The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection

[SoCal Deek]

16 minutes ago, BillStime said:

‘Be There. Will Be Wild!’

 

“Will be wild”? That’s it? That’s the crux of it? Paul Revere couldn’t have said it any better. Yep, That’s some real insurrectionist talk for sure. 

[nedboy7]

1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said:

Is DOJ really going to file criminal charges based on a congressional hearing? This would be a good satire if not real life. Politicians investigating each other and getting their opposition charged with crimes, nothing more authoritarian is possible 

 

I don't get it.  So what's the point of all the investigations the Republicans are planning on? 

[Orlando Tim]

34 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

I don't get it.  So what's the point of all the investigations the Republicans are planning on? 

 Congressional hearings for oversight of a governmental agency is the job of Congress, are you actually unaware of that?

[ChiGoose]

2 hours ago, Orlando Tim said:

Is DOJ really going to file criminal charges based on a congressional hearing? This would be a good satire if not real life. Politicians investigating each other and getting their opposition charged with crimes, nothing more authoritarian is possible 

 

No, whether or not to file charges is solely up to the DoJ.

 

The reasons that congressional committees may refer individuals for prosecution would basically be to say "Hey, we think this person broke the law. You might want to look into it" at which point, the DoJ can do what it wants with that.

 

We saw this in earlier referrals for contempt of Congress. The DoJ ended up indicting some of the referred individuals but not indicting others.

 

In this case, the referral of Trump himself is redundant because Trump is already under investigation, but it's not clear whether or not other individuals who are to be referred are being investigated independently by the DoJ. There can also be situations in which Congress is providing additional information with the referral that might supplement an ongoing DoJ investigation. 

[Orlando Tim]

11 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

No, whether or not to file charges is solely up to the DoJ.

 

The reasons that congressional committees may refer individuals for prosecution would basically be to say "Hey, we think this person broke the law. You might want to look into it" at which point, the DoJ can do what it wants with that.

 

We saw this in earlier referrals for contempt of Congress. The DoJ ended up indicting some of the referred individuals but not indicting others.

 

In this case, the referral of Trump himself is redundant because Trump is already under investigation, but it's not clear whether or not other individuals who are to be referred are being investigated independently by the DoJ. There can also be situations in which Congress is providing additional information with the referral that might supplement an ongoing DoJ investigation. 

I appreciate your response but I feel I need to state that I am fully aware of what this "investigation" should mean to the DOJ but I read multiple articles that made it sound as if the DOJ had commented on using it as a jumping off point. I have no concern at this point of an actual charge because then the 1400 hours of video would have to be made available to Trump and that would become a field day 

[Tiberius]

 

[Doc]

4 hours ago, Orlando Tim said:

Is DOJ really going to file criminal charges based on a congressional hearing? This would be a good satire if not real life. Politicians investigating each other and getting their opposition charged with crimes, nothing more authoritarian is possible 

 

No.  It's just the final tantrum from children who will no longer be heard from.

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No.  It's just the final tantrum from children who will no longer be heard from.

Oh ok

 

 

Did you get your NFTs?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

I'm all for pushing forward.  DJT has seen the inner workings of the government, including access to files where maybe the country or an administration doesn't look so good.  Not that long ago, Joe Biden acknowledged strong-arming the Ukrainians to achieve a stated goal of removing a political appointee for reasons that likely were incredibly personal to him.  Personally, I don't think that's all that uncommon, and I'm sure there are some things that we would all agree are not all that pleasant. 

 

So, a political investigation  is completed, outside the rules associated with criminal wrongdoing and it would seem, on subjective issues like obstruction and the like.  We know with certainty if they uncovered evidence of Trump coordinating with individuals to overthrow the Capital, we would know about it by now.  

 

If criminality is uncovered by Trump, by all means, charge him.  Let's see what we find out once he starts talking.  Let's see if we can get to a place where there is more transparency, more light on how things are handled on an international scale, and maybe we're all better off in the future.  

 

In the meantime, when the House changes over, it's time to start swinging at some democrats.   It's the way the game is played.  

[Doc]

Hopefully there will be an investigation into the investigation/investigators.

[muppy]

24 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

 

If criminality is uncovered by Trump, by all means, charge him.  Let's see what we find out once he starts talking.  Let's see if we can get to a place where there is more transparency, more light on how things are handled on an international scale, and maybe we're all better off in the future.  

 

In the meantime, when the House changes over, it's time to start swinging at some democrats.   It's the way the game is played.  

hey leo quick question. What would you expect the donald to say now that hasn't already been said? Do you trust he to be more truthful under oath and the penalty of perjury?

 

I don't. 

 

I doubt these charges will fly but the truth? MEH. And the guy lies as easily as he breathes. 

