Thursday, July 28

I Was Wrong About the Jan6 Committee

I admit it. I was completely wrong about the Jan6 Committee. Here I thought it was a kangaroo court that would yield no good results at all. In fact, it produced pure gold.

Here's a completely partisan committee, put together by a Hollywood producer (literally), showing only one side of the story, using hearsay as "evidence", taking videos and conversations completely out of context, not calling key witnesses, dubbing different audio over different video, not presenting any evidence at all from the other side, and yet it still managed to completely exonerate Trump of all wrong-doing.

At first it was,

We are going to show that Donald Trump actively organized a coup against the US Government!

Exactly zero evidence of that. They managed to demonstrate that neither he, nor anybody in his inner circle, nor outer circle, nor any circle, nor even Don Jr. or Ivanka, were at all aware of anything whatsoever with regards to a coup or even an illegal storming of The Capitol.

In fact, there has been no evidence produced that any of the violence at The Capitol was in any way organized. A very key witness seen trying to rile the crowd up was Ray Epps, and yet he was never called to testify. Known Antifa folks were at the front, raising chaos as well. Yet that was not presented. Many of the people who went into The Capitol were invited in when the guards opened the door and allowed them to wander in. They were not called to testify why. At least one person has already been acquitted of trespassing on the basis they were just let in. There was inadequate security at The Capitol, which was a failure of Nancy Pelosi, yet she was not called to testify about that.

Really folks, if there was an "Insurrection" by Republicans, wouldn't they bring (and use) their guns? Wouldn't Trump have gotten onto social media and egged them on? No - he told them to "go home". The only remaining criticism of Trump was that he "acted too late" in telling them to go home. Hmmmm. Just like the Democrats acted too late in asking the violent BLM protesters to go home?

Ok, but he "riled up the crowd", right? First, since when is "riling up" in a political context a crime, especially when you explicitly end your speech with asking the crowd to make their way to The Capitol to make their voices heard peacefully and patriotically?

What is in evidence is that Trump on balance believed, whether justified or not, that the election was rigged. And if you are being honest, there are plenty of illegalities and smoking guns already uncovered to make that not an unreasonable view to hold (yes, yes, 60 courts, none of which actually went to trial mostly because of jurisdictional issues). The list of all the proven stuff and all the fishy stuff is maintained at https://electionfraud20.org. The election had 158M votes, and the margin was decided by 42,918 votes (0.027%). The only truly idiotic positions are to maintain that there was definitely not enough fraud to overturn the results, and that there definitely was. I think, based on what I've seen that there was easily enough illegality to have changed the outcome, but of course I can't be sure.

The point is that nobody can be sure, as the 2020 election with mass mail in voting, lax or absent signature checks, ballot dropboxes (sometimes illegal as has now been demonstrated in court), was not designed to be auditable. Elections should have clean, validated, and up-to-date voter lists, vote in person on election day, picture id, and hand counts with both parties observing the counting closely. Especially in the US where the elections are so contentious and so close, and it is very much on the voter's minds.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 55% of Likely U.S. voters believe cheating likely affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 39% who think it’s Very Likely. Thirty-nine percent (39%) don’t think cheating affected the 2020 election, including 28% who say it’s Not At All Likely. (link)

Whichever side you fall on, lack of faith in US Election Integrity is definitely an issue that needs addressing.

So, Trump believed it was rigged, as did his supporters. So if all these folks believed it was rigged, is not protesting the election better characterized as upholding the constitution, the exact opposite of an "insurrection"?

And yes, protesting is one thing, but zero reasonable people condone violence. Trespassing I could care less. Democrats also trespass a lot while demonstrating - it's part of democracy I guess.

Congrats Jan 6 committee, you managed to more fully exonerate Trump than any actual fair trial could ever have done, because even with all the cards stacked against Trump, he still won.

199 comments:

  1. You are either delusional or a fascist, but I think you're BOTH.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please elaborate. Specifically, which part of the above do you take issue to? Use your words.

      Delete
    2. Your complete lack of a coherent argument is noted. Your defeat is gracefully accepted.

      Delete

    3. Typical response from one who has no reasonable rebuttal - toss out an adolescent - great column Julie!

      Delete
    4. The "other side" is not well-represented 😂

      Delete
  2. Thanks for the post. Now I am beginning to understand how otherwise-intelligent people can be bamboozled by a self-serving Putin wannabe. First of all, despite your claims of creative editing and "Hollywood" tricks, the overwhelming truth, as told by people closest to the former reality show star, is that he failed to make any effort to stop an attack on OUR nation's capital. His closest associates testified that he wanted to replace the legally-appointed electors with his own personal slate. He had a constitutional duty to stop the riots any way he could.

    I know I won't convince you. You are like the majority of Russians who believe Vladimir Putin is a good president. I don't pretend to understand it.

    The January 6 committee never denied "producing" the televised hearings. They were helped by a reputable NEWS producer, not a Hollywood type. Superimposing video to cover audio that didn't have usable video is a technique all news organizations use. It isn''t misleading. It is what the public expects. A black screen with just sound isn't acceptable.

    You leave out two important FACTS: 1. None of the people you claim were distorted in the hearings have come forward to amplify or deny their statements (made under oath). 2. Trump-appointed judges are convicting the "innocent" rioters.

    There is one other point. Fox News (your favorite. You really should watch the CBC), has been shifting away from supporting the former reality show star.

    Did Donald Trump commit a crime? Can it be proven in a court of law? Those are interesting questions. What I saw in the hearings (I watched them all) showed overwhelming proof that he was unfit to be the president of the United States. It showed that he was a fan of the rioters. But I wonder if what we saw is enough to convict him of a criminal charge.

    I would like to see him convicted. His lawyer, Rudy Giuliani lost his law license. My problem is that it could be a dangerous precedent to convict a former president of crimes like this. On the other hand, Trump is the only American president to try to steal an election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I think you've been "bamboozled" so that gets us nowhere.

      He could not stop the riot as it started while he was still speaking and urging peaceful protests as the record shows.

      Nice tie in to Putin. Good argument style, that.

      Agreed, Jan6 was a propaganda exercise, and had none of the characteristics of a truth finding exercise.

      Who did I claim was distorted? One witness laughably claimed she heard someone saying that Trump grabbed the wheel of The Beast and tried strangling the secret service agent. That was denied by the guy she said said it, and by the secret service agents in question. Yhey we're not called as witnesses, onl6 her. Yet you believe it?

      I don't mind convicting people for violence, trespass is ridiculous. But Justice must be meted with an even hand.

      I don't know or care what any mainstream media source says, they are all corrupt at this point. Get your news from trusted independents.

      Trump denounced rioters every time. He applauded peaceful protest. Unlike the Dems who really seemed to egg on the BLM violence all summer.

      Convicted of what? You've made up your mind he must be guilty of SOMETHING! Your cognitive dissonance will not allow otherwise. If you can't find an actual crime, by God you'll make one up! (See "Russian Collusion Hoax").

      Delete
    2. The only questionable testimony you cite is that the former reality TV show star tried to wrestle the steering wheel of his SUV. It was irrelevant testimony that showed nothing of importance. I agree that the committee shouldn't have put it on the air.

      I worked for "mainstream" media for 10 years (2 major network news organizations). I never saw any attempt to color the reporting. We made mistakes and corrected them.

      It's specious to bring in BLM in this conversation. That's a totally different subject where we happen to agree. I feel that my country is endangered by letting the former reality TV star into public office again. The real issue the Jan 6 committee is focused on is the attempt by a sitting president to stay in office despite another candidate being lawfully elected. THAT is the only crime I would like to see litigated.

      Delete
    3. Trump broke the mainstream media, so things have changed a lot since 2016. There are any number of news reporters who will tell you the same who have decided to go independent as a result of partisan clickbait journalism. It's not what it once was.

      I bring in BLM as a basis to understand what is an acceptable delay in denouncing violent protests during fog of war with legitimate protests nearby. Many Democrats eventually did, but it was too little too late, by a much bigger margin that Trump on Jan 6.

      You have zero evidence that the sitting president tried to stay in office illegally. He simply called foul on the election, and used every legal and constitutional means to advance that cause. When none of it worked, he transitioned out in a peaceful and orderly fashion. What evidence do you bring of illegal action?

      Delete
    4. Trump publicly tried to get Pence to invalidate the Electoral College votes and put in his own. That is illegal. It's on the record. When Pence refused, Trump denounced him. That is indisputable. There are others, but that is the worst.

      Delete
    5. I agree that it was a long shot constitutional argument that Pence had the power to do that, but it is Congress that is supposed to be the safeguard against fraudulent elections, which is why they vote on accepting the electors. Nothing illegal about trying to work the system but failing to do so. Recall that Democrats in 2016 voted against certain state electors. Did not hear the outcry then. Hypocrisy.

      Delete
    6. Now who's not telling the truth. In 2016 FOUR Democratic congressmen proposed overturning the electoral certification of Donald Trump. No one supported them. Hillary Clinton didn't get on the phone and solicit senators to support Trump-selected electors. Joe Biden, president of the House, wasn't told by Obama to block certification. The transfer of power was orderly and Clinton gracefully conceded defeat.

      Contrast that with Trump. He still insists he won. He tried to subvert the certification. It was him, the then-president who initiated the attempt to steal the election, not a few fringe congressmen.

      I can't believe you didn't realize this when you wrote your reply to me.

      ref: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/no-trump-electoral-college-challenge-233294

      Delete
    7. Yup. They tried, legally, and they failed, legally. And then transitioned. So did Trump. And Clinton still insists she won as well. If not for "Russian Collusions".

      Delete
    8. Again, you are distorting the facts. Yes, Hillary thought she won because she got more popular votes. In 2020, Biden got more popular votes as well as electoral. That's not the real issue. In 2016, Hillary gracefully conceded the race to her opponent. In 2020, the former president refused to concede, filed 61 lawsuits and lost them all, tried to get state secretaries of state to invalidate the election, and when all that failed, tried to get the vice president to invalidate the certification. That is a big difference from 2016.

      Delete
    9. Hillary understands the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college. When she says it was "stolen" she was not referring to that.

      Hillary "gratefully conceded" because she knew her case was bullshit. Trump is a fighter who believes he is right (with the support of 55% of likely US voters according to the poll I quoted). He fought using every legal means available, and when they failed he left office.

      What facts am I distorting?

      Delete
    10. 55% of the country doesn't support the former reality TV star's "fight." His attorney *not* Rudy, told him that he was breaking the law. It is not legal to pressure the VP to illegally invalidate a Federal election. Even Fox News has pulled back. Only a megalomaniac keeps "fighting" after losing 61 law suits. The level of insanity he consistently displays is amazing.

      Delete
    11. You guys keep going to the 61 lawsuits. You do realize that none of those went to trial because of jurisdictional issues, right?

      He had different lawyers telling him different things. It's obviously not illegal to ask someone to do something.

      Don't know why you think Fox has a monopoly on truth.

      Delete
  3. Only a ridiculous partisan could hear the testimony of Trump confidants regarding his inaction and say he has been exonerated in any way. And using an opinion poll to bolster arguments about election tampering just show how effective Trump and his media Allie’s have been. Testimony shows he was an out of control crybaby who would have been with the illegal mob at the Capitol if cooler heads hadn’t prevailed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By "inaction" you mean he did not tell them to go home soon enough amidst the fog of war? News flash, the most pathetic criticism of literally anything good is "that it was not done soon enough".

      Delete
    2. Not only that it wasn’t soon enough. He only said anything after he got rejected on every phone call he was making Tony save his job. The most surprising info for me was the fact groups who stormed the Capitol knew in advance that Trump was going to direct the rally to March on the Capitol and that he wanted to join them. The inside look at what he was doing while his supporters chanted “Hang Mike Pence!” was appalling.

      Delete
    3. There was a rally and a subsequent march to The Capitol to make their voices heard peacefully and patriotically to Congress regarding election and integrity and the need to reject the electors and audit the result or redo the election in order to uphold The Constitution. None of that is in dispute.

      As to a tiny part of the crowd saying "hang Mice Pence", much amplified later, no, nobody actually wanted to hang him. Apply the same standards to anti Trump riots on Inauguration Day
      2016 if you dare. Did that crowd really want to hang Trump and burn him at the stake as they did in effigy? Really? Did any Dems denounce that? I smell hypocrisy.

      Delete
    4. You smell hypocrisy because it’s stench is all over your blog post. Anti Trump protesters never stormed a building with zip ties. They never planned a way to stop his inauguration as Hillary Clinton cheered them on. Trump lit a fire and then angrily sulked in his dining room yelling at Republicans on the phone while they feared for their lives and watched Capitol police do battle. If Clinton or Obama had behaved in similar fashions they would have been pilloried for being anti-police. Think about how you would view this if those protesters were Dems and then see where the hypocrisy smell is coming from.

      Delete
    5. You're kidding right? The only difference is that when Hillary said the election was rigged and illegitimate in 2016 she did not have the strength of her convictions (because she knew it was bullshit because she planted the Steele Dossier herself).

      Delete
    6. You believe Hillary Clinton said 2016 was rigged or illegitimate? Where? When? Now she did believe the Russians interfered on Trump’s behalf and so did multiple intelligence agencies. Did the Trump candidate coordinate with them? It’s never been proven but there was certainly more evidence for that then the 2020 election. And you never saw Democrats storm buildings or try to appoint fake electors. And I love how you casually connect Hillary and the Steele dossier while always finding a way to distance Trump from activities. There’s that hypocrisy stench again.

      Delete
    7. She says it here: https://youtu.be/hUqxX0YAafg

      Mueller report cleared Trump and any associates of colluding with Russia. It's one of the most extensively investigated things in modern times. The report says there was no evidence of this. You're still hanging onto that, eh?

      And the origins of the Steele Dossier from Fusion GPS paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Campaign via Mark Elias of Perkins Coie. The same Mark Elias who later went around the country trying to change election law to favour Dems for 2020. Deeply corrupt people. This is in evidence.

      Nothing you claim about Trump is in evidence.

      We are not the same.

      Delete
    8. LOL I thought we were talking about the candidates behavior during transitions of power. You found a clip from 2018. Hillary Clinton conceded the election and attended his inauguration. And that Fusion GPS dossier was started by Conservatives in 2015. Groups associated with Hillary were involved in funding but later and nothing was done with that dossier until after the election. But keep making up stuff about its origins if it makes you feel better.

      And what did I say about Trump that isn’t in evidence?

      Delete
    9. All it means is that Hillary did not have the courage of her convictions. She still maintains it was stolen from her.

      Dems and Never-Trump RINOs are all the same "Uniparty". No question Hillary Campaign conceived it and funded it and pushed it.

      Delete
    10. You have produced zero evidence of Trump doing anything illegal.

      Delete
    11. I honestly don’t know if he broke any laws with his election pressuring. I do think he was a historically bad leader those three months after he lost the election. All evidence of his behavior on January 6th show he was a petty crybaby and only the most deluded still think his behavior was acceptable or even justifiable. All reasonable Republicans I know are praying he never runs again and just keeps lapping up the attention and money from his devoted followers.

      Delete
    12. I think there are a lot of indications of an unusual number of irregularities in the 2020 election. The website I reference above lists them all. Some have gone beyond court and have been proven (eg, illegal drop boxes). And it was not unexpected, with mass mail-in tried for the first time ever and Democrats who think Trump is literally Hitler I do not doubt they would consider themselves virtuous in cheating.

      So, it's a reasonable position to hold that the election was rigged (which is not to say it is right, just reasonable).

      If Trump believed in his heart of hearts it was rigged (and there's plenty of evidence that he did believe that), then all his actions can be interpreted as trying all legal means to preserve democracy.

      You can surely see that, no? Fine to disagree, but the above is just common sense.

      Delete
    13. Trump is well on the record prior to November 2029 he would never accept a loss. He disputed 2016 because he lost the popular vote by millions of votes.My three year old is also a bad loser. He accuses his sister of cheating whenever she beats him. Just because he believes it doesn’t make it reasonable. His die hard supporters can talk about his “heart of hearts” but if a Democrat had acted like that and not accepted the loss if begrudgingly those same people would be screaming. I honestly don’t fault Trump. He was always a whiny toddler but there are reasonable Conservatives that have sacrificed all credibility backing him.

