 
     |
| Some facts about Select Committee to Investigate Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol (Page 3/10) |
|
blackrams
|
JUL 01, 08:57 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
That's kind of "pissy" of you, Mr Raydar. What other thread might you be talking about?
I added to this thread 3 times in 8 days, before anyone else wanted to add something—and?
I added to this thread. I didn't start 3 new threads about this thread, or even 1 new thread about this thread.
I really don't understand the mentality of "Why did you cause the forum to change, when I had it locked in as a static screensaver?" Which is basically what you're saying, considering how infrequent it is, that any new threads or posts are seen.
You may have overlooked the fact that every forum member does not have posting privileges in every thread. There's this feature that the forum's moderator added not all that long ago, which some have dubbed "The Blacklist", in a nod to the NBC episodic TV series. The Pennock's "Blacklist" is a deconfliction feature that promotes civility by forcing some separation of discussion between certain forum members.
|
|
No, it's not "pissy" of Steve. He's dead center on target.
My next observation would be that the forum moderator installed a new restriction based on a specific reason. If that reason relates to you then, who's fault is that? I think we all know the answer to that. Honestly, I do wish Cliff would reconsider that ignore button. Just think about it, you could ignore all those distractors and so could a bunch of us. You'd own your own threads (all by yourself). 
------------------
Rams
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.........
|
|
|
RandomTask
|
JUL 01, 11:36 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
While yesterday's Docu Drama most surely galvanized the Anti-Trump side of the so-called investigation, it lacked significant credibility in that secondhand information/accusations are not normally accepted in a court of law. But then, this isn't a court of law. It's obviously an attempt to discredit DJT from ever running for office again. I heard so and so say that so and so did or said......................... 
Not being a DJT fan, I have hope that two specific other potential candidates will run, hopefully as a team. But, while I may not be a personal fan of DJT, I can say he did more to make us a stronger economic force than any President before (in my lifetime). IOWs, I'd prefer a Candidate/President that doesn't tweet but has similar economic/security/immigration/defense and other policies.
Ask yourself, are you better off now than you were two, three or four years ago.....................
Rams
|
|
Several of Trumps closest allies, including Barr and even Ivanka, testified under oath against Trump. So you have first hand in-the-room experiences testifying against Trump. It's not the investigation, it's Trumps actions himself that should discredit him.
And that's like saying Mussolini was good because he got the trains to run on time.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JUL 01, 01:04 PM
|
|
Hmmm...Barr says he thinks Biden won the election and Ivanka says she agrees with Barr, therefore Trump is the equivalent of a fascist dictator. Let me think about that profound logic for a moment...
|
|
|
|
RandomTask
|
JUL 01, 01:57 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
Hmmm...Barr says he thinks Biden won the election and Ivanka says she agrees with Barr, therefore Trump is the equivalent of a fascist dictator. Let me think about that profound logic for a moment... |
|
Barr said Trumps claims of election fraud are bullshit. Barr also stated Trump spreading the lie that the election was stolen was dangerous.
Trump lost dozens of court cases because he had no evidence.
So without evidence and against the recommendation of damn near everyone except Guiliani, Trump -continued- to peddle -the lie- the election was stolen/fraudulent, which culminated on 6JAN with the storming of the Capitol. Trump -thought- he had the ability to just toss out the election results and supplant a result favorable to him. . . because our founders totally thought "Yeah, let the people choose their representatives, but let's give the VP the power to just toss the election results if they don't like them." This bullshit theory is why the crowd was chanting kill Mike Pence for not essentially over-riding the votes for the new duly elected president.
He (Trump) was attempting to **** over our constitutional right to choose our representatives.
So yeah, dictator, or whatever you want to call him.
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
JUL 01, 02:04 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by RandomTask:
Several of Trumps closest allies, including Barr and even Ivanka, testified under oath against Trump. So you have first hand in-the-room experiences testifying against Trump. It's not the investigation, it's Trumps actions himself that should discredit him.
And that's like saying Mussolini was good because he got the trains to run on time.
|
|
As I said, it's a Docu Drama, only the prosecution is able to present evidence, what they are presenting is by no means representing both sides of the situation. That is my biggest issue with this Docu Drama. It's not a trial, it's a presentation of selected "evidence".
Don't think I'm a DJT fan, never have been and to be honest, he was not my first choice to run as a Republican. I believe that if you cared to look, you would find that I've stated that many times. I could not bring myself to vote for HRC if she paid me to. But anyone with any kind of open mind should be able to acknowledge this is simply a witch hunt to keep DJT from being able to run again.
I liked DJTs policies, that doesn't mean I liked DJT.
Rams
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUL 01, 02:53 PM
|
|
I'm grabbing power in the morning
I’ve gathered all my MAGA slime
I'll put no stops, on beating up the cops
Just get me to the riot on time
Sung to the tune of "Get Me To The Church On Time" from My Fair Lady. I can see it now. "January 6—The Musical."
I have no doubt that Trump was lunging for the steering wheel from the second row seat of the SUV and wrestling with the Secret Service driver as they turned away from the route to the Capitol Building and drove him back to his residence at the White House.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-01-2022).]
|
|
|
|
Jake_Dragon
|
JUL 01, 03:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUL 01, 04:51 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
No, it's not "pissy" of Steve. He's dead center on target.
My next observation would be that the forum moderator installed a new restriction based on a specific reason. If that reason relates to you then, who's fault is that? I think we all know the answer to that. Honestly, I do wish Cliff would reconsider that ignore button. Just think about it, you could ignore all those distractors and so could a bunch of us. You'd own your own threads (all by yourself). |
|
I have no direct and 100 percent conclusive way to confirm this, but I do not believe that I am the only forum member that Cliff Pennock has "hit" with a Blacklist restriction of the kind that I hinted at, earlier in this thread.
So, more than one forum member, more than one reason. Or more than one forum member, because of the same reason.
I best not go any deeper on this point, however. "The first rule of Blacklist is you do not talk about Blacklist."[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-01-2022).]
|
|
|
|
jdv
|
JUL 01, 06:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUL 01, 06:25 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
As I said, it's a Docu Drama, only the prosecution is able to present evidence, what they are presenting is by no means representing both sides of the situation. That is my biggest issue with this Docu Drama. It's not a trial, it's a presentation of selected "evidence".
Don't think I'm a DJT fan, never have been and to be honest, he was not my first choice to run as a Republican. I believe that if you cared to look, you would find that I've stated that many times. I could not bring myself to vote for HRC if she paid me to. But anyone with any kind of open mind should be able to acknowledge this is simply a witch hunt to keep DJT from being able to run again.
I liked DJTs policies, that doesn't mean I liked DJT.
Rams |
|
First, there were negotiations involving Democrats and Republicans that produced a framework for an Independent Commission to investigate the events of January 6. Democrats would have selected exactly half of the commission members, and Republicans, the other half of the commission members. It was evenly balanced between the party affiliations, in terms of Democrats vs Republicans.
The Republican leadership in Congress pulled the rug out from that plan, after it had been negotiated. So, no Independent Commission. I've not ever seen or heard that the Democratic leadership in Congress balked at this plan for an Independent Commission. Forum readers..?
Then the House Democrats, as the majority party in the House, and under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, set up the House Select Committee. The Republicans were offered 6 slots on the Committee, and the Democrats were to have one more. So a Select Committee of 13 members, chaired by a Democrat, with 7 Democrats (including the Committee chair) and 6 Republicans.
One of the House Republicans that Pelosi agreed to seat on the Committee had voted not to certify the election of Joe Biden. Pelosi rejected Jim Jordan (R) and Jim Banks (R) and that's when House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy declined any further cooperation. That's how it came down to this Select Committee of 7 Democrats and 2 Republicans.
I see no reason that anyone who still wants to testify before the Committee, either for the first time, or to add to their previous testimony, could not raise their hand (so to speak) and set themselves up with the Committee. If the Committee doesn't accept their offer to testify, I see no reason why that could not be made public by anyone that raises their hand in this manner. It would still be up to the Committee to decide how to regard or use any such new or additional testimony.
Trump himself could volunteer to give "under oath" testimony to the Committee. How could the Committee prevent that from going public, if Trump said he was ready to do it and the Committee turned him down?[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-02-2022).]
|
|
|
|