Zed,

Please brace yourself for tremendous disappointment. The likelihood that Trump isn't indicted is exponentially higher than Trump being indicted, much less convicted.

"I wonder if Trump-appointed Judges would have to recuse themselves?"

The answer would be no.

#10. I don't care if he's indicted. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I'm just trying to caution your enthusiasm. Hillary Clinton wasn't even POTUS abd she blatantly engaged in felonious behavior with her reckless handling of classified information and the destruction of her hard drive with Bleach Bit.

Nothing happened to her. Nothing. I don't like it but that's how things roll in DC. Same will likely be true of Trump. The committee building a one sided case with cherry picked testimony and evidence is one thing. Getting the DOJ, even one as corrupt as this one, to indict is quite another thing. With indictment comes the discovery process and proving incitement is extremely difficult with that pesky 1st Amendment. For years I was assured W would be charged with all sorts of war crimes, etc. nothing.

#12 cases regarding Obama's agenda came before SCOTUS and it was never even suggested BY REPUBLICANS that Sotomayor should recuse herself.

Zed might be the biggest projector of all time.

#16. I have little doubt he wanted to. As to whether he tried to ... impossible to discern without an actual trial. I know you oppose innocent until proven guilty when your political opponents are involved because that's what fascists do but I still believe in due process even when it involves Trump.

#20 if the DOJ believes it has sufficient evidence for a trial then yes.

Keep in mind the FBI has been investigating 1/6 since it happened and we have no hint of a trial for Trump.

Reality is it is incredibly unlikely Trump is not indicted.

I answered your question, Zed

#27 it was an example of the powerful in this country not being held accountable. Nothing more.

Quit projecting. Not everyone views every issue through an extremely partisan lens like you do.

#26. I said "exponentially" because it's incredibly rare (I can't think of a single example) for a president or ex being criminally indicted.

I get that the show trial is causing you to have wet dreams but I tend to use history as a guide when trying to predict a future outcome.

#30. I already said it was an example of the powerful not being held accountable, Nimrod.

Zed,

Your ability to read Trump's mind is truly impressive.

" You need to explain why the FBI would tip its hand at this point."

The only reason is the countless leaks I've seen as it pertains to all things Trump.

I guess a grand jury might have been convened, although I doubt it.

Any investigation lacking any kind of adversarial component, like this one, is to be treated with a high degree of skepticism.

If that's your summation then you are the one doing the misrepresenting.

Regardless, it's ancient history. My point was and is that it's extremely difficult to hold powerful people in DC accountable which is why I've said the likelihood of no indictment is exponentially higher than the likelihood of an indictment.

" There is an adversarial component, the problem is that all it seems to be able to do is deflect. Lamely.

#42 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2022-07-03 06:46 PM | FLAG: "

There is not an iota of an adversarial component WITHIN the committee.

Jesus effing Christ.

The people who have gone before the committee were chosen. I e seen the talking point that almost all of the witnesses are Republicans. Well,duh! Since this committee is actually a get Trump committee wanna take a guess as to which political party those who had close access to Trump belonged to? Is it some kind of show of good faith that the committee didn't seek out an AOC staffer to be interviewed?

" Until then, you might want to ask yourself why Rep McCarthy prevented such an adversarial component on the Committee? Did he want to leave an opening for criticism? If so, why would he want to do that?"

He's no saint by any stretch. Pelosi said no to his first two choices. "You can pick any Republican you want so long as they are rabidly anti Trump" - Pelosi

Even if a pro a trump Republicans asked to be interviewed and the request was granted, it's still the committee members asking the questions and guiding the interview, without an adversarial component on the committee itself.

#52. She blocked those choices because she believes, or claims to believe, they are complicit.

Let me ask you this, how did Kinzinger and Cheney end up on the committee.

Are you actually claiming Cheney and Kissinger are "always Trumpers"?

Really???

Wow. I guess I'm really not surprised that you'd offer up such a dishonest take though.

But back to my question - How did they end up on the committee?

Lemme guess, next Danforth is going to claim that Rick Wilson, Bill Kristol and George Conway are always Trumpers too.

"#55 | POSTED BY TWINPAC AT 2022-07-03 07:13 PM"

It's more than just the discovery entitlement.

It takes an awfully high bar to criminally indict a president or ex-president. For example, out of expediency the CIA routinely breaks the law and oftentimes POTUS is not only aware but signed off. This is true for all presidents. It's an unspoken rule that presidents are not criminally prosecuted for stuff like that because, before we know it, EVERY single president will either end up facing indictment or be so gun-shy regarding making decisions that it harms the country. Democrats and Republicans both know this. To indict a president or ex the bar for the prosecution is simply much higher than indicting anyone else.

