Comments by "Stephen Villano" (@spvillano) on "Brian Tyler Cohen" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. First, "I am not aware of", one would have to prove before a court mens rea and what someone knows and that would either require public statements referencing the specific quote/event or telepathy. Additionally, there's the nearly insurmountable hurdle of proving that a blonde is even self-aware or aware of their surroundings. Second, I heard the testimony with the Georgia Secretary of State telephone conversation and she stated "I have not heard the entirety of that recording", not that she was unaware of that specific quote. That was an evasion, true, but likely factual and well, admittedly, I've not heard the entirety of the conversation myself. Only the damning sound byte that well, knowing Trump from actually meeting him, is consistent with the charges alleged, but lacking in the full conversation that'd likely be even more damning. Well, it would've been, before the SCOTUS elevated him to monarch. After all, Nothing the King does can be illegal. For the hostages nonsense, granted, weak tea blonde awareness joke aside, weak tea answer, where I'd stipulate that he is entitled to his opinion and his opinions aren't relevant to the matter before the committee, since he's not being reviewed for consent of Senate. Patel's book, well, I've not read it either and what would remain relevant for her is, would she supervise him and not allow abuses of office and authority, her views on a book you'd then have to prove she had read aren't exceptionally relevant, save if one were to be instead asking if she embraced that enemies list and include said list in one's question and eating up one's questioning time on the floor. Meanwhile, the Senate doesn't have to give a cause for rejection of a candidate for the cabinet level appointment or certain officers, they can literally vote against someone based upon their eye color or what kind of shoes they wear. As for the 1001 bit and "I don't know", yeah, dumb answer, the proper answer as coached by every attorney I've known is, "I do not remember" or "I do not recall", one's conversations with others being easily investigated, memos and e-mails also trivial to print out and submit. One cannot prove what is remembered without telepathy. The hypothetical question, got asked one myself that was rather broad in scope and essentially impossible to refine as asked, so I loathe hypothetical questions. "That order, was it with the space aliens overhead in their flying saucers menacing us or Genghis Khan's hordes risen from the grave? If I'm given an plainly unlawful order, I'll question the order and explain my questioning based upon law, if persisted, I'll refuse the unlawful order and if confirmed, would be forced to report said unlawful order to the House, however I sincerely doubt such a situation would ever occur so clearly and plainly". But then, I've never been accused of being a yes man and I have indeed questioned unlawful orders, in many cases insisting on a digitally signed e-mail from the offending officer, who oddly demurred from issuing said order in writing. Digitally signed e-mails effectively being a signed written order, the signature being a DoD and court accepted nonrepudiation token and admissible in court. And yes, I've some familiarity firsthand with both federal civil and criminal cases, thankfully from the periphery. Now, if I were a spenditmore, would I vote to approve her for the proposed office? Not a chance in hell. From testimony I've heard from the proposed SecDef and now her, I'd trust neither as far as I can throw the entire District of Columbia. I'd at this point have serious qualms as to his other proposed candidates for the various offices he's requesting consent of Senate for. And that first bit I refer to as a fraudian slip, a false Freudian slip, as I've little respect for any politician, earned richly by far too many. Reminds me way too much of both "My Fellow Americans" and worse, "Liar, Liar".
    1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1