+1 to the Jan 6 count

[LurkerNoMore]

You skate, you make more excuses then troll. Bring it live in front of the entire board.

We see your lies just fine as it is.  No need to waste time with your retarded intellect.

[Coach is Back!]

Dumb ass. He wasn’t questioned about the video released with him in it. He was obviously interviewed if they originally put him on the most wanted list. Christ

Debate me live

[LurkerNoMore]

 

[Primemuscle]

1. Since the entire hearing was 100% unconstitutional, the committee technically has no authority to do shit. You seem to be confused about this when it not.

2. Don’t be naive. Garland works in Lockstep with Pelosi and Co. Whatever they recommend, he does. They were arresting people that were not even in DC. You should have listened to the interview I posted but regardless, this was known loong ago

1. Coach, explain why you believe the January 6 Congressional hearings were unconstitutional while none of the thousands of other such hearings were not. But before you do, it behooves you to read and understand what Congressional hearings are intended to accomplish. Below is a brief overview of the history of Congressional hearings and their purpose.

What is a Congressional Hearing?

A hearing is a meeting or session of a Senate, House, joint, or special committee of Congress, usually open to the public, to obtain information and opinions on proposed legislation, conduct an investigation, or evaluate/oversee the activities of a government department or the implementation of a Federal law. In addition, hearings may also be purely exploratory in nature, providing testimony and data about topics of current interest.

The first congressional hearings were held by the House of Representatives in 1792 following St. Clair's Defeat in the Battle of the Wabash. Congress has undertaken investigations over the past two centuries, from the Teapot Dome corruption scandal in the 1920s to the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention congressional investigations and oversight, but the courts have consistently upheld Congress’ right to undertake such activities, stemming from the text that says Congress possesses “all legislative powers.” One of the framers of the Constitution, George Mason, said during its drafting that members of Congress “are not only legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers.”

2. You forgot to include one very important qualifier which is that this is what you and a few others want to believe. This does not make it so. Remember, "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

2. A. How many folks were arrested who were not present during the January 6th insurrection/riot? Have they been charged? If so, what were the charges and how did they plead. lastly, have any of them been sentenced and are currently in prison?

[Coach is Back!]

1. Coach, explain why you believe the January 6 Congressional hearings were unconstitutional while none of the thousands of other such hearings were not. But before you do, it behooves you to read and understand what Congressional hearings are intended to accomplish. Below is a brief overview of the history of Congressional hearings and their purpose.

What is a Congressional Hearing?

A hearing is a meeting or session of a Senate, House, joint, or special committee of Congress, usually open to the public, to obtain information and opinions on proposed legislation, conduct an investigation, or evaluate/oversee the activities of a government department or the implementation of a Federal law. In addition, hearings may also be purely exploratory in nature, providing testimony and data about topics of current interest.

The first congressional hearings were held by the House of Representatives in 1792 following St. Clair's Defeat in the Battle of the Wabash. Congress has undertaken investigations over the past two centuries, from the Teapot Dome corruption scandal in the 1920s to the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention congressional investigations and oversight, but the courts have consistently upheld Congress’ right to undertake such activities, stemming from the text that says Congress possesses “all legislative powers.” One of the framers of the Constitution, George Mason, said during its drafting that members of Congress “are not only legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers.”

2. You forgot to include one very important qualifier which is that this is what you and a few others want to believe. This does not make it so. Remember, "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

2. A. How many folks were arrested who were not present during the January 6th insurrection/riot? Have they been charged? If so, what were the charges and how did they plead. lastly, have any of them been sentenced and are currently in prison?

Good God, how many times do I have to explain it since almost day 1? Go though ALL of my posts, just not this one but others. This is the problem, you don’t read. You project. I have explained not just through my own personal opinion but others including from Liberal constitutional scholars. I’m seriously tired of doing the work for you!

[The Gov]

Another thread where LurkingForBoys is humiliated 

[LurkerNoMore]

And more to come....  believing in the Big Lie sure is working out well for these moronic criminals.

---
The largest investigation in the Justice Department's history keeps growing two years after a violent mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol and challenged the foundations of American democracy.

More than 930 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the siege on Jan. 6, 2021, and the tally increases by the week. Hundreds more people remain at large on the second anniversary of the unprecedented assault that was fueled by lies that the 2020 election was stolen.

A surplus of self-incriminating videos and social media posts has made it difficult for riot suspects to present viable defenses. Federal prosecutors have a near-perfect trial record, securing a conviction in all but one case.

The cases have clogged Washington's federal court, a building less than a mile from the Capitol. Virtually every weekday, judges are sentencing rioters or accepting their guilty pleas while carving out room on their dockets for trials. Already scheduled for this year are trials for about 140 riot defendants.

At least 538 cases, more than half of those brought so far, have been resolved through guilty pleas, trials, dismissals or the defendant’s death, according to an Associated Press review of court records. That leaves approximately 400 unresolved cases at the outset of 2023.
---

[Primemuscle]

Good God, how many times do I have to explain it since almost day 1? Go though ALL of my posts, just not this one but others. This is the problem, you don’t read. You project. I have explained not just through my own personal opinion but others including from Liberal constitutional scholars. I’m seriously tired of doing the work for you!

Right.

You can explain whatever you want a thousand times, and it won't change the fact that you and your sources are wrong. If you  want to know what is constitutional and the history of Congressional actions like committee investigations accurate information is available on government websites but not the from media whether left leaning or right leaning. Most of what you get from the media is opinion and not fact. Even constitutional scholars express their opinions which is why there is a variety of them depending on the which one you talk to.

Just because you don't like the way our government operates does not make it illegal or unconstitutional. When someone wants to see changes in how our government works, this is done by voting and contacting your representatives in Congress and the legislature.

Here's some valid sites for accurate information.

https://judiciary.house.gov/about

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/503/text

https://www.house.gov/committees/committees-guy-standing

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/investigations.htm#:~:text=Although%20not%20expressly%20authorized%20in,part%20of%20its%20legislative%20responsibilities.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/

https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/u-s-department-of-justice#:~:text=The%20Department%20of%20Justice%20enforces,and%20impartial%20administration%20of%20justice.

FYI, I do read your posts and I also follow the links you post when I am not required to sign up or pay to read them, which for some reason is very often the case with right-wing publications and media. Why is that?

[LurkerNoMore]

Hahahha Qoach asking someone to read his links when he clearly doesn’t read them himself.  That’s why they always blow up in his face.

[Coach is Back!]

Hahahha Qoach asking someone to read his links when he clearly doesn’t read them himself.  That’s why they always blow up in his face.

You know what to do….

[Coach is Back!]

Right.

You can explain whatever you want a thousand times, and it won't change the fact that you and your sources are wrong. If you  want to know what is constitutional and the history of Congressional actions like committee investigations accurate information is available on government websites but not the from media whether left leaning or right leaning. Most of what you get from the media is opinion and not fact. Even constitutional scholars express their opinions which is why there is a variety of them depending on the which one you talk to.

Just because you don't like the way our government operates does not make it illegal or unconstitutional. When someone wants to see changes in how our government works, this is done by voting and contacting your representatives in Congress and the legislature.

Here's some valid sites for accurate information.

https://judiciary.house.gov/about

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/503/text

https://www.house.gov/committees/committees-guy-standing

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/investigations.htm#:~:text=Although%20not%20expressly%20authorized%20in,part%20of%20its%20legislative%20responsibilities.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/

https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/u-s-department-of-justice#:~:text=The%20Department%20of%20Justice%20enforces,and%20impartial%20administration%20of%20justice.

FYI, I do read your posts and I also follow the links you post when I am not required to sign up or pay to read them, which for some reason is very often the case with right-wing publications and media. Why is that?

Apparently you don’t otherwise you wouldn’t have asked. Btw, I went through those links.

and btw, I cut and pasted most of those I posted just to be read and they still weren’t

[LurkerNoMore]

You know what to do….

Keep exposing your bullshit?

[Coach is Back!]

Keep exposing your bullshit?

Expose it publicly face to face

[LurkerNoMore]

Apparently you don’t otherwise you wouldn’t have asked. Btw, I went through those links.

and btw, I cut and pasted most of those I posted just to be read and they still weren’t

You were just given links to sites of factual information to check your bullshit.  Instead you want to blame someone else for your own ignorance. 

This is why you have zero credibility and doubt.

[Coach is Back!]

You were just given links to sites of factual information to check your bullshit.  Instead you want to blame someone else for your own ignorance. 

This is why you have zero credibility and doubt.

No one is denying content of the links you imbecile. Did you read any of them? Fuck, you can have Prime on the call as well. Because since you both can’t comprehend maybe it needs to be explained with stick figures

[Coach is Back!]

Let’s see, Liz Cheney wants to switch to the Dem/Marxist party and now this. 😂

[Moontrane]

Let’s see, Liz Cheney wants to switch to the Dem/Marxist party and now this. 😂

What - no Johnson and Johnson commercials for him?  He'd be a great spokesman.

[Primemuscle]

Apparently you don’t otherwise you wouldn’t have asked. Btw, I went through those links.

and btw, I cut and pasted most of those I posted just to be read and they still weren’t

You can't know if they are read, and the reader doesn't agree with them.

"Would have asked" what? Asked why many of your source’s charge to read their articles?

When I see your posts, I read the parts which are cut and pasted. But, I prefer to read entire articles because sensationalized headlines and article titles are often intentionally misleading. Many times, when I have been able to read the whole article, it is contrary to what the "lost leader" title implies it says or the article is irrelevant to the title. Very often, your cut and pastes are just the headlines leaving one to wonder if you read the accompanying articles. I am not the only person here to have noticed this. Hopefully this isn't an intentional attempt on your part to mislead others.   

[LurkerNoMore]

No one is denying content of the links you imbecile. Did you read any of them? Fuck, you can have Prime on the call as well. Because since you both can’t comprehend maybe it needs to be explained with stick figures

I don't have to read them.  Because I do not have a problem with facts and reality.  Unlike you.  Perhaps you should read them.  Or rather have someone who can read, explain them - very slowly - to you and hopefully it will penetrate that empty noggin of yours.

[LurkerNoMore]

You can't know if they are read, and the reader doesn't agree with them.

"Would have asked" what? Asked why many of your source’s charge to read their articles?

When I see your posts, I read the parts which are cut and pasted. But, I prefer to read entire articles because sensationalized headlines and article titles are often intentionally misleading. Many times, when I have been able to read the whole article, it is contrary to what the "lost leader" title implies it says or the article is irrelevant to the title. Very often, your cut and pastes are just the headlines leaving one to wonder if you read the accompanying articles. I am not the only person here to have noticed this. Hopefully this isn't an intentional attempt on your part to mislead others.

He never does.  That is why he gets owned by the articles he runs over here and posts.  Look at that thread on the Gossip forum.  Multipages of him getting owned by his own article and then owned into oblivion over his lies and deflection attempts afterwards. 

[Coach is Back!]

You can't know if they are read, and the reader doesn't agree with them.

"Would have asked" what? Asked why many of your source’s charge to read their articles?

When I see your posts, I read the parts which are cut and pasted. But, I prefer to read entire articles because sensationalized headlines and article titles are often intentionally misleading. Many times, when I have been able to read the whole article, it is contrary to what the "lost leader" title implies it says or the article is irrelevant to the title. Very often, your cut and pastes are just the headlines leaving one to wonder if you read the accompanying articles. I am not the only person here to have noticed this. Hopefully this isn't an intentional attempt on your part to mislead others.

I have plenty of posts in this thread that are in my own words that you haven’t answered or can’t answer. These are simple questions that if you actually kept up as to why this J6 “hearing” is a complete unconstitutional farce. Cut and pasting a source is no different than you posting links and me opening them, which in most cases I do. Lurker is a literal dumb fuck and politically inept when it comes to politics, he falls for ANYTHING the left tells him, you, I expect more out of you. Like I said, you’re other intellectually dishonest or you’re intellectually stupid and refuse acknowledge that was a dishonest, unconstitutional hearing much like the impeachments that in the end, got their asses handed to them in trial.

[Coach is Back!]

Prime, serious question. Do you think anything the left has done to Trump and trump supporters has been on the up and up, legal and constitutional? Can you acknowledge that Democrats ignore the constitution only when it benefits them, this also goes for the law in general

[Primemuscle]

He never does.  That is why he gets owned by the articles he runs over here and posts.  Look at that thread on the Gossip forum.  Multipages of him getting owned by his own article and then owned into oblivion over his lies and deflection attempts afterwards.

It is probably a waste of my time, but I am revisiting the links Coach posted and his cut and paste posts to see if there was something I missed. IMO, ‘cut and pastes’ are worthless without a link to the actual article because the media, regardless of if it is right or left biased, is known to sensationalize article titles to attract an audience. Same is true for other media such as we see on television. My favorite announcement is "breaking news" which is often used by CNN to get your attention only to find out the news is stale and has been breaking for hours if not days.

So far, Coach's links are to The Gateway Pundit... which is known to be completely right biased. Their publication style is not different from The Inquirer or the now defunct British publication, The Sun. Both publications go overboard lying to get the reader’s attention.     

[funk51]

It is probably a waste of my time, but I am revisiting the links Coach posted and his cut and paste posts to see if there was something I missed. IMO, ‘cut and pastes’ are worthless without a link to the actual article because the media, regardless of if it is right or left biased, is known to sensationalize article titles to attract an audience. Same is true for other media such as we see on television. My favorite announcement is "breaking news" which is often used by CNN to get your attention only to find out the news is stale and has been breaking for hours if not days.

So far, Coach's links are to The Gateway Pundit... which is known to be completely right biased. Their publication style is not different from The Inquirer or the now defunct British publication, The Sun. Both publications go overboard lying to get the reader’s attention.   

   

&t=42s                                     never let a lie get in the way of a good story.

[funk51]

   https://www.cleveland.com/open/2016/04/50_outrageous_donald_trump_quo_1.html