On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 12:59:21 -0400, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 20:16:06 -0400, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:33:40 -0400, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 12:32:06 -0600, Somebody too <nunya@biz.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>They've already volunteered to testify.
>>>
>>>>and the cheating left won't allow it.
>>>
>>>Cite.
>>
>>*crickets*
>
>*more crickets*

*still crickets*

Swill

--

Republican congressman Andrew Clyde (GA):
"You know, if you didn't know the tv footage was video from
January 6, you'd actually think it was a normal tourist visit."

On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 13:45:50 -0600, Somebody too <nunya@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 13:02:11 -0400, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 08:58:43 -0600, Somebody too <nunya@biz.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ask the families of the people who died if it matters.
>>
>>Ask Bush's victims' families in Iraq the same question.
>>
>>Swill
>
>
>BUTWHATABOUT
>
>
>Ask Joe about the ones he got killed on the day we were leaving there.

So you understand my point. Good.

Swill
--

Republican congressman Andrew Clyde (GA):
"You know, if you didn't know the tv footage was video from
January 6, you'd actually think it was a normal tourist visit."

On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 13:46:33 -0600, Somebody too <nunya@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 13:17:07 -0400, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 08:19:32 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 7/2/22 8:23 PM, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 07:36:16 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tough shit is right. Just don't have anyone believe this is some
>>>>> transparent proceeding. Could have saved a lot of time and money on this
>>>>> one by just staying home.
>>>>
>>>> Hypocrite.
>>>
>>>How so?
>>
>>Question answered below, idiot.
>>
>>>> Could have saved even more money by stopping after the
>>>> first Benghazi hearing.
>>>
>>>That's right. And???
>>
>>And Republicans are on thin ice complaining about democrats
>>investigating THEM. Especially when there is video evidence of
>>Republican guilt.

>Guilt of what?

Trying to subvert the Constitution and turn America into a
dictatorship.

Smashing a window with a riot shield taken from a cop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1pIkbPvI8s

"Proud Boys would have killed Pence if they found him, Rep. Aguilar
says, citing informant"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu01ypSzwDk

"Hang Mike Pence"
https://www.audacy.com/1010wins/news/politics/video-pro-trump-mob-chants-hang-mike-pence

A new Big Lie: "‘Normal tourist visit’: Republicans recast deadly
Jan. 6 attack by pro-Trump mob"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-riot-capitol-republicans/2021/05/12/dcc03342-b351-11eb-a980-a60af976ed44_story.html

Swill
--

Republican congressman Andrew Clyde (GA):
"You know, if you didn't know the tv footage was video from
January 6, you'd actually think it was a normal tourist visit."

On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 21:01:59 -0400, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 13:46:33 -0600, Somebody too <nunya@biz.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 13:17:07 -0400, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 08:19:32 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 7/2/22 8:23 PM, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 07:36:16 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tough shit is right. Just don't have anyone believe this is some
>>>>>> transparent proceeding. Could have saved a lot of time and money on this
>>>>>> one by just staying home.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>>How so?
>>>
>>>Question answered below, idiot.
>>>
>>>>> Could have saved even more money by stopping after the
>>>>> first Benghazi hearing.
>>>>
>>>>That's right. And???
>>>
>>>And Republicans are on thin ice complaining about democrats
>>>investigating THEM. Especially when there is video evidence of
>>>Republican guilt.
>
>>Guilt of what?
>
>Trying to subvert the Constitution and turn America into a
>dictatorship.
>
>Smashing a window with a riot shield taken from a cop.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1pIkbPvI8s
>
>"Proud Boys would have killed Pence if they found him, Rep. Aguilar
>says, citing informant"
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu01ypSzwDk
>
>"Hang Mike Pence"
>https://www.audacy.com/1010wins/news/politics/video-pro-trump-mob-chants-hang-mike-pence
>
>A new Big Lie: "‘Normal tourist visit’: Republicans recast deadly
>Jan. 6 attack by pro-Trump mob"
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-riot-capitol-republicans/2021/05/12/dcc03342-b351-11eb-a980-a60af976ed44_story.html
>
>Swill

liberal far left and liberal owned liesites.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 19:30:18 -0600, Somebody too <nunya@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>liberal far left and liberal owned liesites.

.. . . telling the truth and playing the video.

Smashing a window with a riot shield taken from a cop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1pIkbPvI8s

"Proud Boys would have killed Pence if they found him, Rep. Aguilar
says, citing informant"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu01ypSzwDk

"Hang Mike Pence"
https://www.audacy.com/1010wins/news/politics/video-pro-trump-mob-chants-hang-mike-pence

A new Big Lie: "‘Normal tourist visit’: Republicans recast deadly
Jan. 6 attack by pro-Trump mob"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-riot-capitol-republicans/2021/05/12/dcc03342-b351-11eb-a980-a60af976ed44_story.html

Swill
--

Republican congressman Andrew Clyde (GA):
"You know, if you didn't know the tv footage was video from
January 6, you'd actually think it was a normal tourist visit."

On 7/3/22 1:17 PM, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 08:19:32 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/22 8:23 PM, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 07:36:16 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tough shit is right. Just don't have anyone believe this is some
>>>> transparent proceeding. Could have saved a lot of time and money on this
>>>> one by just staying home.
>>>
>>> Hypocrite.
>>
>> How so?
>
> Question answered below, idiot.

You called me a hypocrite. So, let's try this again. How so?

>>> Could have saved even more money by stopping after the
>>> first Benghazi hearing.
>>
>> That's right. And???
> And Republicans are on thin ice complaining about democrats
> investigating THEM. Especially when there is video evidence of
> Republican guilt.
>
> Swill
>

On 7/3/22 1:19 PM, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 08:21:14 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/22 8:28 PM, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 09:18:56 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/2/22 9:03 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Congressional hearings aren't court.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they aren't. So why does your side keep declaring Trump guilty
>>>> of crimes based on a one-sided hearing? If it's as clear cut as people
>>>> like Adam Schiff claim it is then indict Trump once and for all, try the
>>>> case and let the chips fall where they may.
>>>
>>> Of course they aren't.
>>
>> Of course, they are:
>> https://news.yahoo.com/rep-adam-schiff-said-january-232235215.html
>>
>>> So why does your side keep declaring Hillary
>>> guilty of crimes based on a one-sided hearing? If it's as clear cut as
>>> people like Trey Gowdy claim it is then indict Hillary once and for
>>> all, try the case and let the chips fall where they may.
>>
>> 'My side'...LOL!!!!
>
> In case you didn't notice, IDIOT, I was paraphrasing the post I
> responded to.
>
> Learn to read.

Which was *my* post, dummy.

> Swill

On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 16:20:45 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:

>On 7/3/22 1:17 PM, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 08:19:32 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/2/22 8:23 PM, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 07:36:16 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tough shit is right. Just don't have anyone believe this is some
>>>>> transparent proceeding. Could have saved a lot of time and money on this
>>>>> one by just staying home.
>>>>
>>>> Hypocrite.
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>> Question answered below, idiot.
>
>You called me a hypocrite. So, let's try this again. How so?

I repeat. Your question is answered below.
>
>
>>>> Could have saved even more money by stopping after the
>>>> first Benghazi hearing.
>>>
>>> That's right. And???
>> And Republicans are on thin ice complaining about democrats
>> investigating THEM. Especially when there is video evidence of
>> Republican guilt.

Swill
--

Republican congressman Andrew Clyde (GA):
"You know, if you didn't know the tv footage was video from
January 6, you'd actually think it was a normal tourist visit."

On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 16:22:42 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:

>On 7/3/22 1:19 PM, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 08:21:14 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/2/22 8:28 PM, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 09:18:56 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/2/22 9:03 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Congressional hearings aren't court.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they aren't. So why does your side keep declaring Trump guilty
>>>>> of crimes based on a one-sided hearing? If it's as clear cut as people
>>>>> like Adam Schiff claim it is then indict Trump once and for all, try the
>>>>> case and let the chips fall where they may.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they aren't.
>>>
>>> Of course, they are:
>>> https://news.yahoo.com/rep-adam-schiff-said-january-232235215.html
>>>
>>>> So why does your side keep declaring Hillary
>>>> guilty of crimes based on a one-sided hearing? If it's as clear cut as
>>>> people like Trey Gowdy claim it is then indict Hillary once and for
>>>> all, try the case and let the chips fall where they may.
>>>
>>> 'My side'...LOL!!!!
>>
>> In case you didn't notice, IDIOT, I was paraphrasing the post I
>> responded to.
>>
>> Learn to read.
>
>Which was *my* post, dummy.

Yes, and . . .

Swill
--

Republican congressman Andrew Clyde (GA):
"You know, if you didn't know the tv footage was video from
January 6, you'd actually think it was a normal tourist visit."

On 6/30/2022 8:04 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 6/30/2022 8:01 AM, Yak wrote:
>> On 6/30/22 10:48 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2022 5:06 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/22 12:44 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> In article <3bWdnc9opZOuvCD_nZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>>>>>   "25.BZ959" <25BZ959@nada.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The SS agents emphatically say Trump did NOT do
>>>>>> what his (paid-off?) aide claims.
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends on what they testify under oath. Government officers
>>>>> frequently lie by commission, omission, remission, and emission.
>>>>> But they almost never do perjury. So unless they are testifying
>>>>> under oath, I don't believe your hearsay.
>>>>
>>>> Three questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Why didn't Liz Cheney or the brilliant Adam Schiff verify Hutchinson's
>>>> statements in advance?
>>>
>>> They did.
>>
>> They didn't.
>
> They did.  Schiff is a brilliant former prosecutor.  He knows and follows the
> maxim that you never put someone on the stand without knowing what she's going
> to say.
>
> They vetted the hero Ms. Hutchinson's testimony beforehand.  This is not in
> rational dispute.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Why isn't Liz Cheney or the brilliant Adam Schiff putting the agents on
>>>> the stand, under oath?
>>>
>>> They might.
>>
>> They won't.
>
> Only because those boys will refuse.

Did I call this? Yes, I did.

We kept hearing a bunch of bullshit guff from some unnamed "source" at the
secret service that Ornato and Engel were disputing Ms. Hutchinson's account and
they were "willing to testify," and now the two crooked Trumpswab fucks lawyer
up and refuse to testify.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. Why isn't Liz Cheney or the brilliant Adam Schiff putting the [sic] Eric
>>>> Herschmann on the stand, under oath?
>>>
>>> WTF is "the" Eric Herschmann?  What difference would his testimony make?
>>
>> You have no idea who he is or why I brought his name up,
>
> I know exactly who he is.  That's not what I asked you.  I asked you, "WTF is
> 'the' Eric Herschmann?"
>
> You can't read.
>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not disappointed you slander the woman. It's your admission
>>>>> of her veracity.
>>>>
>>>> Her veracity is being called into question
>>>
>>> Not by any legitimate source.
>>>
>>> Look, cocksucker:  her veracity is not being challenged.  Ornato and Engel
>>> are *supposedly* <nudge-nudge, wink-wink> willing to testify under oath that
>>> Trump neither grabbed the wheel nor Engel's neck.  But the hero Ms.
>>> Hutchinson didn't testify that Trump did that, you stupid cocksucker — she
>>> testified that Ornato *told* her, in Engel's presence, that it happened.  Did
>>> he tell her that or didn't he?  He did, and you know it.  If Ornato is now
>>> "willing to testify" that it didn't happen, then he was lying when he told
>>> the hero Ms. Hutchinson that it happened.  Was he lying then, or will he be
>>> lying when (if) he testifies?
>>
>> it's
>
> not hearsay.  You don't know what hearsay is. I do, and you don't.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 08:15:32 -0700, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con>
wrote:

>On 6/30/2022 8:04 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/30/2022 8:01 AM, Yak wrote:
>>> On 6/30/22 10:48 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/2022 5:06 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/22 12:44 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>> In article <3bWdnc9opZOuvCD_nZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>>>>>>   "25.BZ959" <25BZ959@nada.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The SS agents emphatically say Trump did NOT do
>>>>>>> what his (paid-off?) aide claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It depends on what they testify under oath. Government officers
>>>>>> frequently lie by commission, omission, remission, and emission.
>>>>>> But they almost never do perjury. So unless they are testifying
>>>>>> under oath, I don't believe your hearsay.
>>>>>
>>>>> Three questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Why didn't Liz Cheney or the brilliant Adam Schiff verify Hutchinson's
>>>>> statements in advance?
>>>>
>>>> They did.
>>>
>>> They didn't.
>>
>> They did.  Schiff is a brilliant former prosecutor.  He knows and follows the
>> maxim that you never put someone on the stand without knowing what she's going
>> to say.
>>
>> They vetted the hero Ms. Hutchinson's testimony beforehand.  This is not in
>> rational dispute.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Why isn't Liz Cheney or the brilliant Adam Schiff putting the agents on
>>>>> the stand, under oath?
>>>>
>>>> They might.
>>>
>>> They won't.
>>
>> Only because those boys will refuse.
>
>Did I call this? Yes, I did.
>
>We kept hearing a bunch of bullshit guff from some unnamed "source" at the
>secret service that Ornato and Engel were disputing Ms. Hutchinson's account and
>they were "willing to testify," and now the two crooked Trumpswab fucks lawyer
>up and refuse to testify.
>
So what? They are allowed to.