There is a deepening division on the J6 Committee as staffers turn on Liz Cheney over the final report on the January 6th riot. Angry rhetoric is flying with staffers accusing the Committee of becoming a “Cheney 2024 campaign” while both the Cheney spokesperson and Committee spokesperson lashed out at the staff members as “disgruntled” and producing shoddy or biased work. The underlying issue, however, is important and revealing. The Committee’s color coated teams include a “Blue Team” on the failure to prepare adequately for the riot. That part of the investigation is reportedly being dumped or reduced. Members of the “Green” and “Purple” teams are also reportedly irate.
Cheney was soundly defeated in her primary in Wyoming and will soon leave Congress. She is being pushed by some Democrats as a possible surprise candidate for House Speaker if they could get a few Republican votes. That seems highly unlikely. The Republicans are likely to end up with the identical margin held by the Democrats for the past two years. Alternatively, some Democrats want Cheney to run for president either to dog Donald Trump in the primary debates or to run as an independent to siphon off votes in the general election.
That seems to be the suspicion for some staffers in the Washington Post story.
Fifteen former and current staffers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, expressed concerns that important findings unrelated to Trump will not become available to the American public…
Several committee staff members were floored earlier this month when they were told that a draft report would focus almost entirely on Trump and the work of the committee’s “Gold Team,” excluding reams of other investigative work.
Potentially left on the cutting room floor, or relegated to an appendix, were many revelations from the “Blue Team” — the group that dug into the law enforcement and intelligence community’s failure to assess the looming threat and prepare for the well-forecast attack on the Capitol. The proposed report would also cut back on much of the work of the Green Team, which looked at financing for the Jan. 6 attack, and the Purple Team, which examined militia groups and extremism.
“We all came from prestigious jobs, dropping what we were doing because we were told this would be an important fact-finding investigation that would inform the public,” said one former committee staffer. “But when [the committee] became a Cheney 2024 campaign, many of us became discouraged.”
If true, the report will largely track the virtual exclusive focus of the hearings with open references to the 2024 election as an overriding concern.
Some of us have lamented that the J6 Committee could have been so much more than a one-sided, highly partisan investigation. House Democrats barred two Republican members originally selected by GOP leaders, who then boycotted the panel in response.
Even with the GOP boycott, the Committee could have followed the type of balanced inquiry that pursued allegations tied to the Pearl Harbor attack or Watergate. It could have insisted on balanced hearings with witnesses and dissenting views.
Nevertheless, the committee revealed important, often disturbing details. It was important for Americans to hear from figures like former attorney general Bill Barr and White House lawyers who struggled to counter unfounded advice given to Trump by outside lawyers on challenging the 2020 election. There were painful scenes of Capitol police overwhelmed at barricades and members of Congress hunkered down in offices.
Yet, the focus on a single approved narrative gave the hearings the feel of an infomercial selling a product that most of us bought two years earlier.
Now, staffers are turning on Cheney who appears to have objected to parts of the final report and wants the report to focus on Trump. Cheney’s spokesman Jeremy Adler said that the staffers in the other teams produced “subpar material” full of “liberal biases.”
Tim Mulvey, the spokesperson for the committee, criticized the staffers speaking to the media as “disgruntled” and added that “they’ve forgotten their duties as public servants and their cowardice is helping Donald Trump and others responsible for the violence of January 6th.”
It is obviously hard to address the alleged shoddy work on these other teams or claims of liberal bias. However, the “Blue Team” was a particular interest for some of us. The J6 Committee virtually ignored the issue despite ample questions over decisions by Congress leading to the riot.
The Democrats in the final hearing hammered away at documents showing that the agency knew about violent threats in the days leading up to Jan. 6th. However, the Democrats have refused to pursue the lack of preparations on Capitol Hill as a focus of the hearing. On the day of the riot, many of us noted (before the breach of security) that there was a relatively light police presence around the Capitol despite the obvious risk of a riot. Once the crowd surged, they quickly were able to gain access to the building. Conservative media have featured a video showing an officer standing by as crowds poured into the building.
That obviously does not mean that there was not violence or that Capitol police did not bravely fight to protect the building. Most of us have denounced the riot as a desecration of our constitutional process.
Moreover, at some point, officers may have shifted to deescalating as crowds surged into the building. The question is why there were not more substantial barriers, like those used at the White House. Instead, some barriers were composed of a few officers using their bikes.
The available evidence indicates that the House was warned and that the need for National Guard deployments were discussed. There is a concern that, after criticizing such deployment and fencing around the White House in the earlier riots, the Democrats did not want to be seen following the same course.
An Inspector General report indicated that police were restricted by Congress in what they could use on that day. Previously, it was disclosed that offers of National Guard support were not accepted prior to the protests. The D.C. government under Mayor Muriel Bowser used only a small number of guardsmen in traffic positions.
That focus was rejected by the Committee members and there were no dissenting views voiced on the Committee as well as a virtual bar on opposing explanations or interpretations of evidence.
The GOP is now expected to fully investigate what the Congress knew and what it did in the days leading to the breach of the Capitol. Clearly, Cheney and others did not believe that the Blue Team full findings were ready to be released. However, those findings could be reviewed by the new GOP majority as it seeks full disclosure on why the Capitol was so quickly overrun on January 6th.
There are no heroes on the J6 Committee or staff. They are just arguing over whose distorted partisan agenda gets served by the report.
The stated mission of finding out what happened and making recommendations on how to prevent it, was abandoned almost at the inception.
Most of us have denounced the [J6] riot as a desecration of our constitutional process. — JTurley
And many of us have denounced deifying political ideology. Any political ideology. Separation of Church and State.
In the land of, by and for the people, how does one object to uni-party — bi-partisan — tyranny?
What is a legitimate government? How does this abstraction — government — become legitimate?
From very early on, it was apparent that what happened in the Capitol on Jan 6th could have happened at any number of DC protests, had they been similarly unprepared for violence.
Part of the blame for this lies on the media, which begins using the language of violence and time two or more conservatives assemble in one place. Over and over again, we’re told of impending right-wing violence at some protest or other, and over and over again, those “violent radicals” pick up their own trash and leave without incident. And of course, there’s no shortage of left-wing agitators within FBI intelligence, willing to lend credence to their hyperbole.So, like the boy who cried wolf, everyone eventually learned to ignore those warnings.
Conversely, law enforcement knows that when the left wing assembles for “mostly peaceful protest”, it’s time for all hands on deck.
“Conversely, law enforcement knows that when the left wing assembles for “mostly peaceful protest”, it’s time for all hands on deck.”
Yes. The earlier riots threatening the Whitehouse should have informed them of exactly that.
Did anyone ever believe Cheney’s claims that she was just doing her duty to the country by going after Trump? If you did, I have a bridge to sell you.
NOPE. I wish Cheyney would just take her dollys & go away. She’s a failure as a member of Congress, an impartial committee member, and as someone who was supposed to present an objective J6 report. Boo-hoo, you have been a puppet from the jump.
I would say these are atypical (prime) examples of the depth of the most of the Dem Socialists and RINOs hatred for DT was/is. From the day DT be came the Republican candidate 2015-2016 I would allege an attempted coup was imitated by the hate groups. I would go so far as to allege and say; if truth is ever known, Obama, Biden, DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, RINO, et als, were all aligned and synchronized for said undertaking down to this present date. These people apparently believe that only their opinions matter and to be considered, and that they are sacrosanct, and come hell or high water, they will see that they are implemented.
coup was initiated
If you retitle foreign invasion, “immigration,” you fool Americans and make it OK, right?
Invasion must be repulsed and invaders compassionately repatriated.
Liz is like a bottle of wine.
After the pop it becomes increasingly bitter.
Trump did more to increase American prospects than any president has for a long time.
Anyone that offends is welcome to the infernal regions.
J6 Committee is a deflecting tactic for Democrats to ignore their epic failures in talking points which keep mounting. The antisemitism from blacks is boiling to a top. But watch Democrats talk about J6, “MAGA”, etc.
‘We are the real Jews:’ 100s of Black Hebrews march in New York City
The American Jewish Committee said in a statment, “Black Hebrew Israelites chanting ‘We are the real Jews’ is a troubling antisemitic trope with dangerous potential. We cannot allow this supremacist ideology to spread and gain greater acceptance. Claiming Jewish people are ‘not the real Jews’ perpetuates antisemitism around the world.”
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-723255
” Claiming Jewish people are ‘not the real Jews’ perpetuates antisemitism around the world.””
“26% say less likely to hire Jewish people – survey”
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/1669391947-26-say-less-likely-to-hire-jewish-people-survey
Estovir,
I have to wonder if by going to the media, will the other teams contributions be added, albeit as an appendix?
Then we can see their findings and ask questions that Team Cheney is avoiding, ignoring.
See Kanye West, Kyrie Irving, Ilhan Omah, Rashida Tlaib Ayanna Pressley for modern anti-Semitism Black and Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson for good old fashioned anti-Semitism. This is not a new phenomenon, it has been going on forever. What these people ignore is the strong Jewish support for Blacks and other oppressed minorities.
The two friendliest presidents towards Jews and Israel were Nixon and Trump and the two most antagonistic were Carter and Obama and of course brain dead Biden who was never anti-Israel in the Senate but now he has populated his team with Obama holdovers and they hate Israel. But of course the Jewish vote went to Dems by about 70% this last election. It is down from about 90% but it is still too high for where the Jew hatred is coming from.
Let me add that Asians are also feeling the Black animosity of late and their number of supporters for Dems will also be decreasing. When you had Latino vote, an increasing Jewish vote and even an increasing Black middle class vote, in spite of the attempt to cater to only Blacks by making them think of themselves as victims, the dynamics for the Dems isn’t as rosy as they think. Next we will start to see the call for reparations and expect more Asian, Latino, white and Jewish people to leave the party. But the Dems will have the Trans vote locked up.
What these people ignore is the strong Jewish support for Blacks and other oppressed minorities.
is there anybody in life who is not oppressed? Bacteria colonize us. Viruses challenge us. Parasites, Fungi, even endogenous damaged or dying molecules have the potential to bury us. Everybody in life is oppressed in one way or another. It’s part of survival. We have become a nation of victims. The only reason why this phraseology is used is to empower politicians, who portray themselves as saviors of those who are supposedly oppressed. It doesn’t work. Not even the billionaires and millionaires have it easy. We need to stop seeing ourselves as victims, and more as living with evolutionary principles: survive or else!
😉
“is there anybody in life who is not oppressed?”
As I have noted on this blog more than a few times, I am not white.
I am brown.
Have I ever felt oppressed?
Perhaps at boot camp at my beloved island, Paris Island, where the Drill Instructors equally discriminated against everyone. We were all maggots, no matter your skin color they discriminated equally. That is what broke us down, each and every single one of us. Race, religion, socio-economic stats, in the end we were all grunts, expected to “It is not my reason to wonder why, but to do and die!” and take that hill with the machine gun nest atop it.
When the bombs are dropping, bullets are flying, a lot of this silliness of pronouns, gender identity, other wokeism goes away real fast.
When you might have one hot meal a day and if you are lucky one cold one, when ammo is in short supply and there is a guy a hundred yards away with the intent of shooting you, things come into perspective.
There might be a few who will still hold on to their woke ideology.
They will not last long on the battlefield.
They never do.
My class assigned USMC DI at NAS Pensacola during AOCS called me “Little Fidel”, “Communist Spy”, and every Hispanic slur available to his community college brain. DIs hated us college graduates for the first half of AOCS. They relished breaking college grads US Naval pilot candidates. Once my DI rifled through my personnel record. During a rifle run he had us all stop on a sand field. At one point I swatted my leg because I had red ants crawling on me. Fireworks erupted and they were spectacular. I had about 5 DIs screaming at me, spitting on me because of their being in my face, hurling accusations that I had killed “their” ants. My DI mocked me for being a Catholic and demanded I say a prayer aloud to bury the ants I had just swatted and “killed”. Not batting an eye, I did as ordered loudly. I prayed for the ants while pretending to bury them in ecclesial Latin, chanting at the top of my lungs, made movements like I was swinging a censor with flowing incense, crossing myself and then proceeding to cross them as well since I was officiating over the “Catholic” burial. They left me alone. Back at barracks my classmates thought I was a legend for what I pulled and made me class leader for that week.
The week before I was to graduate from AOCS as an Ensign, the Chief DI pulled me aside. He told me his wife was Cuban and he was stunned I pulled the Catholic burial rite in front of the other DIs and my classmates. He shook my hand and then saluted me. He was a Master Gunny Sgt.
Training with USMC DIs was a blast. Sure they called us maggots, but arent we all?
😉
Estovir,
Get some!
I had just crossed the parade deck, and graduated 3rd Battalion, Lima Company, platoon 3033, heading back to where my kit was stowed with my very proud father.
A third phase recruit (aka maggot) was guarding my gear.
As a newly grad of Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, he rendered the proper greeting of the day, and called me “Sir.”
I responded, “Stay motivated recruit!”
Funny, I was in a pot-O-potty making a head call.
Someone wrote, “Paris Island is like NYC, if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.”
Get some!
Estovir,
Great story! Thanks! I would love to see some of today’s snowflakes get that training. You handled it with brilliant humor. They couldn’t say it at the time but I am certain the DIs liked it. Two friends I worked with years ago were on Iwo Jima, others on Guadalcanal, my neighbor and friend’s father was a pilot with the Eighth Air Force. Through familiarity they seemed ordinary at the time but I came to realize they were not. But then, maybe they were ordinary Americans, something in dangerously short supply as dark days approach.
Upstate, I remember the day I learned that Dick Cheney had a heart transplant at age 71, and Medicare covered expenses. My first thought was “I want my money back!”. Heart transplants are done prior to age 70.
Politicians I can do without but especially the Cheneys
“Patients who are aged 70 years and older can undergo heart transplantation with similar morbidity and mortality when compared with younger recipients. Advanced heart failure patients who are aged 70 years and older should not be excluded from transplant consideration based solely on an age criterion. Stringent patient selection, however, is necessary.” — National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information
Troll harder, Peter. Transplant guidelines are local
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/transplant/referring-physicians/heart-transplant-criteria.html
Contraindications
Absolute Contraindications
Absolute contraindications for adults and children include, but may not be limited to:
Major systemic disease
Age inappropriateness (70 years of age)
This week Trump had dinner with one of those anti-semitic Blacks, Kanye West. West brought an even worse anti-semite with him, Nick Fuentes, who is White. I’d wager that there are more anti-semitic Whites than Blacks.
Anonymous, I will take that bet. Name one prominent conservative that survived politically saying anything as egregious as what Omar or Sharpton has said.
Kanye brought Fuentes, Trump had no idea who he was and did not invite him.
Most people – including anonymous do not know who he is – until the left wing nut media tries to make a big deal of it.
Trump is not an anti-semite – anyone on the left that thinks otherwise is an absolute idiot.
His Son in law is jewish – you know the one who helped bring peace to the mid-east, and his daughter converted to Judiasm.
This is typical left wing nut nonsense – guilt by the remotest association – except it never applies to themselves.
Ilhan Omar is also an anti-semite we do not see democrats running away from her.
There is of course a huge difference between Fuentes and Omar.
Everyone knows Omar, until today who knew Fuentes ?
Do we know him now – it is not like Wikipedia or the Southern Poverty Law Center are reliable sources.
Fuentes may be as described. Or he may just be someone else on the right who has become mis-defined by the left.
Trump invited the anti-semite Kanye West, and you can be certain that anyone who dines with Trump is checked out by the Secret Service, so Fuentes was approved.
If you think no one knew Fuentes before today, you’re ignorant. Not only did lots of people know him and his American First group, he even had Republicans like Paul Gosar and Marjorie Taylor Greene speaking at his America First Political Action Conference.
ATS, stop being Stupid. The Secret Service protects Trump from physical harm, not from political harm.
Protection from political harm is what we see done by the media and all the lying coming from the left. You think everyone is like you making your thoughts lie in the wrong place. Most people are decent.
Yes, the secret services checks out everyone who gets near Trump.
They check for people who are physically dangerous to him.
They check for people who are a threat to national security.
But the Secret services is NOT the ex-president or anyone else’s ideological police.
As to Feuntes – until today I had never heard of him – and I would bet I am far more aware of the right and far right than you.
And even if I am not – your argument Litterally is stupid as schiff – it is another of these idiotic dog whislte arguments.
Libertarians, Republicans, conservatives, … all the people not on the far left of this country are according to you all ignorant of the “far far right”.
But YOU on the left are right on Top of it all. YOU know the structure of the right, the politics of each of the participants, who is dangerous and who is not. But thos actually on the right – according to YOU they are all ill informed dupes.
I would ask – how exactly does that work ? How is it that YOU know far more about these obscure people who are HEAVILY influencing the rest of us than we do ?
In your world Fuentes is a dangerous and significant force on the right – but most republicans have never heard of him ?
