Faith in American System Drops | Monmouth University Polling Institute

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  3 months ago  •  228 comments

By:   Monmouth University Polling Institute

Faith in American System Drops | Monmouth University Polling Institute
January 6th committee pre-Hutchinson hearings were not changing minds

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Only a little more than 1 in 3 Americans currently believe our system of government is sound, a view that has declined significantly over the past few years. The Monmouth ("Mon-muth") University Poll finds that the House select committee to investigate January 6 has not changed many minds about what happened that day, in part because few Republicans are following the hearings. In fact, Republicans are less inclined than they were a year ago to describe the violence at the U.S. Capitol as either a riot or an insurrection. In the poll - conducted before Cassidy Hutchinson's public testimony on June 28 - 4 in 10 Americans said former President Donald Trump was directly responsible for the incident.

Just 36% of the public describes the American system of government as basically sound. This number has declined from 55% in February 2020 and from 44% in 2021, a few weeks after the Jan. 6 attack. Just over four decades ago, 62% said the American system was sound. At the same time, the number of Americans who say our system of government is not at all sound has jumped from 10% in 1980 to 22% in 2021 and 36% in the current poll. The recent decline of faith in the American system has come at varying rates among different partisan groups. Among Republicans, the sense that our system of government is sound plummeted from 71% in early 2020 to 41% shortly after President Joe Biden's inauguration in 2021, and has held fairly steady since then. The decline among independents has been more gradual - from 58% sound in 2020, to 46% in 2021, and 34% in the current poll. Democrats actually saw a brief increase in faith that the American system is sound from 2020 (34%) to 2021 (45%), but that has now dropped back to 36%.

"There's more than just partisanship at work in declining faith in the institutional framework of American democracy. Yes, electoral outcomes play a role. Yes, the current economic crisis plays a role. But attacks on our fundamental democratic processes - and the lack of universal condemnation of those attacks by political leaders from both sides of the aisle - have taken a toll," said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.

Nearly two-thirds (65%) of the public say it is appropriate to describe the incident at the U.S. Capitol as a riot, and half (50%) say it is appropriate to describe it as an insurrection. Both of these numbers, though, are down from a year ago (by 7 points for riot and by 6 points for insurrection). These negative views of Jan. 6 have held relatively steady among Democrats and independents, but have slipped significantly among Republicans. Last year, a clear majority (62%) of Republicans called the incident a riot. Now, less than half (45%) do. Similarly, a third (33%) of Republicans in June 2021 said it was appropriate to describe the incident as an insurrection, but only 13% say the same today.

By comparison, the number of Americans who say it is appropriate to describe the U.S. Capitol incident as a legitimate protest has remained stable over the past year (34% now compared with 33% in June 2021). However, the number of Republicans who see this incident as a legitimate protest has actually risen by 14 points to 61%, at the same time this view has declined among independents (down 6 points to 33%) and remained stable among Democrats (14%).

"Some Republicans who were initially appalled have now recast the events of Jan. 6 in a less negative light. It's not clear the House committee hearings are having any impact in correcting this view, in large part because Republicans simply aren't watching," said Murray.

While nearly half (45%) of Democrats say they have been following the House select committee hearings a lot, just 16% of independents and 10% of Republicans say the same. In fact, a majority (52%) of Republicans and 4 in 10 independents (41%) say they have not been following the hearings at all. [Note: the poll was conducted before the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony on June 28.]

When it comes to conducting a fair investigation, 34% of the public trusts the House committee a lot, 22% trust it a little, and 41% do not trust it at all. The vast majority of Republicans do not have any trust in the committee regardless of whether they have been following the hearings (65%) or not (78%).

Overall, just 6% of all Americans say the recent committee hearings have changed their mind about what happened at the Capitol or who was responsible for Jan. 6. Among Republicans who have been following the hearings, just 1 in 10 - representing 5% of all Republicans - say they have changed their opinion about the incident. In a follow-up question, some of these Republicans say that they learned about the pressure Trump was exerting or that election fraud claims were spurious. However, others claim they have "learned" that "police officers were not killed in that protest," or that "the Democrats were highly involved as well as the F.B.I."

Currently, 29% of Americans believe Biden won the presidential election only because of voter fraud. In prior polls since November 2020, that number held steady at 32%. The 3-point difference in the current poll is just as likely to be the product of sampling variance as it is any real chipping away at this unsupported belief.

"The committee is preaching to the choir right now. There is little evidence these hearings are having any direct impact on the Republican base. The committee's best hope is that the mounting evidence makes it untenable for key GOP leaders to continue to stay silent. So far, though, it seems fear of political retribution from Trump voters continues to be the overriding concern," said Murray.

Prior to the June 28 hearing, over 4 in 10 (42%) Americans saw Trump as being directly responsible for the U.S. Capitol incident, 25% said he encouraged those involved but was not directly responsible for their actions, and 30% said he did nothing wrong regarding Jan. 6. While 83% of Democrats thought Trump was directly responsible, 59% of Republicans said he did nothing wrong. Two-thirds (66%) of the public say that members of Congress who assisted the attack's planners should be removed from office. However, only 36% of Republicans feel that way.

The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from June 23 to 27, 2022 with 978 adults in the United States. The question results in this release have a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.

METHODOLOGY

The Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute from June 23 to 27, 2022 with a probability-based national random sample of 978 adults age 18 and older. This includes 343 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 635 contacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. Telephone numbers were selected through a mix of random digit dialing and list-based sampling. Landline respondents were selected with a modified Troldahl-Carter youngest adult household screen. Interviewing services were provided by Braun Research, with sample obtained from Dynata (RDD, n=565), Aristotle (list, n=168) and a panel of prior Monmouth poll participants (n=245). Monmouth is responsible for all aspects of the survey design, data weighting and analysis. The full sample is weighted for region, age, education, gender and race based on US Census information (ACS 2018 one-year survey). For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points (unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups (see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.


DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)
Self-Reported
26% Republican
43% Independent
31% Democrat
49% Male
51% Female
30% 18-34
33% 35-54
37% 55+
63% White
12% Black
16% Hispanic
9% Asian/Other
69% No degree
31% 4 year degree

Click on pdf file link below for full methodology and crosstabs by key demographic groups.

Download this Poll Report with crosstabs


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 months ago

Not a very good poll for progressives counting on the Jan 6th hearing to spare them from what they so richly deserve.

Here is my favorite little detail:

"When it comes to conducting a fair investigation, 34% of the public trusts the House committee a lot, 22% trust it a little, and 41% do not trust it at all."

I wonder why?

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 months ago
I wonder why?

Nonsense, try a simple explanation like your abject partisanship.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1    3 months ago

Instead of attacking me, why not try and defend the Committee that our progressive group here talks about endlessly.

First question:  Why didn't Pelosi allow the minority leader to place his choices on the committee?

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    3 months ago

Such as the clown Jim Jordan so that you could have a circus? I'm sure you would have loved that. Or how about Jody Hice? He could have asked Cassidy Hutchinson if she was capable of giving birth to a turtle.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1.2    3 months ago

We hate Pelosi too. That's not good enough.

Protocol and common decency requires that both sides of the aisle get to choose who sits on the committee.

Next Question:

Why has Trump's words "go in peace" NEVER been allowed to be repeated or played back during these hearings?

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    3 months ago
Protocol and common decency

Left the building a long time ago under the guise of "draining the swamp". It's time you figured that out.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1.4    3 months ago

Ok, so you admit the committee is only political theatre designed to save democrats in the midterms.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.1.6  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    3 months ago

Why did it take him over 3 hours to issue those words?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
1.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    3 months ago

First question:  Why didn't Pelosi allow the minority leader to place his choices on the committee?

They were asked and refused. Gym Jordan was one that was specifically asked and he flat out refused. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.1.8  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    3 months ago
the committee is only political theatre

Blame the guy who was the set designer who fooled himself into thinking he was the kabuki director.

Let's cut the nonsense Vic and admit that your are in favor of what is going on because it clears the path for your horse in the race, De Santis.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.9  Ronin2  replied to  Hallux @1.1    3 months ago

Upset because the Pelosi TDS partisan shit show isn't changing hearts and minds?

Another great waste of tax payer money by DC politicians that don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.1.10  Hallux  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.9    3 months ago
Upset because the Pelosi TDS partisan shit show isn't changing hearts and minds?

I never expected it to, the RW press has been inoculating their readers from sanity for years.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.9    3 months ago

The cost of the 01/02 "rally" is over $500 Million

The $8 million is a bargain and at least we get to see a handful

of people actually earning their paychecks.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.12  Ronin2  replied to  Hallux @1.1.6    3 months ago

The same reason hat Pelosi, Schumer, and Bowser never called for the National Guard after the riot started. The same reason that none of them authorized the 20000 National Guardsmen that Trump offered to begin with.

Leftists idiots would find that out if Pelosi hadn't told her hand picked morons on the committee they couldn't question her, Schumer, and Bowser.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.13  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.11    3 months ago

So you call tainting evidence (aka lying) "people actually earning their paychecks"?

Will need to remind you of that when the Republicans take over this shit show after midterms and Pelosi, Schumer, Bowser, and Democrats are being arrested for refusing to testify.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @1.1    3 months ago

293962355_10221078252841394_9164120623340625816_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=BLbHpLLiMS0AX_nhcVx&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_nTUWbniUk-sC4zgpmZ37Qhf29GVj3NbrjNG2beyNAWg&oe=62DAE8FA

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @1.1    3 months ago

293214306_1386197981887876_4349317859704022785_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=2udTQatyV5IAX_hMVkp&_nc_oc=AQlrDdz13SfkxkmfLY5J6sRoHvtMMLwz9lsqfpRZdOh2RrjfQxpND8bgQ2Mb5BIlmjk&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-o-xUb23fN54rZV1FnjxWhBoYTzLIGDjt18neK8AE40A&oe=62DA4A1C

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
1.1.16  Duck Hawk  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.12    3 months ago

20000 Guardsmen? Really? Thats like half of the Nat'l Guard.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Duck Hawk @1.1.16    3 months ago
20000 Guardsmen? Really? Thats like half of the Nat'l Guard.

The US National Guard is just a little under  450,000 so 20,000 is 4.5% of the Guard.  I think that Trump claimed that he offered 10,000 to protect the Capital but that order never happened.  340 DC Guardsmen were provided to DC police for traffic control on 6 Jan 2021.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.7    3 months ago

Care to try again.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has vetoed two Republican nominees to the panel set to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    3 months ago
First question:  Why didn't Pelosi allow the minority leader to place his choices on the committee?

That question has been answered here, over and over again Vic.

First question: WHY do you keep making that false claim after it has been debunked. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.12    3 months ago

The same reason hat Pelosi, Schumer, and Bowser never called for the National Guard after the riot started. The same reason that none of them authorized the 20000 National Guardsmen that Trump offered to begin with.

Leftists idiots would find that out if Pelosi hadn't told her hand picked morons on the committee they couldn't question her, Schumer, and Bowser.

I see that the gaslighting is working. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.19    3 months ago
WHY do you keep making that false claim after it has been debunked. 

It has never been debunked. The whole universe knows it, but while we are on the subject of you gaslighting, please tell us how Donald Trump brought CRT to West Point?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.21    3 months ago
It has never been debunked.

Why lie Vic? 

The whole universe knows it,

Then it should be easy for your to PROVE it. 

but while we are on the subject of you gaslighting, please tell us how Donald Trump brought CRT to West Point?

Why are you posting off topic questions in your own seeds Vic? 

BTFW, if you want an answer to your question, go over to Sparty's seed, which he locked right after I posted a link to the document proving that FACT. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.22    3 months ago
Why lie Vic? 

Why are you always lying?


Then it should be easy for your to PROVE it. 

Do you want a link or should I have John Russell tell you?

How about the leftist NPR?




And if people read that they will see that McCarthy THEN refused to be a part of it!


"Denying the voices of members who have served in the military and law enforcement, as well as leaders of standing committees, has made it undeniable that this panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility and shows the Speaker is more interested in playing politics than seeking the truth," he said in a statement. "Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.24  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.22    3 months ago
BTFW, if you want an answer to your question, go over to Sparty's seed, which he locked right after I posted a link to the document proving that FACT.

BTFW YOU NEVER PROVED THAT DONALD TRUMP INTRODUCED A CRT PROGRAM AT WEST POINT!

That would have been front page news!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.25  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.22    3 months ago
Why are you posting off topic questions in your own seeds Vic? 

Because as you said Sparty locked it and I couldn't reply

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.13    3 months ago
Will need to remind you of that when the Republicans take over this shit show after midterms and Pelosi, Schumer, Bowser, and Democrats are being arrested for refusing to testify.

When were they subpoenaed? 

Based on your comment, Meadows should have been in jail for months. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.26    3 months ago

How about admitting, at long last, that Pelosi refused to seat minority members?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.28  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.24    3 months ago

There isn't a CRT program at the US Military Academy or at least I couldn't find one in their course catalogue. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.29  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.23    3 months ago

Your own post proves that Pelosi did NOT refuse to seat ALL of McCarthy's nominees AND that he made the decision to take his ball and go home. 

Thanks for playing. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.30  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.28    3 months ago

Did you see Post 7 :

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.31  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.29    3 months ago

BULL SHIT DULAY.

The NPR story shows that McCarthy didn't take his ball until fucking Pelosi refused to seat two prominent Republicans.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.24    3 months ago
BTFW YOU NEVER PROVED THAT DONALD TRUMP INTRODUCED A CRT PROGRAM AT WEST POINT!
That would have been front page news!

Again, WHY are you derailing your own seed Vic? 

In Sparty's locked seed, you stated:

Anyone who voted for Joe Biden is complicit in this evil.

Implying that the “The Politics of Race, Gender, and Sexuality" course is EVIL and that Biden introduced it @ West Point. 

I provided a link to a 2017 West Point document that PROVES that the course was introduced when TRUMP was in office. Here it is AGAIN:

So, based on YOUR standard, anyone that voted for TRUMP is complicit in 'this evil'. 

I refuted that despicable attempt at gaslighting and it's obvious that you aren't happy about it. 

Tough. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.33  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.17    3 months ago
Trump claimed

when that happens most sensible people see red flags. 

Where is the proof Trump offered anything?  Or do you just take his word for it? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.34  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.32    3 months ago
Implying that the “The Politics of Race, Gender, and Sexuality" course is EVIL and that Biden introduced it @ West Point. 

Nope. There was no such implication. We had Obama before Biden and plenty of ideologues in the academy.

You are still up against it Dulay.  How will you ever prove that Trump fostered CRT?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.35  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.33    3 months ago

The answer is that the President can offer, but only the DC Mayor (miss fat ass) and the Speaker of the House (miss pigeon legs) must approve.

But we can't call them before the sham committee, can we?

We eliminated the Republicans who might call them or ask tough questions

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.36  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.34    3 months ago
Nope. There was no such implication.

Then WTF were you implying when you posted "Anyone who voted for Joe Biden is complicit in this evil."?

What are you claiming is EVIL Vic? Be specific. 

We had Obama before Biden and plenty of ideologues in the academy.

How is that relevant Vic? 

You are still up against it Dulay. 

Against WHAT? 

How will you ever prove that Trump fostered CRT?

You should know by now that strawmen don't work with me Vic.

You insisted that 'anyone who voted for Biden' is complicit. 

I PROVED that West Point introduced “The Politics of Race, Gender, and Sexuality" course in 2018. 

It's therefore logical, based on your standard, that 'anyone who voted for Trump' is complicit. 

Again, WHAT evil are Trump voters complicit in Vic? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.37  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.25    3 months ago
Because as you said Sparty locked it and I couldn't reply

Instead of derailing THIS seed, you could seed Sparty's laughable seed yourself. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.38  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.27    3 months ago
How about admitting, at long last, that Pelosi refused to seat minority members?

Because that is a FALSE statement Vic. 

Pelosi accepted 3 of 5 GOP nominees and left it to McCarthy to submit 2 other nominees that they could agree on. YOU know that to be a FACT, yet you continue to rinse and repeat bullshit. Just stop. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.39  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.35    3 months ago
The answer is that the President can offer, but only the DC Mayor (miss fat ass) and the Speaker of the House (miss pigeon legs) must approve.
But we can't call them before the sham committee, can we?
We eliminated the Republicans who might call them or ask tough questions

ALL of that is utter bullshit that has ALSO been debunked here over and over again.

Why do you think rinsing and repeating the same debunked bullshit allegations is a 'winning' move Vic?

BTFW, McCarthy assigned Rep. Banks to conduct the GOP investigation. Instead of being truthful about his investigation, in Oct. 2021 he lied about being the ranking member of the Select committee. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.31    3 months ago
BULL SHIT DULAY.

The NPR story shows that McCarthy didn't take his ball until fucking Pelosi refused to seat two prominent Republicans.

So you admit that McCarthy DID take his ball and went home. PROGRESS!

From YOUR NPR link:

The House speaker said she would accept McCarthy's other nominees: Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas.

ALL three of those GOP Reps would be on the committee right now if McCarthy hadn't had a tantrum. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.41  Split Personality  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.17    3 months ago

Well to be fair,

for the inauguration Maryland could only provide 15,000.

The secret Service requested 10,000 more which resulted in 

40 flights a day to Andrews from all 50 states and a few territories.

Inside look at how 25,000 National Guardsmen are arriving in Washington, DC - ABC News (go.com)

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.42  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.35    3 months ago
We eliminated the Republicans who might call them or ask tough questions

Nope, Kevin McCarthy eliminated three acceptable Republican nominees

when Pelosi, well within her rights, said No to Jim Jordan and Jim Banks.

That's why they call the process a nomination, it's not an all or nothing proposition.

McCarthy overreacted, again.

Meanwhile Banks, apparently running his own investigation, requests that different Cabinet officials

share their information with him, implying that McCarthy appointed Banks as the Ranking Member of the

Committe he is not part of.

“I ask that you provide me any information that is submitted to the Select Committee,” Banks added. “Additionally, please include me on any update or briefing that you provide,” He signed the letter with the title “Ranking Member” — a title he has not been appointed to by the speaker.

Jim Banks Pretends to Be on Jan. 6 Committee in Letters - Rolling Stone

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.43  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.41    3 months ago
Well to be fair,

Who wants to be fair here?

40 flights a day to Andrews from all 50 states and a few territories.

Good training.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.44  Split Personality  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.43    3 months ago
Who wants to be fair here?

Besides you and I?

Good training. 

Even the 06 was surprised, lol.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.45  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.44    3 months ago
Besides you and I?

Exactly.

Even the 06 was surprised, lol.

Aren't they always.  I knew I was hitting the Peter principal ceiling after O5, so I became a government civilian, lol. Now I split time between here and telework.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.46  Split Personality  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.45    3 months ago

Ahh, the double pension, then even more free time, maybe Social Security thrown in too.

Well done.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.47  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.46    3 months ago

You got that right, two pensions, social security and my TSP investments.  Sweet deal if the younger generation can keep up their payments.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.48  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    3 months ago
Why has Trump's words "go in peace" NEVER been allowed to be repeated or played back during these hearings?

If you are referring to Trump's 6:01 tweet that Cheney read from, it WAS shown in total, in full screen on camera during the hearing. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.49  Split Personality  replied to  Dulay @1.1.48    3 months ago
If you are referring to Trump's 6:01 tweet that Cheney read from, it WAS shown in total, in full screen on camera during the hearing. 

Alternative facts?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @1.1.48    3 months ago

He will never admit it.    From the transcript of the 6th session (video below):

LIZ CHENEY: Despite the fact that many people close to Donald Trump were urging him to send people home, he did not do so until later, much later. At 4:17 PM, Donald Trump finally told the rioters to go home and that he loved them. Here's a portion of the video President Trump recorded from the White House. [Begin videotape]

DONALD TRUMP: We have to have peace, so go home. We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home in peace. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: But as we will show in even greater detail in future hearings, Donald Trump was reluctant to put this message out and he still could not bring himself to condemn the attack. Ms. Hutchinson has told us that, too

This is at 2:21:21 in this video:

And just prior to this video, we see others including McCarthy, Gallagher, et. al. speaking of their urging Trump to call the Capitol insurrection off.

But of course this is not real ... these Republicans are all lying.  256

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.51  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.50    3 months ago

I'd love to see ALL of the videos Trump recorded. They say it took him quite a few to 'get it right'. I'll make popcorn. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.52  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1.29    3 months ago
" Your own post proves that Pelosi did NOT refuse to seat ALL of McCarthy's nominees AND that he made the decision to take his ball and go home.  Thanks for playing."

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif Happens all the time!

Now

moving-goalpost.gif

or this?

wizard-of.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.53  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.33    3 months ago
"Trump claimed"

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

Is how sensible people react to that statement along with the red flags

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.54  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1.48    3 months ago
"Why has Trump's words "go in peace" NEVER been allowed to be repeated or played back during these hearings?"

"If you are referring to Trump's 6:01 tweet that Cheney read from, it WAS shown in total, in full screen on camera during the hearing." 

Three hours after his several months of lies and incitement of his domestic terrorist mobs insurrection on the Capitol that day

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.55  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1.51    3 months ago
DONALD TRUMP: We have to have peace, so go home. We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home in peace. [End videotape]

WTF does that mean?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 months ago

You are ignoring that 56% trust the committee.  The 41% is largely made up of MAGA diehards who are among the most ignorant people in America. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    3 months ago

Only 34% have much trust, but nice try.


 The 41% is largely made up of MAGA diehards who are among the most ignorant people in America. 

Only 26% of respondents were Republicans, so that makes no sense either.


Still no answer to my question?

I have many btw

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    3 months ago
Still no answer to my question?I have many btw

One is tempted, for a few seconds, to feel sorry for people who believe Donald Trump. 

But in the end, they are ruining America before our eyes.  Who could have ever imagined that someone who had literally tried to overturn an election would be allowed to run in the next one?  That is the degraded state of the political right in this country. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.2    3 months ago
Who could have ever imagined that someone who had literally tried to overturn an election would be allowed to run in the next one? 

As we used to ask John Boehner, why don't you stop him?

You can't answer the 2nd question either?

How about this one:

How credible do you think the committee appears to American voters?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    3 months ago

What is the smear? 

Have you watched the hearings?

As for your questions, I dont give a damn what MAGA thinks. Most of them are hopeless. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.2.5  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    3 months ago
Only 26% of respondents were Republicans, so that makes no sense either.

Or maybe many an embarrassed republican has switched to independent. That might make sense.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.4    3 months ago

If Pelosi had a good case she should have brought it without stacking the deck. Have you ever played Poker, John?  If you ask for the cards to be cut and the dealer refuses, people start to think the dealer knows something about the deck that he shouldn't.  It's always best to be honest.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.2.5    3 months ago

That's a democrat thing. Voting in the other party's primaries and supporting radicals in the opposing party is all democrat play.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.2.8  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.7    3 months ago

Are you trying to tell me that politics are a dirty sport? Good Lord, some of the dirtiest players were part and parcel of the 1776 crowd.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.6    3 months ago
If Pelosi had a good case she should have brought it without stacking the deck.

Your ongoing defense of Trump is ridiculous.   You totally ignore the under-oath testimony of high-ranking, connected Republicans who have put their careers on the line to testify and instead continually deflect with this whine that the committee is partisan.

Are all those high-ranking Republicans lying?    Did the committee force them to lie under oath?    

An objective (i.e. non-partisan) approach would be to consider the partisan nature of the committee and factor than in.   Then consider what these high-ranking, connected Republicans state under oath.    If one does that one will be on a path to a better understanding of what took place on and before the 6th.    The evidence provided in these hearings is substantially better than the information we normally get from the various media sources.

The evidence provided in these hearings is substantially better than the information we normally get from the various media sources.

See, Vic, your 'it is partisan' complaint would have teeth if the witnesses were Democrats rather than high-ranking, connected Republicans who have put their careers on the line.    

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.9    3 months ago

Oh, my "partisan" comment!  You stand by the methods of Pelosi and thus you are judged.

It really has nothing to do with how good the information is. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.10    3 months ago
You stand by the methods of Pelosi ...

What on Earth are you talking about??   If anything I was suggesting you factor Pelosi out of the equation and objectively deal with the testimony of the high-ranking, connected Republican witnesses.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2.12  pat wilson  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.11    3 months ago

256

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.12    3 months ago

It is fascinating though to observe so many who willfully refuse to acknowledge inconvenient evidence and instead waste their time attempting to deflect and look for any crack or diversion —no matter how tiny and/or insignificant— in an attempt to defend Trump.

It is irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic to defend someone who has so blatantly violated the oath of office (at the very least) and has likely committed a crime (e.g. possibly sedition).   It is worse that this individual was a PotUS.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2.14  pat wilson  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.13    3 months ago
It is fascinating though to observe so many who willfully refuse to acknowledge inconvenient evidence and instead waste their time attempting to deflect and look for any crack or diversion —no matter how tiny and/or insignificant— in an attempt to defend Trump.

It is fascinating and pathetic.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.9    3 months ago

293880924_5885225984822357_8346619748898130623_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=H1h8YNWHsCgAX8A0Q77&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-TDl28Ibi0xXZZAYfe3JBXacpXhYeZ-ozgbY0zV07fiA&oe=62DBDFA0

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.9    3 months ago

293962355_10221078252841394_9164120623340625816_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=BLbHpLLiMS0AX_nhcVx&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_nTUWbniUk-sC4zgpmZ37Qhf29GVj3NbrjNG2beyNAWg&oe=62DAE8FA

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.17  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.10    2 months ago

294638371_1856157788104602_3418393658075546395_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640&_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=yVokfpiZrrcAX_gkT_A&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9JEeaO1rh9yyScvGDUXilq1fBtyRcHCuhWz_Tx1rqjYw&oe=62DF30AE

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago

294927438_10227802906279594_5957224081421972884_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=tQeK7FNzP8wAX8Rat5f&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-avK73YVbsziYouADbRnA8mmeCunzedD-k4J6nlqQ7tw&oe=62DE5017

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    3 months ago
"Some Republicans who were initially appalled have now recast the events of Jan. 6 in a less negative light. It's not clear the House committee hearings are having any impact in correcting this view, in large part because Republicans simply aren't watching," said Murray.

Willful ignorance (motivated largely by confirmation bias) that can be witnessed first hand in forums such as ours.

Not trusting the committee is a bullshit excuse.   Forget the committee and pretend that the under-oath testimony of almost exclusively Republicans most of whom were high-ranking and connected with Trump and all of whom are risking their political careers was delivered through any channel of your choice.   Take each item of testimony as information ... as part of the raw information a rational mind would consider and accept/reject based on their own judgment when attempting to understand something.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2    3 months ago
Willful ignorance (motivated largely by confirmation bias) that can be witnessed first hand in forums such as ours.

As I told Hallux, instead of personal attacks, you need to defend the credibility of a committee created to smear a possible Presidential candidate.


Forget the committee and pretend

No, I don't play games.

Answer the question in post 1.1.1

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 months ago
you need to defend the credibility of a committee created to smear a possible Presidential candidate.

What is the "smear" Vic?

Stop making everyone laugh at you. 

What is the smear? Be specific. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 months ago

Are you able to answer the question?

Don't tell me that the 3 of you can't answer the most glaring question.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    3 months ago

I asked you what the frigging smear is Vic. 

Lets hear it , NOW. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    3 months ago

People are not stupid, John.  You don't start a conversation by calling the other side partisan.

Somebody finally had to break it to you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 months ago
As I told Hallux, instead of personal attacks, you need to defend the credibility of a committee created to smear a possible Presidential candidate.

What personal attack?   Ignoring the testimony presented by the committee (i.e. not watching it) is willful ignorance.

No, I don't play games.

Cheap deflection.  It is not a game, I am suggesting that those who do not trust the committee ignore the committee and evaluate each testimony individually on merit.

Answer the question in post  1.1.1

Because she is a partisan.   How many times must I answer this obvious question before it registers?

Your ploy continues to ignore testimony and simply whine that the committee is partisan.  You refuse to ignore the committee and simply evaluate the testimony of almost exclusively Republicans most of whom were high-ranking and connected with Trump and all of whom are risking their political careers.   You refuse to take each item of testimony as information ... as part of the raw information a rational mind would consider and accept/reject based on your own judgment when attempting to understand something.

Refusing to evaluate the testimony on its own merit with the excuse that the committee is partisan is willful ignorance.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    3 months ago

Vic, you claimed that the committee is smearing Trump.  What is the smear? Stop trying to back out of your charge. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    3 months ago

I honestly dont know why people try, day after day, hour by hour on this forum, to try and have rational discussions with Trump supporters.  It is farcical. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.7    3 months ago

Agreed, but it is not exclusive to this forum; this forum is a microcosm of what is going on in our nation.   It is pathetic.   So many refuse to engage honestly and instead deflect to side issues and then demand a response to same.

If the committee is too partisan for someone's taste then ignore what they state and simply evaluate each under-oath testimony individually on its merits.    After all, do these people truly believe all these high-ranking, connected Republicans are lying?   Some grand conspiracy where they all compromise their political careers to lie against the defacto leader of their party and potential nominee??

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    3 months ago
Your ploy continues to ignore testimony and simply whine that the committee is partisan

It's not a ploy, it's the problem that anyone who defends that committee has. Democrats should have followed protocol and they shouldn't haven't been so obvious about targeting Trump. Remember when the committee was supposed to be about finding out how this happened?

Next question:

Why can't Nancy Pelosi, who is responsible for Capitol Security, be questioned?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.6    3 months ago

The committee was supposed to find out how it happened, right?   What happened to that?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    3 months ago

More deflection as you ignore my posts.   Pathetic.  Dishonest.

You should ask why these high-ranking, connected Republicans would all lie and, in so doing, place their careers in jeopardy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.8    3 months ago
Agreed.   It is pathetic.   

Ok, so you 2 want to discuss me with each other. Fair enough.

Here is what you are now up against:

"A majority of voters say they believe the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is biased, according to a new Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey. 

Fifty-eight percent of voters polled said they believed the committee set up by Speaker  Nancy Pelosi  (D-Calif.) was biased, while 42 percent said they thought it was fair. 

“Americans want an examination of the riots over the summer and the origins of the virus over investigating Jan. 6th,” said   Mark Penn,  the co-director of the Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey. “The voters reject the Pelosi move to toss Republicans off of the committee and see it now as just a partisan exercise.”




Have a good day.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.12    3 months ago

People who have not watched the hearings should not be commenting on them.  Otherwise we get ludicrous things such as this seed. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.12    3 months ago
Here is what you are now up against:

Irrelevant.

Why do you refuse to consider on merit the under-oath testimony of high-ranking Republicans who are almost all directly connected with Trump and who all compromised their political careers by testifying?    The committee is irrelevant if one focuses simply on each testimony on its merits.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.1.15  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 months ago
a committee created to smear a possible Presidential candidate.

How are republicans, who worked for trump, dare I say, "hand picked by trump", answering questions UNDER OATH, about trump....smearing him? 

Why doesn't trump testify under oath and give his version of events? 

I'll tell you why..

Because he would be sworn in and lie the entire time, then go to jail for perjury. He knows it, his lawyers know it and you know it. So, until we have his sworn testimony, people will be forced to believe what his little friends are saying about him. 

I refuse to believe, Vic, that you have never asked yourself why trump never testifies under oath about......anything, ever. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.1.16  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    3 months ago
Why can't Nancy Pelosi, who is responsible for Capitol Security, be questioned?

How is trump being smeared by people telling the truth under oath about his actions on Jan. 6th. 

Look, I get it...the evidence is as damning as it can be, I would be embarrassed to be one of his supporters as well. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.1.17  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    3 months ago
The committee was supposed to find out how it happened, right?   What happened to that?

That's exactly what they are doing. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.18  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    3 months ago
Why can't Nancy Pelosi, who is responsible for Capitol Security, be questioned?

Because she isn't responsible for Capitol Security.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.1.19  MrFrost  replied to  Kavika @2.1.18    3 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
2.1.20  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.12    3 months ago
Have a good day.

Tossing in a year old poll does not serve your cause.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
2.1.21  Hallux  replied to  Kavika @2.1.18    3 months ago
Because she isn't responsible for Capitol Security.

To a minor extent she is but then so is 'he who shall be forever blameless' Mitch McConnell.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.1.22  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.7    3 months ago
day after day, hour by hour on this forum, to try and have rational discussions with Trump supporters.

That's fucking hysterical, John. All you do is demean and insult anyone that does not follow your line of thinking and parrot what you want them to parrot.

There is no reasoning with you. [Deleted]

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.23  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.13    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.12    3 months ago
Here is what you are now up against

Your link is almost a YEAR old and conducted long before anyone had seen any of the testimony from Trump loyalists. 

FAIL. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.25  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.24    3 months ago
Your link is almost a YEAR old and conducted long before anyone had seen any of the testimony from Trump loyalists. 

And complaints about Trump from the left began long before Jan 6th.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.1.24    3 months ago
"And complaints about Trump from the left began long before Jan 6th."

All valid.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.27  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.25    3 months ago
And complaints about Trump from the left began long before Jan 6th.

Which is irrelevant to what we're 'NOW up against' Vic. 

Another utter FAIL.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.28  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    3 months ago
Why can't Nancy Pelosi, who is responsible for Capitol Security, be questioned?

The Jan. 6 Select Committee is NOT tasked with investigating Capitol Security.

You and yours have already been informed, over and over again, that a Joint Senate Committee investigated, held hearings and released a bi-partisan report in JUNE of 2021. I have personally posted a link to that report multiple times.

WHY are you so desperate to ignore those facts Vic?

Why do you continue to post implications that you KNOW are baseless? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.29  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.28    3 months ago
The Jan. 6 Select Committee is NOT tasked with investigating Capitol Security.

No, it's only task, as Captain Ahab might say, is taking down that great white whale!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.30  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.29    3 months ago

No, it's only task, as Captain Ahab might say, is taking down that great white whale!

False AGAIN Vic. You have cited the task of the Select committee multiple times in this seed. [ deleted ]
You pretend to demand that the Speaker follow the House processes and procedure to the letter while trying to ignore the clearly stated purpose, in HR 503, of the Select Committee. 
Here's the Resolution for the edification of 'our readers: 
BTFW Vic, your questions have been answered yet I note that you've failed to answer a plethora of questions you were asked about your comments.
It's looking like you like to start shit you can't finish. 
What is your goal in posting long debunked falsehoods? Surely you can't claim that it fulfills your claim that you're here to teach others. 
I note how few of your thumbs up buddies have turned up to support your posits of late. Maybe the shine is wearing off of your MO. 
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.31  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.30    3 months ago

Well, it looks like you did it to yourself again.

Here you have submitted that very partisan fucking "resolution" and there in section 1 it clearly states:

(1) To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021

If you want to investigate causes, you'd certainly want to find out why the Capitol was so unprepared, but of course the Committee never went there.

PerryMason1.jpg


Your Honor, I ask that this case be dismissed for "Malicious prosecution."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.32  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.31    3 months ago

Jan 6th was the day that Congress was going to verify the electoral count once and for all. Thats what Jan 6th was, before Trump egged his followers into attacking the building and attempting to enter Congress (they succeeded in the Senate). 

On what POSSIBLE basis would it have ever been illegitimate to investigate Donald Trump for these activities? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.33  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.32    3 months ago

If it was all about Trump, Pelosi should have been honest enough to say so.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.34  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.32    3 months ago
Thats what Jan 6th was, before Trump egged his followers into attacking the building and attempting to enter Congress (they succeeded in the Senate). 

You keep saying that yet there hasn't really been anything to back it up.  Just like every other "investigation" the Democrats ran against Trump, it's gone off the rails and all we've really see is speculation and hearsay 'testimony' in a partisan committee.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.35  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.31    3 months ago
Well, it looks like you did it to yourself again.
Here you have submitted that very partisan fucking "resolution" and there in section 1 it clearly states:
(1) To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021
If you want to investigate causes, you'd certainly want to find out why the Capitol was so unprepared, but of course the Committee never went there.

There you go again with your disingenuous MO of truncating block quotes in a sad attempt to bolster your agenda. 

HERE is Purpose section in full:

(1) To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex (hereafter referred to as the “domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol”) and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region and other instrumentalities of government, as well as the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.

(2) To examine and evaluate evidence developed by relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist attack.

(3) To build upon the investigations of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts by reviewing the investigations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of other executive branch, congressional, or independent bipartisan or nonpartisan commission investigations into the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol, including investigations into influencing factors related to such attack.

So, the FACT is that the House Select Committee's mandate is to 'review' and 'to avoid unnecessary duplication' of the Joint Senate investigation LAST YEAR. 

The March 2021 Security Review lead by Gen. Honore is also informative. 

Both make clear and concise recommendations to Congress.  

Now, AFTER a review of those reports [that means actually READING the reports], if YOU can come up with some cogent unanswered questions, I encourage YOU to offer a THIRD question here in this seed.

Here, I'll even post the links for you: 

Jan 6 HSGAC Rules Report.pdf (senate.gov)

Final_Report_Task_Force_1-6_Capitol_Security_Review_SHORT - DocumentCloud

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.36  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.34    3 months ago

I feel quite confident in saying you know nothing about the Jan6 investigation, because you dont want to know anyhting about it.  If you knew anything it would burst your bubble. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.37  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.34    3 months ago

The only way you could make that comment would be that you failed to watch the testimony from the last couple of hearings, in which it was made clear that they came at Trump's call or chose to be ignorant of the facts presented. 

Some conspired to perpetrate violence on specific lawmakers. Trump PLANNED to call for his supporters to march to the Capitol even though the permit did NOT include any march anywhere. Trump was made aware that some were ARMED and STILL encouraged them to march to the Capitol. Trump KNEW that they were attacking and entering the Capitol, that the VP, lawmakers and LEOs were at threat, and he did NOTHING for HOURS except rewind and rewatch the violence. 

Those are just some of the FACTS that are firsthand, from documents or witnesses who heard or saw the fact for themselves. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.38  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.36    3 months ago

What's there to know. 

  • The members were hand picked against House rules. 
  • It's gone off the rails and turned into another "but Trruuummmmpppp" fiasco.  Not that anybody expected otherwise.
  • There has only been hearsay and speculation given.  
  • Haven't seen anything that would resemble any cross examination.

In a nut shell, there's been a lot of story telling from the Democrats and the left is lapping it up like it's actually factual.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.39  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.37    3 months ago

There's a lot of hearsay and speculation in that jumble of words you spewed out there.  

Trump PLANNED to call for his supporters to march to the Capitol even though the permit did NOT include any march anywhere. 

Do you have these "plans"?  Do you have audio or video of him making these plans?  Are you some kind of mind reader?  Or are you guessing again.

Trump KNEW that they were attacking and entering the Capitol, that the VP, lawmakers and LEOs were at threat, and he did NOTHING for HOURS except rewind and rewatch the violence.

And exactly what did you expect him to do?  Go in there like Superman and stop everything?  It's hilarious that you give him credit for convincing people to protest but refuse to give him the same credit when it come the success his administration had.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.40  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.39    3 months ago

You must have not watched the hearings...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.38    3 months ago
What's there to know. 

Willful ignorance!

The evidence presented is under-oath testimony by typically high-ranking Republicans who were connected with Trump.   They all compromised their careers by testifying.   The information presented is far superior than what we normally get from our various media sources.

Yet you ignore this and do not even attempt to hear what they have to say.   You could watch and become informed and then make a judgment (where you then would consider other factors such as the partisanship of the committee).  

Willful ignorance!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.42  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @2.1.40    3 months ago

When it's something of substance I'll watch.  To date it's been nothing but hearsay and speculation.  And it's not like they have any authority do do anything.  They are talking for the sake of talking and distract from the clusterfuck the Biden Administration has created.  And you've sat with bated breath every minute of it completely oblivious.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.43  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.41    3 months ago
under-oath testimony

that will accomplish what?  It's not like they have any authority.  Just a group of partisan hacks crying about the same shit they've been crying about for almost 7 years now.  

The information presented

is mere speculation and hearsay.  Not to mention one sided.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.44  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.39    3 months ago
Do you have these "plans"? 

Text messages from the organizers stating that fact prior to the rally were entered into evidence. Try to keep up. 

And exactly what did you expect him to do? 

Call in the National Guard and IMMEDIATELY go to the press room and make a statement tell his minions to knock it off. 

It's hilarious that you give him credit for convincing people to protest but refuse to give him the same credit when it come the success his administration had.  

It's disgusting that you think it's important to give him credit for alleged successes AFTER he led a conspiracy to defraud the US and incited a terrorist attack on the seat of government of the country that he took an oath to defend. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.45  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.43    3 months ago
that will accomplish what?  It's not like they have any authority. 

My reading of the Constitution shows that they DO have the authority to legislate. Their first bill should amend the Electoral Count Act. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.46  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.43    3 months ago
... that will accomplish what?

It helps people get informed;  far better than any news in any other media outlet.   At least those who are not willfully ignorant.

... is mere speculation and hearsay. 

No, Jeremy, you are clearly entirely uninformed about these hearings.   Pathetic.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.47  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.44    2 months ago
Text messages from the organizers stating that fact prior to the rally were entered into evidence.

So there are texts FROM TRUMP to everybody else to set this all up.  That's new.  That's also a hell of a lot of texts to filter through.  

Call in the National Guard and IMMEDIATELY go to the press room and make a statement tell his minions to knock it off. 

The National Guard was already in DC.  They were traffic control.  Or was that not in your list?

It's disgusting that you think it's important to give him credit for alleged successes AFTER he led a conspiracy to defraud the US and incited a terrorist attack on the seat of government of the country that he took an oath to defend. 

Still haven't see proof of that.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.48  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.45    2 months ago

My reading of the Constitution shows that they DO have the authority to legislate.

And that's all they have authority to do.  What gives them the authority to investigate is House Resolution 503.  

Pay attention to Section 1.  That is where their purpose is stated.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.49  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.47    2 months ago
So there are texts FROM TRUMP to everybody else to set this all up.  That's new.  That's also a hell of a lot of texts to filter through.  

Strawman. 

The National Guard was already in DC.  They were traffic control.  Or was that not in your list?

See this is a perfect example of the willful ignorance that proliferates here about this issue. 

Here are FACTS on MY list Jeremy. 

The Capitol Grounds are NOT the same jurisdiction as the City of DC.

As you seem to be admitting, the Mayor of DC DID request a NG deployment to assist DCMP on Jan. 6th. 

Despite the bullshit spewed here ad nauseam, neither Nancy Pelosi nor the Mayor of DC has the authority to call out the DC NG. NONE, NADA. Nor does the Mayor of DC have the authority to REASSIGN NG troops from ONE jurisdiction to another. THAT is the responsibility of the Secretary of the Army and ultimately the POTUS. 

To clarify that for the willfully ignorant; it was on Trump and/or the SecARMY to send the NG to the Capitol. PERIOD full stop. 

During Congressional hearings, when asked about Bowser's request, THIS is what the SecARMY stated:

“What was the President’s response to you, with regard to the request made by Mayor Bowser?” inquired Donalds. “Fill it and do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights,” replied Miller.

Since Jan. 6, hearings, documents, expert testimony and reports have been released and are publicly available for all to see. Based on the Pentagon timeline, Mayor Bowser requested deployment of the NG at 1:34, the Chief of the Capitol Police did the same at 1:49.

There is documentation that Gen. Walker did NOT receive authorization to deploy until 5:08. 

NO NG troops arrived until 5:40. 

Doing a little rough math, the maximum it should have taken for the NG to get to the Capitol is an HOUR, NOT almost 4 HOURS

Conversely, the Chief of the Capitol Police called the Chief of the DC Metro Police just after 1:00 and the first of 100 officers started to arrive 10 MINUTES later. 

At NO time did Trump authorize the deployment of NG troops TO THE CAPITOL that day.

There is NO evidence that Trump even 'touched base' with the SecARMY or General Walker.

The SecARMY didn't even speak to Gen. Walker on Jan. 6. 

After almost 2 years of the above FACTS being reported and documented, I think that those FACTS would have sunk in and become widely accepted and acknowledged. Alas, cognitive dissonance prevails. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.50  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.48    2 months ago

I posted the entire section above Jeremy. Do you have a point? 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.51  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.49    2 months ago
So there are texts FROM TRUMP to everybody else to set this all up.  That's new.  That's also a hell of a lot of texts to filter through.  
Strawman. 

You said there were texts.  If Trump set it all up then there would be texts to a lot of people setting all this up (well, at least in your statements there should be).  

Now about your claims about the National Guard.  Just because YOU didn't realize or know the NG from surrounding states was already in the city doesn't make it my problem.  It makes a problem for your narrative.  maybe you and the rest of the talking heads can get together and get the facts straight before blathering on with wrong information.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.52  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.38    2 months ago
The members were hand picked against House rules. 

Please cite the House rule that allege was violated. I'll wait. 

It's gone off the rails and turned into another "but Trruuummmmpppp" fiasco.  Not that anybody expected otherwise.

Why should 'we' give any credibility to the unfounded opinion of someone who has admitted that he hasn't watched the hearings?

There has only been hearsay and speculation given. 

That is a lie.  

Haven't seen anything that would resemble any cross examination.

First of all, YOU haven't seen ANYTHING. 

Secondly, the Select Committee isn't conducting a trial, so your statement is irrelevant. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.53  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.52    2 months ago

Provided you a link in 2.1.48 .  That's a good start.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.54  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.51    2 months ago
You said there were texts. 

As EVERY member can see for themselves, I said:

Text messages from the organizers stating that fact prior to the rally were entered into evidence.

That is a clear and factual statement Jeremy. Yours is a strawman. 

If Trump set it all up then there would be texts to a lot of people setting all this up (well, at least in your statements there should be). 

Is it your posit that Trump and his minions are incapable of using a phone or meeting people in person? 

You asked if I 'had the plan'? Here is another piece of evidence that they Committee presented:

“I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House),” Trump wrote in an unsent draft tweet obtained by the committee. “Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!”

That piece of evidence was retrieved from the National Archive. 

Now about your claims about the National Guard.  Just because YOU didn't realize or know the NG from surrounding states was already in the city doesn't make it my problem.  It makes a problem for your narrative.  maybe you and the rest of the talking heads can get together and get the facts straight before blathering on with wrong information.

Prove that NG from other states were in DC during the insurrection Jeremy.

PROVE IT. 

BTFW Jeremy, this is what your 'facts' are up against:

From the Joint Senate Committee bipartisan report that I already linked:

Mr. Miller authorized the deployment of Maryland and Virginia’s National Guard units to the Capitol at 4:18 p.m., almost an hour after authorizing all DCNG units to protect the Capitol. DEP’T OF DEF. TIMELINE

In case you didn't know, Mr. Miller was the SecDef. 

So HOW THE FUCK could the surrounding states NG 'already be in DC' if the SecDef didn't authorize their deployment until after 4:00 on Jan. 6th Jeremy? 

Also there are a plethora of articles about Maryland Gov. Hogan WAITING for over an hour for authorization to send Maryland NG troops to DC. Hogan held a news conference stating that fact on Jan. 8th. 

Oh and one more thing Jeremy. Do you think that your bullshit claim makes a point?

Even IF surrounding states NG WERE in DC, NONE of them were deployed to the Capitol until after 5:00.

Or is it your idiotic posit that somehow NG from surrounding states are special snowflakes who could deploy  wheneverthefuck they wanted to whereeverthefuck they wanted while assigned to a detail in DC?  

If so, please provide some documented evidence proving this special snowflake status. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.55  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.53    2 months ago
That's a good start.

Nope, you're deflecting Jeremy.

It's obvious that you proffer claims that are baseless. 

But hey, you be you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.56  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.38    2 months ago
It's gone off the rails and turned into another "but Trruuummmmpppp" fiasco.  Not that anybody expected otherwise.

What are you talking about?   You do not seem to have any knowledge of these hearings.

There has only been hearsay and speculation given.  

What?   Clearly you have not watched these hearings.   When Barr testified under-oath (and we watched it) that he told Trump that his claims were investigated and found to be false ... bullshit ... was that hearsay or speculation?   When Speaker Rusty Bowers (AZ) testified that Trump wanted him to replace its electors with those favoring Trump is that hearsay or speculation?   Do you understand what hearsay is?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.57  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.55    2 months ago

So you haven't read it.  I'll wait.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.58  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.56    2 months ago

Shouldn't you be looking for a link to something I supposedly said?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.59  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.57    2 months ago

So you haven't read it.  I'll wait.

Why bother posting such dishonest bullshit Jeremy? 
You stated:
Pay attention to Section 1.  That is where their purpose is stated. 
Here is section 1 Jeremy:
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is hereby established the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (hereinafter referred to as the “Select Committee”).

That is NOT 'where their purpose is stated". That is contained in Section 3, entitled PURPOSE, which I posted in full 2 fucking days ago. I also commented cogently on it's content. I invite you to refute anything I said about that document. 

Now, WHERE are your answers to my questions and your PROOF that surrounding states NG were in DC Jeremy? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.60  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.58    2 months ago
Shouldn't you be looking for a link to something I supposedly said?

Instead of posting snarky shit to TiG, shouldn't you be posting a link that proves that surrounding state's NG were in DC on Jan. 6?

Oh and you still haven't cited the House rule that you allege was violated. 

Come on Jeremy, you made allegations here, support them. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.61  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.60    2 months ago
Instead of posting snarky shit to TiG,

How does that compare with calling people partisan and dishonest?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.62  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.61    2 months ago

Gee Vic, are you back in this seed expecting ME to answer YOUR questions after ignoring the questions I asked YOU?

Is that how you think this shit works? I assure you, it isn't.

So how about answering the questions I asked in 1.1.36

Also, I note that you haven't posted your THIRD QUESTION. Does that mean that after reading the links I provided, your questions were answered? Or does it mean that you couldn't be bothered to pursue the answers to the questions you allege you have? 

How does that compare with calling people partisan and dishonest?

I cited the FACT that a comment was partisan, dishonest and/or snarky. I didn't 'call people' ANYTHING. Just stop. 

Oh and BTFW, you pretend to be all about the CoC yet you replied to my comment instead of moderating it. 

Utter FAIL. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.63  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.61    2 months ago

BTFW, do you remember posting this Vic?

Why are you always lying?

How does that compare to calling a comment partisan and dishonest? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.64  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.1.62    2 months ago
"Oh and BTFW, you pretend to be all about the CoC yet you replied to my comment instead of moderating it. jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif Utter FAIL."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.65  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.62    2 months ago

I hate to sound like Julius Caesar after putting down the Gallic revolt, but: "Some people just don't seem to know when they're conquered!"

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.66  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.65    2 months ago

Some people have such a self-aggrandizement ego that they break their arm patting themselves on the back. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.67  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.1.66    2 months ago

"Some people have such a self-aggrandizement ego that they break their arm patting themselves on the back"

Ya!  So true.  Conquered!  jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

Ya right!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.68  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.66    2 months ago

Heavy is the crown

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.69  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.60    2 months ago
Instead of posting snarky shit to TiG, 

Oh how cute.  You trying to act like you're important. 

shouldn't you be posting a link that proves that surrounding state's NG were in DC on Jan. 6?

Don't you know how to work a search engine on the internet?  

Oh and you still haven't cited the House rule that you allege was violated.

See the link in 2.1.48.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
2.1.70  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.68    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.71  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 months ago

293639424_5888782064466749_7401410430925530709_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=5vykBzQmmgsAX86QpPP&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-h6WTQIIHvEAT0t1FYBeSPUe3LkanPLm6qPWeIAHcb9g&oe=62DD9A3C

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.72  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.65    2 months ago

293594928_449655250599388_419588535107147968_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640&_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=RIZgRh6QNjgAX-2kTM3&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9w0s7AFDKLlo_mRbAV8Oa7BZ6BJSVClhLFxglK6JbB3A&oe=62DDBE94

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.73  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.68    2 months ago

281601838_6515640821798649_3983623807657637825_n.jpg?stp=cp1_dst-jpg_s1080x2048&_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=QRWEbVR0DuQAX-DWtkI&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-ReomUU5fou5VvNf3CyhpqLQ7jSWDtCzsmrHU31frsmQ&oe=62DE2127

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.74  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.68    2 months ago

293167816_5520001004706214_3868327804388306303_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s720x720&_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=HwobRVcTdSsAX9DWid5&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8AdUwU1G6a_uqjIaO59WbqpJXbu7wzHaFsEkHLKktGdg&oe=62DD7BBC

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.75  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.68    2 months ago

293130495_593793038979231_5367398595444397269_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=N_DU2mBedscAX-mn3jU&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9icwren-mXYmQtQY4uZE_9eogky8bYBDUYXhy_DWFN7g&oe=62DE4313

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.76  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.61    2 months ago

Do you not consider yourself an R partisan?    

partisan ( Oxford ) ☞ A strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

Further labeling a comment as intellectual dishonesty is not the same as deeming the person 'dishonest'.   The former is a criticism of a comment (and typically it will be accompanied by supporting reasoning) whereas the latter would be a statement of character.

Consider "that is intellectually dishonest"  vs. "Trump is dishonest".   A substantial difference.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.77  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.76    2 months ago

It's never ethical to label one's opponent in a civil discussion.

Even here you can learn things.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.78  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.58    2 months ago

Suffice it to say that you have quite a ways to go now before I buy your claim that you are watching the hearings (and paying attention so that you actually know what took place).

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.79  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.78    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.80  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.77    2 months ago
It's never ethical to label one's opponent in a civil discussion.

Again, 'intellectual dishonest comment' is not labeling a person.    Your comment ignored that explanation and thus is intellectually dishonest.

Further, do you NOT consider yourself an R partisan?   Is that an inaccurate summary description of your position?

Are you an independent?    Are you a D partisan?   

If you are not a strong supporter of the R party then your comments are quite misleading.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.81  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.77    2 months ago

"Even here you can learn things."

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.82  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.80    2 months ago

I'll save my opinions on that for when we have that long awaited discussion on the rules.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.83  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.82    2 months ago

The English word 'partisan' is not subject to NT rules.   It is a well-defined descriptive term.    If you have a problem being referred to as an R partisan than explain why that is inaccurate.   Because without that insight, your collective comments are overwhelming evidence that you are indeed a strong supporter of the R party.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.84  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.83    2 months ago

I admit I am partisan. Frankly there is nothing wrong with it, as long as the partisanship is based on facts. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.85  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.84    2 months ago
I admit I am partisan.

No! Really??

jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.86  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.84    2 months ago
I admit I am partisan.

You are free to describe yourself as you wish. Others should not be characterizing you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.87  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.84    2 months ago
I admit I am partisan. 

I also consider you to be a D partisan.   You find the D party platform and principles superior to those of the GoP.   You thus prefer to see the D party in control as a strategic measure.   Thus, except for extraordinary conditions (e.g. pretend that Trump ran as a D), you will vote for the D candidates.

Frankly there is nothing wrong with it, as long as the partisanship is based on facts. 

And that is the critical factor when speaking of partisanship.    There are some who simply adopt whatever position is pushed by their party.   Facts (and thus truth) are irrelevant ... the motivation is to support the party position.   Some will go to the extreme and make themselves out to be utter fools in this support.   That is not strategic partisanship, it is group-think / compliance partisanship.    It is carrying the water for a political party.   It is the opposite of critical thinking.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.88  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.86    2 months ago
You are free to describe yourself as you wish. Others should not be characterizing you.

Life is not so simple.   Characterizing someone as an 'asshole' or 'liar' or 'plagiarist', for example, is not to be done.   Characterizing someone as a Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, etc. is simply part of normal discourse.   If the person objects to the characterization then one should cease because it is indeed the person who should determine their own characterizations because human positions are nuanced and complex.

So, for example, if you object to being referred to as a Republican then we should all attempt to not characterize you as such.   We may all totally believe you to be a Republican and make comments with that assumption, but our comments should —given your hypothesized objection— refrain from ascribing that label to you personally.

At this point, unless you insist otherwise, I am entirely convinced that you are a Republican partisan (a strong supporter of the R party).

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.89  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.88    2 months ago
Characterizing someone as an 'asshole' or 'liar' or 'plagiarist', for example, is not to be done.

You left out "dishonest!"

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.90  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.69    2 months ago
Oh how cute.  You trying to act like you're important. 

Nope. Just trying to hold YOU to supporting you claims. 

Don't you know how to work a search engine on the internet?  

There is no 'Jeremy made shit up again' search engine. 

See the link in 2.1.48 .

House Resolution 503 isn't a House rule Jeremy.  There are House Rules cited in that Resolution under Section 5: Procedures. Cite which of those rules you allege the Committee violated. I'll wait. 

Conversely, you could man up and just admit that your comment was bullshit. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.91  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.68    2 months ago

Deep is the delusion. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.92  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.90    2 months ago
Oh how cute.  You trying to act like you're important. 
Nope. Just trying to hold YOU to supporting you claims. 

Then you should keep up with the conversation. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.93  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.92    2 months ago

I have Jeremy.

You stated:

The members were hand picked against House rules. 

I asked you cite the rule and you cited House Res. 503. 

THAT is the conversation in a nutshell. 

Now, STOP the pretense.

You have the link House Res. 503. Post the House Rule from 503 that you claim the Committee violated. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.94  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.89    2 months ago

AGAIN Vic, characterizing a COMMENT is not the same as characterizing a member.

Your refusal to acknowledge that fact, over and over again, seems to me merely a sad excuse to whine about critiques you don't agree with. 

As I said before, tough. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.95  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.94    2 months ago
characterizing a COMMENT is not the same as characterizing a member.

Should we ever have a discussion on the rules, I'll be glad to go into that in depth, but not until then.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.96  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.93    2 months ago

You're getting there.  Keep going back.  You'll eventually catch up.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.97  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.96    2 months ago
You're getting there. 

You're getting nowhere. 

Keep going back. 

Stop deflecting.

You'll eventually catch up.

You'll never post a comment that expresses adult responsibility for the false claim you've posted. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.98  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.97    2 months ago
Stop deflecting.

So I'm deflecting because you can't keep up.  Gotcha, you have no idea what the conversation is.  Have a good weekend.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.99  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.98    2 months ago
So I'm deflecting because you can't keep up. 

Only YOU can state WHY you are deflecting Jeremy. You'd have to actually ADMIT that you are doing so first. You were asked what House rule you claim the Committee violated. You have FAILED to cite said rule and instead deflected. 

Gotcha, you have no idea what the conversation is. 

I'll leave it up to other members to make that call Jeremy. I'm pretty fucking sure that most will disagree with you. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.100  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.89    2 months ago

If someone writes a post that is basically a lie (knowingly stating a falsehood) then that is intellectually dishonest.   Calling our intellectual dishonesty in a comment is different from calling a person dishonest or a liar.   

Calling a person a liar is a statement on the character of the person ... spanning all comments.   That is why such labels are disallowed in forums such as this.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.101  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.95    2 months ago

292037193_457998716330626_3720274741660439835_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=g_P1XQBlcjgAX_BIP9t&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-bsEjppGNcF14FM3BCm34fwhnGMjM_AQeUASXcGcburQ&oe=62DF90B2

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.102  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.95    2 months ago

Should we ever have a discussion on the rules, I'll be glad to go into that in depth, but not until then.

No matter what the rules are here at NT, characterizing a comment will NEVER be the same as characterizing a PERSON. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.103  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.77    2 months ago

Yet you did so right here in this seed. 

You whine about a comment being characterized as dishonest while asking this:

Why are you always lying?

Which is a lie. 

It drips with hypocrisy. 

So, I guess you're not the one 'our readers' should rely on for teaching truth and ethics. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.104  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @2.1.102    2 months ago

Amazing that some indicate that they do not understand that basic notion.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.105  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.104    2 months ago

Oh, he understands the basic notion just fine, he just doesn't like it. His Meta seeds prove that fact. He insists that if you criticize what he says, it's the same as criticizing him personally. 

Perhaps he'll throw a tantrum and get the rules 'clarified' to his liking. It's worked for him before. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3  Perrie Halpern R.A.    3 months ago

Here is the thing Vic.

We can keep on finding polls that say what we want them to say. 

A   new poll   suggests that more than 60% of Americans think that the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol was planned rather than spontaneous, including nearly 50% of Republicans.

The survey, released Wednesday by   Quinnipiac University , shows that 64% of Americans believe that the attack was planned, including 84% of Democrats and 61% of independents. Among Republicans, the response is divided, with 49% saying it was planned and 46% believing the insurrection was spontaneous.

The release of the survey came one day before the House Jan. 6 panel was set to hold its fifth public hearing, this one focused on former President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Justice Department officials to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

While a majority of Americans — 59% — believe that former President Trump bears responsibility for the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, those surveyed are split about whether or not he committed a crime for his efforts to overturn the election.

Among those surveyed, nearly six in 10 Americans believe Trump bears “some” (18%) or “a lot” (41%) of responsibility for the Jan. 6 attack, though those figures are largely split along party lines — 69% of Republican respondents believe that Trump bears little-to-no responsibility for the attack, compared to 92% of Democrats and 60% of Republicans who believe the former president is responsible for the insurrection.

Forty-six percent of those surveyed say that Trump committed a crime in his attempts to change the results of the 2020 election, including 85% of Democrats and 43% of independents, while 47% say he did not, including 81% of Republicans and 48% of independents.

OK Here is another one:

64 percent in new poll say they think Jan. 6 attack was planned

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults believe the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol was planned,   according to a new Quinnipiac poll .

The poll found that 64 percent of respondents believed the attack was planned and 30 percent believed it was spontaneous.

Democrats were more likely to believe the attack was planned — only 13 percent said it was spontaneous — while Republicans were more divided. Forty-nine percent of Republicans said the attack was planned, compared to 46 percent who said it was spontaneous.

Nearly 6 in 10 respondents believe former President Trump bears at least some responsibility for the storming of the Capitol, with 41 percent saying he bears a lot of responsibility.

But when asked if they thought Trump committed a crime in his efforts to change the 2020 presidential election results, Americans were split. Forty-six percent said he committed a crime, but 47 percent said he did not.

“Yes, the January 6 attack was planned, say more than 60 percent of Americans, and a majority say yes, former President Trump bears a measure of responsibility for the calamity that ensued,” Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy said in a release. “But criminal charges for Trump? It’s a toss-up. There is no consensus.”

The pollsters noted that the proportion of people believing Trump committed a crime was “essentially unchanged” from when the question was asked in early April. 

But the poll came in the wake of three public hearings held by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot. The committee has aimed to cut through to the public and make the case that Trump’s claims were connected to the Capitol attack.

A majority of respondents — 58 percent — said they were following news about the committee’s work at least somewhat closely, but 24 percent said they were not watching closely at all. Seventeen percent said they were watching its work not so closely.

The poll surveyed 1,524 adults nationwide from June 17 to June 20, with a margin of error of plus or minus

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3    3 months ago

Yesterday, I believe it was , Vic was saying that the Jan6 committee is "smearing" Trump. I asked him 4 or 5 times for specifics of how the committee is smearing Trump and never got an answer. 

If these same acts were connected to anyone but Donald Trump that individual (president or ex president) would be considered (by everyone) as one of the worst or the worst public figure in American history. This is not even a close call. But Trump has a cult following. For 18 years Alan Simpson was a stalwart conservative in the US Senate representing the most conservative state in the union, Wyoming. Now he says "We're not really talking about common sense or even politics anymore in my party, ..this is not a Republican Party anymore. It's a cult."

Trumpism is political extremism. If they werent extremists they wouldnt have forced their way into the US Capitol building on Jan 6 2021. Of course they are extremist, after all, many of them want the most disgraced president in US history to RUN FOR THE OFFICE AGAIN.

This is very serious in our country, even though Trump himself is often a buffoon. People [ deleted ] are constantly promoting one Big Lie or another. Socialists, communists, the "woke" , teachers unions, racial minorities, are constantly destroying the American way of life, [ deleted ] who longs for the pre civil rights 1950's ( and pre many social programs). 

What I truly dont understand is how people think they can persuade those [ deleted ] by having normal discussions with them. I hardly bother with that anymore, because I try to stay off the hamster wheel. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 months ago

Perrie, about 60% of NT would rather talk about the Jan 6th Committee spectacle than the tangible things that effect ordinary Americans. I know that some people may not feel inflation or the high gas prices or even unsafe streets, but it's all right in your face even if you don't feel it. The democrats, whether you want to believe it or not, are using this hearing politically to spare them the drubbing that's coming in November.

Do you really think the voters are going to elevate the issue of Jan 6th over the wellbeing of their families?

This will playout, especially here on NT, until the November election, but it won't stop the well earned disaster the democratic party is going to suffer.

BTW, my point today, had nothing to do with finding a poll I liked. Note the unanswered questions. My point is very simple. If one has a solid case to make, one need not stack the deck and use devious means to make it. That is exactly what Nancy Pelosi did and most people can see it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    3 months ago
If one has a solid case to make, one need not stack the deck and use devious means to make it.

McCarthy wanted to put Jim Jordan and James Banks on the committee. Jordan is himself possibly implicated in the wrongdoing, having talked with Trump on the phone numerous times that day. He is also most well known for his ridiculous antics during congressional hearings, badgering witnesses with witless irrelevancies and preposterous tangents. (And that is being nice to him). He and Banks would have turned the hearings into an absolute circus. You arent upset because Pelosi did the wrong thing, you are upset because she did the right thing. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    3 months ago
You arent upset because Pelosi did the wrong thing, you are upset because she did the right thing. 

And when the Republicans do it next year you'll call it the wrong thing. At least you admitted that Pelosi broke all precedent. Dulay wants us to believe that McCarthy refused to appoint people.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
4.1.2  Hallux  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    3 months ago
You arent upset because Pelosi did the wrong thing, you are upset because she did the right thing.

More likely he is pumping his fist. Vic couldn't care less about the Don unless he decides to run for 2024 at which point he will be truly miffed at no pot-o-gold for his rainbow denier Ron something or another.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.1    3 months ago
Dulay wants us to believe that McCarthy refused to appoint people.

What I want is to deal in FACTS. The FACT is that McCarthy refused to nominate members that they could agree on AND withdrew the nominees that WERE agreed on. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Kavika   replied to  Dulay @4.1.3    3 months ago

One can't deal with facts when the are factless.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @4.1.2    2 months ago
Ron something

The man democrats fear

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.3    2 months ago

You still can't admit the truth. Whatever McCarthy did was in response to Pelosi refusing two prominent Republicans to the Committee.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    2 months ago
You still can't admit the truth.

I posted the truth backed up with documentation, you've posted alternate versions of 'the truth' backed up by nothing. 

Whatever McCarthy did was in response to Pelosi refusing two prominent Republicans to the Committee.

Well that is quite an evolutionary journey from your first comments on this topic Vic. 

Let's see if YOU can admit the truth:

Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas would be on the Select Committee today if McCarthy had not withdrawn their nomination. 

Can you admit that Vic?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    2 months ago

Exclusive: Jan. 6 Committee Plans to Humiliate MAGA Lawmakers Who Cowered During Capitol Attack

Adam Rawnsley, Nikki McCann Ramirez and Asawin Suebsaeng
Wed, July 20, 2022 at 9:38 PM
8d338fa8df2cd9a00258cd01bb739d35
january-6-dc-2021-1800 - Credit: Jon Cherry/Getty Images

The   Jan. 6   committee plans to use its Thursday night hearing to call out insurrection-friendly lawmakers who cowered during the Capitol attack but have since downplayed the insurrection’s severity, according to two sources familiar with the committee’s planning.

“They have plans to paint a really striking picture of how some of Trump’s greatest enablers of his coup plot were — no matter what they’re saying today — quaking in their boots and doing everything shy of crying out for their moms,” one source tells   Rolling Stone . “If any of [these lawmakers] were capable of shame, they would be humiliated.”

More from Rolling Stone

Throughout its hearings, the committee has made extensive use of photo and video evidence, including, at times, footage of lawmakers reacting to a mob of   Donald Trump   supporters who fought through a police line to break into the Capitol.

The committee has at times switched plans at the last minute, and it remains unclear which specific lawmakers the committee could call out. But at least some Republicans have already had their attempts to downplay or justify the attempted coup undone by footage from the day of the attack. When Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga) claimed the insurrection “a normal tourist visit,” social media users quickly located photos of the Georgia Republican   gasping in terror   and hiding behind an armed Capitol police officer pointing a handgun at a barricaded entrance to the Senate floor.

In the 18 months since the insurrection, Republican lawmakers have tried to   whitewash   the insurrection through a   series of contradictory talking points . Republicans have alternately downplayed the attack by calling it “ a peaceful protest ,” claimed it was violent but that the violence was carried out solely by   nonexistent “antifa”   at the Capitol or   federal informants , or that Democrats were to blame for failing to   adequately defend   the Capitol against the protesters they variously claim weren’t violent or a threat.

Republicans like Reps. Matt Gaetz,  Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Paul Gosar have gone so far as to cast alleged rioters held in pretrial detention as unjustly accused   political prisoners .

The bulk of the Thursday night hearing is expected to focus on Trump’s actions during the insurrection, including whether he took any action to defuse the riot at a time when lawmakers were under attack. But using photos and footage to slap down MAGA lawmakers’ claims of a “tourist visit” from “peaceful patriots” is part of a broader effort to bring reality to bear on a fictitious, pro-Trump reimagining of Jan. 6.

That mythology, peddled widely in conservative media, claims Trump and his allies planned a peaceful rally to highlight credible reports of systemic election fraud, exercising their First Amendment rights in an effort to protect democracy. In that warped telling, the peaceful demonstrations were hijacked by a small number of violent extremists with no connection to Trump or his team. And, as the lie goes, Democrats have since wildly overstated the violence as a political ploy.

Through interviews with more than   1,000 individuals and reviews of more than 125,000 records , the Jan. 6 committee has debunked every part of that narrative. Instead, the committee has demonstrated that Trump attempted to steal an election he was repeatedly told he’d lost. And that his efforts to steal it included directing a wildly unconstitutional phony electors scheme — and priming his supporters for a Capitol attack.

As Trump spoke at his pre-planned rally near the White House, he called for a march on the U.S. Capitol, bolstering a crowd of people that violently clashed with law enforcement. Testimony given to the committee indicated that Trump and members of the administration were aware of the potential for violence, and witnesses have alleged that Trump went so far as to   ask for security at his Ellipse rally to be loosened   so armed individuals could enter the crowd. Trump’s team has attempted to distance itself from any of the Capitol events, but the committee has revealed that the former presidents call for his supporters’ march was premeditated.

The committee obtained a draft of an unsent tweet in which Trump teased a march to the Capitol following his speech at the Ellipse. “I will be making a Big Speech at 10 a.m. on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House),” read the draft tweet, preserved by the National Archives. “Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the steal!”

The committee also displayed a text exchange from Jan. 4 between White House Ellipse rally organizer Kylie Kremer and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in which the pair discussed a secret plan to have Trump call for protesters to march to a second location, either the Supreme Court or Capitol, on Jan. 6. In the exchange Kremer urged Lindell to keep the plans secret, since they did not have permits for the march.

A second text message from Ali Alexander written on Jan. 5 outlined that plan for the next day. “Tomorrow: Ellipse then US Capitol. Trump is supposed to order us to capitol at the end of his speech but we will see.”

Rolling Stone   this spring reported that top   Trump officials held a phone call   with Kremer in which they actively planned for the march.

Trump’s team has also sought to portray Trump as opposed to the Capitol violence, but the committee revealed he actively resisted efforts to quell the violence — including by refusing to call their actions “illegal” when prompted to do so.

In her   bombshell testimony before the committee , former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson revealed that she had drafted a statement for President Trump asking protesters who had entered the Capitol “illegally” to leave. According to Hutchinson, former white House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows took the draft statement to Trump, who scratched out the word “illegally” and refused to issue it. Hutchinson was told there would be no “further action on that statement.”

Stephanie Grisham, former chief of staff and press secretary to First Lady Melania Trump, later tweeted out a screenshot today of a text exchange between her and the first lady on Jan. 6, in which Melania refused to issue a statement condemning “lawlessness and violence” by protesters. Grisham resigned from her position later that day.

 

Indeed, Trump has since continually considered ways to lessen the legal consequences for the Capitol rioters .   Hutchinson also revealed that Trump wanted to include language in his Jan. 7 speech about pardoning his supporters who stormed the Capitol, and that Meadows agreed with the inclusion of such language. According to previous testimony given by Hutchinson, the pardon offer was ultimately removed from the speech on the advice of the White House counsel’s office.

The possibility of pardons has   remained in the president’s mind   since he left office. At a January rally in Houston, he told supporters “If I run, and if I win, we will treat those people from Jan. 6 fairly. And if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons, because they are being treated so unfairly.”

The Jan. 6 insurrection was the highest profile part of a broader effort to steal the 2020 election, but it was far from the only way Trump and his team tried to overturn the results. The committee has revealed Trump took a “direct and personal role” in efforts to pressure states to change their results or appoint phony electors who’d contravene voters by throwing their support to Trump.

In the committee’s fourth hearing, lawmakers described Trump pressuring individual state legislators to go back into session and declare him the true winner of the 2020 election. Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, was told by the former president to “find” the votes necessary to give him the state.

A separate scheme was concocted by Trump lawyer John Eastman to send two slates of alternate electors, declaring Trump the winner, to the congressional certification of the electoral college vote and having Vice President Pence use the false electors in the vote.  Eastman knew the scheme was illegal, and   admitted so in front of Trump   days before the electoral college certification. The committee revealed on June 21 that this scheme culminated in an attempt by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis) to   deliver the fake electors to Pence on Jan. 6 .

None of this was in response to credible information about systemic election fraud, and Trump knew that — or at least he would have, had he listened to multiple high-level members of his administration.

During its first hearing, the committee played recorded testimony from Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr. In his testimony Barr told the committee that he had been clear with the former President that his   claims that the 2020 election had been stolen from him were “bullshit.”   Barr would go on to testify that attempts, by him and other advisors, to convince Trump that the 2020 election was legitimate were futile, and described Trump as being “detached from reality.”

Former acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue also testified to the committee that he   unsuccessfully attempted to reach through to President Trump : “I tried to, again, put this in perspective and try to put it in very clear terms to the president. I said something to the effect of, ‘Sir, we’ve done dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews. The major allegations are not supported by the evidence developed.’”

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.3    2 months ago
McCarthy refused to nominate members that they could agree on

Then obviously they weren't in agreement!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.8    2 months ago

If only I had an interest in anything coming from Rolling Stone.

The "magazine" that got caught lying about the UVA rape story and then the lying tale of ivermectin.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.9    2 months ago
Then obviously they weren't in agreement!

So, YOU still can't admit the truth Vic.

They DID agree on three GOP members. Your own link states that FACT. If not for McCarthy's petulance, all three of those GOP Representatives would be seated on the Committee.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.11    2 months ago

The truth is Pelosi chose every member of that committee.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.12    2 months ago
The truth is Pelosi chose every member of that committee.

Well gee Vic, for 4 fucking days you have been giving McCarthy a pass because you claim he was just reacting to Pelosi refusing to seat Banks and Jordan. 

Now you're whining about Pelosi reacting to McCarthy refusing to seat ANYONE.

That's pretty fucking hypocritical. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.13    2 months ago

Well gee Dulay, It appears that I was right.

Even Clarence Darrow would have conceded by now. Time to give it up.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.14    2 months ago

Another comment illustrating galactic cognitive dissonance. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.16  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.15    2 months ago

Let's try and use a little more common language. We don't want to turn this place into an episode of Firing Line, where everyone in the audience is reaching for a dictionary.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.16    2 months ago

Let's try and use a little more common language. We don't want to turn this place into an episode of Firing Line, where everyone in the audience is reaching for a dictionary.

Wait WHAT?
Aren't YOU the one that holds yourself up as a teacher?
What 'teacher' insists that vocabulary should be 'dumbed down'? 
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.18  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.17    2 months ago

The teacher that never talks over the heads of the students.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.18    2 months ago

The teacher that never talks over the heads of the students.

What grade level are you 'teaching' to Vic? This IS an adult forum after all. 

Good teachers have high expectations of their 'students' and try to elevate their vocabulary. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.19    2 months ago

It's not Legal debate that I teach. It's truth and ethics.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.20    2 months ago
It's not Legal debate that I teach.

It's not any form of debate. 

It's truth and ethics.

Another comment illustrating galactic cognitive dissonance.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.1    2 months ago

And when the Republicans do it next year you'll call it the wrong thing.

What are the Republicans going to do next year Vic? 

At least you admitted that Pelosi broke all precedent.

You keep repeating that bullshit.

The FACT is the 'precedent' that was broken is the Minority Leader withdrawing nominations and refusing to nominate a full set of acceptable members to a Select committee. 

Refute THAT Vic.

Hint: You can't. 

Dulay wants us to believe that McCarthy refused to appoint people.

I still can't understand why you incessantly try to pretend that you speak for anyone but yourself. 
As for YOU, I couldn't care less what you believe.
What I have an issue with are the 'alternative facts' disseminated in your comments and the gaslighting that are the foundation of all too many of your seeds. 
But hey, you be you Vic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.21    2 months ago

A word to the wise: People don't like us putting on airs.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.24  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.22    2 months ago
Refute THAT Vic.

I have.  Pelosi broke precedent. McCarthy merely responded.


Hint: You can't. 

Hint: Trying to get the last word won't change it. It is childish to pursue the last word, especially when you've been proven wrong.


As for YOU, I couldn't care less what you believe.

Then why waste my time?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.23    2 months ago
A word to the wise:

From the obtuse.

People don't like us putting on airs.

Yet again, you pretend to speak for others. 

Let me give it a try: 

What 'people' don't like is members posting seeds and making comments that they are unable or unwilling to back up and then claiming 'VICTORY!'. 

'People' also don't like abuse of this forum by those that dump incessant lies, both in seeds and comments and then, even after being cogently refuted, rinsing and repeating that same lies a day or a week or a month later as if it never happened.

'People' also don't like insults to their intelligence. Incessantly trying to gaslight members with fabricated 'alternative facts' is as far from 'truth and ethics' as one can get. 

How'd I do Vic? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.26  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.25    2 months ago

Gee, Dulay, I'd like to talk to you but as you said: "I couldn't care less what you believe."

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.27  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.24    2 months ago
I have.  Pelosi broke precedent. McCarthy merely responded.

Nope. 

Hint: Trying to get the last word won't change it. It is childish to pursue the last word, especially when you've been proven wrong.

Yet here you are, doing just that. 

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

Then why waste my time?

You volunteered your time by posting this seed Vic.

Instead of deflecting, why not use your time more productively and answer my questions in 1.1.36

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.1.28  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.24    2 months ago
I have.  Pelosi broke precedent. McCarthy merely responded.

McCarthy cut off his nose to spite his face, now he has no one on the committee and whines about it ignoring his own stupidity, typical wannabe.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.29  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.24    2 months ago
Pelosi broke precedent.

Another way that McCarthy broke precedent was he nominated Jim Jordan, a material witness to the investigation. 

Then there is the fact that Banks release this on the day he was nominated:

Here is Banks’s reaction statement:

WASHINGTON, DC– Today, Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy appointed Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) to serve as the Republican ranking member on Speaker Pelosi’s Select Committee to investigate January 6.

Here is Banks’s reaction statement:

“I have accepted Leader McCarthy's appointment to this committee because we need leaders who will force the Democrats and the media to answer questions so far ignored. Among them, why was the Capitol unprepared and vulnerable to attack on January 6?

Just as a reminder, a Joint Senate Committee had ALREADY investigated that question.

So, was Banks ignorant or gaslighting? 

“If Democrats were serious about investigating political violence, this committee would be studying not only the January 6 riot at the Capitol, but also the hundreds of violent political riots last summer when many more innocent Americans and law-enforcement officers were attacked. And of course, the committee would not overlook the Good Friday murder of USCP Officer Billy Evans that was perpetrated by a far-left extremist.

So, Banks wants to completely REDEFINE the Committee's mandate from HS 503. 

“Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi created this committee solely to malign conservatives and to justify the Left’s authoritarian agenda.
"Even then, I will do everything possible to give the American people the facts about the lead up to January 6, the riot that day, and the responses from Capitol leadership and the Biden administration. I will not allow this committee to be turned into a forum for condemning millions of Americans because of their political beliefs.”

It's pretty fucking obvious that Banks intended to be a partisan firebrand [exactly why McCarthy nominated him] rather than a serious finder of fact.

Oh, and I can't give that 'the responses from...the Biden Administration' statement from Banks a pass. What a moron! Banks is just one more GOP 'leader' that is an utter embarrassment to Indiana. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.30  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @4.1.28    2 months ago
typical wannabe.

I believe Pelosi & co have just made him the next Speaker of the House.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.30    2 months ago

His speakership would be more a function of the normal mid-term dynamics exacerbated by a shitty economy.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.32  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.31    2 months ago

Of the last 21 midterms since 1934, only twice has the President's party gained seats in the midterm elections. 

Yet we have all too many 'conservatives' here who are thumping their chest and insisting that they can either lay blame or take credit for what you rightly characterize as 'normal midterm dynamics'. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.1.33  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.30    2 months ago
I believe Pelosi & co have just made him the next Speaker of the House.

Whoosh.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
4.1.34  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.20    2 months ago
It's not Legal debate that I teach. It's truth and ethics

u do WHAT....?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    3 months ago
Note the unanswered questions. 

Your questions have been answered and is your MO, you exited stage right. 

My point is very simple.

You don't have a fucking point Vic. 

If one has a solid case to make, one need not stack the deck and use devious means to make it. 

You keep conflating the Select Committee mandate with a criminal or civil trial. Just stop.

That is exactly what Nancy Pelosi did and most people can see it.

What is it with RW extremists need to elevate their adversary to some kind of all-powerful entity? Nancy Pelosi chose the members of the Committee. The Chair and Vice Chair chose the support staff of lawyers that have been questioning the witnesses. TRUMP chose the vast majority of the witnesses. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.2    2 months ago

You tried to twist it around and it didn't work.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.1    2 months ago
You tried to twist it around and it didn't work.

The cognitive dissonance in that comment is galactic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 months ago

Kinzinger says Trump would probably lie under oath to Jan. 6 committee

FX7yrc9XEAEbIBC?format=jpg&name=small


https:// trib.al/P02RN2O


Well is he is going to commit perjury, let's send him a subpoena!

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
5.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    3 months ago

Donald's history does give a degree of validification to Kinzinger's observation.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @5.1    3 months ago

That's why whatshisname won't testify - EVERYONE KNOWS, EVEN WHATSHISNAME KNOWS, HE WILL LIE

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
6  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago

If the hearings do no more than cause proceedings that prevent Trump from ever running for public office again they will have at least accomplished a necessity.  Putting Trump in jail would be icing on the cake.

As well, I think that the article title probably applies to more than Americans' faith in the American system.

 
 

Who is online

Kavika
Sparty On
Revillug
bugsy
Texan1211
Snuffy
CB
Jack_TX


23 visitors