Author Topic: The Jan 6 Commission  (Read 77453 times)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #550 on: June 24, 2022, 01:01:13 PM »
To be fair, it probably does suck to be a progressive and thus forced to choose, in every election of your lifetime, between a party who wants to destroy you and another party that just wants to marginalize you while lying to your face.

I get it but as some point one needs to become conscious of when your working against yourself.
Just don't act surprised when your moment start losing ground you thought it already won.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #551 on: June 24, 2022, 01:06:37 PM »
Seeing more and more interviews with liberal progresses who are angry with Biden and won't be voting for him and that means down the ticket.
A year from now they will be wondering why they keep losing at the State and local level of government let along at the Supreme Court and blaming anyone but themselves.

And the truth is for 90% of them is doesn't matter if they show up to vote or not. They likely don't live in a swing district or swing state with a Senate race on the ballot. They can show up and vote for someone who will win easily or for a hopeless candidate. They just need the 10% of their fellow progressives who live somewhere it matters to go vote. So at least we have Speaker Pelosi instead of Speaker KissTrumpsAss. Getting 10% of what you want is better than nation wide abortion bans, gay marriage bans, dirty air, water, tax breaks for Elon Musk, tax hikes for wal-mart workers, Trump and the end of democracy in America. So vote, before you can't.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #552 on: June 27, 2022, 04:26:26 PM »
So we have a special session of the Commission tomorrow that was just scheduled today.  Looks like they are going to be talking to Alex Holder about what he filmed during this time.

Sure to be interesting stuff.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #553 on: June 28, 2022, 01:48:19 PM »
Well waiting to see how long it takes the Trumpist to call Ms Hutchinson a RINO and a liar.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #554 on: June 28, 2022, 02:28:00 PM »
Ok now we have a choice of names.  Temper Tantrum Trump or Toddler Trump.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #555 on: June 28, 2022, 02:29:35 PM »
I'm trying to imagine what would have happened if Trump's driver and security had allowed him to go to the Capitol with the mob.

The protesters would probably have still attacked it (since the Proud Boys apparently had already decided to do so).

Would security still have tried to stop them?  Or would the Capitol police have stepped back and let them in?  Would they have grabbed Pence and Pelosi--and then what?  With Trump standing in the background watching it all?  :o

That would have been a coup, obvious to everyone.  By the President of the United States of America, standing with them and egging them on.  :o

We were saved by his limo driver...

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #556 on: June 28, 2022, 04:01:24 PM »
Have you noticed that there is almost no grand standing.  Comments by the members of the committee have basically been very short.  No 10-15 minute rambling speeches.  No wonder Trumps allies are hating this.  It is clear, concise and to the point. And almost every witness has been a Republican.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #557 on: June 29, 2022, 07:38:50 AM »
Eastman is not trying to block access to his phone records from the Committee.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-eastman-former-trump-lawyer-034256868.html

More bad news.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #558 on: June 29, 2022, 08:10:54 AM »
Not sure what that will show exactly. His call logs don't seem terribly interesting to me. What would it mean if he took a call from Trump at a particular time and date?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #559 on: June 29, 2022, 08:20:34 AM »
It might show they were talking earlier than has been thought.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #560 on: June 29, 2022, 08:34:14 AM »
Yeah, but what significance is that? IF they were talking X hours earlier, THEN.... ?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #561 on: June 29, 2022, 08:40:59 AM »
It could be days earlier. Or weeks.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #562 on: June 29, 2022, 08:42:34 AM »
It might lead to nothing. Who knows?  But he sure tried to hide whatever it was.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #563 on: June 29, 2022, 08:48:52 AM »
I'm trying to imagine what would have happened if Trump's driver and security had allowed him to go to the Capitol with the mob.

The protesters would probably have still attacked it (since the Proud Boys apparently had already decided to do so).

Would security still have tried to stop them?  Or would the Capitol police have stepped back and let them in?  Would they have grabbed Pence and Pelosi--and then what?  With Trump standing in the background watching it all?  :o

That would have been a coup, obvious to everyone.  By the President of the United States of America, standing with them and egging them on.  :o

We were saved by his limo driver...

I’m trying to imagine how anyone believed this story. It’s a obvious lie and, if you actually believe it, evidence of your own mental illness as it’s literally insane to accept this story as truth. Her lawyer has started walking it back. The agents involved say it never happened. Then there’s the fact it’s physically impossible. Insanity.

Quite a few of you need some help. Professional help.  Even then, I’m not sure you’ll get better but you need to start doing the work if you ever want to be normal again.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #564 on: June 29, 2022, 08:52:25 AM »
Have them testify under oath then.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #565 on: June 29, 2022, 09:36:01 AM »
...I’m trying to imagine how anyone believed this story. It’s a obvious lie and, if you actually believe it, evidence of your own mental illness as it’s literally insane to accept this story as truth. Her lawyer has started walking it back. The agents involved say it never happened. Then there’s the fact it’s physically impossible. Insanity.

Quite a few of you need some help. Professional help.  Even then, I’m not sure you’ll get better but you need to start doing the work if you ever want to be normal again.

Yes, those who know "The Beast" (not Hillary) say it is physically impossible to reach the driver from the back seat.

This means there is no need to swear in anyone for an unselect committee bogus appearance. This may have been the best thing for Trump. Such an obvious lie put forward by this stupid committee should knock it off the complicit televised media. The entire strawman episode is only attempted to let the complicit Democrat operatives in the DOJ indict Trump on made-up charges to keep him off the 2024 ballot. They used up Russia, Russia, Russia! and the Ukraine phone call to force Impeachments proven to be invalid, so they thought they could do it again. One other thing is that Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger won't be around anymore after the next election - even with the Democrats following Cheney's request to cross lines and vote for her as GOP.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #566 on: June 29, 2022, 09:52:37 AM »
I don't see how it is impossible.

detail on the Beast

It is obviously true that if the President is sitting where he normally would, he can't reach the steering wheel, but I don't see why he couldn't lunge forward and stick his arm through the seats. There is no physical barrier there, which would prevent secret service from moving to the back to protect the president among other things. I won't even bother to ask who the nebulous "those who know" are, I know you don't actually have a source when you do that.

The agents do seem to be refuting the story, and I don't give it a lot of credibility. First, I don't think Trump could move that fast given that he wobbles down a gradual incline. I don't think Hutchinson is lying though. She definitely could have overheard someone who was engaging in Trump-style hyperbole, who may or may not have been an agent, or who may or may not have been "just joking", or someone who said "I thought Trump was going to grab the wheel." As opposed to "Trump tried to grab the wheel." Which became distorted either at the time or over the period of months to follow.

I could easily see an irate Trump threatening to grab the wheel. But really, the bigger point is whether he WANTED to go to the capitol to egg on his supporters, and we generally already know this because he told them he was going with them in his speech.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #567 on: June 29, 2022, 09:56:59 AM »
But really, the bigger point is whether he WANTED to go to the capitol to egg on his supporters, and we generally already know this because he told them he was going with them in his speech.

What would be demonstrated by this being true?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #568 on: June 29, 2022, 10:10:36 AM »
Demonstrates a number of things, potentially. That he wasn't done with making them angrier. That he could have tried ordering the security to get out of the way. That he was comfortable joining a conglomeration of militias, proud boys, Qspiracists, Boogaloo, and other unsavory characters that were "good people" to him, because they supported him. Just like when Pelosi joined a BLM protest, it was tacit approval of their cause and their tactics.

Now, we can't know for sure that if Trump had been there he would have been shocked by the violence unfolding and done something to stop it. But we know he couldn't even be bothered to tweet against it, so we can be pretty sure he'd have been in favor of doing nothing at the very least.

We need to ask, "Why was it important to Trump to be physically present?"

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #569 on: June 29, 2022, 10:20:38 AM »
That he wanted to intimidate Congress to do what he wanted? With his armed mob at his back.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #570 on: June 29, 2022, 10:28:44 AM »
If you imagine he was trying to whip up an unruly mob trying to overthrow the government, it would be illogical for him to want to be there. Why put yourself in a dangerous situation for no reason, and why implicate yourself directly in treason by being present? I don't see Trump as a storming the castle kind of guy. If he wanted to be there it probably means he thought it wouldn't be too unruly, and that he'd be able to personally protest whatever it is he thought he was protesting. It probably doesn't prove anything in either direction, but if we're talking about a shifting of probabilities, I would guess that him wanting to be there lowers the chance that what he wanted was a violent or tumultuous event.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #571 on: June 29, 2022, 11:02:44 AM »
"It would be illogical for Trump to want this" is, I submit, not a particularly effective argument against the possibility that Trump wanted something, based on what we have observed of his behavior over the years.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #572 on: June 29, 2022, 11:36:30 AM »
"It would be illogical for Trump to want this" is, I submit, not a particularly effective argument against the possibility that Trump wanted something, based on what we have observed of his behavior over the years.

If the topic is to base his intentions on a fact (such as him wanting to be there) then we can choose between guessing at his reasoning process, or dropping the whole matter. If you're saying we can't assume any rationale to his reasoning then that means we can't assess his thought process at all, and must drop it.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #573 on: June 29, 2022, 12:09:19 PM »
It seems obvious that he wanted to watch some chaos, since that's exactly what he did when it unfolded on TV. And, he already knew about the fact that people trying to attend his rally had weapons, including spears, and he was fine with that. It seems implausible that he was thinking that people were going to peacefully protest with bear spray. There's no proof to this, of course, we can't know what was in his mind. But I think if we're assigning probabilities, he wanted to them to barge in with weapons though he might have thought there would be no violence because he deluded himself into thinking the capitol police would wave them in or that Mike Pence would see the mob outside and suspend proceedings. His stated point was for the mob to make Mike Pence change his mind. It hinged on the implied threat, as he well knew that Pence wasn't going to suddenly decide that he had the power to reject the count.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #574 on: June 29, 2022, 02:58:52 PM »
It seems obvious that he wanted to watch some chaos, since that's exactly what he did when it unfolded on TV. And, he already knew about the fact that people trying to attend his rally had weapons, including spears, and he was fine with that. It seems implausible that he was thinking that people were going to peacefully protest with bear spray. There's no proof to this, of course, we can't know what was in his mind. But I think if we're assigning probabilities, he wanted to them to barge in with weapons though he might have thought there would be no violence because he deluded himself into thinking the capitol police would wave them in or that Mike Pence would see the mob outside and suspend proceedings. His stated point was for the mob to make Mike Pence change his mind. It hinged on the implied threat, as he well knew that Pence wasn't going to suddenly decide that he had the power to reject the count.

So much wrong. The Beast (not Hillary) was talked about by Secret Service agents who have been in it. I will galdly take their opinion than Cassidy Hutchinson who admitted her entire testimony was second hand.

Furthermore; have you never heard of Ockham's Razor? Since Trump told his audience to be legal, peaceful, and patriotic, why would he go to a reported  confrontation if not to repeat his admonition? Your allusions to them being armed has been refuted numerous times. Even the filmmaker who was shown in the J6 hearing said even the "Proud Boys" were unarmed. Perhaps someone had a pencil in his pocket. Would that be your evidence of a "spear"? If Trump saw any weapons he certainly was not "fine with that" because he said on the record he wanted a peaceful march. What did you want? If you assumed he wanted them to barge in with weapons, you are a Democrat activist. Why did he offer Pelosi's House Sergeant-at-Arms, Paul Irving, troops to help support the half-strength security? And isn't that the guy who resigned in protest because Pelosi did not accept the help? Is he the same guy who just died? Schumer fired his head of security, blaming the Sargeant-at-Arms for his own incompetence? Pelosi and Schumer said they both wanted to fire the DC Chief of Police.

You assume.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #575 on: June 29, 2022, 03:08:56 PM »
Have them testify under oath then.

They have offered to do so. The Jan 6th commission doesn't want them. Any guesses why?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 03:13:57 PM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #576 on: June 29, 2022, 03:13:31 PM »
"It would be illogical for Trump to want this" is, I submit, not a particularly effective argument against the possibility that Trump wanted something, based on what we have observed of his behavior over the years.

In this particular fantasy, how do you imagine it went down?

Did Trump extend his arms their full 8 feet and reach through the partition to grab the wheel, then pour himself into the front seat T1000 style? Or did he manage to somehow squeeze that 44-inch waist and Patrick Swayze-size head through the little partition space to fight his way into the front seat? Or are you imagining Trump routinely rode in the front seat, sandwiched between the agents?

I'm just curious how deep the delusion goes really.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #577 on: June 29, 2022, 03:18:42 PM »
Quote
In this particular fantasy, how do you imagine it went down?
I haven't given it any thought, because I honestly don't care what sort of tantrum Trump may or may not have thrown. I'm not particularly interested in salacious details regarding how much of a man-baby the last president may or may not have been, and don't really speculate about them. For me, the only interesting part of the last day of testimony was Cheney's closing mention of text messages that, on their face, appear to be transparent witness tampering; everything else is just varying degrees of "Trump continued to be a narcissistic, delusional, autocratic *censored*," which is hardly revelatory.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #578 on: June 29, 2022, 03:30:02 PM »
It seems obvious that he wanted to watch some chaos, since that's exactly what he did when it unfolded on TV. And, he already knew about the fact that people trying to attend his rally had weapons, including spears, and he was fine with that. It seems implausible that he was thinking that people were going to peacefully protest with bear spray. There's no proof to this, of course, we can't know what was in his mind. But I think if we're assigning probabilities, he wanted to them to barge in with weapons though he might have thought there would be no violence because he deluded himself into thinking the capitol police would wave them in or that Mike Pence would see the mob outside and suspend proceedings. His stated point was for the mob to make Mike Pence change his mind. It hinged on the implied threat, as he well knew that Pence wasn't going to suddenly decide that he had the power to reject the count.

So much wrong. The Beast (not Hillary) was talked about by Secret Service agents who have been in it. I will galdly take their opinion than Cassidy Hutchinson who admitted her entire testimony was second hand.

This is where the delusion meets the road. We got some (then) 23-year-old girl who has a friend that knows a guy that said Trump attacked agents and tried to take the wheel (something physically impossible). Then we have the agents that were right there in the car, actually involved in anything that went down in the limo. They 100% deny it ever happened.

Should we believe the agents, with direct first-hand experience and were the supposed targets of Trump's physical attack? Or should we believe what some random chick tells us she overheard from her cousin in California or whatever it was?

This is literally the Smollett moment of the Jan 6 commission and exposes the absolute sham of this thing.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #579 on: June 29, 2022, 03:32:09 PM »
Quote
In this particular fantasy, how do you imagine it went down?
I haven't given it any thought, because I honestly don't care what sort of tantrum Trump may or may not have thrown. I'm not particularly interested in salacious details regarding how much of a man-baby the last president may or may not have been, and don't really speculate about them. For me, the only interesting part of the last day of testimony was Cheney's closing mention of text messages that, on their face, appear to be transparent witness tampering; everything else is just varying degrees of "Trump continued to be a narcissistic, delusional, autocratic *censored*," which is hardly revelatory.

Right. You don't care if they're lying, you just want your delusion to be accurate and confirm all your biases. Truth be damned. Bold strategy, let's see how it plays out.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #580 on: June 29, 2022, 03:35:09 PM »
They have? Then why are they taking the 5th?  Or going to court to oppose the suponeas?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #581 on: June 29, 2022, 03:48:16 PM »
What if Trump was not in "The Beast" when the event occurred? Does that change anything as being possible then?

Washington Post reporter and Secret Service expert Carol Leonnig told MSNBC on Tuesday night that Trump physically could have reached for Engel and the steering wheel of the Secret Service SUV he was riding in on Jan. 6 — not the presidential limo, or Beast — and that Engel and especially Ornato "were very, very close to President Trump, and some people accused them of at times being enablers and yes men of the president."

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #582 on: June 29, 2022, 03:57:39 PM »
I have found conflicting reports as to which vehicle Trump was in.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #583 on: June 29, 2022, 04:05:54 PM »
Quote
You don't care if they're lying, you just want your delusion to be accurate and confirm all your biases.
I'd like to think that you missed what I actually said, or somehow misunderstood it, but sadly I'm almost certain that you're just playing enfant terrible again.

Of course, what I actually said, Crunch, is that I don't care if someone is testifying under oath to someone else's description of Trump's terrible behavior because Trump's terrible behavior is not actually the subject of this investigation. It's not particularly relevant to anything, it's not empirically verifiable, and it's not actionable. It's just salacious copy. What I do care about is hard evidence of witness tampering.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #584 on: June 29, 2022, 04:14:49 PM »
"It would be illogical for Trump to want this" is, I submit, not a particularly effective argument against the possibility that Trump wanted something, based on what we have observed of his behavior over the years.

In this particular fantasy, how do you imagine it went down?

Did Trump extend his arms their full 8 feet and reach through the partition to grab the wheel, then pour himself into the front seat T1000 style? Or did he manage to somehow squeeze that 44-inch waist and Patrick Swayze-size head through the little partition space to fight his way into the front seat? Or are you imagining Trump routinely rode in the front seat, sandwiched between the agents?

I'm just curious how deep the delusion goes really.

If you looked at the diagram I provided of the beast, he doesn't have to have gadget arms, he would just have to lunge forward. I find the story improbable, but to declare it impossible is just silly. Do you not think that a normal human pressed up against the back of the front seat could reach the wheel? Or do you think he was strapped into a child seat? Did he even have to be seated, or was he up there arguing with the agent after he entered the vehicle? Maybe he never did sit back into the back seat. Use some imagination, just pretend it was Biden and you'll suddenly find it very possible.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #585 on: June 29, 2022, 06:12:48 PM »
Whether Trump could have reached the steering wheel is not that important to me.  She related a story she heard from someone else; if the details are wrong, it doesn't matter that much.

What matters is that Trump wanted very much to follow the crowd to the Capitol.  A crowd that was riled-up by Trump to believe that the election had been stolen.  That Trump told that the transfer of power could be stopped.  That Trump was told that members of which were armed.  That Trump sent to the Capitol and told to "fight like hell."

These facts have been attested to by multiple witnesses.

He wanted to be there when an angry crowd, some of whom he thought were armed (and some were), reached the Capitol.  He wanted to be there to see what they would do.  What anyone in that situation, with that information, would expect them to do--storm the Capitol, to attempt to stop the transfer of power. 

Which they did.  >:(

Whether he was in the Beast, or another SUV, or just yelled and screamed, he wanted to be there because he wanted to see his supporters try to stop Congress from doing their Constitutional duty.  He wanted to see them try to keep him in power.

It's sedition, pure and simple.  The President tried to stop Congress from doing it's business.  He tried to overthrow Congress.

That's what is important.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #586 on: July 02, 2022, 08:40:10 PM »
Whether Trump could have reached the steering wheel is not that important to me.  She related a story she heard from someone else; if the details are wrong, it doesn't matter that much.
Not important? It was done by connivance of the Committee to denigrate Trump's conduct and his thinking. It is the bigger picture you should be livid about. Were you not livid when you found out Hillary created the Russia! Russia! Russia! hoax? Were you not livid when you found out that Hillary did all the eMail felonies she was accused of and still skated? Were you livid when Schiff lied over and over about his Intelligence Committee's findings, and his "proof" that never existed?

...What matters is that Trump wanted very much to follow the crowd to the Capitol.  A crowd that was riled-up by Trump to believe that the election had been stolen.  That Trump told that the transfer of power could be stopped.  That Trump was told that members of which were armed.  That Trump sent to the Capitol and told to "fight like hell."

These facts have been attested to by multiple witnesses.

He wanted to be there when an angry crowd, some of whom he thought were armed (and some were), reached the Capitol.  He wanted to be there to see what they would do.  What anyone in that situation, with that information, would expect them to do--storm the Capitol, to attempt to stop the transfer of power. 

Which they did.  >:(
Unpack what you stated. Those who "stormed" the Capitol Building (Even though the Security forces were videoed letting them in with smiles and motioning them to enter with their full approval) preceded the end of the speech, and most did not even attend the speech (as shown by the videos, and clearly stated by the J6 Committee's own commentary. These people were not armed.) Please refrain from reading his mind when he clearly urged his crowd to legally and patriotically show their support for truth to be honored, but not be violent.

...Whether he was in the Beast, or another SUV, or just yelled and screamed, he wanted to be there because he wanted to see his supporters try to stop Congress from doing their Constitutional duty.  He wanted to see them try to keep him in power.

It's sedition, pure and simple.  The President tried to stop Congress from doing it's business.  He tried to overthrow Congress.

That's what is important.
No -  the problem, as has now been demonstrated, was the vote scamming, with enough numbers to alter the election - which was not allowed to be looked at. What Trump and all his followers wanted was an honest look at what happened. The courts never admitted eyewitness affidavits into evidence so they was never looked at. They were not ruled on - just ignored. We all know the water main break never occurred, that allowed the Democrat counters to lock out the poll watchers. ...And since that occurred when Trump was winning by a wide margin - any change is suspect.

What you miss, is that Trump wanted to perfect the voting process so that illegal vote-scamming could not become sacrosanct. Democrats are known to be THE vote-scamming party. Stopping that for the future was far more important than Trump personally winning or losing.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2022, 08:42:48 PM by wmLambert »

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #587 on: July 02, 2022, 08:48:22 PM »
Please be less delusional, William.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #588 on: July 03, 2022, 05:19:49 PM »
Please be less delusional, William.

Insult shows your dishonor. The delusion comes from you accepting the strawman Trump that you and your hoax crowd created.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #589 on: July 03, 2022, 05:24:50 PM »
I don't for a moment believe that you feel insulted. But I'm trying to be clear and forthright, here: you are delusional. This is not healthy, and it is similarly unhealthy for you for people to engage you in a way that does not acknowledge the degree of your delusion. People might believe they are doing you a favor by pretending that you are making points open to factual rebuttal, but this back-and-forth actually does you harm. It's unfortunate on a number of levels.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #590 on: July 04, 2022, 12:39:11 AM »
What's unfortunate is that we have 12 pages of comments on a banana republic show trial thread.  No one should have paid any attention to this propaganda vehicle.  If they were serious they would have honored our American legal process, they would have included defense counsel or contrary voices to cross examine witnesses (and nothing at all stopped them from hiring someone to do this), they would have honored probable cause in their subpoenas (instead of claiming they have no restrictions at all on what they demand notwithstanding the blatant 4th Amendment violations), and in fact, they would not have conducted this through Congress (Congress has no legal authority to investigate crimes).  There is no conceivable legislation to which this is relevant other than possible an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder and they've made it express that everything they are doing is designed to trigger an investigation by the DOJ. 

No one who believes in the principals behind this country should even tolerate this abuse, let alone pretend that its bringing out the truth (rather than obscuring it).

