What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official 1/6 Select Committee thread*** (2 Viewers)

I realize how disruptive Jordan and Banks will be, but I'm not sure it was the best move for Pelosi to reject them. Can't you just let them do their stupid thing and then ignore them and keep going? 

 
The committee is scheduled to have its first hearing on July 27.

It will feature law enforcement officers who were subject to some of the highest-profile acts of violence during the Capitol insurrection.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
I may be on an island here, at least from the left's perspective, but, I just don't see anything good, or positive, coming from this.

Dems are going to say: "Look, its the GOP's fault for engaging in the 'Big Lie', and knowingly whipping up the supporters into a frenzy!"

GOP are going to say: "People protesting is good, it was just a few bad eggs, and the Capitol Police were either woefully unprepared or complicit.  Dems are just being mean and unfair to the GOP!  Where is the BLM Protest committee?"

And, nobody will change their mind about any of it.

 
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
I may be on an island here, at least from the left's perspective, but, I just don't see anything good, or positive, coming from this.

Dems are going to say: "Look, its the GOP's fault for engaging in the 'Big Lie', and knowingly whipping up the supporters into a frenzy!"

GOP are going to say: "People protesting is good, it was just a few bad eggs, and the Capitol Police were either woefully unprepared or complicit.  Dems are just being mean and unfair to the GOP!  Where is the BLM Protest committee?"

And, nobody will change their mind about any of it.
You're probably right, but sometimes the correct course of action is for congress to do whatever it is they would do if our political system was functioning normally.  Kind of like how it was worth impeaching Trump over his post-election behavior even though we all knew it wouldn't result in his removal from office.  Let's have the adults go ahead and model what normal government looks like and make a note of who's throwing the monkey wrenches into the process.

 
I realize how disruptive Jordan and Banks will be, but I'm not sure it was the best move for Pelosi to reject them. Can't you just let them do their stupid thing and then ignore them and keep going? 
No, Jim Jordan makes a circus out of every hearing he has been involved in and this would be no different. He would make certain to try to get more attention than his Democratic counterparts and news outlets like Fox would feature him in any news story about the select committee.

 
You're probably right, but sometimes the correct course of action is for congress to do whatever it is they would do if our political system was functioning normally.  Kind of like how it was worth impeaching Trump over his post-election behavior even though we all knew it wouldn't result in his removal from office.  Let's have the adults go ahead and model what normal government looks like and make a note of who's throwing the monkey wrenches into the process.
I suppose - but, this is one of those things I think is best done quietly by an "independent" group.

1.  Why did this happen?

2.  What should we do to be more prepared in the future, to either prevent this, or to better control it?

We already know, largely, why this happened.  And, I don't know that I would change anything there.  Politicians are going to appeal to their base, and the base will react - I think that is a universal truth, and an off-shoot of having a democracy.

In terms of how to prepare, I don't think that has to be political - in fact I am pretty sure it should not be political.

In this case - what steps were taken by Capitol Police, in light of expected protests?

What steps should have been taken - in terms of tactics, manpower, equipment, etc?

What was the back-up plan - i.e. when to call in National Guard - how/why did that fail?  How do we ensure it does not fail next time?

In a functioning government, I think this should be a very dry investigation, devoid of the emotion and rhetoric that will take place in this committee (on both sides).

 
Chaz McNulty said:
Agreed.  And there is still missing info regarding the response time.  
What info?  You mean why it took so long?  That's been answered.  The National Guard only responds when invited and they weren't invited until after the events began.  It's clear there was a phone call and a request for help.  There is a dispute as to what the answer is.  One group says the request was rejected because of the "optics" of sending in the NG.  The other group says the response was that the approving audience was NOT on the phone and those on the phone were NOT authorized to deploy the troops and if they did deploy the troops a plan as how they would be used was required.  So the initial response was "oh, that will look bad, we can't do that" or the response was to wrap it up in bureaucratic red tape.  That's why it took so long.

 
Ok so let's make sure we get the expectations set early.

1) The committee will learn literally nothing new.

2) Any observations that are published will be shredded by the other side.

3) Nothing at all will be accomplished with the exception of beefing up capitol security which could have been done without a committee.

4) Our time, the media's time, America's time will be wasted.

5) Above all else.  We will learn, finally, that Trump is bad---and partially with that, republicans are really bad too.

Bout where I see this going.  EXCITED!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
Reject Jim Jordan? Of course. He has no business being around a hint of democracy.

I scratch my head and wonder why the 4th district of Ohio embrace him???? Can't they reject him from the planet?

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
I don’t think the goal should be to change minds. I think the goal should be to put together a historical record of exactly what happened, much like the 9/11 Commission.
This is where I settle. This was a very significant event.

The Jim Jordan circus can be included if that's what Republicans want to do.

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
I don’t think the goal should be to change minds. I think the goal should be to put together a historical record of exactly what happened, much like the 9/11 Commission.
Hasn't the GOP already rejected this approach?

 
squistion said:
No, Jim Jordan makes a circus out of every hearing he has been involved in and this would be no different. He would make certain to try to get more attention than his Democratic counterparts and news outlets like Fox would feature him in any news story about the select committee.
Horrible horrible take.  If Jim Jordan is part of this you get credibility.  Basically Pelosi proves this is a sham.    It's a shamwow.   

 
Horrible horrible take.  If Jim Jordan is part of this you get credibility.  Basically Pelosi proves this is a sham.    It's a shamwow.   
If you believe Jim Jordan is a cartoonish fool who was complicit in the whole election fraud lie, then letting him participate and prove himself to be a fool is the best path forward.  Rejecting him makes the committee look like it's reached its conclusions before it even convened.   

These hearings are a useless sideshow anyway.   Like the 9 hearings on Benghazi, they will learn nothing, waste a ton of time, and change no minds.  We know what happened.  We saw it.   We had a whole impeachment trial about it.  McConnell gave a speech about it.   The courts are prosecuting and sentencing people based on actual evidence in a trial setting.   A house committee holding hearings will accomplish nothing.   

 
If you believe Jim Jordan is a cartoonish fool who was complicit in the whole election fraud lie, then letting him participate and prove himself to be a fool is the best path forward.  Rejecting him makes the committee look like it's reached its conclusions before it even convened.   

These hearings are a useless sideshow anyway.   Like the 9 hearings on Benghazi, they will learn nothing, waste a ton of time, and change no minds.  We know what happened.  We saw it.   We had a whole impeachment trial about it.  McConnell gave a speech about it.   The courts are prosecuting and sentencing people based on actual evidence in a trial setting.   A house committee holding hearings will accomplish nothing.   
I don't.   But I believe he is a member of the house of reps.     

But I believe Nancy Pelosi is worse than a fool.   She is corrupt and she feeds financial deals to her husband.

 
Jordan has already stated that the committee's sole goal is to attack Trump.   I cannot see how anyone with that attitude going in would be useful in any way.  
Jordan has proven that he is not useful in any way, unless you're a coach at Ohio State trying to cover up sexual abuse.  It's still a bad look to reject someone who, while detestable, remains one of the leaders of the minority party.   Let him do his coat off, sweaty, high-pitched ranting.   It doesn't matter.   They're going to establish facts or they aren't.   Jordan can cause some delay and distraction, but you're not much of a committee if you can get completely derailed by one obstreperous member.     

 
I don't.   But I believe he is a member of the house of reps.     

But I believe Nancy Pelosi is worse than a fool.   She is corrupt and she feeds financial deals to her husband.
Neither of these things has anything to do with whether Jordan should be rejected from this committee.  

 
I agree with cutting Jordan.  It is a conflict of interest.  He is part of the reason the attack happened in the first place.  He was one of Trump's main Necromancers peddling the Big Lie for weeks.

They have a bipartisan quorum.  The fact it won't be sufficiently politicized for McCarthy and Trump's liking is immaterial to its legitimacy.

 
Ok.    Then he shouldn't.     He is a fine congressperson.
Yep, he was the most articulate and coherent of anyone during the impeachment trials.  Ironically, the Pelosi chose Schiff who flat up made up a conversation regarding Trump in his opening statement.  That lying partisan hack should be nowhere near this committee.

 
You don't think that's not Pelosi s intent?   Well shut it down.
Possibly.  But the real goal should be to analyze what happened, why it happened and to put in safeguards that it doesn't happen again.  It sucks that the GOP isn't interested in that but I think it is warranted.

I am a big proponent of retrospectives and would love to see one for the government's response to the Covid pandemic.  While I am sure the jerks in congress would use it to point fingers there is a lot of value in acknowledging what you did right, what you did wrong and make plans to do better if it happens in the futire.

 
McCarthy seems to be grabbing his ball and going home, pulling all the GOPers off committee.  SHOCKING!  Pelosi is pretty bad at this.
McCarthy never wanted to participate in this in the first place. You think he didn't anticipate Pelosi would reject Jordan and Banks?

 
McCarthy never wanted to participate in this in the first place. You think he didn't anticipate Pelosi would reject Jordan and Banks?
I know he wanted a way out.  It's baffling to me that Pelosi would be willing to give it to him.  Let Jordan be the clown show he is.  Everyone knows what to expect of him.  It's not like people would be caught off guard or distracted by him.  The bit is old at this point.

 
If Schiff is there, Jordan should be there.  R's opinion of Schiff is identical to D's opinion of Jordan.
that's fair.  maybe both parties should be able to strike one or two proposed members, like litigants do when selecting arbitrators.

 
If Schiff is there, Jordan should be there.  R's opinion of Schiff is identical to D's opinion of Jordan.
Their "opinion" of Schiff is irrelevant.  Jordan should excluded because he arguably played a role in why January 6 happened in the first place.  His lies and vote to overturn the election arguably contributed to the assault on the capital.  What possible substantive reason can you come up with for why Schiff should be excluded?

 
Their "opinion" of Schiff is irrelevant.  Jordan should excluded because he arguably played a role in why January 6 happened in the first place.  His lies and vote to overturn the election arguably contributed to the assault on the capital.  What possible substantive reason can you come up with for why Schiff should be excluded?
Well if we can argue about it.   He belongs there.

We can argue that schiff lied to congress during his "parody".    Now I'm only gonna say this 6 more times.   So listen up.   Schiff is a disgrace and doesn't belong. 

 
Well if we can argue about it.   He belongs there.

We can argue that schiff lied to congress during his "parody".    Now I'm only gonna say this 6 more times.   So listen up.   Schiff is a disgrace and doesn't belong. 
You can argue all you want. It's up Pelosi and she said no to Jordan 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top