J6 Committee unanimous

[SkepticThinker]

Of those you've suggested: Pelosi.


It wasn't a fair investigation. I've said why. Just because you disagree, doesn't mean I haven't been clear about my objection.


I'm not sure what you think people have to abide by with regards to the Jan 6 committee, which was not empowered to deliver a verdict, criminal, or otherwise - the committee cannot impeach nor try Trump. The House impeachments, on the other hand, as well as the Senate trials involved votes that reached results that must be abided by.


"Evidence" available on Jan 6 (before a case was assembled against Trump) convinced you already (prior to the investigations of the Jan 6 committee) that Trump was guilty of... something. But that certainly is not the case for me and not the case for many others.



Any attempt by the DOJ to pursue charges against Trump in the wake of the Jan 6 referral has been harmed. The Jan 6 committee was partisan, despite your assertion to the contrary. Let me by very clear here: I understand that you argue the Jan 6 commitee was partisan because Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are Republicans. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinznger were censured by the Republican party for their actions with regard to the Jan 6 committee specifically. Moreover, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger voted to impeach Trump. Moreover, Liz Cheney was very vocal about her thoughts and feelings in this matter well before and throughout the Jan 6 committee. There is no question that Liz Cheeney and Adam Kinzinger were partisan against Trump.


There's no reason to think that because I directed a comment your way, that it means you must disagree with me! At least, I hope that is not how you think about comments I direct your way.


What is it that you expect is "going to come out of Fulton county"?


For exmaple, Pelosi should have been investigated, but she wasn't. It demonstrates the partisan nature of the committee that it did not equally investigate both Republicans and Democrats with important relevant repsonsibilities. That it targetted "staunch Trump loyalists", as you put it, is consistent with the Jan 6 committee being a partisan attack on Trump.


As I've already pointed out, the Democrats refused to accept the representatives the Republicans nominated for the Jan 6 committee. This is true regardless of your opinion of Kevin's competency. And, as I've pointed out before, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are not people the Republican party desired on the committee - they have a clear bias against Trump. There is no mystery as to how and why Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were selected by Democrats.


Was there a new charge that the Jan 6 committee made that was "impeachment-worthy" that Trump has not already been impeached, tried, and acquitted for?


I pointed out at that time how Trump was not guilty of what he was accused of and it came as no surprise to me that Republicans (who were present at the captial on Jan 6) voted in the Senate to acquit Trump of the impeachment charges. For you to make the statement that everybody who was witness to the events of Jan 6 knew Trump was guilty, simply proves your ignorance of what everybody thought.

As I've already pointed out to you more than once, Liz Cheney voted with Trump like, 93% of the time. She wasn't against him, that is, until he incited an insurrection. Both she and Adam Kinzinger voted for Trump for President. So spare me the nonsense about them being fake Republicans or whatever.

What do you think Nancy Pelosi should have been investigated for in regards to January 6th, exactly??

 

[metis]

I pointed out at that time how Trump was not guilty of what he was accused of and it came as no surprise to me that Republicans (who were present at the captial on Jan 6) voted in the Senate to acquit Trump of the impeachment charges.

Oh, so now you are judge and jury?

The role of the Committee was to investigate what happened on the 6th and why, and that it did do. It was not a trial, and the vast majority of those who testified worked or were appointed by Trump.

So, why won't Trump testify, which he was given a chance to as Hillary did with the Benghazi case and Bill did in the Lewinsky case? If he's innocent, he has nothing to fear, thus the fact that he won't should tell you something.

 

[Ponder This]

Indictments.

Ham Sandwiches?

As I've already pointed out to you more than once, Liz Cheney voted with Trump like, 93% of the time. She wasn't against him, that is, until he incited an insurrection. Both she and Adam Kinzinger voted for Trump for President. So spare me the nonsense about them being fake Republicans or whatever.

What do you think Nancy Pelosi should have been investigated for in regards to January 6th, exactly??

You are saying Liz Cheney wasn't against Trump because she voted with Trump 93% of the time. Let's put aside for a moment the obvious problem with that statement: Liz Cheney was a member of the House and Trump was the President of the United States, what does it even mean for them to vote with each other?
Having agreed on many things generally does not mean that Liz Cheney didn't strongly disagree with Trump about this one particular thing, Jan 6. This one particular thing upon which they disagree happens to be actually relevant to the topic of the thread. What is the relevance of your supposed 93% of other stuff?
Moreover, both Trump and Liz Cheney were vocal that they disagreed about Jan 6.
Moreover, on this particular topic, Jan 6, Liz Cheney was censured by her own party (the Republican party) for her actions in joining the Jan 6 committee. Even if Cheney agreed with the Republican "93%" of the time it wouldn't mean that she is represented the interests of the Republican pary in this specific regard. Your point is shallow.

As for what Nancy Pelosi should have been investigated for. As the Speaker of the House, she had a responsibility for security at the capitol building and she should've been asked about it by the Jan 6 committee.

 

[fantome profane]

Ham Sandwiches?

If I understand this reference, you are suggesting that it is easy and common to indict a former President.


