A bad day for Trump
-
@Larry So now you admit it wasn't a limo, good. And that the SUV doesn't have a partition, good. We are making progress.
The "beast" can be used to reference the presential SUV, you know. Well you might not know, but now you do. But it is not officially "the beast", that is only the limo.
Also she said he reached "at" the steering wheel, which is completely possible from the back seats if he leans forward. Pretty sure you could do that. I know I could. I would imagine, if true, he was not trying to literally drive but was making a point that he would drive if needed to get to the Capitol.
@89th said in A bad day for Trump:
@Larry So now you admit it wasn't a limo, good. And that the SUV doesn't have a partition, good. We are making progress.
The "beast" can be used to reference the presential SUV, you know. Well you might not know, but now you do. But it is not officially "the beast", that is only the limo.
Also she said he reached "at" the steering wheel, which is completely possible from the back seats if he leans forward. Pretty sure you could do that. I know I could. I would imagine, if true, he was not trying to literally drive but was making a point that he would drive if needed to get to the Capitol.
That has to be the most twisted thing I've read today..
BWAHAHAHAHAAAA
-
The full conversation is interesting. As Julie Kelly pointed out, the MSM took an uncorroborated story from an unknown aide with a thin resume, who offered mostly second and third hand accounts of conversations and incidents, and reported it as fact.
Is it any wonder Americans don't trust the media?
-
@89th said in A bad day for Trump:
@Larry So now you admit it wasn't a limo, good. And that the SUV doesn't have a partition, good. We are making progress.
The "beast" can be used to reference the presential SUV, you know. Well you might not know, but now you do. But it is not officially "the beast", that is only the limo.
Also she said he reached "at" the steering wheel, which is completely possible from the back seats if he leans forward. Pretty sure you could do that. I know I could. I would imagine, if true, he was not trying to literally drive but was making a point that he would drive if needed to get to the Capitol.
Prithee, how can a sixty-something year-old man reach across three secret service agnts to grab a steering wheel from the back seat?
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
Prithee, how can a sixty-something year-old man reach across three secret service agnts to grab a steering wheel from the back seat?
Grab at*
-
Washington Examiner’s (not Washington Post) editorial on Hutchinson’s testimony as it relates to Trump:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again
The Washington Examiner is usually very pro-Trump, and this op-ed is from the Washington Examiner’s editorial board (not some individual contributor). Go ahead and read it, you know you want to.
-
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
Prithee, how can a sixty-something year-old man reach across three secret service agnts to grab a steering wheel from the back seat?
Grab at*
@89th said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
Prithee, how can a sixty-something year-old man reach across three secret service agnts to grab a steering wheel from the back seat?
Grab at*
It's just locker room talk.
-
Washington Examiner’s (not Washington Post) editorial on Hutchinson’s testimony as it relates to Trump:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again
The Washington Examiner is usually very pro-Trump, and this op-ed is from the Washington Examiner’s editorial board (not some individual contributor). Go ahead and read it, you know you want to.
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
Washington Examiner’s (not Washington Post) editorial on Hutchinson’s testimony as it relates to Trump:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again
The Washington Examiner is usually very pro-Trump, and this op-ed is from the Washington Examiner’s editorial board (not some individual contributor). Go ahead and read it, you know you want to.
Note. The editorial appeared on the 29th and was probably written right after her "testimony".
My, don't they look stupid....
-
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
Prithee, how can a sixty-something year-old man reach across three secret service agnts to grab a steering wheel from the back seat?
Grab at*
@89th said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
Prithee, how can a sixty-something year-old man reach across three secret service agnts to grab a steering wheel from the back seat?
Grab at*
In other words, if he waved at the crowd, he grabbed at the steering wheel.
Yeah, I got it.
-
Wait a minute, didn't @89th once tell us he had a friend that was a Whitehouse Aid? Any chance this Cassidy is the one?
-
Wait a minute, didn't @89th once tell us he had a friend that was a Whitehouse Aid? Any chance this Cassidy is the one?
@LuFins-Dad said in A bad day for Trump:
Wait a minute, didn't @89th once tell us he had a friend that was a Whitehouse Aid? Any chance this Cassidy is the one?
By jove!, I think you've got it!
89th, is the fact you were having sex with this woman influence your perception of this event?
-
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
She changed to a Democrat lawyer three weeks before her testimony.
She changed to a lawyer who was nominated by Trump to lead the DOJ’s Civil Division and was formerly US Attorney General Jeff Session’s Chief of Staff. That’s not a “Democrat lawyer.”
Now that I have shown you a falsehood in what you said, are you going to “Uncle Henry” everything else you say here? Should @George-K “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” everything else you say here?
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
She changed to a Democrat lawyer three weeks before her testimony.
She changed to a lawyer who was nominated by Trump to lead the DOJ’s Civil Division and was formerly US Attorney General Jeff Session’s Chief of Staff. That’s not a “Democrat lawyer.”
Now that I have shown you a falsehood in what you said, are you going to “Uncle Henry” everything else you say here? Should @George-K “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” everything else you say here?
It turns out pro-Trump groups have been paying the lawyers for some of the witnesses who testified or subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 committee:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trump-allies-paid-legal-fees-110138603.html
Hutchinson’s previous lawyer, one who served as an ethics lawyer for the Trump White House, was also paid by a pro-Trump PAC.
Having tried to discredit Hutchinson by wrongly characterizing her new lawyer as a “Democrat lawyer,” would @Jolly now question the credibility of the other witnesses who testified or gave depositions while being advised by lawyers paid by pro-Trump groups?
-
As I have say previously, the list of very close President Trump aides/ministers/chiefs of staff, etc who have come out and spoken not complimentary towards him is quite high.
If it were just one minor person, okay, I guess you could call it a "disgruntled employee". But, when it is not just one person, it is multiple, and it is not people on the outer circle, but people very close to the President, who have a lot of experience, a lot of long term positive service, it has the ring of truth.
Anytime anyone says something against President Trump, President Trump and his followers have a card which they can choose one of the following:
A. That person was bad to begin with. President Trumps only hired them as he felt sorry for them
B. They never were a Republican.
C. They are not a true American
D. They are liar and only trying to make money off of President Trump
E. They hated President Trump from the beginning
F. They spoke against President Trump and refused to kiss his shoe. Therefore, they are automatically wrong.
etc.I thought President Trump was incorrect when he said that he could shoot a person on New York city, and his followers would not care. Now, I think he is correct.
I am astounded that there is still a large group of people who think that President Trump is the best person to lead the US.
Is everything in the Jan 6 commission 100% accurate? Probably not. But I believe that the amount of truth is a lot closer to 100% than it is to 50%.
-
It's all how you frame the narrative.
On Friday, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the House select committee, declared that former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone”did not contradict” the testimony of previous witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson. However, the New York Times is reporting that he was not asked about statements that the Committee knew he would contradict.
-
God, I hope not. We have a very strong bench coming up of folks who would be better presidents.
@Mik said in A bad day for Trump:
God, I hope not. We have a very strong bench coming up of folks who would be better presidents.
I agree. I'd like to see him stay active but in the background. But it may just be that his bulldozer style is needed now more than ever.
