Insurrection Hearings 6/28 and beyond

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The federal prosecutors working on the case watched the aide’s appearance before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and were just as astonished by her account of former President Donald J. Trump’s increasingly desperate bid to hold on to power as other viewers. The panel did not provide them with videos or transcripts of her taped interviews with committee members beforehand, according to several officials, leaving them feeling blindsided," The Times reported.”

I’m laughing at this right now. Maybe SOME DOJ officials were blindsided. Highly doubt the actual prosecutors on this were. NYT sources are highly suspect.

They are blindsided because they are not actually doing anything. Now they have to scramble because the committee gave proof of witness intimidation. Something DOJ is always saying is a big thing they will prosecute. Basically the committee is shaming DOJ in to doing something. DOJ is a joke. Do not look for DOJ to do anything.

Yes, if the DOJ is too stupid to interview the Chief of Staff’s principal assistant who was in the middle of it all taking notes and answering and routing phone calls to and from her boss and GOP Members of Congress, what kind of investigation are they doing?

You’re both just speculating that DOJ hasn’t interviewed her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Committee just subpoenaed Pat Cippolone. 🍿

Hmm. He'll fight it, I presume, just like the other losers.

He might not.
These guys are gonna go down.
He has an off ramp here.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am up early for no good reason, and the news just showed a “now deleted” tweet from Rudy Colludy saying Cassidy is clearly lying because she wasn’t there when he asked for his pardon ;p

These people are so stupid it hurts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Committee just subpoenaed Pat Cippolone. 🍿

Hmm. He'll fight it, I presume, just like the other losers.

He might not.
These guys are gonna go down.
He has an off ramp here.

You'd think. The classic method of a hearing, which to have the small fry testify so they can implicate the bigger fry in the hope that they will testify and incriminate the big fish, has worked in the past. But the Trump group is one tough nut to crack, PP. I'm sure some of these folks still believe they have enough supporters to carry the mid-terms and 2024 Presidency, and that their careers are best served sticking to lies.

They've been mighty light on him so far. Most of the testimony about him has been him objecting to various schemes. He'd also be very credible and isolate the scheme to the most political/MAGA of the cast of characters. They also puffed up Elaine Chao (McConnell) and (billionaire) Betsy DeVos. Liz is making a play. Once the primaries are over then Trump has no benefit other than as a fundraiser, which is not something he does for other people.

Watch Laura Ingraham for tea leaves. I hate this timeline.

So you're afraid that since the last primaries are in September, the Jan 6th committee won't really get going with the major witnesses until then? And at that point, they might be under pressure not to continue because it would be too close to the mid-terms?

That's the best time to have hearings, right before election. It won't matter in some states but where there is a tight race and the Dems can win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The federal prosecutors working on the case watched the aide’s appearance before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and were just as astonished by her account of former President Donald J. Trump’s increasingly desperate bid to hold on to power as other viewers. The panel did not provide them with videos or transcripts of her taped interviews with committee members beforehand, according to several officials, leaving them feeling blindsided," The Times reported.”

I’m laughing at this right now. Maybe SOME DOJ officials were blindsided. Highly doubt the actual prosecutors on this were. NYT sources are highly suspect.

They are blindsided because they are not actually doing anything. Now they have to scramble because the committee gave proof of witness intimidation. Something DOJ is always saying is a big thing they will prosecute. Basically the committee is shaming DOJ in to doing something. DOJ is a joke. Do not look for DOJ to do anything.

Mmm, not sure about that. NYT sources are suspect. Could be someone intentionally left out of the loop. The prosecutors are not talking.

The committee slapped DOJ in the face.

Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's administration or campaign whether they've been contacted by any of their former colleagues or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony," Cheney continued.

The congresswoman then shared two samples of answers the panel received to that question, without identifying any of the involved parties.

In response to the examples—which were also shared in full on the committee's Twitter account—Congresswoman Marie Newman, D-Ill., who is not on the panel, said: "Witness intimidation. Clear as day.

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/29/this-is-clear-witness-intimidation-jan-6-committee-teases-evidence-of-cover-up-effort_partner/

This is on going- ie is happening now. If this was a mob trial and witnesses were being intimidated do you think they would be sitting on their hands? This is ridiculous.

Why do you think they’re sitting on their hands?

np. I think it’s at the direction of the WH. Biden does not want to go down this route, not just on this issue but all others.

I should have phrases my question differently: what makes you think they’re sitting on their hands?

Witnesses have been and are being intimidated. This is an on going crime. The DOJ does not appear to know about it and has no plans to stop it. This means DOJ has no investigation. As to the Jan 6th, DOJ has not gone after any of these politically connected people. We would hear about grand juries, the trumpers would publicly attack DOJ, etc. DOJ has not prosecuted the republicans who choose to ignore congressional Subpoenas and not to testify. By doing this DOJ is not sitting on their hands they are actively stopping any investigation. DOJ just has to wait till republicans take back the House. After that everything ends.

Why do you think you would hear about grand juries? Are you aware that there is always a federal grand jury serving in DC? They are empaneled and serve for 18 months hearing everything that comes along, and there are overlapping grand juries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The federal prosecutors working on the case watched the aide’s appearance before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and were just as astonished by her account of former President Donald J. Trump’s increasingly desperate bid to hold on to power as other viewers. The panel did not provide them with videos or transcripts of her taped interviews with committee members beforehand, according to several officials, leaving them feeling blindsided," The Times reported.”

I’m laughing at this right now. Maybe SOME DOJ officials were blindsided. Highly doubt the actual prosecutors on this were. NYT sources are highly suspect.

They are blindsided because they are not actually doing anything. Now they have to scramble because the committee gave proof of witness intimidation. Something DOJ is always saying is a big thing they will prosecute. Basically the committee is shaming DOJ in to doing something. DOJ is a joke. Do not look for DOJ to do anything.

Mmm, not sure about that. NYT sources are suspect. Could be someone intentionally left out of the loop. The prosecutors are not talking.

The committee slapped DOJ in the face.

Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's administration or campaign whether they've been contacted by any of their former colleagues or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony," Cheney continued.

The congresswoman then shared two samples of answers the panel received to that question, without identifying any of the involved parties.

In response to the examples—which were also shared in full on the committee's Twitter account—Congresswoman Marie Newman, D-Ill., who is not on the panel, said: "Witness intimidation. Clear as day.

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/29/this-is-clear-witness-intimidation-jan-6-committee-teases-evidence-of-cover-up-effort_partner/

This is on going- ie is happening now. If this was a mob trial and witnesses were being intimidated do you think they would be sitting on their hands? This is ridiculous.

Why do you think they’re sitting on their hands?

np. I think it’s at the direction of the WH. Biden does not want to go down this route, not just on this issue but all others.

I should have phrases my question differently: what makes you think they’re sitting on their hands?

Witnesses have been and are being intimidated. This is an on going crime. The DOJ does not appear to know about it and has no plans to stop it. This means DOJ has no investigation. As to the Jan 6th, DOJ has not gone after any of these politically connected people. We would hear about grand juries, the trumpers would publicly attack DOJ, etc. DOJ has not prosecuted the republicans who choose to ignore congressional Subpoenas and not to testify. By doing this DOJ is not sitting on their hands they are actively stopping any investigation. DOJ just has to wait till republicans take back the House. After that everything ends.

I think the Committee knows that the left a bunch of Trump loyalists in the DOJ hen house to this very day. Not even Cheney or Kinzinger are saying that info should be shared with DOJ, likely because they are afraid of leaks within DOJ.

Garland needs to clean house ASAP if the Committee cannot even trust the DOJ. Trump clearly broke the DOJ.

No, that's not it.

DOJ doesn't want to have anything to do with anything political or with political crimes. But January 6 moved beyond political crimes and these hearings are showing everyone that.

So as long as the crime is politically motivated DOJ will not prosecute? Ballot stuffing is political, killing your political opponent is political, stage a coup is political, choosing not to prosecute based in party affiliation is political, etc. OMG how can anyone have faith in our legal system!

If you want to discuss, then we can discuss. If you're more interested in frothing, then do it by yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The federal prosecutors working on the case watched the aide’s appearance before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and were just as astonished by her account of former President Donald J. Trump’s increasingly desperate bid to hold on to power as other viewers. The panel did not provide them with videos or transcripts of her taped interviews with committee members beforehand, according to several officials, leaving them feeling blindsided," The Times reported.”

I’m laughing at this right now. Maybe SOME DOJ officials were blindsided. Highly doubt the actual prosecutors on this were. NYT sources are highly suspect.

They are blindsided because they are not actually doing anything. Now they have to scramble because the committee gave proof of witness intimidation. Something DOJ is always saying is a big thing they will prosecute. Basically the committee is shaming DOJ in to doing something. DOJ is a joke. Do not look for DOJ to do anything.

Mmm, not sure about that. NYT sources are suspect. Could be someone intentionally left out of the loop. The prosecutors are not talking.

The committee slapped DOJ in the face.

Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's administration or campaign whether they've been contacted by any of their former colleagues or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony," Cheney continued.

The congresswoman then shared two samples of answers the panel received to that question, without identifying any of the involved parties.

In response to the examples—which were also shared in full on the committee's Twitter account—Congresswoman Marie Newman, D-Ill., who is not on the panel, said: "Witness intimidation. Clear as day.

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/29/this-is-clear-witness-intimidation-jan-6-committee-teases-evidence-of-cover-up-effort_partner/

This is on going- ie is happening now. If this was a mob trial and witnesses were being intimidated do you think they would be sitting on their hands? This is ridiculous.

Why do you think they’re sitting on their hands?

np. I think it’s at the direction of the WH. Biden does not want to go down this route, not just on this issue but all others.

I should have phrases my question differently: what makes you think they’re sitting on their hands?

Witnesses have been and are being intimidated. This is an on going crime. The DOJ does not appear to know about it and has no plans to stop it. This means DOJ has no investigation. As to the Jan 6th, DOJ has not gone after any of these politically connected people. We would hear about grand juries, the trumpers would publicly attack DOJ, etc. DOJ has not prosecuted the republicans who choose to ignore congressional Subpoenas and not to testify. By doing this DOJ is not sitting on their hands they are actively stopping any investigation. DOJ just has to wait till republicans take back the House. After that everything ends.

Why do you think you would hear about grand juries? Are you aware that there is always a federal grand jury serving in DC? They are empaneled and serve for 18 months hearing everything that comes along, and there are overlapping grand juries.

Not pp. did not know that. Good info!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The secret service has a long history of lying.

Ornato and Engel can’t admit they told anyone what Trump did in the car because it’s a serious breach of security protocol to gossip about stupid shit that their protectees do and say. Discretion is more sacred than truth.

No, it’s not. Not when you’re watching an attempted coup play out. It sounds like even the secret service guys were in a pickle that day. Just like everyone else that worked in proximity to Trump. DOD officials, etc. The truth will set them all free.

Interesting that Pence was allowed to refuse to do what USSS wanted and Trump was not.

You raise an interesting point. Secret Service agents are human and want to manhandle their protectee as little as possible, obviously. They can pressure someone to get in a car, but they might balk a little at physically forcing someone to get in - which they have every right to do if they feel their protectee is in mortal danger. There's just a moment of doubt, and Pence, who is no fool, used that to his advantage by INSISTING that he knew he was on to them and he would not get in that car. If protesters had burst in their little area at that moment, there is no doubt the Secret Service would have pushed him in the car.

Pence knows that when you're in the backseat, it's too late. He said as much to his Secret Service.
Trump got in, and his Secret Service, who had ALREADY studied the risks and ALREADY told him he was not going to the Capitol, had to tussle with a man who can't understand the word no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The federal prosecutors working on the case watched the aide’s appearance before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and were just as astonished by her account of former President Donald J. Trump’s increasingly desperate bid to hold on to power as other viewers. The panel did not provide them with videos or transcripts of her taped interviews with committee members beforehand, according to several officials, leaving them feeling blindsided," The Times reported.”

I’m laughing at this right now. Maybe SOME DOJ officials were blindsided. Highly doubt the actual prosecutors on this were. NYT sources are highly suspect.

They are blindsided because they are not actually doing anything. Now they have to scramble because the committee gave proof of witness intimidation. Something DOJ is always saying is a big thing they will prosecute. Basically the committee is shaming DOJ in to doing something. DOJ is a joke. Do not look for DOJ to do anything.

Mmm, not sure about that. NYT sources are suspect. Could be someone intentionally left out of the loop. The prosecutors are not talking.

The committee slapped DOJ in the face.

Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's administration or campaign whether they've been contacted by any of their former colleagues or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony," Cheney continued.

The congresswoman then shared two samples of answers the panel received to that question, without identifying any of the involved parties.

In response to the examples—which were also shared in full on the committee's Twitter account—Congresswoman Marie Newman, D-Ill., who is not on the panel, said: "Witness intimidation. Clear as day.

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/29/this-is-clear-witness-intimidation-jan-6-committee-teases-evidence-of-cover-up-effort_partner/

This is on going- ie is happening now. If this was a mob trial and witnesses were being intimidated do you think they would be sitting on their hands? This is ridiculous.

Why do you think they’re sitting on their hands?

np. I think it’s at the direction of the WH. Biden does not want to go down this route, not just on this issue but all others.

I should have phrases my question differently: what makes you think they’re sitting on their hands?

Witnesses have been and are being intimidated. This is an on going crime. The DOJ does not appear to know about it and has no plans to stop it. This means DOJ has no investigation. As to the Jan 6th, DOJ has not gone after any of these politically connected people. We would hear about grand juries, the trumpers would publicly attack DOJ, etc. DOJ has not prosecuted the republicans who choose to ignore congressional Subpoenas and not to testify. By doing this DOJ is not sitting on their hands they are actively stopping any investigation. DOJ just has to wait till republicans take back the House. After that everything ends.

I think the Committee knows that the left a bunch of Trump loyalists in the DOJ hen house to this very day. Not even Cheney or Kinzinger are saying that info should be shared with DOJ, likely because they are afraid of leaks within DOJ.

Garland needs to clean house ASAP if the Committee cannot even trust the DOJ. Trump clearly broke the DOJ.

No, that's not it.

DOJ doesn't want to have anything to do with anything political or with political crimes. But January 6 moved beyond political crimes and these hearings are showing everyone that.

So as long as the crime is politically motivated DOJ will not prosecute? Ballot stuffing is political, killing your political opponent is political, stage a coup is political, choosing not to prosecute based in party affiliation is political, etc. OMG how can anyone have faith in our legal system!

If you want to discuss, then we can discuss. If you're more interested in frothing, then do it by yourself.

Lol sure. You know there is nothing to discuss. DOJ will not prosecute political crimes. The president(and by extension anyone working for the president) is not subject to the law. We just take that argument and apply it to governors and mayors. Makes sense!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just can’t believe Cassidy has been unemployed for 18 mos. Something fishy about that. Any evidence out there?

What's fishy? She's a deep red Republican who betrayed MAGA by cooperating with the committee for the past year, so neither the left nor the right would want to hire her. Plus her security has been threatened, so she probably has had to adjust her living conditions to account for that.

+1
And she probably has been interviewed by DOJ as well. I would assume it’s hard to schedule your work as a young, low level staffer around various depositions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The secret service has a long history of lying.

Ornato and Engel can’t admit they told anyone what Trump did in the car because it’s a serious breach of security protocol to gossip about stupid shit that their protectees do and say. Discretion is more sacred than truth.

No, it’s not. Not when you’re watching an attempted coup play out. It sounds like even the secret service guys were in a pickle that day. Just like everyone else that worked in proximity to Trump. DOD officials, etc. The truth will set them all free.

Interesting that Pence was allowed to refuse to do what USSS wanted and Trump was not.

You raise an interesting point. Secret Service agents are human and want to manhandle their protectee as little as possible, obviously. They can pressure someone to get in a car, but they might balk a little at physically forcing someone to get in - which they have every right to do if they feel their protectee is in mortal danger. There's just a moment of doubt, and Pence, who is no fool, used that to his advantage by INSISTING that he knew he was on to them and he would not get in that car. If protesters had burst in their little area at that moment, there is no doubt the Secret Service would have pushed him in the car.

Pence knows that when you're in the backseat, it's too late. He said as much to his Secret Service.
Trump got in, and his Secret Service, who had ALREADY studied the risks and ALREADY told him he was not going to the Capitol, had to tussle with a man who can't understand the word no.

This is a really big deal. This is not about Trump. This means the Secret Service can remove or prevent a president from meeting with people or actively engaging during a crisis. If the president wants to go to the Capitol during a political crisis or an important vote the SS have to get him there. They should not have a say in the matter. Otherwise the SS is be able to manipulate the president by cut off access, restrict the president’s movements, isolate by holding the president in a secure location, etc. while other actors take advantage of the absence of the president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The secret service has a long history of lying.

Ornato and Engel can’t admit they told anyone what Trump did in the car because it’s a serious breach of security protocol to gossip about stupid shit that their protectees do and say. Discretion is more sacred than truth.

No, it’s not. Not when you’re watching an attempted coup play out. It sounds like even the secret service guys were in a pickle that day. Just like everyone else that worked in proximity to Trump. DOD officials, etc. The truth will set them all free.

Interesting that Pence was allowed to refuse to do what USSS wanted and Trump was not.

Who was in the room with Pence and the USSS, compared to who was in the vehicle with Trump and the USSS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The federal prosecutors working on the case watched the aide’s appearance before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and were just as astonished by her account of former President Donald J. Trump’s increasingly desperate bid to hold on to power as other viewers. The panel did not provide them with videos or transcripts of her taped interviews with committee members beforehand, according to several officials, leaving them feeling blindsided," The Times reported.”

I’m laughing at this right now. Maybe SOME DOJ officials were blindsided. Highly doubt the actual prosecutors on this were. NYT sources are highly suspect.

They are blindsided because they are not actually doing anything. Now they have to scramble because the committee gave proof of witness intimidation. Something DOJ is always saying is a big thing they will prosecute. Basically the committee is shaming DOJ in to doing something. DOJ is a joke. Do not look for DOJ to do anything.

Yes, if the DOJ is too stupid to interview the Chief of Staff’s principal assistant who was in the middle of it all taking notes and answering and routing phone calls to and from her boss and GOP Members of Congress, what kind of investigation are they doing?

You’re both just speculating that DOJ hasn’t interviewed her.

DOJ whined to the New York Times that they didn’t have any clue about much of her testimony. So either they didn’t interview her or they were incompetent at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The secret service has a long history of lying.

Ornato and Engel can’t admit they told anyone what Trump did in the car because it’s a serious breach of security protocol to gossip about stupid shit that their protectees do and say. Discretion is more sacred than truth.

No, it’s not. Not when you’re watching an attempted coup play out. It sounds like even the secret service guys were in a pickle that day. Just like everyone else that worked in proximity to Trump. DOD officials, etc. The truth will set them all free.

Interesting that Pence was allowed to refuse to do what USSS wanted and Trump was not.

You raise an interesting point. Secret Service agents are human and want to manhandle their protectee as little as possible, obviously. They can pressure someone to get in a car, but they might balk a little at physically forcing someone to get in - which they have every right to do if they feel their protectee is in mortal danger. There's just a moment of doubt, and Pence, who is no fool, used that to his advantage by INSISTING that he knew he was on to them and he would not get in that car. If protesters had burst in their little area at that moment, there is no doubt the Secret Service would have pushed him in the car.

Pence knows that when you're in the backseat, it's too late. He said as much to his Secret Service.
Trump got in, and his Secret Service, who had ALREADY studied the risks and ALREADY told him he was not going to the Capitol, had to tussle with a man who can't understand the word no.

This is a really big deal. This is not about Trump. This means the Secret Service can remove or prevent a president from meeting with people or actively engaging during a crisis. If the president wants to go to the Capitol during a political crisis or an important vote the SS have to get him there. They should not have a say in the matter. Otherwise the SS is be able to manipulate the president by cut off access, restrict the president’s movements, isolate by holding the president in a secure location, etc. while other actors take advantage of the absence of the president.

I think the larger problem is that the USSS appears to have been taken over to some extent by right wing extremists. That’s the actual point here. Pence wouldn’t get in the car because he didn’t feel safe to do so; I’m not sure if he had heard about the maga_s chanting “hang Mike Pence” or if he had seen Trump’s tweet. But the USSS is clearly having problems with nascent fascism in their ranks (or established).

[Anonymous]

I'm not entirely sure what's holding up DOJ. It could be a combination of all the reasons PPs have laid out.

But I believe the main reason is that it's just unprecedented to level such serious charges at a former President. It's never been done before, and anytime lawyers need to set a precedent, there is immense inertia to fight against. Not only is there an ***extremely high evidentiary bar*** to clear in order to PROVE, beyond reasonable doubt, that Trump purposefully attempted to incite violence and obstruct an election despite knowing he had lost it, but there is also rank fear in the DOJ that if ever the White House falls into Republican hands again, these very same people will be harassed and perhaps even be held legally responsible for their investigative efforts.

We're fighting against strong currents here. The DOJ knows what it should do. It has probably started. But fear of potential retribution and fear of the unknown legal precedent are combining to move this investigation at a glacial pace.