I wish that were true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ham Sandwiches?

You are saying Liz Cheney wasn't against Trump because she voted with Trump 93% of the time. Let's put aside for a moment the obvious problem with that statement: Liz Cheney was a member of the House and Trump was the President of the United States, what does it even mean for them to vote with each other?

Well, as I just pointed out, she voted for him for President, for starters.

As to how she voted "with" Trump, here you go ...

Tracking Congress In The Age Of Trump

Having agreed on many things generally does not mean that Liz Cheney didn't strongly disagree with Trump about this one particular thing, Jan 6. This one particular thing upon which they disagree happens to be actually relevant to the topic of the thread. What is the relevance of your supposed 93% of other stuff?

Right, because she (like most rational people) knows that what Trump did was wrong. She witnessed the same thing as the rest of us.

The relevance is that she wasn't against Trump from the get-go, as you have said. Rather, she was on his "side" the vast majority of the time.
That's very relevant to this discussion.

Moreover, both Trump and Liz Cheney were vocal that they disagreed about Jan 6.
Moreover, on this particular topic, Jan 6, Liz Cheney was censured by her own party (the Republican party) for her actions in joining the Jan 6 committee. Even if Cheney agreed with the Republican "93%" of the time it wouldn't mean that she is represented the interests of the Republican pary in this specific regard. Your point is shallow.

So what? You're talking about Republicans who condemned Trump and his actions on the day of January 6th and then went on in the following days to forget all about it and kiss his behind instead. Those aren't honest actors.

As for what Nancy Pelosi should have been investigated for. As the Speaker of the House, she had a responsibility for security at the capitol building and she should've been asked about it by the Jan 6 committee.

It was the responsiblity of the President to call in the National Guard. Pence ended up doing it because Trump refused. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer did manage to call in the Virginia and the Maryland National Guards though. In fact, there is footage of Nancy Pelosi fleeing the building with guards and asking if the National Guard has been called and when are they coming.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Of those you've suggested: Pelosi.

The MAGA Republicans can investigate Pelosi just as they did Hillary, and will likely obtain the same result. The ones on the committee had no questions for her.

It wasn't a fair investigation. I've said why. Just because you disagree, doesn't mean I haven't been clear about my objection.

You haven't given a valid argument that the committee was unfair. Your argument seems to be that if people who objected to the existence of the committee and its mission weren't on it, it wasn't fair or bipartisan. The two partisan groups are the Democrats and the Republicans, and both participated - not the pro-rule of law, pro-democracy people and the enemies of those. Only the former were welcome to participate. That doesn't make the committee politically partisan.

It seems that you have no interest in identifying what happened January 6th or why. That goes a long way to understanding why you make the arguments you have made. You know, just like I and most of the world knows including Trump and the rest of the MAGAsphere. If you didn't believe that, you would want to know who the insurrectionists were and where they got their marching orders.

I'm not sure what you think people have to abide by with regards to the Jan 6 committee, which was not empowered to deliver a verdict, criminal, or otherwise - the committee cannot impeach nor try Trump.

They have to live with its conclusions and report. The committee did not exist to impeach Trump, who was no longer president when it convened, not to try him criminally. It existed to identify what led to the events of January 6th.

The Jan 6 committee was partisan, despite your assertion to the contrary.

No, it was not politically partisan. One only need know what the phrase means and the fact that both parties were invited to participate and both did. Nor was its mission political. The Republican party got what it wanted except for its two hostile nominees on the committee, which it was never entitled to. The MAGA Republicans opted out and patriotic Republicans stepped up.

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinznger were censured by the Republican party for their actions with regard to the Jan 6 committee specifically. Moreover, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger voted to impeach Trump. Moreover, Liz Cheney was very vocal about her thoughts and feelings in this matter well before and throughout the Jan 6 committee. There is no question that Liz Cheeney and Adam Kinzinger were partisan against Trump.

They were partisan against crime. Trump is a criminal, as the committee convincingly demonstrated.

Pelosi should have been investigated, but she wasn't.

To my knowledge, she was accused of nothing by the parade of conservative partisans testifying to the committee, nor anybody else except Trump and his apologists - so why investigate her?

the Democrats refused to accept the representatives the Republicans nominated for the Jan 6 committee.

Not so. The MAGA Republicans chose to not fill the five seats they were offered. They're now free to empanel a second committee if they are sincere about getting t the bottom of January 6th and feel that the other committee's report wasn't complete. But I think we both know that that won't happen and why.

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are not people the Republican party desired on the committee - they have a clear bias against Trump.

Of course the MAGA Republicans didn't want them on the committee, and there can be only one reason. They were willing to call Trump a criminal if the evidence supported the claim, and they blew the Republican plan to keep Republicans off the committee so that they could call it partisan.

There is no mystery as to how and why Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were selected by Democrats.

Agreed.

it came as no surprise to me that Republicans (who were present at the captial on Jan 6) voted in the Senate to acquit Trump of the impeachment charges.

It came as a surprise to noone.

For you to make the statement that everybody who was witness to the events of Jan 6 knew Trump was guilty, simply proves your ignorance of what everybody thought.