How is this supposed to work ? Are you honestly arguing that half the country is enthralled to obscure people we never heard of who are engaged in mind control that only those on the far left are capable of seeing ?
Do you THINK before you post ?
With respect to Feuntess, and Kanye, and MTG and ….
Why would anyone place any value in YOUR claims or SPL’s or Wikipedia’s, or the MSM’s ?
Why exactly should we beleive people who have constantly lied to us ?
A good rule of thumb is that claims from the left or left coopted institutions can not be trusted.
I have some problems with Some of what Kanye has said more recently. But I would still trust him far more than you.
And so would millions of other people.
Further I keep hearing that we need to be concerned about violence and hatred.
Yet, nearly all violence and hatred is coming from the left.
You keep wanting to hold J6 up as some red flag. Two people were killed – both white female protestors. Buth murdered by Black Capitol police officers. No one shined lasers into the eyes of capitol police, no one threw rocks or frozen water bottles at them. No one throw molitov cocktails at them, or bricks. There was almost no looting. There were a few broken windows. There were no guns. The only guns used were by the Capitol Police.
Every single protestor at J6 was better behaved than George Floyd and yet you made him into YOUR hero ?
Why is it that YOU should be trusted ?
Why should anyone beleive you know anything about the “far right” ?
Why should anyone beleive you know anything about anything ?
I do not know who fuentes is – and I certainly do not trust YOUR sources.
So how about some FACTS ?
Has he committed Arson ? Has he committed any actual acts of violence ?
Why is he more dangerous than YOU ?
IDGAF what your assessment is of me or you or anyone else.
If you want to learn more about Fuentes, look him up for yourself, since you insist that you don’t trust my sources without my even naming any.
If Trump chose not to have his staff vet Fuentes, that’s his stupid choice, and again: Trump **chose** to invite the anti-semite Kanye West.
I have no reason to want to know more about Feuntes.
YOU are the one claiming I must get upset because Kanye brought him to Dinner at MAL.
If YOU want ME to condemn Trump or anyone else over a dinner guest – the burden is on YOU to demonstrate from trustworthy sources that something is wrong with that guest.
Allegations of guilt by association require proving the bad nature of the associate.
If you can not do so – then this is just more typical left wing nut hysterical ranting.
Ilhan Omar’s actual anti-semitism is well known, even the left felt it nescescary to slap her on the wrists.
Though I will note that I completely agree that her anti-israel remarks – whether right or wrong are not anti-semetic.
But you keep introducing more people on the right without providing any actual evidence of misconduct on the part of any of them,.
MTG is guilty for giving at an event sponsored by a group you do not like.
So what. You are easily offended, and see racism and hatred everywhere – except on the left where it is real.
Kanye has said some stupid things – so has Joe Biden, and every democrat.
But I will bet you would go to dinner with him if invited.
BTW Kanye apparently went to MAL to tell Trump he is running in 2024 and to ask Trump to be his running mate.
Trump has politiely but sympathetically expressed his dismay at some of Kanye’s remarks,
while at the same time affirming that Kanye is a friend.
Do you disown your friends because they have problems or say stupid things ?
Let see you expect someone – Me – who joined the ACLU specifically to fight to allow the KKK to march through my town, and when they did participated in the candle light vigil counter protest – you expect me – someone that actually prizes free speech, because without it we have tyrany, to be bent out of shape because some people you do not like spoke somewhere ?
I want people who are openly white supremecists to be able to speak safely without being heckled on college campuses,
and to have SM pages on Youtube and Twitter and FB.
I want the worst of the left and the right to speak their minds right out in public.
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
-John Stuart Mill
No, I’m not suggesting that you get “bent out of shape” about anything. Truly bizarre that you inferred that. (Well, knowing you, perhaps not so bizarre, as you misinterpret all sorts of things.)
I am not misinterpreting anything. You are insisting that we must all be outraged because someone you do not like showed up to Dinner at MAL.
Not happening.
No, I’m not “insisting that we must all be outraged because someone [I] do not like showed up to Dinner at MAL.”
I didn’t say anything close to that. You cannot quote anything I said of the sort.
My point was simple: Estovir said “The antisemitism from blacks is boiling to a top,” I noted that this week Trump had dined with both a Black antisemite and a White anti-semite, and I wagered “that there are more anti-semitic Whites than Blacks.”
Which group do YOU think it larger: anti-semitic Whites or anti-semitic Blacks?
I did not infer anything
Are you now saying that Dinner with Fuentes was fine ?
You’ve absolutely inferred things — and you’ve inferred things that are false.
You claim “YOU are the one claiming I must get upset because Kanye brought him to Dinner at MAL.” “You are insisting that we must all be outraged because someone you do not like showed up to Dinner at MAL.” “you expect me … to be bent out of shape because some people you do not like spoke somewhere.”
THOSE are things you inferred. I never said any of those things. You cannot quote me saying anything of the sort.
YOU get to have your own opinions. I do not tell people what opinions to have. That I express my own opinion about something is not telling you that you have to have the same opinion. It is a stupid, false inference on your part. Stop it already.
John is correctly inferring. You made the comments. One assumes that behind the comments exist a rational brain providing a reason for posting.. Are you saying you have no brain?
Who said what when is all in the thread.
There is no need to debate what you said, what I said, or what who inferred.
The posts can be read.
I do not see a need to correct what I have said or debate it further.
Yes, John, even your side-kick Meyer the Anonymous recognizes that you inferred the things you claim, contrary to your insistence “I did not infer anything.” If you can’t bring yourself to admit it, it won’t be the first time.
ATS, in my case I believe John misread what I wrote and compounded the error by not going back to the statement where he felt our ideas differed. You and I differ because what I said was correct, but what you said was wrong.
I believe John made an error. Errors can be forgiven, but a single error doesn’t mean his overall philosophy isn’t correct.
SM
I have no interest in debating this further.
