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

[g man]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The article you linked here does not reference the handwritten note which you relied upon to accuse Hutchinson of lying. You are deflecting. You need to provide evidence that the note was not written by Hutchinson.

U referring to this?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

[Chomper Higgot]

46 minutes ago, g man said:

I have strong hunch that this women is in legal jeopardy now, in way over her head and very soon she will be outed and find herself under felony indictment and trying to post bond. She's lying, obviously.

 

Trump White House attorney disputes Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony about handwritten note

"The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021," a spokesperson for Herschmann told ABC News Tuesday evening.
"All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann," the spokesperson said”.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/06/trump-wh-attorney-shoots-down-hutchinsons-testimony-over-handwritten-note/

 

He would say that wouldn’t he.

 

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, g man said:

Ok, if you say so. Only way to get at the truth is in a court of law. Nobody seems to know what the truth is here.

Trump's lawyer, he's on a roll, but you don't believe him and categorize him as "not a credible or independent source", probably many would agree with you.

 

"Former White House attorney Eric Herschmann told the House January 6 committee that he brutally mocked a plan from a Trump loyalist to hijack control of the Justice Department in a last-ditch effort to overturn the 2020 election."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-lawyer-eric-herschmann-200237471.html

Don't you now think you need to retract your claim that Hutchinson lied absent any evidence or proof? A denial by the accused's lawyer doesn't constitute evidence.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, g man said:

U referring to this?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

Obviously I'm not. Go back and read my post.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, g man said:

U referring to this?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

The person fingered for serious crimes responds with something along the lines of ‘it’s all lies’.

 

It’s now for the DoJ to examine testimony and determine facts to put before a court.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Apart from the testimony relating to serious crimes, we also have credible and verifiable testimony of Trump raging throwing his dinner at the wall. 
 

He never was fit for office.

[g man]

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You are deflecting. You need to provide evidence that the note was not written by Hutchinson.

I need to do nothing you ask. If you

 

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Don't you now think you need to retract your claim that Hutchinson lied absent any evidence or proof? A denial by the accused's lawyer doesn't constitute evidence.

You got some better proof, ?

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Apart from the testimony relating to serious crimes, we also have credible and verifiable testimony of Trump raging throwing his dinner at the wall. 
 

He never was fit for office.

Fortunate for the nation that there was no national emergency to deal with on that day. Other than an insurrection of course. He would have been like George Bush on 9/11.

[g man]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Apart from the testimony relating to serious crimes, we also have credible and verifiable testimony of Trump raging throwing his dinner at the wall. 
 

He never was fit for office.

 

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s now for the DoJ to examine testimony and determine facts to put before a court

Whats the odds of trump being indicted?

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, g man said:

I need to do nothing you ask. If you

 

You got some better proof, ?

It wasn't me that initially asked. I think you need to go back to your original accusation and read from there.

 

I don't think it's incumbent on me to provide evidence that she didn't lie.

Edited June 29, 2022 by ozimoron

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, g man said:

 

Whats the odds of trump being indicted?

Whatever they were, they’ve just gone up.

[g man]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Whatever they were, they’ve just gone up.

Why, based on the hearsay evidence ?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, g man said:

Why, based on the hearsay evidence ?

Then there’s for Trump and his supporters to worry about, much less throw good at the walls.

[g man]

Just now, g man said:

Why, based on the hearsay evidence ?

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Whatever they were, they’ve just gone up.

Why can they not indict Trump now if they have all this evidence but decide to put this Hutchison up there under oath and recite under 3rd party what SS agent Oronato told her when they drove back to the W wing. How in Gods name does this implicate anyone for anything? Why would the legal genius's on the J6 put this witness up there? Sounds like a hopeless cause that's why. J6 is going to get burned on this big time, nobody's buying. No indictments, certainly not what I have seen from uncorroborated testimony that would melt under legal scrutiny in the legal chambers.

[ozimoron]

Just now, g man said:

 

Why can they not indict Trump now if they have all this evidence but decide to put this Hutchison up there under oath and recite under 3rd party what SS agent Oronato told her when they drove back to the W wing. How in Gods name does this implicate anyone for anything? Why would the legal genius's on the J6 put this witness up there? Sounds like a hopeless cause that's why. J6 is going to get burned on this big time, nobody's buying. No indictments, certainly not what I have seen from uncorroborated testimony that would melt under legal scrutiny in the legal chambers.

You are deflecting. You accused Hutchinson of lying and you were called on it and you were instructed to provide evidence. You haven't done anything other than produce a link disputing the claim by the accused.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, g man said:

 

Why can they not indict Trump now if they have all this evidence but decide to put this Hutchison up there under oath and recite under 3rd party what SS agent Oronato told her when they drove back to the W wing. How in Gods name does this implicate anyone for anything? Why would the legal genius's on the J6 put this witness up there? Sounds like a hopeless cause that's why. J6 is going to get burned on this big time, nobody's buying. No indictments, certainly not what I have seen from uncorroborated testimony that would melt under legal scrutiny in the legal chambers.

The Congressional J6 Commission does not issue Indictments, that is not their job it’s not within their purview.

 

Indictments come after the DoJ place evidence and witnesses before a Grand Jury.

 

We know the DoJ have a number of Grand Juries examining the events of J6, what we do not know is who has given testimony, what evidence has been presented or if/when Indictments will be issued.

 

I suggest you do what the rest of us who watched live broadcasts of the January 6 attack on the Capitol, be patient, Justice is coming.

[g man]

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You are deflecting. You accused Hutchinson of lying and you were called on it and you were instructed to provide evidence. You haven't done anything other than produce a link disputing the claim by the accused.

Ok, but this dude, one of Trump's lawyers claims he wrote the letter but Hutchison testified she wrote it. She lied. Big deal, it means nothing except for criminal charges to Hutchison for lying under oath to congress. Stop worrying, the truth is likely to come out in the wash in the coming days.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

 

"The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021," a spokesperson for Herschmann told ABC News Tuesday evening.

"All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann," the spokesperson said.

 

"That's my handwriting," Hutchinson replied.

Hutchinson, a former top aide to Meadows, said that Meadows handed her the note card and a pen and started dictating a potential statement for Trump to release amid the Capitol riot.

 

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, g man said:

Ok, but this dude, one of Trump's lawyers claims he wrote the letter but Hutchison testified she wrote it. She lied. Big deal, it means nothing except for criminal charges to Hutchison for lying under oath to congress. Stop worrying, the truth is likely to come out in the wash in the coming days.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

 

"The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021," a spokesperson for Herschmann told ABC News Tuesday evening.

"All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann," the spokesperson said.

 

"That's my handwriting," Hutchinson replied.

Hutchinson, a former top aide to Meadows, said that Meadows handed her the note card and a pen and started dictating a potential statement for Trump to release amid the Capitol riot.

 

 

again, the committee did its "due diligence" and verified her claim". You continue to claim she lied without proof despite now knowing it's against the rules of this forum.

[g man]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Congressional J6 Commission does not issue Indictments, that is not their job it’s not within their purview.

 

Indictments come after the DoJ place evidence and witnesses before a Grand Ju

With all the evidence, whats the hold up? If Trump tried to destroy democracy then why is the DOJ sitting back and not investigating and ,or prosecuting. J6 is not an investigation it is a made for TV infomercial. Americans deserve better than this waste of tax payer money, indict Trump now! And quit wasting our time with the likes of Cassidy Hutchison!

[g man]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You continue to claim she lied without proof despite now knowing it's against the rules of this forum.

I already said the evidence shows the lawyer wrote it. I know you are trying to get my post banned. Stop!

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, g man said:

With all the evidence, whats the hold up? If Trump tried to destroy democracy then why is the DOJ sitting back and not investigating and ,or prosecuting. J6 is not an investigation it is a made for TV infomercial. Americans deserve better than this waste of tax payer money, indict Trump now! And quit wasting our time with the likes of Cassidy Hutchison!

We already know that the DoJ is investigating.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/13/merrick-garland-trump-january-6-capitol-attack

[g man]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

gain, the committee did its "due diligence" and verified her claim"

all good then, post a link to this due diligence verification. And we can move on.

[ozimoron]

Just now, g man said:

all good then, post a link to this due diligence verification. And we can move on.

You already posted it.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, g man said:

With all the evidence, whats the hold up? If Trump tried to destroy democracy then why is the DOJ sitting back and not investigating and ,or prosecuting. J6 is not an investigation it is a made for TV infomercial. Americans deserve better than this waste of tax payer money, indict Trump now! And quit wasting our time with the likes of Cassidy Hutchison!

There is ample evidence that the DoJ is undertaking wide ranging investigations into the events of January 6.

 

I understand the hearings are not welcome by supporters of Trump and the various GOP members implicated in crimes around the attack on the Capitol and the attempt to overthrow the election result.

 

But don’t forget, Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support.

 

Let America see the evidence.

 

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

[g man]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

We already know that the DoJ is investigating.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/13/merrick-garland-trump-january-6-capitol-attack

“There’s nothing within the office of legal counsel that prevents us from doing an investigation,” Garland said. “There’s nothing that’s coming in the way of our investigation … We’re just going to follow the facts wherever they lead.”

Garland’s remarks about the office inside the justice department, which issues opinions for the agency that are broadly seen as binding, did not address whether the guidelines preclude charging, not just investigating, a former president.

But his careful response reflected the delicate and complicated legal considerations looming over the justice department should it consider whether to investigate and charge Trump over his efforts to reverse his 2020 election defeat to Biden.

No investigation of Trump over his efforts to reverse 2020 election. its been 18 months and still no investigation for an insurrection to overthrow the government? Are you serious, why is there no DOJ investigation, is predicate lacking?

 

This is all quoted from your link:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/13/merrick-garland-trump-january-6-capitol-attack

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by g man

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, g man said:

“There’s nothing within the office of legal counsel that prevents us from doing an investigation,” Garland said. “There’s nothing that’s coming in the way of our investigation … We’re just going to follow the facts wherever they lead.”

Garland’s remarks about the office inside the justice department, which issues opinions for the agency that are broadly seen as binding, did not address whether the guidelines preclude charging, not just investigating, a former president.

But his careful response reflected the delicate and complicated legal considerations looming over the justice department should it consider whether to investigate and charge Trump over his efforts to reverse his 2020 election defeat to Biden.

No investigation of Trump over his efforts to reverse 2020 election. its been 18 months and still no investigation for an insurrection to overthrow the government? Are you serious, why is there no DOJ investigation, is predicate lacking?

 

The Justice Department is racking up convictions in its investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, charging more than 800 people with crimes related to the deadly assault, securing three guilty pleas on the rare charge of seditious conspiracy and winning the cooperation of insiders from far-right groups.

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/08/1103356208/the-justice-department-has-gone-far-and-wide-in-its-jan-6-probe-some-want-more

[g man]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is ample evidence that the DoJ is undertaking wide ranging investigations into the events of January 6.

 

I understand the hearings are not welcome by supporters of Trump and the various GOP members implicated in crimes around the attack on the Capitol and the attempt to overthrow the election result.

 

But don’t forget, Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support.

 

Let America see the evidence.

 

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

Put this in a court of law where there are rules of evidence, cross examinations, judges, juries, calling witness's, providing exculpatory evidence, etc. Thats what it is going to take, especially for someone accused of trying to overthrow the government and destroy democracy.

Why are they waiting, is there some compelling reason not to charge the J6 accused with so much evidence against the MAGA man?

 

See where this going, ? Nowhere!

Edited June 29, 2022 by g man

[g man]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The Justice Department is racking up convictions in its investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, charging more than 800 people with crimes related to the deadly assault, securing three guilty pleas on the rare charge of seditious conspiracy and winning the cooperation of insiders from far-right groups.

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/08/1103356208/the-justice-department-has-gone-far-and-wide-in-its-jan-6-probe-some-want-more

How many indictments against Trump, for sedition, insurrection? This is very serious now, but it seems like a big empty void nothing-burger.

I am quite certain they charged and convicted (plea-deal) the viking man with the fur and horns. But he wasn't tried for sedition, insurrection, attempting to overthrow the government. As far as I know no one has been charged for insurrection or attempting to destroy democracy on Jan 6.

Edited June 29, 2022 by g man

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, g man said:

How many indictments against Trump, for sedition, insurrection? This is very serious now, but it seems like a big empty void nothing-burger.

Erm, the investigations are still on going.

[g man]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm, the investigations are still on going.

Not about Trump.

There’s nothing within the office of legal counsel that prevents us from doing an investigation,” Garland said. “There’s nothing that’s coming in the way of our investigation … We’re just going to follow the facts wherever they lead.”

Garland’s remarks about the office inside the justice department, which issues opinions for the agency that are broadly seen as binding, did not address whether the guidelines preclude charging, not just investigating, a former president.

But his careful response reflected the delicate and complicated legal considerations looming over the justice department should it consider whether to investigate and charge Trump over his efforts to reverse his 2020 election defeat to Biden.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/13/merrick-garland-trump-january-6-capitol-attack