pushed out by the party).

I'm just worried if he'll be too prideful to realize he'd be a detriment.
 

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,189
5,323
113
54% of democrats already want someone other than Biden. That % will increase. 77% of independents want somebody else. In the end, I don't think Biden will run. I'd vote for Cheney. I hope she runs in the primary and kicks Trumps ever lovin butt. He would be so embarrassed.

Actually I wish he would spend the rest of his days in jail. I was hoping that when he won, cuz I knew he would pull some illegal shenanigans in office. He has been doing that all his life.
Liz Cheney running in the Republican primary is probably the only thing that would motivate me to change my registration back to Republican from Independent. At least temporarily.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
23,176
8,871
113
Hearsay is necessary in hearings. They've been playing a little loose in these hearings, with what they will allow as far as hearsay goes though.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
23,176
8,871
113
It would be easy and understandable for Biden to bow out due to his age. (Even if it's an excuse for him being pushed out by the party).

I'm just worried if he'll be too prideful to realize he'd be a detriment.
I think the pride will have it's a$$ kicked by the polls. He doesn't want to run if he knows he will lose.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
23,176
8,871
113
Liz Cheney running in the Republican primary is probably the only thing that would motivate me to change my registration back to Republican from Independent. At least temporarily.

You might get her as an independent. You never know, she might win as one in these crazy times.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
I think the pride will have it's a$$ kicked by the polls. He doesn't want to run if he knows he will lose.
Lots of people run knowing they will lose. He's one of the old school guys that might go down guns blazin'... even if it's stupid.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,478
5,761
113
I think the point is that, Congress, is presenting the hearsay to the American people for them to form an opinion on what behavior we are willing to accept from our elected officials and their entourage.

I kind of see it as an investigator or prosecutor presenting a case to a grand jury to determine if there should be an indictment. From Title 9 of the DOJ manual on criminal justice.

9-11.232 - USE OF HEARSAY IN A GRAND JURY PROCEEDING​

As a general rule, it is proper to present hearsay to the grand jury, United States v. Calandra 414 U.S. 338 (1974). Each United States Attorney should be assured that hearsay evidence presented to the grand jury will be presented on its merits so that the jurors are not misled into believing that the witness is giving his or her personal account. See United States v. Leibowitz, 420 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. 1969); but see United States v. Trass, 644 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1981).
Hearsay is only allowed in grand jury proceedings because they are secret. No recordings, no records of the testimony released, etc…. Why….because hearsay is deemed unreliable and should not be taking into account in determining guilt or even giving the impression of guilt.

As I said above, these hearings aren’t an investigation seeking facts. They are a made for TV presentation of an investigation. There is zero reason not to have the declarants at this event. A person testifying to hearsay without the opportunity to be questioned is a fairly worthless process of fact seeking is the end goal. I would be fine with allowing hearsay in cases where the declarants can’t testify but there needs to be an explanation. Allowing people to testify to things they’ve heard without any questioning is an odd way to convince the audience of a narrative.

I obviously don’t like hearsay under any circumstances but especially those which also allow no questioning of the witness
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
23,176
8,871
113
Hearsay is only allowed in grand jury proceedings because they are secret. No recordings, no records of the testimony released, etc…. Why….because hearsay is deemed unreliable and should not be taking into account in determining guilt or even giving the impression of guilt.

As I said above, these hearings aren’t an investigation seeking facts. They are a made for TV presentation of an investigation. There is zero reason not to have the declarants at this event. A person testifying to hearsay without the opportunity to be questioned is a fairly worthless process of fact seeking is the end goal
You also have to consider the lack of real power to subpoena, and have it obeyed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,238
649
113
la la land
To me the main value of these hearings is to harm Trump’s credibility should he run again. Cheney and Kinzinger feel that is more important than keeping their job and thank God for that. I don't use the almighty's name in vain here either.

Hopefully there will be lots of great video clips that PACs can use if Trump runs again.
no problem, but the dem should do it on their own nickle
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
Hearsay is only allowed in grand jury proceedings because they are secret. No recordings, no records of the testimony released, etc…. Why….because hearsay is deemed unreliable and should not be taking into account in determining guilt or even giving the impression of guilt.

As I said above, these hearings aren’t an investigation seeking facts. They are a made for TV presentation of an investigation. There is zero reason not to have the declarants at this event. A person testifying to hearsay without the opportunity to be questioned is a fairly worthless process of fact seeking is the end goal. I would be fine with allowing hearsay in cases where the declarants can’t testify but there needs to be an explanation. Allowing people to testify to things they’ve heard without any questioning is an odd way to convince the audience of a narrative.

I obviously don’t like hearsay under any circumstances but especially those which also allow no questioning of the witness
It seems like your problem is honestly that a public investigation is being conducted at all. Not that hearsay is being used in the investigation. Hearsay is not deemed unreliable in investigations. It is deemed unreliable in court. In investigations it is understood that hearsay can have merit or it can not. The investigator must connect the dots between concrete evidence, hearsay evidence, and first hand accounts. I agree that declarants should be interviewed as permitted, but as G$$$ points out... the subpoena power of the US Congress is largely a joke.

Costello v. United States (Majority Opinion by a pretty strict textualist in Hugo Black)

RULE:​

If indictments were to be held open to challenge on the ground that there was inadequate or incompetent evidence before the grand jury, the resulting delay would be great indeed. The result of such a rule would be that before trial on the merits a defendant could always insist on a kind of preliminary trial to determine the competency and adequacy of the evidence before the grand jury. This is not required by the Fifth Amendment. An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits. The Fifth Amendment requires nothing more.

FACTS:​

Defendant was indicted and convicted of attempting to evade payment of income tax. At the grand jury hearing, the government offered evidence, including the introduction of several witnesses, designed to show increases in defendant's net worth in an attempt to prove that he had received more income during years in question than reported. As part of the government's testimony, government agents summarized the evidence heard and introduced computations. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the only evidence before the grand jury was hearsay because the government agents had no firsthand knowledge of the transactions upon which their computations were based. The motion was denied, and defendant was convicted. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Issue: May a defendant be required to stand trial and a conviction be sustained where only hearsay evidence was presented to the grand jury which indicted him?

Answer: Yes.

CONCLUSION:​

On petition for writ of certiorari, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the record and concluded that neither the Fifth Amendment nor any other constitutional provision prescribed the kind of evidence upon which grand juries must act. It ruled that if indictments were to be held open to challenge on the ground that there was inadequate or incompetent evidence before the grand jury, the resulting delay would be great indeed. The result of such a rule would be that before trial on the merits a defendant could always insist on a kind of preliminary trial to determine the competency and adequacy of the evidence before the grand jury. An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,205
10,046
113
Pre Trump, most(not all) of our presidential contests were not the lesser of two evils. I want that.
There’s a lot of people who voted for Obama because he was the lesser of two evils between him and Hillary. Then the lesser of two different kinds of evil in the general in 2008.

Nixon won mostly because people didn’t want more war with Humphrey and would not vote for Wallace. Lesser of three evils.

I could go on.
 

Gold*

Serious Cat Circle of Honor
Dec 3, 2003
35,596
10,805
113
Lawpoke doesn’t appear to understand how hearsay works. There are a lot of exceptions. I try cases professionally and saw little hearsay yesterday. The rule is fun once you understand how it works. Even if there was hearsay, it’s not relevant to the hearings hecause this isn’t a court of law and the federal rules of evidence do not apply in any way.

That’s beside the point.did see a lot of cold hard facts and I question why anyone would argue against these hearings now. It’s time for take sake of the country for everyone to #renounceTrump and move on. If you won’t do that, you will face ridicule and take that embarrassment to your grave. Arguing about hearsay is just stupid here.

That’s what this is about. And the hearings are damn impressive. It’s something that will be studied hundreds of years. Trump made this whole thing happen. He has to be punished.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,205
10,046
113
Lawpoke doesn’t appear to understand how hearsay works. There are a lot of exceptions. I try cases professionally and saw little hearsay yesterday. The rule is fun once you understand how it works. Even if there was hearsay, it’s not relevant to the hearings hecause this isn’t a court of law and the federal rules of evidence do not apply in any way.

That’s beside the point.did see a lot of cold hard facts and I question why anyone would argue against these hearings now. It’s time for take sake of the country for everyone to #renounceTrump and move on. If you won’t do that, you will face ridicule and take that embarrassment to your grave. Arguing about hearsay is just stupid here.

That’s what this is about. And the hearings are damn impressive. It’s something that will be studied hundreds of years. Trump made this whole thing happen. He has to be punished.
Don’t disagree that it will be studied. Or that this topic needs discussion and proper objective professional apolitical investigation.

You know my background, others don’t. I have jury verdicts up to first degree felonies punishable by life without parole and civil verdicts favorable for my client where the amount sought exceeds $60 million. I know a little about the hearsay rules. And how the executive branch works from other career service.

The discussion is less about the strict application of the evidence code, as it is comments regarding the departure from well settled norms in Congressional investigations and hearings, including the very make up of the panel.

And that’s why your argument ultimately fails. It’s true the rules of evidence don’t apply but it’s also true the Rules of the House do apply and the Speaker has repeatedly disregarded them in support of what appears at times to be a political narrative. Something unprecedented in the House.

For many people concerned about the respect for the rule of law and the institutions of this country, the erosion of the norms we expect in the conduct of the House is concerning, even if it is in furtherance of an objective that serves an important public purpose. There was more than one way to do this, and this one was politically expedient for the Speaker.

And ultimately, that may be the legacy of these hearings. The Irvin hearings during Watergate helped restore the faith of the public in the federal government. They were live, uninterrupted, and for the most part, parties adverse to the stated objective of the hearings were allowed to participate. The hearings netted startling admissions through careful questioning by multiple sides that brought down a President and installed a Vice President as President trusted by both parties and respected nationwide. Contrary to popular myth, something two dorky journalists and the US Supreme Court couldn’t do.

These hearings are partisan in nature by design, are not being carried live in full, heavily edited, and witnesses are not being called who would be called under the Rules of the House in any other proceeding. As such, it’s kabuki theater, people have started to stop watching and even the pundits have reduced their content to 30 second TikTok snips of a man either walking fast or running in hallway. It’s reduced the American people’s trust in Congress as an institution to the extent anyone has noticed at all.

It didn’t need to be this way. People have pretty much made up their minds. Amongst those not persuaded by the presentations, are people who voted for Trump because they have lost faith in the operation of our government even though they find him abhorrent. These hearings are a massive loss in opportunity to recapture their engagement with their government.

Instead, we essentially have an impeachment trial without the opportunity afforded to the defense to defend themselves. As a trial lawyer, you should find such things not only repugnant but an attack on American norms. Norms I fear that will be eroded here so that future House hearings will be conducted in a similar way in furtherance of much darker goals. And we should all be worried about that.
 

Gold*

Serious Cat Circle of Honor
Dec 3, 2003
35,596
10,805
113
Your only argument is that the hearings are partisan. I disagree with that completely. I think Cheney and Kitzenger (apologies for spelling, I’m busy today) are patriots. I think they are the two best people on the panel and I would vote for them for higher office. You can’t tell me Liz Cheney is some sort of liberal hack. I grew up thinking her dad was a super villain. She has about as conservative record as anyone.

McCarthy chose not to participate in these hearings. It was a giant mistake. He got played by Pelosi. That’s on him. The hearings have been effective without Jim Jordan and Crackhead Stefanik saying and doing stupid things. The standard for your party’s actions in the house has devolved to some sort of Wesley Willis performance. They are disgusting. They lost the right to participate, particular when McCarthy chose not to.

On Earth one, the hearings are damn impressive and a complete take down of all things Trump. It’s time to renounce Trump or face losses in November. I think this and Roe are going to bail out a pathetic Democrat effort the last couple of years. It’s going to be a lot of #Trumpisguilty and #renounceTrump until you guys get real and admit he and his ilk are criminals. You are getting played unless you get on board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
23,176
8,871
113
Don’t disagree that it will be studied. Or that this topic needs discussion and proper objective professional apolitical investigation.

You know my background, others don’t. I have jury verdicts up to first degree felonies punishable by life without parole and civil verdicts favorable for my client where the amount sought exceeds $60 million. I know a little about the hearsay rules. And how the executive branch works from other career service.

The discussion is less about the strict application of the evidence code, as it is comments regarding the departure from well settled norms in Congressional investigations and hearings, including the very make up of the panel.

And that’s why your argument ultimately fails. It’s true the rules of evidence don’t apply but it’s also true the Rules of the House do apply and the Speaker has repeatedly disregarded them in support of what appears at times to be a political narrative. Something unprecedented in the House.

For many people concerned about the respect for the rule of law and the institutions of this country, the erosion of the norms we expect in the conduct of the House is concerning, even if it is in furtherance of an objective that serves an important public purpose. There was more than one way to do this, and this one was politically expedient for the Speaker.

And ultimately, that may be the legacy of these hearings. The Irvin hearings during Watergate helped restore the faith of the public in the federal government. They were live, uninterrupted, and for the most part, parties adverse to the stated objective of the hearings were allowed to participate. The hearings netted startling admissions through careful questioning by multiple sides that brought down a President and installed a Vice President as President trusted by both parties and respected nationwide. Contrary to popular myth, something two dorky journalists and the US Supreme Court couldn’t do.

These hearings are partisan in nature by design, are not being carried live in full, heavily edited, and witnesses are not being called who would be called under the Rules of the House in any other proceeding. As such, it’s kabuki theater, people have started to stop watching and even the pundits have reduced their content to 30 second TikTok snips of a man either walking fast or running in hallway. It’s reduced the American people’s trust in Congress as an institution to the extent anyone has noticed at all.

It didn’t need to be this way. People have pretty much made up their minds. Amongst those not persuaded by the presentations, are people who voted for Trump because they have lost faith in the operation of our government even though they find him abhorrent. These hearings are a massive loss in opportunity to recapture their engagement with their government.

Instead, we essentially have an impeachment trial without the opportunity afforded to the defense to defend themselves. As a trial lawyer, you should find such things not only repugnant but an attack on American norms. Norms I fear that will be eroded here so that future House hearings will be conducted in a similar way in furtherance of much darker goals. And we should all be worried about that.
The republicans share some of the blame for refusing to be part of the proceedings. They may not have been able to change the procedure, but they could have made loud vocal protests from the inside. They shirked that responsibility for show, just like the procedure has been for show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay

URedskin54

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2005
9,142
7,679
113
I don’t think the partisan makeup of the hearings matters much, but I also don’t think the hearings matter much. I already know Trump is garbage and already thought he should have been removed from office immediately. He wasn’t re-elected, which is generally good for the country long term. He’ll run again but I don’t think what comes out of these hearings will have much impact on whether he wins or loses. It is just confirming what most people already thought of him, and many of those same people will still vote for him. It’s up to people to beat him. At best we’ll get a reform of the electoral count act, which does matter, but isn’t really tied to the hearings.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,478
5,761
113
The republicans share some of the blame for refusing to be part of the proceedings. They may not have been able to change the procedure, but they could have made loud vocal protests from the inside. They shirked that responsibility for show, just like the procedure has been for show.
Agree. When Pelosi wouldn’t allow the Pubs to select who they wanted to represent them in committee they bailed.

Don’t mind the hearings. Wasn’t thrilled with the procedure. Set a bad precedent as I Assume it will be reciprocated when the Pubs control the House. Unfortunately neither party thinks about precedent.

