Jan 6 Investigators caught in pack of lies

[essentialsaltes]

Neither is assuming guilt before all the evidence is heard neutral language.

We The People, in the form of the Justice Department, is holding a trial to determine whether the defendants are guilty. Nobody's assuming anything. The prosecutors and the defense probably have access to a lot of things neither the NYT nor WND have.

 

[Paulos23]

Neither is assuming guilt before all the evidence is heard neutral language. I wonder why the New York Times could not access this info said to exonerate the Proud Boys?

They have video showing them pushing down barriers and attacking police. And video of them beforehand meeting by the Washington Monument getting orginized and documents of their plans.

What you have is statements from one source in the Proud Boys reporting to the FBI and clearly they are not on the inside and not in on the planning that went on. This does not exonerate the Proud Boys in any way.

 

[rwb]

We The People, in the form of the Justice Department, is holding a trial to determine whether the defendants are guilty. Nobody's assuming anything. The prosecutors and the defense probably have access to a lot of things neither the NYT nor WND have.

Yes, I agree, so why won't they release ALL the information they have? The article has information that exonerates the Proud Boys. Why isn't the committee or Justice Dept looking at this evidence. And I was saying the NYT assumed guilt by the way they characterized the Proud Boys.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, I agree, so why won't they release ALL the information they have?

Because that's not how trials work.

The article has information that exonerates the Proud Boys. Why isn't the committee or Justice Dept looking at this evidence.

Maybe they have looked at it. Surely the Defense will show it to the court and jury.

 

[rwb]

They have video showing them pushing down barriers and attacking police. And video of them beforehand meeting by the Washington Monument getting orginized and documents of their plans.

What you have is statements from one source in the Proud Boys reporting to the FBI and clearly they are not on the inside and not in on the planning that went on. This does not exonerate the Proud Boys in any way.

From what I understand there is also video in full context that could prove not as vicarious as has been painted. I have real problems with the committee itself due to the fact that all of committee members to my knowledge voted to impeach President Trump, and there are no Republicans on the committee, only two Rinos who have made it abundantly clear long before the committee was formed that they will do anything necessary to indict Trump in an attempt to keep him from running again in 2024.

 

[rwb]

Because that's not how trials work.

Maybe they have looked at it. Surely the Defense will show it to the court and jury.

What trial? A trial is when both sides of an issue get to present their cases, and then and only then is a verdict of guilt or innocence decided. You certainly don't have that with this committee.

 

[Nithavela]

From what I understand there is also video in full context that could prove not as vicarious as has been painted. I have real problems with the committee itself due to the fact that all of committee members to my knowledge voted to impeach President Trump, and there are no Republicans on the committee, only two Rinos who have made it abundantly clear long before the committee was formed that they will do anything necessary to indict Trump in an attempt to keep him from running again in 2024.

There are almost no republicans on that committee because they all boycotted it as a publicity stunt.

A Year Later, Some Republicans Second-Guess Boycotting the Jan. 6 Panel

Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, chose last summer to withdraw all of his nominees to the committee — amid a dispute with Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her rejection of his first two choices — a turning point that left the nine-member investigative committee without a single ally of Mr. Trump.

 

[childeye 2]

The article does not refute that Trump put together a slate of false electors and pressured Pence to accept them in lieu of the authentic electors. Nowhere does it refute that Trump pressured the DOJ to just say the election was corrupt. And nowhere does it refute that Trump tried to get Raffensberger to find 11000 votes and say they recalculated. Nonetheless the article characterizes the January 6 committee as trying to frame Trump.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What trial?

The trial for seditious conspiracy that several Proud Boys are now facing. That I referred to in post #21.

 

[Paulos23]

From what I understand there is also video in full context that could prove not as vicarious as has been painted.

Then post that video or a link to it.

I have real problems with the committee itself due to the fact that all of committee members to my knowledge voted to impeach President Trump, and there are no Republicans on the committee, only two Rinos who have made it abundantly clear long before the committee was formed that they will do anything necessary to indict Trump in an attempt to keep him from running again in 2024.

They had Republicans that didn't vote to impeach Trump, but they where pulled when they would not let Republicans that would be investicated on the committee. You can see the problem with having members of a committee that are being investigaed by that committee? The GOP made a mistake removing them from the committee IMO. But they had a chance to have member on the committee.

The fact you call the two Republicans on the committee RINOs shows you are strongly biased against the committee and will likely not believe anything they come up with.

 

[rwb]

There are almost no republicans on that committee because they all boycotted it as a publicity stunt.

A Year Later, Some Republicans Second-Guess Boycotting the Jan. 6 Panel

They boycotted because Nancy Pelosi would not allow the Republican appointments Jim Banks and Jordan, two ardent Trumpists, followed by Democrats rejecting the Republicans’ appointments, followed by Republicans’ boycotting the committee and calling for their own.

“Would it have made for a totally different debate? Absolutely,” said Representative Brian Mast, Republican of Florida. “I would have defended the hell out of him.”

THE NATIONAL INTEREST JULY 22, 2021
Imagine a 9/11 Commission If the Hijackers Had Allies in Congress
By Jonathan Chait

 

[AdB]

There are almost no republicans on that committee because they all boycotted it as a publicity stunt.

