January 6th Committee Hearings Thread of Dominance

[Macanudo 12978]

24 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

It’s their reality tv/sporting event.

I tried to watch the start of Tucker's show yesterday and made it 5 minutes before I had to turn it off.   

[Willfully Horn 8017]

35 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

It’s their reality tv/sporting event.

And the only porn (fear porn) that still is effective for them.

[Sbbruin 21853]

If they were doing it only for when they lost to Democrats, then they could do it and get away with it.
But these clowns have no message discipline so they are turning on their own. It's going to become a meme at this rate. 

It's a dog eat dog world, eh The Dog?

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

right, i mean, doesn't the wolf eat the boy at the end of the story?  i can't remember, i suck at finishing books.

I think the boy ends up president.

[Upgrayedd 5812]

23 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

It's a dog eat dog world, eh The Dog?

 

[TwiceHorn 31471]

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

Jim Wright, aka Stonekettle, has a new essay. His comments would fit into this discussion.

 

“What in Trump's history would give me any faith at all? 

What in America's history? 

Shit, we pardoned fucking Nixon, right? He got away with it. People look back on him now with fondness. Oh, Tricky Dick, he was a crook, but he loved America! 

Ronald Reagan sold weapons to our enemies -- literally sold weapons to our enemies -- and we did nothing. Less than nothing. We let him get away with treason right out in broad daylight. Oh, that's just Ronny. You know how he is. And the Lieutenant Colonel who led that caper? Yeah, he got a pardon and he's a fucking hero nowadays with his own radio show.””

https://www.stonekettle.com/2022/06/when-good-men-do-nothing.html?fbclid=IwAR3_6SPSfipAR_7_SmOSWDdY7qsiCIAL87whPpY3YpfT9PFBtV-dnU0DD_Q&m=1
 

These days my angry hot takes come from reading the game plan of the New Right. When folks tell you who they are, believe them.

I would argue, and previously have, that Watergate is highly differentiable from this in that the crime at issue did not involve the larger interests of the American people or nation in any way, shape or form, but only revealed Nixon's corruption and unfitness for office.  Once his political career was destroyed and he resigned from office, that was enough.

On Iran-Contra, it was never proven that Reagan knew fully the extent of it, and he publicly came clean about what he did know (perhaps lies, who knows).  SoD Cap Weinberger was in fact indicted (and, of course pardoned) and NSA Poindexter convicted.  But probably more importantly, the sale of weapons to Iran, and even the diversion of funds to the Contras, while blatantly illegal, were not direct assaults on American democracy and institutions.  Moreover, I think the American people for the most part found the scheme to be somewhat within the ordinary course of CIA-type foreign/military relations skulduggery: unacceptable, but not a dire threat to our existence as a nation.

Donald J. Trump, on the other hand, concocted and led a direct assault on American democracy and institutions and continues to do so.

[Willfully Horn 8017]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I would argue, and previously have, that Watergate is highly differentiable from this in that the crime at issue did not involve the larger interests of the American people or nation in any way, shape or form, but only revealed Nixon's corruption and unfitness for office.  Once his political career was destroyed and he resigned from office, that was enough.

On Iran-Contra, it was never proven that Reagan knew fully the extent of it, and he publicly came clean about what he did know (perhaps lies, who knows).  SoD Cap Weinberger was in fact indicted (and, of course pardoned) and NSA Poindexter convicted.  But probably more importantly, the sale of weapons to Iran, and even the diversion of funds to the Contras, while blatantly illegal, were not direct assaults on American democracy and institutions.  Moreover, I think the American people for the most part found the scheme to be somewhat within the ordinary course of CIA-type foreign/military relations skulduggery: unacceptable, but not a dire threat to our existence as a nation.

Donald J. Trump, on the other hand, concocted and led a direct assault on American democracy and institutions and continues to do so.

Maybe I should have chosen a different quote. For my goal was to entice folks to tead the essay. Allow me another shot:

”I hear the lawyers cautioning me to patience. Slow, steady, build a case, ironclad, so Trump can't wiggle out. I got it. I hear you. 

I hear you. 

But you're not hearing me. 

Slow and steady won't win this race. 

And we've heard these promises before. 

There is literally no history you can point to in Trump's past to prove your case that this time, at long last, he'll finally get what's coming to him. None. 

The public has to believe that this time something will actually be done.

A firewalled, tightlipped DOJ might be good for Justice, but right now it's bad for Democracy. 

You can win the battle and lose the war.”

 

https://www.stonekettle.com/2022/06/when-good-men-do-nothing.html?m=1

 

 

 

I trust we can agree to disagree on Nixon and Reagan.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Willfully Horn

[henrygandorf 29191]

come on down...

 

[Underdog 28633]

1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

It's a dog eat dog world, eh The Dog?

 

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

Slow and steady won't win this race. 

i'm going to take this opportunity to state on the record how much i dislike this expression (not ^ but the actual expression). 

slow doesn't win any races.

[Sawbonz 27562]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

come on down...

 

[Neonmoon 38129]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

come on down...

 

Are lawyers allowed to ignore a subpoena? 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Nowadays??

I mean, yeah, probably.

[Willfully Horn 8017]

27 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm going to take this opportunity to state on the record how much i dislike this expression (not ^ but the actual expression). 

slow doesn't win any races.

Joe Biden. 2020.

[henrygandorf 29191]

23 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Are lawyers allowed to ignore a subpoena? 

folks on cnn are saying the word is he would "not cooperate without a subpoena" which isn't to say he will cooperate now, but as a "working lawyer" (their words) he would be much more likely to appear than the others who have ignored it or strung it out for months. 

he has already given an interview with the committee apparently (without subpoena), which might be interesting as far as him claiming any type of privilege.

[Sawbonz 27562]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

folks on cnn are saying the word is he would "not cooperate without a subpoena" which isn't to say he will cooperate now, but as a "working lawyer" (their words) he would be much more likely to appear than the others who have ignored it or strung it out for months. 

he has already given an interview with the committee apparently (without subpoena), which might be interesting as far as him claiming any type of privilege.

Privilege does not apply to crimes

[TwiceHorn 31471]

Cipollone is probably going to play it pretty straight. He may assert some pretty legit attorney-client privilege, though.

[Horn Dog 9855]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Privilege does not apply to crimes

Well shit.  Now you tell me!

[Pig Bellmont 8718]

45 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm going to take this opportunity to state on the record how much i dislike this expression (not ^ but the actual expression). 

slow doesn't win any races.

I’d like a word with that fucking Aesop about some other fables, too. 

[TwiceHorn 31471]

51 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I trust we can agree to disagree on Nixon and Reagan.

Fine, just let me argue it to Garland and Biden.

[henrygandorf 29191]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Cipollone is probably going to play it pretty straight. He may assert some pretty legit attorney-client privilege, though.

does his earlier conversation with the committee affect his ability to assert privilege now?

[Pig Bellmont 8718]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

does his earlier conversation with the committee affect his ability to assert privilege now?

Impossible to answer without the transcript and knowing what privileges were asserted and when. Also As Sawbonz mentioned, a federal judge already applied the crime/fraud exception to some of Eastman’s claims of privilege- and Cippolone reportedly admitted they’d be charged with every crime imaginable. So 🤷‍♂️

[jimmyjazz 45952]

At what point does Cipollone's "client" cease being POTUS and starts to become . . . well, us?

I mean, I understand his role is to advise POTUS but he's certainly NOT a personal attorney.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33870]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

come on down...

 

His real name is fucking Pasquale? Go home, simulation, you're drunk

Edited June 30, 2022 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Amos Moses 795]

does his earlier conversation with the committee affect his ability to assert privilege now?

Isn’t it kind of up to the current President? He was WH counsel and not Toddler Don’s personal attorney, right? The client holds and can waive the privilege not the attorney. He’s bound by rules of ethics/professional conduct and isn’t the one to assert privilege per se.

[Amos Moses 795]

His real name is fucking Pasquale? Go home, simulation, you're drunk

[Mach 1 1677]

53 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

At what point does Cipollone's "client" cease being POTUS and starts to become . . . well, us?

I mean, I understand his role is to advise POTUS but he's certainly NOT a personal attorney.

Not an attorney, but I've always assumed his hesitancy was for any future clients, POTUS or other.  Career choice.

Seeing as he apparently did what he could to avoid the shitshow that eventually occurred, I'd give him a pass on his choice to not go in person.

I'd like to see him testify for the good of the country also, but he's an advocate, and would probably like to continue to do so and make a shitload of money.  If he'll do video I'm okay with that.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

At what point does Cipollone's "client" cease being POTUS and starts to become . . . well, us?

I mean, I understand his role is to advise POTUS but he's certainly NOT a personal attorney.

Attorney client privilege never really expires.  Donald Trump isn't his client, but the office of the President is and that's legally where his duty will always lie.

Also, the crime-fraud exception only applies to otherwise privileged communications in furtherance of a crime.  Because it seems that Cipollone always counseled against crime, the exception probably does not apply.

But again, that only applies to conversations seeking or providing legal advice.  Corroborating Hutchinson or others probably isn't privileged and I would suspect he'll play it that way, unlike, say, Eastman.

Edited June 30, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[texastough 1129]

Statements to him by Trump in furtherance of a crime would fall under the exception, isn't that the real point anyway? They're not trying to nail Pasquale. 

In other words, Trump kept saying he wanted to commit sedition and Cipollone kept telling him no

Edited June 30, 2022 by texastough
add second line

[Longhorn_Fan68 33870]

8 minutes ago, texastough said:

Statements to him by Trump in furtherance of a crime would fall under the exception, isn't that the real point anyway? They're not trying to nail Pasquale. 

In other words, Trump kept saying he wanted to commit sedition and Cipollone kept telling him no

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 hour ago, texastough said:

Statements to him by Trump in furtherance of a crime would fall under the exception, isn't that the real point anyway? They're not trying to nail Pasquale. 

In other words, Trump kept saying he wanted to commit sedition and Cipollone kept telling him no

yeah, but so far, we don't even know if cipollone knew they were committing crimes. 

except for the times he said, "they're going to charge us with all these crimes".

[The Dog 44051]

The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack has issued a subpoena to compel testimony from Pat Cipollone, former President Donald Trump's White House counsel.

[Pig Bellmont 8718]

I guess we’ll see how much of a true believer Cipollone is. Speculation on Twitter that he only wanted a subpoena as cover to testify. I guess we’ll see if he fights it like Bannon or Eastman

[Jive Turkey 12598]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

His real name is fucking Pasquale? Go home, simulation, you're drunk

his fucking brother Vicenzo is gonna fly in from Sicily for the hearing.

[Mdhorn 5949]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Attorney client privilege never really expires.  Donald Trump isn't his client, but the office of the President is and that's legally where his duty will always lie.

Also, the crime-fraud exception only applies to otherwise privileged communications in furtherance of a crime.  Because it seems that Cipollone always counseled against crime, the exception probably does not apply.

But again, that only applies to conversations seeking or providing legal advice.  Corroborating Hutchinson or others probably isn't privileged and I would suspect he'll play it that way, unlike, say, Eastman.

What are the odds that Cipollone has already been granted a pardon?  

[TwiceHorn 31471]

21 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

What are the odds that Cipollone has already been granted a pardon?  

I'd guess zero.  First, he's smart enough not to involve himself in such shit, second, I'm pretty sure he was not teh Donald's favorite person by the end of this.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

29 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

What are the odds that Cipollone has already been granted a pardon?  

I'd guess zero.  First, he's smart enough not to involve himself in such shit, second, I'm pretty sure he was not teh Donald's favorite person by the end of this.

 

2 hours ago, texastough said:

Statements to him by Trump in furtherance of a crime would fall under the exception, isn't that the real point anyway? They're not trying to nail Pasquale. 

In other words, Trump kept saying he wanted to commit sedition and Cipollone kept telling him no

Well, statements from Trump about intention to commit a crime, not seeking legal advice probably aren't privileged.  But that's kind of a law school ethics dilemma:   your client tells you where a body is buried or that she intends to commit a crime, can you tell anyone?  But that would only be a consideration where it was Trump and the lawyer(s).  If there were a bunch of other people around, that's not privileged; it's waived.

Because Trump isn't a nuanced individual, I suspect he rarely had conversations with lawyers during his presidency that were privileged; he was always running his mouth before other people and never seeking advice.

I doubt very much that Cipollone will claim privilege for anything old thing Trump said to him or that he overheard, regardless of circumstance, content, or context, unlike some of these clowns.

Edited June 30, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Hagbard Celine 10864]

22 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

Probably because they were thrown some bone that the SS guy was going to expose her as a fraud and destroy her credibility.  Then whatever she reported to have heard first hand is in doubt.   

I just don't see the committee not having thought that out well before hand, and they've got some strong support from others for her statements.    

Might just be tossing out bait.  

While some people seem to think they are wasting time, I am with gandorf and others and say they had to do something, they couldn't just let it slide.   They have exceeded and continue to exceed my expectations on the strategy and production of this.  Not sure where it's going to end up, but they're doing a pretty damn good job laying it all out.

i'm 24 hours behind so if this has been postulated apologies......

what if.....  meadows told multiple people about the beast incident, and they got a 2nd corroboration in writing or on tape, from another witness, which then put them in position to put her on the record in front of the world.   bait.

/trap specialist

 

[Beau Vine 54230]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Cipollone is probably going to play it pretty straight. He may assert some pretty legit attorney-client privilege, though.

IIRC, CH testified that he said something like, "We're going to get charged with every crime imaginable."

For some reason, that gives me optimism that he's going to spill his guts and make a bigger impact than CH.   

[Beau Vine 54230]

3 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

His real name is fucking Pasquale? Go home, simulation, you're drunk

No shit.  I'm waiting for someone named Jean-Ralphio to be subpoenaed.

[Hagbard Celine 10864]

15 hours ago, The Dog said:

The steering wheel stuff and throwing of the plate were third hand info too. Completely unnecessary.

Unless they want to get those SS agents under oath to ask them about more than the beast incident.

[Hagbard Celine 10864]

14 hours ago, royiv said:

Mark Meadows could always come before the committee and testify under oath to dispute what she said.

this

[henrygandorf 29191]

25 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

Unless they want to get those SS agents under oath to ask them about more than the beast incident.

yep, big talk coming from unnamed spox from usss but haven’t heard of anybody coming forward. big surprise.

did somebody say his main protection guy became his deputy chief of staff?  because that sounds super normal and that guy is probably pretty impartial and reliable. 

[henrygandorf 29191]

57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But that's kind of a law school ethics dilemma:   your client tells you where a body is buried or that she intends to commit a crime, can you tell anyone?

a little sexist. 

late night tipsy twicehorn plays for keeps. 

[Radical Larry 28618]

48 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

No shit.  I'm waiting for someone named Jean-Ralphio to be subpoenaed.

 

[Born to Run 6569]

yeah, but so far, we don't even know if cipollone knew they were committing crimes. 
except for the times he said, "they're going to charge us with all these crimes".

Yeah but so far in this matter, I was stoked to learn his legal first name was Pasquale, only to learn I have fucking zero jokes for said name, none, including zero Pasquale lame dad jokes. I got dickaroo over here, I disappoint myself. Nada, zip. Ol pat can skate and I can't do shit to even make it uncomfortable. I hope his yard is unhealthy at least. Maybe underwatered....

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 minute ago, Born to Run said:

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, but so far, we don't even know if cipollone knew they were committing crimes. 
except for the times he said, "they're going to charge us with all these crimes".

Yeah but so far in this matter, I was stoked to learn his legal first name was Pasquale, only to learn I have fucking zero jokes for said name, none, including zero Pasquale lame dad jokes. I got dickaroo over here, I disappoint myself. Nada, zip. Ol pat can skate and I can't do shit to even make it uncomfortable. I hope his yard is unhealthy at least. Maybe underwatered....

i am workshopping some material. 

[Hagbard Celine 10864]

meadows told hutchinson about the beast incident

hutchinson testified about what meadows told her

hutchinson didn't testify that the beast incident is true

it's scenery and bait for something else

[henrygandorf 29191]

13 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

meadows told hutchinson about the beast incident

hutchinson testified about what meadows told her

hutchinson didn't testify that the beast incident is true

it's scenery and bait for something else

maybe it’s bait to get pasquale to come in. 

[F250 28775]

19 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, but so far, we don't even know if cipollone knew they were committing crimes. 
except for the times he said, "they're going to charge us with all these crimes".

Yeah but so far in this matter, I was stoked to learn his legal first name was Pasquale, only to learn I have fucking zero jokes for said name, none, including zero Pasquale lame dad jokes. I got dickaroo over here, I disappoint myself. Nada, zip. Ol pat can skate and I can't do shit to even make it uncomfortable. I hope his yard is unhealthy at least. Maybe underwatered....

Well, there is the whole Grubhub/DoorDash Chuck E. Cheese pizza scam.