Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Decorating Cheney

Decorating Cheney

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
35 Posts 7 Posters 284 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • George KG George K

    @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.

    89th8 Offline
    89th8 Offline
    89th
    wrote on last edited by
    #16

    @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 KG 1 Reply Last reply
    • 89th8 89th

      @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 KG Offline
      George KG Offline
      George K
      wrote on last edited by
      #17

      @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.

      89th8 2 Replies Last reply
      • JollyJ Offline
        JollyJ Offline
        Jolly
        wrote on last edited by Jolly
        #18

        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

        89th8 1 Reply Last reply
        • George KG George K
          1. The Minority Leader was not permitted to select members of the committee - unprecedented.
          2. "Witnesses" were not permitted to be cross-examined.
          3. Testimony by Ms. Hutchinson was broadcast as though true, but when she admitted that she "misremembered" that was done in a closed hearing.
          4. Records were requested and destroyed.
          5. 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.

          jon-nycJ Offline
          jon-nycJ Offline
          jon-nyc
          wrote on last edited by
          #19

          @George-K said in Decorating Cheney:

          1. Records were requested and destroyed.

          Text messages among the SS agents closest to Trump were deleted. That seems like the destroyed records were more likely damning than exculpatory for Trump.

          Only non-witches get due process.

          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
          1 Reply Last reply
          • George KG George K

            @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.

            89th8 Offline
            89th8 Offline
            89th
            wrote on last edited by
            #20

            @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?

            1 Reply Last reply
            • JollyJ Jolly

              Or, we could go back and look at the evidence.

              Sorry, forgot the committee lost or destroyed some of it...

              89th8 Offline
              89th8 Offline
              89th
              wrote on last edited by
              #21

              @Jolly said in Decorating Cheney:

              Or, we could go back and look at the evidence.

              Sorry, forgot the committee lost or destroyed some of it...

              See this is where you lose credibility to me, in this matter. You claim "records were requested and destroyed". That is false. For example, the SS text messages they requested were not "deleted after they were requested" as you imply, they were found to already have been purged as part of the SS process of changing phones, a process that had LONG existed before this committee.

              George says there was fake video, fake audio.... show me. Show me the actors, the fake audio, the CGI... If you're talking about the equivalent of playing one cop's radio as audio while showing a silent-cam footage from the another cop? That's not exactly a conspiracy. Seems like basic video editing you would see in even the most basic news reports at 5pm on local TV when you're showing a summary of an event.

              1 Reply Last reply
              • George KG George K

                @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.

                89th8 Offline
                89th8 Offline
                89th
                wrote on last edited by
                #22

                @George-K said in Decorating Cheney:

                Was a lot of the report staged? Sure was.

                Show me the "lots" of the report that was staged, please.

                1 Reply Last reply
                • 89th8 Offline
                  89th8 Offline
                  89th
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #23

                  Here's the report btw, PDF. Which page numbers have staged findings?

                  Not being sarcastic, I'm too lazy to look it up.

                  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • JollyJ Offline
                    JollyJ Offline
                    Jolly
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #24

                    Your arms get tired from carrying water?

                    “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

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • 89th8 Offline
                      89th8 Offline
                      89th
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #25

                      Haha I have no dog in the fight. I think what happened that day was atrocious (as was Trump lying and getting his ilk all riled up) and was glad there was some committee, ANY committee, that spent the time trying to collect all the facts for the day and publish them in a report. And when I see folks discount the whole thing claiming "fake video, staged, fake audio, destroyed evidence", I have to call it out. I couldn't care less which political party was involved.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      • 89th8 Offline
                        89th8 Offline
                        89th
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #26

                        And honestly, the claims that there was fake video, staged, fake audio, destroyed evidence is exactly WHY I think the committee was valuable. It provided (I'd say 95% accurate) summary of what happened that day instead of leaving the day's history to folks who make such claims as above.... Without the committee, in 20 years you'll have people say "the FBI planned and initiated the Capitol attack" and there wouldn't be a singular collection of findings to counter such claims. Then again, folks still don't think we landed on the moon.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        • jon-nycJ Offline
                          jon-nycJ Offline
                          jon-nyc
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #27

                          89 you’re not supposed to actively seek and evaluate evidence. You’re supposed to reside in a MAGA echo chamber after a few months of which you’ll ’just know’ these things.

                          Only non-witches get due process.

                          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                          1 Reply Last reply
                          • 89th8 89th

                            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.

                            HoraceH Offline
                            HoraceH Offline
                            Horace
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #28

                            @89th said in Decorating Cheney:

                            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.

                            Cheney wanted to be the figure-head of a Never-Trump political advance, this one fueled by outrage and self-righteousness against Jan 6. Obviously that was a meaningful, relatable, and totally mainstream perspective. There is more than one person on this board totally on board with that perspective. Way more than that who would never contemplate participating or so much as reading here, for the emotional violence they would feel after having been exposed to certain ideas. Cheney thought she might ride it. I mean, I don't want to pre-judge a person, but if she's already ran for office, if she's already a pro, if it's her family business, I'll go ahead and evaluate her motivations based on what works best in her particular industry. Yeah, people who pretend to care super deeply about character and various other ethical issues, will be met with some skepticism. But that's not to say principle doesn't exist. I believe Pence wouldn't have dinner with a lady who wasn't his wife, I believe that was one of his principles, and I actually respect it. I believe Bernie Sanders has principles, which he will actively maintain without regard to electability. I respect that too. As for Cheney, I see it as mostly cynical, because I don't actually believe any genuinely sane person thought of the Jan 6 riot as a genuine threat to our democracy, nor as a reasonably planned attempt on that democracy.

                            Education is extremely important.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            • 89th8 Offline
                              89th8 Offline
                              89th
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #29

                              Did anyone think the riot would actual prevent the election from being certified? No.

                              But when a riot breaks into the Capitol building and temporarily stops constitutional procedures, I think it's more than warranted for there to be a congressional investigation into the facts, circumstances, and causes of such an event, to include the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, as well as a review of the preparedness of law enforcement authorities who were involved.

                              I'm not terribly concerned with whether it was Cheney or her motivations. One could argue she knew she was committing political suicide by doing this.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              • LuFins DadL Offline
                                LuFins DadL Offline
                                LuFins Dad
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #30

                                January 6th is a separate issue from the January 6th committee. Even the Jack Smith investigation is a separate issue. This is not a conversation about what Trump did or did not do, it’s not a conversation about what the rioters and protesters did or did not do. It is a conversation about what the committee did.

                                If we are debating prosecutorial misconduct, we are not discussing the actual original crime that took place, we are addressing the manner in which that case was investigated, charged, and prosecuted. It is independent of actual guilt or innocence. Just ask Alec Baldwin.

                                The Brad

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                • 89th8 Offline
                                  89th8 Offline
                                  89th
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #31

                                  Totally and I haven't seen any major malpractice with how the committee did things. Like I said, the results were probably 95% accurate with how things went down (i.e., the facts, circumstances, and causes of the assault and attempt to interfere with the election process). The claims of edited video, added sound, and destroyed documents have not held up with any substantial proof (at least that I have seen yet). I haven't seen any page in the published report referenced as a place with staged information. And the desire for cross examination doesn't make sense since this isn't a court case.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  • JollyJ Offline
                                    JollyJ Offline
                                    Jolly
                                    wrote on last edited by Jolly
                                    #32

                                    A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

                                    The hearing was not conducted fairly, opposing representation was denied, facts were distorted by editing, witnesses were deposed in secret, witnesses were coached, production was scripted by outside talent.

                                    What was the end result of this committee and their inability to be factual or even consider why security measures were not in place?

                                    The election of Donald J. Trump as the 47th POTUS.

                                    “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

                                    HoraceH 89th8 2 Replies Last reply
                                    • JollyJ Jolly

                                      A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

                                      The hearing was not conducted fairly, opposing representation was denied, facts were distorted by editing, witnesses were deposed in secret, witnesses were coached, production was scripted by outside talent.

                                      What was the end result of this committee and their inability to be factual or even consider why security measures were not in place?

                                      The election of Donald J. Trump as the 47th POTUS.

                                      HoraceH Offline
                                      HoraceH Offline
                                      Horace
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #33

                                      @Jolly said in Decorating Cheney:

                                      What was the end result of this committee and their inability to be factual or even consider why security measures were not in place?

                                      It's such an interesting thought experiment to consider what the rhetoric around January 6 would have been, if reasonable security for our very democracy had been in place. It's a thought experiment that is never run by those who get an endorphin rush at severe rhetorical framings of the riot.

                                      Yeah, if our democracy was at stake because of a few hundred idiots, vanishingly few if not none of whom had any designs on our very democracy, then hire more cops. And if those cops commit suicide the day or two after having been asked to do an actual job in their profession, then recognize the mental instability of those who were hired, prior to the riot.

                                      Education is extremely important.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      • JollyJ Jolly

                                        A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

                                        The hearing was not conducted fairly, opposing representation was denied, facts were distorted by editing, witnesses were deposed in secret, witnesses were coached, production was scripted by outside talent.

                                        What was the end result of this committee and their inability to be factual or even consider why security measures were not in place?

                                        The election of Donald J. Trump as the 47th POTUS.

                                        89th8 Offline
                                        89th8 Offline
                                        89th
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #34

                                        @Jolly said in Decorating Cheney:

                                        A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

                                        QFT!

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        • HoraceH Offline
                                          HoraceH Offline
                                          Horace
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #35

                                          To me, political commentators need to keep politics in a political perspective. Which is to say, a commentator can't expect me to care if they believe a candidate is morally compromised, until they can convince me that the compromise will come out in the wash in the results of that candidate's political career. There has been no convincing attempt at this that I've seen. Most commentary doesn't bother attempting to establish a link between Trump's character and his political actions. The commentary is just an attempt to establish that Trump is not a guy you'd want to invite to dinner, or whatever. (Never mind the status seeking apes engaged in the commentary would have twisted into pretzels to coax Trump to dinner, before he became a social pariah for tribal reasons.) If someone doesn't like Trump as a human being, ok then, but it does not mean you shouldn't like him as president. Actually I like him as a human being and a president, but to each their own. I don't require any personal fealty from those I like as people and politicians. I require them to behave in ways I expect them to behave.

                                          Education is extremely important.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups