The January 6 Committee pre-game show: 187 minutes of inaction

No, one man did not change this country irrevocably. 1/6 did not change this country irrevocably. You wanna know what did? Lazy bastards who are moochers over the government being elected to office! That's what changed our country. The contempt Congress actually has for the Republic increases more and more and this dog and pony show is the latest example of such.

These political hacks are exactly what our framers warned of. These leeches do not know the meaning of the word public service, have no intention of public service and are not capable of ever serving the Republic. The more of them that can be voted out during each and every election cycle, the better.

I don't trust the AG as far as I can throw him, but even he's repeated the mantra that their investigations are private, and as such if this committee truly had valor there wouldn't be a public spectacle, but a private report. As to the idea of convincing the public, prosecutors love to get in front of the cameras after trial proceedings. People will get all of the juicy info in time.

 

No - he told them to keep calm; he only told them to go home at 4:17. I remember at the time being incredulous that he seemed to be endorsing the rioters presence in the Capitol. But, beyond my personal recollection, you would have huge pushback if the 1/6 committee was misrepresenting the tweet timeline. Every tweet that day was big news. There's zero chance of suppressing an exculpatory tweet.

 

He's delusional. And he's posted this insane drivel numerous times.

 

Hope you took that same attitude with George Floyd and add every other high profile incident of a criminal getting lawfully shot by police. Nah, just raaaaaaaaciiiissssssmmmmm!!!

 

Thing is, an organic recollection of the tweets is not really possible(thank you twitter) so as far as piecing together the timetable independently without a political bias one way or the other is next to impossible. One of the many reasons why if a crime was committed, it should no longer be in the committee hands, but exclusively with the DOJ.

 

Look, there was huge interest in Trump's tweets that day. They were memorialised at the time in various news publications. So are you seriously trying to suggest Trump might have told people to go home earlier than 4.17?

 

Possibly, it's one of the many things that would be deliberated in a criminal trial if we were to ever get there. You should perceive this so called commission as an obstacle to getting there, for so many reasons but among them is diluting the jury pool(with the publicly hashed out evidence) to say the least of the problems with not cooperating with the DOJ.

It's amazing, they want Trump to go to jail but they keep stumbling on their own way meanwhile they can't even perform the basics of their job description.

 

Wow, even despite all of the denial over what happened on 1/6, I never imagined anyone would dispute something as obvious as this. All of the texts from Fox news presenters telling Meadows to get Trump to ask people to leave.... the testimony of different staffers urging the same.... Weren't you watching that day?

 

Then why did he lie and say he called them to action?

 

To reiterate: This is why we don't do trials in public. There's much evidence to be uncovered, normally in a process called 'discovery' and various motions to lay out the case which would be deliberated between a defense attorney and a prosecutor. Ours is an adversarial system, and right now there is no adversary.

Piecing together a conclusive timeline would take an exhaustive investigation of detectives, computer experts, etc. Not these hacks on the committee with too much free time on their hands not to govern. There's a way forward, you know it and I know it. And everyone should be demanding it: This committee needs to send its referral and report to the DOJ and then mercifully and thankfully disbanding.

 

I am not responsible for what Trump says.

 

Quite right. You aren't. But you aren't negating that he lied.

 

America is far better for that hero cop taking out that traitor Babbitt.

Thank you officer.

 

You were disputing whether Trump might have tweeted earlier than 4.17 for people to go home. That's a pretty absurd claim, given all the evidence to the contrary. Quite apart from the lack of pushback, which would obviously happen if your suggestion was right, and the voluminous testimony to the contrary, here are some contemporary articles, all agreeing on the tweet timeline.

https://eu.usatoday.com/in-depth/ne...electoral-college-stolen-election/6568305002/
https://thewire.in/world/washington-usa-capitol-hill-donald-trump-pence
https://www.newsweek.com/jan-6-capi...rst-tweet-speech-bidens-certification-1665436

 

The hearing revealed that he was actually pretty busy. Juggling his time between coordinating the coup with insurrectionist lawmakers, and giving instructions to the mob that had assaulted the Capitol. While his staff was busy trying to avoid this from being recorded by the WH photographer, and purging phone logs.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-8-187-minutes-of-not-really-inaction.602024/

 

Well, let me raise one simple point for you that absolutely will be litigated. There's way too much focus on the 'go home' aspect. What a defense will do, is it will raise Trump's tweet of staying peaceful as an objection to any notion that he neglected his duty. They would also say that staying peaceful is the same thing as going home at this point or even not entering the capital at all.

What people don't understand and what is indeed absurd is that you may believe you're getting 'all of the facts' from the committee but like I said: Ours is an adversarial system. When Democrats complain that Garland isn't interested in the farce, he's not because that's not how the system works.

Garland wants the House's information without the house's fanfare. That's what you should want too, if you're as passionate about this as you believe you are.

 

To the first of the bolded sentences - yes, I'm sure that would be argued, though it could certainly be disputed. The second sentence though - IMO no reasonable person is going to accept that argument, given the context in which Trump made his statements and the testimony of many witnesses that he was resistant to telling the rioters to leave.

I've written here several times that the committee has made missteps and shows some signs of bias. I completely agree that the information is the crucial thing. That's why I pay no attention to what Kinzinger or anyone else on the committee says - I'm only interested in the documentary evidence and the witnesses.

 

Prove it.... Deflection...you seem to think your links back to yourself are bullet proof.. but they don't prove anything at all... Please tell us where Trump was at and what was he doing.. not what YOU think he was doing.

 

I TOLD you to watch the hearings! It's what the OP is about!

If you didn't, it would be a waste of time debating any of this with you.

Thanks for playing!

 

It could be cleared up if we could only see the video on Byrd's side of the doors... But the "transparency" seems to stop there as Pelosi will not release them...

Please humor me..... Show me were "Other traitors" actually stated that Ashli Babbitt could see through a door, piles of chair, desks, splayed window on the other side and see a man crouched in hiding on the opposite side of a twenty foot hallway..

Oh.... and look at the little weasel antifa guy right in the middle of it all... taking pictures...
John Sullivan....

 

They have not proved it and you have not proved it... just cheap talk.... No one can pull something that never happened from a hearing... but maybe, maybe... oh never mind, cause you can't, show us where Trump was at and what he was doing... Heck the best you could do is Stephanie Grisham's book selling testimony... but it could very well be that she was coerced in what to say.... if Cassidy can make up stories and get away with it, Stephanie Grisham has shown she could do it also.... with no accountability... it is just money in the bank for Stephanie to tell a tale...

 

To show the other events and conversations and efforts of all concerned surrounding his inaction, and their attempts to get him to act. There was quite a bit to show in order to reveal the full context and gravity of his epic dereliction of duty and violation of his oath of office.

But, if you had watched, you'd know that and not have asked a stupid question

20,000,000 viewers across all networks and platforms, isn't bad, I'd say.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/business/media/jan-6-hearing-ratings.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/media/january-6-hearings-reliable-sources/index.html

 

Yep the committee is indeed none of those things. It's Democrats looking at their dwindling chances this coming November and deploying the the ever famous, oh look a squirrel" card. And that's the charitable version.

 

Your hope’s were dashed. Lol.

I thought the most interesting fact was Trump wasn’t inactive during the 187 minutes but rather was active leveraging the violence by calling his accomplices to hold up the proceeding. There was a plan and he was sticking to it.

What did the leadership of the Republican Party know and when did they know it ( this includes Cheney)? How much did they know about the planning. Remember Cheney confronted Jim Jordan on the floor during the attack, “You did this.” Leadership had to have some knowledge about the meetings members of its caucus were holding.

Hopefully more will come out in September about the roles Representatives and Senators played.

 

Sure, and these Antifa left the Capitol as soon as Trump told his goons to go home.