Marjorie Taylor Greene craziness megathread

[Fuzzy Bear]

How long 'til she loses her committee seats? I say the over/under is 6 months.

She's done nothing to lose them.

If she has, I could easily make the same statement about Ayanna Pressley for starters.  And Cori Bush.  She's edgy and over-the-top, but she's done nothing to justify such a remedy.  You don't have to support her, but her constituents deserve to have the person they elected to Congress represent them.

YOU don't like her.  Fine!  You can call her an HP to your heart's content.  When you begin to advocate the same for nutty Democrats let me know.  Then, and only then, may you have something.

[Fuzzy Bear]

How long 'til she loses her committee seats? I say the over/under is 6 months.

She's done nothing to lose them.

If she has, I could easily make the same statement about Ayanna Pressley for starters.  And Cori Bush.  She's edgy and over-the-top, but she's done nothing to justify such a remedy.  You don't have to support her, but her constituents deserve to have the person they elected to Congress represent them.

YOU don't like her.  Fine!  You can call her an HP to your heart's content.  When you begin to advocate the same for nutty Democrats let me know.  Then, and only then, may you have something.

Ayanna Pressley, although she's well to my left, isn't a QAnon adherent or an anti-masker like Greene is. And she hasn't engaged in showboating of the kind that Greene has.

Pressley has stated that the unrest in the streets should continue "for as long as there is unrest in our lives".  Please don't tell me that this isn't "fanning the flames".  If that's not "showboating", tell me what it is.  It's a call for continued violence, and it really isn't hidden.

[Fuzzy Bear]

How long 'til she loses her committee seats? I say the over/under is 6 months.

She's done nothing to lose them.

If she has, I could easily make the same statement about Ayanna Pressley for starters.  And Cori Bush.  She's edgy and over-the-top, but she's done nothing to justify such a remedy.  You don't have to support her, but her constituents deserve to have the person they elected to Congress represent them.

YOU don't like her.  Fine!  You can call her an HP to your heart's content.  When you begin to advocate the same for nutty Democrats let me know.  Then, and only then, may you have something.

Okay, I'm not even gonna bother getting into the pure inaneness of what you just wrote here because Calthrina950 has already done so perfectly, not that you're actually gonna listen to or give a sh*t about what he said. No, what I'm just perturbed by is the fact that the first 2 Squad members who immediately came to mind for you when you thought of who to most intensely focus on persecuting just so happened to be the 2 who are Black women. Surely a coincidence...

The entire "Squad" is composed of someone that would be considered as coming from a "marginalized group".  Is it not possible to criticize these people without being accused of racism?

There is much to criticize about each and every member of the Squad.  They have advocated for the continuing of "unrest" in the streets while denying the fact that the "unrest" is due to violent demonstrations by groups they condone.  That ought to be criticized no matter who does that, and the perpetrators ought to be mentioned by name.

I will note this:  I have had posts moderated for "excessive hyperbole" for the mere mention of the role of BLM and Antifa in violence.  I don't see anyone doing the same for those who relentlessly mention Qanon.  If Qanon members commit crimes they should be arrested, and if they do it in the name of Qanon that should be highlighted.  Called out.  But I'd kindly suggest that much of the ranting about Qanon here rises to the level of Excessive Hyperbole by the standards of moderation here. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't think anyone should be canceled (or booted from Congress) for liking a tweet or believing a conspiracy theory. Her words on video are pretty out there though. But I think something needs to happen post election to take that next step.

The "Jewish Space Lasers" comments were just too much to take.

I do not believe that she should be expelled from Congress.  She hasn't committed any crime.  And it's NOT a crime to hold wacky beliefs; this is a principle that needs to be affirmed and reaffirmed by both sides of the Spectrum.  On the other hand, she shouldn't be given any significant committee assignments.  Indeed, if she were stripped of all of her committee assignments I would not be raising the objections.

[Fuzzy Bear]

How long 'til she loses her committee seats? I say the over/under is 6 months.

She's done nothing to lose them.

If she has, I could easily make the same statement about Ayanna Pressley for starters.  And Cori Bush.  She's edgy and over-the-top, but she's done nothing to justify such a remedy.  You don't have to support her, but her constituents deserve to have the person they elected to Congress represent them.

YOU don't like her.  Fine!  You can call her an HP to your heart's content.  When you begin to advocate the same for nutty Democrats let me know.  Then, and only then, may you have something.

Okay, I'm not even gonna bother getting into the pure inaneness of what you just wrote here because Calthrina950 has already done so perfectly, not that you're actually gonna listen to or give a sh*t about what he said. No, what I'm just perturbed by is the fact that the first 2 Squad members who immediately came to mind for you when you thought of who to most intensely focus on persecuting just so happened to be the 2 who are Black women. Surely a coincidence...

While your response to me was, quite frankly, unjustified and unfair, I have just read MTG's "Jewish Space Lasers" gem, which seals the deal for me.  She's not quite at the level of the Grand Mufti, but I certainly would like to see her resign (although that's probably not happening) and I do think that the GOP should deal with her in the same manner as they dealt with Steve King.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Strip her of all her major committee assignments, cosigning her to sitting on more irrelevant committees. If she repeats remarks such as calling for Pelosi's execution or other crazy things she has said over the years, move to expel.

The GOP could expel her from the Caucus.  She could respond by collecting a paycheck for doing nothing for 2 years, but that might be a good thing.

For those of you that view MTG as an aberration, remember that her election is very much in the spirit of democracy.  There is a reason the Founders limited popular election of Federal officials solely to the House of Representatives; they believed that "the people" would elect all sorts of MTGs.  It's one of a number of reasons of why the Founders opted for a bi-cameral legislature.

It's also a reason why we are not a "democracy", but a REPUBLIC.  Our Republic has, to be sure, democratic features, but we are not a "democracy".  The "Guaranty Clause" guarantees that each state will have a "republican form of government", and not a "democratic form of government".  The older I get the more appreciative of this principle I become.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Strip her of all her major committee assignments, cosigning her to sitting on more irrelevant committees. If she repeats remarks such as calling for Pelosi's execution or other crazy things she has said over the years, move to expel.

The GOP could expel her from the Caucus.  She could respond by collecting a paycheck for doing nothing for 2 years, but that might be a good thing.

For those of you that view MTG as an aberration, remember that her election is very much in the spirit of democracy.  There is a reason the Founders limited popular election of Federal officials solely to the House of Representatives; they believed that "the people" would elect all sorts of MTGs.  It's one of a number of reasons of why the Founders opted for a bi-cameral legislature.

It's also a reason why we are not a "democracy", but a REPUBLIC.  Our Republic has, to be sure, democratic features, but we are not a "democracy".  The "Guaranty Clause" guarantees that each state will have a "republican form of government", and not a "democratic form of government".  The older I get the more appreciative of this principle I become.

The words democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive. America was founded and remains a democratic republic

"Yes" to the first sentence.  An emphatic "No" to the second.  Although I would agree that our Republic has democratic features.

It was not until 1828 that a candidate ran as a "Democrat".  This was a radical name in 1800; indeed, the "Democratic-Republican" party of Jefferson was not the party that became the "Democratic Party" of today.  That party was generally known as the "Republicans" or the "Jeffersonian Republicans, and their main concern was to preserve the REPUBLIC (emphasis added) against the allegedly authoritarian Federalist Party.  They were called "Democrats" and the "Democratic Party" at times, but that was used as an insult.  Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe would have no more run as "Democrats" than JFK, LBJ, HHH, and McGovern would have ran as "Socialists".  

It was not until 1913 that we had direct popular election of US Senators.  To this day, I'm not sure that this has been a good thing.  I certainly don't believe that the overall quality of Senators has improved much (although I do agree that some of the greatest reformers would not have been elected to the Senate had there not been popular election of Senators).  

[Fuzzy Bear]

Strip her of all her major committee assignments, cosigning her to sitting on more irrelevant committees. If she repeats remarks such as calling for Pelosi's execution or other crazy things she has said over the years, move to expel.

The GOP could expel her from the Caucus.  She could respond by collecting a paycheck for doing nothing for 2 years, but that might be a good thing.

For those of you that view MTG as an aberration, remember that her election is very much in the spirit of democracy.  There is a reason the Founders limited popular election of Federal officials solely to the House of Representatives; they believed that "the people" would elect all sorts of MTGs.  It's one of a number of reasons of why the Founders opted for a bi-cameral legislature.

It's also a reason why we are not a "democracy", but a REPUBLIC.  Our Republic has, to be sure, democratic features, but we are not a "democracy".  The "Guaranty Clause" guarantees that each state will have a "republican form of government", and not a "democratic form of government".  The older I get the more appreciative of this principle I become.

The words democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive. America was founded and remains a democratic republic

I've really come to hate the statement "we're a republic, not a democracy." This country functions as a republic and representative democracy, and direct Congressional elections are constitutionally enshrined as such. So what exactly is the point of that statement? To illustrate that having people vote on every single government action is bad? Yeah, I think it would be bad, but we don't do it anyway, so whatever. We the people sure do elect representatives to make and execute the law, though.

It seems like 90% of the time I see that statement on the internet, it's just some conservative trying to explain why their attempts to try and rig an election in their favor (or steal it after the fact) is somehow justifiable, because something something republic.

"Conservatives" rigging elections?  That's downright rich!

There is no reason that the conduct of the election in GA, PA, and MI not be investigated.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Newt Grinich chimes in, his argument isn't exactly the best. it's kinda crazy Lucy Mcbath now represents his district.

https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/1355675967491084290

Strip her of all her major committee assignments, cosigning her to sitting on more irrelevant committees. If she repeats remarks such as calling for Pelosi's execution or other crazy things she has said over the years, move to expel.

The GOP could expel her from the Caucus.  She could respond by collecting a paycheck for doing nothing for 2 years, but that might be a good thing.

For those of you that view MTG as an aberration, remember that her election is very much in the spirit of democracy.  There is a reason the Founders limited popular election of Federal officials solely to the House of Representatives; they believed that "the people" would elect all sorts of MTGs.  It's one of a number of reasons of why the Founders opted for a bi-cameral legislature.

It's also a reason why we are not a "democracy", but a REPUBLIC.  Our Republic has, to be sure, democratic features, but we are not a "democracy".  The "Guaranty Clause" guarantees that each state will have a "republican form of government", and not a "democratic form of government".  The older I get the more appreciative of this principle I become.

The words democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive. America was founded and remains a democratic republic

I've really come to hate the statement "we're a republic, not a democracy." This country functions as a republic and representative democracy, and direct Congressional elections are constitutionally enshrined as such. So what exactly is the point of that statement? To illustrate that having people vote on every single government action is bad? Yeah, I think it would be bad, but we don't do it anyway, so whatever. We the people sure do elect representatives to make and execute the law, though.

It seems like 90% of the time I see that statement on the internet, it's just some conservative trying to explain why their attempts to try and rig an election in their favor (or steal it after the fact) is somehow justifiable, because something something republic.

"Conservatives" rigging elections?  That's downright rich!

There is no reason that the conduct of the election in GA, PA, and MI not be investigated. There is no reason that the Court not honestly consider the Constitutionality of Election Officials in these states changing the rules of the way the elections were conducted without the affirmation of the state legislatures.  There is no reason not to explain why Georgia allowed for a lesser degree of accuracy in signature verification for mail-in votes.  There is no reason that testimony should be taken by the Congress as to the counting of votes in these states and no reason that those who have signed affidavits be able to tell their stories before Congress under oath to the American people.  To say nothing of the media suppressing stories about Hunter Biden, censoring social media, and cancelling people who shared that story.

