Compromised by the presence of people implicated in the same thing they're investigating, which is the definition of a flagrant conflict of interest.
By all means put Republicans on. Choose ones who weren't themselves involved.
A few thoughts about January 6, 2021
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
Recommended Videos
By all means put Republicans on. Choose ones who weren't themselves involved.
Involved in attempting to prevent the certification of a legitimate election victory. The obstruction of the election.
You know all this, of course, because it's already been explained.
Except that it explicitly is. It's just politically expedient for you to call it a "witch hunt".
That's explicitly what it's about, you just *need* it to actually be about abusing innocent political dissent or some such schlock to maintain your world view. Which is unfortunately undermined by there being Republicans on the commission
It's directly, unarguably connected to it, and nobody serious would suggest otherwise.
Committees No Longer Standing | house.gov
You want explicit? How many times does that page need to say some variation of "relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex" to make it clear it's not about objecting to electoral votes?
...you do know the Jan 6th operation was about stopping the certification of the electoral votes, yes? Your """logic""" seems to be that the 9/11 commission should have looked into collapsing towers, but stayed away from hijacked planes.Committees No Longer Standing | house.gov
january6th.house.gov
You want explicit? How many times does that page need to say some variation of "relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex" to make it clear it's not about objecting to electoral votes?
The two are sorta linked. You can't really investigate the attempt to stop the certification without investigating the attempt to stop the certification.
New video shows Capitol rioters’ graphic threats against Pence | CNN Politics
New video released by the Department of Justice shows Capitol rioters making graphic threats against former Vice President Mike Pence and other lawmakers.
amp.cnn.com
Capitol riot defendant: I'll call Trump to testify at trial
Dustin Thompson, of Ohio, says he plans to claim the former president gave him and other rioters permission to enter the U.S. Capitol Building on Jan. 6.
www.wusa9.com
Trump's former national security advisor slammed the RNC for suggesting the Capitol riot was a 'legitimate political discourse'
The RNC chair censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, claiming they were going after "ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."
www.businessinsider.com
5 things to know for Feb. 7: Covid, Capitol riot, Electoral count, Jubilee, Joe Rogan | CNN
Here’s what else you need to know to Get Up to Speed and On with Your Day.
amp.cnn.com
January 6 riot continues to roil Republicans more than a year on
Some in the party are breaking from the official line that Capitol clashes were ‘legitimate political discourse’
amp.ft.com
You forgot it's tstorn; he don't know shit. As usual.
So if a person at the register asks for your money, and then a guy with a gun pointed at your head asks for your money, we're obligated to investigate both? You don't think you can separate an elected official trying to represent constituents using legal procedures from violent trespassers demanding the same thing with threats?
I do know how to respond to people, though. Care to lose an argument?
Must be sad to know you're always losing an argument or can never prove your points. Sucks to be you. Glad to know you're halfway there admitting that you love to always be wrong. Don't bother responding, I won't be listening. Go pray to your false "gods", why don't you? Spoiler, they may not listen to you. You have the brains, you figure it out.
The attempt was illegal. Your analogy doesn't really work. A better one would be a person with a gun pointed at your head demanding money, and a second person shoving you aside and going to take money from the register.
I know, but its just so fun! Its like reading the Drudge Report. Its a fascinating look into the minds of crazies.
Less than an hour ago, I posted a primary source, proving my point (in as much as any point can be proven, proof is still a stupid standard).
BrawlMan, you read my posts and make comments about me when I'm not responding to you.. You're not fooling anyone with this bit.
From the evidence we can see, it appears he lied under oath that he had no conversations with Trump on the day of the operation, and it looks like he was involved in the scheme to decertify the electoral count and illegally establish alternate electors to give the election to Trump.
Those are all crimes.
Yep, you're only fooling yourself. Glad to know you're only talking about yourself. You're getting there....sorta... eventually....or never. Same difference.
He did not say he had no conversations with Trump on January 6th. He said he did have conversations with the President that day, but has been inconsistent on how many times or what time of day. For that inconsistency to be a crime, he would have to be under oath, be knowingly and willfully untrue, and be making a statement material to the reason he's under oath. I hope you never talk to someone multiple times in the same day and get prosecuted for not having an exact timeline available for when each conversation took place.
You are overblowing the "scheme" of alternate electors. A bunch of people declared themselves to be the electors if a court case were to overturn the results in their state. They're delusional for thinking that would happen, but if there were a case where courts reversed an election result, there would need to be reconsideration of the electors. Josh Shapiro, the Democratic Attorney General of my state (currently running for Governor as a Democrat) has said publicly there's no crime to charge on here. And beyond that, you'd have to connect Jim Jordan to that (more than just "he talked to Trump a lot"). So that's multiple ways that's BS.
You understand that every response you give me is further proving that you're listening, right? You can just stop at any time. I rarely (if ever) respond to you unless you're talking explicitly about me. I like to argue with people who at least seem to enjoy the argument, which isn't you, so all you have to do is not instigate and I'll leave you be basically forever.
Hey you can stop bsing, and stop living in a false reality and defending dictators and people who want to overthrow the government? How's that sound? You can do that, right? I don't think so. Because all you've been doing is acting like a coward and defending tyranny and insurrectionists. How about you man up and actually don't run, nor hide, nor defend cowardly jackasses who want to oppress people, because they're not the same gender color, or religion? Or to go out of their way to the hurt, kill, and persecute people for being gay, lesbian, or transsexual. Yet those same people will go around claiming they are doing this for God and country and whatever dumb bull crap you foolishly throw yourself into. How it's the "right thing", or how only "the strong survive". Yet they puss out the moment they get hurt after you get caught doing something and try to play victims. I can see why you get along with them so well.
Besides, you're boring me. I'm bored now. (TFS Gohan voice).