Nearly 6 in 10 Americans say Trump should be charged for Jan. 6 riot--poll

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

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. 

Have you got anything to say about the corroborated sworn testimony and evidence being revealed by the committee’s investigation?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

  

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jun/08/legitimacy-jan-6-committee-explained/

 

If the police are going to investigate a string of bank robberies, how likely do you think it is that they'll have the robbers as part of their team?

 

Same principle here -  it would make zero sense in any sane world to have the proponents and enablers (specifically Reps. Jordan and Banks) of an attempted insurrection and coup to serve on the investigating panel.

 

And as for the failed notion of an independent investigating commission made up of respected public figures (not politicians), the above link pretty well spells out that Trump and his Republican lackies killed that plan.

 

"The day before the House voted on the legislation, Trump came out in opposition to it and called on Republicans to "not approve the Democrat trap of the Jan. 6 Commission," arguing that it amounted to "more partisan unfairness."...

 

But the Senate killed the commission idea after Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., came out against it, effectively ending any hope that the bill could get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster."

 

And as for the Republicans objections to the final committee that resulted, the above link also noted that a federal judge appointed by Trump of all people rejected the Republicans claims and said the committee as constituted could proceed with its task.

 

In short, you've got nothing!

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

19 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

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. 

Jordan was subpoenaed to appear before the committee and the Republicans believe he should be on the committee? How ridiculous is that?

 

Ms. Pelosi said she had decided to disqualify Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana because of widespread Democratic dismay about “statements made and actions taken by these members.”

Her decision enraged Republican leaders, who announced that they would boycott the investigation altogether. But Democrats insisted that the pair’s support for the election lies that fueled the deadly attack and their subsequent statements downplaying the violence that occurred that day were disqualifying.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/us/politics/jim-banks-jim-jordan.html

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/21/nancy-pelosi-rejects-jim-jordan-and-jim-banks-for-house-select-committee-on-jan-6-capitol-invasion.html

[ozimoron]

Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), one of five Republican members subpoenaed by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, is asking the panel to turn over the bulk of the information it has collected on him as he weighs how to respond to the compulsory request for his testimony.

 

The subpoena notes that Jordan was in contact with former President Trump on Jan. 6 and participated in several calls discussing strategy for the day.

 

He was also revealed to be the sender of a text to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows promoting the theory that Vice President Mike Pence could reject the election results — something Jordan later said was a text forwarded by a constituent.

 

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3502047-jordan-demands-docs-from-jan-6-panel-in-face-of-subpoena/

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Another thing to note as far as the committee's work thus far....

 

Despite claims by some posters here. I haven't seen ANY claims by any of the many Republican figures who have testified before the committee either in the live hearings or via videotaped presentation that their remarks/comments have been falsely or inaccurately presented....

 

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

  

 

If the police are going to investigate a string of bank robberies, how likely do you think it is that they'll have the robbers as part of their team?

 

Same principle here -  it would make zero sense in any sane world to have the proponents and enablers (specifically Reps. Jordan and Banks) of an attempted insurrection and coup to serve on the investigating panel.

 

And as for the failed notion of an independent investigating commission made up of respected public figures (not politicians), the above link pretty well spells out that Trump and his Republican lackies killed that plan.

 

"The day before the House voted on the legislation, Trump came out in opposition to it and called on Republicans to "not approve the Democrat trap of the Jan. 6 Commission," arguing that it amounted to "more partisan unfairness."...

 

But the Senate killed the commission idea after Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., came out against it, effectively ending any hope that the bill could get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster."

 

And as for the Republicans objections to the final committee that resulted, the above link also noted that a federal judge appointed by Trump of all people rejected the Republicans claims and said the committee as constituted could proceed with its task.

 

In short, you've got nothing!

 

 

 

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.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

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.

Pelosi isn't on the committee. Nobody is judging anything. It may or may not make recommendations to the DoJ on completion.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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.

Criminal or non-criminal, the obvious point is an investigating committee charged with establishing facts and findings can't have people serving on it who supported and/or participated in the misdeeds being investigated.  That shouldn't be too hard for any right-thinking person to understand.

 

You don't have Haldeman or Ehrlichman on the Watergate commission. You don't have people who assisted the 9/11 terrorists on the 9/11 commission for the supposed sake of balance.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Jordan is a subject under subpoena. He may possibly face criminal charges and has refused to give evidence. It would be improper, illogical and just plain nonsensical to have him on the committee.

[Excel]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Pelosi isn't on the committee. Nobody is judging anything. It may or may not make recommendations to the DoJ on completion.

If the DoJ determines that there is sufficient cause for a prosecution I suspect Trump will never get on the witness stand. This corrupt ex-president has already brought shame on the US electoral system, and to put him on trial would turn him into a narccisstic martyr. 

 

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Pelosi isn't on the committee. Nobody is judging anything. It may or may not make recommendations to the DoJ on completion.

Pelosi controlled the committee picks.  

[GroveHillWanderer]

27 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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?

 

Actually, the only reason Pelosi had to create a Select Committee in the way she did, in the first place is because Republican lawmakers blocked a totally independent investigation from taking place.

 

That was her first choice and would surely have been the best solution - an investigation carried out not by possibly biased politicians, but by a totally non-partisan group who could have gone on a completely impartial search for the truth, without fear or favour to either side.

 

But for some reason, the Republicans didn't want a fair, unbiased and objective review of the events of Jan 6th. I wonder why that was?

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Pelosi controlled the committee picks.  

McCarthy knew that Jordan was at least likely to be subpoenaed and had participated in the insurrection. He was clearly not acting in good faith bu nominating Jordan. The original intention was to have an independent committee.

 

Pelosi was justified in refusing his nomination to avoid political theatre. Jordan is notorious for grandstanding as well as being probably guilty of seditious conspiracy.

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Jordan is a subject under subpoena. He may possibly face criminal charges and has refused to give evidence. It would be improper, illogical and just plain nonsensical to have him on the committee.

Since May. Way after Pelosi rejected him. 

[LarrySR]

42 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

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. 

Seriously, you lost the plot if you think Jordan & Banks have the credibility to be on the panel.

 

 

[ozimoron]

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Since May. Way after Pelosi rejected him. 

oh, like nobody knew, right? They knew what Jordan had done back in January.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, nauseus said:

Since May. Way after Pelosi rejected him. 

He was a known proponent of the insurrection long before that.

 

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The committee aren't stupid. They didn't just disqualify Jordan because they didn't like him.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/15/politics/jim-jordan-mark-meadows-text/index.html

[onthedarkside]

A series of trolling posts have been removed.

 

[Jingthing]

46 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Pelosi isn't on the committee. Nobody is judging anything. It may or may not make recommendations to the DoJ on completion.

They more than likely will just let DOJ decide. Referrals carry no weight. To refer will just increase the Trumpist squawking if DOJ acts that DOJ is partisan and reacting to partisan referrals. I hope none are made.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

They more than likely will just let DOJ decide. Referrals carry no weight. To refer will just increase the Trumpist squawking if DOJ acts that DOJ is partisan and reacting to partisan referrals. I hope none are made.

Nevertheless, I posted a link earlier which appeared to indicate that they would make recommendations if they thought appropriate.

[Chomper Higgot]

53 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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.

He didn’t say criminal trial, it’s not a criminal trial, it’s a Congressional Investigation.

 

There’s plenty of ‘cooperation’ in the form of sworn testimony and evidence submitted by members of Trump’s administration, some of which where hand picked by Trump himself.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Nevertheless, I posted a link earlier which appeared to indicate that they would make recommendations if they thought appropriate.

I think there is an internal debate about that and the reasons I stated for not referring remain relevant.

 

The DOJ is seeing everything. They are the criminal law experts. Referring may be kind of an own goal giving the Trumpists more ammo to complain about process instead of actually addressing what happened.

[zzaa09]

And still, most don't know where the real troubles initiate nor quite understand the reality that they're all cut from the same cloth. 

 

Pretending about this and that doesn't help.

[mikebike]

Even if the DoJ does not move forward, there are a few state prosecutors already chomping at the bit to blend the committee's finding with their own investigations. I predict charges will be laid - I just don't know in which jurisdiction.

[rudi49jr]

1 hour ago, zzaa09 said:

And still, most don't know where the real troubles initiate

Maybe you can enlighten us simple folk?

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, mikebike said:

Even if the DoJ does not move forward, there are a few state prosecutors already chomping at the bit to blend the committee's finding with their own investigations. I predict charges will be laid - I just don't know in which jurisdiction.

Prosecutors love tapes!

 

Georgia on my mind and Trump's too!

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

21 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

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. 

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, Pelosi had said yes to Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls even though they had all objected to Bidens certification as POTUS and are staunch Trump acolytes. She only rejected Jim Jordan and Jim Banks because of their reputation for being obstructionists who would try and scuttle the committee at every opportunity (something we have seen many, many times with these 2). 

 

McCarthy had a chance to accept the 3 that he had put forward and then choose another 2, just not these guys. He chose to not do that BECAUSE HE WANTED AN EXCUSE TO PULL OUT OF THE COMMITTEE.

 

And yes of course this is about Trump because without Trump January 6th would not have happened. And the way to 'stop future similar riots' is to get to the bottom of this one and find those responsible and punish them. This obviously includes Trump. 

 

 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, Pelosi had said yes to Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls even though they had all objected to Bidens certification as POTUS and are staunch Trump acolytes. She only rejected Jim Jordan and Jim Banks because of their reputation for being obstructionists who would try and scuttle the committee at every opportunity (something we have seen many, many times with these 2). 

 

McCarthy had a chance to accept the 3 that he had put forward and then choose another 2, just not these guys. He chose to not do that BECAUSE HE WANTED AN EXCUSE TO PULL OUT OF THE COMMITTEE.

 

And yes of course this is about Trump because without Trump January 6th would not have happened. And the way to 'stop future similar riots' is to get to the bottom of this one and find those responsible and punish them. This obviously includes Trump. 

 

 

And as has been pointed out elsewhere, before this McCarthy also nixed holding a fullscale independent investigation.

[Scott]

Off-topic post from unapproved source reported and removed.