The website for the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol https://january6th.house.gov/
The Select Committee was created in the wake of May 28, 2021, when Senate Republicans blocked a plan for an independent "9-11 style" commission that had been approved by the House of Representatives, where 35 of the 210 House Republicans had joined with all 217 House Democrats to approve the independent commission by a vote of 252-175.
In the Senate, the independent commission garnered 54 votes to bring it to the floor for debate, including 6 Republicans, but that was not enough Republican crossovers to achieve the 60-vote supermajority threshold to bring it to the floor of the Senate.
The Select Committee is comprised by 7 Democrats and 2 Republicans.
Of the 7 Democrats, Jamie Raskin and Zoe Lofgren are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The other Democrats—committee chairman Bennie Thompson, and Adam Schiff, Pete Aguilar, Stephanie Murphy and Elaine Luria—are not members of the Progressive Caucus. Of the 220 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, 100 are literally "progressives" in the sense that they are members of the Progressive Caucus.
There is no "Squad" representation on the committee. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, aka "AOC", and Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley—not on the committee.
The two Republican members are Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. Cheney and Kinzinger voted not to impeach President Trump in the run-up to Trump Impeachment I. Kinzinger has said that, in retrospect, he regrets not having voted to impeach Trump for "I". Liz Cheney has said that she does not regret voting against Trump Impeachment I.
Both Cheney and Kinzinger voted to impeach President Trump after the Capitol riot on January 6, along with 8 other House Republicans who joined with the Democrats to queue up Trump Impeachment II. (The Roman numerals are a "nod" to the NFL's longstanding Super Bowl tradition.)
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy nominated 5 Republicans for the committee, who would have joined with the Republican ranking committee member Liz Cheney to create a committee of 6 Republicans and 7 Democrats. McCarthy nominated Republicans Jim Jordan, Jim Banks, Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls. None were among the 10 House Republicans who voted for Trump Impeachment II. Jim Jordan, Jim Banks and Troy Nehls were among the 139 Republican members of the House who voted not to certify the election of Joe Biden as President.
House Speaker and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accepted Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls, but gave a "thumbs down" to Jim Jordan and Jim Banks. She asked McCarthy to nominate two other Republicans instead of Jordan and Banks.
McCarthy would not, effectively withdrawing the nominations of Davis, Armstrong and Nehls, and telling Nancy Pelosi to "go pound sand." (In so many words.)
At that juncture, Speaker Pelosi invited Republican Adam Kinzinger to join the committee.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-25-2022).]
By way of comparison, a quick look back at the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which famously grilled the former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Chaired by Republican Trey Gowdy, the Benghazi committee had 7 Republican members and 5 Democrats.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-21-2022).]
[Cassidy] Hutchinson also recounted a separate Trump tantrum after then-Attorney General William Barr told the Associated Press in December 2020 there was no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
"I remember hearing noise coming from down the hallway," Hutchinson began. She saw the President's valet in the dining room, changing the tablecloth, ketchup dripping down the wall, and a porcelain plate shattered on the floor.
"The President was extremely angry at the attorney general's ... interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall," Hutchinson said. "I grabbed a towel and started wiping the ketchup off the wall."
I'd heard the idiom "throwing stuff against the wall to see if anything sticks" before, but this takes it to a new level..!
While yesterday's Docu Drama most surely galvanized the Anti-Trump side of the so-called investigation, it lacked significant credibility in that secondhand information/accusations are not normally accepted in a court of law. But then, this isn't a court of law. It's obviously an attempt to discredit DJT from ever running for office again. I heard so and so say that so and so did or said.........................
Not being a DJT fan, I have hope that two specific other potential candidates will run, hopefully as a team. But, while I may not be a personal fan of DJT, I can say he did more to make us a stronger economic force than any President before (in my lifetime). IOWs, I'd prefer a Candidate/President that doesn't tweet but has similar economic/security/immigration/defense and other policies.
Ask yourself, are you better off now than you were two, three or four years ago.....................
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-29-2022).]
By commenting on this thread, you may have lent an air of credibility to the author.
My apologies. I should have known better...............
I didn't think (initially) that this would effect the OP's credibility in the least, I think that's been settled for a long time. It's like trying to make a cherry pie with apples, lemons and strawberries and a hint of horseshit. It's obvious the baker has no clue regardless of how much "Cherry flavoring" he adds. Distraction is what he's after. I (initially) thought some truth should be added to the recipe.
Cassidy Hutchinson is full of crap. She is the Christine Blasey Ford of the DNC's latest sitcom. She is the Jussie Smollett of the traveling minstrel show.
"They'll let him take the mask off if he agrees to talk."
The House Select Committee investigating January 6 has issued a subpoena for the testimony of Pasquale Anthony "Pat" Cipollone, who was Trump's White House (legal) Counsel during the finale of Trump's tempestuous four-year term in the "Oval."
This seems like the weirdest, most pre-planned and orchestrated picture. They're all wearing the same African-inspired scarf from Target, and they all had to take doses of glucosamine chondroitin two days before so they could all kneel like that. And why there, in atrium of the Capitol building. Are they facing anything? I'm not aware of anything that they're looking at except the entrance. The whole situation seems so contrived and totally fake.
Do not start threads about other threads. So you get in a heated discussion in one of the threads. You get the feeling you are not getting your point across. So you feel the need to start a new thread explaining what you meant in the first thread. Don't. Since there's already a thread on the subject, say it there.
Do not start threads about other threads. So you get in a heated discussion in one of the threads. You get the feeling you are not getting your point across. So you feel the need to start a new thread explaining what you meant in the first thread. Don't. Since there's already a thread on the subject, say it there.
That's kind of "pissy" of you, Mr Raydar. What other thread might you be talking about?
I added to this thread 3 times in 8 days, before anyone else wanted to add something—and?
I added to this thread. I didn't start 3 new threads about this thread, or even 1 new thread about this thread.
I really don't understand the mentality of "Why did you cause the forum to change, when I had it locked in as a static screensaver?" Which is basically what you're saying, considering how infrequent it is, that any new threads or posts are seen.
You may have overlooked the fact that every forum member does not have posting privileges in every thread. There's this feature that the forum's moderator added not all that long ago, which some have dubbed "The Blacklist", in a nod to the NBC episodic TV series. The Pennock's "Blacklist" is a deconfliction feature that promotes civility by forcing some separation of discussion between certain forum members.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-30-2022).]
OK. I didn't even remember those. I couldn't even say (without looking) which of these three threads (this one, and those two other ones) I created first.
"January 6" covers a lot of ground, from the committee hearings—which is Congress—to the press releases from the DOJ (executive branch) and then the news media coverage of it.
That's kind of "pissy" of you, Mr Raydar. What other thread might you be talking about? ... You may have overlooked the fact that every forum member does not have posting privileges in every thread. There's this feature that the forum's moderator added not all that long ago, which some have dubbed "The Blacklist", in a nod to the NBC episodic TV series. The Pennock's "Blacklist" is a deconfliction feature that promotes civility by forcing some separation of discussion between certain forum members.
Ah... "I see", said the blind man. The other thread was started by randye. And you are conspicuous, by your absence. Must have been the list. I apologize for missing that little detail. But don't feel too "rained upon". Ray took up your slack.
That's kind of "pissy" of you, Mr Raydar. What other thread might you be talking about?
I added to this thread 3 times in 8 days, before anyone else wanted to add something—and?
I added to this thread. I didn't start 3 new threads about this thread, or even 1 new thread about this thread.
I really don't understand the mentality of "Why did you cause the forum to change, when I had it locked in as a static screensaver?" Which is basically what you're saying, considering how infrequent it is, that any new threads or posts are seen.
You may have overlooked the fact that every forum member does not have posting privileges in every thread. There's this feature that the forum's moderator added not all that long ago, which some have dubbed "The Blacklist", in a nod to the NBC episodic TV series. The Pennock's "Blacklist" is a deconfliction feature that promotes civility by forcing some separation of discussion between certain forum members.
No, it's not "pissy" of Steve. He's dead center on target.
My next observation would be that the forum moderator installed a new restriction based on a specific reason. If that reason relates to you then, who's fault is that? I think we all know the answer to that. Honestly, I do wish Cliff would reconsider that ignore button. Just think about it, you could ignore all those distractors and so could a bunch of us. You'd own your own threads (all by yourself).
------------------ Rams
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.........
While yesterday's Docu Drama most surely galvanized the Anti-Trump side of the so-called investigation, it lacked significant credibility in that secondhand information/accusations are not normally accepted in a court of law. But then, this isn't a court of law. It's obviously an attempt to discredit DJT from ever running for office again. I heard so and so say that so and so did or said.........................
Not being a DJT fan, I have hope that two specific other potential candidates will run, hopefully as a team. But, while I may not be a personal fan of DJT, I can say he did more to make us a stronger economic force than any President before (in my lifetime). IOWs, I'd prefer a Candidate/President that doesn't tweet but has similar economic/security/immigration/defense and other policies.
Ask yourself, are you better off now than you were two, three or four years ago.....................
Rams
Several of Trumps closest allies, including Barr and even Ivanka, testified under oath against Trump. So you have first hand in-the-room experiences testifying against Trump. It's not the investigation, it's Trumps actions himself that should discredit him.
And that's like saying Mussolini was good because he got the trains to run on time.
Hmmm...Barr says he thinks Biden won the election and Ivanka says she agrees with Barr, therefore Trump is the equivalent of a fascist dictator. Let me think about that profound logic for a moment...
Hmmm...Barr says he thinks Biden won the election and Ivanka says she agrees with Barr, therefore Trump is the equivalent of a fascist dictator. Let me think about that profound logic for a moment...
Barr said Trumps claims of election fraud are bullshit. Barr also stated Trump spreading the lie that the election was stolen was dangerous. Trump lost dozens of court cases because he had no evidence.
So without evidence and against the recommendation of damn near everyone except Guiliani, Trump -continued- to peddle -the lie- the election was stolen/fraudulent, which culminated on 6JAN with the storming of the Capitol. Trump -thought- he had the ability to just toss out the election results and supplant a result favorable to him. . . because our founders totally thought "Yeah, let the people choose their representatives, but let's give the VP the power to just toss the election results if they don't like them." This bullshit theory is why the crowd was chanting kill Mike Pence for not essentially over-riding the votes for the new duly elected president.
He (Trump) was attempting to **** over our constitutional right to choose our representatives.
So yeah, dictator, or whatever you want to call him.
Several of Trumps closest allies, including Barr and even Ivanka, testified under oath against Trump. So you have first hand in-the-room experiences testifying against Trump. It's not the investigation, it's Trumps actions himself that should discredit him.
And that's like saying Mussolini was good because he got the trains to run on time.
As I said, it's a Docu Drama, only the prosecution is able to present evidence, what they are presenting is by no means representing both sides of the situation. That is my biggest issue with this Docu Drama. It's not a trial, it's a presentation of selected "evidence".
Don't think I'm a DJT fan, never have been and to be honest, he was not my first choice to run as a Republican. I believe that if you cared to look, you would find that I've stated that many times. I could not bring myself to vote for HRC if she paid me to. But anyone with any kind of open mind should be able to acknowledge this is simply a witch hunt to keep DJT from being able to run again.
I liked DJTs policies, that doesn't mean I liked DJT.
I'm grabbing power in the morning I’ve gathered all my MAGA slime I'll put no stops, on beating up the cops Just get me to the riot on time
Sung to the tune of "Get Me To The Church On Time" from My Fair Lady. I can see it now. "January 6—The Musical."
I have no doubt that Trump was lunging for the steering wheel from the second row seat of the SUV and wrestling with the Secret Service driver as they turned away from the route to the Capitol Building and drove him back to his residence at the White House.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-01-2022).]
No, it's not "pissy" of Steve. He's dead center on target.
My next observation would be that the forum moderator installed a new restriction based on a specific reason. If that reason relates to you then, who's fault is that? I think we all know the answer to that. Honestly, I do wish Cliff would reconsider that ignore button. Just think about it, you could ignore all those distractors and so could a bunch of us. You'd own your own threads (all by yourself).
I have no direct and 100 percent conclusive way to confirm this, but I do not believe that I am the only forum member that Cliff Pennock has "hit" with a Blacklist restriction of the kind that I hinted at, earlier in this thread.
So, more than one forum member, more than one reason. Or more than one forum member, because of the same reason.
I best not go any deeper on this point, however. "The first rule of Blacklist is you do not talk about Blacklist."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-01-2022).]
As I said, it's a Docu Drama, only the prosecution is able to present evidence, what they are presenting is by no means representing both sides of the situation. That is my biggest issue with this Docu Drama. It's not a trial, it's a presentation of selected "evidence".
Don't think I'm a DJT fan, never have been and to be honest, he was not my first choice to run as a Republican. I believe that if you cared to look, you would find that I've stated that many times. I could not bring myself to vote for HRC if she paid me to. But anyone with any kind of open mind should be able to acknowledge this is simply a witch hunt to keep DJT from being able to run again.
I liked DJTs policies, that doesn't mean I liked DJT.
Rams
First, there were negotiations involving Democrats and Republicans that produced a framework for an Independent Commission to investigate the events of January 6. Democrats would have selected exactly half of the commission members, and Republicans, the other half of the commission members. It was evenly balanced between the party affiliations, in terms of Democrats vs Republicans.
The Republican leadership in Congress pulled the rug out from that plan, after it had been negotiated. So, no Independent Commission. I've not ever seen or heard that the Democratic leadership in Congress balked at this plan for an Independent Commission. Forum readers..?
Then the House Democrats, as the majority party in the House, and under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, set up the House Select Committee. The Republicans were offered 6 slots on the Committee, and the Democrats were to have one more. So a Select Committee of 13 members, chaired by a Democrat, with 7 Democrats (including the Committee chair) and 6 Republicans.
One of the House Republicans that Pelosi agreed to seat on the Committee had voted not to certify the election of Joe Biden. Pelosi rejected Jim Jordan (R) and Jim Banks (R) and that's when House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy declined any further cooperation. That's how it came down to this Select Committee of 7 Democrats and 2 Republicans.
I see no reason that anyone who still wants to testify before the Committee, either for the first time, or to add to their previous testimony, could not raise their hand (so to speak) and set themselves up with the Committee. If the Committee doesn't accept their offer to testify, I see no reason why that could not be made public by anyone that raises their hand in this manner. It would still be up to the Committee to decide how to regard or use any such new or additional testimony.
Trump himself could volunteer to give "under oath" testimony to the Committee. How could the Committee prevent that from going public, if Trump said he was ready to do it and the Committee turned him down?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-02-2022).]
I'm grabbing power in the morning I’ve gathered all my MAGA slime I'll put no stops, on beating up the cops Just get me to the riot on time
I'd like to see the Committee set up a reenactment of the scene in the Presidential SUV as Trump was driven back to his White House residence after he spoke at the Stop The Steal rally at the "Ellipse".
If they can't bring the actual SUV into the hearings room, why not convene a hearing in a venue that's large enough? From the White House garage? (There has to be a garage, right?) Or how about a mockup of the interior of the SUV, with all the proper dimensions and seating? If Trump himself won't cooperate, an actor with the same or very similar height and arm length?
It wouldn't confirm the account that was presented as second-hand testimony (what Cassidy Hutchinson said she was told by Tony Ornato), with Trump lunging forwards from his second row seat, groping for the steering wheel and wrestling with the Secret Service driver, but it could reveal the relative likelihood (or not) of that scenario, from the physical aspects of it.
That would be compelling TV. Who wouldn't want to see it?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-02-2022).]
Whether it was exactly as White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson said it was told to her, or something less or not at all physical, Trump's "lunge" for the steering wheel made the rounds of every late night TV host and comic. Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, Seth Myers, Chelsea Handler...
After some careful consideration, I give the nod to Trevor Noah, so I've got him queued up on YouTube to the part where he starts talking about the "lunge".
The comments posted by Forum member rinselberg in this thread are predominately horse hockey.
💩
Havent you figured it out yet ?
Rinse is having fun with us, laughing his balls off, and trolling just for the fun...
(rinse, Dude....the thrift shop has a full-volume set of Britanica for 32 dollah,,,wanna bet how many big words I can find there. Probably enough to make your eyes bleed....LMAO !!!!)
"Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone agrees to testify behind closed doors with Jan. 6 committee" Peter Alexander and Rebecca Shahad for NBC News; July 6, 2022. https://www.nbcnews.com/pol...d-doors-ja-rcna36901
"Cipollone, considered a critical witness whose testimony lawmakers have suggested is a missing link, previously met with committee investigators in April for an informal interview."
A missing link? That could go in some very unexpected directions. As "missing link" is a term we've all encountered before, and likely, many times before. But there's no missing link here. It's part of the attribution that I just provided (above) for this NBC news report.
Washington Post political reporter Jackie Alemany and the supersized "cupcake" on the table behind her have become well known to MSNBC viewers. Jackie got the nod earlier today to start the on-air discussion about Pat Cipollone and the possible significance of the testimony that he's agreed to provide to the House Select Committee. Cipollone is expected to testify before the committee on Friday—now less than 48 hours away.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-06-2022).]
