Well, well, well...FBI raid Jeffrey Clark's home, take his electronics.

[SkepticThinker]

This seems like a bit of a Hail Mary to find something incriminating.
Federal Authorities Search Home of Jeffery Clark

​

As you know, homes can't be raided without probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Moreover, the timing of the raid makes the raid appear political because

​

If you didn't already know, the Jan 6 committee is partisan - Republican selections to the committee were denied by Nancy Pelosi causing the Republicans to withdraw, the two Republicans on the committee were selected by Nancy Pelosi, and the Republican party censured those two Republicans for accepting Democrat party selection to the committee in defiance of the Republican party.

Every single witness in the hearing so far have all been Republicans. Gimme a break.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If they are investigating actual crimes, then warrants should give cause, Oath or affirmation, and what is being looked for.



I accept your admission that ordinary people were there for a protest.



I don't agree that that number indicted should be zero. There were bad actors present at the capital that committed crimes. I reject your ad hominems of the people present, those who committed crimes, and of Trump.



Ordinary people are not always rational and they sometimes break laws.



You seem to be saying that Republicans were unethical because they gathered together, considered a matter, and voted on it. Explain how that was unethical?



I accept your agreement that working with Democrats is not necessarily unethical and that claiming to represent interests that you don't actually represent is unethical.



Trump has said numerous times that the election was stolen. He's writing a book called The Crime of the Century. The evidence suggests that Trump not only believed the election was stolen, but that he still believes the election was stolen.
In fact, you stated, "he was in denial". You can't be in denial that the election was fair unless you don't believe the election was fair.

Conspiracy?
Incidentally, Eastman had his phone seized, before being served a warrant, which did not contain cause, did not contain Oath or affirmation, and did not indicate the information to be seized.
Since you've listened to "a lot of evidence", I ask, what is the actus reus?



Just because the Democrats are interested in using their power to go after Republican political opponents doesn't mean that the Republicans want to be attacked! You haven't disagreed that the Democrats and Republicans have different interests and that the Jan 6 committee serves the interests of Democrats and not the interests of Republicans.



I accept your recognition that almost half of the House of Representatives is Republican. The Jan 6 committee has no representation of their interests.



I accept that you are aware that Cheney and Kinzinger were selected by the Democrats for the Jan 6 committee.
It is a fact that Cheney and Kinzinger were chosen by the Democrats - not the Republicans. If Cheney and Kinzinger represented Republican interests, then they could've been chosen by the Republicans. They were not. In and of itself, not bad, but also not credible. The bad (unethical) part comes when they claim to represent Republican interests when it is glaringly apparent that they do not.



I accept that you realize that Cheney and Kinzinger were out-spoken about blaming Trump for Jan 6. Their bias is unmistakable. You are quick to say Trump lied, when it is more accurate to say that you don't believe him.



Irrelevant to what?



You are entitled to your opinion of House Republican interests.



If the Justice Department searched without cause, Oath or affirmation, and or didn't know what they were looking for... the day before the hearing on Jeffrey Clark, then it suggests cooperation between Democrats and law enforcement. The point of my question is to bring the discussion back to the thread topic, which is the FBI raid on Jeffrey Clark's home. If you aren't interested in discussing the FBI raid anymore, then perhaps we should wrap things up.

___________________________________________________________________

It seems to me that you are arguing that the ends justifies the means: it doesn't matter how the committee was formed; it doesn't matter if the warrant was constitutional; all that matters is that conspiracy and corruption are found.

It seems to me that I'm arguing that the means justifies the ends: it matters how the committee was formed; it matters if the warrant was constitutional; not following proper means is corruption.

You really should watch the hearings.

 

[F1fan]

I seems the conservatives are trapped between what the GOP is saying and what they insist is their interests (not the interest of the people) and what is being revealed by witnesses. Trying to cast doubt on the credibility of Democrats, and the ethics of at least two Republicans, and law enforcement, and witnesses, and Congress, they really have no way to explain the testimonies in a way that justifies Trump's behavior, nor the behavior of many around trump, like Guiliani, Clark, Eastman, and numerous members of state governments.

Conservatives are going to have a point where they accept the facts being laid out in witness testimonies, or sink deeper into the cult of Trump via denial. The future of the GOP will rely on voters demanding better ethics and duty to the citizens as Trumpism fails. Trump seems on a downward spiral at this point and while he has many allies in government he will be seen as a liability by more and more.

 

[74x12]

Parties change. Now the Republican party is the party of the KKK, and if any party were to defend or even advocate for slavery today it would be the Republicans. They already think that it is okay to enslave women.

That is not true. The Republican party is not affiliated with the KKK. In fact they openly eschew association with the KKK. Your claim seems like baseless rhetoric.

Perhaps some KKK members do vote Republican but then ... some KKK members probably like apples and oranges too. Does that mean apples and oranges are affiliated with the KKK?

Besides, you missed my point entirely. The point is; if even the American flag is racist somehow ... then why don't liberals come up with a new party? Why do they need to keep the old Democrat party? It was in it's day ... overtly racist. Openly affiliated with the KKK and supported slavery.

This proves the bias of the whole show. It shows how BLM(corrupt in itself by the way) and others on the left are completely blind and just led around on a leash by the Democrat party to push political agendas that Democrats don't really care about but use for their own ends.

Let's take defunding the police for example. Democrats pretended to support it but once it came to a vote they said no. This is their way.

As for the supposed care Democrats claim to have for minoritiies ... when implemented many of their policies could hardly be worse for many minorities in America.

Both parties are flawed but you cannot get much more corrupt than the Republicans right now. The Democrats are far from perfect, but at least they are not the corrupt ones.

The corruption of the Democrat party is unparalleled at this point. It's hard to believe that you really think they're less corrupt than the Republican party. Maybe you haven't been paying attention but they're most likely far more corrupt. Although I think corruption is rampant in both parties.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not true. The Republican party is not affiliated with the KKK. In fact they openly eschew association with the KKK. Your claim seems like baseless rhetoric.

I did not claim that the Republican party is affiliated with the KKK. I pointed out that KKK members are also going to be Republicans. You would be hard pressed to find any Democratic KKK members today.

Perhaps some KKK members do vote Republican but then ... some KKK members probably like apples and oranges too. Does that mean apples and oranges are affiliated with the KKK?

Some?!? Are you serious. Practically all. And you are the one that used the term "affiliated" I never made that claim. By the way the Democratic Party was not affiliated with the KKK either, but in the past the Democratic Party was the party of the KKK. Do you not understand the difference?

Besides, you missed my point entirely. The point is; if even the American flag is racist somehow ... then why don't liberals come up with a new party? Why do they need to keep the old Democrat party? It was in it's day ... overtly racist. Openly affiliated with the KKK and supported slavery.

I never supported that the US flag is racist. Guess what, both parties have extremists. The Democrats at least do not pay too much attention to theirs. And no, I have never seen that the Democratic party was affiliated with the KKK. Yes, there was a time when the Democratic Party was the party of racists. I do not deny that. Parties change. They changed in the 60's. Going in they were the party of the racists, but going out the Republicans had changed and saw that the racist vote in the South was a very strong block.

This proves the bias of the whole show. It shows how BLM(corrupt in itself by the way) and others on the left are completely blind and just led around on a leash by the Democrat party to push political agendas that Democrats don't really care about but use for their own ends.

Let's take defunding the police for example. Democrats pretended to support it but once it came to a vote they said no. This is their way.

As for the supposed care Democrats claim to have for minoritiies ... when implemented many of their policies could hardly be worse for many minorities in America.

I know of one program that was poorly designed and probably did more harm than good. That was the way that welfare was originally set up and practically drove the man out of the home. And why bring BLM into this? I do agree that the support for BLM was too blind. And a bit hypocritical since it was largely the underfunding of police and social welfare agencies that caused so many of the problems that were being complained about. Police were supposed to be trying to do what is often social work with a gun. That does not always work out very well. Cities tried to get by on the cheap and they have since paid for it. And not in a productive manner. Right now the old system is still the only one that we have and defunding the police has backfired rather badly wherever it has been tried.

The corruption of the Democrat party is unparalleled at this point. It's hard to believe that you really think they're less corrupt than the Republican party. Maybe you haven't been paying attention but they're most likely far more corrupt. Although I think corruption is rampant in both parties.

Oh please. When you openly support a far more corrupt party you lose all credibility when you make claims like this. The Democrats did over support BLM, but at least their leader did not advocate for a violent and illegal overthrow of the government.

 

[Ponder This]

You are oversimplifying and ignoring the point. The point is that Republicans did not want an investigation. They voted to censure the two Republicans who disagreed ONLY because they are ethical and independent in their desire to uncover what caused the Jan 6 events to happen at all. The question is why have Republicans resisted in helping explain to the people what happened.

Even if your assertion were true (that Republicans did not want an investigation), that would only confirm that Cheney and Kinzinger don't represent the interests of the Republican party.

The funny thing is 1. there is still no evidence of any significant fraud. 2. there are dozens who were involved in the administration and other government positions that have stated they told Trump there is no evidence of fraud. There are a few statements Trump has made that suggests he knows he lost the election.

In law there's a thing called "willful blindness' which means you can claim to believe you weren't committing a crime but if you were told by others around you that what you were doing was a crime you are likely in denial and still responsible.

It's not a crime to believe the election was stolen.

By about 15 seconds. And what is your complaint here? That law enforcement doesn't know its job? Who told you this?

I accept your agreement that the warrant was not first served.

False, it has two Republicans.

Your assertion that Cheney and Kinzinger represent Republican interests on the Jan 6 committee is willful denial. At the very least, it has become a debate point upon which we are unable to find agreement.

Now, if the remaining Republicans have ulterior aims other than investigation, what is their interest? The question is: why aren't they interested in investigating what happened?

You assume that they have no interest in investigation. But they have asked questions about the actions of people on Jan 6. Since they aren't represented on the committee, those questions do not get asked in the Jan 6 hearings, nor are people they would subpoena in those hearings. For example, they would subpoena Nancy Pelosi and ask her about her actions on Jan 6 because of her role in declining extra security forces for Jan 6 after being apprised of the necessity.

The fact that Kinzinger and Cheney are very much conservative and Republicans, and happened to be ethical, and that the rest of the Republicans are critical says something very bad about the majority of Republicans. What is wrong with being ethical? What is wrong about investigating the Jan 6 crimes?

Your characterization of the Jan 6 committee as investigating the events of Jan 6 is not shared by Republicans. Their view is that Jan 6 committee is a partisan attack on Trump and associated Republicans.

What bias? More and more people are on the record for blaming Trump and others for the Jan 6 riots. It was Trump who lied about election fraud, and this lie was the basis for the Jan 6 riot. Who else carries the blame? He should have been honorable and accepted the election results.

A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. In this case, Cheney and Kinzinger were out-spoken about blaming Trump for inciting a riot on Jan 6.

My opinion may change as I wait your response as to what you believe the Republican interest is. My assessment will look to see if your answer reflects duty as a public servant, oath of office, honor, ethics, character, and seeking justice.

You made your opinion about Republican interests quite clear after I linked you to their censure of Cheney and Kinzinger. You referred to it as "rhetoric and baseless".

___________________________________________________________________

I think our debate has reached its end. Feel free to make your final remarks.

 

[fantome profane]

Even if your assertion were true (that Republicans did not want an investigation), that would only confirm that Cheney and Kinzinger don't represent the interests of the Republican party.

They are supposed to represent the interests of American people, not the Republican Party. They are supposed to uphold the oath they took to the constitution. And they are.