Could You Serve on a Bi-Partisan Commission to Investigate the Jan 6 Insurrection?

[Craig234]

I didn't answer his question because it was a bullshit question. You can't have an "investigation" if the whole idea is merely to have members of both political parties sign up for the same preconceived answer.

Of course you can. There was much to investigate about the 9/11 attack with the assumption that Al Queda did it; it didn't need to be investigated whether the attack happened or Al Queda did it. There is much to investigate about the 1/6 attack with the assumption that it was an attack at trump's behest and that the election was not stolen. It doesn't need to be investigated for the 1/6 attack whether the election was stolen.

 

[Craig234]

False logic. The commissions to investigate 9/11 or JFK knew the buildings came down and that the president was dead. Unless I misunderstand your point, blaming Trump beforehand should invalidate a nominee, for investigatory or credibility purposes. That's why Oswald faced a trial if Jack Ruby didn't shoot him, and why Ruby did too afterwards even though we saw him do it on TV. So was there a direct nexus between Trump's comments and what happened afterwards? Or was Trump like Henry II speaking of Thomas Beckett, "won't somebody rid me of this troublesome priest/Senate vote," with history in doubt as to his real intent.

No, just as the committee knew the buildings were brought down and had the video of bin Laden; just as they knew Oswald had been shot and had the video of Ruby; they knew the capitol attack had happened and had the video of trump's rally. There was a lot to investigate, but 'was the election stolen' wasn't needed.

Someone who wants to be on the commission just to prevent its functioning while they yell 'stop the steal' and claim trump won, doesn't belong on it.

 

[Perotista]

A requirement should be that you acknowledge the following:


I agree with Greg Sargent that if members of the commission cannot agree on this, they cannot "credibly participate in any genuine accounting into what happened."

Link

whatever happened to an open mind? No one could sit on a jury having already come to those guilty conclusions you have. What you want is a jury that already has found the defendant guilty before the trial or investigation begins. Your answer is no if I would have to agree guilty before any evidence is heard or the defendant has a chance to plead his case.

I would have no problem reaching your conclusions if that is what the investigation's evidence proves. I would base my conclusions on what the investigation committee came up with and not was reported on the news, be that CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews or any other news outlet. A jury is suppose to decide on what is presented the court room, not on TV. In this case, it would be what the investigation came up with, not what was on TV news or in the papers or radio.

So no, count me out. I'm not partisan enough to already convicted Trump which is what your requiring or ready to pronounce his innocence as his supporters have.

 

[AGENT J]

A requirement should be that you acknowledge the following:

1. The assault on the Capitol happened because then-President Donald Trump incited it.
2. The mob was inspired by Trump’s months of effort to overturn the results, which he unambiguously intended to do, and by months of lies about the outcome’s legitimacy amplified not just by Trump but also by large swaths of the GOP.
3. The single greatest threat posed by political radicalization in this country comes from violent right-wing extremism.

I agree with Greg Sargent that if members of the commission cannot agree on this, they cannot "credibly participate in any genuine accounting into what happened."

Link

Nah I dont agree fully
Donnie and his vile ways without a doubt CONTRIBUTED to it and definitely had some INSPIRATION in it. NOBODY honest, educated and objective with 2 brain cells denies that.

But I dont see the reason for anybody to say "The single greatest threat posed by political radicalization in this country comes from violent right-wing extremism."
Yes the 1/6 event was based on far-right nutters BUT extremism of all types is bad and right now if the pendulum moved in the other direction I think other extremists would act up also.

 

[Perotista]

Nah I dont agree fully
Donnie and his vile ways without a doubt CONTRIBUTED to it and definitely had some INSPIRATION in it. NOBODY honest, educated and objective with 2 brain cells denies that.

But I dont see the reason for anybody to say "The single greatest threat posed by political radicalization in this country comes from violent right-wing extremism."
Yes the 1/6 event was based on far-right nutters BUT extremism of all types is bad and right now if the pendulum moved in the other direction I think other extremists would act up also.

This is interesting and I think correct. Here's something I read that I think is correct, the real danger to this country.

