User Controls
THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2022-01-11 at 4:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by POLECAT in the infamous words of the great Steven K Bannon " TRUMP WON and you can all SUCK ON IT
I bet you and Rick know a hell of a lot about sucking on it during those cold, lonely, remote mountain nights. Just two good ol' American Patriots wrassling around with each other in a rat nest. -
2022-01-11 at 4:35 PM UTCThe rats are not the only ones getting loads blasted onto them in the Polecat household.
-
2022-01-11 at 5:16 PM UTC
-
2022-01-11 at 5:20 PM UTC
-
2022-01-11 at 5:27 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2022-01-11 at 6:13 PM UTC
-
2022-01-11 at 7:34 PM UTCMan, wouldn't you want to be
A man who could not
Get to be held to
Account for your actions?
Business Insider
'Let's stick with the facts': A federal judge rebuked Trump's lawyer's claim that he urged his supporters to be peaceful on January 6
ssheth@businessinsider.com (Sonam Sheth,C. Ryan Barber)
A judge dismissed Trump's lawyer's claim that he urged supporters to be peaceful on January 6, 2021.
"Let's stick with the facts," Judge Amit Mehta told Jesse Binnall, Trump's lawyer.
Mehta added that he wasn't interested in "whataboutism" or other hypotheticals.
A federal judge on Monday forced lawyers for former President Donald Trump to reckon with his hours of silence during the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, asking in court whether the president's initial inaction could be considered a tacit endorsement of the day's violence.
US District Judge Amit Mehta also rejected one lawyer's claim that Trump urged his supporters to be peaceful on that day, telling the attorney to "stick with the facts."
During a court hearing Monday, Mehta said that for a "two-hour period" on the day of the siege, Trump did not "take to Twitter or to any other type of communication and say, 'Stop. Get out of the Capitol. What you are doing is not what I wanted you to do.'"
"What would you have me do with the allegation that the president did not act?" Mehta, an Obama appointee who joined the federal bench in 2014, asked.
His question came during oral arguments over a trio of civil lawsuits filed by House Democrats and Capitol Police officers that allege Trump's incendiary rhetoric incited the Capitol breach. At a rally that preceded the siege, Trump told his supporters, "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
In court Monday, Mehta asked whether Trump's inaction could be considered "ratification" of that statement.
Trump's lawyer Jesse Binnall pushed back against the assertion that the former president could face legal consequences for action he didn't take.
"The president cannot be subject to judicial action for any sort of damages for failing to do something," Binnall said.
He added that the president told his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically" make their voices heard on January 6, 2021.
But that statement was outweighed, Mehta said, by Trump's earlier calls to "fight like hell" against the 2020 election results. Mehta said there was no doubt "threats" and "intimidation" were used on the day of the insurrection. He also said the main question was whether Trump's actions and statements incited the violence.
"Let's stick with the facts," Mehta said, adding that he wasn't "interested" in "whataboutism."
He continued pressing Binnall on whether Trump's call for his supporters to march to the Capitol and his use of words like "fight" and "show strength," which were followed by Trump's supporters storming the Capitol, satisfied the standards required to establish conspiracy.
"No," Binnall said.
"So the president, in your view, is both immune to inciting the riot and failing to stop it?" Mehta asked.
Binnall replied that "the president cannot be subject" to any judicial action because he "failed to do something."
Joseph Sellers, a lawyer for House Democrats, countered that claim and said the "fervor" and "energy" of Trump's supporters directly before the Capitol riot indicated that the president knew what they were planning to do.
But Mehta pushed back, telling Sellers the allegation of a conspiracy in this case was "unusual" and could be "problematic" because the lawsuit did not allege there was a direct meeting between the defendants, which include Trump, his then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and the far-right groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
Alleging a conspiracy in the absence of such a link is "dangerous" because the defendants couldn't necessarily have controlled the reaction of Trump's supporters, the judge said.
Sellers conceded the point but added that Trump "ratified" his supporters' actions after the Capitol riot.
Trump's initial silence during the Capitol breach has also come under scrutiny from the special House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack. The panel's top Republican, Rep. Liz Cheney, said last month that the committee was exploring the question of whether Trump, "through action or inaction," sought to impede Congress' certification of now-President Joe Biden's electoral victory.
The committee has released texts showing that Trump's allies — including his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and Fox News hosts — pleaded with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to have Trump order the violent mob to stand down. In the lawsuits against Trump, House Democrats pointed to his initial silence during the attack as evidence of an agreement with the mob to block the certification of Biden's victory. -
2022-01-11 at 7:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ You little goofs have failed dozens of times, without a single win.
How many times has Trump and his people "won" in their court challenges regarding the election? Not even Trump elected conservative justices in red states were willing to give his bullshit a day in their courtrooms.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-01-11 at 7:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Solstice How many times has Trump and his people "won" in their court challenges regarding the election? Not even Trump elected conservative justices in red states were willing to give his bullshit a day in their courtrooms.
Tomorrow is when it goes down, didn't you know? Tomorrow is the big day. Don't say I didn't tell you so.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-01-11 at 8:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 Man, wouldn't you want to be
A man who could not
Get to be held to
Account for your actions?
Business Insider
'Let's stick with the facts': A federal judge rebuked Trump's lawyer's claim that he urged his supporters to be peaceful on January 6
ssheth@businessinsider.com (Sonam Sheth,C. Ryan Barber)
A judge dismissed Trump's lawyer's claim that he urged supporters to be peaceful on January 6, 2021.
"Let's stick with the facts," Judge Amit Mehta told Jesse Binnall, Trump's lawyer.
Mehta added that he wasn't interested in "whataboutism" or other hypotheticals.
A federal judge on Monday forced lawyers for former President Donald Trump to reckon with his hours of silence during the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, asking in court whether the president's initial inaction could be considered a tacit endorsement of the day's violence.
US District Judge Amit Mehta also rejected one lawyer's claim that Trump urged his supporters to be peaceful on that day, telling the attorney to "stick with the facts."
During a court hearing Monday, Mehta said that for a "two-hour period" on the day of the siege, Trump did not "take to Twitter or to any other type of communication and say, 'Stop. Get out of the Capitol. What you are doing is not what I wanted you to do.'"
"What would you have me do with the allegation that the president did not act?" Mehta, an Obama appointee who joined the federal bench in 2014, asked.
His question came during oral arguments over a trio of civil lawsuits filed by House Democrats and Capitol Police officers that allege Trump's incendiary rhetoric incited the Capitol breach. At a rally that preceded the siege, Trump told his supporters, "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
In court Monday, Mehta asked whether Trump's inaction could be considered "ratification" of that statement.
Trump's lawyer Jesse Binnall pushed back against the assertion that the former president could face legal consequences for action he didn't take.
"The president cannot be subject to judicial action for any sort of damages for failing to do something," Binnall said.
He added that the president told his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically" make their voices heard on January 6, 2021.
But that statement was outweighed, Mehta said, by Trump's earlier calls to "fight like hell" against the 2020 election results. Mehta said there was no doubt "threats" and "intimidation" were used on the day of the insurrection. He also said the main question was whether Trump's actions and statements incited the violence.
"Let's stick with the facts," Mehta said, adding that he wasn't "interested" in "whataboutism."
He continued pressing Binnall on whether Trump's call for his supporters to march to the Capitol and his use of words like "fight" and "show strength," which were followed by Trump's supporters storming the Capitol, satisfied the standards required to establish conspiracy.
"No," Binnall said.
"So the president, in your view, is both immune to inciting the riot and failing to stop it?" Mehta asked.
Binnall replied that "the president cannot be subject" to any judicial action because he "failed to do something."
Joseph Sellers, a lawyer for House Democrats, countered that claim and said the "fervor" and "energy" of Trump's supporters directly before the Capitol riot indicated that the president knew what they were planning to do.
But Mehta pushed back, telling Sellers the allegation of a conspiracy in this case was "unusual" and could be "problematic" because the lawsuit did not allege there was a direct meeting between the defendants, which include Trump, his then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and the far-right groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
Alleging a conspiracy in the absence of such a link is "dangerous" because the defendants couldn't necessarily have controlled the reaction of Trump's supporters, the judge said.
Sellers conceded the point but added that Trump "ratified" his supporters' actions after the Capitol riot.
