• 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!

Questions about Trump and Jan 6 report

soap box said:
Which part of the report is incomplete? Have you read how many times the testimony has been linked to and corroborated with real events and existing documents?
Click to expand...
Absence of cross-examination makes it incomplete. I've been clear about that. Allowing 3rd hand testimony makes it incomplete.
 
soap box said:
Then this is the most important question here and now:

What questions would you ask him to cross examine his testimony?
Click to expand...
He said "I don't recall" a lot, didn't he?
Was Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony persuasive to you? See any problems with it if you were doing the cross?
 
bubbabgone said:
Since you appear to be admitting it was purely politics masquerading as patriotism then we are in agreement.
Click to expand...
I have argued the opposite. I have not mangled your posts to misrepresent your meaning. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to do so.
 
bubbabgone said:
He said "I don't recall" a lot, didn't he?
Was Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony persuasive to you? See any problems with it if you were doing the cross?
Click to expand...
Which questions would you pose to Barr in his cross examination?
 
bubbabgone said:
Absence of cross-examination makes it incomplete. I've been clear about that. Allowing 3rd hand testimony makes it incomplete.
Click to expand...
But if this is a committee that cannot bring charges or convict anyone then your objection is not clear at all.
 
bubbabgone said:
Since you appear to be admitting it was purely politics masquerading as patriotism then we are in agreement.
Click to expand...
What do you think that cross examination would reveal? Virtually all of the people who were questioned are Republicans who worked in the Trump White House in one capaicity or another. Is there an expectation that a Perry Mason moment would happen that would crack the whole thing open making the "official" story come down like a house of cards and reveal the true puppet master?
 
Nickyjo said:
1- what was the motivation of so many republicans to cooperate with Trump's attempt to overturn the election? I understand their obligations to constituents to push for continued GOP policy and appointments that would follow keeping him in the White House, but they seemed to go over the line according to the report.
2- do people think Trump's announcement (and up to date, non-campaign) is to protect him from some prosecution as a candidate?
3- has he or anyone explained why he took those classified documents and failed to return them?
Click to expand...
4. You got him now. you really got him now. You really really got him now
 
soap box said:
I have argued the opposite. I have not mangled your posts to misrepresent your meaning. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to do so.
Click to expand...
Sorry but the post I replied to suggested you realize it wasn't a legal proceeding so we shouldn't expect any pretense to fairness. To that I agreed.
 
soap box said:
Which questions would you pose to Barr in his cross examination?
Click to expand...
soap box said:
But if this is a committee that cannot bring charges or convict anyone then your objection is not clear at all.
Click to expand...
That's what I said much earlier.
The Committee was bound only by their own rules and given their makeup it had to become a political show.
Let me ask you something.
What could the Committee uncover that the DOJ couldn't? Did they have access to witnesses the Feds didn't? Documents? Tweets? Phone records?
No? Then just what was their purpose if not political?
 
bubbabgone said:
Then just what was their purpose if not political?
Click to expand...
Of course it was political.

Trump being an UnAmerican Scumbag in his attempts to overturn the result of the election that he knew that he lost is also a political act.

The most disappointing thing about all of this is how Trump's supporters just don't care.
 
Jezcoe said:
Cruz asked a question that he knew that could not be legally answered. And then the rubes are told to that OMG the FBI was totally behind Jan 6.

They know how to play people.
Click to expand...
So your position is that there were no FBI personnel or informants in the J6 protest?
That is a foolish position.
 
Jezcoe said:
Of course it was political.

Trump being an UnAmerican Scumbag in his attempts to overturn the result of the election that he knew that he lost is also a political act.

The most disappointing thing about all of this is how Trump's supporters just don't care.
Click to expand...
Deplorable...
 
bubbabgone said:
So your position is that there were no FBI personnel or informants in the J6 protest?
That is a foolish position.
Click to expand...
Okay then I will lay out my theory.

Over the four years that Trump was President he assembled inside the FBI a group of people loyal to him.

That group of people were the one's under his orders to encourage his supporters to launch a sustained attack upon the Capitol in order to cause enough chaos to stop the electoral count and slip in his slate of fake electors.

There is just as much evidence for this theory... which I don't actually believe... as there is for any others that involve the FBI during Jan 6.

Now... prove me wrong.
 
bubbabgone said:
That's what I said much earlier.
The Committee was bound only by their own rules and given their makeup it had to become a political show.
Let me ask you something.
What could the Committee uncover that the DOJ couldn't? Did they have access to witnesses the Feds didn't? Documents? Tweets? Phone records?
No? Then just what was their purpose if not political?
Click to expand...

Surely you heard both Raskin and Cheney elaborate on how the DOJ has more investigation tools and the binding authority to compel testimony than the committee does. Raskin repeated often that the DOJ can continue the research. They already understood that before they started. When the committee convened 9 months ago,the DOJ wasn't actively investigating this. Nobody was. So the committee took it up and the DOJ has been following the evidence all along the way.

Their purpose remains two-fold.
To suggest legislation that would prevent an attempt to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power.

To establish an explanation and an historical record of the events for posterity.

It's not partisan to claim the president should uphold the constitution. Trump's efforts to remain in office were not constitutional. It's not partisan to find out who, why and how.
 
Nickyjo said:
1- what was the motivation of so many republicans to cooperate with Trump's attempt to overturn the election?
Click to expand...
How many Republicans do you think "cooperated" with Trump's alleged attempt to overturn the election?

200 out of 80 million?
 
eman623 said:
How many Republicans do you think "cooperated" with Trump's alleged attempt to overturn the election?

200 out of 80 million?
Click to expand...

If there's Meadows, Guiliani, Stone , Flynn and Trump himself, then 5 out of 200 is more than enough.
Then there were 34 republican representatives who called Meadows on J6....
 
Mycroft said:
Nobody attempted to "overturn the election", but a lot of people wanted the election fraud exposed and dealt with. The motivation was law, justice and a desire for fair and free elections.
Click to expand...
Um, they didn't file lawsuits similar to the dozens Trump did to question the election. They went to Congress to prevent the House from certifying the election. They were prepared to attack Mike Pence for his ceremonial role. And N again I ask the questions that the Mycrofts of the world won't answer: do you give ANY consideration to the fact that Trump claimed rigging in the popular vote in 2016, in the Iowa caucus that year, in Obama's 2012 election, in the Emmys, of his absurd birtherism and other frauds he has committed when you cry fraud about 2020. Does Trump's own cybersecurity guy and own AG who said things went well influence you. Trump's repeated approach to elections is "I win or its rigged; and even when I win its probably rigged."
Mycroft said:
I don't know...and really don't care...what "people think". A lot of people DON'T think and a lot of people DO think. Me? I take Trump at his word. He has said he's not running for President to protect himself from prosecution.


No, and he won't until he has been charged with something and it goes to trial. That hasn't happened yet (if it ever will).

On the other hand, why should he explain anything when he doesn't know what these alleged "classified documents" are. Hell, nobody in the public knows what these alleged classified documents are. Nobody knows if there are even any classified documents involved.


Nickyjo, the problem you have is that you are going whole hog into this "court of public opinion" thing. This leads you to believe a lot of nonsense.

Nobody gets convicted and sentenced for anything unless there are charges and a trial...until there is a trial and a conviction, everyone is innocent of any charges.

Your opinion doesn't matter, except when it comes to decide whether you want to vote for Trump in 2024 or not.
Click to expand...
They were marked as classified or secret. But I am sure that if he is charged, tried and convicted you will find some other reason to believe whatever he says. He could read from top secret documents on Fifth Avenue, and as he predicted, I am sure your loyalty would be steadfast. A subpoena was issued. He ignored it. That was wrong, in accord with Trump's "the law doesn't apply to me" philosophy that brought us his phony university, crooked foundation, and phony steaks.
 
- the 1/6 Committee hearings were not a court trail or proceedings.
- the 1/6 Committee hearings were not a Grand Jury proceeding.

- the purpose of the Select Committee was (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/503/text)
to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to event disrupting Congress on 1/6.

The DOJ and the Select Committee have two different purposes in their investigation work. Much like the different reports, investigations conducted after 9/11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom