Trumpist Insurrection in DC

[discolé monade]

OH, and just so we are all clear this kind of crazy, racist, bigoted behavior will NOW get a HUGE FUCKING PAYOUT!

this country is so fucking pathetic. and i get to say that. i love this country, but i'm so fucking disgusted. 

[1pooh4u]

9 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

 

 

@1pooh4u

see, what's the fucking point? if ^they^ aren't being charged, then what is this? 

distraction. 

the rising oil prices, inflation, roe v. wade. 

the gov. is in the habit of 'slide of hand' at all opportunities. 

i'm not saying as nefarious as poisoning our food supply ( >.>)

but something is up. and you can watch it all on netflix. *insert eyeroll*

It’s all theater. 

[1pooh4u]

8 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

OH, and just so we are all clear this kind of crazy, racist, bigoted behavior will NOW get a HUGE FUCKING PAYOUT!

this country is so fucking pathetic. and i get to say that. i love this country, but i'm so fucking disgusted. 

Unfuckinbelievable 

[Sieg67]

Liz Cheney isn't as sure.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/jan-6-committee-trump-criminal-referral-1367769/

[naraku360]

21 minutes ago, Sieg67 said:

Liz Cheney isn't as sure.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/jan-6-committee-trump-criminal-referral-1367769/

Anyone know how much say a chairperson has?

Honestly, the guy's statement doesn't feel concrete enough for me, either way.

Like why bring up the DoJ's response at all if a referral is out of the question?

[scoobdog]

I imagine the whole point here is to not give the GOP any ammunition to further their accusations of partisanship.  The narrative all along has been to reserve judgement until the hearings were complete.

[Ginguy]

On 6/12/2022 at 8:22 PM, Raptorpat said:

They all but admitted beforehand that their goal was to run defense and muddy the water.

But Jordan, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and Banks, the head of the Republican Study Committee, have emerged as some of the most vocal Trump defenders in the wake of the insurrection, infuriating Democrats of all stripes who consider Trump’s allies to be complicit in the attack.

Both Jordan and Banks have said in recent days that they were hoping to use their positions on the select committee to investigate what Pelosi knew about the security threat ahead of the violence.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/564122-pelosi-rejects-jordan-banks-for-jan-6-committee/

Is the working theory here that Dem leadership is at fault for not knowing or not recognizing that an actual lynch mob was going to literally try to kill them to prevent a peaceful transfer of power - rather than it being the fault of the maga mob and the maga people who incited it? Was it a "Palpatine kidnaps himself" 12-D chess level play?

So, the first portion here is, partisanship? Jim Jordan and Jim Banks wouldn't go along with the predetermined outcome and would be likely to commit an impertinence by asking embarrassing questions so they were removed? Sounds like a conflict of interest, that is they conflict with Pelosi's interest.

Asking about what Pelosi and "I totally didn't encourage an assault on Justice Kavanaugh" Schumer knew and when they knew it regarding security is rather important. The official logs, linked above, show the HSAA and SSAA both declined National Guard assistance even after CoP of USCP had inquired about it. Toss in Mayor Bowser to that particular line of inquiry, when she refused to request assistance as well. As far as being a 12-D chess move, I never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.

On 6/12/2022 at 8:22 PM, Raptorpat said:

If belligerent Democrats mob the Capitol - scaling walls, breaking through windows, beating security, etc. - with the intent to hang the vice president, assassinate the opposition, and so on, hypothetical Democrat Gym Gordan probably shouldn't be on a commission to investigate them either.

I'm not talking about belligerent Democrats breaking into the Senate building and disrupting proceedings, we have already seen that when that occurs no committee will be formed nor will anyone be charged, let alone held without counsel or medical treatment in solitary confinement for months on end. I was referring to the formation of a select committee with the opposing party's picks being rejected for no good cause.

[Top Gun]

When the opposing party was partially complicit in an act of treason, its picks can feel free to go fuck themselves.

