The American Conservative: GOP Censured Free Thought, Conscience

[Kooky]

I don’t think so. The left is against capitalism in general. Though I suppose how much depends on the specific leftist. I’ve seen a proposed blended system, I’ve also seen leftists who want to do away with it altogether.

But I’m not well versed enough on political theory so…

From what I know of American politics, "the left" in America encompasses an entire political spectrum that starts at centrist-conservatives and neoliberal centrists in the Democratic Party and goes all the way to the Communist Party of the USA and beyond.

 

[Ponder This]

Lets consider the facts. Lots of Republicans believe the election was stolen from Trump and have used terms such as "peaceful protesting" to describe an insurrection. Lots of them even still had the nerve to challenge the election results after the Capitol was invaded and multiple people--including many Republicans--have found the election was secure. But Congressional Republicans aren't having it and they want to act like nothing wrong was done.

You seem sure of the conclusions, but this particular committee is, ostensibly, to investigate.

Democrats (and two Republicans) are interested in investigating the events and people surrounding the attack on the Capitol building Jan 6. This will implicate Trump and his co-conspirators such as Stone, Flynn, Bannon, and Giuliani.

That's what a partisan political attack would do.

Perhaps they shouldn't have withdrawn their three acceptable submissions and forfeited the other two choices to Pelosi by not suggesting two others to replace the two rejected. Since they didn't, Pelosi got to choose how many and which Republicans would serve on the committee to serve conservative interests. They're both quite conservative, and both voted with the majority of the party on most votes. The rest of the Republicans don't object to them because they are conservative Republicans, but because they will not support the party's effort to thwart the investigation. The party objects because they are interested in getting to the truth, which will be very embarrassing for many of the rest of the Republicans.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they simply realized that the Democrats had an agenda besides truth.

I don't care what the composition of the committee is as long as it is sincere in attempting to get to the truth of Jan 6. If the Republican leadership doesn't want to participate, that's fine.

That's fine, but what basis will you use to decide if the committee finds the truth?

Please realize this: bipartisanship refers to the cooperation of competing political parties that share common (American in this case) values, but with a different idea of how to do that. They both want to provide for the common defense, but one think that means thorough forming alliances and the other through isolationism. The both want people to have equal rights and opportunities, but one thinks that includes affirmative action and the other doesn't. In such a setting, each party can see the other as the loyal opposition.

But those who do not share these core American values are simply unwelcome to participate. How many entities that want to see American democracy taken down are there in the world? None of them are invited to participate. The input of none of them is solicited. Such entities include Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, and now, the bulk of the Republican party, which like the others, has no use for Americanism or the Constitution - no use for democracy or the rule of law.

They're simply all unwelcome to participate, and the duty of all loyal Americans is to neutralize their pernicious influence as much as possible. Pelosi did that. Even Cheney and Kinzinger were on board with that thinking. They are both good examples of the loyal opposition, and they make the committee bipartisan.

Wow. That's some mental gynastics. First describing bipartisanship as cooperation between competing parties, then saying that one political party is unwelcome to participate, and then claiming the result is bipartisan. I can't even make sense of your argument.

The point of this committee is investigation.

In this case, it happens to be a one-sided investigation, a partisan investigation.

As was asked of the German who complained that he couldn't find a good bagel anywhere in Berlin, whose fault is that?

If you want to ask the ruling party in power, "Whose fault is that?", then I suspect they would simply answer, "Trump".

 

[Kooky]

In this case, it happens to be a one-sided investigation, a partisan investigation.

What would a bipartisan investigation actually look like, in your eyes?
Who would be on it, and what would they be investigating and finding out?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You seem sure of the conclusions, but this particular committee is, ostensibly, to investigate.

Yeah. Election fraud is as real as Satan, and tons of Republicans fear that boogeyman as well. It happens, sure, but it's never significant enough to sway a local election, let alone state or federal.

 

[Ponder This]

What would a bipartisan investigation actually look like, in your eyes?
Who would be on it, and what would they be investigating and finding out?

If the Democrats had accepted people chosen by the Republican party in addition to their own picks, then the committee would've been formed representing interests of both parties.

They would be investigating the attack on the capitol (which is the committee's stated purpose), and they would find whatever it is that they found. There would not be a predetermined conclusion of what they should find before their investigation began (such as a predetermined guilt of Trump).

Obviously, both parties have their agendas and would likely push their own conclusions. The difference is that the committee would be forced to consider both sides and have an authenticate political debate.

Cheney and Kinzinger don't represent the interests of the Republican party in this regard. They were chosen by the Democrat party because of their agreement with a desired conclusion. Sad.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's what a partisan political attack would do.

Kooky already gave my intended response. What would a fair, bipartisan investigation aimed at finding the truth for the purpose of defining the actions and players of January 6th?

A partisan witch hunt looks like what Hillary was put through at the hand of the Republicans regarding Benghazi. They investigated over and over and found nothing. This will be a single investigation and tons of crime has already been uncovered. Does that matter to you? If Trump, his consiglieres (Giuliani, Mo Brooks, Jim Jordan, etc.), and his soldiers (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc..) conspired to stage a violent coup. do you want that revealed or concealed?

Sorry that you find this unfair, but investigation of events like this is one of Congress' duties apart from legislating and certifying elections.

what basis will you use to decide if the committee finds the truth?

That's not my job. It's theirs.

I doubt they'll find all of the truth - this thing is an octopus already - but I also have no reason to believe that what they do reveal will not be accurate. Furthermore, there is a second step to the process of bringing indictments if any. It has to be vetted by the Department of Justice. AG Garland must feel that he has a winnable case before he brings any prosecution. Compare that with the Republican's effort to block the election in court with some 60 lawsuits. The second step was to convince judges, which they could not do, and hence, no legal action resulted except against the ones bringing the lawsuits, which have been deemed frivolous and an abuse of the court system, and will result in at least the loss of a couple of law licenses.

If the Democrats had accepted people chosen by the Republican party in addition to their own picks, then the committee would've been formed representing interests of both parties.

Pelosi did accept people chosen by the Republican party. Three. And she would have accepted two more in place of the two she rejected. The Republican leadership and McCarthy chose to not participate, no doubt for the purpose to claim partisan witch hunt. The three she didn't reject could have been on the committee even without McCarthy's approval, since they were acceptable to Pelosi, but they were apparently afraid to buck Republican leadership. So Pelosi found two Republicans acceptable to her that would participate. That's a bipartisan committee. It doesn't matter who chose the Republicans. They're on the committee, making it bipartisan.

But as I've stated earlier, it doesn't matter to me or the pursuit of justice what the political affiliations of the members of the committee are, as long as the investigation is done competently and in good faith. And there si no reason to believe that that is not what we have whatever the parties of the participants.

