Oh, please, don't be silly. Cheney and Kinzinger are lame-duck, Trump-hating, biased jokes. Nancy Pelosi purposely denied the Republican caucus to select its own members of this Committee. Thereby front loading this Committee as the sham it has become recognized to be.
The committee is disparaged by rule-of-law and democracy-hating Republicans, not patriotic Americans. And your account is factually challenged.
You seem to think that despising Trump is some kind of moral or intellectual defect. I see it the other way around. I see failing to recognize what a moral dumpster fire that man is as a litmus test of sorts.
Are you familiar with the ad iram fallacy? "The argumentum ad iram fallacy (ad iram, Latin for "to anger") is an informal logical fallacy, that involves accusing one's opponent of being angry or holding their beliefs for anger-related reasons, which purportedly disproves their argument or diminishes its weight."
Trump deserves extreme contempt for who he is and what he does. Such "anger" is a virtue. The following are all in the context of atheistic anger at religions, but the sentiments apply here as well:
- "But I also have to quarrel with the very notion that a person's arguments can be dismissed because of anger. Smugly accusing someone of anger doesn't do anything to discount the content of the argument. I'd argue that people who see vile behavior in the name of religion and don't get angry are the ones who have something wrong with them." - Amanda Marcotte
- "Atheists aren't angry because we're selfish, or bitter, or joyless. Atheists are angry because we have compassion. Atheists are angry because we have a sense of justice. Atheists are angry because we see millions of people being terribly harmed by religion, and our hearts go out to them, and we feel motivated to do something about it. Atheists aren't angry because there's something wrong with us. Atheists are angry because there's something right with us."- Greta Christina
- "I've wondered, for awhile, why Christians think that accusing me of being angry at their religion is actually an argument against my objections. I mean, even if I were abnormally angry ... I have absolutely no rational reason I can come up with that makes that a good enough reason to think I'm wrong ... the reasoning often seems to be that, because I'm angry, my argument is flawed and I can be dismissed." - Peter Mosley
- "Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn't argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we're doing is, we're presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain." - A.C. Grayling
Why aren't you angry about Trump? I can only assume that it is because you share his morals. Is that correct?
I am waiting for actual evidence to be presented in a judicial forum.
That's a legal formality for putting Trump in prison. The rest of us aren't involved in that process and have already evaluated the existing evidence. He's guilty as hades of multiple crimes. Let's see if America has the will and means to do the right thing. I suspect not. I still don't understand why Trump is enjoying special privilege. Does he take some of the power of presidency with him even after being replaced? Apparently. Had he never been president, he'd be in prison already. He seems to have some of the immunity reserved for presidents still.
A forum where the accused is permitted to present his case.
Trump has presented much of his case in defense of possessing classified documents. He owns them, plus the FBI planted them there. I haven't heard his defense of insurrection yet, but there can be none. He has also made his case for election fraud. He won in a landslide, but there was a lot of ballot dumping and voting machine fraud - already ruled out. What more do you need? His reasons for committing financial fraud?
So what are you waiting for before expressing an opinion of probable guilt or innocence? A verdict? Why? You're not on a jury.
I had an acquaintance through a local email group, who passed away about two years ago. He was a conservative Christian, an attorney, and a Trump supporter. Around 2017 and early 2018, he was like you. I was identifying Trump as a criminal then, but he needed to see a courtroom verdict before making a judgment, citing innocent until proven guilty. I explained to him that those rules applied to the government and juries determining who will go free and who will not - not him or me. I also pointed out that juries are also deciding the likelihood of guilt or innocence throughout the trial just as observers are.
By about late 2018 and 2019, he was beginning to relent a little in his enthusiasm for Trump, then describing him as a lesser of evils relative to Hillary. At this point, he told us that he had reregistered as an Independent, but wouldn't answer when asked how he was voting in 2020. For Trump, obviously, if that was his answer.
Then, unfortunately, he died. I would love to hear him tell me today that Trump was the lesser of evils and that he shouldn't be judged for criminality before hearing a courtroom verdict.