The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, a claim of partisanship is not innocuous, because it implies bias. It suggests that the hearing will be prejudiced, and its findings can therefore be dismissed out of hand. It's disingenuous to pretend not to understand this.


I think we should dismiss or accept findings based upon their individual merit. As I have already clearly stated, a partisan committee can still uncover pertinent facts.

But, you are just driving home another point I made...Dems are reluctant to admit the obvious partisanship because they are afraid it will invalidate the findings in the eyes of some.
 
Untrue statements. But, I get it...with so few conservatives prowling about this place, you have to embellish the hunting stories a bit. Pretty much every conservative here (all 3 or 4 of them) is characterized as a cartoonish stereotype.

I find it predictable and laughable to watch.

It's not partisan; it's pro American. Most conservatives here support Trump and are definitionally anti American. You can't be loyal to our nation and support Trump; the two are mutually exclusive. That they come off as cartoonish is a production of their treason.
 
I think we should dismiss or accept findings based upon their individual merit. As I have already clearly stated, a partisan committee can still uncover pertinent facts.

But, you are just driving home another point I made...Dems are reluctant to admit the obvious partisanship because they are afraid it will invalidate the findings in the eyes of some.

The only thing that is obvious to me is the clearly bipartisan nature of this committee.... two Republicans, five Democrats.

By YOUR definition, ANY committee or political body is partisan unless it contains an equal number of Democrat and Republican members, so that means

The House and all its committees...
Agriculture
Appropriations
Armed Services
Budget
Education and Labor
Energy and Commerce
Ethics
Financial Services
Foreign Affairs
Homeland Security
House Administration
Judiciary
Natural Resources
Oversight and Reform
Reform
Rules
Science, Space, and Technology
Small Business
Transportation and Infrastructure
Veterans’ Affairs
Ways and Means
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth
Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress​

... are all partisan committees under your definition, since they all have more members of one party than the other (depending on who is in the House Majority).
 
Last edited:
The only thing that is obvious to me is the clearly bipartisan nature of this committee.... two Republicans, five Democrats.


Funny how so many will proclaim this committee bipartisan...but screech about the SCOTUS imbalance. Pretty zany stuff. I guess it is hard to see partisanship clearly when the balance is tipped in one's favor.
 
Last edited:
Funny how so many will proclaim this committee bipartisan...but screech about the SCOTUS imbalance. Pretty zany stuff. I guess it is hard to see partisanship clearly when the balance is tipped in one's favor.

False equivalence

You also dodged addressing my post (as I expected you would) by snipping out the bit you are too chicken to respond to!
 
Last edited:
You also dodged addressing post (as I expected you would) by snipping out the bit you are too chicken to respond to!


Your habit of calling people "chicken" because they won't waste their time with every silly point you try to make...is worn out and hardly provocative.

Of course there are plenty of partisan committees. It is almost like that is a desirable goal for each party, isn't it? And in this case the Dems are certainly sitting pretty. Regardless of how that came about.
 
Last edited:
Your habit of calling people "chicken" because they won't waste their time with every silly point you try to make...is worn out and hardly provocative.

Your habit of calling questions silly when you are too afraid to answer them is worn out and pathetic.

I call people "chicken" when they repeatedly and wilfully dodge answering questions they are too afraid to answer. You have been called and caught on this multiple times by multiple other posters here.

Now, answer johnny karate's question...

"We've established that the investigation isn't unfair and those carrying it out haven't committed any wrongdoing.

So what's the problem with the investigation?"
 
Last edited:
Funny how so many will proclaim this committee bipartisan...but screech about the SCOTUS imbalance. Pretty zany stuff. I guess it is hard to see partisanship clearly when the balance is tipped in one's favor.

Of the six conservatives, three were appointed by a transparent traitor. Two are known and established sexual predators and the Barret person is part of Dom/Sub sex cult.
 
This is a two-edged sword that cuts at both sides. Chuck Schumer sat on vital intel about plans to storm the Capitol, and Nancy Pelosi twice turned down requests to use National Guard troops to guard the Capitol on January 6, even though Trump had approved their use. However, the January 6 committee has found clear evidence that Trump purposely allowed the riot to continue, that he purposely delayed telling his supporters to stand down after the riot began.

Trump clearly acted as an accessory to the riot after it began. He never called for violence before it occurred; in fact, he urged his supporters to protest peacefully, and he authorized 20,000 NG troops to guard the Capitol. But once the riot began, he acted as an accessory to a felony by refusing to immediately call on his supporters to cease and desist. This was a serious criminal action, and the GOP should repudiate Trump and expel him from the party over it.

At the other end, Schumer's failure to act on the FBI intel, or even to ensure that the capitol police received the intel, is inexcusable and suggests that he wanted the riot to occur so he could use it for propaganda purposes against the Republicans. The Democrats should force Schumer to resign over his failure to act on the FBI intel.

Similarly, Nancy Pelosi's inexplicable failure to allow NG troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6 suggests that she, too, wanted the riot to occur so it could be used for propaganda purposes. The claim that she refused to use the troops because this would have been "bad optics" is lame, given that she had no problem forcing the troops to guard the Capitol for five months after the riot, long after there was any credible need for them to be there. Pelosi should be forced to resign because of her refusal to allow NG troops to guard the Capitol on January 6.

From John Solomon's second blockbuster article based on newly obtained documents:

FBI intelligence warning that Jan. 6 protesters might violently storm the Capitol, target lawmakers and blockade Democrats in tunnels was never sent to frontline police commanders and officers, but was quietly emailed the night before to a top aide to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, according to documents that raise new concern that politics trumped security preparedness in the fateful hours before the riot.

Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher emailed top Schumer aide Kelly Fado, now the Senate's deputy sergeant of arms, at about 9:40 p.m. on Jan. 5, 2021 saying he wanted to "provide you visibility" to new intelligence that an FBI threat analysis center had received from a website owner, according to documents obtained by Just the News.

The information explicitly warned that demonstrators had detailed maps of the tunnel systems around the Capitol frequented by lawmakers and their staffs and they were plotting to create a "perimeter" for potential violence and to find "Democratic members early to block them from entering the Capitol." One point of entry the rioters were targeting was the Library of Congress, he warned.(https://justthenews.com/government/...humer-team-got-fbi-intel-about-jan-6-violence)
 
Last edited:
This is a two-edged sword that cuts at both sides. Chuck Schumer sat on vital intel about plans to storm the Capitol, and Nancy Pelosi twice turned down requests to use National Guard troops to guard the Capitol on January 6, even though Trump had approved their use. However, the January 6 committee has found clear evidence that Trump purposely allowed the riot to continue, that he purposely delayed telling his supporters to stand down after the riot began.

Trump clearly acted as an accessory to the riot after it began. He never called for violence before it occurred; in fact, he urged his supporters to protest peacefully, and he authorized 20,000 NG troops to guard the Capitol. But once the riot began, he acted as an accessory to a felony by refusing to immediately call on his supporters to cease and desist. This was a serious criminal action, and the GOP should repudiate Trump and expel him from the party over it.

At the other end, Schumer's failure to act on the FBI intel, or even to ensure that the capitol police received the intel, is inexcusable and suggests that he wanted the riot to occur so he could use it for propaganda purposes against the Republicans. The Democrats should force Schumer to resign over his failure to act on the FBI intel.

Similarly, Nancy Pelosi's inexplicable failure to allow NG troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6 suggests that she, too, wanted the riot to occur so it could be used for propaganda purposes. The claim that she refused to use the troops because this would have been "bad optics" is lame, given that she had no problem forcing the troops to guard the Capitol for five months after the riot, long after there was any credible need for them to be there. Pelosi should be forced to resign because of her refusal to allow NG troops to guard the Capitol on January 6.

From John Solomon's second blockbuster article based on newly obtained documents:

FBI intelligence warning that Jan. 6 protesters might violently storm the Capitol, target lawmakers and blockade Democrats in tunnels was never sent to frontline police commanders and officers, but was quietly emailed the night before to a top aide to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, according to documents that raise new concern that politics trumped security preparedness in the fateful hours before the riot.

Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher emailed top Schumer aide Kelly Fado, now the Senate's deputy sergeant of arms, at about 9:40 p.m. on Jan. 5, 2021 saying he wanted to "provide you visibility" to new intelligence that an FBI threat analysis center had received from a website owner, according to documents obtained by Just the News.

The information explicitly warned that demonstrators had detailed maps of the tunnel systems around the Capitol frequented by lawmakers and their staffs and they were plotting to create a "perimeter" for potential violence and to find "Democratic members early to block them from entering the Capitol." One point of entry the rioters were targeting was the Library of Congress, he warned.(https://justthenews.com/government/...humer-team-got-fbi-intel-about-jan-6-violence)


More disinformation word salad from your dishonest, unreliable sources.

Oh, and FYI, at the time of the January 6 insurrection, the Republicans were still the government and held the majority in the Senate. Chuck Schumer was only the Senate minority leader - he didn't become the Senate Majority Leader until January 20, 2021. Therefore, the only person with the authority to act on the supposed FBI intelligence was Moscow Mitch... and he did, err... nothing.
 
Last edited:
This is a two-edged sword that cuts at both sides. Chuck Schumer sat on vital intel about plans to storm the Capitol, and Nancy Pelosi twice turned down requests to use National Guard troops to guard the Capitol on January 6, even though Trump had approved their use. However, the January 6 committee has found clear evidence that Trump purposely allowed the riot to continue, that he purposely delayed telling his supporters to stand down after the riot began.

Trump clearly acted as an accessory to the riot after it began. He never called for violence before it occurred; in fact, he urged his supporters to protest peacefully, and he authorized 20,000 NG troops to guard the Capitol. But once the riot began, he acted as an accessory to a felony by refusing to immediately call on his supporters to cease and desist. This was a serious criminal action, and the GOP should repudiate Trump and expel him from the party over it.

At the other end, Schumer's failure to act on the FBI intel, or even to ensure that the capitol police received the intel, is inexcusable and suggests that he wanted the riot to occur so he could use it for propaganda purposes against the Republicans. The Democrats should force Schumer to resign over his failure to act on the FBI intel.

Similarly, Nancy Pelosi's inexplicable failure to allow NG troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6 suggests that she, too, wanted the riot to occur so it could be used for propaganda purposes. The claim that she refused to use the troops because this would have been "bad optics" is lame, given that she had no problem forcing the troops to guard the Capitol for five months after the riot, long after there was any credible need for them to be there. Pelosi should be forced to resign because of her refusal to allow NG troops to guard the Capitol on January 6.

From John Solomon's second blockbuster article based on newly obtained documents:

FBI intelligence warning that Jan. 6 protesters might violently storm the Capitol, target lawmakers and blockade Democrats in tunnels was never sent to frontline police commanders and officers, but was quietly emailed the night before to a top aide to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, according to documents that raise new concern that politics trumped security preparedness in the fateful hours before the riot.

Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher emailed top Schumer aide Kelly Fado, now the Senate's deputy sergeant of arms, at about 9:40 p.m. on Jan. 5, 2021 saying he wanted to "provide you visibility" to new intelligence that an FBI threat analysis center had received from a website owner, according to documents obtained by Just the News.

The information explicitly warned that demonstrators had detailed maps of the tunnel systems around the Capitol frequented by lawmakers and their staffs and they were plotting to create a "perimeter" for potential violence and to find "Democratic members early to block them from entering the Capitol." One point of entry the rioters were targeting was the Library of Congress, he warned.(https://justthenews.com/government/...humer-team-got-fbi-intel-about-jan-6-violence)


Whether every detail you have provided is verifiable or not, I appreciate you posting your views and information. It gets tiresome listening to the same drivel and groupthink on these issues.
 
Whether every detail you have provided is verifiable or not, I appreciate you posting your views and information. It gets tiresome listening to the same drivel and groupthink on these issues.

I don't.

mikegriffiths' posts on anything political are all pure, partisan lies and disinformation, from Trump arse-lickers. None of it is credible.

The idiots he gets this information from didn't even realise that Chuck Schumer was not the Senate Majority Leader ion Jan 6 and therefore did not even have the authority they attribute to him do the things they claim he failed to do.

YouCantFixStupid.gif
 
I read a BBC article about a young woman in Kharkiv in Ukraine, a city the Russians have been relentlessly shelling. Her parents live in Moscow. At first she was reluctant to tell her parents her area was under Russian artillery and rocket attack because she didn't want to upset them. She needn't have worried. Her parents watch Russian state TV. When she finally told them they refused to believe her.



I used to wonder how things like this could happen in civilized nations. I don't wonder anymore. I'm living it. :(

The thing is if Trump weren't a complete and total Moron he might have pulled it off.
To declare the Insurrection act Trump would have needed a battle between his supporters, and BLM, Antifa. Trump couldn't inspire BLM or Antifa to show up, so he would have had to use crisis actors for a Mock battle, and have it broadcast on Fox News Live.
He could have then declared the Insurrection act and possibly delayed the congressional proceedings indefinitely.
 
Indeed.
the debt this country owes to BLM and Antifa for not falling into the trap can never be repaid.

It's funny. It wasn't very subtle. Twitter was full of people who claim to be organizers for BLM pointing out how blatantly obvious the Orange Weakling was about trying to cause a riot. There weren't even organized counter protests. They just refused to show up and get into it.
 
Indeed.
the debt this country owes to BLM and Antifa for not falling into the trap can never be repaid.

Well this is how we know Trump supporters are dumb-***** and BLM/Antifa are not. The latter had the good sense to stay away - I actually read somewhere that thousands of Antifa types messaged each other to stay the **** away from DC on January 6.
 
Well, it is as fair as any committee with a large degree of partisanship should be expected to be. Of course you have to do your own research and not blindly accept what is presented. Although I am sure that most Dems will do exactly that.

And, you should of course try to wade through the obvious political subtext.
The problem here, as it so often is to some who look at it, is that the events in question and the facts about them are inherently partisan. The whole point of the insurrection was to be partisan in the extreme, the result of a policy of crimes and lies perpetrated by a significant portion of a single party. So those representing the crimes and lies under investigation refused to participate in the investigation of the crimes and lies, and now sanctimoniously declare the resulting investigation partisan, because the advocates of crimes and lies are not equally represented.

Well, yeah, duh. If the policy of your side is to deny truth, the quest for truth will always be partisan. That's not a flaw.
 
Last edited:
It's funny. It wasn't very subtle. Twitter was full of people who claim to be organizers for BLM pointing out how blatantly obvious the Orange Weakling was about trying to cause a riot. There weren't even organized counter protests. They just refused to show up and get into it.

The day Trump announced he was having his party on the 6th, the George Floyd Brianna Taylor Group in Louisville was organizing a counter protest, they had about 150 people who were going, then a Mister X Posted, that if they went Trump would declare the Insurrection act and declare himself king, and it would start the second civil war. That was the Right after Trump's Tweet on Twitter, about 5 minutes after.
Word spread like wildfire after that.
We win by staying home, was what he posted.
The January 6th committee will obviously have the posts, and probably want to keep Mr. X's Name private, as he contacted a lot of people that day. We may never know who he actually was.
 
Last edited:
Untrue statements. But, I get it...with so few conservatives prowling about this place, you have to embellish the hunting stories a bit. Pretty much every conservative here (all 3 or 4 of them) is characterized as a cartoonish stereotype.



I find it predictable and laughable to watch.

"Characterization" isn't a bad thing in and of itself.

When based on observation of behaviors and statements of belief, it is perfectly reasonable to do so.

Arbitrary characterization based only on a stated affiliation would be another matter.

Although that would be more properly termed mischaracterization.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom