ADVERTISEMENT

spoiler- If you're boycotting the Jan 6 hearing...

Nobody at The January 6 Show now going on in DC gives a crap about the 2's and 4's.
Wtf?

If they were peaceful protestors and acting lawfully, why should investigators care?

The focus is appropriately on the lawbreakers, primarily those who entered the building and those who attacked cops whether inside or out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sope Creek
Just go ahead and cite your “months old” fact-checks (Huffingpaint Post, Newsleak, SycophantNN ) saying “Trump lied - there were no antifa in DC on January 6” and get it over with, cause unless it comes out of the water, says “I’m a shark,” and bites you, it’s a fish.
So why out of all the wingnuts posting their exploits on Jan 6, did none of those amateur photographers post anything showing these "left-wing" protestors? They didn't notice them, but you know they were there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
So why out of all the wingnuts posting their exploits on Jan 6, did none of those amateur photographers post anything showing these "left-wing" protestors? They didn't notice them, but you know they were there?

I'm sure he picked it up from some reputable source (which he will decline to disclose). I can't imagine he'd stoop to just posting shit out of his ass.
 
Groups I have detected as being present at or near the Capitol on 1/6/21:

1. Right-wing insurrectionists determined to commits acts of violence to protest what they believed was a stolen election.
2. Right-wing protestors determined to commits non-violent acts of protest against what they believed was a stolen election, and who were shocked to see violence.
3. Left-wing insurrectionists determined to commit acts of violence against right-wing insurrectionists and right-wing protestors and who were thrilled to see violence.
4. Left-wing protestors determined to non-violently counter-protest right-wing protests, and who were shocked to see violence.
3. " Left-wing insurrectionists determined to commit acts of violence against right-wing insurrectionists and right-wing protestors and who were thrilled to see violence."

You may be trolling, but in case you're serious, I wonder what you think these left-wing "insurrectionists" would have had to gain by being in DC on Jan 6? I think you've been reading too much wingnut propaganda...

"A month after organizing a rally that led to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Ali Alexander and his organization Stop The Steal finally got around to blaming eight people for the day’s violence.

In a report titled “agitators,” the group uploaded pictures of seven men and one woman it accused of being infiltrators who lured unsuspecting “patriots” into the Capitol. Those supposed outsiders were missing from an FBI database, the report claimed."


The problem is the "woman with a knife" that they tried to label as "Antifa", turned out to be the ex-wife of Terrell Suggs. The FBI has issued a wanted poster on her after surveillance tape showed her arguing with a rioter and brandishing a knife.

But she is not Antifa and is in fact Candace Williams a well-known pro-Trump vlogger who posts conspiracy theories attacking both Obama and Soros. She got in a heated argument with some fellow MAGAs who wanted to breach the Capitol after the lawmakers had already been evacuated...

She was called a Bitch, and she drew her knife (Bessie) because she felt threatened. When she did, about 75 people ran at her with poles, bats, and water bottles. calling her a BLM thug, Antifa, and Welfare Queen, totally unaware of the fact that she makes roughly 250,000/yr. Just another fun day in MAGA land...

And she's definitely a true believer, putting out a video on Jan 10 that claimed the men she was fighting with were "Antifa", and that the Congressional proceedings inside the Capitol had been pre-recorded. She also claimed to have pics of "Antifa instigators" who invaded the Capitol but said the pics had been deleted from her phone by the FBI...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
So if nothing else, the hearings will provide some entertainment as Mo Brooks (who spoke prior to Trump at the rally) will get to explain under oath why he was wearing body armor to greet all of those out-of-town tourists... I'd say that seems odd apparel for a US Congressman to wear to work...



Brooks tried to argue that he can't be sued personally by Swalwell for the effects of his speech because he was speaking in his official capacity as a Congressman. The DOJ refused to substitute themselves as the defendant, telling Brooks that "inciting a riot" wasn't included in his job description as a US Congressman...

