Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

226
Some thoughts on Trump's order to remove the mags.

1 - It needs to be corroborated by a couple more people, but we all know its true (and the video of course bears witness)
2 - It really lays to rest the bullshit about the crowd being ANTIFA doesn't it? Trump would shit himself if he was standing in front of 8,000 armed ANTIFA members
3 - Its just one more piece of the pie that shows intent
4 - What would have happened if he went down there with them? CLEARLY Trump had WAY more crazy in mind for Jan 6.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

227
CDFingers wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:40 pm
FrontSight wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:15 pm I'm actually saddened to see the media key in on Trump's tantrums, that shit is fucking immaterial (with one minor exception).

--snrp--

That is so far down on the list of things that ought to disturb you about yesterday's testimony, and its a MASSIVE mistake to key in on what is essentially not out of the realm of "normal" for a president when we have SO MUCH truly law breaking and disturbing coup behavior that they should be talking about.
I think the key takeaway is that he wanted his armed supporters to be able to go armed into the Capitol because they weren't going to hurt HIM. He knew they were his flying monkeys. With guns.

CDFingers
E X A C T L Y ! !
THAT is the story, not some stupid temper tantrum...but then again, do you expect anything less from our sensationalistic media who is in the business of selling outrage rather than reporting the news.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

229
I don’t see it that way.

Cassidy Hutchinson was asked about what she herself heard and saw people say and do. All of her answers were her testimony on actions that either occurred in front of her eyes or was relayed by a witness about what happened to a third-party with that individual in the room corroborating (by not denying the story).

About the only “heresay” was the story the service staff gave explaining the food tantrum in the President’s Dining Room (next to the Oval Office). She did not witness that tantrum but saw (and helped clean up the ketchup on the walls) the results of what the staff was relaying to her. Congressional Commission decided to use that story because circumstances show it was perfectly credible: NOBODY ELSE could have reasonably thrown food in a dining room reserved for the President of the United States, with 45 himself sitting next door in the Oval Office!

These hearings with witnesses and recorded depositions are not a criminal trials (yet) but you can be sure have been vetted by attorneys all the same. Anyone can choose to believe or not believe any testimony based on credibility of the individual because this is the format of the presentation and we are the judges. As for me all the witnesses seem very credible and self-sacrificing of their own political futures given the current temperature of the Republican Party (almost all witnessed giving testimony were Republican career politicians or bureaucrats). Nobody who gave testimony did so thinking they were going to get their photo on a cereal box as a result of this. It lends to their credibility for telling the truth, Ms. Hutchinson included. No need to discredit her testimony just because an opposing attorney was not present to cross-examine her as witness in an actual criminal trial (yet).

What is happening now is no different in format and substance than the Watergate Investigation Hearings. There, also, the wheels of justice were turning in the background and criminal indictments were flying as a result of testimony and evidence being unearthed by the Congressional Commission and presented real-time to the American public.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

230
Bisbee wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:08 pm I don’t see it that way.

Cassidy Hutchinson was asked about what she herself heard and saw people say and do. All of her answers were her testimony on actions that either occurred in front of her eyes or was relayed by a witness about what happened to a third-party with that individual in the room corroborating (by not denying the story).

About the only “heresay” was the story the service staff gave explaining the food tantrum in the President’s Dining Room (next to the Oval Office). She did not witness that tantrum but saw (and helped clean up the ketchup on the walls) the results of what the staff was relaying to her. Congressional Commission decided to use that story because circumstances show it was perfectly credible: NOBODY ELSE could have reasonably thrown food in a dining room reserved for the President of the United States, with 45 himself sitting next door in the Oval Office!

These hearings with witnesses and recorded depositions are not a criminal trials (yet) but you can be sure have been vetted by attorneys just the same. Anyone can choose to believe it not believe any testimony based on credibility of the individual. As for me they all seem very credible and self-sacrificing of their own political futures given the current temperature of the Republican Party (almost all witnessed giving testimony were Republican career politicians or bureaucrats). Nobody who gave testimony did so thinking they were going to get their photo on a cereal box as a result of this. It lends to their credibility for telling the truth, Ms. Hutchinson included. No need to discredit her testimony just because an opposing attorney was not present to cross-examine her as witness in an actual criminal trial (yet).

What is happening now is no different in format and substance than the Watergate Investigation Hearings. There, also, the wheels of justice were turning in the background and criminal indictments were flying as a result of testimony and evidence being unearthed by the Congressional Commission and presented real-time to the American public.
I agree, what she testified to in the hearing wouldn't be heresy. I remember Watergate, many of our members are to young to have watched the proceedings or read about them in their newspapers. She may be the first of many, we will hopefully hear from that will play the roll of John Dean. Of course that will not satisfy some that are MAGAlites here on the LGC board.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

231
Does anybody think this WON'T result in indictments..to not only TOT but some of his underlings?
In no particular order
-Eastman/Pence BS
-personally pressuring state reps to ignore election results
-trying to pack the DOJ, and "leave it up to me and the gop congress-critters"..
-personal involvement with fake electors
-and of course, the insurrection itself...

No doubt in MY mind that this will result in charges...what's the ? is how the lunatic fringe will react...

Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

235
Trump, Clark, and Meadows will all face charges. I can see this going a couple ways.

Assuming DeSantis is our next president, Trump will absolutely receive a pardon. But DeSantis really isn't a full-on Trumpie, and its in his best interest to reign in Trumpism to at least to some degree. Therefore, he may just let Clark and Meadows cool off in jail for a year or two before commuting their sentence. The smart move for DeSantis is just that. Pardon Trump, and let the other two go to jail. That way he appears to be the savior of Trump and the party, but still puts some teeth to pulling the shit they pulled. At this point, I see this as the best case scenario. I really don't think we can hope for more, and I see this scenario as only 50% likely at best.

Of course the other way it could go is... DeSantis just pardons them all; at which point, that is he stake in the heart of the republic.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

236
Newsom will eat DeSantis on live TV and shit out his bones, pull out a doggiedoo bag, the put that crap in the trash can. Not that I would vote for him. I'm used to losing presidentially, but I'm secure that my cat loves me.

CDFingers
Image
Image
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines
Come to Daddy on an inside straight: I got no chance of losin' this time

Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

240
It's a long way to the 2024 presidential primaries, but Trump is out front right now. Unless Trump has a stroke or other major health problem, walks off a cliff or ends up in jail he'll likely be the Republican nominee.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... html#polls

Biden still comes out tops among Democrats in separate heats. There is one other candidate who might be more viable than any of the others, Roy Cooper the governor of North Carolina.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... /national/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

241
We don't yet have a thread for next year's voting rights evisceration, but in this thread we have seen discussion of Judge Luttig and his very sharp mind. In this twitter thread, he argues that it would offend "the fundamental structural command of the Tenth Amendment" as well as the "essential design of the Constitution" to rule the way we fear they will rule.

https://twitter.com/judgeluttig/status/ ... 9312780289

So, of course the Repubs will try. There may be blood, god forbid.

13 circuits; 13 Justices. That's the ticket. Representative.

CDFingers
Image
Image
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines
Come to Daddy on an inside straight: I got no chance of losin' this time

Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

243
TrueTexan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:28 pm
Bisbee wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:08 pm I don’t see it that way.

Cassidy Hutchinson was asked about what she herself heard and saw people say and do. All of her answers were her testimony on actions that either occurred in front of her eyes or was relayed by a witness about what happened to a third-party with that individual in the room corroborating (by not denying the story).

About the only “heresay” was the story the service staff gave explaining the food tantrum in the President’s Dining Room (next to the Oval Office). She did not witness that tantrum but saw (and helped clean up the ketchup on the walls) the results of what the staff was relaying to her. Congressional Commission decided to use that story because circumstances show it was perfectly credible: NOBODY ELSE could have reasonably thrown food in a dining room reserved for the President of the United States, with 45 himself sitting next door in the Oval Office!

These hearings with witnesses and recorded depositions are not a criminal trials (yet) but you can be sure have been vetted by attorneys just the same. Anyone can choose to believe it not believe any testimony based on credibility of the individual. As for me they all seem very credible and self-sacrificing of their own political futures given the current temperature of the Republican Party (almost all witnessed giving testimony were Republican career politicians or bureaucrats). Nobody who gave testimony did so thinking they were going to get their photo on a cereal box as a result of this. It lends to their credibility for telling the truth, Ms. Hutchinson included. No need to discredit her testimony just because an opposing attorney was not present to cross-examine her as witness in an actual criminal trial (yet).

What is happening now is no different in format and substance than the Watergate Investigation Hearings. There, also, the wheels of justice were turning in the background and criminal indictments were flying as a result of testimony and evidence being unearthed by the Congressional Commission and presented real-time to the American public.
I agree, what she testified to in the hearing wouldn't be heresy. I remember Watergate, many of our members are to young to have watched the proceedings or read about them in their newspapers. She may be the first of many, we will hopefully hear from that will play the roll of John Dean. Of course that will not satisfy some that are MAGAlites here on the LGC board.
Mind explaining the comment in bold.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

245
As if the Supreme Court wasn’t enough to light a fire now?
Last edited by Bisbee on Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

246
No doubt that the DNC would relish a rematch in 2024, Trump is the perfect foil, it worked for them in 2018 and 2020. Voters are fickle so they'll have to remind them of all of Trump's sins while in office which is one of the reasons for the Jan 6 hearings. For Republicans the economy and crime are the big issues and some are working to get transgendered as a wedge issue.

Potential Republican candidates in 2024 are divided over whether to push for a total ban on abortion nationwide as championed by Pence the evangelical or leave it with the states. It's highly unlikely Republicans could get a law banning it through the US Senate, like Democrats can't get a law legalizing it through the Senate. Dobbs (overturned Roe) and Bruen will still be wedge issues for Democrats in 2024.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: House J6 Insurrection Hearings thread

249
Patrick Cotter, a former federal prosecutor in Chicago who has practiced criminal law for 40 years, said the "1776 Returns" document is a bombshell for prosecutors, assuming it can be verified.

"The authors are clearly planning multiple, multiple felonies; they're saying how they're going to do it, and it's all in service, apparently, to a broader crime, which is the sedition." Cotter said. "The purpose of the of the whole plan is, as they put it, 'No Trump, No America.' Either Trump will be given the presidency, election be damned, or they will shut down America and they will take violent action."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 640565001/

Well, now.

CDFingers
Image
Image
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines
Come to Daddy on an inside straight: I got no chance of losin' this time

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 4 guests

cron