Michael Schmidt ?

[kentuck]

He was just on the Nicolle Wallace show and made a very dumb argument, in my opinion.

He said the January 6 Committee set a "very high bar" by looking for "criminality" from the beginning of their investigation?

What the hell were they supposed to be looking for? Was there no criminality in the attack upon our Capitol? We now know there was a deep criminality.

The Committee knew there was criminality, as did every other American that had their eyes open on that day.

Their task was to find out who was behind the "criminality"? How deep did it go? There was never a question about "criminality", as Michael Schmidt suggested in his comments.

The Committee has succeeded in uncovering the degree of criminality, in my opinion.

[Ocelot II]

1. Their job is not uncovering "criminality"; they are not prosecutors.

Their job is figuring out what happened and who was behind it and how to prevent it from happening again by proposing and enacting legislation. In the process they have uncovered actions that are potentially criminal and prosecutable, and they can refer the matter to the DOJ, whose job is evaluating and prosecuting criminality regardless of whether the committee refers the matter to them.

[kentuck]

2. Do you think there was anything "criminal" about the attack upon our Capitol?

Or are you still undecided?

You do not have to be a "prosecutor" to recognize criminality. The Committee has not attempted to prosecute any guilty parties for the attack upon our Capitol.

But we would have to be blind to not see the criminality they have uncovered. They can only expose it. It is now up to the DOJ to do something about it.

Or we can just say, I see nothing criminal that was done. And let it go at that.

Simply because they do not have the power to prosecute does not mean they cannot have an opinion about what is criminal and what is not. They do not have to close their minds to reality.

[Ocelot II]

3. Of course it was, but that's not what the J6 Committee was tasked with deciding.

There's a big difference between uncovering and prosecuting. They can refer the matter to DOJ for prosecution, and I think they will, though a referral does not require DOJ to prosecute. But I think they will do it.

[kentuck]

5. Yes, they could see someone murdered on the street...

...and they would have to pretend there was nothing criminal that happened in front of them. Because they do not have the power to prosecute? Although that is true, they do not have to close their minds to the criminal act. They can investigate to see if someone paid the murderer to commit his acts and why it may have happened? And was there a wider conspiracy in the murder? They have a right to investigate that, knowing that they do not have the authority to prosecute.

One would have to be blind to believe that the attack on our Capitol was nothing more than an average "tourist" day.

[Funtatlaguy]

4. I'm not a fan. But he's married to Nicolle. So she has him on a lot.

[hlthe2b]

6. His real claim to fame is breaking the HRC email story for NYT...

This many years later, he's still trying to defend the "significance" of that story.

I love Nicole, though. I hope he's good to her.

[spooky3]

7. I'm hoping she will be a positive influence on him.

I love and admire her, too.