Cheney and Kinzinger don't represent the interests of the Republican party in this regard.

The interests of the Republican party aren't relevant to the purpose of the committee. The interests of the American people are, which include getting to the bottom of what happened January 6. Some Republicans happen to share that interest, but they are not on the committee to represent the Republican party.

The RNC represents the Republican party. It has censured Cheney and Kinzinger, and its spokesperson Ronna McDaniel called the investigation a "persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse." Now there's a partisan position for you, and a purely political one, intended to have millions of Americans that trust the Republican party distrust the process even before it's released its report. Shouldn't McDaniels' comment above been delivered AFTER seeing the report? Why do you have the opinions you have? And what would it take to change your mind if you were wrong about the motives of the committee? Is there anything?

 

[metis]

You mean, Democrats only wanted people who were interested in investigating Trump.

That is a lie. The committee made it abundantly clearw from the get-go that they were investigating causes and not making assumptions, and both Cheney and Kinzinger have said the same thing.

The committee is partisan because: it is investigating only what Democrats want investigated.

That's another lie as both Pubs on the committee have said that they are involved with the planning as well.

I think Trump was very clear and has been very clear that he believes the election was stolen. Again this has been known for more than a year. And, of course, he tried to negate it.

And he made this claim even months before the election by claiming that if he lost it would only be because of fraud. Even Pubs at the state level involved with the count have repeatedly said that there's no evidence of significant fraud to the point of changing the results, as also did Trump's AG Willian Barr.

You appear to be suggesting the reason for the committee is to go after Trump. I don't deny that the committee is, in reality, a political attack.

Again, more nonsense.

Why do you support a man who literally wanted to become our first dictator? Why would you follow and defend such depravity? He's a president who has befriended Putin and Kim Jung Un while even condemning many in his own party, and this doesn't bother you??? Do you have some sort of death wish for our country?

 

[metis]

Cheney and Kinzinger don't represent the interests of the Republican party in this regard.

Thank God for that!!!

 

[Kooky]

Obviously, both parties have their agendas and would likely push their own conclusions. The difference is that the committee would be forced to consider both sides and have an authenticate political debate.

Do you believe that a compromise between the two parties would have resulted in a narrative closer to the truth?

 

[Ponder This]

Kooky already gave my intended response. What would a fair, bipartisan investigation aimed at finding the truth for the purpose of defining the actions and players of January 6th?

It was a great question. I responded to Kooky in Post #45.

A partisan witch hunt looks like what Hillary was put through at the hand of the Republicans regarding Benghazi. They investigated over and over and found nothing. This will be a single investigation and tons of crime has already been uncovered. Does that matter to you? If Trump, his consiglieres (Giuliani, Mo Brooks, Jim Jordan, etc.), and his soldiers (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc..) conspired to stage a violent coup. do you want that revealed or concealed?

Sorry that you find this unfair, but investigation of events like this is one of Congress' duties apart from legislating and certifying elections.

What does Hillary have to do with the censure of Cheney and Kinzinger?

That's not my job. It's theirs.

I doubt they'll find all of the truth - this thing is an octopus already - but I also have no reason to believe that what they do reveal will not be accurate. Furthermore, there is a second step to the process of bringing indictments if any. It has to be vetted by the Department of Justice. AG Garland must feel that he has a winnable case before he brings any prosecution. Compare that with the Republican's effort to block the election in court with some 60 lawsuits. The second step was to convince judges, which they could not do, and hence, no legal action resulted except against the ones bringing the lawsuits, which have been deemed frivolous and an abuse of the court system, and will result in at least the loss of a couple of law licenses.

Okay... You don't know what the truth is, nor do you have any means of identifying it, nor do you believe the committee will arrive at the truth... Maybe you should stop asserting what the truth is if you have no means of arriving at it.

Pelosi did accept people chosen by the Republican party. Three. And she would have accepted two more in place of the two she rejected. The Republican leadership and McCarthy chose to not participate, no doubt for the purpose to claim partisan witch hunt. The three she didn't reject could have been on the committee even without McCarthy's approval, since they were acceptable to Pelosi, but they were apparently afraid to buck Republican leadership. So Pelosi found two Republicans acceptable to her that would participate. That's a bipartisan committee. It doesn't matter who chose the Republicans. They're on the committee, making it bipartisan.

But as I've stated earlier, it doesn't matter to me or the pursuit of justice what the political affiliations of the members of the committee are, as long as the investigation is done competently and in good faith. And there is no reason to believe that that is not what we have whatever the parties of the participants.

Only three. FYI, the current commitee has nine members.

You've stated that it doesn't matter to you whether or not the committee was bipartisan. Yet, you do seem to acknowledge that there are two different partisan political narratives about the attack on the capitol.

Really, it only matters to you that the committee contributes to one of those narratives. AND, towards that end you are willing to tout it's "bipartisanship" via Cheney and Kinzinger.

I have to say the censure of Cheney and Kinzinger is looking more and more like the right thing for the Republican party to have done.

The interests of the Republican party aren't relevant to the purpose of the committee. The interests of the American people are, which include getting to the bottom of what happened January 6. Some Republicans happen to share that interest, but they are not on the committee to represent the Republican party.

The RNC represents the Republican party. It has censured Cheney and Kinzinger, and its spokesperson Ronna McDaniel called the investigation a "persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse." Now there's a partisan position for you, and a purely political one, intended to have millions of Americans that trust the Republican party distrust the process even before it's released its report. Shouldn't McDaniels' comment above been delivered AFTER seeing the report? Why do you have the opinions you have? And what would it take to change your mind if you were wrong about the motives of the committee? Is there anything?

McDaniel's comment was political and partisan, but I don't see why he should place his trust in a report from a committee that is also poltically partisan.
Considering the composition of the committee... it doesn't seem possible to believe their motivations are not biased.

That is a lie. The committee made it abundantly clearw from the get-go that they were investigating causes and not making assumptions, and both Cheney and Kinzinger have said the same thing.

Of course, the stated purpose of the committee is to investigate the causes. That doesn't address the question of poltical bias at all.

That's another lie as both Pubs on the committee have said that they are involved with the planning as well.

Uh-huh, both Cheney and Kinzinger, who were censured by their Republican party for improperly representing the party on the committee, have said they were involved in the planning. This is the opposite of reassuring.

And he made this claim even months before the election by claiming that if he lost it would only be because of fraud. Even Pubs at the state level involved with the count have repeatedly said that there's no evidence of significant fraud to the point of changing the results, as also did Trump's AG Willian Barr.

Okay. And?

Again, more nonsense.

Why do you support a man who literally wanted to become our first dictator? Why would you follow and defend such depravity? He's a president who has befriended Putin and Kim Jung Un while even condemning many in his own party, and this doesn't bother you??? Do you have some sort of death wish for our country?

