January 6 Hearings Live

[Hermit]

Orwell may have had the year wrong. He may have been wrong about which side of the political coin would bring an extreme dystopia, but…

Do you really believe that Orwell indicated that his dystopian future was the product of one particular side of the political coin?

It’s pretty clear to me that he did no such thing; 1984 was set in a world of authoritarianism, but there was no clear indication of whether this started with fascist or communist authorities, and indeed a major theme of the book is that it doesn’t matter - he describes power as being an end in itself, not a means to an end.

1984 wasn’t a warning against one side of the political coin; It was a warning against giving total power to anyone.

This may not have been something that the superpower bloc you were raised in was keen to emphasise, but Orwell wasn’t saying that the other side’s totalitarianism was bad - he was saying that all totalitarianism is bad.

Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

This was written in 1949; Not coincidentally, four years after the USSR had heroically won the war for freedom against the Third Reich, and at a time when the USSR was being portrayed as an eternal enemy of freedom.

Orwell very, very clearly wasn’t ascribing his dystopia to the dominance of one side or the other, but to the absolute loyalty demanded by authorities on every side. A loyalty so unthinking and deep-seated that even intelligent people would automatically assume that anything described in unflattering terms must be a description of the enemy de jour.

Such as, for example, an American reading his novel about totalitarianism, and believing that it must be descriptive of the Soviet Union, because it portrays a world that is harsh and unpleasant, and therefore couldn’t possibly be about the future of any of the “good guys”.

Exactly.

For Orwell's take on communism - or more accurately, Stalinism - read Animal Farm (1945). It's a satirical hatchet job par excellence. The book is widely available on the internet for free.

In a letter to Yvonne Davet, Orwell described Animal Farm as a satirical tale against Stalin ("un conte satirique contre Staline"),[7] and in his essay "Why I Write" (1946), wrote that Animal Farm was the first book in which he tried, with full consciousness of what he was doing, "to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole".[8]

Orwell remained a socialist even after he woke up to what the Stalinists were up to while fighting in the Spanish civil war. He wrote about his involvement in that war, and his disillusionment with Stalin's faction in Homage to Catalonia (1938). That is another book well worth a read - history as told by a witness and participant along the lines of John Reed's Ten Days that shook the World (1919).

 

[Angry Floof]

Orwell may have had the year wrong. He may have been wrong about which side of the political coin would bring an extreme dystopia, but…

Do you really believe that Orwell indicated that his dystopian future was the product of one particular side of the political coin?

It’s pretty clear to me that he did no such thing; 1984 was set in a world of authoritarianism, but there was no clear indication of whether this started with fascist or communist authorities, and indeed a major theme of the book is that it doesn’t matter - he describes power as being an end in itself, not a means to an end.

1984 wasn’t a warning against one side of the political coin; It was a warning against giving total power to anyone.

This may not have been something that the superpower bloc you were raised in was keen to emphasise, but Orwell wasn’t saying that the other side’s totalitarianism was bad - he was saying that all totalitarianism is bad.

Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

This was written in 1949; Not coincidentally, four years after the USSR had heroically won the war for freedom against the Third Reich, and at a time when the USSR was being portrayed as an eternal enemy of freedom.

Orwell very, very clearly wasn’t ascribing his dystopia to the dominance of one side or the other, but to the absolute loyalty demanded by authorities on every side. A loyalty so unthinking and deep-seated that even intelligent people would automatically assume that anything described in unflattering terms must be a description of the enemy de jour.

Such as, for example, an American reading his novel about totalitarianism, and believing that it must be descriptive of the Soviet Union, because it portrays a world that is harsh and unpleasant, and therefore couldn’t possibly be about the future of any of the “good guys”.

Yes, I felt while reading 1984 in the 60’s that Orwell had gone way out of his way to emphasize that point. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and when people cede total power they earn the results.

One takeaway from that might be that, whatever the ideology, if it doesn't make accountability its very foundation, along with a few other principles that serve to counter our human pitfalls and protect the most vulnerable among us, it is susceptible to fascist manipulation.

 

[Patooka]

Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars.

They can issue subpoenas to the Secret Service agents who were in that car. If they don't they are proving they are liars as much as Trump and the Repubs.

House Dems have no excuse not to issue those subpoenas and get the testimony of anyone in the Secret Service, or anyone named by Hutchinson. This is their chance -- the Dems -- to prove that the Trumpsters are the real liars.

It's simple: If they issue those subpoenas and get that testimony, they will prove that they are trying to get at the truth. If not, they're proving they're only propagandists, as bad as Trump. Just as dishonest. Only grandstanding, putting on a show trial, only caring about scoring points for the next election.

If those SS agents contradict their witness from Tuesday 6/27, the House Dems must admit that their witness was not honest and her testimony cannot be trusted. And there should be an investigation to determine if she was pressured to give false testimony. And they should take the blame for the wrong they did putting her on there to give false testimony.

But if the agents confirm her testimony, with no significant contradiction, then they can claim that it's only Trump who is lying, and not both sides equally.

If their witness is contradicted, they should apologize and admit that the Blues are just as dishonest as the Reds, and do something to clean their own house. Instead of just continuing to use their political power to propagandize and score political points.

If they don't issue those subpoenas and get that testimony -- let the chips fall where they will -- then they're admitting they're just as guilty of lying as the other side.

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

Geeze, who could back up what Hutchinson said? Nobody according to lumpenprolitariat.

Except,

 

[TV and credit cards]

I couldn’t make to the end of that but
That deleted text thing during transfer is ridiculous. It will show what was deleted, who deleted it, and when. Even the in house nerd cannot access your phone. Everyone would do their own transfer in group session guided by in house nerd.
Govt iPhones suck. They even have tracking apps installed. The first time I was sitting in the park eating my Chipotle, wondering what this other app was and seeing a log of all the places I had been driving, I stopped using that bitch.

 

[southernhybrid]

1984 wasn’t a warning against one side of the political coin; It was a warning against giving total power to anyone.

That was exactly my point. I guess I didn't do a very good job of explaining it. Orwell was simply warning of the consequences of extremism and it doesn't matter if it comes from the far left or the far right. At least that's how I see it, but I have no desire to argue about the details of a book. I was just making a point that it sort of looks as if the world is heading towards a dystopian nightmare, which reminded me of some of the passages in "1984".

 

[jab]

America has always been bout that cash yo. Claimed independence over it, enslaved Africans because of it, & voted a dickhead into its high office for it.

Trump was elected because of white supremacism, not cash.

The white supremacists are the minority. The Majority of Trump supporters are a combination of people dealing with some level of poverty and living with unfounded concerns about threats to their way of life (like gun ownership and Christian values).

A lot of well-to-do white people supported Trump, including some very wealthy ones, who play the ignorant uneducated whites to get them to vote for Trump, or any other Repug who will cut taxes for teh rich, and otherwise enact policies favouring them. Another econimic consideration in Trump's support is that current American racism includes the hyped-up fear among insecure white people that their economic position will be taken over by non-white people (the replacement conspiracy theory).

 

[jab]

Re. "Even jailing the likes of Eastman, Clark et al would have a chilling effect on the fascists".:
Not if Don the Con gets to be pres again and pardons them.

 

[Toni]

First on CNN: DHS inspector general told Jan. 6 panel he went to Mayorkas about Secret Service cooperation

The Department of Homeland Security inspector general on Friday briefed all nine members of the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack about the Secret Service erasing text messages from the day of the riot and the day before.

www.cnn.com

 

[jab]

The stakes are too high to be sloppy or fast.

I'm not asking for either, and they've already proven that they can be slow. Justice doesn't need to be rushed, but sloppiness is allowing the public to see criminal behavior by high officials go unpunished for years. That's part of the process of  democratic backsliding, aka autocratization. Trump feared prosecution. That's part of the reason for his coup attempt. He might not have bothered, if he had realized how easy things would be for him after his fall from power.

But you have to at least see the difference between Trump not fearing prosecution from people who he could replace vs. fearing prosecution now. Bringing up Barr and Mueller is irrelevant - they both worked for Trump. Establishing: 1) There was no 'fraudulent election'; 2) You lost fair and square; 3) You knew these but could not come to grips with them; 4) You incited a riot (at the very least) on the capital to overturn the election results; 5) You persist with these lies today. It takes a very long time to connect these dots, particularly for people who cannot count.

If we achieve nothing more than pushing the right back to the center and ensuring that Trump and no one like him successfully runs for office again, these hearings will have been worth it.

aa

One can only hope.

 

[laughing dog]

If we achieve nothing more than pushing the right back to the center and ensuring that Trump and no one like him successfully runs for office again, these hearings will have been worth it.

aa

I'd settle for pushing the right back from foaming at the mouth bat shit crazy to just crazy.

 

[jab]

One wonders. Do secret service agents wear body cameras?

Trump Admin stopped allowing any devices around him due to the embarrassment he was.

Is there dashcam video from the Beast--or has that been erased, like the Secret Service text messages?

 

[Elixir]

One wonders. Do secret service agents wear body cameras?

Trump Admin stopped allowing any devices around him due to the embarrassment he was.

Is there dashcam video from the Beast--or has that been erased, like the Secret Service text messages?

Maybe irrelevant but … he wasn’t in the Beast, but rather the Suburban.

 

[ZiprHead]

One wonders. Do secret service agents wear body cameras?

Trump Admin stopped allowing any devices around him due to the embarrassment he was.

Is there dashcam video from the Beast--or has that been erased, like the Secret Service text messages?

Maybe irrelevant but … he wasn’t in the Beast, but rather the Suburban.

It's my understanding that whatever armored vehicle the president is in it's called The Beast.

 

[Elixir]

One wonders. Do secret service agents wear body cameras?

Trump Admin stopped allowing any devices around him due to the embarrassment he was.

Is there dashcam video from the Beast--or has that been erased, like the Secret Service text messages?

Maybe irrelevant but … he wasn’t in the Beast, but rather the Suburban.

It's my understanding that whatever armored vehicle the president is in it's called The Beast.

What I’m given to understand is that in the proper “Beast” there’s no way to reach into the front from the back seats, whereas in the Suburban it’s possible.

 

[ZiprHead]

One wonders. Do secret service agents wear body cameras?

Trump Admin stopped allowing any devices around him due to the embarrassment he was.

Is there dashcam video from the Beast--or has that been erased, like the Secret Service text messages?

Maybe irrelevant but … he wasn’t in the Beast, but rather the Suburban.

It's my understanding that whatever armored vehicle the president is in it's called The Beast.

What I’m given to understand is that in the proper “Beast” there’s no way to reach into the front from the back seats, whereas in the Suburban it’s possible.

Yup.

Remember Hutchinson said it was "The Beast" too.

 

[Copernicus]

James Murray, the head of the Secret Service, who was largely a Trump protégé in terms of his rise during the administration, decided to retire from the SS last week and take a job with  Snapchat. Texts from January 5 and 6 got deleted before they could be handed over to the committee investigating the insurrection. Vice President Pence was afraid to let the SS take him away from danger during the insurrection. It's all just a coincidence, right?

 

[jab]

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.

Lumpenproletariat posted before clips of hostile depositions from Guilianni and Powell were played by the committee, but not before widespread knowledge about people who presumable support Trumps' narrative and were given teh chance to speak, showing up and extensively pleading the fifth.

 

[jab]

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?

Bannon did not offer even to turn over the subpoened materials, as far as i know.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The January 6 Committee has just subpeonaed the Secret Service over the deleted texts. Meanwhile, one Mike Roman was fingered as the guy who was peddling the fake elector lists to anyone who accept them. A one time Koch brothers opposition researcher, he was hired on by Trump to help Trump win election. So this goes right into the Trump White House.

 

[Ford]

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.

Lumpenproletariat posted before clips of hostile depositions from Guilianni and Powell were played by the committee, but not before widespread knowledge about people who presumable support Trumps' narrative and were given teh chance to speak, showing up and extensively pleading the fifth.

And has also been silent since the news of corroborating reports from inside the vehicle surfaced.