Split Thread Is the Jan 6th committee too partisan?

[smartcooky]

I am claiming the committee is highly partisan. There is significant underlying political intent, as is to be expected. Does that mean they can't possibly uncover pertinent facts? No.

I just happen to find the level of partisanship amusing. And especially the denials. Just own it, and make the most of it, I say.

This debate was gone through many pages ago, where many people denied it as well. I just felt it quite relevant again, with all of the primetime drama and celebratory comments.

And who is to blame for that... the people who are on that committee, or Kevin "Spineless Trump Arse-licker" McCarthy who threw his toys out of the cot because he couldn't get House members who were behind the 1/6 insurrection (Gym Jordan, Jim Banks and Troy Nehls.) on the committee investigating it?

If you see the 1/6 committee as partisan, you need to recognise that McCarty is entirely to blame for it.

 

[Warp12]

My point is that they demonstrate your awareness and interest in the political events of 2016, which you previously denied.

We've established that not only were you aware and interested in the political events of 2016, but you continued to discuss them five years later.

The question remains why you expressed no interest or concern regarding the partisanship of the Benghazi investigations that were concluding that same year, to this day still have no interest in it, but are now suddenly concerned about the partisanship of the January 6th investigation.

Zero merit. And that is being generous.

You referenced my comments in threads specifically related to the Trump presidency. I mean, even this thread is talking about events from 2021. Why you think this ties into some investigations about an event that occurred in 2012, I don't know. Take that debate elsewhere, I'd say. Losing cause.

 

[smartcooky]

Leaving aside your obvious attempts to undermine the investigation by casting it as unfair (which totally undermine your previous attempts to claim you didn't oppose that investigation), how exactly do you think you can "do your own research"^*? The committee has done about a thousand interviews. How many have you done?



^*every single time that phrase is used, you can be certain the one giving the advice has done zero actual research.

By only taking notice of what he reads/sees in Faux News, Newsmax, OAN and other right-wing and far right sources?

 

[Warp12]

And who is to blame for that... the people who are on that committee, or Kevin "Spineless Trump Arse-licker" McCarthy who threw his toys out of the cot because he couldn't get House members who were behind the 1/6 insurrection (Gym Jordan, Jim Banks and Troy Nehls.) on the committee investigating it?

At least this guy admits that I am right about the partisanship.

Is it so hard to do?

 

[Upchurch]

I don’t understand how this is “partisan”. It is literally co-chaired by a Republican and a Democrat. There would have been two more Republicans on the committee if McCarthey hadn’t tried to put two of the people under investigation on the committee.

 

[smartcooky]

So ten "very partisan" investigations into Benghazi elicits no real interest or concern from you, but you comment repeatedly about the partisanship of this investigation.

If you're concerned about these types of investigations being partisan, why are you only expressing that concern for this investigation?

Indeed...

 

[wareyin]

At least this guy admits that I am right about the partisanship.

Is it so hard to do?

As we have established, your definition of a "highly partisan" committee is one that includes far right, right, center and left politicians. Which begs the question of how it would be possible to assemble a committee that was not partisan under your definition.

 

[johnny karate]

Zero merit. And that is being generous.

You referenced my comments in threads specifically related to the Trump presidency. I mean, even this thread is talking about events from 2021. Why you think this ties into some investigations about an event that occurred in 2012, I don't know. Take that debate elsewhere, I'd say. Losing cause.

The year the event took place is irrelevant. The investigations continued years later, all the way up to 2016.

You were already caught in a lie about your interest in political events of that same year to explain your lack of interest in the partisan nature of those investigations. Continuing to lie about it is fruitless.

So what is it about these the alleged partisan nature of the January 6th investigation that's piqued your interest where the Benghazi investigations did not?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don’t understand how this is “partisan”.

Again what does "partisan" even mean when the whole point is that one political party did something wrong?

Like I said earlier the Nuremburg Trails were partisan by this kind of stupid logic.

 

[johnny karate]

At least this guy admits that I am right about the partisanship.

Is it so hard to do?

How does denying a role in the investigation to people who are suspected in playing a part in the thing being investigated make it partisan?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"This jury doesn't have a single member of my mob on it!"

 

[smartcooky]

At least this guy admits that I am right about the partisanship.

Is it so hard to do?

No, you are strawmanning what I said, and you even snipped the context to make a better strawman...

I am asking YOU who is to blame for why YOU see the committee as paritsan

The committee is NOT partisan, its has two Republican members, one of whom is vice chair!!

 

[Warp12]

The committee is NOT partisan, its has two Republican members, one of whom is vice chair!!

Two outcasts who clearly have an axe to grind. Come on.

 

[Warp12]

Most GOPers in congress are boycotting it.And Cheney is reviled by many Republicans.
It is dominated by Democrats big time, let's admit it.
But it is the GOP own choice that they did not want to take part in it.
I fully support the comitee but to pretend it is bi partisan is just plain wrong. It could have been, but the GOP in congress rejected it.

This is at least a fair position.

 

[varwoche]

Huh? Seriously, what you are saying makes no sense. I have held my position that the 1/6 committee is highly partisan, from the beginning. It does not mean that they cannot possibly uncover wrongdoing.

True. However, you were unable to point out any specific ways it's more partisan than any other congressional committee.

 

[Stacyhs]

At least this guy admits that I am right about the partisanship.

Is it so hard to do?

Thanks for demonstrating that Trump isn't the only one who gaslights himself.

1) The Speaker of the House introduces bill to form an independent committee to investigate J6.

2) The House votes to form independent committee: Thirty-five GOP members vote for yet.

3) GOP controlled Senate blocks vote to form independent committee.

4)House votes to form select committee in order to bypass Senate block. Will be bi-partisan consisting of both GOP and Dem members. Thirty-three of the 35 GOP members who voted for an independent committee vote against select committee. The two exceptions are Cheney and Kinzinger.

5) McCarthy nominates 5 GOP members including Jim Banks and Jim Jordan (both of whom voted to challenge certification of electoral votes and promoted the Big Lie). Pelosi rejects Banks and Jordan. "Another Republican, freshman Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), also voted not to certify Biden’s win, but Pelosi said she is “prepared to appoint” Nehls as well as Reps. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) and Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), both of whom voted to certify the election." (Politico)

6) McCarthy pulls all GOP committee nominees and refuses to participate at all.

7) Pelosi invites Cheney and Kinzinger to committee.

8) GOP whines about select committee being partisan.

 

[acbytesla]

The problem for Warp is that he cannot point to anything dishonest or misleading about what the January 6th committee is presenting to the public.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Also water is wet, fire is hot.

If you have to stop to explain these things in a discussion, you've lost the discussion.

 

[Lurch]

"This jury doesn't have a single member of my mob on it!"

"You'se is s'posed to be let off by a jury of your peers, see? It says so right there in the law! I demand my right to have the jury be my peers!"

 

[JoeMorgue]

The problem for Warp is that he cannot point to anything dishonest or misleading about what the January 6th committee is presenting to the public.

"It's partisan!"

"Okay. What's it saying that's wrong?"

"....... IT'S PARTISAN!"