Image 01 Image 03

Senate Republicans Block Creation of Commission to Investigate Capitol Riot

Senate Republicans Block Creation of Commission to Investigate Capitol Riot

Six Republicans voted with the Democrats, including Collins, Murkowski, and Romney.

The Senate Republicans blocked a bill to form a bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6th Capitol Hill riots.

The bill needed 60 votes to defeat the filibuster. The final vote came to 54 to 35.

Six Republicans joined the Democrats:

Bill Cassidy (Louisiana)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Mitt Romney (Utah)
Ben Sasse (Nebraska)

The legislation would have created a 10-person bipartisan commission. The members “would have subpoena power to carry out the investigation, but there must be a bipartisan agreement on issuing the subpoenas.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Taiwanese Lady | May 28, 2021 at 12:42 pm

The creation of this commission had one purpose – to give a federal imprimatur condemning all conservative thought so that Big Gov, Big Media, Big Tech, Big Church, BIg Labor can more readily strike down the whole concept of limited government.

    henrybowman in reply to Taiwanese Lady. | May 28, 2021 at 1:15 pm

    And to indict Trump for something so he would never run again.
    These people are scared s*less of Trump ever running for anything again… and for good reason.

      mark311 in reply to henrybowman. | May 28, 2021 at 2:09 pm

      Yep because the man is a total disgrace.

        Who killed the unarmed Ashli Babbitt?

        Barry in reply to mark311. | May 28, 2021 at 10:34 pm

        Marx311 is a total disgrace. A paid marxist commentor with an IQ well to the left of the bell curve.

          mark311 in reply to Barry. | May 29, 2021 at 9:04 am

          Your personal attacks on me are pretty boring. Try something new *yawn

          RandomCrank in reply to Barry. | May 29, 2021 at 12:03 pm

          Hell, if someone would pay me to be a marxist commentator here, I’d take the job. My fee is only $50,000 a month, same as Hunter Biden’s board membership. No, I’m afraid that mark311 is one of them free Trotskyites. A gullible lot, they are. LOL

          mark311 in reply to Barry. | May 29, 2021 at 12:51 pm


          As I’ve pointed out to others I’m not really clear based on my stated policies on this site that you have the information available to make a determination on my politics. Indeed some of my positions contradict a communist or a Trotskyist. I’m not really sure you actually know what either of those ideological positions are. You are make a lot of assumptions and look like an ass for it.

        Jester Naybor in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 9:10 am

        That man did more, in terms of actual policy, to accomplish government’s Prime Directive to secure our unalienable rights than any President in my six-decades-plus lifetime save Reagan.

        And they say that we Trump supporters are a cult of personality, when people like you are hung up on personality, not actions.

        Or do you think that unless we elect saints, we are sinners? No human is perfect … and condescending busybodies who would sinfully trample upon the rights of others often have a saintly “We Care, and We Know Better” appearance.

        To borrow a New Testament analogy – Trump is the tax collector, while his opponents preen as Pharisees. Back then, who was seen as the more egregious offender?

        OTOH, actual respect for life and liberty enhances our ability to act saintly ourselves,

          mark311 in reply to Jester Naybor. | May 29, 2021 at 12:10 pm

          “secure our unalienable rights”

          Such as? Be specific.

          Cult of personality

          Yeah it is a cult of personality given the many and varied ‘issues’ (I use that term generously) that DT had

          “Respect for life and liberty”

          Yeah the thing is I interpret that in context of Trump as liberty to commit crimes, and I’m not really clear he had much respect for anyone other than himself. I mean I don’t recall much of a defence from him of any of those who broke into the Capitol building. Seemed much more interested in pardoning corrupt politicians.

          Jester Naybor in reply to Jester Naybor. | May 29, 2021 at 7:58 pm


          Trump’s energy policy removed Climate Change Cult roadblocks to my pursuit of happiness – as in, freedom of movement and the ability to control the climate in my home – as well as enhancing our economic and physical security as a nation. The more peaceful MidEast that resulted from Trump breaking OPEC’s chain and moving America to energy independence has direct and positive implications upon my life and liberty.

          Same with his realistic take on China, which as an advocate of free trade I did not agree with at first, but now see it as a national-security issue as well. Continuing to add to their profits that they will use for totalitarian expansionism, as they also seek to exploit and steal from our businesses, works against life and liberty.

          Under Trump, the Department of Education was moving away from Leftist agendas like “rape culture” and towards support for alternatives to the NEA/AFT oligarchy, That, had it gone on to full flower, would better equip kids whose parents can’t afford to pay twice for their education (property taxes and private-school tuition).

          Regarding COVID, I could appreciate Trump’s approach of marshalling resources while still respecting federalism and NOT subjecting the whole nation to the clown show we have endured here on Long Island thanks to King Kuomo and his Karen minions. And I say this, having endured the WuFlu despite all his restrictions.

          And I could go on. But Trump lives rent-free in your head, and so you don’t value your own liberty enough to realize just how vulnerable you are under the Biden regime.

          And WHAT crimes? If there was any “there” there, the various tax jurisdictions he has done business within would have exposed it – certainly during his time in office, if not YEARS before.

          You strain at gnats, and swallow the camels who will spit on you as they trample on your rights, because they Know Better™. Such condescending arrogance and over-reach is a far greater offense to liberty than ANYTHING Trump has ever said or done.

      Danny in reply to henrybowman. | June 1, 2021 at 1:36 am

      They are not scarred of Trump, at least not any longer. They wanted the commission to go after the entire right and use the force of the state against their political rivals.

One good thing

The party of Trump did this.

Not the party of Boehner/McConnell, with its base of zero:

Bill Cassidy (Louisiana)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Mitt Romney (Utah)
Ben Sasse (Nebraska)

    I am keeping a list of people whose primary opponents get a few bucks.

    McConnell was the primary reason it failed. It was his outspoken view on it that swayed other republican senators to vote against the proposals. Otherwise it would probably have passed given the number of concessions Democrats have to Republicans


      And he did a great job overturning Obamacare.

      We love the Turtle like we love Schumer.

        The claim was that McConnells party or part thereof wasn’t a key consideration in the decisions by Republicans to vote against the commission which is just nonsense.

        Obamacare has nothing to do with the commission vote. McConnell has been very effective had holding up legislation. It was McConnell you should be thanking for holding up the Obama agenda. For clarity the above is a reflection of the political reality not me being supportive of him.

        You seem to suffer from unrealistic expectations. The best an opposition party can do is hold up or prevent legislation although it’s fair to say that republicans don’t have any meaningful alternative to Obamacare which is why they don’t have nay policy platform other than not liking it.

      RandomCrank in reply to mark311. | May 28, 2021 at 7:47 pm

      Always good to hear from a communist. Thanks, mark311. Were you in the crowd that marched through my old Seattle neighborhood last summer, screaming, “Get out motherf’ers get out?” Go back to Venezuela where you belong, ya POS.

        mark311 in reply to RandomCrank. | May 29, 2021 at 9:16 am


        Do you actually know anything about my policy preferences? Without that knowledge you can’t really know if I’m a communist or not can you. Bland attacks calling someone A communist is pretty lazy.

        Calling someone POS is a pretty nasty thing to do when all they have stated is a strong dislike for DT. That seems like you can’t deal with criticism of your political choices.

          henrybowman in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 1:04 pm

          We know the kind of tripe you continuously spew here. That’s enough to judge you.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 1:17 pm

          @henry bowman

          And yet the standard of argument your presents is consistently poor or actually for the most part ad hominem attacks.

          The communist thing is classic really. Its so fucking lazy. You might as well fly a banner saying you have nothing of substance, no argument, no position of integrity , no purposes. As hominem attacks are very revealing of your lack of position at all.

    Before getting a primary for Lisa Murkowski here is a compelling list you might find interesting it is exhaustive or Republican statewide officials in Maine

    Susan Collins

    Instead of a senator who is always there for you when her vote counts, and is usually there for you when her vote doesn’t count, and throws the Democrats some wins on occasion you could have a Democrat senator who is there for you 0% of the time, and gives Democrats wins 100% of the time how brilliant.

    The other 5 aren’t excusable but you want to get rid of Susan Collins?

    Whatever you and the progressives who don’t like Joe Manchin are smoking is it bad for your lungs and does it leave a lasting effect because maybe I could use some of it. Then again drugs generally melt the mind so never mind.

smalltownoklahoman | May 28, 2021 at 1:10 pm

6 R’s that need to be tossed out next time they are up for election. Three I’m not surprised by: Collins, Murkowski, and Romney…. make that four because Sasse has sold us out before. Portman and Cassidy I’m not familiar with so I’m not sure what their reasoning was for siding with the Dems on this vote.

    Murkowski represents a solid blue state, primary her and instead of a Republican who is always with you when her vote is the deciding vote you get a Democrat who is always with the Democrats 100% of the time.

Juris Doctor | May 28, 2021 at 1:10 pm

I see honorary Squad member Mitt Romney is up to his usual shenanigans.

Dozens of people… persons who were and were not “Trump supporters”. People… persons using the American flag as a cudgel to mark doors. Insurrection, no. Riot, yes. Fake tear gas. Fake fire extinguishers. Did the climate change with the murder of Ashli Babbitt?

That said, Trump: thank you for your support to audit the vote, go home peacefully. Did they forget to leave the place cleaner than when they arrived as per conservative custom?

    mark311 in reply to n.n. | May 28, 2021 at 2:03 pm

    Fake tear gas? Fake fire extinguishers? Huh?

      WestRock in reply to mark311. | May 28, 2021 at 2:24 pm

      I’m surprised you didn’t throw “Fine People” in there for good measure.

      Ben Kent in reply to mark311. | May 28, 2021 at 2:51 pm


      Mark – I think the point is that Dems are more interested in smearing conservatives and extending a false narrative than really learning the truth. Use of the term “insurrection” is highly misleading. That term was pushed by Dems who also allowed the false narrative to fester that the Capitol Police officer was killed by the rioters in DC. When in fact, he died from natural causes.

      Interestingly, the Dems demand an investigation of the events of Jan 6, where we already know most of what took place. But they are perfectly uninterested in reviewing the election of 2020 which involved many anomalies that are still unknown. And I’m not referring to election fraud. I would have supported an investigation – provided it looked at both Jan 6 and the Nov 2020 election. Linking those would have been the best political move but Repubs congressional reps don’t seem to be that smart.

      So, to think the proposed Jan 6 investigation was a purely political move is naive at best.

        mark311 in reply to Ben Kent. | May 29, 2021 at 12:12 pm

        My comment was regarding the term fake. I was asking a question I don’t recall any reference anywhere regarding fake tear gas and fake fire extinguishers. Seems like no one is willing to answer that question directly

          henrybowman in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 1:06 pm

          How dense you are? The “fire extinguisher that killed the cop” was a fake fire extinguisher, since it never existed.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 1:22 pm

          @henry bowman

          Plural was used with regard to fire extinguishers. Or did you not pay attention. I’m perfectly familiar with the erroneous fire extinguisher information.

          You haven’t answered the question regarding fake tear gas?

          I’m perfectly willing to ask questions I don’t know the answer to. You seem to pretend to have all the answers. Pretty dishonest.

      UserP in reply to mark311. | May 28, 2021 at 6:15 pm

      Mark311 you need to invest a few quid in some good quality hankies. Your constant blubbering about Trump is out of control.

        mark311 in reply to UserP. | May 29, 2021 at 12:03 pm

        That’s rich coming from the group blubbering about an election without any evidence.

          Jester Naybor in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 7:30 pm

          > This election was compromised by officials not authorized to change the rules, changing them in key areas of this nation.

          > The burden of proof is not on the “losing” parties to prove fraud – it is on the officials who conducted the election to conclusively prove it was fair and honest, in the face of those compromises and other irregularities in the process, such as playing games with the monitoring of vote counting.. And the government (as opposed to its operatives re: criminality) is not entitled to the presumption of innocence.

          > That conclusive proof, in the face of multiple irregularities, has NOT been forthcoming … “because we say so” or “you lack standing” is NOT proof. This is where the courts in particular fell down on the job.

          > This election was so compromised that conclusive proof of its honesty was beyond reach … Congress should have refused to certify the Electoral College results, and sent it into the House for resolution.

          > But our leaders in two of the three branches, and in many of our states, tried to duck the above and pretend everything was all right. They valued the reputation of their institutions … and/or the expedient repudiation of Orange Man Bad … more than they valued treating their constituents with honesty and integrity.

          Should actual proof of fraud come out, it will now shake this nation to its core, for we are in uncharted territory when it comes to finding an election illegitimate after inauguration. And that could have been avoided, had our leaders adhered to Constitutional requirements and processes – both before the election to avoid the compromises, and once the compromises became evident.

          This is the elephant in the room, that shall not be named – much less discussed – according to Big Tech, the media, and the Powers that Be. But the Tarkin Effect applies to their efforts here.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | May 31, 2021 at 6:40 pm


          1) The courts disagree

          2) The burden of proof is on a party to prove something happened. At present there is no evidence of fraud of any significance. TO make the claim that its up to the officials to prove it was fair is stupid, that’s an impossible threshold to reach.

          3) There have been a number of cases where evidence was presented and it was found to be poor to say the least, Indeed the Trump legal team didn’t even really make the claim it was fraud to the court whilst simultaneously telling the public that this was the foundation of there case.

          4) Again, you don’t have any evidence to support your position that there was any fraud at all. Let alone that congress shouldn’t have certified the electoral college votes, I have more evidence that Santa Claus exists than there is of election fraud in 2020.

          5) The honest thing to do would be to say there isn’t evidence of election fraud. Those who have been honest have done so, those who haven’t been honest continue to peddle what is and always will be a baseless lie.

          6) You seem to acknowledge here that you haven’t got a case. ITs pretty daft to preach fraud when you haven’t got any evidence.

          7) The elephant in the room is that your opinion about election fraud has a foundation made of sand,

      RandomCrank in reply to mark311. | May 28, 2021 at 7:44 pm

      So, mark311, how’s that TV you looted working, anyway?

        He’s complaining because he pushes the buttons on it, but it doesn’t turn on. Then he found out the real tv is inside the box with the tv picture on it.

        We may think they’re malignant, but we don’t think they’re smart.

        mark311 in reply to RandomCrank. | May 29, 2021 at 12:13 pm

        What. So your argument is to randomly accuse someone of a crime. That’s pretty stupid. If your standard of argument is to throw out cheap , baseless insults that reflects pretty poorly on you

          RandomCrank in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 12:30 pm

          Your comment reminds me of a quip by Gore Vidal, who once called America “the land of the literal and the home of the dull.” But that’s always been the case with the True Believers, who are everywhere on the march.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 12:56 pm

          @random crank

          I’d say that Gore Vidals quote is pretty accurate you are definitely dull. It’s pretty ironic invoking a man who would almost certainly not be kind to a Trump devotee

          henrybowman in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 1:10 pm

          “What. So your argument is to randomly accuse someone of a crime.”

          …says the man who posted, “Yeah the thing is I interpret that in context of Trump as liberty to commit crimes.”

          Trust me, if Trump had committed any crimes, Pelosi would have been on them faster than Biden on a Brownie Scout. But every single thing she tried, she whiffed. If you think you have dirt on Trump that she didn’t, you’re delusional.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 1:28 pm

          @henry bowman

          You are having a laugh right. The only reason Trump isn’t in jail is because of political expediency. The Republican party is in bed with him because of his extensive support base not because they did the right thing. The presidency as an institution and his flagrant misuse of the DoJ is why he isn’t in prison. Yet even though this is the case there are still criminal probes into his organisation and potentially him. I’ve noted the lack of story on LI regarding the criminal probe which is entering a new phase.

          It’s pretty clear to me people like you have double standards. Any infraction by a Dem or Rino and you are all over it but God forbid DT can’t do any wrong it must be a hoax or a conspiracy.

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | May 30, 2021 at 1:45 am

      Fake tear gas? Fake fire extinguishers? Huh?

      As in the protesters did not tear gas anyone, and did not beat anyone with fire extinguishers, as the Democrat blood libel alleged.

      Danny in reply to mark311. | June 1, 2021 at 1:46 am

      I think all n.n. is talking about is the bad media reports of a police officer bludgeoned to death by a fire extinguisher, followed by equally inaccurate (according to the autopsy) that he died from bear spray, I have no idea if the bear spray is what he meant by tear gas but it could be.

“Piece of shit RINOs vote for commission and force Republicans to filllibuster”.

Fixed the headline for you.

ugottabekiddinme | May 28, 2021 at 3:16 pm

The devil, as they say, is in the details, and in this piece of theater-enabling legislation, the staffing of the commission, had it been approved, would have required the Dems only to “consult” with Republicans.

Thus opening the way for all the former Mueller probe partisans to become staff on the commision and pursue another hatchet job, while the “consultation” with the GOP would have consisted of McConnell receiving a list of the staff, starting with Andrew Weissmann, and the rest.

Totally bogus. So glad that, for once, the GOP in the Senate stood up to this nonsense.

    The commission, had it come into existence, was supposed to be bipartisan. I believe there is an excellent chance that the Dem majority would not have approved of any Republicans being on the commission other than one or two of the six named above who voted in favor of creating the commission.

    Jester Naybor in reply to ugottabekiddinme. | May 29, 2021 at 9:18 am

    Even if – IF!! – the government operatives were honest brokers, the media today is not.

    Any commission regarding 06 January 2021 would be portrayed by the media as a show trial.

    Cassidy and Portman are naive to think that this would be an honest process of discovery … as for the rest, RINO genetics and fear/loathing of Trump drive them.

      RandomCrank in reply to Jester Naybor. | May 29, 2021 at 12:28 pm

      As a former professional journalist with 5 years in D.C. complete with White House press credentials, I could not possibly agree more with your comment about the media.

      To be sure, the old-school media were far from perfect. The WH press operation, which I witnessed in the last half of the 1980s, was a joke. After about a dozen times there, I stopped going. I had work to do, and my definition of “work” was NOT rewriting press releases and calling it the “mood of Washington.”

      So everyone should resist the temptation to over-idealize some mythical good old days. That said, the conventions that kept the media within some guardrails are now gone. You won’t encounter too many people more knowledgeable about the details, or more thoroughly outraged, than me.

      That’s the short version.

        Yes, the ‘press’ is gone. It exists merely as a democrat propaganda arm.
        I remember as a kid reading Soviet Pravda articles and laughing at them – they were a more suble versions of Baghdad Bob.

        The media maggots, one can argue are traitors to our nation, namely because they are in the bag for Red China.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to RandomCrank. | May 30, 2021 at 8:42 am

        I would say better days, where journalist often tried to present facts and not inject opinion, and where journalists despised PR hacks for their lack of ethics. It was not perfect, yet today it seems like PR hacks have won.

        Also, weekly news papers were little more that a wrapper for ads, today dailies, or the remnants of dailies are little better than weeklies..

    mark311 in reply to ugottabekiddinme. | May 29, 2021 at 4:10 pm

    @Henry bowman


    That’s an unusual position for a conservative to have. And a sweeping statement indeed, sounds like you tar the police community with a very wide brush on a pretty vague basis.


    You clearly don’t know what a Strawman is. That when you mischarachterise the position of another. The fallacy in question here is the tuo quoque fallacy which is basically where you appeal to hypocrisy to undermine the interlocker. In this case whether or not I have supported BLM isnt relevant and indeed I haven’t supported BLM in terms of the riots and criminal damage, nor have I defended the government response although I think you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Arrests require evidence and prosecutions require evidence if there isn’t enough that’s just tough. That’s part of how law and order works. I would go further given that this mostly happened under Trumps watch who was very hostile to BLM. Blame him for his incompetence in dealing with BLM. It sounds like from your point of view there shouldn’t have been any excuses.

    As I’ve already stated I’ve never defended riots or criminal damage from any side. You have given your side a free pass based on what’s a childish your side started first argument. Jesus Christ is that the best you can do. You still don’t get what the difference between some bad actors rioting is Vs diverting a democratic process. That’s orders of magnitude worse.

      @mark311, you wrote, “You clearly don’t know what a Strawman is. That when you mischarachterise the position of another.”

      Well, sort of . . . but no. A straw man argument is when you exaggerate or otherwise distort your debate opponent’s point and then attack your fabulist distortion while ignoring the actual point. You do this all the time.

      You do it here. Let me illustrate for you what a straw man logical fallacy is . . . and why Henry is correct in stating that you are guilty of it.

      You: Cost to clean up Capitol = $30 million
      Henry: Cost to clean up damage from burning, looting, murdering hordes = trillions
      You: I have never supported BLM. Given that Henry never said you did, then your response is BOTH a non sequitur AND straw man. You are ignoring his point and focusing on “an attempt to subvert democracy” while tossing in a defense to a claim not made (the straw man here).

      Henry is correct, you are incorrect. No surprise at all, though, since this is why you always think you “win” even when all you do is show that your entire foundation for any argument is rooted in logical fallacy. You do this all the time. It drives me crazy because it’s so intellectually lazy and sophomoric. Do better.

        mark311 in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 31, 2021 at 5:22 pm

        @Fuzzy Slippers

        Strawman, what you state sounds very much like a paraphrasing of what i said so sure fine. Funny how you never mention my arguments being a strawman at the time, no offence but skeptical that you can support that position.

        Lets go through the next one in detail

        1) Its been a common right wing trope to state that being antagonistic towards Jan 6th insurrectionists automatically means support for those who rioted during the BLM protests.

        2) Henrys response to me stating that there had been a cost including injuries to the Jan 6th Insurrection was to quote a different set of incidents and there respective costs. The implication is pretty obvious that Henry was trying to tie me into supporting those crimes and thus make it seem like I’m a hypocrite. Why mention it otherwise?

        3) I never ignored his statement and pointed out that his point doesn’t haven anything to do with the point I made. Perhaps you misunderstood the implications of my statement.

        4) So with respect no it wasn’t a strawman nor was is a non sequitur. It logically follows to point out that BLM’s riots / protests have nothing to do with the right or wrongs of the Jan 6th Insurrection.

        5) No offence Fuzzy but your claim that I use logical fallacies is BS, If you genuinely thought that you would have mentioned it at the time of the argument. You have after all gone out of your way to look up when I joined LI. Its funny you calling me intellectually lazy when that’s a far more apt description of you and the way you argue. I’m not clear sophomoric really applies to anyone in this debate,

        6) With due respect you do better, your arguments are poor at best on a number of issues. I’ve done my best to point out the flaws in your thinking but you are prone to resorting to ad hominem, a poor understanding of science, and generally ignoring the points I make.

        7) If you cant follow my argument just ask, nothing wrong in asking questions. I do it on occasions. I’m not arrogant and don’t assume I know all the answers,

        8) later on you claim their are good reasons to believe that the 2020 election was stolen. Their aren’t, the case for that view is an absolute joke.

Antifundamentalist | May 28, 2021 at 3:42 pm

I’m fairly certain that if they actually investigated, they would find that the majority of the vandalism was done by leftists and anarchists posing as Trump supporters. Of course, that information would never see the light of day, and they would only bring indictments against Republicans who just happened to be caught on camera in the DC area, regardless of whether or not they went anywhere near the doors of the building.

    It’s one of the biggest investigations in contemporary history. There is already an extensive number of arrested persons. I’m aware of only one who could be counted as on the left.

      henrybowman in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 1:20 pm

      Spoken like the statist you are. As if there is any necessary correlation, in either direction, between the people who caused the rioting, and the people who are under arrest. People have been held for four months without action on bullshit “trespass” charges, while people who are out actually setting buildings on fire elsewhere are being revolving-doored with no bail. Meanwhile, the FBI braces a patriotic couple in the northwest who weren’t even in the damn building, demanding “the return of Nancy Pelosi’s laptop.”

      Don’t you dare quote “arrests of conservatives” as any metric of guilt whatsoever.

      “It’s one of the biggest investigations in contemporary history…”

      You must be kidding. Well, maybe you’re not. If you’re not kidding, and you are not a leftist troll you need a very serious reality check.

    henrybowman in reply to Antifundamentalist. | May 29, 2021 at 1:14 pm

    There’s a reason they emphatically refuse to release the videotapes.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | May 28, 2021 at 3:57 pm

Trump’s been impeached and acquitted for what happened on January 6. You don’t conduct an investigation AFTER the trial.

Doing so makes it obvious the investigation is bogus and completely politically driven.

RandomCrank | May 28, 2021 at 7:42 pm

I have cast write-in votes in the last two presidential elections, and I’m very glad there were enough Rs to shitcan any commission that didn’t also deal with the “progressive” political violence of the past 5 years.

Jan 6th, 2021, “The Day of the Patriots”, when humble Citizens assembled at Their House of Government, to present their grievances to representatives who where false and had converted that House into their own personal shrine, and who trembled at the sight of them. We remember and honor that day of brave Patriots, with pride and affection for them and the Nation for which they stood. And we remember Ashli Babbitt, posthumously, with The Medal of Freedom. Amen

My favorite thing about Jan 6th?

That the entire US congress cowered before a group of very peaceful demonstrators. We have elected* chickenshit to represent us.

*maybe, maybe not.

    mark311 in reply to Barry. | May 29, 2021 at 1:03 pm

    You realise there was something like 140 injuries? Including a number of hospitalisations? The price tag for the clean up is estimated at over $30 million.

      henrybowman in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 1:25 pm

      $30 million? Wow.

      “…left-wing riots that occurred between May 26 and June 8 of [2020] could reach $2 billion… .If you add up the insurance cost in 2020 dollars for all six major American riots during the turbulent 1960s, the total is a little shy of $1.2 billion — which means the terrorists in Antifa and Black Lives Matter caused more mayhem and property damage in a little over a week than this country saw throughout all of the 1960s.”

        mark311 in reply to henrybowman. | May 29, 2021 at 1:33 pm

        I’ve never defended BLM. Idiot. That doesn’t change the crimes of those who broke into the Capitol building and who attempted to subvert democracy.

          Well, no, however misguided the Capitol protesters were, they did not think they were subverting democracy. On the contrary, they believed that democracy had been subverted with a banana republic-style fake election, and they believed they were righting that wrong, protecting democracy.

          You may not agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that, in their minds, they were protecting democracy from a corrupt cabal who had just stolen a United States’ presidential election. (For the record, I will say, yet again, that it was totally stupid to do this, but it’s equally stupid to ignore the fact that they had good reason to believe the election was stolen–a belief I share, but I would never ever in a bazillion years protest by breaking windows or being violent or doing anything these people did on that day.).

          RandomCrank in reply to mark311. | May 30, 2021 at 6:22 pm

          So, mark311, were you part of the Portland riots too?

          geronl in reply to mark311. | June 2, 2021 at 8:17 pm

          “Attempted to subvert democracy”? Good luck trying to prove the intent of an unarmed mob that amounted to about 30-40 actual criminals.

          Nancy Pelosi literally tried to seat the LOSER of an election in Iowa, does that count as attempting to subvert democracy?

        mark311 in reply to henrybowman. | May 29, 2021 at 1:34 pm

        It’s pretty funny that you ignore the primary point about them assaulting law enforcement. Funny how when it suits you it’s terrible to attack police officers but when it’s your side it’s fine. Hypocrit.

          henrybowman in reply to mark311. | May 29, 2021 at 1:49 pm

          You know nothing about my feelings towards police officers. Here they are: police officers are nothing but paid enforcers for whoever signs their paychecks. In big blue cities, those people are big blue socialists, and therefore so are the police. Their oaths mean nothing, either to me or to themselves… Katrina, Portland, and Minneapolis being terrific cases in point. And I don’t give a GGD what happens to those police.

          Whether or not you “defend BLM” is a strawman. The point is, your heroes in American government allow the BLM to riot and destroy with impunity, to their benefit, calling down the heavy arm of the law only when whites and conservatives engage in behavior that opposes them and even palely approaches this. AOC once made a statement that protests are what occur when a group of people determine that no one is listening to them, and that their very purpose is to make people uncomfortable. That observation cuts both ways.

          You ought to read this analysis of the double-standard Americans have been operating under, before you dare compare a single day session of hand-to-hand, trespass, and some broken glass in a politically-appropriate venue, to months of nationwide arson, vandalism, rioting, and lawlessness.

      Yes, and Alexandra Cortez is in therapy for her ‘war’ PSTD.

      Maybe you should join her.

      Oh, yeah – please take care of the BLM/Antifa clean-up bills – being you believe they’re inconsequential.

I don’t recall the Capitol Breach Mob, which diregarded Trump’s call for a peaceful and patriotic protest, smashing statuary or plaques. They were clearly a “mostly peaeful” protest compared to the spikes in crime, arson, and destruction of people’s sweat equity that happened in so many cities over the summer.. Indeed, it seems that the average Jan. 6 Capitol breacher behaved like a typical tourist–gawking at the statues and plaques, maybe hoping for a glimpse of someone important.

The Capitol protesters scared a bunch of self-important, disconnected, contemptuous creatures who should’ve been voted out and replaced ages ago. The Party that has blessed so many wilder and more destructive protests ought to admit that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Bill Cassidy and Ben Sasse are becoming completely insufferable. Trump made a gigantic mistake not helping to primary Sasse when there was a chance and Cassidy, uh senator Kennedy do you know anyone who could primary him?


1. What you characterize as a “criminal probe” into Trump is simply a witch-hunt conducted by his political enemies, so why would it “entering a new phase” be a newsworthy story on which LI should comment?

2. If there were evidence of any crimes Trump had committed, wouldn’t Pelosi have jumped at the chance to impeach him for them?

3. You say the fact that he’s not in prison is political. How so? How could the Congressional Republicans possibly affect any genuine police investigation or arrest? What influence do you think they have on the DOJ or on state law enforcement forces?

The fact that Hillary Clinton was never locked up, that I do blame Trump for. He could have ordered a DOJ to investigate her and find any of her crimes that were still within the statute of limitations and prosecute her for them. He chose not to. (That she has been a career criminal is beyond all possible doubt; I don’t even think you would claim that. But most of her documented crimes can no longer be prosecuted.)

4. That the BLM riots happened during Trump’s presidency means…what? What conclusion do you draw from that? How does it make it his fault? What do you think he could or should have done about it? The only thing I can think of is to take Tom Cotton’s advice, invoke the Insurrection Act, and send in federal troops. Had he done that, of course, the Dems would have howled for his blood, and you would have howled with them.

