Well given the months leading up to it. DUH.............. I am sure they saw the writing on the wall. It wasn't like the country was silent during that time. A lot of people were pissed. Who wouldn't expect the shit to hit the fan in one form or another. Unfortunately the dumbasses went all super dumbass.
Trump was told directly that protesters at the Capitol had guns, knives and other weapons prior to him telling his mob at the Ellipse to march to the capitol.
Trump knew that there were attendees at the Ellipse event that were armed with guns and rather then send them away he told the secret service to turn off the magnetometers at the perimeter.
Ferromagnetic materials generally contain iron, nickel, or cobalt. The presence of these materials in a number of objects (vehicles, electronic devices, weapons, etc.) allows for magnetometers to be used to detect someone carrying a weapon, or someone carrying a ferromagnetic object entering into an MRI suite.
And they, for the most part at that site, were being confiscated. Or didn't you hear that part....................and one would hope that they DIDN'T turn them off as it is their job. What if one was there to shoot Trump? The shit would have hit the fan.
Trump was told directly that protesters at the Capitol had guns, knives and other weapons prior to him telling his mob at the Ellipse to march to the capitol.
Not only that but he wanted those with weapons to be allowed into the main area because he knew they weren't there with weapons to hurt him. All he wanted was to have a packed rally, didn't care if they were armed, as he intentionally incited the crowd to march on the Capital to stop the election certification.
Knowing the crowd was armed, he still waited hours and hours after the violence and attack had happened to tell the insurrectionists to "go home. We love you. You’re very special.".
Not defending anything. Just stating what was happening and trying to get folks to stop clutching pearls and get up from the fainting couch. And see 3.2.4
The day I need your advice, I'll ask you for it. mmmmmmmmmkay.
And I'm not defending anything. I'm pointing out that "he wanted" and "he told" without the confirmation that those things came to fruition is basically a losing proposition. Want in one hand and shit it the other JR. I am sure you know how that works after six years of "wanting" to get Trump
It is pathetic watching Trump defenders deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible. What drives people to such depths of disintegrity remains a sad curiosity.
Yes it is kind of sad...............................
Well you know what they say about curiosity and the cat. Perhaps you should not read any articles/comments with Trump in them or, perhaps, quit torturing yourself and ignore certain contributors. Just a thought. You know you're never going to change all (or probably any) minds to your way of thinking and looking at things. No one here is................if you haven't seen that over the years I feel sorry for you.
Defending Trump illustrates either an inability to acknowledge reality and/or dishonest blind support for a party. Either way, the credibility of the defender takes a hit.
There is no defense of Trump that corresponds with reality. I wish the good people of this country would acknowledge that and drive him from the public stage.
Unfortunately I think we are still a long way from that.
I said "You know you're never going to change all (or probably any) minds to your way of thinking and looking at things. No one here is................if you haven't seen that over the years."
It had EVERYTHING to do with it FFS. You don't know what I was thinking or saying and if he and you feel as though it was condescending, so be it. He pulls that shit all the time. Perhaps you don't read his posts with an open mind.
If he doesn't fucking realize it (that he ISN'T changing any minds) ..............why do you keep leaving that off.?
Where do you find me stating that I am changing minds? My point was that your, et. al., comments in defense of Trump harm your credibility:
TiG@3.2.27 ☞ It is pathetic watching Trump defenders deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible. What drives people to such depths of disintegrity remains a sad curiosity.
See? You have yet again resorted to bullshit (a strawman).
That sounds condescending and as said on MANY an occasion, opinions do vary. Perhaps in your world. But you see, what you just did there, as stated, is NOT going to change my mind and that you think it will and keep harping on it, is, in itself, condescending commentary JUST because I don't think as you do. Period. Again if you can't see THAT...........................
I don't know who told you that you are the arbiter of the way all should think but THAT, no matter how intelligent you are (and you are there has never been any doubt) not everyone sees things the way you do. It seems you can't deal with that fact. Why differing opinions bother you so much will be a mystery to me forever.
It is a buzzword that seems to be used whenever you are challenged.
Funny I wasn't the one first using that buzzword. And you really don't see that YOU lecturing me, of different opinions and views, is condescending? hahaha okay.
Do you see me complaining about Trump's policies? I could, of course, complain about specifics but in general I found his policies to largely be the GoP platform. So no surprise.
On the flip side, have I ever noted Biden failures? Afghanistan withdrawal and border security (as two clear-cut examples) never register with you?
My complaints about Trump dealt exclusively with his over-the-top pathological lying, abysmal character, irresponsible off-the-cuff rhetoric and the unconstitutional (and arguably criminal) acts he committed as PotUS. There is no partisan element. I do not care what party he was a member of; his actions are what matter. That means I would be as hard on Trump if he were a D or an R. The party is irrelevant.
Further, I have argued for years now that the GoP is shooting itself in the foot and that this is bad for the nation. That means, 'Just Jim', that I want the GoP to be an effective party (as I do for the Ds) to provide a partisan balance. The reason is because we have only two major parties. If one of them implodes we are stuck with single party rule. NEVER A GOOD THING. My preference is to have three or more viable parties. But in lieu of that dream, I want both parties to be largely equal in power. And to be even clearer, I would prefer both to be equally WEAK and ineffective.
See?
So I have been arguing for the GoP to dump Trump for its own good. Those who support Trump are, in my judgment, harming not only the GoP but the nation. Thus I find Trump support to be irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
On top of that, I can state that if the GoP puts forth a candidate who is not too extreme, is presidential, and cares about fiscal responsibility, border control and the environment that I would almost certainly (the details still matter so we must wait) vote for this person if the Ds put forth Biden or Harris.
My guess is that you cannot articulate a similar non-partisan reasoning process.
sadder still is watching those that swore to defend the constitution completely negate their past service to this country by the defense of trump's attempted insurrection with every keystroke.
It seems they are always finding ways to be offended, even if there is nothing there. They lose all credibility when they attempt to call someone out yet let their side get away with the same shit(including themselves).
Not to mention the 84 constitutional crisis, 65 bombshells, 43 smoking guns and 4 years of Russian collusion that amounted to nothing. Now they want to believe they have enough credibility to take Americans down another rabbit hole.
As if they hadn't let credibility expire a few years back attempting to justify the guy responsible for 'stop the steal' LIE.
As if Democrats have any credibility regarding Trump after 2 impeachments, years of accusations and innuendo, name-calling, and an utter failure to deliver what they demand and they control.
Defending Trump for his Big Lie behavior, with all that is known at this point, is an act of partisan futility. Anyone who tries to defend Trump against his attempts to steal the election through coercion, suborning unconstitutional acts, lying (profoundly) to the American people about a rigged election, urging his supporters to 'fight' after telling them their votes have been disenfranchised and that Biden is illegitimate, etc. loses credibility.
And with the current evidence that Trump knew that his supporters were armed and insisted that the metal detection devices be removed so that armed supporters could add to the size of his crowd, followed by Trump making his march on the Capitol speech to that armed crowd, and then allow the breaking and entering of the Capitol to occur while refusing to act for three hours even when many of his family and staff (and others) pleaded with him to do so, this evidence now goes to sedition and possibly treason.
There is no defending Trump for the above. Anyone who attempts has no ground to stand on and thus makes ridiculous, feeble arguments that are obviously nonsense at face value.
The loss of credibility is not opinion, it is pretty damn obvious fact.
"Two Secret Service agents are prepared to testify before Congress that then-President Trump did not lunge at a steering wheel or assault them in an attempt to go to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, a source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News.
The explosive new allegations were made on Tuesday by Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows."
If she gets contradicted by others, this will really backfire on the committee and totally destroy it's credibility.
It's laughable that they even think they had credibility in the first place.
Another report I saw stated "an unnamed Agent" referring to the SUV Driver. I wonder how long before that Agent is Doxed and the threats from the left begin.
"And with the current evidence that Trump knew that his supporters were armed and insisted that the metal detection devices be removed so that armed supporters could add to the size of his crowd, followed by Trump making his march on the Capitol speech to that armed crowd, and then allow the breaking and entering of the Capitol to occur while refusing to act for three hours even when many of his family and staff (and others) pleaded with him to do so, this evidence now goes to sedition and possibly treason."
THIS SAYS IT ALL AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED
All else is nonsense from the 'right' especially this SS agent claim deflection being thrown at the wall.
Again, your damn obvious OPINION which is NOT damn obvious fact to everyone. You are NOT the artbiter of right and wrong in the universe. You and your high horse need to get off my damned porch.
Depends on who the GOP nominates. And I don't give a damn about your view of Tulsi Gabbard or ANYONE for that mater. You seem to have a propensity for wrong choices.
And if Biden or Harris is the nominee and I don't like the choice the GOP puts forth, I would definitely go GOP candidate............and hold my nose..... like you all seemingly did when you voted Biden
we are concerned for people who will say they "had to" vote for Trump again.
And what is your concern about them? It will be their choice even if you don't like it and you can have no impact on the decision. Rather than complain about them maybe you could nominate a better alternative. The last couple elections has been the lesser of two evils, how about trying something different?
So your 'BOMBSHELL' is from an anonymous 'source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News'.
Well that sure refutes under oath testimony, corroborated by documents and photos. /s
Man, that's some weak shit Vic.
The fact is, IF Hutchinson's testimony about Trump's actions in the car are false, it's because Ornato lied to her, and Engel didn't correct him. In short, if it's false the lie is on Ornato and Engle, NOT Hutchinson.
In short, if it's false the lie is on Ornato and Engle, NOT Hutchinson.
Bullshit. If that is the case, she promoted false/mis/dis information. You know. That thing that lib/liv/dem/progs said was all over the place about the 2020 election.
Well that sure refutes under oath testimony, corroborated by documents and photos
So there are photos and documents of what went on in the limo? ..........Show 'em if ya got 'em.
So your 'BOMBSHELL' is from an anonymous 'source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News'.
They are willing to testify under oath!
Man, that's some weak shit Vic.
Not as weak as your own.
The fact is, IF Hutchinson's testimony about Trump's actions in the car are false, it's because Ornato lied to her, and Engel didn't correct him. In short, if it's false the lie is on Ornato and Engle, NOT Hutchinson.
So, we are hiding behind "it's what she heard?" Haven't we been through all this before?
So your 'BOMBSHELL' is from an anonymous 'source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News'.
I thought the Democrats and the left were all good with anonymous sources. How many "bombshells" / "Smoking Guns" / "Final Nail In The Coffin" have the Democrats and the left that were anonymous? Off the top of my head, there were quite a few.
Couple this with this person willing to testify under oath, your complaints are all for nothing.
By their logic anyone that votes for a president whose main focus seems to be running the United States into the ground supports a traitor therefore they are also traitors.
You did not articulate a similar non-partisan reasoning process. You merely claimed you would vote for a specific conservative D. While I applaud your ability to think beyond party lines (at least technically) for at least one candidate, your response was nothing close to articulated reasoning.
By their logic anyone that votes for a president whose main focus seems to be running the United States into the ground supports a traitor therefore they are also traitors.
If a PotUS has clearly shown that s/he is determined to 'run the USA into the ground' then it would irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic to vote that PotUS back into office.
All these days of testimony by Rs and you think that because some agents allegedly will refute testimony which was admittedly stated as 'this is what I was told' rather than 'this is what I observed' discredits the witness and thus the entire committee?
If this is indeed your basis for 'discrediting' then you get a mere whiff of potentially faulty information and you leap to the extreme.
Lol, no TiG I don't really need to go over the obvious.
All these days of testimony by Rs and you think that because some agents allegedly will refute testimony which was admittedly stated as 'this is what I was told' rather than 'this is what I observed' discredits the witness and thus the entire committee?
Don't you understand, TiG, one of the people she heard say something is also ready to contradict her testimony. That excuse won't hold if that happens.
If this is indeed your basis for 'discrediting' then you get a mere whiff of potentially faulty information and you leap to the extreme.
I thought the Democrats and the left were all good with anonymous sources.
You've been wrong before.
How many "bombshells" / "Smoking Guns" / "Final Nail In The Coffin" have theDemocrats and the left that were anonymous? Off the top of my head, there were quite a few.
I'm not the one that labeled it a BOMBSHELL Jeremy, Vic did.
Couple this with this person willing to testify under oath, your complaints are all for nothing.
i wouldn't trust Ornatos' testimony, as wasn't he the one attempting to have Pence wisked away from the Capitol, but Pence did his Patriotic Duty, and refused ?
Don't know, but how would you like to have her as an aide?
Well since she kept Meadows from making a HUGE mistake by convincing him not to go to the Willard, I'd say she gave him great advice. Meadows was lucky to have her.
Oh and BTFW, Scalise and Cruz must have had a lot of respect for her since she ended up on the WH staff. She was also the liaison between the WH/Chief of Staff and the Secret Service. So, it looks like she was well trusted on many levels. All the evidence shows that she EARNED that trust.
I find it telling that you seem to question her 'loyalty' merely because she was forthcoming and truthful to the Committee. The fact is, she didn't owe any PERSON her loyalty, she owes loyalty to the country and the Constitution Vic.
I find it telling that you seem to question her 'loyalty' merely because she was forthcoming and truthful to the Committee.
I doubt many right wing conservatives give two shits about loyalty to the constitution and our country, they demand loyalty to their party and to their dear Leader Cheeto Benito.
Cassidy Hutchinson, in testimony before the House panel, said that on Jan. 6 then-President Donald Trump said armed rallygoers were "not there to hurt him" and that he wanted the metal detectors taken away. http:// apne.ws/BDa6Zzg
In humans the two clavicles, on either side of the anterior base of the neck, are horizontal, S-curved rods that articulate laterally with the outer end of the shoulder blade (the acromion) to help form the shoulder joint.
Whatever Hillary threw at Bill was high, inside and righteous. Unless Barr was getting it on under the table with Melania your squirrel is undercooked.
Nonsense, there is no reason to nail him this time around as he did the job by himself and you are happy about the Stations of the Cross being cleared for the Floridian Fool to follow. I fully expect you to be praising Liz Cheney come 2024 for paving the way.
Any number of things including interviews with historians and riding paliminoes across the Wyoming hills and dales. History is going to treat her most kindly.
Two Secret Service agents are prepared to testify before Congress that then-President Trump did not lunge at a steering wheel or assault them in an attempt to go to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, a source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News.
The explosive new allegations were made on Tuesday by Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
She clearly said she did not witness it but was told by someone else. I don't see a lot of attacks on her direct testimony or other republicans that testified.
Too bad there aren't any Republicans on the "committee" to cross examine.....................................Like Jordan and Banks. And there is, as we are seeing, one hell of a reason for that.
And don't even try the "yeah but Cheney and Kinzinger".............bullcrap
And the remaining members are leftists and rino's who hate Trump. What's your point? Seems heavily weighted on one side.......... no doesn't seem, IT IS
Then the fair thing to do was get the somebody else and question him first.
Why are you assuming that didn't already happen Vic?
Clearly fairness and legality doesn't interest many of you. You are much too used to NT.
That's interesting since you stated that Barr's statements changed your mind about the election fraud allegations. You didn't wait for 'fairness and legality' before you walked back your more than yearlong crusade to support the Big Lie. Guess YOU are much too used to NT also.
Why are you assuming that didn't already happen Vic?
I also assumed that O J killed his wife.
You didn't wait for 'fairness and legality' before you walked back your more than yearlong crusade to support the Big Lie
That may be the big lie. I never said the 2020 election was stolen. If you recall, (if you are honest) someone here used to ask that question. Every time he asked me if I thought the 2020 election was fair, I would say "I don't know." That was my position back then, Dulay.
And there is, as we are seeing, one hell of a reason for that.
There is MORE than ONE reason for Jim Jordan not to be seated on the Committee. ONE of them is that he is a material witness. ANOTHER is that he participated in the planning of the 'war room'.
Do you think that you 'teach' anyone ANYTHING by posting snarky non-responsive replies Vic?
That may be the big lie. I never said the 2020 election was stolen.
Yet you participated wholeheartedly in spreading the Big LIe. The number of 'But whatabout' seeds and comments you posted here proves that fact. If you didn't believe any of it, you were intentionally gaslighting members.
If you recall, (if you are honest) someone here used to ask that question.
Unless you have documented evidence that I am NOT honest, STOP implying that I am NOT honest Vic.
Every time he asked me if I thought the 2020 election was fair, I would say "I don't know." That was my position back then, Dulay.
You're deflecting Vic. Your comment and article history illustrate that you supported the Big Lie at every turn.
Yet suddenly, based purely on Barr's deposition testimony, you stated that it "shows once and for all that the Trump claims were investigated and that they were "bull shit" claims, finally puts it all to rest." Of course, them being 'put to rest' didn't stop you from repeating that debunked bullshit in that very same comment. That was way back ONE WEEK ago.
You wouldn't explain WHY you didn't believe Barr when he said that in Dec. 2020. Nor do you seem to want to admit that you disseminated the very allegations that Barr called bullshit throughout 2021.
Trump seemed to recognize in Dec. 2020 that Barr's interview was the real 'BOMBSHELL'.
The leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have already been charged with conspiring to mount Trump's nsurrection.
I expect ancillary legal charges against John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows will be forthcoming within weeks. They are already charged with contempt of Congress.
The leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have already been charged with conspiring to mount Trump's nsurrection.
Great.
I think everyone here (except perhaps you) would agree that Jack was asking about charges against Trump.
So, what you got on that front?
I expect ancillary legal charges against John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows will be forthcoming within weeks. They are already charged with contempt of Congress.
What you expect and what may happen may be two far different things. We will see.
Contempt of Congress may be enforced, may not. Ask Eric Holder if it really matters if no one enforces anything?
Americans have historically been reticent to criminally charge former Presidents for crimes committed while in office for both national security and reasons of precedent.
I definitely believe Trump should be charged with multiple crimes though he probably will not be. Everyone around him will be though.
Hunt, Liddy, Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman and John Dean all did time for Nixon's crimes!
Americans have historically been reticent to criminally charge former Presidents for crimes committed while in office for both national security and reasons of precedent.
But, this is so special a set of circumstances, how could Trump not be prosecuted? Wouldn't that be a monumental dereliction of duty?
The leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have already been charged with conspiring to mount Trump's nsurrection.I expect ancillary legal charges against John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows will be forthcoming within weeks. They are already charged with contempt of Congress.
I'm not talking about henchmen. Are we going to see charges on the fat man himself?
Define "soon". It's a fair point that we've been hearing for a very long time about how Trump is headed to prison, and we have no progress to show.
Obstruction of Justice, Witness Tampering, Conspiracy To Defraud The US Constitution, Incitement To Riot, Assaulting a Federal Agent, Dereliction Of Office, Constitutional Mischief, Littering, Bad Hair and Pulling The Tags Off Of Pillows and Mattresses...
Obstruction of Justice, Witness Tampering, Conspiracy To Defraud The US Constitution, Incitement To Riot, Assaulting a Federal Agent,
Actual crimes. Outstanding. Why have none of these charges been filed? When do we expect that to happen? If the answer is "soon", define "soon".
Dereliction Of Office, Constitutional Mischief, Littering, Bad Hair and Pulling The Tags Off Of Pillows and Mattresses...
It's a clever joke, but part of the issue we're dealing with here is the almost non-stop accusations and investigations of Trump that have produced zero consequences. We very much have a "House Speaker who cried wolf" situation, where the accuser's credibility is absolutely in question.
All of those accusations occurred while Trump was in power and in charge of the Justice Dept. It's been repeated ad nauseum that Trump could NOT be prosecuted while in power.
So, Trump has ONLY been a civilian since Jan. 2021 and the DOJ has been pretty fucking busy investigating, arresting and prosecuting over a thousand insurrectionists. In FACT, the largest DOJ investigation ever.
Oh and let's not forget that between the election and Jan. 6, Trump and all of his minions KEPT committing crimes. Hell, co-conspirators were defending Trump during Jan. 6th AND his second impeachment.
Now the J6 Committee has stated that there is evidence of witness tampering. Will they EVER stop committing crimes long enough for justice to catch up?
Watching these hearings, I grow increasingly convinced that charges will be filed.
What is your opinion? Assuming you have watched and heard the evidence thus far, would you agree if charges were filed or would you find charges groundless?
To be specific, would you support charging Trump with knowingly encouraging and refusing (as PotUS and as the key leader figure involved) to stop the insurrection? Assuming of course that this is expressed as a bona fide legal charge and that it is a crime or unconstitutional act for Trump to have acted in this way.
Today's testimony was powerful. Unless, of course, one dismisses the witness as not credible.
Watching these hearings, I grow increasingly convinced that charges will be filed.
I don't share your confidence. I hope I'm wrong.
What is your opinion? Assuming you have watched and heard the evidence thus far, would you agree if charges were filed or would you find charges groundless?
My opinion is that this venue is for political theater, what we're seeing is 100% political theater, and if there was serious evidence of criminal wrongdoing this would all be in the actual court system.
"Suprise witness"? "Bombshell testimony"? C'mon. Just stop. They've been investigating this thing for 18 months. They know exactly what everybody is going to say. If by some miracle they didn't know about this girl until yesterday...what hope do we possibly have that these morons will be able to organize a prosecution?
Today was all about using drama to try to boost the TV ratings.
To be specific, would you support charging Trump with knowingly encouraging and refusing (as PotUS and as the key leader figure involved) to stop the insurrection? Assuming of course that this is expressed as a bona fide legal charge and that it is a crime or unconstitutional act for Trump to have acted in this way.
"Bona fide legal charge...." That's really the rub, isn't it? Even when you read the testimony from today, and assuming you accept it as fact...who broke what law?
If it's an "unconstitutional act", what consequences follow?
So to answer your question... IF he's broken a law, hell yes, charge his fat ass. Right now. With due haste and extreme prejudice.
And I think if he had broken a law, they would have already charged him. So I doubt they're going to. Again, I hope I'm wrong.
Today's testimony was powerful. Unless, of course, one dismisses the witness as not credible.
Define "powerful". Are we talking "powerful" as in "now we have proof of illegal activity" or are we talking about "powerful" in the emotional sense?
Assuming every person she names corroborates her story, where does that put us with regard to criminal charges? I just don't see us getting there.
like everyone who stretches reality to defend Trump or minimize his crimes, you are making a fool out of yourself
In fact, it is impossible to minimize or defend the man against crimes when nobody will actually identify them.
Name his crimes, John. What laws has he broken?
As we've been discussing among the sane people here, they haven't actually charged him with any crimes. Nobody seems to be able to indicate what crime(s) have actually been committed.
My opinion is that this venue is for political theater, what we're seeing is 100% political theater, and if there was serious evidence of criminal wrongdoing this would all be in the actual court system.
Forget about 'political theater' and just focus objectively on the evidence.
IF he's broken a law, hell yes, charge his fat ass. Right now. With due haste and extreme prejudice.
Do you also hold, given all we now know and assuming it is true, that Trump has done wrong even if this is (somehow) not a crime?
And I think if he had broken a law, they would have already charged him. So I doubt they're going to. Again, I hope I'm wrong.
Trump, per the evidence, knew that his supporters were armed. He wanted a bigger crowd so he demanded that they be allowed to enter with their guns. He then gave his speech knowing full well that many in the greater audience were armed. And then when the insurrection ensued, Trump refused myriad pleas from advisors, etc. to step in and stop it. He let the insurrection fester for hours before finally stepping in and even then essentially told the insurrectionists that their cause was just.
If this is fair and correct depiction of what happened, it seems to me that it would be a travesty of the highest order to bypass justice and let a PotUS get away with such irresponsible and arguably treasonous behavior.
Finally, the fact that he has not been charged (yet) is not evidence that he is not guilty or that the charges would be weak. Too much speculation.
Define "powerful".
In terms of the facts. It was 'what did Trump know and what did he do given that knowledge?' evidence. How is it possible for a PotUS to know that his supporters are armed and then encourage them to march on the Capitol, allow an armed, violent insurrection to ensue with clear threats on the life of his own VP and refuse (in spite of pleas) to take any action to stop it and in all of this be both lawful and unconstitutional? I am not an attorney but I find that to be unlikely. If he is not brought to justice I will be both surprised and greatly disappointed.
If Trump did indeed do what I have described here, I find this to be treason. What harm comes to our nation by allowing a PotUS to engage in this behavior and not be held accountable? The precedent alone is damaging.
If Trump did indeed do what I have described here, I find this to be treason. What harm comes to our nation by allowing a PotUS to engage in this behavior and not be held accountable? The precedent alone is damaging.
Yes, there is the opinion that it would be "divisive" to charge Trump with crimes. Over half the public believes he committed crimes, and it would be divisive to not charge him.
We should do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. I'm tired of all this coddling of MAGA crazies.
the idea that Trump is irrelevant unless they can prove he committed felonies is nothing short of extremely bizarre.
Who said anything about felonies? They can't even manage a jaywalking charge.... which... given how crooked everybody knows Trump is... has just got to be unbelievably embarrassing.
As we've discussed....and I know it just breaks your heart.... Trump grows more irrelevant with every passing day. This is a huge problem for the Democrats, who desperately need a supervillain to run against this fall, [deleted]
Trump grows more irrelevant with every passing day.
When I see people NOT defend him and see candidates NOT seek his endorsement (as a rule, not as exception) and see the GoP follow a different defacto leader then the waning relevance will be significant. Waning or not, Trump continues to have far too much influence over the GoP.
Forget about 'political theater' and just focus objectively on the evidence.
The theater is part of the evidence.
Do you also hold, given all we now know and assuming it is true, that Trump has done wrong even if this is (somehow) not a crime?
Certainly. For decades.
Trump, per the evidence, knew that his supporters were armed. He wanted a bigger crowd so he demanded that they be allowed to enter with their guns. He then gave his speech knowing full well that many in the greater audience were armed.
Side note.... My skepticism is having great difficulty with the idea that this allegedly heavily armed, demonstrably violent band of rioters supposedly attempted an insurrection... and nobody fired a shot. That just seems wildly implausible, especially given the frenzy of the day and the kind of firearms these people were likely to have owned. But that's not material to this particular point.
And then when the insurrection ensued, Trump refused myriad pleas from advisors, etc. to step in and stop it. He let the insurrection fester for hours before finally stepping in and even then essentially told the insurrectionists that their cause was just.If this is fair and correct depiction of what happened, it seems to me that it would be a travesty of the highest order to bypass justice and let a PotUS get away with such irresponsible and arguably treasonous behavior.
OK. So. Treason. Somebody has finally put something up the flagpole. Thank you, BTW. Now we have something real to talk about.
Finally, the fact that he has not been charged (yet) is not evidence that he is not guilty or that the charges would be weak. Too much speculation.
Then why have no charges been introduced? What do you believe is the delay?
Not to me. I do not consider videos of depositions, videos of Trump speaking or sworn testimony by Rs to be theater. Especially given almost all of these were devoid of emotion.
My skepticism is having great difficulty with the idea that this allegedly heavily armed, demonstrably violent band of rioters supposedly attempted an insurrection... and nobody fired a shot.
To me the labeling of insurrection is irrelevant. They were an angry mob that broke into and entered the Capitol with the intent to do harm. The behavior and the level of intent that can be evidenced matters; the label does not.
Somebody has finally put something up the flagpole. Thank you, BTW. Now we have something real to talk about.
Note that I am speaking as a non-attorney using English semantics. To me, given this:
Treason ≡ The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
I see Trump betraying the country by his actions. The easy call for treason is when someone engages in disclosing secrets to enemy nations or attempting an armed coup to overthrow the government. That is not the case here. The treason here, if any, would be for the leader of the nation to work up his followers based on a demonstrable lie that the government has engaged in a fraudulent election and that they have been disenfranchised. On top of this we have Trump directly attempting to coerce officials to break the law, their oaths and the constitution and suborning his own VP to engage in an unconstitutional act. Then, as shown in today's hearing, we have the acting PotUS with full knowledge that many of his supporters were armed and angry, asking for the screening machines to be withdrawn so that they can join his audience and make it look bigger on camera. And, with that same knowledge, give his march on the Capitol speech. Then, with that same knowledge of an armed mob and with knowledge that they were overpowering Capitol police and breaking and entering the Capitol and threatening to hang Pence, refuse the myriad pleas of various people to step in and do something. After three hours, Trump finally stepped in and even then suggested that the rioter's cause was just.
How acting against the government of this nation in that manner cannot be a form of treason is beyond me. I would hope one of our resident attorneys might help us out here with a legal opinion.
Then why have no charges been introduced? What do you believe is the delay?
I have only speculation, Jack. My guess is that the committee decided they needed to get strong public support (by making the public aware of these details presented by R witnesses) to encourage the legal machine to take action against a former PotUS.
Not to me. I do not consider videos of depositions, videos of Trump speaking or sworn testimony by Rs to be theater. Especially given almost all of these were devoid of emotion.
Well... where things happen matters. We don't play basketball on a soccer field. We don't go swimming in a sandbox, and we don't prosecute criminals in congressional hearings. I'm not sure that if they are able to ever find something to charge him with that they won't have ruined their chances of conviction with the current theater.
They were an angry mob that broke into and entered the Capitol with the intent to do harm. The behavior and the level of intent that can be evidenced matters; the label does not.
Fair enough. I was more commenting on the supposed presence of so many guns in such a violent environment and the absence of actual shots fired. Just seems unlikely.
Note that I am speaking as a non-attorney using English semantics.
Understood. No worries.
I see Trump betraying the country by his actions.
That's certainly an interesting idea. I don't know that it would work in an actual court, but I don't know that it wouldn't, either.
I have only speculation, Jack. My guess is that the committee decided they needed to get strong public support (by making the public aware of these details presented by R witnesses) to encourage the legal machine to take action against a former PotUS.
We're all limited to speculation, so again, no worries.
I do have a concern with the idea that public support could or should be able to sway that legal machine. That seems to me to migrate from the rule of law to the rule of public opinion...or mob opinion.
I'm not sure that if they are able to ever find something to charge him with that they won't have ruined their chances of conviction with the current theater.
I did not suggest nor even imply charges can be made from this hearing. I stated that this hearing is providing hard evidence. This evidence however can be taken into a legal venue.
I do have a concern with the idea that public support could or should be able to sway that legal machine.
I think that is the reality of the 'legal machine' and not limited to the highest level. How much does a DA office consider public opinion when deciding which cases to prosecute and how? My answer: politics / optics is very much a consideration.
If the public is supportive of Trump I can easily see this disappearing. If the public is in a 'WTF?' mode regarding what Trump actually did or, even better, outraged, I certainly can see that influencing the legal choice to bring charges.
I did not suggest nor even imply charges can be made from this hearing. I stated that this hearing is providing hard evidence. This evidence however can be taken into a legal venue.
Why would they not start in a legal venue?
I think that is the reality of the 'legal machine' and not limited to the highest level.
You're probably right. Still, I think it's something we should try to avoid.
I suspect, as I have noted, that this was done to get the public more involved and more supportive of legal actions.
I think that's where we're going to disagree.
I think that's a nice answer if we're trying very, very, very hard to avoid the idea that this is all political theater for Democrats, who are desperate about November and have an established history of using investigations and public hearings as attempts to undermine Donald Trump. They even rolled out a mentally ill lady to accuse a Trump SCOTUS nominee on national television, so they're obviously willing to do pretty much anything.
So... Occam's Razor being what it is, I think this is 100% about the election and trying to rally the base to come out and vote against Darth Trump, even though he's not actually on the ballot.
I am not ignoring the political motivation. I have stated that this clearly is at least partly politically motivated.
What I am doing is recognizing the nature of the evidence presented. I cannot explain how it is possible for this evidence to not result in legal proceedings except for what I offered.
That is, I cannot see why all this evidence would not be offered to the justice department for criminal / constitutional investigation. And I cannot see why the justice department would not act on the evidence that has been presented.
It is quite obvious as TiG stated, this was to educate the ignorant masses. This committee, which would have been fully bipartisan, if some of the members McCarthy put forth weren't part of the investigation. Believe it was established to bring forth ALL of the facts to enlighten ALL of the people, especially those ignorant to so much via the Fox "news" bubble and the far 'Right" media/. Unfortunate as it is, the people of this country NEEDED to be educated of all of the facts surrounding Trumps latest and by far his most greatest, HIT on US. If TRUE, and i believe it is, Trump sent enflamed enraged ARMED protestors to "save" their country by attempting to stop HIS LIE of an election steal Trump PROMOTED for Months, and had singled out Vice President Pence as the main guy who he needed to go along with his biggest LIE, and i also believe Pence did come pretty close to being "hung" out to dry, and DIE, by words and silence issued by a former potUS who would put his inability to admit he was a LOSER, above what so many fought and died for to create, this Nation built upon the Pursuit of Freedom and the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and they had spoken, and Biden had WON. thus the expected peaceful transition of power, that which WAS DENIED. FUCK TRUMP It is quite unfortunate that so many elected Republican Representatives and Sentators allowed him to remain in office after the first impeachment. Gutless Pussy's that sold out America in pursuit of power and their pathetic party, and i believe thye GOP should ( Figurative)D I E a not some slow Death, for they have been slowly killing US All with electing the stupidest and strangest, that Trump described as the "Best and Brightest" as he wanted his top Besty to DIE for not following his orders to LIE, and all you can spew is what did he do that he should be charged with. Don't you think he;s done enough already.....
Another thought is basic political calculation. As much as I hate to see it, there is no denying that our system of justice is influenced by politics. Will the AG make a political calculation to try or not try Trump based on the fallout?
Trying Trump and ultimately convicting a former PotUS of a crime is a big deal and I would expect it to raise all sorts of concerns to those who would be responsible for executing this process.
The Ds might not want to see Trump tried due to potential political fallout. This could easily cause pressure to not prosecute Trump. Thus justice would fail (yet again) as a result of politics.
So that might be what is going on behind the scenes. Another possibility, of course, is that the justice department has been processing this evidence and simply has not yet completed its process to the point where it will commit to an action.
It is quite obvious as TiG stated, this was to educate the ignorant masses.
To what end?
especially those ignorant to so much via the Fox "news" bubble
*sigh* I'm not sure you could be more predictable. BTW, far less than 1% of Americans watch Fox News. You're going to need to find a new villain.
Unfortunate as it is, the people of this country NEEDED to be educated of all of the facts surrounding Trumps latest and by far his most greatest, HIT on US.
To what end?
If TRUE, and i believe it is, Trump sent enflamed enraged ARMED protestors
Who didn't actually shoot anybody. And you don't find that strange? No, of course you don't. That would require questioning the approved party line.
thus the expected peaceful transition of power, that which WAS DENIED.
I think you'll find it wasn't. I think you'll find that Joe Biden is actually the President of the United States.
FUCK TRUMP
Well we agree on something, at least.
It is quite unfortunate that so many elected Republican Representatives and Sentators allowed him to remain in office after the first impeachment.
In the universe of "unfortunate" related to Donald Trump, that's not even in the top 10.
Don't you think he;s done enough already.....
This isn't about him. It's about US.
Understand clearly.... Trump being a complete bastard and totally detached from reality does NOT make it OK for anybody else to follow suit. This is not some sort of metaphysical teeter-totter where you must match his level of irrational crazy bullshit to even out the universe.
We are a nation of laws, not "feelings". If the man did something illegal, then let's stop fucking around and lock his fat ass up. Otherwise, this is just another bullshit exercise where triggered liberals sit around and talk about how terrible Trump is like a bunch of 6 year olds tattling to a teacher.
Trying Trump and ultimately convicting a former PotUS of a crime is a big deal and I would expect it to raise all sorts of concerns to those who would be responsible for executing this process.
That's a valid point.
The Ds might not want to see Trump tried due to potential political fallout.
I think the political fallout they most fear is the loss of the single thing that has driven most of their votes for the last 2 elections. Once Trump is in jail the supervillain is gone, and they're left to face the music on a terrible economy and several loud, militant leftists that that drive away centrists at every opportunity.
So they're hoping that if they can string this out long enough, they can make it feel like Trump is still a massive threat and scare some folks into voting for a Democrat or two.
Another possibility, of course, is that the justice department has been processing this evidence and simply has not yet completed its process to the point where it will commit to an action.
That's certainly a possibility. Which still leaves the question...why the televised theater, complete with dramatic "surprise witness" and "shocking new testimony"?
So they're hoping that if they can string this out long enough, they can make it feel like Trump is still a massive threat and scare some folks into voting for a Democrat or two.
That would be a dumb strategy but that does not mean that a political party would not 'think' this way.
... why the televised theater, complete with dramatic "surprise witness" and "shocking new testimony"?
Because the committee is trying to get a large audience. It is marketing. That does not surprise me at all. Given this has a partisan objective too I fully expect them to be coordinating this for campaign ads.
But none of that matters to me. What matters to me is the evidence that has been presented.
We are a nation of laws, not "feelings". If the man did something illegal, then let's stop fucking around and lock his fat ass up. Otherwise, this is just another bullshit exercise where triggered liberals sit around and talk about how terrible Trump is like a bunch of 6 year olds tattling to a teacher.
No, we are also a Snoweflake Nation of drops on the floor, cause "our collective 'feelings' seem to be capable of melting to override evidence and on the record, under oath, TESTIMONEY, cause there is not an equal from those who run and hide, after being subpoena handed, back handed does it not seem, how these Scumbags think they deserve some sort of special protection, because they were the main characters in an attempted insurrection that is the biggest threat this country has possibly seen in a century or so, or so what, or , i guess this wouldn't rate that high to one who would imply he must be charged to reach achievement, cause we both know, and are smarter than that, yety, you seem reluctant to show the entire picture and it is simple, Jack, hey, wasn't he a character....Jack ? Just a simple ? Jack
Another possibility, of course, is that the justice department has been processing this evidence and simply has not yet completed its process to the point where it will commit to an action.
As the J6 Committee Chairman said at the beginning of the hearing, they are only releasing the parts of the depositions used during the hearings. To 'complete the process' the DOJ will need every one of the depositions, in their entirety, before they can prosecute. If deposition testimony, in the hands of the government, contains exculpatory evidence for any defendant, the DOJ has a legal duty to release it to the defense. This is one of the major reasons that the DOJ has asked for the depositions and any underlying documents to be released to them.
It should be obvious that the sitting president is the winner, Joe Biden.
That is who I've been talking about. Sitting. President.
It's also obvious that Donald Trump is the loser and he is now just a whiney ass private citizen.
Well....kinda. He's an ex-president with Secret Service protection, just like Obama or W. So he's definitely not a "private citizen" in the same way we are. If he's ever kidnapped by terrorists we'll send Green Berets or Seals or whoever after him. If one of us is ever kidnapped, they'll send condolence letters to our families.
But that's beside the point.
You still haven't managed to describe what you hope will be the result of these hearings.
I believe that Ford did for the country, not Nixon. He paid the price and it probably cost his the 76 election. Leadership involves self-sacrifice and taking Trump to trial and convicting him will further tear this country apart.
Sometimes things need to be torn down, before being rebuilt. I wou;d start with the entire Republican Party. how these fckrs accepted, defended, and dismissed any and all that Trump has done, should be there undoing, till it is not undone. There needs to be a CLEAR sign to these hypocritical heathens, that actions HAVE CONSEQUENCES and there IS NEVER a reason to allow a party, to put itself ABOVE OUR COUNTRY !
I have been against Trump since 2015, long before he became president. I also predicted in 2015 that, long term ,Trump supporters would prove to be a bigger problem for the nation than Trump himself. Now we see the truth of that.
this young lady gave smoking guns today
and we have MAGA coming out of the woodwork to defend him
Trump was the king birther in 2011. He was too stupid or dishonest to admit or realize that the state of Hawaii had, twice, definitively stated that Obamas birth certificate was in the state archives and had been inspected. Only a moron would have continued with it, and he did and did.
there's always room for compromise. for his part in the J6 insurrection, nullify any and all post presidential benefits he would ever receive, and then let him face the music in multiple courts of law on his remaining judicial problems.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Trump aid Cassidy Hutchison is the surprise witness...
I just tuned in!
Good!
Seven Years Late, no ?
57
Is that a Heinz reference? LoL
... the only way to salvage such a poor cut.
Seven Years Late, no ?
Yavol! Ya!
The witness testifies that both Giuliani and Meadows told her , beforehand, that Jan 6th would be "bad".
So much for a "spontaneous" protest.
Speaking of, Washington Sq last Friday...
What a "spontaneous protest" looks like!
Well given the months leading up to it. DUH.............. I am sure they saw the writing on the wall. It wasn't like the country was silent during that time. A lot of people were pissed. Who wouldn't expect the shit to hit the fan in one form or another. Unfortunately the dumbasses went all super dumbass.
How so???
Trump had strong reason to believe there would be violence at the capitol, but told his followers to march up there anyway.
Prior to Trump's ellipse speech, Meadows had been informed by White House security that people at the Capitol had guns, knives and other weapons.
A hour or two later Trump was telling his mob to march to the capitol.
Skipping right over Trump conspiring with the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers to stop the peace transfer of power to President Biden...
BOMBSHELL !
Trump was told directly that protesters at the Capitol had guns, knives and other weapons prior to him telling his mob at the Ellipse to march to the capitol.
Bullshit. Let's see some proof of the stated conspiracy............until then.............you don't have shit.
BOMBSHELL #2
Trump knew that there were attendees at the Ellipse event that were armed with guns and rather then send them away he told the secret service to turn off the magnetometers at the perimeter.
And they, for the most part at that site, were being confiscated. Or didn't you hear that part....................and one would hope that they DIDN'T turn them off as it is their job. What if one was there to shoot Trump? The shit would have hit the fan.
If you think this was responsible behavior on the part of President Trump you need your head examined.
Not only that but he wanted those with weapons to be allowed into the main area because he knew they weren't there with weapons to hurt him. All he wanted was to have a packed rally, didn't care if they were armed, as he intentionally incited the crowd to march on the Capital to stop the election certification.
Knowing the crowd was armed, he still waited hours and hours after the violence and attack had happened to tell the insurrectionists to "go home. We love you. You’re very special.".
“…for the most part at that site, were being confiscated.”
For the most part? At our Capitol? When our votes were scheduled to be ratified? Just wtf are you attempting to defend?
a few rungs lower mentally than special olympics special...
indeed
what a willfully ignorant comment.
fuck off
All some have.
classy
there is no need for me to be 'classy' at the moment
Didn't say that now did I.
I wasn't talking to you. Take your own advice.................
Not defending anything. Just stating what was happening and trying to get folks to stop clutching pearls and get up from the fainting couch. And see 3.2.4
[deleted]
How come?
The day I need your advice, I'll ask you for it. mmmmmmmmmkay.
And I'm not defending anything. I'm pointing out that "he wanted" and "he told" without the confirmation that those things came to fruition is basically a losing proposition. Want in one hand and shit it the other JR. I am sure you know how that works after six years of "wanting" to get Trump
fuck off
x2
It is pathetic watching Trump defenders deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible. What drives people to such depths of disintegrity remains a sad curiosity.
Yes it is kind of sad...............................
Well you know what they say about curiosity and the cat. Perhaps you should not read any articles/comments with Trump in them or, perhaps, quit torturing yourself and ignore certain contributors. Just a thought. You know you're never going to change all (or probably any) minds to your way of thinking and looking at things. No one here is................if you haven't seen that over the years I feel sorry for you.
Deflection.
Defending Trump illustrates either an inability to acknowledge reality and/or dishonest blind support for a party. Either way, the credibility of the defender takes a hit.
That was the most condescending comment ever to come from you
There is no defense of Trump that corresponds with reality. I wish the good people of this country would acknowledge that and drive him from the public stage.
Unfortunately I think we are still a long way from that.
America is currently a degraded country.
Its time to stop being nice to these people. It is hopeless.
[deleted]
How so? It wasn't meant to be. Please explain.
I've already used up one of my fuck offs today
"I feel sorry for you?"
TiG certainly doesn't need your pity...not when he can run rings around you in debate
Where do you comment from? What planet?
I said "You know you're never going to change all (or probably any) minds to your way of thinking and looking at things. No one here is................if you haven't seen that over the years."
[deleted]
Now, do you have proof of this conspiracy with the proud boys and path keepers?
and then you ended with...I feel sorry for you. Don't lie and don't weasel your way out. You're not cute enough to be a weasel
If he doesn't fucking realize it (that he ISN'T changing any minds) ..............why do you keep leaving that off.?
because that really had nothing to do with it. You got your opportunity to condescend the best mind here and you took it
It had EVERYTHING to do with it FFS. You don't know what I was thinking or saying and if he and you feel as though it was condescending, so be it. He pulls that shit all the time. Perhaps you don't read his posts with an open mind.
Where do you find me stating that I am changing minds? My point was that your, et. al., comments in defense of Trump harm your credibility:
See? You have yet again resorted to bullshit (a strawman).
Make fewer bullshit / stupid / partisan comments and you will not get 'shit' from me.
That sounds condescending and as said on MANY an occasion, opinions do vary. Perhaps in your world. But you see, what you just did there, as stated, is NOT going to change my mind and that you think it will and keep harping on it, is, in itself, condescending commentary JUST because I don't think as you do. Period. Again if you can't see THAT...........................
I don't know who told you that you are the arbiter of the way all should think but THAT, no matter how intelligent you are (and you are there has never been any doubt) not everyone sees things the way you do. It seems you can't deal with that fact. Why differing opinions bother you so much will be a mystery to me forever.
And there you go again. It isn't just me. And you know it. And partisan? WTF are yours? You seem to think it is the word of law and gospel.
Everything to you (et. al.) is 'condescending'. It is a buzzword that seems to be used whenever you are challenged.
Funny I wasn't the one first using that buzzword. And you really don't see that YOU lecturing me, of different opinions and views, is condescending? hahaha okay.
Do you see me complaining about Trump's policies? I could, of course, complain about specifics but in general I found his policies to largely be the GoP platform. So no surprise.
On the flip side, have I ever noted Biden failures? Afghanistan withdrawal and border security (as two clear-cut examples) never register with you?
My complaints about Trump dealt exclusively with his over-the-top pathological lying, abysmal character, irresponsible off-the-cuff rhetoric and the unconstitutional (and arguably criminal) acts he committed as PotUS. There is no partisan element. I do not care what party he was a member of; his actions are what matter. That means I would be as hard on Trump if he were a D or an R. The party is irrelevant.
Further, I have argued for years now that the GoP is shooting itself in the foot and that this is bad for the nation. That means, 'Just Jim', that I want the GoP to be an effective party (as I do for the Ds) to provide a partisan balance. The reason is because we have only two major parties. If one of them implodes we are stuck with single party rule. NEVER A GOOD THING. My preference is to have three or more viable parties. But in lieu of that dream, I want both parties to be largely equal in power. And to be even clearer, I would prefer both to be equally WEAK and ineffective.
See?
So I have been arguing for the GoP to dump Trump for its own good. Those who support Trump are, in my judgment, harming not only the GoP but the nation. Thus I find Trump support to be irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
On top of that, I can state that if the GoP puts forth a candidate who is not too extreme, is presidential, and cares about fiscal responsibility, border control and the environment that I would almost certainly (the details still matter so we must wait) vote for this person if the Ds put forth Biden or Harris.
My guess is that you cannot articulate a similar non-partisan reasoning process.
sadder still is watching those that swore to defend the constitution completely negate their past service to this country by the defense of trump's attempted insurrection with every keystroke.
It seems they are always finding ways to be offended, even if there is nothing there. They lose all credibility when they attempt to call someone out yet let their side get away with the same shit(including themselves).
[Deleted]
That was pretty funny. And it must be pretty insulting to all the liberals that believe they are the most intelligent person on the site.
In other words, believe as i do or your credibility is in question. I’ve seen that move many times and it’s bullshit.
A failure on your part to read. It is: defend Trump (especially now) and your credibility suffers.
Every damned day.
Your fucking opinion. What don’t you understand??? [deleted]
Exactly.
As if they hadn't let credibility expire a few years back attempting to justify the guy responsible for 'stop the steal' LIE.
[deleted]
Not to mention the 84 constitutional crisis, 65 bombshells, 43 smoking guns and 4 years of Russian collusion that amounted to nothing. Now they want to believe they have enough credibility to take Americans down another rabbit hole.
As if Democrats have any credibility regarding Trump after 2 impeachments, years of accusations and innuendo, name-calling, and an utter failure to deliver what they demand and they control.
This goes well beyond opinion.
Defending Trump for his Big Lie behavior, with all that is known at this point, is an act of partisan futility. Anyone who tries to defend Trump against his attempts to steal the election through coercion, suborning unconstitutional acts, lying (profoundly) to the American people about a rigged election, urging his supporters to 'fight' after telling them their votes have been disenfranchised and that Biden is illegitimate, etc. loses credibility.
And with the current evidence that Trump knew that his supporters were armed and insisted that the metal detection devices be removed so that armed supporters could add to the size of his crowd, followed by Trump making his march on the Capitol speech to that armed crowd, and then allow the breaking and entering of the Capitol to occur while refusing to act for three hours even when many of his family and staff (and others) pleaded with him to do so, this evidence now goes to sedition and possibly treason.
There is no defending Trump for the above. Anyone who attempts has no ground to stand on and thus makes ridiculous, feeble arguments that are obviously nonsense at face value.
The loss of credibility is not opinion, it is pretty damn obvious fact.
BOMBSHELL # 3
"Two Secret Service agents are prepared to testify before Congress that then-President Trump did not lunge at a steering wheel or assault them in an attempt to go to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, a source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News.
The explosive new allegations were made on Tuesday by Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows."
If she gets contradicted by others, this will really backfire on the committee and totally destroy it's credibility.
It's laughable that they even think they had credibility in the first place.
Another report I saw stated "an unnamed Agent" referring to the SUV Driver. I wonder how long before that Agent is Doxed and the threats from the left begin.
No one cares about that shit from Faux 'news'
Your usual deflection and denial.
"because that really had nothing to do with it. You got your opportunity to condescend the best mind here and you took it"
THIS SAYS IT ALL AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED
All else is nonsense from the 'right' especially this SS agent claim deflection being thrown at the wall.
Naw, it's a dud. Like all your other Faux 'news' deflections.
Again, your damn obvious OPINION which is NOT damn obvious fact to everyone. You are NOT the artbiter of right and wrong in the universe. You and your high horse need to get off my damned porch.
You guessed wrong........again. If they would come forth with Tulsi Gabbard, I would vote for her in a heartbeat.
Tulsi Gabbard is a crackpot who is a long time member of a religious cult.
And who will you vote for if Biden or Harris, instead of the loon Gabbard, is the nominee?
Depends on who the GOP nominates. And I don't give a damn about your view of Tulsi Gabbard or ANYONE for that mater. You seem to have a propensity for wrong choices.
And if Biden or Harris is the nominee and I don't like the choice the GOP puts forth, I would definitely go GOP candidate............and hold my nose..... like you all seemingly did when you voted Biden
Almost anyone
Bingo
We are not concerned with "almost anyone", we are concerned for people who will say they "had to" vote for Trump again.
Well said
And what is your concern about them? It will be their choice even if you don't like it and you can have no impact on the decision. Rather than complain about them maybe you could nominate a better alternative. The last couple elections has been the lesser of two evils, how about trying something different?
Or not
[Deleted]
Donald Trump is a traitor. That makes those who would vote for him, even because they "had to", traitors too.
That would be his choice, it doesn't need to make sense to you.
You planning on charging them all with treason or just calling them names so you feel better about who you are voting for?
Seems the 'right' only supports whackjobs and batshitcrazies
Tulsi Gabbard became a darling of the right shortly after she started spouting conspiracy theories.
Love at first sight.
That is some stupid shit right there.
So your 'BOMBSHELL' is from an anonymous 'source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News'.
Well that sure refutes under oath testimony, corroborated by documents and photos. /s
Man, that's some weak shit Vic.
The fact is, IF Hutchinson's testimony about Trump's actions in the car are false, it's because Ornato lied to her, and Engel didn't correct him. In short, if it's false the lie is on Ornato and Engle, NOT Hutchinson.
Bullshit. If that is the case, she promoted false/mis/dis information. You know. That thing that lib/liv/dem/progs said was all over the place about the 2020 election.
So there are photos and documents of what went on in the limo? ..........Show 'em if ya got 'em.
They are willing to testify under oath!
Man, that's some weak shit Vic.
Not as weak as your own.
The fact is, IF Hutchinson's testimony about Trump's actions in the car are false, it's because Ornato lied to her, and Engel didn't correct him. In short, if it's false the lie is on Ornato and Engle, NOT Hutchinson.
So, we are hiding behind "it's what she heard?" Haven't we been through all this before?
I thought the Democrats and the left were all good with anonymous sources. How many "bombshells" / "Smoking Guns" / "Final Nail In The Coffin" have the Democrats and the left that were anonymous? Off the top of my head, there were quite a few.
Couple this with this person willing to testify under oath, your complaints are all for nothing.
Is it your desire for the committee to be discredited?
It is damning testimony.
Losing credibility by defending Trump —especially now— is beyond obvious.
Your repeated inability to put forth a cogent argument and instead resort to emotional personal attacks punctuates my point.
By their logic anyone that votes for a president whose main focus seems to be running the United States into the ground supports a traitor therefore they are also traitors.
You did not articulate a similar non-partisan reasoning process. You merely claimed you would vote for a specific conservative D. While I applaud your ability to think beyond party lines (at least technically) for at least one candidate, your response was nothing close to articulated reasoning.
If a PotUS has clearly shown that s/he is determined to 'run the USA into the ground' then it would irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic to vote that PotUS back into office.
I hope they get the chance to do so.
So do I. I'm very doubtful
They would potentially testify if a legal proceeding follows these hearings.
Not really, but they seem to working at it with a passion.
In what way is the committee discrediting itself?
All these days of testimony by Rs and you think that because some agents allegedly will refute testimony which was admittedly stated as 'this is what I was told' rather than 'this is what I observed' discredits the witness and thus the entire committee?
If this is indeed your basis for 'discrediting' then you get a mere whiff of potentially faulty information and you leap to the extreme.
Lol, no TiG I don't really need to go over the obvious.
All these days of testimony by Rs and you think that because some agents allegedly will refute testimony which was admittedly stated as 'this is what I was told' rather than 'this is what I observed' discredits the witness and thus the entire committee?
Don't you understand, TiG, one of the people she heard say something is also ready to contradict her testimony. That excuse won't hold if that happens.
If this is indeed your basis for 'discrediting' then you get a mere whiff of potentially faulty information and you leap to the extreme.
I let others judge where "the extreme" lies.
You have nothing.
I stated the situation in very clear language. Read what I wrote rather than pretend I did not cover it.
Doncha know, they can make a declaration and stick with it. After a while they actually start to believe it...
I refuse to lie and say they employ logic.
She was asked a direct question and she answered it to the best of her ability. She 'promoted' NOTHING.
Blah, blah, blah.
Obtuse.
Link? Oh and PLEASE don't rinse and repeat that 'Fox source' weak shit.
My source testified under oath, yours leaked it anonymously to Fox. We obviously have different definitions of weak.
Who the fuck are this 'we' you speak of Vic.
I am citing the FACT that she was asked about what Ornato said.
No Vic. This is the very first time you and I have ever discussed this topic.
You've been wrong before.
I'm not the one that labeled it a BOMBSHELL Jeremy, Vic did.
Again, has Ornato stated as much? Link?
i wouldn't trust Ornatos' testimony, as wasn't he the one attempting to have Pence wisked away from the Capitol, but Pence did his Patriotic Duty, and refused ?
Pence didn't trust Ornato and he refused to "take a ride".
Was Cassidy Hutchison a RINO Never Trumper, too?
Don't know, but how would you like to have her as an aide?
you mean an american with patriotism and integrity?
remember when all the trumpsters were saying that none of the J6 "protesters" were armed? ha ha ha ha ha ha
I mean a "trusted" aide that may never get another job. Oh wait! CNN contributor!
Her testimony is devastating for Trump. He intended to lead the insurrection January 6th!
That's High Treason!
She is the John Dean of our time!
Yes trumpturd is a traitor.
Agreed!
Only if it holds up. There are already 2 individuals ready to testify against her.
Didn't the Trump-haters vets her testimony?
Desperation is not a good look
Well since she kept Meadows from making a HUGE mistake by convincing him not to go to the Willard, I'd say she gave him great advice. Meadows was lucky to have her.
Oh and BTFW, Scalise and Cruz must have had a lot of respect for her since she ended up on the WH staff. She was also the liaison between the WH/Chief of Staff and the Secret Service. So, it looks like she was well trusted on many levels. All the evidence shows that she EARNED that trust.
I find it telling that you seem to question her 'loyalty' merely because she was forthcoming and truthful to the Committee. The fact is, she didn't owe any PERSON her loyalty, she owes loyalty to the country and the Constitution Vic.
I doubt many right wing conservatives give two shits about loyalty to the constitution and our country, they demand loyalty to their party and to their dear Leader Cheeto Benito.
That seems to be the mentality of those who are attempting to intimidate witnesses also. Stay loyal to Trump, remember, he's reading transcripts.
BTFW, they must be translating those transcripts to sharpy pictographs.
rally attrendees = armed insurrectionist mob
Don't forget the altercation in the Presidential car!
... a petulant child throwing another tantrum. how presidential.
Yeah...........she wasn't even IN the car at the time. She was TOLD that that had happened. That would be thrown out in a court of law as hearsay.
Right up there with the tranquilizing of John Mitchell's wife.
.
I read somewhere long ago they gave her the shot in the ass.
Compared with olde Martha Mitchell Cassidy Hutchison is a veritable modern Joan of Arc!
Did they take them away?
kind of shoots the all antifa conspiracy theories in the ass, don't it.
Of the hundreds and hundreds criminally charged for participating in Trump's Jan 6th Insurrection, just how many turned out to be ANTIFA or BLM?
Haven't heard. And I never said ANYTHING even resembling that it was antifa or blm. That was 2020 and the summer of love
The answer is none zero zip nada. Not One!
Oh goodie gumdrops. As you should discern from my comment, I really couldn't care less about the makeup of the idiot squad.
Capitol police will form an escort for her.
This is high drama!
do you think this young lady is lying?
the death threats are probably pouring in by the hundreds.
I really don't know. She did say others would corroborate.
The missing element is the normal cross examination by minority appointed Republicans.
you mean the slate of co-conspirators that was offered by mccarthy?
I mean the traditional protocols of decency that was dispensed with by Pelosi.
I don't think you would understand
As projected by Jim Jordan? You are too funny.
legal technicalities went out the west wing window the afternoon of 1/20/17
Trump tried to choke the head of his secret service detail when the man told trump he would not drive him to the capitol
Isn't that incredible!
You have to love the part where Trump wanted the crowd to be even larger! Classic Trump!
I am fond of the part where Trump supposedly said "Well, they are not here to hurt me!"
you are making a fool out of yourself
I thought a little levity might be appreciated.
You want levity? Try the twitter feed of Nicole Solas. I trust you recall her.
choke him as in actually put his hands around his neck?
the witnessed testified that she was told trump put his hands up toward the man's clavicles.
that would indicate intention to choke
Trump threw plates at the White House Butler!
Who does that? Flipping tables? Throwing shit?
Hilary Clinton................oh wait. She threw books and lamps...............at the President of the United States.
The testimony was that he threw the plate at AG Barr, not the butler.
Which time? Apparently he did it all the time...
I once worked for a general that threw shit. He was an asshole too.
Whatever Hillary threw at Bill was high, inside and righteous. Unless Barr was getting it on under the table with Melania your squirrel is undercooked.
Question was who does that shit. And we have already seen that allegedly Trump does so I gave another example. Hardly a squirrel..........
If the committee is smart, they will call Agent Robert Engel to testify and confirmed the story.
I believe the question was rhetorical. Answering it, at best, introduces diarrhea to pablum.
Opinions do vary...............and no it wasn't rhetorical.
this is bigger than john dean
Then Trump wont be the nominee in 2024?
That is your wish.
I'm putting all my faith in the same people and they have yet to nail him.
Nonsense, there is no reason to nail him this time around as he did the job by himself and you are happy about the Stations of the Cross being cleared for the Floridian Fool to follow. I fully expect you to be praising Liz Cheney come 2024 for paving the way.
I wonder what Liz will be doing in 2024?
Any number of things including interviews with historians and riding paliminoes across the Wyoming hills and dales. History is going to treat her most kindly.
being among a small handful of an endangered species, a patriotic american that's a republican.
Because honor and decency must be punished?
boo hoo hoo, it must suck being a republican on the wrong side of history for the last 50+ years.
I beg to differ. The past 50 years just got wiped out.
that will get fixed, one traditional american way or another...
I'm waiting
Trump is depraved and demented. People who still support him after this are too.
Branco is a talented editorial cartoonist, too bad he's a one trick pony. The great ones attack all sides.
as if any or all of those issues combined would equal an attempted coup by a fascist autocrat.
Well, there is now this:
Two Secret Service agents are prepared to testify before Congress that then-President Trump did not lunge at a steering wheel or assault them in an attempt to go to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, a source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News.
The explosive new allegations were made on Tuesday by Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
She clearly said she did not witness it but was told by someone else. I don't see a lot of attacks on her direct testimony or other republicans that testified.
Too bad more Republicans don't have a backbone.
Too bad there aren't any Republicans on the "committee" to cross examine.....................................Like Jordan and Banks. And there is, as we are seeing, one hell of a reason for that.
And don't even try the "yeah but Cheney and Kinzinger".............bullcrap
Yeah, they are both known nutjobs who are lackeys to Donald Trump.
And the remaining members are leftists and rino's who hate Trump. What's your point? Seems heavily weighted on one side.......... no doesn't seem, IT IS
I don't need to try anything it's you that doing the whining like most Trumpers.
Then the fair thing to do was get the somebody else and question him first.
[Deleted]
Really? Would you want to go on trial knowing that all the jurors were hand picked ONLY by the prosecution? I think not and it isn't whining.
You've done a lot of whining as well. Mostly about the US government. Same thing right?
Why are you assuming that didn't already happen Vic?
That's interesting since you stated that Barr's statements changed your mind about the election fraud allegations. You didn't wait for 'fairness and legality' before you walked back your more than yearlong crusade to support the Big Lie. Guess YOU are much too used to NT also.
I also assumed that O J killed his wife.
You didn't wait for 'fairness and legality' before you walked back your more than yearlong crusade to support the Big Lie
That may be the big lie. I never said the 2020 election was stolen. If you recall, (if you are honest) someone here used to ask that question. Every time he asked me if I thought the 2020 election was fair, I would say "I don't know." That was my position back then, Dulay.
There is MORE than ONE reason for Jim Jordan not to be seated on the Committee. ONE of them is that he is a material witness. ANOTHER is that he participated in the planning of the 'war room'.
This isn't about me and it isn't a trial. Of course, Trump could appear in his own defense. LOLOL
I point out facts or challenge your bullshit comments like the ''left is evil'' which is about as ignorant a comment as one can get.
Keep up the bs, Vic it's entertaining.
You just posted article after article saying it was....
Do you think that you 'teach' anyone ANYTHING by posting snarky non-responsive replies Vic?
Yet you participated wholeheartedly in spreading the Big LIe. The number of 'But whatabout' seeds and comments you posted here proves that fact. If you didn't believe any of it, you were intentionally gaslighting members.
Unless you have documented evidence that I am NOT honest, STOP implying that I am NOT honest Vic.
You're deflecting Vic. Your comment and article history illustrate that you supported the Big Lie at every turn.
Yet suddenly, based purely on Barr's deposition testimony, you stated that it "shows once and for all that the Trump claims were investigated and that they were "bull shit" claims, finally puts it all to rest." Of course, them being 'put to rest' didn't stop you from repeating that debunked bullshit in that very same comment. That was way back ONE WEEK ago.
You wouldn't explain WHY you didn't believe Barr when he said that in Dec. 2020. Nor do you seem to want to admit that you disseminated the very allegations that Barr called bullshit throughout 2021.
Trump seemed to recognize in Dec. 2020 that Barr's interview was the real 'BOMBSHELL'.
[deleted]
That is some stupid shit right there.
Your cartoon seemed to entertain your friends.
I considered it inane.
Yes, my meme is six times more entertaining than your lameass comment. Nothing new...
LOL!
Like it is hard to find 6 yahoos here to vote you up!
LMMFAO!
Why do you think you get so few thumbs up?
I don't think about it at all.
I have never been one of those that seek validation on the internet from strangers. It just isn't important to me.
Pay my bills and maybe I'll start to give a damn.
It's good you don't need positive reinforcement.
It's sad some do seem to crave and need it.
Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows sought pardons for their actions related to Jan 6th.
But I thought they were innocent???
It couldnt have been much worse for Trump today.
What will the MAGA mob say now?
"What will the MAGA mob say now?"
Not much.
Helps clear the way for DeSantis
DeSantis is a Trump sucker and that will work heavily against him.
Yup, never acknowledge the truth ... just ignore it and move on.
"I'm the fucking president, take me up to the capitol now!" - DT
... the antique wimp who would be king...
ha ha ha, add witness tampering to the list of crimes.
This is far bigger than Watergate.
Anyone who supports Trump after today, was, and is, complicit.
I would seriously question their patriotism as americans, along with their mental stability.
Are we any closer to actual charges being filed?
Yes...
When?
Soon...
Please give a specific time frame for 'soon'. You know, just a ballpark figure like a matter of weeks, months, years?
I have heard 'soon' as long ago as 5 years ago, so I am curious what some consider 'soon'.
The leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have already been charged with conspiring to mount Trump's nsurrection.
I expect ancillary legal charges against John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows will be forthcoming within weeks. They are already charged with contempt of Congress.
You sound like someone who either hasn't watched a minute of the hearings or is burying his head in the sand.
You sound like someone who bothered to respond to my comment but couldn't answer the question in it.
when i dont answer you its not because i cant but because you are not interested in answers.
Be logical about it.
If I didn't want an answer, I wouldn't ask the question.
I would just tell you what your opinion was.
You know, instead of assuming you would know better than I what 'soon' is to you.
Do you not know what 'soon' is to you better than I would since I have no clue what 'soon' is to you?
Or, since the question was directed to another, why not just give me JBB's description?
Great.
I think everyone here (except perhaps you) would agree that Jack was asking about charges against Trump.
So, what you got on that front?
What you expect and what may happen may be two far different things. We will see.
Contempt of Congress may be enforced, may not. Ask Eric Holder if it really matters if no one enforces anything?
Americans have historically been reticent to criminally charge former Presidents for crimes committed while in office for both national security and reasons of precedent.
I definitely believe Trump should be charged with multiple crimes though he probably will not be. Everyone around him will be though.
Hunt, Liddy, Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman and John Dean all did time for Nixon's crimes!
But, this is so special a set of circumstances, how could Trump not be prosecuted? Wouldn't that be a monumental dereliction of duty?
In my opinion yes, Trump must be charged...
To set a precedent and for national security!
Would you vote for the President whose Justice Department failed to bring Trump to justice?
[deleted]
I'm not talking about henchmen. Are we going to see charges on the fat man himself?
Define "soon". It's a fair point that we've been hearing for a very long time about how Trump is headed to prison, and we have no progress to show.
Such as?
Obstruction of Justice, Witness Tampering, Conspiracy To Defraud The US Constitution, Incitement To Riot, Assaulting a Federal Agent, Dereliction Of Office, Constitutional Mischief, Littering, Bad Hair and Pulling The Tags Off Of Pillows and Mattresses...
Actual crimes. Outstanding. Why have none of these charges been filed? When do we expect that to happen? If the answer is "soon", define "soon".
It's a clever joke, but part of the issue we're dealing with here is the almost non-stop accusations and investigations of Trump that have produced zero consequences. We very much have a "House Speaker who cried wolf" situation, where the accuser's credibility is absolutely in question.
All of those accusations occurred while Trump was in power and in charge of the Justice Dept. It's been repeated ad nauseum that Trump could NOT be prosecuted while in power.
So, Trump has ONLY been a civilian since Jan. 2021 and the DOJ has been pretty fucking busy investigating, arresting and prosecuting over a thousand insurrectionists. In FACT, the largest DOJ investigation ever.
Oh and let's not forget that between the election and Jan. 6, Trump and all of his minions KEPT committing crimes. Hell, co-conspirators were defending Trump during Jan. 6th AND his second impeachment.
Now the J6 Committee has stated that there is evidence of witness tampering. Will they EVER stop committing crimes long enough for justice to catch up?
Watching these hearings, I grow increasingly convinced that charges will be filed.
What is your opinion? Assuming you have watched and heard the evidence thus far, would you agree if charges were filed or would you find charges groundless?
To be specific, would you support charging Trump with knowingly encouraging and refusing (as PotUS and as the key leader figure involved) to stop the insurrection? Assuming of course that this is expressed as a bona fide legal charge and that it is a crime or unconstitutional act for Trump to have acted in this way.
Today's testimony was powerful. Unless, of course, one dismisses the witness as not credible.
I don't share your confidence. I hope I'm wrong.
My opinion is that this venue is for political theater, what we're seeing is 100% political theater, and if there was serious evidence of criminal wrongdoing this would all be in the actual court system.
"Suprise witness"? "Bombshell testimony"? C'mon. Just stop. They've been investigating this thing for 18 months. They know exactly what everybody is going to say. If by some miracle they didn't know about this girl until yesterday...what hope do we possibly have that these morons will be able to organize a prosecution?
Today was all about using drama to try to boost the TV ratings.
"Bona fide legal charge...." That's really the rub, isn't it? Even when you read the testimony from today, and assuming you accept it as fact...who broke what law?
If it's an "unconstitutional act", what consequences follow?
So to answer your question... IF he's broken a law, hell yes, charge his fat ass. Right now. With due haste and extreme prejudice.
And I think if he had broken a law, they would have already charged him. So I doubt they're going to. Again, I hope I'm wrong.
Define "powerful". Are we talking "powerful" as in "now we have proof of illegal activity" or are we talking about "powerful" in the emotional sense?
Assuming every person she names corroborates her story, where does that put us with regard to criminal charges? I just don't see us getting there.
[Deleted]
this is not strictly an issue of criminality or illegality
it is about someone betraying their country
not someone, a president of the united states
your acting like its all good unless he is charged is absurd and highly offensive
Translated: I refuse to get on your batshit train and validate your feelings.
[deleted]
like everyone who stretches reality to defend Trump or minimize his crimes, you are making a fool out of yourself
We're all well aware that for you this is solely about your emotions.
That would be treason, which is a crime, and they could charge him. But somehow I don't think they will.
Who is now a former president. So removing him from office is kinda pointless.
If rational conversation offends you, you're an emotional terrorist and you deserve to be offended. I shall happily oblige.
lol. you have made a minor art form out of hiding your head in the sand / disingenuousness.
the idea that Trump is irrelevant unless they can prove he committed felonies is nothing short of extremely bizarre.
In fact, it is impossible to minimize or defend the man against crimes when nobody will actually identify them.
Name his crimes, John. What laws has he broken?
As we've been discussing among the sane people here, they haven't actually charged him with any crimes. Nobody seems to be able to indicate what crime(s) have actually been committed.
So what crimes are we talking about, exactly?
Forget about 'political theater' and just focus objectively on the evidence.
Do you also hold, given all we now know and assuming it is true, that Trump has done wrong even if this is (somehow) not a crime?
Trump, per the evidence, knew that his supporters were armed. He wanted a bigger crowd so he demanded that they be allowed to enter with their guns. He then gave his speech knowing full well that many in the greater audience were armed. And then when the insurrection ensued, Trump refused myriad pleas from advisors, etc. to step in and stop it. He let the insurrection fester for hours before finally stepping in and even then essentially told the insurrectionists that their cause was just.
If this is fair and correct depiction of what happened, it seems to me that it would be a travesty of the highest order to bypass justice and let a PotUS get away with such irresponsible and arguably treasonous behavior.
Finally, the fact that he has not been charged (yet) is not evidence that he is not guilty or that the charges would be weak. Too much speculation.
In terms of the facts. It was 'what did Trump know and what did he do given that knowledge?' evidence. How is it possible for a PotUS to know that his supporters are armed and then encourage them to march on the Capitol, allow an armed, violent insurrection to ensue with clear threats on the life of his own VP and refuse (in spite of pleas) to take any action to stop it and in all of this be both lawful and unconstitutional? I am not an attorney but I find that to be unlikely. If he is not brought to justice I will be both surprised and greatly disappointed.
If Trump did indeed do what I have described here, I find this to be treason. What harm comes to our nation by allowing a PotUS to engage in this behavior and not be held accountable? The precedent alone is damaging.
Yes, there is the opinion that it would be "divisive" to charge Trump with crimes. Over half the public believes he committed crimes, and it would be divisive to not charge him.
We should do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. I'm tired of all this coddling of MAGA crazies.
Who said anything about felonies? They can't even manage a jaywalking charge.... which... given how crooked everybody knows Trump is... has just got to be unbelievably embarrassing.
As we've discussed....and I know it just breaks your heart.... Trump grows more irrelevant with every passing day. This is a huge problem for the Democrats, who desperately need a supervillain to run against this fall, [deleted]
When I see people NOT defend him and see candidates NOT seek his endorsement (as a rule, not as exception) and see the GoP follow a different defacto leader then the waning relevance will be significant. Waning or not, Trump continues to have far too much influence over the GoP.
The theater is part of the evidence.
Certainly. For decades.
Side note.... My skepticism is having great difficulty with the idea that this allegedly heavily armed, demonstrably violent band of rioters supposedly attempted an insurrection... and nobody fired a shot. That just seems wildly implausible, especially given the frenzy of the day and the kind of firearms these people were likely to have owned. But that's not material to this particular point.
OK. So. Treason. Somebody has finally put something up the flagpole. Thank you, BTW. Now we have something real to talk about.
Then why have no charges been introduced? What do you believe is the delay?
Not to me. I do not consider videos of depositions, videos of Trump speaking or sworn testimony by Rs to be theater. Especially given almost all of these were devoid of emotion.
To me the labeling of insurrection is irrelevant. They were an angry mob that broke into and entered the Capitol with the intent to do harm. The behavior and the level of intent that can be evidenced matters; the label does not.
Note that I am speaking as a non-attorney using English semantics. To me, given this:
I see Trump betraying the country by his actions. The easy call for treason is when someone engages in disclosing secrets to enemy nations or attempting an armed coup to overthrow the government. That is not the case here. The treason here, if any, would be for the leader of the nation to work up his followers based on a demonstrable lie that the government has engaged in a fraudulent election and that they have been disenfranchised. On top of this we have Trump directly attempting to coerce officials to break the law, their oaths and the constitution and suborning his own VP to engage in an unconstitutional act. Then, as shown in today's hearing, we have the acting PotUS with full knowledge that many of his supporters were armed and angry, asking for the screening machines to be withdrawn so that they can join his audience and make it look bigger on camera. And, with that same knowledge, give his march on the Capitol speech. Then, with that same knowledge of an armed mob and with knowledge that they were overpowering Capitol police and breaking and entering the Capitol and threatening to hang Pence, refuse the myriad pleas of various people to step in and do something. After three hours, Trump finally stepped in and even then suggested that the rioter's cause was just.
How acting against the government of this nation in that manner cannot be a form of treason is beyond me. I would hope one of our resident attorneys might help us out here with a legal opinion.
I have only speculation, Jack. My guess is that the committee decided they needed to get strong public support (by making the public aware of these details presented by R witnesses) to encourage the legal machine to take action against a former PotUS.
Well... where things happen matters. We don't play basketball on a soccer field. We don't go swimming in a sandbox, and we don't prosecute criminals in congressional hearings. I'm not sure that if they are able to ever find something to charge him with that they won't have ruined their chances of conviction with the current theater.
Fair enough. I was more commenting on the supposed presence of so many guns in such a violent environment and the absence of actual shots fired. Just seems unlikely.
Understood. No worries.
That's certainly an interesting idea. I don't know that it would work in an actual court, but I don't know that it wouldn't, either.
We're all limited to speculation, so again, no worries.
I do have a concern with the idea that public support could or should be able to sway that legal machine. That seems to me to migrate from the rule of law to the rule of public opinion...or mob opinion.
I did not suggest nor even imply charges can be made from this hearing. I stated that this hearing is providing hard evidence. This evidence however can be taken into a legal venue.
I think that is the reality of the 'legal machine' and not limited to the highest level. How much does a DA office consider public opinion when deciding which cases to prosecute and how? My answer: politics / optics is very much a consideration.
If the public is supportive of Trump I can easily see this disappearing. If the public is in a 'WTF?' mode regarding what Trump actually did or, even better, outraged, I certainly can see that influencing the legal choice to bring charges.
And on the charges, if treason is too high a bar (I do not think so) then this is at least clear-cut sedition IMO.
Why would they not start in a legal venue?
You're probably right. Still, I think it's something we should try to avoid.
I suspect, as I have noted, that this was done to get the public more involved and more supportive of legal actions.
Public opinion, albeit this is wrong, has quite a bit to do with our legal system.
I think that's where we're going to disagree.
I think that's a nice answer if we're trying very, very, very hard to avoid the idea that this is all political theater for Democrats, who are desperate about November and have an established history of using investigations and public hearings as attempts to undermine Donald Trump. They even rolled out a mentally ill lady to accuse a Trump SCOTUS nominee on national television, so they're obviously willing to do pretty much anything.
So... Occam's Razor being what it is, I think this is 100% about the election and trying to rally the base to come out and vote against Darth Trump, even though he's not actually on the ballot.
I am not ignoring the political motivation. I have stated that this clearly is at least partly politically motivated.
What I am doing is recognizing the nature of the evidence presented. I cannot explain how it is possible for this evidence to not result in legal proceedings except for what I offered.
That is, I cannot see why all this evidence would not be offered to the justice department for criminal / constitutional investigation. And I cannot see why the justice department would not act on the evidence that has been presented.
It is quite obvious as TiG stated, this was to educate the ignorant masses. This committee, which would have been fully bipartisan, if some of the members McCarthy put forth weren't part of the investigation. Believe it was established to bring forth ALL of the facts to enlighten ALL of the people, especially those ignorant to so much via the Fox "news" bubble and the far 'Right" media/. Unfortunate as it is, the people of this country NEEDED to be educated of all of the facts surrounding Trumps latest and by far his most greatest, HIT on US. If TRUE, and i believe it is, Trump sent enflamed enraged ARMED protestors to "save" their country by attempting to stop HIS LIE of an election steal Trump PROMOTED for Months, and had singled out Vice President Pence as the main guy who he needed to go along with his biggest LIE, and i also believe Pence did come pretty close to being "hung" out to dry, and DIE, by words and silence issued by a former potUS who would put his inability to admit he was a LOSER, above what so many fought and died for to create, this Nation built upon the Pursuit of Freedom and the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and they had spoken, and Biden had WON. thus the expected peaceful transition of power, that which WAS DENIED. FUCK TRUMP It is quite unfortunate that so many elected Republican Representatives and Sentators allowed him to remain in office after the first impeachment. Gutless Pussy's that sold out America in pursuit of power and their pathetic party, and i believe thye GOP should ( Figurative)D I E a not some slow Death, for they have been slowly killing US All with electing the stupidest and strangest, that Trump described as the "Best and Brightest" as he wanted his top Besty to DIE for not following his orders to LIE, and all you can spew is what did he do that he should be charged with. Don't you think he;s done enough already.....
Since we are speculating ...
Another thought is basic political calculation. As much as I hate to see it, there is no denying that our system of justice is influenced by politics. Will the AG make a political calculation to try or not try Trump based on the fallout?
Trying Trump and ultimately convicting a former PotUS of a crime is a big deal and I would expect it to raise all sorts of concerns to those who would be responsible for executing this process.
The Ds might not want to see Trump tried due to potential political fallout. This could easily cause pressure to not prosecute Trump. Thus justice would fail (yet again) as a result of politics.
So that might be what is going on behind the scenes. Another possibility, of course, is that the justice department has been processing this evidence and simply has not yet completed its process to the point where it will commit to an action.
To what end?
*sigh* I'm not sure you could be more predictable. BTW, far less than 1% of Americans watch Fox News. You're going to need to find a new villain.
To what end?
Who didn't actually shoot anybody. And you don't find that strange? No, of course you don't. That would require questioning the approved party line.
I think you'll find it wasn't. I think you'll find that Joe Biden is actually the President of the United States.
Well we agree on something, at least.
In the universe of "unfortunate" related to Donald Trump, that's not even in the top 10.
This isn't about him. It's about US.
Understand clearly.... Trump being a complete bastard and totally detached from reality does NOT make it OK for anybody else to follow suit. This is not some sort of metaphysical teeter-totter where you must match his level of irrational crazy bullshit to even out the universe.
We are a nation of laws, not "feelings". If the man did something illegal, then let's stop fucking around and lock his fat ass up. Otherwise, this is just another bullshit exercise where triggered liberals sit around and talk about how terrible Trump is like a bunch of 6 year olds tattling to a teacher.
That's a valid point.
I think the political fallout they most fear is the loss of the single thing that has driven most of their votes for the last 2 elections. Once Trump is in jail the supervillain is gone, and they're left to face the music on a terrible economy and several loud, militant leftists that that drive away centrists at every opportunity.
So they're hoping that if they can string this out long enough, they can make it feel like Trump is still a massive threat and scare some folks into voting for a Democrat or two.
That's certainly a possibility. Which still leaves the question...why the televised theater, complete with dramatic "surprise witness" and "shocking new testimony"?
That would be a dumb strategy but that does not mean that a political party would not 'think' this way.
Because the committee is trying to get a large audience. It is marketing. That does not surprise me at all. Given this has a partisan objective too I fully expect them to be coordinating this for campaign ads.
But none of that matters to me. What matters to me is the evidence that has been presented.
No, we are also a Snoweflake Nation of drops on the floor, cause "our collective 'feelings' seem to be capable of melting to override evidence and on the record, under oath, TESTIMONEY, cause there is not an equal from those who run and hide, after being subpoena handed, back handed does it not seem, how these Scumbags think they deserve some sort of special protection, because they were the main characters in an attempted insurrection that is the biggest threat this country has possibly seen in a century or so, or so what, or , i guess this wouldn't rate that high to one who would imply he must be charged to reach achievement, cause we both know, and are smarter than that, yety, you seem reluctant to show the entire picture and it is simple, Jack, hey, wasn't he a character....Jack ? Just a simple ? Jack
As the J6 Committee Chairman said at the beginning of the hearing, they are only releasing the parts of the depositions used during the hearings. To 'complete the process' the DOJ will need every one of the depositions, in their entirety, before they can prosecute. If deposition testimony, in the hands of the government, contains exculpatory evidence for any defendant, the DOJ has a legal duty to release it to the defense. This is one of the major reasons that the DOJ has asked for the depositions and any underlying documents to be released to them.
Perhaps it should run it's course, charging everyone involved.
Then Biden should offer Trump alone, a pardon.
Define "it".
What are we thinking has not already run its course?
Why?
As far as I'm concerned that's a 'no fucking way' regarding giving whatshisname a pardon.
Trump should be prosecuted (Mexico will pay for it).
So, why all the delays?
So he can publicly admit his guilt by accepting a pardon.
WHY?
I hope he NEVER admits to anything. Let him rot.
Remember, Trump said he NEVER asked God for forgiveness.
BTW, NONE of the people Trump pardoned publicly admitted to anything.
This is a Congressional investigation.
Congress doesn't "file charges".
The DOJ will announcement the charges/indictments when they are ready.
So these hearings are simply political theater.
You mean like the Watergate hearings?
No, he is specifically calling the current hearings that.
It's right there in his post.
The mention of Watergate is just a deflection, although I don't see why anyone would bother.
The Watergate hearings resulted in action... i.e... the resignation of a sitting president.
Are you hoping these have similar effect?
No.
A loser can't resign.
It should be obvious that the sitting president wouldn't be the loser, now, would he?
So what action is it you do hope will come of these hearings?
It's up to the DOJ to take action(s).
It should be obvious that the sitting president is the winner, Joe Biden.
It's also obvious that Donald Trump is the loser and he is now just a whiney ass private citizen.
That is who I've been talking about. Sitting. President.
Well....kinda. He's an ex-president with Secret Service protection, just like Obama or W. So he's definitely not a "private citizen" in the same way we are. If he's ever kidnapped by terrorists we'll send Green Berets or Seals or whoever after him. If one of us is ever kidnapped, they'll send condolence letters to our families.
But that's beside the point.
You still haven't managed to describe what you hope will be the result of these hearings.
I believe that Ford did for the country, not Nixon. He paid the price and it probably cost his the 76 election. Leadership involves self-sacrifice and taking Trump to trial and convicting him will further tear this country apart.
Sometimes things need to be torn down, before being rebuilt. I wou;d start with the entire Republican Party. how these fckrs accepted, defended, and dismissed any and all that Trump has done, should be there undoing, till it is not undone. There needs to be a CLEAR sign to these hypocritical heathens, that actions HAVE CONSEQUENCES and there IS NEVER a reason to allow a party, to put itself ABOVE OUR COUNTRY !
Non-MAGA have been far more than patient enough with these assholes.
You’re a big man JR, a big man.
get lost
I have both a compass and a map, I’m not going to get lost. Why would you want someone lost, company?
ok, then stop trolling
thatll work too
Democrats have spent over 40 million this year trying to help MAGA candidates win.
Either they are lying about MAGA being a risk to the country, or they don't care about risking the country to help their party.
If they are such assholes, why does your party spend so much time and money helping them?
[Drleted]
Is the above comment code for "okay, you figured out we are full of shit and only care about getting elected"?
The world is easy when all you do is blame Trump and never accept any responsibility for anything, isn't it?
Such a Trump like world view. Everything you do to advance your interests is fine, right?
I have been against Trump since 2015, long before he became president. I also predicted in 2015 that, long term ,Trump supporters would prove to be a bigger problem for the nation than Trump himself. Now we see the truth of that.
this young lady gave smoking guns today
and we have MAGA coming out of the woodwork to defend him
Trump was the king birther in 2011. He was too stupid or dishonest to admit or realize that the state of Hawaii had, twice, definitively stated that Obamas birth certificate was in the state archives and had been inspected. Only a moron would have continued with it, and he did and did.
What took you so long? You were good with Trump when he was donating to Dems?
a lot of not so good people have donated to both parties
do you have anything actually relevant to say or are you just going to keep flapping your lips?
I say that you didn't answer my question,
What an old trite expression in a text forum.
I'm sorry that you see yourself as a troll victim.
there's always room for compromise. for his part in the J6 insurrection, nullify any and all post presidential benefits he would ever receive, and then let him face the music in multiple courts of law on his remaining judicial problems.
That’s an option for Biden, maybe he will run on it.
Agreed.
Not sure it would matter for Biden, I don't think he has 6 more years in him.
Agreed, and there is precedent in American politics ( if precedent matters anymore )
even Jefferson Davis was pardoned by President Johnson in 1868.
and we've had die hard confederates for the next 150 years
no pardons
Exactly, and we’ve had five Die Hard movies over the last 34 years.
get lost
[Deleted]
You do know what get lost means in the colloquial sense, dont you?
You do know that it's a silly, outdated expression, don't you? [Deleted]
[Deleted]
Wisdom is knowledge through experience, not age, John.
I DISAGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY
FUCK HIM
BULLFUCKINGSHIT
You came up with a different term for a change, thanks.
Still very little thought process coming up with it, though.
How would you do that beyond not voting for a candidate which I assume you already practice.
you do not make an ass out of me, but, keep assuming, for you
Ok, you don’t want me to assume that you don’t vote Repub, I won’t.
again, your assumption asserts you are again, half correct about cliches
That’s an option for Biden, maybe he will run on it.
WAAAAAAAY worse than Watergate!
yes, it damn sure is, and has
been
Just a quick reminder...
18 USC 2383: Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
[deleted]
So.....once again.....no bombshell revelation, no smoking gun.....no shit!