The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Warp12 said:
[/STRIKE]
That's fine. I'd rather see the claim and validate it myself...as opposed to relying on the forum congregation to tell me what has merit and what doesn't.

The last place I'm searching for truth is in an echo chamber, here or elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Mikegriffith1 had already posted the same lie and had it disproved not by 'the forum congregation', but by Snopes and Politifact.
 
The January 6 panel said Trump incited an ‘attempted coup’. Will it kill him or make him stronger?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/11/jan-6-hearings-capitol-attack-trump-coup-analysis

The January 6 committee, however, has no power to prosecute Trump or anyone else. That would be a decision for Merrick Garland, the attorney general, at the justice department, and fraught with risks in a polarised environment: Trump allies would doubtless cry foul and accuse him of a politically motivated witch-hunt.

Such a prospect might actually make it more likely that Trump run for president again in 2024 because he knows the justice department would be reluctant to go after an active candidate. He would seek to weaponise such a move while on the campaign trail, casting himself as the victim of a deep state conspiracy, just as he did with the Russia investigation.
Click to expand...


I don't see it happening. But it would be pretty amazing if he did get the party nomination after this.
 
The main MAGA compaint is that the Jan 6 hearings are one-sided. It is, of course. It's not really a hearing in the sense of competing sides but rather an exposition of the fact-finding that the group determined. The problem the MAGA "election fraud" crowd has is the lack of substantive evidence of any material actual fraud. Not that this matters. Trump and supporters simply assert fraud not only strongly, but that he actually "won by a lot." It takes significant effort to read the court cases to see how flimsy the cases were. Much easier to just think "Gee, Trump was president. He had more access than anyone so why not trust his claim."

Should a grand jury issue an indictment I think this is the best approach the Administration should take:

1. Let the announcement drive the press cycle for a day or two.
2. Biden announces that he is prospectively commuting any sentence should he be found guilty. At the same time Biden announces that this will provide Trump the unfettered oppotunity to present witnesses supporting his claim. Guilt primarily revolves around whether he knew he lost the election but claimed otherwise in order to stay in power through convincing others of his fraud claims. And Trump would almost certainly testify in his own defense. A bad strategy in a general criminal trial but one Trump would not be able to resist. I think this would capture the attention of most all of his partisans and would do some work towards establishing some commonality of Jan. 6 facts.
 
smartcooky said:
In other words, they are utterly meaningless!
Click to expand...


Nobody even knows for sure if Trump or Biden will run again, so for anyone to take these odds they would have to consider that as part of the calculation. So it's even more than meaningless.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Partisan blindness is on full display here. ...
Click to expand...
:id:

Why yes, yes it is.

mikegriffith1 said:
If those troops had been used, there would have been no storming of the Capitol. The storming protestors would have been outnumbered 10 to 1 by NG troops alone. They would have never gotten inside the building.
Click to expand...
Which is why Rump, not Schumer made sure there weren't enough troops and police to respond.

Think of the stupidity of your premise. Rump had already lost the election. To what possible advantage would it be for Democrats to block the certification of the votes? And which Democratic Senators were set to challenge any of the EC votes?
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Partisan blindness is on full display here. Of course. Of course. Schumer and Pelosi did absolutely nothing wrong. Not one thing. At worst, they merely made honest mistakes. But Trump. Oh, Trump should be jailed for years, even though he never publicly called for violence but urged that protests be peaceful and even though he approved the use of 20,000 NG troops to help guard the Capitol.

If those troops had been used, there would have been no storming of the Capitol. The storming protestors would have been outnumbered 10 to 1 by NG troops alone. They would have never gotten inside the building.

I guess one must assume that Schumer's aide never told him about the FBI intel. Right. You bet. If so, has Schumer summarily fired that aide? By what rationale could that aide have taken it upon himself to sit on such crucial intel? The logical assumption is that the aide advised Schumer of the intel, and if that's the case, Schumer surely should explain why he did nothing about it.

And what excuse is there for Pelosi's refusal to allow NG troops to be used to guard the Capitol, even after Trump had approved their use? Even if this was just an innocent mistake, it was an act of appalling incompetence. With all the warnings that Pelosi was getting from police sources, she still refused to allow troops to help guard the Capitol. Even assuming this was just a bad decision with no ill intent, it was still a baffling blunder, especially given the fact that she kept NG troops around the Capitol for five months after the riot, even after it became clear there was no need for them. Should somebody who displayed such bad judgment on such a vital issue be Speaker of the House?
Click to expand...

I don't think 'logic' is on display anywhere in your post.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Partisan blindness is on full display here. Of course. Of course. Schumer and Pelosi did absolutely nothing wrong. Not one thing. At worst, they merely made honest mistakes.
Click to expand...


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-national-guard-capitol/

Claim: That House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked the National Guard from responding to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Rating; FALSE​

There wasn't anything "wrong" for them to do... they were not the government and had no power to call in the National Guard.

Only two people had the power to do that, The Fat Orange Turd and Moscow Mitch. Even VP Mike Pence didn't have that power, but he did try to use it...

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...s-to-help-defend-capitol-on-jan-6-panel-says/

mikegriffith1 said:
But Trump. Oh, Trump should be jailed for years, even though he never publicly called for violence
Click to expand...

"Fight like hell or you wont have a country any more"

He wound up his mob of moronic maga-hats into a violent frenzy, and urged them to go to the Capitol and "Stop the Steal". How were they going to stop this alleged steal... ask nicely and say pretty please with sprinkles on top?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Committee has the receipts, they have documentary evidence that Trump was deeply involved in organising the insurrection. He might have been able to flush communication documents down the White House toilet, but those documents have duplicates at the other end of the communication chain. It has become clear that the Committee has approached this from "the other end", from the outside-in when Trump arse-lickers have refused to supply documents.

mikegriffith1 said:
...but urged that protests be peaceful
Click to expand...

This is known as a "CYA statement", to give him plausible deniability later.

mikegriffith1 said:
He approved the use of 20,000 NG troops to help guard the Capitol. If those troops had been used, there would have been no storming of the Capitol. The storming protestors would have been outnumbered 10 to 1 by NG troops alone. They would have never gotten inside the building.
Click to expand...

Nope, he did no such thing.

THE CLAIM: “I immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders.”

THE FACTS: That's false. While Trump was involved in discussions about the National Guard response prior to January 6, he was not part of any decision-making. Defense officials have said they didn’t speak to him.
The DoJ called the Capitol Police offering FBI agents, but the police turned down the offer. DoJ later called again and this time help was accepted. Trump was not involved.
National Guard troops had already been activated and deployed to checkpoints around the city that day, before the violence began. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser requested more Guard help, on behalf of the Capitol Police. That request was made to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who then went to acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, who approved it.

The Pentagon said Miller approved the request without speaking with the White House because he had gotten direction from the president days earlier to do whatever he deemed necessary with the Guard.

In short, the Fat Orange Turd is lying... as usual, and so is your source... as usual - and you are mindlessly parroting that lie. Even Fox News, Newsmax and OAN are not reporting this as a fact.

And even once the insurrection was under way, he refused to bring in the troops, and refused to make an announcement, even though his aides and advisors - including his own son and daughter pleaded with him multiple times for over three hours. When he finally did make his call at 4:17 for them to leave the Capitol, he actually praised them for what they did!

mikegriffith1 said:
I guess one must assume that Schumer's aide never told him about the FBI intel. Right. You bet. If so, has Schumer summarily fired that aide? By what rationale could that aide have taken it upon himself to sit on such crucial intel? The logical assumption is that the aide advised Schumer of the intel, and if that's the case, Schumer surely should explain why he did nothing about it.
Click to expand...

How would some aide know about this FBI intel, and The Fat Orange Turds' National Security Advisor and Head of Homeland Security not know?

mikegriffith1 said:
And what excuse is there for Pelosi's refusal to allow NG troops to be used to guard the Capitol, even after Trump had approved their use?
Click to expand...

There wasn't anything for Pelosi to refuse, because Trump never authorised the use of NG troops to defend the Capitol

Again, you are being gulled by your lying source, credulously accepting those lies, and minlessly parroting them here.

mikegriffith1 said:
Even if this was just an innocent mistake, it was an act of appalling incompetence. With all the warnings that Pelosi was getting from police sources, she still refused to allow troops to help guard the Capitol. Even assuming this was just a bad decision with no ill intent, it was still a baffling blunder, especially given the fact that she kept NG troops around the Capitol for five months after the riot, even after it became clear there was no need for them. Should somebody who displayed such bad judgment on such a vital issue be Speaker of the House?
Click to expand...

None of any this happened. You're a credule, and you're being gulled by by John Solomon, a partisan, hyper conservative Trump arse-licker. There was no FBI intelligence, and there were no Police sources - either DC metro or Capitol Police - warning of threats to the Capitol.
.
.
 
Warp12 said:
You must have missed the part where I stated I was done with the partisanship debate.
Click to expand...

Translation: "I'm butthurt because I have been getting an arse-whooping from johnny karate et al, and I'm too afraid to answer his questions honestly"

ETA: ...and what Ginger just posted!
 
Two things:

You can watch the hearings on PBS if you don't have TV on your cable. The CSPAN link requires you to log in with your TV provider. I have Comcast internet but not TV. I didn't try to log in with my Comcast service.

https://www.youtube.com/c/PBSNewsHour


And an interesting comment by Mary Trump about her uncle Donny: He will definitely run in 2024 because that's the only way he sees to get out of all these criminal charges he's facing. That's a pretty scary prediction that has even more ominous foreshadowing re Rump getting back into the Oval Office and destroying our democracy as he would know how not to fail a second time.
 
There is nothing partisan about trying to find out why people stormed the capitol of OUR country in an attempt to halt a transfer of power. Every American should give a very big damn about this.

The fact that one side claims it is partisan is all you need to know. Do any of our resident dumbasses ever consider that?

Do the Republicans have their own committee perhaps? Is that why? No, because they do not want the truth to come out. That is the only possible reason.

Did they make these false claims in the committee they were asked to join? No, they're crying out in the hallway hoping their own teammates won't peek through the door and see the truth.

Maybe your team is hiding something when:

- They refuse to investigate the riot on Jan 6, even on their own!

- They are willing to make up obvious lies, like the false claim that Trump wanted thousands of troops or security that day.

- Fox carries these lies for the right and refuses to show their viewers the honest and obvious truth. We will stick with this "thousands of troops request" as a specific lie. Gingrich spread the lie again on FOX. Why would they need to do that?

They know this claim is 100% false yet they go with it anyways because they don't respect their viewers. They won't check.

The Republicans couldn't look more guilty if they tried. They act like defendants because they are.

If a person can't recognize that the above incontrovertible facts make their own team look guilty as hell then there is no hope for that person. They are lying to themselves and are okay with that. Completely bought and paid for.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Translation: "I'm butthurt because I have been getting an arse-whooping from johnny karate et al, and I'm too afraid to answer his questions honestly"

ETA: ...and what Ginger just posted!
Click to expand...


Total falsehood.

You would think that 5 pages of debate on the topic would have been enough. Apparently some of you want more. Laughable.
 
smartcooky said:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-national-guard-capitol/

Claim: That House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked the National Guard from responding to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Rating; FALSE​

There wasn't anything "wrong" for them to do... they were not the government and had no power to call in the National Guard.

Only two people had the power to do that, The Fat Orange Turd and Moscow Mitch. Even VP Mike Pence didn't have that power, but he did try to use it...

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...s-to-help-defend-capitol-on-jan-6-panel-says/



"Fight like hell or you wont have a country any more"

He wound up his mob of moronic maga-hats into a violent frenzy, and urged them to go to the Capitol and "Stop the Steal". How were they going to stop this alleged steal... ask nicely and say pretty please with sprinkles on top?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Committee has the receipts, they have documentary evidence that Trump was deeply involved in organising the insurrection. He might have been able to flush communication documents down the White House toilet, but those documents have duplicates at the other end of the communication chain. It has become clear that the Committee has approached this from "the other end", from the outside-in when Trump arse-lickers have refused to supply documents.



This is known as a "CYA statement", to give him plausible deniability later.



Nope, he did no such thing.

THE CLAIM: “I immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders.”

THE FACTS: That's false. While Trump was involved in discussions about the National Guard response prior to January 6, he was not part of any decision-making. Defense officials have said they didn’t speak to him.
The DoJ called the Capitol Police offering FBI agents, but the police turned down the offer. DoJ later called again and this time help was accepted. Trump was not involved.
National Guard troops had already been activated and deployed to checkpoints around the city that day, before the violence began. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser requested more Guard help, on behalf of the Capitol Police. That request was made to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who then went to acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, who approved it.

The Pentagon said Miller approved the request without speaking with the White House because he had gotten direction from the president days earlier to do whatever he deemed necessary with the Guard.

In short, the Fat Orange Turd is lying... as usual, and so is your source... as usual - and you are mindlessly parroting that lie. Even Fox News, Newsmax and OAN are not reporting this as a fact.

And even once the insurrection was under way, he refused to bring in the troops, and refused to make an announcement, even though his aides and advisors - including his own son and daughter pleaded with him multiple times for over three hours. When he finally did make his call at 4:17 for them to leave the Capitol, he actually praised them for what they did!



How would some aide know about this FBI intel, and The Fat Orange Turds' National Security Advisor and Head of Homeland Security not know?



There wasn't anything for Pelosi to refuse, because Trump never authorised the use of NG troops to defend the Capitol

Again, you are being gulled by your lying source, credulously accepting those lies, and minlessly parroting them here.



None of any this happened. You're a credule, and you're being gulled by by John Solomon, a partisan, hyper conservative Trump arse-licker. There was no FBI intelligence, and there were no Police sources - either DC metro or Capitol Police - warning of threats to the Capitol.
.
.
Click to expand...

Come on, smartcooky! Don't harsh his outrage with mere facts.:p
 
Warp12 said:
The January 6 panel said Trump incited an ‘attempted coup’. Will it kill him or make him stronger?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/11/jan-6-hearings-capitol-attack-trump-coup-analysis




I don't see it happening. But it would be pretty amazing if he did get the party nomination after this.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I'll regret asking, but why do you think that?
He clearly is the front runner in every poll.
It's also a huge problem for the GOP to run him because unlike 2016 it will be virtually impossible for him to gain votes from independents and moderates.
But barring severe physical incapacity his narcissistic personality will not allow anyone else to run, particularly someone like a DeSantis.
So what choice will they have?? They have to go with the front runner and hope to steal the election.
At less things like inflation and recession will give them some cover. And regardless of his personal responsibility, Biden will be blamed for the gas prices and subjected to even stronger insinuations about his mental capacity, so he clearly is a problem for the Dems.
 
stanfr said:
I'm sure I'll regret asking, but why do you think that?
He clearly is the front runner in every poll.
It's also a huge problem for the GOP to run him because unlike 2016 it will be virtually impossible for him to gain votes from independents and moderates.
But barring severe physical incapacity his narcissistic personality will not allow anyone else to run, particularly someone like a DeSantis.
So what choice will they have?? They have to go with the front runner and hope to steal the election.
At less things like inflation and recession will give them some cover. And regardless of his personal responsibility, Biden will be blamed for the gas prices and subjected to even stronger insinuations about his mental capacity, so he clearly is a problem for the Dems.
Click to expand...


I think his legal woes will take him out of the running.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom