The January 6 Committee pre-game show: 187 minutes of inaction

These are biased partisan hearings just like Benghazi was.

 

Like what? Example, please.

 

That's not what 'cummulative effect means'.

It means that the NYPost, WSJ, and other conservative sources are damning the president based on the reportage of the committee.

 

I chose a better definition.

 

No, you chose to twist the meaning in order to further a nationalist populist agenda.

I'll file your rebuttal in the wishful thinking file.

 

Interest is obviously declining.

 

It is not a trial.

You will get your wish when the Justice Department prosecutes.

When Republicans conducted a partisan investigation targeting Clinton into the Benghazi attack that lasted for years, Clinton did not defy a subpoena. She testified for eleven hours. Why has Trump refused to appear and answer questions under oath?

Meanwhile, Trump's scheme to sabotage democracy took other forms besides his goons attacking the Capitol:

Previously undisclosed emails provide an inside look at the increasingly desperate and often slapdash efforts by advisers to President Donald J. Trump to reverse his election defeat in the weeks before the Jan. 6 attack, including acknowledgments that a key element of their plan was of dubious legality and lived up to its billing as “fake.”

The dozens of emails among people connected to the Trump campaign, outside advisers and close associates of Mr. Trump show a particular focus on assembling lists of people who would claim — with no basis — to be Electoral College electors on his behalf in battleground states that he had lost.

In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word “fake” to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome. And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny.

“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that “‘alternative’ votes is probably a better term than ‘fake’ votes,” adding a smiley face emoji.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/26/us/politics/trump-fake-electors-emails.html
​

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, Natty... indeed most Democrats explain that all this "committee" does is perform the function of a "grand jury". But, c'mon man, a "grand jury" that drags out its hearings in hours-long harangues that go on for week after week?! And all without the ability for anyone who isn't a 'Trump-ant to question any of the witnesses in any way? This stinks of politics, from start to finish.

Many of us on the Right say (and have said for months) that if Trump is charged with a CRIME, then he should be officially charged, put on trial, and if found guilty, he should be sentenced according to law. That all may yet happen, and if it does, then SO BE IT. Trump was really stupid to have let this idiotic "beer hall putsch" get so out of hand and go so totally wrong... but did he commit a crime...?

But in the meantime, Democrats do themselves no favors by running this tiresome "Star Chamber-esque" spectacle, on and on, and on.

 

Obviously, I recognize that The U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol is performing a vital service for the nation while it also, inevitably, satisfies a partisan objective - ignoring the indisputable certitude it also serves Republicans who want their Party deloused.

Would it have appeared more "balanced" if Trump and Trump loyalists had the temerity to appear before it and testify under oath? Unfortunately, the Committee had to make due without them, and the testimony of so many Republican officeholders and Trump regime insiders has been compelling. Without all those Republicans, it would not have been taken seriously.

The National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex was an unsuccessful proposal to create a commission that would have investigated the 2021 United States Capitol attack. On February 15, 2021 Speaker Pelosi announced that she planned to create a "9/11-type commission". The details were initially negotiated would have consisted of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. A bill forming the commission passed the House of Representatives on May 19, with all Democrats and 35 Republicans voting in support of it. However, it was blocked by Senate Republicans on May 28, with 54 Senators voting in favor and 35 voting against, failing to clear the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.​

You may think the Trumpies blundered when they backed out of a bipartisan deal to form an independent commission with equal party participation. That would have been my preference as well, but all that has been exposed by all those Republican witnesses stands on its own. The answers, what was revealed, is what matters, not who got to ask the pertinent questions or what the venue was called.

"We cannot just sweep this under the rug.
We need to know why it happened, who did it,
and people need to be held accountable for it.
And I'm committed to make sure that happens."​

 

You really seem to think that justice depends on popularity.

It doesn't.

 

What the democrats are doing has nothing to do with justice. It is just a "Get Trump vendetta."

 

Excellent and limpid analysis. Good job, Natty Bumpo!

 

Trump didn't go storming the capitol in body armor and stop the protestors himself? Shame on him! This is what you got now? Grasping at straws huh? you can pretend 1-6 committee isn't a bunch of BS but we all know it is

 

Well, when someone commits a number of serious crimes, the general effort is to get the person indicted and convicted, especially if that person is a threat to national security.

You are implying the effort is done without just cause, which is nonsense.

 

Don't be silly. You very well know what several members of his inner circle were begging him to do and that he refused to do for several hours.

 

I am not implying anything. I am saying the investigation was totally biased and one sided.

 

It only appears that way. When the criminal is in clear view, and he is being investigated and he happens to be supported by your side of the fence, it will appear that way.

What you fail to grasp is that all of the testimony given were given by Trump's hard core supporters, who stuck with him until 1/6, at which point they became disillusioned and decided the truth needs to get out.

There testimony is not 'one sided'.

Truth is truth, it cannot be one sided.

 

If it was a bunch of BS, the Orange Stain wouldn't be soiling his nappy and having tantrums after each session. /smdh

 

Shrug. I view it at least as important as cum stains on blue dresses.