Capitol Riot Investigation

[RiverDog]

This is too funny not to post it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/qanon-shaman-lawyer-issues-shockingly-173200108.html

Yeah, IMO they all have to have been brain damaged to have participated in that riot.

I'm glad you posted something about the Capitol riot investigation as I was about to create a post about Congress's attempt to create a commission to investigate the Capitol riot.

I'm not exactly clear what the objectives of a commission would be or what kind of authority a commission would bring to the table that various law enforcement investigative agencies don't already have. Congress has already interviewed dozens of LE officials, including the Capitol police, the FBI, the DC National Guard, Pentagon officials, and members of the Trump administration as to their response. They've arrested over 500 participants in the riot. What else is there that we hope to achieve that isn't already being done?

It seems to me that this initiative is being politically driven, that the Democrats are attempting to keep the issue in the front page so as to help their chances in the 2022 elections. Some Republicans have countered that we shouldn't limit it to the Capitol riot, that we ought to have the commission investigate all the riots that have happened recently.

[c_hawkbob]

It would be a bipartisan declaration that it: 1) indeed happened, 2) was insurrectionary in nature and not just a "tourist group" that got a little rowdy and 3) need be taken as seriously as any other terrorist threat.

As we speak their are Trumplicans attempting rewrite even so recent a history and even going so far as to deny it even happened. This is a road to civil war (and no I'm not kidding) and needs to be stopped in the most emphatic means possible.

This bill was truly a bipartisan effort and for Republicans to now try to discredit it now is pure BS. Mitch says the democrats negotiated the bill in bad faith, yet every single Republican demand was granted while drawing up the bill. They just don't want a 911 style commission with both Republican and Democrat members agreeing on who should and shouldn't be called as witnesses and deciding what evidence is admissible so they can claim a political bias to the whole process and continue the Big Lie to placate Trump's base through the midterms and to 2024. Gaslighting the whole episode is their only hope as they see it. Even the ones who have spoken strongly against it like Mitch himself.

Refusing to have the investigation be a bipartisan effort is the most partisan thing going on in Washington right now.

[RiverDog]

It would be a bipartisan declaration that it: 1) indeed happened, 2) was insurrectionary in nature and not just a "tourist group" that got a little rowdy and 3) need be taken as seriously as any other terrorist threat.

And that can only be accomplished by a commission? It seems to me that the FBI, the military, and law enforcement agencies are taking these threats dead serious. As a matter of fact, the Pentagon, as a direct result of the capitol riot, has initiated a review of white supremist in their ranks:

A Pentagon report on extremism obtained by CNN gives disturbing insight into how White supremacists are active in the military and offers recommendations to better identify domestic extremists and prevent them from serving.

The FBI, Homeland Security, and other state and local agencies have already put domestic terrorism at the top of their agendas. I don't know what else a commission can do that isn't already being done.

As we speak their are Trumplicans attempting rewrite even so recent a history and even going so far as to deny it even happened. This is a road to civil war (and no I'm not kidding) and needs to be stopped in the most emphatic means possible.

A commission isn't going to stop Trumpians from attempting to rewrite history, nor will it do anything to stop this "road to civil war" if it is as serious of a threat as you say it is.

This bill was truly a bipartisan effort and for Republicans to now try to discredit it now is pure BS. Mitch says the democrats negotiated the bill in bad faith, yet every single Republican demand was granted while drawing up the bill. They just don't want a 911 style commission with both Republican and Democrat members agreeing on who should and shouldn't be called as witnesses and deciding what evidence is admissible so they can claim a political bias to the whole process and continue the Big Lie to placate Trump's base through the midterms and to 2024. Gaslighting the whole episode is their only hope as they see it. Even the ones who have spoken strongly against it like Mitch himself.

Refusing to have the investigation be a bipartisan effort is the most partisan thing going on in Washington right now.

The Capitol riot is a huge black eye for Republicans, and you're right, they would rather have people like us forget that it ever happened. But by the same token, the Democrats would absolutely love it if this were the lead story for the next 8-10 months. They'd drag this thing out to eternity.

If Congress could somehow tie in the Capitol riot to all the riots that took place this past summer, examine the root causes and responses to all of them, then I think they'd have a better shot at convincing Republicans to get on board and make it truly a bipartisan effort. But if all the Democrats want to do is focus solely on the Capitol riot and use the commission as a political weapon, it's not going to get anywhere.

[c_hawkbob]

That's the most republican answer in the world "tie it to the other riots" ... a total load of crap, nothin but a false equivalence.

News flash: They didn't attempt an insurrection in response to the BLM movement! It was purely in response to Trump losing the election and hoping to overthrow the freakin' government!

And the answer to your other questions is yes, it will at least help accomplish that. But you're ignoring the most important thing it would accomplish in taking away the false narrative that any investigation at all is a Democrat plot to influence the next election.

[RiverDog]

That's the most republican answer in the world "tie it to the other riots" ... a total load of crap, nothin but a false equivalence.

News flash: They didn't attempt an insurrection in response to the BLM movement! It was purely in response to Trump losing the election and hoping to overthrow the freakin' government!

I saw one heck of a lot of people drawing parallels of the BLM riots to the Capitol riot. In a lot of people's minds, there's a certain hypocrisy in an expressed sympathy for one a series of riots yet an outrage at another. If they want bipartisan support, agreeing to do something to investigate the response to the BLM riots would be a bone they could toss to the R's.

And the answer to your other questions is yes, it will at least help accomplish that. But you're ignoring the most important thing it would accomplish in taking away the false narrative that any investigation at all is a Democrat plot to influence the next election.

One of the proposals is for an 18 month time limit. Take that timeline out and see where it ends.

