January 6th 2021 FEDSURRECTION: The Corrupt Biden Regime: White House, FBI, DOJ, media, committee

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[BillStime]

On 7/8/2022 at 10:08 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

January 6 Committee Has Convinced Most Republicans That They Are Not Investigating an 'Insurrection'

 

 

As many have noted, the sole purpose of the bizarre clown show that is the January 6 Committee is political warfare.

 

It was designed by the Democrats to try to keep Donald Trump on the ballot for 2022 and 2024. It was a tool the Democrats thought could slander GOP politicians who wouldn’t “condemn” President Trump and his supporters and help them win elections.

 

The corrupt political agenda of this committee was telegraphed from its inception when Nancy Pelosi vetoed House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s appointments to the committee because they were not the stump-broke Republicans Pelosi needed. 

 

Things are not working out all that well.

 

A new Monmouth University poll carries some stark lessons for the work that lies ahead for the House Jan. 6 committee, to the extent that the panel seeks to convince conservative Americans that Trump committed a crime that day. That’s because they increasingly don’t even believe what happened that day — and what they formerly accepted as reality — actually happened.

 

The poll shows significant reductions in the percentages of Republicans who characterize Jan. 6 not just as an “insurrection” but also a “riot.” And it’s not the first to point in that direction.

 

The poll asked people in June 2021 and June 2022 whether each of those labels were appropriate descriptors for what transpired on Jan. 6, 2021. And the GOP shifts are pretty uniform:

 

While 33 percent of Republicans said in June 2021 that Jan. 6 was an insurrection, that number is now just 13 percent.

 

While 62 percent of Republicans called it a “riot” back then, that’s down to 45 percent.

 

While 47 percent said it was a “legitimate protest,” that’s now up to 61 percent.

 

So whereas more Republicans once said it was a “riot” than a “legitimate protest,” by a 15-point margin, that has been flipped, with Republicans favoring the “legitimate protest” label by 16 points. A majority of Republicans no longer even regard Jan. 6 as a “riot.”

 

 

https://redstate.com/streiff/2022/07/08/january-6-committee-has-convinced-most-republicans-that-they-are-not-investigating-an-insurrection-n591022

 

 

R

E

D

S

T

A
T

E

 

lolz

 

idiots 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

I’m uncertain why any dem, r or citizen would be against transparent, public testimony in this case.  That’s not to say many will be completely and irrevocably disinterested, but that’s a different issue. 
 

 

[Doc]

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

I’m uncertain why any dem, r or citizen would be against transparent, public testimony in this case.  That’s not to say many will be completely and irrevocably disinterested, but that’s a different issue. 

 

I'm assuming this is sarcasm.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I'm assuming this is sarcasm.  

Sarcasm is no longer a legal form of communication per the ministry of truth!  And it is very hurtful form of verbal violence.  

 

But yes, every single person regardless of party affiliation or personal beliefs should embrace an opportunity to hear firsthand, without editing, or limit the complete testimony of the witness.  Who could possibly be afraid of that? 

 

Given the witness will be testifying under oath, as emphasized by the news person on the national news broadcast I saw last night, getting the truth and nothing but the truth should be the number one priority of everyone.  

 

My guess is some member of "the committee", perhaps sleaze ball misinformation generator and leaker extraordinaire Adam Schiff, will cite some national security issues, real or imagined, that an open and public forum might endanger.  

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

But testifying under oath is the sole benchmark to guide us to the truth!

 

...but not if it's public testimony under oath....

 

...and not if the testimony can't be selectively edited for release by the committee...

 

 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

The key to our legal system is NOT that people testify “under oath”. The key is the right to cross examination and a proper defense. 
Done! 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

I'm assuming this is sarcasm.  

Not this time.  I’m no fan of the 1/6 miscreants who tried to smash barriers, assault officers, and engaged in other than peaceful protest.  
 

Let’s go with transparency and clarity here. 
 

 

[ChiGoose]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m uncertain why any dem, r or citizen would be against transparent, public testimony in this case.  That’s not to say many will be completely and irrevocably disinterested, but that’s a different issue. 
 

 

 

If you were running a serious investigation, you would not want their first testimony to be done publicly. You would want it behind closed doors. That way, you can fact check their statements and compare them to statements made by other witnesses to assess their credibility. Not doing this would allow a disingenuous witness to lie to the public and have that lie spread before it could be questioned or debunked by other testimony.

 

Additionally, you want to limit what is included in public testimony if the investigation is ongoing. Having someone publicly testify to a situation that you are going to ask someone else about later allows the latter person to coordinate their story to what they heard in the public testimony. It's like the old joke about the flat tire.

 

So, while we should want all of the testimony to be made public once the investigation is concluded, there are legitimate reasons why not every witness should testify publicly right away.

[BillsFanNC]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

If you were running a serious investigation, you would not want their first testimony to be done publicly. You would want it behind closed doors. That way, you can fact check their statements and compare them to statements made by other witnesses to assess their credibility. Not doing this would allow a disingenuous witness to lie to the public and have that lie spread before it could be questioned or debunked by other testimony.

 

One sided narrative building committee with no cross examination doing the "fact checking" always leads to the truth!

 

 

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Additionally, you want to limit what is included in public testimony if the investigation is ongoing. Having someone publicly testify to a situation that you are going to ask someone else about later allows the latter person to coordinate their story to what they heard in the public testimony. It's like the old joke about the flat tire.

