bpatus297 wrote:

I don't believe there was large scale cheating, but I do think the heavily biased mainstream and social media helped sway the election. Mainstream media and social media can easily influence the general population of America which was on full display in 2020. I don't know what the answer is to fix that, but I really wish we could figure something out. However, until we can stop with all the "MAGA" this and "Libitard" that. we will never have a constructive conversation about it.

Which "heavily biased mainstream and social media" helped sway the election in your opinion? The Fox / Brietbart version or the CNN / Washington Post view? I suspect it's one or the other unless you are opposed to all political dialog.

On the personal level, how can we have a constructive discussion when one side won't discuss the facts and instead merely espouses their opinion, (often presented as fact)? Our nation's favorite "cowboy" Couy Griffin, the New Mexico county commissioner will probably become famous for stating his reasoning as:

"My vote to remain a 'no' isn't based on any evidence. It's not based on any facts. It's only based on my gut and my gut feeling and my own intuition. And that's all I need to base my vote on the elections right there"

It seems that he is speaking for the entire right wing political establishment when he offers such justification for his opinion.

Closer to home, one of our posters offers a similar view:

I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.

An educated person can't have a constructive conversation with people who refuse to go beyond opinions and "gut feelings".

Vintage wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I don't believe there was large scale cheating, but I do think the heavily biased mainstream and social media helped sway the election. Mainstream media and social media can easily influence the general population of America which was on full display in 2020. I don't know what the answer is to fix that, but I really wish we could figure something out. However, until we can stop with all the "MAGA" this and "Libitard" that. we will never have a constructive conversation about it.

Which "heavily biased mainstream and social media" helped sway the election in your opinion? The Fox / Brietbart version or the CNN / Washington Post view? I suspect it's one or the other unless you are opposed to all political dialog.

On the personal level, how can we have a constructive discussion when one side won't discuss the facts and instead merely espouses their opinion, (often presented as fact)? Our nation's favorite "cowboy" Couy Griffin, the New Mexico county commissioner will probably become famous for stating his reasoning as:

"My vote to remain a 'no' isn't based on any evidence. It's not based on any facts. It's only based on my gut and my gut feeling and my own intuition. And that's all I need to base my vote on the elections right there"

It seems that he is speaking for the entire right wing political establishment when he offers such justification for his opinion.

Closer to home, one of our posters offers a similar view:

I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.

An educated person can't have a constructive conversation with people who refuse to go beyond opinions and "gut feelings".

The mainstream and social media were definitely biased against Trump.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... t-30-years

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ive-trump/

afcjets wrote:

ER757 wrote:

I always wonder why the folks who thought that the Dems cheated never once stopped to consider the GOP may have cheated as well. Or do they believe that all republicans are 100% honest and would never try to swing an election by underhanded means? Or do they just not think they're as smart as the side that supposedly pulled it off and couldn't think of how to do it? It boggles the mind....

Once again I can only speak for myself. I am neither Republican or Democrat and I already indicated I believe people like Mitt, Adam and Liz, despite what I believe there ultimate fantasy is which is to be praised as an honorable loser by Democrats, that they're not above cheating. So I will definitely go with and wholeheartedly agree with your last option, IMO Republicans as a whole are not nearly as smart, skilled and experienced at cheating as the DNC is.

Well, as someone who grew up in Chicago, I'd say the Dems had a darned good teacher in Richard J Daley and his machine. I am fairly certain my already dead grandfather voted for him at least a couple times

Vintage wrote:

On the personal level, how can we have a constructive discussion when one side won't discuss the facts and instead merely espouses their opinion, (often presented as fact)? Our nation's favorite "cowboy" Couy Griffin, the New Mexico county commissioner will probably become famous for stating his reasoning as:

"My vote to remain a 'no' isn't based on any evidence. It's not based on any facts. It's only based on my gut and my gut feeling and my own intuition. And that's all I need to base my vote on the elections right there"

It seems that he is speaking for the entire right wing political establishment when he offers such justification for his opinion.

Closer to home, one of our posters offers a similar view:

I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.

An educated person can't have a constructive conversation with people who refuse to go beyond opinions and "gut feelings".

Not really similar when he says his opinion isn't based on any evidence and I am saying the opposite.

ER757 wrote:

Well, as someone who grew up in Chicago, I'd say the Dems had a darned good teacher in Richard J Daley and his machine. I am fairly certain my already dead grandfather voted for him at least a couple times

Despite her southern charm, thick Arkansas accent, and yearning for all things the simple life, I believe Hillary grew up in Chicago too

afcjets wrote:

Vintage wrote:

On the personal level, how can we have a constructive discussion when one side won't discuss the facts and instead merely espouses their opinion, (often presented as fact)? Our nation's favorite "cowboy" Couy Griffin, the New Mexico county commissioner will probably become famous for stating his reasoning as:

"My vote to remain a 'no' isn't based on any evidence. It's not based on any facts. It's only based on my gut and my gut feeling and my own intuition. And that's all I need to base my vote on the elections right there"

It seems that he is speaking for the entire right wing political establishment when he offers such justification for his opinion.

Closer to home, one of our posters offers a similar view:

I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.

An educated person can't have a constructive conversation with people who refuse to go beyond opinions and "gut feelings".

Not really similar when he says his opinion isn't based on any evidence and I am saying the opposite.

Not exactly, your statement was 'I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.' This is not how the real world works - belief is the absence of verifiable information. As Carl Sagan sagely noted, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. The extraordinary claim the election was stolen would require several smoking guns, not silly tales of misbehaving machines (easily disproven) or meaningless affidavits from people who heard something happened but weren't really there.

Aaron747 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Vintage wrote:

On the personal level, how can we have a constructive discussion when one side won't discuss the facts and instead merely espouses their opinion, (often presented as fact)? Our nation's favorite "cowboy" Couy Griffin, the New Mexico county commissioner will probably become famous for stating his reasoning as: It seems that he is speaking for the entire right wing political establishment when he offers such justification for his opinion.

Closer to home, one of our posters offers a similar view:

An educated person can't have a constructive conversation with people who refuse to go beyond opinions and "gut feelings".

Not really similar when he says his opinion isn't based on any evidence and I am saying the opposite.

Not exactly, your statement was 'I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.' This is not how the real world works - belief is the absence of verifiable information. As Carl Sagan sagely noted, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. The extraordinary claim the election was stolen would require several smoking guns, not silly tales of misbehaving machines (easily disproven) or meaningless affidavits from people who heard something happened but weren't really there.

At this point, the inability of the GOP to prove any widespread fraud indicates at least one of 2 things.
1. There was no election fraud and most of the Elected officials were elected fairly( those florida cases are still suspect)
2. There was election fraud and the people that committed it are so clever, or the folks on the other side are so unclever that they can not figure out how they did it.

Newark727 wrote:

Copy that - Republicans are above consequences for their actions as long as they win elections.

Nice Spin but those are your words, not mine. If you have the evidence like Schiff says then charge him. If not then shut up. This show trial is just designed to take voters eyes off the ball this November because they know what is coming.

NIKV69 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Copy that - Republicans are above consequences for their actions as long as they win elections.

Nice Spin but those are your words, not mine. If you have the evidence like Schiff says then charge him. If not then shut up. This show trial is just designed to take voters eyes off the ball this November because they know what is coming.

If they do I guarantee you will be saying exactly the same things you are now.

To me the 'big lie' claims of Trump and his supporters with the 2020 Presidential elections came down to the massive change in how voting took place in most of the USA with extended early voting and vote by mail due to the risks from the Covid-19 pandemic. Only 3-4 states had vote by mail as their main form of voting prior to 2020.

The convenience of early and vote by mail led to a modern record of numbers voting, especially those in non-White majority, low income and Democratic party controlled cites. Counting of mail ballots in some states (including PA) couldn't be done until after the polls closed in the state. Staffing to process mail ballots was limited due to Covid-19 health protection requirements, so less staff with an exponential growth in ballots to process so it took days to get final counts in some city voting districts.The shift to mail balloting was new, procedures were untried, mistakes as to handling ballots were made, questions of verification of the voter's identification were raised as not in person and some states made mistakes in changing their election laws to expand early and mail voting (in particular PA) that have been exploited and exaggerated by Trump and Republicans.

To many, it is believed to have been a election with minimal fraud and you had mostly paper ballots to verify in recounts where they were done. Comparison with for example in Florida in the 2000 whee the difference was 600 or so votes in favor GW Bush, while in PA, WI & GA in 2020 and in the 2016 Presidential elections, the states with the narrowest margins in number of votes,was in the 1,000's, over 10,000 in most of them.

Trump lost in 2020 due to gross incompetence in dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic - not election fraud. Indeed he is the real criminal in his efforts to overturn the election results with illegal actions to pressure officials to do so.

bpatus297 wrote:

The mainstream and social media were definitely biased against Trump.

If so, that's balanced by the fact that Fox (entertainment news) was definitely biased in favor of Trump.

Social media is merely people posting their opinions, if the majority of those people sided with Biden, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Newark727 wrote:

If they do I guarantee you will be saying exactly the same things you are now.

More nonsense as usual but no I won't. The process is the process I just don't like when people make it pollical.

Vintage wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

The mainstream and social media were definitely biased against Trump.

If so, that's balanced by the fact that Fox (entertainment news) was definitely biased in favor of Trump.

Social media is merely people posting their opinions, if the majority of those people sided with Biden, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Fox news did not come close to balancing out the rest of the mainstream media. Do you really think that FB and Twitter didn't "fact check" or remove posts that went against their "community standards"?

