Insurrection Hearings 6/28 and beyond

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Direct quotes? I don’t find the NYT to be trustworthy. They have shown that they are on the side of the fascists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one becomes a lawyer to show bravery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one becomes a lawyer to show bravery.

Southern Poverty Law Center.

[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.

It’s a difference between wanting to go to an unsecured place vs. wanting to stay in a secured place in an unsecured building.

If Pence was not already at the Capitol, they would not have taken him there during the insurrection, just as they did not take Trump. But Pence was already there and was sheltered in a space with sufficient security to protect him. If the mob had found him a bunch of them would have been shot by USSS.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Direct quotes? I don’t find the NYT to be trustworthy. They have shown that they are on the side of the fascists.

Read the headline. They said they were blindsided. In other words, they were clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one becomes a lawyer to show bravery.

You are so wrong.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Direct quotes? I don’t find the NYT to be trustworthy. They have shown that they are on the side of the fascists.

Read the headline. They said they were blindsided. In other words, they were clueless.

Who said who was blindsided? A “source” said “some officials” were blindsided

[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.

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.

Direct quotes? I don’t find the NYT to be trustworthy. They have shown that they are on the side of the fascists.

Read the headline. They said they were blindsided. In other words, they were clueless.

Who said who was blindsided? A “source” said “some officials” were blindsided

Read the article.

[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.

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.

Direct quotes? I don’t find the NYT to be trustworthy. They have shown that they are on the side of the fascists.

Read the headline. They said they were blindsided. In other words, they were clueless.

Who said who was blindsided? A “source” said “some officials” were blindsided

Read the article.

I did.

[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.

PP you replied to. I'm not sure you fully understand the nature of the Secret Service rules and how context can influence them.

The absolute priority is a protectee's life. If there is clear and present danger, they have the authority to manhandle anyone, and use lethal force against anyone in their way, to save their protectee's life. EVEN if the protectee disagrees. It's happened already, usually to get the President into the WH bunker. Presidents never want to get into the bunker, and the SS usually has to insist (no lives have been lost, of course). There are infrequent but regularly occurring security breaches at the WH, and the SS always faces pushback when implementing security protocols, because people there just want to get on with their work.

However, as I explained before, these two occasions with Pence and Trump were unprecedented. Pence was not in immediate danger and he refused to get in the car. His detail chose not to push him in, because Pence had that sort of relationship with his agents. Trump was not in danger, but he exhibited erratic behavior at a moment when the plan to return to the WH had already been agreed upon multiple times. I think the agents around Trump were well aware that this was a volatile and untrustworthy person (from a security POV, not a political POV), and that his moods and change of plans always had to be double-checked with others. They knew all the potential consequences of going to the Capitol that day, it had already been discussed and blocked by ALL HIS STAFF, so they knew they had to refuse such a demand from Trump, made at the last minute. This shows that the SS does not act in a vacuum: they are aware of the context, and they are acutely aware of their protectee's state of mind. If Trump had been someone who inspired more loyalty and confidence, instead of ruling by bullying, his agents *might* have been persuaded to deviate from the plan. Which is why a truly dangerous leader is usually someone who has perfect control over their outward persona.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

The Praetorian Guard assassinated 13 Roman emperors.

[Anonymous]

Now that we have stopped having the debate about whether or not Secret Service vehicles have ash trays and power windows, back to the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now that we have stopped having the debate about whether or not Secret Service vehicles have ash trays and power windows, back to the point.

Yes. This is it.

[Anonymous]

The supposed meeting between a President's Chief of Staff and people planning to obstruct the electoral count with a view to re-instating that very President is only important if you can prove it happened, and prove that the meeting had pertinent discussions about the election obstruction.

[Anonymous]

Just want to interject that the SUV Trump was in has the middle set of seats removed. So he couldn't have reached the front in the way she relayed the story.