Jan. 6 hearings 'are going to blow the roof off the House,' Rep. Raskin says
Category: News & Politics
Via: john-russell • 3 years ago • 135 commentsBy: David Knowles·Senior EditorJanuary 14, 2022, 5:15 PM·3 min read (YahooNews)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On a Thursday Zoom call with progressive activists, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said that the upcoming hearings by the Jan. 6 select committee probing the riot at the U.S. Capitol staged by supporters of former President Donald Trump will "blow the roof off the House."
"We are going to do everything we can to subpoena all the information we need and to enforce our subpoenas. But even if we don't get every last person in there, we are going to have hearings that I believe will be compared to the Watergate hearings, because they are going to blow the roof off the House in terms of explaining to America what actually happened in the attack on our democracy," Raskin, who sits on the select committee, told an audience of approximately 40,000 people who watched his remarks on Facebook.
While former Trump administration figures and supporters have defied subpoenas for information and testimony, Raskin said the committee had spoken with more than 400 witnesses to date who have already laid the groundwork for explosive hearings.
"I hope everybody will watch and I hope everybody will discuss it and then it will lead to a report that, I hope again, will be a game changer in terms of American history," Raskin said.
In response to questions about holding Trump personally accountable for pushing the disproven claim that he lost the 2020 presidential election due to voter fraud, which served as the motivation for the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, Raskin promised "a reckoning."
"But you know, the guy's a walking crime wave, and he has committed crimes all over the country, including sexual harassment and assault on a lot of people. There's bank fraud and there's real estate fraud and there's tax fraud," Raskin said.
"And there are prosecutors all over the country, looking at all that stuff. I don't want us to fetishize Donald Trump that much — he will meet you know, his maker, one place or another, there will be accountability and a reckoning with the law."
Story continues Rep. Jamie Raskin. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)
The committee has already made headlines by releasing text messages it has obtained that it says show that Fox News host Sean Hannity "had advance knowledge regarding President Trump's and his legal team's planning for January 6th," and that Ivanka Trump had urged her father to stop the violence at the Capitol.
The committee also said this week that it had interviewed Trump supporter Ray Epps and released a statement that attempted to discredit the assertion made by some conservatives that he was acting as an FBI agent or informant when encouraging people to enter the Capitol. Epps appeared on the FBI's Most Wanted list shortly after the Jan. 6 riot, only to be later removed, a fact that some Republicans say points to his involvement with the FBI.
"I'm not certain the FBI is totally competent with everything, but I'm totally certain that they would not be so incompetent as to put their own agent on the Most Wanted list," Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of two Republicans serving on the committee, told Yahoo News.
The Jan. 6 select committee has been conducting its investigation for nearly seven months, and plans to hold televised, primetime hearings to lay out its findings in the coming months. Raskin said he understood that many Republicans were simply trying to "run out the clock" on the investigation until the midterm election, when many political observers expect the Democrats to lose control of the House and, as a result, the Jan. 6 committee.
For now, though, Raskin, who served as a manager during Trump's second impeachment, sounded confident that the hearings that were soon to commence would have an impact.
"This is the most bipartisan committee I've ever been on, with a great Democratic chair and a great Republican vice chair and what I see is constitutional patriots working every single day and every single evening to get the truth out to the American people before it's too late."
They are going to prove that Trump tried to overthrow his own government. Its going to be big.
It was never Trump's "own government"; It was his administration.
The last sentence of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address defines the US Government:
"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Trump wanted to make it HIS government butt, fortunately, the coup failed (so far).
It was never Trump's "own government"
Trump never got that memo.
Or not. It could go either way. My money is on it is it blowing up in the Democrat's faces, like other things have recently in the last year, but I'll wait for any legitimate reliable word.
Even if they prove that beyond a shadow of doubt, the republicans won't give a shit and will still push for Trump to be re-elected.
They have interviewed over 400 witnesses and received tens of thousands of pages of documents in what looks to be a very thorough and comprehensive bipartisan investigation. Congressman Raskin is a serious individual. If he says it will "blow the roof off the House", I believe him. Restating John's observation above, it's going to be big.
[deleted]
Remember how many of you fell for all the hype about Mueller?
Imagine taking Jaime Raskin seriously.
I'm pretty sure if they were trying to overthrow the Government they would have been armed. We have 400 Million firearms in this country and not one was brought to the TDS insurrection.
Remember how many of you fell for all the hype about Trump's Birther investigators in Hawaii?
Imagine taking bullshit about Mueller seriously.
.
Pay attention. Try reading what I wrote again and respond with something that isn't nonsensical.
I did, hence my comment:
Imagine taking bullshit about Mueller seriously.
When your president's approval ratings are the worst in the modern era you investigate unarmed shirtless moose-hat wearing insurrectionists.
Trump's approval ratings were worse that Bidens.
FAIL!
Can't even get the kind of hat right.
Took less than two seconds to prove you wrong. This is a straight up comparison comparing both of their first years. Given the fact Trump had to deal with TDS driven mighty mental midgets; his numbers would have even been higher. Guess the left is still sticking their head in the sand pretending that the human fuck up machine they put into office is still viable.
Biden has no where to go but down.
As for failures- the partisan Pelosi appointed committee has no legal or ethical standing. It violates several House rules. There isn't a single Republican on it. (Before you claim that the two TDS driven lap dogs Pelosi appointed are Republicans- no, they aren't. Liz Cheney has been removed by the state and national Republican party. Republicans in the House are trying to force McCarthy to remove both from the House Republicans. Kinzinger isn't seeking reelection- not that the Republicans would allow him to run again under their brand.
Love all the Brandons on the left continuing to be true believers in the Democrat bullshit machine. I am sure this time they have Trump for sure./S
Base your opinion on ONE poll for ONE week if you like.
MY statement is based on poll averages, during the same time in office.
Ballotpedia's Polling Index: Comparison of opinion polling during the Trump and Biden administrations - Ballotpedia
Nope. You responded to a post that cited ONE POLL, and Ronin proved you were wrong with another SINGLE POLL.
Bringing out averages of polls to try and cover your failure is disingenuous.
What poll did Moose Knuckle cite bugsy?
Being incapable of following a thread is sad bugsy. You're running around behind me spewing out kneejerk bullshit. Just stop.
When you recognize your mistake, I'm sure you'll post your apologies. /s
Good one...!
Hey bugsy, remember this post?
Well, when that's all you got, you go for it.
[deleted]
You see, Dulay...
some of us have lives outside NT. I'm sorry you apparently are not one of those.
My post you decided to use was obviously using the same exact tactic you use to try and disparage someone for having a life outside here.
It's telling that you came back to this thread to post that snarky crap yet failed to answer the question I put to you.
I don't know, Dulay. Ask Moose Knucle. I'm sure it was the one that has Biden at 33 percent, which is the lowest in modern history. You know, they guy you and yours voted for.
No need to apologize as I am rarely, if ever, wrong on her, and when I am I admit it. Ask Gsquared for proof.
Have a nice evening s/
No it wasn't. It was lame.
Well, I did answer your question. I hate to tell you this, but this site does not rotate around Dulay, the queen of snark on here.
BTFW, Dulay, what makes you think the post was snark? Maybe I was asking Tessylo a legitimate question.
Deflection.
I don't use it to disparage anyone for having a life outside of here bugsy, I use it to point out that a member has spewed bullshit and then bailed. Which BTFW, is exactly what you did.
Moose Knuckle isn't the one who made the claim, that was YOU.
So all you've got is deflection.
WTF are you blathering about bugsy. It's clear that your comment was bullshit. If you're incapable of manning up and admitting it, so be it. That's on you.
Proof of WHAT?
Why lie?
I hate to tell you this but your whining is comical.
The fact that it was removed for trolling speaks for itself bugsy.
Well, if you believe that, then you agree you did the exact same thing in your little post you tried to cite.
Nice to see you finally coming around
If you are unable to respond coherently, then maybe not posting at all would be your best route.
It would be for the rest of us.
Sure..because I was consulted prior to it being deleted s/
Your comments are becoming more and more incoherent.
There's a saying:
Physician heal thyself.
They weren't coherent to begin with.
Impasse.
Impasse
For all the statements that this committee is to investigate what happened and insure that it doesn't happen again they do seem to be solely focused on Trump and the rioters. Why is Pelosi and Bowser off limits for the committee? If the Capital Police Chief requested additional support and National Guard, why was it turned down by the House Sgt at Arms? Why is all of this off limits? Sure, if Trump is legally liable for this hold him accountable. But the optics of this are a 3rd impeachment trial of Donald Trump.
Donald Trump tried to overthrow the government and all you can ask is why isnt Nancy Pelosi being investigated. [deleted]
Once again you are confusing party affiliation with political leanings. As I stated before
For the record, when I turned 18 and registered for the first time I registered as a Republican simply because my parents were registered as Republicans. Over time I felt the party did less and less to represent what my beliefs were (common for many people as they grow) and I changed my political party registration to independent. So my party affiliation is independent.
As to my political leanings (which really have little to do with party affiliation) I would say I'm mostly a mix of conservative and libertarian values, with a good sprinkling of progressive ideals mixed in. I don't live in a world of black and white, there are many shades of grey that form my opinions and beliefs. And I find as I grow older that I have less tolerance for those who bask in their black and white world view.
Talk about the seed, not another poster.
The committee continues to state their function is to find out how & why Jan 6th happened and to prevent it from happening again. If that is truly the purpose of the committee then everything should be looking at including the reports that the Capital Police Chief did request the National Guard and his requests were refused.
If the committee will not review ALL that occurred then as I said above the optics look like this is nothing more than a third attempt at impeachment. And as I said above, if Trump is legally liable then by all means hold him accountable. I think they will have a hard time proving he is legally liable and this will end up very similar to the Mueller investigation.
They asked me what party I wanted when I had to register. I told them Independent and I believe they told me I had to pick one or the other. I said no and I think they left that part blank then.
In Arizona if you are independent then your voter ID card shows Party: NONE
Different states have different rules, but I think the end result is the same. I am not a member of either the Rep or Dem parties and do not vote in the primaries.
You keep making that claim yet still haven't posted anything to support it.
After reading your repeated unfounded claim, I can't help but wonder if you are intentionally ignoring the FACT that a Joint Committee investigation by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs and the Rules and Administration Committees, interviewed witnesses, reviewed documents, held hearings AND on June 8, 2021 released a 128-page bipartisan report entitled:
EXAMINING THE U.S. CAPITOL ATTACK: A REVIEW OF THE SECURITY, PLANNING, AND RESPONSE FAILURES ON JANUARY 6
Note that the report was released almost a MONTH before the Select Committee was formed.
Within that report, it states:
So it's clear that the Capital Police Chief did NOT request the National Guard before the attack on the Capitol. Sund needed the Capitol Police Board's authorization and NEVER sought it.
But wait, there's MORE:
Note that the initial breach started at 12:53 PM and it took over an HOUR to get the Capitol Police Board's authorization.
BAD!
It wasn't until 3:04 that the Acting SecDef transmitted the authorization to deploy the DCNG.
WORSE!
It wasn't until 5:22 that the DCNG actually ARRIVED at the Capitol.
HORRENDOUS!
Now let's not gloss over the FACT that it was officials from the DOD that didn't support the formal request based on the 'optics'. NOT either of the Sargent at Arms, DOD officials.
In May, 2020, Acting SecDef, Christopher Miller testified to the House Oversight Committee and said this in his written statement:
So Snuffy, despite your unfounded claim, there is a boat load of evidence that Congress has and is indeed serious about finding out how and why Jan. 6th happened and much of that evidence is already ON THE RECORD, from Congressional investigations prior to the Select Committee's work. That's not to say that the Select Committee work is redundant. The prior investigations concentrated on security failures; the Select Committee is looking at POLITICAL failures and accountability.
why do you think the insurrectionists are fighting so hard to keep their telecommunications with each other from law enforcement?
It's too late for most of the little fish.
Because there is no support for his repeated claims. He needs to back them up or stop repeating them.
I couldn't respond previously because I have him blocked and don't see his comments. But as you've copied them, allow me to present..
Quote from Nancy Pelosi on what the committee needs to do...
Proof that the Capitol Police Chief did request national guard support, going thru the proper channels and the requests were denied.
As we can all see, there is NO proof in that block quote that the CPC made his request thru 'proper channels' based on the findings in the report.
It seems that some prefer to continue to post uninformed and unfounded bullshit rather than read the facts.
Ignore away, it doesn't change the FACTS, all it does it prove that you aren't interested in them.
Just in case you missed it ..... I bolded it for you, it shows that the chief reached out to both sergeants-at-arms which is the proper channel.
Well lookie there, you CAN see my comments.
Alas, it's obvious you still don't understand them.
I bolded the 'proper channel' for YOU Snuffy:
Then I posted:
AGAIN, your block quote doesn't state that Sund was denied authorization for DCNG support by the sergeants-at-arms during the riot and the report refutes that claim.
The initial breach was at 12:53 and Sund had the WRITTEN authorization by 2:10 AFTER going through the 'proper channels'. By statute, the request and the authorization MUST be in writing BEFORE the Chief has authority to go to the DOD.
As the report states, it was the DOD that initially denied the Chief's request.
I find it interesting that you hang your hat on Acting U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman testimony which your link states is based on Sund's phone records, while utterly ignoring the FACT that Chief Sund testified.
Another thing, where is your outrage at Mitch McConnell?
You demand that Pelosi be investigated for her 'part' and you citing the sergeants-at-arms presumes some kind of accountability since the House sergeant-at-arms reports to Pelosi. Yet not a peep about investigating McConnell and holding him accountable for the Senate sergeant-at-arms.
Now, back to your disparagement of the Select Committe. I've documented that the investigation that you demand has ALREADY been conducted by the Congress, both in the Senate and the House. You actually posted a link to an article about that House investigation.
So that begs the question; WHY do you believe that the Select Committee REPEAT an investigation that has already been conducted by the appropriate Congressional Committees?
When I register voters if they say independent I point out that the American Independent party is a bunch of Nazis and they should register 'decline to state'.
Ok, I made a statement and was asked to post a link. So I posted a link and was told my block quote didn't say what I said it did. So I reposted and bolded to show that it did say what I said it did. So now you're saying my statement is wrong. I'm not gonna play the moving goal game again, back on ignore you go.
I have to differ with you here. I am looking at my voter registration card issued by Cochise County for the state of Arizona and it specifically states Independent under party affiliation.
ok, Cochise County is different than Maricopa... (in so many ways too)... Mine just says NONE. Interesting ... but I don't remember when this card was issued, it has my correct address and I've only lived in this house for 13 years now... so I could not tell you if things are changing over time or if the counties work it differently..
To be honest, it just did not occur to me that other counties in the state did their voter cards differently. My card was issued in 1996. Live and learn I guess.
Standard Modus Operandi.
I can't explain it to you any clearer Snuffy.
You claimed that the Chief followed the proper channels.
I proved that the Senate investigation found that he didn't.
You claimed that your link proves that he followed the proper channels.
I proved that it doesn't.
Oh and BTW, based on your reply to me this morning in another seed, you don't have me on ignore, so just stop...
Got something to say to me or do you only have back handed bullshit comments?
So friggin' sad - I registered as an Independent in NM and got tagged as a DTS - Declined To State.
In NM, there are three .affiliations allowed -
Period.
So, if you ain't one of those three, you're a DTS.
The latter.
That individual is on ignore. I don't read his comments so I could care less what he may say to me. He knows it and he still keeps sending me comments. Hillarious!
GREAT, so my calling out your cowardly comments won't bother you a bit.
Then you should have me on ignore also.
Nah, why deprive you of your fun?
What's fun about you deriding my sources and [deleted]
Likewise.
You can have the last word now. I know how important that is to some.
What fantasy do you have that Pelosi or Bowser had ANYTHING to do with what happened?
When do you allege this happened Snuffy? Please provide a link to support your claim.
Well gee Snuffy, YOU seem to have overwhelming evidence of it 'all' so it sure as fuck looks like 'it' isn't 'off limits' at all. You MUST have some source for your claims right?
An Impeachment is a political remedy Snuffy. What Trump faces now are civil and criminal remedies.
[deleted]
When the time arrives that 'The Man Who Dwells at Mar-a-Lago' testifies under oath with the World watching, the implosion will happen. He can't do it because he has everything to hide.
That shouldn't matter. He can't tell the truth if it is on his teleprompter..
Under oath the use of a teleprompter is replaced with The Fifth Amendment.
If he takes the 5th, every time he does, it should be accepted as an admission of guilt.
Why not just get a rope and hang him now?
Vic, did Donald Trump want Pence to follow the Eastman plan and declare him the winner of the election (based on not counting the electoral votes from "disputed" states) or not?
The truth is Trump's intentions (and his actions) about all of this are indefensible. What should be done to him? Run him for president again because you like his policies? Where is "content of character" among those who continue to support Trump?
What I want is for the Trump haters to continue their prosecution of Trump. Get him and all his bagage out of the way so that Ron DeSantis can win the 2024 election in a landslide.
The truth is Trump's intentions (and his actions) about all of this are indefensible. What should be done to him?
If you have evidence of a crime, bring him to trial. Free speech is still not a crime.
Run him for president again because you like his policies?
He is still eligible, right?
Where is "content of character" among those who continue to support Trump?
It's about 20,000 feet above those who found a way to finally beat Trump in 2020.
He was the president of the United States , lost the re-election, and tried to stay in power through completely unethical and maybe illegal means. Those are the facts.
That people continue to support this guy is an incredible blight on our national character. Find someone else to carry your banner and shun Trump.
You have to prove that he used illegal means. If you don't he is liable to run again. The only thing that might have prevented him from running again is his vain fear of losing. That fear is all but gone due to Joe Biden bringing the radical theories of academia to real life America. It's been a total disaster. Now the Republicans are looking at a rotten door waiting to be kicked in. Thus, Trump is likely to run again. You guys may have shot yourselves in the foot.
I dont want to cast you in a bad light but your ongoing defense of Trump trying to steal the 2020 election makes leaving you out of the bad light impossible.
It doesnt matter whether or not Trump did anything "illegal". He tried to steal the election. He is not remotely fit to hold office again.
How?
I take it you dont read newspapers.
Answer the question please.
Too late for that, by far!
Isn't it absolutely ridiculous for someone to ask you 'how?' at this point?
Nope. Its not that I cant, I dont want to enable Trumpster denialism any more.
If you honestly could, it wouldn't matter who denied what in the end. Irrefutable fact cannot be denied. So.............give it your best shot and we can document it so that when the smoke clears, you will either be correct, or wrong.
And the reason you "dont want to enable Trumpster denialism any more" is due to the fact you have made up your mind that it is indeed the truth that he didn't beyond a reasonable doubt and you don't want to admit it due to your total disdain and hatred, unhealthy as it may be, for the man.
So I will take your non answer and dismissal of the question as an "I can't".
Have a good day.
I dont care what you take it as. If you werent ignorant on the subject you never would have asked the question.
Why waste your time when they will just dismiss it anyway?
Not ignorant on the subject. I know what took place and why. That you think it was he who caused it, like others here seem to, is the question. I want your take on it as I am sure it is bathed in truth with proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he tried to overthrow the government.
GREAT!
Let's take just ONE example of Trump trying to steal the election.
Trump's call to the SoS of Georgia.
If you know what took place, you know the content of the phone call AND you know what the SoS Raffensperger said about Trump's delusional LIES.
So, tell me, since you KNOW what took place, why question HOW Trump tried to steal the election?
Some of these people are hopeless cases. Donald Trump has been a piece of shit human being for 50 years. But now he is their piece of shit so they feel compelled to defend him.
Bullshit. The question is if he was involved in it, not if he was the cause of it.
Basically, was he an accomplice before, during, or after the fact?
That comment doesnt even make much sense. A plan was proposed to trump, in the oval office , to have Pence declare that certain states would not be counted in the electoral vote on Jan 6. Trump approved of the plan. This is what is being referred to when Trump tells people Pence didnt do what he was supposed to do on Jan 6.
That is not all of it though. As Dulay pointed out , and other things as well, there were more things Trump did to try and steal the election. He continues up to this day to bring up some of the ridiculous aspects of it.
There is always hope for an epiphany John. I have some hard core RW friends that have had it. They've finally reached their limit on how much water they will carry for Trump. My RW neighbor [just moved here last year from AZ] is DONE. He may never vote for a Democrat but he sure as hell will never vote for Trump again and he's NOT happy about our IN Senators continuing to push the Big Lie.
I would LOVE to hear the answer on that one!
Trump tried to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution:
It is amazing that anyone still denies that Trump tried to steal the election.
Which begs the question: Are they true believers or are they still trying to convince themselves that they 'own the libs' by outwardly denying what they know to be true?
Oh look, I just got a lib to post facts that I already know!
Where do I pick up my gold star?
Look at all my buddies that gave me a thumbs up.
It has become tiresome and IMHO, it is disrespectful to members in pursuit of mature discussion.
good comment
we blew past tiresome about nine months ago
Hard to say, Dulay. All I can do is observe that many of these comments are clearly irrational. I suppose some people are so bent on pushing a partisan position that they will forego honesty and credibility to do so. That sure is not how I would seek to operate.
Thank you. See JR. That wasn't so hard now was it?
Never said it was hard. Said I wasnt going to do it.
Were you unaware of the events cited by TiG Jim?
Okay, so what was the point of challenging JR to write the obvious down in a comment?
Do you think he was unaware of what took place?
What you projected with your challenge was the notion that you did not know these facts. And that you do not think Trump tried to steal the election.
I suspect that is not the impression you sought to leave.
Acknowledged by 2 thumbs up buddies.
Goal achieved.
Does this mean that you will never again question Trump's culpability over 1/6, or just that he attempted illegal means to overturn the Biden Presidency?
No what that means is there was a lot of want without a chance in hell he would succeed. Typical baby. As the old saying goes, want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.
He tried. He is still trying. You are in denial. NO ONE should consider voting for Trump in any future election.
I did know those facts BUT where in the hell does the overthrow the government over reaction come from? He wanted to remain PotUS and WANTED a lot of things to happen. Actually overthrowing the government is a pipe dream used by the left and those such as yourself to "Get Trump" at all costs even if we have to make shit up and give him more credit than he deserves for being able to pull that shit off.
We are now done sir. Good day.
Let him keep trying. The only people that are going to bitch are the perpetually butt hurt because he won once and they are scared shitless that he may again. It is highly doubtful John unless Biden fucks things up even worse than he has already. And I won't vote for him but if he wins, he wins.
About time the left shuts the fuck up and let him fade into the sunset. What a bunch of "orange man scares me" pussies they are.
Wow, I didn't get ANY of that from your prior comment Jim.
As for your claim of Trump's 'a lot of want'. The list that TiG posted are all ACTIONS, as was the example that I posted that you are so desperate to ignore. Trump didn't just wish upon a star and leave it at that.
Per statute [18 U.S. Code § 2384], the attempt is sufficient to prosecute.
You don't have to succeed in a crime to be guilty of it.
If he had succeeded, would we have still been a democratic-republic? We would have had installed a ruler that was resoundingly rejected by a vast majority of voters.
Attempting to overthrow our legal government is a very dramatic statement, but nonetheless it is accurate.
Probably both feet!
Again you stoop to making shit up. What is wrong with sticking with honest facts and not making up your own reality?
Where have I ever used the language "overthrow the government"? Answer: nowhere.
And show me where I have made up anything about Trump? Answer: nowhere. (And even if I were inclined to make shit up, with Trump there is no need since the facts alone are bizarre and damning.)
Dismiss yourself. You posted a failed challenge, then invented lies about me and now you run off. Actually, good choice to run off.
I didn't start out pointing the finger at you. You aren't the dumbass pushing the "overthrow the government" shit but decided to insert yourself into the fucking conversation with your post justifying his assertion. I made up jack shit. You made it unnecessary to do so. You are the guilty one by backing the person who keeps throwing that bullshit line out there. I didn't have to make anything up. Your posts show what and who you are and what you believe. And yes, we are done. [removed] condescension gets quite boring quite rapidly.
WE are done.
It's so unreal to me that folks think this should just be swept under the carpet because trumpturd and his mob(s) of domestic terrorists failed their attempted coup/insurrection.
Also that nothing is their fault.
Isn't it dumbfounding that because they didn't 'succeed' - nothing should be done.
It's still a crime despite the fact that they didn't get away with it.
About time the right shuts the fuck up and let him fade into the sunset. What a bunch of pussies they are for sucking his . . . . and kissing his big fat ass!
John NEVER made that assertion Jim.
It looks to me that a glaring issue here is that you insist on making a strawman argument and continually demand that members address your strawman rather than the ACTUAL topic of THIS discussion Jim.
Above, you posted about 'the dumbass pushing the "overthrow the government" shit'.
Yet as members can see, this discussion started with your question:
After disparaging John for not wanting to play 'the game' on your terms, you stated that you weren't 'ignorant on the subject' that you 'know what took place and why'.
Then you proceeded to move the goalposts and CHANGE the 'subject' by trying to shift the discussion from 'he tried to steal the election' to 'he tried to overthrow the government'
Both TiG and I posted examples of HOW Trump tried to 'steal the election', providing you what you originally asked for.
Instead of replying to TiG or I on the merits, you posted a backhanded comment through TiG to John. BAD FORM.
Then you deflect AGAIN by asking:
It came from YOU Jim. YOU are the one that inserted that term into THIS thread.
You made up your whole 'used by the left' assertion Jim.
Oh the fucking irony. YOU are the one that 'keeps throwing that bullshit line out there' Jim.
Yet you DID.
DITTO.
Your comments make it pretty clear that the purpose of your question was to attack John rather than to have a substantive discussion.
You got more than you hoped for.
I agree with you that condescension gets boring quite rapidly. This:
was boring the second it was posted.
But you wound up making it personal anyway so you got my response.
Yeah, Jim, that is how 'fucking' social forums work. Buy a vowel.
My response is the same as the last time you said that: dismiss yourself.
Says the person that dismisses every link provided her to prove how wrong she normally is.
Projection, deflection, denial - the only tools of the alleged conservatives/republicans/gop
I have almost given up hope of those involved will ever be charged....almost.
What's dumbfounding to me is that even though he and his domestic terrorist mobs didn't get away with it, lots of folks think absolutely nothing should be done. Trumpturd supporters that is.
After four years of "this is a bombshell that marks the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency" maybe someone should tell them Trump is no longer the president and most people are living in 2022 trying to make ends meet, not Jan 6 2021.
The title of this article is:
Jan. 6 Hearings 'Are Going To Blow The Roof Off The House,' Rep. Raskin
The topic IS Jan. 6th, 2021.
If you're all about 2022, then why the fuck are you commenting on this article?
... talk about how their brethren in the trump cult attempted to overthrow our duly elected government and obstructed the peaceful transfer of power on 1/6/21 makes them feel all icky, so they need to deflect...
No one with a brain cell cares.
And, if they have more than one, they have better things to do that track the fizzle...