 

Unless you have an aide with tall tales of hearsay testify publicly in an emergency hearing that receives instant push back from the USSS agents who were actually present during the events in question

 

In that case her testimony is not to be questioned!

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

So, while we should want all of the testimony to be made public once the investigation is concluded, there are legitimate reasons why not every witness should testify publicly right away.

 

September right? 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

55 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

If you were running a serious investigation, you would not want their first testimony to be done publicly. You would want it behind closed doors. That way, you can fact check their statements and compare them to statements made by other witnesses to assess their credibility. Not doing this would allow a disingenuous witness to lie to the public and have that lie spread before it could be questioned or debunked by other testimony.

 

Additionally, you want to limit what is included in public testimony if the investigation is ongoing. Having someone publicly testify to a situation that you are going to ask someone else about later allows the latter person to coordinate their story to what they heard in the public testimony. It's like the old joke about the flat tire.

 

So, while we should want all of the testimony to be made public once the investigation is concluded, there are legitimate reasons why not every witness should testify publicly right away.

If one was running a serious investigation, there would be discipline with respect to what was said, who said it, and casual allegations would be discouraged pending the completion of the investigation.  
 

If one was running a serious investigation, one would not run trailers on breaking testimony purportedly showing causal connections between a subject and a coordinated assault on the Capitol that includes preposterous allegations quickly refuted by of all parties, the Secret Service.  
 

If one was running a serious investigation of this nature, with declarations of guilt preceding the conclusion of the investigation, one should have no concerns whatsoever about testimony being coordinated moving forward, any more than one would worry about the subject revealing questions posed and answers provided after a secret deposition. 
 

The reality is congress is widely viewed as less than truthful, less than reliable, less than honorable, and as you have suggested multiplied times, less than competent. 
 

By leaving criminal investigations of wrongdoing to the pros guided by specific sets of discipline, the 1/6 junior cop clan can afford to be transparent in a matter of this magnitude. 
 

I do agree the committee is desirous of protecting the narrative and completing such inquires in carefully choreographed settings of their choosing.  
 

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[BillsFanNC]

Oh.

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

Oh.

 

 

As Chi indicated, the committee members want to “…limit was is included in public testimony….”. 
 

I’m all for transparency and I’m completely behind the Free the Nipple campaign! 

[All_Pro_Bills]

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

If one was running a serious investigation, there would be discipline with respect to what was said, who said it, and casual allegations would be discouraged pending the completion of the investigation.  
 

If one was running a serious investigation, one would not run trailers on breaking testimony purportedly showing causal connections between a subject and a coordinated assault on the Capitol that includes preposterous allegations quickly refuted by of all parties, the Secret Service.  
 

If one was running a serious investigation of this nature, with declarations of guilt preceding the conclusion of the investigation, one should have no concerns whatsoever about testimony being coordinated moving forward, any more than one would worry about the subject revealing questions posed and answers provided after a secret deposition. 
 

The reality is congress is widely viewed as less than truthful, less than reliable, less than honorable, and as you have suggested multiplied times, less than competent. 
 

By leaving criminal investigations of wrongdoing to the pros guided by specific sets of discipline, the 1/6 junior cop clan can afford to be transparent in a matter of this magnitude. 
 

I do agree the committee is desirous of protecting the narrative and completing such inquires in carefully choreographed settings of their choosing.  
 

 

Everyone knows that all great investigations and discoveries in history have resulted from coming into the process with a theory along with preconceived conclusions that only considers and accepts evidence that supports and confirms the theory while rejecting and ignoring potential evidence that may invalidate the theory.  And then proclaim the theory is now proven fact.  The antithesis of the scientific method.  Or in layman terms a clown show in progress.  Like the statement from one of the great legal minds of the republic that "we never call in witnesses to collaborate other witnesses."  Then your investigation is a sham suck job and your conclusions are crap bucko and you should go back and watch a couple seasons of CSI to get some pointers on running an investigation.

Edited July 11, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Everyone knows that all great investigations and discoveries in history have resulted from coming into the process with a theory along with preconceived conclusions that only considers and accepts evidence that supports and confirms the theory while rejecting and ignoring potential evidence that may invalidate the theory.  And then proclaim the theory is now proven fact.  The antithesis of the scientific method.  Or in layman terms a clown show in progress.  Like the statement from one of the great legal minds of the republic that "we never call in witnesses to collaborate other witnesses."  Then your investigation is a sham suck job and your conclusions are crap bucko and you should go back and watch a couple seasons of CSI to get some pointers on running an investigation.

I may not have said this in a while, or maybe ever, but I enjoy reading your posts.  

 

Well done here. 

[BillsFanNC]

51 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Everyone knows that all great investigations and discoveries in history have resulted from coming into the process with a theory along with preconceived conclusions that only considers and accepts evidence that supports and confirms the theory while rejecting and ignoring potential evidence that may invalidate the theory.  And then proclaim the theory is now proven fact.  The antithesis of the scientific method.  Or in layman terms a clown show in progress.  Like the statement from one of the great legal minds of the republic that "we never call in witnesses to collaborate other witnesses."  Then your investigation is a sham suck job and your conclusions are crap bucko and you should go back and watch a couple seasons of CSI to get some pointers on running an investigation.

 

Bingo. And yet you have some of my colleagues in the scientific community cheerleading a process that goes against everything they strive to follow in their professional endeavors.

 

Partisanship is a powerful drug.

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Doc]

44 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

The irony is that it's ensuring that she's not elected again.