I do not beleive I made an error in reading your original response.
But I would be happy to find that I did and you agree with me.
Because that is the only error I could have made.
“I do not beleive I made an error in reading your original response.
But I would be happy to find that I did and you agree with me.”
It would be better stated, we have substantial agreement. It doesn’t matter that you couldn’t prove your point. What matters is the agreement. That is a much better situation.
I have no idea what point you think I did not prove.
What I was reading as the debate continued is that I misunderstood you and that you actually were in agreement.
I do not beleive I have misunderstood or misrepresented you.
But I will accept your restatement of your position as it is YOUR position and YOU are the authority on your own position.
Regardless if you wish to identify some error you think I have made – ASIDE from purportedly misunderstanding your position,
we can continue.
I do not think I misunderstood you. I also do not care. I am interested in the facts and the principles, not the people.
“I have no idea what point you think I did not prove.”
Your point is long gone in the wind because you chose secrecy instead of letting me in on what point of mine you disagreed with. That was your choice, and I respect it.
“What I was reading as the debate continued is that I misunderstood you and that you actually were in agreement.”
That is true, and I told you we agreed, but for this agreement to have occurred somewhere you erred in reading what I wrote. It appears we will never know what that was.
“I do not beleive I have misunderstood or misrepresented you.”
How would you know if you don’t state what point you were talking about?
“But I will accept your restatement of your position as it is YOUR position and YOU are the authority on your own position.”
I restated nothing. Everything I said remains untouched.
“Regardless if you wish to identify some error you think I have made – ASIDE from purportedly misunderstanding your position”
I would have gladly identified the error if you permitted me to know what comment you were talking about.
There is no secret. Go back and read the prior comments.
“There is no secret. Go back and read the prior comments.”
John, isn’t that what I have been trying to get you to do? I will repeat. You criticized a statement(s) (which is fine) but never stated what you were referring to. Secrecy was how you protected your words from any correction. I don’t know why, but you did.
Presently the debate is hidden by non-stop junk comments. Due to your secrecy, no one can know what you were talking about. Why would you want to keep the essence of our disagreement secret? I would be glad to clarify my comment if I knew what it was.
Your real problem is that I was not talking in pure black and white. I think you get upset with a bit of gray.
SM this is absurd.
The thread is available to all.
I have made the arguments I wanted to make.
I have responded to comments and arguments I chose to .
I do not owe you or anyone else endless replies.
My recollection is that you shifted positions and I did not need to continue to challenge a position you were no longer arguing,
and that you were now arguing a point that I did not care about and that was not important.
If you disagree with that perception – fine.
Regardless there was nothing in your later posts that I felt sufficiently strongly to continue to debate you.
Further I made my points, I made my arguments.
The explanation of anything I wrote – is it means what it says.
“SM this is absurd.
The thread is available to all.”
John, what is absurd is that I looked for the comments you criticized. That is why I asked you, before we wasted reams of electronic paper, to tell me what comment irked you. You refused or wanted to keep it secret.
“I do not owe you or anyone else endless replies.”
Yet that is all you have been providing when all you had to do was copy a sentence or two. You are in control of the replies. You can quote what irked you, or you can post excuses. That is your choice.
I have no side kick.
SM is free to beleive whatever he wishes
As are you.
My comment is there for anyone to read.
Like all my posts it means what it says
Regardless, or what you wish to claim.
Regardless, I rarely “infer” anything.
I have a reputation for speaking directly.
If I want to say something, I say it directly.
So reread my post and take it as it is written.
That is what it means.
You do not need to mind read to understand any of my posts.
If you think you do – you are wrong.
I am not paid to write here, so I do not waste alot of time on Grammer, punctuation or spelling.
I make a significant effort to be CLEAR in what I write – I try to use words that have clear meaning.
Because we do not communicate when we use language that is not clear, or when we mangle the meaning of words
Which distorts meaning and commmunication.
In a discussion it is important for everyone involved to know what participants are saying.
This is particularly important in politics and more so with respect to government.
I expect – but rarely get the same clear speech from those on the left.
Many arguments are trivially resolved just by applying the correct meaning for words.
The progressive ideology can not survive clear expression it is disasterously sefl contradictory.
Fuentes, for starters.
Anonymous lies, can we trust him regarding Fuentes? Most people don’t know Fuentes, and when they do, they know little. He is not a Nazi. Anonymous is lying or deceiving. Though a poorly understood term, Fuentes might be an ‘ethno-nationalist’. Of course, one of the left’s favorite ‘ethno-nationalists’ is Al Sharpton, as you mention. He is one of many Democrats coddled by the Democrat Party because the Democrat Party is racist.
Omar is an outright anti-Semite, as are all the members of the squad. Do we hear anonymous talking about them? He chooses unknown people and then smears them and any close-by Republicans. This is just part of his ideology which is to smear everyone that opposes what he believes. Given the power, one wonders if he would add incarceration or the death chamber. Hopefully, we will never find out.
I would note that it is not republicans running arround accusing everyone of being racist, ….
There are some less than perfect republicans – but there is not even close to parity with the antisemitism on the left.
Yet, somehow those on the left constantly insist that the driving forces of violence and evil are exclusively on the right when
Even there own examples on the right are often obscure people who do not get daily news coverage while those on the left are being celebrated by the media every day.
The real world never matches the delusional claims of left wing nuts.
And if you specifically want politicians, try Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert.
And what is it that they said that is actually as egregious ?
What is as egregious is a matter of opinion.
For example, I consider it as egregious that MTG chose to give a speech at Fuentes’s white nationalist AMPAC conference. Your opinion about that may differ.
You make my point.
Though I would note that even your own posts does not really support itself.
First MTG is guilty by association.
Next you have not even made clear that there is any substance to the guilt by association.
