Dying on the hill called principle
I do admire people who stand and in this case fall on principle.
There is no question that Donald Trump lost his mind over the 2020 election. He took note of the way he was being blamed for the pandemic during the election. He also took the advice of Dr Fauci and shut down a thriving economy. He was deeply concerned about the rule changes being made in voting, despite state legislatures sitting idly by while voting rules changed. Trump campaigned in the final months like no candidate has ever campaigned. His opponent was kept away from spotlight. The media framed the narrative. Both candidates got more votes that any other individual to ever run for the office of president and in the end they finally got him. Trump lost. Trump's temper got the better of him and the rest should have been history, except what happened on Jan 6th is all democrats have to cling to going into the November midterms.
We can all agree that Donald Trump should have told his supporters to go home on Jan 6th, especially after he was specifically given such advice. It doesn't take a paragon of virtue to understand that principle. How far does one go on advocating such a principle?
Right now the American people are suffering and they have been suffering by degrees ever since the pandemic hit the US. The election of Joe Biden gave far-left activists a golden opportunity and they took it through their proxy Biden. Their policies produced record high gas prices, 9% inflation, an open border policy that has flooded the country with migrants as well as Fentanyl (from China, no less) and last but not least, the attempt at indoctrinating the US military and young school children in the heinous doctrine known as CRT. Can somebody please tell me how all of that rates against a president's inept attempt at overturning an election?
Nonetheless, some are willing to die on the hill of principle.
From The Daily Wire :
A total of 52% of likely primary voters in the state said they supported Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman, with only 30% showing support for Cheney, according to a Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy survey conducted on behalf of the Casper, Wyoming, Star Tribune.
The poll, conducted July 7-11 among 1,100 likely voters, showed 11% undecided, with no other candidate reaching double digits in support. Republican state Sen. Anthony Bouchard, the next highest-ranking candidate, received 5% support. The race between Cheney and Hageman has been receiving national attention for months, but the survey marked “the first independent, public, in-state poll” conducted so far. Early voting has already begun, with the primary set for August 16.
The poll also revealed more than two-thirds of Americans disagree with Cheney serving on the Jan. 6 Committee.
https://hannity.com/media-room/lights-out-for-liz-cheney-trailing-by-double-digits-in-wyoming-primary/?utm_source=socialflow
One last question:
Whatever possessed her to do it?
Tags
Who is online
650 visitors
“Don’t cry because it’s over. Smile because it happened.”..... Dr. Seuss
I will give you credit for one thing. You dont let anything , including common sense, intrude upon your predispositions.
Donald Trump claiming voter fraud was always the plan. Obviously it would be more imnportant if he lost, but he was going to make the claim even if he had won the electoral count and lost the popular vote. We can know this is so because he has done it in every election he has ever been involved in. In 2016 Trump said the only way he could lose is if the Democrats cheated. He said he would wait to see who won before he accepted the results in 2016. Even in the GOP primaries that year Trump claimed he was cheated on the rare occasion when he lost in a particular state.
This is powerful evidence that Trump never intended to accept the results in 2020. If it wasnt mail in voting that bugged him it would have been something else.
Wake the fuck up.
As far as Trump trying to overhrow the US government, the committee has done a great job of proving that. And yes it is more important than transitory inflation or gas prices, neither of which are really Joe Bidens fault anyway. .
Not according to Merrick Garland. No action seems likely.
You wake the Fuck up. They are hoping he runs again, otherwise the dems are out in 2022 and 2024
What are you going to do when he runs again. Blame Biden for it?
I'll vote for him again and hope for the best.
As for Biden...we can thank him for showing us all what the main danger to the country is.
Aye. That explains the extreme spin in your opinion. And Hannity posted a poll? Unprincipled, it is.
Would you care to provide a link to his statement?
“I'll vote for him again and hope for the best.”
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how far we have fallen.
Willing to vote for an obviously fractured individual in the ‘hope’ for constructive leadership.
Saying little for the opposition…continually floundering in bringing disparate camps under a coalesced message.
We find ourselves in a leadership vacuum…one sans vision, sans eloquence, and sans any conviction to their principles other than the juvenile pointing of fingers.
Third and fourth party, anyone? A moderate conservative and liberal group to counter the lunatic fringes?
Therein lies our true hope.
Irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic.
Three new names for me.
So, you'll be voting for inflation, open borders and rampant crime?
Liz Cheney may have to run as an independent to make sure Trump is unelectable, as Ross Perot did Bush Sr and Dole...
The more Cheney is abused by the gop the more likely this is!
Isn't that the rationale for voting for Biden?
“Liz Cheney may have to run as an independent to make sure Trump is unelectable…”
As she should, and especially if DeSantis is the nominee, as he is even more dangerous.
As an independent or Democrat. Her own state kicked her out of the Republican Party.
What I will not do is vote for Trump for obvious reasons.
I have been arguing that people like you should not defend Trump because doing so (collectively) gives him the means to potentially run again. If you (collectively) would honestly criticize Trump instead of dishonestly defend him we might have at least a semi-decent R nominee.
As for the Ds, I have stated repeatedly that neither Biden nor Harris should run. I have stated repeatedly that all I wanted from Biden is to keep the doors open for four years and provide a means for us to have a decent set of choices in 2024.
You never seem to remember this.
#45 and all of his supporters and enablers.
At this point I'm not sure who that could be. Populism demands purity.
Here again with the wide schism between moderates and progressives I can't think of anyone for the party to coalesce around.
The lack of good candidates has plagued us for decades. Ultimately, what decent person would want to run for office? Nowadays one cannot be elected without engaging in duplicity. The good ones (e.g. Condoleezza Rice) tend to not be lying sacks of shit.
And that's a problem.
I see Paul Ryan is coming out with a new book.
Sorry, disagree to an extent. Obama is an example of a good candidate, with the background, knowledge, and desire to do the job well. Other than him though, you are correct, the ones that run for office (from both sides of the aisle) almost always do it to push their own agendas as opposed to doing what is best for the country.
Obama was entirely inexperienced (fast tracked without gaining real experience) when running for his first term. He won on charisma.
However, given what we have seen recently, I would welcome a 2024 Obama candidate because such is vastly superior to a Biden, Harris, Pence and especially Trump.
Now you're getting it. Carrier of the MAGA banner...with none of the baggage
If the choices are only indecent candidates, then why does anyone vote them into office in the first place?
Were they decent when they first entered politics?
Were they indecent, but deemed the lessor of two evils?
Do we now have a very corrupt government because we have managed to vote for indecent people for decades?
The electorate is largely ill-informed, easily persuaded (fooled), and apathetic.
Interesting article about "the Swamp". It's from Forbes so I hope it is deemed credible by the partisans.
If this is representative of the mentality of the people who are motivated enough to vote, then why it is important that we make sure the ones who have no ID, no transportation, and little education are voting? Who does this benefit? The health of our government or crooked politicans?
More....
You noticed.
Frankly, I vote for the person least likely to accomplish whatever their (usually terrible) ideas are.
I think a moderate conservative or liberal candidate would be enough. But we can't seem to get them through the primaries, where the insane extremists hold sway.
In 2008, Obama was the least qualified candidate nominated by a major party in decades. Now...it all turned out OK, but let's don't pretend he knew shit when he first got the job.
Depends on who that is.
Certainly.
Agreed, but I never mentioned experience as a trait that I looked for. New young blood is what is needed.
He was the leased EXPERIENCED candidate, not the least qualified. And he still had more experience than Trump did.
I agree with that. Younger, at least — say 45 to 65.
“…where the insane extremists hold sway.”
To their only credit.
It all happens at the precinct level…a place where candidates are vetted…and only vetted to secure a place on the ballot.
When we complain about the lack of quality candidates, one only need look at the gerrymandered districts that only serve to ensure a predetermined vote, whether a local, state or national election.
The effort to hold ‘sway’ is the end all…one just need to follow the $$$.
“The Biggest purveyors of helping to make Voters Ill-informed…”
Yup…fox ‘news’ has done more to define this age of disinformation than any other media outlet as they are the best…only interested in doubling, tripling, and exponentially dumbing down. They are singularly vested in ultimately meaningless cable ratings…facts are but collateral damage.
We've had exactly two presidents in the last 100 years that were not previously either a vice-president, a US senator, a US Army general or a state governor. None of that can be gerrymandered.
The problem is that we're no longer willing to tell the people in our own parties that they're batshit and they need to sit the fuck down and behave.
“Just…”
..,ignore the gist of the comment lest one feel challenged to actually address it.
Tis an endless effort to throw grenades, but if one is unable to pull the pin, it becomes yet another lobbed dirt clod…
Definitely.
“None of that can be gerrymandered.”
Agreed.
But it at the precinct level where the ‘batshit’ are bred, thrive, and multiply. Only to be rewarded by those elected in the vainglorious effort to be re-elected…hence the drawing of districts; local, state, or congressional, to ensure the continuation of power.
It is as surely a bottom up as a top down conundrum.
The only thing each party has in common…continue to incessantly blame one another to no one’s benefit, and be content in the inevitable taking of turns.
The State GOP kicked her out of the republican party of the state she is suppose to repersent the people of said state .
Corrected that for you , she was never a resident of Wyo until she decided to make a run for office in the state( first time was for a federal senate seat which she dropped out when it showed she wouldnt be elected for reasons mentioned below) , she has more connection with the state of Virginia , than Wyo, simply owning a summer place in state does not a resident of the state make and she didnt own that until she decided to run for office .
My personal opinion is she is too far right for me , and she is nothing more than a political carpet bagger .
If she runs 3rd party independant ( which i usually vote) in the general , i will vote for the republican in the general .
So Mark, can we use this as evidence that you are a through and through republican? Or, let me ask you: How do you justify not standing with a principled conservative (who you characterize as "far right") when MAGA won't even compromise with liberals or call an insurrection what it is?
Let's cut out the suspense. You are MAGA conservative. Why? Because that is what "the republican in the general" will be in Wyoming as par for the course.
You could , but as usual you would be wrong in the way you "read " people . Just as you would be wrong to lump me as MAGA. Im not MAGA but i sure as hell am not with the left or what they stand for in reality . which to me stinks too much like the failed ideology of marxism , that one should have been thrown out with marx and his bath water .
i say she is too far "right " for MY tatstes , its been reported she voted 90% of the time in favor of the disgraced ones policies . and he was definitely too far batshit crazy to the right for me , thankfully i never voted for him to be in office , as i have always said .
remember , i said i usually vote 3rd party independent, i usually look for a moderate if they are available , my second choice if we go ranked choice in voting , would be republican , thankfully i usually have other choices , as for democrat ? NOTHING i have seen for 30 years has appealed to me about that party, IMO they are as batshit crazy as the far right in the opposite extreme , and more likely to become totalitarian , when i dont vote for them , i actually am voting in my best interests , which usually means i am voting against most democrats interests . So let them be pissed off .
You are of course entitled to your opinion ( we all are ) , what your NOT entitled to do is try and tell me what my opinion should be , or be harrassed because it doesnt fit your little pigion hole , you can keep your opinion , i will keep my own .
First, let me thank you for reminding me that some people can move across lines and draw lines selfishly for themselves without any consideration for the guy sitting across from them or. . . holding off and on yearly discussions with him or her online.
Second, if you support the republican in general in Wyoming, you will be enabling and counted in the ranks of the "disgraced and batshit crazy one" (your words), to which he will thank you for your indirect/direct endorsement. Damn Mark, it appears you are fatefully doomed to support a lying SOB one way or another.
How. . . sad? /s
IF i end up having to vote republican in the general this year , i will join the 70-80% of the voters in this state , if Cheney doesnt run as an indy i will likely vote for a 3rd party and join the 4-5 % of wyoming voters , ever look and wonder why the state of wyo has not sent a democrat to DC for congressional office since before 1977? the answer is not enough democrats and not any reputable candidates by voter standards .
As for the rest of it , continue to chase unicorn farts with a mason jar , it matters to me not .
And thank you , for verifying my statement , trying to tell ME what my opinion should be , thats something you never have been entitled to do , nor ever will.
you walked right into that one like i knew you would and of your own free will.
Hey, in this particular case, Mark, whatever keeps your boat afloat. I am happy to keep the ships running in their lanes and you should be clear to launch!
Your path is clear of clutter and anything that obstructs you from your destination. Happy travels and those occasional farts!
Are you complaining about some sort of patent infringement?
You are the last fucking person to lecture anyone on this. You are the example used by everyone when it comes to TDS.
Take your own damn advice!
Only in rampant TDS land is the Jan 6th committee relevant. They have been caught repeatedly editing video; editing/omitting text; and coaching witnesses (they only allow testimony of those that back their get Trump at all costs ideology).
Midterms will prove you wrong. People are blaming Brandon for high gas prices; inflation; the wide open Southern border; illegal immigration; crime; the botched Afghanistan withdrawal- and abandoning US citizens there. Brandon is happy you used his talking point on "transitory"- recession is coming; and all Democrats can do is talking about spending trillions more. They get their wish and the recession will turn into a full blown depression.
Clock is ticking Democrats. Time to pay the piper for trying to destroy this country.
Instead he encouraged them to practice their 1st amendment right to peacefully protest.
The idea of pushing such garbage to the US fighting forces is retarded at best (but then again look who we are talking about). They have far more important things to worry about train for. If it weren't for the virtual classes these parents would have been completely oblivious to the harm being done to their children. School boards have attempted to silence parents speaking out against the travesty that CRT really is.
I guess she wanted to be part of the "winning" crowd. Sadly, she was wrong. And now will suffer with the rest of the Democrats.
He did say go in peace. Thus far that line has not been allowed at the Jan 6th Committee hearings.
The idea of pushing such garbage to the US fighting forces is retarded at best (but then again look who we are talking about).
Yup, retarded at best and a national security issue at worst:
I guess she wanted to be part of the "winning" crowd.
I don't see that crowd doing anything to help get her reelected. I guess outside of the Committee chamber she's just another Republican.
She is a republican who is not "hoping for the best" with Donald Trump by allowing him to do it again. And my how you all stand with a lying 'wonderkin' while pushing away from a principled conservative. It says everything we need to know about MAGA conservatives.
And Donald used a "peace" line once, as a throw-away line. Sure, you know what a "throw-away" line is in a speech right? I will tell you: not serious. Not carrying any weight.
There is now testimony that Trump wanted and intended to go the capitol on Jan 6. Why? It is known that he wanted the mob to pressure Pence into helping Trump steal the election. So what would his presence add to that? Were they suppose to achieve that aim by singing kumbaya on the capitol steps?
And if he wanted peace so much, why was he engrossed in tv coverage of the riot (on his behalf) to the extent he did nothing to try and stop it?
You cant answer any of these questions.
At an enormous personal cost. BTW, they can't stop him without prosecuting him.
And my how you all stand with a lying 'wonderkin' while pushing away from a principled conservative.
Even if he lied 24/7, he still was a good President. As for Cheney, I'm not pushing Liz away. I'm not registered as a voter in Wyoming.
It says everything we need to know about MAGA conservatives.
It says everything we need to know about progressives. They prefer America 2021-2022 over America 2017-2020.
And Donald used a "peace" line once, as a throw-away line. Sure, you know what a "throw-away" line is in a speech right? I will tell you: not serious. Not carrying any weight.
Deleting it from clips used during the hearings is damning.
It won't be permitted. Those 3 words completely negate what the TDS Committee. But then again, Pelosi hand picking members already negated it.
He did lie 24/7 and he is the worst presidnt in US history. It is staggering how little weight you give to integrity.
That makes him just like every other politician.
I'll say one thing for you, you sure are totally focused on one subject. (Remember what the article was about?) So, here we go again with this committee, which isn't going to get you a damn thing in November.
Why?
So, you're climbing into the mind of Trump again?
It is known that he wanted the mob to pressure Pence into helping Trump steal the election.
That's disingenuous. You know a lot of the people who went there were there to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the election. There were fringe elements that entered the Capitol building. Try to separate the two.
So what would his presence add to that?
It could have simply been a farewell. Who knows?
Were they suppose to achieve that aim by singing kumbaya on the capitol steps?
So, you intend to convict him on what you think his intentions were?
And if he wanted peace so much, why was he engrossed in tv coverage of the riot (on his behalf) to the extent he did nothing to try and stop it?
Using the same logic, then why say go in peace, if he wanted a riot?
You cant answer any of these questions.
I just did.
The big question remains:
WHY WON"T GARLAND INDICT HIM?
Your comments are ridiculous, but Newstalkers protects your "freedom of speech" so congratulations.
It is staggering how little weight you give to the wellbeing of the nation.
Somehow, I knew you were going to say that.
And you think that lack of integrity does not effect the well-being of the nation?
You will still be defending Trump as the prison cell doors close.
I wonder if Washington and Jefferson were still around if they would have thought Trumps attempts to steal the election were so insignificant, like you do?
Another truly ridiculous comment. It is a shame that Newstalkers has to be polluted with this garbage every day.
Vic, anyone with half a brain figured you out a long time ago.
You have made this claim before and were proven wrong by Dulay. And here you are again with the same grasping at imaginary straws intellectual dishonesty.
From the transcript of the 6th session (video below):
This is at 2:21:21 in this video:
They did not delete it from the clips. See?
Yes, they can. If only MAGA supporters were principled. It is evident MAGA supporters are not. There is no way to sugarcoat it. (It slides off.)
Trump lies "indefinitely." No one who does that is a good person in anybody's book. Not sure what that says about the millions who see him as "good." BTW, you condemn every other liar who strays away from the truth, but this one. I know why, and won't bother with asking.
Well, it was only used once in a low-key voice at the tail end of a speech. But, hang on to it as important. He did say it- for all the good it did. We can surmise why it was there and why it was not heeded by the mob.
BTW, had he meant peace to take hold, Donald would have acted immediately and presidentially when told the mob was upsetting the structure and natural order of the capitol, to put it nicely. He did not.
But who are we kidding. You don't condemn Donald or care about any truth coming out of this. And you criticize proper republican in the process.
I'll say it again: I can't imagine anyone voting for what he have been subjected to for almost 2 years because of a point of principle.
You will still be defending Trump as the prison cell doors close.
Please send him there before he makes a campaign announcement!
I wonder if Washington and Jefferson were still around if they would have thought Trumps attempts to steal the election were so insignificant, like you do?
I think they'd sent the militia out after progressives immediately after the Kavanaugh hearings.
Subjected to what ? Inflation? We have had high inflation a number of times before. Gas prices? Remember the 70's ? Shit happens. It is no excuse for putting Donald Trump in office or keeping him there.
He means it has not been "inflated" and over-blown during the hearing. Vic would like the committee to ignore all the other mountains of evidence and just focus on a tiny hill of "peace" as evidence of Donald Trump activities. Forget about all the laborious prepping and planning leading up to and executed on January 6. Just remember a single throw-away word: Peace - as rhetoric.
The question is principle vs reason. We can stay on this hellish course for ourselves and our families or we can make some kind of symbolic statement.
Trump lies "indefinitely." No one who does that is a good person in anybody's book. Not sure what that says about the millions who see him as "good." BTW, you condemn every other liar who strays away from the truth, but this one. I know why, and won't bother with asking.
Ok so let's call it Trump's character vs Trump's performance as President. I don't know about you, but for many people that's an easy one.
