Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

Again the committee is not a court.

The assertion of Constitutional rights isn't proof of guilt and if Flynn or any of those pleading the Fifth get charged that testimony cannot be used against them. Assertion of Constitutional rights though doesn't mean that public opinion and political standing aren't affected.

Also to add assertion of Fifth Amendment rights in regard to basic philosophical question as "Do you believe in a peaceful transfer of power?" Is very odd. It's not a crime if you don't believe in the peaceful transfer of power so assertion of a right against self-incrimination there seems more about avoiding something that would be embarrassing and politically toxic than it is about possible prosecution.

 

you keep repeating its not a court

is that what’s being push on social media or something ?

 

Not that I've seen. I'm just making the point that the arguments made against the committee regarding things like standards of evidence and the assertion of Constitutional rights don't apply. Yet we continue to see those arguments brought up just on this page.

 

Got it. Maybe some are confused or maybe some are just being dishonest.

The simple job of a select committee is to investigate and report. The outcome could be new legislation or proposals around government functions. It cannot prosecute.

 

The committee is not doing a great job of at least appearing impartial, which is important for its findings to be seen as legitimate by the vast majority of Americans. Trump's lawyer was not asked if he can corroborate the witness testimony from Hutchinson. That doesn't make sense to me for a body that is impartially trying to uncover the facts of what happened, whatever they may be. I understand that they believed the lawyer would be unwilling to corroborate or deny some of the testimony. Doesn't matter. Let that fact be on the record.

 

The Jan. 6 committee is modeling a better way to conduct hearings

https://thehill.com/opinion/congres...is-modeling-a-better-way-to-conduct-hearings/

excerpt:

The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol has developed a novel format that can benefit future congressional investigations involving complex matters with high visibility and strong political interests. Unlike past investigations and hearings where information was presented largely through the questioning of witnesses in limited periods of time (often five minutes) by different committee members with widely varying interests, the Jan. 6 committee has presented the fruits of its investigation in a coherent, organized manner through meaningful visuals and videos; clear, uninterrupted questioning; and penetrating hearing summaries via closing statements. It’s a welcome lesson.

Too often, particularly in the past decade, the public has seen congressional hearings that either made little sense or resembled political food fights. With members often haranguing witnesses and denouncing their own colleagues, these proceedings suggested that the “investigation” was focused more on scoring political points than on exposing the facts. One of the core reasons for this, of course, is the extreme polarization that continues to grip Congress, but another is that with respect to highly partisan issues, the standard hearing protocol tends to obscure key issues, rather than reveal facts in a clear way so the public can understand them.

Congressional hearings commonly follow a format in which the chair and ranking member each give an opening statement followed by statements by other members of the committee. That is then followed by opening statements by the first panel of witnesses. Each member, then, is usually given five minutes to question the witnesses on the panel. The order of questioning rotates between the two parties, Republicans and Democrats, until all committee members who want to ask questions have been satisfied. Usually there are several such panels.

While the intention of that process is to give each member the opportunity to participate, when the issue is highly partisan the result for the listening audience is often confusion and diversion from the most important facts and the true purpose of the hearing. The Jan. 6 committee chose to break that mold and agree beforehand to have brief opening statements by the chair and vice chair, no opening statements by the other members or witnesses, and to limit questioning largely to one member. The result has been to dramatically improve the clarity and public understanding of the facts.

Complementing this new order is the committee’s use of visuals — excerpts from the earlier depositions and visual displays of key texts and memoranda. Using this technology has enabled the public to see firsthand the evidence the committee members have seen and heard. The difference in the impact is dramatic.
​

more at the link

 

The committee isn't impartial and under no obligation to be impartial. Accepting that though is whether the evidence they are presenting is truthful and whether it is compelling. I think on both counts they are succeeding. That they didn't ask Cipolone to corroborate specifics of Hutchinson's testimony I think overall a small thing. It is attention grabbing because there isn't much to counter what the committee is producing. Things like whether Trump actually tried to grab the steering wheel or that whether Cipollone actually said "we'll be charged with every single crime" are lurid but not that important to the overall message that Trump and his enablers attempted to overturn the last election. That they were resisted by people in the administration who put loyalty to principle over loyalty to an individual.

 

Was Cipollone's testimony released?

 

Not that I’m aware. There was a NYT article a few days ago talking about the sort of question he was asked (and not asked).

 

Is this is a funny way of saying, that giving an opportunity, that the SCW media echo chamber can find something to b**** about?

The committee has two prominent Rs, of which one is in a leadership position. The people who are testifying to the committee are almost 100% card carrying, rock hard, true believing R partisans.

If anything, the committee has been too appeasing toward the Rs.

 

Ok, then it's just what the J6 released to the media or however NYT got the story and their own interpretation of it. The "interpretation" I have read is that Cipollone didn't contradict Hutchison (and other witnesses). Other points out that that doesn't mean it is confirmed either. It seems to me that the important thing is not necessary to press Cipollone on what other witnesses have said but for Cipollone to recall on his own what he remembers.

And given 8 hours of testimonies, it's likely that Cipollone was questioned on all the areas that previous witnesses testified on (Jeffrey Clark's meeting at the WH, Trump's behaviors on 1/6, his advice to the WH before Trump's 1/6 speech, and the march to the capital, so on), plus more. Hard to believe otherwise given the length of the testimony. Not finding contradiction is an important finding but it's also possible that Cipollone doesn't recall some details or can't testify on others (executive privilege).

 

I feel like they are using people taking the fifth to combat the idea that Trump's people aren't being given a chance to defend themselves or have a say.

They also use it to put pressure on other would-be witnesses. They show the testimony they have and then show people who could potentially poke holes in the testimony taking the fifth. The presumption is that the testimony they have must be accurate because nobody will deny it.

In addition, they are signaling the justice department to offer some witnesses immunity so they can't take the fifth and will testify for the criminal proceedings.

 

The committee IS IMPARTIAL.

The problem is so many in the GOP were involved and don't want their involvement out in the open.

TOUGH **** BOYS AND GIRLS - if you don't want to be outed, don't join or assist a traitorous plot.

DD

 

only mobsters plead the fifth

 

Trump chump Peter Navarro: "Pence is guilty of treason"

 

The usual suspects on this forum have referred to the hearing as a show trial several times. So I'm guessing that's a conservative talking point.

Edit: The Federalist article @Os Trigonum posted called to the hearing as a show trial. This is definitely a talking point.

 

The stupidity never ends, it's like those old energizer battery commercials with the bunny.

 

That was definitely to show Flynn is a jackass who doesn't believe in Democracy too.

 

Flynn is a convicted liar and I doubt he is innocent in this coup attempt. They also didn't imply he was guilty of anything. The video pretty much speaks for itself. There's also the irony of Trump cronies having to plead the fifth.

 

Here is the clip the article is referring to, in case you haven't seen it.