The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection

[Doc]

31 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Typically a plea deal means the governments case is weak.  I wouldn't get too excited..

 

Yeah.  Especially if the charges lack all of the following:

 

10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Rhetorical........

 

Jan. 6 Commission: Do Democrats Really Want 'the Facts'?

 

By Larry Elder

 

 

After impeaching President Donald Trump for the so-called insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021, House Democrats want to, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "establish a bipartisan agreement for a 9/11-style commission to report on the facts and the causes of the attack." Before the Senate vote to establish this commission, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, "The American people will see where every member stands: on the side of truth or on the side of Donald Trump's big lie."

 

Having already pronounced Jan. 6 an "insurrection" sparked by Trump's "big lie," Democrats like Pelosi and Schumer tell us, with a straight face, they only want "the facts," which they did not need before impeaching Trump. About Trump's so-called big lie, Democrats insist it "undermines our democracy" and "compromises the integrity of the vote." These are the same Democrats who, for four-plus years, allowed Hillary Clinton to call the 2016 election "stolen" and Trump "illegitimate." Somehow, our republic survived.

 

How have claims made by Clinton and others affected the way Democrats view the 2016 election?

 

The nearly 1,000-page Senate report on 2016 election interference found, "The Committee has not seen any evidence that vote tallies were manipulated or that voter registration information was deleted or modified." The Senate report reached no conclusion on whether Russian interference affected the outcome of the election. President Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security secretary, Jeh Johnson, testified, "I am not in a position to know whether the successful Russian government-directed hacks of the DNC and elsewhere did in fact alter public opinion and thereby alter the outcome of the presidential election." But Johnson's testimony did not stop California Sen. Dianne Feinstein from saying the interference "altered the outcome" of the election.

 

According to a 2018 YouGov poll, 66% of Democrats believe that "Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected." And according to a 2018 Gallup poll, 78% of Democrats believe Russian interference "changed the outcome of the election." Again, Democrats completely ignore the report's finding that the Russians changed not a single vote tally. Again, the report reached no conclusion on whether the Russian interference changed the outcome of the 2016 election, but Democrats either do not care or do not believe what the report says about vote tallies and the election outcome.

 

Given the rejection of these findings, one must ask whether Democrats pushing for a Jan. 6 commission truly want "the facts about what happened." Because it looks like this is just another Trump Derangement Syndrome-driven attempt to smear the man they fear will come roaring back in 2024.

 

Why do Democrats remain so fearful of Trump? Remember these numbers: 4, 6, 8 and 12.

 

More at the link: https://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2021/06/03/jan-6-commission-do-democrats-really-want-the-facts-n2590393

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

[716er]

Nobody projects like the Q-idiots

 

 

[reddogblitz]

On 6/3/2021 at 10:40 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

Rhetorical........

 

Jan. 6 Commission: Do Democrats Really Want 'the Facts'?

 

By Larry Elder

 

 

After impeaching President Donald Trump for the so-called insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021, House Democrats want to, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "establish a bipartisan agreement for a 9/11-style commission to report on the facts and the causes of the attack." Before the Senate vote to establish this commission, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, "The American people will see where every member stands: on the side of truth or on the side of Donald Trump's big lie."

 

Having already pronounced Jan. 6 an "insurrection" sparked by Trump's "big lie," Democrats like Pelosi and Schumer tell us, with a straight face, they only want "the facts," which they did not need before impeaching Trump. About Trump's so-called big lie, Democrats insist it "undermines our democracy" and "compromises the integrity of the vote." These are the same Democrats who, for four-plus years, allowed Hillary Clinton to call the 2016 election "stolen" and Trump "illegitimate." Somehow, our republic survived.

 

How have claims made by Clinton and others affected the way Democrats view the 2016 election?

 

The nearly 1,000-page Senate report on 2016 election interference found, "The Committee has not seen any evidence that vote tallies were manipulated or that voter registration information was deleted or modified." The Senate report reached no conclusion on whether Russian interference affected the outcome of the election. President Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security secretary, Jeh Johnson, testified, "I am not in a position to know whether the successful Russian government-directed hacks of the DNC and elsewhere did in fact alter public opinion and thereby alter the outcome of the presidential election." But Johnson's testimony did not stop California Sen. Dianne Feinstein from saying the interference "altered the outcome" of the election.

 

According to a 2018 YouGov poll, 66% of Democrats believe that "Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected." And according to a 2018 Gallup poll, 78% of Democrats believe Russian interference "changed the outcome of the election." Again, Democrats completely ignore the report's finding that the Russians changed not a single vote tally. Again, the report reached no conclusion on whether the Russian interference changed the outcome of the 2016 election, but Democrats either do not care or do not believe what the report says about vote tallies and the election outcome.

 

Given the rejection of these findings, one must ask whether Democrats pushing for a Jan. 6 commission truly want "the facts about what happened." Because it looks like this is just another Trump Derangement Syndrome-driven attempt to smear the man they fear will come roaring back in 2024.

 

Why do Democrats remain so fearful of Trump? Remember these numbers: 4, 6, 8 and 12.

 

More at the link: https://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2021/06/03/jan-6-commission-do-democrats-really-want-the-facts-n2590393

 

 

 

 

 

It's too bad we don't have a Federal agency that is good at finding facts and doing investigations to look into this.

Edited June 4, 2021 by reddogblitz

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, reddogblitz said:

 

It's too bad we don't have a Federal agency that is good at finding facts and doing investigations to look into this.

Help me out - did you say this about Benghazi?

[SoCal Deek]

19 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Help me out - did you say this about Benghazi?

Benghazi was a very limited investigation of the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch...which is their job! Are you saying the current probe is similarly focused? 

[BillStime]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Benghazi was a very limited investigation of the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch...which is their job! Are you saying the current probe is similarly focused? 

 

Indeed!

[Backintheday544]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Benghazi was a very limited investigation of the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch...which is their job! Are you saying the current probe is similarly focused? 

Two and a half years, $7.8 million for Benghazi. Benghazi had less deaths than the insurrection.

Benghazi was also acknowledged to be politically motivated by Republicans. Here’s a quote from a NY Republican: “This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” said Hanna, who is not a member of the committee. “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not. I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.”

 

Did you say the legislative branch was doing their job investigating the executive when looking at Trumps tax records?

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

Two and a half years, $7.8 million for Benghazi. Benghazi had less deaths than the insurrection.

Benghazi was also acknowledged to be politically motivated by Republicans. Here’s a quote from a NY Republican: “This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” said Hanna, who is not a member of the committee. “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not. I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.”

 

Did you say the legislative branch was doing their job investigating the executive when looking at Trumps tax records?

 

Wait, this Benghazi?

 

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), told Fox News’s Sean Hannity explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a “strategy to fight and win.”

 

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”

[Backintheday544]

41 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Wait, this Benghazi?

 

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), told Fox News’s Sean Hannity explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a “strategy to fight and win.”

 

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”

Yea the one that was totally politically motivated, saw less deaths than the insurrection, and cost a ton of money over several years.

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

Help me out - did you say this about Benghazi?

 

In case you didn't get what I was hinting at, it was to Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATIONS.  And actually they are already on the case.  They're highly skilled in this sort of thing.  Congress is not. Let them do their job and let us know what they find out.  Or we could just go with the committee that is already investigating it.

 

And since then FBI only investigates things inside the USA they would not be appropriate to investigate Benghazi.

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

Two and a half years, $7.8 million for Benghazi. Benghazi had less deaths than the insurrection.

Benghazi was also acknowledged to be politically motivated by Republicans. Here’s a quote from a NY Republican: “This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” said Hanna, who is not a member of the committee. “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not. I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.”

 

Did you say the legislative branch was doing their job investigating the executive when looking at Trumps tax records?

 

Truer words were never spoken. If some of y'all would realize this it would make your life less stressful than thinking D's wear white hats and Rs wear black hats.  Actually they ALL wear really dark gray hats.

[BillStime]

9 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

In case you didn't get what I was hinting at, it was to Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATIONS.  And actually they are already on the case.  They're highly skilled in this sort of thing.  Congress is not. Let them do their job and let us know what they find out.  Or we could just go with the committee that is already investigating it.

 

And since then FBI only investigates things inside the USA they would not be appropriate to investigate Benghazi.

 

Truer words were never spoken. If some of y'all would realize this it would make your life less stressful than thinking D's wear white hats and Rs wear black hats.  Actually they ALL wear really dark gray hats.

Oh reddog...

 

Investigations & Oversight

 

The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to conduct investigations is implied since Congress possesses “all legislative powers.” The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation. George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”

[reddogblitz]

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Oh reddog...

 

Investigations & Oversight

 

The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to conduct investigations is implied since Congress possesses “all legislative powers.” The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation. George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”

 

Oh bills time ...

 

Thanks for the link.

 

Did you read it to the end?

 

Quote

Current Practice

 

Hearings are most commonly held for three reasons: to consider pending legislation; to investigate issues that may require legislation in the future; and, to investigate and oversee federal programs. They reflect the most important issues of the day and what occupies congressional attention. This means that Congress holds hearings on a variety of issues, from steroid abuse in professional sports to the use of weather satellites. Hearings have also been used to further the rights of minority groups. Congressional investigations not only help legislators make better policy decisions, but they are central to the system of checks and balances. Investigatory hearings can uncover presidential abuses of power and corruption, such as the Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920s or Watergate in the 1970s. But hearings have also been used for less noble purposes, such as the blacklisting of private citizens during the “un-American activities” hearings in the 1950s. While the power to investigate is broad, the Supreme Court has since ruled that Congress must confine itself to “legislative purposes” and avoid the strictly private affairs of individual citizens.

 

 

What exactly are trying to legislate here?

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Oh bills time ...

 

Thanks for the link.

 

Did you read it to the end?

 

 

 

What exactly are trying to legislate here?

What were they legislating with Benghazi?

[reddogblitz]

28 minutes ago, BillStime said:

What were they legislating with Benghazi?

 

I thought Benghazi was a political witch hunt too.

 

I wish Congress could get past this nonsense and work on something useful but they just can't help themselves (Democrats and Republicans).

 

What would be wrong with just going with the FBI investigation?  What are you afraid they're going to miss?

[BillStime]

32 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I thought Benghazi was a political witch hunt too.

 

I wish Congress could get past this nonsense and work on something useful but they just can't help themselves (Democrats and Republicans).

 

What would be wrong with just going with the FBI investigation?  What are you afraid they're going to miss?

Why didn’t the FBI or CIA investigate Benghazi?

 

Why are you afraid of Congress investigating 1/6?

You do realize the severity of an insurrection - a coup to overthrow the United States government?

 

Why wouldn’t we want to investigate this in the open - so Americans can have faith this will never happen again?

 

I mean - we all saw what happened all day on that day - it will forever haunt the GQP and history will never ever let you forget it.

[BillStime]