Why Political Sectarianism Is a Growing Threat to American Democracy​

Why Political Sectarianism Is a Growing Threat to American Democracy

American democracy faces many challenges: New limits on voting rights. The corrosive effect of misinformation. The rise of domestic terrorism. Foreign interference in elections. Efforts to subvert the peaceful transition of power. And making matters worse on all of these issues is a fundamental...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Phys251]

There was a debate and Trump was acquitted.

By the trump loyalists in the Senate.

Tell us who this enemy is. name names.

Another stupid demand by someone who has little to no problem with the 1/06 insurrection.

 

[Schism]

By the trump loyalists in the Senate.

Another stupid demand by someone who has little to no problem with the 1/06 insurrection.

Has no retort, then falls back on a taunt-lie. You should probably get something to eat.

 

[Phys251]

Has no retort, then falls back on a taunt-lie. You should probably get something to eat.

Tell us, Schism. Should someone who has no interest in protecting our country from a literal insurrection be trusted to investigate the last one? Asking for a democracy.

 

[Schism]

Tell us, Schism. Should someone who has no interest in protecting our country from a literal insurrection be trusted to investigate the last one? Asking for a democracy.

That's a good example of a loaded question based on a flawed premise which contains an assumption built from a political media narrative.

Your professor would annihilate you in front of the entire class. as I just did.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

A requirement should be that you acknowledge the following:


I agree with Greg Sargent that if members of the commission cannot agree on this, they cannot "credibly participate in any genuine accounting into what happened."

Link

I could serve on the commission, I meet all the requirements.

 

[Phys251]

That's a good example of a loaded question

That's what someone who has no problem with the 1/06 attacks would say as well.

So. You don't care about our democracy, you have little to no problem with the worst attack on US soil since 9/11, which was based in totally fraudulent causes and posed one of the greatest threats to our republic in our history. Then you have the nerve to pretend you actually have the moral high ground.

 

[Lovebug]

Any independent and open minded person could serve, but it isn't a bipartisan commission one is looking for but rather a lynch mob. So no, sorry.

 

[AGENT J]

This is interesting and I think correct. Here's something I read that I think is correct, the real danger to this country.

Why Political Sectarianism Is a Growing Threat to American Democracy​

Why Political Sectarianism Is a Growing Threat to American Democracy

American democracy faces many challenges: New limits on voting rights. The corrosive effect of misinformation. The rise of domestic terrorism. Foreign interference in elections. Efforts to subvert the peaceful transition of power. And making matters worse on all of these issues is a fundamental...

www.yahoo.com

Thanks thats an interesting read and I agree with a lot of it except the severity.

I don't think its going to win or even has a chance too and hopefully that's not just my optimism.

Now its not like Ive been all around, I spend most of my times in a hand full of states but based on that personal experience I think the majority of everyday people left or right are pretty normal.

Could people be hiding it? its possible but typically I dont see the extremism in everyday people in large amounts. Its definitely there and I have and do see it, its just clearly the minority.

I think too many top-level politicians and media are engulfed in it and thats part of the problem thats got us here but IMO I think the main reason those extremist are so loud is that their days are numbered . . they know they are clearly not the future.

IDK, interesting read though and a very interesting topic but I think we are safe OVERALL. There might be some bad things that happen but I think the nutters will lose and america, democracy, basic common sense and human decency will win just like it did 1/6.

 

[Schism]

That's what someone who has no problem with the 1/06 attacks would say as well.

So. You don't care about our democracy, you have little to no problem with the worst attack on US soil since 9/11, which was based in totally fraudulent causes and posed one of the greatest threats to our republic in our history. Then you have the nerve to pretend you actually have the moral high ground.

#msmPanicPorn

 

[j brown's body]

There was a debate and Trump was acquitted.



Tell us who this enemy is. name names.

The senator who acquitted him made it very clear, we heard it over and over again, that it was not because they believed he didn't do it, but because they believed it was not possible to impeach an ex-president.

 

[j brown's body]

Investigators in any commission on any issue have to approach any topic with a "tabula rasa" attitude. I investigated prisons and asylum claims for a human rights group and also investigated discrimination complaints for 25 years or so combined. I would have been hammered by my peers and sanctioned by superiors if I approached things in any other way, and every criminal or civil investigator is or should be bound by a similar approach. And practically in this case, any commissioner proceeding with Trump's guilt as a "given" would have no credibility. True, Trump seems to have hanged himself with his months of comments on fraud and seeming incitement. But a "hanging judge" stye of an inquiry won't fly. We had enough of that from Trump himself through the years of his public life.

"Just the facts, ma'am" is the best approach. (Ask your parents about Joe Friday.)

Let's look at this case.
Do you see evidence that Trump is responsible? after all, the highest elected official in the Republican Party said he is. Why would he say this if it wasn't obvious. Meanwhile the rest of the party rarely, if ever, argued his innocence, they argued a technicality.

Do you you have any ideas about if not Trump, who? If so, please share.

Based on what we saw with our own eyes, it seems as fair an assumption that al Qaeda caused 9/11. An investigation did not clear them. An investigation into 1/6 has the possibility of clearing Trump. But let's be honest, its highly unlikely, based simply on what we saw with our own eyes.

 

[Perotista]

Thanks thats an interesting read and I agree with a lot of it except the severity.

I don't think its going to win or even has a chance too and hopefully that's not just my optimism.

Now its not like Ive been all around, I spend most of my times in a hand full of states but based on that personal experience I think the majority of everyday people left or right are pretty normal.

Could people be hiding it? its possible but typically I dont see the extremism in everyday people in large amounts. Its definitely there and I have and do see it, its just clearly the minority.

I think too many top-level politicians and media are engulfed in it and thats part of the problem thats got us here but IMO I think the main reason those extremist are so loud is that their days are numbered . . they know they are clearly not the future.

IDK, interesting read though and a very interesting topic but I think we are safe OVERALL. There might be some bad things that happen but I think the nutters will lose and america, democracy, basic common sense and human decency will win just like it did 1/6.

I tend to agree. I've been on this kick of condemning today's modern era of politics, the polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra high partisanship. This had its beginnings in the 1990's I think with the Hastert Rule. It's frustrating to see Democrats oppose automatically everything Republicans propose and vice versa, Republicans opposing everything Democrats propose with no thought to the merits of the proposal. Only who proposed it or wanted it.

But I do think a complete change in leadership of both parties could bring back a more amicable political era. Biden may be a good start. When we had leaders in the senate for example like Lott and Daschle, Mitchel and Dole, even Byrd and Baker, they respected each other and would work with each other. Party line votes were very rare if at all until around 2000. None of them would have even thought of the nuclear option let alone use it. None of them would be thinking about ending the filibuster. That's not the case in today's modern political era. Perhaps I should call today's political era the party firster era.

I think the leaders of both parties set the tone for their base and not necessarily the other way around. If each party leaders preach the other party is evil and out to destroy this country, their base will believe it. We thrive and base our campaigns these days on all negative personal attacks, not on substance or issues or possible solutions to our problems or new ideas and visions of the future. These negative personal attacks work, so each election there are more and more.

You probably know all of this. There was a time when each major party respected each other, knew the goal of each was a prosperous, secure and free America only the paths to reach that goal was a bit different. Not today, each party views the other as this nation's number one enemy which has to be stopped at all costs.

I'm just tired of it all.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

A requirement should be that you acknowledge the following:


I agree with Greg Sargent that if members of the commission cannot agree on this, they cannot "credibly participate in any genuine accounting into what happened."

Link

Republicans shouldn’t be on this committee at all. It would be akin to putting AQ on the 911 commission.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

whatever happened to an open mind? No one could sit on a jury having already come to those guilty conclusions you have. What you want is a jury that already has found the defendant guilty before the trial or investigation begins. Your answer is no if I would have to agree guilty before any evidence is heard or the defendant has a chance to plead his case.

I would have no problem reaching your conclusions if that is what the investigation's evidence proves. I would base my conclusions on what the investigation committee came up with and not was reported on the news, be that CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews or any other news outlet. A jury is suppose to decide on what is presented the court room, not on TV. In this case, it would be what the investigation came up with, not what was on TV news or in the papers or radio.

So no, count me out. I'm not partisan enough to already convicted Trump which is what your requiring or ready to pronounce his innocence as his supporters have.

There is zero question about Trump’s role in this. It’s extraordinarily well documented because it’s all public. The point of the investigation would be to find out if anyone working at the Capitol was literally involved with the insurrection, and the failures of response. Trump’s role would play a small part of it because he’s guilty, he was impeached for it already.

Impartiality doesn’t require removing all existing info and giving Trump a do over.

 

[j brown's body]

There is zero question about Trump’s role in this. It’s extraordinarily well documented because it’s all public. The point of the investigation would be to find out if anyone working at the Capitol was literally involved with the insurrection, and the failures of response. Trump’s role would play a small part of it because he’s guilty, he was impeached for it already.

Impartiality doesn’t require removing all existing info and giving Trump a do over.

Of course. And the part about investigation right-wing militias in conjunction with this is important. Are these members also on police forces? In the military? These things need to be investigated.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Of course. And the part about investigation right-wing militias in conjunction with this is important. Are these members also on police forces? In the military? These things need to be investigated.

Yep. This really isn’t about Trump. We know his part in it.

 

[j brown's body]

I tend to agree. I've been on this kick of condemning today's modern era of politics, the polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra high partisanship. This had its beginnings in the 1990's I think with the Hastert Rule. It's frustrating to see Democrats oppose automatically everything Republicans propose and vice versa, Republicans opposing everything Democrats propose with no thought to the merits of the proposal. Only who proposed it or wanted it.

But I do think a complete change in leadership of both parties could bring back a more amicable political era. Biden may be a good start. When we had leaders in the senate for example like Lott and Daschle, Mitchel and Dole, even Byrd and Baker, they respected each other and would work with each other. Party line votes were very rare if at all until around 2000. None of them would have even thought of the nuclear option let alone use it. None of them would be thinking about ending the filibuster. That's not the case in today's modern political era. Perhaps I should call today's political era the party firster era.

I think the leaders of both parties set the tone for their base and not necessarily the other way around. If each party leaders preach the other party is evil and out to destroy this country, their base will believe it. We thrive and base our campaigns these days on all negative personal attacks, not on substance or issues or possible solutions to our problems or new ideas and visions of the future. These negative personal attacks work, so each election there are more and more.

You probably know all of this. There was a time when each major party respected each other, knew the goal of each was a prosperous, secure and free America only the paths to reach that goal was a bit different. Not today, each party views the other as this nation's number one enemy which has to be stopped at all costs.

I'm just tired of it all.

Let's be fair. The Republicans in 2008 who refused to pass TARP, a fabulously successful bail-out, now run the party. They refused to consider a healthcare reform bill that was originated by Republicans. They basically stole two Supreme court seats. Their senate leader claimed that their number #1 goal was to defeat a Democratic President. They won't even call the Democratic Party by its name. And now they insist that the current Democratic president was not legitimately elected. This is a very dangerous path they have gone down, and it led directly to the 1/6 insurrections and 100s of voter suppression laws throughout the states.

How do you work with a group like this?

 

[j brown's body]

Yep. This really isn’t about Trump. We know his part in it.

They know it will implicate him and his cronies even deeper.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

They know it will implicate him and his cronies even deeper.

Oh, I understand why Republicans don’t want this commission. For sure.

 

[Nickyjo]

Let's look at this case.
Do you see evidence that Trump is responsible? after all, the highest elected official in the Republican Party said he is. Why would he say this if it wasn't obvious. Meanwhile the rest of the party rarely, if ever, argued his innocence, they argued a technicality.

Do you you have any ideas about if not Trump, who? If so, please share.

Based on what we saw with our own eyes, it seems as fair an assumption that al Qaeda caused 9/11. An investigation did not clear them. An investigation into 1/6 has the possibility of clearing Trump. But let's be honest, its highly unlikely, based simply on what we saw with our own eyes.

I see all the evidence you pointed out. But an investigator should act the way a trial does. You don't assume facts until they are presented.