sycasey said:
calbear93 said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
I wonder if BG is still supremely confident that Hutchinson's testimony was "debunked (or at least questioned)" given the credibility hit the secret service has taken the last few weeks. I suppose we won't hear from him again until there is a toehold for him to ignore all GOP misconduct while noting strenously that there is a chance that some of the testimony or reporting on that misconduct might not be admissible under the federal rules of evidence. Oh and tha he totally doesn't approve of Trump.
I'm in favor of see the best evidence and all of the evidence. If the secret service texts were deleted intentionally, that should be criminally investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The fullest extent.
I said the same thing about Hillary's emails (which were deleted intentionally after congressional subpoena), the Strzok/Pages emails/texts, the Muller investigation phones which were wiped, and the IRS records/drives. I have been (and will be) 100% consistent on this issue. You, on the other hand, are a complete hypocrite when it comes to the prosecution of dems who destroy evidence.
In terms of Hutchinson, why is it the Cipollone was not asked by the J6 committee to corroborate or confirm? Because they knew he wouldn't. Why weren't we given access to all of Hutchinson's testimony, including her man prior inconsistent statements?
Bottom line - the J6 hearing remains a show trial. Important facts cannot be found AND VERIFIED in a partisan setting where only one side is allowed to present SOME but not all of the evidence.
BG, you and I almost always agree, but I disagree with you on this one.
Congressional investigations are not a trial. At best, they are a fact finding session. But any proceedings, and in fact even an impeach trial, by Congress is de facto political. It is not a trial, and there is no means of appeal or judicial review even for an impeachment conviction by the Senate.
The far right chose not to participate. They threw a hissy fit that those who enabled what was being investigated could not be part of the fact finding committee. It was not that controversial that those who are implicated should not deliberate but should abstain.
Exactly this. Congressional hearings are not trials. Saying that a Congressional event is a political action is not any kind of revelation. Of course it is.
I would add that of course I think it's perfectly reasonable to question whether congressional hearings are in bad faith or good faith. We've seen a number of bad faith hearings led by both parties. Benghazi's first hearing may have been in good faith, but by the 7th or 10th, it was pretty obviously not driven by anything other than disingenuous bad faith. Similarly, the GOP has said that if they win back the house they intend to launch a number of different hearings, many of which are in bad faith - for example, the release of strategic oil reserves (
explained well here for anyone conservative who wants to pretend that the outrage is legitimate). I would expect there to be dozens of Hunter Biden bad faith hearings. The GOP house voting 55 times to repeal Obamacare and pretending for 10+ years that they had a great replacement for healthcare in our country is both disingenuous and in bad faith.
All of this is a prelude to note that of course the Jan 6 committee isn't in bad faith. BG may disagree but that is on him. Our country needs to know what happened on Jan 6 and who was responsible. That's a perfectly valid use of a congressional investigation and public hearings. The criminal justice probe into the actions, if warranted, should of course be based on legal standards and would be subject to criminal procedures. It's very easy to distinguish that process from the one congress is undertaking.
