***Official 1/6 Select Committee thread*** (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

They aren't budging but neither are you.  I don't think they are arguing in bad faith.

What would you consider "if one part is not 100% correct, everything is wrong"?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

You seem focused on "show trial" and "BS".  You understand that the two things below really are different, right?

Do you believe that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?

Do you believe that Ornato stated that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?

Which do you think made it to a headline of the NYT? 

 

[moleculo]

What would you consider "if one part is not 100% correct, everything is wrong"?

human nature.

 

[Captain Cranks]

They aren't budging but neither are you.  I don't think they are arguing in bad faith.

I disagree. Similar to bigbottom's comment above, if it's proven that Hutchinson had straight up lied or intentionally fabricated a portion of her testimony, I will concede that she is not a credible witness. I don't think we'll ever see the aforementioned posters say, "You know what. She was proven to be a credible witness." They'll just move on to some other way to dismiss the gravity of the hearings.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I'm honestly surprised they even let Schiff within a mile of this circus. They're too lazy to even pretend it's not a show trial.

A few days ago I asked why Adam Schiff’s credibility would be in question, since he strikes me as an integrity guy, and certainly one of the smartest people we have in Congress. I received no compelling answer. I don’t believe there is one. 

He completely manufactured dialogue for Trump during one of the committees or hearings he was chairing. It's POSSIBLE it got more attention in conservative media than the outlets with a strong bias towards Democrats so you may not have heard about it.

 

[timschochet]

He completely manufactured dialogue for Trump during one of the committees or hearings he was chairing. It's POSSIBLE it got more attention in conservative media than the outlets with a strong bias towards Democrats so you may not have heard about it.

I heard about it. It turned out to be a completely false story (like so much else that is “reported” in the conservative media.) Got anything real? 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I heard about it. It turned out to be a completely false story (like so much else that is “reported” in the conservative media.) Got anything real? 

I mean, there's video. It happened.

 

[timschochet]

I mean, there's video. It happened.

I watched that video at the time. Schiff didn’t make up anything. He paraphrased a few words but it was an accurate representation. And President Trump was guilty of some pretty serious crimes against the USA. 

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

This Tony Ornato must be dying to testify. I keep looking for his public statement, and can't find it. 

Tap that yellow smilie for another ol' conspir........acy!!

 

[ZADO]

They're just trying to get people suspended I believe.  They got one a couple days ago.

wow

 

[ZADO]

They aren't budging but neither are you.  I don't think they are arguing in bad faith.

I appreciate you being even handed 

Thank you

 

[The Commish]

human nature.

you're way more gracious than I am GB...always have been  

There is absolutely ZERO chance they are going to apply this approach to Ornato....if they were, they'd have already dismissed him as he's lied in the past.  At least that's BR's rule...once someone lies about something, nothing they say is valid.

 

[Rich Conway]

You seem focused on "show trial" and "BS".  You understand that the two things below really are different, right?

Do you believe that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?

Do you believe that Ornato stated that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?

Which do you think made it to a headline of the NYT? 

No idea.  Wasn't what I asked.

Do you believe that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?

Do you believe that Ornato stated that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?

 

[timschochet]

I appreciate you being even handed 

Thank you

I also don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith. 

But I do think you’ve been manipulated by dishonest sources telling you what you want to hear rather than the truth. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Schiff didn’t make up anything. He paraphrased 

 

 

[sho nuff]

They aren't budging but neither are you.  I don't think they are arguing in bad faith.

The “we got him yet” stuff certainly isn’t in good faith.

 

[moleculo]

I also don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith. 

But I do think you’ve been manipulated by dishonest sources telling you what you want to hear rather than the truth. 

I wouldn't even go that far.

There is something in the human psyche that tells us to believe what our tribe believes, and not believe the other side.  Folks like @ZADO are pre-disposed to have a lot of skepticism for cases against their tribesmen, just as liberals are skeptical when presented cases against theirs.  We are all coming at this with inherent biases that we don't recognize.  I think it is helpful to recognize that.

The media we all consume only feeds and reinforces those biases.  It doesn't take very long before we consider our biases to be "truth".

 

[Terpman22]

So you're saying Trump talking randomly off the cuff to a crowd or to reporters has as much merit as this congressional hearing? I think we're finally on the same page then. 

I'm pointing out the fact that when he does it, its taken as Gospel (must be true, why would the Prez lie right) , when someone does under oath, its "got to be a lie" just pointing out the consistent inconsistencies really. 

Harkens back to when he was ad-libbing about the Airports of The Revolutionary War and the crowd now learned the the Wright Brothers "did not" invent flight. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

I also don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith. 

But I do think you’ve been manipulated by dishonest sources telling you what you want to hear rather than the truth. 

This.  

Tim, if you have 30-40 minutes today, I highly recommend you listen to the Bulwark’s discussion with Tim Miller, former GOP operative.  He talks about how so many of the leaders/players in GOP politics don’t even believe in any of the stuff they’re putting out.  

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bulwark-podcast/id1447684472?i=1000568026034

 

[JIslander]

This.  

Tim, if you have 30-40 minutes today, I highly recommend you listen to the Bulwark’s discussion with Tim Miller, former GOP operative.  He talks about how so many of the leaders/players in GOP politics don’t even believe in any of the stuff they’re putting out.  

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bulwark-podcast/id1447684472?i=1000568026034

I listened to that on our trip up from Florida -- thanks for posting that --

 

[Rich Conway]

I wouldn't even go that far.

There is something in the human psyche that tells us to believe what our tribe believes, and not believe the other side.  Folks like @ZADO are pre-disposed to have a lot of skepticism for cases against their tribesmen, just as liberals are skeptical when presented cases against theirs.  We are all coming at this with inherent biases that we don't recognize.  I think it is helpful to recognize that.

The media we all consume only feeds and reinforces those biases.  It doesn't take very long before we consider our biases to be "truth".

It's more than this, though.  As an example, the National Guard wasn't deployed on 1/6 for hours, despite being requested and ready to go.  We should all wonder why that happened.  Was it a direct order from Trump?  Was it an order/delay from someone else?  Was it just negligence?

My answer is "I don't know but I'd sure like to find out."

The Trump sycophants either aren't interested in knowing or they've come to believe that it was Nancy Pelosi who prevented it (despite there being literally zero evidence of this and despite the fact that this would be impossible since Nancy Pelosi isn't in that chain of command).

It's not "bias" at that point, it's intentional, willful ignorance.

 

[JIslander]

I wouldn't even go that far.

There is something in the human psyche that tells us to believe what our tribe believes, and not believe the other side.  Folks like @ZADO are pre-disposed to have a lot of skepticism for cases against their tribesmen, just as liberals are skeptical when presented cases against theirs.  We are all coming at this with inherent biases that we don't recognize.  I think it is helpful to recognize that.

The media we all consume only feeds and reinforces those biases.  It doesn't take very long before we consider our biases to be "truth".

The frustrating thing is, I haven't heard any of the trump apologists (sorry, thats really what you're doing even if you say you don't like Trump),  say --"I watched the whole Hutcheson interview and I don't find any of her accounts credible"  -- if anyone really watched it, you don't even need MSM telling you anything -

 

[Captain Cranks]

I wouldn't even go that far.

There is something in the human psyche that tells us to believe what our tribe believes, and not believe the other side.  Folks like @ZADO are pre-disposed to have a lot of skepticism for cases against their tribesmen, just as liberals are skeptical when presented cases against theirs.  We are all coming at this with inherent biases that we don't recognize.  I think it is helpful to recognize that.

The media we all consume only feeds and reinforces those biases.  It doesn't take very long before we consider our biases to be "truth".

Some of us are more in tune with this phenomenon than others and adjust accordingly. To me, it's pretty easy to identify who's open to new information that may challenge their bias and who's wearing an iron helmet to deflect anything coming at them. I dare say I think you're stating a false equivalence.

 

[jon_mx]

It's more than this, though.  As an example, the National Guard wasn't deployed on 1/6 for hours, despite being requested and ready to go.  We should all wonder why that happened.  Was it a direct order from Trump?  Was it an order/delay from someone else?  Was it just negligence?

My answer is "I don't know but I'd sure like to find out."

The Trump sycophants either aren't interested in knowing or they've come to believe that it was Nancy Pelosi who prevented it (despite there being literally zero evidence of this and despite the fact that this would be impossible since Nancy Pelosi isn't in that chain of command).

It's not "bias" at that point, it's intentional, willful ignorance.

Lol..You perfectly demonstrated moleculo's point.  You state you don't know.  But then you call the Trump supporters psychopaths for blaming Pelosi, but think it is perfectly rationale to think Trump did it.  There is no evidence for either despite the investigation, but you displayed extreme bias when trying to make your point. 

 

[moleculo]

It's more than this, though.  As an example, the National Guard wasn't deployed on 1/6 for hours, despite being requested and ready to go.  We should all wonder why that happened.  Was it a direct order from Trump?  Was it an order/delay from someone else?  Was it just negligence?

My answer is "I don't know but I'd sure like to find out."

The Trump sycophants either aren't interested in knowing or they've come to believe that it was Nancy Pelosi who prevented it (despite there being literally zero evidence of this and despite the fact that this would be impossible since Nancy Pelosi isn't in that chain of command).

It's not "bias" at that point, it's intentional, willful ignorance.