If they could limit the timing of the investigation to half of that, say 9 months and wind it up before the 2022 election cycle, then I could be talked into it.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's the most republican answer in the world "tie it to the other riots" ... a total load of crap, nothin but a false equivalence.

News flash: They didn't attempt an insurrection in response to the BLM movement! It was purely in response to Trump losing the election and hoping to overthrow the freakin' government!

And the answer to your other questions is yes, it will at least help accomplish that. But you're ignoring the most important thing it would accomplish in taking away the false narrative that any investigation at all is a Democrat plot to influence the next election.

They did in Seattle and Oregon. I don't think it was BLM people doing it so much as anarchists glomming on to those protests. You don't seem to acknowledge state level behavior of that kind, which is why it's hard for me to accept what you're pushing when you don't want to acknowledge what I literally lived through.

I watched a bunch of supposed BLM protesters take over a police precinct, declare a section of Seattle as an Autonomous Zone, and deny entry to emergency and police services. Was it a national insurrection? No. Was it a state or city insurrection? Yes, it was.

Then all the stuff in Oregon with trying to trap police in a precinct and firebomb the place.

It got pretty ridiculous here. But the local government is supposed to handle that, not the national government.

You don't live here, so you don't seem have a grasp of how bad it was. I have never seen Seattle boarded up due to the vandalism that occurred on a continuous basis. The daily protests for weeks. The constant breaking of windows and attacking of buildings and businesses. It was terrible.

But your claiming false equivalence even though it negatively affected people over a longer period of time leading to more deaths, more property destruction, and the like than the Capitol Riot, as in one day.

And you think that is why we're headed for Civil war when people like yourself want to call false equivalence because what? You don't live in areas where other types of protests occur with equally violent and crazy people doing property damage, harassing people, and tearing crap up?

You're in denial about what happened in other parts of the nation during the BLM protests. I don't blame the BLM protesters because the majority of them were fine. But there are these anarchist whatever movements that are anti-police, anti-government, and generally chaotic and violent just waiting for these opportunities to do damage.

And yet Democratic supporters don't acknowledge them, focus it all on White Supremacists, and make only the right wing actors in these situations as the bad guy. It's why people like Riverdog and myself are left to wonder how you fix this when even what is considered acceptable protest behavior and what you can protest is bipartisan. The media just takes up the case of those they side with and pushes it.

But you're right, we're headed for Civil War at some point, the commission you think will fix it will only make it worse as the Democrats push it as a weapon to attack those who disagree with them. But you're ready for that c-bob, or you need to be, because I can tell you right now there is never going to be an agreeable compromise to where the Democrats want to take us right now and where the Republican's want America to go. There is zero path to compromise. Even moderate Republicans don't agree with what Democrats like AOC and her ilk are doing. They don't agree with Pelosi. They don't want all these taxes and other rubbish the Democrats are pushing.

Right now, all I hear from Republicans I know is how the Democrats are trying to attack them and make America worse. They will gladly organize the around the right leader for a fight. Be glad it wasn't Trump, but there won't be any compromise. The Democrats are hoping the military and police they're screwing over stay with them when that time comes.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yeah, IMO they all have to have been brain damaged to have participated in that riot.

I'm glad you posted something about the Capitol riot investigation as I was about to create a post about Congress's attempt to create a commission to investigate the Capitol riot.

I'm not exactly clear what the objectives of a commission would be or what kind of authority a commission would bring to the table that various law enforcement investigative agencies don't already have. Congress has already interviewed dozens of LE officials, including the Capitol police, the FBI, the DC National Guard, Pentagon officials, and members of the Trump administration as to their response. They've arrested over 500 participants in the riot. What else is there that we hope to achieve that isn't already being done?

It seems to me that this initiative is being politically driven, that the Democrats are attempting to keep the issue in the front page so as to help their chances in the 2022 elections. Some Republicans have countered that we shouldn't limit it to the Capitol riot, that we ought to have the commission investigate all the riots that have happened recently.

Of course its politicized. The riots are over. Donald Trump is out of office. The Democrats don't have the boogieman to hide behind for all their terrible policies. Now they have to find some way to win the election by keeping the boogieman in the minds of Americans. This commission would do that until they lose the House and Senate, then the Republicans get rid of the commission.

That's the game.

Not sure how things are with Republicans you know, but the ones I still know still hate the Democrats. Are still voting for anyone but the Democrats. They dislike Joe Biden and his cabinet. They are ready to roll in 2022. We'll see if the Democrats can keep a similar intensity with Donald Trump out of office.

[c_hawkbob]

"A lot of People" ... All Republicans! And all because they have to have something to act aggrieved about too. Can't have the Dems hogging the soapbox can we?

And the whole time limit thing is purely to ensure that it's all comfortably in the rear view mirror well ahead of the elections. Did they put a time limit on The 9/11 commission? That's just not how justice works. I understand though, I really do, you've got the Democrats getting all the advantages out of this whole thing and to conservatives it just doesn't seem fair, and for you non Trumplican conservatives I really do sympathize. Trump screwed you. Hard. And he continues to and will for as long as the idiots in your party continue to shake in their boot for fear of him turning his base on them in the mid terms.

[c_hawkbob]

And Asea, "they" did what in Washington and Oregon? Storm the capitol? Wrong Washington. What happened in DC had zero to do with any other riots, it was purely in response to Trumps election loss and nothing else.

[RiverDog]

Of course its (proposed commission) politicized. The riots are over. Donald Trump is out of office. The Democrats don't have the boogieman to hide behind for all their terrible policies. Now they have to find some way to win the election by keeping the boogieman in the minds of Americans. This commission would do that until they lose the House and Senate, then the Republicans get rid of the commission.

That's the game.

Not sure how things are with Republicans you know, but the ones I still know still hate the Democrats. Are still voting for anyone but the Democrats. They dislike Joe Biden and his cabinet. They are ready to roll in 2022. We'll see if the Democrats can keep a similar intensity with Donald Trump out of office.

I'm tired of hearing about the Capitol riot, not because I want to revise history and forget about it but because it keeps Donald Trump and his gang of loonies relevant. There's nothing that can be accomplished to prevent a recurrence that isn't being done now. It's the same rationale I had for not impeaching him, although I would have agreed to do so if they could have gotten him, and for not pursuing the POS through the court system. It keeps him in the spotlight, adds fuel to the fire of hate that continues to burn.

As far as the Republicans I know, yes, most of them loathe the Democrats and liberal politicians. Except for the occasional Trump in 2024 flag, I don't see a lot of discussion about him, but all of them will vote Republican no matter who the candidates are. Someone posted on my Facebook newsfeed a comment about Bernie Sanders and his free college proposal and a whole bunch of my conservative friends came out of the woodwork to denounce him and the libs. If the Dems try to press their current, very narrow advantage by attempting radical proposals like free college or SCOTUS packing, they'll lose their grip in Congress and Biden's 2nd half of his presidency will be toothless.

[c_hawkbob]

Other way around Riv, Trump remaining the power center of the Republican party is what keeps the insurrection immediately relevant. We (Americans, not just liberals) can't let this whole episode slide into obscurity as long as the Republican party keeps kowtowing to him and his batsh!t crazy base.

[RiverDog]

Other way around Riv, Trump remaining the power center of the Republican party is what keeps the insurrection immediately relevant. We (Americans, not just liberals) can't let this whole episode slide into obscurity as long as the Republican party keeps kowtowing to him and his batsh!t crazy base.

If we tar and feather Trump and his bat chit crazy base, will it help or hurt matters? If I only knew the answer. If I thought that a commission would put a stop to this insanity, I'd sign on in a heartbeat. It was the same question I asked during the impeachment hearings. But we have to recognize that it's entirely possible that pursuing a commission and allowing them to keep the issue front and center will add even more fuel to the fire and that bat chit crazy lot will use it as propaganda to further their "better gear up because the left is still coming after us" motto. This could result in nothing more than rubbing salt in an open wound.

Our objective is the same. I want to put an end to this ugly episode of history as badly as you do.

[RiverDog]

I've changed my opinion on this subject. After hearing the testimony of the officers that were attacked in the riot, I now believe that there is a substantial benefit from them being given a national platform to share their stories. I don't think that it's going to help prevent a recurrence and feel that it is still largely a political exercise meant to give the Democrats a weapon in future elections, but I think that giving those officers a forum and us citizens the opportunity to hear what they went through outweighs that concern. It's a story that we all need to hear about. It forces conservative news outlets like Fox to cover it, and it's going to be pretty damn hard for them to put a spin on some of those officer's statements.

However, I am not at all comfortable with how Nancy Pelosi cherry picked who she wanted to serve on the committee. Why not let some of those idiot Congressmen have their say? If she is so confident that the evidence will support her version of it, then why not defend it against the most stringent of criticisms? What is she afraid of? All she is doing is giving the other side a reason to call the hearings a sham.

[NorthHawk]

I've changed my opinion on this subject. After hearing the testimony of the officers that were attacked in the riot, I now believe that there is a substantial benefit from them being given a national platform to share their stories. I don't think that it's going to help prevent a recurrence and feel that it is still largely a political exercise meant to give the Democrats a weapon in future elections, but I think that giving those officers a forum and us citizens the opportunity to hear what they went through outweighs that concern. It's a story that we all need to hear about. It forces conservative news outlets like Fox to cover it, and it's going to be pretty damn hard for them to put a spin on some of those officer's statements.

However, I am not at all comfortable with how Nancy Pelosi cherry picked who she wanted to serve on the committee. Why not let some of those idiot Congressmen have their say? If she is so confident that the evidence will support her version of it, then why not defend it against the most stringent of criticisms? What is she afraid of? All she is doing is giving the other side a reason to call the hearings a sham.

The problem with having people like Jordan on this committee is his whole intention is to distract, deflect, and cover for any crimes or unacceptable actions by Trumps followers and Trump himself.
This would then create doubt and in a lot of eyes de-legitimize the findings for some who are on the fence. The hard core will never believe anything improper was done, but the unsure would be
presented with many more doubts about the findings.
In essence, he would probably turn the committed into a political circus when serious investigation is warranted.

[RiverDog]

The problem with having people like Jordan on this committee is his whole intention is to distract, deflect, and cover for any crimes or unacceptable actions by Trumps followers and Trump himself.
This would then create doubt and in a lot of eyes de-legitimize the findings for some who are on the fence. The hard core will never believe anything improper was done, but the unsure would be
presented with many more doubts about the findings.
In essence, he would probably turn the committed into a political circus when serious investigation is warranted.

The committee has 9 members, 7 of whom are Democrats. There's no way any one member is going to be able to de-legitimize the findings of the other members, especially a member from the minority party, unless that member is able to present some irrefutable evidence that the other 8 members can't contest. It gives those sitting on the fence a reason not to view the committee as being objective. Pelosi replaced two R's (Jordan and Banks) with two of the 10 R reps. that voted to impeach Trump (Cheney and Kinzenger).

Besides, Jordan and Banks do have some legitimate issues that they would have pursued more aggressively than others, such as why the Capitol didn't have a better security posture that day. They have accused Pelosi of removing them because she did not want them to pursue that line of questioning, which IMO is an extremely important and relevant issue if the goal is to prevent something similar from happening again.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have already made a political circus out of this hearing. As a matter of fact, I suspect that McCarthy nominated Jordan and Banks as a set-up, knowing that Pelosi would reject them and give the R's tangible proof that the committee is a sham. She played right into their hand.

[NorthHawk]

The committee has 9 members, 7 of whom are Democrats. There's no way any one member is going to be able to de-legitimize the findings of the other members, especially a member from the minority party, unless that member is able to present some irrefutable evidence that the other 8 members can't contest. It gives those sitting on the fence a reason not to view the committee as being objective. Pelosi replaced two R's (Jordan and Banks) with two of the 10 R reps. that voted to impeach Trump (Cheney and Kinzenger).

Sure he could. Like Barr did with the Mueller report, he could get the right wing media out front of the findings by feeding specific information to Carlson et al who can then craft their
lies and spin to poison the legitimacy of the results.

Besides, Jordan and Banks do have some legitimate issues that they would have pursued more aggressively than others, such as why the Capitol didn't have a better security posture that day. They have accused Pelosi of removing them because she did not want them to pursue that line of questioning, which IMO is an extremely important and relevant issue if the goal is to prevent something similar from happening again.

Do we know that isn't going to be part of it? The security question is what it's all about and I'm sure Cheney will be asking those questions and if that line isn't pursued she and Kinzinger won't be shy
about letting the people know that part of the investigation was being stifled.

[RiverDog]

Sure he could. Like Barr did with the Mueller report, he could get the right wing media out front of the findings by feeding specific information to Carlson et al who can then craft their lies and spin to poison the legitimacy of the results.

If a 7 to 2 advantage isn't sufficient enough to shut down an argument that is not supported by facts, then those 7 must be weak kneed and spineless.

It would be more beneficial for the remaining members to shoot down those loons as it would guarantee that they'd get their rebuttals shown on stations like Fox, without which they would be repeated unchallenged in a vacuum. A good example is Jordan's insistence that it was Pelosi that was responsible for the security lapse. Letting him spit that out during the hearing would provide the others a platform to shoot him down and help convince those fence sitters of the truth.

Carlson is going to put his spin on it no matter who is on the committee. The one thing that the conservatives will hammer, and with a great deal of legitimacy, is the fact that Pelosi cherry picked the committee members. That undoubtedly will influence some of the fence sitters.

Besides, Jordan and Banks do have some legitimate issues that they would have pursued more aggressively than others, such as why the Capitol didn't have a better security posture that day. They have accused Pelosi of removing them because she did not want them to pursue that line of questioning, which IMO is an extremely important and relevant issue if the goal is to prevent something similar from happening again.

Do we know that isn't going to be part of it? The security question is what it's all about and I'm sure Cheney will be asking those questions and if that line isn't pursued she and Kinzinger won't be shy about letting the people know that part of the investigation was being stifled.

I never said that the security issue wouldn't be a part of it. What I said was that Jordan and Banks would pursue it with a lot more vigor. The right will dismiss Cheney and Kitzinger as RINO's hand picked by Pelosi.

[NorthHawk]

If a 7 to 2 advantage isn't sufficient enough to shut down an argument that is not supported by facts, then those 7 must be weak kneed and spineless.

What I mean is Jordan having a pipeline to Carlson and others as to the findings so he can get out front and set up a whole raft of lies to counter the real information before the report is released.
As we've seen, the big lie works well and if the right wing media can counter specifics before the report is released, it would only hinder acceptance by those on the fence. The hard core are not
interested at all in the truth, but would get on their megaphones to trumpet the counters to the findings. By keeping the findings under wraps, those findings by the commission could be
presented with a much smaller smoke screen by those with an agenda.

I never said that the security issue wouldn't be a part of it. What I said was that Jordan and Banks would pursue it with a lot more vigor. The right will dismiss Cheney and Kitzinger as RINO's hand picked by Pelosi.

They are always going to think that, but I doubt Cheney would go along with releasing any final report if she didn't think all stones have been turned over. We would hear about it and it would become an issue
for the Dems on the panel and they don't want the report to be non bi-partisan. You seem to think Jordan and Banks would be otherwise responsible members of this committee and dig in deeper than Cheney and
Kinsinger. I believe they would simply try to stall and subvert any findings that would paint Trump or his supporters in any bad light. That's their mission and all you have to do is remember how Jordan in particular
acted during some of the hearings. He would be an incredibly disruptive presence on any committee investigating this by nature of his previous actions.

[RiverDog]

What I mean is Jordan having a pipeline to Carlson and others as to the findings so he can get out front and set up a whole raft of lies to counter the real information before the report is released.

There aren't many fence sitters that watch Tucker Carlson. You have to be a pretty hard core Trump supporter if you get your information from him.

As we've seen, the big lie works well and if the right wing media can counter specifics before the report is released, it would only hinder acceptance by those on the fence. The hard core are not interested at all in the truth, but would get on their megaphones to trumpet the counters to the findings. By keeping the findings under wraps, those findings by the commission could be presented with a much smaller smoke screen by those with an agenda.

Nothing is going to prevent the far right media from at least attempting to spread the lie. But there are a lot of middle-of-the-roaders that watch Fox News, of which, with the exception of Carlson, I do not consider to be part of the far right wing media (their stance on vaccinations being the most recent example). Putting Jordan and Banks out there with a strong rebuttal and revelation of the facts allows them to be unmasked as the liars they are. That's not going to happen with Cheney and Kitzinger as they aren't liars.

