What are they afraid of?


Just one of many pieces discussing the GOP reluctance to a January 6th Commission.

Pelosi compromised form her original position on the make up and duties of the commission. So much so, the ranking member of the Committee agreed to forward it for a vote.

But because some guy in Florida told the Minority Leader to stop the investigation, the GOP leadership is doing everything short of actual vote whipping to prevent it from happening. Even Magic Mitch is capitulating because the part-time Florida resident (Word is he summering in New Jersey. Really? New Jersey? OK) doesn’t want it to happen.

So now I ask the same question our moderator has asked with regards to election audits: What do they fear?

61 thoughts on “What are they afraid of?

  1. RE: “What do they fear?”

    Two or possibly four years of another useless and fraudulent Russiagate.


    1. Three words for you, sir. “Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi”

      And to compare what you refer to as “useless and fraudulent” shows you fear the truth coming out. We still do not have all of the answers wrt to Russian interference, but what do you care? Democracy, or at the least this country’s democratic process, be damned.

      “Short bus people” (A lawyer’s words) and those who suffer from “Foxitis” (another lawyer’s words) perpetrated a criminal insurrection and you think they are tourists and trespassers?

      Sad. Bigly sad.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Benghazi was a big lie. The stolen election is a big lie.

          The insurrection was on video and it was NOT a bunch of tourists or trespassers.

          Your comments have gone from sad to delusional.


          1. Right. Just tourists and trespassers.

            The Capitol Police think you are full of it. I tend to agree with them.

            You may have “seen the video”, but your TBS does not allow you to actually SEE what really was happening that day. If you can provide me with ha better explanation, I will be glad to listen. But if you insist on saying they were not trying to overthrow the results of the election, or at the least stop the election from being certified, you are delusional.


          2. RE: “The Capitol Police think you are full of it.”

            Do they? No protesters have been charged with insurrection crimes.


          3. “No protesters have been charged with insurrection crimes.”


            And what do YOU call what happened on January 6th? A picnic gone bad? A REALLY rowdy Congressional tour group? A riotous mob hellbent on 1) hanging the sitting VP and 2) killing the sitting Speaker of the House?

            You decide. Can’t wait for the answer to this one.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “If you can provide me with ha better explanation, I will be glad to listen.”

            And I just adore how you ignored this part of my comment.
            Convenient? Or do you need more time to find some fringe website to back you up?


        2. “The insurrection narrative is a big lie.”

          Then what is the objection to a bi-partisan commission digging into it?
          The answer is obvious – people who were there including McCarthy and McConnell know from first hand experience that it is not a “Big Lie.”

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “Then what is the objection to a bi-partisan commission digging into it?”

            Already stated: Two or possibly four years of another useless and fraudulent Russiagate.


          2. The investigation of Russian influence on our politics and the involvement of the Trump campaign with their meddling was neither useless nor fraudlent. Nor have we seen the final chapter.

            This excuse to give the January 6th insurrectionists, their aiders and their abetters a pass is not persuasive. The need for a very public inquiry is clear and it is made stronger by the attempted re-write of what happened by Trump, by the GOP and by people like you.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Interesting how they are “witch hunts” when looking into certain things, usually looking at things on the “right” and they are legitimate investigations when looking into things on the “left”.

            Amazing how hypocrites are so g-d awful blind to their own hypocrisies.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Witch hunts?

            Well, bad things happen to people who try to overthrow our government. You can call them “witches” if you want but they need to pay a heavy price both criminally and politically for what they did.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. No one fears anything. There is nothing to investigate. It truly wasn’t an “insurrection” unless you consider phone cams deadly weapons fit for use in a government overthrow. All Democrats want is a continuing narrative to babble about next year.


    1. “There is nothing to investigate.”

      That is very obviously a false statement. Thousands of people storming the Capitol to stop the Congress from fulfilling its duties is definitely SOMETHING that was both unprecedented and dangerous.

      Whatever you want to call the criminal violence, it is essential that everything leading up to that criminal violence and everything that was done and not done on the day get a very full PUBLIC airing. If that turns out to work to the advantage of the Democrats then maybe the Republicans will clean up their act and echew choosing leaders who foment violence.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Phone cams? Nah. But they erected a gallows and sought two specific persons shouting their intent to use it. The last time I checked, a gallows is quite deadly.

      Liked by 2 people

    3. “No one fears anything. There is nothing to investigate. ”

      Really? Don keeps saying the DEMS have plenty to fear that is why they are fighting the so-called “audits” of election results that have been done, redone and overdone.

      What does 45 fear so much that he tells, and they listen, GOP Congressional leaders to stop it. If there is nothing to fear, let it happen.

      The point is the blatant and obvious hypocrisy of those on the right. “We didn’t do anything wrong, so there is nothing to see here, But Benghazi . Seven congressional investigations, looking for nothing is really important.”

      Liked by 1 person

    4. …”unless you consider phone cams deadly weapons”

      Bats, flagpoles, clubs hockey sticks, batons, chemical agents are the ACTUAL weapons of choice that day. Or did you miss that part because you wee too busy watching 45 tell his riotous mob how special they were and that he loved them. Not enough to pardon them, but loved them nonetheless.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. He’s summering in New Jersey because to get any further north, e.g., New Hampshire, would requiring entering New York, and frankly, he’s not all that sure he’ll make it out if he does.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Actually some posters are correct. It was not an insurrection.

    It was an attempted insurrection to stop the constitutional duties of the VP and Congress and overturn the election. And as we are learning, many of the gang members and their groupies thought Trump had invited them to do that. Which, of course he did in his effort to stay in power in spite of the will of Americans. An autogolpe in its purest form that failed.

    The Republicans who are basing their political fortunes with a disgraced ex-president are panicking. McCarthy who got most of everything he wanted in a compromise worked out by Katko got a late night call from Trump evidently..

    That might be what strikes fear in Republicans. Speculation of course, but McCarthy sure acts very suspiciously like he is hiding something.

    Yet, there might be about 10 or so Republicans who want to investigate an attack on our government. After all, the entire GOP can’t be all traitors.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Has it occurred to any of you that there are people who will be facing trial, including some who live locally, whose trials would be unduly influenced by a political theater.

    Courts have rules of evidence that prevent prejudicial and irrelevant issues from being injected into the jurors minds, political bombast does not.

    At the very least, this political theater should be delayed until after those trials have taken place as any potential jury will be tainted more than they already are, or otherwise, declare mistrials for every defendant right now.


    1. Political theater?

      You show once again how little you care for our country. The 6th of January Commission is not yet authorized nor its procedures established but already you are denigrating its important work. And that after the framework for its efforts was agreed by representatives of both parties. Are you ever going to stop carrying water for Dear Leader? Do you admire him that much?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Nothing to do with Trump, it is you, not me, who is obsessed with him.

        No matter who on each political side agreed to terms, they will not be the terms that would be allowed in court. Those people who have been arrested did not all do the same things, or with the same intent. Each deserves a trial based on the facts as they pertain to his circumstances.

        But political showboating will tar everyone with a brush probably not accurate for any.

        Future jurors cannot unsee that.

        The alternative is mistrial with prejudice for all.


        1. Yeah, sure, we all know that you really, really want those nasty trespassers to be convicted.

          The Commission is not political showboating. You can only say that because you know that various gun-toting fellow travelling Proud Boys-types and leading Republicans are culpable.

          Government commissions to study and shed light on major damaging events have been organized dozens of times. You are fooling no one with your concerns about court proceedings. You are a Trump water carrier and have been for almost five years. Deny until you turn purple. The truth is obvious.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Typical authoritarian? Pure tribalism?

            Because I think that a murderous and coordinated attempt to overthrow the government merits a public commission to find and publicize the truth? I do not believe it is envisioned that the Commission will be handling any prosecutions so your very silly remarks about the Gulag are just more of your apparently senesecent blathering.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. So, you see no problem with irreversibly tainting the jury pool before these people, many of whom just got caught up in something and others of whom might have had more serious intentions, have their individual day in court.

            I see the right of each individual to a fair trial based on the facts of his individual circumstances by an unprejudiced jury to be paramount, but for you, the possibility of some political gain is more important than individual rights.

            Stalin said that one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic. You and he would have gotten along well together.


          3. “… many of whom just got caught up in something…”

            Would that include those arrested during some of the protests that turned violent?

            If people join a violent and rabid mob destroying property and trying to kill law officers, that is not “caught up in something”. Those are law breakers not patriots.

            Do they deserve a fair trial by jury? Of course they do despite the obvious fact that such rights and courtesies were not top of mind of the insurrectionists had they caught Congressmen or Pence.

            Republicans are hiding because they have to answer some difficult questions.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. And how do you have a fair trial by jury if the entire jury pool has been exposed to political opinions stated as fact that would never be allowed in court.

