Poll: Was the creation of the Jan 6 select committee legitimate?

[Jhhnn]

Why is the only other alternative to cancel the investigation? That doesn't make any sense. They could work this out if they would try. They are all being too partisan to do anything right.

I think the investigation into Jan 6 is the proper thing to do and all those that broke laws should be punished as the law dictates.

I said it already. They should have taken the deal as it was instead they turned it down and played right into vindictive Nancy's spider web and now they are stuck. As far as legitimate goes in my opinion it isn't legitimate due to the committee being practically one sided. When the Dems have a select committee where Democrats are the majority and have sole subpoena power.

The Dems should be a majority as they are the ruling party in the house, but the republicans should be represented by their choice of representatives and should also have subpoena powers.

I know it's legal, doesn't mean it is how it should be. If the shoe was on the other foot you guys would feel the same. I'm not upset by it as you want to make it seem. Life goes on and so will I...

Your bothsiderism & "sole subpoena power" routine are both quite tedious. The minority party never has subpoena power in congressional committees. Who or what do you suppose Jim Jordan would subpoena, anyway? Melissa from Michigan? McCarthy named him so that Pelosi would rightfully reject him, setting the stage for McCarthy to take his ball & go home.

 

[ch33zw1z]

@Greenman addendum

a violent uprising comprising a minimum of 50 guns, 1000 rounds of ammo and a detailed 500 page plan.

Hey man, it can't be a real insurrection unless they've had the gallows inspected and approved by local authorities.

 

[Jaskalas]

The premise of the topic is derived from a confused concept.

The House can form whatever committee it damn well pleases.

 

[HomerJS]

The premise of the topic is derived from a confused concept.

The House can form whatever committee it damn well pleases.

I know. Perhaps a better word would have been credible. Too late now

 

[hal2kilo]

The premise of the topic is derived from a confused concept.

The House can form whatever committee it damn well pleases.

The house which is run by Pelosi. Kevin can say whatever he wants, in spite of reality.

 

[Amol S.]

Establishing a baseline before the start of the hearings. Republicans will claim this committee is partisan and ill-legitimate who is only out to get Trump A gentle reminder of the sequence of events that led up to this committee

They tried for an independent committee. Kevin McCarthy sent Rep John Katko to negotiate terms. There would have been equal representation among Democrats and Republicans. Nobody on the committee would be a current member of Congress or running for office. Both sides would have had subpoena powers. Republicans got everything they wanted. Katko took it back to McCarthy and Kevy rejected it.

Pelosi will now run a select committee where Democrats are the majority and have sole subpoena power. It's a deal very similar to Benghazi

Taking all that into consideration is this a legitimate?

The select Committee is legitment because Pelosi was accepting 3 of the 5 people that the Republicans wanted to be on the committee. It was the Republican's fault that they took out all five instead of the rejected two from the committee. Pelosi had nothing to do with that. If she was biased, she would not have selected Liz Cheney or the other two Republicans in the comittee.

 

[pcgeek11]

What should have Nancy done since Republicans rejected the independent power sharing committee?

By vindictive do you mean unnecessary actions for the purpose of revenge?

Vindictive is usually used to describe someone who's known for frequently seeking revenge. It can also be used to describe the vengeful actions of such a person. ... Vindictive people retaliate against others for any insult or perceived slight. Vindictive people do not let things go.

 

[IronWing]

Vindictive is usually used to describe someone who's known for frequently seeking revenge. It can also be used to describe the vengeful actions of such a person. ... Vindictive people retaliate against others for any insult or perceived slight. Vindictive people do not let things go.

I'm not ready to let the Republican attempt to overthrow our Republic go and I don't think Speaker Pelosi should either.

 

[pcgeek11]

Pretending Democrats could somehow work with Republicans to get it done together is equivalent to stopping the investigation since we know Republicans refuse to work with Democrats because their base punishes them when they do.

So you can't show where I said it.

 

[HomerJS]

Vindictive is usually used to describe someone who's known for frequently seeking revenge. It can also be used to describe the vengeful actions of such a person. ... Vindictive people retaliate against others for any insult or perceived slight. Vindictive people do not let things go.

What should have Nancy done since Republicans rejected the independent power sharing committee?

What action that you wouldn't call vindictive.