Reading and watching propaganda will have an effect on you.  For example, denying the wide spread voting irregularities is a sign that you've lost touch with reality.  Given this is a specific intent of the election based propaganda that has been relentlessly pushed ever since the election, it's a sign that you've been over exposed to propaganda.  Either that or you know its false and nonetheless continue to spread it.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #591 on: July 04, 2022, 08:04:40 AM »
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.
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.

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.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #592 on: July 04, 2022, 09:28:49 AM »
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.
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.

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.

The GOP did name people to the commission, and they were disallowed. Since Pelosi was the one who disallowed them and put Kinzinger and Cheney in who are anti-Trumpers, she invalidated her own kangaroo court. Anyone who goes along with what they know is wrong becomes wrong, themselves. Look at the Sussman trial. The judge allowed jurors who were admittedly pro-Sussman and anti-Trump, yet those legally allowed to participate in the J6 Committee were kept off with bogus allegations that they also could be looked at?

This is not about being delusioonal - that is just a red herring. This is about circumventing justice and searching for a way to keep Trump off the 2024 ballot.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #593 on: July 04, 2022, 11:58:20 AM »
There were disallowed because they spread the very lies that sparked the violent acts in the first place. 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. And when the actual justice department starts investigating more deeply and more publicly, McCarthy will call it a witch hunt, spying, violation of rights. Corrupt people always hate being investigated and try to delegitimize the efforts to reveal their malfeasance. The committee has to start with the premise that attempts to disrupt and circumvent the rule of law is, well, bad. The law said Pence had no right to stop the certification, so instead they fomented an illegal attempt to stop the proceedings.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #594 on: July 04, 2022, 04:03:05 PM »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.   

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #595 on: July 04, 2022, 05:27:51 PM »
Seriati, I'm curious: which if any of the Benghazi investigative committees do you believe were primarily propaganda?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #596 on: July 04, 2022, 05:42:32 PM »
I’m curious if you think every police and grand jury investigation is propaganda because the defense and the accused aren’t part of the police investigation and questioning of witnesses?

No one was denied due process, courts reviewed subpoenas, people were allowed to plead the 5th. Just because Trump’s coconspirators weren’t in on the investigation it’s propaganda? I think it might be intimidating to testify to Jim Jordan’s crimes if he’s the investigator. Republicans rejected the concept of a full bipartisan commission. And I see no signs that the two Republicans have been muffled or relegated to insignificant roles.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #597 on: July 04, 2022, 06:36:36 PM »
Serati's problem is that they do not support Trump so they are not Republicans.  If you do not support Trump you are a RINO. That is the only definition of a RINO now. Life long Republicans who have supported the Party for decades are RINO's if they do not support Trump's election and Jan 6 claims.

Just ask Rusty Bowers, Kemp, the GA SOS, and dozens of other Republicans whose only "crime" is not not support Trumps view of things.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #598 on: July 05, 2022, 09:05:44 AM »
If McCarthy had really wanted to find out what happened on Jan 6 he would have suggested members that were not involved with the Jan 6 riots.  Instead he wanted to torpedo the investigation. As I said, there are dozens if not hundreds of members he could have chosen, but he picked 2 that were directly involved. That was not good faith.

Even Trump is calling the move a bad one. Of course Trump always has 20/20 hindsight.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #599 on: July 05, 2022, 09:23:10 AM »
...

Quote
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.

Congress doesn't have a purpose to investigate how they came about being attacked by a mob being egged on by the President? Your idea of what congress can investigate must be very limited.

In what way is this a "court"? Other than they have people testify under oath. No one is on trial, no one is charged with a crime, no one is going to jail at the end of the hearings.

Quote
Quote
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.
...

Trump and his supporters have had two years, 250 million dollars, and control of many state governments to show evidence of voter fraud. Your claim that its impossible to identify after the fact is shown to be false, just a couple months ago a Republican vote harvester in Pennsylvania was identified. And that was something like 20 votes. Yet you claim the Democrats are so clever and organized they can run organizations that handle 20,000+ votes without being identified.