Bringing charges against the rioters was a matter for state prosecutors who were often in open cahoots with them. Any federal charges possible would have been for the career DOJ, which was firmly in the hands of his enemies as well.

5. As henrybowman pointed out, no conclusions can be drawn from how many conservatives vs leftists have been arrested, since the arrest campaign has been blatantly partisan, and doesn’t reflect who actually did anything.

5. I see no reason to believe that $30M figure for the repairs, or the number of injured. Considering that we now know the reports of rioters killing people were outright blood libels, why should we believe the rest of it? What we saw was well-behaved people staying within the ropes, in what is, after all, their house.

6a. How many of those injuries cited were caused by the police, not the rioters?

    mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | May 31, 2021 at 5:53 pm

    1) No, if that were the case then the investigations would have stalled instead they have expanded. We already know that Trump is rather prone to misusing funds hence why he was ordered to pay back a significant amount regarding a veterans charity.

    2) There were two attempts to impeach that’s kind of the point here that the Republicans supported him despite the obvious evidence against him. I know you disagree with both impeachments but to be blunt you have to bend over backwards to see the evidence in Trumps favour.

    3) The DoJ policy was to provide total immunity to the President and Barr etc supported that assumption. We now know for example that Barr’s interpretation of the Muller report was seriously misleading,

    Clinton had already been investigated with specific regard to those emails. Trump was never going to investigate since he and his family were doing the same thing ie using unsecured emails and personal emails etc for public and confidential business,

    4) The claim with BLM is that those who were responsible for rioting or looting etc were let of lightly or were failed to be prosecuted. That happened under Trump, he tried going after them and failed. If there wasn’t evidence for there crimes what’s law enforcement supposed to do? Ignore due process? The right use it as something to rail against assigning blame when in reality sometimes shit happens and nothing can be done.

    Invoking the insurrection act. Hmmm well I think that would have to have specific reasoning. The honest answer is I don’t know how id respond. I think for example that there is an argument with regard to portland but id need to know more about the implications of the insurrection act.

    Trump had plenty of options, he could have addressed the specific grievances of the protestors, shown some sympathy for the issues raised acted like a leader. Instead he ignored the issues on the ground and tried to blame all and sundry.

    5) Of course you can, many participants have been arrested and those are overwhelmingly Right wing types.

    6) Sorry you think that because of the confusion around 1 death suddenly disqualifies the mountain of evidence of the actual damage done? That’s bordering on ludicrous I think we have seen very different videos.

    6a) The number of injuries is specifically of law enforcement/capitol police. I’m not clear how you can claim the injuries were somehow self inflicted. Even if you are claiming that the injuries were a consequence of the police if the rioters hadn’t put law enforcement in that position it wouldn’t have happened. The rioters were after all in the process of committing a crime merely by breaking in let alone anything else.



      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | June 1, 2021 at 1:03 am

      1. Wait a minute. Do you deny that the “investigation” is being conducted by his political enemies, solely because they hate his guts and are desperate to find anything at all to pin on him?! Assuming you don’t deny that, because you’re not stupid, how does its “expansion”, or moving to a “new phase”, or whatever it is that it’s done, indicate that anything has been found? If it has “stalled”, i.e. not found anything, isn’t expanding it exactly what they would do? It’s not like it’s costing them anything. They’re spending taxpayer money, and he’s spending his money, so the longer and more intensely they investigate the happier they must be, and they can still hope that if they look hard enough they’ll find something. If you investigate anyone hard enough you’re bound to find something.

      2. There were two attempts to impeach, neither of which alleged he’d committed any crimes. If there were evidence that he’d actually committed any, why wouldn’t Pelosi impeach him for those? She didn’t because she couldn’t, because the evidence doesn’t exist.

      3. Your response here is just pure bulldust. And you can’t deny Clinton’s long career as a criminal.

      4. Yes, BLM rioters were let off lightly or not prosecuted. Again, what the **** has that got to do with Trump?? Trump did not try going after them and fail; how could he do that? How is prosecuting them within his power? There was plenty of evidence. Nobody ever alleged lack of evidence was a problem. If they can find people who set foot in the Capitol, they can find every single person who rioted in the past year. They can find everyone who threw rocks and firebombs, everyone who entered stores, everyone who threw a punch, everyone. They didn’t because they didn’t want to, and Trump had nothing to do with that.

      I know exactly how you’d have responded if he’d sent in the troops. I don’t believe your denial.

      The protesters had no legitimate grievances. The “issues they raised” were a bunch of racist lies. Treating them with sympathy and “addressing their grievances” is exactly what Frey, Wheeler, De Blasio, etc. did, which is the entire problem. It only encouraged them and did not stop even one rioter.

      5. Um, what? I just pointed out that you can’t draw any conclusions from this, so all you do is repeat it! Of course only right-wing types are being arrested! That’s the whole point! That is our complaint! But how can you suppose it says anything about who committed the crimes? Supposing the actual criminals were mostly lefties, what would you expect to happen that is different than what is happening? Surely you’re not suggesting that in such a case they would be arresting lefties! Surely you don’t expect us to swallow such a wild and unsupported assumption.

