January 6th Committee

[John Smith]

I hope you're right, Jim! And I sincerely admire your optimism.

I don't share his optimism, although I do realize a lot of s**t can hit the fan between now and November's election.

Among that s**t' is how he raised money under false pretenses. That will piss off many, including supporters.

The question of "If you did nothing illegal, why do you need a pardon?" is also something that may make some people think.

Then there's the Supreme Court where, thanks to justices Trump appointed, is taking away rights/laws that are hugely popular.

It's entirely likely that these things, and others, will get a lot more people voting for democrats, and fewer voting for republicans. Whether those votes are counted or not is another issue.

[John Smith]

In court: aguy who steals some $100 worth of produce from a corner store:?
Prosecution: where you at the store on such and such a date?

Defenfant: No.

P: we have vision of you on CC video.
D: Wasn’t me.
P we have recorded phone convo from your mates phone co roberating the evidence.
D not me.

At the next sitting: Jury The defendant is guilty as charged.

No so with Trump it seems……

He probably skates, but I'd not bet on it.

[John Smith]

One underlying question here is how many who NEED to learn this stuff will.

How does FOX respond to her testimony. I saw a brief clip of some of their hosts looking a bit puzzled as to what to say, but I suspect they'll get memos on the subject.

What is interesting, and hopefully not forgotten, is the people who sought pardons, and seeking pardons kind of proves they knew they had legal problems.

[WI-Tom]

What is interesting, and hopefully not forgotten, is the people who sought pardons, and seeking pardons kind of proves they knew they had legal problems.

The Trumper response to that line of thought will be:

They sought pardons to gain immunity from a purely political witch hunt that they knew the Democrats would be conducting. The pardon-seeking will be used not as evidence that the parties involved think they are guilty of anything wrong, but that they knew Democrats will stop at nothing to take vindictive action against Republicans.

Tom

[John Smith]

The Trumper response to that line of thought will be:

They sought pardons to gain immunity from a purely political witch hunt that they knew the Democrats would be conducting. The pardon-seeking will be used not as evidence that the parties involved think they are guilty of anything wrong, but that they knew Democrats will stop at nothing to take vindictive action against Republicans.

Tom

With luck, they will end up in jail for those things for which they sought, but did not get, those pardons.

[bobbys]

[Gil Carter reading Martin's letter]
Gil Carter: "My dear Wife, Mr. Davies will tell you what's happening here tonight. He's a good man and has done everything he can for me. I suppose there are some other good men here, too, only they don't seem to realize what they're doing. They're the ones I feel sorry for. 'Cause it'll be over for me in a little while, but they'll have to go on remembering for the rest of their lives. A man just naturally can't take the law into his own hands and hang people without hurtin' everybody in the world, 'cause then he's just not breaking one law but all laws. Law is a lot more than words you put in a book, or judges or lawyers or sheriffs you hire to carry it out. It's everything people ever have found out about justice and what's right and wrong. It's the very conscience of humanity. There can't be any such thing as civilization unless people have a conscience, because if people touch God anywhere, where is it except through their conscience? And what is anybody's conscience except a little piece of the conscience of all men that ever lived? I guess that's all I've got to say except kiss the babies for me and God bless you. Your husband, Donald.".

The ox bow incident

[Keith Wilson]

And here we come to the questions again. Bobbys, are you also a traitor to your country? Answer them.
1. Did Mr Biden legitimately in the 2020 presidential election? If not, why not?
2. What do you think of the attempt to interfere with the electoral vote count by force on January 6, 2021? If you approve, explain.

[Boatbum]

I hope that this prevents Trump from running even if it does not lead to criminal prosecution. The GOP is more likely to win if Trump is not running and I really don't like the options for the Democrats right now.

[Osborne Russell]

q: How do you milk sheep?

A: Claim the election was stolen and ask for money.

...

[Keith Wilson]

I hope that this prevents Trump from running even if it does not lead to criminal prosecution. The GOP is more likely to win if Trump is not running and I really don't like the options for the Democrats right now.

If I were a conservative, I would be praying to whatever gods I believed in that Mr Trump would go to jail, or better yet, just quietly drop dead of a heart attack or something else quick.

[Boatbum]

If I were a conservative, I would be praying to whatever gods I believed in that Mr Trump would go to jail, or better yet, just quietly drop dead of a heart attack or something else quick.