You make claims regarding AMPAC and Fuentes – yet you do not support them.
Are Fuentes and AMPAC egregious because of more of this associative property of egregiousness ?
Or because of something obviously egregious that they have actually said or done ?
I do not know Fuentes – and honestly I doubt you or most here did prior to a few days ago.
Maybe he is the reincarnation of hitler. But that is not true just because someone says so.
We are long past trusting those of you on the left.
You would accuse mother Theresa of being a nazi if it would get John Fetterman or Joe Biden elected.
So make your case by FACTS
BTW, you didn’t take my actual bet, which was that there are more anti-semitic Whites than Blacks. It was not a bet about conservatives versus liberals. Do you often confuse Whites and Blacks with conservatives and liberals?
Percentage-wise, blacks are more anti-Semitic than whites.
They are also more racist.
My kids are asian, and nearly all the racism they faces is from blacks.
Quite often woke, left leaning. gay blacks.
Really? What are the percentages?
Common knowledge repeated often enough you should realize it by now. But you are the one that said “there are more anti-semitic Whites than Blacks” without providing numbers. If you had those numbers you would know the percentages, but you don’t. Is poor brain function the reason?
No, Allan, I said “I’d wager that there are more anti-semitic Whites than Blacks.” Either you’re too stupid to understand the difference between my actual statement and your excerpt, or you’re to dishonest to admit that you do understand the difference. Either way, yours is the poorly functioning brain here.
In other words ATS, you were trying to be your usual deceptive self.
—
This was your wager:
“This week Trump had dinner with one of those anti-semitic Blacks, Kanye West. West brought an even worse anti-semite with him, Nick Fuentes, who is White. I’d wager that there are more anti-semitic Whites than Blacks.”
Funny is it not? Here we now have some insight from the supposed disgruntled other teams, that just might of shown some interest in the Jan 6th hearings . . . but the Dems are going out of their way to bury those findings, and then call those team members as disgruntled or biased.
And some wonder why the Jan 6th hearings are of so little interest to the American public.
Wow! That Ben Franklin sure had the “vision thing.”
_________________________________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
___________
He somehow knew you couldn’t.
Why would Americans give their national culture, their national treasure, and their entire nation away to antithetical and unconstitutional communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, enviro-wackos, RINOs, AINOs), piece by piece?
In 1835 Alexis de Toqueville said: “The American Republic will endure until Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s own money.” It took Congress over 150 years but they have realized the truth in de Toqueville’s words. Student loan forgiveness anyone?
Unfortunately or fortunately too many people focus on Trump. Liz Cheney makes that mistake. My impression is she hates Trump because he sidelined her smooth and apparent rise to the top of Republican Politics. He gave voice to a widespread discontent in the Republican Party and other parts of society that felt ignored and disenfranchised by the powers in that party and also the Democratic Party. Those people were there long before Trump came along. He just recognized and and acted on it. Too many others failed to even be aware of it. Ms Cheney failed in that regard and thought Trump was just a clown show and as a result she cannot survive in the present Republican Party and is so bitter about that outcome that she focuses all of her hate on Trump and it blinds her to the real truths and that will likely destroy any political future for her.
This has kept her from the possible real service she could have rendered to congress and the American people and which, if she had set aside her ego and hate, might have raised her stature in many eyes and recovered her career. She could have dissuaded Pelosi from her decision to eliminate 2 key Republican picks and make it bipartisan. Her choice.
As you lawyers say, “The fruit of the poison tree…” This J6 show was one giant poison tree. Due to the kangaroo court format, nothing that comes out is worth a tinker’s dam. I think America knows that. Stop watering the poison tree and it will die on its own.
Instead, go about impeaching Biden’s heads of agencies that are destroying the economy out of pure spite.
Liz, you’re great. Can we get rid of unconstitutional affirmative action yet or do you all still need it?
Oh, and welfare, welfare healthcare, free housing, taxation of free Americans to prop up overpriced communist public schools and colleges, and private universities, central planning, control of the means of production by unconstitutional regulation, redistribution of wealth, social engineering, compulsory retirement plans, compulsory healthcare plans, etc., etc., etc.?
That focus was rejected by the Committee members and there were no dissenting views voiced on the Committee as well as a virtual bar on opposing explanations or interpretations of evidence.
A classic case of Group Think.
When Yale research psyhcologist Irving Janis coined the term “groupthink” in 1972, he identified eight symptoms of the pathology:
– the “illusion of invulnerability”;
– a “belief in the inherent morality of the group”;
– “collective rationalization”;
– “out-group stereotypes”;
-“self-censorship”;
– the “illusion of unanimity”;
– “direct pressure on dissenters”
– “self-appointed mindguards.”
https://boingboing.net/2019/12/03/collective-rationalization.html
Surprise, the j6 committee report will be political. Stupid progressives will be stupid.
Turley: “police were restricted by Congress in what they could use on that day…”
+++
If Pelosi and the security state apparatus wanted a Reichstag Fire to justify more totalitarian acts, what else would they have done? Salted the group with agents and provaceturs like Ray Epps?
They have been caught doing these things before, most prominently with Fast and Furious in which ATF sent guns to Mexican cartels to ‘prove’ that ordinary Americans were sending guns to cartels. And who can forget the Whitmer Kidnapping clown show?
Nothing can be taken at face value. And the more the MSM tells us something is true the more I believe it is yet another shovel full of deep state b.s.
Speaking of deep state b.s., see video.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/11/let-the-credits-roll.php
None of these hollow people will be ashamed at being caught out in their multiple lies.
To me, this is just more evidence that both the Left and Right establishment work together along with the FBI and other agencies to make sure the establishment stays in charge. Obviously Donald Trump was a huge threat to their stranglehold on this country and all its institutions. Endless wars, illegal immigration are just two of the issues that bind. They would never let Bernie be the candidate and they were so smugly sure that Hillary Evita Clinton would beat Trump. Trust me, it wasn’t only the Left that was shocked and horrified that night in November 2016.
Turley’s “view” of the J6 “riots” TO THIS DAY is nothing more than Propaganda Regurgitation:( sad but true. That well-published image that MSM paid $70K to the videographer to “capture” was narrated thru a BIASED lens and if you simply look at the facts, you could see from Day 1 that it was part of a Dem/RINO AGENDA to “Take Out Trump.” Pelosi practically RAN to the MIC to use the term “Insurrection.” It was all planned and narrated by her and her minions. That’s why they had to withhold ALL OF THE Brady evidence from the public:) This is SOOOO OBVIOUS that it nauseates me every single time I hear about it and read a STUPID narrative like this one. Even this article MAKES EVIDENT that the J6 committee had ONLY ONE INTENT. To Take Out Trump. I wish there were someone other than Trump to CLEAN UP the MESS that is DC Swamp. But there isn’t now is there?:) This Country is on the verge of economic and cultural collapse and at the very least, We the Peasants, should have the oppty to fight back against a CORRUPT AND STUPID RULING CLASS.
One of the things Republicans should do in the house is revive the J6 committee.
But they should conduct a real politically unbiased inquiry.
They should hold all or nearly all hearings in public. Witnesses should be examined and cross examined.
Witnesses should be given immunity if necescary to get to the truth.
And allowed lawyers.
ALL questions should be asked.
All the capitol video should be made public.
We should find out who ordered the capitol locked down and why.
Who rejected the offer of NG assistance.
The J6 prosecutions should be scrutinized also.
Why were people not given bail ? Why were they locked in solitary forever.
Why were the charged as they were.
Why was exculpatory evidence withheld.
Why was deadly force used.
This should all be done publicly – but without the circus fanfare of the democrats.
It will be interesting to see if Turley applies the same standard of review to the Republican led House investigations and hearings we will be seeing over the next couple of years.
Somehow I doubt it but hopefully he will surprise me.
Somehow I doubt it but hopefully he will surprise me.
That all depends on whether you’re looking to see what narrative develops out of the facts/evidence, or what facts/evidence develop out of the narrative. There’s no way JT will endorse any narrative that is not supported by a complete accounting of the facts/evidence.
Stanley, Republicans need the exact same methodology. Including, warrants and subpoenas of majority Dem leaders, and their staff. The need to be forced to submit. If Garland refuses to bring criminal charges, that’s all the proof needed to impeach Garland.
Stanley, you are the type of guy that thinks it is unfair to have a committee look at J6 or Hunter and yet you want Trump investigated by every partisan AG hack in the land.
It is kinda hard to call it a Democratic partisan committee when the one attacking Trump is very Republican.
Or maybe it was a just a dead boy or a live girl that made up her mind. Democrats are good at blackmail.
LOL. If you believe that, U R probably CLUELESS about everything.
Cheney is a Never Trumpister, who puts that ideology above party, above country.
Her TDS should make her illegible for office of any kind, to include local dog catcher.
Dear Sammy, It’s kinda hard to follow your logic about Liz Cheney being ‘very Republican’ when indeed she is de facto very un-Republican.. and it is indeed an extra partisan committee.. not only all Democrats, but no holds barred overt long-time aggressive out in the open Trump hating Democrats who obviously believe that the end justified the means, i.e., it’s OK to take words out of context and piece together a new Frame to see things they want you to see rather than the Facts in context….
So much focus on Jan 6th (continued persecution) so little attention on election integrity.
Robespierre could not be reached for comment.
It’s one thing to be disappointed with Trump. I’m disappointed with Trump, too (and I voted for him and gave a substantial donation to his campaign), but it’s quite another to give legitimacy to a bunch of Maoists lodged in our Congress like a burrowing tick. That’s all Cheney has done, and that only makes the situation worse. Pence and Barr handled their disillusionment with Mr. Trump much better.
I like Barr and even read his book, but he should have appointed a Special Prosecutor for the Hunter Biden issue.
Totally agree.
‘I like Barr…..’ yes I like him, too… .but it seemed like once he got into the big time with politics he became confused… I agree… WHY on earth didn’t he appoint a Special Counsel….???
And why has his successor not appointed one to investigate Hunter? His speech about appointing one for yet another Trump investigation was strange in that he specifically mentioned Biden’s intention to run again as justification for appointing a special counsel to investigate Trump. I thought that the next logical step was to appoint one to investigate the Bidens. Deafening silence.
No one is perfect. No one is right about everything. Barr is not an exception.
I have several disagreements with him – the Hunter Biden SC is one of those.
I think he is incredibly perceptive at times, and blind at others.
He has far more faith in institutions that I, and far more than is justified.
And he oddly does not understand that people who would perpitrate a hoax on the FBI/DOJ would also commit election fraud.
I did not vote for Trump.
I am very troubled by Both Barr and Pence.
Barr in particular – he was brought in to clean up DOJ/FBI – absolutely nothing he did survived his departure.
More so than most he grasps that what went on in 2016-2018 regarding the collusion delusion was WRONG, immoral and involved many in government.
Yet, Barr thinks the claims of voter fraud are laughable ?
Because people who would corrupt the DOJ and FBI to pursue an unconstitutional election would not engage in voter fraud ?
Barr, like everyone else with a clue about elections knows that anything short of secret balloting will eventually result in fraud.
And that if blank ballots leave voting precincts, the fraud will eventually become large scale.
Did we have enough fraud to tip the 2020 election ? It would have only taken 22,000 ballots to tip the election.
Even the AZ audit found almost 50K fraudulent ballots – and the likelyhood of 4 times that.
