Patterico's Pontifications

7/26/2021

Republicans Eat Their Own: Push to Retaliate Against Kinzinger and Cheney For Serving On Dem-Led Select Committee

Filed under: General — Dana @ 1:45 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Republicans want to punish independent-minded Republicans who have consistently spoken out against the Big Lie and the insurrection and have now chosen to serve on Nancy Pelosi’s Jan. 6 select committee. Given that Rep. Liz Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger have steadfastly refused to be cowed by their own party, they are certainly not going to be cowed by Democrats. What I think they will do is work hard to uncover the truth of Jan. 6 and follow every lead, no matter where it takes them. And that right there has the potential to be a very big and real problem for the Republican Party:

A “growing group” of House Republicans are pushing GOP leadership to penalize Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois for agreeing to serve on the Democratic-led Jan. 6 select committee, according to a CNN report.

The push for retaliation strengthened on Sunday after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that Kinzinger, who has spoken out forcefully against former President Donald Trump in the past, had agreed to serve on the panel.

Last week, Pelosi rejected the selection of GOP Reps. Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio to join the committee investigating the Capitol riot, citing “concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members.”

The move upset GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who said that he would pull every Republican member from the committee and pursue a separate Jan. 6 investigation, an effort that Pelosi dismissed last week.

Sources told CNN that Kinzinger’s selection has put “a new level of pressure on McCarthy” from members, with criticism increasingly coming from rank-and-file members and not solely the most conservative wing of the party.

According to the report, an effort is brewing to remove Cheney and Kinzinger from their other committee assignments in retaliation for serving on the panel after Banks and Jordan were shut out.

Gee, why were Banks and Jordan shut out? Well, perhaps this is why:

Mr. Jordan said in December that there was “no way” Mr. Trump should concede the election, even after the Electoral College certified Mr. Biden’s victory.

“No. No way, no way, no way” Mr. Trump should concede, he told CNN in December, adding: “We should still try to figure out exactly what took place here. And as I said, that includes, I think, debates on the House floor — potentially on Jan. 6.”

Later that month, he participated in a meeting at the White House, where Republican lawmakers discussed plans with Mr. Trump’s team to use the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 to challenge the election outcome.

and:

Mr. Banks, the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee…had questions “about the legality of some votes cast in the 2020 election” while steering clear of some of the former president’s more fantastical claims.

But like Mr. Jordan, he supported a Texas lawsuit seeking to toss out key Biden victories and voted to overturn the results in Congress.

Here is Adam Kinzinger today, as reported by Manu Raju:

Kinzinger says he’s not concerned about possibility of being punished by conference — and makes clear he’s willing to call in GOP members to testify about their conversations with Trump in the run-up to Jan. 6. Says “we are in a process to get the information wherever that leads”

“I want to know where the facts lead, and if that includes members that had a role in organizing or that they knew or that tried to cover up, that’s important,” Kinzinger told us

“If the conference decided or if Kevin decides they want to punish Liz Cheney and I for getting to the bottom and telling the truth, I think that probably says more about them than it does for us,” Kinzinger said.

Shouldn’t every American, regardless of their political persuasion, want to know where the facts lead, no matter the outcome? One would hope so. If there was a cover-up or elected members of Congress or even the former president himself played any part leading up to and including the events of Jan. 6, don’t we deserve to know who? Yes! And shouldn’t any and all found to have played a part in said events face the appropriate consequences? Absolutely!

PS And here I am nodding my head in agreement with Steny Hoyer:

No matter how actively McCarthy tries to tether Cheney and Kinzinger to Pelosi, who frequently appears in GOP attack ads, they both have strong conservative voting records to counter his attacks. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer noted as much, while arguing Monday that Cheney and Kinzinger are “real Republicans.”

“If anybody looks at the voting records of Mr. Kinzinger and Ms. Cheney, they will know that they haven’t voted with Speaker Pelosi except on the most bipartisan of bills,” Hoyer said. “These are people who come from conservative Republican districts who have represented Republican values. The difference is, and this is the key, they both believe in the truth. That ought not to be a partisan issue.”

–Dana

287 Responses to “Republicans Eat Their Own: Push to Retaliate Against Kinzinger and Cheney For Serving On Dem-Led Select Committee”

  1. Hello there.

    Dana (fd537d)

  2. Well if Hoyer likes him, who am I to argue. Of course Jordan and Banks should be held to the same stringent standards of voting records alone. Right?

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  3. Career suicide: Kamikaze Kinzinger.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  4. Why did McCarthy bother to put forward members? This will make Trump look bad no matter who is on the committee and it will make him angry so from a GOP point of view this is entirely a waste of time. Sure it might be good to get a real look at what actually happened that goes beyond what cart be charged in court, but if the GOP caucus wanted that they would have supported the independent investigation. They got almost everything they asked for in the negotiation for that.

    I really miss Paul Ryan.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  5. Well if Hoyer likes him, who am I to argue. Of course Jordan and Banks should be held to the same stringent standards of voting records alone. Right?

    BuDuh (7bca93) — 7/26/2021 @ 1:53 pm

    Jim Jordan turned a blind eye to the sexual assault of young man in the Ohio State wrestling program. So I don’t really care how he votes.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  6. @4.ROFLMAOPIP

    McCarthy is the last surviving bull-slinger of the three ‘Young Guns.’

    You know why he’s still there: he’s a politician.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  7. Ok, Time.

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  8. Next election, Cheney and Kinzinger will get a taste of how they are viewed by the people who used to vote for them.

    Any current support for them comes from the Left, Dispatch Douchebags, Bulwark Cabinboys and the politically confused/adrift.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  9. “When doody calls, I will always answer.”

    —- Adam Kinzinger

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  10. pelosi republicans are the only true republicans

    just ask steny hoyer

    JF (e1156d)

  11. Those who think elected officials should take an oath to defend our Constitution will be impressed by Congressman Kinzinger’s record of military service.

    Kinzinger resigned from the McLean County Board in 2003 to join the United States Air Force. He was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in November 2003 and later awarded his pilot wings. Kinzinger was initially a KC-135 Stratotanker pilot and flew missions in South America, Guam, Iraq and Afghanistan. He later switched to flying the RC-26 surveillance aircraft and was stationed in Iraq twice.[11]

    Kinzinger has served in the Air Force Special Operations Command, Air Combat Command, Air Mobility Command, and Wisconsin Air National Guard and was progressively promoted to his current rank of Lieutenant Colonel.[12] As part of his continued service with the Air National Guard, Kinzinger was deployed to the Mexico–United States border in February 2019 as part of efforts to maintain border security

    Of course, those who think elected officials should take an oath to defend the swamp-dwelling bullfrog will sneer at the Congressman.

    And all of us should be impressed by his individual heroism:

    The Wisconsin Red Cross named Kinzinger its 2006 “Hero of the Year” for wrestling a knife-wielding man to the ground and disarming him. The man had cut the throat of a woman on a street in downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[105] Recalling the event in an interview, Kinzinger said “The whole time it was, to me, kind of a done deal that I was going to get stabbed in the process, but I knew that this wasn’t something I could wake up to … every day with that memory that I watched her die.”[106] The woman survived. For this act Kinzinger also received the United States Air Force Airman’s Medal and the National Guard’s Valley Forge Cross for Heroism

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  12. Jim Miller (edcec1) — 7/26/2021 @ 3:55 pm

    So, he’s trying to beat Cheney at the John McCain game?

    frosty (f27e97)

  13. Run Trump Run

    mg (8cbc69)

  14. @11. Not so sure it’s wise to use military service as a metric the caliber of somebody’s character, Jimbo. See Timothy McVeigh, Lee Oswald, Charles Whitman, Paul Hasson, Nidal Hasan, Eric Rudolph, Wade Michael Page, Sam Byck, Vassillos Pistolis, Kody Brittingham, Benedict Arnold and, of course, always, Robert E. Lee for details.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  15. ^ metric for

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  16. The Cheney family have a knack for being the most hated republican.

    mg (8cbc69)

  17. When did elected official’s honorable military service and demonstrated physical courage stop counting as evidence of at least good faith and personal honor? It’s not irrefutable proof and their are exceptions but seems like it should count.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  18. @17. Ask the Darth and Daughter Darth.

    They’ll both defer.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  19. When does the investigation into the burned out buildings on Lake Street commence?

    mg (8cbc69)

  20. Normally, investigative committees are named by the two party leaders, without input from the other side. The Watergate hearings, for example, had a number of very loyal Nixon supporters, such as Charles Wiggins. In fact, it was Wiggins’ statement that he would probably be voting for impeachment that was the fat-lady-singing for Nixon.

    Pelosi objected to McCarthy’s selection of two particularly virulent Trump supporters. But without Trump supporters on the panel, its conclusions will have little meaning. Again, Watergate had all kinds of folks on the panel and the diversity of questions and comments led to a meaningful result. Had the committee then been just Democrats and a few Nixon-hating Republicans, Nixon would have served out his term.

    So, if Pelosi actually intends this to be a hanging panel, she should proceed as she is. The result will be viewed purely through a partisan lens, and I would very much expect the GOP to eject any member of their caucus who so served. Of course, the report will only have meaning for those that want to believe; the lack of diversity onj the panel will be damning in the extreme.

    I do think she’ll relent. It is in her interest.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  21. And all of us should be impressed by his individual heroism

    Indeed:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wnsF_7La2D8

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  22. The Nancy nuzzlers will be angling the lobbyist circuit for the opportunity to screw the middle class.

    mg (8cbc69)

  23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_E._Wiggins#Congressional_service

    Wiggins was elected as a Republican to the Ninetieth and to the five succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1967 – January 3, 1979). He represented much of the territory that Richard Nixon represented in the House from 1947 to 1950.

    Wiggins fiercely defended Nixon during debate on the House Judiciary Committee over Nixon’s impeachment. However, Wiggins dropped his support after the revelation of the so-called “Smoking Gun” tape. He had actually been invited to the White House by Chief of Staff Alexander Haig to review the transcripts before their release. However, after reading the transcript, Wiggins concluded that the tapes proved that Nixon had indeed taken part in the plan to cover up the break-in and other illegal activities.

    In a statement, Wiggins said that based on this evidence, “the facts then known to me now have changed.” He added that it was now clear Nixon had a “plan of action” to cover up the break-in, and that alone would be “legally sufficient” to prove Nixon engaged in “a conspiracy to obstruct justice.” While Wiggins believed “a competent counsel” could offer an innocent explanation for Nixon’s actions in the Senate, he did not believe a protracted impeachment trial would be in the national interest. For that reason, he urged Nixon to resign and allow Vice President Gerald Ford to succeed him. He warned Nixon that if he did not resign, he was prepared to vote to impeach Nixon for obstruction of justice.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  24. I think also that Trump should be tried in DC for his crimes on Jan 6th. Also his inner circle.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  25. The Nancy nuzzlers will gleefully go along with a chance to have our best and brightest maimed and killed in the next war. Its what Cheney’s do.

    mg (8cbc69)

  26. #13 “Run Trump Run” Where do you think he should run to? Brazil? Somewhere else?

    And why now?

    He is, of course, in many legal perils, but I don’t know of any that are immediate. But perhaps you have some knowledge that I don’t, for example you might know that his indicted supporters and allies, are talking to prosecutors. If you do have such knowledge, share it.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  27. BTW, did Pelosi allow McCarthy veto rights over her choices? Democrats can be just as crazy.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  28. #20 Kevin – I think you are right, but I also think that both leaders have decided that it is in their short-term personal interest to keep the divide as sharp as possible, in order to keep control of their caucuses.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  29. I would also suggest that Pelosi is NOT going to like the karma she is building. She is further breaking a broken institution and doing so in a way where it will be hard not to retaliate broadly when the worm turns.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  30. “I want to know where the facts lead, and if that includes members that had a role in organizing or that they knew or that tried to cover up, that’s important,” Kinzinger told us

    This is a lie. Like every other Congressperson on or off the committee, all he is interested in is showing that the facts he already believes lead in the direction he already believes they do. He will show no interest whatsoever in pursuing exculpatory evidence, should there be any.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

    This all still curdles the milk in your coffee. Makes The Donald’s show look like a reality TeeVee sitcom. Had forgotten about what they did to Martha Mitchell… certainly makes Stormy Daniels experience much more pleasurable in comparison. But at least she didn’t die ferrying payoff $ like Dorothy Hunt.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  32. Pelosi objected to McCarthy’s selection of two particularly virulent Trump supporters. But without Trump supporters on the panel, its conclusions will have little meaning. Again, Watergate had all kinds of folks on the panel and the diversity of questions and comments led to a meaningful result. Had the committee then been just Democrats and a few Nixon-hating Republicans, Nixon would have served out his term.

    In fairness, the Congressional makeup was a lot less partisan at the time. Most of Nixon’s issues had to do with his mutually antagonistic relationship with the press going back to his race against Helen Gahagan Douglas, so getting an objective, bipartisan committee of Congressional members was actually possible in that environment. It really wasn’t until the election of the hyper-partisan, New Left Watergate Babies that party bloc-voting started to come back in to use as a political tactic.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  33. During Watergate, Biden said Democrats were ‘more immoral’ than Republicans

    ‘At the height of the Watergate scandal, Joe Biden said Democrats were “more immoral” than Republicans.

    “Let me say for the record clearly, clearly Democrats are as immoral as Republicans, if not more immoral in some of the big cities, a great deal more immoral in the traditional sense,” the 30-year-old Delaware senator said at the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio, which released an audio recording of the event this year. “But as a practical matter, politicians as a whole, in my opinion, having practicing law for four years, are a good deal more moral than lawyers as a whole, or doctors or businessmen.”

    The future vice president made the comments in May 1973, months after the so-called Nixon tapes were released to the public, proving that President Richard Nixon had learned about the break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters at the Watergate Hotel and oversaw a cover-up of the crimes.

    Despite those revelations, Biden urged Democrats not to seize on the Watergate scandal as a campaign issue and boasted about how he “put on a 20-minute tirade” for attendees of a fundraiser in New Jersey about “the virtues of the Republican Party.”

    He said, “For those of you who are active Democrats in the audience, who are too short-sighted to realize that the demise of the Republican Party means your own demise, that the demise of politicians and political parties means the demise of the system, then one of us is very stupid, either you or me, and I don’t think it’s me.”

    Throughout his address, Biden defended the Republican Party and criticized Democrats who used the scandal as a central campaign message.

    “Politicians happen to affect everything that affects you, as you are very well aware, and if we bring down a great political party that should not be blamed for what happened, we begin to bring down a system,” he said. “And if we bring down the system, unless you got something better to replace it with, we’re in trouble. And I for one don’t have anything better to replace it with.”‘ – source, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/during-watergate-biden-said-democrats-were-more-immoral-than-republicans

    An idiot then; an idiot now.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  34. Any current support for them comes from the Left, Dispatch Douchebags, Bulwark Cabinboys and the politically confused/adrift.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/26/2021 @ 2:46 pm

    I subscribe to the Dispatch. And I will say that I much prefer their comments section to this one. The overall tone there is…how can I say this politely…somewhat freer of drive-by snark, nationalist tripe, and general bile.

    Not to single out any particular commenter, of course. I don’t have all night.

    Demosthenes (274941)

  35. Speaking of eating their own, Trump just endorsed Paxton over Bush.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  36. @34 I might have to check it out.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  37. I already know what Cheney and Kinzinger are going to say in their new job as Nancy’s beards.
    I have a good idea what Jordan would say too, but at least it’d would be a spirited “point, counterpoint” back and forth rather than a circle emmission exercise

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  38. @36, yeah I’m not sure it’s worth $10/month or not, but maybe it buys a bit more good faith and civility. I’m tiring of some of the characters and tone here….

    AJ_Liberty (a4ff25)

  39. I already know what Cheney and Kinzinger are going to say in their new job as Nancy’s beards.

    From the New Nationalist Patriot’s Dictionary:

    “Beard” (n) (derogatory): 1. (colloquial) A person who pretends to be an opposite-sex partner for a homosexual; 2. (TrumpSpeak) A person who continues to articulate inconvenient truths against our Fearless Leader’s official narrative.

    I have a good idea what Jordan would say too, but at least it’d would be a spirited “point, counterpoint” back and forth

    Ah, yes. Point-counterpoint. That’s why the Holocaust Museum should invite David Irving to its panel discussions. We want that spirited back-and-forth, regardless of truth.

    rather than a circle emmission exercise

    steveg (ebe7c1) — 7/26/2021 @ 7:06 pm

    Yes. Only people of the caliber of Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene are allowed to participate in those.

    Demosthenes (274941)

  40. Whoops, forgot definition 3 for “beard” in my previous post:

    3. (Real world) an antiquated facial-hair style for males, which immediately marks one’s masculinity as suspect through overcompensation — unless Fearless Leader chooses to grow one, in which case it will be a sign of being the manliest man who ever manned man-ness.

    Demosthenes (274941)

  41. BTW, did Pelosi allow McCarthy veto rights over her choices? Democrats can be just as crazy.
    The authorizing resolution allowed Pelosi to veto McCarthy’s choices, not the other way around.

    Rip Murdock (0d5408)

  42. FWO, good point in comment 32.

    Time123 (020838)

  43. “The authorizing resolution allowed Pelosi to veto McCarthy’s choices, not the other way around.”

    Note that the bipartisan commission that the Republicans blocked had no such veto, and barred politicians as commission members specifically.

    Davethulhu (aa6793)

  44. Speaking of eating their own, Trump just endorsed Paxton over Bush.

    You mean the Kenneth Paxton under federal indictment for securities fraud? Or (reportedly) under investigation by the Texas Bar for his attempt to overturn the election? Or whose senior staff accused him of “ improper influence, abuse of office, bribery and other potential crimes” ? That Kenneth Paxton?

    I’m shocked!

    Rip Murdock (0d5408)

  45. @43-
    Good point.

    Rip Murdock (0d5408)

  46. @34/36/38. Buy compass instead- you’re in for a long, long time in the desert.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  47. @43. Her goal is to keep it in the news cycles into the election period. The crusty old broad doesn’t realize the country has move on from Nancy Pelosi Summer Theatre, her histrionics over podiums and mail to pocketbook worries about inflation, multiple Covid shots, masks and so forth… It a partsan sham n a waste of time/money anyway. Send citizens another $1500 to cover the ‘temporary’ inflation problem, Nancy. the price of all ice cream is now up, not just yours. But Day One she can tell America which government employee at her work place shot and killed U.S. citizen and veteran Ashli Babbitt.

    Nah.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  48. I hope we see more you here, Demosthenes. You bring thoughtful commentary with you.

    Dana (174549)

  49. Yes. Only people of the caliber of Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene are allowed to participate in those.

    Rather than chide them and the Americans who elected them, might be more productive to ask yourself why they won in the first place, and rejected the old ideology. Start with ‘the tail no longer wagging the dog.’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  50. @ 46:

    As long as the desert is thousands of miles away from you, I am fine with that. BuDuh, Colonel Haiku, JF, mg, and steveg may consider that remark directed equally at them.

    I have crossed swords with many commenters here in the past. Some of them — AJ_Liberty, Davethulhu, Kevin M, and Rip Murdock are good examples — have fortuitously popped up right here on this thread. (And probably Time123 as well, though when escapes me.) I say fortuitous, because I want to make it clear that I do not include them in the first group. As irritated as they have made me on occasion, I have never lost respect for them. And I hope they would say the same for me. Though if they wouldn’t, at least I know I’m the one to blame.

    You people in the first group, though? If I ever had respect for you, I lost it a long time ago. It’s not the things you say…well, not JUST. It’s the way you say it. You’re just trolls. Nothing else. You mostly don’t bother to engage with anyone at length. You mock, and you tear down, and you play “gotcha,” and you sling barbs — but you never build. I don’t think you are capable of it. If I didn’t know from things some of you have said that you were older than me, I would write you off as atypically-literate millennials. (Well, most of you. Some of you don’t qualify for that adjectival hyphenate.)

    There. That’s not a hundredth of what I want to say to you, and it’s not a thousandth of what you deserve to hear. But it’s enough for now. And if I get hammered by Dana or JVW for calling you trolls, so be it. All I did was make an accurate classification. Now, back under your bridges.

    Demosthenes (274941)

  51. @ 48: Sorry. I’m sure I just made you regret that, and that makes me feel bad.

    The making you regret your words, I mean. I don’t feel bad about what I said. It needed to be said, long since.

    Demosthenes (274941)

  52. Both are done and deservedly so. Do you think Pelosi would tolerate this kind of actions from her party members? Nah. But they want guest spots on MSNBC and nice payoffs from the tech leftists.

    Selling out. Congrats.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  53. Oh, NJRob! My first remark in 50 is also directed at NJRob. Knew I missed one. Well, I’m sure I missed more than one, but I certainly couldn’t leave him out…

    Demosthenes (274941)

  54. You people in the first group, though? If I ever had respect for you, I lost it a long time ago. It’s not the things you say…well, not JUST. It’s the way you say it. You’re just trolls. Nothing else. You mostly don’t bother to engage with anyone at length. You mock, and you tear down, and you play “gotcha,” and you sling barbs — but you never build. I don’t think you are capable of it. If I didn’t know from things some of you have said that you were older than me, I would write you off as atypically-literate millennials. (Well, most of you. Some of you don’t qualify for that adjectival hyphenate.)

    There. That’s not a hundredth of what I want to say to you, and it’s not a thousandth of what you deserve to hear. But it’s enough for now. And if I get hammered by Dana or JVW for calling you trolls, so be it. All I did was make an accurate classification. Now, back under your bridges.

    Demosthenes (274941) — 7/26/2021 @ 9:26 pm

    I find this classification absurd and insulting. It seems like your method of choosing if people are a troll is if they have decided that Trump is all that ails the Republican party or not. If people are unwilling to insult him then they are just trolls and unwilling of having reasonable discourse.

    If that is your desire, so be it. But all you are doing is providing common cause with a group of people that will gladly dismiss your wishes when it’s expedient for them to do so. If you desire liberty, you might need to compromise with some you find uncouth.

    I vehemently disagree with you, but wish you the best.

    I do think you need to revisit your insult towards nationalists though as our nation is on the verge of balkanizing itself because there are so many who don’t believe in a common nation, but instead perceive their preferred temporary interests to be all that matters.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  55. I’m not surprised Demosthenes. I take that remark as a badge of honor.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  56. Demosthenes @50 & 53-

    Bravo, for saying what needed to be said. Those that you mentioned are not interested in a serious discussion.

    Rip Murdock (0d5408)

  57. “My honor is loyalty!” Both in 1941 and 2021.

    asset (8a148c)

  58. Another God struts his feelings. A lot can be dished out by some. Taking it is another story with you elitists, eh Demo.

    mg (8cbc69)

  59. Demosthenes, Thank you for the kind words. I don’t recall when, but seeing as it’s the internet I’m sure we’ve disagreed about something. We’re about to again. I think you’re painting with too broad a brush. BuDuh and NJRob both try to build and add to the conversation. I’m not saying I agree with them often, but both have tried to add to the conversation and present their point of view.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  60. I do think you need to revisit your insult towards nationalists though as our nation is on the verge of balkanizing itself because there are so many who don’t believe in a common nation, but instead perceive their preferred temporary interests to be all that matters.

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 7/26/2021 @ 10:12 pm

    Nationalisms is usually taken to mean excessive or aggressive patriotism. It’s what you get when patriotism mutates into something exclusionary, isolationist, and chauvinist. The modern GOP doesn’t really put the country first so much as focus on a specific cultural identity within the county and attack anyone that opposes them. Trump’s recent comments about booing the US women’s soccer team are a good example of the difference. A patriot would look for the common ground and cheer their countries team, even if they had. To note strong disagreements they would still highlight the common ground as American’s Instead they’re attacked.

    Patriotism would bring us all together as countryman, even as we work to improve our country and argue over what that means. In the US this has focused on our rights, our laws, and our system of government.

    Nationalism, especially Ethno-nationalism, creates the tribes you’re complaining of.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  61. No one will say with pride that “I’m a McCarthy Republican”.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  62. Back on Topic

    I know it’s popular to assume that anyone who disagrees with you politically is mentally deficient, immoral, and motivated only by a desire to do harm. But I rarely find that a useful predictive model.

    So I’ll start from the assumption that Pelosi is smart and wants to accomplish good as she sees it.

    So, what are the facts as she likely sees them.

    People attacked the Capital on Jan 6 in an effort to prevent the certification of the election.
    The security was inadequate to hold off the assault.
    The response was slow and chaotic.
    A bipartisan commission was proposed, GOP requests for the committee were mostly agreed to and the GOP refused to support the commission.
    Trump is the leader of the GOP and the base loves him. He and they will accept no criticism of him or his actions.
    Many (but not all) of the facts are already known.

    Conclusions
    The GOP has no interest in a good faith investigation of what happened.
    The GOP base isn’t persuadable.

    Given all of that it makes sense (From her POV) for her to not allow someone like Jordan on the committee. Additionally, since the GOP rejected the independent commission she might feel it makes sense to be harsher about the committee on principle.

    I think this will be less of a fact finding activity and more of a fact publicizing activity that organizes and pushes out things we already know.

    This is disappointing, I think there are real questions that need to be answered and I doubt this process will be able to do that. I think we came very very close to a constitutional crisis and i don’t see the either party taking steps to make that less likely in the future.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  63. Finally, the spectacle of progressives loudly decrying “assaults on our democracy” is utterly shameless. The Capitol is important not because it’s the corporate offices of Leviathan, Inc. The Capitol is the marble and brick embodiment of the Constitution, its balance of powers, divided government, and unalienable rights––everything the progressives for a century have been relentlessly dismantling, everything that the Democrats for the last few decades have been besmirching. A few hours of hooliganism was nowhere near the existential threat to our freedoms that the Dems represent.

    Kevin McCarthy is right to keep his party clear from Pelosi’s Star Chamber. We know from the numerous House’s investigations since 2018 that such inquisitions are not about truth, not about the Constitution, not about our political freedom, but about power to be gained by any means necessary. Let the Dems and their collaborator Liz Cheney own what will be transparent propaganda against Donald Trump and his 75 million supporters, who will be reminded why they voted for Trump in the first place.

    Republicans need to stay focused on one thing––regaining the House and Senate in 2022. Those collaborating with the Dems over a bogus, budget-busting “infrastructure” bill, those voting to confirm Biden’s radical cabinet appointments, need to stop. Their job is not to be “bipartisan” so they can “solve problems,” but to defend our freedoms and the Constitution. This is no time to go wobbly.

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/07/duplicitous-jan-6-insurrection-melodrama-bruce-thornton/

    Colonel Haiku (97712e)

  64. That’s [“Pelosi Republicans”] the perfect description of Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, who have been busy wagging their tails like trained dogs for Nancy Pelosi and her sham Jan. 6 kabuki theater. The Democrats and their flying monkeys in the media have been talking a lot this year about the Big Lie. The real big lie is the nonsense about Jan. 6, 2021, being an insurrection that was caused by President Trump, neither of which is true. Republicans feeding that lie deserve to be marginalized, weakened, and eventually replaced. These guys don’t deserve a second chance. They’re too far on the dark side for a shot at redemption.

    Kinzinger and Cheney have become odious backstabbers who are aiding and abetting Pelosi’s unhinged corruption, all for a little attention. They’re being hailed as “principled” by a press corps that would have a fatal allergic reaction if it came within a mile of the real definition of the word. It’s like having a Mexican drug cartel as the only group that praises your business model.

    Kudos to McCarthy for being dismissive of the sellouts and for not playing along with Granny Boxwine’s lunacy. That’s leadership.

    https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2021/07/27/the-morning-briefing-its-a-good-time-to-purge-the-pelosi-republicans-n1464884

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  65. @63 Time… do you think Democrats are engaging in good faith here?

    Frankly, the idea that this was not going to be a partisan pissing match is ludicrous.

    You should know this when Pelosi named the likes of Jamie Raskin and Adam Schiff. Those two has no business in a “legit” commission like this.

    whembly (849622)

  66. Whembly, I think the offer for an independent commission was in good faith. Not because the Democrats are noble selfless patriots but because a good faith investigation of what happened would benefit them. Having had that rejected I think this is a more political approach but, but still a meritorious investigation.

    A large group of people (over 500) used force to delay the certification of a fair election based on lies and conspiracy theories. We’re fortunate that they were only successful in delaying it a few hours, not enough disruption to create opportunities to alter the process. This wasn’t a violent attack on buildings or symbols, it was a violent attack on our system of government, or at least that’s how many of the people who were there phrased it.

    Whatever we can do to strengthen our processes, our democracy, against similar actions in the future should be investigated. It’s unfortunate that this is currently the best available option to do so.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  67. 63. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/27/2021 @ 5:54 am

    So, what are the facts as she likely sees them.

    People attacked the Capital on Jan 6 in an effort to prevent the certification of the election.
    The security was inadequate to hold off the assault.

    Pelosi doesn’t want any inquiry into that issue.

    https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/fox-news-sunday-on-july-25-2021

    ….REP. JIM BANKS… She claimed that the reason that she booted me from the committee was because of antics on the part of Jim Jordan and I. And in hindsight what I realized what she means by that now is that we were prepared to ask questions that no one else has asked and demand answers as to why the Capitol was vulnerable to an attack on January 6th. Why was there a systemic breakdown of security at the Capitol on January 6th? If we’re going to investigate January 6th, why not ask those questions?

    And that’s — that’s all that — that’s all that this comes down to. She has — she has already predetermined a narrative about Donald Trump, about Republicans. She doesn’t want to talk about what happened at the Capitol that day to make sure that something like that never happens again.

    MACCALLUM: So you don’t think that she has concerns about those issues and how that security breakdown happened? Do you think that she feels it will reflect poorly on her?

    BANKS: I — I — I really do. And — and here’s why. On — on Wednesday, before I found out that I was banned from the committee — I found out, by the way, on Twitter — I was meeting with the head of the U.S. Capitol Police Union, who represent the rank and file heroes that make up the Capitol Police who protect me, my family, my staff, every single day. And here — here’s what he told me, the head of the Capitol Police Union told me, that on January 6th the Capitol Police officers weren’t prepared for what was going to happen, even though the head of the Capitol Police had
    intelligence reports dating back to three weeks before January 6th that something potentially very dangerous could happen that day. They weren’t prepared for it, they weren’t trained for it, and, maybe most important of all, they weren’t equipped for it. They lacked — they lacked equipment,
    basic equipment, to take care of something like what should at that point – should have been expected would occur.

    And here’s the — here’s the bottom line. Once you go up the — to the top of the — the — the flagpole of who is in charge of the Capitol Police, who the Capitol Police Union chief, they blamed the leadership of the Capitol Police. But — but due to the rules of the United States Capitol,
    the power instruction of the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, has more control and authority and responsibly over the leadership of the Capitol Police than anyone else in the United States Capitol. So she doesn’t want us to ask these questions because at the end of the day she is
    ultimately responsible for the breakdown of security at the Capitol that happened in January 6th.

    …..BANKS: Well, as I — as I’ve already said, Speaker Pelosi didn’t just ban me and Jim Jordan from serving on this committee, she also banned the — the very basic questions that we’re asking. Why — why was the Capitol vulnerable on that day when three weeks before January 6th there were intelligence reports that the leadership of the Capitol Police were aware of?

    I suppose she could argue that that would disclose methods and sources or something.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  68. Sammy, it doesn’t appear that the speaker of the house is responsible for the day to day operations of the capital police

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  69. Time, the key word there is “independent”. This isn’t.

    Had they truly used the 9/11 commission as a model, they actively made sure that no current members had direct impact/influence at the leadup to 9/11. (they actually tapped retired political folks then).

    I don’t think anything “new” will come out as Democrats will use this process as a CYA and a cudgel against Republicans. Republicans are going to respond accordingly. That is the least surprising thing we’ll know during this endeavour.

    So, I have zero faith in their ability to finding what really happened and this thing is so far from being “meritorious” investigation.

    If you’re in the camp that Republicans deserves this… well, here comes a punitive commission that’ll do nothing more than to inflame the partisan divide even more.

    And people wonders why we are a divided country….

    whembly (63cfde)

  70. The response was slow and chaotic.

    A bipartisan commission was proposed, GOP requests for the committee were mostly agreed to and the GOP refused to support the commission.

    I can understand that there are people in the Republican Party following Trump but I can’t understand why Pelosi was at first apparently ready to seee an open ended commission.

    Trump is the leader of the GOP and the base loves him. He and they will accept no criticism of him or his actions.

    Nothing that says he was wrong to say he won the election and to try to get Cpngress and state officials to agree to that.

    Many (but not all) of the facts are already known.

    Or will be, after further FBI investigation and courtroom testimony.

    Conclusions

    The GOP has no interest in a good faith investigation of what happened.

    And if there is to be anything they want things that embarrass Democrats also investigated. The eorge Floyd protests and preparations by the Capitol police.

    The GOP base isn’t persuadable.

    Oh, it might be, of there was somebody actually trying to persuade them.

    Right now the Republican Trumpists are trying to persuade their base that the Democrats are hyperpartisan and nothing they ay can be believed. And so is the Democratic leadership, in an attempt to marginalize the entire Republican Party. Having there be two tribes that distrust each ther will work fr them since there are more Democrats than Republicans.

    Given all of that it makes sense (From her POV) for her to not allow someone like Jordan on the committee.

    If you want the conclusions to be unanimous.

    It doesn’t make sense if you want to maximize the number of people who will believe the majority report. Unless the majority report is going to have flaws that can easily be pointed out.

    Additionally, since the GOP rejected the independent commission she might feel it makes sense to be harsher about the committee on principle.

    Go for the gold. She doesn’t feel vulnerable to criticsm that she’s not being fair. Or maybe decided now to side more with one part of er caucus

    I think this will be less of a fact finding activity and more of a fact publicizing activity that organizes and pushes out things we already know.

    Also publicizing of lies and misinformation. Or does she want to go into the merits of Trump’s claims?

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  71. Whembly, Investigating this has merit even if the process used is flawed. The 9/11 model was what the GOP rejected for political reasons.

    The next best thing will be a congressional committee. This committee will be partisan, but that doesn’t mean either that the subject matter isn’t worth investigating or that the results are worthless. I think the investigations into fast & furious, the IRS audit of Tea Party groups, and Benghazi all had merit even if they were in some ways partisan and run in bad faith. Maybe this flawed process will yield value. We’ll have to wait and see.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  72. 169. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/27/2021 @ 7:16 am

    Sammy, it doesn’t appear that the speaker of the house is responsible for the day to day operations of the capital police

    But they respond to the Sergeant-at-arms.

    The possibility is that they didn’t want the Capitol police to show or use too much force because they expected any violent or semi-violent demonstration at the Capitol would be by people more closely aligned with the Democrats, but when it actually happened, it was people aligned with Republicans who breached the Capitol!

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  73. Also publicizing of lies and misinformation. Or does she want to go into the merits of Trump’s claims?

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c) — 7/27/2021 @ 7:27 am

    Which claims are you talking about here?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  74. @69

    Sammy, it doesn’t appear that the speaker of the house is responsible for the day to day operations of the capital police

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/27/2021 @ 7:16 am

    Time… that’s spin.

    Literally one of the job of the Speaker is to ensure the safety of everyone at the Capital. Saying she’s not involved in the day-to-day is a deflection.

    It may be true that she’s not involved in the day-to-day. But that doesn’t explain why security was so laxed when intelligence knew something was up for 3 weeks, and there’s a decidedly zero interest in determining WHY that is so by Pelosi’s crew and supporters.

    Again, another example of bad faith efforts here by Democrats. I’m not excusing Republicans here, just pointing out that Democrats are trying to keep this spotlight off of them, and that should tell you something.

    whembly (63cfde)

  75. 75. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/27/2021 @ 7:33 am

    Which claims are you talking about here?

    Trmp’s claims that the election was stolen from him, and that Congress and Mike Pence could possibly stop the steal, which created what looked to some of his supporters like a chance for him continuing as president.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  76. Sammy, and you feel these claims have merit?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  77. Whembly, I think I want to see what the report says before I conclude that they’re hiding something. I know there’s been testimony on this, but haven’t read it yet. I see that Sammy has provided some additional information that’s probably worth looking at.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  78. oof, testimony from capital police officers today is brutal.

    https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/1420028901242322945?s=21

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  79. Live testimony going on now broadcast on NPR and probably some other places.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  80. 79/ Of course they have no merit, and that’s why Trump doesn’t want anything that could lead to countering them. They don’t have merit but whether Trump was right or wrong is not that relevant to the issue of the storming of the Capitol.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  81. https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1420036097493590026?s=21

    If they knew there was going to be testimony like this I can see why the GOP didn’t want these hearings.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  82. Neither the House Democrats nor the House Republicans seem to be mentioning much, if anything, about there being a Senate committee report. The House Republicans are getting many of their facts from it:

    https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC&RulesFullReport_ExaminingU.S.CapitolAttack.pdf

    This need to await Capitol Police Board approval during an emergency hindered Mr. Sund’s ability to quickly request the assistance of the D.C. National Guard. Even when under attack, the USCP Chief still needed an emergency declaration from the Capitol Police Board before requesting National Guard assistance.474 ….. The Committees’ investigation to-date makes clear
    that reforms to USCP and the Capitol Police Board are necessary to ensure events like January 6
    are never repeated.

    There was some incompetence – riot shields tat didn’t work – and more slowness in the Defense Department:

    The Department of Defense (“DOD”) confirmed with USCP on two separate occasions before January 6 that USCP was not requesting assistance from
    DCNG. According to DOD records, USCP confirmed on January 3 and January 4 that it did not need DCNG assistance. Meanwhile, DOD continued to communicate with the D.C. Mayor’s office regarding its request for unarmed DCNG personnel support.

    (14) DOD’s response to January 6 was informed by criticism it received about its response to the civil unrest after the murder of George Floyd during the summer of 2020. DOD was criticized for its heavy-handed response, particularly flying military helicopters over the protests in summer 2020. DOD officials cited lessons learned from the summer 2020 as guiding its decision-making for January 6. DOD officials believed it needed “control measures” and “rigor” before deploying DCNG
    personnel, including a clear deployment plan to avoid the appearance of overmilitarization.

    (15) DOD imposed control measures on DCNG deployment, including requiring the Army Secretary’s approval before deploying a Quick Reaction Force (“QRF”) and doing so “only as a last resort.” DOD set forth requirements in a pair of memoranda issued on January 4 and January 5 that allowed William Walker, DCNG Commanding General, to deploy a QRF only as a last resort and upon the express approval of a concept of operations for any use of the QRF by the Secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy. General William Walker testified that, absent these requirements, he would have been able to immediately deploy the QRF to support USCP. DOD officials disputed that characterization and asserted that the memoranda simply memorialized longstanding policy.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  83. @81; If that thread is a window into the mind of the average D I don’t see good times ahead.

    frosty (f27e97)

  84. Didn’t read the thread. Just saw the video in my feed and wanted to share it.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  85. The overall tone there is…how can I say this politely…somewhat freer of drive-by snark, nationalist tripe, and general bile.

    Nationalism is a perfectly fine political attitude, and has been the dominant attitude for most of US history. That a site is free of such “tripe” does not recommend it to me. The other two I could do without, of course, although “bile” is often used to mean “thoughts I disagree with.”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  86. Another good clip, this one from Rep. Kinzinger.

    https://twitter.com/abc/status/1420047876995133449?s=21

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  87. #65 Colonel Haiku – The old legal strategy description goes something like this: If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, abuse your opponent.

    Stephen Kruiser is, in effect, conceding that the law and the facts are not on his side, conceding that he has no rational argument to make.

    (Thanks for reminding us that much of PJMedia is no longer directed at rational adults.)

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  88. Had they truly used the 9/11 commission as a model, they actively made sure that no current members had direct impact/influence at the leadup to 9/11. (they actually tapped retired political folks then).

    This is exactly what was rejected by the Republicans in the House and Senate. Crocodile tears.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  89. “Had they truly used the 9/11 commission as a model, they actively made sure that no current members had direct impact/influence at the leadup to 9/11.”

    The Republicans rejected this. Details @43.

    Davethulhu (aa6793)

  90. Trump officials can testify in Jan. 6 inquiries, Justice Dept. says
    …….
    Witnesses can give “unrestricted testimony” to the House Oversight and Reform Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, the department said in a letter this week. Both panels are scrutinizing the bid by officials in the Trump White House to force the Justice Department to undermine President Biden’s victory, as well as the events leading up to the Capitol riot, as Congress convened to formally tally the electoral results.

    The officials learned in May that they could provide information about how the department planned for and responded to the vote certification on Jan. 6, according to the letter.

    The decision runs counter to the views of former President Donald J. Trump, who has argued that his decisions and deliberations are protected by executive privilege. …….
    …….
    Must see TV.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  91. In fairness, the Congressional makeup was a lot less partisan at the time.

    It was less partisan in the sense that the Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for 40 years (ignoring a 2-year gap) and were comfortable in their dominance. They would retain the House for another 20 years. But it was not non-partisan in its makeup or actions.

    This was halfway between the Goldwater insurgency and the Reagan insurgency, followed the 1960’s and its several revolutions, so politics wasn’t really non-partisan. See the 1968 Chicago Convention, the Black Panthers, the Vietnam War, the Yippies and George Wallace’s campaign.

    Congress included such people as John G Schmitz (a Bircher, and harder right than anyone now serving) and Pete Stark and George McGovern on the hard/wacky left.

    Anyone who lived through 1968 would argue your point.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  92. 43: Non-sequitur

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  93. …the power instruction of the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, has more control and authority and responsibly over the leadership of the Capitol Police than anyone else in the United States Capitol.

    Banks is being disingenuous and hyperpartisan because, what was McConnell, a potted plant? Pelosi-McConnell have co-equal authority, and they it deferred to the police board.

    Paul Montagu (e7d63b)

  94. Kinzinger and Cheney have become odious backstabbers who are aiding and abetting Pelosi’s unhinged corruption, all for a little attention

    Calling those two “Pelosi Republicans” who are just seeking attention is a transparently bad-faith argument from people who have chosen to anchor their political philosophy and their moral code in the deep mud of unconditional allegiance to Donald Trump. Wherever Trump goes, his apologists follow slavishly.

    Kevin McCarthy has voted with Pelosi more than Liz Cheney has, but the Trumplicans aren’t calling him a “Pelosi Republican.” Why is that?

    Liz Cheney voted with Trump on policy more than Elise Stefanik did, but Stefanik is regarded as a stalwart defender of Real America while Cheney is now viewed as a fake Republican. Why is that?

    Cheney had spent her political career doing her job and not seeking attention — so now all of a sudden she’s an “odious” person who will stab Dear Leader in the back just for attention. Really? She clearly put her political career on the line — just for a few months of attention?

    Adam Kinzinger served his country honorably at risk to his own life, and later he again risked his life to save the life of a woman he didn’t know. His courage and selflessness are not respected by Trumplicans, because they idolize someone who would never put another person’s safety and well-being above his own. Since they are loyal to Trump first and most, they loathe anyone whose personal courage and honor put Trump’s selfishness in stark relief.

    Kinzinger and Cheney voted for Trump. They just didn’t support his disgraceful efforts to overturn an election he lost fair and square (as the honest Republican officials have concluded). They both know they are probably ending their political careers by standing for truth and honor — and the Trumplicans either cannot comprehend that kind of integrity, or else they’re secretly ashamed of how they’ve oriented their ethics around a malignant narcissist (in many cases because that’s where they saw their personal advantage), but they’re unwilling to admit any error in judgment, so they pretend that the people with more integrity are the evil backstabbers and grifters and attention-seekers.

    It’s also passing strange that a defender of Donald Trump would suggest there’s something nefarious about seeking attention, or pretend to be offended by corruption.

    One doesn’t have to be a fan of Nancy Pelosi, or the Democrats in general, to recognize how morally bankrupt the Trumplicans are. The only question is whether the Trump cult corrupted them, or they were also deficient in ethical judgment and moral courage.

    Radegunda (a28ce8)


  95. Demosthenes @50 & 53-

    I may (and do) disagree with you here, but I cannot disagree with this comment. I doubt we’d differ too greatly on who the trolls are. I think they are tolerated because from time to time they do engage, and from time to time we all indulge in snark.

    Myself, I have come from a very partisan place (I was a capital-L Libertarian in the 90’s) to the point where I reject policies or positions that are rooted in ideology and not fact, and procedures that are chosen for expedience and not comity and custom. I still think that government is best that governs least, but I also know that at times it must govern. Like in a pandemic.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  96. No one will say with pride that “I’m a McCarthy Republican”.

    Oh, at times I’m a Gene McCarthy Republican. Like on election law.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  97. Conservative respect for the institutions is receiving its deserved death.

    “When did elected official’s honorable military service and demonstrated physical courage stop counting as evidence of at least good faith and personal honor? It’s not irrefutable proof and their are exceptions but seems like it should count.”

    Their good name stops counting as soon as they start selling it to the highest bidder.

    “No one will say with pride that “I’m a McCarthy Republican”.”

    Well, not THAT McCarthy.

    “The overall tone there is…how can I say this politely…somewhat freer of drive-by snark, nationalist tripe, and general bile.”

    What, is it invite-only? Here you get “drive-by snark” because anything higher quality or longer form is immediately modded, so you may as well get your digs in and go. But if you insist:

    January 6th was a low-level riot of people incensed at the stolen 2020 election, and is now being weaponized by the Left to criminalize the populist nationalist movement. The cop “testimonies” are all schmaltzy, overblown, and of course, curiously free of the typical reflexive Leftist cop-hatred rejoinders that would actually be quite warranted in this instance. The entire exercise is an excuse to take the Capitol Police and their extra-constitutional powers national on a witch-hunt against the most effective political enemies of the Democrats. That’s what it is, and that’s all that it ever was.

    Covid-chi (4e31d5)

  98. * … or they were always deficient in ethical judgment and moral courage.

    Radegunda (a28ce8)

  99. So a panel of people who are all on record as hating Trump are going to investigate the Jan 6th events. I really don’t care about what happened before; this panel’s conclusions are already written and the reaction to them is written as well.

    Show trials don’t get more scripted than this. It’s not about the “truth”, it’s about promulgating a belief.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  100. Kevin, You think they’re going to frame a guilty man?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  101. the most effective political enemies of the Democrats.

    When people see themselves as “enemies” rather than opponents of the opposite party, it’s no wonder they thought it was fine to be promising civil war and to fight through police lines to force their way into the Capitol, chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” and try to intimidate legislators into bending to their will, and perhaps punish some “traitors” in the traditional manner.

    Testimony that’s come out since 1/6 reveals that it was very close to being, very plausibly, a lot worse in the end.

    But go ahead and ridicule the police who were beaten with flag poles and hockey sticks and tased and beaten with their own shields, and who sustained traumatic brain injury — because it was YOUR guys who were fighting them in hopes of getting to the “traitors” they wanted to hang.

    They proper way to beat political opponents is by winning elections. Trump did not.

    Radegunda (a28ce8)

  102. Without trying to equate the two events, does anyone who supports this panel argue that, had the GOP Congress done this same thing wrt Benghazi, and both parties did the same things, that the Democrats would have reacted poorly? Would collaborating Democrats, acting against the will of their caucus, have gone without punishment?

    I expect the “but the Democrats would never have…” argument. But they have done their own walkouts in the past.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  103. I may (and do) disagree with you here, but I cannot disagree with this comment. I doubt we’d differ too greatly on who the trolls are. I think they are tolerated because from time to time they do engage, and from time to time we all indulge in snark.

    I also think no one complains. If a troll argues with you in bad faith and use innuendo to insult you and call you names without using bad language I doubt Patterico or Dana are spending any energy trying to keep aware of if it. If they happen to see it they might tell then to knock it off but that’s probably where they’ll stop. If you email them or ask them to moderate I think their response would be stronger.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  104. When people see themselves as “enemies”

    This isn’t a new thing, you know. Sure, it’s more open, but so is partisanship. Reid’s Senate and its destruction of comity were part of it, but probably more is that no party dominates. Until one does we will see this frantic scrambling to the top of the greasy pole.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  105. #90… (Thanks for reminding us that much of PJMedia is no longer directed at rational adults.)

    That’s understandable. Democrats have never cared much for pushback.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  106. January 6th was a low-level riot of people incensed at the stolen 2020 election…

    What “stolen election”,Covid? Where’s your proof?

    Paul Montagu (e7d63b)

  107. Is politics really more fractious today than it was 1968-76? I’ve brought up Nixon previously in this thread, but Nixon’s real crime — the one that got Democrats to hate him with a vigor — was to govern from the center. He stole many of their issues and implemented the Great Society and the era of environmental law. As they moved further left (McGovern), his GOP tried to take the center-left and marginalize them.

    We saw much the same thing in the 90’s when a rightward-moving GOP got sandbagged by the centrist Clinton, and they hated him for it, too.

    Nothing threatens political comity like the prospect of being among the “outs”, and neither party has any certainty right now.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  108. What “stolen election”,Covid? Where’s your proof?

    Trump lost, so it had to be stolen! That’s really the sanest response I’ve seen. After that we get into “coincidence, I think NOT!” land.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  109. @50.ROFLMAO!! Conservative whine; bitter dregs. Get a sextant, too.

    Seems ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ who stayed w/t party are made of much sterner stuff than spoiled ideological cream puffs dealing bad cards or years. You just can’t handle with being on of the deck bottom of deck. Welcome to 1964.

    Glorious.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  110. @112. Royalists gotta royal.

    First question never asked:

    Who shot Ashli Babbitt?

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  111. @98. I have come from a very partisan place (I was a capital-L Libertarian in the 90’s) to the point where I reject policies or positions that are rooted in ideology and not fact, and procedures that are chosen for expedience and not comity and custom.

    And that may be a point in your favor for coddling The Big Dick -who was hardly an ideologue and certainly a pragmatist to the point of criminality, as opposed to a Goldwater and especially a Reagan, who was infected w/an ideology to the point of criminality as well.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  112. @50. “You people… I would write you off as atypically-literate millennials. (Well, most of you. Some of you don’t qualify for that adjectival hyphenate.)”

