Faith in American System Drops | Monmouth University Polling Institute
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 years ago • 228 commentsBy: Monmouth University Polling Institute
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
Who is online
76 visitors
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?
Nonsense, try a simple explanation like your abject partisanship.
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?
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.
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?
Left the building a long time ago under the guise of "draining the swamp". It's time you figured that out.
Ok, so you admit the committee is only political theatre designed to save democrats in the midterms.
Why did it take him over 3 hours to issue those words?
They were asked and refused. Gym Jordan was one that was specifically asked and he flat out refused.
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.
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.
I never expected it to, the RW press has been inoculating their readers from sanity for years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Care to try again.
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.
I see that the gaslighting is working.
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?
Why lie Vic?
Then it should be easy for your to PROVE it.
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.
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."
BTFW YOU NEVER PROVED THAT DONALD TRUMP INTRODUCED A CRT PROGRAM AT WEST POINT!
That would have been front page news!
Because as you said Sparty locked it and I couldn't reply
When were they subpoenaed?
Based on your comment, Meadows should have been in jail for months.
How about admitting, at long last, that Pelosi refused to seat minority members?
There isn't a CRT program at the US Military Academy or at least I couldn't find one in their course catalogue.
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.
Did you see Post 7 :
BULL SHIT DULAY.
The NPR story shows that McCarthy didn't take his ball until fucking Pelosi refused to seat two prominent Republicans.
Again, WHY are you derailing your own seed Vic?
In Sparty's locked seed, you stated:
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
How is that relevant Vic?
Against WHAT?
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?
Instead of derailing THIS seed, you could seed Sparty's laughable seed yourself.
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.
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.
So you admit that McCarthy DID take his ball and went home. PROGRESS!
From YOUR NPR link:
ALL three of those GOP Reps would be on the committee right now if McCarthy hadn't had a tantrum.
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)
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.
Who wants to be fair here?
Good training.
Besides you and I?
Even the 06 was surprised, lol.
Exactly.
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.
Ahh, the double pension, then even more free time, maybe Social Security thrown in too.
Well done.
You got that right, two pensions, social security and my TSP investments. Sweet deal if the younger generation can keep up their payments.
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?
He will never admit it. From the transcript of the 6th session (video below):
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.
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.
Now
or this?
Is how sensible people react to that statement along with the red flags
"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
WTF does that mean?
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Or maybe many an embarrassed republican has switched to independent. That might make sense.
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.
That's a democrat thing. Voting in the other party's primaries and supporting radicals in the opposing party is all democrat play.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is fascinating and pathetic.
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.
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
What is the "smear" Vic?
Stop making everyone laugh at you.
What is the smear? Be specific.
Are you able to answer the question?
Don't tell me that the 3 of you can't answer the most glaring question.
I asked you what the frigging smear is Vic.
Lets hear it , NOW.
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.
What personal attack? Ignoring the testimony presented by the committee (i.e. not watching it) is willful ignorance.
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.
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.
Vic, you claimed that the committee is smearing Trump. What is the smear? Stop trying to back out of your charge.
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.
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??
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?
The committee was supposed to find out how it happened, right? What happened to that?
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.
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.
People who have not watched the hearings should not be commenting on them. Otherwise we get ludicrous things such as this seed.
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.
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.
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.
That's exactly what they are doing.
Because she isn't responsible for Capitol Security.
[Deleted]
Tossing in a year old poll does not serve your cause.
To a minor extent she is but then so is 'he who shall be forever blameless' Mitch McConnell.
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]
[deleted]
Your link is almost a YEAR old and conducted long before anyone had seen any of the testimony from Trump loyalists.
FAIL.
And complaints about Trump from the left began long before Jan 6th.
All valid.
Which is irrelevant to what we're 'NOW up against' Vic.
Another utter FAIL.
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?
No, it's only task, as Captain Ahab might say, is taking down that great white whale!
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.
Your Honor, I ask that this case be dismissed for "Malicious prosecution."
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?
If it was all about Trump, Pelosi should have been honest enough to say so.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
What's there to know.
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.
There's a lot of hearsay and speculation in that jumble of words you spewed out there.
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.
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.
You must have not watched the hearings...
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!
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.
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.
is mere speculation and hearsay. Not to mention one sided.
Text messages from the organizers stating that fact prior to the rally were entered into evidence. Try to keep up.
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 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.
My reading of the Constitution shows that they DO have the authority to legislate. Their first bill should amend the Electoral Count Act.
It helps people get informed; far better than any news in any other media outlet. At least those who are not willfully ignorant.
No, Jeremy, you are clearly entirely uninformed about these hearings. Pathetic.
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.
The National Guard was already in DC. They were traffic control. Or was that not in your list?
Still haven't see proof of that.
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.
Strawman.
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:
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.
I posted the entire section above Jeremy. Do you have a point?
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.
Please cite the House rule that allege was violated. I'll wait.
Why should 'we' give any credibility to the unfounded opinion of someone who has admitted that he hasn't watched the hearings?
That is a lie.
First of all, YOU haven't seen ANYTHING.
Secondly, the Select Committee isn't conducting a trial, so your statement is irrelevant.
Provided you a link in 2.1.48 . That's a good start.
As EVERY member can see for themselves, I said:
That is a clear and factual statement Jeremy. Yours is a strawman.
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:
That piece of evidence was retrieved from the National Archive.
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:
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.
Nope, you're deflecting Jeremy.
It's obvious that you proffer claims that are baseless.
But hey, you be you.
What are you talking about? You do not seem to have any knowledge of these hearings.
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?
So you haven't read it. I'll wait.
Shouldn't you be looking for a link to something I supposedly said?
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?
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.
How does that compare with calling people partisan and dishonest?
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?
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.
BTFW, do you remember posting this Vic?
How does that compare to calling a comment partisan and dishonest?
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!"
Some people have such a self-aggrandizement ego that they break their arm patting themselves on the back.
"Some people have such a self-aggrandizement ego that they break their arm patting themselves on the back"
Ya! So true. Conquered!
Ya right!
Heavy is the crown
Oh how cute. You trying to act like you're important.
Don't you know how to work a search engine on the internet?
See the link in 2.1.48.
[Deleted]
Do you not consider yourself an R partisan?
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.
It's never ethical to label one's opponent in a civil discussion.
Even here you can learn things.
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).
[Deleted]
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.
"Even here you can learn things."
[Deleted]
I'll save my opinions on that for when we have that long awaited discussion on the rules.
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.
I admit I am partisan. Frankly there is nothing wrong with it, as long as the partisanship is based on facts.
No! Really??
You are free to describe yourself as you wish. Others should not be characterizing you.
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.
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.
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).
You left out "dishonest!"
Nope. Just trying to hold YOU to supporting you claims.
There is no 'Jeremy made shit up again' search engine.
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.
Deep is the delusion.
Then you should keep up with the conversation.
I have Jeremy.
You stated:
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.
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.
Should we ever have a discussion on the rules, I'll be glad to go into that in depth, but not until then.
You're getting there. Keep going back. You'll eventually catch up.
You're getting nowhere.
Stop deflecting.
You'll never post a comment that expresses adult responsibility for the false claim you've posted.
So I'm deflecting because you can't keep up. Gotcha, you have no idea what the conversation is. Have a good weekend.
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.
I'll leave it up to other members to make that call Jeremy. I'm pretty fucking sure that most will disagree with you.
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.
Yet you did so right here in this seed.
You whine about a comment being characterized as dishonest while asking this:
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.
Amazing that some indicate that they do not understand that basic notion.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One can't deal with facts when the are factless.
The man democrats fear
You still can't admit the truth. Whatever McCarthy did was in response to Pelosi refusing two prominent Republicans to the Committee.
I posted the truth backed up with documentation, you've posted alternate versions of 'the truth' backed up by nothing.
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?
Exclusive: Jan. 6 Committee Plans to Humiliate MAGA Lawmakers Who Cowered During Capitol Attack
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
'Total Hoes and Thots': Ex-Trump Aide Rails Against Jan. 6 Committee in Unhinged Rant
Are the Feds Handing Trump an Unfair Advantage in the 2024 Election?
Bakery Owner Turned Pole-Wielding Jan. 6 Rioter to Face Federal Charges
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.’”
Then obviously they weren't in agreement!
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.
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.
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.
Well gee Dulay, It appears that I was right.
Even Clarence Darrow would have conceded by now. Time to give it up.
Another comment illustrating galactic cognitive dissonance.
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.
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.
It's not Legal debate that I teach. It's truth and ethics.
It's not any form of debate.
Another comment illustrating galactic cognitive dissonance.
What are the Republicans going to do next year Vic?
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.
A word to the wise: People don't like us putting on airs.
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?
From the obtuse.
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?
Gee, Dulay, I'd like to talk to you but as you said: "I couldn't care less what you believe."
Nope.
Yet here you are, doing just that.
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 ?
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.
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:
Just as a reminder, a Joint Senate Committee had ALREADY investigated that question.
So, was Banks ignorant or gaslighting?
So, Banks wants to completely REDEFINE the Committee's mandate from HS 503.
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.
I believe Pelosi & co have just made him the next Speaker of the House.
His speakership would be more a function of the normal mid-term dynamics exacerbated by a shitty economy.
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'.
Whoosh.
u do WHAT....?
Your questions have been answered and is your MO, you exited stage right.
You don't have a fucking point Vic.
You keep conflating the Select Committee mandate with a criminal or civil trial. Just stop.
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.
You tried to twist it around and it didn't work.
The cognitive dissonance in that comment is galactic.
Kinzinger says Trump would probably lie under oath to Jan. 6 committee
https:// trib.al/P02RN2O
Well is he is going to commit perjury, let's send him a subpoena!
Donald's history does give a degree of validification to Kinzinger's observation.
That's why whatshisname won't testify - EVERYONE KNOWS, EVEN WHATSHISNAME KNOWS, HE WILL LIE
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.