Liz Cheney says Trump appears to have been ‘personally involved in planning’ 6 Jan insurrection

[NotfooledbyW]

ThisIsMe wrote: See, you're trying to answer my questions by drifting over into fact gathering etc. My question was simple: 21OCT29-POST#556

NFBW wrote: If you rephrase the question to - - - Do you believe that if the Committee gathers all the evidence and that takes them to a place that uncovers no additional facts, leads or new knowledge about persons involved all the way to the top where the buck stops at Trump, would they publicly attest to that fact? - - - Yes, I believe they would. Facts won’t allow them to do otherwise if they truly uncover nothing new. 21OCT29-POST#561

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, it's not similar. Aside from the fact that many states now forbid electors from casting a vote for the loser of their state, prior to such laws, it was legal, and still is legal in many states, for electors to cast faithless votes.

Whereas it's never been legal for the vice president to unilaterally reject electors' votes.

The two cases are not similar.

It is illegal for states to enter into compacts with each other.

This would not be a faithless elector situation because its the state governments that entered into the compact, and decided THEY would change the slate of electors, not the electors themselves.

So, it is similar.

 

[Faun]

It is illegal for states to enter into compacts with each other.

This would not be a faithless elector situation because its the state governments that entered into the compact, and decided THEY would change the slate of electors, not the electors themselves.

So, it is similar.

Again, electors can legally be faithless (in some states, used to be all).

The vice president cannot be.

 

[ThisIsMe]

ThisIsMe wrote: See, you're trying to answer my questions by drifting over into fact gathering etc. My question was simple: 21OCT29-POST#556

NFBW wrote: I can’t answer any question properly that contains the false premise that the Committee is gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses to take them to a place that shows Trump and company to be guilty or not guilty of anything. What they are doing is right, ethical and necessary for the continued health of American democracy so there is no reason for any of them to admit they are wrong before the public when whatever outcome is released. 21OCT29-POST#560

I can’t answer any question properly that contains the false premise that the Committee is gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses to take them to a place that shows Trump and company to be guilty or not guilty of anything.

You can't answer a question about a committees fairness because them gathering evidence about someone's being guilty or not guilty of anything is a false premise?

so there is no reason for any of them to admit they are wrong before the public when whatever outcome is released.

Thank you. We have an answer, though it was a round a bout way of getting there. My whole premise has been that, if the committee couldn't find the evidence they were looking for, they would take things and twist the context and call it "proof", and submit it to the DOJ.

There is no scenario here where if the dems couldn't find what they were looking for that they would ever admit it. The investigation would either just "go away" or they would try to twist things to make it appear like Trump was guilty. Given the leftist hatred for Trump, and Republicans in general, I'm saying they will go with option 2, twisting context to make things appear the way they want.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ThisIsMe wrote: This would not be a faithless elector situation because its the state governments that entered into the compact, and decided THEY would change the slate of electors, not the electors themselves. - - - So, it is similar 21OCT29-POST#562

NFBW: Not within a million miles of similar because you wrote… “because its the state governments that entered into the compact, and decided THEY would change the slate of electors” … Key words are “State Governments DECIDE” . However you must be informed enough to know that in the EASTMAN PLAN that drove the rally and the riot on Jan6 for DJT’s attempt to overturn the election, had VP PENCE deciding for the states to throw out the legal certified electors and count the white rural Trump electors in their place. If you didnt know this ThisIsMe please get yourself informed on the topic. 21OCT29-POST#565

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again, electors can legally be faithless (in some states, used to be all).

The vice president cannot be.

This is not a faithless elector situation. It wasn't the electors that decided to enter into the compact, it was the state legislatures. It would have been state legislatures deciding the direction of the electoral votes, not the electors.

 

[ThisIsMe]

ThisIsMe wrote: This would not be a faithless elector situation because its the state governments that entered into the compact, and decided THEY would change the slate of electors, not the electors themselves. - - - So, it is similar 21OCT29-POST#562

NFBW: Not within a million miles of similar because you wrote… “because its the state governments that entered into the compact, and decided THEY would change the slate of electors” … Key words are “State Governments DECIDE” . However you must be informed enough to know that in the EASTMAN PLAN that drove the rally and the riot on Jan6 for DJT’s attempt to overturn the election, had VP PENCE deciding for the states to throw out the legal certified electors and count the white rural Trump electors in their place. If you didnt know this ThisIsMe please get yourself informed on the topic. 21OCT29-POST#565

State Governments DECIDE

Yes, based on the vote outcome of the citizens of that state, not the legislature. However, if you want to go the route of letting state legislatures decide, then we can do this for every state...as I'm aware, republicans hold the majority of state legislatures.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ThisIsMe wrote: You can't answer a question about a committees fairness because them gathering evidence about someone's being guilty or not guilty of anything is a false premise? 21OCT29-POST#564

NFBW wrote: That is not what I wrote this is what I wrote: “NFBW wrote: I can’t answer any question properly that contains the false premise that the Committee is gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses to take them to a place that shows Trump and company to be guilty or not guilty of anything. What they are doing is right, ethical and necessary for the continued health of American democracy so there is no reason for any of them to admit they are wrong before the public when whatever outcome is released. 21OCT29-POST#560

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again, electors can legally be faithless (in some states, used to be all).

The vice president cannot be.

Again, legislatures appoint electors based on voter outcome, they don't decide themselves that they will ignore the decision of the electors and alter how the states electoral votes go.

That's why they call it faithless electors, not faithless legisture.

However, as I told nfbw, if you would prefer that state legistures be the ones who direct the electoral votes, then I'm game for that, considering republicans control enough state legislatures to control more than 270 electoral votes.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ThisIsMe wrote: Yes, based on the vote outcome of the citizens of that state, not the legislature. However, if you want to go the route of letting state legislatures decide, then we can do this for every state...as I'm aware, republicans hold the majority of state legislatures. 21OCT29-POST#567


NFBW wrote: I dont want to go anywhere other than the reality and full knowledge of what happened on Jan6. Your reply has no mention of the EASTMAN Plan or Pence being pressured by DJT and his rioters to toss out the Biden electors and replace them with fraudulent DJT electors. You won’t discuss that. That says a lot about you and your dug in unwillingness to have a relationship with facts. 21OCT29-POST#570

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Again, legislatures appoint electors based on voter outcome, they don't decide themselves that they will ignore the decision of the electors and alter how the states electoral votes go.

That's why they call it faithless electors, not faithless legisture.

However, as I told nfbw, if you would prefer that state legistures be the ones who direct the electoral votes, then I'm game for that, considering republicans control enough state legislatures to control more than 270 electoral votes.

Its not remotely similar to the Eastman Plan. You were wrong to assert that it is. It has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[ThisIsMe]

ThisIsMe wrote: You can't answer a question about a committees fairness because them gathering evidence about someone's being guilty or not guilty of anything is a false premise? 21OCT29-POST#564

NFBW wrote: That is not what I wrote this is what I wrote: “NFBW wrote: I can’t answer any question properly that contains the false premise that the Committee is gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses to take them to a place that shows Trump and company to be guilty or not guilty of anything. What they are doing is right, ethical and necessary for the continued health of American democracy so there is no reason for any of them to admit they are wrong before the public when whatever outcome is released. 21OCT29-POST#560

OK, perhaps I'm not understanding your response. Are you saying that the fact that the Committee could find evidence that Trump had nothing to do with it as being a false premise? Or that the Committee finding him guilty or not guilty in general is the false premise? If it is the second one, then what is the purpose of the committee?

 

[ThisIsMe]

ThisIsMe wrote: Yes, based on the vote outcome of the citizens of that state, not the legislature. However, if you want to go the route of letting state legislatures decide, then we can do this for every state...as I'm aware, republicans hold the majority of state legislatures. 21OCT29-POST#567


NFBW wrote: I dont want to go anywhere other than the reality and full knowledge of what happened on Jan6. Your reply has no mention of the EASTMAN Plan or Pence being pressured by DJT and his rioters to toss out the Biden electors and replace them with fraudulent DJT electors. You won’t discuss that. That says a lot about you and your dug in unwillingness to have a relationship with facts. 21OCT29-POST#570

Yes, my reply doesn't mention those things because you have still not answered my questions. You assert some false premise and want to keep changing the direction of the conversation away from the questions I asked.

