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

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31493

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/11/2023 at 10:37 PM, TwiceHorn said:

We're not talking about admissibility.

We're talking about persuading a juror, who is to the extent possible, not informed about the events and is neither pro- or anti-Trump.

We, who are the opposite of those people, all verily know that he wanted Raffy to fucking burn ballots or create new ones or do whatever sinister shit he needed to to "find" the requisite number of votes.

A more neutral person, given evidence of the statement alone and argument that Trump runs his mouth all the time without really meaning or even understanding what he says, could pretty easily find doubt there. 

So, if you are a federal prosecutor, in an organization with an 85+^% conviction rate, contemplating the biggest criminal indictment and trial in US history, you are not going to go at that without turning over every stone you can get to and carefully evaluating what can be done with all of the evidence, both by you and by the defense.

From the rule of law standpoint, and we love to bark about the rule of law, bringing an indictment against Trump that results in an acquittal, while always a possibility, would be a gigantic disaster for the DOJ.  I might expect this to be the most carefully and meticulously developed criminal case ever, and for good reason.

This notion that "we've got the call on tape," easy-peasy conviction city is facile.

Further to this point, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, no fan of Trumpworld, acquitted a 1/6 defendant on obstruction of an official proceeding because his mental state and intentions were unclear.  https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/13/judge-finds-jan-6-defendant-who-breached-senate-chamber-not-guilty-of-obstruction-00077971

Quote

After a weeklong bench trial, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that Joshua Black had a “unique stew in his mind” that left her uncertain whether he was aware that his actions were unlawful. Black is the first Jan. 6 defendant who reached the Senate floor to be acquitted of the obstruction charge.

* * *

 

For prosecutors to secure a conviction for “obstruction of an official proceeding,” — a felony that carries a maximum 20-year sentence — they must show that a defendant had “corrupt” intent. But Jackson said prosecutors failed to support the charge with evidence proving Black’s intent. Evidence that Black intended to block Congress — or even was familiar with the congressional proceedings occurring that day — was “absent from the government’s case,” Jackson said.

This is a somewhat different kettle of fish than Trump, but the sumbitch was there on the Capitol grounds and even on the Senate floor, but it was still insufficiently clear that he corruptly intended to obstruct the proceeding.

And it demonstrates that going to trial on "the words/actions speak for themselves" is risky as fuck when that sort of specific intent is required by the statute.

It should also be noted that where the article says "aware that his actions were unlawful," that's typical shitty reporting.  That's not the standard here as set forth in greater detail in the article.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
bolverk

bolverk 29683

Posted
Posted

Pence Gets Subpoena From Special Counsel in Jan. 6 Investigation
The move by Jack Smith, the special counsel, is one of the most aggressive in his investigation of Donald Trump’s efforts to stay in power and is likely to lead to a battle over executive privilege.

Former Vice President Mike Pence has been subpoenaed by the special counsel investigating former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to cling to his office after he lost his bid for re-election, a person familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

The move by the Justice Department sets up a likely clash over executive privilege, which Mr. Trump has previously used to try to slow, delay and block testimony from former administration officials in various investigations into his conduct.

The existence of the subpoena was reported earlier by ABC News.

It was not immediately clear when the special counsel, Jack Smith, sought Mr. Pence’s testimony. The move is among the most aggressive yet by Mr. Smith in his wide-ranging investigation into Mr. Trump’s role in seeking to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election and a parallel inquiry into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents.

The New York Times previously reported that the Justice Department was interested in questioning Mr. Pence in connection with the investigation into Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in power after he lost the 2020 election.

An aide to Mr. Pence declined to confirm the existence of the subpoena. A Justice Department official did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Pence was at the center of Mr. Trump’s last gasp to hold on to power in the two months after his election loss. Mr. Trump seized on Mr. Pence’s ceremonial role in overseeing the congressional certification of the Electoral College results to try to press his vice president into blocking or delaying the outcome on Jan. 6, 2021.

Mr. Pence refused, a fact highlighted publicly by Mr. Trump as he stirred up a crowd of his supporters that day before they marched to the Capitol and breached it. Some of the rioters were heard chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.”

Mr. Pence is a potential rival to Mr. Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

Mr. Trump has frequently tried to assert executive privilege when officials have sought testimony from people who worked for him in the White House. He has generally been unsuccessful, but those battles over what matters are covered by privilege have slowed some of the investigations.