BoeingG wrote:

seb146 wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

"not the same as opportunistic anarchists and teenage gangbangers torching small businesses."

Who's to say they were opportunistic? They woke up one day and decided to pillage black-owned businesses? They weren't encouraged by politicians and the media to do so? (Hint: that's rhetorical, which you'd know if you read the link I provided.)

We're getting a bit sidetracked from OP's post. I encourage you to read the rest of my comment re: the hearings and their futility, and respond sans immaturity.

The economy was doing great when the MAGAs tried to overthrow the government. These hearings started before corporations got greedy.

Oh, and demanding equal rights is nowhere near the same thing as trying to overthrow the government and demanding the vice president and speaker of the house be executed.

"The economy was doing great when the MAGAs tried to overthrow the government."
Generalization, immaturity ("MAGAs"), baseless hyperbole ("overthrow the government"). Please provide sources for your claims.

"Oh, and demanding equal rights is nowhere near the same thing as trying to overthrow"
Yes it is, in the sense that the means to achieve these "equal rights" (whatever that means...impunity?) was committed through violence and intimidation.

"demanding the vice president and speaker of the house be executed."
Right. Because it's fair to base our opinions of millions of Trump supporters on a crazed few. Also, source this.

If you have been following anything that happened on January 6, there is your source. They built a gallows for Pence and Pelosi. The few Republicans who have mealy-mouthed a semi-apology were soon brought in line by MAGAs leading the Republican party. Demanding the MAGA candidate win instead of following the Constitution. All of that happened. Follow the 1/6 hearings and you will see all of it. Sources in OP.

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Serious question, You are British, correct? Why are you so polarized on American politics?

Yes, I'm English.

Firstly, American politics directly affects me in ways I'm not prepared to discuss here. Secondly, much of the World outside America was severely shocked by the events of 6th January and is taking great interest in these hearings.

Just curious, I find it interesting that a non-US Citizen is so interested in US politics, particularly holding very strong bias towards a specific party.

bpatus297 wrote:

Fox news did not come close to balancing out the rest of the mainstream media. Do you really think that FB and Twitter didn't "fact check" or remove posts that went against their "community standards"?

The important conservative political discourse that horse dewormer cures COVID is being silenced!

Newark727 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Fox news did not come close to balancing out the rest of the mainstream media. Do you really think that FB and Twitter didn't "fact check" or remove posts that went against their "community standards"?

The important conservative political discourse that horse dewormer cures COVID is being silenced!

I love how your comment adds nothing to conversation other to inflame one side. No wonder we are so divided.

bpatus297 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I don't believe there was large scale cheating, but I do think the heavily biased mainstream and social media helped sway the election. Mainstream media and social media can easily influence the general population of America which was on full display in 2020. I don't know what the answer is to fix that, but I really wish we could figure something out. However, until we can stop with all the "MAGA" this and "Libitard" that. we will never have a constructive conversation about it.

Which "heavily biased mainstream and social media" helped sway the election in your opinion? The Fox / Brietbart version or the CNN / Washington Post view? I suspect it's one or the other unless you are opposed to all political dialog.

On the personal level, how can we have a constructive discussion when one side won't discuss the facts and instead merely espouses their opinion, (often presented as fact)? Our nation's favorite "cowboy" Couy Griffin, the New Mexico county commissioner will probably become famous for stating his reasoning as:

"My vote to remain a 'no' isn't based on any evidence. It's not based on any facts. It's only based on my gut and my gut feeling and my own intuition. And that's all I need to base my vote on the elections right there"

It seems that he is speaking for the entire right wing political establishment when he offers such justification for his opinion.

Closer to home, one of our posters offers a similar view:

I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.

An educated person can't have a constructive conversation with people who refuse to go beyond opinions and "gut feelings".

The mainstream and social media were definitely biased against Trump.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... t-30-years

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ive-trump/

Social media is completely different from corporate media. Corporate media is out there simply for profit. Social media is but, they have the added bonus of allowing people to voice their opinions. So, the opinion was Biden was more popular.

Both social and corporate media will report negative things about whoever is in power. Look at the current topic. Biden fell off a bike. Compare that to "my hands are huge" needing both hands to drink a glass of water.

bpatus297 wrote:

Fox news did not come close to balancing out the rest of the mainstream media.

That's just your feeling correct? You have no data to support that feeling do you?

bpatus297 wrote:

Do you really think that FB and Twitter didn't "fact check" or remove posts that went against their "community standards"?

I have no knowledge of either site, I seldom go to either. But once again you appear to be sharing a feeling you have, and your feeling in this case tells you that the administrators of these sites apply political bias in their moderation activities. Do you have any data or empirical evidence to support this feeling?

bpatus297 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Fox news did not come close to balancing out the rest of the mainstream media. Do you really think that FB and Twitter didn't "fact check" or remove posts that went against their "community standards"?

