You have the word in quotation marks, but
you're the only one to have used it here.
If this thread bores you so much, why
come here to repeatedly rain on anyone's
parade?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
J6 Committee unanimous
- Thread starter It Aint Necessarily So
- Start date
you're the only one to have used it here.
If this thread bores you so much, why
come here to repeatedly rain on anyone's
parade?
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
The recommendations bear an uncanny resemblance to impeachment charges made against Trump. It's almost as if the committee members made up their minds about Trump's guilt two years ago already.
Surely somebody was confronted with evidence that swayed their opin-
Oh, that's right, there wasn't anybody on the Jan 6 committee who didn't vote to impeach Trump.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Or perhaps he's just guilty.
Most, if not all of the witnesses were Republicans and staunch Trump supporters.
Liz Cheney has voted with Trump like, 94% of the time. Even she can spot a crook when she sees one. Shame on the rest of the Republicans in Congress who admonished Trump for inciting an insurrection and then turned around and kissed his keister instead of holding him accountable.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Did you watch most or all of the proceedings? Did you hear at least some of the 1400 witnesses that testified to what they saw and heard, most being affiliate with Trump one way or the other? Do you believe in our "rule of law" or not?
And while I'm at it, where do you get your news from?
Maybe. We'll see. It will depend on whether America has the spine and stomach for "justice for all" after all - the Right Stuff as they say. They're just words right now.
I don't have much doubt that the Garland's DOJ will bring charges against Trump. I expect New York and Georgia to do the same. My fear is that juries will contain MAGA that will acquit Trump whatever the case (jury nullification). Still, with so many charges and so many venues, he'd have to be extremely lucky that every stealth MAGA escaped detection during voir dire.
My other fear is too light a sentence. The sentence needs to terrify future potential insurrectionists. They need to understand that if they fail, they rot in prison like Manson and Sirhan Sirhan forever. I fear Trump getting better than club fed - club Mar-a-Lago with an ankle bracelet.
The Committee's composition was due to the combined efforts of McCarthy and Pelosi, and contained members of both parties. Pelosi offered McCarthy five choices for the committee, but McCarthy was content to let Pelosi choose, and she did.
Besides, this was a criminal investigation. Political ideology, like religion and sexual preference and identity are irrelevant when deciding criminality. One simply need understand the facts of the case and the relevant law. Is there evidence that such-and-such occurred? Is that a criminal act? That's the process.
Shouldn't they? It's the same crime. I would expect any competent investigative committee to come to the same conclusions. Just as with Bannon, who was charged with various crimes that were pardoned by Trump at the federal level, the same charge of fraud was brought at the state level. Why? Same crime.
Maybe you're confusing them with the Senate Republicans who perfunctorily exonerated Trump after sleeping through conviction proceedings. They weren't even pretending to listen.
But how long does it take to figure out that crime occurred and who ordered it? I knew he was guilty right as the insurrection unfolded. The only question was what evidence could be assembled to make the case.
And how would it have looked if the committee came to its conclusions after hearing the testimony and reviewing the documents and footage? Exactly the same - collect and present evidence and then a DOJ referral at the end.
If it makes you feel any better, when the DOJ eventually gets around to filing charges against Trump I can assure you they will include espionage charges as well.
The "high bar" mentioned below certainly doesn't
apply to ordinary civilians, who are often prosecuted
with very weak cases leading to grave consequences.
For us, it's "when in doubt, prosecute".
But for Presidents, they can get away with anything.
Let's change that. Hold them accountable too.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3782915-senate-democrats-see-risks-to-trump-prosecution/
Excerpted (underlining added)...
“I think you should be careful about prosecuting former presidents. I think it’s ok to have a high bar when it comes to bringing charges against former chief executives. If there’s clear and convincing evidence then the Justice Department should proceed but they should be pretty careful about doing so,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) acknowledged there are political risks to indicting a former president who still has strong support within the Republican Party, but he warned that failing to hold Trump accountable for his actions also has potentially negative consequences.
“I don’t tell prosecutors what to do but I think the evidence that has been laid out is very compelling,” he said.
Some Democrats warn that any prosecution of Trump might plunge the Justice Department into a political maelstrom and create a backlash from the former president’s fervent supporters.
“It is a very realistic concern, so there’s a risk,” Kaine said of a potential political backlash. “But there’s also a risk of allowing bad behavior to go unpunished.
apply to ordinary civilians, who are often prosecuted
with very weak cases leading to grave consequences.
For us, it's "when in doubt, prosecute".
But for Presidents, they can get away with anything.
Let's change that. Hold them accountable too.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3782915-senate-democrats-see-risks-to-trump-prosecution/
Excerpted (underlining added)...
“I think you should be careful about prosecuting former presidents. I think it’s ok to have a high bar when it comes to bringing charges against former chief executives. If there’s clear and convincing evidence then the Justice Department should proceed but they should be pretty careful about doing so,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) acknowledged there are political risks to indicting a former president who still has strong support within the Republican Party, but he warned that failing to hold Trump accountable for his actions also has potentially negative consequences.
“I don’t tell prosecutors what to do but I think the evidence that has been laid out is very compelling,” he said.
Some Democrats warn that any prosecution of Trump might plunge the Justice Department into a political maelstrom and create a backlash from the former president’s fervent supporters.
“It is a very realistic concern, so there’s a risk,” Kaine said of a potential political backlash. “But there’s also a risk of allowing bad behavior to go unpunished.
Trump's corruption machine runs deep.
He & his minions value loyalty to him
over all, even the law.
Cassidy Hutchinson claims Trump figures sought to influence her testimony
He & his minions value loyalty to him
over all, even the law.
Cassidy Hutchinson claims Trump figures sought to influence her testimony
That would be great. Keep the issue in the news. Keep talking about it. Let the Republicans bluster on and on about whatever conspiracy theory they want.
Someone pointed out something to me recently. Look at all the investigations and committees the Republicans are promising to have when they take the house in a couple weeks. But also look at what they have not talked about investigating. No one has said a word about investigating election fraud. Not a word about investigating the 2020 election or the 2022 election. Isn't that interesting?
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
You aren't helping your case by demonstrating that Democrats weren't investigated and that Trump supporters were targetted.
Right, bipartisan committee... just choose the options for the other party!
How many times do you think a person can be tried for the same crime? The appropriate action by the House is impeachment. For the House to go after Trump again after having already impeached him is a demonstration that they did not accept the verdict of the Senate on impeachment charges. Disgraceful.
See. You knew he was guilty before assembling evidence for a case against him, just like the members of the committee knew he was guilty before assembling evidence. Even though impeachment failed in the Senate against Trump, you still know he's guilty.
It's unclear that the DOJ will pay much attention to the recommendation of the committee. It's not like the committee found any new evidence that would change things. It's not like the DOJ hasn't already conducted its own investigations into the events of Jan 6. And it's not like the DOJ didn't already appoint a special counsel to investigate Trump. The DOJ doesn't wait around to take marching orders from Congress.
The committee's task was to investigate the events surrounding January 6th. Every person Democrat or Republican implicated by the testimony and other evidence was interviewed or unsuccessfully subpoenaed. Identifying the insurrectionists and their enablers was the job. It's not surprising that they were mostly or exclusively Trump supporters, but they were not persons of interest because of their political views, but rather, because of their criminal behavior.
Or maybe you can name Democrats that should have been interviewed by the committee but weren't. Who? Biden? Harris? Pelosi? Shumer? Hillary? Obama?
Yes, at their behest. You seem to have a problem with that. If so, your complaint is with Kevin McCarthy, who was likely taking orders from Trump. He was invited to choose five candidate Republicans who were not insurrection supporters like Jordan and Banks, who he knew would not be acceptable to Pelosi. Three of his picks were accepted and McCarthy was asked to choose two others who would be acceptable to the Democrats, and he withdrew all five names.
That appears to have been his intention from the start, but it might have been a spontaneous outburst. It doesn't matter. It was a mistake either way, one likely to be a big part of why the House Republicans object to his Speakership.
The purpose was to attempt to discredit the committee as it has with you, but that didn't work as well as had been hoped. In fact, the opposite occurred because of the MAGA Republicans nonparticipation. As a result, ahead of the public hearings, the MAGA contingent of the GOP didn't know what the committee had, couldn't prepare defenses for Trump, couldn’t influence the direction of the investigation, couldn’t ask contrary questions during public or private proceedings, couldn’t leak anything, and couldn’t dilute the panel’s findings in advance of a final report.
Have you thought about what it is that you really object to here? It sems to me that it's not the manner in which the investigation was conducted, but rather, that a fair, unimpeded investigation was conducted at all. There is no committee that you would approve of except one unable to conduct an impartial, good faith investigation, and you would probably rather that that had never convened, either. You don't appear to mind that crimes were committed that day or who orchestrated them, but many Americans do.
No, they didn't accept the verdict of the Senate, but had to abide by it, just as Trump and the Republicans have rejected the findings of the January 6th committee but will have to abide by them. And no, that is not double jeopardy, as the first trial was not a criminal trial. There was no criminal liability for Trump.
What you find disgraceful is the law. This bipartisan committee had no duty to the MAGA Republicans to protect their brand. Au contraire Their duty is to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the defense of democracy. Their duty was to thoroughly investigate the January 6th insurrection in defense of America from domestic terrorists present and future. You seem uninterested in them doing that, or maybe you were interested in them NOT doing it. If so, you have that in common with a lot of foreigners who are openly enemies of America, like Putin, Kim, and the Taliban - people who take delight in seeing American democracy assaulted.
No, I knew he was guilty based in the evidence available to me when I made that judgment. So did you. Everybody knew Trump was guilty long before the committee convened, but not everybody cared.
No, but it will pay attention to the evidence the committee amassed. The referral was symbolic. It affirmed that all nine members including the Republicans found evidence of criminality in Trump and many of his consiglieres and paramilitary allies. This softens the blow when Garland indicts. It prepares America for these serious charges, and shows broad support for what will follow from the DOJ to take the vendetta onus off of garland that will surely be attempted - personal revenge. It makes the referral bipartisan and involves two branches of government.
What a contrast between competent, honest patriots and incompetent, anti-American criminals and traitors. Only one is qualified to govern.
I have no idea why this comment was directed at me, it is not as if I have indicated anything to the contrary.
Yes, the DOJ will make its own decisions. I am confident that when they do make their indictments some of them will be very similar to what the committee has recommended, but not because the committee made those recommendations, but rather because that is where the evidence leads. With the evidence they have they can't do anything else.
The Jan 6th committee was only looking into events related to Jan 6th. The DOJ has no such restriction. The DOJ will issue some indictemens much like what the committee has recommended, but will also issue several serious indictments that have nothing to do with Jan 6th.
BTW, keep your eye on what is going to come out of Fulton county as well.
I predict it will be like the republican committees that investigated Hilary's invlovement in Benghazi (twice) which resulted in finding no fault on Clinton's part (twice). But the point was the investigation into Hilary, because if you are being investigated it must mean there is guilt (unless it is a republican being investigated, then it's a witch hunt).
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
False, as the charges were different.
How could you possibly know what they supposedly believed, including with Cheney and Kinsinger?
Garland has already stated that they will use some of the evidence from the committee.
Well, you finally got something right, but then even a blind chicken gets a worm once in a while.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Interestingly, Hillary testified before the Benghazi committee for over twelve hours and NOT ONCE did she invoke the 5th Amendment, unlike the Don and his henchmen in the MAGA mafia who pled the 5th thousands of times between them.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Sorry, what? Do you expect to find Democrats in Trump's administration? Why do you think all those staunch Trump loyalists ended up turning on him and actually honestly reporting what went down that day?
Which Democrats do you think should have been investigated?
As several posters have already pointed out to you, you can blame Kevin McCarthy for this. I'm pretty sure he's not a Democrat. Maybe the dude shouldn't have boffed his responsibility so badly, eh?
You seem to have forgotten about Liz Cheney, despite my mention of her. And Adam Kinzinger.
Well, maybe he should have stopped doing impeachment-worthy stuff. But nah, let's give him a pass and instead denigrate the people who try to hold him accountable for his actions.
Trump has been found guilty of fraud numerous times. And yet, he continues to commit fraud. Should we just say, "oh well, how many times can a person be tried for the same crime?"
I mean, what a bizarre statement. A statement that would give serial killers a free pass to keep on killing.
Anyone who witnessed what he did and said in the days leading up to January 6th and on that very day itself, knew he was guilty.
How would you know? You didn't even watch the hearings.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
This is one reason why voter turnout is so low..
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
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.
Indictments.