The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob001 said:
At which multiple congresspersons, most of them lawyers, will get to ask her detailed questions under oath.
Click to expand...

Yea. The republicans will ask her nothing (but garbage) The Democrats don't have to ask any questions about why she thinks what she thinks. I don't see the challenge posed to Democrats.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Yea. The republicans will ask her nothing (but garbage) The Democrats don't have to ask any questions about why she thinks what she thinks. I don't see the challenge posed to Democrats.
Click to expand...

You understand that the only Republicans on the House committee investigating Jan. 6 are Kinzinger and Cheney, right? They'e certainly demonstrated an ability and willingness to ask important questions.
 
Bob001 said:
You understand that the only Republicans on the House committee investigating Jan. 6 are Kinzinger and Cheney, right? They'e certainly demonstrated an ability and willingness to ask important questions.
Click to expand...

You are right. I forgot it wasn't bi-partisan. Then the only issue is preparing for that one committee member that always does an awful and every committee.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Her Ideas are totally impossible in this universe.
Click to expand...

So are Dump's and the Pillow Guy's though they come from different kinds of personality disorders.

The 3 of them ignore realty and just keep repeating their lies, over and over, rinse and repeat.

You can't pin their jello to the wall. To prosecute them they simply need to be overridden by prosecutors and juries.

That doesn't mean skilled interviewers can't cut her off.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
So are Dump's and the Pillow Guy's though they come from different kinds of personality disorders.

The 3 of them ignore realty and just keep repeating their lies, over and over, rinse and repeat.

You can't pin their jello to the wall. To prosecute them they simply need to be overridden by prosecutors and juries.

That doesn't mean skilled interviewers can't cut her off.
Click to expand...

What do they want to find out from her? I haven't followed what they want to ask. Are they wanting to confirm things said at white house meetings?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So are Dump's and the Pillow Guy's though they come from different kinds of personality disorders.

The 3 of them ignore realty and just keep repeating their lies, over and over, rinse and repeat.

You can't pin their jello to the wall. To prosecute them they simply need to be overridden by prosecutors and juries.

That doesn't mean skilled interviewers can't cut her off.
Click to expand...

Your Talking to someone who saw Trump defend Pecker's JFK story in 2000, in the National Enquirer. Probably the only thing Trump has ever read.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The "alternate electors" signed their vote for Trump as the official State Electors - which is perjury and unlawful assumption of authority.
Just because you think you're a Sovereign Citizen doesn't mean you can declare yourself to be a legitimate State Elector.
Click to expand...

It is a bit more complicated than that. Under Federal law (3 USC 6) the Governor signs a certificate naming the electors and who they voted for. The Governor mails that certificate to the Archivist. The Governor gives six copies of that certificate to the electors. The electors then sign a certificate of their votes. They send copies of those certificates along with the Governor's certificate to the Archivist (2 copies), Senate (2 copies), State's secretary of state, and the district judge.

These were the actual designated Trump electors. Some of them didn't show up, but they were replaced using what would be the legal process for filling vacancies. What they sent in was just the certificate of their votes without the Governor's certificate. They didn't forge any signatures. They did not claim to be the appointed electors but only the "duly elected and qualified" electors. In two cases they claimed to the "electors-in-waiting". If they believe that the election results were wrong due to fraud and that they were actually the duly elected electors, that is just, like, their opinion, man. That is meaningless. All the matters is who was appointed.

Electors are not State officials, so they were not falsely acting as government officials. No signatures were forged. It appears that none of the statements in the documents are actually false. Prosecution may argue that some of the documents claim that they did things in accordance with certain laws and those laws apply to appointed electors and therefore the statements are false, but that is probably a stretch. Prosecution could also argue that although not technically false, the documents bear a similitude to a valid electors' certificate such that is constitutes an intention to deceive.

I would expect the defense would say that there was no intent to deceive but that the believed that they were actually elected and that the State would eventually reverse the election decision and appoint them as the electors. They sent in the document only to meet State and Federal deadlines in anticipation of that appointment.

Defense would also likely argue that there is no law specifically prohibiting anyone from sending in an electors' certification. To the contrary, Congress passed a law designating how Congress should proceed when more than one purported certificate is received. Rather than prohibiting such an act, Congress anticipated that more than one certificate could be legally received.

I doubt there will be a conviction and may well not even be charges. It has been known that this happened more than a year ago and so far no charges have been filed. The one exception is a report that the Arizona documents bear a State seal. I don't see it on the documents from the FOIA request, but it may be only a raised seal that doesn't show on a scan. If that is the case and Arizona decides to pursue charges, there could be a conviction for authorized use of a seal.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Yea. The republicans will ask her nothing (but garbage) The Democrats don't have to ask any questions about why she thinks what she thinks. I don't see the challenge posed to Democrats.
Click to expand...

You really don't know what you're talking about. There are only two Republicans on the committee and both are very determined to get to the bottom of what happened. Liz Cheney the ranking Republican has already shown she's not messing around.
 
smartcooky said:
Oh Jesus! Really?

Keep in mind that the Government only has to prove that you knew what you were doing beyond a reasonable doubt

If you break into a house, there is no doubt that you know that is what you are doing. The government doesn't have to prove that you knew it was a crime, only that you knew you were breaking in.

If you inflate the value of your property to obtain a loan, there is no doubt that you know that is what you are doing. The government doesn't have to prove that you knew it was a crime, only that you knew you were inflating the property value, especially if you were also deflating it for tax purposes.
Click to expand...

That demonstrates the necessary mens rea.

I'm sure that Trump had been getting away with this for decades. So long that he almost certainly thought this is how one does business. That there was nothing wrong with it.

*Take note that Trump sued a reporter for defamation in the 90s. He said the reporter was not truthful when estimating his net worth. When Trump got on the stand and and was questioned about valuations he basically said it was whatever he thought it was.

Trump thought that corruption and bribery was standard modus operandi for conducting business.

He is now shocked that they are now coming after him for it.
 
acbytesla said:
You really don't know what you're talking about. There are only two Republicans on the committee and both are very determined to get to the bottom of what happened. Liz Cheney the ranking Republican has already shown she's not messing around.
Click to expand...

I already spoke to this. I was reminded this isn't bipartisan.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Well, a person can be partisan along a lot of different dimensions and I don't feel obligated to use political party.
Click to expand...

Then you should make that clear in your answer.
In the context of Congress, partisanship has a very clear definition, and J6C is bipartisan by that definition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom