Inciting violence demands investigation

Elected official inciting terrorism

So, we’re going to have a prime time “hearing” on an elected official inciting violence.

Why isn’t it this one?

245 thoughts on “Inciting violence demands investigation

  1. Lamest Whataboutism of your long whataboutism career!

    A few poorly chosen words in a clearly political context do not match a nationwide conspiracy to overthrow the Constitutional transfer of power through intimidation and violence.

    But try again any time you want.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Bullshit

      Schumer directly encouraged violence against Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Trump explicitly told his followers to be loud but non-violent.

      There is an explicit federal law prohibiting harassing and intimidating judges to influence a decision. But AG Garland refuses to enforce it no the mobs outside the justices’ homes. (Thank the Turtle that partisan hack never got on SCOTUS)

      If you apply the same standard to the rhetoric against SCOTUS and the protests at the homes of justices that you do to Trump and GOP members of Congress, there are impeachments and prosecutions due.

      Like

      1. “Schumer directly encouraged violence”

        That’s the bullshit.

        Did the people he was speaking to then proceed to knock down the barricades, grab their hanging ropes, attack the police and rampage through the building looking for Kavanaugh? I must have missed it.

        I see that you are parroting this bullshit from Fox News and the rest of the treason media who are giving this “story” big play while not covering the historic public hearings. So much for their being NEWS organizations. God forbid the people should hear first-hand how deep and pernicious the events of January 6th actually were.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Thet certainly won’t be hearing the truth from the show tonight.

          And a show it is; a hearing would require a fair and transparent process and that has never been the case.

          Like

          1. Because the truth is not, according to those here who think that 1/6 was a tour gone rogue.

            …”fair and transparent process and that has never been the case.”

            First they complain about information leaking out. Then that is considered not to be transparent.

            Sign along with me, “H – Y – P -…”

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “They certainly won’t be hearing the truth from the show tonight.

            Yeah, we get it. Kind of like Trump saying in advance that the election was rigged. Helped soften the ground to plant the Big Lie. Poor little Trumpy. Another partisan witch hunt. And never mind those conservative Republicans. They are not real Republicans. Yeah, right!

            In this case, we already know most of what is going to come out and we already know that it is the truth. In a nutshell, we all know that the violence against the Congress was part of a larger planned effort to subvert the peaceful transfer of power. So, people who put party loyalty ahead of loyalty to the country – people like you – spin, spin, spin. Even before the gavel drops.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. I don’t really have a dog in this fight, so I don’t care who show-trials whom.

        But could you imagine the horror if a “partisan hack” made it on the Supreme Court? What must that be like?

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Oh Democrats inciting extreme violence has a long history and these hypocrites do it again and again with impunity.
    https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/03/chuck-schumer-used-violent-rhetoric-to-sic-a-mob-on-two-supreme-court-justices/
    Secondly, if you have to hire an MSM lacky, James Goldston, to sensationalize your pathetic political stunt on prime time, your case is beyond WEAK, it’s just liberal political trash. We already knew what the outcome of this stunt was on Jan 7 when Pelosi wrote it up. Liberals are idiots…

    Like

    1. And YOU are a liar.

      Using the Federalist, who’s sole purpose in life is to shape the Supreme Court in their own, antiquated, bigoted, lame, semi-warped image is what is weak.

      And what came of Schumer’s violent rhetoric? Not a freakin’ thing. Whereas the lame, lying, falsified, BULLSHIT rhetoric of one DJT was a coordinated attempt to overthrow the will of the people and American democracy itself.

      As far as hiring a former NEWS director to help craft the message so that even idiots such as yourself can understand EXACTLY what happened on January 6th and the run up to it, it is the, is smart.

      And by the way, if you believe that Cheney and Kinzinger are liberals, you just prove how idiotic you can be.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Cheney and Kinzinger need to be primaried out.

        There was never any chance the Jan 6 committee would hold fair hearings, it was always to be a kangaroo court. So, the GOP caucus made the choice to boycott the committee to deny it the fig leaf of bipartisanship.

        Cheney and Kinzinger took it on themselves to thwart that strategy. They have the right to do so, but not to do so as Republicans. The honorable thing for them to have done if they were determined to participate would have been to change their party affiliation to Dem or Independent. But to allow the show trial to be deemed bipartisan is simply dishonest.

        Like

        1. You are a partisan hack.

          And your labeling the Special Committee a “kangaroo court” when they have yet to hold a single public hearing confirms that characterization beyond any doubt.

          We are trying to respond to a extra-legal and violent attempt to overthrow the government. It is a matter of grave import even if some partisan hacks try to pretend it was just an over-excited crowd or patriots.

          The reason the committee exists at all is because the Republicans first agreed to a non-Congressional, completely bi-partisan Commission which met their every demand only to kill it when Trump let it be known that supporting it would be disloyal.

          As for the two Republicans you would cast out, impugning their honor is horseshit. They are the ones who are behaving honorably, not the people like McCarthy who pleaded for rescue on January 6th and condemned Trump’s criminal behavior only to cave under pressure.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. They are free to act on their convictions, but not to do so as Republicans.

            Their caucus decided to boycott the committee to deny it the fig leaf of bipartisanship.

            Working in concert with the party is an obligation of accepting the party’s support and brand.

            The party has every right to reject them.

            Like

          2. “Their caucus decided to boycott the committee to deny it the fig leaf of bipartisanship.”

            Their caucus decided to boycott because of fear on one man. Zero conviction and loyalty to the Constitution or this country. Fear and fealty to a wannabe tyrant.

            Like

          3. They were given the opportunity to select serious members. The original cabal of appointees by McCarthy were all individuals with direct knowledge and/or involvement of the attempt to overturn the results of the election.

            Fox guarding the henhouse comes to mind.

            They boycotted because Trump told them to do so. If you don’t believe that, it is further proof that your bubble is very secure.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “ Or are you going to say that Schiff isn’t relentlessly partisan?”

            What politician isn’t partisan to varying degrees. You are the one who insists that the GOP is correct in sanctioning Cheney and Kinzinger because they were not partisan enough.

            Both ways…again.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Must you mischaracterize everything I write?

            It’s not a matter of not partisan enough, it’s a matter of party strategy in dealing with a historic abuse of process.

            They sabotaged the party, but they will be gone in November.

            Like

          6. “Must you mischaracterize everything I write?”

            First me, now Len are accused of mischaracterizing what you wrote. Maybe because what you write isn’t what you think you write. Or maybe when called out for BS, you call it “mischaracterization”.

            Party strategy, which you have yet to define in any way shape or form, is to kiss the Orange backside and push for autocratic power of the owner of said backside.

            Sabotaging the party by defending the Constitution? As a Libertarian, you should be ashamed of yourself. – IMO

            Liked by 1 person

          7. You have a very odd sense of “honor” if you think leaving your party to the shitheads, cowards, and traitors without a fight is the “honorable” thing to do. It is important for the country that the inquiry into the insurrection be bipartisan. Thankfully, there are a few honorable – and very conservative – Republicans who put the nation ahead of partisan advantage.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. “You have a sick obsession with race.”

            Is that all you got? Caught lying again and that is your answer?

            You can call it what you want, but you people have never found a police or vigilante killing of a black person to be unjustified. NEVER. You people spread the fact of Byrd’s race and made a point of it. You people whine that these “patriots” face punishment while falsely accusing BLM of worse. You people spread and defend Birtherism. Your whole political party is based on exacerbating white resentment and spreading racial nonsense such as White Replacement Theory and the “threat” of CRT.

            And, on top of that, the constant lying and brazenly repeating the lies in the face of indisputable evidence. In this case, you keep saying that Pelosi commands the Capitol Police when she simply does not.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. I made no issue of Byrd or Babbitt’s race and specifically wrote that it was irrelevant.

            You injected race into the matter, not me. You are either obsessed with race or you are dishonestly using it against those you disagree with, so, racist of fraud? Which are you?

            Like

          10. “racist or fraud”

            Your whole Trump movement is about race. It started when he climbed to the top of GOP on the back of racist Birtherism which you have absurdly denied is racist. It continues to this day with CRT nonsense and White Replacement Theory as the driving force of GOP messaging.

            YOU injected race when you refuse to see the obvious truth about the shooting of Babbitt after your long history of defending every other police or vigilante killing when the police officer was white, and the victim was black. The ONLY time you ever defended the victims of police action was when the victims were white – Koresh, Ruby Ridge, Bundy Ranch. Your racist double standard is plain to see, and it is NOT dishonest to note that it is glaringly obvious when you insist on calling Byrd a murderer and deny that the killing was investigated.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. Right and wrong exist independent of race,

            Each incident is right or wrong on its merits, race has nothing to do with it.

            I don’t look at race in seeking right and wrong, you can see nothing else.

            Like

        2. I know you would like to think that 1/6 was just a few rowdies. (About 2000 breached the capitol, but who is counting.) However, the 1/6 hearings are about the why’s and how’s. We are learning that this was part of the plan to reject the results of a fair election, and that is the crux. And this means all the planning and buildup before the election, after the election and after 1/6 since we are still fighting the Big Lie.

          Who planned what, with whom and who knew what and when.

          Now McCarthy rejected a bipartisan commission after he agreed to it. What should folks have done, beg him to pretty please…?

          The nation is under threat from those who dislike democratically elected governments. Americans who care about that want to know what happened, who was responsible and can we prevent such attacks in the future.

          These hearing are so much less a show trial, like the Benghazi hearings, and much more about whether or not we continue to thrive as a nation. 1/6 was just an visible symptom, not the disease.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Use your logic.

            You think that those people, pretty much all of whom own firearms, went to overthrow the government, but left their guns home.

            Does that make sense in any universe?

            Like

          2. Don, think it through yourself. It wasn’t about actually overthrowing the government, it was about overturning the election illegally.

            An autogolpe. (Yes, there is that word that comes from dictatorial action in South America and that was almost successful here had Pence left the Capitol either voluntarily or by force. And we are now learning that the VP was very likely in danger.)

            The plan long before the election was to cast doubt and force states to reject votes in favor of Republican legislators.

            The lawsuits were merely a distraction to help sow the doubt. 1/6 was the final effort to intimidate Congress, particularly Pence, to break the law and decide the election.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. You keep trying to believe that. When the facts slap you in the face and you realize that the foundation for the autoglope was laid by Trump shortly after he was inaugurated. And as the indictments and prosecutions mount, maybe then you will stop the blindness that you have.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “They turned to trespassing”…

            There you go again. Trespassing hardly ever involves violence. Breaking windows, kicking in doors, slamming police in doorways, smearing feces on the walls. That isn’t trespassing. At the lowest end it is vandalism. And what in reality it was a violent attempt to stop Congress from its Constitutional duty.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. As I pointed out, some went beyond that, but many simply followed the crowd through doors held open by Capitol police.

            Do you have a cite for the feces thing? That’s the first I have heard of that.

            Like

          6. Not only “dishonest,” but “lazy.” A simple Google search will turn up way more stories about feces in the Capitol than he will want to read. But then, that’s the problem isn’t it. Not to mention those “few hundred” people who went into the Capitol “through open doors,” followed by a “few dozen” who got a little violent. I’m sure all those videos, presented by the January 6 Committee last night, were “taken out of context” and “zoomed in on a small group” and “faked.” The people who testified they were “slipping on blood” on the floors were just being dramatic. Or maybe they were all “actors.” I can’t wait to hear the justifications.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. I applied for, and got, a WordPress account. My user ID is “Lois Radford.” It’s a relatively new account. Maybe all the bells and whistles aren’t in place yet?

            Like

          8. I am afraid you have been bamboozled…again.
            There never was a legal strategy. It was a strategy of sowing chaos and doubt. None of those “lawsuits” went anywhere because once a judge starting asking a few questions, the suits were pulled.

            None of the efforts were remotely Constitutional or legal. But it did convince the gullible and the hopeful that where there was smoke…

            Autogolpe, not insurrection.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. The intention was to get Pence to refuse to accept disputed electors until the court cases were settled, many of which were still active and later dismissed as moot, not on the facts.

            It was a flawed legal theory, IMO, but that is not an attempt to overthrow the government.

            Like

          10. Overturn the election, not the government.

            Autogolpe. Not hard to understand, just admit.

            Pence was urged to get in a car and leave. He refused because he knew what that meant. Especially since his office was warned about needing protection ahead of 1/6.

            The plan was to stop an official proceeding by Congress, a major felony. Pence, like Raffensberger and other officials in several states knew the implications of illegal interference in both state and federal elections, counting and certification.

            Liked by 2 people

          11. No. IGNORE. Eatman’s plan was all about people being too stupid to realize what hwas being attempted was extra-Constitutional.

            As one who believes so strongly in that document, I find it disheartening that you continue to support the usurpation of it by TFG and his minions.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. And I said the interpretation is wrong, and the courts would agree. The proper place to set that right is in the courts, which have already acted.

            Like

          13. “Does that make sense in any universe?”

            You cannot condone violence by noting it might have been worse.

            And yes, it makes perfect sense when the military was making clear that their loyalty was to the Constitution and not to Trump. The only hope for the traitors was the measured level of violence that would allow them to spirit Mike Pence away and replace him in the chair with somebody willing to do Trump’s bidding. Their plan was for Grassley to do what Pence would not – “Stop the Steal.”

            Liked by 2 people

          14. “If their strategy was to act within the law, it was not an insurrection.”

            Their strategy was NOT to act within the law. It was to create a Constitutional crisis with threats, violence and intimidation.

            Liked by 2 people

          15. And if the protesters were black, the blood would still be staining the steps of the Capitol.

            Ignoring the 5 Capitol Officers who dies as a result of the violence is an affront to Law Enforcement personnel everywhere.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. Can’t cite something that didn’t happen. But you know damned well that would have been the case.

            If they had remained peaceful and out of the building, a First Amendment case could be made,. But they resorted to violence. If that crowd had been Black Americans, the bullets would have flown. If you don’t believe that, then you are more naïve than blind. And that say something.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. Right, 5 officers did not die as a result of the interaction on 1/6.

            ANd if you want to blame someone for Ashley Babbitt’s death, blame the mronos who put her in front of the mob trying to break into the House chamber.

            Oh wait. She’s white, so you won’t blame THAT victim for her actions.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. No. Officers did not die from injuries received on 1/6

            There was no real investigation of Babbitt’s death, the officer who shot her was cleared with no inquiry.

            Like

          19. “Officers did not die from injuries received on 1/6”

            Now it is YOU who is mischaracterizing. I did not say “from injuries”; I said …”as a result of the interaction”…

            And yes, FIVE officers dies. Or is that “fake news”?

            Liked by 1 person

          20. You have become very lazy. If you don’t believe that 5 officers died via injusries or traumas sustained in the attack on the Capitol adn are too lazy to look for it to prove me WRONG, then that is your issue.

            Like

          21. I would say it is just the opposite.

            Consider George Floyd, a large, muscular man who had hidden heart failure and drug intoxication decided to fight the cops to avoid arrest. After a lengthy fight, an officer pinned him down for too long and he died from his unknown medical condition.

            That was ruled murder and the officer is in prison.

            Ashli Babbitt never laid a hand on Byrd, and posed no threat to him, and he shot her dead.

            That was ruled OK

            Some white privilege.

            But she was a Trump supporter, so killing her is OK.

            Like

          22. …”, and posed no threat to him,”

            She was at the front end of a MOB attempting to breach the House Chamber. If you are police officer charged with protecting the people inside and a MOB is descending on the space, you have every right to defend yourself and your charges necessary.

            Liked by 1 person

          23. “Still don’t see the cite”

            You have got to get over the notion that if YOU are not aware of something that it is probably not true and that someone is lying. If you get that feeling YOU need to check YOUR knowledge before demanding “cites.” IMHO.

            It is very easy. For example, Google “January 6th insurrection feces” and you get a large number of stories from a variety of sources reporting on this aspect of the assault on the Congress.

            Here is just one. . .

            https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/commentary/goldberg-the-rncs-idea-of-legitimate-political-discourse-shows-how-far-gone-it-is/article_4d9ad882-89c7-11ec-bd6a-cb279fe19a3c.html

            Liked by 1 person

          24. Well, no wonder no one could supply a cite for 5 officers dying.

            It comes from a lie by AOC. There was one stroke resulting from longstanding cardiovascular disease and 4 suicides.

            Were they distressed because of anything done to them, or guilty over what they did, or did they know something about Hillary?

            That’s every bit as plausible as blaming it on Trump.

            Like

          25. “Guilty over what they did” ??? They were risking their lives to defend our Capitol, all the members of Congress (Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents) and their staffs, not to mention the Vice President of the United States. They were sprayed with bear spray, thrown to the ground, knocked unconscious, crushed between doors, suffered broken bones, hit in the head with everything from flag poles to fire extinguishers, all while slipping on the blood that was covering the ground. It was a war zone! They had PTSD! Is that what you’d say to a soldier suffering from PTSD coming back from a war zone? “Are you just feeling guilty for what you did?” I always knew Libertarians were cold, but I never thought you were that bad.

            Liked by 2 people

          26. Libertarians do not sacrifice reason for emotion.

            Assigning blame for those suicides to Trump is an extraordinary claim and would require extraordinary proof, like eliminating all other influences in their lives.

            Slipping on the blood? Were they all at the spot Ashely Babbitt was murdered?

            Like

          27. You don’t “sacrifice reason for emotion??”

            That reminds me of a “preacher” I once knew who visited a kid with PTSD in the hospital. The kid had been in a fox hole in Vietnam that was overrun by the enemy. Everyone in the fox hole was dead but him. He had to lay there for 2 days, without making a sound, until US forces retook his position. When they got him out, he couldn’t speak. When he was finally back home and in the hospital, the doctors worked on him for weeks and he was just beginning to say a few words again. The kid’s family wanted their “preacher” to visit him because they thought it would help. The “preacher” went into the kid’s room declaring “WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE, BROTHER!” When the doctor came for his afternoon visit, the kid was in the fetal position again, unable to speak. When the doctor found out what had happened to his patient, he had the “preacher” banned from the hospital for life. (True story.)

            PTSD is real. It is dangerous. It can kill people as surely as a bullet. Those cops were overwhelmed by an enemy force just like that kid in a fox hole in Vietnam. They suffered the same traumas. It is reasonable to expect the same consequences. It is reasonable to expect suicides. That’s why we send trauma teams into schools and churches and neighborhoods after mass shootings. People in that kind of fear suffer reasonable psychological wounds.

            As for Ashley Babbitt, I would have thought you, of all people would be defending “stand your ground,” “protect yourself and your home.” She was breaking down a door to the House… literally. What would you do if a rabid, screaming mob was breaking down the door to your house? You have guns. You say you would use them. Why would you deny the same right to the cop who shot her? She was killed while she was breaking and entering. That’s against the law. That’s hardly murder. That’s why no charges were brought against the cop. He was “standing his ground.”

            And yes, there was blood on the ground in lots of places. If you hadn’t switched the channel to Netflix, you would have heard live testimony from a cop who said she was “slipping on the blood” because there was blood everywhere.

            Liked by 2 people

          28. Breaking and entering in a public building, absent the apparent intent and ability to endanger the officer is not justification for deadly force.

            Like

          29. “Breaking and entering in a public building, absent the apparent intent and ability to endanger the officer is not justification for deadly force.”

            There is no end to your nonsense.

            First it was tourists there to take selfies. Then maybe some trespassers. Now it is breaking and entering a public building. And “absent the apparent intent to endanger the officer.”

            Why you would offer such nonsense when we have all seen the video, heard the witnesses and counted up the hospitalized is a mystery to me. It really is. There has been some discussion of people being “damaged by age” today. Are you Okay?

            Liked by 1 person

          30. The shooting would not have been justified if it were a BLM protestor breaking into a courthouse(Portland) and it was not justified in the Capitol.

            Like

          31. I feel like I am with Alice and a rabbit hole.

            Looking at an actual video, there are several, what should the last defense have done when the mob breached the glass doors? This was not a breaking and entering. It was much closer to a home invasion by crazed rioters. Rioters who had already fought bloody battles, injuring dozens if not more police.

            So let’s put Don behind the doors as an officer whose job was to defend Congress with his own life if necessary. And by this time you knew what that mob was capable of, so self-defense is also not out of the question. You have supported the right of self-defense for cops before. Even vigilantes get a pass from you since nothing obligates them to risk their own lives in a struggle.

            It strikes me as obvious you have not seen the videos played at the Thursday’s public hearing. It was a war zone by any definition, but clearly described by the woman officer.

            The restraint by the Capitol police to not start shooting to just protect themselves as they were beaten, gassed and stomped with lances. I think I might have pulled my gun as I lay on the floor in very real danger of getting killed.

            Liked by 2 people

          32. She was at the forefront of several hundred protesters. You won’t blame THIS victim for her own actions, yet it is a habit of yours to blame the victim. Like when you blamed a teacher in Uvalde for blocking open a door…which she did not.

            Liked by 1 person

          33. Yes, she did.

            She removed the rock and let the door close when she reentered, but it did not close enough to latch and she did not check to see if it fully closed.

            Aside from which, that door was only supposed to be used to exit, not reenter. Reentry was supposed to be through the single entry front door.

            Safety procedures only work if you practice them EVERY TIME, not just when you know there’s a problem. Her laziness in not wanting to go around to the front door for reentry let the shooter inti the school.

            Further, the classroom doors are supposed to be locked during class, all the time. The failure of the two teachers to secure the classroom door according to procedure cost them their lives and those of the children.

            If either of the procedures had been followed, Uvalde would not have even made the evening news.

            Oh, and Babbitt was the only one through the window when she was shot.

            Like

          34. “She removed the rock and let the door close when she reentered, but it did not close enough to latch and she did not check to see if it fully closed.”

            It is not hard to get your facts straight or is that too inconvenient. The police story that it was the teacher’s fault has shifted. The key point is that she shut the door in such a way that it should have locked.

            https://www.npr.org/2022/06/01/1102355422/uvalde-shooting-teacher-door

            “Oh, and Babbitt was the only one through the window when she was shot.”

            Yes, so? Willingly or unwillingly, she was the first through that last barrier. How many assailants were the police supposed to wait to come through the smashed barrier before taking defensive action? Lying liars spread the word that there was no investigation of this tragedy. There was. . .

            https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt

            Liked by 1 person

          35. It was an actual threat. Once the glass doors were smashed, the mob could come through.

            Kill several more once they were in?

            You excuse police for shooting some who might be armed. Here was a mob armed to the teeth with all kinds of weapons. Wait until you get a face full of bear spray?

            Arm chair quarterbacking is easy, no? Acting bravely in the face of enraged mobs who had already beat cops half to death. And you would have just waited until they did the same to you.

            Sorry, you are just playing the excuse role. I don’t think you have even seen any footage of the attack. Certainly not the new clips played Thursday. You just parroted the conservative talking point in your first comment. “It was boring”. Sorry, but that was FOX phase one.

            Liked by 1 person

          36. Again, the unarmed, 110 pound woman was the only one on his side of the door when he shot her. She was not threatening him other than by her presence.

            That is not justified,

            Like

          37. Rittenhouse was extensively investigated and in spite of massive pre-trial; publicity was exonerated by a jury when they were presented with the facts.

            It’s hardly me who is ignoring the facts.

            Like

          38. Rittenhouse was a young punk who hung out with the gangs and murdered two people, crippling a third. He got a MAGA judge to throw the trial for him.

            At least that is how it looks through reasonable eyes.

            Liked by 2 people

          39. So, you reject the verdict of the jury who had all the facts presented. but you expect me to accept jury verdicts in every other case.

            Rittenhouse will end up owning CNN and MSNBC because they have said the things you are saying.

            But the videos are available, so use your reasonable eyes and tell me where, at the moment he had to shoot, he was not justified.

            Like

          40. Your lack of compassion and REALITy are disgusting.

            The stroke was more of a result being sprayed with bear spray or some other irritant; the 4 suicide were related to what those cops witnessed that day.

            Yes, rowdy tourists caused the suicides and the stroke.

            Liked by 1 person

          41. There’s really no way to know.

            But if you want to claim that a decade long disease process came to a head that particular day, it is your burden to prove it, not mine to disprove your speculation.

