House Select Committee Hearings on Jan. 6 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starterMT15
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
Taurus
Well-known member
Offline
The absurdity is the result of simple math.
It won't really change until we jettison our current first-past-the-post winner takes all system.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
Former Trump adviser and right wing podcaster Stephen K. Bannon promised the contempt of Congress charges against him would become a “misdemeanor from hell” for the Biden administration, but after judicial rulings against his proposed defense, legal experts said his trial set to start Monday could be more of a quick trip through court.
At a recent hearing that left Bannon’s legal strategy in tatters, his lawyer David Schoen asked U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, “what’s the point of going to trial if there are no defenses?”
The judge replied simply: “Agreed.”
The exchange was a remarkable comedown for the combative, bombastic Bannon team that live-streamed his declaration, “we’re taking down the Biden regime” as he surrendered to the FBI in late 2021 on charges he had illegally flouted the House committee probing the Jan. 6 insurrection.
The judge’s response was a lawyerly way of urging Bannon to seek a plea deal with the government, rather than face long odds at a short trial, said Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor.
“Obviously everyone’s entitled to a trial, but usually if you go to trial there’s some kind of legal or factual dispute that needs to be resolved,” Eliason said. “The judge’s point is, there aren’t really any here. … In those instances, going to trial becomes what prosecutors sometimes call a long guilty plea.”…….
At a recent hearing that left Bannon’s legal strategy in tatters, his lawyer David Schoen asked U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, “what’s the point of going to trial if there are no defenses?”
The judge replied simply: “Agreed.”
The exchange was a remarkable comedown for the combative, bombastic Bannon team that live-streamed his declaration, “we’re taking down the Biden regime” as he surrendered to the FBI in late 2021 on charges he had illegally flouted the House committee probing the Jan. 6 insurrection.
The judge’s response was a lawyerly way of urging Bannon to seek a plea deal with the government, rather than face long odds at a short trial, said Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor.
“Obviously everyone’s entitled to a trial, but usually if you go to trial there’s some kind of legal or factual dispute that needs to be resolved,” Eliason said. “The judge’s point is, there aren’t really any here. … In those instances, going to trial becomes what prosecutors sometimes call a long guilty plea.”…….
Here is where the Jan 6th committee misses me completely. You have this star witness, Hutchinson who heard that some big unhinged Trump moment happened regarding a secret service agent at or near the time of the riot in the presidents SUV. The jan 6th investigators went to her who HEARD it happened instead of going to the guy who SAW it happen. I've done criminal investigations for 15 years and that is not how this works at all. You either go to the source or attempt to get to the source and never go all in on "Well, I heard it from my brothers, sisters, uncle" witness. This doesn't fly with me, nor would that ever stand up to scrutiny in the real world. Keep in mind, she's under oath, she didn't witness it happening, she heard it happened.
This particular secret service agent said he would talk and refute Hutchinson's testimony. So why didn't they go to him first, being he was actually there, in that moment? You're gonna have to do better than that if we're talking about banning a guy from being able to run for office. I am all for banning someone from running if the evidence takes us there. I am woefully underwhelmed by this whole thing thus far, they better step it up.
This is like a weatherman hyping up an entire week of heavy rain, claiming every day will be a wash out and when the time arrives, it actually ends up raining 1 day out of the entire period.
This particular secret service agent said he would talk and refute Hutchinson's testimony. So why didn't they go to him first, being he was actually there, in that moment? You're gonna have to do better than that if we're talking about banning a guy from being able to run for office. I am all for banning someone from running if the evidence takes us there. I am woefully underwhelmed by this whole thing thus far, they better step it up.
This is like a weatherman hyping up an entire week of heavy rain, claiming every day will be a wash out and when the time arrives, it actually ends up raining 1 day out of the entire period.
samiam5211
Well-known member
Offline
I wish they had just left out the interaction in the SUV with Hutchinson.
It wasn't the important part of her testimony, but it was undoubtedly the most interesting, so it has gotten more attention that it should have.
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
The Committee has no power to ban Trump from running for office.
I agree (and said that day) that the SUV story was the weakest part of Hutchinson's testimony because it was not first-hand knowledge. But there are reasons why the Committee may have not obtained the USSS agent's testimony. The most obvious reason is that the SUV incident isn't a critical element of the case they're presenting - it's only context or state-of-mind evidence. If their time and resources are limited, his testimony may not be near the top of the list.
Another possible issue with it is that he's an active government employee in a supervisory chain with a role that is sensitive. Though there is precedent for USSS being compelled to testify about a president's conduct (see Clinton) it may not be desirable to casually go that route. And unlike a witness like Hutchinson, who is now a private citizen and needs only to consent to testify, the USSS agent would need to be cleared through the appropriate channels and government counsel. Given that the incident isn't that important to the case, I can see why the Committee may have chosen not to bring him in.
The Committee's presentation, however, has been fairly strong otherwise IMO. I don't think the weatherman analogy is apt, unless you're not willing to consider what has been presented.
Saintamaniac
Rise Sons of the Gold & Purple
Offline
So basically you are ignoring all of the other information that has been presented thus far because a witness under oath made a claim, that isn't even germane to main charges of insurrection, that someone who has yet to testify under oath to refute that claim? As an investigator, would you ignore all of the other evidence....a knife with the suspect's prints on it or the suspect actually on tape saying he planned to kill the victim, because a witness said that the suspect was wearing a purple shirt which actually turned out to be a shade of lavender?
"Yeah, I'm not sure this is the killer. I know his prints are on the murder weapon and I know that he said on tape that he planned to kill the victim but that witness said he had on a purple shirt and his shirt is clearly lavender."
I didn't think investigations worked that way.
Last edited:
FullMonte
Well-known member
Offline
While you are right in your overall concept that they shouldn't have brought that up without something to corroborate it (and there is a part of me that wonders if they have something more solid, and they want to get people like Engle and Ornado on the record denying it before they reveal it), the one thing I would say is that you say "never go all in on "Well, I heard it from my brothers, sisters, uncle" witness;" which isn't what happened here. This is more like, "My sister came running in and told me that her boyfriend just watched his mother murder his father....and her boyfriend was standing right next to her and didn't correct what she said." And her boyfriend refuses to comply with a subpoena to testify.
GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Witness for the primetime hearing witness has been announced...
www.cnn.com
I'm sure Trump will claim he was terrible at his job and he never met him.
First on CNN: Former Trump National Security Council official will testify at Thursday’s January 6 hearing | CNN Politics
Matthew Pottinger, who served on former President Donald Trump’s National Security Council before resigning in the immediate aftermath of January 6, 2021, will testify publicly at Thursday’s prime-time hearing held by the House select committee investigating the US Capitol attack, according to...
www.cnn.comI'm sure Trump will claim he was terrible at his job and he never met him.
barbar
Well-known member
Offline
I think we are to the point where whoever is the president will just be impeached by the other side. It's pathetic.
I know Biden is not popular but has he committed any impeachable offenses???
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
I don't think so. The clusterfork of the Afgan withdrawal is the only think I can come up with, but it was a clusterfork, not an impeachable offense
And whatever 'impeachable offenses' they offer up will pale next to what Trump has done
If the GOP takes back the House and decides to impeach Biden "just cuz" and they have the votes to do it, is that it?
A legal impeachment? They don't have to have legitimate offenses and prove them (or at least argue their validity)?
Last edited:
barbar
Well-known member
Offline
If they are successful then I think our democracy is over. Time to go back to the drawing board.
UriUT
Well-known member
Offline
Which begs these questions by Beschloss.
Biden apparently was aware of the possibility that some SS agents weren't loyal to the office and had details that worked with him before on inauguration day. I'm still waiting on whatever happened while the bidens were delayed in front of the WH doors to come out. I'm mystified how one idiot w/ the iq of an amoeba can have so much corrupting influences on our institutions.
It's truly insane.
GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
You should apologize to amoebas for insulting them like that. But I get what you are saying.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
guess this can go here
================
Georgia prosecutors investigating whether former President Donald Trump meddled in the state's 2020 election said on Tuesday that 16 Republicans who participated in a fake electors scheme are the targets of their investigation.
Yet 11 of the 16 electors allege prosecutors told them they were witnesses — not the subjects — of the investigation, and had agreed to give voluntary interviews to investigators, according to a motion they filed on Tuesday.
According to their court filings, they said at least two of them appeared for the interviews in late April.
The electors said they were told for the first time on June 28 that they were considered targets, not witnesses, because of "new evidence" that came to light, per the motion.
Court documents filed that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis filed on Tuesday said that each of the fake electors was issued a "target" letter notifying them they've been summoned by a special purpose grand jury and are the subjects of the probe.
"It is worth noting that Georgia law does not require either the District Attorney or the grand jury to notify witnesses of their status as a potential target prior to their testimony," Willis' court filing said............
================
Georgia prosecutors investigating whether former President Donald Trump meddled in the state's 2020 election said on Tuesday that 16 Republicans who participated in a fake electors scheme are the targets of their investigation.
Yet 11 of the 16 electors allege prosecutors told them they were witnesses — not the subjects — of the investigation, and had agreed to give voluntary interviews to investigators, according to a motion they filed on Tuesday.
According to their court filings, they said at least two of them appeared for the interviews in late April.
The electors said they were told for the first time on June 28 that they were considered targets, not witnesses, because of "new evidence" that came to light, per the motion.
Court documents filed that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis filed on Tuesday said that each of the fake electors was issued a "target" letter notifying them they've been summoned by a special purpose grand jury and are the subjects of the probe.
"It is worth noting that Georgia law does not require either the District Attorney or the grand jury to notify witnesses of their status as a potential target prior to their testimony," Willis' court filing said............
MSN
www.msn.com
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
The House Jan. 6 select committee on Thursday will provide a blow-by-blow account of the 187 minutes that passed during the Capitol siege in which Donald Trump did nothing to rescue lawmakers and his own vice president from the mob he unleashed. It’s critical to understand what purpose this evidence will — and will not — serve.
Start with the non-legal aspects of the committee’s job. The committee set out to tell the complete story of Jan. 6 to provide a definitive historical account and assist in formulating suggestions to prevent a repeat in future elections.
This effort is also critical for the public and the Republican Party to understand the depth of Trump’s betrayal and his egregious refusal to perform his duties as commander in chief.
If Trump, as president, failed to activate the armed services during a foreign attack on our homeland — or worse, put out tweets praising the attackers — it would be tantamount to treason. In the face of domestic terrorism, his obligation to act was no less clear.
The GOP’s refusal to prevent him from seeking office again (first by failing to convict him at his impeachment trial and now by declining to oppose his participation in the primaries) amounts to ratification of Trump’s treachery.
It is also an indication of the depths of the party’s depravity. Forcing GOP voters and politicians to grapple with a potential second Trump term remains one of the committee’s critical functions.
As for the legal significance of the 187 minutes, the public should understand that “dereliction of duty” under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to those in the military, not to civilians — including the civilian commander in chief. It may have been grounds for impeachment (which could have resulted in removal from office and a bar against holding future office).
And it might be grounds for civil liability (i.e., Trump had a legal obligation to act and failed to do so when others were in harm’s way). But there is no criminal theory against Trump based on that charge.
This does not mean the 187 minutes are without legal significance. To the contrary, the full telling of this part of the saga can shore up evidence (virtually all from Republicans) that Trump corruptly sought to defraud the United States and to corruptly obstruct congressional proceedings.............
Start with the non-legal aspects of the committee’s job. The committee set out to tell the complete story of Jan. 6 to provide a definitive historical account and assist in formulating suggestions to prevent a repeat in future elections.
This effort is also critical for the public and the Republican Party to understand the depth of Trump’s betrayal and his egregious refusal to perform his duties as commander in chief.
If Trump, as president, failed to activate the armed services during a foreign attack on our homeland — or worse, put out tweets praising the attackers — it would be tantamount to treason. In the face of domestic terrorism, his obligation to act was no less clear.
The GOP’s refusal to prevent him from seeking office again (first by failing to convict him at his impeachment trial and now by declining to oppose his participation in the primaries) amounts to ratification of Trump’s treachery.
It is also an indication of the depths of the party’s depravity. Forcing GOP voters and politicians to grapple with a potential second Trump term remains one of the committee’s critical functions.
As for the legal significance of the 187 minutes, the public should understand that “dereliction of duty” under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to those in the military, not to civilians — including the civilian commander in chief. It may have been grounds for impeachment (which could have resulted in removal from office and a bar against holding future office).
And it might be grounds for civil liability (i.e., Trump had a legal obligation to act and failed to do so when others were in harm’s way). But there is no criminal theory against Trump based on that charge.
This does not mean the 187 minutes are without legal significance. To the contrary, the full telling of this part of the saga can shore up evidence (virtually all from Republicans) that Trump corruptly sought to defraud the United States and to corruptly obstruct congressional proceedings.............
Saintamaniac
Rise Sons of the Gold & Purple
Offline
Maybe no one told them that what they were doing was a crime. Maybe they simply didn't know that falsifying an official document and submitting it to the government is a crime. Maybe they don't know that writing a bad check is a crime. Being stupid is not an excuse and neither is being colossally stupid. I would wish them good luck but I want to see each and everyone of them in jail.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.