The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection

[BillStime]

Totally normal, right Lennnnny?

 

Trump to DOJ:

"just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R Congressmen"

Idiots

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

51 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Do you believe the President is above the law or that trying to steal an election is just something everyone does? Or something else 

I think a president (senator, congressperson etc) is afforded protection under rules and guidelines that are different than those that apply to regular folks like you and me.  Some of those protections are the result of the laws on the books, some are due to political affiliation and the power structure in Washington (or any state in the Union) at given point in time.  

 

I do not think that "trying to steal an election" is done by everyone.  I've never attempted to steal an election.  To my knowledge, @B-Man has never tried to steal an election.  I don't believe you have attempted to steal an election, Tibsy.  I could go on but while I don't know everyone, I know more than a few somebodies.  

Edited June 22, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[BillStime]

21 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think a president (senator, congressperson etc) is afforded protection under rules and guidelines that are different than those that apply to regular folks like you and me.  Some of those protections are the result of the laws on the books, some are due to political affiliation and the power structure in Washington (or any state in the Union) at given point in time.  

 

I do not think that "trying to steal an election" is done by everyone.  I've never attempted to steal an election.  To my knowledge, @B-Man has never tried to steal an election.  I don't believe you have attempted to steal an election, Tibsy.  I could go on but while I don't know everyone, I know more than a few somebodies.  

 

But you're ok with Conald stealing an election...

[ChiGoose]

27 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think a president (senator, congressperson etc) is afforded protection under rules and guidelines that are different than those that apply to regular folks like you and me.  Some of those protections are the result of the laws on the books, some are due to political affiliation and the power structure in Washington (or any state in the Union) at given point in time.  

 

I do not think that "trying to steal an election" is done by everyone.  I've never attempted to steal an election.  To my knowledge, @B-Man has never tried to steal an election.  I don't believe you have attempted to steal an election, Tibsy.  I could go on but while I don't know everyone, I know more than a few somebodies.  

 

They are afforded extra leeway under the speech and debate clause, but that's really only applicable in the course of legislative debate.

 

I haven't finished watching yesterday's hearing (didn't get a chance to start until 9pm), but what I saw is testimony that directly ties Trump to the fake electors scheme. That potentially could constitute fraud or other crimes. But I agree that the political structure (not the law) is what protects Trump here.

 

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

But you're ok with Conald stealing an election...

 

"Conald" is a bit juvenile.

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

They are afforded extra leeway under the speech and debate clause, but that's really only applicable in the course of legislative debate.

 

I haven't finished watching yesterday's hearing (didn't get a chance to start until 9pm), but what I saw is testimony that directly ties Trump to the fake electors scheme. That potentially could constitute fraud or other crimes. But I agree that the political structure (not the law) is what protects Trump here.

 

 

"Conald" is a bit juvenile.

Thanks Karen

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

They are afforded extra leeway under the speech and debate clause, but that's really only applicable in the course of legislative debate.

 

I haven't finished watching yesterday's hearing (didn't get a chance to start until 9pm), but what I saw is testimony that directly ties Trump to the fake electors scheme. That potentially could constitute fraud or other crimes. But I agree that the political structure (not the law) is what protects Trump here.

When charges are brought under the more (hopefully) rigorous standards associated with our criminal justice system, I'm happy to revisit these and any other alleged activities.  In the interim, I have precious little interest in watching political politicians politicking politically under the rules and guidelines of congressional committees.  

 

You've mentioned along the way that there are difference aspects to these committee hearings, including one that's looking at the lack of security that day.  That was pretty clearly a problem (though Colbert's puppet team people Mission Impossibled the %$#@ out it too) imo, but it seems to me that to get to the bottom of that, the last thing I would want to see is a bunch of amateurs long on wind and short on experience trying to figure anything out at all.  I realize it's done, it just seems silly to me.   

 

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

 

"Conald" is a bit juvenile.

Just add it to the list. 

[Tiberius]

55 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think a president (senator, congressperson etc) is afforded protection under rules and guidelines that are different than those that apply to regular folks like you and me.  Some of those protections are the result of the laws on the books, some are due to political affiliation and the power structure in Washington (or any state in the Union) at given point in time.  

 

I do not think that "trying to steal an election" is done by everyone.  I've never attempted to steal an election.  To my knowledge, @B-Man has never tried to steal an election.  I don't believe you have attempted to steal an election, Tibsy.  I could go on but while I don't know everyone, I know more than a few somebodies.  

You are not claiming that Trump didn't try and steal an election are you??? 

[ChiGoose]

10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

When charges are brought under the more (hopefully) rigorous standards associated with our criminal justice system, I'm happy to revisit these and any other alleged activities.  In the interim, I have precious little interest in watching political politicians politicking politically under the rules and guidelines of congressional committees.  

 

You've mentioned along the way that there are difference aspects to these committee hearings, including one that's looking at the lack of security that day.  That was pretty clearly a problem (though Colbert's puppet team people Mission Impossibled the %$#@ out it too) imo, but it seems to me that to get to the bottom of that, the last thing I would want to see is a bunch of amateurs long on wind and short on experience trying to figure anything out at all.  I realize it's done, it just seems silly to me.   

 

They've honestly been pretty good about keeping the chatter from the committee members to a minimum. The first 10-15 minutes are meh. but the rest is very tightly focused on the witnesses. Each session starts with statements from Thompson, Cheney, and whoever is leading the questioning that day. After that, it's almost entirely testimony from the witnesses, video from recorded testimony from other witnesses, with just a bit of context added by staffers.

 

Though in yesterday's session, Schiff was leading the questioning so I just zoned out during the opening statements and played Civ IV until the questioning actually started.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You are not claiming that Trump didn't try and steal an election are you??? 

I can not be any more clear than I have been.  

[BillsFanNC]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I can not be any more clear than I have been.  

 

Man, you have a very deep well of patience!

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

They've honestly been pretty good about keeping the chatter from the committee members to a minimum. The first 10-15 minutes are meh. but the rest is very tightly focused on the witnesses. Each session starts with statements from Thompson, Cheney, and whoever is leading the questioning that day. After that, it's almost entirely testimony from the witnesses, video from recorded testimony from other witnesses, with just a bit of context added by staffers.

 

Though in yesterday's session, Schiff was leading the questioning so I just zoned out during the opening statements and played Civ IV until the questioning actually started.

I would rather sit through a marathon lecture by Professor @Tiberius held down at the local VFW post entitled "Trump-A Conspiracy Too Far Question Mark" that combined hard-hitting socio-political commentary with an opportunity to learn safe driving habits and save me 10% on my insurance than watch those pudniks rattle on.    

 

Some folks love the wonkiness of all that stuff.  I'm just not one of those people. 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

27 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I would rather sit through a marathon lecture by Professor @Tiberius held down at the local VFW post entitled "Trump-A Conspiracy Too Far Question Mark" that combined hard-hitting socio-political commentary with an opportunity to learn safe driving habits and save me 10% on my insurance than watch those pudniks rattle on.    

 

Some folks love the wonkiness of all that stuff.  I'm just not one of those people. 

 

 

 

 

Just because he is a Republican you could care less what criminal actions he takes. 

[ChiGoose]

30 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Some folks love the wonkiness of all that stuff.  I'm just not one of those people. 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough, it's not for everyone. Personally, I love the wonkiness.

[BillStime]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Just because he is a Republican you could care less what criminal actions he takes. 

I could care less—this is true.  These are important issues, but your allegations without substantiation do not move the needle for me one way or the other. 
 

Don’t keep me in suspense though….where have the criminal charges been filed?   I see no evidence of this type of activity. 

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I could care less—this is true.  These are important issues, but your allegations without substantiation do not move the needle for me one way or the other. 
 

Don’t keep me in suspense though….where have the criminal charges been filed?   I see no evidence of this type of activity. 

You can care less if the president of your country is fighting to overturn the will of the people illegally? 

 

So if you were around in 1776 you would be like, "God save the king!" 

[BillStime]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You can care less if the president of your country is fighting to overturn the will of the people illegally? 

 

So if you were around in 1776 you would be like, "God save the king!" 

Oh he would care if the shoe were on the other foot…

 

 

[Tiberius]

This could be interesting 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You can care less if the president of your country is fighting to overturn the will of the people illegally? 

 

So if you were around in 1776 you would be like, "God save the king!" 

Again, Tibsy, you're confusing your characterization of events and actions with mine.  I already indicated I didn't think there was any criminal behavior.  I asked you for specifics, you don't have any.  None at all.  You're an empty vessel of nothingness adrift on an ocean of beige in this regard. 

 

So, I couldn't care more if a president was actually fighting to overturn the will of the people, it would be a major source of concern for me!  All I am asking of you is to point me in the direction of anything beyond you stating something is clear when it obviously is not. 

 

Why don't you care that there are no charges filed?  It's been nearly 2 years. 

 

Just to be clear--I was not around in 1776, but I was rooting for Mel Gibson against that limey %$#@ in The Patriot. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

This could be interesting 

 

 

Ok Tibs, this seems like a good time to ask. 

 

Andrew Rainbow sends out a tweet referencing a film crew purported to have evidence that makes Watergate look like jaywalking.  Wouldn't that particular stunning development that proves criminality on the part of DJT have been shared with the DOJ, FBI etc?  Wouldn't they act on that?  

 

Why all the cloak and dagger here?  The VCR film screening, the dramatic build up?  It sounds like more 1/6 flat earth truther material, no?  Or, are is the thinking that the film crew is actually part of the cabal?  Are they in on it, and the DOJ couldn't break them, so they put Schiffty on it?  

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[ChiGoose]

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Ok Tibs, this seems like a good time to ask. 

 

Andrew Rainbow sends out a tweet referencing a film crew purported to have evidence that makes Watergate look like jaywalking.  Wouldn't that particular stunning development that proves criminality on the part of DJT have been shared with the DOJ, FBI etc?  Wouldn't they act on that?  

 

Why all the cloak and dagger here?  The VCR film screening, the dramatic build up?  It sounds like more 1/6 flat earth truther material, no?  Or, are is the thinking that the film crew is actually part of the cabal?  Are they in on it, and the DOJ couldn't break them, so they put Schiffty on it?  

 

 

 

Something to keep in mind is that DoJ investigations are generally fairly slow. Remember that Durham was appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the Russia probe in May 2019 but didn't indict Sussman until September 2021, more than two years later.

 

Given the sheer size of the January 6th inquiry and the difficulties with potential prosecutions of members of the Executive Branch, a lack of indictments at this time does not necessarily imply that there were no crimes by higher ups, even as high as Trump.

 

We're mainly in "wait and see" mode to see where it leads. That's why I find the hearings helpful because, unlike before, we are getting actual sworn testimony now. It's not just people talking to the media where they can lie as much as they want.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Something to keep in mind is that DoJ investigations are generally fairly slow. Remember that Durham was appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the Russia probe in May 2019 but didn't indict Sussman until September 2021, more than two years later.

 

Given the sheer size of the January 6th inquiry and the difficulties with potential prosecutions of members of the Executive Branch, a lack of indictments at this time does not necessarily imply that there were no crimes by higher ups, even as high as Trump.

 

We're mainly in "wait and see" mode to see where it leads. That's why I find the hearings helpful because, unlike before, we are getting actual sworn testimony now. It's not just people talking to the media where they can lie as much as they want.

Yes, I understand that and have factored that into my analysis.  I'd invite you, if you were so inclined (I believe you are not)to find any place in my posts where I declared DJT or anyone else innocent of anything.  How the heck would I know? 

 

What I can state emphatically and with purpose, is that the lack of criminal charges does not suggest that Trump is guilty of anything.  I can also state, emphatically and with purpose, that simply because there is a political hearing of this nature it does not mean that criminal charges are imminent or pending. 

 

Still, when Tibsy is screaming in my ear that I stood with the Crown in 1776 among many other purported transgressions, and lobs accusations without source documents, I feel I am the aggrieved party.  

Edited June 22, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[BillStime]

Idiots

 

 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Yes, I understand that and have factored that into my analysis.  I'd invite you, if you were so inclined (I believe you are not)to find any place in my posts where I declared DJT or anyone else innocent of anything.  How the heck would I know? 

 

What I can state emphatically and with purpose, is that the lack of criminal charges does not suggest that Trump is guilty of anything.  I can also state, emphatically and with purpose, that simply because there is a political hearing of this nature that criminal charges are imminent or pending. 

 

Still, when Tibsy is screaming in my ear that I stood with the Crown in 1776 among many other purported transgressions, and lobs accusations without source documents, I feel I am the aggrieved party.  

 

Oh, for sure, I was not claiming you made such a statement about Trump's innocence. Just wanted to provide clarity on why we may not have seen more serious indictments yet.

 

A lack of charges at this stage obviously does not imply that Trump is guilty, but it also does not ensure that he isn't, given the length of these type of investigations.

 

I do not think the DoJ would rely on a congressional committee on whether or not to investigate or charge someone. They may find that the testimony provides color to what they already have, but by no means are they waiting for the committee to tell them who to indict. They have even rejected some of the committee's requests for prosecution.

 

The way that I look at it is that the DoJ has an investigation but it is generally under wraps because it is a law enforcement agency so even leaking that they are investigating someone is harmful to that person's reputation even if charges are not ultimately filed. The Jan 6th hearings can give us some insight into what the DoJ *might* be considering since they should have similar evidence (though they do not have as many teeth to get cooperation that the DoJ does).

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Oh, for sure, I was not claiming you made such a statement about Trump's innocence. Just wanted to provide clarity on why we may not have seen more serious indictments yet.

Cool.  

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

A lack of charges at this stage obviously does not imply that Trump is guilty, but it also does not ensure that he isn't, given the length of these type of investigations.

I'd suggest you can stop at "A lack of charges at this time obviously does not imply that Trump is guilty.".    Beyond that is speculation, and why bother? 

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I do not think the DoJ would rely on a congressional committee on whether or not to investigate or charge someone. They may find that the testimony provides color to what they already have, but by no means are they waiting for the committee to tell them who to indict. They have even rejected some of the committee's requests for prosecution.

I have faith in leadership in the DOJ only to a point.  I believe that political prosecution can be the byproduct of life in Washington, that power can corrupt, and that even well-intentioned prosecutors may act irresponsibly if they are convinced their actions are for the greater good.    Having said that, I'm happy to cross that bridge if it ever comes to it, but at this point, there ain't a body of water in sight. 

 

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The way that I look at it is that the DoJ has an investigation but it is generally under wraps because it is a law enforcement agency so even leaking that they are investigating someone is harmful to that person's reputation even if charges are not ultimately filed. The Jan 6th hearings can give us some insight into what the DoJ *might* be considering since they should have similar evidence (though they do not have as many teeth to get cooperation that the DoJ does).

I think having faith that the DoJ would not manipulate, leak, strong-arm, communicate with the press, misrepresent evidence and destroy a reputation is admirable, but defies conventional wisdom and logic. 

[Tiberius]

So the committee will do an entire hearing on connection between Trump admin and Proud Boys. Wow 

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Ok Tibs, this seems like a good time to ask. 

 

Andrew Rainbow sends out a tweet referencing a film crew purported to have evidence that makes Watergate look like jaywalking.  Wouldn't that particular stunning development that proves criminality on the part of DJT have been shared with the DOJ, FBI etc?  Wouldn't they act on that?  

 

Why all the cloak and dagger here?  The VCR film screening, the dramatic build up?  It sounds like more 1/6 flat earth truther material, no?  Or, are is the thinking that the film crew is actually part of the cabal?  Are they in on it, and the DOJ couldn't break them, so they put Schiffty on it?  

 

 

Oh, you are saying that if there was a crime DOJ would prosecute? 

 

Investigations take time and we are in the public grand jury faze now. You are obviously not convinced and totally unconvincable. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

So the committee will do an entire hearing on connection between Trump admin and Proud Boys. Wow 

Oh, you are saying that if there was a crime DOJ would prosecute? 

 

Investigations take time and we are in the public grand jury faze now. You are obviously not convinced and totally unconvincable. 

I’m not convinced 100% convinced there is such a thing as a “public grand jury faze”.  I am 100% convinced you made that up. 
 

Be that as it may, why not just answer honestly?  I have come to expect these absurd shenanigans from BillSy, but what do you gain from this silliness?  You asked me questions. I asked for additional clarification, respected the process when you declined to do so, and answered to your follow up question. 
 

There is no trickery involved in my question. Do you think the DOJ has this previously unknown secret documentary evidence that reveals in explicit detail the criminality of DJT?   If so why haven’t we seen it?  Do you feel the DOJ was waiting for the committee to do the screening before acting?  
 

 

[Doc]

43 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m not convinced 100% convinced there is such a thing as a “public grand jury faze”.  I am 100% convinced you made that up. 
 

Be that as it may, why not just answer honestly?  I have come to expect these absurd shenanigans from BillSy, but what do you gain from this silliness?  You asked me questions. I asked for additional clarification, respected the process when you declined to do so, and answered to your follow up question. 
 

There is no trickery involved in my question. Do you think the DOJ has this previously unknown secret documentary evidence that reveals in explicit detail the criminality of DJT?   If so why haven’t we seen it?  Do you feel the DOJ was waiting for the committee to do the screening before acting? 

 

Let me answer for them: "the DOJ is scared/incompetent/not as powerful as a committee of Senators..."

[BillStime]

 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Let me answer for them: "the DOJ is scared/incompetent/not as powerful as a committee of Senators..."

 

Unlike a Congressional committee, the DoJ has the ability to deprive us of life, liberty, and/or property. They have VERY different standards, and they should. 

[L Ron Burgundy]

2 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

This just keep getting better and better.  Also, dumber and dumber.  These people need to be held accountable. 

[BillStime]

The most corrupt administration in our lifetime.

 

 

[BillStime]

On 1/25/2022 at 9:42 AM, Tiberius said:

Thanks to the committee’s work, for example, we discovered:

The president and assistant attorney general Jeffrey Clark schemed to involve the Justice Department in a plot to invalidate the election;

An executive order was drafted to allow the federal government to seize voting machines;

Seven states put forth fake slates of electors;

Former president Donald Trump was reportedly in contact with a team led by Rudolph W. Giuliani, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn and Stephen K. Bannon, who set up a post at the Willard hotel working to delay certification of electoral votes; and

Republican members of Congress sent texts to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows concerning the plan to engage the Justice Department or to prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes.

Witch hunt? Trump tried overturning an election he lost. Are you an American? Whose side are you on? Seriously, do you believe in our system of government?

 

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

"there would not have been a transition"

 

What did Barr know?

 

 

[Tiberius]

"You may not follow the internet the way I do."

 

Ha ha ha! 

[BillStime]

Idiots 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

"You may not follow the internet the way I do."

 

Ha ha ha! 

 

I do not miss having a president who was suffering from severe Very Online Brain syndrome.

[Andy1]

Either:

A. Trump is mentally impaired and unable to discern fact from fiction leading him to do illegal actions. 

B. Dozens of Republicans in states and in the Trump administration are lying under oath and conspiring to frame Trump.

or

C. Trump knew what he was doing was illegal and conspired with others to attempt to overturn the results of the election. 
 

Take your choice.