[W:5949][W:1030]***Official January 6 Public Hearings Thread***

[LostInSeattle]

Biden is willfully ignoring our immigration laws and knows it is getting people killed. So, when are the impeachment hearings starting?

Relevance?

 

[Anthony60]

That's two lies in one. Long way to go to impress the orange pile...

And I directly answered your question with the high crime and the definitive evidence of it. Then you ignored my answer. Very rude and childish.

You don't seem to realize that a Democrat talking point does not equal a crime.

 

[Galactic Spin]

You don't seem to realize that a Democrat talking point does not equal a crime.

This is you still ignoring my answer. You don't even remember what it was, at this point. Pretty sad behavior.

 

[Anthony60]

Stuff your personal insults and behave like an adult.

Psst... that's not a personal insult, it's just a term (which you fit).

Your opinion does not rebut any of the facts I laid out. The GOP Senate torpedoed an independent, bipartisan commission.
Please explain how it would work to have people being investigated on the investigating committee.
And still, you have not answered a single question regarding substantive, rather than procedural, criticism.

You just have no way to defend this committee as anything other that a 100% Trump hating political attack committee, that much is obvious.

What about the Democrats on the committee? They could also be targets of the investigation, along with the leaders in both the House and Congress. Not now, as Nancy has eliminated anyone that might ask those question.

 

[Anthony60]

This is you still ignoring my answer. You don't even remember what it was, at this point. Pretty sad behavior.

No, I just found it... lacking.

 

[Galactic Spin]

What about the Democrats on the committee? They could also be targets of the investigation, along with the leaders in both the House and Congress.

No they couldn't. That's another way reality doesn't align with your fantasies. You should note the pattern.

 

[Galactic Spin]

No, I just found it... lacking.

No you didn't. You don't even remember what it was. You didn't even respond to it. Clear evidence that you are just trolling to waste my time. But hey, when ya got nothing, what else can you do?

 

[soap box]

I was right! Thanks.

Anyone's opinion is correct. My opinion is is just as correct. We agree.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Psst... that's not a personal insult, it's just a term (which you fit).

As I said, stuff your insults where the sun don't shine.

You just have no way to defend this committee as anything other that a 100% Trump hating political attack committee, that much is obvious.

I gave you a fact-based assessment of why the committee structure is the way it is. Imperfect? Yes. Unworkable? Not in my opinion.

What about the Democrats on the committee? They could also be targets of the investigation, along with the leaders in both the House and Congress. Not now, as Nancy has eliminated anyone that might ask those question.

Total distraction from my fundamental - and as still unanswered question to you - of whether you have any substantive criticism of the evidence laid out so far. Since you have consistently dodged this, I can only conclude that you don't, and that you prefer instead to ignore it. Either that or you have not in fact watched the hearings as you claim.

Either way, what ultimately matters is not the committee's make up but what it uncovers. Since the testimony has been by Republicans, it seems credible to me.

 

[Galactic Spin]

As I said, stuff your insults where the sun don't shine.

I gave you a fact-based assessment of why the committee structure is the way it is. Imperfect? Yes. Unworkable? Not in my opinion.

Total distraction from my fundamental - and as still unanswered question to you - of whether you have any substantive criticism of the evidence laid out so far. Since you have consistently dodged this, I can only conclude that you don't, and that you prefer instead to ignore it. Either that or you have not in fact watched the hearings as you claim.

Either way, what ultimately matters is not the committee's make up but what it uncovers. Since the testimony has been by Republicans, it seems credible to me.

The hearings have been credible and forceful. Thus the blanket effort by republicans to get all republican voters not to watch them for themselves.

 

[soap box]

Psst... that's not a personal insult, it's just a term (which you fit).

You just have no way to defend this committee as anything other that a 100% Trump hating political attack committee, that much is obvious.

What about the Democrats on the committee? They could also be targets of the investigation, along with the leaders in both the House and Congress. Not now, as Nancy has eliminated anyone that might ask those question.

Jordan spoke with trump during the riot. That makes him a potential witness. A potential witness before the committee cannot be on the committee.

You think Democrats on the committee should be questioned. What would you ask them? Please tell which representatives and what questions.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Jordan spoke with trump during the riot. That makes him a potential witness.

Not even potential. They planned to subpoena him, said so, then did. McCarthy chose him for that exact reason.

 

[soap box]

What number of videos, audios, texts, and emails that they've paraded around means that someone is guilty of something?

If you had watched, or read more, you would have seen a long list of Republicans who witnessed his guilt. Under oath.

Here's another number... 1.
Show us one piece of direct evidence that indicates Trump is guilty of a crime.
Should be very easy, since you boasted about the mountain of information they've harvested.

The answer was on 9795 and you blamed the judge -

If you are correct, I'm sure he'll be arrested post haste. If not, well, my point stands.
Oh, the judge should be disbarred for making those comments.

Would you like to comment on your comments since this evening's news in mar Lago?

 

[soap box]

Your ignorance of the fact that there is not a single piece of direct evidence that Trump committed a crime is noted. You did not supply any.

#9795
Plus 2000 other places you could find out. The phone call between McC and trump. You asked for direct evidence.

 

[soap box]

Not even potential. They planned to subpoena him, said so, then did. McCarthy chose him for that exact reason.

I see what you mean, thanks

 

[soap box]

You just have no way to defend this committee as anything other that a 100% Trump hating political attack committee, that much is obvious.

What about the Democrats on the committee? They could also be targets of the investigation, along with the leaders in both the House and Congress. Not now, as Nancy has eliminated anyone that might ask those question.

"Trump hating political attack committee, that much is obvious."

The four words at the end are what you think of the committee. Those words are an interpretation. You interpret it that way. An interpretation is like an opinion, compared to a fact.

Even if you interpret some idea and think it's true still doesn't make it a fact.

Did McCarthy talk to trump on the phone during the riot?

Did anybody else hear that conversation?

Did the Representatives that heard the phone call swear under oath that McCarthy's version is accurate?

 

[soap box]

"In an audio clip, Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) :

“He said, ‘You have got to get on TV. You’ve got to get on Twitter. You’ve got to call these people off.’” Herrera Beutler said. “You know what the president said to him? This is as it’s happening. He said, ‘Well, Kevin, these aren’t my people. These are, these are antifa."

And the president’s response to Kevin, to me, was chilling. He said, ‘Well, Kevin, I guess they’re more upset about the election theft than you are,’” Herrera Beutler.

The two then got in a swearing match, she said."

Jan. 6 committee zeroes in on Kevin McCarthy attempts to reach Trump during attack

The Jan. 6 Select Committee at a Thursday hearing honed in on House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (Calif.) conversations with then-President Trump as the Capitol was under attack. Rep. Adam Ki…

thehill.com

 

[Anthony60]

Jordan spoke with trump during the riot. That makes him a potential witness. A potential witness before the committee cannot be on the committee.

They all are potential witnesses then. But, you are okay with Pelosi appointing everyone, even though she is a huge potential witness.

You think Democrats on the committee should be questioned. What would you ask them? Please tell which representatives and what questions.

I'd like to know if they had any texts or other communications with House/Senate leadership about the National Guard coming before the rally, for starters.

 

[Anthony60]

#9795
Plus 2000 other places you could find out. The phone call between McC and trump. You asked for direct evidence.

Yep, and that's not it.

 

[soap box]

Yep, and that's not it.

why not?
Did they speak on the phone?
What did McCarthy say and what did trump say?
You only post that because you don't know what trump said.

 

[soap box]

They all are potential witnesses then. But, you are okay with Pelosi appointing everyone, even though she is a huge potential witness.

I'd like to know if they had any texts or other communications with House/Senate leadership about the National Guard coming before the rally, for starters.

What questions do you have for Pelosi? Who would you direct the question to? Who would you ask about "if they had any texts or other communications with House/Senate leadership about the National Guard coming before the rally,"

Or you could find the answers without asking the committee members. It would require some reading. But not too much,,

"It took more than three hours for former President Donald Trump's Defense Department to approve a request for the D.C. National Guard to intervene in the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, the commanding general of the outfit told senators on Wednesday.

Maj. Gen. William Walker testified that he had National Guard troops at the ready and sitting idly for hours before he was finally given authorization to send them into the field. Walker said that the delay was caused at least in part over concerns of the optics of sending uniformed troops to the scene.

His testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Rules committees comes as Congress holds a series of hearings about security preparations for and the response to the violence at the Capitol this year."

DOD Took Hours To Approve National Guard Request During Capitol Riot, Commander Says

Maj. Gen. William Walker said the Department of Defense took three hours to approve deploying the National Guard to the Capitol on Jan. 6 after a "frantic" request from Capitol Police.

www.npr.org

 

[Anthony60]

why not?
Did they speak on the phone?
What did McCarthy say and what did trump say?
You only post that because you don't know what trump said.

You think speaking on the phone is direct evidence of a crime? What is the crime?

 

[Anthony60]

What questions do you have for Pelosi? Who would you direct the question to? Who would you ask about "if they had any texts or other communications with House/Senate leadership about the National Guard coming before the rally,"

Or you could find the answers without asking the committee members. It would require some reading. But not too much,,

"It took more than three hours for former President Donald Trump's Defense Department to approve a request for the D.C. National Guard to intervene in the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, the commanding general of the outfit told senators on Wednesday.

Maj. Gen. William Walker testified that he had National Guard troops at the ready and sitting idly for hours before he was finally given authorization to send them into the field. Walker said that the delay was caused at least in part over concerns of the optics of sending uniformed troops to the scene.

His testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Rules committees comes as Congress holds a series of hearings about security preparations for and the response to the violence at the Capitol this year."

What I would ask is not relevant to the point. You said Jordan and Banks can't be on the committee because they are potential witnesses. If that were so, then that should have been made known prior to their appointments. Saying so after the fact looks like Pelosi is just trying to protect herself.

And, of course, it's just plain corrupt that Pelosi pulled them of the committee, for that reason, when she is a potential witness, and made ALL the appointments!

 

[soap box]

You think speaking on the phone is direct evidence of a crime? What is the crime?

Obstruction of an official act of Congress
Defrauding the Federal Election code and defrauding state election laws.
Conspiratorial sedition

 

[soap box]

What I would ask is not relevant to the point. You said Jordan and Banks can't be on the committee because they are potential witnesses. If that were so, then that should have been made known prior to their appointments. Saying so after the fact looks like Pelosi is just trying to protect herself.

And, of course, it's just plain corrupt that Pelosi pulled them of the committee, for that reason, when she is a potential witness, and made ALL the appointments!

That was made public before the formation of the committee. They were never seated at the committee.

No, it's corrupt to lie for the former president, as Jordan has every day since then.