Jan 6 public hearings Live

[+Hammerclaw]

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The coup was the events leading up to and eventually culminating in the Jan 6 attack. Have you just not been paying attention to this at all? Trump attempted, in numerous ways, to overflow the election.

I strongly suggest you watch the hearings.

He vociferously disputed, quite vehemently, the results of the election and unsuccessfully tried to recruit others in the attempt to contest those results. These claims no doubt played a part in inciting the J6 brouhaha which didn't result in a coup nor overturned the election and Trump was never arrested for even so much as inciting to riot. All I've gleaned, thus far, from transcripts of the hearing, is unsubstantiated accusations and hearsay evidence. As for the videos of the brouhaha, you Brits have seen far worse at football pitches. As for watching it Live, no thanks. I'm too old for the circus. I know it all seems so pompous and grandiose, but it's really no different than the raucous goings on in your own House of Commons.

[ExpandMyMind]

5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

He vociferously disputed, quite vehemently, the results of the election and unsuccessfully tried to recruit others in the attempt to contest those results. These claims no doubt played a part in inciting the J6 brouhaha which didn't result in a coup nor overturned the election and Trump was never arrested for even so much as inciting to riot. All I've gleaned, thus far, from transcripts of the hearing, is unsubstantiated accusations and hearsay evidence. As for the videos of the brouhaha, you Brits have seen far worse at football pitches. As for watching it Live, no thanks. I'm too old for the circus. I know it all seems so pompous and grandiose, but it's really no different than the raucous goings on in your own House of Commons.

Hmm. I’d say Trump’s lawyer writing to Pence’s lawyer trying to order Pence not to certify Biden is a bit more than hearsay. As is the rest of the evidence.

This is how conservatives are born btw. The uncanny ability to just completely disregard or ignore evidence in favour of what you already want to believe.

And I’m pretty sure we’ve never seen a violent mob of hundreds and thousands storm Westminster Abbey looking to murder the opposition leader along with the Prime Minister’s second in command, killing multiple people on their way to do so. Like what in the actual **** are you talking about? That was the most insane thing to happen on your soil since before the combustion engine was invented. You’re acting like it was a punch up between Chelsea and Millwall.

[Doug1066]

Hammerclaw:  Just as they'll have proving an unarmed mob

Anything used as a weapon IS a weapon.  That includes flagstaffs, fire extinguishers and other items either brought with them or picked up en route.  Thye "mob" was both armed and organized.

Doug

[Doug1066]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

I guess I'm confused by all the strawmen comments you're making lol.

That's the purpose of strawman comments.  They're working.

Doug

[+DieChecker]

13 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It’s not over yet. What we already know shows that Trump tried to carry out a coup.

That’s the most politically significant event in US history since before anyone alive was born.

Thats what they said of the Mueller Report, and the Steele Dossier before that. 

I'd agree Trump tried to conduct a coup if there was any way that preventing the Senate recording would do so. At BEST it would only delay the count. Unless Trump destroyed every record of the counts, which is impossible given their electronic nature. Its not like the results were in a trunk and taking that trunk makes him president.

[+DieChecker]

10 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

You should read Pence lawyers Memo to Pence on it 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/11/pence-trump-jan-6-lawyer-memo-00038996

The Jan 6 rioters and if Trump encouraged them to storm the white house aside. 

So if there was a standoff created, what are the odds Trump comes out on top? IMHO, near zero.

From what I read yesterday, the arguement is Pence would refuse to confirm specific state results, thus not confirming Biden as the winner, but that wouldn't mean Trump wins. At worse it would delay the count. Doubtless the SCOTUS would declare Biden the winner at some point.

If the arguement is Pence would just declare Trump the winner, again, I think that would only work for days, not years.

If this was the Coup Plan, it was crazy stupid. There'd have to be more to it, or it would never stick.

[+DieChecker]

10 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Are you saying Trump didn't try to throw the election results out to stay president? Or are you saying that you're fine with candidates you vote for trying to overturn the voters as long as they don't do an effective job at it?

Sort of loaded questions, but that's just to get to my point of how there seems to be a sizeable chunk of conservatives who are passively fine with Trump turning their party into one that does not support democracy 

I'm saying he did a third world, uber lame, attempt at it. I think he was passed off, so he created a riot to see what might come of it.

I believe I did say whatever he did, he should be punished for. I also said I believe he'll be found guilty, but sentenced to some lame punishment thats basically only symbolic. Thats not my idea if justice, its what I think will happen. 

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Just has a heads up 'I'm too retarded to actually pull off the conspiracy I tried to pull off live on national television' is not a legal defense with a leg to stand on. 

We saw the whole thing unfold live on national TV. It's exactly as up for debate as 'did will smith slap a guy at the oscars', we all saw him do it, he can't deny that he did it to weasel out of trouble. 

So what exactly did he do? What actions and planning did he do to make the coup happen?

AFAIK, all he did was cause a riot/insurrection. AND have idiot lawyers try to cook up some method to reject the election results. Which IMHO he didn't find. So he threw a hail mary and asked Pence not to confirm the Senate count. Which also didn't happen.

Overall, hopelessly weak and ineffective attempt. Regardless if you call it a riot, a coup, or an insurrection, it was badly organized and badly conducted.

[Agent0range]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

So what exactly did he do? What actions and planning did he do to make the coup happen?

AFAIK, all he did was cause a riot/insurrection. AND have idiot lawyers try to cook up some method to reject the election results. Which IMHO he didn't find. So he threw a hail mary and asked Pence not to confirm the Senate count. Which also didn't happen.

Overall, hopelessly weak and ineffective attempt. Regardless if you call it a riot, a coup, or an insurrection, it was badly organized and badly conducted.

Don't forget asking Georgia to "find the votes" to change the outcome there.  And the only reason we know of that is because the Secretary of State of Georgia recorded the call.  Would you doubt he called other states requesting the same?  

[+DieChecker]

13 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Don't forget asking Georgia to "find the votes" to change the outcome there.  And the only reason we know of that is because the Secretary of State of Georgia recorded the call.  Would you doubt he called other states requesting the same?  

Thats true. Is there a crime there though? And everyone involved, AFAIK, other then Trump said "No" to that suggestion. 

Did Trump go beyond asking? Threats? Bribes? No? Why not? Isnt being president worth a little bribe or two? If he really wanted to "Win", he wasn't trying very hard.... is my point. 

[+DieChecker]

6 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

You have not been listening then.  Moving pawns is not the entire chess game. 

Consider this, if the rioters had been armed, we would not be having this conversation. If capitol police and Congress people had been murdered, it would be an obvious and violent coup.  Donald Trumps would have replaced Benedict Arnold as the icon for a traitor to the United States.

 

So was his aim NOT to "Win"? What then was the point of asking Pence and then stirring up the rioters?

I heard this about Bush2. That 9-11 was him doing 3D chess to start his war. I didnt buy him being a super genius, and I don't buy that Trump is a 3D Chess Genius either.

The Democrats already said he's worse then Benedict Arnold. Why wouldn't he take it a step further if needed?

Perhaps he underestimated the police resistance, or overestimated the rioters?

[spartan max2]

47 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So if there was a standoff created, what are the odds Trump comes out on top? IMHO, near zero.

From what I read yesterday, the arguement is Pence would refuse to confirm specific state results, thus not confirming Biden as the winner, but that wouldn't mean Trump wins. At worse it would delay the count. Doubtless the SCOTUS would declare Biden the winner at some point.

If the arguement is Pence would just declare Trump the winner, again, I think that would only work for days, not years.

If this was the Coup Plan, it was crazy stupid. There'd have to be more to it, or it would never stick.

I think the plan was something like claim fraud. Have the Justice department declare there is fraud and significant concerns about the election.

Pence send the electors back.

Republican legislators in one or two swing states send "alternate electors" to vote Trump. Putting Trump as the victor in electorial votes. 

Use the riot on Jan six to declare temporary martial law. 

Hold onto power until the supreme court rules in your favor. Because 4 of whom you appointed and 1 of whoms wife your office emails and coordinates with.

Fortunately there were enough conservatives with integrity not to listen to him despite pressure from Trump. The Justice department refused. The vice president refused, Georgia and other Republicans refused, etc.

If anyone of these things happened it could of caused confusion and out us in an unprecedented situation. Ultimately it was probably a longshot but a failed attempt is still an attempt and should be seen as the dark spot it was.

However, my problem, and the reason I care so much is that this idea didn't die. 2/3rds of house Republicans voted to not certify the election and over half of Republicans winning primaries currently believe the election was a fraud.

That's dangerous because its not going away and means an attempt could happen again.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2022 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Did Trump go beyond asking? Threats? Bribes? No? Why not? Isnt being president worth a little bribe or two? If he really wanted to "Win", he wasn't trying very hard.... is my point. 

Idk if there were any bribes or anything. I'm sure the Jan 6 committee will happily point the information out in the coming days if it exist.

However political pressure is a real thing. The threat of not being re-elected because now all of Trump's supporters which make up a large part of the republican party view you as an enemy. 

 

[+Link of Hyrule]

9 hours ago, Gromdor said:

So legally the commentators escapedl punishment.  It doesn't disprove the fact that America is full of "Unreasonable" (or as Tucker's lawyers put it "stupid") people that take what they say as fact/truth.  Nor does it in any way give them credibility more than "It's that one entertainer's opinion on TV".

Read the decisions for yourself, in the words of the judges who made the rulings. There is little difference legally in the two cases, and most lawyers commenting on the two stories highlighted the similarities over and over. 

Rachel Maddow vs OAN

Tucker Carlson vs Karen McDougal

That said, your final sentence doesn't contradict anything anyone has said. Yes, it is that person's opinion. Many news segments on these shows are seen as "news commentators", rather than "news presenters" (you even described them as "commentators" - commentary allows for opinions, in fact you can't have commentary without opinions). 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Hmm. I’d say Trump’s lawyer writing to Pence’s lawyer trying to order Pence not to certify Biden is a bit more than hearsay. As is the rest of the evidence.

This is how conservatives are born btw. The uncanny ability to just completely disregard or ignore evidence in favour of what you already want to believe.

And I’m pretty sure we’ve never seen a violent mob of hundreds and thousands storm Westminster Abbey looking to murder the opposition leader along with the Prime Minister’s second in command, killing multiple people on their way to do so. Like what in the actual **** are you talking about? That was the most insane thing to happen on your soil since before the combustion engine was invented. You’re acting like it was a punch up between Chelsea and Millwall.

The only person killed during the brouhaha was the protester who was murdered. Why are you lying? It was an extraordinary example of Americans exercising their right to peacefully protest. You can't blame them all by the actions of a handful of miscreants. After all, that's the liberal defense of all the violent protests preceding J6 perpetrated across the country and in D.C. itself, by their side. I'm glad our politicians got a taste of the fear experienced by ordinary Americans who endured those unfortunate occurrences.

[Gromdor]

40 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Read the decisions for yourself, in the words of the judges who made the rulings. There is little difference legally in the two cases, and most lawyers commenting on the two stories highlighted the similarities over and over. 

Rachel Maddow vs OAN

Tucker Carlson vs Karen McDougal

That said, your final sentence doesn't contradict anything anyone has said. Yes, it is that person's opinion. Many news segments on these shows are seen as "news commentators", rather than "news presenters" (you even described them as "commentators" - commentary allows for opinions, in fact you can't have commentary without opinions). 

 

Oh,  just wanted to air out the fact that quoting Tucker Carlson or Rachael Maddow has less weight than a member just expressing an opinion without any facts as both have admitted in court to having perverted their comments towards an agenda (and disparaging in court the people that believe them without thinking for themselves).

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

So was his aim NOT to "Win"? What then was the point of asking Pence and then stirring up the rioters?

I heard this about Bush2. That 9-11 was him doing 3D chess to start his war. I didnt buy him being a super genius, and I don't buy that Trump is a 3D Chess Genius either.

The Democrats already said he's worse then Benedict Arnold. Why wouldn't he take it a step further if needed?

Perhaps he underestimated the police resistance, or overestimated the rioters?

Your guess is a as good as mine.  Right now I am surmising too many advisors.

Rudy struck out in a number of court cases.

Trump, Lindsey Graham, and Rudy were calling on states to get them to find votes.  Maybe Ginni Thomas too. 

There was an attempt to use the  DOJ by issuing a fake letter to swing states.

Peter Navarro had the Green Bay Sweep in action.

"Keep the crazies away from him," says Sean Hannity, but it was after a meeting with Sydney Powell, Rudy, and Eastman that Trump's tweets went out.   

Navarro said later they could have done the sweep if it were not for those meddling rioters.

They tried too many things at once to cross purposes and stumbled all over each other.

 

What might-have-beens?  Shooters among the rioters  would have prompted a much quicker response from Pence calling out the National Guard.  Likely some Congress people would have been killed. Very likely Cabinet members would have gotten Pence's agreement to initiate the 25th Amendment.

The shock and deaths would have been hard to gloss over.

 

 

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Oh,  just wanted to air out the fact that quoting Tucker Carlson or Rachael Maddow has less weight than a member just expressing an opinion without any facts as both have admitted in court to having perverted their comments towards an agenda (and disparaging in court the people that believe them without thinking for themselves).

I don't think it really shows much beyond both Carlson and Maddow having an agenda. But I could have told you that before these court cases went to court. They are both as trustworthy (or untrustworthy) as each other, however. I would never personally use Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow as a primary source for anything. If I agreed with their opinions I might share a video of them with that opinion and say something like "this opinion mirrors my opinion, and they are saying it more succinctly than I could", but I'd be pointing to the sources these people use rather than them as somehow reporters of news. 

But as I don't watch much of either individual I can't say as I've ever used Maddow or Carlson as a source.  I trust very little from MSNBC, and only slightly more from Fox News, but will almost always get my daily news from sources other than MSNBC or Fox. 

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I think the plan was something like claim fraud. Have the Justice department declare there is fraud and significant concerns about the election.

Pence send the electors back.

Republican legislators in one or two swing states send "alternate electors" to vote Trump. Putting Trump as the victor in electorial votes. 

Use the riot on Jan six to declare temporary martial law. 

Hold onto power until the supreme court rules in your favor. Because 4 of whom you appointed and 1 of whoms wife your office emails and coordinates with.

Is that what the 1-6 hearings have discovered? Or just the suspicions.  I'd say all of those was a Longshot and together paint him as desperate and grabbing at straws. But, you are correct he did all those things. So whichever are illegal he should be punished for.

Quote

Fortunately there were enough conservatives with integrity not to listen to him despite pressure from Trump. The Justice department refused. The vice president refused, Georgia and other Republicans refused, etc.

I've not really read about anyone, not even his kids/family, who actually supported any of this. Where there false electors ready? Governors standing by? Justice Department set? Supreme Court set?

I don't think he had any support.

Quote

If anyone of these things happened it could of caused confusion and out us in an unprecedented situation. Ultimately it was probably a longshot but a failed attempt is still an attempt and should be seen as the dark spot it was.

It could have been bad, I agree. But, seemingly, no one went along with "The Plan", as has been outlined. Supreme Court, and Justice Department, showed no more willing to support Trump then Pence was.

Still, as I said, Trump should be punished for any criminal actions. Even if the attempt wasn't even worthy of the poorest third world dictatorship. 

Quote

However, my problem, and the reason I care so much is that this idea didn't die. 2/3rds of house Republicans voted to not certify the election and over half of Republicans winning primaries currently believe the election was a fraud.

That's dangerous because its not going away and means an attempt could happen again.

I'd say that's a separate problem. That's the Rs voting against the Ds on everything. Symbolically mostly. I dont think that vote is reflective of support for Trumps riot, or election tampering attempts.

This is a problem that needs a return to bipartisanship, and concensus, and concessions made. Not just party line voting out of anger and revenge.

I'll keep in mind that many have said that the election was a fraud. And see how many that win still hold to that. I think many held to that because they still wanted Trumps blessing on their campaigns. If many get elected without Trump, his power might get broken, and people will ignore him after that. 

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Idk if there were any bribes or anything. I'm sure the Jan 6 committee will happily point the information out in the coming days if it exist.

However political pressure is a real thing. The threat of not being re-elected because now all of Trump's supporters which make up a large part of the republican party view you as an enemy. 

 

Its very true and why he has so many politicians backing him, if only tentatively. The Republican party follows whom is currently leading. They followed McCain and Romney, not so long ago. Now they're seen as passe, but Trump will go the same way after 2024, if he's not elected again. Republican loyalty will pass to whomever takes up that leadership. Not sure who that might be yet, but it looks like Florida Governor DeSantis is probably the favorite right now. Georgia governor Kemp also getting a lot of press. 

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

This is how conservatives are born btw. The uncanny ability to just completely disregard or ignore evidence in favour of what you already want to believe.

You mean like believing a man is a woman just because he says so? Because its what you want to believe?

Thats a HUMAN ability buddy, not just a Conservative one.

[+DieChecker]

44 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Your guess is a as good as mine.  Right now I am surmising too many advisors.

Rudy struck out in a number of court cases.

Trump, Lindsey Graham, and Rudy were calling on states to get them to find votes.  Maybe Ginni Thomas too. 

There was an attempt to use the  DOJ by issuing a fake letter to swing states.

Peter Navarro had the Green Bay Sweep in action.

"Keep the crazies away from him," says Sean Hannity, but it was after a meeting with Sydney Powell, Rudy, and Eastman that Trump's tweets went out.   

Navarro said later they could have done the sweep if it were not for those meddling rioters.

They tried too many things at once to cross purposes and stumbled all over each other.

 

What might-have-beens?  Shooters among the rioters  would have prompted a much quicker response from Pence calling out the National Guard.  Likely some Congress people would have been killed. Very likely Cabinet members would have gotten Pence's agreement to initiate the 25th Amendment.

The shock and deaths would have been hard to gloss over.

Yet there was shock and deaths anyway. Thus these hearings.

I will agree whatever their plan was, it was chaotically contrived and carried out. Likely just those top guys put out calls and no one went with their suggestions. Thank God!

My point was, if Trump really wanted to stay in power, there were Lots of options he could have done, but didn't because the result, if he lost, which was by far more likely, would have been so much worse. Like him being dragged off in chains on the morning of January 7th. 

So, yes, he tried to finagle the election results, but stopped, mostly, short of an open coup attempt. Short of Treason.

That doesn't excuse his actions, but I think it does indicate he didn't really believe he'd win. He just wanted payback for loosing.

[Agent0range]

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

My point was, if Trump really wanted to stay in power, there were Lots of options he could have done

Elaborate please.  What other options do you think he had?

[+DieChecker]

22 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Elaborate please.  What other options do you think he had?

Bribes, threats, hiring thugs. Arming the rioters. All of which would be criminal and messy, but which would make his goal of retaining control come true easier. If he assumed power as a dictator, which is what we're assuming right? Then he'd be able to give out money and power, and punish those who were against him. This is often seen in third world coups. Usually with military backing however. Unfortunately for Trump he had no backing by anyone except a handful of devoted followers willing to riot for him. Thus his takeover was doomed before it ever started. And he didn't go full Criminal, so he didn't win that way either. 

I can hardly believe he tried any of it, because it all was so very likely to fail. It would be a reflection of his ego that he tried any of this at all. 

 

[Gromdor]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

The only person killed during the brouhaha was the protester who was murdered. Why are you lying? It was an extraordinary example of Americans exercising their right to peacefully protest. You can't blame them all by the actions of a handful of miscreants. After all, that's the liberal defense of all the violent protests preceding J6 perpetrated across the country and in D.C. itself, by their side. I'm glad our politicians got a taste of the fear experienced by ordinary Americans who endured those unfortunate occurrences.

Now, now.  I'm sure the officer feared for his life, so it's perfectly legal for him to shoot. (according to numerous previous court cases in similar matters.).

Murder is illegal killing after all...

Edit to add: Ashli wasn't the only person to die that day, btw.  These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Edited June 13, 2022 by Gromdor