Jan 6 public hearings Live

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

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

I'll read the link. I believe they actually said so at the beginning, since it was just a committee and not a commission?

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

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

 

I think someone should figure out, say, Trump's top ten advisors. Then offer them that No Actions will come of the Jan6 Committee... IF... He refuses to run in 2024. Have him publicly find some reason of his own choosing to step back. Thus you allow Trump to save face, which is his #1 consideration, IMHO, and... AND it removes Trump from 2024.

AND its probably how it would go anyway. 

Doubtless Trump would counter offer to be excused from the NY tax investigations. And I'd pretend to hold out, but then give it to him. I'm sure NY DA will understand. And their case has the appearance of crumbling anyway.

Sure, you'd be letting him off, but getting more then a hand slap isn't tremendously likely anyway. 

Sure it's bribery, intimidation, or something. But the result would be better then if its not tried. Trump looks very ready to run in 2024, and looks like there'll be a red wave for him to ride on.

Edited July 7, 2022 by DieChecker

[Grim Reaper 6]

46 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I think someone should figure out, say, Trump's top ten advisors. Then offer them that No Actions will come of the Jan6 Committee... IF... He refuses to run in 2024. Have him publicly find some reason of his own choosing to step back. Thus you allow Trump to save face, which is his #1 consideration, IMHO, and... AND it removes Trump from 2024.

In my opinion I can not agree with you at all, I mean who the hell is any President really plainly a servant of the American people. If they break the law they should be treated no differently than any other American, yet in reality because of failure of a leader at that level their crimes should be much more harsh than that of any average citizen. 

46 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

AND its probably how it would go anyway. 

Doubtless Trump would counter offer to be excused from the NY tax investigations. And I'd pretend to hold out, but then give it to him. I'm sure NY DA will understand. And their case has the appearance of crumbling anyway.

You know their going after his kids also, during his Presidency they had their little hands in the cookie jar also. But, sadly I believe if it came down to it he would sacrifice them in moment with little to no thought.

46 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Sure, you'd be letting him off, but getting more then a hand slap isn't tremendously likely anyway. 

Sure it's bribery, intimidation, or something. But the result would be better then if its not tried. Trump looks very ready to run in 2024, and looks like there'll be a red wave for him to ride on.

He still has the same problem that cost him the election in 2020 staring him in the face. He lost the vote of the Christian majority because they could not bow down or evert their eyes from his actions, This has not changed at all, in fact it has only gotten worst since 2020, so let him run if they find him not guilty but I seriously doubt that will happen, When, the Republican Party decided to boycott this committee they screwed their fearless leader, I tend to believe that the majority also don't want him back and that's why they really walked away.

Peace

Edited July 7, 2022 by Manwon Lender

[+Hammerclaw]

It's just a continuation of the same farcical "Get Trump" circus we've watched the last six years. The Collusion Hoax, then Impeach One and the Ludicrous Impeachment Two. What do they have to show for it? Just more stunning and "devastating" hearsay evidence and most damning to their case, just crap they make up, thinking repeating it, over and over again will somehow make it true and acceptable in a court of law. What saddest of all is the poor Trump Derangement Syndrome afflicted, salivating, dellusionally, yet again, over the prospect of their desperate fantasy of "Getting Trump" finally coming true. 

In the meantime, the Congressional approval rating is so low, it makes the President's dismal approval rating look good.

• U.S. Congress - public approval rating 2022 | Statista

Edited July 7, 2022 by Hammerclaw

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's just a continuation of the same farcical "Get Trump" circus we've watched the last six years. The Collusion Hoax, then Impeach One and the Ludicrous Impeachment Two. What do they have to show for it? Just more stunning and "devastating" hearsay evidence and most damning to their case, just crap they make up, thinking repeating it, over and over again will somehow make it true and acceptable in a court of law. What saddest of all is the poor Trump Derangement Syndrome afflicted, salivating, dellusionally, yet again, over the prospect of their desperate fantasy of "Getting Trump" finally coming true. 

In the meantime, the Congressional approval rating is so low, it makes the President's dismal approval rating look good.

• U.S. Congress - public approval rating 2022 | Statista

Ah... But the ratings of CNN and MSNBC are going up drastically. The overlords will love that.

Congress has such low approval, if they were British (See British drama unfolding right now), and had some self respect, they ALL would have resigned long ago. Congress is a farce. So much power, and so little of it used "For the People", and rather used to further political fantasies.

[+DieChecker]

3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

In my opinion I can not agree with you at all, I mean who the hell is any President really plainly a servant of the American people. If they break the law they should be treated no differently than any other American, yet in reality because of failure of a leader at that level their crimes should be much more harsh than that of any average citizen. 

Yet, in reality, we know the Elite, including Trump, generally are not treated like the "normal" people and get off light. We see it time and time again.

Quote

You know their going after his kids also, during his Presidency they had their little hands in the cookie jar also. But, sadly I believe if it came down to it he would sacrifice them in moment with little to no thought.

If they did the Crime. They should do the time.

They knew the risks. He's their dad.

Quote

He still has the same problem that cost him the election in 2020 staring him in the face. He lost the vote of the Christian majority because they could not bow down or evert their eyes from his actions, This has not changed at all, in fact it has only gotten worst since 2020, so let him run if they find him not guilty but I seriously doubt that will happen, When, the Republican Party decided to boycott this committee they screwed their fearless leader, I tend to believe that the majority also don't want him back and that's why they really walked away.

Peace

He does have that problem. But Republicans are very goal oriented, and so they'll vote for a stinking crap sandwich over a tasty good ham sandwich, if it has a R on it rather then a D.

I think few of the Christian voters flipped, because someone had to make up that 75 million voters, who voted for him in 2020.

[Grim Reaper 6]

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Yet, in reality, we know the Elite, including Trump, generally are not treated like the "normal" people and get off light. We see it time and time again.

If they did the Crime. They should do the time.

They knew the risks. He's their dad.

He does have that problem. But Republicans are very goal oriented, and so they'll vote for a stinking crap sandwich over a tasty good ham sandwich, if it has a R on it rather then a D.

I think few of the Christian voters flipped, because someone had to make up that 75 million voters, who voted for him in 2020.

I know you may not realize this but I am a Republican, and I was raised a Republican. However, I am a moderate not a conservative voter the conservatives are too bible thumping right-wing for me. As far as the Christian vote is concerned do a little research on line about ly previous comments you be surprised because the margin he lost by does make up the loss of the Christian vote.

Peace Dude!

[Tiggs]

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

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

Nope. Majority of it was first hand.

Such as her conversation with Guliani on the 2nd ("We're going to the Capitol. It's going to be great. The President's going to be there."), and Meadows ("Things might get real, real bad on January 6th").
Or her being backstage with the President on the 6th at the Elipse ("I don't ****ing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the ****ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here.")

 

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Nope. Majority of it was first hand.

Such as her conversation with Guliani on the 2nd ("We're going to the Capitol. It's going to be great. The President's going to be there."), and Meadows ("Things might get real, real bad on January 6th").
Or her being backstage with the President on the 6th at the Elipse ("I don't ****ing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the ****ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here.")

 

That's call hearsay evidence, usually inadmissible in a court of law, here in the US.

Wikipedia

Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from an under-oath witness who is reciting an out-of-court statement, the content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "hearsay evidence rule") unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I know you may not realize this but I am a Republican, and I was raised a Republican. However, I am a moderate not a conservative voter the conservatives are too bible thumping right-wing for me. As far as the Christian vote is concerned do a little research on line about ly previous comments you be surprised because the margin he lost by does make up the loss of the Christian vote.

Peace Dude!

A RINO.

[Trelane]

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think someone should figure out, say, Trump's top ten advisors. Then offer them that No Actions will come of the Jan6 Committee... IF... He refuses to run in 2024. Have him publicly find some reason of his own choosing to step back. Thus you allow Trump to save face, which is his #1 consideration, IMHO, and... AND it removes Trump from 2024.

AND its probably how it would go anyway. 

Doubtless Trump would counter offer to be excused from the NY tax investigations. And I'd pretend to hold out, but then give it to him. I'm sure NY DA will understand. And their case has the appearance of crumbling anyway.

Sure, you'd be letting him off, but getting more then a hand slap isn't tremendously likely anyway. 

Sure it's bribery, intimidation, or something. But the result would be better then if its not tried. Trump looks very ready to run in 2024, and looks like there'll be a red wave for him to ride on.

I'm not sure Trump would get the same support he did in '16. Red wave? Possibly. Who knows these days?

The average voter is manipulated by social media and TV to engage in the popularity contest that the presidential election has basically turned into. 

[Gromdor]

12 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

That's call hearsay evidence, usually inadmissible in a court of law, here in the US.

Wikipedia

Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from an under-oath witness who is reciting an out-of-court statement, the content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "hearsay evidence rule") unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

Not quite,  Since she was there, she was a direct witness.  Hearsay is when you hear something second hand.  I.E. Person 1 told me that person 2 said this or that.  

[Gromdor]

14 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

A RINO.

That's pretty much a made up stance to divide the Republican party.  McCain and Romney are both called RINOs yet they were the party's choice for presidental candidates.  Trump only became a Republican right before he ran and he never exemplified many of the values of the Republican party- like fiscal responsibility, lowering taxes (tariffs), familiy values.

Here take a look at the party's 2000 platform and compare it today's: 2000 Republican Party Platform | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)

[+Hammerclaw]

12 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Not quite,  Since she was there, she was a direct witness.  Hearsay is when you hear something second hand.  I.E. Person 1 told me that person 2 said this or that.  

It's hearsay when it's something you say you heard someone say. It remains inadmissible without corroborating evidence. 

[+Hammerclaw]

10 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

That's pretty much a made up stance to divide the Republican party.  McCain and Romney are both called RINOs yet they were the party's choice for presidental candidates.  Trump only became a Republican right before he ran and he never exemplified many of the values of the Republican party- like fiscal responsibility, lowering taxes (tariffs), familiy values.

Here take a look at the party's 2000 platform and compare it today's: 2000 Republican Party Platform | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)

Actually, he took a positive stand on all of that. A RINO is someone who calls themselves Republican but behaves like or colludes with Democrats.

[Tatetopa]

12 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Sure it's bribery, intimidation, or something. But the result would be better then if its not tried. Trump looks very ready to run in 2024, and looks like there'll be a red wave for him to ride on.

Why not just give him $100 billion dollars and name some bridges after him?  Will that save democracy?

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

A RINO.

Yea, I suppose so but that’s much better than being a Trump Drooling knee bender who can’t think without the masters call and guidance!

However, in reality the term RINO is a joke that was coined by bible thumping conservatives who can’t think or act without some form of guidance! Now, all conservatives certainly don’t fit that description and all moderates are not RINOs but the people who throw those terms around do fit both descriptions perfectly! Because it is a sign of ignorance and complete foolishness to lump any group from the same party into such a narrow category and only the uneducated would do such a thing!

Edited July 8, 2022 by Manwon Lender

[Grim Reaper 6]

11 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's just a continuation of the same farcical "Get Trump" circus we've watched the last six years. The Collusion Hoax, then Impeach One and the Ludicrous Impeachment Two. What do they have to show for it? Just more stunning and "devastating" hearsay evidence and most damning to their case, just crap they make up, thinking repeating it, over and over again will somehow make it true and acceptable in a court of law. What saddest of all is the poor Trump Derangement Syndrome afflicted, salivating, dellusionally, yet again, over the prospect of their desperate fantasy of "Getting Trump" finally coming true. 

In the meantime, the Congressional approval rating is so low, it makes the President's dismal approval rating look good.

• U.S. Congress - public approval rating 2022 | Statista

May he get what he truly deserves that’s all that’s important and that goes for his kids also!

[Gromdor]

51 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's hearsay when it's something you say you heard someone say. It remains inadmissible without corroborating evidence. 

I know that is incorrect because I have done jury duty and a police officer testified that the defendant said, "I did have one drink" (amongst other things) and it was admissible.   

If you don't believe me watch any court proceeding with a witness testifying that a person said this or that.

[Grim Reaper 6]

6 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I know that is incorrect because I have done jury duty and a police officer testified that the defendant said, "I did have one drink" (amongst other things) and it was admissible.   

If you don't believe me watch any court proceeding with a witness testifying that a person said this or that.

Your actually spot on, and your example of jury duty which we all should have experienced proves it clearly.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

Yes it is, but that doesn’t mean it’s not completely accurate and true! To make it not hearsay all you need is the actual source that heard it directly from the fat horses mouth!

Yes and for some curious reason they haven't solicited testimony from the parties concerned. I wonder why that is?

[+Hammerclaw]

58 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I know that is incorrect because I have done jury duty and a police officer testified that the defendant said, "I did have one drink" (amongst other things) and it was admissible.   

If you don't believe me watch any court proceeding with a witness testifying that a person said this or that.

I look things up with my computer.

Hearsay Evidence - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes (legaldictionary.net)

[F3SS]

On 6/12/2022 at 8:31 AM, spartan max2 said:

The Pentagon, Department of Defense, Sergeant at arms, and Pelosis office all claim they have no idea what Trump is talking about. 

Yea because those guys wouldn't lie. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

14 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Yea because those guys wouldn't lie. 

No they certainly would never do that!

[+DieChecker]

7 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I know you may not realize this but I am a Republican, and I was raised a Republican. However, I am a moderate not a conservative voter the conservatives are too bible thumping right-wing for me. As far as the Christian vote is concerned do a little research on line about ly previous comments you be surprised because the margin he lost by does make up the loss of the Christian vote.

Peace Dude!

As a Christian in a Democrat state, I know as a fact most church going Christians voted Trump without even considering Biden. 

Let me do some research though.