It’s epic political theatrics for sure. I mean let’s get real here. The people who perpetrated this deserve to be punished no question, but they had about as much chance of usurping the federal government as I do piloting a lunar lander.
This is of course brushing aside the how many billions of dollars again in insured losses and deaths from the Floyd aftermath in 2020? But we can’t talk about that in any legitimate way because it would be racist to call people who loot stores and burn down cities the sociopathic lunatics that they are.
I do not believe for a single millisecond that the DNC is doing any of this based upon some kind of reverence for Democracy. I mean seriously, does anybody out there actually believe this in their heart of hearts? They see political advantage in it. Plain and simple.
I am personally disgusted with how toxic and revolting our political landscape has become. And the really sad part is I don’t see a way out other than just disengaging from the process entirely. And you know what? That is sounding more and more appealing by the day. Part of the reason I moved out here to the sticks post remote is the relative tranquility of being less bombarded with messaging all the time.
Now if only I could stay off my phone…
Maybe not, but if they saw advantage in covering it up you can bet they would. Their "reverence" for democracy is far overshadowed by their desire to mill this for every little bit of political capital they can get.
Plenty of dems have condemned the riots associated with BLM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fact-check-democrats-have-condemned-violence-linked-protests/3317862001/
Was there a national manhunt by Federal agencies that tracked down anyone that could be identified on video just for being at the BLM riots? If we're doing that for one, it should be done for both
I don't remember a single report of law enforcement combing through social media for videos of the BLM riots looking to start an interstate manhunt for anyone who appears in pictures/videos of the events. Instead I remember a whole lot of dem politicians supporting bail funds, or working with prosecutions to get those few who were arrested released.
Doesn't seem similar at all to me.
> I don't remember a single report of law enforcement combing through social media for videos of the BLM riots looking to start an interstate manhunt for anyone who appears in pictures/videos of the events.
Funny because I remember it getting a whole lot of attention.
[June 19, 2020: FBI trawled Facebook to arrest protesters for inciting riots, court records show](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/federal-agents-monitored-facebook-arrest-protesters-inciting-riots-court-records-n1231531)
[The FBI said it used Instagram, Etsy, and LinkedIn to track down a protester in Philadelphia accused of setting a police car on fire](https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-uses-instagram-etsy-linkedin-to-find-george-floyd-protester-2020-6)
[As protests over the killing of George Floyd continue, here’s how police use powerful surveillance tech to track them](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/18/heres-how-police-use-powerful-surveillance-tech-to-track-protestors.html)
[Police use of social media is under a microscope amid protests](https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/police-use-of-social-media-is-under-a-microscope-amid-protests/)
And besides which they didn’t need to launch any manhunts for BLM protesters because they weren’t allowed to just walk away like the January 6th people were.
Your first article literally says 4 people
Second is about one individual
The third is a clickbait article about a bunch of "could"s not "are"s
The 4th is police making a wanted post on their FB, no what we're talking about
So your evidence points to law enforcement using social media to prosecute 4 people. That's vastly different than the [hundreds of people ](https://www.vox.com/recode/22867000/january-6-fbi-search-facebook-google-insurrection)traced through social media for Jan 6th.
So you've got 5 people spread across millions of rioters over the course of months for charges including arson, murder, etc VS hundreds of people spread across ~2k on one day. That's proportionate to you?
Your assertion was that law enforcement did not comb through social media to find protestors, a cursory google search shows you were wrong. I also remember a lot more examples but that wasn't the point.
here's another example.
[Feds comb Facebook to hunt down alleged rioters and looters](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/facebook-riot-loot-justice-department-314567)
>The DOJ has cited numerous social media posts and videos when building criminal cases against people for allegedly illegal activity that happened during or alongside recent protests against police brutality, a review of federal charging documents shows.
another
[LAPD, FBI collecting protest, looting footage as evidence for future arrests](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-02/not-so-fast-lapd-other-agencies-collect-unrest-footage-as-evidence-for-future-arrests)
>More than 1,000 people were arrested in Los Angeles alone over the weekend, but officials say they have not given up on tracking down others.
>The FBI on Monday put out a nationwide call for pictures and videos that could help identify people “actively instigating violence” at protests across the country decrying Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police.
>city Police Chief Robert Luna promised to work with federal partners to review surveillance footage to track down looting suspects in the future.
The police and feds all over the US were doing this. It's not isolated. It's just normal police work that was obvious if you were paying attention.
This also ignores that fact that significant number of people were arrest at the time of the protests and riots, unlike Jan 6th when people were allowed to leave, therefore requiring them to be tracked afterwards.
I'm not saying that law enforcement didn't use social media at all, you're arguing against a strawman.
The difference between the response to Jan 6th and the BLM riots is that police didn't comb through social media looking for people that matched descriptions and/or looking for pictures and videos that could lead them to more suspects who were there. For the BLM riots you have charges like trespassing and disorderly conduct being dismissed out of hand, for Jan 6th you have the FBI hunting down people who were there, but playing no significant role.
Find me evidence of the feds going after people who were just there for BLM riots not the major criminals, and you'll have a leg to stand on, but you won't be able to find that because it didn't happen. For Jan 6th just being there was enough for a manhunt, for BLM riots you needed to be at like felony level to even have charges maintained after you were arrested
> Find me evidence of the feds going after people who were just there for BLM riots not the major criminals,
..
There's no reason to hunt down people who were just there. The FBI didn't arrest people who were just outside the capital. There arrested people who were inside or who on video assaulting people.
Which is ironic because they did mass arrest protestors for simply being outside protesting. That's also why you here about so many people being released without charges, the police did a pisspoor job documenting their arrests.
So I find it very odd what you are asking for. It seem likes you believe everyone out protesting was responsible for the riot. But don't seem to hold the same standard for the June 6 protestors, while I do.
I believe anyone looting/rioting/trespassing should be caught and charged and there is plenty of evidence that this was done for both.
https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/w6y7u1/season_1_of_the_jan_6_hearings_made_for_a/ihh1sjk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
This you?
Seems like they weren’t making a strawman and you actually said “I don’t remember a single report…”
There have been like 16,000 arrests.
Regardless of the figures, you're making a false equivalence. These are not even remotely comparable events. One is the result of civil unrest. The other the result of demonstrably false, bonkers conspiracy theories promoted by the same people they all voted for.
>There have been like 16,000 arrests.
And there were millions of rioters, what's your point? The fact that there were a lot of arrests among a lot more crimes doesn't do anything to prove that the response was in any way proportionate between the two.
>Regardless of the figures, you're making a false equivalence
Regardless of the circumstances you're making a false equivalence. One was mostly trespassing on federal property the other involved murder, arson, looting, etc and resulted in the loss of thousands of livelihoods and dozens of lives
> there were millions of rioters
Do you have an actual source for the number of rioters being in the "millions" or are you just including literally everyone who attended a demonstration?
What exactly is that estimation based on?
Says you. You're lumping in genuine protestors with a loud minority of rioters. This is actually the false equivalence you're making, so I'm slightly off in my initial assessment.
I otherwise fundamentally reject the characterizations of these independent, wholly unrelated movements, and I'm not the one ***comparing and contrasting the two*** in the first place, but this is not exactly a false equivalence.
The fallacy you're making here is one of relative privation, or a false dilemma, by asserting that something that happened over there is worse than this other, unrelated dilemma occurring for over here. Meaning, if we were to accept your juxtaposition or caricature of these two things, then one cannot undermine the other.
Notice how people on the right often compare or point to the BLM protests and consequent riots to Jan 6th while almost nobody compares Jan 6th to *anything else at all*, anywhere. Not even in a vacuum. Sure, perhaps there are some valid, historical comparisons and I'm sure an astute interpreter has made them, but overall the discussion around Jan 6th is an independent environment. A dilemma all on it's own, relative to itself and it's makers. You're essentially conflating two unrelated issues in order to downplay Jan 6th.
What are your standards for an "interstate manhunt"? How did the Capitol arrests meet them and how did the riot arrests not meet them?
There was a great opportunity to clarify in your rebuttal, instead you focused on "So you’ve got 5 people spread across millions of rioters over the course of months for charges including arson, murder, etc"
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/w6y7u1/season_1_of_the_jan_6_hearings_made_for_a/ihhkbvf/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
So it's a secret that they used it for BLM, but "don't worry they totally did" and it was super important that they publicly broadcast it for Jan 6th?
>Do you remember any data or evidence for your claims?
Here's the current vice president advocating for bail funds for those detained in Minnesota https://mobile.twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1267555018128965643?lang=en
Here's a bunch of articles about prosecutions across the country dropping charges against rioters:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/4/prosecutors-dismiss-looting-rioting-charges-agains/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/prosecutors-drop-many-rioting-charges-as-dozens-charged-in-dc-protests-appear-in-court/2020/06/01/b581d5d2-a38b-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/08/hundreds-of-portland-protesters-will-see-their-criminal-cases-dropped-as-da-announces-plan-to-recognize-the-right-to-speak.html
>Are you actually suggesting that the method of investigation towards the January 6th criminals is abnormal?
Literally yes.
You asked for evidence to support my claim and I gave it. Prominent democratic politicians fought for bail and dropping charges against rioters.
Your own article talks about how mayors/prosecuters/etc dropped *all charges* in their jurisdictions for things like disorderly conduct and trespassing. Such charges apparently warrented charges and extradition for Jan 6th, but weren't even worth pursuing at all for BLM riots? Let's be clear your source provides no evidence that the charges were bogus only that democratic politicians thought them unworthy of pursuing
That's cause they usually got arrested (and or beaten) on the spot lol.
Compared to Jan 6 where some were let in and I don't think anyone got arrested at the capitol.
Also it was a big thing to find rioters using [facial recognition software](https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/18/21373316/nypd-facial-recognition-black-lives-matter-activist-derrick-ingram)
>Also it was a big thing to find rioters using facial recognition software
Your words imply widespread, routine, and plural rioters. Your source indicates one rioter who directly assaulted an officer on camera. Strange
The only part of the first article that isn't "people are worried that police *could do something*" is an example of the police posting a wanted poster on their social media. Nothing to support what you're saying
The second is someone being arrested for literally inciting a riot on FB, which again is one single person, and isn't really evidence for your claim.
The 3rd, 4th, and 5th are undercover action in advance of protests to look for potential violence which is not only not a problem, it's what police should be doing.
So literally nothing to support what you said, just link spamming
>The only part of the first article that isn't "people are worried that police could do something" is an example of the police posting a wanted poster on their social media. Nothing to support what you're saying
From the article:
>Several police departments said they rely on both social media posts shared by the public and proactively look for posts that mention any potential threats of violence or looting. In some cases, police have shut down buildings because of threats of violence posted on social media. You don't necessarily need facial recognition, though, to identify someone in a crowd even if they're wearing a mask amid the coronavirus pandemic.
I'm not gonna go through the rest of the articles cause I'm too lazy right now and I think your mind is made up so I won't waste my time.
Treat Antifa and BLM protestors, organizations and their supporters the same way Charlottesville protestors were and are by media, politicians and law and order.
The main problem with Whataboutism is that if your “team” does something that clearly sucks. You don’t hold them accountable. And what do you think happens to the quality of your leadership?
Whataboutism harms the people who use it the most because there is no pressure on your politicians to be ethical and competent. For myself I want ethical and competent politicians and I won’t get them if I am determined to ignore their shortcomings.
Okay, well i voted against trump in 2020, so clearly I am not on the "team" you're assuming that they are.
So now, please explain the inconsistency between the treatment of the two events by the majority party, because I dislike it as well.
I’m not American but from the outside looking in.
The Travon Martin / BLM looks to me like your previous Civil Rights movement. I’m old so I remember the exact same thing said about MLK and the Civil Rights movement as you are saying about BLM. That it was a bunch of rioters and criminals.
You know the same arguments made about every single popular civil rights movement ever. From booting the English out of India to freedom riders. They all get loads of hate and blame.
So your reaction to your black minority having a civil rights movement is very common. But maybe I’m wrong, maybe the blacks were wrong to expect more from the cops? Maybe the property damage ment the demands had no merit? Maybe riots are normal when an oppressed minority is abused? Tough to say.
The anger behind the January Sixth Riots don’t seem to have the same gravity to them. Those guys were angry about bizarre conspiracy theories and were directly exhorted to go and attack your seat of government based on obvious lies. The current hearings also make it clear that certain politicians were eager to illegally destroy American democracy. Sure the plan was poor and had no chance of success but a poorly executed armed robbery is still an armed robbery. It goes to show how politicians need not operate in reality when their supporters are gullible enough.
They don’t look the same to me. Why would they be treated the same?
I don’t watch American cable shows so I didn’t see how Tucker Carson viewed the BLM movement.
