THE JAN 6TH COMMITTEE HAS VOTED TO CALL DONALD TRUMP TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
By: mlive
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
THE JAN 6TH COMMITTEE HAS VOTED TO CALL DONALD TRUMP TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
- The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. House Jan. 6 Committee planned to vote Thursday to subpoena former President Donald Trump to testify, as it presented interviews with his aides and new documents detailing his unflagging multi-part efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
The vote seeking Trump's testimony comes as panel is producing vivid new details and evidence of Trump's state of mind as he refused to concede his election loss to Joe Biden, resulting in the 2021 attack at the Capitol.
In never-before-seen Secret Service messages, the panel produced evidence of the way extremist groups provided the muscle in the fight for Trump's presidency, planning weeks before the attack to send a violent force to Washington.
"Their plan is literally to kill people," read a tip that was sent to Secret Service more than a week before the violence on Jan. 6.
The Secret Service warned in a Dec. 26, 2020, email of a tip that members of the right-wing Proud Boys planned to march in Washington on Jan. 6 with a group large enough to outnumber the police.
"It felt like the calm before the storm," one Secret Service agent wrote in a group chat.
The House panel warned that the insurrection at the Capitol was not an isolated incident but a warning of the fragility of the nation's democracy in the post-Trump era.
"None of this is normal or acceptable or lawful in a republic," Republican Rep. Liz Cheney said.
"There is no defense that Donald Trump was duped or irrational. No president can defy the rule of law and act this way in a constitutional republic, period."
The 10th public session, just weeks before the congressional midterm elections, was delving into Trump's "state of mind," said Democratic Chairman Bennie Thompson.
The committee is starting to sum up its findings that Republican Trump, after losing the 2020 presidential election, launched an unprecedented attempt to stop Congress from certifying Democrat Biden's victory. The result was the mob storming of the Capitol.
Statements from Thompson and Cheney were laden with language frequently seen in criminal indictments. Both lawmakers described Trump as "substantially" involved in the events of Jan. 6. Cheney said Trump had acted in a "premeditated" way.
To illustrate what it said were "purposeful lies," the committee juxtaposed repeated instances in which top administration officials recounted telling Trump the actual facts with clips of him repeating the exact opposite at his pre-riot rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6.
The committee may well make a decision on whether to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department.
Thursday's hearing opened at a mostly empty Capitol complex, with most lawmakers at home campaigning for reelection. Several people who were among the thousands around the Capitol on Jan. 6 are now running for congressional office, some with Trump's backing. Police officers who fought the mob filled the hearing room's front row.
To describe the president's mindset, the committee divulged new material, including interviews with Trump's top Cabinet officials, aides and associates in which some described the president acknowledging that he had lost.
In one, according to ex-White House official Alyssa Farah Griffin, Trump looked up at a television and said, "Can you believe I lost to this (expletive) guy?"
The committee is also drawing on the trove of 1.5 million documents it received from the U.S. Secret Service, including an email from Dec. 11, 2020, the day the Supreme Court rejected one of the main lawsuits Trump's team had brought against the election results.
"Just fyi. POTUS is pissed," the Secret Service wrote, according to documents obtained by the committee.
White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to then-chief of staff Mark Meadows, recalled Trump as being "livid" and "fired up" about the court's ruling.
Trump told Meadows "something to the effect of: 'I don't want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing. Figure it out,'"Hutchinson told the panel in a recorded interview.
Cabinet members including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Attorney General William Barr and Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia also said in interviews shown at the hearing that they believed that once the legal avenues had been exhausted, that should have been the end of Trump's efforts to remain in power.
"In my view, that was the end of the matter," Barr said of the Dec. 14 Electoral College vote.
But rather than the end of Trump's efforts to stay in power, the committee signaled it was only the beginning — as the president summoned the crowd to Washington for a rally to fight the election on Jan. 6.
The session was serving as a closing argument for the panel's two Republican lawmakers, Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who have essentially been shunned by Trump and their party and will not be returning in the new Congress. Cheney lost her primary election, and Kinzinger decided not to run.
Another committee member, Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., a retired Naval commander, is in a tough reelection bid against state Sen. Jen Kiggans, a former Navy helicopter pilot.
The panel was expected to share information from its recent interviews — including testimony from Ginni Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She was in contact with the White House during the run-up to Jan. 6.
The committee, having conducted more than 1,500 interviews and obtained countless documents, has produced a sweeping probe of Trump's activities from his defeat in the November election to the Capitol attack.
"He has used this big lie to destabilize our democracy," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-N.Y., who was a young House staff member during the Richard Nixon impeachment inquiry in 1974. "When did that idea occur to him and what did he know while he was doing that?"
This week's hearing is to be the final presentation from lawmakers before the midterm elections. But staff members say the investigation continues.
The Jan. 6 committee has been meeting for more than a year, set up by the House after Republican senators blocked the formation of an outside panel similar to the 9/11 commission set up after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Even after the launch of its high-profile public hearings last summer, the Jan. 6 committee continued to gather evidence and interviews.
Under committee rules, the Jan. 6 panel is to produce a report of its findings, likely in December. The committee will dissolve 30 days after publication of that report, and with the new Congress in January.
House Republicans are expected to drop the Jan. 6 probe and turn to other investigations if they win control after midterm elections, primarily focusing on Biden, his family and his administration.
At least five people died in the Jan. 6 attack and its aftermath, including a Trump supporter shot and killed by Capitol Police.
Police engaged in often bloody, hand-to-hand combat, as Trump's supporters pushed past barricades, stormed the Capitol and roamed the halls, sending lawmakers fleeing for safety and temporarily disrupting the joint session of Congress certifying Biden's election.
More than 850 people have been charged by the Justice Department in the Capitol attack, some receiving lengthy prison sentences for their roles. Several leaders and associates of the extremist Oath Keepers and Proud Boys have been charged with sedition.
Trump faces various state and federal investigations over his actions in the election and its aftermath.
If you purchase a product or register for an account through one of the links on our site, we may receive compensation.
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
I doubt if he will ever appear TBH. He can fight this in court easily and the committee has limited time in which to get him in front of them. Once the Republicans take control in the House this committee will be shut down.
You're probably right. He's chicken shit anyway.
He's the chicken? Let the Committee put some witnesses on live, not knowing what they are going to say!
The evidence against Trump is overwhelming, almost all of it delivered by former members of his administration.
The committee would rip him to shreds.
maybe his narcissism will get the better of him though and he will show up.
The evidence was all carefully laid out for a political purpose. To say the evidence was overwhelming in a legal sense is laughable as there was no due process in this. One has to wonder how overwhelming it would be if there had been a defense allowed.
Various and many Trump associates and co conspirators could have given all the defense they wanted. So can Trump. THEY DONT HAVE A DEFENSE, that is why we are not seeing a defense.
If Trump has a defense he can come to the committee and give it.
Over the course of these hearings dozens of allegations have been made about Trump's behavior. He has not refuted a single sentence of it, nor has he tried to.
Wouldnt an innocent man speak up for himself? LOL. Absolutely nothing is stopping him from defending himself. He could be interviewed in prime time about these specific allegations and it would draw huge ratings, which he loves. But he cant because the interviewer would rip him to pieces with the facts.
You are just so wrong in your words that it almost hurts to read them. You have no idea what defense could have been given had Trump and his lawyers been given due process. They would have had access to ALL the info that the committee had and could have disrupted the carefully curated narrative that the committee laid out. But that wasn't allowed as this was not a legal process but a political one so the committee could control all access and activity.
Listen, there is no way I want Trump back in political life and I do not want him to run in 24. His actions since losing the election and the continued push of his big lie have ended all support I have for him. But your bias against Trump is so strong that it blinds you to the big picture.
The "curated narrative" is dozens of Trump personnel, from the administration or the White House, testifying under oath about what they heard and saw Trump do. The idea that the committee is manipulating this video information is ludicrous. If ANYONE on God's earth went before that committee and gave exculpatory (for trump) information about these events , why havent any of these dozens of people said so?
No one has defended Trump. If they had we would have heard about it.
I cant help you understand this, and it is a waste of my time to keep trying.
The people who could have been relied on to defend Trump all took the fifth amendment.
Answering questions that the committee asked. There's a lot that Trump did that cannot be defended but if you refuse to see that then I can't help you. Go ahead and put me on ignore if you want to, you cannot answer questions that you just don't like.
“If Trump has a defense he can come to the committee and give it.”
If the truth is indeed the truth, he and his supporters would jump at the opportunity, if only to stick it to the partisan shills.
It won’t happen because it can’t happen…because the truth is indeed the truth.
As we see, people continue to defend Trump in the face of a mountain of contrary information. Nothing will help that at this point. The rest of us have to move on with justice about this without them.
If Trump is allowed to continue to lead the Republican Party after all this one can only shudder for what the future of America will be.
To you, anybody not jumping up and down with you and demanding Trump's head is defending him. You refuse to acknowledge anything else. The simple truth is this committee was set up for a political motive. We do not have all the information that they have because a lot of the testimony was behind closed doors and a lot of the volumn of information has not been released.
Are there those who still believe in Trump? Yes of course. But that doesn't include everybody on this board, but as I said because they are not jumping up and down with you demanding his head you refuse to believe it.
No, the simple truth is that there is overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt.
The Republicans wanted Jim Jordan on the committee, who would have made a circus out of it. Pelosi absolutely did the right thing by keeping him off.
Trump has not only destroyed the honor of the Republican Party, he has destroyed the ability of tens of millions of people to believe in what they see with their own eyes.
In the political arena only. You keep trying to tie that to a criminal arena but you can't do that. A criminal arena must include due process and there has been none with this committee.
Let's see. Seven hard core liberal Democrats and two token anti Trump Republicans all led by Adam "Shifty" Schiff, and all with grudges against Trump. Yep, sounds like a real fair and unbiased group there. What a joke of a committee. And I'm not even a Trump supporter.
"There are too many Democrats on the committee" or "so and so is prejudiced against Trump" is not a defense. A defense is refuting the evidence.
We NEVER see anyone on the right refute the evidence. They can't.
I would say something about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, but you have made your point in the past that you would rather see the use of kangaroo courts of public opinion tactics rather than real trials in a regular court of law no matter how much you or others personally think he is guilty. Whether you like it or not he is still innocent until proven guilty in a real court of law by a judge and jury. When he has been arrested, tried, and, and convicted, get back to us and talk to people rather than continue to waste time and breath. And lest you think I am defending Trump, far from it. He is just as entitled to his day in court as you or me no matter what political beliefs or ideology one has. I have said before that I do not like the man much, but despite it's flaws, I believe in our justice system probably more than you do.
With no cross examination. Reality is, we are getting a one sided version of what happened.
Seems even the NY Times and the Washington Post feel the committee is being done for politics instead of truth.
Yeah, and Melanoma is still a virgin too.
That is how our system works. Trump is not legally guilty of anything at this point. No doubt about it.
Now, with that fully on the table, people armed with very clear facts have every right to draw conclusions prior to someone being found guilty.
For example, in the case of the Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz, it was obvious that he was guilty of the murders prior to his trial (where he of course was found guilty). Prior to the trial, Cruz was not legally guilty. But it was clear to anyone with a mind that he wrongfully murdered those kids.
Would anyone here defend Cruz prior to the trial by claiming those calling for him to be accountable for what he did are too biased to be rational (or equivalent)?
Now let's return to Trump. Trump has yet to be brought to justice, but it is clear that he did falsely, using the influence of the presidency, convince millions of people that the US electoral system was rigged and that their votes were disenfranchised. He, and his minions, further encouraged supporters to act to save our democracy. When his supporters were acting, Trump, as PotUS and the single most influential person to stop the insurrection, refused to dissuade his supporters for three hours. And his advisors, friends and family were pleading with him to do so. Instead of walking to the press room and broadcasting a 'go home peacefully' message, tweeting same, broadcasting his voice on through Capitol loudspeakers, etc. Trump did nothing other than tweet that Pence had let them all down ... a message that would only further the ongoing violence.
There are many more examples of wrongdoing that I could offer such as the Raffensperger call and the Bowers coercion to submit false electors, but the above should be sufficient to illustrate that clear, indisputable facts are sufficient for a rational mind to find Trump to have engaged in wrongdoing in violation of his oath of office.
He might not ever be indicted, may never be found guilty, but there is no doubt that he has done wrong.
Those who defend Trump and his legal right to due process (a right he does have) while refusing to acknowledge his wrongdoing are the ones behaving with blind bias and should expect to be challenged critically.
I am in no way refusing to acknowledge any potential wrongdoing on his part. I just want to see a legitimate court of law make that determination, because if not, what good is our legal system? That seems to be the major point some people here seem to be missing or ignoring.
Do you acknowledge that Trump has done wrong?
It would be foolhardy to do so.
It would be objective honesty to do so.
I'm sure he has, but I'm not sitting on a jury in a courtroom.
I know Ed. I stated upfront (and repeatedly) that I am not asking about legal guilt.
Thanks for your honesty, it seems to be a rarity nowadays.
Yeah. Chicken Shit. BTW, in true partisan fashion you compliment the mind of Donald Trump who recently asked to be 'live' in a committee hearing -if he can get it.
It won't. He is a fool, but not that foolish.
Meh. Lucky for Donald it is not, eh?
And it is the political process that is slaying Donald Trump. And here you are asking for a legal proceeding and oh the sad projection onto what others want. Tell me: what is wrong with Trump just shutting the 'h' 'down' - turning off all the lights in his lawyers' head and cutting them and some conservatives loose?
I am so fed up with Trump and his "bullshit" brigaders! They support this filthy man who is making a mockery of our system of law and justice. I mean for 'f-sake' people who always thought the system could at least tell a ignorant jackass to shut up and take a seat; let's this SOB run roughshod through it. We're truly "f-ked up" and the whole world that depended on. . . our model of government is seeing it naked and exposed as shitty, filthy, and more corrupt than some of their own.
Accordingly, when they tell to take our games and 'Yankee go home' and they don't want any of what we are pushing-blame the 'red' ones.
Why any election in the future still entertains planning to put republicans who lie to our faces and demand we make them tell the truth (which they won't) is beyond me. This nation is as fucked up politically right now or moreso, I'd daresay, than when I was a kid watching its majority trying, struggling, 'begging' even to grow out of hatred for 'Others.'
This is what it looks like when a country tries to climb/retrace its steps back into its 'womb.'
Yup!
He can fight this in court easily and the committee has limited time in which to get him in front of them.
The Committee will be gone right after the midterms.
You guys seem more interested in how he can avoid telling the truth than in him telling the truth. LOL.
This committee was formed for something much more important than the truth. It was formed for a political purpose. It has delivered a carefully crafted political message in order to make Trump look as bad as possible in the eyes of the American public.
Personally I hope it succeeds and Trump decides NOT to run again in 24. But to say the committee was formed to find the truth or out of any legal purpose is laughable at best.
The evidence against Trump is overwhelming. The evidence is what matters, not your opinion of the makeup of the committee.
I think he should go to prison for trying to steal the election and for his role in Jan 6. He will probably avoid that deserved fate though because Garland will be afraid of what Trumps MAGA cult would do.
You can say whatever you want, they have made an extremely strong factual case for Trump's criminal behavior. This isnt even a close call.
Are you people ever going to stop making excuses for this guy? He's a bad guy, period.
Please do it before the 2024 campaign season. All this evidence and no indictment. He's gone through about 6 or 7 investigations by everyone who hates his guts. What is the problem?
I seriously doubt if you are even remotely familiar with the evidence in this matter.
I gave no opinion on the makeup of the committee, I said it was formed for a political purpose. There's a difference.
As for Garland, he also has to be concerned what the evidence will show if there is due process involved. Everything that was publicly laid out by the committee was carefully curated and ignored due process. How effective those public hearings would have been with normal due process and cross-examination is an interesting discussion and I think the outcome might be very different.
Then why hasn't Trump been charged yet? What is Garland waiting on? Why did the committee initially say they were not going to release their information to the DOJ?
The simple truth here is that the committee has laid out a strong POLITIAL case against Trump. And that's all the committee has been trying to do from the beginning.
Your belief that they have laid out a case for criminal behavior is just your imagination talking. You are trying to hold Trump accountable because several of the people who have been found guilty of breaking into the Capital have said they came because of Trump. That's the old 'the Devil made me do it' routine. It was funny when Flip Wilson did it at first but it's just old and tired now.
It's easy to run a committee as a smear campaign. You don't need evidence. Look at this fiasco, it's purely partisan. Just like all the "investigations".
If one believes the Left, the evidence against Trump has been overwhelming practically since his birth. Giving the benefit of the doubt to his accusers, one begins to question their competency in bringing him to Justice. There comes a point of diminishing returns. After so many years of "smoking guns, bombshells and evidence that is about to be revealed" people are naturally going to stop caring when there is perpetually no result. In fact, when one looks at what are on voters mind the most, the left doesn't seem to understand that Trump rates far, far behind the current price of gas and groceries. The more time goes by, the more it seems as if the left is trying to distract voters with inconsequentials rather than what's putting them in the poor house.
Do you hold that Trump, in the Big Lie (and the insurrection) and the holding of TS/SCI classified documents in his home has done no wrong?
He has is not legally guilty, but has he engaged in wrongdoing?
Probably, but no one who matters gives a shyt
There is no doubt that Trump has engaged in wrongdoing. And if nobody cares enough to bring him to justice that should concern every citizen.
While it should matter, fact is, it doesn't. Why should I care if one allegator gets taken down in a swamp full of them? Do you think anything would be improved? Dems aren't pursuing justice. They are trying to eliminate obstacles to their agenda. They're just selling it as justice to the rest of us. Republicans are doing the same thing. Is Biden and his son guilty of influence peddling and profiting off it? What chance do we have of ever getting the truth on that? If the Republicans take the house and senate, do you think we might see a Hunter Biden commission? If so, how many Dems do you think will be on it? They are all going after their own agenda the same way.
As for how it should concern citizens, don't make me laugh. In the name of a perverted sense of 'diversity' our unity is being destroyed in pursuit of each person's or group's fantasies about what's right and just. Any effort to the contrary is called fascism. The citizens are too busy trying to beat each other to death with their own version of 'truth to power' and their own sense of morality they try to force everyone else to follow.
So, to answer your question, I find I don't care if Trump is guilty or not since whether he is or isn't won't change anything, no matter what's done to him. Or, it might make things worse, depending on how or if Dems gain from it. Our society, our country, will continue down the road of collapse because that is where those with real power in this country and the world want to take us.
Well, this alligator (Trump) had engaged in outrageous behavior. Giving him a pass further desensitizes the severity of this behavior and furthers a very bad precedent. That is, it makes it easier for the next 'alligator' to engage in bad behavior. And I am not even talking about behavior at the level of Trump's but below it. By comparison to Trump, there are all sorts of bad behaviors that now are 'not so bad' ... 'not a big deal'.
To wit, it is critical to hold people to account — especially the most visible and those who engage in the most egregious acts.
I think you are dead wrong in thinking that NOT bringing Trump to justice has no ill effects. Further, even if you are correct, do you not personally hold that what he has done in his Big Lie campaign (many line items) and his holding of TS/SCI classified documents is wrong?
Well, that would be a matter of opinion, wouldn't it? For instance, the disgust I felt for the way the Dems handled the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings was, to me, every bit as egregious as what you seem to think Trump has done.
While I would agree in principle, there's no justice to be had in this case, even if Trump were convicted of something. This is because this isn't about justice. It's about the exercise of power. This won't hold others to account. It's simply political maneuvering done for the purpose of achieving a political agenda. And, considering what the Dems are doing to us, this would not be a win for justice. While we get the illusion of justice, we get more injustice as a result.
Okay. Except I didn't say it wouldn't have ill effects. I said it wouldn't change anything. We're still going to collapse as a nation. Truth and values will still continue to be destroyed. The political parties will continue to do whatever it takes to achieve their agendas, assuming they aren't both working together and this is all just some show to keep us distracted from the real issues.
I don't have an opinion one way or another because, as I've said before, I don't trust the news media anymore. I have no way of knowing whether I'm reading the truth or some spin based on a kernel of truth. Especially since most of it leans one way, politically. How much truth do you think Russian citizens have in their news outlets? I'm about in the same place. Oh, and concerning the TS/SCI docs, it may have been wrong, technically, but it may have been common, as well. That is, how would I know whether all presidents held onto some things they shouldn't have? For all I know, it's normal but is being used against Trump because he's Trump.
No, Trump doing wrong is factual.
Kavanaugh being treated unfairly does not even remotely compare to Trump, as PotuS, discrediting the US electoral system and convincing millions that their votes have been disenfranchised and that they must act to save democracy. It also does not compare to removing and holding at his home TS/SCI classified documents that, if they fell into the wrong hands, would compromise national security. Not even close.
This is about justice. The fact that partisans use these events for political power does not change the fact that Trump did wrong and should be held accountable for it.
Having ill effects is changing something. Enabling others to more easily engage in wrong-doing is a change for the worse.
Well you can claim ignorance but that is not persuasive. It is against the Presidential Records Act for a PotUS to take any documents (other than personal) after s/he leaves office. Those documents become the responsibility of the new PotUS.
Second, how could you honestly think that the US government would allow TS/SCI classified documents to be held at a private residence? There is nothing that I have seen that even hints that this has been allowed in the past. So given no evidence, which is more likely logically: a) other former PotUS' have held TS/SCI classified documents at their residence or b) other former PotUS' have all followed the security protocols of the US?
Apparently, I have missed the trial.
Please. I think you know it's more than that. It's arguable as to who has the more powerful position in the long term. A president or a Supreme Court Justice, as the recent decision concerning abortion illustrates. This was hardly a simple case of Kavanaugh's feelings hurt. I expected that the Dems wouldn't want Kavanaugh but what they did in an effort to discredit him was pure evil.
TiG, if you want to entertain the fantasy that putting Trump behind bars will somehow make our society a more just one, that's your prerogative. Personally, motive matters to me. So, I don't see it as a win if Trump gets put away, even if it is just, if it serves the unjust purpose of the unjust people who put him away. It's still a loss.
That doesn't mean I am necessarily against Trump doing time if he deserves it. I don't see it as a win if he avoids prison if he deserves prison. I'm simply saying that when the whole system is corrupt from top to bottom, there's no actual justice that serves the citizens. Just manipulation with those in power.
Not if the normal conditions are already ill effects. And have you been watching our government for the last several years? They have no problem easily engaging in wrongdoing. The battle seems mostly about who's brand of wrong is going to dominate.
I'm not trying to persuade you. You asked me a question, I answered it.
I know what the government will and will not allow people like us to do or not do. I have no idea what it's like to exist within the circles Trump, Pelosi, Shumer, Bush or anyone else with that kind of power are subject to or what is normal for them.
Do you have special access information that I should consider that doesn't come from the media sources I have already said I don't trust? If not, how would you know the answer to your own question? You don't. You just have to assume conditions and judge from there.
No, Drakk, identifying wrongdoing does not require a trial. I did not state that he was guilty, I stated that he has done wrong.
Was it wrong for Trump to try to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution? Was it wrong for Trump to:
This is a question of right vs. wrong . It is obvious that Trump was wrong to do these things. Claiming that there has been no trial is deflection from an extremely obvious determination that Trump was without question wrong in the above serious acts. It is dishonestly fleeing from facing the truth.
Irrelevant since my point is about holding a PotUS accountable for wrongdoing. SCotUS candidate mistreatment and —now— which is the more powerful position is simply deflection.
My point was that we should NOT allow individuals to engage in acts such as Trump's and not be held accountable. I explained why. Do you think Trump should be held accountable for wrong-doing? If not, then why hold anyone accountable?
You think conditions cannot worsen (the point I made)??
You ignore the Presidential Records Act and while suggesting that Trump might not be the only former PotUS to hold TS/SCI documents at his residence yet you have no evidence this has taken place and defy the logic that this is a serious national security issue that is almost certainly NOT going to be overlooked by the US government.
Good grief, it is naïve to think that the US government would allow TS/SCI classified documents to be held at a private residence. I do not for a second believe that you are unable to see this.
I asked you which is more logical. You know (or should know) that TS/SCI classified documents are the level which holds secrets about international intelligence, nuclear locations, etc. Logically, Drakk, the US government is NOT going to simply allow such documents to be held in private residences. Further, holding such documents violates the PRA (as I keep noting and you keep ignoring).
What is the motivation to attempt to defend Trump regarding obvious wrongdoing given the publicly known facts?
I would suggest you ask someone who's attempting to defend Trump, TiG. My point has been corruption in both Government and media makes any "justice" nearly meaningless. And I'm not referring specifically to Trump when I say that. The fixation on Trump is your thing, not mine. Our government, mostly from the Left doesn't give a damn about justice, except as they define it, and it sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with the constitution, morals, values or anything of that nature. They are trying to untether everyone from anything to stand on that doesn't come from or is provided by, them.
Above all, they are trying to eradicate any semblance of real Judeo/Christian values or moral systems. Since they can't fight God, they'll fight those who follow Him. And, in this country and most of the West, they are winning. And the worse it gets, the more they blame the right and anything associated with Christianity.
So, yeah, TiG, I don't think sending Trump to prison, even if he deserves it, is going to improve anything. The justice will be meaningless in light of the destruction that is already taking place to our nation. It won't solve a thing and may actually make things worse if it empowers the Left even more. That's the real injustice, TiG. That the Left could actually benefit from it. It makes me sick to even think about it. That the people who are more guilty than Trump will sing endless praises to themselves about how they have saved democracy, when they are doing all in their power to end it.
Do you understand my point of view, yet? Or do you just want to ignore all of that and just focus on one, tiny example devoid of any context?
Justice is holding wrongdoers accountable for their actions. There are all sorts of things wrong with our society but that does not make justice meaningless.
Are you suggesting that we should not hold Trump accountable because this would benefit 'the Left'?
Not sure who you are referring to who are "more guilty than Trump" but if they are then they should be brought to justice. In the meantime, I have been talking about Trump. That is the individual of focus. Talking about others is simply changing the topic.
Is the "tiny example" the wrongdoings of Trump? If so, yeah, that is what I want to focus on since that is the topic of the comment to which you replied:
If you did not want to engage me on the wrongdoings of Trump then why did you reply?
I engaged you with what I thought was most relevant. I am not required to respond according to your will.
Of course not, but if you reply to a comment the normal expectation is that you are responding to its content. My comment was about Trump and asked very direct questions:
You spoke of Biden, Kavanaugh, not caring if Trump is guilty or not, gas prices, distracting the voters, fascism, corruption in government and media, Judeo-Christian values and mores, how punishment does not matter, "the Left", other people, on and on ... but did not state whether you hold Trump to have done wrong.
You are not required to respond according to my will but I have the right to call out nothing but deflection on your part while refusing to answer a very simple question: " Do you hold that Trump, in the Big Lie (and the insurrection) and the holding of TS/SCI classified documents in his home has done no wrong?"
And I gave you a direct answer. You just aren't satisfied with it was because it wasn't a simple yes or no. Call it deflection if you wish. Whether Trump is guilty or not, selective justice is not justice. It's simply political manipulation.
But, for the sake of an experiment, let's say I say "no, he did no wrong." Where will you go from there?
Is that your answer? Trump, in your considered opinion, has not done anything wrong in his various actions within his Big Lie campaign: ...
... and his taking and holding classified TS/SCI documents?
No.
Thanks
So your answer to my question: "Trump, in your considered opinion, has not done anything wrong in his various actions within his Big Lie campaign and his taking and holding classified TS/SCI documents?" is "no". As in (double negative), you do not hold that Trump has not done anything wrong. That is, you hold that Trump has engaged in wrong-doing.
As opposed to "no, Trump has not done anything wrong" (which is another valid interpretation).
What are you doing, TiG? The wording is simple and unambiguous. No (comma) he did no wrong. Given in response to your detailed question. How is this confusing you? Why are you trying to make me jump through hoops? Just get on with your point.
I stated the two different plausible interpretations and am asking you to opine.
You have now cleared it up. You believe that Trump did no wrong.
I wanted to confidently know where you stood in order to better evaluate your political comments. I never expected you would actually believe Trump did no wrong. This is valuable information, albeit extremely disappointing.
Meh. Still talking about what is not on the table (yet). Don't want to 'sample' any of the wares that are on the committee table . Won't take any of it up; hold it up to the light, see if it is sustainable or not. Just beg for what is not on the 'menu.' Yeah, that is the ticket: a new venue.
Gasp!
We care. God cares. These conservatives that want to run congress don't care. What does that say about them? They want Trump and his cohorts to run scot-free and roughshod over the rest of us—Independents included too!
Oh my! Where is the What Would Jesus Do in this?! A totally godless response. Trump is not modeling any kind of good behavior and a Christian is all for just letting damages rip?! Oh my.
Wishful thinking? Just for the record, some Christians believe we don't know the day or the hour. . . but 'carry on' with trashing God's people and wishing for hell on Earth? Get a sign already! "THE END IS NEAR!"
Been Two-thousand years already; and this country ain't going to fail just to make evangelicals happy with their pathetic timeline and schemes!
You are deceiving yourself. Go back and read what I wrote.
See, Drakk, this is why I was being so careful to ensure you were clear. It was to avoid this very nonsense where you claim that I misunderstood you or are twisting your words or equivalent.
You finally clearly stated @2.2.30 while complaining that I was being overly careful (making you jump through hoops) that you believe Trump did no wrong:
No (comma) he did no wrong.
Now you return and state that I am deceiving myself and must read what you wrote??
I fully expected that you would NOT deny the blatantly obvious wrongdoing of Trump. I did not want to read that you actually believe he has done no wrong. So if anything, I am predisposed to hold the opposite of what you declared.
It's hard to believe any serious and cognizant person could actually believe Trump had done no wrong. Most of his sycophants know he did wrong but dont care.
You two must have lost something in the translation.
I very much hope so John, but I tried my best to get a clear answer and I do not know how else to interpret Drakk's final: "No (comma) he did no wrong.".
Notably, the partisanship coming out of someone who evidently think it is "Okay!" for a new president to not have available to him/her "in reach" is shocking.What precious and vital facts are not being reviewed by the new administration because of being "high-jacked" and stowed in a private 'locker' by Donald Trump? Instead, let's just 'make' everybody else guilty—even if it is silent—of a malfeasance we routinely get from Donald Trump.
It is clear to me that some here are unable to stop enabling a bumbler like Trump who can/won't stop lowering the bar wherever he finds himself.
And I was very clear. Now, take what I said and put it in context.
Prior to this I had already addressed your question but you didn't find it satisfactory and kept pestering me with it. I assumed you did so because there was some point you wanted to make depending on a simple yes or no answer. So I hypothetically gave you one.
Wrong for two reasons. I didn't say anything different than I had said the first time with the exception of changing a "," to the word 'comma' to show that the statement answered your confusion if you just followed the grammar. The second reason this is wrong is that it doesn't show what I believe about Trump's guilt or innocence or any other way of stating the same thing. How I felt about that was revealed earlier in the conversation.
So, because you read what I wrote the way you wanted to rather than what the context clearly illustrates, you've deceived yourself. I assumed there was some point you wanted to make once you had a yes or no answer. Since you don't accept my previously stated position on Trump's guilt or innocence, I gave you a hypothetical for the purpose of trying to find out what the point would be. That would be the " Where will you go from there " part. Apparently, there was no point to the question, though.
Do you hold that Trump has done no wrong ( right vs wrong ; not asking about legal guilt ) in his Big Lie campaign or the holding of TS/SCI documents?
As a reminder, some of the Big Lie campaign wrongs:
... and add to this his taking and holding classified TS/SCI documents.
Okay, can the 'church' say "Amen"? We're devolved to a wicked state of 'play' in this twenty-first century: 'Rules of the Bush'! Two 'men' enter - one man leaves.
Wow. What 'good fight' have we entered into with this kind of thinking? Frankly, I think it is damn selfish to use the word diversity with a sneer. All the while, I know from your past comments you detest diversity for all peoples in your pursuit of God. (Nevermind that God is over all and every thing you see-good/bad/indifference derives from what you perceive are divine instructions and allowances.
Damn! Seeing the entirety of life merely in shades of red and blue is a mistake.
So what is Drakk's position in your estimation? In all that he wrote, does he acknowledge that Trump has done wrong (not legal guilt, just wrong vs. right) in his Big Lie campaign and/or removing and storing classified TS/SCI documents at his home? Or does Drakk hold that Trump has not done anything wrong in his Big Lie / TS/SCI efforts?
Or ... do we have this situation?:
I want it noted the commenter above has determined -without benefit of a trial- democrats committed an act of "pure evil" against Kavanaugh. But, this writer can not agree with TiG what Trump did wrong with national documents is wrong.
You decide what this writer is doing for yourselves. Moving on.
This. . . comment, it is anarchy, chaos, and yes—faithlessness.
A vortex has opened in this discussion: Red Alert !
And yet, those 'pesky' democrats with their diversity tropes can serve all the prison 'time' they can get thrown at them!
This is the same deflection that others use. I ask about right vs. wrong and explicitly state that I am not asking about legal guilt and they invariably run to legal guilt. This tactic is used because sans a trial there is no legal guilt.
I am confident that most who cannot muster the intellectual honesty to note that Trump has done wrong (right vs. wrong; not legal guilt) in his Big Lie campaign and in taking and storing classified TS/SCI documents at his home know full well that Trump has engaged in wrongdoing.
This is a hint at why our nation is so divisive; partisan loyalty. Many Rs refuse to hold Trump accountable because doing so acknowledges the wrongdoing of an R PotUS and thus is an advantage to the Ds.
It does no good for one's credibility to play these partisan games, but partisan loyalty is apparently more important than integrity.
So I add Drakk, sadly, to the list of those who will write streams of obfuscation to evade acknowledging that Trump has done wrong in his Big Lie campaign and in taking and storing classified TS/SCI documents at his home.
And that Drakk certainly has done. Bottomline: Drakk would let Trump 'off' or leave him alone with those trappings of privilege Trump has taken to himself. He would not do the same for a democrat which he 'finds' are the bane of American society.
Possibly. Hard to say for certain when someone intentionally rambles on to avoid answering an extremely clear, direct question.
Not working, TiG. I already gave my answer to your question. If you find it unsatisfactory then that's unfortunate but I have no obligation to you in this beyond what I have already explained about this subject. And, using CB this way... not cool. You're just using him as a tool.
You return only to continue your obfuscation and now insult CB.
It takes no effort to clearly answer my question yet you choose to ramble on.
The most likely takeaway is that you realize Trump has done wrong (not legal guilt but rather wrong vs. right) in his Big Lie campaign and his taking and holding of classified TS/SCI documents in his home; but you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the blatantly obvious.
All malfunctioning moral compasses spin...
Since you can't seem to see it, my point was, and is, that regardless of Trump's innocence or guilt, Justice can't be obtained in an unjust system. Our government is a sewer of manipulation, lies, rule bending, faithlessness, self-serving avarice and deceit from beginning to end. Regardless of what Trump may or may not have done or what significance it may or may not have, selective justice is not justice. Justice that is enacted so that it helps further the injustice of others is not justice, in my book. Since this is my view of this subject, what I personally think of Trump's guilt or innocence would not change the argument.
Were it a just system, Clinton would have been prosecuted for her private email server by both Democrats and Republicans. That didn't happen and, instead, Dems covered for her. Now Trump is in the same boat and the Dems want to prosecute him but the Republicans don't. I think you know as well as I do neither side plays by the rules any chance they get. When they don't like the rules, they change them. When they can use them against the other side, they do but when they do the same thing, they scream and cry foul.
But somehow, you and the others think that justice would be served and principles would be upheld. It makes me want to puke. Justice, TiG, is only justice when the law applies to everyone equally, without manipulation or to serve someone's agenda. But by all means, keep on harping about answering your question. It's so important that you know what I think about Trump.
Then why do we bother prosecuting criminals?
Drakk opines the so-called, "Left" is more a problem he 'finds' than Trump who acts a fool in public and pats his 'fat-ass' in the faces of anybody staring back! That is, it's the "Left" that "sickens" Drakk, not anything Trump has done so far.
Drakk just proves my conclusion, that he is in the bag for Donald Trump; because ill-gotten gains of this world are gains all the same. Machiavelli, the crafty schemer, were he alive today would be proud. Moreover, I can not be insulted by fundamentalists who do not like being exposed for double-mindedness. After-all, it is not me who is speaking up for the. . .Trump.
So many words. . . . Let me surmise them for you: Trump can keep bucking the system, in your 'book.'
Just as long as Donald ploy is to 'own the libs' who are not fundamentalists, but are hedons, and 'godless' according to your way of looking at the world.
Got it! /s
Drakk point of view appears to support anarchy, chaos, and faithlessness (lack of community), in my opinion.
I understood what you wrote and what you have written. You have chosen to ramble on, beating around the bush, while evading my question.
And this recent comment is more of the same. You refuse to answer a direct question and instead ramble on about your philosophy of justice, equal treatment, Clinton, political parties, etc. ... and you still insist on talking about guilt or innocence instead of right vs. wrong.
My question was:
Has Trump done wrong (right vs. wrong, not legal guilt) in his Big Lie campaign and in taking and storing classified TS/SCI documents at his home?
Based on the extraordinary number of words and time you have spent to avoid directly answering a simple question, the logical conclusion is that you realize Trump has done wrong here but cannot acknowledge it publicly. Join the crowd of Rs who put party loyalty over intellectual honesty.
Drakkk's position is to avoid answering your question.
Your question is simple:
"Has Trump done wrong (not legal guilt, just wrong vs. right) in his Big Lie campaign and/or removing and storing classified TS/SCI documents at his home?"
Trumpanzees refuse to say Trump has done anything wrong, so they evade answering specific questions like yours. They use every trick in the book to evade answering straight forward questions about Trump (straw man, deflection, Hillary, Biden, gas prices, inflation, unreasonable doubt, the Constitution, personal attacks, etc....)
You asked: "So what is Drakk's position in your estimation?"
I think his preferred position is "reverse cowboy".
And apparently they think readers are too stupid to see this.
I have to question why you keep asking that question. You have been asking this for a few weeks now..
Some have answered and some have not. What is the end game, what do you think continued asking will produce?
Why should I answer your question, TiG? For what purpose? Why is it so important to you that I answer? What is to be gained? Why does it matter what I think about it? Why do you behave as if I owe you an answer?
Most of all, why should I answer when it has no relevance to the point I have made?
P.S. Let's get this cleared up right now. Saying I'm evading your question suggests something like an obligation to respond or that I'm under some sort of pressure to respond. I'm not evading. That's what people who have an obligation to something do. I have no such obligation.
As useless as this explanation will be, I do not like Trump, the person. His behavior, on a moral level, disgusts me. I did like what he tried to do, policy wise. I think the Dems took his personality traits and used that to denigrate every single thing he tried to do, even if they were the right thing. In spite of that, the only reason I voted for Trump is that I thought, and still think, he would be less of a disaster than Biden has been for our country. That isn't to say I'm against everything Biden has done. I approve of how he has handled the Ukraine/Russia situation, for the most part. I approve of his stance toward China. His domestic policies seem intentionally designed to pull our country down.
So, do with that what you will. You can stick to the Leftist playbook and, rather than address why you may disagree with what I've said, just attack me personally on an emotional level. That is, after all, the Left's target audience. Those who simply think with their emotions.
It is directly relevant to what you wrote. Here is your first post in this thread
In this post you argue that Trump is, in effect, a victim of the left and that people are tuning out given the constant stream of allegations and failure to bring him to justice.
Now, here is my reply to your post:
Given the Trump ≡ victim tone of your comment @2.2.10, I asked if you (Drakk, personally) hold that Trump has done no wrong. I explicitly noted that I was not asking about legal guilt but rather wrongdoing (right vs. wrong). And I further narrowed the context to his Big Lie campaign and his holding of classified TS/SCI documents in his home.
You either hold that Trump has done wrong here or he has not done wrong. One need not write a book to answer that very simple question that is directly related to what you just posted.
(At least you tacitly admit that you have not answered my question.)
As noted, there are a group of Rs on this site who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the blatantly obvious: Trump clearly has done wrong in his Big Lie campaign and holding of classified TS/SCI documents at his residence.
I was curious if you were also of the mindset that you will refuse to acknowledge even wrongdoing of Trump. (I presumed that you were not and thus if you recognize wrongdoing I would ask you if we should excuse wrongdoing by not bringing Trump to justice simply because Trump was PotUS, a celebrity, a rich guy, etc.)
Questions such as the one I asked are also a way to gauge intellectual honesty. I can appreciate you holding the position that Trump has been a target for a long time and that people are abusing the constitution, law, judicial system, media, etc. in a purely partisan attempt to discredit Trump and the GoP. One can hold that position AND hold the obvious position that Trump has indeed done wrong (not legal guilt; right vs. wrong) in his Big Lie campaign and his holding of classified TS/SCI documents in his home. And thus one can understand why it is appropriate that Trump be brought to justice.
Refusing to even acknowledge wrongdoing of Trump is like denying the Earth has a spheroid shape. It is very difficult to take whatever else the person states seriously if they cannot be honest about something so obvious.
So why should you answer my question? So that people know where you stand and do not simply presume. When people presume, they often presume an exaggerated position. At this point, (outside of those who will agree with anyone making statements that sound pro-Trump), those who have watched you doing somersaults to avoid my direct simple question probably conclude:
Drakk chooses partisan loyalty over personal intellectual honesty.
Better for you to provide your answer than to have it presumed. This is akin to the debate a while back on making laws discriminatory against LGBTQ individuals. Is it better for you to state that you do not feel it is your right to make laws against this group (given you had made it clear that you object to their behavior) or to have people presume that because you object that you would seek to discriminate by law?
Oh, I missed this one. This one I don't mind answering. I pick c) Former POTUS' did both. They surrendered the documents but also had their own copies. Given human nature, I would be shocked if some or all of them didn't do exactly that. For instance, Obama could be telling a partial truth in saying he handed all the documents over, but misleading that he didn't have his own copies. How would anyone know? I suspect Trump, in his narcissism, thought no one would challenge his keeping the originals. Or perhaps he felt there might be something incriminating in them. No way to tell.
Short answer: it is a very good litmus test for intellectual honesty. For more details, read @2.2.76
So, basically you hate liberals so much you can justify Trump's lying cheating assholery?
So then you must hold that the US government does not enforce the Presidential Records Act and, worse, the government allows classified TS/SCI documents to be stored in a private residence whose security is not even remotely close to air-gapped, physical security normally used for such documents.
The US government does not enforce serious national security concerns with former PotUS' except for Trump?
Do you consider the possibility that the other PotUS' followed the rules and Trump did not?
Another tacit admission that you have not answered my question. A tacit admission that you have been rambling on and firing insults while intentionally avoiding answering my simple, direct question.
Cognitive dissonance is a pernicious affliction.
You can offer this yet for some reason waste many posts and paragraphs refusing to acknowledge his wrongdoing in the Big Lie and TS/SCI documents??
It's almost as if the government announced that it in 2016.
Does it surprise you that our government guards TS/SCI documents given these documents include information such as nuclear locations and clandestine operations?
Do you think protection of this information started in 2016?
That is bullshit. You cannot claim that you were not evading my question when you repeatedly reply directly to my posts and repeatedly refuse to address the question asked.
That is exactly evasion. (Good grief, now we redefine what 'evasion' means??)
But you are under no obligation to answer. You are free to evade all you wish. And people are free to draw conclusions based on the the lengthy rambling and repeated replies which each evaded a simple, direct question.
Ok, thanks for the explanation. But I have to worry about you still, your forehead must be very red and flat by now.
It is rather clinical. It is not as though there are many things that are new on social media forums. I am surprised when people I have known for years behave differently than how I would have expected, but I am pretty sure I have seen every tactic multiple times by now.
That's unprincipled. What Would Jesus Do? Jesus would shout: "Woe!"
Jesus wept. Emotional enough for you? Or, do you hold to a fantastical lie that God is emotionless?
Fundamentialists sometimes skirt along the surface of the water and never 'break' the surface; but don't expect that we won't call it out for what it is!
Strawman. Do you feel that your argument is so weak you have to resort to this? Or is it you are just too lazy to produce a counterargument?
Where did I suggest that they did not?
Already answered in the post this post refers to. C) Other POTUS' turned over the records but kept copies. Is this not possible?
You might consider looking up the meaning of words before you use them in the future.
Tacit.
I think I've made it pretty clear that I have not, nor will I, answer your question.
I don't know what's 'tacit' about that.
Yeah, I suspect everyone here has picked up on that.
You claimed earlier that you had answered the question and now you admit (yet again, but this time explicitly rather than a tacit admission) that you have not and that it is indeed your intent to not answer my question. Quite impressive display of integrity.
This question is what you cannot bring yourself to answer:
Has Trump done wrong (right vs. wrong, not legal guilt) in his Big Lie campaign and in taking and storing classified TS/SCI documents at his home?
Evasion.
Prevaricate
I have given you a direct answer as to why I will not answer your question. I did not hide my reason or act evasively. I directly addressed your question and why I will not answer it beyond what I have. If I were evading your question I would hardly address, explicityly, why willl not answer it and why I think it is irrelevant to the discussion. That you think the question is relevant doesn't mean that it is or that I have some obligation to answer. Doesn't work that way.
You, on the other hand, have not answered mine, which is, why should I answer yours? Instead, you define 'evasion' as not answering your question simply because you asked it, while I have directly answered it and also said while I will not respond in the manner you wish. That is not evasion. You simply dislike the answer.
Yes.
You clearly refuse to say Trump did anything wrong.
Your lack of perception, and your inability to tell the truth, is amazing.
If you ever manage to get those blinders off, you will probably shit your pants.
Since you have now repeatedly stated that you have not and will not answer my question, why are you still here posting theatrics?
I also haven't said he did nothing wrong. That seems to escape you. So, who has the lack of perception? You're insisting on a position I haven't stated. Who is the one with the truth problem? Thanks for playing anyway.
LOL.
Your stupid fucking gibberish is getting boring
Fuck off.
I accept your surrender. Have a nice night.
Try not to shit your bed like you shit all over this thread.
Here you are supposing. Copies? How the 'h' do you get from Trump deliberately having classified government documents in a private residence and away from the national archives to "x" number of former presidents filing away copies for posterity (when the protocols for such documents states 'Do Not Copy, Photograph' thereabouts) is one man's search for excuses to not bend to truth-telling (WWJD?) ,or discuss the egregious character of a fundamentalist 'leader' named Donald Trump.
Do you expect to get a serious answer?
Nope. I expect to get snubbed by a fellow Christian. But, I won't belabor that point.
Yeah, I guess it does sound kind of crazy. Like a Secretary of State having government emails on her own private server. Just wouldn't happen, right? Nossiree
And that situation grants you license to suspect, suppose, extrapolate, and argue a probability former presidents have done the same thing? Tell me, what else can you attribute to sitting presidents based on former presidents? Is there somebody you suppose interning and carrying out sexual 'exploits' in the White House with this president?!
I mean a formula expressed as: "They're all the same" is a gross exaggeration and an irrational generalization for a person of logic and reason to use in shaping sound reality. It's emotional. . . and angry.
Jesus would balk, then correct such sentiment. Worse, you refuse to pass judgement on Donald Trump and he is being drugged out daily for his misdeeds for all to gaze upon and consider appropriate consequences.
Apparently as a conservative, you have low regard for your fellow Americans. A shame that can't be 'helped'. . .or can it?
Was it wrong for Clinton to use her private server to conduct SoS business?
Actually that server was officially operated by The Office of the Ex President of the United States of America, William Jefferson Clinton.
That server, BTW, turned out to be more secure than those of the US State Department and the Democratic Nomination Committee.
Therein lies the issue with whataboutism. This is not some kid game of 'she did it' so I demand/insist me too! We can not run a country thinking about 'tag—you're It!' These are matters of national security and taxpayers' money! And we can't indulge waste, no matter the largesse! Everybody should face his or her: issue. moment of decision, consequences, and results!
What should never happen is childish commentary which compounds all things as being equal. Because when criminals are caught doing wrong, they do not get to fall back on some notion of triviality/ies.
Does it matter? The FBI found that classified, including Top Secret, information was indeed on a private server, which apparently should not have been there but recommended that no charges be filed because there was no "criminal intent". This seems to indicate that some procedure, laws, statutes or whatever were violated but because no "criminal intent" was found, they let it go. Whether or not she was guilty, or more accurately, guilty to a degree that she should have been prosecuted, I can't say. It seems she did do something wrong, just as Trump did in keeping the records he did.
However, having said that, I would not be prepared to say one way or the other that she did wrong so egregiously that I would demand "justice must be served." Not because I don't think it was a big deal but because I don't know if it was a big deal. I don't know if what was reported was accurate or just the factions spinning public perceptions. If you listen to the Republicans, Clinton had her own server so that she could operate outside approved government channels so she could further her nefarious plans, whatever those might have been. But of course, who the hell knows? Whatever the deal was, the Republicans weren't after justice, they were after eliminating or damaging their opponent. They said things and it didn't matter whether it was true or not. After all, they had an election to win.
Just like the Dems are doing with Trump. They say he has Top Secret nuclear docs. Then they speculate that Trump can threaten the release of those docs to foreign powers in order to avoid prosecution. It isn't based on anything other than statistically or materially, there isn't any reason why he couldn't. That is, the speculation is based on nothing at all other than it is possible within the parameters of this universe. Same as saying it is possible he could use the same documents to line a hamster cage or fold it up and wedge it into something to get it to stop vibrating.
More, I know nothing about the transfer of such documents. For instance, on average, how long has it traditionally taken other former POTUS' to transfer the records? The day they left office? A week? A year? Ten? How would I know and who would I trust to give me a true answer? The media? If you think so, then I'm completely wasting my time talking to you.
And that is what I am trying to get you to see, TiG. At the level of government these guys play at, justice is simply not a factor. Both sides will literally, and not figuratively, take anything at all and use it any way they can to their advantage. Morals, virtue and ethics are not a factor. It is literally 'my side, right or wrong'. So if Clinton or Trump or whoever gets ousted, put in prison or any other thing, you are a fool if you think it has something to do with justice.
You think I am refusing to answer your question because of partisan feelings toward Trump. Believe it if you wish. I do not place my faith in men or political organizations. Quite the opposite. Everything I see confirms my belief in God, the King who has my loyalty. I am refusing to answer your question precisely because I am not partisan. I will not say Trump was wrong because the whole lot of them are wrong and singling out just one of them lends legitimacy to the rest when they deserve none.
So, be disappointed all you want to be concerning my refusal to answer your question. I can live with it. I'm not going to single out one snake in a nest full of them because doing so adds legitimacy to the hypocrites who are accusing him.
Drakk that is a weak argument:
1. Any congressional committee is a fact-finding body; a political body; and not a legal body (they can refer to DoJ), and—
2. Hillary Clinton sat before a largely republican committee looking into her 'affair'—Trump is/will likely continue to defer or request 'supra-proceedings' from DoJ and courts where he aims to ask for special pleading for ex-presidential authority/ies.
3. Degrees matter. All the more reason for Trump to come in/sat down/ make his case and his case only for why did what he did. (We should not have to read his mind or supply him with an 'out' if is motivation and position can withstand close scrutiny.)
4. Hillary Clinton's case never rose to the level of criminal referral. Trump's document recovery case will not receive a referral to Congress.
Finally, Donald Trump was asked repeatedly to turn over documents in his possession by the archival authority; he did so in part but not in whole. He submitted paperwork stating it was a completed process. And yet today we are told there are still 'outstanding' documents in Trump's last known control away from the national archiving authority. This conduct can not be normalized. It is unacceptable. This demonstrates intent of some sort to defraud. This is leaning beyond a political review of the matter, and directly to a crime charge, ultimately.
And as with Trump, I did not ask you if Hillary was guilty of a crime but if what she did was wrong .
I did not ask you if her wrongdoing would justify "bringing her to justice". I asked if she did wrong .
I have already mentioned the PRA. You can read it yourself. Here is a comment from the National Archives on the PRA:
For your reasoning to make any sense, you would have to believe that the US government turned a blind eye to violations of the PRA for everyone but Trump. Why would you consider that more likely than conclude that the reason former PotUS' did not run up against the PRA is because they (and their staff — a PotUS is surrounded by people who know the procedures and keep the PotUS informed of same) all followed protocol? Why leap to conspiracy theory instead of taking the most obvious direct course? Further, you would have to hold that the US government is not concerned that TS/SCI documents (the kind of docs that hold nuclear locations and clandestine secrets) are held in a private residence rather than an air-gapped facility designed to yield the tightest security for these documents.
You do not have to try to get me to ' see ' this, Drakk. How absurd to think I (or most anyone) am so naïve. I know that partisan politics is dominant and is more important than truth and justice to partisans. One need only look at our national debt to see that our politicians are focused on short term power as their priority. Or observe forums like this where some will allow themselves to look like fools in defense of their party; they will make brain-dead stupid statements rather than admit their party is imperfect. I have never suggested otherwise so you might as well have been trying to get me to ' see ' that people in a losing argument on social media often resort to intellectual dishonesty.
Actually, no, that is not my hypothesis.
I would have advised you to come up with a better excuse. Maybe field test that before posting it. The level of wrongdoing of Trump is in a league of its own compared to other PotUS'. One should not pretend to not see this; it is not credible (at all).
Further, your excuse suggests that you would never opine on questions such as:
Indeed, per your words, you would never opine on any politician's wrong-doing because you feel that is singling them out (well, yeah, it most certainly is) and that somehow that grants legitimacy to all others?
I think most people understand that when someone engages in bad (or good) acts that it is normal (and okay) to 'single them out' and discuss them. And then it is okay to 'single out' another political character. We cannot talk about everyone all at once because they really are not ALL the same. Any intelligent discussion will necessarily 'single out' aka 'establish a topic'.
You, however, cannot bring yourself to have a discussion about what a particular politician has done. Not a very good excuse for avoiding answering a very direct, simple question of right vs. wrong.
Certainly not! When Drakk wants to be a 'pillar of moral authority' to tell others here how they should define justice as a means to cull their natures and social existences and all the while holding Donald Trump, ex-president and regular citizen to a lower bar of "whataboutism"! It is an inverse of 'self-righteous' treatment!
Moreover, Donald Trump seems to relish using teams of lawyers to keep him out of settings where he must under oath tell the truth and 'nothing but the truth. At some point, Trump children will question the 'diminishing returns' of their inheritances if he keeps bucking the system and making these rather 'exotic' payouts to court officials trying save his. . . neck!
“Once the Republicans take control in the House this committee will be shut down.”
And it will suddenly become all Hunter, with retribution being the driving force, to no one’s benefit.
When will we stop looking back and finally focus on the many things that are pressing but somehow always take a back seat?
As long as Republicans dont kick Trump out of their party and out of politics it will never be over. Dont wish for it to be over, wish for Trump to get justice.
In other words the Republicans should keep turning the other cheek?
As Joe Biden is currently in the Oval Office, do you not think that learning the truth of this matter may not be of some importance in the current scheme?
“In other words the Republicans should keep turning the other cheek?”
Oh, vic. The republicans are the cheeky ones here…hanging their maga hats on their only hook…elect us and we’ll show them. And worse, if we aren’t elected, that proves the system is ‘rigged’…
How many times does one need to call out just how shallow that is?
It's coming.
Some might have called it "the third revelation."
Why? What are they afraid of?
Hunter, the new Hillary. Except Hunter is not a government employee, they can't investigate him.
As soon as republicans stop looking back at Trump for guidance and permission.
It's sad really. Some republicans and conservatives have made their careers out of gaslighting and projecting; now, I worry they have no glue how to switch it all off, turn out the lights, and come 'home!'
See: Struck in the muck and mire of past proclivities.
I wonder how many of the hundreds of Republicans running for office in November will urge Trump to come to tell the truth to the committee.
My guess is none.
Their Democratic opponents should note that in public as often as possible.
Even if they did it would be meaningless as the verdict was already predetermined before this ever started. This is only partisan politics and window dressing now.
Donald Trump was a brief aberration in time. I suggest we all act like adults and move on. It's over, please resume normality.
When Trump and the GOP moves on I suspect everybody else will.
The only one's that haven't moved on are the Democrats those on the left. The rest of us are trying to deal with the repercussions of this administrations shitty policy of open borders and constant embarrassment of Biden on the global scale.
As long as Trump continues to flog what little remains of his influence with his red hatted, room temperature IQ, mouth breathers hammering the big election lie it seems nobody will be moving on.
The lying, narcissistic asshole has had much more than his allotted 15 minutes of fame.
We'd all be better off dealing with actual problems such as anthropogenic global climate change.
Personally, I'd just as soon never hear his name or voice ever again.
And we could. But the Democrats are stuck on stupid with an inability to move on. You know, like I said in 4.2.2.
Here's an idea. Move on from him. There are far more important things to worry about like the policies of the current dumpster fire administration that are hurting the country.
Nobody gives a damn about that either
I wish I knew why people do not give a damn that the CO2 level in our atmosphere (440ppm) is the highest in 800,000 years and that it has risen (dramatically) from 280ppm to 440ppm in the last 200 years (a geologic instant). And that we can measure the effects from this such as a steady acceleration of global temperature that has now moved 1.1°C in 100 years and is on target to be up to 2°C by 2050 (and the impacts of this global warming).
“And that we can measure the effects…”
The science is simply irrefutable.
The willful ignorance is simply unbelievable.
I know, I shake my head at the stubborn ignorance that is so prevalent.
We see it with the denial of AGW and the absurd ongoing excuse-making for Trump.
I appreciate the capital letters. It makes it interesting.
It is news Vic, your slumber notwithstanding.
Yes I did notice that Fox News carried it.
your slumber notwithstanding.
Yes. I did have trouble keeping my eyes open.
Now why would a new guy ignore anyone?
Meh, I call bullshit. This kind of thing is why this committee has credibility issues. They pull ridiculous political stunts like this. There is no valid reason to have Trump testify. None.
It would add nothing to the hearings - assuming that fact finding is what the hearings are about. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Whether he deserves it or not, calling him to testify is the congressional equivalent of locking him in the town stocks. It serves only to boost the political fortunes of those on the committee and to publicly shame Trump.
Didn't you know that Trump has no shame? He's proved it over and over again.
It's way past time for him to pay for a lifetime of criminality and lies.
Um ok. You think it’s the responsibility of this committee of the House of Representatives to address his whole life?
Only if they think there is enough political gain to do so.
It's not about politics. It's about Trump being stark raving insane.
To the majority of the hard core liberal left in DC, everything is about politics.
So the majority on the right don't play politics? Please....
It has been argued that everything is about politics.
What makes you think he shouldnt be shamed? Have you watched all these Jan 6 hearings. They have a vast amount of information that is very damaging to Trump.
So I'll ask you again, why shouldnt he be shamed?
FFS, read my comments and respond to the actual words I write. Do not try engage me in some straw man bullshit to satisfy your Trump fetish.
Fuck off.
You spend half your time being washy washy about this asshole. Enough is enough.
They would have to remove the mile wide blinders glued on to be able to do so.
No, you fuck off.
[Deleted]
There’s a sad irony in you calling someone else an asshole. When’s the last time I told you to F off? We might disagree, but I’m never rude to you.
Is Donald Trump an asshole? Yes or no?
I am really tired of people , well meaning as some may be, minimizing what Trump has done and is doing to this country. There are no "two sides of the story" when it comes to Trump. There are those who want him gone and those who are willing to enable him in order to make some other point.
The real question is “did I say I thought he shouldn’t be shamed?” If I didn’t, I think you owe me an apology.
All you have to do is scroll up a little to see the truth. I said there was no valid reason to have him testify and no value to his participation. I said that it was about politics, not truth. That’s an entirely different thing, and you could have participated in a thoughtful conversation about that. Instead you chose to attack me for something I didn’t say.
The reason this committee and the Dems have credibility issues is because they don't want to hold Trump accountable. What they really want to do is run against him again.
Trump launched a coup. He should already be in jail. I see no shades of grey here.
The impeachment proceedings should have begun on January 7th and ended on January 8th.
Instead, all these Dems do is read polls, hold focus groups, and shake down donors.
The only people with any real balls in this dog an pony show are the Republicans who have thrown away their careers to help save this nation.
That’s a fascinating insight. I think you might be on to something there. I have long thought many politicians are much more inclined to run for reelection on a problem than they are to actually solve it.
This is something like "blaming the victim".