      Delete
    14. Please show me the quote where he said he would not accept a loss. He always maintained that "he would see" depending on circumstances, which is an entirely reasonable position.

      Do you think I would apply a different standard if the parties were reversed?

      Given the margin of victory (0.027%) and the amount of already proven and suspected likely fuckery, it's reasonable to challenge the result. Your type keeps maintaining that it was "the most fair and secure election of all time" which is an absurd position.

      Delete
    15. First, here is one time he stated months before the election that he would only lose if the other side cheated. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/512424-trump-the-only-way-we-are-going-to-lose-this-election-is-if-the/amp/

      Second, where do you get that margin of victory. Joe Biden got 7 million more popular votes out of approximately 161 million cast. The margin was even clearers in the Electoral college. Biden won states that Republicans controlled and in places where Republicans won statewide races. Why would Dems only cheat in one race?

      But I am curious how you got that margin of victory?

      Delete
    16. Turns out he might have been right about that. But that's not the statement you claim he made above.

      Popular vote always swings Dem because of the big cities. The 43K vote margin is the smallest number of votes in key swing states that would have changed the outcome. Check the link I provided.

      Dems (and RINOs) hated Trump more than anybody. He was the only real threat. Without him, the Uniparty is in control.

      Delete
    17. So you conveniently sidestep the argument that Dems are said to have rigged only one race that in an election with hundreds. In your theory the parties worked together but so incompetently that he still came close to winning. And saying Trump was right three months earlier shows how far in the hole your head is. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy for him and his sycophants. Trump lost by a greater margin than Hillary and there is no compelling evidence that enough one sided fraud took place to make a difference. Trump lost. I understand how someone like him cannot accept it but the fact so many people let themselves go along with his ego trip is astounding.

      Delete
    18. Here's my theory. Trump, the outsider, was the only one they were concerned with. He wasn't playing ball. If they went after Republicans at large, the Republicans would not have put up with it. The Republicans only colluded after the fact, by not demanding audits and investigations. They wanted Trump out as well and were happy the Dems did the dirty work. Had the Dems targeted them, that would have changed. And the way it seemed to work was that establishment Dems setup the conditions for fraud (mass mail-in and other rules changes that facilitated fraud). They knew they could leave it to the grassroots, who literally saw Trump as Hitler, to take care of the rest.

      There is plenty of proven illegality already (see my link), and a lot of evidence of fishy stuff demanding further investigation. Fact is, if nobody seriously investigates, nothing will be found, of course.

      More generally, though, your absolute certainty about something nobody can be certain about is a tell for cognitive dissonance.

      Delete
    19. My theory is Trump was an unpopular President who barely won in 2016 over a very unpopular opponent. He did nothing to grow his support but did keep his base loyal and in the four years in between elections demographics shifted enough to tip it the other way. There was not a huge shift between the two elections that would indicate fraud and the amount of coordination without anyone leaking the plan for your theory to be correct is ridiculous. I imagine both sides cheat marginally every election and that it cancels each other out. It’s not cognitive dissonance, it’s common sense.

      Delete
    20. He actually grew the number of people who voted for him by about 10M, and advanced significantly with blacks and Hispanics. This despite massive headwinds with a left-biased mainstream and social media (suppressing things like the Hunter Biden laptop story and promulgating numerous hoaxes such as Russian collusion, fine people, bleach, coy fish, Ukraine call, and so on).

      We have massive transparent pushes from Mark Elias (the promulgater of the Russian Collusion Hoax) to change election laws across the States that benefitted Dems. He admits it and brags about it. And then Zuckerberg illegally pouring hundreds of millions to selectively get out the vote in heavily Democrat regions.

      I think there was more motivation than ever before for Dems to cheat, seeing as Trump is Hitler to them. So if you think cheating goes on in every election, there's a very rational reason to believe it was greater against Trump than anybody else ever. That's only common sense.

      Was it enough to overturn the result? Unknowable without real audits and investigations which are not being pursued because establishment Republicans joined forces with Dems to not pursue them. With the media colluding in this effort with their openly propagandist "Big Lie" catch-phrase and breathless Jan6 Committee show trial.

      You need to think more critically about this.

      Delete
    21. I appreciate your passion but your call for critical thinking reads hollow when you parrot debunked conspiracy theories and approach every argument here from the perspective that Dems are the devil and Trump is a persecuted hero. For example the Ukrainian phone call and his Charlottesville speeches weren’t hoaxes. You can debate their merits but transcripts exist of both.

      I encourage you to actually pay attention to the January 6th Committee hearings and leave room for the possibility that Trump is not the hard working innocent victim of evil Democrats. I for one don’t believe he is Hitler. You described him as a narcissist and that I can agree with and it’s that narcissism that allows him to believe in nonsense if it protects his sense of self. Reread your last post. You laud Trump’s growth in some demographics but if the results are subject to fraud, why do you believe them? By the way he went up from6 percent to 8 percent in black votes, not that impressive.

      Delete
    22. The claim that he called Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists "very fine people" at Charlottesville is one of the most debunked hoaxes in modern times. I often use the video and the transcripts to debunk it. If you still believe in this hoax it disqualifies you from any debate surrounding Trump and politics.

      Rather than encouraging me to "pay attention" why don't you put your big girl panties on and reference the most damning thing you think you heard there, with links, if you believe it's so darned convincing. I'll wait.

      Delete
    23. His speech a few days after s white supremacist killed a person and injured many was terrible and not a hoax. He went out of his way not to offend those who protested for the statue but that’s old news.

      I found the stories of him trying to defy the Sectet Servicr to join the mob at the Capitol. I also felt the revelations he went out of his way to soften his speech tbd next day regarding the violent protesters showed where his true feelings lay. He supported what he knew was going to happen when he told them to “fight like hell” that morning and wanted to be there. Truly a horrible act by a sitting President. But go ahead, rationalize away.

      https://news.yahoo.com/jan-6-trump-edits-draft-speech-remarks-on-national-healing-160114073.html

      https://www u.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-steering-wheel-january-6-cassidy-hutchinson-testimony-mark-meadows/#app

      Delete
    24. He condemned the killing and the neo Nazis and white supremacists. Many support keeping statues up.

      Those "stories" of him grabbing for the wheel of the limo and choking a secret service were hearsay and definitely proven false by eye witnesses. He did wish to join the protesters on Capitol Hill, though. It was a protest, and that part of it was peaceful. No crime there. He took the advice of Secret Service not to.

      "Fight like hell" is a very common political refrain and does not imply violence or illegality in any other context.

      His edits of the speech are just normal edits that don't change the meaning in any substantive ways.

      Were those your best shots? Can you point to any evidence whatsoever of a conspiracy by the President to commit insurrection (or any other crime, even)? You have not, because you cannot. You swirl around in your TDS conspiracy theories like a person possessed, presenting no evidence.

      Delete
    25. “Proven false by eyewitness”? Really that limo story was debunked? Show me where. I know the Committee invited those who disputed it to testify under oath. I must have missed that. What are the names of the eyewitnesses?

      And again I don’t think Trump was a criminal mastermind. He was an out of control crybaby who failed in his Presidential responsibilities by stewing and trying to bully Senators by phone while his supporters raised hell and caused death and destruction.

      Delete
    26. All the secret service involved offered to testify under oath it never happened. Engel, the chief of the detail, Ornato, the chief of the staff, and the driver, all. None were called by the J6C. The fact that you are so ill informed on this issue should give you some pause (see https://thenewamerican.com/hutchinsons-hearsay-testimony-disputed/ but feel free to find more yourself).

      Delete
    27. Unsurprisingly your information is out of date and inaccurate. While there were a flurry of reports that people would deny Cassidy Hutchinson’s story under oath, that quickly changed. They haven’t stepped up in the weeks following the initial reports you cite. I would hope reading this article will give you pause but I’m sure you’ll just double down and rationalize the MAGA party line.

      https://www.salon.com/2022/07/25/secret-agents-tried-to-torpedo-hutchinson-testimony-lawyer-up-refuse-to-testify-panel/

      Delete
    28. You would think the J6C would subpoena them. And of course they would wish to retain counsel if wading into the Lion's Den of partisans with testimony that exonerates Trump.

