They are investigating actual crimes, which includes acts by Trump, Guiliani, Eastman, Clark, and many other actors in state governments and in congress.
If they are investigating actual crimes, then warrants should give cause, Oath or affirmation, and what is being looked for.
That seems like a high number, but every single person who was there at the Capitol for a protest was there for a lie Trump told them. No rational person thought this lie was true. Those who believed the lie can only be said to be gullible and easily manipulated.
I accept your admission that ordinary people were there for a protest.
It's over 800 Trump supporters indicted for various crimes against the USA. That number should be zero. But Trump isn't an honorable person, and he lied, and he duped his followers with a lie.
I don't agree that that number indicted should be zero. There were bad actors present at the capital that committed crimes. I reject your ad hominems of the people present, those who committed crimes, and of Trump.
Good point, ordinary citizens are rational and don't break laws against the USA.
Ordinary people are not always rational and they sometimes break laws.
It doesn't matter what the MAGA Republicans voted for in their censure against Cheney and Kinzinger, it wasn't rational nor ethically founded. Cheney and Kinzinger are obeying their oaths as public servants. To censure them for this is damning for those MAGA republicans. I suspect it will be a bad stain on the history of republicans.
You seem to be saying that Republicans were unethical because they gathered together, considered a matter, and voted on it. Explain how that was unethical?
No. Look at the current supreme court that has made decisions that go against what the majority of Americans believe. Trump was elected via the electoral college despite losing by 3 million votes, so he did not represent the majority. Trump barely lost the 2020 election by about 45,000 votes in the electoral college count, but lost by over 7 million this time. That's too close. Of course this guy who won with a minority of votes picked 3 justices that cost American women their reproductive freedom. Gerrymandering is a serious problem. In Florida the new maps mean that of a near 50/50 republican/democrat split republicans may get 20 of the 27 seats in the US House. That is not fair representation. There are democrats doing this too, but their efforts are to help balance the number against the republicans, but either way, the representation in states is not fair. That is our system.
I accept your agreement that working with Democrats is not necessarily unethical and that claiming to represent interests that you don't actually represent is unethical.
If Trump really believed the election was stolen where is the evidence? There is none. Many people told him, and he was in denial. If he is that stupid he isn't fit to be president. And sorry, but there is a lot of evidence of a conspiracy if you are following the hearings. Clark and Eastman are under huge scrutiny for what they did to organize the overturning of the election results. Trump was involved.
Trump has said numerous times that the election was stolen. He's writing a book called The Crime of the Century. The evidence suggests that Trump not only believed the election was stolen, but that he still believes the election was stolen.
In fact, you stated, "he was in denial". You can't be in denial that the election was fair unless you don't believe the election was fair.
Conspiracy?
Incidentally, Eastman had his phone seized, before being served a warrant, which did not contain cause, did not contain Oath or affirmation, and did not indicate the information to be seized.
Since you've listened to "a lot of evidence", I ask, what is the actus reus?
Two things. One is that the interests of the democrats and TWO republicans is to investigate and expose the Jan 6 conspiracy and corruption. Two is what could the interest of the republican party if this isn't what they want? It makes us wonder what they are trying to hide from the American people.
Just because the Democrats are interested in using their power to go after Republican political opponents doesn't mean that the Republicans want to be attacked! You haven't disagreed that the Democrats and Republicans have different interests and that the Jan 6 committee serves the interests of Democrats and not the interests of Republicans.
And I wonder why they don't want to expose the corruption and conspiracy that was one of the worse days for America. Could it be because it's people from their polictcal party and it's shameful?
I accept your recognition that almost half of the House of Representatives is Republican. The Jan 6 committee has no representation of their interests.
Are you implying something bad about this? Could it be that the democrats and Cheney and Kinzinger happen to be ethical and are doing their duty for the people of America? Do you dislike this?
I accept that you are aware that Cheney and Kinzinger were selected by the Democrats for the Jan 6 committee.
It is a fact that Cheney and Kinzinger were chosen by the Democrats - not the Republicans. If Cheney and Kinzinger represented Republican interests, then they could've been chosen by the Republicans. They were not. In and of itself, not bad, but also not credible. The bad (unethical) part comes when they claim to represent Republican interests when it is glaringly apparent that they do not.
Well why is that surprising since the Jan 6 riot and attack happened because Trump lied about election fraud.
I accept that you realize that Cheney and Kinzinger were out-spoken about blaming Trump for Jan 6. Their bias is unmistakable. You are quick to say Trump lied, when it is more accurate to say that you don't believe him.
Irrelevant to what?
It's rhetoric and baseless.
You are entitled to your opinion of House Republican interests.
What evidence is there that democrats are using law enforcement to persecute Clark? If you have none, then what is the point of your absurd question?
If the Justice Department searched without cause, Oath or affirmation, and or didn't know what they were looking for... the day before the hearing on Jeffrey Clark, then it suggests cooperation between Democrats and law enforcement. The point of my question is to bring the discussion back to the thread topic, which is the FBI raid on Jeffrey Clark's home. If you aren't interested in discussing the FBI raid anymore, then perhaps we should wrap things up.
___________________________________________________________________
It seems to me that you are arguing that the ends justifies the means: it doesn't matter how the committee was formed; it doesn't matter if the warrant was constitutional; all that matters is that conspiracy and corruption are found.
It seems to me that I'm arguing that the means justifies the ends: it matters how the committee was formed; it matters if the warrant was constitutional; not following proper means is corruption.