You disagree that the committee is really just about going after Trump, but your rebuttal to that is to claim Trump wanted to "become our first dictator", and that he "befriended Putin and Kim Jung Un"? I sort of feel like you are proving my point that the committee was really just about going after Trump.

Do you believe that a compromise between the two parties would have resulted in a narrative closer to the truth?

Yes, a balanced committee would likely have resulted in a deeper debate, a more balanced inquiry, and something closer to the truth, even if the result was competing partisan narratives.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I responded to Kooky in Post #45.

Yes. You were asked what, "a fair, bipartisan investigation aimed at finding the truth for the purpose of defining the actions and players of January 6th?" would look like." Your answer began with, "If the Democrats had accepted people chosen by the Republican party in addition to their own picks, then the committee would've been formed representing interests of both parties." If you don't believe that a fair investigation is possible unless the Republican party also chooses who will be on the committee, then you're going to remain disappointed.

You see this as a political process, but this is one of Congress' apolitical functions. Party values are irrelevant. It doesn't matter how big an infrastructure bill one favors, or who should be on the Supreme Court for this purpose, much like certifying an election. Partisan interests don't have a place there, and such committees are actually to be nonpartisan, like any investigative body.

But what also doesn't have a place on the committee are people trying to subvert and impede it in its duty to report the facts of the event surrounding January 6th to the American people. If that's your values - to subvert transparency and the rule of law and to prevent discovering any seditious criminality - you are unwelcome to participate and should be kept off the committee if possible. What the Republican party wants is for the investigation to stop, and failing that, for its conclusions to be rejected by calling it illegitimate even before it delivers a report. That is clear by the votes for and against holding this kind of investigation. About 95% of House Republicans voted against the committee forming. They are inappropriate to serve on it. Cheney and Kinzinger indicated an interest in getting to the truth, and they were welcome.

What does Hillary have to do with the censure of Cheney and Kinzinger?

Nothing.

You don't know what the truth is

I don't know the details, and I don't know who will be prosecuted or convicted, but I know that a seditious conspiracy spearheaded by Trump attempted to overthrow the legitimate result of a free and fair election multiple ways, including inciting an insurrection while Congress was certifying the election results. Players included congressional Republicans and top Republican operatives like Stone, Flynn, Bannon, and Giuliani, who were liaisons with the heads of assorted paramilitary organizations and their soldiers. The evidence for this is compelling.

Can I assume that you've already ruled out that possibility, so that if that is what the committee finds, it must be dishonest? It seems so, which is ironic given how quick you are to conclude that the committee has already made a decision to railroad Trump whatever the truth, because the Republican party didn't place anybody on it. Yet it seems that you and the Republican party, like me, know what will be found.

nor do you believe the committee will arrive at the truth

That seems to describe you, but I am of the opposite opinion. I expect it will, but as I said, it will be incomplete. Already, they're having trouble locating Trumps calls of January 6th.

Maybe you should stop asserting what the truth is if you have no means of arriving at it.

But I do have a means of arriving at it myself at least in part and in the main - critical thinking, or the dispassionate application of reason to evidence.

I have to say the censure of Cheney and Kinzinger is looking more and more like the right thing for the Republican party to have done.

More and more of the Republican party disagrees with you and the RNC. Romney, Pense, Christie, Murkowski, and McConnell come to mind immediately. That move by the RNC seems to be fracturing the party and fomenting a civil war within itself. It's looking to me that that censure and that comment about Democrat led persecution of legitimate political discourse will be viewed as huge tactical errors. It not the right thing for the Republicans. It's the right thing for those who want to see them infighting publicly. It is very helpful to see the Republicans fracture into a pro-Trump contingent and one that thinks he's an anchor on them if you want to see them squander their midterm advantage.

Keep in mind that McCarthy dances to Trump's tune, and we know that Trump wants the investigation thwarted, so McCarthy's nominations had to be acceptable to the man that wants the proceedings to be undermined.

Considering the composition of the committee... it doesn't seem possible to believe their motivations are not biased.

It seems very unlikely to me that their motives aren't pure, and that they will not perform their duties competently and in good faith. The Republicans know that that will be bad for them if that happens, and so, they send out the message to anybody that will imbibe it uncritically that the process is unfair despite their being no evidence that that is the case.

 

[Ponder This]

Yes. You were asked what, "a fair, bipartisan investigation aimed at finding the truth for the purpose of defining the actions and players of January 6th?" would look like." Your answer began with, "If the Democrats had accepted people chosen by the Republican party in addition to their own picks, then the committee would've been formed representing interests of both parties." If you don't believe that a fair investigation is possible unless the Republican party also chooses who will be on the committee, then you're going to remain disappointed.

You see this as a political process, but this is one of Congress' apolitical functions. Party values are irrelevant. It doesn't matter how big an infrastructure bill one favors, or who should be on the Supreme Court for this purpose, much like certifying an election. Partisan interests don't have a place there, and such committees are actually to be nonpartisan, like any investigative body.

I can't speak to the future, but, yes, the way the Democrats handled it was disappointing.
You remark that party values are irrelevant, but the censure of Cheney and Kinzinger is a Republican party affair and the reality is that when the committee presents findings to the House it will have failed to adequately represent the interests a signficant portion of the House, having essentially ignored their concerns.

But what also doesn't have a place on the committee are people trying to subvert and impede it in its duty to report the facts of the event surrounding January 6th to the American people. If that's your values - to subvert transparency and the rule of law and to prevent discovering any seditious criminality - you are unwelcome to participate and should be kept off the committee if possible. What the Republican party wants is for the investigation to stop, and failing that, for its conclusions to be rejected by calling it illegitimate even before it delivers a report. That is clear by the votes for and against holding this kind of investigation. About 95% of House Republicans voted against the committee forming. They are inappropriate to serve on it. Cheney and Kinzinger indicated an interest in getting to the truth, and they were welcome.

The committee is already subverted by people with a poltical agenda. The committee and its findings, whatever they may be, were already not credible from the beginning.

Nothing.

Then your lack of rebuttal to the notion that the committee is a political attack against Trump is noted.

I don't know the details, and I don't know who will be prosecuted or convicted, but I know that a seditious conspiracy spearheaded by Trump attempted to overthrow the legitimate result of a free and fair election multiple ways, including inciting an insurrection while Congress was certifying the election results. Players included congressional Republicans and top Republican operatives like Stone, Flynn, Bannon, and Giuliani, who were liaisons with the heads of assorted paramilitary organizations and their soldiers. The evidence for this is compelling.

You don't know the details... but you know? How do you "know"? Did you know before the committee was formed? Did you draw your conclusions from the biased committee itself? Did you gather it from a favorite news source?

Can I assume that you've already ruled out that possibility, so that if that is what the committee finds, it must be dishonest? It seems so, which is ironic given how quick you are to conclude that the committee has already made a decision to railroad Trump whatever the truth, because the Republican party didn't place anybody on it. Yet it seems that you and the Republican party, like me, know what will be found.

We know that the committee is a political attack. Of course, its not credible regardless of how honest it purports to be. That doesn't mean I rule out possibilities. It just means I can't take the findings of the committee as reliable and am compelled to remain skeptical of their agenda and their claims.
I agree that the Republicans didn't place Cheney and Kinzinger on the committee; the Democrats did that. Because Cheney and Kinzinger falsely claim to represent the interests of the Republican party, they were censured by the Republican party. This censure is completely appropriate.

That seems to describe you, but I am of the opposite opinion. I expect it will, but as I said, it will be incomplete. Already, they're having trouble locating Trumps calls of January 6th.

Uh-huh, going after Trump. Am I surprised? No. This is obviously what they intended to do from the beginning. Of course, I can't believe the committee will arrive at the truth; they decided what the truth should look like before they even formed the committee and denied a credible contrary voice to balance it.

But I do have a means of arriving at it myself at least in part and in the main - critical thinking, or the dispassionate application of reason to evidence.

If you agree to the "dispassionate application of reason to evidence", then please reject a committee formed with obvious passionate bias. Otherwise, don't make a false claim that you value dispassionate application of reason to evidence.

More and more of the Republican party disagrees with you and the RNC. Romney, Pense, Christie, Murkowski, and McConnell come to mind immediately. That move by the RNC seems to be fracturing the party and fomenting a civil war within itself. It's looking to me that that censure and that comment about Democrat led persecution of legitimate political discourse will be viewed as huge tactical errors. It not the right thing for the Republicans. It's the right thing for those who want to see them infighting publicly. It is very helpful to see the Republicans fracture into a pro-Trump contingent and one that thinks he's an anchor on them if you want to see them squander their midterm advantage.

Keep in mind that McCarthy dances to Trump's tune, and we know that Trump wants the investigation thwarted, so McCarthy's nominations had to be acceptable to the man that wants the proceedings to be undermined.

Around 150 Republicans voted to censure Cheney and Kinzinger - not exactly a civil war, but I don't deny that there are members vocal against the censure. In fact, having a few dissenting voices might even be a good thing, wouldn't you agree?

It seems very unlikely to me that their motives aren't pure, and that they will not perform their duties competently and in good faith. The Republicans know that that will be bad for them if that happens, and so, they send out the message to anybody that will imbibe it uncritically that the process is unfair despite their being no evidence that that is the case.

Are you arguing that because Republicans are politically biased, it follows that Democrats likely have pure motives? Or are you arguing that because Democrats likely have pure motives, it follows that Republicans have impure motives? What argument are you making here and how does it rebutt my argument that the composition of the committee strongly suggests it is biased?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

when the committee presents findings to the House it will have failed to adequately represent the interests a signficant portion of the House, having essentially ignored their concerns.

Their concern is that the committee not exist and that the events surrounding January 6th not be discovered or revealed. The committee exists to do just that. And I've already explained that the committee does not exist to represent either parties partisan interests. It exists to represent the American people and do its constitutional duty to protect America from all enemies foreign and domestic. It appears that many of those enemies are congressional Republicans, which is also what the committee is tasked to investigate. Nobody who voted against the formation of the committee ought to be on it, just as nobody who bet against a sports team should be playing on it.

The committee and its findings, whatever they may be, were already not credible from the beginning.

The findings you haven't seen and that don't exist yet aren't credible to you?

Then your lack of rebuttal to the notion that the committee is a political attack against Trump is noted.

There is no evidence that it is that. You have provided none. You made a claim, not a sound argument. It doesn't need a rebuttal. All I see is a committee behaving exactly as I would expect were it doing the job tasked to it competently and in good faith. You see something else, but don't say what that is apart from that it doesn't contain Republicans chosen by the Republican leadership, which was their choice. How can that possibly be evidence of improper motives for the committee and its participants?

Why do you support a party that objects to an investigation of an assault on American democracy, an attempted coup? What are your values that let you do that?

You don't know the details... but you know? How do you "know"? Did you know before the committee was formed? Did you draw your conclusions from the biased committee itself? Did you gather it from a favorite news source?

Did I draw my conclusions from the "biased" committee that has offered none to date? No.

You had asked what I believed was the case, what the truth was, and I answered, "I know that a seditious conspiracy spearheaded by Trump attempted to overthrow the legitimate result of a free and fair election multiple ways, including inciting an insurrection while Congress was certifying the election results. Players included congressional Republicans and top Republican operatives like Stone, Flynn, Bannon, and Giuliani, who were liaisons with the heads of assorted paramilitary organizations and their soldiers. The evidence for this is compelling."

As I explained, I draw my conclusions from the dispassionate application of reason to evidence. As I noted, I believe that the evidence supports all of the above. That you disagree tells me that you process the evidence radically differently, and that I will not be able to make a compelling argument to you using that evidence. When I see such disparate opinions as ours, I assume that I am dealing with a faith-based confirmation bias. I don't know how to get past one of those, and I no longer try. You political stance isn't religious faith, but it is unsupported belief nevertheless, and it is protected by a process that is resistant to reason.

Because Cheney and Kinzinger falsely claim to represent the interests of the Republican party, they were censured by the Republican party. This censure is completely appropriate.

No, Cheney and Kinzinger do not claim to represent the interests of the Republican party.

Again, I ask you what your values are that you consider it appropriate to censure two congresspersons for exercising their judgment, exercising their consciences, representing the nation and their constituencies as they see fit, and answering a public duty? What do you stand for? You say a fair investigation, but you've already decided that to reject any result you don't like, so that's not credible. How about democracy? How about the rule of law? They're both being assaulted by the Republican party, which clearly has an interest in preventing the discovery of the truth. It's why they voted against the committee and why they censured two people for participating on it. Or, if you have another theory as to why the Republicans don't want this process to go forward, please provide it and why you think it correct.

Uh-huh, going after Trump. Am I surprised?

Wanting to review Trump's telephone records is going after him? Shouldn't you want to know what was said that day between Trump and his orbit? If Trump has committed no crime, such records will help exonerate him. The committee is willing to see that if that is the case, and to include those records and their conclusions regarding them in its report. They will help exonerate Trump if he is not guilty. Isn't that what you want? I'd say yes, but also not what you expect, or you wouldn't call looking at them going after Trump.

If you agree to the "dispassionate application of reason to evidence", then please reject a committee formed with obvious passionate bias.

