Oh FFS. I had high hopes for her, turns out she’s just an opportunistic dirtbag like all the rest of them



Nikki Haley breaks with Trump: 'We shouldn't have followed him'

The last few times I’ve heard her name in the news over the last year or so, it’s been attached to actions or statements that entirely surprised me. What a disappointment.

Haley is an absolute joke who very much wants to be a part of the establishment. She would sell her children to be accepted in DC.

PASig, et.al.,

I lost ALL hope and respect for Nikki Haley when she folded like a cheap, Chinese-made, POS Walmart lawn chair and took down the Confederate Flag from the Capitol of South Carolina. That act...THAT act right there...was supposed to end racism for ALL ETERNITY! The Demophukks can't AFFORD to end racism. On what other issue would they run for office?? I saw then AND I see now that action was total BULLSHIT and just Nikki placating to the woke, ANTIFA, and the beginnings of BLM. She's a swamp rat bitch just like the rest of 'em and she can take that horse she rode in on and have coitus with it.

Well the Senate voted this morning to hear witnesses. That means that this sham of a trial will go on for weeks if not months. What a cluster F***!

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
Well the Senate voted this morning to hear witnesses. That means that this sham of a trial will go on for weeks if not months. What a cluster F***!

Jim

WTF!? I was expecting this soap opera to be done by tonight. Weeks to months?

Well, whatever. The more the Senate wastes its time on this nonsense, the longer Biden's agenda gets put on hold. Have at it, jerks.

I doubt there will be more than a dozen witnesses, likely even less. No one wants this dragged out, not even Dems.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
this sham of a trial will go on for weeks if not months...

... wasting more time and money that should be used in the interests of We the People.

Grr.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:

... wasting more time and money that should be used in the interests of We the People.

Grr.

I hope they spend the next two to four years on this mirage.

wasting more time on this charade means less time spent fucking us over

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
I doubt there will be more than a dozen witnesses, likely even less. No one wants this dragged out, not even Dems.

The longer it goes on can only be a bad thing for the dims. Not only for highlighting the illegitimacy of the proceedings, wouldn't it open the door to a lot of evidence they want to bury?

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Nikki Haley breaks with Trump: 'We shouldn't have followed him'

This isn't new. Haley turned on Trump a few years ago as well. I cannot remember if it was the "grab 'em" comment, or something else, but she has already shown she will turn on him in a heartbeat. She's an opportunist, or someone who is easily led by others. Either way, her chances at being President or VP are over, and they should have been over some time ago.



.

And now the Senate will not call witnesses.

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:
And now the Senate will not call witnesses.

Because it will expose the sham even further. With the volume of witnesses the President's team is willing to call, it would be impossible for the media to silence all of it.



.

Ted Cruz provides the questions he would have asked

If the House Managers call Rep Herrera Beutler as a witness, the first witness Trump’s lawyers should call is Nancy Pelosi. Several Qs she should answer:

What did you know about threats to the Capitol?

When?

Did you turn down national guard because of “optics”?

"Pelosi can testify as to when she knew about the threats on the Capitol, what she knew specifically, and in particular, she can testify – we heard already that the House Sergeant-at-Arms turned down National Guard protection for the Capitol on Jan. 6 because 'the optics.' And I think Speaker Pelosi can testify as to whether she made a decision based on optics, based on politics, not to have additional protection at the Capitol to prevent the terrorist attack that played out," Cruz said.


Another defense witness who would certainly be relevant:

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser

Defense Dept offered Nat'l Guard support before 6 Jan 2021. Bowser said no

Cruz also provided some questions "that didn't make the cut to be asked":

(These are all real, from various senators, who will remain anonymous.)

“Can we build the Keystone Pipeline if we add Hunter Biden to the board?”

“To Manager Swalwell: Tell us about Fang Fang.”

"Have any of the House Managers had sexual relations with a Chinese communist spy? Please explain.”

“If we put him in a burlap sack & throw him in the river, and he does not float, must we convict?”


https://twitter.com/tedcruz/st.../1360620874756423680

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Ted Cruz provides the questions he would have asked

This man would be an amazing President. Sadly, I don't think he has the charisma required to ever win the Presidency.



.

So what was Republican House member Herrera Beutler's input that caused such an uproar?

(Beutler also voted to impeach Donald Trump in the House vote)

When McCarthy finally reached the president on January 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol. McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That's when, according to McCarthy, the president said: "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I guarantee you I was more upset about the election than Kevin McCarthy

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Ted Cruz provides the questions he would have asked

This man would be an amazing President. Sadly, I don't think he has the charisma required to ever win the Presidency.

I did not, and would not vote for him over Trump. But if Donald Trump is through in the political arena, I would be happy to vote for Ted Cruz and I suspect many others would be as well. Short of that, I'm extremely hesitant to make any political predictions in the current climate.

quote:

"Have any of the House Managers had sexual relations with a Chinese communist spy? Please explain.”

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...ves-matter-protests/

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) submitted a question during the fourth day of the Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump asking if language Vice President Kamala Harris used in 2020 regarding Black Lives Matter protests is considered incitement given the impeachment managers’ “proposed standard” for incitement.

“While violent riots were raging, Kamala Harris said on national TV, ‘They’re not gonna let up, and they should not,’” quoting viral comments then-Sen. Harris (D-CA) made on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert last June in reference to nationwide Black Lives Matter protests.

“And she also raised money to bail out violent rioters,” Cruz’s question continued in reference to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) Harris urged her Facebook and Twitter followers to support in June 2020.

“Using the manager’s proposed standard, is there any coherent way for Donald Trump’s words to be incitement and Kamala Harris’s words not to be incitement?”

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) responded to the question by saying on the chamber floor that he was “ not familiar ” with the quote from Harris that Cruz had referenced; however, Trump attorney Michael T. van der Veek rejected that notion during his own response to Cruz, saying his team had given video to the House’s team of Harris’s quote and that they had played the video three times that day.

I've watched videos of Raskin in various committee hearings. He is a snake and liar of the worst kind

Raskin also said that despite not recognizing the quote, he finds it “ absolutely unimaginable that Vice President Harris would ever incite violence or encourage or promote violence . Obviously, it’s completely irrelevant to the proceeding at hand, and I will allow her to defend herself.”

In a related question during the trial, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked on behalf of himself, Cruz, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS), and Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), “Does a politician raising bail for rioters encourage more rioting?” A representative from Trump’s legal team replied, “Yes.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

trying to avoid posting too much right now, but here is a very good article on how the GOP gamed the DEM House managers about witnesses

https://redstate.com/shipwreck...he-democrats-n326408

Graham's Gambit on Witnesses -- The GOP Has Better Trial Lawyers in the Senate Than do the Democrats

snip:

And now Pres. Trump’s defense is about what the House Managers — in the role of the prosecution — don’t want the “jurors” and the public to know about. Why DON’T they want witnesses to testify in response to the presentation by Trump’s defense team yesterday. What did the House Manager’s case ignore? What didn’t they pursue in a timely and competent manner? What ELSE have they fabricated besides what moron Swalwell was caught doing? What are they hiding? What are they preventing the public from knowing by blocking the testimony of Nancy Pelosi, Muriel Bowser, the Capitol Hill Police Command, and the Metropolitan Police Department Command?