nauseus

I guess you mean my ex-post. Well just to clarify, my comment about Biden being worse than Trump was on their relative performances during their times in office (as presidents/leaders). I think that once it was plain that there was going to be no legal way to contest the election result, probably once Barr had said his piece, then Trump should have conceded - whether he still believed it was stolen or not - and just got on with getting ready to handover to Biden. The final two months of the Trump presidency were his worst by far and they will probably mean that he won't ever get the four more years he obviously wanted.

I say, thanks!

I might but could you start another thread for that?

Well I said you wouldn't believe me. But that's OK.

As your summary seems to mainly pertain to Trump berating NATO (actually some individual members), these members, particularly Germany, were indeed guilty of long-term under contribution relative to their GDP's and far less than their pledged commitments, which put even more burden on the USA. Trump reminded them of this but I don't think he really wanted the USA to quit NATO. Look what's happening now that Putin has attacked Ukraine - those that have not done so already, are increasing their military spending. NATO would have been far more capable already if all members had kept to the deal over time. Germany, by far the largest economy in Europe, will take years to be at the NATO member strength that it should be at today.

Since May. Way after Pelosi rejected him.

Pelosi controlled the committee picks.

Not the same principle at all. This hearing is not (or at least not supposed to be) on par with a criminal trial of bank robbers. Pelosi prejudges and that just squashes any chance of cooperation. Nothing back.

The link was not posted by me.

Why not print the whole link?

I was adding in from the link is all.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jun/08/legitimacy-jan-6-committee-explained/ From the GOP side, the main problem seems to be that Pelosi flat rejected Jordan and Banks as being "too closely tied to Trump" to help carry out a credible investigation". How can anyone expect to get any bipartisan cooperation when elected representatives are discounted like that? What about the rest of the proposed committee that have long histories of being overly anti Trump? What's wrong with having some balance? This partisan (Pelosi) action and the reasoning for it, revealed that this whole sham is about a virtual third Trump impeachment, more than anything to do with stopping future similar riots.

However, McCarthy differs from the committee in believing the coup attempt was never “plausible” and that “the system did work” in preventing the election being overturned, comments of which you can watch below.

Just look the "hearing" prime time viewing numbers.

Which is more than most of America seems to be doing. ????

And behold - both are happening.

I haven't excused anything. Just asked a question. Do you have the answer to it?

This story shows that there were plenty of warning signs before J6, even Cheyney said that. The mock gallows and at least one pipe bomb assembly was found near the Capitol a day before (J5). It's no surprise that Trump is highlighted by this committee but other aspects need to be considered too, if a repeat of this event is to be avoided. In particular one important question should be asked as: given existing intelligence and the associated pre-warnings, why was the National Guard or other extra security not organized and present at the Capitol on January 6th to support and assist the police in case of crowd violence? I'd like to know the real truth of that, whatever the answer is.

Where did you hear that then?

Truly bipartisan hearings can and normally do include cross-examinations. But this one is not at all bipartisan or normal.

But apparently even more heinous in the eyes of some attendees is that Crenshaw rejected former President Donald Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen. One man wearing a red "Make America Great Again" hat can be seen yelling in an online video, "Dan Crenshaw is a traitor!" and "He needs to be hung for treason!"" Apparently.....some attendees....one man.

Oopsy! https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61859881

The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress. Not rebuffed from the White House though.

There are already technologies like carbon capture but they are rather limited in capacity and success right now.

So few samples for an internet-based survey and if 66% of the samples were not following the hearings closely, how can they have a considered opinion?