The Official Jan. 6th Public Hearings Thread

88,752 Views | 887 Replies | Last: 21 days ago by bear2034
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 4:26p, 6/28/22
Unit2Sucks said:
Bonus points for enlisting BearGoggle's favorite "liberal" Jonathan Turley who is definitely a real liberal and not someone who is cashing in as a right wing pundit.

Just wanted to highlight this piece, because at one time Turley had me fooled too. This should put end to any doubt that he's just a shill for the right wing these days. What a clown.
Reply Quote
6
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 4:26p, 6/28/22
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Call me a pessimist, but Trump likely still has enough brainwashed followers to control the GOP. The Department of Justice hasn't had much backbone up to this point.

I'm slightly skeptical as well.
The ball is clearly now in Attorney General's Garland's COURT.
Reply Quote
1
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 4:29p, 6/28/22
sycasey said:

Just wanted to highlight this piece, because at one time Turley had me fooled too. This should put end to any doubt that he's just a shill for the right wing these days. What a clown.
Turdley is way past his expiration date.
And the other talking head had to REMIND him what the Secret Service did with Dick Cheney on 9/11.
Cant wait for BearGoggles to weigh in on Turdley..
Reply Quote
2 edits
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 4:42p, 6/28/22
DiabloWags said:
sycasey said:

Just wanted to highlight this piece, because at one time Turley had me fooled too. This should put end to any doubt that he's just a shill for the right wing these days. What a clown.
Turdley is way past his expiration date.
And the other talking head had to REMIND him what the Secret Service did with Dick Cheney on 9/11.
Cant wait for BearGoggles to weigh in on Turdley..
Yeah, the authority is perfectly freaking obvious: the Secret Service can drag the President (against his will) out of a dangerous situation if they have to. This seems to qualify.
Reply Quote
3
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:48p, 6/28/22
I'm just super impressed with Ms. Hutchinson. She was 24, an age when many young adults are still figuring out how to do basic things.
She was not only in the WH, but is now taking down Trump.
Reply Quote
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:53p, 6/28/22
I'm going to be cynical.

When this hearing was announced, the nation was all about Abortion outrage. Last week, we had a couple of important hearings, and then the committee said "no more hearings until mid July".

Then the SC pushed Abortion onto the news channels for the weekend. Win for Trump.

Then the committee immediately brought forth Cassidy Hutchinson. Win for committee. Back on top of the news cycle.

So, my cynicism says, "the committee knew Abortion was coming, but couldn't know when. So they held this hearing in their back pocket and only held it now in order to retrain eyeballs onto their objective."

Cynical?
Smart?
Or happenstance?
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 11:16p, 6/28/22
concordtom said:
I'm going to be cynical.

When this hearing was announced, the nation was all about Abortion outrage. Last week, we had a couple of important hearings, and then the committee said "no more hearings until mid July".

Then the SC pushed Abortion onto the news channels for the weekend. Win for Trump.

Then the committee immediately brought forth Cassidy Hutchinson. Win for committee. Back on top of the news cycle.

So, my cynicism says, "the committee knew Abortion was coming, but couldn't know when. So they held this hearing in their back pocket and only held it now in order to retrain eyeballs onto their objective."

Cynical?
Smart?
Or happenstance?

I'm actually not sure if abortion or this is worse for the GOP as a major story. They don't really want to answer questions about either.
Reply Quote
1
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:27p, 6/28/22
Quite the circle jerk here today.

Already parts of her story are unraveling.





A good reminder:



The above links and stories have been reported for hours - yet not a single person here shares them, discusses them, or even acknowledges that MAYBE people are jumping to conclusions re her testimony. Absolutely no thought to the very real dynamic that you are being fed partial truths (and maybe lies) that feed your narrative, so you accept them completely and without question. People are beclowning themselves.

Sadly, show trials (or show hearings for those who want to make a distinction) prove little if anything and don't convince anyone. Personally, I'd like to know if Hutchinson is telling the truth (or what parts of what she testified to are accurate). The way the Jan 6 committee operates makes that impossible.

And just to be clear, Trump's post election actions were totally unacceptable, as I've said many times. The veracity of Hutchinson's testimony doesn't really move the needle on that for me and I suspect most people - because most people already find Trump unsuitable to be president if not detestable. But the Committee marching her out there in this fashion - without any vetting of her story or for that matter cross-examination, is awful. They allowed hearsay testimony when the people with direct knowledge were available but inexplicably not asked to corroborate. That was not an accident.
Reply Quote
7
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:28p, 6/28/22

Darn, it looks like I picked the wrong day to unplug and take the kids to the beach. Missed a few things...
Reply Quote
3
Sebastabear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 11:46p, 6/28/22
BearGoggles said:
Quite the circle jerk here today.

Already parts of her story are unraveling.





A good reminder:



The above links and stories have been reported for hours - yet not a single person here shares them, discusses them, or even acknowledges that MAYBE people are jumping to conclusions re her testimony. Absolutely no thought to the very real dynamic that you are being fed partial truths (and maybe lies) that feed your narrative, so you accept them completely and without question. People are beclowning themselves.

Sadly, show trials (or show hearings for those who want to make a distinction) prove little if anything and don't convince anyone. Personally, I'd like to know if Hutchinson is telling the truth (or what parts of what she testified to are accurate). The way the Jan 6 committees operates makes that impossible.

And just to be clear, Trump's post election actions were totally unacceptable, as I've said many times. The veracity of Hutchinson's testimony doesn't really move the needle on that for me and I suspect most people - because most people already find Trump unsuitable to be president if not detestable. But the Committee marching her out there in this fashion - without any vetting of her story or for that matter cross-examination, is awful. They allowed hearsay testimony when the people with direct knowledge were available but inexplicably not asked to corroborate. That was not an accident.
Unraveling? Really? Great, so let Engel come forward under oath and testify (again). As a heads up, what is "hearsay" is people saying "I hear from a source close to Engel he is ready to testify,". What is NOT hearsay is Hutchinson testifying about things she directly overheard.

