January 6 Committee eviscerates Trump

[Catman51]

You are in a tizzy because I cite the documented reality, as acknowledged by the certified vote totals of every state, recounts, audits, - partisan Republican investigations included - and dozens of frivolous court challenges, the consistent corroborative testimonies of conservative Republicans under oath, and the inability of the Loser to pull even one nefarious Italian satellite out of his big, fat butt.

Not even death threats aimed at public servants by deranged weird worshipers altered the inescapable reality.

You still making up anytyhi9ng you want and try to pass them off as facts? Look up Texas.

 

[Catman51]

You are confused. William Barr, Michael Pence, Addison McConnell, and all the Trump toadies who acknowledged under oath that they assured the Loser that he had lost are not "democrats."

You are confused. The exposure of the Trump scam is far from over, and the official record, the final report of the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, a select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, is yet to be issued.

It is yet to be issued yet you insist that you know the outcome. Proof that you continue to lie.

 

[hunarcy]

All official congressional investigative committees issue final reports.

Whether the two Republican-run Senate investigative committees that confirmed the findings of the FBI, NSA, and CIA that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Trump and hurt Clinton, or the Republican-run House Benghazi investigation that spent more than $7.8 million over two and a half years, and did not sight, in its final report, any wrongdoing by then-secretary of State Hillary "Lock her up! Lock her up!" Clinton.

All the sworn testimonies by all the Republican officials will be featured in the final report.

View attachment 662130​

If the residue of Trump toadies, Trumpy politicians, and/or Trump propaganda media can contrive anything to discredit their corroborated first-person accounts, I'm sure they will not keep it secret.

Most official congressional investigative committees are not so partisan and one sided as the J6 committee has proven to be, so I'd say their "conclusions" were formed at the beginning and nothing that disagrees with them will be allowed into the record.

 

[Chillicothe]

Most official congressional investigative committees are not so partisan and one sided as the J6 committee has proven to be,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five Dems on the Committee. And 2 Republicans with extremely strong voting records for conservative issues and legislation are also on the Committee. Neither though, was considered a Trump sycophant or co-conspirator or suspect in the attack on Congress prior to the Committee selection.

More important than that make-up tho is the witness roster.

It is so very light on Democrats.

Virtually all witnesses have been Republicans. Many working directly for Don T. and/or the organizations he controlled. I'd like to see a more bi-partisan witness array....but, it is what it is. And, to be honest, these bigwig Republican election officials and Administration officials seem to know just what the hell they are talking about. Meaning, they are credible. And notably effective.

So maybe we don't really need a bi-partisan menu of witnesses after all? Maybe we can simply stick with Republican employees and staffers of Don T.?

After all, it is highly doubtful Don T. would allow a Democrat into his inner cohort of 'stop-the-steal' enablers, anyway. So, I suppose we are stuck with all these Republicans witnesses.

 

[Catman51]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five Dems on the Committee. And 2 Republicans with extremely strong voting records for conservative issues and legislation are also on the Committee. Neither though, was considered a Trump sycophant or co-conspirator or suspect in the attack on Congress prior to the Committee selection.

More important than that make-up tho is the witness roster.

It is so very light on Democrats.

Virtually all witnesses have been Republicans. Many working directly for Don T. and/or the organizations he controlled. I'd like to see a more bi-partisan witness array....but, it is what it is. And, to be honest, these bigwig Republican election officials and Administration officials seem to know just what the hell they are talking about. Meaning, they are credible. And notably effective.

So maybe we don't really need a bi-partisan menu of witnesses after all? Maybe we can simply stick with Republican employees and staffers of Don T.?

After all, it is highly doubtful Don T. would allow a Democrat into his inner cohort of 'stop-the-steal' enablers, anyway. So, I suppose we are stuck with all these Republicans witnesses.

Funny how only specific persons that are acceptable to the democrats are called, after what I am sure there was intimidation, are allowed to "testify" to extremely carefully crafted questions.

More proof that this is an inquisition and not a fact finding exercise. Only those that they already have crafted the answers for are allowed to speak. And note that there are continual delays while the democrats work on crafting further answers to their biased questions.

Sure, this is a nonpartisan committee, appointed by Pelosi and crafted to say as she desires. BS.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Funny how only specific persons that are acceptable to the democrats are called,.."

Well, my sense of humor is a bit different than the good poster Catman's, I suppose.
'Funny'.....won't quite fit my sensibilities; however, I am quite willing to concede that the 'acceptable persons' testifying before the Committee likely were acceptable because they possessed knowledge that was unique and germane to the topics of the investigation.
Now that's just me. Kinda how I think.
Catman, instead.....thinks that that is funny. (??)

OK, I guess. He can be whoever he wants to be.
But personally, I have never really found Bill Barr all that funny.
Nor what happened to that female Capitol officer who was savaged by the Trump mob all that humorous.
That too, is just how I roll.

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

"Only those that they already have crafted the answers for are allowed to speak."

Now, like Catman's noteworthy sense of humor demonstrated above.....this remark is also notable.

"Crafted answers"?

Testifying under oath by actual eye-witness participants in a meeting with Jeffery Clark and Don Trump requires "crafted" responses?
Really?

It sounded to my un-lawyerly ear like some earnest witnesses who were actually present in a really important meeting with really important people about a really important topic....in the friggin' Oval Office, no less..... relaying what their recollections (and their contemporaneous notes) told them they heard, and what they said.

Now that too may seem "funny" to poster Catman's sensibilities, but, I, for one, struggle to find his brand humor there.

You too?

 

[Catman51]

Well, my sense of humor is a bit different than the good poster Catman's, I suppose.
'Funny'.....won't quite fit my sensibilities; however, I am quite willing to concede that the 'acceptable persons' testifying before the Committee likely were acceptable because they possessed knowledge that was unique and germane to the topics of the investigation.
Now that's just me. Kinda how I think.
Catman, instead.....thinks that that is funny. (??)

OK, I guess. He can be whoever he wants to be.
But personally, I have never really found Bill Barr all that funny.
Nor what happened to that female Capitol officer who was savaged by the Trump mob all that humorous.
That too, is just how I roll.

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

Now, like Catman's noteworthy sense of humor demonstrated above.....this remark is also notable.

"Crafted answers"?

Testifying under oath by actual eye-witness participants in a meeting with Jeffery Clark and Don Trump requires "crafted" responses?
Really?

It sounded to my un-lawyerly ear like some earnest witnesses who were actually present in a really important meeting with really important people about a really important topic....in the friggin' Oval Office, no less..... relaying what their recollections (and their contemporaneous notes) told them they heard, and what they said.

Now that too may seem "funny" to poster Catman's sensibilities, but, I, for one, struggle to find his brand humor there.

You too?

You really are stupid, although you attempt to present yourself as intelligent (and failing) by purposely not comprehending the written word.

You admit, and reinforce that claim, that you are not a lawyer yet pretend to present legal comments.

Humor is not what I presented, and you know it. It seems that you "struggle" to understand anything that is not spoon fed to you by your mind masters. Which make all of your claims even more stupid. So that is what you are.

That a presenter of lies since you were not there and just continue to accept whatever yoou are told, never even considering that anything else could be true. But that is the way of weak minded democrats such as you.

 

[Chillicothe]

"It seems that you "struggle" to understand anything that is not spoon fed to you by your mind masters. Which make all of your claims even more stupid. So that is what you are."

OK, good to know.
I'll go over your observations with my mentor.
See if that helps in my karmic acceptance.

I love this bar.
We've got winners.
We've got ____________.

 

[Catman51]

OK, good to know.
I'll go over your observations with my mentor.
See if that helps in my karmic acceptance.

I love this bar.
We've got winners.
We've got ____________.

I rest my case as to what I said before. Another prime example of your stupidity.

 

[Chillicothe]

Another prime example of your stupidity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Catman, mon ami, maybe you need work on your anger issues?

But, on the other hand, maybe don't.

Maybe USMB can keep you from going postal.

So there is that.

Good luck. Try to be happy.

 

[Catman51]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Catman, mon ami, maybe you need work on your anger issues?

But, on the other hand, maybe don't.

Maybe USMB can keep you from going postal.

So there is that.

Good luck. Try to be happy.

You need to work on comi9ng up with actual insults instead of the drivel that you continually spout. Or at least try to be original, which you are not.

Is your stupidity inherited or does it originate with you?

Just remember, maybe write it down, for you to insult me I would have to respect you. I don't.

 

[horselightning]

if you want to see a real insurrection go look what liberals are doing to capital buildings in the us . Just so cause of their love of killing babies.

 

[Chillicothe]

"You need to work on comi9ng up with actual insults.....
Is your stupidity inherited......?
...... for you to insult me I would have to respect you."

----------------------------------------------------------

OK

 

[Catman51]

----------------------------------------------------------

OK

Elegant proof of your lack of intelligence.

 

[Independentthinker]

Jan 6. hearings day 2: Barr debunks Trump's election fraud claims

The House select committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the US Capitol is holding its second hearing of the month on Monday. Watch and follow live news updates here.

www.cnn.com

Today's hearing was a total and thorough take down of the biggest liar to ever try and steal an election. Attorney General Barr and many others threw daggers into Trump's claims of a "stolen election." Despite the best efforts of his Cult members, his efforts to steal the win from President Biden failed miserably, in the courts and the court of public opinion.

It's now up to Attorney General Garland to deal with Trump via an aggressive prosecution of his sedition efforts! Locking him up lets him off easy! Bigly!!!

Gee, I've been wondering all this time what the verdict would be from a kangaroo investigation that was all about getting Trump, run by nothing but anti-Trumpers.

 

[hunarcy]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five Dems on the Committee. And 2 Republicans with extremely strong voting records for conservative issues and legislation are also on the Committee. Neither though, was considered a Trump sycophant or co-conspirator or suspect in the attack on Congress prior to the Committee selection.

More important than that make-up tho is the witness roster.

It is so very light on Democrats.

Virtually all witnesses have been Republicans. Many working directly for Don T. and/or the organizations he controlled. I'd like to see a more bi-partisan witness array....but, it is what it is. And, to be honest, these bigwig Republican election officials and Administration officials seem to know just what the hell they are talking about. Meaning, they are credible. And notably effective.

So maybe we don't really need a bi-partisan menu of witnesses after all? Maybe we can simply stick with Republican employees and staffers of Don T.?

After all, it is highly doubtful Don T. would allow a Democrat into his inner cohort of 'stop-the-steal' enablers, anyway. So, I suppose we are stuck with all these Republicans witnesses.

Party identification is NOT the issue. Partisanship IS the issue. If an anti-Trump Democrat and a "Never Trump" Republican aren't in the same Party, but have the same viewpoint towards Trump the fact that they are not in the same Party does not mean they are different and will present a fair and balanced report that leads to the truth.

 

[Chillicothe]

"...the fact that they are not in the same Party does not mean they are different and will present a fair and balanced report that leads to the truth."

================================================================
Nor....does the fact that they are in different parties mean that the work they do and present to America is NOT fair and balanced and leading to the truth of what happened on January 6th, and who was responsible for it happening.

Of the five hearings you have watched and listened to-- which one impressed you as not being fair? After all, virtually all witnesses were Republicans under oath, and...under penalty of perjury if they are found to have lied. That seems to me to be a pretty powerful incentive to be truthful.

 

[hunarcy]

================================================================
Nor....does the fact that they are in different parties mean that the work they do and present to America is NOT fair and balanced and leading to the truth of what happened on January 6th, and who was responsible for it happening.

Of the five hearings you have watched and listened to-- which one impressed you as not being fair? After all, virtually all witnesses were Republicans under oath, and...under penalty of perjury if they are found to have lied. That seems to me to be a pretty powerful incentive to be truthful.

None of them have been fair. They have all presented ONE side of a story and present it as if it is fact that cannot be challenged. Kind of the same sort of hearings that Stalin allowed.

 

[Chillicothe]

"They have all presented ONE side of a story and present it as if it is fact that cannot be challenged. Kind of the same sort of hearings that Stalin allowed."

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


Well, I dunno much about Stalin or his trials. I'm old, but not that old. And...importantly, I'm American, not Russian.

So, as far as "ONE sided"....well, which side is that?
It appears to my eye to be the Republican side.
Very few Democrats, if any, have testified. We have witnesses who were, virtually every single one...a Republican.
So I guess the "ONE side" that has been presented is the GOP's side?

And too, if these Republican witnesses who have testified (under oath) tell us what they saw, heard, and experienced.....well, that seems compelling.

If anyone wishes to deny (under oath) what these witnesses have stated (and maybe get revenge by getting 'em nailed with a perjury charge) ... well, then they should do it.

Most important, they need be someone in a position to know something (ala' Don Trump, Peter Navarro, John Eastman, Jeff Clark, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, et al.).

Which begs the question: Why in hell ain't they raising their own hand to swear they will tell the truth?
Why ain't they rushing to swear they'll tell the truth in their sincere defense of Don Trump?

To talk like my priest and rabbi talk: Put your damn ass in that damn seat and tell the damn truth. Duh!
!

 

[Faun]

Party identification is NOT the issue. Partisanship IS the issue. If an anti-Trump Democrat and a "Never Trump" Republican aren't in the same Party, but have the same viewpoint towards Trump the fact that they are not in the same Party does not mean they are different and will present a fair and balanced report that leads to the truth.

It's still by bipartisan, meaning both parties are represented. Bipartisan is defined by 2 political parties working together; not who they like or don't like.