• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

House Passes 1/6 Commission

Page 71 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Hans Gruber said:
When you have a 25 year female old testifying before congress. You have to ask yourself a couple of questions. Why is she calling these high ranking Trump officials by first names in her deposition. The next question is the insurrection happened a year and a half ago. That would put her at age 23-24. I suspect the purpose for the role in the Trump administration was for other purposes.
Click to expand...
Paratus said:
Dude really.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that's what the Clinton admin used them for.
 
Hans Gruber said:
When you have a 25 year female old testifying before congress. You have to ask yourself a couple of questions. Why is she calling these high ranking Trump officials by first names in her deposition. The next question is the insurrection happened a year and a half ago. That would put her at age 23-24. I suspect the purpose for the role in the Trump administration was for other purposes.
Click to expand...
I understand you pointing out motives of people like Corey Lewandowsky but just remember

This (24 woman at the time) while the capital was under attack and Mark Meadows was staring at his phone she stood up to her boss and told him you need to get the President to do something.

She may turn out to be a hero in all this mess
 
fskimospy said:
The idea that it is impossible to change minds is demonstrably false and flies in the face of real world outcomes. I imagine your dumb 2020 election prediction was based on this idea and it seems you have learned nothing.

Regardless, that was not your point - your argument was that mentioning the steering wheel or whatever made her testimony ineffective. Considering you already said the entire thing is ineffective that doesn’t matter.

I guess this all makes sense when I think about your claims about republicans as a form of projection. You know you’re irrational and nothing can change your mind so you think everyone else is as nuts as you are.
Click to expand...

I really like and respect your takes but I also think you're living in some pre-2016 timeline where people can be politely convinced with reason and logic. So you seem to ignore this polarization that we are faced with and constant rebuttal of reality, so yes, I stand by my statement that in 2022, it is impossible to change anyone's mind when it comes to their position on Trump and the current GOP.

And while the committee's work might end up being irrelevant in terms of changing votes, you still have the (faint) possibility of criminal indictments being handed out. And anything that risks weakening the strength of the witness' testimony or attacking her character doesn't help.

They should have just stopped the hearing after the first half, yesterday. Would have been powerful enough.
 
HomerJS said:
Heard spin by Fox earlier. Her testimony about the limo was second hand. SS said ready to testify Trump didn’t “lunge”
Click to expand...

It was second hand, or hearsay, and she admitted to that. That makes that entire story less credible, but the fact that she said upfront that it was a second hand story means that her credibility is still intact. She didn't claim it was true, only that it is something she was told.
It is worth point out that at this time the SS version of the story is also hearsay, and has even less credibility as her story. We don't know where the SS version comes from, while her version is able to be vetted. Until they actually testify to that it is just a rumor.

My takeaway is that we should be skeptical about that particular story until it is vetted either way, but that no matter if it is true or not it does not effect the her credibility.

Of course the Right are going to try to use it to discredit her, and because a lot of people are really poor at critical thinking it will work. But it does not really matter, they would have used something to discredit her no matter what, even if they had to make it up whole cloth.
 
gothuevos said:
I really like and respect your takes but I also think you're living in some pre-2016 timeline where people can be politely convinced with reason and logic. So you seem to ignore this polarization that we are faced with and constant rebuttal of reality, so yes, I stand by my statement that in 2022, it is impossible to change anyone's mind when it comes to their position on Trump and the current GOP.

And while the committee's work might end up being irrelevant in terms of changing votes, you still have the (faint) possibility of criminal indictments being handed out. And anything that risks weakening the strength of the witness' testimony or attacking her character doesn't help.

They should have just stopped the hearing after the first half, yesterday. Would have been powerful enough.
Click to expand...
I’m living in the timeline where Obama-> Trump voters provided the decisive margin in 2016 and Trump-> Biden voters provided the decisive margin in 2020. This is reality and you should try to live in reality.
 
www.thedailybeast.com

Agents Denying Trump Freakout Claim Were His ‘Yes Men’: WaPo

“Some people accused them of at times being enablers,” Carol Leonnig said of Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel.
www.thedailybeast.com www.thedailybeast.com

When the hearing was going on and people said assault charges, I thought no way that SS agent would press charges. But are they that loyal to lie under oath? And Meadows was also in the room with Hutchinson. So unless he also denies the story, her testimony is factual.
 
HomerJS said:
I understand you pointing out motives of people like Corey Lewandowsky but just remember

This (24 woman at the time) while the capital was under attack and Mark Meadows was staring at his phone she stood up to her boss and told him you need to get the President to do something.

She may turn out to be a hero in all this mess
Click to expand...

