Unit2Sucks said:

---

There is a fair amount of information out there. If you look past the conspiracy theories that the people you support have offered, it's not really that controversial. Pelosi did not cause or permit Jan 6 to happen.

---

POLITICO Playbook has obtained exclusively a trailer for Alex Holder’s docuseries about the Trump family, which was among the hours of footage the filmmaker turned over to the Jan. 6 committee.

Watch it here 👇 pic.twitter.com/RpDhhk9oAf

— POLITICO (@politico) July 5, 2022

BearGoggles said:

---

blungld said:

---

Gee, I wonder why the committee didn't put the very people involved in the insurrection and cover up on the committee? Great point Bear Goggles.

---

But the committee did put insurrectionists on it - Bennie Thompson, Jamie Raskin, and Schiff.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

blungld said:

---

Gee, I wonder why the committee didn't put the very people involved in the insurrection and cover up on the committee? Great point Bear Goggles.

---

But the committee did put insurrectionists on it - Bennie Thompson, Jamie Raskin, and Schiff.

---

If it weren't for false equivalences, you might actually be able to criticize Trump.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Dark goggles will do that to you.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Just to be clear, BearGoggles is "bothsidesing" the insurrection. When he says bipartisan, he means that the Republicans should be able to mount a defense for the Republican support for an insurrection and attempted assassination of Pence fomented by their leader Trump.

But BG totally doesn't support Trump at all.

BG is really saying that a "bipartisan" Jan 6 committee is not one where sane conservatives like Cheney and Kinzinger are helping to uncover what really happened on Jan 6 and what led up to it. Instead, I suppose he would want bat**** crazy GOPers to defend what happened on that day and blame it on Democrats is the real bipartisan committee that our country needs. Because both sides!

---

Why don't we have full information and insight into Pelosi's role in managing security prior to 1/6? Seems like understanding why security was so inadequate - when we know there were ample advance warnings - is a real issue. But the dem committee has no interest.

---

There is a fair amount of information out there. If you look past the conspiracy theories that the people you support have offered, it's not really that controversial. Pelosi did not cause or permit Jan 6 to happen.

What you are really saying is that you wish there was an opportunity for the GOP to defend and support the insurrection and to spread more conspiracy theories to inspire their base to help them steal future elections. That's what you mean by bipartisan, not a search for the truth. Cheney and Kinzinger might be the only 2 Republicans in congress who are actually interested in doing the right thing, which is why they are appropriate members of the committee. A "bipartisan" committee of the type you are suggesting would be full of the worse people in congress like Gym Jordan, Gaetz, MTG, Gosar, etc. They would intentionally turn this into a farce and you would show up here saying that the investigation is a farce and has no credibility. We all know how this would play out and your arguments are pretty transparent.

---

The information re security that is out there is not from the committee (it has come from republicans, which given your position is quite ironic) and the committee is strangely uncurious about the major security lapses. I wonder why?

You are so partisan that you can't see (or more likely don't care) that for every Jordan/Gaetz, I can point to a Thompson/Schiff who are among the worst people in congress from the view of the other side. Conservatives and many independents look at a committee headed by Thompson and with Schiff the exact same way you look at the Jordan/Gaetz etc.

There is a long tradition of committees where the political parties view things differently - and in those cases the minority issues their own separate report. But in that process, all evidence is gathered and both sides get to see and test the other's claims and evidence. Not here.

Remember when Schiff and Nunes were each on the House Intelligence Committee and wrote separate memos re FISA? Under your approach, we only get the Schiff Memo which the DOJ inspector general eventually determined was full of errors and misleading (or maybe we only get the Nunes memo). Schiff had to have known what he wrote was misleading - he didn't care and the lapdog media jumped on board.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ig-nunes-and-schiff-11576022741

Bottom line - you don't find facts when only one point of view is represented on a "committee." Unless of course you just want a political show trial with little interest in the truth.

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Just to be clear, BearGoggles is "bothsidesing" the insurrection. When he says bipartisan, he means that the Republicans should be able to mount a defense for the Republican support for an insurrection and attempted assassination of Pence fomented by their leader Trump.

But BG totally doesn't support Trump at all.

BG is really saying that a "bipartisan" Jan 6 committee is not one where sane conservatives like Cheney and Kinzinger are helping to uncover what really happened on Jan 6 and what led up to it. Instead, I suppose he would want bat**** crazy GOPers to defend what happened on that day and blame it on Democrats is the real bipartisan committee that our country needs. Because both sides!

---

Why don't we have full information and insight into Pelosi's role in managing security prior to 1/6? Seems like understanding why security was so inadequate - when we know there were ample advance warnings - is a real issue. But the dem committee has no interest.

---

There is a fair amount of information out there. If you look past the conspiracy theories that the people you support have offered, it's not really that controversial. Pelosi did not cause or permit Jan 6 to happen.

What you are really saying is that you wish there was an opportunity for the GOP to defend and support the insurrection and to spread more conspiracy theories to inspire their base to help them steal future elections. That's what you mean by bipartisan, not a search for the truth. Cheney and Kinzinger might be the only 2 Republicans in congress who are actually interested in doing the right thing, which is why they are appropriate members of the committee. A "bipartisan" committee of the type you are suggesting would be full of the worse people in congress like Gym Jordan, Gaetz, MTG, Gosar, etc. They would intentionally turn this into a farce and you would show up here saying that the investigation is a farce and has no credibility. We all know how this would play out and your arguments are pretty transparent.

---

The information re security that is out there is not from the committee (it has come from republicans, which given your position is quite ironic) and the committee is strangely uncurious about the major security lapses. I wonder why?

You are so partisan that you can't see (or more likely don't care) that for every Jordan/Gaetz, I can point to a Thompson/Schiff who are among the worst people in congress from the view of the other side. Conservatives and many independents look at a committee headed by Thompson and with Schiff the exact same way you look at the Jordan/Gaetz etc.

There is a long tradition of committees where the political parties view things differently - and in those cases the minority issues their own separate report. But in that process, all evidence is gathered and both sides get to see and test the other's claims and evidence. Not here.

Remember when Schiff and Nunes were each on the House Intelligence Committee and wrote separate memos re FISA? Under your approach, we only get the Schiff Memo which the DOJ inspector general eventually determined was full of errors and misleading (or maybe we only get the Nunes memo). Schiff had to have known what he wrote was misleading - he didn't care and the lapdog media jumped on board.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ig-nunes-and-schiff-11576022741

Bottom line - you don't find facts when only one point of view is represented on a "committee." Unless of course you just want a political show trial with little interest in the truth.

---

The Jan6 Committee structure is not our approach. It is Kevin McCarthy's approach.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

---

BearGoggles said:

---

blungld said:

---

Gee, I wonder why the committee didn't put the very people involved in the insurrection and cover up on the committee? Great point Bear Goggles.

---

But the committee did put insurrectionists on it - Bennie Thompson, Jamie Raskin, and Schiff.

The head of the committee, Thompson refused to certify election results in 2004. And Jamie Raskin did the same thing in 2016. And Adam Schiff's attempts to undermine the 2016 election with false claims and other bad faith acts are well known.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jun/10/house-republicans/fact-checking-whether-bennie-thompson-objected-200/

I am old enough to remember way back to 2016 when several democrat politicians and many left commentators were urging electors not to vote for Trump. Clear insurrection! Or sedition? Or both!!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13920444/electoral-college-trump-hamilton-electors

What's the standard? There is no proven allegation that any congressmen had a role in the riots. And it doesn't really matter. Without exception (until this committee) the minority leader has had sole discretion to appoint minority committee members. Full stop - that was not just a norm - it was a rule without exception. Until now.

Article re Dems actions in 2004 and 2016 here: https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/objections-to-a-presidential-certification-vote-is-not-rare-dems-did-the-same-to-trump

More here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-who-praised-2004-objections-to-electoral-college-certification-now-slam-hawley

---

BearGoggles said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Just to be clear, BearGoggles is "bothsidesing" the insurrection. When he says bipartisan, he means that the Republicans should be able to mount a defense for the Republican support for an insurrection and attempted assassination of Pence fomented by their leader Trump.

But BG totally doesn't support Trump at all.

BG is really saying that a "bipartisan" Jan 6 committee is not one where sane conservatives like Cheney and Kinzinger are helping to uncover what really happened on Jan 6 and what led up to it. Instead, I suppose he would want bat**** crazy GOPers to defend what happened on that day and blame it on Democrats is the real bipartisan committee that our country needs. Because both sides!

---

Why don't we have full information and insight into Pelosi's role in managing security prior to 1/6? Seems like understanding why security was so inadequate - when we know there were ample advance warnings - is a real issue. But the dem committee has no interest.

---

There is a fair amount of information out there. If you look past the conspiracy theories that the people you support have offered, it's not really that controversial. Pelosi did not cause or permit Jan 6 to happen.

What you are really saying is that you wish there was an opportunity for the GOP to defend and support the insurrection and to spread more conspiracy theories to inspire their base to help them steal future elections. That's what you mean by bipartisan, not a search for the truth. Cheney and Kinzinger might be the only 2 Republicans in congress who are actually interested in doing the right thing, which is why they are appropriate members of the committee. A "bipartisan" committee of the type you are suggesting would be full of the worse people in congress like Gym Jordan, Gaetz, MTG, Gosar, etc. They would intentionally turn this into a farce and you would show up here saying that the investigation is a farce and has no credibility. We all know how this would play out and your arguments are pretty transparent.

---

The information re security that is out there is not from the committee (it has come from republicans, which given your position is quite ironic) and the committee is strangely uncurious about the major security lapses. I wonder why?

You are so partisan that you can't see (or more likely don't care) that for every Jordan/Gaetz, I can point to a Thompson/Schiff who are among the worst people in congress from the view of the other side. Conservatives and many independents look at a committee headed by Thompson and with Schiff the exact same way you look at the Jordan/Gaetz etc.

There is a long tradition of committees where the political parties view things differently - and in those cases the minority issues their own separate report. But in that process, all evidence is gathered and both sides get to see and test the other's claims and evidence. Not here.

Remember when Schiff and Nunes were each on the House Intelligence Committee and wrote separate memos re FISA? Under your approach, we only get the Schiff Memo which the DOJ inspector general eventually determined was full of errors and misleading (or maybe we only get the Nunes memo). Schiff had to have known what he wrote was misleading - he didn't care and the lapdog media jumped on board.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ig-nunes-and-schiff-11576022741

Bottom line - you don't find facts when only one point of view is represented on a "committee." Unless of course you just want a political show trial with little interest in the truth.

---

The Jan6 Committee structure is not our approach. It is Kevin McCarthy's approach.

---

It is Nancy Pelosi's "approach." She and her cronies designed the committee and changed the longstanding rules. McCarthy had the choice to accept the new and patently unreasonable rules - or not. If you can't be honest about Pelosi's control of this situation, then there's little to discuss.

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Just to be clear, BearGoggles is "bothsidesing" the insurrection. When he says bipartisan, he means that the Republicans should be able to mount a defense for the Republican support for an insurrection and attempted assassination of Pence fomented by their leader Trump.

But BG totally doesn't support Trump at all.

BG is really saying that a "bipartisan" Jan 6 committee is not one where sane conservatives like Cheney and Kinzinger are helping to uncover what really happened on Jan 6 and what led up to it. Instead, I suppose he would want bat**** crazy GOPers to defend what happened on that day and blame it on Democrats is the real bipartisan committee that our country needs. Because both sides!

---

Why don't we have full information and insight into Pelosi's role in managing security prior to 1/6? Seems like understanding why security was so inadequate - when we know there were ample advance warnings - is a real issue. But the dem committee has no interest.

---

There is a fair amount of information out there. If you look past the conspiracy theories that the people you support have offered, it's not really that controversial. Pelosi did not cause or permit Jan 6 to happen.

What you are really saying is that you wish there was an opportunity for the GOP to defend and support the insurrection and to spread more conspiracy theories to inspire their base to help them steal future elections. That's what you mean by bipartisan, not a search for the truth. Cheney and Kinzinger might be the only 2 Republicans in congress who are actually interested in doing the right thing, which is why they are appropriate members of the committee. A "bipartisan" committee of the type you are suggesting would be full of the worse people in congress like Gym Jordan, Gaetz, MTG, Gosar, etc. They would intentionally turn this into a farce and you would show up here saying that the investigation is a farce and has no credibility. We all know how this would play out and your arguments are pretty transparent.

---

The information re security that is out there is not from the committee (it has come from republicans, which given your position is quite ironic) and the committee is strangely uncurious about the major security lapses. I wonder why?

You are so partisan that you can't see (or more likely don't care) that for every Jordan/Gaetz, I can point to a Thompson/Schiff who are among the worst people in congress from the view of the other side. Conservatives and many independents look at a committee headed by Thompson and with Schiff the exact same way you look at the Jordan/Gaetz etc.

There is a long tradition of committees where the political parties view things differently - and in those cases the minority issues their own separate report. But in that process, all evidence is gathered and both sides get to see and test the other's claims and evidence. Not here.

Remember when Schiff and Nunes were each on the House Intelligence Committee and wrote separate memos re FISA? Under your approach, we only get the Schiff Memo which the DOJ inspector general eventually determined was full of errors and misleading (or maybe we only get the Nunes memo). Schiff had to have known what he wrote was misleading - he didn't care and the lapdog media jumped on board.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ig-nunes-and-schiff-11576022741

Bottom line - you don't find facts when only one point of view is represented on a "committee." Unless of course you just want a political show trial with little interest in the truth.

---

The Jan6 Committee structure is not our approach. It is Kevin McCarthy's approach.

---

It is Nancy Pelosi's "approach." She and her cronies designed the committee and changed the longstanding rules. McCarthy had the choice to accept the new and patently unreasonable rules - or not. If you can't be honest about Pelosi's control of this situation, then there's little to discuss.

---

It is true that Pelosi blocked 2 of the potentially guilty from being on the committee. What kind of committee would allow people being investigated?

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

---

Another GREAT picture. Bravo! I would say a picture's worth a thousand words - but we know you would never read a thousand words.

I'm wondering - why didn't you respond to the post below? The one where it was called to your attention that you had posted misinformation? Given your commitment to facts, don't you want to correct the record?

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/108919/replies/2031765

---

blungld said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

blungld said:

---

Gee, I wonder why the committee didn't put the very people involved in the insurrection and cover up on the committee? Great point Bear Goggles.

---

But the committee did put insurrectionists on it - Bennie Thompson, Jamie Raskin, and Schiff.

The head of the committee, Thompson refused to certify election results in 2004. And Jamie Raskin did the same thing in 2016. And Adam Schiff's attempts to undermine the 2016 election with false claims and other bad faith acts are well known.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jun/10/house-republicans/fact-checking-whether-bennie-thompson-objected-200/

I am old enough to remember way back to 2016 when several democrat politicians and many left commentators were urging electors not to vote for Trump. Clear insurrection! Or sedition? Or both!!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13920444/electoral-college-trump-hamilton-electors

What's the standard? There is no proven allegation that any congressmen had a role in the riots. And it doesn't really matter. Without exception (until this committee) the minority leader has had sole discretion to appoint minority committee members. Full stop - that was not just a norm - it was a rule without exception. Until now.

Article re Dems actions in 2004 and 2016 here: https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/objections-to-a-presidential-certification-vote-is-not-rare-dems-did-the-same-to-trump

More here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-who-praised-2004-objections-to-electoral-college-certification-now-slam-hawley

---

Dude that is just seriously whack. I know you think you are being detached and objective, but that is some crazy partisan bs.

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Dude that is just seriously whack. I know you think you are being detached and objective, but that is some crazy partisan bs.

---

He's having to work hard to get BearForce2 and helltopay's deflection and misinformation done. Minot and kelly09 haven't picked up the slack. The strain is showing.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Dude that is just seriously whack. I know you think you are being detached and objective, but that is some crazy partisan bs.

---

He's having to work hard to get BearForce2 and helltopay's deflection and misinformation done. Minot and kelly09 haven't picked up the slack. The strain is showing.

---

Good point.

With BearForce and HelltoPay gone since JUNE 28th, he's had to work a lot harder with the typical right-wing spin.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Dude that is just seriously whack. I know you think you are being detached and objective, but that is some crazy partisan bs.

---

He's having to work hard to get BearForce2 and helltopay's deflection and misinformation done. Minot and kelly09 haven't picked up the slack. The strain is showing.

---

Good point.

With BearForce and HelltoPay gone since JUNE 28th, he's had to work a lot harder with the typical right-wing spin.

---

Big C said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Dude that is just seriously whack. I know you think you are being detached and objective, but that is some crazy partisan bs.

---

He's having to work hard to get BearForce2 and helltopay's deflection and misinformation done. Minot and kelly09 haven't picked up the slack. The strain is showing.

---

Good point.

With BearForce and HelltoPay gone since JUNE 28th, he's had to work a lot harder with the typical right-wing spin.

---

He's far too wordy to be a like-for-like substitution. Helltoupee can match his word count, but Giggles at least presents his word salads as complete sentences with minimal grammar errors - polar opposite of helltoupee. And BearFarce just copy and pasted right wing Twitter nonsense - nothing original or thoughtful.

---

The power of three: They complete one another!

---

Quote:

---

Bannon's team provided Trump's new letter to the January 6 committee overnight, along with a letter from Bannon lawyer Bob Costello.

"While Mr. Bannon has been steadfast in his convictions, circumstances have now changed," Costello wrote. "Mr. Bannon is willing to, and indeed prefers, to testify at your public hearing."

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who sits on the January 6 panel, told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" on Sunday that the committee hasn't yet had a chance to discuss Bannon's letter, but that "I expect that we will be hearing from him and there are many questions that we have for him."
Lofgren, however, said that public testimony from Bannon was unlikely, noting that the committee typically does depositions. "This goes on for hour after hour after hour. We want to get all our questions answered, and you can't do that in a live format," she said.

The January 6 committee was interested in speaking to Bannon about his communications with Trump in December 2020, when Bannon reportedly urged him to focus on the January 6 certification of the presidential election results. Committee members were also interested in Bannon's comments in the run-up to the Capitol insurrection, including a podcast on January 5, in which he predicted, "All hell is going to break loose tomorrow."

---

bearister said:

---

Bannon's Achilles heel:

He thinks he is the smartest guy in the room. That works out for some people, but not many.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

So here's the latest example of the partisan game being played.

Cipollone agrees to a deposition/interview. The dems know in advance he will not corroborate Hutchinson's statements - so they don't ask him about those statements.

For some reason, they are just totally uncurious as to what was actually said. So much for a search for the truth.

Then the Jan 6 members start leaking that "Cipollone didn't contradict other witnesses." Because they didn't ask.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics/cipollone-hutchinson-testimony-january-6/index.html

I hope the committee releases the full Cipollone video - let's hear it all. But no doubt they will just selectively edit and the seals on the left will applaud.

---