If you don't want to answer my questions, then just say so and we can conclude our conversation.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ThisIsMe wrote: OK, perhaps I'm not understanding your response. Are you saying that the fact that the Committee could find evidence that Trump had nothing to do with it as being a false premise? Or that the Committee finding him guilty or not guilty in general is the false premise? If it is the second one, then what is the purpose of the committee 21OCT29-POST#572

NFBW wrote: Neither. You don’t need to re-write it. 21OCT29-POST#

“NFBW wrote: I can’t answer any question properly that contains the false premise that the Committee is gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses to take them to a place that shows Trump and company to be guilty or not guilty of anything. 21OCT29-POST#560

Its a false premise to suggest that the purpose and intent and necessity and goal of the committee is to assign guilt or innocence on anybody. 21OCT29-POST#574

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ThisIsMe wrote: Do you believe they are actually trying to find the truth, or are they just trying to navigate a way to make their presuppositions fit to their desired outcome? 21OCT29-POST#502

NFBW wrote: They are trying to find the truth. Any suggestions otherwise should be shelved as conspiracy theories similar to what caused the riot on Jan6 in the first place. aka Dominion machines & Hugo Chavez, ballots dropped from helicopters shipped in from China …. 21OCT29-POST#575

 

[lantern2814]

that comes from a misunderstanding of how the DOJ is charging this,
and mis-describes proud boy's role in the riot

Reuters Doesn't Mention Terrorism When Claiming DOJ Won't Charge Serious Offenses in the January 6 Investigation - emptywheel

A Reuters report that has people in a tizzy claims that DOJ is not charging January 6 defendants with seditious conspiracy. It doesn't mention that DOJ is treating a number of defendants as terrorists.

www.emptywheel.net

Yet there are still no insurrection charges. And no evidence of ANY plot.

 

[lantern2814]

Oh no, I read about the Racial Justice demonstrations during the summer of 2020....some of which devolved into vandalism (it happened in my own city, where it was a good and responsible demonstration by good and responsible citizens--- until night fell, when vandals emerged and broke windows, threw rocks, etc.
It was over in a matter of a couple of hours.

And then, the many security cams and police videographers--- and the subsequent arrests ---- showed who the dicks & karens were. They were white suburban jackasses from surrounding communities....out for a lark and some vandalism on a pleasant summer evening. They paid a price. And will for a long time.

Which, it seems, is different than your experience:
Oldestyle: "We've had left wing riots in major cities across the country that went on for months......."

And that begs the questions:

• How many cities had riots that went on for months?
• Which cities?
• And how many months did these riots go on?

Batter up, good poster Oldestyle.

You missed what’s still going on in Portland? After multiple months. Attempted murder by barricading people in building some and trying to set them on fire? Seattle where CHAZ/CHOP commandeered several blocks and declared themselves not part of the U.S.? Are you stupid, or willfully ignorant?

 

[boedicca]

Liz Cheney is done. Stick a fork in her. Her constituents hate her and will not reelect her. So, at this point, her future is with the Lincoln Project Pedos.

 

[lantern2814]

Irrelevant and basically made up. Facts are facts. If it is a fact that Trump was planning for and hoping for exactly what happened that day, and we find out... You are saying you don't care, because you may not have heard other facts, too. A weak equivocation. Very transparent.

No idiot. It’s only a fact in your fantasy land. The FBI says you’re a liar. But we already know that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldestyle wrote: I didn't realize there was anyone out there that didn't know about the riots that caused billions of dollars of damage all across the country. 21OCT27-POST#458

NFBW wrote: Same question for @Corell …. Have you DJTvoterrrs put a dollar amount on the value of 240 years of American democracy and the peaceful transfer of power every four yesrs until DJT, and the lives that fought to create and defend it over all those years?

I’m weighing in at priceless.

Is DJT worth losing it?

21OCT29-POST#580