            Like

          42. “It comes from a lie by AOC. ”

            So, pure coincidence that there was a wave of suicides following the battle? I believe that it is more likely than not that these deaths have a causal link with the events of January 6th. I believe that at least some of them would not have occurred had there been a peaceful transfer of power and not an attempted coup.

            Franky, someone who spreads as many “alternative facts” as you do and who has defended hundreds of them by your Dear Leader, should be more careful in throwing around that L-word.

            Liked by 1 person

          43. There is at least as much reason to believe they suffered from guilt for participating in a national fraud(opening the doors and waving people in, and then calling it an invasion, or perhaps participating in the cover-up of Ashely Babbitts murder) as for trauma from facing a riot. After all, police all over the country faced far more violent riots at the hands of BLM and Antifa and we haven’t seen a proportional wave of suicides among them.

            Like

          44. “After all, police all over the country faced far more violent riots at the hands of BLM and Antifa”

            Your racist lies about BLM violence are wearing a little thin. BLM is a non-violent movement with a righteous cause. The violence has been directed against them by the same white supremacist trash that fueled the violence at the Capitol. People like your favorite little shithead Kyle Rittenhouse.

            As a matter of fact, there was a fair amount of civil unrest during the Trump administration and police did have to deal with it. But, there are no instances that I know of where the police had their backs to the wall for hours and were so totally overpowered and helpless as were the Capitol police on January 6th.

            Liked by 1 person

          45. Trump didn’t personally participate in the riot, but you have no problem claiming his rhetoric inspired violence.

            How is BLM’s rhetoric less responsible for the violence done by its followers?

            Like

          46. “How is BLM’s rhetoric less responsible for the violence done by its followers?”

            I do not accept your premise that violence that occurs during civil unrest is the work of BLM. There has always been outbreaks of civil unrest in the impoverished areas of our country. That was true when they were Irish, or Italian or Puerto Rican as well as when the neighborhoods are African American. BLM is a peaceful movement and racists lying about that for political advantage only confirms the righteousness of their protests.

            https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelmingly-peaceful-our-research-finds

            Furthermore, no leader of BLM has anything like the bully pulpit of the President and unlike the ex- President they do not use the voice they have to spread outrageous and inflammatory lies.

            Liked by 1 person

          47. “There is at least as much reason to believe they suffered from guilt for participating in a national fraud(“…

            Just so much HOOEY! Guilt for performing the job of pretecting the Capitol and those who work there?

            Desperate desperation contiunes to flow from the Chesapeake compound.

            Liked by 1 person

          48. Ashli Babbitt’s murder has never been properly investigated, and many facts are still withheld.

            We know, Byrd, the shooter absolutely hated Trump, and we know that unarmed, 110 pound Babbitt presented no immediate threat to him, and that she was alone on his side of the door when he shot her, not at the vanguard of a charging mob.

            Were a BLM protestor shot under the same circumstances, by a policeman known to hate Blacks, you would be calling for blood.

            4th Amendment considerations as well.

            Like

          49. “Ashli Babbitt’s murder has never been properly investigated”

            Utter and complete bullshit. The video taken of the event is decisive. There is NOTHING left to investigate.

            I personally have seen that video of her being shot. I will bet that you have too. Your description of how it went down is not remotely accurate. In fact, it is so far from the truth that it is fair to call it a LIE. She WAS in the vanguard of a charging mob with the last physical barrier between the defending officers and the criminals breached. Unlucky for her that her brave fellow “patriots” pushed her forward while sheltering behind as they pushed through the breach, but that is what happened.

            Of course, your bridle at any hint of a charge of racism, but your obvious double standard in this killing versus the MANY others where the races were reversed screams of it. White cop kills black person selling cigarettes – he should have been more subservient. Black cop kills white person assaulting Congress – “murder.”

            Liked by 1 person

          50. “That Byrd was Black is not relevant, that he was known to be virulently anti-Trump is.”

            It is obviously not irrelevant to how you people assess what happened. Thee double standard on display is beyond dispute.

            His political beliefs – if anyone cares to believe you have stated them accurately – are absolutely IRRELEVANT. Those beliefs did not put them in the last line of defense against a rampaging mob that had already assaulted countless officers.

            Funny how Byrd’s political beliefs are relevant but those of, say, Kyle Rittenhouse were not. Even though Rittenhouse acted on his beliefs and Byrd did not. I wonder what the difference might be.

            Liked by 1 person

          51. “I’ll ask again. . .”

            I do not know why you would invoke “another building.” This happened in the Capitol and the police were defending our government.

            But the answer is that I trust my own eyes. So, the answer is yes, I would be satisfied that the police acted lawfully according to the evidence I had seen. I cannot even imagine what fact a formal investigation might disclose that would make Byrd’s defensive use of deadly force as seen clearly on the video unreasonable.

            Liked by 1 person

          52. “did you read the Lawfare link?”

            Yes, I read it. The analysis is not relevant to this situation. Babbitt was not the simple 110lb threat of your spin. She was part of a mob breaching the last line of defense between the criminals and the Congress the police were there to protect. A mob that had already inflicted grave injuries and vocally expressed their intent to inflict more. People like Speaker Pelosi, VP Pence, Congresswoman AOC and, yes, Kevin McCarthy were in serious peril and might have ended up dead if the final line simply gave way.

            I do not know if you are stupid enough to take this “murder” bullshit seriously or you just like to muddy the waters and change the subject. Either way, you should be ashamed.

            Liked by 2 people

          53. So, if an antifa or BLM mob is wreaking havoc, it’s Ok to shoot a protestor who is not a danger to anyone because the mob is a danger?

            I am truly glad you don’t carry a firearm, as you have no concept of the responsibilities involved.

            Like

          54. Facing a mob that is actively smashing in the last door of defense it might be hard to discern which one is the least threat. The noise level, commented on by the testifying police, was incredible. The officer and the gun were plainly visible and if that did not deter the raging folks, what would?

            You are making a funny comparison as if there were a mob and way over in the back corner was a person saying “can’t we all get along?”. And the officer picked her out to shoot because he hated Trump.

            She was the literal tip of the spear and unfortunately took the bullet. Probably the cowards behind her thought she might be a good shield.
            But she was definitely part and parcel of the violence and extreme threats to the lives of our nation’s legislators.

            Liked by 2 people

          55. “I am truly glad you don’t carry a firearm, as you have no concept of the responsibilities involved.”

            Ashli Babbitt was not a “protestor.” She was a terrorist threatening not just property but the lives of the police and the people they were there to protect. You can LIE all you want. Her behavior and the extreme restraint by the police in the moments leading up to her being shot is there for all to see.

            It would be interesting to count the times you have blamed these kinds of tragedies on the victims – when they were black – when their “offenses” were not even in the same league that Babbitt chose to play in. It would be dozens if not hundreds. But not Babbit. Not Koresh. Not Ruby Ridge. Not the Bundys. What is different about them?

            Liked by 1 person

          56. “That is not justified,”

            What was not justified was the extreme restraint shown by the Capitol police. They should have repelled these violent invaders with deadly force MUCH earlier in their attack. White privilege run amok. Had this been a mob of African American extremists lusting for blood their violence would have gotten zero tolerance. IMHO

            You make a lot out of her weight and that she was unarmed as if she strolled into a restricted area on her own. Nope. She was the point of the spear with a heavy weight of violent marauders immediately behind her pushing forward. There was NEVER a more justified use of deadly force by police than what we all witnessed on that video.

            Liked by 2 people

          57. If there were dangerous people behind her, then they may have been legitimate targets. She was not.

            For all Byrd could see from his vantage point, she could have been fleeing the mob or simply avoiding being crushed.

            The use of deadly force is justified only against immediate threats. Would you justify police shooting randomly into a group of BLM protestors because someone on the crowd was throwing bricks? Or is it different if it is a Trump supported.

            If the same standard were applied to Byrd as to other policemen, he would be awaiting trial.

            Like

          58. “Following the routine process for shootings by Capitol Police officers, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and the United States Department of Justice investigated Babbitt’s death and made a determination that the shooting was “lawful and within Department policy”.

            After being cleared of wrongdoing, Lieutenant Michael Byrd made his name public in an August 2021 interview for NBC News. He said his name had been previously revealed in right-wing media and online forums and he had received racist and violent threats, causing him to remain in hiding for several months. Looking back on his January 6 experience, Byrd said: “Once we barricaded the doors, we were essentially trapped where we were. There was no way to retreat. No other way to get out. If they get through that door, they’re into the House chamber and upon the members of Congress.” He stated that he had pulled the trigger as a “last resort” after the mob of protesters ignored his repeated orders to get back, and that he had no idea at that moment that Babbitt was unarmed and was a woman. Byrd commented: “I know that day I saved countless lives. I know members of Congress, as well as my fellow officers and staff, were in jeopardy and in serious danger. And that’s my job”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ashli_Babbitt

            Liked by 2 people

          59. OH gee, the Capitol police, under the command of Nancy Pelosi. says shooting Babbitt was heroic. What a surprise.

            Shooting a charging rioter carrying an improvised weapon might have been justified, but shooting Babbitt just because she was available was not.

            There was no way to assign her deadly intent, much less ability, to do harm. For all Byrd could have known, she could have come through the window because she was pushed or was escaping being crushed.

            The law is clear, Byrd is guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter at the least and more likely 2nd degree Murder. But she was a Trump supporter so he gets a pass.

            In any other circumstance, with the same conditions you’d be screaming for blood.

            Like

          60. With all due respect, you are wrong.

            He was cleared by several agencies. Plus a Republican legislator said he was the last line of defense and did his job.

            Byrd said he did not know if the person climbing through the smashed window was a man or a woman, and, more importantly whether he or she was armed. Considering the raging violence, brutally beaten police and his position as the last line of defense, I think if he didn’t shoot, more would have died.

            I am sorry you have joined the conspiracy side, but it happens to even good people.

            Liked by 2 people

          61. So, he admits that he did not know if she presented an immediate threat, or even if it was her intent to come through the window.

            The decision to shoot someone must be based on that person’s threat, especially since she was the only one of the mob on his side of the door.

            We’re not talking about a mob charging across an open field, we’re talking about a person coming through a window that can only admit one at a time, There was no ‘group threat’ under those circumstances. She was not an individual threast.

            Like

          62. This is going nowhere. I am convinced you have not bothered to view any videos from that day.

            You dismissed a Black man getting shot in the back while being restrained by two policemen because he appeared to be reaching for a weapon in his car. And there are plenty of instances like that.

            Sorry, but you are consistently distorting what happened.

            Liked by 2 people

          63. OK, what was Babbitt reaching for?

            What immediate threat did she, not someone else behind her, pose?

            She was the only one through the window when she was shot, did she pose a threat or not?

            Like

          64. “For all Byrd could see from his vantage point, she could have been fleeing the mob or simply avoiding being crushed.”

            Bullshit. Who am I gonna believe – YOU (laugh)? or my lyin’ eyes?

            Here is what the rest of us saw in the video. Babbitt and a bunch of the other marauders reached the last physical barrier – a locked door with some sort of tough glass on the top half. They were banging on the glass with the melee weapons in their hands – Helmets and clubs. Visible behind the glass we saw Boyd clearly displaying his weapon and with an unobstructed view of the sickos raging on the other side. The police and tactical units on the outside of the door tried to diffuse the violence with strangely passive behavior. It did not work. The marauders were not deterred and continued bashing on the glass until it gave way. Babbitt was the first to jump through the opening and was shot. End of story.

            That is what we all saw. That is what happened. You are delusional at best.

            And your racial double standard could not be more obvious to those of us familiar with your past unfailing defense of police and vigilante violence when the victims were not white.

            Liked by 1 person

          65. Absolutely none of that matters.

            The use of deadly force is justified only if the person is an immediate threat.

            Not because someone else might be.

            Babbitt was a petit unarmed woman making no threatening gestures and did not pose an immediate threat.

            Shooting her was not justified, end of story.

            See, I can say that too.

            And I can explain my position. Please do explain how Babbitt, not someone else, was a threat to Byrd or anyone else. If you can’t, she was murdered.

            Like

          66. “Absolutely none of that matters”

            At some point before violence was done to members of Congress by the rampaging mob they had to be stopped. The line that Babbitt chose to cross was the last line of defense. You can blather all day about her weight, and you can claim that she was unarmed. “Absolutely none of that matters.” She brought her death on herself with the choices she made. Officer Byrd did his duty. Period.

            I have personally documented for you on more than one occasion the organizational structure of the Capitol Police, but there you go again with the LIE that they are “under the command of Nancy Pelosi.” No, they are not. They report to the Capitol Police Board with four ex officio members. Blaming her for January 6th and accusing her of whitewashing the investigation of the Babbitt death is egregiously dishonest. Exactly the kind of bullshit you spread on just about every subject. “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

            Liked by 1 person

          67. Pelosi is the civilian authority to whom they answer. If she gives them carte blanche to stage a coverup they can be expected to do so. She is where the buck stops.

            Like

          68. A coverup? Of what?
            1500 Capitol Police plus all the go between and no one spilled the beans?

            Q-Anon was successful in conning millions about various plots. Why? Because he was one person.

            You are suggesting a massive conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands to fake the attack as planned by Democrats.

            Like Barr said about Trump, we are looking at a detachment from reality.

            IMO

            Liked by 2 people

          69. Where did I say any of that?

            I said Byrd’s shooting of Babbitt was unjustified.

            He was “cleared” prior to any investigation,

            After the fact investigations provided excuses, not information.,

            No conspiracy required, just cops protecting their own and no civilian oversight to stop them.

            I have put a lot of time into learning the law on deadly force since the Ryan Frederick trial.

            Anyone else doing the same thing to someone not a Trump supporter would be in prison

            Like

          70. A coverup requires cooperation from a broad base when an attack of that magnitude takes place. A hundred or more police were hospitalized. You think they would cover for Pelosi, who had no authority anyway. Or cover for their own leaders as they lie in bed with possible career ending injuries.

            Frederick was one lone stoner against “Cheapeake’s finest” in a conservative city.

            Not the same here. Especially in a city where leaking is a national pastime.

            Your accusations against the last man standing against a raging mob is actually a bit galling in my opinion.

            Your words were precisely spouting conspiracies.

            “Pelosi is the civilian authority to whom they answer. If she gives them carte blanche to stage a coverup they can be expected to do so. She is where the buck stops.“ Even though this is a lie, you keep repeating it just like Trump repeats his lies. Why?

            The mob was warned over and over. They were breaching the last defense before the chamber being evacuated. The officer stopped the threat which was his job.

            But believe your fantasy, because you will not listen to anything else other than the officer hated Trump so he waited for a 110lb woman to kill.

            IMO

            Liked by 2 people

          71. “The officer stopped the threat which was his job.”

            Babbitt was not a threat. Perhaps someone else was, but she was not.

            She was the only one on his side of the door.

            There is absolutely no way to justify that shooting, and it’s not even being covered up. It’s being dismissed right in our faces,

            Because there is no justice in the Dept of Justice any more.

            Like

          72. “ Depending on the state, the felony-murder doctrine can reach very broadly. It can apply to defendants when:

            …a police officer or bystander causes the death”

            https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/felony-murder.htm

            So I would say the attackers were guilty of felony murder. They were committing a crime, or many crimes, and an accomplice was killed by a defending law officer.

            As a matter of judicial fairness and depending upon the law in the jurisdiction, I would charge every assailant with felony murder in causing the death of Ashley Babbitt. At least the ones arrested for beating police and smashing doors and window to reach Congress.

            Seems reasonable.

            But, that won’t happen. So they are getting off easy.

            IMO

            Liked by 2 people

          73. “GO for it. You might get to see what an insurrection actually looks like.”

            We already have. Duh!

            You see some error in what Len said about the law? You plan on violence if someone chooses to follow the law?

            Liked by 1 person

          74. It would be the first insurrection in which the perpetrators left their guns home and made no provision for staying more than a couple of hours. That that you think that was an insurrection shows how distorted your view of reality has become.

            As far as felony murder is concerned, there has to be some reasonable expectation the felony act could lead to harm. For example, if a person cheated on his taxes and the IRS auditor choked to death laughing at his claims, you could not charge felony murder.

            Charging those attempting to breach that door might fly, though I doubt it, but charging those there to protest who simply followed the crowd through doors held open by the Capitol police doesn’t meet the threshold.

            Like

          75. “It would be the first insurrection in which the perpetrators left their guns home”

            Okay. Most, but not all, brought other weapons instead. So?

            It was the level of violence they planned for and that they thought they needed to create a Constitutional crisis that would end with Trump still in power. It almost worked. Thanks, Mike Pence. The use of guns would have been counter-productive because guns would leave no room for people like you to pretend that not much happened.

            Call it what you want – treason, sedition, insurrection, terrorism. The crime on the statute books that will be the one charged for the organizers is “Seditious conspiracy.”

            For someone who never watches Tucker Carlson you sure seem to come up with the same talking points.

            https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jun/13/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-wrong-firearms-other-weapons-were-f/

            Liked by 1 person

          76. Threatening violence is the mantra of the right wing and their “stand by” gangs.

            So this is the route preferred instead of a democratic republic?

            If you plan a violent crime, and a death occurs, you can be charged. That includes the seditionists from the top down to the gangs. It does depend upon the jurisdiction.

            Now whether they will be is probably not in the cards. Even if Trump is as guilty as so far shown, he won’t be indicted for this. The precedent of not prosecuting presidents is strong, and, unfair as it seems, might be the smart route.

            His minions, however, are not off the hook.

            Rumblings of violence and civil war are on the dark web, so maybe you folks will get your wishes after all. They just arrested 31 gang members in Idaho who were armed with pikes, bear spray and dressed in body armor for riots.

            .

            Liked by 2 people

          77. Predicting is not threatening.

            For felony there has to be some expectation that someone might come to harm. No rational person would expect a woman to be shot for crawling through a window.

            But if on that thin a connection you were to try to charge thousands of your political opponents with murder, people might reasonably conclude that the Rule of Law was dead and that we were living under a despotic regime.

            Like

          78. “Predicting is not threatening.”

            My, how you have changed your tune! When, from time to time, I have noted how income inequality led to the violence of the French and Russian revolutions, you have accused me of threatening violence. And characterized that as typical of “the left.”

            Liked by 2 people

          79. Did you not read the part about the collapse of the Rule of Law?

            There is a big difference between simply not getting what you want and a government which will not submit to the Rule of Law.

            Like

          80. “There is a big difference between simply not getting what you want and a government which will not submit to the Rule of Law.”

            So, your predictions are not threats, but my predictions are threats? Yeah, sure.

            Your blather about defending the Rule of Law while trying to sweep seditious conspiracy and violent insurrection under the rug and while “predicting” that there will be violence if the Rule of Law is applied to the people who caused the death of Ashli Babbitt rings kind of hollow.

            Liked by 1 person

          81. “No rational person would expect a woman to be shot for crawling through a window.“

            You should have your own late night program. It depends on where the window is. If it were your home and she was leading a mob pounding on all your windows and doors for a hour bent on “hanging Don Tabor” I imagine your response might be less measured.

            A rational person would certainly expect injuries and deaths for attacking the Capitol with the goal of forcing legislators and the VP to break the law and seat a losing candidate.

            Liked by 2 people

          82. I wouldn’t consider the followers. But we know that several hundred gang members were armed and armored with the intent of physically attacking Congress and the VP. Zip ties is kind of a give away. It was that kind of violence that resulted in the tragic shooting.

            Liked by 2 people

          83. “Pelosi is the civilian authority to whom they answer. If she gives them carte blanche to stage a coverup they can be expected to do so. She is where the buck stops.”

            That comment raises a serious question. Are you. . .
            1. Dumber than a bag of rocks, or
            2. A lying sack of shit, or
            3. Simply insane?

            For starters, there is nothing for your “corrupt” cover up to cover up. We all saw what went down.

            But I get it. Anybody who knows your body of work gets it. You people want the black officer punished for killing a white person. As noted earlier – white privilege run amok. You people see justified police killing in response to the slightest misstep by a black person but a white person viciously attacking the Congress? Not so much. No racism to see here. Move along. Move along.

            Secondly, Speaker Pelosi is NOT the civilian authority to whom they answer. That has been made clear over and over again. They answer to the Capitol Police Board consisting of four ex officio members.

            1. Sergeant-at-arms of the House (by vote of the House)
            2. Sergeant-at-arms of the Senate (by vote of the Senate)
            3. Architect of the Capitol (appointed by President, Approved by the Senate)
            4. Chief of the Capitol Police (appointed by this Board, non-voting member)

            The Architect of the Capitol on January 6th, 2021 was appointed by Donald Trump. Two of the three voting members are more beholden to the Senate and to the President than to the House.

            I do not know where you people get the idea that any fact you make up “Trumps” the truth. But they don’t.

            Liked by 2 people

        3. “Cheney and Kinzinger need to be primaried out.”

          Because they don’t support the Big Lie, work to uphold the Constitution, and don’t kiss the large orange ass in Mar-a-Lago? Politically, I do not agree with many of their positions. However, they are showing the kind of courage that is required to protect the democratic institutions in place based mostly on what the founder’s envisioned. Someone like Trump is what they feared

          “There was never any chance the Jan 6 committee would hold fair hearings”…

          Then blame McCarthy for not appointing serious Representatives to the panel, hoping it would just go away. Instead, he forced Pelosi to form the current committee.

          “The honorable thing”…

          You lost sight of honorable when you started living in thrall of TFG.

          ” But to allow the show trial to be deemed bipartisan is simply dishonest.”

          What is TRULY dishonest is you attacking their Republican bona fides because they support the Constitution over one man.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Again, irrelevant,

            If they want to be Republicans, and enjoy the support and brand of the party, they are obligated to support party strategy.

            Whether you or I agree with that policy, the GOP has the right to set strategy for it’s members. If they won’t do so, they are free to vote their conscience, just not as Republicans.

            Like

          2. The GOP has sanctioned Cheney and Kinzinger. So what?

            The importance of the investigation was not diminished because a disgraced ex-president ordered the GOP lackey’s to sabotage it.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “The GOP has sanctioned Cheney and Kinzinger.”

            For not showing fealty to TFG. But the GOP members who deserve sanction (Gaetz, MTG, Boebert, Gosar, and the like) are touted as party heroes, there is something terribly wrong with the GOP.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. When Pelosi refused to allow the GOP to choose their representatives on the committee, in favor of choosing them herself, the committee lost any semblance of fairness, and the GOP had every right to refuse to participate.

            Those who chose to thwart the party strategy do not belong in the party. They are free to run as independents if they choose.

            Like

          5. Pelosi’s refusal to seat those involved in the attempt to overturn the election, was protecting the actual integrity (remember when you had some?) of the committee. McCarthy, was told to do everything in his limited power to PREVENT any kind of investigation into what happened. There were plenty of GOP members who were NOT directly involved in the attempted overturning of the election that McCarthy could have appointed. But, nope, DJT told him to put his lackeys there to tear it down.

            …” the party strategy”…

            When the party strategy is show fealty and fear of one man, the party dos not deserve a place in our political lexicon. When will you admit that the only “strategy” the GOP has is to kiss Donald Trump’s ass?

            Like

          6. Again, the party Caucus decided not to participate. You are free to disagree but not to undermine the caucus and still claim to be a Republican.

            Like

          7. “You are free to disagree but not to undermine the caucus and still claim to be a Republican.”

            So where are the standards specifying who is a Republican and who is not? Which issues can you disagree on and on which issues MUST you conform? These are rhetorical questions which are a polite way of saying that you are full of shit. Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans IF they say they are. They are Republicans if they lose a primary challenge. They are Republicans if the RNC censures them. They have always been Republicans and not kowtowing to Donald Trump does not change that.

            This investigation should not be partisan. The events are too serious for such banality. It is Donald Trump and the spineless GOP leaders that chose to TRY to make it partisan for the sole purpose of discrediting its findings. Kind of like whining “fake news!” when inconvenient truth is reported.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Go for it. Either one can join the GOP and get a warm welcome. Manchin, for certain, isn’t going anywhere. He can run in any party he wants.

            Like

          9. No one is denying the rights of the voters. Unless you are Black or Hispanic or Native American and live in Texas, Georgia, the Dakotas, etc…

            Like

          10. Of course they can be primaried. The GOP has done that lots of times. I think that may be one of the hopeful signs for Democrats in November. The small number of primary voters have managed to pick some serious loonies whose endorsement by Trump was based solely on rejection of the 2020 election results.