And then there's Jim Jordan, and his slip to admit he talked to Trump on Jan 6. How is he going to fare on the witness stand being questioned by actual interrogators, when just trying to answer polite questions from Bret Baier has him thoroughly confused and desperately trying to change the subject? You can basically see him trying to desperately avoid outright lying and trapping himself...

It's almost beyond belief that this guy was complaining that he wasn't allowed to be on the Committee investigating Jan 6. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse...

 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
So if nothing else, the hearings will provide some entertainment as Mo Brooks (who spoke prior to Trump at the rally) will get to explain under oath why he was wearing body armor to greet all of those out-of-town tourists... I'd say that seems odd apparel for a US Congressman to wear to work...



Brooks tried to argue that he can't be sued personally by Swalwell for the effects of his speech because he was speaking in his official capacity as a Congressman. The DOJ refused to substitute themselves as the defendant, telling Brooks that "inciting a riot" wasn't included in his job description as a US Congressman...

And then there's Jim Jordan, and his slip to admit he talked to Trump on Jan 6. How is he going to fare on the witness stand being questioned by actual interrogators, when just trying to answer polite questions from Bret Baier has him thoroughly confused and desperately trying to change the subject? You can basically see him trying to desperately avoid outright lying and trapping himself...

It's almost beyond belief that this guy was complaining that he wasn't allowed to be on the Committee investigating Jan 6. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse...

Why are you so scared of Jordan being on the committee?

Afraid he'll intimidate the cryers like Schiff and Kinzinger? Maybe he'd hurt their feelings by asking actual questions to get to the reasons behind 1/6?

I guess Nancy is afraid he might insist she be deposed to be questioned herself.

She only put yes-men on the committee whose minds were made up and wants no dissenting opinions. That's your idea of leadership.
 
i know not popular with the dems but i really do believe many of these people thought they were being patriots. being morons certainly doesn't absolve them, but.... it's trump i hold accountable

2% or less maybe thought they were being patriots, 98+ percent were just being might makes right sore losers.

that said, just as good or better a chance Hilary was screwed in 2016, and far far far better chance Gore was screwed in 2000.

i don't recall any of these "patriots" storming the capital then, so it wasn't about patiotism, it was about might makes right sore losers.

had it been about patriotism, they would have stormed those other times too.
 
I could have pulled out a number of possibilities

1108201-bin-laden-1024x768.jpg
 
Amazing that anyone thought jim jordan being on the investigation committee would at all be appropriate. Kind of hard for him to be without conflict of interest when he is knee deep in the shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Amazing that anyone thought jim jordan being on the investigation committee would at all be appropriate. Kind of hard for him to be without conflict of interest when he is knee deep in the shit.
Appropriate? He was to be the designated bomb thrower. He admitted as much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
Amazing that anyone thought jim jordan being on the investigation committee would at all be appropriate. Kind of hard for him to be without conflict of interest when he is knee deep in the shit.
Aw. That’s cute. Worrying about vote whores and conflicts of interest.

Pelosi should just move the hearings to a tarmac and slow walk the Playbill to all the non-Dims.

One side never tells the full story.
 
Aw. That’s cute. Worrying about vote whores and conflicts of interest.

Pelosi should just move the hearings to a tarmac and slow walk the Playbill to all the non-Dims.

One side never tells the full story.

Are saying there are no gop in the house that were innocent of instigating jan 6? That is an interesting take.
 
Why are you so scared of Jordan being on the committee?

Afraid he'll intimidate the cryers like Schiff and Kinzinger? Maybe he'd hurt their feelings by asking actual questions to get to the reasons behind 1/6?

I guess Nancy is afraid he might insist she be deposed to be questioned herself.

She only put yes-men on the committee whose minds were made up and wants no dissenting opinions. That's your idea of leadership.

Jim Jordan shot himself in the foot when he did the media rounds touting how much he talked to Trump and that he had talked to Trump on January 6.

If he wouldn't have don't that, who knows, but he can't keep his mouth shut about Trump, so Pelosi isn't gonna put him on the committee.

He also could be called to testify if they decide to subpoena his phone records from that day and find he called the white house during the time of the capital incident. That wouldn't be a good look for the committee either, another set back done by Jordan's mouth.
 
Jim Jordan shot himself in the foot when he did the media rounds touting how much he talked to Trump and that he had talked to Trump on January 6.

If he wouldn't have don't that, who knows, but he can't keep his mouth shut about Trump, so Pelosi isn't gonna put him on the committee.

He also could be called to testify if they decide to subpoena his phone records from that day and find he called the white house during the time of the capital incident. That wouldn't be a good look for the committee either, another set back done by Jordan's mouth.
I don't see where he shot himself in the foot at all. Pelosi was never going to have him on the committee because, in the end, she doesn't want to know the truth about 1/6.

She wants to hang Trump. And Jordan will ask tough and potentially embarrassing questions, so she can't have that.

"He also could be called to testify if they decide to subpoena his phone records from that day and find he called the white house during the time of the capital incident." What leftist media told you that? And, if he did (I don't know if he did or not), what would that prove? Is it not OK for a leading House Republican to call the White House when the Capitol is being invaded?
 
I don't see where he shot himself in the foot at all. Pelosi was never going to have him on the committee because, in the end, she doesn't want to know the truth about 1/6.

She wants to hang Trump. And Jordan will ask tough and potentially embarrassing questions, so she can't have that.

"He also could be called to testify if they decide to subpoena his phone records from that day and find he called the white house during the time of the capital incident." What leftist media told you that? And, if he did (I don't know if he did or not), what would that prove? Is it not OK for a leading House Republican to call the White House when the Capitol is being invaded?
Yes, he admitted on live TV that he contacted Trump that day.

It is the textbook definition of conflict-of-interest. You can not serve on a committee when it is possible that you are going to be called as a witness for testimony. That's the case at every level of our legal system.
 
Yes, he admitted on live TV that he contacted Trump that day.

It is the textbook definition of conflict-of-interest. You can not serve on a committee when it is possible that you are going to be called as a witness for testimony. That's the case at every level of our legal system.
This isn't legal; it's a legislative body. They have no prosecutorial powers. They can only refer to doj. Nothing they do bears any resemblance to a legal proceeding
 
Yes, he admitted on live TV that he contacted Trump that day.

It is the textbook definition of conflict-of-interest. You can not serve on a committee when it is possible that you are going to be called as a witness for testimony. That's the case at every level of our legal system.
If that's the case, Nancy Pelosi should take herself off the committee.

By the way, this isn't a 'legal' anything.
 
I don't see where he shot himself in the foot at all. Pelosi was never going to have him on the committee because, in the end, she doesn't want to know the truth about 1/6.

She wants to hang Trump. And Jordan will ask tough and potentially embarrassing questions, so she can't have that.

"He also could be called to testify if they decide to subpoena his phone records from that day and find he called the white house during the time of the capital incident." What leftist media told you that? And, if he did (I don't know if he did or not), what would that prove? Is it not OK for a leading House Republican to call the White House when the Capitol is being invaded?

Yup, Jordan will ask such embarrassing questions like "who did you talk to on jan 6?" "oh.hold on. can we skip on to the next question, I don't want to incriminate myself"
 
Judge Amy Berman Jackson to Jan. 6th defendant, Karl Dresch:

"You called yourself and everyone else patriots, but that's not patriotism," Judge Amy Berman Jackson said of defendant Karl Dresch. "Patriotism is loyalty to country, loyalty to the Constitution, not loyalty to a head of state. That is the tyranny we rejected on July 4."

A-Friggin'-men!
 
This isn't legal; it's a legislative body. They have no prosecutorial powers. They can only refer to doj. Nothing they do bears any resemblance to a legal proceeding
People forget that congress is not a criminal justice agency snd it has no such authority. The only purpose of congressional hearings is to gather facts about which legislation might be needed. Of course that is not why Pelosi convened this select committee on top of hundreds of DOJ investigations/prosecutions for the same subject and an impeachment trial.
 
People forget that congress is not a criminal justice agency snd it has no such authority. The only purpose of congressional hearings is to gather facts about which legislation might be needed. Of course that is not why Pelosi convened this select committee on top of hundreds of DOJ investigations/prosecutions for the same subject and an impeachment trial.
yup
 
I understand, and essentially agree. But the concept is still the same. It would still be considered a conflict of interest.
I don’t think do. The only meaningful conflict for a legislator is pecuniary. Part of the job description of a legislator is to talk to people about the subject under consideration and then use information. . This is to be contrasted with a judge, or a juror who is supposed to only obtain information from testimony and evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
I understand, and essentially agree. But the concept is still the same. It would still be considered a conflict of interest.
yeah i have to concur with coh. i've never heard of a legislator's conflict of interest outside of deriving financial gain from some action
 
Are saying there are no gop in the house that were innocent of instigating jan 6? That is an interesting take.

I'm saying all you folks all apopletic over the Great Trumper 1/6/21 Massacre, and claiming that thousands of people stormed into the Capitol shootin' and rapin' and rapin' and shootin', are a bunch of political puppets, Pelosi Puppets, willingingly watching and creating a piece of Trumped-up political theatre.

A few hundred dumbasses have you people pissing all over yourself, willingly and blindly and joyously accepting a bunch of made-up lies about threats to Democracy, while actual threats to Democracy could bite you in the ass and you'd never see em.

if those folks had really tried to overthrow government, they’d be dead

Trespassing and treason aren’t the same thing

The worst may need some jail time

Most need a fine and a stern warning

and every vote whore in Congress needs to put up or shut up when it comes to elections and vote counting
 
3. " Left-wing insurrectionists determined to commit acts of violence against right-wing insurrectionists and right-wing protestors and who were thrilled to see violence."

You may be trolling, but in case you're serious, I wonder what you think these left-wing "insurrectionists" would have had to gain by being in DC on Jan 6? I think you've been reading too much wingnut propaganda...

"A month after organizing a rally that led to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Ali Alexander and his organization Stop The Steal finally got around to blaming eight people for the day’s violence.

In a report titled “agitators,” the group uploaded pictures of seven men and one woman it accused of being infiltrators who lured unsuspecting “patriots” into the Capitol. Those supposed outsiders were missing from an FBI database, the report claimed."


The problem is the "woman with a knife" that they tried to label as "Antifa", turned out to be the ex-wife of Terrell Suggs. The FBI has issued a wanted poster on her after surveillance tape showed her arguing with a rioter and brandishing a knife.

But she is not Antifa and is in fact Candace Williams a well-known pro-Trump vlogger who posts conspiracy theories attacking both Obama and Soros. She got in a heated argument with some fellow MAGAs who wanted to breach the Capitol after the lawmakers had already been evacuated...

She was called a Bitch, and she drew her knife (Bessie) because she felt threatened. When she did, about 75 people ran at her with poles, bats, and water bottles. calling her a BLM thug, Antifa, and Welfare Queen, totally unaware of the fact that she makes roughly 250,000/yr. Just another fun day in MAGA land...

And she's definitely a true believer, putting out a video on Jan 10 that claimed the men she was fighting with were "Antifa", and that the Congressional proceedings inside the Capitol had been pre-recorded. She also claimed to have pics of "Antifa instigators" who invaded the Capitol but said the pics had been deleted from her phone by the FBI...
But both sides…
 
Why are you so scared of Jordan being on the committee?

Afraid he'll intimidate the cryers like Schiff and Kinzinger? Maybe he'd hurt their feelings by asking actual questions to get to the reasons behind 1/6?

I guess Nancy is afraid he might insist she be deposed to be questioned herself.

She only put yes-men on the committee whose minds were made up and wants no dissenting opinions. That's your idea of leadership.
Would you want AOC or the squad on any fact-finding committee? Jordan is essentially as far right-wing as AOC is left...
I don't see where he shot himself in the foot at all. Pelosi was never going to have him on the committee because, in the end, she doesn't want to know the truth about 1/6.

She wants to hang Trump. And Jordan will ask tough and potentially embarrassing questions, so she can't have that.

"He also could be called to testify if they decide to subpoena his phone records from that day and find he called the white house during the time of the capital incident." What leftist media told you that? And, if he did (I don't know if he did or not), what would that prove? Is it not OK for a leading House Republican to call the White House when the Capitol is being invaded?
"And, if he did (I don't know if he did or not), what would that prove? Is it not OK for a leading House Republican to call the White House when the Capitol is being invaded?"

Ok, Dan, let's consider the implications here. Talking to Trump is NOT the issue per se, we know that both McCarthy and Lindsey both talked to Trump, or at least in Graham's case he tried to numerous times and definitely got thru to Ivanka...

The key is what did Trump SAY when he was talking to a US Congressman while the Capitol was being invaded? We already know that McCarthy tried to change his story because originally he confided in a fellow Republican House member Jamie Herrea-Beutler (GOP-WA) who outed him.

So when he's subpoenaed and she confronts him is he going to purge himself and try to claim he didn't tell her what she is already on public record for revealing?


Jordan has the same problem. Is he going to lie for Trump or is he going to be truthful, not perjuring himself but earning Trump's wrath for the betrayal? Again, the video I posted was Jordan avoiding questions from a friendly Fox News host, and he was NOT under oath. Clearly, Jordan wanted to be on the Committee so he could veto any attempt to subpoena himself...

 
I don't see where he shot himself in the foot at all. Pelosi was never going to have him on the committee because, in the end, she doesn't want to know the truth about 1/6.

She wants to hang Trump. And Jordan will ask tough and potentially embarrassing questions, so she can't have that.

"He also could be called to testify if they decide to subpoena his phone records from that day and find he called the white house during the time of the capital incident." What leftist media told you that? And, if he did (I don't know if he did or not), what would that prove? Is it not OK for a leading House Republican to call the White House when the Capitol is being invaded?
"She wants to hang Trump. And Jordan will ask tough and potentially embarrassing questions, so she can't have that."

Can you provide an example of a relevant "tough and potentially embarrassing question" that you think Jordan could ask that would be considered serious? Again, Pelosi is NOT responsible for Capitol security any more than McConnell is. In case you forgot, the main target of the mob (Pence) was presiding over events in the Senate chamber when the mob attacked. And even your hero Babbitt was shot while trying to gain access to where the Senators were being evacuated...

The lawmakers that day were conducting Constitutionally mandated business. Jordan and his ilk were making attempts to sabotage the process by raising objections over an election that wasn't even the closest or factually controversial this decade. Hillary didn't behave nearly as spoiled and whiny as Trump and she actually got more votes and lost. Trump lost by 7 million votes and had people turn out in record numbers to repudiate him and his policies and it wasn't really that close. Trump's base loved him, but we're talking less than 40% of the electorate...

At this point, it's just loons who argue nonsense like Trump couldn't lose, when he's been one of the most unpopular POTUS in history and had lower Gallup approval consistently of any POTUS they've polled on going back to WW2 when Gallup started polling. Trump went into election day trailing by an incredibly wide margin, and there just weren't enough voters left to vote for Trump on election day to counter all of us who were determined to vote that clown out...
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
"She wants to hang Trump. And Jordan will ask tough and potentially embarrassing questions, so she can't have that."

Can you provide an example of a relevant "tough and potentially embarrassing question" that you think Jordan could ask that would be considered serious? Again, Pelosi is NOT responsible for Capitol security any more than McConnell is. In case you forgot, the main target of the mob (Pence) was presiding over events in the Senate chamber when the mob attacked. And even your hero Babbitt was shot while trying to gain access to where the Senators were being evacuated...

The lawmakers that day were conducting Constitutionally mandated business. Jordan and his ilk were making attempts to sabotage the process by raising objections over an election that wasn't even the closest or factually controversial this decade. Hillary didn't behave nearly as spoiled and whiny as Trump and she actually got more votes and lost. Trump lost by 7 million votes and had people turn out in record numbers to repudiate him and his policies and it wasn't really that close. Trump's base loved him, but we're talking less than 40% of the electorate...

At this point, it's just loons who argue nonsense like Trump couldn't lose, when he's been one of the most unpopular POTUS in history and had lower Gallup approval consistently of any POTUS they've polled on going back to WW2 when Gallup started polling. Trump went into election day trailing by an incredibly wide margin, and there just weren't enough voters left to vote for Trump on election day to counter all of us who were determined to vote that clown out...
It doesn’t matter if she was responsible for security, but it absolutely matters in the court of public opinion, which is all this dog & pony show is about, if they can get her to admit that:
1. She & other Dem leaders had discussed the possibility that wacko right wingers under the mind control of master brainwasher the Donald we’re going to overthrow the government & make the US a dictatorship & chose to take no preemptive actions, or
2. Were too stupid to see it coming & didn’t take all of the Donald’s remarks seriously in spite of their constant bleating about how serious the threat was now.

No good for Nancy.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC and IU_Hickory
"She wants to hang Trump. And Jordan will ask tough and potentially embarrassing questions, so she can't have that."

Can you provide an example of a relevant "tough and potentially embarrassing question" that you think Jordan could ask that would be considered serious? Again, Pelosi is NOT responsible for Capitol security any more than McConnell is. In case you forgot, the main target of the mob (Pence) was presiding over events in the Senate chamber when the mob attacked. And even your hero Babbitt was shot while trying to gain access to where the Senators were being evacuated...

The lawmakers that day were conducting Constitutionally mandated business. Jordan and his ilk were making attempts to sabotage the process by raising objections over an election that wasn't even the closest or factually controversial this decade. Hillary didn't behave nearly as spoiled and whiny as Trump and she actually got more votes and lost. Trump lost by 7 million votes and had people turn out in record numbers to repudiate him and his policies and it wasn't really that close. Trump's base loved him, but we're talking less than 40% of the electorate...

At this point, it's just loons who argue nonsense like Trump couldn't lose, when he's been one of the most unpopular POTUS in history and had lower Gallup approval consistently of any POTUS they've polled on going back to WW2 when Gallup started polling. Trump went into election day trailing by an incredibly wide margin, and there just weren't enough voters left to vote for Trump on election day to counter all of us who were determined to vote that clown out...
Another Word Salad Annie post!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I'm saying all you folks all apopletic over the Great Trumper 1/6/21 Massacre, and claiming that thousands of people stormed into the Capitol shootin' and rapin' and rapin' and shootin', are a bunch of political puppets, Pelosi Puppets, willingingly watching and creating a piece of Trumped-up political theatre.

A few hundred dumbasses have you people pissing all over yourself, willingly and blindly and joyously accepting a bunch of made-up lies about threats to Democracy, while actual threats to Democracy could bite you in the ass and you'd never see em.

if those folks had really tried to overthrow government, they’d be dead

Trespassing and treason aren’t the same thing

The worst may need some jail time

Most need a fine and a stern warning

and every vote whore in Congress needs to put up or shut up when it comes to elections and vote counting
You're missing the point. This isn't about a few hundred dumbasses.

It's about a President inviting them to town surrounded by thousands of others drawn like moths to the Big Lie (the majority of whom saw the dumbasses as patriots defending America, according to polls). The President had been saying for months the only way he could lose the election was if it was stolen, and that was immediately the narrative after he lost. The story line is clear as day and will shine through that way under the cold light of historical perspective.

But today's task is to continue to draw out those Republicans who still perpetuate the Big Lie and who are trying to change the narrative about what really happened on January 6 and who was responsible.

It was an attempt to disrupt the result of the Presidential election, instigated by Trump, and now defended by the GOP. I wish I trusted the American people to hold them accountable for that.
 
yeah i have to concur with coh. i've never heard of a legislator's conflict of interest outside of deriving financial gain from some action

Have you ever heard of a legislator being on the investigation committee where he or she was a person of interest?
 
ADVERTISEMENT