3 hours ago, The Norseman said:

I never said I didn't care.  I said I didn't follow this hearing because it is political theater and I suspect very little will come out of it.  This is not a court of law, it is a political sideshow.  If and when the DOJ starts prosecuting people I've heard of, I'll pay attention....and so will the rest of America. 

"Anything that paints my team in a bad light is political theater." 

- A child's guide to partisan idolatry.

3 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

"Anything that paints my team in a bad light is political theater." 

- A child's guide to partisan idolatry.

We'll revisit this topic when the Republicans re-take power and kick-off the commission on Hunter Biden's business dealings abroad.  I'm sure you will be outraged at the political spectacle they will create.    

And before you go there, spare me your hysterical comparisons between Hunter Biden's alleged malfeasance and the January 6th riots.  I am only illustrating the point that congressional hearings are almost always political theater.  

14 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

We'll revisit this topic when the Republicans re-take power and kick-off the commission on Hunter Biden's business dealings abroad.  I'm sure you will be outraged at the political spectacle they will create.    

And before you go there, spare me your hysterical comparisons between Hunter Biden's alleged malfeasance and the January 6th riots.  I am only illustrating the point that congressional hearings are almost always political theater.  

 

15 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

We'll revisit this topic when the Republicans re-take power and kick-off the commission on Hunter Biden's business dealings abroad.  I'm sure you will be outraged at the political spectacle they will create.    

And before you go there, spare me your hysterical comparisons between Hunter Biden's alleged malfeasance and the January 6th riots.  I am only illustrating the point that congressional hearings are almost always political theater.  

"But Hunter Biden!"

11 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

"But Hunter Biden!"

Once again, you've completely missed my point....

14 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Once again, you've completely missed my point....

Ah yes, your point that an investigation into an attack on our Capitol not seen for two centuries, incited by a sitting president no less, is just like a would-be investigation into the flunky son of another president. And what a stellar point that was!

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Ah yes, your point that an investigation into an attack on our Capitol not seen for two centuries, incited by a sitting president no less, is just like a would-be investigation into the flunky son of another president. And what a stellar point that was!

Exactly wrong.  My point is that a congressional hearing is designed only to gather public attention and influence votes.  They waste time and money and usually make subsequent legal proceedings harder.  While you support this one, you will not support the next (which I'm speculating will be around Hunter Biden) because you aren't in line with the politics.  I don't support any of these fiascos no matter what they are investigating.  If congress believes that something was done illegally then they can appoint a special prosecutor to investigate it and turn that evidence over to the DOJ.  

Both sides are guilty of this practice and the Republicans took this down the nuclear path when they put the Clinton / Lewinsky scandal on display for the whole country to see.

My point is, and has always been, that while you all may enjoy watching this hearing on TV you will very likely be disappointed with the outcome.  

 

6 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Exactly wrong.  My point is that a congressional hearing is designed only to gather public attention and influence votes.  They waste time and money and usually make subsequent legal proceedings harder.  While you support this one, you will not support the next (which I'm speculating will be around Hunter Biden) because you aren't in line with the politics.  I don't support any of these fiascos no matter what they are investigating.  If congress believes that something was done illegally then they can appoint a special prosecutor to investigate it and turn that evidence over to the DOJ.  

Both sides are guilty of this practice and the Republicans took this down the nuclear path when they put the Clinton / Lewinsky scandal on display for the whole country to see.

 

 

I supported the Benghazi investigations just as I support this one. Not all congressional hearings are political theater, and relevant details have already be unearthed by this committee. You'll continue to look the other way while plugging your ears with your fingers for obvious reasons: you're a trumbpot who can't bear to watch his legacy get torn to shreds with each and every hearing.

Quote

My point is, and has always been, that while you all may enjoy watching this hearing on TV you will very likely be disappointed with the outcome.  

I've already said there's basically no chance for Trump to catch any legal heat from this. Read more, post less.

8 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Exactly wrong.  My point is that a congressional hearing is designed only to gather public attention and influence votes.  They waste time and money and usually make subsequent legal proceedings harder.  While you support this one, you will not support the next (which I'm speculating will be around Hunter Biden) because you aren't in line with the politics.  I don't support any of these fiascos no matter what they are investigating.  If congress believes that something was done illegally then they can appoint a special prosecutor to investigate it and turn that evidence over to the DOJ.  

Both sides are guilty of this practice and the Republicans took this down the nuclear path when they put the Clinton / Lewinsky scandal on display for the whole country to see.

