New Video Footage from the January 6 Committee
If you think the illegal parts of the Jan 6 event was a few extremists that had nothing to do with Donald Trump, I dare you to watch this video in full.
Read this report also from The Dispatch. https://thedispatch.com/p/primetime-hearing-focuses-on-the?s=r
The idea that the election was stolen had inherently low probably from the first moment it was suggested. Nothing that has emerged since has raised that probability at all.
You can also listen to alanysis of the hearings here: https://podcast.thedispatch.com/p/january-6-committee-makes-their-case?…
Will the Democrats try to use the hearings for political advantage? Of course. Will they overreach? Probably. None of that is going to change the reality of the self-centered lawlessness Trump advocated after the election.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The link did not work for me.
Thanks! That worked.
I think link is fixed in the original post now…. hopefully.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Pretty much what I expected. Anyone who breached the Capitol and/or assaulted an officer that day should be charged with the applicable crime(s) and prosecuted accordingly, or at least with the same vigor as those who burned federal courtrooms and assaulted officers during the 2020 Summer of Love riots.
I must say, though, that was a slickly produced video. It pays to hire a professional. There were a few things missing that may not have supported the propaganda piece, err, narrative, err, the message. Video of the president saying, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” probably wouldn’t look good, but it was probably just pre-planned code to storm the Capitol. Video of the police holding doors open - that was probably just the Proud Boys dressed as police officers, anyway.
To recap, I have no patience or tolerance for those who breached the Capitol, but treating the 1/6 committee as a serious quest for truth and justice is laughable at best and deserving of ridicule. Members of the committee (Thompson, Raskin) who issued objections to certifying previous elections now want to punish those that objected in 2020? Disallowing participation by certain elected representatives because they may not parrot the narrative disqualifies the committee’s legitimacy and “threatens our democracy.” It’s a joke. It’s a show trial plain and simple.
On another note, SI often posts filings about hot cultural issues, yet I haven’t seen anything related to a recent documentary that has caused quite a stir by asking the simple question, “What is a woman?” Anything in the works?
Not that anything else needed to be said, but in case Aaron or anyone else still thinks that the 1/6 committee is a serious endeavor and interested in getting to the truth, this article about Rep. Barry Loudermilk should help dispel that myth.
From the article: “Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger said the activities of a group of Georgia Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk’s constituents who visited the complex the day before the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack were not suspicious.
Manger wrote to Loudermilk’s colleague, House Administration ranking member Rodney Davis, R-Ill., and said “there is no evidence” Loudermilk entered the Capitol with the group on Jan. 5, 2021.
Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., a member of the Jan. 6 select committee, said Tuesday he didn’t read the Manger letter and that he wants to “show the video” footage.”
Who are you gonna believe? The hyper-partisan sworn police chief with an axe to grind or the unbiased Democrat congressman who clearly just wants to get to the bottom of the unvarnished truth by completely ignoring said partisan LEO?
This is not merely “trying to use the hearings for political advantage.” This is not mere “overreach.” These people are bent on destroying others regardless of the consequences.
I wish that the same level of vitriol directed by some here at SI at the former president (some, deservedly) would also be focused by the same people at the authoritarians regardless of party who will stop at nothing in their quest for power. Where’s the consistent standard of treatment? Where’s the righteous judgment?
But that’s not the David French brand of conservativism. I suppose it’s just another one of his “blessings of liberty.”
[KD Merrill]On another note, SI often posts filings about hot cultural issues, yet I haven’t seen anything related to a recent documentary that has caused quite a stir by asking the simple question, “What is a woman?” Anything in the works?
Can’t say I’m very interested. It looked to me that Jackson’s comment was meant to communicate that the question was off topic and she wasn’t going to do biology in a SCOTUS nomination hearing. It struck me as a gotcha effort, a common nominee hearing phenomenon on all sides, unfortunately. If someone had asked to Gorsuch to define a fetus, he might well have been similarly evasive and we’d all be castigating the media for roasting Gorsuch for not knowing what a fetus is.
But I haven’t seen this documentary in the news so… if you want to send me a link. I know literally nothing about it.
But that’s not the David French brand of conservativism. I suppose it’s just another one of his “blessings of liberty.”
Read David French regularly for six months and then tell me what the brand is. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about here. There’s a ton of second and fifteenth hand rhetoric on this that is far removed from reality.
Also this is not “vitriol”
the self-centered lawlessness Trump advocated after the election.
On this…
This is not merely “trying to use the hearings for political advantage.” This is not mere “overreach.” These people are bent on destroying others regardless of the consequences.
There’s too much generalizing about “these people” in our public discourse. In a body of elected representatives, motives are going to range widely. What people are “bent on” is not going to be the same for all involved. But even those who just want to “destroy others” are going to have to work within the limits of some protocols. Watch the hearings. Lots of verifiable facts laid out, and nobody’s motives can change that. The “so what?” part is all about motives, of course. But can anyone seriously deny that when an unprecedented event happens on the scale of a mob trying to keep a president from being removed from office, Congress has a duty to thoroughly investigate and publish all findings? It would be a travesty if they didn’t.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
And while we’re at it, let’s ensure that the inquisition committee is comprised of members selected by both parties with divergent views. Isn’t diversity our strength?
Let’s also ensure that anyone who lied to Congress or the FBI receives the same level of “justice” as members of the previous administration.
Let’s also publicly investigate those who falsely claimed that they had evidence of a broad pattern of collusion in a blatant soft coup attempt to thwart the will of the voters and remove a duly elected president from office.
Let’s also publicly investigate those who encouraged and enabled the 2020 Summer of Love riots, including the destruction and burning of federal buildings and the establishment of an autonomous zone within the United States that didn’t recognize legal authority.
Let’s also publicly investigate those who issued a direct threat against Supreme Court nominees. “You won’t know what hit you.”
I could go on and on…but I understand that none of these things (especially the murder of 20+ people, $2 billion in property damage countless police officers injured) rise up to the high and lofty standards of those who believe that the Capitol rioters on 1/6 committed insurrection after having been exhorted to “peacefully and patriotically protest.”
It’s frightening and sad what hate will do an individual.
Re: Boebert and the Muckrakers: “While admitting some errors in Muckraker’s claims, such as originally giving the wrong year for the off-road accident and posting a photo of a woman that may not be Boebert, Wheeler is standing by the information he said he’s received.” But they’re credible. OK.
Does SI support/condone the posting of wild-eyed conspiracy theories now? Or are they criticized only when suggested by Bad Orange Men?
Joeb, you have been told why your posts are being unpublished. Don’t make stuff up that makes it appear different than it is.
Joe,
If you have evidence that I’ve ever stated that I believe the election was stolen, please share it.
Thanks.
I’m not sure whether I prefer your posts be taken down because I believe they’re a poor testimony or if they should remain available as a warning of what hate and anger can do to a believer.
In any event, I exhort you to repent.
Two things I want to say about the argument that the hearings are worthless theater because there isn’t enough opposition party representation.
… but I’ll just say one of them: the party composition has no impact at all on the testimony of witnesses. It could be all GOP and or all Libertarian or all Left Handed Beardless Socialists Party, and the witnesses still have said what they have said and have reported what they have reported. Cassidy Hutchinson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGe_C9Rbeak
(Not that there aren’t problems with how this is being done… lack of cross ex for example. And would it be better to have a fully balanced committee? Sure.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
There’s a boatload of propaganda for a willing media to seize on. And will probably convince the gullible.
Saying the witnesses would say the same things … except for the little problem of no cross examination is like saying a fire is going to do the same thing with or without firefighters.
the party composition has no impact at all on the testimony of witnesses.
The lack of cross examination absolutely impacts testimony. What are they not saying?;
I haven’t watched these hearings at all and don’t intend to. I have no idea what is being said. But cross-examination is essential to a fair justice system and the lack of a serious defender or examiner is going to taint any testimony. But the point of the Democrats from the beginning was to make sure certain questions didn’t get asked and certain people weren’t allowed to ask questions. Part of the problem in modern politics and news is that you have to control the narrative and the only way to control the narrative is prevent certain things from being said or at least from being taken seriously.
Ironically these hearings May benefit the GOP by persuading those who may have been sympathetic to Trump in 2024 to be done with him. I don’t think he would have gotten the nomination in 2024 anyway but this likely seals that and unites people behind one of the other candidates that will arise.
Discussion