A Year Later, Some Republicans Second-Guess Boycotting the Jan. 6 Panel

No, the GOP boycotted only after pelosi refused their candidates

 

[rwb]

Then post that video or a link to it.

They had Republicans that didn't vote to impeach Trump, but they where pulled when they would not let Republicans that would be investicated on the committee. You can see the problem with having members of a committee that are being investigaed by that committee? The GOP made a mistake removing them from the committee IMO. But they had a chance to have member on the committee.

The fact you call the two Republicans on the committee RINOs shows you are strongly biased against the committee and will likely not believe anything they come up with.

Of course I'm strongly biased against the committee!!! Why do you think I posted the article? Nancy Pelosi has been playing games from the beginning. No special committee has ever been done in this way. She's broken all the rules and made a complete mockery over the proceedings. She may be setting a precedent she will come to regret. There was no way Pelosi was ever going to let strong Republican supporters of Trump on the committee. But it was not for her to choose, Republicans have always gotten to choose who they want on the committees.

They boycotted because Nancy Pelosi would not allow the Republican appointments Jim Banks and Jordan, two ardent Trumpists, followed by Democrats rejecting the Republicans’ appointments, followed by Republicans’ boycotting the committee and calling for their own.

“Would it have made for a totally different debate? Absolutely,” said Representative Brian Mast, Republican of Florida. “I would have defended the hell out of him.”

 

[rwb]

The article does not refute that Trump put together a slate of false electors and pressured Pence to accept them in lieu of the authentic electors. Nowhere does it refute that Trump pressured the DOJ to just say the election was corrupt. And nowhere does it refute that Trump tried to get Raffensberger to find 11000 votes and say they recalculated. Nonetheless the article characterizes the January 6 committee as trying to frame Trump.

Where is your proof??? You present proof rather than opinion, and I will be really surprised if there is nothing out there to refute it!

 

[Paulos23]

Of course I'm strongly biased against the committee!!! Why do you think I posted the article? Nancy Pelosi has been playing games from the beginning. No special committee has ever been done in this way. She's broken all the rules and made a complete mockery over the proceedings. She may be setting a precedent she will come to regret. There was no way Pelosi was ever going to let strong Republican supporters of Trump on the committee. But it was not for her to choose, Republicans have always gotten to choose who they want on the committees.

They boycotted because Nancy Pelosi would not allow the Republican appointments Jim Banks and Jordan, two ardent Trumpists, followed by Democrats rejecting the Republicans’ appointments, followed by Republicans’ boycotting the committee and calling for their own.

“Would it have made for a totally different debate? Absolutely,” said Representative Brian Mast, Republican of Florida. “I would have defended the hell out of him.”

Links please! Let me help you here: Imagine a 9/11 Commission If the Hijackers Had Allies in Congress

And the article does not support your position. There is no way Jim Banks or Jordan could be on that committee because their communications with Trump needed to be investigated. The other GOP members could have stayed and this would be more of a circus than it is now. The fact that the GOP pulled everyone shows they where not intrested in the truth but wanted to make it go away.

What good is a committee if one of the criminals is on the committee?

 

[Tanj]

WND

Off to a great start...

Oath Keepers founder wants to confront partisan team

By Bob Unruh

And this year's prize for most looking like a deer caught in the headlights goes to...

It is the Epoch Times

Another Christian proudly supporting the propaganda outlet of a non Christian Chinese religious cult. How very ecumenical of you.

 

[rwb]

The trial for seditious conspiracy that several Proud Boys are now facing. That I referred to in post #21.

Well lets wait and see how the trial plays out. Wouldn't want to convict innocent people beforehand.

 

[rwb]

Links please! Let me help you here: Imagine a 9/11 Commission If the Hijackers Had Allies in Congress

And the article does not support your position. There is no way Jim Banks or Jordan could be on that committee because their communications with Trump needed to be investigated. The other GOP members could have stayed and this would be more of a circus than it is now. The fact that the GOP pulled everyone shows they where not intrested in the truth but wanted to make it go away.

What good is a committee if one of the criminals is on the committee?

The point of the link was to say the only allies (so-called) on the committee are hijackers (anti-Trump). You show you understand this "What good is a committee if one of the criminals is on the committee?" Nancy Pelosi, Trump hater extraordinaire was never going to allow a Republican to be seated on the committee who was favorable to Trump. Boycotting was the only sensible thing to do, and then let the world see the circus preform. There was no way for a fair committee investigation if the only members hate the accused before the investigation begins.

 

[rwb]

Off to a great start...

And this year's prize for most looking like a deer caught in the headlights goes to...

Another Christian proudly supporting the propaganda outlet of a non Christian Chinese religious cult. How very ecumenical of you.

More personal opinion with nothing of substance!!!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Nancy Pelosi, Trump hater extraordinaire was never going to allow a Republican to be seated on the committee who was favorable to Trump.

Except for the other three that McCarthy nominated and she accepted. Rodney Davis (R-IL), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), and Troy Nehls (R-TX).