New House Report on J6 Lays Out Damning Details of How Nancy Pelosi Failed America During Capitol Riots

[DaisyDay]

Obviously this thread is about all things which have to do with January 6. Which Colorado obviously includes all things to do with that....

The Supreme Court ruling on Colorado has no affect on the J6 trial. We are awaiting the ruling on Rex Lex in April to see if this trial will proceed.

 

[DaisyDay]

Loading…

banks.house.gov

For those who do not want to read the Congressional Report:

1. The Speaker of the House and Democrat leadership were closely involved in security decisions in the lead up to and on January 6, 2021.
2. The House Sergeant at Arms took direction from staff in the office of the Speaker of the House and intentionally excluded Republicans from key meetings and conversations related to House security.
3. Staff within the House Sergeant at Arms office emailed Paul Irving that January 6th was Pelosi’s fault.
4. Widespread concern from Democrat leadership over “optics” in the aftermath of summer 2020.
5. The Leadership of the Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division overhauled the division in the weeks before January 6, 2021 and created new processes for obtaining and assessing intelligence data. Those changes caused confusion and rendered key USCP components ineffective during a critical period.
6. The House Sergeant at Arms was compromised by politics in the lead up to and on January 6, 2021 and did not adequately prepare the Capitol for possible violence.
7. U.S. Capitol police did not give officers the appropriate training necessary to prepare them to protect the Capitol from violence.
8. The U.S. Capitol police does not have the equipment necessary to protect its officers.
9. The command-and-control structure of the U.S. Capitol Police and the Capitol Police Board contributed to unnecessary delays in the decision-making on January 6, 2021.
10. The U.S. Capitol police has still not implemented important recommendations issued by oversight bodies.

Blame it on Nancy! This is hyperpartisan crap. You might complain that the original J6 committee were mostly one party, but this report is signed solely by members of a single party. There is not even the slightest sliver of balance.

 

[ralliann]

The Supreme Court ruling on Colorado has no affect on the J6 trial.

but the new evidence does have (or should) have an effect on the Colorado court. Never let this stuff happen again...

We are awaiting the ruling on Rex Lex in April to see if this trial will proceed.

And we will see on that as well. But of course if we can't acknowledge all the players and all the wrong that got this mess where it is it is out there just waiting to be done again in various places and various ways. This is about our government and the separation of powers that protect us all. It is important in every step.....

 

[DaisyDay]

but the new evidence does have (or should) have an effect on the Colorado court. Never let this stuff happen again..

What new evidence? The Colorado court case is over. Kaput. Finished.

Never let what stuff happen?

And we will see on that as well.

Do you understand what Donald is claiming? It is not just presidential immunity but absolute immunity for anything and everything.

But of course if we can't acknowledge all the players and all the wrong that got this mess where it is it is out there just waiting to be done again in various places and various ways. This is about our government and the separation of powers that protect us all. It is important in every step.....

These threads keep tidier if we stick to one topic at a time rather than throw in all the players and all the wrong in various places and various ways.

 

[SimplyMe]

Loading…

banks.house.gov

For those who do not want to read the Congressional Report:

You mean the one sided (only signed by Republicans) political gaslighting?

1. The Speaker of the House and Democrat leadership were closely involved in security decisions in the lead up to and on January 6, 2021.

So they claim.

1. The House Sergeant at Arms took direction from staff in the office of the Speaker of the House and intentionally excluded Republicans from key meetings and conversations related to House security.

Yes, and the Senate Sergeant at Arms took direction from the office of the Majority Leader. And, despite what this committee is trying to claim, the House Sergeant at Arms told the Capitol Police Chief to talk to the Senate Sergeant at Arms about security -- they did not "intentionally excluded Republicans."

Again, the Capitol Police Board -- who is the ultimate authority for security at the Capitol Building -- includes the House Sergeant at Arms, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, the Capitol Police Chief, and the Capitol Architect. Particularly with the Capitol Police Chief being told to talk to the Senate Sergeant at Arms (as is proper), if the Senate Sergeant of Arms believed that National Guard was needed, they could have gotten them regardless of what the House Sergeant at Arms (to include Nancy Pelosi or any other Democrats) had to say. Instead, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and apparently the Senate Republican leadership, also did not feel that they needed the National Guard.

The Republican Congressional Report is gaslighting when the claim it was solely Democrats and they did not involve Republicans.

1. Staff within the House Sergeant at Arms office emailed Paul Irving that January 6th was Pelosi’s fault.

That's nice, I guess unnamed claims are considered true again -- funny how that is only when it is favorable to Republicans that unnamed sources can be believed.

1. Widespread concern from Democrat leadership over “optics” in the aftermath of summer 2020.

[sarcasm]Yes, we've never seen Republican leadership in Congress worried about "optics."[/sarcasm]

1. The Leadership of the Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division overhauled the division in the weeks before January 6, 2021 and created new processes for obtaining and assessing intelligence data. Those changes caused confusion and rendered key USCP components ineffective during a critical period.

Ok. But that Division is part of the Capitol Police -- that again would be under the purview of the Capitol Police Board, so this had nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans directly.

1. The House Sergeant at Arms was compromised by politics in the lead up to and on January 6, 2021 and did not adequately prepare the Capitol for possible violence.

That's nice but doesn't explain why the Senate Sergeant at Arms did not feel National Guard troops were needed. Was he "compromised by politics," just by Republican politics? Or were the Republicans putting this "Congressional" Report together looking for more ways to blame Democrats by ignoring that if the Senate Sergeant of Arms had felt National Guard troops were needed, they would likely have made the request (since they don't need the vote of the House Sergeant at Arms?).

1. U.S. Capitol police did not give officers the appropriate training necessary to prepare them to protect the Capitol from violence.

Which is a Capitol Police issue and not a political issue. There are reasons the Capitol Police Chief resigned after 1/6.

1. The U.S. Capitol police does not have the equipment necessary to protect its officers.

Which again, would come back to Republicans and Democrats -- in particular those on the committees responsible for overseeing the Capitol Police in the House and the Senate for not requesting/providing proper funding.

1. The command-and-control structure of the U.S. Capitol Police and the Capitol Police Board contributed to unnecessary delays in the decision-making on January 6, 2021.
2. The U.S. Capitol police has still not implemented important recommendations issued by oversight bodies.

And this is getting redundant, again, this is likely less political in nature and falls on the Capitol Police, not operating properly on a day to day basis; and the Capitol Police Board and the Senate and House committees that oversee the Capitol Police for not ensuring the Capitol Police are ready and able to do their job.

 

[ralliann]

What new evidence? The Colorado court case is over. Kaput. Finished.

Of who did what.........Which is a reflection of what everyone else did including the Colorado Court. You might like to put it away, but it is out of the box here.

Never let what stuff happen?

A court of law behave as a political committee. All the rules of a court of law, were out the window in that court. They did not need to validate or eliminate witnesses, testimony, evidence. They let the jan 6 committee do that for them. They just accepted what came out from that for their fact finding. They simply gave a second opinion on the very same as did the committee. That is not their business. That is not theirs to do.

Do you understand what Donald is claiming? It is not just presidential immunity but absolute immunity for anything and everything.

He is wanting immunity for presidential acts. We may agree or disagree in his case it is too broad, but presidential immunity is an absolute necessity for any president from being charged once they are out of office. Such as Biden and his withdrawal from Afganistan. He is immune from any results of that criminally. And IMO he should be. He will be judged politically, but not criminally for those that died.

These threads keep tidier if we stick to one topic at a time rather than throw in all the players and all the wrong in various places and various ways.

I don't care what you think. It is all connected. The jan 6 committee, was obviously assembled to get Trump. They kicked people off the committee that should have been a part of that committee. If nobody accepted what was done there, that this entire thing would have not happened. Because those kicked off would have been there and seen, heard and known all of this. It is US, we the people allowing things like this to go on that causes all this, eroding the balance of power in government... So I think this important for those who care about that first and foremost. No matter what side they stand on. I don't want presidential immunity to to be taken from Biden, JUST TO GET BIDEN. It ruins the power of presidency. I want our branches of power in our government to remain intact. That is how power is kept in check...The steps that have been taken by various actors are a threat to that. So, in this case your opinions don't matter to me.

 

[JustOneWay]

This thread is about Jan 6 which also includes the jan 6 committee, which has led to evidence that was kept hidden and documents destroyed, which the Colorado court USED THAT COMMITTEES evidence as the finding of facts. They did not act as a court of law and FINF THEIR IOWN FACTS. Which in turn lead to the Supreme court. Which now has led to implications to cases Smith has against him in a court of law.Which also includes Pelosi and the chain of events of what everyone did It is all about JAN 6TH.

LOL

This is another witch hunt, just like the failed impeachment witch hunt against Biden. Republicans have nothing left to offer regarding actually running the country, so they have resorted to these witch hunts to keep the rightist base enraged and willing to give money.

 

[ralliann]

LOL

This is another witch hunt, just like the failed impeachment witch hunt against Biden. Republicans have nothing left to offer regarding actually running the country, so they have resorted to these witch hunts to keep the rightist base enraged and willing to give money.

LOL Not surprised..... Just like they attempted to get Trump by a Political process for insurrection huh???? a witch hunt and was acquitted. So go the courts of law........

 

[DaisyDay]

Of who did what.........Which is a reflection of what everyone else did including the Colorado Court. You might like to put it away, but it is out of the box here.

Once a case is decided by the Supreme Court, that's it. That case is over.

A court of law behave as a political committee. All the rules of a court of law, were out the window in that court. They did not need to validate or eliminate witnesses, testimony, evidence. They let the jan 6 committee do that for them. They just accepted what came out from that for their fact finding. They simply gave a second opinion on the very same as did the committee. That is not their business. That is not theirs to do.

The case is over. Donald won. Donald may remain on the ballot unless Congress makes some law to implement the 14th A Sec. 3.

He is wanting immunity for presidential acts. We may agree or disagree in his case it is too broad, but presidential immunity is an absolute necessity for any president from being charged once they are out of office. Such as Biden and his withdrawal from Afganistan. He is immune from any results of that criminally. And IMO he should be. He will be judged politically, but not criminally for those that died.

Sort of. Donald wants immunity for ALL acts, not just those in the line of duty. One of the arguments given was that if the president has absolute immunity, then Biden could order the Navy Seals to take out his political rivals, including Donald and declare the election by fiat. Absolute means absolute.

I don't care what you think.

I figured that much but it is a bit rude to state it so bluntly.

It is all connected. The jan 6 committee, was obviously assembled to get Trump.

No, if you had watched the hearings, you would know that isn't the case. The committee was assembled to determine how what happened when it did.

They kicked people off the committee that should have been a part of that committee.

Why wold they have on the committee those who participated and might be called as witnesses? How does that make sense to you?

If nobody accepted what was done there, that this entire thing would have not happened. Because those kicked off would have been there and seen, heard and known all of this.

Right, important witnesses generally are not the ones conducting the hearing. Can you just imagine Jim Jordan questioning himself on his activities leading up to the Capitol riot? Maybe if he were doing the grilling he might have shown up when he was subpoenaed instead of blowing it off (contempt of Congress).

It is US, we the people allowing things like this to go on that causes all this, eroding the balance of power in government... So I think this important for those who care about that first and foremost. No matter what side they stand on. I don't want presidential immunity to to be taken from Biden, JUST TO GET BIDEN. It ruins the power of presidency. I want our branches of power in our government to remain intact. That is how power is kept in check...The steps that have been taken by various actors are a threat to that. So, in this case your opinions don't matter to me.

I think you should reconsider what absolute immunity means. No person is supposed to be above the law. Lex rex or Rex lex? That means "the Law is king or the King is law". Do you really think that the president should be above the law? Donald does.

Checks and balances means that the branches keep one another in check.

 

[DaisyDay]

LOL Not surprised..... Just like they attempted to get Trump by a Political process for insurrection huh???? a witch hunt and was acquitted. So go the courts of law........

Presidents, or so we thought, were not supposed to indulge or foment insurrections, but the Republican senate disagreed. He was not removed from the office he was to vacate in a mere two weeks. Does that mean he did not commit a crime? The senate is not a criminal court.

Yes, it is all connected but distinct. If you jumble up all the trials and events then you will confuse everyone else as to what exactly you're trying to say - if you are trying to say anything exactly. It's my way to try to understand the details as precisely as I can, but other people might want to make as many connections as possible.

 

[JustOneWay]

LOL Not surprised..... Just like they attempted to get Trump by a Political process for insurrection huh???? a witch hunt and was acquitted. So go the courts of law........

There is a difference between the two impeachments. One was for a riot at the capitol, while the other one was abandoned because of a lying informant and never even made it out of the House.

Trump currently has no indictments for insurrection. You need to make better arguments.

 

[ralliann]

Once a case is decided by the Supreme Court, that's it. That case is over.

LOL, no it is not see below

The case is over. Donald won. Donald may remain on the ballot unless Congress makes some law to implement the 14th A Sec. 3.

Uh huh. I do acknowledge it is over for the Colorado court. They had no cause in the matter

Sort of. Donald wants immunity for ALL acts, not just those in the line of duty. One of the arguments given was that if the president has absolute immunity, then Biden could order the Navy Seals to take out his political rivals, including Donald and declare the election by fiat. Absolute means absolute.

I agreed we might see as his request is too broad. So we will see. After all it is election by lawfare we got going on here.

I figured that much but it is a bit rude to state it so bluntly.

No, if you had watched the hearings, you would know that isn't the case. The committee was assembled to determine how what happened when it did.

Why wold they have on the committee those who participated and might be called as witnesses? How does that make sense to you?

Right, important witnesses generally are not the ones conducting the hearing. Can you just imagine Jim Jordan questioning himself on his activities leading up to the Capitol riot? Maybe if he were doing the grilling he might have shown up when he was subpoenaed instead of blowing it off (contempt of Congress).


I think you should reconsider what absolute immunity means. No person is supposed to be above the law. Lex rex or Rex lex? That means "the Law is king or the King is law". Do you really think that the president should be above the law? Donald does.

Checks and balances means that the branches keep one another in check.
Once a case is decided by the Supreme Court, that's it. That case is over.


The case is over. Donald won. Donald may remain on the ballot unless Congress makes some law to implement the 14th A Sec. 3.

Sort of. Donald wants immunity for ALL acts, not just those in the line of duty. One of the arguments given was that if the president has absolute immunity, then Biden could order the Navy Seals to take out his political rivals, including Donald and declare the election by fiat. Absolute means absolute.

I figured that much but it is a bit rude to state it so bluntly.

No, if you had watched the hearings, you would know that isn't the case. The committee was assembled to determine how what happened when it did.

Why wold they have on the committee those who participated and might be called as witnesses? How does that make sense to you?

Right, important witnesses generally are not the ones conducting the hearing. Can you just imagine Jim Jordan questioning himself on his activities leading up to the Capitol riot? Maybe if he were doing the grilling he might have shown up when he was subpoenaed instead of blowing it off (contempt of Congress).


I think you should reconsider what absolute immunity means. No person is supposed to be above the law. Lex rex or Rex lex? That means "the Law is king or the King is law". Do you really think that the president should be above the law? Donald does.

Checks and balances means that the branches keep one another in check.

Again we will see won't we? After all we have not had such election by lawfare like this.
So it is not blending these confusing things together, I did not bring lawfare into this. As for being blunt, how else to address bluntness?
Just wait and see, hopefully we will get out of this lawfare mess, and the mixing up of the branches of power in our government....To keep each other in Check, Rather than chipping away at the power of one, and give it to another. Since lawfare is the case , yep the supreme court eill have the final say. Even in restoring to congress the power given it, that the Colorado courthouse attempted to take from it. See how that works? that is what the Supreme court did

 

[ralliann]

Trump currently has no indictments for insurrection. You need to make better arguments.

Nah, I know you don't like to talk about it. So, don't. but so far you just keep talking about it. Do not engage those who do....

 

[DaisyDay]

LOL, no it is not see below

Do you mean Roe V Wade?

Uh huh. I do acknowledge it is over for the Colorado court. They had no cause in the matter

They have been overruled by the USSC.

I agreed we might see as his request is too broad. So we will see. After all it is election by lawfare we got going on here.

?!! There is nothing broader than "absolute". Do not get that?

Again we will see won't we? After all we have not had such election by lawfare like this.
So it is not blending these confusing things together, I did not bring lawfare into this.

That's fine, but it is less confusing if you would stick to lawfare regarding this particular case (J6) and leave the other to their respective threads.

As for being blunt, how else to address bluntness?

Keep sweet.

Just wait and see, hopefully we will get out of this lawfare mess, and the mixing up of the branches of power in our government....

Lawfare isn't new and it isn't going away. Only the particular facts and characters vary while the theme remains the same.

To keep each other in Check, Rather than chipping away at the power of one, and give it to another.

Not a history buff, I take it? There has always been tension between the Legislative and Executive branches, each vying for supremacy. It's only been comparatively recently that the Justice branch has gotten powerful.

Since lawfare is the case , yep the supreme court eill have the final say. Even in restoring to congress the power given it, that the Colorado courthouse attempted to take from it. See how that works? that is what the Supreme court did

Honestly, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.

 

[JustOneWay]

Nah, I know you don't like to talk about it. So, don't. but so far you just keep talking about it. Do not engage those who do....

This makes no sense.

Please present any indictment against Trump for insurrection.

 

[ralliann]

Do you mean Roe V Wade?


They have been overruled by the USSC.


?!! There is nothing broader than "absolute". Do not get that?


That's fine, but it is less confusing if you would stick to lawfare regarding this particular case (J6) and leave the other to their respective threads.

Keep sweet.


Lawfare isn't new and it isn't going away. Only the particular facts and characters vary while the theme remains the same.

Not a history buff, I take it? There has always been tension between the Legislative and Executive branches, each vying for supremacy. It's only been comparatively recently that the Justice branch has gotten powerful.


Honestly, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.

Not this way........

is makes no sense.

Please present any indictment against Trump for insurrection.

See you just keep talking about it.
Never has been an indictment but it went to the courts anyway....lol

 

[JustOneWay]

Not this way........

See you just keep talking about it.
Never has been an indictment but it went to the courts anyway....lol

Another post which makes no sense.
What point are you trying to make?

​

 

[ralliann]

Another post which makes no sense.
What point are you trying to make?

​

Then don't address me. you don't have to talk about it at all.

 

[JustOneWay]

Then don't address me. you don't have to talk about it at all.

Please present any indictment against Trump for insurrection.

 

[ralliann]

Please present any indictment against Trump for insurrection.

I already told you there has not been any indictment, nor charges.