Jump to content

January 6th Committee Hearings Thread of Dominance

Longhorn_Fan68

By Longhorn_Fan68
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10373

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

yeah, because he's dumb as fuck and lives in a different reality. we all knew that. this is nothing revelatory

It's actually pretty damn important. If he truly believed the bullshit he was spouting, that would have an affect on the types of crimes he could be found guilty of.

  • Hook 'Em 2
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

Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22388

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, The Dog said:

He reveals something I've suspected - Trump truly believed the election was stolen. 

In the final hours before he passed in hospice care, my grandfather truly believed there was a bird flying around in his room.  

 

 

 

 

 

(There was not a bird in the room.)

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

Biff Tannen 45239

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

It's actually pretty damn important. If he truly believed the bullshit he was spouting, that would have an affect on the types of crimes he could be found guilty of.

This.  And he'll skate.  Because the simulation.  God dammit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33724

Posted
  • Author
Posted
37 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

It's actually pretty damn important. If he truly believed the bullshit he was spouting, that would have an affect on the types of crimes he could be found guilty of.

can it? I seem to remember plenty of people being convicted of crimes they "didn't know were wrong." no knowing is not an excuse. guess I am naïve, but does not the same principle apply here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33724

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I still don't get how this documentary footage existed for over a year and a half with no one bothering to tell the committee about it until last week.

Did this producer guy not think it could be sort of important?

likely waiting to see how much money they could get from it before they were forced to hand it over because 'muricuh

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

Red Five 40456

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

can it? I seem to remember plenty of people being convicted of crimes they "didn't know were wrong." no knowing is not an excuse. guess I am naïve, but does not the same principle apply here?

If I am truly convinced that my neighbor is satan, and I stab him in the head, I don't think "but I really did think it" is going to hold up. But then again I'm not President.

Maybe he'd need an insanity plea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45214

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

can it? I seem to remember plenty of people being convicted of crimes they "didn't know were wrong." no knowing is not an excuse. guess I am naïve, but does not the same principle apply here?

My background in not being anything like an attorney is well established.  That said, it's my understanding, that at least for a lot of crimes, knowledge of the criminal nature of the act is not required to establish guilt.  Intent to commit the act is.

And now, I will send up the beacon so my statement can be corrected:  @TwiceHorn

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

TwiceHorn 30851

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

can it? I seem to remember plenty of people being convicted of crimes they "didn't know were wrong." no knowing is not an excuse. guess I am naïve, but does not the same principle apply here?

To the letter of the law, no.  But kind of like "means, motive, and opportunity," which are not part of the elements of any crime, prosecutors often think they have to have "criminal intent" to carry their burden of persuasion of the jury.

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

TwiceHorn 30851

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

My background in not being anything like an attorney is well established.  That said, it's my understanding, that at least for a lot of crimes, knowledge of the criminal nature of the act is not required to establish guilt.  Intent to commit the act is.

And now, I will send up the beacon so my statement can be corrected:  @TwiceHorn

Jimmy's pretty much correct here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 43494

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

It's actually pretty damn important. If he truly believed the bullshit he was spouting, that would have an affect on the types of crimes he could be found guilty of.

That's what I figured. 

12 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

this go here?

 

IMHO this is the kind of thing that will sink Trump ultimately. It will be something financial or mail fraud. 

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

can it? I seem to remember plenty of people being convicted of crimes they "didn't know were wrong." no knowing is not an excuse. guess I am naïve, but does not the same principle apply here?

It just means that he wasn't lying about the fraud - he was convinced (by Rudy, Sidney, et al) that the election was stolen from him. It doesn't cover him from other crimes if applicable. 

One of the lawyers on here will have to provide details. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 40456

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The Dog said:

It just means that he wasn't lying about the fraud - he was convinced (by Rudy, Sidney, et al) that the election was stolen from him. It doesn't cover him from other crimes if applicable.

He's full of shit. He's a conman. He was talking about how it was going to be rigged in the year leading up to the election. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33724

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Red Five said:

He's full of shit. He's a conman. He was talking about how it was going to be rigged in the year leading up to the election. 

yeah, I don't buy this "he genuinely believed there was fraud" bullshit. I think someone is going to try to fall on the sword for TFG, but in the end I think smarter people will see through his bullshit.

there I go being glass-half-full again. I gotta stop doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 43494

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Red Five said:

He's full of shit. He's a conman. He was talking about how it was going to be rigged in the year leading up to the election. 

I get it. But we need something on tape where he knows what he is spewing is bullshit. That hasn't materialized yet. We have literally everything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macanudo

Macanudo 12798

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I get it. But we need something on tape where he knows what he is spewing is bullshit. That hasn't materialized yet. We have literally everything else. 

Would it matter?   Remember, this is the guy who said he could shoot someone on camera and people would still vote for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 30851

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

he said pretty much, which still means you're partly wrong.

