Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Jan 6 public hearings Live


spartan max2
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Oh, it definitely was an attempted coup. At this point it’s simply not possible to deny that.

How bad an attempt it was is a matter of opinion. He actually wasn’t too far away from it succeeding.

Really? Are there real opinions by real experts that really say it almost worked? Ive never seen, or heard of, such an opinion.

The rioters weren't even armed. How easy, if a planned coup, to get evety third person to bring a pistol? Extremely easy. If that had been done, there would have been a 100% success rate. At least with the presumed goal of preventing the Senate count and confirmation. Since such a simple winning plan didn't happen. This leads me to believe the whole idea of a "coup" is simply BS.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Really? Are there real opinions by real experts that really say it almost worked? Ive never seen, or heard of, such an opinion.

The rioters weren't even armed. How easy, if a planned coup, to get evety third person to bring a pistol? Extremely easy. If that had been done, there would have been a 100% success rate. At least with the presumed goal of preventing the Senate count and confirmation. Since such a simple winning plan didn't happen. This leads me to believe the whole idea of a "coup" is simply BS.

If Pence hadn’t refused then it would have worked. It might have been reversed at a later date with blood but all it would have taken on that day was for Pence to comply.

One man was the only thing that stood in the way of the coup being successful.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

If Pence hadn’t refused then it would have worked. It might have been reversed at a later date with blood but all it would have taken on that day was for Pence to comply.

One man was the only thing that stood in the way of the coup being successful.

Every article I've read about that says Pence had no such power/ability. Pence understood that.

Again, show me an expert who said this almost worked??

So if we assume Pence COULD do that though. Then what's the point of the rioters? Why ruin a perfectly good legal delay of the results, with a riot?

Even if Pence did what Trump asked, all it would do would prevent some states from being counted at that time. Eventually they'd be counted, and all the lawsuits failed, so again Biden wins.

Assume rioters reach the Senate and capture Pence and many Senators. Then what? How does that turn into a takeover, rather then just a hostage situation? What was the plan to consolidate control? IMHO there was no plan, just a bunch of rioters entering buildings at random pretty much.

Please outline the plan for the coup.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Except there are plenty of journalists on the TV. None of them have had to claim in court that they weren’t and that their supporters would be dumb to believe that they were. Well, except Tucker Carlson and Fox News, of course.

Rachel Maddow and MSNBC argued the exact same thing when OAN took them to court.  Many lawyer commentators even described Carlson as using "the Maddow defence" because of the similarity. 

Pointing out that Carlson and Maddow include opinions within their news show is not surprising. Or controversial.  Read the actual judge's decision,  don't rely on the misleading headlines from the mainstream media. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hill: CNN’s Chris Wallace ‘skeptical’ of Jan. 6 hearing.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/3518280-cnns-chris-wallace-skeptical-of-jan-6-hearing/

Quote

Wallace said the committee had put itself in danger of falling victim to too much “hype” about its findings and “over-selling” what they have to tell the American people about the attack.

“You’ve got Jamie Raskin, one of the members of the committee, saying ‘this is going to blow the roof off the House,’ you’ve got Adam Kinzinger saying ‘It’s going to change history,” Wallace said.

Its the modern way, to way exaggerate a story in the title to be click bait. I feel like the whole thing is simply click bait.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Rachel Maddow and MSNBC argued the exact same thing when OAN took them to court.  Many lawyer commentators even described Carlson as using "the Maddow defence" because of the similarity. 

Pointing out that Carlson and Maddow include opinions within their news show is not surprising. Or controversial.  Read the actual judge's decision,  don't rely on the misleading headlines from the mainstream media. 

The main difference being that Carlson presents everything he says as facts, and they argued in court that nothing he says can be believed.

While Maddow argued that it was a single statement that was opinion, not her entire show.

Tucker basically admitted to being pure propaganda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The Hill: CNN’s Chris Wallace ‘skeptical’ of Jan. 6 hearing.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/3518280-cnns-chris-wallace-skeptical-of-jan-6-hearing/

Its the modern way, to way exaggerate a story in the title to be click bait. I feel like the whole thing is simply click bait.

It’s not over yet. What we already know shows that Trump tried to carry out a coup.

That’s the most politically significant event in US history since before anyone alive was born.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The main difference being that Carlson presents everything he says as facts, and they argued in court that nothing he says can be believed.

While Maddow argued that it was a single statement that was opinion, not her entire show.

Tucker basically admitted to being pure propaganda. 

I would disagree. I read both judge decisions and watched multiple lawyers break down the incidents as they happened. The legal arguments were virtually identical - any reasonable viewer would accept that the context of their respective shows was opinion. 

Anything else,  from any side of the political spectrum,  is pure spin! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It’s not over yet. What we already know shows that Trump tried to carry out a coup.

That’s the most politically significant event in US history since before anyone alive was born.

What we know is this is the first time in US history such a comity completely excluded the minority party. So it’s clear this was very much meant to look as if this is “the most politically significant event in US history” cause it’s completely one sided. 
 

Not only this but it’s pretty clear with the several denials for more security directly from Pelosi herself, and the video footage of officers literally waving people to come inside the capital, that this is exactly what they wanted to happen. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

What we know is this is the first time in US history such a comity completely excluded the minority party. So it’s clear this was very much meant to look as if this is “the most politically significant event in US history” cause it’s completely one sided. 
 

Not only this but it’s pretty clear with the several denials for more security directly from Pelosi herself, and the video footage of officers literally waving people to come inside the capital, that this is exactly what they wanted to happen. 

McConnell blocked a bipartisan committee, funnily enough so that uninformed people like yourself could then blast about how one sided it is. So, congrats.

Ah, yes, it was all a giant conspiracy. They wanted your seat of government attacked by lunatics who would have murdered both Pelosi and Pence had a single security guard not lead them the wrong way. A master stroke.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

What we know is this is the first time in US history such a comity completely excluded the minority party. So it’s clear this was very much meant to look as if this is “the most politically significant event in US history” cause it’s completely one sided. 
 

Not only this but it’s pretty clear with the several denials for more security directly from Pelosi herself, and the video footage of officers literally waving people to come inside the capital, that this is exactly what they wanted to happen. 

The minority party is not excluded. They chose to not participate.

They originally put up Jim Jordan who the Dems said was not acceptable and then the Republicans decided to not put anyone else up if it couldn't be Jim Jordan.

The committee has two Republicans on it. Two independent thinkers. 

I don't think anyone could look at Liz Cheney's record and claim she's not a conservative 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

Not only this but it’s pretty clear with the several denials for more security directly from Pelosi herself, and the video footage of officers literally waving people to come inside the capital, that this is exactly what they wanted to happen. 

This is debunked. The only reason people claim Pelosi did that is because Trump said it. And guess what, Trump is a chronic liers.

The Pentagon, Department of Defense, Sergeant at arms, and Pelosis office all claim they have no idea what Trump is talking about. 

Quote

The Washington Post and USA Today have both debunked Trump's claim. USA Today wrote that Pelosi's office was never contacted by the president regarding such a recommendation, and the Pentagon has denied having record of the request. Additionally, the Department of Defense's timeline of the events leading up to the Capitol riot also makes no mention of a National Guard request, and the former House sergeant-at-arms said he had no discussions with congressional leaders about the matter, according to USA Today

https://www.newsweek.com/house-republicans-say-nancy-pelosi-rejected-national-guard-january-6-riot-kevin-mccarthy-jim-banks-1714401

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Every article I've read about that says Pence had no such power/ability. Pence understood that.

Again, show me an expert who said this almost worked??

So if we assume Pence COULD do that though. Then what's the point of the rioters? Why ruin a perfectly good legal delay of the results, with a riot?

Even if Pence did what Trump asked, all it would do would prevent some states from being counted at that time. Eventually they'd be counted, and all the lawsuits failed, so again Biden wins.

Assume rioters reach the Senate and capture Pence and many Senators. Then what? How does that turn into a takeover, rather then just a hostage situation? What was the plan to consolidate control? IMHO there was no plan, just a bunch of rioters entering buildings at random pretty much.

Please outline the plan for the coup.

You should read Pence lawyers Memo to Pence on it 

Quote

Such a move, Jacob concluded, would assuredly fail in court. Or worse, he said, the courts would refuse to get involved and leave America in an unprecedented political crisis.

 

In that case, he said in the memo obtained by POLITICO and published for the first time, “the Vice President would likely find himself in an isolated standoff against both houses of Congress … with no neutral arbiter available to break the impasse.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/11/pence-trump-jan-6-lawyer-memo-00038996

The Jan 6 rioters and if Trump encouraged them to storm the white house aside. 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If so, one of the worst attempts ever in the entire history of the entire world. 

Are you saying Trump didn't try to throw the election results out to stay president? Or are you saying that you're fine with candidates you vote for trying to overturn the voters as long as they don't do an effective job at it?

Sort of loaded questions, but that's just to get to my point of how there seems to be a sizeable chunk of conservatives who are passively fine with Trump turning their party into one that does not support democracy 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

The minority party is not excluded. They chose to not participate.

They originally put up Jim Jordan who the Dems said was not acceptable and then the Republicans decided to not put anyone else up if it couldn't be Jim Jordan.

The committee has two Republicans on it. Two independent thinkers. 

I don't think anyone could look at Liz Cheney's record and claim she's not a conservative 

Jim Jordan being unacceptable because he’s one of the people being investigated. In fact, I’d put money on him being one of those who asked Trump for a pardon.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I would disagree. I read both judge decisions and watched multiple lawyers break down the incidents as they happened. The legal arguments were virtually identical - any reasonable viewer would accept that the context of their respective shows was opinion. 

Anything else,  from any side of the political spectrum,  is pure spin! 

So legally the commentators escapedl punishment.  It doesn't disprove the fact that America is full of "Unreasonable" (or as Tucker's lawyers put it "stupid") people that take what they say as fact/truth.  Nor does it in any way give them credibility more than "It's that one entertainer's opinion on TV".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Every article I've read about that says Pence had no such power/ability. Pence understood that.

Again, show me an expert who said this almost worked??

So if we assume Pence COULD do that though. Then what's the point of the rioters? Why ruin a perfectly good legal delay of the results, with a riot?

Even if Pence did what Trump asked, all it would do would prevent some states from being counted at that time. Eventually they'd be counted, and all the lawsuits failed, so again Biden wins.

Assume rioters reach the Senate and capture Pence and many Senators. Then what? How does that turn into a takeover, rather then just a hostage situation? What was the plan to consolidate control? IMHO there was no plan, just a bunch of rioters entering buildings at random pretty much.

Please outline the plan for the coup.

Just has a heads up 'I'm too retarded to actually pull off the conspiracy I tried to pull off live on national television' is not a legal defense with a leg to stand on. 

We saw the whole thing unfold live on national TV. It's exactly as up for debate as 'did will smith slap a guy at the oscars', we all saw him do it, he can't deny that he did it to weasel out of trouble. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So not trying to start a flame war, but I'm wondering whom has seen this?  Things like this are the reason Jan 6 was even a thing, not Trump's rhetoric. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

60902-882543fa-e9ea-4521-ba92-6c4f7c962fcf.jpg.1379a1e8e1988d429b66b5b80a5246b3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Fraust said:

So not trying to start a flame war, but I'm wondering whom has seen this?  Things like this are the reason Jan 6 was even a thing, not Trump's rhetoric. 

 

I like Chowder. I have alot of questions around this video but for the sake of argument lets take it all at face value. 

There have been countless audits, investigations, and seizing of voting machines since the 2020 election. I don't remember all of them but the ones off the top of my head. The Department of Justice found nonething. A department of justice that was appointed by Trump. Barr was a fan of Trump, Democrats hated him. 

Audits and investigations in Arizona (one even by a huge Trump supporter My Pillow guy) Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania. Voting machines seized and audited in some of those states as well. 

Nonething significant enough to change the election results were found.

So with no evidence being found than in what grounds were Trump's actions of trying to coup the election results reasonable?

Certainly you would agree that if you are going to overturn people's votes that you should be able to prove fraud?  

And This is all assume Trump actually believes there were fraud, which I think would be foolish for anyone to believe at this point. Trump took steps ahead of time to plan the fraud claims. Seemed pretty premeditated.

Like announcing victory before the votes are done being counted. Like I'm supposed to believe Trump truly didn't understand how vote counting worked? Lol. Being surprised mail ballots leaned Democrat after telling your supporters that it's not secure to vote that way and that Covid isn't a big deal? Sure...

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I like Chowder. I have alot of questions around this video but for the sake of argument lets take it all at face value. 

There have been countless audits, investigations, and seizing of voting machines since the 2020 election. I don't remember all of them but the ones off the top of my head. The Department of Justice found nonething. Audits and investigations in Arizona (one even by a huge Trump supporter My Pillow guy) Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania. Voting machines seized and audited in some of those states as well. 

Nonething significant enough to change the election results were found.

So with no evidence being found than in what grounds were Trump's actions of trying to coup the election results reasonable?

Certainly you would agree that if you are going to overturn people's votes that you should be able to prove fraud?  

 

Proof would only be made public if the authorities in charge wanted it to be made public.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Proof would only be made public if the authorities in charge wanted it to be made public.

Most of the audits and investigations have been entirely public.

Ironically, Arizona had to go to court to get the My Pillow Guy (you know the super pro trump guy) to release his audit results.  

https://www.americanoversight.org/arizona-court-rules-again-that-cyber-ninjas-audit-records-are-public-records

 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Most of the audits and investigations have been entirely public.

Ironically, Arizona had to go to court to get the My Pillow Guy (you know the super pro trump guy) to release his audit results.  

https://www.americanoversight.org/arizona-court-rules-again-that-cyber-ninjas-audit-records-are-public-records

 

Yes, so was the Russian collusion file eventually, but the MSM and authorities chose to bury it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Yes, so was the Russian collusion file eventually, but the MSM and authorities chose to bury it.

Ah excellent point.

Let's overturn the election because of your gut feelings and mistrust of the media.

Evidence and the voters be damned 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Proof would only be made public if the authorities in charge wanted it to be made public.

So your evidence that there's a grand conspiracy to deny Trump the presidency is the complete lack of any evidence of said conspiracy.

You want to walk us through that one again or...?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.