            A judge can tell them to ignore it, but the bell cannot be unrung.


          5. You are obsessed with the tainted jury pool. Well, in a free, open society with a robust free press across the spectrum the balancing act is always an issue in high profile trials.

            There are lots of much more notorious trials that have venue changes just for that reason.

            Do we stop all trials until the publicity wears down after a decade or so?

            The whole country already knows about, has seen hours of videos, heard the rally exhortation to “take back the country”, etc.

            So what are you afraid of? Besides, if we have a commission it will be months before it is even formed. Little new will come out EXCEPT of course the complicit Republicans and their roles along with a president who smiled and watched TV. But that should be a plus when the violent ignoranti plead not guilty due to the actions of their “god”.

            Bottom line is that in a case like this we just have to work with what we have. You can’t stop prosecution because the cases are notorious.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. “… exposed to political opinions stated as fact that would never be allowed in court.”

            Funny and ironic. That is what Giuliani, Powell, et.al. found out when they kept either getting rejected by courts or withdrew to avoid perjury.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Not really. But that is pointless to debate with you. So believe what you will, most of the gang members and their hapless groupies will probably plea bargain. The ones that will be charged with heavy felony charges won’t see a trial for months and wimps that they are will beg for mercy based on stupidity.

            A lawyer for the dummy dressed in horns and a loincloth or whatever has stated in an interview that his client, as well as the others, are mentally ill idiots that were duped by Trump. That may be, but a judge has said that argument is a non-starter. Personal responsibility and all that stuff.

            “A lot of these defendants — and I’m going to use this colloquial term, perhaps disrespectfully — but they’re all f—— short-bus people. … These are people with brain damage, they’re f—— retarded, they’re on the goddamn spectrum,”

            “… which also included the argument that the rioters weren’t “bad people” but were “subjected to four-plus years of goddamn propaganda the likes of which the world has not seen since f—— Hitler.”


            And that sums it up rather nicely, don’t you think?

            And it applies perfectly to the GOP caucus as well.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. You are assuming a fact not in evidence. That the Commission’s work will be done in a way that taints a possible jury pool. It might or it might not. The courts can deal with it. They deal with media coverage of cases all the time.

            Given the gravity of the very real possibility of the President inciting insurrection, his deliberately withholding help and of members of Congress aiding and abetting insurrectionist violence the most important thing for the country is to air the facts about the roles played by our leaders – whatever they are – sooner rather than later.

            You probably think that your lame attempts to call me an “authoritarian” or a Stalinist sting in some way. They do not. They are laughable coming from someone with so little regard for the truth that you constantly exhibit. THAT is what is “Stalinist” around here. That and supporting a wannabe autocrat and condoning violence against our institutions.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. “Has it occurred to any of you that there are people who will be facing trial, including some who live locally, whose trials would be unduly influenced by a political theater.”

      Too bad you don’t see the “audit” in Arizona in a similar light. Simple minded folks, like ones that would be selected for jury duty, are being influenced by the lies surrounding the election.

      And why is it political theater? Was the 9/11 Commission political theater? And how public was it until concluded and the commissions findings and recommendations were released to the public.

      Katko was tasked to negotiate the original plan to something that could be considered bi-partisan. He did his job. McCarthy got almost all of what he wanted with regards to changes, including the makeup of the commission. Then The orange haired RCA logo spoke and he listened to the master’s voice. Same with Magic Mitch. Both of who have changed their tunes from classical to rap music concerning the responsibility that 45 has for what happened on 1/6.

      The American people deserve to know what happened that day between POTUS on members of his own party when they called on him to tell his supporters to back down. We have a right to know what caused the riotous mob to storm the Capitol. None of that would really effect the trials of those who deserve to be tried for their roles in the attempted insurrection. But it will tell us the truth about the GOP and its total capitulation to the twice impeached one term president.

      THAT is the political theater. And the GOP is terrified of it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. No matter what precautions are taken, politicians will do what politicians do.

        I am not saying that an inquiry should never be done, but not until the cases have been adjudicated.

        I am quite serious that mistrial would be the only remedy if this inquiry precedes the trials,


        1. Your theory is coming off as just an excuse to ignore what happened. The longer the wait, the more it will be forgotten. Especially by those who insist it was peaceful, trespassing or tourists.

          Sorry, Don. But your excuse doesn’t wash with me. Especially because you didn’t answer what I said about WHEN the report will be made public.


          1. When the report becomes available is irrelevant, as the politicians will be speaking about each day’s testimony in the most lurid terms every day it progresses.

            So, either delay the inquiry or drop the charges against 90% of those involved.


          2. The only irrelevance I am seeing is the excuse you are making for delaying the commission. As I said desperate attempt at whitewashing of what happened.

            If you wait, it won’t come.


        2. “I am quite serious that mistrial would be the only remedy if this inquiry precedes the trials”

          Yeah, we are all very familiar with the level of your legal expertise.

          If your advice were followed and the Commission was delayed a year until after all trials were complete the attempt to get it going would be met with claims that (1) it is ancient history and (2) the timing was designed to hurt the GQP election chances in 2022.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. So, your political goals are more important than the rights of hundreds of citizens to a fair trial.

            At least you’re consistent. Individual rights don’t matter.


          2. Sorry, but in the real world, we deal with news and judicial rights every day. We don’t hold up trials because a jury may be informed by what is going on in the world.

            The trials are based on the recorded and witnessed actions during the insurrection. Guilt or innocence is based on the facts, not your political opinions.

            If you were a White supremacist or just a western chauvinist or a Libertarian, your beating a policeman half to death is still a crime. And just because the media may or may not write stories that favor the attack won’t be a reason to stop justice.

            High profile jury trials are a fact of life and have been for centuries. We deal with it.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. A jury hearing the normal news is one thing, but a political investigation with the daily leaks and comments that have accompanied them in recent years is quite another, especially with the amplification of a partisan press.

            And remember that the only homicide on that day was committed by an unnamed Black capitol hill policeman who is being protected from public accountability.


            If this had been an unarmed Black protestor killed by a white cop, would you acceot the outcome? Or is it just OK when it’s a Trump supporter?


          4. That might be a good strategy for many of the defendants, but the Constitution guarantees an impartial trial by a jury of their peers, and this proceeding would likely make finding such an unbiased jury impossible.


          5. “Or is it just OK when it’s a Trump supporter?”

            The man who shot the attacker was one of a few officers facing a rabid mob of armed gang members that broke through a doorway probably shoving the woman in first to see if they would actually shoot. And those officers were the last defense before the chambers where the targets of the gangs were still being evacuated.

            Your comment was classic right wing spin. Right up there will the idiot Clyde who said the attackers looked like tourists. (A recent photo revealed that jack ass cowering behind furniture stacked against a door.)

            Kind of a shame.

            As far as trials go, your concerns are pretty much a combination of unsupported speculation and partisan hooey.

            The insurrectionists are not on trial for their politics, but for the attacks on police, destruction of property, trying to interfere with government procedures, etc. The trial will be on what they did, not what they said or thought about.

            The right wing whine is just vinegar.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. …”political goals”…

            It is not all about politics. It IS about finding out the truth about the politicians we have elected to represent us. We have a right to know, before 2022 which of those reps were complicit in the attempted insurrection.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Leave it to you to play a race card to try to change the subject. Disgusting.

            As a matter of fact, given the racist and violent nature of diehard Trump supporters there is a very valid reason to protect his identity. Both you and I have seen the video of her death and there is no question that she brought it on herself. None.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. “The man who shot the attacker was one of a few officers facing a rabid mob of armed gang”

            Did you bother to read the GWP article?

            It clearly showed the officer was in no danger and that there were plenty of officers on both sides of the barricade.

            Go back and look at the pictures, or are you afraid your eyes will mislead you?

            US Capitol Special Agent David Bailey, the shooter, is reported to have been photographed wearing BLM shirts, but I can’t really verify those charges as only extremist sites re reporting on it and the MSM is ignoring her death.

            But again, the pictures show him to be at best very unprofessional if not looking for someone to shoot.


          9. …”the pictures show him to be at best very unprofessional if not looking for someone to shoot.”

            There is something so completely ironic about that statement, I am shocked you even mentioned it.

            Opps. I misspelled “hypocritical”.


          10. Uh, I watched the video. The Capitol police showed great restraint with murderous thugs pounding down the last door between them and the Members of Congress they were there to murder. They would have been completely justified to shoot them all. Your racist smears of this officer are simply disgraceful.

            Liked by 1 person

        3. Reality says it happens all of the time in high profiles cases. This is no different. The judges will decide one way or the other. NOT you. Unless you gained a J.D. in the past two weeks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s