I agree with her opinion. There is nobody who considers Trump not guilty, even Trump, even his family, although many don't care and want to cover that up.

 

[metis]

As for what Nancy Pelosi should have been investigated for. As the Speaker of the House, she had a responsibility for security at the capitol building and she should've been asked about it by the Jan 6 committee.

More right-wing clap-trap as that's not her responsibly any more than it's McConnell's. And btw, it was her calling Pence and some others that finally got some troops sent as the Donald certainly didn't do that, and even then Milley was hesitant to do this

 

[Wandering Monk]

The lie that Pelosi turned down Trump's offer of the National Guard on January 6 is a lie.

Fact Check: Did Pelosi Reject Trump’s Request for National Guard Troops on January 6?

 

[Ponder This]

If I understand this reference, you are suggesting that it is easy and common to indict a former President.


I wish that were true.

It would appear to be relatively easy to accuse Trump of a crime.
President Trump’s staggering record of uncharged crimes

Right, because she (like most rational people) knows that what Trump did was wrong. She witnessed the same thing as the rest of us.

The relevance is that she wasn't against Trump from the get-go, as you have said. Rather, she was on his "side" the vast majority of the time.
That's very relevant to this discussion.

Liz Cheney's antagonism towards Trump goes back to Trump's comments about her father Dick Cheney. Liz Cheney didn't like Trump just because she voted to support positions advocated by Trump. Voting in this way wasn't a consequence of Cheney's view on Trump's character.

So what? You're talking about Republicans who condemned Trump and his actions on the day of January 6th and then went on in the following days to forget all about it and kiss his behind instead. Those aren't honest actors.

There are a few like that, sure. I'm not talking about exceptions. I'm talking about the majority (of Republicans).

It was the responsiblity of the President to call in the National Guard. Pence ended up doing it because Trump refused. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer did manage to call in the Virginia and the Maryland National Guards though. In fact, there is footage of Nancy Pelosi fleeing the building with guards and asking if the National Guard has been called and when are they coming.

It is unfortunate that Pelosi was not asked. Pelosi does bear some responsibility. The House Sergeant-at-arms reports to the House Speaker. Calls for the National Guard were rejected. We could know more if the Jan 6 committee had been inclined to question Nancy, but they decided not to. Perhaps, it didn't fit the narrative of blaming Trump.

You haven't given a valid argument that the committee was unfair. Your argument seems to be that if people who objected to the existence of the committee and its mission weren't on it, it wasn't fair or bipartisan. The two partisan groups are the Democrats and the Republicans, and both participated - not the pro-rule of law, pro-democracy people and the enemies of those. Only the former were welcome to participate. That doesn't make the committee politically partisan.

My argument is not that some people objected. My argument is that the Republican Party objected. They objected so vehemently that they voted and passed a censure of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.

It seems that you have no interest in identifying what happened January 6th or why. That goes a long way to understanding why you make the arguments you have made. You know, just like I and most of the world knows including Trump and the rest of the MAGAsphere. If you didn't believe that, you would want to know who the insurrectionists were and where they got their marching orders.

It would be nice to be able to trust a committee about the events of Jan 6. What would be the conditions under which that might happen? Hmmm, what if the committee had people representing opposing views on it? Then there might be a healthy debate and I could consider both sides of an argument. Oh, but nothing like that happened, did it? Instead it was a gathering of Never-Trumpers who found "mountains of evidence".

They have to live with its conclusions and report. The committee did not exist to impeach Trump, who was no longer president when it convened, not to try him criminally. It existed to identify what led to the events of January 6th.

I'm not sure that this report is going to matter at all. It may be that nothing comes of it and that those who expected it to have some sort of big impact are going to have to live with that outcome. Time will tell.

No, it was not politically partisan. One only need know what the phrase means and the fact that both parties were invited to participate and both did. Nor was its mission political. The Republican party got what it wanted except for its two hostile nominees on the committee, which it was never entitled to. The MAGA Republicans opted out and patriotic Republicans stepped up.

I see you saying that the committee was bi-partisan but...
Republicans don't seem to believe that they were represented on the committee.
How strange.

They were partisan against crime. Trump is a criminal, as the committee convincingly demonstrated.

To be a criminal would mean Trump was convicted of a crime...
What we have here is an effort to malign Trump after he was already acquitted of impeachment charges.

To my knowledge, she was accused of nothing by the parade of conservative partisans testifying to the committee, nor anybody else except Trump and his apologists - so why investigate her?

She certainly had a responsibility, but if it's true that only "Trump and his apologists" accused her of anything and the committee was pre-stacked with anti-Trump members... perhaps it is not so surprising that they didn't bother questioning Nancy.

Not so. The MAGA Republicans chose to not fill the five seats they were offered. They're now free to empanel a second committee if they are sincere about getting t the bottom of January 6th and feel that the other committee's report wasn't complete. But I think we both know that that won't happen and why.

I've had this discussion with you before. The Democrats refused Republican nominees.