Well, it was only used once in a low-key voice at the tail end of a speech. But, hang on to it as important. He did say it- for all the good it did. We can surmise why it was there and why it was not heeded by the mob.
So why is the Committee so afraid of it?
BTW, had he meant peace to take hold, Donald would have acted immediately and presidentially when told the mob was upsetting the structure and natural order of the capitol, to put it nicely. He did not.
As I said in my article, he should have told them to go home.
But who are we kidding. You don't condemn Donald or care about any truth coming out of this. And you criticize proper republican in the process.
You mean I wont bite my nose off to spite my face.
No way!
NO John, It didn't need to happen. These were the policies of Sanders, Cortez and Ayers.
Evidence suggests that his cabinet was considering the 25th. It is irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic to support someone who has so thoroughly demonstrated such a lack of integrity and responsibility that he should not be given any public power much less the presidency of the USA.
“…for many people that's an easy one.”
As it used to be, back when character used to mean something. Those of dubious character did not gain our friendship, did not earn our business, and certainly did not garner our vote.
Another example of razing the bar in justifying the hatred for the opposition.
It gets even worse. A MAGA supporter, one of your own, died in the capitol because she and people like you 'talk up' a sitting president who lied and got Ashli Babbitt killed. That was no accident, anybody could see its potential a mile away and even Donald, the sitting president, should have 'gamed out' how to keep his people alive since he invited them to come to D.C. and to go to the Capitol. You forgive much and ignore even more just to get what you want through MAGA.
"Another truly ridiculous comment. It is a shame that Newstalkers has to be polluted with this garbage every day."
Ya! It gets worse every day.
I can personally vouch for that.
To many right wing conservatives 'integrity' is a dirty word just like 'compromise' and 'honor'. They can't afford any of those things because they only see a societal nightmare landscape where they're the persecuted hunted white conservative Christians fighting desperately to cling to their white conservative Christian culture they imagine is being destroyed by leftist liberal progressive secularists. Of course that's a bunch of bullshit, no one is trying to stop them from believing in whatever God they want or worshiping the way they want, they're really just bitter and angry about not having as much control over American society as they used to and are being treated the same as any other faith like Islam or Judaism which they see as beneath them.
They demand the right to discriminate against those they have judged as 'sinners', they demand the right to inject their religious beliefs into the law and to strip women of their right to bodily autonomy, they demand the right to peer pressure student athletes into public group Christian prayers, they demand the right to insert their religious morals and beliefs about gender roles into public schools to the exclusion of all others. Integrity, honor, honesty, none of those are worth more than their fanatic devotion to their indoctrinated religious beliefs.
I've no doubt millions of right wing conservative Christians would have no problem taking up arms and gunning down innocents in the street if they believed their God commanded them to do it. So claiming moral superiority while having no integrity, lying, cheating, stealing, attacking capital police, attempting to overthrow a free and fair election, all prove what monumental hypocrites they are but they don't care because to them the ends justify the means. In their minds only their God can "fix" the world and thus doing anything other than pushing their religious beliefs on everyone around them is a waste of time.
Ditto.
Such a clever rebuttal. Who could have possibly predicted a cliché witless flip to Biden?
Yet another cliché witless flip to Biden.
Well being of the nation? The man you support sold out democracy, the world norms established after WW2 for his selfish self protection at Helsinki. And to this day nobody knows what was discussed, promised or asked behind those closed doors except the Russians. You support an American version of Quisling. And you proudly do it.
By the way, why is the Durham dude still on the public dole?
One of 2 things will have to happen for that to come to pass.
either Trump dies ,
[deleted] .
Thats when the rent free stuff will end .
lol , now thats rich.
this whole site is about taunting from one side or the other , about just about anything , as for insulting , its only insulting if what i say is important to someone , i dont think i have that much credence with those that disagree with me .
too bad its true to end the stated situation though .
And i am insulted you think it was just a side of insult ..... /S
Really?
Are you sure you don't work for once of the members of the Jan 6th committee? Why omit the line at all? Same reason as the Jan 6th committee won't interview anyone that refutes their agenda. This isn't about the truth- this is about getting Trump by any means necessary.
That isn't the only time they omitted a line that didn't fit their narrative.
Ask Jimmy Carter what happens to presidents that don't give a shit about high gas prices and inflation.
Biden and the Democrats deserve the electoral beatings they have coming.
Who could ever predict you would dismiss holding Biden to the same standards as Trump?
People like you keep posting this nonsense. Many of the high profile names in the Trump final days have refused to testify before the committee. And the ones that have do not seem to have exonerated him. If any of the witnesses who went before the committee and gave information that shows Trumps innocence, and the committee supressed it, why havent any of these people stepped forward and said so?
You are so out of gas.
I quoted from the transcript. I delivered the video. And you are still in denial that the committee did not hide Trump's ["go in peace"]?
And you continue to just make shit up in lieu of an argument.
If Biden had engaged in a Big Lie campaign to steal the presidential election I would hold the same position.
It is NEVER correct for a sitting PotUS (or candidate) to engage in 61+ frivolous lawsuits, coerce officials to 'find votes', submit alternate electors, suborn the VP to commit an unconstitutional act of discrediting certified election results from select states, work up his supporters with blatant lies that their government systems are corrupt and that their votes have been disenfranchised and encourage them to march on the Capitol and then, after knowing they broke and entered the Capitol building, to not lift a finger to stop it for three hours.
Your 'arguments' defending Trump are pure bullshit.
Classic projection with a topping of irony.
They are praying he runs again so they can run on that.
Trump, the MAGA 'maverick.'
One more hearing to go and thus far, no clear criminal case against Trump, not even a referral.
“…not even a referral.”
A case of putting the cart before the horses ass? Be patient, vic…the clock is ticking.
A referral is within their power.
After all, they promised...
Don't let it worry you, Vic. In fact, why don't you go on a 'get away' in some paradise somewhere? /s I free you from any perceived burden to monitor and report what your "Maverick" is up to.
To be clear, all the committee has to do is establish a clear case for why Trump should not be in public servant, any other legal action requires lawyers and courts. But, since you plan to vote for Donald Trump, because getting Ashli Babbitt and others indirectly killed at the capitol means nothing to MAGA-then nothing else can possibly matter to you. See how easy that is? Your conscience remains as clear as it was on January 5th, 2021!
I'll be watching tomorrow and commenting on the thread coming to us live from the Bronx NY.
For all the good it will do MAGA—take the 'day' off! Life's a beach, Vic! Don't worry: be happy!
You seem to use this term very broadly, please give your readers your definition.
[deleted]
Removed for Context
[deleted]
This is one of the very few positives of the pandemic.
It is. And the parents standing up for their children have caused so many problems for the school boards, board of education and the left.
"There is no question that Donald Trump lost his mind over the 2020 election. He took note of the way he was being blamed for the pandemic during the election. He also took the advice of Dr Fauci and shut down a thriving economy. He was deeply concerned about the rule changes being made in voting, despite state legislatures sitting idly by while voting rules changed. Trump campaigned in the final months like no candidate has ever campaigned. His opponent was kept away from spotlight. The media framed the narrative. Both candidates got more votes that any other individual to ever run for the office of president and in the end they finally got him. Trump lost. Trump's temper got the better of him and the rest should have been history, except what happened on Jan 6th is all democrats have to cling to going into the November midterms.
We can all agree that Donald Trump should have told his supporters to go home on Jan 6th, especially after he was specifically given such advice. It doesn't take a paragon of virtue to understand that principle. How far does one go on advocating such a principle?
Right now the American people are suffering and they have been suffering by degrees ever since the pandemic hit the US. The election of Joe Biden gave far-left activists a golden opportunity and they took it through their proxy Biden. Their policies produced record high gas prices, 9% inflation, an open border policy that has flooded the country with migrants as well as Fentanyl (from China, no less) and last but not least, the attempt at indoctrinating the US military and young school children in the heinous doctrine known as CRT.
Can somebody please tell me how all of that rates against a president's inept attempt at overturning an election ?"
[ deleted ]
All lies and wishful thinking plus projection, deflection, denial to the extreme!
None of that garbage in the highlighted paragraph is true.
Can somebody please tell me how all of that rates against a president's inept attempt at overturning an election ?
Ya!
There's no comparison!
If one climbs the hill of principle then there should be a plan to accomplish something. In Liz Cheney's case there wasn't any way to accomplish anything and she had to know that when she started the climb. The Special House Committee doesn't have the authority to do anything other than connect names with news organizations' anonymous sources. The Jan. 6th committee is only trying to compete with the New York Times or Washington Post. And the Times and Post has more influence over politics than does a House committee.
The Jan. 6th committee will not indict, prosecute, and imprison Trump. Because the Jan. 6th committee doesn't have that authority. The only thing the Jan. 6th committee is allowed to do is to influence public opinion in the same manner as the New York Times and Washington Post. The hill they've climbed is pointless and claiming principles won't make that hill relevant. As with most Congressional activities today, it's a grand political show to accomplish nothing tangible.
The Jan. 6th hearings is symptomatic of a do-nothing Congress. Sound and fury signifying nothing. The only thing that matters at this point is to indict, prosecute, and imprison Trump. And Congress doesn't have the authority to do that.
Wow. That's mind-numbing spin. Makes one wonder why you (certainly) will support a committee to investigate Hunter Biden, but do that thing MAGA does. We're all doomed anyway for the time being.
Where have I said anything about Hunter Biden? A House committee investigating Hunter Biden would serve the same purpose as the Jan. 6th committee. And the Jan. 6th committee won't accomplish anything more than would a House committee investigating Hunter Biden. A comparison between a House investigation of Trump and Hunter Biden is apt. Both investigations serve the same purpose and accomplish the same things.
Why didn't Democrats run their own primaries the way they demanded the general election be run? Why won't Democrats' election reforms, ostensibly to protect democracy, apply to their own primaries?
Voter registration is voter ID. People who do not register to vote cannot vote; voters must have a registration ID on record. Why can't the voter registration process be updated to provide a registration card with a picture?
You have a plethora of "impossible" questions. Who will take the time to do interviews to get (you) answers? No one here on NT that is for sure. But that is the point of asking IMPOSSIBLE questions in the first place. Just throw up stuff and let it hang out there in the air.
No one should bother with them.
The rest of your comment I'll just pass on it.
If we can safely bank and do our taxes online why not voting?
I directly addressed your allegations which you completely ignored. So, essentially you are only stating that you ignore everything that doesn't fit your narrative.
Online banking and financial transactions require security so that someone cannot assume your identity. Those online transaction requires identification. So, online voting would also require voter identification.
And the analogy is flawed. A ballot is actually a dashboard for a number of 'banks', using your analogy. There's the school district 'bank', city council 'bank', judicial district 'bank', state legislative district 'bank', Federal legislative district 'bank', as well as many other local, state, and Federal 'banks'. Voting is very, very location specific. People are not voting in one election; they're actually voting in many separate elections at the same time on one ballot.
Online voting would require the same level of security as online banking for all the separate elections listed on the ballot. Voter identification would be required to allow voting in all the elections on the ballot. And the way elections are conducted, a disqualification for one of the elections would be a disqualification for all the elections. That's the way in-person voting works and that's the way online voting would have to work.
The technical problems of voting are easily addressed. The security issues are more complicated but doable with today's technology.
The biggest issue, however, will be trust. I suspect it will take generations before people have the same trust in automated voting as they have in our banking systems. This is irrational, but I think it is reality.
The technical problems of voting have already been addressed. And the security issues have already been addressed. Digitizing the established process for voting only requires accommodating the limitations of online transactions. If there is a tradeoff between ease of use and security then online voting won't be as secure as in-person voting.
Trust is elections is directly related to flaws in the process of voting. Whatever flaws exist in the current process of voting will be incorporated into online voting. Online voting won't improve the process of voting. Online voting only provides ease of use.
Also keep in mind that the current state of elections only provides a benefit to candidates (and the party they represent). And the priority has become for candidates (and parties) to do whatever it takes to win the benefit of the election. A reasonable conclusion would be that distrust of politics would translate into distrust of elections.
No, people will generally not trust technology for voting. It will take a long time to get this trust.
Further you underestimate the security issues. A single event as critical as our elections will be the target of the very best culprits. Security is a never ending race between those securing a system and those circumventing same.
The increasing ubiquitous use of such technology for financial, commercial, and social activities does not lend support to the notion that there would be general distrust of the technology. The reticence to use the same technology for voting suggests that general distrust of the institutions involved in elections would need to be addressed.
Elections are not conducted for the benefit of voters. So, concerns over abuse of the technology by those who do benefit from elections would appear to have some validity. Online voting would require safeguards against institutional abuse in order to garner public trust.
You have responded to little if anything, but I digress. The point is moot anyhow. You want answers to those questions: GOP win the house in November and hold a hearing on it. For all the good it will do the GOP
The same verification systems and security safeguards that work so well for banking and taxes could be used for voting.
Those systems have been in place for the entire lifetimes of most people (and for the entire adult lifetimes of almost everyone). We have grown up with these in place.
We are talking about electronic online voting. That, Nerm, is a profound change in voting technology. It will be considered NEW. The public does not understand the details behind such technology but they do know that it is new and they do know that systems can be 'hacked' (the word for their understanding) and they will, ipso facto, NOT trust it.
Ya think?
Not quite. Election security requires identifying both the voter and validating the voter's residence. That would require more than just geo-tracking.
That's the same problem experienced with outdated and incorrect voter registration.
Well, here's how these matters proceed: MAGA conservatives will never be happy with change. The name of the game for them is old-fashioned, drag your feet, if they are losing it is because someone is taking their stuff, and not because their policies are stuck in yesteryears! That is, they will never support fair and efficient elections: 99.99 percent NEVER!
I see two major factions in the GoP. One I will call the conventional GoP. These are the more cerebral people who are with the GoP because they believe in the party's basic (stated) ideals: family, defense, border-control, fiscal-responsibility, religion, etc.
The other faction of the GoP are the MAGAs. These are the largely emotional people who cling to Trump under the belief that he magically can make a good economy and that he really cares about them.
I wonder which is dominant ... seems like MAGA has more control over the GoP than conventional.
THE UNITED STATES IS EXCEPTIONAL: IF IT CAN KEEP IT.
The issue is that people are full of it. Our republican has always and continues to question to a worse degree in some ways today who gets to vote and in what guise to cast disenfranchisement of the same. The problem of people moving around, dying but not having their names cleared from the voting rolls, and etceteras will continue in the digital age. Because people are "unmanageable" when it comes to perfecting voting. To summarize a protracted discussion.
One thing to be aware of for our EXCEPTIONALISM status: If we let other nations create a trustworthy system of voting while we sit on our thumbs pining about this or that when it comes to who/what/when/where in voting-we all will take a reputational tumble from the 'heights' we view our nation as holding.
THE UNITED STATES IS EXCEPTIONAL: IF IT CAN KEEP IT.
MAGA has a plan to identify and toss out what they are labeling, "progressive conservatives," that is any conservative who is not strictly defining himself or herself as not skewing liberal or progressive. That is, MAGA is 100 percent distilled republicanism as they see it (compassionless and dominating of society and culture). Of course, I am leaving out the details but I think you can surmise how I got there. Consequently, Donald Trump stands in as the symbol of 'demarcation.' Don't stand with Donald and you are a conventional GOPer—identified and 'packaged' for ASAP removal and dumping.
Takeover! The 100 Year War for the Soul of the Republican Party and How Conservatives Can Win It. - Richard Viguerie 2014 offered up how the plan could begin in 2017 and lo and behold! Donald Trump stepped right in to the GOP and took it over!
There is a promote on MSNBC about a Steve Bannon upcoming documentary. In the promote, Bannon is heard uttering words to the effect, 'WE will be in power for 100 years.'
I have not seen the documentary yet, but take for granted Bannon, means MAGA will be in control of the GOP for that period of time.
Only registered voters are allowed to vote. That's true for party primaries as well as general elections.
Would you have accepted the election results if non-registered voters or voters with questionable registration or newly registered voters had re-elected Trump? If Trump had been re-elected on mail-in ballots would you continue to support vote by mail? Or would the re-election of Trump had prompted you to question the legitimacy of the election?
Are we supposed to doubt that had Trump been re-elected that Democrats wouldn't do what Trump has done? Are we supposed to believe Democrats wouldn't be talking about faithless electors, Congressional intervention, and administrative means to challenge the election? If Trump had been re-elected why should we believe Democrats wouldn't do in 2020 what they did in 2016?
That moral high horse has really short legs.
They still have to register to vote. Voter registration is a security measure for elections. Voter registration that identifies the individual and validates their residence is two factor security.
So, a requirement to present a voter registration card when voting isn't an excessive burden since they can't vote without being registered.
I don't know what any of those "what ifs" has to do with the question of national exceptionalism and digital voting. Care to explain, yourself?
What does your exceptional spew have to do with the technology of online voting or acceptance of online voting?
You attempted to ride an emotive moral high horse. That's what I addressed. As I pointed out, your moral high horse has very short legs. It's easy to climb onto that short-legged horse and falling off poses little danger.
Look, you can talk abstract crap to others who buy into it. Just don't fix your theories of the case to suggest that standing still and not developing solid, new, and improved time and efficiency systems for voting, especially during national times of crises will not serve this nation's brand of EXCEPTIONALISM well. This is what I wrote on that account:
Any fool can see you can't sustain the lead in a competition if you won't : 1. Get in the game. 2. Stay in the game. 3. Excel in the game.
That is all I meant by the remark. It was not intended to rile or become a cause of dispute. The way everything is with MAGA today. Who seems to demand we fix or change nothing that is at the stage where "greater" change would help us keep the advantage.
Well said.
Never
There is no principled stand without a large degree of risk. Otherwise, it would be just someone saying something while nothing was to be lost. Not a stand. Not a principle. What don't you and Vic get about words and their meanings?
At the point of her being seated on the committee, there was little chance in her being re-elected anyway. Her only chance was to take a continue on. The principled stand was taken by her at Trump's second trial when she voted to convict. By continuing on, she shows the rest of the Republicans just what a true principle is and looks like: She is telling the truth, though , mysteriously, 1/3 of the country does not believe her. She is, quite literally a Cassandra, speaking the truth that Trump's believers do not want to hear, so she is ignored and discounted by the leadership and the (LOLOLOLOL) "true believers".... plus ça change , plus c'est la même chose....
Rush- Circumstances
Journalism is all about words. What is the Jan. 6th committee doing that journalists haven't already done?
How is Liz Cheney's principled stance any different than the video you linked? Is the Jan. 6th committee only providing MTV entertainment?
You know, a principled stance requires a clear enunciation of those principles and why those principles are important. An Orange Man Bad stage show might be entertaining but doesn't accomplish much else.
Issued subpoenas, receiving testimony under oath, making an official record for the congressional archive and viewable history. But you know this already. Yours is just a sad attempt to diminish anything you do not wish to see happen. You don't give a damn about truth, in my opinion.
I love the light touch of bells in this track!
Of course, it's Rush and I love 'em hands down!
Gosh, Nerm, you should be able to figure it out.
The principles that she stands for are the propagation of truth over lies and the holding to account of those people who were responsible for a travesty of monumental proportions. The lie is that Trump had nothing to do with January 6th, and the truth, which many members of the public are still in denial of, is that he started with a lie and just got deeper, till he was up to the top of his head in bullshit. He and his people organized, if not the violence, at the very least the conditions of untruth that lit the fuse in all of those deluded people. It NEVER would have happened had he not held tightly to his lie.
You are right, it is about words. Words and their meanings. Some people refuse to believe what is coming to the publics attention with these words.
I just posted the video because Rush is my favorite group and the words have meaning.
But you probably don't understand.
Truth over lies? Or truth from a certain point of view?
The question isn't whether or not Trump had anything to do with Jan. 6th. There was a political rally and Trump was a featured speaker, after all. The pertinent question is if Trump did something illegal. And that question can only be answered in a criminal court.
The facts and truth are that nothing Trump tried to do succeeded. Everything Trump tried failed. But that doesn't eliminate the Clinton defense of legality.
Does the President has responsibility and authority for protection of the Capitol? Congress has no responsibility or authority over its own Capitol building? Congress couldn't do anything?
What happened on Jan. 6th was much less destructive and much less violent than what happened May 28-31 on Lake Street in Minneapolis. The more destructive and violent event has garnered sympathy from the very same politicians outraged over Jan. 6th. The most significant difference between the two events is that the destruction and violence on Lake Street was directed toward the people in that area while the destruction and violence on Jan. 6th was directed toward politicians. And politicians are far, far more important than people living in communities.
So, explain the damned principles these failed ambulance chasers in Congress are fighting for. Are we supposed to believe these politicians haven't lied to the people to win elections? What does truth mean in Congress?
Do you hold that the testimony offered thus far has been truthful? That the witnesses have given a truthful accounting of what happened as they remember it?
Or, if you don't think that they did, is everyone lying? Where do you begin to parse the lies from the truth, the incredible from the credible?
Have you eaten your fiber today?
The important thing is to establish in fact what happened, why it happened and who the various actors were. We have obviously not succeeded in the establishment of any of these because there is still a large minority of people who somehow still believe that Trump had nothing at all to do with the riot and insurrectionist activities.
He claimed without evidence that he had won the election.. He called them to Washington. He fired them up. He sent them to the capitol. All because he wished to remain in power, through whatever means necessary.
It does not have to be illegal to be morally reprehensible, definitely and definitionally wrong. Trump is all the above, he's just so covered in schmegma, no body has been able to make anything stick to the lying piece of rectal goo.
It's amazing how many don't quite grasp that fact.
Irrelevant; observe the testimonies (the content) instead of this lame tactic of focusing on the committee itself.
Convicting Trump in the court of public opinion won't prevent the same thing happening again. And using the public testimony for political advantage seems rather pointless when those politicians refuse to do anything.
Why don't you want me to focus on the committee? Because you know as well as everybody else that its another partisan hissy fit? Because they have no authority?
it's all been hearsay and speculation. Not to mention one sided. But then again, that was the intent wasn't it. A partisan hissy fit like we've seen from Democrats for the past 7 years.
Because it is stupid and partisan to keep whining about the committee's partisan nature as an excuse to ignore all the under-oath testimony given by mostly high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their careers to give this testimony.
You take a tidbit and then blindly categorize all the testimony delivered in these seven hearings thus far as such.
Clearly your comments are not meant to be taken seriously.
Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
It's also stupid and partisan to use the fact that a few Republicans are testifying as a rationalization to ignore the insanely partisan nature of the committee and proceedings.
It is obviously NOT stupid and partisan to note that it is not Democrats testifying against a Republican PotUS but rather it is predominantly high-ranking, connected Republicans.
Further, I have readily stated that this committee is partisan so clearly I do not ignore it. I am saying that it is a bullshit excuse to whine about partisanship as the reason for not listening to these Republican witnesses. We must filter through partisan-bias daily when getting our information so this is no different. And in this case the testimony is under-oath and the witnesses lose something (they harm their careers) by testifying.
Are you ignoring the testimonies of these high-ranking, connected Republicans? What news source do you use to get better information on what led to Jan 6th?
Nor is it stupid and partisan to note that absolutely all the testimony is one-sided.
Yet you're demanding others overlook it.
It is most certainly different. On a regular news cycle basis, we can get both sides of the story. We have multiple sources of information outside governmental control.
These hearings provide information from a single, government-controlled, highly biased source. It's eerily reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, complete with giant screens on our walls and cameras in our homes.
You keep saying that, but I'm not so sure. Whose career do you think is going to take a hit from this?
Define "ignore". Do I acknowledge what they say? Sure. Do I care? Not at all. Will I change my behavior somehow as a result? Almost surely not. Do I think there are other details potentially from other sources that would be pertinent to the situation if we were allowed to hear them? Absolutely.
That's the whole point. Any information Pelosi doesn't want us to see is being intentionally suppressed. It seems odd you don't appear to mind as long as she tells you what you want to hear.
Why do you believe that Trump has a viable side?
But if he does, he is free to present it at any time. Every newspaper or television or internet interviewer in the world would give Trump all the time he wanted to tell his side of the story. All he would have to do in return is answer some direct questons. What is he waiting for?
The laughable part of your analysis is that you still maintain you are not a Trump defender. Pitiful.
We all have the ability to listen to each witness and evaluate the information received. Factor in the knowledge that there is no cross-examination. That is smart. Rejecting the testimonies is stupid.
Oh come on Jack don't imply you do not understand what I wrote. I am stating that one can look past the partisan aspect (ignore the committee) and focus on the testimony. That is not ignoring the FACT that the committee is politically biased it is quite the opposite. It recognizes the fact and that in the extreme one can just ignore everything the committee states and just focus on the witnesses. Which is what I have been suggesting for weeks now ... repeatedly ... hard to miss.
The 'both sides' you note comes from observing different media. Nobody stops you from doing this now. The media is covering the hearings. So you are free to listen to both sides of talking heads.
In this case we are observing under-oath testimony from Republicans, not Democrats. If we saw a lot of Ds testifying that would support the 'this is all partisan' allegation. Instead these are high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers to testify. To just dismiss their words is the opposite of objectivity. To ignore what they offer simply because this is not a trial is absurd.
A Republican testifying against Trump today is harming their career. Surely you are aware that there is very strong support for Trump among R voters and that many R politicians continue to cater to Trump. The GoP is attached at the hip with Trump (much to my dismay and disgust) for political reasons (among others) so bucking that is not a good career move. Remember that Rusty Bowers, after his testimony, stated that he would vote for Trump again if he were the nominee. He testified that Trump wanted him to engage in what he considered to be an unconstitutional act —one that goes against his own morality— yet he felt compelled to soften that after the fact by claiming to support Trump in 2024. Good grief.
As an aside, what do you think motivated Cheney to buck her party, lose her position and likely her seat to deal with Trump's behavior? The D party will not accept her ... she only has the Rs (or independent run). My take is that we are witnessing integrity.
You just dismiss all the testimony as irrelevant ... meaningless ... not worthy of consideration?
Cut the personal and unwarranted crap, Jack. Do not suggest that I only accept that which I want to believe.
The testimony delivers critical pieces of information that one would not expect to be contradicted. I do not expect testimony from Barr, for example, where he states that he really did not tell Trump that there was no supporting evidence for his Big Lie and that his Big Lie was actually not bullshit. I do not expect testimony from Raffensperger where he claims that Trump did not attempt to get him to find votes. I do not expect testimony that suggests Trump did not know that his supporters were breaking and entering the Capitol. Go down the list. There are plenty of very credible alleged facts that should not be cavalierly ignored ("Do I care? Not at all.").
I am a bit surprised by what I just read.
why?
He just wrote a defense of Trump, in effect claiming that "Trump's side of the story" , which is a hoot in itself, is not being permitted to be heard.
I am surprised of what I read from Jack. I did not expect Jack to categorically dismiss the testimonies of high-ranking, connected Republicans testifying under-oath and compromising their political careers in the process.
TiG said
Define "viable side". What does that even mean?
What would he gain, exactly?
Yes John. *eyeroll* We know. Anybody who doesn't share your insane Trump fetish must be a "defender". Riiiiiiight.
We don't have that ability. We only have the ability to listen to the witnesses that the party in power decides we should hear.
I'm not sure how "listening to talking heads" discuss a wildly biased set of information is remotely equivalent to getting all or most of the actual facts.
So you claim. Again. Who? Specifically.
Not what I said. I said I don't care. Largely because there isn't any way that any testimony is going to warrant a behavioral change on my part. I already voted against Trump. In the unlikely and unhappy event that I ever get the chance to do so again, I almost surely will.
In the increasingly unlikely event that these hearings uncover criminality, that will be prosecuted or not without regard to my input. As there is no decision for me to make, the testimony is purely academic. And since it is utterly incomplete, it is also unchallenging and therefore uninteresting.
You're only going to ever get the chance to accept that which you want to believe. You won't see anything else. What I find surprising is that you know that but don't care.
The witnesses are mostly high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers to testify. You present this as though the committee has cleverly found just the right people to tell a false story they invented. The problem with your logic is that there was but one Attorney General, one SoS for Georgia, one Speaker for Arizona, one eldest daughter of Trump, one White House counsel, one general counsel to Pence, etc.
Do you, for example, think Barr is lying? Why? What would cause you to think it more likely that he is lying than telling the truth? Same question goes for all those who testified.
Asked and answered:
Same difference.
Bullshit, I follow the evidence to where it leads not seek the evidence to confirm a belief. In the case of Trump the evidence we all were able to observe directly was substantial to determine that Trump engaged in a Big Lie in an attempt to steal the election. We have his meeting with Raffensperger, we have his speeches, his tweets, we know that he did not act for three hours, we know of his frivolous lawsuits, etc. Importantly, we know that his allegations were absolute bullshit. The committee is providing testimony from high-ranking, connected Republicans and this new information correlates well with what we knew before the hearings even started. That is what one would expect if one has concluded (and this should be obvious) that Trump's Big Lie campaign was an attempt to steal the election.
But you 'do not care' and have a slew of excuses for not caring.
Remarkable.
Not my first choice in the adjectiveated lists of descriptive word flatterization, of an attempted rationalization and faux representation of a divided by choice and purpose inclination that poses American against American, in the American Way, that we seem to forget and dismiss, was something, we seem to have forgotten and dismissed, early on, till later off, we found nothing to sneeze at, cause we hadn't a cough, inn which was a drop in the bucket, dropped off by a bucket listing who was kicked off a bucket list , and Y, it was a paling in comparison to comparisons compared to comparisons not compared
So you claim. Again. Who? Specifically.
Who and What was this article about again...?
Cause survey says Liz Cheney and about every other Republican speaking Truth to Power, for Trumps' base is going to hold these people who dare speak out about the truth, and against him and his Big LYING Baby Crying tantrumz, to task, so i dont ask Y
So it's partisan of me to look at and point out the partisan make up of the committee. And you don't see the hypocrisy in that?
And just like 1.0 and 2.0 it will be based on hurt feelings and zero evidence.
oddly enough, even if you did not watch the hearings, if you paid any attention to what Trump, with his own big mouth has stated, you would Still have plenty of evidence to choose from.
These people are demented.
When did Trump testify? I don't recall him EVER testifying. Lets see the video of that. I'm sure you have it saved.
I just amazes me that people use the fact that this is a partisan committee (as if that is something unusual) to flat out disregard all the under-oath testimony by high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers by testifying.
What?
No, Jeremy (and Ronin and JustJim), it is not 'partisan' to observe that this committee is partisan with 7Ds, 2Rs and chosen by Pelosi. That is simply observing reality. I have been noting this reality from the beginning of the hearings. So clearly I do not think it is partisan to note and communicate that obvious fact.
How can you write such utter nonsense? Have you no shame? You declared in this forum that you will not watch the hearings because the committee has 7 Ds and only 2 Rs and Pelosi was in control of the membership. Thus you declared willful ignorance of the evidence presented — including under-oath testimony of high-ranking, connected Republicans like Bill Barr and Pat Cippollone. And now you declare —based on admitted ignorance— that no evidence has been presented.
Are you aware that Trump engaged in a two month lying campaign to steal the election? Do you even have that level of understanding?
Credibility suicide.
This is why I can't take you seriously. Fabrications like that. But, if you're so dead set that was my "declaration" then provide the link to my statement.
When actual evidence is presented, then I'll consider it. So far, it's all been hearsay and speculation.
How many and how much of the 6 hearings have you watched?
Who TOLD you this ?
Y R U Afraid to learn the TRUTH ?
You should pay attention. You'd be amazed what you learn.
You continue to repeat this, as though it somehow negates the fact that the ONLY witnesses you will see are hand chosen because they're willing to say what Pelosi et al want them to say. It doesn't. Repeating it does not change that.
You keep asking people "do you think xxx person is lying", as though it somehow negates the fact that the ONLY witnesses you will see are hand chosen because they're willing to say what Pelosi et al want them to say. It doesn't. Repeating it does not change that.
BTW no, I don't have any reason to suspect anyone is lying.
It's not, but you currently seem to have your head stuck in this JohnRussell idea that people who do not share your outrage either do not understand the situation or have some sort of moral failing, so I can see how it would be difficult for you.
You are studying hearings where people are trying to establish that a famously dishonest man has attempted something dishonest, and we're supposed to be outraged about it....like it's some sort of massive surprise.
It's akin to being outraged that a tiger has mauled its trainer, and then listening to months worth of testimony about the angle of his claws during the attack.
Let's assume that Trump did, in fact, attempt to "steal" the election. What do you suggest I do about that? What action should I take?
Clearly
Your argument implies that these witnesses are lying under oath. My reason for emphasizing that these witnesses are mostly high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers to testify is to illustrate that these people are not motivated to lie against Trump.
Which is more likely, your hypothesis that these witnesses are lying (unknown motivation) or that they are telling the truth even when doing so compromises their political futures?
Why would all these high-ranking, connected Republicans lie against the defacto leader of their party and most recent R PotUS?
You seem to be stuck on this point. I have never once suggested otherwise; so factor that in. Also factor in the fact that these witnesses were not forced to testify as they did. The information they provided is from them (under oath), not from a script that Pelosi wrote. So it makes no difference that the committee picked these witnesses to testify if one simply takes each testimony on its own merit. Stated differently, if you find the entire committee to be a partisan ploy then just ignore everything the committee states and just consider each testimony on its own merits.
The under-oath testimony by high-ranking, connected Republicans who are putting their political careers on the line to testify is far better information about the inner-workings than we normally get. You keep arguing that it should be ignored because the committee is biased. That is not even remotely objective.
Then why are you objecting to using these testimonies as information that we would all consider in our individual analysis? Why are you arguing with me?
Again with the bullshit personal attacks and presumption.
Where did I state that this testimony should surprise anyone? Not even close to the point I made.
You are not convinced of this??? This is something that must be assumed?? You did not see it happen with normal media sources well before this committee was formed?
It is now about as conclusive as it can be that there was no fraud in the election that came even close to changing the results. Trump's Big Lie was indeed absolute bullshit (and I, prior to recently, would have believed that this would be your position). So knowing that this was all bullshit from Trump and watching all the actions he and his minions took based solely on bullshit (including the publicly released audio of his Raffensperger call), (including Trump's own speeches/tweets to his supporters), (including Trump's attempt to suborn Pence to unconstitutionally table certified results), etc. you have to ' assume ' that Trump was trying to steal the election?
Just amazing.
Action? That is up to you. My suggestion, which should be incredibly clear by now, is to NOT dismiss the under-oath testimonies of high-ranking, connected Republicans who are risking their political careers by testifying.
I suggest that you "NOT dismiss" the information provided by the testimonies simply because of the entirely unusual and unpredictable situation
where a political committee has a partisan bias.
Okay, Jeremy, my policy on forums is to give people a chance to set the record straight. So if you say you are watching the hearings I will continue with that as a factual assumption.
So now with that assumption, how is it possible that you do not see evidence? Right off the bat, we see Barr under oath stating that he told Trump that his claims were bullshit. This is evidence supporting the allegation that Trump knew that his claims of election fraud were meritless but he continued his Big Lie con-job nonetheless.
So just focus on this one item to keep things super simple. What in your mind would qualify as evidence that Trump was told by a credible source (in private by his own AG) that his claims were fraudulent?
What is that supposed to mean?
This is very easy to understand. Either one holds that these witnesses are lying under oath (for whatever reasons one wishes to believe) or one holds that these witnesses are indeed telling the truth. The fact that they are testifying against their own former PotUS (they are Rs) further supports that they are not lying. That is, why would these high-ranking, connected Republicans compromise their careers by lying?
Well, I have got to say it. Watching you tie yourself into knots trying to deny what everyone of us has seen and heard with our own eyes and ears is getting to be cringey as hell. I am actually beginning to feel embarrassed for you...
The witnesses have been credible, mostly solid Republicans.
Still waiting for that link to back up your claim. Until then you really have nothing to say to me.
I just told you that I will take you at your word and now will assume that you have watched the hearings.
Thus, given the assumption that you are informed, I asked you a question.
And, big surprise, you run away.
Nobody told me what I saw with my eyes, heard with my ears.
I saw the Insurrection, watch the hearings, hear the witnesses.
I would think supporting consequences for those who were proven to have been a part of the attempted insurrection would be a start. Also, not supporting those who continued Trumps big lie for the last two years would make sense. At a minimum denouncing Trump and Trumpism that brought about the attempted insurrection would be warranted for anyone who truly loves America and our constitution. Beyond that it would seem logical to support the civil and criminal prosecution of anyone who broke the law either in attacking Capital police, breaking into the Capital, vandalizing Capital property, threatening legislators and their staff or being involved in the attempted insurrection in any way such as planning and coordinating.
Fuck your question. Provide the link of my statement. Put up or shut up.
I do not fetch on demand; wait forever. The best you will get is what I gave you: I said I would take you at your word.
Your refusal to be taken at your word is a pathetic deflection from answering a very obvious question that follows when we assume you watched the hearings. The question illustrates that your endless claim that these hearings provide no evidence is indeed bullshit. And if you were watching the hearings then it is a lie (knowingly stating a falsehood).
If you watched these hearings you would know otherwise. And I just delivered one of the earliest under-oath testimonies from Barr and you, predictably, run away and attempt to deflect.
Allegation: Trump knew that his claims of election fraud were meritless but he continued his Big Lie con-job nonetheless.
Evidence: Barr's testimony where he clearly stated to Trump that his claims were investigated and found to be entirely without merit and to emphasize he told the PotUS that his claims were "bullshit".
Who should we believe? You or our own lying eyes and ears?
Define "supporting consequences". And then explain what difference my support would make.
Define "supporting".
Why does "denouncing" anything matter to anyone? Assume I did denounce something. So what?
Done. But again....explain what difference my support or lack thereof matters to that outcome.
The part you're not going to like is that I also support civil and criminal prosecution for every protester who breaks the law.....including but not limited to CHAZ insurrectionists, BLM vandals, "counter-protesters" who show up to instigate violence and then whine when it is visited upon them, and assholes who block traffic because they think their "feelings" are more important than whatever other people want to be doing.
I have also been asking for weeks when we're going to see charges against Trump or his senior officials.
Look at the big picture. I know you do not support Trump (or at least that is what I thought I knew) but consider that every Trump supporter can ask the same question: "so what if I do not support Trump ... what difference will it make?". For the individual standing alone it would make no difference. But if those Trump supporters in mass did not support Trump he would not have the fuel he needed to continue. Without support I strongly suggest that his Big Lie campaign would have deflated like a leaking balloon well before the insurrection.
So now look at the present and future. Would Trump run for office if the GoP did not offer strong support for him? Would he be in the news trying to play king-maker? Would he be continuing to harm and confuse the GoP? I say no.
The power of democracy comes from the people writ large, not from an individual. So even though your individual voice by itself will accomplish nothing, that does not negate the fact that your voice in harmony with others has great influence.
Some people on this forum give Jack Tx way too much benefit of the doubt. His continuing implication that the committee is rigged against Trump and is not allowing Trump favoring evidence DOES constitute a defense of Trump. At least some of these people will stand up and tell you their strange ideas in a straightforward way. Jack Tx wants it both ways.
Your "argument" that the only way Trump can be seen as a wrong doer (that would disqualify him from political life ) is if he is indicted is ridiculous.
The evidence makes him guilty or innocent, not a court or DOJ charging decision.
That seems to be the GoP talking point position. Instead of dealing with the testimony the super majority of arguments all take the form:
'The committee is partisan so every testimony in the hearings is without merit.'
Just amazing that people will digest daily news that is far less potent: not under-oath, not high-ranking, connected Republicans compromising their political futures by testifying, yet will cavalierly discard all this testimony under the excuse 'political bias' as if political bias was not replete in our news sources.
Is it not important to know that Barr directly investigated Trump's claims and told Trump in clear terms that they were groundless ... and eventually spoke in language Trump surely could not ignore: that his claims were bullshit?
This one example alone establishes (evidences) that Trump did indeed know his allegations were bullshit yet he continued his Big Lie con-job nonetheless.
People on this forum would, one would think, value information. I would imagine they all think they are good at discerning truth from lies and that this skill is necessarily applied on a daily basis. So how does that reconcile with categorically dismissing all this testimony?
It does not reconcile.
Fortunately the outcome doesnt hinge on your reluctance to care.
It does no such thing. That's utterly asinine.
I'm not sure how to get it through your thick head that I don't imagine any of these people are lying.
The irony of you accusing me of either of those things. Good grief.
I haven't heard all the evidence. Neither have you.
And the point here...the reason I disagree with you.... is that you have made your judgment on this topic without hearing all the evidence. What's worse is you KNOW you haven't heard all the evidence, and not only have you made your judgment anyway, you clearly believe yourself superior to people who are waiting for a less biased data set.
The word "steal" indicates he did something illegal. With what has be been charged?
The fact you ignore is none of us know the full details of what happened behind the scenes in the weeks between the election and Jan 6. We don't know what Trump was told, what legal advice he was given, or what his handlers led him to believe.
The fact you demand we all overlook is that these hearings are designed specifically to get us to overlook any information that may offer alternative explanations for Trump's actions.
But your head isn't stuck in the whole "outrage superiority" idea at all. Riiiiiiiight.
That's not an action.
BTW, I have not "dismissed" anything. I merely acknowledge several significant facts:
So no...I don't really care.
I don't think that's what DP is talking about. My interpretation is that he/she is using the term "denounce" in the more traditional angry zealot usage many liberals are fond of.
Certainly not.
Absolutely. 100%. He's an attention whore.
It would not be for lack of trying.
Exactly. So the importance of my individual denunciation is pretty much zero. I assure you nobody is listening.
I'm sure that's probably true somewhere in the looney leftist corners of your imagination.
The good news here John is that you and Trump can both be utterly batshit in equal measure without reducing the other. There is an unlimited supply of crazy in the universe, as you're demonstrating here again.
OK, just for you I'll use small words.
Trump is bad.
The hearings are still biased.
What part of either of those is difficult?
That has never been my argument. Kindly pay attention.
The question is "guilty of what"?
If we're going to have 10 televised hearings to show he's a terrible human, what is the point? Everybody knows that. The people who voted for him know that. Anybody who hasn't lived under a rock for the past 40 years knows that.
Now...a DOJ investigation where they charge him with a crime.... that would actually matter.
Because you're misrepresenting it. Again.
Which is why I don't.
Yes. You are correct. Excellent. Well done.
I dare to question if the committee is biased. After all, if Liz Cheney got any more properly conservative she would fall off one side of the spectrum. Furthemore, the committee has a great amount of continuing testimony to get through and out to the public, resulting in trivialities and incidentals getting pushed farther back in the queue if presented at all. Of course, MAGA is only interested in saving its tired, old, funky self from being exposed as pampered yahoos who broke into the federal capitol with every camera in the world focused on them!
But forgive me for being blunt on a comment to you that I am directing at the usual suspects: Since Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger don't want to kiss Donald Trump's ass, the MAGA purists is belittling Liz Cheney as a RINO and have officially censured, and dropped her. . . and drove Kinzinger out. None of which has any meaning to the validity of the two individuals to serve in their capacity.
This is some "f-up" crap and there is no other way to put it. The GOP is out of its "f-ing" mind right now! Reagan's 1lth command about republicans speaking ill of another republican never considered a meathead like Donald Trump and MAGA 'takeover.'
Then your argument has no basis. You complain that the committee is partisan —and it most certainly is— you complain that there is no cross-examination —and there is indeed none— and you complain that only witnesses and testimony desired by the committee is presented —no doubt correct— and you complain that not all the evidence has been shown —undoubtedly true—.
You are full of complaints and thus excuses for downplaying / dismissing the under-oath testimony of these witnesses. My point has been that the testimonies in and of themselves are valuable information. Forget the committee and simply consume the testimonies. Factor in whatever bias you wish, but if your factoring winds up dismissing the testimonies then by that very same reasoning you should dismiss everything you hear from media because nothing is pure, cross-examined, complete, etc.
Then you must hold that they are telling the truth. If so, why are you so furiously arguing with me? My point has been, all along, that these testimonies provide quality insider information (better than what we typically get) from media.
So? Do you have any reason to believe that this election was stolen? No? Then you must hold that Trump was lying. If so, then Trump engaged in a two-month Big Lie con-job in an attempt to steal the election. Right? On top of this we have countless public information that chronicles many varied attempts by Trump to steal the election. The evidence just from what is easily publicly available is overwhelming. Now we are getting more insider information that correlates with what we all could see and hear with our own eyes.
I say this is good information to have ... you, however, have been arguing against that with all sorts of excuses such as a biased committee. Yet you tell me that you do not think the witnesses are lying. So you would have me believe that you cannot in your own analysis consider the bias of the committee when observing Barr, for example, under-oath tell us all that Trump was indeed informed by at least one credible source (Barr) that his allegations were without merit ... bullshit? You would have me believe that it is not possible for you to walk away with an understanding of evidence that supports the allegation that Trump was informed? And what would the counter-evidence be? Someone going to claim that Barr and Trump never had that discussion .... that Barr is lying? How likely do you think that is? Do you expect Barr to fold under cross-examination and state that he really never told Trump that his allegations were false? You might find that likely, but I certainly do not.
In short, not having heard all the evidence is not an excuse to dismiss the testimonies. And if you come back and insist that you are not dismissing the testimonies then I will ask why you have been arguing with me. My point has been that the testimonies are valuable insider information and is credible for the reasons I have repeatedly stated.
Just read the words in your last few posts. You have stooped to personal attacks, not me. I have intentionally refrained from returning in kind in the hope that you would return to your usual level of decorum.
If evidence arises that goes against what we have, I will adjust accordingly. Do you have anything, whatsoever, that suggests Trump did not knowingly attempt to steal the election? That Trump did not knowingly allow three hours to pass before telling the insurrectionists to leave? etc. etc. Present what you have. I doubt you have anything.
You would have me believe that you, Jack, hold off on forming ANY opinion until ALL of the evidence is presented? You could not function if that were the case. Further, there are facts that are clear and the evidence is overwhelming. Trump lied about a rigged election and that lie was the basis for myriad dishonest actions that he took with the intent of remaining in office aka stealing the election. Do you need more information to recognize that basic reality? For example, I do not buy the notion that you need any further information to determine that you will not vote for Trump as PotUS in 2024. But how could you make such a judgment without ALL the evidence? Give me a break.
Going to argue about what constitutes an 'action' now?
So glean from the testimony information that you find credible. Back to the Barr example to keep this simple, Barr provided solid evidence that Trump knew his allegations were bullshit. There is no reason that I can see for you to simply dismiss that.
Yes, so as the information arises we adjust our summary opinions. We go by the evidence available until new evidence arises. Pretty much what we human beings do on a daily basis.
That is fine, Jack, but we all operate differently. I, in contrast, am very curious as to what took place behind closed doors. Thus I will observe evidence to that effect as long as it arises.
Again, fine. But you have been arguing with me because I hold that this is valuable, credible information. Your claim that you will not act (determine your vote) until a trial concludes does not in any way take away from my position of valuable, credible information. Again, you are arguing against my position that the information if valuable and credible. If this nets down to this does not matter to you then you could have save a ton of time by not trying to argue against my position that this is valuable, credible information for me and for others (even though not for you).
You keep stating this. Fine. Okay, great, you will not act on this information. Great for you.
What they are providing is quality insider information. The action the committee can take when done is to refer their findings to the DoJ. The DoJ then can act (or not) and indict Trump. We must wait and see. If the DoJ never indicts Trump I will bet large that it is based on a political calculation overruling proper jurisprudence.
Wonderful. I do care.
I disagree. If Trump believed he would be dissed he would pursue his attention needs elsewhere.
I found it remarkable that I was explaining the basics of why each voice matters to someone who I believe deeply, intrinsically understands that; I did not expect you to exclaim in response that you do not recognize the importance of each voice in aggregate.
If all those who are against Trump's continued influence on the GoP but have chosen to remain silent were to denounce Trump, that would be a force to persuade the GoP away from Trump.
The committee is inherently biased. It is a committee formed by Pelosi. It contains 7 Ds and 2 Rs. It is investigating the opposition president. There is no question that it is biased. Of course, even if the committee were more balanced, it would be biased ... I see no way for it to NOT be biased. So I say we factor in the bias as fact and proceed accordingly.
Now, that said, I find Cheney to be rather unusual. She impresses me as far more objective than what we normally see in this bunch. And she certainly has put her career where her mouth is. Cheney lost her position and likely her seat because she chose to stand up for what is right in opposition to pressure from her party.
Good grief.
My position is that the testimonies, in and of themselves, are providing valuable insider information. That the witnesses are typically good because they are high-ranking, connected Republicans testifying under oath. That the witnesses are credible because they are Republicans testifying against the prior Republican president and are compromising their political careers by doing so.
Further, my position is that it is better to have this information than not. Our nation is better off if the electorate is informed (toward truth).
You do not find the witnesses to be lying which suggests you find their testimonies to more likely be truth than not.
What is your complaint with my position?
MAGA has handed Liz her (forgive me) 'ass' and I can see where she is standing on her conviction and Cheney reputation to hand Trump his 'ass' back!
My point regarding Cheney and Kinzinger is MAGA SOB's are throwing away perfectly good conservatives and making enemies of the same just because MAGA is 'bout as corrupt as the GOP can get and still exist as a group. For crying out loud: MAGA displaces republicans and conservatives not seeking office, but in red wedding style takes them out while sitting down at the political table!
I can only hope that the Cheney-like GoP members prevail over the MAGA bunch. Does not seem likely though.
Given the shit people say here, no need for forgiveness on ass.
Trump has had and continues to have every opportunity to "correct the record". If he said he would give his side of the story to a reporter a thousand of them would line up.
The idea that there is some sort of yet unseen defense of Trump is a fantasy.
Then the conventional (proper) GOP needs to gear up and begin the arduous work of sealing the breaches as fast as MAGA opens them. As the bible details, 'throw out the "strongman"' and put something better in his/her place immediately!
Meathead Trump can tell the truth any time he chooses. But of course, he won't because he if full of 'it! And so is MAGA to boot! Meathead Trump won't even let MAGA staff testify or MAGA house join the committee or MAGA cabinet have permissions to tell the truth and nothing but the truth!
MAGA is full of 'it. Here on NT and 'abroad.' These. . . people are just spinning and 'killing' time here. I no longer take any of them seriously. Here on NT or 'abroad.' Just look at the cretin Steve Bannon walking in court talking like a loser and on the street using the bravado of a fool!
MAGA is trash.
I just noticed this in another recent article so I decided to respond. Given this, I now have a hard time simply taking you at your word (as I told you I would).
Your inability to speak intelligently about the content of the hearings is routinely present in your collective posts. That alone suggests that you are not watching (or not paying attention). But then you make statements like this:
You routinely dismiss all the hearings as bullshit so clearly you do not consider the hearings to be something of substance. That logically means you have not watched them. Your complaints have been that since the committee is partisan and biased that they have nothing of value to offer.
So which is it Jeremy?:
Clear it up. I will again extend the offer to take you at your word. Are you watching the hearings and paying attention or not? If you are watching them then my comments to you will presume you are informed and challenge you accordingly. If not, my comments to you will consider that you are uninformed.
Which is it?
Trump's defenses have been predictable. He dismisses/demeans the witness. He even dismissed Ivanka as not being well informed.
Given the ludicrous bullshit proffered by his minions (Giuliana, Powell, Lindell, ...) in support of this Big Lie, common sense alone suggests more of the same would comprise a Trump 'defense'. I am willing to be surprised but do not expect to be.
By the way, you asked this a while back and I answered that every Republican who testifies against Trump is compromising their career.
This came in yesterday:
Yeah, push out Bowers for being a stand-up guy. This does not surprise me in the slightest. What surprises me is that you apparently did not recognize the political risk taken by these witnesses.
Yea, because being a lying low life fckn criminal in so many senses of the words, fckn criminal, unless charged with a crime, would be criminal, no ? Jack, my opinion being my opinion, is degrading rapidly as your condescending fck off attitude to Tig, John, and CB, has sunken your status as a commentator, at least in my eyes, cause i'm blind otherwise, but thanks, for showing me, your way, as some had given you more credit than that, WTF were they thinkin......?
Then you have nothing to say. Told you put up or shut up. Looks like you chose shut up.
I now it won't be. Just another example of the hypocrisy and bullshit from some people.
It's not the link you are supposed to show me. Why are you still talking?
How predictable, even with a link you deny the evidence. And you refuse to be clear and run from the question. Remarkable.
Until I see evidence that you understand the content of these hearings I will clear this up myself and hold that you are indeed NOT watching the hearings. I will conclude that your criticism of the hearings is simply based on superficial factors (e.g. the committee is partisan) and parroting talking points.
Pathetic little obfuscation / denial games will never show you to be correct; to do that you actually need to post verifiable truth.
Dont hold your breath.
I give him 0 credit for anything.
We know those who don't care about the truth.
It is. You made a claim, you can't produce and now you are trying to avoid it. Put up or shut up already.
You could post evidence of Trump's wrong doing 10 pages long and people like Jeremy woud still say "where is the proof ?". Sadly, that is all they know how to do. Its pretty pathetic.
As I figured, I even gave you a link @5.4.81 to a recent comment where you claim: "When it's something of substance I'll watch." while expressing that nothing of substance is taking place in the committee (your collective comments).
Your repetitive nuh'uhs are pathetic.
The only way I will buy that you are watching the hearings is for you to put forth informed commentary that illustrates you both watched and understand the content of the hearings.
That is a very good example. His collective rebuttals to my evidence-laden comments have largely been: 'where is the proof?'. Proof, literally, in real life is rare. We can generate proof in mathematics, but in real life (and even in science) proof is an ideal, not an achievable objective.
Just kicking the can (moving the goalposts to ridiculous extremes) in lieu of a cogent argument. Pathetic is indeed the word.
Still not the link you need to provide. Try again.
*eyeroll*
None of which has stopped you from drawing your conclusions.
Once again... I am not downplaying or dismissing anything. Nor do I think anybody is lying. Nor do I understand why that is such a difficult concept for you to process.
At last. A small penny drops.
I'm not the furious one.
This really boils down to whether or not you are capable of considering ideas besides those currently in front of you. I don't need to see something actually happen to understand how it could happen.
The counter-evidence might include but not be limited to what he was told by any of the other dozens of people he may have spoken with, including but not limited to Kushner, Ivanka, Giuliani, random Republican campaign officials, or any of the other various sketchy whackjobs he loves to attract. But we can all be very sure that we will never see any information that might distract from the approved conclusions we're all supposed to embrace.
You've already said the committee is partisan and the hearings are biased. So this new evidence? Will this be a vision from God? Will we learn of it on Russian television? How will that get out, exactly?
The. Issue. Is. Not. Credibility. *sigh*
This is mildly interesting to me. You clearly cannot comprehend how someone might believe Barr's testimony and simultaneously fail to embrace the conclusions you've drawn. It just seems to completely exceed the limits of your imagination. No matter how many times I state outright I don't think Barr is lying, you continue to attempt to convince me he is credible. It's as if you're in this feedback loop where A must imply B, and if one does not conclude B, one must necessarily not believe A. You seem incapable of imagining that A might also imply C, D, E or F... but we won't know without more complete data....which we're not going to get... because Pelosi very much wants us all to be happy with B.
Do we? Because I'm pretty sure you were always a non-Trump voter and I'm also pretty sure that's not going to change. So in reality, the testimony is all pretty much academic for us.
That's not at all what I've been arguing. That's what's happening in the feedback loop.
And how exactly will you act on this information? I'm curious.
How would that benefit him?
His alternative is to stay clear of it all, complain that it's partisan and biased (which would be one of the few true things he's said in the last 50 years) and pretend he's the victim of some Orwellian witch hunt. Then he can release a book later and cash in on "the conspiracy".
Sounds like a more effective plan, TBF.
It also takes advantage of Nancy Pelosi's long track record of generally being inept when she goes after him.
Defense for what?
Correct, I have factored this into my analysis. As noted, the 'news' we get is never pure and there is always a need to apply judgment. If everyone waited for every item of news to be formally adjudicated we would never form opinions.
No, Jack, I was making the point that if someone like Barr states that he told Trump that his allegations of a rigged election were all bullshit than you are not likely to find a counter to that. The counter would have to be: 'No, Barr never said that to Trump'. Short of Barr claiming that he lied how in hell would one ever evidence that Barr never really told Trump his claims were bullshit? Answer, it is not possible.
Amazing. You have complained that there is no evidence from the other side and now you are in wonderment as to the nature of new evidence. You cannot imagine that new evidence could come forward after these hearings? How about if we have a trial, can you imagine new evidence under those circumstances?
Barr was one example, If you believe the witnesses are telling the truth then why would you not include their testimony as part of your working information that you use to form your position on this matter?
You do not value information? You simply gather the information you require to make a vote and then shut down your senses? I am curious about this matter because it is serious for the nation. The more I learn will likely not change my mind on voting for Trump but that certainly is no reason to stop learning. Bizarre view you have.
Serious question... If they don't charge him with a crime.. what changes? Maybe you see something I don't.
I give back what I get, and I'm unapologetic about that. I am polite as long as people are polite to me.
It's worth pointing out that I was recently accused of "personal attacks" by somebody using almost exactly the same verbiage he quoted and who swore it wasn't a personal attack when he said it.
A horrible precedent is set regarding what bad actions a politician, in particular the PotUS, can do in response to a lost election.
You would never in a million years form your opinion on a topic based on a story on Fox News. This is more biased than that.
Sarcasm, not wonderment.
Going to trial is the only way I think it will come forward, which is why I have been asking about that consistently for weeks. But you and I both know a trial is more unlikely with every day that goes by. So the odds are very high that we'll never see any evidence Pelosi doesn't want us to see. Unless we have a vision from God. (more sarcasm, in case it wasn't clear)
Two things would need to happen. One...we would need a broader and less biased set of data. Right now, it's like trying to play blackjack with a deck of 6 cards that are all clubs. There is nothing wrong with the cards themselves, but they aren't much use on their own and everybody knows what suit will be dealt next. Two... the outcome of the hearings would need to matter in some tangible way. Right now, to my disappointment, it's looking very much like this is going to end up being one of those things where we all sit in a circle and validate our feelings.
Sure. Which is why I'm waiting for a full set.
I don't wallow in what I know to be a tiny, non-representative sliver of data.
Is it? It's "serious for the nation", so we're having a non-binding, hyper-biased, made-for-TV by the political party in power mini-series of political theatre? If that's how we now treat things that are "serious for the nation", we're officially fucked.
In now 8 hearings we, the public, have been given access to insider information from dozens of high-ranking, connected Republicans (many who were appointed by Trump and/or had served Trump during his term of office), who have testified under-oath even though doing so compromises their own political careers. You have even stated that you have no reason to believe these testimonies are not truthful.
Yet you offer these characterizations:
I have no further interest in trying to reason with you.
What do you expect would be the nature of Trumps side of the story?
Did he secretly order the National Guard to the capitol that afternoon but nobody knows it ?
Did he tweet to the rioters to "go home" in a timely way, before three hours of violence had happened, and the tweet was somehow delayed in the cybersphere?
Are all the witnesses who say Trump said various "incriminating" things lying? All of them?
Did Trump not approve of the John Eastman plan? It certainly seems he did since he suggested in his Jan 6 speech at the Ellipse that Pence should still follow Eastman's plan.
Please tell us, what is the nature, in specifics , of trump's side of the story?
It is pure poetry that sadly Rep/Chair Bernie Thompson-MS is out with Covid-19 at this time, and Rep/Vice-Chair Cheney-WY is putting the 'cap' on this series of hearings. Whereupon in summation she flatly points the responsibility of the committee is to present substantial evidential reporting such that it is clear to the nation Donald Trump is unfit to ever hold any public office again. Rep/Member Kinzinger points out that the job of this committee at its concluding is to use what it has learned from witnesses to write laws to avoid another insurrection on the Capitol! Maybe even the country!
Clearly Cal was paying attention.
Ohhhhh! A Trumpist technique!
Deny what has just been written as fact and double down when called.... You guys know he's going to jail, don't you?
Amazing is it not? Just pretend that the facts are not there and endlessly deny reality.
If one states a falsehood with enough conviction and continues to repeat same, then group-think / conformist types will believe you.
What is more amazing is that I think they know that they are doing it! It is a strange and bizarre wrench of the psyche .....
How does one conclude that looking the fool is a good way to persuade others?
Maybe the ones they are trying to convince are fools,also?
What is telling about these hearings (and the promise of more testimony) is their are "MAGA" republicans voluntarily removing their blinders, because on January 6, 2021 they saw Donald Trump embossed in relief and set upon this country they love too. What is encouraging to watch in the hearings is these republicans one by one, in series, and perhaps next in droves coming out to inform the public of what they experienced and what this merciless man has done to them, their friends, their associates, 'kids' that intern, and this country. Goodness, I hope so. Not because I want to see Donald Trump fail, but because what Donald Trump represents must not be allowed to stand: Division personified!
Exactly.
As yet, we can only speculate. If Trump's history is any indicator, he'll throw absolutely everybody under the bus, including Giuliani and Kushner. That would create a situation where you have multiple people you don't trust telling you stories you don't believe, and chaos will ensue. Chaos is Trump's brer patch. It gives him a home-field advantage.
You use the word "incriminating"... implying there is an accusation of a crime. Yet you get your panties in a wad when I ask when he's going to be charged with one. So are we talking about a crime or not? If so, which one, and why isn't he being prosecuted? It's been 18 months now.
You've previously agreed with both of those points. Here, let me help jog your memory...
It's not me you don't want to reason with. It's yourself.
We've been hearing that for about 7 years now. And look at that, every attempt to put him there has failed. I wonder why that is. Lack of evidence would be the first indication.
I figured this was all theatrics for you. No way that I believe you do not know what I have repeatedly written yet here you are blatantly misrepresenting even words you just quoted.
I have repeatedly stated that the committee is biased from day one; this is obvious. I have also repeatedly stated that one should factor that in and focus on the evidence because the evidence is under-oath testimony by high-ranking, connected Republicans who put their political careers on the line by testifying.
In short, the committee is biased; each testimony, however, in itself, is credible and provides quality insider information that we do not get from the media.
I have NEVER suggested that the testimonies themselves are biased. In fact, I have stated the opposite. And you have as well when you acknowledge that the testimonies are likely the truth.
I have NEVER suggested that the testimonies are a 'tiny sliver'. I have, in fact, made no comment attempting to predict the quantity of the testimonies presented with those that might come out in a trial other than to note that other testimonies are (obviously) likely. But I certainly do not dismiss these 8 sessions of testimonies from dozens of witnesses as a "tiny sliver".
Because they're all fools.
No, it is politics.
Keep telling yourself that.
The hearings are definitely all theatrics. Not sure how that's not completely obvious. That's central to the issue, despite your desperate protestations otherwise.
You have acknowledged that the committee is biased. You have acknowledged that the hearings are biased. You have acknowledged that information is being withheld.
Yet you continue to demand that everybody ignore these exceedingly obvious facts and follow you through your looking glass into a fantasy tea party where these testimonies are somehow extricable from their context. They're not, and the idea that they are is asinine.
Well you should have. You could have been both unbiased and accurate. Opportunity missed.
18 months, tens of thousands of man hours, hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation..... by any sane, objective measure, 8 sessions is a tiny sliver. Again, I'm not sure how that's not obvious. The fact that you're arguing it is telling.
You are seeing a sales pitch. You know it's a sales pitch. But you don't care, because they're selling you something you want. OK fine. That's your choice. Leave me out of it.
Personally, I'm never interested in a sales pitch, and the more obviously desperate it is, the less I trust it.
I would love to see Trump sent to prison. I frankly cannot fathom how it hasn't happened long before the Jan 6 riots.
That does not change the fact that we are seeing the party in power use that power to broadcast obviously and extremely biased official hearings, which we all watch on huge screens in our homes that are all full of cameras and microphones. I'm not going to say it's all Orwellian...but if 1984 had a prequel, I'm not sure this wouldn't be how it starts.
I STATED upfront that the committee is biased. And I have STATED that we are likely to get more information if this goes to trial.
As I have repeatedly told you, I do not demand anything. I have made a suggestion. I have, as I have stated probably dozens of times, suggested that there is quality information in the testimonies alone. That one can separate the testimonies from the biased committee and use that information as they see fit. That one need not and should not just ignore all the insider, under-oath testimony from high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromise their political careers by testifying.
... one need not and should not just ignore all the insider, under-oath testimony from high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromise their political careers by testifying.
For example, the under-oath testimonies in the last hearing by individuals such as Pat Cipollone are evidence that Trump was informed that his people were armed and were forcibly (breaking and entering) the Capitol building and that advisors, family and 'friends' all pleaded with him to do something about it. That he could have walked to the press room within one minute and be on a live camera within minutes. That he could have tweeted. But in spite of the many, varied methods at the disposal of the PotUS to communicate with the insurrectionists, Trump refused to act until 187 minutes into the insurrection.
So that is what you define as evidence?? Every minute recorded during testimony sessions, every word written in every document, text, email, etc. in the corpus of data for this committee?? Then you have a very generous definition for evidence. I define evidence in the legal sense: " Evidence is an item which a litigant proffers to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. " or " every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. "
That is, evidence is that which directly supports a posited fact: no more, no less. Apparently you have the strange belief that in a trial, for example, the attorneys cart in wheel barrels full of raw material and present all of it to the judge and jury. In reality, that which is proffered as evidence is the result of extensive filtering.
Apparently you have the strange belief that in a trial, for example, the attorneys cart in wheel barrels full of raw material and present all of it to the judge and jury.
Further, if Bill Barr in his testimony repeatedly established the same fact (i.e. that he told Trump that his allegations of fraud were bullshit) I would not consider each paraphrase, each instance of that same item of evidence fact to be different items of evidence. So all the redundant utterings, the dead time, the irrelevant details (per the focus), etc. is not what I would consider evidence and neither does our legal system.
Now, with that, back to what I stated. Pursuant to Trump's culpability in the Jan 6th insurrection I do not expect to see a great mass of evidence (properly using that term) to the contrary. I do not expect to see evidence that establishes Barr did not tell Trump his allegations were bullshit, or that Trump Jr. did not encourage his dad to stop the insurrection, or that Trump actually did act within those 187 minutes, or that Trump did not encourage his supporters to march on the Capitol, etc. I do expect that a trial will provide additional evidence we have not seen (as I have stated and this is again obvious) but I do not expect an overwhelming flood of counter evidence (which is what your 'tiny sliver' language claims). Thus I do not dismiss the evidence provided by these under-oath testimonies of dozens of witnesses over 8 hearings as 'a tiny sliver'.
What is happening here with MAGA enablers is wholesale denial of a legitimate investigation of the January 6, 2021 insurrection. Apparently, republicans and conservatives, unless they are disavowed from their own party, can not support a functioning house committee. Given the chance to put a proper slate of republicans ("not chaosmen") on the committee—republican McCarthy balked. Given a chance to come in and testify under oath (to shore up) the Trump Administration points of view—republicans sat it out, "suddenly" remembering that courts do have a purpose, and are continuing to take detours through the courts. (Apparently now "unelected judges" mean something important to these elected republicans who can use the courts to delay or advance their whims.)
And the clencher: These shady republicans who when it comes to Donald demand everything go to trial, have already condemned President Joe Biden without any evidence or any day in court and get this: have wish-lists of plans for committee hearings and investigation of Hunter Biden, the son of this president. Whereby, they will insist their hearings are legitimate.
It is all bull crap and disgusting. I would state that this is retaliatory politics (you 'hit' me-I 'hit' you back) from the republicans and truth need not get involved, but that would be stating the obvious It is the 'state of play' in red-state America and its leadership structure at this point.
Which is different from "acknowledged"... how....exactly?
Thirty posts telling people to accept your view of these testimonies and then criticizing their character and/or intellect if they don't... And now you've stooped to passive-aggressive vague-posting about it on other seeds. That's not demanding or anything. Riiiight. OK. Fine. You tell yourself whatever you need to.
The word in question was "data", and then later "information. So once again, you are seeing a tiny, very carefully chosen (with extreme bias) sliver of the collected data. The idea that you're trying to argue this is laughable.
Or... you're misrepresenting people's views. Again. And again. Is it really that difficult for you to understand thought processes that vary from your own?
Excellent. We're agreeing on another point.
For what seems like the 50 millionth time....I do not dismiss their testimonies. I refuse to pretend they can be independent of their context. I refuse to draw conclusions based on such a small sample of what I know to be skewed data. Because of that, there is no value in analyzing data until a larger, more representative set of it is available.
Acknowledged = note something that has been affirmed; stated = affirm something
That is how it differs ... exactly.
I stated upfront that the committee was biased. You did nothing to convince me of that. That has been my assessment from the start of the hearings.
That is a lie and I am frankly tired of making the same rebuttals to your same allegations. You are engaging in theatrics. If you intent is to be obnoxious, you have accomplished your objective.
I will make the exact same point as I did before. Do you think that a jury sees all the 'data' collected by the attorneys? What is finally presented as evidence is going to be a highly filtered set of nuggets from possibly mountains of data. So your 'sliver' comment which attempted to suggest that the public has mountains of evidential 'data' that they are not seeing in these hearings is nonsense. The public (or a jury) will NEVER see all this data and will ALWAYS see a 'sliver' thus your complaint is ridiculous and I suspect intentionally misleading.
If this goes to trial, the defense attorneys will necessarily deliver a tiny subset of the available data. So we have a tiny sliver from prosecutors and a tiny sliver from defense. They will not bring in wheel barrows full of raw data for the jury to consider. Your sliver point in terms of raw data (as you wish) is thus as valuable as 'politicians lie'.
I stated that we will almost assuredly see more evidence over time. The evidence will come from this committee, from other media sources and if this goes to trial we will surely see more evidence. This is obvious; it is not an agreement. Unless, of course, you consider it an agreement if we both affirm that the Earth orbits the Sun.
Then why are you arguing with me? I do not dismiss their testimonies either. So go ahead and not dismiss their testimonies in a way that suits you and I will not dismiss their testimonies in a way that suits me.
You have stated that you believe the testimonies to likely be true:
But then you ignore (which appears to be a dismissal to me) this likely true testimony because the committee is biased and you have not heard from the other side.
As I have stated repeatedly, I find it quite easy to look at the under-oath testimonies by high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their careers to testify and make a judgment call that what they are saying is likely true. And, given that, I find these hearings valuable. They are providing information that is not likely to be rebutted.
Repeating myself yet again, here are two examples:
EXAMPLE ONE: I do not expect a rebuttal that argues Barr did not inform Trump that as a result of the DoJ investigations he has no credible evidence that would suggest a change in the election results. I do not expect evidence showing that Barr did not tell Trump that his allegations were bullshit.
Information: Trump knew from a credible source (his own AG) that his allegations were bullshit.
Every testimony that states Trump was told further evidences the above information. And you think these folks are likely telling the truth so what is your problem? Why not take the above information as a probable fact? Why not consider the information provided?
EXAMPLE TWO: Cipollone and others have stated that they told Trump that he needs to take action to stop the insurrectionists. That Trump refused to act. And that the only message he sent to them that encouraged them to stop came 187 minutes into the insurrection.
Information: Trump knowingly and willingly refused to act (as PotUS) to stop an armed insurrection of the capitol.
Counter testimony might provide evidence that Trump did act to tell his supporters to cease and desist. It would not be a tweet or a public video because nobody has seen anything like that. But it is possible that the defense might find something. Given what we know, it seems quite probable that Trump did indeed knowingly refuse to act to stop an armed insurrection of the capitol.
You are of course free to ignore these testimonies (even though you believe they are likely truthful). I think that is short-sighted and silly given this is much higher quality information than what we normally get via the media. But that is your option. And it is MY option to suggest that these hearing are providing very good information (which you can then factor in with other information and your own judgment).
I just read this just a few minutes ago posted almost the exact same thing to him. Most people do not acknowledge their biases, but try and place the same to others.
Don't point out his biases or else you will be ripped for not falling lock step into leftist group think.
“Most people do not acknowledge their biases, but try and place the same to others.”
Hypocrite, thy name is bugsy.
Show me any post I have made that shows me being a hypocrite.
You won't because you can't, or you will just go the way of the leftist and make shit up.
What comes out of MAGA is usually hypocritical and dense. And they say liberals like to argue pointlessly. All the while, Donald's GOP can't convince him to cut the 2020 election lie a loose. Why? Because that meathead still sees mileage in toting a big fat lie about Washington, D.C.
What needs to happen is exactly what the Committee is doing: Carrying on and ignoring the buffoonish taunts and intonations from MAGA's densest. MAGA is playing a game. It goes like this: If MAGA does not acknowledge the Committee's power over Donald; then it dilutes the Committee's power over it. And, the hunt (game) is afoot. Until the government puts its foot down and says it's had enough of the stalling and 'toying' with its approved methods.
At that point, you 'slam' the buffoons up against the proverbial wall and you tell them to knock off the bull crap, check themselves, and get back in the proverbial line: Just like everybody else.
'Problem solved. Otherwise: You, the collective you, die a figurative horrible death from talking (and commenting).
[Deleted]
Well let's try a little experiment.
If a bunch of Biden supporters stormed the capitol immediately after Biden finished with a speech where he instructed them to march to the capitol on the backdrop of Biden spending months telling them that the election was rigged and that their votes have been disenfranchised, would you consider that evidence that Biden was culpable in the storming of the capitol?
My answer: yes. In fact you can substitute 'Biden' with any sitting PotUS and my answer would remain the same.
What is your answer?
Similarly, if a bunch of armed people (they need not even be Biden supporters) were breaking and entering the capitol building and Biden was informed that this was taking place, and Biden was pleaded to do something about it from advisors, family and 'friends', would you feel it a proper constitutional execution of his oath of office as CiC/PotUS for Biden to ignore their pleas and not step in to personally call off the crowd until hours later?
My answer: no. In fact you can substitute 'Biden' with any sitting PotUS and my answer would remain the same.
What is your answer?
[Deleted]
I would like to complement your reply, it was relatively clear, well done.
[ Deleted ]
[ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/backhanded%20compliment#:~:text=%3A%20a%20compliment%20that%20implies%20it,work%20was%20%22surprisingly%20good.%22 ]
[ Spot On. ]
[ This would have been an actual compliment ]
And it is remarkable how the appearance of evil juts out at you: If the sitting president of the United States were to lead (DONALD: "We going to march down to the capital, . . . and I will be there with you.") an ARMED group of protestors and rioters down to the Capitol for a showdown with his own Vice-President-what else could it be? A great evil would have pitted the President against his Vice-President. . . and there is a makeshift gallows set up for guess who?
Are we clear on how bad those images would have been? A sitting president 'marching' on the Capitol to hang someone, anybody?!
MAGA enablers are being dense, deliberately.
This is where we once again disagree.
1st scenario
If a bunch of people from any political persuasion stormed the Capitol, then the blame lands on them and them only, no matter what was said by a president. So, no, I would not lay blame on the preside not at the time.
Question 2.
This is a little more challenging.
The president is not responsible for any riot anywhere in the country, unless he specifically said to storm the (fill in the name of the building here). On the contrary, he did the opposite. That is on the idiots who did it. No one else.
It does not matter if that president said anything or not and that is the problem with the left, not only with these scenarios.
Adults who made these decisions are responsible for these decisions, no one else. Just like someone shooting someone. The left wants to blame the inanimate object, but not the person that pulled the trigger.
Same thing here.
Personally, I would have gone with BingfuckingO, it’s new, it’s fresh….
Uh huh. So you are claiming that Biden lying to the world that the election was rigged and engaging in a two-month Big Lie con job which naturally would encourage his supporters to think they were disenfranchised would not mean that Biden had culpability for the violence that ensued after Biden asked the crowd to march on the capitol.
The second question was about the responsibility of the sitting PotUS to act when the capitol building is under attack:
In this scenario you would have me believe that you would not blame Biden for knowingly refusing to call off the insurrectionists for hours?
I call BULLSHIT ! These are the same individuals that were Locking up Hillary with out one ten thousandths of 1 iota of evidence
Who wrote this? ( link ):
First of all you were wrong about being in charge of the capitol police, the board does not direct operations; they operate at the structural, financial and strategic level. But the key point here is that you deem those in charge as having fucked up.
But per your logic @5.4.136 it is the rioter's fault:
If the PotUS is not responsible for acting on an insurrection of the nation's capitol because the fault lies with the insurrectionists then how do you blame those in charge of the capitol police?
I just cannot imagine what would prompt you to find 5.4.136 to be bullshit.
he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, br=because as you so eloquently demonstrated, hypocrisy knows no limits with Trump defenders
Good point!
[Deleted]
That entire nonsense so desperate it's comical.
You haven't been telling us all to accept the testimonies outside of the context of the biased hearings and biased committee? You haven't wasted a dozen or more posts insisting that the testimony is truthful despite no contestation of that? I'm pretty sure you have.
As I've stated, I return like for like.
Conceding the original point then. Fair enough.
It's hilarious that you imagine this idea has legs. I'm curious. What percent of the relevant data do you imagine you've seen? If an actual trial of a former President of the United States were to take place, how long do you think it would last? How many witnesses would be called? How many days of testimony would there be? Before you answer, please remember that the OJ Simpson trial lasted 252 days.
Now...tell us all how many hours have you watched so far?
You have a view. I have a view. Those views match. That's called "agreement".
Dude. You are so desperate to argue you have literally just said that two people who agree on something are not actually in agreement. Tell me again why anybody would give a shit about the difference between "stated" and "acknowledged".
I don't find them to be valuable because any and all potentially explanatory or mitigating information is being withheld, and as long as that's the case there is absolutely no way to interpret anything with any semblance of objectivity.
Or... in fact... counter testimony might provide evidence you have not even thought of. There are more things in heaven and earth TiG, than exist in your philosophy. If Trump did actually grab that steering wheel, we don't know that the Secret Service didn't sedate him. (I guarantee you wouldn't hear about that in these hearings.) We don't know he didn't have a mild TIA and require medical attention. We don't know he wasn't locked in the residence with a kilo of coke, a mirror and three WH interns in an attempt to outdo Bill Clinton.
But you don't criticize the character or intellect of people who hold different views than you or anything. Riiiight.
Mathematically speaking, the short sighted and silly approach would be to draw conclusions based on a sample of data that you know to be both small and skewed. But I don't expect you to understand that.
yet, sometimes you R
Well, we know people commenting on these hearings while not watching them would nor could be considered long winded while short sighted, because, that would be silly, stringing together information from those testifying under oath to gain better perspective as to what 45 actually said and did behind the scenes, no ?
And please do inform how what ANY witness cross examined, could say to change the FACTS of Trump watching the Inserection on TV, when so many were begging him to call on "his people", to stand down, as Trump refused for 3 fckn hours. Please give a circumstance, besides his frustrated head chef holding a gun to Trumps head for smashing plates, into the plate, obviously empty, in Trumps head so full of it.
You act like we have not observed for damn DECADES, who the FCK Trump IS !
Well, some of US were actually paying attention.
A Question. What would be the outcome, in your opinion, if Trump were to testify on his behalf and explain 'his' side to this story in a court of LAW, under Oath ?
Brilliant rebuttal.
All drama, no content.
I have been stating that the testimonies, in and of themselves, provide quality information that is better than what we get from ordinary media. I have been stating that the testimonies are credible because they provide insider information based on under-oath testimonies from high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromise their political careers by testifying.
I have not stated that these testimonies are absolute truth. I have stated, as have you, that there is good reason to think these testimonies are truthful. Thus, being rational, one would weigh the information from these testimonies with a good confidence level when factoring it in with the balance of the information one has.
Then you have a false belief. Spend more time reading what I write instead of trying to cast what I write into a position of your liking. I have repeated myself probably dozens of times by now so there is no excuse for your continued misrepresentations.
Except that I have not resorted to such tactics. I have largely ignored your snark
This ⇡ is pure spin, totally ignoring what I wrote:
More theatrics.
You asked the difference and I spelled it out for you. Now you want me to explain why that matters to some arbitrary individual? Pointless deflection.
I know that is your position. My position, surprise, is that I am perfectly capable of evaluating the individual testimonies on their own to determine the likelihood that what they are saying is truthful. You claim that they are likely truthful too. So if we have testimony from Rusty Bowers that Trump tried to coerce him into delivering a fake roster of electors that is information that is likely truthful that one can include in their base of facts (with some confidence applied to it). You say you think they are likely truthful but then come back with statements such as what I quoted which imply you would apply a 0% confidence. You should decide where you stand because from my perspective you are bobbling.
Obviously. We will not know the counter evidence until it arises. Again, obviously.
I do not hold the evidence here to be small and skewed. I find the testimonies (in and of themselves) to be credible (not skewed) and I am (stating this yet again) quite aware that no Trump defense is included in these hearings. But, as I have explained repeatedly, I factor that in. Now, in terms of raw data, the evidence is naturally a small portion of the corpus of raw data. Evidence is typically highly filtered (as I have already explained). But it is not sampled, it is the result of a highly cognitive process. So your point is misguided.
The evidence thus far has been quite consistent with what has been publicly available to us. I do not expect that the testimonies will be countered with startling new evidence that turns everything on its ear (as I have also already explained repeatedly). It is possible but I do not see it as likely. I expect the defense will offer counter evidence but it will likely be on par in volume with what we have seen from these hearings. In terms of content, I am of course curious to see how a Trump defense would proceed. Hopefully that will happen in a trial.
You believe I do not understand basic probability theory?
R what?
So in other words... "yes". You have in fact been telling us to accept these testimonies outside the context of the biased committee and biased hearings. You also said it was "stupid and partisan" to disagree with your position on the matter.
That you've just confirmed.
The irony of this accusation is so spectacular as to drive the earth from its orbit. It must have taken a dozen posts to get you to stop pretending I thought Bill Barr was lying. You've repeatedly misrepresented my statements based on what you erroneously claim they "imply".
Riiiiight. It's not like you have accused me of personal attacks in a paragraph immediately following your use of the same verbiage or anything.
More irony. The real pointless deflection is your pedantry.
More misrepresentation. Certainly not surprising at this point. Maybe you should spend more time reading what I write instead of trying to cast what I write into a position of your liking.
Hang on...
So this completely one-sided set of evidence is supposedly not skewed and this "small portion" of data is supposedly not small. Riiiiight. What were you saying about bobbling?
Excellent. We're agreeing again. Unless of course you still disagree with the meaning of agree.
You keep dishonestly inserting command language like 'demand' and 'tell' attempting to twist my suggestions into commands. My suggestion is, as always, that the testimonies are good insider information that we normally do not get from the media because it is under-oath testimony from high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromise their careers by testifying. My suggestion is to not cavalierly dismiss it simply because of the 'unheard of' fact that a political committee is biased.
I have stated that it is stupid and partisan for those who dismissively whine about the committee's partisan nature as their sole reason to not even watch the testimonies. If one is not even watching the testimonies then the objections to the content of the testimonies is made in ignorance. Never a good thing.
In contrast it would be wiser and more objective to listen to each testimony (which you assert is likely truth) and include the information gained as part of one's base of knowledge. Then when one applies judgment, one can factor in the obvious fact that there has been no Trump defense witnesses, that the committee is biased, that more evidence is likely to emerge, etc.
It would be a different story if the witnesses were all Democrats. But they are almost entirely high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromise their careers by testifying. As you note, these testimonies are likely truth.
Simply dismissing likely truth is willful ignorance. I advise against it. I recommend learning what these high-ranking, connected, insider Republicans who compromised their careers by testifying are communicating.
Real simple: I recommend gaining good information rather than ignoring it.
I see the balance of your post is now pure snark and theatrics instead of content addressing what I posted. Your objective is obviously no longer honest debate.
My suggestion is, as always, that the testimonies are good insider information that we normally do not get from the media because it is under-oath testimony from high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromise their careers by testifying. My suggestion is to not cavalierly dismiss it simply because of the 'unheard of' fact that a political committee is biased.
How much better a perspective do you expect to get from one-sided political theater that the party in power is using to sway an election?
Once again. The issue is not the witnesses you've seen. It's the ones being kept from you.
Hmmm. I'm thinking if you were actually paying attention, you'd be pretty sure that he's committed some actual crimes. Probably quite a few. You'd also realize that most of those were probably financial and unrelated to this riot. You'd suspect that any election crimes he did commit were probably done well before Jan 6.
Because you would think the probability was really, really high that he had committed a crime, you'd be wondering how it's possible he hasn't been charged with one. You'd sorta alternate between "WTF?" and "oh FFS". You'd also understand that Congressional hearings without representation are not how we convict people, and you'd start getting suspicious about the actual point of this whole dog and pony show.
Eventually, that suspicion would give way to disappointment as you realize the chances of him being charged with any of the crimes you're pretty sure he's committed is fading before your eyes.
Now....if you were really REALLY paying attention, it would occur to you that the dog and pony show represents a whole other set of "threat to democracy" problems of its own. You'd start to imagine what this shit might look like with Republicans in power going after an opposing potential candidate with nationally televised one sided hearings during the campaign for an election they needed to sway. You might relax a minute and think "oh...they wouldn't do that"... and then immediately realize "oh they totally fucking would and are probably already planning it."
So then you would find yourself in that state of misery that entraps all those who actually pay attention, where you realize that instead of having a disease and a cure we really have a disease and another disease. It would seem ridiculous to you that people might confuse condemnation of one as a defense of the other, as though condemnation of Stalin was a defense of Hitler.
That's easy. Perjury. Followed by chaos.
But that's all theoretical until somebody charges him and I honestly don't think he'll be charged based on anything from these hearings.
You mean a future Congress going after a Democratic candidate like the gop did Clinton?
How much better a perspective do you expect to get from one-sided political theater that the party in power is using to sway an election?
N E better, would be better than N E other not better, as we've seen 'actual' political witch hunts, Benghazi style, by Republicans B 4, and these hearings actually had substance. Trump said they ARE a political witch hunt, thus why i believe, they are not.
Perhaps, not once again, but for the first time you could explain as day to me, who, exactly is being hidden away and not allowed to shed light on these hearings, Jim Jordan ?
But that's all theoretical until somebody charges him and I honestly don't think he'll be charged based on anything from these hearings.
So the guy that hasn't been charged would incriminate himself and others because why again...? His innocence, or perhaps his and his followers arrogant ignorance...?
You have stated that you think these testimonies are likely truthful. So why do you reject insider information from high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers by testifying?
The committee is partisan but the testimonies are from Republicans testifying against their own former PotUS.
Yes, we have only one side of the story: the insider story from high-ranking, connected Republican witnesses. We do not have witnesses for Trump. We all know that, right? You argue that we should thus close our eyes and ears and ignore the likely truthful testimony of these Republicans until Trump witnesses appear. Why? You get nothing close to a trial (which is what you are demanding) from ordinary news sources so why is it that here —when we have access to insider information not normally available to us— do you insist we close our eyes and ears? To what end?
Otherwise known as: newly minted RINOs. MAGA has not 'spoken' yet according to MAGA. MAGA is running away from committees and delaying court dates. Why? Because you can't hold in place or expand on a (Big) lie if you participate in a fact-finding committee and a trial. Therefore, MAGA 'talk' of wanting an indictment or trial is just a diversion. MAGA wants the whole QUESTION, LINE OF WITNESSES, AND INVESTIGATION PROCESS to just stall and go away.
And this one little term shows to narcissism and condescending attitude that that you do not want to debate, but that you want one hundred percent compliance to your bee hive thought process.
You asked questions, I respectfully answered them with no snarkiness, but then get nothing but snark the very first "word".
Until the attitude changes towards those that have different opinions than you, I'm done replying to your posts.
They have become a waste of time.
Show me one post I made that said to lock up Hillary.
You can't because it does not exist.
I swear narcissism runs deep with some of these far leftists....yes...far leftists.
It's almost like they can't help it.
If you take 'uh huh' to be snark then your sensitivity is set too high. Get a grip. Here 'uh huh' is a gentle way of telling you that I do not buy what you are selling. And I went on to explain why:
Sure, bugsy, you expect me to believe that you would not put any culpability on Biden if he was the one who engaged in the Big Lie con-job which convinced his supporters that the election was rigged and that they were disenfranchised prior to his supporters engaging in an armed insurrection of the capitol.
Now, instead of 'uh huh' followed by a clear explanation, would you prefer I simply reply with "BULLSHIT"? Your complaint is petty and ridiculous.
Perfect! Use whatever excuse you wish to avoid having to formulate a thoughtful response.
Doesn't matter what anyone posts to you.
You automatically go to snark.
I made an opinion to 2 questions you asked and instead of accepting them to be just that...opinions, you babbled on how I need to fold and be a part of your group think.
When you decide you actually want to debate and accept others' opinions for what they are, then get back to me.
I am not going to take seriously a complaint that 'uh huh' is a terrible way to express disbelief in what someone has posted.
Hey bugsy, this is a discussion forum. When we express our opinions we should expect that others might disagree and opine. That is how this works. You expressed your opinion and I replied.
If you cannot stand to have your opinion challenged you probably should not attempt to engage anyone in a forum who might disagree with you.
By the way, look at the name-calling you are posting 'in anger' in this thread (indirectly too). Clean up your act before complaining simply because someone typed 'uh huh' as a prelude to explaining why they do not buy what you are selling.
Again, for the third time....
When you want to debate without narcissism and snark, then get back to me.
If you really want this to work the way you say, then accept opinions for what they are, then debate those opinions without trying to belittle those that made the opinion.
When that happens, you lose credibility and those of us who actually like the debate will just move away from you because we know you have no want for debate, just compliance to far left group think.
As an example, you ask the same exact questions of all of us conservatives. Instead of understanding that others think different than you, you try and belittle BECAUSE of our opinions, then try and tell us our opinions should match yours, or else we are big Trump supporters and there is no changing that. You don't understand that just because we disagree with everything you say doesn't mean we are Trump supporters. THAT is a severe case of TDS and I am sorry you are afflicted with it.
Just a little friendly advice.
What I see is you failing to deal with a challenge and throwing any allegation / label that comes to your mind.
You are spending a lot of words going after me on a personal basis (desperation) instead of dealing with the challenge.:
Instead of petty complaints, name-calling and generally doing whatever you can to try to make this personal, try to explain to the forum why you would give Biden a pass per the above quote.
I told you this already in my answer. This is what I am talking about when you fail to comprehend what is written, then want to insult because of differing opinions.
But again.....
If Biden said to go out and trash the Capitol, and people did, then Biden would hold some culpability but not legally responsible because he does not have control over what grown ass adults do.
Trump told protesters to march peacefully to the Capitol, nothing more. Those that rioted need to be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law, but Trump holds no responsibility for idiot responses.
Like the gun analogy I added that obviously you did not read.
If someone shot someone else, liberals tend to want to blame the gun instead of the person who pulled the trigger.
THAT is fucked up thinking, but it is leftist thinking, so, no surprise.
Get it now?
(skipping all the whining, name-calling, meta, lying, etc.)
Here is what I originally wrote:
This is your original answer:
In your original answer, you stated that you would not blame the president no matter what he said.
I find that hard to believe. I bet most people would find that hard to believe.
Now read what you just now wrote:
Now you claim that Biden would have some culpability. Well that is a vastly different response. You do, however, hold that Biden would not be legally responsible if he told supporters to trash the Capitol. The legal question is for lawyers and I am quite confident you have no legal training so all one can do is translate your "not legally responsible" into some belief that a person cannot be held responsible for actions taken by others in response to their words. That is concerning because it means that you actually claim that a PotUS can pretty much say whatever he wants and if his supporters follow his words the PotUS bears no responsibility.
We would be in a very sorry state if your belief were true.
But you seem to disagree with your former self.
So let's go to your second original answer:
Here you deem the PotUS responsible if he said to storm the Capitol (as the contextual example). So your second original answer deems the PotUS responsible for specific language but now, in your most recent answer @5.4.165, you state the PotUS is not legally responsible no matter what he said.
So which is it? Clear it up.
-or-
Handle your business!
Besides, politically Donald Trump is guilty of inaction on behalf of a leader which led to the capitol being invaded and ransacked! Legally, he can be charged with causing unrest and a "true threat"in which lives were lost when Donald Trump directed his supporters at and around the Capitol to, "March to the Capitol" and "Fight like hell!"
Well as you can see, bugsy's original answer did not even address my question:
I asked about proper execution of the oath of office under the CotUS and bugsy leaps to personal responsibility. Bugsy refused to state whether it would or would not be a constitutional, oath-of-office issue if Biden (not Trump) had known of an armed insurrection on the capitol and refused (in spite of many pleas) to personally call of the crowd until hour later.
An armed insurrection of the capitol should be a no-brainer for a PotUS to act immediately. It is remarkable that anyone would not immediately state that of course a PotUS is violating his oath if he refuses to act on an armed insurrection of the capitol.
And how about the merest of fact that Donald Trump had just got done "chatting up" these people now enthralled! And get this: Trump tweeted the armed enthralled - at the capitol - while fraught was thickest and the chants were at a zenith: 'Pence has no courage and won't decertify the election..' (Paraphrased.) And it is evidentiary testimony and by Trump's own statement in the media he intended to lead the armed marchers to the doors of the Capitol, but for the Secret Service stopping him cold.
I would agree with you that Trump claiming something is certainly reason enough to doubt it. But there are definitely several significant problems with these hearings Now, many people are OK with that because they believe Trump is actually guilty of pretty much anything and they feel like the hearings are a vindication of their long-held views. It's a great big "I told you so", and they're loving it.
Well if we knew who they were and what they would say...they wouldn't be hidden, now would they?
Honest question, do you believe that during 18 months of data gathering, absolutely nobody gave them information that would mitigate, explain, or otherwise call into question the conclusions Ms. Pelosi wants us all to believe? Do you think they would televise any such testimony?
Second honest question... When you hear or read a story from Fox News, do you accept it as reported? Or do you generally suspect that even if everything in the story is factual, there is probably a whole lot of relevant stuff they're conveniently going to omit?
He's not going to testify unless he's charged and forced to. That's why it's all theoretical. IF he is charged, hell yes he's going to throw absolutely everybody under the bus. Hell yes he's going to lie, and won't give a fiddler's fuck about being under oath.
Are you telling me you think he would tell the truth just because he's under oath? I thought you said you were paying attention.
I was hoping we might be able to agree on some basic ideas like "two wrongs don't make a right", or how opposing a lynch mob doesn't mean you think the guy in the noose is innocent.
Apparently, we're still not communicating as well as I'd hoped, so let me give you a more concrete example and see if that helps: Imagine me sorta like a non-Morman Mitt Romney with less money.
Neither Mitt nor I would piss on Trump if he was on fire. That doesn't mean these hearings are impartial.
It's easy to get caught up in confirmation bias.
And as the old saying goes, "it's far easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled".
I'm curious. Do you intentionally misrepresent my points (repeatedly) or do you simply lack the cognitive horsepower to comprehend them?
Yes. We've established this. On multiple occasions. Well done.
Good so far.
*sigh* No. Again.
The committee is partisan. Its objectives are influenced by partisanship. Its methods and evidence likewise.
That is the reason for not simply accepting the committee's narrative (call it their 'spin' is you wish). One can, instead, note the allegations made by the committee, recognize that this is not a trial and thus no defense attorneys delivering their counter evidence, and add this to one's working knowledge.
On the flip side, we have insider information provided under-oath by high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers by testifying. One should not reject these testimonies (ignore the information they provide) simply because the committee itself is politically biased.
An analytical mind can certainly consider the bias of the committee when considering their narratives and recognize that counter-evidence would emerge if this goes to trial (and possibly before that from pro-Trump defense sources). There is no logical reason for ignoring / dismissing the content of the testimonies themselves. For example, the AG of the USA stated that he told Trump that after investigation that his claims of election fraud were bullshit. The Speaker of the AZ House testified that Trump asked him to submit fake alternate electors. The SoS of GA testified that Trump tried to get him to find votes after repeatedly telling him that the election results were correct. Various individuals testified showing that advisors, family and 'friends' pleaded with Trump to tell his insurrectionist supporters to cease and desist and that not only did he not do that until 187 into the insurrection, he tweeted a message that would fuel the fire against his own V.P. One can take these points, make a judgment call on the likelihood that these would be wrong (e.g. something that shows that Bill Barr was lying under oath) and, in result, be better informed. A good thing.
Indeed media is biased. We all necessarily deal with biased information all the time. It is extremely rare to have information that is truly fair and balanced where both sides are properly represented with sound evidence. We do not put on blinders and reject all input as biased; we work with what we have.
Rarely do we get insider information delivered via under-oath testimony from high-ranking, connected individuals who are compromising their careers by testifying. This is substantially better than what we routinely get from our media. It seems odd that one would dismiss this quality information because the committee is biased while considering less quality information (routinely) from biased media sources.
see @5.4.173
I really don't care what you or anyone else believes.
Very unimportant to me.
Obviously, it is very important to you
That's not healthy
[deleted]
Not the point. Your claim is not credible. It is counterproductive to post claims that most people know are almost certainly false.
I asked you:
Your original answer:
Your recent answer:
In your original answer, you stated that you would not blame Biden (or any PotUS) if the capitol was stormed regardless of what Biden (or any PotUS) stated publicly.
I suspect most people would find that to be difficult to believe. What is more likely (easier to believe) is that you would condemn Biden if he had made just one statement (and said nothing else about it ... ever) to his supporters to march on the Capitol and they wound up breaking and entering the building.
In addition, you contradicted yourself. First you stated that Biden would hold no blame . Then later you come back and say that there is some blame (some culpability) but that Biden would not be legally responsible.
Which of those two positions is correct?
If a bunch of Biden supporters stormed the capitol immediately after Biden finished with a speech where he instructed them to march to the capitol on the backdrop of Biden spending months telling them that the election was rigged and that their votes have been disenfranchised, would you consider that evidence that Biden was culpable in the storming of the capitol?
Culpable (in part) ( @5.4.165 ) or not culpable ( @5.4.136 )?
You can cut and paste all day if you want. The fact that I answered your questions more than once is not my problem that you refuse to accept or understand what I posted.
To recap, then I will leave it here, and watch you cut and paste and try and pull another answer from me, to no avail.
I posted that if Biden said to go and trash the Capitol, then he should hold some blame, but not legally, for his words. He holds no blame for what grown ass adults dol.
If he said exactly the same as Trump said, to go peacefully and protest, then no, I would hold no culpability, just as there is no blame to be accused of Trump.
Now, let it go, find someone else to bother and move along. Your life will be better for it.
You recognize that I am indeed directly quoting you with this 'cut & paste' (with hyperlinks). I am presenting your words against your words.
Okay, you could have skipped all your emotional meta and just stated that Biden would be culpable as per @5.4.165.
So I will now take that as your position and assume you simply misspoke @5.4.136 where you stated Biden would not have any culpability (blame).
Now, let's apply this to Trump instead of Biden. You would hold Trump culpable (in part) for the violence at the Capitol due to his rhetoric but you would not consider him to be legally responsible.
The 'legally responsible' part is a legal question and that requires legal opinion and potentially adjudication. So unless you are an attorney (which clearly you are not) your opinion on the legal responsibility is only marginally credible.
So that leaves us with you holding that when people investigate Trump's culpability (to some degree) for Jan 6th it is reasonable for them to do so (because you would logically hold Trump culpable to some degree). Right?
Excellent.
And as you have already stated/acknowledge/agreed, large amounts of information are being withheld.
As we know this to be the case, I believe it is folly to draw conclusions based on what we absolutely know to be a tiny sliver of intentionally skewed data.
It is obviously unacceptable to you that I hold this view.
Additionally, the information presented in these hearings confirms your pre-existing opinions, and as such represents at least some level of bias confirmation.. which is significant enough that you are willing to completely overlook the potential dangers of a political party in control of the government using carefully timed and televised public hearings as a tool to sway an election.
You continue to attempt to pretend that the testimonies of the witnesses can be separated from the context in which they are presented. It's akin to demanding everybody cheer for an all-white NFL team because the players themselves aren't racist.
I have been stating this all along.
What I have acknowledged is that there is a corpus of raw data underlying the presented evidence. That the presented evidence is a small subset of the raw data. And that if we have a trial, there will likely be evidence presented by the defense.
I have NOT acknowledged that there is a large amount of evidence that is being withheld by this committee. We, outsiders, have no way to know that. We can apply common sense and surmise that the committee is presenting evidence pursuant to their objective but the amount of evidence that would counter their objectives IS NOT KNOWN.
In summary, evidence is not the same as raw data. Evidence is almost always a subset of raw data. And it is evidence that makes it to a trial (if we have one), not the raw data.
So with those qualifications intact, large amounts of raw data are not presented and there could be counter-evidence in that data that we have not seen.
We do NOT know that what is presented as evidence is a tiny sliver of ALL evidence. It is valid (since we roughly know the volumes of raw data in their corpus) to characterize the evidence as a tiny sliver of their raw data, but it is not supported to present this as if the evidence we have seen is a tiny sliver of the TOTAL evidence that would be part of a trial.
This is not personal with me. You are making statements and applying logic that I think is wrong (or at least misleading). My responses provide the details for why I disagree.
And again you take this personal. Here is the reality we all face. The framework of what Trump did has been public knowledge for well over a year. It is not as though any of us are unaware ... we have plenty of information and have had plenty of time to form opinions. So yes I most definitely have concluded that Trump engaged in a Big Lie con-job based on no evidence and that he tried everything he could think of to try to steal the election. That is my conclusion thus far from what I know. That has been my conclusion prior to these hearings.
If I hear information to the contrary I will consider it. If I have information that supports what I have concluded I will consider it.
Bottom line, deeming my analysis process to be confirmation bias simply because I have drawn conclusions given 18+ months of facts is unsound and I suspect intentionally obnoxious.
Where did this come from? My point is that these testimonies provide quality information. I have stated upfront that the committees are biased but that should not stop us from absorbing and considering this quality information.
I have never argued that I find partisan thinking or partisan acts to be a good thing. In fact, my comment history shows quite the opposite.
As I have noted from the start the committee and the hearings are biased and one can certainly speak about that. But the testimonies need not be and should not be thrown out simply because the agent is biased. If we were to do that we would have to toss all information from all of our (biased) media sources.
There is no need to pretend, it is obvious. When Barr's testimony shows he told Trump that his allegations were Bullshit, that is credible testimony that establishes that Trump was informed by his own AG (the right person) that he had no case. That establishes a fact. It does not matter how biased the committee, Barr's testimony would establish the same fact under any context.
The defense for January 6th consisted of The Big Lie...
Nothing stopping Trump and Co defending themselves!
If they had any other defence we'd have heard it by now.
Writ large, I agree with you; and I suspect that you are talking about the big picture. If Trump had a defense for the scenario as framed by the available information (i.e. we saw his speeches, including those before the election where he pre-announced that it was likely rigged, we were privy to his Raffensperger call, we saw his tweets, we saw the insurrection, ...) then he would have given it. All he has ever said is that the election was stolen from him and supported that claim with lies.
However, if this were to come to trial I am confident that defense attorneys would dream up a defense and provide supporting evidence. Unless the defense is some form of mental deficiency, It is not likely to be earth-shattering, likely more along the lines of technicalities and spin, but they will certainly offer a defense and supporting evidence.
If there was any good defense against the evidence Trump colluded in a fraud culminating in Jan 6 we'd have heard it.
Nothing stops Trump from mounting a public defense against the public testimony given to the January 6th Committee. Nothing! So far all the GOP has come up with is to accuse witnesses of lying and smear their characters. Nevermind they are pretty much all solid Republican insiders from the Trump administration...
Again I agree. Trump always counter punches. The best he has been able to muster is to dismiss the witnesses (including dismissing his own daughter). If this goes to trial his defense is likely to be based on technicalities and spin.
Amazing, is it not, that the testimonies providing insider information from high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers to testify are not being analyzed by many but instead they are focused on the bias of the committee.
As if our ordinary sources for information are not also biased. As if these testimonies taken individually, if presented by the various media sources, would somehow be different in information content or credibility. Bill Barr either told Trump his allegations were bullshit or he did not. Is there some magical evidence that would show Barr did not inform Trump as he stated? Trump either was informed that his supporters were attacking the Capitol or he was not. Is there some magical evidence that will show that every one of these Republicans who testified Trump knew were all lying?
These testimonies are information bearing and are of a quality that we rarely see. And instead of taking each testimony on its own merits and judging it according, we see people deflecting to (the obvious) 'the committee is biased'.
No. They'll be saving that for an actual trial if there ever is one.
What would he gain by doing so?
Exactly.
You misrepresented my nothing, which is what stops Trump!
Why do you think that? It is uncharacteristic of Trump to not counter punch. He has been responding to these hearings with weak dismissals. If his strategy is to hold back for a trial (again, not Trump's style) then would it not make sense to stay silent rather than give feeble responses like he has?
Good. So we agree.
And we agree again.
Excellent. 3 for 3.
So...we've established that we agree that the committee is partisan, its objectives are influenced by partisanship, its methods and evidence likewise, large amounts of data are not being presented and there could be counter-evidence in that data that we have not seen.
I believe it is "stupid and partisan" to draw conclusions based on such a data set. Doing so would certainly earn you an F in any statistics course.
And the hearings are confirming your bias. That's been obvious from the start.
Yeah...I see what you mean.... I've repeatedly misrepresented other people's views, claimed their statements "imply" things they absolutely do not, posted passive-aggressive nonsense on other seeds, used the same verbiage toward other people that I describe as "personal attack", engaged in endless pedantry while dismissing other people's distinctions as "same difference", not to mention disputing basic mathematics and the definition of "agree". Oh....wait..... none of that was me, was it?
The fact that I've pointed it out half a dozen times and you've ignored it.
*sigh* I never said you had. I said you were willing to overlook the potential dangers of a political party in control of the government using carefully timed and televised public hearings as a tool to sway an election.
Clearly, you don't care. I think that's crazy, but (watch this part closely) you're entitled to your opinion.
Guilty as charged.
It was already there and beautifully punctuated so I borrowed it.
Because he has a history of using good lawyers. You need them when you're as dishonest as he is. A good lawyer is not going to let him incriminate himself.
If he did "counter punch", what would he gain? Getting mired in this fight helps the committee much more than it helps Trump. If I were one of Pelosi's aides, I'd be praying every night that we could draw him out into a pissing match. I'd be trying to poke that fat orange bear with every stick I could find.
If Trump just sticks with the feeble dismissals, he can emerge after the hearings are over and tell the world that the Democrats are out to get him again and once again they failed.
Historically Congress has always held political hearings all of which had the potential to effect elections. Have you never heard of The McCarthy Hearings, The Watergate Hearings, The Monica Lewinsky Hearings, The Bhengazi Hearings, The Clinton E-mail hearings etc etc?
Then that was dishonest and misleading!
What are you trying to accomplish with this? You state a point that I have made upfront (and then repeated throughout the thread in replies to you) and then you announce agreement as if this is significant. The sun energizes our planet. If you think likewise shall we announce "Good. So we agree"?
Oh, so you actually agree with the precise notion that I expressed?
Remember that you categorized the evidence presented as: " a tiny, non-representative sliver of data."
Remember my precise rebuttal?
Followed by your qualification of 'tiny sliver':
Here you compare the testimonies presented with the raw data available to the committee and try to equate testimonial evidence with raw data so as to claim the committee is hiding mountains of evidence. Your logical flaw is pretending that evidence equates with raw data as I describe to you:
So we agree that the committee has a substantial corpus of raw data and that the presented evidence, in pure quantity, is small in volume compared to the items of raw data. We do not agree that the presented evidence is a 'tiny sliver' of ALL relevant, distinguished, evidence contained within the raw data. In fact, neither you nor I have any information to even hazard a guess as to how much distinct, relevant evidence has not been presented. And certainly no idea how much of that would be counter evidence.
So I agree there is plenty of raw data, that there is likely relevant counter-evidence that we have not seen, but NOT that the evidence presented is a gross misrepresentation of reality which you are implying with your 'tiny sliver' critique. And further, my point is that the evidence presented, individual testimonies, can be taken on their own as information. Nothing stops one from recognizing that there is likely more evidence to come. But each testimony is, as you have agreed, likely the truth. So note these likely truths.
I do not agree with your intention behind "large amounts of data are not being presented". That, again, equates the result of fact-finding (evidence) with raw data. That is sophistry.
It would be if one were to randomly sample a statistically tiny (i.e. too small, unrepresentative) subset of the raw data and present it as representative of the whole. But that is not what happened and you are engaging in sophistry in your presentation. The committee did what is normally done when assembling evidence. They took a rather large corpus of raw data and from that produced a refined set of evidence. Typically, in a trial, much of the raw data is redundant, irrelevant, poor credibility, etc. It is the task of the presenter to distill and summarize the raw data into a higher form of data: evidence . You quantitatively comparing evidence with raw data is sophistry.
It is stupid and partisan to ignore the individual testimonies providing insider information on Jan 6th by high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromise their political careers by testifying. Since you agree that these testimonies are likely the truth, you should find it wrong to flat-out reject information that is likely the truth.
If you have done a sound analysis based on credible data, will you form an opinion on what is likely true? Of course you will. If you then come across credible data that corroborates your opinion, would it be wrong to increase your confidence? Of course you will consider that a proper method.
Incorporating information that correlates with a position is not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the rejection of quality information simply because it does not correlate with one's preconceived notions. So I suggest you wait until we have evidence that defends Trump before you accuse me of confirmation bias because at this point you have no grounds to make such an obnoxious allegation.
And your allegation comes out of the blue. We have never discussed the use of hearings such as this or the impeachments as a tool. That has not been the subject. So your allegation is bullshit. Especially given that my comment history shows that I am (an understatement) no fan of political parties and partisan actions.
As I have stated dozens of times, I think we should all take the likely truth from these testimonies and use them to enhance our knowledge. The information contained is credible and insider. As for the committee, I have suggested from the beginning that I have no objection to people ignoring the narrative and comments from the committee members. In short, consider the testimonies individually as if they were made available through normal media channels. These testimonies are high quality and more credible that what we normally digest routinely from our media sources.
You basically just stated what I stated. Trump has made feeble responses. I suggested that it would be better for him to stay silent.
Depends on what he packed in the punch. If he counter-punched with typical Trump lies and insults then he hurts his case. If he has some critical information that changes the obvious narrative thus far then he would help his public case. That is, imagine Trump could provide something that would show that he really was working behind the scenes to stop the insurrection. That would counter a major portion of this narrative. But I think you understand how unlikely that is because you have formed an opinion already based on merely observing Trump in action.
It would be better to remain silent. Feeble dismissals and insults are like weak arguments and making things personal. Typically that projects weakness of position.
Here is one point where we do agree:
If you do not think Barr is lying when he asserts that he personally told Trump —after investigation— that his claims of a rigged election were false (were "bullshit", specifically) then why would you refuse to consider this a working fact (with high confidence) that Trump was indeed informed by a credible source that his allegations were bogus?
Iterate over all the facts provided by these testimonies in which you do not think the witnesses were lying. Why would you dismiss all the facts (with high confidence) rather than accumulate them as part of your base of working knowledge?
... we all routinely deal with information from biased media sources
The testimonies are high quality information relative to what we normally get, ...
You claim you will not do that because the committee is biased yet you continue to ignore that we all routinely deal with information from biased media sources. But rarely do these sources deliver under-oath insider testimony from high-ranking, connected individuals who are compromising their political careers to testify. The testimonies are high quality information relative to what we normally get, yet here in spite of the relative quality and credibility of this information, you dismiss it because we have the entirely unusual
situation where the delivery agent is biased.
I wonder if Jack knows Jack sometimes, cause he defeats his own arguments as imho, you have high lighted in your response here. In order to gain context, one must listen to all the pertaining factual evidence presented. Because we are basically only hearing one sides argument first, does NOT invalidate what one did state. A cross to bear is not important when a bear is an atheist, for he does not be leave honey behind cause an atheist bear can still be a hungry bear, and knowing all the facts is what allows us to determine and Bear out the truth. Even in a regular court of law, the prosecution states their case and then the defense
theirs, as it is and has been. Yes, there are questions that a defense lawyer would wish to pose to some testifying, but as you exampled, they are highly unlikely to show Barr's BULLSHIT call on Trumps BIG LIE, was not said and conveyed to Trummpppy. And many witnessed his over 3 hour long TV break on 1/6 2021. It is would not change the testimoney of the election workers targeted by Trump and his supporters. Nor would anything change in the Testimony of the Capital Police that were brutally beaten by Trumps hand sent mob, as the videos do not LIE like Trump !
Ultimately this boils down to the question:
Should we watch the testimonies?
I say we should watch these testimonies as well as observe additional documented evidence (e.g. text from Trump, Jr. urging " We need an Oval office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand. "). The testimonies yield insider information from high-ranking, connected Republicans who testified under oath and compromised their political careers to do so.
This is substantially better quality information than we normally get from our media sources.
Others argue that we should not watch the testimonies and thus be ignorant of the content. The reason (typically) is because the committee itself is biased and the hearings are not structured as a formal trial with defense attorneys presenting their case with their counter-evidence.
I find this to be bizarre since a) the hearings do not claim to be a court of law and b) our normal news channels yield information that we routinely process and almost never is this information the adjudicated results of a formal trial.
We routinely consume questionable information from biased talking heads but will ignore under-oath testimony from high-ranking, connected insiders who have a lot to lose by testifying.
Go figure.
I'm not as sure about the first three, but fair point about the Hillary hearings. I didn't care about those, either, so I didn't really pay attention. Retrospectively, they were doing there exactly what Democrats are doing here.
OK... so I literally quoted you and you're arguing with your own statements.
Nice chatting with you Jack.
Why are you so doggedly determined to pretend I hold views I have explained I do not?
Oh for fuck's sake. We've moved beyond ridiculous to hilarious.
OK... one last time, and then I'm done.
Now, I realize you're not going to accept my apathy toward these hearings. I understand fully that you will misrepresent my views again, probably very soon. You'll either do that on purpose, which makes your whole "obnoxious" whine even funnier, or you'll do it because you're just not very smart and sentences like "I don't dismiss anything" exceed your cognitive abilities. Frankly, I've stopped caring.
Yea, who'd have got that message from your statements. Well, it is of course your 'right', to not care, while others think it is wrong.
Trump and these Republican High Ranking Officials, spit on the dreams of our Forefathers, as they placed themselves above our Democratic Accepted Processes, say like the acceptance of election results and the peaceful transfer of power, Which about ALL of them, in one way or another, attempted to subvert. By either NOT speaking up, or being complicit, they have left many needless victims, and yes, many of what we knew to be true, has been found to be supported by those who aborted our American Constitution and way, all to conform to a sick mans ridiculous inability to accept reality, all because he found American s so damn STUPID, that he could get them to support him know matter WHAT the FCK they heard or were told and he did.
Jack, if you think that is a not worth caring about, the attempted demise of our Constitution and its political workings via LIES from morally bankrupted scumbagz, it speaks volumes about who you really are, but, it is a free country where you are able to think what you want, well, unless, no one cares and dares speak TRUTH TO POWER, and prefers to Cower, because YOU also could lose some freedoms, but hey, about your input. "Frankly, I've stopped caring."
Why dont you give us Trumps side of the story.
Are you under the delusion that there is a reasonable explanation for Trump not lifting a finger to stop the capitol riot? There are multiple witnesses that say he did nothing and then made a video where he told the rioters he loved them.
What else do you know about it?
Yet you argue against my position which is accurately summarized as follows (I do not need a ton of bullet points to summarize my point):
We have access to under-oath testimonies providing insider information from high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers to testify; this is better quality information by far than what we process daily from our ordinary (biased) sources.
One would expect a person identifying the above three positions would be inclined to agree with this position. Yet you are incensed by it.
So let's consider your objections:
The committee and the hearings are obviously biased. I noted this upfront but you keep repeating. And my response yet again is that all of our sources of information are biased yet we routinely consume lesser quality information from biased media sources. So, yeah, bias. Deal with it like you do every day. Here we have under-oath testimonies from Republicans who, if anything, would be biased towards Trump and the GoP. It would be remarkable if the committee was not biased; you put forth an unrealistic requirement that is not seen in normal (biased) sources of information.
Your next tranche of objections:
It is sophistry for you to assert that a vast amount of information is being withheld as if that is unexpected. As I have repeatedly explained, every item of presented evidence is drawn from a large corpus of raw data. It is naïve to think that information we normally consume is not distilled from mountains of raw data. Comparing evidence to raw data is sophistry. The raw data will always be a larger volume (typically considerably larger) than presented evidence. This is true in a court of law too. Much of the raw data, by the way, will be irrelevant, inapplicable and redundant. Imagine how much evidence comes from a 4 hour hearing. It ain't four hours, Jack.
As for withholding evidence. I assume that the committee is presenting evidence supporting their objective and not presenting evidence that counters their objective. I have stated this repeatedly to you and noted that this should not matter if you hold that the evidence you actually do see is under-oath testimony from witnesses that you believe are telling the truth. Just factor in these likely truths and expand your base of knowledge. What is the big deal?
Also, while I would expect new evidence to arise (especially if there is a trial) no-one has any basis to claim that the evidence presented here would be dwarfed by new evidence and counter-evidence. After 18 months we have a pretty good understanding of what took place. The testimonies are providing insider details (the whys behind the whats). Prosecutors in a trial could easily bring in dozens of insurrectionist witnesses to pound on the fact that they stormed the capitol because they thought that is what Trump wanted them to do. So one could easily generate days of largely redundant testimony to drive home the point that was one part of one testimony in these hearings. In terms of quality, these witnesses would be redundant. Defense attorneys in a trial could bring in all sorts of witnesses to speak on Trump's mental state, the reasonableness of presuming the election was rigged, etc. But ultimately I do not expect they will attempt to counter these witness testimonies that establish fundamental facts such as Barr's bullshit communication to Trump.
In short, I do not expect mountains of new distinct, relevant evidence to emerge based on all the work and attention that has taken place thus far. It is possible, but I do not consider it likely. You surely do not know that mountains of distinct, relevant evidence will emerge and your mere insistence does not make your position more persuasive.
And you also again incorrectly compare this to a trial. You should instead compare this to a media source. There will be no legal verdict and legal consequences from these hearings; the hearings are reporting findings. They are providing information that we can consume and judge as we each see fit.
And on your last point, you are complaining that these hearings are correlating with what we already know? As if that is somehow bad?
On the next tranche (less the snark):
In short, you think you already have all the information you need so you do not care to spend your time watching even the testimonies. You do not care (as you have noted days ago.) So that would logically mean that you would not bother with seeds like this one because, really, you will not learn anything valuable. And of course you would not spend hours of time arguing with someone in an online forum because that person thinks these testimonies contain valuable, new information. In short, you would of course just tune out all this Trump stuff from all media sources and will tune in if a trial ensues.
Your comments in this thread paint a very different picture.
( skipping your continued emotive, dishonest, hyperbolic personal attacks )
Jack has informed us that he has all the information on Trump that he needs to conduct his life. He will not vote for Trump so all additional information regarding this historical event that we have lived through in real time is something he just does not care about. Jack does not care ... unless there is a trial.
Jack does believe that there is a substantial amount of new evidence, including from a Trump defense, and evidence that the committee intentionally withheld, that could be delivered. I too wonder if Jack has any thoughts on what that evidence might entail.
Jack (given comments and intensity of same) cares deeply that a member of an online forum has argued the following position:
We have access to under-oath testimonies providing insider information from high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers to testify; this is better quality information by far than what we process daily from our ordinary (biased) sources.
( do you want my Sylvester pounding his head against a pole Giffy ? )
Emphatically. It is not the committee's job to 'try' Donald Trump. It is not a legal proceeding nor do they play such while DOJ is in 'suspense.'
Detractors. . . detract. It's a living after all.
"Baby needs a new pair of shoes!"
Then let's stop fucking around and charge them.
That's not what I don't care about. Set your personal emotions aside and read it again.
That is what should be done. The committee is designed to investigate and their findings will likely all eventually be part of the DoJ's corpus of raw data and clear evidence.
The DoJ will, unfortunately, consider politics thus it is indeed possible that we will never see Trump, et. al. held accountable. The testimonies presented by the committee might be the best insider information we ever get. (I hope that is not the case.)
By "explanation", do you actually mean "explanation" or do you mean "excuse"?
The most reasonable explanation is "he was pouting and didn't want to".
It's possible but IMO highly improbable that there could be some excuse, like some Secret Service protocol for his protection or him having a bout of projectile vomiting or a grand mal seizure or something.
Did you think he was somewhere behind the scenes trying to stop the riot? Really?
Well that didn't take long. First sentence of the very next post and you're misrepresenting again. Is it some sort of compulsion? Can you not help yourself?
Tell you what... if it makes you feel better, you pretend I argued that the moon is made of cheese.
You mean this?:
Which part do you object to? Do you object to this too?
Do you care or not care about these hearings and would only care if this were a trial?
No. Do try to follow along.
I do not care. As I have stated more than once. I've also stated that you find this unacceptable, to a nearly pathological degree. A point you denied and then continued to prove for 40 posts.
No. You're assuming again. Incorrectly. Again.
As I have reported.
I find it bizarre that you do not care about quality insider information regarding the historic events surrounding Jan 6th. Information that you have stated comes from witnesses that you believe are being truthful (need I quote this too?). And the fact that I find your lack of interest bizarre translates into a pathology to you? Can you be a bit more hyperbolic?
You have stated that you do not care and have backed this up with repetitive complaints that this committee lacks counter-evidence, cross-examination, has no legal teeth, etc.
Is it really an incorrect assumption that you would care if this were a trial (or if this were conducted as a trial)?
Pretty sure JR is asking you to describe a likely, reasonable Trump defense. Your answer of an unlikely SS protocol, etc. suggests that you, like everyone else, do not have a likely, reasonable defense to offer.
That would be the opposite of what JR implied. He implied that there is likely no real defense for Trump's behavior during the insurrection (and prior to that with his Big Lie con job).
It is an (unsurprisingly) incorrect assumption that I would only care if it was a trial.
It is directly a result of what you have written ... repeatedly.
You have repeatedly complained that these hearings are being conducted by a biased party, lacking cross-examination, defense evidence, suppressed evidence, etc. And I stipulated upfront that this is not a trial and that the committee is biased ... so I have never even hinted that you are wrong in this complaint. But I have argued that the testimonies themselves are credible and provide insider information that we have not seen from our normal biased media sources. The reason is because this insider information comes from high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers to testify under oath. You have stated that you believe the witnesses are likely telling the truth.
The reason is because this insider information comes from high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers to testify under oath.
So you hold that the testimonies are likely truthful (i.e. the witnesses are likely telling the truth) while stating that you do not care because you already have sufficient information to determine that you will never vote for Trump and because these hearings lack the fairness/balance of a trial (e.g. evidence from both sides, cross-examination, etc.).
You also realize (I suspect) that there likely will not be another committee that has the qualities you seek and that logically the only way to achieve these qualities is via a trial.
Now that is based on what you have stated in your volumes of comments. I certainly have no problem with you adding new information that would indicate there is some other way in which you would care. But based on what you have written thus far, your concerns logically will not be satisfied except by a formal trial.
It is not. It is a direct result of your conclusions about what I have written.
Once again, you fail to consider the existence of other possibilities.
Were we to hear new information that proved explanatory or mitigating, that would change my interest level. I doubt very seriously that will occur, but it is theoretically possible.
You have delivered a series of nuh'uhs and I have consistently provided reasons for what I have written (including quotes). Given you are refusing to explain your complaints or illustrate how I am misunderstanding you, I have no reason to take your complaints seriously.
I just wrote:
That means that I recognize that there could be other possibilities that you have not mentioned and invited you to do so. You objected so I explained to you my reasoning based on your words thus far and invited you to offer these possibilities that you have yet to mention. I am not denying that you might have other possibilities in mind. So if you have possibilities other than a trial that would cause you to care then what is it that you have in mind?
Certainly. So how would this new information arise since it necessarily must be superior to these hearings and would not be a trial? In the abstract ~something~ might happen; what do you have in mind? You have only mentioned a trial. Mention more and I will include same in the list of factors that would cause Jack to care.
I also doubt we will get anything beyond what the committee has offered unless this goes to trial. That is one of the reasons I am interested in these testimonies. That is why I care.
Circling back to this.....
This new information might arise....hypothetically....as a result of an FBI raid or Mar- A -Lago, as part of an investigation by the DOJ into events entirely unrelated to Jan 6 or the televised hearings that are never going to amount to anything more than political theater.
I am very interested in what might have been found in Palm Beach, and the fair and impartial legal proceedings that may ensue. They matter.
I don't care at all about Pelosi's dog and pony show, because it will never matter.
Is this clear now?
Implying that I was confused? That was never the case.
This new information is reported by the media and is not subjected to a formal legal process. As with testimonies by witnesses under oath, this new information is, per your argument, one-sided since the Trump defense has not presented their side of the story.
That was your objection and that is why I asked you how new information would arise that would be superior to under-oath testimonies by high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers to testify if not part of a trial.
To me this is new information unqualified; I have no problem factoring this into my thought process. But you imposed the restriction that you are not interested in information unless Trump had the opportunity to present his side; thus that pretty much restricts new information to that which results from our adversarial system of justice (a trial).
A warrant requires a formal legal process.
We have no idea what the new information actually is yet. We just know it's been seized.
Eventually, the DOJ will decide if the data they've collected contains enough evidence to get a conviction. If that happens, we'll get the parts of the data they deem pertinent, and we'll get to hear the defense.
Those proceedings (should they occur) will have potential consequences, which means they matter.
And therein lies the rub: The democrats are in-charge of the House (and it was raided, looted, ransacked, and 'hitted upon') and you regard her role as Speaker as she should lay down and do nothing, just because MAGA conservatives in the House don't want to properly get to the bottom of the insurrection activity that took place on her 'Watch.'
Tell me, Jack-TX is Speaker Pelosi or Minority Leader McCarthy the weakest link in this? Go for it.
By the way, who told McCarthy to try to set-up the committee for ineffectiveness by attempting to add the equivalent of 'carnival barkers' for Trump? Was it Trump? After all, we have photo proof McCarthy was in cahoots with Donald Trump:
"Ken and Ken" posed out at Mara Lago credit the internet gallery.
So it matters to the Speaker that yahoos don't come to her house, smear 'hit and piss' on her floors and walls, and then get "Ken-ed" out of it while she is in charge. It should matter to you. . . but I digress.
If MAGA House comes next year I will expect you to be consistent in your lack of interest in its proceedings investigating the investigators. If you are not it will speak volumes about. . . you.
But that process is not a trial. You agree, right? Do you consider a judge issuing a warrant for search and seizure to be the equivalent of a trial that is exercising our adversarial legal system which gives Trump an opportunity to present his defense? A trial with Trump defense is, after all, what we are talking about.
I agree. So when we do find out, will you consider it as reported by the media or will you wait until it —along with all other evidence— is presented by both prosecution and defense before you will even consider it?
Indeed, that is how our system works. This is not in question.
And again that is true. The Jan 6th special committee has, as I have stated repeatedly, no legal teeth. Thus they cannot indict, prosecute or convict Trump. All they can do is gather evidence and communicate same. This has never been in question.
I have no issue with you not caring about information provided by the committee due to its lack of legal consequences. I find it remarkable that you do not care about the information that has been provided — even for your own edification. But, putting that aside, I certainly can see how you would want to hear both sides of the story before seriously considering the matter.
What I object to is categorically dismissing (ignoring, not caring about) the evidence provided by this committee because they are partisan and because Trump's defense is not present. The reason for my objection is that the evidence has been predominantly under-oath testimonies by high-ranking, connected Republicans who have compromised their political careers to testify. I personally find this evidence to be of a higher quality than what we normally get from our media sources (which are biased and far from under-oath, careers on the line, etc.). This evidence is not as high quality as that accepted by a court of law and processed by our adversarial system, but we routinely and necessarily work with evidence that has not been subjected to this formal process. Why this evidence is seen as lesser than our normal sources of evidence / information is odd.
No. If you had read the previous comments, you would know that my indifference for Ms. Pelosi's antics are largely centered around the fact that the House can't actually do anything besides talk about it. The DOJ, on the other hand, can prosecute.
Obviously.
*sigh*
No. That's what you're talking about.
I am talking about a step in a process that might actually have a tangible result.
Probably the latter. Anything before that is most likely going to be an unreliable rumor from a leak.
I don't know how many times I've explained that this is not an accurate description of my views.
The Capitol Matters. To any Speaker. And today that is Mrs. Pelosi. Own what you called the investigation in bold above. Public opinion matter. And it can't be distilled and organized while the truth lays squat under the butt-cheeks of a lying, desecrating, jerk like Donald Trump. Therefore, the Speaker has no choice but to be serious in the face of liars and cheaters.
What might you say if she did not do her job, and instead 'punked out'? Only you know for sure.
So, "A trial with Trump defense is, after all" NOT A STEP in the PROCESS that MIGHT have a "tangible result" according to you...? Cause WHAT would have a "tangible result", in your closed eyes then ?
One would hope so.
The legal process in my comment clearly was referring to a trial — explicitly, several times. We have in the past agreed a trial is the likely venue to deliver a tangible result. The legal process of obtaining search & seizure authorization does not in itself yield a tangible result without a trial. The subsequent raid will at best produce evidence just like the Jan 6th committee produced evidence (for other charges). In both cases the tangible results yield from a trial.
In net you are implying that the Jan 6th evidence will NOT likely yield tangible results but this search and seizure where we do not know what evidence if any has been found MIGHT yield tangible results. Not a persuasive argument.
That would be consistent with your prior posts. So basically whatever evidence emerges from this raid, if any, will not matter to you unless it emerges within the venue of a formal trial. (I of course expect: 'not an accurate description of my view' ....)
I am convinced you would never agree with any summary description of what you have written nor would you offer a succinct summary as a correction.
My position is that the evidence embodied in the Jan 6th hearings via under-oath testimony by mostly high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers to testify is quality (better than what we normally get from media sources) insider information that helps flesh out the big picture offered by conventional media. And as for the search and seizure, my position is that this, based on the circumstances, would likely apply to a charge distinct from that of the Jan 6th evidence, but I need to evaluate the evidence before offering any opinion on same.
And right off the bat the author discredits himself. Trump did not shut down the economy; he did everything he could to avoid doing that and instead used rhetoric in an attempt to talk the economy up. Further, the author uses Fauci as an excuse. Fauci advises; if Trump took an action (remains to be seen) the responsibility is his.
Now, specifically, what did Trump do (actions) to 'shut down a thriving economy' (other than fail to get in front of the pandemic)?
You need someone to explain to you why it is important that the USA not allow a sitting PotUS to abuse the authority of his office in an attempt to steal a presidential election using frivolous lawsuits, coercion of officials, suborning of an unconstitutional act, and inciting his supporters with profound lies that their votes were disenfranchised, that the system is rigged and that one must fight to keep our nation??
Democrats' first item on their legislative agenda for both the House and Senate was election reforms. Did those election reforms include provisions to address any of these issues? Did the election reforms include provisions to limit legislatures and courts meddling in elections? Did the election reforms include checks on autocratic authority of election officials?
There have been a lot of complaints. But there hasn't been any tangible action to address those complaints.
Non sequitur. You quote my comment about why one should never consider Trump and then write a paragraph on the Ds.
Normally when one provides a quote the body of the comment is in reply to the quote.
Why a non sequitur? You complained that Trump attempted to game the system. So, obviously, election reforms should address those means of gaming the system.
Complaining about Trump doesn't do a damn thing to address what Trump tried to do. If what Trump tried to do has already been addressed then indict, prosecute, and imprison Trump. Otherwise fix the damned problem so it can't happen again.
Because I was addressing why one should not vote for someone who tried to steal a presidential election.
Yours was a perfect example of a non-sequitur.
What does that have to do with the Jan. 6th committee and their public (and publicized) hearings? The implication is that the purpose of the Jan. 6th committee is to influence public opinion about Trump as a candidate for elected office. But that is what political campaigns do; that's not a function of government.
Using government for strictly political purposes also violates a number of established principles. So, it really is possible to take a principled stance against the Jan. 6th committee as an inappropriate use of government for political purposes.
Focus, Nerm.
Only due to the fact that i know some of the players am i not surprised by the willingness, even after the overwhelming amount of evidence presented predominately by Republicans who were Trump voters and supporters, of imho a group of fools, that would overlook the LYING FCKN CROOK and be willing to vote for him again.
Just unbelievable, how far gone those who were indoctrinated into the Trump Cult have become. Trump will be studied by sociologists, historians, psychologists, and plenty others for decades to come.
The 'right' is Not right in the head imo, and it is difficult to comprehend how these people could be so gullible to believe this fool would be a better choice than anyone else, cause he is the absolute LOWEST Human scum, human scum can offer.
They choose him or a DeSantis or anybody who will take what is RIGHTFULLY due the republic and liberals and 'restore' it to MAGA conservatives. It's selfish. And let's call it what is: MAGA conservatives are schemers against you and me. We must not pretend otherwise. They have shown us time and time again they are not happy until liberals are dominated!
I can personally vouch for that.
Most of the conservatives on this site exposed their radicalism to me long before I joined this site. (I lurked for a few years.) [ Deleted ]
[Deleted]
These MAGA bots are lucky. Had they been in the Saudi Kingdom, Iran, Russia, China, Belarus and few other places and 'insurrecting' for true freedom they would have gotten 20 years or worse. Here they were insurrecting for an authoritarian autocracy. Misled fools every single one of them.
To paraphrase a Trump utterance he vomited to Kelly while at Arlington National Cemetery, "What was in it for them," is very applicable to these MAGA bots.
Plenty of these MAGAs gave up apartments, houses, and homes after January 6, 2021 became public knowledge. Of course, Ms. Babbitt gave up everything. And for what?!
Although it's a long way off to 2024 (and at my age I might not even be around then), if I were an American and Liz Cheney were a candidate, no matter what party or non-party she represented, I would vote for her. But then who am I anyway - I thought Anne Richards would have been a great president.