Jan. 6 committee says probe shows Trump led and directed effort to overturn 2020 election

[bocaBob]

18 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Trump is a lying, racist, corrupt conman.

And, is that proof of what; sedition, insurrection?

Many politicians (and others) of late can be painted with that description.

Edited June 14, 2022 by bocaBob

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, bocaBob said:

If the evidence can support criminal charges and conviction as claimed then indict! Why all this useless waste of time theater, other than to beat up Trump some more. Charge him....get on with it! Quit wasting everyone's time.

 

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/12/jan-6-committee-indict-trump?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_content=politics-jan6panel

Patience, all in good time, they've not finished reporting all their findings yet. Are you not entertained? I find it quite interesting although some very disturbing revelations such as on being aware of the rioters' chants to 'hang Mike Pence,' Trump responded with this sentiment: 'Maybe our supporters have the right idea

[Scott]

Posts citing unapproved sources have been removed.   Continued trolling and off-topic deflections will earn suspensions.

 

[bocaBob]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Maybe our supporters have the right idea

What crime would this constitute? In bad taste, indubitably, but no crime here. U should worry more about what Trump does, and less about what he says or his mean tweets and comments or you will be left far behind in the dust trying to keep up.

[Captain Monday]

This is so obvious. All the little fish have been fried* As for the big fish? The big fish are untouchable. The US Justice Deprtment will NOT prosecute Trump for serious crimes as it would call the whole system into question and thus "damage US credibility, The fix is in no matter what he will never spend a night in jail. A few proud boys (Brownshirts in Fred Perry polos) and so-called oathkeepers (armed white supremacist militants) will be convicted of sedition. Their convictions will later be OVERTURNED by the  hand groomed SCOTUS.. They are not jurists, they are simply political operatives of the GOP. Then even if the cases are not yet appealed the insurgents would be pardoned by the next president. That will  be Donald Trump himself or someone worse. Pointless.

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Captain Monday

[Scott]

Posts removed.  Continue and face a suspension.  

 

Newsmax is not a credible source:

 

[Bkk Brian]

12 minutes ago, bocaBob said:

What crime would this constitute? In bad taste, indubitably, but no crime here. U should worry more about what Trump does, and less about what he says or his mean tweets and comments or you will be left far behind in the dust trying to keep up.

The mob see's him as their leader the proud boys were even reading trumps tweets on a loud speaker, they were out for Pence, think about it a little.

 

Trump was aware Pence was in danger before he sent the tweets. 

 

Trump expressing support for hanging pence could well be considered incitement to riot at the very least. Although the tweets read at the rally certainly were.

 

Every Capitol Rioter Who Has Said Donald Trump Incited Them

 

By the way, please don't edit my posts in future and take them out of context

Edited June 14, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, bocaBob said:

At this point it appears that this committee is doing it's level best to attack Trump's character and not present evidence of seditious intent so far however this committee is focused on criminal charges for whatever they can tweak out from AG.

How can you say they are focused on charges but not seditious intent? The charges aren't for jaywalking. They are very much focused on intent, much of the evidence produced is designed to show that he had been expertly advised on numerous occasions that the election was not rigged. Practically the first thing they showed was Bill Barr claiming to have advised Trump that there was no evidence of fraud.

Edited June 14, 2022 by ozimoron

[KanchanaburiGuy]

10 minutes ago, bocaBob said:

How about the fake Russia collusion scandal: should the now known perpetrators be held to account, face criminal charges for their treasonous attempt at remove a sitting president?

If the answer to your question is "yes," will you then accept that what's happening to Trump is a valid pursuit? 

 

See, by bringing up the totally unrelated "russion collusion" fraud/conspiracy.......... quote, unquote......... you're really trying to make the argument that Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right:

 

No one should be pursuing Trump........ because......... no one has gone after these people for those things. 

 

That's what you're implying, aren't you? 

 

Cuz it really doesn't feel like your making a sincere argument............ 

 

"Great, we're cleaning up this Trump mess! Now, let's go after that OTHER mess!" 

 

No, it feels a lot more like you're saying you think they shouldn't go after Trump......... because......... they've never gone after "russian collusion conspirators." 

 

Or, in other words......... Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right. 

 

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

 

If someone has done something wrong.......... 

 

* Going after one because you've gone after another......... is an ethical position. 

 

* NOT going after one because you DIDN'T go after another...... IS NOT! 

 

What's the difference?

