Insurrection Hearings 6/28 and beyond

[Anonymous]

The ONLY semi-decent Republican is a Republican who has openly acknowledged that the election was not stolen, and who has distanced themselves from anyone who says so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Post reporting that Cipollone will testify Friday.

Good. Let's hope he's forthcoming and further implicates Meadows, Giuliani and Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:July 12

gd help us all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t about politics. It’s about saving democracy.

You understand that this is all past tense and that the people who did it are in jail, right?

The whole lot of GOP gubernatorial candidates of my state fully agree with Trump regarding 2020 and would have absolutely gone along with him if they were in charge. Trump has reached his sticky fingers into Secretary of State races for various states (the ones who run the election process) and Attorney Generals (the ones who decide if criminal action has occurred during an election.) This deep level of ex presidential involvement is unprecedented for lower level offices in states.

It's not past tense. It's ongoing.

So they did not attack the Capitol or in any way participate, but you believe they would have in some alternate universe? We cant arrest people for thought crime.

Fully supporting an election stealing insurrection is a morally disqualify position to take for people that would like to serve in public office.

I agree with that. But simply being Republican doesnt make people guilty by association. Also, believing in using authorized administrative procedures to challenge an election is fine (even if the underlying claims are absurd), and not anywhere near the moral equivalence of attacking the Capitol.

Please unpack that last sentence - not phrase, but the whole sentence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t about politics. It’s about saving democracy.

You understand that this is all past tense and that the people who did it are in jail, right?

The whole lot of GOP gubernatorial candidates of my state fully agree with Trump regarding 2020 and would have absolutely gone along with him if they were in charge. Trump has reached his sticky fingers into Secretary of State races for various states (the ones who run the election process) and Attorney Generals (the ones who decide if criminal action has occurred during an election.) This deep level of ex presidential involvement is unprecedented for lower level offices in states.

It's not past tense. It's ongoing.

So they did not attack the Capitol or in any way participate, but you believe they would have in some alternate universe? We cant arrest people for thought crime.

Fully supporting an election stealing insurrection is a morally disqualify position to take for people that would like to serve in public office.

I agree with that. But simply being Republican doesnt make people guilty by association. Also, believing in using authorized administrative procedures to challenge an election is fine (even if the underlying claims are absurd), and not anywhere near the moral equivalence of attacking the Capitol.

I think Republican candidates should be asked. If, like Wendy Rogers, Mastriano and a whole host of other current Republicans and Republican candidates DO still say the election was stolen, they should be disqualified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:July 12

gd help us all

I'm going to be in Europe. Is there any way to eatch this from my airbnb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t about politics. It’s about saving democracy.

You understand that this is all past tense and that the people who did it are in jail, right?

The whole lot of GOP gubernatorial candidates of my state fully agree with Trump regarding 2020 and would have absolutely gone along with him if they were in charge. Trump has reached his sticky fingers into Secretary of State races for various states (the ones who run the election process) and Attorney Generals (the ones who decide if criminal action has occurred during an election.) This deep level of ex presidential involvement is unprecedented for lower level offices in states.

It's not past tense. It's ongoing.

So they did not attack the Capitol or in any way participate, but you believe they would have in some alternate universe? We cant arrest people for thought crime.

Fully supporting an election stealing insurrection is a morally disqualify position to take for people that would like to serve in public office.

I agree with that. But simply being Republican doesnt make people guilty by association. Also, believing in using authorized administrative procedures to challenge an election is fine (even if the underlying claims are absurd), and not anywhere near the moral equivalence of attacking the Capitol.

I think Republican candidates should be asked. If, like Wendy Rogers, Mastriano and a whole host of other current Republicans and Republican candidates DO still say the election was stolen, they should be disqualified.

Yes. And you know they are ALL being giant liars and hypocrites. Not one of them truly believes this. They just want to pander to what they think the base likes and get that fundraising. It's a chicken or egg situation: if more Republican candidates and elected reps just flat out declared that there was no fraud, the base would gradually come to believe it. The politicians are waiting for the base to come around, and the base is waiting for the politicians to come around. They're all massive cowards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Post reporting that Cipollone will testify Friday.

Good. Let's hope he's forthcoming and further implicates Meadows, Giuliani and Trump.

He will hem and haw and, likely, take the Fifth. If he actually gave a tinkler's dam about the country, he would have come forward long ago. He chose to work for the most corrupt president this country has ever had so he is equally as corrupt.

There are no heroes in the Trump administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:July 12

gd help us all

I'm going to be in Europe. Is there any way to eatch this from my airbnb?

If you have an internet connection and a subscription to the NYT -- they broadcast it live from their website. Maybe the Post does too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Post reporting that Cipollone will testify Friday.

Good. Let's hope he's forthcoming and further implicates Meadows, Giuliani and Trump.

He will hem and haw and, likely, take the Fifth. If he actually gave a tinkler's dam about the country, he would have come forward long ago. He chose to work for the most corrupt president this country has ever had so he is equally as corrupt.

There are no heroes in the Trump administration.

Agree, except there may be a selfish reason why he determines that it would benefit him personally to testify honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:July 12

gd help us all

I'm going to be in Europe. Is there any way to eatch this from my airbnb?

If you have an internet connection and a subscription to the NYT -- they broadcast it live from their website. Maybe the Post does too.

Arrgh. Not NYT subscription, but I do have the Post. I think I might be able to watch it on Hulu after the fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:July 12

gd help us all

I'm going to be in Europe. Is there any way to eatch this from my airbnb?

If you have an internet connection and a subscription to the NYT -- they broadcast it live from their website. Maybe the Post does too.

Arrgh. Not NYT subscription, but I do have the Post. I think I might be able to watch it on Hulu after the fact.

The committee usually live-streams its hearings, and most major TV news stations have been airing the hearings in full. Fox News was the only major news network not to do so with the first hearing, which was in prime time.

The Washington Post will have anchored coverage and analysis before the hearings on YouTube and washingtonpost.com. C-SPAN will air all hearings in full. CNN.com will also stream the hearings, without requiring a cable subscription.

[Anonymous]

I've been a fan of the C-SPAN coverage. I hate TV news talking head panels and unnecessary graphics, etc. Just point a camera and microphones at the committee and its witnesses, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:July 12

gd help us all

I'm going to be in Europe. Is there any way to eatch this from my airbnb?

If you have an internet connection and a subscription to the NYT -- they broadcast it live from their website. Maybe the Post does too.

Arrgh. Not NYT subscription, but I do have the Post. I think I might be able to watch it on Hulu after the fact.

got this from Wapo: "C-SPAN will air all hearings in full. CNN.com will also stream the hearings, without requiring a cable subscription."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/january-6-committee-hearing-schedule-how-to-watch/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been a fan of the C-SPAN coverage. I hate TV news talking head panels and unnecessary graphics, etc. Just point a camera and microphones at the committee and its witnesses, please.

PBS too. I watch it on YouTube live. While "working" 😃