And this is the thing isn’t it? They’ve always refused to engage with what happened. It’s too awful for them to acknowledge the truth about and they need the mob behind it.
As a general rule you don't bring the following to a peaceful protest: Bear mace Cable ties Stun guns Guns Tactical vests Stun grenades Smoke grenades Detailed maps Oh and gallows. Definitely gallows shouldn't be brought to a peaceful protest.
Corbyn has never polled well with hillbillies tbf. If they think Biden is a communist Antichrist, *** knows what they’d make of Comrade Corbachev.
As opposed to Trump standing up and still saying the big lie to his worshippers not being a desperate attempt to head of impending trials.
Trouble is Republicans don't want it investigating in such a high profile way because it puts them up against Trump and/or a number of them are implicated too. So the choice is essentially don't investigate it at all or accept Republicans frustrating the process until it times out. I don't think it'll change anything either way. Like everything else over there it's so hyper partisan that everyone's already in the trenches and won't budge.
The Republicans refused to take part. You'll note that Liz Cheney, Republican, is Vice-Chair and has been made into a Republican pariah and labeled a RINO because of it. The Republicans were asked to take part. They refused, because their party is now all about Trump and saving their own skins by kissing his orange behind, not the country.
I don't think that's accurate if they have evidence. You can be as partisan as you like but that won't stop a court case. One Republican state level gubernatorial candidate was arrested and charged only last week, albeit with misdemeanors. I suspect here will be more. Thus far the DOJ has a close to perfect strike rate on Jan 6th prosecutions, whether the case involved a Democrat or Republican appointed judge.
Liz Cheney has made her views on Trump well known. I don't think she can be relied upon to bring balance to the enquiry.
By change I mean opinions really. Sure, tangible legal action and consequences can come about as a result. But those who believe Jan 6 was a nothingburger will just see prosecutions as persecutions.
And she's the only one willing to do it. Whose fault is that? These are the people who investigated Hillary Clinton EIGHT times over Benghazi, but they don't want to take part in even a single hearing regarding an attempted coup. What's your alternative? Don't investigate it because the Republicans place getting re-elected above shining a light on something that quite clearly merits investigation?
Agreed, you can't change the perspectives of the ideologues. But then the ideologues usually don't decide election outcomes. They can lose it for you, but they generally can't win it.
Of course it should be investigated. But I think the committee's findings would carry more weight if it wasn't made up entirely of people who share the same opinion. Of course Trump behaved like a top-ar5ehole after the election but surely there are other factors behind the riot?
Agreed. It's not ideal, but what can you do when the Republicans refuse to lift a finger? Likely so. That's the point of looking into it, of course.
What other factors? He invited them there to ‘stop the steal’. If he had not, the rioters would not have been there.
White privilege sadly tapped into by Trump and flamed up by the GOP. Now using Christianity to push their supporter pleasing agenda.
He told them to go peacefully and to use their voices to protest, and the first breaches were made before he even finished his speach. On the other hand, Pelosi and Co's rhetoric, on rising up against those in government, was far more explict and resulted in around 700 riots across America, the burning down and looting of black businesses, the destruction (complete in many cases) of government buildings resulting in more than just a couple of hours delay (like on Jan 6), dozens of deaths including young children and two public execution styled murders. But Dems and their supporters couldn't give a **** about that because it is politically inconvenient. Has Ashleigh Babit even been mentioned yet? Someone showed an unedited clip of an assualt on the female officer who testified. It showed the mysterious Ray Epps, handily cut from what was shown, in the middle of the fray, but the most interesting part of it was where the Trump protester, whom it was implied had assaulted her, actually goes over to her to make sure she is alright amd then walks her over to her fellow police officers. But you enjoy the fantasy of it all. You enjoy being led by the nose. There are serious points that can be made, but yhey are lost in the holywood BS the Dems are using to tell their story. Oh, and in todays "testimony" there was about five minutes of actual answers to questions, the rest being video telling people what they already know. That a lot of people disagree with Donald Trump.
?? Absolute rubbish. This explains it more fully, including the fact that when the house voted for the commission, with Rebulicans in opposition to holding it, the party still complied with the resolution, but Pelosi refused to allow the 5 Rebublican picks, and so they chose to boycot the commission, as you might imagine, and as Pelosi was fully aware they would do. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2022/the-legitimacy-of-the-jan-6-committee-explained/ The court's attitude appears to be that the house can do as it wishes without interference from the courts. But that does not mean that any legal issues arising from the commissions work, such as the sbupoenas that are currently being challenged by a number of Trump's supporters, will be considered to have any lawful weight, given that although the house can act as it wishes within its four walls, it may not ignore the written laws it has set for itself, and the law that underpins the committee states clearly that thriteen members are requred in the due process of its work. It's like if we had a fixture where both teams turned up but not officials, and they decided to play a game with a couple of blokes out of the crowd running the wings and a ref from Sunday League, just to entertain the punters who had turned up. The game would be real, but it wouldn't count towards the league, and if we tried to say we got three points, no one would listen to us. The Dems don't give a damn anyway. This is just "Impeachment III: The sequel's sequal", or I suppose it could actually be considered to be a reboot of the series, particularly given the Holywood production and promotion values. They are only concerned with the impact it will have on easily led members of the public, and Republicans not being involved is a deliberate and much intended factor. I don't know if any of you have seen Jim Jacobs, one of the Republican picks, but he would have shredded every one of the people who have given evidence so far, and he would have pulled a myriad of points of order on the down right lies that have been spoken and 'truths' that have been spouted. That is why the Dems didn't want him asking questions. That is why Pelosi refused have him on the Committee. This idea that Jacobs is too close to Trump is ludicrous. Just Cheney, Kensinger and Schiff (Schiff for gods sake, who perpetuated the Russia hoax for six years only for it to be trashed and trashed and trashed) are the most anti Trump people you could find that were eligible for the Committee. If she was being proper not allowing Jacobs, then she should also have at least not allowed these three. This thing is a joke. And that is a shame. Because people died on the day (on of whom was shot by the police, and another of whom can be seen getting attaked by police when she was lying on the ground, it is said), and they haven't even been mentioned yet. But a policeman who doctors confirmed died of natural causes a day after the event, and whose death was not investigated as a murder, has been mentioned over and again. It is a shame, because some very good lessons could be learned from this hearing, such as why the Capitol security was understaffed (officially because of COVID) on a day when Democrats (who were in charge of security at the Capitol via the DC Mayor and the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi) are testifying that they were fully aware that insurrection was afoot, and why they refused support from the National Guard that would have stopped those 'Insurrection' in their tracks. People have testified to the undermanning of the police on the day. But not one member of the commission has sought to find out what the reasons were. Jim Jacobs would have. You know it. So does Nancy Pelosi. But then, she's always refused to engage with anyone who disagrees with her. That sort of thing is more common that you might think.
This is very naive. It is the Conservative base itself that is using christianity to remind the GOP of the roots that underpins their politics. It was that Republican link to Christianity that defeated Democrat supported slavery in the South, and which was the driving force behind the removal of Democrat supported Jim Crow laws in the South, just remembering that it was Democrat law makers who attempted to filibuster Civil Rights bills in the 1960s. And it was Joe Biden who voted against bussing in the 1970s, causing Kamala Harris, who (according to her) was direcly affected by the laws he sought to maintain alongside white supremacist law makers, to label him a racist, before he made her VP. She later explained that she was just debating, demonstrating the sick mindset of some politicians. Racism and sexism are just debating subjects and the issues raised are simply a means to an end... How disgusting. That off my chest... I cringe when I hear Christianity invoked as the reason for common sense ideas, but then I also cringe when good people talk about gun ownership and usage in a manner that is completely anethema to me. But we are talking about America, and religion is important to them. The right have Christianity, the left have communism. Though I don't fancy either, I would tend to lean towards the one that does not require the removal of political opponents in order to operate. Oh, and the white supremacist thing I have ignored for the BS it is. Black supremacy is far more rampant in the US, and noone complains when white racism appears in the mainstream. When people start gettin serious about that type of racism, I'll start believing they are geinuinely against that odious doctrine. But whilst they are so casually dismissive about anti white, anti Asian and anti Semetic rhetoric, I will just assume that they are the same typical casual racists we have always had to suffer. It's horrible, but we can get through this...
