What do the "Wolves" Think?

CP92

I'm curious what you self proclaimed wolves think on whether Trump should testify to the Jan 6th committee? He's been accused of a lot of crimes, is this his opportunity to give evidence that would clear him of any wrong doing?

Chris

fishlessman

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”  he could lead with that

Gulfcoastguy

It's probably a mistake. With sharp lawyers it's frightfully easy to get caught in a perjury trap and he has a big ego. More likely they will just drag this out until past January 20th.

CP92

Gulfcoastguy said:

It's probably a mistake. With sharp lawyers it's frightfully easy to get caught in a perjury trap and he has a big ego. More likely they will just drag this out until past January 20th.

I just remember how unglued Trump came in the press meeting with Pelosi and Schumer over shutting the govt down. Think he'd be too easy to goad into saying something that would be a "You can't handle the truth" moment. 

Ozzie_Isaac

Not a wolf, but will answer.  It doesn't actually matter.  He will just plead the 5th approximately one gajillion times.  That is what he always does on the stand.

He plays the clown on the big stage, but once he is under oath he wises up and shuts up.

CP92

Ozzie_Isaac said:

He plays the clown on the big stage, but once he is under oath he wises up and shuts up.

I'm not so sure. I think his ego is so big, it would be easy to bait him. Though you may very well be right. 

Ozzie_Isaac

CP92 said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

He plays the clown on the big stage, but once he is under oath he wises up and shuts up.

I'm not so sure. I think his ego is so big, it would be easy to bait him. Though you may very well be right. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/10/trump-says-he-refused-to-answer-ny-attorney-generals-questions-in-probe-of-his-business.html

CP92

Oh, I'm well aware of his most recent testimony. But I think you put him in front of a live camera and it would be a different story. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. 

JohnInCarolina

Gulfcoastguy said:

It's probably a mistake. With sharp lawyers it's frightfully easy to get caught in a perjury trap and he has a big ego. 

lousubcap

No chance I would let Cheeto anywhere near a setting with live feed TV.  He would somehow turn it into a blustering clown show and just feed his base.
Behind closed doors, perhaps a different story.  That's my sheepish answer-

Legume

Criminal investigations, absolutely the 5th, but chance to show up the cmte on a big stage?  IF he was going to, it would be then.

CP92

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

It's probably a mistake. With sharp lawyers it's frightfully easy to get caught in a perjury trap and he has a big ego. 

To be honest, I hate her almost as much as Trump. And if this is the Benghazi testimony, she lost her cool when she remarked "what difference does it make?!!!"  Complete and abject failure to take responsibility as the head of her agency. 

HeavyG

I'll never understand the hatred some folks have for HRC.

What would be hilarious is if Trump does show up is, after he is sworn in, one of the committee members announces they have hired special counsel for some of the questioning that day and then out walks Hillary. Trumpy's head likely would explode.

If they do get Trump to show up I don't think it should be televised. Who should have been televised was Ginni Thomas.

JohnInCarolina

CP92 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

It's probably a mistake. With sharp lawyers it's frightfully easy to get caught in a perjury trap and he has a big ego. 

To be honest, I hate her almost as much as Trump. And if this is the Benghazi testimony, she lost her cool when she remarked "what difference does it make?!!!"  Complete and abject failure to take responsibility as the head of her agency. 

My point was only that she testified.  In person. For 11 hrs.  Not once did she plead the fifth.  If Trump ever does testify, I fully expect we will see a very different type of performance.  

Regarding that quote of hers you cited, in the full context it reads quite a bit differently.  Have you ever looked at that?  Here it is:

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator."

If you look at the whole transcript it presents quite differently.  I think a lot of people have cited that quote and used it to imply that she didn't care that we had four dead Americans, when that's simply not true. 

Botch

HeavyG said:

What would be hilarious is if Trump does show up is, after he is sworn in, one of the committee members announces they have hired special counsel for some of the questioning that day and then out walks Hillary. Trumpy's head likely would explode.

I'm going to be chuckling all afternoon at that thought.    

CP92

And my only point was she's not the model for testimony and maintaining composure.

To hold her up as an example of how an elected official should comport themselves is to pass up many individuals much more deserving than her. She believes she's above the law as much as Trump does -- possibly more -- she's just smarter and more savvy in how she goes about it. 

Given what she did as the head of the Dept of State, she should also be disqualified from holding a clearance and any position of public trust ever again. 

Legume

I don’t think she’s planning on running for any more offices, but I could be wrong.

CP92

Legume said:

I don’t think she’s planning on running for any more offices, but I could be wrong.

It's my firm belief, if she thought there was an appetite for her as the nominee, she'd jump at the chance. 

JohnInCarolina

The hatred for HRC has always been pretty strong in some sectors.  I’m not a huge fan of hers by any stretch but like @HeavyG I’ve never really understood all the hatred.  

The people I know in the State Dept who worked there when she was SecState held her in fairly high regard.  These are career civil servants, not political appointees.  

CP92

JohnInCarolina said:

The hatred for HRC has always been pretty strong in some sectors.  I’m not a huge fan of hers by any stretch but like @HeavyG I’ve never really understood all the hatred.  

My hatred of her stems from her arrogance, especially when she was the head of the DoS. She full well knew what she was doing was wrong and put sources and methods at risk, likely as much, if not more, than Trump's mishandling of classified information. 

She blatantly went out of her way to avoid having a record of what she did. She didn't even have a computer in her office. Why do you think that was? Then she tried to avoid accountability by destroying the server in her basement. For ****'s sake, she was an Original Classification Authority.  Even Comey concluded that she broke the law, but choose not to prosecute her. 

JohnInCarolina

CP92 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

The hatred for HRC has always been pretty strong in some sectors.  I’m not a huge fan of hers by any stretch but like @HeavyG I’ve never really understood all the hatred.  

My hatred of her stems from her arrogance, especially when she was the head of the DoS. She full well knew what she was doing was wrong and put sources and methods at risk, likely as much, if not more, than Trump's mishandling of classified information. 

She blatantly went out of her way to avoid having a record of what she did. She didn't even have a computer in her office. Why do you think that was? Then she tried to avoid accountability by destroying the server in her basement. For ****'s sake, she was an Original Classification Authority.  Even Comey concluded that she broke the law, but choose not to prosecute her. 

I think you’re wrong in just about every aspect of this, and more than just about anyone else here, I know precisely how classification works.  But it’s just not worth it to me to get into a long back and forth on this.  HRC has been hashed and re-hashed here, ad nauseam.  So I’ll just leave it at that for me.

dmchicago

A other “ wolf” frightened by an intelligent, powerful woman. 

CP92

JohnInCarolina said:

CP92 said:

I think you’re wrong in just about every aspect of this, and more than just about anyone else here, I know precisely how classification works.  

Your arrogance is showing through. I know I've have held higher accesses than you for over 30 years, have taken classification classes, and served as a classification advisory officer. I know I am infinitely more qualified to talk to classification matters than you'll ever be. 

That simple statement calls into question many of your other "claims" if you're so caviler as to think you "know more than just about anyone..." 

JohnInCarolina

CP92 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

CP92 said:

I think you’re wrong in just about every aspect of this, and more than just about anyone else here, I know precisely how classification works.  

Your arrogance is showing through. I know I've have held higher accesses than you for over 30 years, have taken classification classes, and served as a classification advisory officer. I know I am infinitely more qualified to talk to classification matters than you'll ever be. 

That simple statement calls into question many of your other "claims" if you're so caviler as to think you "know more than just about anyone..." 

Right.  The last thing I’ll say is that the very first rule of holding a clearance is that you don’t discuss it with anyone who doesn’t have NTK status.  

CP92

dmchicago said:

A other “ wolf” frightened by an intelligent, powerful woman. 

And you're just talking out your ass if you're referring to me. By no means am I scared of intelligent, powerful women. She's just not the example I look to when it comes to that moniker. Liz Cheney, Kamal Harris, Margret Thatcher, Anglea Merkel, all much better choices than Hilary Clinton. 

Legume

My dad had a security clearance.  I never have, but I was in fight club.

dmchicago

CP92 said:

dmchicago said:

A other “ wolf” frightened by an intelligent, powerful woman. 

And you're just talking out your ass if you're referring to me. By no means am I scared of intelligent, powerful women. She's just not the example I look to when it comes to that moniker. Liz Cheney, Kamal Harris, Margret Thatcher, Anglea Merkel, all much better choices than Hilary Clinton. 

FFS, if you admire them so much, maybe spell their names right.

1 for 5.

this obviously calls into question all your other claims. 

Botch

Poop, I thought we were gunna have a **** girth contest.
I would've won.    

JohnInCarolina

dmchicago said:

this obviously calls into question all your other claims. 

JohnInCarolina

We have gotten off subject here, and it’s probably my fault, so for that I apologize to the OP @CP92

WildmanWilson

Why would anyone cooperate in this one sided circus? It’s never been about justice. It’s been about getting Trump. Just like all the other attempts. No cross examination. Not witnesses from the other side. The democrats are making us into a banana republic. Yet at every turn the libs think all that matters is winning. Regardless if justice takes place. The same things we see on social media. They want free speech shutdown so only one version is ever heard. They still don’t see the damage that’s taking place and never will.