The panda is an art piece by Robert Pruitt, as featured in the Fifty Shades of Grey movie. The bat is evidently by artist Sebastian ErraZuriz.
Room Rater, a Twitter account that investigates and rates Zoom backgrounds, is baffled by the metal pieces.
Let me guess: You used to love to play Hunt the Wumpus or Adventure. I sure did!
Someone on that Twitter figured it out, they are pieces from an artist, Tal Frank.
Thanks for the answers!
(already answered)
You have no evidence that they aren’t. In fact, there is good evidence that they already have and continue to.
Here’s why the DOJ needs the Committee’s transcripts before finalizing the charges they intend to bring, from the article:
It is “critical that the Department be able to evaluate the credibility of witnesses who have provided statements to the multiple governmental entities in assessing the strength of any potential criminal prosecutions,” they wrote, adding that failure to grant the DOJ access to these transcripts would complicate its ability to investigate and prosecute rioters.
(Emphasis mine.)
You seem to think the prosecutors should be walking around in sandwich boards that say, “We’ve interviewed Enrique Tarrio!! We’ve interviewed Stewart Rhodes!!” That’s just not how it works, and it never, ever has.
What an odd mix of art. Which now begs the question - did he position those three art pieces behind him for this deposition, or is that the standard decor in his room? What other random art is in the rest of the room that we can’t see?
Dammit Ann, I hadn’t noticed the background until you brought it up, and now I’m going to be lying awake at night.
I too definitely noticed the “Justice” baseball bat. It was shown at one of the prior hearings too (the June 14 one I think). I thought the poster with the black splotches looked like a Rorschach test.
Seriously? It bothers me every time the guy’s clip is shown, and it is shown a lot! I think he was sitting in his bathroom for his interview.
I try to always remember that these people, before they decided to avoid criminal prosecution for seditious conspiracy, were considered “the very best people!” by Trump. They only peeled off at the very end.
What motivates these knuckleheads to put themselves in legal jeopardy for the Donald’s sake? Are his policies (if he had any) great for them personally? Would they lose that much if a Democrat won? To quote the Don himself when he visited Arlington: I don’t get it- what was in it for them?
I thought it was a towel bar above a sink or a tub and was going to ask you guys if you thought he was in a bathroom or a kitchen.
If you missed it, here’s a pic:
Google “Eric Herschmann art” to find more similar.
Seen on Twitter:
(Includes a side-by-side pic with the poster for Shades, I assume that is.)
Not to mention it’s a great check for perjury charges.
I still hold to the theory that when people realize that they’re complicit in something horrible, a lot of them will choose to try and justify it, doubling down on the evil, rather than divorce themselves and try to make restitution.
Exactly.
Suppose the DOJ has offered immunity to a perpetrator in exchange for their testimony in order to squeeze someone else further up the ladder. Then they get a transcript from the Committee that shows this person lied his ass off to the prosecutor. If they don’t check the transcripts against each other but they’ve already locked in the immunity deal, then they’re fucked.
Or, as is well-noted when working with Trump in particular, once you’ve become a little bit complicit in skullduggery, you’ve got some decision-making to do: How much deeper should I dig in the scheme in the hope of pulling it off and getting away with it, versus when should I bail out and quit digging.
Trump seemed to be a Master at luring his associates into ever-deeper circles of Hell. They should have heeded the warning above the very entrance gate!
I’ve never complained about their lack of diligence in aggressively prosecuting people like Rhodes and Tarrio. They’ve done a very good job of pretending that those groups are the only people responsible for the violence.
I haven’t seen any indication that they’ve interviewed Eastman, Clark, Meadows, Bannon, Navarro, Stone etc - and those guys should’ve been the low-hanging fruit. I know the DOJ would not announce these interviews in a billboard, but their subjects certainly would. No way they interviewed those guys without anyone, everyone knowing.
And the FBI’s indifference is even more baffling.
I’ll throw this out here just for reference:
Next episode scheduled for Tuesday June 21 at 1:00 p.m. (Eastern), 10:00 a.m. PDT.
I tried to explain this to you before.
They don’t likely need interviews from any of those people.
What are any of them going to say, except, “Lawyer. Lawyer. Lawyer.”? There is virtually nothing to be gained by interviewing them.
How many times have you seen the FBI simply go out and arrest someone, because they already have sufficient evidence to prosecute?
You’re hanging your hat on that the only way you can know if a prosecution is in the works is if the DOJ interviews someone. Generally, they do interview subjects. But they don’t usually interview targets.
I encourage you to attach less importance to seeing evidence of interviews, and remember how Paul Manafort found out he was going to be indicted.
I’m more of a mystery/thriller reader. Soooo many books also shows and movies.
On the odd decor, it looks like one silver thing is the back of the hair and one is the front of the hair. I like pandas, so the poster I found nice (did not see 50 shades), the justice bat… meh, should be a hammer.
I remember that Manafort was arrested less than 6 months after the start of the Mueller investigation.
And I was thinking about the “interviews aren’t that important” thing this afternoon when the news broke that the DOJ desperately wanted the video’s and transcripts of the Committee’s interviews.
Again, I have no ego in this fight, I really WANT you to be right. But I’m a cynic by nature, and I’ve been watching Trump maneuver and intimidate his way out of legal consequences for years. My opinion is not an outlier, I’ve seen my view echoed in plenty of mainstream op-eds. Your opinion isn’t an outlier either, and I’ve seen your view in plenty of mainstream op-eds.
I’m perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree andI hope you’re right, but I fear you’re not.