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

TwiceHorn 31493

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Pence Gets Subpoena From Special Counsel in Jan. 6 Investigation
The move by Jack Smith, the special counsel, is one of the most aggressive in his investigation of Donald Trump’s efforts to stay in power and is likely to lead to a battle over executive privilege.

Former Vice President Mike Pence has been subpoenaed by the special counsel investigating former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to cling to his office after he lost his bid for re-election, a person familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

The move by the Justice Department sets up a likely clash over executive privilege, which Mr. Trump has previously used to try to slow, delay and block testimony from former administration officials in various investigations into his conduct.

The existence of the subpoena was reported earlier by ABC News.

It was not immediately clear when the special counsel, Jack Smith, sought Mr. Pence’s testimony. The move is among the most aggressive yet by Mr. Smith in his wide-ranging investigation into Mr. Trump’s role in seeking to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election and a parallel inquiry into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents.

The New York Times previously reported that the Justice Department was interested in questioning Mr. Pence in connection with the investigation into Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in power after he lost the 2020 election.

An aide to Mr. Pence declined to confirm the existence of the subpoena. A Justice Department official did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Pence was at the center of Mr. Trump’s last gasp to hold on to power in the two months after his election loss. Mr. Trump seized on Mr. Pence’s ceremonial role in overseeing the congressional certification of the Electoral College results to try to press his vice president into blocking or delaying the outcome on Jan. 6, 2021.

Mr. Pence refused, a fact highlighted publicly by Mr. Trump as he stirred up a crowd of his supporters that day before they marched to the Capitol and breached it. Some of the rioters were heard chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.”

Mr. Pence is a potential rival to Mr. Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

Mr. Trump has frequently tried to assert executive privilege when officials have sought testimony from people who worked for him in the White House. He has generally been unsuccessful, but those battles over what matters are covered by privilege have slowed some of the investigations.

Goes to show that Smith is pretty near the top of the pyramid.  I'm sure most of the questions will be about Eastman's pressuring of him and whether Trump was aware of same and the extent of that knowledge, that is as to other aspects of the scheme, like fake electors and the role of the 1/6 speech.  I would think executive privilege will be pierced there and it appears that Beryl Howell would be the presiding judge as she has handled the other grand jury disputes over executive privilege.  Not only is she anti-Trump, but she's smart enough to craft her rulings not to be overruled by the DC Circuit.  She kinda rocks.

I assume here, I believe correctly or at least in an informed way, that DOJ is working its way up the food chain to build it's case.  And, that by subpoenaing Pence, Smith has exhausted information from lower-echelon conspirators and witnesses, e.g. White House Counsel and other such EOP officials and minions..  A crescendo approaches.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31493

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Crescendo or a whimper?

Well, if you don't think you have the evidence to being charges, I'm not sure you go to the trouble of subpoenaing a Vice President for grand jury testimony.  There are some hassles associated with it so it's not just something you do to go through the motions.

Now the question is, will he subpoena Trump?  Fifth Amendment probably makes that a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
safe sex

safe sex 11735

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, if you don't think you have the evidence to being charges, I'm not sure you go to the trouble of subpoenaing a Vice President for grand jury testimony.  There are some hassles associated with it so it's not just something you do to go through the motions.

Now the question is, will he subpoena Trump?  Fifth Amendment probably makes that a waste of time.

Not that I am anything resembling a lawyer, but fucking make him take the 5th on everything. Get it on the fucking record.

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

TwiceHorn 31493

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Upgrayedd said:

Probably everything over the last 8 years?

I keep coming back to this, but if you were paying attention, the Mueller investigation and impeachments were never going to have legal consequences for Trump.  To believe otherwise was beyond foolish (and I was guilty of believing that to some degree). 

So, only really the years following January 20, 2021 count for anything.  And it's been notso hotso for Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization. although the other shoe has yet to fully drop.

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

Upgrayedd 5814

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I keep coming back to this, but if you were paying attention, the Mueller investigation and impeachments were never going to have legal consequences for Trump.  To believe otherwise was beyond foolish (and I was guilty of believing that to some degree). 

So, only really the years following January 20, 2021 count for anything.  And it's been notso hotso for Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization. although the other shoe has yet to fully drop.

I hear what you’re saying.  I’ll believe it when I see it.  Until then, I hope he chokes on a dick.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54246

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I keep coming back to this, but if you were paying attention, the Mueller investigation and impeachments were never going to have legal consequences for Trump.  To believe otherwise was beyond foolish (and I was guilty of believing that to some degree). 

So, only really the years following January 20, 2021 count for anything.  And it's been notso hotso for Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization. although the other shoe has yet to fully drop.

Please don't use terms like "notso hotso."

cd39f_0000.png

  • Like 1
  • Haha 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28786

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2023 at 12:17 AM, TwiceHorn said:

It doesn't matter.  It's not a public record.  It's an evidence-gathering device.

If he pleads the 5th, the public has a right to know about it. We’ve heard about it when he’s done it in the past. We heard that he plead the 5th over 400 times in the NY AG’s investigation. There’s even some video documentation if you can stomach it (I admit I couldn’t even make it through all of this clip):

I don’t think that, ‘Why bother? He’ll just plead the 5th’ is a good reason not to subpoena him. Make him do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31493

Posted
Posted
On 2/11/2023 at 10:59 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

If he pleads the 5th, the public has a right to know about it. We’ve heard about it when he’s done it in the past. We heard that he plead the 5th over 400 times in the NY AG’s investigation. There’s even some video documentation if you can stomach it (I admit I couldn’t even make it through all of this clip):

I don’t think that, ‘Why bother? He’ll just plead the 5th’ is a good reason not to subpoena him. Make him do it. 

That's fair.

In other news, more related to 1/6 prosecutions, the DC Circuit upheld the application of obstruction of an official proceeding, 18 USC 1512 to 1/6 insurrectionists today.

So, that saves probably at least 100 felony convictions, and paves the way for that statute to be applied to Trump.  https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/F435A13F03207AF28525898A004F9D45/$file/22-3038-1993753.pdf

One thing somewhat notable that I had never seen before:

James I. Pearce, Attorney, Capitol Siege Section, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was John Crabb, Jr., Chief, Capitol Siege Section.

So the DOJ has created an entire section, at the main Justice leverl, for the Capitol Siege.  Interdasting.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89695

Posted
Posted
Quote

The founder of the far-right militant Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison on Thursday for seditious conspiracy, the longest sentence imposed to date over the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot that sought to keep Donald Trump in the White House.

Happy New Year GIF by HBO

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 9 months later...
  • Popular Post
TexasEd

TexasEd 8067

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

image.thumb.png.5aa7c2f073656e4e22e07239933e0aa9.png

Don't arrest me for burglary because I need to burgle some more to pay for my defense counsel.

Don't strip my medical license for malpractice because I need to charge more victims, er patients, to pay for my other bills.

 

  • Hook 'Em 10
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3432

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Don't arrest me for burglary because I need to burgle some more to pay for my defense counsel.

Don't strip my medical license for malpractice because I need to charge more victims, er patients, to pay for my other bills.

 

Reminds me of the Jim Rome paraphrase of Maurice Clarrett, former Ohio St. running back who was thrown in jail for something I don't remember:

Clarett went before the court to try to get his sentenced reduced claiming, according to Rome that (paraphrased) "My incarceration is hampering my ability to gain traction in the work force"

It did not go well.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GenXer

GenXer 2882

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Don't arrest me for burglary because I need to burgle some more to pay for my defense counsel.

Don't strip my medical license for malpractice because I need to charge more victims, er patients, to pay for my other bills.

 


Dr. Ortiz is intrigued by this request to the court

 

IMG_0295.thumb.jpeg.991b1958582bff5fb39052d9d9cb7735.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105154

Posted
Posted
Fuck her. 

Naah. I hope she’s killed in prison. Her last look on her face is terror of someone about to be killed. You know, like she tried to kill our republic.
My biggest regret is that she wasn’t killed that very day, bleeding out and gasping for breath on the Capitol tile, realizing the idiocy of her path in her final moments.
No mercy, no pity, because they show no remorse or guilt. Kill them all next time. Every. Single. One.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19450

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

Well, first off we're forming a band called "Electric Vehicle Abortion."  Then we're gonna figure out a way to get Mrs. Conway to commit suicide.  Which shouldn't be that hard because she's clearly been doing lots of coke.  And them something else, and profit?  

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...