Jan. 6 committee says probe shows Trump led and directed effort to overturn 2020 election

[ozimoron]

The new evidence includes documents from the National Archive and multiple new leads given to a tip-line since the televised hearings began earlier in June.

 

The most prized haul though will be hours of footage from documentary filmmaker Alex Holder, who was granted extensive access to Trump and his inner circle -- including for interviews -- before and after January 6.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/jan-6-house-select-committee/

[Credo]

On 6/24/2022 at 8:24 PM, Yellowtail said:

When can we expects the witnesses to be cross-examined? I'm betting mid November. 

Just out of curiosity, how many defense witnesses have been cross examined in the cases of the Jan 6 insurrectionists tried so far?  I suspect that would be pretty close to zero.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Credo said:

Just out of curiosity, how many defense witnesses have been cross examined in the cases of the Jan 6 insurrectionists tried so far?  I suspect that would be pretty close to zero.

Lol! Most of Trump's allies refused to testify or took the fifth! ????

Edited June 27, 2022 by candide

[ozimoron]

 

 

"The Washington Post reported late last month that Hutchinson had told the committee that Meadows remarked to others that Trump indicated support for hanging his vice president after rioters who stormed the Capitol on that day started chanting, 'Hang Mike Pence!'"

Last month, Politico revealed Hutchinson told the committee that Meadows incinerated documents after a meeting with Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA). It was previously revealed that Trump attempted to flush documents down the toilet, clogging the pipes in the centuries-old building.

 

Former Mark Meadows White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson is the surprise witness: report

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

 

"The Washington Post reported late last month that Hutchinson had told the committee that Meadows remarked to others that Trump indicated support for hanging his vice president after rioters who stormed the Capitol on that day started chanting, 'Hang Mike Pence!'"

Last month, Politico revealed Hutchinson told the committee that Meadows incinerated documents after a meeting with Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA). It was previously revealed that Trump attempted to flush documents down the toilet, clogging the pipes in the centuries-old building.

 

Former Mark Meadows White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson is the surprise witness: report

In a recent Washington Post article, Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was speculated to be another John Dean moment. She has spent almost 20 hours with the Jan 6 committee in previous hearing. She likely to testify about her direct knowledge of Meadow's efforts to help Trump steal the elction by sabtaging the electoral count in Congress. Borrowing the words of a disgraced leader "be there. Will be wild" at today's hearing. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

In a recent Washington Post article, Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was speculated to be another John Dean moment. She has spent almost 20 hours with the Jan 6 committee in previous hearing. She likely to testify about her direct knowledge of Meadow's efforts to help Trump steal the elction by sabtaging the electoral count in Congress. Borrowing the words of a disgraced leader "be there. Will be wild" at today's hearing. 

Midnight, Bangkok time.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

In a recent Washington Post article, Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was speculated to be another John Dean moment. She has spent almost 20 hours with the Jan 6 committee in previous hearing. She likely to testify about her direct knowledge of Meadow's efforts to help Trump steal the elction by sabtaging the electoral count in Congress. Borrowing the words of a disgraced leader "be there. Will be wild" at today's hearing. 

Do you think that's enough to justify a special day of hearings? There's got to be something more. That's just too anticlimactic. Well, I guess we'll know soon enough.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Do you think that's enough to justify a special day of hearings? There's got to be something more. That's just too anticlimactic. Well, I guess we'll know soon enough.

Unless maybe she was a direct witness of something criminal that Trump did.

[candide]

52 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Do you think that's enough to justify a special day of hearings? There's got to be something more. That's just too anticlimactic. Well, I guess we'll know soon enough.

I read there's also a piece of the new video about a meeting which occurred right before elections

[ballpoint]

The FBI convinced a federal judge that there was sufficient reason to seize former Trump lawyer John Eastman's phone.  They stopped him as he left a restaurant, searched him and took his phone after getting him to unlock it.  On the same day, federal agents also raided the home of former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.  Both warrants were issued by the Inspector General of the Justice Department, who only has jurisdiction over the Justice Department - which Eastman has no connection to, so it appears they are looking into collusion between him and Clark.  The plot thickens...

 

[g man]

.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-panel-enough-evidence-refer-trump-criminal-charges-cheney-says-rcna23778
Jan. 6 panel has enough evidence to refer Trump for criminal charges, Cheney says
“It’s absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing — what a number of people around him were doing — that they knew it was unlawful. They did it anyway,” said the vice chair of the committee.
 

The New York Times reported that the committee has concluded that it has enough evidence to make a criminal referral but that its leaders were divided over whether to do so. ( this is nonsense and so telling)

"I think what we have seen is a massive and well-organized and well-planned effort that used multiple tools to try to overturn an election," Cheney said. The committee has "got a tremendous amount of testimony and documents that I think very, very clearly demonstrate the extent of the planning and the organization and the objective.

 

Anybody reading this forum and in the know of the evidence of Trumps involvement, could they please indicate what evidence, showing what crimes Trump committed and has been presented during the scripted broadcast. I see none and if there was why state that "but that its leaders were divided over whether to do so".

I know instinctively if there is the slightest chance of lambasting Trump with anything including criminal charges they would have done so already, And this committee is broadcasting a made for TV infomercial for the dem party and have zero authority to charge anyone with any crime anywhere. This is a farce and anyone with something between the ears can see this. Otherwise please educate me and show me the evidence of any crime by anyone that this sham has produced.

 

[xylophone]

7 hours ago, g man said:

Otherwise please educate me and show me the evidence of any crime by anyone that this sham has produced.

Wait and be educated!

[LarrySR]

7 hours ago, g man said:

.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-panel-enough-evidence-refer-trump-criminal-charges-cheney-says-rcna23778
Jan. 6 panel has enough evidence to refer Trump for criminal charges, Cheney says
“It’s absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing — what a number of people around him were doing — that they knew it was unlawful. They did it anyway,” said the vice chair of the committee.
 

The New York Times reported that the committee has concluded that it has enough evidence to make a criminal referral but that its leaders were divided over whether to do so. ( this is nonsense and so telling)

"I think what we have seen is a massive and well-organized and well-planned effort that used multiple tools to try to overturn an election," Cheney said. The committee has "got a tremendous amount of testimony and documents that I think very, very clearly demonstrate the extent of the planning and the organization and the objective.

 

Anybody reading this forum and in the know of the evidence of Trumps involvement, could they please indicate what evidence, showing what crimes Trump committed and has been presented during the scripted broadcast. I see none and if there was why state that "but that its leaders were divided over whether to do so".

I know instinctively if there is the slightest chance of lambasting Trump with anything including criminal charges they would have done so already, And this committee is broadcasting a made for TV infomercial for the dem party and have zero authority to charge anyone with any crime anywhere. This is a farce and anyone with something between the ears can see this. Otherwise please educate me and show me the evidence of any crime by anyone that this sham has produced.

 

People still defending Trump?

 

[xylophone]

12 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Wait and be educated!

Capitol riot Donald Trump bombshell: Six takeaways from ex-aide's surprise testimony about the attack

Hutchinson said Trump knew of the threat of violence by his supporters but was unconcerned by it, since they were not targeting him; and that he sympathised with them as they chanted for the execution of Vice President Mike Pence, who had refused his entreaties to overturn the election. And she testified that senior aides had tried in vain to persuade Trump to call off the mob, but he resisted for hours. Her testimony was replete with stunning revelations.

 

They are not here to hurt me.' Trump encouraged an armed mob to go to Capitol Hill.

A furious Trump ordered security officials to allow people milling outside the security perimeter into the space so the event would appear well attended. Informed that some of those people were standing outside because they had weapons and didn't want to pass through metal detectors, the president urged that they be allowed in anyway.

 

Much more in The New York Times.

[Berkshire]

9 hours ago, g man said:

Anybody reading this forum and in the know of the evidence of Trumps involvement, could they please indicate what evidence, showing what crimes Trump committed and has been presented during the scripted broadcast. I see none and if there was why state that "but that its leaders were divided over whether to do so".

I know instinctively if there is the slightest chance of lambasting Trump with anything including criminal charges they would have done so already, And this committee is broadcasting a made for TV infomercial for the dem party and have zero authority to charge anyone with any crime anywhere. This is a farce and anyone with something between the ears can see this. Otherwise please educate me and show me the evidence of any crime by anyone that this sham has produced.

 

The Jan 6 hearings have answered your question.  Many times over.  This thread--all 21 pages of it--have answered your question.  Either you have comprehension issues or you're guilty of willful ignorance.  Which is it?

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, g man said:

.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-panel-enough-evidence-refer-trump-criminal-charges-cheney-says-rcna23778
Jan. 6 panel has enough evidence to refer Trump for criminal charges, Cheney says
“It’s absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing — what a number of people around him were doing — that they knew it was unlawful. They did it anyway,” said the vice chair of the committee.
 

The New York Times reported that the committee has concluded that it has enough evidence to make a criminal referral but that its leaders were divided over whether to do so. ( this is nonsense and so telling)

"I think what we have seen is a massive and well-organized and well-planned effort that used multiple tools to try to overturn an election," Cheney said. The committee has "got a tremendous amount of testimony and documents that I think very, very clearly demonstrate the extent of the planning and the organization and the objective.

 

Anybody reading this forum and in the know of the evidence of Trumps involvement, could they please indicate what evidence, showing what crimes Trump committed and has been presented during the scripted broadcast. I see none and if there was why state that "but that its leaders were divided over whether to do so".

I know instinctively if there is the slightest chance of lambasting Trump with anything including criminal charges they would have done so already, And this committee is broadcasting a made for TV infomercial for the dem party and have zero authority to charge anyone with any crime anywhere. This is a farce and anyone with something between the ears can see this. Otherwise please educate me and show me the evidence of any crime by anyone that this sham has produced.

 

You might want to look up judge David Carter. In a civil case being brought against Trump he thought that it was likely that Trump had engaged in a criminal conspiracy

[Eric Loh]

3 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

The Jan 6 hearings have answered your question.  Many times over.  This thread--all 21 pages of it--have answered your question.  Either you have comprehension issues or you're guilty of willful ignorance.  Which is it?

He is just displaying syptoms of a cult devotee manupulated by his leader Trump. Symptons include opposing critical thinking and isolating himself from fact and truth. 

[Jingthing]

I'm calling it.

Trump's political career is now officially over.

The republicans won't nominate him now because he's too much damaged goods with no chance of winning solidly with independent voters and more right wing democrats 

Why?

The hearing yesterday.

He's toast.

Mark my words.

Doesn't matter now whether or not he's convicted of a crime.

Of course nothing matters to Trump's cult of personality people. But they're only 30 percent.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/donald-trump-january-6/index.html

Why today's 1/6 hearing was utterly devastating for Donald Trump

Edited June 29, 2022 by Jingthing

[ozimoron]

14 hours ago, g man said:

.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-panel-enough-evidence-refer-trump-criminal-charges-cheney-says-rcna23778
Jan. 6 panel has enough evidence to refer Trump for criminal charges, Cheney says
“It’s absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing — what a number of people around him were doing — that they knew it was unlawful. They did it anyway,” said the vice chair of the committee.
 

The New York Times reported that the committee has concluded that it has enough evidence to make a criminal referral but that its leaders were divided over whether to do so. ( this is nonsense and so telling)

"I think what we have seen is a massive and well-organized and well-planned effort that used multiple tools to try to overturn an election," Cheney said. The committee has "got a tremendous amount of testimony and documents that I think very, very clearly demonstrate the extent of the planning and the organization and the objective.

 

Anybody reading this forum and in the know of the evidence of Trumps involvement, could they please indicate what evidence, showing what crimes Trump committed and has been presented during the scripted broadcast. I see none and if there was why state that "but that its leaders were divided over whether to do so".

I know instinctively if there is the slightest chance of lambasting Trump with anything including criminal charges they would have done so already, And this committee is broadcasting a made for TV infomercial for the dem party and have zero authority to charge anyone with any crime anywhere. This is a farce and anyone with something between the ears can see this. Otherwise please educate me and show me the evidence of any crime by anyone that this sham has produced.

 

Ken Starr investigated Clinton for seven years. The Benghazi inquisition went on for 3 years. The argument that because no crimes have been charged for 18 means none were committed is risible. We do know that the DoJ is watching these proceedings and that several grand jury subpoenas have been made and phones, etc seized.

[ballpoint]

25 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'm calling it.

Trump's political career is now officially over.

The republicans won't nominate him now because he's too much damaged goods with no chance of winning solidly with independent voters and more right wing democrats 

Why?

The hearing yesterday.

He's toast.

Mark my words.

Doesn't matter now whether or not he's convicted of a crime.

Of course nothing matters to Trump's cult of personality people. But they're only 30 percent.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/donald-trump-january-6/index.html

Why today's 1/6 hearing was utterly devastating for Donald Trump

More here, with Bob Woodward saying the January 6th Committee has written Trump's political obituary.  As many people realised at the time, of the two things he boasted as being - a "stable genius", he was the exact opposite of both.  The part about how Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, felt it necessary to ask every ranking officer at the Pentagon to call him should Trump order a nuclear attack, and to do nothing until they had - and they all agreed to it, shows just how serious this was. 

 

On a side note, with a similar unstable 'ungenius' in the Kremlin, is it too much to hope for that the Russian military chiefs are doing the same thing?  Could there even be some dialogue taking place along those lines between senior officers of both countries?

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by ballpoint

[heybruce]

I sincerely hope the above posts are correct.  However, with only a few exceptions, the Republican leadership has shown itself to be a bunch of spineless cowards who dare not risk upsetting the orange maniac.

[ozimoron]

Congressman wants to know 'Where is Merrick Garland?' after Cassidy Hutchinson testifies

 

The fact that the White House was talking about the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers days ahead of the attack made the congressman think, "there's no way there's this many coincidences in life. The fact that the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, they all showed up, they had weaponry that they had to stick outside the magnetometers, the fact that he knew that they weren't dangerous [to him] — we don't even know where Roger Stone is involved in all of this — the fact that he was trying to get to the Capitol to try and lead them into the Capitol tells you that this president had insurrection on his mind, was try to interfere with Congress duty to certify the election."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/january-6-merrick-garland-gallego/

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

I'm calling it.

Trump's political career is now officially over.

The republicans won't nominate him now because he's too much damaged goods with no chance of winning solidly with independent voters and more right wing democrats 

Why?

The hearing yesterday.

He's toast.

Mark my words.

Doesn't matter now whether or not he's convicted of a crime.

Of course nothing matters to Trump's cult of personality people. But they're only 30 percent.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/donald-trump-january-6/index.html

Why today's 1/6 hearing was utterly devastating for Donald Trump

I tend to think that AG Garland has almost no choice.  The DOJ has already indicted upwards of 800 of Trump's followers.  How can they not indict the guy responsible for it all?  I'm just wondering about the logistics of it.  Will they arrest the top dudes all at once?  Trump, Clark, Eastman, Rudy, Meadows....and maybe a few congresspersons.  Mrs. Thomas?  Fake electors?  It will be glorious.

[g man]

29 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Congressman wants to know 'Where is Merrick Garland?' after Cassidy Hutchinson testifies

Probably having a good laugh as being the legal scholar he is MG knows he can't run with Hutchison's hearsay evidence in a real criminal trial as it would need to be corroborated by the source(s) and likely it would be trashed on cross.

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, g man said:

Probably having a good laugh as being the legal scholar he is MG knows he can't run with Hutchison's hearsay evidence in a real criminal trial as it would need to be corroborated by the source(s) and likely it would be trashed on cross.

 

I don't think anybody's suggesting he rely on Hutchinson's evidence.

[g man]

Just now, ozimoron said:

I don't think anybody's suggesting he rely on Hutchinson's evidence.

I wouldn't either, it will be debunked soon, or has already.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, g man said:

I wouldn't either, it will be debunked soon, or has already.

I wouldn't think two partisan secret service officers are going to debunk her evidence. There are plenty of other reasons to believe that Garland should act against Trump and his inner circle. They have asked for the transcripts so I don't think that because they have run out of bedside reading material.

[g man]

The J6

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I wouldn't think two partisan secret service officers are going to debunk her evidence. There are plenty of other reasons to believe that Garland should act against Trump and his inner circle. They have asked for the transcripts so I don't think that because they have run out of bedside reading material.

Her testimony is an act of desperation.

 

Cassidy Hutchinson testified that “she was told” that as then-President Donald Trump was being driven back to the White House after the Jan. 6 rally that he demanded to be taken to the Capitol and tried to grab the steering wheel from a Secret Service agent.

Now, there were several problems with this story, as we noted, including that she didn’t see any of this herself; this is what she supposedly heard from an agent. So basically, she was repeating gossip, even if you assume she was telling the truth. But it was hearsay, and it was odd that they were having her testify to it and not the SS agents.

I know why, because  “Sources close to the Secret Service and one of the individuals named by Cassidy Hutchinson told NBC News that the head of Trump's security detail and the vehicle's driver were prepared to dispute that account under oath”.

Interestingly, notice how what the Committee says differs from what Hutchinson said in her hearsay testimony.
She said the agent said this happened in The Beast. Now they’re claiming Trump was in a Surburban. So, which is it?
Whoops. Looks like their stories are not straight, they don't jive, and that tends to blow apart the rest of the story.

You don't let Cassidy Hutchinson testify if you're winning. Democrats are screwed -- and they know it.

[g man]

I watched some of Hutchison's sworn testimony, and the hearsay portions. Reminded me of Amber Heard.

Irregardless, the hearsay testimony is or will be officially debunked.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-service-is-reportedly-prepared-to-testify-trump-didnt-try-to-commandeer-limo-on-jan-6-despite-hutchinson-account/ar-AAYYpio

[candide]

22 minutes ago, g man said:

Probably having a good laugh as being the legal scholar he is MG knows he can't run with Hutchison's hearsay evidence in a real criminal trial as it would need to be corroborated by the source(s) and likely it would be trashed on cross.

 

However:

- some of it is already corroborated by written evidence (ex. messages)

- the Committee (and the DOJ) now know exactly which other persons to interview, in order to corroborate her testimony. Of course, Trump's closest allies will refuse to testify or will take the fifth, but I guess people like Pat Cipollone will be ready to testify.

 

So it is likely that not 100% of her testimony will be corroborated, but a large part will be.