Jan 6th: Riot only or, Attempted Insurrection?

[SkyFox76]

Coming up on 2 years after the January 6th protests, mostly peaceful. After the FBI had arrested hundreds and vowed to continue the jihad targeting 2,000 arrests. The fencing and occupation troops are long gone. Yet, the crisis is so very severe Nancy Pelosi is justified in discarding the process for creating a bipartisan committee. Typical fascism.

19 more arrests just this week.

 

[DCCougar]

Coming up on 2 years after the January 6th protests.... Yet, the crisis is so very severe Nancy Pelosi is justified in discarding the process for creating a bipartisan committee.

WTF? Cut the bullshit! McCarthy "discarded the process" and pulled out of the House Committee, so Pelosi put two Republicans on it. And here's the key part: That was two years ago. Why in hell are you bellyaching about it now? The instant Trump said he was running for president, Garland appointed an independent special counsel who took over the investigation, finding a shitload of serious criminal activity by Trump and his minions. Trump is finally being held accountable for his actions. So what's the problem?

 

[eohrnberger]

WTF? Cut the bullshit! McCarthy "discarded the process" and pulled out of the House Committee, so Pelosi put two Republicans on it. And here's the key part: That was two years ago. Why in hell are you bellyaching about it now? The instant Trump said he was running for president, Garland appointed an independent special counsel who took over the investigation, finding a shitload of serious criminal activity by Trump and his minions. Trump is finally being held accountable for his actions. So what's the problem?

I believe that @AZRWinger already responded to this point in post #1,241.

 

[Mongidig]

Rollins was never in that group, which proves you don't know "dick" about the guy, so you're not qualified to make a judgment about the comparison, whereas I knew Henry Garfield growing up in Bethesda Maryland before he even got into Black Flag and did work on two of his early albums and one of his early movies.

Ya I know Rollins wasn't in Tool. Tool was mentioned in that strange comparison. I just felt the need to say Tool sucks. One thing I have heard about Rollins is that he is Asexual. Is that true?

 

[Mongidig]

Sorry @Mongidig but your comebacks reek of weak sauce.
And again, regarding Ben Shapiro, he's not only terrified of trans women, he can't even get a real woman wet.
A parking attendant has better luck finding the G-spot than Ben Shapiro.

View attachment 67458320

I don't think anybody is afraid of a trans woman unless she works at a day care.

You are basing your knowledge of Shapiros sex life based on a tweet?

Talk about weak sauce.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The point is the people who participated in the January 6th protest posed no threat at the time Nancy Pelosi declared the situation "unprecedented". She lied as an excuse to turn the committee into a show trial.

She didn't say anything about them being a threat, but rather their presence might compromise the integrity of the investigation because they voted against the certification of the election and supported the election fraud narrative. The situation was indeed unprecedented, so if you can find the last time a losing incumbent pulled a stunt like this, please feel free to present it.

Let's break this down to the point where even someone not even as smart as a Ukrainian dog can understand.

God that was daft.

McCarthy encouraging committee members to resign was in reaction to Pelosi's fascist stunt of vetoing Republican committee selections.

There's that word again, which is weird because it was within her rights to do based on the legislation passed around the formation of the committee.

Had Pelosi not decided to turn committee selection into a partisan political circus none of the Republicans would have withdrawn. Blaming McCarthy for the Republicans resigning is like trying to blame the driver stopped at a red light for the damages and injuries when a drunk driver plows into the back of the car. After all they could have driven into the cross traffic.

That's a rather bad analogy. Also, the other members didn't resign, he decided to pull them from the committee. Mind you, he had been on the fence from the very beginning and had stated he might not appoint anyone at all. A more apt comparison is someone complaining they weren't invited to the party after they turned down the invitation. McCarthy had options for representation on the committee, but he decided to abdicate it when two of the members were clearly problematic because they participated in part of what went down on 1/6, which was refusing to certify the election based on the fraud narrative.

 

[ElChupacabra]

For the Dems, it sure seems to be leaning to a veering to the hard left.

I don't think so over all. How much that changes without someone to shepherd the progressives in the party the way Pelosi did remains to be seen. I think the party has veered more left than it's been before, but not a hard turn. At this point in time the GOP is having a harder time managing the balance between its more centrist elements and it more right leaning factions. That's clearly evident due to the influence of Trump aligned politicians and their unwillingness to cross anything the former president says; the Democrats don't have that dynamic in equal measure.

Posted my thought on this previously.

Ok.

 

[eohrnberger]

I don't think so over all.

'The Squad' is leading the way, and you see Democrats endorsing and supporting all kinds of policies founded on 'woke' ideology. How is this NOT a turn to the hard left?

How much that changes without someone to shepherd the progressives in the party the way Pelosi did remains to be seen.

