Jan 6th Hearings Are Approaching Will You Be Tuning In?
I watched the speech. I was listening to talk radio and I heard people...that were actually there that day, share their experiences in real time! They were calling into the radio show and speaking with the host, who happened to be Rush Limbaugh.
They spoke of an uplifting day and of the great, motivating speech and of the patriotism and love for America, experience, which was in the air.
They spoke of the instigators and agitators showing up. They spoke of when things began to change.
Those are my "facts".
I don't know if these eyewitnesses were ever called in to testify. Perhaps the committee leaders can get the transcripts from the radio programs, they were calling into... if they really want to get to the bottom of anything.
As for election night, many Republican overseers were sent home and counting resumed without them present, putting Biden over the top, you don't find that suspicious?You don't have any factual foundation for this claim.
"As for election night, many Republican overseers were sent home and counting resumed without them present, putting Biden over the top, you don't find that suspicious?
If you are speaking about the Georgia election, Brad Brad Raffensperger and Gabriel Sterling both verbally and with video thoroughly debunked these claims during their testimony before the committee.
We also heard testimony from an election worker "Ms. Ruby" who Mr Trump had singled out personally for defamation.Why are these ballots, under a table, separate from other ballots, pulled out when they are pulled out?
How has this one been debunked, just curious as to how this video evidence was explained away. Trust me I was bombarded with how it was explained away, months ago, just curious as to what you will come up with, Faye.
https://youtu.be/nVP_60Hm4P8I don't need to "come up"with anything. Listen to the testimony under oath.
https://youtu.be/xGmXoPI_mgU
Your source OAN is a questionable source. Generally they exhibit extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information and a complete lack of transparency,. As Mr. Trump would say: Fake news.It isn't a source it's actual video from election night.
"It isn't a source it's actual video from election night."
The link that I provided gives explanation as to what is happening in the video by the Georgia Secretary of State and the chief operating officer for the Georgia Secretary of State. Both under oath.
I hope your misconceptions of this video have been cleared up with this testimony.
Your source was stoking conspiracy.
Ignorance or willful blindness.
Surveillance footage explained
https://youtu.be/pjKXvqSNIkkThank you IslandBites and Faye: I have nothing to add to your comments. I just want to say, in reading the Trump supporters comments, they don't care about the truth. They care about thinking the liberals have mistreated Trump in so many ways and the hearings are just an extension of that mistreatment. They wish the committee would just go away.
Boilerplate in journalism is copying and pasting text that you can use over and over again. That's how I'm beginning to feel about this forum. There are only so many times I can post the same thing about Trump's lies and what he attempted to do on Jan. 6, but you two are doing a great job of trying to get through to these people.
But no matter how many ways you slice it, they are never going to admit that Trump tried to overturn the election results on Jan. 6 and they will continue to believe Biden stole the election from him.No matter how many ways you slice it, you will never admit that Trump tried to prevent "stealing" the election wilth illegal actions, and neither will you admit that Trump believes to this day that the election was "stolen".
However, at the same time you don't seem to understand that virtually no one, including those on these forums, do NOT believe asTrump does; the vast majority of Americans do NOT think the "irregularities" in the 2020 election were sufficient to change anything. Certainly I have yet to see anyone here make that claim, although many (including me) HAVE stated there were illegal actions taken in the counting of ballots.Wilderness:
"Certainly I have yet to see anyone here make that claim, although many (including me) HAVE stated there were illegal actions taken in the counting of ballots."
Prove it.
Matthew Pottinger, who served on former President Donald Trump's National Security Council before resigning in the immediate aftermath of January 6, 2021, will testify publicly at Thursday's prime-time hearing held by the House select committee investigating the US Capitol attack, according to multiple sources familiar with the plans.
Pottinger is slated to appear alongside former Trump White House aide Sarah Matthews.'The Secret Service can't access deleted text messages from January 6, 2021, signaling the loss of vital records about what was happening as the attack on the Capitol unfolded," The Washington Post reports.
Nothing to see here huh?? Stinks to high heavenI haven't looked into this, but I did catch a blurb saying that the data is recoverable, (from somewhere), and will be presented to the committee. *shrug
GAThe latest,
Secret Service gives thousands of documents to January 6 committee, but hasn't yet recovered potentially missing texts
The Secret Service said it may not be able to recover a batch of erased text messages from phones used by its agents around the time of the attack on the Capitol last year, a development that comes amid intensified scrutiny over lapses in the agency’s accounting of its actions during the riots.
The Secret Service informed the House Jan. 6 committee that it was still attempting a forensic search for the phone records on Tuesday morning, when it delivered not the missing text messages the panel was seeking but “thousands of pages of documents” and other records related to decisions made on Jan. 6, according to the agency’s spokesman, Anthony Guglielmi. Later, in an interview, Mr. Guglielmi said the phone records were probably not recoverable.
Also,
National Archives demands answers on deleted Jan. 6 Secret Service texts
NARA told the agency Tuesday that it had 30 days under federal law to explain why the text messages surrounding the Capitol attack were deleted.
And then,
https://youtu.be/GZqYyOHrjNg
Hopefully, there's nothing important missing, but...Thanks. I'm not sure where to go on this one. I was relieved when I heard that mentioned blurb.
GAThis article can shed light on the newest allegation that the committee is claiming.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi … -rcna38332Yep, it's still developing. It looks too bad to be true, but who knows.
GA
"The details about the erased messages were revealed in a letter to two congressional committees Wednesday, in which Homeland Security Inspector General Joseph Cuffari said he was informed that many of the messages from Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, 2021, had been erased “as part of a device-replacement program.”
"Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi insisted in a statement that the agency has fully cooperated with the inspector general's review and that the text messages were lost before they were requested.
"The insinuation that the Secret Service maliciously deleted text messages following a request is false," Guglielmi said. "In fact, the Secret Service has been fully cooperating with the OIG in every respect — whether it be interviews, documents, emails, or texts."
According to Guglielmi, the Secret Service began a "pre-planned, three-month system migration" in January 2021 that included resetting its mobile phones to factory settings, resulting in the loss of data for some phones. The system migration was "well underway" by the time the inspector general first requested electronic communications on Feb. 26, 2021, he added."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi … -rcna38332
Would the Secret Service make all of this up? And will the committee clarify their insinuations that the text was deleted by the Secret Service or will this be another Hutchinson ploy?
I would say, this committee is tainted due to their poor unscrupulous tactics.
My God they are seeking to disparage the Secret Service. It is clear this story has spread, and it needs to be retracted by this so-called committee.another Hutchinson ploy?
The flip flopping wont stop, eh?Just my view. I don't think I flip-flopped on Hutchinson. I am still waiting to hear from the men in that car, as well as Cipolloni to clarify her testimony.
Perhaps it is coming?
I may have missed something, but it appears the committee has now moved on to deleted text...
"Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi insisted in a statement that the agency has fully cooperated with the inspector general's review and that the text messages were lost before they were requested.
"The insinuation that the Secret Service maliciously deleted text messages following a request is false," Guglielmi said. "In fact, the Secret Service has been fully cooperating with the OIG in every respect — whether it be interviews, documents, emails, or texts."
According to Guglielmi, the Secret Service began a "pre-planned, three-month system migration" in January 2021 that included resetting its mobile phones to factory settings, resulting in the loss of data for some phones. The system migration was "well underway" by the time the inspector general first requested electronic communications on Feb. 26, 2021, he added."
Will all of this be overlooked? -- LOOK HERE NOT THERE, WE HAVE MOVED ON FROM THAT ACCUSATION...
Hey, again just my view.
https://youtu.be/4pWhth2ElrA
How The Secret Service Became Not Just A Protecter Of The President's Body, But His Secrets
"There's an arrogance that runs through Secret Service, and an effort, always, to cover up anything that would be embarrassing, humiliating or anything that's bad about the president.," Leonnig says. "Remember, sometimes the Secret service becomes not just a protector of the president's body, but of the president's secrets."
Carol Leonnig, Washington Post reporter and author of “Zero Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Secret Service
The social media stuff was revealing. Never heard about the book before.https://youtu.be/DLKCGEHHfh4
January 6th Committee Eighth Public hearingIslandBites. I just finished watching the hearing. They just proved that Trump summoned an armed mob. He controlled the mob from the beginning to the end when he told them to go home.
To those of you in this forum who think he had no way of telling the mob when to leave, the answer is very simple. They watched his closing address on their cell phones.
The framers of the constitution were concerned about mob rule. That is why they created the 2nd amendment because they did not have a standing military. That is why the phrase "a well regulated militia" is included in the amendment.
The irony is that is precisely what the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were there on Jan.6 were, a well regulated militia. And the 2nd amendment gave them the right to bear arms against their own government.
I watched the outtakes of Trump's speech on Jan.7 I believe he is a very sick man, who will not allow himself to lose at anything, no matter what the cost to others who might be in his way. I believe what he did to Mike Pence and capitol law enforcement is not only evil, but cruel. He has never apologized for any of it and never will. He still believes he lost the election and so do his people.
At the end of the hearing, I switched to Fox News to see if they were carrying the hearing. Laura Ingraham was on with a piece about Bill Gates and a land grab.
More than likely half of this country did not watch the hearings and believes that Trump won the election. He was right when he said, " I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose a single vote." To me this is scary stuff and Fox News is a huge part of the problem by supporting Trump and broadcasting false news to millions of their viewers.There is a big picture involved, Mike. We all keep dancing around it scrounging for minitia down to the micron level. What was the President of the United States doing fomenting activities of a mob in the first place? This "President" is like one that I have never seen before and hope not to see again. The appearance is enough, as chief executive, this is the example he sets?
Trump is a disgrace and soils the grandeur and majesty of the Presidency. At a minimum, he should at least not be allowed to run for public office ever again.Cred; Hopefully, as the hearings continue, more people will realize what Trump's real character is like. He is a master con-artist who does not have the capacity to accept that he lost an election.
He allowed the mob to go on for hours without stopping them shows how revengeful he is and that he has no moral boundaries. He could care less about the death and destruction he created. He wanted to remain president no matter what the cost was to others.
"They proved that Trump summoned an armed mob"
Sounds like an eventful day, that's the smoking gun right, so they're done with the "Hearings"?
What's next? The sentencing phase?I'm off the grid, the last thing that I heard about weapons, was that there weren't any armed citizens within the Capitol Building. What a crazy turn of events!
Someone in charge at the Capitol Building has some 'splainin to do!
ab: You are exactly one of the types of people I mentioned who no matter what the evidence brings, you will believe that Trump won the election and it was stolen by Biden. Now you are trying to blame the attacking of the Capitol Building on people in charge of the Capitol.
You can't bring yourself to watch the hearings, because they would invalidate your decision to continue to support Trump. It's called cognitive dissonance.
It makes you feel better to come up with excuses than it does for you accept the facts that Trump tried to obstruct the certification process by using mob rule because he could not and still will not accept the fact that he lost the election fair and square.
But you are not alone, half of this country believes the way you do, thanks to Trump, Fox and MAGA news.No you don't get to lecture me PP, you can't fathom anyone but Trump and/or Trump supporters of any wrong-doing in this.
You can't fathom any outside person (as in anti-Trump) inciting the crowd or allowing for entry into the Capitol Building, or having the Capital Police stand down for a time or not sending in the National Guard...all for the sole purpose of doing as much harm as possible to the reputation of Trump and of Trump supporters.
I'm not sure how many times I need to say that anyone that assaults police officers or takes things that aren't theirs or destroys property or that wields a weapon in order to scare people, (R) or (D) should go to trial and should go to jail if the case is proven against them.
But, STILL, the committee, the "Hearings" are only focusing on Trump and/or Trump supporters, am I wrong?ab: Fox and MAGA news are trying to place the blame on others, but that is not what happened. They are not giving you the truth, but some BS propaganda to save Trump's butt.
Trump had control of the mob from the beginning to the end. If Anfifa would have been involved, do you think Trump would be addressing them in the beginning of Jan.6 and tell them when to go home, hours later?
If you watched the hearings, you would realize the people who are testifying against Trump are all republican's and all in Trump's inner circle.
They are upper level staff members including, Ivanka, Jarred, Don Jr. Press Secretaries, Chief Aids to Mark Meadows. Some high level staff members even resigned their positions the night of Jan. 6 because Trump allowed the mob to go on for hours.
Even Trump's lawyer Pat Cipolone has testified that Trump listened to none of them about stopping Jan. 6, except those who gave him what he wanted to hear, which was fraudulent information.
You expect a cross-examination by somebody like Pat Cipilone who is Trump's chief lawyer, even when he testifies against Trump?
If you think Anfifa and left wing groups are behind Jan.6, then you are wrong. Many of the testimonies have been given by the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who have admitted their guilt and realized that they were misled by Trump and his supporters, like Steve Bannon, Rudy Guiliani and John Eastman who gave Trump what he wanted to hear about the election and how to overturn it. There was no Antifa there. Trump and company made that up to place the blame on others. Your are right, I can't fathom others being involved, because that is not reality. It is propaganda.What of the outsiders/anti-Trump people involved, have they been mentioned?
My point - if we are truly going to get to the rock bottom of this, let us look under all of the rocks.Not going to happen. The objective if this round of witch hunt is not to discover "the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth". It is to remove a political opponent from the arena, and to that end anything that does not support the goal shall not be examined.
ab and wilderness:
Has it ever occurred to you they have not been mentioned because they don't exist? What outside/anti Trump people were there on Jan.6?
You can make up boogey men, but there is too much irrefutable evidence that Trump, and his allies, Guiliani, Bannon, and Eastman own Jan. 6.
As soon as Trump found out that Biden was running for president, he started the drum beat of if I lose the election it is rigged. He did that for months.. Then when Biden won, he changed it to Biden stole the election from me. It that isn't premeditated I don't know what is!!
You people can't accept the fact that Trump can't accept the fact that he lost the election and on Jan. 6 he did everything he thought he could do stay in power.What you are asking is if I think that if this goes to court that Trump cannot mount a defense at all; that he can find no witnesses that will either state they saw nothing or that Trump did not orchestrate, guide and create a militia to overthrow the government.
And the answer is an unqualified "No". As I stated, the purpose and goal of this committee, right down to the members allowed to serve on it, is to remove a political opponent. ONLY negative (positive in their view as it supports their goal) information will be allowed, and ONLY negative information will be presented to the public.
Interestingly, if it DOES go to court, where will they find an unbiased jury after this dog and pony show? Is a trial even possible after this?
"You people can't accept the fact that Trump can't accept the fact that he lost the election..."
And interesting statement as I have consistently made exactly that point; that Trump truly believes that he did not lose and cannot accept the concept that he did.I can't figure out what Trump could even be charged with?
Could you move on after learning of a loss to the feeble, inept Joe Biden? I couldn't and I don't have a fraction of Trump's ego!
I think they want to charge him with daring to be born Sharlee.I agree this bunch has been out after Trump from the time he said he would run.
I truely belives Trump does believe the election was fraudulent. He is definitely in for the long run., and I see nothing thus far this committee could charge him with.
I have come to believe the Democratic party is very dangerous, and Trump is their biggest threat.Ditto. Have a great weekend everyone. AB out.
So when the next president believes, truly that the moon is made of cheese or that people with green eyes are genetically deficient would be legitimate because he/she has a true belief and can act upon it? That would validate all of Q's assertions because he truly believes what he is espousing.
Crimes he could be charged with? Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding??
Conspiracy to defraud the United States?
Inciting an insurrection?
Seditious conspiracy?
Election laws in Georgia/arizona?
His only defense would be mental incompetency
At best, this is a morally bankrupt man. A man with no character whatsoever. Who would sit in their dining room with the power to halt a riot before you but 8nstead just watch for hours instead? Tweeting inflammatory incendiary tweets.Very long list... In my view, I don't think the DOJ would take up any from the list, just can't see any of those charges could be proved in a court of law.
I have not heard from the FBI or DOJ mention any of the changes you listed, and both are conducting their own investigations.
Sharlee, ab, and Wilderness: That is what is precisely wrong with Trump. In his mind, he still believes he won the election and the fact that Biden won is fraudulent. Any sane person would accept the fact that they lost, but not Trump. His sick ego won't allow reality to sink into his brain.
The purpose of the committee is to bring forth enough evidence to show that Trump violated the constitution by obstructing the certification of electoral college votes by congress and to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected president.
He violated the constitution by trying to stop the certification process He also violated his oath of office as president to uphold the constitution for the good of the people, not for his own benefit.
You believe the democratic party is dangerous. I believe Trump is dangerous, just look at what he did to satisfy his own sick ego One of the purposes of the committee is to prevent that from every happening again.
The committee is going to present the evidence to Merrick Garland and it is going to be up to him to determine if it goes to court or not. He did say, "no one is above the law, including the president of the united states."
However, he did say if Trump is indicted, it would have to be after the mid-terms or it could be construed as partisan politics. So Trump may get a pass again.It's about time.
Steve Bannon found guilty of contempt for defying January 6 committee subpoena
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/22/politics … index.htmlMike, inspite of this article, so why am I having a premonition that the Justice Department will wimp out on me, when we need to bring the hammer down? How many of Trumps suckups will be willing to "fall on their swords" in sacrifice to their master? Only to be resurrected with full pardons when Trump is reelected.
I hope that Garland has the conjones to follow through.......
I used to think it was his ego but as this has gone on I am more inclined to believe that Mr Trump is mentally ill. He appears to be disconnected from reality.
Faye: I didn't want to say that because the Trumpers would jump all over that without him being certified as mentally ill.
I'm sure getting tired of trying to explain to them what happened without them being willing to watch the hearings. They come up with all these conspiracy theories that try to place the blame on others. He is a master con-artist who with the help of Fox and MAGA news have half of this country believing the election was stolen from him.He is not more mentally ill than most dictators (Ghadafi,Kim Jong-un, Puttin, Hitler, Stalin..a long list) and mafia bosses.
The US (and the world) is lucky that he's not terribly smart, otherwise, you would have had 8 years under a president with a fascist behaviour.I also don't think he is mentally ill. And I don't think he 'truly' believes the election was stolen. I think it's a con and he knows it.
Luckily for me, that's just an opinion that I don't have to worry about defending. It's just the way I see it.
GAWhether he suffers from a mental illness or is simply a con man, far-right politicians have picked up the mantle. The legacy of the “stolen election” is enduring.
The lie is outlasting the liar.
In poll after poll, about 70% of Republicans say they don’t think Joe Biden is the legitimate winner of the 2020 election.
I'm concerned with the number of election deniers that have made their way into the 2022 midterms.What we saw in those six hearings is a way to connect the dots for the public. The fact that they have 100's of hours of depositions, testimony and tons of documents, could serve to show criminal cause and intent to the courts.
This last hearing connected the dots even closer for the 187 minutes that he was watching TV and did nothing to stop the mob as they were getting closer to Pence and his family. The outtakes of Jan. 7 showed that Trump could not bring himself to admit that he lost the election is also quite telling of his state of mind.
The smoking gun is the recorded phone conversation with Rafensberger,. It is irrefutable evidences that he realizes he lost the election, but willing to involve the Georgia Secretary of State in his scheme to find 11,780 more votes for him to overturn the election.
Trump's allies who participated in the scheme are now under grand jury investigation. Those findings are to be submitted to Fulton County DA's office to determine if criminal charges can be brought against them and Trump.
I have my doubts, because Trump and company can afford the best lawyers in town and they are a very slippery lot.The entire phone call Trump had with Rafenbergurg is online. I think it is beneficial to listen to the full call for complete context. The media, as well as the Jan 6th committee, have relied on a very short bit of the call.
I listened to the entire call, and the context is very clear, Trump listed many complaints, and incidents of what he felt were voter fraud to Rafenbergurg. He clearly appeared to believe what he was saying. The context shows he insinuated --- out of all this fraud you can come up with the 11,000 votes needed o win.
That entire phone call would be heard if Trump were charged and in a court of law.
This committee relied on one-sided information, bits of sentences taken from full; conversations carefully displayed for the viewers.
When the DOJ gets the information I trust they will put it all in proper context, and decision-making will take place if there will be any charges that they could prove in a court of law.
It would seem the hungry mob is out for blood. However, Thank God we have the FBI, and DOJ to sort through all of the so-called evidence.
I trust the DOJ as well as the FBI to be very professional and do
their job. Bloodlust is an ugly characteristic, and it's clear that some Americans are ravenous.
Hey, I will go out on a limb, I don't see any charges that could be proven in a court of law.
Will, it hurt him politically( because IMO that's what this is all about) that is left to be seen.Again, Mr. Trump was given the truth and chose to ignore it.
Mr. Raffensperger confirmed that the U.S. Justice Department and the attorney general, as well as the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and his own office, had all found those claims to be false.
Even more importantly, he added, the Trump-appointed acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, Bobby Christine, had dismissed those claims early on.
He added that his office investigated every single allegation it received, running down multiple rabbit holes to make sure its numbers were accurate.
When Mr. Raffensperger told Mr. Trump on the call that his investigators hadn't found proof supporting his claims, the former president said "they're either dishonest or incompetent.
OR...maybe Mr. Trump has some cognitive issue with reality?
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/11064728 … -real-time
My biggest issue with the phone call was when Mr Trump suggested that Mr. Raffensperger could be held liable for criminal behavior if he didn’t comply with the president’s requests, according to the audio clips.
“You can’t let that happen, that’s a big risk to you,” Trump said. “All of this stuff is very dangerous.”Yes, Trump was given advice and educated opinions. He chose not to believe them and was getting conflicting information from many in his own circle.
I am not sure what information he was being given, and I do know there were some 200 and some reports from pole workers of fraud. It would seem this was part of what he was using to try to prove his claims. I can remember commenting on these claimes right here on HP. Feeling the claims should be addressed, and put to rest.
They were not. We had many citizens here in Mich Dem and Rep that made claims of fraud, They were very upset that they were not being heard. I saw many nightly on our local news.
I feel trump was fueled up by these reports.
I don't in any respect feel Trump has cognitive problems. I feel he is hell-bent on being heard.
I think he will be heard either in a true court of law or if we see a sweep in Nov.
I think this comment will regret ever tweaking his nose.I don't think we need to hear anymore from Mr Trump but such is his power along with the conservative media propaganda machine that created an alternative reality for his followers. Mr. Trump is able to reinvent the truth in plain sight and get away with it. The former President effectively writes the script. It's pure snake oil and lies. And the justification is that it's all okay if he truly believes his lies?
Mr Kinzinger summed it up best:
"Donald Trump lost, not because the election was stolen, but because he ran an election focused on firing up only the most extreme element of the Republican Party and he turned off swing voters that typically used to vote Republican,'"
Some commentary concerning Mr. Trump's "belief" in his election fraud statements
https://youtu.be/ekjEYHP5ra0
Sharlee:
[i]He clearly appeared to believe what he was saying. The context shows he insinuated --- out of all this fraud you can come up with the 11,000 votes needed to win.{/i]
You hear his conversation and come to the conclusion that he truly believes there is fraud does not make it right. It just shows his state of mind at that time.
The "ask" is the important part. The fact that he had Giuliani and Graham to put further pressure on Rafensberger is also very important to the case. That is why they are under investigation with the grand jury.Sharlee:
He clearly appeared to believe what he was saying. The context shows he insinuated --- out of all this fraud you can come up with the 11,000 votes needed to win.
You hear his conversation and come to the conclusion that he truly believes there is fraud does not make it right. It just shows his state of mind at that time.
The "ask" is the important part. The fact that he had Giuliani and Graham to put further pressure on Rafensberger is also very important to the case. That is why they are under investigation with the grand jury.When listening to that conversation, taking into account the entire conversation, and his demeanor, I think at that time, he did believe there was a fraud. As time went on, I am not sure what he thought, we only heard bits and pieces of what his advisories told him and very little about what Trump said when given the advice. I would have liked to hear more detailed accounts from witnesses.
I do agree he was being given unproven information from many in his close circle.
I think as I said the FBI, and DOJ will be fair and look at all the information. I think his ask was simply saying --- there was lots of fraud take your pick and rectify the problem.
I think Georgia completely did their job and did frequent recounts. My point, I think at the time that call was made, Trump believed there was widespread fraud in Georgia.
I think the context of the call indicates he believed what he was saying.
Shame on you, do you realize how many innocent people the devils that you have mentioned...and have so callously made President Trump a part of, have impoverished or murdered?!?
Shame on you, shame on those who say "Trump and/or Trump supporters heads must roll", shame on those who say they'll have satisfaction when they see "gallows in the square" or "Trump's head on a stake", "Trump's the antichrist".......
Call them out, as I have done and they'll plead hyperbole and suggest that you have a problem.
I get chastised constantly, for writing articles for HP, from a conservative perspective; articles which don't fit into that certain mold.
I must consistently go to battle to have my articles which 'the team' have unpublished, republished.
After they've been gutted and reworded to meet a certain standard & be made "acceptable", it may or may not happen.
Because I don't participate in group think or go along with a certain political wokeness, I'll have articles in limbo for days. Some, I eventually unpublish, because it isn't worth investing any more time in it.
I am going through that right now and have been warned, that if I continue to attempt to publish my conservative views, {sorry "hate speech" and/or "personal attack" and/or "racist", I am never told specifically, just in generalizations} I'll be banned.
Hmmmm, I'm just thinking about some of the monsters that you have mentioned and what people were put through as a result of their rise. Can we get to that place here in America, sure we can! Did we with Trump, hardly, far from it, but then we took a u-turn.
But, no worries for you, the double standard is alive and thriving here.
Yes I'm pissed, if I am going out, I am going out speaking my mind.......Well said, I always read your comments. Never see the Blahbati blah blah groupthink comments, one comes to expect on a chat. Love your common sense, love your individuality, and really like your fearlessness.
I believe a person who looks beyond the surface, as a rule, finds the truth.Sharlee: Yes ab has a lot of common sense. She even has the common sense to not watch the hearings, but comments on them, without even knowing what they are about, except what she learns from Fox and MAGA news.
I ended up reviewing all the hearings. I found their bias, so one-sided. I also found very little new information that had not been previously covered by the media. So very disappointed in all the hype, and no bang for my buck.
I will say much of what they presented one could find in archives of Fox News. No new information and some of the testimony was
secondhand. The committee relied on "Trump's words" Funny Trump has never changed his view on what he felt was a fraud.
So, I can honestly say, yeah Fox covered almost all of what this comment presented long ago.
I did a bit of sleuthing. I went into Trump's Twitter archives. I keyed the words "It will be wild" in his tweets he used the word wild 57 times...
Most of the times he used the word was to indicate his campaign rallies would be Wild, so join us. This committee was hell-bent on saying this was an invitation to come and be violent... I would guess if Trump needed to defend using that statement he could, just present how frequently he used the word to indicate --- come to my rally it's going to be wild... Context can be a bitch.a m radio is about the extent of my news sources these days.
Not familiar with MAGA news. ??
ab: It sounds like you are really holding back. Don't hold back, let it all hang out. You will feel much better.
I just might, buckle up!
I've only the scratched the surface...
Take it easy, there are more important things in life than talking about politics.
I was comparing the character, not the unthinkable atrocities, genocide, mass torture etc. Off course not. (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, Bill Clinton are responsible for much worse crimes and murder abroad than Donald Trump actually ) - One of the good things about Trump was that he didn't start a war.
I was reacting to the notion that Trump simply is mentally ill. And that Donald Trump created just like the politicians I mentioned above an alternative reality.
Donald Trump couldn't accept, no couldn't believe, that he lost the elections. He lost touch with reality. (and basically had the same disbelief as Ceaușescu on his last day of power, for example..) Kings who can't believe they've lost power. The power that was their identity. It collapsed like a tower of cards.
I'm sorry for your problems with postings on Hubpages, I can not comment on that as I don't know the details. But I hope you can publish your posts.
Sometimes it's good to take a stap back, and think, is it really that important or am I just hyped up by the media.
How important are politics really in your life? Is it not nice to just read a fiction book and let yourself be absorbed by it, instead of reading the daily news on social media and the tele.
Don't take politics too personal, that's not healthy for the mind. (talking to myself as well..)
And talking about a healthy mind again, so yes, could well be Donald Trump, social media animal number one became ill and delusional by the same social media he thought was his friend. Carried away by the praise of the tweets of his followers. Thinking he was untouchable.Don't patronize me Peter.
I make it a habit of not getting hyped up/worked up by the media, as is the case of those obsessed with Jan. 6th and Donald Trump and the so-called "Hearings".
It makes for clear and present thinking as I approach each and every subject, each and every article.Everybody:
Let's keep this simple. Do you believe that Trump and his cohorts should be held accountable for trying to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected president? Yes or no will suffice.Of course. IF he can be proven guilty before a jury of his peers, as required by our law. But only then; this dog and pony show without allowing any defense is not sufficient to provide that.
However, from my (very) limited experience in a courtroom I have to question whether an impartial, unbiased jury can be found after this media blitz. That could be a very real problem in a courtroom.I do not feel we could find a jury that would be non-bias at this point.
it would be a circus.
The one hope I have is that if Republicans sweep in Nov, in Jan 2023 they will have a special counsel to investigate all complaints of fraud that maybe have occurred in the 2020 election. The Republicans will initiate many investigations.Why would Republicans pursue this? If they get in control, they would simply shelve the entire committee.
Why would you believe that an independent jury would be biased if they had access to all of the facts of the case?It is the DOJ that would bring charges, this committee has said all along they will be handling all their information over to the DOJ. Plus the DOJ and FBI are still conducting ongoing investigations into Jan 6th. So yes, the committee would be dismantled, if we see a sweep. But they would not be sworn in until Jan 2023. The committee would have ample time to finish their investigation.
However, the new Congress would not have the authority to dismantle the DOJ or FBI. Biden would have the power to fire and hire, but why would he, he would love to see Trump charged.
Just my view, I think Trump is waiting to see what happens in Nov. I think if republicans sweep, he will run, if not he won't. If he runs he will push the New Congress to investigate the 2020 election. I would think it would be a huge campaign tool, with leaks that may indicate fraud occurred. It would be a powerful tool.
I think the Republicans will play very dirty and uses the power of media hype. You know sort of turning the tables.
Do you feel he will just drop the fraud accusations if he runs? He has not as of yet. He will be in Tampa tonight, and I can guarantee he will be bringing up the 2020 election.
I also think Congress will investigate president Biden, his son, and his brother. Hey, they will fight hard to keep garbage in the media right up to the 2024 election.
To answer your question, Trump would be charged in DC, at this point, in my view, it would be very hard to find a non-bias jury. DC is full of liberal Democrat Citizens.There is absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election. As Mr Trump is continuing to advance these ideas, he is either mentally compromised or he is just a straight out con man. Just as Pat Cipollone said, where is the evidence??
He didn't show an iota of regret on the 6th either did he? As he sat in his dining room for hours watching the chaos unfold at the Capitol. It's sort of sociopathic.Actually, fraud is committed in our elections, and citizens are charged and punished for voter fraud. I think it would be more correct if you said it's your view that there was not a significant amount of election to change the results of the election. https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?state=CA
Actually, he did send out two tweets, and a live televised statement. He had provided a plan with Miller to supply troops per the Mayor's request
Miller also handled getting troops to the Capitol when the riot erupted.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-d … tually-say
It would seem he could not do much more. Could have he televised a statement quicker, perhaps.
Thus far we have not heard from any witnesses in regard to how did Trump respond, what did he say, to them encouraging him to "call off the crowd at the Capitol".
Not sure if many recognized that witnesses were not asked that question on live TV. I am sure they would have been asked that question in their interviews.
I watched the hearings, and caught up on the two I did not watch. It is clear the questions that witnesses were asked on live hearings were very much scripted, very coordinated to paint a very destructive picture.
For me, I want to hear Trump's response to his daughter and any others that asked him to get out and call off the rioters.
After reviewing the hearings, it is very easy to see we got one side.
It would be nice to hear how Trump responded to the requests to call off the crowds. So, not so sure what trump said or felt as he sat in that dining room. We have only heard one side. Did you pick up anything in regards to how he responded verbally to those that asked him to call off the crowd while he sat in that dining room? I may have missed something.
The hearings were very scripted, and the questions were one-sided. In found context is very poorly presented.Sharlee: It's very clear to see that your job is to create doubt, when there is no doubt. The facts are there Trump tried to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power to the next duly elected president and by doing that, he violated his oath that he took while being sworn in as president.
Here is the oath that Pence took to become VP.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Here is the oath Trump took to become president.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Trump's actions to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected president were trying to get Pence to violate his oath. He has to defend himself against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Those mobs contained domestic terrorists that Trump and Bannon summoned to obstruct the certification process."Sharlee: It's very clear to see that your job is to create doubt, when there is no doubt."
Are you sure? Has anyone been convicted of terrorism? Did anyone testify that they heard Trump summon anyone inside the Capitol? Has anyone testified that they heard Trump instruct anyone to physically stop the certification, to hang anyone, to harm anyone at all?
No? Then there is doubt of your assertion that he did just that."Sharlee: It's very clear to see that your job is to create doubt when there is no doubt."
I can see where you might see that in some cases. However, Faye pointed out her view on a couple of specific subjects, and I responded.
"---There is absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election. A
He didn't show an iota of regret on the 6th either did he? As he sat in his dining room for hours watching the chaos unfold at the Capitol. It's sort of sociopathic."
As you might see my comment dealt with those subjects. I presented another side and left a question. To indicate an open conversation. I think it is unrealistic to feel that there is not possibly another side.
You have swerved off subject, but your quarry is relevant to this thread.
So, is there any evidence that Trump planned or knew what would happen on Jan 6th at the Capitol? Has Trump actually as of yet been charged with anything. I am aware many protesters have been arrested for various charges. From trespassing on restricted grounds to
seditious conspiracy, trials of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys — groups accused of conspiring to violently prevent the transfer of power — are still months away.
The FBI and the DOJ(which both have been conducting investigations) have not charged Trump with any form of crime. So, for you to say -- "The facts are there Trump tried to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power to the next duly elected president and by doing that, he violated his oath that he took while being sworn in as president." I can only take this comment as your view.
How did Trump summon anyone? It is obvious Trump wanted Pence to stop the proceedings on that day. Trump's attorney (Eastman) told Trump that Pence could reject results from certain states if he thought they were illegitimate. Trump clearly listened to poor advice from many around him, and yes, most likely because he felt there was voter fraud. He was being informed by many that fraud was being reported from many scourses.
Thus far I have seen no evidence that the riot was planned in any respect. My gosh, Trump wanted to walk with them... Do you feel Trump would have broken the law, and become violent?
The hearings have added little new information, and the DOJ has not charged trump. Is it wise to be so blatantly positive with your assessment that Trump committed a crime?
Did any one thing jump out at you from the hearings that you feel could actually lead to charging Trump with a crime? I learned very little I did not know, and nothing that I felt could lead to a Trump indictment. Much of what we heard would not be admissible in a court of law. Lots of smoke, but nothing conclusive to lead to a crime, in my view.
Seems you might be out on a shaky limb.
I stand corrected, you are right there was not fraud to a significant degree to affect the election results of 2020. Any election sees its share of dead voters and the like , albeit in insignificant numbers.
In terms of Mr Trump's tweets, the were inflammatory and not helpful. He made no direct plea to his supporters to stop the violence and go home. One of the tweets was just to include a link to his speech at the ellipse.
Another tweet went out around 2:30 slamming Mr Pence for lacking the courage to reject the electors. Still no appeal to stop the violence as many testified he had been watching it on TV. Like I said before this seems a little sick. Watching police officers get beat with flagpoles and crushed in doors? And no response from our president? Clearly a dereliction of his duty but more shockingly revealed his low character and immorality. In my opinion, it's just more evidence that Mr Trump is in fact a sociopath.
Also, I believe it wasn't until 2:38 that he asked his protesters to "stay peaceful" that was as the riot raged and people were getting injured. He wouldn't tell them to go home and even balked at using any mention of Peace in his tweet according to Kayleigh McEnany.
An array of White House officials implored him to call for an end to the mob violence immediately.
“I said people need to be told — there needs to be a public announcement fast that they need to leave the Capitol,” Cipollone said." Just to be clear, many people suggested it. Not just me. Many people felt the same way. I’m sure I had conversations with [the-White House chief of staff] Mark [Meadows] about this during the course of the day and expressed my opinion very forcefully.”
The truth is, he sat on his hands until 6:00 p.m. when he finally tweeted out
"Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”
Mr Trump also never called in the guard during that time.
“Vice President Pence was very candid,” recalled Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “He issued explicit, direct, unambiguous orders. There is no question about that … He was very animated, direct, firm. ‘Get the military down here,’ ‘Get the Guard down here,’ etc.”
I strongly agree with the editorials that just came out in the Wall Street journal and the New York Post that
Mr. Trump’s conduct during the riot shows he is “unworthy” of being president again, should he run in 2024, the board concluded.
I think He lacks the core of normal empathy and the ability to appreciate that other people have rights. He is a very sick man.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presid … 1658528548
https://nypost.com/2022/07/22/trumps-ja … eelection/"In terms of Mr Trump's tweets, the were inflammatory and not helpful. He made no direct plea to his supporters to stop the violence and go home. One of the tweets was just to include a link to his speech at the ellipse."
I read the three tweets to refresh my memory. I feel his context was clear in all three.
He then did make a live statement on TV.
I think it would be very hard to dispute the context of any of his tweets.
I can't see how anything can even be read into these tweets, the context is so clear. And one can see timely. The Senate was still in session until 2:20 pm. Until they were led out to safety. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/05/10699774 … t-and-when
The Jan 6th timeline shows --- 2:20 p.m.
The Senate is called to recess, and the House is called to recess shortly after. The building goes into lockdown.
2:24 -- Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!
His next tweet at 2:38 pm - "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
3:13 pm I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!
He certainly asked for the crowd to be peaceful and to respect law enforcement. reminding them 'We are the party of Law and order...
I feel his context was appropriate and very clear.
As I said we have not heard any information as to what Trump said when approached to call off supporters. We heard one side. The side the committee wanted the public to hear. I question the bias of the committee.
"I strongly agree with the editorials that just came out in the Wall Street journal and the New York Post that
Mr. Trump’s conduct during the riot shows he is “unworthy” of being president again, should he run in 2024, the board concluded.
I think He lacks the core of normal empathy and the ability to appreciate that other people have rights. He is a very sick man."
This is your view, and you have every right to share it. Many Americans share your view. Many Americans would not agree with your view.
What I learned from Former Acting U.S. Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller when he testified before congress -- Pence did not have anything to do with ordering the troop to be deployed on Jan 6th, Miller was responsible due to the president giving him that authority on Jan 3, 2021.
Miller testified that during the actual insurrection he did not speak with former President Donald Trump.
"I didn’t need to. I had all the authority I needed and I knew what had to happen," he said, adding that he did speak to Vice President Mike Pence.
He said Pence is "not in the chain of command," and said, "He did not direct me to clear the Capitol. I discussed this very briefly with him the situation. He provided insights based on his presence there. And I notified him or I informed him that by that point the District of Columbia National Guard was being fully mobilized and in coordination with local and federal law enforcement to assist in clearing the Capitol.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-o … d=77639074Mr. Trump “placed no call to any element of the U.S. government to instruct that the Capitol be defended,” Ms. Cheney said.
She said Mr. Trump did not call his Secretary of Defense on Jan. 6, or speak to his Attorney General or the Department of Homeland Security.
“Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets,” Ms. Cheney said. “But Mike Pence did each of those things.”
As soon as he arrived back at the White House from his speech, he knew the riot was ensuing. He should have tweeted and made a appearance on TV at that time. It really was as simple as that.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/jan-6- … 2Yz5QCZ77pThere was no need for Trump to communicate with the Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, or the Department of Homeland Security.
All had advanced warning that there could be trouble at the Jab 6th rally. And Miller, as well as Wolf, performed well in their jobs on that day. Trump had no need to give the order, he took care of giving Miller that authority on Jan 3rd. Trump knew of the threats and made sure to give Miller the authority to handle the situation.
And it would seem from testimony from miller, that he, not Pence handled ordering troops to the Capitol on Jan 6th. Actually, Pence has not given any testimony in regard to Jan 6th. Miller has, under oath. Not sure where you got your information that Pence ordered troops to the Capitol on Jan 6th? Clearly, Miller claimed he was the person that finally ordered the troops.
Yes, he knew that a crowd was starting to force their way into the Capitol, and he tweeted very quickly once he was told Senate had the need to adjourn. The timeline proves this. As I offered in my last comment, he started tweeting once he realize there was a disruption of the Senate.
It would seem he tweeted rather quickly,
You don't find it at all funny, that witnesses were not asked when approaching Trump, "asking him to "call off the rioters", and that we were not offered anything verbal in regard to Trump's responses to these requests? We heard one side
Actually, Trump appointee Chad Wolf testified that ---
U.S. Capitol Police initially rejected help from the Department of Homeland Security during the assault on the Capitol on January 6, according to former acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf.