I have little doubt that the current AZ election will ultimately favor democrats – but Maricopa County is already admitting that atleast 60 precincts had BOD printers that were screwed up. And election observers claim the number is closer to 200.
Further the AZ AG office reporting is that ALL the BOD printers were tested the day before the election without problems, and the week before that. There is some reporting that printer settings were altered after testing.
There are also affadavits that election officials mixed the ballots that could not be scanned with ballots that had already been scanned, and that as a result thre are 3 different miscount possibilities – all of which likely occured.
Previously scanned ballots were counted twice.
unscanned ballots were never never counted.
a mix of previously scanned and unscanned ballots were counted once.
And Barr is still saying that claims of fraud are laughable.
I am sorry – Barr knows better.
Election fraud is a long standing US tradition.
The question in 2020 is not was there fraud.
It is was it sufficient to tipp the election.
Barr and others like him burried their heads to that possibility
and as a result we have more and more elections we can not trust.
Neither the Barr types, nor those on the left seem to grasp that – ultimately it is not relevant the actual extent of Election fraud.
What is relevant is that people are able to trust elections.
You do not build trust by repeatedly telling people everything is honky dory – especially when we see ample evidence that it is not.
The 2020 Elections may have been flipped by Fraud. They absolutely were messy and untrustworthy.
And that will not go away until people like Barr or democrats cease being glib, and work towards conducting trustworthy elections.
That means no screwups – like we saw this year and 2020. It means transparency, and it means ALWAYS investigating rather than supressing allegations of fraud.
John Say: Thanks for your take re: ‘Election Integrity.’ Thankfully, it’s not about Trump.. as most who write about this can’t get away from their Trump fetish, which immediately distorts things. Good points re Pence & esp. Barr.. Prof Turley wrote a great piece on the ‘shrinking Garland..’ We are still waiting for him to tackle the ‘confused Barr..’ another fine lawyer who lost his way once he got into ‘Politics…’ ..(..like Mueller..) What most of these ‘laymen’ do not understand, lacking any indepth IT training. is that the Fraud goes beyond the ballot itself.. I Newsmax ran a good piece where a group of ex-Navy crytologists showed the totals changing in the middle of the night inside the computers which were allegedly shut down until the next day… one example.. how a few thousand votes for Trump in one PA county were subtracted out of there and showed up being added a couple days later into the totals for Biden in another PA county….which gave Biden the win in both counties. Computer crime is almost impossible to prove when there is online access and indeed in sophistcated programming, the code can destroy itself…Bottom-line, folks like Barr can hardly know what really went on there.
I have listened to Barr many times – I recently listend to an excellent interview with him on Barri Weis’s “honestly”.
I highly recomend her podcast. Though I would warn you that she is still a bit more to the left than Turley.
She makes the mistake of NOT getting anyone MAGA on to defend MAGA positions.
Her idea of balance is between the left and moderates on the right.
Still her podcasts and guests are mostly excellent – even when I do not entirely agree.
Overall I think Barr is a towering intellect – though again, I have points of disagreement.
While he is frequently called to appear as a Trump critic – and he obliges, he is also a full throated and excellent defender of Trump’s administration and accomplishments.
But I differ from Barr on several major points.
He should have appointed a Biden SC on the way out the door.
He also should have appointed an SC to look into elections. He should have done so REGARDLESS of his view that they was no consequential fraud. The 2020 and now 2022 election were not conducted such that thy should be trusted.
That is corrected by intense scrutiny and corrections as needed.
Everyone fixates on Trump’s election case losses – NONE were actually on the merits. We have gotten alot of damning information on the 2020 election – though none of that as a result of Trump challenges. Even if after hearing all the allegations and the rebutals and the evidence you still think the 2020 election was won by Biden – that is fine. But no one who actually looks at it can walk away without a foul smell following.
If we continue that too long there WILL be an “insurrection”
We MUST clean up our elections. Nor is this a new problem.
I beleive it is possible that Trump won NH in 2016 and that Ayoette probably won the senate race.
That was an inperson election and the amount of possible fraud was small but the race was incredibly close – and the most likely fraud favored democrats. Regardless, we should not have doubts. We must do better. But democrats are actively working to do much worse.
Barr also attacks Trump as his own worst enemy. I understand where he comes from. We ALL think Trumps management style is chaotic and unstable.
But there is a major problem with Barr’s argument – Trump accomplished an incredible amount. He did so with two years of a GOP congress that was NOT supportive. And two years of a democratic house that was openly hostile. He did so while constantly under investigation.
The measure of Trump’s management is nt whether I like his style – but what it accomplished.
And I would criticize Barr in much the same way. he came in to clean up DOJ/FBI – I think he tried. I think he was successful – right up until he left. Now they are more politically corrupt than before.
Ultimately by the same measures that Barr uses to rate Trump as successful – Barr failed.
I like Barr, I think he is a decent moral person. But ultimately on the high profile issues he is wrong and he failed.
Most of the statistical analysis of the 2020 election (and some of the 2022 one) are damning.
They are absolutely far more than strong enough to require an investigation.
But statistics – even a gazillion to 1 odds are not proof.
It is unfortunate but the 2020 election is totally done at this point – records have been destroyed. Further investigation is not possible.
There is little likelyhood of much more progress being made to expose 2020.
One of the things I realized very quickly in 2022 – is we were seeing much the same thing all over – possibly worse.
What is going on in AZ stinks much worse than 2020.
It is possible that NV is clean – but there are lots of problems there too.
There is criminal election fraud in NM, but it at worst effected a single house seat.
But it was overt and illegal voter intimidation by the SOS – now governor elect.
And no one should ever trust anything coming out of Philadelphia.
Philly today is what Chicago was decades ago. Of course Philly has been that bad my entire life.
An Philly election official is convicted of election fraud nearly every cycle.