Capitol insurrection hearings.

[schmidlap]

I wouldn't be surprised, certainly, but this stuff needs to be proven.

They'll deny it even if it's proven, but that won't matter.

Cults are irrational, but reality is impervious to irrational denial, and reality still carries weight with quite a few folks.

 

[Indeependent]

Cults are irrational, but reality is impervious to irrational denial, and reality still carries weight with quite a few folks.

Which is why Liberals always feel sorry for rapists, murderers and thugs.

 

[Vrenn]

i watched it, i didn’t really learn anything new….i mean we have the results of the prior investigators …i heard some tramatic stories, and that’s all well in good, and some opinions and speculations…but nothing new

You didn't answer the question. Should it be vigoursly investigated and any and all contributors brought to justice?

 

[struth]

You didn't answer the question. Should it be vigoursly investigated and any and all contributors brought to justice?

I am pretty sure that is what the Xiden DOJ is doing at the moment....I have no problem with what they are doing, and accepted the results of their investigations.....

 

[MadChemist]

I said tell the truth, that would convict both of them.

You mean like during the impeachment trial.

He was convic......

Hmmmmm...............................

 

[MadChemist]

You didn't answer the question. Should it be vigoursly investigated and any and all contributors brought to justice?

Yes.

Nancy Pelosi should hang.

 

[MadChemist]

The bipartisan congressional investigation, the ongoing confessions and convictions of the Trump goons who attacked the Capitol, the collapse of the Arizona "Big Bamboozle" caper, etc., etc., etc.

The cult is understandably in a tizzy.

Retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, who was tasked... with conducting a review of the US Capitol's security after January 6, on Tuesday said Trump's White House was complicit in orchestrating the insurrection.​

​

"It's my personal opinion that the executive branch was complicit in the planning and the delayed response that occurred in bringing in more federal assistance to the Capitol that day... the former president is continuing to tell people, 'This was not a riot, it meant no harm, it was like a picnic,'" Honoré said, adding, "The last I heard from him, he told them to go to the Capitol and raise hell."​

​

Retired US general says the Trump White House 'was complicit in the planning' of the January 6 insurrection

Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, a retired Army officer, was tasked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with reviewing the US Capitol's security after January 6.

www.businessinsider.com

​

​

​

View attachment 518809​

"WHAAAA!
Why is everybody being so mean to
ME!
WHAAAA!"​

You morons have no understanding of human nature and human group dynamics.

It's laughable how you keep reaching further into your asses to pull out something to satisfy your need for self-relevance.

 

[MadChemist]

Sometimes, you gotta poke the bear with a stick

Sometimes, you gotta poke the bear with a stick

Please keep your sexual fantasies to yourself.

 

[Stann]

Yes.

Nancy Pelosi should hang.

Well, Trump wanted to hang Pence, if there was any justice left in the world, Trump would be hanged.

 

[Indeependent]

You didn't answer the question. Should it be vigoursly investigated and any and all contributors brought to justice?

Trespassers and murderers should be investigated.
Do you agree?

 

[Coyote]

I do.

you just don't know what that looks like.

No. You do not. When someone disagrees with your point of view, you accuse them of taking positions or making claims they did not make. When asked to show where, you link to posts where it is stretch to make that stick or you have to take it out of context. Pretty dirty, but typical.

and I've said anyone that broke the law... Anywhere... should be prosecuted according to that law.

Actually, yes you have. And you know what? SO HAVE I. I have repeatedly said that those who destroyed property, assaulted people or committed arson should be charged and prosecuted. But you completely ignore that. Care to attempt to apply the same vaulted standards you are supposed to have? With you, what it comes down to is this: I didn’t attack the targets YOU felt I should LOUDLY ENOUGH, there, in your mind I support their violence. I’m just applying your standard to YOU: your criticism of the attack on the Capitol is very weak...your criticism of the riots over the summer was outrage, anger, and far more emotional (yes, you too give in to emotional arguments)...so you must support the violence in tbe Capitol right? Your standards buddy.

you seem to call Pelosi hand picking her witnesses and not allowing counter views to be OK.

I don't.

Well, don’t you think there is a bit more to it than that? How about removing the partisan lense for a moment?

The original idea was to create bipartisan 911 style independent commission. That would have been ideal - 5 Dems, 5 Rebubs. What was wrong with that? The Republicans nixed it.

That limits what the House can do, and frankly, shows that the Republicans aren’t serious about investigating it...or have something to hide. Your choice.

Out of McCarthy’s picks are two people who will very likely be called on to testify. How exactly would that work? At the very least would conflict of interest. McCarthy had to have known that so what was he playing at? None the less, the other 3 nominees were not rejected, were clear Trump allies, and voted against certifying the election, Sotheby’s claim about not allowing counter views is lame, if not dead on arrival.

Pelosi is the consummate political pro at hardball...and she and McCarthy are playing a political game of chess here. Will be interesting to see what happens.

It looks bad though, when the Republican leadership refuses to listen to the police testify, or even acknowledge their sacrifice.

you seem to think that the police under siege have time to open doors and take selfies with the people there to harm them.

I don't.

You seem to think ONE officer who took selfies and a second who took a MAGA hat and showed people around (and I think was fired) is representative of the entire violent siege. Did you not watch any of those videos? Masses of people smashing in windows and doors that had not been opened for them? Ripping barricades away from the officers and attacking them? Dragging them down the steps and bearing them with poles? Seriously?

you seem to think there is no need for all available evidence because you think some hand selected videos are good enough.

I don't.

I want all the evidence and all sides a chance to speak.

you don't.

Ah. That is where you are wrong. I do. I very much want to know what people were thinking and why they would do this. I wanted a 911 style commission, but your team shot that down.

your single minded vision where only YOU can be right certainly allows you a broad definition of ILLEGAL you fail to apply evenly.

it's a habit of yours.

Uh huh. Project much?

 

[iceberg]

No. You do not. When someone disagrees with your point of view, you accuse them of taking positions or making claims they did not make. When asked to show where, you link to posts where it is stretch to make that stick or you have to take it out of context. Pretty dirty, but typical.


Actually, yes you have. And you know what? SO HAVE I. I have repeatedly said that those who destroyed property, assaulted people or committed arson should be charged and prosecuted. But you completely ignore that. Care to attempt to apply the same vaulted standards you are supposed to have? With you, what it comes down to is this: I didn’t attack the targets YOU felt I should LOUDLY ENOUGH, there, in your mind I support their violence. I’m just applying your standard to YOU: your criticism of the attack on the Capitol is very weak...your criticism of the riots over the summer was outrage, anger, and far more emotional (yes, you too give in to emotional arguments)...so you must support the violence in tbe Capitol right? Your standards buddy.


Well, don’t you think there is a bit more to it than that? How about removing the partisan lense for a moment?

The original idea was to create bipartisan 911 style independent commission. That would have been ideal - 5 Dems, 5 Rebubs. What was wrong with that? The Republicans nixed it.

That limits what the House can do, and frankly, shows that the Republicans aren’t serious about investigating it...or have something to hide. Your choice.

Out of McCarthy’s picks are two people who will very likely be called on to testify. How exactly would that work? At the very least would conflict of interest. McCarthy had to have known that so what was he playing at? None the less, the other 3 nominees were not rejected, were clear Trump allies, and voted against certifying the election, Sotheby’s claim about not allowing counter views is lame, if not dead on arrival.

Pelosi is the consummate political pro at hardball...and she and McCarthy are playing a political game of chess here. Will be interesting to see what happens.

It looks bad though, when the Republican leadership refuses to listen to the police testify, or even acknowledge their sacrifice.




You seem to think ONE officer who took selfies and a second who took a MAGA hat and showed people around (and I think was fired) is representative of the entire violent siege. Did you not watch any of those videos? Masses of people smashing in windows and doors that had not been opened for them? Ripping barricades away from the officers and attacking them? Dragging them down the steps and bearing them with poles? Seriously?




Ah. That is where you are wrong. I do. I very much want to know what people were thinking and why they would do this. I wanted a 911 style commission, but your team shot that down.




Uh huh. Project much?

im not going to remove a partisan lens so you can have a partisan party.

if trump hand picked who could IMPEACH him you'd shit kittens so the act in itself is a foul. i don't care who does it.

and any attempt to make this 1 sided simply put a magnifying glass on your bias. but have fun. bias is your thing.

i want equal representation and unfettered opportunity for ALL SIDES to present the story and ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE provided.

do you? you already said you don't need the capital video so be careful here. which is partisan? wanting all evidence, or just what proves you correct?

you're full of shit when you say the GOP has something to hide and then defend pelosi hand picking the witnesses, not allowing others, THEN not allowing access to all video files they have. THAT is hiding something.

 

[Indeependent]

No. You do not. When someone disagrees with your point of view, you accuse them of taking positions or making claims they did not make. When asked to show where, you link to posts where it is stretch to make that stick or you have to take it out of context. Pretty dirty, but typical.


Actually, yes you have. And you know what? SO HAVE I. I have repeatedly said that those who destroyed property, assaulted people or committed arson should be charged and prosecuted. But you completely ignore that. Care to attempt to apply the same vaulted standards you are supposed to have? With you, what it comes down to is this: I didn’t attack the targets YOU felt I should LOUDLY ENOUGH, there, in your mind I support their violence. I’m just applying your standard to YOU: your criticism of the attack on the Capitol is very weak...your criticism of the riots over the summer was outrage, anger, and far more emotional (yes, you too give in to emotional arguments)...so you must support the violence in tbe Capitol right? Your standards buddy.


Well, don’t you think there is a bit more to it than that? How about removing the partisan lense for a moment?

The original idea was to create bipartisan 911 style independent commission. That would have been ideal - 5 Dems, 5 Rebubs. What was wrong with that? The Republicans nixed it.

That limits what the House can do, and frankly, shows that the Republicans aren’t serious about investigating it...or have something to hide. Your choice.

Out of McCarthy’s picks are two people who will very likely be called on to testify. How exactly would that work? At the very least would conflict of interest. McCarthy had to have known that so what was he playing at? None the less, the other 3 nominees were not rejected, were clear Trump allies, and voted against certifying the election, Sotheby’s claim about not allowing counter views is lame, if not dead on arrival.

Pelosi is the consummate political pro at hardball...and she and McCarthy are playing a political game of chess here. Will be interesting to see what happens.

It looks bad though, when the Republican leadership refuses to listen to the police testify, or even acknowledge their sacrifice.




You seem to think ONE officer who took selfies and a second who took a MAGA hat and showed people around (and I think was fired) is representative of the entire violent siege. Did you not watch any of those videos? Masses of people smashing in windows and doors that had not been opened for them? Ripping barricades away from the officers and attacking them? Dragging them down the steps and bearing them with poles? Seriously?




Ah. That is where you are wrong. I do. I very much want to know what people were thinking and why they would do this. I wanted a 911 style commission, but your team shot that down.




Uh huh. Project much?

Short of committing murder, NYS has demoted crimes to paying a fine.

 

[colfax_m]

Ah. That is where you are wrong. I do. I very much want to know what people were thinking and why they would do this. I wanted a 911 style commission, but your team shot that down.

The criticism against the select committee would have been easily avoided with the blue ribbon committee or whatever it should be called.

Even so, remember Benghazi? There were 7 Republicans and 5 Democratics who had no power since they'd be always outvoted on calling anything.

 

[Coyote]

The criticism against the select committee would have been easily avoided with the blue ribbon committee or whatever it should be called.

Even so, remember Benghazi? There were 7 Republicans and 5 Democratics who had no power since they'd be always outvoted on calling anything.

I forgot about Benghazi...so the Dems offered more to the Pubs then they given in the Benghazi hearings....they have only themselves to blame, but then...they are not very good at accepting responsibility.

 

[Indeependent]

I forgot about Benghazi...so the Dems offered more to the Pubs then they given in the Benghazi hearings....they have only themselves to blame, but then...they are not very good at accepting responsibility.

Who is?

 

[Coyote]

im not going to remove a partisan lens so you can have a partisan party.

