A night of shame?

[Dave Grubb]

.....or could it be a night of pride? Pride, because we as a country can expose this retched conduct we were forced to watch in disbelief on Jan 6th and shame in knowing we were watching the most unprincipled among us demonstrate that rot in full view of the nation.

mccarthy, mcconnell and hawley all stood out as master chameleons unhindered of any spine at all----may they face this day with profound shame

Sadly, I know they wont!

Added in edit:

I have to add, that my optimism is fueled by those who stood tall and resigned their positions rather than go on. May Cassidy Hutchinson, Sarah Matthews, and others like them, serve as examples of living a principled life and be awarded the warmth of this counties gratitude for standing up for principles, something trump can't even begin to understand.

It is up us (the voters) to work actively at assuring we elect people worthy of the public trust.

It is a sad fact the the POTUS elected to listen to his spineless yes men and the craziest among us rather than the anchored and principled in the same room.

From one of my news feeds:

His [trump's] obstinacy made him look isolated and unreasonable; the outtakes made him seem pathetic and childish.
For all that, Trump fared better than Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), the first senator to say he would empower the House Trump loyalists by contesting some of the state votes, who famously raised a fist in solidarity with the protestors on the morning of January 6. The committee showed the image of Hawley raising his fist…and then showed footage of him running at top speed through the Capitol when the rioters broke in. Across the internet, users have been poking fun at Hawley, who has recently been on a crusade to launch what he calls an imperative “revival of strong and healthy manhood in America” and “traditional masculine virtues.” They have been posting pictures of the video to the theme from the running movie Chariots of Fire, for example, and pictures of running chickens. As journalist Adam Serwer tweeted, “Hawley riling up the mob and then fleeing in terror is an incredible political metaphor.”

Excuse me Senator hawley----are those your tiny little balls lying on the capital floor

[Honda]

Don't worry there's going to be more. The sequel is coming in September just in time for the midterms. Coming to a political theater near you.

[Dave Grubb]

Yup, staring a cast of disaffected Republicans who have had enough

[Honda]

Nope not at all. I stand by my original observation that this should have been handled by the department of Justice who has the power to indict and try them before a court of competent jurisdiction and if convicted sentence them. The guilty belong in jail not used as political pawns to achieve a political purpose. A a politician or political group who is behind in the polls is as dangerous as a wounded dog

[Kevin]

All you get from Justice is crime/no crime.

There was plenty of wrong here that needed to be exposed, crime or no crime.

[Honda]

All you get from Justice is crime/no crime.

.

Yeah and all you get from politicians is politics.

[Truckman]

There was plenty of wrong here that needed to be exposed, crime or no crime.

From that, revenge, often in the guise of justice, becomes a camp follower...And there's nothing wrong with revenge, given it's justified......Ben

[Kevin]

Yeah and all you get from politicians is politics.

Isn't that what we are looking at here, on January 6? We are investigating what happened. It was a political event, so you get a political investigation. Same as an impeachment. Political crimes get investigated by politicians. Nature of the beast.

[Kevin]

From that, revenge, often in the guise of justice, becomes a camp follower...And there's nothing wrong with revenge, given it's justified......Ben

Can you point to anything we are learning that is not truthful? Exposing the truth is justice and a service due to us by our leaders. Should we not be investigating the events of January 6 and publicizing the results? If you only look at the event as a crime, then you get nothing about who was derelict in their duty, who should be exposed for failing us as a leader, what steps should be taken to avoid this in the future. All you would get is, did someone commit a crime.

Let's not forget that the witnesses have almost all been fellow Republicans, including people who liked Trump and happily worked for him and take justifiable pride in their service to the country. This isn't a bunch of snarky Democrats testifying as to what happened. These are Republicans. And in several cases, Trump was convicted out of his own mouth.

[Truckman]

To be clear, I wasn't disagreeing with you, Kevin......Ben

[Honda]

Isn't that what we are looking at here, on January 6? We are investigating what happened. It was a political event, so you get a political investigation. Same as an impeachment. Political crimes get investigated by politicians. Nature of the beast.

I have no confidence in the US Congress. And frankly, I'm not alone.

[Kevin]

As a general rule, that's a reasonable position.

However, the question here is, are these proceedings presenting a true picture of what actually happened or not? It isn't about the general trustworthiness of Congress. That's a separate issue.

The Committee is presenting the results of interviews with, almost to a person, either Republicans who worked for Trump or people directly involved with the events of January 6 at the Capitol. No one is asking the public to trust anything. These are people who worked for Trump or officers involved in the melee, under oath, testifying as to what they saw or did or heard. The Committee is presenting their own stories, from their own mouths.

Unless you think that the witnesses are lying?

[Honda]

I really have no idea. But when I look at politics I suppose it's a lie first, and then wait for credible evidence. Look, I'm not saying there was no wrongdoing. I'm on the record here saying that anybody that participated in January 6th and committed crimes should be tried and if convicted punished. Anybody. I have been watching political circuses started by the US Congress my whole life. I'm not impressed.

[Dave Grubb]

It is imperative that the public sees as clearly as possible what went on here. The cult will remain unmoved, but for the rest of us we need to see this for what it was, an insurrection.

I have watched more Congressional Hearings (and been in one) than I need, but this one is not the common dog and pony show of snarky comments and sparing for political points while the original purpose of the hearing is forgotten.

The DOJ will get their chance---and when they do the public's access will be limited even if it is a public trial.

This committee has much to be proud of and I applaud their hard work.

I look forward to September

[Kevin]

OK, let me ask it this way:

We've learned a lot about the nature of Trump's actions leading up to January 6. We've seen the lengths that he was willing to go to push farcical claims in the courts and when that didn't work, cockamamie legal theories about the VP choosing the President and throwing out the election entirely. We've seen how he used an armed mob to delay the certification that day, willing to allow his own VP be killed if need be so that he could stay President. We've seen how he knew his whole electoral fraud position was a lie, a lie he is still pushing and convincing people today. We know all this because his own staff have testified under oath, not because some politician said so.

So questions:

1) Is it a waste of time to learn these things? You get none of this with a Justice investigation. All you get is crime/no crime. None of this information becomes public.

2) What would you have done differently? The Committee is interviewing Trump's own staff. If anyone has an incentive to shade the truth, they would be doing it to minimize or justify Trump's own actions that day. They are not doing so, as far as can be determined. So who would you ask? Unless, of course, your answer to question 1 is that you would not go through this public airing of information at all.

This isn't me trying to debate you. What I'm interested in is how a committed conservative such as yourself views these proceedings and why. I'm interested in knowing all the details of what happened that day not because I don't like Trump but because, just like Watergate, I believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant. How do you keep something like this happening again? By shining a great big spotlight on it and forcing everyone to look at it. If politicians know that they will be held up to intense scrutiny, they will be less likely to try this **** in the future. As far as I can tell, no politician is asking me to trust them. These are Republicans testifying. So I'm inclined to view these proceedings differently than the umpteen Benghazi hearings.

Democracy dies in darkness.