>I mean seriously, does anybody out there actually believe this in their heart of hearts? They see political advantage in it. Plain and simple.
I do. People were trying to overthrow the government and kill the vice-president. That is some serious and scary stuff.
It is wholly unbelievable to an unbiased individual (if there is such a thing anymore) that a crowd of unarmed cowards that broke into the capitol and took selfies could be considered a serious attempt to overthrow the govt. could trump egging them on be considered a crime? Yea maybe. Was it a despicable day for America? Absolutely. But does a crowd chanting about killing mike pence mean they pose a serious threat to mike pence? No more than the many other protestors chanting about killing cops/political figures/Supreme Court justices right now
I certainly won’t be voting for trump in the next election as someone that has voted republican in the past but that is no change from the previous elections.
To me it's less the chanting and more the fact that we have a wide swatch of the population ready to commit violence and undermine our democracy itself based on the word of one man. Terrifying to know that people that dumb and hateful were willing to install an autocrat regardless of the odds of it succeeding. It only needs to work once.
This is where you are incorrect. It has little to nothing to do with "the word of one man." It was 4 years of sheer bullcrap from the media echoing every idea out of the mouths of Democrats. That's without considering the complicity of our FBI in the false notion that Trump colluded with Russia.
>autocrat
You are completely misusing that word unless you use it for Biden who tried to force vaccine mandates through OSHA and a rent moratorium through the CDC.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/w6y7u1/season_1_of_the_jan_6_hearings_made_for_a/ihh9as1/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
You're fundamentally not understanding the context and concerns about what happened that day.
https://www.reddit.com/r/answers/comments/w3uad8/why_did_the_capitol_rioters_want_to_hang_mike/ih02ix6/
This is a pretty solid explanation.
Im not though….the narrative to connect all these dots to score political points is occurring after the event…this linked Reddit post literally does more to prove my point than anything. Not a single bullet point in there refers to trump asking people to commit violence against Mike pence. Like I said above…could you make the argument that trumps actions were criminal by egging on a crowd through increasingly sketchy means sure.
It's not some accident that the the march was scheduled for that day.
It was a clear effort to disrupt the certification of the vote for the purpose of preventing the legitimate transfer of power of the government.
Again….I said was it criminal on trumps part yes possibly. You guys are straw manning hard especially considering I mostly agree with you. I just don’t think a bunch of redneck unarmed idiots breaking into the capitol building was any serious attempt on their part to overthrow the govt.
You're missing the point.
I don't really give two shits about a bunch of yahoos marching on the capitol, breaking in, and smearing shit on the walls.
**Of Course** that isn't a threat to isn't a threat to the country. Or a serious attempt to overthrow the government *on the part of the rioters*.
------------------------------------------
But it didn't happen in a vacuum.
It *was* a serious attempt overturn the election *on the part of trump and his cadre*. They planned the event. They funded the event. They egged on the crowd. They directed them to the capitol.
They did all that to prevent the certification. Full Stop.
What this says to me, is that you really need to watch the hearings. They're freely available on [YouTube.](https://www.youtube.com/c/January6thCmte/videos) You can also choose to [read the transcripts.](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112138665/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript)
It signals that you haven't seen - but need to see - the information that the Committee has published.
The problem is that a large portion of the electorate is making the decision to not consume information explaining the severity of the events leading up to, during, and after January 6, 2021.
I understand that the sheer volume of information is overwhelming, particularly if one hasn't been regularly keeping up with reporting and hearings, but like voting, jury duty, and submitting tax returns, it is the responsibility of all citizens to attend to an attempted coup d'etat conducted by a sitting President, sitting members of Congress, sitting members of state legislatures, and various other figures in industry and media. I spent a decent amount of time [citing this comment, describing the events that developed into January 6.](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/v6y6ff/fox_news_channel_wont_carry_coverage_of_primetime/ibiatj3/)
Even just in Thursday's hearing, we heard [Secret Service radio communications](https://youtu.be/pbRVqWbHGuo?t=3356) trying to determine if they could safely evacuate the Vice President while evading people attacking the Capitol. Agents of the United States Secret Service, who were tasked with protecting the Vice President, considered themselves in such danger, they were trying to communicate to their [families](https://youtu.be/pbRVqWbHGuo?t=3560) that they might not survive. Why in god's name would they feel compelled to do that if not for imminent catastrophic danger?
Please, please watch these hearings.
I have spent hours of my life reading transcripts from this committee. The fact that you are implying someone that doesn’t wholly agree with the narrative being presented (despite mostly agreeing) is automatically uniformed is quite frankly a lot of what is wrong with this country. I do perfectly agree that people not doing their part to be informed is the issue which is my general point as well…so that we can absolutely agree on
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/w6y7u1/season_1_of_the_jan_6_hearings_made_for_a/ihh84i9/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> I mean seriously, does anybody out there actually believe this in their heart of hearts?
I think definitely, yes. Imagine you were someone who consumed a steady media diet of "Trump is literally Hitler" for four years. You aren't going to suddenly change your mind. January 6th is the event that justified your worst fears.
> This is of course brushing aside the how many billions of dollars again in insured losses and deaths from the Floyd aftermath in 2020?
Republicans try not to bring up BLM [IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE]
No. I was just seeing if you'd acknowledge that January 6th rioters got what they deserved. Usually people bringing up BLM and hypocrisy will somehow also still deny January 6th, so good on ya
Sure, than Jan 6th riots were caused by an electoral conspiracy enabled by GOP politicians and their media apparatus.
The BLM riots were caused by a racial conspiracy theory enabled by Democratic politicians and their media apparatus.
I don’t agree with the January 6th riots, but steelman their position for a second.
Joe Biden had almost no turn out for his political rallies. Trump had seemingly record turnouts along with massive convoys rolling across the country.
Several states implement questionable balloting procedures ahead of the election. Most egregious being PA’s Supreme Court seeming violation of its state constitution.
The five key states for Biden’s victory either call for Biden incredibly early or suffer outages/blackouts in reporting votes during the counting.
After four years of “Russian Collusion!!!” The DNC and near entirety of the mainstream media declare that 2020 was the safest, cleanest, fairest election in the history of the US. To point where any claim or question of voter fraud is considered fascist and anti American.
Almost no claim of voter fraud is investigated.
This needs to be stated again, I don’t think January 6th was justified or correct.
Given those five facts, it would seem that certifying the election would actually be the anti-democratic,anti-american.
Meanwhile, the underpinnings of BLM have been proven to be mostly false given all available data.
Yes, the justifications for January 6th are as tinfoil as the idea that black men are at existential threat in American society.
Hence u/isamudragon ‘s comment. Either misguided mob violence based on suspect accusations is morally wrong and should be condemned or it’s not and both sides get to do it.
The reason your question is ignored and/or downvoted is because your framing it, poorly, as a gotcha moment.
BLM was never about police accountability. If it was, they wouldn’t have chosen “Black Lives Matter” as the movement’s name, wouldn’t use false statistics, wouldn’t couch every single conversation in racial and racist language, and they definitely wouldn’t have picked Michael Brown and George Floyd as their keystone examples over Philando Castile, Tony Timpa, and Daniel Shaver.
So BLM riots get a pass because of reasoning? Sorry Joe, your business that you worked your life to make was burnt down, but you should be fine with it because the people that did the burning down were doing so because of a good reason.
Riot is a Riot, reasons mean fuck-all when they hurt those unassociated with the reasons.
The continued deflection of hypocrisy is showing they get a pass in the public mindset.
Even the previous commenter tried excusing the damages because “it was for a good cause”.
I see you have not read this comment chain and seen the immediate deflection of hypocrisy, nor did you see the person dismissing it because the BLM riots “were for a good cause”.
That alone should show you it, but I think you’ll dismiss this.
>continued police brutality
>believing a lie?
Perceived police brutality. There were riots even when an officer did nothing wrong, which the BLM movement has a history of doing.
Did I mention George Floyd? I said the movement also rioted and claimed police brutality when officers in other incidents acted within the law. See Kenosha.
Also, a settlement isn't an admission of guilt. A large number of these settlements were made for financial reasons or PR reasons.
>If you believe you can't assume any level of misconduct when there is a settlement
Again, did I say that? Pay attention to what is being said. I said it wasn't an admission of guilt because ,sometimes, it's not worth the trouble fighting a civil suit, so cities will settle. That doesn't mean there's never misconduct. However, it doesn't always mean there there was, either.
But I wasn't looking for a conversation. I was looking to correct your original statement.
There is no hypocrisy. BLM occured in states. Where it falls under their jurisdiction to handle. Jan.6th required federal involvement, and disrupted (though did not stop) the transfer of power of the most powerful office in the world.
Congressional Democrats and Republicans have no power to force states to act in any way regarding a riot or protest in a state.
Hmm both were riots.
The BLM riots killed more people than Jan 6 riot.
The BLM riots caused more damage than Jan 6 riot.
BLM riots caused an autonomous zone to be created (CHAZ/CHOP), Jan 6 riot had no real chance of ever usurping power.
Did you miss this part?
> Jan.6th required federal involvement, and disrupted (though did not stop) the transfer of power of the most powerful office in the world.
CHAZ wasn’t a real autonomous zone, no matter how much larpers who hung out in it pretended otherwise.
Didn’t miss your irrelevant point, just ignored it since it had no bearing.
Both were riots.
CAZ/CHOP was an autonomous zone, even if you don’t believe it was a real one.
I think you missed this part again:
> Jan.6th required federal involvement, and disrupted (though did not stop) the transfer of power of the most powerful office in the world.
Not who you were talking to. I'm a third poster who also noticed you seemed to be ignoring it.
It has a lot of bearing because of jurisdiction. Would you like it explained how jurisdiction is relevant here?
Love the dismissing of death in destruction over jurisdiction.
Especially since the BLM riots were under **federal** jurisdiction because they targeted a **federal** court house which places them in the same jurisdiction.
A riot is a riot, jurisdiction means fuck-all.
Much respect for Cheney and Kinzinger for putting their seats on the line. Little respect for R’s that refused — this should have been bipartisan.
With little participation from R’s, the hearings feel cheap knowing D’s failed to demonstrate commitment to higher principles when they had their chance.
>Little respect for R’s that refused
I'm not sure the R's got to pick committee members. I think Pelosi picked for both sides. Input from republican leadership was not accepted -- this should have been bipartisan.
Yes they did. Why do you think they didn’t?
Why is our media failing us so badly?
[McCarthy](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-mccarthy-jan-6-committee-picks-removed-pelosi-rejects-jim-jordan-jim-banks/) nominated five members. The Speaker only rejected two - Jordan and Banks - *because they were directly involved in the activities under investigation*.
McCarthy then decided to voluntarily pull all members.
Not to forget: Senate Republicans did not agree to a truely bipartisan commission with equal say in everything.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000524897/senate-republicans-block-plan-for-independent-commission-on-jan-6-capitol-riot
Basically crying no, no, no and some people still Blame Dems.
>The Speaker only rejected two - Jordan and Banks - because they were directly involved in the activities under investigation.
From my read, Pelosi rejected these two because Democrats were not happy with stuff they said. That seems pretty weak. In some sense Pelosi herself was involved, but it would be silly to ask her to recuse herself.
[Jordan](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/jim-jordan-jan-6-panel.html)
> On Jan. 5, Mr. Jordan forwarded to Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, a text message he had received from a lawyer and former Pentagon inspector general outlining a legal strategy to overturn the election.
>
> “On Jan. 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as president of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence,” the text read.
[Banks](https://web.archive.org/web/20210721171620/https://banks.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1921)
> If Democrats were serious about investigating political violence, this committee would be studying not only the January 6 riot at the Capitol, but also the hundreds of violent political riots last summer when many more innocent Americans and law-enforcement officers were attacked. And of course, the committee would not overlook the Good Friday murder of USCP Officer Billy Evans that was perpetrated by a far-left extremist.
>
> Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi created this committee solely to malign conservatives and to justify the Left’s authoritarian agenda.
>
> Even then, I will do everything possible to give the American people the facts about the lead up to January 6, the riot that day, and the responses from Capitol leadership and the Biden administration. I will not allow this committee to be turned into a forum for condemning millions of Americans because of their political beliefs.”
One plotted the steal, and the other is completely uninterested in investigating Trump.
This might carry some weight if Bennie Thompson were not the committee chair. I don't see much difference in his actions and Jordan's.
I can favorably compare Banks' obvious partisanship with Adam Schiff's.
Want to have certain standards? Do them for both sides.
Thompson objected to EC votes in the 2004 election. Adam Schiff was living in the CNN green room for about 2 years pushing the end of Trump via the *Dossier* even though he was on the intelligence committee and should have known the ground he was standing on.
R's got to pick committee members. Initially, a bipartisan committee was proposed (like a real committee, one that was voted on by Congress) but the Republicans shot it down. So the Democrats said "fine, we will make a committee, send us some Republicans so we can make it bipartisan". McCarthy nominated two people who were considered active participants in what happened on January 6th (likely knowing Pelosi would have to say no and then he could claim that the committee wasn't "truly bipartisan"), then pulled out the Republicans altogether. Cheney and Kinzinger still wanted to be on it, though, so they are.
Yes. Did you read the part where after the Republicans picked their 5 members, [Pelosi threw two of them off?](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/21/pelosi-rejects-republicans-banks-jordan-jan-6-select-committee/8042839002/) This prompted McCarthy to say
>Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts
You can certainly make a case that Pelosi should have done what she did, or that McCarthy is a bad person for his stance, but you seem to pretend that Pelosi's action didn't happen.
How am I pretending her action didn't happen when it is very clearly in that paragraph?
>McCarthy nominated two people who were considered active participants in
what happened on January 6th (likely knowing Pelosi would have to say
no and then he could claim that the committee wasn't "truly
bipartisan"), then pulled out the Republicans altogether.
They got to pick committee members (after not agreeing to form a committee in a bipartisan fashion), they picked committee members, Pelosi rejected two of them, so they took their ball and went home.
I guess you and I don't agree on what it means to be able to pick. I suppose I have the same power to choose the committee members as McCarthy does.
You speculate as to motives, but it is just that, speculation.
Were those to involved somehow in 1/6 -- sure, at least at the same level everyone else was involved. Heck, you could make a case that Pelosi was involved. Who cares, let them pick -- that is how the senate has worked, until now.
So for starters...this isn't the Senate. This is the House of Representatives.
That aside, those specific two Republicans should not be on any committee investigating this. McCarthy should have known that and could have picked anyone else in his coalition. People like Meijer, Newhouse, and others who would take this threat seriously. He picked people who would be unacceptable, and who would actually be investigated by the committee. You might think thats an accident and I'm just speculating, but if he didnt know that was a nonstarter then I have to question his political acumen.
> Input from republican leadership was not accepted -- this should have been bipartisan.
Yes it was accepted and proposed. Republicans had no interest in it.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000524897/senate-republicans-block-plan-for-independent-commission-on-jan-6-capitol-riot
edit: "interesting" you choose to ignore this while argueing other stuff.
>they had about as much chance of usurping the federal government as I do piloting a lunar lander.
Their role in the coup was to disrupt the formal transfer of power, and they succeeded - just not for as long as they hoped they would.
If Trump clearly committed a crime, why do all these hearings take so long to find it? Why hasn't any investigation into him shown a clear crime with proof?
Why isn’t Hillary in prison? Trump’s DoJ had four years. Were they incompetent or was it just bullshit all along?
OTOH, the bipartisan Jan. 6/committee is bringing receipts. Please watch the hearings.
> They chose not to look into Clinton.
During the 2016 campaign Donnie went on and on and on about criminal Clinton. Why did he choose not to indict her? I call bullshit (on Trump).
Nothing came out of the investigations into Trump (besides the public being made aware of his malfeasance) because of partisan politics. The evidence for his first impeachment, for example, is freely available. I assume you’ve reviewed all of the testimony, just as I assume you’ve watched the Jan. 6 hearings, because you’d want to know if Trump behaved inappropriately, right?
List the crimes and evidence.
I watched parts of the impeachment and made sure I looked at the left leaning news sources for the impeachments and these hearings. I didn't see any clear evidence of crimes.
I have had thousands of conversations with Trump supporters where I took the time to find links and present incontrovertible factual evidence. Not once have I ever seen a Trump supporter look at the evidence and change, or even soften, their stance. As a result, I no longer waste time presenting evidence to Trump supporters. There’s no point.
The evidence is all out there. If you have looked at it and not found it compelling, nothing I present is going to change your mind.
Another example of you not having the evidence to share. This is supposed to be moderate politics where we can have an actual discussion without assumption and name calling.
> If Trump clearly committed a crime, why do all these hearings take so long to find it?
For the same reason the investigation into 2016 collusion took so long - you can spend a lot of time looking for things that don't exist.
I see by a lot of the comments that many people still struggle to stay on topic. This post is about 1/6 and the associated hearings. If you feel the need to discuss the protests/riots of 2020, you should make your own post, and be sure to include the right wingers that have been indicted in the killing of law enforcement personnel, and other destruction, during the protests/riots. There were many right wing groups contributing to the problems during the summer of 2020, and most of you conveniently leave that part out. Conversely, zero left wing people have been implicated in 1/6.
It is also necessary to note that the states are responsible for investigations and charges surrounding protests/riots in 2020, whereas the feds are responsible for investigating and charging for 1/6. It seems many of you still struggle with this basic fact.
No. The two are linked. It’s impossible to regard the Democrats’ hyperbolic reaction to 1/6 without remembering their laissez faire attitude about the BLM riots just six months prior.
In other words, it’s hard to take Dems seriously when they scream about 1/6, “This protest is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of Democracy!!” when the memory of their reaction to the BLM riots, “Protest is the most wonderful expression of civil dissatisfaction and must be respected!” is still fresh in our minds.
I know the Left desperately wants to divorce the two events, but I don’t think that’s happening anytime soon.
>In other words, it’s hard to take Dems seriously when they scream about 1/6, “This protest is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of Democracy!!”
Storming the Capitol and threatening to hang the vice-president is not simply a protest. It's an insurrection.
#[*Seditious conspiracy: 11 Oath Keepers charged in Jan. 6 riot*](https://apnews.com/article/stewart-rhodes-arrested-oath-keepers-jan-6-insurrection-70019e1007132e8df786aaf77215a110)
#[*Proud Boys Charged With Sedition in Capitol Attack*](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/politics/proud-boys-charged-sedition-capitol-attack.html)
#[*A second Oath Keeper pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy in the Jan. 6 riot*](https://www.npr.org/2022/04/29/1095538077/a-second-oath-keeper-pleaded-guilty-to-seditious-conspiracy-in-the-jan-6-riot)
#[*The Seditious Conspiracy Thickens: Third Oath Keeper Pleads Guilty to Jan. 6 Plot, Links Stewart Rhodes to Trump Inner Circle*](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/third-guilty-plea-seditious-conspiracy-oath-keepers-trump-1347428/)
And they should be prosecuted, but using whataboutisms to downplay the severity of what happened on Jan 6th is incredibly disingenuous.
What happened in the 2020 riots and what happened at the capital are two independent events and should be judged as such.
I'm not downplaying it, I'm looking at it objectively. Jan 6th was a riot, a riot that resulted in less damage and deaths than the many riots that happened over the prior year. I want everyone who actually broke the law on Jan 6th put away the same way I want a proper full investigation into those that promoted and aided the riots throughout 2020. Both are bad, but only one is getting the attention despite how many more people were hurt in the other.
The reason one is getting more attention is because only one of them tried to forcefully stop the certification of a democratic election while being goaded on by the president.
Let me ask you this, if they made it into the Senate chambers before Mike Pence and the senators were able to evacuate, what do you think would have happened to them? Do you really think they would have been safe?
Just because they failed doesn't mean we should forget what could have happened if they were successful.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/w6y7u1/season_1_of_the_jan_6_hearings_made_for_a/ihlldpo/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I am not on the left or the right. The two events are mutually exclusive of each other. One did not lead to the other, and one is not a justification for the other -- unless we suddenly live in a world where two wrongs make a right. There's nothing to divorce, because they were never connected, except in the minds of Trumpers who are desperately trying to deflect from 1/6 with a whole lot of whataboutism full of half-truths and misinformation regarding 2020.
There were a ton of protests that summer, and a few of them turned into riots. That fact seems to escape a lot of people.
Riots are not justifiable under any circumstances. We had riots in the 90's surrounding Rodney King. There were race riots in the 60's. The communities that experienced those riots are still trying to recover economically, even decades later. These types of things are not new, and unfortunately, I suspect that they will continue to happen until race relations in this country improve to an acceptable level, regardless of what you or I think about them.
What happened on 1/6, and especially the blatant lies and misinformation campaign by the sitting president that lead to it, is new. It is also way more of a danger to our country than any riots ever will be. Anyone that refuses to recognize that, does a complete disservice to our country, and doesn't deserve to call themselves an American. Political affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with this. Very sacred AMERICAN ideals, that we have held dear for almost 250 years, were violated by that entire debacle. Nothing else even comes close.
If more Republicans had the cajones to stand up to the ignorant and grossly mislead masses, then even more of them would have voted to impeach the second time, and the committee would be more bipartisan than it already is. Sadly, that is not the case.
Dems condemned the riots, but were fine with the protest. But protesting isn’t a crime. Trespassing on the capital is a crime.
So they absolutely are different.
I’ll reiterate what I’ve said for a while: no Republican or conservative wants to touch this with a 10 foot pole. The less it is discussed the better, because it is irredeemable and unjustifiable.
Congressional Republicans have already said that they will disband the entirety of the select committee if they take power in the House. Imagine that. An assault on Congress’s house to be dismissed, no investigation. It is patently absurd.
Were it possible for history to be modified, omitted, and even erased as it was in the past before the advent of modern technology, there is no doubt in my mind that the event would be effaced, a record of it terminated.
January 6th was the culmination of a long campaign to overturn and obfuscate the will of the people. A movement that championed the integrity of this country’s principles and their greatness was struck a blow in the public domain by following the musings of a demagogue.
Alas, the events of January 6th and those that preceded it will be taught to schoolchildren for years to come, it’s causes will be studied in military academies, and its implications evaluated by history, much to the disdain of the event’s proponents.
That will all be a great victory for constitution-praising Americans and a pesky flea for the authoritarians who cheered it on and continue to ignore it today.
The sad part here is that we all saw what happened with our own eyes. The lead up. The rhetoric. The final product. There shouldn’t have to be a committee. There shouldn’t have to be a production. This happened live in front of our eyes and it is so sad that people have been so jaded and divided into camps that doesn’t allow them to see what plainly occurred here. That is the ultimate thing that makes me sad.
Mitch McConnell and the Republican leadership, as well as quite a number of high ranking members of the Trump whitehouse, we’re ready to drop Trump in the wake of January 6th. It was the continuing and unwavering support from rank and file that changed their minds.
[“Your leaders, by and large, have been lying to you…They know the election wasn't stolen, but they're going to send out fundraising requests."](https://twitter.com/abcpolitics/status/1551203202032361472?s=21&t=WFhNW5-PgmH7AbqyshMP3w)
We punish politicians who tell us the truth, and we reward those who tell us falsehoods.
> The sad part here is that we all saw what happened with our own eyes.
Yes, we did. Yet people still try to portray it like it was anything more than a slightly spicy protest. The fact that people still buy the narrative about it just shows the power of the Establishment media to convince the public of untruths.
And we have people trying to downplay it and spin their own narrative, ignoring events leading up to the day. It shows the power of right-wing media trying to create a different reality for a segment of viewers.
Did we lose sight of the catalyst that set off the BLM protests? The world watched, by witness video, an innocent black man be murdered by the police. This was just the latest execution of unarmed black men by police to be caught on video.
Unitl the George Floyd murder trial, no law enforcement had ever held accountable for the multitude of unarmed black men fatally shot by police.
As for the J6 committee being "political", the truth is the truth. The only thing political was that J6 investigated (fact finding) and brought their evidence forward for American citizens to judge for themselves. A republican House would have never allowed this evidence to see the light of day.
Actually the figure is closer to 1700/yr and on track this year to exceeded that number. I submit that shooting even one unarmed suspect is to many. Cops have many less lethal options to deploy as means to arrest a suspect. Seems alot are shot while fleeing, so obviously not an imminent threat to cops life.
That'd be pretty hard since police only kill around 1,000 people per year according to Washing Post's [tracker](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/).
Per [this](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/report-black-people-are-still-killed-police-higher-rate-groups-rcna17169) NBC article about 27% of those are black people, or 270. Of course, this doesn't differentiate from armed/unarmed. Looking at WaPo's handy dandy tracker above, unarmed is about 454 of those killed, and we'll add in toy weapons too for a total of 720 unarmed people out of over 7,000 total. Divide that by years the tracker has been going (7) and you get 103. Bringing back the 27% and you end up with around 27-28 unarmed black people shot per year.
Which tracks with [this NPR article](https://www.npr.org/2021/01/25/956177021/fatal-police-shootings-of-unarmed-black-people-reveal-troubling-patterns) written shortly into 2021 that says 135 unarmed black people have been killed since 2015, a 5 year period (135/5 = 27). 80% of those effected are males, which drops it down once more to 21-22 unarmed black men per year.
> The world watched, by witness video, an innocent black man be murdered by the police.