What we have right now is somebody under oath testifying before Congress and some Trump apologist tweeting about things he's "been told". Shocking how all of Trump's defenders disappear when asked to make statements under oath.
Reply Quote
10
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 7:15a, 6/29/22
sycasey said:
concordtom said:
I'm going to be cynical.

When this hearing was announced, the nation was all about Abortion outrage. Last week, we had a couple of important hearings, and then the committee said "no more hearings until mid July".

Then the SC pushed Abortion onto the news channels for the weekend. Win for Trump.

Then the committee immediately brought forth Cassidy Hutchinson. Win for committee. Back on top of the news cycle.

So, my cynicism says, "the committee knew Abortion was coming, but couldn't know when. So they held this hearing in their back pocket and only held it now in order to retrain eyeballs onto their objective."

Cynical?
Smart?
Or happenstance?

I'm actually not sure if abortion or this is worse for the GOP as a major story. They don't really want to answer questions about either.

I'm hotter by far about Jan 6.

There are ways around the abortion ban.
Not easily accessible, but easily accomplished for a person with brains and a few dollars. Travel. Mailed pills. Not hard.

There are NO ways around a successful GOP Coup on January 6. It's the whole ballgame. There is no American democracy if it had succeeded.
Reply Quote
1
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 7:20a, 6/29/22
Big C said:

Darn, it looks like I picked the wrong day to unplug and take the kids to the beach. Missed a few things...

I'm sure it will take you 10 seconds to find the entire testimony on YouTube. It's 2 hrs. You should spend the 2 hours. Gather snacks snd a drink and calmly and intently listen!!
Reply Quote
1
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sebastabear • 7:26a, 6/29/22
Sebastabear said:
BearGoggles said:
Quite the circle jerk here today.

Already parts of her story are unraveling.

Unraveling? Really? Great, so let Engel come forward under oath and testify (again). As a heads up, what is "hearsay" is people saying "I hear from a source close to Engel he is ready to testify,". What is NOT hearsay is Hutchinson testifying about things she directly overheard.

What we have right now is somebody under oath testifying before Congress and some Trump apologist tweeting about things he's "been told". Shocking how all of Trump's defenders disappear when asked to make statements under oath.


That's been exactly my response. At the end of every January 6 hearing, they need to say, "we end by repeating ourselves: if trump disagrees with anything said here, he can come testify as to such. Anyone who wants to present an alternate story can, too."

Please, come testify, you sack of chit!
(Remember when he wanted to testify in his impeachment trial? And his counsel was like, "no way are putting you in front of them"? That would be hilarious. Instant internal combustion.)
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
MinotStateBeav
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:34a, 6/29/22
Reply Quote
3
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:54a, 6/29/22
I'm happy to see the Trump defenders, sorry the people who are totally not defending Trump just attacking anyone who offers information that is unfavorable to Trump, have been activated.

The core part of her testimony wasn't that Trump lunged at the steering wheel, that was just one anecdote. Overall the testimony is devastating, but BG, MSB and others will surely ignore everything in order to believe any story that counters any element of her testimony.

Let's start with the story she heard about Trump asking to be driven to the Capitol. Engel has also reportedly told the Jan 6 committee that Trump requested to go to the Capitol. Trump also has already admitted that the secret service stopped him from going to the Capitol. That's not news. The only question is what happened in the Beast when he did so.

Quote:
Former President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the U.S. Secret Service blocked him from making good on his pledge to join supporters marching on Jan. 6, 2021, from the White House to the Capitol ahead of that day's deadly riot.

The former president told The Washington Post that the "Secret Service said I couldn't go. I would have gone there in a minute."
I'm not surprised to see MSB take this approach, but a bit surprised that BG, who knows exactly how bad Trump is and was, would choose to believe anything that picks even the smallest hole in multiple hours of testimony, given just how much evidence there is of wrongdoing. Particularly the witness tampering element which Trump and his team have been accused of time and time again.

BG knows very well that Trump, Meadows and others are more than welcome to make statements on the record and under oath to defend themselves if they so choose.

Reply Quote
6
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:24a, 6/29/22
Meanwhile on Fox…

I record their nightly shows. I check in now and then just to see what crap they are peddling. Normally I instantly get so upset I cannot stomach it.

I just turned on Hannity.
He started with a banner that says MEANINGLESS. Ha, that's funny.

Then he goes to "gossip, hearsay, rumors".

…. This is just funny. He's spinning together a bunch of untruths, innuendo. I suppose those who trust him like hearing his voice and feel comforted.

….now he's spending time talking about side-show issues like National Guard…and now rotating to talking about Biden and Hunter, that took all of 10 minutes and 45 seconds.

Fast forwarding… going to Minneapolis and Portland riots.
Fast forwarding… "Lies on the left"
Fast forwarding… 16 min mark, Kellyanne Conway pushes her book. Kash Patel says he was in mtg on Jan 4 with trump and Trump says he authorized National Guard, Ari Fleisher "in my upcoming book".

Hannity keeps repeating the phrase "a hearsay witness". Fleischer, "a hearsay witness, a non-witness, she wasn't there".

That's abjectly NOT TRUE! She WAS there! Not in the limo, but Engel was standing right there when the other guy told her. And she worked with Meadows and everyone else. You know who wasn't there? Fleischer or Hannity!

Commercial break: My Pillow. Myinnovo.com for leaking bladder panties, aka diapers.

Back: 29:30, "now back, this time with a very REAL crisis ", southern border. Truck full of dead migrants. 35:40

Commercial: clear choice dental implants, fruits and vegetables in a pill (balance of nature), puretalk cellphones, ADT home security - good for people scared of Mexicans and blacks, the same kind of fear pumped by Fox News Alerts 24/7/365. Another MyPillow. Now he's pumping MySlippers.

Back: Mark Levin joins for smokescreen talk. He claims the committee wore Hutchinson down. Calls for GOP to run another committee when they take over, obtain all of Pelosi's texts, emails, all the democrats… levin is literally YELLING LOUDLY. He's not really saying much, though. The committee is a one-way farce. Fire all federal prosecutors. I honestly have no idea what he's telling about. 40:10-47:10. That's a 7 minute filler rant.

Commercial: relief factor pain drug. Oofos slippers. Jackpot prize ad. Golo.com weight loss program. Toenail fungus. Weathertech floor mats. Visiting angels, personal homecare for aging seniors.

Back: food processing and farm fires - food shortages coming?? The Epoch Times reporter

More ads…

Total Bull Chit.
Reply Quote
1
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sebastabear • 9:43a, 6/29/22
Sebastabear said:
BearGoggles said:
Quite the circle jerk here today.

Already parts of her story are unraveling.





A good reminder:



The above links and stories have been reported for hours - yet not a single person here shares them, discusses them, or even acknowledges that MAYBE people are jumping to conclusions re her testimony. Absolutely no thought to the very real dynamic that you are being fed partial truths (and maybe lies) that feed your narrative, so you accept them completely and without question. People are beclowning themselves.

Sadly, show trials (or show hearings for those who want to make a distinction) prove little if anything and don't convince anyone. Personally, I'd like to know if Hutchinson is telling the truth (or what parts of what she testified to are accurate). The way the Jan 6 committees operates makes that impossible.

And just to be clear, Trump's post election actions were totally unacceptable, as I've said many times. The veracity of Hutchinson's testimony doesn't really move the needle on that for me and I suspect most people - because most people already find Trump unsuitable to be president if not detestable. But the Committee marching her out there in this fashion - without any vetting of her story or for that matter cross-examination, is awful. They allowed hearsay testimony when the people with direct knowledge were available but inexplicably not asked to corroborate. That was not an accident.
Unraveling? Really? Great, so let Engel come forward under oath and testify (again). As a heads up, what is "hearsay" is people saying "I hear from a source close to Engel he is ready to testify,". What is NOT hearsay is Hutchinson testifying about things she directly overheard.

What we have right now is somebody under oath testifying before Congress and some Trump apologist tweeting about things he's "been told". Shocking how all of Trump's defenders disappear when asked to make statements under oath.
Sorry Sebasta - Hutchinson testifying as to what she overhead, when that testimony is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter overheard, is by definition hearsay. Without getting in the weeds of the rules of evidence, Hutchinson's testimony would almost certainly not be admissible in any real proceeding. And the reason for that is that hearsay is considered fundamentally unreliable (or less reliable) evidence. If the Jan 6 committee wanted to make this claim re events, they should have put Engel (or another actual witness to the claimed event) on the stand. And of course, in a real proceeding, a defense attorney would be there to ask questions and perhaps present other witnesses.

I think you're missing my larger point. The Jan 6 committee engaging in this type of behavior discredits all of the evidence and the process. It reveals that the committee has no intention of finding the truth or establishing facts. Instead, they want to present only one version of events, with lots of innuendo and partial truths.

Maybe Hutchinson's version of events is 100% true? I'm open to that possibility because the described behavior absolutely sounds like something Trump could/would do. But the Jan 6 committee won't answer that question other than for people, like many found on this board, who just want to be given slanted evidence that reinforces what they already want to hear.

And it is not just trump apologists who are reporting that Hutchinson's testimony was not an accurate description of events. Not sure why you're reaching that conclusion.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 9:57a, 6/29/22
Unit2Sucks said:
I'm happy to see the Trump defenders, sorry the people who are totally not defending Trump just attacking anyone who offers information that is unfavorable to Trump, have been activated.

The core part of her testimony wasn't that Trump lunged at the steering wheel, that was just one anecdote. Overall the testimony is devastating, but BG, MSB and others will surely ignore everything in order to believe any story that counters any element of her testimony.

Let's start with the story she heard about Trump asking to be driven to the Capitol. Engel has also reportedly told the Jan 6 committee that Trump requested to go to the Capitol. Trump also has already admitted that the secret service stopped him from going to the Capitol. That's not news. The only question is what happened in the Beast when he did so.

Quote:
Former President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the U.S. Secret Service blocked him from making good on his pledge to join supporters marching on Jan. 6, 2021, from the White House to the Capitol ahead of that day's deadly riot.

The former president told The Washington Post that the "Secret Service said I couldn't go. I would have gone there in a minute."
I'm not surprised to see MSB take this approach, but a bit surprised that BG, who knows exactly how bad Trump is and was, would choose to believe anything that picks even the smallest hole in multiple hours of testimony, given just how much evidence there is of wrongdoing. Particularly the witness tampering element which Trump and his team have been accused of time and time again.

BG knows very well that Trump, Meadows and others are more than welcome to make statements on the record and under oath to defend themselves if they so choose.

If it was previously established that Trump wanted to go to the capital, then what is the point of the hearsay "anecdote"? And you're conveniently ignoring her incorrect testimony on the note, etc.

I am VERY interested in learning more about the witness tampering claims, as those are the allegations that, if proven, would be criminal. But again, how is the Jan 6 committee handling those claims? Releasing anonymous statements and then taking a break for two weeks - hey let's create a cliffhanger! It is a joke - serious investigations don't operate that way - it is so nakedly partisan.
Reply Quote
4
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MinotStateBeav • 10:38a, 6/29/22
MinotStateBeav said:

We look forward to it!
But if the account in the limo differs from Hutchinson's, it doesn't invalidate her entire testimony. Just one very small, non criminal, part of it. Let the WH valets testify as to throwing plates of food on the wall. Let Cipilone testify. Let meadows testify. Let Giuliani, Jim Jordan, Steve Bannon, brooks, Eastman, Roger stone, and Donald Trump testify. Under oath. And not take the 5th.

