Jan 6 public hearings Live

[Tiggs]

10 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

RIght now I've dismissed all of it, hearsay doesn't hold much value, especially when there are those who were there saying it never happened.

Still not seeing any evidence, five days on, that they've contacted the committee to testify under oath to that effect.

Possibly because the Committee tweeted a interesting clip from the C-SPAN video of the car leaving the Elipse.

Interesting, because it's been edited to skip the part that shows through tinted windows a figure in the back of the car lurching forward.

Almost as if they're gently reminding those agents that their testimony is not the only evidence available to the Committee.
 

10 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

This whole committee is a sham and unless it completely exonerates Trump or leads to criminal convictions (it won't do either) then it's just a divisive witch hunt, like I've said several times. 

Somehow doubt they'll exonerate the guy who riled up a crowd, some of whom he knew were armed, and then launched them at the Capitol, with plans to join them.

[preacherman76]

Now I gotta see this movie everyone is talking about. 

[+Paranoid Android]

19 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I pointed out the attempted insult doesn't even make sense.  

It's not even a cryptic example of Godwin's Law.

The knowledge of themes in the movie are more powerful than offence.

I don't think it matters. His intention was to call me a racist/Neo-Nazi. He obviously lacks the basic knowledge of what the movie was about, but this isn't a Film Studies course. This is the United States News section of unexplained-mysteries.com. Educating him about the themes in a movie aren't going to change the intention he had in posting, and I was responding to that intention to highlight just how ridiculous it is that people on the left call people on the right racists and Nazi's because we have a difference of opinion.  

The left constantly demonstrates it is intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. The left pretends to care about diversity, but it only cares about superficial diversity - what's on the outside. Diversity of thought is scary to the left, and many on the left consider diversity of thought to be the one unforgivable sin, and anyone who has a difference of opinion is painted as a bigot/racist/Nazi/etc (Agent Orange is simply carrying on the long tradition of intolerant leftists when he accused me of being a Neo-Nazi).

[+Paranoid Android]

13 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Still not seeing any evidence, five days on, that they've contacted the committee to testify under oath to that effect.

Possibly because the Committee tweeted a interesting clip from the C-SPAN video of the car leaving the Elipse.

Interesting, because it's been edited to skip the part that shows through tinted windows a figure in the back of the car lurching forward.

Almost as if they're gently reminding those agents that their testimony is not the only evidence available to the Committee.
 

The committee knows. Whether they provide a report on it is a different story, they are already selectively presenting a witch hunt! 

 

13 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Somehow doubt they'll exonerate the guy who riled up a crowd, some of whom he knew were armed, and then launched them at the Capitol, with plans to join them.

If he did all those things, he should be criminally charged! But he didn't, this is a fake narrative that doesn't reflect the facts! 

edit. Apparently "go and peacefully make your voices heard" is code for "launching an armed crowd at the Capitol". 

 

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't think it matters. His intention was to call me a racist/Neo-Nazi. He obviously lacks the basic knowledge of what the movie was about, but this isn't a Film Studies course. This is the United States News section of unexplained-mysteries.com. Educating him about the themes in a movie aren't going to change the intention he had in posting, and I was responding to that intention to highlight just how ridiculous it is that people on the left call people on the right racists and Nazi's because we have a difference of opinion.  

The left constantly demonstrates it is intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. The left pretends to care about diversity, but it only cares about superficial diversity - what's on the outside. Diversity of thought is scary to the left, and many on the left consider diversity of thought to be the one unforgivable sin, and anyone who has a difference of opinion is painted as a bigot/racist/Nazi/etc (Agent Orange is simply carrying on the long tradition of intolerant leftists when he accused me of being a Neo-Nazi).

If it's obvious that the person hurling insults displays ignorance in that act, in my perception, the insult loses power, and the would-be offender should be potentially be embarrassed.

However, perhsos you're right.  Maybe an ad homimen rant full of hasty generalisations about an obsolete spectrum will really educate "the other".

Edited July 4, 2022 by Golden Duck

[Tatetopa]

14 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Still not seeing any evidence, five days on, that they've contacted the committee to testify under oath to that effect.

Possibly because the Committee tweeted a interesting clip from the C-SPAN video of the car leaving the Elipse.

Interesting, because it's been edited to skip the part that shows through tinted windows a figure in the back of the car lurching forward.

