" In the hours after Cassidy Hutchinson delivered      bombshell testimony       to the Jan. 6 committee Tuesday, former President Trump and his allies rushed to attack the former White House staffer.

Hutchinson, who served as an aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, told the panel that Trump was    aware that some of his supporters were armed    when he urged them to march to the Capitol.

She also testified that Anthony Ornato, then the deputy White House chief of staff, told her the president was so “irate” that the Secret Service would not drive him to the Capitol that he reached for the steering wheel and lunged at an agent.

Trump and his allies have seized on media reports of unnamed Secret Service sources rejecting those statements to paint Hutchinson’s sworn testimony as unreliable. So far, though, none of the people who have disputed Hutchinson’s story have done so under oath."

death threats and witness intimidation. so basic standard operating procedure for the trumpublicans then...

"As her testimony unfolded, Trump sought to downplay Hutchinson’s role in his administration despite the fact that her office   was just steps away from his .

“I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and ‘leaker’), and when she requested to go with certain others of the team to Florida after my having served a full term in office, I personally turned her request down,” Trump wrote in a statement.

“Why did she want to go with us if she felt we were so terrible? I understand that she was very upset and angry that I didn’t want her to go, or be a member of the team. She is bad news,” he wrote.

She was essentially part of the steaming pile of shit's 'inner circle'

“The lies and fabricated stories being told to the partisan Highly Unselect Committee, not only by the phony social climber who got caught yesterday, but by many others, are a disgrace to our, in serious decline, Nation,” Trump wrote Wednesday morning on his social media platform, Truth Social.

“No cross examination, no real Republicans, no lawyers, NO NOTHING. Fake stories and an all Fake Narrative being produced, with ZERO pushback allowed. Unselects should be forced to disband. WITCH HUNT!”

Who is a 'real republican'?

yahoo

The House Republican who led a rioter on a tour the day before the January 6 attack could lead the committee overseeing Capitol security

Maybe you should stop getting your news from TDS suffering lunatics.

loudermilk.house

cnn

cnbc

cbsnews

After a review of security footage, the U.S. Capitol Police determined last month that there was "no evidence" that Loudermilk led the group into the Capitol and said "we do not consider any of the activities we observed as suspicious."

Not even the water carrying media believes the Jan 6th committee's BS regarding Loudermilk.

As for the entire "made for prime time" Jan 6th committee farce; midterms are coming. The committees days are numbered before a new Republican committee will take over. Then we will get to see all of the information Pelosi's hand picked, TDS driven, partisans are hiding. The Queen Bitch herself and Bowser should be subpoenaed to testify.

Delusional

Second and third hand hearsay testimony is unreliable.

From 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."

Conclusion:  She's  making shit up.

Conclusion:  She's  making shit up.

Please provide the evidence that shows "she's making shit up".  We already know what hearsay is, and hearsay is NOT "making shit up", so what actual evidence do you have at this point to show she is "making shit up"?

"Trump was actually transported in an   SUV , not the Beast, on the morning of Jan. 6, a video played by the committee shows."

Like DUH!

Careful...  the reply to your comment will be that Ornato told her the Beast so her commentary in front of the committee was just repeating what she had been told.  So if there's any fault in that it's due to what Ornato told her.   This is why I've given up on a lot of people on this board and am about ready to just stop coming here.  There are too many people who refuse to discuss things logically and can only refute with their partisan bias in full view, or they can only reply with snipe and insults.

All you all have is endless projection, deflection, denial, and lies.  

"Trump was actually transported in an   SUV , not the Beast, on the morning of Jan. 6, a video played by the committee shows." Like DUH!

Again, since you seem to have a hard time understanding.  Please provide the evidence that shows "she's making shit up".

Being wrong on 2nd and 3rd hand knowledge, does not mean you are "making shit up".  You have to prove that she knew the info was wrong, before she said it.  Like DUH!

So if there's any fault in that it's due to what Ornato told her. 

She and Cheney both made it crystal clear that she was recounting what Ornato told her in front of Engel (head of Trump's security detail and the agent in the story).

People are (disgustingly) attempting to spin this by declaring Hutchinson has lied (no evidence of this) and that her entire testimony is discredited and, by extension, the entire work of the committee.

Worse, this is just a small portion of her testimony.   The core of her testimony (ignored) was about what Trump knew and when he knew it.

She has the same credibility as Kavanaugh's accuser.

On what grounds do you impugn her credibility?   

One can categorically deem every witness to have no credibility.   If someone testifies and you want their testimony to be false, just declare the witness to have no credibility.    The practice is entirely dishonest but simple to do.

• Do you reject that Trump knew that his supporters were going to march on the Capitol?
• Do you reject that Trump knew that some of his supporters were armed with guns and that he wanted the detector equipment removed so that they could join his audience and increase its size?
• Do you reject that Trump, knowing the nature of the present supporters, encouraged them to march on the Capitol building?
• Do you reject that Trump subsequently knew that his supporters had broken and entered the Capitol building?
• Do you reject that Trump was told, repeatedly, by advisors, family and 'friends' that his supporters had forcibly invaded the Capitol?
• Do you reject that Trump did nothing for three hours to stop his supporters; ignoring the pleas by family, advisors and 'friends' for him to tell them to disband?
• Do you reject that Trump knew that his supporters were making death threats against Pence?
• Do you reject that Trump did nothing about the death threats and dismissed it as 'Pence deserves it'?

What did Trump know, when did he know it and what did he do about it?

redstate

Deflection.

Every one of questions is unsubstantiated opinion...unsupported by provable facts

I asked if you rejected.   Based on your response you reject all of those items of testified evidence because they lack what you call 'provable fact'.

So other than testimony, how do you achieve your proof?    How, exactly, (as one example) do you prove that Trump was aware / unaware that his supporters had broken and entered the Capitol other than by testimony?   Must we invent mind probing technology that can look into Trump's brain and see if that information was there?

It is obvious that you will reject all evidence (and common sense) and simply continue to demand proof.

Some people only understand a black and white world.  You must either reject or accept the testimony without question.  They don’t understand that people don’t remember events exactly has they happen and leave out important information. Witnesses will remember events differently or even just lie.  One of many reasons to have all parties involved give their testimony.  

Reasoning with these people who are closed minded is hopeless.

https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases#:~:text=But%20because%20different%20witnesses%20are,they%20witness%20the%20same%20event.

You must either reject or accept the testimony without question

That is not even close to what I posted.   I made no binary demand.   I asked if he rejected specific testimony that I listed.

Not rejecting testimony does not mean that one accepts it as absolute truth.   It means that the individual does not blindly dismiss the testimony.    

In simple terms, I went to the extreme question (do you reject?) to see if there was any semblance of objectivity to be found.    See?

You have imposed this stupid requirement of a black & white reality.    Just more of the same dodging and deflecting.

This kind of thing is a good example of why I’m not watching these hearings. Everything I read about them indicates that we’re getting one side of the story. No evidence is inadmissible because of its tendency to be untrustworthy (e.g., hearsay). No one is cross examined. In general, the focus of the investigation does not get to mount a defense. 

It’s a big political show, staged right before an election. In another seed here, I talked about how James Comey helped Trump win in 2016 by releasing damning information about Hillary Clinton. Here, we see Democrats in Congress trying to have a similar impact on both this election and the one to follow in 2024 - but the effort is turned up to 11.

There absolutely should be a real investigation run by DOJ and perhaps they can make use of the evidence this committee has collected. In fact, I expect them to. But this committee’s efforts should be part of the investigation, not the whole of it. The weighing of that evidence needs to happen in a courtroom, not on television. Then, all the evidence should go through the crucible of the trial process, where the junk evidence is discarded and a fact finder gets to the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.

But this committee’s efforts should be part of the investigation, not the whole of it.

Yes.   And if our nation has the ability to get beyond politics and do what is right, this public disclosure should precede actions by the DoJ.

this public disclosure should precede actions by the DoJ.

Evidence would be made public regardless. These hearings are for show. And I don't even mean that as a slam on Democrats or their efforts at collecting evidence. I support that aspect of it, but they should collect the evidence and 1) turn it over to DOJ and/or 2) use their findings as a foundation for new legislation and policies that strengthen our desire for honest elections and peaceful transfers of power.

For now, at least, this show is all they seem interested in doing. The committee will not be prosecuting anyone officially. Therefore, the presentation is free to be as one-sided as they choose. The goal, as I see it, is to prosecute the accused in the Court of Public Opinion. 

What I object to is the characterization of these proceedings as some kind of exercise of fair justice. If you're not willing to have your evidence tested or your witnesses cross-examined, and if you don't let the other side present a case, then it can't be fair justice.

In a real prosecution, any witness would be subject to impeachment and cross examination. That is the normal course of things. But here, partisan observers who already despise Trump are actually offended at the idea that someone out there might question the trustworthiness of this witness's testimony. Such objections are cowardly. As far as they are concerned, these hearings function only to affirm their beliefs and they will brook no objections.

That's not justice. It's a kangaroo court. A star chamber. Mob justice. Whatever term you best like. 

These hearings are for show.

These are not legal proceedings.   This is not a venue to produce justice.   Nobody has ever suggested that this was a trial or anything close to same.   Evaluate it on what it is, not on what it is not.

This is a political committee of the House charged with investigating Jan 6th.   They are reporting their findings and doing so with what certainly appears to be solid evidence.    They are offering under-oath testimony by almost entirely Republican witnesses most of whom are high level and/or had direct contact with Trump.  

One is free to reject everything presented by this committee and not even attempt to consider what they offer.  I personally want to hear what Barr, Raffensperger, Rosen, Short, Stepien,  Jacob, Meadows, Cipollone, Pence, Bowers, Trump kids, et.al. have to say.   Hopefully we will be able to hear from those who have yet to testify (like Cipollone and Pence).   

I prefer to have the opportunity to review the evidence put forth by this committee and I think it is absurd to categorically dismiss these witnesses simply because this is not a court of law with cross-examination, etc.

If charges are brought against Trump (and they should be) then I of course will expect a formal trial with all the measures that ensues.   In the meantime, I have no problem with a congressional committee reporting its findings and doing so by delivering Republican, connected witnesses under oath who are risking their political careers to testify.

Finally, we are all free to factor in obvious notions such as this being largely a political committee.   No doubt part if not most of the agenda is to damage Trump and thus gain political advantage for November.   But dismissing the part of informing the public as some 'show' and thus categorially rejecting everything offered leaps to the other extreme.

My approach is to observe carefully what is being presented and use my own judgment (which factors in the partisanship involved).  I want to know the kind of testimony that is available for consideration by the DoJ.    I prefer information over ignorance.

“I prefer information over ignorance.”

Always. With a healthy dose of considered discernment over instant dismissal. 

Also, there is no guarantee this will ever go to trial.   There are serious political and historical considerations for charging a former PotUS with a crime.   We all would like to believe our justice system is indeed blind but that is not reality.  Merrick Garland and many others are obviously considering the risk vs. reward of charging Trump.   If they lose the political ramifications are obviously severe.   If they win, however, the upside is not clear.   Does, for example, putting a former PotUS in jail cause more harm than the good of justice?   

No PotUS has ever been indicted for criminal activity, much less for acts committed while serving as the PotUS.   This is uncharted territory with big stakes.   

We might never see a trial.

This could be the closest we (the public) ever get to hearing from connected witnesses under oath.

I want to hear what they have to say.  

These are not legal proceedings.   This is not a venue to produce justice.   

Yes, that's what I said.

Nobody has ever suggested that this was a trial or anything close to same.

I'm not sure I said that. They certainly won't put anybody in jail. I did make clear that they wouldn't be prosecuting anyone. Nevertheless, it does have many of the trappings of our justice system and that's intentional. The closest analog is probably a grand jury, even though - again - this committee cannot file charges. To that end, we have witnesses offering testimony under oath. Evidence is presented in the form of emails, texts, and so on. And only the "prosecutor" can call witnesses.

The purpose is to change minds and convince the American public of "the truth." Polls are continually being taken to ascertain what percentage of the American people think Trump should be charged with a crime - as if we were all a grand jury made up of a couple hundred million voters. But in reality, voters play no part in whether or not criminal charges are filed - or at least I hope they never do. 

So the whole thing is presented from the perspective of the Democrats with the purpose of changing minds in the electorate. That's why it's on TV. We are to be fact finders, but the evidence is not to be questioned. In that respect, it's exactly like a grand jury. We're seeking "probable cause" but most people don't appreciate what a low bar that is.

But more than this, I am confident that Democrats expect people to make actual voting decisions based on the evidence. An indictment creates the opportunity (aka a trial) to both examine and cross-examine evidence before making a decision. This hearing skips the latter step but seeks a conclusion regardless.

One is free to reject everything presented by this committee and not even attempt to consider what they offer.

I would not, and did not suggest that.

I prefer to have the opportunity to review the evidence put forth by this committee and I think it is absurd to   categorically dismiss   these witnesses simply because this is not a court of law with cross-examination, etc.

