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

I've gotten pretty insensitive to news about personal threats to political people. They seem to literally happen all the time now. Well over 99% must be just hot air. Which is not to say it's not a big deal. FBI should be seeking to prosecute all these threats. But it doesn't tell me anything about this group or that group or whatever especial risk so-and-so is facing. It tells me that threatening people without getting caught has gotten very easy and that Americans are crazy.

To commodore's point, there are two tracks running in this House Committee investigation. They have interviewed a thousand people privately, at least some of them (like Cippolone) testifying under oath. And then they have had public testimony for the TV cameras from about 20 people. The private track will inform the giant report they produce at the end which will lay out all the findings of the committee. The public track is PR to curate the narrative of the committee's work. Bannon and Rhodes, who are running out of ways to resist their subpoenas, want to try to testify publicly so they can at least sabotage the anti-Trump PR show the committee is running. The committee probably won't allow it and will force them to testify privately instead.

But, I'm not sure if people are really understanding the process here. The made-for-television track is what Republicans cynically characterize it as, just grandstanding for the voters. But, there is another process going on, the real one, where they are collecting evidence and testimony from a thousand people to assemble a complete picture of Trump's effort to overturn the election. They will produce a voluminous report at the end with all their evidence, will make recommendations to the House and to agencies on how to avoid a repeat of this disaster, perhaps recommend investigations to the DOJ for criminal charges, and perhaps spawn bills for taking legislative action to shore up our election safeguards.

So there are 100 people with outstanding subpoenas so far. And the Committee and Trumpers are playing this little game between the two tracks. The Committee wants everyone under oath for the real testimony, and a select few that can have political resonance to testify in public hearings to make the headlines. Many witnesses don't want to expose themselves or rat out others by going under oath, so they conflate the private and public tracks and say they don't want to play the Committee's PR game, which they were never invited to in the first place. Others, like Bannon and Rhodes, see they'll be forced to testify in the end, so they want to play the PR game, but won't be allowed to. Then they can say it's all a sham. But, it's only the public hearings that are a sham, and its the private hearings where the real work is done and where the real legal jeopardy resides.

 

Whether people believe it's a sham or not I like that Americans get to hear the truth from the people who worked with Trump. I like that there are actually a few Republicans who stand by their oath to tell the truth instead of cowering to that impeached seditionist who tried to stab anyone in the back who dares to tell the truth about him.

As for all the 5th pleading cowards and politicians not speaking the truth, they care more about their political career than following that oath to serve. That oath wasn't meant to serve Trump.

There were only 10 Republicans who voted to impeach that seditionist coup planner. That says a lot about the party. They are moving towards an Autocracy, which is just how Trump wants this nation to be led. It's very disturbing. I can't imagine anyone wanting that, especially that guy on here that claims he is a Democrat but posts stuff so contradictory. As for the other Trump lovers, they would probably love that form of government.

 

Yeah, I don't disagree. I'm being a bit harsh and cynical because the hearings do curate what testimony we hear, but it's not like the witnesses that participated got up in front of the country and lied. They told what they knew, which is worth hearing. The 'other side' will be reflected when the report and supporting evidence is released and when the criminal cases are heard.

 

I believe one pundit said that Republicans won't reject conservatism, but will reject democracy if democracy rejects conservatism.

Despite being over-represented in the Senate and in state legislatures and the judiciary...a lot are convinced the fate of the country is at stake. That we're one Democratic election away from religion being outlawed and the implementation of whatever vague boogeyman du jour is at hand.

Honestly? The only way Republicans will moderate will be if thats what voters want. And increasingly, they don't want that. If anything the hard shift to the right and greater emphasis on social issues has helped..., particularly with latinos and straight men of color.

I hate to admit this as a trans woman but Dems are fighting a losing battle trying to protect us. It's too nuanced of an issue for your average voter and plays into every existing stereotype about Democrats. Namely that they're perverts, that they protect fringe minorities over majority rule, and that they hate religion and the nuclear family. Add that with the trans community's own issues with messaging (both internal and external) and this is what happens. I'd gladly throw myself under the bus if it meant we could push the GOP to the center and get voters to stop electing extremists...although I think the cat is out of the bag. Democrats should have moved more cautiously with social issues and hastily with economic issues...instead they adopted a softer version of Reaganomics and lost blue collar whites...probably for good.

 

Unfortunately, most people won't read the report...and the people who need to hear it the most won't get a fair interpretation of it and will continue to give Trump money.

Honestly, the fact that the govt didn't get him on campaign finance is insane to me. There's tons of cases of people unknowingly giving recurring donations, especially non tech savvy older people. How that isn't considered not just fraud, but elder abuse is beyond me.

 

It's just so weird to me that conservatives think Democrats are any less Christian when accepting others, helping the poor and needy, and not judging others are Christian beliefs. Spurring hate towards a group or race isn't very Christian either, and that's become the mantra of their social media posts.

As for pedophiles, well the risk of a child being molested is predominantly from straight members within their own family. Adultery or rape are no less common either when it comes to Republicans. You can't pick and choose your Bible quote and call yourself more of a Christian just because you are a Republican.

 

22 pages of PDF

Strongest Evidence of Guilt: Chart Tracking Trump’s Knowledge and Intent in Efforts to Overturn the Election (justsecurity.org)

The January 6th House Select Committee has produced substantial evidence about former President Donald Trump’s knowledge and beliefs as he tried to overturn the 2020 election. This body of evidence carries potentially great legal (and moral) weight. That’s because several of Trump’s actions would amount to criminal (and morally outrageous) conduct if he acted with particular forms of knowledge and intent.

The Chart below presents key factual findings – concerning evidence of Trump’s knowledge and beliefs when trying to overturn the election – based primarily on the Committee’s work to date.

Since before the hearings began, public commentary has focused, in large part, on whether Trump knew he had lost the election. That quandary is irrelevant to the criminal intent required for several of the most relevant federal and state crimes. It is an important yet limited way to think of the evidence of knowledge and intent that prosecutors could rely upon in bringing charges.

The following list highlights just some of the information presented in the Chart below.

• Lying about victory on Election Night (Nov 3-Nov. 4 early AM)

• Manufacturing false allegations of election fraud (December 3, 2020-early January, 2021)

• Trying to force Department of Justice officials to lie about the department’s findings of election fraud (late December, 2020 – Jan. 3, 2021)

• Advancing false claims of election fraud after being told by senior DOJ and campaign officials of irrefutable flaws in the claims (Dec. 2020 – Jan. 6, 2021).

• Lying about communications with federal and state officials in efforts to pressure them (Jan. 2-Jan. 6, 2021)

The Chart contains several more entries describing related actions, knowledge, and beliefs.

The Chart is not exhaustive. For example, it does not address Trump’s state of knowledge about the legal duties of the vice president on January 6. It does not address Trump’s knowledge and direction of the false slates of electors. And it does not address Trump’s knowledge that some of his supporters were armed when he directed them to the Capitol and his endorsement of their actions in private communications in the Oval Office. This evidence – and the use of political violence in particular – may directly inform how one views other parts of the record, that is, of an individual who was willing to support almost any means possible to overturn the election. What follows is a body of evidence that very clearly shows other aspects of Trump’s knowledge and beliefs, aspects of the record which have not received this level of documentation or the attention they deserve.

 

Yes, but don't forget that most people don't interact with those outside of their political party. And of those people there's a subset who have never met someone from a different faith, or someone who was openly LGBT...a surprisingly high amount of people never live outside of their home state. So what they hear about the "other" comes from TV, cherry picked online compilation videos, what their pastor says.

****, if I grew up in a religious household with little exposure to LGBT people besides what I see on Tucker Carlson or @libsoftiktok I'd be just as scared of an LGBT person as I am of people like that now. We're biologically programmed to fear what we don't understand, dislike those different than us, and protect our offspring...

so when you see your metropolitan area crumbling economically, and watch what they believe is a sharp decline in morals and the destruction of what they hold dear (the nuclear family, capitalism, religion, patriotism). They freak out and get angry. The hit fight or flight mode and all the sudden a billionaire, serial cheater with a history of lying becomes a beacon of hope to beat the libs.

Hell, that's why most on the board support him. Trump makes Dems sad. MTG/Boebert makes us mad. They don't pass legislation, their job is to echo what these people say and think and believe.

Don't forget, a lot of conservatives, by the nature of American conservatism, see the govt as inefficient and weak, especially compared to what they see as "liberal" dominated media, academia etc. As such, electing Trump and any follower of his are the last bulwark against Satanic hollyweird.

It doesn't matter if it's true...it feels right. Perception is reality.

 

admittedly I'm not following the hearings closely, but it appears that the committee is not working under what might be termed "standard operating procedures" for such testimonies.

for example, this:



Not sure what to make of the bolded statement, but at a minimum what's being described doesn't seem very impartial and/or fair

 

holy shitte this is big if true

J-6 panel shifts focus to Trump ‘tweet heard around the world’

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...-focus-to-trump-tweet-heard-around-the-world/

excerpt:

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol will turn its focus this week to former President Trump's campaign to rally protesters to Washington, pointing to one tweet in particular as a pivotal moment in the violent effort to overturn his election defeat.

“Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Trump tweeted Dec. 19, 2020.

That message, the investigators contend, acted as a shrewd battle cry to the far-right extremist groups and other supporters who were wrongly convinced the election had been “stolen” and viewed Jan. 6, 2021 — when Congress met to certify Joe Biden's victory — as their last best chance to keep Trump in power.

On Tuesday, lawmakers on the select committee will drill into the events both before and after the tweet, using their latest public hearing in the wide-ranging investigation to advance their case that Trump's allies acted in cahoots with the violent extremists who would ultimately storm the Capitol.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who will help lead Tuesday’s hearing, noted that the tweet followed a Dec. 18, 2020, meeting at the White House where some of Trump’s closest allies pushed him to seize voting machines in key states. Trump ultimately decided against the idea, but as options dwindled to remain in power, he shifted gears to focus on a protest the day of the election certification — something online chatter shows Trump’s most zealous supporters took as a call to arms.

Trump’s first full-throated endorsement of that protest — the now-infamous Dec. 19 tweet, sent at 1:42 a.m. — cited a report from Peter Navarro, a top aide, claiming to demonstrate proof of massive voter fraud. “Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election,” Trump wrote, before urging his supporters to come to Washington on Jan. 6 for the “wild” protest.

A year and a half later, the committee is leaning on that message to boost their allegations that Trump orchestrated the Capitol attack in a last-ditch effort to cling to power.

“Donald Trump sent out the tweet that would be heard around the world, the first time in American history when a president of the United States called a protest against his own government, in fact, to try to stop the counting of electoral college votes in a presidential election he had lost,” Raskin said Sunday in an appearance on CBS News’s “Face The Nation.”

“People are going to hear the story of that tweet, and then the explosive effect it had in Trump World and specifically among the domestic violent extremist groups, the most dangerous political extremists in the country,” Raskin said.
​

more at the link. Trump is a dead man.

 

Will Mikey "P", as in p***y, be the one to hang Trump??

STAY TUNED!

Same batshit time!!

Same batshit channel!!!

 

Again the committee isn’t a court or law and no one is on trial or charged with crimes by the committee. The committee can’t even enforce appearing before them without the DOJ.

That doesn’t mean what the committee produces isn’t true and the fact that people are testifying under oath shows that those people are willing to tell the truth as they know it under penalty of perjury. The committee though isn’t obligated to corroborate that testimony.

 

That's probably going to depress Dem turnout in the midterms. People who don't understand how congressional committees work are going to accuse the Dems of "letting them get away with it".

 

source: @AshaRangappa_

 

This is very emblematic of the Trump Presidency. This plan is like 3 or 4 ideas that were all pursued half heartedly.

 

Trump's hanging himself at this point. Still spreading the big lie. Sorry loser and pathetic human being.

 

Eh, he's pretty successful. I mean he's not happy, he's not as rich as he wants people to believe...but people worship him like a God, which is really what he wanted all along. What's really pathetic is how many people seem to get off on worshipping him like a God. People treat him the way some Iranians treat the Ayatollah.

 

He's good at selling that snake oil.

 

It might but I don’t think the committee thinks about it that way and so far most of the pressure is in Garland and the DOJ to act.

The Committee is obviously political, shocking to think members of Congress behaving like politicians. They’re goal is to expose corruption of the previous Administration and to try to get the public to turn against Trump and his enablers.

The Congressional Republicans had their opportunity for a more even handed committee but they turned down the opportunity to do that with an independent commission. As such the Democratic Congress has as much obligation to seat more republicans as much as the previous Republican Congresses did Democrats on the Benghazi committee.

Even acknowledging the political nature of this committee they still have turned out a mountain of evidence that is very hard to counter. Most of the people they have presented are people who worked and supported Trump. Some have even said they would consider voting for Trump again.

 

haven't been following the hearings . . . is this headline true?

EXCLUSIVE: Jan. 6 Committee Is Using Innocent Americans’ Assertion Of Their Constitutional Rights As Proof Of Guilt
Implying guilt based on a witness asserting his rights ‘is a McCarthy-esque tactic that offends the Constitution and is unworthy of the United States Congress.’

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/12/exclusive-jan-6-committee-is-using-innocent-americans-assertion-of-their-constitutional-rights-as-proof-of-guilt/

excerpt:

An attorney for 1st Amendment Praetorian, or 1AP, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting free speech, spoke exclusively with The Federalist about the committee’s questioning of 1AP, the group’s founder, and another member of the nonprofit, all of whom she represents. From the framing of the questions posed to her clients, Leslie McAdoo Gordon was left with the firm impression that the Jan. 6 Committee merely wanted video capturing her clients declining to answer the questions for the purpose of impugning their character during the televised hearings.

“The committee knew before the depositions that my clients would be asserting their First and Fifth Amendment rights, and also would not answer any questions because the depositions were being held in violation of the rules established by the House,” McAdoo Gordon told The Federalist. So, shortly after the hearing began and the 1AP witnesses made clear they would not answer any questions, the staffers moved to general topic areas and would ask a few prepared questions, then the committee representative would note that he had more questions on the topic and inquire whether if he asked those questions, the witnesses intended to assert the same objections.

“My clients would respond ‘yes’ to that question, so then the committee would move forward with the next topic,” McAdoo Gordon said. “But after covering various topics, the committee staffer at the end volleyed a litany of individual questions to my clients, forcing them to respond to each question with ‘Rules, First, and Fifth,’ the shorthand we had agreed to with the committee to convey their objections to questions posed.”

Given that the committee had broadcast video of Michael Flynn asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in an earlier hearing, McAdoo Gordon said she wouldn’t be surprised if Tuesday’s hearings include clips of her clients refusing to answer the committee’s questions.
​

I guess we'll find out today

more at the link