January 6th public hearing live

a reply to: frogs453

Republicans are too defensive.

The violence was started by a relative few of the 30,000 protestors.

The only person killed on that day was a Protestor. (Air Force Veteran Ashli Babbitt)

If the official plan to delay the approval of Joe Biden as President had succeeded, it's possible (almost) every American would be better off today.

Republicans should stop being so defensive.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: frogs453

You're aware (R)s are not allowed to rebut right? 🤣

That's why Pelosi rejected the Republicans who were originally assigned to the committee. She took it upon herself to not only reject the Republicans, but she picked the 2 anti Trump Republicans to sit.

That in and of itself violates house rules.

Pelosi says she "amends" House rules. Not "violate" them. Letting Covid-19-positive members vote in person last year, was one of those "amendments".

All of her actions have been documented. When Republicans take over, the gloves come off. If Pelosi did it, we will do it.

a reply to: carewemust

Oh sure we would. Guess we just let someone remain in power until he decides he's done being President. Are you serious about it would have been good if they succeeded on the 6th? I think you are.

a reply to: vkey08

Actually yes it is.

FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot: report - Aug 2021

The FBI hasn't found any evidence that the January 6 assault on the US Capitol was part of an organized plot to overturn the election results, Reuters reported, citing law-enforcement officials.

The officials also said that the FBI has "so far found no evidence" that former President Donald Trump or "people directly around him were involved in organizing the violence," Reuters reported.

What the Dems are pushing is in fact a lie.

other source -
Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources

What was the scant evidence?

FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside, the sources said.

First paragraph of the Reuters article -

WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."[/x]

To sum it up their is no scant evidence that Trump or any of his people were involved. The scant evidence is directed at the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: carewemust

Are you serious about it would have been good if they succeeded on the 6th? I think you are.

YES...the plan was to delay certifying Joe Biden while an investigation into how a man who couldn't fill a gymnasium, got more votes than Obama did.

The media is so fixated on the violence, they willfully ignore what the real plan was on that day.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The U.S. Senate acquitted President Trump and his people of any responsibility for violent parts of January 6th too.

But I'm PROUD to say he and his people tried their darndest to get authorities to examine evidence that Biden won due to cheating.

The evidence that Trump beat Biden is now present in Arizona and Wisconsin, but the Governors/AG in those two states will not adjust the vote counts. (Wouldn't change anything, but would correct the record.)

a reply to: carewemust

Care, the governor of Wisconsin is a weakling lefty idiot with the IQ of a turnip.

a reply to: vkey08

"Contempt of Court" is a charge that is levied by a judicial officer (a judge) to force a witness to provide specific evidence known to exist so it can be considered in a trial. "Contempt of Congress" is a similar charge levied by a legislative officer.

What evidence known to exist is being withheld? What trial is being conducted? Are you agreeing this is a trial without the ability for the accused to offer a defense?

While we're at it, what would the purpose of this "hearing" be, exactly?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am only going to disagree because the Justice Department and FBI have continued to investigate since that came out, and have now found items that were unavailable at the time. You know like a regular investigation.

I watched it all ;live like everyone else did. Forgetting what this committee is trying to do, there was a lot of room to say that while it wasn't a pre-coordinated attack , Trumop's actions on the 6th were definitely not kosher.


The DOJ is sa funny animal. One day they say one thing the next, a 180. Unfortunately as the Atty General is a political appointment (as is the FBI director) some loyalty to the appointer is always there. Us lowly rankandfile folks have to suffer through changing attitudes and changing rules and changing stories on an almost daily basis.

Thisis one investigation I am happy and proud to say I have avoided like the Black Death. I wanton part of being on any team that in the end could be used as a political pawn in some sick and twisted game of revenge.

finally, X I love ya man, have since I started on this site, and I know we don't always agree but I respect your opinions and facts when you post them, don't take my disagreement to mean I think any less of you...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: vkey08

"Contempt of Court" is a charge that is levied by a judicial officer (a judge) to force a witness to provide specific evidence known to exist so it can be considered in a trial. "Contempt of Congress" is a similar charge levied by a legislative officer.

What evidence known to exist is being withheld? What trial is being conducted? Are you agreeing this is a trial without the ability for the accused to offer a defense?

While we're at it, what would the purpose of this "hearing" be, exactly?

TheRedneck

All I was doing was pointing out that since the beginning, Congress has issued Contempt Congess citations. It's an implied right of theirs apparently.

DO I agree with Contempt of Congress? Honestly,, I cannot find a single area in USC or CFR where it's specifically mentioned as a function of Congress. As such my mind is not made up, again all I was doing was showing why they do it, not that I agree nor disagree nor even understand the inner workings of it...

a reply to: vkey08

As I understand it, if Congress is using one of their (very limited) oversight powers, say, to investigate an impeachable action, and if Congress knows that evidence critical to their investigation exists but is being withheld, they can then, and only then, invoke a "Contempt of Congress" charge (which must be executed by the DoJ, not by Congress). I'm trying to figure out what evidence Congress knows exists and is being withheld in this case, and what their oversight power is. Donald Trump seems to be the subject of their "investigation" (as usual; the DNC hasn't stopped having wet dreams about indicting him on a felony since he was elected), but Trump is not a government official. He cannot be impeached, by definition of the word. Therefore, it appears Congress is invoking the contempt charge over an illegal investigation that is beyond their jurisdiction.

I worry that this is some sort of precedent... can Congress investigate me now? You? Some guy down the street? Can Congress, during that investigation, demand evidence in violation of the 5th Amendment or perhaps evidence they aren't even sure exists, and imprison you, I, or the guy down the street for not producing it? It seems they can... or at least they think they can, and they are actively doing so. Many of those imprisoned over these contempt charges are against people who never served as an elected government official and therefore also cannot be impeached.

But they can be imprisoned on the political whims of Congress?

Do you not see the problem?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Again Redneck, I have no opinion one way or the other on this issue because, since 1790 Congress has done this.

Ye unfortunately as we saw during the McCarthy era Congress can investigate anyone they darn well please, do I agree no way, but they do it anyhow.

Can I find law that supports this? Not yet.

DO I see the problem? I am not agreeing with the committee so obviously I see a problem with a. non court holding a legal hearing without due process.

Again, why attack me on this for simply pointing out that yes Congress does issue contempt citations and has since 1790.

a reply to: vkey08

A reply is not an attack. I am pointing out that this implied power has very strict limits and we are way, way, way over that line. I am also pointing out the inherent danger involved in allowing this sort of thing to happen.

TheRedneck

Apologies to all for the wall of text. Also the included info about Brady is not to insinuate people are dumb for not knowing what is so, again, if it comes across that way it was not my intent so apologies.

Vkey08 - sent you a pm.

originally posted by: vkey08
finally, X I love ya man, have since I started on this site, and I know we don't always agree but I respect your opinions and facts when you post them, don't take my disagreement to mean I think any less of you...

I don't and I wouldn't think that. The issues I am seeing is cherry picked evidence to support only 1 narrative while any evidence that runs contrary to the narrative is dismissed and not released. All of the cameras for that day, well the Dems only released edited video to support there charge. Excluding Republicans from the committee actually screams that the committee's only purpose is to go after Trump and his supporters.

Also going before a Congressional committee is problematic, especially if the person is placed under oath. Anything the witness says could in fact be used against said person in criminal as well as civil actions. In general a civil case almost always takes a backseat to a criminal case. Criminal burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence.

Then you have the fact the Committee itself, from the moment Pelosi formed it, to the actions the committee has taken (subpoenas) are not valid as it all violated House rules. Rules the Democrats set themselves when the regained control of the House.

One has to ask - If Democrats are serious in what they are doing and its stated goal then why are Democrats going out of their way to exclude anything that undermines their narrative?

If this were an actual court room, and the Dems were acting as prosecution, and the "prosecution failed to turn over exculpatory evidence, the judge would dismiss the charges with prejudice for violating Brady. If you or anyone else doesnt know what a Brady violation is -

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant (exculpatory evidence) to the defense.  The prosecution failed to do so for Brady, and he was convicted. Brady challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The prosecution, in addition to proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, is required to turn over all exculpatory evidence that may aid the defendants case. The prosecution does not get to decide what is or is not exculpatory.

Hiding that evidence is problematic, both in a court of law as well in the court of Public opinion.

If the Dems have such an air tight case then there is no reason for them to hide evidence - evidence in this case are documents, camera footage, witnesses, rebuttal witnesses, police reports, in investigative reports, communications of any type (phone / text / email / etc), etc.

The Dems are asking the American people to believe their argument and im perfectly ok with that position (legality of the commission itself aside). What I am not ok with is the withholding of ALL evidence that doesn't help Democrats. The refusal to allow witnesses with contrary information. The restrictions on questioning witnesses by Republicans etc.

Thats my issue and if I came across as rude or attacking you that was not my intent so my apologies if it came out that way.

To me this whole thing goes beyond Trump and in my opinion it deals with our Constitution and, imo, the shredding of it for political purposes.

Finding the truth is not a consideration by Dems.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

If the Dems have such an air tight case then there is no reason for them to hide evidence - evidence in this case are documents, camera footage, witnesses, rebuttal witnesses, police reports, in investigative reports, communications of any type (phone / text / email / etc), etc.

My personal take on this X is that i DONT think the Dems have an airtight case, but also they dont need one....this isnt a courtroom battle, and courtroom procedurals need not apply. Yet, either way if anyone is withholding crucial data that also, is not ok with me either.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

What I am not ok with is the withholding of ALL evidence that doesn't help Democrats. The refusal to allow witnesses with contrary information. The restrictions on questioning witnesses by Republicans etc.

Me neither. However, and understand im asking this from a purely ignorant aspect, do we have a punchlist of all those refusals and restrictions?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Thats my issue and if I came across as rude or attacking you that was not my intent so my apologies if it came out that way.

It's a passionate subject and it's outcome has far-reaching consequences for everyone...i personally understand your angst.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Finding the truth is not a consideration by Dems.

Perhaps not, but if they happen to stumble across it none the less? I mean, the relevant question here would be do you believe that the election was stolen? If you do, then there really is no amount of civil discourse that could change that...and this whole chaos really does revolve around those who think it was stolen versus those who do not, doesnt it?

Committe chairman says no criminal referral of Trump.

gettr.com...

a reply to: carewemust
Is that why the postponed this earth shattering made for television dnc production?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Much internal division. Liz Cheney may organize a coup against Bennie Thompson the chairman.

a reply to: carewemust

That is what he said. He also said this:

"No, you know, we're going to tell the facts. If the Department of Justice looks at it, and assume that there's something that needs further review, I'm sure they'll do it," Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson said when asked whether the committee would refer Trump or others to the department."It's a public document. Anybody can have access to it. And if they want, after reviewing it, to come back and ask to talk to some of the staff or the members who helped produce the report, I'm sure they will," Thompson said.

All of the findings, testimony, documentation will be forwarded to the DOJ at their request when the hearings are concluded. They've already made requests. Garland also noted this:

Attorney General Merrick Garland said earlier Monday that he plans to watch all of the committee's hearings and that prosecutors handling criminal cases stemming from the insurrection are also watching.

"I am watching, and I will be watching all the hearings, although I may not be able to watch all of it live," Garland said. "But I will be sure that I am watching all of it. And I can assure you that the January 6 prosecutors are watching all of the hearings as well."

Link

a reply to: frogs453

Mueller didn't find anything.

The US Senate did not find anything.

The FBI didn't find anything to indict Trump on.

Besides,

Hunter and Joe are first in line. The doj confirms that investigation into their potential money laundering is still ongoing.