The Jan 6 Investigation (2)

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by plague311

Their rally cry was something about it being another 1776, I don't think anyone was under the impression they wanted a peaceful anything.

Same as the Proud Boy who just got arrested and his Truck impounded in DC.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Joecool

Over a year and still no smoking gun that Trump incited the riot. The riot was wrong but it's being overblown compared to the riots that took place after George Floyd, including the summer of love in Seattle.

The committee will never subpoena the secret service agents that were in the car with Trump because they want to take Hutchinson's word at face value.

The committee also heard testimony from at least a few people who were with Trump, including a DOD staffer named Kash Patel who testified that Trump authorized up to 20,000 troops from the national guard to prevent any problems. and this was before January 6th. The committee of course never aired this testimony.

Nor did the committee show the written letter from the DC mayor declining the troops offered by Trump. Nor did the committee interview Pelosi or the DC Mayor who were declared off limits by the committee.

Liz "toast" Cheney also mentioned that there was intel of possible violence prior to January 6th but the committee never interviewed the security personnel and those in charge of them.

Still can't see that the Emperor is actually naked, right?

[slyjoe]

Correction - my previous post about the congress people sneaking in to a meeting is incorrect. That we the Sydney Powell, ex-Overstock CEO, Michael Flynn meeting on December 18, 2020.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Still can't see that the Emperor is actually naked, right?

Shhh don't tell him that Stewart Rhodes, Trolled the old JREF Forum in the 5 dancing Israelis Thread on the 9/11 Conspiracy theories subform here,,back
In the day, 2007-2008.

[dudalb]

Rep. Murphy getting the full treatment from the right...including the lovely term "Gook" being applied to her. (She is of Vietnamese descent).

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Rep. Murphy getting the full treatment from the right...including the lovely term "Gook" being applied to her. (She is of Vietnamese descent).

More than that. She came to the U.S. as a child refugee. In her closing remarks, she talked about how much she loved America because it rescued her and her family from the ocean and gave them a new home. Demeaning her in that tone is absolutely despicable.

[shemp]

Leaked Audio: Before Election Day, Bannon Said Trump Planned to Falsely Claim Victory

Quote:

On the evening of October 31, 2020, Steve Bannon told a group of associates that President Donald Trump had a plan to declare victory on election night—even if he was losing. Trump knew that the slow counting of Democratic-leaning mail-in ballots meant the returns would show early leads for him in key states. His “strategy” was to use this fact to assert that he had won, while claiming that the inevitable shifts in vote totals toward Joe Biden must be the result of fraud, Bannon explained.

“What Trump’s gonna do, is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner,” Bannon, laughing, told the group, according to audio of the meeting obtained by Mother Jones. “He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”

“As it sits here today,” Bannon said later in the conversation, describing a scenario in which Trump held an early lead in key swing states, “at 10 or 11 o’clock Trump’s gonna walk in the Oval, tweet out, ‘I’m the winner. Game over. Suck on that.'”

Of course, as we know, Trump followed this plan and it failed.

The audio: https://twitter.com/MotherJones/stat...30628284731394

[alfaniner]

Has Trump called the guy "Patsy Baloney" yet?

(And here, while I came up with that all by myself, I found out it's already a term.)

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Republican politicians who attended the December 21, 2020 meeting with Trump where he threw the WH Counsel out of the meeting.

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama
Rep. Brian Babin of Texas
Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona
Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida
Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas
Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona
Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland
Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio
Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania
Rep-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia

These people essentially snuck into the White House to meet with Trump about overturning the election. There were a few names on there I had not heard before. The brainpower of that group is astounding.

You mean the fact that between the bunch of them you still couldn't assemble one single functional brain?

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Mike!

You mean the fact that between the bunch of them you still couldn't assemble one single functional brain?

The only question is how much of a functional brain.

That brain would still Double Down on Dumb^TM.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by jimbob

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1...qHs2ZN9IuiXMAg

From the same Twitter thread:

Quote:

Bill Johnson
Today’s Committee hearing once again shows a large number of “good guys” saw Jan. 6 criminally developing for weeks in advance and did nothing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

They really can't because the call was never answered so there's no evidence that he was trying to influence the person. We can pretty much guess that was the intention but since he never actually did it, there isn't actually a crime.

Were it a court of law, potential defendants cannot contact witnesses regardless of the reason.


At a minimum Drumpf is guilty of dereliction of duty. A military court would be nice. (I know it's not possible, no need to reply.)

