The Jan. 6 Investigation

[Skeptic Ginger]

While most/all of these Congressional hearings include showboating for individual legislators (Jim Jordan being one of the worst barely beating out Cruz and Rubio), it's simply not true that nothing new is uncovered and that the hearings serve no other purpose.

There is a lot here already I didn't know about such as Jordan's call(s) to Dump on the 6th.

The testimony of Vindman and Hill for example, was completely new stuff for me in the impeachment hearing.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

My only complaint is that they waited too damn long. The right wing machine has already run history through their revisionism machine.

In the immediate aftermath there was more chaos on the right and how they should respond. I fear they are far less vulnerable to getting their feet held to fire at this late date.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My only complaint is that they waited too damn long. The right wing machine has already run history through their revisionism machine.

In the immediate aftermath there was more chaos on the right and how they should respond. I fear they are far less vulnerable to getting their feet held to fire at this late date.

There's another argument to be made here. What does "feet to the fire" accomplish? Is the DoJ going to indict these people?

Probably not. But closer to the 2022 election, now that might be the place we want all this to boil up around.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

There's another argument to be made here. What does "feet to the fire" accomplish? Is the DoJ going to indict these people?

Probably not. But closer to the 2022 election, now that might be the place we want all this to boil up around.

There might have been an opportunity to sow division among the broader right if some were willing to repudiate Trump or the Jan6 attackers in the immediate aftermath. Now everybody on the right is pretty much marching to the beat of the same drum, minimizing the seriousness of the legitimacy crisis they ginned up and valorizing those that took action to "stop the steal".

I predict there's almost no chance of any indictments coming from the investigation unless someone perjures themselves, and that strikes me as unlikely.

 

[Stacyhs]

Plenty of the people involved with the more serious crimes like conspiracy or attacking the police had previous experience with street violence at smaller actions throughout the country over the last few years.

The Jan6 attack was not a one-off phenomena, but merely the capstone of a long running series of right wing violent street rallies. Like the Capitol attack, police inaction, if not explicit cooperation, played a big role in allowing these attacks to occur without meaningful resistance or criminal consequences for those involved.

Many of these Proud Boys were routinely jetting around the country to take part in street brawls and violent anti-government rallies and would have been easy targets for local or federal law enforcement should they had the desire to do their duty.

The Jan6 attack was only the most extreme example showing the danger that comes when police willfully turn a blind eye to fascist violence.

For example: Ethan Nordean, a Proud Boy leader currently facing conspiracy charges, became a meme for beating a counter protestor unconscious at a fascist rally turned riot in Portland in 2018. Police inaction against organized fascist violence is a long standing problem in this country. Proud Boys getting away with broad daylight crimes again and again was a huge factor in their rise of popularity and increasing boldness.

Yes, lots of them have a history of this kind of behavior, but that doesn't make them "professional" insurrectionists. It makes them repeat offenders.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, lots of them have a history of this kind of behavior, but that doesn't make them "professional" insurrectionists. It makes them repeat offenders.

Their experience of engaging in this exact kind of behavior is probably more relevant than any tangential training they received through police and military jobs.

The closest thing to a "professional" insurrectionist are the grifter leaders, like Fedrico Tarrio or Stewart Rhodes, who manage to generate profit through trading on the name recognition of these fascist groups.

 

[Stacyhs]

Their experience of engaging in this exact kind of behavior is probably more relevant than any tangential training they received through police and military jobs.

The closest thing to a "professional" insurrectionist are the grifter leaders, like Fedrico Tarrio or Stewart Rhodes, who manage to generate profit through trading on the name recognition of these fascist groups.

Speaking of Steward Rhodes, it's likely that he will also be charged with conspiracy considering the emails and phone conversations the Feds have.

 

[PhantomWolf]

There might have been an opportunity to sow division among the broader right if some were willing to repudiate Trump or the Jan6 attackers in the immediate aftermath. Now everybody on the right is pretty much marching to the beat of the same drum, minimizing the seriousness of the legitimacy crisis they ginned up and valorizing those that took action to "stop the steal".

I predict there's almost no chance of any indictments coming from the investigation unless someone perjures themselves, and that strikes me as unlikely.

If the Right are all "pretty much marching to the beat of the same drum" and are "minimizing the seriousness of the legitimacy crisis they ginned up" and "valorizing those that took action" and they say these untrue things in front of the Committee, then isn't that exactly what "perjur(ing) themselves" would be?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If the Right are all "pretty much marching to the beat of the same drum" and are "minimizing the seriousness of the legitimacy crisis they ginned up" and "valorizing those that took action" and they say these untrue things in front of the Committee, then isn't that exactly what "perjur(ing) themselves" would be?

Opinions are not perjury. Saying that Babbitt is a martyr and a patriot is not perjury, for example.

 

[jimbob]

Opinions are not perjury. Saying that Babbitt is a martyr and a patriot is not perjury, for example.

Exactly, and if one lies under oath but there's no proof - "I don't recall", it's also not something that will get a conviction.

 

[crescent]

If the Right are all "pretty much marching to the beat of the same drum" and are "minimizing the seriousness of the legitimacy crisis they ginned up" and "valorizing those that took action" and they say these untrue things in front of the Committee, then isn't that exactly what "perjur(ing) themselves" would be?

Opinions are not perjury. Saying that Babbitt is a martyr and a patriot is not perjury, for example.

Exactly, and if one lies under oath but there's no proof - "I don't recall", it's also not something that will get a conviction.

That, and it is hard to prove a negative. You can't prove that there were no organized Antifa groups in that crowd. So it would not be perjury to say that you're convinced there were Antifa plants organizing the whole thing, and that failure to identify them just proves something nefarious about a grand liberal coverup.

The fact that there is absolutely no evidence supporting accusations of Antifa activity at the Capitol on January 6 would not be enough for perjury charges against those who claim otherwise. (Unless they made much more specific charges, which any experienced political person would know how to avoid.)

 

[acbytesla]

That, and it is hard to prove a negative. You can't prove that there were no organized Antifa groups in that crowd. So it would not be perjury to say that you're convinced there were Antifa plants organizing the whole thing, and that failure to identify them just proves something nefarious about a grand liberal coverup.

The fact that there is absolutely no evidence supporting accusations of Antifa activity at the Capitol on January 6 would not be enough for perjury charges against those who claim otherwise. (Unless they made much more specific charges, which any experienced political person would know how to avoid.)

I understand your point and excuse me for saying this, but it is naive and ridiculous. Determining guilt does not require a finding of beyond all doubt, but beyond reasonable doubt.

So the question is, "Is it reasonable to believe that January 6th was the result of ANTIFA?"

The answer is an obvious no.

 

[crescent]

I understand your point and excuse me for saying this but it is naive and ridiculous. Determining guilt does not require a determination of beyond all doubt but beyond reasonable doubt.

So the question is, "Is it reasonable to believe that January 6th was the result of ANTIFA?"

The answer is an obvious no.

I agree. Except....

But the I was responding to a post that was focusing on the potential for charges of perjury. If a witness gets up there at the hearing and swears that Antifa was there, he won't get charged with perjury.

Getting a conviction for perjury seems to be a pretty high bar to cross. A judge and jury may not believe what a witness claims, and may convict in spite of that witness's testimony - but does not mean that the witness is likely to be charged with perjury.

And at any rate, this is just a committee before congress. Nobody gets convicted of anything in these hearings. At best, they can daylight some hypocrisy, which supporters of the former President don't care about anyway.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree. Except....

But the I was responding to a post that was focusing on the potential for charges of perjury. If a witness gets up there at the hearing and swears that Antifa was there, he won't get charged with perjury.

Getting a conviction for perjury seems to be a pretty high bar to cross. A judge and jury may not believe what a witness claims, and may convict in spite of that witness's testimony - but does not mean that the witness is likely to be charged with perjury.

And at any rate, this is just a committee before congress. Nobody gets convicted of anything in these hearings. At best, they can daylight some hypocrisy, which supporters of the former President don't care about anyway.

I agree and disagree. it depends a great deal on the other evidence. If Congress believes you're perjuring yourself, they don't issue a charge, they make a recommendation to the DOJ that you should be investigated for committing perjury or making false claims to Congress. It is up to the DOJ to charge or not charge. They might charge you just to squeeze you.

BTW, both Roger Stone and Michael Cohen were convicted of lying to Congress as well as a few Nixon aides off the top of my head.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That, and it is hard to prove a negative. [/b]You can'tprove that there were no organized Antifa groups in that crowd.[/B] So it would not be perjury to say that you're convinced there were Antifa plants organizing the whole thing, and that failure to identify them just proves something nefarious about a grand liberal coverup.

The fact that there is absolutely no evidence supporting accusations of Antifa activity at the Capitol on January 6 would not be enough for perjury charges against those who claim otherwise. (Unless they made much more specific charges, which any experienced political person would know how to avoid.)

I'm not sure where 'false beliefs' falls in the perjury law but ignorance is considered not an excuse so it should apply to perjury as well. It would be up to the sentencing judge to take those kinds of circumstances into account. If you think about it, a lot of these weekend revolutionary wannabes are claiming they believed the POTUS sent them. Will those guys get off?

On the subject of proving the negative, there were a limited number of people in the melee. So it's not like one needs to prove some kind of infinite negative.


Getting to legislators who are are going to be found complicit, it will be interesting to see how believing 'the big lie' is going to play out on the perjury before Congress stage.

 

[varwoche]

I'm sorry if this has already been asked and answered. What questions, exactly, is this investigation investigating?

I don't recall ever seeing such a finely distilled example of JAQing.

 

[dudalb]

I don't recall ever seeing such a finely distilled example of JAQing.

THIS.
The right wingers attempt to hand wave away 1/6 is becoming more desperate.

 

[smartcooky]

THIS.
The right wingers attempt to hand wave away 1/6 is becoming more desperate.

The more the facade crumbles, the more the cover up is exposed, the more desperate they will become!

 

[Stacyhs]

Another officer who responded to the Jan. 6 insurrection has died by suicide. So that's three by suicide, and one from a stroke.

 

[Stacyhs]

A DOJ official between the election and Jan. 6 tried to get acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue to sign a letter saying the DOJ had found irregularities in the election which was a lie. Both Rosen and Donoghue refused. The letter was sent on Dec. 28, 2020

A draft letter reportedly circulated late last year by a Donald Trump-loyalist at the Justice Department shows the lengths his allies were willing to go to overturn the presidential election.

The draft December 28 letter, published by ABC News, urged top Georgia officials to convene the state legislature in a special session to evaluate supposed “irregularities” in the 2020 election.

The letter said, falsely, that Justice Department had identified “significant concerns that may have impacted of the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.”

According to internal Justice Department emails also obtained by ABC News, the letter was circulated by Jeffrey Clark, a top department official who was working with the then-President to get the department more directly involved in the Trump election reversal crusade. Clark was acting attorney general of the civil division at the time.

He sent the draft letter, according to the emails, to acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue. Though the letter was directed to Georgia, Clark’s email indicated that he wanted to send similar versions to “each relevant state.”

“I set it up for signature by the three of us. I think we should get it out as soon as possible,” Clark told Rosen and Donoghue, according to the emails obtained by ABC News.

The draft letter was one of several examples of how Trump tried to weaponize the Justice Department in his efforts to reverse his electoral defeat. Trump himself demanded that DOJ officials declare the election “illegal” and “corrupt,” according to notes of a December 27 call Trump had with Rosen and Donoghue released by the House committee last week. Internal DOJ documents previously released by the committee showed that Trump allies had also pressured the department to get involved in the legal fight to disrupt the election results.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/04/politics/draft-doj-georgia-letter-election-reversal/index.html

Clark later tried to get Trump to appointment him acting Attorney General but Rosen and Donoghue stopped it according to ABC News.