Appeals court: 'There is a direct linkage' between Trump and Capitol riots

[sun rise]

What worries me is that even the conservatives in this forum avoid this topic. They just sit back and say nothing. I'm not sure I've read any of them say that democracy is important, election integrity needs to be maintained, and that ALL citizens have the right to vote.

I differentiate between principled conservatives and trump supporters. After all the last election the Trump party had no platform because the platform is "whatever Trump wants" which is how dictators work. And they went all in on "whatever Trump wants" and anyone who disagrees will be cancelled.

 

[anna.]

For example, the ignoring of the subpoenas of the January 6th Committee, as the Constitution clearly states that the House does have the right of "oversight".

This is a great example. Two words: Susan McDougal.

As long as Democrats don't find the grit, they will continue to give ground and fascism will continue to advance.

 

[Revoltingest]

What worries me is that even the conservatives in this forum avoid this topic. They just sit back and say nothing. I'm not sure I've read any of them say that democracy is important, election integrity needs to be maintained, and that ALL citizens have the right to vote.

I don't think you pay enuf attention to conservatives here.
I've seen them value the same things you & I do, eg,
democracy, election integrity, civil rights, rule of law.
But in the heat of argument, one doesn't always focus
upon agreement. This is so for both libs & cons.

 

[anna.]

I differentiate between principled conservatives and trump supporters. After all the last election the Trump party had no platform because the platform is "whatever Trump wants" which is how dictators work. And they went all in on "whatever Trump wants" and anyone who disagrees will be cancelled.

I differentiate between the Liz Cheneys and the Lauren Boberts/Louie Gohmerts, yes. I still would disagree with Liz on policy but I don't doubt her integrity. She lost a lot by being a true patriot. Most of the GOP, however, were and are untrustworthy cowards, afraid to stand up against Trump. We needed more Sally Yates and Fiona Hills. A lot more. Even if an honest politician is a rare politician, we're stuck with them.

 

[anna.]

With the heavy influence of right wing disinformation media I doubt they have a clear understanding of all the corruption and lies. I think the only way to get through to them is if these bad actors are indicted and face trial. Trump facing trial in GA would be a huge step towards there being a warning to trump supporters. That is a criminal charge, so he can't think he'd just skate by with a fine like with his man civil lawsuit losses.

The fact trump said he wants to "find" just two more votes than what he lost by in GA (11778 votes) suggests he KNEW he was asking for the GA election board to add that many votes fraudulently, and invite them into a conspiracy to commit fraud. It's interesting how much this backs up what Cohen says about the way trump talks, in code, not directly. Trump didn't ask directly for the GA elections board to add votes. But it is clear his intent is for them to do this, because it is absurd that the EB can just "find" a specific number of votes out of nowhere that would just be enough for trump to win the state.

I can't believe this phone call wasn't enough to turn off republicans. It's an indication that they have abandoned all ethics and character.

Couldn't say it better. You give them evidence, they look away. This is why it's so important to have public hearings, and I look forward to the Jan. 6 public hearings in 2022, I don't know when they're scheduled but surely they know it must be before the elections.

 

[F1fan]

Couldn't say it better. You give them evidence, they look away. This is why it's so important to have public hearings, and I look forward to the Jan. 6 public hearings in 2022, I don't know when they're scheduled but surely they know it must be before the elections.

The hearings will definitely be important to establish responsibility. That many trump insiders are pleading the 5th is a repeat of what happened with Nixon's aids involving Watergate.

Not only do these folks have to worry about the Jan 6 attack, but also the coverup, which is what got many Nixon officials nailed.

 

[F1fan]

I don't think you pay enuf attention to conservatives here.
I've seen them value the same things you & I do, eg,
democracy, election integrity, civil rights, rule of law.
But in the heat of argument, one doesn't always focus
upon agreement. This is so for both libs & cons.

I can't say I've read every post. At least Colter said he accepts that Biden won the election in another thread. It's funny we have to give them credit for just accepting reality, let alone support the basic core principles of democracy. Debating politics today is what debating creationism has always been: dealing with an opponent that has a set of assumptions and beliefs that are not fact-based.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't say I've read every post. At least Colter said he accepts that Biden won the election in another thread. It's funny we have to give them credit for just accepting reality, let alone support the basic core principles of democracy. Debating politics today is what debating creationism has always been: dealing with an opponent that has a set of assumptions and beliefs that are not fact-based.

We all have assumptions, & we generally believe them
to be factual. But facts are numerous, & can be culled
from the many to support our views.
Conservatives, like liberals, have diverse opinions, but
they'll agree about many things....even with libertarians
sometimes.

 

[metis]

The hearings will definitely be important to establish responsibility. That many trump insiders are pleading the 5th is a repeat of what happened with Nixon's aids involving Watergate.

Not only do these folks have to worry about the Jan 6 attack, but also the coverup, which is what got many Nixon officials nailed.

Exactly, and if they didn't have anything to hide then why are they not testifying.

When Hillary was subpoenaed over Benghazi, she testified, but then I think she likely has more balls and honesty than most of the Pub men in Congress, as does Liz Cheney.

 

[Stonetree]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States federal government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.[4]

Why isn't the FCC taking action against lies being broadcast as truth? No matter who(broadcast industry) lies to the public they should be called on their 'disinformation'. These lies are one of the reasons why so many voters are swayed one way or another.

 

[F1fan]

We all have assumptions, & we generally believe them
to be factual. But facts are numerous, & can be culled
from the many to support our views.

Reasoning that aims to understand the state of things will do what science does and account for all the relevant facts. My concern is anyone who avoids select facts, or worse, creates "alternative facts". This is why debate/discussion is good because a diverse group will present the facts that should be considered.

Conservatives, like liberals, have diverse opinions, but
they'll agree about many things....even with libertarians
sometimes.

Indeed. But I think that set of agreed upon things is getting smaller. For example, fairness and ethics being crucial to how politicians approach our democracy. It's had its ups and downs, but we should be moving towards a more honored and stable set of principles. The post Gingrich GOP has been sliding, and the slide quickened with trump. Democrats are far from perfect, but they have held onto a more stable approach through the last 70 years.

 

[anna.]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States federal government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.[4]

Why isn't the FCC taking action against lies being broadcast as truth? No matter who(broadcast industry) lies to the public they should be called on their 'disinformation'. These lies are one of the reasons why so many voters are swayed one way or another.

There are limits to what the FCC can do because of our first amendment right to free speech. The FCC's role is narrowly defined because of this, and because it's expected that a free press and a free people will basically do their own fact-checking, and just like what happened in the past year or two with both Fox (I think it was Hannity?) and MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) the public cannot be reasonably expected to believe other than these commentators were expressing their own opinion, which may or not be hyperbolic. I'd rather err on the side of free speech over censorship, so I don't know how to fix the huge disinformation problem we have.

 

[Stonetree]

The President has too much protection legally during his term of office in my opinion. Why do we see hi

There are limits to what the FCC can do because of our first amendment right to free speech. The FCC's role is narrowly defined because of this, and because it's expected that a free press and a free people will basically do their own fact-checking, and just like what happened in the past year or two with both Fox (I think it was Hannity?) and MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) the public cannot be reasonably expected to believe other than these commentators were expressing their own opinion, which may or not be hyperbolic. I'd rather err on the side of free speech over censorship, so I don't know how to fix the huge disinformation problem we have.

I realize the problem but these broadcasters often relay a story as factual and not identify it as opinion..however I do understand and thank you for your reply.

 

[anna.]

The President has too much protection legally during his term of office in my opinion. Why do we see hi
I realize the problem but these broadcasters often relay a story as factual and not identify it as opinion..however I do understand and thank you for your reply.

Thank you, but to be sure, I share your concerns.

 

[sun rise]

I differentiate between the Liz Cheneys and the Lauren Boberts/Louie Gohmerts, yes. I

Liz Cheney has my respect for her integrity even though I dislike her politics. It's too bad that she's being cancelled by the party but I hope she wins re-election and can help turn the tide.

Even if an honest politician is a rare politician, we're stuck with them.

The system does not value honesty but rewards dishonesty, vote selling (aka campaign contributions) and pandering. The system also fights against real reform efforts.

The President has too much protection legally during his term of office in my opinion.

To me it's not so much legal as it is political in the refusal of Congress to act with integrity being more important than party.

Trump, of course, has taken this much further and claims legal protection above a sitting President.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To me it's not so much legal as it is political in the refusal of Congress to act with integrity being more important than party.

Yup, except it's not necessarily Congress. There is legal opinion that Mueller could--and should--have had Trump indicted. But it's politics with the idea you can't indict a sitting President. Which is utter BS. The Constitution allows for no one to be above the law and beyond reproach.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup, except it's not necessarily Congress. There is legal opinion that Mueller could--and should--have had Trump indicted. But it's politics with the idea you can't indict a sitting President. Which is utter BS. The Constitution allows for no one to be above the law and beyond reproach.

There's more at play in constitutional law that the Constitution.
For example, SCOTUS created qualified immunity in 1967 out
of thin air.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There's more at play in constitutional law that the Constitution.
For example, SCOTUS created qualified immunity in 1967 out
of thin air.

Yup. There's nothing in the Constitution to even suggest that, and it's just a bad idea. People are people first and the law must equally apply.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Direct linkage or not, it doesn't change the fact that Trump is a narccissist.

or the fact that he was the best president in the USA ever.
Or the fact that Joe and Hunter are corrupt paid Chinese, Russian and Burisma puppets

 

[anna.]

Two Jan. 6 Organizers Are Coming Forward and Naming Names: ‘We’re Turning It All Over’
After losing faith in Trump, the pair plan to hand over text messages, Instagram direct messages, and other documents related to the planning of the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse where Trump spoke

Two key organizers of the main Jan. 6 rally in Washington, D.C. are coming in from the cold.

Dustin Stockton and Jennifer Lynn Lawrence are set to testify next week before the House select committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol. The pair will deliver testimony and turn over documents, including text messages, that indicate the extensive involvement members of Congress and the Trump administration had in planning the House challenge to certifying Biden’s election and rally near the White House where Donald Trump spoke — efforts that ultimately contributed to a massive and violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. . . .

“The people and the history books deserve a real account of what happened,” Stockton explains. Lawrence puts it more bluntly: “Violent **** happened,” she says. “We want to get to the bottom of that.”

Behind those noble sentiments about why they’re cooperating with the committee is a hard reality: Stockton and Lawrence are running out of options.

On Nov. 22, the committee subpoenaed the pair, demanding they deliver depositions and turn over documents related to their involvement in the rally and communications with members of Trump’s team. Stockton is scheduled to testify on Tuesday, and Lawrence is due up the following day. The duo are keenly aware that Bannon, Meadows, and others who have declined to cooperate with the committee are facing federal charges for contempt of Congress. “We’ve seen what’s happened with Bannon, and we don’t have the resources that a Steve Bannon has,” Stockton says, referencing Bannon’s multimillion dollar fortune. “Our options are, in a lot of ways, limited.”​

"The people and the history books deserve a real account of what happened." Indeed they do. The Jan. 6 Committee isn't playing around.