I know weird times sort of like Dan Quayle saving Democracy. Strange but true.
 
Hans Gruber said:
When you have a 25 year female old testifying before congress. You have to ask yourself a couple of questions. Why is she calling these high ranking Trump officials by first names in her deposition. The next question is the insurrection happened a year and a half ago. That would put her at age 23-24. I suspect the purpose for the role in the Trump administration was for other purposes.
Click to expand...

WTF is this? What a sexist, misogynistic comment to make. I suppose she asked for it by wearing those skirts too?
I'd be willing to guess that most White House Aides are in that age range. You know, young attorneys (or future attorneys) or just people looking to get into that area after/during college graduation.

“As a first-generation college student, being selected to serve as an intern alongside some of the most intelligent and driven students from across the nation — many of whom attend top universities — was an honor and a tremendous growing experience,” she told her university in October 2018.

She once told her alma mater: “I have set a personal goal to pursue a path of civic significance.”
Click to expand...
 
gothuevos said:
You could argue that the entire committee's work, while vital, will probably change zero minds. This is probably true of all politics as of 2016.

Doesn't mean that they should expose their witnesses to RW media attacks.
Click to expand...
There is no point having this committee if they're going to keep revelations a secret or bury them in some long-ass report. The way they are currently structured provides bitesized material to share on social media and headline grabbing material for newspapers and 24-hour news.

You need to remember that most people are not very online.
 
eelw said:
www.thedailybeast.com

Agents Denying Trump Freakout Claim Were His ‘Yes Men’: WaPo

“Some people accused them of at times being enablers,” Carol Leonnig said of Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel.
www.thedailybeast.com www.thedailybeast.com

When the hearing was going on and people said assault charges, I thought no way that SS agent would press charges. But are they that loyal to lie under oath? And Meadows was also in the room with Hutchinson. So unless he also denies the story, her testimony is factual.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is entirely possible and even likely they would lie now. They are however welcome to come and give statements under oath. None of this "sources close to" stuff is sufficient for refuting sworn testimony.
 
Those fickle repubs in Colorado rejected 3 of Trump's picks for state wide office. Same thing happened in Mississippi. Big defeat for promoters of The Big Lie and another indication that Trump himself is becoming less relevant as the law closes in. DeSantis sure thinks so.

There hasn't been this kind of evidence of treason since the Civil War. GQP is losing believers daily thanks to J6. I hope Cassidy Hutchinson has been assigned a multitude of large armed people for protection, she basically just left Trump without legs. This is where reality and cognitive dissonance start to collide for those who chose Trump over the Constitution and their country. Tiki torches and Dodge Chargers inbound, watch it folks.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9998 said:
One thing you left out, probably because it likely won't affect Trump directly, is the witness intimidation evidence they showed. At least one e-mail there is a slam dunk felony. You do NOT say things like that to anyone about to testify under oath. In any event, prosecution or no, it was a smart strategy to show that to the public because it's likely to discourage further tampering.
Click to expand...

Yeah, on that, yet again, it's like they're trying a mob boss.
 
JD50 said:
No, you went with some lame ass "I never regret anything" non answer and then rambled about trump being crude and Joe Biden being old or something. You'll do anything to avoid admitting you were wrong and made a mistake lol, classic conservatism.
Click to expand...


Sorry you don't understand what the words "I have no regrets" mean.

How is that a Non-Answer?

You asked if I had any regrets voting for Trump.
I stated I have no regrets. And expended some with my answer...
Then you say I danced around your question with a non answer.

I finished with you as you obviously are being purposely obtuse.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Sorry you don't understand what the words "I have no regrets" mean.

How is that a Non-Answer?

You asked if I had any regrets voting for Trump.
I stated I have no regrets. And expended some with my answer...
Then you say I danced around your question with a non answer.

I finished with you as you obviously are being purposely obtuse.
Click to expand...

Angry man baby has no regrets about voting to burn America down. got it.
 
HomerJS said:
He has no regrets about voting for Trump in 2016 which means knowing what we know now he would make that decision again.

How sad for moral character
Click to expand...



Some more of your crystal ball intelligence. LOL

You have no idea what I am going to do in the voting booth.
 
ch33zw1z said:
Where's starbuck when you need him. He had plenty of mirrors and bullshit laying around.

Guy like pcgeek are unreachable. The cognitive dissonance is too much, especially as we age. Challenging one's reality and allowing factual information IN is very difficult for many, especially the older population

Assuredly, if Trump is to run and get nominated again....pcgeek will most certainly vote for him. He STILL contends Trump was a better choice than HRC
Click to expand...

Another guy with a crystal ball.
LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top