I see massive confusion here....once again...

The results from a U.S. Presidential elections are not established from the wishes of the majority as you so claim or want to think....if you live in the U.S., you need to brush up on the process's of selecting representatives of the U.S federal fucking government...

 

The election was certified according to the process just like in 2016, the main difference being that in 2020 also a majority of the popular vote was also achieved by the winner.

Thinskin

 

What you call revenge, is really simply accountability, which if not attained with a certain amount of retribution will not only be revisited in the future but the next attempted coup might be successful.
Elections have consequences, to Democrats that means get out the vote.
To Republicans elections have consequences means change the rules

 

It wasnt an attempted coup.

How very noble.

How very biased.

 

Republicans investigated the crap out of Bengazi but don’t seem too keen on this one.
The rabble at the capital probably watched some messed up videos too.

 

...to convince the masses...

Like any democrat, pelosi led investigation will be fair,

 

Trump won Nothing....Proven....Fact....Move along....LOL

 

Antifa Riots Until Portland Cops Reveal the Victim Was White – PJ Media
Antifa Rioters' Response to the Latest Police Shooting Shows Just How Racist They Are
BY TYLER O'NEIL JUN 27, 2021 11:48 AM ET

On Thursday, a black police officer in Portland opened fire at a white man who charged him with a screwdriver. Yet it seems antifa got the wrong memo. At least 50 protesters gathered at the Motel 6 where the black cop shot the white man, apparently gearing up for a violent riot in the name of racial justice. The Portland Police Bureau (PPB), likely desperate to de-escalate the situation, rushed to Twitter with the important news that would bring peace to the situation: The victim was white.
“There is erroneous information being circulated on social media regarding in the officer involved shooting in the Lloyd district. We can confirm that the subject involved is an adult white male. No one else was injured,” the police announced on Twitter in the wee hours of Friday morning.

Whew! Crisis averted. Had the victim been a black man shot by a white cop, his name would likely have joined the litany with George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Michael Brown, and so many others. Yet since the man who charged cops with a screwdriver had been white, his death was acceptable — barely even a statistic.

After the shooting, PPB announced that an investigation was underway. The department put the officer who fired the fatal shot on paid administrative leave, as is the standard practice, The Oregonian reported.

“During the investigation, a group gathered at the crime scene and began yelling, throwing items at officers, and attempting to interfere with the investigation,” PPB reported in a press release. “One officer’s baton was grabbed and she was being pulled toward the crowd. Other officers quickly intervened. Someone from the crowd pepper sprayed an officer. At least one police vehicle’s tires were punctured and a window broken. Police officers citywide were called to assist with scene security.”

According to The Oregonian, the protesters were dressed in the black bloc outfits of antifa and they carried antifa signs.

At this point, the police released the information that the victim had been white. It remains unclear whether this information led the crowd to disperse, but the police report did not mention any continuing violence.

The shooting took place after police arrived for a welfare check on a white adult male at the Motel 6 at 7:06 p.m. After a conversation with the cops, the man charged at them with the screwdriver and the officer opened fire after stepping back. It seems the cop did the right thing by firing in self-defense.

“The subject involved was transported to a hospital by ambulance. Despite lifesaving efforts by medical personnel, he was deceased,” the police reported.

On Friday, the Oregon State Medical Examiner’s Office completed the autopsy and identified the man as 40-year-old Michael Ray Townsend, a white man with “trust” and “faith” tattoos on his eyebrows. The police identified the officer involved as Curtis Brown, a black 18-year veteran of the PPB.

The department also shared a video of the shooting.

Recommended: Hellhole Portland: Defunded Police Were Too Busy With Shootings to Stop Antifa Rioters

“Transparency and community trust are extremely important to us, but so is a full, complete, and thorough investigation. This illustrates how important it is to allow the investigation process to unfold before spreading unverified information,” Chief Chuck Lovell said in a statement. “An officer use of deadly force is among the most important investigations that we do, and it’s crucial that we take the time to do it right.”