There are real although in my opinion insufficient reasons for why he hasnt been indicted yet. For one thing a former president has never been criminally indicted in the 240 year history of the United States. While this is most likely explained by the fact that none of them were criminals, before now, it is still an impressive precedent. I think Garland is also weighing the possibility there could be widespread violence by his supporters if he is indicted. I'd indict him this minute if it were up to me, but its not.
The people responsible for Trumps political longevity and influence are not prosecutors or democratic politicians, but MAGA voters. They still want him to be their hero. That is obvious with every rally and every poll. And they represent enough of the population to keep him encouraged to continue on.
The right has to get rid of Trump, and they dont want to.
Many people feel the same way about Joe Biden, but that don't matter to you does it? You and others that share your views just cannot seem to get past Trump and the end of your noses! Laughable and pathetic at the same time. And btw, I personally wish both Trump and Biden would just shut up and go away.
Most politicians would like to see Trump figuratively 'go away' without having to ruin their own political careers through fighting this toxic creature of a human being. That is, there is nothing wrong with wanting Donald to take himself off the political field of play; without having him reach up and grab them by the. . . nether regions. . .and pulling them down with him!
Why would anyone bother to watch the proceedings in case he DOES show up? Who gives a damn about listening to a record number of "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me, in accordance with the protection provided by the 5th Amendment". Actually, I think he already set the record fairly recently, didn't he? Mind you, I'm sure a lot of people might think "What's he having to hide?" so I suppose it would have a purpose.
For some reason, people never respect the Fifth Amendment when someone else uses it. But if anyone ever accuses them of something, then they have no problem being careful about what they say. Anyone who pays attention to the world around us should come to recognize that accusers will latch onto anything they can to prove their case, twisting innocuous words or actions into something nefarious.
What can be wrong with just giving an honest answer that negates the accusation? I would think that the lawyer who is relying on the witness' testimony would object if the question is out of bounds.
Nothing Trump could say could possibly help. The opinions of the committee are formed and set in stone. There is zero chance he could persuade them that they are mistaken about him.
As a general matter, it is pretty much never helpful for the accused to testify. Even an honest answer can be used against an innocent person. Consider a case of sexual assault, where an honest defense might be that the sex was consensual. The accuser says, “so you admit you had sex with the victim” and the questioning and accusations continue from there.
Defendants routinely share what they think is innocent information with the police only to have it used against them in court. They think it’s harmless to admit to being at a particular location or having contact with a specific person, but it might be all the prosecution needs to fill in the jigsaw puzzle of their case. Additionally, even if they answer honestly with what seems like a non-incriminating response, some witness may mistakenly remember events differently, putting the defendant in the position of being a liar (even though he isn’t).
That’s why it’s so important to have a defense that aggressively scrutinizes evidence and cross-examines witnesses, in addition to producing their own exculpatory evidence and witnesses. None of that is happening in these hearings.
I don’t have any doubts about Trump’s guilt in my own mind. However, my opinion is not based on the work of the committee, but rather in my own observations of the man over time. Even so, I’m not in a position to put him in jail. All I can do is vote for him or not. So the fact that my mind is made up doesn’t count for much.
Objections are meaningless if there is zero chance of them being sustained, or zero chance of them being grounds for appeal.
A fundamental flaw in these hearings is that they are so one-sided, but they are being presented as neutral fact-finding exercises.
Thank you, Tacos1. That is actually a very good reply to my comment.
Thank YOU Buzz for a gracious compliment about my comment. I suppose I should at least have voted it up, since after all, even though we might not agree all the time, it would have been the right thing to do.
Enough! Whose fault is it that republicans wants to put a pact of 'crashers' on the committee dedicated to looking the other way when the truth is being shared? You don't have to like the narrative that the committee has retrieved and is putting on display, but you are kidding yourself when you come on here and impugn the character of their work.
Donald Trump brought this committee on himself. That SOB was impeached twice by a democratic party set of committees for which wisdom and (bad) experience should have informed him not to keep pushing the grain. Trump, did not have the foresight to know that you can not send a mob to sack the nation's capitol building and then try to use the cover of the presidency to hide from investigations seeking to find out what the "h" happened in there. BTW, there are 'secrets' of the capitol building itself that have been unmasked by the mob simply by being in places they should not know exist.
Stop giving Donald Trump credit for being the biggest political DICK in the history of political 'boobs.' We can not celebrate Donald for trashing our systems. Why not? Because if this current president was now to put himself on a tract to taking every action of January 6, 2021 done by Donald Trump—conservatives would call for similiar or even the same committees to form and investigate what the "h" happened.
As noted that the foolish and ridiculous representative from GA, is already talking about investigating democrats just 'because.'
Enough! People come on this site and bitch and moan about 'waste, fraud, and abuse' in government; but don't say a word about abuse OF government!
One last thing: There are people who are graveyard dead, specifically for this comment: Ashli Babbitt. And as it turns out Donald Trump we discover was told all along he officially lost and the gig was up before the day of his statements at the Eclipse speech. Later, that dirty bastard, still taking no accountability for the lost of constituent supporter, and to this day, goes out to rallies and when he speaks of Babbitt adds insult to injury by blaming the officers protecting the systems and operations of the Capitol and its people. That is, Trump attacks the men and women at the Capitol doing their jobs!
One more thing. I, we, are left to reckon (or act against) Trump and his lack of shame.
Where is the shame of those who defend Trump's indefensible treatment of what we SUPPOSEDLY value about this nation? Where is the Babbitt family's SHAME for not defending their dead daughter and 'child' against the narrative we now learn to be Donald Trump blatantly and deliberately lied to get men and women like Ashli B., to come to D.C. and ultimately get 'wrongly' shot to death and destroy the lives of several others?
Where is SHAME?! Where are the MAGA republicans/conservatives that ought to be testifying to the SHAME of all this?
It's missing from the narrative.
It takes two people to have a fight. The House leadership should have found a way to do this so that it appeared to be truly bipartisan and fair. That responsibility falls on Democrats and Republicans.
What we ended up with is problematic for the reasons I observed. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have the hearing at all, but it's just partisan to insist that the committee is beyond criticism or question.
I have not suggested the committee is beyond criticism or question. So that is a non-starter in this discussion and a distraction I won't follow down into its vortex.
You stated it takes two people to have a 'fight' or difference of opinions. That is true. As well it takes two hands to clap; two hands to handshake: Republicans withheld their hands, climbed into the 'gallery' and began to heckle.
Apparently, it is not against capitol 'house' rules or parliamentary procedure for committees to form with the republicans 'rejecting' and ejecting their two serving members during the performance of house/committee business.
I don't see you admonishing 'house leadership' for its use of regulations to demote/bash/demote republicans who are trying to find out why people died in the hallway of the capitol over a mandatory proceeding. Kizinger and Cheney are just doing their jobs/duties/responsibility and got 'shitcanned' right were they are 'standing.'
What more evidence do you need to have 'served up' that Minority Leader McCarthy had/has no interest in the committee/its investigation/its fact-finding than that he abused his own sitting members for being bi-partisan: AS YOU ARE DEMANDING?
Where is the BLAME/SHAME? Come to the front of the 'class' and point it out for us to review if you don't mind, Tacos!
If you’re asking me to assign blame to one group over another, then yes, my tendency in this immediate case is to blame Republicans more. However, Congress in general has been encouraging tribalistic partisanship for several years now and both parties bear ample responsibility. This committee is not the beginning of that unreasoning antagonism - it is its culmination.
. . . is what we are discussing here.
The general problems of congress are ongoing. We can only discuss "hand-shakes," "two-handed clapping," and "political fights" of the moment. Whereupon, the republicans are in the 'rafters' talking about procedures irrelevant and beyond the scope of present circumstances.
That is, we may not be able to fix congress with a 'snap' of our fingers; but, this committee's bipartisanship should have been a foregone conclusion and 'easy' assumption!
Spot on.
It should have been, but it isn’t. It’s problematic enough to give fuel to the other side. And it’s partisan enough that the moment Republicans take control of the House, it will be the first thing they get rid of.
By January of 2023 when the next Congress is seated the January 6th Committee will be ready to publish their findings and pass off to the Justice Department, which will likely be lead by Merrick Garland until at least January 2025...
Yeah, just an excuse. Tell me what will be an acceptable 'excuse' for not following on with the serious work of the committee in 2023 if the house, taking for granted republicans are in charge then? What "fundamentals" will be called upon then?
Sorry, was distracted with something for a 'minute' and walked away from this comment.
Trump wants to testify as long as he can do it live.
According to the Daily Beast:
He's as messed up in the head as Kanye is. Anything, anything at all, for a bit more attention.
I don't know who he is either but apparently he was important enough for the idiots on the waste of time Jan 6 commission to subpoena him.
While it would be interesting to watch how Trump reacts when under oath here, I expect that if he testified he would plead the 5th at every critical turn. I doubt he would even show up since when under oath he is robbed of his ability to lie.