Garland appointing special counsel

[SuperMatt]

No, but Pelosi should have let McCarthy appoint the GOP members as had been tradition. Instead she appointed Republicans who she knew were hostile to Trump.

This is a misrepresentation of what actually happened… as is expected from this poster by now.

After Republicans in the Senate refused to support an independent commission, Pelosi announced she’d put together a House-only investigation. McCarthy was asked to supply 5 members for the committee.

Pelosi rejected only 2 of his picks: Jim Jordan and Jim Banks. Kevin McCarthy then withdrew all of his picks instead of appointing replacements. She had good reason for rejecting those 2, because they already made statements that showed extreme bias concerning what was going to be investigated.

Why Jim Banks and Jim Jordan Were Blocked From the Capitol Riot Panel (Published 2021)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she was barring them from a committee scrutinizing the attack based on Democrats’ concerns about their “statements made and actions taken” around the assault.

www.nytimes.com

Here is what Jim Banks said he would do on the committee:

”If Democrats were serious about investigating political violence, this committee would be studying not only the January 6 riot at the Capitol, but also the hundreds of violent political riots last summer when many more innocent Americans and law-enforcement officers were attacked.”

So, he would talk about BLM protests instead? There’s more to his statement too. Suffice it to say, he said up front that he would not be a serious participant in the investigation, somit was absolutely appropriate for him to be rejected.

McCarthy appointed those two, knowing they would certainly be rejected. That was the point. Now he can cry “biased biased biased!” McCarthy did not act in good faith, so portraying the result as malfeasance by Pelosi is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[AG_PhamD]

"Obviously it’s not clear if these guys were actually informants and if they were, whether or not they were being compliant. Or if any of this information is accurate."

At this moment there are a lot of unknowns and with zero information I'm not jumping to any conclusions, assuming undercover sources or communications intercepts would likely be tightly guarded and not revealed.

I’m not jumping to conclusions. Merely suggesting there are questions that are worth asking. And that we can’t know the full extent of 1/6 without knowing what was going on with these groups and how the government was handling them.

 

[Herdfan]

This is a misrepresentation of what actually happened… as is expected from this poster by now.

After Republicans in the Senate refused to support an independent commission, Pelosi announced she’d put together a House-only investigation. McCarthy was asked to supply 5 members for the committee.

Pelosi rejected only 2 of his picks: Jim Jordan and Jim Banks. Kevin McCarthy then withdrew all of his picks instead of appointing replacements. She had good reason for rejecting those 2, because they already made statements that showed extreme bias concerning what was going to be investigated.

It is not a misrepresentation. She went against 232 years of tradition of the minority party being allowed to select the members to represent that party.

Did she or didn't she? Yes or no!

What happened after that is was not my point.

 

[Eric]

No, but Pelosi should have let McCarthy appoint the GOP members as had been tradition. Instead she appointed Republicans who she knew were hostile to Trump.

He had every opportunity but refused, what am I missing here?

WATCH: McCarthy says GOP won't participate in Jan. 6 committee if Dems won't accept appointed members

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy said his party won't participate in the committee investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, if Democrats won't accept the members he appointed.

www.pbs.org

 

[Citysnaps]

I’m not jumping to conclusions. Merely suggesting there are questions that are worth asking. And that we can’t know the full extent of 1/6 without knowing what was going on with these groups and how the government was handling them.

Not claiming you were. It was I'm not jumping to conclusions,

 

[SuperMatt]

It is not a misrepresentation. She went against 232 years of tradition of the minority party being allowed to select the members to represent that party.

Did she or didn't she? Yes or no!

What happened after that is was not my point.

I provided context for your misleading statement. It was not accurate. Pelosi absolutely did allow McCarthy to appoint members. She rejected 2 of them, citing specific reasons for both rejections relevant to the investigation. He withdrew the other 3 himself.

Committee members can be removed for various reasons. The Republicans removed many of their own caucus members from committees in 2012. McCarthy is promising he will remove Omar, Schiff, and Swalwell from committees when he takes the speaker’s gavel.

 

[Herdfan]

He had every opportunity but refused, what am I missing here?

