Liberal Forum

JustinSane » 22 Dec 2023, 4:12 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:12 pm

Colorado was based on the 'findings' of the Jan 6th Committee

Really?


Show me....


 

Huey » 22 Dec 2023, 4:11 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:11 pm

Bill Barr’s point.  You read it, didn’t you?

So you have no point.

Probably didn't read it and don't understand what he's saying.

But you won't answer questions about it anyway.
 

Z09 » 22 Dec 2023, 4:18 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:18 pm

Why wasn't Trump charged?

Three years...

He may yet be.

But this is civil matter...

Are you cherry picking, Hole?
 

Z09 » 22 Dec 2023, 4:21 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:21 pm

No point?

You have no case....
Let's see what the Supreme Court will say...

You like Colorado's court...
So let's see

I have more than a case, Dumb Hole..

I have a decision.
 

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 4:24 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:24 pm

Blah blah blah ...

Challenge
1. Same lies.
2. Deflect to pics.

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 4:16 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:16 pm

So you have no point.

Probably didn't read it and don't understand what he's saying.

But you won't answer questions about it anyway.

You are free to make a point then ask a question.  Gotta make sure you understand it and read it.  Balls in your court.

Vegas » 22 Dec 2023, 4:35 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:35 pm

I suck goat ***...

I assumed as much...
 

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 4:39 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:39 pm

I assumed as much...

   

Challenge
1. Same lies.
2. Deflect to pics.

Huey » 22 Dec 2023, 4:38 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:38 pm

You are free to make a point then ask a question.  Gotta make sure you understand it and read it.  Balls in your court.

I have...and my point is that even if you read it, you can't understand it...

Which is why you are, once again, asking me to explain it.
 

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:41 pm

I have...and my point is that even if you read it, you can't understand it...

Which is why you are, once again, asking me to explain it.

Roll away Stumpy, Roll away.

I am not asking you to explain anything,  I am asking you to take a stand on what Barr said and then you may ask a question.  II guess you are afraid to be held to a position.  

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 2:58 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 2:58 pm

At this point all stands as fact because there is nothing to contradict it.

And for reasons you can't understand, nothing is forthcoming.

Shut the **** up.
there is nothing to contradict it because the House Jan. 6 select committee did not adequately preserve documents, data and video depositions — including communications it had with President Biden‘s administration — and failed to provide any evidence that it looked into Capitol Hill security failures on the day of the protest.


 

Huey » 22 Dec 2023, 4:46 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:46 pm

Roll away Stumpy, Roll away.

I am not asking you to explain anything,  I am asking you to take a stand on what Barr said and then you may ask a question.  II guess you are afraid to be held to a position.

 I am asking you to take a stand on what Barr said

but you won't tell me what you think he said....you just posted the link.

Z09 » 22 Dec 2023, 4:03 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:03 pm

A tweet?
Explain to us why there's never been charged or his conviction?

It's dumb
You've had too many pee tapes and Russian Collusion BS..

a tweet that sunk his peaceful defense          

Majik » 22 Dec 2023, 4:47 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:47 pm

Shut the **** up.
there is nothing to contradict it because the House Jan. 6 select committee did not adequately preserve documents, data and video depositions — including communications it had with President Biden‘s administration — and failed to provide any evidence that it looked into Capitol Hill security failures on the day of the protest.

there is nothing to contradict it because

the only people at the WH on Jan 5th and 6th, of consequence, not to testify were Grifty and Meadows.

There were no conflicts in the witnesses testimony. The only available defense tactic is impeaching the witnesses....unless Grifty's gonna take an oath and contradict them.

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 4:48 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:48 pm

but you won't tell me what you think he said....you just posted the link.

And you won't tell me where you stand.

Basically he pointed out Trump is not his choice for the nomination, that he holds him responsible for Jan 6th, but the court in Colorado did not provide Due Process, a trial before a jury,  did not subpoena witnesses, and relied on the Jan 6th hearing which he called mostly hearsay.

From the article you did not read:

Barr said he disagrees with the court’s “ability to make those findings” and that the case lacked due process for the former president, noting the five-day hearing was solely in front of a judge, not a jury. He added the court relied on the Jan. 6 committee hearings, which he called “mostly hearsay,” and did not subpoena witnesses

I accept Barr's opinion because he is not a trump a fan and plainly states trump is not his choice for the nomination.
 

Z09 » 22 Dec 2023, 4:51 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:51 pm

Some Democrats made a decision..

You know...
How some Democrats got together and impeached Trump a couple times ...
Same thing..

Let's take it to the Supreme Court...

You should be excited about that if you're so confident..

And you trust the courts obviously

No...the Supreme Court of Colorado decided an appeal before it.

An appeal of a judgement decided in favor of a group of Colorado republicans.
 

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 4:54 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:54 pm

No...the Supreme Court of Colorado decided an appeal before it.

An appeal of a judgement decided in favor of a group of Colorado republicans.

That s putting lipstick on a pig, senior citizen.

 

Z09 » 22 Dec 2023, 4:03 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:03 pm

A tweet?
Explain to us why there's never been charged or his conviction?

It's dumb
You've had too many pee tapes and Russian Collusion BS..

https://politico.com/interactives/2023/ ... cker-list/

StatusInvestigation
Indictment
Trial
Verdict
Appeal
DroppedSmith’s Jan. 6 investigation followed the work of the House Select Committee on the Jan. 6 Attack, which voted in December 2022 to refer Trump (along with lawyer John Eastman) to the Justice Department for prosecution. A Washington grand jury met for months and heard testimony from many former Trump aides and officials in the Trump White House, including Pence. On Aug. 1, 2023, the grand jury approved an indictment against Trump, charging him with an extraordinary conspiracy that threatened to disenfranchise millions of Americans.
 

Huey » 22 Dec 2023, 4:53 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 4:53 pm

And you won't tell me where you stand.

Basically he pointed out Trump is not his choice for the nomination, that he holds him responsible for Jan 6th, but the court in Colorado did not provide Due Process, a trial before a jury,  did not subpoena witnesses, and relied on the Jan 6th hearing which he called mostly hearsay.

From the article you did not read:

Barr said he disagrees with the court’s “ability to make those findings” and that the case lacked due process for the former president, noting the five-day hearing was solely in front of a judge, not a jury. He added the court relied on the Jan. 6 committee hearings, which he called “mostly hearsay,” and did not subpoena witnesses

I accept Barr's opinion because he is not a trump a fan and plainly states trump is not his choice for the nomination.

He pointed out that this will be determined, not on facts, but procedure. The existing procedure in Colorado was followed.  SCOTUS will have to determine it contrary to the US constitution.

The original process was validated, with respect to Colorado law, by the recent decision.

The comment about "hearsay" is complete, and condescending, ****. As you have been repeatedly told, the hearings featured testimony from people present at events, reporting first hand experience. Colorado jurists are perfectly competent to sort hearsay from corroborated 1st hand accounts.

As you dutifully averted your eyes from it, don't presume to suggest anything to the contrary.
 

Huey » 22 Dec 2023, 5:01 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 5:01 pm

That s putting lipstick on a pig, senior citizen.

No...those are the Objective Facts, Toady.