Hopefully the hearings serve their purpose and block a Trump nomination. I don’t believe he will ever be convicted of anything. Every investigation to date has ended with nothing. Assume this will be no different. We will see.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
Honestly, not drastically different than the Watergate hearings when you go back and look at them.
 

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,189
5,323
113
People who love him after all he did will keep on loving him.

Those that cannot stand him surely will continue their views.

Where it might matter is among people who are not passionate about politics It could have a motivational effect for turnout. It will make for lots of great ads.

One question is whether there is countervailing motivation among his supporters. I vote no. They would come out to vote either way.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: watu05 and TUMU

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,238
649
113
la la land
steve banam is haeld in contempt of congress. Could serve 2 years in prison. Maybe his cell mate could be Eric Holder.
 

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,189
5,323
113
Just proves that contempt of Congress requires a harsher sentence. His expected sentence is obviously insufficient to serve as a deterrent and he is mocking Congress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,048
181
63
Honestly, not drastically different than the Watergate hearings when you go back and look at them.
Nothing Nixon did compares with what Trump's own staff and advisors describe him doing, but as you point out, vast numbers of Americans don't care. Not a good sign for a democracy and the concept of the rule of law.

Hannity and Carlson and increasing number of Conservative groups are pumping Hungary's Orban as a model the US should follow. He's a white, Christian nationalist autocrat who has been able to achieve through the Hungarian equivalent of gerrymandering and ridding their civil service of opposition to stay in power permanently. He's managed to stay in the EU despite ignoring human rights, immigration, and other EU laws.
 
Last edited:

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
23,176
8,871
113
Nothing Nixon did compares with what Trump's own staff and advisors describe him doing, but as you point out, vast numbers of Americans don't care. Not a good sign for a democracy and the concept of the rule of law.

Hannity and Carlson and increasing number of Conservative groups are pumping Hungary's Orban as a model the US should follow. He's an white, Christian nationalist autocrat who has been able to achieve through the Hungarian equivalent of gerrymandering and ridding their civil service of opposition to stay in power permanently. He's managed to stay in the EU despite ignoring human rights, immigration, and other EU laws.
Orban has scared me for quite some time. It was unnerving when Trump and his administration made comments that seemed to support him. Those statements seemed to prop him up as a future ally. That's like treating Al Assad and Syria as a future ally. Orban has simply managed to do it by evading a revolutionary battle, not because he is any different. He has just found a shrewder way to avoid that, in the context of his countries political system.
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,048
181
63
Orban has scared me for quite some time. It was unnerving when Trump and his administration made comments that seemed to support him. Those statements seemed to prop him up as a future ally. That's like treating Al Assad and Syria as a future ally. Orban has simply managed to do it by evading a revolutionary battle, not because he is any different. He has just found a shrewder way to avoid that, in the context of his countries political system.
Orban is just smarter than Trump and shows the risks inherent in our system when people who don't believe in democracy are elected to run a democracy. If Trump had been smarter or less of an egomaniac, he could have pushed through more lasting damage than he did and been reelected to do even more. As it is he's undermined faith in US elections, installed a set of Mullahs in SCOTUS and demonstrated how hard it is to keep a democracy. Carlson and conservatives are bringing Orban's acolytes to the US to talk about how to emulate Hungary, which starts with electing a smarter version of Trump and more Jim Jordans to Congress to support him.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,238
649
113
la la land
enough already. dems have spent the last 7 years obcessing over Trump. A string of alogations and investigations with nothing to show for it. its time to put up or shut up.
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,048
181
63
Liz Cheney running in the Republican primary is probably the only thing that would motivate me to change my registration back to Republican from Independent. At least temporarily.
While I admire Liz Cheney for standing up for the Constitution now, for four years she was a actively backed Trump and some of his most grotesque and inhumane policies. I've donated to her campaign as she is clearly a better alternative to the guy she is running against for the House, but as President....she's got some 'spaining' to do.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts