The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
dudalb said:
I hate to say it, but Garland has to go.
Click to expand...

Appointing that guy was one of the more frustrating things about Biden. Garland only became a thing because Obama wanted to troll the Senate with a nominee that was a slight conservative. Which was a reasonable thing given the circumstances.

Turning around and appointing the guy as AG as some sort of message was... just hard to comprehend. When someone rejects your compromise and you end up with the power to not compromise you no longer should compromise if for no other reason in order for leverage in future negotiations.

If your compromise position is my worst case scenario then why would I ever compromise, no?

It's a great example of why the Democratic Party is on the whole dangerously incompetent.
 
Suddenly said:
Appointing that guy was one of the more frustrating things about Biden. Garland only became a thing because Obama wanted to troll the Senate with a nominee that was a slight conservative. Which was a reasonable thing given the circumstances.

Turning around and appointing the guy as AG as some sort of message was... just hard to comprehend. When someone rejects your compromise and you end up with the power to not compromise you no longer should compromise if for no other reason in order for leverage in future negotiations.

If your compromise position is my worst case scenario then why would I ever compromise, no?

It's a great example of why the Democratic Party is on the whole dangerously incompetent.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
Suddenly said:
Appointing that guy was one of the more frustrating things about Biden. Garland only became a thing because Obama wanted to troll the Senate with a nominee that was a slight conservative. Which was a reasonable thing given the circumstances.

Turning around and appointing the guy as AG as some sort of message was... just hard to comprehend. When someone rejects your compromise and you end up with the power to not compromise you no longer should compromise if for no other reason in order for leverage in future negotiations.

If your compromise position is my worst case scenario then why would I ever compromise, no?

It's a great example of why the Democratic Party is on the whole dangerously incompetent.
Click to expand...

Especially considering the very specific problem of Trump and his various crimes related to his coup attempt. This is a very unusual and extreme set of circumstances where you really need someone who isn't some fence sitting "respectability politics" dweeb in the AG position, and Biden puts in this guy who was selected as a pander to the right by Obama.

The committees digging into the Jan6 events keep finding damning piece of evidence after damning piece of evidence, and it's likely not going to matter because people like Garland think not causing a fuss is the most important principle to defend.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Especially considering the very specific problem of Trump and his various crimes related to his coup attempt. This is a very unusual and extreme set of circumstances where you really need someone who isn't some fence sitting "respectability politics" dweeb in the AG position, and Biden puts in this guy who was selected as a pander to the right by Obama.

The committees digging into the Jan6 events keep finding damning piece of evidence after damning piece of evidence, and it's likely not going to matter because people like Garland think not causing a fuss is the most important principle to defend.
Click to expand...

Evidence of this? Has it occurred to anyone that Garland may just be making sure he has an airtight case before going forward?

Ex-justice officials caution, however, that while there’s growing evidence of criminal conduct by Trump to obstruct Congress from certifying Biden’s win on January 6 and defraud the government, building a strong case to prove Trump’s corrupt intent – a necessary element to convict him – probably requires more evidence and time.

In an important speech in January this year, Garland said he would hold “all January 6 perpetrators, at any level” accountable, if they were present at the Capitol that day or not, who were responsible for this “assault on our democracy”, which suggested to some ex-prosecutors that Trump and some allies were in his sights.
Click to expand...

Some former top DoJ officials and prosecutors, however, say Garland is moving correctly and expeditiously in pursuing all criminal conduct to overturn Biden’s election in its sprawling January 6 inquiry.

“When people (including many lawyers) criticize the DoJ for not more clearly centering the January 6 investigation on Trump, they are expressing impatience rather than a clear understanding of the trajectory of the investigation,” the former justice inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian.

“DoJ is methodically building the case from the bottom up. It is almost surely the most complex criminal investigation in the nation’s history, involving the most prosecutors, the most investigators, the most digital evidence – and the most defendants,” he added.

Bromwich added that “people view the scores of ongoing criminal prosecutions of participants in the January 6 insurrection as somehow separate from the investigation of Trump. They are not. He is the subject of the investigation at the top of the pyramid. People need to carefully watch what is happening, not react based on their impatience.”
Click to expand...

On another legal front that could implicate Trump and some top allies, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, revealed in January that the DoJ was starting a criminal investigation into a sprawling scheme – reportedly spearheaded by Trump’s ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign aides – to replace legitimate electors for Biden with false ones pledged to Trump in seven states that Biden won.

Further, the Washington Post reported late last month that the DoJ had begun looking into the funding and organizing of the January 6 “Save America” rally in Washington involving some Trump allies. Trump repeated his false claims at the rally that the election was stolen.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/10/merrick-garland-charge-donald-trump-january-6
 
My fear is that the very fact of the sprawling nature of the case, requiring more time to sew up, could be what saves the erstwhile defendants. I would imagine that indictments not made before, say, August would have to be deferred until after the election, due to the particular American pusilanimity where a fear of political taint is so overriding. Is there a looming time limit in the form of the potential makeup of the House after the midterm election? What ramifications could result from a GQP dominant House and Senate? Would there result meaningful pressure on the DOJ to back down?

After witnessing the accelerating slide toward insanity in America these past 6-7 years, my optimism has endured quite the beating, my cynicism thus thriving.
 
Stacyhs said:
Evidence of this? Has it occurred to anyone that Garland may just be making sure he has an airtight case before going forward?






https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/10/merrick-garland-charge-donald-trump-january-6
Click to expand...

Entirely speculative on my part, but it's not like we haven't seen this type before. These institutionalists don't want to sully their hands with grimy work, even when that's exactly what is called for. The flop that was the Mueller investigation ought to have demonstrated this type very clearly. The type that is more concerned about managing PR blowback for institutions than actually doing their duty as the circumstances demand.

"Just be patient, these people are just doing their due diligence" is exactly the same line of crap we were fed right up until the Mueller flop.

Timeliness is a factor too, whether these people like it or not.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Timeliness is a factor too, whether these people like it or not.
Click to expand...

This should have been priorities 1-100 for the DOJ. Democrats like to pick at Trump for not responding to COVID when this is like 1000000 times worse given the stakes are the whole democracy.

Decades of having compromise as your main ethos is how you leverage majority support into incompetence. The GOP is horrible, to be sure, but it's the Clinton era dems that created the scenario where the GOP gained by being less reasonable and here we are.
 
MTG's attorney just tried to claim executive privilege to prevent a question about Trump, despite the fact that MTG is not a member of the executive branch, and that her attorney is not there representing Donald Trump.


Question(To MTG): Did you discuss the idea that there should be martial law prior to the inauguration
Lawyer: I’m going to have to object. I actually represent the President and that’s covered by executive privilege

Video in link

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1517579196037443584

He does nor represent the President. He may, or may not, represent Donald Trump, who is merely a private citizen with no authority to invoke that privilege.
 
Last edited:
Why does the video cut off at that point? What did the judge say?
 
I caught a short news snippet that said MTG could face perjury as she'd lied on the stand today. Don't know any details.

ETA: Found it. She was asked if she called Pelosi a traitor and replied that it was speculation and she wasn't going to answer that but then said, "No. No, I haven’t said that," just before the lawyer asked for “plaintiff’s Exhibit 5, please.” She suddenly looks very agitated and says, “Oh, no, wait. Hold on, now," and then obviously tries to cover by claiming she meant Pelosi has violated her oath of office by not securing the border. The lawyer then played a video of MTG at a rally clearly calling Pelosi and traitor and should be executed for treason. After the video plays, she claims she can't recall saying that.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
I caught a short news snippet that said MTG could face perjury as she'd lied on the stand today. Don't know any details.

ETA: Found it. She was asked if she called Pelosi a traitor and replied that it was speculation and she wasn't going to answer that but then said, "No. No, I haven’t said that," just before the lawyer asked for “plaintiff’s Exhibit 5, please.” She suddenly looks very agitated and says, “Oh, no, wait. Hold on, now," and then obviously tries to cover by claiming she meant Pelosi has violated her oath of office by not securing the border. The lawyer then played a video of MTG at a rally clearly calling Pelosi and traitor and should be executed for treason. After the video plays, she claims she can't recall saying that.
Click to expand...

With her memory failing like that, maybe she needs a stay in a psychiatric hospital? Just until she is better, of course. :boggled:
 
These scum really aren't terrorists....until they are. MTG and Boebert would be manning the gallows if the insurrectionists had succeeded.
 
What kind of clown did she get as her lawyer that didn't stop her from this sort of thing?
 
Not sure where to put this. People here are no doubt hearing the leaked tapes from reporters who have a new book out. The tapes show McCarthy saying he was going to ask Rump to resign while McCarthy had denied this ever happened.

Clearly it happened: McCarthy was caught on tape speaking things he later denied.

But my post is more general: who leaked the tapes in the first place to the NYT reporters who have written yet another book, This Will Not Pass, and who are now releasing the recordings to support their claims in the book?

There's an effort to blame Liz Cheney (it was a GOP conference call). But that's not likely. One, she's proven she has more integrity than that and two, it would gain her nothing.

So who would be the likely folks on the conference call who would leak it? Whichever legislator wants McCarthy's job of Speaker. D'uh!
 
Last edited:
kevbo said:
I completely agree with the hi-lited. The republicans, for the most part, do seem to be a bunch of backstabbing ********.
Click to expand...

Turns out there were only 3 people plus McCarthy on the call (according to Rachael Maddow):

Cheney, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), and Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Emmer (R-Minn).
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Turns out there were only 3 people plus McCarthy on the call (according to Rachael Maddow):

Cheney, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), and Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Emmer (R-Minn).
Click to expand...

My money would be on Scalise. Back in 2018 he was already maneuvering with hope of replacing McCarthy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom