Jan 6 committee votes to subpoena Donald Trump

What a load of grade A horse manure. Never in our history as the following occurred:

No party leader was ever asked to accept members of the other party (Banks and Jordan) on a committee who voted to not certify the election which was part of a larger scheme to thwart the will of the people.

The entire reason for the committee was to get to the bottom of the attack on the capitol, which was part of a larger plot to delay certification in the hopes of putting the certification past the deadline, at which point the house would decide on the president, whereupon republicans have a two state majority. That was the stated scheme in the Eastman plan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos

That these two were party in that scheme and if she had allowed them on the committee it would be like putting a criminal's entourage on the jury.

Her circumstance to which she was confronted with was literally the first time in history it happened. That she does have the right to veto proves that her action was legal.

Therefore, your point is dismissed.

 

No, 1/6, a violent attempt to, at the minimum, interrupt the peaceful transfer of power, was the responsibility of Donald Trump.

An historic event. Street riots, though bad, have happened many times in our history, but not a President's violence to thwart the will of the people. Had Trump succeeded, it would have put an end to democracy in America as we know it. No street riot ever came close to that potential outcome.

It is significant, and note street riot of any magnitude can come close of the significance of this historic event.

NONE.

So say the leader of both houses of congress under Trump that he was responsible for the attack on the Capitol.

"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day [jan 6]" --House Senate leader Mitch McConnell

 

You argue that then-President Trump is responsible for organizing a hundreds-strong riot, and that this riot nearly defeated the entire United States government in determining the outcome of the election in 2020? Are you completely ignorant of how political structures operate in the U.S.?

See my above words (and my previous comment, for that matter) since this is where you fail to understand how one thing is related to another thing.

Congress is the least trustworthy institution in government and you can research public opinion science to better understand this fact.

See above words. You completely fail to understand how politics works in America.

 

Oh puleeze do stop the dramatics.
Just don't try to put Trump and democracy in the same synonym.

 

No, they dont. Again, you may want to read the constitution and the SC’s ruling that pertain to the clauses being referenced

 

You're grasping straws. Politicians from the opposing side routinely vote to not certify the results. In fact in 2017 11 Democrats objected against certifying the results for Trump. 10 Electors also voted against their States popular vote, IE: Faithless Electors. And Democrats ENCOURAGED it.

So don't give me that BS. You're doing whatever you can to make what Pelosi did morally right. Whether or not her action was "legal" is not relevant.

LINK: Report No. DODIG-2022-039: Review of the DOD's Role, Responsibilities, and Actions to Prepare for and Respond to the Protest and Its Aftermath at the U.S. Capitol Campus on January 6, 2021 (justthenews.com)

Trump did not want a riot, did not want violence. He wanted it to be a safe event. That has already been proven by the committee. But its glossed over and ignored by those that want to create a narrative, instead of follow the actual narrative.

 

YES….You know that Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are Republicans right ?

You also realize that The “party” leadership has refuse to not only cooperate, but to even participate. Thats on them, not the democrats, or the people of this country who want to get to the bottom of these lies.

BTW, that new video from Pelosi sure got the right real quite and literally debunked their lie that Pelosi didn't call for the national guard, she actually did ON VIDEO, and was told she didn't have the authority to call for them. Game….Set…Match !

 

Any investigation by Congress has to have a legislative purpose. That is a fact supported by case law spanning back to 1880 in Kilbourn v. Thompson.

 

No, this is a false style of argument.

You can't just make crap up and then pretend Trump isn't guilty of your crap.

None of these last statements mean anything.

"Politics in America" does not work by lethal assault on our election process with the intention of overturning the votes of our citizens.

Those involved in that are going to prison.

 

There certainly is PLENTY of legislative purpose here.

Our legislature has serious work to do to ensure that our democracy is secured.

And, the first step in that is to get to the bottom of the criminal activity that nearly overthrew this election.

 

Jan 6 had NOTHING to do with faithless electors, and it had NOTHING to do with legal objections.

It was a violent assault on our democracy with the stated objectives of ending our democratic process and included those with the stated objective of executing the vice president.

With just a tiny bit more success on the part of these traitors, we could have found ourselves on Jan 7 with no election and no defined way forward.

 

What do you make of this quote from the speech?

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Here is a link to the whole speech lest you think I'm trying to hide the truth. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

 

Trump has about 75 million in his base.

When Trump, with that kind of fan base, put's out a tweet to show up at the capitol on January 6, it's going to be 'wild', there will no doubt be quite a few thousand that will turn up. And, no doubt, it will be 'wild', which, of course, is an understatement.

Now, whether or not Trump specifically envisioned the events as they turned out, it has to stated, as McConnell stated before the US Senate:

President Trump is practically, and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day [Jan 6], no question about it. The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President. And, having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hypole, which the defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet earth.

It as to be stated that the salient point is that Trump's action, by any reasonable measure of what it means to be president, should have foreseen that what happened was bound to happen, noting that what happened Trump did NOTHING to stop, and during the attack, he stoked their juggernaut of rage even more by stating that Mike Pence betrayed America by not setting aside the certifications.

And what were those false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole? They were the falsehoods that Trump repeated over and over and over again at every rally, using the 'largest megaphone on planet earth' that DEMOCRATS STOLE THE ELECTION, and he stated it many months prior to the first ballot being cast. He continues to say it, to this very day. This is historic, for a former president to make such an unsupported allegation.

With that assortment of ingredients, what, pray tell, could possibly go wrong?

Here is the quote to which you are rebutting:

Had Trump succeeded, it would have put an end to democracy in America as we know it. No street riot ever came close to that potential outcome.

I'm quite certain Trump is no where near clever enough to pull off a coup, but a smarter man, with all of Trump's qualities, a strong enough personality to garner the support of the military, could have. So, I will emphasize the 'had Trump succeeded' more than 'came close to' side of the statement.

But the salient point, it doesn't matter how close or whether or not he came close, at all, to overthrowing the government, he most certainly schemed to do that via a comprehensive, coordinated, months long and premeditated with many co conspirators plan which resulted in several deaths and 140 injuries, and millions in damage to the capitol (scroll down to the eastman memos)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos

And when the above schemes didn't work, he incited, (via a years worth of reckless hyperbole inclusive) a mob to the point of becoming a juggernaut of rage to go to the capitol, sought to get armed mob members through the metal detectors, and wanted to march on the capitol with them.

What, specifically, he had in mind, we have yet to find out, but we do know what happened and it's reasonable to state that a President Of The United States should have foreseen it, given all these ingredient facts, if he didn't intend it, he took 3 hours do stop them, and during that time, he inflamed the mob even more while they were on attack, and this much we know.

And it doesn't look good for Trump.

I will repeat what I wrote to which you are rebutting, with a slight modification, given your comment is predicated on an unimportant point (that the president came close to...)

Street riots, though bad, have happened many times in our history, but not a President's violence to ATTEMPT to thwart the will of the people. It is significant, and no street riots of any magnitude can come close of the significance of this historic event. NONE.

NONE.

Irrelevant to the fact that both McCarthy and McConnell declared that Trump was responsible.

You fail completely to grasp what is important, and what is not, let alone what I actually expressed.

 

No politician ever was involved in a scheme to INTENTIONALLY throw the vote to the house for President, of which the contested certifications were part of that scheme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos

And that's no bullcrap.

She had every right to veto anyone who participated in that scheme, inclusive of Jordan and Banks.

Whether or not Trump specifically envisioned the events as they turned out, it has to be stated, as McConnell stated before the US Senate:

President Trump is practically, and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day [Jan 6], no question about it. The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President. And, having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hypole, which the defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet earth.

So it has to be stated that the salient point is that Trump's action, by any reasonable measure of what it means to be president, should have foreseen that what happened was bound to happen, noting that what happened Trump did NOTHING to stop for about 3 hours, and during the attack, he stoked their juggernaut of rage even more by stating that Mike Pence betrayed America by not setting aside the certifications, and thus endangering his life.

And what were those false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole? They were the falsehoods that Trump repeated over and over and over again at every rally, using the 'largest megaphone on planet earth' that DEMOCRATS STOLE THE ELECTION, and he stated it many months prior to the first ballot being cast. He continues to say it, to this very day. This is historic, for a former president to make such an unsupported allegation.


So cut the crap.

 

Never said otherwise. Particularly since anything and everything can be considered as possible legislation.

 

Funny how you ignore the part that shows Trump did not want violence. The main component to proving Trump wanted an insurrection.

 

Go ahead an ignore the fact that Democrats (both parties have) have tried the same thing in the past.

And she did it with the intention of making sure that no one ask the "wrong" questions.

Sorry, but when inciting a riot the legal requirement is that it be done with intent. That is a legal fact. And that one bit of evidence is enough to blow the entire narrative of Trump purposefully inciting a riot to overthrow the government right out of the water. It can be argued about whether or not he should have known the effect his words would have had. But that is not the standard when it comes to our Justice system.

The only one needing to cut the crap is you and other Dems.

 

They're anti-Trump RINOs.

 

Not only is there no intent, there isn't even a "burn this bitch down" moment from Trump.

 

Wait, are you saying no Democrats have refused to certify the electoral vote count?

 

To investigate Jan 6. Next?

 

Where in the Constitution does it say Congress has that kind of investigatory power? Show us the text.

Congress'powers are legislative, only. Nothing in the word "legislation" indicates the power to investigate private citizens.

 

Well, it certainly DOES matter, depending on what results flow from the determination. Does he deserve to be derided? Shunned? Fined? Barred from holding public office? Imprisoned? Or executed for treason?

I've had serious problems with Trump, notwithstanding his correctness about the border, ever since birther-gate. And I think Sen. McConnell's assessment is sound.

But was his really a scheme to overthrow the government, or was it rather a reckless delusion about the nature and extent of voting irregularities? Or was he just having fun?

It didn't come close to succeeding because the rioters were silly and feckless people with no clear purpose or serious ability to accomplish anything.

The answers matter.

 

I reckon it's a safe bet that it doesn't. So...how does that preclude a Committee established by legislation conducting an investigation just like it did with 9/11. Were you all angsty about that 9/11 Committee or are you just angry that this one involves your Dear Leader Humpty and that it might just be the catalyst that brings him down off that wall?

 

Bill seems upset and angry about a perfectly legitimate investigation. I wonder why.