I'm going to go a little off topic here to make a point. I'm a big Kennedy assassination buff as it was the first major event that I have a clear recollection of. About 80% of the literature on the subject is conspiracy orientated, and as a result, up until the mid 90's, a similar percentage of Americans believe that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy even though nearly all of the facts has always supported LHO acting alone. That percentage has come down significantly over the past 20 years to about 60%. The best book I read on the subject was "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of John F Kennedy" by Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor that convicted Charles Manson, a great read if you're into non fiction.

Bugliosi devoted a major part of his book to examining and debunking every single conspiracy theory available at the time of its writing in 2007, from a mob hit to the Russians to the Cubans, and shot them down one by one. Because he confronted those mostly whacky theories and exposed their illogic, it made his lone wolf argument extremely convincing as it's the only explanation that does not meet fatal objections. If you go back and read reviews on his book, nearly all of them cite his debunking of conspiracy theories even though it was just one part of the writing.

I'm using the very same logic in this Capitol riot investigation. Let those guys spew their theories and get someone with a sharp mind to shoot them full of holes.

[Aseahawkfan]

Nothing is going to prevent the far right media from at least attempting to spread the lie. But there are a lot of middle-of-the-roaders that watch Fox News, of which, with the exception of Carlson, I do not consider to be part of the far right wing media (their stance on vaccinations being the most recent example). Putting Jordan and Banks out there with a strong rebuttal and revelation of the facts allows them to be unmasked as the liars they are. That's not going to happen with Cheney and Kitzinger as they aren't liars.

I'm going to go a little off topic here to make a point. I'm a big Kennedy assassination buff as it was the first major event that I have a clear recollection of. About 80% of the literature on the subject is conspiracy orientated, and as a result, up until the mid 90's, a similar percentage of Americans believe that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy even though nearly all of the facts has always supported LHO acting alone. That percentage has come down significantly over the past 20 years to about 60%. The best book I read on the subject was "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of John F Kennedy" by Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor that convicted Charles Manson, a great read if you're into non fiction.

Bugliosi devoted a major part of his book to examining and debunking every single conspiracy theory available at the time of its writing in 2007, from a mob hit to the Russians to the Cubans, and shot them down one by one. Because he confronted those mostly whacky theories and exposed their illogic, it made his lone wolf argument extremely convincing as it's the only explanation that does not meet fatal objections. If you go back and read reviews on his book, nearly all of them cite his debunking of conspiracy theories even though it was just one part of the writing.

I'm using the very same logic in this Capitol riot investigation. Let those guys spew their theories and get someone with a sharp mind to shoot them full of holes.

Democrats don't have that kind of time to convince people. Trump running in 2024. They have have a few years to stick something to Trump that torpedoes with his base or makes it illegal for him to run again. They better get on it.

[RiverDog]

Democrats don't have that kind of time to convince people. Trump running in 2024. They have have a few years to stick something to Trump that torpedoes with his base or makes it illegal for him to run again. They better get on it.

Don't have what kind of time? I wasn't attempting to establishing any kind of timeline.

As ugly as the Capitol riot was, I don't think it's going to be an election issue, at least not one that will make or break a possible Trump candidacy in 2024. The key factors will be on the Democrats side: How will Sleepy Joe perform between now and 2024? So far, the results have been mixed. Will he even seek a 2nd term? He'll be 82 years old in 2024. If not, who will the Dems nominate? Kamala Harris? It's a recipe for disaster if they do.

[Aseahawkfan]

Don't have what kind of time? I wasn't attempting to establishing any kind of timeline.

As ugly as the Capitol riot was, I don't think it's going to be an election issue, at least not one that will make or break a possible Trump candidacy in 2024. The key factors will be on the Democrats side: How will Sleepy Joe perform between now and 2024? So far, the results have been mixed. Will he even seek a 2nd term? He'll be 82 years old in 2024. If not, who will the Dems nominate? Kamala Harris? It's a recipe for disaster if they do.

A riot caused by a former president who might run again who wound his followers up to riot at the Capitol should be an election issue.

How weak do you have to be as a party to not be able to turn Trump into the bad guy over the Capitol Riots. If the Democrats can't use this against Trump, they are truly pathetic.

[RiverDog]

A riot caused by a former president who might run again who wound his followers up to riot at the Capitol should be an election issue.

You'd think so, and had it happened 25 years ago, it most certainly would have. But if they can get 2/3's of Republicans to believe that the election was stolen without a shred of evidence, they can damn sure sell the Capitol riot as a tour that went badly.

How weak do you have to be as a party to not be able to turn Trump into the bad guy over the Capitol Riots. If the Democrats can't use this against Trump, they are truly pathetic.

For the most part, the Democrats have allowed themselves to be painted as the party of defunding the police, of the cancel culture, of the critical race theory, of free college, of open borders, of tax and spend. They have some major image problems. We'll see how it goes in the midterms, but I'm guessing that the R's will at least re-claim the House.

[Aseahawkfan]

America doesn't need Trump running again with De Santis as his running mate. I can't see Biden and Kamala beating a Trump and De Santis ticket. We don't need that chaos in The White House again. Hopefully these Dems can stick something on him.

I still can't believe McConnell after all the mixed signals he sends is going to back Trump in 2024. But it appears he will.

Democrats have a few years to make some of this stuff stick. Right now Trump is wandering around doing what he does. None of this Russian crap has stuck to him. So far nothing on the financial front. He's been impeached and nothing. He's been banned from social media and yet his base is still rolling strong. Nothing seems to stick to this guy.

There is just a huge number of people who absolutely despise the culture and future the Democrats are pushing for this nation and are ready to support anyone against them.

[RiverDog]

America doesn't need Trump running again with De Santis as his running mate. I can't see Biden and Kamala beating a Trump and De Santis ticket. We don't need that chaos in The White House again. Hopefully these Dems can stick something on him.

I still can't believe McConnell after all the mixed signals he sends is going to back Trump in 2024. But it appears he will.

Democrats have a few years to make some of this stuff stick. Right now Trump is wandering around doing what he does. None of this Russian crap has stuck to him. So far nothing on the financial front. He's been impeached and nothing. He's been banned from social media and yet his base is still rolling strong. Nothing seems to stick to this guy.

There is just a huge number of people who absolutely despise the culture and future the Democrats are pushing for this nation and are ready to support anyone against them.

There's been so much otherwise explosive, shocking stories revealed about Trump that people have become de-sensitized to it. The latest are recently released notes showing that Trump was pressuring the Justice Department to declare the election corrupt and that "I'll do the rest". Remember how George W. Bush nearly lost the election because of a 20 year old DUI arrest that he didn't disclose? Think of how lame that story is when you contrast it to all the truly ugly, corrupt, racist crap that has been revealed about DJT.

I agree with you about the Dems and their agenda.

[Aseahawkfan]

There's been so much otherwise explosive, shocking stories revealed about Trump that people have become de-sensitized to it. The latest are recently released notes showing that Trump was pressuring the Justice Department to declare the election corrupt and that "I'll do the rest". Remember how George W. Bush nearly lost the election because of a 20 year old DUI arrest that he didn't disclose? Think of how lame that story is when you contrast it to all the truly ugly, corrupt, racist crap that has been revealed about DJT.

I agree with you about the Dems and their agenda.

The Republicans have pretty much shown they'll support anyone against the Democrats and they no longer have standards for personal behavior. This is the Republicans Bill Clinton candidate. They have completely lost any moral high ground and can go STFU claiming any moral high ground in any future election.

Trump cheats on his wife, sleeps around, lies, pays little to no taxes, and is rude and insulting. I find it incredibly sad the Republicans have lost any sense of moral decency or standards for their candidates behavior.

[RiverDog]

The Republicans have pretty much shown they'll support anyone against the Democrats and they no longer have standards for personal behavior. This is the Republicans Bill Clinton candidate. They have completely lost any moral high ground and can go STFU claiming any moral high ground in any future election.

Trump cheats on his wife, sleeps around, lies, pays little to no taxes, and is rude and insulting. I find it incredibly sad the Republicans have lost any sense of moral decency or standards for their candidates behavior.

By the same token, many of the same groups that were so offended by Trump's behavior are the very same ones that excused, and continue to excuse, Bill Clinton's. Did any of them ask what the hell Clinton was doing on Jeffrey Epstein's plane?

In my eyes, both parties have lost the moral high ground.

[Aseahawkfan]

By the same token, many of the same groups that were so offended by Trump's behavior are the very same ones that excused, and continue to excuse, Bill Clinton's. Did any of them ask what the hell Clinton was doing on Jeffrey Epstein's plane?

In my eyes, both parties have lost the moral high ground.

Democrats lost the moral high ground ages ago dating back to Kennedy.

Republicans used to maintain some idea of decorum, but that's pretty much gone after Trump. Maybe Nixon was that bad. Not sure. But Reagan, Bush Sr., and even Bush Jr. tried to appear presidential and considered the office to require them to behave in a certain way. Trump tossed that crap out that window and the Republican Party followed him.

[RiverDog]

By the same token, many of the same groups that were so offended by Trump's behavior are the very same ones that excused, and continue to excuse, Bill Clinton's. Did any of them ask what the hell Clinton was doing on Jeffrey Epstein's plane?

In my eyes, both parties have lost the moral high ground.

Democrats lost the moral high ground ages ago dating back to Kennedy.

You can go back a lot further than Kennedy. FDR was with his mistress on the day he died. But that stuff was never revealed to the public in real time. It wasn't until years after their passing that their moral decadency was eventually revealed.

IMO it wasn't until the 1980's with the advent of 24/7 news and the creation of an American Pavarotti that the unwritten agreement between the press and the pols was shattered. Gary Hart, a leading contender for the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination was the first pol that I'm aware of that had his personal affairs become a matter of public knowledge during an active campaign.

You can't just blame the politicians, either. The public's morals have changed, too. Had Bill Clinton's impeachment occurred in the 50's or 60's, there's no way he could have survived.

[NorthHawk]

Politicians have always dabbled on the edge of decency. Eisenhower had his 'bit of crumpet' in England during the war, too
and I'm sure many of the Republican presidents had their peccadilloes that aren't widely known.
It seems to me that power attracts this type of activity. Whether it's an escape from the pressure of the job or if that job attracts that type of
person, I wouldn't know but you see it all around the world.

[RiverDog]

Politicians have always dabbled on the edge of decency. Eisenhower had his 'bit of crumpet' in England during the war, too
and I'm sure many of the Republican presidents had their peccadilloes that aren't widely known.
It seems to me that power attracts this type of activity. Whether it's an escape from the pressure of the job or if that job attracts that type of
person, I wouldn't know but you see it all around the world.

Ike's situation was quite a bit different than that of Kennedy, Clinton, and Trump. First of all, Ike's was a singular affair, with his driver during World War 2. There's no evidence that he was a womanizer ala the other three. Secondly, unlike the other three, he was stationed overseas and away from home for years at a time. Unlike Kennedy and Clinton, Ike did not have extra marital affairs while he was President. And unlike Clinton and Trump, he never had a lawsuit filed against him for sexual harassment.

I'm not excusing Ike's behavior, just pointing out that it's probably not fair to lump him in with the other three.

[NorthHawk]

Situation different, but still a character flaw, IMO if the standard is a pious leader.
He was also in a position of power in Europe not unlike being a President in many ways and maybe with even more pressure considering the stakes.

[Aseahawkfan]

I hear Republicans talk of the character of their candidates and attack the character of the Democrats. They gave that all up supporting Trump. His character and personal behavior is as bad as Clinton with a worse public persona. Now when Republicans try to bring up Clinton's behavior, the counter is now Trump with all his scumbag behavior.

[RiverDog]

Situation different, but still a character flaw, IMO if the standard is a pious leader. He was also in a position of power in Europe not unlike being a President in many ways and maybe with even more pressure considering the stakes.

Agreed that it was a character flaw. As I said, I was not attempting to excuse Ike's behavior. I was simply noting that there were significant differences between his behavior and that of Kennedy, Clinton, and Trump and that it wasn't fair to lump him into the same category of those 3.

I'm not sure how much you've read about WW2, but there was far less of a risk of Ike's infidelity becoming public than any of the aforementioned POTUS's. The military controlled everything, censored every single report, every hand written letter back home. Even though every buck private in the theatre knew that Ike was banging his driver (my uncle confirmed that to me), nothing made it back to the states unless it had been reviewed and approved. There were no cell phones (hell, not even any LAN lines that could reach across the Atlantic), no internet, no social media. If today's White House is a fish bowl, WW2 was a black hole.

Of all the indiscretions, JFK's were undoubtedly the worst simply because of the times. Had Soviet spies acquired pictures or recordings of him and his many escapades, they could have used it to blackmail him into concessions he otherwise wouldn't have made.

[RiverDog]

I hear Republicans talk of the character of their candidates and attack the character of the Democrats. They gave that all up supporting Trump. His character and personal behavior is as bad as Clinton with a worse public persona. Now when Republicans try to bring up Clinton's behavior, the counter is now Trump with all his scumbag behavior.

Agreed about Trump vs, Clinton. Trump was/is far, far worse. But the fact that Trump's are worse doesn't make Clinton's any better. They are both scumbags in my book.

It isn't about morals or character anymore, it's all about politics, 100%. That's why women's groups were largely silent during the Clinton impeachment. Had that been George Bush on trial for lying about an office BJ, they would have been furious. It's also why the Evangelists, the same ones that were so offended about Clinton's character, are almost exclusively pro Trump. Even Idahawkman admitted that Trump was a scumbag, but it didn't matter one little bit to him. Trump could have been having sex with 10 year old girls and he'd still vote for him.

[Hawktawk]

And Asea, "they" did what in Washington and Oregon? Storm the capitol? Wrong Washington. What happened in DC had zero to do with any other riots, it was purely in response to Trumps election loss and nothing else.

Exactly C Hawk Bob. As misguided as the BLM and Antifa protests were, as abhorrent the tactics at least they had something legitimate to protest. Such as a black man crushed to death by a smirking officers knee. A president who had riot police smash people in Lafayette park protesting peacefully with signs, shoot them with rubber bullets, tear gas them, arrest 400 of them so Cheeto could walk across the street with the AG, joint chiefs of staff sec of defense etc to a church and hold up a bible.


When the president acts that way, like a fascist then Antifa probably isn't going to pack up and go home . Plus many get amnesia about proud boys and oath keepers etc right in the middle of these violent riots. The little proud boy goon Kyle Rittenhouse traveled across state lines and killed 2 white guys and injured another ON THE STREETS OF THEIR HOMETOWN AS THEY PROTESTED A POLICE SHOOTING . His cover of being a heroic civilian are dashed as photos and video appear of him partying with proud boys, flashing white supremacists signs as millions consider him a cult hero. NO its not all on one side.

As for the equivalency between these protests and riots with the insurrection at our national capital to stop the peaceful transfer of power there is one common denominator. Cheeto who made one protest far worse and who is personally 100% responsible for an insurrection at our nations capitol.His continued lies are setting the stage for another.

Regardless of policies in a democracy the winner wins, the loser concedes. Trump is evil, the evil he has perpetrated will never wash away. much as most of his politics the deal maker couldn't make a deal on are being wiped away by Biden the republicans have a chance to revers their losses next year and in 24. But America decides elections and policy at the ballot box. No bad policy is as bad as a guy who broke that seal. I dont care who they arrest. If Trump doesn't do time its a joke.

[Aseahawkfan]

Exactly C Hawk Bob. As misguided as the BLM and Antifa protests were, as abhorrent the tactics at least they had something legitimate to protest. Such as a black man crushed to death by a smirking officers knee. A president who had riot police smash people in Lafayette park protesting peacefully with signs, shoot them with rubber bullets, tear gas them, arrest 400 of them so Cheeto could walk across the street with the AG, joint chiefs of staff sec of defense etc to a church and hold up a bible.


When the president acts that way, like a fascist then Antifa probably isn't going to pack up and go home . Plus many get amnesia about proud boys and oath keepers etc right in the middle of these violent riots. The little proud boy goon Kyle Rittenhouse traveled across state lines and killed 2 white guys and injured another ON THE STREETS OF THEIR HOMETOWN AS THEY PROTESTED A POLICE SHOOTING . His cover of being a heroic civilian are dashed as photos and video appear of him partying with proud boys, flashing white supremacists signs as millions consider him a cult hero. NO its not all on one side.

As for the equivalency between these protests and riots with the insurrection at our national capital to stop the peaceful transfer of power there is one common denominator. Cheeto who made one protest far worse and who is personally 100% responsible for an insurrection at our nations capitol.His continued lies are setting the stage for another.

Regardless of policies in a democracy the winner wins, the loser concedes. Trump is evil, the evil he has perpetrated will never wash away. much as most of his politics the deal maker couldn't make a deal on are being wiped away by Biden the republicans have a chance to revers their losses next year and in 24. But America decides elections and policy at the ballot box. No bad policy is as bad as a guy who broke that seal. I dont care who they arrest. If Trump doesn't do time its a joke.

These two sides are headed for such a bad clash. You both excuse bad bad behavior based on your political affiliation. You can't even agree on what bad behavior is. You always have an excuse in your pocket as to why the other's behavior is somehow worse and neither side can even see bad behavior for what it is.

This political divide is ruining this nation.

When both sides are so insane that they excuse their own side's terrible behavior, then you have no one to blame when the other side doesn't listen but yourself. Orange-haired Clown did not start this garbage. He was just far too obvious about it and took it the farthest. But it was the American people and their complete disregard for their sides behavior that is allowing this to be pushed to the level it is. Both making excuses like c-bob and you making excuses for a Mayor and Governor allowing 6 city blocks to be taken over, police driven out of a precinct, and the laws of the mob to control six city blocks for weeks and the Republicans making excuses for riots at our Capitol to protest an election that propaganda pushed as false. It's ok to the Democrats to throw the cops under the bus. It's ok to the Republicans to have riots at the Capitol.

What a terrible way to view the world.

[RiverDog]

These two sides are headed for such a bad clash. You both excuse bad bad behavior based on your political affiliation. You can't even agree on what bad behavior is. You always have an excuse in your pocket as to why the other's behavior is somehow worse and neither side can even see bad behavior for what it is.

This political divide is ruining this nation.

There were major differences between the two events, the BLM and Capitol riots, and each side can make their own very persuasive argument as to which one was worse. One can argue, with quite a bit of validity, that the Capitol riot was an attack on our Constitution and our democracy, that our credibility as a nation took a huge hit, that it could have ended up horribly bad with executions of Congressional leaders or the VP, that history will remember this event for a much longer period of time, and reach a conclusion that the Capitol riot was worse than the BLM riots.

But on the other hand, one can argue that the fact that the BLM riots occurred continuously over a much greater period of time and in scores of cities nation wide, that the extent of damage and injuries caused was far greater, the fact that politicians did next to nothing to stop them and in some cases even encouraged them, set a precedent of tolerance for unlawful behavior that may (or may not) have been a contributing factor to the Capitol riot, it can be argued that the BLM protests had the larger negative impact.

I'm not going to say which one was worse. They were both despicable events that we, as a nation, should be ashamed of. Both parties are guilty of promoting and/or tolerating violent behavior. To me, it's a little like arguing over who's step sister is uglier. Both are despicable events.

I completely agree with ASF's last sentence. The political divide is ripping the country apart. We literally have two different nations.

[c_hawkbob]

I don't at all accept he false equivalence put forth by Asea. One of these things is most definitely not like the other!

And the "two sides" are NOT the Antifa/BLM/whatever label you want to put on the rioters vs the MAGA insurgents/Proud Boys/whatever your favorite right wing nutjob group is. That's like saying an Eagle consists only of the furthest outstretched 2 feathers on each wing. Not nearly so many of us on either side of the political scale are that insane.

[Aseahawkfan]

There were differences between the two events, the BLM and Capitol riots, and each side can make their own very persuasive argument as to which one was worse. One can argue, with quite a bit of validity, that the Capitol riot was an attack on our Constitution and our democracy, that our credibility as a nation took a huge hit, that it could have ended up horribly bad with executions of Congressional leaders or the VP, that history will remember this event for a much longer period of time, and reach a conclusion that the Capitol riot was worse than the BLM riots.

But on the other hand, one can argue that the fact that the BLM riots occurred continuously over a much greater period of time and in scores of cities nation wide, that the extent of damage and injuries caused was far greater, the fact that politicians did next to nothing to stop them and in some cases even encouraged them, set a precedent of tolerance for unlawful behavior that may (or may not) have been a contributing factor to the Capitol riot, it can be argued that the BLM protests had the larger negative impact.

I'm not going to say which one was worse. They were both despicable events that we, as a nation, should be ashamed of. Both parties are guilty of promoting and/or tolerating violent behavior. To me, it's a little like arguing over who's step sister is uglier. Both are despicable events.

I completely agree with ASF's last sentence. The political divide is ripping the country apart. We literally have two different nations.

We could go with what ifs all day. What if the people that took over the six city blocks in Seattle had executed all the police in the East Precinct and held the 6 city blocks with guns? What if they had burned the police station with the police in it locking them in in Oregon and a bunch of officers died? Do we go by number of people dead due to each incident? How we rating this rotten behavior and the lack of action by the politicians?

Bad behavior is bad behavior. Our politicians let a bunch of bad behavior pass setting bad precedents across the board for the foreseeable future. The various citizens excuse the bad behavior based on their political affiliation putting degrees of bad on it.

Democrats: The Capitol riots were far worse and that makes them the bigger wrong. The protesters in Seattle taking over six city blocks had an excuse and only one person was killed and a few assaulted in Seattle, so it was no big deal because it wasn't national. It was based on the truth that police offices are terrible racists who kill black people.

Republicans: You let the BLM protests get out of control, which precipitated the Capitol riots because you showed the people the only way they'll be noticed is to riot and tear things apart to get what they want. So why shouldn't we riot and tear things up since you make excuses for that behavior when its done by minorities and Democrat supporters? And we can't trust you. We feel like you stole this election because the Democrats lost on election day, but somehow you won with the mail in votes. We're not buying it.

And they just go back and forth and back and forth with their excuses for terrible behavior based on political affiliation and perception of the truth carefully orchestrated by their media arms.

It's disgusting.