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

January 6 Hearings Live

BTW, Lumpy - Trump’s lawyer just corroborated Hutchinson’s testimony.
Can you tell us why these two Republicans committed a felony conspiracy? Or are you willing to entertain the possibility that they are both telling the truth.
 
The NYT disagrees with you. If you go to the link they say he did agree.
Oh, I know he has made a big show of “agreeing”. But he will not testify.
IIDB frowns on betting or I’d offer a wager.
But I’m interested in what makes you think he would testify. Because he’s such a truthful person? Because he would like to help the 1/6 Committee find the truth?
Do you have some compelling reason to take him at his word? Because of his rugged good looks? :hysterical:
He his facing jail time and fines.
For not testifying? So what?
Like Meadows?
And Trump?
And all the others claiming fake immunity?
That’s funny.
 
The ship is sinking fast because the rats are abandoning it in droves.
No worries! Lumpy remains faithful.
The NYT disagrees with you. If you go to the link they say he did agree.
Oh, I know he has made a big show of “agreeing”. But he will not testify.
IIDB frowns on betting or I’d offer a wager.
But I’m interested in what makes you think he would testify. Because he’s such a truthful person? Because he would like to help the 1/6 Committee find the truth?
Do you have some compelling reason to take him at his word? Because of his rugged good looks? :hysterical:
He his facing jail time and fines.
If the fascists take control of Congress in November, he is home free. I’m pretty sure his lawyers can blow enough smoke to keep him out of jail until then. Worst case, he goes to jail until January.
 
That's not what happens when a witness is sworn in and required to answer questions truthfully or be liable to perjury charges or charges of contempt for not cooperating. The questioning and testimony promotes the mission of finding the truth, not hijacking it.
That's not the way it works.

Trials are not investigations. You really have no idea of what you are talking about. All witnesses in any major trial are interviewed before the trial by both prosecution and defense. The same way all the previous witnesses have been in this case.
 
Or do you mean that they must first confirm that his testimony conforms to the Blue Narrative, and then establish that his public testimony must agree totally with his private testimony or he's guilty of perjury?
Why should he be given any chance at all to hijack the committee’s mission of finding the truth?
That's not what happens when a witness is sworn in and required to answer questions truthfully or be liable to perjury charges or charges of contempt for not cooperating. The questioning and testimony promotes the mission of finding the truth, not hijacking it.


Why can’t Bannon testify truthfully behind closed doors?
He can. But why can't he also testify publicly, as the others did? What is the Committee afraid of? only that he will say something contrary to the Blue Narrative they are promoting. But why do the hearings have to be rigged to promote only this narrative?


Perhaps he only wants to grandstand with the lies he has been peddling for Trump since 1/6?
translation: perhaps he will not conform to the Blue Narrative script the Demos insist must be followed by all witnesses without exception?


Why does anyone owe him a platform for his lies?
That a potential witness might be a chronic liar cannot be a criterion for excluding them from testifying, or from testifying publicly. There's no way a court or a Congressional Committee can objectively judge who is a liar and thus to be excluded from testifying. Or censored from testifying publicly. Maybe there are ways to measure how much each of us lies compared to others, and judge who are the worst liars. But the American justice system currently does not have an objective way to judge every person and put a dishonesty score on each one to judge which ones are so bad that they should be banned from testifying, or testifying publicly.

Rather than banning certain egregious liars from ever testifying, or testifying publicly, it's better to have enough safeguards in place to prevent them from misusing the court or the hearings, by having them confined to answering the questions, have the police present to subdue any witness who tries to disrupt the proceedings, etc. There are ways to prevent them from preaching rather than answering the questions.

The rules must require all witnesses to cooperate with the interrogation process, so that no particular obnoxious witness could ever abuse the proceedings, so there's no need to single out certain ones thought to be extra repugnant. If a witness goes wild and violently attacks someone or smashes something, of course the police have to drag that one away. Presumably the safeguards for that do exist. But just saying someone is a liar cannot be the rule for excluding their testimony, or excluding them from testifying publicly, if their testimony is needed in order to get the evidence.


Why did he never show up at ANY of the 63 court cases Trump lost, and show his evidence for electoral fraud!
That's no reason to exclude his testimony or banning it to a secret proceeding only. If his testimony is worthless, then exclude it entirely. Maybe in some cases a quack or charlatan is ignored altogether for good reason. But past bad behavior generally is not a reason to exclude their testimony in a current case where they have evidence that's needed. That a potential witness failed to do something in the past that he should have done is probably not a reason to disqualify them from testifying, or from testifying publicly.

If a witness is needed to provide evidence, and might even be a suspect as well, the option to testify publicly should be a right, even if also they are required to be questioned privately. This private session cannot be used as a trick to screen them in advance to make sure they will follow a script assigned for them to follow, with a threat of perjury charges if their public testimony might depart from the advance session. If the preliminary session is necessary, the witness should be free in the public testimony to repudiate any part of the private testimony, with no risk of perjury charges brought against them.

The House Dems will arrange for Bannon to testify publicly, if they are genuinely interested in getting the truth rather than just propagandizing.


Let me help you out, Lumpy;
HE HAS NO EVIDENCE and neither does anyone else, because TRUMP LOST, and there was NO FRAUD.
Then there's no reason for the Committee to issue a subpoena to him, or ask him to testify. Publicly or privately.


But Trump can’t handle losing, hence the Big Lie. If he or anyone else lied about that in court they would be jailed. So nobody showed up in court saying “I witnessed person x committing electoral fraud”. 63 times, often before Trump-appointed judges.

The truth is not a Dem narrative. But the truth does not agree with right wing extremist lies and conspiracy crap, so liars like Bannon scream bloody murder. Nobody owes him a platform for lies.
These are reasons for him to not testify at all. But apparently the Committee has reasons to want his testimony.

But they seem to want to separate the witnesses into 2 categories: 1) Those whose testimony promotes the Committee's narrative, who testify publicly, for propaganda purposes; and 2) Those whose testimony would undermine the Committee's narrative, and thus are suppressed or banned to secret session.
All of the witnesses to date have been extensively interviewed and their testimony recorded prior to them appearing in person before the committee.

There is no reason that Bannon should be treated differently. And no reason that Bannon should be allowed even the slightest bit of leeway or to call the shots.

I seriously doubt that he will ever give sworn testimony. If he is actually compelled to testify under oath before the committee, he will almost certainly give testimony that the committee can impugn with other evidence. Bannon has avoided providing documents or interviews for 9 months. It’s not like he’s suddenly getting religion now.
 
What is something the committee has claimed without proof? I'm trying to figure out what you're on about? Their job is to investigate and provide a spoken or written account of events. So duh, they'll have a narrative. Is there something the committee has shown so far that indicates that their "narrative" is incorrect?
 
The January 6 committee has a procedure they follow. They run these investigations. Not gits like Bannon. And that is that. Bannon is scheduled to go on trial on July 18. The committee, in the end, may not need his testimony.
 
The January 6 committee has a procedure they follow. They run these investigations. Not gits like Bannon. And that is that. Bannon is scheduled to go on trial on July 18. The committee, in the end, may not need his testimony.
Bannon's best hope now is to plead guilty, turn over the subpoenaed documents and agree to testify to the DOJ honestly. Of course 2 years in jail is better than 20 for sedition but in all probability he will end up in jail for both.
 
Let's start with a fact.

News Article:
Other legislators on the panel said they planned to have Bannon sit for a private interview, which they typically conduct in a deposition with sworn testimony prior to a public hearing.

Emphasis added. This is how things typically work. A deposition happens before public testimony.

Okay, now your response...

Dems = Repubs = Party propagandists, not truthseekers

Of course there is a small bit of truth to this in that both sides might use some propaganda from time to time, but that both sides screaming only goes so far. One side is a bunch of fascist gun-toting lunatics that tried a coup d'etat and failed and there are a lot of links between that side's upper management and the coup attempt. So it has to be investigated. The other side, i.e. the Dems didn't do it and the Republicans have defectors like Cheney who joined the committee.
This doesn't answer why Bannon should not be allowed to testify live,

That paragraph was not intended to answer that question since it was in response to your both sides claim, not the specific technical details of testifying live or not. To repeat, one side is fascist coup plotters and the other side is interviewing the upper management responsible for the traitorous sedition and murder. There is not a both sides are guilty here. Further, the other facets of your objection, i.e. Bannon testifying were addressed later in the post. Therefore, you are ignoring the fact that one side is a bunch of fascist assholes.


or why the 2 Secret Service agents should not testify. Unless the reason is that the Dems are afraid that the facts emerging from such testimony would undermine their Blue Narrative.


Why won't Dems allow Bannon to testify live? instead of in secret session only? What are they hiding?

Your inference is based on predisposed suspicion.
translation: They will eventually have him testify live.

OK, we'll see. If they don't, it's only because they're afraid he'll say something contrary to their script.

As shown above, this is how things typically work. There is a private deposition. Following that, there is a public hearing typically. This is typical for legal processes, like courts and committees with powers of subpoena. No one is ambushed when this process is followed. Conservatives screaming about Bannon speaking to the committee privately are the ones creating propaganda on this since it is the typical process. So why aren't you mad about it, if you really get mad about propaganda? Why aren't you mad at Hannity for tricking you and getting you to spread the conservative propaganda?

Perhaps instead Bannon has used a national security argument to get out of testifying and so the Committee's (which is not only Dems) best bet to get him to answer the most questions is through a non-public hearing.
Again, that means they'll have him testify publicly, after first getting those answers they can only get in private session. Let's wait and see. To prove they are not just propagandizing, they must eventually have him testify publicly if he offers to do so. And they cannot control his answers in advance but must let him say what he knows regardless of their script.

Your point is nonsensical. Both a private deposition and a public hearing allow Bannon to give uncontrolled answers. Both allow Bannon to plead the 5th and have his fascist lawyers present. Bannon, the master of propaganda and seeker of reintroduction of fascism into the modern world can still get his way by spinning anything he wants.

But more likely the reason it is "secret" is that everyone else also first does a deposition in private and following that there is a public hearing. Didn't you know that?
Again, you're predicting that they'll let him testify publicly. After the private deposition. We'll see.

I am not predicting this is what is going to happen. I am relaying a fact that this is how the process typically works. There isn't anything unusual about a deposition preceding a public hearing. If there is no public hearing after that, we would have to look at what are the typical reasons for that. For example, if the Fascist Mastermind Bannon actually goes to the deposition but then pleads the 5th on every answer, it would be inefficient and wasteful of time to have a public hearing afterward. We ought not rely on spurious reasons, conspiracy theories from fascists and Fox News and Friends, to make points that happen to be inconsistent with the vast majority of known legal processes and facts. Instead, we ought to look at what is expected based on what typically happens and the reasons for those events and make inferences out of those objectively.

Why are they still excluding testimony from the Secret Service agents who contradict the testimony of Hutchinson?

When you have a top-down conspiracy a lot of people will follow orders and a few, like a single whistleblower will not. The focus ought to always be on the whistleblower. Everyone is aware there are counter claims and the committee will get to the bottom of it.
This answers nothing, unless it means that eventually the Secret Service agents will testify. You can't give any excuse why their version of the facts has to be excluded, as is the case so far.

This absolutely answers the question. This isn't a he-said she-said version of events. Instead, it's about a conservative, previously pro-Trump witness who became aware of aspects of the Reich-wing attempted coup that killed people. It is rationally expected that many of the Reich-wingers and employees will remain loyal to the Bannon-Trump-Hannity machine, but when you have a rare pervious loyalist who blows the whistle, their testimony is special. All paths and evidence need to be explored based on their testimony, regardless of counter claims by the Fascist side that murdered people, conspired, and lied. This isn't a court trial--it's an investigation.

Obviously the Dems only want propaganda, not the truth.

You mean the 7 Dems and 2 Republicans.
Hand-picked by the Demos because of their advance conformity to the Blue script.

No, these are previously loyalist Republicans who saw the Fascist takeover and murder and decided that was a line that they didn't want to support. Unlike, say Tucker Carlson and Hannity, who go on spouting propaganda and make nonsensical points that you are now parroting... Why, again, are you repeating propaganda that a deposition prior to a public hearing is unusual?

As shown above, your arguments are based on predisposed inclinations because of your both-sides attitudes.
The inclination to hear all sides in a dispute

This isn't a "dispute" or a court trial. It's an investigation into a real event that occurred with a known guilty side, i.e. the Fascist Republicans. The only question is which Republicans were involved and the extent to which they were involved.

, to find the objective truth,

Great and to find objective truth in the midst of a known conspiracy, you don't put the conspirators on equal ground with previously loyal whistleblowers.


should be the guideline for holding hearings. Rather than the apparent inclination to promote partisan propaganda to conform to a pre-written script the witnesses agree to in advance.

There are no pre-written scripts here, only throwing shit against the wall over and over by the Republicans to try to hide any links from upper management to the actual coup attempt and murders.

Don't repeat the shit, just look at it and recognize it is shit. Ask yourself again, why are you parroting a narrative that depositions prior to public hearings are unusual?

Why are you being useful to the Republicans?

And why doesn't it offend you to be supporting fascist murderers' propaganda?
 
Let's start with a fact.


There are no pre-written scripts here, only throwing shit against the wall over and over by the Republicans to try to hide any links from upper management to the actual coup attempt and murders.

Don't repeat the shit, just look at it and recognize it is shit. Ask yourself again, why are you parroting a narrative that depositions prior to public hearings are unusual?

Lumpy is just repeating the bumper-sticker talking points like Hannity is telling him to do. Asking him to look at it objectively is a waste of time. And again, the committee is not throwing shit against the wall over and over. They've learned from the Mueller investigation and the previous two impeachments. They would not have put Hutchinson on the stand if they didn't have corroboration. Whatever is revealed in today's testimony will be backed up by subsequent information. What's the old saying? A good lawyer doesn't ask a question in court he doesn't already know the answer to. They already know the answers.
 
Fox News after today's testimony.

Secret service agents are supposed to be apolitical. Why are they working for the democrats!
 
I feel today's January 6 Committee hearing is going to be very entertaining. This is going to own a lot of MAGtards. About 2 hours to show time. I shall probably watch it on Youtube, NPR.
 
Fox News after today's testimony.

Secret service agents are supposed to be apolitical. Why are they working for the democrats!
Why aren't the wives of the Secret Service agents testifying? What is the committee hiding?
 
Let's start with a fact.


There are no pre-written scripts here, only throwing shit against the wall over and over by the Republicans to try to hide any links from upper management to the actual coup attempt and murders.

Don't repeat the shit, just look at it and recognize it is shit. Ask yourself again, why are you parroting a narrative that depositions prior to public hearings are unusual?

Lumpy is just repeating the bumper-sticker talking points like Hannity is telling him to do. Asking him to look at it objectively is a waste of time. And again, the committee is not throwing shit against the wall over and over. They've learned from the Mueller investigation and the previous two impeachments. They would not have put Hutchinson on the stand if they didn't have corroboration. Whatever is revealed in today's testimony will be backed up by subsequent information. What's the old saying? A good lawyer doesn't ask a question in court he doesn't already know the answer to. They already know the answers.
This could be one of the more damning hearings, as it could be linking intended mob violence to the Trump Administration. This could put his "Stand Back and Stand By" statement in a whole new light. As a reminder, he said that during a debate.
 
https://wapo.st/3RtegjB

Anyone interested can read the entire article, as I'm using it as one my 10 monthly "gifts".. Today should be interesting. Too bad so many Trump sycophants aren't even going to bother watching. They don't want to know the truth. That's for sure.


The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection plans to hold its seventh public hearing on Tuesday, with an expected focus on the ways in which President Donald Trump and his allies summoned far-right militant groups to Washington as he grew increasingly desperate to hold on to power.

The hearing is likely to drill down on the period after states cast their electoral college votes on Dec. 14, 2020, action that confirmed Joe Biden’s victory. Trump, the committee is expected to argue, then shifted his focus to using the date of the congressional counting of the votes, Jan. 6, 2021, to block a peaceful transfer of power.
A committee aide said on a conference call with reporters Monday that the hearing will lay out the way that far-right militant groups such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and others took cues from Trump and his allies. Particular attention will be paid to his Dec. 19, 2020, posting on Twitter: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th,” Trump tweeted. “Be there, will be wild!”


The tweet served as “a pivotal moment that spurred a chain of events, including preplanning by the Proud Boys,” said the committee aide, who was not authorized to speak on the record. The tweet was issued “a little more than an hour after meeting with Rudy Giuliani, [retired Lt. Gen. Michael] Flynn, Sidney Powell and others where they consider taking actions like seizing voting machines, appointing a special counsel to investigate the election.”
 
https://wapo.st/3RtegjB

Anyone interested can read the entire article, as I'm using it as one my 10 monthly "gifts".. Today should be interesting. Too bad so many Trump sycophants aren't even going to bother watching. They don't want to know the truth.
What bothers me is the possibility that they know it is true, and it either doesn't bother them, or it galvanizes their support of 1/6 and Trump.
 
https://wapo.st/3RtegjB

Anyone interested can read the entire article, as I'm using it as one my 10 monthly "gifts".. Today should be interesting. Too bad so many Trump sycophants aren't even going to bother watching. They don't want to know the truth.
What bothers me is the possibility that they know it is true, and it either doesn't bother them, or it galvanizes their support of 1/6 and Trump.
Once you stop expecting dog shit to smell like a rose you are seldom ever surprised or disappointed.
 
https://wapo.st/3RtegjB

Anyone interested can read the entire article, as I'm using it as one my 10 monthly "gifts".. Today should be interesting. Too bad so many Trump sycophants aren't even going to bother watching. They don't want to know the truth.
What bothers me is the possibility that they know it is true, and it either doesn't bother them, or it galvanizes their support of 1/6 and Trump.
Once you stop expecting dog shit to smell like a rose you are seldom ever surprised or disappointed.
The issue isn't the smell. The issue is that people are smearing it all over themselves and telling us they are True Americans.
 
2 years in jail is better than 20 for sedition but in all probability he will end up in jail for both.
… unless the fascists win in November, in which case he walks. That’s probably what he is counting on.
 
Back
Top Bottom