      Delete
    29. Yeah but they haven’t even given an interview on the record. Your article cited anonymous sources saying they would testify.

      Plus you said earlier in the thread they were never called by the J6 Committee. Did being wrong about that give you pause in trusting the sources you choose to trust?

      And they don’t have to testify to exonerate Trump in the court of public opinion. They could just call Sean Hannity or The New American. Right?

      Delete
    30. You can't just show up and make a statement. If you could do that, then the whole J6 narrative would completely blow up. You have to be subpoenaed. Onus is on the J6C to do that. The secret service guys say they are willing. Either way, until we hear from eye witnesses under oath, it's only "she says somebody said" versus eye witness says otherwise, but not under oath. Can't conclude anything from that, and given the unlikelihood of the President physically reaching (from the back seat) for the wheel and then choking the driver around the neck, when he's never displayed the hint of anything of the like, and given the history of debunked false accusations, I'll go with the Secret Service account on this one until eye witnesses say otherwise under oath.

      Delete
    31. The Secret Service guys don’t say they will testify. Your link from a few weeks ago cited an anonymous source saying they would but since then they have refused cooperation. That’s the problem with biased reporting that doesn’t get followed up on.

      And you’re wrong about their ability to speak. Trump talks about January 6th all the time. He denied the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony. This isn’t a grand jury. It’s a public investigation. Plenty of Trump advisers have already written books.!If the people you cited wanted to call the story false, they definitely could.

      If they go on record, they definitely would have credibility but it’s been almost a month and there’s been nothing.

      Delete
    32. It wasn't an anonymous source, it was a letter from Secret Service to the J6C saying they were willing to be called to testify. Then they were not called.

      Besides, it's an idiotic accusation, and if the Secret Service agent wants to claim he was assaulted by Trump, he should absolutely do so. That's the closest to a crime you are likely to find, and I very much doubt it went down like. Only the most TDS gullible are eating it up like you.

      Delete
    33. Okay I get you only want to believe what supported what you already think but you keep purposely misrepresenting your own article. The Secret Service in an official letter never denied a physical confrontation with Trump when he wanted to join the soon to be rioters. They pledged their cooperation with erased text messages not withstanding. The anonymous sources said they would testify Cassidy Hutchinson was lying in what she was told. But now they won’t and haven’t said anything publicly.

      I know you love painting every one who thinks differently than you as a Trump hating loon but some day you may see that you are the one whose close mindedness has altered your perception of reality.

      Delete
    34. No, I just wait for actual evidence before condemning somebody. You should try it. It's good for the soul.

      Delete

  4. If they really wanted to over through the government (such that it is) they would have brought guns. Heck they had more firepower than the whole DC police force combined if they choose to bring them they couldn't have been stopped. Just a dog and pony show.
    In Canada we have imprisoned, ceased property vilified anyone who disagrees with the centrist parties. 50% off us don't vote. Is it because we don't care or that we know in our first past the post system our vote won't count? 1.000.000 vote for the greens, 1.000.00 vote for the Peoples party (as close to Libertarians as we have}. 18% of voters and the Liberals have supreme power, supported by the other centrist parties.
    Freedom is not a dirty word !!! don't need to agree with you.
    Chris









    citizens for putting up bouncy castles and having barbecues, the anarchist bastards lol.
    What we know in Canada, disaree

    ReplyDelete
  5. While everything you said is true the facts are that Democrats are just downright better politicians than Republicans. They are in it to win it no matter how. It may not be fair it may not be right, its not even constitutional but they do it, they sell it, and they get the votes. At some point the Republicans will figure this out but they are already too far behind as they can easily be pegged as the bad party once they start to use the same methods. I don't care for the democratic policies but at this point I changed my party so that I won't be prosecuted in the future as a racist or anarchist or whatever the Republican party will be prosecuted for in the future. My parents coming from a prior Eastern Bloc country did the same a few years back as they said this is what happened right after the communists took power and those that could be identified as being part of the wrong party had difficult lives moving forward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a fear, the Dems are getting so rabid and authoritarian and so hypocritical and "morally correct" on almost every issue. They cannot see their own brainwashing. It's certainly happened before in history.

      Delete
  6. You are living in a dream world,creating your own reality. Trump belongs in Jail!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On what crime and with what proof? Small detail there.

      Now, Biden belongs in jail for influence peddling as proven by info on the laptop corroborated by Bobilinski that "10% held by H for the big guy" refers to Hunter and Joe. There, see how it's done?

      Delete
  7. Any chance Canadians would take a few million of our Democrats? How about a starter set composed of the Democratic Caucus? You could store them in the Northwest Territories. They might get chilly there, but it sure would cool things off for the US.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don't need more commies up here, we have enough already.

      Delete
    2. Julie you are spot on with everything you say. People that support Trump are true Americans. We support peoples freedom, the right of free speech, and the right to bear arms. Our young people have been taught that there is more than 2 sexes, that white people are racist, misogynist, and so on. They have brainwashed our kids and even some adults with all this bullshit.
      I was watching a show of Andy Griffith at a restaurant and this liberal eating with us said that this show was racist. I said WHAT. They said since he didn't have any blacks on the show that it was racist. Just goes to show that at 66 they have even convinced people watching all the news programs that we're racist because we're white. What about all the 620,000 whites that died freeing the slaves during the civil war. I feel for your country just because you are closer to a communist country just as we are. The comment you got from Caged Lion just shows how ignorant and uninformed some people can be. Keep up your good work and posting and don't change on your stance. After all it is supposedly a free country. (LOL) People that are on the left should pay attention to how things unfold in other countries like Sri Lanka. God bless you and keep up the good work. FireFighter Steve
      I love your site but mostly the femdom aspects. (Just Saying)

      Delete
    3. Yup, it's no longer good enough to be in fact not racist, according to the left, racism simply exists because of the history of blacks in America. It's word games.

      Delete
  8. Off topic again!
    You need a good old fashioned panties down, over the knee, kick your legs and cry, spanking. I’m talking about you won’t sit down for at least a week after. Then David should bend you over the edge of the bed and pound your pussy until it’s red, raw, and filled with cum.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh golly.

    Yes we need to do a better job to ensure election integrity. (I lean left AND support voter ID, wish others did.)

    I think we can all agree that cheating of some sort, by some people, has occurred in every election and we should do whatever we can to stop it.

    But there’s no evidence this election was “rigged” in the sense of some massive conspiracy. So many of Trump’s own people told him so, but he can’t accept the truth.

    The invasion of the Capitol by a large group of protesters was scary enough to send Congress and Mike Pence running for their lives. I don’t contend Trump was legally responsible but his action, words and inactions showed that his own ego is more important to him than our democracy. Therefore he should not be re-elected and I hope very much he will not be.

    This is not to defend the Jan 6 committee. I’d like it to provide full transcripts of every interview, and also to interview everyone on StrictJulie’s list.

    Trump and his supporters raise valid and important issues which our country should address. But Trump is not fit to be President. We can do better.

    Normally I’m purely submissive, but I have an urge to put you over my knee and spank some sense into you StrictJulie.

    Rosco

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with most of what you say. I do think you are judging Trump by a much different standard than any of the Dems during the BLM riots and the Kavanaugh riots.

      I think anybody Trump's age is too old to be President, but he himself is not unfit.

      Delete
    2. I agree the riots inspired by George Floyd’s murder should not have been tolerated. Similar to Jan 6, there’s a mix of legitimate protesters and criminals.

      There were some nights when I did not venture far from my home as the thugs were out in far greater numbers than the police. The lawlessness was scary.

      I do find that the term “ BLM” is used in different ways. For most it’s a slogan and a loosely organized movement. But it’s also an actual organization which, as far as I know, does not advocate or condone violence.

      Delete
    3. I was using the term more in the movement sense. The organization is Marxist and seems to be a bunch of grifters based on how they enriched themselves. It was also just a massive funnel for Democrat fundraising. Where did all the millions upon millions of donations go? To help black people? I doubt it.

