WELL the (1)>>January 6th Committee Hearings are going to reconvene in September . Just shortly after the the 8th last Circus was to conclude . I had some time to wasteso I decided to watch the Jan. 6th hearing. What a complete farce! It’s like a Broadway play! Totally scripted. No wonder nobody was watching besides brain dead idiots! the popcorn !
. They should’ve just televised it on Comedy Central! - not a hearing when only one side is allowed to present "evidence" - but it has ludicrously low viewership. Meaning that nobody is watching this colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. (2)>>OK , lets face it what do we already KNOW what we already know about what happened on January 6th ??? The divide in this country continues to expand! All our elected representatives continue to do is push their respective agendas without looking for avenues of agreement! If this trend continues, and I fear it will, we are heading in the wrong direction. I’m concerned for our country. These representatives want their position to prevail no matter what the cost to this country! Americans are picking sides, and that is plainly demonstrated by the difference of opinion expressed by the panelists! They watched the same broadcast and interpreted it entirety differently. The committee also provided more details about Trump’s (2)>>lack of response to the Capitol riot. He declined to order the National Guard to assist the Capitol police, leaving vice-president Mike Pence to step in and do it instead. Do we really need to care ???But it was viewed by just 20million Americans on the night – far fewer, for example, than usually watch the president’s State of the Union address, which averaged over 40million viewers during the Trump years. As an editorial in the liberal Washington Post put it, the committee hearings look unlikely to ‘change hearts or minds’. SO the whole Hearings are such a waste of time . Democrats have only themselves to blame for the hearings’ likely failure to persuade many more Americans to turn against Trump. (3)>>Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, set up the committee in an overtly partisan way. She broke procedural norms to reject the members selected by the Republican minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, and instead handpicked two anti-Trump Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. The bias of the committee is all too obvious. The Democrats clearly want to use the hearings to tar the entire Republican Party with the Trump brush – and no doubt distract voters from Joe Biden’s struggles, including an inflation rate of 8.6 per cent and $5-per-gallon gasoline. (4)>>It isn’t. “Witnesses” are not being cross examined. Key questions are NOT being answered. Such as what the speaker of the house knew and when. If the Capital police had FBI intelligence on a potential riot, why was the capital building not better protected? Video shows capital police retreating and allowing rioters into the building. Who ordered this? (5)>>Why was the officer who killed Ashli Babbit not charged with manslaughter/murder?What happened was people (6)>>walked into a building that was wide open, likely open deliberately to make a situation like this happen. There's a lot of evidence that suggests that they had a shit ton of warnings and refused to act upon them. It was quite literally like beating a dog, leaving the front door open and then wondering why the dog ran away. Why does this all seem like impeachment #3 if for no other reason than to prevent Trump from running in 24’? Why is the hearing being held in prime time if not to distract from Biden’s horrendous record to date in the run up to the mid terms? This whole thing feels ridiculous: we didn’t hear anything last night we didn’t already know. This feels political. When you schedule your hearings for prime time and bring in a news producer to get people to watch; you’re after attention, not the truth.NOTES AND COMMENTS: (1)>>January 6th Committee Hearings . January 6th committee present their findings (I'm a political junkie and I actually find it interesting) and I think there's too much emphasis placed on January 6th. January 6th was a horrible day, no question. But ever since then a majority of the discussions turn into arguments about semantics whether it was a coup, insurrection, or riot. The hyperbole around it truly has been insane, making it impossible to focus on a very important fact: Trump tried to stay in office after suspicious like losing the election.Anyone who calls it a 'coup' doesn't know what a coup is. A coup is using the military and/or police to overthrow the existing seated members of a government and replace them with other members of that same government. Note the use of military and police. The hearings, though, have failed to punch through as a voting issue. Inflation (37%) is the number-one issue for registered voters as they think about November’s midterm elections. Abortion (18%), guns (10%), and health care (10%) follow. The January 6th Committee Hearings (9%), crime (6%), and immigration (6%) receive single digits. Inflation is the top issue for Republicans (57%) and independents (42%). There is less consensus among Democrats for whom abortion (29%) tops the list followed by the January 6th hearings (17%), guns and health care each with 15%, and inflation (14%).(2)>>OK , lets face it what do we already KNOW what we already know about what happened on January 6th ??? We already KNOW what happened Jan 6th . The world is literally crumbling. People can’t afford to eat, gas up. But these well to do politicians doing this insurrection garbage. 1) It’s a distraction from their failures 2) Another silly impeachment attempt .People who have been following the story for the last several months didn’t hear anything new. People who just tuned in last night saw the full case laid out in detail.