Jan 6 committee

173,852 Views | 3026 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Harrison Bergeron
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Has the committee uncovered why Ray Epps magically escaped prosecution

debunked. Epps is one of your guys. You're eating your own

A Trump Backer's Downfall as the Target of a Jan. 6 Conspiracy Theory
Ray Epps became the unwitting face of an attempt by pro-Trump forces to promote the baseless idea that the F.B.I. was behind the attack on the Capitol.

IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS Up a winding country road, in a trailer park a half-mile from a cattle ranch, lives a man whose life has been ruined by a Jan. 6 conspiracy theory.
Ray Epps has suffered enormously in the past 10 months as right-wing media figures and Republican politicians have baselessly described him as a covert government agent who helped to instigate the attack on the Capitol last year.
Strangers have assailed him as a coward and a traitor and have menacingly cautioned him to sleep with one eye open. He was forced to sell his business and his home in Arizona. Fearing for his safety and uncertain of his future, he and his wife moved into a mobile home in the foothills of the Rockies, with all of their belongings crammed into shipping containers in a high-desert meadow, a mile or two away.

"And for what lies?" Mr. Epps asked the other day with a look of pained exhaustion. "All of this, it's just been hell."
Almost from the moment that a violent mob stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, allies of former President Donald J. Trump have sought to shift the blame for the attack away from the people who were in the pro-Trump crowd that day to any number of scapegoats.
First they pointed at antifa, the leftist activists who have a history of clashing with Mr. Trump's backers but who did not show up when the Capitol was breached. Then they tried to fault the F.B.I., which, according to those who spread the baseless tale, planned the attack to provoke a crackdown on conservatives.
Mr. Epps, 61, was not just a bystander on Jan. 6. He traveled to Washington to back Mr. Trump, was taped urging people to go to the Capitol and was there himself on the day of the assault. But through a series of events that twisted his role, he became the face of this conspiracy theory about the F.B.I. as it spread from the fringes to the mainstream.
Obscure right-wing media outlets, like Revolver News, used selectively edited videos and unfounded leaps of logic to paint him as a secret federal asset in charge of a "breach team" responsible for setting off the riot at the Capitol.

The stories about Mr. Epps were quickly seized on by the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who gave them a wider audience. They were also echoed by Republican members of Congress like Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.
Eventually, Mr. Trump joined the fray, mentioning Mr. Epps at one of his political rallies and lending fuel to a viral Twitter hashtag, #WhoIsRayEpps.
After months of watching from the shadows as public figures he once respected Mr. Trump among them tarred his name and destroyed his reputation, Mr. Epps decided that he wanted to answer that question for himself.
In a daylong interview, sitting in his air-conditioned recreational vehicle with his wife, Robyn, and their two Shih Tzus beside him, Mr. Epps described himself as a father, a former Marine and a staunch but disillusioned conservative whose leaders had betrayed him. He granted the interview on the condition that the location of his new home not be disclosed.
"I am at the center of this thing, and it's the biggest farce that's ever been," he said. "It's just not right. The American people are being led down a path. I think it should be criminal."
While Mr. Epps was a participant in some of the events that unfolded on Jan. 6, the claim that he inspired the Capitol riot in a "false flag" plot is solely based on the fact that he has never been arrested and therefore must be under the protection of the government.
But scores, if not hundreds, of people who appear to have committed minor crimes that day were investigated by the F.B.I. but have not been charged or taken into custody.
Mr. Epps said that he had acted stupidly at times when he and one of his sons took a last-minute trip to Washington for Mr. Trump's speech about election fraud. But he said that he had managed to avoid arrest because he reached out to the F.B.I. within minutes of discovering that agents wanted to speak with him.
On Jan. 8, 2021, just two days after the Capitol was attacked, Mr. Epps learned from a family member that the F.B.I. had issued a be-on-the-lookout alert in his name. He said he immediately called the bureau's National Threat Operations Center, and his phone records show that he spoke to agents there for nearly an hour.
The F.B.I. has repeatedly declined to comment on Mr. Epps, but his account of calling the operations center and of sitting down for a formal discussion with federal agents in March 2021 is backed by transcripts of those interviews reviewed by The New York Times.
The interview transcripts show that Mr. Epps told agents that he had spent much of his time at the Capitol seeking to calm down other rioters, an assertion supported by multiple video clips.
Mr. Epps, who questioned the results of the election, was also interviewed twice by the House select committee on Jan. 6. After his dealings with the panel were completed, officials released a statement saying he had told them that he never worked as an asset for, or an employee of, any federal law enforcement agency.
One of the moments Mr. Epps said he regrets most from his stay in Washington took place the night before the Capitol attack, when he joined his son and a friend for a pro-Trump rally at Black Lives Matter Plaza. During the event, he was videotaped by a right-wing provocateur encouraging people to go inside the Capitol on Jan. 6 in what he described, even at the time, as a form of peaceful protest.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/politics/jan-6-conspiracy-theory-ray-epps.html
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Has the committee uncovered why Ray Epps magically escaped prosecution?
Yes
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

When the prosecute the FBI agents for the michigan shenanigans, I will get behind prosecuting Trump for bringing a mob to washington DC. %A0
What happened in Michigan?
Some MAGA terrorists planned to kidnap the governor and start a civil war back in 2020. Two pleaded guilty, two were acquitted, and two are up for re-trial. Trumpkins drew the obvious conclusion -- that the rioters really weren't to blame for Jan. 6.
Are you just forgetting to mention the entrapment the Feds engaged in?
That will be for the jury to decide. The defense moved for dismissal on those grounds, but it was denied.
So Sam, you bring up a good point. %A0

If nobody is charged after the Commission will you admit the Trump Administration is not culpable for the Jan 6th riots?

If they can't find evidence to bring charges against Trump will you admit he was not trying to overthrow they Government?

I have always said, if he is guilty prosecute. %A0If he is found guilty in a trial. %A0I will be the first to say lock him up. %A0Will you stand up if he isn't??? %A0

I don't know whether he's criminally liable. I'll form my opinion based on whatever evidence finally comes out. It won't depend entirely on whether he's prosecuted because that's unlikely to happen regardless of the evidence. I'm more interested in his moral culpability, which I think has been evident all along.
So basically, you have made up your mind and no matter what is shown or what isn't real enough to prosecute you are good with Trump is guilty.

Think about what you are saying, The accusations is that he planned to overthrow the election by force and lead a coup. %A0That isn't worth prosecuting over???? %A0So, if he didn't do anything criminal what is the point of all this??? %A0IF THIS IS NOT WORTH PROSECUTING OVER, NOTHING IS.
I haven't made up my mind whether he's guilty in a legal sense. I think he is morally responsible, and in my mind he's disqualified from holding office again.

We have a lot of corruption in government partly because so much of it is legal. Most if not all the Biden family's dealings with China, for example. No one really cares about moral responsibility. It's all about what my side can get away with and what we can pin on your side. But prosecuting former politicians is a very dangerous road.
Cheney has this on prime-time TV and using Congressional time to say how heinous and unforgiveable his and his Administration's acts were 17 months ago. %A0If it warrants all this, doesn't it warrant a real criminal hearing? %A0According to Cheney and several on here he tried to overthrow the Government! %A0That can be %A0punishable by death in the law. %A0To just say, oh well they are all corrupt seems disingenuous. %A0

If this is to get evidence, turn over to DOJ and instruct them to prosecute. If he is not guilty, say it. %A0If there is not enough evidence, exonerate him. %A0You can't do this to people on TV, throw out all this innuendo and then not come up with an actionable finding one way or another.
It might warrant a criminal hearing, but a criminal hearing might not be the wisest thing. I'm not dismissing this as mere everyday corruption. Trump has taken it to a whole new level. My point is that should be enough for us to say "no more." Otherwise the GOP deserves to pay a heavy price politically.
No, you can't just arbitrarily say "No More", we don't have enough or don't want to risk a trial so we will have your Party take a big political hit. %A0What type of due process is that??? %A0That is a hatchet job with no risk to those possibly bringing false charges.

The ONLY way any of this has ANY meaning is if it is tied to a fair process with a finding. %A0You can't talk like you and the Dems are talking and then when it comes down to backing it up with evidence, due process and rules say "No, we really don't want to do that". %A0We much prefer a TV slot where we can say what we want, Trump can't defend himself and exact a political price on the GOP. %A0What the hell is that??????
Trump can defend himself to the committee any time he wants. He knows better, though. It would make him look terrible, and make the hearings far more interesting to the public, not to mention likely opening him up to perjury charges.

Trump is in no direct legal jeopardy from the committee. They'll publish a report, and the Republicans who chose not to participate will make a report of their own investigation and its findings.
Ok so the whole thing is nothing, entertainment. %A0A big Democratic Party Campaign postioning docu-series. %A0If there is nothing criminal and you know it. %A0It is a waste of time and the findings are as meaning less as the Steele Report on Trump, bar talk.
Well, that's where we differ. I don't think lying for two solid months, firing up a mob, and unleashing it on the Capitol in a corrupt effort to steal an election that you know you lost is "nothing." I think it's disqualifying whether it leads to actionable charges or not.


So, he is not allowed to disagree. He is not allowed to believe the election was stolen. He can't demonstrate, but everyone else can. There is absolutely no proof he unleashed anything. He said peaceful demonstration. Plus his Administration did everything required by law.

Not only that, you won't accept not having evidence to prosecute as a sign there is no proof.

Sam you and the Dems have set up a scenario where there is nothing that can dissuade. Even if it can't be proven.

The only acceptable solution is Trump not being able to run again because he may win?? Not beat him in an election, but disqualify him. You think that is the way forward, huh?
His administration did not do everything required by law. Again, Pence's actions were in his Senate capacity. Trump is allowed to disagree all he wants, but he must accept the judgment of the courts. That's the rule of law.

You're not looking at the evidence if you don't think he's responsible for the mob. They were hanging on his every word for weeks. They listened to his lies. They believed they were there on his behalf. If Trump couldn't foresee any of that, he should be disqualified for poor judgment alone.
Sam, your second paragraph says it all. This is all subjective. Just look at the language: think, hanging, believed, foresee, poor judgement... Not one speck of proof. This is a pseudo-legal proceeding (I suspect because there is not evidence for a legal one) to remove a potential candidate from a future election. Basically, Liz and friends are removing competition from the field, taking the decision out of the voters hands. If that is not a threat to Democracy, I do not know what is.

If he is culpable, prosecute. If there is not evidence, he is innocent.

As for his Administration. Answer the following questions. All are yes or no, no "buts".
  • Did Pence Certify the election of January 6, 2021?
  • Did Trump pardon ANY of the January 6th participants?
  • Were any of the January 6th participants prosecuted?
  • If so, how many?
  • Did Trump leave the White House peacefully on January 20, 2021?
  • Was Joe Biden inaugurated on January 20, 2021?
  • In the 18 months since January 6th has the DOJ filed charges against Trump?

Those questions give you all you need.
You continue to press a false argument, that Pence's actions contrary to Trump's wishes somehow exonerate Trump. It just doesn't work way. A person who attempts wrongdoing and is thwarted by others is still guilty of the attempt.

If Trump isn't prosecuted, he won't be removed from the field. Voters will simply have more information to make their own choice. Not a threat to democracy by any stretch, unless you consider an informed electorate to be a threat.
When does Trump get to put on his evidence or cross examine witnesses?
Anytime he wants, but we know he won't because he'd have to be under oath.

McCarthy named 5 Republicans, 2 of whom may be witnesses. The other 3 were fine by McCarthy and Pelosi. McCarthy then declined to name other Republicans and pulled the 3 who were approved.
If they had stayed on the committee they would have been cross examining fellow Republican who are witnesses. That's why Trump is mad at McCarthy
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
You mean your once and future President. Show more respect.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
yeah he was..

Clearly trying to deter people outside the capital by telling them to go inside!
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
yeah he was..

Clearly trying to deter people outside the capital by telling them to go inside!
The interview transcripts show that Mr. Epps told agents that he had spent much of his time at the Capitol seeking to calm down other rioters, an assertion supported by multiple video clips.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
You mean your once and future President. Show more respect.
I respect the office. Dear Leader isn't in office
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
yeah he was..

Clearly trying to deter people outside the capital by telling them to go inside!
The interview transcripts show that Mr. Epps told agents that he had spent much of his time at the Capitol seeking to calm down other rioters, an assertion supported by multiple video clips.
so he is telling them to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard?
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
yeah he was..

Clearly trying to deter people outside the capital by telling them to go inside!
The interview transcripts show that Mr. Epps told agents that he had spent much of his time at the Capitol seeking to calm down other rioters, an assertion supported by multiple video clips.
so he is telling them to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard?
https://rumble.com/vo7gs1-ray-epps-holding-court-at-front-of-police-line.html
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
You mean your once and future President. Show more respect.
I respect the office. Dear Leader isn't in office
It is going to be a long six years for you.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
You mean your once and future President. Show more respect.
I respect the office. Dear Leader isn't in office
It is going to be a long six years for you.
sentaor Trump?
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
You mean your once and future President. Show more respect.
I respect the office. Dear Leader isn't in office
What I find funny is just because you don't think this Commission is due process, you are a "Dear Leader" follower.

I know it is not indented to be "legal", which makes it worse. This is akin to the 1950's McCarthy Hearings, just substitute Trump for Communist.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
You mean your once and future President. Show more respect.
I respect the office. Dear Leader isn't in office
It is going to be a long six years for you.
sentaor Trump?
No, I am assuming that the next two years are going to be long years for anyone not on welfare.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

4th and Inches said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
You mean your once and future President. Show more respect.
I respect the office. Dear Leader isn't in office
It is going to be a long six years for you.
sentaor Trump?
No, I am assuming that the next two years are going to be long years for anyone not on welfare.
wonder how many are gonna hate the govt for the smaller tax refunds they get now they make more money they use to buy the more expensive stuff..? Still no money in the pocket or savings and no tax refund check either because you in a higher tax bracket now.. gotcha!
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
You mean your once and future President. Show more respect.
I respect the office. Dear Leader isn't in office
It is going to be a long six years for you.
You may be correct. OTOH, it may be a long 6 years for both of us if Trump keeps Schumer as majority leader and a Democrat gets elected as POTUS
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
You mean your once and future President. Show more respect.
I respect the office. Dear Leader isn't in office
What I find funny is just because you don't think this Commission is due process, you are a "Dear Leader" follower.

I know it is not indented to be "legal", which makes it worse.
I don't understand. I think autocorrect corrupted your post
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
You mean your once and future President. Show more respect.
I respect the office. Dear Leader isn't in office
It is going to be a long six years for you.
You may be correct. OTOH, it may be a long 6 years for both of us if Trump keeps Schumer as majority leader and a Democrat gets elected as POTUS
Still on that hallucinogen, are you?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

He Hate Me said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

So hes very sorry he incited a riot.. good enough for me!

Meanwhile cancer grandma is in prison.. maybe she wasnt as apologetic as Epps?
He was trying to deter the rioters. He's a Trump supporter who went to DC to hear the Dear Leader speak.
You mean your once and future President. Show more respect.
I respect the office. Dear Leader isn't in office
It is going to be a long six years for you.
You may be correct. OTOH, it may be a long 6 years for both of us if Trump keeps Schumer as majority leader and a Democrat gets elected as POTUS
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Whether explicit or implicit, it must still be directed to and likely to produce imminent lawless action. Compare with Hess v. Indiana.
Ok, so you ban Trump from holding office based on his implicit rhetoric. Meanwhile harsher implicit and explicit rhetoric from several members of congress has been spouted for decades and based on the bar you set for Trump they should easily be held responsible.

Should current members of congress/senate who fit the bill also be disqualified from holding office?

If that fails to happen, is it irrational to claim that the rules don't apply to everyone?
Yes, if that really is the case. But if you're talking about someone like Schumer saying "you'll reap the whirlwind," it's not likely to fit the bill.

Quote:

"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

- Maxine Waters
People carried out her wishes.
So I'll ask the same question I've been asked -- what was the endgame? This was supposed to overthrow the government?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.

Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.

In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.

And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Whether explicit or implicit, it must still be directed to and likely to produce imminent lawless action. Compare with Hess v. Indiana.
Ok, so you ban Trump from holding office based on his implicit rhetoric. Meanwhile harsher implicit and explicit rhetoric from several members of congress has been spouted for decades and based on the bar you set for Trump they should easily be held responsible.

Should current members of congress/senate who fit the bill also be disqualified from holding office?

If that fails to happen, is it irrational to claim that the rules don't apply to everyone?
Yes, if that really is the case. But if you're talking about someone like Schumer saying "you'll reap the whirlwind," it's not likely to fit the bill.
Ok, "reap the whirlwind" is more threatening than what Trump said! That is a threat, period.


This is the actual transcript of Trump at the elipse.

"And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down.

Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."


Ok, so reap the whirlwind is less threatening than that???? Sam, your hatred of the man is clouding your judgement.
I don't hate Trump. He had a terrible upbringing and was out of his depth as president. He accomplished some good things in spite of that.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.

Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.

In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.

And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
I know he is not in court, Sam. However, Congress is accusing him of something that is tantamount to criminal conduct. The committee is a continuation of the second sham impeachment. That is why the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to confront witness and put on evidence. The committee members would not apply these same standards to themselves.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Whether explicit or implicit, it must still be directed to and likely to produce imminent lawless action. Compare with Hess v. Indiana.
Ok, so you ban Trump from holding office based on his implicit rhetoric. Meanwhile harsher implicit and explicit rhetoric from several members of congress has been spouted for decades and based on the bar you set for Trump they should easily be held responsible.

Should current members of congress/senate who fit the bill also be disqualified from holding office?

If that fails to happen, is it irrational to claim that the rules don't apply to everyone?
Yes, if that really is the case. But if you're talking about someone like Schumer saying "you'll reap the whirlwind," it's not likely to fit the bill.

Quote:

"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

- Maxine Waters
People carried out her wishes.
So I'll ask the same question I've been asked -- what was the endgame? This was supposed to overthrow the government?
To protest for an audit.

Mob mentality took over and people trespassed. There was no grand conspiracy to overthrow the federal government.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.

Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.

In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.

And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
I know he is not in court, Sam. However, Congress is accusing him of something that is tantamount to criminal conduct. The committee is a continuation of the second sham impeachment. That is why the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to confront witness and put on evidence. The committee members would not apply these same standards to themselves.
It is like a continuation of the second impeachment in some ways. Impeachment has always been a political process. Until Mitt Romney in 2020, no senator had ever voted to convict a president from his own party. It's also like a grand jury in some ways. That process is notoriously one-sided.

Because this isn't a trial, the format of the investigation doesn't allow Trump to confront witnesses. That was never going to happen. The best he can do is testify himself, and the best his allies in Congress can do is send representatives to confront the witnesses. They've chosen not to do these things.

The result is a process that's more inquisitorial than adversarial. It has no validity as an ultimate determiner of truth. I'll go on to add that there's little logic in the way the narrative is being presented. It's difficult to see how the snippets of testimony relate to a coherent theory or how accurately they portray the events without fuller context. Because there's no confrontation, the hearings lack drama. They're obviously scripted, yet the production values are laughably bad (see for example Cassidy Hutchinson staring dumbly at a video screen for ten minutes while the audience at home wonders what she's looking at). The whole presentation feels amateurish and manipulative at the same time. Worst of all it's insufferably boring.

I get all that. It doesn't change the fact that these are credible witnesses testifying under oath. They're taking a real risk if they don't tell the truth. And they were in a position to know. You can find excuses to ignore it, but excuses are just that.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Whether explicit or implicit, it must still be directed to and likely to produce imminent lawless action. Compare with Hess v. Indiana.
Ok, so you ban Trump from holding office based on his implicit rhetoric. Meanwhile harsher implicit and explicit rhetoric from several members of congress has been spouted for decades and based on the bar you set for Trump they should easily be held responsible.

Should current members of congress/senate who fit the bill also be disqualified from holding office?

If that fails to happen, is it irrational to claim that the rules don't apply to everyone?
Yes, if that really is the case. But if you're talking about someone like Schumer saying "you'll reap the whirlwind," it's not likely to fit the bill.

Quote:

"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

- Maxine Waters
People carried out her wishes.
So I'll ask the same question I've been asked -- what was the endgame? This was supposed to overthrow the government?
To protest for an audit.

Mob mentality took over and people trespassed. There was no grand conspiracy to overthrow the federal government.
Then it's not the same thing. At least some on Jan. 6 were there for that purpose and admitted it.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.

Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.

In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.

And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
I know he is not in court, Sam. However, Congress is accusing him of something that is tantamount to criminal conduct. The committee is a continuation of the second sham impeachment. That is why the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to confront witness and put on evidence. The committee members would not apply these same standards to themselves.
It is like a continuation of the second impeachment in some ways. Impeachment has always been a political process. Until Mitt Romney in 2020, no senator had ever voted to convict a president from his own party. It's also like a grand jury in some ways. That process is notoriously one-sided.

Because this isn't a trial, the format of the investigation doesn't allow Trump to confront witnesses. That was never going to change. The best he can do is testify himself, and the best his allies in Congress can do is send representatives to confront the witnesses. They have chosen not to do these things.

The result is a process that's more inquisitorial than adversarial. It has no validity as an ultimate determiner of truth. I'll go on to add that there's little logic in the way the narrative is being presented. It's difficult to see how the snippets of testimony relate to a coherent theory or how accurately they portray the events without fuller context. Because there's no confrontation, the hearings lack drama. They're obviously scripted, yet the production values are laughably bad (see for example Cassidy Hutchinson staring dumbly at a video screen for ten minutes while the audience at home wonders what she's looking at). The whole presentation feels amateurish and manipulative at the same time. Worst of all it's insufferably boring.

I get all this. It doesn't change the fact that these are credible witnesses testifying under oath. They're taking a real risk if they don't tell the truth. And they were in a position to know. You can find excuses to ignore it, but excuses are just that.
Right, Sam. Listen to yourself. Nothing like a lack of cross-examination to find the truth, eh?

The only thing you might be on point about is that the committee is more like an inquisition than an adversarial forum. In adversarial forum, Trump would be permitted a process to defend himself from the accusers.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.

Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.

In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.

And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
I know he is not in court, Sam. However, Congress is accusing him of something that is tantamount to criminal conduct. The committee is a continuation of the second sham impeachment. That is why the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to confront witness and put on evidence. The committee members would not apply these same standards to themselves.
It is like a continuation of the second impeachment in some ways. Impeachment has always been a political process. Until Mitt Romney in 2020, no senator had ever voted to convict a president from his own party. It's also like a grand jury in some ways. That process is notoriously one-sided.

Because this isn't a trial, the format of the investigation doesn't allow Trump to confront witnesses. That was never going to change. The best he can do is testify himself, and the best his allies in Congress can do is send representatives to confront the witnesses. They have chosen not to do these things.

The result is a process that's more inquisitorial than adversarial. It has no validity as an ultimate determiner of truth. I'll go on to add that there's little logic in the way the narrative is being presented. It's difficult to see how the snippets of testimony relate to a coherent theory or how accurately they portray the events without fuller context. Because there's no confrontation, the hearings lack drama. They're obviously scripted, yet the production values are laughably bad (see for example Cassidy Hutchinson staring dumbly at a video screen for ten minutes while the audience at home wonders what she's looking at). The whole presentation feels amateurish and manipulative at the same time. Worst of all it's insufferably boring.

I get all this. It doesn't change the fact that these are credible witnesses testifying under oath. They're taking a real risk if they don't tell the truth. And they were in a position to know. You can find excuses to ignore it, but excuses are just that.
Nothing like a lack of cross-examination to find the truth, eh?
That's exactly why McCarthy doesn't want it.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.

Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.

In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.

And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
I know he is not in court, Sam. However, Congress is accusing him of something that is tantamount to criminal conduct. The committee is a continuation of the second sham impeachment. That is why the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to confront witness and put on evidence. The committee members would not apply these same standards to themselves.
It is like a continuation of the second impeachment in some ways. Impeachment has always been a political process. Until Mitt Romney in 2020, no senator had ever voted to convict a president from his own party. It's also like a grand jury in some ways. That process is notoriously one-sided.

Because this isn't a trial, the format of the investigation doesn't allow Trump to confront witnesses. That was never going to change. The best he can do is testify himself, and the best his allies in Congress can do is send representatives to confront the witnesses. They have chosen not to do these things.

The result is a process that's more inquisitorial than adversarial. It has no validity as an ultimate determiner of truth. I'll go on to add that there's little logic in the way the narrative is being presented. It's difficult to see how the snippets of testimony relate to a coherent theory or how accurately they portray the events without fuller context. Because there's no confrontation, the hearings lack drama. They're obviously scripted, yet the production values are laughably bad (see for example Cassidy Hutchinson staring dumbly at a video screen for ten minutes while the audience at home wonders what she's looking at). The whole presentation feels amateurish and manipulative at the same time. Worst of all it's insufferably boring.

I get all this. It doesn't change the fact that these are credible witnesses testifying under oath. They're taking a real risk if they don't tell the truth. And they were in a position to know. You can find excuses to ignore it, but excuses are just that.
Right, Sam. Listen to yourself. Nothing like a lack of cross-examination to find the truth, eh?

The only thing you might be on point about is that the committee is more like an inquisition than an adversarial forum. In adversarial forum, Trump would be permitted a process to defend himself from the accusers.
Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.

Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.

In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.

And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
I know he is not in court, Sam. However, Congress is accusing him of something that is tantamount to criminal conduct. The committee is a continuation of the second sham impeachment. That is why the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to confront witness and put on evidence. The committee members would not apply these same standards to themselves.
It is like a continuation of the second impeachment in some ways. Impeachment has always been a political process. Until Mitt Romney in 2020, no senator had ever voted to convict a president from his own party. It's also like a grand jury in some ways. That process is notoriously one-sided.

Because this isn't a trial, the format of the investigation doesn't allow Trump to confront witnesses. That was never going to change. The best he can do is testify himself, and the best his allies in Congress can do is send representatives to confront the witnesses. They have chosen not to do these things.

The result is a process that's more inquisitorial than adversarial. It has no validity as an ultimate determiner of truth. I'll go on to add that there's little logic in the way the narrative is being presented. It's difficult to see how the snippets of testimony relate to a coherent theory or how accurately they portray the events without fuller context. Because there's no confrontation, the hearings lack drama. They're obviously scripted, yet the production values are laughably bad (see for example Cassidy Hutchinson staring dumbly at a video screen for ten minutes while the audience at home wonders what she's looking at). The whole presentation feels amateurish and manipulative at the same time. Worst of all it's insufferably boring.

I get all this. It doesn't change the fact that these are credible witnesses testifying under oath. They're taking a real risk if they don't tell the truth. And they were in a position to know. You can find excuses to ignore it, but excuses are just that.
Nothing like a lack of cross-examination to find the truth, eh?
That's exactly why McCarthy doesn't want it.
Kevin McCarthy did not design the Committee rules. LOL.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.

Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.

In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.

And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
I know he is not in court, Sam. However, Congress is accusing him of something that is tantamount to criminal conduct. The committee is a continuation of the second sham impeachment. That is why the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to confront witness and put on evidence. The committee members would not apply these same standards to themselves.
It is like a continuation of the second impeachment in some ways. Impeachment has always been a political process. Until Mitt Romney in 2020, no senator had ever voted to convict a president from his own party. It's also like a grand jury in some ways. That process is notoriously one-sided.

Because this isn't a trial, the format of the investigation doesn't allow Trump to confront witnesses. That was never going to change. The best he can do is testify himself, and the best his allies in Congress can do is send representatives to confront the witnesses. They have chosen not to do these things.

The result is a process that's more inquisitorial than adversarial. It has no validity as an ultimate determiner of truth. I'll go on to add that there's little logic in the way the narrative is being presented. It's difficult to see how the snippets of testimony relate to a coherent theory or how accurately they portray the events without fuller context. Because there's no confrontation, the hearings lack drama. They're obviously scripted, yet the production values are laughably bad (see for example Cassidy Hutchinson staring dumbly at a video screen for ten minutes while the audience at home wonders what she's looking at). The whole presentation feels amateurish and manipulative at the same time. Worst of all it's insufferably boring.

I get all this. It doesn't change the fact that these are credible witnesses testifying under oath. They're taking a real risk if they don't tell the truth. And they were in a position to know. You can find excuses to ignore it, but excuses are just that.
Right, Sam. Listen to yourself. Nothing like a lack of cross-examination to find the truth, eh?

The only thing you might be on point about is that the committee is more like an inquisition than an adversarial forum. In adversarial forum, Trump would be permitted a process to defend himself from the accusers.
Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?
Trump does not get to call witnesses. I think we already agreed that was true.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Whether explicit or implicit, it must still be directed to and likely to produce imminent lawless action. Compare with Hess v. Indiana.
Ok, so you ban Trump from holding office based on his implicit rhetoric. Meanwhile harsher implicit and explicit rhetoric from several members of congress has been spouted for decades and based on the bar you set for Trump they should easily be held responsible.

Should current members of congress/senate who fit the bill also be disqualified from holding office?

If that fails to happen, is it irrational to claim that the rules don't apply to everyone?
Yes, if that really is the case. But if you're talking about someone like Schumer saying "you'll reap the whirlwind," it's not likely to fit the bill.

Quote:

"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

- Maxine Waters
People carried out her wishes.
So I'll ask the same question I've been asked -- what was the endgame? This was supposed to overthrow the government?
The endgame in all of the situations is to control the government. It worked better for some than others
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

He Hate Me said:

Sam Lowry said:

Thompson stated that Trump was welcome but he would have to speak under oath and not perjure himself. The chances of that are slim to none.

Trump himself has no standing to cross-examine. Republicans in Congress had the opportunity, but McCarthy refused because he wanted to discredit the committee.
Right. The illegitimate committee does not want Trump to cross-examine or present witnesses. This even though the entire charade is pointed at Trump and damaging his political career. The committee has no legislative purpose. The committee has an intended result in mind and is working backwards toward that result. That is why they do not dare allow Donald Trump to cross-examine or present evidence. That is why the only Republicans who could be found to participate on the committee are Liz Cheney, whose carpet-bagging career in Wyoming politics is over, and Adam Kinzinger, a Trump adversary who is not seeking reelection.

In other words, the truth is so important to this committee that the man whom it is attacking as the root cause of what has been termed an insurrection is not being afforded the due process provided to a defendant in small claims court.
He's not in court. I don't know how I can emphasize that enough.

And they did find Republicans to participate. McCarthy chose not to send them.
I know he is not in court, Sam. However, Congress is accusing him of something that is tantamount to criminal conduct. The committee is a continuation of the second sham impeachment. That is why the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to confront witness and put on evidence. The committee members would not apply these same standards to themselves.
It is like a continuation of the second impeachment in some ways. Impeachment has always been a political process. Until Mitt Romney in 2020, no senator had ever voted to convict a president from his own party. It's also like a grand jury in some ways. That process is notoriously one-sided.

Because this isn't a trial, the format of the investigation doesn't allow Trump to confront witnesses. That was never going to change. The best he can do is testify himself, and the best his allies in Congress can do is send representatives to confront the witnesses. They have chosen not to do these things.

The result is a process that's more inquisitorial than adversarial. It has no validity as an ultimate determiner of truth. I'll go on to add that there's little logic in the way the narrative is being presented. It's difficult to see how the snippets of testimony relate to a coherent theory or how accurately they portray the events without fuller context. Because there's no confrontation, the hearings lack drama. They're obviously scripted, yet the production values are laughably bad (see for example Cassidy Hutchinson staring dumbly at a video screen for ten minutes while the audience at home wonders what she's looking at). The whole presentation feels amateurish and manipulative at the same time. Worst of all it's insufferably boring.

I get all this. It doesn't change the fact that these are credible witnesses testifying under oath. They're taking a real risk if they don't tell the truth. And they were in a position to know. You can find excuses to ignore it, but excuses are just that.
Nothing like a lack of cross-examination to find the truth, eh?
That's exactly why McCarthy doesn't want it.
Kevin McCarthy did not design the Committee rules. LOL.
Cute, but you know it's not a question of rules. You can't confront a witness if you don't show up.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Whether explicit or implicit, it must still be directed to and likely to produce imminent lawless action. Compare with Hess v. Indiana.
Ok, so you ban Trump from holding office based on his implicit rhetoric. Meanwhile harsher implicit and explicit rhetoric from several members of congress has been spouted for decades and based on the bar you set for Trump they should easily be held responsible.

Should current members of congress/senate who fit the bill also be disqualified from holding office?

If that fails to happen, is it irrational to claim that the rules don't apply to everyone?
Yes, if that really is the case. But if you're talking about someone like Schumer saying "you'll reap the whirlwind," it's not likely to fit the bill.

Quote:

"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

- Maxine Waters
People carried out her wishes.
So I'll ask the same question I've been asked -- what was the endgame? This was supposed to overthrow the government?
The endgame in all of the situations is to control the government. It worked better for some than others
Equivocation fallacy.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.