1 1
JerryBaumchen

Jan. 6 Panel

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Putting Jordan on there is like putting Bozo the Clown on it.

You could see this posturing coming a mile away. Pelosi rejects him, then McCarthy will say how they are not going to cooperate since Democrats are blocking Republican participation. Pelosi will go ahead, Republicans win the PR war with their base and make sure they can discredit any outcome as partisan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You could see this posturing coming a mile away. Pelosi rejects him, then McCarthy will say how they are not going to cooperate since Democrats are blocking Republican participation. Pelosi will go ahead, Republicans win the PR war with their base and make sure they can discredit any outcome as partisan.

Hi Sky,

Re:  Republicans win the PR war with their base

There are moments when I think that this is the only thing that they really care about.

Jerry Baumchen

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Sky,

Re:  Republicans win the PR war with their base

There are moments when I think that this is the only thing that they really care about.

Jerry Baumchen

 

No, no! They also care about their mega-donors!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they need to include one (not two) congresscritters who voted against certifying. Banks would be a better choice than Jordan, but not by much. He’s just against anything remotely resembling liberal/progressive. Jordan is actively pro-Trump. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

I think they need to include one (not two) congresscritters who voted against certifying. Banks would be a better choice than Jordan, but not by much. He’s just against anything remotely resembling liberal/progressive. Jordan is actively pro-Trump. 
Wendy P. 

Hi Wendy,

Re:  I think they need to include one (not two) congresscritters who voted against certifying.

Using your criteria, they have many to choose from.  And, therein lies the problem.

Jerry Baumchen

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

I think they need to include one (not two) congresscritters who voted against certifying. Banks would be a better choice than Jordan, but not by much. He’s just against anything remotely resembling liberal/progressive. Jordan is actively pro-Trump. 
Wendy P. 

Why? 
They are either 'collaborators' or 'co-conspirators'.

If the Ds are willing to include them, they should make the 'deniers' testify (under oath) why they felt the election should not have been certified.
Not just 'there was fraud'. Make them detail exactly where and what kind of fraud they think took place.
Make them produce evidence of that fraud.

They won't be able to. It doesn't exist.

This sort of 'both-sidersism' is stupid.
This is like bringing a flat earther onto a NASA launch team.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree that they should be made to testify as well. But this is also about convincing people of the truth, after establishing it. And someone who, even if not completely convinced, can tell the minions that they were part of the process, and didn’t like it but were at least part of it, will be better than “shoved down our throats by a bunch of Democrats”

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I completely agree that they should be made to testify as well. But this is also about convincing people of the truth, after establishing it. And someone who, even if not completely convinced, can tell the minions that they were part of the process, and didn’t like it but were at least part of it, will be better than “shoved down our throats by a bunch of Democrats”

Wendy P. 

Hi Wendy,

Re:  But this is also about convincing people of the truth

And:  

Benjamin Franklin . . . in a letter to Jean-Baptiste Leroy . . . :

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

You can try to convince people of the truth, but you will not be fully successful.  It is sort of like those that refuse to get vax'd.  IMO nothing is going to get them to change their minds.

We need to get the investigation going and let the chips fall where they may.

Of the GOP does not want to partake, then they can live with the outcome.

As Rhett Butler said:  Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for a open and fair investigation. It seems illogical to not allow pro-Trumpers on the panel if there are anti-Trumpers on the panel. One is just as bad as the other.

Is it even possible to find a politician that can fairly examine the facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

I'm all for a open and fair investigation. It seems illogical to not allow pro-Trumpers on the panel if there are anti-Trumpers on the panel. One is just as bad as the other.

Is it even possible to find a politician that can fairly examine the facts?

yet the pro-trumpers had a chance at a bi-partisan investigation and refused.  no way in hell i would let one of the nut jubs on the panel after that.  i recall folks begging the gop to take part in that one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

I'm all for a open and fair investigation. It seems illogical to not allow pro-Trumpers on the panel if there are anti-Trumpers on the panel. One is just as bad as the other.

Is it even possible to find a politician that can fairly examine the facts?

It’s not about pro Trump and anti Trump. It’s about complicit vs not complicit. Jim Jordan is not just crazy, not just a proven liar on a wild scale, not just an enthusiastic pusher of wild election fraud fantasies, he was literally in the room where it happened when Trump and his team were formulating their ‘let’s get everyone riled up’ pre riot plans. It’s not even just about the bias - you can’t make an investigator out of someone who could easily be subpoenaed as a witness to the things being investigated, and everyone knows that. Putting him forward in the first place is pure Republican political theatre.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billeisele said:

Is it even possible to find a politician that can fairly examine the facts?

I wonder if Liz Cheney, one of the most conservative GOP'ers, is likely to fit that bill? However, the fact that Pelosi appointed her, and her declared stand on the Big Lie, will probably count against her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, billeisele said:

I'm all for a open and fair investigation. It seems illogical to not allow pro-Trumpers on the panel if there are anti-Trumpers on the panel. One is just as bad as the other.

?? Not sure that makes sense.  On a grand jury to decide on a tax fraud charge, should there be both law abiding people and tax cheats?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billeisele said:

I'm all for a open and fair investigation. It seems illogical to not allow pro-Trumpers on the panel if there are anti-Trumpers on the panel. One is just as bad as the other.

Is it even possible to find a politician that can fairly examine the facts?

I don't have an issue with "Pro-Trumpers" on the panel.

DO have an issue with people who told the blatant lie that Trump won the election, stoking the emotions of the insurrectionists.
Or with those members of congress who may have been complicit in the insurrection. 

Funny thing #1 - The Rs had a clear opportunity to be a part of this investigation. NONE of them supported the original investigation panel.

Funny thing #2 - The panel the Ds are putting together is virtually identical to the one that investigated the Benghazi deaths. Odd that the Rs hung their hat so firmly on that investigation, yet are demonizing this one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Thanks for catching me up on the details. I've not been following this one.

Let's get some air time today. On a side note the amount of smoke that has made it to SC is crazy. It makes some great sun and moon photos.

Edited by billeisele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The committee will spend months investigating then produce a 1000+ page report that no one will read.  There will a 2 minute recap on the nightly news (ok maybe 90 seconds).  The committee will pat themselves on the back for doing a great job.  Maybe FOX News and CNN will get some mileage out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bigfalls said:

The committee will spend months investigating then produce a 1000+ page report that no one will read.  There will a 2 minute recap on the nightly news (ok maybe 90 seconds).  The committee will pat themselves on the back for doing a great job.  Maybe FOX News and CNN will get some mileage out of it.

The committee report is not the objective. Compelling testimony under oath is what the game is about. Some of that evidence will get plenty of coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2021 at 6:34 PM, wmw999 said:

I think they need to include one (not two) congresscritters who voted against certifying. Banks would be a better choice than Jordan, but not by much. He’s just against anything remotely resembling liberal/progressive. Jordan is actively pro-Trump. 
Wendy P. 

When you're investigating the bank robbery, do you really want one of the investigators to be the getaway driver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, gowlerk said:

The committee report is not the objective. Compelling testimony under oath is what the game is about. Some of that evidence will get plenty of coverage.

Agreed.  The testimony is what will be the "output" of this panel.  (And may end up with a few more indictments as well.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

As the old saying goes, 'You can run, but you cannot hide':  According to HuffPost, the outlet identified Barnhart months ago thanks to the work of "citizen sleuths," but refrained from publishing his name because of his violent history, which includes rioting charges from his teenage years.

A bodybuilding Trump fan photographed dragging a police officer during the Capitol riot has been arrested after a months-long hunt by internet sleuths (msn.com)

Welcome to the gray bar hotel.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1