[1pooh4u]

None of this shit matters.  The country is fucked anyway. I was reading an article where the proud boys stormed a library, holding a drag Queen reading hour for children, and started screaming homophobic slurs.  The parents brought their children to the event, mind you, it wasn’t a captive audience like in a school. Anyway, more people defended the fuckin Nazis scaring the shit out of children, than the drag queen reading them a children’s book.  So yeah. There wasn’t any insurrection.  Fuck your lying eyes. 

[Raptorpat]

58 minutes ago, Ginguy said:

I was referring to the formation of a select committee with the opposing party's picks being rejected for no good cause.

I reject the underlying premise of this whataboutism.

• Three of the five picks were accepted just fine, and she asked for two alternates to replace them.
• The two that were rejected were rejected were too close intertwined with a literal insurrection investigation, one of which was since subpoenaed by said investigation. If literally being a relevant witness isn't good cause to be excluded from running the investigation, I don't know what is.
• This isn't a generic partisan probe to catch a secretary misappropriating funds on office furniture or boinking their assistant on said furniture, it is an investigation over a literal insurrection mob scaling walls and storming the capitol.

Obviously when the House flips the new majority will pretend and use this commission ask an excuse to lower the bar of good faith even further for regular issues, but we don't have to pretend that's not what it is.

[stilgar]

Look, pat, the best way to deal with people like jingo is to tell them to fuck off. Nothing you say will change his mind.

[scoobdog]

6 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

I reject the underlying premise of this whataboutism.

• Three of the five picks were accepted just fine, and she asked for two alternates to replace them.
• The two that were rejected were rejected were too close intertwined with a literal insurrection investigation, one of which was since subpoenaed by said investigation. If literally being a relevant witness isn't good cause to be excluded from running the investigation, I don't know what is.
• This isn't a generic partisan probe to catch a secretary misappropriating funds on office furniture or boinking their assistant on said furniture, it is an investigation over a literal insurrection mob scaling walls and storming the capitol.

Obviously when the House flips the new majority will pretend and use this commission ask an excuse to lower the bar of good faith even further for regular issues, but we don't have to pretend that's not what it is.

I commend you for creating a good faith response out of a post filled with literally nothing.

[naraku360]

On 6/14/2022 at 4:16 PM, Ginguy said:

So, the first portion here is, partisanship? Jim Jordan and Jim Banks wouldn't go along with the predetermined outcome and would be likely to commit an impertinence by asking embarrassing questions so they were removed? Sounds like a conflict of interest, that is they conflict with Pelosi's interest.

Asking about what Pelosi and "I totally didn't encourage an assault on Justice Kavanaugh" Schumer knew and when they knew it regarding security is rather important. The official logs, linked above, show the HSAA and SSAA both declined National Guard assistance even after CoP of USCP had inquired about it. Toss in Mayor Bowser to that particular line of inquiry, when she refused to request assistance as well. As far as being a 12-D chess move, I never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.

I'm not talking about belligerent Democrats breaking into the Senate building and disrupting proceedings, we have already seen that when that occurs no committee will be formed nor will anyone be charged, let alone held without counsel or medical treatment in solitary confinement for months on end. I was referring to the formation of a select committee with the opposing party's picks being rejected for no good cause.

Why did you respond to breaking windows and "disrupting proceedings" but not attempting to assassinate opposition and trying to hang the vice president?

Can you confidently maintain this answer if you bring those back in?

Edited June 16, 2022 by naraku360

[katt_goddess]

[Sieg67]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-mike-pence-call-b2102959.html?utm_source=reddit.com

[Master-Debater131]

 

 

40 feet.  Thats way too damn close.  They almost had a chance to grab the VP as they breached the capital.

 

I honestly didnt expect much from this committee, but these videos and what has been reported so far is just shocking. I knew this was bad, but what we are finding is that we really were uncomfortably close to having a successful insurrection.

[naraku360]

On 6/16/2022 at 12:00 AM, naraku360 said:

Why did you respond to breaking windows and "disrupting proceedings" but not attempting to assassinate opposition and trying to hang the vice president?

Can you confidently maintain this answer if you bring those back in?

@Ginguy

[PenguinBoss]

Imagine a system where you can pardon people of crimes you incited.

[naraku360]

1 hour ago, PenguinBoss said:

Imagine a system where you can pardon people of crimes you incited.

Inagine a system where you can fire the person invesigating you then hire the person who choses whether charges are pressed or not, and you pick someone who stated they would not press charges "even if crimes were committed," and also your followers think it's totz cool.

[Ginguy]

On 6/14/2022 at 8:24 PM, Raptorpat said:

I reject the underlying premise of this whataboutism.

• Three of the five picks were accepted just fine, and she asked for two alternates to replace them.
• The two that were rejected were rejected were too close intertwined with a literal insurrection investigation, one of which was since subpoenaed by said investigation. If literally being a relevant witness isn't good cause to be excluded from running the investigation, I don't know what is.
• This isn't a generic partisan probe to catch a secretary misappropriating funds on office furniture or boinking their assistant on said furniture, it is an investigation over a literal insurrection mob scaling walls and storming the capitol.

Obviously when the House flips the new majority will pretend and use this commission ask an excuse to lower the bar of good faith even further for regular issues, but we don't have to pretend that's not what it is.

I reject the classification of this as a whataboutism. It is not a direct comparison to another committee, it is rather solely focused on the divergent actions of this singular committee.

Pelosi should have been in no position to make a determination of any sort to begin with. I'm sure there would be a huge stink if a Speaker McCarthy were to reject Democratic appointees or demand that any such appointees meet with his approval.

Of the two rejected, one was not subject to any subpoena. Rep. Banks was not subject to any (unConsititutional) inquiry or subpoena. As far as Rep. Jordan, according to CNN's reporting the scope of inquiry regarding him revolves around how many times he spoke to the President and if he said the election was stolen then said he didn't. That isn't just cause, it is slander. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/jim-jordan-january-6-committee-subpoena/index.html

Again, there was no insurrection. Claims of that are materially and legally false, as no one has been charged with those crimes. Further, no one was armed, nor were people taking arms or using violence to overthrow the government. Was it a violent riot, yes. Were people injured, yes. Should Congress look into why a mob of people gained entry (and were waved through barricades and ushered into various portions of the Capitol by Capitol police), yes. Should Congress look into why the HSAA and SSAA refused requests to deploy additional security forces, yes.

I would hope the new majority would not do that, and would instead try to get answers to real questions regarding the "mostly peaceful" (to use CNN's terminology) protest and to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Ginguy

[PenguinBoss]

14 minutes ago, Ginguy said:

Further, no one was armed,

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/17/politics/mark-mazza-capitol-riot/index.html

 

Quote

 

A January 6, 2021, rioter pleaded guilty Friday to carrying a loaded firearm on US Capitol grounds and assaulting police officers with one of their own batons during the insurrection.

Mark Mazza, who told federal investigators he regretted not seeing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the riot and that they would “be here for another reason” if he had, faces a maximum of 20 years for assaulting officers with a dangerous weapon.

 

I can think of a particular pundit who won't stop lying about there being no firearms present, so it's no wonder why you've started parroting it.

[Top Gun]

Once again Jingo seems to think that we're as brain-dead as the drooling zombies who constitute his preferred candidates' voter bases.

[Nablonsky]

1 hour ago, Ginguy said:

(unConsitituional)

Fuck, man, just pack it in 

[naraku360]

1 hour ago, Ginguy said:

I reject the classification of this as a whataboutism. It is not a direct comparison to another committee, it is rather solely focused on the divergent actions of this singular committee.

Pelosi should have been in no position to make a determination of any sort to begin with. I'm sure there would be a huge stink if a Speaker McCarthy were to reject Democratic appointees or demand that any such appointees meet with his approval.

Of the two rejected, one was not subject to any subpoena. Rep. Banks was not subject to any (unConsitituional) inquiry or subpoena. As far as Rep. Jordan, according to CNN's reporting the scope of inquiry regarding him revolves around how many times he spoke to the President and if he said the election was stolen then said he didn't. That isn't just cause, it is slander. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/jim-jordan-january-6-committee-subpoena/index.html

Again, there was no insurrection. Claims of that are materially and legally false, as no one has been charged with those crimes. Further, no one was armed, nor were people taking arms or using violence to overthrow the government. Was it a violent riot, yes. Were people injured, yes. Should Congress look into why a mob of people gained entry (and were waved through barricades and ushered into various portions of the Capitol by Capitol police), yes. Should Congress look into why the HSAA and SSAA refused requests to deploy additional security forces, yes.

I would hope the new majority would not do that, and would instead try to get answers to real questions regarding the "mostly peaceful" (to use CNN's terminology) protest and to ensure it doesn't happen again.

 

On 6/16/2022 at 12:00 AM, naraku360 said:

Why did you respond to breaking windows and "disrupting proceedings" but not attempting to assassinate opposition and trying to hang the vice president?

Can you confidently maintain this answer if you bring those back in?

 

[Seight]

6 hours ago, PenguinBoss said:

Imagine a system where you can pardon people of crimes you incited.

Spoiler

He ain't gonna do that, that's not how The Bus That Runs People Over, clearly labeled The Bus That Runs People Over, works.

 

[Master-Debater131]

 

 

 

Im a little surprised its this high frankly. Its tough to get 60% agreement on anything anymore.  That just goes to show how horrible the insurrection was. People are rightfully realizing that it was exactly what we all saw, and that it was an extremely dark day in our nations history.  Trump absolutely should be charged for his role in fanning the flames of the insurrection.  Failure to do so frankly is a dereliction of duty at this point.

[Nablonsky]

Just now, Master-Debater131 said:

Trump absolutely should be charged for his role in fanning the flames of the insurrection.  Failure to do so frankly is a dereliction of duty at this point.

The Democrats would NEVER

[Master-Debater131]

5 minutes ago, Nablonsky said:

The Democrats would NEVER

Then they are cowards.

 

They are doing everything to lay out why he needs to be charged. They absolutely must refer him to the DoJ for a criminal charge.

[naraku360]

3 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Then they are cowards.

 

They are doing everything to lay out why he needs to be charged. They absolutely must refer him to the DoJ for a criminal charge.

You're breaking @Ginguy's heart.

He still won't answer me, either. After I was very civil, too. 

Edited June 20, 2022 by naraku360

[Top Gun]

He doesn't like it when people say the quiet part out loud.

[Nablonsky]

4 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Then they are cowards.

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3529118-lofgren-on-trump-criminal-referral-justice-department-has-to-make-its-own-decision/

 

Spoiler

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Nablonsky

[naraku360]

8 minutes ago, Top Gun said:

He doesn't like it when people say the quiet part out loud.

MD isn't really doing that. She seems to be anti-Trump at this point.

That's just how awful he was.

[naraku360]

1 hour ago, Nablonsky said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3529118-lofgren-on-trump-criminal-referral-justice-department-has-to-make-its-own-decision/

 

  Hide contents

 

It is an evidentiary committee. They actually don't make the call. Even the dubious "we aren't making criminal referrals," is followed by saying it's the DoJ that makes the decision. And "laying the roadmap for prosecution," sounds like favoring prosecution. A cursory look at his record, he doesn't come off as being opposed to pressing charges. Like, at all.

Saying it's not our call isn't the same as saying it's out of the question, especially when they aren't acting as a committee that can press charges. It might be getting shot done by this guy, but as far as I can tell the chair doesn't have final say regardless. I believe it's a vote with several members publicly contradicting the statement, and I don't know if any have agrred with it.

No matter what opinion we may have toward Dems, this doesn't really tell us much about the direction things will go.

Edited June 20, 2022 by naraku360

[Nablonsky]

1 minute ago, naraku360 said:

It is an evidentiary committee. They actually don't make the call. Even the dubious "we aren't making criminal referrals," is followed by saying it's the DoJ that makes the decision. And "laying the roadmap for prosecution," sounds like favoring prosecution.

