January 6 redux

Quote: rxwine

I'm not actually clear on what congressional investigation was so baseless whether by Republican or Democrats that one can single it out for major falsehoods.

Which one do you think fits that example?

What I am aware of is at the issuance of the report, the partisan sides emphasizing what they want to emphasize and ignoring what they want to ignore. This is definitely a kind of lying, just as impactful as reporting false facts.

The difference is that they are not investigating ALL aspects of the 1/6 incident. Yes, the major part of it is always going to be those involved and how others might be involved. The other part of a real Congressional investigation is the part that is being ignored—the things that did not happen, or did not happen quickly enough, in response to what happened.

Both are required in order to prosecute those who need to prosecuted and change anything that might have led to the incident getting further out of hand than it should have.

One does not cancel the other…the people who did wrong will be identified no matter what. The other issues will be ignored.

That is the problem. Along with the fact there is no balance to the panel, which is not the usual standard in Congressional investigations.

Quote: RonC

The difference is that they are not investigating ALL aspects of the 1/6 incident. Yes, the major part of it is always going to be those involved and how others might be involved. The other part of a real Congressional investigation is the part that is being ignored—the things that did not happen, or did not happen quickly enough, in response to what happened.

Both are required in order to prosecute those who need to prosecuted and change anything that might have led to the incident getting further out of hand than it should have.

One does not cancel the other…the people who did wrong will be identified no matter what. The other issues will be ignored.

That is the problem. Along with the fact there is no balance to the panel, which is not the usual standard in Congressional investigations.

To use another investigation, sure we were interested in what America didn't do in regards to preventing 911, but a partisan focus on that part of it is not in the same category as the attack itself. Do I really want one partisan group focusing on what Americans didn't do right to prevent 911 at the same time as they're focusing on the terrorism itself?

Not me.

Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen eventually.

Quote: rxwine

To use another investigation, sure we were interested in what America didn't do in regards to preventing 911, but a partisan focus on that part of it is not in the same category as the attack itself. Do I really want one partisan group focusing on what Americans didn't do right to prevent 911 at the same time as they're focusing on the terrorism itself?

Not me.

Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen eventually.

I really want a complete and thorough investigation by a committee picked under the precedent of past committees. The Speaker still has the majority in that format.

The entirety of the event should be investigated. Mostly to develop info about who did what and when, but also to find what could have been done better.

Shouldn’t we want that info now as well just in case something as despicable as that happens again?

Quote: RonC

I really want a complete and thorough investigation by a committee picked under the precedent of past committees. The Speaker still has the majority in that format.

The entirety of the event should be investigated. Mostly to develop info about who did what and when, but also to find what could have been done better.

Shouldn’t we want that info now as well just in case something as despicable as that happens again?

I'm not against it. But I still think it diffuses the focus of the primary insult.

You do an after-action of why a crime happens. You don't go after why the woman chose to run in the park alone, or walk down the street in a sexy dress, or why a policeman who normally works that area wasn't there that night during the initial crime investigation.

Quote: rxwine

I'm not against it. But I still think it diffuses the focus of the primary insult.

You do an after-action of why a crime happens. You don't go after why the woman chose to run in the park alone, or walk down the street in a sexy dress, or why a policeman who normally works that area wasn't there that night during the initial crime investigation.

It has been over a year. This isn’t comparable to a criminal investigation by the police. That has already been done.

They can do both. The main focus will always be the turds who caused the problem.

Why is Nancy afraid of questions Republicans might ask? If they get too far afield, everyone would know it and they would lose the independents that may vote their way this fall.

There was no legitimate reason to break precedent of picking folks for a true committee. There is another downside to doing things that break precedent…

Quote: RonC

Why is Nancy afraid of questions Republicans might ask?

Easy: because they'll ask no helpful, relevant questions; they only want to minimize, deflect, and of course insulate and protect the Giant Toad himself.

Quote: missedhervee

Easy: because they'll ask no helpful, relevant questions; they only want to minimize, deflect, and of course insulate and protect the Giant Toad himself.

That matters suddenly? It happens in committees of the Congress all the time.

If they did that, and there was no merit to what they did, the media would be all over them every day. It would be dumb for them to do and could cost them the election this fall.

No…Nancy knows she and the folks in charge of security of the Capitol failed miserably.

All of us know, whether we admit it or not, that there are a lot of criminal acts by asshats that say. We don’t know who may have egged it on; that is part of what they are (and need to be) doing.

Is she afraid of Republicans making themselves look bad or something making her look bad?

Quote: RonC

That matters suddenly? It happens in committees of the Congress all the time.

If they did that, and there was no merit to what they did, the media would be all over them every day. It would be dumb for them to do and could cost them the election this fall.

No…Nancy knows she and the folks in charge of security of the Capitol failed miserably.

All of us know, whether we admit it or not, that there are a lot of criminal acts by asshats that say. We don’t know who may have egged it on; that is part of what they are (and need to be) doing.

Is she afraid of Republicans making themselves look bad or something making her look bad?

Admittedly Nancy Pelosi plotted, planned and executed the whole thing.

Quote: rxwine

Admittedly Nancy Pelosi plotted, planned and executed the whole thing.

Just a minor distortion of what I wrote.

Quote: RonC

Just a minor distortion of what I wrote.

Because no one wants to actually engage with your constant Nancy Pelosi deflections.

We can all see your posts for what they are. Just a way to pivot away from the true villains of 1/6: REPUBLICANS.