The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Wow, thats an impressive amount of gibberish.

 

It's not "Another Person" challenging that sonny, it is the actual agents and driver.   You know, the ones that the "under oath" person (who was not even there)

discusses.

 

They have already testified.  So if they do come out tomorrow and discredit today's democrat "bombshell" I am sure that @ChiGoose will admit his/her error.

 

 

.

 

I never stated that I 100% believed her. She was clear that she heard the story secondhand. It should obviously be taken with a grain of salt.

 

My point was that she was testifying under oath. The sources you are pointing out are not. This is a constant theme here: people who testify under oath are discarded for people who haven't or won't, because it fits the poster's political narrative.

 

In any situation in which one person faces a penalty for lying and the other doesn't, there should be a rebuttable presumption that the first is more likely (though not necessarily) to be telling the truth.

 

If the driver of the limo testifies under oath that it never happened, I would absolutely believe them over someone who heard the incident as a story from someone else.

 

That just makes sense.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

[Andy1]

Whatever happened inside the Beast is kinda irrelevant. There was plenty of other testimony indicating Trump was planning to overturn the election. I mean what President has ever said that his VP deserved to be murdered?! The only answer is Trump.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Andy1

[ChiGoose]

13 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

Whatever happened inside the Beast is kinda irrelevant. There was plenty of other testimony indicating Trump was planning to overturn the election. I mean what President has ever said that his VP deserved to be murdered?! The only answer is Trump.

 

Yes, but why acknowledge that when you can point to people on Twitter who are enjoying the limo story and make fun of them instead of recognizing that Trump is in serious legal jeopardy?

[B-Man]

 

 

Liz Cheney Quickly Moves on to Her Next Con After Secret Service Confirms Agents Ready to Testify

 

 

 

Yesterday’s “emergency” hearing by the January 6th committee was the worst yet, and I don’t mean for those who were accused of fomenting an insurrection during it. Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, made several claims under oath that were debunked within hours, with the committee taking another blow to its already non-existent credibility in the process.

 

The supposed “bombshell” was a wild tale about a 74-year-old Trump fighting through two secret service agents and grabbing the steering wheel in order to try to get to the Capitol. As I said at the time, even if that were true, what exactly does it prove? Is there evidence Trump wanted to go there to enact a coup? He had just encouraged people to go there to peacefully protest. Wouldn’t it make more sense that he wanted to go there to help lead said peaceful protest?

 

Regardless, the steering wheel claim wasn’t true because these types of ridiculous allegations about Trump are almost never true. To further prove that, we now have official word from the US Secret Service spokesman that the agents involved are ready to testify.

 

But don’t be fooled. This is exactly what Liz Cheney and the rest of the dishonest hacks on the committee wanted.

 

They don’t care that they put a liar under oath and had her repeat a bunch of easily disproven nonsense.

 

The goal here was to garner headlines that will now become part of the collective psyche. No one will remember the debunkings, mostly because they won’t even be largely reported.

 

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/06/29/liz-cheney-quickly-moves-on-to-her-next-con-after-secret-service-confirms-agents-ready-to-testify-n586136

 

 

[Doc]

Dick Jr. strikes out again.

[Tiberius]

48 minutes ago, Doc said:

Dick Jr. strikes out again.

She is doing a pretty good job. 

[Tiberius]

Short summary by Jen Rubin: 

 

Spreading the “big lie”. Multiple Trump officials — including former attorney general William P. Barr, top Justice Department lawyers and White House counsel staff — diligently investigated allegations of voter fraud and repeatedly told Trump there was no evidence. So did multiple Republicans outside the administration, such as Arizona House Speaker Russell “Rusty” Bowers and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Yet Trump still pushed these claims all the way up to Jan. 6.

 

Attempting to enlist the Justice Department in overturning the election. Former Justice Department officials Richard Donoghue, Jeffrey Rosen and Steven A. Engel all testified to Trump’s scheme to replace Rosen with Jeffrey Clark, the low-level Justice official who was willing to send out a letter to states claiming there was evidence of fraud. Rosen was told if he signed the letter, he could stay. He refused.

 

Pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election. Former Pence aides Marc Short and Greg Jacob, as well as Justice Department lawyers, laid out the pressure campaign on Pence to halt the electoral vote count. Trump was repeatedly warned the scheme was illegal and unconstitutional. Richard Donoghue testified that former White House counsel Pat Cipollone called the plan a “murder-suicide pact.” Trump never relented.