            Cheney won’t be bumped. Wyoming voters are not that stupid.

            Liked by 2 people

          11. She will likely gain quite a few Democratic voters who believe in the rule of law and the Constitution.

            And haven’t you learned yet not to trust polls?

            Like

          12. You are correct. Maybe I misjudged Wyoming.
            But, and there is always a but, the primary is not until August. Also, the poll was taken with 400 likely primary voters. And primary voters are the core of the right wing of the right wing. Almost always the primary challenger has fringe ideas and are wholesale supporters of the Big Lie. This “qualities” still mean something to the moderates and independents.

            She may still lose, but politics are fickle. And August is a century away politically.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. “If they want to be Republicans, and enjoy the support and brand of the party, they are obligated to support party strategy.”

            Loyalty to party of country? Dems get accused of that all of time (ie, voting with Pelosi’s agenda 94% OF THE TIME).

            …” the GOP has the right to set strategy for it’s members.”

            When that strategy shows loyalty to a man over country, then the party needs to die a fast and painful death.

            Like

          14. Your Stalinist demand for absolutley unwavering party loyalty – one which in your mind is simply normal – is just another symptom of the damage done to our political system by the likes of Gingrinch and Trump.

            Liked by 2 people

          15. The GOP, and the Dems, are private organizations, not arms of government. and they have every right to eject members who do not work with the party.

            Like

          16. “The GOP, and the Dems, are private organizations…”

            Sure, the GOP has every right to demand and enforce Stalinist ideas of absolute loyalty and obeisance to Dear Leader. That is not in doubt. They have been following that Stalinist path for many years and have successfully expunged countless RINOs from their leadership and ranks. Hillary Clinton’s original 2016 assessment of deplorables to decent ratio (50/50) is moving inexorably towards the deplorables as they keep up their good work.

            Liked by 2 people

          17. It has nothing to do with Trump.

            Whatever the underlying issue might have been, Pelosi’s maneuvers were unacceptable, and providing her a fig leaf when the GOP walked away is inexcusable, whether the issue is Trump or naming a post office.

            Abuses of process cannot be enabled.

            Like

          18. “It has nothing to do with Trump.”

            And, that, ny good doctor, is the reason why you are blind to what has happened to the Republican Party.

            ,,,”Pelosi’s maneuvers were unacceptable,”…

            Nice to know you think that an attempt to maintain integrity is unacceptable.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “Not a freakin thing”. EXACTLY, moron. Geesh who let the kids into an adult conversation? I’m sending your parents a note to wash that mouth out with soap too.

        Like

  3. “They are free to act on their convictions, but not to do so as Republicans.”

    That! That right there! That is the cancer that has eaten the heart of the Republican Party and disgusted anyone who gives a damn about democracy. Party over conscience. Party over Constitution. Party over country. Liz Cheney and I agree on practically nothing, but when the dust clears, she will either emerge as the leader of the Republican Party or the Republican Party will cease to exist. It will be supported only by racists and misogynists and will go the way of the American Nazi Party.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. So, you are saying the GOP was not justified in refusing to participate when they were not allowed to choose their own representatives on the committee?

      That’s not a pro or anti Trump issue, it is a matter of just process, which the GOP was being denied.

      In such cases, it is entirely proper to act as a party as a matter of principle, and to demand that its members stand on that principle.

      Like

      1. I’m saying at least two members of the Republican Party chose to disagree with their Party, based on what they believed to be true and just. They chose their conscience over Party. They chose their conscience over money. I respect them for that, even though I disagree with their politics, they have my respect… which is more than I can say for most of the rest of the Party. Like Pence, they chose to honor the law, the Constitution, and the country, rather than do what the Party was demanding.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. Do Congress members take an oath to uphold the GOP or the Constitution?

            They might BS other Congressmen or their voters, but an oath is an oath even if the hand not on the Bible has fingers crossed.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. And again, that has nothing to do with their duty to the party.

            If they decided that their conscience required them to participate, their proper course would have been to change their party affiliation first, but in no case are they justified in participating under the guise of the GOP.

            Like

          3. …” duty to the party”…

            Duty to partyover duty to the COuntry and the Constitution. You really have a mixed up view of things.

            The party can do whatever eth party wants with its members. No one here has denied that. But when the party loses sight of its members’ duty to the country and Constitution, the party needs to DIE.

            Like

      2. McCarthy did not act in good faith when he tried to salt the Select Committee with people who encouraged the insurrection by spreading the Big Lie and who would only act to discredit the process if they were given such a bully pulpit.

        Jim Jordan had said even after the Electoral College had met that there was “no way” that Trump should concede his loss and he was known to have participated in the planning meetings leading up to the assault on Congress. He also played the race card whining about no committee to investigate BLM.

        Jim Banks, the other shithead that Pelosi rejected, issued a hyper-partisan defense of the rioters and that Pelosi had created the committee “solely to malign conservatives and to justify the Left’s authoritarian agenda.” He was clearly not serious either.

        This work is very serious. We do not want Brown Shirt politics in this country. Pelosi made the right choice knowing that excluding these jackasses would allow the kind of dishonest posturing about fairness that you are putting on display.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. If the GOP could not reject serial liar and leaker Adam Schiff, then Pelosi had no justification to reject the GOP choices.

          Either the GOP was to be treated fairly or not, and if not, the option was to walk away, and Cheney and Kinzinger deprived them of that option by giving Pelosi a figleaf by their presense.

          Like

          1. Why did McCarthy agree to a commission with all his demands met, then rejected it after meeting with Trump? Simple. Trump did not want to investigate what he and his close advisors were planning long before the election.

            That is why Pelosi had no choice but to go with a committee and two Republicans.

            You know this as well as anyone.

            And Lois is right. If Obama had plotted all this and got a mob to rush Congress you would be apoplectic.

            And you know that as well as anyone.

            A Congressional investigation was the only way to find out what happened. And it was not a spontaneous act of frivolous fun.

            And you know that as well as anyone also.

            Your outrage is as phony as “official” Confederate paper monies sold to tourists at Stuckey’s.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. It did not and do not approve of Trump’s attempts to delay the inevitable.

            But that has nothing to do with Pelosi demanding she be able to choose the GOP committee members.

            That was an abuse of process and had to be rejected. Cheney and Kinzinger obstructed that just as much as Trump obstructed the Electoral College count.

            Like

          3. If McCarthy had no spine, and rejected the original commission, then so be it. If you want to dance at the prom, you have to ask the Speaker. And he told her yes, then went to papa and came back to say no.

            So the dance was not cancelled and he, you and all the minions and cultists cry foul.
            Remember the original commission bent over backwards to accommodate every single demand by McCarthy. Every one. And it was accepted until he wet his pants at Mar a Lago. The point being to make sure any investigation was not bi-partisan.

            Hardball by the GOP.

            It backfired, so now you weep crocodile tears.

            Time to grow up, I would think. 😇

            Liked by 2 people

          4. …” Cheney and Kinzinger deprived them of that option by giving Pelosi a figleaf by their presense.”

            You call it a “fig leaf”; I call it upholding their oath of office.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Supplanted 100 years of procedures? The Constitution is more like 250 years old. Procedures and rules are up to the majority.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. I didn’t say it was illegal,

            But it was a gross abuse of process. In the past the majorities have at least kept the illusion of respect for the citizens by keeping the process open and fair.

            But I don’t think they are fooling anyone.

            Like

          7. Horse hockey! McCarthy AGRRED to a non-partisan commission. Then he went to kiss the ring of the Orange G-d King in Florida and upon his return decided he could no longer support the idea. Coincidence? Not even possible.

            Sorry, Don. But it is YOU who has been fooled. Repeatedly.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. …”then Pelosi had no justification to reject the GOP choices.”

            Jim Jordan has been subpoenaed by the committee. THe other rejected member has had other issues that even McCarthy would have withdrawn him had he been paying attention.

            If the GOP wanted to be treated fairly, then they should have acted in good faith.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. So, all we have to do to bar leading Democrats for participation in the coming investigations next year will be to subpoena them and thus make them silent?

            Pelosi should not be choosing the GOP members, and if she does, the only option the minority party has is to walk away to deny the committee legitimacy.