Would this change the result?  Not at this point.  Would it instill confidence in the outcome of the 2020 election?  Maybe.  That would depend on whether or not the results of an honest investigation would lead people to believe that the final results in GA, MI, and PA would have been different.  Understand this:  The claims of election irregularities were not baseless just because CNN and NBC said so.  Trump's lawsuits were not "laughed out of Court"; many were not heard on technicalities. 

Democrats don't want such an investigation because it would open for inspection the conduct of elections in three of its most corrupt baliwicks (Wayne County, MI, Fulton County, GA, and Philadelphia County, PA).  And they've gotten their wish; it won't happen.  Please don't say they weren't called for, however.  And please don't say that they're not still needed. 

Strip her of all her major committee assignments, cosigning her to sitting on more irrelevant committees. If she repeats remarks such as calling for Pelosi's execution or other crazy things she has said over the years, move to expel.

The GOP could expel her from the Caucus.  She could respond by collecting a paycheck for doing nothing for 2 years, but that might be a good thing.

For those of you that view MTG as an aberration, remember that her election is very much in the spirit of democracy.  There is a reason the Founders limited popular election of Federal officials solely to the House of Representatives; they believed that "the people" would elect all sorts of MTGs.  It's one of a number of reasons of why the Founders opted for a bi-cameral legislature.

It's also a reason why we are not a "democracy", but a REPUBLIC.  Our Republic has, to be sure, democratic features, but we are not a "democracy".  The "Guaranty Clause" guarantees that each state will have a "republican form of government", and not a "democratic form of government".  The older I get the more appreciative of this principle I become.

The words democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive. America was founded and remains a democratic republic

I've really come to hate the statement "we're a republic, not a democracy." This country functions as a republic and representative democracy, and direct Congressional elections are constitutionally enshrined as such. So what exactly is the point of that statement? To illustrate that having people vote on every single government action is bad? Yeah, I think it would be bad, but we don't do it anyway, so whatever. We the people sure do elect representatives to make and execute the law, though.

It seems like 90% of the time I see that statement on the internet, it's just some conservative trying to explain why their attempts to try and rig an election in their favor (or steal it after the fact) is somehow justifiable, because something something republic.

"Conservatives" rigging elections?  That's downright rich!

There is no reason that the conduct of the election in GA, PA, and MI not be investigated. There is no reason that the Court not honestly consider the Constitutionality of Election Officials in these states changing the rules of the way the elections were conducted without the affirmation of the state legislatures.  There is no reason not to explain why Georgia allowed for a lesser degree of accuracy in signature verification for mail-in votes.  There is no reason that testimony should be taken by the Congress as to the counting of votes in these states and no reason that those who have signed affidavits be able to tell their stories before Congress under oath to the American people.  To say nothing of the media suppressing stories about Hunter Biden, censoring social media, and cancelling people who shared that story.

Would this change the result?  Not at this point.  Would it instill confidence in the outcome of the 2020 election?  Maybe.  That would depend on whether or not the results of an honest investigation would lead people to believe that the final results in GA, MI, and PA would have been different.  Understand this:  The claims of election irregularities were not baseless just because CNN and NBC said so.  Trump's lawsuits were not "laughed out of Court"; many were not heard on technicalities. 

Democrats don't want such an investigation because it would open for inspection the conduct of elections in three of its most corrupt baliwicks (Wayne County, MI, Fulton County, GA, and Philadelphia County, PA).  And they've gotten their wish; it won't happen.  Please don't say they weren't called for, however.  And please don't say that they're not still needed. 

Cope

I am coping.  Calling for investigation of these corrupt baliwicks is how I cope.

I have never said that Trump "won in a landslide".  I am not certain he "won".  But I'm not certain that a combination of voter fraud, counting votes that should have been, under the law, excluded, and corrupt counting practices may have made the difference in GA, PA, and MI.  There are allegations of ballots transported from NY to PA, of huge numbers of ballots having just the Presidential race selected, bins of ballots pulled out under tables, etc.  Why should this NOT be investigated?  We may or may not have had a just outcome of the last election, but we ought to have the truth as to how the votes were counted and the impact to which unauthorized practices by elections officials in violation of state statutes would have changed the final amount.

We may not know.  We may never really know.  But we ought to be able to know the REAL impact of these issues on the vote count.  And we ought to know the ways in which elections were conducted in violation of the Constitutions and Election Laws "due to COVID-19".

[Fuzzy Bear]

Newt Grinich chimes in, his argument isn't exactly the best. it's kinda crazy Lucy Mcbath now represents his district.

https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/1355675967491084290

Strip her of all her major committee assignments, cosigning her to sitting on more irrelevant committees. If she repeats remarks such as calling for Pelosi's execution or other crazy things she has said over the years, move to expel.

The GOP could expel her from the Caucus.  She could respond by collecting a paycheck for doing nothing for 2 years, but that might be a good thing.

For those of you that view MTG as an aberration, remember that her election is very much in the spirit of democracy.  There is a reason the Founders limited popular election of Federal officials solely to the House of Representatives; they believed that "the people" would elect all sorts of MTGs.  It's one of a number of reasons of why the Founders opted for a bi-cameral legislature.

It's also a reason why we are not a "democracy", but a REPUBLIC.  Our Republic has, to be sure, democratic features, but we are not a "democracy".  The "Guaranty Clause" guarantees that each state will have a "republican form of government", and not a "democratic form of government".  The older I get the more appreciative of this principle I become.

The words democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive. America was founded and remains a democratic republic

I've really come to hate the statement "we're a republic, not a democracy." This country functions as a republic and representative democracy, and direct Congressional elections are constitutionally enshrined as such. So what exactly is the point of that statement? To illustrate that having people vote on every single government action is bad? Yeah, I think it would be bad, but we don't do it anyway, so whatever. We the people sure do elect representatives to make and execute the law, though.

It seems like 90% of the time I see that statement on the internet, it's just some conservative trying to explain why their attempts to try and rig an election in their favor (or steal it after the fact) is somehow justifiable, because something something republic.

"Conservatives" rigging elections?  That's downright rich!

There is no reason that the conduct of the election in GA, PA, and MI not be investigated. There is no reason that the Court not honestly consider the Constitutionality of Election Officials in these states changing the rules of the way the elections were conducted without the affirmation of the state legislatures.  There is no reason not to explain why Georgia allowed for a lesser degree of accuracy in signature verification for mail-in votes.  There is no reason that testimony should be taken by the Congress as to the counting of votes in these states and no reason that those who have signed affidavits be able to tell their stories before Congress under oath to the American people.  To say nothing of the media suppressing stories about Hunter Biden, censoring social media, and cancelling people who shared that story.

Would this change the result?  Not at this point.  Would it instill confidence in the outcome of the 2020 election?  Maybe.  That would depend on whether or not the results of an honest investigation would lead people to believe that the final results in GA, MI, and PA would have been different.  Understand this:  The claims of election irregularities were not baseless just because CNN and NBC said so.  Trump's lawsuits were not "laughed out of Court"; many were not heard on technicalities. 

Democrats don't want such an investigation because it would open for inspection the conduct of elections in three of its most corrupt baliwicks (Wayne County, MI, Fulton County, GA, and Philadelphia County, PA).  And they've gotten their wish; it won't happen.  Please don't say they weren't called for, however.  And please don't say that they're not still needed. 

Strip her of all her major committee assignments, cosigning her to sitting on more irrelevant committees. If she repeats remarks such as calling for Pelosi's execution or other crazy things she has said over the years, move to expel.

The GOP could expel her from the Caucus.  She could respond by collecting a paycheck for doing nothing for 2 years, but that might be a good thing.