 

In Portland they were not trying to topple the government, but you know that, you always fall back on what-about-ism when you have no real defense.
I am growing tired of repeating the same points that makes January 6th an insurrection and why the BLM protests are not.
Besides the fact that the sitting president at the time had motive and opportunity to commit these crimes BLM had no such motive or opportunity.​

@Username 1
First, how the hell do you know what Antifa/BLM were trying to accomplish in Portland, or for that matter, what the January 6 rioters wanted to accomplish?
Second, earlier, you said "the previous protests are looking for accountability for police violence against those that they are supposed to be protecting and serving" but that is proven incorrect by the hypocritical actions of antifa/blm last week;

Antifa Riots Until Portland Cops Reveal the Victim Was White – PJ Media
Antifa Rioters' Response to the Latest Police Shooting Shows Just How Racist They Are
BY TYLER O'NEIL JUN 27, 2021 11:48 AM ET​

As soon as antifa/blm learned that the BLACK police officer shot a WHITE suspect they abandoned their riot. So, their efforts to "find accountability for police violence" turns out to need an addendum, mainly; but only if the officer is white and the "victim" is black.
Third, if January 6 was in fact an insurrection, it was the worst planned and executed insurrection in the history of the world. The rioters exhibited no leadership, no "generals" in command directing the "troops". It was a mob. The threat to hang VP Pence from the scaffold erected in front of the capitol was so fake as to be laughable; it was neither designed to or capable of supporting the weight of an adult. If it was intended to be more than a visual symbol, the designers/builders should be ashamed for their incompetence. Shooter has heard no part of what the plan was, assuming the mob could have captured any elected officials or the Vice President; what was the vision if that happened; how would holding hostages further the insurrection? Assuming the rioters on January 6 in fact were trying to overthrow the election, and through that, the government to install trump as dictator, how would they defend against the inevitable counter attack from law enforcement/military? The outcome once law enforcement/military did respond (a separate question of why the delay left for later) was inevitable; the rioters were not prepared for a siege or an armed response. 5. President Trump had NO motivation to want an insurrection; he is intelligent enough to know that taking the oval office by force would be an act doomed to failure. But, lets assume for the moment that he is dumb enough to think it had a chance of success; he is certainly aware enough to understand that once the capitol was taken, it had to be held against a concerted armed reaction until his demands were met. The lack of armed rioters, the lack of any plan to barricade the capitol or any part of it, the lack of supplies to hold out for more than a few hours, and the failure of trump to publicly support the rioters all put lie to the idea that trump had "motive and opportunity".
Fourth, the Antifa/BLM attacks in Portland and across the nation for over the last year have all had one common theme; to attack and destroy or occupy Federal buildings and disrupt government business. Exactly what you claim the January 6 rioters had in mind. If one is an insurrection, so is the other then.

 

Your whole defense boils down to: it can’t be an insurrection cause it was poorly planned.
You don’t have be a brain surgeon to commit a crime.
And the bullshit argument that BLM protests have any relevance to January 6th, is one of the best testaments to have this committee established with its current make up

 

Really? Still pushing the false flag narrative? Antifa, BLM, nor the Democrats had anything to do with the attack on the Capitol! That was completely a Trump supporter thing!

 

'Star witness' emerges as hearings over Trump's attempt to delegitimize election grow closer: report

Sky Palma
August 04, 2021



(Shutterstock)


As hearings over former President Donald Trump's attempts to reverse the 2020 election results could potentially start as early as this week, Richard P. Donoghue, the former acting deputy attorney general under Trump, has emerged a potential star witness, The Washington Post's Aaron Blake writes.

As Blake points out, Donoghue's name repeatedly appears in notes and emails pushing back against Trump's efforts to delegitimize the election he lost.

Donoghue's potential testimony could include details of notes he wrote during a December meeting with Trump where the former president Trump urged the Justice Department to "just say the election was corrupt" and to "leave the rest to me and the R[epublican] Congressmen."

"The other big revelation this week involves a highly unorthodox draft letter from [then-head of the Justice Department's civil division, Jeffrey Clark]. In it, Clark sought to urge the Georgia state legislature to call a special session to look at potentially overturning the election results in their state," Blake writes. "As The Washington Post's Philip Bump wrote, the proposed letter appears to be the latest in a series of thinly veiled attempts among Trump allies to lay a predicate for getting Congress not to accept the election results Jan. 6."

But as Blake point out, Donoghue again flatly objected.

"He wrote in response that the alleged 'irregularities' Clark based his draft letter upon 'are of such a small scale that they simply would not impact the outcome of the Presidential Election,'" Blake writes. "He also said, even setting that aside, that it was hardly the Justice Department's business to urge a state legislature to take such actions based upon investigations the department generally would never comment upon."

Read the full report over at The Washington Post.

https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-riot-commission-witness/

 

Embarrassed for anon.
You just cannot fix stupid.