Trump's initial silence during the Capitol breach has also come under scrutiny from the special House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack. The panel's top Republican, Rep. Liz Cheney, said last month that the committee was exploring the question of whether Trump, "through action or inaction," sought to impede Congress' certification of now-President Joe Biden's electoral victory.
The committee has released texts showing that Trump's allies — including his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and Fox News hosts — pleaded with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to have Trump order the violent mob to stand down. In the lawsuits against Trump, House Democrats pointed to his initial silence during the attack as evidence of an agreement with the mob to block the certification of Biden's victory.
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. Give it up, loser. Your farces aren't going anywhere. -
2022-01-12 at 1:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Tomorrow is when it goes down, didn't you know? Tomorrow is the big day. Don't say I didn't tell you so.
tomorrow is when Washington state makes a move to detain citizens for not being Vaxed, if they have the balls to try it it will be a bad day for america because the war will start at the first loggers house -
2022-01-12 at 1:58 AM UTC
-
2022-01-12 at 2:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by POLECAT
was just reading about this
new documents seem to indicate that Fauci's Eco Health Alliance initially went to the DoD for funding and facilities but the DoD thought it was too (politically) dangerous for them to be openly facilitating 'gain of function' research and forcing evolution/creating new strains.
as a result, EHA went looking for private facilities to do their research, which is how they ended up working in Wuhan where they synthesised multiple viruses based on existing bat coronaviruses. when brought up, Fauci didn't deny any of it, only argued that the research being done didn't meet the definition of 'gain of function'.
people are also talking about the MRN'A vaccines being based on one of the original synthetic EHA viruses (considering research was already being done before the outbreak), which would indicate that one of them did indeed evolve into COVID19, but I haven't seen any evidence for this.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-01-12 at 2:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra was just reading about this
new documents seem to indicate that Fauci's Eco Health Alliance initially went to the DoD for funding and facilities but the DoD thought it was too (politically) dangerous for them to be openly facilitating 'gain of function' research and forcing evolution/creating new strains.
as a result, EHA went looking for private facilities to do their research, which is how they ended up working in Wuhan where they synthesised multiple viruses based on existing bat coronaviruses. when brought up, Fauci didn't deny any of it, only argued that the research being done didn't meet the definition of 'gain of function'.
people are also talking about the MRN'A vaccines being based on one of the original synthetic EHA viruses (considering research was already being done before the outbreak), which would indicate that one of them did indeed evolve into COVID19, but I haven't seen any evidence for this.
Thank you for summarizing a rollfat video in such a way that I now intend to watch it.
Edit: why does it have to be project cuckitas? Isn't anyone else talking about this? -
2022-01-12 at 3:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo Thank you for summarizing a rollfat video in such a way that I now intend to watch it.
Edit: why does it have to be project cuckitas? Isn't anyone else talking about this?
nobody wants to touch it, especially if they have a platform that relies on the FAGMANs
I didn't watch much of the video, but the guy in the beginning - Dr. Robert Malone - was one of the original inventors of the MRN'A delivery technology and even he got booted off twitter when he started talking about the inherent risks and motivations of the mass rollout (ie. possible reproductive harm, 'leaky' immunity leading to ADE, historically a bad idea to run vaccination drives DURING an epidemic etc.).The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-01-12 at 8:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra people are also talking about the MRN'A vaccines being based on one of the original synthetic EHA viruses (considering research was already being done before the outbreak), which would indicate that one of them did indeed evolve into COVID19, but I haven't seen any evidence for this.
actually here:
https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxclc9/2mVob3c1aDd8CNvVnyei6n/95af7dbfd2958d4c2b8494048b4889b5/JAG_Docs_pt1_Og_WATERMARK_OVER_Redacted.pdf
again, documents haven't been proven genuine -
2022-01-12 at 1:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra was just reading about this
new documents seem to indicate that Fauci's Eco Health Alliance initially went to the DoD for funding and facilities but the DoD thought it was too (politically) dangerous for them to be openly facilitating 'gain of function' research and forcing evolution/creating new strains.
as a result, EHA went looking for private facilities to do their research, which is how they ended up working in Wuhan where they synthesised multiple viruses based on existing bat coronaviruses. when brought up, Fauci didn't deny any of it, only argued that the research being done didn't meet the definition of 'gain of function'.
people are also talking about the MRN'A vaccines being based on one of the original synthetic EHA viruses (considering research was already being done before the outbreak), which would indicate that one of them did indeed evolve into COVID19, but I haven't seen any evidence for this.
I think we need to look at the fact they changed the definition of gain of function, when did they change it?
what did it say before and what did it say after?
who had the authority to change the definition? -
2022-01-12 at 1:42 PM UTCMy dick didn't fall off guiz!
-
2022-01-12 at 1:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by POLECAT I think we need to look at the fact they changed the definition of gain of function, when did they change it?
what did it say before and what did it say after?
who had the authority to change the definition?
They just changed it on their website, and started bullshitting.
They don't get to define words. No one does.
They're just a gang of arseholes, same as eveyone else.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-01-12 at 3:57 PM UTCORANGE MAN BAD
Top Republicans stand up for Rounds after Trump's attack: He 'told the truth'
By Manu Raju, CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent
Senior Republicans are closing ranks behind Sen. Mike Rounds after he endured a scathing attack from former President Donald Trump for acknowledging the reality that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
Top Republicans stand up for Rounds after Trump's attack: He 'told the truth'
"I think Sen. Rounds told the truth about what happened in the 2020 election," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN on Tuesday. "And I agree with him."
The back-and-forth is the latest sign that many Republicans -- particularly in the Senate -- are eager to move past the former President's obsession with the 2020 elections and instead focus on more fertile ground: The Biden agenda and their efforts to take back both houses of Congress in 2022.
Yet, Trump continues to hover over the party given his outsize influence with the base, his close hold over House Republicans and his ability to generate attention over his outright falsehoods and conspiracies over the outcome of the 2020 election. That has prompted concerns among senior Republicans that his claims over the election could depress GOP voter turnout in the fall, something that a number of senators blame for costing them the two Georgia Senate seats -- and the majority -- last January.
The latest blowup came over the weekend after Rounds said that any voting "irregularities" in 2020 wouldn't have changed the outcome of the race.
"The election was fair, as fair as we have seen. We simply did not win the election, as Republicans, for the presidency," Rounds told ABC News.
That fact-based comment prompted a broadside from the former President, who called Rounds a "jerk" and "ineffective" and vowed "never" to endorse Rounds for reelection, though he's not facing voters again until 2026.
"Is he crazy or just stupid?" Trump said in a statement.
Rounds, who has a low-key and genial demeanor and is well-regarded by his colleagues, stood by his comments -- and said he was "disappointed but not surprised" by Trump's statement. Rounds told CNN on Tuesday that Republicans need to speak the truth to voters about 2020 so they can have trust in the results of free and fair elections in 2022 and beyond.
"Nobody is out looking for confrontations," Rounds said, defending his remarks. "What we are looking for is to be able to provide good information in a timely fashion, but to be seen as being responsible and being honest. I think that's what the American people deserve. And I think that's what many of us want to do. We're not looking to fight. What we're looking is, is to say here are the facts, and they're not going to change."
Rounds added: "Why are we having that discussion today? I think because we're getting closer and closer to 2022, in which we want people to get out and vote. We want them to have faith in the election process. We want them to feel like they're a part of it and that their vote really matters."
Even some Trump allies came to Rounds' defense on Tuesday.
"I've always said I agree that the election was not stolen -- at least to the degree that it was illegal theft," said Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican who contended Democrats took advantage of more voting rules eased during the pandemic. "I've moved on a long time ago, and most members of Congress have, including Mike."
Other Republicans said it was time to focus on something other than 2020.
"I say to my colleague, welcome to the club," Sen. John Thune, the senior South Dakota Republican said of the Trump attack on Rounds -- something he has endured himself in the past. "I don't think re-litigating or rehashing the past is a winning strategy. If we want to be a majority in 2023, we've got to get out and articulate what we're going to do with respect to the future the American people are going to live and the things they're going to care about when it comes to economic issues, national security issues."
Many Republicans were angered over the personal nature of Trump's attacks against Rounds, who lost his wife in November after a battle with cancer.
"I take great exception to anybody that calls Mike Rounds a jerk," said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican. "Because he's one of the kindest, nicest, most sincere members that we have."
Still, some Republicans wanted to stay above the fray.
"Nothing to add to what's already out there," Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican and member of GOP leadership, said when asked about the episode.