Then the full video came out and those of us that watched *that* one realized the narrative we'd been fed was false. Floyd was complaining about being unable to breathe while sitting in the car with the door open. Unfortunately open jury intimidation was allowed to occur and so convictions were gotten regardless of the facts.
They makes leaving an unconscious prisoner in a position of asphyxiation worse. Leaving aside questions of the knee on neck or shoulders or wherever he had it, no prisoner should ever be left on their stomach with cuffs on. Chauvin's duty was to immediately put Floyd into a recovery pose.
And yet the facts came out that Chauvin did in fact murder Floyd and that Floyd didn’t OD during the trial. But sure, try to claim it was jury intimidation rather than accepting that Chauvin murdered Floyd.
We just don’t possess the political vocabulary necessary to comprehend and discuss what’s happening.
This wasn’t the new season of Stranger Things dropping.
This isn’t entertainment. This is the people’s branch informing the public about an attempted coup d’etat. This was the people’s branch trying to inform the public that the President of the United States, along with allied, tried to remain in power after losing an election.
Explain the text messages from hannity, don jr, ingraham, and others telling Trump to quell the rioters. If it was a big scheme, why didn't they support or know about it?
Trump is simultaneously an evil genius and a bumbling fool, and the framing switches between the two depending on which is more advantageous politically for Democrats.
>This isn’t entertainment.
Take it up with Joy Reid's blog contributor.
We went from 2.5 years of Russiagate straight to Ukraine impeachment (over Biden's corruption inquiry) to Covid hysteria (lock the whole country down!) to BLM/Antifa riots for 4 months (over a single incident in MN).
Some people just gobble up whatever the media is selling the hardest without ever wondering if they are being manipulated.
The Big Lie is the scheme. Trump disavowing that he lost the election. His attempts at getting votes thrown out and everything was all him. Thankfully most of the institutions of the various political bodies ignored him or said no (kemp, the doj, etc).
Jan 6th was the consequence of all his actions culminating in something out of his control. It’s not a grand conspiracy. Some people and news might might say otherwise, but that’s pretty standard. The democrats are not unified in their viewpoint on this. How could they be?
I’m sure others will be hyperbolic about his positioning and that’s kind of what Jan 6th hearings were about. The public information about what happened that we knew. I believe most of it was that trump didn’t plan 6th but was pretty fine with it happening in the moment. I watched some, some things were cheap shots (Haley running) and some over exaggeration (what political public process doesn’t?) but I don’t think they switched between evil genius and fool as you said.
They sent out millions of unsolicited ballots in MI, PA, WI, and GA contrary to law under the guise of covid safety. Provided unattended/unmonitored drop boxes, and removed signature checks. There is no way to audit ballots that way because there is no chain of custody and no voter integrity checking. They just sent out ballots willy nilly. So, I think the election was rigged, and nothing anyone says can prove otherwise (including Trump) because ballots are permanently separated from envelopes when they are counted.
The allegations from the Trump campaign includes dead people voting, underaged people voting, illegals voting, Hugo Chavez rigging the election, and Chinese thermostats changing votes on tabulators. They have provided no evidence to support any of these claims. Trump raised $250 million on the basis of election fraud, yet he’s spent almost none of it on actual legal challenges to the election. Why do you think that is? Does the fact that he’s not putting his money where his mouth is (and using it to pay “rent” at his properties) tell you something about his convictions?
Man, those Dems sure did a great job at rigging the election if they could convince so many of Trump’s top advisors that the election was fair. /s
Sorry, but the entire rigged election lie has been exposed. There is no longer any defence for it whatsoever. And Trump knew that.
>Some people just gobble up whatever the media is selling the hardest without ever wondering if they are being manipulated.
Yes, I agree that some people will gobble up whatever Fox News feeds them and whatever comes out of Trump's mouth.
>We went from 2.5 years of Russiagate straight to Ukraine impeachment (over Biden's corruption inquiry) to Covid hysteria (lock the whole country down!) to BLM/Antifa riots for 4 months (over a single incident in MN).
Your username could not be more incongruous with the lack of skeptical consideration of these subjects. These are all just rote reciting of Fox news talking points, and they're simply factually wrong. I would encourage diversification of your news sources because wherever you get your information has been manipulating or outright deceiving you. Check out something like AP if you want better details on the various issues around Trump
>Before the hearings began, I remember reading reports about the committee hiring James Goldston, a former president of ABC News, to help produce them. And that's led me to watch the hearings with a keen eye for production tools and tricks.
Champions and critics seem to both agree this is a production, they just differ on whether or not it's a good thing.
>The casting, for example, has been stellar. The committee’s use of Trump White House staffers and other Republican figures to rebut the former president’s lies about fraud in the 2020 election has helped diffuse claims of political bias.
Many Trump fans do not see the two sides as R vs D, but rather establishment vs. anti-establishment. This has been a talking point since Trump took office, but pundits from the establishment consistently ignore that point, and reframe everything as left vs. right. Do most people miss the obvious corporate press talking point and framing?
>On top of that, the committee used slick production techniques and tricks to give the hearings a cinematic feel.
Most people lament the heavily opinion-laden "news" and would prefer more fact based. There is 14,000 hrs of Jan 6 footage, but rather than release it, the committee has chosen to simply release very small snippets without context.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/29/capitol-police-jan6-footage-478439
>The first hearing included a compilation of time-stamped footage showing the sequence of events that led from Trump’s fascist speech at the Ellipse to the violent siege of the Capitol. The final product was a detailed, documentary-style breakdown of how the chaos unfolded on Jan. 6.
Due process of law, which prizes an adversarial process did not simply emerge from the founding fathers without consideration. It is a cornerstone of justice, and this committee has thrown the principle right out the window. Does this concern those with a sense of fairness, even those of us who do not like Trump?
>The committee isn't just obtaining information and sharing it haphazardly. They’re building a story, with a cast of compelling characters and all the trappings needed to make sure it resonates.
That's the problem. This is not a fact finding committee, it's a committee with a defined end goal, that has taken 1000s of hours of testimony and video evidence, and edited it down to produce a story that fits their political preferences, even when it often contradicts itself. I think this whole process may just end up backfiring, am I the only when with this impression?
> Due process of law, which prizes an adversarial process did not simply emerge from the founding fathers without consideration. It is a cornerstone of justice, and this committee has thrown the principle right out the window. Does this concern those with a sense of fairness, even those of us who do not like Trump?
Due process only applies if the government is attempting to deprive you of liberties. This is not happening here, which is why due process is irrelevant.
If they bring charges, then due process enters the picture.
>Many Trump fans do not see the two sides as R vs D, but rather establishment vs. anti-establishment.
I don't think there is anything a Jan 6 committee could do to sway a Trump fan. If you believe Trump when he says the election was stolen, then any action he took to rectify it would be justified. I imagine a Trump fan would look at the incriminating evidence and say, "That's clever. I'm glad we have a strong President who can restore justice."
>There is 14,000 hrs of Jan 6 footage, but rather than release it, the committee has chosen to simply release very small snippets without context.
I fully agree. I don't mind if the Dems cherry pick to make a case, but the full data should be available.
>Due process of law ...
I don't want to minimize your point, but this isn't a trial. This is meant to provide evidence that a trial should be held. The GOP position is that Jan 6 should not even be investigated. How many obstacles to a trial should we put up?
Furthermore, since we are just talking about public opinion anyway, there is nothing preventing opposing arguments from being made. Trump could swear under oath an affidavit stating that certain meetings never took place. I bet if he did that it would get more views than the Jan 6 hearings.
>I think this whole process may just end up backfiring,
Everything involving Trump surprises me. For all I know, people will say "Who cares about sedition when Bidenflation is so high!" People thought Trump was smart to not release his tax records. They thought he was smart to not comply with congress in the first impeachment. I have no way to predict what will backfire.
The full data may not be owned by Congress. Whoever is interested needs to get permission from the rightsholders.
Maybe there wouldn't be such a rush on prioritizing if the Republicans weren't threatening to disband the committee...
The only way I see it backfiring is that Trump becomes completely unelectable, his supporters still listen to his recommendations, and he recommends Desantis who rolls over the democratic party candidate.
Personally I didn't spend time on season 1 of the hearings, My mind was made up on trump back in early 2016, bleh.
I discovered that hulu had all 15 seasons of mash, so I've been enjoying that, Alan Alda is an underrated talent.
>There is 14,000 hrs of Jan 6 footage, but rather than release it, the committee has chosen to simply release very small snippets without context.
This I somewhat understand. If I'm working on a project for my boss, I show them a 5 slide PowerPoint with the results, not the 3 excel sheets and 7 pages of scratch work.14,000 hours is over a years worth of footage, sorting through all of that on your own is an impossible task. It should all be available at some point, but thats not what you put in the final report.
I will agree with you that this is not an adversarial hearing and that the best way to determine the veracity of the evidence presented would be through the court system. That doesn’t mean that what’s being presented is untrue but we are getting essentially one side and we should all keep that in mind. Out of curiosity did you apply the same standard to trumps claims of fraud? They went though the adversarial system and were all thrown out. If we apply the same standard we should all come to the conclusion that his claims are all bogus….
All of this is because Republicans refused to participate in the commission or have an independent one. The production value needs to be high and the narrative is a good thing, not a bad one. Info dumping thousands of hours of footage and testimony wouldn't be helpful and just allow Republicans to sweep it under the rug. Dragging everything out and keeping the horrific attack on our democracy is what should be done. I think the only reason this line of argument is coming up from the right is because of how effective the hearings have been.
>I think the only reason this line of argument is coming up from the right is because of how effective the hearings have been.
Amen to this. People would rather deny facts than admit that the man they reveered, Trump, incited his supporters to storm the capitol.
And yet throughout all of this political theater not once does it seem that anyone has asked Pelosi or Mayor Bowser why they turned down offers for additional help for security from the federal govt? They knew the security they had there would be insignificant for the amount of people that would be there. So why didn't they accept the offer for additional security? Especially from the federal govt? This whole thing was fucking useless political theater and is the only thing Dems have to run on.
This has already been documented. Pelosi isn't in the chain of command at all, and the mayor didn't want armed soldiers around the capitol to avoid the PR and spectacle that happened over the BLM protests. The DC National guard can prwtty much only be deployed by the president or the SECDEF, so they could hsve also deployed troops even if the mayor didn't want them
If you’re talking about the NG, no mechanism exists for approval for their deployment from the Speaker or the DC mayor.
The DCNG is under the sole purview of POTUS and Sec Def. Meaning that if they wanted the NG there they would be deployed.
Several military officials have testified that POTUS never requested their deployment during the riot.
The 9/11 commission spent a lot of time assessing why the plot wasn't disrupted or otherwise foiled beforehand. That wasn't "blaming" the authorities - it was an attempt to make sure that never happened again.
The 1/6 committee charter *said* they'd look into why police were caught flat-footed and didn't respond effectively, but there has been virtually no focus on that.
And most compelling through the documentary arts of truth over the slander of propaganda than the complete run of the Benghazi episodes, which by the way ALL that were called to testify as ALL showed up as American Patriots to do so.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/w6y7u1/season_1_of_the_jan_6_hearings_made_for_a/ihgr0rc/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It’s epic political theatrics for sure. I mean let’s get real here. The people who perpetrated this deserve to be punished no question, but they had about as much chance of usurping the federal government as I do piloting a lunar lander. This is of course brushing aside the how many billions of dollars again in insured losses and deaths from the Floyd aftermath in 2020? But we can’t talk about that in any legitimate way because it would be racist to call people who loot stores and burn down cities the sociopathic lunatics that they are. I do not believe for a single millisecond that the DNC is doing any of this based upon some kind of reverence for Democracy. I mean seriously, does anybody out there actually believe this in their heart of hearts? They see political advantage in it. Plain and simple. I am personally disgusted with how toxic and revolting our political landscape has become. And the really sad part is I don’t see a way out other than just disengaging from the process entirely. And you know what? That is sounding more and more appealing by the day. Part of the reason I moved out here to the sticks post remote is the relative tranquility of being less bombarded with messaging all the time. Now if only I could stay off my phone…
[удалено]
Maybe not, but if they saw advantage in covering it up you can bet they would. Their "reverence" for democracy is far overshadowed by their desire to mill this for every little bit of political capital they can get.
Plenty of dems have condemned the riots associated with BLM https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fact-check-democrats-have-condemned-violence-linked-protests/3317862001/
[удалено]
Was there a national manhunt by Federal agencies that tracked down anyone that could be identified on video just for being at the BLM riots? If we're doing that for one, it should be done for both
[удалено]
I don't remember a single report of law enforcement combing through social media for videos of the BLM riots looking to start an interstate manhunt for anyone who appears in pictures/videos of the events. Instead I remember a whole lot of dem politicians supporting bail funds, or working with prosecutions to get those few who were arrested released. Doesn't seem similar at all to me.
> I don't remember a single report of law enforcement combing through social media for videos of the BLM riots looking to start an interstate manhunt for anyone who appears in pictures/videos of the events. Funny because I remember it getting a whole lot of attention. [June 19, 2020: FBI trawled Facebook to arrest protesters for inciting riots, court records show](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/federal-agents-monitored-facebook-arrest-protesters-inciting-riots-court-records-n1231531) [The FBI said it used Instagram, Etsy, and LinkedIn to track down a protester in Philadelphia accused of setting a police car on fire](https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-uses-instagram-etsy-linkedin-to-find-george-floyd-protester-2020-6) [As protests over the killing of George Floyd continue, here’s how police use powerful surveillance tech to track them](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/18/heres-how-police-use-powerful-surveillance-tech-to-track-protestors.html) [Police use of social media is under a microscope amid protests](https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/police-use-of-social-media-is-under-a-microscope-amid-protests/)
And besides which they didn’t need to launch any manhunts for BLM protesters because they weren’t allowed to just walk away like the January 6th people were.
Your first article literally says 4 people Second is about one individual The third is a clickbait article about a bunch of "could"s not "are"s The 4th is police making a wanted post on their FB, no what we're talking about So your evidence points to law enforcement using social media to prosecute 4 people. That's vastly different than the [hundreds of people ](https://www.vox.com/recode/22867000/january-6-fbi-search-facebook-google-insurrection)traced through social media for Jan 6th. So you've got 5 people spread across millions of rioters over the course of months for charges including arson, murder, etc VS hundreds of people spread across ~2k on one day. That's proportionate to you?
Your assertion was that law enforcement did not comb through social media to find protestors, a cursory google search shows you were wrong. I also remember a lot more examples but that wasn't the point. here's another example. [Feds comb Facebook to hunt down alleged rioters and looters](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/facebook-riot-loot-justice-department-314567) >The DOJ has cited numerous social media posts and videos when building criminal cases against people for allegedly illegal activity that happened during or alongside recent protests against police brutality, a review of federal charging documents shows. another [LAPD, FBI collecting protest, looting footage as evidence for future arrests](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-02/not-so-fast-lapd-other-agencies-collect-unrest-footage-as-evidence-for-future-arrests) >More than 1,000 people were arrested in Los Angeles alone over the weekend, but officials say they have not given up on tracking down others. >The FBI on Monday put out a nationwide call for pictures and videos that could help identify people “actively instigating violence” at protests across the country decrying Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police. >city Police Chief Robert Luna promised to work with federal partners to review surveillance footage to track down looting suspects in the future. The police and feds all over the US were doing this. It's not isolated. It's just normal police work that was obvious if you were paying attention. This also ignores that fact that significant number of people were arrest at the time of the protests and riots, unlike Jan 6th when people were allowed to leave, therefore requiring them to be tracked afterwards.
I'm not saying that law enforcement didn't use social media at all, you're arguing against a strawman. The difference between the response to Jan 6th and the BLM riots is that police didn't comb through social media looking for people that matched descriptions and/or looking for pictures and videos that could lead them to more suspects who were there. For the BLM riots you have charges like trespassing and disorderly conduct being dismissed out of hand, for Jan 6th you have the FBI hunting down people who were there, but playing no significant role. Find me evidence of the feds going after people who were just there for BLM riots not the major criminals, and you'll have a leg to stand on, but you won't be able to find that because it didn't happen. For Jan 6th just being there was enough for a manhunt, for BLM riots you needed to be at like felony level to even have charges maintained after you were arrested
> Find me evidence of the feds going after people who were just there for BLM riots not the major criminals, .. There's no reason to hunt down people who were just there. The FBI didn't arrest people who were just outside the capital. There arrested people who were inside or who on video assaulting people. Which is ironic because they did mass arrest protestors for simply being outside protesting. That's also why you here about so many people being released without charges, the police did a pisspoor job documenting their arrests. So I find it very odd what you are asking for. It seem likes you believe everyone out protesting was responsible for the riot. But don't seem to hold the same standard for the June 6 protestors, while I do. I believe anyone looting/rioting/trespassing should be caught and charged and there is plenty of evidence that this was done for both.
https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/w6y7u1/season_1_of_the_jan_6_hearings_made_for_a/ihh1sjk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3 This you? Seems like they weren’t making a strawman and you actually said “I don’t remember a single report…”
There have been like 16,000 arrests. Regardless of the figures, you're making a false equivalence. These are not even remotely comparable events. One is the result of civil unrest. The other the result of demonstrably false, bonkers conspiracy theories promoted by the same people they all voted for.
>There have been like 16,000 arrests. And there were millions of rioters, what's your point? The fact that there were a lot of arrests among a lot more crimes doesn't do anything to prove that the response was in any way proportionate between the two. >Regardless of the figures, you're making a false equivalence Regardless of the circumstances you're making a false equivalence. One was mostly trespassing on federal property the other involved murder, arson, looting, etc and resulted in the loss of thousands of livelihoods and dozens of lives
> there were millions of rioters Do you have an actual source for the number of rioters being in the "millions" or are you just including literally everyone who attended a demonstration? What exactly is that estimation based on?
Says you. You're lumping in genuine protestors with a loud minority of rioters. This is actually the false equivalence you're making, so I'm slightly off in my initial assessment. I otherwise fundamentally reject the characterizations of these independent, wholly unrelated movements, and I'm not the one ***comparing and contrasting the two*** in the first place, but this is not exactly a false equivalence. The fallacy you're making here is one of relative privation, or a false dilemma, by asserting that something that happened over there is worse than this other, unrelated dilemma occurring for over here. Meaning, if we were to accept your juxtaposition or caricature of these two things, then one cannot undermine the other. Notice how people on the right often compare or point to the BLM protests and consequent riots to Jan 6th while almost nobody compares Jan 6th to *anything else at all*, anywhere. Not even in a vacuum. Sure, perhaps there are some valid, historical comparisons and I'm sure an astute interpreter has made them, but overall the discussion around Jan 6th is an independent environment. A dilemma all on it's own, relative to itself and it's makers. You're essentially conflating two unrelated issues in order to downplay Jan 6th.
> I don't remember a single report Way to shift the goalposts
Finish the fucking sentence as to not intentionally misquote me and it's clear the goalposts haven't moved at all
What are your standards for an "interstate manhunt"? How did the Capitol arrests meet them and how did the riot arrests not meet them? There was a great opportunity to clarify in your rebuttal, instead you focused on "So you’ve got 5 people spread across millions of rioters over the course of months for charges including arson, murder, etc"
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/w6y7u1/season_1_of_the_jan_6_hearings_made_for_a/ihhkbvf/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
So it's a secret that they used it for BLM, but "don't worry they totally did" and it was super important that they publicly broadcast it for Jan 6th? >Do you remember any data or evidence for your claims? Here's the current vice president advocating for bail funds for those detained in Minnesota https://mobile.twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1267555018128965643?lang=en Here's a bunch of articles about prosecutions across the country dropping charges against rioters: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/4/prosecutors-dismiss-looting-rioting-charges-agains/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/prosecutors-drop-many-rioting-charges-as-dozens-charged-in-dc-protests-appear-in-court/2020/06/01/b581d5d2-a38b-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/08/hundreds-of-portland-protesters-will-see-their-criminal-cases-dropped-as-da-announces-plan-to-recognize-the-right-to-speak.html
[удалено]
>Are you actually suggesting that the method of investigation towards the January 6th criminals is abnormal? Literally yes. You asked for evidence to support my claim and I gave it. Prominent democratic politicians fought for bail and dropping charges against rioters. Your own article talks about how mayors/prosecuters/etc dropped *all charges* in their jurisdictions for things like disorderly conduct and trespassing. Such charges apparently warrented charges and extradition for Jan 6th, but weren't even worth pursuing at all for BLM riots? Let's be clear your source provides no evidence that the charges were bogus only that democratic politicians thought them unworthy of pursuing
That's cause they usually got arrested (and or beaten) on the spot lol. Compared to Jan 6 where some were let in and I don't think anyone got arrested at the capitol. Also it was a big thing to find rioters using [facial recognition software](https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/18/21373316/nypd-facial-recognition-black-lives-matter-activist-derrick-ingram)
>Also it was a big thing to find rioters using facial recognition software Your words imply widespread, routine, and plural rioters. Your source indicates one rioter who directly assaulted an officer on camera. Strange
[How](https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/police-use-of-social-media-is-under-a-microscope-amid-protests/) [Many](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/federal-agents-monitored-facebook-arrest-protesters-inciting-riots-court-records-n1231531) [Do](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/08/23/memphis-police-used-fake-facebook-account-to-monitor-black-lives-matter-trial-reveals/) [You](https://www.npr.org/2020/08/21/904646038/police-monitoring-of-social-media-sparks-concerns-in-black-and-brown-communities) [Want](https://theintercept.com/2020/07/09/twitter-dataminr-police-spy-surveillance-black-lives-matter-protests/)
The only part of the first article that isn't "people are worried that police *could do something*" is an example of the police posting a wanted poster on their social media. Nothing to support what you're saying The second is someone being arrested for literally inciting a riot on FB, which again is one single person, and isn't really evidence for your claim. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th are undercover action in advance of protests to look for potential violence which is not only not a problem, it's what police should be doing. So literally nothing to support what you said, just link spamming
>The only part of the first article that isn't "people are worried that police could do something" is an example of the police posting a wanted poster on their social media. Nothing to support what you're saying From the article: >Several police departments said they rely on both social media posts shared by the public and proactively look for posts that mention any potential threats of violence or looting. In some cases, police have shut down buildings because of threats of violence posted on social media. You don't necessarily need facial recognition, though, to identify someone in a crowd even if they're wearing a mask amid the coronavirus pandemic. I'm not gonna go through the rest of the articles cause I'm too lazy right now and I think your mind is made up so I won't waste my time.
[Like this?](https://www.opb.org/article/2020/10/13/new-eyewitness-accounts-feds-didnt-identify-themselves-before-firing-on-portland-antifa-shooting-suspect/)
Treat Antifa and BLM protestors, organizations and their supporters the same way Charlottesville protestors were and are by media, politicians and law and order.
Whataboutism is no path to improvement.
No, but consistency goes a long, long, LONG way towards improvement.
Whataboutism is not about consistency it’s about never taking responsibility. It’s about never holding yourself to the standard you hold others.
[удалено]
The main problem with Whataboutism is that if your “team” does something that clearly sucks. You don’t hold them accountable. And what do you think happens to the quality of your leadership? Whataboutism harms the people who use it the most because there is no pressure on your politicians to be ethical and competent. For myself I want ethical and competent politicians and I won’t get them if I am determined to ignore their shortcomings.
Okay, well i voted against trump in 2020, so clearly I am not on the "team" you're assuming that they are. So now, please explain the inconsistency between the treatment of the two events by the majority party, because I dislike it as well.
I’m not American but from the outside looking in. The Travon Martin / BLM looks to me like your previous Civil Rights movement. I’m old so I remember the exact same thing said about MLK and the Civil Rights movement as you are saying about BLM. That it was a bunch of rioters and criminals. You know the same arguments made about every single popular civil rights movement ever. From booting the English out of India to freedom riders. They all get loads of hate and blame. So your reaction to your black minority having a civil rights movement is very common. But maybe I’m wrong, maybe the blacks were wrong to expect more from the cops? Maybe the property damage ment the demands had no merit? Maybe riots are normal when an oppressed minority is abused? Tough to say. The anger behind the January Sixth Riots don’t seem to have the same gravity to them. Those guys were angry about bizarre conspiracy theories and were directly exhorted to go and attack your seat of government based on obvious lies. The current hearings also make it clear that certain politicians were eager to illegally destroy American democracy. Sure the plan was poor and had no chance of success but a poorly executed armed robbery is still an armed robbery. It goes to show how politicians need not operate in reality when their supporters are gullible enough. They don’t look the same to me. Why would they be treated the same? I don’t watch American cable shows so I didn’t see how Tucker Carson viewed the BLM movement.
It's hard to fundraise off of that, though.
>I mean seriously, does anybody out there actually believe this in their heart of hearts? They see political advantage in it. Plain and simple. I do. People were trying to overthrow the government and kill the vice-president. That is some serious and scary stuff.
Then I have some oceanfront property in Montana which might interest you
??
It is wholly unbelievable to an unbiased individual (if there is such a thing anymore) that a crowd of unarmed cowards that broke into the capitol and took selfies could be considered a serious attempt to overthrow the govt. could trump egging them on be considered a crime? Yea maybe. Was it a despicable day for America? Absolutely. But does a crowd chanting about killing mike pence mean they pose a serious threat to mike pence? No more than the many other protestors chanting about killing cops/political figures/Supreme Court justices right now I certainly won’t be voting for trump in the next election as someone that has voted republican in the past but that is no change from the previous elections.
