January 6th Committee Hearings

[Didba 5,256]

Some of yall been watching too much fox news and it shows.

[I_M4_AU 7,859]

13 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

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.

He might have intended to appoint a new AG, but it didn’t happen.  He basically ran out of time.  His intentions were not honorable, but does it rise to the level of a crime?

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

Interesting on hearings

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/06/23/what-are-americans-thinking-about-the-january-6-hearings/

As yet, there is no evidence that the work of the January 6 committee is changing many minds.

In a Quinnipiac survey released on January 12, 43% of Americans believed that Donald Trump bears “a lot” of responsibility for the attack on the Capitol. In the comparable survey released on June 22, 41% affirmed this view. And on the core issue of whether President Trump committed a “crime,” the country remains as closely divided as ever. In April, Quinnipiac found, 46% of Americans said they he had and 47% that he hadn’t. As of June 22, the split was almost identical—46% to 48%. A decision to prosecute the former president for his role in the attack would probably intensify this division.

On the other hand, the Economist/YouGov survey found, 79% of Americans now believe that Donald Trump was involved in a wide-ranging effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election, a belief shared by 49% of Republicans and an equal share of those who voted for him in 2020. At the end of the day, the former president may stand convicted in the court of public opinion if not in a court of law. The hearings could intensify the nascent sentiment within the Republican Party to find a replacement for Trump who shares his views but not his defects.

[Didba 5,256]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

The witness allegedly said she heard from somebody else that he tried to take the steering wheel and assaulted an agent. So that is worthless. Why don't we get the guy who told her under oath and we can clear up this whole attack on democracy. Seems like trying a person for a criminal act with hearsay testimony would not be allowed. Oh..exceptions..right..so the democrats are willing to make an exception to testimony rules in a criminal case in order to obtain a conviction against Trump?

You really have zero understanding of how the law of evidence regarding hearsay and its laughable.

Let me say it slower for you this time.

Hearsay exceptions are used by everyone in both criminal and civil trials. Your beloved Republicans have many attorneys and judges that use the hearsay exceptions just like every other lawyer ever.

Please stop with the hearsay stuff you are saying. It's just embarrassing.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour 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.

Not to mention the begging for pardons.  Neither of these prove guilt.  They are pretty clear indicators though.

Still, true partisans will believe what they are told to believe.  The cognitive dissonance, the willful ignorance are astounding.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

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

Yet seems to be getting the most attention. Guarantee you it will make a great movie scene some day.

[Didba 5,256]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Titan apparently thinks so.

The whole point of the committee hearings is to "find" some criminal charges that can be made. Are you seriously saying that you don't get  that?  And I am the guy who isn't getting it?

Yes you are the guy that isn't getting it. This committee has no ability to charge anyone. They can pass on the testimony/evidence they get to the AG to be used in a grand jury proceeding [which are not privy to the hearsay rule, pretty much everything is admissible in grand jury peoceedings] and then if the jury decides their is enough evidence for trial they will indict and charges will be filed.

When we say it's not criminal all we mean is that it's not a criminal hearing or trial so hearsay rules don't apply. It's a criminal investigation in a congressional hearing which is not subject to hearsay rules.

One more time. Hearsay rules only apply to civil and criminal trials and their preliminary motions and hearings. This does not fall under that.

[Didba 5,256]

3 hours 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?  

Hearsay rules don't apply to congressional hearings.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

It is sad, and fascinating, watching the brainwashed here, reveal themselves with absolutely no awareness.

They still do not realize that they are in a cult.  To disagree with the cult would require them to reevaluate everything they believe.

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours 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?  

They can hang on hearsay if it's admissible hearsay. Jussaying. It's the whole point of hearsay exceptions and exclusions. Even though it's hearsay, it's hearsay thay can still be relied upon because it falls into certain categories that are able to be verified or are inherently more reliable.

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours 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? 

Someone can commit crimes and not be charged. They still committed the crimes the prosecution just decided not to charge. Happens every day.

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours 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.

Can't wait. It's rare you see a successful defamation suit against a public figure

[icanthearyou 4,463]

11 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

The hearings could intensify the nascent sentiment within the Republican Party to find a replacement for Trump who shares his views but not his defects.

I believe many of them do share his defects.  They do believe might makes right and, that power itself is justification.  They want chaos and confrontation.  They are motivated by an "us against them" mentality.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

Someone can commit crimes and not be charged. They still committed the crimes the prosecution just decided not to charge. Happens every day.

I get that, but as much as people on here screamed about how bad his actions were there’s no way they don’t charge him right? 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

He basically ran out of time.

NO.  He ran into honorable men who told him his scheme would cause half of the DOJ to immediately resign.

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour 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.

What you have here tracks, it's important to note taking the fifth cannot be used offensively in a criminal trial however in a civil or congressional hearing it can be used offensively in some ways. For instance, even though you plead the fifth in a civil trial you still have to take the stand and answer every question with: "I plead the 5th"

[AUDub 11,153]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

What you have here tracks, it's important to note taking the fifth cannot be used offensively in a criminal trial however in a civil or congressional hearing it can be used offensively in some ways. For instance, even though you plead the fifth in a civil trial you still have to take the stand and answer every question with: "I plead the 5th"

And no answer is often an answer in and of itself. 

[Didba 5,256]

48 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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.

This is a good point. If what is being said here is demonstrably false there would be tons of defamation suits being levied. The lack of them is telling.

[Didba 5,256]

15 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I get that, but as much as people on here screamed about how bad his actions were there’s no way they don’t charge him right? 

You'd think but then they had a grand jury indictment ready to go against Nixon but they decided not to charge. Who knows why.

[cbo 7,854]

29 minutes ago, Didba said:

You'd think but then they had a grand jury indictment ready to go against Nixon but they decided not to charge. Who knows why.

It's almost like rich and powerful people get away with crimes. 

[homersapien 11,390]

4 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

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. 
 

First, I haven't "screamed" anything.

Second, You asked a specific question and I gave you a direct answer.

I think it's possible they will let it slide because he's an ex president, but I surely hope and expect Garland to do the right thing and indict him.  It's bad enough that he got out of a conviction in his impeachments because of pure partisan politics.

I agree that it would be a terrible thing for our image and reputation to let him walk.  Our standing as the world's leading democracy has already been severely damaged by electing him in the first place.

Edited June 30, 2022 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,953]

2 hours ago, Didba said:

They can hang on hearsay if it's admissible hearsay. Jussaying. It's the whole point of hearsay exceptions and exclusions. Even though it's hearsay, it's hearsay thay can still be relied upon because it falls into certain categories that are able to be verified or are inherently more reliable.

Yes it can, if admissible. My main point here is that whether he grabbed for the steering wheel probably won’t be an element of the crime(s) he may face.

[homersapien 11,390]

3 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Yet seems to be getting the most attention. Guarantee you it will make a great movie scene some day.

We should switch to Trump throwing his lunch.  The ketchup running down the wall wasn't hearsay.  She helped clean it up. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,390]

17 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

He might have intended to appoint a new AG, but it didn’t happen.  He basically ran out of time.  His intentions were not honorable, but does it rise to the level of a crime?

Hell it doesn't even rise to the level of persuading the MAGAs to vote against him.  They'd be applauding if he'd gotten away with it.

But then, that would be true if he's convicted of a crime.  They wouldn't accept that reality either.

They care more about Trump than they do our country.

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by homersapien

[AU9377 4,976]

10 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

He might have intended to appoint a new AG, but it didn’t happen.  He basically ran out of time.  His intentions were not honorable, but does it rise to the level of a crime?

I have my doubts as to whether any one action rises to the level of a prosecutable crime. I do believe that a criminal conspiracy to commit a crime was undertaken.  I'm less certain that the best thing for the country would be to see a former President charged with that crime. 

The country does need to understand that the hysteria and claims that the 2020 election results were fraudulent were purposefully pushed by people that had knowledge that the claims were false, yet supported the false claims for the purpose of retaining their control of the executive branch of government.  The result has been an unwarranted attack on the integrity of our election systems across the country.  That has made us weaker as a nation and more susceptible to attacks by those that want to make us weaker from within.