EDIT: I mis-spoke. The committee was originally set up, on a party-line vote, to include seven Democrats and six Republicans (including one to be chosen by Pelosi).
John - you seem to be going at this in a calm manner - and that is commendable. I think - surely you know that doubting the results of the 2020 election in this forum is going to generate a firestorm. I would ask calmly then - where is the requirement for the bi-partisan makeup of the select committee established? It doesn't appear you have given us that.
And do remember that *you* made a distinction between the independent committee that Republicans filibustered and the select committee that Republicans got for, in my opinion, overtly acting in bad faith.
Characterizing the investigations of the Jan 6 commission, in the face of the extensive research HCR has brought to the table in copious amounts, as mere "hardball politics" is also a specious action of yours.
Not at all. You're persistent in trying to undermine the legitimacy and authority of a committee devoted to rooting out actions that, if not treasonous in themselves, are rubbing shoulders with treason, with no useful alternative, such that my word usage is the subtext you're deliberately trying to create, and one must wonder what you personally are getting out of this, especially as you accept without question the premise that Biden "robbed" the primary, which is in itself specious, as nigh every argument you've presented is predicated on that premise.
I think it is already clear that I don't subscribe to your point of view, and I hope it is equally clear that I am not a Trump supporter.
I think it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden and company stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders. I also think it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that our country shares responsibility for the most far-reaching genocide in history, perpetrated by the International Monetary Fund (based in Washington, DC).
I think it is crystal clear that most people don't want to talk about this, and your apparent unwillingness to engage with the content of Davison Budhoo's 100-page resignation letter from the IMF would suggest habitual see-no-evil hypocrisy on your part, which in turn would strongly suggest your unwillingness to look at the evidence of all-to-common vote fraud in the USA.
The Select Committee could well be an effort by treasonous vote-fraudsters to rub out resistance to their techno-fascist coup d'etat. If the Jan. 6 riot was actually an attempt to STOP a slow-moving coup, that would appear to absolve them from your charge of treason.
As always, your willingness to read and consider Davison Budhoo's resignation letter (which has been blacked out of the U.S. news media) is a starting point for evaluating your capacity for honest discussion.
I'll repeat my earlier quotes from Budhoo's letter:
"To me resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mindтАЩs eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers."
"The charges that I make are not light charges - they are charges that touch at the very heart of western society and western morality and post-war inter-governmental institutionalism that have degenerated into fake and sham under the pretext of establishing and maintaining international economic order and global efficiency."
"Will the world be content merely to brand our institution as among the most insidious enemies of humankind? Will our fellowmen condemn us thus and let the matter rest? Or will the heirs of those whom we have dismembered in our own peculiar Holocaust clamor for another Nuremberg?
"I donтАЩt mind telling you that this matter has haunted me; it has haunted me particularly over the past five years. It has haunted me because I know that if I am tried I will be found guilty, very guilty, without extenuating circumstance."
"In guilt and self-realization of my own worthlessness as a human being, what I would like to do most of all is to so propel myself that I can get the man-in-the-street of North and South and East and West and First and Second and Third and Fourth and All Other Worlds to take an interest in what is happening to his single planet, his single habitat, because our institution was allowed to evolve in a particular way in late twentieth century international society, and allowed to become the supra-national authority that controls the day-to-day lives of hundreds of millions of people everywhere."
"We get away with our works of Dracula hiding behind the mask of Superior Technocracy and a Greater Wisdom striving for тАЬfinancial balanceтАЭ and тАЬstructural adjustmentтАЭ in the Third World."
"And so it goes on and on and on. And nothing changes in the developing world except more death and destitution for the people in the slums, and more power for the Fund. And with the passing of every meeting our staff becomes even more reinvigorated; they wield a sharper and more bloodied tool; an even more terrifying ExecutorтАЩs Axe stand poised for service everywhere in the South. And the children scream, Sir; my God, how they scream!"
(Budhoo is referring here to the incessant screaming of starving infants. When they stop screaming, you know that death is near.)
"could well be" is not an argument. And you know this.
It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt, given this bizarre insertion of the IMF into the discussion, that you are arguing in bad faith. Time to shake the dust from my sandals, as there is nothing constructive left to discuss here, other than to point out the obvious that you *are* arguing in bad faith.
Why did the committee not end up as you day was required? What took place when this alternative to an independent commission was voted upon along party lines? Not arguing, but do you know why the intended composition didn't happen?
I'm not sure. I think it was the decision of the committee Chairman, backed up by the party leadership. Your question is one that I would like a clear answer to.
I'd encourage you to look into the extensive news coverage on this topic. Coverage included NYT, WaPo, Washington Weekly, for many days as the process and potential members were suggested, blocked, and McCarthy stomped off into the sunset condeming Ms Cheney and Mr Adam K to purgatory. Many posting here have addressed this as well, particularly in sharing following HCR various LFAAs (see the archives). You may come to understand what is taking place and help you adjust your quicker look-sees.
Bear in mind that he's all over the internet with this kind of stuff. Democracy permits it.
RBot?
And our citizenry is Rupert Murdoch conditioned for bull Schitt
Jack Lippman, "all over the internet"?? You lie boldly.
Not boldly, just fighting fire with fire. You chose the weapons.
We need to stop feeding the troll
So you admit that you lied. I didn't lie.
I presented evidence, both in my initial post and in three quick follow-up posts, and you don't seem to want to talk about it.
The membership of the committee, which is supposed to have an equal number of Republicans (with the Democrat Chair breaking ties) is here:
https://january6th.house.gov/about/membership
EDIT: I mis-spoke. The committee was originally set up, on a party-line vote, to include seven Democrats and six Republicans (including one to be chosen by Pelosi).
John - you seem to be going at this in a calm manner - and that is commendable. I think - surely you know that doubting the results of the 2020 election in this forum is going to generate a firestorm. I would ask calmly then - where is the requirement for the bi-partisan makeup of the select committee established? It doesn't appear you have given us that.
That was the rule agreed to in the House at the time the committee was set up.
Evidence, please.
And do remember that *you* made a distinction between the independent committee that Republicans filibustered and the select committee that Republicans got for, in my opinion, overtly acting in bad faith.
You are of course entitled to your opinion. Hardball politics on both sides, in this time of Constitutional cancer, is good for no one.
Characterizing the investigations of the Jan 6 commission, in the face of the extensive research HCR has brought to the table in copious amounts, as mere "hardball politics" is also a specious action of yours.
Your use of the word "mere" is a specious action of yours.
The stakes are very high in this ongoing coup-vs.-coup duel, and the machinery of democracy has become battered and twisted.
Not at all. You're persistent in trying to undermine the legitimacy and authority of a committee devoted to rooting out actions that, if not treasonous in themselves, are rubbing shoulders with treason, with no useful alternative, such that my word usage is the subtext you're deliberately trying to create, and one must wonder what you personally are getting out of this, especially as you accept without question the premise that Biden "robbed" the primary, which is in itself specious, as nigh every argument you've presented is predicated on that premise.
I think it is already clear that I don't subscribe to your point of view, and I hope it is equally clear that I am not a Trump supporter.
I think it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden and company stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders. I also think it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that our country shares responsibility for the most far-reaching genocide in history, perpetrated by the International Monetary Fund (based in Washington, DC).
I think it is crystal clear that most people don't want to talk about this, and your apparent unwillingness to engage with the content of Davison Budhoo's 100-page resignation letter from the IMF would suggest habitual see-no-evil hypocrisy on your part, which in turn would strongly suggest your unwillingness to look at the evidence of all-to-common vote fraud in the USA.
The Select Committee could well be an effort by treasonous vote-fraudsters to rub out resistance to their techno-fascist coup d'etat. If the Jan. 6 riot was actually an attempt to STOP a slow-moving coup, that would appear to absolve them from your charge of treason.
As always, your willingness to read and consider Davison Budhoo's resignation letter (which has been blacked out of the U.S. news media) is a starting point for evaluating your capacity for honest discussion.
I'll repeat my earlier quotes from Budhoo's letter:
"To me resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mindтАЩs eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers."
"The charges that I make are not light charges - they are charges that touch at the very heart of western society and western morality and post-war inter-governmental institutionalism that have degenerated into fake and sham under the pretext of establishing and maintaining international economic order and global efficiency."
"Will the world be content merely to brand our institution as among the most insidious enemies of humankind? Will our fellowmen condemn us thus and let the matter rest? Or will the heirs of those whom we have dismembered in our own peculiar Holocaust clamor for another Nuremberg?
"I donтАЩt mind telling you that this matter has haunted me; it has haunted me particularly over the past five years. It has haunted me because I know that if I am tried I will be found guilty, very guilty, without extenuating circumstance."
"In guilt and self-realization of my own worthlessness as a human being, what I would like to do most of all is to so propel myself that I can get the man-in-the-street of North and South and East and West and First and Second and Third and Fourth and All Other Worlds to take an interest in what is happening to his single planet, his single habitat, because our institution was allowed to evolve in a particular way in late twentieth century international society, and allowed to become the supra-national authority that controls the day-to-day lives of hundreds of millions of people everywhere."
"We get away with our works of Dracula hiding behind the mask of Superior Technocracy and a Greater Wisdom striving for тАЬfinancial balanceтАЭ and тАЬstructural adjustmentтАЭ in the Third World."
"And so it goes on and on and on. And nothing changes in the developing world except more death and destitution for the people in the slums, and more power for the Fund. And with the passing of every meeting our staff becomes even more reinvigorated; they wield a sharper and more bloodied tool; an even more terrifying ExecutorтАЩs Axe stand poised for service everywhere in the South. And the children scream, Sir; my God, how they scream!"
(Budhoo is referring here to the incessant screaming of starving infants. When they stop screaming, you know that death is near.)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oJzvpfFzIKu76oE1CkzZlarRiVpYIggFMFzSt6OgHx0/mobilebasic"
"The Select Committee could well be an effort"
"could well be" is not an argument. And you know this.
It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt, given this bizarre insertion of the IMF into the discussion, that you are arguing in bad faith. Time to shake the dust from my sandals, as there is nothing constructive left to discuss here, other than to point out the obvious that you *are* arguing in bad faith.
Why did the committee not end up as you day was required? What took place when this alternative to an independent commission was voted upon along party lines? Not arguing, but do you know why the intended composition didn't happen?
I'm not sure. I think it was the decision of the committee Chairman, backed up by the party leadership. Your question is one that I would like a clear answer to.
I'd encourage you to look into the extensive news coverage on this topic. Coverage included NYT, WaPo, Washington Weekly, for many days as the process and potential members were suggested, blocked, and McCarthy stomped off into the sunset condeming Ms Cheney and Mr Adam K to purgatory. Many posting here have addressed this as well, particularly in sharing following HCR various LFAAs (see the archives). You may come to understand what is taking place and help you adjust your quicker look-sees.
I think it's reasonable to question whether the rump (no pun intended) committee lacks legitimate subpoena power.
Not really if you haven't done the basics of discovery. You seem to have questions but are unwillingness to research what is taking place. Good by.