Jump to content

January 6th Committee Hearings Thread of Dominance

Longhorn_Fan68

By Longhorn_Fan68
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28797

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

Hope Hicks’s (Hicksesses?) weird little baby voice is sending me straight to hell.

She struck me as the cutesy little Barbie hired by Trump for exactly the reason you’d expect Trump to hire her. He once referred to her as “the best piece of tail” that Corey Lewandowski would ever have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19452

Posted
Posted

second week of January is just gonna be MTG, Jim Jordan, et. al. subpoena'ing DOJ officials in front of committee to answer for their investigation.  And of course the DOJ attorneys have to say, "We cannot comment on an ongoing investigation/new one we may start/etc."  FOX and MAGA say it's a stall tactic and part of the deep conspiracy of lies.  Meantime, even the stupids have heard that type of seal on information before be it from TV or real life.  So that'll go for about 3 months and go nowhere.  After that the Hunter Biden investigation heats up.  Then Afghanistan withdrawal and that takes us into Summer/Autumn.  

     But yes, to your point.  The time is now.  The House makeup won't change laws or directions of investigations but between the January 6th recommendations, and Jack Smith/Documents deals...both have to start in earnest because middle-America, despite knowing something is rotten in Denmark are gonna read/see a dozen DOJ staffers show up to the Capitol every morning for months to repeat "We cannot comment on an going case." over and over again.  And people will tire of it and lazily assume, "Maybe there's nothing to their case, this just seems like performative politics" and Garland and Smith are left holding the bag.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45715

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

second week of January is just gonna be MTG, Jim Jordan, et. al. subpoena'ing DOJ officials in front of committee to answer for their investigation.  And of course the DOJ attorneys have to say, "We cannot comment on an ongoing investigation/new one we may start/etc."  FOX and MAGA say it's a stall tactic and part of the deep conspiracy of lies.  Meantime, even the stupids have heard that type of seal on information before be it from TV or real life.  So that'll go for about 3 months and go nowhere.  After that the Hunter Biden investigation heats up.  Then Afghanistan withdrawal and that takes us into Summer/Autumn.  

     But yes, to your point.  The time is now.  The House makeup won't change laws or directions of investigations but between the January 6th recommendations, and Jack Smith/Documents deals...both have to start in earnest because middle-America, despite knowing something is rotten in Denmark are gonna read/see a dozen DOJ staffers show up to the Capitol every morning for months to repeat "We cannot comment on an going case." over and over again.  And people will tire of it and lazily assume, "Maybe there's nothing to their case, this just seems like performative politics" and Garland and Smith are left holding the bag.

Or the DOJ staffers could take a queue from the Rs and just not show up. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19452

Posted
Posted

I like it.  I get it. But an unelected DoJ attorney can lose their bar card pretty fast by ignoring a subpoena.  
 

It’s a big a waste of time as asking pentagon brass over and over again to reveal sensitive information about Ukraine weapons systems.  Which means of course it’ll go on for months, and waste money, thus bringing down inflation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31533

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Or the DOJ staffers could take a queue from the Rs and just not show up. 

That's actually basically the law.  Separation of powers means Congress generally can't force senior executive officials to testify before them.  Period.  

The shoe will be on the other foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31533

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I like it.  I get it. But an unelected DoJ attorney can lose their bar card pretty fast by ignoring a subpoena.  
 

It’s a big a waste of time as asking pentagon brass over and over again to reveal sensitive information about Ukraine weapons systems.  Which means of course it’ll go on for months, and waste money, thus bringing down inflation.  

A congressional subpoena is nowhere near as powerful as a judicial subpoena.  Many more exceptions to compliance and no built-in enforcement mechanism.  This is the intentional result, for the most part, of investigations not generally being the institutional competence of legislatures.

It's irritating as fuck when Trumpco avoids subpoenas, but this is the way it's supposed to work.

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

YGIFS 19452

Posted
Posted

True but some state bar associations can still yank it for failure to comply.  Career DoJ attorneys are held to a different standard for the their law licensing than other executive branch staffers who just happen to have also gone to law school but are working for Trump in other capacities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29999

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

The other thing is maybe those generals could get off their dead asses and lead the soldiers to the capital themselves to maintain command and control. If Trump orders something against the government or Constitution, you're there to point that out and refuse. You're the Department of Defense. Get out there and start defending.

I still think the military decision makers need to be closely examined. Flynn's goddamn brother was part of the discussion about whether to act. The general of the Guard in Maryland was ready to roll without consideration of his men and women betraying their country.

As president, I'd bust any general that wavered or dithered. Not every officer is culpable, but I'm convinced that some are. Clean out the shit in the Pentagon just as we should do the same with the Secret Service.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29999

Posted
Posted

It would be nice to think the American electorate would appreciate the difference between the sober investigation and decorum of the Jan 6 Committee and the clown show of a GOP investigation of that committee.

Large majority won't watch either. Malign plurality will cheer it.

The Department of Justice is next. Batter up!

If they stumble or shy or fail, it's the military up after them.

The Banana Republic of the United States of America: It serves us right, but I don't have to like it.

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eskimohorn

Eskimohorn 5642

Posted
Posted
The other thing is maybe those generals could get off their dead asses and lead the soldiers to the capital themselves to maintain command and control. If Trump orders something against the government or Constitution, you're there to point that out and refuse. You're the Department of Defense. Get out there and start defending.
I still think the military decision makers need to be closely examined. Flynn's goddamn brother was part of the discussion about whether to act. The general of the Guard in Maryland was ready to roll without consideration of his men and women betraying their country.
As president, I'd bust any general that wavered or dithered. Not every officer is culpable, but I'm convinced that some are. Clean out the shit in the Pentagon just as we should do the same with the Secret Service.

We spend like 100 trill on defense over the years and the Olive Garden crowd is allowed to storm the Capitol. It undermines the whole purpose of Defense.

It was like the 2021 Texas defense allowing 10 yd cushions on 4th and 1 and allowing off tackle runs for 10 yds a pop. It’s like have you seen our defensive tackles? They’re the strength of the team. Let them do some damage!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRealRonWeaver?

TheRealRonWeaver? 1258

Posted
Posted

We spend like 100 trill on defense over the years and the Olive Garden crowd is allowed to storm the Capitol. It undermines the whole purpose of Defense.

It was like the 2021 Texas defense allowing 10 yd cushions on 4th and 1 and allowing off tackle runs for 10 yds a pop. It’s like have you seen our defensive tackles? They’re the strength of the team. Let them do some damage!!!

giphy.gif
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 8048

Posted
Posted (edited)

Trump laughed about his election lies while on the phone with Sidney Powell: Hope Hicks
 

Quote

Among the items included in the full report published by the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on Congress was testimony from top White House aide Hope Hicks, who had returned to the White House in the final year of Donald Trump's presidency.
 

In the first chapter, the report discusses the Nov. 19 press conference with Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis at the Republican National Committee (RNC) headquarters in Washington. Powell told the press that there was a “massive influence of communist money through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely China in the interference with our elections here in the United States.”

She referred to Dominion Voting Systems, which has since brought lawsuits against Powell, Giuliani, the Fox News empire, OAN and others for lying about the company. According to Powell's false claims, their software was “created in Venezuela" at the direction of Hugo Chavez to make sure he never lost an election. Giuliani agreed. 

Hope Hicks told the Select Committee how that press conference was received in the White House," the report explains. "The day after the press conference, President Trump spoke by phone with Sidney Powell from the Oval Office. During the call, Powell repeated the same claims of foreign interference in the election she had made at the press conference. While she was speaking, the President muted his speakerphone and laughed at Powell, telling the others in the room, 'This does sound crazy, doesn’t it?'"

Trump has already responded to the Jan. 6 report by calling the election a fraud.

We are still waiting, Garland.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-laughs-at-big-lie/

Edited by Willfully Horn
Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28797

Posted
Posted

It’s amazing what Cassidy Hutchinson went through in order to give her testimony. And it’s always remarkable how the people in Trump’s orbit talk like mobsters. (Yes, I know, it’s because they are. It’s still remarkable.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/22/cassidy-hutchinson-jan-6-transcript/

Quote

Cassidy Hutchinson claims Trump figures sought to influence her testimony

The former aide’s allegations come in transcripts released by the House Jan. 6 committee as it prepares to end its work

By Jacqueline Alemany, Isaac Stanley-Becker, Amy Gardner and Carol D. Leonnig
 
December 22, 2022 at 5:55 p.m. EST

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that she was advised by her first lawyer to deliberately withhold information from investigators and was wooed with job offers and promises of financial stability in exchange for her loyalty to former president Donald Trump.

The claims — which, if true, amount to possible witness tampering — were detailed at length by Hutchinson in interview transcripts that the committee released Thursday.

In her testimony, Hutchinson accuses her first lawyer, former Trump White House ethics counsel Stefan Passantino, of coaching her to tell committee investigators during her interviews that she did not recall certain things. She said he also discouraged her from jogging her memory or even bringing notes to her interviews that investigators could then collect.

“The less you remember, the better,” Hutchinson recalled Passantino telling her. “Don’t read anything to try to jog your memory. Don’t try to put together timelines. … Especially if you put together timelines, we have to give those over to the committee.”

In addition to her own lawyer, Hutchinson claimed that Trump’s former campaign lawyer, chief of staff, White House lawyers and other close confidants to the former president showered her with praise and promised that her loyalty would be rewarded.

“We’re gonna get you a really good job in Trump world,” Hutchinson said Passantino told her in one phone call days ahead of her scheduled testimony. “You don’t need to apply other places. We’re gonna get you taken care of. We want to keep you in the family.”

The committee released the transcript of Hutchinson’s September testimony Thursday amid a final flurry of activity this week that also included multiple criminal referrals Monday, and the expected release of an 800-plus page report on the committee’s investigation.

Hutchinson, a former junior aide, was the star witness from the committee’s series of summer hearings, offering the public an inside perspective on events at the White House as Trump fought to overturn his 2020 defeat. The committee has said it stands behind her testimony, though some of her most explosive claims have remained uncorroborated or have been disputed by others involved.


[A few paragraphs of Passantino denying any wrongdoing]
 

Quote

Hutchinson told investigators that Passantino repeatedly declined to disclose to her that he was being paid to represent her by Trump’s allies. He dangled lucrative job prospects within Trump’s orbit that were pulled from her once it became public that Hutchinson was cooperating with investigators, she testified.

In her September testimony, Hutchinson described struggling with the opposing forces at play: her belief that she did not tell the truth in her first two interviews — which had been conducted in February and March — versus her fear of the repercussions that would ensue from what she called “Trump world” if she testified more candidly.

“It wasn’t just that I had Stefan sitting next to me; it was almost like I felt like I had Trump looking over my shoulder,” Hutchinson testified. “Because I knew in some fashion it would get back to him if I said anything he would find disloyal. And the prospect of that genuinely scared me. You know, I’d seen this world ruin people’s lives or try to ruin people’s careers.”

She said she started hearing from multiple people in Trump’s orbit about potential employment opportunities soon after Passantino started representing her. Those communications escalated on the eve of her March 7 interview with the committee, Hutchinson testified.

Hutchinson said she received texts from Justin Clark, a former Trump campaign lawyer, on 10 different days in March, beginning four days ahead of her scheduled testimony. She also testified that Jason Miller, another Trump loyalist and chief executive of the social media platform Gettr, arranged a job interview for her with one of his executives there on March 8 — the day after one of her committee interviews.

She recalled that the executive, former Trump campaign operative Kaelan Dorr, said to her on March 8: “Jason’s told me great things about you. We’re looking for somebody that fits exactly what he says you are.”

Other high-profile allies in Trump’s orbit found their way to Hutchinson’s inbox in the weeks and months ahead of her interviews with committee investigators and lawmakers, she said.

Clark and Eric Hershmann, a Trump White House lawyer, all periodically checked in. Pam Bondi, Florida’s former attorney general, even let Hutchinson know one night in March that she had been the topic of conversation during a dinner with Trump himself in which a job working with a Republican heavyweight was discussed.

Hutchinson testified: “Pam texted me that night and said something to the effect of: ‘Susie, Matt Schlapp, and I had dinner with POTUS at Mar-a-Lago tonight. Call Matt next week. He has a job for you that we all think you’d be great at — that you all — we all think you would be great in. You are the best. Keep up the good work. Love and miss you.’”

Neither Bondi nor Schlapp responded to requests for comment.

Ben Williamson, a former White House aide who was still working for Hutchinson’s former boss, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, reached out to Hutchinson the night before her second scheduled interview with the committee with a friendly reminder.

“He said something to the effect of: ‘Well, Mark wants me to let you know that he knows you’re loyal and he knows you’ll do the right thing tomorrow and that you’re going to protect him and the boss,’” Hutchinson testified. “‘He knows that we’re all on the same team and we’re all a family.’”

Williamson did not immediately offer a comment.

Hutchinson said her doubts about her testimony grew after April 22, when the committee made portions of it public in a legal filing against Meadows.

She told Passantino about her misgivings, she said, and he assured her that her testimony was fine — and that “the boss,” meaning Trump, was not upset about it.

“I would have heard if he was mad about anything discussed in yours, but it’s just a good reminder that the boss does read transcripts,” Hutchinson recalled Passantino telling her. “And we want to make sure that, like, whatever he’s reading isn’t going to put you in a bad situation.”

Hutchinson recalled that it was just a few days after that, however, when Miller called her to tell her the Gettr job offer was “done.”

Shortly thereafter, on April 26, Hutchinson sought out a trusted ally to help.

That day, she visited Alyssa Farah, a former aide to Trump who had successfully broken her allegiance to Trump world. Hutchinson confided that she had been withholding information from the committee at the behest of Passantino, according to her testimony.

In Hutchinson’s retelling, Farah then served as a backchannel to the committee, making clear that Hutchinson had more information to provide about Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6, among other things, and offering possible questions she should be asked.

During her third interview with the committee three weeks later — after Passantino teased an imminent job offer from Red Curve Solutions, the firm that acts as a treasurer for Trump’s PAC, along with other Republican committees — Hutchinson responded to questions she had fed to the committee through Farah, seemingly shocking Passantino.

During a break in the interview, she recalled, Passantino pressed her: “How do they have all of this? How do they know that you know all of this?”

Hutchinson tried to maintain plausible deniability, replying to him: “Stefan, I have no idea, but it sounds like someone’s talking.”

His response, she said, was: “But no one’s talking about any of this stuff, Cassidy. Like as far as I know, nobody’s talked about any of this. I know people that would be privy to all of this. … How do they know that you know any of this?”

“Maybe,” she responded, “your sources aren’t that great.”

After the interview, she turned to a committee staff member and remarked, “I’m about to be f---ing nuked.”

“I’m really sorry,” the staffer replied.

Hutchinson told the committee that following her appearance, Passantino frantically sought to alert lawyers for Meadows and others about what the committee knew. He placed calls from outside Hank’s Oyster Bar on the Wharf in Washington as she remained inside the restaurant and “downed my old fashioned and had another one,” as she recounted.

After the May 17 interview, the cost of Hutchinson’s cooperation — and her betrayal of Trump — started to sink in, she said.

Hutchinson said she strongly objected to Passantino alerting George Terwilliger and John Moran, lawyers for Meadows, to what she was asked and what she said in her May interview with the committee.

But Passantino told her that if he didn’t relay the information — and it presumably would leak out soon — that Meadows would think she was a witness against him. He said he wanted to protect her from having a “target” on her back.

“While it is not unusual or improper for lawyers with common interest to speak to each other, in this case, because of the committee members and staff constant overreaching to find fault with our client, we studiously avoided those types of contacts,” Terwilliger said. “One of our partners may have had a conversation in passing with Mr. Passantino, but it was of no substantive importance to anyone.”

On May 24, one week after the interview before the committee, Red Curve Solutions notified her that she was not being hired, she said.

Bradley Crate, the president of Red Curve Solutions, did not respond to a request for comment.

“In my head I knew where my loyalties lied, and my loyalties lied with the truth,” Hutchinson recalled of extricating herself from a legal arrangement that she saw as serving Trump.

 

Spoiler

The committee said in an executive summary of its final report, issued Monday, that it regarded Hutchinson as “earnest” with “no reason” to invent her accounts.

But many inside the committee have questioned the decision to allow her to testify live on television to some events she had only heard about secondhand without corroborating those accounts with others who were actually involved, people familiar with the matter told The Post.

Of all the transcripts, Hutchinson’s has caused the most concern within the committee, people involved with the investigation said.

Hutchinson said she had no doubt about her account when asked by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), vice chair of the committee, about her live testimony that White House deputy chief of staff Anthony Ornato had told her Trump had lunged for Secret Service agent Robert Engel in a fit of rage over not being driven to the Capitol. She said she had discussed it with Ornato on two additional occasions.

“I have no doubts in the conversation that I had with Mr. Ornato on January 6th,” Hutchinson told investigators in September. “I have no doubts in how I’ve relayed that story privately and publicly.”

She also claimed that Passantino was aware of Hutchinson’s knowledge of Ornato’s story — and that when she expressed concerns to him about lying to investigators, Passantino reassured her that she was not perjuring herself.

“I want to make sure it’s clear that he knew that I had been relayed by Tony Ornato an incident that potentially happened in the limo,” Hutchinson said. “Stefan was aware of this.”

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tchookem

tchookem 3905

Posted
Posted
It’s amazing what Cassidy Hutchinson went through in order to give her testimony. And it’s always remarkable how the people in Trump’s orbit talk like mobsters. (Yes, I know, it’s because they are. It’s still remarkable.)

 
Make no mistake, if it had all worked out, she'd happily be sitting in her West Wing office right now. She's no hero, just one of the smarter rats on the ship.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 4
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28797

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, tchookem said:

 
Make no mistake, if it had all worked out, she'd happily be sitting in her West Wing office right now. She's no hero, just one of the smarter rats on the ship.
 

I have no reason to assume that’s true. Bill Barr lied about the findings in the Mueller report but the coup was a line he wouldn’t cross. Pat Cipollone defended Trump’s extortion of Zelensky in his first impeachment trial but stealing the election was something he couldn’t support. There were enough people with not that good of a record when it came to propriety who chose to do the right thing. I see no reason to think Cassidy Hutchinson had nefarious intent but was just getting out because she saw that the whole scheme was about to come unraveled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31533

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

n her testimony, Hutchinson accuses her first lawyer, former Trump White House ethics counsel Stefan Passantino, of coaching her to tell committee investigators during her interviews that she did not recall certain things. She said he also discouraged her from jogging her memory or even bringing notes to her interviews that investigators could then collect.

“The less you remember, the better,” Hutchinson recalled Passantino telling her. “Don’t read anything to try to jog your memory. Don’t try to put together timelines. … Especially if you put together timelines, we have to give those over to the committee.”

This is normal.

14 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Hutchinson told investigators that Passantino repeatedly declined to disclose to her that he was being paid to represent her by Trump’s allies.

This is flat unethical.  Pretty close to disbarment material.  A client whose bill is being paid by another party must give informed consent. Moreover, this was probably so "conflicted" that Passantino couldn't even do it.

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

MrBig 5435

Posted
Posted

Reading some of the report makes it clear that Trump was the head Mean Girl and the White House was just like high school. He even told Pence “I don’t want to be your friend anymore” if he didn’t go through with his plan. I’ve never heard an adult tell another adult this before, let alone the fucking POTUS.

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

Captainant 27745

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Cmon man.  You demand prosecution today and you don't even know who some of the key players are?

It's gonna be suuuuper fun to see you bend over backwards to justify and excuse the lack of prosecution for trumpco. Gotta protect norms and decorum of the legal profession and all that

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

WhatTheBuck 28797

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, MrBig said:

Reading some of the report makes it clear that Trump was the head Mean Girl and the White House was just like high school. He even told Pence “I don’t want to be your friend anymore” if he didn’t go through with his plan. I’ve never heard an adult tell another adult this before, let alone the fucking POTUS.

That’s mobster talk, not mean girl talk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

You mean being cancelled in 2024?

 

1 hour ago, kevwun said:

The House can't do shit about that investigation.  It's being run by DHS.  As long as Biden is in the White House, criminal probes run by various agencies can't be stopped.

That’s why I said 2024. It’s a bit assumption that Biden wins in 2024

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...