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

So contrary to what some have claimed about Trump ordering protection for the capitol, it wasn't true.

In yet another discovery it now clear that Trump did not.

His chief of staff lied and claimed that Trump told 10,000 troops to be ready on that day. This lie was put forward with the idea that Trump didn't intend harm or violence.

Now that has been shot out of the water.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...gave-no-order-to-prepare-troops-before-jan-6/

 

More like the aftermath of a mod speaking up about mod duties in other thrrads, and the breaking point of Clutch turning on the ban hammer and cleaning things up outside the D&D.

 

Wrong thread...never mind I guess it really doesn't matter anymore.

 

that's funny. this isn't an "Os Trigonum's posting habits" thread either

 

Got to jail those that lie under oath.

DD

 

That's the problem, I don't think that Meadows was under oath when he made the claim.

But Trump's supporters or even those that simply believe Democrats are making too big of a deal about the hearings and all of the evidence coming out still gave it a chance that it was true. It allowed them to keep their heads buried.

But now we know from testimony under oath that it was not true.

 

Eyes on the prize...

Trump conduct, conversations part of Justice Dept. investigation

The Justice Department is investigating President Donald Trump’s actions as part of its criminal probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, according to four people familiar with the matter.

Prosecutors who are questioning witnesses before a grand jury — including two top aides to Vice President Mike Pence — have asked in recent days about conversations with Trump, his lawyers, and others in his inner circle who sought to substitute Trump allies for certified electors from some states Joe Biden won, according to two people familiar with the matter. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

The prosecutors have asked hours of detailed questions about meetings Trump led in December 2020 and January 2021; his pressure campaign on Pence to overturn the election; and what instructions Trump gave his lawyers and advisers about fake electors and sending electors back to the states, the people said. Some of the questions focused directly on the extent of Trump’s involvement in the fake-elector effort led by his outside lawyers, including John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, these people said.

In addition, Justice Department investigators in April received phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump administration, including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, according to two people familiar with the matter. That effort is another indicator of how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject.

[more at the link]

 

So the DOJ got a warrant for Eastman's phone. That means that a criminal judge had to agree there was probable cause that it contained evidence of criminal conduct.

Now they can access the phone records via another warrant.
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...tained-new-search-warrant-for-eastmans-phone/

Also Garland has said he won't use civil unrest as a criteria of whether or not to pursue an indictment against Trump. He will only use evidence of criminal activity.

 

No, but let's be real here. You (among others) have plainly stated that you enjoy posting things you know will rile people up, simply for the purpose of doing it, and sitting back and laughing at the inevitable reaction. If that's not the definition of a "troll" I don't know what is.

I do enjoy your more honest and serious stuff, though. Like, for instance, you have good taste in movies.

 

I must’ve missed this…Mods doing late Spring cleaning?

 

https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/beefing-posters.313975/page-9#post-14141666

 

tinman says you're not very smart:

I on the other hand think you're a genius:

 

Oh no!

 

Remember when @Commodore (duped again) was posting tweets saying the secret service agent and security detail were willing to testify under oath?

Turns out that isn't really the case.

This Jan. 6th committee has been far more productive for which a lot of people aren't giving due credit.

@Os Trigonum

https://www.salon.com/2022/07/25/se...-testimony-lawyer-up-refuse-to-testify-panel/

 

He disagrees with me on nearly everything (at least his posts), yet I don't feel antagonized by him. A lot of folks on here don't treat people they disagree with any kind of respect. Despite our disagreement, he's respectful to me. So no, in my book, he's not a troll at all.

As to others, I don't really pay attention to the flame wars anymore. But I suspect that he's someone that if you dish it to him, he's going to dish it back like most on here.

 

you're right, they apparently even provoked a conversion experience for Cassidy Hutchinson

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/26/exclusive-in-private-cassidy-hutchinson-joked-about-riot-called-j6-committee-phony-praised-trump-before-changing-story/

 

You mean the person who testified under oath to the committee and is now cooperating with the DOJ

https://thehill.com/policy/national...-star-witness-now-cooperating-with-doj-probe/
So let's analyze the sources and evidence.

To which source do you give more credit?

A. A Federalist article about joking from a Trump loyalist.

B. The same Trump loyalist testifying under oath with corroboration and people who claimed they would testify under oath to contradict her recollection of a story now not willing to testify under oath. Hutchison testified under oath to both the committee and the DOJ.

C. They are equally valid.

Seriuos question for you. To which source(s) do you give more credence?

 

I don't have any reason to doubt the Federalist story.

 

Do you have any reason to doubt her testimony given under oath?

 

those are two separate issues as far as I can tell: (1) how she acted at the time as a Trumpian employee and private citizen, and (2) what she said under oath for the Jan 6 committee. I have no reason to doubt either.

But if (1) and (2) are radically different, that might imply any one of a number of phenomena. One possibility is that the incongruence might call into question her words' correspondence to reality for EITHER (1) or (2).

A second possibility is that she behaves one way informally with friends and co-workers and another way when testifying under oath. This is probably the correct interpretation.

A third somewhat more remote possibility is that she has a personality disorder and/or is schizophrenic. Unlikely, but there's a nonzero probability that that's what's going on.

Of course there are numerous other possibilities. These are but a sample of what might be going on.