Split Thread Is the Jan 6th committee too partisan?

[johnny karate]

Well, good on you for also admitting that it is a highly partisan committee.

I guess we will see if there is a problem, won't we?

Well no, that's ridiculous. "Highly partisan" means that the investigation is somehow unfair. We both agree that is not the case.

Either you don't know what "highly partisan" means, or you see some other problem with the committee.

What's that problem?

 

[newyorkguy]

You have to admit, he doesn't have much to work with. I guess you can take that a number of ways.

 

[dudalb]

Well, good on you for also admitting that it is a highly partisan committee.

I guess we will see if there is a problem, won't we?

You just are not getting that if it is partisan it is because the GOP refused to particpate, and tried to block any investigation.
DO you think Jan 6th should have been investigated?
And if they have nothing to hide, why were so many House GOP members against any inquiry?
I see that an attempt to overturn democracy was either not a big deal to you, or you support it but don't want to say so in so many words.

 

[smartcooky]

You just are not getting that if it is partisan it is because the GOP refused to particpate, and tried to block any investigation.
DO you think Jan 6th should have been investigated?
And if they have nothing to hide, why were so many House GOP members against any inquiry?
I see that an attempt to overturn democracy was either not a big deal to you, or you support it but don't want to say so in so many words.

AFAIC, its just another example of not wanting to say the quiet bit out loud.

 

[Warp12]

AFAIC, its just another example of not wanting to say the quiet bit out loud.

I see this phrase is getting a lot of use in the forum, lately.

There is no "quiet part". Just a lot of defensive Dems, lol. And for no good reason, imo.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well at least you aren't denying the partisan nature of the committee. Which is more than I can say for most of your forum compatriots.

You have an interesting definition of partisan. I did not see 'it's a partisan committee' anywhere in the post you replied to except quoting McCarthy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see this phrase is getting a lot of use in the forum, lately.

There is no "quiet part". Just a lot of defensive Dems, lol. And for no good reason, imo.

Defensive Democrats?

 

[TokenMac]

I'm with Warp. How dare the Republicans force a "highly partisan" investigation!

Thank God the Dems aren't too afraid of appearing "highly partisan" to do what is right.

Because that is what matters to people like me and Warp "what is right".

Isn't that right Warp?

 

[smartcooky]

I see this phrase is getting a lot of use in the forum, lately.

There is no "quiet part". Just a lot of defensive Dems, lol. And for no good reason, imo.

Yes there is a quiet part... its the part where you think "I'm OK with the downfall of democracy and I embrace authoritarianism as long as its the Republicans who end up as the authoritarians", but you won't actually come out and say it.

You have made this clear through the things you have said in multiple posts, many of which you have later denied having said, only to have someone drag up a post and show the falsity of those denials.

You have made this clear in this thread by continually dodging questions put to you by posting trite, irrelevant, bull-**** comments intended to distract from what you are really thinking.

You might be able to gaslight yourself, but you cannot gaslight any of us... We . Will . Not . Let . You!

So, I will put Johnny Karate's question (one of those you keep dodging) to you again. And this time, no dodging, deflection or bull-****. Tell us exactly, in detail, why you think having more Democrats than Republicans on this committee is a problem?

No one is denying that the investigation is led by Democrats. They control Congress, and that’s how that works. No one is denying that the committee is majority Democrats. Republicans chose not to participate beyond the two members already on the committee (other than Republicans who are potentially culpable for the events of January 6th, and therefore shouldn’t be allowed on the committee). That’s not the fault of the Democrats.

But we’ve already agreed that doesn’t make the investigation unfair.

So what’s the problem?

"Highly partisan" means that the investigation is somehow unfair. We both agree that is not the case.

Either you don't know what "highly partisan" means, or you see some other problem with the committee.

What's that problem?

"Highly partisan" means that the investigation is somehow unfair. Not only have you failed to establish that the investigation is unfair, you even admitted that it probably isn't.

So again, what's the problem?

.
.

 

[Warp12]

You have made this clear through the things you have said in multiple posts, many of which you have later denied having said, only to have someone drag up a post and show the falsity of those denials.

The above is total fantasy. Seems like you haven't been following very closely.

But, whatever. Unsurprising.

 

[johnny karate]

I see this phrase is getting a lot of use in the forum, lately.

There is no "quiet part". Just a lot of defensive Dems, lol. And for no good reason, imo.

Defensive about what?

You keep claiming there is some problem that no one will admit without ever clarifying what the problem is.

What's the problem with the January 6th investigation?

 

[Stacyhs]

Speaking of the mutually-despised Cheney...

Jan. 6 hearings: Rep. Scott Perry calls claim he sought Trump pardon a 'soulless lie'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jan-6-hearings-rep-scott-perry-trump-pardon-lie

Yeah...I'm putting my money on Cheney and the J6C having evidence. Perry's a Trump Big Lie supporter and enabler:

On December 1, Attorney General William Barr declared that the Justice Department had not found any evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the election. As Trump struggled to find support for his election fraud claims in the Justice Department, Perry connected Trump with Clark, the acting chief of the civil division and a Philadelphia native, according to The New York Times. Clark and Trump would later come close to ousting the acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, and replacing him with Clark, according to documents and testimony from former Justice Department officials.

Perry also passed along documents to the Justice Department in December that alleged there were "more votes counted than voters who voted" in Pennsylvania, according to a recently released batch of emails by the House Oversight Committee.

That same day, Trump mentioned Perry's name in a call with the Justice Department, where he instructed officials to "Just say the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen," according to acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue's notes.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/12/politics/scott-perry-justice-department-big-lie/index.html

 

[Stacyhs]

Defensive about what?

You keep claiming there is some problem that no one will admit without ever clarifying what the problem is.

What's the problem with the January 6th investigation?

Haven't you been listening? IT'S HIGHLY PARTISAN!!!





(Wait for it............)

 

[Cain]

True, but that is just a generality isn't it.

StacyHS is specifying what Liz Cheney has had the integrity to do...

Again, NOT residing in Cukoo Land is the minimum. There's no special praise for being sane. It's like praising able-bodied adults for not using the training potty. "You're a big girl now!"

I will not let that detract from the fact that she has been brave enough to go against her party's line, even at the expense of her own political aspirations and career.

Joe Manchin has consistently voted to uphold the filibuster despite enormous pressure from people in his party. He opposed Democrats exercising the "nuclear option" in order to bring on Obama's federal judges, and he opposed Republicans doing the same for Trump's Supreme Court nominations. While Manchin is extremely transactional (to be expected from a West Virginia Democrat), with respect to the filibuster, he's proven himself a principled "institutionalist" who cannot be bought. Integrity? Courage? Respect?

 

[JCL]

Lurker who tries not to post... Please stop responding to warp12 until they post something of substance.

Their stik is no longer entertaining.

Thank you for you cooperation.

Sent from my motorola edge plus using Tapatalk

 

[Paul2]

I'm with Warp. How dare the Republicans force a "highly partisan" investigation!

Thank God the Dems aren't too afraid of appearing "highly partisan" to do what is right.

Because that is what matters to people like me and Warp "what is right".

Isn't that right Warp?

Isn’t W already on record as saying what people believe is imortant.

 

[Warp12]

Lurker who tries not to post... Please stop responding to warp12 until they post something of substance.

Their stik is no longer entertaining.

Thank you for you cooperation.

Sent from my motorola edge plus using Tapatalk

Well, that is one way to be noncommittal about the partisanship issue, I guess.

Quite frankly I am bored of the debate as well. The group can't even agree on why I am wrong, they just know I am...except for those who say it is partisan, but must qualify that it is the fault of republicans. It isn't even as though I have accused the committee of any wrongdoing.

 

[Warp12]

Isn’t W already on record as saying what people believe is imortant.

Yes. What people believe is more important than what is actually true. I don't think that is even debatable. This is very clear when it comes to claims of election fraud, obviously.

 

[Cain]

Well, that is one way to be noncommittal about the partisanship issue, I guess.

Quite frankly I am bored of the debate as well. The group can't even agree on why I am wrong, they just know I am...except for those who say it is partisan, but must qualify that it is the fault of republicans. It isn't even as though I have accused the committee of any wrongdoing.

The problem with braying, "Partisan" over and over again is that you're not saying anything meaningful. Suppose there's a bill entirely supported by one party, and uniformly opposed by the other. Well, that's a partisan breakdown, but it tells us nothing about why the legislation is good or bad.

I would guess this point has been made already, but I've ignored this discussion. The only reason I'm responding now is because someone asked not to.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, that is one way to be noncommittal about the partisanship issue, I guess.

Quite frankly I am bored of the debate as well. The group can't even agree on why I am wrong, they just know I am...except for those who say it is partisan, but must qualify that it is the fault of republicans. It isn't even as though I have accused the committee of any wrongdoing.

Have you thought of going into GOP politics? You're a natural.