            Like

          10. Which will probably happen because the spineless GOP has one plan and one plan only. Investigate every Democrat who ever spit on a sidewalk.

            The GOP was given the opportunity to participate in a proper and dignified manner. Then Mar-a-Lago Don said no. When will you come to terms with the fact that the GOP is in complete total thrall to a twice-impeached, two-time losing grifter?

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “It’s not the GOP that weaponized the DOJ, IRS and Homeland Security as political enforcers.”

            Wow!

            You are a very sad case.
            You have chose to defend the indefensible with imaginary whatabouts and to do so throw self-respect, integrity, intellectual honesty, and reputation under the bus.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. It will be interesting to see whether the show tonight has any effect on public opinion.

    I’m told the select committee tonight will focus on Donald Trump’s role in coordinating the events of Jan. 6 and that previously unseen material will be presented.

    https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/jan-6-committee-hearings-schedule-news

    I expect, however, that the committee will not inspire confidence that its efforts are serious, nor will the show it puts on change many minds.

    Like

    1. The show will not change your mind, nor will it change my mind. The show will be designed to change the minds of the undecided, the people who have not followed politics and who aren’t clear about what happened on Jan 6. It is something that every single American needs to be absolutely clear on. We came way too close to losing our country that day. There needs to be safeguards put into place to see it never happens again. If people don’t understand the dangers, nothing will be done to prevent it from happening again. And next time, we might not be so lucky.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “We came way too close to losing our country that day.”

        If that were true, we’ve already lost it.

        Like

        1. On that day, if the Vice President had caved to the President’s demands and certified illegal votes, then voting would mean nothing and democracy would have ended. Vice Presidents would be in charge of selecting Presidents. As it is, the Electoral College is in charge of electing Presidents and that is bad enough. The two worst Presidents we’ve ever had this both lost the popular vote but were appointed to the office by the Electoral College. And if that wasn’t bad enough, Trump pressured Republican Governors to appoint their own electors, bypassing the vote of the people altogether. And he almost got away with it. The system we have now for selecting Presidents was put in place by men of honor. It never occurred to them that anyone would be so dishonorable as to lie about the people’s vote. Clearly the time of trusting in honor has passed. The time of peaceful transitions of power has ended. January 6 was the rattling of the snake’s tail. A warning. If we don’t kill the snake now, the next time its strike may be more accurate.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. I don’t remember Pence being asked to accept false electors, I thought he was asked to refuse to accept those disputed electors until the courts acted on them.

            In any case, it was not in his power to do so. Trump’s supporters were wrong on that.

            Like

          2. “ Trump’s supporters were wrong on that.”

            True, but more importantly, Trump and his circle knew that and still tried to get his “stand by” boys to rectify that.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Some of the cases were still before the courts, so yes, they were disputed, but the clock had run out.

            As I wrote the week after the election, it was successfully stolen when the GOP waited until after the election to sue.

            Like

          4. The fact that you keep saying the election was stolen destroys any credibility.

            Massive private, partisan audits in at least two states, AZ and WI turned up nothing. These were in addition to multiple recounts, machine verifications, and long accepted select audits in all battleground states. I think even a few states that Trump won big time either proposed audits or had them. The Rule of Law was followed with both legal standing and phony affidavits. Republican legislators agreed to pandemic accommodations, until they lost. Judges across the spectrum could not find any evidence. A packed SCOTUS didn’t even dip toes in the rancid waters. Finally, as I keep saying (and no one, I mean no one, ever challenges) down ballot wins pretty much prove there was no fraud.

            So “stolen”? Really?

            Liked by 2 people

          5. The wail form the Oval Office and Trump campaign was “fraud, fraud, fraud”. All of that was decided BY THE COURTS prior to January 6th. Your attempts to say otherwise is a really bad smoke screen to cover up the fact that TFG was told REPEATEDLY, by A LOT of his own people that he lost and there was no fraud that would change that fact. Just because he decided in his sick little mind, even though damned near EVERY ONE of his own advisors told him he lost, including his own daughter, does not alter the fact that greatest crime was committed BY HIM and his “crack” (head) legal beagles when they kept crying “fraud, fraud, fraud”.

            To quote the oh, so eloquent, Bill Barr, “BULSHIT.”

            Liked by 1 person

          6. I don’t disagree that Trump was wrong. I wrote a week after the election that because the GOP waited too late to sue about the rule changes it had been successfully stolen.

            But keep in mind that all the riot accomplished was to delay the electoral college 4 hours. The Republic was not in danger.

            Like

          7. …”the GOP waited too late to sue about the rule changes it had been successfully stolen.”

            You mean the rule changes that were agreed to in a bipartisan manner in the several states?

            Not only does it make the GOP look stupid, it makes your argument MOOT.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. The rule changes made contrary to their state’s constitutions. and thus violating the US Constitutions requiring that Presidential electors be chosen in the manner determined by the State’s LEGISLATURES.

            Like

          9. The Republicans wanted it both ways. Safe elections,,,unless their candidate lost. Which happened at the top of the ticket.

            They GOP states were suing htensleve. Leopard eating its own face.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. “it was successfully stolen”
            Like I said early, you are a partisan hack STILL spreading the Big Lie.

            “Some of the cases were still before the courts”
            The only case that MIGHT have generated competing Electors (you need competing Electors for there to be a dispute) was Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. SCOTUS took this case and dismissed it. These gaggles of alternate and secret Electors that we may hear about tonight had ZERO legal standing. They were not sent by the voters, the legislatures or the governors of the states they claimed to represent. They were part of the preparations for the attempted coup.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Why didn’t the committee hire you to sensationalize this political stunt story too? Lose the country?? Ha ha. Baloney. You don’t care squat about holding Democrats accountable. Why is that?

        Like

        1. Excuse me? Accountable for what exactly? Pointing out that Trump lied about “stolen votes?” Pointing out that Trump pressured the Vice President to overturn the election? Pointing out that Trump pressured the Governor of Georgia to “find enough votes” for him to win? I can assure you, if Obama had done even one of those things, Democrats would have been investigating it. Republicans, on the other hand, believe Trump can do no wrong… and that is the sure sign of being a cult, not a political party.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Are you really going to pretend that numerous instances of Democrats inciting violence have not been provided on this very thread? What a good liberal you are, feigning ignorance…again.

            Like

          2. The examples of what you call “Democrats inciting violence” have all — every single one — been of “Democrats inciting people to vote.” I’d say you are the one feigning ignorance… but I know you aren’t feigning it.

            Liked by 3 people

        1. I expect there are more discerning people out there than you imagine. For the sake of the country, I sincerely hope there are.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. “ You are right that the program is intended to fool those who have not been paying attention.”

          FOX viewers fit that very well. Hard to pay attention if you are told day in and day out that you are going to be replaced and vaccines either kill you or magnetize your nose. Then, of course, we have Italian satellites hacking voting machine so Trump lost and Republicans won. Those are some serious threats.😇

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Just about a hour ago I heard a comment on the radio. The 30 million Trump followers will accept anything their leader says. No discerning thoughts need apply. (Like, for example, why down ballot Republicans won and Trump lost.)

            But there are a vast middle of independents, moderate Republicans and even conservative Democrats who will pay attention as the information comes out.

            So some of us will help to keep you apprised as a service.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “But while this farce is INTENDED to fool people”..

            The Benghazi hearing were a farce. But then again, you believe in the axiom “don’t believe your lyin’ eyes or your discerning ears”.

            Liked by 1 person

  5. Tucker has been scaring folks on replacement for months. Don’t act so shocked, it shows through.
    He also dithered about vaccines.
    (Same about voting machine hacking until FOX was sued for a billion dollars, give/take.)
    I said FOX, not FOX News. There is still a shred of credibility on the News and Business departments.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Well, my ability to “like” things only lasted one day. I don’t know what happened, but I’m back to getting a blank white box when I click on “like.” Anyway, thanks for the effort.

    Like

    1. I never use the like button so I can’t say much other than you have the same access as an Author as most others here.

      Are you signed in to your Wrodpress ID?

      Like

      1. Yep, I’m signed in. I just discovered, if I get an email notice of a post, I can “like” the post from the email, but not from the site. In my email, the “like” is a button. When I’m on the site, the “like” is a link, not a button. It’s the link that opens a blank, white box.

        Like

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