      Delete
    4. My kids are all now in their thirties. The youngest has several close black friends - most but not all live in the nicer neighborhoods of our city. These black kids (i,e, young adults) have a very different relationship with the police than their white friends. So I have definite sympathy with the BLM concept.

      I also do understand the law enforcement perspective as well. They’ve had a harder time with the black community as a whole, and they feel less safe in certain neighborhoods.

      It’s a bit of a vicious cycle. Don’t know the demographics of the GTA where I think you said you live.

      Rosco

      Delete
    5. I do not doubt that the experience of blacks in white-dominated areas with cops is less good than whites. As you allude to, the black community has to take some part of the responsibility due to the very high black crime rates. But we should hold cops to high, professional standards always.

      Delete
    6. We both agree that relationships between cops and black people, at least in some areas need improvement. Even if a black kid, growing up as a teenager, understands this in his head, it doesn’t seem very fair to him that he’s treated with inordinate suspicion. Hence the attraction of BLM, at T least as a concept.

      Maybe I don’t need to spank you after all.

      Rosco

      Delete
    7. Yep. Life is unfair all over. Best thing we can do is try our very best to be fair to everybody we encounter, and if life is unfair to us to shrug it off as best we can and motor on.

      Delete
  10. you will never convince anyone with such a biased presentation

    maybe you don't care about convincing anyone. You are exactly as bad (worse, even) than the "liberal media" that you decry. Zero balanced presentation. No one serious will take you seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't seem to understand how "accusing somebody of a crime" works. You actually need to provide evidence. I am pointing out that none was put forward. If you disagree, please enlighten us.

      Delete
    2. You are a blight on democracy

      Delete
    3. Your inability to put forth any evidence is noted. Your surrender is gracefully accepted.

      Delete
  11. It's amazing what a dump fire the U.S. have become, but I guess the democrats have no other choice: Their voters want them to be whiny little b*tches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Professional politicians who rise past a certain point are almost always scumbags. It was why Trump was such a breath of fresh air. He did not need to compromise himself on the way up. And it's why the "political elites" hate him so much and find him so dangerous and go to these extraordinary lengths to try to keep him out of power. They're worried he will expose them for who they are.

      Delete
  12. From Twitter:

    Scott Adams
    @ScottAdamsSays
    1. Trump attempted a planned
    insurrection.
    2. Okay, loosely planned.
    3. Okay, not planned, but he
    encouraged it.
    4. Okay, he didn't encourage it, but
    he didn't try to stop it.
    5. Okay, he did try to stop the
    violence, but he should have done
    more, and sooner, during fog of war.

    -david

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why does a Canadian care so much??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The US is the leader of the free world. Without you guys, the Communist Chinese roll all over Canada.

      Delete
  14. I know that I won't change your mind on Trump. It never ceases to baffle me how someone of your apparent intelligence can manage to be enchanted by a charlatan like Donald Trump. I simply don't get it, and I never will.
    At this point I'll be honest and say that I really don't care about whether Trump incited the invasion of the US Capitol on Jan 6th or not. He's history as president, and I hope with every fiber of my body that he will die (from natural causes), before he's allowed anywhere near the Oval Office again. I see him as a clear and present danger to the stability of the world, and given the current global situation, I dread the consequences of allowing him, or anyone resembling him, anywhere within a solar system of any position that would allow him to influence the political climate in any way what so ever.
    I'll refrain from commenting on his politics. Some of his decisions were reasonable, and within the regular scope of politics. But as a person, I consider him just about as unfit to be President of the US (or anywhere else for that matter), as it's just about possible to be.
    I'm not going to convince you of my point of view on this, so I'll just ask the following, as a rhetorical question:

    How would you react if David began acting as Donald Trump? Blatantly lying and persisting in said lie, even when proven wrong. Ignoring advice from people who are trained and educated within the field they comment on. Ignoring science. Blatantly disrespecting women and anyone that disagreed with him.

    Of course I can't say for certain, how you'd react, but my guess is that you'd think that David was begging you to scene him, and was aching for a world class sized spanking.

    That's one of my biggest problems with Donald Trump. I simply can not in any way, shape, or form point to the man, and tell my son to aspire to be like him. And frankly, I think that very few parents could.

    The fact that he managed to expand and worsen an already growing problem of the rift that's effectively formed between people within the United States, is a second major problem I have with the man. He's divisive as all fuck. And that is just about the last thing the United States and the World needs at this point in time, seen from my perspective.

    If I could have one wish, with regards to Donald Trump, today, it would be that the media and people in general would simply forget and loose all interest in that snakeoil salesman of a...I was about to say man, but frankly I'm reluctant to assign that word to him, as I find his behaviour to be of a nature I don't want associated with my sex/gender in general.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Trump would be an absolutely insufferable man to live with! Definite grandiose narcissist. He desperately lives for praise. But one of the things he does to earn praise is to actually do good things.

      All his policies were great, and his record of accomplishment is super strong compared to other Presidents (see Trump Administration Accomplishments). He was actually quite moderate in his policies. And he was effective. He got shit done.

      I think an equal share of the blame for any increased divisiveness during Trump's Presidency falls to the Democrats and the press who put forward hoax after hoax after hoax and attacked all Republicans, not just Trump, as I am being attacked on this article. Biden has certainly done nothing to heal the rift. He and his leftist puppet masters and establishment cronies have only made it worse.

      Delete
    2. I will willingly agree with you that neither side of the political divide in the US can be said to be making any serious effort to bring people closer to each other. Both Republicans and Democrats have an equal stake in the problem, as does the general population, and the (social)media.
      Everyone's pouring more fuel onto the fire, and are actively making the ditch that's dividing people deeper and wider. It's painful to watch from the outside, and I consider it a terrible trainwreck in the making. And when things truly blow up, the ripple effects will screw with the world balance, and I'll admit that I'm pretty damned concerned how the pieces might end up landing, in such an event.

      Delete
  15. No matter what people think of him as a president, his personality is that of an ass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have not met him (neither have you), but possibly so.

      Delete
  16. I try to imagine what it is like being Reactionary Spanked Julie, living in Canada. Canada a country with socialized medicine and a liberal immigration policy. Canada a country that has almost enshrined political correctness. I suppose that all you can do is wistfully look south at the racists and fascists in the United States. Really you should move to a US red state. May I suggest Mississippi or Kansas. Georgia is becoming way too liberal for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dislike racists and fascists, traits that Democrats increasingly display. I think I'd like Florida,

      Delete
  17. "Whichever side you fall on, lack of faith in US Election Integrity is definitely an issue that needs addressing."

    Trump and the Russians are doing their best to undermine our the American elections. They have been remarkably successful thus far, thanks to nonsense blogs like this one, and the extremely poor reasoning abilities of the average US citizen (the education in the US is very poor).

    I don't know what you gain from the dismantling of US democracy. I guess that's for you to know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The US seems to have some of the worst election integrity in the developed world. Even Canada requires voter id, and nobody thinks it's "racist". Americans are doing a great job of dismantling democracy by undermining election integrity all by themselves. They need no help from the Russians.

      Delete
  18. La prochaine fois que tu viens en France, je te ferais baiser par tous mes Ă©tudiants. Jusqu'Ă  ce que tu en pleures. Et ce sera bien mĂ©ritĂ©. Pour toutes les bĂȘtises que tu racontes. Ton cul servira de garage Ă  foutre. Et ta chatte d'urinoir.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J'aimerais ça. Mais les bĂȘtises sont de l'autre cĂŽtĂ©.

      Delete
    2. tais-toi et pompe!

      Delete
  19. It's metaphysical impossible to convince someone who believes that two plus two equals five that he is wrong. You just can't. That's why all these discussions are pointless. You can't win against Julie. It's a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your analogy is a bit off. You claiming Trump is guilty of organizing an insurrection, despite there being no evidence, is like you trying to convince me that 2+2=5. And yup, you won't convince me of that. Put forth some 2+2=4 evidence, and we'll be on the same page. Waiting...

      Delete
  20. Nope. But once again, it's useless. Complotism is invincible. That's why it's so popular. You're jewish. For centuries, people believed that jews were drinking the blood of christian's childs. And yes, these people had '' proof '', documents, witness, etc, etc. Just like you. It's a kind of mental sickness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not offering any proof. The onus is on you loonies to prove that Trump organized an "insurrection".

      Delete
    2. You can't prove an evidence. It's here, under your eyes. You have decided you don't want to see it. Nothing will change your mind. Nothing. And you know it. Same for the election. You wrote they were rigged... You live in a parallel word.

      Delete
    3. Read more carefully. I did not say it was rigged. I say it is a reasonable position to hold.

      Looking for the evidence you claim makes Trump guilty of organizing an insurrection. Take your very best piece of evidence you heard, present it here, and we can discuss. Otherwise you are not a serious person.

      Delete
    4. A reasonable position? Nope, just a lie. Point.
      There is not point to argue about Trump and his link with insurrection. It goes nowhere. We should just fuck instead.

      Delete
    5. You inability to present any evidence is noted. Your surrender is gracefully accepted.

      Delete
    6. It was not my point to convince you. You don't accept fact as a fact. It's a kind of philosophical problem you have. Once again, you ive in a parallel world where truth is just a matter of opinion. Could be about the elections, the insurrection, anything. You see the world as a vast conspiracy and there is nothing I can do to prove you're wrong.

      Delete
    7. One person here believes that the frickin President of the United States is a Russian spy who colluded with Putin to steal the 2016 election. And then goes on to believe that said President organized an illegal insurrection against the country using only grandmas and guys in buffalo helmets and skins. With zero evidence for either. Who now is the conspiracy theorist?

      Delete
    8. You, of course. You don't believe in Truth. You know there are people like you who explains that it's impossible that six millions of jews perished during the war. They say, the surface of the chamber, they say it's mathematic, they say it's just a bunch of lies...Could I convince them they wrong ? No. Impossible.

      Delete
    9. Isn't there a law that says all political conversation devolves to Hitler with six exchanges? They should name that after you, if only you signed a name.

      Delete
    10. Goodwin. It's not about Hiltler, it's about your relation about what we call truth. People who are convinced that earth is flat, well, whatever you could say, they won't change their mind.

      Delete
    11. Ok then, Goodwin, would you not agree that the onus is on the accuser to provide evidence of a crime? Evidence that can not also be explained in a benign way? So what evidence have you that Trump knew in his heart he lost but corruptly organized an insurrection to stay in power illegally regardless? Try to be concrete for once.

      And, as you no doubt yet again ignore my ask for concrete evidence, ask yourself why you refuse to provide it despite you being 100% sure. Then ask yourself who is more likely the deluded party here.

      Of course, Goodwin, I'm not expecting much from you, so don't fret it if all you're able to blurt out is another Hitler reference, Goodwin.

      Delete
    12. Once again, I can't win against you. Nobody can. It's a trap where I won't fall. There are tons of articles in the NYT if you want but I already know your answer. For you, knowledge in itself doesn't exist. It's oriented.

      Godwin : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

      Delete
    13. Utterly predictable response, Godwin. Any serious person would summarize the evidence and link to the sources. You are not a serious person.

      Delete
    14. So, I guess you won. Not a surprise. Your system is invincible. That's how civilization falls. When educated people like you start to believe in a parallel reality. And I'm affraid that we can do nothing to fight against this.

      Delete
    15. No, it's simpler that that. My "system" is to ask for proof of crimes. You need to really look in the mirror and check yourself.

      Delete
  21. I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else.

    II. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived through itself.

    III. From a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows; and, on the other hand, if no definite cause be granted, it is impossible that an effect can follow.

    IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause.

    V. Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood, the one by means of the other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other.

    VI. A true idea must correspond with its ideate or object.

    VII. If a thing can be conceived as non—existing, its essence does not involve existence.

    Spinoza-The ethics. Part one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spinoza sucks eggs, apparently.

      Delete
    2. Try again

      Delete
    3. I don't understand your point and how it relates. Please explain.

      Delete
    4. A whole life won't be enough to understand it !

      Delete
  22. My question is how you know they have zero evidence. Do you honestly think that they will show all of their cards? They are informing the public with information. I find your political commentary comical as you review US politics from Toronto. I appreciate your confidence but as you preach to the spanko community on your beliefs, your ignorance is tiresome

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've heard that for 6 years now. Still waiting. The hammer is about to drop!

      Delete
  23. Julie I appreciate your effort to troll the democrat readers of your blog.

    I don’t like trump at all—I think he was buffoonish and incompetent—but I would readily agree that he was much more entertaining than Biden, and that the democrats in general are scaremongering the public about the Jan 6 nonsense.

    From someone who is thoroughly disenchanted with the present political and economic system, I appreciate all of this. Let the culture war burn ever hotter, with the hope that it will all burn down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are infinitely trollable, it is true. I find Trump entertaining and appreciate his sense of humour, but also think statesmanlike behaviour has a important role, which Trump does not display. But that is all trumped by policy, and on policy I have few complaints about Trump (other than rampant spending).

      Delete
    2. Oh I disagree on spending and on statesmanship too. The most refreshing thing about trump was his cynicism. Democracy is silly. Capitalism is laughable. Why pretend to take either seriously? It is all just a power contest.

      I hope other politicians from either party are willing to expose the moralism of the ones who take themselves too seriously.

      Delete
    3. It does take an outsider. And violence. And mistrust. Hopefully you’ll be here to cover it for us.

      Delete
    4. Hopefully not violence.

      Delete
    5. No worthwhile change can occur without violence. The forces of the status quo are too strong.

      Delete
    6. In historical times, maybe. In modern times all bets are off.

      Delete
  24. Julie, I will say it was rigged. It’s clearly in the numbers. Here’s the reasoning. Since people request absentee or drop off ballots and different times, receive them at different times, fill them out and return the, at different times, it’s very reasonable to view this that they arrive and are counted at random times.

    Then the statistical theory (as in a proven theorem, not as a layperson uses the term meaning hypothesis) known as the Binomial Distribution will tell us the probability of events happening (see the Wikipedia entry). The probability can also be calculated by an excel function.

    This works for anything with two outcomes such as flipping a coin, and works even if the coin is weighted.

    Now, Biden was down by over 100,000 votes (in three states) before the final counting of the absentee & drop off ballots, and he needed to get over 90% of those votes to win that state. The problem is that he was getting less than 60% of those votes already counted.

    So rounding the numbers in Biden’s favor, I assumed he was getting 60% of the votes counted and only needed 90% of 100,000 ballots remaining. When you use the Binomial Distribution to calculate the probability that he could get 90% of the remaining ballots, you find that the probability of success is less than 1 in trillion (1,000,000,000,000).

    To put that number in perspective, the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. If an election happened every four years since the birth of the universe, there is a less than a 1% chance of such an event happening. Once. In tape age of the universe. Biden managed to do this THREE times in the same election.

    It is unreasonable to assume that this many Democrats over Republicans waited until the last minute to drop/mail their ballot. And only in the three states that Biden needed that many votes to win.

    It is much more reasonable to assume that hundreds of people dropped hundreds of ballots each to get that many for Biden. Otherwise why did it happen in only those three states?

    My qualifications for this is that I have a PhD and have taken graduate level statistics.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree it is suspicious, but the counter-argument is that due to a much more intense fear of COVID, and a historical preference for mail-in voting, the mail-ins were expected to break heavily Democrat. But with some of those late batches near 100% Biden, that is tough to reconcile. I would put that in the category of "smoking gun" justifying further investigation and a serious full audit, which was what Trump was repeatedly asking for and was never fully delivered (as the system seems to be quite unauditable).

      Delete
    2. That explains why Biden was getting more, but it doesn't explain why it jumped from under 60% to over 90%. If anything people afraid of covid would vote early when there's fewer people around.

      Delete
    3. Agreed it's super fishy and was never looked into properly.

      Delete
  25. Any time some calls a conservative a fascist, I like to point out that fascist ps are socialists. Nazi stands for National SOCIALIST German Workers party. They didn’t get along with communists because they were trying to recruit the same people. The Democrats loved Hitler and National Socialism until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes indeed. Fascism is best described as State control of private enterprise, as opposed to Communism's central planning. With the collusion occurring between giant corporations and government, we are effectively living in a fascist police state now. It's just the leaders are the oligarchs, not the government.

      Delete
    2. If every time you talk rubish, we have to spank your ass, at the end of the day, it will look like a volcan erupting lava!

      Delete
    3. Oh, you think big corporations and big government are here to take care of you and tuck you into bed, do you? So sweet.

      Delete
  26. Do you realize that for many, many people, the vast majority, when they talk about Big gouvenements and big corporations, they talk about Jews dominating the world. You know that, don't you Miss Julie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like Jews. I is one, apparently. But I dont think they control the world, but I'm pretty sure the Mossad kicks ass.

      Delete
  27. Replies
    1. Julie come to America get citizenship and become pregnant it would be wonderful. You could live in Mississippi by the gulf and write all the political comments you like

      Delete
  28. You really can't stand to not stir the shit, can you? It's easy to understand the nightmare you claimed to be as a teenager.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think you should seriously question where you’re getting your information from. You are often landing in the most draconian views of things. I think it has something to do with your past trauma ,honestly.
    There have really only been republican witnesses at the hearings so you can’t say it’s partisan. I keep going back to the 6 words Trump said himself. “ And I will be with you”. That sort of sums it up for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The committee is partisan because there are no pro Trump republicans on it to offer rebuttals. In a huge departure from all previous practice, the Republicans, in this one instance, were not allowed to select their committee members.

      I don't dispute that most of the statements by witnesses were truthful, but I did not find they added any new info. Trump believed the election was rigged, and wanted to pursue all possible legal remedies. All the testimony is entirely consistent with that.

      I know where you get your information from, and it's very biased.

      Delete
  30. I feel the only time Political statements belong on a spanking blog is when the blogger wants to be spanked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a spanking blog with a dash of politics.

      Delete
  31. I is one is fighting against herself then. Fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Julie,

    Again your commentary is well thought out and documented. It was, as you point out, not a hearing it was a presentation. The biggest excitement being one of the former staffers who overheard hearsay conversations about things that went on, was not even present and yet her words were accepted as eye witness testimony. There is a reason you allow both sides to examine a witness and why hearsay is not evidence.

    I am not totally surprised by the reaction you got. People who hate Trump, hate Trump and you are not going to convince them of anything different.

    Yes, Trump is disruptive and an asshole, but he is also not a go along to get along politician and the traditional establishment can't handle that on either side.

    I think if Trump been an ethnically diverse person instead of a white male, the media would have been tripping over themselves, trying to find a way to separate him from the rioters.

    What insults and upsets me is that these Jan 6 hearings were going on at the cost of millions of dollars to accomplish nothing other than wanting someone to say, "See we (Democrats) told you it was all their (Republicans) fault." instead of moving on and trying to find some worthwhile candidates to provide leadership or policy to get everyone can get behind.

    It insults anyone of moderate intelligence that they believe normal everyday American cannot see through the smoke screens on both sides. At some point after a messy divorce both sides have to move on for the sake of the "kids."

    I am sad for the waste and sad neither party seems to have quality candidates waiting to lead America to a brighter future.

    Thanks for your comments, you are incredible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the support.

      I'm hoping Ron DeSantis finds his way through to the Presidency. He seems to be a very common sense, grounded politician not owned by corporate interests or entrenched establishment. I also find Tulsi and Yang both to be worthwhile on the Dem side.

      Delete
  33. Dear Julie,

    When Trump said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible", he was thinking about people like you.

    Or maybe your just a sadistic troll, giving your masochistic audience a good dose of discomfort. Who knows.

    As a fellow Torontonian, it's all academic to me. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump is hilarious. Apparently you're part of the 33% of humans born without a sense of humour.

      Delete
    2. I will admit that Trump is hilarious, in a freakish sort of way. The orange paint and shameless grifting are unquestionably very laughable.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, you miss it completely.

      Delete
  34. I only agree with you partly and technically there was no coup planned or so far proven. This is also John Bolton's description that nothing was planned in advance.

    However they did indeed make a strong case for non feasance when he would not mobilize to protect the Capitol. I still have questions about why Nanci Pelosi is not called before the committee since she is in charge of the Capitol Police as Speaker. She also failed. Trump despite rumors never in advance authorized any troops.

    After a summer where there were riots in many major cities, the CHAZ zone in Seattle, bombings of Federal Courthouses we have 1 counter riot by conservatives (I don't buy it was ANTIFA) at the Capitol. They left his event and went directly to Capitol Hill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was not Trump's job to protect The Capitol. He was not constitutionally allowed to mobilize anything, I believe?

      And if you objectively compare the scope of even any single BLM riot (much less all together), the Capitol thing pales in comparison.

      They went to the Hill, not to the building. Big distinction. The trespassing happened before his speech even ended.

      Delete
    2. I'm anon from above. They (Trump supporters) did go into the building, the pictures that came out 1/6 didn't show the violence on the floor below with broken windows. They had Trump signs from the event, most (or all) of the violence started after his speech.

      Trump did have a duty to protect the Capital and failed. He sat by while his supporters (not BLM or ANTIFA) were cheering to hang Pence. Pence somehow called in the National Guard even though Trump was his boss.

      Now there are many things I disagree with the media about, how they say Trump was lying about the election. He feels it was stolen, he lost in Court, he's out. Trump, Gore, Stacey Abrams, Hillary, anyone who loses is entitled to say they feel the elections they were in were stolen. They aren't allowed to prevent the people declared the winner from taking office.

      Do I believe Trump plotted a coup, No, I don't. Do I believe Trump is fit for office, No. Do I believe he did some good things, Yes. The sad thing is these are the losers running for President. The system is completely broken.

      Delete
    3. The protest they were organizing was supposed to be outside the Capitol. Yes, some breached the building and others followed them in in confusion. I have grave suspicions about the people who initially violently breached and those that directly encouraged them (such as Ray Epps) that the J6C seems singularly incurious about.

      I read the claim about Pence sending in the national guard. Seems to be all second hand info and anonymous sources. Was there any named eye witness testifying under oath that this occurred? Can you send me a link if so.

      Delete
  35. It's sad to see you become such a troll to your audience, who comes to read some of your decent writing, and then come here to find this. You're nuts. And your fantasies about being dominated by elderly white men are part and parcel of your politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are a classic case of cognitive dissonance. Once you've made up your mind (more accurately, had your mind made up for you), no amount of even-handed rational thinking will change it. Thus comments such as yours which goes on the personal attack while providing no cogent argument. Fascinating, really.

      Delete
    2. What is fascinating really julie is that you think your opinions are even handed and rational.

      Delete
    3. I await any kind of logical argument from you whatsoever. In the meantime, given your complete lack of anything of the sort, I gracefully accept your defeat on this point..

      Delete
  36. nice summary Ms. Julie! Lc

    ReplyDelete
  37. 3 hours and he did nothing but cheer them on ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you any evidence that he "cheered on" violence? He was pleased that so many supporters turned out and were being loud, sure. But cheering on violence, when he asked for the opposite, really?

      Delete
    2. He could have stopped it with one tweet. He didn’t. You are in denial.

      Delete
    3. Just like Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden or Kamala could have stopped the violent BLM riots with a tweet? Give me a break.

      Delete
    4. Besides, he tweeted at 2:38 p.m. ET that day: "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" That tweet came only 20 minutes after the window smashing started. Did not stop anything.

      Delete
    5. Delusional. All those people were there at Trump’s call. BLM has no allegiance to Pelosi / Biden. This straw man / what about BLM argument is beneath you. They were reading his tweets via megaphones. Perhaps they would have gone forward anyway (which I doubt), but he didn’t even try. 187 minutes of sedition and our President didn’t even lift a finger to make an effort. Why? Because he loved it.

      Delete
    6. Not a strawman. Those politicians were all supporting the George Floyd protests, and the rights of those protesters to go out and protest despite C19 lockdowns. The onus was on them to condemn that violence and call for it to halt.

      I understand his tweet that asked for them to stop was 20 minutes into the violence. His in person statement was 187 minutes, no?

      Delete
    7. His first tweet was an attack on Mike Pence, which stoked the fire. About 15 minutes later it was a full scale riot and he tweeted “stay peaceful” or whatever, but he never said leave. In fact, it really amounted to tacit support. By not condemning it right there, it was an endorsement. 30 minutes later he tweeted again about respect for law enforcement but again never suggested his supporters were doing anything inappropriate. So again, basically an endorsement. Meanwhile, Senators, advisers, family members are begging him to do something.

      Ask yourself this, if you were grading Trump on how strong an effort he made to end the attack, what grade would you give?

      Delete
    8. If you're referencing tweets, quote the actual tweets as I did above and we can discuss what we each imagine his intent. Else it's spin.

      Delete
    9. Anyone can look them up: but here goes … 2:24 PM Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth! (the riot was ongoing at this point)

      2:39 PM. Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful! (Doesn’t say go home, doesn’t say leave the Capitol)

      3:13 PM I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you! (Still no mention of leaving and he’s watching this shit show on TV, so he knows exactly what is going on)

      4:17 PM Tweets the video of his Rose Garden speech where he finally tells his “special” people to go home. (And guess what … they do).

      Mind you, by 1:30 PM the mob had overwhelmed Capitol police and broken through barricades. Shortly after 2 PM, the first members of the mob have broken through and are in the Capitol. Trump knows this since it unfolded on National TV and multiple people testified he watched everything.

      So again, what’s your grade for Trump’s efforts to end the riot / violence / insurrection?


      Delete
    10. If he was aware of the violence at 2:24 as you say, then I would give that one an F. The others are A's. But I'd like to see what was the coverage he was actually looking at leading up to 2:24 to really judge.

      Delete
    11. So, an F is the worst grade you can give. Is it incompetence or intent? And yes, at 2:24 PM multiple news outlets were showing the shit show that was unfolding.

      Delete
    12. It is. But as I said above, we need to hear the other side. Timelines were tight and there was fog of war and I know that some of the initial breachers looked like black block Antifa types. When we hear the other side we can weigh both sides. That's not a defence for that first tweet, but basic due process - what does the other side say?

      Delete
  38. Trump is very proud of you - you've drunk so much Kool Aid that you can no longer tell fact from fiction.

    No doubt you'll have in your own mind a plausible answer for the fact that Trumps team registered Stoptheseal.org back in 2016

    That he's been talking about voter fraud since then

    No even his own daughter now thinks the election was stolen

    Nor does Fox News who hasn't interviewed him since April, but Pence and De Santis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently Roger Stone registered the name, fearing that if the next election was close, they were worried about cheating deciding the outcome. You should not criticize him for being right.

      Delete
    2. Roger Stone, one of Trumps key advisors, registered it before the 2016 election, not after

      Trump was already suggesting in 2016, that he failed to win it would due to electoral fraud.

      Does not strike you as slightly odd? That perhaps this was Trump and Stones plan all along to sow a false narrative

      Now's a good time to remind you that Roger Stone was convicted on 7 counts by a jury on charges such as witness tampering, obstructing an official proceeding, and five counts of making false statements.

      Trump decided that the 12 jurors didn't know what they were doing and commuted Roger Stones sentence

      Again, most smart people would see this as wrong, but I'm sure you have some smart answer for this

      Delete
    3. I thought Roger Stone did break the law in those ways, but his entire arrest and prosecution was so obviously political, what with regiments of SWAT with boats and helicopters and full tactical gear there to arrest him and, coincidentally, a CNN crew right there to capture it all. The pardon was real sable given the over the top persecution of the guy relative to others who did similar crimes.

      There were suspicions that 2016 was also somewhat rigged for Hilary, but Trumps huge surge caught them by surprise. And cheating in 2020 was largely predictable, and was predicted, so I find it equally plausible that they were concerned about election integrity at that time even.

      Delete
    4. So who are these others who did similar crimes then?

      You're arguments are not making sense, as you're seeming to suggest it was politically motivated, yet he was found guilty by a jury of lying and and witness tampering

      Are you saying he shouldn't have been prosecuted?

      What proof do you have of 2016 being rigged for Hilary? Surely if you're going to rig it, you do it properly


      Delete
    5. I'm not saying that he should not have been prosecuted. I was glad he was. But the crimes were minor, and 40 months for lying to Congress was over the top, as was his arrest and it's broadcasting on CNN. Trump did not pardon him, he commuted the sentence, which was reasonable given the political nature of the prosecution and the ridiculously lengthy jail term for a first time offender of his age and physical condition with an elderly and deaf wife dependent upon him.

      Former CIA Director Brennan also lied to Congress about whether they relied on the Steele Dossier. He said definitely they did not. That was contradicted by several others and the Mueller report said it was a bald-faced lie. (https://www.independentsentinel.com/former-cia-director-john-brennan-caught-lying-to-congress/)

      National Intel Director James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA surveillance of Americans. He's admitted he lied (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/02/national-intelligence-director-apologizes-for-lying-to-congress).

      No prosecution, no jail time for either of these Democrat power brokers.

      I do not have proof. I said there were suspicions. Why do you think Hillary was so surprised when she lost? She thought the fix was in 😉.

      Delete
  39. You are engaging in a syllogism of arguing against a false premise . The DOJ and by extension in this case Congress do not investigate people they investigate crimes.
    They are investigating the murder of Capitol Police officers , the obstruction of the election certification , the placing of bombs in 2 locations in Wash DC and the stockpiling of automatic weapons at strategic locations near the city on Jan 6. Also the appearance of imposter delegates at several state houses with forged documents. And the coordinated travel and weapons transport of several violent groups to DC
    There have been 100s of arrests and convictions including guilty pleas of sedition and seditious conspiracy with sentences of 15 years and up
    As events are investigated and details arise then people involved become the focus not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If only the J6C were doing that. I want to know about those bombs, but despite all the cctv coverage of the Capitol, they just can't figure it out. Suspicious, that. And if there were all those weapons transported and stashed, don't you find it odd that they were not used? The J6C don't seem to be doing anything other than Trump bashing.

      No Capital Police were murdered. Please reference the cop you believe the crowd murdered. You do know the whole cop clubbed to death with a fire extinguisher is a hoax, right?

      Delete
  40. Quick! Better do another post on Trump to push blog engagement. You are a master troll Julie and in need of a good spanking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pageviews is about the same regardless of what I post. Comments are more, but it's mostly the same guy coming back again and again and again at me. Pageviews are fun to look at, but I post whatever I want to post. I'm pretty sure the blog would grow faster if I stayed "in my lane", but what fun is that?

      Delete
  41. Hello, been reading your blog a couple years now. 1st time commenting. I had not looked on here in several months and was a little surprised to see political discussion on a spanking blog. I have not read the political bs but passed right over it. I'll continue to read your blog, hopefully there will be more on spanking and less on politics. Spanked Hubby

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds like a very good policy. I've been posting the occasional political blog post for many years now. If only more folks were like you and just skipped over stuff they do not wish to engage with instead of getting so angry and insulting. I blog about what interests me, and spanking definitely still interests me, a lot!

      Delete
  42. Each person has their views, this is your blog and what you post is your choice. Now I will read, in the past have made comments, but what I did not tell you, my wife did not approve and should respect others views. The spanking I got was two part, first with her hand, wall facing time, pants and underpants around my ankle. Finally told to finish undressing, she then used the bathbrush on my sore spanked bottom, back to the wall, a good hour. Jack

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well here is another who will just skip over it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You have yours and I have mine. I do love the non political stuff though.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It's amazing the number of anonymous cowards who come on here, bash Julie as a person, Make grandiose claims about how she is wrong about this or that political subject or is a fascistracistnazitroll then flounce out, never able to answer her rather simple questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, this topic in particular really brings out the cognitive dissonance in the Trump hating crowd. They've been so brainwashed by the media, and so willing to accept the brainwashing, that all rationality fails them to the extent that they do not even perceive that I asked them a simple question, "where's the proof" that contradicts the non-conspiracy-theory narrative that he believes it was rigged (not unreasonable given the litany of allegations documented to-date), and encouraged people to protest peacefully, and took all lawful means at his disposal, and when they failed, left office to uphold the system.

      Delete