The Jan. 6 Investigation
 

I think it's time to have a separate thread about the Congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Yesterday, four Capitol police officers gave emotional and detailed accounts of what they experienced during the riots. Included in that testimony, were detailed descriptions of the wounds they received, what they heard from the insurrectionists which included racial epithets, pro-Trump rhetoric, what weapons they saw and were used against them, and how they feel about the insurrectionist deniers in Congress and elsewhere. What they said was directly contrary to what Trump has claimed:

GOP Rep. Andrew Clyde said:

When asked about this statement, Capitol Police Officer Daniel Hodges, who was the officer being suffocated by a door, had his gas mask ripped off and was punched by a rioter, said:
Rep. Mo Brooks gave an incendiary speech at the rally, screaming that it was time to "“start taking down names and kicking ass.” It's also been reported that he was wearing body armor under his windbreaker:
We can expect subpoenas being issued to such people as Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Ivanka Trump, Kevin McCarthy, Mo Brooks*, and even D. Trump himself. They can no longer hide behind a compliant DOJ. Expect a lot of "I don't recalls" from this motley crew.

*The Justice Department on Tuesday night rejected a request by Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks for legal protection in court against a lawsuit linking him to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Brooks claimed he is protected because the speech was within his duties as representative. The court said:“The record indicates that the January 6 rally was an electioneering or campaign activity that Brooks would ordinarily be presumed to have undertaken in an unofficial capacity,” Justice Department civil attorneys said in a 29-page filing late Tuesday."

I agree. :thumbsup:

Some of the testimony on Tuesday by Capitol police officers who were involved was incredible.

Of course emotionally detailed accounts are the best kind of accounts. I certainly hope that Congress passes new laws based on emotionally detailed accounts.

How much teeth does this commission have? Other than compelling testimony and getting it on the record--can they do anything? Won't partisanship continue as before, with each side only hardening their positions?

And we can expect those subpoenas to be completely ignored by such people as Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Ivanka Trump, Kevin McCarthy, Mo Brooks, and even D. Trump himself.

Might be a bit more problematic now that Trump is a private citizen.

We'll just let the police officers who were so well treated on January 6th serve them. I'm sure there won't be any problem.

It’s not often I see appeals to emotion explicitly labeled as such.

I wanted the issue to be addressed that wasn't: I saw that video Clyde was talking about. Someone at some door ushered the terrorists in and they passed through the Rotunda (or wherever) between the typical rope barriers that tourists might well indeed have gone through. It was bizarre given what was going on in the rest of the building and outside.

So confront that ******* Clyde: "Are you referring to the single clip of the mob passing through the rotunda? Is that really the only clip you saw of the whole day? How could that be and what proportion of time do you believe that one clip amounted to?"

Sometimes I think the Democrats are never properly prepared. Sigh.

Oh for pity's sake! How many police could give testimony from that day which wasn't emotional? Because police who were assaulted by a mob are overly emotional, in your opinion?

Did you not watch any of the news streams from 1/6? Where the **** were you? You know there are plenty of replays of the whole affair, right?

Because the testimony was emotional that what, makes it hyperbole?

You really need a serious reassessment here.

So is this sarcasm or are you in agreement with TP?

Wait...what? You think this is a problem? I mean politicians constantly appeal to your emotions for votes, the state constantly taps into your emotions re: policies, good lord, even trial lawyers constantly appeal to the emotions of jurors to defend or prosecute a person. Your contrarianism is absurd.

These four men recounted in graphic detail what happened to them, supported with graphic body-cam video. They were beaten the crap out of, one was tazered repeatedly with his own tazer, one had his eyes gouged, one now has a permanent traumatic brain injury that will affect him for the rest of his life, and your take away from all that was to mock them for their emotions. Well, I guess if I was beaten to the point of fearing for my life, I would be emotional too when recounting it to others, as would any thinking, feeling member of the human race.

As soon as I saw Stacy had opened a thread to discuss January 6, I knew that apologists for Dear Has-Been Leader like you two soon be along to minimize the testimony down to the level Repugnican talking points.

Edited by xjx388:

<SNIP> Rule 12

But hey, I understand perfectly well why you would want to belittle what happened to these, and the 170+ other officers who suffered permanent in injuries - its because they are testifying to what will become an inconvenient truth for Trumpublicans like you two, a truth that you will find it impossible to dismiss or deny.

This committee will investigate to find what caused the 1/6 insurrection - they will find the truth, one that most of us with even a modicum of intelligence already have a fair idea about. I can sum up the causes of 1/6 in four short paragraphs...

1. For more than six months leading up to the 2020 Presidential election, Donald Trump sowed the seeds of distrust among the morons that make up his base by repeatedly stating that if he lost the election, it would be because the Democrats will have stolen it.

2. When he actually did lose the election in November 2020 (by over seven million votes) he amplified his claims into The Big Lie. Taking a leaf from the Joseph Goebbels' Book of Propaganda, he incessantly repeated The Big Lie until he brainwashed his moronic followers into believing it.

3. In the weeks leading up to Electoral College certification, he ramped up the lies, repeating The Big Lie repeatedly, and adding in other lies such as the lie that the VP could stop the count and declare Trump the winner, and the lie that he could declare martial law to stop the Electoral College vote. He was ably assisted spreading those lies by a number of co-conspirators... Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell, Paul Gosar, Mo Brooks, Michael Flynn, Ted Cruz, Matt Gaetz, Josh Hawley, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Lauren Boebert et al.

4. He invited his moronic base of deplorables to come to Washington DC for a rally. He had a number of his fellow traitors, including his idiot family, whip up his moronic base into a blind frenzy, pointed them at the Capitol and told them to stop the Electoral College vote - 'Stop what's happening in that building'.... and they did!

Anyone who thinks Trump did not intend for the mob to storm the Capitol is a complete idiot. FFS, the rally was called the "Stop the Steal" rally - they did EXACTLY what he told them to do, and then he spent the next few hours revelling in it.

What the **** did he and his co-conspirators think would happen?

Oh, FFSake! What "laws" are you blathering on about? They're investigating how and why this insurrection happened. This isn't about passing any laws. Your blatant pot stirring got old a long time ago and is as stale as last month's bread. And just as tasteless.

I agree, S Ginger. Rather than address anything I presented in my post, theprestige ignores everything but the emotions of the police officers. WTF? :mad:

'Absurd' is too kind a word. Unfortunately, what I'd really like to say violates :rule10

Yes, I'd like to know the same thing.

The officers' testimony being emotional does not negate its validity.

It can make "criminal referrals" to the DoJ for citizens and organisations

I thought it was unAmerican. REAL men are stoic in the face of mortal danger (e.g., Clint Eastwood, John Wayne). These hysterical soyboys can go suck dicks in hell.

It was sworn testimony from law enforcement officers that were eye witnesses to the events. Because it was emotional, it must not be truthful is a pretty weak and lazy criticism. I think if you're interested in the truth of what happened in that building, that much of the footage reinforces, then this testimony needed to be heard.

-edit-

And really, an appeal to emotion? They weren't up there making an argument. They were saying what happened to them.

I know, right? Humans are supposed to repress their feelings at having been assaulted and in some cases beaten to near death by a violent mob. And laws, of course, are in no way intended to be shaped by feelings and emotions. Humanity, surely, must in no way figure into it. The Vulcan way!

Rush, Hannity, Beck, Carlson and all the other Right-Wing grifters only use emotions, not facts, and yet we are told to take them as seriously as actual journalists.

Sometimes you scare me, Cain. The hard edge here would almost make me doubt your rep.

Laura Ingraham on Fox is giving out 'best performance' awards to police officers from today’s hearing

Video in link

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1420209713644331009

The best description IMV was Officer Fanone describing it as being 'like a medieval battle field'.

ABC News

Why would you be looking to pass new laws? The actions were already against the law.

A real scummy bitch isn't she!

Yes the only time emotion is supposed to be expressed is in how much supreme court justices love beer.

None. No. Yes.

This seems to be emerging as the official MAGA talking point. They have to come up with something to contradict the reality we've all seen and they don't have a whole lot to work with. :(

Exactly like Saint Tucker did. Their right-wing media says jump, they jump.

What a despicable human being.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you “compassionate Comservatism” in just two sentences.

Yeah... its not a bug, it a feature!

Dragging this over here from the other thread:

Many of the police worked hard that day in extremely adverse conditions and did their duty well. We also know that some did not.

Last I checked 6 were put on leave to investigate their conduct during the attack where some cops were seen glad-handing the mob and made it pretty clear where their sympathies lied. It's plainly obvious that decisions were made that left the Capitol a soft target, and the reasons for why that happened must be investigated thoroughly.

If the chief resigned, that's a good thing, but that's not the end of things. The leadership decision to not be prepared needs to be publicly explored in detail. Firing leadership is a necessary result, but not the end of the matter. The public needs to understand what was motivating this failure and how to prevent future repeats.

The police enabling of right wing political violence is a nationwide problem that must be addressed. The Capitol police being unprepared to stop a clearly telegraphed right wing attack is not a one-off phenomena. Across the country we have been seeing that police are either inexplicably unable or unwilling to enforce the law against violent right wing actors. I can't think of a higher profile way than to explore this particular example in extreme detail.

The attempt to overturn the Democratic process was Unamerican. ANYONE who was inside that building should face time, and those who were clearly ringleaders deserve time at gitmo, with the same treatment given those suspected of involvement in things AL Qaeda etc, because there is no difference in who and what they are. Anyone who openly sympathizes with the guilty deserve an active FBI file as well.

You heard me.

It's an old trick: if the witness is emotional, say they're clearly too emotional to be trusted about the facts. If the witness is not emotional, say that they're clearly lying because any normal person would be emotional when recalling such things if they truly happened.

Exactly. It shows that the emotional state of the witness is completely irrelevant: it's the narrative that counts for them.

It's as if you've posted a movie review after watching the first three minutes.

“How DARE you show emotion when talking about how you were almost beaten to death by lunatics I support!!”

Or, more accurately, posted a movie review after reading the title of another review for that movie... broadcast on Fox News.