The Jan. 6 Investigation

[Stacyhs]

And in any case, there are two Republicans on the committee (an inconvenient fact that Warp12 ignores).

Of the Republicans that McCarthy put up for the January 6 committee (Jim Banks, Jim Jordan, Troy Nehls, Rodney Davis and Kelly Armstrong) the first three nominees were among the 147 House Republicans who voted to overturn the election, and the first two were up to their miserable necks in the insurrection, especially Gym Jordan. His nomination was a pure piss-take. When Jordan tried to help Liz Cheney during the Capitol siege, she smacked his hand away and said "Get away from me! You ******* did this!". McCarthy knew this - he was there.

The fact is that Nehls, Davis and Armstrong were accepted by Nancy Pelosi to serve on the committee (another inconvenient fact that Warp12 tries to pretend never happened). However, when the other two were rejected, McCarthy spat the dummy and withdrew all five nominations. If he had acted like a grown-up instead of throwing a Trump-tanty, there would now be five Republicans on that committee.

Of course, the reason McCarthy nominated those particular people is obvious to any observer who has been paying attention, or to anyone with something remotely resembling a brain between their ears.... he was hedging his bets. He knew perfectly well that Jordan and Banks would be completely unacceptable and if rejected, he could pull the other three in an faux act of moral indignation and claim it was a partisan witch hunt. However, if either of the two in question were accepted, they would try to disrupt the investigation and spy on the proceedings in order to feed hot flashes back to him so he could get ahead of any evidence that might come to light. Apparently, he was absolutely furious when Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger volunteered and were appointed, and he hit the roof when Liz Cheney was appointed vice-chair.

The simple fact of the matter is that McCarthy did not want any investigation at all, because he and his minions are frightened of what will come out.

Personally, I dislike Liz Cheney and her politics, but here, she gets credit for her attitude to Trump's election lies and to the insurrection. She has been punished by her party for being one of the rarest types of US politicians you will ever find... an honourable Republican!

Well said.

 

[Aridas]

Personally, I dislike Liz Cheney and her politics, but here, she gets credit for her attitude to Trump's election lies and to the insurrection. She has been punished by her party for being one of the rarest types of US politicians you will ever find... an honourable Republican!

I'm not sure that "honorable Republican" is actually properly indicated by the things in question here. "Republican politician with actual patriotism" might be, though. Those knowingly pushing those elections lies and insurrection lies are pretty much the epitome of unpatriotic, after all.

As for the rest? Yeah. The partisanship of the committee is entirely artificial - the guilt of far too many important Republican figures is blatantly obvious, with many Republicans, important and less important, having acted to commit, justify, and/or incite outright treason (in the normal use of the word), so McCarthy was trying to minimize and weaponize the damage with a classic Republican strategy - Caught red-handed? Claim bias and unfairness. He's hardly the only one to take up that line, of course.

 

[The Don]

Allow me to dissent on guns. I am in favor of some controls, but don't get the hostiltiy to private gun ownership some people have.

The idea of having to own guns for personal protection (as opposed to hunting, pest control, sport, fun or just because you like having guns) IMO points to a fundamental breakdown in law and order that simply should not take place in a modern developed society.

Have all the guns you want, but store them safely and don't use them to resolve interpersonal disputes.

 

[Aridas]

The idea of having to own guns for personal protection (as opposed to hunting, pest control, sport, fun or just because you like having guns) IMO points to a fundamental breakdown in law and order that simply should not take place in a modern developed society.

*quietly points at the "The behaviour of US police officers" thread*

There are a number of things that shouldn't happen in a modern developed society that happen in the US, either way. Going a little further, at last check, guns tend to make the owners safer, overall, while making society as a whole less safe. With bias confirmation and scaremongering running rampant to muddy the waters, far too many seize on just the bits of that they feel like acknowledging, which makes the problem dramatically more annoying.

Have all the guns you want, but store them safely and don't use them to resolve interpersonal disputes.

To quibble a bit - I'd dare to say that personal protection can apply. Women who find themselves needing to travel through more dangerous territory, in particular, have a reasonable case that can be made in favor of that. To give an example stated by a woman on these forums in the past... on a long hike on a woodlands trail, there can be dangers posed both by unscrupulous men and by animals. Having a gun for "personal protection" in that situation can be entirely reasonable.

With that said, the fraudulent interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that's been pushed into the national consciousness by the radical right is pretty much utter BS, of course.

 

[The Don]

*quietly points at the "The behaviour of US police officers" thread*

There are a number of things that shouldn't happen in a modern developed society that happen in the US, either way. Going a little further, at last check, guns tend to make the owners safer, overall, while making society as a whole less safe.

Exactly, yet another case of where the US doesn't behave like a modern, developed society.

To quibble a bit - I'd dare to say that personal protection can apply. Women who find themselves needing to travel through more dangerous territory, in particular, have a reasonable case that can be made in favor of that. To give an example stated by a woman on these forums in the past... on a long hike on a woodlands trail, there can be dangers posed both by unscrupulous men and by animals. Having a gun for "personal protection" in that situation can be entirely reasonable.

With that said, the fraudulent interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that's been pushed into the national consciousness by the radical right is pretty much utter BS, of course.

At the risk of being repetitive, in modern developed societies all over the world, regular* people don't routinely feel the need to carry firearms for personal protection. In developing countries this is not necessarily the case so it's another data point which points to the US not being a modern developed society.

IMO there's a huge difference between carrying a rifle to protect from bears when out hunting - quite usual in Scandinavia - and feeling the need to have a handgun loaded, safety off, by your armchair in the case of home invasion.

* - Some people of course do carry handguns but they're either the forces of law and order or are criminals who are, by definition, not regular.

 

[Aridas]

Exactly, yet another case of where the US doesn't behave like a modern, developed society.

On that note... Missouri proposes new Castle Doctrine law. Critics dub it the 'Make Murder Legal Act'

*sigh*

At the risk of being repetitive, in modern developed societies all over the world, regular* people don't routinely feel the need to carry firearms for personal protection. In developing countries this is not necessarily the case so it's another data point which points to the US not being a modern developed society.

IMO there's a huge difference between carrying a rifle to protect from bears when out hunting - quite usual in Scandinavia - and feeling the need to have a handgun loaded, safety off, by your armchair in the case of home invasion.

* - Some people of course do carry handguns but they're either the forces of law and order or are criminals who are, by definition, not regular.

To be clear, I think that you have a decent point overall. I was poking at a somewhat fringe quibble.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In a statement posted by spokesperson Liz Harrington on Tuesday, Mr Trump once against attacked the House committee investigating the Capitol riot, and said the panel should be focusing on Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, rather than himself.

He wrote: “The Unselect Committee should be investigating why Nancy Pelosi did such a poor job of overseeing security and why Mike Pence did not send back the votes for recertification or approval, in that it has now been shown that he clearly had the right to do so!”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-news-today-january-6-b2005649.html

 

[Andy_Ross]

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday once again portrayed Ashli Babbitt, a supporter of his who died during the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, as a martyr for the MAGA cause. But not only did Trump mourn the loss of Babbitt – he falsely claimed that she was the only person who died that day.

“With the exception of one young, fine woman, nobody died on Jan. 6. Nobody died on Jan. 6. They like to say five people, but nobody died on Jan. 6.,” Trump said, wrongly.

Newsmax anchor Rob Schmitt, perhaps sensing the ex-president’s mistake, gave him a chance to clarify himself, interjecting, “Nobody was intentionally killed besides her.”

Trump continued on, though, insisting again that Babbitt was the only person who died. In fact, four people in the Jan. 6 crowd died that day. Additionally, five police officers who were at the Capitol died in the following days and weeks – four by suicide and one from multiple strokes that occurred hours after confronting violent Trump supporters armed with bear spray.

Trump, who was being interviewed at Mar-a-Lago, also smeared Lt. Michael Byrd, the Capitol Police officer who shot Babbitt as rioters tried to breach the House chamber. Byrd was exonerated by the Capitol Police, and has said his decision to fire at Babbitt was a “last resort” that “saved countless lives.” That didn’t prevent Trump from pushing a different narrative.

“[Babbitt] was killed by a ruthless man that never should have used his gun to shoot her,” he asserted. “I saw his interview, and he thinks it was great that he shot her and killed her, and she didn’t have a gun. She didn’t have anything. There was no reason to do that.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...died-on-jan-6-except-young-fine-ashli-babbitt

(Video in link)

 

[a_unique_person]

In a statement posted by spokesperson Liz Harrington on Tuesday, Mr Trump once against attacked the House committee investigating the Capitol riot, and said the panel should be focusing on Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, rather than himself.

He wrote: “The Unselect Committee should be investigating why Nancy Pelosi did such a poor job of overseeing security and why Mike Pence did not send back the votes for recertification or approval, in that it has now been shown that he clearly had the right to do so!”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-news-today-january-6-b2005649.html

Doubling down on Pence. Trump has never crossed a bridge he hasn't wanted to burn.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

At the risk of being repetitive, in modern developed societies all over the world, regular* people don't routinely feel the need to carry firearms for personal protection. In developing countries this is not necessarily the case so it's another data point which points to the US not being a modern developed society.

This might be relevant:

And even at the present day many of Hellas still follow the old fashion, the Ozolian Locrians for instance, the Aetolians, the Acarnanians, and that region of the continent; and the custom of carrying arms is still kept up among these continentals, from the old piratical habits. The whole of Hellas used once to carry arms, their habitations being unprotected and their communication with each other unsafe; indeed, to wear arms was as much a part of everyday life with them as with the barbarians. And the fact that the people in these parts of Hellas are still living in the old way points to a time when the same mode of life was once equally common to all. The Athenians were the first to lay aside their weapons, and to adopt an easier and more luxurious mode of life; indeed, it is only lately that their rich old men left off the luxury of wearing undergarments of linen, and fastening a knot of their hair with a tie of golden grasshoppers, a fashion which spread to their Ionian kindred and long prevailed among the old men there.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Trump is arguably making things worse for the CHUDs facing lengthy sentences for their little tantrum on Jan6.

Judges aren't blind to what is happening. If "deterrence" is something that sentencing is supposed to accomplish, having the cult leader of these morons praising the riot probably puts a thumb on the scale towards more severe punishment.

We've already seen references to the continued life of the "big lie" in decisions about bail. Judges are not locked into isolation chambers, they absolutely are taking all this crap in when making decisions about how the system should punish these CHUDs.

I suppose this will work out for the rioters if Trump wins and pardons them (a big if on both counts), but Trump is gambling with these people's lives. For some of the more extreme cases, this grandstanding could result in additional years being served behind bars.

 

[Stacyhs]

If Trump ever got elected again, he'd likely appoint Stewart Rhodes as head of Homeland Security and appoint the Oath Keepers as National Security Advisors.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If Trump ever got elected again, he'd likely appoint Stewart Rhodes as head of Homeland Security and appoint the Oath Keepers as National Security Advisors.

In that case when's the first flight to Mars?

 

[Stacyhs]

In that case when's the first flight to Mars?

I envy people with dual citizenships.

 

[Craig4]

If Trump ever got elected again, he'd likely appoint Stewart Rhodes as head of Homeland Security and appoint the Oath Keepers as National Security Advisors.

This might be an area Mitch would work with Dems on in the Senate. Congress could clarify the length of time someone acting in a position requiring Senate confirmation can serve and what authorities that person has. Even in the last Congress, some of Trump's worst appointees didn't make it through. National Security Advisor is a lost cause but DHS requires confirmation. Trump exposed loop holes in the Succession Act and Continuity of Government Act that we should close.

They could even do it quietly, claiming they were fixing issues created by appellate decisions blocking the actings in Interior and DHS from implementing policy decisions.

 

[dudalb]

In that case when's the first flight to Mars?

If Trump get elected agian, we would be in a state of Civil War within six months.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Found it

https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-beat-ari-melber-1-28-22-n1288326

"Trump was trying to do a legal coup. He was trying to legally put himself in a position where the government couldn't function. People have to understand how the election actually works, right?

There are physical ballots, there are physical things that have to be filed. And if you think back to January 6, where did the insurrectionists go when they got into the Capitol? Sure, they were looking for Mike Pence. Sure, they were looking for Nancy Pelosi. Where else were they looking?

In the Parliamentarian`s office? They ransacked that office. Why? Because, for some reason, they knew that the Parliamentarian's office is where the actual physical copies of the electoral ballots were being stored.
So what they did in a very real way, was attack the Capitol to get into those ballots, to take possession of those ballots, thus casting doubts on what's called in the law, the provenance of those ballots."​

Thanks. I think Mystal is full of it and doesn't know what he is talking about. He doesn't cover Capitol Hill roaming the hallways. He covers national politics from New York City.

He doesn't know that the certificates are stored in the Parliamentarian's office. The people who attacked the Capitol did not "for some reason...[know]...that the parliamentarian's office is where the actual physical copies of the electoral ballots were being stored." I don't think that is where they are stored. As I said, it very strongly appears, and there are many reasons to believe, that would fall under the authority and responsibility of the Office of Senate Security, which is under the Secretary of the Senate.

The only connection to the Parliamentarian's office is that the news reported that people from that office had the presence of mind to take the certificates with them when they evacuated the Senate Chamber and the news reports, as a result, of the ransacking of the Senate Parliamentarian's office. The way it was presented in the media suggests a connection, but there is no reason to jump to a conclusion of connection. That ransacking may have been for any number of reasons, many of which may not have had anything to do with the Parliamentarian let alone the certificates.

As I said, this hypothesis makes no sense outside of unconsidered speculation based on sensationalized news media. They review copies from the Archivist to get the count totals and write scripts beforehand. Those are unsealed. They would already know about any "fake" certificates. Fake certificates sent to the President of the Senate but not the Archivist might catch somebody off guard. But not the other way around. And the real certificates had been sent to the Archivist anyway. They did not have the "fake, fraudulent, forged electoral ballots ready to go." They were not forged. Two of them even had caveats that they were not by the actual electors but only by "electors-in-waiting".

This is a conspiracy theory not based not based on facts or reason. Complete baloney. Mystal should be ashamed for suggesting such false and baseless theories. I don't care if it comes from the left or the right. Baloney is baloney. Ans this is baloney.
This is baseless

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If Trump get elected agian, we would be in a state of Civil War within six months.

No I think I have figured out a way to save us, if I can Quantum entangle every point in space time with all the mass in every singularity, then flip everything all at once, it in theory should reverse gravity into Inflation, recreating the Big Bang, and Starting the Universe over again! Maybe the second time around Hillary will win in 2016 and Trump will be the used car Salesman he was ment to be.
Because If Trump wins again the whole Universe is messed up, and we just need to start over fresh with a clean slate.

 

[Segnosaur]

I envy people with dual citizenships.

Don't plan on moving to Canada. We don't want immigrants from ****-hole countries.

 

[Crossbow]

If Trump ever got elected again, he'd likely appoint Stewart Rhodes as head of Homeland Security and appoint the Oath Keepers as National Security Advisors.

And I expect that Trump got re-elected, then Trump would make the 'Q Anon Shaman' his press secretary because according to Trump, those poor January 6 criminals have been treated so very unfairly.