Jan 6th Commission About To Issue Invitations To Get Down!

[The5thHorseman]

The left didn't need any red meat, they knew they were going to impeach him regardless. Also,.it was left wing media spin that drive the narrative.

As far as the second impeachment, I've asked this question about 4 or 5 times...if you had the evidence to impeach him the second time, then why the..over 2 year investigation that followed? It would appear that they rushed that impeachment just so they could get it in before the election, and once Biden won the election, they then had time to conduct the investigation...

Regardless of how many times you repeat it, it remains false.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Irrelevant whining. The impeachments both had substance.

No, they didn't. Where is the proof? In the first impeachment, the official report said they couldn't find anything to pin on Trump, and on the second impeachment, for the third time now...if they had enough evidence to impeach Trump, why did they need an additional investigation?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Right, I made my own point.

Ok...a point not related to our conversation? Mmmkay

 

[ThisIsMe]

Regardless of how many times you repeat it, it remains false.

If it's false, then explain why they needed another investigation, when they already impeached him for it? That would suggest they didn't have the evidence needed for an impeachment, they just rushed it through, and then decided to go back and have the investigation later. They old "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy.

 

[The5thHorseman]

No, they didn't. Where is the proof? In the first impeachment, the official report said they couldn't find anything to pin on Trump, and on the second impeachment, for the third time now...if they had enough evidence to impeach Trump, why did they need an additional investigation?

In the first impeachment, the official report said they couldn't find anything to pin on Trump

This is false. A supine senate wouldn't convict IN SPITE of the testimony of whistleblowers and a Grifty appointee.

on the second impeachment, for the third time now...if they had enough evidence to impeach Trump, why did they need an additional investigation?

There was enough evidence produced at that impeachment to lead Moscow Mitch to publicly conclude

"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,"

 

[The5thHorseman]

If it's false, then explain why they needed another investigation, when they already impeached him for it? That would suggest they didn't have the evidence needed for an impeachment, they just rushed it through, and then decided to go back and have the investigation later. They old "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy.

No, it doesn't.

That's silly.

 

[MagicMike]

The 1/6 gestapo doesn't have much time left. Republicans take over Jan 6.

They are passing everything on to Jack Smith.
He doesn't have an expiration date.

Besides, Bennie Thompson is gonna bang the gavel and disband the committee as soon as the final report is released anyway.
They are already planning on it.
Their work is done.

Now the investigation (and all the evidence) gets passed on to The Special Investigator.

 

[ThisIsMe]

This is false. A supine senate wouldn't convict IN SPITE of the testimony of whistleblowers and a Grifty appointee.




There was enough evidence produced at that impeachment to lead Moscow Mitch to publicly conclude

"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,"

This is false. A supine senate wouldn't convict IN SPITE of the testimony of whistleblowers and a Grifty appointee.

This is false. A supine senate wouldn't convict IN SPITE of the testimony of whistleblowers and a Grifty appointee.




There was enough evidence produced at that impeachment to lead Moscow Mitch to publicly conclude

"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,"

This is false. A supine senate wouldn't convict IN SPITE of the testimony of whistleblowers and a Grifty appointee.

I'm not talking about a conviction, I'm saying the Mueller Report said they could not find collusion.

There was enough evidence produced at that impeachment to lead Moscow Mitch to publicly conclude

"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,"

What investigation did Mitch do? None, he made a statement, without any real evidence. His statement isn't the basis for an impeachment. To be able to go there, you need to investigate. So, my question is, for the 5th time now, if they had evidence needed to impeach him, why then the new investigation?

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, it doesn't.

That's silly.

Ok, then let's hear an alternate reason.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

An insurrection attempt caught in real time and televised nationally is not a conspiracy.


The Mueller investigation was a republican investigation.

You should expand your news sources because bleating right wing headlines is a bad look and exposes your ignorance.

Be better.

Insurrection ? By unarmed people some of whom looked like they escaped from a cosplay convention ? During this "insurrection" the supposed "mastermind" of it all the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in history did nothing in support ?

You people are fucking morons. It was a protest like the thousands of "mostly peaceful" protests that destroyed private and public buildings across the country.

 

[The5thHorseman]

I'm not talking about a conviction, I'm saying the Mueller Report said they could not find collusion.




What investigation did Mitch do? None, he made a statement, without any real evidence. His statement isn't the basis for an impeachment. To be able to go there, you need to investigate. So, my question is, for the 5th time now, if they had evidence needed to impeach him, why then the new investigation?

The 1st impeachment had nothing to do with collusion.


You've woven your fairytale out of a bunch of confusion.

You can stop asking the question.

With a narrow time line, the Senate had to proceed without subpoenas. Even given that limitation, McConnell - who was not only a victim, and eyewitness, but is also a lawyer (which you clearly are not) - saw enough at that point to conclude what was, and remains, obvious.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Ok, then let's hear an alternate reason.

That would suggest they didn't have the evidence needed for an impeachment, they just rushed it through, and then decided to go back and have the investigation later.

Why?

This is stupid.

It took months to get Cipolloni's QUALIFIED testimony....and that's just ONE example.

Impeachment is NOT a "legal" process. It need not establish that a crime has been committed. Charging someone for Inciting an Insurrection does.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Insurrection ? By unarmed people some of whom looked like they escaped from a cosplay convention ? During this "insurrection" the supposed "mastermind" of it all the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in history did nothing in support ?

You people are fucking morons. It was a protest like the thousands of "mostly peaceful" protests that destroyed private and public buildings across the country.

Did you watch the hearings?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Did you watch the hearings?

I don't watch partisan witch hunts no matter what side they represent.

 

[surada]

Insurrections are planned.
Those mentally ill clowns didn’t get together and plan anything.

Yes they did plan and exchanged emails about their plans.

 

[The5thHorseman]

I don't watch partisan witch hunts no matter what side they represent.

Who told it was a "partisan witch hunt"?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Insurrection ? By unarmed people some of whom looked like they escaped from a cosplay convention ?

Some were armed. Perhaps you should watch the Jan 6 hearings or read the convictions and you would know this.

During this "insurrection" the supposed "mastermind" of it all the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in history did nothing in support ?

He certainly instigated it but I wouldn't say he supported it.

You people are fucking morons. It was a protest like the thousands of "mostly peaceful" protests that destroyed private and public buildings across the country.

No it wasn't the same. Were any arrested for seditious conspiracy?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Who told it was a "partisan witch hunt"?

When you hand pick the investigating committee and don't allow counter voices it's a partisan witch hunt. When you allow testimony with out vetting it first it's a partisan witch hunt.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Some were armed. Perhaps you should watch the Jan 6 hearings or read the convictions and you would know this.



He certainly instigated it but I wouldn't say he supported it.


No it wasn't the same. Were any arrested for seditious conspiracy?

What weapons were they armed with ? You can't claim any conspiracy when celebrities and politicians were bailing out rioters or no one being arrested at all. What about that CHOP shit ? Bet money you didn't have a complaint about that ? Because you are a hack.

 

[CowboyTed]

the jan 6 commission is just another crazy liberal democrat conspiracy and smear campaign like their crazy russian collusion conspiracy was
left wingers are crackpots
people don't trust the corrupt democrats because they lie all of the time about everything

Thanks for showing you can ignore any fact or truth by burying your head...

One day you going to figure out that, hey they were telling the truth all the time...

Don't worry you still blame Democrats for you acting like a gullible idiot....