I wouldn't categorically dismiss anything either. All I am saying is that I should not be expected to accept it without the kind of scrutiny I described above. If the evidence is solid, it will hold up to such scrutiny. If the "prosecutors" are confident in their case, they will welcome it.

On the other hand, when Democrats categorically reject Republican objections or opposing evidence, it hurts the credibility of the committee.

It would be simpler (and I think it would be better) if DOJ would just charge Trump. Many people now agree that they should, though I obviously consider that irrelevant. If Trump is convicted of sedition, he will be constitutionally barred from running again.

After that , we should have hearings. As I said, the real potential value of these hearings should be that we find ways to shore up our system such that this kind of insanity never happens again. The committee could then draw on evidence and testimony vetted at trial to make new law and policy that is actually relevant. It would also have the benefit of being less political because the criminal concerns - and whether or not Trump can run again - will have been settled.

No PotUS has ever been indicted for criminal activity, much less for acts committed while serving as the PotUS.

I don't think there is anything preventing it other than the will to do it. It has certainly been suggested for other former presidents, though I think most of the time it's partisan nonsense. I do think there is a real chance Nixon would have been prosecuted had Ford not pardoned him. 

We certainly have not been shy about it with other executives. Numerous mayors and governors have been charged and convicted. I see no constitutional reason why Trump couldn't be charged.

Yes, that's what I said.

And I am emphasizing that it is wrong to interpret these as if this were a court of law.   Yes there is no cross-examination and all sorts of other practices typically part of the application of jurisprudence.   So, yes, this is not a court of law and this committee has never even implied that it was.    They are presenting information to the public and like any other source of information there is bias and the recipient needs to take the same precautions one takes with any source of information.

I'm not sure I said that. 

You did not say it.   I am responding to the fact that you are evaluating these sessions as if this were a trial.   You are criticizing their methods (e.g. no cross-examination) knowing full well that there is no judge, prosecutor or defense at play.   There is no means to engage in cross, etc.   Since this is not a trial, holding this to the high standards of a courtroom will of course yield plenty of criticism.   

Note that you can hold any news source available to you to this same high standard and, if you did, would you reject ALL sources of information as you reject these hearings?    These hearing are providing information and the information is structured, delivered under-oath, live testimony, video testimony, etc. by Republicans who are mostly all connected directly with Trump and whose careers are compromised by testifying.  

 All I am saying is that I should not be expected to accept it without the kind of scrutiny I described above. 

We all have our standards.   But I have to wonder if you apply these standards to all the information sources that contribute to your corpus of knowledge.   Seems to me that if you did you would consider precious few bits of information.

On the other hand, when Democrats categorically reject Republican objections or opposing evidence, it hurts the credibility of the committee.

Well I would love to see opposing evidence.   For almost two years I have seen nothing but bullshit from the Rs on this Big Lie campaign.   If there is some evidence I wish it would be presented.

It would be simpler (and I think it would be better) if DOJ would just charge Trump.

I completely agree.    Note that we may never see any DoJ action.   This may be the best information we ever get about what took place leading up to and including Jan 6th.

I don't think there is anything preventing it other than the will to do it.

The will to do it is exactly what I was talking about.

It has certainly been suggested for other former presidents, though I think most of the time it's partisan nonsense. I do think there is a real chance Nixon would have been prosecuted had Ford not pardoned him. 

In Nixon's case there was a bipartisan force seeking impeachment.

We certainly have not been shy about it with other executives. Numerous mayors and governors have been charged and convicted. I see no constitutional reason why Trump couldn't be charged.

The reluctance that I mentioned was not based on the CotUS but on politics.   The AG will be in unknown territory indicting a former PotUS for criminal activity while in office.   I easily can see the forces at play being unsure as to whether this is good for the Ds politically.   And unfortunately politics plays a very significant role in our justice system (unfortunately).

So even if a strong case can be made where Garland believes he can get a conviction, this may not be seen as net advantageous to the D party.   And I may be too cynical but I would expect that Trump will NOT be prosecuted unless the D party forces see a net political advantage.

In other words, I sadly believe that holding true to the law and the CotUS will NOT be the primary factor;  politics will be the primary factor.

I would not [reject everything presented by this committee], and did not suggest that.

Just so you know where this came from:

Tacos! ☞ This kind of thing is a good example of why I’m not watching these hearings.

I took the fact that you are not watching the hearings to mean that you are rejecting the findings of the hearings.   If you are not rejecting the findings then why would you not watch to get a first-hand clear understanding of what questions are asked and the answers given?

Mentioning this because this does not make sense to me.

And I am emphasizing that it is wrong to interpret these as if this were a court of law.

Even if Democrats in Congress say all the right things, I think it’s naive not to treat this like a trial. Under the color of their authority and high office, Congress is putting on these proceedings with the intent to convince the American people (the jury). They are being treated as finders of fact just as a jury would be and render all the punishment available to them - i.e. don’t vote for Trump or any other Republican remotely connected to him. Clearly, Republicans understand that or you wouldn’t be hearing their objections.

So even if a strong case can be made where Garland believes he can get a conviction, this may not be seen as net advantageous to the D party.   And I may be too cynical but I would expect that Trump will NOT be prosecuted unless the D party forces see a net political advantage.

My limited experience with federal prosecutors is that they generally don’t bring charges unless they are like 95% sure they’re going to win (and that is pretty much their winning percentage!).

Without question, there would be constitutional arguments. And there is also a strong potential for dividing the country. But we’re pretty divided as is and I think this is a process worth pursuing even if Trump is acquitted. It could at least bring closure. 

I took the fact that you are not watching the hearings to mean that you are rejecting the findings of the hearings.

No, I’m not watching the hearings because I have other shit to do. All I have time for is to glance at the articles. But even if I had the time, I really hate hearing just one side of the story. Even if the defense is lame, I still want to hear it if I’m expected to make a judgment. I have seen plenty of cases that looked like slam dunks if all you do is read the police report. Then you hear the other side and everything changes.

I already know I don’t want Trump to run and that I wouldn’t vote for him if he did. So the hearings don’t need to convince me of that. I’m more curious as to whether or not his actions are genuinely criminal.

"That's not justice. It's a kangaroo court. A star chamber. Mob justice. Whatever term you best like." 

BULLSHIT

I think it’s naive not to treat this like a trial.

Naive?   It is not a trial.   Plain and simple.   It is an evidence gathering process with public disclosure.   It is insufficient for formally determining guilt per the law, but it is substantially better than the news sources upon which Americans form their opinions.   But you would not argue that our news sources, which seek to influence and inform, need to be conducted with the formality of a legal trial.

Congress is putting on these proceedings with the intent to convince the American people (the jury).

The people are never going to be the jury unless you are equating this to the 'court of public opinion'.   And if that is what you are doing then this is vastly superior to the conventional 'court of public opinion' (our media sources).  These hearing are providing well-organized information, delivered under-oath, live testimony, video testimony, etc. by Republicans who are mostly all connected directly with Trump and whose careers are compromised by testifying.  

If you view this as a news source, it is awesome in comparison.   If you view this as a trial it is fundamentally flawed.   

No, I’m not watching the hearings because I have other shit to do.

Okay.   This is very important to me.   This is an historic event where a sitting PotUS attempted to steal an election by abusing the authority of his office.   To me we lived through a period where a PotUS likely engaged in sedition and possibly even treason.  

So I lam paying close attention to these hearings.   Based on political dynamics, this may be the best information we get because there is no guarantee that Trump will be held accountable via a trial.    And if this does go to trial, I am much better informed having watched the under-oath testimonies of mostly highly connected Republicans who have risked their careers to testify to the American people.

My limited experience with federal prosecutors is that they generally don’t bring charges unless they are like 95% sure they’re going to win (and that is pretty much their winning percentage!).

That I can believe.

I think this is a process worth pursuing even if Trump is acquitted. It could at least bring closure. 

I agree.    At this point I am convinced that Trump should be indicted.    Garland has much more information than what is available to the public, but I suspect we are getting a good profile in these hearings.

It is not a trial.   Plain and simple.

I LOL’d. These people are more sophisticated than you give them credit for. None of this is “plain and simple” unless you’re determined not to do any thinking or analysis. If you’re intent on not questioning a thing, then yeah, it will be “plain and simple.”

Every day in this country, cops get consent to search or question someone without Miranda warnings. And when you call them on it later, they’ll insist they didn’t break any rules because the defendant wasn’t under arrest “plain and simple.” These things are not “plain and simple.” That’s why people don’t take vaccines. Cuz they’re made with dead babies, plain and simple. It’s mind control, plain and simple.

Democrats in Congress want Americans to accept the information they receive in these hearings with the same gravitas, the same confidence of truth, that they would get from a formal trial. Or do you believe that they expect people to hear the evidence and say “well that’s all very interesting but I’ll wait for a formal criminal investigation and trial before I decide not to vote for Trump again.”

But you would not argue that our news sources, which seek to influence and inform, need to be conducted with the formality of a legal trial.

I would argue that good journalism looks at both sides of a story, seeking commentary and evidence that might support or refute their thesis. “We report, you decide” right?

The people are never going to be the jury unless you are equating this to the 'court of public opinion'.

Not only am I doing that, but so is the news media. I put a couple links in one of my comments and they describe it in exactly that way. But again, a court presents opposing views.

These people are more sophisticated than you give them credit for.

I cannot repeat everything that I have stated on this topic in every comment.   I am quite aware that this committee is politically motivated.   I have explained this many times.

My point, consistently, throughout this is that people should spend less time trying to discredit these hearings and spend more time just observing the under-oath testimony by first-hand-contact Republicans who are testifying at the risk of their careers.

What we are getting in terms of information is vastly superior to other news sources.   Look at it that way and then use your judgment.

I would argue that good journalism looks at both sides of a story, seeking commentary and evidence that might support or refute their thesis.

So that is what you think we get today, Tacos!, good journalism?    Walter Cronkite era journalism?   Give me a break.

Not only am I doing that, but so is the news media. 

As I suggested, that is what the news media routinely does.   So compare these hearings to what we typically get.   If you do that you should see that we are seeing a much higher quality set of information.   Again, these are not bozo talking heads opining.  These are mostly first-hand contact, well-connected Republican officials and staff who are testifying under-oath (on video and present) at a great risk to their careers.

You needed to be better informed? Of what, exactly? We have talked about this enough, TiG, that I know you and I agree that Trump acted wrongly in response to the election and we don’t want him to be president again. I don’t need hearings to convince me of that. Why do you?

Now, if you want to talk about whether or not he committed criminal acts, then Congress is not the appropriate venue.

So that is what you think we get today, Tacos!, good journalism? 

C’mon, don’t change my words. I didn’t assess the state of journalism as it exists today. You asked me about my standards for news sources and I told you what I would want from them.

If you do that you should see that we are seeing a much higher quality set of information.

Probably. But it should be tested if you expect people to make decisions based on it.

You needed to be better informed?

Need?   I made no such comment of need.   I stated this:

TiG @5.1.15 ☞ Based on political dynamics, this may be the best information we get because there is no guarantee that Trump will be held accountable via a trial.    And if this does go to trial, I am much better informed having watched the under-oath testimonies of mostly highly connected Republicans who have risked their careers to testify to the American people.

These hearings are providing information that the public has not yet observed.    I am surprised that you are in effect objecting to my interest in learning more details about Jan 6th.

I don’t need hearings to convince me of that. Why do you?

Where did I say that I need hearings to convince me that Trump abused the authority of his office in an attempt to steal the election?    Again, you seem to not accept the fact that new information is a good thing.    And you seem to not understand why I find information about the first PotUS ever to engage in sedition and possibly treason to be valuable and worthy of knowing.   Why would I not be interested in this??   Why would anyone not be interested?

Now, if you want to talk about whether or not he committed criminal acts, then Congress is not the appropriate venue.

We seem to be circling back on well-covered territory.   This statement in particular implies that I have not stated in clear terms to you et.al. that criminal determination necessarily is done in a formal trial and by the DoJ.   I have stated this so many times, why do you choose to include comments like this?

C’mon, don’t change my words. I didn’t assess the state of journalism as it exists today. You asked me about my standards for news sources and I told you what I would want from them.

How did I change your words?   You spoke of good journalism in comparison to what is taking place in the hearings.   If you did not mean to imply that good journalism exists today then what would be the point?    Given I have compared this to contemporary journalism it would be misleading as hell if your comparison was to journalism of the 1960s (for example).

 But it should be tested if you expect people to make decisions based on it.

Again, these hearings are substantially better than the media news we get today and upon which we form opinions.   If you are going to dismiss these hearings (and yes your comments most definitely suggest that) they why would you not dismiss the balance of news sources that provide public information?   

Public information necessarily will not be subjected first to the rigor present in a formal trial.   So why do you insist on comparing this to a trial and resist comparing this to all other public information?   