For those of you that view MTG as an aberration, remember that her election is very much in the spirit of democracy.  There is a reason the Founders limited popular election of Federal officials solely to the House of Representatives; they believed that "the people" would elect all sorts of MTGs.  It's one of a number of reasons of why the Founders opted for a bi-cameral legislature.

It's also a reason why we are not a "democracy", but a REPUBLIC.  Our Republic has, to be sure, democratic features, but we are not a "democracy".  The "Guaranty Clause" guarantees that each state will have a "republican form of government", and not a "democratic form of government".  The older I get the more appreciative of this principle I become.

The words democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive. America was founded and remains a democratic republic

I've really come to hate the statement "we're a republic, not a democracy." This country functions as a republic and representative democracy, and direct Congressional elections are constitutionally enshrined as such. So what exactly is the point of that statement? To illustrate that having people vote on every single government action is bad? Yeah, I think it would be bad, but we don't do it anyway, so whatever. We the people sure do elect representatives to make and execute the law, though.

It seems like 90% of the time I see that statement on the internet, it's just some conservative trying to explain why their attempts to try and rig an election in their favor (or steal it after the fact) is somehow justifiable, because something something republic.

"Conservatives" rigging elections?  That's downright rich!

There is no reason that the conduct of the election in GA, PA, and MI not be investigated. There is no reason that the Court not honestly consider the Constitutionality of Election Officials in these states changing the rules of the way the elections were conducted without the affirmation of the state legislatures.  There is no reason not to explain why Georgia allowed for a lesser degree of accuracy in signature verification for mail-in votes.  There is no reason that testimony should be taken by the Congress as to the counting of votes in these states and no reason that those who have signed affidavits be able to tell their stories before Congress under oath to the American people.  To say nothing of the media suppressing stories about Hunter Biden, censoring social media, and cancelling people who shared that story.

Would this change the result?  Not at this point.  Would it instill confidence in the outcome of the 2020 election?  Maybe.  That would depend on whether or not the results of an honest investigation would lead people to believe that the final results in GA, MI, and PA would have been different.  Understand this:  The claims of election irregularities were not baseless just because CNN and NBC said so.  Trump's lawsuits were not "laughed out of Court"; many were not heard on technicalities. 

Democrats don't want such an investigation because it would open for inspection the conduct of elections in three of its most corrupt baliwicks (Wayne County, MI, Fulton County, GA, and Philadelphia County, PA).  And they've gotten their wish; it won't happen.  Please don't say they weren't called for, however.  And please don't say that they're not still needed. 

Cope

I am coping.  Calling for investigation of these corrupt baliwicks is how I cope.

I have never said that Trump "won in a landslide".  I am not certain he "won".  But I'm not certain that a combination of voter fraud, counting votes that should have been, under the law, excluded, and corrupt counting practices may have made the difference in GA, PA, and MI.  There are allegations of ballots transported from NY to PA, of huge numbers of ballots having just the Presidential race selected, bins of ballots pulled out under tables, etc.  Why should this NOT be investigated?  We may or may not have had a just outcome of the last election, but we ought to have the truth as to how the votes were counted and the impact to which unauthorized practices by elections officials in violation of state statutes would have changed the final amount.

We may not know.  We may never really know.  But we ought to be able to know the REAL impact of these issues on the vote count.  And we ought to know the ways in which elections were conducted in violation of the Constitutions and Election Laws "due to COVID-19".

We may never know when you will stop shifting the goalposts.

The fear of fact-finding investigations as to how the past election was conducted seems to face massive resistance from those who were fine with the Russiagate investigation, which turned out to be much ado about nothing.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fuzzy we had “fact finding investigations” around voter fraud and they found nothing. You said you’d accept the courts as the final arbiter on whether voter fraud happened and when they ruled nothing fishy happened you just ignored it and kept saying voter fraud happened. This is no different then when you throw out accusations or talking points that get debunked and run away from the thread like nothing happened wait a couple days and post the same accusations or talking points again.

