There is also a part where she has a hard time recognising that 1776 was an insurrection. And at some point she goes: "I'm not a history teacher." ... but then 4 minutes later it's something like: "We take our history seriously in Georgia".
I kinda find it ironic she called Biden "Dementia-Ridden" and "Mentally incompetent"... but during this hearing it was a lot of:
"I don't remember" "I don't know" "I don't recall" "Did I say that?" ...
@BohemianBoo Well, over the weekend she'll have the time to play the sad innocent puppy to her followers. Everyone is out to get her, it's a witchhunt, my first amendment rights, ... bla bla bla
@DavidT8899 That we are discussing Marjorie Taylor Greene. And that she didn't like Bidens governement, and said that her followers shouldn't agree with a peacefull tranfere of power. It's nice that you want to bring Hillary into all this, but I'm not sure if Hillary ever did that.
@DavidT8899 Hillary is only doing that in your imagination. I haven't heard her say much of anything recently. She hasn't even endorsed anyone for the elections that are coming up in a few weeks. Jesus fucking Christ, she's been out of office for almost a decade, and yet she's still living rent-free in your head. And you people accuse us of being obsessed with Trump.
@LeopoldBloomNot quite,its just that when she appears to be the impetus of an investigation based on lies and fabracated evidence that was specifically designed to discredit or remove a sitting President (read:an ACTUAL insurrection),you're kind of forced to pay attention to her.....
@DavidT8899 A legal investigation is not an "insurrection," dumbshit. Neither is filing lawsuits challenging an election's results, as Trump's legal team did. Both of those were done within the limits of existing laws. Planning and executing a violent attack on the Capitol to prevent Congress from carrying out their constitutionally mandated duty, on the other hand, [i]is[/i] an insurrection.
What do you call promoting a phony theory that the president was born outside the US and therefore is not eligible? Trump was one of the ringleaders for that, so according to you, he should have been prosecuted. In reality, we have freedom of speech, but apparently that only applies to your side.
@DavidT8899 I also wonder what investigation you are talking about? ... because the entire investigation into Russians involvement in the 2016 elections did bear fruit. I can just point you to the court cases of: Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Konstantin Kilimnik, Sam Patten, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. Who were all convincted in this case, either because they were directly involved or were lieing to cover it up. You can also read the Mueller Report and the report made by the "Senate Inteligence Committee Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 Elections". This point was also repeated in the report of the National Inteligence Council on Foreign Threats to the 2020 Elections.
Report from 2016 volume 5 reads:
[quote](U) The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.
[...]
(U) The Committee found evidence that Papadopoulos likely learned about the Russian active measures campaign as early as April 2016 from Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic with longstanding Russia ties, well before any public awareness of the Russian effort. The Committee further found Papadopoulos communicated the information he learned from Mifsud to a~ least two separate foreign governments. The Committee could not determine if Papadopoulos informed anyone on the Trump Campaign of the information, though the Committee finds it implausible that Papadopoulos did not do so.[/quote]
Here is a list of people involved, made by Business insider. The people really took some time to link their sources. Quite handy if you want to look stuff up:
Now... Trump loves to talk about "No Collusion", he even did it this weekend in delaware. He's still hammering on that nail. But he forgets to say that a large part of his co-workers (staff) were sentenced in this case. That there really was involvement from Russia in the American elections, involvement that favored his candidacy. And to top it all off, he went on national television:
[media=https://youtu.be/Nf_CATbYilQ]
... saying that if he had the opportunity to do what he's been accused off that he would do it. Because why not, if it helps him win it helps it win. Implying that the sitting president, the head of the executive branch, the guy that swores an oath to uphold the laws of the land and has to execute those laws [i](because that's his job)[/i] admits that he will not uphold those laws if breaking them favors his goals. Which is pretty much a clear cut example of corruption.
Oh, and the opposition is there to oppose. If they have something they are free to push it into the discussion, they are free to substaniate their point, they are free to have it judged in the arenas that the political framework creates. Discussing and investigating this wasn't futile and the fact that it actually had results shows that it wasn't hollow. But because this one thing, this "collusion" argument didn't pass the bar, parrots go "no collusion" as if that tells the entire story. Yelling: "No Collusion" when the president of the USA is making up a bunch of pardons to set free members of his own staff and loyalists that were all trialed and found convicted in the same case that the "no collusion" sentiment is rooted in... is kinda stupid.
