• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trump's Coup - Part 3

plague311 said:
This has been pointed out before, but I might have missed the answer.

Isn't the fact that there are 2 Republicans on the committee make it, by definition, NOT partisan?
Click to expand...

The Proudly Wrong Trolls on the Right are going to scream about it being "partisan" as long as reality doesn't agree with them.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The Proudly Wrong Trolls on the Right are going to scream about it being "partisan" as long as reality doesn't agree with them.
Click to expand...

I just find it ironic that...people who crow about the lack of skepticism on this forum are completely defying any form of logic when applying well-defined terms.

It is, by definition, bi-partisan in every way the word is used. Breaking with your party doesn't make you a member of the other party. It doesn't give the people breaking with said party an innate bias. To imply otherwise would be stupid.
 
The problem is we're still treating "Bipartisan" as a positive concept when one side has adopted a post-fact mindset.

Again "Both sides" stops being a virtue when one side is probably wrong.

We don't need Republicans on anything related to Jan 6 anymore than we need mobsters on a jury to make "fair."
 
plague311 said:
This has been pointed out before, but I might have missed the answer.

Isn't the fact that there are 2 Republicans on the committee make it, by definition, NOT partisan?
Click to expand...

It's a supermajority, 7-2. As has been mentioned, this is along the lines of the SCOTUS. And that is considered such a partisan divide that Dems are considering changing what has been on the books for 150 years, by packing the court.

So all of this talk of this committee not being partisan is a joke.
 
It should be Partisan because one Party didn't help the Coup.

This is not complicated, despite how much insane ranting you're doing about it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It should be Partisan because one Party didn't help the Coup.

This is not complicated, despite how much insane ranting you're doing about it.
Click to expand...

You are right, it isn't complicated. The insanity is people denying it is partisan.
 
Warp12 said:
It's a supermajority, 7-2. As has been mentioned, this is along the lines of the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Lifetime appointments to the highest court on the land are reasonably compared to a committee. For sure. Totally the same.

Warp12 said:
And that is considered such a partisan divide that Dems are considering changing what has been on the books for 150 years, by packing the court.
Click to expand...

Ok, but having a partisan divide isn't the same as not being bi-partisan, is it? The SCOTUS is bi-partisan in that members of both parties are on the SCOTUS, as stupid as it is to have judges that belong to parties, but I digress.

The problem with comparing SCOTUS to this committee is that their political divide is extremely more serious than this committee and so the weight of that divide is significantly higher. SCOTUS also doesn't\didn't provide an opportunity for an even split of members, to which one "side" decided to, mostly, pick up their ball and go home.

Warp12 said:
So all of this talk of this committee not being partisan is a joke.
Click to expand...

No, what's a joke is throwing out a false equivalence and pretending like it means jack ****. It doesn't. The two aren't even relatively comparable.

Also, you've been using loaded terms like "hyper partisan" and the like. Stick with one.
 
Warp12 said:
You are right, it isn't complicated. The insanity is people denying it is partisan.
Click to expand...

No it's sane. Whether it's partisn or not is depending how insane one party has gotten.

You can't hide behind "We have to be non-partisan" while one side slips further and further into insanity.

I mean well you can because for some reason reality doesn't work on you, but actual like real people can't.
 
Warp12 said:
It's a supermajority, 7-2. As has been mentioned, this is along the lines of the SCOTUS. And that is considered such a partisan divide that Dems are considering changing what has been on the books for 150 years, by packing the court.
Click to expand...

Yes, we all remember that time the Republicans suggested an evenly split Court and the Democrats told them to go **** themselves, and the Republicans had no choice but to fill the Court with members of their own party. Totally the same thing.

So all of this talk of this committee not being partisan is a joke.
Click to expand...

Again, you're thinking of the numerous Benghazi investigations, none of which you had a problem with.

This January 6th committee was explicitly set up to not be partisan, and just because the majority of the members are Democrats doesn't mean it is partisan.

The only joke around here is this sad charade in which you try to convince people that you're a neutral arbiter of truth and not just regurgitating what you watched on Fox News last night.
 
johnny karate said:
Again, you're thinking of the numerous Benghazi investigations, none of which you had a problem with.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I didn't follow those investigations that closely. But I certainly have no problem admitting that they were partisan with political motivations, based on what I have read.

