• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

January 6 Hearings Live

ZiprHead said:
bleubird said:
President Liz Chaney?
Click to expand...
Never happen. Her career is done for.
Click to expand...
Yea, her only hope is if the party woke up from The delusions that Trump had any redeeming qualities, and that FOX, OAN, etc had any credibility. Not seeing that happening any time this decade.

her work with the Jan 6 hearings just make me think of the movie The Rocketeer. For most of the movie mobsters are trying to steal the jet pack. They get it, but stop when they learn the people that paid them to get it are Nazis. “I’m a crook, but I’m an American crook”, then help the FBI in a shootout with the Nazis.
 
Speaking of careers being done for, so is Cassidy Hutchinson's. She'll probably need personal protection for a very long time.
 
ZiprHead said:
bleubird said:
President Liz Chaney?
Click to expand...
Never happen. Her career is done for.
Click to expand...
Eh, I'm not counting her out. I'm sure her blood runs every bit as cold as her dad's does. If she is able to genuinely appeal to Democratic voters to vote for her, proving that she has a broader appeal than traditional non-psycho republicans, she has a chance. GOP likes to win and they like money. Trump is proving to be toxic.
 
The latest round of hearings has become an interesting exercise in set theory. We have the set of people who requested a pardon, the set of those who claim they did not request a pardon, and a third set of those that White House staff thought should request a pardon. When it's all sorted out, we will see the subsets defined by the intersections and unions of all the sets.

In the meantime, the main argument put forth by Trump supporters follows a central theme, which can be stated as. "the committee and all its staff are stupid."

It would be incredibly stupid to bring out a witness such as Hutchinson, without corroborating her testimony. A good part of Hutchinson's testimony was recitation of conversations with other people, notably the secret service agents. If the agents were so frank with her, what are the odds they didn't tell the same story to someone else? There will be other people who can testify, "Yeah, he told me the same thing." If the agents claim Trump did not try to grab the steering wheel and did not wrestle with his body guard, the next question is, why did you lie to so many people about it?

Side note: Secret Service training for handling the President in public is pretty specific. When a threat appears, such as a gun in the crowd, some agents are tasked with moving the President to safety and others are tasked with getting between the President and the gun. This is just for the sight of a gun. The Secret Service knew there were uncountable numbers of guns in the crowd. Taking the President into that situation could easily be interpreted as the set up for an assassination attempt. After the smoke clears, the first question would be, why did you let the President be exposed to so many gun?

There's really no way it could end without considerable casualties for civilians and agents alike.
 
With Trump loudly braying he would march with the crowd to the capitol, that would be an open invitation to would be assassins. An invitation for a Squeaky Fromm moment.
 
Bronzeage said:
A good part of Hutchinson's testimony was recitation of conversations with other people, notably the secret service agents.
Click to expand...
I don't see how Secret Service can testify without compromising the organisation. Rightly or wrongly, their job is to protect the life and image of the President. Putting them in a spot where they hang shit on the President would lead to some unintended consequences.

As much as I dislike using sporting metaphors, I suspect Hutchinson's testimony about what happened in the car was the first unforced error this committee has made so far. You only have to look at how Lumpenproliteriat leaped at the opportunity to tar the entire findings of this hearing to see how magatards will respond to this.
 
Patooka said:
As much as I dislike using sporting metaphors, I suspect Hutchinson's testimony about what happened in the car was the first unforced error this committee has made so far. You only have to look at how Lumpenproliteriat leaped at the opportunity to tar the entire findings of this hearing to see how magatards will respond to this.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was an error. I think it was a necessary component of the case.

Hutchinson attested to Trump's knowledge that some people in the crowd had weapons, that he wanted the magnetometers taken away so that more armed persons could join the crowd, and that Trump was determined to lead armed protesters to the Capitol and play a leading role in the insurrection. If her testimony is corroborated then Trump and his closest advisors will be directly implicated in plotting sedition.
 
Arctish said:
Hutchinson attested to Trump's knowledge that some people in the crowd had weapons, that he wanted the magnetometers taken away so that more armed persons could join the crowd, and that Trump was determined to lead armed protesters to the Capitol and play a leading role in the insurrection. If her testimony is corroborated then Trump and his closest advisors will be directly implicated in plotting sedition.
Click to expand...
And all of that is now overshadowed by this bullshit drama about what happened in the Beast. I mean, this isn't a trial but still you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to in a setting like this.
 
Patooka said:
Arctish said:
Hutchinson attested to Trump's knowledge that some people in the crowd had weapons, that he wanted the magnetometers taken away so that more armed persons could join the crowd, and that Trump was determined to lead armed protesters to the Capitol and play a leading role in the insurrection. If her testimony is corroborated then Trump and his closest advisors will be directly implicated in plotting sedition.
Click to expand...
And all of that is now overshadowed by this bullshit drama about what happened in the Beast. I mean, this isn't a trial but still you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to in a setting like this.
Click to expand...
I don't think they could have avoided it. You can't establish Trump's intent without talking about his tantrum.
 
Arctish said:
I don't think they could have avoided it. You can't establish Trump's intent without talking about his tantrum.
Click to expand...
Ask what happened and what was said at the rally. Don't ask what Hutchinson heard about what might have happened in the car. That provides a far more compelling narrative. Then have the testimony of a DC cop stating what the gun laws are in Washington. The limo story then becomes incidental.

Just so we're clear, I don't see this as a deal breaker. It's just odd something that would be obviously challenged was asked when every other facet of these hearings has been managed with such precision. I guess it stands out all the more because of that.
 
Patooka said:
Arctish said:
I don't think they could have avoided it. You can't establish Trump's intent without talking about his tantrum.
Click to expand...
Ask what happened and what was said at the rally. Don't ask what Hutchinson heard about what might have happened in the car. That provides a far more compelling narrative. Then have the testimony of a DC cop stating what the gun laws are in Washington. The limo story then becomes incidental.

Just so we're clear, I don't see this as a deal breaker. It's just odd something that would be obviously challenged was asked when every other facet of these hearings has been managed with such precision. I guess it stands out all the more because of that.
Click to expand...
But everyone is talking about trump's tantrum in the car that he threw like a little baby. That's worth something.
 
Jarhyn said:
But everyone is talking about trump's tantrum in the car that he threw like a little baby. That's worth something.
Click to expand...
I'd argue it allows obfuscation like this to occur. And if that's the case, the 80 million US citizens who didn't vote in 2020 are just going to dismiss this as some both sides bullshit. Everybody else I suspect made their minds up long ago.

I don't even need to look to guess what FOX, Newsmax, RSBN etc are going to be doing this week. They can now say, "Look at this bullshit story that can't be corroborated! If they're lying about that they must be lying about everything else!" Once that narrative takes a life of its own the whole hearing it tainted with partisan politics. Kinda like how certain so and soes believed Mueller was allowed to investigate Trump, or Hugo Chavez stole the election.

I suspect everybody believes it happened. But because the committee didn't cross all their t's and dot their i's and bring receipts it's an easy win for all the Tucker Carlsons to blow smoke up everyone's arse. And obfuscation is something they are incredibly competent at doing.
 
Bronzeage said:
The latest round of hearings has become an interesting exercise in set theory. We have the set of people who requested a pardon, the set of those who claim they did not request a pardon, and a third set of those that White House staff thought should request a pardon. When it's all sorted out, we will see the subsets defined by the intersections and unions of all the sets.

In the meantime, the main argument put forth by Trump supporters follows a central theme, which can be stated as. "the committee and all its staff are stupid."

It would be incredibly stupid to bring out a witness such as Hutchinson, without corroborating her testimony. A good part of Hutchinson's testimony was recitation of conversations with other people, notably the secret service agents. If the agents were so frank with her, what are the odds they didn't tell the same story to someone else? There will be other people who can testify, "Yeah, he told me the same thing." If the agents claim Trump did not try to grab the steering wheel and did not wrestle with his body guard, the next question is, why did you lie to so many people about it?
Click to expand...
I think the issue is that the Secret Service isn't going to come out and say this in public first. Getting Hutchinson to testify first might be the catalyst that allows them professional courtesy to testify in a manner that isn't very common.
Bronzeage said:
Side note: Secret Service training for handling the President in public is pretty specific. When a threat appears, such as a gun in the crowd, some agents are tasked with moving the President to safety and others are tasked with getting between the President and the gun. This is just for the sight of a gun. The Secret Service knew there were uncountable numbers of guns in the crowd. Taking the President into that situation could easily be interpreted as the set up for an assassination attempt. After the smoke clears, the first question would be, why did you let the President be exposed to so many gun?

There's really no way it could end without considerable casualties for civilians and agents alike.
Click to expand...
No kidding. The security of the President in that crowd would have been impossible. I doubt very much they even planned to go to the Capitol, so not only would it have been unsecured, it'd been entirely unplanned and unscouted. So there was no way in heck they'd take him there. The Secret Services's technical regard to his safety, might have saved dozens to hundreds of lives. As if the crowds were more emboldened by him being there, the armed staff would have been opening fire in multiple locations when the mob got too close to the areas that the armed guard would not let fall.
 
Unlike most of her ilk, Liz Cheney is very intelligent and has no obvious psychiatric disorder. But she is still a hard-core right-winger.

bleubird said:
President Liz Chaney?
Click to expand...
  • Cheney supported her father's War on Iraq, and still believes the lie about Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
  • Cheney opposes the no-first-use nuclear policy.
  • Cheney has supported the use of torture.
  • Cheney refused to denounce adherents of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.
  • Cheney gave the keynote address at a dinner hosted by the Center for Security Policy, a conspiracy/hate group led by anti-Muslim hater Frank Gaffney.
  • Cheney opposed same-sex marriage.
  • Cheney opposed environmentalists.
  • Cheney opposes abortion, and recently praised SCOTUS for overturning Roe v Wade.
  • Cheney voted the Trump line 93% of the time, much higher than many GOP Congresscritters. In 2019, according to the New York Times, Cheney publicly feuded with Rand Paul over who was "Trumpier".
 
With lots of new witnesses stepping forth to testify, expect new details, cooberations and denials. And subpeonas, and demands for records and materials. Who was driving when Trump had his tantrum? Records will show that. Do SS agents have to officially report such incidents to superiors for later CYA purposes? Do written reports exist? Who else besides the SS driver witnessed this?
 
Swammerdami said:
Unlike most of her ilk, Liz Cheney is very intelligent and has no obvious psychiatric disorder. But she is still a hard-core right-winger.

bleubird said:
President Liz Chaney?
Click to expand...
  • Cheney supported her father's War on Iraq, and still believes the lie about Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
  • Cheney opposes the no-first-use nuclear policy.
  • Cheney has supported the use of torture.
  • Cheney refused to denounce adherents of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.
  • Cheney gave the keynote address at a dinner hosted by the Center for Security Policy, a conspiracy/hate group led by anti-Muslim hater Frank Gaffney.
  • Cheney opposed same-sex marriage.
  • Cheney opposed environmentalists.
  • Cheney opposes abortion, and recently praised SCOTUS for overturning Roe v Wade.
  • Cheney voted the Trump line 93% of the time, much higher than many GOP Congresscritters. In 2019, according to the New York Times, Cheney publicly feuded with Rand Paul over who was "Trumpier".
Click to expand...
But her daddy did try to blow the face off another RW operative, right? Points for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom