By Andrew C. McCarthy
The January 6 committee seemed to hit the point of diminishing returns this week. The Democrat-controlled panel is straining to establish that its target, former president Donald Trump, is not just morally and politically but criminally culpable for the deadly Capitol riot, but it can’t make the case. Its evidence of criminal intent is too weak, and its tactic of conflating Trump’s state of mind with the unhinged words of extremists who reacted to his rhetoric is sleight-of-hand.
Plus, Trump has an intent defense: He was trying to ratchet up political pressure on Congress, not provoke a forcible uprising. And the committee is not only ignoring that defense but bolstering it (however inadvertently).Should the J6 Committee Call Stewart Rhodes or Call it a Day?
By Jonathan Turley
The hearings have succeeded in bringing to light much of what occurred in those critical days. The testimony has detailed extremely disturbing conduct and chilling proposals, but it has not established a clear criminal conspiracy. Indeed, much of the evidence has amplified what we already knew, rather than add significant new information on criminal conduct. If the committee is serious about such a referral to the Justice Department, it will have to make a quantum leap in evidence. Even former prosecutor and Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp said that the seventh hearing showed her “as a former prosecutor myself, everything that I’ve heard, I think it would be a very tough indictment to get.”
Now I know that the liberals here will rely on the opinions of partisan politically motivated legal experts. But if you read any legal opinion that includes political rhetoric such as the term "big lie" or tries to confuse you into believing that questioning an election is illegal, then you are not reading a legal opinion, but rather a political one. It really doesn't matter who the person is. The content is all that matters.
The reality here is that the Jan 6th commission is not a trial. It is not a true hearing by any definition of the word. It is even more blatantly one sided than your typical attempts to sway a grand jury. At least in a grand jury the prosecution is require to be honest, not allowed to edit quotes or testimony, and must disclose any evidence that undermines their case.
I dare anyone to read both of these articles straight through and tell me how either of these legal scholars are wrong. No, providing a separate example of someone else's opinion is not an explanation that either of these articles are wrong? Why? Because both McCarthy and Turley will tell you exactly why these other experts "are wrong" whereas those other experts are not able to make a dent in the arguments made by McCarthy and Turley.
Of course they don't have to. Their audience is not people curious about anything. Their audience are people already predisposed to hate the bad orange man and to believe he just "must have" committed crimes. They are simply "preaching to the choir".
70 comments:
If the Committee seriously wants to convince Attorney General Merrick Garland to charge a former president, it must produce direct, unassailable evidence, not circumstantial evidence based on “will be wild” tweets or an anonymous former Twitter employee’s testimony that “It felt as if a mob was being organized.”
The seventh hearing spent a considerable amount of time on actions not taken by Trump — a curious way to build a criminal case. There was the draft tweet that was not sent and the executive order that was never signed.
Even more curious was the selection of the long-awaited witnesses from right-wing groups involved in the attack on the Capitol. One was Jason Van Tatenhove, a former Oath Keepers spokesman who quit the group years before the riot and had no involvement in any planning or protest on that day. Tatenhove called the head of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, as a dangerous militia leader. The other was Stephen Ayres, who illegally entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 and later pleaded guilty to a federal charge of disorderly conduct. Both offered insights into the extremism of these groups but not clear criminal linkages to Trump.
Unlike impeachment, a penal crime entails being subject to imprisonment — i.e., the deprivation not of a privilege, but of the fundamental right to liberty. Criminal prosecution is thus a legal process, not a political one. The government must overcome the accused’s right to be presumed innocent by proving every element of the crime, including intent, beyond a reasonable doubt.
In its attempts to prove Trump’s criminal — as opposed to political and moral — culpability for the Capitol riot, the January 6 committee has thus far come up short.
On that score, Tuesday’s proceeding can be summed up in one snapshot. Committee member Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who partnered with fellow Democrat Stephanie Murphy of Florida in leading the presentation, called attention to Trump’s infamous tweet in the wee hours of the morning on December 19, 2020: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Raskin then pivoted to an Internet message board frequented by right-wing extremists, where immediately after the president’s tweet, one fanatic had written, “Trump just told us all to come armed.”
There it is . . . the call to violent insurrection!
Except, Trump hadn’t said anything about “coming armed.” In fact, in a real hearing, a judge or an adversary would slam Raskin over a stunt like this.
Yes... this entire Jan 6th hearing is a giant "stunt".
Too bad so many Americans are so stupid as to fall for it?
The House Committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol has subpoenaed the Secret Service following reports that the agency erased text messages dated Jan. 5 and 6, 2021.
“The Select Committee has been informed that the USSS erased text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021 as part of a ‘device-replacement program,'” the committee’s Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) wrote in a letter on Friday evening. “In a statement issued July 14, 2022, the USSS stated that it ‘began to reset its mobile phones to factory settings as part of a pre-planned, three-month system migration. In that process, data resident on some phones was lost.’ However, according to that USSS statement, ‘none of the texts it [DHS Office of Inspector General] was seeking had been lost in the migration.'”
“Accordingly, the Select Committee seeks the relevant text messages, as well as any after action reports that have been issued in any and all divisions of the USSS pertaining or relating in any way to the events of January 6, 2021,” Thompson added.
On Thursday, The Intercept was the first to obtain a report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General stating that the Secret Service deleted the messages after the watchdog asked for them. The Secret Service disputed the timeline.
The Secret Service’s actions have loomed large over the Jan. 6 Committee’s proceedings in the wake of testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson, formerly the top aide to former President Donald Trump’s then-chief of staff Mark Meadows. During her testimony, she repeated an account that Trump demanded that the Secret Service drive the presidential limo to the Capitol for him to join his supporters, and when they refused, lunged toward the driver and tried to grab the wheel.
Hutchinson attributed the story to Tony Ornato, a Secret Agent whom Trump made his deputy White House chief of staff. Secret Service officials — including Ornato — disputed Hutchinson’s account.
Former Vice President Mike Pence reportedly resisted the Secret Service’s attempt to whisk him away from the Capitol after the pro-Trump mob breached the building. He was quoted telling his detail: “I’m not getting in the car.”
Unpacking the significance of the refusal, an anonymous congressional official told The Intercept that Pence could have been taken to a secure location where he would have been unable to certify the presidential election results.
“People need to understand that if Pence had listened to the Secret Service and fled the Capitol, this could have turned out a whole lot worse,” the official told The Intercept. “It could’ve been a successful coup, not just an attempted one.”
The Secret Service’s communications chief Anthony Guglielmi denied the messages were maliciously deleted and insisted the agency has provided “full and unwavering” cooperation with the committee.
“Over the last 18 months, we have voluntarily provided dozens of hours of formal testimony from special agents and over 790,000 unredacted emails, radio transmissions, operational and planning records,” Guglielmi tweeted. “We plan to continue that cooperation by responding swiftly to the Committee’s subpoena.”
The committee scheduled its next public hearing for Thursday, July 21 at 8 p.m., which is expected, at least for now, to be its final one. Its letter is addressed the agency’s director James M. Murray.
tips@lawandcrime.com
They have him
He recuted the Secret Service to help him stag the coup
https://lawandcrime.com/jan-6-committee/house-committee-subpoenas-secret-service-after-agency-reportedly-erased-text-messages-dated-jan-6-and-the-day-before-the-capitol-attack/?utm_source=mostpopular
Biden's Recession.
Totally Avoidable.
"Copper prices sink, flashing another recession warningCopper bear markets have preceded every recession over past 30 years"
Guglielmi tweeted. “We plan to continue that cooperation by responding swiftly to the Committee’s subpoena.”
The others will be facing criminal charges.
I had already read them before this
The Secret Service’s account about how text messages from the day before and the day of the Capitol attack were erased has shifted several times, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security told the House January 6 select committee at a briefing on Friday.
At one point, the explanation from the Secret Service for the lost texts was because of software upgrades, the inspector general told the panel, while at another point, the explanation was because of device replacements.
Secret Service agents’ January 6 texts were erased after oversight request
The inspector general also said that though the secret service opted to have his office do a review of the agency’s response to the Capitol attack in lieu of conducting after-action reports, it then stonewalled the review by slow-walking production of materials.
McCarthy's statement is stupid.
It is interesting to read what he earlier said: "After the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol ... McCarthy wrote that he now considered Trump's presidency "indelibly stained" and wrote, "I do think the president has committed an impeachable offense, making a reckless speech that incited a throng on the mall, which foreseeably included an insurrectionist mob."
Contrast that to what Ch quotes at the beginning of his article.
McCarthy has obviously bowed to Republican pressure.
After the inspector general raised his complaints, he then discussed the feasibility of reconstructing the texts. But the issues so alarmed the select committee that the panel moved hours later to subpoena the Secret Service, according to participants at the briefing.
The string of fast-paced developments on Capitol Hill reflected how the erasure of the Secret Service texts – first disclosed in a letter to Congress by the inspector general, Joseph Cuffari – has become a top priority for the congressional inquiry into January 6.
Obstruction is a crime.
Tying Trump is not easy because he knows how to be a Godfather style President
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/16/secret-service-deleted-text-messages-january-6
So Jan. 6th and Climate some-thing-er-other are THE KEY ELECTION 2022 ISSUES?
Not with anyone I know.
McCarthy but not Moscow Mitch
The peaceful transfer of power is the fundamental right in the Constitution and you support breaking the Constitution because you..
...
Are
Gone
Not at all concerned about rising water.
The Obimbo's
Bought.
The family have an $11.75 million mansion in the celebrity haunt of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts and it is utterly stunning.
It has seven bedrooms, two guest wings, and an outdoor swimming pool. It sits on a sprawling 29-acre estate with beautiful sea views, and even has its own private beach and boathouse."
Of course the select committee is investigating a political case. Trump's actions, like those of any president, were political: They took place in a political context.
The only valid question is, Is the committee validly establishing a case about political actions that were and are sufficiently criminal as to require prosecution?
You won't like this one
The US Justice Department was justified when it seized the cell phone of John Eastman, a former lawyer for Donald Trump, a federal judge in New Mexico ruled on Friday.
In its investigation into a scheme by the ex-president and his lawyers to overturn the 2020 election using “fake electors”, the justice department took Eastman’s phone on 22 June as he was leaving a restaurant in New Mexico. Eastman, in turn, filed a court motion in an attempt to get his phone back, arguing that the justice department violated his constitutional rights.
January 6 panel examines whether erased Secret Service texts can be revived
Read more
Federal district court judge Robert Brack said in a court document Friday that the department had a right to seize his cell phone, noting the government had a substantial “interest in investigating the January 6 attacks on the Capitol”, which Trump’s supporters staged on the day congress certified his defeat at the hands of the Joe Biden. He noted that the justice department has said it will not go through Eastman’s phone until they get a second warrant to do so.
So Reverebd...
You believe that the man responsible for prosecuting several high profile terrorists and one the most respected legal scholars in the country...
Is "stupid".
So... to be clear??
You do not believe that there is a "difference" between impeachment and a criminal case? You believe that McCarthy is wrong for suggesting that there is?
McCarthy stands by the idea that Trump could have been impeached.
But he (as a real legal mind) understands that there is a difference.
Criminal prosecution and impeachment are much difference.
You do understand this?
Unlike impeachment, a penal crime entails being subject to imprisonment — i.e., the deprivation not of a privilege, but of the fundamental right to liberty. Criminal prosecution is thus a legal process, not a political one. The government must overcome the accused’s right to be presumed innocent by proving every element of the crime, including intent, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pence didn’t go along with the insurrection. Or other illegal activities.
“The court is relying to a considerable extent on the assertion in the warrant that the investigative team will not examine the contents of the phone until it seeks a second warrant,” the ruling said. Brack gave the justice department until 27 July to update the court on whether it has applied for a second warrant.
The justice department’s investigation into the plot to overturn the election has – with help from witness testimony in the recent January 6 committee hearings on the insurrection – zeroed in on Eastman as a key figure in Trump’s 11th-hour plan to keep himself in the Oval Office.
Eastman told Trump that Mike Pence, in his role as vice-president, could single-handedly interfere with the largely symbolic certification of the electoral college that showed Biden as winner of the presidential election. Eastman and Trump tried to convince the vice-president then to hold up the proceedings, but Pence denied that he had the legal right to do so and refused to cooperate.
Pence’s legal advisers told the January 6 committee that he had to fend off mounting pressure from Eastman to go along with the plan.
Pence spoke to the committee so you think that he is a traitor π
So McCarthy states that there is a difference between a political and a legal process...
To which the Reverend admits and agrees that the committee is waging a political hearing.
But apparently believes that because Trump was a politician that the criminal aspects of the care are actually "political" ?
Is that what I am understanding?
A simple question for Ch:
Why hasn't Trump launched a legal attempt to overturn Pence's certification of the last presidential election through an appeal to his conservative-dominated Supreme Court?
Why not?
A simple answer would be nice,
but we will not hold our breaths.
His response will be TDS or pedophile
Another simple question:
Any determination of guilt or innocence in a hearing regarding political actions would have to rest on considerations and understandings of what is politically right or wrong.
So how can a hearing on political crimes be totally non political?
Again, we will not hold our breaths.
Scott it is a political hearing but they have the right to conduct an investigation into the action of any person.
Bengazi????
Watergate
Why hasn't Trump launched a legal attempt to overturn Pence's certification of the last presidential election through an appeal to his conservative-dominated Supreme Court?
There is no such process to overturn electoral college vote totals at a Federal level... as those votes are determined at the state level and would need to be challenged (before safe harbor) in each state. It is not how our constitution works.
You have read our constitution and bill of rights?
how is that for a "simple answer".
Breaking news
A little-known Donald Trump campaign operative delivered lists of false electors to Capitol Hill in a bid to get them to Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 6, 2021, according to two people familiar with the episode.
Mike Roman, then Trump’s 2020 director of Election Day operations, delivered those false elector certificates — signed by pro-Trump activists in Michigan and Wisconsin — to Rep. Mike Kelly’s (R-Pa.) chief of staff at the time, both people told POLITICO. Kelly was a Trump ally in the effort to overturn the 2020 election, and his then-top aide received the documents from Roman before deputizing a colleague to disseminate copies on Capitol Hill, according to both people.
But Trump could challenge all that in all the courts, and take it right up to the Supreme Court.
Why does he not engage in doing that?
Could it be because state Supreme Courts or less state courts have already slapped him down?
...and lesser state courts have already slapped him down?
Any determination of guilt or innocence in a hearing regarding political actions would have to rest on considerations and understandings of what is politically right or wrong.
Nope...
All criminal proceedings are 100% based on our criminal law and have ZERO bearing on whether an action might be considered politically "right or wrong".
To charge someone with a crime...
They need to have BROKEN THE LAW!
They are considered INNOCENT until proven guilty.
That would mean that you must assume his innocence. If he poses a defense that is plausible then that defense must be literally disproven. As McCarthy suggests, Trump legal defense would be that he was making a call to create political pressure (not illegal by any means) and not making a call for violence.
You would have to PROVE that his INTENT would be to call for violence which is not the same thing as calling for political pressure.
As McCarthy suggests...
The committee is actually PROVING Trump's defense.
But Trump could challenge all that in all the courts, and take it right up to the Supreme Court.
No... he cannot challenge anything after the safe harbor dates, Reverend.
In fact, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court (which just ruled in favor of most every Trump argument) - did not take the case at the time because of "time constraints". Even as we now know and understand. Trump was correct on the "merits" of the argument.
I guess I am the teacher and my students previously flunked US Constitution 101.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/15/jan-6-trump-operative-false-electors-00046175
I posted part of this article but it is not here anymore
False electors are illegal
A little-known Donald Trump campaign operative delivered lists of false electors to Capitol Hill in a bid to get them to Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 6, 2021, according to two people familiar with the episode.
Mike Roman, then Trump’s 2020 director of Election Day operations, delivered those false elector certificates — signed by pro-Trump activists in Michigan and Wisconsin — to Rep. Mike Kelly’s (R-Pa.) chief of staff at the time, both people told POLITICO. Kelly was a Trump ally in the effort to overturn the 2020 election, and his then-top aide received the documents from Roman before deputizing a colleague to disseminate copies on Capitol Hill, according to both people.
Roman’s role in the effort to deliver those slates of electors directly to Pence has not previously been reported. The onetime Trump White House researcher and former aide to the conservative Koch network, who was subpoenaed in February by the Jan. 6 select committee, did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.
The origin of the false elector lists, which never got to Pence before he presided over certification of Joe Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, has become an enduring subplot in the select panel’s investigation of the Capitol attack designed to disrupt that day. After the committee revealed the role of a top aide to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) in the episode during a hearing last month, Johnson said the false elector lists came from Kelly — who has repeatedly denied any involvement by his office in their distribution.
The political gaslighting on this has been consistent.
If the courts ruled that a lawsuit could not move forward because safe harbor dates or lack of standing... the liberal press demanded that Trump lost on merit.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court decision is extremely important because it completely 100% debunks that. Had the court been willing to take the case on and expedited fashion, Trump would have won on merits and the Wisconsin legislature would have a tough call to make on certification and possible alternate electors.
But alas.... 4-3 they decided that there simply wasn't enough time. Too late to make a legal judgment that could alter things prior to the safe harbor dates. If you want my opinion... this was something that they knew he would win on but didn't want to create the situation where they were saying that an election was run illegally at a time when it would throw everything into chaos.
They can do it now... because it is moot.
Something you do not seem to quite grasp. You apparently believe that our courts are not actually bound by the constitution?
Funny...
I have answered every one of the Reverends question.
He has answered none of mine!
Why? Because I can answer his questions. In fact, they are quite simple to answer!
He has no answers to mine.
No answers... not a single one! No reasonable logical manner to refute anything I have said and no way to answer my questions without looking foolish!
:-)
Scott the courts can interpret the words in the Constitution in their personal opinion.
It was always uncomfortable but until the last three months, the Three appointed by Trump and one of George W Bush. It got worse
Roman’s involvement, however, clarifies another piece of the puzzle behind Trump’s effort to seize a second term he didn’t win. Trump, relying on a band of fringe attorneys, spent much of December 2020 leaning on Republican state legislatures in a handful of states to ignore the results and deliver pro-Trump electors to Congress.
David Brooks did not think the select committee had made a prosecutable case until the last two hearings:
_______
William Brangham [to Brooks]
[David,] what do you think about that? Do you think that they made that case?
David Brooks:
Yes, and it has been unexpected for me. But I think the…
William Brangham:
Unexpected why?
David Brooks:
I didn't think — well, I didn't think they [i.e., Trump and his advisors] had organized it. I didn't think Trump had organized January 6. I thought it was just like him being his shambolic self.
But there was clearly a lot more planning. We learned even from the Overstock CEO that they had arranged that he was spontaneously going to call for them to go to the — but that was all prearranged.
And then ... the fact that the — a lot of the guys up there were so carefully paying attention to Trump, so carefully saying, we're going to do what he tells us to do, and so fully expected that he would meet them up at the Capitol, that's all a progression.
And then what we heard last — or two weeks ago about the — him wanting to take out the magnetometers, so these armed guys could have access, that's all a very strong evidentiary chain.
_______
Yet another "strong evidentiary chain" of Trump's prosecutable guilt.
Sure Roger....
Uncomfortable for those who do not agree with our constitutional norms and prefer that liberal courts be allowed to legislate issues that they cannot pass through legislative processes...
What exactly did the court do?
1) Overturned a decision that has almost universally been thought to be the most unconstitutional legally warped decision ever to come out of the USSC.
2) Solidified that the Second Amendment means what the Second Amendment means
3) That you cannot fire someone for religious prayer performed on their own time. Pretty much the literal meaning of freedom of religion.
Where did my last post go?
Censored?
What difference does it make, Reverend?
Unless your last post answered my questions....
It was just further proof that you cannot do it!
My guess it was some cut and paste from another "political pundit" pretending to understand the law.
In Response to the Brooks nonsense...
ommittee member Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who partnered with fellow Democrat Stephanie Murphy of Florida in leading the presentation, called attention to Trump’s infamous tweet in the wee hours of the morning on December 19, 2020: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Raskin then pivoted to an Internet message board frequented by right-wing extremists, where immediately after the president’s tweet, one fanatic had written, “Trump just told us all to come armed.”
There it is . . . the call to violent insurrection!
Except, Trump hadn’t said anything about “coming armed.” In fact, in a real hearing, a judge or an adversary would slam Raskin over a stunt like this.
Not only does McCarthy explain why Trump sending a text and people "reacting" to it does not show that Trump was orchestrating or planning violence...
But McCarthy states very clearly that such an argument would be "SLAMMED" by a Judge in an actual criminal case.
Brooks (a self serving liberal who the Times pretended was conservative for years) is another media hack who doesn't know the difference between political rhetoric and a legal argument.
Quite literally the same issues Brooks claims convince him was discounted by McCarthy as inadmissible.
So, after censoring my post about David Brooks, Ch responds to it.
But maybe he will now let you see it for yourself:
Next post.
David Brooks did not think the select committee had established a prosecutable case until the last two hearings:
_________
William Brangham [to Brooks]
[David,] what do you think about that? Do you think that they made that case?
David Brooks:
Yes, and it has been unexpected for me. But I think the…
William Brangham:
Unexpected why?
David Brooks:
I didn't think — well, I didn't think they [i.e., Trump and his advisors] had organized it. I didn't think Trump had organized January 6. I thought it was just like him being his shambolic self.
But there was clearly a lot more planning. We learned even from the Overstock CEO that they had arranged that he was spontaneously going to call for them to go to the — but that was all prearranged.
And then ... the fact that the — a lot of the guys up there were so carefully paying attention to Trump, so carefully saying, we're going to do what he tells us to do, and so fully expected that he would meet them up at the Capitol, that's all a progression.
And then what we heard last — or two weeks ago about him wanting to take out the magnetometers, so these armed guys could have access, that's all a very strong evidentiary chain.
___________
A very strong evidentiary chain establishing beyond all reasonable doubt a knowing attempt on the part of Trump to overthrow an election even with violence.
And the next hearing will establish beyond all reasonable doubt his criminal dereliction of duty while the illegal activities in the Capitol were transpiring.
So, after censoring my post about David Brooks, Ch responds to it.
How could I respond to something I censored, Reverend?
You have become "deeply" paranoid.
He won't censor this one
It looks fishy π
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband purchased up to $5 million in stock options on a computer-chip company ahead of a vote on legislation next week that would deliver billions of dollars in subsidies to boost the chip-manufacturing industry, new financial disclosures show.
Paul Pelosi purchased on June 17, 20,000 shares of Nvidia, a top semiconductor company, worth between $1 million and $5 million, the Daily Caller reported, citing disclosure reports filed by the House speaker.
π π€£πPoll: Trump-Endorsed Harriet Hageman Leads Liz Cheney by 22 Points in Wyoming Primaryππ€£π π
You posted the Brooks story at 3:14 and then again at 3:44
The second time after I already responded to it.
So do I need to respond to it again?
Point out that the exact "evidence" that Brooks cites was declared by McCarthy to be basically "inadmissible" in a criminal trial? Not only inadmissible, but McCarthy describes it as a "stunt" (not evidence) and that trying to introduce it would be "slammed" by a Judge.
You cannot show Trump sending a tweet saying one thing.
And others taking it another way...
as evidence of anything.
Such a correlation would simply not be allowed as evidence.
Neither would the prosecution be allowed to present a "partial" note about how Trump wanted to possibly move to an alternate stage, but wanted it presented that it would be "spontaneous" (not for any nefarious action) but because he didn't want anyone to know there was an alternate stage as it could have been compromised.
The committee left out the entire context of the alternate stage and the reasons why they did not want to bring that up ahead of time... and rather just used the "spontaneous" portion of the note to "imply" something entirely different.
No judge (not even a DC one) would allow a prosecutor to edit a note and leave portions out. But certainly this has been "allowed" in the fake political hearings... and people are falling for it.
My post was not there when I looked for it at 3:19.
David Brooks has one important thing that a lot of Republicans including you are lacking these days:
Genuine intergrity, and a willingness to call things as he sees that they really are.
Scott, interesting from The Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Trump has denied wrongdoing. In reaction to Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony, he posted a message on his Truth Social service that he had never complained about the crowd size at his Ellipse speech.
As recently as March, the Justice Department was seeking additional prosecutors from around the country to work on the Capitol riot investigation for two-year terms, according to a job posting, suggesting officials expect a protracted investigation and court cases.
“The ramping up of resources is usually an indication that prosecutors are casting a broader net,” said Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor. “The House committee hearings have undoubtedly ratcheted up the pressure on federal prosecutors to broaden their own investigation to include the testimony that has emerged.”
Top Justice Department leaders and prosecutors on the case have said they aren’t taking cues from the congressional inquiry and its widely televised hearings, stressing that their investigation is operating separately.
_____
But they wants transcripts..
No answers... not a single one! No reasonable logical manner to refute anything I have said and no way to answer my questions without looking foolish!
Ding… ding….ding….
I’ve said the pedo is incapable of independent logical thought. He was taught the Bible, rote learning at its finest
He’s just not bright
As recently as March, the Justice Department was seeking additional prosecutors from around the country to work on the Capitol riot investigation for two-year terms, according to a job posting, suggesting officials expect a protracted investigation and court cases.
All this...
And according to the most recent polling, the public would support a blanket "pardon" for everyone charged with a non-violent crime in the Jan 6th protests.
No violence... and the country wants Pardons.
Democrats are expanding their net to try to find more non-violent people to charge... you know like the grandma sentenced to jail time for just "parading".
McCarthy said:
"The seventh hearing spent a considerable amount of time on actions not taken by Trump..."
_________
Such as?
Not getting voting machines seized by the federal goverment?
Not succeeding in getting the magnetometers shut off as he ordered them to be?
Not getting illegally armed hearers among the crowd on the Ellipse that he was about to send marching to the Capitol to "fight like hell" to stop the vote count?
Not getting to go with the crowd to the Capitol, as he wanted?
Not getting Mike Pence deservedly killed for his act of disloyalty?
Not succeeding in getting the electoral vote count stopped as he wanted and replaced by the fake electoral votes he wanted?
Yeah, there were quite a few actions he desired that he was unable to make.
I just got censored again by the coward Ch.
How can you censor someone and then look at yourself in the mirror. THAT IS ONE THING I WOULD NEVER, NEVER, NEVER DO!
I JUST GOT CENSORED AGAIN BY CH.
HE CUT OUT MY ANSWER TO MCCARTHY.
HOW CAN YOU CENSOR SOMEONE AND THEN LOOK AT YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR, CH.
THAT IS ONE THING I WOULD NEVER, NEVER, NEVER DO!
Restore my answers to McCarthy's nonsense, Ch. You have it still.
McCarthy said:
"The seventh hearing spent a considerable amount of time on actions not taken by Trump..."
Once again the Reverend doesn't understand the point...
In a criminal trial, these things would be inadmissible as evidence of anything whatsoever.
It's like the Reverend doesn't understand how much of the nonsense that is being presented in these hearings could not be presented in an actual trial.
If I am so lacking in understanding, why don't you demonstrate that by restoring the entire post in which, after quoting McCarthy, I castigated him.
Or are you just too cowardly to do that?
If I am so lacking in understanding, why don't you demonstrate that by restoring the entire post in which, after quoting McCarthy, I castigated him.
Or are you just too cowardly to do that?
You mean the 4:33 comment that is in the thread?
The one where you made up a bunch of stuff that never happened?
That was not a response to McCarthy.
A "response" to McCarthy...
Would be the legal reason why you believe he is wrong about what would and would not be admissible or make an actual "legal" argument.
But then again...
That would mean that you actually "understood" what McCarthy is saying.
I simply do not believe you are capable.
Too much TDS on your brain.
4:33
Oh, thank you for putting it back in at last.
4:33 was indeed not a technical response to McCarthy. It was making fun of him.
But a number of the things mentioned there sure would be interesting to a Court of any degree.
Ch also deleted the post where I replied to his "You mean the 4:33 post that is in the thread...."
by saying, 4:33 was not there when I looked and complained at 4:37.
That comment too got deleted/censored.
Post a Comment