And can you tell me this? Why did Ivanka tell the committee under oath that she believed AG Bill Barr when he said the fraud claims were BS, yet went on camera with a supposedly pro trump documentarian that America needed to continue looking for fraud?

Could it be that people lie?
That's what you are insinuating Hutchinson did, but what if she is telling the truth and the others are the liars???

Another question… what type of job would Engel get if he testifies against his charge? Would he be labeled an untrustworthy agent? Who would hire him for private security? Would anybody in government want him on their SS detail again??? Might he have a motivation to lie, even under oath?

You want to throw shade, let's throw shade.

But first, let's see what Engel and Arnado testify, under oath. IF they testify.
Reply Quote
2
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 10:44a, 6/29/22
BearGoggles said:
…Sorry Sebasta - Hutchinson testifying as to what she overhead, when that testimony is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter overheard, is by definition hearsay. Without getting in the weeds of the rules of evidence, Hutchinson's testimony would almost certainly not be admissible in any real proceeding. And the reason for that is that hearsay is considered fundamentally unreliable (or less reliable) evidence. If the Jan 6 committee wanted to make this claim re events, they should have put Engel (or another actual witness to the claimed event) on the stand. And of course, in a real proceeding, a defense attorney would be there to ask questions and perhaps present other witnesses.


Does it matter to you that Engel was standing right there listening to Hutchinson be told? And that he neither (verbally) confirmed or denied the accounting? But what about body language and or facial expressions?

We don't know the entire story, but guess what, it's only a story of character, nothing legal - and we already knew this about trump. So, waste all your bullets fighting this issue. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is going after Planned Armed Insurrection, aka treason.
Hang 'em High.

Reply Quote
1
1 edit
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 10:48a, 6/29/22
concordtom said:
BearGoggles said:
…Sorry Sebasta - Hutchinson testifying as to what she overhead, when that testimony is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter overheard, is by definition hearsay. Without getting in the weeds of the rules of evidence, Hutchinson's testimony would almost certainly not be admissible in any real proceeding. And the reason for that is that hearsay is considered fundamentally unreliable (or less reliable) evidence. If the Jan 6 committee wanted to make this claim re events, they should have put Engel (or another actual witness to the claimed event) on the stand. And of course, in a real proceeding, a defense attorney would be there to ask questions and perhaps present other witnesses.


Does it matter to you that Engel was standing right there listening to Hutchinson be told? And that he neither (verbally) confirmed or denied the accounting? But what about body language and or facial expressions?

We don't know the entire story, but guess what, it's only a story of character, nothing legal - and we already knew this about trump. So, waste all your bullets fighting this issue. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is going after Planned Armed Insurrection, aka treason.
Hang 'em High.
This is where I think you are wrong Tom. The right always has the ability to control the narrative. They have media dedicated to their ends and disciplined messaging throughout. They did it with Her emails. They did it with Russia. They will do it with this. A month from now, the salient point we will be discussing here and everywhere is Cassidy Hutchinson's hearsay testimony - it doesn't matter that it is more salacious than lawful. It can be disputed and it will be. It will become the fulcrum with which this whole investigative endeavor is judged. Htp and Bf2 will post about it daily and get dozens of responses. IT is now the issue.
Reply Quote
1
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:54a, 6/29/22
From last week, we learned Trump was going for broke at all angles. "What do I have to lose?"

Jan 6 is merely the culmination of repeated failed attempts: Arizona elections officials, Georgia elections officials, replacing AG so a new one would say there was fraud…
Watch, 57 seconds.

Reply Quote
1
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 11:12a, 6/29/22
BearGoggles said:


I think you're missing my larger point. The Jan 6 committee engaging in this type of behavior discredits all of the evidence and the process. It reveals that the committee has no intention of finding the truth or establishing facts. Instead, they want to present only one version of events, with lots of innuendo and partial truths.


I'm sorry, but that makes you sound like SUCH a dope!!

First: they have interviewed over 1000 people.
They have asked dozens more to appear, including Trump, Pence etc. all the big boys. They fail to appear, or take the 5th.

Trump or any of them can go in there tomorrow. They don't. They fear incriminating themselves. These are the same people who wanted pardons. Trump even wanted to pardon himself.

Second: the Jan 6 committee has 2 of 9 are republicans. But, for you, they don't count because WHY?

Pelosi initially wanted 4 of 9, as submitted by minority leader McCarthy. But McCarthy wanted insiders like Jim Jordan - people who are assuredly guilty in at least some of the scheme and would have worked to gum up the investigation or leaked info to witnesses. Pelosi was wise to this aand rejected 2 of McCarthy's names. McCarthy responded by pulling all 4 names and declaring "it's partisan and therefore nothing they produce will be true". Well, that's certainly a "pre-judged determination." Yet, 2 republicans crossed over anyways.

…Americans are waiting to hear the testimony of those who would present the "alternative truth", as you might call it. Great, come subject yourself to Q&A in front of the committee like Hutchinson and others have done.
Reply Quote
5
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 11:21a, 6/29/22
BearGoggles said:


I think you're missing my larger point. The Jan 6 committee engaging in this type of behavior discredits all of the evidence and the process. It reveals that the committee has no intention of finding the truth or establishing facts. Instead, they want to present only one version of events, with lots of innuendo and partial truths.

Maybe Hutchinson's version of events is 100% true? I'm open to that possibility because the described behavior absolutely sounds like something Trump could/would do. But the Jan 6 committee won't answer that question other than for people, like many found on this board, who just want to be given slanted evidence that reinforces what they already want to hear.

And it is not just trump apologists who are reporting that Hutchinson's testimony was not an accurate description of events. Not sure why you're reaching that conclusion.

I'm not surprised that this is your view of events.
It doesnt really sound like you've bothered to actually listen to the testimony given in these hearings.

Never mind that the majority of these people testifying under oath are REPUBLICANS.
Never mind that they were appointed by Trump, hired by Trump, and voted for Trump.

Never mind that Trump and Mark Meadows could "set the record" straight with their testimony.
But they arent.

And General Michael Flynn took the 5th.
Ask yourself why.

As for Hutchinson's testimony regarding what she heard happen inside the Presidential Limo/SUV, how naive and ignorant would it be for someone to think that the Jan. 6th Committee would not also be calling Mr. Engel and Mr. Cipollone to testify?

I thought you were smarter than this.
I was clearly wrong.
Reply Quote
7
6 edits
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 11:23a, 6/29/22
concordtom said:



I'm sorry, but that makes you sound like SUCH a dope!!


I second this.
Reply Quote
2
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 11:24a, 6/29/22
BearGoggles said:
Sebastabear said:
BearGoggles said:
Quite the circle jerk here today.

Already parts of her story are unraveling.





A good reminder:



The above links and stories have been reported for hours - yet not a single person here shares them, discusses them, or even acknowledges that MAYBE people are jumping to conclusions re her testimony. Absolutely no thought to the very real dynamic that you are being fed partial truths (and maybe lies) that feed your narrative, so you accept them completely and without question. People are beclowning themselves.

Sadly, show trials (or show hearings for those who want to make a distinction) prove little if anything and don't convince anyone. Personally, I'd like to know if Hutchinson is telling the truth (or what parts of what she testified to are accurate). The way the Jan 6 committees operates makes that impossible.

And just to be clear, Trump's post election actions were totally unacceptable, as I've said many times. The veracity of Hutchinson's testimony doesn't really move the needle on that for me and I suspect most people - because most people already find Trump unsuitable to be president if not detestable. But the Committee marching her out there in this fashion - without any vetting of her story or for that matter cross-examination, is awful. They allowed hearsay testimony when the people with direct knowledge were available but inexplicably not asked to corroborate. That was not an accident.
Unraveling? Really? Great, so let Engel come forward under oath and testify (again). As a heads up, what is "hearsay" is people saying "I hear from a source close to Engel he is ready to testify,". What is NOT hearsay is Hutchinson testifying about things she directly overheard.

What we have right now is somebody under oath testifying before Congress and some Trump apologist tweeting about things he's "been told". Shocking how all of Trump's defenders disappear when asked to make statements under oath.
Sorry Sebasta - Hutchinson testifying as to what she overhead, when that testimony is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter overheard, is by definition hearsay. Without getting in the weeds of the rules of evidence, Hutchinson's testimony would almost certainly not be admissible in any real proceeding. And the reason for that is that hearsay is considered fundamentally unreliable (or less reliable) evidence. If the Jan 6 committee wanted to make this claim re events, they should have put Engel (or another actual witness to the claimed event) on the stand. And of course, in a real proceeding, a defense attorney would be there to ask questions and perhaps present other witnesses.
Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor, disagrees. Why do you think he's wrong?



Full thread here:


Reply Quote
4
Sebastabear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 11:47a, 6/29/22
I guess I'd make three points in this "hearsay" thing.

1. Hutchinson gave testimony under oath about what she was told had happened while Engel was in the room. Is that an exception to the hearsay rules in a court? I have no idea. Not a trial lawyer. But as you know the hearsay rules are riddled with exceptions and there's usually a way this testimony gets in. Plus this isn't a court of law anyway, so that's largely an irrelevant standard.

2. If Engel, etc want to testify about what really happened (again). Great. We can then evaluate that. But Hutchinson's testimony was very specific and credible. To date the "refutations" have been completely non-specific and haven't even come from Engel directly. If I'm a betting man I'm guessing what we would hear from Engel if he did in fact testify (again) was some semantic parsing. "Well he didn't really lunge at the wheel. He more reached for it, etc. etc.". At best it's going to be some shading of the event to try to make his boss look less bad. But no one (including Trump) is denying that Trump tried to get to the Capitol and was stopped by his detail from doing it. Do you really think he just sat there quietly when he was told no? Does anyone?

3. This whole wheel lunging thing is a complete side show. As I said in my first post on this no one (including his most ardent supporters) could be surprised by this behavior. What is highly relevant and what she heard DIRECTLY (not hearsay, or at least the form of hearsay that is 100% admissible in court) was Trump ordering security to remove the magnetometers EXPRESSLY so his armed supporters could march to the Capitol with their weapons. Again he wanted his people armed because "they weren't there to hurt him". She heard him say it. Well they sure as hell were there with weapons to hurt someone and "someone" were the people like Pence trying to conduct the transfer of power.

Those same protestors did of course then march to the Capitol with their weapons and did commit crimes, including trying to overthrow the government. People died. You don't think a prosecutor could make that case and win? I don't think the jury would need an hour to decide that.

Game, set, match. Trump is going down.
Reply Quote
4
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sebastabear • 11:59a, 6/29/22
Sebastabear said:


3. This whole wheel lunging thing is a complete side show. As I said in my first post on this no one (including his most ardent supporters) could be surprised by this behavior. What is highly relevant and what she heard DIRECTLY (not hearsay, or at least the form of hearsay that is 100% admissible in court) was Trump ordering security to remove the magnetometers EXPRESSLY so his armed supporters could march to the Capitol with their weapons. Again he wanted his people armed because "they weren't there to hurt him". She heard him say it. Well they sure as hell were there with weapons to hurt someone and "someone" were the people like Pence trying to conduct the transfer of power.

Those same protestors did of course then march to the Capitol with their weapons and did commit crimes, including trying to overthrow the government. People died. You don't think a prosecutor could make that case and win? I don't think the jury would need an hour to decide that.

Game, set, match. Trump is going down.

Bingo.

It's mind-boggling that there are Cal alums out there that are totally blind to Trump's intent during this event.
This is why I think that a Cal undergraduate degree isnt worth as much as I originally thought.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 12:10p, 6/29/22
DiabloWags said:
Sebastabear said:


3. This whole wheel lunging thing is a complete side show. As I said in my first post on this no one (including his most ardent supporters) could be surprised by this behavior. What is highly relevant and what she heard DIRECTLY (not hearsay, or at least the form of hearsay that is 100% admissible in court) was Trump ordering security to remove the magnetometers EXPRESSLY so his armed supporters could march to the Capitol with their weapons. Again he wanted his people armed because "they weren't there to hurt him". She heard him say it. Well they sure as hell were there with weapons to hurt someone and "someone" were the people like Pence trying to conduct the transfer of power.

Those same protestors did of course then march to the Capitol with their weapons and did commit crimes, including trying to overthrow the government. People died. You don't think a prosecutor could make that case and win? I don't think the jury would need an hour to decide that.

Game, set, match. Trump is going down.

This is why I think that a Cal undergraduate degree isnt worth as much as I originally thought.
The fact that there are lots of people I disagree with doesn't devalue my diploma!
Reply Quote
2
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 12:19p, 6/29/22
Unit2Sucks said:


The fact that there are lots of people I disagree with doesn't devalue my diploma!

I disagree with "people" all the time in the financial markets.
In fact, that's what makes a market.

But I'm not talking about just having a difference of opinion.
I'm talking about repeatedly displaying convoluted, conflated, and twisted logic and ignoring facts in evidence.

Reply Quote
2 edits
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 1:10p, 6/29/22
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Sebastabear said:
BearGoggles said:
Quite the circle jerk here today.

Already parts of her story are unraveling.





A good reminder:



The above links and stories have been reported for hours - yet not a single person here shares them, discusses them, or even acknowledges that MAYBE people are jumping to conclusions re her testimony. Absolutely no thought to the very real dynamic that you are being fed partial truths (and maybe lies) that feed your narrative, so you accept them completely and without question. People are beclowning themselves.

Sadly, show trials (or show hearings for those who want to make a distinction) prove little if anything and don't convince anyone. Personally, I'd like to know if Hutchinson is telling the truth (or what parts of what she testified to are accurate). The way the Jan 6 committees operates makes that impossible.

And just to be clear, Trump's post election actions were totally unacceptable, as I've said many times. The veracity of Hutchinson's testimony doesn't really move the needle on that for me and I suspect most people - because most people already find Trump unsuitable to be president if not detestable. But the Committee marching her out there in this fashion - without any vetting of her story or for that matter cross-examination, is awful. They allowed hearsay testimony when the people with direct knowledge were available but inexplicably not asked to corroborate. That was not an accident.
Unraveling? Really? Great, so let Engel come forward under oath and testify (again). As a heads up, what is "hearsay" is people saying "I hear from a source close to Engel he is ready to testify,". What is NOT hearsay is Hutchinson testifying about things she directly overheard.

What we have right now is somebody under oath testifying before Congress and some Trump apologist tweeting about things he's "been told". Shocking how all of Trump's defenders disappear when asked to make statements under oath.
Sorry Sebasta - Hutchinson testifying as to what she overhead, when that testimony is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter overheard, is by definition hearsay. Without getting in the weeds of the rules of evidence, Hutchinson's testimony would almost certainly not be admissible in any real proceeding. And the reason for that is that hearsay is considered fundamentally unreliable (or less reliable) evidence. If the Jan 6 committee wanted to make this claim re events, they should have put Engel (or another actual witness to the claimed event) on the stand. And of course, in a real proceeding, a defense attorney would be there to ask questions and perhaps present other witnesses.
Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor, disagrees. Why do you think he's wrong?



Full thread here:


Mariotti is pretty partisan and has been a wrong a lot in his trump prognostications. His predictions on Mueller/Russia and the impeachment hearings were laughably bad and partisan wishcasting. I think he's wrong here as well.

Assuming Trump is a party (as he posits), then statements Trump made would be subject to a hearsay exception (most likely). So if Hutchinson says "Trump said to me XXX" then it comes in. Same with anything she said she saw or heard Trump say (e.g., if she heard Trump say remove the metal detectors).

However, much of this is a double hearsay situation - Hutchinson is saying that a third party (not Trump) made certain statements and/or relayed statements/events involving Trump. Mariotti is ignoring that. Her testimony is being "admitted" (maybe in the case of a congressional hearing, proffered?) in support of the truth of the third party's statements. In order for double hearsay to be admitted, both levels need to have a hearsay exception (See FCRP 805). To this point, there's not an obvious hearsay exception for the second level.

So Mariotti's analysis is incomplete as to a great deal of her testimony unless he can provide a hearsay exception for the second level - he hasn't so far.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 1:12p, 6/29/22
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Sebastabear said:
BearGoggles said:
Quite the circle jerk here today.

Already parts of her story are unraveling.





A good reminder:



The above links and stories have been reported for hours - yet not a single person here shares them, discusses them, or even acknowledges that MAYBE people are jumping to conclusions re her testimony. Absolutely no thought to the very real dynamic that you are being fed partial truths (and maybe lies) that feed your narrative, so you accept them completely and without question. People are beclowning themselves.

Sadly, show trials (or show hearings for those who want to make a distinction) prove little if anything and don't convince anyone. Personally, I'd like to know if Hutchinson is telling the truth (or what parts of what she testified to are accurate). The way the Jan 6 committees operates makes that impossible.

And just to be clear, Trump's post election actions were totally unacceptable, as I've said many times. The veracity of Hutchinson's testimony doesn't really move the needle on that for me and I suspect most people - because most people already find Trump unsuitable to be president if not detestable. But the Committee marching her out there in this fashion - without any vetting of her story or for that matter cross-examination, is awful. They allowed hearsay testimony when the people with direct knowledge were available but inexplicably not asked to corroborate. That was not an accident.
Unraveling? Really? Great, so let Engel come forward under oath and testify (again). As a heads up, what is "hearsay" is people saying "I hear from a source close to Engel he is ready to testify,". What is NOT hearsay is Hutchinson testifying about things she directly overheard.

What we have right now is somebody under oath testifying before Congress and some Trump apologist tweeting about things he's "been told". Shocking how all of Trump's defenders disappear when asked to make statements under oath.
Sorry Sebasta - Hutchinson testifying as to what she overhead, when that testimony is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter overheard, is by definition hearsay. Without getting in the weeds of the rules of evidence, Hutchinson's testimony would almost certainly not be admissible in any real proceeding. And the reason for that is that hearsay is considered fundamentally unreliable (or less reliable) evidence. If the Jan 6 committee wanted to make this claim re events, they should have put Engel (or another actual witness to the claimed event) on the stand. And of course, in a real proceeding, a defense attorney would be there to ask questions and perhaps present other witnesses.
Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor, disagrees. Why do you think he's wrong?



Full thread here:


Mariotti is pretty partisan and has been a wrong a lot in his trump prognostications. His predictions on Mueller/Russia and the impeachment hearings were laughably bad and partisan wishcasting. I think he's wrong here as well.

Assuming Trump is a party (as he posits), then statements Trump made would be subject to a hearsay exception (most likely). So if Hutchinson says "Trump said to me XXX" then it comes in.

However, this is a double hearsay situation - Hutchinson is saying that a third party (not Trump) made certain statements and/or relayed statements/events involving Trump. Mariotti is ignoring that. Her testimony is being "admitted" (maybe in the case of a congressional hearing, proffered?) in support of the truth of the third party's statements. In order for double hearsay to be admitted, both levels need to have a hearsay exception (See FCRP 805). To this point, there's not an obvious hearsay exception for the second level.

So Mariotti's analysis is incomplete and the conclusions wrong unless he can provide a hearsay exception for the second level - he hasn't so far.
Do you presume to be less partisan than Mariotti?
Reply Quote
6
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 1:20p, 6/29/22
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Sebastabear said:
BearGoggles said:
Quite the circle jerk here today.

Already parts of her story are unraveling.





A good reminder:



The above links and stories have been reported for hours - yet not a single person here shares them, discusses them, or even acknowledges that MAYBE people are jumping to conclusions re her testimony. Absolutely no thought to the very real dynamic that you are being fed partial truths (and maybe lies) that feed your narrative, so you accept them completely and without question. People are beclowning themselves.

Sadly, show trials (or show hearings for those who want to make a distinction) prove little if anything and don't convince anyone. Personally, I'd like to know if Hutchinson is telling the truth (or what parts of what she testified to are accurate). The way the Jan 6 committees operates makes that impossible.

And just to be clear, Trump's post election actions were totally unacceptable, as I've said many times. The veracity of Hutchinson's testimony doesn't really move the needle on that for me and I suspect most people - because most people already find Trump unsuitable to be president if not detestable. But the Committee marching her out there in this fashion - without any vetting of her story or for that matter cross-examination, is awful. They allowed hearsay testimony when the people with direct knowledge were available but inexplicably not asked to corroborate. That was not an accident.
Unraveling? Really? Great, so let Engel come forward under oath and testify (again). As a heads up, what is "hearsay" is people saying "I hear from a source close to Engel he is ready to testify,". What is NOT hearsay is Hutchinson testifying about things she directly overheard.

What we have right now is somebody under oath testifying before Congress and some Trump apologist tweeting about things he's "been told". Shocking how all of Trump's defenders disappear when asked to make statements under oath.
Sorry Sebasta - Hutchinson testifying as to what she overhead, when that testimony is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter overheard, is by definition hearsay. Without getting in the weeds of the rules of evidence, Hutchinson's testimony would almost certainly not be admissible in any real proceeding. And the reason for that is that hearsay is considered fundamentally unreliable (or less reliable) evidence. If the Jan 6 committee wanted to make this claim re events, they should have put Engel (or another actual witness to the claimed event) on the stand. And of course, in a real proceeding, a defense attorney would be there to ask questions and perhaps present other witnesses.
Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor, disagrees. Why do you think he's wrong?



Full thread here:


Mariotti is pretty partisan and has been a wrong a lot in his trump prognostications. His predictions on Mueller/Russia and the impeachment hearings were laughably bad and partisan wishcasting. I think he's wrong here as well.

Assuming Trump is a party (as he posits), then statements Trump made would be subject to a hearsay exception (most likely). So if Hutchinson says "Trump said to me XXX" then it comes in.

However, this is a double hearsay situation - Hutchinson is saying that a third party (not Trump) made certain statements and/or relayed statements/events involving Trump. Mariotti is ignoring that. Her testimony is being "admitted" (maybe in the case of a congressional hearing, proffered?) in support of the truth of the third party's statements. In order for double hearsay to be admitted, both levels need to have a hearsay exception (See FCRP 805). To this point, there's not an obvious hearsay exception for the second level.

So Mariotti's analysis is incomplete and the conclusions wrong unless he can provide a hearsay exception for the second level - he hasn't so far.
Do you presume to be less partisan than Mariotti?
Note: I just edited my post for further clarity - its not captured above.

No. I don't pretend to be free of partisanship or bias. Most of us do our best to filter it, but undoubtedly without complete success.

For me, the issue is I don't like the process here. Not as a defense of trump, but as a further exercise of a race to the bottom. The republicans will almost certainly take over the house and likely the senate as well. The house republicans are going to exact revenge. Lots of investigations of Joe, Hunter, the border, etc. Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi will have their phones/emails subpoenaed and will be summoned to testify under oath. And the republicans will rig the committee structure and rules so that effectively, the dems have no say - just like the dems did for 1/6 and the impeachments.

This is terribly destructive and bad for the country. I could not care less if Trump ends up in jail - if he obstructed justice by tampering with witnesses, he certainly would be subject to prosecution. Again, I'm not sure that's what's good for the country, but minds could differ on that. And just to be clear, I've been consistent on this. I still vehemently believe HRC lied about many things, including the email server. It is clear she and her crew destroyed evidence. I said in 2016 she should not be prosecuted after Trump was elected.

Edit: I'm not free of partisanship, but I do think I'm less partisan than Mariotti. The guys financial interests and ego are tied upon in throwing bombs on the internet and MSNBC. I don't think he's even trying to be fair.

Reply Quote
3
2 edits
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 1:41p, 6/29/22
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Sebastabear said:
BearGoggles said:
Quite the circle jerk here today.

Already parts of her story are unraveling.





A good reminder:



The above links and stories have been reported for hours - yet not a single person here shares them, discusses them, or even acknowledges that MAYBE people are jumping to conclusions re her testimony. Absolutely no thought to the very real dynamic that you are being fed partial truths (and maybe lies) that feed your narrative, so you accept them completely and without question. People are beclowning themselves.

Sadly, show trials (or show hearings for those who want to make a distinction) prove little if anything and don't convince anyone. Personally, I'd like to know if Hutchinson is telling the truth (or what parts of what she testified to are accurate). The way the Jan 6 committees operates makes that impossible.

And just to be clear, Trump's post election actions were totally unacceptable, as I've said many times. The veracity of Hutchinson's testimony doesn't really move the needle on that for me and I suspect most people - because most people already find Trump unsuitable to be president if not detestable. But the Committee marching her out there in this fashion - without any vetting of her story or for that matter cross-examination, is awful. They allowed hearsay testimony when the people with direct knowledge were available but inexplicably not asked to corroborate. That was not an accident.
Unraveling? Really? Great, so let Engel come forward under oath and testify (again). As a heads up, what is "hearsay" is people saying "I hear from a source close to Engel he is ready to testify,". What is NOT hearsay is Hutchinson testifying about things she directly overheard.

What we have right now is somebody under oath testifying before Congress and some Trump apologist tweeting about things he's "been told". Shocking how all of Trump's defenders disappear when asked to make statements under oath.
Sorry Sebasta - Hutchinson testifying as to what she overhead, when that testimony is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter overheard, is by definition hearsay. Without getting in the weeds of the rules of evidence, Hutchinson's testimony would almost certainly not be admissible in any real proceeding. And the reason for that is that hearsay is considered fundamentally unreliable (or less reliable) evidence. If the Jan 6 committee wanted to make this claim re events, they should have put Engel (or another actual witness to the claimed event) on the stand. And of course, in a real proceeding, a defense attorney would be there to ask questions and perhaps present other witnesses.
Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor, disagrees. Why do you think he's wrong?



Full thread here:


Mariotti is pretty partisan and has been a wrong a lot in his trump prognostications. His predictions on Mueller/Russia and the impeachment hearings were laughably bad and partisan wishcasting. I think he's wrong here as well.

Assuming Trump is a party (as he posits), then statements Trump made would be subject to a hearsay exception (most likely). So if Hutchinson says "Trump said to me XXX" then it comes in.

However, this is a double hearsay situation - Hutchinson is saying that a third party (not Trump) made certain statements and/or relayed statements/events involving Trump. Mariotti is ignoring that. Her testimony is being "admitted" (maybe in the case of a congressional hearing, proffered?) in support of the truth of the third party's statements. In order for double hearsay to be admitted, both levels need to have a hearsay exception (See FCRP 805). To this point, there's not an obvious hearsay exception for the second level.

So Mariotti's analysis is incomplete and the conclusions wrong unless he can provide a hearsay exception for the second level - he hasn't so far.
Do you presume to be less partisan than Mariotti?
Note: I just edited my post for further clarity - its not captured above.

No. I don't pretend to be free of partisanship or bias. Most of us do our best to filter it, but undoubtedly without complete success.

For me, the issue is I don't like the process here. Not as a defense of trump, but as a further exercise of a race to the bottom. The republicans will almost certainly take over the house and likely the senate as well. The house republicans are going to exact revenge. Lots of investigations of Joe, Hunter, the border, etc. Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi will have their phones/emails subpoenaed and will be summoned to testify under oath. And the republicans will rig the committee structure and rules so that effectively, the dems have no say - just like the dems did for 1/6 and the impeachments.

This is terribly destructive and bad for the country. I could care less if Trump ends up in jail - if he obstructed justice by tampering with witnesses, he certainly would be subject to prosecution. Again, I'm not sure that's what's good for the country, but minds could differ on that. And just to be clear, I've been consistent on this. I still vehemently believe HRC lied about many things, including the email server. It is clear she and her crew destroyed evidence. I said in 2016 she should not be prosecuted after Trump was elected.



There was no alternative process because Republicans are uninterested in governance and were complicit in the misconduct. I mean you criticize the select committee but what was the alternative? Look at the official statements of the GOP Judiciary Committee. Does this make you proud to be a Republican? Does this make you feel like Republicans are committed to uncovering wrongdoing or getting to the truth?

Please spare us the exaltations about the Jan 6 committee when this is your Republican party:


















Reply Quote
5
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:49p, 6/29/22
When someone claims that they never defend Trump, but viciously attack anyone who criticizes him and claims that it probably wouldnt be "good for the country" to prosecute Trump.

Nothing to see here.
No reason to try and get at the Truth.
No reason to even make an attempt at protecting democracy.
Because you know, the Republican Party under Trump couldnt care less.

Go BEARS!

Reply Quote
2
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.