ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,259 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
1 minute ago, DRsGhost said:
And maybe questioned by this committee? Nah, let's leave that part out of the narrative.
I see several officers in the background standing around doing absolutely nothing to expel the "insurrectionists"
Why?
The committee is divided into five teams with different goals. One of those teams is focused solely on the law enforcement failures.
So far in the hearings, they’ve mostly been focused on the events leading up to Jan 6, with only limited testimony on the events during the riot.
I would expect that they get to the report out from the law enforcement team in one of the upcoming hearings.
-
8 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
You mean this guy?
Where you see a police officer allow them in as long as they "remain peaceful"?
You've all been had.
https://rumble.com/vh52u9-watch-u.s.-capitol-police-gave-protesters-ok-to-enter-capitol.html
If police or others let them in, they should be disciplined too. -
Just now, SoCal Deek said:
Once again we agree. (We generally do.) These nitwits all deserve a trial. Let’s get on with it.
QAnon Shaman plead guilty so no need for a trial. As for those who aren’t going to plead, they definitely should get a trial. But our criminal justice system is a joke so it’ll be a while. -
2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
So prosecute him and the others sitting in a jail for months and months now. He has the right to a trial and a defense…no?
Yea he does. -
1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:
As I said…okie dokie. “By force” ….I’m assuming that’s the guy in the bear suit taking selfies in the chamber?
If he got into the chamber by force, then yes. -
Just now, SoCal Deek said:
Postponing the recognition of electors is your definition of a coup? Okie Dokie
It is within the definition of seditious conspiracy though: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
-
7 minutes ago, Doc said:
Innocent until proven guilty. We're going on a year-and-a-half now.
As for the letter of the law, sure, charge those who may have been planning to do something. I have never said that no one should be charged for any malfeasance done on that day. But realize that there was no threat to anything without firearms and those charged with seditious conspiracy have not, to our knowledge, implicated Trump or any other Congressperson, and didn't carry their act out to completion, despite having ample chance to do so.
They are absolutely innocent until proven guilty. And Jim Jordan is so stupid I would be surprised if he was even capable of planning anything. Poor guy can’t even figure out how a suit coat works.
Here’s a scenario I’d like you to think about, and we can completely remove politics from it.
Let’s say that there was a congressional hearing on steroids in sports. And a lot of people in the public thought that Tom Brady was doping. But I don’t, I think he’s clean.
The committee subpoenas a bunch of people close to Brady but they all refuse to testify and go to court to fight the subpoenas. Publicly, all of Brady’s camp is saying he’s clean and it’s just his amazing TB12 routine. So I continue to quote those people are evidence that Brady is clean.
All of his people are still fighting the committee, saying it has too many Bills fans on it and the one Patriot fan on it isn’t really a Patriot fan. They’re a PFINO, Patriot Fan in Name Only.
Some of Brady’s people are able to quash the subpoenas but others aren’t and they give testimony. His nutritionist testifies that Brady was taking steroids. His trainer pleads the fifth over 100 times. Not a single person testifying states that Brady is clean.
But publicly, the same people still say that it’s a sham and he’s clean.
Now, he hasn’t been charged, or fined or suspended, and the investigation is still ongoing, but at what point would you expect me to re-evaluate my position that he is definitely clean?
-
2 minutes ago, Doc said:
Ah, they actually wanted to know what happened. You think they would have done that before they voted on impeaching him, no?
As for 9/11, the terrorists were all dead. Never mind that Jordan and Banks weren't in on it.
How was it even an attempted insurrection...without firearms? And what stopped the rioters from disrupting the recognition of valid electors? Typically in an insurrection, you try to accomplish your goal or die trying.
If you’re arguing that the Dems screwed up the impeachments, you’re not going to find too much disagreement from me.How are you so certain that no members of Congress were in on it?
And to your last point, go check out the actual law around seditious conspiracy. No matter what you say, firearms are not an element of the crime.
-
2 minutes ago, Doc said:
I see. So she put on Republicans who had already determined it was an insurrection. Yup, still a sham.
No, she put on Republicans who actually wanted to know what happened.
Under your logic, the 9/11 committee was a sham because it didn’t have any Al Qaeda terrorists on it.
The one thing that’s clear here is that the two sides here are simply those who will testify under oath and those who won’t. That should tell you something. It is also telling that the officials who agree with your line of thought in public tell a very different story when they are under oath.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Doc said:
So then why deny Jordan and Banks? Just because she could? Or to stack the panel with Trump-haters?
Well Jim Jordan is an unserious moron who would just act as a distraction, at least that would be my reason.
At the time, Pelosi said she rejected them out of concerns from some of their statements. Given that they signed on to the insane Texas v Pennsylvania lawsuit, I would guess she probably felt that they were pro-insurrection which would be inappropriate for a committee looking into an insurrection.
-
55 minutes ago, Doc said:
While it's true that McCarthy scuttled Katko's committee, it's still also true that it's not a true bi-partisan committee because all the Republicans voted to impeach Trump.
Well you should take that up with McCarthy. Pelosi agreed to three of his candidates, all of whom voted against impeaching Trump but McCarthy withdrew them.
If you look at the facts, it’s clear the Dems wanted a bipartisan committee but McCarthy did not because then people could dismiss it as partisan.
Also, saying it’s not bipartisan because the Republicans on it don’t count because *reasons* is just moving the goal posts.
-
2
-
-
Just now, B-Man said:
Revisionism.
The Republicans named two congressmen to the committee and Nancy Pelosi would not accept them.
But you knew that.
The Republicans named FIVE members to the committee and Pelosi rejected two of them, while accepting the other three. The House resolution gave her sole authority on selecting members.
And the only reason she had that authority was because the GOP rejected the bipartisan joint committee negotiated by John Katko.
The truth hurts, huh?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Doc said:
I was never expecting much from this charade. I thought I made that position very clear awhile ago.
How is it a charade? It was supposed to be bipartisan until the GOP decided they didn’t want a bipartisan committee. The Vice Chair is Liz Cheney. Do you think the daughter of Dick “Halliburton” Cheney is a liberal shill? Or do you just think all of the Republicans testifying under oath are perjuring themselves?-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Lol. Twitter tells me. A leftist telling me that Twitter, friggin Twitter is telling me anything but leftist propaganda 95% of the time.
Good one dude. You got me.
Twitter basically just tells you what you want it to. It's completely customizable. Follow who you find interesting or fun. Sure, there are promoted and recommended tweets, but your main timeline is what you make it. If you have a problem with your timeline, maybe look at who you're following.
-
6 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Absolutely. It seems like the only people who didn't realize this would all blow up in their face is the committee itself and TDS cult members.
It's fun to watch.
How in the world is it blowing up in the face of Dems? All of the garbage conspiracies like 2,000 Mules have been completely debunked by people testifying under oath about investigations into the claims, we now have a record of what was happening within the White House leading up to Jan 6th, and plenty of evidence of people doing things they admitted were illegal at the time.
I agree that there's a disconnect between the hearings and what will matter in the midterms, but that's irrelevant to the purpose of the committee.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Albwan said:
Another freak with nonstop cult like trump trump trump chant
f in socialists.. almost no one likes you? you do know that right?
I mean, yeah, I do. But that's ok, I like me well enough.
You ok?
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Wacka said:
The daily circle jerk for libs.
What a meaningful contribution to this board. You really worked hard at that one.
-
They claimed victory and went home: https://jalopnik.com/peoples-convoy-too-busy-punching-each-other-to-sneak-ba-1848954352
QuoteWashingtonians hoped they’d seen the last of the People’s Convoy when it was chased out of town in late March by rude hand gestures and a slow bicycle rider. Since leaving the capital, the Convoy has traveled far and wide, including to California — where they unknowingly cheered the passage of a bill they opposed because they didn’t understand the words lawmakers were saying — and Oregon, where members fired guns at kids throwing eggs and paint-filled balloons.
I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up being some kind of grift, but I kind of feel bad for them? They thought they were doing something important but just completely embarrassed themselves.
-
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:
Georgia is where Trump is in the gravest danger. Given the way their statutes are written and the content of the recorded phone call, it's very likely he violated the law.
While indicting him for Jan 6 related activity is still an uphill battle, Georgia is a slam dunk.
-
26 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
You’re doing a great job. I’m only cautioning you against drawing the conclusions you’re so clearly desperate to make. Remember, we already know how this ended.
Have a great weekend…seriously. And Happy Father’s Day if you are one or have one. 👍I firmly believe that Trump is morally culpable for what happened on January 6th. But that's a far cry from saying he's legally responsible. I think there's a decent chance we see enough evidence that he broke the law, but I do not believe there will actually be an indictment even if it's warranted.
You have a great weekend and Father's Day as well!
-
12 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
And you forgot the point of the tweet. That CNN lied...
again about how and when Officer Sicknick died.
Shocking!
CNN could say that the sky was green, Tom Brady is cool, and Donald Trump is a lean 200lbs, and it would have no impact on the hearings.
4 minutes ago, wnyguy said:Let the Dems have their Jan 6 hearings, it's a red herring anyways. When your average American goes to the voting booth this will have no impact, its all about the economy stupid.
This is sadly probably true about the midterms. Our history of having peaceful transitions of power ended in an insurrection and candidates are running across the country on the platform of the big lie with the intent of usurping the 2024 elections, but the average voter just doesn't care. Maybe we deserve the end of the American Experiment that we're driving towards.
-
6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Let’s say that’s true. Wanting to do something that you know is illegal is not a crime. At least not yet anyway.
The end.
So far, we have learned that the Trump admin was told the election was not stolen and that the Vice President does not have the authority to stop the certification. Despite this, Trump publicly and privately claimed the election was stolen and pressured Pence to stop the certification.
I would agree that these actions are not necessarily tantamount to a crime. I suppose you could construct a prima facie conspiracy charge, but it would be very difficult to secure a verdict.
But we are also only around the halfway mark for the hearings. We have not heard all of the evidence. Through the hearings and public documents, we know that Trump wanted to stop the certification of the election even though he had been told that he lost the election and the certification could not be prevented. We also know, separately, that there were some groups who planned on breaking into and occupying federal buildings on Jan 6 to prevent the certification.
I have not seen anything that would indicate that Trump himself knew of those plans. There are some hints that people close to him might have known, but I haven't seen smoking gun evidence on that. I do not know if there was such a link and I do not know that the committee has evidence of it if there is.
So, I am trying to take this evidence as it comes, knowing that there is more to come later. I don't know what the next hearing will show us, but to just dismiss it all as "they didn't prove that Trump said 'I know I am lying and let's go do crimes!' so nothing matters and nothing happened" does not seem appropriate with several hearings still on the calendar.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, B-Man said:
Well, you certainly didn't think that the committee was going to act honestly ? Did you ?
DOJ Fight With Jan. 6 Committee Bursts Into The Open (msn.com)
The Justice Department on Wednesday requested transcripts of all of the congressional Jan. 6 committee’s depositions, writing in a seemingly frustrated tone that the committee’s “failure” to grant access to the transcripts was complicating the department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct related to the insurrection.
“The Select Committee’s failure to grant the Department access to these transcripts complicates the Department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” the letter stated, after noting that the DOJ couldn’t “compel” Congress to provide the transcripts on its own.
The committee was already going to publicly release everything in September, but since this all blew up, it looks like they'll start sharing evidence with the DoJ starting next month: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/17/us/politics/jan-6-committee-transcripts.html
You didn't actually think you were making a good point? Did you?
-
2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Thanks!
In short, Trump and his legal team were looking at options available to them as a remedy for what they perceived was an injustice that had been done to them leading up to, during, and following the election ….and in the end they chose to do none of them.
The end.A more accurate reading would be that Trump pressured Pence both publicly and privately to take an action that Trump was told was illegal. Trump even told his supporters at the rally that day about the plan (which again, he was told was illegal). When Pence declined to do what he wanted, Trump was angry at him and when some of the rioters found out, they expressed their desire to kill Mike Pence. Some of them made it within 40 feet of him during the chaos.
Joe: “I keep forgetting I’m president” 🤷♂️
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
He’s old.
Does Trump even know how to ride a bike? Since most people learn to ride from a daddy who loves them, I would bet none of the Trumps know how to ride a bike.