      6. There was no confusion; there was a deliberate blood libel. And you have not seen any video that supports your assertion. You’re just making it up. What we all saw on the videos was people on their best behavior, staying within the ropes.

      6a. Why would I not claim the injuries were inflicted by the police? It’s clear that at least many of them were, and I see no reason to suppose it wasn’t most of them.

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | June 1, 2021 at 11:09 am

        1) There is ample probable cause that Trump or more specifically the Trump organisations financial dealings are not legal. WE already know the organisation and by extension Trump has a history of pocketing money in an unethical fashion. Ask all the subbies he has fucked over in his development work, or all the banks who he has reneged on loans for. That’s one of the reasons the organisation has such a poor credit history, and why only a very small number of banks deal with the Trump organisation. ITs the job of law enforcement to investigate and financial crimes often involved long winded complex investigations. I’m not really clear in this context that the investigations could be characterised as frivolous. Indeed I would argue that the Republican party has been politically motivated in defending Trump, they didn’t defend him because they thought him innocent but to limit damage from the political fall out – to be clear that’s an opinion.

        I think there is a separate thread to this in the sense that the American system is built on two parties operating in conflict so in a sense you are right it is politically motivated in that the Democrat appointees are looking to hold Republicans to account. Given Trumps egregious behaviour it seems entirely plausible that he may be guilty of financial crimes. Clearly we wont find out for sometime whether or not the probes lead to criminal charges.

        2) Well the obstruction of justice charges could be a crime I believe (not 100% certain of that)

        3) With relation to the emails no that’s fact. She was investigated and no charges brought, no crime was found to have been committed and as for Trump doing the same thing thats a matter of public record.

        I never commented on Hilary Clintons career as a whole. I’m not sure, you might be right you might not. I don’t know enough to comment.

        4) The original claim was this that Jan 6th insurrectionists were prosecuted maliciously and the BLM protestors were let off scot free. The point I’m making is simple you need evidence to prosecute someone what are the authorities supposed to do send them to Guantanamo /S. The context of this is Trump as president specifically targeting BLM protestors for prosecution, he did his damnest to prosecute them and yet failed. That’s compared to the Jan 6th Insurrectionists who have ample evidence against them. There is a clear difference in evidence between Jan 6th and the BLM Protests – the idiots videoed themselves doing it and advertised what they did on Facebook etc. Didn’t exactly make it difficult did they.

        Believe/Don’t Believe – that’s your prerogative. I’ve explained my position as clearly as i can in good faith.

        Protestor issues – right ok, this is an entire debate in itself. Suffice to say I don’t find your position particularly credible. There is quite a bit of evidence that there is a serious issue with police violence towards the black community. I’m not necessarily saying that’s rooted in racism but that is an issue and every citizen has the right to life. There is a significant % of police in the US who don’t show a lot of sympathy for the ‘protect and serve’ aspect of there job. Plenty of officers do a good job but denying that the US doesn’t have an issue in this respect is just ignoring the problem. The US compared to other first world countries most definitely performs poorly.

        5) The point I’m making is that their isn’t any evidence of left wing involvement, you’d have to show that this is the case in order to have a legitimate complaint. The point I’ve tried to make throughout is simple the evidence threshold has been met by almost exclusively right wing types in regard to Jan 6th. Indeed there is very little evidence of Left wing types inside the capitol building at all. I’m not clear how you can complain that right wing types are being victimised for being caught in the act of committing a crime and calling that unfair that seems a bizarre argument. So yes i can draw conclusions based on the data available which is extensive given how many videos their are of the events. Its not like all this happened in secret, there were film crews amongst the insurrectionists!

        6) The official statements were pretty vague, sure the NYT etc ran with stories that had issues but that still wasn’t the official position from my recollection. Absolutely not, I saw videos of people trying to rip gas masks of off officers, using make shift weapons, smashing windows,

        6a) That makes no sense, why would the police injure their own side!? The injuries quoted were specifically of law enforcement injuries. You don’t get to just wave that away!

RandomCrank | May 30, 2021 at 6:21 pm

If these morons think the events of Jan. 6 qualify as an insurrection, all I can say is “Hold your beers.” Or in their case, your glasses of white wine and canapes.

Remarkable how these evil, conspiratorial “insurrectionists” arrived at the Capitol unarmed. What self-respecting insurrectionist forgets his weapon? Normally we would refer to a gathering of unarmed citizens to vent their frustration as a “protest”. Maybe we should just call the events of Jan 6th “The Immaculate Insurrection”.

    mark311 in reply to sfharding. | May 31, 2021 at 5:56 pm

    That’s not true actually, a number of arrests were made of individuals who attempted to carry weapons in, This included rifles, shotguns, assault rifles and molotov cocktails.

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | June 1, 2021 at 1:05 am

      Assault rifles?! Now you’re just lying. Or you have no idea what an assault rifle is. (Hint: The AR-15 is not one. Anyone who thinks it is automatically loses, just like that moron who wanted to ban barrel shields without the foggiest idea what they are. “The thing that goes up”.)

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | June 1, 2021 at 11:15 am

        No I’m not, For clarity for the assault rifle the particular individual wanted to attend but was late and arrived on Jan 7th. he had a Tavor X95 assault rifle.

There are 6 squishes that need to be gone from the Senate