Yep. The committee, in apparent dissarray, has postponed the next two hearings, and no one on the committee seems to know what is going on, with statements being made and then retracted. The general idea seems to be that a year and a half was not long enough to prepare, so things have been pushed back. The Chairman, Ben Thompson, has stated that the committee has no authority to refer criminal charges against Trump (presumably for the reasons I explained yesterday), but deputy chair Cheney has contradicted him, saying they have not voted on whether or not they will charge the Don, with Thompson then responding that no vote may take place as thry do not have authority. Such an attempt to contradict and override the black American Thompson would usually be cause for claims of racism, particularly coming from a republican, but the politics here is much more important than the usual smears, with Cheney acting more like a Democrat than Thompson. It is only surprising that the pathetic anti Trump alliance has not started referring to Thompson with racial slurs such as Uncle Tom and c**n, which is what they do with all other black Americsns that disagree with them. What a bunch of calamitous ****s they are, their hatred of Trump blinding them to both the truth and reality. Meanwhile they are running out of time, and if they loose congress to the GOP in November, they will find themselves being the subject of investigation, possibly using the same precedents that the Dems have been setting over the last few years. Dems are panicking, and all they can say is that Republicans are racist, and that civil war may follow if the GOP win. Is that a threat of violence, simply because they may loose Congress? As I say. What a bunch of ****s. Hands up if you backed them...
?? That would be a desperate leap of logic, even for the committee. All I did was point to the usual parallel, such as the current attacks by Democrats on the first black member of the supreme court, because he is a Republican nominated by a Republican. The racists here are Democrats and people on the left, who virtue signal about their support for minorities right up to the point where a 'minority' person disagrees with them. Then it is open season on some pretty unpleasant racist slurs, and accusations of being a race traitor, just because a person's skin is not white but they disagree the left. Remember, it was Biden who told American's they were not black if they didn't vote for him. Disgusting. It is the most common form of racism a person is likely to be exposed to in the US today. And what was the reaction to that racism being raised on this forum? The usual. A desperate attempt to make out its me that is being racist. Typical of the left. Bereft of argument or any moral grounding. So make a slur and wait for your boys to back you up.
More dodgy conspiracy theories being given creedence by the Democrats and their DOJ allies failing to act in an area that would seem, from the Commission's heavy emphasis on the specific events, to have been pivotal to proving Trump's involvement. They have repeatedly shown video of 'insurrectionists' calling for Mike Pence (Trump's VP) to be hung, and even erected a gallows outside upon which the Democrats wish you to believe they were going to do the deed. However, not one person of the 800 arrested have been charged with this disgusting and unacceptable act, directly threatening the life of a Government official and being caught red handed with the means by which they intended to do it, despite the videos provided by the Democrats for the Commission. A hefty oversight one might think, but then, you would have to consider that so many of those who appeared on the day to be the agents behind the worst activities, have been protected from prosecution, for some reason. People such as Ray Epps, who is the only person on the day, and the day before, who is on video imploring people to go into the Capitol, and who had to be cut out of the commission's video evidence because he would have been immediately recognised. And for a guy who was so sure that 'we should go into the Capitol,' and who was clearly seen actively encouraging and communicating with people who broke down barriers to let the crowds in (but didn't himself go into the Capitol himself) with Democrat members insisting he was just an innocent man (as opposed to the grammas and non violent protestors ushered in by Capitol Police who they say are domestic terrorists), he sure is one very lucky MAGA maniac. So, with no culprits for the 'hang Mike Pence' comments, or for the erection of a gallows with which to do it, it is very fair to ask questions about the veracity of the video, and who it is in the video, who are involved in the most heinous part of the insurrection (threats to the VPs life). That the FBI appears to have no wish to arrest these people and the DOJ have no wish to prosecute them, it remains a very legitimate concern, due to the clear and unaplologised partisan nature of the Government's activities, that the people involved were acting in collusion with someone, or some Government body, that may be identified if prosecutions were to take place. At the very least, if the FBI cannot identify those involved, then no claim can be made as to their motivations. Were they Democrats wishing to put pressure on Pence not to co-operate with Trump, were they Feds (informers or allies) provacating the 'insurrection' in the same manner they did with the Widmer kidnapping (a third of the conspiritors were FBI or involved with the FBI), or are they MAGA loons, who one would have expected to be arrested and held, like the others, but for some reason were thought to be as innocent as Ray Epps. There are a number of people who rightfully should be prosecuted for what they did on Jan 6, there are many more who did sod all but are being treated as terrorists, but worst of all, there are people who were essential to the worst of the crowd's actions, according to the commission's evidence, that are going scot free, for some reason or other. This thing stinks. Yeah, the argument sounds like a conspiracy theory. But the behaviour of the Dems does nothing to suggest there is no conspiracy.
Hmm. Very convincing from Jamie Raskin. Perhaps he and Nancy and Liz Cheney should head down to Mar-A-Largo with a gallows and hang Trump without further ado... Reporter: Do you have the evidence? Raskin: We are the honest one's here. We do not lie. Reporter: So you have the evidence then? Raskin: We'll show you it in good time. Meanwhile, if anyone knows anything, please, please contact the DOJ directly*. * Each of the hearings have ended with this plea, along with an explanation that you don't need to tell the truth because this is a threat to US credibility.. Then there is Schiff. Promising evidence in the same manner he promised proof of the Russia conspiracy, which turned out to be a whole heap of provable Democrat BS.
Trump's team have got their fall guy lined up: https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...rump-committee-investigation-pardons-1371419/
Yes. Those sources they mention are very very convincing. "People familiar with the situation" is usually accepted as code for "one of our reporters just made something up."
Objection. What is wrong with detailed maps? To put lump cartographers and map-lovers into the same group as the gun tottering, grenade carrying, vest wearing, rent-a-mob vigilantes seems a little unbalanced to me personally.
https://twitter.com/scottwongDC/status/1538877689104408576 Possibly relevant to your interests. Even Trump has noticed the tactical blunder now, and given how dense he is that says a lot about how much of a fumble it was. Meanwhile, Kinzinger is getting death threats from some Republican voters simply for being on the panel. https://abc7chicago.com/adam-kinzinger-wife-george-stephanopoulos-congressman/11977786/
He also cited a burglary at his daughter in law's house as a MAGA attack on his stance. Alas, Kinzinger will say and do anything for his political ends. Republican's, Supreme Court Judges, and just about everyone else in politics receive death threats and have done for centuries. Only Democrats and their allies seem to want to make something of it hough. A person was arrested for plotting to assassinate a Supreme Court Judge a week or so ago, they were armed with guns and were in the vicinity of the Judges house. Have you even heard about that? Do you know what the Democrat reaction to it was?
No doubt there'll be plenty of death threats to Republicans who voted for the abortion law. Let's face it the US is heading for civil war. Get yourself back to Blighty ASAP!
It does look increasingly likely, albeit still remote. I don't see how the two sides can reconcile at this point, reality has ceased to matter.
One good thing, coming from the Jan 6 commission; the Democrat officials, even Pelosi, are having to reign in their language on 'fighting' for their causes, or getting in people's faces, or people will do what they will do, given that Trump's rhetoric, which they described as insurrection inducing, was typical political talk (he even said 'go peacefully', and 'protest with your voices'). So, if nothing else, they have ensured a less antagonistic environment. Biden did very well, saying there is no place for violence (bit late for the BLM Summer riots, but still appreciated), and even Pelosi reigned it back to 'mobilising your protests'. Both of them, however, spoke in a manner tantamount to insurrection, by descibing the Supreme Court in a manner that could be translated as illigitimate. Funny how its OK to be partisan and 'illigitimate' in Congress, but no other branch of Government could even contemplate anything similar. Fact is, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution with regard to law, not public opinion (that is why the protests outside justice's houses were inapropriate and illegal), and there are very good reasons why Roe was turned over - Prior to Roe v Wade, abortion was virtually illegal across the board, and the idea that it was protected by the Constitution is redundant. Believe it or not, there are many on the left who are livid with Biden and Pelosi because they have not gone down Constitutional paths to enshrine it in law, rather than rely on a very shaky, 5o year old decision that has been riding its luck for the last 49 years. Biden said it best, following the decision. They must seek to gain enough of a majority to enshrine it in law, as law makers. It will be their main focus leading up to November, unless they suddenly realise what all the polls have been telling them for some time now. The majority of people want some freedom of choice, but they do not want second or third trimester abortions 'on demand', like most of the civilised world. Roe v Wade opened the door to late term abortion on demand, and I think that a few eyes may be opened in the forthcoming debates. Bill Maher recently expressed surprise that 1. The majority of people actively opposing abortion in the US were in fact women (the Democrat spin is that they are protecting women's rights), and 2. That European laws on abortion are far, far more restrictive than in the US (prior to this decision), predominantly being limited, as a matter of choice, to first trimester. The Democrat spin has been that Roe is progressive and in keeping with the civilised world, when, I believe, there are only two countries with laws as liberal as the US, one of which is China. If Republicans can get the media to discuss those subjects, as opposed to the Democrat propaganda, then there is a chance that this may turn around on Biden and co, and bite them up the bum. It will be interesting to see, with this and everything else, if ordinary Americans start to regard the Democrats in the same light that the UK sees the Labour Party.