The important conservative political discourse that horse dewormer cures COVID is being silenced!

I love how your comment adds nothing to conversation other to inflame one side. No wonder we are so divided.

My point is, if policies to discourage misinformation, trolling and ballyhoo are perceived as targeted at the right, perhaps that says something less about the policies and more about the right. When Twitter posts "this claim has not been verified" underneath someone's post saying that Dominion voting machines were contacting a server in Germany or whatever, is that a politically biased statement against the right?

It appears that Trump and Eastman could get charged in Arizona as well. The only thing saving them so far , is people with far more integtity than they have.
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-n ... index.html

Pressure in Arizona: Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers testified Tuesday that Trump pressured him to interfere with the election during a late December 2020 phone call and that he bluntly told the sitting president that he wouldn’t do anything illegal for him. “I took an oath,” Bowers said, recalling what he told Trump. “For me to do what you do would be counter to my oath.” About two weeks later, Trump lawyer John Eastman called Bowers to discuss the election, according to Bowers’ testimony. Eastman continued pressing Bowers to intervene in the Electoral College process, even if it was legally questionable, saying, “just do it and let the courts sort it out,” according to Bowers.

bpatus297 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

My opinion is that this crusade against Trump is unwarranted. These hearings (read: theatrics) are a distraction from the pitiful state of our economy—unfettered inflation (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559) and gas prices (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559), and the specter of a recession (https://www.wsj.com/articles/recession- ... 1655631002).

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but rather conveying the consequence of obsessing over a *former* (i.e., powerless) president: ignorance to the issues that matter. $1.6 million was spent 1Q 2022 alone on these hearings (https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-committee ... d=83164749). Sorry if I don't think a fringe faction is worth that much.

Frankly, the media has hyperbolized what amounts to vandalism—something Trump expressly denounced in his January 6 Capitol speech (the one that supposedly "incited" an "insurrection"): https://prnt.sc/PwPSmle0y4sl (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech). I certainly don't condone what happened, but it's high time to move on.

On the other hand, it's curious that certain leftists won't hold congressmen/women for their hand in "inciting" BLM "protests." A direct quote from Ms. Pressley: "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. And unfortunately, there's plenty to go around..." (source: https://factcheck.afp.com/quotes-us-dem ... s-violence).

Surely, if Trump's speech constitutes "inciting" violence, this does as well. The damage the so-called January 6 "insurrectionists" caused ($1.5 million: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/one-yea ... 20building.) pales in comparison to the $1 billion+ damages by BLM "protestors": https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots- ... rty-damage

Sad that people are only held accountable when it's convenient.

Yeah, let's just pretend Trump and his gullible followers/worshipers didn't try to subvert the whole democratic process. Let's just move on.... Ooh look, a squirrel!

Serious question, You are British, correct? Why are you so polarized on American politics?

The outcome of US elections impacts us all.

afcjets wrote:

ER757 wrote:

Well, as someone who grew up in Chicago, I'd say the Dems had a darned good teacher in Richard J Daley and his machine. I am fairly certain my already dead grandfather voted for him at least a couple times

Despite her southern charm, thick Arkansas accent, and yearning for all things the simple life, I believe Hillary grew up in Chicago too

Judging by the results of the 2016 election, she wasn't a very good student of "the Boss" (Daley not the rocker from NJ)

Sitting here from overseas, my wife (Norwegian) starts surfing channels, stops on the Jan 6th live hearings. After watching for a few minutes there’s no doubt, beyond any sane reason, Trump is, certifiably nuts. No two and and ifs about it…. Still difficult believe he even exists. What a stain on mankind.

bpatus297 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Serious question, You are British, correct? Why are you so polarized on American politics?

Yes, I'm English.

Firstly, American politics directly affects me in ways I'm not prepared to discuss here. Secondly, much of the World outside America was severely shocked by the events of 6th January and is taking great interest in these hearings.

Just curious, I find it interesting that a non-US Citizen is so interested in US politics, particularly holding very strong bias towards a specific party.

I'm British, too. I like democracy. As far as I can see Trump attempted to subvert the form of democracy practised in the US. That worried me, given the status of the US - world's most powerful democratic nation.

I am aware that US politicians are so partisan that investigations they conduct are not impartial so I take this one with a pinch of salt. Nevertheless it is abundantly clear to me that your ex-head of state tried very hard to corrupt your democratic process. His desire was to undermine the electoral process so he could hold power despite failing to be elected.

art wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Yes, I'm English.

Firstly, American politics directly affects me in ways I'm not prepared to discuss here. Secondly, much of the World outside America was severely shocked by the events of 6th January and is taking great interest in these hearings.

Just curious, I find it interesting that a non-US Citizen is so interested in US politics, particularly holding very strong bias towards a specific party.

I'm British, too. I like democracy. As far as I can see Trump attempted to subvert the form of democracy practised in the US. That worried me, given the status of the US - world's most powerful democratic nation.

I am aware that US politicians are so partisan that investigations they conduct are not impartial so I take this one with a pinch of salt. Nevertheless it is abundantly clear to me that your ex-head of state tried very hard to corrupt your democratic process. His desire was to undermine the electoral process so he could hold power despite failing to be elected.

One thing that distinguishes this investigation, is that almost all of the witnesses and testimony have been from the Republican party. They are willingly cooperating & appearing before the committee, out of their conviction that what transpired was wrong. That removes much of the partisan aspect.

Secondly, the bipartisan committee is unanimous in their presentation of the evidence, there is no dissent from members of either party. That is extremely unusual, and it has allowed the investigation to proceed as a demonstration of facts, rather than the usual political grandstanding and circus that occurs.

art wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Yes, I'm English.

Firstly, American politics directly affects me in ways I'm not prepared to discuss here. Secondly, much of the World outside America was severely shocked by the events of 6th January and is taking great interest in these hearings.

Just curious, I find it interesting that a non-US Citizen is so interested in US politics, particularly holding very strong bias towards a specific party.

I'm British, too. I like democracy. As far as I can see Trump attempted to subvert the form of democracy practised in the US. That worried me, given the status of the US - world's most powerful democratic nation.

I am aware that US politicians are so partisan that investigations they conduct are not impartial so I take this one with a pinch of salt. Nevertheless it is abundantly clear to me that your ex-head of state tried very hard to corrupt your democratic process. His desire was to undermine the electoral process so he could hold power despite failing to be elected.

To add to the above, we (I’m also British) get a lot of USA news on our media. US considers itself the world’s policeman, our leaders tend to align with them so it has a direct impact on us, as others have noted.

So when the proclaimed leading nation of the free world suffers a real threat to democracy like this it matters. It really matters. Freedom means you can have free and fair elections (and you do, putting aside whether the electoral college system is in fact fair). It follows that when a mob and the millions who support genuinely think that an election has been stolen, it resonates across the world. It’s no better than an attempted coup in a banana republic.

One thing that Gabe Sterling, the state election manager from Georgia, said today that really struck home. He said that he realized from the threats that were coming in, that the Trump narrative had reached the hearts of his supporters, and that once that happens, the brain is no longer involved, and facts no longer matter.

By that he meant the response is visceral and emotional, rather than logical. And once that is unleashed, people are capable of some terrifying acts of irrationality.

That's a hugely important point, as it defines the divide that exists on this issue in the US. One side is asking about the evidence, the other is asking about their perception of the harm being done to them, to which they are responding. And Trump has been a master at inflaming those emotions, as he did on Jan 6.

Avatar2go wrote:

One thing that Gabe Sterling, the state election manager from Georgia, said today that really struck home. He said that he realized from the threats that were coming in, that the Trump narrative had reached the hearts of his supporters, and that once that happens, the brain is no longer involved, and facts no longer matter.

By that he meant the response is visceral and emotional, rather than logical. And once that is unleashed, people are capable of some terrifying acts of irrationality.

That's a hugely important point, as it defines the divide that exists on this issue in the US. One side is asking about the evidence, the other is asking about their perception of the harm being done to them, to which they are responding. And Trump has been a master at inflaming those emotions, as he did on Jan 6.

The county commissioner cowboy from new Mexico summarized it eloquently and seemed to be speaking for the entire 70 million Trump base when he said:

"My vote to remain a 'no' isn't based on any evidence. It's not based on any facts. It's only based on my gut and my gut feeling and my own intuition. And that's all I need to base my vote on the elections right there"

Yes, that is the perfect quote. If you want to understand what's happening, that's it, in a nutshell.

Avatar2go wrote:

Secondly, the bipartisan committee is unanimous in their presentation of the evidence, there is no dissent from members of either party. That is extremely unusual, and it has allowed the investigation to proceed as a demonstration of facts, rather than the usual political grandstanding and circus that occurs.

It was designed that way and why it's not a real investigation but rather a show trial.

afcjets wrote:

It was designed that way and why it's not a real investigation but rather a show trial.

It appears to be an investigation to me.

in·ves·ti·gate
/inˈvestəˌɡāt/
verb
verb: investigate; 3rd person present: investigates; past tense: investigated; past participle: investigated; gerund or present participle: investigating

carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth.

afcjets wrote:

It was designed that way and why it's not a real investigation but rather a show trial.

The right seems to have this problem where whenever they're not being blatantly coddled, they must be suffering horrific Communist oppression. So sorry that the rest of us haven't gotten over the Capitol being both literally and metaphorically smeared in feces yet.

I saw live the estimony of Ms. Shay Moss (a Fulton Co, Georgia elections employee) and recorded of Ms. Freeman, Ms. Moss' mom. it. It was very emotional. It shows Trump as a obscene, racist, sick and yes, a terrorist. He along with Rudy Giuliani mentally and almost caused a violent physical lynching of those women. They are suffering from PTSD, mentally ruined for life, Ms.Moss claimed she gained 60 pounds. Both lost their livelyhoods, forced to flee their homes for months, had to hear the N-word and worse, made political refugees in our country, having to be treated like persons in the Federal Witness Protection Program..Ms. Freeman's mom lived during the worst of the late Jim Crow era that prevented almost all Black persons in Georgia from voting until the mid-1960's Voting Rights Act and enforcement, adding to the emotions of these women. Along with the other live and recorded testimony presented today by officials from Arizona and Georgia, Trump has no defense for his actions and he needs to face jail time for his terrorist bullying of the witnesses and other

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61889593

AFAIK, Brad Raffensperger is a Republican.

Rusty Bowen campaigned for Donald Trump, so presumably he is also a Republican.

afcjets wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Secondly, the bipartisan committee is unanimous in their presentation of the evidence, there is no dissent from members of either party. That is extremely unusual, and it has allowed the investigation to proceed as a demonstration of facts, rather than the usual political grandstanding and circus that occurs.

It was designed that way and why it's not a real investigation but rather a show trial.

If I was a prosecutor, and there was no defense counsel or cross-examination so everything I say would go unchallenged, I would have one hell of a batting average.

Once upon a time in America, the left would be outraged at such a circumstance. Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

Bricktop wrote:

If I was a prosecutor, and there was no defense counsel or cross-examination so everything I say would go unchallenged, I would have one hell of a batting average. Once upon a time in America, the left would be outraged at such a circumstance. Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

You can do it, you can provide the defense. You can begin right now.

What did you think of the Republican Arizona House speaker, Rusty Bowers' testimony, where detailed the pressure campaign he faced to get him to help illegally overturn the election? Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty?

What did you think of the Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's testimony?
Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty? You know that a recording of the entire 90 minute conversation where Trump tried to get him to manufacture votes and where he made up lies about the Georgia election worker Shaye Moss, and her mother is available on the committee's website don't you? Do you carry any shame over what was done to Ms Moss and her mother?

Are you OK with the fact that Ron Johnson tried to pass off fake electors to Mike Pence?
Are you OK with the fact that Representative Andy Biggs, called Rusty Bowers, to get him to overturn the results of Arizona's presidential election?

Let's hear some of that defense that you think is out there.

Vintage wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

If I was a prosecutor, and there was no defense counsel or cross-examination so everything I say would go unchallenged, I would have one hell of a batting average. Once upon a time in America, the left would be outraged at such a circumstance. Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

You can do it, you can provide the defense. You can begin right now.

What did you think of the Republican Arizona House speaker, Rusty Bowers' testimony, where detailed the pressure campaign he faced to get him to help illegally overturn the election? Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty?

What did you think of the Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's testimony?
Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty? You know that a recording of the entire 90 minute conversation where Trump tried to get him to manufacture votes and where he made up lies about the Georgia election worker Shaye Moss, and her mother is available on the committee's website don't you? Do you carry any shame over what was done to Ms Moss and her mother?

Are you OK with the fact that Ron Johnson tried to pass off fake electors to Mike Pence?
Are you OK with the fact that Representative Andy Biggs, called Rusty Bowers, to get him to overturn the results of Arizona's presidential election?

Let's hear some of that defense that you think is out there.

It's not my yob, man!

If the case was so overwhelming as Nancy's Poopshow 3 wants us all to believe, why did she not have the Republicans that McCarthy put up on? That would have diffused much of the criticism wouldn't it?

By the way, have this vaunted body got to the bottom of where the lie about Officer Sicknick's death started? You remember him. He's the man whose corpse was used as a prop by Democrats to lie in state in the Rotunda. Or does asking that make me a QAnon conspiricy theorist or Putin stooge?

Meanwhile, let's all pretend we LOVE Liz Cheney.

Bricktop wrote:

Or does asking that make me a QAnon conspiricy theorist or Putin stooge?

It appears to make you a cop hater.

So that's it Bricktop, you have nothing?
That's about what I thought.

Bricktop wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

If I was a prosecutor, and there was no defense counsel or cross-examination so everything I say would go unchallenged, I would have one hell of a batting average. Once upon a time in America, the left would be outraged at such a circumstance. Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

You can do it, you can provide the defense. You can begin right now.

What did you think of the Republican Arizona House speaker, Rusty Bowers' testimony, where detailed the pressure campaign he faced to get him to help illegally overturn the election? Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty?

What did you think of the Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's testimony?
Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty? You know that a recording of the entire 90 minute conversation where Trump tried to get him to manufacture votes and where he made up lies about the Georgia election worker Shaye Moss, and her mother is available on the committee's website don't you? Do you carry any shame over what was done to Ms Moss and her mother?

Are you OK with the fact that Ron Johnson tried to pass off fake electors to Mike Pence?
Are you OK with the fact that Representative Andy Biggs, called Rusty Bowers, to get him to overturn the results of Arizona's presidential election?

Let's hear some of that defense that you think is out there.

It's not my yob, man!

If the case was so overwhelming as Nancy's Poopshow 3 wants us all to believe, why did she not have the Republicans that McCarthy put up on? That would have diffused much of the criticism wouldn't it?

By the way, have this vaunted body got to the bottom of where the lie about Officer Sicknick's death started? You remember him. He's the man whose corpse was used as a prop by Democrats to lie in state in the Rotunda. Or does asking that make me a QAnon conspiricy theorist or Putin stooge?

You truly wrote “poopshow”?

Bricktop wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

If I was a prosecutor, and there was no defense counsel or cross-examination so everything I say would go unchallenged, I would have one hell of a batting average. Once upon a time in America, the left would be outraged at such a circumstance. Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

You can do it, you can provide the defense. You can begin right now.

What did you think of the Republican Arizona House speaker, Rusty Bowers' testimony, where detailed the pressure campaign he faced to get him to help illegally overturn the election? Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty?

What did you think of the Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's testimony?
Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty? You know that a recording of the entire 90 minute conversation where Trump tried to get him to manufacture votes and where he made up lies about the Georgia election worker Shaye Moss, and her mother is available on the committee's website don't you? Do you carry any shame over what was done to Ms Moss and her mother?

Are you OK with the fact that Ron Johnson tried to pass off fake electors to Mike Pence?
Are you OK with the fact that Representative Andy Biggs, called Rusty Bowers, to get him to overturn the results of Arizona's presidential election?

Let's hear some of that defense that you think is out there.

It's not my yob, man!

If the case was so overwhelming as Nancy's Poopshow 3 wants us all to believe, why did she not have the Republicans that McCarthy put up on? That would have diffused much of the criticism wouldn't it?

By the way, have this vaunted body got to the bottom of where the lie about Officer Sicknick's death started? You remember him. He's the man whose corpse was used as a prop by Democrats to lie in state in the Rotunda. Or does asking that make me a QAnon conspiricy theorist or Putin stooge?

Wow, so you want us to believe that: a. Jim Banks and Jim Jordan would take the proceedings seriously if on the panel and b. the medical examiner's report for Sicknick did not say the total circumstances contributed to his death....interesting world of alternate reality to reside in.

Vintage wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Or does asking that make me a QAnon conspiricy theorist or Putin stooge?

It appears to make you a cop hater.

So that's it Bricktop, you have nothing?
That's about what I thought.

A cop hater how?

I guess you're one of those promoters of the "Republicans want to defund the police" lead balloon line.
Next up: A recession is not inevitable.

SL1200MK2 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Vintage wrote:

You can do it, you can provide the defense. You can begin right now.

What did you think of the Republican Arizona House speaker, Rusty Bowers' testimony, where detailed the pressure campaign he faced to get him to help illegally overturn the election? Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty?

What did you think of the Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's testimony?
Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty? You know that a recording of the entire 90 minute conversation where Trump tried to get him to manufacture votes and where he made up lies about the Georgia election worker Shaye Moss, and her mother is available on the committee's website don't you? Do you carry any shame over what was done to Ms Moss and her mother?

Are you OK with the fact that Ron Johnson tried to pass off fake electors to Mike Pence?
Are you OK with the fact that Representative Andy Biggs, called Rusty Bowers, to get him to overturn the results of Arizona's presidential election?

Let's hear some of that defense that you think is out there.

It's not my yob, man!

If the case was so overwhelming as Nancy's Poopshow 3 wants us all to believe, why did she not have the Republicans that McCarthy put up on? That would have diffused much of the criticism wouldn't it?

By the way, have this vaunted body got to the bottom of where the lie about Officer Sicknick's death started? You remember him. He's the man whose corpse was used as a prop by Democrats to lie in state in the Rotunda. Or does asking that make me a QAnon conspiricy theorist or Putin stooge?

You truly wrote “poopshow”?

I'd get permabanned for saying what I really wanted to put.

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Vintage wrote:

You can do it, you can provide the defense. You can begin right now.

What did you think of the Republican Arizona House speaker, Rusty Bowers' testimony, where detailed the pressure campaign he faced to get him to help illegally overturn the election? Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty?

What did you think of the Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's testimony?
Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty? You know that a recording of the entire 90 minute conversation where Trump tried to get him to manufacture votes and where he made up lies about the Georgia election worker Shaye Moss, and her mother is available on the committee's website don't you? Do you carry any shame over what was done to Ms Moss and her mother?

Are you OK with the fact that Ron Johnson tried to pass off fake electors to Mike Pence?
Are you OK with the fact that Representative Andy Biggs, called Rusty Bowers, to get him to overturn the results of Arizona's presidential election?

Let's hear some of that defense that you think is out there.

It's not my yob, man!

If the case was so overwhelming as Nancy's Poopshow 3 wants us all to believe, why did she not have the Republicans that McCarthy put up on? That would have diffused much of the criticism wouldn't it?

By the way, have this vaunted body got to the bottom of where the lie about Officer Sicknick's death started? You remember him. He's the man whose corpse was used as a prop by Democrats to lie in state in the Rotunda. Or does asking that make me a QAnon conspiricy theorist or Putin stooge?

Wow, so you want us to believe that: a. Jim Banks and Jim Jordan would take the proceedings seriously if on the panel and b. the medical examiner's report for Sicknick did not say the total circumstances contributed to his death....interesting world of alternate reality to reside in.

What it DID SAY, and those who were screaming it from the rooftops could easily have found out (and probably knew anyway) that he WAS NOT BLUDGEONED BY A FIRE EXTINGUISHER.
Attempting to spin it away with sophistry and snide may make one feel better, but it isn't residing in reality.

Aaron747 wrote:

Wow, so you want us to believe that: a. Jim Banks and Jim Jordan would take the proceedings seriously if on the panel

So let them make fools of themselves. Again, if the case is so overwhelming, nothing to fear.

No, much better to use sock puppets instead. Very "serious".

With regard to the objectivity of the hearing, Thompson and Cheney both invited anyone with evidence to the contrary to come forward and speak to the committee. AFAIK, there were no takers on either side.

For the Republicans who were denied committee membership, it was because they were participants and might be subpoenaed or called to testify. They cannot investigate themselves. Several of those have since refused to be interviewed or testify. So all we have from them are their public tweets and statements.

So to clarify, certain Republicans were denied the power of investigation over themselves, but none have been denied the right to participate and give testimony. All have abstained by their own choosing.

Lastly with regard to defense counsel, the hearing is not a trial, it's an investigation developing a body of evidence to be turned over to the DOJ for consideration. But even if it was, all the witnesses have been Republicans who are free to present the Republican viewpoint, or defend Trump's if they wish.

But notably they haven't, nor has anyone at all, in the media or elsewhere, disputed the facts of what has been presented.

Thus the allegations of show trial, unfairness, etc, are extensions of the election fraud falsehood, that likewise have no basis in fact.

bpatus297 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Serious question, You are British, correct? Why are you so polarized on American politics?

Yes, I'm English.

Firstly, American politics directly affects me in ways I'm not prepared to discuss here. Secondly, much of the World outside America was severely shocked by the events of 6th January and is taking great interest in these hearings.

Just curious, I find it interesting that a non-US Citizen is so interested in US politics, particularly holding very strong bias towards a specific party.

With the US as the dominant superpower for most of the last 100 years, I'm surprised that someone would find it odd? My workplace in Nov 2016 had TV screens around the building, and every one of them was showing US election coverage, with people clustered around them.

I agree with scbriml that most of the rest of the world was aghast at what happened on 1/6/21, having been somewhat similar across the whole of Trump's term in office. The rest of the developed world is more centrist politically, so a standard GoP adminsitration is questioned. With rhe Trump administration, the US seemed to move into an evidence light/lie heavy space which had the rest of the developed world fearing for US democracy.

Vintage wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

If I was a prosecutor, and there was no defense counsel or cross-examination so everything I say would go unchallenged, I would have one hell of a batting average. Once upon a time in America, the left would be outraged at such a circumstance. Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

You can do it, you can provide the defense. You can begin right now.

What did you think of the Republican Arizona House speaker, Rusty Bowers' testimony, where detailed the pressure campaign he faced to get him to help illegally overturn the election? Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty?

What did you think of the Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's testimony?
Would you question his story? Would you question his honesty? You know that a recording of the entire 90 minute conversation where Trump tried to get him to manufacture votes and where he made up lies about the Georgia election worker Shaye Moss, and her mother is available on the committee's website don't you? Do you carry any shame over what was done to Ms Moss and her mother?

Are you OK with the fact that Ron Johnson tried to pass off fake electors to Mike Pence?
Are you OK with the fact that Representative Andy Biggs, called Rusty Bowers, to get him to overturn the results of Arizona's presidential election?

Let's hear some of that defense that you think is out there.

What did you think of the primetime commercials in late 2016 that every major network showed with famous actors pleading for Republican electors to not cast their vote from Trump in states he won? What did you think of the members of Congress who urged the same? Should they be prosecuted? What do you think will happen if Trump wins the general election in 2024?

https://youtu.be/e1zjNntlXPo