The full transcripts are being released. How do you know they were not cross examined?
Because they were denied counsel and legal privileges in their testimony. You can look this stuff up you know.
Repubilcans had a chance to be on the committe and help make the rules.
No they didn't, that's just a lie. The Republicans had no say in the rules. They had no say in the rules in any of Pelosi's anti-constitutional actions. In many many cases even when they when they participated on committees despite the unfair rules, the Democrats overruled the rules. The Dems had a majority on every committee and used that majority over and over in blatant ways to simply create exceptions when they didn't like a result.
Not to mention how often the Dems manipulated testimony, manipulated the release of testimony and restricted any ability to disclose testimony by Republicans while leaking whatever they liked themselves.
Honestly, the fact that you're even on here "debating" that the one-sided Democrat controlled committees that refused so many legal protections that witnesses are entitled to at law and under the Constitution were okay is appalling. NOTHING that came out of the impeachments or the Jan 6 committee represents even the barest of efforts to get at the truth of the situations they purported to cover. I rate them up their with McCarthy in the books of most significant abuses of power in Congress's history.
They put up some people who were complicit in the event. You do not put Al Capone on the Grand Jury.
What delusion. I assume you are referring to Jim Jordan. Do you have some proof that he was "complicit" in something? No you really don't. Nor do you have a rationale explanation for the difference between encouraging protected activity - in other words encouraging a protest - and "encouraging" something illegal here. Nothing about encouraging a protest in DC was remotely an illegal activity and nothing actually shows that any Republican member of Congress did anything remotely more than that.
What you do have is a seemingly rock-solid belief - without any evidence or proof - that something nefarious was plotted.
We generally call that a conspiracy theory.
This was not a trial. This was an investigation.
This wasn't an investigation. It was a show. Investigations aren't afraid of hearing from both sides, investigations don't start with the premise that some facts are off limits, or too risky to explore. Investigations don't start with an announcement of the guilt of the parties they are supposedly investigating. There's a reason that trials have protections and its fundamentally a belief that you can't get to truth without someone defending both sides. That you have to overcome the other position with evidence and facts to get there. That's something fundamentally American and the last House and the one before that both rejected that principal, because loyalty to party was more important to them than loyalty to the principles of our country.
Maybe you can point me to where you get the idea that a real investigation is ruthlessly avoids hearing both sides of a story? Or even better, why don't you explain to me exactly how it will be just as legitimate in your mind if the Republicans were to say open up a similar partisan enquiry to investigate the criminal negligence of Nancy Pelosi in respect of her efforts to set the situation up. Would that investigation that assumes her guilt, denies anyone "complicit" in her guilt from participating, demands secret testimony from thousands of Democrat partisans without allowing them counsel or say allowing them to assert Congressional privilege (which for all the whining about the limits of President privilege, Congressional privilege is a 100 times larger in scope and more absolute), which leaks only the most damning pieces of testimoney and buries anything contrary to the "story" behind Congressional secrecy, and which bars Democrats from access to the records be legit to you as well? Would you really be on here saying that its conclusions were important or fair?
And a good number of Republicans knew they were in deep *censored* for what they had done for Truimp. Just check them all asking for pardons.
They didn't ask for pardons because they needed them under a fair application of the law. They asked for them because there is a two-tiered justice system, and the Federal government, including the DOJ, FBI, CIA and just about every other agency is made up of large majorities of Democrats/leftists.
In investigating many of the great Democrat scandals, including for example the Obama IRS controversy and the Hillary e-mail scandal, the DOJ has made extensive use of immunity deals (for everyone who could have testified against the Democrat principal) without getting any testimony used in courts. In investigations of Republicans on the other hand, they exclusively use plea bargains, usually for process crimes, and sometimes after blatant overcharges or threats to family members to try and generate testimony against the Republican principles. Or maybe you can point to the immunity deals for no testimony granted to Republicans that I'm missing?