"Did I miss something?

#58 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2022-07-03 07:17 PM"

Were Cheney and Kinzinger on McCarthy's list of 5? No, they weren't. So, how did they end up on the committee?

"I told you they ended up on the committee because they bucked McCarthy's threats and took the consequences for choosing to be true to they oath they took to the Constitution. Cheney and Kizinger met with Pelosi, and then Pelosi announced they were being appointed to the committee."

So, the only Republicans on the committee are rabidly anti-Trump.

We are back to square-one - there isn't an iota of an adversarial component on this committee, which means everything the public sees is exactly what the committee wants the public to see, and nothing more.

"One would think that an attack on the Capitol and an attempt to overthrow an election would be worthy of a congressional investigation"

This isn't a broad, fact-finding investigation. It's a "get Trump" investigation and Pelosi's actions have made that abundantly clear. That's fine. Democrats have the majority and can investigate whatever they wish. But let's at least be honest about the end-game for this committee.

"The Jan 6 Committee is valid.

#75 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2022-07-03 07:37 PM |"

It's every bit as valid as a Benghazi committee run by Darryl Issa. At least that committee had congressmen on it who were supportive of Clinton and the Obama administration.

"#79 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2022-07-03 07:44 PM "

Your entire post is a straw man. And a big pile of projection to boot. Nice work.

Next!

Lamplighter,

You are a passive-aggressive dolt. At this point I'm going to call it as it is.

You despised both Cheney and Kinzinger, especially Cheney, until they went rabidly anti-Trump.

Justin Amash was and is rabidly anti-Trump too, but he was so from the get-go and didn't grandstand. He ultimately left his party over Trump. He didn't stick his finger in the wind with his opposition.

#86 I'm sure you've felt the EXACT same way about every Republican-lead investigation.

Yav is beyond hope. From what I gather, everything Democrats do is just and everything Republicans do is corrupt.

I never said the "get Trump" committee was invalid.

Indeed, I will say it here. The "Get Trump" committee is valid.

There, happy?

ALL committees are valid. You are engaging in a non-sequitur.

Some are better run and are more or less partisan than others.

According to Yav, this one is the best run and most bipartisan in the history of our country.

#92

Don't be Snoofy. I am not going to try and defend positions I've never taken. Stop with the passive-aggressive nonsense.

I love how Danforth fancies himself as the arbiter of truth.

Danforth,

I don't want to derail this page on a tangent. If I ask you a question about protests/investigations being based on a truth or lie on the nooner would you be willing to answer. It's not a combative question, it's seeking clarification.

#97 if they weren't chosen by Relublican leadership then it's absolutely partisan to the extent it's rabidly anti Trump. Please point to a single pro Trump member on the committee. And yes, McCarthy shoulders some blame for it.

#101 most posts directed at me are ad hominem. Tab's post was a combination of straw men and ad hominem.

Tab = Yav

I absolutely despise my phone.

#116. Right. Pelosi nixing his first two choices played no role whatsoever.

Hack.

Anyone who has a problem with Jim Jordan being on the committee but is totally fine with Adam Schiff being on it is a hack to the nth degree. Notice McCarthy wasn't given any veto power with Pelosi's choices. Darryl Issa never went that far.

Why is all of the security camera footage being held at Fort Knox?

You didn't answer my question, Speaksoftly.

Unless of course you are arguing that the footage has been released and I'm engaging in a conspiracy theory by alleging it hasn't.

Why do progressives oppose it being released?

It was hyperbole, Truthhurts.

It bothers me that the footage is being kept under lock and key. Given the stated importance of that event, we the public should be given as much information as possible.

I can't think of a single reason to hide the footage this long after the fact.

Pleading the 5th? So, you think your political opponents should lose their right to plead the 5th?

Talk about fascism.

Also, nice deflection. I take it you are opposed to having the footage released.

"Your question is intended to suggest....."

I stopped reading right there.

My question isn't "intending" anything. It's straightforward. WHY is this footage being withheld from the public? I would think you'd want to see the footage.

#161 Why are you opposed to the footage being released? It's raw evidence.

"Do you have any theories on what exculpatory evidence could be on the unseen footage?

#162 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-07-05 01:05 PM | REPLY"

I have no theories at all. I haven't seen any of the security camera footage and am not speculating as to what it might reveal.

"You realize that some of that footage would be used in trials right?"

In one trial some footage netted an acquittal.

I do see your point which raises another question - why in the hell is it taking so long for these people to get a trial?

#169 Honestly, I don't understand that particular argument........

#168 More straw men. Again, WHY are you opposed to the release of the footage. I sort of understand where Truthhurts is coming from - legal cases are still pending. I think it's criminal that these people have been languishing this long without a trial, but I do understand Truthhurts' position and it's probably the primary reason why the footage is being kept from the public eye.

People are entitled to a quick trial in this country.

Nevertheless, I think Truthhurts' explanation as to why the footage hasn't been released does make sense in the context of our legal system. And that explanation is probably why we don't have a massive outcry for the footage to be released at this time. I will say this - once the last legal case has been settled the footage absolutely should be released.

#177 I don't care if Trump is indicted. He's scum. I am simply pointing out how difficult it is in this country to secure a criminal indictment of a president or former president. That's not a partisan observation nor is it a pro (or anti) Trump statement. It's a statement of reality that history has borne out time and time again.

"Translation "can we wrap this up before even more horrible facts for my cult are discovered so we can make the bleeding stop?"

#179 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2022-07-05 01:34 PM | "

No. Unlike you and your fascist cult, I believe that justice should be evenly applied and that ALL who are prosecuted are entitled to a speedy trial as outlined in the Constitution.

"Maybe you could encourage them to cooperate instead of refusing subpoenas and pleading the 5th if you really want this to be over quicker.

#183 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2022-07-05 01:54 PM"

I am talking about those who have been arrested for unlawfully entering the capitol building. It seems extreme that 18 months later some are still languishing in jail cells without a trial.

#190 Do you have evidence to back that up?

OK, so they are deemed a flight risk. Why haven't they had a trial by now?

And why do YOU lie, Truthhurts?

"ore than 840 people have been arrested for storming the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, with charges ranging from obstruction of an official proceeding to assault. But 17 months after the attempted insurrection, a significant number of rioters are still awaiting their sentencing.

Only around a quarter of those arrested"185 individuals"have received criminal sentences, while the rest are waiting for their trials or haven't yet reached plea agreements."

#197 I know, right.

A handful of submachine guns could have taken care of the protestors who remained outside the capitol building. Kill them all! You sound like Zed.

#200 I haven't been able to find how many are still in jail (as opposed to being released and awaiting trial). I've tried a couple of different searches.

I have no problem admitting I'm wrong if that ends up being the case.

#205 Some of Colbert's people twice illegally breached the capitol building recently. Should they have been shot dead?

I see Douchehurts, after a brief hiatus. is returning back to D-Bag form.

At least everything feels normal again.

"Were they violent and trying to overthrow demoracy?"

Some of the people who were convicted for their actions that day were a misdemeanor charge of "unlawful parading". Some of those present were engaged in violent behavior and have received 4+ year sentences. Plenty have plead to misdemeanor 'unlawful parading' for entering an open door, walking around inside for about 15 minutes or so, and then leaving.

#214 Um, no he didn't. Not in the slightest.

I do give him credit though. I was bothered by the withholding of the video footage and his explanation made complete sense and when I thought about the reason for the withholding based on the reasoning he laid out it made perfect sense to me.

It's called "having a discussion." I don't fancy myself as some kind of perfect human being. I have flaws and make mistakes. I try very hard to be open-minded but sometimes fail in that regard. When I do make an obvious mistake I make a point of admitting it.

#226 That post, while interesting looking, probably violates this site's moderation policy.

FFS Trurhhurts,

I know you are incapable of taking the L, but are you also incapable of taking the W?

As it pertains to the sealed footage, I was bothered by its lack of release. You made a completely logical argument as to why and I credited you for it and adjusted my view. While I didn't view that particular discussion as a competition, if it was a competition, you got the W. Good for you. More importantly, through reason you were able to get me to alter my view on that particular issue. You should be happy about that outcome.

But apparently, that's not good enough for you.

#247 He's a proven bald faced liar.

Speaksoftly was originally critical of Biden because he viewed him as Hillary 2.0. Biden has been even further left than Obama was (although not as far left as Obama wished to be albeit pesky checks and balances). Biden has at least temporarily implemented to the left of what Sanders could have accomplished.

#254 Conservative Democrats my ass. They are barely to the right of Hugo Chavez

#262. So any criticism of Biden is a defense of Trump? Nice logic.