Jan 6 committee claims enough evidence has been found to indict Trump

Old news doesn't mean ineffective. Old stuff gets brought up and recycled every election cycle with shockingly great effect. As we near the next Presidential election, the potency of bringing up such a glaringly obvious "**** the bed" moment for Republicans will increase. The fact there aren't many independent, persuadable voters left is a different issue that both parties contend with. It's hard to draw a straight line from Democrats to Minneapolis burning. There's a nearly perfectly straight line from Republicans to Jan 6. Democrats literally always have an uphill battle from a messaging standpoint (and are notoriously stupid/inept), but provided Trump is the candidate, this is as close to the water as the horse has ever been for them leading up to a Presidential election. The ads write themselves.

 

From a strategy standpoint, how do you think the messaging will go if the candidate is on Desantis?

I'm also curious to see what fresh culture war BS will get drummed up. The trans culture war seems very niche and is already a few years old. I know culture wars tend to use white suburban/exburban mothers a lot (think QAnon and LGBT issues, but also how BLM was able to persuade white soccer moms). They're typically mid information voters who are usually very empathetic but also vote in terms of (real/perceived) safety/empathy issues.

 

Provided the economy stays the way it is, any Republican not named Donald Trump will waltz into the White House. Democrats will have absolutely zero idea how to campaign against anyone else. They'll probably try some covid crap and it'll fail spectacularly.

The pattern seems pretty clear that Republicans will routinely drum up culture war BS in response to every election loss they suffer. I think the trans thing is a humanitarian hill the Democrats will end up dying on over and over (sometimes self inflicted, but most times not) to Republicans' benefit until suddenly it's accepted and normal just like homosexuality.

 

Yeah, probably. I think the tide is shifting a lot quicker than Republicans realize. Even my Trump-supporting family was pretty supportive (or at least the more affluent ones). My other relatives said they had no issue with trans people but said I was too young and said I was doing it for political reasons.

 

Former Jan 6 Committee staffer, Riggleman, during a 60 Minute interview, says

the committee has evidence of a text message (sent by
someone in the White House, during the insurrection) to
someone who has been indicted for the insurrection.
​

This claim has been corroborated by a 6 Jan Committee member, Jamie Raskin during an interview on Meet The PRess

 

they got the b*stard now

 

It would be great to take Thomas down too, and invalidate all of the USSC rulings after the dates of the earliest insurrection planning.

Remember, these ****s are slipperyer than greased pigs. They are not only lifelong con artists and natural liars, but there are a lot of fates of powerful people tied to their fate. It's not going to be easy.

 

...you're talking about the DSC (deep state Clintons), sir.

 

Them too.

 

The Jan. 6 Committee Has Been Almost Wholly Ineffective

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/13/opinion/january-6-committee-trump.html

excerpt:

There are two parties to Jan. 6 that the committee has had a hard time keeping distinct: the crowd and Mr. Trump. What the crowd did — to obstruct, through physical intimidation, the counting of votes — was a constitutional trespass of maximum gravity, for which the instigators deserve punishment.

But who were the instigators? The committee has focused on extremist groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers that played an outsize role in storming the Capitol. But their violence, coordination and resolution were not typical of the broader crowd. No firearms were found on those who invaded the Capitol.

It was not a coup attempt. And even if you believe it was, Mr. Trump was not leading it.

For someone supposedly bent on overthrowing the government, Mr. Trump did an awful lot of television-watching and surprisingly little seizing of broadcast centers, mobilizing of commando units and issuing of emergency decrees. He certainly demeaned the office, embarrassed the country and behaved irresponsibly on Jan. 6. But to focus on that day distracts from his less dramatic but more consequential misdeeds.

Elections require of candidates a never-say-die optimism that can lead even levelheaded people to make bold claims. After the German national election of 2002, the conservative candidate Edmund Stoiber walked onstage as his prospects of winning dwindled, and announced, with a thrilled smile, “We have won the election.” In 2006, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Mexico City’s head of government, refused to accept the official tally showing him the loser in a national presidential race, camped out in the city’s central square and drew hundreds of thousands of supporters to the city, where they battled the police.

Mr. Trump’s loss was razor thin: A shift of fewer than 80,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin would have given him the victory. But his loss is different from the near misses to which it is sometimes compared. For one thing, Mr. Trump was an incumbent. While Samuel Tilden in 1876, Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in 2000 each lost the presidency by a whisker, they weren’t in the Oval Office and suffered no demotion in dignity.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, faced what the New York Times correspondent Maggie Haberman, the author of a new book on Mr. Trump, called “the worst predicament he could imagine: being turned into a loser by the entire country.” He took extraordinary measures, including a phone call he made to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, four days before the storming of the Capitol, in which Mr. Trump said, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” This was an unambiguous act of constitutional wrongdoing.

But the Jan. 6 committee’s members are focused on something else. They have set themselves up less as investigators than as defenders of America’s democracy. This is the wrong venue for such a mission. The committee has wound up too partisan to carry it out. You can blame Republicans for nominating Trump defenders to the committee or Democrats for freezing them out, but the fact is the committee has seven Democrats and two Republicans, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, both in open rebellion against their Trumpified party (and both now on their way out of Congress).

The almost complete removal of oppositional checks leaves the committee ill suited to what is really a very delicate task. The Jan. 6 march on the Capitol was both a protest questioning the integrity of the 2020 election (protected by the First Amendment) and a violent assault on the integrity of the 2020 election (punishable by law).

On top of that, there are two different contexts for understanding the event: judicial and civic. In the judicial context, those judges who ruled against more than 60 Trump-initiated and Trump-linked lawsuits to reopen vote counts and reverse election results did exactly the right thing. A courtroom is the wrong place to reward doubts about the legitimacy of elections. Overruling elections from the bench would undermine democracy and provide tomorrow’s lawyers with incentives to undermine it further.

But in a civic context, matters are different. Citizens have a right to examine the matter as freely and doggedly as they wish.

The committee jumbles all these contexts together. Ms. Cheney recently complained that Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, “is, right now, campaigning for election deniers.” She went on: “Either you fundamentally believe in and will support our constitutional structure or you don’t.” But, of course, it is not unconstitutional to question the integrity of an election, and a person who does so is not necessarily an enemy of democracy.

In June the committee chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, opened the hearings by mentioning that he had taken an oath “to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” He added that “that oath was put to the test on Jan. 6.”

Certainly there were constitutional crimes that day. But the committee members have been too inclined to look at the Republican Party as a nest of subversives, much as certain anti-Communists did the Democrats at some of the colder points in the Cold War. The investigation into possible Russian collusion with the 2016 Trump campaign — an investigation that on essential matters came up empty — reflected similar suspicions. Mr. Biden’s recent speech in Philadelphia, in which he described “MAGA Republicans” as part of an ideological threat to democracy and “the very soul of this country,” is evidence that he, too, views matters in this light.

This is to misunderstand the nature of the challenge to American democracy posed by Donald Trump. Any reader of Michael Wolff’s book “Landslide,” about the final days of the Trump presidency, will see that his unsuitability is a matter of psychology, not ideology — of character, not politics. He’s George III, not Hitler. We haven’t given enough thought to flawed personalities in recent years. Modern government structures may have seemed too complex to be run on gut reactions and private whims. For several generations politicians with Mr. Trump’s personality profile were incapable of going far.

That this is no longer the case ought to preoccupy us. After his defeat in November 2020, Mr. Trump began working the last available pressure point in the system — the Electoral College, as it turned out — to see if he could somehow lawyer and cajole his way to an alternative outcome. That a president would try such a thing required not just effrontery but also a colossal collapse in standards, integrity and public trust. But the requisite collapse had already taken place, by 2016 at the latest.
​

more at the link

 

I can't keep my Trump is a Crook threads straight.

 

You know he's going to stall this out until the GOP takes control of the House again...if not it's heading to the Supreme Court. I'll say right here, right now he won't ever testify in front of this committee.

 

Deny, delay, deflect.

Probably.

 

What? This editorial is either ignorant or has ignored the evidence.

The evidence has been presented. They could try and argue against it but the evidence has been presented that it was a coup attempt and that Trump was in fact the lead planner.

There is stronger evidence against others on his team, but there is absolutely evidence that has been presented that Trump was leading the coup attempt.

The article only has a point by ignoring multiple meetings starting as far back as December.

 

Until he is in cuffs they don't have him that dam con-artist has been staking by jail for a long time.

 

He's like that oiled up deaf dude from Family Guy...

 

Yep but like many i too want to see him brought to justice hand cuffed and stuffed in the back on a police car.

 

Some of the things established by the evidence presented at the Jan. 6th hearings.

BEFORE JAN. 6th
1. As early as July even before the election Trump planned to say that he won regardless of the vote totals.
2. Trump admitted that he lost to his team but decided that he didn't want to let any of his supporters know. It was pre-meditated and planned.
3. Trump and his team plotted to negate the results of the election ahead of time.
4. The tried legal means in the courts and lost.
5. They tried to confiscate actual voting machines. Members of Trump's team did tamper with voting machines.
6. Trump and his team tried to influence state officials to discount legitimate votes, refuse to certify the votes in key states.
7. Trump and his team put out false information trying to claim legally cast, and tabulated votes weren't legal. Put out false information about mail-in ballots and fraudulent votes. They did this knowing that Trump lost the election.
8. Trump and his team planned to have fraudulent electors replace the actual electors in order to prevent the outcome of the legitimate results.
9. Trump and his team planned to have supporters delay the official certification of the vote in order allow Congress to vote (not by member but by state to declare Trump the winner).
10. Trump and his team coordinated with militant groups about ways to disrupt and delay the legitimate certification of the election.
11. Trump Planned to install an new attorney general that would go along with his plans and even had him listed as "interim Attorney General" in official logs.

ON JANUARY 6th
1. knew that protestors and militants were armed and intended to breach the capitol.
2. Trump Refused to call for additional National Guard support.
3. Trump knowing that militants were armed instructed them to go to the capitol and not to be weak because they would only take back the country with strength. Trump ordered security to allow armed protesters through security checkpoints without being disarmed.
4. Trump was told they were going to kill Mike Pence and he responded that Pence deserved it and they were right.
5. Trump refused to call in additional help, and refused to instruct his people to halt the insurrection. (Remember this coordinates with Trump's plan to delay the results)
6. Trump refused requests to put an end to the rioting for hours despite being told of the danger.
7. Trump wanted to go to the capitol in order to lead the insurrection.
8. Only a few people acted against Trump's wishes while many acted to enable him.
9. The certification was actually delayed and did not occur on Jan. 6th. It wasn't until the early hours of Jan. 7th that certification took place

Bottom line, this wasn't just one day of out of hand people causing problems. It was planned ahead of time. Trump told colleagues that he lost but didn't want to say that to the public.