Speaker Johnson releases the Jan 6th tapes
- Thread starter GhostOfMatchesMalone
- Start date
You didn't answer my question. Guess you can't be objective. I tried.
Your question was rooted in ignorance and it showed you don’t understand how select committees work.
Both sides of the aisle get fair representation so questions from both sides get asked, and the investigation has balance. You don’t want a partisan witch hunt, do you?
You said:
“If you suspected somebody was involved in the "crime", would you allow them to be a part of the investigation?”
So my question was directly related to yours - do you believe that Jordan and Banks were involved in “the crime”, and if so how?
You won't answer for a reason. So instead of going back and forth, just drop it. I asked for an objective answer and you answered with a question. It's not that serious, move on.
Your question ignores the norms of the process involved.
And this isn’t a criminal trial, it’s a series of committee hearings.
If the two members were involved in the crime - whatever that is - then how?
It’s your standard. Just explain it.
Ok. You won't answer, no matter what I explain.
You haven’t explained anything 😂
Select committees always allow both sides of the aisle to appoint members so there is equal representation. Let’s ignore this specific committee and just try to agree on that fact.
Can we agree on just that?
I literally tried to get you to answer a question ignoring this committee but you wouldn't answer, now you want me to do what you refuse to do. The irony.
But unlike you, I'm not in the business of protecting people. So yes that is the idea of committees.
OK, so I agree, you wouldn't want the person being investigated to be on the committee. So that would eliminate Trump and anyone who entered the Capitol that day.
How does that standard relate to Banks and Jordan?
And why deviate from SOP for this committee?
I am not sure about her reason for Banks but Jordan was always suspected to be involved and was even subpoenaed. So I get Jordan and that was the right move with him.
That wasn't the 1st time a person was denied a seat in a committee (if my memory is correct), so it wasn't a deviation.
I can't find another example. I also can't find any evidence Jordan had anything to do with J6, and the committee never forced him to comply.
Why do you think Pelosi rejected McCarthy's nominations?
Sidenote...here is a letter from Mayor Bowser refusing National Guard help offered by Mark Miller. It's been there since Jan 5, 2021 - she was proud of it.
How/why would she refuse something that isn't offered? What kind of insurrectionist offers federal military protection to stop the insurrection they're starting?
Anyone telling you Trump didn't want more protection for the Capitol is lying.
I know why she rejected Jordan and it makes perfect sense. Now after reading up on Banks, it was over a statement he made Now that was not a good reason to me.
Don't forget that McCarthy pulled the other 3 and he was allowed to replace to Banks/Jordan. He chose not to. I disagree with that as well.
What did Jordan do and what statement did Banks make? Being a vocal critic of the committee is actually what you want, that's how bipartisanism works. The two sides needs to disagree so questions from both perspectives get asked.
McCarthy lost the ability to choose. Pelosi was going to keep saying no until he "selected" people like Cheney and Kinsinger, who both declined to run again after their role in the one-sided committee. Why go through that?
The entire January 6th narrative is BS.
That was a Fedserection Deluxe. Reichstag 2.0 by The FBI, DOJ & CIA. That is why the bogus committee destroyed evidence that provided Trump was innocent!
That was a Fedserection Deluxe. Reichstag 2.0 by The FBI, DOJ & CIA. That is why the bogus committee destroyed evidence that provided Trump was innocent!
2 things. I am surprised that you would give a pass to the committee if your "Let's say" was correct and he did request 10k troops when the committee said there was no evidence. To me, it would be further proof of a kangaroo committee that was never interested in absolute truth. The other thing is what kind of insurrectionist calls for 10k troops. That really helps the insurrection doesn't it.
There just may be contradictory evidence that there is no evidence that Trump requested troops but why would a committee with this make up be interested in anything shedding any light on truth and fairness.
Report: Trump Did Propose 10,000 National Guard Troops on January 6th
One of the long-standing unanswered questions from the January 6th riot has been why the Capitol was so poorly prepared and defended on that day. A newly released transcript has caused a firestorm …
jonathanturley.org
Last edited:
The report. Lol. If only they didn’t destroy evidence which would allow is to confirm. If only there were even a single person in opposition allowed to be included on the committee. Good grief.
Being objective…no one with that quality was allowed on the committee.
And hell, in actuality there should have been members that were actually partisan against the committee vs only partisan against Trump being the qualifying determination for the committee.
It was one of the worst, most corrupt displays ever seen in congress. And that’s saying something.
History will not be kind to the committee.
You may want to look at what he was charged with.2 things. I am surprised that you would give a pass to the committee if your "Let's say" was correct and he did request 10k troops when the committee said there was no evidence. To me, it would be further proof of a kangaroo committee that was never interested in absolute truth. The other thing is what kind of insurrectionist calls for 10k troops. That really helps the insurrection doesn't it.
There just may be contradictory evidence that there is no evidence that Trump requested troops but why would a committee with this make up be interested in anything shedding any light on truth and fairness.
Report: Trump Did Propose 10,000 National Guard Troops on January 6th
One of the long-standing unanswered questions from the January 6th riot has been why the Capitol was so poorly prepared and defended on that day. A newly released transcript has caused a firestorm …
You are actually good at this haha....
BUT, I didn't want to go in his world of falsehoods. You go down that road and sometimes you get stuck.
Lol. I own you on the regular homie, not my fault reading comprehension is not a part of your skillset. You are almost as hard headed as your "enemies. "
Of the people that reply to me the most, you do a good job. I'm all for giving respect. The rest just claim they do a good job.
I only mentioned insurrectionist because the entire democrat party has labeled him as such, even though he hasn't been charged with insurrection. To further my point, the states that attempted to keep him off the ballot, including the state I live in, Illinois, were using insurrection as their basis for doing so. To the democrat party, he is an insurrectionist, whether charged or not.
Well they obviously were wrong unless I missed the conviction.
Wait what? So not only can you identify as whatever you want, the government can identify you as whatever they want as well?
And here I thought we were a nation of laws.
It wasn't a conviction (I don't think) but there was a fact finding due process in Colorado. That's why it reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court never overturned the verdict/decision, they just overturned the actions that could be taken with that verdict/decision.
There was no conviction. The two crimes that make you ineligible for office are Treason and insurrection. You don't have to take it state by state, thats federal law.
Bruh don't start trippin this early.
I'm going to regret this, but what pray tell leads you to this conclusion.
Kindly support your answer with case law or precedent.
Bold - we know
Italics - not a complete sentence, I'm having a hell of a time diagramming it.
Similar threads
