Patterico's Pontifications

7/27/2021

Rep. Liz Cheney Understands Republicans Can’t Focus on The Future Without First Reckoning With The Past

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:04 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Remember how Republicans hammered on Rep. Liz Cheney because she wouldn’t stop talking about the election or January 6? She’s looking backward, not forward!

Well, it’s a darn good thing Cheney refused to dismiss the “big lie” and whitewash what happened on Jan. 6. Instead of doing whatever it took to remain in Trump’s good graces, she remained loyal to the Constitution. She chose to keep her integrity intact by demonstrating a relentless determination to push back on Trump and his “big lie,” as well as being determined to dig as deeply as possible to find out the who, what, where, and when of that fateful day at the US Capitol. Unlike her Trump-Republican colleagues, Cheney understands that the GOP simply cannot move forward as a healthy, viable party that holds to conservative ideals and principles if the events of Jan. 6 are whitewashed and not faced with an unwavering quest for the truth, regardless of where it might lead.

Here’s Cheney’s opening statement from today’s hearing:

Here is Rep. Adam Kinzinger’s opening statement:

These two elected officials do the Republican Party, and Americans, proud. It’s too bad their fellow Republicans don’t see it that way.

–Dana

151 Responses to “Rep. Liz Cheney Understands Republicans Can’t Focus on The Future Without First Reckoning With The Past”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (174549)

  2. The irony is that Trump has similar things as Ms. Cheney, except in a bad way, that we can’t move forward until we expose the fraud of the past. Two different realities, one real and other alternate.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  3. Harry Dunn, the teary-eyed U.S. Capitol police officer who testified in Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s politicized January 6 committee, previously defended the violent riots that shook the nation last summer and caused billions of dollars in damage.

    In a tweet directed at Fox News’s Tucker Carlson last August, Dunn asked “why is murder an appropriate response to property damage but property damage isn’t an appropriate response to murder?”

    https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/27/teary-capitol-police-officer-who-testified-about-january-6-previously-defended-violent-george-floyd-riots-in-kenosha/

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  4. ‘These two elected officials do the Republican Party, and Americans, proud.’

    LOL

    “You can always pretend.” – Dil [Jaye Davidson] ‘The Crying Game’ 1992

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  5. Buduh, do you have a point to make or are we to infer it from the text you quoted?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  6. 74 million are in for a scolding

    JF (e1156d)

  7. 4… it’s theater for those most susceptible to teh Feelz, Buduh. You see if no one points it out, it’s as if it never happened.

    It’s as if the media know their marching orders

    Colonel Haiku (b35858)

  8. ‘Rep. Liz Cheney Understands Republicans Can’t Focus on The Future Without First Reckoning With The Past’

    Start w/WMD… and Iraq.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/10/liz-cheney-peddles-another-big-lie/

    “While tearing off a game of golf. I may make a play for the caddy. But when I do, I don’t follow through. ‘Cause my heart belongs to daddy…” – Marilyn Monroe, ‘My Heart Belongs To Daddy’ – Cole Porter, 1938

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  9. McCarthy should send her flowers from work. Liz Cheney, I mean. “Yes, dear. You’re right. I’m wrong. I’m sorry.” Not chocolates — it will give her cause to complain that he’s making her break her diet.

    Yes! January 6 should be investigated. By a prosecutor and a grand jury. Not this nonsense Pelosi thought up.

    nk (1d9030)

  10. nuzzling with nancee
    approval -43
    mizz cheney
    switch parties
    approval indeed

    mg (8cbc69)

  11. Buduh, do you have a point to make or are we to infer it from the text you quoted?

    Generally speaking it seems as though Rip posts quotes and a link and that is good enough. I was trying to be more like him to avoid ruffling any more feathers. But if I were to make I point it would be along the lines of we can’t move forward until we expose the fraud of the past. Something is not quite right about this witness’s past and I think it should be explored.

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  12. That’s really convoluted. I though you were implying you didn’t find him credible and because of his previous statements you thought he was lying. I’m glad I asked since your actual point is different.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  13. Thank you for clairifying.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  14. It seems more convoluted to have reached your first assumption. I am glad you asked. Thank you.

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  15. BuDuh (7bca93) — 7/27/2021 @ 7:24 pm

    I didn’t think it was convoluted. I think if you tried a “Rip but different” you’d catch a lot of negative feedback.

    frosty (f27e97)

  16. Ok. Thanks. I’ll try to do better next time.

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  17. I’m not a huge fan of that approach to be honest.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  18. It may have already started:

    GOP’s Jake Ellzey wins US House seat over Trump-backed rival
    Republican Jake Ellzey of Texas won a U.S. House seat on Tuesday night over rival backed by Donald Trump, dealing the former president a defeat in a test of his endorsement power since leaving office.

    Ellzey’s come-from-behind victory over Republican Susan Wright, the widow of the late Rep. Ron Wright, in a special congressional election runoff near Dallas is likely to be celebrated by Trump antagonists who have warned against his continued hold on the GOP.

    Ellzey was carrying more than 53% of the vote in Texas’ 6th Congressional District with results from almost all precincts reported.

    Ellzey is a Republican state legislator who finished a distant second to Wright in May, and who only narrowly made the runoff over a Democrat. The seat opened up following the death of Ron Wright, who in February became the first member of Congress to die after being diagnosed with COVID-19.
    ……..

    Rip Murdock (0d5408)

  19. There is only one Rip (thankfully).

    Rip Murdock (0d5408)

  20. That’s for sure.

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  21. Wasn’t this more of a general election type of vote rather than a primary vote? I thought Democrats were voting in this special election.

    BuDuh (7bca93)

  22. Wasn’t this more of a general election type of vote rather than a primary vote? I thought Democrats were voting in this special election.

    There was a 23 candidate jungle primary in May and the top two were Republicans. It be interesting to see any exit polls to see if there strategic voting by Democrats, but it is already a heavily Republican district.

    Trump made a significant effort though:

    “Trump endorsed Wright in April. His political action committee made a last-minute $100,000 television ad buy for her over the weekend, campaign finance records show, and he made a personal pitch for her during a telephone rally Monday night.“

    Rip Murdock (0d5408)

  23. It be interesting to see any exit polls to see if there strategic voting by Democrats

    That’s just one more wonderful thing about Democrats… they always reveal their two-faced, backhanded, dirty dealing, bad faith selves… oh, muh democratic principles.

    Colonel Haiku (b35858)

  24. Those heartfelt tears from Kinzinger were special. He should switch parties and make it official. There may be a future for him in the Democrat Party.

    Colonel Haiku (b35858)

  25. Abbott will need to appeal the same type of Dem voter as “devil they already know”. Fortunately that will pull the moderates out of the D primary and result in a wack job D gubernatorial candidate.

    urbanleftbehind (d212de)

  26. Fortunately that will pull the moderates out of the D primary and result in a wack job D gubernatorial candidate.

    Do they have any other kind? They haven’t retooled the factory for several decades.

    Colonel Haiku (b35858)

  27. Col, the IL D’s are snakes wrt Kinzinger, they basically are carving his district to maintain all the metro Chicago Ds rather than punishing the downstate “Hitler knew how to reach the yoots” chick. His best bet might be either to switch and be Cheri Bustos’ replacement or insist on a gerrymandered Bulwark Boy district composed of lightweight suburban R voters.

    urbanleftbehind (d212de)

  28. Trump made a significant effort though:

    I think Ellzey‘s effort was over a million dollars. I’ll look for those numbers.

    Going back to the April endorsement in the 23 candidate primary it could be argued that Trump’s endorsement left the Democrats with no option from their own party. Their best contender was only a short distance behind Ellzay.

    Susan Wright (R) 19.2 15,052
    Jake Ellzey (R) 13.8 10,851
    Jana Sanchez (D) 13.4 10,497

    https://ballotpedia.org/Texas%27_6th_Congressional_District

    Certainly his endorsement led the field while it was important for the Democrats to vote for the Democrat. The various Dem candidates accounted for over 24,000 votes in that first election.

    Currently the margin of the runoff is only about 2500 votes with 93% reporting:

    Jake Ellzey GOP 20,762 53.24%
    Susan Wright GOP 18,232 46.76%

    38,994 votes. 93% reporting

    It wouldn’t take to many Dems to control this vote.

    BuDuh (ed513d)

  29. @25; He’d be nothing special if he switched. Where’s the value is sounding just like a D in a sea of D?

    frosty (f27e97)

  30. DOJ quietly acknowledges there was no sedition at the US Capitol
    Media hyperbole was the root cause of fabricating crimes that didn’t exist

    Despite all the outrage and the threats of charging “insurrectionists” with sedition—the act of attempting to overthrow the government—proving them based upon actual facts and evidence seems to be increasingly unlikely. For example, Michael Cantrell reported on America’s Sheriff that:

    “Many of the trials for individuals involved in the Capitol riot of January 6th have started and much to the chagrin of liberals everywhere, the charges these folks are facing aren’t quite as serious as we were all led to believe they would be. In fact, the Justice Department has now said that the body of evidence in these cases is not as damaging as it was previously thought to be.”

    Further, developing reports indicate that none of the 400 people who have been arrested for their involvement in the riot have been charged with sedition, according to the Post Millennial. The most serious charge that has been brought against a defendant in this incident has been assault. To be clear, there is quite a leap between the charges of assault—and the charges of conspiring to overthrow the government.

    Even more perplexing, while others have been charged with conspiracy and obstruction, there’s a rather inconvenient fact that prosecutors must reckon. As the Post Millenial explained: “Others have been charged with conspiracy, and obstruction. While five people lost their lives during the riot, only one was killed with a weapon, and that was Ashli Babbit, who died after being shot by an unnamed Capitol Police Officer.”

    The secrecy surrounding the death investigations of Sicknick and Babbit do nothing to bolster confidence in “transparency.” The additional three victims suffered medical emergencies, yet transparency is still lacking in these cases as well.

    Prosecutors assigned to the cases have been feverishly working to prove a mass conspiracy. However, “less than 25 people are facing that charge, and ten people are said to have ties to the Oath Keeper militia movement,” the report continued.

    Arizona prosecutors who detained Jacob Chansley (you know, the guy who wore the “horns”) had originally stated that they had a lot of strong evidence to support the charge of sedition and/or mass conspiracy. And the evidence included Chansely’s “own words and actions,” which prosecutors said indicated that the “intent of Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials.” However, Cantrell asserts that no proof of this was ever submitted.

    Further, the Post Millenial report explained two other key points: “Another man, Ethan Nordean, was accused of sending ‘encrypted communications’ to the Proud Boys, but this, too, was dropped when it turned out that his phone battery died and he was unable to use it. The judge in Nordean’s case said there was a ‘dearth of evidence’ and declined to jail him. Prosecutors are trying again, however.” Once again, there is a stark contrast between the threatened charges that were publicly declared, and the actual charges in the court cases.

    And in perhaps the most telling aspect, the report also cited Michael Ferrara, an attorney with Kaplan Hecker & Fink, LLP, and former federal prosecutor, who explained that “if it becomes clear that prosecutors overreached, engaged in hyperbole, of simply misunderstood social media and text messages, it would be no ‘small error.’”

    Ferrara also stated that the zeal of the prosecutors could “color the way the judge sees the case going forward,” which could have a huge impact on the outcome for many of the defendants.

    Ferrara isn’t the only one concerned. During a hearing in the case against the Oath Keepers, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta said that remarks made by DOJ officials “threatened to taint the prosecution of individuals accused of taking part in the assault,” as the Washington Examiner reported…

    https://www.lawofficer.com/doj-quietly-acknowledges-there-was-no-sedition-at-the-us-capitol/

    Colonel Haiku (b35858)

  31. Susan Wright, the widow of the late Rep. Ron Wright, reported raising just $454,286 between April 12 and July 7 in her pre-runoff Federal Election Commission filing. That brought her election cycle total to $740,617.

    Texas state Rep. Jake Ellzey (R-Waxahachie), on the other hand, raised more than $1.2 million in the same time period and has an election cycle-to-date haul of $1.7 million.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/07/trump-backed-susan-wright-trails-fundraising/

    Trump may have been late with the $100,000 but I’m not sure how much that would have helped if he was early.

    BuDuh (ed513d)

  32. @25; He’d be nothing special if he switched. Where’s the value is sounding just like a D in a sea of D?

    I disagree… tears on demand is a high-value talent on the Left. He’d have to maintain a strict regimen of estrogen intake, but after his performance today, I think he’s up to it.

    Colonel Haiku (b35858)

  33. But if I were to make I point it would be along the lines of we can’t move forward until we expose the fraud of the past.

    What “fraud of the past”? Presidential elections have been fairly clean over the past several generations, especially in this century.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  34. From the insulting thread:

    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.

    Why did I post this here? Because I challenge you to look at my interaction with Time and Rip in this thread and the care I take in quoting and sourcing my comments and actually conclude that Demos absurd and insulting comment is accurate in any way. The majority of my comments have reflected my earnest in having a fact filled exchange. I agree that I can sometimes have a snark about me, but that seems to be part of everyone’s comments.

    I believe their is an honest element here and I am always flabbergasted when hyperbole like Demos gets loud applause.

    I do enjoy some of the interchanges but it is becoming masochistic to continue.

    I know I have left before and have come back. I may do so again. Who knows? I do think this is an intelligent group. I just am tired of the undeserved beatings.

    BuDuh (ed513d)

  35. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/27/2021 @ 9:00 pm

    A poor choice of wording on my part regarding the officer. I won’t bother to explain. Take care.

    BuDuh (ed513d)

  36. A poor choice of wording on my part regarding the officer. I won’t bother to explain. Take care.

    Thank you, but I think you should explain.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  37. BuDuh (ed513d) — 7/27/2021 @ 9:07 pm

    There used to be a comment that would show up from time to time by the host. Something to the effect that a person should try to read a comment in good faith and infer the most favorable, or at least the most reasonable, interpretation. In the alternative you can just ask someone.

    This seems to have fallen out of favor. It’s more common now to see a response where there’s clearly a misunderstanding. I suspect this is usually unconscious and that’s why I say misunderstanding instead of misrepresentation. Either way, the trend, and it’s not just here, it’s a general trend, is to be thinned skinned, easily insulted, and long to hold a grudge. It’s increasingly uncommon to find people who think that reasonable people can disagree.

    So, did you miscommunicate. I don’t think so. Was it opaque? Maybe. Are people going to have trouble processing your comment when they can’t fit it into an existing framing or it’s a framing they disagree with. Absolutely, even if unintentionally. Is that your fault for failing to communicate? No and it’s not even a failure to communicate. It’d be better described as a failure to agree.

    It’s also odd how rare just asking someone a clarifying question is.

    All that being said, I completely respect the idea of taking a break. I wish I could take a break from the world sometimes. The level of gaslighting, propaganda, and mean spirited manipulation is extreme. If you’re feeling that here at least you can take a break from that.

    frosty (f27e97)

  38. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tracy-stone-manning-senate-vote-nomination

    While Cheney is providing the left cover, this administration is filling positions with the most radical leftists that have ever gained power in our government.

    Every Dem senator votes to advance eco-terrorist-linked nominee who endorsed population control

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  39. Why did I post this here? Because I challenge you to look at my interaction with Time and Rip in this thread and the care I take in quoting and sourcing my comments and actually conclude that Demos absurd and insulting comment is accurate in any way. The majority of my comments have reflected my earnest in having a fact filled exchange. I agree that I can sometimes have a snark about me, but that seems to be part of everyone’s comments.

    I believe their is an honest element here and I am always flabbergasted when hyperbole like Demos gets loud applause.

    I do enjoy some of the interchanges but it is becoming masochistic to continue.

    I know I have left before and have come back. I may do so again. Who knows? I do think this is an intelligent group. I just am tired of the undeserved beatings.

    BuDuh (ed513d) — 7/27/2021 @ 9:07 pm

    As long as I can post I’d say you are welcome here. It’s important to have free thinkers who honestly post ideas that are contrary to the preferred narrative. If people wanted the hive mind they could just hang out at the Bulwark.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  40. I don’t know about Banks, but there was good reason for Jim Jordan to not be on the 1/6 panel as Jordan is a subpoena-able witness, just like McCarthy the McCarthy Republican.

    On Fox News, Bret Baier asked Rep. Jim Jordan R-OH a very simple question: Did you talk to President Trump on January 6?

    Baier had to follow up to get the answer – ‘Yes.’

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  41. Paul, Banks is on the same level as Jordan:

    During his weekly show Sunday, Fox News host Chris Wallace faced off with one of the less famous faces of the “big lie” — Rep. Jim Banks. The Indiana Republican not only backed the Texas attorney general’s lawsuit that sought to overturn the election results in four pivotal states, but he also voted to decertify the results in Pennsylvania after a group of Trump supporters ransacked the Capitol in the belief that Trump had been robbed. Those are impeccable “big lie” credentials.

    Dana (174549)

  42. I agree that Banks is every bit the fascist as Jordan, Dana, but there’s no reporting that Banks was in communication with Trump while MAGA zealots were storming the Capitol.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  43. Sadly, this will only be a counting coup by the Democrats. They are far more interested in winning elections than finding truth.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  44. Nothing will change in the GOP until Trump is dead or in a Supermax.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  45. BTW, there’s a good piece here on the coverage of the 1/6 panel.
    I think Pelosi made a mistake to kick Banks off the panel, despite his fascist hyperpartisan creds, but she was right about Jordan. But even if she kicked off just one person, I’m sure McCarthy would’ve pulled all of them because he answers to Trump, and Trump doesn’t want his Republicans on a committee that would investigate the insurrection and his role in it.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  46. What “fraud of the past”? Presidential elections have been fairly clean over the past several generations, especially in this century.

    1960 was pretty iffy; 2000 as well. But these two major parties have the system so tooled over time to their advantage that it is easy to see how it appears to Trumpsters as essentially ‘rigged.’ But history often rhymes, and as the Birchers of our time they will be seduced and used to the fullest advantage before being abandoned one day– just as in 1964.

    Glorious.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  47. Kevin M.- you would make a perfect cellmate for Trump.

    mg (8cbc69)

  48. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/07/the_duplicitous_ruling_elites_have_awakened_the_american_people.html
    This is for all you bulwark republicans. poor poor demo cant handle someone disagreeing with his b.s.

    mg (8cbc69)

  49. Kevin,@45 I’m Reposting this comment from another thread. I’ll judge the hearings as they progress but the first days work was reasonable.

    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)

  50. BuDuh & NJRob, as I said in the other thread I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to characterize your comments as pointless trolling. A fair reading of what you say shows that you’re both trying to articulate a POV you believe to be true and contribute to the conversations. Repeating it in case you missed it.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  51. Wasn’t this more of a general election type of vote rather than a primary vote? I thought Democrats were voting in this special election.

    BuDuh (7bca93) — 7/27/2021 @ 7:57 pm

    It was a general election but the only 2 candidates were both republicans. Because of that it can’t really be compared to a ‘normal’ election and I don’t think it tells us much about Trump’s influence in 2022 general elections.

    I think it’s still silly to argue against Trump being the leader of the GOP and loyalty to him as a person being the central definition of being a republican. It’s his party and the main position is “glory unto Trump”

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  52. 1960 was pretty iffy; 2000 as well.

    Yes, for 1960, but there’s no serious evidence of that in 2000, which was ridiculously close in a single state.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  53. With all these mentions of the Bulwark, I decided to head over there and see what exactly draws so much heated ire. To my surprise, I find the hardly-scary or reactionary Mona Charen dealing some thoughtful analysis…..not quite the Marxist-elite….election-stealing…tirade from the curiously named AmericanThinker….who, if you take the author’s premise to its logical conclusion, sees everything as an existential threat that seems to almost justify a January 6th-like uprising…but I digress.

    What did Mona have to say? Well, as appreciated as Cheney and Kinzinger are in the battle for the truth, they are still responsible for continuously fluffing the January-6th figurative Arsonist-in-Chief…..voting against the first impeachment, supporting Trump’s re-election bid, bemoaning his loss, and providing cover during Trump’s less than optimal Covid response and his myriad of other missteps, misstatements, and bids to polarize us even further. Should they have been taking a stand earlier….much earlier?

    Sure it’s the same lament…different day….but it underscores the political cowardice of GOP politicians and right-wing media types who keep moving Trump’s line of inexcusability….and what could have been if they had taken a different tack when..say…Trump first mocked John McCain’s sacrifice in captivity…and just said enough. Some here will continue to pretend that Jan 6th simply does not matter…it’s overblown….draw false equivalences….make excuses….change the subject. All the while eroding their moral credibility….and not grasping why that credibility matters….why it has to matter. So…fine….the Bulwark, the Dispatch, David French are those irritating little voices out there trying to prick right-wing consciences back to conservative fundamentals…..like rule of law. I applaud their tenacity…..

    AJ_Liberty (a4ff25)

  54. Thee is a detail about 1960 election that has fascinated me for decades:

    The number of popular votes Kennedy received in Alabama is difficult to determine because of the unusual situation there. Instead of having the voters choose from slates of electors, the Alabama ballot had voters choose the electors individually. In such a situation, a given candidate is traditionally assigned the popular vote of the elector who received the most votes. For instance, candidates pledged to Nixon received anywhere from 230,951 votes (for George Witcher) to 237,981 votes (for Cecil Durham); Nixon is therefore assigned 237,981 popular votes from Alabama.

    The situation was more complicated on the Democratic side. The statewide Democratic primary had chosen 11 candidates for the Electoral College, five of whom were pledged to vote for Kennedy and six of whom were free to vote for anyone they chose. All of these candidates won in the general election, and all six unpledged electors voted against Kennedy. The number of popular votes Kennedy received is therefore difficult to calculate. Traditionally, Kennedy is assigned either 318,303 (the votes won by the most popular Kennedy elector) or 324,050 (the votes won by the most popular unpledged Democratic elector); the results table below is based on Kennedy winning 318,303

    So most Alabama Democrats simultaneously voted for Kennedy and against him!

    I think that tradition is wrong, and that Kennedy’s popular vote should somehow be adjusted downward to account for those unpledged electors. But I have been unable to think of a reasonable adjustment — and I have tried.

    (I do think, from having tried adjustments, that Nixon probably won a national popular vote plurality in 1960. Probably.)

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  55. what we’ve found out so far is that none of the capitol’s jan6 undocumented occupants used the fisa court and fbi investigative assets against political opponents

    JF (e1156d)

  56. 74 million are in for a scolding

    No, but I hereby scold all who voted for Trump in a primary.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  57. Republicans Can’t Focus on The Future Without First Reckoning With The Past

    Hey, when will Democrats come to terms with their past support for slavery and Jim Crow? Or their modern support of collectivism? Leading lights in their party still praise Castro and Chavez.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  58. Kevin M.- you would make a perfect cellmate for Trump.

    Um, my crime? Apostatism?

    I’d shiv him asap.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  59. I’m not sure the GOP decision to boycott was a good one.

    In rejecting GOP panel members, Pelosi left them no choice. To participate in a traditions-breaking process would have been to acquiesce in the shattering of those norms.

    What everyone seems to miss is that the reasons one gives for breaking with long-held tradition do not matter. Going forward the rule is shattered and it only mattes who has the votes. There is always a “reason” that appeals to the majority when respecting the minority proves inconvenient.

    We saw this with Reid’s wall-to-wall judicial filibusters. Is there anyone here who would say that it led to a better situation, or that the situation is stable now? Pelosi’s decision to remove minority Congressfolk from a “bipartisan” commission will be returned to the Democrats in detail. And there is no doubt in my mind that the reasons the GOP gives for “why this was necessary” will be criticized by all right-thinking people. Not that those reasons will matter either.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  60. I’m sure McCarthy would’ve pulled all of them because he answers to Trump

    If you think this is the reason, then your analysis is flawed.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  61. “Kevin M.- you would make a perfect cellmate for Trump.”

    I believe the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  62. http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-congressional-kangaroo-court.html#disqus_thread

    …..Now that I got that out of the way, I am going to tell you why I think the House committee to find out the ‘truth’ about what happened on January 6th is little more than political theater.

    This might be shocking to those who see everything right with such a committee. Why on earth would we not want to know exactly what happened on January 6th when a group of Trump supporters, led by locked and loaded right wing extremist militias stormed the capital?!

    The truth is I agree that it is important to know the facts. We need to know exactly what happened, who is responsible, and at what level. But a highly partisan committee filled entirely with people on record as blaming the President for this is hardly the way to find that out. If there was ever a congressional version of a kangaroo court, this is it. They all ‘know’ the President is guilty and they are determined to prove it. This committee is about as impartial as would be a jury consisting entirely of KKK members judging a black man accused of a raping a white woman.

    Even without this committee, it is not too hard to see that the former President shares some blame for what happened….But it is is also well known that various right wing extremists militias had planned this all along. They had coordinated with each other on how to execute it long before that day. They came armed and ready. So when the former President made those comments, they took it as a cue from their President [I think they used it as an argument to get people to join in, but the people who said that knew they were lying and Trump was not asking for that -SF] to proceed with their coordinated plans and broke in. They were then followed in by many of the rest of the Trump supporters that showed up that day.

    That pretty much sums up what happened. Trump did not plan this nor did he want it to happen. I agree that a deeper dive needs to be made into all the facts of the case to discover exactly who was responsible and how much. But this is not the committee to do that.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  63. (I do think, from having tried adjustments, that Nixon probably won a national popular vote plurality in 1960. Probably.)

    The main adjustment should be for the historically-accepted fraud that occurred in Chicago, where enough votes were manufactured by the machine to flip IL into the D column. In the end, JFK won the state by less than 9,000 votes; partial recounts show that Democrat’s votes in all contests were inflated by “miscounts” of ballots.

    It was not pursued because JFK had enough electoral votes without IL (but no one knew that would be the case on election night where all the trends pointed to Nixon winning). While many Republicans wanted Nixon to contest the election in IL and several other states, Nixon demurred and conceded a few days after the election.

    A recent study has thrown some doubt on the IL fraud claim however.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Illinois

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  64. AJ_Liberty (a4ff25) — 7/28/2021 @ 6:39 am

    I agree that credibility matters. But the problem is no one has any. The True Cons, or whoever we’re calling the right-wing conservative fundamentalists, prior to Trump had repeatedly advocated for positions but would subsequently undermine themselves. Is there any doubt when you hear immigration reform from a True Con you’re hearing someone who will eventually advocate for amnesty? I’m open to an almost unrestricted immigration policy. Something most True Cons would label open borders so I’m not criticizing the policy. I’m saying they are inconsistent and that undermines their credibility. They’re doing this because it’s part of the game. They need to convince the rubes to vote R just enough so that to maintain the status quo. That keeps everyone watching the R v D game on TV while they’re being robbed IRL.

    The never-ending “this isn’t the hill to die on” routine is how we got Trump. Over the years I’ve seen several of these True Cons move around enough that it’s hard to believe they are motivated by any set of “conservative fundamentals”.

    The problem with this 1/6 commission is that it’s so obviously partisan that joining it isn’t a credibility builder. Not joining it doesn’t help much either if you can’t distance yourself from the other extreme.

    frosty (f27e97)

  65. DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 7/27/2021 @ 6:38 pm

    Start w/WMD… and Iraq.

    Her father asked the CIA ro double check that story about Saddam Hussein trying to buy uranium ore from Niger and the CIA didn’t do it. Instead they sent Joe Wilson on a nonsense mission to Niger, where he reported informally that Niger could not have successfully sold yellowcake to Iraq without it being known – but that was not the question. The question was about the authenticity of documents in Italy saying that Saddam Hussein had agreed at one point to buy Iranium from Niger.

    And when the New York Times’ Judith Miller asked Scooter Libby why the CIA selected Joe Wilson for that mission, and he started asking around, the CIA told people in the U.S. government that it was because his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA. Which was a lie.

    And when columnist Bob Novak reported that lie, the CIA or others made an accusation that the fact that his wife worked for the CIA was made public in retaliation for his (misleading) New York Times Op-ed piece after the invasion – and how this compromised her, which it didn’t since the reason she was no longer a field agent is that it was presumed her affiliation was known.

    And a special prosecutor was appointed (actually special counsel) was appointed because George W. Bush didn’t want an accusation that could impugn his administration hanging over him And he told all his appointees not to take the 5th amendment – the day you take the 5th amendment, you resign.

    And Scooter Libby was among the persons asked about when he learned that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA ad he lied because, I think, he thought he was doing too important a job and the whole thing was irrelevant, since Judith Miller had published nothing about it, so why should Richard Cheney, and the nation, lose out on his services?

    And he was tried and convicted but George W. Bush commuted his jail sentence (leaving other penalties alone) and on April 13, 2018, President Donald Trump pardoned him. By that time Scooter Libby had received back his law license. But he’ll have a lot of trouble ever being confirmed by the Senate for any federal job.

    What publicizing that she worked at CIA HQ did was make it possible for the CIA’s explanation for sending Joe Wilson to Niger to be eventually be exposed as lie (and the CIA didn;t want that to happen because it would back the question of why was Joe Wilson sent to Niger. But that never happened because that was too much in the weeds for almost anyone.

    The CIA did not want the intelligence to be exposed as faulty.

    And it was probably created by Saddam Hussein because, if true, it would mean that Saddam Hussein;s nuclear weapons program was set so far back that he didn’t even have any more enriched uranium – that he had to go back to Square One. The forged documents weakened the case for war with Iraq since none of it said that Iraq had actually gotten the uranium.

    But people were too stupid or caught up in the thinking , to see it. By the way, Iraq has its own uranium.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  66. * The CIA didn;t want the cpver story that Joe Wilson was sent to Niger because Valerie Plame was his wfe tp be exposed as a lie, because it would bring back the question of why was Joe Wilson sent to Niger. Which was to avid retracting the intelligence that Dick Cheney had questions about.

    Which intelligence actually weakened the case for war, but too many people were too dumb to see it.

    Yes, Saddam Hussein showed up as more motivated but also less capable of building an atomic bomb.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  67. I’m sure McCarthy would’ve pulled all of them because he answers to Trump

    Then why did he put them on in the first place?

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  68. these officers won—they held the line and defended our democracy

    Wonder how he feels about the officers deployed against Antifa

    Hoi Polloi (093fb9)

  69. Then why did he put them on in the first place?

    You are expecting employment of critical thinking skills, Sammy? Dammit, it’s because he answers to Trump!

    Colonel Haiku (c76994)

  70. Hoi Polloi (093fb9) — 7/28/2021 @ 9:44 am

    Wonder how he feels about the officers deployed against Antifa

    What Antifa attacked wasn’t all that important. Just little people, and mostly minorities.

    Besides he was only dimly aware of what Antifa was attacking; it might as well have been in Hong Kong or South Africa to him;, and the assault on the Capitol or its police, was vividly brought home to Adam Kinzinger yesterday.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  71. I’m sure McCarthy would’ve pulled all of them because he answers to Trump

    Pelosi did what she did because she knew that no minority leader would put up with it. She wanted a one-sided panel so that she could shape the outcome however she wanted.

    I repeat, this is not a “Search for Truth.” It’s a campaign commercial.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  72. Any of the testimony yesterday that you didn’t think was appropriate or accurate?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  73. 72. Trump only told him later?

    I think Kevn McCarthy was willing to compromise, or wanted the status of Republicans in the House to be stronger. Not lettng him pick who would be the Republicans on the committee was going too far for him to accept.

    If it had been only Jordan maybe he might have agreed to replace him with another person who voted not to accept all the Electoral votes.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  74. “No, but I hereby scold all who voted for Trump in a primary.”

    You should find a new hobby that produces something other than righteous and justified hatred for you and anyone else acting like you, extreme willingness to destroy any institutions that ever employed you, and other such Civil-War type sentiments. Those who did nothing for rank-and-file Republicans before Trump do not get to act like born-again deadbeat dads come to save their kids from the bad influence after him.

    Dry drunk Chi (1a5e77)

  75. The problem with this 1/6 commission is that it’s so obviously partisan that joining it isn’t a credibility builder.

    Whose fault is that? Republicans could have had an independent, nonpartisan commission. Democrats gave them everything they asked for as to the terms of the commission. Then Republicans voted against it because the party has put itself in thrall to a malignant narcissist, and politicians are afraid of angering his cult followers.

    McCarthy chose to seat people on the select committee who obviously wanted to sabotage it, one of whom is a potential material witness. When Pelosi rejected them, McCarthy did his little tantrum move, thus achieving what he and most of the GOP wanted all along: a pretext to claim that an investigation of 1/6 is fundamentally, inescapably a partisan witch-hunt.

    If Republican politicians on the whole had behaved more honorably between November 3 and January 6, they would have less reason to worry that an investigation might shine an unflattering light on them.

    As for the notion that joining the committee “isn’t a credibility builder”: In whose eyes? Trumplicans have made it abundantly clear that their standard for judging credibility boils down to being pro-Trump, always and unconditionally.

    Trumplicans weren’t offended or unsettled by Trump’s boast that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any voters. Instead, they’ve been determined to prove him correct.

    When they see a small handful of their former allies displaying the integrity and moral courage they have thrown away (if they had it), they lash out by calling such people traitors and backstabbers and grifters and Deep State hacks who are working with the evil Ruling Class to squash The American People, i.e. the people who voted for Trump, rounded up to 75 million — but gliding over the fact that a fair number of Trump voters were not on board with his post-election shenanigans and are not apologists for the 1/6 rioters. Gotta keep those numbers, while simultaneously excommunicating anyone who has the temerity to criticize Donald Trump or his most violent loyalists.

    Radegunda (a28ce8)

  76. She wanted a one-sided panel so that she could shape the outcome however she wanted.

    Republicans had their chance for a balanced, nonpartisan commission, and they rejected it. They know that the most balanced, dispassionate investigation conceivable would make a number of Republicans — and especially the party’s de facto leader — look bad.

    McCarthy had a chance to make good-faith choices for the select committee, but he chose to signal that he wanted to gum up the investigation. In that light, I can’t rustle up a lot of outrage over Pelosi calling his bluff.

    It’s also fascinating to observe that any Republican who’s serious about investigating 1/6 — rather than trying to pin it on Pelosi (for allegedly failing to provide enough security against the Trumpist mob), or hoping to find some FBI agents behind it all — automatically becomes one of “the other side,” i.e. a Democrat.

    The only outcome acceptable to Trumplicans is that Trump and his loyalists must be pronounced innocent, and they must be judged the real victims. Anyone who won’t support that narrative is an enemy of all that is righteous in the eyes of Trumplicans.

    Radegunda (a28ce8)

  77. 55. Nah. 2000– ‘hanging chads’ … SCOTUS involved. What Dubya & Cheney did was ‘move in’ right away w/a transition team and say ‘screw you, we won’ -and put Gore on the defensive and he didn’t have the balls to fight it– the typical Democrat ‘soup ladle to a gunfight’ bit. Both these parties have rigged this system too long- thanks to the finance of special interests, dark money and so on– and results have been ‘disappointing’ to voters stuck with choices which make a Trump type… or even a Putin type, appealing. That pool of 74 million-plus pissed off voters has likely grown now given inflation and the muddled messaging on Covid. But hopes are muted; the GOP has no Gipper this time to make a run for the goal line.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  78. No, but I hereby scold all who voted for Trump in a primary.

    The GOP brought it on themselves; tried to peddle what— 15 or 16 weenies against an albeit it fatty New York Porterhouse “T” boner.

    “Where’s the beef?” – Clara Pell, Wendy’s TV ad, 1984.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  79. I believe the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

    What was ‘cruel and unusual’ for the now long deal quillers of 1789 isn’t necessarily applicable in 2024. Unless you feel we should still be hanging horse thieves from sour apple trees.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  80. 55. Nah. 2000– ‘hanging chads’ … SCOTUS involved.

    That’s not an example of fraud, DCSCA, it’s an example of two political parties fighting tooth and nail to get their candidate across the finish line first. No crimes were committed and, if anything, they were establishing which questionable ballots were legal votes or not.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  81. 83. Crime? Fraud? With those voting machines? Who says- we’ll never know. The ‘crime’ is self-evident– and it fueled the inevitably of a Trump.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  82. ‘These two elected officials do the Republican Party, and Americans, proud.’

    No Dana. The timing, make up and politics involved in this show make participation by any Republican a sadomasochist type of masterbatory exercise. Truth is certainly not the object of this hearing.

    Richbert88 (ddc02c)

  83. My God… if 81 year old Nancy Pelosi was an ol’French poodle; you’d have the vet ‘send her to a farm upstate.’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  84. With those voting machines? Who says- we’ll never know. The ‘crime’ is self-evident…

    That’s the same mentality (which I reject) of the Trump cultists who are convinced he won yet don’t have a lick of legitimate evidence. Of course Trump won! It’s self-evident! Damn the facts (or the lack)!

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  85. Any of the testimony yesterday that you didn’t think was appropriate or accurate?

    Didn’t watch it, but my complaint is about the full truth, not the Speaker’s truth. Without a diversity of viewpoints on the committee, you will just get what they want you to get. One hand clapping.

    As I’ve said before the reasons why Pelosi scuttled the normal rules don’t matter — she did it and no minority leader could have gone along and held his caucus. She did not have to do this — she could have just used the rules that the independent committee was supposed to have. But she wanted a lopsided committee and she got one.

    Kevin M (a981b5)

  86. R.I.P. Dusty Hill, bassist & vocalist for ZZ Top

    Icy (6abb50)

  87. Dry drunk Chi (1a5e77) — 7/28/2021 @ 9:58 am

    I say this sincerely: F.O.

    Kevin M (a981b5)

  88. Kevin, got it. I think we’re getting closer and closer to a parliamentary system where the minority party mostly just raises funds of grievance.

    I just hope when we get there we still get to use election to pick the congress.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  89. @89, that’s a bummer. He was cool.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  90. Completely off-topic:

    AG raids [NM House majority leader’s] home amid criminal probe

    Short version: NM has a part-time legislature (typically 2 months). Ms Stapleton directs technical education for the ABQ public schools (APS). Some years ago, she awarded a sole source contract to a company with which, it turns out, she has significant outside business dealings with and has received over a million (undisclosed) dollars from this firm. It provided crapware to APS, but she resisted all efforts by teachers to use something else.

    Investigators from the Attorney General’s Office served search warrants on the home of Rep. Sheryl Williams Stapleton and her employer, the Albuquerque Public Schools, on Wednesday as part of a sweeping investigation into Williams Stapleton’s financial relationship and possible kickback scheme with a district vendor that has been paid millions of dollars.

    The search warrant affidavit says the AG’s Office is conducting a “criminal investigation of racketeering, money laundering, receiving illegal kickback, and violations of the Governmental Conduct Act.”

    Williams Stapleton, a Democrat, is House Majority Leader and a longtime employee of APS, where she is Coordinator and Director of Career and Technical Education at APS.

    According to the search warrant affidavit, investigators have found bank records showing businesses and charities Williams Stapleton either owns or has an interest in received more than $950,000 from Washington, D.C.-based Robotics Management Learning Systems LLC dating back to 2012. The money was in the form of payments to her family’s restaurant, A Taste of the Caribbean; a consulting firm, S. Williams Associates; and two charities that listed the president of Robotics, Joseph F. Johnson, as president and Williams Stapleton as secretary and treasurer.

    Kevin M (a981b5)

  91. If she did it I hope she rots in jail after flipping on everyone else involved.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  92. Whose fault is that? Republicans could have had an independent, nonpartisan commission. Democrats gave them everything they asked for as to the terms of the commission. Then Republicans voted against it because the party has put itself in thrall to a malignant narcissist, and politicians are afraid of angering his cult followers.

    Pelosi’s and Pelosi’s alone. She could have implemented the exact same terms previously offered by her own command. But instead, she wanted to humiliate the minority leader, he said no deal and walked out. The two GOP members of this committee are serving their last term in Congress, and not because they despise Trump, but because they left the Party.

    Kevin M (a981b5)

  93. I just hope when we get there we still get to use election to pick the congress.

    In some places they are appointed by the legislature now, when districts are drawn.

    Kevin M (a981b5)

  94. Note that this is a Democrat AG, under a Democrat governor, going after the Democrat House leader, based on complaints from the APS Superintendent. Her state disclosure forms listed none of this income, which is a crime in itself.

    Kevin M (a981b5)

  95. @96, I’m not a fan of gerrymandering.
    @95, could she? I thought they needed to pass a law giving the commission subpoena power. Can the house do that solo without senate buy in? Also, if the GOP refuses to pass that as a law what’s the basis to expect that when it comes time to pick members the GOP will pick independent and qualified people and not say; Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, etc.?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  96. Mccarthy is controlled opposition just waiting to nuzzle in private with Pelosi.
    He is the ultimate Pelosi collectivist.

    mg (8cbc69)

  97. “Pelosi’s and Pelosi’s alone. She could have implemented the exact same terms previously offered by her own command. But instead, she wanted to humiliate the minority leader, he said no deal and walked out.”

    Wrong. By opposing the initial bi-partisan deal, the Republicans made it clear that they were not interested in an impartial inquiry, and would rather spin fairy tales and conspiracy theories. The blame here lies with republican intransigence.

    Davethulhu (aa6793)

  98. Dana/JVW/Patterico, I think threats of violence violence are against the commenting policy. Can you take a look at 101?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  99. @90. Dry drunk Chi (1a5e77) — 7/28/2021 @ 9:58 am
    I say this sincerely: F.O.

    Beclowning snark, Kevin?!?!?!

    ‘Pshaw-ff!’ would have been a tidier retort. 😉

    “New York abstains, courteously.” – Lewis Morris [Howard Caine] ‘1776’ 1972

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  100. @102. Meh. Heated exchanges; there was some dude on here a while back who once posted wanting to me to die in a fire. He was probably lit already hizzelf. Water off a ducks back. =quack!= 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  101. They are politically dead dodos. The republican party doesn’t care. Every day its the same thing the whining of the rejected. How many times do you have to be told don’t let the door hit you on the way out! Call the whaaaumbulence!

    asset (27e2c9)

  102. McCarthy.

    [ ] – infamous drunken Redbaiter

    [ ] – wooden headed wisecracker w/a hand up the butt

    [ ] – next Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

    Choose.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  103. Happy to hear you had no answer to the argument outside of derision and denial.

    Yes, it’s so much better to simply ignore the question, like you did yesterday, so I’ll ask again: What’s your proof that the election was “stolen”?

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  104. @107. You could probably make an argument that they’re “rigged” – given both big party histories and controls….and the Trumpets sound off on that with a loud clear note… so it doesn’t take much to infer they’re ‘stolen’ as well from their songbook. But the tune is a reach.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  105. Kevin M (a981b5) — 7/28/2021 @ 12:51 pm

    Yes, and well said.

    frosty (f27e97)

  106. mg (8cbc69) — 7/28/2021 @ 1:05 pm

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  107. Maybe I’ll get to see you and your families, business associates, and acquaintances treated like Loyalists in the streets sooner rather than later.

    You threatened me once, and I responded with all the attention it deserved. Now you threaten me and my family and think I will have anything civil to respond to you with.

    Dana, can you get rid of this turd.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  108. Of course, he’s on a VPN. There are plugins to block those: https://wordpress.org/plugins/proxy-vpn-blocker/

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  109. Note that this is a Democrat AG, under a Democrat governor, going after the Democrat House leader, based on complaints from the APS Superintendent. Her state disclosure forms listed none of this income, which is a crime in itself.

    Kevin M (a981b5) — 7/28/2021 @ 12:56 pm

    Shades of Manny Aragon–she must have been a very bad girl to get her own party on her case.

    New Mexico’s patron system has never really died out. Even the Santa Fe Ring was a Anglicized form of that same system.

    For a second there, I became excited and thought it was that arrogant neo-yuppie slimebag Brian Egolf who got pinched, but I temporarily got the House Majority Leader position mixed up with the Speaker.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  110. Kevin M,

    Deleted. I’ll ban him tomorrow. I only saw comment 101, was there another?

    Dana (174549)

  111. “The abusive treatment of 1/6 defendants — imprisoned before trial in solitary — is largely ignored due to fear of being accused of sympathizing with them if you object:

    Just as neocons accused those who objected to the abuses of the 1st War on Terror of sympathy for Al Qaeda.”
    Glen Greenwald

    Good thread on something being largely ignored by many conservatives.

