The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection

[Bob in Mich]

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

Thanks for the explantation.  To offer an analogy, it was like I was just driving along in my Tahoe, minding my own business and you drove by in your Smart Car, honking your horn, waving your arms just to tell me my turn signal had been on for a few miles.  I appreciate the attention, but the logistics of your delivery were off.  It's like expecting a nice visit from UPS and some wannabe Amazon driver rolls over your foot in the driveway.  Don't drive for Amazon, Bob.  Just don't. 

 

I'm still not sure what your concern is here.  Members of the ruling political class of every stripe typically see a public approval rating of less than 30%.  I saw a recent poll that suggested the dems had taken the dutch-oven approach to popularity and tanked to just over 20% with their take on leadership.  They've certainly earned that. 

 

The committee is pure theater.  Nothing they say or do should be taken seriously, they cannot be trusted and it was the same when the Rs ran the show.  I know this, Bob.  I think you know this, Bob.  I think Tibs knows this, Bob, but admittedly he's the wild card here.  

 

What is it in this case that makes me one of the Entrenched?  Here's what I think about 1/6:

 

• I didn't think the rally was a good idea.  It had nothing to do with Dem, Inc they can pound sand.  The way I saw it, the road to the mid-terms and retaking the White House started November 4.  I saw nothing but downside holding a rally on inauguration day when trying to woo independents to the party moving forward;
• I supported, and support, the prosecution of wrong-doers who broke into the Capitol, fought with and/or assaulted the police.  I've become a bit disillusioned with the process thereafter--seems to me at times due process is being trampled on, that people are being over-charged or over-punished.  It seems to me that dem leadership, and liberal-minded folks who pay attention are perfectly comfortable with boots on necks when it comes to Washington, and exceedingly and perptetually anti-victim, anti-city and pro-perpetrator in every other city in the country.  That bothers me. 
• While I get the argument that the Capitol is representative of our democracy, I think when people are assaulted, victimized and killed while cities burn, it's incumbent on those in the seat of democracy to stand up and act on their behalf.  That it came to their doorstep seems like a foregone conclusion given their inaction when it came to the doorstep of someone else.  
• I don't understand how a ragtag bunch of malcontents and numbnuts were able to overrun the building in in less time than it will take me to get up, leave my desk, walk down the stairs and get coffee in my moderate yet luxurious downtown office in a small city in Upstate NY.  It was like a scene pulled from "Olympus has Fallen".  That needs to be addressed, the answers made public, and jobs lost over that debacle.  When's that &^%$ being addressed? 
• Ashley Babbitt seems to be the only person shot by a police officer in the last few years where precious few questions were raised by the folks who normally suggest things like "Shoot 'em in the foot" and "Pivot to a mental health discussion", and an almost pathological silence from major media outlets that normally scream about such things.  That strikes me as odd, even though I feel like I understand why the officer shot her in the scenario.  
• I can't, and won't, disregard the Russia investigation launched and prosecuted by the modern Dem party when considering the events of 1/6.  It seems to me that those on the other side of the coin were completely comfortable with talk of treason, election meddling, illegitimate presidencies, wide-scale investigations, doors being kicked in and the like when it suited their political objectives.  I think @Tiberius, and others, perhaps you included fall into that category.  

 

When all is said and done, I think Trump followed the model previously established during a long and dark 4 year period in our nation's history.   That, my friend, just seems to be the way the game is played.  Many who liked it when done for them, now seem all jimmy-jacked when done to them.  

 

So, bring me criminal charges against 45, bring me solid evidence of illegality and I'm happy to consider it.  Absent that, it's theater for the simple minded.   Oh, and somebody should tell Senator Teddy Raskin to stop combing his hair with a flip flop.  He wreaks of villainous stoogery.  

 

 

Lorne, I disagree with points all over your post but it would take me days to refute them all.  How about we discuss a few of them and then if you want to discuss some of the above points further, you bring them back up?

 

To expect any Congressional hearing to not be political, is beyond naive Len. Being politically influenced does not make the hearing useless however.  Were the Watergate hearings useless?  Nixon’s involvement would never have been uncovered in a typical police investigation of the break in, imo.  Just because political points are attempted in Congressional hearings does not invalidate the whole investigation. And of course, not all political wrongdoing worthy of halting would warrant criminal charges

 

You claiming facts are no longer real if stated by committee members, is about the most silly thing I have seen out of you.  I think that is what got me to actually post the initial reply.  

