The Jan. 6 Investigation

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh...I am pretty sure that the only thing that prevented that from happening was that the majority of the "tourists" were white.

White so police prep for the potential riot was non-existent plus whatever Dump did that we don't know about yet.

 

[smartcooky]

I believe this is called 'giving the benefit of the doubt'.

IMO, its more like twisting ones self into a pretzel to make the facts one's narrative

Your 'side'? Surely you aren't suggesting that partisanship is behind theprestige's perfectly reasonable questions that he was Just Asking?

I can't speak for Parsman, but I am 100% certain you have hit the nail flush on the head!

 

[Kid Eager]

There’s a sea lion in the thread…

 

[smartcooky]

Earlier, I brought up the Ukraine blackmail incident, suggesting that Trump's devoted butt-lickers were using the same spurious "no harm no foul" reasoning to justify downplaying 1/6. I also mentioned that the GQP's cover-up of 1/6 and the events leading up to it were unravelling right in front of us.

Well the two have come together very nicely today


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/us/politics/trump-justice-department-election.html

"President Donald J. Trump pressed top Justice Department officials late last year to declare that the election was corrupt even though they had found no instances of widespread fraud, so he and his allies in Congress could use the assertion to try to overturn the results, according to new documents provided to lawmakers.

The demands were an extraordinary instance of a president interfering with an agency that is typically more independent from the White House to advance his personal agenda. They are also the latest example of Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging campaign during his final weeks in office to delegitimize the election results."​

And here's a link to those documents

https://oversight.house.gov/news/pr...of-president-trump-s-attempts-to-overturn-the

The [handwriten] notes include the following exchange, attributable to former President Trump (“P”) and Mr. Rosen, who was Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) prior to his appointment as Acting Attorney General a few days before the call:

“- DAG … ‘understand that the DOJ can’t + won’t snap its fingers + change the outcome of the election, doesn’t work that way.’” (p. 4)

“ - P: ‘Don’t expect you to do that, just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.’” (pp. 4-5).

​

Looks familiar doesn't it!? Its the same stunt he tried pulling when he attempted to extort President Zelenskiy - on that occasion he didn't actually need to have a real investigation started, he just wanted Zelenskiy to announce one. Well, he's tried that same technique here with the DoJ - just say the election is corrupt! He tried to get them to lie for him.

It must be endlessly frustrating to have acted like a mob-boss all your life and have everyone around you jump into line when you bark orders, only to suddenly find that it no longer works when yo have people around you who have limits as to how much they will sell out their own country.

Its all coming apart at the seams folks. All these releases of embarrassing information, nervous, equivocating Congress critters like Jim Jordan flubbing simple questions. The Select Committee is going to have a LOT of witnesses to subpoena.... and THIS time, he does not have Executive privilege to cover it all up.

 

[SteveAitch]

...

Its all coming apart at the seams folks. All these releases of embarrassing information, nervous, equivocating Congress critters like Jim Jordan flubbing simple questions. The Select Committee is going to have a LOT of witnesses to subpoena.... and THIS time, he does not have Executive privilege to cover it all up.

Maybe the Orange One can organise a Stop the Witch Hunt 'rally' to save himself. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Stacyhs]

You seem to be being contrarian for the sake of it. A large group of people gathered at the behest of 45, and were whipped into a frenzy by rhetoric from45, Giuliani, Brooks etc. They were urged to go to The Capitol and "Stop the Steal". They proceeded to try to do that by the use of force, intimidation and violence. They were even prepared to attack and injure law enforcement to achieve their ends, that end being stopping a democratic transfer of power and keep the loser in power. Your quibble seems to be this wasn't a coup because... reasons? It might not have been the most organised of coups, it might not have had military backing. Heck given the loons heading the movement, 45 and his minions, I doubt they could plan the proverbial piss up in the brewery but it was an attempted violent overthrow of an election. So get out your thesaurus if you don't like the word coup, but your side has to own this for what it was, and the enquiry I am sure will clarify that enough even for you.

There’s a sea lion in the thread…

Yep!

 

[Stacyhs]

Earlier, I brought up the Ukraine blackmail incident, suggesting that Trump's devoted butt-lickers were using the same spurious "no harm no foul" reasoning to justify downplaying 1/6. I also mentioned that the GQP's cover-up of 1/6 and the events leading up to it were unravelling right in front of us.

Well the two have come together very nicely today


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/us/politics/trump-justice-department-election.html

"President Donald J. Trump pressed top Justice Department officials late last year to declare that the election was corrupt even though they had found no instances of widespread fraud, so he and his allies in Congress could use the assertion to try to overturn the results, according to new documents provided to lawmakers.

The demands were an extraordinary instance of a president interfering with an agency that is typically more independent from the White House to advance his personal agenda. They are also the latest example of Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging campaign during his final weeks in office to delegitimize the election results."​

And here's a link to those documents

https://oversight.house.gov/news/pr...of-president-trump-s-attempts-to-overturn-the

The [handwriten] notes include the following exchange, attributable to former President Trump (“P”) and Mr. Rosen, who was Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) prior to his appointment as Acting Attorney General a few days before the call:

“- DAG … ‘understand that the DOJ can’t + won’t snap its fingers + change the outcome of the election, doesn’t work that way.’” (p. 4)

“ - P: ‘Don’t expect you to do that, just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.’” (pp. 4-5).

​

Looks familiar doesn't it!? Its the same stunt he tried pulling when he attempted to extort President Zelenskiy - on that occasion he didn't actually need to have a real investigation started, he just wanted Zelenskiy to announce one. Well, he's tried that same technique here with the DoJ - just say the election is corrupt! He tried to get them to lie for him.

It must be endlessly frustrating to have acted like a mob-boss all your life and have everyone around you jump into line when you bark orders, only to suddenly find that it no longer works when yo have people around you who have limits as to how much they will sell out their own country.

Its all coming apart at the seams folks. All these releases of embarrassing information, nervous, equivocating Congress critters like Jim Jordan flubbing simple questions. The Select Committee is going to have a LOT of witnesses to subpoena.... and THIS time, he does not have Executive privilege to cover it all up.

Does anyone know if this information was presented during the second impeachment of Trump? Not that it would have made any difference to the GOP Senate who voted 'not guilty'. They could have had a notarized full confession from Trump and they would still have voted not to convict Dear Leader.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Jim Jordan doesn't seem nervous at all. I can't imagine why they didn't want him on the commission.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/TfdleWs.jpg[/qimg]

Whats the point of finding out if Jim talked to Trump that day or not? I guess he doesnt remember what they talked about anyways...

 

[Stacyhs]

Whats the point of finding out if Jim talked to Trump that day or not? I guess he doesnt remember what they talked about anyways...

You really think he doesn't remember what they talked about on the day of the riot? Under oath, if he lies about talking to Trump or what they discussed, he can be charged with perjury, a felony. Why do you think he and others were so desperate to keep a committee, even a bipartisan one, from holding an investigation?

 

[dudalb]

Indeed but so was the Bay of Pigs,

It still was intended to be a serious violent attack on the handover of power by those taking part.

oh, I 100% agree. A stupid criminal is still a criminal.
I just think the portrayal of this coup as being well planned by professionals does not fit iin well with what happened. We are talking the Three Stooges, not the Dogs of War.
And of course the insurrectionist should be punished to the full extent of the law.

 

[dudalb]

Is incompetence a defence against accusations of intent?

I would argue that it is not. The intent and the attempt are crimes in and of themselves, regardless of success or failiure.

No debate possible on this point; an incompetent criminal act is just as ciminal as one competently planned.
There might be more severe consequences for the competent one simply because it probably would do more damage and result in more charged then an ineptly planned one, but both are criminal acts.

 

[dudalb]

Noe accsations from Ghomert that the capitol police "Ambushed" Ashli Babett.
No doubt, they are intent of making her the Horst Wessel of the American Fascist Movement.
'Hole High The Banners"......

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Noe accsations from Ghomert that the capitol police "Ambushed" Ashli Babett.
No doubt, they are intent of making her the Horst Wessel of the American Fascist Movement.
'Hole High The Banners"......

Think your typos have obscured your meaning. You seem to be saying the appropriate thing for Ghomert to have done is to accuse the Capitol Police of ambushing Babett. That doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

oh, I 100% agree. A stupid criminal is still a criminal.
I just think the portrayal of this coup as being well planned by professionals does not fit iin well with what happened. We are talking the Three Stooges, not the Dogs of War.
And of course the insurrectionist should be punished to the full extent of the law.

I'm pretty sure no one here thinks this was a professionally planned coup.

First, Dump is not capable, at all, nowhere close. If he were we'd be in big trouble. Fortunately his stupidity is only surpassed by his incompetence.

Second, I don't consider weekend warriors to be "professional". I would call them wannbe revolutionaries that play act a little too often.

 

[alfaniner]

Think your typos have obscured your meaning. You seem to be saying the appropriate thing for Ghomert to have done is to accuse the Capitol Police of ambushing Babett. That doesn't seem to make sense.

+1

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm pretty sure no one here thinks this was a professionally planned coup.

First, Dump is not capable, at all, nowhere close. If he were we'd be in big trouble. Fortunately his stupidity is only surpassed by his incompetence.

Second, I don't consider weekend warriors to be "professional". I would call them wannbe revolutionaries that play act a little too often.

Is there such a thing as a "professional" insurrectionist? Several of those charged have military and/or law enforcement experience, especially the Oath Keepers.

From the start, the group has tried to recruit military and law enforcement into its ranks. The name "Oath Keepers" itself is a call-back to the oath such individuals swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Still, it's not a rigid, cohesive organization. Instead, researchers say, it's loosely knit. The Justice Department describes it as a "large but loosely organized collection of individuals."

But in the 2016 presidential election, the group threw its support behind Donald Trump.

Jackson says the organization didn't abandon its anti-government extremism and become loyal members of the Republican Party. Instead, he says, Oath Keepers viewed Trump as an ally in a fight "against a corrupt elite, which you can see in rhetoric about the 'deep state' or about 'drain the swamp,' those sorts of things."

After the 2020 election, Rhodes pushed Trump's false claims that the ballot was rigged. Days after the vote, Rhodes addressed a small "Stop the Steal" rally in Virginia, where he urged people not to accept the results. "What do you have right now if nothing but a communist insurrection intent on overthrowing our Constitution?" he said. Rhodes called Joe Biden a puppet of the Chinese communist party, and he called on Trump to use the U.S. military to put down the alleged communist-globalist insurrection.

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/10/9854...oup-founder-scrutinized-in-capitol-riot-probe

 

[Lennart Hyland]

You really think he doesn't remember what they talked about on the day of the riot? Under oath, if he lies about talking to Trump or what they discussed, he can be charged with perjury, a felony. Why do you think he and others were so desperate to keep a committee, even a bipartisan one, from holding an investigation?

Ofcourse he remembers but I mean he could say that he doesnt or come up with some other lie about what they talked about. How could they possibly disprove it?

And I believe they all (the GOPers) hide something with the regards to the riot. Its a disgrace that they tried to stop än onvestigation.

 

[Armitage72]

Think your typos have obscured your meaning. You seem to be saying the appropriate thing for Ghomert to have done is to accuse the Capitol Police of ambushing Babett. That doesn't seem to make sense.

I'm guessing it's supposed to be "Now (there are) accusations from Ghomert that the capitol police "Ambushed" Ashli Babett."

 

[Stacyhs]

Ofcourse he remembers but I mean he could say that he doesnt or come up with some other lie about what they talked about. How could they possibly disprove it?

And I believe they all (the GOPers) hide something with the regards to the riot. Its a disgrace that they tried to stop än onvestigation.

Yes, as I said in an earlier post, expect an epidemic of "I don't recalls" from these guys. BUT...once he says something under oath and it's revealed that he lied, he could be charged with perjury. That evidence could be something said or written in the past on social media, an email, etc. or contradicted by other testimony. Phone records could prove a call was made and when. These guys aren't a bunch of mental giants.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'm guessing it's supposed to be "Now (there are) accusations from Ghomert that the capitol police "Ambushed" Ashli Babett."

Sounds right.

ETA: BTW I tried googling "Gohmert Ambush" earlier and didn't turn anything up. Nothing now either.