 

 

lulz

The only way I can really see it coming in somehow is that obstruction of congress/official proceeding requires the obstruction to be done "corruptly."  No one knows exactly what that means, but we have some good ideas.

Still, multiple of the 1/6 defendants have been convicted of that crime when they almost undoubtedly had a sincere belief, fueled by the orangutan, that there was election fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Hot Dog Buffet

The Hot Dog Buffet 1262

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

yeah, I don't buy this "he genuinely believed there was fraud" bullshit. I think someone is going to try to fall on the sword for TFG, but in the end I think smarter people will see through his bullshit.

there I go being glass-half-full again. I gotta stop doing that.

You need a jury that will include at least 6 people who actually voted for the man to see through his bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7499

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Would it matter?   Remember, this is the guy who said he could shoot someone on camera and people would still vote for him.

Trump would fuck it up, but it wouldn't matter. He'd accidentally eject the magazine, while calling it a clip. They'd celebrate him for it and say it's been called a clip all along. He'd fuck up the safety and they'd swear "we've always called it a gun button". 

When he finally handed the gun to his bodyguard to kill the person, they'd celebrate him for that too. 

Fuck cults. 

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

jimmyjazz 45214

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pods said:

Trump would fuck it up, but it wouldn't matter. He'd accidentally eject the magazine, while calling it a clip. They'd celebrate him for it and say it's been called a clip all along. He'd fuck up the safety and they'd swear "we've always called it a gun button". 

Never forget:

Total Eclipse: Trump Ignores Pleas of 'Don't Look!' to Stare Directly at the Sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macanudo

Macanudo 12798

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

You need a jury that will include at least 6 people who actually voted for the man to see through his bullshit.

This is something I think a lot of people are overlooking.    If Trump goes to trial for anything, there is no way a MAGAt doesn't get on the jury and and hang it .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 21592

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Probably not. DOJ likely investigating/prosecuting the valuation scam for the stock and nothing Jan 6 related 

Devin Nunes probably brought a claim after getting suckered to piss his career away on this scam.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29593

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I get it. But we need something on tape where he knows what he is spewing is bullshit. That hasn't materialized yet. We have literally everything else. 

Doesn't the below count for evidence of same?

Quote

“Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen,” Trump implored top Justice officials in a Dec. 27, 2020, conversation memorialized in then-acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue’s contemporaneous notes.

He said this to men who continually told him there was no corruption. He's not imploring them to prove corruption; he's asking them to "just say the election was corrupt."

What else could he mean by saying leave the rest to himself and GQP traitors in Congress? They'll prove their case? No. He clearly means, as proved by his actions, that he planned to be the corrupt party and overthrow a valid election.

I don't think a fair jury could conclude otherwise, but I'm no lawyer.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NameAlreadyInUse

NameAlreadyInUse 5092

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SquishMitten said:

It's actually pretty damn important. If he truly believed the bullshit he was spouting, that would have an affect on the types of crimes he could be found guilty of.

He may have truly believed it.  But I can show evidence that he only ever truly believed it when he won.  He always claimed before and after any election he lost that it was rigged.  He cried wolf every fucking time.  He was disabused of that belief from his most senior advisors who knew it was not true, and if he continued to believe it after that point, that's on him.  His belief, I think, quits being important when you can point to a string of past beliefs that show he's just essentially a sore loser on the one hand, and on the other, when you can show that people in a position to know, told him his belief was incorrect.  That tells me that #1, he doesn't truly believe it and it's all an act, or #2, he's a buffoon who was never suited for the office (or both).  Actually, it's just both.  I don't think there are many people left in the world who don't wear Republican pompoms who would disagree that it's both.

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

TwiceHorn 30851

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Doesn't the below count for evidence of same?

He said this to men who continually told him there was no corruption. He's not imploring them to prove corruption; he's asking them to "just say the election was corrupt."

What else could he mean by saying leave the rest to himself and GQP traitors in Congress? They'll prove their case? No. He clearly means, as proved by his actions, that he planned to be the corrupt party and overthrow a valid election.

I don't think a fair jury could conclude otherwise, but I'm no lawyer.

 

There would be one hell of a fight over whether that statement is hearsay and inadmissible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 30851

Posted
Posted
Just now, Longhornfan1024 said:

I'm not a litigator and it's been awhile since I took evidence, but wouldn't that be a statement against interest?  

I think one of the most promising ways to admit it is that it demonstrates his state of mind, and thus is not hearsay.  But there are several angles on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14078

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There would be one hell of a fight over whether that statement is hearsay and inadmissible.

Trump's statement?  Pretty sure that's non-hearsay as an admission (IANAcriminal defenseL).

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

Pig Bellmont 8637

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

bets on tomorrow's surprise witness....

remember.... IT'S ALWAYS TUESDAY ......

 

3-1 Brooks

3-1 Somebody with written or recorded evidence surrounding fake electors

5-1 Eastman

10-1 Ivanka

10-1 Clark

The documentary film maker has to be the witness 

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...