In light of the confirmatory texts above, BG's ridiculous defenses of Trump and attacks on Hutchinson now look even more desperate. He offered a bizarre conspiracy theory that Ornato and Engel had offered testimony that contradicted Hutchinson and that the committee had kept secret. He claimed that her testimony had been "debunked (or at least questioned)".
He pretended like Occam's Razor supported his argument when in fact Occam's Razor really just supported the committee having far more information than we shared and understanding that they needed to present a version of events that would hold up to scrutiny. At every step, BG criticized the committee's work and made unsupported speculative arguments that they were misleading the public by not adhering to the rules of a criminal trial (with conservatives like BG identifying with Trump as the accused) rather than all of congress which should have been invested in finding the truth and presenting it to the public.
The more that comes out, the more we find that the committee was thoughtful in how it chose to present things to the public and careful not to advance unsupportable views. Occam's Razor would make that obvious but BG is such a partisan defender of Trump that he was forced to construct quite risible alternative scenarios to challenge what at the time was regarded as compelling and credible testimony.
It started out pathetic but with time, BG's opinion has only looked worse. I doubt things will get better for his view. Occam's Razor indeed.
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
BG - I know you totally don't like Trump, but can you tell us all why this witness tampering either probably (maybe) didn't happen or if it did it's no big deal or why democrats are even worse?
As I've already said, if this happened as described in the politico article, it represents the most serious possibility that someone is going to jail (as they should).
Let's see how this plays out - just yesterday I was being told by you and others that anonymous reports not given under oath are not worth much. I have no confidence that the committee is an honest broker of the evidence - they don't even pretend to be. Its a little like the parable about the boy who cried wolf (and Trump for that matter), they lie and mislead so often you have no idea when they might actually be telling the truth. To assume they are is foolhardy.
And that's the overriding problem. People like you will believe its true without question - because you want it to be. People who support Trump (not me), believe it to be false without question because they want it to be.
And personally, I want to see all the evidence because I know for a fact that what is being presented by the committee makes no pretense of being complete, fair, or honest. I reject this process as being partisan and incredibly damaging to the country. In terms of criminal charges, I'll be fine either way with the proviso that anyone shown to be witness tampering - after all the evidence is reviewed in an adversarial setting - should go to jail.
And until all the evidence is released (or at least the opposing evidence and argument), people are foolish to believe what they are being shoveled by the likes of Adam Schiff and Cheney, both of whom are proven prevaricators. If you think I'm overly skeptical - that's fine. I have no problem with that. I'll wear that quite proudly and suggest that we'd be better off if everyone demanded all evidence before making conclusions.
First - calling this process partisan is in itself extremely misleading. Pretending like bipartisanship was an option is frankly ridiculous. Your republican party, including every single person you vote for, rejected the very notion that there should be an investigation. So this select committee, with Cheney as vice-chair, was the most bipartisan option available.
Second - you continue to say that the committee "lie and mislead so often". Can you point us to some proof of their lies? Can you point me to evidence that supports your assertion without relying on unsourced speculation?
Third - the notion that they would have released all of their evidence publicly by this point is fanciful and you are smart enough to know that. I readily acknowledge they've taken lots of criticism (from the DOJ and others) for not sharing the information they've gathered with the DOJ and unless there is something I'm missing I will join that chorus if they don't eventually release everything to law enforcement, but it would be absolutely ludicrous for them to release thousands of hours of testimony right now.
As for your bizarre conspiracy that they've heard sworn testimony from Engel and Ornato that they believe is reliable and that contradicts what Hutchinson testified to this week is frankly bonkers. You really think they would do that? For something so inconsequential? It would be an epic blunder if they didn't have ultimate confidence that Hutchinson's statements were either corroborated by trustworthy third parties or some other evidence or that they can impeach the contrary testimony of Ornato/Engel. It's entirely possible, for example, that Ornato and Engel told the same story to more than just Hutchinson.
Ultimately, as is always the story with you, you try to take the high road by saying you don't support Trump, but you come back 10x as hard at anyone who says anything to point out his misconduct or the misconduct of Republicans in service of Trump. Everyone here sees you for who you are and you are fooling exactly no one.
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
Right on cue, BG shows up, starts namecalling and defending Trump, but is totally not defending Trump.
I'm not going to speculate on exactly why the comm. chose to have Hutchinson publicly testify but I find your conspiracy theory quite improbable.
Occams razor. My "conspiracy theory" is wanting to see the evidence that the committee has but won't share. As you probably know, in a legal proceeding "If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence." So my "conspiracy theory" is black letter law.
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/203/
And why am I not shocked that you consider anyone who disagrees with you as defending trump. So lazy and silly .
Curiously, you've never responded to my overriding point. Do you think its good for the country for one political party to hold show trial hearings where the opposing party's chosen members are excluded and the rules are designed to prevent the opposing party from obtaining and presenting its own evidence? Will you be ok with that when the Republican's do it in January 2023?
LOL, you really think citing the evidence code is relevant to this proceeding? Give me a break.
As for your "overriding point" that has been addressed time and time again. The "opposing party" has no interest in a fair process. Just so we are all clear, the "opposing party" is your Republican Party and is 100% in allegiance to the guy you have said you oppose - Trump. Stop pretending like the GOP is some reasonable group who wants to have an open and honest discussion about what happened on Jan 6. We know you are disingenuous but no one believes that you are that naive.
I'll ask just to be sure: what do you think a reasonable bipartisan investigation would look like into Jan 6 and what evidence do you have that the GOP genuinely had an interest in engaging in such a process?