(2.1)>>lack of response to the Capitol riot.I watched the so called hearing on Nate the Lawyer youtube channel, and even he had to stop watching it at the point where the young lady started talking about how it looked like a war zone. How she was slipping on blood and on and on. Now Nate is an ex cop turned lawyer in NYNY. He leans left and has covered J6 on his channel a lot, and he found the hearing to be a sham. He pulled up video to show how the police that were there were not in riot gear. He also tried to find the blood all over the place and the vomit and all that she was talking about. She painted a scene that did not exist. Nate even showed photos of the BLM protest that took place 6 mos before that showed all the police and National Guard that was at the very same location, and he asked the question,,,, "Why was there not the same show of force on J6?"Why did they not ask her,,,, "What were you told in your morning meeting about the day to come?" ,,,,,,,, "Why were you not in riot gear?",,,,,,, "What were you told to do if you were faced with a large group of protesters?",,,,,,,, "Why did you not have backup, and who was in charge that day?" These are the real question I want answered. (3)>Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, set up the committee in an overtly partisan way. Put Pelosi on the stand and ask her why she sent 12 Capital police home at 10 am on Jan 6. I watched it live that day and kept thinking this is the biggest setup I have ever seen.Seeing how Washington, D.C. experienced days of rioting and clashes with the police in late May &June of 2020, Pelosi should have listened to her Capitol Police Chief and called in the Nat. Guard before the Jan. 6 rally. The Guard had been used before 6 months earlier. A fully equipped, uniformed Capitol Police force ( many were neither that day), buttressed by the Guard, would have been more than a match for an unarmed, unorganized, spontaneous group of protesters, many of whom were over 30. Pelosi wants to blame Trump. I blame Pelosi and her political optics over real security policy. A protected Capitol keeps a protest from devolving into a riot, which is what occurred. Too bad she didn't resign after the chaos, instead of firing the Capitol Police Chief, and the Sergeant At Arms of the House & Senate. (4)>>It isn’t. “Witnesses” are not being cross examined. Key questions are NOT being answered. . The absence of the opportunity for cross-examination of those with first-hand knowledge of the events in question – Ornato, Engel, and the thus-far unidentified SUV driver – probably is the most important reason for excluding hearsay testimony, such as that offered by Hutchinson. The right to cross-examination is a bedrock principle of fairness in the American legal system.There have been some notable coordination problems between the select committee and the Justice Department, but they seem mostly to be the department’s fault — and that appears to be true here, too. The New York Times recently noted that “it remains unknown if prosecutors are looking directly at Mr. Trump’s own involvement in subverting the election or inspiring the mob that wreaked havoc at the Capitol,” but after Hutchinson testified, the paper reported that federal prosecutors working on the office’s Jan. 6 investigation “watched the aide’s appearance” and “were just as astonished by her account … as other viewers.”As for the “investigation” analogy, it is highly misleading. Investigators routinely consider hearsay information from informants, not to use it publicly, but because it may lead them to direct evidence from someone who is competent to testify because they actually witnessed the events in question. However, such statements taken during an investigation typically are (or should be) kept confidential. Thus, prosecutors are forbidden from releasing transcripts of ongoing grand jury proceedings, and FBI agents are not supposed to disclose witness statements gathered during investigations. One of the reasons for this caution is because such statements may not have been verified and carry the risk of unfairly tarring others’ reputations. (5)>>Why was the officer who killed Ashli Babbit not charged with manslaughter/murder?More than 500 pages of internal documents from DC Metropolitan Police concerning the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol on Jan. 6 reveal witness accounts stating she was not holding a weapon at the time of her death and how "upset" the officer was after shooting her. "These previously secret records show there was no good reason to shoot and kill Ashli Babbitt," stated Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which obtained the documents through a May 2021 FOIA lawsuit. "The Biden-Garland Justice Department and the Pelosi Congress have much to answer for the over the mishandling and cover-up of this scandalous killing of an American citizen by the U.S. Capitol Police."Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was shot and killed during the storming of the Capitol by a bullet fired by Capitol Police officer Lt. Michael Byrd. The documents from the DC Metropolitan Police department show that witnesses did not see Babbitt holding a weapon prior to her being shot, and reveal conflicting accounts of whether Byrd verbally warned Babbitt before shooting her. (6)>>walked into a building that was wide open, likely open deliberately to make a situation like this happen. The events of Jan. 6 also fail to meet the dictionary definition of insurrection, which Merriam-Webster defines as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” A usage note adds that the term implies “an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.” A closely related term, “insurgency,” is “a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as a belligerency.”A real insurrection would have required the armed forces to quell an armed resistance. Actual insurrections—apart from the Civil War—include Shays’ Rebellion in 1787, in which thousands of insurrectionists tried to seize weapons from a Massachusetts armory after months of planning to overthrow the new revolutionary government, and the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, in which 500 armed men attacked the home of a U.S. tax inspector in Western Pennsylvania. Both events required President Washington to quell the insurrections with thousands of armed troops, who killed several resistors. Fox News host Mark Levin is claiming, accusing the Jan. 6 committee of violating Article 1 of the Constitution by ridiculing Republican Senator Josh Hawley at its latest hearing."Congress doesn't have plenary powers to do whatever it wants," Levin said on his show "Life, Liberty & Levin" on Fox News on Sunday."It's very specific, we got Article 1 and there's a long list of powers, it's the longest article in the Constitution of Congress' powers. [...] You can study it and study it and study it and you will not find the power to conduct a criminal investigation because it violates separation of powers," he said.Given the media hyper hysteria over Jan 6, I definitely smell a rat. The Jan 6 hysteria sounds and looks like a repeat of Russia collusion. It just smells bad when all of the media shouts hysterically: "Insurrection". Falsely claiming Jan 6 was an "insurrection" leads people to believe that the Democrat led House is lying again. Most people associate insurrection with armed conflict. The only arms were carried by the Capitol Police and DC Police. The only person shot was an unarmed protester. Let's face it: Pelosi's House has perpetrated the frauds of Russia collusion; Impeachment #1 the "call" and Impeachment #2; incitement of insurrection. All were built on lies. Any investigation in Pelosi's House lacks credibility with the American people.
