The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
Then you should make that clear in your answer.
In the context of Congress, partisanship has a very clear definition, and J6C is bipartisan by that definition.
Click to expand...

At least you are consistent with this delusion of the J6C not being highly partisan. But, we've covered it all before. :D
 
Warp12 said:
At least you are consistent with this delusion of the J6C not being highly partisan. But, we've covered it all before. :D
Click to expand...

If you mean the Republicans on the Committee are not Trump worshiping Zombies then I agree other than that it is Bipartisan.
 
dudalb said:
It had to happen. First movie about the Jan 6th uprinsing i sin the works, produced by Adam Mckay who most recently did "Don't Look Up", so you can tell where this film is coming from politically.
I just hope this is not as heavy handed and shove the message down your throat as "Don't Look Up" was.
Click to expand...


In their defense, it isn't like gentle efforts at education have proven particularly successful.

And parody is not often distinguished by subtlety, nor very potent even when it is.

Sometimes you just need to use a big club.
 
Upchurch said:
I'd post a quote, but it's exactly the crap you'd expect.
Click to expand...

“It's a very unfair situation for my children. Very, very unfair,” Donald Trump told The Washington Examiner in an interview for an op-ed published Friday.

“It's a disgrace, what's going on. They're using these things to try and get people's minds off how incompetently our country is being run. And they don't care. They'll go after children,” Donald Trump said.

...

“They are using whatever powers they have. They couldn't care less. They are vicious people," he said.
Click to expand...

Glad to assist.
 
acbytesla said:
That demonstrates the necessary mens rea.

I'm sure that Trump had been getting away with this for decades. So long that he almost certainly thought this is how one does business. That there was nothing wrong with it.

*Take note that Trump sued a reporter for defamation in the 90s. He said the reporter was not truthful when estimating his net worth. When Trump got on the stand and and was questioned about valuations he basically said it was whatever he thought it was.
Trump thought that corruption and bribery was standard modus operandi for conducting business.

He is now shocked that they are now coming after him for it.
Click to expand...

Link to My Lawyers Got Trump to Admit 30 Lies Under Oath By Timothy L. O'Brien June 12, 2017
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-lies-according-to-biographer-timothy-o-brien
 
Warp12 said:
In who's eyes?
Click to expand...

There's no absolute answer to that question. You could start with, would a reasonable person agree that the names rejected were likely too pre-disposed to defend Trump instead of chasing the facts?

If Republicans put up individuals with a reputation for more principled, independent stances, then rejecting them points to bad faith by Democrats. If they put up individuals that seem staunch Trump allies through thick and thin, then that signals bad faith by Republicans.

For me, it wouldn't even take a mythical paragon of impartiality to be acceptable, just someone that hits the low bar of "isn't likely to defend Trump no matter what".
 
Ivanka was working at the White House.
She is not Hunter Biden, who had no job in the Biden campaign, yet was fair game for Trump and every Republican ever.
Trump needs to STFU.
 
gnome said:
There's no absolute answer to that question. You could start with, would a reasonable person agree that the names rejected were likely too pre-disposed to defend Trump instead of chasing the facts?

If Republicans put up individuals with a reputation for more principled, independent stances, then rejecting them points to bad faith by Democrats. If they put up individuals that seem staunch Trump allies through thick and thin, then that signals bad faith by Republicans.

For me, it wouldn't even take a mythical paragon of impartiality to be acceptable, just someone that hits the low bar of "isn't likely to defend Trump no matter what".
Click to expand...


I would say rejecting those members is rejecting bipartisanship
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom