The Jan 6 Commission hearings

ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
Liz has woken up and doing the right thing. I don't think she is worried about her future. It's the rest of the Republicans in our country that believe in LIES, dictatorship, and White Supremist type groups. Self-righteous people......I call them
Dunno why... makes me think of this:
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Liz Cheney's prior voting record in Congress is irrelevant. What is relevant is Trump's attempt to overthrow the change of power, as per the US Constitution. Liz Cheney, despite her family name and her political party, is one of the two GOP reps in Congress who stood up to say Trump is wrong. All the others were either criminally involved with Trump, outright hypocrites, too frightened to speak up, or were among the sorry QAnon believers who were all off their meds.

Trump didn't try this alone. He tried to involve GOP state officials in at least Arizona and Georgia. When those officials refused, he directly threatened them and their families. Trump also tried to involve appointed GOP officials at the top of the US Dept. of Justice. When those efforts also failed, similar threats followed.

Unlike Liz Cheney, there were a number of US Congressmen who also assisted Trump's attempted coup. At least five of them, possibly six, went so far as asking Trump's White House for pre-emptive pardons, to protect them from prosecution. Yesterday, multiple witnesses, including lawyers and White House staff, testified that these 5, asked for pardons:
  • Scott Perry (Pennsylvania)
  • Mo Brooks (Alabama)
  • Matt Gaetz (Florida)
  • Louie Gohmert (Texas)
  • Andy Biggs (Arizona)

    The possible 6th is:
  • Marjorie Taylor Greene (Georgia)
One White House staffer testified that she had been told about Greene asking for a pardon, but that she hadn't witnessed that firsthand.

They clearly violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution. They may very well be prosecuted for attempting to commit sedition, and lying to investigators to hide their criminal involvement.
 
Last edited:
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
Liz Cheney's prior voting record in Congress is irrelevant. What is relevant is Trump's attempt to overthrow the change of power, as per the US Constitution. Liz Cheney, despite her family name and her political party, is one of the two GOP reps in Congress who stood up to say Trump is wrong. All the others were either criminally involved with Trump, outright hypocrites, too frightened to speak up, or were among the sorry QAnon believers who were all off their meds.

Trump didn't try this alone. He tried to involve GOP state officials in at least Arizona and Georgia. When those officials refused, he directly threatened them and their families. Trump also tried to involve appointed GOP officials at the top of the US Dept. of Justice. When those efforts also failed, similar threats followed.

Unlike Liz Chaney, there were a number of US Congressmen who also assisted Trump's attempted coup. At least five of them, possibly six, went so far as asking Trump's White House for pre-emptive pardons, to prevent their prosecution for sedition. Yesterday, multiple witnesses, including lawyers and White House staff, testified that these 5, asked for pardons:
  • Scott Perry (Pennsylvania)
  • Mo Brooks (Alabama)
  • Matt Gaetz (Florida)
  • Louie Gohmert (Texas)
  • Andy Biggs (Arizona)

    The possible 6th is:
  • Marjorie Taylor Greene (Georgia)
One White House staffer testified that she had been told about Greene asking for a pardon, but that she didn't know about that firsthand.

They clearly violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution. They may very well be prosecuted for attempting to commit sedition, and lying to investigators to hide their criminal involvement.
All I'm pointing out is that her standing up for what is right, now, does not make her a good person suddenly.
Don't get me wrong... it is an abject shame that so many in the republican party seem to only care about power rather than fair governance for all. For her and the few others that have taken a stand against the shenanigans of Trump, I appreciate. I really do.
It does not earn her (or them) a free pass for being a part of the problem leading up to where we are today.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Maybe at a higher level? :D
Lower, I would say.

The MAGA is a misspelling of MASA: Make America Stupid Again.

MASA has a long history starting a long time before Trumps absolute ownership of GOP.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Spartan
Lower, I would say.

The MAGA is a misspelling of MASA: Make America Stupid Again.

MASA has a long history starting a long time before Trumps absolute ownership of GOP.
Boy that sounds bad if you say it out loud. MASA
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
All I'm pointing out is that her standing up for what is right, now, does not make her a good person suddenly.
Still her recent behavior is preferable to that of … Jim Jordan or Ted Cruz.

I never liked Barry Goldwater either. But the night before Nixon resigned in 1974, Goldwater (a stalwart conservative) warned him to expect no more than 4 senators (out of the needed 34) to vote against his removal from office. Before Nixon could respond, Goldwater added that his own vote would not be among those 4. Nixon had no choice other than run for the exit. After that, I could at least respect Goldwater for something.
Don't get me wrong... it is an abject shame that so many in the republican party seem to only care about power rather than fair governance for all. For her and the few others that have taken a stand against the shenanigans of Trump, I appreciate. I really do. It does not earn her (or them) a free pass for being a part of the problem leading up to where we are today.
I agree with you, but I guess I'm more used to behavior like this from politicians.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Cassidy Hutchinson, a 25-year-old woman who was then a top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, testified today at the Jan 6 Commission. What she revealed was explosive. And that would be an understatement. WOW … simply WOW!!
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108301900/witness-recalls-trump-lunging-for-the-wheel-when-told-he-couldnt-go-to-the-capit

I didn't listen to today's hearing, I only recently read about it. There's quite a lot to digest, and we'll see plenty of that today and tomorrow. What stands out in my view are these:
  • On Jan. 6, Trump knew that the crowd gathering at the Ellipse was armed, before he spoke to them, inciting their attack on the Capitol.
  • Pat Cipollone, White House legal council, urged Trump not to go with the crowd, saying that his presence would make him legally responsible for felony crimes, including obstructing a function of Congress. Sedition as well. (Apparently Cipollone also knew, in advance, that the crowd going to the Capitol were not the usual tourists.)
  • When Trump's Secret Service detail refused to drive him to the Capitol, he attacked the limo driver, grabbing the steering wheel, and then putting his hands (both?) around the driver's neck.
 
Last edited:
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
Random question for consideration:
If Trump knew the gathering crowd was armed and still aimed them at the Capitol, regardless of whether he was present at the site, is he not still culpable?
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
I think the more appropriate question, and much more pointed...

Is there existing evidence already in hand that shows direct criminal behavior?

While I have not been following the revelations in these hearings very pointedly, it strikes me that a lot of the discussion has been somewhat indirect and could perhaps even be called hearsay. Hutchinson relays an account of the limo ride and interaction between Trump and the Secret Service agents... but wasn't there herself.
Everything discussed thus far absolutely paints a damning portrait on criminal intent... but is a painting admissible evidence? ;)
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
My Dad just shared a meme from his neighbor... I couldn't find that image, but this works just as well:
1656464123289.png


:) Back to your regularly scheduled programming. :)
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai

NEWS: Cassidy Hutchinson,
former top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, will testify before the Jan. 6 select committee later today. We scooped this last night, and we have more below on the backstory.

As Meadows’ executive assistant, Hutchinson had unique and constant access to him, former President Donald Trump and the White House inner circle in the run up to, during and after the Jan. 6 insurrection. She also was a main point of contact in the White House for dozens of members of Congress.

Having covered Meadows and the Trump White House, we can tell you that Hutchison was in the middle of almost everything that happened in the West Wing, so she’s a hugely important witness. Count on it.

Hutchinson has already made a couple of brief appearances during the select committee’s hearings in video snippets from her depositions, including naming some House GOP lawmakers who sought pardons from Trump following the deadly attack on the Capitol.

After the election, Hutchinson was in contact with officials in Georgia about efforts to overturn the election there. The Fulton County DA has impaneled a grand jury, considering whether to seek an indict Trump.

Hutchinson also testified that she saw Meadows burn papers in his office after meeting with Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) in the weeks before Jan. 6. Perry played a key role in the push to appoint Jeffrey Clark, a DOJ environmental lawyer, as acting attorney general in order to use the Justice Department to bolster Trump’s false election fraud claims.

CNN also reported that “Hutchinson told the January 6 committee that Trump had suggested to Meadows he approved of the ‘hang Mike Pence’ chants from rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol.”

Meadows has refused to testify before the panel. The former GOP member from North Carolina turned over thousands of text messages from lawmakers, White House aides and others to the select committee before abruptly changing positions and declining to cooperate any further late last year. The House voted in December to recommend contempt charges against Meadows but the Justice Department declined to pursue a criminal indictment.

The select committee had always hoped Hutchinson would testify publicly. But after insisting for the last week that it would push its hearings until July, we scooped yesterday that the Jan. 6 committee would hold a hearing today because they had unearthed new evidence.

So why now? Since changing lawyers earlier this month, Hutchinson has been much more cooperative with the select committee, we’re told by multiple sources.

Hutchinson’s previous lawyer, Stefan Passantino, was the White House ethics lawyer under Trump and is still very much in the former president’s orbit. Her new lawyer, Jody Hunt, served as chief of staff to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Hutchinson has testified
before the panel four times, including once within the last 10 days.

Most importantly, we’re told Hutchinson’s firsthand account – her direct testimony and evidence – meaningfully informs the hearings the panel has planned for July. There have also been “sincere concerns” about Hutchinson’s physical security because of what she knows and has revealed to the committee, we’re told.

Due to these reasons, select committee members felt they had to hold the hearing today and couldn’t wait until the House returns from recess in mid-July. The hearing kicks off at 1 p.m.

– Heather Caygle, John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top