Of course the MAGA Republicans didn't want them on the committee, and there can be only one reason. They were willing to call Trump a criminal if the evidence supported the claim, and they blew the Republican plan to keep Republicans off the committee so that they could call it partisan.

You appear to simply be unable to evaluate facts related to this issue objectively. The Democrats refused Republican nominees. The Republicans refused to participate in a sham.

Agreed.

Well, at least we agree on something! This is one of the basic facts of my argument: Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were selected by Democrats - not Republicans.

It came as a surprise to noone.

I think there were some people who were surprised, but I think it is likely that most were unsurprised to see the vote split in a partisan way (along party lines).

I agree with her opinion. There is nobody who considers Trump not guilty, even Trump, even his family, although many don't care and want to cover that up.

It does surprise me how people cling to their opinion of Trump to such an extent that they imagine that people who disgree with them don't care and want to cover it up. This is the truly astounding thing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It would appear to be relatively easy to accuse Trump of a crime.
President Trump’s staggering record of uncharged crimes

Was that included as a defense of Trump? It's a litany of credible accusations of criminality.

Liz Cheney's antagonism towards Trump goes back to Trump's comments about her father Dick Cheney.

It would seem that you are implying that that was what motivated her to be on the committee or to agree with the eight other members about Trump's criminality. Otherwise, why mention that?

It is unfortunate that Pelosi was not asked. Pelosi does bear some responsibility. The House Sergeant-at-arms reports to the House Speaker. Calls for the National Guard were rejected. We could know more if the Jan 6 committee had been inclined to question Nancy, but they decided not to. Perhaps, it didn't fit the narrative of blaming Trump.

Why would questioning Pelosi be a problem for the committee if they had cause to believe that she was complicit or negligent? Worst case scenario: Pelosi was in cahoots with Trump and helped his insurrectionists gain easier access to the Capitol and herself. If that happened, she should go down with Trump. Liberals who care about justice commonly say such things as if they find incriminating evidence on Hunter Biden's laptop, bring him to justice. I do.

And now the Republicans have the chance to look for "the real killer" if they think there is more to what happened on J6. But you know they won't, and you know why as well. It's a nothing burger. If they could bring her down legitimately, they'd be foaming at the mouth to do so.

My argument is that the Republican Party objected. They objected so vehemently that they voted and passed a censure of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.

So what? We know why.

Are you aware that many people no longer consider the Republican the loyal opposition as was the case when I was born, but rather, enemies of the Constitution? The party collectively is the enemy of democracy, the rule of law, and church-state separation. Fortunately, a few expressed other values so that it was possible to put patriotic Republicans on the committee, but if there were none at all, then Pelosi would have been correct to not choose any once McCarthy decided to withdraw his nominees and give Pelosi unfettered access to choosing the composition of the committee, a colossal strategic blunder that almost certainly had Trump's imprimatur.

what if the committee had people representing opposing views on it?

Cheney and Kinzinger's views were opposite those of the Democrats in most areas, but not this one. The only unwelcome views were that the matter shouldn't be investigated. That was the committee's task and responsibility.

it was a gathering of Never-Trumpers who found "mountains of evidence".

It wasn't too difficult, apparently. Eventually, juries will judge that evidence and what it signifies.

To be a criminal would mean Trump was convicted of a crime

The first definition I encountered was, "a person who commits a crime." Do you think that OJ wasn't a murderer because he wasn't convicted of that crime? Maybe you like alleged murderer better. OK, let's call Trump an alleged criminal now. We've seen the evidence. If he gets a fair trial, he will likely be convicted.

What we have here is an effort to malign Trump after he was already acquitted of impeachment charges.

That acquittal was of no significance in determining Trump's criminality.

And malign? No. Expose. And thought the committee like most of the world knew that Trump instigated the insurrection including the committee members, they did the same work we would expect of any impartial investigatory body.

I've had this discussion with you before. The Democrats refused Republican nominees.

Yes, two. So what? They accepted three and would have taken two more McCarthy nominated. The Republicans had no authority to decide who went on the committee.

The Republicans refused to participate in a sham.

Fine. Then what's the beef? They got what they wanted. They didn't participate. Once again, the Republicans weren't calling the shots. What they called a sham was irrelevant.

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were selected by Democrats - not Republicans.

Again, so what? The Republican leadership didn't select any Republican for the committee.

It does surprise me how people cling to their opinion of Trump to such an extent that they imagine that people who disgree with them don't care and want to cover it up. This is the truly astounding thing.

You have shown no interest in finding out what happened that day other than whether Pelosi did something inappropriate. I don't think you don't care what happened, but I do think that you would have liked it to never see the light of day. Do you think you can make a credible argument that contradicts that?

Incidentally, I don't like your agenda, but I am surprised an impressed with your style promoting it. You come off as a professional propagandist - the kind of person the Republicans might hire to do this kind of thing on TV in a Crossfire type venue, or to speak on Sunday morning political shows. Or, you're an attorney practiced in making specious arguments in offensively as an attorney might do trying to get a judge to agree to a motion or a jury to a defense. A professional lobbyist might have a similar skill set.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It would appear to be relatively easy to accuse Trump of a crime.
President Trump’s staggering record of uncharged crimes



Liz Cheney's antagonism towards Trump goes back to Trump's comments about her father Dick Cheney. Liz Cheney didn't like Trump just because she voted to support positions advocated by Trump. Voting in this way wasn't a consequence of Cheney's view on Trump's character.



There are a few like that, sure. I'm not talking about exceptions. I'm talking about the majority (of Republicans).



It is unfortunate that Pelosi was not asked. Pelosi does bear some responsibility. The House Sergeant-at-arms reports to the House Speaker. Calls for the National Guard were rejected. We could know more if the Jan 6 committee had been inclined to question Nancy, but they decided not to. Perhaps, it didn't fit the narrative of blaming Trump.



My argument is not that some people objected. My argument is that the Republican Party objected. They objected so vehemently that they voted and passed a censure of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.



It would be nice to be able to trust a committee about the events of Jan 6. What would be the conditions under which that might happen? Hmmm, what if the committee had people representing opposing views on it? Then there might be a healthy debate and I could consider both sides of an argument. Oh, but nothing like that happened, did it? Instead it was a gathering of Never-Trumpers who found "mountains of evidence".



I'm not sure that this report is going to matter at all. It may be that nothing comes of it and that those who expected it to have some sort of big impact are going to have to live with that outcome. Time will tell.



I see you saying that the committee was bi-partisan but...
Republicans don't seem to believe that they were represented on the committee.
How strange.



To be a criminal would mean Trump was convicted of a crime...
What we have here is an effort to malign Trump after he was already acquitted of impeachment charges.



She certainly had a responsibility, but if it's true that only "Trump and his apologists" accused her of anything and the committee was pre-stacked with anti-Trump members... perhaps it is not so surprising that they didn't bother questioning Nancy.



I've had this discussion with you before. The Democrats refused Republican nominees.



You appear to simply be unable to evaluate facts related to this issue objectively. The Democrats refused Republican nominees. The Republicans refused to participate in a sham.



Well, at least we agree on something! This is one of the basic facts of my argument: Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were selected by Democrats - not Republicans.



I think there were some people who were surprised, but I think it is likely that most were unsurprised to see the vote split in a partisan way (along party lines).



It does surprise me how people cling to their opinion of Trump to such an extent that they imagine that people who disgree with them don't care and want to cover it up. This is the truly astounding thing.

You are extremely misinformed on this subject matter, and you keep repeating false claims, such as your claim that Nancy Pelosi refused the National Guard. We're just going 'round and 'round over the same bogus claims.

 

[Ponder This]

You are extremely misinformed on this subject matter, and you keep repeating false claims, such as your claim that Nancy Pelosi refused the National Guard. We're just going 'round and 'round over the same bogus claims.

The point I made was the Jan 6 committee didn't question Nancy, which is a fact.
It is also a fact that the Sergeant-at-arms reports to the Speaker.
It is also a fact that an increase in the National Guard prior to the protest was refused.
You claimed that Nancy asked about the National Guard on Jan 6... and yet, the Jan 6 committee still didn't question her.
Additional facts about Nancy's role on Jan 6 might never be known, because the Jan 6 committee neglected this part of its supposed obligation to investigate Jan 6.

On the other hand, the choices of the Jan 6 committee remain consistent with an agenda of politically attacking Trump. The possibility that Nancy may have refused the National Guard isn't consistent with an anti-Trump narrative.

 

[Ponder This]

Was that included as a defense of Trump? It's a litany of credible accusations of criminality.

I'm not waiting with bated breath for an indictment to come out of Fulton County.

It would seem that you are implying that that was what motivated her to be on the committee or to agree with the eight other members about Trump's criminality. Otherwise, why mention that?

I think it is likely. It was Cheney herself who said that voting with someone 93% of the time doesn't mean you think that person has a good character (she was talking about Trump when she said that). She was at odds with Trump well before Jan 6.

Why would questioning Pelosi be a problem for the committee if they had cause to believe that she was complicit or negligent? Worst case scenario: Pelosi was in cahoots with Trump and helped his insurrectionists gain easier access to the Capitol and herself. If that happened, she should go down with Trump. Liberals who care about justice commonly say such things as if they find incriminating evidence on Hunter Biden's laptop, bring him to justice. I do.

Apparently, it was a problem for the committee to question Nancy. Why?
I don't know, but negligence on Nancy's part would not have fit with the narrative that Trump orchestrated a raid of the capitol building.

Finding the truth isn't the same thing as assigning blame.

And now the Republicans have the chance to look for "the real killer" if they think there is more to what happened on J6. But you know they won't, and you know why as well. It's a nothing burger. If they could bring her down legitimately, they'd be foaming at the mouth to do so.

I don't know. Maybe the Republicans will mess up their fact finding expeditions in similarly spectacular fashion.

So what? We know why.

The committee was obviously biased against Trump and did not represent the views of both Democrats and Republicans. That's why the committee was not fair and therefore its results of questionable credibility. I'm not sure how to explain that point any more clearly.

Are you aware that many people no longer consider the Republican the loyal opposition as was the case when I was born, but rather, enemies of the Constitution? The party collectively is the enemy of democracy, the rule of law, and church-state separation. Fortunately, a few expressed other values so that it was possible to put patriotic Republicans on the committee, but if there were none at all, then Pelosi would have been correct to not choose any once McCarthy decided to withdraw his nominees and give Pelosi unfettered access to choosing the composition of the committee, a colossal strategic blunder that almost certainly had Trump's imprimatur.

I am aware that some people hold those views.

Cheney and Kinzinger's views were opposite those of the Democrats in most areas, but not this one. The only unwelcome views were that the matter shouldn't be investigated. That was the committee's task and responsibility.

We agree that Cheney and Kinzinger were aligned with Democrats (not Republicans) on the particularly pertinent point. 93% of the issues Cheney voted on may not have been relevant to the purpose of the committee.

It wasn't too difficult, apparently. Eventually, juries will judge that evidence and what it signifies.

They made a great effort to gather their "mountains of evidence". If not for the turnover of control of the House, I suspect that they would have continued accumulating confirmations of their bias.

The first definition I encountered was, "a person who commits a crime." Do you think that OJ wasn't a murderer because he wasn't convicted of that crime? Maybe you like alleged murderer better. OK, let's call Trump an alleged criminal now. We've seen the evidence. If he gets a fair trial, he will likely be convicted.

Okay, you think Trump committed a crime and the committee also thinks Trump committed a crime, but the Republican party doesn't think Trump committed a crime. If the Republican Party doesn't think a crime was committed and the Democratic Party thinks a crime was committed. That doesn't make one of the parties "partisan against crime" does it? That just means they disagree about whether or not a crime was committed.

That acquittal was of no significance in determining Trump's criminality.

And malign? No. Expose. And thought the committee like most of the world knew that Trump instigated the insurrection including the committee members, they did the same work we would expect of any impartial investigatory body.

My understanding is that an acquittal is a resolution of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.

Yes, two. So what? They accepted three and would have taken two more McCarthy nominated. The Republicans had no authority to decide who went on the committee.

I'm not arguing if the Democrats could put whoever they wanted on the committee or not. I'm pointing out who was represented on the committee and who was not.

Fine. Then what's the beef? They got what they wanted. They didn't participate. Once again, the Republicans weren't calling the shots. What they called a sham was irrelevant.

The Repubicans were very clear about the fact that they didn't get what they wanted.

Again, so what? The Republican leadership didn't select any Republican for the committee.

We agree that the Republicans didn't select Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger for the committee.

You have shown no interest in finding out what happened that day other than whether Pelosi did something inappropriate. I don't think you don't care what happened, but I do think that you would have liked it to never see the light of day. Do you think you can make a credible argument that contradicts that?

Obviously, I've shown interest in the events of Jan 6. I've brought facts to light here that others seem not to have considered and I've tried to examine the claims others have presented here about Jan 6. It's possible that there is more to uncover about Jan 6.

You were convinced of Trump's guilt before the commitee was even formed. What is your most compelling piece of evidence (that you think I've not seen)?

Incidentally, I don't like your agenda, but I am surprised an impressed with your style promoting it. You come off as a professional propagandist - the kind of person the Republicans might hire to do this kind of thing on TV in a Crossfire type venue, or to speak on Sunday morning political shows. Or, you're an attorney practiced in making specious arguments in offensively as an attorney might do trying to get a judge to agree to a motion or a jury to a defense. A professional lobbyist might have a similar skill set.

I am both insulted and complimented. What do you think my "agenda" is?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The January 6th Select Committee on a 9-0 vote will refer Donald Trump to the DOJ for prosecution on at least four charges:

[1] Assisting or aiding in an insurrection
[2] Obstruction of an official proceeding
[3] Conspiracy to make false statements (fake electors)
[4] Conspiracy to defraud the US

John Eastman was also named for referral to the DOJ, as well as four US Congresspersons to the House ethics committee.

100% agreement?

Sounds very one party one voice communist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Apparently, it was a problem for the committee to question Nancy. Why?

I disagree. The only people the committee had trouble questioning were those who refused their subpoenas.

The committee was obviously biased against Trump

Disagree again. The committee was obviously biased against those fomenting an insurrection.

and did not represent the views of both Democrats and Republicans.

You keep coming back to this. It's already been rejected as a legitimate complaint. Nothing has changed. The Republican leadership chose to not participate, and Pelosi found two that would. The Republican party quickly commenced to cannibalize them for that. The committee was fair and balanced. Simply claiming otherwise without providing evidence of impropriety is as ineffectual as simply claiming election hoax without sufficient evidence.

I'm not sure how to explain that point any more clearly.

You've been clear, just not convincing. It doesn't matter to me that the MAGA Republicans object. It wouldn't matter if there were no Republicans willing to help the Democrats investigate the insurrection.

We agree that Cheney and Kinzinger were aligned with Democrats (not Republicans) on the particularly pertinent point.

Yes. The committee's decision to refer for criminal prosecution was unanimous.

the Republican party doesn't think Trump committed a crime.

I don't believe that. They know he committed multiple crimes, but want them covered up. They made that clear twice, once in each congressional chamber. Many Republican congresspersons appear to be personally complicit. They also apparently don't want their taxes audited, as they're trying to kill the recent allocation of the funds to restore the IRS. They aren't difficult people to understand.

My understanding is that an acquittal is a resolution of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.

Apparently not. Garland probably doesn't think so. So you think Trump shouldn't be investigated or criminally charged if there is a winnable case against him because the congressional Republicans who objected to an investigation, many of whom may have been complicit in the cries committed that day, many of whom described the insurrection as legitimate political discourse and peaceful protest, acquitted him in the Senate?

The Repubicans were very clear about the fact that they didn't get what they wanted.

Yes, they were. The Democrats don't exist to please or accommodate the Republican party.

You were convinced of Trump's guilt before the committee was even formed.

Yes. I was fairly unfamiliar with Trump until the 2016 campaign, but it didn't take long to recognize who and what he was. By J6 it was clear that Trump orchestrated the attack. J6 testimony confirmed that he stood by watching the insurrections, aware that congresspersons and Pence were being hunted to harmed or killed, knowing that Capitol police were being assaulted, and refusing multiple requests to address his hooligans. Guilty.

I have been a part of a local email group that discusses current events. I was the first of about a half dozen to take a positive stand on Trump's character defects and criminality, but the others came around. Jack was a Trump supporter in 2016, who called Trump the lesser of evils relative to Hillary. That's not a strong endorsement of Trump, but he never spoke a critical word about him. He did, however, say that he had reregistered Independent and wouldn't discuss his vote for 2020, which he never got to cast, Covid taking him away (he refused vaccination). He never saw J6. I would have loved to have asked him if he still considered his original judgment about Trump being the lesser of evils correct.

I am both insulted and complimented. What do you think my "agenda" is?

To improve the public perception of Trump in part by depicting the committee as unwilling or unable to generate a fair process or report. That's your apparent agenda here, which is fine with me. Mine was to rebut your argument. Sorry that you're insulted.

 

[wellwisher]

You keep coming back to this. It's already been rejected as a legitimate complaint. Nothing has changed. The Republican leadership chose to not participate, and Pelosi found two that would. The Republican party quickly commenced to cannibalize them for that. The committee was fair and balanced. Simply claiming otherwise without providing evidence of impropriety is as ineffectual as simply claiming election hoax without sufficient evidence.

That is what the Swamp disinformation wants you to believe. The two Republicans who were placed on the committee, by Nancy Pelosi, both voted to impeach Trump, and gladly rubber stamp the inquisition; Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger

When the committee was first forming House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had nominated Republican Reps. Jim Banks (Ind.), Rodney Davis (Ill.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Kelly Armstrong (N.D.), and Troy Nehls (Texas) to sit on the Jan. 6 select committee. But after Pelosi vetoed the appointment of Banks and Jordan, McCarthy pulled the rest of his picks.

Pelosi did not want a genuine fact gathering objective committee. It wanted theatre before the execution; guilty as accused by the swamp.

Are you aware that the Republicans formed a shadow committee to follow the Jan 6 committee? They reported on all the security failures that made it possible for Jan 6 activities. These include Nancy Pelosi not firming up Capital security days before the event, even though she was told this might happen. Most Lefty news media ignores the report of the shadow committee; radio silence. If it If it did not matter, you would have heard about it on CNN. Radio silence is coverup.

I did a Google search to help me remember who were the two first two Republicans McCarthy selected for the committee; Banks and Jordon. The entire first page of the Google search never mentioned them. All the links were connected to Cheney and Kinzinger. Why was Google ignore the question and hid the data? Different search parameters did not change the search results until I finally found what worked and I got what I needed. If I did not look deeper that a casual search, I would only ben able to read what scammers wanted me to see.

Try this for yourself and see how Google is part of the misinformation campaign. The Swamp appears to have infiltrated Google, just as they did Twitter. Going forward if the truth is important, take any Google search with a grain of salt. It is now part of the propaganda wing the swamp.

This will be cleared up when the Republicans head the same Committees. You may have to go to FOX news since radio silence of the Left may be the only defense against the truth and their own involvement in the scams. They made need to posture for potential trials; plead the 5th.

 

[Wandering Monk]

That is what the Swamp disinformation wants you to believe. The two Republicans who were placed on the committee, by Nancy Pelosi, both voted to impeach Trump, and gladly rubber stamp the inquisition; Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger

When the committee was first forming House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had nominated Republican Reps. Jim Banks (Ind.), Rodney Davis (Ill.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Kelly Armstrong (N.D.), and Troy Nehls (Texas) to sit on the Jan. 6 select committee. But after Pelosi vetoed the appointment of Banks and Jordan, McCarthy pulled the rest of his picks.

Pelosi did not want a genuine fact gathering objective committee. It wanted theatre before the execution; guilty as accused by the swamp.

Are you aware that the Republicans formed a shadow committee to follow the Jan 6 committee? They reported on all the security failures that made it possible for Jan 6 activities. These include Nancy Pelosi not firming up Capital security days before the event, even though she was told this might happen. Most Lefty news media ignores the report of the shadow committee; radio silence, since could ruin the con job. If it did not matter you would have. heard about it on CNN.

I did a Google search for to help me remember who were the two first two Republicans McCarthy selected for the committee; Banks and Jordon. The entire first page of the Google search never mentioned them. All the links were connected to Cheney and Kinzinger. Why was Google hiding this data? Different search parameters did not change the search results until I finally found what I needed. If I did not look deeper that a casual search I would need to assume what the scammers wanted me to see.

Try this yourself and see how Google is part of the coverup. The Swamp appears to have infiltrated Google, just as they did Twitter. Going forward if the truth is important, take Google search with a grain of salt. It is now part of the propaganda wing the swamp.

This will be cleared up when the Republicans head the Committees.

The committee referred Trump to DoJ for criminal investigation. Now it is up to the courts to decide if Trump committed crimes or not. What the committee did or didn't do is irrelevant to the criminal investigation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The point I made was the Jan 6 committee didn't question Nancy, which is a fact.
It is also a fact that the Sergeant-at-arms reports to the Speaker.
It is also a fact that an increase in the National Guard prior to the protest was refused.
You claimed that Nancy asked about the National Guard on Jan 6... and yet, the Jan 6 committee still didn't question her.
Additional facts about Nancy's role on Jan 6 might never be known, because the Jan 6 committee neglected this part of its supposed obligation to investigate Jan 6.

Your claim that they should have questioned Nancy, was based on your belief in the falsehood that she was responsible for calling in the National Guard on January 6th. That claim is inaccurate and has been rebutted. But you're still claiming that the committee needed to question her.

Did you not notice that Nancy was fleeing for her life that day, same as everyone else? Do you really think she turned down security, knowing that her life and everyone else's were in danger, like, as she was fleeing the building?

You should watch Alexandra Pelosi's new(ish) documentary. As already mentioned, there is a long scene in it where the camera is following Nancy Pelosi as she's fleeing and repeatedly asking where and when the National Guard is being called? Then later, there is another clip where she and Chuck Schumer are frantically calling Maryland and Virginia's governors begging them to send their National Guard in to help them. There is also a scene where they're talking to Mike Pence who ends up saying he's working on getting the National Guard to come in (as his life was also in grave danger). So sorry, but the story you believe doesn't make any sense, in light of the actual evidence we have.

On the other hand, the choices of the Jan 6 committee remain consistent with an agenda of politically attacking Trump. The possibility that Nancy may have refused the National Guard isn't consistent with an anti-Trump narrative.

Trump obviously incited a violent insurrection. I know that the day it happened because I have eyes and ears. I guess if you don't want people trying to hold you accountable for your actions, you shouldn't do such things. Poor, poor Trump. Perpetuated a fraud and a lie for months on end, incited an insurrection (for which he was impeached) and got people killed but is still somehow the victim. Gimme a break.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is what the Swamp disinformation wants you to believe. The two Republicans who were placed on the committee, by Nancy Pelosi, both voted to impeach Trump, and gladly rubber stamp the inquisition; Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger

When the committee was first forming House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had nominated Republican Reps. Jim Banks (Ind.), Rodney Davis (Ill.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Kelly Armstrong (N.D.), and Troy Nehls (Texas) to sit on the Jan. 6 select committee. But after Pelosi vetoed the appointment of Banks and Jordan, McCarthy pulled the rest of his picks.

Pelosi did not want a genuine fact gathering objective committee. It wanted theatre before the execution; guilty as accused by the swamp.

Are you aware that the Republicans formed a shadow committee to follow the Jan 6 committee? They reported on all the security failures that made it possible for Jan 6 activities. These include Nancy Pelosi not firming up Capital security days before the event, even though she was told this might happen. Most Lefty news media ignores the report of the shadow committee; radio silence. If it If it did not matter, you would have heard about it on CNN. Radio silence is coverup.

I did a Google search to help me remember who were the two first two Republicans McCarthy selected for the committee; Banks and Jordon. The entire first page of the Google search never mentioned them. All the links were connected to Cheney and Kinzinger. Why was Google ignore the question and hid the data? Different search parameters did not change the search results until I finally found what worked and I got what I needed. If I did not look deeper that a casual search, I would only ben able to read what scammers wanted me to see.

Try this for yourself and see how Google is part of the misinformation campaign. The Swamp appears to have infiltrated Google, just as they did Twitter. Going forward if the truth is important, take any Google search with a grain of salt. It is now part of the propaganda wing the swamp.

This will be cleared up when the Republicans head the same Committees. You may have to go to FOX news since radio silence of the Left may be the only defense against the truth and their own involvement in the scams. They made need to posture for potential trials; plead the 5th.

Now there's some sort of Google conspiracy involved?? Come on.

 

[metis]

It is also a fact that the Sergeant-at-arms reports to the Speaker.
It is also a fact that an increase in the National Guard prior to the protest was refused.

Can you link us to sources that say this?