January 6th Committee Hearings

[Didba 5,256]

9 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

trump in office no invading Ukraine.

Biden in office, first thing Putin does is invade Ukraine. 

Those are facts

I mean technically Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 so thanks Obama...

[Didba 5,256]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Simply correctly pointing out the same thing for 6 years now. We have been promised charges of sedition, treason, collusion, fraud, money laundering, banking violations, emoluments charges, tax evasion, etc  for 6 ******* years so far. If he did any of that s***, and he probably did, then for God's sake show us the incontrovertible proof, indict, convict, and imprison his ass. You know what we actually got so far?

 

To be fair if I remember correctly Mueller stated there was enough evidence to indict Trump but he could not do so for some procedural reason because of like a DoJ rule or something?

I vaguely remember something like that

[DKW 86 7,426]

10 hours ago, Didba said:

I mean technically Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 so thanks Obama...

I did not go there. I am simply pointing out that both sides only see one side of the truth. 

If the Dems looked at their record over the 13 years:

The disastrous 'Russian Reset' went on under a Dem Admin. They gave away the bank to make nice with Putin, and then got their asses handed to them in the Crimea. 

And have now spent 6 years criticizing trump. Now, trump is a bad actor, NO DOUBT. It is just so damn funny that the Dems cannot recognize their own mind-blowing failures in dealing with them. Here is Obama still promising more flexibility in March 2012, just two years before the Russians bitch slap us with the Crimean invasion. February 2014.

What did HRC have to say about that?  HRC says she pretty much knew it was over, or at least on very shaky ground by 2011

 

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

49 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I did not go there. I am simply pointing out that both sides only see one side of the truth. 

If the Dems looked at their record over the 13 years:

The disastrous 'Russian Reset' went on under a Dem Admin. They gave away the bank to make nice with Putin, and then got their asses handed to them in the Crimea. 

And have now spent 6 years criticizing trump. Now, trump is a bad actor, NO DOUBT. It is just so damn funny that the Dems cannot recognize their own mind-blowing failures in dealing with them. Here is Obama still promising more flexibility in March 2012, just two years before the Russians bitch slap us with the Crimean invasion. February 2014.

What did HRC have to say about that?  HRC says she pretty much knew it was over, or at least on very shaky ground by 2011

 

 

 

[Didba 5,256]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I did not go there. I am simply pointing out that both sides only see one side of the truth. 

If the Dems looked at their record over the 13 years:

The disastrous 'Russian Reset' went on under a Dem Admin. They gave away the bank to make nice with Putin, and then got their asses handed to them in the Crimea. 

And have now spent 6 years criticizing trump. Now, trump is a bad actor, NO DOUBT. It is just so damn funny that the Dems cannot recognize their own mind-blowing failures in dealing with them. Here is Obama still promising more flexibility in March 2012, just two years before the Russians bitch slap us with the Crimean invasion. February 2014.

What did HRC have to say about that?  HRC says she pretty much knew it was over, or at least on very shaky ground by 2011

 

Dude it was a joke...

Edited July 4, 2022 by Didba

[homersapien 11,385]

15 hours ago, Didba said:

To be fair if I remember correctly Mueller stated there was enough evidence to indict Trump but he could not do so for some procedural reason because of like a DoJ rule or something?

I vaguely remember something like that

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mueller-i-did-not-clear-trump-of-obstruction-of-justice

Mueller: I did not clear Trump of obstruction of justice

WASHINGTON — Former Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller told lawmakers Wednesday he could not exonerate President Donald Trump of obstruction of justice and that the president’s claims that he had done so in his report are not correct.

“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller declared at the opening of congressional hearings into his investigation of Russian interference to help Trump win the 2016 election......

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

[DKW 86 7,426]

And all we need are indictments. Where are the Indictments?

[Didba 5,256]

50 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

And all we need are indictments. Where are the Indictments?

Indictments = grand jury proceedings, not congressional hearings.

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

26 minutes ago, Didba said:

Indictments = grand jury proceedings, not congressional hearings.

That’s your excuse?????  Come on man, if he is guilty of something get ‘er done.

[Didba 5,256]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That’s your excuse?????  Come on man, if he is guilty of something get ‘er done.

It was a clarification, not an excuse.

Edited July 4, 2022 by Didba

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

It was a clarification, not an excuse.

I see that now, your explaining to DKW was just setting the record straight as to why there is no indictments.  It’s because the DOJ will not convene a Grand Jury because…..why?  What is their excuse?

[Didba 5,256]

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I see that now, your explaining to DKW was just setting the record straight as to why there is no indictments.  It’s because the DOJ will not convene a Grand Jury because…..why?  What is their excuse?

There isn't an excuse. Grand juries are generally not convened until a criminal investigation has finished. I'd imagine the DoJ is waiting until the congressional hearings are over to compile the evidence from the hearings and investigate leads brought by the hearings evidence/testimony probably try to corroborate stuff. The DoJ isn't just gonna go straight from congressional hearings to grand jury proceedings.

Criminal investigations take mulitiple years for criminal conspiracies before they get to a grand jury indictment, we just normally don't have a spotlight on them in prime time so it seems like this has taken forever but in reality it's only been a year.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

If they don’t go after him it says to me that a: they don’t have enough to go on and this was primarily just to try to make in guilty with regard to public opinion. Or b: they have enough but don’t want to take down some of their own because let’s face it….DC is a cesspool. 

[homersapien 11,385]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

That’s your excuse?????  Come on man, if he is guilty of something get ‘er done.

You don't understand how our legal system works, do you?

 

[Didba 5,256]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You don't understand how our legal system works, do you?

 

He showed that to us several pages ago.

[homersapien 11,385]

On 6/30/2022 at 11:44 AM, 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?  

Providing and accepting second hand information is totally acceptable in an investigation.  The committee has no obligation to "vet" anyone testifying before it prior to their testimony.   That's what an investigation consists of - gather testimony from as many witnesses or participates as possible regardless of what that testimony is. Furthermore, any of this testimony can be presented to a grand jury in order to obtain an indictment. 

You are acting like a useful fool who is determined to support Trump in his effort to destroy our democracy, rule of law be damned.

And on July 4th no less. 

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,385]

11 minutes ago, Didba said:

He showed that to us several pages ago.

It's like trying to have an adult conversation with a toddler.

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Providing and accepting second hand information is totally acceptable in an investigation.  The committee has no obligation to "vet" anyone testifying before it prior to their testimony.   That's what an investigation consists of - gather testimony from as many witnesses or participates as possible regardless of what that testimony is. Furthermore, any of this testimony can be presented to a grand jury in order to obtain an indictment. 

You are acting like a useful fool who is determined to support Trump in his effort to destroy our democracy, rule of law be damned.

And on July 4th no less. 

 

Important to note before they start freaking out about hearsay in a grand jury proceeding...

GJProceedings are not subject to the hearsay rule, or the exclusionary rule (4th, 5th, and 6th amendments).

As such any relevant evidence is admissible in GJPs even if it would be excluded at trial.

Note - there isn't any reason to "vet" witnesses because in a congressional hearing they want to get as much testimony as possible to pass onto the DoJ who then investigates the veracity of the testimony/evidence.

"vetting" a witness is really only required when going to trial and even then its a pretty low bar for lay witness.

 

 

[autigeremt 6,642]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

It's like trying to have an adult conversation with a toddler.

You would be quite good at it. 

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

On 6/30/2022 at 11:06 AM, homersapien said:

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. 

If you only heard the prosecution in every case the defendant would go to jail 100% of the time. 

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

On 7/3/2022 at 12:03 PM, TexasTiger said:

Yeah, every politician is laundering over $100M for Putin’s oligarchs. 🙄

What about Biden giving half a billion tax dollars to Ukraine to fire the prosecutor that was coming after Hunter?

 

He admitted this on video....even boasted about it.

[Didba 5,256]

27 minutes ago, AU80cruiser said:

What about Biden giving half a billion tax dollars to Ukraine to fire the prosecutor that was coming after Hunter?

 

He admitted this on video....even boasted about it.

Got a link for that video?

[DKW 86 7,426]

16 hours ago, Didba said:

Indictments = grand jury proceedings, not congressional hearings.

No s***. It has been 6 years since the 2016 Election. Where TF are the indictments?

We have been promised sedition, treason, collusion every ******* day for 6 ******* years.

I know people dont like it when people openly point out the truth but...have a laugh  on the video.

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by DKW 86

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

What about Biden giving half a billion tax dollars to Ukraine to fire the prosecutor that was coming after Hunter?

 

He admitted this on video....even boasted about it.

Truly ignorant to have so little understanding.  The power of misinformation, the willingness to believe are astounding.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

No s***. It has been 6 years since the 2016 Election. Where TF are the indictments?

We have been promised sedition, treason, collusion every ******* day for 6 ******* years.

I know people dont like it when people openly point out the truth but...have a laugh  on the video.

 

This isn't the issue on the table.  The Mueller investigation was conducted by the Trump/Republican DOJ.