Decorating Cheney
-
-
Good, she performed a difficult service for her country. I would hope if it was Obama and BLM denying an election loss and attacking the Capitol that leaders on the left would also forget party lines to serve in a commission to investigate what happened.
-
Good, she performed a difficult service for her country. I would hope if it was Obama and BLM denying an election loss and attacking the Capitol that leaders on the left would also forget party lines to serve in a commission to investigate what happened.
-
She took a gamble where, if a few of the unknowns had turned out differently, a presidency of the united states would have loomed on her horizon, and she would have sought it. I don't trust the reasoning capacities of anybody who doesn't understand that framing. You can disagree with it on some nuanced level, but the framing of her, gambling and playing for a presidency, seems so obviously reasonable.
-
It’s nice to see witness interference and manipulation get rewarded.
-
@89th Don’t let the events of January 6th inform your opinion of the actions taken by the January 6th committee. Both are wrong and criminal. One does not justify the other.
-
I am open to hearing damning evidence of how bad the committee was.
I’ve heard “Hollywood produced videos” but no one showed me anything egregious other than a montage and compilation of the “bad bits” from the thousands of hours of tape, a necessary job to make it digestible. Or that at one point there was dubbed audio (over an otherwise silent CCTV feed) that didn’t change the substance. I’m open to objective and empirical facts if Cheney was sooooo criminal.
From what I can tell, and said this before, the committee played a crucial role in investigating, compiling evidence, and publishing the findings in public and on paper. Prior it was ALL he said she said guessing games and fake news to support your own side. Were the dems happy to see the evidence mount in an effort to “get” Trump? Sure. The evidence was collected, produced, and it was not enough to “get” Trump but it did produce an important historical picture of what happened. And even IF it was 98% accurate, that’s not terribly criminal to me. Assaulting cops and breaking into the Capitol was.
-
- The Minority Leader was not permitted to select members of the committee - unprecedented.
- "Witnesses" were not permitted to be cross-examined.
- Testimony by Ms. Hutchinson was broadcast as though true, but when she admitted that she "misremembered" that was done in a closed hearing.
- Records were requested and destroyed.
- Testimony of US Capitol police chief was not permitted.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Assaulting cops and breaking into the Capitol was.
Agreed. Now, how about the folks who were escorted by US Capitol Police, who opened doors for them?
You used the word "evidence." In a real investigation, one which adhered to rules of evidence, etc., edited videos would not be permitted. Added sound effects would not be permitted. That stuff isn't "evidence" it's theater.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Good, she performed a difficult service for her country. I would hope if it was Obama and BLM denying an election loss and attacking the Capitol that leaders on the left would also forget party lines to serve in a commission to investigate what happened.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Good, she performed a difficult service for her country. I would hope if it was Obama and BLM denying an election loss and attacking the Capitol that leaders on the left would also forget party lines to serve in a commission to investigate what happened.
+1
-
- The Minority Leader was not permitted to select members of the committee - unprecedented.
- "Witnesses" were not permitted to be cross-examined.
- Testimony by Ms. Hutchinson was broadcast as though true, but when she admitted that she "misremembered" that was done in a closed hearing.
- Records were requested and destroyed.
- Testimony of US Capitol police chief was not permitted.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Assaulting cops and breaking into the Capitol was.
Agreed. Now, how about the folks who were escorted by US Capitol Police, who opened doors for them?
You used the word "evidence." In a real investigation, one which adhered to rules of evidence, etc., edited videos would not be permitted. Added sound effects would not be permitted. That stuff isn't "evidence" it's theater.
@George-K said in Decorating Cheney:
- The Minority Leader was not permitted to select members of the committee - unprecedented.
- "Witnesses" were not permitted to be cross-examined.
- Testimony by Ms. Hutchinson was broadcast as though true, but when she admitted that she "misremembered" that was done in a closed hearing.
- Records were requested and destroyed.
- Testimony of US Capitol police chief was not permitted.
Even if (a big if) I just accept your list as-is, that isn’t “criminal just like the rioters”. At worst it’s an imperfect process that could’ve been improved. Still a worthwhile cause and better than nothing.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Assaulting cops and breaking into the Capitol was.
Agreed. Now, how about the folks who were escorted by US Capitol Police, who opened doors for them?
Those folks are fine, if it’s as you say. Could’ve been me, had I gone down to see the rally.
You used the word "evidence." In a real investigation, one which adhered to rules of evidence, etc., edited videos would not be permitted. Added sound effects would not be permitted. That stuff isn't "evidences " it's theater.
The committee was transparent that they were stitching all the footage together for public consumption. The “edited video” and the “added voiceover” from what I’m aware had zero impact on the substance. It’s like playing for the jury a cop with a camera (no audio) going into a house while adding in audio from another cop’s walky talky.
Y’all act like they used CGI and created fake audio voiceovers via AI.
-
@George-K said in Decorating Cheney:
- The Minority Leader was not permitted to select members of the committee - unprecedented.
- "Witnesses" were not permitted to be cross-examined.
- Testimony by Ms. Hutchinson was broadcast as though true, but when she admitted that she "misremembered" that was done in a closed hearing.
- Records were requested and destroyed.
- Testimony of US Capitol police chief was not permitted.
Even if (a big if) I just accept your list as-is, that isn’t “criminal just like the rioters”. At worst it’s an imperfect process that could’ve been improved. Still a worthwhile cause and better than nothing.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Assaulting cops and breaking into the Capitol was.
Agreed. Now, how about the folks who were escorted by US Capitol Police, who opened doors for them?
Those folks are fine, if it’s as you say. Could’ve been me, had I gone down to see the rally.
You used the word "evidence." In a real investigation, one which adhered to rules of evidence, etc., edited videos would not be permitted. Added sound effects would not be permitted. That stuff isn't "evidences " it's theater.
The committee was transparent that they were stitching all the footage together for public consumption. The “edited video” and the “added voiceover” from what I’m aware had zero impact on the substance. It’s like playing for the jury a cop with a camera (no audio) going into a house while adding in audio from another cop’s walky talky.
Y’all act like they used CGI and created fake audio voiceovers via AI.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Y’all act like they used CGI and created fake audio voiceovers via AI.
Nope. The committee was presented as the definitive version of what happened on Jan 6. Evidence was altered, witnesses retracted testimony and more.
Your comment about "an imperfect process" is disingenuous - at best. It is damning at worst. This show was orchestrated to present one view of the riot on Jan 6, with dissenting witnesses suppressed and evidence doctored. This is the Congress of the United States, and you justify the errors by saying it's an "imperfect process?"
Really? That wouldn't even fly in traffic court.
But, to be clear, I'm not, by any means defending the rioters.
I'm condemning the people who presented this to the public as though it were the truth, with no ability to cross-examine witnesses and a biased panel.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
And, in another thread, you said.
You see it as an exhibition. I see it as the judicial process
And that's your problem. It was NOT a judicial process. Look up the rules of evidence, the standard of adversarial law and get back to me.
None of that happened, as I said.
-
And, in another thread, you said.
You see it as an exhibition. I see it as the judicial process
And that's your problem. It was NOT a judicial process. Look up the rules of evidence, the standard of adversarial law and get back to me.
None of that happened, as I said.
@George-K said in Decorating Cheney:
And, in another thread, you said.
You see it as an exhibition. I see it as the judicial process
And that's your problem. It was NOT a judicial process. Look up the rules of evidence, the standard of adversarial law and get back to me.
None of that happened, as I said.
Oh for that I was referring to Jack Smith’s investigation.
-
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Y’all act like they used CGI and created fake audio voiceovers via AI.
Nope. The committee was presented as the definitive version of what happened on Jan 6. Evidence was altered, witnesses retracted testimony and more.
Your comment about "an imperfect process" is disingenuous - at best. It is damning at worst. This show was orchestrated to present one view of the riot on Jan 6, with dissenting witnesses suppressed and evidence doctored. This is the Congress of the United States, and you justify the errors by saying it's an "imperfect process?"
Really? That wouldn't even fly in traffic court.
But, to be clear, I'm not, by any means defending the rioters.
I'm condemning the people who presented this to the public as though it were the truth, with no ability to cross-examine witnesses and a biased panel.
@George-K said in Decorating Cheney:
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Y’all act like they used CGI and created fake audio voiceovers via AI.
Nope. The committee was presented as the definitive version of what happened on Jan 6. Evidence was altered, witnesses retracted testimony and more.
Your comment about "an imperfect process" is disingenuous - at best. It is damning at worst. This show was orchestrated to present one view of the riot on Jan 6, with dissenting witnesses suppressed and evidence doctored. This is the Congress of the United States, and you justify the errors by saying it's an "imperfect process?"
Really? That wouldn't even fly in traffic court.
But, to be clear, I'm not, by any means defending the rioters.
I'm condemning the people who presented this to the public as though it were the truth, with no ability to cross-examine witnesses and a biased panel.
How close to the truth do you think the Jan 6th report was? Just curious.
-
@George-K said in Decorating Cheney:
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Y’all act like they used CGI and created fake audio voiceovers via AI.
Nope. The committee was presented as the definitive version of what happened on Jan 6. Evidence was altered, witnesses retracted testimony and more.
Your comment about "an imperfect process" is disingenuous - at best. It is damning at worst. This show was orchestrated to present one view of the riot on Jan 6, with dissenting witnesses suppressed and evidence doctored. This is the Congress of the United States, and you justify the errors by saying it's an "imperfect process?"
Really? That wouldn't even fly in traffic court.
But, to be clear, I'm not, by any means defending the rioters.
I'm condemning the people who presented this to the public as though it were the truth, with no ability to cross-examine witnesses and a biased panel.
How close to the truth do you think the Jan 6th report was? Just curious.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
How close to the truth do you think the Jan 6th report was? Just curious.
Was there violence? Yes.
Were police officers attacked? Yes.
Was there an effort (by a small minority) to overturn the election? Probably.
But, my thoughts are irrelevant when witnesses change their testimony in closed hearings, when cross-examination is not permitted, when the defense can't seat it's proponents, when evidence is altered, and other witnesses are not allowed to testify.
Until those faults are corrected, the Jan 6 committee is nothing more than a show trial.
Was a lot of the report true? Perhaps.
Was a lot of the report staged? Sure was.
Was a lot of the report dishonest? Yup that too.
The falsehoods taint the entire thing. This was not a report. This was a "Let us show you what we want you to see." To use the terms "evidence" and "judicial" is a smear on our system of adversarial representation.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Or, we could go back and look at the evidence.
Sorry, forgot the committee lost or destroyed some of it...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
- The Minority Leader was not permitted to select members of the committee - unprecedented.
- "Witnesses" were not permitted to be cross-examined.
- Testimony by Ms. Hutchinson was broadcast as though true, but when she admitted that she "misremembered" that was done in a closed hearing.
- Records were requested and destroyed.
- Testimony of US Capitol police chief was not permitted.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Assaulting cops and breaking into the Capitol was.
Agreed. Now, how about the folks who were escorted by US Capitol Police, who opened doors for them?
You used the word "evidence." In a real investigation, one which adhered to rules of evidence, etc., edited videos would not be permitted. Added sound effects would not be permitted. That stuff isn't "evidence" it's theater.
-
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
How close to the truth do you think the Jan 6th report was? Just curious.
Was there violence? Yes.
Were police officers attacked? Yes.
Was there an effort (by a small minority) to overturn the election? Probably.
But, my thoughts are irrelevant when witnesses change their testimony in closed hearings, when cross-examination is not permitted, when the defense can't seat it's proponents, when evidence is altered, and other witnesses are not allowed to testify.
Until those faults are corrected, the Jan 6 committee is nothing more than a show trial.
Was a lot of the report true? Perhaps.
Was a lot of the report staged? Sure was.
Was a lot of the report dishonest? Yup that too.
The falsehoods taint the entire thing. This was not a report. This was a "Let us show you what we want you to see." To use the terms "evidence" and "judicial" is a smear on our system of adversarial representation.
@George-K said in Decorating Cheney:
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
How close to the truth do you think the Jan 6th report was? Just curious.
Was there violence? Yes.
Were police officers attacked? Yes.
Was there an effort (by a small minority) to overturn the election? Probably.
But, my thoughts are irrelevant when witnesses change their testimony in closed hearings, when cross-examination is not permitted, when the defense can't seat it's proponents, when evidence is altered, and other witnesses are not allowed to testify.
Until those faults are corrected, the Jan 6 committee is nothing more than a show trial.
Was a lot of the report true? Perhaps.
Was a lot of the report staged? Sure was.
Was a lot of the report dishonest? Yup that too.
The falsehoods taint the entire thing. This was not a report. This was a "Let us show you what we want you to see." To use the terms "evidence" and "judicial" is a smear on our system of adversarial representation.
Why would there be cross examination? It wasn't a criminal or civil trial. There is no "due process" being prevented from anyone. It was a fact-finding mission, and the facts were found, reported, and sent to the DOJ to handle.
You said "was a lot of the report true? perhaps". That is my question, if you had to just put a number on it, how much of the published report (which I'm sure none of us actually read) is an accurate summary of the events of the day? I have my number, what is yours?
