convoluted wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:43 am"I was told that someone had heard someone say that ..." ... "something to the effect of ..". ... "something to the effect of ..." ... "something to the effect of ..." ... "something to the effect of ..."
The Committee.Gumboot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:18 amconvoluted wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:43 am"I was told that someone had heard someone say that ..." ... "something to the effect of ..". ... "something to the effect of ..." ... "something to the effect of ..." ... "something to the effect of ..."
Why haven't the secret service agents involved strongly refuted her testimony under oath yet? They've had a week already - what's holding them back?
One of them did, to which Cheney asked them to come forward and testify under oath. And they've never been heard from again.Gumboot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:18 amconvoluted wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:43 am"I was told that someone had heard someone say that ..." ... "something to the effect of ..". ... "something to the effect of ..." ... "something to the effect of ..." ... "something to the effect of ..."
Why haven't the secret service agents involved strongly refuted her testimony under oath yet? They've had a week already - what's holding them back?
Snooze wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 2:20 pmOne of them did, to which Cheney asked them to come forward and testify under oath. And they've never been heard from again.Gumboot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:18 amconvoluted wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:43 am"I was told that someone had heard someone say that ..." ... "something to the effect of ..". ... "something to the effect of ..." ... "something to the effect of ..." ... "something to the effect of ..."
Why haven't the secret service agents involved strongly refuted her testimony under oath yet? They've had a week already - what's holding them back?
The first 60 seconds of that Fox thing is so, . . . well, . . . Trump. First words out of his mouth . . . " some low level junior . . . ". So blatantly wrong.
Except she wasn't a nobody. She was aide to Mark Meadows. His only aide.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:23 pmSnooze wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 2:20 pmOne of them did, to which Cheney asked them to come forward and testify under oath. And they've never been heard from again.
The first 60 seconds of that Fox thing is so, . . . well, . . . Trump. First words out of his mouth . . . " some low level junior . . . ". So blatantly wrong.
Part of that is almost worth a follow up, because she is a low level junior nothing. In ordinary times there would be a question around how the hell were people with so little in the way of qualifications be getting those jobs, that would have been the 'scandal'
Which is the weird part as that's a fairly big job, but they give it to a kid just out of college who previously worked as an intern for them, and things shouldn't be so amateur was my thought there. So she was/is something of a nobody given her lack of experience and yet in all the madness that's barely anything one would have time to ponder onSnooze wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:45 pmExcept she wasn't a nobody. She was aide to Mark Meadows. His only aide.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:23 pmSnooze wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 2:20 pm
One of them did, to which Cheney asked them to come forward and testify under oath. And they've never been heard from again.
The first 60 seconds of that Fox thing is so, . . . well, . . . Trump. First words out of his mouth . . . " some low level junior . . . ". So blatantly wrong.
Part of that is almost worth a follow up, because she is a low level junior nothing. In ordinary times there would be a question around how the hell were people with so little in the way of qualifications be getting those jobs, that would have been the 'scandal'
But it was a theme for Trumps' WH staff. Just take a look across the board. Most of them young white females. No idea how he and his minions employment screening went, but it all came down to the same type. Reading and listening to the Jan 6 committee is proving quite enlightening to me.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 1:22 pmWhich is the weird part as that's a fairly big job, but they give it to a kid just out of college who previously worked as an intern for them, and things shouldn't be so amateur was my thought there. So she was/is something of a nobody given her lack of experience and yet in all the madness that's barely anything one would have time to ponder onSnooze wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:45 pmExcept she wasn't a nobody. She was aide to Mark Meadows. His only aide.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:23 pm
Part of that is almost worth a follow up, because she is a low level junior nothing. In ordinary times there would be a question around how the hell were people with so little in the way of qualifications be getting those jobs, that would have been the 'scandal'
Master class of getting descriptors correct.Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:11 pm A pile of dogshit, moulded into human form and clad in a suit, also known as Joe Manchin, has again delivered for his owners by stating he won't back his own party's efforts to support more funding for climate action, and also any higher taxes on the rich or on corporations
Effectively one man rules American legislation right now, and as ever, it's a man who gives not a fuck for anything but temporarily slaking his insatiable hunger for money from any source, no matter how shitty, in return for his dog like obedience to their requirements.
What a piece of fucking shit he is.
It's one broken country. Talking about RINO, Greitens is taking politics to a new level.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:35 amWilson's Toffee wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 8:56 am
A last, desperate struggle before her constituency kicks the flabby assed RINO under her flabby butt....and she knows it !
If anyone's a RINO it's these delusional Trump cultists that favour theocracy over the constitution.