This is what leads me to believe that the Dems are going to veer to the hard left.

I think the party has veered more left than it's been before, but not a hard turn.

At this point in time the GOP is having a harder time managing the balance between its more centrist elements and it more right leaning factions. That's clearly evident due to the influence of Trump aligned politicians and their unwillingness to cross anything the former president says; the Democrats don't have that dynamic in equal measure.

Meh. My view is different on this, as you can well imagine.
Yes, the populist influence and newly elected unseating incumbents has moved the GOP to the right a bit, where it probably should have been all the time from my view (with a few policy exceptions where I think they've stepped in it).

Ok.

 

[ElChupacabra]

'The Squad' is leading the way, and you see Democrats endorsing and supporting all kinds of policies founded on 'woke' ideology. How is this NOT a turn to the hard left?

"Leading the way" is something I'm sure they would appreciate others thinking of their efforts, but the reality is for much of their time in Congress they've had an influence, but haven been kept in check by party centrists. The Biden administration has pulled in some of their ideas and suggestions in legislation, but hardly to the point of their policies leading the way. Progressives in the party can endorse and support all sorts of policies, but whether they pass into law is another thing.

This is what leads me to believe that the Dems are going to veer to the hard left.

That may or may not happen, because what is clear based on election success, veering too hard in one direction doesn't bode well for either party considering most of the nation is in the middle.

Meh. My view is different on this, as you can well imagine.
Yes, the populist influence and newly elected unseating incumbents has moved the GOP to the right a bit, where it probably should have been all the time from my view (with a few policy exceptions where I think they've stepped in it).

You're being modest at your "moved the GOP to the right", given a populist president was elected, and his popularity basically has the party kowtowing to him. Many of the centrists in the GOP are pretty much silent now as a slim majority is driving much of the policy. The same dynamic does not exist among the Democrats.

 

[Overitall]

Holy hyperbole Batman!

So the FBI shouldn't investigate the full breadth of the people involved?


Let's break this down to point out why this is absurd. Now if this were actually a fascist move, McCarthy would have no say in what Republican members or any recourse in addressing concerns over his picks. All of that was available to him, but he chose to remove all of the members he was entitled to and refused to seat others in order to represent his party.

He was protesting Pelosi's actions. The reasonings for denying the two picks was bogus. Pelosi knew they would actually hold people, like herself, accountable. The two rinos she picked showed it was a farce committee.

 

[ElChupacabra]

He was protesting Pelosi's actions.

Sure, but in that process kicked the chair out from under himself.

The reasonings for denying the two picks was bogus.

Opinion noted. Typically when you investigate wrong doing, you don't have people who potentially participated in that wrong doing. McCarthy had other options in terms of Trump supporting House members.

Pelosi knew they would actually hold people, like herself, accountable. The two rinos she picked showed it was a farce committee.

Which brings me back to the point of this not being about bipartisan representation, but about having Trump loyalists who would be there solely for that purpose and not investigating what actually happened and who was responsible.

 

[Overitall]

Sure, but in that process kicked the chair out from under himself.

I'm sure he knew what he was doing. The hearings were political. He made a political statement.

Opinion noted. Typically when you investigate wrong doing, you don't have people who potentially participated in that wrong doing. McCarthy had other options in terms of Trump supporting House members.


Which brings me back to the point of this not being about bipartisan representation, but about having Trump loyalists who would be there solely for that purpose and not investigating what actually happened and who was responsible.

You don't think "I'm going to make sure Trump never returns to the WH." Liz Cheney was politically motivated?

 

[ElChupacabra]

I'm sure he knew what he was doing. The hearings were political. He made a political statement.

That, he did. It's the effectiveness of that statement where opinions vary, but I find pushing yourself out and having no power at all in an investigation a far worse position to be in.

You don't think "I'm going to make sure Trump never returns to the WH." Liz Cheney was politically motivated?

By this framing, there will never be an investigation in Congress that anyone should consider valid.

 

[Overitall]

That, he did. It's the effectiveness of that statement where opinions vary, but I find pushing yourself out and having no power at all in an investigation a far worse position to be in.

Most Republicans supported his actions, thus towards them it was an effective move.

By this framing, there will never be an investigation in Congress that anyone should consider valid.

Whenever the conclusions precede the investigation perhaps some hearings should be stopped. A preconceived outcome is never valid.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Most Republicans supported his actions, thus towards them it was an effective move.

For them, sure. Outside of that circle, not so much.

Whenever the conclusions precede the investigation perhaps some hearings should be stopped. A preconceived outcome is never valid.

Let me know when the GOP applies this and stops the Biden investigations.

 

[Overitall]

For them, sure. Outside of that circle, not so much.

Sure, you don't think he would be going for your approval, do you?

Let me know when the GOP applies this and stops the Biden investigations.

Politics. Ain't it great!

 

[eohrnberger]

"Leading the way" is something I'm sure they would appreciate others thinking of their efforts, but the reality is for much of their time in Congress they've had an influence, but haven been kept in check by party centrists. The Biden administration has pulled in some of their ideas and suggestions in legislation, but hardly to the point of their policies leading the way. Progressives in the party can endorse and support all sorts of policies, but whether they pass into law is another thing.

Fair enough, but I think you are underestimating the shift left of the entire party, but points of view will certainly differ.

That may or may not happen, because what is clear based on election success, veering too hard in one direction doesn't bode well for either party considering most of the nation is in the middle.

You're being modest at your "moved the GOP to the right", given a populist president was elected, and his popularity basically has the party kowtowing to him. Many of the centrists in the GOP are pretty much silent now as a slim majority is driving much of the policy. The same dynamic does not exist among the Democrats.

From my view not so much, but again points of view will differ.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Fair enough, but I think you are underestimating the shift left of the entire party, but points of view will certainly differ.

There's a shift, we just differ to what extent that shift is. I would argue the shift left is more cultural than it is political.

From my view not so much, but again points of view will differ.

If you like populism and think a shift to the right is a good thing for your party, then this makes sense.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Sure, you don't think he would be going for your approval, do you?

Nope. Though from a purely political perspective, having his members on the committee would have given him much more ammo to make a convincing argument for the areas he wanted to investigate that weren't. From the outside, all he could do is complain.

Politics. Ain't it great!

It's always been a bit of a mess, but now it feels like it's all degrading at an accelerated rate.

 

[AZRWinger]

She didn't say anything about them being a threat, but rather their presence might compromise the integrity of the investigation because they voted against the certification of the election and supported the election fraud narrative. The situation was indeed unprecedented, so if you can find the last time a losing incumbent pulled a stunt like this, please feel free to present it.


God that was daft.


There's that word again, which is weird because it was within her rights to do based on the legislation passed around the formation of the committee.




That's a rather bad analogy. Also, the other members didn't resign, he decided to pull them from the committee. Mind you, he had been on the fence from the very beginning and had stated he might not appoint anyone at all. A more apt comparison is someone complaining they weren't invited to the party after they turned down the invitation. McCarthy had options for representation on the committee, but he decided to abdicate it when two of the members were clearly problematic because they participated in part of what went down on 1/6, which was refusing to certify the election based on the fraud narrative.

Well the question of smarter than Hunter's dog has been answered ...

There was no extraordinary situation when Pelosi acting as a classic fascist pretended rigging the committee membership was necessary. It a cheap rhetorical ruse to pretend otherwise.

Claiming a member of Congress talking to the President implicates him in criminal activity is innane. "Clearly problematic" might impress the Bad Orange Man zealots but it's a poor substitute for reasoned discussion. Again, no crisis existed to justify Pelosi's action.

Using your analogy of party invitations, it's like the host withdrew invitations of outspoken black invitees because they weren't our kind of people. But hey other black invitees should have gone along without question if they already accepted. Nonsense.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Well the question of smarter than Hunter's dog has been answered ...

Doubling down on a daft comment; well done. Oh, and wasn't it a Ukrainian dog or some other odd reference?

There was no extraordinary situation when Pelosi acting as a classic fascist pretended rigging the committee membership was necessary. It a cheap rhetorical ruse to pretend otherwise.

More of the fantastical. Had McCarthy not had a choice in members, you'd have an argument, but he did. That two were objected to because of their role in attempting to prevent the certification of the election, is not "rigging the committee" since he could have selected any other GOP member who supports Trump.

Claiming a member of Congress talking to the President implicates him in criminal activity is innane. "Clearly problematic" might impress the Bad Orange Man zealots but it's a poor substitute for reasoned discussion. Again, no crisis existed to justify Pelosi's action.

Good thing no one claimed that.

Using your analogy of party invitations, it's like the host withdrew invitations of outspoken black invitees because they weren't our kind of people. But hey other black invitees should have gone along without question if they already accepted. Nonsense.

Wow, that's quite the odd trip down poor analogy lane. This fails because it wasn't the members were rejected because they weren't "their kind of people", but because they were actively participating in preventing the certification of the election, which was tied to the election fraud narrative. What you continually tap dance around is the fact three of McCarthy's picks faced no objection.

 

[AZRWinger]

Doubling down on a daft comment; well done. Oh, and wasn't it a Ukrainian dog or some other odd reference?



More of the fantastical. Had McCarthy not had a choice in members, you'd have an argument, but he did. That two were objected to because of their role in attempting to prevent the certification of the election, is not "rigging the committee" since he could have selected any other GOP member who supports Trump.


Good thing no one claimed that.