IMO "bias" and "willful ignorance" are cousins.  They aren't the same, but they are related.

I'm willfully ignorant about Hunter Biden scandals.  I really don't care all that much.  

 

[parrot]

It's more than this, though.  As an example, the National Guard wasn't deployed on 1/6 for hours, despite being requested and ready to go.  We should all wonder why that happened.  Was it a direct order from Trump?  Was it an order/delay from someone else?  Was it just negligence?

My answer is "I don't know but I'd sure like to find out."

The Trump sycophants either aren't interested in knowing or they've come to believe that it was Nancy Pelosi who prevented it (despite there being literally zero evidence of this).

It's not "bias" at that point, it's intentional, willful ignorance.

Hannity calls it "exculpatory" that Trump had allegedly "authorized " troops in the lead up to Jan 6.  These people are so ridiculous.  

 

[moleculo]

Lol..You perfectly demonstrated moleculo's point.  You state you don't know.  But then you call the Trump supporters psychopaths for blaming Pelosi, but think it is perfectly rationale to think Trump did it.  There is no evidence for either despite the investigation, but you displayed extreme bias when trying to make your point. 

Easy there...he did not call anyone a psychopath.  Once again, you are finding a way to paint yourself a victim.

 

[jon_mx]

Easy there...he did not call anyone a psychopath.  Once again, you are finding a way to paint yourself a victim.

My bad, I was not familiar with the word sycophant,, thought it was a typo. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

No idea.  Wasn't what I asked.

Do you believe that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?

Do you believe that Ornato stated that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?

I've answered these several times. Since you won't answer my question about which gets reported, let's try this: what does it tell that you need to break those out into two different questions?

 

[Rich Conway]

Lol..You perfectly demonstrated moleculo's point.  You state you don't know.  But then you call the Trump supporters psychopaths for blaming Pelosi, but think it is perfectly rationale to think Trump did it.  There is no evidence for either despite the investigation, but you displayed extreme bias when trying to make your point. 

The difference is that Trump could have caused the delay, in that he was within the chain of command that could have made a delay happen.  Nancy Pelosi was not.

Did Trump do it?  As I wrote above, I don't know.  I'd like to find out.

Did Pelosi do it?  We know that it's not possible.  People who believe she did are willfully ignorant.

See the difference yet?

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

Tap that yellow smilie for another ol' conspir........acy!!

Most of you guys are lucky enough to be young and no idea who Tony Orlando is. 

 

[dozer]

Its a real shame that Chris Farley isn't around to play Trump in the movie.

 

[Rich Conway]

I've answered these several times. Since you won't answer my question about which gets reported, let's try this: what does it tell that you need to break those out into two different questions?

Can you point me to where you answered those two specific questions?  Seriously, I've seen you call it nonsense, but I've never once seen you state which part is the nonsense.  Is the nonsense that "Trump did X" or is it that "Ornato said Trump did X" or is it both?

I need to break them out because you seem to want to answer them as a single question without a distinction.

 

[jon_mx]

The difference is that Trump could have caused the delay, in that he was within the chain of command that could have made a delay happen.  Nancy Pelosi was not.

Did Trump do it?  As I wrote above, I don't know.  I'd like to find out.

Did Pelosi do it?  We know that it's not possible.  People who believe she did are willfully ignorant.

See the difference yet?

Just because someone is not in the chain of command does not mean they can't butt in and influence something.  Usually the national guard is just not deployed unilaterally.  There is some acceptance from whom they are sending it for.  

 

[dozer]

Most of you guys are lucky enough to be young and no idea who Tony Orlando is. 

Famous for writing songs about prison...

 

[Captain Cranks]

IMO "bias" and "willful ignorance" are cousins.  They aren't the same, but they are related.

I'm willfully ignorant about Hunter Biden scandals.  I really don't care all that much.  

OK, now go in the Hunter Biden thread and dismiss everything that might indicate he's unsavory. Then you'll be on equal footing with what we see in here.

 

[Rich Conway]

Just because someone is not in the chain of command does not mean they can't butt in and influence something.  Usually the national guard is just not deployed unilaterally.  There is some acceptance from whom they are sending it for.  

All true.  That doesn't invalidate my point, however.  The point is that we don't yet know why the delay happened.  We should all be interested in finding out.  Trump sycophants aren't interested.

 

[jon_mx]

All true.  That doesn't invalidate my point, however.  The point is that we don't yet know why the delay happened.  We should all be interested in finding out.  Trump sycophants aren't interested.

But they are very interested.  What they aren't interested in is legitimizing this committee as anything but the anti-Trump circle-jerk that it is.   This seems like a question the committee already knows the answer to (or should), but does not want to be known. 

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I've answered these several times. Since you won't answer my question about which gets reported, let's try this: what does it tell that you need to break those out into two different questions?

You seem to be having real difficulty with hearsay vs direct evidence and how the witness is only saying that she was told by the SS that the steering wheel was grabbed at.  You aren't understanding that if she was told this by the SS, but it turns out that the SS was embelishing, it does not mean she is not a credible witness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQGgaI-BcI4

 

[moleculo]

OK, now go in the Hunter Biden thread and dismiss everything that might indicate he's unsavory. Then you'll be on equal footing with what we see in here.

nah.  Like I said, i don't really care that much.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

OK, now go in the Hunter Biden thread and dismiss everything that might indicate he's unsavory. Then you'll be on equal footing with what we see in here.

Good post.  This is exactly it.  

We should not lower the bar for intelligent discussion and debate by giving excuses for why one side chooses not to see what is in front of their eyes,

 

[Rich Conway]

But they are very interested.  What they aren't interested in is legitimizing this committee as anything but the anti-Trump circle-jerk that it is.   This seems like a question the committee already knows the answer to (or should), but does not want to be known. 

Screaming that Nancy Pelosi rejected the National Guard shows they aren't interested.

Moreover, the committee already has shown us some information regarding the delay.  I'm interested in that.  I'm interested in what else they show us.  As a trial, let's see how interested you are.  Can tell us what information the committee has already presented regarding the delay?

 

[Captain Cranks]

nah.  Like I said, i don't really care that much.

Well, I didn't expect you to actually do it or be that intellectually dishonest, which is what you'd have to be to suddenly approach the discussion that way.

 

[moleculo]

Well, I didn't expect you to actually do it or be that intellectually dishonest, which is what you'd have to be to suddenly approach the discussion that way.

it is odd how many people post in a topic that  allegedly no one cares about.

 

[roadkill1292]

I've answered these several times. Since you won't answer my question about which gets reported, let's try this: what does it tell that you need to break those out into two different questions?

Is this some kind of code?

 

[jon_mx]

Screaming that Nancy Pelosi rejected the National Guard shows they aren't interested.

Moreover, the committee already has shown us some information regarding the delay.  I'm interested in that.  I'm interested in what else they show us.  As a trial, let's see how interested you are.  Can tell us what information the committee has already presented regarding the delay?

The committee emphasizes that it was Pense asking for the national guard the day of January 6th and not Trumo, but ignores that it was Trump's people offering the National Gaurd in the days leading up to January 6th.   If Trump had his way, there would have been no January 6th insurrection.  But the committee will never say that because that goes against their narrative.   They need to spin the web against Trump not find the truth. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

We should not lower the bar for intelligent discussion and debate by giving excuses for why one side chooses not to see what is in front of their eyes,

That doesn't sound very inclusive for the rest of us.

 

[timschochet]

If Trump had his way, there would have been no January 6th insurrection.  

Hmm. This statement appears to be the exact opposite of the truth. 

 

[ZADO]

I also don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith. 

But I do think you’ve been manipulated by dishonest sources telling you what you want to hear rather than the truth. 

Honestly im not even trying to argue , that gets us nowhere as we see here day in and day out. 

I have my POV and it differs from  others and some agree . 

The reason I and others dont trust testimony under oath as readily as others when it comes to Trump is because we have watched as many lies as truths told about Trump . We have been watching them unfold in real time story after story for over 4 years straight. Im not going to rehash them ill merely say Russia and MAGA COUNTRY ,to name a couple . Why on earth would we easily accept anyone on just their word ,we need solid evidence at this point . I understand why those who hate Trump believe every single claim made against him, he has said and done some shady crap , but many of the claims against him have fallen short .

 

[timschochet]

Honestly im not even trying to argue , that gets us nowhere as we see here day in and day out. 

I have my POV and it differs from  others and some agree . 

The reason I and others dont trust testimony under oath as readily as others when it comes to Trump is because we have watched as many lies as truths told about Trump . We have been watching them unfold in real time story after story for over 4 years straight. Im not going to rehash them ill merely say Russia and MAGA COUNTRY ,to name a couple . Why on earth would we easily accept anyone on just there word ,we need solid evidence at this point . I understand why those who hate Trump believe every single claim made against him, he has said and done some shady crap , but many of the claims against him have fallen short .

There have certainly been reports about Trump, and rumors, that have turned out to be false, no question. 

But there have also been sworn testimony offered about Trump, in these hearings and in previous hearings, much of it very damning, all of it related under threat of perjury. To the best of my knowledge, none of it has been proven to be false; in fact almost all of it has been confirmed by additional evidence over time. Given these facts, it would seem to me that the logical starting point would be to accept such sworn testimony as factual unless and until it’s been proven otherwise.