nauseus

Forensic experts? Right.

Who convicted them? It wasn't Bernie's kangaroo court was it?

With?

Not much there is there? It's OK, we're used to that!

Well the largest prosecution in the history of the US went pfut. Waste of air time when we could have had more Simpsons.

Silly play. I'm not in court contesting anything, although I saw the J6 hearing as totally biased but that is my opinion. The system is OK if not abused.

I can find a total of 8 Proud Boys or Oath Keepers in prison for seditious conspiracy. Others jailed for different offences.

I am getting bored but I'll give you three that Pelosi should know about: 1) Exactly what intelligence of any security threat to the Capitol was received prior to J6 and, if there was, who was responsible for sharing this information, was it shared and with whom? 2) Were any requests for additional security for the Capitol were made prior to J6 by anyone, and if so, who, and what action was taken by any party? 3) Why did you ask for Chief Sund's resignation? I don't expect that Pelosi will ever formally testify and answers to these questions might only partly exonerate Trump. But they could help fill a few gaps, which were ignored by the J6 circus act. They certainly might explain how the Capitol was so easily breeched.

Well please don't include words in a way that implies that i said them. Nancy might have drawn new light onto the whole J6 issue by answering a few tough questions honestly.

The reason the current House is not holding hearings on January 6 any more is because the Democrats just wasted 18 months already. Plus the Republicans have their own investigations to run.

You misquoted me - I didn't say "multiple" I said other witnesses who might have had a different point of view. In any case no defense was allowed at this sham of a hearing. But I guess you agree that the committee was rather slanted. Any further questions, send a postcard to Nancy Pelosi, who could have been one of the most interesting witnesses herself.

You post this and accuse me of poor language skills?

Pending, probable, piffle.

No, I mean selection of the committee itself and other witnesses who might have had a different point of view that were ignored. This was a hearing without any defense allowed.

Selection!!

The selection of the committee and witnesses was biased.

I suppose that's about as detailed as you can manage.

There you go again.

Well you believe wrong ..... but you can get away with quite a lot using bad English language.

Up to you then to detail what this bs is. Carry on.

And all you do is constantly change the subject. On the different subject of Trump's behaviour on J6, then do I think that he should have tried to personally intervene to stop to the rioting and clear the Capitol but that was probably not that easy to do once the breech had been made and there was loud confusion everywhere. BTW using that hopelessly biased J6 Committee testimony won't help your cause.

That's a very sad post. Get well soon.

You can try making it up as you go along but all that does is make you look thicker.

I was responding to an opinion, which I don't agree with. The ignorance is all yours.

What the most important thing "he" said is, is a matter of opinion and, of course, mine is different. "Widely known and supported" is not proof of anything. Your error is in not understanding, then mixing and confusing words. I said that I can't check the text of the book but the third party precis is liable to be erroneous, at the very least. I think we all know Trump et al complained about the 2020 election. What's new?