My point is, and has always been, that while you all may enjoy watching this hearing on TV you will very likely be disappointed with the outcome.  

 

It's designed to get the public eye, but it's also designed in the public interest to show how dangerously close we came to having a constitutional crisis. 

There has to be a public record of everything that can be uncovered. The people need to know because it could happen again. 

You're using extreme cynicism about the political process - which is often quite warranted and understandable - to dismiss this hearing without actually having to examine the merits. 

FYI for those STILL not paying attention, the last time the US Capitol was breached by an enemy was over a hundred years ago, and that time, the enemy had the decency to NOT be US Citizens.

 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 

"Steve Bannon? I barely knew him." -Trump

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I supported the Benghazi investigations just as I support this one. Not all congressional hearings are political theater, and relevant details have already be unearthed by this committee. You'll continue to look the other way while plugging your ears with your fingers for obvious reasons: you're a trumbpot who can't bear to watch his legacy get torn to shreds with each and every hearing.

Again, burping up your opinion while childishly name calling like you always do.  

The details uncovered by this committee have now been polluted by public opinion.  Finding an impartial jury in a court case will be nearly impossible as a result.  Furthermore, these details are right now being vigorously investigated and refuted by the attorneys representing those who would potentially be charged.  Witnesses can also be tampered with now that they have been on the national stage.  Lawyers will have a field day defending anyone charged as a result of this (or any) congressional hearing. 

You may enjoy watching these spectacles and seeing your political opponents suffer publicly, but to suggest that they aren't politically motivated only further illustrates your blind allegiance to the narrative. 

 

3 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Again, burping up your opinion while childishly name calling like you always do.  

The details uncovered by this committee have now been polluted by public opinion.  Finding an impartial jury in a court case will be nearly impossible as a result.  Furthermore, these details are right now being vigorously investigated and refuted by the attorneys representing those who would potentially be charged.  Witnesses can also be tampered with now that they have been on the national stage.  Lawyers will have a field day defending anyone charged as a result of this (or any) congressional hearing. 

You may enjoy watching these spectacles and seeing your political opponents suffer publicly, but to suggest that they aren't politically motivated only further illustrates your blind allegiance to the narrative. 

 

Except I never contended they weren't politically motivated, I said they aren't solely politically motivated. I know you guys prefer to keep going back to the same well you always draw from, but this is not a sham investigation, nor a witch hunt. Something can be both politically motivated but also uncover verifiable facts. Stop engaging in logical fallacies and I'll stop calling you out for the moron you are.

5 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Again, burping up your opinion while childishly name calling like you always do.  

The details uncovered by this committee have now been polluted by public opinion.  Finding an impartial jury in a court case will be nearly impossible as a result.  Furthermore, these details are right now being vigorously investigated and refuted by the attorneys representing those who would potentially be charged.  Witnesses can also be tampered with now that they have been on the national stage.  Lawyers will have a field day defending anyone charged as a result of this (or any) congressional hearing. 

You may enjoy watching these spectacles and seeing your political opponents suffer publicly, but to suggest that they aren't politically motivated only further illustrates your blind allegiance to the narrative. 

 

The facts uncovered are the facts. The facts say Trump tried to overthrow the election, because he lost.

His supporters were told to go to the Capitol, and they did. They broke in, looking to stop the election certification.

This is a big deal, even if YOU don't care. Why you don't, is your problem.

18 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

It's designed to get the public eye, but it's also designed in the public interest to show how dangerously close we came to having a constitutional crisis. 

There has to be a public record of everything that can be uncovered. The people need to know because it could happen again. 

You're using extreme cynicism about the political process - which is often quite warranted and understandable - to dismiss this hearing without actually having to examine the merits. 

No, its designed to hurt political opponents in order to advance political gain.  I'm examining the merits of the congressional hearing process itself.  The Republicans turned it into a political weapon with Clinton / Lewinsky and the Democrats have now followed suit.  Now, we are in a perpetual cycle of congressional hearings driven by whomever has the majority.  

I know, I know...."but this one is different...it was an INSURRECTION...and TRUMP ORGANIZED IT".  

Let's assume for a second that all that is true.  Do you think that this hearing makes is easier or harder to prosecute Trump or Guliani for example?  

2 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

The facts uncovered are the facts. The facts say Trump tried to overthrow the election, because he lost.

His supporters were told to go to the Capitol, and they did. They broke in, looking to stop the election certification.

This is a big deal, even if YOU don't care. Why you don't, is your problem.