Amen

[LeeG]

I hope that this prevents Trump from running even if it does not lead to criminal prosecution. The GOP is more likely to win if Trump is not running and I really don't like the options for the Democrats right now.

The GOP won. They got guns, forced pregnancy and cultivated a culture of denial.

[Canoez]

I hope that this prevents Trump from running even if it does not lead to criminal prosecution. The GOP is more likely to win if Trump is not running and I really don't like the options for the Democrats right now.

Based on what we seem to be seeing with other lawmakers successfully avoiding consequences under the 14th amendment, Section 3 in court - it would seem to me that a conviction is required to successfully remove a politician from their office and exclude them from running again.

[Boatbum]

The GOP won. They got guns, forced pregnancy and cultivated a culture of denial.

The problem is you see it as a win/lose and not a right/wrong. It has never mattered to me whether there was an R or D after a person's name. I just want to know that they will govern with the best interests of the country.

[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?

It's amazing how close the USA came to a putsch, but for the one SS agent.

[Boatbum]

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.

As reported by Reuters:

The New York Times and NBC, citing sources in the Secret Service, said the head of Trump's security detail, Robert Engel, and the limousine driver were prepared to testify under oath that Trump never lunged for the steering wheel. Engel was in the room when Ornato relayed the story, Hutchinson said.

The New York Times and CNN, citing unnamed sources, said Ornato also denied the story and was willing to testify.

[Jimmy W]

It was clear that it wasn't a lone agent. There were a number of people making sure that he didn't go to the Capital.

[WI-Tom]

The GOP won. They got guns, forced pregnancy and cultivated a culture of denial.

The problem is you see it as a win/lose and not a right/wrong. It has never mattered to me whether there was an R or D after a person's name. I just want to know that they will govern with the best interests of the country.

Not to put words in Lee's mouth, but I'm quite confident he sees it as right/wrong. And also sees that, despite the GOP being wrong, they are winning at the moment.

Tom

[George Jung]

Re: the SS contesting the veracity of these events - I have to wonder - *who* got to them, to get them to retract?

[Canoeyawl]

Keep your eye on this guy:
Thomas Windom

Those charged in the attack on the capitol may regret postponing their trials...

[Osborne Russell]

Re: the SS contesting the veracity of these events - I have to wonder - *who* got to them, to get them to retract?

Did they retract? What prior statements?

Why would the Committee put Ms. Hutchinson on without having deposed the SS people involved?

[Canoez]

As reported by Reuters:

So what, exactly does that have to do with what RichW wrote?

The Secret Service prevented T**** from going to join the rioters at the Capital. Full stop.



With regard to the testimony about the steering wheel that you seem to be trying to discredit, you want to re-watch the exchange between Cheney and Hutchinson. It is clear.

Neither Engle nor Ornato tried to correct the account that Hutchinson heard and relayed.

So far, the committee seems to be pretty iron-clad in what they are presenting. When sworn testimony is refuted by (non-sworn) people spouting off elsewhere, the committee seems to have the receipts and doubles down on the evidence in later hearings.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have presented that without corroborating testimony or evidence.

[Canoeyawl]

Re: the SS contesting the veracity of these events - I have to wonder - *who* got to them, to get them to retract?

They haven't testified under oath yet...
I think it's a red herring, there is nothing there to charge anyone with. More exposé of a behavioral pattern smeared with the ketchup onto the wall.

[wizbang 13]

Yet it remains heresay

[George Jung]

Comparing Hutchinsons testimony, vs the 'rebuttals' of those accused - I know who I believe.

[Canoez]

Yet it remains heresay

No, actually - there have been several lawyers commenting on that exact fact. Big issue here is that she's testifying under oath about what she observed and heard. The other one is that this is a hearing, not a court of law.

https://lawandcrime.com/jan-6-commit...e-complicated/

[LeeG]

The problem is you see it as a win/lose and not a right/wrong. It has never mattered to me whether there was an R or D after a person's name. I just want to know that they will govern with the best interests of the country.

You spoke of GOP winning,

[LeeG]

Not to put words in Lee's mouth, but I'm quite confident he sees it as right/wrong. And also sees that, despite the GOP being wrong, they are winning at the moment.

Tom

thx, thought I was responding to bb use of the term “win”.

[johnw]

As reported by Reuters:

Maybe they will testify under oath. Right now, they are unwilling to even speak on the record.


From Josh Marshall:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...round-is-cheap

Earlier this month, Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, made a big show of her willingness and desire to march right up to Capitol Hill and clear her good name before the Jan. 6th investigation committee. Yesterday, her lawyer said the committee just turns out to be too biased. So she won’t be testifying after all.

Two White House security officials who allegedly scuffled with the President in the presidential limousine are now denying through intermediaries what Cassidy Hutchinson said under oath in yesterday’s hearing. But Ginni Thomas’s switcheroo is a good reminder that talk — or rather claims through intermediaries — is cheap. People who claim they are just champing at the bit to testify usually end up refusing to testify.

Indeed, it’s fair to question the journalistic decisions behind some of these reports. Most of us had never heard of Cassidy Hutchinson until a few days ago. Her claims definitely deserve scrutiny. But testimony under oath is the price of entry to this conversation. Indeed, the two men in question, Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel, have been able to get denials into print without even agreeing to speak on the record. In other words, they’ve refused to call up reporters and say, “I never said what she claims and the incident did not happen.” They have been able to get reporters to report that people ‘familiar with their thinking’ say they will deny it. I assure you: They could get their on-the-record quotes into print at the drop of a hat. All it takes is a phone call.

It is worth noting that one of the men has already been accused of lying on Trump’s behalf and both had a reputation of working as Trump’s enablers during his presidency. Indeed, day two reports suggest that the purported denials are perhaps more semantic than substantive, denying that the President “assaulted” the lead Secret Service agent as opposed to denying that there was an irate confrontation in the limousine in which the President demanded to be taking to the Capitol.

Maybe these two will testify. Maybe the story is different than what Hutchinson claimed. But until the two are willing at least to speak on the record, it’s really all meaningless. And her claims are more credible until these two agree to testify about this incident under oath.

[Boatbum]

Maybe they will testify under oath. Right now, they are unwilling to even speak on the record.


From Josh Marshall:

I get criticized when I don't use reliable sources here. Perhaps you should do the same.

[George Jung]

Looks like a damn fine source;

you oughta give it a go!

[Joe (SoCal)]

[Gil Carter reading Martin's letter]
Gil Carter: "My dear Wife, Mr. Davies will tell you what's happening here tonight. He's a good man and has done everything he can for me. I suppose there are some other good men here, too, only they don't seem to realize what they're doing. They're the ones I feel sorry for. 'Cause it'll be over for me in a little while, but they'll have to go on remembering for the rest of their lives. A man just naturally can't take the law into his own hands and hang people without hurtin' everybody in the world, 'cause then he's just not breaking one law but all laws. Law is a lot more than words you put in a book, or judges or lawyers or sheriffs you hire to carry it out. It's everything people ever have found out about justice and what's right and wrong. It's the very conscience of humanity. There can't be any such thing as civilization unless people have a conscience, because if people touch God anywhere, where is it except through their conscience? And what is anybody's conscience except a little piece of the conscience of all men that ever lived? I guess that's all I've got to say except kiss the babies for me and God bless you. Your husband, Donald.".

The ox bow incident

1 Did Mr Biden legitimately win the 2020 presidential election? If not, why not?
2. What do you think of the attempt to interfere by force with the electoral vote count on January 6, 2021? If you approve, explain.

[Boatbum]

Looks like a damn fine source;

you oughta give it a go!

Not even listed as a reliable site for news - here is the almighty refence that everyone cites down here.....

https://my.lwv.org/california/torran...edia-bias-2022







If it ain't there it ain't rated. Just because you agree with the content doesn't make it right.

[Joe (SoCal)]

Amen

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

[Joe (SoCal)]

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?

It's amazing how close the USA came to a putsch, but for the one SS agent.

D388667E-B4FB-4C67-A0A8-8CDE42F05922.jpeg

Exile to Elba

The Allied Powers having declared that Emperor Napoleon was the sole obstacle to the restoration of peace in Europe, Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his oath, declares that he renounces, for himself and his heirs, the thrones of France and Italy, and that there is no personal sacrifice, even that of his life, which he is not ready to make in the interests of France.
Done in the palace of Fontainebleau, 11 April 1814.
— Act of abdication of Napoleon