Jan 6 Sham Hearings a Ratings BUST for Big Networks

OR! They could just be getting to the bottom of the cause of the insurrection and attack on OUR Capitol? I disagree that there are sides. You've told everyone your opinion, you don't have to tell me ... again. Anyway that there are no OBVIOUS trumpublicans on the Committee is Kevin McCarthy's fault, tRaitor tRump said so himself just the other day.

Trump blames Kevin McCarthy for his Jan 6 hearing disaster
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-blames-kevin-mccarthy-jan-133305122.html

 

I doubt that the jan 6 riot is even the issue. The issue is punishing Trump for being an unpleasant person and insuring that he can't run in 2024. To me the more curious question is why they don't see Trump as the easiest candidate to beat in a presidential election. It makes no political sense.

 

Rep. Jim Jordan was a potential WITNESS, in the investigation, so could therefore, obviously, not be leading the investigation. You know this as well as any of us. But if you have ever seen Jordan's schtick, when he is trying to thwart the very purpose of a hearing, in which he is involved, you have no credibility in calling yourself non-partisan, while decrying Jordan's not being allowed on this Committee. Both he and Rep. Jim Banks, another of McCarthy's picks, had signed onto a Texas lawsuit which had tried, "to invalidate the ballots of millions of voters, in four battleground states."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...ans-chosen-for-january-6-committee/index.html


FYI, FMW, this is not a Committee, investigating whether or not the election was "stolen." It is investigating the event at the Capitol, on January 6th, perpetrated by people who believed in, non existent, election fraud. That this occurred, is not a disputed fact. Choosing members who, themselves, bought into the rioters' rationale, would clearly only hinder the work of the Committee. These hearings are not meant as a trial: their purpose is to lay out the facts, of what happened, as well as the causes which led to it. One would need be clueless, to believe that these would have also been the goals of close Trump allies, who were involved with Trump's effort, to maintain power, after losing the election.



As it turns out, the Committee did wish to speak to him, about his involvement, and he has refused. Yet you think he should be one of the investigators?

Also, despite all Jordan's comments about only having spoken to President Trump after the Capitol attack, or that he did not recall any earlier conversations, that day, evidence has surfaced both that Jordan had been involved, on January 5th, in forwarding to Mark Meadows, the legal theory that Vice President Pence could refuse to certify the election, AND had a substantial conversation with Trump in the morning, of the 6th (which you think could have, believably, just slipped his mind?).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/02/04/politics/jim-jordan-trump-january-6/index.html

[Title Snip]
Exclusive: Newly obtained records show Trump and Jim Jordan spoke at length on morning of January 6
[End]


Be careful, the path you are following, is making you sound a bit like these people:

 

Well, you've answered your own question; IT'S NOT POLITICAL. tRaitor tRump attacked the government he swore to uphold by using the full power of the President of The United States to stay in office AFTER he lost the election.<-period That's been clearly proven, by testimony from Republicans, in the Committee hearings so far.

 

Because your reason is a partisan load of ****. McCarthy could've picked anyone but Jim Jordan or Jim Banks. He did so from a political calculation: If Pelosi rightfully rejected those simpletons because they're witnesses who took part in the series of communications with Bonespurs and others and were selected to throw monkey wrenches into the functioning of the commission, McCarthy would sob, weep and cry like you're doing right now, and if she didn't rightfully reject them out of hand, they would deliberately **** the commission's mission all up.

It's not that complicated, bud.

 

There he is--Mr. Non-partisan not figuring out the obvious.

 

I see. Did you intend to provide an opposing position with a reason or do you just fall into insult when you can't?

 

Why couldn't he choose Jordan and Banks? Is there a house rule about that? You are the one with partisanship. It is you who defends a one sided panel. There must be a mirror somewhere near you where you can see the partisanship.

 

Bank's and Jordon's prior "performances" were indicators that they would have been extreemly disruptive on the Committee. McCarthy had 205 other republicans he could have picked to fill those two slots.

 

This will be my last post to you on this subject. I understand that you defend the panel and the reasons for it. You do not understand why I ignore it and why, despite my attempts to explain it. So let's move on to something else.

 

He wasn't called as a witness and never would have been. I think you know that too. You made up a reason or repeated one that someone else invented.

 

This is the equivalent of water gate and you're sitting it out.

 

No, I'm sitting you out.

 

Oh God. No level of explanation will "take" in the unfertile soil of your mind. Look up H. Res. 503.

Those 2 knotheads belong on that commission as much as Cain belongs on the "Who killed Abel" commission. Pull your noggin out, ferfucksake.