It's politics. Nobody has agreed to Marquess of Queensberry rules, I'm afraid.

As I say, Dems should use this to their best advantage. They would be stupid not to, and I think there are strong signs that they will try to make the most of it.
 
Last edited:
Looks like one of the insurrectionists couldn't hold his act together:

Capitol rioter ordered back to jail after DWI arrest, discovery of AR-15 rifle in car

A man accused of rioting at the U.S. Capitol has been ordered to be returned to federal custody after authorities said he tried to flee an arrest on suspicion of drunk driving last month and police found an AR-15 rifle in his car.
The man, James Tate Grant, 29, of North Carolina, was on pretrial release in connection with allegations that he assaulted two police officers at the rampage on Jan. 6, 2021.
Click to expand...
In Grant’s car, police recovered an AR-15 assault rifle, 60 rounds of ammunition, weapon accessories and combat fatigues, court documents said.
Click to expand...
The motion to detain Grant also said he provided urine samples that tested positive for amphetamines in October and November.
The motion said: "He was caught driving drunk with an assault rifle and over 60 rounds of ammunition in his vehicle, and initially attempted to flee from law enforcement. There are no conditions or combination of conditions that could ensure the safety of the community and Grant’s presence in court if he were to remain released."
Click to expand...
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Good news new Grand Jury in GA.
More to come.
Click to expand...

Yep. Good news:

District attorney in Georgia asks for a special grand jury for Trump election probe

The Georgia district attorney investigating whether former President Donald Trump and others attempted to interfere with the 2020 election in the state has asked for a special grand jury for the probe.

In a letter, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said her office has reason to believe "that the State of Georgia's administration of elections in 2020, including the State's election of the President of the United States, was subject to possible criminal disruptions."
Click to expand...

A special grand jury allows the DA to issue subpoenas. In the letter, Willis says several witnesses or potential witnesses — including Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — "have refused to cooperate with the investigation absent a subpoena requiring their testimony."

A special grand jury can't issue indictments, but on top of the ability to subpoena, it is granted other investigative powers, like the authority to obtain documents. It can also sit for a longer period of time and focus solely on one case; traditional grand juries in Fulton County typically are impaneled for two months and hear many cases.

The district attorney's request has to be approved by a majority of Fulton County's superior court judges.
Click to expand...
 
Warp12 said:
Quite frankly, I didn't follow those investigations that closely. But I certainly have no problem admitting that they were partisan with political motivations, based on what I have read.

It's politics. Nobody has agreed to Marquess of Queensberry rules, I'm afraid.

As I say, Dems should use this to their best advantage. They would be stupid not to, and I think there are strong signs that they will try to make the most of it.
Click to expand...
In general and in this instance, there's rarely a single motivating factor.

I have no doubt members are motivated by the seriousness of Jan 6, the threat to democracy, and the critical need to shine light on the facts.

I also have no doubt there are partisan motivations, based on human nature. Death, taxes, and partisanship.

To varying extents, there are partisan motivations behind every congressional investigation that has ever occurred (Benghazi being a freakishly extreme example). When you dismiss this investigation because of partisanship, you may as well dismiss the concept of congress conducting investigations.

And when you consider that Republicans rejected non-partisan and bi-partisan investigations, and also consider Cheney's prominent role, your objections amount to partisan whining.
 
varwoche said:
In general and in this instance, there's rarely a single motivating factor.

I have no doubt members are motivated by the seriousness of Jan 6, the threat to democracy, and the critical need to shine light on the facts.

I also have no doubt there are partisan motivations, based on human nature. Death, taxes, and partisanship.

To varying extents, there are partisan motivations behind every congressional investigation that has ever occurred (Benghazi being a freakishly extreme example). When you dismiss this investigation because of partisanship, you may as well dismiss the concept of congress conducting investigations.

And when you consider that Republicans rejected non-partisan and bi-partisan investigations, and also consider Cheney's prominent role, your objections amount to partisan whining.
Click to expand...

:bigclap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom