On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:07:06 -0500, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.rawstory.com/fox-didn-t-have-a-choice-but-to-bury-the-j6-hearings-because-the-evidence-implicates-their-own-network-nyt-reporter/
>>
>> Fox 'didn't have a choice' but to bury the J6 hearings — because the
>> evidence implicates their own network: reporter
>
> Why should Fox carry a show trial where they stacked the Dems stacked
> the deck and removed people who might have asked difficult questions?
> It reminds me of the McCarthy hearings.

Which such people were "removed"?

On 6/12/2022 12:38 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 8:54 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:07:06 -0500, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.rawstory.com/fox-didn-t-have-a-choice-but-to-bury-the-j6-hearings-because-the-evidence-implicates-their-own-network-nyt-reporter/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fox 'didn't have a choice' but to bury the J6 hearings — because the
>>>> evidence implicates their own network: reporter
>>>
>>> Why should Fox carry a show trial where they stacked the Dems stacked
>>> the deck and removed people who might have asked difficult questions?
>>> It reminds me of the McCarthy hearings.
>>
>> Which such people were "removed"?
>>
> Two of the originally proposed republicans voted against impeaching
> trump. Though many of the Rs who were apalled at what happened in the
> following days, also voted against impeachment.

Were they removed, against their will, from the Jan6 committee?

On 6/12/2022 4:38 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 2:26 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2022 12:38 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/2022 8:54 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:07:06 -0500, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.rawstory.com/fox-didn-t-have-a-choice-but-to-bury-the-j6-hearings-because-the-evidence-implicates-their-own-network-nyt-reporter/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fox 'didn't have a choice' but to bury the J6 hearings — because the
>>>>>>> evidence implicates their own network: reporter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should Fox carry a show trial where they stacked the Dems stacked
>>>>>> the deck and removed people who might have asked difficult questions?
>>>>>> It reminds me of the McCarthy hearings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which such people were "removed"?
>>>>>
>>>> Two of the originally proposed republicans voted against impeaching
>>>> trump. Though many of the Rs who were apalled at what happened in
>>>> the following days, also voted against impeachment.
>>>
>>> Were they removed, against their will, from the Jan6 committee?
>>>
>> No, just rejected by Pelosi. It was thought that they might obstruct
>> the investigation.
>
> What the fuck, pig?  Hall monitor suzee doesn't know anything.  Pelosi
> rejected right wing assholes from being on the committee such as Gym
> Jordan who were already implicated in the insurrection.  Charlie
> McCarthy immediately started whining even though it was *obviously* the
> right thing to do.  You can't trust these assholes to do the right thing
> and recuse themselves so you just have to tell them to fuck off.

What obstructive power would they have had as committee members? I
don't see that they can be disqualified for being probable assholes.

On 6/12/2022 12:26 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 6/12/2022 12:38 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2022 8:54 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:07:06 -0500, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.rawstory.com/fox-didn-t-have-a-choice-but-to-bury-the-j6-hearings-because-the-evidence-implicates-their-own-network-nyt-reporter/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fox 'didn't have a choice' but to bury the J6 hearings — because the
>>>>>> evidence implicates their own network: reporter
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should Fox carry a show trial where they stacked the Dems stacked
>>>>> the deck and removed people who might have asked difficult questions?
>>>>> It reminds me of the McCarthy hearings.
>>>>
>>>> Which such people were "removed"?
>>>>
>>> Two of the originally proposed republicans voted against impeaching
>>> trump. Though many of the Rs who were apalled at what happened in the
>>> following days, also voted against impeachment.
>>
>> Were they removed, against their will, from the Jan6 committee?
>>
> No, just rejected by Pelosi. It was thought that they might obstruct the
> investigation.

Since they were submitted by the Minority Leader specifically to
obstruct and sabotage it that's a pretty good thought.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 6/12/2022 8:26 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 3:25 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 6/12/2022 4:38 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2022 2:26 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2022 12:38 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/2022 8:54 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:07:06 -0500, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.rawstory.com/fox-didn-t-have-a-choice-but-to-bury-the-j6-hearings-because-the-evidence-implicates-their-own-network-nyt-reporter/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fox 'didn't have a choice' but to bury the J6 hearings —
>>>>>>>>> because the
>>>>>>>>> evidence implicates their own network: reporter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why should Fox carry a show trial where they stacked the Dems
>>>>>>>> stacked
>>>>>>>> the deck and removed people who might have asked difficult
>>>>>>>> questions?
>>>>>>>> It reminds me of the McCarthy hearings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which such people were "removed"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two of the originally proposed republicans voted against
>>>>>> impeaching trump. Though many of the Rs who were apalled at what
>>>>>> happened in the following days, also voted against impeachment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Were they removed, against their will, from the Jan6 committee?
>>>>>
>>>> No, just rejected by Pelosi. It was thought that they might obstruct
>>>> the investigation.
>>>
>>> What the fuck, pig?  Hall monitor suzee doesn't know anything.
>>> Pelosi rejected right wing assholes from being on the committee such
>>> as Gym Jordan who were already implicated in the insurrection.
>>> Charlie McCarthy immediately started whining even though it was
>>> *obviously* the right thing to do.  You can't trust these assholes to
>>> do the right thing and recuse themselves so you just have to tell
>>> them to fuck off.
>>
>> What obstructive power would they have had as committee members?  I
>> don't see that they can be disqualified for being probable assholes.
>>
> They could hinder an investigation pretty well.

Unless they'd have something akin to veto/filibuster power (which I
doubt), all they could do is withhold unanimity. I'm sure there's an
aspect here I'm not getting, but I'm not getting it...

On 6/12/2022 7:19 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 12:26 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2022 12:38 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/2022 8:54 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:07:06 -0500, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.rawstory.com/fox-didn-t-have-a-choice-but-to-bury-the-j6-hearings-because-the-evidence-implicates-their-own-network-nyt-reporter/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fox 'didn't have a choice' but to bury the J6 hearings — because the
>>>>>>> evidence implicates their own network: reporter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should Fox carry a show trial where they stacked the Dems stacked
>>>>>> the deck and removed people who might have asked difficult questions?
>>>>>> It reminds me of the McCarthy hearings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which such people were "removed"?
>>>>>
>>>> Two of the originally proposed republicans voted against impeaching
>>>> trump. Though many of the Rs who were apalled at what happened in
>>>> the following days, also voted against impeachment.
>>>
>>> Were they removed, against their will, from the Jan6 committee?
>>>
>> No, just rejected by Pelosi. It was thought that they might obstruct
>> the investigation.
>
> Since they were submitted by the Minority Leader specifically to
> obstruct and sabotage it that's a pretty good thought.

But how could they? E.g., maybe they were submitted to be rejected...

On 6/12/2022 7:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 8:26 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 6/12/2022 3:25 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2022 4:38 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/2022 2:26 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/2022 12:38 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2022 8:54 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:07:06 -0500, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rawstory.com/fox-didn-t-have-a-choice-but-to-bury-the-j6-hearings-because-the-evidence-implicates-their-own-network-nyt-reporter/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fox 'didn't have a choice' but to bury the J6 hearings —
>>>>>>>>>> because the
>>>>>>>>>> evidence implicates their own network: reporter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why should Fox carry a show trial where they stacked the Dems
>>>>>>>>> stacked
>>>>>>>>> the deck and removed people who might have asked difficult
>>>>>>>>> questions?
>>>>>>>>> It reminds me of the McCarthy hearings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which such people were "removed"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two of the originally proposed republicans voted against
>>>>>>> impeaching trump. Though many of the Rs who were apalled at what
>>>>>>> happened in the following days, also voted against impeachment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were they removed, against their will, from the Jan6 committee?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, just rejected by Pelosi. It was thought that they might
>>>>> obstruct the investigation.
>>>>
>>>> What the fuck, pig?  Hall monitor suzee doesn't know anything.
>>>> Pelosi rejected right wing assholes from being on the committee such
>>>> as Gym Jordan who were already implicated in the insurrection.
>>>> Charlie McCarthy immediately started whining even though it was
>>>> *obviously* the right thing to do.  You can't trust these assholes
>>>> to do the right thing and recuse themselves so you just have to tell
>>>> them to fuck off.
>>>
>>> What obstructive power would they have had as committee members?  I
>>> don't see that they can be disqualified for being probable assholes.
>>>
>> They could hinder an investigation pretty well.
>
> Unless they'd have something akin to veto/filibuster power (which I
> doubt), all they could do is withhold unanimity.  I'm sure there's an
> aspect here I'm not getting, but I'm not getting it...
>
I dunno. But maybe they could have bogged it down and drawn it out till
next year. Getting nowhere.

On 6/13/2022 3:20 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 9:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 6/12/2022 8:26 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2022 3:25 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/2022 4:38 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2022 2:26 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2022 12:38 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2022 8:54 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:07:06 -0500, trotsky
>>>>>>>>>> <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rawstory.com/fox-didn-t-have-a-choice-but-to-bury-the-j6-hearings-because-the-evidence-implicates-their-own-network-nyt-reporter/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fox 'didn't have a choice' but to bury the J6 hearings —
>>>>>>>>>>> because the
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence implicates their own network: reporter
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why should Fox carry a show trial where they stacked the Dems
>>>>>>>>>> stacked
>>>>>>>>>> the deck and removed people who might have asked difficult
>>>>>>>>>> questions?
>>>>>>>>>> It reminds me of the McCarthy hearings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which such people were "removed"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two of the originally proposed republicans voted against
>>>>>>>> impeaching trump. Though many of the Rs who were apalled at what
>>>>>>>> happened in the following days, also voted against impeachment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Were they removed, against their will, from the Jan6 committee?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, just rejected by Pelosi. It was thought that they might
>>>>>> obstruct the investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> What the fuck, pig?  Hall monitor suzee doesn't know anything.
>>>>> Pelosi rejected right wing assholes from being on the committee
>>>>> such as Gym Jordan who were already implicated in the insurrection.
>>>>> Charlie McCarthy immediately started whining even though it was
>>>>> *obviously* the right thing to do.  You can't trust these assholes
>>>>> to do the right thing and recuse themselves so you just have to
>>>>> tell them to fuck off.
>>>>
>>>> What obstructive power would they have had as committee members?  I
>>>> don't see that they can be disqualified for being probable assholes.
>>>>
>>> They could hinder an investigation pretty well.
>>
>> Unless they'd have something akin to veto/filibuster power (which I
>> doubt), all they could do is withhold unanimity.  I'm sure there's an
>> aspect here I'm not getting, but I'm not getting it...
>
>
> Hey it's not your fault, you just need some more knowledge here.  If you
> know how to use a search engine, see if you can find some information on
> when people are supposed to recuse themselves in legal proceedings.  Now
> take this information and extrapolate to the Jan 6th committee, where
> pieces of shit like Jordan would never recuse himself because he's
> maxxed out on how corrupt he is, you can't get any more corrupt that
> being absolutely corrupt.  What good could he possibly do on the
> committee?  None.  Compare what he stands for to what Liz Cheney said.
> She was at least showing a semblance of having justice in mind, and did
> a good job presenting this.
>
> https://www.npr.org/2021/07/21/1018850848/pelosi-rejects-2-gop-nominees-for-the-jan-6-panel-citing-integrity-of-the-probe
>
>
> Pelosi Rejects 2 GOP Nominees For The Jan. 6 Panel, Citing The Integrity
> Of The Probe
>
> And so we're clear she rejected exactly two people while there was much
> whining and gnashing of teeth from House Minority Leader Charlie McCarthy.

Yeah, that's clarifying. I suppose rejecting them is more acceptable if
(as she implied) there's concern that they'd, e.g., leak proceedings.

On 6/15/2022 1:55 AM, super70s wrote:
> On 2022-06-13 07:23:57 +0000, trotsky said:
>
>> On 6/12/2022 9:50 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2022 7:19 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/2022 12:26 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/2022 12:38 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2022 8:54 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2022 11:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:07:06 -0500, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rawstory.com/fox-didn-t-have-a-choice-but-to-bury-the-j6-hearings-because-the-evidence-implicates-their-own-network-nyt-reporter/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fox 'didn't have a choice' but to bury the J6 hearings —
>>>>>>>>>> because the
>>>>>>>>>> evidence implicates their own network: reporter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why should Fox carry a show trial where they stacked the Dems
>>>>>>>>> stacked
>>>>>>>>> the deck and removed people who might have asked difficult
>>>>>>>>> questions?
>>>>>>>>> It reminds me of the McCarthy hearings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which such people were "removed"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two of the originally proposed republicans voted against
>>>>>>> impeaching trump. Though many of the Rs who were apalled at what
>>>>>>> happened in the following days, also voted against impeachment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were they removed, against their will, from the Jan6 committee?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, just rejected by Pelosi. It was thought that they might
>>>>> obstruct the investigation.
>>>>
>>>> Since they were submitted by the Minority Leader specifically to
>>>> obstruct and sabotage it that's a pretty good thought.
>>>
>>> But how could they?  E.g., maybe they were submitted to be rejected...
>>
>>
>> https://www.npr.org/2021/07/19/1018136264/gop-leader-mccarthy-taps-5-republicans-to-serve-on-jan-6-select-committee
>>
>>
>> GOP Leader McCarthy Taps 5 Republicans To Serve On Jan. 6 Select
>> Committee
>>
>> I don't know what happened with the other three, they were probably
>> too scared shitless to do anything.
>
> IIRC McCarthy said either take all 5 or we're taking our marbles and
> going home. Gave him a good excuse to withdraw and claim it's a pure
> partisan exercise.

Ah, that makes more sense ...though I'm still puzzled that a
committee-chair and -majority wouldn't suffice to squash unseemly behavior.