That's your conclusion, not mine. Would you say that your opinion that the committee is biased was arrived at by the open-minded evaluation of the relevant evidence? If so, can you share what that evidence is and why you think that it supports your claim of bias? I don't think you can, because I don't think you used evidence to come to your position.

Are you arguing that because Republicans are politically biased, it follows that Democrats likely have pure motives? are you arguing that because Republicans are politically biased, it follows that Democrats likely have pure motives? Or are you arguing that because Democrats likely have pure motives, it follows that Republicans have impure motives?

I wrote, "It seems very unlikely to me that their motives aren't pure, and that they will not perform their duties competently and in good faith. The Republicans know that that will be bad for them if that happens, and so, they send out the message to anybody that will imbibe it uncritically that the process is unfair despite their being no evidence that that is the case."

No, none of those. I am arguing that the committee is attempting to determine what happened and the Republican leadership is attempting to stop them. Political bias doesn't enter into this. This is the kind of thing any investigative body acting in god faith does. The bias is against criminality and anti-American activity. If that describes people in the Republican party, it doesn't make the process political any more than any police investigation.

Nor will it be partisan if the committee refers a winnable case to the Attorney General, who will have to convince a jury of guilt if he wants a conviction. If you watch the show Law & Order, then you've heard them say, "In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders." That is not a political process, and this one is identical to that, the House being the investigative part, and the Department of Justice the equivalent to the DAs who bring those cases in the shows. Nobody is asked about their political biases except possibly in voir dire, where the purpose is to exclude them during the deliberative process. The Republican party will get all of that - fair investigation, and if warranted, a fair prosecutions.

What argument are you making here and how does it rebutt my argument that the composition of the committee strongly suggests it is biased?

You're argument seems to be that the committee is biased because it doesn't contain people McCarthy and those who share his values want on the committee. You haven't argued why you think that, so all you have is an unsupported claim. If you provide your evidence and why you think it supports your position, then, if I disagree with your reasoning, there will be something to rebut. All I can tell you at this point is that I don't see evidence of bias from the committee, and you have made no effort to adduce any.

 

[Ponder This]

Their concern is that the committee not exist and that the events surrounding January 6th not be discovered or revealed. The committee exists to do just that. And I've already explained that the committee does not exist to represent either parties partisan interests. It exists to represent the American people and do its constitutional duty to protect America from all enemies foreign and domestic. It appears that many of those enemies are congressional Republicans, which is also what the committee is tasked to investigate. Nobody who voted against the formation of the committee ought to be on it, just as nobody who bet against a sports team should be playing on it.

The current committee represents partisan interests. This is evidenced by its composition: Democrats, Cheney, and Kinzinger.

The findings you haven't seen and that don't exist yet aren't credible to you?

That is correct. Credibility is not dependent on what conclusion is reached, but rather depends on how you go about reaching that conclusion. An obviously biased committee is often not credible.

There is no evidence that it is that. You have provided none. You made a claim, not a sound argument. It doesn't need a rebuttal. All I see is a committee behaving exactly as I would expect were it doing the job tasked to it competently and in good faith. You see something else, but don't say what that is apart from that it doesn't contain Republicans chosen by the Republican leadership, which was their choice. How can that possibly be evidence of improper motives for the committee and its participants?

Why do you support a party that objects to an investigation of an assault on American democracy, an attempted coup? What are your values that let you do that?

You stated:

Democrats (and two Republicans) are interested in investigating the events and people surrounding the attack on the Capitol building Jan 6. This will implicate Trump and his co-conspirators such as Stone, Flynn, Bannon, and Giuliani.

You've already indicated that the investigation will implicate Trump. Perhaps you wish to retract this remark?

You had asked what I believed was the case, what the truth was, and I answered, "I know that a seditious conspiracy spearheaded by Trump attempted to overthrow the legitimate result of a free and fair election multiple ways, including inciting an insurrection while Congress was certifying the election results. Players included congressional Republicans and top Republican operatives like Stone, Flynn, Bannon, and Giuliani, who were liaisons with the heads of assorted paramilitary organizations and their soldiers. The evidence for this is compelling."

See. Although you state "the evidence for this is compelling", you provide none, which makes your conclusions rather uncompelling.

No, Cheney and Kinzinger do not claim to represent the interests of the Republican party.

Cheney and Kinzinger are on the committee because of their (Republican) party affliation.
Do you concede that Cheney and Kinzinger are not representing the interests of the Republican party on the committee?

Again, I ask you what your values are that you consider it appropriate to censure two congresspersons for exercising their judgment, exercising their consciences, representing the nation and their constituencies as they see fit, and answering a public duty? What do you stand for? You say a fair investigation, but you've already decided that to reject any result you don't like, so that's not credible. How about democracy? How about the rule of law? They're both being assaulted by the Republican party, which clearly has an interest in preventing the discovery of the truth. It's why they voted against the committee and why they censured two people for participating on it. Or, if you have another theory as to why the Republicans don't want this process to go forward, please provide it and why you think it correct.

I haven't rejected or accepted any result from the committee. I'm saying the committee is biased and therefore I am skeptical of, and likely to reject, their conclusions.

Wanting to review Trump's telephone records is going after him? Shouldn't you want to know what was said that day between Trump and his orbit? If Trump has committed no crime, such records will help exonerate him. The committee is willing to see that if that is the case, and to include those records and their conclusions regarding them in its report. They will help exonerate Trump if he is not guilty. Isn't that what you want? I'd say yes, but also not what you expect, or you wouldn't call looking at them going after Trump.

It is behavior consistent with a political attack against Trump. You even use the word "exonerate", which is used when there is presumed guilt. You believe that Trump is guilty of "seditious conspiracy". You are not sure if the committee will find the truth, because although you believe Trump is guilty of something, you aren't certain the committee will be able to find evidence.

That's your conclusion, not mine. Would you say that your opinion that the committee is biased was arrived at by the open-minded evaluation of the relevant evidence? If so, can you share what that evidence is and why you think that it supports your claim of bias? I don't think you can, because I don't think you used evidence to come to your position.

Yes, the conclusion that the committee is biased was arrived at by the open-minded evaluation of relevant evidence. The evidence has been stated already. To summarize again: the Democrats did not allow the Republican nominations necessary to form a proper bipartisan committee. The Republicans withdrew their inadequate selections. The Democrats added Cheney and Kinzinger as proxies for the Republicans. The Republicans censured Cheney and Kinzinger because they did not represent the Republican party interests on the committee.

I also have considered the arguments made by yourself and others in this thread: that the committee is not biased. Unfortunately, much of this actually confirms your's and others' own bias against Trump. But if you have any other relevant evidence that you have yet to reveal on this matter, please do share it.

I wrote, "It seems very unlikely to me that their motives aren't pure, and that they will not perform their duties competently and in good faith. The Republicans know that that will be bad for them if that happens, and so, they send out the message to anybody that will imbibe it uncritically that the process is unfair despite their being no evidence that that is the case."

No, none of those. I am arguing that the committee is attempting to determine what happened and the Republican leadership is attempting to stop them. Political bias doesn't enter into this. This is the kind of thing any investigative body acting in god faith does. The bias is against criminality and anti-American activity. If that describes people in the Republican party, it doesn't make the process political any more than any police investigation.

Nor will it be partisan if the committee refers a winnable case to the Attorney General, who will have to convince a jury of guilt if he wants a conviction. If you watch the show Law & Order, then you've heard them say, "In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders." That is not a political process, and this one is identical to that, the House being the investigative part, and the Department of Justice the equivalent to the DAs who bring those cases in the shows. Nobody is asked about their political biases except possibly in voir dire, where the purpose is to exclude them during the deliberative process. The Republican party will get all of that - fair investigation, and if warranted, a fair prosecutions.

Just to be clear, you believe the Republican's motivations are political, but the Democrat's motivations are apolitical. This is not a belief I can share. All politician's have political motivations.

You're argument seems to be that the committee is biased because it doesn't contain people McCarthy and those who share his values want on the committee. You haven't argued why you think that, so all you have is an unsupported claim. If you provide your evidence and why you think it supports your position, then, if I disagree with your reasoning, there will be something to rebut. All I can tell you at this point is that I don't see evidence of bias from the committee, and you have made no effort to adduce any.

I think that the committee doesn't contain people representing the interests of the Republican party... because none of the Democrats on the committee are representing the interests of the Republican party and neither Cheney nor Kinzinger are representing the interests of the Republican party on the committee. It's evident because the Democrats rejected nominations that the Republican party wanted when the committee was formed. Your assertion that the Republicans withdrew selections for the committee is more confirming evidence. That Cheney and Kinzinger were selected by the Democrats and not the Republicans is yet more confirming evidence. That the Republicans voted and censured Cheney and Kinzinger because of their choice to be on the committee is yet another confirmation that they do not represent the interests of the Republican party on the committee.

Your argument that Republicans have impure motives, while Democrats have pure motives rebutts nothing, even if it were true (and I don't think it is true)! Your argument is both unsound and invalid. Your statements that Democrats just want to do what's right but Republicans don't confirms that people do have party-based bias.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You've already indicated that the investigation will implicate Trump. Perhaps you wish to retract this remark?

Why? Trump appears guilty of inciting an insurrection.

you state "the evidence for this is compelling", you provide none, which makes your conclusions rather uncompelling.

I'm not making the case of Trump's guilt. I'm stating that that is what I believe to be the case based on my evaluation of the evidence.

Do you really think that there is a chance that Trump isn't a criminal, and that among his many crimes, which include financial crimes in New York and election tampering crimes in Georgia, and now crimes involving destroying records and security violations involving classified materials in his possession, he isn't also guilty of attempting a coup, one prong of which was a violent insurrection?

I think you know what I know and what the Republican party knows and fears having investigated. He's guilty.

Do you concede that Cheney and Kinzinger are not representing the interests of the Republican party on the committee?

Yes.

But I've also told you that the interests of the Republican party are irrelevant to the committee and its purpose. You haven't rebutted that. You merely imply dissent by not rebutting, then repeating yourself as if you still think I should care about the Republican's interest. They've made their interests clear, and it is un-American. Their interest is in serving Trump and helping him and many of themselves in Congress to escape accountability. Their interest is to subvert the investigation. Their interests are in opposition to those of the United States.

I'm saying the committee is biased and therefore I am skeptical of, and likely to reject, their conclusions.

I'd suggest that you would only accept their conclusions if they exonerated Trump. I don't think you care about uncovering what really happened. You talk about the bias of the committee, which I don't see, but I do see yours. You want what McCarthy and Jordan want, two potential targets of the investigation. You want this to all just go away.

You believe that Trump is guilty of "seditious conspiracy". You are not sure if the committee will find the truth, because although you believe Trump is guilty of something, you aren't certain the committee will be able to find evidence.

No. I am all but certain that the committee will present a compelling case of the criminality of Trump and several others. What becomes of that is less certain.

the Democrats did not allow the Republican nominations necessary to form a proper bipartisan committee.

Yes, they did, and rejected two of them.

The Republicans withdrew their inadequate selections.

Yes, and in so doing, chose to have no input into the committee's composition. The purpose appears to be to convince its base that the committee would be unfair and its judgments tainted. You can expect it to present a case of criminality to the Department of Justice. And I expect you to reject it out of hand whatever the truth. You sound like Trump laying the groundwork for his stop the steal nonsense by declaring that if he lost the election, it was rigged. Isn't that what this is as well? If the committee finds any criminality, it was rigged. Isn't that your position? I can pretty much guarantee your disappointment.

Let me see if I can summarize our discussion. Our discussion began with you stating the opinion that it was appropriate to censure Cheney and Kinzinger because they participated on the January 6th committee. I disagreed. I believe that they are doing their patriotic duty, and you offered no evidence otherwise.

You also claimed that the committee could not be fair if the Republican leadership didn't appoint any of its members, but you offered no argument as to why nine fair and impartial people could not be assembled without McCarthy's input. I disagreed. I see no evidence that the existing committee is not doing exactly what it was formed to do, or why it's findings should be rejected.

You also claimed that the interests of the Republican party needed to be represented on the committee without making an argument in support of that, which I also disagreed with.

Does that sound accurate to you, or would you modify that?

You cannot convince a critical thinker without arguing why you hold those opinions you've expressed. He is trained to not accept unsupported beliefs into his own belief set. If you want to change minds, you'll need to bring sound arguments, not mere claims, which are treated as opinions, not facts, and are automatically rejected if not already agreed with.

Thank you for the good natured discussion, but if you have no arguments to present, I think that we've taken this as far as it can go.

 

[Wandering Monk]

If the Democrats had accepted people chosen by the Republican party in addition to their own picks, then the committee would've been formed representing interests of both parties.

They would be investigating the attack on the capitol (which is the committee's stated purpose), and they would find whatever it is that they found. There would not be a predetermined conclusion of what they should find before their investigation began (such as a predetermined guilt of Trump).

Obviously, both parties have their agendas and would likely push their own conclusions. The difference is that the committee would be forced to consider both sides and have an authenticate political debate.

Cheney and Kinzinger don't represent the interests of the Republican party in this regard. They were chosen by the Democrat party because of their agreement with a desired conclusion. Sad.

There had been an agreement that would have equal numbers of Dems and Pubs, both parties with subpoena powers. McCarthy and the Pubs in the Senate killed that proposal.

Congressional leaders reach deal on Jan. 6 commission, but McCarthy has concerns

 

[Ponder This]

Why? Trump appears guilty of inciting an insurrection.

Your assertion that the committee will implicate Trump is suggestive that the committee intended to do just that when it was formed.

I'm not making the case of Trump's guilt. I'm stating that that is what I believe to be the case based on my evaluation of the evidence.

Do you really think that there is a chance that Trump isn't a criminal, and that among his many crimes, which include financial crimes in New York and election tampering crimes in Georgia, and now crimes involving destroying records and security violations involving classified materials in his possession, he isn't also guilty of attempting a coup, one prong of which was a violent insurrection?

I think you know what I know and what the Republican party knows and fears having investigated. He's guilty.

I don't accept your prejudgement of Trump's guilt, and you aren't making the case of Trump's guilt.

Yes.

We agree that Cheney and Kinzinger are not representing the interests of theRepublican party on the committee. The censure was appropriate for this reason alone. There's no need for any further debate on the topic of the thread.

But I've also told you that the interests of the Republican party are irrelevant to the committee and its purpose. You haven't rebutted that. You merely imply dissent by not rebutting, then repeating yourself as if you still think I should care about the Republican's interest. They've made their interests clear, and it is un-American. Their interest is in serving Trump and helping him and many of themselves in Congress to escape accountability. Their interest is to subvert the investigation. Their interests are in opposition to those of the United States.

The thread topic is the censure of Cheney and Kinzinger by the Republican party, so it is unnecessary for me to rebutt that. However, if the full findings and conclusions of the committee are not credible, it becomes a question as to whether or not the committee fulfilled its purpose.

I'd suggest that you would only accept their conclusions if they exonerated Trump.

The committee can only exonerate Trump if you first presume his guilt...
But if a committee biased against Trump fails to find evidence of his guilt, then, yes, that would be more convincing than a committee biased for Trump failing to find evidence of his guilt.

I don't think you care about uncovering what really happened. You talk about the bias of the committee, which I don't see, but I do see yours. You want what McCarthy and Jordan want, two potential targets of the investigation. You want this to all just go away.

I think you've already decided Trump is guilty of something and you are just waiting for someone to actually find evidence.
What are the two targets of the investigation that you are referring to?
What is it that you think I want to "just go away"?

No. I am all but certain that the committee will present a compelling case of the criminality of Trump and several others. What becomes of that is less certain.

Okay. You are confident that the committee will present compelling evidence that Trump is guilty of a crime.

Yes, they did, and rejected two of them.

keyword here: "rejected" Thank You.

Yes, and in so doing, chose to have no input into the committee's composition. The purpose appears to be to convince its base that the committee would be unfair and its judgments tainted. You can expect it to present a case of criminality to the Department of Justice. And I expect you to reject it out of hand whatever the truth. You sound like Trump laying the groundwork for his stop the steal nonsense by declaring that if he lost the election, it was rigged. Isn't that what this is as well? If the committee finds any criminality, it was rigged. Isn't that your position? I can pretty much guarantee your disappointment.

They already had insufficient input into the committee, but even if it were just an elaborate game on the part of Republicans, it doesn't change that this is evidence supporting the conclusion that Cheney and Kinzinger do not represent the interests of the Republican party on the committee.

Let me see if I can summarize our discussion. Our discussion began with you stating the opinion that it was appropriate to censure Cheney and Kinzinger because they participated on the January 6th committee. I disagreed. I believe that they are doing their patriotic duty, and you offered no evidence otherwise.

You also claimed that the committee could not be fair if the Republican leadership didn't appoint any of its members, but you offered no argument as to why nine fair and impartial people could not be assembled without McCarthy's input. I disagreed. I see no evidence that the existing committee is not doing exactly what it was formed to do, or why it's findings should be rejected.

You also claimed that the interests of the Republican party needed to be represented on the committee without making an argument in support of that, which I also disagreed with.

Does that sound accurate to you, or would you modify that?

I claim the committee cannot be truly bipartisan if its members do not represent the interests of both parties. You rejected political bias as a reason to doubt the committee's findings.

I stated the interests of the Republican party are not represented on the committee and gave an argument in support of that. You rejected my argument, but agreed that the interests of the Republican party are not represented on the committee!

You argued that the Republican party is not fulfilling its patriotic duty (and that Democrats, Cheney and Kinzinger are fulfilling their patriotic duty) and that this is somehow an argument as to why Cheney and Kinzinger should not have been censured by the Republican party. I have declined to get into an argument with you about whether or not Republicans or Democrats are patriotic or sincere or following the Constitution by choosing to be on or refusing to be on or rejecting other from being on the committee as this argument fails to have any bearing on the issue of the censure of Cheney and Kinzinger by the Republican party.

You have also made many unsubstantiated remarks about Trump's guilt, which I have responded to by pointing out that it shows how biased people are.

Another interesting point you fail to acknowledge is the importance of dissenting voices.

You cannot convince a critical thinker without arguing why you hold those opinions you've expressed. He is trained to not accept unsupported beliefs into his own belief set. If you want to change minds, you'll need to bring sound arguments, not mere claims, which are treated as opinions, not facts, and are automatically rejected if not already agreed with.

Thank you for the good natured discussion, but if you have no arguments to present, I think that we've taken this as far as it can go.

I would like to thank you for the good natured discussion as well! I agree that we've taken this topic about as far as it will go.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your assertion that the committee will implicate Trump is suggestive that the committee intended to do just that when it was formed.

It shouldn't be. It's suggestive that I consider Trump and many others guilty of crimes surrounding the events of January 6th.

I don't accept your prejudgement of Trump's guilt

It's not prejudgment. It's my judgment following my evaluation of the evidence already available to us. I'm not on the committee, so I don't have to wait for them to issue my judgment.

Yes I'm biased - against crimes against the Constitution. Ask yourself what it would take to convince you of Trump's guilt were he in fact guilty. Ask yourself if it matters to you that if he is guilty, that that be uncovered and he be held accountable.

I think you've already decided Trump is guilty of something and you are just waiting for someone to actually find evidence.

Yes, I've decided that Trump is guilty, but no to needing more evidence. And not just of this crime. He is going to be indicted for other crimes as well. The NY AG and the Manhattan DA are investigating financial crimes involving insurance crime, bank fraud, and tax fraud. The Fulton County GA DA is investigating Trump for election fraud. And it looks like he'll have to answer for theft of documents, some classified.

What are the two targets of the investigation that you are referring to?

McCarthy and Jordan. They are likely both complicit and will be investigated by the committee. McCarthy has already been subpoenaed to give testimony and failed to fully comply, so should expect to be indicted as Bannon was, and Jordan is implicated in the events of January 6th as well, as are other House Republicans.

You rejected political bias as a reason to doubt the committee's findings.

You made the claim. I see no evidence of bias.

I stated the interests of the Republican party are not represented on the committee and gave an argument in support of that. You rejected my argument, but agreed that the interests of the Republican party are not represented on the committee!

I agree that the committee does not represent the interests of most of the Republican party. The interests of the Republican party have already been registered in both the Senate and the House, where about 95% of them opposed the formation of an investigative committee. The Republican leadership chose to not participate, so the committee has proceeded without their input, but there are still a couple willing to engage in a good faith investigation into January 6th. Both are quite conservative, and generally voted with their party. Neither has any apparent bias against Trump or anybody else the committee is investigating.

 

[Ponder This]

It shouldn't be. It's suggestive that I consider Trump and many others guilty of crimes surrounding the events of January 6th.

It is suggestive of that whether it was your intent or not. You chose to assert Trump's guilt of crimes into this discussion.

It's not prejudgment. It's my judgment following my evaluation of the evidence already available to us. I'm not on the committee, so I don't have to wait for them to issue my judgment.

Okay, but either your's and their's (pre)judgement is relevant to the formation of the committee (prior intent to go after Trump) or it is irrelevant to the formation of the committee.

Yes, I've decided that Trump is guilty, but no to needing more evidence. And not just of this crime. He is going to be indicted for other crimes as well. The NY AG and the Manhattan DA are investigating financial crimes involving insurance crime, bank fraud, and tax fraud. The Fulton County GA DA is investigating Trump for election fraud. And it looks like he'll have to answer for theft of documents, some classified.

More accusations do not make your claim more true.

McCarthy and Jordan. They are likely both complicit and will be investigated by the committee. McCarthy has already been subpoenaed to give testimony and failed to fully comply, so should expect to be indicted as Bannon was, and Jordan is implicated in the events of January 6th as well, as are other House Republicans.

More presumed guilt? Shall I assume that you have prior evidence of their criminality as well? Or are they merely guilty of noncompliance with a committee formed as a political attack?

I see no evidence of bias.

I agree that the committee does not represent the interests of most of the Republican party. The interests of the Republican party have already been registered in both the Senate and the House, where about 95% of them opposed the formation of an investigative committee. The Republican leadership chose to not participate, so the committee has proceeded without their input, but there are still a couple willing to engage in a good faith investigation into January 6th. Both are quite conservative, and generally voted with their party. Neither has any apparent bias against Trump or anybody else the committee is investigating.

To quote Cheney:

Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

Cheney: I Will Vote To Impeach The President - Congresswoman Liz Cheney​

"What we know now is enough." -Cheney Jan 12, 2021

Kinzinger also voted to impeach Trump for the crime of inciting a riot on Jan 6.
A total of 10 GOP House members voted to impeach Trump on a charge of incitement following Jan 6.

But let's be clear, Cheney and Kinzinger were not censured by the Republican party for their votes on impeachment nor for their very obvious bias. They were censured because they were not selected to represent the interests of the Republican party on the committee. It's that simple and you have already agreed that they do not represent the interests of the Republican party on the committee and agree that they were not selected by the Republican party to be on the committee.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is suggestive of that whether it was your intent or not. You chose to assert Trump's guilt of crimes into this discussion.

Okay, but either your's and their's (pre)judgement is relevant to the formation of the committee (prior intent to go after Trump) or it is irrelevant to the formation of the committee.

More accusations do not make your claim more true.

More presumed guilt? Shall I assume that you have prior evidence of their criminality as well? Or are they merely guilty of noncompliance with a committee formed as a political attack?

To quote Cheney:

Cheney: I Will Vote To Impeach The President - Congresswoman Liz Cheney​

"What we know now is enough." -Cheney Jan 12, 2021

Kinzinger also voted to impeach Trump for the crime of inciting a riot on Jan 6.
A total of 10 GOP House members voted to impeach Trump on a charge of incitement following Jan 6.

But let's be clear, Cheney and Kinzinger were not censured by the Republican party for their votes on impeachment nor for their very obvious bias. They were censured because they were not selected to represent the interests of the Republican party on the committee. It's that simple and you have already agreed that they do not represent the interests of the Republican party on the committee and agree that they were not selected by the Republican party to be on the committee.

Yes, we have evidence of criminality in both McCarthy and Jordan.

The committee was not formed to go after Trump. It was formed to investigate what happened January 6th and the days before and after. It will no doubt implicate Trump, but also many more, such as Flynn, Bannon, Stone, Giuliani, Brooks, Boebert, Greene, Gosar, Jordan, McCarthy, and many people we've never heard of such as the phony electors and many members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, assuming that they find evidence of crimes involving those people.

Cheney and Kinzinger were censured for being willing to participate in the process. Their "bias" is nothing more than looking at evidence and coming to conclusions, the same ones just about everybody not trying to protect Trump has come to long ago.

About 200 Representative both refused to impeach Trump and about a year later, voted against forming a committee to investigate. By the reasoning that allows you to call Cheney and Kinzinger biases against Trump, these people who voted to exonerate Trump during the second impeachment have already decided that he's not guilty. There is no congressperson who has not already formed an opinion on the matter. And there is nothing stopping the Republicans from doing a parallel investigation and releasing its findings to the public separately from those of the committee.

Also, as I've explained, the interests of the Republican party are irrelevant to this or any other investigation. If their interest is in a fair investigation, as is mine and hopefully yours, then their interests are represented. If they're interested in anything else, then their interests should be excluded from the process. Right now, Republicans are showing us that many of them would take Russia's side over America's. That's also a Republican interest, along with stopping this committee.

The Democrats have no duty to the Republican party or to accommodate its interests - no reason to compromise with them. Once there was something called forbearance. The two parties both respected the Constitution, showed one another mutual respect, acknowledged that the other party not only had a right to participate and should be treated as friend and loyal opposition, but played an important role in governance of the nation just as gas and brake, though opposite, are each necessary in concert to successfully move the vehicle forward. Those were the days when unity and bipartisanship were not just possible, but common, and productive. Even though the two parties had different ideas of what would lead to a safe, prosperous future for Americans, they were still trying to accomplish that together.

That's all gone now. The Republicans haven't shown that kind of respect for the Democrats since the days of Newt Gingrich, who, when asked why the Republicans were impeaching Clinton rather than just censuring him, answered, "Because we can." Likewise when they stole a Supreme Court nomination from Obama because they could, and Trump refused to assist Biden during what should have been a transition. So what deference do you think the Democrats owe the Republicans? None. How much should they be interested in what Republicans want when it contradicts what they want? Zero. How much should they compromise with Republicans? About as much as Republicans compromise with Democrats: never. Yet Pelosi still gave the Republicans five nominations that had to be mutually acceptable, and when they refused those terms, gave them two seats anyway.