    “You people?!?!” Perot got in a lot of hot water pitchin’ Southern slang like that, boy.

    Get a compass, a sextant— and a camel.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  113. 96. Paul Montagu (e7d63b) — 7/27/2021 @ 9:26 am

    Banks is being disingenuous and hyperpartisan because, what was McConnell, a potted plant? Pelosi-McConnell have co-equal authority, and they it deferred to the police board.

    Banks, in that Fox News Sunday interview did not give any reasons for saying that Pelosi was the most important person, and he didn’t mention McConnell at all. I presume that, had he been pressed on that, he would have said something, but I’m left guessing.

    It was the Senate chamber that was overrun but the Senate recessed and the Senators were evacuated sooner.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  114. @91

    Had they truly used the 9/11 commission as a model, they actively made sure that no current members had direct impact/influence at the leadup to 9/11. (they actually tapped retired political folks then).

    This is exactly what was rejected by the Republicans in the House and Senate. Crocodile tears.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 7/27/2021 @ 9:17 am

    No, it wasn’t going to be independent Rip. That’s the problem, as democrats telegraphed that they weren’t interested in any good faith investigations. Why should GOP be party to that? If Democrats going to make it a partisan ordeal, then own it.

    whembly (ae0eb5)

  115. @92

    “Had they truly used the 9/11 commission as a model, they actively made sure that no current members had direct impact/influence at the leadup to 9/11.”

    The Republicans rejected this. Details @43.

    Davethulhu (aa6793) — 7/27/2021 @ 9:19 am

    That was the final? I thought that the offer at @42 was effectively veto’ed by Pelosi, and they had to go back to the drawing board and GOP veto’ed the last one.

    whembly (ae0eb5)

  116. Who needs croc tears when Adam Kinzinger’s in da house?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  117. Shouldn’t every American, regardless of their political persuasion, want to know where the facts lead, no matter the outcome?

    Hmmm. This kid should start w/t Warren Commission. Then move on to the redacted/classified materials on the Saudis in the 9/11 Commission Report- then a commission, BTW, the GOP resisted establishing as they played hide-and-seek w/WMD truths.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  118. “That was the final? I thought that the offer at @42 was effectively veto’ed by Pelosi, and they had to go back to the drawing board and GOP veto’ed the last one.”

    The linked text is the one that the republicans filibustered. It’s the same as the version that passed the house.

    Davethulhu (aa6793)

  119. @120. Meh. He won’t be in the House for long, Colonel.

    Figure him for a Newsmax host in time– as a lead in for Sean Spicer.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  120. Sammy, Banks is a member of Congress who had to know that the Police Board includes the Sergeants-at-Arms from both houses of Congress (along with the Capitol Architect and a member of Capitol Police). If he didn’t know, then he shouldn’t have falsely spouted off about Pelosi. If he did know, then he told a bald-faced lie. You’re bending over backward for Banks, excusing his wrong or lying statement.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  121. 102. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 7/27/2021 @ 9:43 am

    Show trials don’t get more scripted than this. It’s not about the “truth”, it’s about promulgating a belief.

    They were pushing the witnesses to say certain things but they weren’t saying them. They didn’t even seem to understand what the various committee members wanted. They wanted them to say they felt bad at the racial or other epithets thrown at them. Not really so.

    They just knew they couldn’t let them get through. As for being called not an American – he was in the military, but they didn’t know it. He didn’t care about their opinion of him. He knew better.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  122. James Madison: [our Constitution requires] “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”

    The GOP understands that there is likely little to be gained by investigating January 6th in good faith because there is very little defense for Trump amplifying the “stop the steal” rhetoric and then doing virtually nothing to either aid the Capitol police or dissuade the rioters. So…the only GOP answers are to distract attention, demand allegiance, and decry partisanship while being maximally partisan. How can the GOP get back to governing if it can’t simply tell the truth? Madison would just shake his head….Putin also wants to know who shot Ashli Babbitt….wonder why?

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  123. “What “stolen election”,Covid? Where’s your proof?”

    We have all the proof we need and no current legal venue willing to listen. Truly, is the current regime conducting itself in a fashion that suggests the last election was fairly and honestly won? If they hadn’t stolen the election via well-documented electoral shenanigans in Democrat-controlled districts, what would they be doing differently, given that they’re already mounting a massive legal effort against any attempt to audit the previous election?

    The fact that Dr. Fauci hasn’t been beheaded by the Grand Marshal of the Whatever via livestream to cheering multitudes is a sure sign that the current regime doesn’t care at all about American public opinion or heading off uncivilizational sentiment among its citizens, and a sign that much, much worse awaits the people promulgating the Big Lie now.

    Breakthrough-chi (73b272)

  124. @122 Davethulhu (aa6793) — 7/27/2021 @ 11:09 am

    I stand corrected. I’m not sure where I thought that wasn’t the final offer. If so, that’s really disappointing by GOP and should be chaulked up as “play stupid games, win stupid awards”.

    whembly (ae0eb5)

  125. We have all the proof we need…

    Who’s “we” and where is the proof, chi? Show me the evidence of this “massive fraud” that Trump alleged.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  126. 126.James Madison: [our Constitution requires] “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”

    Virtue:

    ‘James Madison, Princeton alumnus and fourth President of the United States, held contradictory views on slavery throughout his life—arguing that slavery was incompatible with Revolutionary principles even as he owned over one hundred slaves on his Virginia plantation, brought enslaved people to the White House, and ultimately sold them for personal profit… Paul Jennings, one of Madison’s slaves, served him during his presidency and later published the first memoir of life in the White House. Madison did not free his slaves in his will.’ – source, wikihypocrite.wigquiller

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  127. 124. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/27/2021 @ 11:17 am

    You’re bending over backward for Banks, excusing his wrong or lying statement.

    I’m not 100% sure it is a lie, but it is dubious. He’s got to have some kind of an excuse prepared for saying that “due to the rules of the United States Capitol, the power instruction of the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the
    House, has more control and authority and responsibly over the leadership of the Capitol Police than anyone else in the United States Capitol.”

    Now maybe the House is more important than the Senate or maybe in the Senate authority is more divided.

    That would still make it a half truth. and I do think he probably has a justification for his statement used somewhere else, or else he’s left himself exposed with no defense.

    noticed that “due to the rules..the speaker…has more control… than anyone else

    Maybe that means she has sole control over what the House does than any one person in the Senate does over what the Senate does – maybe they need to vote in the Senate or have a committee vote.

    I did read something to the effect that the House Sergeant-at-Arms was less receptive to calling for more preparation for outside help early than the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms but that may be spin.

    I’m wondering more about his statement that “Speaker Pelosi… banned the — the very basic questions that we’re asking”

    I don’t know. What they are pursuing is the idea that this was planned – as one witness said, somebody gave these people marching orders that they did not have even in previous MAGA rallies, and they may be treating Donald Trump as virtually the only possible suspect.

    I don’t think the idea of a violent mob storming the Capitol originated with Trump or anybody active in serious American politics or that he approved it in advance, and even if he would somehow it woouldn;t be for January 6, where he had other plans. I’m looking at Vladimir Putin and the Russian Imperial movement and “The Base” (al Qaeda for Christians) who have contacts with the far far right.

    And is Banks really so certain that she’s doing this because she feels it will reflect poorly on her? He agreed with that too fully and too quickly.

    And I don’t believe that three weeks before January 6 there was the kind of intelligence that “something potentially very dangerous could happen that day” at least not at the Capitol. That in any other circumstances, he would have said that they should act upon.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  128. 130. DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 7/27/2021 @ 11:51 am

    . Madison did not free his slaves in his will.’ – source, wikihypocrite.wigquiller

    They couldn’t do that any more. Virginia changed the law,

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  129. @127, Trump lost. No proof has been been produced showing the outcome was determined by fraud. Your claim about courts not willing to listen is wrong. Investigations have been done across the country and they’ve disproved allegations of fraud.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  130. The linked text is the one that the republicans filibustered. It’s the same as the version that passed the house.

    The Democrat House liked it and the GOP Senate did not. That makes in non-partisan?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  131. ‘How can the GOP get back to governing if it can’t simply tell the truth?’

    It never has. See ‘Voodoo economics,’ ‘Family Values’ ‘Iran-Contra’ and ‘WMD’ for details…

    “So?” – Darth Cheney.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  132. Whembly, I was just about to google the details of what the GOP refused when i saw your comment. Seeing some of the clips today i understand from a political stand point why they refused to participate. The facts are damning for the GOP and the political advantage of making this as partisan as possible is obvious.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  133. The linked text is the one that the republicans filibustered. It’s the same as the version that passed the house.

    The Democrat House liked it and the GOP Senate did not. That makes in non-partisan?

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 7/27/2021 @ 12:00 pm

    The structure of the planned commission was intended to be non-partisan.

    Under the bill, the commission would include five members, including a chair, appointed by Democratic leaders in Congress, and another five, including a vice-chair, appointed by Republican leaders.

    Commissioners would also need to have “significant expertise in the areas of law enforcement, civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, intelligence, and cybersecurity,” and current government officers or employees are prohibited from appointment. The panel has the power to issue subpoenas upon agreement between the chair and the vice-chair or a vote by a majority of commission members.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-bipartisan-commission-probe-jan-6-capitol-attack-n1267896

    Link to the bill

    https://homeland.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan%206%20Commission%20text.pdf

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  134. “The Democrat House liked it and the GOP Senate did not. That makes in non-partisan?”

    The fact that both parties have equal representation in appointing commission members makes it non-partisan.

    Davethulhu (aa6793)

  135. Your claim about courts not willing to listen is wrong.

    On this point I have to call a foul on both sides. Many cases were (rightly) dismissed on standing.

    One side says that the courts ruled the cases had no merit (untrue), the other side says the courts failed to listen (also untrue).

    The truth is that the cases were brought by idiots.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  136. Sammy, you’re still taking Banks’ “due to the rules” words at face value, without even bothering to check whether his statement is true or not. Instead, you’re just spitballing and speculating.
    The Capitol Police answers to the Capitol Police Board, and I’ve already told you who’s on it.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  137. The fact that both parties have equal representation in appointing commission members makes it non-partisan.

    What prevented Pelosi from doing the same thing in her House inquiry?

    As if that was what she wanted.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  138. Kevin, which case bought by the Trump campaign asserting fraud was dismissed for lack of standing?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  139. Or for any other reason for that matter.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  140. The structure of the planned commission was intended to be non-partisan

    See 141

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  141. 114. DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 7/27/2021 @ 10:19 am

    First question never asked:

    Who shot Ashli Babbitt?

    We learned they might have shot far more, if they hadn’t been wprried that some members of the mob, or a lot of them, could have explosives or firearms, and the reason they weren’t setting off the bombs or firing the guns was that they were waiting for asignal, and that the signal could be them opening fire. I had thought it was a general policy to avoid a massacre.

    Committee members asked quite a lot of leading questions to get the Capitol police officers to say that saying the terrorists were unarmed was wrong.

    We learned (or heard live testimony because none of this was new) that a number of police were hurt pretty badly. Getting injured was one factor in deciding what witnesses to use, I think.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  142. Kevin, which case bought by the Trump campaign asserting fraud was dismissed for lack of standing?

    IS this a trick question? The PA cases were. The TX AG’s case was. Others, also. Not sure of the Trump campaign’s involvement.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  143. As far as who brought them:

    The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had deeply divided the justices just before the election.

    The cases the justices rejected involved election challenges filed by former President Donald Trump and his allies in five states President Joe Biden won: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-pennsylvania-elections-us-supreme-court-5cc6aee8c328c7bb1d423244b979bcec

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  144. Sorry, been in a hurry. The Trump campaign didn’t allege that outcomes of specific elections were determined by fraud in count. In fact Trump’s lawyers were carefull in a couple of instances (PA and AZ) to make it very clear they weren’t alleging fraud.

    Various 3rd parties, such as the TX AG or the Kraken team, filed those claims. If you want to see how serious they were read about how the sanctions hearing went.

    But the complaint that “courts wouldn’t listen to our assertions of fraud” is bogus. The person with the legal right to make those claims chose not to do so. It get’s confusing because there were claims by the Trump campaign that were dismissed for various reasons such as standing and timeliness. But a court finding that you waited too long to object to the rules isn’t the same thing as refusing to hear your claims that fraud happened.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  145. @98. Nah. When reduced to employing name calling- like crying snark and troll– it simply reveals an inability to defend a POV rejected by the majority out of life experience and which is not longer in vogue. So they cluster behind paywalls to commiserate- which is yet another losing signal.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  146. “What prevented Pelosi from doing the same thing in her House inquiry?”

    Nothing prevented her, but the republicans have made it obvious that they’re not interested in a serious inquiry.

    Republicans would rather claim that pelosi is responsible for capitol police’s failures, or that the rioters were duped by the FBI, or that they were secretly antifa, or just enthusiastic tourists.

    Davethulhu (aa6793)

  147. Kevin, The PA case in your link wasn’t dismissed for standing. It was dismissed as moot. The ballots under dispute hadn’t been counted yet. The Trump campaign was suing saying they shouldn’t be counted. But since he already lost PA it didn’t matter if they were counted or not. He might have changed his position and asked that they be counted in hopes that they’d help him, but even if they all went his way he’d still have fewer votes then Biden.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  148. The Republicans could have had a bi-partisan inquiry. They rejected it and rejected the very idea of having an inquiry while spreading disinformation. Whining after the fact that the inquiry isn’t bi-partisan is disingenuous at best.

    Davethulhu (aa6793)

  149. Breakthrough-chi (73b272) — 7/27/2021 @ 11:35 am

    To paraphrase she who shall not be named; at this point what’s really the point of proving it was stolen? I know why people pushing “free and fair” need to push that.

    But what’s the expectation on the other side? Is there some idea that one day SCOTUS would just declare JB not POTUS?

    frosty (f27e97)

  150. Frosty, many of the people pushing it are running fundraising operations so they make money off the lies. Other’s seem angry and I think it makes them feel better to think it was stolen then to think Trump was rejected. Finally there’s the joy some people seem to get from conspiracy theories.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  151. 140. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/27/2021 @ 12:07 pm

    Sammy, you’re still taking Banks’ “due to the rules” words at face value, without even bothering to check whether his statement is true or not. Instead, you’re just spitballing and speculating.

    I don’t think Banks is spitballing or would dare to. I don’t know any way to check.

    It still, if true is not the same as her being the person in charge.

    I still think that, because Banks made so many qualifications. he has an argument – maybe wrong but he has an argument that Nancy Plosi has more power than any other single individual. Which may not mean anything and certainly doesn’t necessarily dump responsibility on her lap.

    The very fact that his argument is so weak, indicates that it’s probably not simply a lie.

    The Capitol Police answers to the Capitol Police Board, and I’ve already told you who’s on it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Police_Board

    The Capitol Police Board is the body that governs the United States Capitol Police. It was established in 1873,[2] and today consists of three voting members: the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate, and the Architect of the Capitol

    And the architect of te Capitol is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, so the House has no role in his appointment.

    Now I read also that the Chairmanship alternates between the Sergeant at Arms of the House and the Senate (and don;t know who was Chairman at the beginning of January, 2021; and that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is officially known as the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, and that he Chief of the United States Capitol Police is ex-officio non-voting member of the Capitol Police Board.

    See https://web.archive.org/web/20200318114538/https://www.uscp.gov/the-department/oversight/capitol-police-board

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  152. Here’s a story as to what happened:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/us/politics/capitol-police-national-guard.html

    Two days before the attack, Chief Sund requested that the Capitol Police Board declare a state of emergency and authorize a request to secure National Guard support. The board denied the request, according to Chief Pittman, but encouraged Chief Sund to contact the National Guard to determine how many guardsmen could be sent to the Capitol on short notice, which he did.

    As the protesters became an increasing threat to the Capitol on Jan. 6, Chief Sund asked for more help from federal agencies and law enforcement agencies in the area. “He also lobbied the board for authorization to bring in the National Guard, but he was not granted authorization for over an hour,” Chief Pittman said.

    During the hearing, the commander of the District of Columbia National Guard told committee members that his authority to quickly deploy the guard was removed ahead of the riot. Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, said he had such authority for July 4, but the Pentagon required additional approval for a request for the guard during the Capitol attack, according to a person familiar with the testimony.

    General Walker testified that Chief Sund called him as the threat to the Capitol increased on Jan. 6 and that he immediately notified the Army.

    “On my own, I started preparing people to be ready, but I had to wait for specific approval to go out to launch,” General Walker said. “I was in constant communication with the U.S. Army leadership who was acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army.”

    Two of the board members at the time of the attack have already resigned: Paul D. Irving, the House sergeant-at-arms, and Michael C. Stenger, the Senate sergeant-at-arms. The third member, J. Brett Blanton, the Architect of the Capitol, is still on the board. Mr. Blanton was nominated by Mr. Trump in December 2019 and confirmed by the Senate that same month. The chief of the Capitol Police serves in an ex-officio, non-voting capacity….

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  153. Nancy Pelosi is 81 years old.

    And she’s acting as you’d expect octogenarian to act.

    Pudding? Fruit cup? Or $15/pint ice cream tonight, dear?

    Howzabout a frozen Molotov Cocktail w/a lemon twist instead– you know gasoline is just $5/gallon in California these days. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  154. But the complaint that “courts wouldn’t listen to our assertions of fraud” is bogus.

    Many on the other side say “The courts all ruled that those claims were false” which is also bogus. Which is why I call out both sides.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  155. Kevin, The PA case in your link wasn’t dismissed for standing

    The 3rd Circuit HAD dismissed it on standing. The appeal was what was moot.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  156. #50
    Maybe its because I don’t take people who use nom de plumes like Demosthenes as seriously as they seem to take themselves?

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  157. One of the PA cases was dismissed on lateness, iirc.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  158. Many on the other side say “The courts all ruled that those claims were false” which is also bogus. Which is why I call out both sides.

    They should say “in the few cases where fraud was alleged, such as Detroit and AZ, the courts either ruled against the Trump campaign or dismissed for lack of evidence.”

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  159. Or maybe “the courts ruled against all the claims of fraud that were brought”? It’s simple and still correct, although the exact meaning of ‘all the claims of fraud’ might be misunderstood

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  160. There are some Republicans who want to kick Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger off all their committees, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has the right to re-appoint them.

    Committees usually reflect the spectrum of opinion within the House or Senate, nt just the party balance, possibly because were they not to do so more or less, members would begin trying to bypass the committees.

    (as it is, the leadership does, and conference committees do)

    House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy actually was tilting it a little toward the non-supporters of the election steal claim, and tried to name more respectable members. This committee also over reoresented Democrats, 8-5 (it should have been 7-6) which happens with more important committees like the Rules committee.

    Now it’s 8-2 Democrats vs No Trump Republicans. (Both of them were among the 10 Republican House members who voted for impeachment in January)

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  161. I think it is unlikely that there was any fraud-fraud. But some of the unequal vote counting practices in PA affected outcomes. One of the cases (a Congressman whose weaker county counted votes of a type his stronger county would not) seemed like a good one. He was just too late — he had no good remedy for correction after the vote. He might have gotten an injunction before hand.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  162. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has the right to re-appoint them.

    As Republican members?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  163. 150. Davethulhu (aa6793) — 7/27/2021 @ 12:26 pm

    or that the rioters were duped by the FBI, or that they were secretly antifa, or just enthusiastic tourists.

    One of the police witnesses was asked a question so he could knock down a claim that the rioters thought he was Antifa. He said he was wearing his uniform.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  164. SF: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has the right to re-appoint them.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 7/27/2021 @ 1:04 pm

    As Republican members?

    I don;t even know that when committee members are named they are identified by party.

    Probably as independents.

    The entire House already voted to put them on.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  165. @160. ‘Demosthenes (384–322 B.C.E., Greek: Δημοσθένης (Dēmosthénēs)) was a prominent Greek statesman and orator of ancient Athens.’ -wikiyogurtland.bland

    Zeta, Eta, Theta… but do give the Omicron Pi a try. 😉

    “One creature, caught. Caught in a place he cannot stir from in the dark, alone, outnumbered hundreds to one, nothing to live for but his memories, nothing to live with but his gadgets, his cars, his guns, gimmicks…” – Matthias [Anthony Zerbe] ‘The Omega Man’ 1971

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  166. @112. Royalists gotta royal.

    First question never asked:

    Who shot Ashli Babbitt?

    Kevin McCarthy’s “investigation” will get to the bottom of it. Oh wait, he never mentioned her.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  167. Kevin, I think you’re talking about the guy who sued because his county didn’t allow voters to correct and absentee ballot and another county did. It’s legal to do that and up to the county. He wanted the other counties votes discounted to keep it fair.

    I view that as a separate issue, and I agree it’s not fraud.

    Time123 (020838)

  168. Rip, I’ve been thinking about what Demosthenes said. I’m going to try and do my part by trying to refrain from sarcasm and derision. I doubt I’ll be 💯 successful but I’m going to try. Give it some thought.

    Time123 (020838)

  169. @172. Good practice: that worked for Rockefeller Republicans for nearly 45 years. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  170. I’ve watched The Three Stooges. This unfunny farce staged by Pelosi and her stooges, with McCarthy as the straight man, does not impress me. My car radio gave me a minute of it today and the traffic report was the better production hands down.

    nk (1d9030)

  171. @174. Bet the Olympics even beat it in the cable TeeVee ratings… and that ain’t sayin’ much.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  172. Meanwhile back at the WH Long Term Care facility:
    Biden says Cyber Attacks could start shooting war. Now that will be must see TV… or maybe I can can just look out my window at Vandenberg AFB and watch launches and retaliatory detonations until the blast wave hits
    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/biden-warns-cyber-attacks-could-213033138.html

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  173. @176. Envy you. Likely a lot of good sky shows; Vandenberg is a busy place; most Americans think only of Cape Canaveral.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  174. For Joe, a cyber attack was when the neighborhood kids climb up a tree onto on the roof and move the old crotchety basta**s TV antenna so he can’t get Gunsmoke.
    Not that I ever did anything that

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  175. @178. More likely a rogue robot Rotary Dial Joe saw in an episode of the ‘Six Million Dollar Man.’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  176. Cheney and Kinzinger are dead wrong in this instance. McCarthy is the leader of the Republican caucus and under the rules he appoints Republican members to things. If Kinzinger and Cheney don’t like the rules as applied to them, they should leave the caucus. One way or another.

    Because you wanna know why? Because the essence of democracy is following the rules. Like the 1/6 Capitol invaders should have but did not. Think about it.

    nk (1d9030)

  177. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/january-six-hearing-no-jim-jordan.html

    Account odfhearing, butt would Jim Jordan have destroyed that?

    …There was no deranged counternarrative being interjected every five minutes.

    Indeed, after 3½ years of covering Democratic oversight efforts since Democrats took back control of the House majority at the start of 2019, I can honestly say that this is the first and only time I can remember witnessing a hearing into misconduct perpetrated by Trump and his minions that maintained its presence in objective reality the whole time. (While the House Intelligence Committee’s hearings during Donald Trump’s first impeachment were illuminating and powerful, they were consistently derailed by partisan nonsense.)

    Every fice minutes? There would only be two members out of 13 or 13

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  178. I am grateful for being fortunate to have been raised in a beautiful place, in a great country, at one of the best times for human life in human history, but I specifically ordered extra sauce with my eggrolls and I will burn this s*** down if I have to

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  179. I’ve brought up Nixon previously in this thread, but Nixon’s real crime — the one that got Democrats to hate him with a vigor — was to govern from the center.

    Watergate.

    “Impeach With Honor.”

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  180. Nationalism, especially Ethno-nationalism, creates the tribes you’re complaining of.

    ROFLMAOPIP! Reaganoptics/Reagnaurics.

    Ever heard of Hal Riney? You know his voice, and the nationalistic crap he narrated… coun the th black faces in this– like none:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa8Qupc4PnQ

    “It’s morning again in America….”

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  181. Kinzinger and his heartfelt tears were awe-inspiring. It had to have been very frightening for him to have to dredge up those painful memories from last January.

    Colonel Haiku (b35858)

  182. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/27/2021 @ 12:35 pm

    No derision intended, and I mean that honestly, I already know why you think people claiming fraud are making the claim and I’m not asking why the claim is being made.

    I’m asking someone making the claim what the expected outcome is.

    frosty (f27e97)

  183. “Kinzinger and his heartfelt tears were awe-inspiring. It had to have been very frightening for him to have to dredge up those painful memories from last January.”

    Back the blue!

    Davethulhu (aa6793)

  184. Rip, I’ve been thinking about what Demosthenes said. I’m going to try and do my part by trying to refrain from sarcasm and derision. I doubt I’ll be successful but I’m going to try. Give it some thought.

    Unfortunately, when confronted with the likes of DCSCA, Cpl Haiku, NJRob, etc. who live in a fact-free and fact resistant world sometimes sarcasm is the only thing that gets through.

    I do admire DCSCA’s encyclopedic knowledge of film quotes. He seems to have one for every occasion.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  185. 185.Kinzinger and his heartfelt tears were awe-inspiring.

    America needs another Ed Muskie. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  186. I think it’s clear that the testimony today was intended to counter the argument that what happened on Jan 6 was a non-violent tour and that people were let into the capital by the police. Testimony did a good job showing the rioters/terrorists/insurrectionists as violent, racist, and motivated by Trumps lies about the election. I think these facts were know by anyone interested in what happened. I’m not sure they were widely know. We’ll see if this increases awareness. I’m not sure the GOP decision to boycott was a good one.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  187. Rip, I don’t think it gets through. I think it just helps set the tone as hostile and encourage more of the same. I’m saying this knowing I have room to improve.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  188. ‘@188. I do admire DCSCA’s encyclopedic knowledge of film quotes. He seems to have one for every occasion.’

    Hmmmm…

    “Go ahead, make my day.” – Harry Callahan [Clint Eastwood] ‘Sudden Impact’ 1983.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  189. ‘…a fact-free and fact resistant world…’

    Reaganomics!

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  190. Unfortunately, when confronted with the likes of DCSCA, Cpl Haiku, NJRob, etc. who live in a fact-free and fact resistant world sometimes sarcasm is the only thing that gets through.

    I do admire DCSCA’s encyclopedic knowledge of film quotes. He seems to have one for every occasion.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 7/27/2021 @ 5:46 pm

    Your constant posting of leftwing talking points definitely shows your mental stability.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  191. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/27/2021 @ 5:49 pm

    Other than education and awareness what do you think should come out of the hearings? What do you expect if that’s different? For example, some new law or policy?

    frosty (f27e97)

  192. What should have happened was an independent commission that could accomplish the follow
    1. Establish a common set of facts to help refute the extreme characterization on both sides.
    2. Determine where the security planning was inadequate to what was known, and why.
    3. Determine where the security response was inadequate and/or slow and why.
    4. Determine what, if any, violence was pre-planned and why.
    5. Determine what, if any, involvement or awareness government officials had in pre-planning of any violence.

    All done in a way that doesn’t interfere with criminal investigations.

    Changes to law and policy to happen based on what we learn.

    I think we *SHOULD* get he same things from the committee hearings but I much more skeptical. The GOP’s refusal to participate means there will be no common set of facts. People are. already attacking the police officers as antifa, crisis actors etc.
    The Dem’s have incentives to run the investigation to maximize political advantage which is an impediment to the rest.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  193. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 5:13 am

    Aren’t there a number of other investigations ongoing? Do you think any of those will accomplish anything on your list?

    People are. already attacking the police officers as antifa, crisis actors etc.

    The police officers as antifa? Do you have any examples of that? I’d like to see that just to see how someone lays the groundwork for claiming a police officer, not to mention a capital police officer, is antifa.

    Crisis actor is also interesting since that implies something else but some of the people involved aren’t helping themselves here. I’m ever amazed that people think some of this behavior is productive.

    frosty (f27e97)

  194. Frosty,

    Do you think any of those will accomplish anything on your list?

    I think they will do it all it, but badly. How badly I don’t know. But since I don’t care if the effort helps / hurts either party politically I’m happy to take the chance. If nothing else it gives the dems something to do that won’t cost too much money.

    The accusations showed up in my twitter feed from some blue check accounts. I just rolled my eyes and moved on. But next time I see it I’ll grab a link. Be interesting to see how hard that’s pushed and at what level. There’s a difference between infowars, Tucker Carlson, and Shep Smith.

    I know the federalist is already attacking one of the officers, but they haven’t called him Antifa, just accused him of defending them.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  195. Crisis actor is also interesting since that implies something else but some of the people involved aren’t helping themselves here.

    If you check out instapundit you can find explanations of the theory that Jan 6 was a false flag attack by Antifa and the FBI. I think Tucker did a piece on how the FBI were responsible.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  196. If these people want the truth – as they claim – let’s have a full public release of all surveillance video and body cam footage, and the release of all correspondence between Democratic leadership and the US Capitol Police, the Metro PD, the FBI, the Secret Service, and local law enforcement officials involved.

    Colonel Haiku (b35858)

  197. Frosty, searching Crisis actor takes me here. She’s a writer for AMgreatnss. So not super influential, but much more then an anonymous nutter.

    https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1420028026306416641?s=21

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  198. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 6:01 am

    Is antifa even active anymore? Seems like they faded from the news after the election. The Whitmer thing doesn’t enhance the credibility of the FBI. The overhyping of the charges doesn’t help either.

    Did you know someone actually planned out the attack on the capital using a lego model? OMG! You say it wasn’t assembled? Well, it was the thought that counts. Every day I’m amazed that this is the world we live in.

    frosty (f27e97)

  199. I’m not sure what your point in in comment 203.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  200. *is in comment…

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  201. Also, I have no idea what you’re talking about wrt to lego, but i very much like lego.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  202. Also, I have no idea what you’re talking about wrt to lego, but i very much like lego.

    Instead of using his preferred medium (crayons), one of the MAGA zealots planned his storming of the Capitol by building a Lego facsimile of the Capitol building.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  203. And no blocking of info due to “sources and methods” considerations.

    Colonel Haiku (c76994)

  204. ……..
    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 7/27/2021 @ 5:46 pm

    Your constant posting of leftwing talking points definitely shows your mental stability.

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 7/27/2021 @ 10:01 pm

    And your inability to make a point without insulting someone is duly noted. I post what I find interesting and hopefully will stimulate discussion. I don’t necessarily agree with their point of view. It’s just not found in Gateway Pundit, American Greatness, or American Thinker.

    Rip Murdock (0d5408)

  205. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 6:27 am

    Over the last 20 years, we’ve had several examples of groups like Antifa and BLM. We’ve seen Code Pink and Occupy Wallstreet for example. They’re active, or more accurately, they’re given media attention, when there’s a D agenda that needs to be pushed or the D’s need to sway the balance of power. Need a gold star family to make a case for you? Need a grassroots movement? Those are all easy to come by and they all fade into the woodwork when the D establishment gets what they want. So, it’s easy to see where those conspiracy theories come from. The narrative around BLM and antifa this time around wasn’t even that well hidden.

    It’s easy to understand why people don’t trust the FBI. I think field agents are generally trying to do their best but at the top, the FBI is some mix of incompetent and dishonest. The DOJ and larger IC community are worse. So, it’s easy to see how that turns into a conspiracy theory.

    On lego; the DOJ, in their investigation, found a person with a lego set. This was reported as evidence of planning and coordination. The idea being it was used as a model to plan the attack. It was still in the box. Just another example of the general level of honesty and competence in play.

    You haven’t heard of the lego thing? Does that make you wonder what else about 1/6 you haven’t heard about?

    frosty (f27e97)

  206. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/28/2021 @ 6:39 am

    one of the MAGA zealots planned his storming of the Capitol by building a Lego facsimile of the Capitol building.

    The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is now telling a different story.

    In the original detention memoranda, the undersigned stated that law enforcement found a “fully constructed U.S. Capitol Lego set.” Please note that after a review of the photographs from the search, there appears to have been a miscommunication and that statement appears to be inaccurate. The Lego set was in a box and not fully constructed at the time of the search

    Just another example of the general level of honesty and competence in play.

    frosty (f27e97)

  207. Liz Cheney wants an account of all of Trump’s calls and conversations that day.

    Actually not a bad idea. But virtually impossible.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  208. Noted, frosty.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  209. “And no blocking of info due to “sources and methods” considerations.”

    That would delight “Czar” Putin and “Emperor” Xi.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  210. That said, Mr. Lego Set was one of many in felonious combat with Capitol Police and should spend serious time behind bars, more than the eight months Mr. Hodgkins was sentenced for obstructing an official proceeding.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  211. On lego; the DOJ, in their investigation, found a person with a lego set. This was reported as evidence of planning and coordination. The idea being it was used as a model to plan the attack. It was still in the box. Just another example of the general level of honesty and competence in play.

    You haven’t heard of the lego thing? Does that make you wonder what else about 1/6 you haven’t heard about?

    I’m sure there’s a ton i haven’t heard about. But this was interesting because of the lego angle. That’s probably why it got a lot of coverage. It took a minute to find the actual fling, link is below. The Lego set is a single line in a 39 page filing that spends most if it’s space on all the acts of violence they allege. To me it seems a LOT less important as evidence of planning then the notebook they found. There are pictures of the notebook in the filing so you can see for yourself. But it doesn’t look like any of their charges are based on the lego set or that they used the presence of the lego set as a basis for further argument.

    Also, from what I’ve seen it looks as if the DOJ admitted the mistake and corrected record voluntarily.

    Unless I’ve missed something I don’t think this supports the point you’re trying to make.

    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.232477/gov.uscourts.dcd.232477.80.0_1.pdf

    50. During his arrest, law enforcement recovered some clothing and other items that appear to match those he carried with him on the 6th – including a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, a neck gaiter, a military utility bag, a black tourniquet, and military fatigues. (Law enforcement also recoverd a fully constructed U.S. Capitol Lego set.) In addition, MORSS had three different firearms including a handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle.
    51. Law enforcment also recovered a notebook from his car with writings that included “Step by Step To Create Hometown Militia.” It included a list of names, a list of equipment, and a list of steps, such as “Battle Drills”; “Ambush”; and “Formations.” The relevant pages, which are pictured below with names redacted out, also included notes such as: “Bring Kit/Body Armor”; “Bring Assault Rifle”; “4 Magazines.”

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  212. Missed a few comments.

    How is voluntarily correcting a mistake evidence of dishonesty? I’ve seen no evidence that they lied on purpose or that they tried to hide the error or even that they needed to be forced to admit the mistake.

    The mistake happened, and that might mean they’re incompetent but how does this show dishonesty?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  213. Frosty, the more I read about this the more it looks like you’re misrepresenting the facts. But I’m new to this story so maybe you’re not.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  214. the rioters killed five people

    cuz there’s no dishonesty here

    JF (e1156d)

  215. @217

    Missed a few comments.

    How is voluntarily correcting a mistake evidence of dishonesty? I’ve seen no evidence that they lied on purpose or that they tried to hide the error or even that they needed to be forced to admit the mistake.

    The mistake happened, and that might mean they’re incompetent but how does this show dishonesty?

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 8:00 am

    The issue here Time, is that when mistakes were made it feeds the narrative. It gets shouted out in every platform, social media and print.

    By the time the mistake was ‘corrected’, the damage is already done and that the correction isn’t shouted out with the same vigor to as the original statement.

    This is standard operating procedure by Democrats and their allies.

    What’s dishonest here, is that this was purposely done. I mean, how can one make a mistake about a fully assembled lego set v. the lego was in the box??

    The person literally assaulted a police officer. He should face the full brunt of the law for that act. This lego “imbroglio” put this case at risk for acquittal. Dumb, dumb mistake.

    whembly (3bda0a)

  216. the “mistakes” always seem to go one way

    cuz it’s just random

    JF (e1156d)

  217. It looks to me like lego’s are an interesting hook so this got legs. The notebook is more concerning evidence but that’s boring so we get lego stories.

    I agree it was a dumb mistake. As for it being shouted, this is the first I’m hearing about it. So apparently the original story missed me but the correction didn’t.

    Do you have evidence the misstatement was intentional? Because you’re saying that and Frosty is (apparently) fabricating out of whole cloth that the DOJ used this as evidence of planning and coordination. But I don’t see anywhere they did so.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  218. the “mistakes” always seem to go one way

    cuz it’s just random

    JF (e1156d) — 7/28/2021 @ 8:23 am

    This mistake appears to have had no bearing on anything and thus went nowhere.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  219. I’ve started responding to trolls (not you whembly). I’m going to get back to work.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  220. By the time the mistake was ‘corrected’, the damage is already done and that the correction isn’t shouted out with the same vigor to as the original statement.

    This is standard operating procedure by Democrats and their allies.

    And, as JF mentioned, these “mistakes” always go one way. People who don’t recognize this fact are either not paying attention or dishonest.

    Colonel Haiku (c76994)

  221. @224 expecting to be exempt from commenting rules is typical trollish behavior

    JF (e1156d)

  222. @222

    Do you have evidence the misstatement was intentional? Because you’re saying that and Frosty is (apparently) fabricating out of whole cloth that the DOJ used this as evidence of planning and coordination. But I don’t see anywhere they did so.

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 8:26 am

    Common sense is my evidence buddy.

    No one, in their right mind can mistake a fully assembled lego set v. an unassembled batch of legs in a box.

    Someone purposely misrepresented this.

    whembly (0ae2ca)

  223. “To me it seems a LOT less important as evidence of planning then the notebook they found”

    Exactly….you just have to approach the evidence in good faith….and not launch into spin mode.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  224. 222. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 8:26 am

    I agree it was a dumb mistake. As for it being shouted, this is the first I’m hearing about it. So apparently the original story missed me but the correction didn’t.

    This is not the first time I read it, but I think I only heard the correction

    This would have been obscure the first time. The correction was probably hyped by someone as “evidence” that many of the cases were wrong.

    Sometimes it is the correction that gets more attention.

    https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/the-funny-the-weird-and-the-serious-33-media-corrections-from-2018/

    https://www.indy100.com/offbeat/12-of-the-very-best-newspaper-corrections-7259656

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  225. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 8:26 am

    Frosty is (apparently) fabricating out of whole cloth that the DOJ used this as evidence of planning and coordination … But I don’t see anywhere they did so

    This is going a bit too far. I understand changing the argument to the one you want to have and avoiding my point and I understand trying the strawman. But I gave you a link to a document that the US Attorney submitted to the court as a correction to previous statements that were used to justify the pre-trial detention. Both of those links are in this thread. Yes, this allegation was used as evidence of planning and coordination. It was part of the evidence used to justify pretrial detention. How exactly did I fabricate out of whole cloth these statements from the DOJ?

    Was it the only evidence? No, I’m not making that claim. Is this guy innocent? Not making that claim either. Is this an FBI setup? Also, not a claim I’m making.

    frosty (f27e97)

  226. Common sense is my evidence buddy.

    No one, in their right mind can mistake a fully assembled lego set v. an unassembled batch of legs in a box.

    Someone purposely misrepresented this.

    Oh, so we’re guessing? I that case how about;

    In my notes I write a bunch of stuff that I found. Some pertinent, some not. One of the items is; complete capital lego set. What I’m trying to capture is that he had the whole thing in the box.
    When the filing for the court is written complete gets turned into “Fully Constructed”. Clearly a mistake.

    I have no idea if this happened this way or not, but it makes as much / more sense then DOJ lawyers / agents intentionally lying to the court on something that had no impact on the case. Which is a point that seems to be ignored. The ‘fully constructed lego set” had not impact in the filing, was referenced one time, and is arguable one of the least damaging things we know about the terrorist.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  227. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 9:08 am

    These are FBI agents (notice the plural) investigating what has been consistently described as the most egregious attack on the capital since the civil war. This is in a statement made by the US Attorney which sounds singular only to people who have no idea how the US Attorney’s office works. This statement was made under oath before a federal judge and it’s being used to deny bail and keep someone in custody.

    Given all that, you’re going with mistakes happen? If they made that mistake what other mistakes did they make? I’m guessing you’re going with none because these guys are federal agents and this was such an important case and they had multiple people available to review this stuff and make sure no mistakes were made.

    frosty (f27e97)

  228. Frosty, Here’s your original statement:

    On lego; the DOJ, in their investigation, found a person with a lego set. This was reported as evidence of planning and coordination. The idea being it was used as a model to plan the attack. It was still in the box. Just another example of the general level of honesty and competence in play.

    Can you show me where the DOJ alleged it was evidence of planning and coordination? Can you show me where it was alleged to be a model to plan the attack?

    Because I couldn’t find where they did that.

    But we do agree that this mistake, one they apparently admitted of their own volition, one that doesn’t have a material impact on this case. How is an immaterial mistake that they voluntarily admitted evidence of dishonesty? On it’s own I don’t think it is.

    Before i go on can you state your point clearly? I’m honestly concerned I may not understand clearly what you’re trying to say. In your original comment on this you referenced the lego set as a reason people don’t trust the FBI. But if the situation with the Legos isn’t what you assert it to be how am I not fairly responding to your point?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  229. @231 No, that’s not clearly a mistake Time123.

    “Fully Constructed” is waaaaay different than simply have a bloody box of that thing. Investigators are trained to pull out nuanced details as evidence.

    Someone F’ed up badly and this kind of mistake is obviously purposeful. The defense is going to have a field day with this one and if this guy walks because of this, that’s on the investigators and whomever wrote the original charging document.

    whembly (0ae2ca)

  230. @232, I’m going to go with “We don’t know if it was a mistake or a lie and we’re just guessing at this point.”

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  231. Whembly, I agree it’s a screw up. They shouldn’t make mistakes like this. But from what I read in the filing deleting that sentence entirely makes no material impact. From what I’ve read in other cases mistakes need to be larger then this before defendants start walking. If the other information is as alleged I hope this guy doesn’t get away with it. Since the DOJ already told the court and he’s still in custody I don’t think it will sink the entire case.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  232. #234 whembly – May I refer you to Hanlon’s razor: “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.

    (“Never” is too strong, but it is still a good general rule.)

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  233. Given all that, you’re going with mistakes happen? If they made that mistake what other mistakes did they make? I’m guessing you’re going with none because these guys are federal agents and this was such an important case and they had multiple people available to review this stuff and make sure no mistakes were made.

    I’m going with “I”m glad we have defense lawyers so the evidence can be challenged.”

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  234. David French is always good at providing the “conservative” case for why we should give in to the leftist agenda and establish their beliefs as common norms.

    Just like he did with his recent racist screed,

    Structural racism isn’t wokeness, it’s reality

    where he rants that white people need to accept they’re benefitting from racist systems they didn’t create, but are still holding blood sins of their ancestors.

    For a supposed Christian, it doesn’t sound like he believes in Christ’s salvation of mankind.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  235. There’s no benefit to most white people from a portion of blacks being poor, going to bad schools, being victims of crime, getting less than idea medical treatment, being disconnected from a lot of things etc.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  236. Per here, Morss was charged with “Assaulting, Resisting or Impeding Certain Officers or Employees; Civil Disorder; Robbery of Personal Property of the United States; Obstruction of Official Proceeding.”
    There is no charge for plotting to storm the Capitol so, whether his Lego set was fully constructed or still in the box, it’s extraneous. It was only brought up on the matter of pre-trial detention, and frosty’s link showed the correction, but the correction did not change their recommendation to detain him because the robbery charge was sufficient.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  237. NJRob: “David French went full racist and….”

    I’m reposting this from the Open Thread because I don’t think Rob saw it….Of course French didn’t say this…here’s the article: https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/structural-racism-isnt-wokeness-its

    His basic argument is either from a scriptural perspective or a conservative perspective, justice is required….meaning, you can’t simply ignore racial inequality that was previously baked into society via racist intent.

    French: “First, let’s go back to scripture and recognize that the obligation to “act justly” is intergenerational. If there is injustice that predates our personal power, it is still our obligation to do what we can to set it right.”

    And from the perspective of conservatism:

    French: “Years ago, my friend Rod Dreher wrote that “the business of a conservatism with integrity is not to impose an idealistic ideological narrative on reality but rather to try to see the world as it is and respond to its challenges within the limits of what we know about human nature.”….In other words, a conservative might have a different conception of “what works.” Progressive-dominated institutions haven’t cracked the code.”

    He then applies this analysis to NIMBY zoning restrictions and policing. It seems odd to call him a “Truly demented person” (as Rob did in the Open Thread) but I suppose such is where public discourse is at…..

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  238. Yes he did say it AJ. He specifically grants the left’s conclusions that structural racism is real and it’s prevalent. Everything else comes from that faulty premise.

    Then he tars people with the blood of their father’s. It’s insidious and un-Christian.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  239. It’s not unusual for NJRob’s characterization of an idea he dislikes to be difficult to follow.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  240. David French is always good at providing the “conservative” case for why we should give in to the leftist agenda and establish their beliefs as common norms.

    What exactly did French “give in” on? As for the notion that white people must be “holding blood sins of their ancestors”, he said the exact opposite. Quote: “Our obligation to seek justice does not depend on a finding of personal fault.”

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  241. Time,

    how about reading the piece then come back and dispute my characterization. You can’t, so you’ll dissemble like you just did.

    Paul,

    he gave into the blood libel that says structural racism is real and it’s prevalent. But you knew that already.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  242. “he gave into the blood libel that says structural racism is real and it’s prevalent.”

    What an absurd characterization. You’re ridiculous.

    Davethulhu (aa6793)

  243. AJ, thank you for providing the link. I don’t usually read David French so I’d missed that article. I don’t endorse everything he said but it was an interesting read. Not sure calling it a racist screed or rant is a fair characterization. But again, i don’t always follow Rob’s POV.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  244. NJRob, I wasn’t trying to ignore your question.

    Nothing in it fit any of the definitions of racist I’m familiar with. It’s tone was pretty mild, reasoned and free from hyperbole.

    Regarding specific things you said

    He didn’t saw white hold blood sins. What he did say was

    go back to scripture and recognize that the obligation to “act justly” is intergenerational. If there is injustice that predates our personal power, it is still our obligation to do what we can to set it right.

    He founded several of his points in scripture and proposed conservative solutions to problems of disparate impacts. There’s plenty to disagree with in the article, but it didn’t seem at all like you described it.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  245. John Hayward (@Doc_0) isn’t always my cup of tea on twitter, but on here I think he gets to the crux of the issue.
    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1420358703795122177.html

    John Hayward
    @Doc_0
    The Democrat Party normalized and celebrated political violence for months before the Capitol riots. Let’s have some hearings on THAT. Let’s talk about how incredibly dangerous it is for one Party to think it has a monopoly on grievance-mongering, street theater, and violence.

    Let’s also have some hearings about how one Party thinks it has a monopoly on questioning the outcome of elections. We could roll video of top Dems, including sitting officials, doing that for HOURS. You want theater? I’ll make the popcorn and bring the tapes.

    I’m not really interested in hearing any Democrat, or their GOP footstools, give tearful speeches about sacred democracy while their party systematically destroys every bit of protection for our elections and wantonly undermines every outcome they don’t like.

    We have every reason to fear the full power of bloated, hyper-politicized government being turned against Americans who dissent from the ruling Party. Show trials designed to establish the predicate that dissenters are potential violent terrorists are not exactly reassuring.

    There is no need to excuse or valorize anything that occurred on 1/6 to be disgusted by this week’s political spectacle. Our media tells us that “context” is everything. Well, in the full context of 2020, hysterics over 1/6 are absurd and hypocritical.

    You can’t say THIS city is sacred ground, but THESE cities must be abandoned to mobs and criminals as lawless wastelands. Hell, most of D.C. outside the Capitol IS a lawless wasteland. You shrieking potentates can see murder factories through your barbed wire fences.

    You can’t say THESE cops are sacred avatars of law and order whose actions merit no public scrutiny or investigation, but all the rest of them are trigger-happy racists who should be micromanaged, distrusted, disarmed, defunded, and replaced by community organizers.

    You can’t say THIS politicized violence is totally unacceptable and should be prosecuted unto the end of time, but THESE people are allowed to use violence and vandalism whenever they feel the system is not addressing their grievances quickly enough.

    You can’t tell me the 1st Amendment must be bypassed to silence “disinformation” because it might lead to “insurrection,” while embracing media outlets that spread Hands Up Don’t Shoot lies with wild abandon, resulting in real and immediate crime and violence.

    When people who spent four years role-playing as “the Resistance” against a “stolen election” suddenly start telling us dissent and resistance are treason that will be punished without mercy, we know exactly what’s going on. It’s a grim story repeated throughout human history.

    By all means, let’s have universal respect for universally RESPECTABLE elections. Let’s have zero tolerance for political violence. Let every American’s property be treated with the respect afforded to a congressman’s office. These hearings obviously aren’t about that.

    whembly (ae0eb5)

  246. he gave into the blood libel that says structural racism is real and it’s prevalent. But you knew that already.

    “Blood libel” is a ridiculous and gross mischaracterization. There are obvious inequities that blacks have faced since the 14th Amendment was ratified. The easy example that French made was in differences in net worth. At real issue here are the prescriptions, which is where French has departed from the liberal mindset.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  247. What exactly did French “give in” on?

    Relevancy.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  248. Whembly, John whoever is clearly upset and feels that things aren’t fair. But almost everything he said is wrong.

    The Democrat Party normalized and celebrated political violence for months before the Capitol riots. Let’s have some hearings on THAT. Let’s talk about how incredibly dangerous it is for one Party to think it has a monopoly on grievance-mongering, street theater, and violence.

    Democrat leaders, especially and including Joe Biden, made a clear distinction between peaceful protest and violence. No one is accusing the 30,000 people at the capital that protested peacefully of doing anything wrong. This is focused on the few hundreds that did.

    Let’s also have some hearings about how one Party thinks it has a monopoly on questioning the outcome of elections. We could roll video of top Dems, including sitting officials, doing that for HOURS. You want theater? I’ll make the popcorn and bring the tapes.

    This is BS. The dem’s haven’t doing anything even remotely like what the GOP is doing wrt to 2020. The difference in degree is a difference in kind.

    I’m not really interested in hearing any Democrat, or their GOP footstools, give tearful speeches about sacred democracy while their party systematically destroys every bit of protection for our elections and wantonly undermines every outcome they don’t like.

    I’ll give this as much credit as I do Stacy Abrams equating voter ID Jim Crow.

    We have every reason to fear the full power of bloated, hyper-politicized government being turned against Americans who dissent from the ruling Party. Show trials designed to establish the predicate that dissenters are potential violent terrorists are not exactly reassuring.

    How about court trials for specific individual, with specific charges, with evidence? Because that’s what we’re doing. We’re not charging ppl with voting wrong. We’re charging people with assault, trespassing and robbery and we’re using the court system with all the normal rights of the accused.

    You can’t say THIS city is sacred ground, but THESE cities must be abandoned to mobs and criminals as lawless wastelands. Hell, most of D.C. outside the Capitol IS a lawless wasteland. You shrieking potentates can see murder factories through your barbed wire fences.

    Obvious hyperbole, but who’s calling for “cities to be abandoned to mobs and criminals as lawless wastelands”?

    You can’t say THESE cops are sacred avatars of law and order whose actions merit no public scrutiny or investigation, but all the rest of them are trigger-happy racists who should be micromanaged, distrusted, disarmed, defunded, and replaced by community organizers.

    Not saying any of that

    You can’t say THIS politicized violence is totally unacceptable and should be prosecuted unto the end of time, but THESE people are allowed to use violence and vandalism whenever they feel the system is not addressing their grievances quickly enough.

    Not saying that either.

    You can’t tell me the 1st Amendment must be bypassed to silence “disinformation” because it might lead to “insurrection,” while embracing media outlets that spread Hands Up Don’t Shoot lies with wild abandon, resulting in real and immediate crime and violence.

    I don’t think you understand what the fist amendment says.

    When people who spent four years role-playing as “the Resistance” against a “stolen election” suddenly start telling us dissent and resistance are treason that will be punished without mercy, we know exactly what’s going on. It’s a grim story repeated throughout human history.

    Violently attacking the Capital in an effort to overturn a lawful election isn’t a legitimate form of protest, dissent, or resistance no matter how much you want it to be. It is arguably terrorism, but the DOJ isn’t charging it that way.

    By all means, let’s have universal respect for universally RESPECTABLE elections. Let’s have zero tolerance for political violence. Let every American’s property be treated with the respect afforded to a congressman’s office. These hearings obviously aren’t about that.

    Correct, they’re not about that. They’re about a violently attacking the Capital in an effort to overturn a lawful election, the actions that lead up to it, and the response when it happened. Also, I don’t know what you mean by RESPECTABLE elections. I’m interested in Free, Lawful, and Accurate elections. But it’s good to know part of your grievance is based on disproven conspiracy theories.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  249. G. K. Chesterton wrote: ““The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”

    People like David French and Michael Gerson impress me because they try, in their own ways, to live by Christian ideals, as they understand them.

    It is not surprising that some, having found their example difficult to follow, attack them, and even their children.

    In 2016, French and his wife and family were the subject of online attacks when he criticized then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and the alt-right. French was bombarded with hateful tweets, including an image of his child in a gas chamber.
    . . .
    French is an evangelical Christian,[10] who is married to author Nancy French.[21] French and his family have lived in Columbia, Tennessee, since 2006.[32] They have three children, including a daughter adopted from Ethiopia.

    French and I have different religious beliefs, but I respect his attempt to live by his faith.

    And am dismayed by some of the hateful attacks he and his family have endured.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  250. David French is always good at providing the “conservative” case for why we should give in to the leftist agenda and establish their beliefs as common norms

    Yes, he is. The Left champions him and others that excuse nearly every goddam thing the Left tries to bum rush America with.

    Thanks for clearly and unequivocally stating your point, Rob.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  251. @253

    Whembly, John whoever is clearly upset and feels that things aren’t fair. But almost everything he said is wrong.

    The Democrat Party normalized and celebrated political violence for months before the Capitol riots. Let’s have some hearings on THAT. Let’s talk about how incredibly dangerous it is for one Party to think it has a monopoly on grievance-mongering, street theater, and violence.

    Democrat leaders, especially and including Joe Biden, made a clear distinction between peaceful protest and violence. No one is accusing the 30,000 people at the capital that protested peacefully of doing anything wrong. This is focused on the few hundreds that did.

    Yeah, going to disagree with you there.

    There’s a continual effort to blame what the ~hundred of folks did at the capital to the entire GOP party.

    Democrats tries very HARD to not point out the violence in other cities. Why do you think “Mostly peaceful protest” is a thing?

    Let’s also have some hearings about how one Party thinks it has a monopoly on questioning the outcome of elections. We could roll video of top Dems, including sitting officials, doing that for HOURS. You want theater? I’ll make the popcorn and bring the tapes.

    This is BS. The dem’s haven’t doing anything even remotely like what the GOP is doing wrt to 2020. The difference in degree is a difference in kind.

    Where the bloody hell were you during the Trump years? Especially in the early days?

    Russia stole the election… remember?

    I’m not really interested in hearing any Democrat, or their GOP footstools, give tearful speeches about sacred democracy while their party systematically destroys every bit of protection for our elections and wantonly undermines every outcome they don’t like.

    I’ll give this as much credit as I do Stacy Abrams equating voter ID Jim Crow.

    Democrats are the party who wants to make it easier to cheat elections. There’s no getting away with that.

    We have every reason to fear the full power of bloated, hyper-politicized government being turned against Americans who dissent from the ruling Party. Show trials designed to establish the predicate that dissenters are potential violent terrorists are not exactly reassuring.

    How about court trials for specific individual, with specific charges, with evidence? Because that’s what we’re doing. We’re not charging ppl with voting wrong. We’re charging people with assault, trespassing and robbery and we’re using the court system with all the normal rights of the accused.

    Those people who “assault, trespassing and robbery” absolutely should face justice.

    But that wasn’t a coup.

    Neither it was an insurrection.

    And surely it wasn’t treason.

    Dangerous hyperbole like those will only make those folks dig deeper and refuse to engage. That’s how we’re politically divided.

    You can’t say THIS city is sacred ground, but THESE cities must be abandoned to mobs and criminals as lawless wastelands. Hell, most of D.C. outside the Capitol IS a lawless wasteland. You shrieking potentates can see murder factories through your barbed wire fences.

    Obvious hyperbole, but who’s calling for “cities to be abandoned to mobs and criminals as lawless wastelands”?

    Democrats…. by virtue of their own actions.

    You can now loot stores in California and there’s a good chance you won’t be prosecuted.

    You can murder someone in St. Louis and the prosecution would literally not show up in court.

    It’s politically inconvenient for Democrat politicians to harshly criticize those who rioted during BLM protest. How do you not see this?

    You can’t say THESE cops are sacred avatars of law and order whose actions merit no public scrutiny or investigation, but all the rest of them are trigger-happy racists who should be micromanaged, distrusted, disarmed, defunded, and replaced by community organizers.

    Not saying any of that

    I know YOU are not saying that.

    But, that’s how Democrats are treating Capital police v. other city police.

    You can’t say THIS politicized violence is totally unacceptable and should be prosecuted unto the end of time, but THESE people are allowed to use violence and vandalism whenever they feel the system is not addressing their grievances quickly enough.

    Not saying that either.

    You’re not saying it. Sure, I haven’t seen you make that claim.

    But, with the distinct lack of accountability on Antifa/BLM rioters and absolutely bloody telling.

    You can’t tell me the 1st Amendment must be bypassed to silence “disinformation” because it might lead to “insurrection,” while embracing media outlets that spread Hands Up Don’t Shoot lies with wild abandon, resulting in real and immediate crime and violence.

    I don’t think you understand what the fist amendment says.

    There’s a growing worry that the Biden administration is tasking big tech company to supress disinformation. While that isn’t breaking the 1st Amendment, it absolutely breaks the spirit of that right. That’s a concern that requires everyone to remain vigilant, no matter which party is in power.

    When people who spent four years role-playing as “the Resistance” against a “stolen election” suddenly start telling us dissent and resistance are treason that will be punished without mercy, we know exactly what’s going on. It’s a grim story repeated throughout human history.

    Violently attacking the Capital in an effort to overturn a lawful election isn’t a legitimate form of protest, dissent, or resistance no matter how much you want it to be. It is arguably terrorism, but the DOJ isn’t charging it that way.

    Here you go again. You conflating those who had nothing to do with the violence at the capital to those currently facing justice.

    The point being, you are conveniently forgetting Democrats and their allies losing their ever loving minds when Trump won and made any/all accusations of illegitimacy. They were allowed to make such claims, even when they were wrong.

    But what Trump and others did was worst? Yeah, I don’t think so.

    By all means, let’s have universal respect for universally RESPECTABLE elections. Let’s have zero tolerance for political violence. Let every American’s property be treated with the respect afforded to a congressman’s office. These hearings obviously aren’t about that.

    Correct, they’re not about that. They’re about a violently attacking the Capital in an effort to overturn a lawful election, the actions that lead up to it, and the response when it happened. Also, I don’t know what you mean by RESPECTABLE elections. I’m interested in Free, Lawful, and Accurate elections. But it’s good to know part of your grievance is based on disproven conspiracy theories.

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 12:15 pm

    My grievance isn’t about the conspiracy theories. Hell, I’m in the camp that Biden WON! Cleanly!

    My grievance, as *is* the thrust to this rando twitter post, is that we have two groups being treated distinctly differently by the government and media writ large.

    whembly (e2380c)

  252. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 9:25 am

    Can you show me where the DOJ alleged it was evidence of planning and coordination? Can you show me where it was alleged to be a model to plan the attack?

    Because I couldn’t find where they did that.

    I’m surprised you’re going this far with this. It looks like you need them to have literally said “this is evidence of planning”? That seems a bit unreasonable. But I’m willing to see where this goes.

    Have you read the pre-trial motion to detain? Here is the relevant section:

    During his arrest, law enforcement recovered some clothing and other items that appear to match those he carried with him on the 6th – including a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, a neck gaiter, a military utility bag, a black tourniquet, and military fatigues. (Law enforcement also recoverd a fully constructed U.S. Capitol Lego set.) In addition, MORSS had three different firearms including a handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle.

    The information in that motion is there to support § 3142(g) generally. From my reading of the motion, the inclusion of evidence found at his home is there to support (3) his history and characteristics specifically. The initial motion repeatedly refers to him as a leader and it references his prior military training. Prior military training generally includes drawing up a plan of attack, having a visual representation of a target area, etc. That’s why they are “military” bags and fatigues and a black tourniquet instead of just a tool bag, some utility clothes, and first aid supplies. In the motion, the USA is alleging this guy both took part in the 1/6 activities and was a leader. A leader is involved in coordination and planning.

    lead·er
    /ˈlēdər/
    noun: leader; plural noun: leaders
    1. the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.
    “the leader of a protest group”
    Similar: chief head principal boss commander captain figurehead

    and

    or·gan·i·za·tion
    /ˌôrɡənəˈzāSH(ə)n/
    noun
    1. an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc.
    “a research organization”
    Similar: company firm concern operation corporation institution group establishment consortium conglomerate combine syndicate body agency federation confederation alliance coalition association movement society league club network confederacy outfit setup
    2. the action of organizing something.
    “the organization of conferences and seminars”
    Similar: planning arrangement coordination structuring administration

    Why do you think they originally included the lego detail at all? Why include random details in a motion before a federal judge? It wasn’t evidence that he’s a flight risk. Unless you’re assuming he can secretly smuggle himself to Denmark via an underground lego pipeline. He’s not charged with anything related to legos. There are no mentions of him feloniously assembling the kit or trespassing to place the model in an unauthorized location. He didn’t use it as a weapon. If you look at any of the press statements on this they are carefully worded but all generally imply that the model at least could have been used for planning and coordination and as far as I can tell no other suggestion is made. Again, why was it included in the motion at all? It wasn’t there to let the judge know this guy was a lego enthusiast. I’m not seeing any other reason to include this detail in the motion other than as part of the argument that he was a leader in the attack who was involved in planning and coordination.

    Before i go on can you state your point clearly?

    This does seem to be the $64k question. I’m starting to notice a trend in some of your comments. But I’ll give it a try.

    The inclusion of this in the original motion is odd enough that someone should have checked this. It’s especially odd given that they had a photo of the set in a box. That means they explicitly stated a detail like “fully constructed” with (a) zero evidence and (b) actual evidence that it was still in the box. At best this is just lazy. I think it’s reasonable to think there might be some overcharging and hype that won’t hold up down the line. My point is that if they are making mistakes on this and the press is running with it and we’re neck-deep in all sorts of statements maybe a little skepticism is warranted. My point, and I said this in the beginning, is that it’s easy to see how that turns into a conspiracy theory.

    From that, you’ve accused me of misrepresenting facts and fabricating. Both of which are just fancy words for lying. From that, it looks like you’ve imagined that I’m saying this guy is innocent or that the changes should be dropped or that this is a material element of the charges against him. It looks like once again we’re in that spot where if someone isn’t wholeheartedly in agreement with you they are somehow diametrically opposed. Why are those the only options?

    I’m honestly concerned I may not understand clearly what you’re trying to say.

    I can’t read your mind but I feel like I’ve been clear. I think the conflict is more with what you want to understand.

    In your original comment on this you referenced the lego set as a reason people don’t trust the FBI.

    Well, no,

    On lego; the DOJ, in their investigation, found a person with a lego set. This was reported as evidence of planning and coordination. The idea being it was used as a model to plan the attack. It was still in the box. Just another example of the general level of honesty and competence in play.

    but I did include the FBI in a comment. Although not exactly as you’ve described. If you’ve chosen to understand “general level of honesty and competence” as they are actively lying you may be making a mistake. To paraphrase something someone else said; I’m not in the general habit of including detailed disclaimers on every statement. The words “just another example” and “general level” can reasonably be presumed to include other things. This particular example doesn’t have to be a complete and thorough example of both active dishonesty and incompetence.

    But if the situation with the Legos isn’t what you assert it to be how am I not fairly responding to your point?

    The DOJ asserted that an entire constructed lego set was found and they included this in the pre-trail detention motion. This is a false statement. How is the situation not what I assert? How are you fairly responding to that by saying I’ve fabricated statements the DOJ made in motions to a judge after you’ve seen the actual motions?

    frosty (f27e97)

  253. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 11:13 am

    It’s not unusual for NJRob’s characterization of an idea he dislikes to be difficult to follow.

    It’s also becoming common for you to characterize ideas you don’t like as unclear or hard to follow.

    frosty (f27e97)

  254. NJRob (eb56c3) — 7/28/2021 @ 11:28 am

    he gave into the blood libel

    Maybe we should avoid the term blood libel. I’m not sure it’s being used correctly here. I think the more correct term, in this case, might be the sins of the father.

    frosty (f27e97)

  255. @257 and @258.

    I’m sure Patterico would get a kick out of this…

    Would the prosecution put a lying investigator on the stand?

    *laughs in defense attorney*

    whembly (e2380c)

  256. Frosty, Thank you for the lengthy reply. I don’t have time to address it fully here but I do have time to address this.

    It’s also becoming common for you to characterize ideas you don’t like as unclear or hard to follow.

    I keep getting caught up in motte and Bailey type arguments where someone will assert several level of of action and when I reply to part of their argument be told I’m addressing a position they don’t hold. So instead I’ve started asking what the actual assertion / point is. Our conversation in the other thread is an example of that. I wasn’t trying to attack a straw man, I was responding to what I thought (incorrectly, but with justification) you had said.

    I’ve also been tripping up on incorrect assumptions. So I’ve started asking there. Recent example was. NJRob’s comment on Sweden or Buduh’s link on the capitol officer. Had I not asked what Buduh meant my reply would have been completely off base.

    I’m not trying to play games. These are things i enjoy talking about. Had BuDuh meant what I thought it would have been interesting to get his thoughts on how that type of political speech does / does not impact credibility on testimony.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  257. Frosty, here’s what you said in your first comment in this conversation

    Is antifa even active anymore? Seems like they faded from the news after the election. The Whitmer thing doesn’t enhance the credibility of the FBI. The overhyping of the charges doesn’t help either.

    Did you know someone actually planned out the attack on the capital using a lego model? OMG! You say it wasn’t assembled? Well, it was the thought that counts. Every day I’m amazed that this is the world we live in.

    frosty (f27e97) — 7/28/2021 @ 6:25 am

    I asked what your point was becaause it wasn’t clear. I don’t know how you would expect me to read 203 and conclude you meant “it’s easy to see how that turns into a conspiracy theory.”

    You’re somewhat more clear in 210

    It’s easy to understand why people don’t trust the FBI. I think field agents are generally trying to do their best but at the top, the FBI is some mix of incompetent and dishonest. The DOJ and larger IC community are worse. So, it’s easy to see how that turns into a conspiracy theory.

    On lego; the DOJ, in their investigation, found a person with a lego set. This was reported as evidence of planning and coordination. The idea being it was used as a model to plan the attack. It was still in the box. Just another example of the general level of honesty and competence in play.

    You haven’t heard of the lego thing? Does that make you wonder what else about 1/6 you haven’t heard about?

    In 210 you say it’s easy to see why people don’t trust the FBI and talk about the lego set as an example. (I’ve been using FBI and DOJ pretty interchangeably, which if it hasn’t already lead to an error will at some point.)

    When I look into the Lego set (which who wouldn’t, lego’s are cool) I see a clear error, could be an intentional one, that had no material impact on the case.

    Your framing of it is that the DOJ reported the lego set as evidence of planning and coordination. They say that nowhere in the filing and they include it along with other items found that, while they appear relevant, have nothing to do with planning and coordination. It would be silly to say that the DOJ reported his neck gaiter as evidence of planning and coordination. They do allege he was a leader at the riot and support that directly with allegations about his actions and directions to other rioters.

    To be clear; I think you go from what is supported by the evidence to things that aren’t supported by the evidence when you assert that the DOJ claimed that lego set was evidence of planning and coordination. I didn’t say you lied because I didn’t think this exaggeration was intentional on your part. I think you were just mistaken and making conclusion not supported by the text.

    So here is my point. I agree that the initial statement about he lego set is a mistake and that the DOJ shouldn’t have made it. Honestly I would like to see harsh consequences for these types of mistakes. But there usually aren’t. I think you’ve overstated the impact of that mistake. I further think that an accurate discussion of this case as it was filed would not present the difference between him having the set, and him having the set fully assembled as a large difference. The set in the photo appears to have been opened and the box looks worn. Finally, I think the press ran with this over other things because the lego set makes this unusual. I think they could have run the same stories just by saying he had it. I think if they wanted to make him look as bad as possible they would have written stories about the notebook.

    Hopefully i addressed your points.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  258. My grievance isn’t about the conspiracy theories. Hell, I’m in the camp that Biden WON! Cleanly!

    My grievance, as *is* the thrust to this rando twitter post, is that we have two groups being treated distinctly differently by the government and media writ large.

    The difference I see between you and this guy is that your complaints are based far more in facts and his are based on wild exaggerations and strawmen arguments. Additionally, his characterization ignores the existence of anyone (like me) who is legitimately concerned about what happened and honestly feels it’s a much bigger deal than if the same group of people had committed far more violence at a Target, or even on other people.

    Violently attacking the Capital in an effort to overturn a lawful election isn’t a legitimate form of protest, dissent, or resistance no matter how much you want it to be. It is arguably terrorism, but the DOJ isn’t charging it that way.

    Here you go again. You conflating those who had nothing to do with the violence at the capital to those currently facing justice.

    I think you’re misstating me here. Earlier in the same comment I said this No one is accusing the 30,000 people at the capital that protested peacefully of doing anything wrong. This is focused on the few hundreds that did. I mean it. The people who went their because they believe the dumb conspiracy theory and protested peacefully are fine.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  259. #254
    French pays the bills with money he makes off of his religiosity and is fine when he preaches to his choir. But when he preaches at people, correctly or not, its like sending out invitations to be kicked in the nuts.
    People hate, hate hate being preached at and hate the preacher even more if his choir joins in singing a chorus of “yes yes tell THEM how bad THEY are”.

    I think French says/writes whatever he thinks his fans will pay to hear, even when the old biblical saying of “fix your own self and get back to me” applies. He’s also positioning himself as a well paid prophet telling us the hard truths for large appearance fees but his hard truths are less useful than the truths old guys in sackcloth and ashes used to give in exchange for honey and locusts

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  260. Maybe we should avoid the term blood libel. I’m not sure it’s being used correctly here. I think the more correct term, in this case, might be the sins of the father.

    frosty (f27e97) — 7/28/2021 @ 2:13 pm

    I might have overstepped by using the term, but I used it because I see many in the press and government blaming all that ails society on those evil white people and that they need to be put in their place.

    It’s an easy step to move from the constant hate and blame to action.

    Using and supporting terms like systemic racism hold all people to blame based on their innate superficial characteristics. It’s a dangerous road being tread.

    NJRob (c5f2e2)

  261. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 3:20 pm

    No one is accusing the 30,000 people at the capital that protested peacefully of doing anything wrong.

    Actally, I think they are.

    This is focused on the few hundreds that did. I mean it. The people who went their because they believe the dumb conspiracy theory and protested peacefully are fine.

    The problem is that they are not distinguishing between these two different types of people – even characetrizing as amyth that there were different kinds of protesters.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/07/27/opinion/jan-6-committee-facts.html

    This is suppsedly mthology. It’s not.

    “Even calling it an insurrection, it wasn’t. I condemned the breach, I condemned the violence, but to say there were thousands of armed insurrectionists breaching the Capitol intent on overthrowing the government is just simply a false narrative. … By and large it was peaceful protest except for, there were a number of people basically agitators that whipped the crowd and breached the Capitol.”
    — Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, May 19, 2021

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  262. Sammy, I don’t have NYT access and can’t read the link. Johnson is correct, it wasn’t thousands if was hundreds. And the protest was mostly peaceful. Only a few percent were violent.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  263. Using and supporting terms like systemic racism hold all people to blame based on their innate superficial characteristics. It’s a dangerous road being tread.

    NJRob (c5f2e2) — 7/28/2021 @ 4:45 pm

    I think part of the reason the team is “systemic” is to avoid blaming people directly. It’s not yours/my fault the system is failing in a given way. But that failure is /part/ of the system even without Ill intent or personal wrongdoing.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  264. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 5:17 pm

    This is the lie at the heart of systemic racism, CRT, anti-racism, and is collectively termed “the conversation”. It’s what well-meaning people tell themselves to avoid pulling at too many of the logical inconsistencies and unweaving the whole cloth.

    I have every reason to believe those well-meaning people sincerely believe that. That doesn’t make it true.

    frosty (f27e97)

  265. I honestly don’t care if people feel guilty/attacked when they hear the system has flaws. so long there’s an acknowledgment of the problem and a good faith effort to improve it you can use any words you like.

    Time123 (020838)

  266. Stupid mobile

    *So long as…

    Time123 (020838)

  267. Time123 (020838) — 7/28/2021 @ 5:39 pm

    a good faith effort to improve it

    Marxism is driving this bus and there’s no good faith there. This is another mistaken article of faith with the well-meaning.

    No one is feeling guilty/attacked when they hear the system has flaws. This is a misframing of what’s happening on both sides.

    frosty (f27e97)

  268. 234. whembly (0ae2ca) — 7/28/2021 @ 9:25 am

    Investigators are trained to pull out nuanced details as evidence.

    I wouldn’t count on that.

    But the whole thing probably shouldn;t have been mentioned at all. It could mean a lot of things, or maybe almost nothing, not even a general interest in the Capitol; and if it meant a great deal that would have the person with the Lego set being one of the prime planners of the assault – except that, if unassembled, it couldn’t be that unless he dropped out, or somebody decided it was useless or unnecessary. When he ordered it, or how many different Lego sets he had, and of what, is also unknown.

    And that this person played a key role probably wasn’t very probable a priori.

    The investigators can start out from a position of real ignorance, and can see confirmation of guiltiness of serious crimes where there isn’t any.

    TIME laid out how a mistake can easily be made when someone is interpreting somebody else’s notes.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  269. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/28/2021 @ 5:14 pm

    Sammy, I don’t have NYT access and can’t read the link. Johnson is correct, it wasn’t thousands if was hundreds. And the protest was mostly peaceful. Only a few percent were violent.

    What the New York Times had as the reality and what it had as the mythology were BOTH mostly accurate, except maybe for some nuances.

    This one appears to be false, but I think Trump was referring to the rally at which he was present – the one at the Ellipse

    “There was such love at that rally. You had over a million people there. They were there for one reason, the rigged election. They felt the election was rigged. That’s why they were there. And they were peaceful people. These were great people. The crowd was unbelievable. And I mentioned the word ‘love.’ The love — the love in the air, I have never seen anything like it.”

    — Former President Donald Trump, July 11, 2021

    Of course this business about love being in the air (?) and a million people being there (??!) was nonsense. But Trump was obviously not referring to what happened at the Capitol.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/21/trump-interview-i-alone-can-fix-it

    Did he speak at the Capitol? He was maybe suposedto and that opens a whole line of investigation.

    What they are doing is uniting the two crowds as if they were one.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  270. It’s hard fr me to get information about the rally that took place at the Capitol. Did it or did it now have a permit?

    I spotted the following in the Senate Committee report (to really get information, I’d need to be able to look at the references in the footnotes. That would help)

    https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC&RulesFullReport_ExaminingU.S.CapitolAttack.pdf

    From Footnote 262 on page 45 of the Senate report

    …To demonstrate on Capitol grounds, individuals or groups must submit a permit to and receive approval from USCP’s Special Event Section, a component of USCP’s Command and Coordination Bureau within the Uniformed Operations function. The Special Events Section approved six permits for January 6, each with a limit of 50 participants due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Pittman Interview (Apr. 20, 2021), supra note 8, at 37:10–25.

    IICD’s Assistant Director expressed her concerns about certain permits to an Executive Officer in the Protective Services Bureau, noting that “the permit requests . . . are being used as proxies
    for Stop the Steal” and “may also be involved with organizations that may be planning trouble on [January 6].” Email from IICD Official to Protective Services Bureau Official (Dec. 31, 2020, 6:00 PM) (on file with the Committees).

    Ms. Pittman acknowledged she was aware of the concern, but she believed IICD vetted the permit
    requests and confirmed that the groups who had been granted permits were not affiliated with Stop the Steal.

    Pittman Interview (Apr. 20, 2021), supra note 8, at 79:1–19.

    So that sounds like there were small rallies permitted but those were unrelated.

    But that was maybe a few days before.

    I also read:

    From page 78:

    On the January 4 call, according to Mr. Miller, he and General Milley voiced concern about the permits that had been issued, questioning whether there was a mechanism to revoke permits for the 1,000 to 2,000 people who had been granted permission to gather on Capitol
    grounds.551 The Department of the Interior and D.C. officials assured DOD leadership that the
    protests were constitutionally protected activities.552 During the call, according to Mr. Miller, he
    and General Milley also suggested locking down D.C. to avoid potential violence; however, the
    idea was not pursued.553 Mr. Miller described that the consensus from law enforcement was that,
    given the current threat picture, they believed they had all “resources and capability they needed
    to control the demonstration.”554 Mr. Miller testified that he “felt comfortable” about the
    mission planning and believed they were “all operating off a common operating picture.”555

    On January 3, the US Capitol Police’s lead intelligence component—the Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division (“IICD”) said (page 44=5)

    ,,,Further, unlike the events on November 14, 2020, and December 12, 2020, there are several more protests scheduled on January 6, 2021, and the majority of them will be on Capitol grounds. The two protests expected to be the largest of the day—the Women for America First protest at the Ellipse and the Stop the Steal protest in Areas 8 and 9—may draw thousands of participants and both have been promoted by President Trump himself. The Stop the Steal protest in particular does not have a permit, but several high profile speakers, including Members of Congress are expected to speak at the event.

    They added that Stop the Steal had a propensity to attract white supremacists, militia members and others who actively promote violence.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  271. Did you know that the Capitol Police’s intelligence division, in their final assessment on January 6, they even said that the possibility of the rally at the Ellipse actually taking place was highly improbable.(!)

    From the Senate Report, page 45:

    … The Stop the Steal event was assigned a probability of “Highly Improbable” given that “no further information has been found to the exact actions planned by this group.”263 The Women for America First event planned for the Ellipse also received a “Highly Improbable” rating, but the report contained no explanation or context as to why this rating was assigned. 264

    There are lots of questions to ask here – who downgraed the possibility, and why?

    Double agents?

    It is clear that IICD intelligence products, in particular the January 3 Special Assessment
    analysis that “Congress itself is the target on the 6th” and its warning about the “significantly

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  272. From the report:

    It is clear that IICD intelligence products, in particular the January 3 Special Assessment analysis that “Congress itself is the target on the 6th” and its warning about the “significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike,” were not incorporated in subsequent intelligence documents. One explanation given to the Committees for why the
    January 3 Special Assessment was not incorporated into the DIRs is because a single analyst
    prepared and disseminated the DIRs without supervisory review.265

    OK, so why did he change his mind?

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  273. Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c) — 7/29/2021 @ 7:56 am

    If you really want to have some fun don’t mention any sort of fire. Were any of the protesters unemployed Dutch construction workers?

    frosty (f27e97)

  274. Marxism is driving this bus and there’s no good faith there. This is another mistaken article of faith with the well-meaning.

    No one is feeling guilty/attacked when they hear the system has flaws. This is a misframing of what’s happening on both sides.

    frosty (f27e97) — 7/28/2021 @ 6:23 pm

    David French wrote a mildly worded article that said
    -There are disparate outcomes still present in society based on race.
    -No one today is causing this based on racial animus.
    -It’s consistent with evangelical Christianity that people today should take actions to remedy things that were done in the past.
    -Here are things conservatism would look at as solitons.

    NJRob’s response, supported by others, was that it was a Racist rant, a screed, and a blood libel.

    Your response seems to be; blood libel isn’t the right term and you don’t like the politics off the people that are working on this now.

    I’m struggling with what to conclude when a conservative & Christian (French) is attacked this aggressively for taking even mild position he did.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  275. 278. frosty (f27e97) — 7/29/2021 @ 8:34 am

    If you really want to have some fun don’t mention any sort of fire. Were any of the protesters unemployed Dutch construction workers?

    That is interesting because neither the Nazis nor the Communists set fire to the Reichstag.

    Here, I’ve thought that the people who attacked the Capitol did some things to maintain the element of surprise. Maybe there was also an informant who was actually a double agent.

    Some members of Congress have been accused of possible complicity – Republicans by Democrats and Adam Kinzinger has been roped into seeing that as a line of inquiry. Some low ranking Republican members of Congress supposedly gave some of the rioters tours before the riot. This is quite possible, but can easily have happened without the members of Congress having any idea of what any of the people they escorted in were up to. If indeed anyone indeed escorted anyone in. (at a time when ordinary tourists were barred because of Covid precautions)

    But this is somebody withdrawing (or not repeating) the warnings of possible violence.

    No backbench Republican could do that. I don’t know what it would take to do that.

    As I said, it could be they had an informant who was in reality a double agent.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  276. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/29/2021 @ 8:55 am

    Are you mocking me for suggesting the term blood libel should be avoided? If you want to use it feel free.

    Are you pro-marxist? I ask because my impression is you’re pro-BLM and BLM is marxist. You also seemed to be pro-CRT and that also has a reworked version of marxism? It seems fair to ask rather than assume.

    My comments @269 and @272 don’t have anything to do with attacking French. That’s something you’ll have to work out with NJRob.

    frosty (f27e97)

  277. No mockery was intended. i think you’re 100% correct that ‘blood libel’ isn’t the right term to use. My point was that while the people currently interested in addressing these problems are in many cases deeply flawed (to say the least) the conservative response seems to be to dismiss the issue because they don’t like some of the people working on it. I think Rob provides a strong example of that.

    To your other questions;
    I’m not a Marxist.
    I think BLM has some good point about police use of force and many bad points about many other issues.
    I’m still not sure what people mean when they say CRT, but I think concern about it in K-12 is at best a moral panic blown far out of proportion to the actual issue. I think it’s about as serious a threat as creeping sharia law was in 2015 and that trade offs to fight it aren’t justified. I’m also frustrated that the actual laws being passed to fight CRT are horrid in ways I’ve discussed in previous threads.

    thank you for asking, let me know if I haven’t been clear.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  278. That completely mischaracterizes my comments Time123.

    I’ve made it clear that systemic racism doesn’t exist in any form except one that actually gives preferences to minorities through government programs that have set asides such as affirmative action.

    For French to accept the marxist belief that outcomes are what matter instead of opportunity proves he is disingenuous at best and I think far worse. Equity is a false claim and fools people because it sounds like equality. Instead it is just racism cloaked under other names.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  279. You comment at 283 is reasonable and bears little resemblance to your initial comment about French’s article. I may have mischaracterized your views, but that was based on what you originally said. Have said that, I’m sorry i characterized your views incorrectly and will try to be more accurate in the future.

    Regarding comment 283. Both equality of opportunity and equitable results matter. Equality of opportunity in the real world is very hard to measure. One measure of our equality of opportunity is the parity of the outcomes. From example If we play a dice game and i win because mine always get 6’s how long will you believe we’re playing fairly?

    In more general terms; If the system always produces better results for one group then another, and always has, what’s your argument that system provides equal opportunity for both groups?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  280. Culture.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  281. But the results have always been different regardless of culture.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  282. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/fatherless.jpg

    Nah. It starts and ends at home.

    NJRob (eb56c3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8674 secs.