January 6 Hearings Live

[ZiprHead]

 

[Patooka]

Yes please. Seriously, who the fuck are Trump's lawyers? I could do a better job defending him and I would actively try to sink him.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes please. Seriously, who the fuck are Trump's lawyers? I could do a better job defending him and I would actively try to sink him.

He has a stunt planned. Let's just watch him host a "rally" nearby before he heads over...

If I was the FBI I would be watching him and the movements of the Oath Keepers very closely.

He will call it a sham and make a scene and get himself arrested for Contempt of Congress, crowing like Oleg has about "they're all against me!"

 

[Ford]

Unanimous vote for testimony and docs... neither of which I think will ever happen.

Not if the House flips this November.

So it's not about the truth?

When there is no cross examination; no difference of viewpoint of the members of this committee; the opposition party denied its choice of members: You think this is about truth? LOL.

So what is the truth? That it was just a bunch of misguided tourists? Antifa plants? Aliens stormed the capitol and made it look like it was Trump supporters?

And how do you square the emails, text messages, testimony from people who were there, and even janky spreadsheets laying out the plan to throw the election to Trump?

I'd love to hear your hot take and back it up with proof.

How can you see this is about truth when the opposition has been shut out? Without cross examination? These hearings are just carefully curated narratives. The purpose is to fillate the Dem base, but nothing more.

58 percent say Jan. 6 House committee is biased: poll

A majority of voters say they believe the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is biased, according to a new Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey. Fifty-eight perce…

thehill.com

Of course, most people are simply not interested, what, with Biden inflation and crime.

So you've got nothing. Thanks for playing. Enjoy the show.

Yes, this is all a show. At least you admit that.

I bet you think the documents recovered from Mar A Lago were just recipes and love letters between Don and Melania?

 

[steve_bank]

I see, it is all jus a misunderstanding. No harm no foul. No there there. Fake news. All lies. Yes, now I see it.

What are the odds he actually sits down for the cpmittee.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If Trump refuses to honor a subpeona, he can accompany Steve Bannon to a Federal Penitentory.

 

[Ford]

I see, it is all jus a misunderstanding. No harm no foul. No there there. Fake news. All lies. Yes, now I see it.

What are the odds he actually sits down for the cpmittee.

He'll delay, delay, delay, then when compelled to appear plead the 5th 400 times.

Just like a totally innocent person would.

 

[Arctish]

Unanimous vote for testimony and docs... neither of which I think will ever happen.

Not if the House flips this November.

So it's not about the truth?

When there is no cross examination; no difference of viewpoint of the members of this committee; the opposition party denied its choice of members: You think this is about truth? LOL.

This is such an interesting response.

There is no cross examination because this is an investigation, not a trial.

The viewpoints of the members of the committee don't change the facts of the matter being investigated.

The opposition party (Trump allied Republicans) did not get their choice of members, therefore what? They will storm the Capitol again to prevent Congress from doing it's Constitutional duty to investigate an attempt to prevent Congress from doing it's Constitutionally mandated duty? Or will they simply refuse to accept any testimony from the witnesses because they weren't the ones who asked for it?

 

[Ford]

Unanimous vote for testimony and docs... neither of which I think will ever happen.

Not if the House flips this November.

So it's not about the truth?

When there is no cross examination; no difference of viewpoint of the members of this committee; the opposition party denied its choice of members: You think this is about truth? LOL.

This is such an interesting response.

Oleg is not arguing in good faith.

 

[Arctish]

Unanimous vote for testimony and docs... neither of which I think will ever happen.

Not if the House flips this November.

So it's not about the truth?

When there is no cross examination; no difference of viewpoint of the members of this committee; the opposition party denied its choice of members: You think this is about truth? LOL.

This is such an interesting response.

Oleg is not arguing in good faith.

I'm hearing an echo of the Trumpers' refusal to accept the vote count in Oleg's post.

They didn't get to pick the voters and they didn't get to pick which ballots to accept, therefore they refuse to accept the results.

McCarthy didn't get to put members of the House of Representatives who voted against certifying the results of the election on the panel investigating the scheme to prevent the results of the election being certified by members of the House of Representatives. It's like complaining that G. Gordon Liddy wasn't on the panel investigating the Nixon Administration's involvement with the Watergate break-in.

 

[Ford]

Unanimous vote for testimony and docs... neither of which I think will ever happen.

Not if the House flips this November.

So it's not about the truth?

When there is no cross examination; no difference of viewpoint of the members of this committee; the opposition party denied its choice of members: You think this is about truth? LOL.

This is such an interesting response.

Oleg is not arguing in good faith.

I'm hearing an echo of the Trumpers' refusal to accept the vote count in Oleg's post.

They didn't get to pick the voters and they didn't get to pick which ballots to accept, therefore they refuse to accept the results.

McCarthy didn't get to put members of the House of Representatives who voted against certifying the results of the election on the panel investigating the scheme to prevent the results of the election being certified by members of the House of Representatives. It's like complaining that G. Gordon Liddy wasn't on the panel investigating the Nixon Administration's involvement with the Watergate break-in.

I've put "Oleg" on ignore. It's a waste of time engaging. He's just here to be contrarian/start shit.

As for McCarthy, he's one of those "leaders" of the GOP who knows damned well the entire "stop the steal" thing is bullshit, but saw on January 6th that - among other things - the MAGA crowd cannot be reasoned with, they will resort to violence, and telling them "no, seriously, we've looked into it and there was no fraud...get over it" is the right thing to do in the long term re: the future/health of their party, but it is politically expedient in the short term to placate them and play the "well there certainly were irregularities" card rather than being honest.

It's like a doctor with a stage IV cancer patient who knows their "colloidal silver" treatment they "did their research" on is a literal dead end, and can give a regimen of treatment that will give them a decent chance of survival, but the patient and their family members said "if you tell us about chemotherapy or some other shit, we'll come to your house and kill you."

Oleg is the person who never met the patient, never met the doctor, knows nothing about cancer, but for some reason has decided to be an "ally" in the "fight" against "big cancer research" "for the lulz" and created an entire user profile in order to stink up this corner of the internets. It's Sofa King frustrating.

 

[ZiprHead]

Unanimous vote for testimony and docs... neither of which I think will ever happen.

Not if the House flips this November.

So it's not about the truth?

When there is no cross examination; no difference of viewpoint of the members of this committee; the opposition party denied its choice of members: You think this is about truth? LOL.

This is such an interesting response.

Oleg is not arguing in good faith.

I'm hearing an echo of the Trumpers' refusal to accept the vote count in Oleg's post.

They didn't get to pick the voters and they didn't get to pick which ballots to accept, therefore they refuse to accept the results.

McCarthy didn't get to put members of the House of Representatives who voted against certifying the results of the election on the panel investigating the scheme to prevent the results of the election being certified by members of the House of Representatives. It's like complaining that G. Gordon Liddy wasn't on the panel investigating the Nixon Administration's involvement with the Watergate break-in.

This is true. And there were other Trump supporting Republicans that were acceptable to the committee. McCarthy refused to seat them. That was his mistake. As lawyers say, if you can get a seat at the table, take it.

 

[James Brown]

"Heads, I win. Tails, you cheated."

 

[Elixir]

So it's not about the truth?

When there is no cross examination; no difference of viewpoint of the members of this committee; the opposition party* denied its choice of members: You think this is about truth? LOL.

Yes, it is about truth. Not one single fascist Republican has yet ventured forth to contest ANY of the FACTS laid out by the BI-PARTISAN committee. When called, they plead the fifth.
All they can do is set the example for you to follow: whine loudly, so the uninformed, the stupid and the dishonest can complain about this not being "about the truth".
Have at it, sonny. Show us your facts.

* The "opposition party" is the defendant in this case dude. The Party of Trump is, as has been shown, a criminal enterprise. It doesn't get to judge its own behavior. It is free to present any facts it can come up with, but not to make shit up and try to derail the process of finding out "about the truth", which is all they have tried to do since this thing began.

I've put "Oleg" on ignore. It's a waste of time engaging. He's just here to be contrarian/start shit.

QFT. There's already enough stupidity and ignorance to go around.

 

[Swammerdami]

When there is no cross examination; no difference of viewpoint of the members of this committee; the opposition party denied its choice of members: You think this is about truth? LOL.

I can't be bothered to check whether Mr. Oleg is informed by anything other than right-wing lies, or if he even exhibits signs of sentience.
Is he aware that most of the witnesses called have been REPUBLICANS who, at least for a while, were SUPPORTERS of Donald Trump?

The committee members proposed by the "opposition" — (opposition to what? democracy?) — included Jim Jordan, Troy Nehls and Jim Banks. These are all supporters of the Stop the Steal lies, and in the Josh Hawley mold. (Recall that Hawley is the Senator who called for the insurrectionists to attack the Capitol, then ran away in cowardice when they did as he asked.)

Putting Jordan, Banks or Nehls on the Committee would be like placing Joachim von Ribbentrop or Hermann Göring as judges on the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.

 

[Toni]

Unanimous vote for testimony and docs... neither of which I think will ever happen.

Not if the House flips this November.

So it's not about the truth?

When there is no cross examination; no difference of viewpoint of the members of this committee; the opposition party denied its choice of members: You think this is about truth? LOL.

You think this is a trial? LOL. Don't worry, hopefully you'll get your wish.

A kangaroo court, yes. It's just about politics.

There was no trial. I agree that for the most of the GOP, it IS all about politics and power and not about laws or the US Constitution, or insurrection, treason, anarchy or truth.

 

[Elixir]

most of the witnesses called have been REPUBLICANS who, at least for a while, were SUPPORTERS of Donald Trump?

The committee members proposed by the "opposition" — (opposition to what? democracy?)

i think you nailed it. Ollie is opposed to democracy, and wants HIS POV to be represented by the 1/6 Committee.
It must be frustrating indeed to not have Jim Jordan’s fantasy villains front and center in the conversation.

 

[laughing dog]

Unanimous vote for testimony and docs... neither of which I think will ever happen.

Not if the House flips this November.

So it's not about the truth?

When there is no cross examination; no difference of viewpoint of the members of this committee; the opposition party denied its choice of members: You think this is about truth? LOL.

You think this is a trial? LOL. Don't worry, hopefully you'll get your wish.

A kangaroo court, yes. It's just about politics.

No, it is about getting an accurate historical accounting of the riot/insurrection. Since insurrections are politics, it is redundant to say "it is just about politics".

 

[Oleg]

Unanimous vote for testimony and docs... neither of which I think will ever happen.

Not if the House flips this November.

So it's not about the truth?

When there is no cross examination; no difference of viewpoint of the members of this committee; the opposition party denied its choice of members: You think this is about truth? LOL.

You think this is a trial? LOL. Don't worry, hopefully you'll get your wish.

A kangaroo court, yes. It's just about politics.

No, it is about getting an accurate historical accounting of the riot/insurrection. Since insurrections are politics, it is redundant to say "it is just about politics".

"Accurate" historial accounting? Without cross-examination and the opposition party shut out from questioning and calling witnesses? You gotta be shittin me, Pyle.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oleg: in the thread complaining that criminals can't pick the people who investigate them.