January 6th Committee

[Boatbum]

From your mouth to Gods ears. Although THIS is the main reason he should have been convinced and fully impeached the second time.

I think he was convinced, but maybe not convicted


Look, I don't care who it is, if a prosecutor can provide sufficient evidence for a jury to convict, then the person should face the consequences - even if it is a president.

[Joe (SoCal)]

TFG should NEVER be allowed to hold ANY public office again.

[George Jung]

I'd take it further - he never should have been eligible for any office, ever. Looking at his track record - what a mess.

[RichW]

We know from the latest testimony that Trump wanted to go with his rioters to the Capitol and was only stopped because his Secret Service agent wanted to protect him from the mob.
I can't help but wonder what would have happened had this one agent not been in Trump's way.
- Would Trump have gone to the Capitol along with the mob and entered the building, and claimed his throne?

And to follow up...
- what did Trump and his cabal think would happen if he got into the capital?
- did they believe that the rest of the country would allow him to take over? Remember that Trump, et. al. KNEW that the Trump lost the election. The cabal KNEW that it was an attempted coup.

What did they think was going to happen if the got into the capital? Did they think the congress would anoint him king?

[Canoeyawl]

It seems that at a minimum whoever is running for president would have to qualify for top secret classification.
TFG couldn't pass the least restrictive classification

[Canoez]

It seems that at a minimum whoever is running for president would have to qualify for top secret classification.
TFG couldn't pass the least restrictive classification

Oh. You mean TFG who mishandled 15 boxes of classified documents?

[TomF]

Pat Cippolone, the former White House counsel named several Tim yesterday in Hutchinson's testimony, now,has a subpoena to testify to the J6 committee.

[TomF]

Now we get to see if he has the courage to speak for himself There are no legitimate privileges when the topics under discussion are crimes.

[skuthorp]

And to follow up...
- what did Trump and his cabal think would happen if he got into the capital?
- did they believe that the rest of the country would allow him to take over? Remember that Trump, et. al. KNEW that the Trump lost the election. The cabal KNEW that it was an attempted coup.

What did they think was going to happen if the got into the capital? Did they think the congress would anoint him king?

Well what do you think the gallows was all about? A threat, a very imminent threat.

But for that SS agent, donald as CinC at the head of his army would have ordered any resistant security personnel aside and swept into the house tasking it over, and claiming that as President he was legally in charge. And while confusion reigned possibly the murders would commence. And what then, the civil authorities lay seige to congress, donald orders the military to intervene….. That SS agent deserves a medal for doing his job, and maybe being aware of the consequences of not.

[Canoez]

Pat Cippolone, the former White House counsel named several Tim yesterday in Hutchinson's testimony, now,has a subpoena to testify to the J6 committee.

Irrelevant side-not of not small mirth: The automatic closed caption system for the hearings interpreted “Pat Cippolone” as “Patsy Boloney”.

[Osborne Russell]

And to follow up...
- what did Trump and his cabal think would happen if he got into the capital?
- did they believe that the rest of the country would allow him to take over? Remember that Trump, et. al. KNEW that the Trump lost the election. The cabal KNEW that it was an attempted coup.

What did they think was going to happen if the got into the capital? Did they think the congress would anoint him king?

The cabal was "adopting a wait and see attiude." <-- Wretched Americanism, linguistically and morally.

Mark Meadows could not put down his phone. Trump says, I'm the F ing President, get A on the line. A says, I have a call in to B. B says, I have a call in to C. Prez says, WTF. If he calls A, B or C, they say, I've got a call in, the others have calls in. Your call is important to us.

Check out Sejanus and the Praetorian Guard.

[elf]

1 p, two ls, guys.

Cipollone

[LongJohn]

Seems to me that the committee has assembled enough evidence to charge T with illegal acts - perhaps sedition or even treason. Whether that evidence and evidence yet to come is enough to charge and convict remains to be seen. Frankly, I'm not optimistic. T has proven to be slippery and effective at getting others to do his dirty work. Plus, the justice department may well hesitate to set the precedent of trying an ex president. If he is charged, the trial and appeals would likely take years and eventually end up before the 6:3 Supreme Court...

I would like to think that a number of T's allies in the White House, the Congress and elsewhere will also be tried and convicted for their complicity. Perhaps this is more likely than convicting T himself but, again, I'm not optimistic.

I would also like to think that these hearings and whatever charges and convictions arise from them will prove to be enlightening for a significant portion of the MAGA crowd, but I suspect it will only confirm their paranoid beliefs that the system is stacked against them.

Nevertheless, I can envision one possible positive outcome from all this - even if T is not charged with any of his various crimes:
Come 2024, the Republicans decide T is too tainted, and they instead nominate DeSantis or Cruz or some other regressive as their candidate for POTUS. T, ever the arrogant and delusional narcissist, and furious at being snubbed, rallies the remaining MAGA faithful and launches an independent candidacy. This splits the Republican vote and makes way for the Democrats to retain the White House.

