January 6 Hearings Live

[Copernicus]

The insanity defense only works if the diagnosis is an inability to distinguish right from wrong. The fact that Trump and his enablers took extraordinary measures to hide what they were doing, including witness tampering, pretty much shows that he knew the difference and chose to do wrong.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

An ass kicking would teach him nothing, and he would just pick on others to make himself feel better.

Until he gets another ass kicking. It usually only takes one good ass kicking to stop that kind of behavior. I've seen it happen in my life. Actually just the threat of having your ass kicked and being humiliated in front of people, being forced to back down out of fear, is enough to make a lasting difference.

 

[Toni]

I think that there is and will continue to be a real reluctance to actually prosecute Trump on the part of the Senate. I understand why. There is a genuine risk of retaliation if Trump is even charged. There’s already a lot of calling Biden senile/suffering from dementia in retaliation for people noticing that Trump is not mentally competent for whatever reason—Personally I don’t believe that having narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania/ADD coupled with a grotesquely inflated sense of entitlement and being the victim of malignant parenting gets you a buy for trying to overthrow the government while you are POTUS gets you a pass.

But: some people are genuinely trying to avoid another civil war for real. The past…six years have been brutal in so many ways for so many people.

The best outcome would be if Trump passed away peacefully in his bed, some time in the next month. He doesn’t deserve a peaceful death, but that would skirt so many issues that I think we don’t know how to deal with. As far as I can tell, this is the very first time in our history that the person who served as POTUS did not want and intend the best for our country. Too many people are unwilling to look at what a malignant piece of crap Trump, his entire family, and his entire entourage and corps of enablers are.

So, of course we won’t get that clean(er) ending. Trump will not be imprisoned or even held under permanent house arrest. I’d be shocked if he were ever charged. He’s managed to avoid being convicted twice already, due to a disgusting level of partisanship,

I am hoping that I’m wrong and that he is charged and such fear of certain conviction will cause him to cut a deal where he confesses to some charges and he receives a conditional pardon.

May god have mercy on us all.

 

[Politesse]

But: some people are genuinely trying to avoid another civil war for real. The past…six years have been

Let it come. These goons couldn't even storm a building properly with half the guards standing down.

 

[Jarhyn]

But: some people are genuinely trying to avoid another civil war for real. The past…six years have been

Let it come. These goons couldn't even storm a building properly with half the guards standing down.

I'll observe that such a disorganized failure can lead to lessons being learned and further organization.

This time they came as idiots, sure... There's no guarantee though that lessons weren't learned.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think that there is and will continue to be a real reluctance to actually prosecute Trump on the part of the Senate.

The Senate doesn't have prosecutorial powers.

 

[Toni]

I think that there is and will continue to be a real reluctance to actually prosecute Trump on the part of the Senate.

The Senate doesn't have prosecutorial powers.

True—There’s always the DOJ. My understanding is that there is a turf war with the committee refusing to turn over materials—yet. There are possibly impending charges in NY and GA.

 

[Toni]

But: some people are genuinely trying to avoid another civil war for real. The past…six years have been

Let it come. These goons couldn't even storm a building properly with half the guards standing down.

I'll observe that such a disorganized failure can lead to lessons being learned and further organization.

This time they came as idiots, sure... There's no guarantee though that lessons weren't learned.

Yes, January 6 was a rehearsal.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that there is and will continue to be a real reluctance to actually prosecute Trump on the part of the Senate.

The Senate doesn't have prosecutorial powers.

True—There’s always the DOJ. My understanding is that there is a turf war with the committee refusing to turn over materials—yet. There are possibly impending charges in NY and GA.

I sympathize with Rep. Zoe Lofgren's reaction to the news that the DoJ felt blindsided by the Jan 6 committee for not turning over transcripts of Hutchinson's earlier testimony behind closed doors. Logren was surprised that the DoJ was caught off-guard:

“You know, I was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised. What are they doing over there? They have a much greater opportunity to enforce their subpoenas than our legislative committee does,” Lofgren told Todd.

Asked if she thought it was a fair characterization that the House panel had blindsided the Justice Department, she said she did not think so.

“We’re not an arm of the Department of Justice. We’re a legislative committee. They have subpoena power. They could subpoena Ms. Hutchinson. I’m surprised they had not done so. We interviewed her four times. I think that’s publicly known at this point. And the fourth interview was very compelling,” she added.

I've complained in this thread about DoJ foot-dragging before, and this is exactly what I was talking about. It's not that the DoJ has to rush into hasty indictments without sufficient evidence. They are being extremely lazy if they think that they can sit back and let a congressional committee do their work for them. Merrick Garland has an obligation to pursue criminal investigations of this sort, and very little of what we are learning now about what happened on January 6 is new in terms of what has already been reported on earlier. The main news here is now that we have testimony under oath, and the Justice Department is upset that they didn't see it coming. They have more power than a legislative committee to secure that kind of testimony under oath. I suspect that they didn't pursue it, because they can't handle the truth and wish it would just go away.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Raw Story reports Congressman Adam Kinzinger has announced since Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, that on a daily basis lots of people have contacted the January 6 Committee to volunteer to testify. This is getting better by the day.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Merrick Garland should start with subpeonoeing those persons Trump pardoned. They can no longer claim the fifth. But can be prosecuted for lying. And can be locked up if they refuse to testify until they do so. It is time for the DOJ to act and to play hard ball. Congressional committees cannot do that. And then on to the fake electors. Easy pickings with a good paper trail.

 

[laughing dog]

I think that there is and will continue to be a real reluctance to actually prosecute Trump on the part of the Senate.

The Senate doesn't have prosecutorial powers.

True—There’s always the DOJ. My understanding is that there is a turf war with the committee refusing to turn over materials—yet. There are possibly impending charges in NY and GA.

I sympathize with Rep. Zoe Lofgren's reaction to the news that the DoJ felt blindsided by the Jan 6 committee for not turning over transcripts of Hutchinson's earlier testimony behind closed doors. Logren was surprised that the DoJ was caught off-guard:

“You know, I was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised. What are they doing over there? They have a much greater opportunity to enforce their subpoenas than our legislative committee does,” Lofgren told Todd.

Asked if she thought it was a fair characterization that the House panel had blindsided the Justice Department, she said she did not think so.

“We’re not an arm of the Department of Justice. We’re a legislative committee. They have subpoena power. They could subpoena Ms. Hutchinson. I’m surprised they had not done so. We interviewed her four times. I think that’s publicly known at this point. And the fourth interview was very compelling,” she added.

I've complained in this thread about DoJ foot-dragging before, and this is exactly what I was talking about. It's not that the DoJ has to rush into hasty indictments without sufficient evidence. They are being extremely lazy if they think that they can sit back and let a congressional committee do their work for them. Merrick Garland has an obligation to pursue criminal investigations of this sort, and very little of what we are learning now about what happened on January 6 is new in terms of what has already been reported on earlier. The main news here is now that we have testimony under oath, and the Justice Department is upset that they didn't see it coming. They have more power than a legislative committee to secure that kind of testimony under oath. I suspect that they didn't pursue it, because they can't handle the truth and wish it would just go away.

I think the DOJ is very wary of participating in a political trial, especially when elections are coming up. When (not if) Trump announces his re-election effort, the DOJ will be stymied because Trump and the craven majority in the GOP will claim political witch-hunt and their loony base will eat it up.

 

[Toni]

I think that there is and will continue to be a real reluctance to actually prosecute Trump on the part of the Senate.

The Senate doesn't have prosecutorial powers.

True—There’s always the DOJ. My understanding is that there is a turf war with the committee refusing to turn over materials—yet. There are possibly impending charges in NY and GA.

I sympathize with Rep. Zoe Lofgren's reaction to the news that the DoJ felt blindsided by the Jan 6 committee for not turning over transcripts of Hutchinson's earlier testimony behind closed doors. Logren was surprised that the DoJ was caught off-guard:

“You know, I was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised. What are they doing over there? They have a much greater opportunity to enforce their subpoenas than our legislative committee does,” Lofgren told Todd.

Asked if she thought it was a fair characterization that the House panel had blindsided the Justice Department, she said she did not think so.

“We’re not an arm of the Department of Justice. We’re a legislative committee. They have subpoena power. They could subpoena Ms. Hutchinson. I’m surprised they had not done so. We interviewed her four times. I think that’s publicly known at this point. And the fourth interview was very compelling,” she added.

I've complained in this thread about DoJ foot-dragging before, and this is exactly what I was talking about. It's not that the DoJ has to rush into hasty indictments without sufficient evidence. They are being extremely lazy if they think that they can sit back and let a congressional committee do their work for them. Merrick Garland has an obligation to pursue criminal investigations of this sort, and very little of what we are learning now about what happened on January 6 is new in terms of what has already been reported on earlier. The main news here is now that we have testimony under oath, and the Justice Department is upset that they didn't see it coming. They have more power than a legislative committee to secure that kind of testimony under oath. I suspect that they didn't pursue it, because they can't handle the truth and wish it would just go away.

I think the DOJ is very wary of participating in a political trial, especially when elections are coming up. When (not if) Trump announces his re-election effort, the DOJ will be stymied because Trump and the craven majority in the GOP will claim political witch-hunt and their loony base will eat it up.

Actually, there are problems with prosecuting someone who is a declared candidate for POTUS. Which, btw, is the only reason Don the Con would do so.

 

[TomC]

Actually, there are problems with prosecuting someone who is a declared candidate for POTUS.

This is true. Not impossible, but the political landmines are huge and complex.

Which, btw, is the only reason Don the Con would do so.

This is not true.
Trump can keep scooping up money until the election. From campaign donations to advertising dollars to selling Trump brand swag, as long as he keeps up the charade he can keep cashing in on "a sucker is born every minute" style ethics.
Tom


Dammit, I can't figure out to fix the quotes.
[fixed by mod for you]

 

[Toni]

Actually, there are problems with prosecuting someone who is a declared candidate for POTUS.

This is true. Not impossible, but the political landmines are huge and complex.

Which, btw, is the only reason Don the Con would do so.

This is not true.
Trump can keep scooping up money until the election. From campaign donations to advertising dollars to selling Trump brand swag, as long as he keeps up the charade he can keep cashing in on "a sucker is born every minute" style ethics.
Tom

Dammit, I can't figure out to fix the quotes.

Sorry: I forgot about his grift game.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think that there is and will continue to be a real reluctance to actually prosecute Trump on the part of the Senate.

The Senate doesn't have prosecutorial powers.

True—There’s always the DOJ. My understanding is that there is a turf war with the committee refusing to turn over materials—yet. There are possibly impending charges in NY and GA.

I sympathize with Rep. Zoe Lofgren's reaction to the news that the DoJ felt blindsided by the Jan 6 committee for not turning over transcripts of Hutchinson's earlier testimony behind closed doors. Logren was surprised that the DoJ was caught off-guard:

“You know, I was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised. What are they doing over there? They have a much greater opportunity to enforce their subpoenas than our legislative committee does,” Lofgren told Todd.

Asked if she thought it was a fair characterization that the House panel had blindsided the Justice Department, she said she did not think so.

“We’re not an arm of the Department of Justice. We’re a legislative committee. They have subpoena power. They could subpoena Ms. Hutchinson. I’m surprised they had not done so. We interviewed her four times. I think that’s publicly known at this point. And the fourth interview was very compelling,” she added.

I've complained in this thread about DoJ foot-dragging before, and this is exactly what I was talking about. It's not that the DoJ has to rush into hasty indictments without sufficient evidence. They are being extremely lazy if they think that they can sit back and let a congressional committee do their work for them. Merrick Garland has an obligation to pursue criminal investigations of this sort, and very little of what we are learning now about what happened on January 6 is new in terms of what has already been reported on earlier. The main news here is now that we have testimony under oath, and the Justice Department is upset that they didn't see it coming. They have more power than a legislative committee to secure that kind of testimony under oath. I suspect that they didn't pursue it, because they can't handle the truth and wish it would just go away.

I'm suspecting Christopher Wray still being in charge of the FBI has something to do with this.

 

[ZiprHead]

Actually, there are problems with prosecuting someone who is a declared candidate for POTUS.

This is true. Not impossible, but the political landmines are huge and complex.

Which, btw, is the only reason Don the Con would do so.

This is not true.
Trump can keep scooping up money until the election. From campaign donations to advertising dollars to selling Trump brand swag, as long as he keeps up the charade he can keep cashing in on "a sucker is born every minute" style ethics.
Tom

Dammit, I can't figure out to fix the quotes.

Use the Toggle BB Code button on the upper right.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Raw Story reports Congressman Adam Kinzinger has announced since Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, that on a daily basis lots of people have contacted the January 6 Committee to volunteer to testify. This is getting better by the day.

I certainly hope something substantial comes of her testimony. The big revelation is that she switched lawyers. Did any of us think all that grift money was going to pay lawyers that would help witnesses tow the line and not disclose important information? There isn't any law against the arrangement but it sure is revealing.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm suspecting Christopher Wray still being in charge of the FBI has something to do with this.

Possibly, but he reports to the DoJ, and it is the DoJ that is criticizing the congressional committee for not turning over transcripts of testimony that it takes behind closed doors. As Lofgren pointed out, Congress is not an arm of the Justice Department. The FBI is.

 

[Toni]

Turf wars are not at all uncommon. Pick the turf.