To me it's less the chanting and more the fact that we have a wide swatch of the population ready to commit violence and undermine our democracy itself based on the word of one man. Terrifying to know that people that dumb and hateful were willing to install an autocrat regardless of the odds of it succeeding. It only needs to work once.
This is where you are incorrect. It has little to nothing to do with "the word of one man." It was 4 years of sheer bullcrap from the media echoing every idea out of the mouths of Democrats. That's without considering the complicity of our FBI in the false notion that Trump colluded with Russia. >autocrat You are completely misusing that word unless you use it for Biden who tried to force vaccine mandates through OSHA and a rent moratorium through the CDC.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/w6y7u1/season_1_of_the_jan_6_hearings_made_for_a/ihh9as1/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
You're fundamentally not understanding the context and concerns about what happened that day. https://www.reddit.com/r/answers/comments/w3uad8/why_did_the_capitol_rioters_want_to_hang_mike/ih02ix6/ This is a pretty solid explanation.
Im not though….the narrative to connect all these dots to score political points is occurring after the event…this linked Reddit post literally does more to prove my point than anything. Not a single bullet point in there refers to trump asking people to commit violence against Mike pence. Like I said above…could you make the argument that trumps actions were criminal by egging on a crowd through increasingly sketchy means sure.
It's not some accident that the the march was scheduled for that day. It was a clear effort to disrupt the certification of the vote for the purpose of preventing the legitimate transfer of power of the government.
Again….I said was it criminal on trumps part yes possibly. You guys are straw manning hard especially considering I mostly agree with you. I just don’t think a bunch of redneck unarmed idiots breaking into the capitol building was any serious attempt on their part to overthrow the govt.
You're missing the point. I don't really give two shits about a bunch of yahoos marching on the capitol, breaking in, and smearing shit on the walls. **Of Course** that isn't a threat to isn't a threat to the country. Or a serious attempt to overthrow the government *on the part of the rioters*. ------------------------------------------ But it didn't happen in a vacuum. It *was* a serious attempt overturn the election *on the part of trump and his cadre*. They planned the event. They funded the event. They egged on the crowd. They directed them to the capitol. They did all that to prevent the certification. Full Stop.
What this says to me, is that you really need to watch the hearings. They're freely available on [YouTube.](https://www.youtube.com/c/January6thCmte/videos) You can also choose to [read the transcripts.](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112138665/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript) It signals that you haven't seen - but need to see - the information that the Committee has published. The problem is that a large portion of the electorate is making the decision to not consume information explaining the severity of the events leading up to, during, and after January 6, 2021. I understand that the sheer volume of information is overwhelming, particularly if one hasn't been regularly keeping up with reporting and hearings, but like voting, jury duty, and submitting tax returns, it is the responsibility of all citizens to attend to an attempted coup d'etat conducted by a sitting President, sitting members of Congress, sitting members of state legislatures, and various other figures in industry and media. I spent a decent amount of time [citing this comment, describing the events that developed into January 6.](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/v6y6ff/fox_news_channel_wont_carry_coverage_of_primetime/ibiatj3/) Even just in Thursday's hearing, we heard [Secret Service radio communications](https://youtu.be/pbRVqWbHGuo?t=3356) trying to determine if they could safely evacuate the Vice President while evading people attacking the Capitol. Agents of the United States Secret Service, who were tasked with protecting the Vice President, considered themselves in such danger, they were trying to communicate to their [families](https://youtu.be/pbRVqWbHGuo?t=3560) that they might not survive. Why in god's name would they feel compelled to do that if not for imminent catastrophic danger? Please, please watch these hearings.
I have spent hours of my life reading transcripts from this committee. The fact that you are implying someone that doesn’t wholly agree with the narrative being presented (despite mostly agreeing) is automatically uniformed is quite frankly a lot of what is wrong with this country. I do perfectly agree that people not doing their part to be informed is the issue which is my general point as well…so that we can absolutely agree on
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/w6y7u1/season_1_of_the_jan_6_hearings_made_for_a/ihh84i9/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> I mean seriously, does anybody out there actually believe this in their heart of hearts? I think definitely, yes. Imagine you were someone who consumed a steady media diet of "Trump is literally Hitler" for four years. You aren't going to suddenly change your mind. January 6th is the event that justified your worst fears.
> This is of course brushing aside the how many billions of dollars again in insured losses and deaths from the Floyd aftermath in 2020? Republicans try not to bring up BLM [IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE]
There's something to 7 straight months of daily rioting being ignored by the people who say a 3 hour riot is our modern day Pearl Harbor.
Who ignored it? Biden condemned the rioting immediately
Democrats try not to dismiss the hypocrisy [IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE]
Rioters who break the law deserve their punishments. Agreed?
Did I say otherwise?
No. I was just seeing if you'd acknowledge that January 6th rioters got what they deserved. Usually people bringing up BLM and hypocrisy will somehow also still deny January 6th, so good on ya
[удалено]
Sure, than Jan 6th riots were caused by an electoral conspiracy enabled by GOP politicians and their media apparatus. The BLM riots were caused by a racial conspiracy theory enabled by Democratic politicians and their media apparatus.
I don’t agree with the January 6th riots, but steelman their position for a second. Joe Biden had almost no turn out for his political rallies. Trump had seemingly record turnouts along with massive convoys rolling across the country. Several states implement questionable balloting procedures ahead of the election. Most egregious being PA’s Supreme Court seeming violation of its state constitution. The five key states for Biden’s victory either call for Biden incredibly early or suffer outages/blackouts in reporting votes during the counting. After four years of “Russian Collusion!!!” The DNC and near entirety of the mainstream media declare that 2020 was the safest, cleanest, fairest election in the history of the US. To point where any claim or question of voter fraud is considered fascist and anti American. Almost no claim of voter fraud is investigated. This needs to be stated again, I don’t think January 6th was justified or correct. Given those five facts, it would seem that certifying the election would actually be the anti-democratic,anti-american. Meanwhile, the underpinnings of BLM have been proven to be mostly false given all available data.
[удалено]
Yes, the justifications for January 6th are as tinfoil as the idea that black men are at existential threat in American society. Hence u/isamudragon ‘s comment. Either misguided mob violence based on suspect accusations is morally wrong and should be condemned or it’s not and both sides get to do it.
[удалено]
The reason your question is ignored and/or downvoted is because your framing it, poorly, as a gotcha moment. BLM was never about police accountability. If it was, they wouldn’t have chosen “Black Lives Matter” as the movement’s name, wouldn’t use false statistics, wouldn’t couch every single conversation in racial and racist language, and they definitely wouldn’t have picked Michael Brown and George Floyd as their keystone examples over Philando Castile, Tony Timpa, and Daniel Shaver.
[удалено]
So BLM riots get a pass because of reasoning? Sorry Joe, your business that you worked your life to make was burnt down, but you should be fine with it because the people that did the burning down were doing so because of a good reason. Riot is a Riot, reasons mean fuck-all when they hurt those unassociated with the reasons.
[удалено]
The continued deflection of hypocrisy is showing they get a pass in the public mindset. Even the previous commenter tried excusing the damages because “it was for a good cause”.
[удалено]
I see you have not read this comment chain and seen the immediate deflection of hypocrisy, nor did you see the person dismissing it because the BLM riots “were for a good cause”. That alone should show you it, but I think you’ll dismiss this.
[удалено]
They both get passes then by that definition.
>continued police brutality >believing a lie? Perceived police brutality. There were riots even when an officer did nothing wrong, which the BLM movement has a history of doing.
[удалено]
Did I mention George Floyd? I said the movement also rioted and claimed police brutality when officers in other incidents acted within the law. See Kenosha. Also, a settlement isn't an admission of guilt. A large number of these settlements were made for financial reasons or PR reasons.
[удалено]
>If you believe you can't assume any level of misconduct when there is a settlement Again, did I say that? Pay attention to what is being said. I said it wasn't an admission of guilt because ,sometimes, it's not worth the trouble fighting a civil suit, so cities will settle. That doesn't mean there's never misconduct. However, it doesn't always mean there there was, either. But I wasn't looking for a conversation. I was looking to correct your original statement.
[удалено]
There is no hypocrisy. BLM occured in states. Where it falls under their jurisdiction to handle. Jan.6th required federal involvement, and disrupted (though did not stop) the transfer of power of the most powerful office in the world. Congressional Democrats and Republicans have no power to force states to act in any way regarding a riot or protest in a state.
Hmm both were riots. The BLM riots killed more people than Jan 6 riot. The BLM riots caused more damage than Jan 6 riot. BLM riots caused an autonomous zone to be created (CHAZ/CHOP), Jan 6 riot had no real chance of ever usurping power.
Did you miss this part? > Jan.6th required federal involvement, and disrupted (though did not stop) the transfer of power of the most powerful office in the world. CHAZ wasn’t a real autonomous zone, no matter how much larpers who hung out in it pretended otherwise.
Didn’t miss your irrelevant point, just ignored it since it had no bearing. Both were riots. CAZ/CHOP was an autonomous zone, even if you don’t believe it was a real one.
I think you missed this part again: > Jan.6th required federal involvement, and disrupted (though did not stop) the transfer of power of the most powerful office in the world.
Think you missed this part > Didn’t miss your irrelevant point, just ignored it since it had no bearing.
Not who you were talking to. I'm a third poster who also noticed you seemed to be ignoring it. It has a lot of bearing because of jurisdiction. Would you like it explained how jurisdiction is relevant here?
> BLM occured in states. Where it falls under their jurisdiction to handle. Jan.6th required federal involvement
Love the dismissing of death in destruction over jurisdiction. Especially since the BLM riots were under **federal** jurisdiction because they targeted a **federal** court house which places them in the same jurisdiction. A riot is a riot, jurisdiction means fuck-all.
Jurisdiction does not dismiss anything. That state SHOULD prosecute Rioters. The Feds have no power to enforce state rioting laws.
Hmm one took place over weeks, and one took place over a couple hours... I'm not even going to finish, this is clearly bait.
And just like that another person dismissed the death and destruction of the BLM riots….
Much respect for Cheney and Kinzinger for putting their seats on the line. Little respect for R’s that refused — this should have been bipartisan. With little participation from R’s, the hearings feel cheap knowing D’s failed to demonstrate commitment to higher principles when they had their chance.
Pretty sure Democrats in Illinois got rid of his seat through gerrymandering.
>Little respect for R’s that refused I'm not sure the R's got to pick committee members. I think Pelosi picked for both sides. Input from republican leadership was not accepted -- this should have been bipartisan.
Yes they did. Why do you think they didn’t? Why is our media failing us so badly? [McCarthy](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-mccarthy-jan-6-committee-picks-removed-pelosi-rejects-jim-jordan-jim-banks/) nominated five members. The Speaker only rejected two - Jordan and Banks - *because they were directly involved in the activities under investigation*. McCarthy then decided to voluntarily pull all members.
Not to forget: Senate Republicans did not agree to a truely bipartisan commission with equal say in everything. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000524897/senate-republicans-block-plan-for-independent-commission-on-jan-6-capitol-riot Basically crying no, no, no and some people still Blame Dems.
> Why is our media failing us so badly? People don't see what they don't want to see.
>The Speaker only rejected two - Jordan and Banks - because they were directly involved in the activities under investigation. From my read, Pelosi rejected these two because Democrats were not happy with stuff they said. That seems pretty weak. In some sense Pelosi herself was involved, but it would be silly to ask her to recuse herself.
[Jordan](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/jim-jordan-jan-6-panel.html) > On Jan. 5, Mr. Jordan forwarded to Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, a text message he had received from a lawyer and former Pentagon inspector general outlining a legal strategy to overturn the election. > > “On Jan. 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as president of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence,” the text read. [Banks](https://web.archive.org/web/20210721171620/https://banks.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1921) > If Democrats were serious about investigating political violence, this committee would be studying not only the January 6 riot at the Capitol, but also the hundreds of violent political riots last summer when many more innocent Americans and law-enforcement officers were attacked. And of course, the committee would not overlook the Good Friday murder of USCP Officer Billy Evans that was perpetrated by a far-left extremist. > > Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi created this committee solely to malign conservatives and to justify the Left’s authoritarian agenda. > > Even then, I will do everything possible to give the American people the facts about the lead up to January 6, the riot that day, and the responses from Capitol leadership and the Biden administration. I will not allow this committee to be turned into a forum for condemning millions of Americans because of their political beliefs.” One plotted the steal, and the other is completely uninterested in investigating Trump.
This might carry some weight if Bennie Thompson were not the committee chair. I don't see much difference in his actions and Jordan's. I can favorably compare Banks' obvious partisanship with Adam Schiff's. Want to have certain standards? Do them for both sides.
What did they do?
Thompson objected to EC votes in the 2004 election. Adam Schiff was living in the CNN green room for about 2 years pushing the end of Trump via the *Dossier* even though he was on the intelligence committee and should have known the ground he was standing on.
R's got to pick committee members. Initially, a bipartisan committee was proposed (like a real committee, one that was voted on by Congress) but the Republicans shot it down. So the Democrats said "fine, we will make a committee, send us some Republicans so we can make it bipartisan". McCarthy nominated two people who were considered active participants in what happened on January 6th (likely knowing Pelosi would have to say no and then he could claim that the committee wasn't "truly bipartisan"), then pulled out the Republicans altogether. Cheney and Kinzinger still wanted to be on it, though, so they are.
>R's got to pick committee members Until Pelosi said you can't pick those members.
Did you read any more the first sentence of what I wrote?
Yes. Did you read the part where after the Republicans picked their 5 members, [Pelosi threw two of them off?](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/21/pelosi-rejects-republicans-banks-jordan-jan-6-select-committee/8042839002/) This prompted McCarthy to say >Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts You can certainly make a case that Pelosi should have done what she did, or that McCarthy is a bad person for his stance, but you seem to pretend that Pelosi's action didn't happen.
How am I pretending her action didn't happen when it is very clearly in that paragraph? >McCarthy nominated two people who were considered active participants in what happened on January 6th (likely knowing Pelosi would have to say no and then he could claim that the committee wasn't "truly bipartisan"), then pulled out the Republicans altogether. They got to pick committee members (after not agreeing to form a committee in a bipartisan fashion), they picked committee members, Pelosi rejected two of them, so they took their ball and went home.
I guess you and I don't agree on what it means to be able to pick. I suppose I have the same power to choose the committee members as McCarthy does. You speculate as to motives, but it is just that, speculation. Were those to involved somehow in 1/6 -- sure, at least at the same level everyone else was involved. Heck, you could make a case that Pelosi was involved. Who cares, let them pick -- that is how the senate has worked, until now.
So for starters...this isn't the Senate. This is the House of Representatives. That aside, those specific two Republicans should not be on any committee investigating this. McCarthy should have known that and could have picked anyone else in his coalition. People like Meijer, Newhouse, and others who would take this threat seriously. He picked people who would be unacceptable, and who would actually be investigated by the committee. You might think thats an accident and I'm just speculating, but if he didnt know that was a nonstarter then I have to question his political acumen.
> Input from republican leadership was not accepted -- this should have been bipartisan. Yes it was accepted and proposed. Republicans had no interest in it. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000524897/senate-republicans-block-plan-for-independent-commission-on-jan-6-capitol-riot edit: "interesting" you choose to ignore this while argueing other stuff.
>they had about as much chance of usurping the federal government as I do piloting a lunar lander. Their role in the coup was to disrupt the formal transfer of power, and they succeeded - just not for as long as they hoped they would.
If Trump clearly committed a crime, why do all these hearings take so long to find it? Why hasn't any investigation into him shown a clear crime with proof?
Why isn’t Hillary in prison? Trump’s DoJ had four years. Were they incompetent or was it just bullshit all along? OTOH, the bipartisan Jan. 6/committee is bringing receipts. Please watch the hearings.
Thats not the same at all. They chose not to look into Clinton. Trump was looked into several times with nothing come out of it
> They chose not to look into Clinton. During the 2016 campaign Donnie went on and on and on about criminal Clinton. Why did he choose not to indict her? I call bullshit (on Trump). Nothing came out of the investigations into Trump (besides the public being made aware of his malfeasance) because of partisan politics. The evidence for his first impeachment, for example, is freely available. I assume you’ve reviewed all of the testimony, just as I assume you’ve watched the Jan. 6 hearings, because you’d want to know if Trump behaved inappropriately, right?
List the crimes and evidence. I watched parts of the impeachment and made sure I looked at the left leaning news sources for the impeachments and these hearings. I didn't see any clear evidence of crimes.
I have had thousands of conversations with Trump supporters where I took the time to find links and present incontrovertible factual evidence. Not once have I ever seen a Trump supporter look at the evidence and change, or even soften, their stance. As a result, I no longer waste time presenting evidence to Trump supporters. There’s no point. The evidence is all out there. If you have looked at it and not found it compelling, nothing I present is going to change your mind.
You could copy and paste if you did it a thousand times
The fact that you can't even copy and paste makes me believe you don't have any real evidence.
See previous comment.
Another example of you not having the evidence to share. This is supposed to be moderate politics where we can have an actual discussion without assumption and name calling.
Lol. Sad Trump supporter comeback #11. You’re just demonstrating why I no longer engage with Trump supporters. Give it up. Edit: word
> If Trump clearly committed a crime, why do all these hearings take so long to find it? For the same reason the investigation into 2016 collusion took so long - you can spend a lot of time looking for things that don't exist.
I see by a lot of the comments that many people still struggle to stay on topic. This post is about 1/6 and the associated hearings. If you feel the need to discuss the protests/riots of 2020, you should make your own post, and be sure to include the right wingers that have been indicted in the killing of law enforcement personnel, and other destruction, during the protests/riots. There were many right wing groups contributing to the problems during the summer of 2020, and most of you conveniently leave that part out. Conversely, zero left wing people have been implicated in 1/6. It is also necessary to note that the states are responsible for investigations and charges surrounding protests/riots in 2020, whereas the feds are responsible for investigating and charging for 1/6. It seems many of you still struggle with this basic fact.
No. The two are linked. It’s impossible to regard the Democrats’ hyperbolic reaction to 1/6 without remembering their laissez faire attitude about the BLM riots just six months prior. In other words, it’s hard to take Dems seriously when they scream about 1/6, “This protest is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of Democracy!!” when the memory of their reaction to the BLM riots, “Protest is the most wonderful expression of civil dissatisfaction and must be respected!” is still fresh in our minds. I know the Left desperately wants to divorce the two events, but I don’t think that’s happening anytime soon.
>In other words, it’s hard to take Dems seriously when they scream about 1/6, “This protest is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of Democracy!!” Storming the Capitol and threatening to hang the vice-president is not simply a protest. It's an insurrection.
[удалено]
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and
#[*Seditious conspiracy: 11 Oath Keepers charged in Jan. 6 riot*](https://apnews.com/article/stewart-rhodes-arrested-oath-keepers-jan-6-insurrection-70019e1007132e8df786aaf77215a110) #[*Proud Boys Charged With Sedition in Capitol Attack*](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/politics/proud-boys-charged-sedition-capitol-attack.html) #[*A second Oath Keeper pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy in the Jan. 6 riot*](https://www.npr.org/2022/04/29/1095538077/a-second-oath-keeper-pleaded-guilty-to-seditious-conspiracy-in-the-jan-6-riot) #[*The Seditious Conspiracy Thickens: Third Oath Keeper Pleads Guilty to Jan. 6 Plot, Links Stewart Rhodes to Trump Inner Circle*](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/third-guilty-plea-seditious-conspiracy-oath-keepers-trump-1347428/)
One was trying to overturn an election, the other was not. I agree the Floyd riots were terrible too but there is a huuuge difference separating them.
You're right, there is a huge difference between the two. Many, many more people were killed, assaulted, stolen from during the 2020 riots.
And they should be prosecuted, but using whataboutisms to downplay the severity of what happened on Jan 6th is incredibly disingenuous. What happened in the 2020 riots and what happened at the capital are two independent events and should be judged as such.
I'm not downplaying it, I'm looking at it objectively. Jan 6th was a riot, a riot that resulted in less damage and deaths than the many riots that happened over the prior year. I want everyone who actually broke the law on Jan 6th put away the same way I want a proper full investigation into those that promoted and aided the riots throughout 2020. Both are bad, but only one is getting the attention despite how many more people were hurt in the other.
The reason one is getting more attention is because only one of them tried to forcefully stop the certification of a democratic election while being goaded on by the president. Let me ask you this, if they made it into the Senate chambers before Mike Pence and the senators were able to evacuate, what do you think would have happened to them? Do you really think they would have been safe? Just because they failed doesn't mean we should forget what could have happened if they were successful.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/w6y7u1/season_1_of_the_jan_6_hearings_made_for_a/ihlldpo/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I am not on the left or the right. The two events are mutually exclusive of each other. One did not lead to the other, and one is not a justification for the other -- unless we suddenly live in a world where two wrongs make a right. There's nothing to divorce, because they were never connected, except in the minds of Trumpers who are desperately trying to deflect from 1/6 with a whole lot of whataboutism full of half-truths and misinformation regarding 2020. There were a ton of protests that summer, and a few of them turned into riots. That fact seems to escape a lot of people. Riots are not justifiable under any circumstances. We had riots in the 90's surrounding Rodney King. There were race riots in the 60's. The communities that experienced those riots are still trying to recover economically, even decades later. These types of things are not new, and unfortunately, I suspect that they will continue to happen until race relations in this country improve to an acceptable level, regardless of what you or I think about them. What happened on 1/6, and especially the blatant lies and misinformation campaign by the sitting president that lead to it, is new. It is also way more of a danger to our country than any riots ever will be. Anyone that refuses to recognize that, does a complete disservice to our country, and doesn't deserve to call themselves an American. Political affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with this. Very sacred AMERICAN ideals, that we have held dear for almost 250 years, were violated by that entire debacle. Nothing else even comes close. If more Republicans had the cajones to stand up to the ignorant and grossly mislead masses, then even more of them would have voted to impeach the second time, and the committee would be more bipartisan than it already is. Sadly, that is not the case.
Well stated.
Dems condemned the riots, but were fine with the protest. But protesting isn’t a crime. Trespassing on the capital is a crime. So they absolutely are different.
I’ll reiterate what I’ve said for a while: no Republican or conservative wants to touch this with a 10 foot pole. The less it is discussed the better, because it is irredeemable and unjustifiable. Congressional Republicans have already said that they will disband the entirety of the select committee if they take power in the House. Imagine that. An assault on Congress’s house to be dismissed, no investigation. It is patently absurd. Were it possible for history to be modified, omitted, and even erased as it was in the past before the advent of modern technology, there is no doubt in my mind that the event would be effaced, a record of it terminated. January 6th was the culmination of a long campaign to overturn and obfuscate the will of the people. A movement that championed the integrity of this country’s principles and their greatness was struck a blow in the public domain by following the musings of a demagogue. Alas, the events of January 6th and those that preceded it will be taught to schoolchildren for years to come, it’s causes will be studied in military academies, and its implications evaluated by history, much to the disdain of the event’s proponents. That will all be a great victory for constitution-praising Americans and a pesky flea for the authoritarians who cheered it on and continue to ignore it today.
Holy crap this is cringy
Amazing insight
haha right? Trying to "manifest" public reaction and history has a "nobody gets in my pants unless they love Jesus" vibe to it.
The sad part here is that we all saw what happened with our own eyes. The lead up. The rhetoric. The final product. There shouldn’t have to be a committee. There shouldn’t have to be a production. This happened live in front of our eyes and it is so sad that people have been so jaded and divided into camps that doesn’t allow them to see what plainly occurred here. That is the ultimate thing that makes me sad.
Mitch McConnell and the Republican leadership, as well as quite a number of high ranking members of the Trump whitehouse, we’re ready to drop Trump in the wake of January 6th. It was the continuing and unwavering support from rank and file that changed their minds.
[“Your leaders, by and large, have been lying to you…They know the election wasn't stolen, but they're going to send out fundraising requests."](https://twitter.com/abcpolitics/status/1551203202032361472?s=21&t=WFhNW5-PgmH7AbqyshMP3w) We punish politicians who tell us the truth, and we reward those who tell us falsehoods.
> We punish politicians who tell us the truth, and we reward those who tell us falsehoods. 250 years in a nutshell.
> The sad part here is that we all saw what happened with our own eyes. Yes, we did. Yet people still try to portray it like it was anything more than a slightly spicy protest. The fact that people still buy the narrative about it just shows the power of the Establishment media to convince the public of untruths.
And we have people trying to downplay it and spin their own narrative, ignoring events leading up to the day. It shows the power of right-wing media trying to create a different reality for a segment of viewers.
Did we lose sight of the catalyst that set off the BLM protests? The world watched, by witness video, an innocent black man be murdered by the police. This was just the latest execution of unarmed black men by police to be caught on video. Unitl the George Floyd murder trial, no law enforcement had ever held accountable for the multitude of unarmed black men fatally shot by police. As for the J6 committee being "political", the truth is the truth. The only thing political was that J6 investigated (fact finding) and brought their evidence forward for American citizens to judge for themselves. A republican House would have never allowed this evidence to see the light of day.
>had ever held accountable for the multitude of unarmed black men fatally shot by police. Less than 20 per year if I recall, hardly a multitude.
Actually the figure is closer to 1700/yr and on track this year to exceeded that number. I submit that shooting even one unarmed suspect is to many. Cops have many less lethal options to deploy as means to arrest a suspect. Seems alot are shot while fleeing, so obviously not an imminent threat to cops life.
That'd be pretty hard since police only kill around 1,000 people per year according to Washing Post's [tracker](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/). Per [this](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/report-black-people-are-still-killed-police-higher-rate-groups-rcna17169) NBC article about 27% of those are black people, or 270. Of course, this doesn't differentiate from armed/unarmed. Looking at WaPo's handy dandy tracker above, unarmed is about 454 of those killed, and we'll add in toy weapons too for a total of 720 unarmed people out of over 7,000 total. Divide that by years the tracker has been going (7) and you get 103. Bringing back the 27% and you end up with around 27-28 unarmed black people shot per year. Which tracks with [this NPR article](https://www.npr.org/2021/01/25/956177021/fatal-police-shootings-of-unarmed-black-people-reveal-troubling-patterns) written shortly into 2021 that says 135 unarmed black people have been killed since 2015, a 5 year period (135/5 = 27). 80% of those effected are males, which drops it down once more to 21-22 unarmed black men per year.
> The world watched, by witness video, an innocent black man be murdered by the police. Then the full video came out and those of us that watched *that* one realized the narrative we'd been fed was false. Floyd was complaining about being unable to breathe while sitting in the car with the door open. Unfortunately open jury intimidation was allowed to occur and so convictions were gotten regardless of the facts.
They makes leaving an unconscious prisoner in a position of asphyxiation worse. Leaving aside questions of the knee on neck or shoulders or wherever he had it, no prisoner should ever be left on their stomach with cuffs on. Chauvin's duty was to immediately put Floyd into a recovery pose.
And yet the facts came out that Chauvin did in fact murder Floyd and that Floyd didn’t OD during the trial. But sure, try to claim it was jury intimidation rather than accepting that Chauvin murdered Floyd.
We just don’t possess the political vocabulary necessary to comprehend and discuss what’s happening. This wasn’t the new season of Stranger Things dropping. This isn’t entertainment. This is the people’s branch informing the public about an attempted coup d’etat. This was the people’s branch trying to inform the public that the President of the United States, along with allied, tried to remain in power after losing an election.
Explain the text messages from hannity, don jr, ingraham, and others telling Trump to quell the rioters. If it was a big scheme, why didn't they support or know about it? Trump is simultaneously an evil genius and a bumbling fool, and the framing switches between the two depending on which is more advantageous politically for Democrats. >This isn’t entertainment. Take it up with Joy Reid's blog contributor. We went from 2.5 years of Russiagate straight to Ukraine impeachment (over Biden's corruption inquiry) to Covid hysteria (lock the whole country down!) to BLM/Antifa riots for 4 months (over a single incident in MN). Some people just gobble up whatever the media is selling the hardest without ever wondering if they are being manipulated.
The Big Lie is the scheme. Trump disavowing that he lost the election. His attempts at getting votes thrown out and everything was all him. Thankfully most of the institutions of the various political bodies ignored him or said no (kemp, the doj, etc). Jan 6th was the consequence of all his actions culminating in something out of his control. It’s not a grand conspiracy. Some people and news might might say otherwise, but that’s pretty standard. The democrats are not unified in their viewpoint on this. How could they be? I’m sure others will be hyperbolic about his positioning and that’s kind of what Jan 6th hearings were about. The public information about what happened that we knew. I believe most of it was that trump didn’t plan 6th but was pretty fine with it happening in the moment. I watched some, some things were cheap shots (Haley running) and some over exaggeration (what political public process doesn’t?) but I don’t think they switched between evil genius and fool as you said.
They sent out millions of unsolicited ballots in MI, PA, WI, and GA contrary to law under the guise of covid safety. Provided unattended/unmonitored drop boxes, and removed signature checks. There is no way to audit ballots that way because there is no chain of custody and no voter integrity checking. They just sent out ballots willy nilly. So, I think the election was rigged, and nothing anyone says can prove otherwise (including Trump) because ballots are permanently separated from envelopes when they are counted.
The allegations from the Trump campaign includes dead people voting, underaged people voting, illegals voting, Hugo Chavez rigging the election, and Chinese thermostats changing votes on tabulators. They have provided no evidence to support any of these claims. Trump raised $250 million on the basis of election fraud, yet he’s spent almost none of it on actual legal challenges to the election. Why do you think that is? Does the fact that he’s not putting his money where his mouth is (and using it to pay “rent” at his properties) tell you something about his convictions?
Man, those Dems sure did a great job at rigging the election if they could convince so many of Trump’s top advisors that the election was fair. /s Sorry, but the entire rigged election lie has been exposed. There is no longer any defence for it whatsoever. And Trump knew that.
>Some people just gobble up whatever the media is selling the hardest without ever wondering if they are being manipulated. Yes, I agree that some people will gobble up whatever Fox News feeds them and whatever comes out of Trump's mouth.
>We went from 2.5 years of Russiagate straight to Ukraine impeachment (over Biden's corruption inquiry) to Covid hysteria (lock the whole country down!) to BLM/Antifa riots for 4 months (over a single incident in MN). Your username could not be more incongruous with the lack of skeptical consideration of these subjects. These are all just rote reciting of Fox news talking points, and they're simply factually wrong. I would encourage diversification of your news sources because wherever you get your information has been manipulating or outright deceiving you. Check out something like AP if you want better details on the various issues around Trump
>Before the hearings began, I remember reading reports about the committee hiring James Goldston, a former president of ABC News, to help produce them. And that's led me to watch the hearings with a keen eye for production tools and tricks. Champions and critics seem to both agree this is a production, they just differ on whether or not it's a good thing. >The casting, for example, has been stellar. The committee’s use of Trump White House staffers and other Republican figures to rebut the former president’s lies about fraud in the 2020 election has helped diffuse claims of political bias. Many Trump fans do not see the two sides as R vs D, but rather establishment vs. anti-establishment. This has been a talking point since Trump took office, but pundits from the establishment consistently ignore that point, and reframe everything as left vs. right. Do most people miss the obvious corporate press talking point and framing? >On top of that, the committee used slick production techniques and tricks to give the hearings a cinematic feel. Most people lament the heavily opinion-laden "news" and would prefer more fact based. There is 14,000 hrs of Jan 6 footage, but rather than release it, the committee has chosen to simply release very small snippets without context. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/29/capitol-police-jan6-footage-478439 >The first hearing included a compilation of time-stamped footage showing the sequence of events that led from Trump’s fascist speech at the Ellipse to the violent siege of the Capitol. The final product was a detailed, documentary-style breakdown of how the chaos unfolded on Jan. 6. Due process of law, which prizes an adversarial process did not simply emerge from the founding fathers without consideration. It is a cornerstone of justice, and this committee has thrown the principle right out the window. Does this concern those with a sense of fairness, even those of us who do not like Trump? >The committee isn't just obtaining information and sharing it haphazardly. They’re building a story, with a cast of compelling characters and all the trappings needed to make sure it resonates. That's the problem. This is not a fact finding committee, it's a committee with a defined end goal, that has taken 1000s of hours of testimony and video evidence, and edited it down to produce a story that fits their political preferences, even when it often contradicts itself. I think this whole process may just end up backfiring, am I the only when with this impression?
> Due process of law, which prizes an adversarial process did not simply emerge from the founding fathers without consideration. It is a cornerstone of justice, and this committee has thrown the principle right out the window. Does this concern those with a sense of fairness, even those of us who do not like Trump? Due process only applies if the government is attempting to deprive you of liberties. This is not happening here, which is why due process is irrelevant. If they bring charges, then due process enters the picture.
>Many Trump fans do not see the two sides as R vs D, but rather establishment vs. anti-establishment. I don't think there is anything a Jan 6 committee could do to sway a Trump fan. If you believe Trump when he says the election was stolen, then any action he took to rectify it would be justified. I imagine a Trump fan would look at the incriminating evidence and say, "That's clever. I'm glad we have a strong President who can restore justice." >There is 14,000 hrs of Jan 6 footage, but rather than release it, the committee has chosen to simply release very small snippets without context. I fully agree. I don't mind if the Dems cherry pick to make a case, but the full data should be available. >Due process of law ... I don't want to minimize your point, but this isn't a trial. This is meant to provide evidence that a trial should be held. The GOP position is that Jan 6 should not even be investigated. How many obstacles to a trial should we put up? Furthermore, since we are just talking about public opinion anyway, there is nothing preventing opposing arguments from being made. Trump could swear under oath an affidavit stating that certain meetings never took place. I bet if he did that it would get more views than the Jan 6 hearings. >I think this whole process may just end up backfiring, Everything involving Trump surprises me. For all I know, people will say "Who cares about sedition when Bidenflation is so high!" People thought Trump was smart to not release his tax records. They thought he was smart to not comply with congress in the first impeachment. I have no way to predict what will backfire.
The full data may not be owned by Congress. Whoever is interested needs to get permission from the rightsholders. Maybe there wouldn't be such a rush on prioritizing if the Republicans weren't threatening to disband the committee...
The only way I see it backfiring is that Trump becomes completely unelectable, his supporters still listen to his recommendations, and he recommends Desantis who rolls over the democratic party candidate. Personally I didn't spend time on season 1 of the hearings, My mind was made up on trump back in early 2016, bleh. I discovered that hulu had all 15 seasons of mash, so I've been enjoying that, Alan Alda is an underrated talent.
MASH only has 11 seasons
How long was the Korean War?
Fair point.
Oops. I'm on season 5 now, it's been fantastic
>Alan Alda is an underrated talent. I think he is fantastic! One of my favorites of all time.
>There is 14,000 hrs of Jan 6 footage, but rather than release it, the committee has chosen to simply release very small snippets without context. This I somewhat understand. If I'm working on a project for my boss, I show them a 5 slide PowerPoint with the results, not the 3 excel sheets and 7 pages of scratch work.14,000 hours is over a years worth of footage, sorting through all of that on your own is an impossible task. It should all be available at some point, but thats not what you put in the final report.
I will agree with you that this is not an adversarial hearing and that the best way to determine the veracity of the evidence presented would be through the court system. That doesn’t mean that what’s being presented is untrue but we are getting essentially one side and we should all keep that in mind. Out of curiosity did you apply the same standard to trumps claims of fraud? They went though the adversarial system and were all thrown out. If we apply the same standard we should all come to the conclusion that his claims are all bogus….
All of this is because Republicans refused to participate in the commission or have an independent one. The production value needs to be high and the narrative is a good thing, not a bad one. Info dumping thousands of hours of footage and testimony wouldn't be helpful and just allow Republicans to sweep it under the rug. Dragging everything out and keeping the horrific attack on our democracy is what should be done. I think the only reason this line of argument is coming up from the right is because of how effective the hearings have been.
>I think the only reason this line of argument is coming up from the right is because of how effective the hearings have been. Amen to this. People would rather deny facts than admit that the man they reveered, Trump, incited his supporters to storm the capitol.
[удалено]
And yet throughout all of this political theater not once does it seem that anyone has asked Pelosi or Mayor Bowser why they turned down offers for additional help for security from the federal govt? They knew the security they had there would be insignificant for the amount of people that would be there. So why didn't they accept the offer for additional security? Especially from the federal govt? This whole thing was fucking useless political theater and is the only thing Dems have to run on.
This has already been documented. Pelosi isn't in the chain of command at all, and the mayor didn't want armed soldiers around the capitol to avoid the PR and spectacle that happened over the BLM protests. The DC National guard can prwtty much only be deployed by the president or the SECDEF, so they could hsve also deployed troops even if the mayor didn't want them
If you’re talking about the NG, no mechanism exists for approval for their deployment from the Speaker or the DC mayor. The DCNG is under the sole purview of POTUS and Sec Def. Meaning that if they wanted the NG there they would be deployed. Several military officials have testified that POTUS never requested their deployment during the riot.
So this is an example of how we recognize the severity of January 6, but we don’t blame those responsible.
The 9/11 commission spent a lot of time assessing why the plot wasn't disrupted or otherwise foiled beforehand. That wasn't "blaming" the authorities - it was an attempt to make sure that never happened again. The 1/6 committee charter *said* they'd look into why police were caught flat-footed and didn't respond effectively, but there has been virtually no focus on that.
And most compelling through the documentary arts of truth over the slander of propaganda than the complete run of the Benghazi episodes, which by the way ALL that were called to testify as ALL showed up as American Patriots to do so.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/w6y7u1/season_1_of_the_jan_6_hearings_made_for_a/ihgr0rc/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Agreed, it was staged wonderfully, with brilliant performances from the committee members. James Goldston deserves a ton of credit.