 

Strong-arming state officials to change votes and devise phony slates of electors (parts 4 and 5). Bowers and Raffensperger in their live appearances, as well as Republicans from Pennsylvania and Michigan in video testimony, spoke about the pressure campaign. Trump was directly involved in calls to Arizona and Georgia officials.

Summoning the mob on Jan 6. From his invitation on Twitter to Hutchinson’s assertion that he demanded that armed supporters be allowed to pass through security checkpoints on Jan. 6, Trump was instrumental in gathering a dangerous mob to storm the Capitol. In his speech that day, he identified Pence as the person with the power to stop the transfer of power. He then told them to march on the Capitol despite warnings of violence.

 

Refusing to stop the violence once the Capitol attack was underway. In fact he did all he could to join them. Multiple aides, his daughter and members of Congress pleaded with him to call off the mob. It took him hours to make a statement.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/28/january-6-hearing-cassidy-hutchinson-where-the-committee-goes-from-here/

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Short summary by Jen Rubin: 

 

Spreading the “big lie”. Multiple Trump officials — including former attorney general William P. Barr, top Justice Department lawyers and White House counsel staff — diligently investigated allegations of voter fraud and repeatedly told Trump there was no evidence. So did multiple Republicans outside the administration, such as Arizona House Speaker Russell “Rusty” Bowers and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Yet Trump still pushed these claims all the way up to Jan. 6.

 

Attempting to enlist the Justice Department in overturning the election. Former Justice Department officials Richard Donoghue, Jeffrey Rosen and Steven A. Engel all testified to Trump’s scheme to replace Rosen with Jeffrey Clark, the low-level Justice official who was willing to send out a letter to states claiming there was evidence of fraud. Rosen was told if he signed the letter, he could stay. He refused.

 

Pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election. Former Pence aides Marc Short and Greg Jacob, as well as Justice Department lawyers, laid out the pressure campaign on Pence to halt the electoral vote count. Trump was repeatedly warned the scheme was illegal and unconstitutional. Richard Donoghue testified that former White House counsel Pat Cipollone called the plan a “murder-suicide pact.” Trump never relented.

 

Strong-arming state officials to change votes and devise phony slates of electors (parts 4 and 5). Bowers and Raffensperger in their live appearances, as well as Republicans from Pennsylvania and Michigan in video testimony, spoke about the pressure campaign. Trump was directly involved in calls to Arizona and Georgia officials.

Summoning the mob on Jan 6. From his invitation on Twitter to Hutchinson’s assertion that he demanded that armed supporters be allowed to pass through security checkpoints on Jan. 6, Trump was instrumental in gathering a dangerous mob to storm the Capitol. In his speech that day, he identified Pence as the person with the power to stop the transfer of power. He then told them to march on the Capitol despite warnings of violence.

 

Refusing to stop the violence once the Capitol attack was underway. In fact he did all he could to join them. Multiple aides, his daughter and members of Congress pleaded with him to call off the mob. It took him hours to make a statement.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/28/january-6-hearing-cassidy-hutchinson-where-the-committee-goes-from-here/

 

Incitement of the mob on Jan 6th is probably the hardest to prove and I'm not sure that there was an actionable duty for the president to make a statement to stop the violence once it started.

 

That being said, even if we throw those out, there is ample evidence of Trump himself committing crimes.

 

Would love to see the DoJ actually *do* something about it, but I'm not going to hold my breath...

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Incitement of the mob on Jan 6th is probably the hardest to prove and I'm not sure that there was an actionable duty for the president to make a statement to stop the violence once it started.

 

That being said, even if we throw those out, there is ample evidence of Trump himself committing crimes.

 

Would love to see the DoJ actually *do* something about it, but I'm not going to hold my breath...

Well, that comes down to who are you trying to prove it to? A reasonable person would conclude he obviously incited an armed mob to march on capital to stop the peaceful transfer of power. But if the jury has one cult member on it they can easily protect this criminal 

[ChiGoose]

8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Well, that comes down to who are you trying to prove it to? A reasonable person would conclude he obviously incited an armed mob to march on capital to stop the peaceful transfer of power. But if the jury has one cult member on it they can easily protect this criminal 

 

Even if you had a jury that didn't have Trump supporters on it, incitement to violence is a VERY difficult crime to prove.

 

The overall difficulty with securing a guilty verdict against Trump is that many of the crimes you might charge him with are intent crimes. Juries can decide intent, but unless you have a smoking gun document, you better have a ton of circumstantial evidence of intent.