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1420391538081865735?s=20

    Obudman (761164)

  112. People voting themselves the property of others is as good a way as any to make sure the “haves” outnumber the “havenots” at the polls. And better than most.

    That’s where Venezuela, Nicaragua, and all the other sh!tholes toying with democracy went wrong. Give the suffrageriat a stake in the status quo before you give it the franchise.

    nk (1d9030)

  113. #114 Glenn Greenwald is consistent in his attacks on America and other democracies — and his support of “Czar” Putin. If you are pro Putin, you’ll love Greenwald.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  114. 100 or mg, puhleez…McCarthy has documented evidence, or receipts, of way better taste.

    urbanleftbehind (654a1d)

  115. There’s some real questions as to how the Capitol Police worked.

    And in oarticular how and why the Capitol Police’s intelligence division changed its assessment after January3 to the point of declaring that even the rally at the Ellipse was highly improbable!

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  116. From the Senate report page 45-6:

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

    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 …. 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 ….

    …Ms. Pittman did not acknowledge the internal inconsistencies, telling the Committees that
    she believes “anyone assessing the report would have to read the report in its entirety.”268 When
    pressed on whether the “Bottom Line Up Front” section captured the known likelihood of
    violence, as detailed in later sections of the January 3 Special Assessment, Ms. Pittman
    responded, “I think the report itself captures what [IICD] was trying to share with [USCP] in
    terms of what we may have been facing regarding the violence.

    Ms. Pittman is Yogananda Pittman, Acting Chief, U.S. Capitol Police after the riot.

    There are things that get to Spealer Pelosi personally, like protecting a patronage employee maybe.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  117. Now wildprotest.com had a website:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20210106005050/https://wildprotest.com

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  118. Jim Miller (edcec1) — 7/29/2021 @ 7:50 am

    So, you’re saying the abuses in the WoT and detention details for people charged related to 1/6 are American? Being a true American and not a putin stooge means f’yea we get to do whatever so shutup?

    frosty (f27e97)

  119. I think he’s saying that greenwald’s previous work and association with Putin are reason to question his credibility and be skeptical of how he characterizes the situation.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  120. The soft spoken, fascistic concern troll rides again…

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  121. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/29/2021 @ 8:45 am

    The facts are still the facts. A person doing their own critical thinking doesn’t decide something is ok because greenwald thinks it isn’t.

    @116 is a vanilla ad hominem. It doesn’t address any material aspect of @114.

    This is how you get the complete idiocy of “the lab leak hypo is nonsense because Trump mentioned it”.

    frosty (f27e97)

  122. Dana, I’m getting tired of ignoring CH’s habitual insults and snide comments. Is his comment at 123 and the others like it within the commenting guidlines? If they are, fine, I’ll live with it or respond in kind. But calling me a ‘fascistic concern troll’ is an insult.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  123. Frosty, it’s close to an Ad Hom but I think it misses the mark as much of what GG is saying isn’t straight factual reporting, it’s characterization. Ill speak for myself, but I think it’s in line with Jim

    I’m not not saying “Ignore this study or data that GG has published that shows how many were held in solitary and shows how they’re being held to a different standard then others detained for similar charges” I’m saying “GG has a demonstrated antipathy to the US and you shouldn’t trust his opinions or characterization about US actions.”

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  124. Pelosi to McCarthy: “He’s a moron.”

    Americans to Pelosi: Morons spend $15 for a pint of ice cream.

    You 81-year-old idiot.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  125. #121 frosty – If you have an open mind on these questions, I would suggest you read Michael Hayden’s Playing to the Edge.

    I agree with his conclusion that:

    Some writers were hopelessly agenda-driven ([Tim] Weiner, Jane Mayer, and later Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras come to mind).

    And what is Greenwald’s agenda? Let me answer the question this way: I know of no story he has done that has damaged “Czar” Putin’s regime, and more than one that have helped Putin.

    If you know of a Greenwald story that damaged Putin, share it.

    Does that mean that Greenwald’s latest is wrong? Not necessarily. But it does mean that we should treat anything he produces with great skepticism, and assume he is not telling us the whole truth, unless we can verify what he says, independently.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  126. Off topic, but I think some light relief is needed: It was great to see the American basketball team beat the Iranians. But I can’t help wishing it hadn’t been so close (120-66).

    And it is also great to see Iranians who are competing for other nations (Mongolia), or as independents, win medals.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  127. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/29/2021 @ 9:13 am

    It is textbook ad-hom and @129 continues the example. Nothing in any of those comments touches on the issues brought up in @114. @129 is actually extending the deflection because Jim really wants the discussion to be about GG/putin himself and not about the subject of his statement. Ironically, we’ve almost reached the point where he’s literally proving GG’s point for him. There’s already a strong implication here along the lines of “so, you say you care about something critical of the US/DOJ? you know putin is also critical of the US.” All we need now is “what? are you on the side of the insurrectionists?”

    GG is saying isn’t straight factual reporting, it’s characterization

    This has absolutely nothing to do with whether instead of addressing someone’s argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

    My comment was pure mockery and it’s what ad-hom deserves. A possible non-ad-hom response to @114 would address whether the 1/6 pre-trial detentions are valid or supportable, i.e. something related to the detentions. That is being vigorously avoided.

    frosty (f27e97)

  128. Correction: Iranian exile Kimia Alizadeh won a medal in Rio, and, playing for the Refugee Team, just missed winning a medal at Tokyo.

    (I don’t know whether to be happy that the Olympics has a Refugee Team, or sad that we need one.)

    Saeid Mollaei, competing for Mongolia, won a silver, so I was half right.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  129. @126 pot, kettle

    JF (e1156d)

  130. GG is saying isn’t straight factual reporting, it’s characterization

    This has absolutely nothing to do with whether instead of addressing someone’s argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

    You’re wrong. The character and history of a person that offers their opinion matters. Especially since he’s provided no facts to support his opinion.

    A possible non-ad-hom response to @114 would address whether the 1/6 pre-trial detentions are valid or supportable, i.e. something related to the detentions. That is being vigorously avoided.

    Neither you, nor greenwald, nor the Washington Examiner (typically a good paper) have laid out a fact based case that pre-trail detention or solitary confinement is being used excessively or in a way that is atypical for these detainees.

    How many have been arrested?
    How many have been denied bail? Of those are any of the denial unusual?
    How many have had unreasonable bail conditions?

    Answering that would take some reporting work. I’ve been looking and haven’t see this kind of break down, just broad generalization.I have seen lots of opinion articles by the likes of Greenwald. He’s the one who says it’s a problem. He’s the one who can do the work to support his case.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  131. Greenwald and Taibbi really upset the leftists… i.e., people who can’t tolerate the opinions of dissidents.

    126… for the record, that had NOTHING to do with you.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  132. @126. But calling me a ‘fascistic concern troll’ is an insult.

    OTOH such a verbal ‘fowl’ could make you appear wholly Churchillian, Time123:

    “Some chicken, some neck” was a reference to the sneering comment by French Marshal Philippe Pétain, future leader of the collaborationist Vichy French government who was convinced that Germany would successfully invade Britain as it had done France. He told Churchill that in three weeks Britain would “have its neck wrung like a chicken.” – source,wikiWinnie.extracripy.yummy

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  133. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/29/2021 @ 10:57 am

    The character and history of a person that offers their opinion matters.

    This part not so much. Arguments stand or fall on their own. You may personally be willing to ignore an issue that someone you don’t like brings up. That’s a different issue.

    Especially since he’s provided no facts to support his opinion.

    Yes! How was that not obvious? Why did that take multiple comments? What does that have to do with Putin or the price of rice in China? Nothing.

    Now, you’ve listed a number of points but let’s look at his original contention:

    The abusive treatment of 1/6 defendants … is largely ignored due to fear of being accused of sympathizing with them

    of your points;

    I’ve been looking and haven’t see this kind of break down, just broad generalization.

    This would tend to confirm GG’s point, i.e. that this is being ignored.

    Neither you

    I’m not trying to support or contest the original point. I’m calling out an ad-hom.

    nor greenwald, nor the Washington Examiner (typically a good paper) have laid out a fact based case that pre-trail detention

    This is fair. Technically, this isn’t his point. He should provide data on the lack of reporting on the subject. Showing that it’s an actual problem would be a good first step there.

    Again, what does that have to do with Putin or the price of rice in China? Nothing.

    I have seen lots of opinion articles by the likes of Greenwald

    Your argument is that you don’t need to consider whether this is an issue at all because it’s being brought up by someone you don’t trust. Good luck with that.

    frosty (f27e97)

  134. Frosty, GG has a history of attacking the US with little basis for his critique, here is another example of him doing so, and I’m saying “GG has little credibility here so I’m not going to waste much time on his unsupported accusation.” .

    Before you can claim that something is being ignored you first need to establish that it exists. That burden hasn’t been met and I don’t take GG’s assertion as fact. The fact that the construction of his conversation is “Look how the US ignores the horrible thing that i allege they do.” is in character for him.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  135. CH, then who were you calling a soft spoken fascist troll?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  136. frosty – I am going to try one more time, as a favor to you: I think, judging by his long record, it is rational to be skeptical of what Glenn Greenwald writes, more skeptical than we should be about most journalists.

    Do you agree, or disagree?

    I think Greenwald has sided so often with Putin that it is rational to suspect Greenwald’s motives, especially since Greenwald claims to be a supporter of human rights. (I noticed you have been unable to come up with a single instance where Greenwald opposed Putin.)

    Do you agree, or disagree?

    I think it rational to give most of my time reading the news to journalists I respect. (Unless, of course, I am writing a critique.)

    Do you follow a similar rule? Why or why not?

    Finally, I think it my obligation as a citizen to warn others about bias and hidden motives in the news, just as I would warn them about a restaurant that had a poor safety record.)

    (There is an interesting parallel in what happened in the 2019 UK general election.

    Jeremy Corbyn had been siding with Britain’s enemies for decades, often ostensibly for “human rights” reasons. British voters came to a conclusion about him, just as I have about Greenwald, and decided to stop listening to him. The result was what I have called a “negative landslide”; Corbyn’s Labour Party lost almost 8 percent of the popular vote, falling to 32.1 percent, while the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish National Party all gained in vote share.

    I think the voters were right to draw conclusions from the years-long pattern of Corbyn’s behavior. I would like to think frosty would agree with me on that, but I may be disappointed.)

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  137. Based on a cursory review of the DoJ Capitol Breaches List, six are being held without bond, with the vast majority out on some sort of personal recognizance bond, home detention and monitoring, etc.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  138. @140 greenwald’s problem is that he’s not anti-trump and pro-biden

    it’s got nothing to do with putin

    but surely you’d have to be circling in putin’s orbit to tweet something like this:

    “This is genuinely a huge gift to Putin: Biden is waiving sanctions which will effectively allow Germany to buy natural gas from the Russian pipeline.
    Trump spent years trying to sabotage this deal: crucial to Russian interests. Biden is allowing it.”

    and to take issue with it, because greenwald tweeted it, establishes your anti-putin cred

    JF (e1156d)

  139. Jim Miller (edcec1) — 7/29/2021 @ 12:38 pm

    I’m not arguing anything in favor, or against, GG.

    I can only point at @137 in the hopes of avoiding another long post. If I didn’t make my point clear there I don’t think I can do a better job.

    frosty (f27e97)

  140. I think we can safely assume that Greenwald is not an honest person. That doesn’t mean every fact or factoid he cites is wrong but it may make his general conclusions or bottom line almost always unfounded, and/or he may bring things up for a bad reason.

    And sometimes he may provide leads to other more reliable sources.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  141. They didn’t help many people in Venezuela and Nicaragua, but they did run huge patronage operations.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  142. Frosty and Jim, this is just a single data point, but it’s an example of why I’m saying GG (and others) need to prove their assertions about how the Insurrectionists are being treated.

    One of the ones not accused of violent crimes was just given permission to travel to Cancun while out on bail. For the record,I think this is entirely proper if the judge feels he will show up for trial.

    https://twitter.com/macfarlanenews/status/1421062514737967104?s=21

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  143. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/30/2021 @ 5:07 am

    I agreed that GG needed to provide data. I also tried to make it as clear as I could that I was not arguing in support of GG’s position. Can I say that any differently?

    My issue was with this obvious and ridiculous ad-hoc. It’s not a good way to argue a point. It makes it clear that you’d rather go for the personal attack than try to make a meaningful response.

    wrt your comment; a single example of a non-violent offender being allowed to travel wouldn’t address the issue if it existed and using a non-violent offender doesn’t show it doesn’t exist. Taking the original quote as an example this would be like pointing out that there are a lot of brown people in the ME that we didn’t bomb, round up and water board, or send to gitmo. You’re also making the “we need data” argument after Rip gave you the numbers for people being detained.

    Even if I completely agreed with you you’re still poorly arguing the point. If you know that some people are still being detained everything you and Jim have said is beside the point. It is literally evading the point. You’ve got the data now and if you wanted to address the underlying issue it would involve the reasons surrounding the detention of those people.

    But again; I’m not arguing that those people are being unjustly detained. This started out with me mocking the ad-hoc and keeps going because you’re oblivious to that.

    frosty (f27e97)

  144. it’s Donkey Sweat Friday!

    Colonel Haiku (b35858)

  145. Re: something said on another thread:

    I don’t believe that those among the “insurrectionists” who could justifiably be termed fascist (a la Mussolini’s March on Rome in 1922) are Trump cultists, because Trump cultists actually believe Trump won the election. And thought that they were going in to stop the steal and opposing treason and traitors and supporting democracy and self government.

    The “fascists” or their leaders, might have been corrupt, tho

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  146. Frosty, My link wasn’t intended to prove GG is wrong It was intended to show that my skepticism is based on more then just his track record. Also, we talked about that yesterday and it hit my feed today.

    You’ve been very clear you’re not directly supporting him. I don’t think he’s credible enough here that his unsupported assertion needs to be disproven.

    I’m familiar with the site DOJ Rip linked. It would be a good starting point for anyone that wanted to research and report this situation. Next step, if a person were motivated, would be to show that people still in custody were there unjustly and unusually.

    As an aside
    I’ve long thought that the criminal justice system needed reforms, Radly Balko has been covering that beat for a long time if you’re interested. But his attention to detail could sometimes be better. How we do bail and pre-tial detention is one area we could improve. Penalties for LEO that get things wrong could be improved also. But these are both tangential.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  147. But again; I’m not arguing that those people are being unjustly detained. This started out with me mocking the ad-hoc and keeps going because you’re oblivious to that.

    Pointing out that a person making an unsupported accusation lacks credibility in that area with they are opining isn’t an Ad-Hom attack. Saying, i won’t evaluate their argument or look at their data because of who they are is.

    For example If Alex Jones says “I think those people are crisis actors.” But provides no evidence then dismissing it because of his past isn’t an ad hom attack.

    Time123 (9f42ee)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5397 secs.