That presumes the Courts would actually hear the questions and hear witnesses.  That hasn't happened.  It should happen.  As for "debunked" allegations, the MSM lacks the credibilty to debunk anything about this past election.  They have not been objective reporters of fact; they have been activists in the tank to elect Biden at all costs.  An independent press is something we don't have now.

We've spend millions on Russiagate (which has been debunked by investigation).  We can spend money on this.  There is cause for it.  People who are actually liberal should be fine with this.

[Fuzzy Bear]

... There are allegations of ballots transported from NY to PA, of huge numbers of ballots having just the Presidential race selected, bins of ballots pulled out under tables, etc.  Why should this NOT be investigated?

Your "bins of ballots pulled out under tables" allegation, was debunked a long time ago.
Why would you believe in this Giuliani hogwash? Lunatic Rudy and company, intentionally only showed part of the video where "bins were pulled out from underneath tables." But as many have already seen and as the factual story goes, if you watch the entire video, the bins were place there earlier for temporary storage, and then were pulled back-out to continue the counting of ballots.
Why are you being so dishonest about the entire election?

This rebuttal which you laid out was discussed in a 60 Minutes report by Scott Pelley last month, in which he interviewed Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's SoS, and his Chief Operations Officer Gabriel Sterling. And as I've noted before, Raffensperger wrote a lengthy and detailed rebuttal of Trump's claims of fraud, and sent it to Congress ahead of the Electoral College certification.

CBS News does not have the moral authority to "debunk" anything.  Nor do persons who are defendants in suits brought against Georgia.

That's the issue, is it not?  How can a blatantly activist media serve as an agent to "debunk" stories unfavorable to their side?

[Fuzzy Bear]

... There are allegations of ballots transported from NY to PA, of huge numbers of ballots having just the Presidential race selected, bins of ballots pulled out under tables, etc.  Why should this NOT be investigated?

Your "bins of ballots pulled out under tables" allegation, was debunked a long time ago.
Why would you believe in this Giuliani hogwash? Lunatic Rudy and company, intentionally only showed part of the video where "bins were pulled out from underneath tables." But as many have already seen and as the factual story goes, if you watch the entire video, the bins were place there earlier for temporary storage, and then were pulled back-out to continue the counting of ballots.
Why are you being so dishonest about the entire election?

This rebuttal which you laid out was discussed in a 60 Minutes report by Scott Pelley last month, in which he interviewed Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's SoS, and his Chief Operations Officer Gabriel Sterling. And as I've noted before, Raffensperger wrote a lengthy and detailed rebuttal of Trump's claims of fraud, and sent it to Congress ahead of the Electoral College certification.

CBS News does not have the moral authority to "debunk" anything.  Nor do persons who are defendants in suits brought against Georgia.

That's the issue, is it not?  How can a blatantly activist media serve as an agent to "debunk" stories unfavorable to their side?

So are you suggesting that CBS News is deliberately lying about the election? What motivation would they have to do so?  And once again, you ignore the fact that the "defendants" in these "suits"-which have been all been rejected or dismissed out of hand, by Trump-appointed or conservative-leaning judges in many instances-are Republican officials, who supported Trump's reelection bid, but could not abide by his insinuations regarding the electoral processes in their state. And Trump is now facing potential criminal investigation by authorities in Fulton County for the call he made to Raffensperger.

Let it all happen.

Why, honestly, is there no place for a Congressional investigation of exactly how state elections officials changed the rules in the name of COVID-19 (e. g. changing the standard for signature verification, implementing drop boxes, ballot harvesting, etc.) and its effect?  Why, honestly, is there not a Congressional panel investigating sworn accounts of ballots transported across state lines and such?  Why, honestly, is there not an open Congressional investigation into the vote counting processes that have clear and documented discrepenciies in terms to access by Trump poll watchers?  

To say these issues have disappeared and have been "debunked" is simply not true.  They have been denied by the people administering these elections, dismissed by the media without real inquiry, and (in many instances) not even heard by the Courts.

