January 6th Committee Hearings

[AUDynasty 585]

Another tidbit from today's hearings (from this link)

Former President Trump, advised by Rudy Giuliani, agreed to falsely declare victory in the 2020 election when it "was far too early to be making any calls like that," Trump advisers testified during the second public hearing into the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Driving the news: "The mayor was definitely intoxicated," Jason Miller, Trump’s former spokesperson, said of Giuliani.

• Jan. 6 committee vice chair Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) also said that Trump followed advice on election night by an "apparently inebriated" Giuliani. Axios has reached out to Giuliani for comment.
• “It was far too early to be making any calls like that," Bill Stepien, former Trump campaign manager, said in a recorded deposition to the committee of Giuliani's suggestions to declare victory. 

Between the lines: Former Trump White House adviser Jared Kushner said that he told the then-president that he would not take Giuliani's approach to prematurely declare victory. 

• "Not the approach I would take," Kushner said. 
• Stepien also said that essentially two teams were advising Trump and said that he was on "Team Normal." 
• "I didn't mind being categorized as part of Team Normal," Stepien testified. 

Go deeper: Barr tells Jan. 6 panel: Trump "detached from reality" on voter fraud

Edited June 13, 2022 by AUDynasty

[DKW 86 7,419]

If this keeps up....Maybe we find trump too damaged to run again?

[AUFAN78 3,894]

37 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

If this keeps up....Maybe we find trump too damaged to run again?

I hope you are correct, but with that ego IDK.

[DKW 86 7,419]

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I hope you are correct, but with that ego IDK.

If he is indicted, he cannot run. I could easily see him being under indictment or indictments untill well after 2024, maybe until he's dead...

[AU9377 4,924]

19 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

And you double down! Unbelievable.

You still want me to believe that the problem was the lack of enough security and not the people pushing their way into a building and breaching every barrier.  The doors to the House chamber were barricaded closed.  They eventually pushed their way in and rummaged through the belongings of elected representatives.  There would have been no crime committed had every one of them been shot dead before they entered.

Nobody crawling thru a busted window believes they have been invited inside.

[AUDynasty 585]

15 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

If this keeps up....Maybe we find trump too damaged to run again?

I think the real question after the hearings is what will the Justice Department do after the Committee brings these facts and evidence to light. Will they charge Trump and his people? If so, then that could be a blow to his chances.

[AUDynasty 585]

 

 

[aubiefifty 16,754]

On 6/9/2022 at 9:10 PM, AUDynasty said:

The first of its 6 installments of hearings just concluded. Any thoughts? The part that stuck out to me (and there were A LOT) was that multiple congresspeople asked for pardons for their role and involvement in this. I’ll have more thoughts but I’m just stunned by everything. 

did they ever release a list?

[autigeremt 6,598]

On 6/12/2022 at 2:09 PM, homersapien said:

Right now, I'll settle for any party that respects the rule of law.

For the most part, Republicans clearly don't.

You might want to look for a new party yourself. Of course you have to truly believe what you just typed.

[AUDynasty 585]

11 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

did they ever release a list?

Not yet, but I got a feeling they're going to do that down the road. There are still four hearings to be held. All I know is that Scott Perry asked for a pardon. That's the only one reported.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

1 hour ago, AUDynasty said:

I think the real question after the hearings is what will the Justice Department do after the Committee brings these facts and evidence to light. Will they charge Trump and his people? If so, then that could be a blow to his chances.

Trump not being able to get enough steam to run would be Christmas in (___insert month___) for the Republican party. 

Dems should WANT Trump to run in '24, and the Republicans would be gigantic morons to go a 3rd round with him...he would be the nominee most likely to lose in the general. The campaign ads would write themselves.

The conundrum for the Dems if Trump is the R nominee would be "do we trot out 80+ year old Biden out again and run it back with the 2020 playbook (which was, well, sit on our ass and let Trump be Trump), or do we get a more polarizing nominee and run the risk of 2016 happening again?"

Biden was 100% selected for his ability to be milquetoast enough to beat Trump, not because of any political brilliance he ever demonstrated.

If we're lucky, both parties will have fresh nominees in '24. 🤞

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

You might want to look for a new party yourself. Of course you have to truly believe what you just typed.

Well, I certainly believe Trump and many Republicans opposed the rule of law regarding accepting the results of the last election.  After all, they rejected the results of 61 judicial rulings.

(I suggest you might start watching the Jan. hearings to inform yourself.)

So, considering that history - and the fact Trump and many of his supporters maintain their false claim - do you think Trump and his supporters support the rule of law EMT?

How do you rationalize that?

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by homersapien

[AUDynasty 585]

10 minutes ago, SLAG-91 said:

Trump not being able to get enough steam to run would be Christmas in (___insert month___) for the Republican party. 

Dems should WANT Trump to run in '24, and the Republicans would be gigantic morons to go a 3rd round with him...he would be the nominee most likely to lose in the general. The campaign ads would write themselves.

The conundrum for the Dems if Trump is the R nominee would be "do we trot out 80+ year old Biden out again and run it back with the 2020 playbook (which was, well, sit on our ass and let Trump be Trump), or do we get a more polarizing nominee and run the risk of 2016 happening again?"

Biden was 100% selected for his ability to be milquetoast enough to beat Trump, not because of any political brilliance he ever demonstrated.

If we're lucky, both parties will have fresh nominees in '24. 🤞

Biden already announced his intent to run re-election, which is a bold strategy. He doesn't inspire a lot of energy in the Democratic base, but he needs to cash in with the moderates.

Trump still wields a massive influence over the GOP voter base. The timing is interesting, though. If charges do happen, when would that be? I imagine GOP needs to know which candidate to rally behind, and Trump is still by far the most popular choice. If Trump is out of the running, who's next? Pence? DeSantis? 

Anything can happen. I'm really looking forward to the hearings, though. That'll show us where the winds are blowing.

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

3 hours ago, AUDynasty said:

I think the real question after the hearings is what will the Justice Department do after the Committee brings these facts and evidence to light. Will they charge Trump and his people? If so, then that could be a blow to his chances.

What would the DOJ indicate him on?  If they charge him with a crime they should be sure they can convict.  So far, when Trump gets to defend himself he’s won every time.  Hey,  but this time will be the clincher.  The walls are closing in and it is not going to end well for Trump.

Hasn’t Trump been impeached for his actions on Jan. 6th?

[AU9377 4,924]

12 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

Trump not being able to get enough steam to run would be Christmas in (___insert month___) for the Republican party. 

Dems should WANT Trump to run in '24, and the Republicans would be gigantic morons to go a 3rd round with him...he would be the nominee most likely to lose in the general. The campaign ads would write themselves.

The conundrum for the Dems if Trump is the R nominee would be "do we trot out 80+ year old Biden out again and run it back with the 2020 playbook (which was, well, sit on our ass and let Trump be Trump), or do we get a more polarizing nominee and run the risk of 2016 happening again?"

Biden was 100% selected for his ability to be milquetoast enough to beat Trump, not because of any political brilliance he ever demonstrated.

If we're lucky, both parties will have fresh nominees in '24. 🤞

I agree.  The Democrats need an outside the box type candidate.  Someone like Bill Clinton was in 1992.  The smart thing to do politically would be to run a candidate that isn't the incumbent and that isn't a a gimmick in any way.  (see Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket as an example).  A straight talker like Mitch Landrieu, for example.

If the Republicans don't nominate Trump, DeSantis looks to be the heir apparrent.  He is Trump lite... the difference being that he can't be the King of debt, because he could never get approved for loans.

The world and political climate could change drastically in the next two years and we seldom end up with the two best candidates on the ticket.  To be honest, the fact that Biden/Harris won in 2020 shows just how bad of a candidate that Trump really was. The Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the past 8 Presidential elections.  Anything could happen.

[DKW 86 7,419]

18 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

Trump not being able to get enough steam to run would be Christmas in (___insert month___) for the Republican party. 

Dems should WANT Trump to run in '24, and the Republicans would be gigantic morons to go a 3rd round with him...he would be the nominee most likely to lose in the general. The campaign ads would write themselves.

The conundrum for the Dems if Trump is the R nominee would be "do we trot out 80+ year old Biden out again and run it back with the 2020 playbook (which was, well, sit on our ass and let Trump be Trump), or do we get a more polarizing nominee and run the risk of 2016 happening again?"

Biden was 100% selected for his ability to be milquetoast enough to beat Trump, not because of any political brilliance he ever demonstrated.

If we're lucky, both parties will have fresh nominees in '24. 🤞

Man quit using your head in here. It is likely not allowed. You just said all that to some purely partisan hacks that could not care less about what is fair or best for the US. They want the orange man either because he pisses of the Dems or because he makes all Republicans look insane. 

For all the faults the a**hole has, trump has read the room perfectly. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

6 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I agree.  The Democrats need an outside the box type candidate.  Someone like Bill Clinton was in 1992.  The smart thing to do politically would be to run a candidate that isn't the incumbent and that isn't a a gimmick in any way.  (see Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket as an example).  A straight talker like Mitch Landrieu, for example.

If the Republicans don't nominate Trump, DeSantis looks to be the heir apparrent.  He is Trump lite... the difference being that he can't be the King of debt, because he could never get approved for loans.

The world and political climate could change drastically in the next two years and we seldom end up with the two best candidates on the ticket.  To be honest, the fact that Biden/Harris won in 2020 shows just how bad of a candidate that Trump really was. The Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the past 8 Presidential elections.  Anything could happen.

Agree 100%. Really agree with this

 

[autigeremt 6,598]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I agree.  The Democrats need an outside the box type candidate.  Someone like Bill Clinton was in 1992.  The smart thing to do politically would be to run a candidate that isn't the incumbent and that isn't a a gimmick in any way.  (see Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket as an example).  A straight talker like Mitch Landrieu, for example.

If the Republicans don't nominate Trump, DeSantis looks to be the heir apparrent.  He is Trump lite... the difference being that he can't be the King of debt, because he could never get approved for loans.

The world and political climate could change drastically in the next two years and we seldom end up with the two best candidates on the ticket.  To be honest, the fact that Biden/Harris won in 2020 shows just how bad of a candidate that Trump really was. The Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the past 8 Presidential elections.  Anything could happen.

Democrats should win the popular vote...they own the big cities where the gift of giving keeps on giving. If the economy doesn't change by 2024 it could shift a good bit. 

[homersapien 11,362]

2 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Democrats should win the popular vote...they own the big cities where the gift of giving keeps on giving. If the economy doesn't change by 2024 it could shift a good bit. 

Yeah, good thing we don't count those votes the same, huh?

Can't give everyone the same voice in our government.

Edited June 15, 2022 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,598]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, good think we don't count those votes the same, huh?

Can't give everyone the same voice in our government.

We are a Republic with an electoral college. If you can't deal with that I suggest you look for a more leftist place to live. 

[AUDynasty 585]

 

This tour occurred on January 5th. Rep. Barry Loudermilk led a tour to these people who would be involved with the insurrection the next day.

 

Yesterday, Rep. Loudermilk claimed he never led a tour.

[homersapien 11,362]

2 hours ago, autigeremt said:

We are a Republic with an electoral college. If you can't deal with that I suggest you look for a more leftist place to live. 

You'd like that wouldn't you?  Can't countenance progress, better to have progressives just leave.

Sorry, but I'd rather live here and try to change our country for the better - just as we have successfully changed so many other blatantly undemocratic practices in our past.

But thanks for your honesty regarding your opposition to democracy and freedom. 

And thanks especially for confirming my argument that Republicans are inherently anti-democratic and as such, are pushing toward fascism.

You'd make a great fascist. Hell, you're already there. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,598]

33 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You'd like that wouldn't you?  Can't countenance progress, better to have progressives just leave.

Sorry, but I'd rather live here and try to change our country for the better - just as we have successfully changed so many other blatantly undemocratic practices in our past.

But thanks for your honesty regarding your opposition to democracy and freedom. 

And thanks especially for confirming my argument that Republicans are inherently anti-democratic and as such, are pushing toward fascism.

You'd make a great fascist. Hell, you're already there. 

You have a choice Mr. All That's Leftist. There's nothing fascist about it. YOU don't believe in the Republic and therefore do not believe in the United States or the COTUS. Thanks for playing. 

[AU9377 4,924]

3 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Democrats should win the popular vote...they own the big cities where the gift of giving keeps on giving. If the economy doesn't change by 2024 it could shift a good bit. 

At some point, if that popular vote differential continues to be in the millions, a real conversation will need to be had about the purpose of the electoral college system in modern times.  The constitution has competing and contradicting parts. 

The only two people not elected based on one man one vote majority are the President and Vice President.  Every other state official and every Senator and Congressman win or lose their elections based on receiving the majority of the votes cast in their election.  I would bet my life on the fact that if Donald Trump won the popular vote by over 3 million votes, all half of the country would be discussing is how urgently we need to change the system.

I guess you are claiming that someone living in a poor inner city neighborhood's vote should count less than someone's vote in rural Iowa.  I'm not sure how that makes sense.  Does it matter that one person is living in public housing while the other lives off publicly funded crop insurance programs?  They are both living on taxpayer money.  There are a lot of ways to get a government check in one form or another.  We often just describe one check as a subsidy and the other welfare.

Edited June 15, 2022 by AU9377

[AU9377 4,924]

59 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

You have a choice Mr. All That's Leftist. There's nothing fascist about it. YOU don't believe in the Republic and therefore do not believe in the United States or the COTUS. Thanks for playing. 

You should feel the same about those uninformed lost souls that wanted to wreck that same Republic on Jan 6th, 2021 and about those still ignorantly proclaiming election fraud today.