 

ahem. Im not holding my own breath for any new revelations from him just sayin'

 

m

Edited December 19, 2022 by muppy

[Andy1]

At this point we should just let the process work. If Jack Smith determines the evidence is valid, charges should be filed. That’s his job. It’s all part of the checks and balances of our system of government. Until then, it’s just wait and see. 

[BillStime]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

44 minutes ago, muppy said:

hey leo quick question. What would you expect the donald to say now that hasn't already been said? Do you trust he to be more truthful under oath and the penalty of perjury?

 

I don't. 

 

I doubt these charges will fly but the truth? MEH. And the guy lies as easily as he breathes. 

 

ahem. Im not holding my own breath for any new revelations from him just sayin'

 

m

Fair questions Mup.  I'll answer and then ask a few of my own. 

 

I'm not fixated on 1/6 and Trump's involvement in it like some.    I was disgusted by the actions of citizens that breached the Capital, that assaulted officers and that trashed the building.  I've said that since 1/6.   I thought Trump's decision to hold a rally was a mistake for a lot of reasons, none of which had anything to do with worry about a riot. If you told me a group of nutcases in bear suits and Genny Cream Ale shirts could overrun the Capital in 20 minutes, I'd have said you were nuts.   

 

I do not believe Trump was involved in the riots, am convinced there is no evidence of conspiracy in coordinating with rioters, and think if the 1/6 committee or DOJ had evidence of that, it would long since have been revealed.  I think that the 1/6 committee engages in innuendo, selective leaking, coordination with media outlets, and in general, propaganda.   

 

So, yes, I believe Trump will tell the truth about 1/6 under oath, and do not have one iota of faith in the committee or its members.  There are precious few rules governing what they say and requiring that they speak honestly to the American people.  That is by design.

 

On the issue of Trump questioning the election, I was 100% certain Biden would be president after it was called.  There was insufficient time to launch any meaningful investigation into election tampering, and to be honest, the assumption that people responsible for overseeing elections in any given locale would be willing to state there were issues with security is too heavy a lift for anyone.   

 

I believe that if Trump won, Biden and the dems would have followed the same course and declared the election illegitimate. They already did it once, and lots of people bought that snake oil. 

 

As for legal issues over reaching out to people to intercede in the election, well, that gets murky and I don't know what's a crime, or more accurately, what might be a crime when viewed through a partisan lens.  

 

Now, my questions for you.  I've asked others here, I don't get answers.  

 

When concerns were raised about Russian actors influencing our elections, and Donald Trump co-ordinating with Putin to ultimately win the election, and he is referred to as an "Illegitimate" president, that he won as a result of a coup, and that he was guilty of treason, does that strike you as language that implies we had a clean and fair election in 2015?  

 

When Mueller spent 4 years investigating the guy--unlimited budget/virtually unlimited power, etc etc, came up with nothing...why weren't more people outraged?   

 

Finally, the issue with lying that you raise is fair, but that can't be the benchmark if you voted for Joe Biden (or most politicians) in my opinion.  It's a matter of public record he was lying and telling stories 50 years ago.  I think some people just like his lies better than Trumps, but that's different than having any sort of moral standard.   For example, the American people were allowed to believe the Russian tape was a thing even though it's pretty clear Obama and Biden knew the Clinton's were selling that story before Obama left office.  Since that issue was so incredibly divisive and driving the country apart, why was it allowed to be debated for years afterwards?  It seems to me that the dems in this case were perfectly comfortable with their version of stolen elections, and by extension, their supporters were as well.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Fair questions Mup.  I'll answer and then ask a few of my own. 

 

I'm not fixated on 1/6 and Trump's involvement in it like some.    I was disgusted by the actions of citizens that breached the Capital, that assaulted officers and that trashed the building.  I've said that since 1/6.   I thought Trump's decision to hold a rally was a mistake for a lot of reasons, none of which had anything to do with worry about a riot. If you told me a group of nutcases in bear suits and Genny Cream Ale shirts could overrun the Capital in 20 minutes, I'd have said you were nuts.   

 

I do not believe Trump was involved in the riots, am convinced there is no evidence of conspiracy in coordinating with rioters, and think if the 1/6 committee or DOJ had evidence of that, it would long since have been revealed.  I think that the 1/6 committee engages in innuendo, selective leaking, coordination with media outlets, and in general, propaganda.   

 

So, yes, I believe Trump will tell the truth about 1/6 under oath, and do not have one iota of faith in the committee or its members.  There are precious few rules governing what they say and requiring that they speak honestly to the American people.  That is by design.

 

On the issue of Trump questioning the election, I was 100% certain Biden would be president after it was called.  There was insufficient time to launch any meaningful investigation into election tampering, and to be honest, the assumption that people responsible for overseeing elections in any given locale would be willing to state there were issues with security is too heavy a lift for anyone.   

 

I believe that if Trump won, Biden and the dems would have followed the same course and declared the election illegitimate. They already did it once, and lots of people bought that snake oil. 

 

As for legal issues over reaching out to people to intercede in the election, well, that gets murky and I don't know what's a crime, or more accurately, what might be a crime when viewed through a partisan lens.  

 

Now, my questions for you.  I've asked others here, I don't get answers.  

 

When concerns were raised about Russian actors influencing our elections, and Donald Trump co-ordinating with Putin to ultimately win the election, and he is referred to as an "Illegitimate" president, that he won as a result of a coup, and that he was guilty of treason, does that strike you as language that implies we had a clean and fair election in 2015?  

 

When Mueller spent 4 years investigating the guy--unlimited budget/virtually unlimited power, etc etc, came up with nothing...why weren't more people outraged?   

 

Finally, the issue with lying that you raise is fair, but that can't be the benchmark if you voted for Joe Biden (or most politicians) in my opinion.  It's a matter of public record he was lying and telling stories 50 years ago.  I think some people just like his lies better than Trumps, but that's different than having any sort of moral standard.   For example, the American people were allowed to believe the Russian tape was a thing even though it's pretty clear Obama and Biden knew the Clinton's were selling that story before Obama left office.  Since that issue was so incredibly divisive and driving the country apart, why was it allowed to be debated for years afterwards?  It seems to me that the dems in this case were perfectly comfortable with their version of stolen elections, and by extension, their supporters were as well.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

What a mess

 

 

[muppy]

Quote

When concerns were raised about Russian actors influencing our elections, and Donald Trump co-ordinating with Putin to ultimately win the election, and he is referred to as an "Illegitimate" president, that he won as a result of a coup, and that he was guilty of treason, does that strike you as language that implies we had a clean and fair election in 2015?  

 

When Mueller spent 4 years investigating the guy--unlimited budget/virtually unlimited power, etc etc, came up with nothing...why weren't more people outraged?   

 

Finally, the issue with lying that you raise is fair, but that can't be the benchmark if you voted for Joe Biden (or most politicians) in my opinion.  It's a matter of public record he was lying and telling stories 50 years ago.  I think some people just like his lies better than Trumps, but that's different than having any sort of moral standard.   For example, the American people were allowed to believe the Russian tape was a thing even though it's pretty clear Obama and Biden knew the Clinton's were selling that story before Obama left office.  Since that issue was so incredibly divisive and driving the country apart, why was it allowed to be debated for years afterwards?  It seems to me that the dems in this case were perfectly comfortable with their version of stolen elections, and by extension, their supporters were as well.  

I'll do my novice best to answer you L.  @leh-nerd skin-erd

 

to the Red: I honestly wouldn't put it past the Russians to attempt to sway our election. The language implies that something nefarious could have happened that doesn't pass the smell test. But where there is smoke is/was there fire?  

 

to the Blue: well it is difficult to be outraged when it concerns something that Donald Trump didn't do.  His whole twitter voice and demeanor turns me the heck Off.....He seems to be a guy you either support, Trust and back Or You don't.  I don't read a lot of gray area opinions where he is concerned. I dont trust him to be honest about much of anything.  He panders to his Christian base as a Christian but cant site a single scripture reference? ***** Please.

 

and finally to the bolded black. This is where I agree that politicians are a smarmy swarmy bunch. The pickings have been Bleak as far as mainstream candidates are concerned . I am cynical and pretty disillusioned with politics in general. I TRY to chose whom I think will do the least harm to our country. Thats a pretty sad place wherein to choose who should lead 

 

The bottom line for me is each side  is so entrenched in Their version of the "truth" it leads me to decide BOTH sides just want to Win the actual truth becomes almost Moot. Isnt it all about pandering to your base and lobby interests to keep money flowing into the coffers to remain in office?  That view is sad but its where I find myself within politics in general.  .

 

EDIT: I do Not think the election was stolen from donald trump. and even though I read a ton of content from folks who clearly DO and will Never Ever  be convinced otherwise...yeah Im not buying it. To me the donald wants to be president so badly (as do  his supporters in the conservative republican  contingency)   that even in light of all the evidence saying it didn't happen they refuse to believe it.  This subject is a huge can of worms I think I'll exit stage left from PPP 🙂

 

I tried to answer you honestly I hope what I wrote makes some sense to you. Merry Christmas amigo.

 

m

Edited December 20, 2022 by muppy

[reddogblitz]

12 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

 

I don't get it.  So what's the point of all the investigations the Republicans are planning on? 

 

The same point as the Democrats have in their investigations. Score political points to help win the next election.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 hours ago, muppy said:

I'll do my novice best to answer you L.  @leh-nerd skin-erd

 

to the Red: I honestly wouldn't put it past the Russians to attempt to sway our election. The language implies that something nefarious could have happened that doesn't pass the smell test. But where there is smoke is/was there fire?  

