BillsFanNC Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 Another day without someone being charged with insurrection on J6. That brings the grand total to: Zero point zero.
Jauronimo Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 10 minutes ago, DRsGhost said: Another day without someone being charged with insurrection on J6. That brings the grand total to: Zero point zero. The justice system works!
Westside Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: 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). What actions should he be held accountable for?
All_Pro_Bills Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: 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). Assumption of bias? I'd say its a demonstrated fact. The most telling aspect of that is through the entire committee proceedings and hearings not a single witness has been called or has been allowed to testify that would dispute the "governments" (e.g. the committees) case. Add to that the majority chair deciding to veto the minority appointment choices. Which violates the charter defining and governing the committee's existence and all House rules of order in handling committee business and appointments. If the judicial system operating in this manner a defendant would not be allowed to call witnesses and their attorney would be chosen by the prosecutor. So we're going to hear a one-sided fictional account of the day along with some sobbing about "threats to democracy" and maybe a few PTSD stories thrown in by select Capitol Police coached up for the made-for-TV melodrama. 2
ChiGoose Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 7 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: Assumption of bias? I'd say its a demonstrated fact. The most telling aspect of that is through the entire committee proceedings and hearings not a single witness has been called or has been allowed to testify that would dispute the "governments" (e.g. the committees) case. Add to that the majority chair deciding to veto the minority appointment choices. Which violates the charter defining and governing the committee's existence and all House rules of order in handling committee business and appointments. If the judicial system operating in this manner a defendant would not be allowed to call witnesses and their attorney would be chosen by the prosecutor. So we're going to hear a one-sided fictional account of the day along with some sobbing about "threats to democracy" and maybe a few PTSD stories thrown in by select Capitol Police coached up for the made-for-TV melodrama. So you're assuming that the witnesses are all going to lie under oath?
BillsFanNC Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 1 hour ago, Jauronimo said: The justice system works! Well we know it works better for some based on ideology, that's for sure. But in terms of the the OP in this thread and many in the media we know that the "insurrection" is a total lie.
All_Pro_Bills Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: So you're assuming that the witnesses are all going to lie under oath? I'm assuming the committee will only call witnesses that have opinions and experiences that are friendly to their case. Do you think they're going to call and interview and question the people that opened the Capitol doors and invited in the protesters? 1
ChiGoose Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 16 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I'm assuming the committee will only call witnesses that have opinions and experiences that are friendly to their case. Do you think they're going to call and interview and question the people that opened the Capitol doors and invited in the protesters? I would avoid using the word "case" because it implies this is a legal hearing, which it is not. It is not analogous to a judicial proceeding. I do not know who they are going to interview on the hearings. Is there a specific person you wish they would interview?
BillsFanNC Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 Release ALL the J6 security footage. All of it. Who is responsible for denying Trump admin request for national guard troops? Why haven't we heard a single thing about the suspect who planted pipe bombs at DNC / RNC headquarters? An update would sure be nice. How about we hear from Ray Epps? You want Trump and others communications from J5-J7th? Fine. Let's get Pelosis, Schiffs etc. as well. Until they at minimum do the above this whole thing is a political clown show sham and I'm shocked that the usual suspects here have fallen for it hook, line and sinker 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 15 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I would avoid using the word "case" because it implies this is a legal hearing, which it is not. It is not analogous to a judicial proceeding. I do not know who they are going to interview on the hearings. Is there a specific person you wish they would interview? For starters, William J. Walker Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives. The person responsible for Capitol Security and the head of the office where calls for additional security were placed to that day. And either denied or not responded to. Why in the face of an obvious demonstration and known potential for violence was a "standard" officer detail deployed that day. And since the Sergent at Arms reports to the Speaker what was Nancy's role, if any, in withholding additional forces? 1
716er Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, Doc said: That if there were anything, it would have been discovered sometime last year and charges would have been filed. How do the seditious conspiracy charges just filed by the DOJ against the Proud Boys square with this logic? Edited June 6, 2022 by 716er
Orlando Buffalo Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 4 hours ago, ChiGoose said: 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? There is no discussion of why the police presence was not provided. The committee has stated they will not interview Pelosi or Bowser both of whom denied requests for more police. This was announced long ago and Nancy stated she was not even asked a single question about why. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/592694-pelosi-says-she-has-not-provided-any-information-to-jan-6-panel/amp/
Doc Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 40 minutes ago, 716er said: How do the seditious conspiracy charges just filed by the DOJ against the Proud Boys square with this logic? Have they or the Oath Keepers said that any Republican directed them to do what they did? Or were they, as we've been saying, just a bunch of idiots who acted on their own but were never a real threat to democracy? 1
ALF Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 In the replies to above photo proud boy leader Henry Tarrio Thomas Anthony Becket @thomasAbecket42 @PattyRose137 @washingtonpost That man is a fed, watch it unfold when the charges get dropped good grief these people
B-Man Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 The 'J' in J6 Stands for 'Joke,' as the Committee Leans Heavily on Produced Theatrics By Jennifer Oliver O'Connell As former Trump staffer Peter Navarro wrote in The Washington Times, before he was dragged away in chains, this J6 Committee show trial is a Kangaroo Court that can barely justify its existence, which is why it’s still trying to subpoena Trump officials who could give a rat’s patootie, while sitting on Capitol Police video footage from the kerfuffle, releasing it over a year later. Despite the puffery of its members, there is no There, There. It’s a side show for the TDS-riddled, and the Clown Queen Cheney is now its carnival barker. https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2022/06/06/the-j-in-j6-stands-for-joke-as-the-committee-leans-heavily-on-produced-theatrics-n575424
716er Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 43 minutes ago, Doc said: Have they or the Oath Keepers said that any Republican directed them to do what they did? Or were they, as we've been saying, just a bunch of idiots who acted on their own but were never a real threat to democracy? That’s part of the investigation. You seem to infer that info should have came out already. As Durham showed with his investigation, it takes quite a long time to build a case. I would suggest you read the indictment.
Doc Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 7 minutes ago, 716er said: That’s part of the investigation. You seem to infer that info should have came out already. As Durham showed with his investigation, it takes quite a long time to build a case. I would suggest you read the indictment. I'll wait until they indict a Republican for something other than (reasonable) contempt of Congress. And then I'll wait for the trial and see if they get away with it, like Sussman. 1
716er Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 19 minutes ago, Doc said: I'll wait until they indict a Republican for something other than (reasonable) contempt of Congress. And then I'll wait for the trial and see if they get away with it, like Sussman. Odds are you won't wait and will fire off this tired trope again and again 6 hours ago, Doc said: That if there were anything, it would have been discovered sometime last year and charges would have been filed. Maybe doc conspiracy will prove me wrong.
B-Man Posted June 6, 2022 Posted June 6, 2022 Coming Thursday ............... The democrat party's new "Prime Time" Two Minute Hate. With all your favorite Congresspersons
Recommended Posts