With All the Information out, Do you believe Trump should be President again?

Again, the one and only point that your words evoke, is that your own mind has already been made up, despite not having enough of a grounding in truth, to be able to defend your ill- founded assumptions (of which, you clearly have many).

 

"Do you believe Trump should be president again?" Absolutely Never. After 1/6 Trump should have had the decency to retire from politics. But as we know, most of what motivates Trump is ego.

"And if he becomes president again, do you think it would be good or bad?" It would not be surprised if it did not lead us to the brink of the nation falling apart or a constitutional convention. I don't think most Americans have the stomach for civil war, but we may become a loosely united group of individual countries.

"What benefits and consequences would likely occur to our nation (be specific)?" The left would literally tear the country apart. They would absolutely riot in most major cities. Think 1/6 + Summer of Love x1000. And to make matters worse, Trumps reaction to that would be akin to the rise of communism in Russia, or at least how he attempted to act.

 

People widely abuse the standards of law- either ignorance convenience or both. A guilty verdict means that the court or jury decided that sufficient evidence by the definition of the law existed to declare it had been violated. It is not proof of genuine guilt, just as a not guilty verdict is not proof of genuine innocence. The process of prosecution itself is not really a search for truth as it should be- but a pursuit of victory to back up the conclusion of people pushing prosecution. Perjury and evasions take place in virtually every court case, but are usually done without consequence- except to the consequence of a just outcome.

In the public eye, probable cause is different. It's the conclusion that guilt or innocence is the most likely truth, and the things that influence that view are not limited by the rules of evidence, but by common sense.
IF we were all dedicated to the standard of truth, 80-90% of this BS would be resolved. The way the game is being played is the real crime. We have people literally denying the undeniable by redefining basic values to destroy the value of truth- manipulate and distort it to gain advantage and avoid the challenge of reason, and the recognition of truth.

 

I just wanted to add that the damage Dems inflicted on me and my family is not as severe as those less fortunate than myself. I earn a good living and can adapt quickly. I would gladly hand over half my earnings if it created a thriving, healthy society. Its not a closed mind; its open eyes.

 

You might have been able to abuse me of my "assumptions" if maybe you could have answered my questions, though my assumptions are based on observable facts -- few of which are in the for show televised hearings..

 

Disabuse.

Are you claiming that you're following the hearings?

*snicker*

 

Yeah, it didn't sound right when I typed it. Thanks.

I have watched some of the hearings but can't be called a follower.

 

That is a misstatement of fact, on your behalf, as one of the first assumptions you'd voiced, in our discussion, had been that Trump did not attempt to overturn the results of the election. While this is not a trial, there has been a mountain of evidence presented, to the contrary of that belief.

Further, because a Congressional hearing is not a trial-- except in cases of impeachment which, even though those verdicts are determined through a process unique to the Senate, still do allow for the defense to present its own case-- the things you expect as far as "cross examinations," are frankly a ridiculous objection: if and when the facts uncovered in the Committee's investigation are used by the Justice Dept. for any indictments, then those brought to an actual trial, will have all the rights and privileges accorded any legal defendant. But being uninterested in, or discounting the value of, anything learned through the Committee's extensive interviews with people in the know, is equivalent to sticking one's head in the sand. The "Benghazi" hearings were also, a "kangaroo court," by your definition-- Clinton was not allowed to question witnesses, and so forth-- yet why do I feel certain you did not ignore those? It is silly to contend that no information produced anywhere other than in a trial, could be anything worth weighing into one's opinion.


RodB said: ↑
I have watched some of the Jan 6 hearings but I have zero rational interest in following and assessing what clearly amounts to nothing but a purging kangaroo court. If the committee followed the rule of due process SCOTUS said they have to they would have cross examinations and would not doctor the evidence they do display. If they were carrying out their constitutional authority to investigate things only for legislative purposes they would look into everything and anyone -- maybe starting with Pelosi -- who had any direct connection with the Jan 6th mayhem, and not limit their witnesses to those that absolutely fully believe Trump was the driving force behind the mayhem


The Committee's investigation, cannot realistically be termed hearsay, because of the great degree of corroboration, of a wide variety of witnesses, who were nearly all part of Trump's own administration! Your lumping the likes of Trump's Attorney General, Bill Barr, in with those who would be disposed toward being against Trump. Nearly all the witnesses were Republicans. The reason they were interviewed, was that (at least all those who either voluntarily testified, or who complied with their subpoenas), these were the people with the knowledge of what took place, inside the decision making process, for example. If they all "fully believe Trump was the driving force behind the mayhem," it is not because they are never-Trumpers, or Democrats. I am running out of adjectives to describe your looney suggestions, that the Committee would determine who to interview, not by trying to include as many as possible, with first-hand knowledge of all related events, but instead by first polling everyone on the question of whether or not they felt Trump was responsible for January 6th, and then choosing an equal number of witnesses from each side of that question. Not only does that make no sense, but it would have made for an extremely short investigation.

If all those around Trump, explain (usually under oath) how Trump was orchestrating opposition to the enacting of the will of the voting public, as ascribed in our law, maybe you should consider that perhaps there is good reason to regard that, as at least a credible possibility.


RodB said: ↑
Did anyone ask her what she did to prepare for a massive and maybe unruly crowd. I did not see that. Was she questioned by the committee at all? Or was it just a (of course doctored and edited) tape shown for show? (just one small example)

To end with this one small example of your ignorance of the event in question:

1) preparing for an attack on the Capitol, is not Nancy Pelosi's responsibility.

2) I don't know whether or not she was interviewed, however your labelling of the live recorded footage that was shown-- recorded by a NEWS PERSON*, btw, not by Pelosi herself, and in a room full of, and herself right beside, prominent Republicans-- as doctored tape, is preposterous. Then why have not Congressmen who were standing next to her, listening to all that was going on, in the phone calls in which she & Chuck Schumer were trying to get help routed to the Capitol, and talking to everyone they could think to call, including Sec'y of State Mike Pompeo, not stepped forward to say, "That's not the way it happened?" The tape, speaks for itself. Unfortunately, you have predetermined for yourself, not to listen.




*<Snip>
Washington Post reporter Jacqueline Alemany tweeted that the footage was shot by Alexandra Pelosi — a documentary filmmaker — who was with her mother to capture footage of the historic day.
<End>

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1128845132/jan-6-committee-hearing-congress-footage

 

Bravo and then bravo again. That is saying it like it is. The reality is that the pro-Trumpers always try to find the absolute flimsiest excuses for Trump's behavior and then do the exact opposite when it comes to the Democrats (accuse them of everything when there is very little proof or data supporting their views).

By definition, that is called hypocrisy.

The reality is that Trump has not been accused of only a few things but he has been accused of at least 20 or 30 (or more) things that were either incompetent, criminal, selfish, or simply pure bias and the amount of excuses given is a mountain of them. Common sense adages that apply to this scenario are:

"Where there is smoke there is fire"
"If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck"
"Birds of a feather, flock together"

These adages have been around for ages because they depict reality. Trumper's don't see reality they see whatever they want to see

 

I never said Trump was not trying to change the electoral vote. He was, and that is perfectly proper. The committee is investigating what they describe as an attempt to overthrow the government -- not any where near the same thing.

Both SCOTUS and House rules require due process at committee hearings although not to the full extent required in a court of law. Committees can conduct hearings in private for instance while courts cannot. When I say cross examination I'm only meaning by committee members. The investigation target never gets to ask questions at committee hearings.

I never said the witnesses were carte blanch hearsay, although much testimony given and ballyhooed was hearsay. Corroboration does not negate hearsay. Their are tons of witnesses with direct knowledge that were not called like Pelosi as I said. A perfect example (of many) related to my first point was the Secret Service agent in the vehicle with Trump when the hearsay witness testified that Trump tried to grab the steering wheel to get to the Capitol.

Pelosi is the only one (maybe in conjunction with Schumer) that can have the National Guard protect the Capitol grounds. She rejected Trump's recommendation to have the Guard there for crowd control.

I can't see why. They openly, blatantly, and with no qualms edited and doctored the tape they showed of Trump's speech to his massive crowd of supporters on the mall

 

We agree, on your ending, bolded phrase: lodging legitimate complaints, through the proper legal channels, is certainly not the same as attempting to steal an election. The part we disagree upon, is that I think, for anyone who has seen the full case, as laid out by the Committee, in their final, 2- hour hearing, it is unquestionably that latter, not the former, which Trump, to all appearances, and by all evidence, was attempting.

As you have not seen, this full presentation, that makes, by definition, your opinion, an uniformed one.

I agree, once more, with your concluding statement, which would give you no cause for objection. So, in reality, all your circuitous argument, here as elsewhere, can be simplified to your charge that Republicans were not sufficiently represented on the Committee(?). The two points that, I think, render that objection moot, is that:
1) Republicans had an opportunity to have even more than customary representation, on the Committee, but turned it down. Regardless of the, by now, well known Republican answer to this-- that two Representatives with a long history of using their place on Committees, to actually block, and deflect investigations, were not permitted on the Committee-- this was too important a matter in which to allow that to occur. Besides, whether or not you are entitled to gripe about this, it is ridiculous for anyone to say, that without those 2 specific Republicans, out of about 200, it was impossible for Republicans to be represented: that claim is clearly nothing but a sham. Finally, since the members in question, were also both strongly likely to be primary witnesses in, if not even targets of, the investigation, there seems a much more legitimate rationale for the denying of them a place, than is there a plausible case to be made that Trump was merely exercising his rights, to question anything suspicious about an election's process.

2) It would also be an unbelievable argument, if you are trying to suggest that having more Republicans on the Committee, would materially have changed the testimony of Trump's own officials, like AG Bill Barr.

This one particular incident, I agree is merely hearsay. Do you not realize, that it could be lifted completely out of the testimony, and make no significant difference? That testimony was the "circus" element, of bread and circuses. But there was plenty of real meat to the evidentiary case, as well.

That's 2 claims, with 0 supporting links. Can you improve on that balance which, as it stands, speaks against the credibility of both your claims?

The obvious difference, is that Trump's citizen supporters, do not have the same public platform, to state their grievances, as do members of Congress.

Is this not self-evident to you, or are you just deflecting, with any possible objection, you can think of?

 

For one, he should unleash the American oil industry. Issue licenses for drilling on leased lands, reduce the taxes he raised on oil from leased lands, open up offshore drilling, and encourage fracking.
Then... CLOSE THE BORDER!!
Then... increase police funding... get mayors to get rid of the AG's letting violent criminals go without bail...

 

That is too over simplified. A committee or a group that is investigating an incident or action should get all sides, call witnesses with different perspectives, allow any member of the committee to ask witnesses any question they choose. If its not due process (which it should be by House rules and SCOTUS rulings) it is clearly due diligence. Happens routinely. It ain't rocket science. It is not a credible argument (actually it's preposterous) that the committee gets credit for fairness by having two avid Trump hating Republicans on the committee. It is eminently logical that McCarthy wouldn't participate in what is clearly obviously prima facie a show trial by a kangaroo court.

Links??? As I know the sun rises in the east I know the president has no -- as in zero, nada, zip, zilch -- authority himself whatsoever to send military, troops, militia, law enforcement, anybody to the Capitol grounds. He can't even give a state of the union address without an invitation. It's called separation of independent powers -- maybe you've heard of it....

What does this have to do with a congressional committee doctoring displayed evidence to ballyhoo their prejudged case???

 

Does any Trump supporter actually think when the prez was given the authority to declassify docs it was contemplated that one would do so in order to take sensitive information to his home, not a secure location, for reasons beyond understanding?
This, and many others, is an example of how Trump's behavior was beyond the imagination of those believed a prez would not engage in traitorous acts against the US.

 

We do know that Trump felt he could do anything he wanted with no possible repercussions.