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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Flynn

 

Right. He wasn't convicted of any January 6th charges, but he wasn't an innocent.

He was able to take the 5th and he did.

I don't think anyone was claiming he shouldn't be allowed to have done that.

But if someone doesn't put forward a defense of something, there shouldn't be a problem putting that into record.

 

Yep. He entered a guilty plea and he was was pardoned. He wasn't innocent.

 

yeah, but again, what's that got to do with Jan 6? serious question

 

Rooting for Trump is like cheering for Al Capone.

DD

 

The charge wasn't related to Jan. 6th. He hasn't been convicted of any charge about that. So he hasn't been proven guilty.

But he isn't innocent. His criminal cherry was already popped

 

Jesus, that's the whole topic here though. If I had pled guilty to a traffic violation in 1980 and then happened to be trespassing in the Capitol on Jan 6, and now I'm facing murder charges because some cop committed suicide . . . you're saying I'd be "guilty"?

I don't really think you're saying that. About me (hypothetically) or about Flynn (in actuality).

on edit: recall how we got onto this topic, @Agent94 objected to the title of the piece in the Federalist and cited Flynn specifically because he is mentioned in the article :

 

When you accept a pardon you admit your guilt, and Flynn was about being a foreign agent.....right next to Treason...

DD

 

this is also not true

Is accepting a pardon an admission of guilt?
By Eugene Volokh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../is-accepting-a-pardon-an-admission-of-guilt/

excerpt:

Indeed, some pardons expressly state that they are based on the pardoner’s decision that the defendant was actually innocent; and some legal rules expressly contemplate that — consider, for instance, the federal statute that provides for compensation of the unjustly convicted, which allows a plaintiff to prevail by showing (among other things) “that he has been pardoned upon the stated ground of innocence and unjust conviction.” UPDATE: The Justice Department Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitioners also expressly contemplate the possibility of “pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice,” though they unsurprisingly note that such applicants “bear a formidable burden of persuasion” (since the Justice Department’s strong presumption is that people convicted in federal court were indeed justly convicted).

***
Legal authorities, then, are split on the subject of how the law should understand pardons; but because some pardons are understood as being based on the pardoned person’s factual innocence, I doubt that any judge today would genuinely view acceptance of pardon as always being an admission of guilt. And my sense (though I realize that it might be mistaken) is that most people’s moral judgment today would be that, even if a pardon is offered just as a gesture of mercy and not as exoneration, the recipient may honorably accept it even if they continue to deny their factual guilt or their moral guilt.
​

more at the link

 

Even Trump said that about pleading the 5th.

 

Trump's a very smart guy. Bigly intelligent

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/12/jan-6-hearings-trump-cipollone-/

Opinion: Let’s admit it: The Jan. 6 committee isn’t uncovering anything new
By Gary Abernathy
Contributing columnist
July 12, 2022 at 7:50 p.m. EDT

If the Jan. 6 committee featured a prosecution and defense, much time and effort could have been spared Tuesday with both sides stipulating that right-wing extremist groups are bad and that they played a significant role in the U.S. Capitol incursion of Jan. 6, 2021.

Despite breathless previews of coming attractions, little has changed since the hearings began beyond what was already established: By insisting against all credible evidence that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent, President Donald Trump incited the Capitol riot, dangerously directed his anger toward his own vice president and, most damning of all, refused to participate in the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 20, 2021.

But the effort to connect Trump to some grand conspiracy involving a shadowy network of fanatical backyard warriors and armchair militants is a bridge too far. It risks making him seem a victim of this overzealous and partisan committee, as evidenced by a new New York Times/Siena College poll showing Trump in a virtual dead heat with President Biden in a hypothetical 2024 rematch — a reality check in the midst of these “bombshell” hearings.

The effort to link Trump to the actions of militant groups, such as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, continues to fall flat. On Tuesday, the committee failed to demonstrate any direct coordination beyond the delusions of the militia members and right-wing media personalities. Likewise, the video testimony of former White House counsel Pat Cipollone provided nothing new; it has long been known that he quickly accepted the election results and tried to persuade Trump to do the same.

