Serati
Again, the Republicans had a chance to put people on the commission (there are 2 Republicans on it) If McCarthy had just not picked 2 people who would be investigated. There wee hundreds of other congress people he could have chosen, but he wanted a reason to not have members on the commission.
And? You think that not participating in a propaganda vehicle somehow reflects on the reality of it being a propaganda vehicle? It would have been even more screamingly obvious if they had set it up to exclude the Republicans. Instead they just insured that Republican participation would be for nothing but show, no authority to get to the truth.
As we have said before this is not a court (other than court of public opinion). Trump and McCarthy had their chance and threw it away.
Don't lie to yourself. This is a court, specifically a banana court. There is no legitimate
Congressional purpose to this committee.
It is not propaganda. I think all of the witnesses (or at least a vast majority) have been life long Republicans who have been disgusted by the actions of Trump and his cronies.
It's complete and total propaganda. That you can think a curated, one-side presentation without cross examination is anything but propaganda is incredibly disturbing.
Flip it around, if Trump supporters had put together a congressional committee with no meaningful Democratic buy in, would you be on here claiming that it was somehow not propaganda? The reality is you would "know" it was propaganda from the start, there is no difference here.
There were disallowed because they spread the very lies that sparked the violent acts in the first place.
Sure, nothing like assuming guilt. Great place to start your "searching for the truth" committee.
Even if that were the case, wouldn't including Jim Jordan, for example, if you believed that, have added credibility to the results? No one could have argued that he didn't have a chance to cross examine the witnesses or to defend himself if he had been there, and then the committee's conclusions would have been the result of a process that gave the "guilty" the chance to participate.
But no, that didn't happen, because the real reason he was excluded is simple. He has absolutely owned the Democrats and their witnesses in every televised hearing at getting to the truth and exposing the lies of the witnesses. Not for any other reason. The fact that you think him asking such questions would "confuse" people rather than expose the truth is just a fundamental rejection of the American justice process.
Not to mention that if your reasoning held water, the entire committee would be invalidated because Nancy Pelosi - who has a direct personal liability involved - appointed every member. How better for her to avoid taking responsibility for her own culpability than to appoint every member - who then promptly ruled out investigating her role.
The point of the committee is propaganda, they've told you openly that they had to exclude people to ensure they couldn't "confuse the narrative," and you still debate it? As I said, consuming propaganda works. It causes your ability to critically think through an issue to become compromised.
What contrary point of view did you want on the commission? A parade of inaccurate and unverified allegations about the "stolen election" because that's all McCarthy and company had to offer.
How about people with an honest interest in understanding what happened? There's not one member of that committee that was interested in finding where the facts led, everyone of them was interested in finding the facts that led (no matter how strained the interpretation) to the place they wanted to go in the first place. How about people that question statements such as what we heard to date that expose the obvious falseness before they are broadcast on tv.
Why exactly are you okay with a witness spreading disinformation in a nationally televised hearing, when it's debunked within hours? That kind of thing wouldn't have happened with an honest effort to cross examine a witness, or even a basic concept of not relying on hearsay. Any body interested in the truth would have brought in those directly involved to testify and confronted them with the hearsay rather than putting the hearsay up as if it were proof of the substance.
We both know why they didn't. The media amplified and broadcast the disinformation as if it were true, solely for the purpose of injecting it as true into the masses. They couldn't care less about any debunking or walkback because they already know that won't get the same level of distribution. This is the essence of a banana court's work.
I mean heck, any plausible argument that the committee is more interested in the truth fails when you consider the timing of the committee (always intentionally targeted at the election), the targets of the committee (political enemies, they literally subpeonad the RNC's donor lists and demanded all records of engagement with those private citizens, and then went into court and argued the fourth amendment didn't apply and that once they have the records they can do whatever they want with them without legal consequences) and its strategies (designed to undermine the truth in favor of their narrative).
Raw uses of power established as new rights are dangerous. No chance you're going to apply the same rules when the Republicans have the power.
Also what does a "stolen election" have to do with the security failure? Again, you're repeating a propaganda narrative. Anyone protesting in DC had every right to do so, they had every right to conclude the election was stolen based on the level of impropriety involved, and most significantly, whether they believed that or not had NOTHING to do with the security breach at the capital. There is NO left wing riot from the last 2 years that would not have been able to breach the in place security at the Capital that day. Why was that?
An investigation of "how this could happen" that excludes looking at "how this did happen" seems to be a fail as far as a legitimate investigation. The committee's focus is on nothing but politics.
And when the actual justice department starts investigating more deeply and more publicly, McCarthy will call it a witch hunt, spying, violation of rights.
Everything presented by the Committee was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the separation of powers. What kind of fools see their actual rights being eliminated real time and say nothing? Oh yeah, the partisan kind.
Honestly, how can you not understand or care that
this process violates every principal of justice upon which this country rests. The right to confront your accusers, the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a trial before a jury of your peers, all thrown in the trash in pursuit of the personal bogey man of the left.
Corrupt people always hate being investigated and try to delegitimize the efforts to reveal their malfeasance.
Agreed, so why are you on here supporting those corrupt people and their committee? If you were really the good guys, you wouldn't have needed to pursue your goals corruptly. You're literally backing the team that's breaking the country and have bought into their propaganda. I mean heck, it's just a deeper more sophisticated version of Hillary's claims about the vast right wing conspiracy to pretend that Jan 6 was more than it was.
The committee has to start with the premise that attempts to disrupt and circumvent the rule of law is, well, bad.
No, they should have started with that premise, instead they've actually disrupted and circumvented the rule of law in pursuit of their purely partisan goals. In no way is this committee supporting the rule of law when they intentionally violate every principal of America justice.
The law said Pence had no right to stop the certification, so instead they fomented an illegal attempt to stop the proceedings.
The law in question is stupid, and it doesn't say what you think it says. It does purport to give Pence an authority, but inherent in that grant is that it is likely un-Constitutional to use it. But citing to a law that probably is un-Constitutional and isn't as clear as you pretend is part of the problem. Nothing about the ceremony on the capital, whether or not it actually occurs, changes the reality of who becomes the President on Jan. 20th.
Biden got away with "the steal" because our legal processes have no way to actually change a result, even it if was fraudulent, if it has been certified. This is in part because the integrity of a secret ballot prevents after the fact verification, and partly because our courts generally want no part of the controversy that would ensue.
Would Biden have won without the manipulation and improprieties? I doubt it, but no one can really know for sure. We should have spent the last 2 years ensuring the integrity of our elections to ensure that they would be trusted in the future, but one party has spent every minute trying to ensure the opposite and why wouldn't they, they were able to win by introducing all those improprieties and see a future to cheat democracy in the future so long as those improprieties remain.