 

For conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States, we have a mountain of sworn testimony and documentary evidence that Trump should have known that what he was doing was a crime.

 

The evidence that he was intentionally setting the mob against the Capitol is much less overwhelming. There's certainly some evidence to support that claim, but a good defense attorney would be able to introduce enough doubt in the mind of the jury about the intent element that he could skate on that charge.

[Doc]

49 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

She is doing a pretty good job. 

 

Yup.  Just like Joke...

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Even if you had a jury that didn't have Trump supporters on it, incitement to violence is a VERY difficult crime to prove.

 

The overall difficulty with securing a guilty verdict against Trump is that many of the crimes you might charge him with are intent crimes. Juries can decide intent, but unless you have a smoking gun document, you better have a ton of circumstantial evidence of intent.

 

For conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States, we have a mountain of sworn testimony and documentary evidence that Trump should have known that what he was doing was a crime.

 

The evidence that he was intentionally setting the mob against the Capitol is much less overwhelming. There's certainly some evidence to support that claim, but a good defense attorney would be able to introduce enough doubt in the mind of the jury about the intent element that he could skate on that charge.

I just disagree there. Looks to me like it was all a set up to overturn the election. Falsely claiming fraud, calling a wild mob on that particular time and place, pressuring VP then using mob to pressure VP, creating a war room at Williard's, telling the mob to fight like hell and then sending them to the capital to "stop the steal" 

 

People are not stupid and can put one and one together. Sure, defence can try and muddy the water, but the jury can clearly see what he was trying to do. Those people begging him to tell those animals to stop and he did nothing, that's damning. Shows its what he wanted them to do 

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yup.  Just like Joke...

Did you see NATO is expanding? Nice job Joe  

[njbuff]

Do you Trump-hating idiots actually have a life of your own or do you nutbags get off on having Trump live in your heads- RENT FREE????

 

Trump has been out of office a year and a half.... GET OVER YOURSELVES 

 

He will be 78 in 2024, he is not running again. Again, get over yourselves. 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

19 minutes ago, njbuff said:

Do you Trump-hating idiots actually have a life of your own or do you nutbags get off on having Trump live in your heads- RENT FREE????

 

Trump has been out of office a year and a half.... GET OVER YOURSELVES 

 

He will be 78 in 2024, he is not running again. Again, get over yourselves. 

 

 

I would think that the President of the United States trying to overturn an election based on debunked conspiracy theories is something worth wanting to know about. 
 

I would also think that seeing an entire political party swallow those lies and now campaign on them to ensure that they can overturn elections when they don’t like the outcome is newsworthy. 

[Doc]

50 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Did you see NATO is expanding? Nice job Joe  

 

He had nothing to do with it, and even you know it.  OTOH, if he'd only announced that Ukraine would not be joining NATO, it wouldn't look like a parking lot  full of rubble.

[ChiGoose]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He had nothing to do with it, and even you know it.  OTOH, if he'd only announced that Ukraine would not be joining NATO, it wouldn't look like a parking lot  full of rubble.

 

The idea that Russia only attacked Ukraine because it wanted to keep it out of NATO is just propaganda.

 

Russia invaded Ukraine and has been occupying parts of it since 2014. Do you honestly believe they would have packed up and gone home if Ukraine and NATO agreed that Ukraine wouldn't join? Or do you think maybe they would have found another pretext?

[Doc]

57 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

The idea that Russia only attacked Ukraine because it wanted to keep it out of NATO is just propaganda.

 

Russia invaded Ukraine and has been occupying parts of it since 2014. Do you honestly believe they would have packed up and gone home if Ukraine and NATO agreed that Ukraine wouldn't join? Or do you think maybe they would have found another pretext?

 

We'll never know now.

[cle23]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

He had nothing to do with it, and even you know it.  OTOH, if he'd only announced that Ukraine would not be joining NATO, it wouldn't look like a parking lot  full of rubble.

 

So now it's Biden's fault Russia invaded Ukraine, a country as previously stated, they have been occupying portions of for over 10 years.  You guys are something else.

[Doc]

15 minutes ago, cle23 said:

So now it's Biden's fault Russia invaded Ukraine, a country as previously stated, they have been occupying portions of for over 10 years.  You guys are something else.

 

Just playing the blame game.  Dems think it's Trump's fault because he weakened NATO something or other.