 

That's explained in the opening sentence......... "If someone has done something wrong.......!" 

 

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

 

Trump has clearly done a number of things wrong. He should face consequences for that. 

 

If Hillary, et al., did something wrong, they should face consequences for that. 

 

Simple, huh? 

 

But neither has anything to do with the other. They shouldn't be lumped together as if they did. 

 

When talking about Trump, the 2020 election, and the events surrounding Jan 6th ......... there's literally no reason to bring up the "Russian collusion conspiracy." The two things are completely unrelated. 

 

Cheers! 

[Phoenix Rising]

13 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Popular Vote means nothing. Our president is elected by thoroughly anti-democratic means: The Electoral College. 

 

Popular Vote defines whether a President has a mandate........... but it doesn't determine who becomes President. In roughly 10% of our Presidential Elections, the person who got fewer votes........... became President........... including two of the last three, before Biden. 

 

Fewer than 90,000 votes spread among three States determined the 2016 election...........because of the Electoral College system. Meanwhile, Hillary had "won" by 2.9 million votes.

 

If I recall, if 0.007% of the population had lived some place else.......... Hillary would have won!

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

"Popular Vote means nothing. Our president is elected by thoroughly anti-democratic means: The Electoral College."

 

We finally agree on something - amazing!!

[bocaBob]

29 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

How can you say they are focused on charges but not seditious intent?

I get the sense that this committee's objective include the expectation of the AG to act, to file criminal charges should the evidence show Trump's intent and also the goal of winning what is likely an unwinnable midterm election in November. What else do the dems have as an election strategy, what is their message to voters, how great the economy is, low crime ?? How do you convince the voters to vote for this party now. You get the picture?

"It is an uphill battle at a time when polls show that voters’ attention is focused elsewhere, including on inflation, rising coronavirus cases and record-high gas prices. But Democrats argue the hearings will give them a platform for making a broader case about why they deserve to stay in power."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/us/politics/jan-6-hearings-tv-democrats.html

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, bocaBob said:

I get the sense that this committee's objective include the expectation of the AG to act, to file criminal charges should the evidence show Trump's intent and also the goal of winning what is likely an unwinnable midterm election in November. What else do the dems have as an election strategy, what is their message to voters, how great the economy is, low crime ?? How do you convince the voters to vote for this party now. You get the picture?

"It is an uphill battle at a time when polls show that voters’ attention is focused elsewhere, including on inflation, rising coronavirus cases and record-high gas prices. But Democrats argue the hearings will give them a platform for making a broader case about why they deserve to stay in power."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/us/politics/jan-6-hearings-tv-democrats.html

 

this is a reasonable expectation given the overwhelming evidence of a seditious conspiracy that has been uncovered. You're just using GOP talking points about political bias to deflect from the evidence itself.

[Phoenix Rising]

5 hours ago, Kenneth White said:

I am not your aid. It only takes a little common sense and looking beyond the surface (lamestream media) to see the 2020 election was stolen.

What a few would describe as common sense most would call living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. For anyone to believe that the evil Dems stole the election and did so in such a way that no amount of GOP investigation into the matter (and there have been hundreds, if not thousands) can produce any evidence that holds up in court (a court often led by a Republican and even trump appointed judge) is mind-boggling. And have you asked yourself if the Dems are that clever why on earth didn't they arrange to have a majority in the senate??

 

My sincere advice to you; get help!

 

[bocaBob]

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

this is a reasonable expectation given the overwhelming evidence of a seditious conspiracy that has been uncovered.

Well, ok. Nobody has been charged with the fake Russian hoax and, maybe Trump gets a walk too, remains to be seen. The thing is unless they nail Trump he could be president again in 2025 being the biggest fear in any dems soul. Where is the justice in any of this, politicians committing egregious acts never to be accountable; well there isn't any. I am not here to lay down talking points and deflect, don't have a need for that. The "GOP talking points" in the attached NY Times article I previously submitted here are democratic talking points. I'll leave it with you to sort out.

Edited June 14, 2022 by bocaBob

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, bocaBob said:

Well, ok. Nobody has been charged with the fake Russian hoax and, maybe Trump gets a walk too, remains to be seen. The thing is unless they nail Trump he could be president again in 2025 being the biggest fear in any dems soul. Where is the justice in any of this, politicians committing egregious acts never to be accountable; well there isn't any. I am not here to lay down talking points and deflect, don't have a need for that. The "GOP talking points" in the attached NY Times article I previously submitted here are democratic talking points. I'll leave it with you to sort out.

First off, quit the nonsense about the "fake Russian hoax". It was a Senate Committee, headed by Republicans, that issued a report that said there was good evidence of a collusion between Russia and Trump's campaign committee. It specifically cited Paul Manafort

Second, the Mueller report stated that there were very clear grounds for obstruction of justice. (But the Justice Dept.'s official position is that sitting Presidents can't be prosecuted. Which is why the Mueller report suggest a different venue for adjudicating whether or not Trump as guilty of obstruction)  For instance, Trump not ruling out pardons for people suspected of colluding with the Russians. Like Paul Manafort for instance. And, oddly enough, Trump actually did pardon Manafort and others who could have knowledge of said collusion. No President has ever coming close to the extent of abusing the power to pardon in the self-interested way Trump did.

Edited June 14, 2022 by placeholder

[Berkshire]

2 hours ago, Phoenix Rising said:

What a few would describe as common sense most would call living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. For anyone to believe that the evil Dems stole the election and did so in such a way that no amount of GOP investigation into the matter (and there have been hundreds, if not thousands) can produce any evidence that holds up in court (a court often led by a Republican and even trump appointed judge) is mind-boggling. And have you asked yourself if the Dems are that clever why on earth didn't they arrange to have a majority in the senate??

 

My sincere advice to you; get help!

 

It does boggle my mind that some people can still believe in the 2020 election fraud lie.  For the reasons you stated, these "Dems" or whoever must be absolute geniuses to manage to pull this off with no trail or evidence.  And they managed to disguise in such a way that Republicans down ballot still won in states that Trump lost.  The way they did it, in multiple states each with varied election laws.....masterful!  And all this while the Trump administration was still in charge of the federal government.  Who are these people??  

Edited June 14, 2022 by Berkshire

[Jingthing]

10 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

It does boggle my mind that some people can still believe in the 2020 election fraud lie.  For the reasons you stated, these "Dems" or whoever must be absolute geniuses to manage to pull this off with no trail or evidence.  And they managed to disguise in such a way that Republicans down ballot still won in states that Trump lost.  The way they did it, in multiple states each with varied election laws.....masterful!  And all this while the Trump administration was still in charge of the federal government.  Who are these people??  

The overwhelming majority of republicans believe the big lie. That's why the republican party now represents autocracy not democracy..

[Lacessit]

4 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Patience, all in good time, they've not finished reporting all their findings yet. Are you not entertained? I find it quite interesting although some very disturbing revelations such as on being aware of the rioters' chants to 'hang Mike Pence,' Trump responded with this sentiment: 'Maybe our supporters have the right idea

IIRC, Trump also said Pence deserves it. Or "he deserves it", take your pick.

Posters that try to shrug off these incitements as just another tweet or comment from Trump IMO are so dense light must bend around them.

[Phoenix Rising]

59 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The overwhelming majority of republicans believe the big lie. That's why the republican party now represents autocracy not democracy..

Spot on. Mainly due to white angst the US has never been in greater peril.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

The overwhelming majority of republicans believe the big lie. That's why the republican party now represents autocracy not democracy..

"Everyone who lives in objective reality understands that Donald Trump did not win the 2020 presidential election. ... His claim that the election was rigged has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials, and rejected by judges in both state and federal courts in more than 70 lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies. Trump’s own Justice Department as well as his former attorney general, William Barr, found no evidence of widespread fraud."

"Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, two-thirds of GOP voters and just over one-third of all voters, now believe the 2020 election was stolen."   https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3263802-why-do-so-many-still-believe-the-2020-election-was-stolen/

 

The rest of the article is worth reading.  It attempts to answer the question of why people believe Trump's lies instead of the evidence that Trump is lying.  Unfortunately it doesn't completely succeed.

 

I remember a "Non-Sequitur" comic strip that ended with "Stupidity is a condition, ignorance is a choice."  I have reluctantly concluded that sometimes people choose to be stupid.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

I remember a "Non-Sequitur" comic strip that ended with "Stupidity is a condition, ignorance is a choice."  I have reluctantly concluded that sometimes people choose to be stupid.

Trump has succeeded in polarizing Americans on racial lines, that is why his supporters choose his rhetoric over harmony.

I have been to America many times, and I can honestly say the only other society I have seen that has such a depth of racial hatred was South Africa, during the apartheid era.

[newnative]

40 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"Everyone who lives in objective reality understands that Donald Trump did not win the 2020 presidential election. ... His claim that the election was rigged has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials, and rejected by judges in both state and federal courts in more than 70 lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies. Trump’s own Justice Department as well as his former attorney general, William Barr, found no evidence of widespread fraud."

"Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, two-thirds of GOP voters and just over one-third of all voters, now believe the 2020 election was stolen."   https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3263802-why-do-so-many-still-believe-the-2020-election-was-stolen/

 

The rest of the article is worth reading.  It attempts to answer the question of why people believe Trump's lies instead of the evidence that Trump is lying.  Unfortunately it doesn't completely succeed.

 

I remember a "Non-Sequitur" comic strip that ended with "Stupidity is a condition, ignorance is a choice."  I have reluctantly concluded that sometimes people choose to be stupid.

     As an American, this is what I find the most depressing of the whole thing--those two incomprehensible, to me, figures of two-thirds Republicans believing the Big Lie and, even more shocking to me, apparently one-third of all voters also falling for Trump's outrageous, ludicrous Big Lie.   Sad that someone like sleazy, grifter Trump can seize on the Big Lie propaganda strategy of the Nazis and have it still maddeningly work so well in the 21st century.  And, sad to see too many examples of it working in the 11 pages of this tread.  Depressing.

    

 

[onthedarkside]

An unsourced misinformation post has been removed.

 

[Lacessit]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think we have President Obama to thank for the huge increase in racial animosity in recent years. 

 

Most of the hate in the US comes from the left, not the right. 

I guess that's why groups such as the KKK, Proud Boys and Oath Keepers don't exist in your thinking. They all seem to favor owning "protective" weapons, a euphemism for assault rifles designed to kill as many people as possible.

IIRC the FBI has designated white supremacists as the #1 terrorist threat in America. Is the FBI staffed by leftists?

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I guess that's why groups such as the KKK, Proud Boys and Oath Keepers don't exist in your thinking.

I know they exist, what does this have to do with what I said? 

 

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

They all seem to favor owning "protective" weapons, a euphemism for assault rifles designed to kill as many people as possible.

How many have they killed lately?

 

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IIRC the FBI has designated white supremacists as the #1 terrorist threat in America. Is the FBI staffed by leftists?

Yes

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I know they exist, what does this have to do with what I said? 

 

How many have they killed lately?

 

Yes

They are racist groups, you were talking about where the racism comes from. Permit me to doubt Obama was promoting division, that's Trump's specialty.

 

More than the BLM organisation,  Rittenhouse, the shooter that targeted Muslims, George Floyd ring any bells?

 

Your last assertion - do you have a link to credible information that gives the voting pattern of every FBI agent? You know, data and statistics, not a Sean Hannity opinion.

 

Of course, people like you consider Democrats as leftists. Which is laughable, Australians think of US Democrats as being somewhere right of centre.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

28 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I guess that's why groups such as the KKK, Proud Boys and Oath Keepers don't exist in your thinking. They all seem to favor owning "protective" weapons, a euphemism for assault rifles designed to kill as many people as possible.

IIRC the FBI has designated white supremacists as the #1 terrorist threat in America. Is the FBI staffed by leftists?

Lol

 

Pop quiz........ 

 

If you are buying a weapon you intend to use for protection, should that ever become necessary, you'd choose......... 

 

A) A 5 or 6 shot revolver? 

 

B) A 9 to 16 shot Glock-type hand gun? 

 

C) A single shot bolt-action rifle? 

 

Or........ 

 

D) A weapon that can quickly "kill as many people as possible?" 

 

Remember, these guys are not aiming to just protect themselves against a robber breaking a window. But they want to be able to do that, TOO!

 

They want to be able to protect themselves against a mass of people intent on doing them harm-----a group, a crowd, a riot, an invasion. 

 

Sound silly? 

 

Well, it sounds silly until you realize that that's exactly what THEY are..........or at least could be............

 

A unified, organized, medium to large group of people who are prepared to work together as a unit! 

 

They fear such a possibility........... because they themselves ARE such a possibility!

 

(And that means theirs is a reasonable fear, not an unreasonable one!) 

 

OF COURSE these groups choose deadlier weapons!

 

Finding yourself under-equipped and over-matched in the kind of scenarios they imagine could happen.......... could prove to be a fatal mistake. Literally! 

 

So, which do YOU choose...... 

 

A, B, C or D, eh? 

 

Cheers! 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Lol

 

Pop quiz........ 

 

If you are buying a weapon you intend to use for protection, should that ever become necessary, you'd choose......... 

 

A) A 5 or 6 shot revolver? 

 

B) A 9 to 16 shot Glock-type hand gun? 

 

C) A single shot bolt-action rifle? 

 

Or........ 

 

D) A weapon that can quickly "kill as many people as possible?" 

 

Remember, these guys are not aiming to just protect themselves against a robber breaking a window. But they want to be able to do that, TOO!

 

They want to be able to protect themselves against a mass of people intent on doing them harm-----a group, a crowd, a riot, an invasion. 

 

Sound silly? 

 

Well, it sounds silly until you realize that that's exactly what THEY are..........or at least could be............

 

A unified, organized, medium to large group of people who are prepared to work together as a unit! 

 

They fear such a possibility........... because they themselves ARE such a possibility!

 

(And that means theirs is a reasonable fear, not an unreasonable one!) 

 

OF COURSE these groups choose deadlier weapons!

 

Finding yourself under-equipped and over-matched in the kind of scenarios they imagine could happen.......... could prove to be a fatal mistake. Literally! 

 

So, which do YOU choose...... 

 

A, B, C or D, eh? 

 

Cheers! 

I don't make any of the choices you present, because the data and statistics say a homeowner with any of those weapons is far more likely to commit suicide, have one of their children shoot themselves, or be shot by an intruder. OTOH, unarmed householders are more likely to survive a home intrusion, because intruders don't want to kill them, just rob them.

I do choose not to live in a society where the ownership of a 16-shot Glock or a weapon capable of mass slaughter is regarded as normal, that goes beyond silly into insane.

The justification you posted would be hilarious if it was not as mad as a cut snake.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Lol

 

Pop quiz........ 

 

If you are buying a weapon you intend to use for protection, should that ever become necessary, you'd choose......... 

 

A) A 5 or 6 shot revolver? 

 

B) A 9 to 16 shot Glock-type hand gun? 

 

C) A single shot bolt-action rifle? 

 

Or........ 

 

D) A weapon that can quickly "kill as many people as possible?" 

 

Remember, these guys are not aiming to just protect themselves against a robber breaking a window. But they want to be able to do that, TOO!

 

They want to be able to protect themselves against a mass of people intent on doing them harm-----a group, a crowd, a riot, an invasion. 

 

Sound silly? 

 

Well, it sounds silly until you realize that that's exactly what THEY are..........or at least could be............

 

A unified, organized, medium to large group of people who are prepared to work together as a unit! 

 

They fear such a possibility........... because they themselves ARE such a possibility!

 

(And that means theirs is a reasonable fear, not an unreasonable one!) 

 

OF COURSE these groups choose deadlier weapons!

 

Finding yourself under-equipped and over-matched in the kind of scenarios they imagine could happen.......... could prove to be a fatal mistake. Literally! 

 

So, which do YOU choose...... 

 

A, B, C or D, eh? 

 

Cheers! 

People who want high capacity weapons want to be able to fire many bullets in a general direction and hope for maximum carnage.  People like that shouldn't have any kind of weapon, especially in an urban area.

 

To answer your question, if I felt the need for a lethal self-defense weapon in an urban setting I would go for a large caliber handgun with hollow point bullets.  That would give me a lot of stopping power but less penetrating power, so less potential for collateral damage.

 

People who feel they must have a weapon capable of great slaughter but who can't aim should seek mental help.  However if they chose to arm themselves with a slaughter weapon that requires no great accuracy they should get a shotgun.  It does terrible damage up close but at least wild shots won't kill people far away.

[candide]

54 minutes ago, heybruce said:

People who want high capacity weapons want to be able to fire many bullets in a general direction and hope for maximum carnage.  People like that shouldn't have any kind of weapon, especially in an urban area.

 

To answer your question, if I felt the need for a lethal self-defense weapon in an urban setting I would go for a large caliber handgun with hollow point bullets.  That would give me a lot of stopping power but less penetrating power, so less potential for collateral damage.

 

People who feel they must have a weapon capable of great slaughter but who can't aim should seek mental help.  However if they chose to arm themselves with a slaughter weapon that requires no great accuracy they should get a shotgun.  It does terrible damage up close but at least wild shots won't kill people far away.

I would also suggest a psychological explanation. Big guns may be a substitute of.. ahem, you know what I mean....????