Jump to content

January 6th Committee Hearings Thread of Dominance

Longhorn_Fan68

By Longhorn_Fan68
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TXSG8R

TXSG8R 3362

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

. . . so why did he let her go on and on?  It's not a big deal, but I would have thought her own attorney would have told her to shut the fuck up.

Because again, her going on and on wasn’t putting her in any danger. She wasn’t incriminating herself. She was being responsive to their question about someone else. If she started to stray into territory dangerous to herself or was asked a question that put her in potential peril, her counsel would have stepped in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Chuckie Finster
Chuckie Finster
Pig Bellmont
Pig Bellmont
Make em eat Taco Bell
Make em eat Taco Bell

this is really boring and overhyped.  Most of the country doesn't care about topic, I'd say a 3 hour special on inflation would get more eyeballs.  Or a bikini contest. 

Posted Images

sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

. . . so why did he let her go on and on?  It's not a big deal, but I would have thought her own attorney would have told her to shut the fuck up.

because it does not affect her and that attorney was in no way concerned about her testimony providing rich material against trump.  with no trump aligned attorney in the room, there is no one who is interested in objecting to her providing whatever information she wants.  the only thing the attorney would rein her in on would be something damaging to her.

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

Brisketexan 105275

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, sidis said:

lol, when i read this, i immediately started to mentally construct a post saying you have been assigned to @Brisketexan status of "would fuck anything." 

didn't even get to the quote button before i noticed that crazy son of a bitch solely repped it.

too perfect.

I kinda felt like I was obligated to rep it.  I mean, sipping an old fashioned in a NOLA bar talking to whatever female happens to be sitting next to me is sort of my thing.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46097

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Because again, her going on and on wasn’t putting her in any danger. She wasn’t incriminating herself. She was being responsive to their question about someone else. If she started to stray into territory dangerous to herself or was asked a question that put her in potential peril, her counsel would have stepped in. 

Alright, that's not consistent with what I was told, which was basically "say as little as you possibly can", but I see what you're saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14347

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I kinda felt like I was obligated to rep it.  I mean, sipping an old fashioned Sazerac in a NOLA bar talking to whatever female happens to be sitting next to me is sort of my thing.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17743

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Alright, that's not consistent with what I was told, which was basically "say as little as you possibly can", but I see what you're saying.

That's what you tell people when your ass (or the company's ass) is on the line.  But in this context, the more they're dumping on someone else, namely tfg and those higher than the deponent in his orbit, can only help the deponent.  "I just got coffee, but those guys asking for the coffee?  They're the REAL fuckheads."

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

immamac 42918

Posted
Posted
Just now, SydneyCarton said:

As a guy who is like 15 pages behind on this thread, can I get some bullet points of the big reveals at today's hearings? Thanks in advance. 

Buncha crazy fucking people spilling the beans on Trump basically telling them to do the crazy shit they did or wanted to do.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46097

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

As a guy who is like 15 pages behind on this thread, can I get some bullet points of the big reveals at today's hearings? Thanks in advance. 

The insurrection was pre-planned, the perpetrators expected violence, and Trump had no problem with any of it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54381

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

As a guy who is like 15 pages behind on this thread, can I get some bullet points of the big reveals at today's hearings? Thanks in advance. 

It is really not much new, IMO.  The most compelling stuff to me has been the WH lawyers making it clear that everyone other than Sydney and Rudy told Trump that the election wasn't stolen.  

These poor schleps (the rioter who got arrested and the guy who used to work for OK) aren't doing much for me.  

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

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Alright, that's not consistent with what I was told, which was basically "say as little as you possibly can", but I see what you're saying.

as someone who has given over 130 depositions, not all depositions are created equal.  your perspective is colored by your experience of being a fact witness in litigation (i'm assuming).  your instructions were very much strategically appropriate for your situation.

that's not the case here.  if her testimony was about how she and trump got into a room together and conspired to kill mike pence that day, then her attorney would have instructed her to stfu and provide testimony in a manner consistent with what you were instructed.

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

jimmyjazz 46097

Posted
Posted
Just now, Beau Vine said:

None of these things are remotely surprising.

There have been no bombshells today.

True, but you're up to speed on all of the information that has been available over the last 18 months.  Some of this is new to others.  Of course, those people are currently at work and won't tune in to any media outlet that might deliver the message, but nevertheless . . .

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

Beau Vine 54381

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

I normally go down to the nearby convenience store every morning and get a big Diet Dr Pepper.  Today, though, when I pushed the DDP fountain lever, nothing but clear liquid came out, and I had to settle for Diet Coke.  So this hits close to home. 

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

TwiceHorn 31529

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

She doesn't have an attorney present on her behalf?

Well, I assume that each witness does have an attorney.

If the witness wants to be forthcoming and tell what they know, and the attorney honestly represents them, s/he will not obstruct questioning and just let his client answer.

On the other hand, if the lawyer represents Trump World or some other entity with interests that could be harmed by a forthcoming witness, they'll get the treatment you got, that is pretty standard.  You got the "adversarial" preparation.  For the most part, these witnesses are not participating in an adversarial contest.

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

Guest

Posted
Posted

Well that certainly sounds pretty bombshelly... Trump tried to contact a witness and it was referred to DOJ.

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

OH SNAP.  Committee has indications of attempted witness tampering by Trump.

Should have answered and recorded the call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tokamak

tokamak 6433

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

As a guy who is like 15 pages behind on this thread, can I get some bullet points of the big reveals at today's hearings? Thanks in advance. 

Country was being run by fiends.

Luckily, they were also morons.

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

Guest

Posted
Posted
Just now, Red Five said:

I like how they're ending every session now with "We know you're witness tampering. Stop."

I'd prefer if they ended with "We wish we could do something about this blatant breaking of the law, but we can't. So you should be ashamed of trying to tamper with witnesses, but just know that we won't stop you from doing it and would certainly never record the conversation and then pass that along for Federal prosecution. You're just too smart for us."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 40881

Posted
Posted
Just now, troph said:

I dunno, the cumulative total of the hearings is about as damning as you can get. there is more than enough to indict him. DOJ should. if they don't I'm checking out (again).

The next session will probably the ugliest yet for Dotard. It's going to focus on how he refused to assist for hours while our Capitol was under attack. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
immamac

immamac 42918

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

If the DOJ doesn't indict after all this stuff then America is fucked and the people who can do something about it are choosing not to do anything about it.

DOJ should prosecute under the fullest extent of the law and let the Supreme Court get exposed, don't just refuse because you know that the SC will toss it. 

  • Hook 'Em 18
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
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...