Saying it's not our call isn't the same as saying it's out of the question, especially when they aren't acting as a committee that can press charges. It might be getting shot done by this guy, but as far as I can tell the chair doesn't have final say regardless. I believe it's a vote with several members publicly contradicting the statement, and I don't know if any have agrred with it.

No matter what opinion we may have toward Dems, this doesn't really tell us much about the direction things will go.

It's more than one guy on the investigative committee, it's multiple, if you reread. 

It absolutely tells me everything i need to know. They aren't going to do anything except cry. If you want to hope for anything more than that be my guest, but as far as I can tell it isn't happening. 

[naraku360]

2 minutes ago, Nablonsky said:

It's more than one guy on the investigative committee, it's multiple, if you reread. 

It absolutely tells me everything i need to know. They aren't going to do anything except cry. If you want to hope for anything more than that be my guest, but as far as I can tell it isn't happening. 

The point still stands. Taking a neutral stance is their job. They literally aren't responsible for pressing charges.

And even then, they're all openly in favor of prosecution. Even the people being quoted have publicly said they want criminal charges.

[Nablonsky]

2 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

They literally aren't responsible for pressing charges.

Nobody is saying this . . . they are responsible for making a criminal referral to the DOJ, that is what is being discussed. 

3 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

Taking a neutral stance is their job

What...? No, it absolutely isn't. Hard disagree. 

3 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

And even then, they're all openly in favor of prosecution. Even the people being quoted have publicly said they want criminal charges.

Where? Not in the article I linked. Also how is that neutral then like you were just claiming is their job? Are they staying neutral, or are they being quoted as wanting criminal charges -- which is it?

[naraku360]

27 minutes ago, Nablonsky said:

Nobody is saying this . . . they are responsible for making a criminal referral to the DOJ, that is what is being discussed. 

What...? No, it absolutely isn't. Hard disagree. 

Where? Not in the article I linked. Also how is that neutral then like you were just claiming is their job? Are they staying neutral, or are they being quoted as wanting criminal charges -- which is it?

And do you think the DoJ isn't or can't be in contact with the committee...? What difference does it make if they make the referral on their own accord or if the DoJ recommends prosecution and gets the referral?

Their job is to present evidence. Evidence, used for or against prosection, is itself neutral. The goal is to investigate or obtain proof of wrongdoing, but if insufficient proof can be found the job itself does not dictate they come to a guilty conclusion.

In the eyes of the law, innocent until proven guilty. To prove guilt, all evidence first needs to be presented first. They believe he was guilty so they are making that case on record. If they did not find evidence to back the claim, it would be their responsiblity to report such. Presenting an argument based on proof doesn't change that, and the argument isn't required to be for or against.

I specifically said a cursory search. Like all of them are publicly opposed to Trump and joined the committee under the belief that sufficient evidence to take legal action could be found.

Taking an off-record stance is maybe a bit unprofessional, but not a crime.

[Raptorpat]

On 6/17/2022 at 7:27 PM, Ginguy said:

I reject the classification of this as a whataboutism. It is not a direct comparison to another committee, it is rather solely focused on the divergent actions of this singular committee.

Pelosi should have been in no position to make a determination of any sort to begin with. I'm sure there would be a huge stink if a Speaker McCarthy were to reject Democratic appointees or demand that any such appointees meet with his approval.

Of the two rejected, one was not subject to any subpoena. Rep. Banks was not subject to any (unConsititutional) inquiry or subpoena. As far as Rep. Jordan, according to CNN's reporting the scope of inquiry regarding him revolves around how many times he spoke to the President and if he said the election was stolen then said he didn't. That isn't just cause, it is slander. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/jim-jordan-january-6-committee-subpoena/index.html

If the Republican Congress were investigating a failed insurrection led by Democrat-oriented extremists based on a lie who stormed the Capitol, and the Democratic minority tried to appoint members who were (1) a material witness or (2) publicly announced their intent to use their appointment to muddy the water and change subjects from the politically motivated insurrection (for example, by focusing on an irrelevant comparison to racial injustice protests that weren't an attempted insurrection and storming of the US Capitol), after the Democratic minority successfully blocked bipartisan legislation to empanel an independent, bipartisan committee, maybe the Republican Speaker would be right to reject those appointments.

