The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection

[Bob in Mich]

31 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

That's funny because I know you insurrection believers have no diagnosis skills.

 

Well, it was much more of an attempted insurrection. That makes it harder to recognize than actually overturning the election.

Anyway, if the rioters had somehow disrupted the recognition of valid electors that day and pushed the elector decision back to the state legislatures would it have been an attempted insurrection in your eyes then?

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

No, she put on Republicans who actually wanted to know what happened. 
 

Under your logic, the 9/11 committee was a sham because it didn’t have any Al Qaeda terrorists on it.

 

The one thing that’s clear here is that the two sides here are simply those who will testify under oath and those who won’t. That should tell you something. It is also telling that the officials who agree with your line of thought in public tell a very different story when they are under oath. 

 

Ah, they actually wanted to know what happened.  You think they would have done that before they voted on impeaching him, no?

 

As for 9/11, the terrorists were all dead.  Never mind that Jordan and Banks weren't in on it.

 

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Well, it was much more of an attempted insurrection. That makes it harder to recognize than actually overturning the election.

Anyway, if the rioters had somehow disrupted the recognition of valid electors that day and pushed the elector decision back to the state legislatures would it have been an attempted insurrection in your eyes then?

 

How was it even an attempted insurrection...without firearms?  And what stopped the rioters from disrupting the recognition of valid electors?  Typically in an insurrection, you try to accomplish your goal or die trying. 

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Ah, they actually wanted to know what happened.  You think they would have done that before they voted on impeaching him, no?

 

As for 9/11, the terrorists were all dead.  Never mind that Jordan and Banks weren't in on it.

 

 

How was it even an attempted insurrection...without firearms?  And what stopped the rioters from disrupting the recognition of valid electors?  Typically in an insurrection, you try to accomplish your goal or die trying. 

If you’re arguing that the Dems screwed up the impeachments, you’re not going to find too much disagreement from me.

 

How are you so certain that no members of Congress were in on it?

 

And to your last point, go check out the actual law around seditious conspiracy. No matter what you say, firearms are not an element of the crime. 

[Doc]

11 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

If you’re arguing that the Dems screwed up the impeachments, you’re not going to find too much disagreement from me.

 

How are you so certain that no members of Congress were in on it?

 

And to your last point, go check out the actual law around seditious conspiracy. No matter what you say, firearms are not an element of the crime. 

 

Innocent until proven guilty.  We're going on a year-and-a-half now.

 

As for the letter of the law, sure, charge those who may have been planning to do something.  I have never said that no one should be charged for any malfeasance done on that day.  But realize that there was no threat to anything without firearms and those charged with seditious conspiracy have not, to our knowledge, implicated Trump or any other Congressperson, and didn't carry their act out to completion, despite having ample chance to do so.

Edited June 18, 2022 by Doc

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

44 minutes ago, muppy said:

so does muppy so?

 

lol

 

hey leo just checking in the usual shenanigans afoot I see

 

@leh-nerd skin-erd

“All your earthly dreams and aspirations will go mup in smoke if you play with weeds in the devil’s sandbox!”

 

-Someone, probably, in the 1940s

 

I don’t smoke, and I’m not much of a drinker these days.  I consider returning to my college days of casual use, but sometimes I think…”Why?”. 
 

I’ve spoken with Bob on this issue, and the issue of relief from chronic pain that marijuana is said to bring.  If one can find relief, I say go all in.  The only challenge I can see, should such misfortune befall me or my loved ones, is how to get in front of him when he has all those frequent flier punches on his ticket.  
 

Peace out Stoner! 

[muppy]

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

“All your earthly dreams and aspirations will go mup in smoke if you play with weeds in the devil’s sandbox!”

 

-Someone, probably, in the 1940s

 

I don’t smoke, and I’m not much of a drinker these days.  I consider returning to my college days of casual use, but sometimes I think…”Why?”. 
 

I’ve spoken with Bob on this issue, and the issue of relief from chronic pain that marijuana is said to bring.  If one can find relief, I say go all in.  The only challenge I can see, should such misfortune befall me or my loved ones, is how to get in front of him when he has all those frequent flier punches on his ticket.  
 

Peace out Stoner! 

LOL peace Out BROTHER.  haha I gotta have my Leo Fix just sayin' haha. Ours is a peculiar  comradeship.  But it works. #BLESSED

Edited June 18, 2022 by muppy

[Andy1]

The opinion of “no firearms present that day” is a complete assumption. There may have been plenty of concealed firearms present. No one was searched and there were plenty of packs on people. I’m still wondering what the zip tie handcuffs were for. 

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Innocent until proven guilty.  We're going on a year-and-a-half now.

 

As for the letter of the law, sure, charge those who may have been planning to do something.  I have never said that no one should be charged for any malfeasance done on that day.  But realize that there was no threat to anything without firearms and those charged with seditious conspiracy have not, to our knowledge, implicated Trump or any other Congressperson, and didn't carry their act out to completion, despite having ample chance to do so.

They are absolutely innocent until proven guilty. And Jim Jordan is so stupid I would be surprised if he was even capable of planning anything. Poor guy can’t even figure out how a suit coat works. 
 

Here’s a scenario I’d like you to think about, and we can completely remove politics from it. 
 

Let’s say that there was a congressional hearing on steroids in sports. And a lot of people in the public thought that Tom Brady was doping. But I don’t, I think he’s clean. 
 

The committee subpoenas a bunch of people close to Brady but they all refuse to testify and go to court to fight the subpoenas. Publicly, all of Brady’s camp is saying he’s clean and it’s just his amazing TB12 routine. So I continue to quote those people are evidence that Brady is clean. 
 

All of his people are still fighting the committee, saying it has too many Bills fans on it and the one Patriot fan on it isn’t really a Patriot fan. They’re a PFINO, Patriot Fan in Name Only. 
 

Some of Brady’s people are able to quash the subpoenas but others aren’t and they give testimony. His nutritionist testifies that Brady was taking steroids. His trainer pleads the fifth over 100 times. Not a single person testifying states that Brady is clean. 
 

But publicly, the same people still say that it’s a sham and he’s clean. 
 

Now, he hasn’t been charged, or fined or suspended, and the investigation is still ongoing, but at what point would you expect me to re-evaluate my position that he is definitely clean?

[B-Man]

Democrats' Selective Outrage Over 'Insurrections'

by Josh Hammer

 

To listen to House Democrats' -- and Liz Cheney's and Adam Kinzinger's, but I repeat myself -- shrieks of hysteria from the opening nights of the Jan. 6 House Select Committee dais is to hearken back to the Soviet-era show trials of yesteryear. Vladimir Lenin, as the veteran conservative commentator Roger Kimball reminds us, referred to them as "model trials," wherein the "aim isn't to discover the truth -- which was supposedly already known -- but to stage a propagandist exhibition."

 

For Democrats, the aim of the Jan. 6 Select Committee's "propagandist exhibition" is twofold: First, to attempt (in vain) to distract a besieged citizenry from the myriad problems now tearing asunder the country, under their leadership, in this midterm election year; and second, to lay the foundation for a Justice Department indictment against the 45th president that could hamstring his efforts to seek a second term come 2024.

 

To anyone paying even a modicum of attention -- and I'd recommend no more than that -- to the committee's theatrics, it is obvious that the game is rigged. Consider as but one data point how Cheney, who will be looking for a new job come January, deliberately edited Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" exhortation from that fateful rally so as to omit the fact that he urged his supporters to make their way to the Capitol "peacefully and patriotically."

 

Instead, to take Democrats at their word -- an always-dubious endeavor -- is to believe that Jan. 6, 2021, represented the closest thing to an "insurrection" since the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. To be sure, some -- a very small minority -- of the protesters who made their way into the Capitol on that day did so with malicious intent. And that very small minority should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But as a whole, Jan. 6, 2021, looks something like a limper version of the Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, which amounts to no more than an asterisk in the high school history textbooks.

 

But the Democrats have found their "insurrection" -- and they want to make the dreaded Orange Man, conductor of this benighted orchestra, pay for what he has wrought. Or so they tell us.

 

More at the link:https://townhall.com/columnists/joshhammer/2022/06/17/democrats-selective-outrage-over-insurrections-n2608876

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

31 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

How was it even an attempted insurrection...without firearms?  And what stopped the rioters from disrupting the recognition of valid electors?  Typically in an insurrection, you try to accomplish your goal or die trying. 

Doc, you may already know this but in order move ahead with this plan, it was not necessary to kill anyone.  It seems some of those more militant rioters may have, but postponing the recognition of electors was the goal.

 

I have heard it called an attempted auto- coup.  

 

Really by your logic, coups could not happen before the invention of firearms.  But, I digress.  The point is that not all coups require weapons

 

The rioters did disrupt the proceeding.     Perhaps those aiming to do that thought they had succeeded.   The legislators stayed and completed it late that night.  Why they left?  Trump finally called them off and the more militant ones didn’t find anyone to terrorize 

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Doc, you may already know this but in order move ahead with this plan, it was not necessary to kill anyone.  It seems some of those more militant rioters may have, but postponing the recognition of electors was the goal.

 

I have heard it called an attempted auto- coup.  

 

Really by your logic, coups could not happen before the invention of firearms.  But, I digress.  The point is that not all coups require weapons

 

The rioters did disrupt the proceeding.     Perhaps those aiming to do that thought they had succeeded.   The legislators stayed and completed it late that night.  Why they left?  Trump finally called them off and the more militant ones didn’t find anyone to terrorize 

Postponing the recognition of electors is your definition of a coup? Okie Dokie 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Postponing the recognition of electors is your definition of a coup? Okie Dokie 

It is within the definition of seditious conspiracy though: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

 

 “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

It is within the definition of seditious conspiracy though: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

 

 “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

As I said…okie dokie. “By force” ….I’m assuming that’s the guy in the bear suit taking selfies in the chamber? 

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

As I said…okie dokie. “By force” ….I’m assuming that’s the guy in the bear suit taking selfies in the chamber? 

If he got into the chamber by force, then yes. 

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

If he got into the chamber by force, then yes. 

So prosecute him and the others sitting in a jail for months and months now. He has the right to a trial and a defense…no? 

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So prosecute him and the others sitting in a jail for months and months now. He has the right to a trial and a defense…no? 

Yea he does. 

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Yea he does. 

Once again we agree. (We generally do.) These nitwits all deserve a trial. Let’s get on with it. 

[Doc]

59 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

They are absolutely innocent until proven guilty. And Jim Jordan is so stupid I would be surprised if he was even capable of planning anything. Poor guy can’t even figure out how a suit coat works. 
 

Here’s a scenario I’d like you to think about, and we can completely remove politics from it. 
 

Let’s say that there was a congressional hearing on steroids in sports. And a lot of people in the public thought that Tom Brady was doping. But I don’t, I think he’s clean. 
 

The committee subpoenas a bunch of people close to Brady but they all refuse to testify and go to court to fight the subpoenas. Publicly, all of Brady’s camp is saying he’s clean and it’s just his amazing TB12 routine. So I continue to quote those people are evidence that Brady is clean. 
 

All of his people are still fighting the committee, saying it has too many Bills fans on it and the one Patriot fan on it isn’t really a Patriot fan. They’re a PFINO, Patriot Fan in Name Only. 
 

Some of Brady’s people are able to quash the subpoenas but others aren’t and they give testimony. His nutritionist testifies that Brady was taking steroids. His trainer pleads the fifth over 100 times. Not a single person testifying states that Brady is clean. 
 

But publicly, the same people still say that it’s a sham and he’s clean. 
 

Now, he hasn’t been charged, or fined or suspended, and the investigation is still ongoing, but at what point would you expect me to re-evaluate my position that he is definitely clean?

 

It's not a fair analogy because, again, people broke into the Capitol and none of them have said that any Republican put them up to it.  If this is just a bunch of idiots with a (bad) plan, no one GAF.  The only real scandal is that Republicans, specifically Trump, told them to do it.

 

And I have no doubt Brady's been doing HGH.  I have no real proof, but I'll continue to believe it.

[ChiGoose]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Once again we agree. (We generally do.) These nitwits all deserve a trial. Let’s get on with it. 

QAnon Shaman plead guilty so no need for a trial. As for those who aren’t going to plead, they definitely should get a trial. But our criminal justice system is a joke so it’ll be a while. 

[BillsFanNC]

19 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

If he got into the chamber by force, then yes. 

 

You mean this guy?

 

Where you see a police officer allow them in as long as they "remain peaceful"?

 

 

You've all been had.

 

https://rumble.com/vh52u9-watch-u.s.-capitol-police-gave-protesters-ok-to-enter-capitol.html