Thanks for the reply Mup.  I appreciate it--and I hope you take my response(s) in the spirit intended--dialogue between two people with different perspectives interested in opinions other than their own. Here we go:

 

Respectfully, you didn't answer the question.  I'm not aware of anyone on any side who doubts the Russian government would attempt to influence our elections. I'm not sure you would find many people who wouldn't think our government interferes in foreign elections where our national well-being was in play.   (By the way--this was the finer point I was referring to when I opined about Trump talking about what he saw as president, not much stolen elections and the 2016 election). 

 

The question is--were the leaders of the democrat party, and high ranking officials, who stated emphatically that Donald Trump was illegitimately elected, or took power after a coup, or was guilty of treason in the run-up to his election being truthful, fair and honest with the American people?  

 

The answer of course is no, they were not truthful, fair or honest and just offered their branded version of "The Stolen Election".  If they were being truthful, you wouldn't need to speculate about smoke and fire.  This was modern day McCarthyism, nothing more, nothing less. 

 

So, from the perspective of a Trump supporter during that time, all I can tell you is folks on the other side were completely comfortable with destroying Trump and anyone around him as long as it gave them what they want.  

 

 

10 hours ago, muppy said:

 

to the Blue: well it is difficult to be outraged when it concerns something that Donald Trump didn't do.  His whole twitter voice and demeanor turns me the heck Off.....He seems to be a guy you either support, Trust and back Or You don't.  I don't read a lot of gray area opinions where he is concerned. I dont trust him to be honest about much of anything.  He panders to his Christian base as a Christian but cant site a single scripture reference? ***** Please.

I respect that you don't like him/detest him/hate him.  If his faux Christianity is a deal breaker for you, fine.  If you don't trust him, fine--but let's not pretend that Joe Biden or the modern dem party is the party of decency, faith and fairness.  Show me a "Biden is pure" voter and I'll show you a person who whistles and looks the other way at a two page list of Biden's very, very sketchy behavior. 

 

Trump says some women let him grab them...I think he was being truthful however vulgar he might have been,  people are supposedly outraged.  

 

Harris says she believed the woman who alleged  Biden violently assaulted her--and to boot Biden apologizes for fondling women because they didn't quite understand him---the same outraged people don't seem to care.  

 

If the worst elements of Trump-real or imagined--were poured into a back-slapping politician, he'd be Joe Biden.  

 

10 hours ago, muppy said:

 

and finally to the bolded black. This is where I agree that politicians are a smarmy swarmy bunch. The pickings have been Bleak as far as mainstream candidates are concerned . I am cynical and pretty disillusioned with politics in general. I TRY to chose whom I think will do the least harm to our country. Thats a pretty sad place wherein to choose who should lead 

 

The bottom line for me is each side  is so entrenched in Their version of the "truth" it leads me to decide BOTH sides just want to Win the actual truth becomes almost Moot. Isnt it all about pandering to your base and lobby interests to keep money flowing into the coffers to remain in office?  That view is sad but its where I find myself within politics in general.  .

See Mup, you switched here to the big picture without really dealing with the issue.  All I'm reading is that you're more comfortable with your liar than the other liar, happier with your groper than the other groper, prefer your race baiter to the other race baiter, and most importantly----much more likely to support the version of stolen elections because in spite of what you just wrote about both sides----you defaulted to where there is smoke, there may be fire.   

 

There was fire, Muppito Bandito, you were just looking on the wrong side of the aisle. 

 

10 hours ago, muppy said:

 

EDIT: I do Not think the election was stolen from donald trump. and even though I read a ton of content from folks who clearly DO and will Never Ever  be convinced otherwise...yeah Im not buying it. To me the donald wants to be president so badly (as do  his supporters in the conservative republican  contingency)   that even in light of all the evidence saying it didn't happen they refuse to believe it.  This subject is a huge can of worms I think I'll exit stage left from PPP 🙂

It's not really a can of worms when you dial it back to what you said a paragraph up, and when you consider the last several years of American politics.  Donald Trump wanted to be president no more, no less than Joe Biden.  He certainly wanted it no more, no less than Obama, Bush before him, and Hillary Clinton.   In fact--they all wanted it so badly they would divide the country by saying first "YOUR GUY WAS AN ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT PROPPED UP BY RUSSIA" followed by "THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN".    

 

They are two sides of the same coin, the only difference is the language used to convince 'their people' that their cause was right and just.  One of the keys to political manipulation is to convince your side that as right as you are, the other side is just plum crazy.  

 

 

10 hours ago, muppy said:

I tried to answer you honestly I hope what I wrote makes some sense to you. Merry Christmas amigo.

 

m

 

I read you loud and clear, and as always, appreciate your thoughts and you taking the time to answer.  I know for you it's like wearing an itchy sweater to post here.  

 

LS