Which again, rejecting two flawed candidates out of five appointees and asking for two alternates is different than saying "your party gets no representation at all in an insurrection investigation." McCarthy is the only reason that Cheney and Kinzinger are the GOP's only representation, and we'll see how the gamble plays out.

P.S.

On 6/17/2022 at 7:27 PM, Ginguy said:

subject to any (unConsititutional) inquiry or subpoena

There is no jurisprudence underlying this parenthetical, it's a completely unlitigated question that won't be answered by the courts before Gym Jordan runs out the clock. 

[rpgamer]

That's a whole lot of words just to say "go fuck yourself jingy."

[naraku360]

On 6/14/2022 at 4:16 PM, Ginguy said:

I'm not talking about belligerent Democrats breaking into the Senate building and disrupting proceedings

I'm still waiting to find out why you only acknowedged this part but not the breaking windows, scaling walls, chanting to hang Mike Pence and politicians intent on ratifying the election, or why the buildings were evacuated for that matter.

I thought you wanted civil conversations with the opposition. 🤔

[Seight]

4 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

 

 

Bus That Runs People Over, etc. 

[Sawdamizer]

These new hearings… are already wild 

[Master-Debater131]

1 hour ago, Sawdamizer said:

These new hearings… are already wild 

Just got home and tuning in, what happened?

[PenguinBoss]

I don't think we should look too hard at this. For all we know it's just a pedophilia thing.

[Sawdamizer]

What does a republican say when they bump into Trump??

”pardon me”

don’t forget to tip your waitress and try the veal.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Sawdamizer

[naraku360]

On 6/23/2022 at 2:47 PM, PenguinBoss said:

I don't think we should look too hard at this. For all we know it's just a pedophilia thing.

If it's a pedo thing, the only reason Trump would have to reject the request is that he wasn't invited.

[Seight]

1 hour ago, naraku360 said:

If it's a pedo thing, the only reason Trump would have to reject the request is that he wasn't invited.

"WAIT, THE KIDS HAVE THE VOTES! EVERYONE, I'LL HANDLE THIS!"

[Ginguy]

On 6/22/2022 at 4:00 PM, Raptorpat said:

If the Republican Congress were investigating a failed insurrection led by Democrat-oriented extremists based on a lie who stormed the Capitol, and the Democratic minority tried to appoint members who were (1) a material witness or (2) publicly announced their intent to use their appointment to muddy the water and change subjects from the politically motivated insurrection (for example, by focusing on an irrelevant comparison to racial injustice protests that weren't an attempted insurrection and storming of the US Capitol), after the Democratic minority successfully blocked bipartisan legislation to empanel an independent, bipartisan committee, maybe the Republican Speaker would be right to reject those appointments.

Which again, rejecting two flawed candidates out of five appointees and asking for two alternates is different than saying "your party gets no representation at all in an insurrection investigation." McCarthy is the only reason that Cheney and Kinzinger are the GOP's only representation, and we'll see how the gamble plays out.

P.S.

There is no jurisprudence underlying this parenthetical, it's a completely unlitigated question that won't be answered by the courts before Gym Jordan runs out the clock. 

I guess I'll go through each one.

First, regarding the "failed insurrection". The Government is probably not charging them with trying to overthrow the government, but rather with conspiring to use force to prevent the execution of Federal law. This can be surmised since the individuals have not been charged with the crime of insurrection. Further, that NY Times piece accidentally speaks the quiet part out loud; "The group and its actions around the Capitol will be central to the narrative being pieced together by the House committee investigating the attack and Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results, two people familiar with the committee’s plans said on Monday." From this, it is easy to determine that the committee is not investigating facts, but rather attempting to find facts to fit a predetermined outcome. This is important as to the second and third points.

