Wait, you think that Pelosi should have been investigated when Congress was under attack
?
Yes, the purpose of the Jan 6 committee was, ostensibly, to investigate the events of Jan 6.
And anyone that watched Trump's speech on January 6 where he repeated his lies and worked the crowd into a frenzy knows that he incited a riot. You appear to have left your critical thinking skills somewhere. Have you checked under your bed?
I came to a different conclusion, which demonstrates the falsity of your claim that "anyone that watched Trump's speech on January 6 [...] knows that he incited a riot." Do you accept the falsity of your claim?
That's most of the world. They also didn't ask me anything, but I wouldn't say that it was because they had trouble asking me. They just had no reason to.
Nancy was there; she was the Speaker of the House; she made statements on video about the National Guard; they should've asked her questions; they didn't. Were you present on Jan 6? Did the Sergeant-at-arms report to you?
Yes, against whoever orchestrated that attack on America. Do you object tothat?
It suffices that you agree that they were obviously biased. I didn't make a claim that someone, if anyone, orchestrated an "attack on America".
So did I, and much of the world. The investigation was to determine the details of what led up to and what happened that day. We already knew that it was an insurrection headed by Trump from the available facts before the committee convened. So did the Republican party, else they wouldn't have done all in their power to prevent and later undermine that investigation.
Your response confirms my point about the predisposition of the committee.
If they thought Biden or the Democrats were behind it, they would have led the charge to investigate, and they would be convening committees now to revisit the investigation to dig up whatever evidence they think was suppressed. If they had no idea who did it, they would want to discover who it was along with the Democrats.
Nancy, Adam, and Liz are fair and balanced people because they voted to impeach Trump and Republican choices were not fair and balanced because they voted not to impeach Trump. This is obviously biased.
No, because they behaved as fair people do. You'd have to reveal evidence of unfairness to make the case that they did not behave honorably. You don't have that. Who chose them doesn't help one decide if they were fair investigators. Yes, Nancy's choices were fairer than Kevin's, but we know that because of who those people are, not who chose them.
I did reveal evidence of unfairness. For example, it has been established that the committee didn't get testimony from Nancy.
Correct, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. I literally don't care what they say except for prognostication purposes - guessing what they'll do next. Why? Because as with the Taliban, Kim, and Putin, I don't share their agenda or values. I don't care what any of those others recommend, either.
Probably, at least regarding whether an insurrection and attempted coup occurred, and why. So what? That doesn't make the decision unjust, nor the process by which it was arrived at. It was also the correct decision.
Yes, but an option, and one they were correct to choose. How hollow if they didn't. Garland was always going to indict if he could assemble a winnable case, and his own investigators could and probably did just that, although receiving one intact from Congress works, too.
Yes, collectively as a party, and over 80% individually.
Your responses confirm my point that the committee was biased.
It means that the Republicans would not convict Trump even in the face of compelling evidence that would (and will) convince impartial juries. Barring cowardice on the part of the DOJ and jury nullification by stealth MAGA on the jury getting past voir dire, Trump will be convicted of serious crimes against the United States.
The evidence failed to convince enough Republicans. Therefore, you say the Republicans are complicit instead of acknowledging that the evidence was not compelling.
It is very important that criminals get equal justice whether they be former presidents or not. I'd also like to see equal treatment, but I'll settle for a fair verdict and a loss of freedom if convicted however much deference is paid to this particular suspect. He should have been indicted already by multiple venues assuming that's eventually coming.
The process by which the outcome is achieved doesn't seem to be that important to you.
The purpose of the committee was to elucidate the relevant facts and prepare a report. It was clear before the committee was even formed what some of those findings would be.
This is further confirmation of my point that the committee already decided beforehand.
OK. Is this a double jeopardy argument? That claim has been made by Trump and rejected already. Jeopardy in this context refers to criminal liability for those charges. That's coming, but it will be for the first time when it does.
It's not my argument, but... it would be double jeopardy, by definition, for the Senate to acquit a person and then he faces charges again for the same crimes. The Constitution allows this double jeopardy if the President is convicted in the Senate (because the punishment of the impeachment trial doesn't extend further than removal from office). Trump was acquitted, yet the House committee sought to have Trump charged a second time.
I notice that you opted to ignore my question, "So you think Trump shouldn't be investigated or criminally charged if there is a winnable case against him because the congressional Republicans who objected to an investigation, many of whom may have been complicit in the cries committed that day, many of whom described the insurrection as legitimate political discourse and peaceful protest, acquitted him in the Senate?" Maybe you'd like to answer it now. For that reason, I'm assuming that your answer is that you don't, that you think the Senate should be seen as a criminal court with a 100 member jury who has acquitted Trump of criminal charges, but if that needs to be amended, please feel free to make any necessary correction to make it reflect your position.
It's a loaded question and a hypothetical, but now that I've thought about it if a President is acquitted of impeachment charges in the Senate, I don't think he should be charged again for the same crimes in another court. If the intention behind the Constitution was that double jeopardy applies on acquittal, then I think it would've been written so.
They don't report "solely to Nancy Pelosi," no.
Now maybe try addressing what I said.
You're hedging on the question of whether or not the Sergeant-at-arms reports to the Speaker. The correct answer is: the Sergeant-at-arms reports to the Speaker. This is a sufficient reason to have questioned Nancy.
You don't think the answer to my question is rather obvious?
I don't believe that you speak for Nancy Pelosi. Your answers to the questions, regardless of how obvious you believe they are, are not Nancy's answers.
You certainly do. You believe the narrative Fox News has woven about January 6th. It's evident in every post you make on the subject.
I think that you have a story that you believe about Nancy and this is why you think that you can answer questions on her behalf.
It seems they did care, given that they set up the committee and invited a bunch of people to testify and everything. Dont'cha think?
Feel free to link me to the part where the committee got Nancy's testimony.
Apparently you didn't even bother looking into what I said about the footage from that documentary.
You've got absolutely nothing to say about it, other than to dismiss it? No wonder you're so ill-informed. Hey, I bet it's been doctored!
Your link to the footage was less than cooperative, but I took the liberty of seeking out footage of Nancy Pelosi on Jan 6 because of your insistence on its importance. As you already pointed out, Nancy Pelosi asked about the National Guard in the video footage. Additionally, Nancy Pelosi spoke about the Sergeant-at-arms in video on Jan 6. Even so, the committee, who's purpose it was to investigate the events of Jan 6, did not question Nancy. The video footage supports my assertion that the committee failed to perform its function.
As I said, we all saw it with our own eyes. Well, the ones of us who were looking, anyway. The committee investigation just confirmed it another 15 or so times.
And nothing to say about the content of what I said again, eh? Just another brush-off.
It seems to me that you see what you want to see instead of presenting compelling content. Literally your "content" was to say that you "have eyes and ears".
This is just literally what happened... I'm not sure how on earth you can deny this. He spread the lies, he told his people to march on Washington, he refused to denounce them long after they turned violent.
You literally failed, in your objection, to point out where Trump urged people to commit illegal acts (aka incitement). If you watched Trump's speech on Jan 6, then you know that he
literally told people "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." If you were convinced, before any investigation occurred, that Trump incited insurrection, then you have only yourself to blame for it.