 

[pcgeek11]

I'm not ready to let the Republican attempt to overthrow our Republic go and I don't think Speaker Pelosi should either.

As I have said all along, I don't want it let go either.

 

[pcgeek11]

What should have Nancy done since Republicans rejected the independent power sharing committee?

What action that you wouldn't call vindictive.

It doesn't matter as she is going to do what she is doing anyway.

I think she should have had the same rules with her select committee.

 

[HomerJS]

It doesn't matter as she is going to do what she is doing anyway.

I think she should have had the same rules with her select committee.

It matters because I'm challenging your accusation that Pelosi's actions in forming this select committee are vindictive. Unless there is something else she could have done her actions are seeking justice not revenge.

I'll ask again, what other action could Nancy have taken?

 

[pcgeek11]

It matters because I'm challenging your accusation that Pelosi's actions in forming this select committee are vindictive. Unless there is something else she could have done her actions are seeking justice not revenge.

I'll ask again, what other action could Nancy have taken?

I'm good with it... Look at history. Nancy is vindictive against anyone that goes against her wishes. Dem or Rep.

 

[VW MAN]

I'm good with it... Look at history. Nancy is vindictive against anyone that goes against her wishes. Dem or Rep.

And youre vindictive in the lazy mans cowardly way when challenged so fuck off with your horseshit!

 

[ivwshane]

I'm good with it... Look at history. Nancy is vindictive against anyone that goes against her wishes. Dem or Rep.

I’ll take three examples, as I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about.

 

[dank69]

So you can't show where I said it.

Nope, I can only show you how your own words logically lead to it. This is where you continue pretending there is a difference.

 

[dank69]

I’ll take three examples, as I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about.

She said something mean about AOC

 

[ch33zw1z]

Nope, I can only show you how your own words logically lead to it. This is where you continue pretending there is a difference.

He's gotta get his steps in

https://imgur.com/a/CAycFZ4

 

[HomerJS]

In case anyone was still wondering if there is any new information that can be gleaned from the hearings. So Mel, who tipped you off and why didn't you inform capital security or the speaker's office?
GOP lawmaker Mo Brooks admits he wore body armor at Jan. 6 Trump rally, and says he was tipped off to 'risks' (yahoo.com)

 

[ch33zw1z]

In case anyone was still wondering if there is any new information that can be gleaned from the hearings. So Mel, who tipped you off and why didn't you inform capital security or the speaker's office?
GOP lawmaker Mo Brooks admits he wore body armor at Jan. 6 Trump rally, and says he was tipped off to 'risks' (yahoo.com)

Is light treason still treason?

 

[SMOGZINN]

The select Committee is legitment because Pelosi was accepting 3 of the 5 people that the Republicans wanted to be on the committee. It was the Republican's fault that they took out all five instead of the rejected two from the committee. Pelosi had nothing to do with that. If she was biased, she would not have selected Liz Cheney or the other two Republicans in the comittee.

This is important. Remember the whole thing about compromise. What Pelosi was doing was compromising with McCarthy, she gave him 3 out of 5 members he wanted, and instead of either accepting that compromise or suggesting a different compromise he said either I get everything I want or I take my ball and go home. This is how Republicans always negotiate.

 

[pcgeek11]

Nope, I can only show you how your own words logically lead to it. This is where you continue pretending there is a difference.

There is a difference. I specifically said the opposite.

 

[Jaskalas]

I know. Perhaps a better word would have been credible. Too late now

To that end it simply falls on partisan lines. I think that means it is largely an irrelevant notion. Waiting for Republicans to be willing to police their own is... a non-starter. That would require good faith when there is none.

Though I suppose Pelosi made some decisions on who would be seated on the committee. Not sure I know enough about House politics to fully engage with that. It cannot possibly be worse than years of Benghazi. I found that one had some interesting connections to the US funneling weapons into Syria, but all the House Republicans wanted was to pin dead Americans on Hillary. That part was BS beyond reason. Which goes back to good faith or not. And we know the answer.

A large number of Republicans would have used a seat on the committee to elevate propaganda and fiction. I wonder if that would serve any practical value to us, their opponents?

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm good with it... Look at history. Nancy is vindictive against anyone that goes against her wishes. Dem or Rep.

So... her alleged vindictiveness doesn't apply to the topic at hand? Why have you been making a big deal of it?