Wow, that's quite the odd trip down poor analogy lane. This fails because it wasn't the members were rejected because they weren't "their kind of people", but because they were actively participating in preventing the certification of the election, which was tied to the election fraud narrative. What you continually tap dance around is the fact three of McCarthy's picks faced no objection.

You tap dance around the fact there was no unprecedented crisis at the time Nancy Pelosi destroyed any pretense of a bipartisan committee. The so-called existential crisis ended after a few hours with the so-called insurrectionists leaving peacefully after a few hours. No fires, no wanton vandalism, no systematic looting on the way out. Even the military occupation troops were long gone by the time Pelosi cited an unprecedented crisis.

No one was making a big deal out of a Congressman talking to the POTUS except

Donald Trump and Jim Jordan spoke for 10 minutes on the morning of January 6

The House select committee investigating the Capitol insurrection is now in possession of White House records that provide new details about a phone call Donald Trump made to Republican Rep. Jim Jordan on January 6, 2021 -- as the investigation drills down on the former President's...

www.cnn.com

You defend Pelosi as within her authotity to rig the committee membership. Yet Jordan is deemed unsuitable for exercising his authority to object to the election certification. Others were planning to object to certification as well yet you claim McCarthy could have chosen ANY other Republican without veto by Pelosi. Another voyage down De Nile on your part.

The simple truth is Pelosi had no interest in a bipartisan fair investigation. She couldn't have Republicans on the committee who didn't share her rancid hatred for Trump. They hired a TV producer to orchestrate the show trial. They couldn't risk having a Republican committee member speak off script.

 

[Overitall]

Nope. Though from a purely political perspective, having his members on the committee would have given him much more ammo to make a convincing argument for the areas he wanted to investigate that weren't. From the outside, all he could do is complain.

His complaints could, nevertheless, be valid. Complaining of itself, doesn't equal automatic rejection of points raised in the complaining.

It's always been a bit of a mess, but now it feels like it's all degrading at an accelerated rate.

I don't recall a time as divisive as it is today. The question isn't over it takes two to tangle, but who threw the first punch. From my perch, obviously, it seems the democrats started us down the divisive path.

 

[ElChupacabra]

His complaints could, nevertheless, be valid. Complaining of itself, doesn't equal automatic rejection of points raised in the complaining.

No, but when the complaints come from a self inflicted problem, then they are a bit hollow. Had he kept people in, the complaints could have been more grounded in the areas they felt the investigation wasn't going.

I don't recall a time as divisive as it is today. The question isn't over it takes two to tangle, but who threw the first punch. From my perch, obviously, it seems the democrats started us down the divisive path.

This is part of why things are divisive, because the idea it was one political side starting it, when it's been a tit for tat between both that is the more accurate assessment.

 

[ElChupacabra]

You tap dance around the fact there was no unprecedented crisis at the time Nancy Pelosi destroyed any pretense of a bipartisan committee. The so-called existential crisis ended after a few hours with the so-called insurrectionists leaving peacefully after a few hours. No fires, no wanton vandalism, no systematic looting on the way out. Even the military occupation troops were long gone by the time Pelosi cited an unprecedented crisis.

It seems you keep confusing what she was referring to as unprecedented, since I don't recall her mentioning anything of an immediate crisis at the time of the formation of the committee. Here's what she actually said:

With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee. The unprecedented nature of Jan. 6 demands this unprecedented decision.

No one was making a big deal out of a Congressman talking to the POTUS except

Donald Trump and Jim Jordan spoke for 10 minutes on the morning of January 6

The House select committee investigating the Capitol insurrection is now in possession of White House records that provide new details about a phone call Donald Trump made to Republican Rep. Jim Jordan on January 6, 2021 -- as the investigation drills down on the former President's...

www.cnn.com

I mean, I know turning a blind eye to a former president's plan to introduce fake electors makes it easy to avoid asking questions of the members of the House he spoke to, but then that would make it a sham investigation.

You defend Pelosi as within her authotity to rig the committee membership. Yet Jordan is deemed unsuitable for exercising his authority to object to the election certification. Others were planning to object to certification as well yet you claim McCarthy could have chosen ANY other Republican without veto by Pelosi. Another voyage down De Nile on your part.

Except it's not rigging because her ability to reject members is baked into the legislation passed to form the committee. House members can object to the election certification, but the problem here was there was a concerted effort to usurp the election results through other means (fake electors) and all based on an unproven election fraud narrative. There's no denial necessary, since Pelosi objected to two members, which means the other three were fine to be on the committee.

The simple truth is Pelosi had no interest in a bipartisan fair investigation. She couldn't have Republicans on the committee who didn't share her rancid hatred for Trump. They hired a TV producer to orchestrate the show trial. They couldn't risk having a Republican committee member speak off script.

Odd then that she didn't object to Rep. Nehls, who also voted for objections to Biden's win.