I've never said it wasn't a big deal.  In fact, I've said the opposite.  My bone to pick is with the way they've chosen to go about "investigating" it.  

12 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Except I never contended they weren't politically motivated, I said they aren't solely politically motivated. I know you guys prefer to keep going back to the same well you always draw from, but this is not a sham investigation, nor a witch hunt. Something can be both politically motivated but also uncover verifiable facts. Stop engaging in logical fallacies and I'll stop calling you out for the moron you are.

Ah, but if you agree that they are even in part politically motivated, then can we trust the outcome as "facts"?  By definition, they are tainted and subject to question no?  

Our legal system affords the accused witnesses and cross examination to allow a jury to decide what the facts are.  A congressional hearing does no such thing.  

8 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I've never said it wasn't a big deal.  In fact, I've said the opposite.  My bone to pick is with the way they've chosen to go about "investigating" it.  

Well, the GOP rank and file in Congress were 99% against it, and wanted ONLY people who tried to stop the election on the committee.

What would have liked them to do different?

7 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Ah, but if you agree that they are even in part politically motivated, then can we trust the outcome as "facts"?  By definition, they are tainted and subject to question no?  

Our legal system affords the accused witnesses and cross examination to allow a jury to decide what the facts are.  A congressional hearing does no such thing.  

Yes, because they can be corroborated and substantiated either by documented records like text messages or contemporaneous notes, or with additional testimony from other people with knowledge of the same facts. The risk of perjury would make coordination of outright lies by multiple parties unlikely. The only thing tainted is your credibility after attempting to downplay everything that has taken place since your hero lost an election to Sleepy Joe Biden.

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yes, because they can be corroborated and substantiated either by documented records like text messages or contemporaneous notes, or with additional testimony from other people with knowledge of the same facts. The risk of perjury would make coordination of outright lies by multiple parties unlikely. The only thing tainted is your credibility after attempting to downplay everything that has taken place since your hero lost an election to Sleepy Joe Biden.

Not a single lawyer in America worth their salt would agree with you.  Even Garland has to be worried that these hearings will hurt their chances to get a conviction.  

14 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Well, the GOP rank and file in Congress were 99% against it, and wanted ONLY people who tried to stop the election on the committee.

What would have liked them to do different?

More proof that the results of these hearings can't be trusted.  I'd like to have seen them give this to a special prosecutor, let the evidence be drawn in private until it was fully baked and ready for the public eye.  Charges could then have been doled out from there. 

3 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Not a single lawyer in America worth their salt would agree with you.  Even Garland has to be worried that these hearings will hurt their chances to get a conviction.  

Once again, I've repeatedly said I expect little legal recourse to come down on Trump as a result of this.  But that doesn't mean there isn't value in conducting the investigation and sharing the findings with the public. The dude is literally campaigning for another election in 2 years, the court of public opinion still matters. The best shot for someone to pin something on him legally were his attempts to coerce Raffensberger into "finding" more votes.

 @ Norseman still pretending like he's taking an objective look at the Committee.  Dude, no one cares what you or the other Trump supporters think about the Committee.  It's not for people in the cult.  Believe it, don't believe it, no one cares.  

And honestly, no one cares about you guys generally.  You're politically irrelevant.  You'll support Trump no matter what, it's a foregone conclusion.  No one's after your vote or cares what you think.  The rest of the country has already come to terms with the fact that 35% of the electorate is functionally retarded.

38 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Once again, I've repeatedly said I expect little legal recourse to come down on Trump as a result of this.  But that doesn't mean there isn't value in conducting the investigation and sharing the findings with the public. The dude is literally campaigning for another election in 2 years, the court of public opinion still matters. The best shot for someone to pin something on him legally were his attempts to coerce Raffensberger into "finding" more votes.

Look, I don't want to Trump at the top of the Republican ticket in 2024.  If these hearings accomplish that then great, but so far they are not.  And even if they did, you are only furthering my point that the internet of them was to destroy political opposition.  

But here's the thing....the hearings aren't changing anyone's opinion in "the court of public opinion" as you suggest.  The polls I'm looking at show that Trump's approval and disapproval ratings have remained largely static despite the hearing's findings.  In fact, the latest Forbes poll has him winning against Biden in 2024 by +5 points.  Although, this probably has a lot more to do with Biden's horrendous performance than of Trump's current popularity.  

So, in my mind. If you're intent was to destroy Trump and stop him from running again, you would have been much better off appointing a special prosecutor to investigate this and bring charges.  At the very least you could have hung him up in legal battles to distract him from a campaign.