This is a bit distasteful. While we all enjoy robust debate etc., slagging our pet hates thus is quite self-demeaning. It is also quite slanderous, can lead to repercussions for the bored owners.EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 1:06 pm See Trump had his ex killed by Putin. Probably because of all the rape and stuff he did be doing to her
One could use the same legal defence as Team Trump, that no reasonable person would believe a word of what they sayWilson's Toffee wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:57 amThis is a bit distasteful. While we all enjoy robust debate etc., slagging our pet hates thus is quite self-demeaning. It is also quite slanderous, can lead to repercussions for the bored owners.EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 1:06 pm See Trump had his ex killed by Putin. Probably because of all the rape and stuff he did be doing to her
I'm not saying that trump is linked to a global child sex ring but you can do your own research and draw your own conclusions.EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 8:18 am Wilson is rattled. I am close to the truth #stairgate #NYdeposition #bitrapey
I was amused by the assertion that it was basic business that private companies had to have a guaranteed profit.Hugo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 12:20 am https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/lo ... 062910002/
Not sure if this belongs in this thread, but seems a reasonable place to put it. .
Prisoners are forced to work 40 hours a week for peanuts in profit making prisons. Then the state govt guarantees a 90% occupancy rate and so will pay the private prison company for any empty beds.
This economic model is essentially slavery combined with public subsidy of private enterprise.
Also what about the actual private businesses trying to compete with an organisation that doesn't have payroll costs?weegie01 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 10:04 amI was amused by the assertion that it was basic business that private companies had to have a guaranteed profit.Hugo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 12:20 am https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/lo ... 062910002/
Not sure if this belongs in this thread, but seems a reasonable place to put it. .
Prisoners are forced to work 40 hours a week for peanuts in profit making prisons. Then the state govt guarantees a 90% occupancy rate and so will pay the private prison company for any empty beds.
This economic model is essentially slavery combined with public subsidy of private enterprise.
Call me old fashioned, but I always thought it was basic business that there was a risk of not making a profit
In certain sectors there’s no competition because prison labour has undercut any private industry so much. Something like 90% of the number plates in the USA are made in prisons.Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 10:09 amAlso what about the actual private businesses trying to compete with an organisation that doesn't have payroll costs?weegie01 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 10:04 amI was amused by the assertion that it was basic business that private companies had to have a guaranteed profit.Hugo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 12:20 am https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/lo ... 062910002/
Not sure if this belongs in this thread, but seems a reasonable place to put it. .
Prisoners are forced to work 40 hours a week for peanuts in profit making prisons. Then the state govt guarantees a 90% occupancy rate and so will pay the private prison company for any empty beds.
This economic model is essentially slavery combined with public subsidy of private enterprise.
Call me old fashioned, but I always thought it was basic business that there was a risk of not making a profit
Pretty much any business in NJ if you can eliminate property, sales and income tax.
Trump and family used her death as a reason not to testify...So he went and did some rallies....Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 9:59 amPretty much any business in NJ if you can eliminate property, sales and income tax.
Though I don't know quite where the Trump's would stand claiming it's a cemetery business
She could hardly do anything else, & the Chinese knew damn well that once they made a stink, there wasn't a chance of her not visiting.TB63 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:44 pm Looks like Nancy on her way to Taiwan..
SPAR19 from Kuala Lumpur https://fr24.com/SPAR19/2ce4f83f
Can you justify your assertion of 'bullshit'?TB63 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:42 pm Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
6m
The Unselect Committee of Political Thugs has not devoted one hour to the massive Election Fraud and Irregularities that took place in the 2020 Presidential Election, the reason that hundreds of thousands of people went to Washington on January 6th. When will they start? The Unselects also refuse to look at why Crazy Nancy Pelosi and the Mayor of D.C. turned down from 10-20,000 troops. Why is this, I wonder?
Because it's bullshit you twat...
Trump’s own Secretary for Defence when under oath and not on Fox.convoluted wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 1:18 amCan you justify your assertion of 'bullshit'?TB63 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:42 pm Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
6m
The Unselect Committee of Political Thugs has not devoted one hour to the massive Election Fraud and Irregularities that took place in the 2020 Presidential Election, the reason that hundreds of thousands of people went to Washington on January 6th. When will they start? The Unselects also refuse to look at why Crazy Nancy Pelosi and the Mayor of D.C. turned down from 10-20,000 troops. Why is this, I wonder?
Because it's bullshit you twat...
People present in his office when Trump made the offer have confirmed it. So on what basis do you make your statement?
Now of course if Pelosi's correspondence was made public we would know for sure, wouldn't we?
But anything related to Pelosi is strictly off of bounds. Given that security of the Capitol is her brief, and that the whole point is that on the day in question the Capitol was breached, then how do you justify that the Jan 6 Committee, which claimed to seek the truth behind the events, completely ignored disclosure of any security offers given to Pelosi?
n the audio clip, a questioner asks Miller whether there is “any accuracy” to Meadows’s statement. Miller’s reply:
Not from my perspective. I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature. So, I was surprised by seeing that publicly . . . we obviously had plans for activating more folks, but that was not anything more than contingency planning. There was no official message traffic or anything of that nature.
The questioner follows up: “Just so we’re clear, you did not have 10,000 troops, quote ‘to be on the ready’ . . . prior to January 6th?”
Miller: “A non-military person probably could have some sort of weird interpretation, but no, to answer your question, that was not part of my plan or the Department of Defense’s plan.”
Questioner: “To be crystal clear, there was no direct order from President Trump to put 10,000 troops ‘to be on the ready’ for January 6th, correct?”
Miller: “That’s correct. There was no direct—there was no order from the president.”