WATCH: McCarthy says GOP won't participate in Jan. 6 committee if Dems won't accept appointed members

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy said his party won't participate in the committee investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, if Democrats won't accept the members he appointed.

www.pbs.org

He appointed 5. She rejected 2 going against House tradition. It's not a rule, it is simply a 232 year tradition.

So at that point he withdrew the other 3.

 

[Eric]

He appointed 5. She rejected 2 going against House tradition. It's not a rule, it is simply a 232 year tradition.

So at that point he withdrew the other 3.

To be fair if someone robs a bank you don't put those who helped him plan it and rooted for them to succeed on the jury.

 

[SuperMatt]

He appointed 5. She rejected 2 going against House tradition. It's not a rule, it is simply a 232 year tradition.

So at that point he withdrew the other 3.

It was a “tradition” to refuse to give a hearing to Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court because it is an election year. But that “tradition” magically disappeared when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died shortly before an election.

The “traditions” that Republicans choose to care about at any given point in time seem to align very conveniently with their current agenda.

 

[Herdfan]

To be fair if someone robs a bank you don't put those who helped him plan it and rooted for them to succeed on the jury.

By the same logic, you don't put those who have already convicted them on the jury before hearing the first fact.

 

[Herdfan]

It was a “tradition” to refuse to give a hearing to Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court because it is an election year.

Which I disagreed with. He should have been given a hearing and if they wanted to vote him down, that was still an option.

 

[SuperMatt]

By the same logic, you don't put those who have already convicted them on the jury before hearing the first fact.

That isn’t the same logic.

 

[Eric]

By the same logic, you don't put those who have already convicted them on the jury before hearing the first fact.

Already convicted? Did we not see the same insurrection? Trump is guilty AF, we didn't need a committee to see that, the DOJ is about to indict him on it and we all know it. Their attempt to cock block it with the likes of those who are the loudest are obstructionist themselves. Republicans had every chance to have more on that committee had they opted to but they knew it was a losing battle from the gate.

 

[SuperMatt]

Which I disagreed with. He should have been given a hearing and if they wanted to vote him down, that was still an option.

So what if you agree with it or not? That has nothing to do with this discussion. The point is that tradition doesn’t mean anything to the GOP… until they want it to in some specific situation. The Jan 6 committee should have been an independent commission. The GOP made sure it wasn’t, then McCarthy made sure to poison the well of the House committee too. It’s shameful behavior, all to pander to Trump and his supporters instead of getting to the bottom of things.

 

[Herdfan]

Already convicted? Did we not see the same insurrection?

No we did not.

My thoughts on this are already out there so I won't rehash them.

 

[Citysnaps]

Somebody please refresh my memory - google's not helping me...

During trump's presidency, wasn't it McCarthy who secretly went to the White House grounds late at night to pass information to trump about an investigation he was the subject of? His first impeachment, maybe?

 

[Eric]

No we did not.

My thoughts on this are already out there so I won't rehash them.

Okay then. Brace yourself for a dose or reality nonetheless, Fox News and Republicans can't save him from this one.

I'll never get the blind support for Trump. Had Biden or Obama done something that insane I would be the first one in line calling for their prosecution. This statement goes for both sides, it's okay to not toe the party line when someone does something so blatantly illegal.

 

[lizkat]

Somebody please refresh my memory - google's not helping me...

During trump's presidency, wasn't it McCarthy who secretly went to the White House grounds late at night to pass information to trump about an investigation he was the subject of? His first impeachment, maybe?

Think it was Devin Nunes.

 

[Citysnaps]

Think it was Devin Nunes.

That's right - thanx! California's other snake.

 

[GermanSuplex]

No, but Pelosi should have let McCarthy appoint the GOP members as had been tradition. Instead she appointed Republicans who she knew were hostile to Trump.

They could have had an independent investigation. McCarthy could have used different members - members who weren’t suspect themselves. Republicans declined both.

This is not a big mystery. Republicans always wanted to claim the investigation was a partisan witch hunt, so they had to go against the grain every step of the way, or be bound by the findings. And wouldn’t you know, here we are…