The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, Buftex said:

But MAGA's think that law enforcement is in on some conspiracy, when it is convenient for their conspiracy theories. Our political system wasn't always this hopelessly dysfunctional, even when we have had heavy disagreement. When Clinton was impeached, as absurd as that situation was, elected Republicans and Democrats weren't threatening to burn everything down...and they cooperated with investigations.

 

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.  
 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

And I am continuing to say that a congressional investigation is not an FBI or even criminal investigation. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. 
 

The committee’s remit is NOT to look for crimes. It’s to understand what happened and recommend legislation to prevent it in the future. Continued deflection to the FBI and saying that nothing went wrong if there was no chargeable crimes is just asinine. 

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

 

[Westside]

On 6/4/2022 at 11:16 AM, ChiGoose said:

I think there are still some unanswered questions (what was Trump doing during the attack?) and I’m curious to see what is in Mark Meadow’s texts. 
 

I am not going to draw any conclusions until we see the evidence but it’s surprising to me that people wouldn’t want to know what the committee has found. 

I’m more curious about why kamala harris bailed out the rioters that burned down and destroyed businesses in multiple cities in 2020. 
 

Doesn’t that interest you at all?

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Westside said:

I’m more curious about why kamala harris bailed out the rioters that burned down and destroyed businesses in multiple cities in 2020. 
 

Doesn’t that interest you at all?

 

It's not germane to this thread.

[Westside]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

It's not germane to this thread.

Huh?????

So you totally condone the riots of 2020 but want to get to the truth of 1/6?

 

Don't be a partisan hack. Let’s investigate the real insurrection that happened in 2020 that was encouraged and funded by the DNC.

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, ALF said:

 

Liz Cheney is by far my favorite very Conservative Republican  🙂        (I did not like her father) 

That's an interesting perspective because I don't consider Liz Chaney to be a conservative at all.  Although I use the terms liberal and conservative very loosely in my posts I've come to modify my political views and perspectives.  I'm thinking of stopping that practice.

Because Liz Chaney doesn't represent the interests or views of American conservatives any better than a guy like Mitch McConnell does or for that matter any more than people like Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schummer represent the interests or views of American liberals.  Because there are two Americas.  America the country and America the empire.  

We elect people to the House, the Senate, and the White House to represent the interests of the country.  But they don't represent our interests, mostly they represent the interests of the rich and powerful that comprise and support the worldwide network of "American" interests.  Many of these people they support are not even US citizens like the WEF crowd.  The political elites, the powerful corporations and individuals around the world and their support systems.  

Trump was despised for many reasons but the major one is the fact he naively represented the interests of America the country (how dare he suggest "America First") and subordinated the interests of the Empire.  That could not be tolerated.   When a guy like Rand Paul gets criticized for questioning $40B in aid to Ukraine and gets called isolationist or "pro-Putin" what they really mean is he's questioning the objectives of the Empire.  Because war is the empire's area of expertise.  And everybody is expected to comply and automatically vote "yes".

The Bushes, Chaney's, Clinton's, Biden's, McConnells, Pelosi's of the world all belong to the same club.  They rarely engage in personal hostilities or conflicts among themselves.  They serve the interests of the empire and the wealthy and powerful across the world not America the country.  And while we go to the polls every two or four years to elect them they relegate our interests to second class status.   

Which brings me back to the 1/6 committee.  Its just a ruse and an arbitrary punishment vehicle for anyone daring to support America the country.  The real traitors are the people holding court here.  They care way more about the billionaires and political elite running outfits like the World Economic Forum than they do your or I regardless of what political and social beliefs we hold.  And while we all don't agree on much here we're all in the same boat here as these deceivers are out to screw us all.

[ChiGoose]

10 minutes ago, Westside said:

Huh?????

So you totally condone the riots of 2020 but want to get to the truth of 1/6?

 

Don't be a partisan hack. Let’s investigate the real insurrection that happened in 2020 that was encouraged and funded by the DNC.

 

 

 

I'm not condoning anything. This is a thread about Jan 6th and the investigation. If you'd like to discuss the riots in 2020, I suggest creating a thread for that.

[Doc]

15 minutes ago, Westside said:

Huh?????

So you totally condone the riots of 2020 but want to get to the truth of 1/6?

 

Don't be a partisan hack. Let’s investigate the real insurrection that happened in 2020 that was encouraged and funded by the DNC.

 

Why stop there?  Let's go back to 2017.

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, Westside said:

Huh?????

So you totally condone the riots of 2020 but want to get to the truth of 1/6?

 

Don't be a partisan hack. Let’s investigate the real insurrection that happened in 2020 that was encouraged and funded by the DNC.

 

 

 

Not possible. He's long gone.

 

[716er]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

This is a political stunt.  The FBI would be investigating any criminality and would have already uncovered something well before now.  That this needs to even be clarified is amazing.

Do you have insight into the particulars of the FBI investigation or is this just your right wing partisan side talking?

[ChiGoose]

11 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

Not possible. He's long gone.

 

 

I'm trying to be fair here, but I don't see how the 2020 riots are relevant to the Jan 6th investigation as they are not part of the committee's scope.

 

It's fine to argue that there should be an investigation into them, but that would be better off in its own thread.

[Doc]

Just now, 716er said:

Do you have insight into the particulars of the FBI investigation or is this just your right wing partisan side talking?

 

Yes I do. 

[716er]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Yes I do. 

And those insights are…

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, 716er said:

And those insights are…

 

That if there were anything, it would have been discovered sometime last year and charges would have been filed.  

[716er]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

That if there were anything, it would have been discovered sometime last year and charges would have been filed.  

How does Navarro being indicted last week square with this logic?

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

That if there were anything, it would have been discovered sometime last year and charges would have been filed.  

 

For (I think) the fourth time: The January 6th Committee investigation is NOT a criminal investigation. It is looking for things that would be out of scope for a criminal investigation by an institution like the FBI.

 

I do not understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, 716er said:

How does Navarro being indicted last week square with this logic?

 

What was he indicted for, pray tell?

 

 

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

For (I think) the fourth time: The January 6th Committee investigation is NOT a criminal investigation. It is looking for things that would be out of scope for a criminal investigation by an institution like the FBI.

 

I do not understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

Yeah, I already said in an earlier post that it's not criminal, it's purely political.  So if it's not criminal, what are you thinking they're going to find and unless it's criminal, WGAF?

[ChiGoose]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

Yeah, I already said in an earlier post that it's not criminal, it's purely political.  So if it's not criminal, what are you thinking they're going to find and unless it's criminal, WGAF?

 

Once again, the purpose of the committee is to get to the bottom of what happened and recommend legislation to prevent this from happening in the future.

 

I do not know what they are going to find. I am not on the committee, so I do not have access to their evidence and testimony.

 

But since we keep rehashing this misunderstanding of what the committee is doing and its importance, I'll give a hypothetical example of something they might find (not saying this is true, just that it could be) that is not criminal but is important to know:

• They might have evidence that Trump's advisors came to him to tell him the Capitol had been breached and that Mike Pence's life was in danger. They advise him to release a statement to tell people to go home and to also call in the National Guard to secure the Capitol
• Instead, Trump says that Pence deserves what he gets and refuses to issue the statement or the order for hours

None of that is likely criminal. It is not something that the FBI would charge and therefore, we would not even know if they had evidence of the conversation (the FBI typically does not release underlying evidence when declining to indict).

 

But it would probably be good to know if the President of the United States was refusing to take action because he was hoping for harm to come to the Vice President (or at least had a callous disregard for the VP's safety). It would also be a good idea to clarify the authorities around calling the National Guard into DC and who would have the authority to do so if the President refused.

[Orlando Tim]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

And I am continuing to say that a congressional investigation is not an FBI or even criminal investigation. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. 
 

The committee’s remit is NOT to look for crimes. It’s to understand what happened and recommend legislation to prevent it in the future. Continued deflection to the FBI and saying that nothing went wrong if there was no chargeable crimes is just asinine. 

Continued statements that the whole thing would not have been avoided by simply having a full police presence is asinine. the committee is not looking to determine why, when it was known that there were agitators there saying days before the event that they planned to go into the building, they had less security than on a normal day. You are correct that there is no point to this conversation because you are either ignorant of the fact that security had less people than normal on capitol Hill that day or you truly think getting Trump makes the whole thing worthwhile 

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Continued statements that the whole thing would not have been avoided by simply having a full police presence is asinine. the committee is not looking to determine why, when it was known that there were agitators there saying days before the event that they planned to go into the building, they had less security than on a normal day. You are correct that there is no point to this conversation because you are either ignorant of the fact that security had less people than normal on capitol Hill that day or you truly think getting Trump makes the whole thing worthwhile 

 

Why there wasn't adequate police present is exactly the kind of question we should expect the committee to address. There was plenty of evidence beforehand that there might be a problem. The committee should address what the failures were here. Why is this controversial?

 

Also, please do not put words in my mouth. I do not think the committee is going to "get" Trump. I have never said I do, and I honestly am doubtful that Trump will ever face consequences for his actions beyond losing his re-election bid.

 

Despite this, I think it's worthwhile to see what the committee has since some of the members are talking a big game, but I'm not going to judge it before I see it. The whole "we finally got him this time!" thing is very tiring and, as I stated multiple, is not even the purpose of the committee. I think it betrays a kind of bad faith to just ignore everything the committee does because of an assumption of political bias, especially since they take testimony under oath and should provide evidence to back their findings (whatever those findings are).