Wolf says that he offered to send DHS law enforcement backup just after 2 p.m. that day after a violent mob of Trump supporters had begun to infiltrate the Capitol. That initial offer was rebuffed by Capitol Police, Wolf told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett.
"Capitol Police turned us down, initially. And they said 'No, we've got it under control,'" Wolf said in an interview for "The Takeout" podcast this week. DHS eventually dispatched about 100 Secret Service personnel to help quell the insurrection. "I'm not sure that there was a lot of clarity that was coming out of Capitol Police at that time."
Wolf claims his department was being updated that there could be violence on Jan 6th. He was aware, and ready to handle the situation.
Enter at 3; 40 -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zooh2ZEpqM
In my view, it appeared that Miller, as well as Wolf, did a good job in a bad situation. When the protesters were becoming aggressive the Capitol police told Wolf they could handle the crowd. It appears they felt they could, and the crowd became very aggressive quickly, and they then asked for help and received help as quickly as the troops could be provided.
The media truely misrepresented what was going on in real-time on that day. In my opinion, the Trump appointees did their jobs in a bad situation, and Trump was doing what he could in regard to reaching his supporters.
Perhaps some feel he could have done more. For me his tweets were clear, and he was asking for peace, and for supporters to respect law enforcement. He could have gone further, as he did in the TV statement. However, one must keep in mind, that these people had a right to protest.
He had no right to take away that right.
They did not have the right to break the law or to stop our Senate from doing their jobs. Hundreds have been arrested for various crimes, and are being dealt with by our courts.
Perhaps we trust our law enforcement agencies to handle who broke laws on that day. Thus far Trump has not been charged with a crime.
I think to condemn him at this point shows true hysteria. This form of hysteria is dangerous and unfair.
I will hold myself above those that are thirsty with hate, and ready to ask for justice to be done for crimes --- when no crime has been levied.
If you think I was patronizing then that was what you read in it but it was not intended. Question is, Why do you think I wanted to patronize you?
I don't.
You and I have a different opinion. That's all. Did I attack you personally? Or did you feel that by talking negatively about Donald Trump, I was attacking you? Because that was not the case.
If you feel that I attacked you when I attack Trump then well it becomes difficult to have a conversation.
I am aware of your opinions of Trump. I am also aware that the committee will provide the DOJ with all the information they have collected. The FBI and DOJ have also been conducting their own investigation into Jan 6th protest.
It will be interesting to see if any charges come out of all the investigations. I will say, I learned very little new from the hearings, most that was presented was information that leaked long ago. Yes, the leaks were confirmed with first and secondhand testimony, but not much new.
Yes, everybody's being so hard on poor old Mr Trump. He only waited several hours after he had known and watched a full-blown riot happening on Capitol before finally sending them home with his love and blessings. What more should we expect of a president? Right?
Murdoch turns on Trump accepting the totality of the evidence from the committee. Recent excerpts from the New York Post and Wall Street Journal:
"His only focus was to find any means — damn the consequences — to block the peaceful transfer of power.
There is no other explanation, just as there is no defense, for his refusal to stop the violence," the newspaper wrote. "It's up to the Justice Department to decide if this is a crime. But as a matter of principle, as a matter of character, Trump has proven himself unworthy to be this country's chief executive again."
----
That is deserving of a high five as our "American Caesar" (Seizure) is running out of time and places to hide.Cred: Merrick Garland has implied that if Trump runs again, which he probably will, it is going to complicate matters if he presses criminal charges against Trump the candidate.
It could be misconstrued as party politics by the GOP So that could be Trump's "get out of jail free card." Garland has already said, he won't take any action until after the mid-terms. The next committee meeting will be in September. I think they are timing it to coincide with Trump's campaign.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 097439002/A serious question ---- Would you not think that if the FBI, DOJ, and Congressional investigations that if there are any chargeable crimes against Trump the DOJ would not have indited Trump?
In my view, common sense tells me all three have unturned many stones, and thus far have no case that a prosecutor could win.
Is all of this just a very transparent political ploy?Yes. It is the latest in a 6 year effort, #4 in the series, to remove a political rival. Next year there will be a new "Investigation".
And they all come to nothing. It is odd so many still hang on to these political investigations. I am afraid you are right --- Trump made a statement over the weekend. He said (and I paraphrase)" If I dropped out all the investigations would go away."
I have followed all the investigations, and I never could see any crimes committed. No evidence but Trump's words, well placed out of context.
I feel that the left media has totally captured a segment of Americans and have totally brainwashed them to care about nothing else but getting Trump. They are able to ignore every other problem we are having due to the Biden administration. Problems that are in my view so serious, from the economy to Biden's poor foreign policies, and more.
It's like nothing else exists but Trump, and getting Trump.
Garland is a p*ssy. It is clear to anyone bothering to look that what Trump has done while in the office of the President is foment and encourage riots and insurrection. I would love to bash this Trump guy in the chops, why is everyone willing to dismiss his proper judgement to accommodate him?
I ask Garland " What are you protecting him for?"It is only clear to those who have hated Trump from the get-go, it is only clear to you, as you speak of assaulting him, once again, it has been a pattern with you...from the get-go.
There's no evidence to send him to the gallows, sorry, it doesn't matter how much you've grown in your hate or want it to happen, that's not how it works.Yes, i know that he has been unsuitable for anything outside of a running a bordello, since him name has become public. He sucks, and that opinion is a result of his behavior going back into the 1990s. He is a slippery serpent, but we will get him properly caged.
No, I don't like the man and want to see justice applied to him as I would anyone else. As for what will happen, we will see?
I can't believe you don't now trust the AG. At some point, this all must stop. I trust Garland will do his job. It would seem if things don't go the way you want them to, you turn even on your own.
The FBI as well as the DOJ are investigating Jan 6th. Can we trust either agenciy in your opinion? Will, you accept their finding?First of all, I think that the investigations should continue until all that were involved in this insidious plot are brought to justice.
Would you trust that Garland will do his job even if he indicts Trump?
My problem with Garland is he is too concerned about Trumps stature and political plans for the future as a reason to withhold dispensing justice regarding crimes against the people of the UnitedStates. For me, NO man is above the law.
Unlike Trump and his Republicans, I will support the findings of the FBI and the DOJ, the question remains, would your side do the same?Sharlee: Trump will probably get away clean, not because he is innocent of criminal charges. It's because he will run for president and hide behind the loop hole of a candidate cannot be charged.
To me that in itself is a crime. Barr did that with Trump as a sitting president cannot be charged and now Garland is going to use that as a precedent with Trump, so that he won't be charged either.
A sitting president cannot be charged and neither can a candidate. He will boast that he has been exonerated of all charges and also play the victim to his people. That's what master con-artist do. There is no justice, if you can afford the best lawyers in town.
He and Bannon have plans to replace all cabinet members with people like Lauren Boebert and Margorie Taylor Green who don't have a clue about government, but they are beholden to Trump and Bannon for giving them purpose to antagonize the other side.Have you read about Schedule F, Mike?
Trump in defiance of the Civil Service Act of 1883 wants to replace the non-partisan cadre of professional Civil Service with those having personal fealty to him and his MAGA crap. Back to future, bringing all the corrupt patronage and graft that was commonplace in 19th century politics front and center. He would remove the protections that is part of being a civil servant and subject them to being fired and replaced, irrespective of job performance. There are roughly 4000 that serve at the pleasure of the President, he is talking about increasing those subject from tens to hundreds of thousands from among the 2.1 million workforce. I am glad that I am retired......Cred: He and Bannon have a plan to destroy democracy as we know it today. They want to tear the whole system of government down and turn it into economic nationalism.
Actually, it's Bannon's idea and Trump is stupid enough to go along with it. Just like people convinced him that he could overturn an election. It was stupidity on his part to believe it. But he is smart enough to know how to not get caught.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartande … 7aeb18306fThanks for the link, Mike
So, this rather slovenly looking fellow, Steve Bannon, Mr. 5 o'clock shadow, is the Joseph Goebbels of a new age? After being condemned to prison he threatens the current system with a mob of 4,000 thugs to take it down "brick by brick"? Let's hope that the dungeon where he is to be consigned is both dark and deep and that many more like him are soon to follow.
The link was a great read from a reputable and respected source.
So, there are sinister forces like Bannon for whom Trump is not more than an icon, a ventriloquist's dummy whose image is used to seduce a gullible mass of people. There are people a lot smarter than he who are actually pulling the strings. Is that the source from where all of this "deep state" nonsense derive ?
-----
"On trade and immigration, Donald Trump and Steve Bannon have attempted to take dislike or resentment of foreigners and craft it into an economic theory. That doesn't change the fact that it is still economic nonsense."
-----
That excerpt from the article was spot on and timeless. How much do conservatives have to see to finally realize who it is that they are actually swooning over?Cred: Here is an article that I wrote four years ago about Bannon and Cambridge Analytica and how that app helped Trump get elected. I never submitted it to HP, but last week they edited it on their own and submitted it to their niche website. They must think the content about Bannon is still relative today.
https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/C … s-it-goingMike
That was most revealing article that you have written and subconsciously a reason why I never involved myself with Facebook, as I did not trust what seemed to be just exchanges among friends. I thought that the platform was "nosy" from the beginning and I, having a suspicious nature, opted to stay away.
Are we all so predictable, that a few shared personality traits can be extrapolated to be used to identify, categorize people to the point that you know what and who they are without looking?
As my political and ideological foes are using these tools, my side better start using them, too. As I can ill afford to continue to bring pen knives to a gunfight.
I see your point. However, as I said many investigations are going on with Trump at the center. Garland, has had and still has plenty of time to charge Trump with a crime if he can identify a crime that was committed.
With all the many years of investigations, no crimes have been found. We have watched these investigations, and this man has been smeared up and down with accusations that have been proven to be untrue.
The left has been relentless, and some of the media has promoted reports they have had to retract. However, the damage was done.
For me, it is extremely simple. Mr Trump, clearly refused to take action as his supporters brutally attacked the capitol and its police officers.
He urged his supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell.” For hours, Mr. Trump refused to call off the mob or reach out to law enforcement or military leaders to try to stop the violence. Instead, he called Republican senators, urging them to stop the certification. This is where his thought process was, he cared about no one, only his delusional thoughts of a "rigged" election.
He even refused to answer the pleas from Congress, from his own party to do what his oath required.
His only communications? Inflammatory tweets about Vice President Pence lack of courage and a link to his speech at the ellipse that kicked off the riot. Not exactly helpful.
In the end, Mr Trump did nothing helpful as the riot unfolded.
He watched TV in his West Wing dining room and called Republican senators and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to try and figure out how to prevent the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.
Mr. Trump is a disgrace. Republicans have far better options to lead the party in 2024. No one should think otherwise, much less support him, ever again. In fact, his character always made him unfit to be president.Sharlee: This is from the Brookings Institute:
An incompetent coup attempt by Trump could still be treason—defined as “the betrayal of one’s own country by attempting to overthrow the government through waging war against the state or materially aiding its enemies.” Many will argue that Trump committed treason, particularly because the definition of treason simply requires the “attempt” not success in overthrowing the government.
However, there are other grounds to prosecute him. He could be prosecuted for “obstructing an official proceeding” in his efforts to block the Electoral College vote.
He could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to defraud the United States” for his various schemes to overturn the election.
He could be prosecuted for “dereliction of duty” for his refusal to intervene to stop the attack on the Capitol.
He could be prosecuted for “inciting an insurrection.” Section 3 of the 14th amendment which was passed after the Civil War to keep Confederates out of office could be used to keep him from ever running for office again.
It provides: “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”I don't think he will be charged with anything. I have not come across any crimes. But who knows. Don't you feel if there was evidence of any of the crimes you listed that he would have been charged?
It would seem it's time to move on from these investigations.
"For me, it is extremely simple. Mr Trump, clearly refused to take action as his supporters brutally attacked the capitol and its police officers."
What would have you wanted him to do over and above what he did?
"He urged his supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell."
He also told them to march peacefully to the Capitol, and clearly was going to walk with them... Does this carry no wait? You seem stuck o one sentence out of thousands of words from the speech he gave on that
day.
I have shared the fact that he wanted to walk with his supporters. No one addresses that fact. Why?
Again his administration did what was appropriate.
Miller orders the troops. In the first hour of the Capitol protest, The Capitol police claimed they did not need any further law enforcement.
WE have not heard how Trump responded to any one of the persons that encouraged him to call off his supporters. It appears he may have listened to them and tweeted out twice to his supporters. I need not repeat the tweets, I have already offered them to you, as well as a link to verify the tweet, and the times he tweeted.
I can agree my party has some good options if Trump does not run. I have shared I feel we need two new candidates to run in 2024.
Raw Footage Reveals Outtakes Of Trump’s Address The Day After Jan. 6
https://youtu.be/6KZhia3ZEeo
SMHI wish this footage would have been offered in full. Outtakes offer little to full context. Nothing from this committee is presented in full. Can't seriously take this seriously without seeing it in full. Actually, this kind of half information can promote false information.
Has anyone found the full video these outtakes were taken from?I believe that's the whole idea Sharlee, "promoting false information". Can't let it die down, must keep everyone worked up and in a tizzy, it's imperative at this juncture!
Sharlee and ab:
For God's sake, he can't bring himself to say the election is over. How much more footage do you need? You and Trumpers are in denial and are trying to create doubt, when the truth smacks you in the face. The footage shows even Trump is in denial.
Where is the false information? It is Trump who is continuing to perpetuate the big lie that the election was stolen. He, Fox, and MAGA have convinced half of this country that the election was stolen.
To me, that in itself is criminal, because it is dividing this country based on a huge lie. When his people are interviewed, they can't even prove the election was stolen. They just know in their hearts it was. That to me is successful brainwashing.You are correct Trump can't say he feels the election is over. Because it appears he truely believes there was widespread fraud. I am not sure how many citizens believe the election was stolen. I do feel Trump has a huge base and many like myself that support his MAGA agenda. It is clear there are two groups in the party -- one that does believe the election was fraudulent, and those that simply liked and still like the MAGA agenda.
There are a small group of Republicans that are right with you they dislike Trump and have from day one. example Cheney. She would need Democrats to vote for her in her Aug primary, and there are just very few Dems in Wyoming. Perhaps she was just ready to retire. Not sure any Republicans that are not on board with the MAGA agenda will be around to talk about their dislike for Trump.
In my view, and I have said this many times --- The country started to split under Obama, and Trump was the answer that many of us appreciated America first. It was ideologies that split America. Trump offered a guy that represented the "other sides" ideologies. It would be impossible for Trump supporters that supported MAGA to go backward, lose their opportunity to have a voice, and actually be heard by someone that they feel has their backs. In my view, Trump has endeared himself to his followers, they can relate fully with him, and they trust him. They respect his accomplishments.
I don't think there have been many presidents that have made such a connection with such a large part of the population as Trump has done.
In regard to the video, it is made up of outtakes. Would it not be fair play to show the entire video, or does full context not matter any longer? Can't you see you are being given bits and pieces of conversations, videos, and even secondhand information that no one is questioning the full context of a situation or a conversation? No really... This is why I can't respect this committee or their investigation. I want full disclosure, not what they want me to hear to paint a picture they hope I will see...
I have not labeled it false information, I have labeled it incomplete information that lacks full context. How can you be so certain of anything without full disclosure of context?Trumpists sure are in lockstep and group think mode when it comes to Ms Cheney. For the simple fact that because she is not an election denier she has been cast out of the circle. I find it absolutely hilarious that she voted with Mr Trump more than Elise Stefanik who replaced her. This is a cult of personality. Followers of Mr Trump have no ideology it's pure idolatry.
Check for yourself below, Miss Cheney's 'Trump score" his 93% while her replacement's is 77%
So what do we assume this means?
Also, Trumpists are strongly advocating for this country to become a Christian nationalist nation. That has become the central ideology. It's divisive and destructive.
The motto of the Trump party? Conform or be cast out.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/co … -stefanik/In my view, Cheney stood her grown and did not back down from what she felt went down on Jan 6 th. However, she must have known it would mean the end of her representing a state that clearly supported Trump in 2020. He won the state with 69.94% of the vote.
I think you are somewhat correct about the part of the Republican party that would like to see America become a Christian nationalist nation. That would be hard to argue. Religion is very important to conservatives.
However, many of us don't like religion mixed with Government.The pilgrims feared settling, until there was a formal recognition of God, that's what the Mayflower Compact was all about. That Compact is what led to the American Covenant with God.
This conservative would prefer that be taught, acknowledged, once again and not hidden away as something shameful and unjustifiable.
Just an acknowledgement would suffice, no one needs to be hit upside the head with it.
When bits and pieces from here and there are spliced together or taken out of context, a false narrative is being presented?
You don't agree pp?
I think they have shot themselves in the foot. I truely feel many Americans on both sides are seeing these continuous investigations for what are political ploys, and realize these investigations are smear tactics.
Yes, I will admit some are caught up in the continuous circle and are in a perpetual tizzy. These investigations do promote one-sided incomplete information.Can I assume that you are in agreement with Mr Trump's inaction on January 6th?
He sat at his dining table and watched the attack on television while his senior-most staff, closest advisors and family members begged him to do what would be expected of any American President.
Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone was asked question after question in the recorded testimony about Mr. Trump's actions: did he call the secretary of defense? The attorney general? The head of Homeland Security? Cipollone answered "no" to each query.
This squares with you?No none of this "squares with me" and hasn't for a long, long time! What I do know for sure is that Donald Trump wasn't welcome in D.C. and the establishment has NEVER stopped working...to end him, one way or the other, that's a fact, whether you care to admit it or not! I know who I didn't trust {before Trump} and I certainly do not now, after everything that has gone down!?! Seriously, who but a devotee could trust what has become a dangerously polluted D.C. establishment? The good ole boys and good ole girls ((R's & D's alike) are right back on their perch, puffed up and crowing and doing nothing once more, but irreparable harm to this country. I don't trust any of them any further than I could physically throw them. Outsiders don't bother, outsiders beware, don't dare get in their way....or you will face their wrath... that's what I know for sure.
Well I'm glad we agree that he should have acted sooner to help the officers at the Capitol.
Well it's really just a simple question do you agree that he acted quickly enough to quell the riot? Or are you perfectly satisfied with his 187 minutes of watching The riot on TV and not making a single call other than to Senators to advance the idea of rejecting slates of electors?
No, I do not blame Trump for what did and didn't happen that day. Clear enough?
Let me be clear, so you are saying you are perfectly happy with his lack of response to the rioters for 187 minutes? As Commander in Chief, He had no reason, as he watched it on tv, to intervene more quickly? No dereliction of duty on Mr Trump's part??
That's incredible. 187 minutes of police officers being beaten and sprayed with chemicals as Mr Trump just sat back and watched. I've got to say there's something awfully sick about that.
I don't know, what does it say about the character or the mental state of someone who is witnessing violence while having complete ability to intervene, yet does nothing?Yes, perfectly happy; we still don't know the half of it, do we?
It's worse than we know, what's truly happening, but stay focused on all of the wrong things, that's most important.
Faye:
Here is the latest about what Garland said when questioned by Lester Holt about charging Trump for Jan. 6. The key words in his whole reply are: criminally responsible for Jan. 6. Who and what will determine if Trump is criminally responsible?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … li=BBnb7KzI know, I know.
The D.C. establishment and ya'll.The House committee has said that there is enough evidence to conclude that Mr. Trump and some of his allies have conspired to commit fraud and obstruction by misleading Americans about the outcome of the 2020 election and attempting to overturn the result.
Garland may pursue a case that Mr.. Trump conspired to defraud the United States through his wide-ranging efforts to overturn the election and to obstruct the congressional proceeding at which the results were to be certified.
He was perpetuating the big lie. To what end? To remain in power and to prevent Mr. Biden from assuming the reins of the presidency, It was fraud on the American people.
Merrick Garland is tough to read though.
"He sat at his dining table and watched the attack on television while his senior-most staff, closest advisors, and family members begged him to do what would be expected of any American President. "
Again Faye I ask how did Trump reply to these requests? Did he sit speechlessly? Is it his nature to sit speechlessly? Or are we not being given how he may have responded? Seem's you may be willing to at this point ignore the fact we are being only given bits and pieces to provide a scenario that they hope the public to believe.
Trump is a man who actually has a problem keeping his words to himself. I am sure he had responses to anyone that spoke with him in that dining room.
Why are you ignoring his tweets and the timeline that showed when he realized the Senate was adjourned, within 20 minutes he put out a tweet that very clearly asked the protesters to be peaceful, and to respect law enforcement. These tweets were the best and only way to reach his supporters. You seem to just not consider the tweets he fired off on that day. And the fact he wanted to walk with the protesters. He would have never condoned violence, or been involved with violence.
Why ignore these facts? You are reading into what information this committee has provided. You have heard one side, the side they wanted you to hear."Again Faye I ask how did Trump reply to these requests? Did he sit speechlessly? Is it his nature to sit speechlessly? Or are we not being given how he may have responded?"
His inaction for 187 minutes makes it clear that he did not respond in any meaningful way. He took no action in that time. He called to No One except Mr Giuliani and his political allies who were going to object to certifying their state's electors.
He was aware of the rioting when he arrived back at the White House and it took hours for him to make a statement imploring them to leave. His only tweets during that time were, to call Mike Pence a coward and secondly to provide a link to his speech.
I wouldn't call either of those helpful in condemning the violence.
He tweeted at 2:38 for rioters to "stay peaceful" no mention of going home. Considering the magnitude of the violence going on, that was a very lame response.
He didn't make the video in the Rose garden until 4:00. Again repeating his lies that the election was "stolen" and urging his supporters to "go home" saying, "we love you, you're very special." A sickening response considering the violence the police officers endured during his period of inaction.
He had staff and family begging him for a stronger response almost immediately when he arrived back at the White House. It's what you would expect from a president. Immediate strong action to stop the violence not just admonishment to be peaceful.It seems useless to repeat myself. You ignore the fact that there was no testimony on how Trump replied to those that spoke with him while he was in that dining room.
There are timelines that could help you understand what was actually done and when it was done.
In my opinion, telling his followers that we love you, and are very special is a very human reply. Could it just be possible that Trump values the people that support him?
I have asked several times what more do you feel he could have done?
Should he have gone to the Capitol? Should he have tweeted more?
Miller sent in the troops as soon as the Capitol place decided they needed them. In the first hour, the capitol police said they needed no
assistance. It was not until the crowd became more aggressive than they asked for troops. Which then were sent.
He believed and still does that the election was fraudulent.
It is so odd that some are willing to believe whatever they are told. Without evidence or knowledge of the entire situation. Yet it seems are unwilling to even question anything in regard to what is not being presented to you.
Faye, you're just repeating media fodder over and over. You, don't address my thoughts or questions.
Do you feel there is no other side? You have heard what others claim to have said or asked Trump on that day, in that dining room. Have you heard or can you quote a word of how Trump responded? I would think this alone would give you cause for concern.I think actions speak louder than words at this point.
What more should have he done? He should have gone on TV immediately to tell the rioters to go home. He should have tweeted immediately for them to go home. All in very strong, plain and direct language.
If you are happy and satisfied with the way he handled the rioters then that is wonderful. For me, sitting on your hands for hours watching violence unfold is not okay with me. He had a duty to stop that riot, to stop those police officers from being injured and he did not act. There was no immediate action. Good god, what would make someone sit there and just watch as that was all happening when you are the most powerful person in the entire country? I'm sorry, it turns my stomach.
And again, all of this testimony is coming from his loyalists. If they have another story to be told and it is being suppressed and not told that I'm sure they could go to their mouthpiece, Fox news, and have their grievances aired. It's been crickets though.
Emails Shed Light on Trump Fake Electors Plan
Previously undisclosed communications among Trump campaign aides and outside advisers provide new insight into their efforts to overturn the election in the weeks leading to Jan. 6.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/26/us/p … ails.html?
https://buffalonews.com/emails-shed-lig … 40253.html
He cited Chesebro's legal analysis that the key to Trump's hopes was not blocking state certification of the electors on Dec. 14 but creating a reason for Pence to block or delay congressional certification of the Electoral College results on Jan. 6.
"His idea is basically that all of us (GA,WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren't legal under federal law - because they're not signed by the Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6th,"Wilenchik wrote in the email on Dec. 8, 2020, to Epshteyn and a half-dozen other people.
"Kind of wild/creative - I'm happy to discuss," Wilenchik continued. "My comment to him was that I guess there's no harm in it, (legally at least) - i.e. we would just be sending in 'fake' electoral votes to Pence so that 'someone' in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the 'fake' votes should be counted."IslandBites: And now we take you behind the scenes where Trump's gremlins are at work doing election tampering. There is no end to Trump's BS. He is a master con-artist who has conned, not only his gremlins, but half of the country into believing the election was stolen from him.
When con-artist are caught, they do two things: They play the victim and attack those who have uncovered their con. Trump does both of those things. He is now the victim by those who say he has been mistreated since he decided to run for president and he attacks his opponents at his rallies while still perpetuating the big lie.
More missing texts, this time from Trump DHS officials, raise new Jan. 6 questions
According to a document obtained by the Project on Government Oversight, text messages for former acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf as well as his deputy, Ken Cuccinelli, could not be located.
The latest development also indicated that Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management Randolph Alles, who had previously led the Secret Service, also had his phone reset, with his messages unaccounted for.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec … questions/IslandBites:
Sounds like Watergate with the missing 18 minutes of recording. Only this could be much worse.Justice Department staffs up team investigating efforts to overturn Trump's loss by adding a top public corruption prosecutor who worked on the Steve Bannon and Roger Stone cases
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … li=BBnb7KzI think there should be many really worried right now. Like we say in spanish: la soga siempre parte por lo mas fino.
IslandBites. "The rope always starts at the finest." Is that an idiom for "They always hang themselves first"?
It looks like the Trumpers have left this forum and have started other forums to distract from Jan. 6. Let's keep this going, so that we will be current when the committee comes back in September.The translation is "the rope always breaks at its thinnest."
Im not hopeful that Trump will be charged, but Im sure some of the low hanging fruit is going to be picked up.O.K. the translator I used didn't work. That makes sense. The AG is between a rock and a hard place. If he prosecutes Trump, he will upset all the Trumpers and there are a lot of them. If he doesn't prosecute him, then he will upset all the anti-Tumpers. It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.
Did Garland not state "no one is above the law". I think he meant it. If He has found Trump has committed a crime he will certainly charge him. If he doesn't he is not doing his job. I trust Garland to do his job.
I don't think we need to read into why he would or wouldn't do his job. Perhaps we can take him at his word.Sharlee:
I did not say he was not going to do his job.
I was being empathetic and putting myself in his place. I believe no matter what decision he makes, he is going to upset one side of the country or the other.And probably lose his job, too, whichever way he goes.
This is a pretty good summary of where things stand with Donald Trump, Merrick Garland, and the Fulton County DA, Fani Willis.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/ … t?icid=rssFrom your link: "...it is indeed possible Mr. Trump could be indicted for some of his actions, say experts."