Second, as far as Rep. Jordan being a material witness, there is no factual basis for that assertion yet available. The closest thing is a statement from Rep. Jordan, “I spoke with him that day, after? I think after. I don’t know if I spoke with him in the morning or not. I just don’t know…I don’t know when those conversations happened.”. So, until such evidence can be found that would prove Rep. Jordan spoke earlier or that he spoke prior to Jan. 6th with the intent to somehow plan, and no such evidence has been presented, he is no more a material witness that any other person who might have spoken with the President during the days between Nov. 3rd and Jan. 6th.

As to Rep. Banks, he did not announce his intent to "muddy the waters". He rather did the exact opposite, and clearly stated his intent to investigate "... why was the Capitol unprepared and vulnerable to attack on January 6? If Democrats were serious about investigating political violence, this committee would be studying not only the January 6 riot at the Capitol, but also the hundreds of violent political riots last summer when many more innocent Americans and law-enforcement officers were attacked. And of course, the committee would not overlook the Good Friday murder of USCP Officer Billy Evans that was perpetrated by a far-left extremist." This isn't muddying the waters, this is announcing valid lines of investigation into the climate of political violence which led up to the mostly peaceful protest at the Capitol on Jan. 6th. (That's for "Gym Jordan". 😝)

I'll agree that Rep. Jordan is probably wrong about an effort to subpoena him being unconstitutional.

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Ginguy

[discolé monade]

this is such a fucking joke. 

at this point, the only thing 'we the people' can hope for, is the dems keep their fucking spine, and move forward with this with gusto,  **

to ENSURE this horrid orange monster, is not able to steal the 2024 election by convicting. 

anyone that is on the side of this tyrannical mess known as trump, can get fucked. 

 

** we know they won't. we know that the people we voted for do not represent us any longer, both rep and dem,  and i for one hope the whole thing burns to the fucking ground. 

[Poof]

On 6/25/2022 at 9:36 PM, Ginguy said:

I guess I'll go through each one.

First, regarding the "failed insurrection". The Government is probably not charging them with trying to overthrow the government, but rather with conspiring to use force to prevent the execution of Federal law. This can be surmised since the individuals have not been charged with the crime of insurrection. Further, that NY Times piece accidentally speaks the quiet part out loud; "The group and its actions around the Capitol will be central to the narrative being pieced together by the House committee investigating the attack and Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results, two people familiar with the committee’s plans said on Monday." From this, it is easy to determine that the committee is not investigating facts, but rather attempting to find facts to fit a predetermined outcome. This is important as to the second and third points.

Second, as far as Rep. Jordan being a material witness, there is no factual basis for that assertion yet available. The closest thing is a statement from Rep. Jordan, “I spoke with him that day, after? I think after. I don’t know if I spoke with him in the morning or not. I just don’t know…I don’t know when those conversations happened.”. So, until such evidence can be found that would prove Rep. Jordan spoke earlier or that he spoke prior to Jan. 6th with the intent to somehow plan, and no such evidence has been presented, he is no more a material witness that any other person who might have spoken with the President during the days between Nov. 3rd and Jan. 6th.

As to Rep. Banks, he did not announce his intent to "muddy the waters". He rather did the exact opposite, and clearly stated his intent to investigate "... why was the Capitol unprepared and vulnerable to attack on January 6? If Democrats were serious about investigating political violence, this committee would be studying not only the January 6 riot at the Capitol, but also the hundreds of violent political riots last summer when many more innocent Americans and law-enforcement officers were attacked. And of course, the committee would not overlook the Good Friday murder of USCP Officer Billy Evans that was perpetrated by a far-left extremist." This isn't muddying the waters, this is announcing valid lines of investigation into the climate of political violence which led up to the mostly peaceful protest at the Capitol on Jan. 6th. (That's for "Gym Jordan". 😝)

I'll agree that Rep. Jordan is probably wrong about an effort to subpoena him being unconstitutional.

HANG THE INSURRECTIONISTS