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

[jpn]

I come down on the side that says the courts had no interest in litigating this.

Oh but they did. They gave the evidence a fair hearing (i.e., "litigated" it) and found the evidence wanting.

So sorry.

 

[jpn]

That the election was stolen?

Alas, millions of people are buying the Big Lie.

More than 100 GOP primary winners back Trump’s false fraud claims​

 

[mrjurrs]

I come down on the side that says the courts had no interest in litigating this.

That's absurd. 61 different courts conspired to avoid litigation? Please consider Occam's razor when considering these cases.

 

[TomFitz]

So, on th

i've been staying out of this, so im not sure of what all has been discussed here. I haven't yet watched any of the hearings, but this far I have heard no news from any source regarding any new information that I hadn't already heard since the committee began. from what we know, this is all stacking up to be another meritless exercise just like the two impeachment attempts, and the Mueller investigation. they continue to tell us they "have him now" (not their quote, my distillation of their optimism), but they never actually produce the evidence that would amount to any sort of crime, let alone a conviction. let us not pretend that if at any time they had come up with the proverbial smoking gun that would give them a conviction, they wouldn't have pounced on the opportunity that they have been working and waiting for for so many years.

we cannot ignore the completely one sided appointment of every member of the committee. to me it is similar to the prosecution in a court case choosing all of the jurors without any consent from the defense. no supposed special circumstances warrant this departure from well established rule and procedure.

we also cannot ignore the relevance of new information coming to light about the failures of the capitol police and those responsible for the security of the capitol in addition to the lapses in common sense in the refusal to deploy national guard troops ahead of time, or to even allow them to deploy when the capitol police repeatedly asked for them.

So, out of one side of your mouth, you’re claiming that you haven’t watched any of the hearings and seen or read no news.

And out of the other side of your mouth, you are claiming (dispite your prior claim of ignorance), it’s a “merit less exercise”.

And you try and pretend that this is something “we” understand.

You know nothing by your own statement, and yet your still parroting the same trump loser lines that we all keep hearing from trump’s dead end devotees.

 

[Anthony60]

Sure as hell wasn't Trump and Flynn's brother was one of those in the chain of command that denied the Capitol police chief's request. Sorry but those are the facts. Nancy Pelosi doesn't have anymore authority than McConnell does to call them. Which is none really. The DC Guard reports directly to the President of the United States. But somehow McConnell gets a pass? Just another sad example of conservative pretzel logic.

Wake the hell up. It's up to Pelosi and McConnell, if you don't know that, you don't know what's going on. Why do you think Pelosi made sure that she and McConnell won't testify? Connect the dots. And I couldn't care less if McConnell gets exposed.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Thanks, actually I am quite familiar with ALEC (to my chagrin). The structural problems are not the result of corrupting money but of the desire of political parties to control the process.

That’s not the way a detective thinks. Sure the party prospers, but follow the money. The power that the prospering party exercises ultimately benefits who? The very same individuals/entities that fund ALEC.

So who are the final recipients of the action?

 

[Sue Sponte]

As with the Big Lie, there is the Little Lie that none of the courts reviewed the evidence of fraud.

It simply isn't true and here is just one of the examples:

https://thenevadaindependent.com/ar...to-block-states-presidential-election-results

One cannot see if he refuses to open his eyes.

 

[jaypatriot]

He had years to stand up to trump and instead kissed his ass. All the way up until he realized that he himself would get in trouble. Only then did that coward speak up and then only to sell a book or behind closed doors away from trump... Because he's a coward.

Oh looky... You're talking about me personally yet again because apparently you think I'm the topic here.

I think Barr deserves what he gets:

1. AG in the Bush Administration
2. AG in the Trump Administration
3. A successful career with the FBI
4. He worked for important legal, technology, and consulting firms.
5. Has a solid family relationship
6. And now enjoying success with his new book about his years in government.

I can only conclude he is a very successful man.
Is that what bothers you?

 

[jpn]

Wake the hell up. It's up to Pelosi and McConnell, if you don't know that, you don't know what's going on. Why do you think Pelosi made sure that she and McConnell won't testify? Connect the dots. And I couldn't care less if McConnell gets exposed.

Oh right, the two top political leaders have day-to-day responsibility of overseeing the physical security of their buildings. That's about as likely as expecting the President to have daily responsibility for the security of the White House building.
They have oversite of high-level matters, not daily decisions. But then I'm sure you believe the Secretary of State has daily responsibility for the hundreds of diplomatic outposts around the world, like Benghazi, too.

 

[jpn]

Is that what bothers you?

I can't speak for powerRob, but what bothers me about Barr is that he's a lying weasel with no principles, no integrity, and no honor. But those are traits obviously are not desirable in today's GOP.

 

[jpevans]

I guess it is fashionable to be a Barr hater because he did his job as AG for the country. Don't worry, Barr is not going to run for president so you can vilify him and not worry about him becoming politically powerful.
But why is the Committee using so much of what he told Trump in November and December 2020?

Because they are looking for the facts leading up to 1/6

 

[jpevans]

Trump the Terrorist deserves capital punishment. That would do it because dead people can't run for president.

I don’t believe in Capital Punishment, even in jest.

 

[mike2810]

"The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is overseen by the Capitol Police Board and has Congressional oversight by appropriations and authorizing committees from the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. This oversight affords the Department the support and opportunity to continually ensure that the USCP meets the safety and security needs of the Congress, the staff, and the many visitors who come to the United States Capitol each day.

Oversight

Learn how oversight ensures that the USCP meets the safety and security needs of the Capitol Complex

www.uscp.gov

"
The Capitol Police Board oversees and supports the United States Capitol Police in its mission, and helps to advance coordination between the Department and the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, in their law enforcement capacities, and the Congress. Consistent with this purpose, the Capitol Police Board establishes general goals and objectives covering its major functions and operations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations.

The Capitol Police Board consists of the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the U.S. Senate, and the Architect of the Capitol. The Chief of the United States Capitol Police serves in an ex-officio non-voting capacity. The Chairmanship alternates annually between the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms.

Capitol Police Board

Learn about the responsibilities of the Capitol Police Board and its members.

www.uscp.gov

The Board is in charge of the Capital Police.

 

[Erod]

You forgot Trump being indicted.

No, he wasn't. That was political circus for the lowest common denominators in the country.

 

[Erod]

Thanks for driving by!



View attachment 67396305

Thank you for the poster for Democrats.

 

[uptower]

Why should he?

Because when one's country calls one to account he has a duty to answer for his actions. If there's nothing to hide why shouldn't he?

It's more or less the same as a court anyway. In the end you can't just say no or you get forced to turn up or tried in absentia. His best chance is to at least participate.

Especially if he's not guilty right?

 

[TomFitz]

I guess it is fashionable to be a Barr hater because he did his job as AG for the country. Don't worry, Barr is not going to run for president so you can vilify him and not worry about him becoming politically powerful.
But why is the Committee using so much of what he told Trump in November and December 2020?

No, it is fashionable to dislike Barr because he didn’t do his job as Attorney General.

The Attorney General is the attorney for the United States government and one of the defenders of the Constitution.

These are concepts that Trump could have cared less about.

Indeed, he repeatedly complained while Sessions was AG that he wanted a Roy Cohn.

He wasn’t interested in the rule of law, or the Consitution. He wanted a fixer.

And that’s what he got in Bill Barr.

Deep state Washington knew that from the very start. Indeed Kamala Harris nailed him right to the wall, when she asked Barr about it.

Barr was the guy George H W Bush brought in to make Iran Contra go away.

And the GOP leadership knew full well that they were going to need a fixer, or a dirty trickster to play wack a mole (Barr’s wores BTW) over the ongoing lawless and constant scandal that was the Trump regieme.

Barr faithfully did his job, which was to protect Trump and make sure he got away with it.

Up until Trump decided that staging a coup was the remedy for losing an election.

(it was also a fianancial remedy since Trump conned folks like you into throwing your money at his coup plot, most of which he pocketed).

Taht wasn’t the Attorney General‘s job.

But Trump never cared about the United States or the rule of law.

He didn’t want an Attorney General. He wanted a dirty trickster like Roy Cohn.

 

[jpn]

Rudy wants everyone to know that he only plots coups when he's sober:

"I am disgusted and outraged at the out right lie by Jason Miller and Bill Steppien. I was upset that they were not prepared for the massive cheating (as well as other lawyers around the President) I REFUSED all alcohol that evening. My favorite drink..Diet Pepsi"​

— Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) June 14, 2022​

 

[TomFitz]

I think Barr deserves what he gets:

1. AG in the Bush Administration
2. AG in the Trump Administration
3. A successful career with the FBI
4. He worked for important legal, technology, and consulting firms.
5. Has a solid family relationship
6. And now enjoying success with his new book about his years in government.

I can only conclude he is a very successful man.
Is that what bothers you?

Roy Cohn and Roger Stone are “very successful” men by that yardstick.

You’re telling us that scumbags that gets away with it should be admired.

But then, we’ve been hearing that from trump‘s disciples for years.

Who else would throw money at a self proclaimed billionaire?

 

[jaypatriot]

No, it is fashionable to dislike Barr because he didn’t do his job as Attorney General.

The Attorney General is the attorney for the United States government and one of the defenders of the Constitution.

These are concepts that Trump could have cared less about.

Indeed, he repeatedly complained while Sessions was AG that he wanted a Roy Cohn.

He wasn’t interested in the rule of law, or the Consitution. He wanted a fixer.

And that’s what he got in Bill Barr.

Deep state Washington knew that from the very start. Indeed Kamala Harris nailed him right to the wall, when she asked Barr about it.

Barr was the guy George H W Bush brought in to make Iran Contra go away.

And the GOP leadership knew full well that they were going to need a fixer, or a dirty trickster to play wack a mole (Barr’s wores BTW) over the ongoing lawless and constant scandal that was the Trump regieme.

Barr faithfully did his job, which was to protect Trump and make sure he got away with it.

Up until Trump decided that staging a coup was the remedy for losing an election.

(it was also a fianancial remedy since Trump conned folks like you into throwing your money at his coup plot, most of which he pocketed).

Taht wasn’t the Attorney General‘s job.

But Trump never cared about the United States or the rule of law.

He didn’t want an Attorney General. He wanted a dirty trickster like Roy Cohn.

You have your narrative; I've got mine.
To you Barr is guilty by association. You despise Trump. Any one in his Administration was either a blind loyalist or soon to be fired.

 

[jakiejakester]

The DOJ is laying out a theory of 1/6 that is different from the one the committee is laying out.

You have no idea what the DOJ is doing nor do I. They will not reveal anything until they subpoena people and we can read in it what it's for and/or when they file charges.

 

[poweRob]

I think Barr deserves what he gets:

1. AG in the Bush Administration
2. AG in the Trump Administration
3. A successful career with the FBI
4. He worked for important legal, technology, and consulting firms.
5. Has a solid family relationship
6. And now enjoying success with his new book about his years in government.

I can only conclude he is a very successful man.
Is that what bothers you?

Failing upward through various criminal administrations... SUCCESS!

And excuse me because I didn't know you knew all about his "solid family relationship".

 

[Slyfox696]

Link?

oh WAIT. A guy in a horn hat said Trump told me

You're asking for a link...to the hearings that this thread is about and was watched by 20m people?

Surely you can do better than that.

 

[jaypatriot]

Failing upward through various criminal administrations... SUCCESS!

And excuse me because I didn't know you knew all about his "solid family relationship".

That's why you read books about people. To find out more about their personal lives.
"One Damn Thing After Another".
Try it; you might like it.

 

[LostInSeattle]

That’s not the way a detective thinks. Sure the party prospers, but follow the money. The power that the prospering party exercises ultimately benefits who? The very same individuals/entities that fund ALEC.

So who are the final recipients of the action?

Let me put it this way. Seeking to get money out of politics with the current composition of the Supreme Court is pointless.

Other, bi-partisan, changes can attenuate the influence of money while also increasing the likelihood that more moderate candidates will prevail, including: removing the first past the post system in primaries; ranked choice voting or something similar; sending the top two candidates to the general regardless of party (not talking about the Presidency here); states adopting non-partisan redistricting commissions instead of partisan legislatures; national voting standards; a national voter registration database to eliminate the kerfuffles around voters moving; free, state-issued voter id cards with chips, mail-in voting standard everywhere. These (and other measures) address structural issues in the voting system that overly favor incumbents, produce more extreme candidates, suppress independent and third party candidates, and provide fodder for those who claim elections are fraudulent.

Two really good articles on the subject:

Fixing U.S. Politics

Although people tend to think of the American political system as a public institution based on high-minded principles, it’s not. Politics behaves according to the same kinds of incentives and forces that shape competition in any private industry. Our elections and our legislative systems are...

hbr.org

11 (bipartisan) ways to improve voting in the United States

A national voter registry, criminal penalties for misleading people about election law and ranked-choice voting are among the ways to restore U.S. democracy, writes Fordham University’s John Davenport.

www.americamagazine.org