Jump to content

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


onthedarkside

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not just the President.

 

Members of Congress and the Senate are also sworn to uphold the US Constitution and it’s enemies, against all enemies foreign and domestic.

 

So who knew what and when did they know it.

 

Let’s start with those begging for pardons.

Finally. Thankyou. But congress members with the power to order security were not looking for pardons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not a dodge. If you mean the prime time Kangaroo Court Show then yes. 

It's not claiming to be any court or issuing any judgement. It's doing nothing other than revealing evidence and explaining what that evidence means. The republicans had a chance to participate meaningfully but nominated their most guilty for the job and for that reason they were rightfully rejected., then they refused participation at all. Cheney and Kinzinger nominated themselves.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's not claiming to be any court or issuing any judgement. It's doing nothing other than revealing evidence and explaining what that evidence means. The republicans had a chance to participate meaningfully but nominated their most guilty for the job and for that reason they were rightfully rejected., then they refused participation at all. Cheney and Kinzinger nominated themselves.

Really? Regarding Republican participation, I can't find any news or information to match what you say. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Quite correct so it all depends on the context and situation. When a coach tells his sports team to go out there and fight like hell we all know what he means.

But when a sitting president falsely claims the election was stolen and he urges his most ardent supporters (all fired up and not exactly mental giants) to march on the Capitol and fight like hell I'd say the chances of them taking his words literally are a solid 100%. Which they did, and people died.

Get it now?

 

Hmmm. You're getting pretty heavy into convenient interpretation, here. 

 

For example......... Yes, when a coach tells his team to go out and "fight like hell," we all know what he means. It means, Try your hardest and don't give the other guys a chance. It DOESN'T mean.......... 

 

Go over to the other team's bench or locker room, and beat the bejeezus out of them! 

 

But as you assess what TRUMP said, suddenly you DO think those word mean (metaphorically)........ 

 

DO go over to the other team's bench or locker room, and beat the bejeezus out of them! 

 

-----------------

 

See, there's really no reason to believe that Trump meant it any differently than how a coach would............ "We're in a fight. The victory can still be ours. So don't give up now!" 

 

And even the encouragement to march to the Capitol.......... has a reasonable explanation.

 

"There are people who need to hear your voices. They are there, and we are here. So you need to go to where they can hear you!" How he actually said it, I'm not sure. But whatever he said, how do you know that THIS is not what he meant? 

 

There was no call to violence. There was no encouragement to riot. He never told them they needed to go INSIDE the Capitol! 

 

He just encouraged them to go TO the Capitol! And that isn't necessarily any more sinister than saying, "Go to where your voices can be heard!" 

 

-----------

 

Like many things in life, if you're determined to cling to a bad take on things, you can almost always find a way to do so. 

 

I loathe Trump. I'd love it if I never had to say anything that sounds like I'm defending him. I think Trump receiving the Republican Nomination in 2016 was the single biggest act of political stupidity in the last hundred years!

 

BUT! 

 

I'm never going to let my loathing for him cloud my judgment. If there are reasonable explanations and outrageous ones, I'm going to give him the same credit for the reasonable explanations that I'd give anyone else, until proven otherwise! 

 

But what I see from so many others is their hatred on full display. They jump straight to the outrageous explanations........... and pretend that reasonable explanations simply don't exist!

 

I can't do that. 

 

No matter how much I loathe the man, I STILL can't deny him the benefit-of-the-doubt. I simply cannot pretend there is no doubt....... like we see so many doing........... when I can come up with at least a dozen reasonable explanations......... that show there are! 

 

Yes, when a coach says to "fight like hell," we know what that means. But more importantly, we also know what that DOESN'T mean!

 

Automatically assuming Trump meant something different because he's Trump........... is just wrong! 

 

Cheers! 

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Really? Regarding Republican participation, I can't find any news or information to match what you say. 

Pelosi rejects GOP picks Jordan, Banks on Jan. 6 committee; McCarthy threatens to pull out

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/21/pelosi-rejects-republicans-banks-jordan-jan-6-select-committee/8042839002/

 

"Was it Clyde? Gosar? Gaetz? Jordan? Boebert? Greene? Others? Please remind us @HouseGOP - which of your current sitting members sought pardons after the attack? In addition to @RepScottPerry of course,"

 

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-january-6-pardon-clemency-requests-democratic-reactions-social-media-1714785

 

Cheney hasn’t named names … yet … but we already have a pretty good idea who those multiple other congressmen might be: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Mo Brooks of Alabama and yep, Andy Biggs.

 

“Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts," McCarthy said in a statement on Wednesday afternoon.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/21/pelosi-rejects-republicans-banks-jordan-jan-6-select-committee/8042839002/

 

The accusations, however, are to some degree disingenuous: it was McCarthy who pulled all Republican participation, incensed at Pelosi’s refusals, rather than name different members

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/27/kevin-mccarthy-refuses-capitol-attack-subpoena

 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy sent a letter via his lawyer to the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, outlining why he will not comply with his subpoena as it stands and delivering a list of demands in order to move forward.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/27/politics/kevin-mccarthy-january-6-subpoena/index.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ocasio-Cortez says Republicans who were ‘in on’ Capitol riot shouldn’t be on Jan. 6 committee

 

“We need a Select Committee to investigate the Jan. 6th domestic terrorist attack. But we must also be careful about any Republicans that may serve on the committee. There are indications that some of these folks were in on it, & we can’t have them be a part of the investigation,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/561102-ocasio-cortez-says-republicans-who-were-in-on-capitol-riot-shouldnt-be-on-jan/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hasn’t worked for the convictions already secured.

 

Cheers!

I apologize. Perhaps I haven't been paying close enough attention. 

 

What were the names of the protestors/rioters who were convicted of threatening the Vice President, again? 

 

And were they "convicted".......... or did they reach a plea agreement? 

 

(Sorry for my skepticism, but you're saying "it hasn't worked." But I'm pretty sure there hasn't even been a charge like that, yet. But again, maybe I just haven't been paying attention!......... 

????????????)

 

Cheers! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

I apologize. Perhaps I haven't been paying close enough attention. 

 

What were the names of the protestors/rioters who were convicted of threatening the Vice President, again? 

 

And were they "convicted".......... or did they reach a plea agreement? 

 

(Sorry for my skepticism, but you're saying "it hasn't worked." But I'm pretty sure there hasn't even been a charge like that, yet. But again, maybe I just haven't been paying attention!......... 

????????????)

 

Cheers! 

Did you not see and hear videos of dozens, if not hundreds, of the rioters shouting 'hang Pence"? Is this just part of the wilful ignorance campaign? What relevance is it that individuals were not identified and convicted?

 

In video showed Wednesday at Trump’s second impeachment trial, rioters chanted “Hang Mike Pence!” and “Bring out Pence!” as they roamed the halls searching for the former vice president and other lawmakers. Outside, the mob set up a makeshift gallows on the field near the Capitol.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-video-shows-capitol-mob-calling-for-the-death-of-the-vice-president-plaskett-says

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/12/trump-capitol-attack-rioters-mike-pence

 

Trump said it was 'common sense' for Capitol rioters to chant 'Hang Mike Pence'

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/11/12/donald-trump-rioters-chanting-hang-mike-pence-common-sense/8594353002/

 

Was ‘Hang Mike Pence’ Chanted at Capitol Riot?

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hang-mike-pence-chant-capitol-riot/

 

 

https://www.audacy.com/1010wins/news/politics/video-pro-trump-mob-chants-hang-mike-pence

Edited by ozimoron
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Pelosi rejects GOP picks Jordan, Banks on Jan. 6 committee; McCarthy threatens to pull out

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/21/pelosi-rejects-republicans-banks-jordan-jan-6-select-committee/8042839002/

 

"Was it Clyde? Gosar? Gaetz? Jordan? Boebert? Greene? Others? Please remind us @HouseGOP - which of your current sitting members sought pardons after the attack? In addition to @RepScottPerry of course,"

 

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-january-6-pardon-clemency-requests-democratic-reactions-social-media-1714785

 

Cheney hasn’t named names … yet … but we already have a pretty good idea who those multiple other congressmen might be: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Mo Brooks of Alabama and yep, Andy Biggs.

 

“Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts," McCarthy said in a statement on Wednesday afternoon.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/21/pelosi-rejects-republicans-banks-jordan-jan-6-select-committee/8042839002/

 

The accusations, however, are to some degree disingenuous: it was McCarthy who pulled all Republican participation, incensed at Pelosi’s refusals, rather than name different members

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/27/kevin-mccarthy-refuses-capitol-attack-subpoena

 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy sent a letter via his lawyer to the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, outlining why he will not comply with his subpoena as it stands and delivering a list of demands in order to move forward.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/27/politics/kevin-mccarthy-january-6-subpoena/index.html

No wonder McCarthy got the hump. Pelosi being so democratic. 555.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Ocasio-Cortez says Republicans who were ‘in on’ Capitol riot shouldn’t be on Jan. 6 committee

 

“We need a Select Committee to investigate the Jan. 6th domestic terrorist attack. But we must also be careful about any Republicans that may serve on the committee. There are indications that some of these folks were in on it, & we can’t have them be a part of the investigation,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/561102-ocasio-cortez-says-republicans-who-were-in-on-capitol-riot-shouldnt-be-on-jan/

Can’t have this, can’t have that, can’t have anyone who might ask questions we don't like. Hopeless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, pomchop said:

Hear no evil see no evil.

 

Of course trump never ever had any intention of trying to encourage his cult , or Pence, to impede the official certification of the vote and of course he never ever tried to twist any arms to have states like Georgia "find" him more votes...and of course he never repeats ad nauseum with zero proof to this day that the election was stolen continuing to stir the pot of crazies...and he never ever inflated values of his property for bank loans and then deflated the value when it came tax time....He has convinced his cult members that he would never ever violate any laws.   

 

Old legal idiom: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is most likely a duck.

The committee isn't a court. 

But they are setting the table.

Donald John Trump is clearly GUILTY of conspiracy to defraud the United States just based on overwhelming evidence of the pressure he was putting on Mike Pence to overturn the election. 

FELONY. It doesn't need to be complicated,. They don't need a smoking gun on the insurrection riot conspiracy (they use encrypted apps so not likely to find). 

They don't need ten indictments with ten convictions.

One FELONY one will do the job. He's an old man. Such a conviction puts him out of the picture (but not his allied politicians or cult followers).

This is coming down to a political decision for Garland. 

Perhaps the most important such decision in American history.

It is not customary to lay criminal charges on former presidents.

He will face a lot of pressure to do so after the committee finishes.

If he proceeds I'm assuming he will know a conviction is almost definite.

Will that spark civil war? Maybe.

But we may be headed for civil war and / or the end of democracy anyway. 

They haven't managed to change the laws that would have made the 2020 coup possible so it will likely happen again.

If Garland acts, at least for the sake of history, an effort will have been made.

More than can be said for Joe Manchin. 

Edited by Jingthing
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Finally. Thankyou. But congress members with the power to order security were not looking for pardons.

Which Congress members had the power to order security? I could not find any reliable source about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

I apologize. Perhaps I haven't been paying close enough attention. 

 

What were the names of the protestors/rioters who were convicted of threatening the Vice President, again? 

 

And were they "convicted".......... or did they reach a plea agreement? 

 

(Sorry for my skepticism, but you're saying "it hasn't worked." But I'm pretty sure there hasn't even been a charge like that, yet. But again, maybe I just haven't been paying attention!......... 

????????????)

 

Cheers! 

I see you slipped a ‘threatening the Vice President’ in there.

 

Conspiracy to sedition does not necessarily require a threat to the Vice President.

 

The courts have accepted the  guilty pleas on ‘Seditious Conspiracy’ of two ‘Oath Keepers’.

 

Brian Ulrich and Joshua James now await sentencing.

 

More to come, stay tuned.

 

Cheers!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The courts have accepted the  guilty pleas on ‘Seditious Conspiracy’ of two ‘Oath Keepers’.

 

Brian Ulrich and Joshua James now await sentencing.

 

It's up to THREE of them now... not two

 

Third Oath Keepers defendant pleads guilty to sedition in Capitol riot case

 

William Todd Wilson, a 44-year-old military and law enforcement veteran, has agreed to cooperate with authorities

 

WASHINGTON — A North Carolina member of the Oath Keepers pleaded guilty on Wednesday to seditious conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

 

William Todd Wilson, a 44-year-old former leader of the Sampson County chapter of the far-right militia group, is the third Oath Keeper to admit to seditious conspiracy. Joshua James and Brian Ulrich pleaded guilty to the charge earlier this year and agreed to cooperate with the government.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/third-oath-keepers-defendant-pleads-guilty-sedition-capitol-riot-case-rcna27294

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

It's up to THREE of them now... not two

 

Third Oath Keepers defendant pleads guilty to sedition in Capitol riot case

 

William Todd Wilson, a 44-year-old military and law enforcement veteran, has agreed to cooperate with authorities

 

WASHINGTON — A North Carolina member of the Oath Keepers pleaded guilty on Wednesday to seditious conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

 

William Todd Wilson, a 44-year-old former leader of the Sampson County chapter of the far-right militia group, is the third Oath Keeper to admit to seditious conspiracy. Joshua James and Brian Ulrich pleaded guilty to the charge earlier this year and agreed to cooperate with the government.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/third-oath-keepers-defendant-pleads-guilty-sedition-capitol-riot-case-rcna27294

 

Thank you, but actually it only needed to be one to prove the fallacy I was addressing.

 

And there’s more to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, candide said:

That would be a case of failure to act. It is the duty of a president to protect the U.S. Constitution and its institutions. On top of it, if it comes up to be the outcome, not only of negligence, but also of common interest with and sympathy for the rioters, it would be an aggravating circumstance.

Failure to act, whether it's President George Bush freezing on September 11, 2001 when he was told the country was under attack or President Donald Trump waiting to see how the attack on the Capitol played out before making any action, should disqualify anyone from being President and Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

we need more people like Trump, let's hope he is re-elected, pardon everyone on the January 6th incident, and put Biden in jail for being a boring wa*nker ????

 

Putin would certainly agree.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Failure to act, whether it's President George Bush freezing on September 11, 2001 when he was told the country was under attack or President Donald Trump waiting to see how the attack on the Capitol played out before making any action, should disqualify anyone from being President and Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.

There was a big difference between these two cases. Bush was not particularly supportive of the terrorist organisation. It was only due to his incompetence. There could not be any suspicion that he did it on purpose.

 

That's quite different from Trump who was supportive of the protesters. Actually, he called them to protest (even if he did not literally tell them to storm the Capitol). There is a credible suspicion that he failed to act on purpose. Well, I guess we'll know more about it after the next hearings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

 

No matter how much I loathe the man, I STILL can't deny him the benefit-of-the-doubt. I simply cannot pretend there is no doubt....... like we see so many doing........... when I can come up with at least a dozen reasonable explanations......... that show there are! 

 

Yes, when a coach says to "fight like hell," we know what that means. But more importantly, we also know what that DOESN'T mean!

 

Automatically assuming Trump meant something different because he's Trump........... is just wrong! 

 

 

There's a video on the Australian ABC news site which shows police battling to hold off the rioters at the Capitol, getting bashed for their pains, and pleading for support of their radios.

The video also has a voice-over from Trump, saying how he can feel all the love in the air. A spill-my-coffee on the keyboard moment.

Trump plays to the basest instincts of people. You're the one that is wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...