This replies to both 5.1.22 and 5.1.21. Sorry TiG, but you're going way into meta territory and losing both focus and fairness. I'll have to end it here.

It would be better to not reply than to deliver a vague accusation that I am being unfair and losing focus.

Just getting one side of the story

Just getting one side of the story

Roll your eyes all you want. You're making my point.

Nope.

No one said it was a trial

Indeed.   It is not a trial.   It has never been described as a trial or anything close to a trial.

It is a very well-organized gathering of under-oath testimony by connected Republicans who, for the most part, are testifying of their first-hand interactions with Trump at a great risk to their careers.

This should not be compared to a trial but rather compared to the normal media sources where Americans get our information.   Looking at this as a source of information, these sessions are outstanding in comparison to normal media information.

Does the American public demand that all media sources engage in the full protocol of a courtroom before releasing information (news) to the public?

t is a very well-organized gathering of under-oath testimony

Why haven't all the transcripts been released?  Why just curated excerpts designed to fit the narrative the partisan committee is pushing? 

It's just an infomercial.  Selling a narrative.   

Why haven't all the transcripts been released? 

One feeble complaint after another.

Compare this to our conventional sources of information.   Do you make the same demands of them and reject all 'news'?

Your complaints are simply deflections in defense of Trump.

Is that important? If the cops stop you on the road, prevent you from leaving and have dogs sniffing your car, does it matter that no one says you’re under arrrest? You’re still not free to go. Not everything in life is declared explicitly.

I can’t imagine trusting any politician as much as some people do. Your trust in the Democratic Party is apparently absolute.

Why haven't all the transcripts been released?

Has the committee even shared them with the DOJ yet? They have been requesting them since April.

nbcnews

In a letter to the committee this week, senior DOJ officials ramped up pressure on the panel to comply with their request from April for the transcripts, saying the documents are "critical" to its work investigating the riot.

I never said it was.  I'm tired of certain posters pretending to think otherwise - that this is a trial.  

I Don't give a shit what you think or assume

I have zero trust in you and 100% in DEMOCRATS

I Don't give a shit what I Don't give a shit what you think or assume

You can’t bully Tacos.

This kind of thing is a good example of why I’m not watching these hearings. Everything I read about them indicates that we’re getting one side of the story. No evidence is inadmissible because of its tendency to be untrustworthy (e.g., hearsay). No one is cross examined. In general, the focus of the investigation does not get to mount a defense

How can you state this, and expect us all to respect your filtered opinion ? It should be required watched to comment. Watching it in real time is how one can truly judge what it is, at least to them, and this time, honestly, without another's biased take filtering it for you.

How can you state this, and expect us all to respect your filtered opinion ?

What you respect is your affair. Did I say something you find to be inaccurate?

Did I say something you find to be inaccurate

No, just lacking Context and First Hand accounting. Say , 'God' forbid, a family member was hurt and injured (yet would make a 100% recovery in a few days. The person accused of his assault, was to  testify tomorrow, and he matches the description very well, yet has two solid alibi witnesses, willing to state they had spent the evening with the accused. You are stating You, would prefer to read about it, as interpreted by others...cause listen to how blatantly ignorant that sounds and would be. If you TRULY CARED, and wanted to KNOW the most accurate TRUTH about whether this individual had, or had not, been the cause of your loved ones pain, you most definitely, as would about ANYONE, wish to evaluate for themselves, what the actual live or recorded testimony of the accused would produce, and what in this case happened, and whether or not the perpetrators' testimony was believable or not. You wouldn't allow the Lunch Lady to decide for you, would you...?    

Doesn't this Country deserve ALL of our UNDIVIDED ATTENTION, when someone attempts to 'STEAL' our right to vote....?

"How can you state this, and expect us all to respect your filtered opinion ? It should be required watched to comment. Watching it in real time is how one can truly judge what it is, at least to them, and this time, honestly, without another's biased take filtering it for you."

Not according to Tacos

"That's not justice. It's a kangaroo court. A star chamber. Mob justice. Whatever term you best like." 

My close attention is not necessary. I’m already not going to be voting for Trump. I don’t need another partisan congressional hearing to convince me of it.

Everything I read about them indicates that we’re getting one side of the story. No evidence is inadmissible because of its tendency to be untrustworthy (e.g., hearsay). No one is cross examined. 

Of course there won't be any cross examination because a 1st year law student could destroy the Democrats "testimony".  

In general, the focus of the investigation does not get to mount a defense.

The focus of the "investigation" (if you want to call it that), has shifted from HOW IT HAPPENED to the normal "but Trruuummmmpppp" whine fest we've come to expect from the Democrats. 

It’s a big political show, staged right before an election.

That's exactly what it is.  All in the hopes to distract from the abysmal "leadership" from the Democrats.

Of course there won't be any cross examination because a 1st year law student could destroy the Democrats "testimony".  

Really?   Explain to me how one would destroy the testimony of the former AG Barr who told Trump, after investigating his claims of a rigged election, that there is no evidence of same and that Trump's allegations were bullshit.   

The fact is that there still is no evidence of a rigged election that would have affected any state, much less the outcome.   The fact is that Trump's allegations are in fact bullshit.

Explain how one would destroy the testimony of Georgia SoS Raffensperger ... and in particular the transcript of the phone conversation with Trump.

Explain how one would destroy the testimony of Speaker Bowers (AZ) who testified that Trump wanted him to deliver alternate electors.

What are you going to do to these connected Republicans who had direct interaction with Trump and are testifying to that interaction under oath at the risk of their careers?   

You made a grand claim, illustrate it.

If there was cross examination and you'd see all that.  But, instead, we have one sided stories. 

You all fail to realize, this is not a trial.  It's not even an investigation.  This is nothing more than the typical partisan TDS driven shit show we've all come to expect from the Democrats.  We've been watching it for almost 6 years now.

You all fail to realize, this is not a trial. 

Do you read anything people write?    How many times must one state that THIS IS NOT A TRIAL before it sinks in that we are absolutely 100% in agreement that this is not a trial and that it was never advertised as such.

If there was cross examination and you'd see all that.

This is not a court of law Jeremy.   Hello?  

This is also not a committee reporting its findings and merely asking the public to trust them.    They are delivering Republican witnesses under oath.

It is a very well-organized gathering of under-oath testimony by connected Republicans who, for the most part, are testifying of their first-hand interactions with Trump at a great risk to their careers.

This should not be compared to a trial but rather compared to the normal media sources where Americans get our information.   Looking at this as a source of information, these hearings are outstanding in comparison to normal media information.

Does the American public demand that all media sources engage in the full protocol of a courtroom before releasing information (news) to the public?

You deflected and failed to address my questions.  

yahoo

Trump's security detail was 'aligned' with him and 'personally cheering for Biden to fail,' says author of book on the Secret Service

In the hours after Cassidy Hutchinson delivered    bombshell testimony   to the Jan. 6 committee Tuesday, former President Trump and his allies rushed to attack the former White House staffer.

There was no rush to "attack" her testimony.  Nothing more than "I heard from a friend who heard from a friend" mumbling.  Just another "Bombshell" failure by the Democrats.  Nothing else.

Still no indictment.  What's it going to take for Democrats to indict?

Maybe wait until the sessions are over before expecting an indictment.   I doubt Garland would want to be seen as jumping the gun since these sessions have already started.    I would expect an indictment a few weeks after these sessions have ended.  

And if no indictments come we will all engage in our typical speculation.

Maybe wait until the sessions are over before expecting an indictment.   I doubt Garland would want to be seen as jumping the gun since these sessions have already started.    I would expect an indictment a few weeks after these sessions have ended.   And if no indictments come we will all engage in our typical speculation.

Promises made by a political body engaged in a political activity conducted by politicians doesn't bode well.  And, as your comment implies, these politicians aren't going to keep the promises they are making.  

Merrick Garland already has the authority to investigate and prosecute wrong doing.  That's what a politically independent Justice Dept. is supposed to provide.  So, the promise made by the House political body has been to politically influence a politically independent Justice Dept.

The House committee can subpoena Trump.  The committee has subpoenaed everyone else to obtain hearsay testimony that Garland cannot use to prosecute Trump.  Seems rather obvious the House committee has only created public expectations and will rely on Garland as a scapegoat.  The House committee is not going to do anything other than engage in politics.

Seems rather obvious the House committee has only created public expectations and will rely on Garland as a scapegoat. 

He is the AG, Nerm.   It is his job to bring the DoJ.

We have people complaining that this is not a trial (and it is NOT a trial and never was described as such) and now you are complaining that this committee should be a trial instead of relying upon the DoJ where the execution of jurisprudence is supposed to take place.

Bizarre.

The House committee can subpoena Trump. 

So you deem this to be a sign of foul play?