ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,259 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
59 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:
That's frustrating. No specific reason to not certify the results, just "I know in my heart that it's not right."
We are going to be seeing more of that. If Mastriano wins in PA, I would doubt it would be possible for a Dem presidential candidate to win there in 2024. Mastriano will just claim fraud and throw out the electors.
-
4 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:
We saw him do this type of crap for years on The Apprentice... I still have nightmares about him threatening to buy the Buffalo Bills
In an alternative universe, Trump buys the Bills:
- The Bills never get great and he runs them into the ground like the rest of his businesses, but
- The world is spared from a Trump presidency
That's a tough one to think about.
-
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:
Love how Trump took care of his main legal defender! Just threw him away like garbage after the plan failed
Trump displays most of the symptoms of classic narcissistic personality disorder. I am not sure he even recognizes other people as people.
-
3
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, 716er said:
cope is strong today
So much copium in here.
Eastman sounds really badass when he's not under oath, lol. He's such a smart lawyer that he wrote that his plan was illegal and then asked to be added to a pardon list. Legal genius.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Doc said:
The majority of America doesn't care about J6 in so far as the "insurrection" claim goes because a) they have far more important things to worry about than a protest that turned violent and a one-off event a the Capitol that won't be repeated again and b) the Dems did the same thing over Trump's 4 years, and even beyond. He won't be arrested and he won't be convicted. There's actually a far better chance he's the next President of the US. So get your new fake scandals and ways to steal/overturn/delegitimize the election ready...
I would dispute that this was necessarily a one-time thing. All of the stolen election theories have been thoroughly debunked at this point, and yet across the country there are candidates running on the basis of the election being stolen.
These people either: are too ignorant to realize that what they are saying is not true, or they know it's a lie but are pushing it for personal and political gain.
So what happens if one of them is a governor or secretary of state in a battleground state in 2024? We already have one instance of someone not certifying a vote this election cycle based on a debunked conspiracy: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/gop-commission-refuses-to-certify-new-mexico-primary-results-over-distrust-of-voting-machines
-
2 hours ago, Tiberius said:
So he literally called a mob right at the time and place the election is being certified. Ya, just a coincidence.
That is not sufficient for even an indictment, nonetheless a conviction.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, B-Man said:
The Democrat Party is terrible at Policy. It's so obvious.
Democratic Party: bad at policy
Republican Party: what is a policy?
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Bold strategy leftists!
The Democratic Party is absolutely terrible at messaging. It's so frustrating.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Go ***** yourselves. Every last one of you disgusting wastes of skin.
You ok?
-
2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
You think DOJ is afraid?
I think Garland is concerned about the DoJ's image after the abuses during the previous administration. While I would want a "return to normalcy" meaning going after criminals, I do not get the impression he wants to launch the department headfirst into what would be an incredibly messy and political fight.
He may roll up people who get pretty close to Trump, but I am skeptical he would go after Trump himself. Would love to be wrong, though.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I would wager not.
-
17 minutes ago, Doc said:
Yeah, I know they can't indict anyone. But you're kidding yourself if you don't think that they're presenting evidence for any reason other than to make their case to Garland. Some just don't want to publicly admit it.
What happened at the Capitol won't happen ever again because security is tighter than ever and additional security will be provided in the future, especially now that the "defend the police" stupidity has passed (not that the long-term damage hasn't already been done). So if they're telling you that's why they're doing it, they're lying.
I hope they do address the lack of security that day. I remain skeptical they will because it will implicate a certain Dem...
I agree that they are hoping Garland is watching, but also if Garland needs this committee to bring him information, then that speaks very poorly of his DoJ. While there may be some additional details through the testimony, the DoJ should be able to investigate this stuff on its own. Personally, I also think it's good to get this information on the public record. Millions of Americans still wrongly believe the election was stolen and while I don't think this convinces all of them, maybe some people will begin to reconsider their position. At the very least, we can point to Trump's people, who were working to get him re-elected, testifying under oath that he lost.
As to the security, I agree that I hope they go into it and given that they have a team specifically for that, we should expect that they do and call them out if they don't.
I have seen a lot of speculation that they won't because it would make Nancy Pelosi look bad but as far as I can tell, the Speaker of the House does not manage or deploy the Capitol Police. They have a board for oversight (https://www.uscp.gov/the-department/oversight) and an executive team (https://www.uscp.gov/the-department/executive-team), and while the legislature appoints the board, I cannot find any info about the legislature having day-to-day management of the Capitol Police. I'll admit I could be completely wrong on this, I had no knowledge of how the Capitol Police are managed before looking into this so I definitely could be missing something.
Just doing a quick Wikipedia check, here is who was on the board on Jan 6th:
- Paul D Irving - House Sergeant at Arms (Jan 17, 2012 - Jan 7, 2021)
- Michael C Stenger - Senate Sergeant at Arms (April 16, 2018 - Jan 7, 2021)
- Brett Blanton - Architect of the Capitol (Since Jan 16, 2020)
I find it telling that the Sergeants at Arms left their positions the next day, which seems to imply that at least some blame was placed on them.
-
54 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Once again….there is only one side presenting evidence here…so let’s not get too carried away with drawing conclusions. I know, I know, it’s not a trial! Tibs was closest when calling it a grand jury hearing, but I’ll caution him and others to remember that a grand jury is not televised and is not intended to taint the eventual national jury pool. So watch the hearings if you’d like, but don’t get drawn into making any statements of guilt. If you’ve ever been deposed in a court proceeding you’ll know why….I have.
When we have sworn testimony from Trump’s inner circle that they knew he lost the election and told him constantly that the claims he made were false, I think it’s fair to draw the conclusion that those events did happen. These were people who were invested in Trump winning and they are testifying under oath.
As to someone’s actual guilt, that’s something left to the judicial system. I try to be careful to state this in terms of “if it went to trial, a prosecutor would argue that…” or that something “might” satisfy the elements of a crime.
I don’t think we have a smoking gun here that Trump organized a coup attempt yet. There is a lot of damning evidence about a lot of people, including Trump, but as I’ve stated, this isn’t a trial.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Doc said:
So they're not blaming Trump at all during the Hearings? And the panel isn't split on whether Garland should files charges at the end of it?
And if they truly were interested in preventing it in the future, they'd explore why additional security wasn't provided. They're not going to be doing that. Any reason you can see why they aren't?
They are presenting evidence at the hearing, they cannot indict anyone for anything even if they believe someone to be responsible for a crime. So far, their referrals to the DoJ have been for contempt of Congress for people refusing the testify and not for any actions before or during Jan 6th. Chairman Benny Thompson said the other day that they were done sending referrals but Vice Chair Liz Cheney says she doesn’t think they are. So who knows?The committee is divided into several teams. One of those teams has a specific remit to assess the law enforcement failures and why they happened (See Blue Team)
So far, we have had two hearings: one to give an overview of what we should expect and one that focused primarily on the election itself. Given that there are still several hearings to go and that one of the five teams is dedicated to figuring out why the security was not prepared, I would expect that they address that at some point.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Doc said:
Huh? That's the entire basis for the impeachment and committee. Trump held a rally and allegedly (and subliminally) told people to break into the Capitol. What else was this all about?
Much like the Jan 6th committee is not a trial or judicial proceeding, it is also not an impeachment trial.
The committee exists with the purpose to figure out how and why the events of Jan 6th happened and to potentially recommend legislation to prevent such incidents from happening in the future.
The committee cannot indict Trump. It cannot impeach him. It cannot, in any way, shape, or form, hold him accountable. Its remit actually isn’t targeted at Trump at all, except that as they investigate, he ends up being the central figure.
So as far as he bears any responsibility at all, the only thing the committee can actually do is to expose that and hope that the DoJ takes action.
-
57 minutes ago, Doc said:
No, they just believe that the riot happened only because Trump held a rally and that's all there is to it.
This is a straw man argument and can be disregarded.
To @Buffalo Timmy’s point: we’ve had two hearings of many. We did learn some new things in the hearing this week, but I would wait until it all plays out before jumping to any conclusions one way or the other.
-
Huh. Seems bad.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna33755
QuoteThe nine-page document, filed in federal court Wednesday, lays out a plan to fill buildings “with patriots and communicate our demands." It's stated goals include maintaining control "over a select few, but crucial buildings in the DC area for a set period of time" and getting as "many people as possible inside these buildings."
QuoteWhen it's time for "patriots" to storm the buildings, individuals might have to cause "trouble near the front doors to distract guards," the plan states. "The goal is to ensure there is an entry point for the masses to rush the building."
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Good responses. I welcome the civil and respectful back and forth. So see bold above. Regards..
I'll do my best to answer your points, just bear in mind that my answers are based on how things *do* work and not necessarily how they *should* work.
1. House Select Committees
House select committees are created by a resolution. There are no requirements that all select committees must meet certain requirements. They are defined by their resolutions. The original plan was to hold a bipartisan Joint Committee (which is a committee with members from both the Senate and the House) that was negotiated between Bennie Thompson (D) and John Katko (R), but that ended up being filibustered in the Senate.
The Jan 6th committee resolution vested the appointment of members in the Speaker of the House, but 5 would be appointed after consultation with the minority leader. Kevin McCarthy announced the 5 members he wanted, but Pelosi told him she would reject Jim Jordan and Jim Banks. However, she would approve the other three. McCarthy then withdrew all of his nominations.
We can quibble about the specifics of the qualifications of who was appointed and what "after consultation" requires, but those are the facts of how the committee was established.
2. House Subpoenas
People subpoenaed by the committee could challenge the subpoena in court (and some have) but it would be an uphill battle to argue that "after consultation with the Minority leader" means that the minority leader gets to pick the people. As far as I am aware, nobody has successfully challenged a subpoena from the committee.
3. One Side of the Story / Perjury
We need to be careful about comparisons to a trial. This is not a trial or even a judicial proceeding. Trump is not on trial here, and neither are people like Rudy Giuliani. They do not face a loss of liberty through the committee and are not entitled to the due process they would be entitled to at a trial or judicial proceeding.
That being said, the witnesses are testifying under oath, so they are subject to perjury charges should they lie. When we are hearing differing arguments, those being made in the hearings and those being made in the media, it is important to note that people can lie in the media with little recourse whereas people lying to the committee give themselves legal exposure.
It's not perfect by any means, but it is interesting to see at least one person reject a request to testify under oath and then say in the media that they were lied about. If the story the committee is getting is wrong, maybe they should have testified to that.
4. Outsider vs. Establishment
This skirts close to the whole "deep state is after Trump" thing but I want to avoid that discussion because I don't think that was the intention of your point.
Washington is a bureaucratic mess but part of that is because it would be impossible for one person to manage something the size of the US federal government. This definitely makes it hard for an outsider to succeed. On the other hand, someone with little to no experience in government would likely lack the skills and experience to be effective (which is why I did not support Obama - he had so little experience when he ran).
Ultimately, this one probably comes down to opinion, but going by Occam's Razor, I just feel like it is more likely that Trump was looking for any excuse to declare that he won (putting his staff into a difficult position) than there was a web of people across his own campaign and the government invested in bringing him down. Many of the people who testified would benefit greatly from Trump winning, but when they were sworn in to tell the truth, they said that he lost.
-
1
-
-
It’s the classic plan of the last ~30 years:
1. Supply side tax cuts to benefit the rich explodes the deficit.
2. Scream about the deficit to justify cutting programs for the poor and middle class.
3. Rinse and repeat.-
1
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
What else can we expect to hear? We have a Committee 100% comprised of Washington establishment Trump haters. Political party representation is irrelevant. Not a single witness or piece of evidence or question is allowed that might contradict their preconceived conclusions. Any Representative that might have been "friendly" to Trump was vetoed and excluded from the Committee by Pelosi, in violation of the committee charter. Since when does the majority leader dictate to the minority who they can appoint on a House committee? That tells you all you need to know as the fix was in from the start. That's one reason many have fought subpoenas. As the Committee itself violates the rules governing its existence it is therefore illegitimate so how can their subpoenas be anything but illegitimate too? It's a reasonable legal argument.
But the objective isn't legitimacy, or to gather evidence, uncover the truth, and forward information to the DOJ for potential prosecution. Its to discredit Trump and eliminate him from the political scene. What they don't want are a lot of "America first" candidates winning elections in November 2022 in the House or Senate, or in contests at the State level. In 2016 Trump, by accident, crashed their party and became President. Without ever holding any other political office and without any "grassroots" political support system in place with elected officials at lower levels of government holding the same objectives. That made it easy for the establishment, comprised of both major political parties to obstruct and block almost everything. In 2022 the America First movement, and Trump, are out to correct that problem. That's the threat the Committee is worried about, not 1/6.
The intent of the committee is to use the insurrection narrative to discredit any and all 2022 American first type candidates and label them as supporters of the insurrection. Dangers to democracy. The biggest threat to our nation. For the Democrats its going to be one of the only themes they can run as as the administration's record to date has been nothing but horrendous. Polling numbers reflect their desperation which will only grow as November approaches and conditions in the country worsen. The last thing the Washington establishment wants are representatives of the people coming to Washington to put the interests of America and American's in general ahead of their agenda.
I should add my conclusion that from all the current and coming chaos that neither political party is going to survive in their current form and "moderates" disenchanted with their respective political party affiliation will form together into a 3rd party that will eventually take charge.
Remember that the committee was originally designed to be bipartisan until the GOP tanked that and the House had to do a select committee instead.
Also, the founding rules of a committee have no bearing on the authority of Congressional subpoenas.
To believe all of this is just a made-up witch hunt means you believe that the witnesses all perjured themselves. If that’s true, then the Pro-Trump people should provide proof of that.
And finally, this whole “establishment hates Trump” thing in regards to this hearing means you must think that Trump is an absolute moron at hiring people. Basically every person who testified was either hired by Trump or appointed by him. He must truly be incompetent if he managed to hire dozens of people who were actually working to bring him down.
-
3
-
-
27 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
thx for the write up.
most rational people understand he lost the election, and maybe some isolated cases of fraud happened, maybe not, but he was blown out, it wasn’t close.
most people also know he says bombastic, stupid falsehoods frequently especially when his ego is involved and his cabinet party and staff frequently had difficulty reigning him in and specifically didn’t get through on this one.
but none of this is new, so what’s the objective?
Honestly, I find all of this pretty fascinating and was going to watch the hearing anyway.
But, there are so many people on this forum who espouse the debunked conspiracies and they would never sit through the hearing, so I figured I would type up some notes while watching it.
Since the hearing was a solidly thorough debunking of the conspiracies, I was hoping that maybe seeing that Trump’s inner circle knew the claims were false might change a mind or two.
Apparently, that was very naïve of me. I expect there will be little change here at PPP from people still claiming the election was stolen.
-
6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
You honestly don’t know that in every single criminal and civil trial the prosecution tells the jury ‘these are the facts’…honestly? I’m not trying to be mean but let’s not be silly.
Ok, I don’t want to be mean because maybe English isn’t your first language or something, but this isn’t a criminal trial and it isn’t a civil trial. It’s not a trial, there isn’t a court, there’s no prosecution, there is no jury and there is no defense.
This is a congressional fact finding committee with sworn testimony from witnesses speaking under the penalty of perjury.Please, take a moment and try to recognize that. I know not everybody is familiar with these nuances but it’s not *that* hard to understand.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:
What did you learn today? Nothing written here is new at all. As I stated it is 100% political and all a rehash of know info.
Well, we now have sworn testimony from Trump’s inner circle that he lost the election, it wasn’t stolen and all of the theories being thrown out on PPP everyday are baseless conspiracies.That counts for something.
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Do you know ANYTHING about the American judicial system? Yes…most times when the defense doesn’t put on a defense, and isn’t allowed to question witnesses, and where the prosecution is allowed to splice together deposition segments…it makes the defendant look pretty ridiculous and generally pretty guilty. Luckily that’s NOT the system we have. Now it doesn’t always mean that the defense’s case would convince/sway the jury….but for heaven’s sake…calm down.
For maybe the hundredth time, this is not a judicial proceeding. There is no prosecution and there is no defense. It is a congressional fact-finding committee.I honestly don’t know why this is so difficult for people to grasp.
Recap of Day 3 of the Jan 6 Hearings
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Here are my notes from the third Jan 6 hearing followed by my thoughts.
RECAP
Mark Short (Mike Pence's Chief of Staff):
Told Mark Meadows and Pat Cipollone that the plan to reject or delay the count was not legitimate and they agreed.
Pence had told Trump many times that he had no authority on January 6th but Trump still tweeted that Pence was in on the plan
Met with the Secret Service on Jan 5th with concerns about Pence’s safety and worried that Trump would lash out.
Judge Michael Luttig (Retired federal judge and Pence advisor):
Greg Jacob (Mike Pence’s General Counsel):
Eric Herschmann (White House Lawyer):
Other evidence presented:
THOUGHTS
This hearing seemed to focus primarily on Eastman's plan to have Pence prevent the certification of the vote. Once again, it underscores how differently these people talk behind closed doors or under oath than they do in public. Eastman himself admitted that his plan was illegal and unconstitutional. They all knew it but they misled their public because it benefitted them. Even after this, Eastman is publicly pushing back despite having testified to the committee and invoking the 5th instead of stating that he actually believed in his plan.
I still don't see a smoking gun of Trump himself saying he knew he lost and that he knew this was all nonsense, but there is ample evidence to show that he should have known and was willfully ignorant. In any case, Eastman has tremendous legal exposure here. He is also an absolutely terrible lawyer and should have his license revoked.
Sean Hannity providing advice to an administration he ostensibly covered seems to fly under the radar. Feels like that would be headline news if a reporter for like CNN was providing advice behind the scenes to a Democratic administration.
After two hearings, we have debunked the stolen election theories and the idea that the Vice President can pick the winner of the election. Both are good, but given the actions of people like Eastman and Rudy (however idiotic they were), it would probably be a good idea to look at amending and clarifying the Electoral Count Act.
Finally, it looks like there was a pardon list being compiled. Which is definitely something you do when you know you're following the law...