Almost as if they're gently reminding those agents that their testimony is not the only evidence available to the Committee.

A little bit of a quandary for me.   The Secret Service is supposed to protect the President and the office of the President. Maybe their policy should be "No Comment".   

Nobody has denied that Trump knew the crowd was armed, in his speech  he is recorded asking the Secret Service and the military  to let them in.  There are shots of armed people outside the speech that are armed.  That is a big deal.

Nobody has denied that Trump wanted to go to the capital.  That is a big deal.   Those two facts are sufficient to go forward.

Trump maybe or maybe not having a tantrum in the Beast is really not the big deal of the Hutchinson testimony.  Maybe it is reasonable for the Secret Service not to comment, but not deny the accusation if it is true.

[+Paranoid Android]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

If it's obvious that the person hurling insults displays ignorance in that act, in my perception, the insult loses power, and the would-be offender should be potentially be embarrassed.

However, perhsos you're right.  Maybe an ad homimen rant full of hasty generalisations about an obsolete spectrum will really educate "the other".

I disagree. Addressing the context may invalidate the analogy, but it doesn't invalidate his intentions! Dealing with his intentions (calling me a Neo-Nazi) is more important than pointing out inconsistencies in his analogies. I honestly don't think he's even seen Romper Stomper, he just chose an Australian film with a skin head as the main character because I'm an Australian who he sees as holding a similar ideology. That intention remains, regardless of the validity of the analogy!  

I will ALWAYS call out those who call me a racist/Neo-Nazi/etc! To do otherwise is to tacitly accept it. If that means people like Orange are going to get a reaction out of me, then so be it. Orange did say he was posting mainly to get a reaction, so congratulations on his trolling working. It will always work because I refuse to accept to be called just about the worst thing you can call a human being. There is no way I am going to let it slide when someone tries to link my beliefs to the murder of millions of Jews, let alone all the other atrocities done in the name of the Nazi party. 

There's a reason Godwin's Law is often seen as the de facto end of a discussion! I can't see any reasonable discussion to be furthered between us right about now! 

[Tiggs]

5 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The committee knows. Whether they provide a report on it is a different story, they are already selectively presenting a witch hunt! 

I'd expect the committee does know.

And the account they've decided the American people need to hear is Hutchinson's.
 

5 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

If he did all those things, he should be criminally charged! But he didn't, this is a fake narrative that doesn't reflect the facts! 

edit. Apparently "go and peacefully make your voices heard" is code for "launching an armed crowd at the Capitol". 

"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

Saying one thing while meaning another — especially when you then go on to talk about the other, in great detail — is a rhetorical trick as old as the hills.

Or, at least — as old as Shakespeare.

Either way — the DOJ has gathered a multitude of witnesses under oath claiming that they took part in violence at the Capitol because they believed the President had directed them to do so.
 

[+Paranoid Android]

7 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

I'd expect the committee does know.

And the account they've decided the American people need to hear is Hutchinson's.
 

"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

Saying one thing while meaning another — especially when you then go on to talk about the other, in great detail — is a rhetorical trick as old as the hills.

Or, at least — as old as Shakespeare.

Either way — the DOJ has gathered a multitude of witnesses under oath claiming that they took part in violence at the Capitol because they believed the President had directed them to do so.
 

I suspect we shall have to agree to disagree. Best wishes, Tiggs  

~ Regards, PA

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I disagree. Addressing the context may invalidate the analogy, but it doesn't invalidate his intentions! Dealing with his intentions (calling me a Neo-Nazi) is more important than pointing out inconsistencies in his analogies. I honestly don't think he's even seen Romper Stomper, he just chose an Australian film with a skin head as the main character because I'm an Australian who he sees as holding a similar ideology. That intention remains, regardless of the validity of the analogy!  

I will ALWAYS call out those who call me a racist/Neo-Nazi/etc! To do otherwise is to tacitly accept it. If that means people like Orange are going to get a reaction out of me, then so be it. Orange did say he was posting mainly to get a reaction, so congratulations on his trolling working. It will always work because I refuse to accept to be called just about the worst thing you can call a human being. There is no way I am going to let it slide when someone tries to link my beliefs to the murder of millions of Jews, let alone all the other atrocities done in the name of the Nazi party. 

There's a reason Godwin's Law is often seen as the de facto end of a discussion! I can't see any reasonable discussion to be furthered between us right about now! 

Oh well, I'm sure your right, and I'm sure you'll change his mind.

[lightly]

Jan 6 riot happened to stall the certification of the election .. it was trump’s final desperate attempt to retain power after all of his other planning and scheming and election tampering Failed.  Election tampering is a crime.  Trump knows he’s guilty.. he’ll probably keep talking until everyone else is convinced as he is!* 

[Agent0range]

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't think it matters. His intention was to call me a racist/Neo-Nazi. He obviously lacks the basic knowledge of what the movie was about, but this isn't a Film Studies course. This is the United States News section of unexplained-mysteries.com. Educating him about the themes in a movie aren't going to change the intention he had in posting, and I was responding to that intention to highlight just how ridiculous it is that people on the left call people on the right racists and Nazi's because we have a difference of opinion.  

LOL, you're still on about this?  You've never said anything racist on here.  My intent was to to trigger you with an obscure Australian movie...the only Australian move I can name actually, because you're Australian.  I only meant to trigger, not scar for life which seems to be the case..

[+Paranoid Android]

8 hours ago, Agent0range said:

LOL, you're still on about this?  You've never said anything racist on here.  My intent was to to trigger you with an obscure Australian movie...the only Australian move I can name actually, because you're Australian.  I only meant to trigger, not scar for life which seems to be the case..

That makes absolutely zero sense. But ok! 

If you imply I am a racist or Neo-Nazi, I guess you will trigger me. Your trolling paid off! Call me a Neo-Nazi again, and it will probably work again too! Because I don't accept being called a Nazi! 

[Tiggs]

Next hearing of the Jan 6th Committee is Tuesday, July 12th at 10:00am ET.

[spartan max2]

3 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Next hearing of the Jan 6th Committee is Tuesday, July 12th at 10:00am ET.

They are always doing it in the middle of work lol

[Tiggs]

Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought back against Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to testify by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

The agreement was a breakthrough for the panel, which has pressed for weeks for Mr. Cipollone to cooperate — and issued a subpoena to him last week — believing he could provide crucial testimony.

Source: The New York Times.

Transcribed interview, happening behind closed doors.

[+OverSword]

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

They are always doing it in the middle of work lol

Because they are at work  C'mon man!

[Buzz_Light_Year]

14 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Transcribed interview, happening behind closed doors.

Of course, how would it be handled any different way? And what about what happens to the transcripts?

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3526676-doj-jan-6-committees-refusal-to-share-transcripts-complicates-investigation/

Well the people that probably need to see them can't.

We had a phrase in the Marines when it came to Office Hours and that was a Kangaroo Court and the same applies here as you are guilty just for being called up on the carpet..

[odas]

Not sure if anyone else remebers but if I recall correctly back in the Trump days there was a letter pinned by some of his staff saying that they are there protecting the nation against Trump. I wonder if some of those testifiying are the same ones of that group?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

6 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Of course, how would it be handled any different way? And what about what happens to the transcripts?

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3526676-doj-jan-6-committees-refusal-to-share-transcripts-complicates-investigation/

Well the people that probably need to see them can't.

We had a phrase in the Marines when it came to Office Hours and that was a Kangaroo Court and the same applies here as you are guilty just for being called up on the carpet..

They should just release the entire transcripts, but redact everything except the words “Trump”, “is”, “guilty”, “of”, “insurrection”, “says” snd “god” and then say “look we have proof”.

[Tiggs]

20 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

They are always doing it in the middle of work lol

Believe I read somewhere that the last one (presumably with the Committee's conclusions) will be shown in the evening, during prime time.
 

16 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Of course, how would it be handled any different way?

It could have been public and televised.
 

16 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

And what about what happens to the transcripts?

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3526676-doj-jan-6-committees-refusal-to-share-transcripts-complicates-investigation/

Well the people that probably need to see them can't.

From your link:

“If they want to come in and say we want to look at something, that’s fine. But my understanding is they want to have access to our work product. And we told them no, we’re not giving that to anybody,” Thompson said.

“I mean, the reality is, we are conducting our own investigation. And obviously if they want to come and talk they’re perfectly welcome to come and talk and we have talked to them on other situations, but we can’t give them full access to our product. That would be premature at this point, because we haven’t completed our work.”

Would appear that the DOJ is able to look at any transcript they want. Just not the Committee's report, as it's a work in progress.
 

16 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

We had a phrase in the Marines when it came to Office Hours and that was a Kangaroo Court and the same applies here as you are guilty just for being called up on the carpet..

Seriously doubt that Cipollone is guilty of anything Jan 6th related.
 

[+DieChecker]

I've not followed this all very well, but I heard what Hutchinson testified was all second hand. Is that true?

Everything she said came from people with axes to grind? 

I remember reading about something similar... I think it was called the Steele Dossier. 

[+DieChecker]

I hear Cheney calling for arrests, but not the rest if the Committee. Do we suppose they're waiting to the end?

[Grim Reaper 6]

The committee is made up of seven Democrats and two rebel Republicans, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, who refused to follow their party in bending the knee to Trump.

Set free of bipartisan considerations when the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, withdrew cooperation, the panel has been able to act in a purely prosecutorial manner. It has also worked on how to present its findings, using TV industry expertise to present hearings honed, contained and aimed at convincing the American people Trump should never be president again.

The committee cannot charge Trump with a crime. But the US Department of Justice can, a possibility that has stoked intense speculation in Washington and the world.

Here are the key legal issues at stake:

Can the committee make criminal referrals?

Yes. It has done so in the cases of Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, Trump aides who refused to cooperate. Pleading not guilty to criminal contempt of Congress, Bannon and Navarro face time in prison. The DoJ declined to charge Scavino and Meadows.

Will the committee refer Trump?

The chair, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, has said he does not expect to do so. However, that statement prompted reports of disagreement on the panel and also came before Cheney, the vice-chair, revealed possible attempts to intimidate witnesses.

Could the DoJ charge Trump?

Hutchinson appeared to draw Trump closer to strong links with extremist groups which attacked the Capitol, saying she recalled “hearing the word ‘Oath Keeper’ and hearing the word ‘Proud Boys’ closer to the planning of the January 6 rally, when Mr Giuliani would be around” the White House.

 

Rudy Giuliani was Trump’s personal attorney. Among more than 870 peoplecharged over the Capitol attack, members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys have been charged with seditious conspiracy. But to many, one passage in Hutchinson’s testimony seemed to draw Trump the closest yet to demonstrable criminal conduct.

Hutchinson said Trump knew the crowd for his speech near the White House on 6 January 2021 contained armed individuals, some with AR-15 rifles and handguns, but still told his audience to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell” to stop certification of election results. Trump told the crowd he would march with them and, according to Secret Service witnesses, was furious to be denied.

Is the DoJ investigating Trump?

Yes. This week, the New York Times profiled Thomas Windom, “an aggressive if little-known federal prosecutor” who is “pulling together [the] disparate strands” of DoJ Trump investigations.

According to the Times, Windom, 44, is “working under the close supervision of Attorney General Merrick B Garland’s top aides [and] executing the department’s time-tested, if slow-moving, strategy of working from the periphery of the events inward”.

As examples of such work, the paper mentioned a raid on a former DoJ employee’s house and the seizure of a phone belonging to John Eastman, the law professor who cooked up Trump’s scheme to reject electoral college results.

Hutchinson’s testimony also increased the heat on Trump’s closest aides. Punchbowl News noted that though the DoJ declined to charge Meadows for defying the January 6 committee, “following more damning testimony on Meadows’ role in everything leading to the insurrection”, the DoJ could rethink that position.

The DoJ does appear to be closing the net on Trump. Whether it chooses to haul in such a big fish is a very big question indeed. The evidence against Trump continues to mount, both in Washington DC and in Georgia, where there is substantial evidence supporting both federal and state charges for his effort to threaten and intimidate Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to ‘find 12,000 votes’.”

 

Most observers agree that for the DoJ to indict a former president, and at that a potential presidential candidate in 2024, would set a dangerous precedent, particularly given Trump’s strong and demonstrably violent following on the far right.

But, French wrote, “there is another precedent that is perhaps more grave and more dangerous – deciding that presidents are held to lower standards of criminal behavior than virtually any other American citizen.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/01/trump-january-6-hearing-testimony-doj-criminal-charges

 

 

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

34 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I hear Cheney calling for arrests, but not the rest if the Committee. Do we suppose they're waiting to the end?

It’s not up to the committee, only the DOJ can take those actions, see my post below yours.