Jan. 6 Committee Hearings

[throbster]

Soviet-style show trail for the rabid Trump haters.

[easyrider16]

Soviet-style show trail for the rabid Trump haters.

Except Soviet-style show trials end with executions. This one, if we're lucky, will end with an indictment and Trump will have an opportunity to present his defense in a court of law and be judged by a jury of his peers. So basically, not like a Soviet-style show trial at all.

[throbster]

Soviet-style show trail for the rabid Trump haters.

Except Soviet-style show trials end with executions. This one, if we're lucky, will end with an indictment and Trump will have an opportunity to present his defense in a court of law and be judged by a jury of his peers. So basically, not like a Soviet-style show trial at all.

No dummy, it's not.

It's planting the seed against Trump without any chance of presenting conflicting information. It is unprecedented and un American (which by your standards, is a good thing).

[easyrider16]

It's planting the seed against Trump without any chance of presenting conflicting information. It is unprecedented and un American (which by your standards, is a good thing).

He has no chance of presenting conflicting information? Isn't he a billionaire with his own social media company that can put out content at a moment's notice? Is he unable to hold a press conference? Has he been bound and gagged somewhere?

Unprecedented and un-American, you say? I say you know very little of history if you think so. Congress has been doing hearings like this since Congress has existed. How is this any different than the Benghazi hearings, for example?

Here, read this and try to learn something: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... estigated/

[throbster]

It's planting the seed against Trump without any chance of presenting conflicting information. It is unprecedented and un American (which by your standards, is a good thing).

He has no chance of presenting conflicting information? Isn't he a billionaire with his own social media company that can put out content at a moment's notice? Is he unable to hold a press conference? Has he been bound and gagged somewhere?

Unprecedented and un-American, you say? I say you know very little of history if you think so. Congress has been doing hearings like this since Congress has existed. How is this any different than the Benghazi hearings, for example?

Here, read this and try to learn something: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... estigated/

Pelosi wouldn't allow the minority leader of the house to appoint committee members. Instead, she selected two never-Trumpers RINOs. This is unprecedented and doesn't pass the smell test. It's a partisan witch hunt that won't solve a thing and only divide this country further.

Now we have Adam Schitt going on TV interviews, yet again, claiming that he has proof of Trump orchestrating the peaceful protest. The man has no shame (like his entire party).

[easyrider16]

Those are the right-wing media talking points, but they're not quite reality. McCarthy was given the opportunity to appoint five Republicans, and Pelosi vetoed two of them. McCarthy cried foul and then pulled the remaining three he appointed. He could have appointed others and chose not to.

Regardless, it's an investigation with Republicans on the committee. Cheney is a conservative Republican. It's a bipartisan committee, even if GOP leadership doesn't like the Republicans on it.

[Fancypants]

Those are the right-wing media talking points, but they're not quite reality. McCarthy was given the opportunity to appoint five Republicans, and Pelosi vetoed two of them. McCarthy cried foul and then pulled the remaining three he appointed. He could have appointed others and chose not to.

Regardless, it's an investigation with Republicans on the committee. Cheney is a conservative Republican. It's a bipartisan committee, even if GOP leadership doesn't like the Republicans on it.

Your comedy is killing me. If it was truly bi-partisan there would be an equal number of Republicans and Democrats and not just 2 select Republicans that voted to impeach Trump. Why was Nancy so afraid of Jim Jordan?

[easyrider16]

That's not what bipartisan means. The Benghazi house select committee was majority Republican. They called it bipartisan. The majority party always gets a majority of seats on any congressional committee. That's how Congress works.

The fact is Republicans could have had five members on this committee. Pelosi was willing to accept three of McCarthy's choices, one of whom was so staunch a Trump supporter that he voted to overturn the electoral college results in AZ and PA. McCarthy could have picked two more to replace the ones Pelosi vetoed, but decided not to. It was the Republicans who chose not to participate in this investigation.

I think the question you should be asking yourself is why Cheney, a Republican with a near perfect conservative voting record, is so dead set against Trump returning to power that she is willing to risk her career over it.

[Low Rider]

That's not what bipartisan means. The Benghazi house select committee was majority Republican. They called it bipartisan. The majority party always gets a majority of seats on any congressional committee. That's how Congress works.

The fact is Republicans could have had five members on this committee. Pelosi was willing to accept three of McCarthy's choices, one of whom was so staunch a Trump supporter that he voted to overturn the electoral college results in AZ and PA. McCarthy could have picked two more to replace the ones Pelosi vetoed, but decided not to. It was the Republicans who chose not to participate in this investigation.

I think the question you should be asking yourself is why Cheney, a Republican with a near perfect conservative voting record, is so dead set against Trump returning to power that she is willing to risk her career over it.

By choosing Jim Jordan, McCarthy demonstrated he was not making nominations in good faith.

[easyrider16]

By choosing Jim Jordan, McCarthy demonstrated he was not making nominations in good faith.

That's sort of the other side of the coin, isn't it? If it were up to Republican leadership, this investigation wouldn't even be happening. McCarthy from the beginning intended to sabotage it as much as possible. It seems to me that for the GOP, not participating is the best possible choice because the evidence is pretty damning and their apologists would look pretty bad trying to refute it during the hearings. Worse, some of their members might grow a conscience and break with the party line. But now they can preach to all their followers that this is a partisan witch hunt without any chance for the GOP to participate, and their less-informed followers will actually believe them. They won't actually watch the hearings and their right-wing media sources aren't covering it.

[throbster]

By choosing Jim Jordan, McCarthy demonstrated he was not making nominations in good faith.

They won't actually watch the hearings and their right-wing media sources aren't covering it.

Talking out of your arse again. Fox News televised the hearing yesterday. I watched and it was nauseating to watch the show trail.

[easyrider16]

I watched and it was nauseating to watch the show trail.

Sure ya did, Throb, sure ya did.

I'm sure you would have found it nauseating, because anything that makes Trump look bad makes you nauseous. But you're not the target audience. The target audience are the people in the middle who have an open mind and will actually give the evidence a fair hearing. Those people, according to polls, seem to be convinced that Trump committed crimes.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/10-amer ... d=85482369

There are few black and white situations in politics. This is one of them. If you support Trump, you support a traitor to the Constitution who tried to overthrow a lawful election by illegal means. It's that simple.

[throbster]

I watched and it was nauseating to watch the show trail.

Sure ya did, Throb, sure ya did.

I'm sure you would have found it nauseating, because anything that makes Trump look bad makes you nauseous. But you're not the target audience. The target audience are the people in the middle who have an open mind and will actually give the evidence a fair hearing. Those people, according to polls, seem to be convinced that Trump committed crimes.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/10-amer ... d=85482369

There are few black and white situations in politics. This is one of them. If you support Trump, you support a traitor to the Constitution who tried to overthrow a lawful election by illegal means. It's that simple.

Even if the hearing isn't fair?

[skidogg]

how so ?

[throbster]

how so ?