[Tiberius]

The Justice Department’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2023 includes $34 million to hire 80 attorneys for the investigation into the Jan. 6 insurrection. The department has already brought more than 750 cases, and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco made clear at a news briefing on Monday that the department is not stopping there.

Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates

“The Jan. 6 investigation is among the most wide-ranging and most complex that this department has ever undertaken," Monaco said. “It reaches nearly every U.S. attorney’s office, nearly every FBI field office.”

Lack of money won’t slow the department down. Monaco reiterated, “Regardless of whatever resources we seek or get, let’s be very, very clear: We are going to continue to do those cases.” She added, “We are going to hold those perpetrators accountable, no matter where the facts lead us, [and] as the attorney general has said, no matter at what level. We will do those cases.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/29/justice-department-hires-more-attorneys-investigate-january-6/

1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

So the attitude problem you cite is why the guy that did all this illegal stuff 15 or more months ago is yet to be charged, indicted, or convicted? How incompetent can all of these bureaucrats, the army of investigators and numerous politicians be???

The rich and powerful have a lot of safe guards. That's an excuse? 

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Putin? Oh come on!

Putin is what happens when elections don't really matter. 

 

Yes, Trump resembles Putin in their hatred of democracy, the free press and the law 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

37 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Lorne, I disagree with points all over your post but it would take me days to refute them all.  How about we discuss a few of them and then if you want to discuss some of the above points further, you bring them back up?

No need to bother or carve days out of your busy sccchhhedule Bobby.  I replied to your characterization, that's all I can do.   

 

37 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

To expect any Congressional hearing to not be political, is beyond naive Len. Being politically influenced does not make the hearing useless however.  Were the Watergate hearings useless?  Nixon’s involvement would never have been uncovered in a typical police investigation of the break in, imo.  Just because political points are attempted in Congressional hearings does not invalidate the whole investigation. And of course, not all political wrongdoing worthy of halting would warrant criminal charges

We agree that Congressional hearings are political.  I indicated that three or four posts ago.  You strolled back 50 years for a congressional investigation with some chompers and bless you, it was a crackerjack.   I completely agree that the political posturing can be fruitful, it really just depends on one's perspective.  The whole Clinton inquiry yielded dividends, for example.  

 

37 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

You claiming facts are no longer real if stated by committee members, is about the most silly thing I have seen out of you.  I think that is what got me to actually post the initial reply.  

I'll have to double-check my posts Bobbo, I don't recall ever stating "facts are no longer real if stated by committee members".  To be candid, I'm embarrassed for me if I did, and embarrassed for you if I did not.  I've been pretty clear, I think it's political posturing by partisain politicians politicizing politics.  

 

Using your Watergate example, I'm completely happy--and honor-bound, really--to acknowledge specific allegations made by the committee if confirmed through an independent criminal investigation (if such things exist in Washington anymore).    In the interim, enjoy the show.  I heard George Clooney is playing Adam Schiff in the movie. 

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

23 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The rich and powerful have a lot of safe guards. That's an excuse? 

Excuse for what?? Neolithic incompetence the prosecuting elites are demonstrating  getting nowhere while we keep hearing about new smoking guns every other week??? 
 

If all this illegal stuff happened and everyone knows it, let’s see the heads roll already. 

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Excuse for what?? Neolithic incompetence the prosecuting elites are demonstrating  getting nowhere while we keep hearing about new smoking guns every other week??? 
 

If all this illegal stuff happened and everyone knows it, let’s see the heads roll already. 

Because people in power just don't get prosecuted. That doesn't mean they are innocent

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Because people in power just don't get prosecuted. That doesn't mean they are innocent

I assume you are referring to ALL of the Democrats (both elected an unelected) who aligned to bring an organized coup against Trump? You're right! To the best of my knowledge none of them have been prosecuted, censured, or anything else.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Because people in power just don't get prosecuted. That doesn't mean they are innocent

So this whole thing is a waste of time and leading to an inevitability of no prosecution? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 3/29/2022 at 3:05 PM, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

So this whole thing is a waste of time and leading to an inevitability of no prosecution? 

I don't think so.  The message needs to be delivered and it has very little to do with prosecution.  Here's what we know:

 

An establishment politician can use and leverage power and access to make a fortune, bringing his family members and friends along for the ride, withstand scrutiny for incredibly insensitive and racist remarks over several decades, be an critical part of the legislative mechanism widely viewed as destroying minority communities, brag on camera about directly influencing the legislative process of a sovereign nation by withholding funds earmarked for that nation...and be protected by major media outlets and the department of justice and ultimately be offered as THE best choice for President of the United States. 

 

On the other hand....

An outsider with a decades long reputation as a playboy and a talent for self-aggrandizing and an exceptionally gifted brand ambassador, known for rubbing shoulders with many of the powerful politicians noted above, quickly becomes Public Enemy #1 for choosing to attempt to play in the restricted sandbox.  He's labelled a racist, a bigot, a tax cheat, a traitor and sexual abuser in spite of the fact that he has been one of the most recognizable faces in the world for nearly 50 years.  He survives personal and political attacks, a massive take-no-prisoners-no-holds-barred investigation that spanned four years, and is in the midst of yet another political hit with none of the normal rules of engagement. 

 

I think the last thing the dems see this as is a 'waste'.  

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I don't think so.  The message needs to be delivered and it has very little to do with prosecution.  Here's what we know:

 

An establishment politician can use and leverage power and access to make a fortune, bringing his family members and friends along for the ride, withstand scrutiny for incredibly insensitive and racist remarks over several decades, be an critical part of the legislative mechanism widely viewed as destroying minority communities, brag on camera about directly influencing the legislative process of a sovereign nation by withholding funds earmarked for that nation...and be protected by major media outlets and the department of justice and ultimately be offered as THE best choice for President of the United States. 

 

On the other hand....

An outsider with a decades long reputation as a playboy and a talent for self-aggrandizing and an exceptionally gifted brand ambassador, known for rubbing shoulders with many of the powerful politicians noted above, quickly becomes Public Enemy #1 for choosing to attempt to play in the restricted sandbox.  He's labelled a racist, a bigot, a tax cheat, a traitor and sexual abuser in spite of the fact that he has been one of the most recognizable faces in the world for nearly 50 years.  He survives personal and political attacks, a massive take-no-prisoners-no-holds-barred investigation that spanned four years, and is in the midst of yet another political hit with none of the normal rules of engagement. 

 

I think the last thing the dems see this as is a 'waste'.  

Early on in my many decades long experience of working with public agencies I would get frustrated as to why nothing ever seemed to move along and nobody seemed to be trying to help. A VERY wise and experienced client of mine told me “you don’t understand…they aren’t trying to move anything and the certainly don’t want to declare anything finished….there’s no incentive for them.” From that point on I slept much better and avoided the ulcer. Trump’s problem was that while he’d probably also heard it, he hadn’t fully digested that advice. He figured…I’m the President, they’ll listen to me….we’ll get stuff done…nope! 

[BillStime]

 

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Now do Hillary’s server. 

[Doc]

Criminal activity...with whom?  The J6 Capitol trespassers?  Have any of them flipped on Trump?  No you say?  Oh well, next!

[Demongyz]

8 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

John Bolton is the source on burner phones.

 

When did looney lefties start listening to John Bolton?  The second he said a bad thing about Trump.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

John Bolton is the source on burner phones.

 

When did looney lefties start listening to John Bolton?  The second he said a bad thing about Trump.

Which was 15 minutes after he was shown the compromising photos they took of him with two                 , a                 , and a gallon of Hershey syrup while he was on “official business” in               , a                   known for discretion and the lack of formal extradition treaty with the US.  

 

[BillStime]

Mark - “check your signal”

 

🤔

[Wacka]

Anyone who equates 1/6 to Watergate is full of it. I'll consider your points if you were old enough to understand what was going on when it happened.  I was in my junior year in HS (Amer. History) and the teacher had us watch the  recaps of the hearings every day and discussed what went on and how it related to the Constitution (she was teaching that at this time of the year in 1974).

If you are basing your points in what has been said in the years since, IMO, it is garbage. 

[BillStime]

36 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Anyone who equates 1/6 to Watergate is full of it. I'll consider your points if you were old enough to understand what was going on when it happened.  I was in my junior year in HS (Amer. History) and the teacher had us watch the  recaps of the hearings every day and discussed what went on and how it related to the Constitution (she was teaching that at this time of the year in 1974).

If you are basing your points in what has been said in the years since, IMO, it is garbage. 

 

Nixon was Mother f'n Teresa compared to Trump... keep spinning wackjob.

 

[Doc]

Dems trying to defibrillate the horse.  The public wants to turn it into glue.

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Nixon was Mother f'n Teresa compared to Trump... keep spinning wackjob.

 

And we’re back to the name calling. You’ve been doing so well. 

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And we’re back to the name calling. You’ve been doing so well. 

 

What's wrong with Mother Teresa?

 

lmao