I don't know what the final outcome of such an HONEST investigation would be.  At this point, it would not change anything; the electors have chosen Biden.  But the issues raised were issues that should have been promptly and fully investigated right after the election.  They were not "baseless" claims; they may have not proven to be dispositive in the end, but they were sworn affidavits by real individuals, and not "unnamed sources".

You're an intelligent person.  I would suggest that you read Means of Ascent by Robert Caro.  A decent chunk of the book focuses on LBJ's 1948 Senate run and details the how of the 1948 primary that gave us (by 87 votes ) "Landslide Lyndon".  The book leaves the clear impression that Coke Stevenson won the primary, and not by a shift of a mere 200 votes in one precinct, but by thousands of votes over huge swaths of South Texas.  There was fraud in verifying signatures.  And the large landowners paid the poll taxes of scores of people that weren't going to vote; the word from Duval County (TX) boss, George B. Parr was, "Just count 'em!".  That's the principle of stuffing ballots; find a way to get others to "Just count 'em!".  Relaxing standards of voter signature verification is one way.  Finding ways for non-voters to cast ballots is another.  To say nothing of ballot harvesting.  

"Voter Fraud" is a bit of an inaccurate term to describe what happened.  There was certainly some "election fraud", but there was also the selective (and illegal) changing of rules, all of which favored Democrats.  Unauthorized changes to the means by which ballots were collected.  Ignoring court orders to segregate ballots based on when they were received.  Consent Decrees that were not approved by the state legislature.  The 2020 election was a combination of illegal ballots being cast, legal ballots being cast late being counted, and changes in voting procedures that were unconstitutional in that they were not approved by the state legislature in which they occurred.  It's a big deal when one side can alter an election's rules at will, and that happened.  Why it surprises people when the losing side objects in the face of all that is not surprising.  

The key to all of this sticking is to block any examination of this.  THAT was the key to LBJ's win in 1948; to stop the recount.  An examination of all of the ballot boxes, signatures, etc. was in progress.  The results threatened to be ominous for LBJ; Robert Caro noted that while there was no indication that LBJ participated in the vote fraud, the action would have been forever associated with LBJ because the votes had been cast for HIM.  An appeal to Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black caused an immediate order that the counting be stopped.  (Black's order was, and should be, looked at with considerable skepticism, as LBJ's candidacy was intertwined with the fortunes of the Truman campaign, while his opponent, former Texas Governor Coke Stevenson, had the support of those Texas Democrats who did not support the National Ticket and those who would be "Dixiecrats".)  The counting stopped.  It was over 40 years before a deathbed confession detailed how the votes in Jim Wells County were stolen.  That was just one county; LBJ actually lost that primary by thousands of votes.

In Detroit, in Atlanta, in Philadelphia, in Phoenix, I saw something that significantly resembled 1948 in Texas.  Was it the same?  Like in 1948, any real examination into the mechanics of the vote was preempted.  People are not loony to be skeptical; if the 2020 Presidential election were stolen it wouldn't have been the first significant stolen election in our history.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The LBJ story is legendary.

But the best story for me is the one about Illinois in 1968, where Chicago hung on to some votes, and then Republican DuPage also held on to some  as well, with the idea that they did not want to disclose to Chicago how many votes were needed for Humphrey to win the state. This went on and on for hours and hours, in a "Mexican standoff." Finally Humphrey called up Mayor Daley and told him to release the vote count, and then DuPage did its final vote dump, and Nixon won the state by 150,000 votes or so (per Dave Leips anyway). Whether Humphrey did it out of honor, or because it was impossible to generate the needed votes in Chicago so the game is not worth the candle anyway, I do not know. And the whole story may be an urban legend to boot, but that does not mean it isn't a good story, but "merely" rather that it is good  fiction rather than non fiction.

One reason the 1960 vote for JFK was not more seriously contested is that the Democrats were no less entitled to look askance at the margins for Nixon in DuPage, Lake, and Kane Counties as the GOP was for looking askance at the vote count in Cook County.