January 6th Committee Hearings

[homersapien 11,388]

25 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It appears they are willing to state so under oath.   The real question is why the Jan 6th committee didn’t vet the testimony BEFORE she had to blurt out what she heard 2nd or 3td hand.

It is all political isn’t it?  

Then subpoena them and let them testify.  How many people were in the car?

The witness testified to what she was told by someone who was there. Like others said, Trump could have lunged toward the driver but perhaps the SS agent who told the witness what happened applied his own interpretation to the motive.  That's what this investigation is all about - to get to the facts.

And I shouldn't have to tell you that this particular incident is totally moot when considering the big picture. 

It should be clear by now to any reasonable, objective person what Trump's role was in the Jan. 6 insurrection was.  He clearly wanted to prevent the certification and push the scam that he actually won the election.  That's what all of the Republican witnesses who were participates have testified to.  Hell, Trump himself continues to maintain that lie.

You keep acting as if that is really in doubt.  No reasonable person would think that, criminal trial or not.

You either are completely devoid of any integrity or you are a hopelessly brainwashed, partisan cultist who is willing to sacrifice our democracy in favor a man who has  been shown to be a narcissistic, psychopathic, con-man huckster.

Either way, shame on you.

Edited June 30, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You really want to avoid the facts in front of you, don’t you? Even dragging a superfluous trans person into your word salad.

There has been only one side presented.  Where is the rebuttal?  I know it’s not required, but the way the other 2 impeachments have gone, there needs to be a defense and that will happen if AG Garland has the intestinal fortitude to bring charges.  I’m not holding my breath.

Time is running out. 

[homersapien 11,388]

14 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The elements of any crime that might be prosecuted won’t hang on the hearsay. Are you seriously saying that you don't get  that?  

When you don't have an argument against the issue on the table, move the goalposts.

This committee has clearly succeeded in showing what Trump's role in Jan. 6 was, but we are now supposed to just ignore that.  Now, all of a sudden, it's all about a criminal trial, as if none of this matters unless there's a criminal conviction on some particular element.

Such are their standards.     Its disgusting. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

So if after all this circus is over and they decide not to charge Trump….do we agree that he didn’t commit any crimes? 
 

Or will some of y’all then decide you don’t think this committee is credible after praising them? 

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You either are completely devoid of any integrity or you are a hopelessly brainwashed, partisan cultist who is willing to sacrifice our democracy in favor a man who has  been shown to be a narcissistic, psychopathic, con man huckster.

Either way, shame on you.

Now, I could say the same thing about you with regard to Biden. This means nothing.

You still didn’t tell me why the committee didn’t vet her testimony when Cheney was capable of doing so before she testified.

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

So if after all this circus is over and they decide not to charge Trump….do we agree that he didn’t commit any crimes? 
 

Or will some of y’all then decide you don’t think this committee is credible after praising them? 

Benghazi in reverse, but this time they will convince themselves there is proof out there somewhere.

[homersapien 11,388]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Now, I could say the same thing about you with regard to Biden. This means nothing.

You still didn’t tell me why the committee didn’t vet her testimony when Cheney was capable of doing so before she testified.

BS.

It's not the committee's job to "vet" testimony.  It's job is to collect it.  And this woman was on Meadow's staff and was willing to testify.

And we aren't talking about Biden (as if I were a big fan of his).  Biden had nothing to do with Jan.6. 

And what a pathetic attempt at diversion. 

Perhaps I should add "stupid" to the possible options of what we already know you are - 1) a  person with no integrity or 2) brainwashed partisan cultist.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,388]

17 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

So if after all this circus is over and they decide not to charge Trump….do we agree that he didn’t commit any crimes? 
 

Or will some of y’all then decide you don’t think this committee is credible after praising them? 

Hell no.  We'll simply acknowledge that some people are apparently above the law. 

And that will have nothing to do with this committee or the truth of what happened.  The testimony gathered by this committee from the Republican principals who were there is sufficient to  determine what happened.  (Well, to everyone but the fascist Trump cultists)

Edited June 30, 2022 by homersapien

[AU9377 4,969]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Again, I asked ICHY for the truth, not if her testimony was truthful or not.  Do you know the truth?

This is the problem with the Jan 6th mini series.  It is only there for public opinion and not finding the truth of the matter.  It is propaganda and a lot of people are buying into it.  Let AG Garland do something or get off the pot.

If the standard is that nothing can be presented that is capable of being questioned, then nothing could ever be presented concerning anything.  These hearings are the least propaganda driven hearings I have ever seen.  The substantive witnesses are ALL from the inner circles of the Trump administration, but for a few witnesses from individual states that were approached by the administration and refused to go along with their plot.  The only other witnesses were called to show the impact that the former President's actions had on real people working in states that were accused of committing fraud without any evidence of them doing so.

The Chief of Staff himself could answer questions from the committee.  He refuses to do so. A total of 30 people from the Trump administration have pleaded the 5th repeatedly instead of answering questions concerning the 2020 post election charade.   The young woman in this instance agreed to testify under oath.  When someone with her access agrees to do the same, I will listen to their comments, but simply taking shots at someone who actually raised her hand and under oath did her duty isn't going to make what she says go away.

There have been multiple witnesses that have all testified that administration officials were warned by their counsel that what they were doing was illegal and that they should stop immediately.  Instead, they doubled down and said to hell with the Constitution of the United States.

[AU9377 4,969]

As a side note, the defamation lawsuits against Newsmax, Fox, Giuliani and others have now all been scheduled for trial.  Their motions for dismissal were all denied.  Dominion is going to get paid a fortune for having their brand destroyed with false attacks.

[homersapien 11,388]

11 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

As a side note, the defamation lawsuits against Newsmax, Fox, Giuliani and others have now all been scheduled for trial.  Their motions for dismissal were all denied.  Dominion is going to get paid a fortune for having their brand destroyed with false attacks.

Yeah, I was wondering what the status was on that.  I hope they get taken to the cleaners.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

44 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

There has been only one side presented.  Where is the rebuttal?  I know it’s not required, but the way the other 2 impeachments have gone, there needs to be a defense and that will happen if AG Garland has the intestinal fortitude to bring charges.  I’m not holding my breath.

Time is running out. 

Perhaps because those who would rebut are refusing to testify?  Those who could rebut have been shown taking the 5th.

Your argument is illogical.  Like those who could rebut, you do not want facts.  You want time to run out.

Traitors.

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

13 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

There have been multiple witnesses that have all testified that administration officials were warned by their counsel that what they were doing was illegal and that they should stop immediately.  Instead, they doubled down and said to hell with the Constitution of the United States

Have you ever had a client that went against your council?  There has been no direct connecting of the dots between Trump and the rioters.  If and when that happens, without speculation (and I know many on here have made up there minds), it will be a deal changer.

This committee’s sole purpose seems to be making the 2024 election about Trump if he runs.  Unfortunately, Trump will fall for this trap and want to *clear* his name and will lose if he does.  I am ready to move on as Trump’s sh*t show has run its course.  JMO

 

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Perhaps because those who would rebut are refusing to testify?  Those who could rebut have been shown taking the 5th.

Your argument is illogical.  Like those who could rebut, you do not want facts.  You want time to run out.

Traitors.

Missed the point.  I do want the facts, I don’t want speculation like we have now and that’s why I want AG Garland to step it up if he has anything.  If the Republicans take the House, in January of 2023 the committee will probably be disbanded, but Garland will probably still have his opportunity.

I am unaware that taking the 5th is automatically a sign of guilt.  Or is this just your take?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

46 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Hell no.  We'll simply acknowledge that some people are apparently above the law. 

And that will have nothing to do with this committee or the truth of what happened.  The testimony gathered by this committee from the Republican principals who were there is sufficient to  determine what happened.  (Well, to everyone but the fascist Trump cultists)

But you and others have screamed for so long that what he did is so egregious and criminal there’s no way he gets away with this right? Do you really think they will let him slide just because he’s Trump? The world is literally watching….doesn’t seem like a great time to just let someone walk if what they did was so bad. 
 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I am unaware that taking the 5th is automatically a sign of guilt.  Or is this just your take?

In some occasional circumstances it might not be a sign of guilt (at least for what the trial they're testifying in is about), but normally the entire idea of a right to not incriminate oneself entails that you're guilty of something.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

29 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This committee’s sole purpose seems to be making the 2024 election about Trump if he runs.  Unfortunately, Trump will fall for this trap and want to *clear* his name and will lose if he does.  I am ready to move on as Trump’s sh*t show has run its course. 

Oh, he's already firing off a series of denials...on Truth Social.

Difference is, Trump's denials are on an app.  Hutchinson's are under oath. 

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

In some occasional circumstances it might not be a sign of guilt (at least for what the trial they're testifying in is about), but normally the entire idea of a right to not incriminate oneself entails that you're guilty of something.

Or in this case; not wanting to participate in a witch hunt.

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Or in this case; not wanting to participate in a witch hunt.

 

Please don't tell me you really believe that.

[I_M4_AU 7,858]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Please don't tell me you really believe that.

Not really, but do you believe everything going on in this committee is on the up and up?

Remember it is a made for TV production.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

22 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Not really, but do you believe everything going on in this committee is on the up and up?

Remember it is a made for TV production.

Everything?  Probably not.  The vast majority of the testimony, the volumes of emails, text messages and other corroborating evidence?  Yeah.

As I said, one set of people is testifying under oath.  The other is sputtering denials hiding behind a social media circle jerk called Truth Social.

If so much of it is patently false on its face, then I would expect a flurry of civil lawsuits forthcoming.  Funny how that's not really happening.

[AU9377 4,969]

52 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Have you ever had a client that went against your council?  There has been no direct connecting of the dots between Trump and the rioters.  If and when that happens, without speculation (and I know many on here have made up there minds), it will be a deal changer.

This committee’s sole purpose seems to be making the 2024 election about Trump if he runs.  Unfortunately, Trump will fall for this trap and want to *clear* his name and will lose if he does.  I am ready to move on as Trump’s sh*t show has run its course.  JMO

 

This is the disconnect.  The Jan 6th committee isn't just about the rioters at this point.  I don't believe that anyone foresaw discovering the extent and the coordination that was clearly undertaken by members of the then President's inner circle to alter the results of the 2020 election.  The country has never been subjected to something like that before. 

The most important parts of Ms. Hutchinson's testimony had nothing to do with the story that she claims was relayed to her by a Secret Service Agent.  Instead, it was about the meetings that took place to discuss how to replace electors from AZ, GA & PA with electors that would vote for Trump in the Electoral College.  Her testimony about when the President was notified by his Chief of Staff, her boss, that the Vice President had decided not to participate in the scheme and the reaction to that news is critical to understanding what exactly was underway.  All of that is important because it goes to the very core of our national identity as a country with a government elected by the people.  We have a long proud tradition of an honorable and peaceful transition of power.

The committee questioned members of the Department of Justice.  The former President had intended to replace the acting AG with someone that would lie to the American people and tell them that the results in the three states I mentioned above were illegitimate and that their electors were fraudulently certified and should be replaced.  That makes Watergate look like a kid shop lifting a piece of bubble gum.

I realize that it is tiresome, especially for many Republicans that have been told that this is all nothing but politics, but this has to be done.  We cannot allow one man or one ideology to be more important than the U.S. Constitution.  If we do, America is nothing but a story for the history books and the idea of a shining city on the hill that other countries have looked toward to support their dreams of a functioning representative democracy is left to others to emulate.  Too many men and women have died fighting autocrats around the world believing that the ideals they fought for meant something for us to casually discard those ideals to appease the ego of any one man.

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Except when it is disputed by the actual participant. Will the committee give the same weight to Engel?  I doubt it. Will they disregard Hutchinson’s hearsay testimony? Also doubtful. Will they find the perp who made it up so they can get to the truth? Nope. That would not be the truth they want.

If he gives his testimony under oath and that testimony isn't impeached then yes they will give the same weight to it. That's really how simple all this is.

If the actual participant is disputing the testimony then they need to testify to it under oath.

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

I don’t have an idol in the political world.  I did not vote for Trump in the primary. No way was I ever voting for Hillary. Not my idol.  It is clear what the panel wants. And it is not the truth. Just destroy Trump no matter what. You people must really fear him. If you succeed no worries my friend. DeSantis waiting in the wings. Doesn’t have the negative history of Trump, successful governor of large state, family man, wife has cancer but is a selfless fighter, stays a step ahead of Biden all the time ( okay that’s not all that hard), not afraid to veto legislation even from his party if it isn’t beneficial to all. Have at it. 

I don't fear Trump. When I was at Auburn and he announced his candidacy I was in an upper level polisci course with conservatives and liberal.

At the time I was a moderate centrist [it was many moons ago] both sides and our prof who was libertarian all laughed like crazy and took bets jokingly on when he'd fall out of the race. We had no fear tof Trump.

What we should have had fear of and didn't realize as educated polisci majors was how easily his base could be manipulated and fooled into voting for him if the right buzzwords were string together in 15 second sound bites.

That's who scares me. Not Trump. His base that will belove anything that reinforces their person.

[Didba 5,256]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Kettle meet pot.  Destruction of the democracy began before the 2016 election and continued throughout the presidency and after. Did you forget weaponization of the alphabet, special counsel created by the guy who's intent was to create a special counsel to go after Trump, RRR, dossier. Dems have zero credibility on the non partisan principle you espouse. Forgive me for not acknowledging your opening line.

All this guy does is argue in bad faith because his partisanship has blinded him so greatly he can't see the forest for the trees. Pretty sad.