I have been hearing for some 6 years now that Trump "might" be charged and that he "might" go to jail as a result of democrat manipulations. Personally, having heard a dozen or more of them, I'm tired of these statements. When Trump has been convicted and sentenced come back with the cheers. Until then it's a matter of the shepherd boy and the wolf. Just my opinion and feelings in the witch hunts.I think after 6 years of investigations most Americans can see this is all political. We have seen one Trump investigation after another. Have we seen any true investigations in regard to Biden and his son? Have we seen anyone go after the DNC and Clinton for Russiagate? We have sat by and watched true crimes go down, have we not?
I am so disappointed to see these Trumpinvetigations continue.Sharlee: Have you every heard of the untouchables and the mafia? It took years from them to finally indict some of the leaders. You think just because Trump has been able to get away with it for it for so long, that makes him innocent? He may be untouchable, but I don't believe he is innocent.
Again you are playing the "what if game." What about Biden's son; what about Hillary? Don't forget, the only reason Trump was not indicted was because he was still a sitting president.I actually have not been able to determine any form of a crime he may have committed. I do find it destructive for him to continue to claim the 2020 election was fraudulent. But, I don't feel his skewed view is a crime.
I guess it might be easier for me to ask you, what crime do you feel he committed, that is an arrestable crime?
I don't feel iI am playing a what-if game with Hunter and Joe. I have not accused them of anything. However, I would like an investigation of all the alligations thus far. Hunter has left a pretty bad money trial, 150 bank transactions flagged... And his computer has certainly caused concern.
I don't even like to play what if... This is why I never jump to conclusions in regards to Trump, and all the investigation that thus far has produced no crimes. Yes, as you said it could take more time, but I truely think these investigations seem to all be unnecessary witch hunts.
Trump is not the president now, and he certainly could be indicted for any past accused crime. I see your point Joe can't be indited either, however, if he is compromised by his son's dealings, he could be removed promptly from office if accusations are proven. At best his son can be charged.
I do feel he will be charged with several crimes. You see I do trust our AG will do his job if Hunter has committed any crimes."I actually have not been able to determine any form of a crime he may have committed."
How about obstructing the work of Congress and conspiring to defraud the United States? Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding? State election fraud in Georgia? Seditious conspiracy?Faye: It doesn't matter what you tell Trumpers about why Trump and his cohorts are criminally guilty. They are in denial and have so many excuses. They know the Jan. 6 committee is not done and they know the DOJ investigations are not done, but in their hear of hearts, they just know Trump is innocent and he has been mistreated for six years.
"How about obstructing the work of Congress and conspiring to defraud the United States? Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding? State election fraud in Georgia? Seditious conspiracy?"
What proof of any of this? The FBI, as well as the DOJ, have the full phone call that Trump had with Georgia's secretary of state, Brad Raffensperge. That call if listened to has very clear context. They also have the proof He asked Pence to stop the count, they also have Trump stating his belief there was widespread election fraud, and that he was told by his advisories as well as his own AG there was no widespread fraud that would have worked to change the election.
I think you should be asking yourself why Trump has not been
charged... Do you honestly feel our FBI and DOJ could not find crimes if Trump committed crimes? Do you feel they would not do their jobs and charge him with crimes committed?
All you listed was made public long ago. Myself, I don't feel Trump committed any crime. he certainly did promote his followers to become angry, and dissatisfied with the election results, by sharing his own beliefs. But, is this a crime?
I think it's time to perhaps consider although you may not like Trump and how he was always careless and unfiltered with his words --- he committed no real chargeable crime.
However, as I have said for many years now, I trust the DOJ, and if a crime has been committed they will find it, and they will charge him.
I think it is very unfair to continue as laymen to make the claims Trump has committed crimes. It shows little trust in our justice system and is just not the American way. At least in years past, this would not be the American way. I can see one's point if they seek to diminish Trump's character, and how he conducts himself, but to claim he has committed crimes when none have been charged by law enforcement seems very unfair.
Would there not be time for this if he is accused? What if he is not indited, and we have falsely accused him, is this fair? This kind of behavior breeds anger, hate, and even violence.Sharlee:
I think it is very unfair to continue as laymen to make the claims Trump has committed crimes. It shows little trust in our justice system and is just not the American way. At least in years past, this would not be the American way.
As a layman, you are making the claim that he is innocent. You are showing little trust in our justice system by not waiting until the investigations are completed. That is not the American Way. At least in years past, this would not be the American way.
You do realize what I have just done...right?Sharlee:
"I think it is very unfair to continue as laymen to make the claims Trump has committed crimes. It shows little trust in our justice system and is just not the American way. At least in years past, this would not be the American way."
As a layman, you are making the claim that he is innocent. You are showing little trust in our justice system by not waiting until the investigations are completed. That is not the American Way. At least in years past, this would not be the American way.
You do realize what I have just done...right?Here is what Trump and his Lawyers are doing to fend off any charges placed against him for Jan.6
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … li=BBnb7KzGosh, not sure you understand that article is an opinion article. Very biased, and very much conjecture. It's one person's perception of Trump's words. Eye of the beholder. Very biased piece.
If one reads in between Trump's words ( which were very poorly put, and hyperbolic) they rang very true in much of the case. So yes some would feel incensed to hear some of what he said, and how vividly he said it to the greater extent. the words. His words were very much true. Trump hits hard and goes for the shock value when speaking. This is his character. One can dislike it or like it, it depends on the individual.
I have shared I don't care for this style of speech. However, I decipher the essence of what he says.His attorneys are doing what they are paid for I am sure. Did you exspect less?
In regards to Hutchenson, did I not point out her testimony needed o to be openly clarified? It was not... These attorneys most likely could have grabbed onto her testimony, and hope may hope to prove she lied or even was put up to lying.
Will they use a witch hunt defense? Go after years of alligations made against Trump? Who knows. I am not even sure of who his attornies
are. It is clear over the many years many outlets have had to retract some very damming statements they made about Trump.
I mean here we go, we are discussing an article about defending Trump, and he has not been charged, or does the article even give him what he could be charged with? Don't you see the folly in all of this? Can't you see what the media is doing?
I clearly do...and have realized it long ago. We clearly use a different mindset when it comes to media reports.The onus is still on the secret service to come back and testify. Instead, they've lawyered up. Why? With that development and the fact that their text messages went missing after request for them to preserve the messages. No they need to come back for questioning and they have not done so. They've sort of dropped from the radar haven't they.
Here is the article PP offered that started the conversation that brought up Hutchinson.
"Trump's legal team is prepping a defense strategy in case the DOJ charges him, per Rolling Stone.
Sources told Rolling Stone that Trump was briefed on the possible legal options he could take.
Rolling Stone's sources said Trump's lawyers have also discussed finding scapegoats for him.
Former President Donald Trump's legal team is preparing for the possibility of Trump being criminally charged by the Justice Department, according to Rolling Stone.
The outlet spoke to three people familiar with the matter and looked at written communications regarding the issue.
Per the sources, Trump's lawyers have been looking at possible strategies to help the former president. The sources told Rolling Stone that this process gained steam following former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson's explosive testimony in June before the House January 6 Committee investigating the Capitol riot.
Hutchinson described in detail what she knew of Trump's behavior behind the scenes on January 6, 2021, which included allegations that Trump had tried to choke a Secret Service agent after his request to be brought to the Capitol was denied.
"Members of the Trump legal team are quietly preparing, in the event charges are brought," one of Rolling Stone's sources told the outlet. "It would be career malpractice not to."
Related video: Trump's rogues' gallery of 'bad lawyers' could be key to DOJ probe of Jan. 6"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … li=BBnb7Kz
Actually, I should not have responded to the article, in my view lacks any facts. Please note the only name names in the entire article were Trump and Hutchinson. No attorney's names, or any names of sources that dished up all the unsourced info.
I took a reach at why Trump's lawyers would be interested in Hutchinson's testimony. My very rudiment thought was they were interested in her testimony perhaps being untrue, and that it would point the finger at the Jan 6th committee as using unverified information to skew what happened in that car. Perhaps calling the two secret service men into giving testimony. As they could pull in Cipiloni, he was not asked about Hutchinson's testimony. It would be interesting to hear what he would say. However, the Jan 6th committee was very guarded with what they asked and what they did not ask.
Personally, I don't think anyone in the media knows what Trump's lawyers are up to, or do I careSharlee:
I think it is very unfair to continue as laymen to make the claims Trump has committed crimes. It shows little trust in our justice system and is just not the American way. At least in years past, this would not be the American way.
That may hold true in a court of law. However, in congressional investigations, you can be guilty until proven innocent. Case in point: Hillary Clinton was in the GOP Benghazi investigation for over two years at the cost of 700 million and was held guilty until they finally gave up. That's your great American way.Sharlee:
I think it is very unfair to continue as laymen to make the claims Trump has committed crimes. It shows little trust in our justice system and is just not the American way. At least in years past, this would not be the American way.
That may hold true in a court of law. However, in congressional investigations, you can be guilty until proven innocent. Case in point: Hillary Clinton was in the GOP Benghazi investigation for over two years at the cost of 700 million and was held guilty until they finally gave up. That's your great American way. As they say, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.I can see your point and somewhat agree with your sentiment in regard to the Congressional investigation. Congress has the right to investigate any matter they want to. It is true they have the right to dig deep and uncover any irregularities that could point to crimes. I do not agree they have the motto guilty until found innocent. This is unconstitutional, and steps on one right in regard to if one is accused of a crime they are entitled to a speedy trial to offer the chance to defend one's self.
Congress has the clear authority to hand over anything they feel is a crime to the DOJ. This body has handed over some information that the DOJ requested. So, this is certainly worth noteing. It stands to support my trust in the DOJ. They are doing their job, and if there are crimes they will find them, perhaps with the help of the FBI, and the Jan 6th committee.
"Jan. 6 Panel Will Turn Over Evidence on Fake Electors to the Justice Dept.
The department has asked the House committee investigating the Capitol attack to share transcripts regarding the false electors' scheme, the only topic it has broached with the panel."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/p … tment.html
Yes, it is the American way. However, it certainly does not say much about us as a society that goes along with lengthy investigations looking for crimes, and coming out on the other end empty-handed. Or worse coming out with many crimes, and just ignoring them.
This confirms what I have learned about master con-artist like Trump when they are caught at their con. They attack those who discovered the con and they play victim to those who still believe the con. Trump is doing both of those things right now.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ … li=BBnb7Kz
PP stated --- "As a layman, you are making the claim that he is innocent. You are showing little trust in our justice system by not waiting until the investigations are completed. "
HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD THE TERM -- INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?
Plus, it would seem you did not read or understand my comment.
Where did I say Trump was innocent, I did not. Where did I say I had in any respect lost respect or trust in our system, I did not. The fact is I said over and over I trusted our justice system.
In fact, I shared just the opposite view. You did not pick up the context of my comment in any respect.
Here are a few of my words you overlook, and certainly indicate my views.--
"However, as I have said for many years now, I trust the DOJ, and if a crime has been committed they will find it, and they will charge him."
"However, as I have said for many years now, I trust the DOJ, and if a crime has been committed they will find it, and they will charge him."
"I think it is very unfair to continue as laymen to make the claims Trump has committed crimes. It shows little trust in our justice system and is just not the American way. "
I did not make a determination if Trump had committed a crime or was innocent of a crime.
I was clear and have always been clear. I trust the DOJ, I trust they will charge crimes if need be. Garland has claimed openly " No one is above the law'.
Do you trust the DOJ to do its job?
I have put no time limits on how long it takes them to do their job.
I also said ---And will repeat -- " I think it is very unfair to continue as laymen to make the claims Trump has committed crimes. It shows little trust in our justice system and is just not the American way. At least in years past, this would not be the American way.
I can see one's point if they seek to diminish Trump's character, and how he conducts himself, but to claim he has committed crimes when none have been charged by law enforcement seems very unfair.
Would there not be time for this if he is accused? What if he is not indited, and we have falsely accused him, is this fair? This kind of behavior breeds anger, hate, and even violence."
You have promoted your views in regard to Trump, you feel he is a "con man", and has committed crimes. Please realize this is your view, you have a right to believe anything you please. as does Trump... Will it end up being true? I have no idea...
I have promoted my view very clearly. Let's not accuse a man of crimes if he has not been or until he is charged. Let us trust the DOJ to do its job, no matter how long it may take. I tend to hold on to and appreciate the American way... Innocent until proven guilty.
Sharlee, Biden and his son are not accused of trying upend the constitutionally mandated election process. I consider that far more serious than anything that Biden or the Clinton's have done.
We are talking about magnitude here and that means that Trump and his co-conspirators must be indicted and prosecuted or our Constitution is reduced to just a scrap of paper to be discarded at the whim of any of the rich and powerful. That won't do.No, they are not being accused of upending an election. Last I knew Trump has not been charged with any crime. Do you feel this is because we have very poor law enforcement, poorly trained in their jobs? Could it be Trump did not break any laws? I trust if the FBI, DOJ AG in Georgia, AG of New York, and Congress could have dug up some law that Trump truely broke.
Is it not time to maybe admit this is all a form of hysteria on the part of Trump haters? I do admit the hysteria is well-fed by the media.
How did he conspire with, and what should he be prosecuted for? What crime?
It certainly would not do to scrape our Constitution. Keep in mind freedom of speech is a right; Innocent Until Proven Guilty; right to a speedy and public trial. These rights are enshrined in the Constitution.
Trump has lived under six years of unproven accusations. He has not been charged with anything.What crime would you associate with being an accomplice in replacing actual electors with fake ones? No one would believe that he was not aware that this swap was going on without his knowledge.
Was it beyond the President's authority to direct the Vice President to disregard valid votes from electors on January 6th? Who would have gall to attempt such a thing? Was he so ignorant to believe that the Vice President had the authority to nullify the will of the people as expressed through the Electoral College?
Is it against the law to illegally intimidate the Georgia officials seeking to garner votes that were not there?
Trump has cleverly avoided prosecution with all his money and slick lawyers but he, based on damning accumulation of evidence, is far from innocent. But, hopefully, he won't slip away this time. Who knows how many of his henchmen will drink the hemlock or fall on their swords in his behalf? They may well find that he wasn't worth it.
We both know that the mere association with such activity is totally beyond the pale of average citizen let alone the President of the United States. It is never been done in this nation's history and we cannot afford to have it happen again. Trump, as part of this insidious plot, deserves all the derision that has come his way.
And yes, I hate anyone who threatens our Democracy, as my security lies therein. Whoever that may be. It is a strong word but the perpetrators do well earn it.
But, like you, I wait patiently for Garland's determinations based upon evidence gathered from the committee. Let it not take too long."Was it beyond the President's authority to direct the Vice President to disregard valid votes from electors on January 6th?"
Yes, it certainly was. He was told It was illegal yet he still pressured Mr. Pence to overturn his loss."What crime would you associate with being an accomplice in replacing actual electors with fake ones?"
I would think the committee would have interviewed or will interview anyone that had anything to do with the plan to replace electors. It certainly would be a crime, and any and all that participated or were involved should be prosecuted. Whether Trump was involved has not been proven.
" Was he so ignorant to believe that the Vice President had the authority to nullify the will of the people as expressed through the Electoral College"
It is clear Trump was verbal about his feelings and believed Pence could legally stop the count. However, this is a fact, Trump certainly spoke about this frequently and openly. I would assume if he could be charged for this, he would have been. There is an enormous amount of evidence Trump felt pence could stop the count. Yet no charge?
"Is it against the law to illegally intimidate the Georgia officials seeking to garner votes that were not there?"
I have listened to the complete call 3 times. Trump was calm, and let his beliefs about election fraud known to Georgia's secretary of state, Brad Raffensperge. He questioned him in regard to several forms of fraud he felt occurred. The context shows if listened to in full, Trump believed what he was stating to be true. And in the end, told Brady Raffensperge more or less come up with 11,000 votes out of which he felt were 100,000 fraudulent votes. This call has clear context. However, when only that one sentence is read it sounds very bad. In a court of law, the entire call would be heard, and as I said context is clear. Trump truely believed at the time of that call that fraud had taken place. Did he believe this because he wanted to, was he being told this, and given incident after incident from his advisories, that would need to be brought out in a court of law?
Again he was verbal about what he felt was fraud openly in the media, he still is openly stating the was election fraud. So, how does one determine if someone believes something? And can one be prosecuted
for a belief?
I can fully agree there is a damning accumulation of evidence that he was told by many advisors there was no fraud and that Pence had no legal right to stop the count he was being provided by outsiders with claims of fraud and should have had the common sense not to become involved with those that were pushing this conspiracy, without being able to prove claims. In the end, I feel he did not want to face the truth and grabbed onto what he wanted to be the truth. I am not sure if any of this is a crime.
I do feel if crimes were committed, and can be proven Trump will be charged. However, I would think by now evidence would have surfaced."I can fully agree there is a damning accumulation of evidence that he was told by many advisors there was no fraud and that Pence had no legal right to stop the count he was being provided by outsiders with claims of fraud and should have had the common sense not to become involved with those that were pushing this conspiracy, without being able to prove claims. In the end, I feel he did not want to face the truth and grabbed onto what he wanted to be the truth. I am not sure if any of this is a crime."
If you take a belief and actively break the law from that foundation then it becomes more than just a belief. We, as middle school students, knew better than this. How am I to believe that this "stable genius" has no more cognitive ability than a toddler, being a "victim" of bad advice?
This "bottom line" came from Garland and the justice department regarding indicting Trump.
"The Garland memo tells employees that "we must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department's reputation for fairness, neutrality, and non-partisanship."
So, Trump may well remain untouchable until after the midterms. That is why you have not heard anything yet. If he had shot the Pope would we allow for this delay?
However, Garland's directive apply only at the federal level, he is not off of the hook in Georgia. Trump could not accept that he lost the election. People like him think that if they "believe" in something intently enough, it can become reality. The "truth" for Trump is only what he says it is, contrary factual and refuting information is irrelevant. People like that I find most irritating.BINGO!
"The Garland memo tells employees that "we must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department's reputation for fairness, neutrality, and non-partisanship."
I think this explains a lot. I truely feel, and I have said it over and over if Trump committed a crime that can be prosecuted he will be charged.
However, the DOJ needs to make sure all bases are covered.
it can't look as if they are being biased, they need a true crime, not one with lots of smoke --- that would just look biased would it not? They may well find a crime.
They need a provable crime. I don't think any court could prove what one believes. Do you think I don't find this also infuriating? We need to go forward, it's the very best thing we can do.
As I said we need two wonderful new candidates.Sharlee:
Why do you keep saying this if you believe he is innocent until proven guilty?
"I actually have not been able to determine any form of a crime he may have committed."
That statement causes people to try to prove to you that he has committed crimes. You could have saved all of us and yourself a lot of effort if you would have said he is innocent until proven guilty. But you and other Trumpers have used all kinds of excuses to prove he is not guilty. This is from your previous replies.
It is clear Trump was verbal about his feelings and believed Pence could legally stop the count. However, this is a fact, Trump certainly spoke about this frequently and openly. I would assume if he could be charged for this, he would have been. There is an enormous amount of evidence Trump felt pence could stop the count. Yet no charge?
There is no charge because the investigation is ongoing and you know that.
"Is it against the law to illegally intimidate the Georgia officials seeking to garner votes that were not there?"
I have listened to the complete call 3 times. Trump was calm, and let his beliefs about election fraud known to Georgia's secretary of state, Brad Raffensperge. He questioned him in regard to several forms of fraud he felt occurred. The context shows if listened to in full, Trump believed what he was stating to be true. And in the end, told Brady Raffensperge more or less come up with 11,000 votes out of which he felt were 100,000 fraudulent votes. This call has clear context. However, when only that one sentence is read it sounds very bad. In a court of law, the entire call would be heard, and as I said context is clear. Trump truely believed at the time of that call that fraud had taken place. Did he believe this because he wanted to, was he being told this, and given incident after incident from his advisories, that would need to be brought out in a court of law?
Again he was verbal about what he felt was fraud openly in the media, he still is openly stating the was election fraud. So, how does one determine if someone believes something? And can one be prosecuted for a belief?
I can fully agree there is a damning accumulation of evidence that he was told by many advisors there was no fraud and that Pence had no legal right to stop the count he was being provided by outsiders with claims of fraud and should have had the common sense not to become involved with those that were pushing this conspiracy, without being able to prove claims. In the end, I feel he did not want to face the truth and grabbed onto what he wanted to be the truth. I am not sure if any of this is a crime.
I do feel if crimes were committed, and can be proven Trump will be charged. However, I would think by now evidence would have surfaced.
There is no evidence because the investigation is ongoing and you know that.
The truth is we are all waiting for the outcome of the investigations, including you, before passing judgement as to innocence or guilt. To me your excuses speak volumes that you hope he is not guilty. And that is your prerogative. Mine is I hope they lock him and his cohorts up. I don't think this democratic republic can handle another Jan. 6 by any person."I actually have not been able to determine any form of a crime he may have committed."
This is my view, after searching hard and long, I have not found any crimes. I am not in any respect saying Trump did not commit a crime, just that thus far I have not found one. Not sure how many times I need to explain this to you.
Due to all the quotes you offered, I pointed out another view, devil's advocate.
It is clear if one does not agree with your thoughts it clearly upsets you. This is your problem, keep in mind we are all individuals, and have different views.
It is so very clear we are very far apart in regard to how we come to conclusions.
I feel you step out of line predicting what I feel. To me the context of the words innocent until proven guilty is clear. I feel it is dangerous to condemn someone without some form of evidence.
Not sure you need to tell me you hope Trump is locked up. You have shared this over and over.
I do not buy into "if comes" I like facts. My degrees are in science, I need two and two to always add up to four.
"His Place". he was hired to do a job, an important job. A good AG would not let politics interfere with charging someone with a crime.
Seriously? You look at January 6 and don't weep for what our nation became under him? You've lost your reason.
Jan. 6 text messages wiped from phones of key Trump Pentagon officials
The Defense Department wiped the phones of top departing DOD and Army officials at the end of the Trump administration, deleting any texts from key witnesses to events surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, according to court filings.
The acknowledgment that the phones from the Pentagon officials had been wiped was first revealed in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit American Oversight brought against the Defense Department and the Army. The watchdog group is seeking January 6 records from former acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, former chief of staff Kash Patel, and former Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy, among other prominent Pentagon officials -- having filed initial FOIA requests just a few days after the Capitol attack.
Miller, Patel and McCarthy have all been viewed as crucial witnesses for understanding government's response to the January 6 Capitol assault and former President Donald Trump's reaction to the breach. All three were involved in the Defense Department's response to sending National Guard troops to the US Capitol as the riot was unfolding. There is no suggestion that the officials themselves erased the records.Cipollone subpoenaed by Grand Jury
The move to subpoena Cipollone signals an even more dramatic escalation in the Justice Department's investigation of the Jan. 6 attack than previously known, following appearances by senior members of former Vice President Mike Pence's staff before the grand jury two weeks ago.
Stay tuned
Ex-Trump White House lawyer says Congress should disqualify Trump
Ty Cobb, who was former President Donald Trump's attorney in the White House, believes that Trump won't be able to argue "willful blindness" to defend his actions on January 6 and that Congress has enough evidence to disqualify him from ever holding office.
https://youtu.be/oCSzLCTt3po
Interesting interviewI saw the video. What really sticks out is giving aid and comfort to the insurrectionist could disqualify Trump from ever holding office again.
Aid and Comfort Law and Legal Definition
Aid and comfort refers to help given by someone to a national enemy in such a way that the help amounts to treason.
Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution declares, that adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, shall be treason. Any act that deliberately strengthens or tends to strengthen enemies of United States or that weakens or tends to weaken the power of United States to resist and attack such enemies is characterized as aid and comfort.
Aid and comfort may consist of substantial assistance or the mere attempt to provide some support. Actual help or the success of the enterprise is not relevant.
"Aid and comfort"? Like giving a private tour the day before the riots? That was my congressman before gerrymandering - I mean redistricting. Now it Marjorie Taylor Greene. In GA, the hits just keep on coming.
Today, the committee will try to recreate the former president's state of mind leading up to and during the riot.
Really, no witnesses will be called today. Is this it, is this what this committee came up with --- Trump's "state of mind, his demeanor on the day of the Jan 6th riot? Where are the bombshells, the proof we were promised?
The House Jan. 6 committee will hold a hearing Thursday focusing on former President Donald Trump's state of mind leading up to the January 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol, despite not receiving testimony during the panel's 15-month tenure from the ex-commander-in-chief or top associates linked to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
A committee aide told Fox News Digital that Thursday's hearing would not include live witnesses but rather showcase new evidence from U.S. Secret Service records and testimony as well as video of efforts to respond to the violence in real time.
"We're going to bring a particular focus on the former president's state of mind and his involvement in these events as they unfolded," said the aide. "What you're going to see is a synthesis of some evidence we've already presented with new, never-before-seen information to illustrate Donald Trump's centrality was key."
The committee's members, seven Democrats and two anti-Trump Republicans, will each present a portion of their findings. Some will summarize the 15-month investigation, while others will focus on the alleged ties between Trump staffers and extremist groups that breach the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
While some evidence presented is likely to be new, few believe the committee has anything close to a smoking gun implicating Trump.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jan-6- … top-alliesRegardless of one's perspective, as to the results of the hearings, I think it is safe to describe them as starting off with a bang and ending with a whimper.
GAI agree. The committee offers just a bit of smoke, but not even a bit of what Cheney claimed --- "The House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol has enough evidence to refer former President Donald Trump for criminal charges, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.,"
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … -rcna23778
She repeatedly claimed after speaking with over "1,000" witnesses there was proof to charge Trump.
It is very clear after watching the many unjust investigations, and evidence that at this point involves our FBI and DOJ, yes, there is a long list of Government agents that should be indicted for the crime involved in Russia gate, and burying the Hunter information before 2020
election. The FBI and DOJ have been badly compermised.A whimper, or tails between their legs? I mean where are all the witnesses we were promised? Another waste of Taxpayer money. This was clearly the very definition of a witchhunt.
Anyone in their right mind would, in front of that mob! They aren't interested in justice, or law, or anything but hurting Donald Trump.
Nah, I'm with Mr Trump on this one..."If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?'
GA: I wouldn't call giving Trump a subpoena a whimper. It will give him a chance to defend himself. But I'm sure he will lawyer up and drag it out as long as he can.
I would. The subpoena was the whimper. In the end . . . they 'demand' that he come talk to them.
GA
Repeat after me: "Not a witch hunt. Not a witch hunt. Not a witch hunt". Now, wait while I get out my crystal ball and we will read his mind two years ago. Remember: "Not a witch hunt!"
Hey, there are still Americans (like you and me) that have fought the good fight to stay oriented to not what we are told to think, but what facts were smack in front of our faces.
Hope you are following the Durham trail. It is just unbelievable how far the FBI went to try to drown Trump.
Since there isn't "anything close to a smoking gun", the committee is forced to create a smokescreen. Keeping us focused on that which has already been beaten to death, keeps us in the dark as to the dire straits we are in, with one Joe Biden, at the helm!!
Amen!
I agree. The committee offers just a bit of smoke, but not even a bit of what Cheney claimed --- "The House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol has enough evidence to refer former President Donald Trump for criminal charges, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.,"
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … -rcna23778
She repeatedly claimed after speaking with over "1,000" witnesses there was proof to charge Trump.
It is very clear after watching the many unjust investigations, and evidence that at this point involves our FBI and DOJ, yes, there is a long list of Government agents that should be indicted for the crime involved in Russia gate, and burying the Hunter information before 2020
election. The FBI and DOJ have been badly compromised.
