Wasn't in the line of duty but still extremely important that he be remembered and that those responsible are prosecuted for what was clearly a murder.
That was in Canada, but you still make a valid point.
Cruz is a politician who voted against certification.
YOU are a fraud.
John Sullivan was not a terrorist? So he's good, now?
Cruz should have been more specific in the same way President Trump should have toned down his rhetoric. In other words, it doesn't take a genius to understand what both were saying, and that neither deserves to be hyper-criticized so as to divide people any further.
Could both have clarified their points, yes. Should they need to? Only if you care about what Gateway Pundit had to say about anything at this point.
That's where you stopped reading isn't it.
I listened to the entire podcast, nowhere did he say that the audience were terrorists.
John Sullivan was NOT a patriot.
When did he call the protestors terrorists?
When? I didn't mob tomorrow go to the Capitol. Tens of thousands of others went but didn't mob it, they sat around eating at food trucks, or went home because it was cold as hell.
Why did he maintain his objection in the vote?
He still voted against confirmation of the electors.
He didn't withdraw his opposition to confirmation of the electors.
Then why did he maintain his objection? He didn't withdraw it.
He's a politician that's his job.
But when you psor trash like this you're participating in sowing chaos.
THAT should be the focus. But it doesn't matter now because we have post after post attacking Cruz.
THAT was the goal. To distract all of us from what Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and Josh Hawley, were actually trying to do.
It's like you didn't even read what you pasted.
Girl BYE
Some of yall dumb as hell. Unless you're criticizing those who changed their minds, in which case I sincerely apologize.
Attacking Ted Cruz, the one who tried to put the committee together, is not going going get us anywhere and will give those Lincoln pervs lulz.
He's a politician, yes. Maybe he should be less of a politician and more of a fighter, but people need to maybe focus on that instead of whining and saying, "No vote for you no more."
No, we will never learn that we can't trust reports of reports of what people are saying.
Listen to the whole discussion.
Imagine him saying he agrees that the election had serious problems but the President would have had more of a leg to stand on if the courts had heard the evidence and the proof had been established.
Because that is PRECISELY what Ted Cruz said.
It ain't so. Listen to his entire podcast.
Just like this whole Enrique Tarrio thing, we are dealing with some serious misinformation.
He has said he disagreed with the president saying some of the stuff he said without the courts having come to their conclusions.
He has said time and time again "muh anomalies," and believes that they should have been dealt with in court but he's not lying. He's being a politician, so judge him on that, not on this poor reporting from Gateway Pundit.
He made that clear later on the show.
No.
You need to listen to what he was saying about what they were doing at the time of the breach.
They were going to object and request a committee but the breach is what turned the opposers off. That's when he lost support.
That night, they should have stood firm but they gave up, probably due to optics. But this Gateway Pundit story is not accurate.
He'd gotten about 10 senators to agree to a delay in order to convene a bipartisan group but when they were about to propose it, that's when the breach happened, and it was the BREACH that made those who agreed that they should appoint a committee, decide maybe they shouldn't.
A lot of it made me cringe but his most recent podcast explains what happened.
David Geffen of all people, zero shock there.
Pretty sure he's recorded saying it.