Quote (bogie160 @ Jun 12 2022 09:26am)

The gamble is with the Democratic party in this case. Will this be seen as a political show trial, or will it been as serious? Based on initial polling and viewership figures, it looks like the former. That's the risk you take when you form a one-sided committee. CNN was concerned about this the other day, are they reaching converts, or the choir?

The Capitol police chief reports directly to Pelosi. Of course she's responsible. The FBI question is much more concerning to me, though. Elections are so sensitive, there's really no room for their involvement. Given the really poor optics the agency has generated o liver the last few years, it would be a colossal blunder if they were involved in any form. It would be a really big fuckup, and people high up would need to be held accountable.

Quote (thundercock @ 12 Jun 2022 14:32)

The Republicans, as a whole, do not want this investigated AT ALL. Can you blame them? Some of their caucus were involved! I agree that it would have been better to have a less partisan committee. No one disputes that. I really wish McConnell rallied the troops to allow for the bipartisan committee with GOP support. I really wish McCarthy didn't try to appoint people who asked Trump for pardons due to their involvement. Unfortunately, it was either this committee or nothing at all due to the GOP not wanting this investigated.

Also, were viewership figures that bad? I read that they were extraordinarily high for something like this (twice the number of people who watched the impeachment hearings). I'm not going to claim that this is going to move the dial but many people are definitely interested in this. As far as reaching converts, I just don't see that happening because nothing has fundamentally changed from what we saw that day. Just because people are in their own camps doesn't change the fact that the facts need to be out in the open. Let's allow for people to make judgment calls and if they want to ignore it, that's fine. Sometimes doing the right thing costs you politically but that's the nature of politics.

Again, you'll have to post some sources on why Pelosi is responsible for the Capitol Police. I'm not sure how that makes sense since she's the leader of only one chamber and there are two chambers that reside in the Capitol. From what I've read, the Chief reports to the Capitol Police Board which consists of equal representation from both chambers. Security officials from both chambers didn't think the National Guard was necessary on Jan 4 which seems to be a big miss in hindsight.

As for the FBI, I think it's acceptable for there to be undercover agents in the crowd. It's completely unacceptable for undercover agents to encourage violence and any who did that should be treated as if they were rioters. If those agent's superiors turn a blind eye or covered up crimes, they should obviously be fired and maybe more depending on the severity of their actions.

Quote (thundercock @ Jun 12 2022 01:08am)

I think everyone agree that you can use the legal system to contest legitimate claims. No one worth their salt will dispute that. However, Trump went FAR beyond that. He attempted to use multiple agencies (DOD, DHS, and DOJ) to seize voting machines, enact martial law, etc. We have tons of evidence from members of his administration who can corroborate those claims. Do you think that's "normal" and "legitimate?" I don't and I don't think you do either since you're an extremely principled anti-authoritarian. Whether or not it's a crime is up to the DOJ. At the end of the day though, we should all be glad that he failed and that certain people did the right thing.

No one is hostile to election integrity...where are you getting this from? Who is against free and secure elections? If people can't distinguish between bullshit claims and legitimate ones as it relates to a particular state's system, then that's on them. It takes a lot of work to educate yourself but your state's secretary of state office would be more than willing to help.

Again, this isn't a trial. This is showmanship. That's literally part of the job of EVERY committee. When AOC, Matt Gaetz, Rand Paul, or any other legislature is talking, they are talking to US.



Is Nancy Pelosi in charge of Capitol security? I'm pretty sure has no authority in that regard. I know that the Capitol Police Chief resigned the day after and he absolutely should have. Big miss by him!

I agree that a partisan committee presents problems but it's a gamble the GOP decided to make by not taking the committee seriously. Now, the GOP has no control over the narrative and you have to pray that Cheney and Kinzinger are good counter- balances to folks like Schiff. Large swaths of the country wrote it off the day it occurred and even larger swaths wrote it off before there was any talk of the committee being formed. It's just the state of our country and there is no getting around it. Most of the people on the committee are pretty fair though but you'll have to judge the merits of their findings yourself. I think it's probably better than they do a proper investigation that's slightly partisan than not do anything at all.



Yea, I don't think many people know this unless your plugged into this specific topic. Having said that, I think we need to establish that come coups are just flat out pathetic and have zero chance of success. As it relates to Jan 6, even if they killed Mike Pence, several members of Congress, etc. Biden would still be President and America would move on. Even if Pence magically sent "votes back to the states," it wouldn't have changed the fact that Biden would have been inaugurated. That doesn't mean their intent WASN'T seditious. For example, look at what happened to Kavanaugh recently. That was literally one of the most pathetic assassination attempts in the history of this country. It doesn't matter though because it exposed a vulnerability and it's clear that SCOTUS justices need more protection. Just because it failed then, doesn't mean it can't be successful in the future. The same principle applies to the incompetent, misguided, seditious pieces of shit who made up <1% of the people there that day.

As for the bold, the committee will eventually make recommendations. From what I've read, the Republican members and some Democrats want to have a more unified approach whereas some of the Dems like Raskin want to take a more radical approach as it pertains to our elections. Remember, this is ongoing and it will probably continue to do work until McCarthy abolishes the committee in 2023.

Quote (cambovenzi @ 12 Jun 2022 15:11)

Quote (thundercock @ Jun 12 2022 02:32pm)

The Republicans, as a whole, do not want this investigated AT ALL. Can you blame them? Some of their caucus were involved! I agree that it would have been better to have a less partisan committee. No one disputes that. I really wish McConnell rallied the troops to allow for the bipartisan committee with GOP support. I really wish McCarthy didn't try to appoint people who asked Trump for pardons due to their involvement. Unfortunately, it was either this committee or nothing at all due to the GOP not wanting this investigated.

Also, were viewership figures that bad? I read that they were extraordinarily high for something like this (twice the number of people who watched the impeachment hearings). I'm not going to claim that this is going to move the dial but many people are definitely interested in this. As far as reaching converts, I just don't see that happening because nothing has fundamentally changed from what we saw that day. Just because people are in their own camps doesn't change the fact that the facts need to be out in the open. Let's allow for people to make judgment calls and if they want to ignore it, that's fine. Sometimes doing the right thing costs you politically but that's the nature of politics.

Again, you'll have to post some sources on why Pelosi is responsible for the Capitol Police. I'm not sure how that makes sense since she's the leader of only one chamber and there are two chambers that reside in the Capitol. From what I've read, the Chief reports to the Capitol Police Board which consists of equal representation from both chambers. Security officials from both chambers didn't think the National Guard was necessary on Jan 4 which seems to be a big miss in hindsight.

As for the FBI, I think it's acceptable for there to be undercover agents in the crowd. It's completely unacceptable for undercover agents to encourage violence and any who did that should be treated as if they were rioters. If those agent's superiors turn a blind eye or covered up crimes, they should obviously be fired and maybe more depending on the severity of their actions.

Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 12 2022 03:43pm)

Fundamentally there is a big difference between pulling legal maneuvers and making claims of legitimacy, versus taking action. Action being force, generally violence. Trump could make all the bullshit claims he wanted, blow all the smoke he wanted, try to exhort people to find evidence that doesn't exist or assert legal powers they may or may not have- but what he didn't do is take any forceful action. Trump didn't declare martial law. He didn't seize voting machines. He didn't cross the Rubicon. When his supporters got unruly, he told them to be peaceful and go home. When we're talking about legal wrangling like "could Pence refuse to certify the election" or "could states contest their electors" or "could he sue over ballot grievances", it all amounts of a bunch of hot air that would be litigated and summarily dismissed. And he didn't even press that point, Trump's transfer of power to Biden had less resistance than Al Gore contesting Bush's election

But when a government starts talking about trying to incriminate people for exerting their claimed legal privileges, trying to imprison a candidate for contesting the result of an election, that's when we get into the tyranny that can truly undermine democracy. If you aren't allowed to question the results of an election or else be thrown in prison, then what's to stop election fraud by tyrants? How can we have free and secure elections if the government wants to lock up the opposition candidate under bogus pretenses and arrest his supporters for protesting? In a system like that, casting your vote for anyone other than Joe Biden is a seditious conspiracy.

"Our elections are unquestionably secure. If you question them, you'll be secured in prison"

Quote (chopstickz777 @ Jun 12 2022 04:37pm)

When are Obama, Biden and Victoria Nuland going to be arrested for working with *actual* neonazi terrorist groups in Ukraine? Or for how they supported ISIS & Al-Qaeda in Syria?

You know, actual terrorist groups that have committed real crimes, such as mass murder and genocide, not to the fake "terrorist" label you slap onto people you don't like here in the USA.

You are literally a brainwashed sheep. Your thoughts, emotions and beliefs have all been programmed for you. HILARIOUS!

Quote (Skinned @ Jun 12 2022 02:33pm)

He didn't tell them to be peaceful and go home. Someone didn't watch the investigation. He colluded with terrorist groups and told them to attack the capital. It was a massive coordinated effort with Trump and many of his subordinates.

Questioning an election =/= attacking people in an premeditated attack.

Quote (Skinned @ Jun 12 2022 03:33pm)

He didn't tell them to be peaceful and go home.

Quote

Someone didn't watch the investigation. He colluded with terrorist groups and told them to attack the capital. It was a massive coordinated effort with Trump and many of his subordinates.

Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 12 2022 12:43pm)

Fundamentally there is a big difference between pulling legal maneuvers and making claims of legitimacy, versus taking action. Action being force, generally violence. Trump could make all the bullshit claims he wanted, blow all the smoke he wanted, try to exhort people to find evidence that doesn't exist or assert legal powers they may or may not have- but what he didn't do is take any forceful action. Trump didn't declare martial law. He didn't seize voting machines. He didn't cross the Rubicon. When his supporters got unruly, he told them to be peaceful and go home. When we're talking about legal wrangling like "could Pence refuse to certify the election" or "could states contest their electors" or "could he sue over ballot grievances", it all amounts of a bunch of hot air that would be litigated and summarily dismissed. And he didn't even press that point, Trump's transfer of power to Biden had less resistance than Al Gore contesting Bush's election

But when a government starts talking about trying to incriminate people for exerting their claimed legal privileges, trying to imprison a candidate for contesting the result of an election, that's when we get into the tyranny that can truly undermine democracy. If you aren't allowed to question the results of an election or else be thrown in prison, then what's to stop election fraud by tyrants? How can we have free and secure elections if the government wants to lock up the opposition candidate under bogus pretenses and arrest his supporters for protesting? In a system like that, casting your vote for anyone other than Joe Biden is a seditious conspiracy.

"Our elections are unquestionably secure. If you question them, you'll be secured in prison"

Quote (thundercock @ Jun 12 2022 11:32am)

The Republicans, as a whole, do not want this investigated AT ALL. Can you blame them? Some of their caucus were involved! I agree that it would have been better to have a less partisan committee. No one disputes that. I really wish McConnell rallied the troops to allow for the bipartisan committee with GOP support. I really wish McCarthy didn't try to appoint people who asked Trump for pardons due to their involvement. Unfortunately, it was either this committee or nothing at all due to the GOP not wanting this investigated.

Also, were viewership figures that bad? I read that they were extraordinarily high for something like this (twice the number of people who watched the impeachment hearings). I'm not going to claim that this is going to move the dial but many people are definitely interested in this. As far as reaching converts, I just don't see that happening because nothing has fundamentally changed from what we saw that day. Just because people are in their own camps doesn't change the fact that the facts need to be out in the open. Let's allow for people to make judgment calls and if they want to ignore it, that's fine. Sometimes doing the right thing costs you politically but that's the nature of politics.

Again, you'll have to post some sources on why Pelosi is responsible for the Capitol Police. I'm not sure how that makes sense since she's the leader of only one chamber and there are two chambers that reside in the Capitol. From what I've read, the Chief reports to the Capitol Police Board which consists of equal representation from both chambers. Security officials from both chambers didn't think the National Guard was necessary on Jan 4 which seems to be a big miss in hindsight.

As for the FBI, I think it's acceptable for there to be undercover agents in the crowd. It's completely unacceptable for undercover agents to encourage violence and any who did that should be treated as if they were rioters. If those agent's superiors turn a blind eye or covered up crimes, they should obviously be fired and maybe more depending on the severity of their actions.

Quote (Skinned @ Jun 12 2022 01:33pm)

Yeah people are interested. Nothing like this has happened in the United States...ever. No president has ever tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power in our history.


He didn't tell them to be peaceful and go home. Someone didn't watch the investigation. He colluded with terrorist groups and told them to attack the capital. It was a massive coordinated effort with Trump and many of his subordinates.

Questioning an election =/= premeditated attack.

And you should have watched it, especially the part where his friends, family, supporters, and employees all say that he is responsible.



Grown ups are talking.