• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jan. 6 Protest Organizers Say They Participated in ‘Dozens’ of Planning Meetings With Members of Congress and White House Staff

I don't understand the mentality of those who don't want to understand everything about January 6th. If Trump and several Congress critters were involved in encouraging or organizing the events that transpired that should be known by the American people.

Similarly, if they weren't or if their involvement was limited to a peaceful rally with no intention of interfering in a legitimate Constitutional process that should be understood as well. Somehow the US needs to get back to a shared set of facts from which they can form personal opinions. Opinions can and should vary but facts are facts and not wanting to understand what the facts are is confounding to me.
 
soap box said:
Some of us want to know what they discussed. We doubt they were talking about tiddlywinks.
Is one of the purposes of the congressional committee to get an idea of what was discussed at that meeting?
Click to expand...
It's none of their...or your...business.
 
Mycroft said:
It's none of their...or your...business.
Click to expand...
People want to know if their president is a crook. (Nixon '74)
I wanna know if that president was a crook. (now)
It is OUR business. (future)
 
Then I'm sure we'll see your support for an appointed independent council to investigate?
 
noonereal said:
WTF are you talking about? I resent this shit.

I copied the part I wanted to address. Cut the shit. That is WTF the tool is for.

I hate posts like this. Phony, dishonest and accusatory.
Click to expand...

I really do not care what you resent, you edited my post and took away the context.

Making you rather dishonest and phony.
 
soap box said:
People want to know if their president is a crook. (Nixon '74)
I wanna know if that president was a crook. (now)
It is OUR business. (future)
Click to expand...
So...if I want to know if YOU are a crook, I should have the right to know everything you've ever said to anyone? I should have the right to know what you've ever thought about anything? Are you willing to give up ALL of your secrets...just because I want to know if you are a crook?

Forget it. That's not how our society works and it's not how it's going to work.
 
Michael Cole said:
Bullshit. Everything they said is our business. We elect them to represent us, not Trump.
Click to expand...
Do you feel the same way about Nancy? Should she be required to reveal every conversation she's had with anyone?

Seriously...I don't think you want to go there.
 
Mycroft said:
Do you feel the same way about Nancy? Should she be required to reveal every conversation she's had with anyone?

Seriously...I don't think you want to go there.
Click to expand...

Associate it with a crime.
 
Mycroft said:
It's none of their...or your...business.
Click to expand...
it is our business. we the people.


all you're doing is running cover for some politicians (and others).
 
Mycroft said:
Do you feel the same way about Nancy? Should she be required to reveal every conversation she's had with anyone?

Seriously...I don't think you want to go there.
Click to expand...
You don't think...

That's the problem. Why would I care about Pelosi? If she does something wrong, then yes, throw the book at her. Question her to your heart's desire.

Why would you say that? I'm not partisan, and ftr, I can't stand Pelosi

Big fail there Mycroft.
 
I am not an elected official, nor am I a cohort with suspicious characters like Rudy G and Steve B. They might be innocent until proven guilty, but authorities have a right to find out what they were talking about, and we have a right to eventually know how j6 happened the way it did. And that is based on the premise that we don't want it to happen again.
 
Mycroft said:
It means no such thing.

Woodwards books are covered by ALL the left wing media...but their is only one source...his books.

It's an echo chamber, you know.
Click to expand...

Woodward's work has withstood the test of time.

It brought down the Nixon presidency, and you don't do that on bullshit.

Sorry.
 
OscarLevant said:
Woodward's work has withstood the test of time.

It brought down the Nixon presidency, and you don't do that on bullshit.

Sorry.
Click to expand...
Woodward has move away from credibility since his Nixon days.
 
Michael Cole said:
Rolling Stone has a spotless record. You won't find any lies. So, only a fool wouldn't believe it.
Click to expand...
Oh really?

How did Rolling Stone get a rape story so wrong?​

https://www.msnbc.com › msnbc › how-did-rolling-stone-get-rape-story-so-wrong-msna566691
Rolling Stone magazine has retracted its explosive story, "A Rape on Campus," and the writer of the story has apologized, on the heels of a Columbia Journalism School report on the magazine's ...

The Rolling Stone campus rape hoax turns ... - The College Fix​

https://www.thecollegefix.com › the-rolling-stone-campus-rape-hoax-turns-five-here-are-the-lessons-from-the-scandal-that-rocked-the-nation
That report, which was done at the request of Rolling Stone's publisher, Jann Wenner, is a thorough, exhaustive account of everything that went wrong with "A Rape on Campus." The magazine ...

Meh. Not so much.
 
So, one possibly problematic story out of thousands of good ones?
 
Retracted and apologized. Nobody's perfect. Point is, they are a reliable source.
 
The House Jan.6 select committee is closing in on Trump.

CNN reports, "At least five former Trump administration staffers have voluntarily spoken with the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, CNN has learned.

"Those discussions come as lawyers working for the committee have also reached out to a range of other Trump aides to inquire whether they would be interested in speaking with the committee voluntarily, without the threat of a subpoena.

"The five former staffers who have had conversations with the committee have done so with either members or their staff. Some believe they have information worth sharing, while others are hoping to avoid being legally compelled to talk to the committee.

"The engagement could provide insight for the committee that's seeking to learn more about the actions of former President Donald Trump and his supporters in the lead up to the riot."

CNN continued, "The House select committee investigating January 6 has reached out to Chad Wolf and Ken Cuccinelli, two top officials from the Trump-era Department of Homeland Security, asking that they voluntarily speak with the panel.

"Cuccinelli said he has been asked to meet with investigators but he has not yet engaged in a discussion with the committee. A source familiar with the probe said that Wolf, who was acting secretary until he resigned in January, also has been contacted.

"The committee has not issued a subpoena for Cuccinelli or Wolf at this time. They are the first known DHS officials to have been contacted by the committee."

Despite his fiery speech that incited the insurrection, Trump maintains that he did no wrong while at the same time telling his associates to disobey Congressional subpoenas and asserting mythical executive privilege to keep White House documents from the prying eyes of the House committee.

CNN adds, "The showdown with Biden fuels Trump's attempts to turn efforts to investigate the tumultuous end to his presidency into fodder for a political comeback. He's already making the midterms and the 2024 presidential election into a platform for his falsehoods that power was stolen from him in a rigged election. Trump and his allies have branded Biden's refusal to cooperate with his political power grabs as evidence of a political vendetta against the ex-President."

Not surprisingly, his gullible and less than mindful fans will believe him. They don't require substantiation because Trump is their prophet for some unknown reason they can't define.
 
tacomancer said:
So, one possibly problematic story out of thousands of good ones?
Click to expand...
Just one?

Rolling Stone, however, apparently doesn't feel itself bound by those strictures. Granted, Rolling Stone is the magazine that was once home to Hunter Thompson, whose account of the 1972 presidential race — originally published in its pages — was called "the most accurate and the least factual" account of the campaign by one of the ...​
​

A recent Rolling Stone magazine article falsely claimed babies in early fetal development don't have hearts - Catherine Hadro 'Speaks Out'. -----Don't...​
​

But it was this very mentality that got Erdely and Rolling Stone into trouble to begin with. Erdely was so determined to tell Jackie's horrific story that she failed to do the kind of due ...​
​
Hmm Not good journalism?​
​

Rolling Stone Got Jackie's Story Wrong, But That Doesn't Make It A Hoax. On Nov. 19, Rolling Stone published an explosive exposé about campus sexual assault at the University of Virginia (UVA). The article, which centered around the story of Jackie, a UVA student who claimed to have been brutally gang-raped at a fraternity during the fall of ...​
​

What 'Rolling Stone' Got Wrong About the "Fight Over Guns on Campus". AUSTIN, TEXAS - When Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) was approached last July by a young reporter from Rolling Stone magazine, we were skeptical. Rolling Stone is known for pandering to trendy views, not challenging them. However, the reporter promised that his ...​

Meh. Call me skeptical as to the veracity of this reporting on politics and news from Rolling Stone, a music magazine.

I'll wait 48 to 72 hours and see what's verified and collaborated, thanks.

What I fully expect is that Pelosi's so called 'Commission' will parade this around for the media cameras as 'fact', and her 'news' (political propaganda) media accomplices (such as CNN - Pelosi hilariously scolds media for not 'selling' $3.5T spending bill: 'Do a better job' and then CNN: Get up to speed: How the spending bill would change your life) will 'sell' it for her.

The same people orchestrating Pelosi's political Kabuki theater circus are the same people who orchestrated the Democrat Senator embarrassing Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. Why do the Democrats continue to double down on failures? Must be some of the awesome 'liberal logic'.
 
Only two of those sources were reputable, so now you have maybe 3 out of thousands
 
tacomancer said:
Only two of those sources were reputable, so now you have maybe 3 out of thousands
Click to expand...
Do please proceed in your denial and confirmation bias. It's rather humorous to observe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…