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Bob001

[/hilite]
More than that. She came to the U.S. as a child refugee. In her closing remarks, she talked about how much she loved America because it rescued her and her family from the ocean and gave them a new home. Demeaning her in that tone is absolutely despicable.

I read that, should have mentioned it.

[Bob001]

I just note for anyone missing them that the full televised hearings are accessible on C-Span.
https://www.c-span.org/search/?sdate...uary+6+hearing

[smartcooky]

Pat Cipellone, when speaking about the group in the "unhinged" meeting (Powell, Giuliani, Byrne, Flynn et al - whom White House staff used to refer to as "the crazies" )....

"A disregard, I would say, a general disregard for the importance of backing up what you say, with facts"

Welcome to our world Pat!

[The Great Zaganza]

Something is being unreported IMO, or at least not given the context it should:

the Mail that Trump was planning to march with this Rally to the Capitol, but that it was supposed to be kept secret.

In other words, the Trump Team wanted a very large crowd of riled up protesters, many of which belong to radical groups, some of which who could be plausibly suspected of carrying weapons, and make sure that the local law enforcement (the Capitol Police) would be unprepared for this. Trump did not want to risk the Police to set up proper barricades and come sufficiently staffed or equipped, because he wanted a literally Overwhelming show of force by his supporters.

At the very least, this makes any lawsuit against Trump because of injuries caused by the insurrection a slam dunk: it's reckless endangerment.
if he had given the Capitol Police a heads-up, they could have gotten themselves ready. But he intentionally withheld that information, making sure that members of Congress and the Police would be insufficiently protected: intimidation was the intended goal.

The fact that he planned to go to the Capitol, too, also proves that the planned to incite a riot, i.e. not only give a speech that might cause a riot, but also help it along by leading them to the place he wanted them to riot at.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Something is being unreported IMO, or at least not given the context it should:

the Mail that Trump was planning to march with this Rally to the Capitol, but that it was supposed to be kept secret.

In other words, the Trump Team wanted a very large crowd of riled up protesters, many of which belong to radical groups, some of which who could be plausibly suspected of carrying weapons, and make sure that the local law enforcement (the Capitol Police) would be unprepared for this. Trump did not want to risk the Police to set up proper barricades and come sufficiently staffed or equipped, because he wanted a literally Overwhelming show of force by his supporters.

At the very least, this makes any lawsuit against Trump because of injuries caused by the insurrection a slam dunk: it's reckless endangerment.
if he had given the Capitol Police a heads-up, they could have gotten themselves ready. But he intentionally withheld that information, making sure that members of Congress and the Police would be insufficiently protected: intimidation was the intended goal.

The fact that he planned to go to the Capitol, too, also proves that the planned to incite a riot, i.e. not only give a speech that might cause a riot, but also help it along by leading them to the place he wanted them to riot at.

Yes The Criminal Trump's first plan failed so he jumped to plan B, he originally wanted to blame the Riot on Antifa and BLM but they didn't show up!

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Mike!

Don Jr.?

If Trump actually called one of his kids not named Ivanka, that would be suspicious behavior.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Donal

If Trump actually called one of his kids not named Ivanka, that would be suspicious behavior.

Maybe that's why the person at the other end didn't pick up... They didn't recognize the number.

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Joecool

I'm so sorry, I didn't realize you had heard all of the evidence.

Even if Trump tried to subvert the votes in Georgia, how does that prove that he incited the riot on January 6th?

Do you know who Stacy Abrams is? What do you think of her actions? (I doubt you will respond?)

The democrats whined and cried voter suppression and then record votes were cast in 2020. I never claimed that fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 election. Joe Biden said Geogia was Jim Crowe 2.0 but his own state of Delaware has more voting restrictions than Georgia. And what did Joe Biden do about it? Nothing.

Wild and Wilding are white Supremacist code words for Violence using them in the Tweet has only one on the 19th has only one purpose.

I do have problems with the Former Oath Keepers claims in his testimony, I can Confirm that being antiSemetic goes hand in hand with being an Oath Keeper, that is well known of the Constitutionist Libertarian Conspiracy theorists. For him not to know the Oath Keepers hated Jews he would have to be brain dead.

[JoeMorgue]

And SCOTUS declares that witness tampering if perfectly okay if a Republican President does it in 3... 2... 1

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And SCOTUS declares that witness tampering if perfectly okay if a Republican President does it in 3... 2... 1

There is nothing wrong about appreciating what a nice building someone has and expressing how awful it would be if it accidently burned down.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Wild and Wilding are white Supremacist code words for Violence using them in the Tweet has only one on the 19th has only one purpose.

I do have problems with the Former Oath Keepers claims in his testimony, I can Confirm that being antiSemetic goes hand in hand with being an Oath Keeper, that is well known of the Constitutionist Libertarian Conspiracy theorists. For him not to know the Oath Keepers hated Jews he would have to be brain dead.

To be fair, when they first started getting attention from the mainstream media, they were getting a lot of puff pieces. they were being portrayed as like the Tea Party (this was about 15 years ago) but putting more focus on "traditional manliness" and "honoring veterans". They were still using euphemisms and staying marketing friendly back then.

[Stacyhs]

Cheney's statement that Trump "is not an impressionable child" could be debated.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Joecool

Even if Trump tried to subvert the votes in Georgia, how does that prove that he incited the riot on January 6th?

Originally Posted by Joecool

Do you know who Stacy Abrams is? What do you think of her actions? (I doubt you will respond?)

Yes, I know who she is... she is an outstanding politician who really cared about her constituents. She is also a voting rights activist who was rorted out of a chance a governorship in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race when the GOP candidate, in a clear conflict of interest, used his position as Georgia Secraty of State to throw out tens of thousands of voters off the voting register in areas where Democrats and minorities

You know what Abrams didn't do in response? She didn't call an armed mob of her base to the Georgia Governor's Mansion.

[Donal]

The fact that Stacey Abrams doesn't have an armed mob in her base just shows she's not popular enough to govern. /s

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Were it a court of law, potential defendants cannot contact witnesses regardless of the reason.


At a minimum Drumpf is guilty of dereliction of duty. A military court would be nice. (I know it's not possible, no need to reply.)

Reports are that it was a White House support staff person he called.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...al_taboolafeed

[Iamafalser]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Republican politicians who attended the December 21, 2020 meeting with Trump where he threw the WH Counsel out of the meeting.

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama
Rep. Brian Babin of Texas
Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona
Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida
Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas
Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona
Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland
Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio
Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania
Rep-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia

These people essentially snuck into the White House to meet with Trump about overturning the election. There were a few names on there I had not heard before. The brainpower of that group is astounding.

What law is violated by kicking someone out of a meeting?

Just curious.

You can't "sneak" into The White House. There's pretty tight security as well as logs of who enters.

What's the difference between overturning an election and contesting an election?

Is it illegal to try to endeavor to find legal means to contest an election?

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Iamafalser

What law is violated by kicking someone out of a meeting?

Just curious.

You can't "sneak" into The White House. There's pretty tight security as well as logs of who enters.

What's the difference between overturning an election and contesting an election?

Is it illegal to try to endeavor to find legal means to contest an election?

Really? You don't know the answer to these questions?

Illegal to kick someone out of a meeting? No, but it can show intent to conceal. And by the way I corrected which meeting the WH Counsel was asked to leave.

A junior staffer let in Powell, Guiliani, and others for the Dec 18 meeting. It wasn't on the calendar, and the article mentioned that the staffer let them in a side door - not quite as tight security as you might expect. I do not know if they showed up on the logs.

When the legal options were rebuffed, Trump moved to overturning the election, especially after all 50 states certified their electors on Dec 14. In other words, contesting an election stops at some point. Trump's attempts up to Jan 6 were an illegal attempt to overturn the election.

It is not illegal to find legal means to contest an election. Once those legal means are exhausted 62 times, it's time to stop.

[JoeMorgue]

"How is it illegal to just honestly show concern for what would happen to a local shop keeper's nice shop? I demand a civil debate about this."

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"How is it illegal to just honestly show concern for what would happen to a local shop keeper's nice shop? I demand a civil debate about this."

I was just going to post this!

[Iamafalser]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Were it a court of law, potential defendants cannot contact witnesses regardless of the reason.


At a minimum Drumpf is guilty of dereliction of duty. A military court would be nice. (I know it's not possible, no need to reply.)

"Were it a court of law:"

a) There would be actual charges against Trump citing specific statutes and specific allegations of how said statutes were violated. (Something missing from the J6 Committee so far.)

b) Full discovery regarding all evidence with respect to what transpired on January 6. (Not just what Pelosi & Co. care to show.)

c) Rules of evidence. (Hearsay and edited/manipulated evidence wouldn't be allowed.)

d) ALL witness testimony would be part of the public record. (Unlike the
J6 Committee's closed door interviews.)

e) A defense presented which would include defense evidence to contradict said allegations as well as defense witnesses. (Something not included in the J6 Committee hearings.)

f) Cross examination of witnesses. (Again, something not included in the J6 Committee hearings.)

g) The prosecution would have the burden to prove a) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you want to hazard a guess as to why DOJ will probably never file charges against Trump, much less get a conviction?


Military dereliction of duty? WTF? Have you never heard of The Posse Comitatus Act?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Iamafalser

Do you want to hazard a guess as to why DOJ will probably never file charges against Trump, much less get a conviction?

Because his psychopathic death cult of trolls will burn the country to the ground if we try?

Because idiots have created a post fact world where facts don't matter?

Because Republican Party will see the end of Democracy as a concept before they let go of power?

Because we live in a world where children being shot in their own classrooms get told to "Oh stop being so dramatic. Your hyperbole isn't really helping your case" when they scream?

Because I know within the metaphysical bounds of certainty that your response will be an excuse, diversion, or trolling tactic and not an answer?

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because his psychopathic death cult of trolls will burn the country to the ground?

Because the Democrats view it as too dangerous? (the GoP would 'investigate' every following Dem President the second they were sworn in)

Just goes to show. President Trump incited a riot in a desire to overturn a legal, proper election, and conservatives don't give a ****.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because his psychopathic death cult of trolls will burn the country to the ground if we try?

Because idiots have created a post fact world where facts don't matter?

Because Republican Party will see the end of Democracy as a concept before they let go of power?

Because we live in a world where children being shot in their own classrooms get told to "Oh stop being so dramatic. Your hyperbole isn't really helping your case" when they scream?

Because I know within the metaphysical bounds of certainty that your response will be an excuse, diversion, or trolling tactic and not an answer?

These are probably not the answers he was looking for, but they are the most accurate answers.

[Iamafalser]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Really? You don't know the answer to these questions?

Illegal to kick someone out of a meeting? No, but it can show intent to conceal. And by the way I corrected which meeting the WH Counsel was asked to leave.

A junior staffer let in Powell, Guiliani, and others for the Dec 18 meeting. It wasn't on the calendar, and the article mentioned that the staffer let them in a side door - not quite as tight security as you might expect. I do not know if they showed up on the logs.

When the legal options were rebuffed, Trump moved to overturning the election, especially after all 50 states certified their electors on Dec 14. In other words, contesting an election stops at some point. Trump's attempts up to Jan 6 were an illegal attempt to overturn the election.

It is not illegal to find legal means to contest an election. Once those legal means are exhausted 62 times, it's time to stop.

Of course I know the answers to those questions. They were meant for you, not me.

Here's the question I don't have and answer to: What specific laws did Trump violate (please cite federal code) and what specific actions did he take to violate them?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Iamafalser

Here's the question I don't have and answer to: What specific laws did Trump violate (please cite federal code) and what specific actions did he take to violate them?

Yet another "Oh I'm sorry I've been in a cave for the last 5 years, could you please have a cVIVIL DeBATE with me about when it was ever shown that Trump did anything wrong?"

[JoeMorgue]

So "I'm going to pretend not only did Trump never do anything wrong but it's never even been discussed" going to be the only.. well I'm not allowed to say the word without being sent to AAH but let's just call it "dishonest argumentative tactic" that the Trumpers use?

Just sticking your fingers in your ears going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU DADDY TRUMP NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG OMG HIS BOOT TASTE SO GOOD LAALALALAL?" That's the whole tactic now?

[Iamafalser]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because his psychopathic death cult of trolls will burn the country to the ground if we try?

Because idiots have created a post fact world where facts don't matter?

Because Republican Party will see the end of Democracy as a concept before they let go of power?

Because we live in a world where children being shot in their own classrooms get told to "Oh stop being so dramatic. Your hyperbole isn't really helping your case" when they scream?

Because I know within the metaphysical bounds of certainty that your response will be an excuse, diversion, or trolling tactic and not an answer?

I just posted a factual account of what is entailed in prosecuting someone in a court of law.

I find your drama queen emotional response quite amusing.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Iamafalser

I just posted a factual account of what is entailed in prosecuting someone in a court of law.

I find your drama queen emotional response quite amusing.

I'm sick of people told how Trump's coup didn't break any rules.

First it's a lie.

Second it's not the point.