January 6 Committee eviscerates Trump

[Catman51]

This is not a trial....it is an investigation, much like the Watergate investigation.

But democrats are hoping to see the crooks do A Perp Walk some day, on their way to a real court.... for their crimes, no doubt about it!

It is not an investigation, it is a inquisition which allows zero counter statements. This just goes to show that at some level they know it is phony,

 

[schmidlap]

And yet still and totally no one being allowed to ask counter questions.

There is nothing to prevent anyone from raising such questions, and a vast panoply of venues in which to do so.

Again, we are being presented with the results of a painstaking and thorough investigation, not a trail.

If any prosecutions ensue as a consequence of all the sworn testimonies of Republicans and incriminating video footage, that is where cross examinations are appropriate.

Is Trump right to whine now that Republicans should not have withdrawn support for the proposed independent commission? That is certainly his prerogative.

 

[Faun]

Where was the so called cross examination in the Watergate investigation hearings? Duh, there were none!

Where this notion that in an investigation the crooks get to call the shots too, is fairytale land of the cuckoo bird!

These idiots read some fake news rightard site wailing about the lack of cross examinations. That's who does their thinking for them. Then they go to other forums to spread their misinformation.

 

[Faun]

It is not an investigation, it is a inquisition which allows zero counter statements. This just goes to show that at some level they know it is phony,

If Republicans who ignored subpoenas would have showed up, you would have had counter statements. Now you want to eat your cake and have it too. **** you.

 

[Catman51]

There is nothing to prevent anyone from raising such questions, and a vast panoply of venues in which to do so.

Again, we are being presented with the results of a painstaking and thorough investigation, not a trail.

If any prosecutions ensue as a consequence of all the sworn testimonies of Republicans and incriminating video footage, that is where cross examinations are appropriate.

Is Trump right to whine now that Republicans should not have withdrawn support for the proposed independent commission? That is certainly his prerogative.

Any other venue is dismissed by those such as you since it is not the "official" investigating body. There is no one asking any questions or countering the presented, one sided, narrative. Those questions are not allowed. We are presented with a one sided claim and that is no way to "investigate" anything if you want to find the truth.

 

[Faun]

Any other venue is dismissed by those such as you since it is not the "official" investigating body. There is no one asking any questions or countering the presented, one sided, narrative. Those questions are not allowed. We are presented with a one sided claim and that is no way to "investigate" anything if you want to find the truth.

So you think OJ should have been able to cross examine law enforcement investigations prior to his indictment, huh?

You're fucked in the head, con.

 

[schmidlap]

Any other venue is dismissed by those such as you since it is not the "official" investigating body.

Again, the exposé is not a criminal prosecution of anyone.

There is nothing to prevent anyone who imagines that he can refute the substance of the sworn testimonies of all the Republican witnesses from offering substantive rebuttals if they can contrive any.

 

[Chillicothe]

"And yet still and totally no one being allowed to ask counter questions. ..... no defense allowed on the way to a predetermined verdict."

"..... it is a inquisition which allows zero counter statements."

There is no one asking any questions or countering the presented, one sided, narrative. Those questions are not allowed.

====================================================
I read with interest the postings by the good poster 'Catman51'.

I was struck by the hint that he knows what was and was not asked in those interviews with witnesses. Specifically, he states no 'counter statements', or questions were allowed in those interviews. Ummm? How would he know that?

Just what does he know....and how does he know .....of the details of this year long investigation?

What we are all seeing is the work product of a 1,000+ interviews, of thousands and thousands of pages and emails, distilled down to only 5 short hearings (so far). Yet, Catman51 suggests he knows all about those interviews.

Don't mean to be disrespectful, but.......but count me skeptical. Count me as kinda sorta thinkin' Catman51 doesn't really know what he is talking about. He seemingly has a grievance in that testimony from mostly Republicans is painting Don T. as a bit of a corrupt leader.

We get it. Catman is unhappy. And a tantrum seems to fit his moment.

IMHO

=====================================================================

Is Trump right to whine now that Republicans should not have withdrawn support for the proposed independent commission? That is certainly his prerogative.

Well, yupper, he can whine.
And he will.
And he is.

And poor Kevin McCarthy is being thrown under the bus for it. However, it is notable that Don T. was adamantly against the bi-partisan chosen bi-partisan independent Committee of experts in the law, law enforcement, the Constitution. Don T. famously said to McConnell and McCarthy ...and the world.....'don't do it. It is a Democrat trap.'

I'm thinking we've seen this movie before. Everybody else is to blame. So expect to see Eastman, Clark, McCarthy, Barr, and others, all with tire tracks across their foreheads.

I'm suspecting this all ain't gonna end well for Don T. But am really reluctant to publicly state that.

 

[Catman51]

Again, the exposé is not a criminal prosecution of anyone.

There is nothing to prevent anyone who imagines that he can refute the substance of the sworn testimonies of all the Republican witnesses from offering substantive rebuttals if they can contrive any.

Then why does your precious committee continue to say that they are trying to convict these supposed terrorists of a crime? You can't have it both ways, unless you are a devoted and unfair democrat.

 

[Catman51]

====================================================
I read with interest the postings by the good poster 'Catman51'.

I was struck by the hint that he knows what was and was not asked in those interviews with witnesses. Specifically, he states no 'counter statements', or questions were allowed in those interviews. Ummm? How would he know that?

Just what does he know....and how does he know .....of the details of this year long investigation?

What we are all seeing is the work product of a 1,000+ interviews, of thousands and thousands of pages and emails, distilled down to only 5 short hearings (so far). Yet, Catman51 suggests he knows all about those interviews.

Don't mean to be disrespectful, but.......but count me skeptical. Count me as kinda sorta thinkin' Catman51 doesn't really know what he is talking about. He seemingly has a grievance in that testimony from mostly Republicans is painting Don T. as a bit of a corrupt leader.

We get it. Catman is unhappy. And a tantrum seems to fit his moment.

IMHO

=====================================================================


Well, yupper, he can whine.
And he will.
And he is.

And poor Kevin McCarthy is being thrown under the bus for it. However, it is notable that Don T. was adamantly against the bi-partisan chosen bi-partisan independent Committee of experts in the law, law enforcement, the Constitution. Don T. famously said to McConnell and McCarthy ...and the world.....'don't do it. It is a Democrat trap.'

I'm thinking we've seen this movie before. Everybody else is to blame. So expect to see Eastman, Clark, McCarthy, Barr, and others, all with tire tracks across their foreheads.

I'm suspecting this all ain't gonna end well for Don T. But am really reluctant to publicly state that.

Have you even considered that I watch the hearings and listen to their presented "evidence" and reject it as one sided and directed toward only one predetermined end.

One might ask where you get your information to determine what the outcome should be..

As for your comment about everyone else being at fault, that is Bidens entire operating plan. But being a tunnel vision democrat you will never admit that.

 

[Chillicothe]

directed toward only one predetermined end.

And that 'end' would be what?

 

[Chillicothe]

Further, where is Jim Jordan, Peter Navarro, Eastman, Clark, Meadows, McCarthy?

WHY.....ain't they willing to come before the Committee and defend Don T.?

If it is one-sided (with Republican witnesses?)....then they have a perfect opportunity to sit down and offer up a vigorous defense of Don T.

To date, they are refusing to defend him.

Why?

 

[schmidlap]

====================================================
I read with interest the postings by the good poster 'Catman51'.

I was struck by the hint that he knows what was and was not asked in those interviews with witnesses. Specifically, he states no 'counter statements', or questions were allowed in those interviews. Ummm? How would he know that?

Just what does he know....and how does he know .....of the details of this year long investigation?

What we are all seeing is the work product of a 1,000+ interviews, of thousands and thousands of pages and emails, distilled down to only 5 short hearings (so far). Yet, Catman51 suggests he knows all about those interviews.

Don't mean to be disrespectful, but.......but count me skeptical. Count me as kinda sorta thinkin' Catman51 doesn't really know what he is talking about. He seemingly has a grievance in that testimony from mostly Republicans is painting Don T. as a bit of a corrupt leader.

We get it. Catman is unhappy. And a tantrum seems to fit his moment.

IMHO

=====================================================================


Well, yupper, he can whine.
And he will.
And he is.

And poor Kevin McCarthy is being thrown under the bus for it. However, it is notable that Don T. was adamantly against the bi-partisan chosen bi-partisan independent Committee of experts in the law, law enforcement, the Constitution. Don T. famously said to McConnell and McCarthy ...and the world.....'don't do it. It is a Democrat trap.'

I'm thinking we've seen this movie before. Everybody else is to blame. So expect to see Eastman, Clark, McCarthy, Barr, and others, all with tire tracks across their foreheads.

I'm suspecting this all ain't gonna end well for Don T. But am really reluctant to publicly state that.

The official record is what it is.

There is nothing to prevent anyone contesting any of the substantive testimonies of all the Republican witnesses, if they can in any way impugn those substantive testimonies or the integrity of the witnesses.

Trump and his residue of weird worshipers are, no doubt, wishing that they had not withdrawn support for an independent commission that might have been less probative, but there is no way that Trump's schemes to thwart democracy could not be confronted.

"We cannot just sweep this under the rug.
We need to know why it happened, who did it,
and people need to be held accountable for it.
And I'm committed to make sure that happens."
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R)


​

 

[Catman51]

And that 'end' would be what?

Guilt, of course. Nothing else serves the democrats agenda. And it must be achieved quickly before the dems are swept out of office in November

 

[Catman51]

Further, where is Jim Jordan, Peter Navarro, Eastman, Clark, Meadows, McCarthy?

WHY.....ain't they willing to come before the Committee and defend Don T.?

If it is one-sided (with Republican witnesses?)....then they have a perfect opportunity to sit down and offer up a vigorous defense of Don T.

To date, they are refusing to defend him.

Why?

Because the democrats (Pelosi) refuse to allow it. Think for once before posting nonsense.

 

[Catman51]

The official record is what it is.

There is nothing to prevent anyone contesting any of the substantive testimonies of all the Republican witnesses, if they can in any way impugn those substantive testimonies or the integrity of the witnesses.

Trump and his residue of weird worshipers are, no doubt, wishing that they had not withdrawn support for an independent commission that might have been less probative, but there is no way that Trump's schemes to thwart democracy could not be confronted.

View attachment 661756
"We cannot just sweep this under the rug.
We need to know why it happened, who did it,
and people need to be held accountable for it.
And I'm committed to make sure that happens."
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R)


​

The "official record" does not exist yet. It is what they are trying to say it is, without dissent.

Put away your partisan hat and try looking at the entire situation, for once.

 

[Chillicothe]

Because the democrats (Pelosi) refuse to allow it. Think for once before posting nonsense.

Ah, poor poster Catman.
You really must try to read stuff other than InfoWars or Breitbart, or listen to folks other than Bannon, Tucker, and Jim Hoff.
Really, you must..

Then you would know that the Committee has invited all of those mentioned to come before the Committee. Some of them were even issued subpoenas. So, though I ain't a lawyer I'm pretty sure Nancy Pelosi ain't refusing anybody who was issued a subpoena, or even invited to testify. That really doesn't sound like a 'refusal' to my non-lawyerly ear.

Catman, you are better than your postings. You should do a little more due diligence. Your avatar is making you look bad.

IMHO

 

[surada]

It is not an investigation, it is a inquisition which allows zero counter statements. This just goes to show that at some level they know it is phony,

You can't cross examine tapes of phone calls or Trump's documents.

 

[Catman51]

Ah, poor poster Catman.
You really must try to read stuff other than InfoWars or Breitbart, or listen to folks other than Bannon, Tucker, and Jim Hoff.
Really, you must..

Then you would know that the Committee has invited all of those mentioned to come before the Committee. Some of them were even issued subpoenas. So, though I ain't a lawyer I'm pretty sure Nancy Pelosi ain't refusing anybody who was issued a subpoena, or even invited to testify. That really doesn't sound like a 'refusal' to my non-lawyerly ear.

Catman, you are better than your postings. You should do a little more due diligence. Your avatar is making you look bad.

IMHO

Sure, and Pelosi did not hand pick her committee to come to the conclusion that she desired.

Perhaps it is you who should read more and due your own diligence on the subject.

BTW, have you noticed that the people are not watching this circus in any large number, or believing it to be a fair and balanced procedure? You continue to make yourself appear biased on the entire proceedings without any proof of what you claim?

 

[Catman51]

You can't cross examine tapes of phone calls or Trump's documents.

But you can cross examine the individuals the individuals involved and get the background of these phone calls and documents, unless you truly do not desire to do so.