January 6 Hearings Live

[TV and credit cards]

I don't know all the ins and outs of testifying before a legislative body but perhaps they'll all get a chance with a judicial one. Then everyone should be happy. I know I will.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

You mean Trump did not really throw a fit in the SUV?

Gospel: So you have nothing to say about the actual evidence provided but rather focus on what amounts to an optional side quest in the main story.

And you have nothing to say about the Dems' suppressing the truth by not allowing the Secret Service agents to testify or Bannon to testify live as he has offered to do.

Why do Dems insist on making their partisan propaganda the "main story" in place of fact-finding? Why must they relegate the truth to the status of "optional side quest" instead of "the main story"?

The side quest is whether or not Trump threw a fit in his soccer mom SUV. Do you really think everything hinges on that? Come on man!

If this SUV point was not important, why was it presented in the testimony? Anything presented in testimony to promote one side of the propaganda war has to be subject to question by the other side. If it's not an important point, then it should not be presented in the first place. If one side presents it to score points, that makes it important, legitimate to be questioned by the other side.

Unless the whole point is to propagandize rather than get the truth.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Again...the lead prosecutor (if you will) in this process is not some feckless Democrat. In fact I'd hazard a guess that Lumpen can't name the committee co-chair without looking it up. No, this is Liz "I have no further fucks to give" Cheney bringing the heat. Bannon is right to be terrified. What they're doing to him is what they've done for all the other "blockbuster" witnesses. Give them the opportunity to testify in private, lock in their story, corroborate it, and then - when they are good and truly cornered - have them testify live and in public.

You mean Bannon is refusing to say anything in private? 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? so get absolute assurance that his testimony will confirm their Blue Narrative before he's allowed to say anything? and any deviation from the Blue Narrative is automatically perjury?

Or it is a recognition that Bannon is a dumpster fire and more than willing to make a ridiculous spectacle.

In court, Lawyers never ask questions they don't already know the answers to. Same with the committee. They aren't going to let some racist asshole troll get a free spin at the wheel. Bannon likely has almost nothing to tell them, other than if he was the connection between Trump and the Proud Boys.

 

[Elixir]

Why should a display of insanity by a sitting President be excluded from a recounting of the truth? Are you happy with an insane leader? Are you insane?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You mean Trump did not really throw a fit in the SUV?

Gospel: So you have nothing to say about the actual evidence provided but rather focus on what amounts to an optional side quest in the main story.

And you have nothing to say about the Dems' suppressing the truth by not allowing the Secret Service agents to testify or Bannon to testify live as he has offered to do.

Why do Dems insist on making their partisan propaganda the "main story" in place of fact-finding? Why must they relegate the truth to the status of "optional side quest" instead of "the main story"?

The side quest is whether or not Trump threw a fit in his soccer mom SUV. Do you really think everything hinges on that? Come on man!

If this SUV point was not important, why was it presented in the testimony? Anything presented in testimony to promote one side of the propaganda war has to be subject to question by the other side. If it's not an important point, then it should not be presented in the first place. If one side presents it to score points, that makes it important, legitimate to be questioned by the other side.

Unless the whole point is to propagandize rather than get the truth.

What mattered the most was whether Trump wanted to get to the Capitol and lead his revolution. There are multiple pieces of evidence suggesting this is true.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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, 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.

The "Blue Narrative?"

For fuck's sake the Trump narrative was "we may not have won the popular vote or the electoral, but none of that matters and we should remain in power no matter what."

There was no evidence of "widespread voter fraud," but the Trump camp said "fuck it, we don't need proof. Just rig the electoral vote and if that doesn't work we'll figure something else out."

There is no "Blue Narrative" at all. Trump tried to overturn the results of an election that didn't go as he intended. What's happening now is a discussion of just how far he and his camp went to throw democracy out the window and install the 45th President as a dictator. What part of this don't you understand?

The part which says any testimony must be excluded which might be contrary to your version of the truth (i.e., the "Blue Narrative" or "The Absolute 100% Certain Truth Never to be Questioned" or whatever name you want to give it).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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, 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.

The "Blue Narrative?"

For fuck's sake the Trump narrative was "we may not have won the popular vote or the electoral, but none of that matters and we should remain in power no matter what."

There was no evidence of "widespread voter fraud," but the Trump camp said "fuck it, we don't need proof. Just rig the electoral vote and if that doesn't work we'll figure something else out."

There is no "Blue Narrative" at all. Trump tried to overturn the results of an election that didn't go as he intended. What's happening now is a discussion of just how far he and his camp went to throw democracy out the window and install the 45th President as a dictator. What part of this don't you understand?

The part which says any testimony must be excluded which might be contrary to your version of the truth (i.e., the "Blue Narrative" or "The Absolute 100% Certain Truth Never to be Questioned" or whatever name you want to give it).

Umm... the truth was apparent on January 6, 2021 when Trump said VP Pence failed him, while his supporters had invaded the US Capitol. The evidence exposed just how organized it actually was and is cementing Trump's legacy, at least for those who aren't bitterly Trump-partisans.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

After the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony, many more witneses to all of this insurrectionist business are coming forward to testify under oath. Eye witnesses who are not going to fall on their swords for Trump and his cronies. We will be seeing more interesting hearings in weeks ahead. Lumpy, make sure you watch these hearings on Youtube. It is going to be very enlightening, I assure you.

Another thing to start paying attention to is the fake elector activities. Thr FBI is raiding these morons, confiscating phones, computers, and digging into who did what, who put them up to it and who coordinated this scheme. All of this will only get worse for Trumpo as these investigations start getting into the cold, hard evidence.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

or why the 2 Secret Service agents should not testify.

What Secret Service agents? What are their names? Where the living fuck are you getting this from?

The 2 agents in that car. In the news it's reported that they disagreed with some of Hutchinson's testimony and they were willing to testify under oath.

The Committee is pretending that they can come forth and testify, if they contact the Committee, but is not contacting them (because their testimony would undermine the Blue Narrative the Committee is promoting?). And so every day Sean Hannity tells millions of Americans that the testimony and hearings are rigged, the agents in the car contradict her testimony and the Committee is excluding them from testifying. And so probably most of the other testimony is rigged also, to conform to the Blue Narrative -- and anything not promoting that script is excluded.

So if half the country thinks Trump is being lynched, that's the reason. They believe Hannity rather than the mainline media or House Demos and their programmed witnesses. That impasse continues as long as some testimony is excluded arbitrarily by the Party in power.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

After the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony, many more witneses to all of this insurrectionist business are coming forward to testify under oath. Eye witnesses who are not going to fall on their swords for Trump and his cronies. We will be seeing more interesting hearings in weeks ahead. Lumpy, make sure you watch these hearings on Youtube. It is going to be very enlightening, I assure you.

Another thing to start paying attention to is the fake elector activities. Thr FBI is raiding these morons, confiscating phones, computers, and digging into who did what, who put them up to it and who coordinated this scheme. All of this will only get worse for Trumpo as these investigations start getting into the cold, hard evidence.

Lump's argument sounds a bit like Kent Hovind's, but evolution doesn't explain the origin of the universe argument.

 

[Elixir]

if half the country thinks Trump is being lynched

.. then half the country is deluded by Trump’s lies.
But fortunately it’s just 35-40%, not half.
The other 60-65% are not stupid enough or ignorant enough to swallow right wing extremist Q-crap.

 

[Politesse]

If this SUV point was not important, why was it presented in the testimony? Anything presented in testimony to promote one side of the propaganda war has to be subject to question by the other side. If it's not an important point, then it should not be presented in the first place. If one side presents it to score points, that makes it important, legitimate to be questioned by the other side.

This is a hearing, not a trial. And no one has denied anyone the right to cross-examination, anyway, so you've got no point to make; you're just keen to put the attention on a skirmish you imagine can be won rather than the war your party chose to wage and is now losing.

 

[ZiprHead]

2 Secret Service sources told CNN that Trump angrily demanded to be taken to the Capitol on January 6, partly confirming Cassidy Hutchinson's explosive testimony

The Secret Service sources, including one who heard the story directly from Trump's driver, corroborated much of Hutchinson's testimony under oath.

www.businessinsider.com

Two Secret Service sources told CNN on Friday that they heard about former President Donald Trump lunging at the driver of his presidential SUV on January 6, 2021.

The pair of sources, who spoke under the condition of anonymity, backed up much of former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson's explosive testimony on the altercation in the motorcade vehicle known as "the Beast" after Trump found out he wouldn't be driven to join his supporters at the Capitol.

"He had sort of lunged forward – it was unclear from the conversations I had that he actually made physical contact, but he might have. I don't know," one of the Secret Service sources told CNN. "Nobody said Trump assaulted him; they said he tried to lunge over the seat – for what reason, nobody had any idea."

The other source, who said they had spoken directly with Trump's driver from that day, said they did not hear anything about Trump trying to grab the steering wheel, in line with the other agency member's recollection of conversations about the incident.

Are these the SS agents Lumpy is refering to?

 

[starwater]

Well seems that 45 "is allowing" Steve Bannon to testify to discuss the "truth". Should be interesting if he takes the 5th for most of it or he spills to protect himself.

Bannon to testify

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

This doesn't answer why Bannon should not be allowed to testify live, 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.

Bannon is allowed to testify, but Bannon has refused to testify to date.

No, yesterday he changed his mind and agreed to testify, but he wants to do it live and the Committee won't allow it to be live. What are they afraid of? If they're really interested in getting at the truth rather than propagandizing, they'll arrange for him to testify live. If their condition is that first he must testify privately under oath, and then only will they decide whether to let him testify live, they are being dishonest and are only propagandizing and rigging the hearings to promote their Blue Narrative.

If all they intend to do is force him to commit perjury, then the Sean Hannitys are right.

What they have to do is let him say something different publicly than what he says privately (without being penalized), so we can know they are not rigging the testimony in advance to promote their narrative. If the condition is that no testimony is allowed unless they approve of it beforehand and any discrepancy with the public testimony is perjury, you know that's dishonest.

I know of no one who thinks that the Secret Service agents should not testify.

The Committee could call them to testify, and the 2 have said they would testify under oath. But by not calling them to testify, the Committee is confirming Sean Hannity's claim that the hearings and testimony are rigged to favor the Dems' narrative, by excluding anything contrary.

The procedure is to first get a deposition (i.e. hear the testimony in private) and the decide to whether or not to go public - the procedure in any trial.

It appears your post are based on crucial lack of basic and readily available information.

translation: The 2 Secret Service agents will be called to testify. OK, let's wait and see if your prediction is correct.

 

[ZiprHead]

But by not calling them to testify, the Committee is confirming Sean Hannity's claim that the hearings and testimony are rigged to favor the Dems' narrative, by excluding anything contrary.

And there it is. Lumpy gets his news from Sean Hannity. No wonder he's wrong so often.

 

[laughing dog]

This doesn't answer why Bannon should not be allowed to testify live, 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.

Bannon is allowed to testify, but Bannon has refused to testify to date.

No, yesterday he changed his mind and agreed to testify, but he wants to do it live and the Committee won't allow it to be live.

Once again, you use misinformation. First, since when do witnesses get to unilaterally dictate their terms of involvement? Second, no one in their right mind allows testimony in a hearing without hearing it in private first.

The Committee could call them to testify, and the 2 have said they would testify under oath. But by not calling them to testify, the Committee is confirming Sean Hannity's claim that the hearings and testimony are rigged to favor the Dems' narrative, by excluding anything contrary.

Anyone who believes the analysis of Sean Hannity is literally not tethered to reality and is unlikely to be persuaded by the fact. He is partisan shill and nothing else.

 

[Patooka]

In the news it's reported that they disagreed with some of Hutchinson's testimony and they were willing to testify under oath.

Which has fuck all to do with what you are claiming. You said that Hutchinson lied, and the 2 Secret Service agents who can testify to this are being forbidden to. Who is stopping them? How do you know its two SS agents? Are you making this up?

The Committee is pretending that they can come forth and testify

How do you know this? Are you making this up?

if they contact the Committee

So you don't even know if these two imaginary agents have even offered to testify. Quick question - if you don't don't they've offered to testify (or that they exist), how the ever living fuck do you know that they are being blocked from testifying? Are you making this up?

because their testimony would undermine the Blue Narrative the Committee is promoting?

You know what I'm going to ask you, right? Why are you making this up.

And so every day Sean Hannity tells millions of Americans that the testimony and hearings are rigged,

So what? Fuck the cunt.

the agents in the car contradict her testimony and the Committee is excluding them from testifying. And so probably most of the other testimony is rigged also, to conform to the Blue Narrative -- and anything not promoting that script is excluded.

You've made it abundantly clear you have no fucking idea if that is even remotely true

I'm going to be blunt; you have speculated a complete fantasy that has absolutely no evidence to support it, and yet for some insane reason you are surprised why the committee won't entertain your horseshit. Maybe if you peddled your crap at a QAnon Convention or the front of Four Seasons Landscaping you'd get a better reaction. But I doubt it.

 

[Elixir]

Lump's argument sounds a bit like Kent Hovind's

To me it sounds more like Donald Trump.
Just lies and false equivalences, interspersed with irrelevant, unsupported claims of victimhood.
Donald has an excuse; he has the attention span of a lit match and the intelligence of a fourth grader.
I'm not sure if Lumpy is similarly challenged, or is simply performing the required Republican "monkey see, monkey do" act in support of the candidate who lost the election in a landslide - almost 8 million votes - and then tried to turn America into a dictatorship.

No matter. His "side" is preparing to perpetrate a massive fraud against the American people (again) this fall, and if it works at all, the 2024 elections won't matter one bit. If SCOTUS follows form, States will be allowed to disregard voters and award the win to the legislators' preferred candidate no matter WHAT the voters say. The only thing that can prevent this is a huge, defeat for Republicans in the November elections. And in the face of the gerrymandering and voter suppression the 'pugs have undertaken, that seems very unlikely.

 

[Elixir]

The part which says any testimony must be excluded which might be contrary to your version of the truth

Uh Lumpy, read this real slow:
That "part" is just Faux Nooz posturing, and does not exist outside the maunderings of Trump's media shills.
If you or anyone else has EVIDENCE they would like to present, you are welcome to show it to the committee. If you just want to blather on TV, I'm sure FOX, OAN or NewsMax has a slot for you.