[Jimmy W]

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, said he found former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson to be a "100% credible witness," and encouraged anyone who disagrees with her to also testify under oath.

"Ms. Hutchinson testified under oath in front of millions of people," Raskin said. "All we've heard is some anonymously sourced reports that someone disagrees with that. We encourage anybody who's got any evidence that's relevant to our investigation to come forward and testify under oath."

[Garret]

Seems to me that the committee has assembled enough evidence to charge T with illegal acts - perhaps sedition or even treason. Whether that evidence and evidence yet to come is enough to charge and convict remains to be seen. Frankly, I'm not optimistic. T has proven to be slippery and effective at getting others to do his dirty work. Plus, the justice department may well hesitate to set the precedent of trying an ex president. If he is charged, the trial and appeals would likely take years and eventually end up before the 6:3 Supreme Court...

I would like to think that a number of T's allies in the White House, the Congress and elsewhere will also be tried and convicted for their complicity. Perhaps this is more likely than convicting T himself but, again, I'm not optimistic.

I would also like to think that these hearings and whatever charges and convictions arise from them will prove to be enlightening for a significant portion of the MAGA crowd, but I suspect it will only confirm their paranoid beliefs that the system is stacked against them.

Nevertheless, I can envision one possible positive outcome from all this - even if T is not charged with any of his various crimes:
Come 2024, the Republicans decide T is too tainted, and they instead nominate DeSantis or Cruz or some other regressive as their candidate for POTUS. T, ever the arrogant and delusional narcissist, and furious at being snubbed, rallies the remaining MAGA faithful and launches an independent candidacy. This splits the Republican vote and makes way for the Democrats to retain the White House.

OK - so what evidence is there that is not hearsay? I'd love to see him behind bars as much as anyone, but if he gets taken to court & is not convicted, it will be a complete disaster for every non-Trumper in the US.

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, said he found former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson to be a "100% credible witness," and encouraged anyone who disagrees with her to also testify under oath.

"Ms. Hutchinson testified under oath in front of millions of people," Raskin said. "All we've heard is some anonymously sourced reports that someone disagrees with that. We encourage anybody who's got any evidence that's relevant to our investigation to come forward and testify under oath."

The Secret Service denies the "altercation" in the car happened. That hurts her credibility some.

[Jim Mahan]

[QUOTE...the justice department may well hesitate to set the precedent of trying an ex president...[/QUOTE]

Because bringing charges of treason or obstruction of justice in a fraudulent election happens so often. This would be a single unique event, most probably, it won't ever come up again as a precedent. OTOH, even though everything about trmp and his usurpation of our presidency was unprecedented, this one, this time, this very singular event in American history absolutely demands the obvious justice and the obvious urgent disposition, and that means that that phoney administration and it's evil perpetrator absolutely need to be tried, and no doubt, none at all, that he will be convicted in a criminal court. Yeah, innocent until proven guilty because that's the Constitution, but so was Manson and Dahmer and Hitler if he'd been an American citizen.

And BTW, even though his corrupt and craven base still believe the twenty-twenty election was stolen from him, they are a distinct minority (of ignorant fools) and a larger percentage of citizens and voters not only believe otherwise, they also still believe his twenty-sixteen election was stolen. Not only do we need to insist on the rule of law, and no one is above, yada yada, we absolutely need real justice. This is the time. This is the one unprecedented time that American constitutional democracy hangs in the balance and the very thing the founders set up part of the Constitution to prevent. Or punish.

Insurrectionist. Traitor. Enemy of the people. Usurper and evil spawn. If the DoJ tries to pull that 'we don't want to set a precedent or make policy' crap, the people of the US will burn the place to the ground. Or something. Just like the election should never be corrupted such that any one person can decide the outcome, so this obscene travesty of justice and democracy should not be decided by someone who happens to be the current head of the DoJ. That would absolutely spell the end of justice and the American way, the much touted and heretofore abused, rule of law. If this doesn't demand, absolutely demand the perps be brought to trial, under the veritable mountain of evidence of his corruption and threat to the country, we might as well just hand over the democracies of the world to Putin and Xi et al.

This isn't even close. No one still sane and competent to tie their own shoes is going to believe something like this could happen again. One would have to be as stupid and gullible as trmp's supporters to believe otherwise. trmp is the domestic enemy we warned about, and supposedly protected against by the wisdom, such as it was, of the Founders.

[TomF]

The more evidence is presented, the less choice there is for Garland. Does it damage DoJ credibility and potentially set up horrible dynamics when another party takes power again? Sure I suppose. Depending on what the evidence all shapes up to be.

Does it do so even more, if Garland does not prosecute this particular former POTUS? Utterly. Absolutely.

As Ty Cobb, one of Trump's lawyers in his 2nd impeachment trial said yesterday, Hutchinson's testimony was credible, and described several crimes. Cobb was quoted as saying something to the effect that: If this doesn't rise to the level of seditious conspiracy, then nothing does.

And that's the guy who defended Trump on the impeachment charge of "incitement to insurrection." Leading one to wish, again, that these current witnesses had spoken up then.

[skuthorp]

And the SS? (#1275) Well they would say that, their job is to protect the president, and past presidents...

[birlinn]

And the SS? (#1275) Well they would say that, their job is to protect the president, and past presidents...

The SS still has a rather different meaning in Europe.

[Canoez]

There are now more questions about the Secret Service and their actions before and on January 6th. Some of the actions have the appearance of being partisan. The organization’s members, like other government employees swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, not a person or party.

[WI-Tom]

The SS still has a rather different meaning in Europe.

Given what Canoez posted in #1280, we may be headed in that direction here as well...

Can't say I'd be surprised to learn that members of a quasi-military style hierarchy (police, FBI, Secret Service, etc.) showed a tendency for right-wing partisanship among some in their ranks.

Tom

[Keith Wilson]

The SS still has a rather different meaning in Europe.

Here too. AFAIK we NEVER call the Secret Service the "SS".


For reference: Treason charges require helping foreign enemies in wartime. 'Seditious Conspiracy' is the statute I think applies here. (Source)

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[Canoez]

Here too. AFAIK we NEVER call the Secret Service the "SS".


For reference: Treason charges require helping foreign enemies in wartime. 'Seditious Conspiracy' is the statute I think applies here. (Source)

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I agree.

There are a lot of folks on the "right" who pop up threads saying that there was "no treason" on January 6th and get people to try to debate that fact. You see none of them saying that there wasn't a seditious conspiracy.

Frankly, the punishment for both should include the fact that anyone guilty of seditious conspiracy should be incapable of holding any office of trust in the US - be it POTUS or local dog-catcher.

[John Smith]

OK - so what evidence is there that is not hearsay? I'd love to see him behind bars as much as anyone, but if he gets taken to court & is not convicted, it will be a complete disaster for every non-Trumper in the US.



The Secret Service denies the "altercation" in the car happened. That hurts her credibility some.

I expect he'll be taken to court if and when they have an extremely strong case. More likely, a lot of those who did his bidding will end up in jail and he will not.

[John Smith]

There are now more questions about the Secret Service and their actions before and on January 6th. Some of the actions have the appearance of being partisan. The organization’s members, like other government employees swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, not a person or party.

Is their specific job not to protect the president?

[Canoez]

Is their specific job not to protect the president?

It is, but the loyalty is to the office, not the man.

[StevenBauer]

Irrelevant side-not of not small mirth: The automatic closed caption system for the hearings interpreted “Pat Cippolone” as “Patsy Boloney”.

1 p, two ls, guys.

Cipollone

His name in my mind will always be Patsy Boloney. Spelled, incorrectly, just like this.

[John Smith]

It is, but the loyalty is to the office, not the man.

I disagree, The security people are there to protect the person who hold the office.

[skuthorp]

The SS still has a rather different meaning in Europe.

I was aware of that…… but let it stand…...

[Garret]

I disagree, The security people are there to protect the person who hold the office.

Yes - but no matter who it is - so it's protecting whoever holds the office, not a particular person.

[Garret]

I expect he'll be taken to court if and when they have an extremely strong case. More likely, a lot of those who did his bidding will end up in jail and he will not.

And... Trump going to court & winning (or at least not being convicted) will pretty much guarantee him a major role in the Rep. party moving forward. Yes, he has one now - but his power would increase dramatically if he won in court.

[Osborne Russell]

I disagree, The security people are there to protect the person who hold the office.

Even from himself.

[Canoez]

I disagree, The security people are there to protect the person who hold the office.

You can disagree all you want, but the Secret Service is there to protect the President of the United States (and others...) They are not there to protect Donald J. T**** or Joseph Biden or any other individual who has or will hold that office. The loyalty is to the President - not the man. There is a distinction. It matters.

[johnw]

OK - so what evidence is there that is not hearsay? I'd love to see him behind bars as much as anyone, but if he gets taken to court & is not convicted, it will be a complete disaster for every non-Trumper in the US.



The Secret Service denies the "altercation" in the car happened. That hurts her credibility some.

The denials come from anonymous sources. The people involved haven't even spoken on the record.

But I'm sure the committee would be delighted to have them testify under oath.

[Tom Montgomery]

You can disagree all you want, but the Secret Service is there to protect the President of the United States (and others...) They are not there to protect Donald J. T**** or Joseph Biden or any other individual who has or will hold that office. The loyalty is to the President - not the man. There is a distinction. It matters.

Absolutely correct.

The vast majority of agents in the Secret Service never directly protect the president. Some agents may have served on former presidential details instead of protecting a sitting president. And throughout their careers, agents are tasked with a “standing post,” the important function of manning the security perimeters at a presidential event. These agents are not assigned to POTUS, but rather to other permanent assignments such as field offices. So while they have technically provided protection for that president, they are not a part of the elite Presidential Protective Division (PPD).

My first cousin is a Secret Service agent who served in the PPD assigned to first President Obama and then President Trump. He is now on another assignment.