 

Thats why dems are calling the riot a Trump sponsored coupe...dems are still Trump deranged

 

He's right. When Republicans don't like the outcome, they change the rules. Just look at all the laws that Republicans passed since January.

 

You see how they do it shy guy?
Don't like that your man(woman) lost the presidential election but got more votes, so they want to toss out the electoral college.
Don't like that your party never gets to appoint supreme court judges, so lets increase the size of the court and now we'll put our man(woman) in there.
Don't like that it takes 2/3 of corrupt paid off senators to get any of your progressive agenda passed, so we'll just change the rules so only half need to be bought off.
Need ILLEGAL migrants to vote for free shit you're proposing, so just open the borders.

Hey anon, you done lying yet?

 

Five big questions as Jan. 6 panel preps subpoenas



Leaders of the special committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack say they can't let the August recess halt their work and that they’re preparing to send a flurry of subpoenas to start gathering evidence.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and staunch Trump defender Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) are among those who may be called to testify, in addition to requests for reams of documents and communications.

Here are five big questions facing the special committee as they head into their second month.


Will the panel hit roadblocks for subpoenaed documents?

Members of the committee have made clear that the first stage of their investigation will focus on gathering evidence.

“We have already had discussions about the need to subpoena documents and the sense of urgency we have. Normally we would request voluntary compliance. We may move quickly to subpoenas when it comes to documents so that we ensure that they're preserved and that there's no delay,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told reporters last week.

Experts say this is an important first step for building a case before bringing in any high-profile witnesses like lawmakers or former White House officials.

“You need to inform yourself about as much of the circumstances of the event as you can before you confront witnesses with questions. Because then if they are somehow being evasive, or misleading, or just misleading through omission, you can confront them with documents and say, ‘But what about this call record right here?’ or ‘What about this email right here?’” said Barbara McQuade, who served as a U.S. attorney in the Obama administration.

The move to first subpoena — rather than requesting voluntary compliance — is a sign the committee doesn’t expect cooperation and that it feels it can count on the Justice Department for enforcement.

It also puts people on notice and would allow for charges of obstruction of justice if any entities engage in document destruction of phone records, emails or other communications.

After the first Trump impeachment effort, Democrats have learned to “not waste any time going through this dance of accommodation when it's not going to happen,” McQuade said.

But the move also comes with some protection for Biden administration officials, who earlier this year told other House committees investigating Jan. 6 that they would need to seek former President Trump’s records from the National Archives.

“If there was a subpoena, I think it's much easier for the executive branch to comply and say, ‘Look, we didn't give this stuff voluntarily. We had a subpoena, a legal obligation to produce it. And so we did.’ So I think there may be some political cover that is achieved through a subpoena,” McQuade said.

Ryan Goodman, co-director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law, said in addition to documents the committee should consider trying to obtain outtakes from the video Trump released late on Jan. 6 when he encouraged supporters to “go home” and said, “We love you. You’re very special.”

The video reportedly required three takes after Trump repeatedly went off script.



“I think it could be valuable. I don't want to overstate its significance, but it’s contemporaneous documentation that may provide a strong indication of what his mindset was at the time,” Goodman said.

“It sounds as though it's his political aides who tried to rein in what he said in the other two takes.”


Should lawmakers like McCarthy and Jordan be called to testify?

McCarthy and Jordan, two of Trump’s top allies on Capitol Hill, both have confirmed they held separate phone calls with the former president on Jan. 6.

Investigators are particularly interested in those conversations as they try to figure out what actions Trump took after he delivered a speech outside the White House urging thousands of his supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell” to stop Congress’s certification of President Biden’s election victory.

But subpoenaing lawmakers can be a complex issue.

The Jan. 6 panel may be hesitant to try to call lawmakers like Jordan to testify for many of the same reasons that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) refused to place the Ohio Republican and partisan brawler on the committee.

Some witnesses could “create a potential political circus,” Goodman said. “And the committee has so far stepped off on a path that's very somber and solemn and serious in its fact-finding mission, and I worry that some of the witnesses would use the occasion to play to a very different audience and unsettle what truth the committee is trying to investigate.”

It’s unclear what Jordan’s call or calls with Trump that day were about. Jordan has said he doesn’t recall what they discussed or what time he spoke to Trump. But he was an influential figure in the GOP effort to overturn the presidential election.

The content of McCarthy’s call has been more widely reported, with Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) saying the GOP leader told her about his frantic call with Trump that day begging him to call off his supporters.

“Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump said, according to Herrera Beutler, after McCarthy assured him it was Trump supporters attacking the Capitol.

Phone records or even other lawmakers may be able to corroborate an account already shared with the media if McCarthy doesn’t want to testify.

“I think the strange quality is that they may not need his testimony just like they may not need Trump’s testimony to know what he was doing inside the White House,” Goodman said.

Still, one of the two GOP members on the committee, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, said he would back an effort to seek testimony from McCarthy.

"I would support subpoenas to anybody that can shed light on that. If that's the leader, that's the leader," Kinzinger recently said on ABC’s "This Week."

"I want to know what the president was doing every moment of that day.”


Could any Democratic witnesses offer testimony?

Two House Democrats have said publicly they warned police about a possible violent attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters one week before the deadly riot. House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (Calif.) and Rep. Frederica Wilson (Fla.) held separate phone calls with top Capitol Police brass, urging them to take measures to harden security at the Capitol.

Wilson told a police captain on Dec. 30 that Trump supporters could try to “kill half of Congress” and then-Vice President Pence to halt the certification, while Waters spoke to then-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund for more than an hour on Dec. 31.

“I talked about, No. 1, you can't let them up on the plaza. He said, ‘Don't worry, we'll have that barricaded.’ I said ... the grassy area might be a problem too ... He said, ‘No, we'll have police around, and we won't let that happen,’” Waters recalled in an interview with The Hill.

“I asked him to close off the top of the hill. He didn't agree to that. He said the people, you know, have a right to be on the sidewalks and in the street,” she added. “He was so assured that he had it under control.”

Waters also said she asked Sund if he would put more police officers on top of buildings, remembering that both President Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated by shooters in buildings.

Sund replied that the demonstrators would not be able to climb buildings.

On Jan. 6, as Waters saw images of dozens of rioters scaling the scaffolding around the Capitol, she said she called Sund and proceeded to berate him.

“I called him and I told him how disappointed I was in him. ‘So what the hell are you doing?’” Waters said. “And he said, ‘We're doing the best we can.’”


Will they go after former Trump officials?

Trump and his legal team would likely turn to the courts to try to stop the committee from subpoenaing any of his former officials.

But a variety of former officials, including those who once worked at the Justice Department, could provide key details for a committee that may delve beyond the security failures leading up to the attack and wade more broadly into Trump’s efforts to challenge the election.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the select committee, wouldn’t discuss the names of any Trump officials who might be subpoenaed.

“Now that the process of access and individuals is easier, that is important politically, and I appreciate the DOJ position on it,” Thompson told reporters, “and it makes the work of the committee that much easier.”

Experts warned that the committee would need to tread carefully in some cases — particularly with Trump's former lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Though he has been a key figure in Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, pursuing an interview could complicate an existing Justice Department investigation involving his dealings in Ukraine that could allow him to plead the Fifth to any questions.

But other figures like former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows could help paint a fuller picture of Trump’s actions throughout the day, while former Justice Department officials could offer new details on apparent efforts to involve the agency in overturning the election.

McQuade said abuse of office should be just as important to the committee as any other lines of inquiry.

“I think more than just why were we unprepared that day when people stormed the Capitol, I think understanding how democracy is being undermined is an important part of the task as well,” she said.


Will there be an August hearing?

Members of the Jan. 6 committee are still weighing whether to hold a public hearing sometime during the six-week summer recess, an idea that’s been floated by Thompson.

There’s a desire to keep up the momentum following the panel’s first televised hearing last week featuring gripping testimony from four Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers who described the emotional and physical toll they’ve continued to suffer from defending the Capitol that day.

Among the ideas being discussed for the next hearing are examining the security breakdown at the Capitol leading up to and on Jan. 6, coordination and planning for the attack by right-wing paramilitary and white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys and coordination and planning for the “Stop the Steal” effort by Trump and his White House allies.

But at the same time, committee sources said they don’t want a hearing just for the sake of holding one. There’s also concern among panel members that they might not have enough time to secure documents and witnesses before the August recess is over.


The long summer recess, some panel members believe, could be better spent hiring staff; obtaining and reviewing phone records, text messages and other records; and interviewing witnesses behind closed doors — testimony that could make the panel’s televised hearings in the fall more effective and compelling.

“It's still a possibility,” Thompson said, “but there's so much information that has to be collected that it's almost impossible to collect the information, do the hearings and have the quality of the hearing I think this committee deserves.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/566429-five-big-questions-as-jan-6-panel-preps-subpoenas