 

You're not watching the most important Congressional Hearings this Century, just so you can persist in supporting tRaitor tRump.

 

"Umm, bbbbbut why not let McCarthy appoint people who conspired in what's actually being investigated!?"

 

As the post which you are answering had noted, the January 6th Committee did request Rep. Jordan to appear for them, as they did have legitimate questions for him. To recap, for anyone just joining us, though Jordan initially had told another Committee, that he had only spoken to Trump after the events of the 6th had transpired, it was later learned that he had spoken, "at length," with President Trump, on the morning of the sixth. To put this into context, just the night before, there is evidence that Jordan forwarded to Mark Meadows, the legal argument that Vice President Mike Pence could refuse, the following day, to certify the electors. Add to that, Jordan was part of a lawsuit, that was quickly thrown out on its ear, which had aimed to disqualify millions of votes, in four battleground states; so Jordan was pretty clearly working with Trump, in depicting the election as fraudulent, to keep Trump in power. And so, his lengthy conversation with Trump, on that morning, certainly seems to be, potentially, a point of interest (not to mention, an unbelievable thing for Jordan to not recall).

Therefore, your reply to me, seems devoid of any truth, except perhaps from a meaningless, semantic perspective. The Committee DID WANT TO SPEAK TO HIM. Jordan wasn't "called," as a witness, though he was subpoenaed, but refused to comply. So your claim that you think I know that Jordan would never have been a witness, is either an example of your utter ineptitude, in gaging what I "know," or else a completely disingenuous wording of your statement, to mean that you think I know that Jordan would never agree to testify, and that the lengthy court battle to get him to comply, would likely never take place. If this was your meaning, it would not, in the least, diminish the reason why his being a material witness in the event being investigated, would disqualify him, for being one of the investigators. If, however, you really are so hopeless as to be incapable of understanding such a basic
concept, tell me so, and I will try to explain it, at some level, simple enough for you to grasp.

[Snip]

“We are interested in hearing from anyone with information on January 6th,” she said.

Committee member Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, said he couldn’t comment on if or when Jordan would come up in the hearings, and it “remains to be seen” how the committee will try to secure testimony from Jordan and other Republican Congress members who have refused to testify despite being subpoenaed.

[End]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland.com/open/2022/06/ohios-jim-jordan-defied-the-jan-6-committees-subpoenas-but-will-his-name-ever-surface-in-its-hearings.html?outputType=amp


Hence, your added contention, that I had "made up," the reason I had given, or else had just, "repeated what someone else had invented," is not only obviously false, but was proven so, in my post, to which this was your reply. It is difficult for me, therefore, to see this as just honest ignorance, on your part, and not a deliberate attempt to hide the facts, while impugning my character, ethics, honesty, integrity, and/or intelligence and credulity, in the process.

This, I do not appreciate.

 

I wouldn't use that argument too much though, although he's right for once. Trump is feeling the heat and, as usual, he will blame anybody but himself for anything and everything. However, we know that he might very well change his mind and praise McCarthy tomorrow if he feels that's better for himself.

 

I'm not too convinced about that one. OK for the supply/demand factor, but the WTI index seems to be following the same fluctuations as the Brent, which has little to do with US economic policy. I believe the oil industry worldwide, but mostly in the US, is keeping prices high in order to fill their pockets. I expect them to show big profits for this period.

 

The U.S. doesn't have to deal with indices and what other countries do about oil. We were oil independent not long ago and we could have avoided all of that as long as we didn't export oil. Now that investment in additional production has stopped we are stuck with the world market.

There is no doubt that the oil companies are milking the market. I think they have to. With the most powerful government in the world as an enemy working to achieve their demise, they will need the money to reinvent themselves. Perhaps they can get involved in the nuclear energy business. I certainly wouldn't expect them to be cooperative with the federal government.

 

There was a big drop in oil production capacity in 2020, due to the closure of refineries that were no longer profitable with the depressed oil prices in the economic slowdown during the pandemic i.e. before Biden took office.

 

So if this is about getting to the actual facts, how come this committee has not and NEVER WILL introduce evidence showing trump stated 10,000 national guard would be needed and telling them to do whatever they needed to do?

 

He also "stated" he wanted the Guard to be held in reserve to protect his people.

 

Source that

 

He's referencing to the Green Bay Plan in which it was outlined for the national guard to protect protestors. The committee launched onto this as a false red herring, comparing protestors to those entering the capitol on the 6th. The issue with this of course is that the committee has still failed to provide any joint connection(the DOJ has also failed to do much the same) and I don't think I need to elaborate the issue with putting all protestors in a blanket.

TLDR: It, like everything else in this farce is much to do about nothing.