Your choice.

if trump hand picked who could IMPEACH him you'd shit kittens so the act in itself is a foul. i don't care who does it.

So your only recourse is an apples and oranges comparison and bringing in Trump.

What was wrong with a 911 style commission?

and any attempt to make this 1 sided simply put a magnifying glass on your bias. but have fun. bias is your thing.

i want equal representation and unfettered opportunity for ALL SIDES to present the story and ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE provided.

Wouldn’t a 911 style commission composed of equal numbers of each party have done exactly that?

do you? you already said you don't need the capital video so be careful here. which is partisan? wanting all evidence, or just what proves you correct?

you're full of shit when you say the GOP has something to hide and then defend pelosi hand picking the witnesses, not allowing others, THEN not allowing access to all video files they have. THAT is hiding something.

What is partisan is latching onto one straw to discount the mountains of video evidence from the participants and body cams we’ve seen. That is how conspiracy theories get built: find one thing, that has not YET been made public and claim they must hiding something while ignoring everything else.

WHY did the Republicans refuse an independent commission that would have given them more power, then turn around and whine when Pelosi said ok, have it your way, and set up a different commission.

Why do they want to sweep it under the rug? I can think of a number of reasons. It might show some of their members in a bad light, fear of Trump’s reaction, a very cynical political calculus for holding on to power.

Unlike you I want to know what happened, I want to hear people testify under oath. You don’t seem to. You seem more interested in finding ways to delegitimize it. Yes, it will be partisan, just like Benghazi was, but that is your own doing when you nixed an independent commission isn’t it?

 

[iceberg]

Your choice.



So your only recourse is an apples and oranges comparison and bringing in Trump.

What was wrong with a 911 style commission?




Wouldn’t a 911 style commission composed of equal numbers of each party have done exactly that?



What is partisan is latching onto one straw to discounting the mountains of video evidence from the participants and body cams we’ve seen. That is how conspiracy theories get built: find one thing, that has not YET been made public and claim they must hiding something while ignoring everything else.

WHY did tbe Republicans refuse an independent commission that would have given them more power, then turn around and whine when Pelosi said ok, have it your way, and set up a different commission.

Why do they want to sweep it under the rug? I can think of a number of reasons. It might show some of their members in a bad light, fear of Trump’s reaction, a very cynical political calculus for holding on to power.

Unlike you I want to know what happened, I want to hear people testify under oath. You don’t seem to. You seem more interested in finding ways to delegitimize it. Yes, it will be partisan, just like Benghazi was, but that is your own doing when you nixed an independent commission isn’t it?

do you or do you not want all available evidence in order to be fair to all?

I don't need a diversionary war and peace, a yes or no is fine.

 

[j-mac]

Why

The opposite.

McCarthy knew the rules, they were the same rules Republicans in charge put in place for their Benghazi hearings.

McCarthy lobbied the Senate to reject the independent commission....Trump didn't want one so he flipped and didn't want an investigation, even though the House passed it in a bipartisan vote.

Then McCarthy on this special investigation committee appointed a bunch of idiot dog and pony show Rs to the special investigation, which HE KNEW Nancy would reject.... So that he could cancel this investigation as well....cancel Republican participation....

Why are Trumpers so AFRAID of an investigation into the Trump insurrection/riot?

Have you asked yourself that?

Or do you already know the answer to that...

and this is WHY you are afraid of the truth coming out in any investigation, thus against them all?

why should republicans participate in this Democrat midterm ad making exercise?

If Pelosi we’re interested in the truth, she’d have allowed the Republicans to appoint any member they wanted to, but just as within the sphere of message board debate on these issues, Democrats can never prevail without lying.

 

[Coyote]

do you or do you not want all available evidence in order to be fair to all?

I don't need a diversionary war and peace, a yes or no is fine.

Yes.

My question to you: we never see all available evidence in these sorts of things...hence the ease at which conspiracy theories are formed...so why is not having this one thing publically available a deal breaker in the face of all this other video evidence from a wide variety of sources?

And one other question I guess....wouldn’t releasing that compromise security?