...doesn't mean something totally like that couldn't still be happening. We should get outraged towards Trump, just to be safe.
After all, the full video is 8 hours of recording that they chopped down into 60 misleading minutes of conversation.
(Let that sink in.)
"There were good people on both sides" canard, ignoring how that quote was taken out of context, for partisan, propagandist purposes.
Hacks.
They'll dismiss recorded video. But the Fine People Hoax was worth shouting from the hills.
Astounding.
Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides”...NOT of the issue, which is clearly true, but AT THE RALLY, which is clearly not.
That was a neo-Nazi rally.
Now you can say that he MEANT that there were very fine people on both sides of the issue - and maybe he did, since he is not great with words, and he did condemn Nazis in the same speech - but that is not what he said. And he was pissed off that day by people saying he had backed down by giving a more moderate speech the day before (which obviously was written for him).
David Duke heard it right. So did Gary Cohn, who had to be talked out of resigning. So did Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, who criticized the comment. So did everybody but Trump’s most die-hard apologists.
Don’t be one of those.
(no message)
astounding.
Either your reading comprehension is wholly deficient, or you know full well what was said and meant, and you're just playing games. I lean towards the latter.
BTW, you don't have to like Trump nor like those comments to acknowledge what he said and dispute the prevarications spread through the press about what he said. I have a family member who loathes Trump, but after reading the actual text of what he said, acknowledged that the "spin" coming from the media of what was said and meant was false. I don't like the guy, either, but deliberately miscontruing what he said and then disseminating that misinformation isn't "okay."
Now, what I'd like to hear are hypothetical addenda or prefaces to Zucker's recorded remarks that would totally change any reasonable conclusions about what he and his organization are about. I'm all ears. Let's hear some hypotheticals that will, like, totally, like, expose that right-wing agitator who is obviously distorting the reality of the situation.
Which logical fallacy goes like this: "Evidence/Assertion A cannot be true because Person X offered it as evidence?" Or, more precisely, "I will disregard Evidence A because Person X offered it." Does that sound intelligent to you?
(no message)
There were plenty of other Republicans there. You know that, right? Gaetz had no business being there.
All of which are utter nonsense, ... particularly in light of Trump's record re transparency, due process, rule of law, and integrity.
The rubes will cling to any lifeline.
Sequestration.
Riiight...
But, like any investigation, the information gathering has to have integrity.
It is not a ballgame where the spectators watch each pitch.
Because of the stonewalling and misinformation perpetrated by Trump and his minions, the subcommittee needs to be careful to not taint the testimony of inbound witnesses.
In the event Articles of Impeachment are sent to the Senate, then the witnesses can be fully confronted in the trial.
(no message)
(no message)
your own ignorance on the topic.
Schiff and the crazy left are using the House Intel Committee as a way to have a "secret impeachment" where only selected testimony is leaked out. They can't have the public seeing them embarass themselves with lack of evidence anymore.
Link: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republican-rep-matt-gaetz-kicked-out-of-impeachment-inquiry-hearing
(no message)
....because the “committee” is being used, as jakers says, to exclude House members from the process - specifically Republicans who might mount a defense or question witnesses in a non Dem friendly way.
It is being used as a means to prevent the R’s and Trump from mounting a defense.
The transcripts have been released, there is no secret for the HIC to protect here
(no message)
(no message)
Finally!