One felt sympathy for the live witnesses who were mercilessly used by the committee. The first, Jason Van Tatenhove, is a former member of the Oath Keepers who had no involvement in Jan. 6 and therefore no material testimony to offer. His presence was apparently to provide a warning to everyone to stay away from groups like the Oath Keepers and to allow him to share his opinions of the danger he thinks Trump poses for the future. Duly noted.

The second was a sadder case. Stephen Ayres was a Trump supporter from northeastern Ohio who came to Washington on Jan. 6 to support the president but who — like many who find themselves facing criminal charges — now regrets his actions. His testimony offered a cautionary tale — but mostly on the dangers of getting caught up in the dark hole of social media addiction.

Of all the Trump tweets and sound bites routinely rolled out by the committee, it’s revealing that this part of Trump’s address to the Ellipse crowd on Jan. 6, 2021, is never presented: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” On Tuesday, Trump’s replayed remarks were abruptly clipped just before he delivered that line once again. Why? Because Trump’s call to march peacefully to the Capitol undermines the narrative. Likewise, the sloppily edited video testimony of others is suspiciously clipped, sometimes midsentence. Someday, it will be informative to watch it in toto.

The case against Trump is often focused on “things Trump almost did,” such as ordering the seizure of voting machines or appointing Sidney Powell as a special counsel. The committee also enjoys presenting salacious tidbits of information for the purposes of titillation. In the last hearing, it was a tale — later contested — of Trump grabbing a steering wheel and lunging for a person’s throat while demanding to be taken to the Capitol. On Tuesday, it was a Dec. 18 White House meeting featuring a screaming match and a near-physical altercation over how far to go to contest the election. Lots of sound and fury in both cases, but in the end they signify nothing.

Van Tatenhove did offer one good piece of advice: We need to quit mincing words and call things what they are. In that spirit, let’s acknowledge that this politically slanted committee is designed for the sole purpose of indicting Trump and his supporters — first in the realm of public opinion and then by motivating the Justice Department to bring charges. With such a clear agenda, the committee is cheered by those who already despise Trump but dismissed as a partisan witch hunt by Trump’s followers, who are ignoring the hearings.

Some of the committee’s supporters concede that it is not uncovering truly revelatory information but still defend its work as meticulously constructing an official record of events. Fine. But when an unfolding mystery was being unraveled by a much less biased Watergate committee in 1973, about 75 percent of American households watched at least some of the hearings. This one-sided record-building exercise pales in comparison: Only 13 million Americans (out of nearly 330 million) tuned in for the “bombshell” Cassidy Hutchinson testimony. Seems about right.
​

​

 

So you are admitting that everything that happened that day actually happened. Good. Baby steps.

I don't think that is ever been a secret that the whole reason is to "get" the criminals responsible and hold them accountable for their crimes. That is generally the purpose of any sort of inquiry into criminal conspiracies.

 

I disagree.

I don't think many knew of Trump's plans to seize voting machines from the states.

I don't think many knew of Trump's knowledge the mob was armed when he told them to go to the capitol be strong to take back the country.

I don't think many knew that Trump himself knew that there was no mass voter fraud that would make him the leader.

I don't think many knew about the meetings leading up to it.

I don't think many knew that the groups scouted and planned ahead of time where to breach the capitol and stationed members there before Trump even spoke.

I don't think many knew about Trump's plan to install a new AG that would declare the election corrupt and allow Trump to put forward illegitimate electors.

The list goes on of things that most people probably didn't know but that we learned from these hearings.

I feel like that's why some people aren't watching. They thought it would just be a more detailed account of stuff we heard before. But it hasn't been that at all.

 

I agree that yesterday's hearings were the weakest so far. It also had much more speeches by committee members than previous hearings had. Those ended up watering down the effect of the committee.

The Committee though has produced a lot of new information that wasn't known before regarding the actions of members of the Trump administration and Trump family leading up to and during Jan. 6th. It does show how much that the previous President knew and in Cheney's words he's not a child but chose to follow unproven and often bizzarre claims that the election was stolen. The strongest part of yesterday's hearing was the recounting of the heated meeting between those pushing outlandish claims and Cipollone and others trying to reign in the President.

Also that Trump might've tried to contact a future witness is potential witness tampering and that Trump's camp is feeling threatened by it.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...fficers-following-testimony-at-jan-6-hearing/

Capitol rioter apologizes to police officers following testimony at Jan. 6 hearing

Capitol riot defendant Stephen Ayres, who testified before the Jan. 6 select committee on Tuesday, apologized to a group of police officers who defended the Capitol during the riot following the panel’s presentation.

After Tuesday’s hearing ended, Ayres — who answered questions from panel members on how former President Trump influenced his decision to join the riot — approached Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, former D.C. police officer Michael Fanone, D.C. police officer Daniel Hodges, and Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell.

“I’m really sorry,” Ayres told Dunn, according to NBC News.

Audio of the exchange was not caught on C-SPAN video, but reporters close to the interaction reported that Ayres apologized to all three officers.

Fanone told reporters after the exchange, “No apology necessary,” according to Politico.

He said the apology “doesn’t really do **** for me.”

“I hope it does something for him,” he added.

Hodges told USA Today of his interaction with Ayres, “I asked him if he was sorry and he said ‘yes,’ and I said ‘I hope so.’”

In response to a photo posted on Twitter of Dunn and Ayres shaking hands, captioned, “An apology given and accepted,” Dunn wrote, “*Apology given…”

Ayres was arrested on Jan. 25, 2021, and charged with obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abetting, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.

He testified before the Jan. 6 select committee at Tuesday’s public hearing, saying he decided to make the trip to D.C. on Jan. 6 after Trump put out a call to his supporters on social media.

“For me personally, you know, I was, you know, pretty hardcore into the social media — Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. I followed, you know, President Trump on all the websites, you know. He basically put out, you know, come to Stop the Steal rally, you know, and I felt like I needed to be down here,” he testified.

Asked how he felt when Trump said the 2020 presidential election was stolen, Ayres said he was “very upset,” adding, “That’s basically what got me to come down here.”

He added, “I may not have come down here,” meaning to Washington, D.C., for the riot, if he had known Trump had no evidence of widespread fraud.

Ayres testified that he had not initially planned to walk to the Capitol following Trump’s speech at the Ellipse but ultimately decided to make the trek because of the president’s remarks.

“The president, you know, got everybody riled up, told everybody head on down. So we basically were just following what he said,” he said.

“I think everybody thought he was going to be coming down, you know, he said in his speech, you know, kind of like he’s gonna be there with us, so I mean I believed it,” he later said when asked if he thought Trump would be marching with his supporters.


Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified earlier this month that Trump wanted to join marchers to the Capitol after the rally but that the Secret Service refused and brought him to the White House instead.

Ayres said he finally left the Capitol once Trump sent a tweet just after 4 p.m. urging his supporters to leave the building.

He said that had the president written the message on Twitter earlier, he may have left sooner.


“Basically when President Trump put his tweet out, we literally left right after that come out. You know, to me if he would have done that earlier in the day, 1:30, you know, maybe we wouldn’t be in this bad of a situation or something,” he testified.

 

The Memo: Jan. 6 panel is hurting Trump but not helping Biden or Democrats

https://thehill.com/homenews/the-me...ing-trump-but-not-helping-biden-or-democrats/

 

Besides inciting his supporters with the big lie, ignoring that they were armed, and trying to steal the vote, just add dereliction of duty to the list. He waited FAR too long before making that tweet. That sorry excuse of a leader just sat back and watched the violence with joy. He should be charged with multiple crimes. Hell, he still can't stop himself. Now you can add witness tampering to the list.