Jan. 6 committee subpoenas Trump to appear before the panel
Trump has previously refused to voluntarily cooperate with the panelWould you cooperate...seriously? This man has been the mark in a never-ending witch hunt, beginning the day he announced his candidacy. No matter what he says or does or the FACT that there's never anything behind the multiple accusations. In FACT, we have learned how he was set up, we have seen liar after liar exposed, we have seen case after case dismissed. Those out to get him are obsessed. If I were him, I'd go sit in jail cell before I'd go before the witch-hunters!
This hearing, more so than the others, really highlighted just how delusional Mr Trump was and continues to be. Just over and over he kept repeating falsehoods. Pretty damning evidence that he was either consciously lying to the public or suffering from some sort of mental illness.
Faye: The sad part is he and Fox News have convinced millions of people the election was stolen from him, when in fact he tried to steal the election from Biden.
This subpoena will give him a chance to defend himself. But I'm sure they will have to drag him in just like they did with Steve Bannon.A chance to defend himself? Against a crazed mob that will never quit until he's in jail? How do you "defend" yourself from a total lack of evidence coupled with a complete refusal to stop the persecution?
Answer: you don't.Wilderness: Did you even watch this last hearing?
Nope. That crazed witch hunt holds nothing for me. While I understand punishing the rioters at the Capitol, it is just as important to punish rioters all over the country. But that isn't being done and won't be done, and we all understand why.
Wilderness: Then you are not even qualified to comment in my book. Your comment holds no credibility with me. Without Trump, there would have been no insurrection and no rioters. But without you watching the hearings you will never understand that.
First, there was no "insurrection", which you know very well despite continued exaggerations; that you do exaggerate that brings up the next point.
Second, I'm as qualified to give an opinion on the actions of Congress as you are, and consider the Democrats of today to be as wrapped up in hurting a past President as you appear to be. Worthless in any action or consideration even remotely concerning Trump, in other words.Dont waste your time with people willfully ignorant about the matter. They didnt watch videos of Jan 6, didnt watch REPUBLICANS testimony, but keep minimizing what happened and defending Trump WH. Then they say they're not republicans and are not Trumpers.
SMHLOL I was "dismissed" many months ago when I did not hop on the "Get Trump any way possible" bandwagon. I dare say you are in the same boat.
They came up with nothing, the DOJ won't touch this... There is no there there. This comment was nothing but a group hoping to find even a thread of actual evidence that could be admissible in a court of law... They failed, they look ridiculous, and actually wasted taxpayer's money. One very good thing came out of this, Cheney got the boot. And they actually gave Trump republicans a talking point --- another witch hunt to add to the list. Could this bunch look any more foolish?
With all that is going on in the country, some are kept pacified with this crap. Just really denotes how easily some can be misdirected. Sad but just so true.Some Americans won't easily accept lying and a liar. And now we know that Mr Trump was actually lying to the American people. The committee also clearly showed that the plans to perpetuate the stolen election hoax began months before.
Funny you are going with lying and a liar, your party {which you don't claim, but defend with all of your being} are the biggest liars on planet earth!
It truely baffles me how some can totally ignore all the corruption and lies that the Democrats have perpetrated in the last 6 years, all due to hating one man. A man that has clearly now shown our DOJ, FBI, and CIA are corrupt agencies, that have been taken over by a corrupt non-democratic party. It's been one witch hunt after another. I can no longer stomach this kind of foolishness.
Agreed Sharlee it really is mind -blowing!
I had just heard the report about Mayorkas being briefed that there wasn't any abuse taking place by the border agents, that it was in fact, a non-story...from the people that were actually there!!!
He left them, called a press conference and went before the world calling these agents names, belittling them, insulting them, with his holier than thou, this will not be tolerated, tone.... (Insert angry face)
My husband walked into my office and asks, did you hear how much the F.B.I. paid {or was willing to pay} to make the bogus Russia collusion story, be true!?
Wow, guess we know why they try so hard, this is all as slimy and scummy as it comes!!! (insert another angry face)"I had just heard the report about Mijorkas being briefed that there wasn't any abuse taking place by the border agents, that it was in fact, a non-story...from the people that were actually there!!!"
They are corrupt and will do anything to feed into their sick narrative to try to call others racist. This Mijorkas needs to be fired or impeached. He lost track of 20,000 unaccompanied children, that are most likely in back rooms being forced to prostitute. Drugs are pouring in, we now have a large working drug cartel in the US, and human trafficking business. In my view, those that knowingly support this administration are as guilty as those that are promoting open borders.
I mean, all the corruption is there to clearly see at this point, and sorry to say anyone that defends this president and his administration is not people I will choose to converse with. So, glad you are here to share your thoughts.
The thread is about the January 6th committee though??
The conman has really brainwashed so many on here that they trust him over the DOJ, FBI and CIA. Then the projection to claim everyone else are the ones with the majority of the lies. It's really just sad.
Yes, I posted the thread to be all about the Jan 6th hearings. The hearings are over. And as you can see I was responding to a friend on her personal thought.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/355 … ost4267505"DOJ, FBI, and CIA are corrupt agencies"
The evidence is overwhelming. Nixon tried to use federal agencies against his political rivals, biden has done it.
There are the DOJ getting involved with school board meetings, which is bizarre. The FBI going to prolife people and arresting them. A prolife man was arrested in front of his 11 children on a charge that had been dismissed. There are much more. The CIA...well, there is a lot there.
Merrick B. Garland, and Christopher Wray need to be impeached by the next Congress. Alejandro Mayorkas needs to also be impeached for his handling of the boarder. Lots to do for the next Congress.Well, they are the ones handling the Hunter Biden investigation also... Will your opinions change of their credibility if they come to a conclusion that sits well with you? I suppose if they are currently so compromised then anything that they are currently investigating is also tainted?
And there is this ---
Whistleblowers’ Reports Reveal Double Standard In Pursuit Of Politically Charged Investigations By Senior FBI, DOJ Officials
Tampering spanned multiple election cycles, infected investigative activity involving Hunter Biden
WASHINGTON – Multiple FBI whistleblowers, including those in senior positions, are raising the alarm about tampering by senior FBI and Justice Department officials in politically sensitive investigations ranging from election and campaign finance probes across multiple election cycles to investigative activity involving derogatory information on Hunter Biden’s financial and foreign business activities. The legally protected disclosures to Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) suggest a political double standard has influenced and infected decisions in matters of paramount public interest.
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/ne … -officials
Need I mention John Durhams finding? I do realize many don't look at all facts.And you don't think these double standards have worked to the advantage of both parties?
"A week after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, a person warned a senior FBI official that a “sizable percentage of the employee population” of the agency “felt sympathetic to the group that stormed the Capitol,” according to an email made public Thursday. The senders name is redacted. The existence of major elements within key federal law enforcement agencies that are sympathetic to the extreme right ... could be a fatal flaw in our system come future political upheavals.”"
It seems though like many will change their tune over the perceived corruption of these agencies if they come down with an indictment of Hunter biden, that's all that really matters. The actual legitimacy of these agencies over time and varying political parties really isn't the concern here.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho … -rcna52257John Durham's finding that got laughed out of court and was an embarrassment to the DOJ? That one? Weird that you cling to something that failed so badly in what it claimed to have found.
Missed your comment. I will agree to disagree on the one. I think Durham is just getting started.
I think Durham is as slow as a sloth, but as clever as a fox.
I believe the grand jury just expired though. 3 years of investigation and nothing substantial found
Yes, he most likely now will be composing a report on his investigation. He now has collected a chain of three prosecutions due to his investigation - D Danchenko, (which is on trial now) the acquitted Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, and a low-level FBI lawyer named Kevin Clinesmith. He has collected sworn court evidence that can be used down the road. I am sure the Republicans will continue the investigation once they take the House. And with a new Republican president and DOJ, I am sure more will be indicted for the Russia witchhunt. Yes, all is my opinion, but this is what I pray comes to fruition.
I think the Durham report will be canned by this DOJ. But will live again.
You realize Durham is being retired after this last trial. And the judge removed all the non-essential claims that he tried to make that had no bearing to the current case.
And it's never good when Durham has to try and undermine his own witnesses that provide testimony favorable to the defendant.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/1 … e-00061938
You're deflecting from the issue that is at hand in terms of the committee. Mr Trump knew and admitted to many people that he understood he lost the election but continued to lie in public and with his efforts to remain in office.
And I'd much rather defend fact and Truth than a political party. Don't care which party it is. Being beholden to a party is akin to cultism in my book. I can find many points of agreement with either party but that doesn't mean I want to buy their whole agenda hook line and sinker.
So now that the committee has clearly shown us that Mr Trump understood that he lost the election, can the Trumpist midterm candidates stop echoing the big lie??
I wonder how the election deniers felt when they listened to Bannon or Stone laughing about Trump plans to manipulate them. I guess when you realize you are a moron that follows a con man, all you have left to do is
STEVE BANNON:
“What Trump is going to do is declare victory…, but that doesn’t mean he is the winner. He’s just going to say he is the winner,” Bannon said in an Oct. 31, 2020
The Democrats — more of our people vote early that count. Theirs vote in mail, and so they're going to have a natural disadvantage and Trump's going to take advantage of it. That's our strategy.
He's gonna declare himself a winner. So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it's going to be a firestorm. Also — also if Trump is — if Trump is losing by 10:00 or 11:00 at night, it's going to be even crazier, you know, because he's gonna sit right there and say they stole it.
I'm directing the Attorney General to shut down all ballot places in all 50 states. It's going to be no, he's not going out easier. If Biden is winning, Trump is going to do some crazy shit.
ROGER STONE:
I suspect it'll be — I really do suspect it will still be up in the air. When that happens, the key thing to do is to claim victory. Possession is 9/10 of the law.
No, we won. Fuck you. Sorry. Over. We won. You're wrong. Fuck you.
I said, fuck the voting, let's get right to the violence.Durham, predictably, fails yet again to convince a jury of his delusions.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/analyst-acqu … 40094.htmlVal: So much for the Durham investigation. I wonder how much that cost tax payers over a three year period?
Judge orders more Eastman emails released, citing fraud pushed by Trump
A California-based federal judge ordered a legal adviser to President Trump to turn over records tied to Jan. 6 to the House committee investigating the attack, finding the communications were not protected since they likely were exchanged in furtherance of a crime.
Included in the emails is evidence that Trump pushed ahead in court with voter fraud claims he knew were inaccurate — details certain to be of interest to the House select committee.
Judge David Carter ordered John Eastman, who crafted two memos for the Trump campaign detailing methods to resist certifying President Biden’s victory, to turn over some 33 documents to the House panel.
That includes eight documents the judge said related to crimes of obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Carter previously found in March that it was more likely than not that Trump committed crimes as part of his plot to stay in power.
One email from Eastman notes Trump was told that a December suit filed in Georgia claiming that unregistered voters and dead people voted in the election there may not have accurate numbers – relaying that concern before the campaign escalated the matter to a federal court.
“Although the President signed a verification for [the state court filing] back on Dec. 1, he has since been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate. For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate,” Eastman said.
“President Trump and his attorneys ultimately filed the complaint with the same inaccurate numbers without rectifying, clarifying, or otherwise changing them,” Carter wrote. “President Trump, moreover, signed a verification swearing under oath that the incorporated, inaccurate numbers ‘are true and correct’ or ‘believed to be true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.’”
“The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public. The Court finds that these emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.”
The ruling likewise notes that four emails from Eastman and other attorneys “suggest that — irrespective of the merits — the primary goal of filing is to delay or otherwise disrupt the January 6 vote.”
One such email claimed that having litigation before the Supreme Court could aid the campaign’s efforts in Georgia.
“This email, read in context with other documents in this review, make clear that President Trump filed certain lawsuits not to obtain legal relief, but to disrupt or delay the January 6 congressional proceedings through the courts,” Carter wrote.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec … -by-trump/
Related Discussions
- 24
Why are democrats historically unpopular? They did it to themselves.
by Readmikenow 3 months ago
In Gallup’s most recent poll, only 38 percent of Americans voiced a favorable view of the Democrats, the party’s worst showing in at least three decades. Quinnipiac University, meanwhile, pegs approval of congressional Democrats at just 21 percent, an all-time low. And some of this disdain is...
- 50
President Donald Trump's poll number remain steady.
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
Even after being indicted, President Donald Trump's poll numbers remain solid. Could be a result of people losing faith in the legal institutions such as the FBI an DOJ? Is it possible the blatant use of them against a political opponent is obvious to more and more people?"Donald...
- 108
President Donald Trump Again?
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 11 months ago
Despite all the socio-political questions hanging about, how would you picture former president Donald Trump, as a potential candidate in the 2024 piesidentialrace? Can he make it again? Will the GOP give him a second chance?
- 126
Impeachment Dem's Going For A Doubleheader...
by Sharlee 4 years ago
So far it is obvious President Donald Trump is extremely unlikely to resign in the final few days of his presidency. And VP Pence is equally unlikely to force him out by invoking the 25th amendment of the Constitution, despite calls from the Democrats to do so.So, in the wake of last week’s...
- 98
Are You Afraid of Flying....To Senate Hearings
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
Christine Blasey Ford is currently being questioned in a Senate Hearing and her narrative is showing some holes, especially the "fear of flying" portion. For those of you just tuning in, she had asked for the hearing to be delayed because she was afraid of flying. What's been...
- 89
Veterans: losers and suckers?
by IslandBites 4 years ago
Trump and the WH said is not true. Nevertheless, many, including veterans and even GOP members have condemned him.Some said that they believe it to be true because there is precedent, like the multiples times he attacked John McCain.Today, Jennifer Griffin, a Fox News reporter, doubled down on her...