Just heard CNN panelist say that unless the J6 hearings result

[Laura PourMeADrink]

in a successful prosecution, they will have failed.

Do you agree?


Just spent week with family on vacation. One out of many is a wingnut. Kept saying hearing was one sided and lacked due justice. I personally, have not heard any rebuttal to all the horror. Is there???? Because they plead 5th or don't appear? is this an obvious fact?

[Sneederbunk]

1. No. DOJ will have failed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. Yes. If there are legit crimes. YES. If none... Another story

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. Really?

[wnylib]

24. Congress is a legislative body.

The House can impeach - bring charges against someone who holds a federal office. The Senate can convict or acquit an impeached person in a trial. But that is for the purpose of maintaining a balance of power between the 3 branches of federal government.

They can investigate people and situations in order to learn facts that help them to legislate laws. But if they discover crimes during their investigation, they refer them to DOJ or to a DA for prosecution.

They approve federal appointments and treaties and can make declarations of war.

But they are not a prosecutorial body, except for impeachment.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

56. Of course! Was a lane attempt at sarcasm. You and I are

On the same Dem page.

[elleng]

3. STUPID panelist,

as J6 Hearings have NO SUCH AUTHORITY.

There is Congress: House of Representatives, and there is the Department of Justice. DoJ has such authority, Congress investigates.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Think operative words are "result in"??!

[wnylib]

26. Still is DOJ's responsibility.

Congress's authority to hold these hearings is to learn facts that will help them change laws or make new ones to close loopholes and prevent the kinds of things that led to the insurrection. They are making the hearings public in order to inform the people of how things got so out of control and why Congress will propose some legislation.

This is the point that Trump and his surrogates and attorneys are raising in their objections to the hearings. They are trying to claim that the hearings are not valid because they say that they serve no legislative purpose. But the courts have upheld the validity and authority of the hearings

[RockRaven]

4. J6 Comm has neither the authority nor the responsibility to prosecute anyone. That's the DOJ.

Cable "news" is a cesspool of noxious nonsense. Watching it poisons one's brain.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Think he was saying/implying ultimately

[wnylib]

27. Does not matter what he might have implied.

The implication is wrong and off base.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. Huh... Happen to think he was spot on. You are thinking

It doesn't matter if hearings result in indictment or not? Yes, truth coming out. That's enough?

[wnylib]

36. He was not "spot on." He was displaying either ignorance of

how Congress functions and it's authority, or he was biased against the hearings.

As for the rest of that post, do not put words in my mouth or imply things that I have not said.

Prosecution is not the purpose of the J6 committee. It is also not in their power. The J6 committee investigations are NOT being held for the purpose of providing DOJ with prosecutorial evidence. If they uncover crimes in the course of their investigation, they refer that to DOJ, but the purpose of the J6 committee investigations is to gather facts on what happened in order to propose legislative recommendations to the rest of Congress when the hearings are completed.

See post #23 by OcelotII.

This is high school civics stuff.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

43. Yes! Legal definition ok. But here we are talking only about

perception of wingnut? That's what I am trying to get. Most think it's futile but if we can shave a piece we are in like gold.

[rso]

7. 1/6

I was watching also, and the guy who made that comment is a Republican who used to support Trump, so consider the source.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

32. Ugh. So you are saying it doesn't matter? We have to settle for just the truth coming out

vs. prosecutions? Will dumb down my expectations

[onecaliberal]

8. They can't prosecute anyone. Even though they have well proven all elements of many crimes already.

If it were anyone else we’d be in prison for life for any ONE of those things.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. So WTF

[onecaliberal]

17. DOJ 🤷‍♀️

[dixiechiken1]

11. IMO, if they result in opening enough peoples' eyes to vote for Dems...

And we can maintain the majority in the House & the Senate, that's a win.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. Ya. If you boil it down ALL that's important .. swaying some voters ! nt

[In It to Win It]

12. I think the DOJ is filled with competent lawyers who will prosecute if they can link the act

to the man.

Aside from J6, the Georgia case in the strongest because the guy is literally on tape asking the state SOS to commit election fraud for him.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

33. Yes! GA!

[unblock]

14. Gotta love how the right wing frames everything.

Let's not talk about the Republican party's many failures in electing and continuing to support a dictator wannabe, let's not talk about the coup attempt as a horrendous low point for the Republican Party, let's not talk about how evil it is for republicans to constantly dismiss the coup attempt as a typical tour or march, let's not talk about how much Republican hate democracy and love violence....

No, let's judge the events of January 6 based on whether or not a congressional committee was able to bring about some level of accountability over the strenuous resistance of the entire Republican Party.


Why aren't the media taking the Republican Party to task for this? Why aren't they saying things like, how can the Republican Party govern and ask for your vote when they foster and support a coup attempt and refuse to hold their own people accountable?

[wnylib]

29. +100,000

[PufPuf23]

34. Most of the media is owned by the same investors that "own" most of the GOP.

The conservative nut bag churches like the reflected power to the degree they have forgotten the tenets of their failed faith.

In other words, a wet dream for mega bullies and grifters and possible failure of the USA experiment.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

44. I am a Dem for generations . In my DNA. Just asking

what could change the way they think is all.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

35. Huh?? Ok. So guess from the Democratic pov, it does not

matter if our hearings result in any indictment. Is that your opinion? Sorry if I had to intuit that.

[unblock]

47. my point is that the focus should be on the horrible things we're all seeing that republicans did

ideally, the media would be showing this as a massive scandal of epic proportions for the republican party. a pivotal moment in terms of whether or not they can keep any semblance of legitimacy after trying to overthrow the government, destroy our democracy, install a dictator, dismiss and cover up violent crimes, treason, and so on.

framing is as no if no one should care unless it results in a successful prosecution is bizarrely setting a very specific and very high bar. there are obviously many challenges in prosecuting powerful people to begin with, never mind a former president. and also never mind that the congressional committee is at best only capable of making criminal referrals, they have no prosecutorial powers.


beyond that, did the media ever suggest that any hearings about hillary only mattered if they resulted in a successful prosecution? ha! they persecuted her for a quarter century over everything from a friend's suicide to pizzagate to benghazi and emails and never got close to a prosecution. yet the media constantly said we should care immensely about all that nonsense. not once did they every describe hillary as the most thoroughly investigated and exonerated politician in history. no, they insisted we shouldn't trust her, that somehow there was something questionable about her, all these scandals. they never ever note that the only reason she had all these scandals is because republicans made up crap and made many mountains out of molehills. all while the media largely gives republicans a pass on their own massive scandals.



would a successful prosecution be awesome? certainly.
would it be disappointing, and even problematic if we can't get successful prosecutions from key figures in the coup, if not donnie himself? absolutely.

but should the hearings be judged solely based on that specific result?

hardly.

i would consider the hearings quite successful if the media and corporate america turned their backs on the republican party until they had a major house-cleaning and change in their internal leadership and attitude. if it resulted in a massive shift in voting patterns away from the republican party. not that i'm expecting any of that.

but the frame that the *hearings* should be judged at all is a b.s. shift away from the fact that the important thing is that *donnie* and *the republican party* is what should be judged.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

51. Think you could be? reading WAY too much into this? Bottom line. Does the right

think the hearings are legit? May not. Best path? .. just continue on for history sake? we all knew and hope for indictments thru DOJ . Or try to counteract whatever way we can? Probably need a staff of psychiatrists?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

58. Biggest mystery... Why aren't we on tV three times a day

Saying EXACTLY what you said. Jeez it always boils down to that IMHO.

[unblock]

59. No mystery. The media is always most interested in pushing right wing frames

Right wing topics with right wing catchphrases and focus.

Another example -- Black Lives Matter, Colin kaepernick, marches, etc.

The *only* question the media talks about is whether or not black people are protesting legitimately, peacefully, legally, and respectfully.

Hence, is "Black Lives Matter" offensive to white people or the police, is it improper to protest during the national anthem, or hey look, broken windows.

The media virtually never discusses actual ideas on how to improve policing, make traffic stops safer for everyone, let better equipped agencies handle things that the police routinely botches, etc.

The right wing isn't interested in any of that do we can't have that debate. So instead they make us focus on whether the protesters are doing it wrong somehow.

[uponit7771]

60. +1

[Joinfortmill]

15. No

[BlueTsunami2018]

18. If you can't get the Justice department to act with this overwhelming evidence....

then yeah, it will have all been for nothing, the bad guys will walk away and we’ll certainly be finished as a country based on the rule of law. I’m not so certain we’re not there already when you consider the myriad of crimes they’ve gotten away with since Nixon. It’s like the whole thing is a facade.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. If I could agree more than 100% I would !

[Laura PourMeADrink]

55. Yet good will eventually outweigh bad. At least that's

what we were taught.

[uponit7771]

61. +1, the fake Trump electors are low hanging fruit!!!!

[greatauntoftriplets]

20. Who was the panelist?

[rsdsharp]

21. What does your family member mean be "due justice?"

I’m not familiar with that as a term of art. Did they mean “due process?” The 5th amendment provides, in pertinent part: “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

What process is due? This is not a criminal proceeding. This committee has no power to deprive anyone of anything. I’m certain all the witnesses were afforded the right to counsel if they so chose; Eastman certainly did. None of the witnesses can be compelled to incriminate themselves. Virtually all of the witnesses, to date, have been Republicans. I’m sure they would welcome Trump’s testimony (not to be confused with a monologue).

I know these weren’t your thoughts, but the argument put forth by these yahoos is basically, “They’re saying bad things about Trump! Make it stop!”

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. Yes! Think they meant " due process". They kept harkening

back to R's wanting to be on Committee but not being allowed. But all that aside, have not seen anything so far that can be refuted. Just saying.. this is the way they must be thinking!

[Poiuyt]

22. I don't expect there to be a major prosecution, but I think these hearings are very

important for history. I want high school students to see that we once had a president who tried to overthrow the US government. And I really want historians and political scientists to realize that Trump wasn't just the third or fourth worst president. He was the worst president in our history by a long shot.

[doc03]

42. It all depends on who writes the history. If they are not prosecuted there will

be another coup. If it is successful the history they don't like will be burned.

[Ocelot II]

23. No. The J6 committee and the DoJ have different functions.

The committee's job is to expose flaws in the electoral system and ultimately protect it from bad actors through legislation. The DoJ's function, on the other hand is to prosecute crimes. Many of the actions being uncovered by the committee are crimes and some are not; it's up to the DoJ to evaluate those possible crimes and decide whether they can be successfully prosecuted. Completely different things.

[wnylib]

31. Thanks. That was much better than

my attempt up thread to explain the same thing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. Totally clear to us... May not be to THEM

[texasfiddler]

25. I agree that the CNN panelist does not understand the constitution and might be a secret MAGA!! NT

[JohnSJ]

30. +++

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. It was a pure political remark

[gab13by13]

38. Laura, the best answer to give,

is that the #1 job of the select committee is to convince DOJ, Merrick Garland, to indict traitors who tried to overturn our democracy.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

40. Agree 100%. Actually just think the fact that there

is zero rebuttal interesting. They have zero rebuttal. And it's fascinating that they were so easily swayed. Actually from a PR perspective quite smart... When you gave nada, all you have is that they wouldn't let us participate.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

46. Actually, we have to get used to the fact that truth

doesn't matter anymore. We can just keep plugging away... Or try to counteract. Guessing no counteraction on table.

[MyMission]

48. Based on the comments here

It seems there are several positive results that can be gained from the hearings.

#1 desired outcome is to convince DOJ to indict and prosecute,
#2 is to convince House and Senate to enact legislation and censor those implicated,
#3 to convince voters, both GOPQ and Unaffiliated in enough numbers, to abandon certain candidates; and convince Democrats and Unaffiliated in enough numbers to ensure a strong turnout to vote against cult 45 candidates.

I certainly hope to see all three. The fact that there hasn't been much rebuttal is interesting, but not surprising. They just continue to spout the big lie rhetoric. There are many involved who expect to get away with their part, but also many who understand and acknowledge and will testify they witnessed or participated in seditious crimes. There's no rebuttal they could offer. Once the hearings are over, whether or not they're brought up on charges, it will be interesting how they defend themselves.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

54. Do think it interesting.... Good ploy to try, but then assume

a bystander role. Only option, really. And it accomplished a goal of creating an atmosphere for declaring it "partisan" .

Yet thinking people will watch and say "what the what" is a pipe dream. But hell, if they were thinking people they would have come over by now.

Answers the question. We will not sway minds. .. but will record this ultimate tragedy for history

[MyMission]

57. I'm hopeful it will sway a few votes here and there

Which might impact a few elections in some states. In NC we voted for Obama and then 45 by narrow margins. And in 2020 we reelected our Democratic governor and rethug senator.
A few percentage points might make the difference in our open Senate race.

And 36 governor's will be elected in November, so that might drive a larger midterm turnout.
If they lose a small percentage of voters and we gain a small percentage it could impact a number of races across the country. It could, and likely will impact a few races. I hope.
4 1/2 months til election day. investigation and hearings will probably continue as long as we retain control of the house and Senate. If not, it will be up to the DOJ.

[UTUSN]

49. no prosecution - not the committee failed, the *WHOLE GOVERNMENT*

[Laura PourMeADrink]

53. Yes.. Hearings of a House select committee just a piece. If a human beingca

can get away with trying to overthrow the government and get away with it.... Then at a minimum jaywalking should be legal in 50 states

[helpisontheway]

50. Merrick Garland will have failed. Many thought he would be remembered for being

blocked from becoming a Supreme Court justice. However, he will always be remembered as the person that allowed a president to attempt to destroy our democracy. That was a trial run. Next time they will try again and be successful because Garland did not lift a finger to stop it. Why in the world did Biden select him?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

52. Exactly! Why was he selected? If I was in charge of something, I would

appoint like minded people that I knew held my views. Hoping that hard evidence outweighs any potential bias

[BlueTsunami2018]

62. How do you know he didn't?

Presidents often “look ahead” instead of behind when it comes to the crimes of their predecessors. Ford, Poppy, Clinton and Obama all did it. Joe seems to be as well.

You know damn well if the shoe was on the other foot our guys would have been strung up for this by now.

[Emile]

63. Wow, that CNN panelist is trying to cause outrage at

the Democratic led Jan 6 committee when they don't have the power to prosecute.

[HAB911]

64. Not a failure

but the RWNJs will take it as such, in fact as confirmation and vindication for their, and TFGs, actions