Decorating Cheney
-
@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.
-
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
-
Your arms get tired from carrying water?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@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.
-
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.
