leh-nerd skin-erd

I'm not certain what @B-Man has done to get under your skin, but it happens sometimes. My suggestion is to push back, take a deep breath, and remember the old saying: "Sticks and stone may break your bones, but words will never hurt you assuming that said words meet certain guidelines as to form and substance as approved by newly created agencies within the federal government. What's the beef, Chief?

Maybe some of the Capitol Police are Biden supporters and should be investigated ?

Uh…I was…uh….hacked? A victim of pfishing?? Sometimes I forget there are ladies in the house!

Schumer also quite ominously confided that the intelligence community had “six ways from Sunday to get back at you””. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4110640/amp/Democrats-Senate-leader-hints-intelligence-revenge-plot-Trump-says-six-ways-Sunday-you.html I always figured if number one involved working within the framework of the law, that left 5 other options outside it. In addition, it seemed quite clear that with the attempt to destroy Kavanaugh in a very public, very visceral way, there would not have been many, or any tears shed if something like this happened during the confirmation hearings.

I’m surprised that you’re surprised by this sort of thing. This is a place where insults fly at times, people are accused of being in cults, being idiots and the like. It’s also a place where people come to blow off steam, chat about the thoughts of the day, and maybe sometimes look at issue through too broad (or too narrow) a lens. The people who breached the Capitol are no ally to freedom as I see it, but there are a number of layers to this story that are often glossed over. A guy at a rally who didn’t enter the building is a protestor regardless of whether or not he thinks the election was fixed. A guy who assaults a police officer needs to be charged appropriately. As for your analysis of “outcome based opinions”, yeah, of course. People who scream about systemic injustice and police officers being hyper aggressive seem to have seen the light on use of lethal force in this case. Suddenly no questions arise about the appropriate use of force on an unarmed individual. Folks that scream about the corrupt nature of our judicial system suddenly find it fair and impartial. Those in favor of dismantling our prisons and allowing people a second chance look the other way when people accused of a crime are held in custody for an awfully long time. People supporting the release of full, unedited body camera/security footage seem content with that which government selectively releases. It just seems to me that viewed objectively, people are really complicated. It’s the least surprising thing about all this.

My money is on Mike Hunt or Haywood Jabloughmay.

As is to ignore the nature of politics in these types of hearings.

It’s interesting that you mentioned the Clinton investigation as evidence of how it used to be. I recall stonewalling, a President attempting to redefine the English language, a Presidential address designed to mislead the American people, an ill-tempered spouse demonizing the women involved as bimbos, and a former future almost president raging about a vast right wing conspiracy. I also recall his supporters nearly in lockstep that there was nothing to see there. We know what happened after—in spite of missteps, unsavory actions, false testimony, victim shaming, predatory behavior and crazy allegations of conspiracies, with Bill’s WH dance card expired, democrats went to the JV team for more Clinton leadership. Nothing is new here.

They declined because they knew it was a political tribunal, and that the goal of the committee was to shape the narrative moving forward. That’s what political parties do. They also knew that should something nefarious have occurred, gathering evidence of a crime and prosecuting that crime would be handled by law enforcement. I’m actually surprised that you don’t know that. Be that as it may…it’s been nearly a year and a half. What’s the Jan 6th committee uncovered with respect to Donald Trump on a criminal basis as it relates to the actions of the god-awful morons that behaved criminally on January 6?

It’s presumptuous to assume others don’t “truly care” about the country when they hold opinions other than yours. It’s foolish to refuse to acknowledge the inherent bias and manipulative tendencies of a political committee in Washington. However, kudos to you if you feel that search for the greater good is the common thread running through all these gatherings regardless of which party is in charge. I look to the appropriate law enforcement agency to investigate issues regarding the “rule of law”. While imperfect, there are standards of professional conduct and rules of engagement that do not exist in the underworld of Washington investigatory committees. The interesting part to me is that we likely agree on all this, or will when if the house flips later this year and the subjects/targets of political committees change sides.

There seems to be no political will to answer this question, probably the very type of question a non-biased political tribunal should investigate. Instead, we get this crazy carnival game. It’s an appropriate place to remind ourselves that Biden’s approval numbers, as bad as they are, are certainly better than those of our leaders in Congress. Very few people trust these numbskulls, deservedly so.

50 years as one of the most powerful men in the county. 8 in place as one of most powerful people in the world. 1.5 as THE most powerful person in the world. What’s outrageous is how little he’s accomplished. Sure, screaming about someone being sued is grist for the mill, and he is a lawyer, but this is just an old man yelling out the window.

Right. So a pro 2A gun enthusiast looks at how a law that should have prevented this tragedy was completely disregarded and mass murder ensued. They then consider that they, as good and decent citizens, never shot anyone, never threatened anyone, are of no threat to anyone, and simply want to be left alone. Thereafter, politicians they view as not working in their best interest, who designed the law that was ignored that might have prevented the tragedy, come around and propose new, perhaps more restrictive laws to be followed, likely soon to be ignored again. All the while, the pro 2A gun enthusiast is painted as the crazy in this scenario by people who hold different values and want to blame these tragedies on them. I don't own guns, and I'm for sensible gun regulation, but it's completely understandable why these folks feel this way.

Deek, like most of us here, I’ve interacted with him from time to time. Sometimes for fun, sometimes to get some feedback, rarely learning anything new and walking away thinking “It must suck be that negative that often”. Sadly there isn’t much beyond cult conspiracy chatter coming from him, and I can handle that the first hundred times. I don’t really care about the insults either. What I’ve been seeing of late is a ratcheting up of the animosity, and while I’m sure he’s generally harmless, it’s like watching a slow moving train wreck.

The rhythm of this board is pretty funny, once you get past the allegations that people are in cults, support fascism and the like. At any given point in time, someone is accusing someone else of supporting someone who is out purely for political gain, or someone is supporting someone pursuing action for the greater good, all while someone is always disappointed that someone failed to prosecute a case politically or civilly while someone else is mocking them for the loss forgetting it was just a short time ago their someone had a similar failure. Meanwhile, the current leadership of both parties just missed the cutoff for military service in the First World War. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Yes. It’ describes a grassroots campaign designed to work within the framework of election laws to ensure a fair election. Volunteers are suddenly a bad thing? Working at a granular level is a problem? Folks engaged in the political process is a bad thing? Are we not Barracking a vote anymore? What are you worried about that’s specifically outlined here? 2020 was the safest election ever—everyone knows this. Why would 2022 suddenly be an issue?

Why are you worried if there are challenges at voting time? Surely you know the history of such challenges. We’re a year and a half past the Biden election, there have been no criminal charges filed against the Trump campaign. The 1/6 committee is languishing and another poster shared today that a substantial percentage of Dems have concerns about election security. If there is no wrongdoing or funny business, there is nothing to be concerned about.

It's this type of unmitigated arrogance that causes some people to hate the French, Frenks.

Must be the vax hesitant dems, it's the only thing that makes sense!

He sought clarity. That's politics. See Gore, Al

Exactly.

It’s not bribery, it’s not extortion—it’s Brextortion!

I’ve never seen it. Ever since I was a victim in the Fleecing of Solaris, I don’t trust. This perspective is the most interesting of the left talking points. It goes hand in hand with “Trump is so dumb they couldn’t get him. I think this goes to the brilliance of the Democrat plan—-they knew, likely after extensive study into what makes liberal voters tick, that tying Trump to Russia had little to do with actually proving he committed something approximating treasonous activity. It had virtually nothing to do with the outcome of the investigation…they relied on the cumulative arrogance of their core to walk away wondering how every single player was dumb or incompetent for not seeing what was so clear to them—solid evidence of nothing was obviously proof of everything. Credit to them, it was a solid plan.

The investigation was undertaken by political actors, the entire report prepared by political actors, Goose. If I want manufactured intrigue and dramatic retelling of events that conclude with a plot that implodes, I’ll rent a George Clooney movie.

Actually, in this case, you're a man, typing on a message board, accusing another of "...blatant...intentional...misreading of the facts" because he views things differently than you do. You should take those issues up with Mueller or Barr, perhaps both.