Jump to content

The 01-06-21 Select Committee Thread

Satchel

By Satchel
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Genco
Genco
brakeman
brakeman
Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Just to be clear, an official of the United States government AND a licensed attorney.....just asserted to Congress that his actions in assisting the Trump administration with respect to the admin's a

Posted Images

Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think you are intentionally using Seinfeld as a way to build up your rep because you know I can't resist.

To be fair to me though---"beyond the pale" and "the horror.  the horror."

That's Apocalypse Now.  Which is what we're on right now as a nation.  We are on the Heart of Darkness trip up the river to terminate the command, with extreme prejudice, of a Mr. Donald J. Trump.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8248

Posted
Posted
On 12/20/2021 at 6:04 PM, atomheartbevo said:

His narcissism won't let him run again after he lost last year.

He was so paranoid that he wouldn't win, that for 6 months or so leading up to the election he told everybody the only way he could lose was through a stolen election.

That is a lot of narcissism.

And I think his hemming and hawing about trying to get the Jan. 6 insurrectionists to stop was partly due to his narcissism - those folks actually believed what he was saying, and I think on some level he was hoping that they would actually do something to justify his lies. 

 

On 12/20/2021 at 6:06 PM, TwiceHorn said:

It's a two-edged sword for him.  It wants him to run and win, but the very real specter that he won't is intolerable.  More intolerable than not running at all and basking in GQP glory and money.

The Narcissism is the key that is the only thing that matters and is also what makes it so unpredictable.  Here are some scenarios that could play out.

1. His fear of loosing keeps him out of the race and just relies on the king maker position with his fundraising and directing the Maga crowd.  The problem is this will take a lot of logical restraint and only yields 2nd or 3rd tier narcissistic fuel (Not the grade 1AAAA+ he got hooked on).  His rallies will shrink if he is not in the race, hell as soon as people know he is not running again he'll feel the sting of being second page news. He'll eventually sabotage whomever he supports when they get too popular.

2. The rush of that grade 1AAA fuel from being "the guy" in front of his "huge crowds" will overwhelm any logical faculties he has left and he will run. The rush of that N fuel is all that matters to a person like him.  He's an addict and all it takes is the sniff of someone praising him or daring him.  I can see Putin saying something that pushes him over the edge or funding a state run media campaign to fill Trump with the fuel that pushes him off the wagon.

3. At a minimum he will act like he is running up until he is not and will blow everything else up for the republican party.  Then he will claim he would have won if he was really running.  He can't have another republican win as long as he is alive though (unless Ivanka) so the sabotage is key.

#2 is highest quality fix, #3 is second, #1 is distant third so set your odds based on that.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Player

Player 4605

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TexasEd said:

 

The Narcissism is the key that is the only thing that matters and is also what makes it so unpredictable.  Here are some scenarios that could play out.

1. His fear of loosing keeps him out of the race and just relies on the king maker position with his fundraising and directing the Maga crowd.  The problem is this will take a lot of logical restraint and only yields 2nd or 3rd tier narcissistic fuel (Not the grade 1AAAA+ he got hooked on).  His rallies will shrink if he is not in the race, hell as soon as people know he is not running again he'll feel the sting of being second page news. He'll eventually sabotage whomever he supports when they get too popular.

2. The rush of that grade 1AAA fuel from being "the guy" in front of his "huge crowds" will overwhelm any logical faculties he has left and he will run. The rush of that N fuel is all that matters to a person like him.  He's an addict and all it takes is the sniff of someone praising him or daring him.  I can see Putin saying something that pushes him over the edge or funding a state run media campaign to fill Trump with the fuel that pushes him off the wagon.

3. At a minimum he will act like he is running up until he is not and will blow everything else up for the republican party.  Then he will claim he would have won if he was really running.  He can't have another republican win as long as he is alive though (unless Ivanka) so the sabotage is key.

#2 is highest quality fix, #3 is second, #1 is distant third so set your odds based on that.

 

The fear of prosecution as a private citizen (and the hope of thwarting any ongoing investigations with the ability to once again claim executive privilege) has to factor into his decision too, I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31984

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

EasyEveryChrysalis-max-1mb.gif

That has got to be a sign that they have what they think they need from the low- and mid-level players to make life difficult for the true Trump sycophants.

Also, I don't believe it is even remotely possible for a sitting congressman (rep or senator) to claim executive privilege.  If someone so clearly outside the executive branch knows something, it is, ipso facto, not properly the subject of an EP claim.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90542

Posted
Posted
On 12/22/2021 at 9:03 AM, TexasEd said:

  His rallies will shrink if he is not in the race, hell as soon as people know he is not running again he'll feel the sting of being second page news. He'll eventually sabotage whomever he supports when they get too popular.

He's shedding a bunch of followers over his vaccine comments at the rally and to Candace Owens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31984

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So are all of these co-conspirators he named going to deny it?  If they don't, isn't that case closed?

Here's the thing on that.  That shit is ostensibly legal.  Not very legal, as in clear, but what lawyers call "colorably" legal.

It's going to be very hard to impossible to bring criminal charges on that alone.

But then you add in the incitement of a riot, to further the goal of delaying certification of the vote, then and only then does it become something you can do anything about criminally, or other than in the court of public opinion.

That's why Navarro and others are open about their "peaceful" scheming.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46060

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's the thing on that.  That shit is ostensibly legal.  Not very legal, as in clear, but what lawyers call "colorably" legal.

It's going to be very hard to impossible to bring criminal charges on that alone.

But then you add in the incitement of a riot, to further the goal of delaying certification of the vote, then and only then does it become something you can do anything about criminally, or other than in the court of public opinion.

That's why Navarro and others are open about their "peaceful" scheming.

6773be62-fb91-4de4-b72e-11c8cfcb3e62_tex

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31984

Posted
Posted

What it does do, though, is set up a very clear motive to disrupt and delay the electoral count.  A motive shared by Trump and all of the adherents to this scheme.  That it was probably going legally nowhere becomes immaterial as thoroughly as these assholes seem to believe that it would work.

Judge Friedrich has held that the crime of obstructing a congressional proceeding does not need to intend or cause violence, just the disruption.

So, this is actually setting up fairly nicely for obstruction of congress charges under 18 USC 1512 for those who can be tied to the insurrection.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17627

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

What it does do, though, is set up a very clear motive to disrupt and delay the electoral count.  A motive shared by Trump and all of the adherents to this scheme.  That it was probably going legally nowhere becomes immaterial as thoroughly as these assholes seem to believe that it would work.

Judge Friedrich has held that the crime of obstructing a congressional proceeding does not need to intend or cause violence, just the disruption.

So, this is actually setting up fairly nicely for obstruction of congress charges under 18 USC 1512 for those who can be tied to the insurrection.

Ok, but is that a capital offense?  Asking for many friends.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31984

Posted
Posted

Pretty good editorial on why Congress should not bother with criminal referrals of Trump or other higher ups and shoud also probably shut up about them.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/27/jan-6-committee-trump-criminal-referral-bad-idea/

The most salient point is that the DOJ doesn't need a criminal referral to do anything, except indict and try someone for contempt of congress.  The DOJ is free to share materials with the Committee, and already has a massive investigation going, so I am sure that they are doing so, quietly.

The article points out that Garland is trying to make the DOJ return to normalcy as neither a political weapon or shield of the White House or anyone else.  The DOJ normally does its work in silence that is only broken when the indictments are filed.

Also raises what could be an important point.  Congress is permitted to subpoena information only in service of legislative functions, not as part of a law-enforcement or criminal, or even civil investigation.  If they squawk too much about general referrals (as opposed to those for crimes that occur before congress, e.g. contempt, perjury, etc.) then it feeds into the arguments of those resisting subpoenas that the subpoena is not validly issued and is nothing more than a law-enforcement subpoena.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31984

Posted
Posted
On 12/28/2021 at 7:58 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Also raises what could be an important point.  Congress is permitted to subpoena information only in service of legislative functions, not as part of a law-enforcement or criminal, or even civil investigation.  If they squawk too much about general referrals (as opposed to those for crimes that occur before congress, e.g. contempt, perjury, etc.) then it feeds into the arguments of those resisting subpoenas that the subpoena is not validly issued and is nothing more than a law-enforcement subpoena.

Dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31984

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I assume you are calling Trump and his lawyers a dumbass.  Since his delay in calling his supporters off ACTUALLY impacted a function of Congress enumerated in the Constitution.

No, Thompson running his mouth has injured the case.  Probably not fatally, but see my own comment, quoted.

This is why you don't want Garland, or other, real investigators talking a lot and giving interviews to CNN.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChuckNorrisActionJeans

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2692

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, Thompson running his mouth has injured the case.  Probably not fatally, but see my own comment, quoted.

This is why you don't want Garland, or other, real investigators talking a lot and giving interviews to CNN.

No way a SCOTUS with any half-assed awareness of preserving its legitimacy would seize on Thompson's comment as any basis for its ruling. No way in hell. Therein lies the rub. How hacky will they get? There are certainly many things I never thought I'd see without any consequences resulting, so.....

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31984

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

No way a SCOTUS with any half-assed awareness of preserving its legitimacy would seize on Thompson's comment as any basis for its ruling. No way in hell. Therein lies the rub. How hacky will they get? There are certainly many things I never thought I'd see without any consequences resulting, so.....

Nevertheless, you know counsel for the Committee was like "Christ, Bennie! You just blew another 5 minutes of my oral argument on the validity of the subpoena!"

In any kind of congressional subpoena case, the scope and validity of the thing is always at issue, and it always has a constitutional dimension when directed toward the executive branch.

Congressional committees are irritating as fuck because no matter how righteous their mission or composition, the congresscritters are gonna bloviate.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19279

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, Thompson running his mouth has injured the case.  Probably not fatally, but see my own comment, quoted.

This is why you don't want Garland, or other, real investigators talking a lot and giving interviews to CNN.

That was my second thought on which way you were going.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted

Meet the Press was pretty good this morning. I know there are a lot of Chuck Todd haters here but he devoted the first half hour of the show to recounting the events leading up to Jan 6, the insurrection itself, and the aftermath, mostly with actual video and audio recordings of Trump and his surrogates, like Lindsey Graham saying immediately after the attack that he’s done with it all and then quickly making an about face and declaring the Party can’t move forward without Trump. There was no editorializing. None was necessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90542

Posted
Posted
On 12/29/2021 at 10:42 PM, TwiceHorn said:

No, Thompson running his mouth has injured the case.  Probably not fatally, but see my own comment, quoted.

This is why you don't want Garland, or other, real investigators talking a lot and giving interviews to CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/02/politics/bennie-thompson-trump-capitol-insurrection/index.html

Quote

Members of the House select committee investigating January 6 said Sunday that they have critical testimony about communications to former President Donald Trump on the day of the deadly attack.

Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the vice chair of the committee and one of its two Republican members, told ABC News that the panel has "firsthand testimony" that during the attack, Trump's daughter and then-senior adviser Ivanka Trump asked him to intervene. And Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, told CNN the panel has "significant testimony" that the White House "had been told to do something."

Quote

"We know his daughter -- we have firsthand testimony that his daughter Ivanka went in at least twice to ask him to 'please stop this violence,'" Cheney told ABC News. CNN previously reportedon some of these interactions, described in the book "I Alone Can Fix It" by Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker. 

Thompson told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union" Sunday: "We have significant testimony that leads us to believe that the White House had been told to do something. We want to verify all of it so that when we produce our report and when we have the hearings, the public will have an opportunity to see for themselves."

Quote

Asked whether he believes then-President Trump's actions during the insurrection warrant criminal referral, Thompson replied: "We don't know ... If there's anything we come upon as a committee that we think would warrant a referral to the Department of Justice, we'll do that."

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 8204

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Asked whether he believes then-President Trump's actions during the insurrection warrant criminal referral, Thompson replied: "We don't know ... If there's anything we come upon as a committee that we think would warrant a referral to the Department of Justice, we'll do that."

And also obstruction of justice relating to the Mueller report. And campaign finance violations for paying off Stormy “‘shroom squatter,” an indictment that was presumably delayed because POTUS don’t cop a plea.

Edited to say that my comments were meant for the DOJ, and not for the Select Committee.

Edited by Willfully Horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...