She... literally just said that she believed Bill Barr on the issue.
Printable View
She... literally just said that she believed Bill Barr on the issue.
[QUOTE=Mister Mets;6079558]Is there a source for this?[/QUOTE]
The Only one she named last night was Scott Perry. But she said they will reveal more as they have evidence of others.
[url]https://www.huffpost.com/entry/congress-pardons-jan-6_n_62a29201e4b06594c1c65423[/url]
[QUOTE=CaptainEurope;6079661]She... literally just said that she believed Bill Barr on the issue.[/QUOTE]
If she said she believes Bar Wouldnt that mean since Ba said there was no fraud she believes there is no fraud?
[QUOTE=babyblob;6079667]If she said she believes Bar Wouldnt that mean since Ba said there was no fraud she believes there is no fraud?[/QUOTE]
Yes. And Trump's statement makes no sense. She was not doing her own research, nor did she claim she did. She said she believed the attorney general, who did the research.
[QUOTE=CaptainEurope;6079678]Yes. And Trump's statement makes no sense. She was not doing her own research, nor did she claim she did. She said she believed [B]the attorney general, who did the research[/B].[/QUOTE]
And told Trump that his claims of Election Day fraud was bullshit.
[QUOTE=CaptainEurope;6079678]Yes. And Trump's statement makes no sense. She was not doing her own research, nor did she claim she did. She said she believed the attorney general, who did the research.[/QUOTE]
My question on Trumps statement on her not doing her own research and such. When he was president and a couple times after they both talked about how he confided in her on matters and stuff like that. She was part of his inner circle and she knew what was going on. So why then during the biggest thing to happen in his mind the election being stolen why was she in the dark? Wouldnt the person he confided in on so many matters be in on this. Wouldnt she have seen the evidence that he claims to have had?
Or is this going to turn into a GOP talking point of "They were not as close as the Democrats and CNN made them out to be." Even though they both openly and more then once talked about it?
[QUOTE=Mister Mets;6079558]Is there a source for this?[/QUOTE]
The hearings. The ones Fox News isn't covering, and you might be burying your head in the sand rather than pay attention to, because the truth hurts.
Or you could just Google after the fact since all legit media is covering the hearings, if you want to flex some critical thinking skills to do research.
To put it more succinctly, there was a source, yes.
The way Some GOP are trying to spin what Ivanka said as "She never said there wasnt Fraud. She just said she believes Bar. But she never said herself there was no fraud."
[QUOTE=Scott Taylor;6079446]I still find it strange that Trump has been a national figure since the 1980s and people still seem shocked to discover what he is all about. Mass hysteria? He's been all about the Trump, no matter what the cost or ethics, for forever.[/QUOTE]
Not deliberately, ;) I've been reading about Trump's conduct for decades since I have a long standing sub with Vanity Fair. They did some investigative reporting on him and as I recall they were one of the publicatons that wrote a piece on Trump University and started the ball rolling to get him prosecuted. Or any number of his dicey real estate deals. The corruption goes back to his father Fred Trump and he learned well from that.
[QUOTE=worstblogever;6079788]The hearings. The ones Fox News isn't covering, and you might be burying your head in the sand rather than pay attention to, because the truth hurts.
Or you could just Google after the fact since all legit media is covering the hearings, if you want to flex some critical thinking skills to do research.
To put it more succinctly, there was a source, yes.[/QUOTE]
I did google. I also used google news.
I suspect you haven't made an effort of it, because it seems like an easy thing to find and link to.
The best I can find are people asking questions, but unable to confirm anything.
[QUOTE=Mister Mets;6079876]The best I can find are people asking questions, but unable to confirm anything.[/QUOTE]
So they're JAQing off, then.
Thanks for admitting that.
[QUOTE=Mister Mets;6079556]It's a sensitive trial, and the investigation process has been delayed by Covid protocols, so it was never going to be fast.
Another wrinkle is that to indict you need to have proof that a crime was committed, and that it isn't something that falls in the category of shady but legal. Sometimes the evidence requires proving a particular context. For example, if Trump consistently acted like he believed that there are tens of thousands of ballots in Georgia that haven't been counted, "find me 11,780 votes," isn't a lay-up.[/QUOTE]
I've given this more thought, and I'd like to see Trump indicted.
Let him or his lawyers make the argument that his belief in crazy conspiracy theories means that "find me 11,780 votes" isn't necessarily proof he's asking for manufactured ballots.
His tendency to lie also means that if he were to be deposed, odds are good he would perjure himself.
[QUOTE=worstblogever;6079882]So they're JAQing off, then.
Thanks for admitting that.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the Indiana progressives are asking questions.
[url]https://twitter.com/INDprogressives[/url]
But they don't have confirmation.
[QUOTE=Mister Mets;6079876]I did google. I also used google news.
I suspect you haven't made an effort of it, because it seems like an easy thing to find and link to.
The best I can find are people asking questions, but unable to confirm anything.[/QUOTE]
I posted a Link where Cheny did name one name from the hearing and said she had evidence of him and others that will be revealed through the course of the hearing.
[QUOTE=babyblob;6079904]I posted a Link where Cheny did name one name from the hearing and said she had evidence of him and others that will be revealed through the course of the hearing.[/QUOTE]
Incidentally, thank you for that so I didn't have to, it's noble of you to humor those being willfully obtuse.