Republicans lied about the need for a Jan. 6 commission

That's irrelevant and not pertinent. You're implying that the committee is going to bias the reportage

I reject that insinuation.

THe simple fact is that McCarthy had ample opportunity to put forth a ingenious effort, but he chose to play games. he chose to be disingenuous.

What is the game he played?

He knew Pelosi would reject Jordan and Banks, so he could use that as a ruse to pull the remaining three, and say 'I tried'.

No, he didn't try, he is playing games, not putting forth a sincere effort, and the reason is he doesn't want to join the committee and he doesn't want any republican, either. Evidence for that fact is that he pulled the three that Pelosi accepted.

It would be a betrayal to our constituents to allow the minority leader to play politics with Congress for political gain. He's already done enough damage.

 

Oooh! One of my favourite websites! Great one to throw at climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers however it only works if you cannot work out that they are talking about water. So the problem is less with the presentation and more about the perception of the viewer

 

Baloney. You saw what wasn't there.

 

Lol, the Oath Keeper 'case' is so incredibly weak even the defendant's lawyer didn't expect it to be filed, and it came after the AG's laughable public speech(attorney generals are not supposed to comment on litigating cases.). That speech, among the litany of speeches to 'commemorate' the riot(once again, reiterating what it actually is, not what democrats want it to be.) made it potently political and like I said, a kangaroo court.

But I'm glad that they brought it before an actual court, because even a judge Jackson will have to look at the law as it actually is applied. The last time the prosecution tried(and laughably failed) at a sedition charge, it fell under the Brandenburg test. The government here has to prove that unlawful action was both imminent and that there was a threat of such.

Now, you'd think that the prosecution would have a slam dunk case given the cell phone texts, but the state of mind of the defendant will come into play here. The defendant could argue that his words were meant to rally those in his employ, and not to be taken in a literal sense. And that would be a logical application, and that would bring Brandenburg into play.

Not only that, but the prosecution has to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that there existed such a said weapons stash and that the system of routing those weapons from outside to inside of the capital actually existed. If the prosecution cannot prove this, their entire case goes up in flames. All they have at that point is a screaming old man yelling at the clouds.

TLDR: Yeah, I'd hold onto your seat belt about that sedition case, if the government were more confident in it they would've brought it first.

 

Nope, the Reichstag was set on fire.

 

Same would be true of half the government and almost all politicians

 

If we can investigate an incursion into our embassy in Benghazi, half a world away, we can investigate a riot in the Capital building.

The only difference between that and this is who's saying we should investigate and who doesn't want it to happen. All political, all bullshit stupid.

 

You can reject it all that you want. But plain fact of the matter is that what @GrayMan said is accurate.

You claim that McCarthy knew that Pelosi would reject Jordan and Banks. But on what grounds do you base this on? NEVER in our entire history has the Senate Majority Leader rejected the Minority Leaders recommendations to sit someone on a committee. Pelosi pulled a first with her rejection. As such you have no grounds to claim that McCarthy knew Pelosi would reject them. Because there is no basis for such a move.

 

One does not excuse the other.

 

Here we agree on one thing, the (in)justice system in the US is a completely dysfunctional pile of crap ... oh wait that's not what you're on about is it? Sorry I mistook your defense of insurrectionists for a critique of our phony (in)justice system. My bad.

 

I can't defend something that never happened. I can only comment on the facts pertaining to this farce.

 

Do you accept the fact that it was the intent of the rioters to stop Biden's certification as the duly elected prez?

 

Correct, so you you're defending something that did happen. Is it that confusing?

 

Exactly.... another example is when the chairman Thompson of the scam committee literally makes in a public statement if Alex Jones was to take the fifth... which is AJ's right ... he literally say AJ has something to hide.. what kind of BS is that? As we continue on with a "public opinion" trial instead of a real trial.

 

Do you ever get tired of being wrong... Pelosi hand picked Cheney and Kinzinger because they voted for impeachment on impeachment #2..... The impeachment #2 is an exact replay as what this committee is looking into, with the same players for the same reason and they ALL ( Rinos included) voted to impeach..

I am sure the secret conversations between Cheney and Pelosi would reveal some very interesting stuff... but Congress has long been exempt from any investigations... they literally wrote laws to protect themselves from the laws they make for you and me....

And I know fake CNN or MSDNC will never cover this.... but do you know the ONLY two Rinos that voted YES to starting up the sham committee... Kinzinger and Cheney.... what a coincident...

2nd impeachment 2021
ARTICLE I: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION
house roll call
Roll Call 17 | Bill Number: H. Res. 24
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202117
The Jan. 6 committee members votes on that impeachment
Democrats
Bennie Thompson-yea
Zoe Lofgren-yea
Adam Schiff-yea
Jamie Raskin-yea
Pete Aguilar-yea
Stephanie Murphy-yea
Elaine Luria-yea
Rinos
Liz Cheney-yea
Adam Kinzinger-yea

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Those exact same people vote to establish the January 6 committee... The only two Rino's to vote yes...Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger.. What are the odds of that?

Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Roll Call 197 Roll Call 197, Bill Number: H. Res. 503 ...
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021197

Democrats
Bennie Thompson-yea
Zoe Lofgren-yea
Adam Schiff-yea
Jamie Raskin-yea
Pete Aguilar-yea
Stephanie Murphy-yea
Elaine Luria-yea
Rinos
Liz Cheney-yea
Adam Kinzinger-yea

 

It wasn't why they were there. They were hoping Pence would in a non-violent way. Their purpose there was to protest the certification.

 

Don't partially take my post, I stand by my statement in full. The prosecution cannot prove an insurrection, there was factually no insurrection despite the Democratic Party and zealots among them hoping and praying to make it one.

 

Whether the prosecution can "prove" via legalese whether these particular accused committed "insurrection" or not is irrelevant to me. 1/6 was an attempted coup by a bunch of Trump sheep no matter what the dysfunctional and phony (in)justice system determines. That's not rocket science it's like saying the sky is blue on a clear day. It also has nothing to do with Democrats, zealots or anything else you want to invent to deny the fact of what happened on 1/6.

 

Why is the legislative branch starting investigation into crimes? The is the job of the executive branch...

 

What I'd add to that is (I know you know this but The Following ignores it) the coup was much more than the Capital riot. What happened on 1/6 was a mere fraction of the plan that had been put in motion. The riot was a last resort after the failure of courts cases, pressure on elections officials, and the submission of fake elector slates.

 

The attempted coup was a violent attack targeting Congress. That's not debatable because it was captured on video. The one directly responsible for fomenting the attempted coup was in fact the Chief Executive (i.e. the head of the Executive branch). That was also captured on video so that's not debatable either. So in your opinion you believe it's the job of the Executive branch to investigate itself?

 

Then answer the question please... if you don't know then please don't post gibberish.
Why is the legislative branch starting investigations into crimes? That is the job of the executive branch... Congress can investigate legislative issues and only write a "report" if they uncover a crime during that investigation... they don't have the authority to start an investigation looking for a crime..

Please don't try to think for me... The job of the executive branch is to investigate crime. Spin it anyway you want to try my liberal friend...

 

This is like Russia Collusion all over again. In spite of facts to the contrary, no matter how many of them exist they'll still cling to the "insurrection" fantasy. Well, if we all know our own "truths", I know there wasn't an insurrection and there won't be a charge. If a charge, it will lack sufficient evidence and won't win in court. Similar to the super politicized "murder" charges in court that got watered down for the most part(Zimmerman, etc.) for the same goal.

 

Yes...another example is Rosenstein started the criminal Mueller "probe" from a counterintelligence investigation (not a criminal investigation)... and specifically said """My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted"" ...So he started an investigation set out to dig up a crime, any crime they could come up with or invent... And no one ever raised questions....

 

That's a bizarre statement objective reality never sticks with anybody it just is.

I think what you really trying to say here is that your fantasy doesn't line up with the objective reality which is fine but just don't expect me to accept that.