January 6th recommendations

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Really. Typically doesn’t mean can't. Bipartisan doesn't mean impartial to Trump. There were 2 Republicans on the panel who participated. Nothing token about them

it's unusual. and if you consider either Cheney or Kinsinger impartial to Trump then you aren't aware of their views.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

The_waco_kid "without proper minority representation, no rebuttal witnesses and even a television producer brought in to "produce" a tv hearing, this committee is perhaps the largest political hack job in US history..."

Was the above written by just FOX news ala Mark Levin? Haha ...fucking such bullshit



just one example is needed. the testimony of a second hand account that Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of his car. the secret service denied this happened and offered to testify. no offer was extended.



there are plenty of other examples. this was never about a fair bipartisan fact finding. it was about presenting a one sided "opinion" tailored by the Democrats.


When the assertion of charges and detail of information is being gathered, that is not the time for ANY defense. A defense happens once someone is charged, vs. referred for charges. This whole notion of the right not able to question the accusers or mount a defense shows just how stupidly ill-informed they are about the process of how courts work. It doesn't make a defense unavailable- but the GOP has yet again, pulled the wool over the eyes of the Republicans who don't understand how the court system works.



wasn't asking for a defense. just something other than the obviously engineered one-sided parade of mostly heresay second hand accounts.


Relative to TV production...tell me all about it while there are people like Kari Lake was awashed in flattering portrait scape and warm lighting. Her producer hubby was responsible for that....and yep, she still lost.


that's a campaign. not a congressional committee. false equivalence.


While this won't ever end up with a court-case, it's good to show the cowardice of Trump and his supporters who would cheat to steal an election at any cost

then what other than political grandstanding did this serve? scratch rebuttal. replace with others who were actually there to present testimony. "IF" this had been a court of Law both Cheney and Kinsinger would have been stricken from a jury pool due to known prejudicial comments. as so-called bipartisan representation their known bias makes them no more than tokens of the Democrats and their agenda.

[HDGristle]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...dam-kinzinger/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...re/liz-cheney/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...lise-stefanik/

Thry both voted more consistently on items Trump supported than Stefanik. She's a RINO, too... eh?

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

it's unusual. and if you consider either Cheney or Kinsinger impartial to Trump then you aren't aware of their views.

Read it again. I didn't say they were impartial to Trump.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Read it again. I didn't say they were impartial to Trump.

they are openly hostile about Trump. meaning they weren't bipartisan representation nor interested in anything other than a one-sided show.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Thry both voted more consistently on items Trump supported than Stefanik. She's a RINO, too... eh?

Ancient history - she went full RINO mode midway through 2020. And I guess you missed how the voters rejected her RINO ass by an embarrassingly huge margin

[IMGTH58]

RINO being strictly defined as not being a Trump puppet.

[1pittsburgh]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Neither one is a RINO. Utter horseshit.

Any politician who hasn't joined Trump's cult of ignorance is now considered a RINO by these folks.

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

they are openly hostile about Trump. meaning they weren't bipartisan representation nor interested in anything other than a one-sided show.

They were there as Republicans. McCarthy could have had 3 more. His choice. His failure.

Bipartisanship has nothing to do with Trump loyalism or animosity.

Country before party. Country before loyalty to one man.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

They were there as Republicans. McCarthy could have had 3 more. His choice. His failure.

Bipartisanship has nothing to do with Trump loyalism or animosity.

Country before party. Country before loyalty to one man.

i don't disagree McCarthy might have made a tactical mistake. i also disagree that just because Cheney and Kinzinger are elected Republicans it means they qualify as bipartisan given they were hand picked by Adam Schiff. that's like asking the Devil to pick some angels.



McCarthy's tactic at the time was to give it no credence given the Democrats wanted to "hand pick" who the Republicans were on the committee. he wasn't entirely wrong. but if Schiff was going to continue to strike every person McCarthy wanted boiling it down to Cheney and Kinziner as "fill-ins" given their known bias it has no credence in the end.



and it wouldn't surprise me that certainly Cheney and probably Kinzinger both "flipped" on Trump only due to what they thought was political expedience making them "political waffles".

[String Nutts]

The Jan 6th committee uncovered a lot of things that everyone should not condone or at least question. For instance, Congressman and Trump's family members for pleading with Trump to publicly call things off. But Trump delayed three hours. If that can be proven in a court of law, that would be aiding the people performing the illegal acts. Trump, if he knows about the charge, has had time to give his side, but he hasn't. He has not coherently made a case for anything.



Now it's up to the Justice Dept to either file charges or not. If they do, whoever is charged will get their day in court. I can guarantee that all this not fair retort won't mean anything. What will mean something is the evidence presented. That is what I'd like to talk about. I know it won't happen.

[HDGristle]

Disagree as you feel fit, TWK. Bipartisanship on that committee had nothing to do with pro-Trump or anti-Trump. It had to do with majority party and minority party. Both were represented and bipartisan consensus was found.

Unfortunately, what you're complaining about went out the window when McCarthy picked up his ball and went home instead of fielding a team.

And it was ultimately Pelosi that vetoed Banks and Jordan. Schiff wasn't Speaker

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by String Nutts

The Jan 6th committee uncovered a lot of things that everyone should not condone or at least question. For instance, Congressman and Trump's family members for pleading with Trump to publicly call things off. But Trump delayed three hours. If that can be proven in a court of law, that would be aiding the people performing the illegal acts. Trump, if he knows about the charge, has had time to give his side, but he hasn't. He has not coherently made a case for anything.

not even close. and the so-called charge is prior to riot, inciting insurrection. nothing in Trump's speech can even remotely be called "inciting insurrection".

Now it's up to the Justice Dept to either file charges or not. If they do, whoever is charged will get their day in court. I can guarantee that all this not fair retort won't mean anything. What will mean something is the evidence presented. That is what I'd like to talk about. I know it won't happen.

when Trump did speak and urge the rioters to leave twitter immediately took the tweet down.



again, refer to Brandenburg V Ohio now known as "The Brandenburg Test" for a reason and compare what Clarence Brandenburg said, where he actually did call for unlawful acts against the Government and compare to Trump's speech on Jan 6th. nothing in Trump's speech can be construed as calling for a violent overthrow of a starbucks let alone the Government.



based on Trump's speech no one not even the most ardent sufferer of TDS can make a case for inciting an insurrection. not even Adam Schiff.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Disagree as you feel fit, TWK. Bipartisanship on that committee had nothing to do with pro-Trump or anti-Trump. It had to do with majority party and minority party. Both were represented and bipartisan consensus was found.

Unfortunately, what you're complaining about went out the window when McCarthy picked up his ball and went home instead of fielding a team.

And it was ultimately Pelosi that vetoed Banks and Jordan. Schiff wasn't Speaker

and since Pelosi is as biased as Schiff what's the point? same result. speaking of Schiff, still waiting for that evidence he's seen with his own two bugeyes of "Russian Collusion".

[String Nutts]

If anyone is interested:


https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...-committee.pdf

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

and since Pelosi is as biased as Schiff what's the point? same result. speaking of Schiff, still waiting for that evidence he's seen with his own two bugeyes of "Russian Collusion".

Accuracy matters. You're ascribing power and action to someone that didn't have it.