January 6th Hearing-Adjacent Discussion Thread

Politics & Elections
261

Oh, I do understand this. But polling shows progress, and sometimes knowing this gives people hope for the future. No question, we remain in dire peril and the pedal must remain firmly glued to the metal all the way through November 8th. Every Dem must do their part!

Please let me just say, Democrats and their leadership are not nearly as stupid as Republicans and their propaganda outlets would like everyone to believe. The whole January 6th Committee hearing/DOJ investigations are playing out almost exactly as I anticipated they would. Committee first; DOJ close behind, sweeping up the muck.

Biden is no dummy. He has probably had this “last minute” big Inflation Reduction Act deal in his back pocket for quite some time, knowing it will add rocket fuel to the mid-term election enthusiasm for Dems.

I’ll make one last prediction: Sometime between September 1st and October 31st, we’ll see some action on student debt relief by either this Congress or this Administration.

262

I admit to being confused about the extent of executive privilege when dealing with folks like the vice presidents chief of staff (Short) and counsel (Jacob).

I can certainly understand the concept of executive privilege; the vice president needs to have frank and open conversations with his closest aides, and this privilege is invoked when revealing information would impair governmental functions.

What we’re dealing with here though, is an investigation into whether or not the President himself was instrumental in creating, fomenting and directing an insurrection which included the potential execution of his own vice president. I really cannot understand how executive privilege can be invoked in this case.

How can testifying about exactly what Trump was doing and saying about the insurrection just prior to it happening, and testifying exactly what Trump’s plans were for Pence have ANYTHING WHATSOVER to do with government functions. They’re investigating an INSURRECTION FOR GOD’S SAKE. Executive privilege does not (IMO) serve to protect the president from committing crimes such as conspiring to hang the Vice President.

263

I’m with you. There needs to be a distinction between President Trump and Candidate Trump. Candidate Trump does not have the same privileges as President Trump.

264

And I don’t see how anyone can claim “sorry, executive privilege forbids me from discussing any crimes I witnessed taking place, even criminal conspiracies to overthrow the government “

265

And honestly, even if there was some legal contrivance that made it impossible to use such testimony in a court of law, what kind of jackass sees the president committing crimes, and then decides to just never, ever say anything about it, anywhere? Like, in an impeachment, or even just in public. Get the info that “President Criminal was committing crimes” out there, so at least people know what was really going on.

And when ex-President Criminal complains that you violated privilege, just go, “Ooops, my bad, notakebacks!”

266

And not just any crimes.

If he stole some stationary or secretly facilitated the sale of arms to the Islamic Republic of Iran , and used the proceeds of the arms sale to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, well sure that’s no big deal.

But this was the crime of trying to prevent the peaceful transition of power by facilitating and encouraging a mob to prevent Congress from doing it’s lawful duty of certifying the election. It’s sort of a big deal when you try to subvert democracy, isn’t it?

267

Former Chief of Staff Mickey Mulvaney testified before the committee yesterday. A few interesting notes:

He mentions that he could have invoked executive privilege if he wanted to, then later admits that the committee educated him on the point that the current president has control, and presented a letter specifically waiving it.

Special envoy to Northern Ireland as his treat for being a good boy? Interesting position. Vacant from 2011 to 2014, and 2017 to 2020. Seems like a placeholder position for favors. No mention that he resigned the position after the insurrection.

He said that there was nobody there asking questions to make TFG look good? Just a bunch of truth seekers, how rude! And since there was no one there from the “opposite political spectrum” the committee is politically biased. What a tool.

(To be fair, he does eventually say he thought the questions were fair, and he agrees with getting to the truth of what happen. Lucky for him he’s on the outside.)

I am happy to hear him agree that lying to congress is still a crime (regardless of what Gohmert thinks).

He was the head of “Catholics for Trump” during the insurrection. I’m not religious, so, an honest question, how do the Christion Nationalists view this?

They asked him about the process for screening visitors to the white house . Translation, how the hell did Team Batshit Crazy get in? Good question. Too bad the visitor logs were abandoned at the beginning of the administration. Another change the committee hopefully invokes when this is done.

“…the committee, which I assume has some basis in law…” just. wow.

“…yes I was involved with the campaign, but I was not involved in the planning of the riots…”
And there it is! Thank you Mickey! Now can you tell us who WAS involved in the planning of the riots?
(he did correct himself and say rally, but it sure seemed to be an honest slip of the tongue)

268

It sure used to be – back before they started making America great again.

Just read an article that touched on a Catholic view of Nationalism this morning:

And to be fair, Gohmert was pissed about not being able to lie to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not Congress (of which he is a member).

269

Matthew 22:21 (in part):

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

I’ve always taken that to mean that a secular authority is just fine. Jesus was specifically saying that paying taxes is allowed, but to a larger extent it means people run the government, not God. Given that, I never got the idea of wanting the US (or any other nation) to be a Christian theocracy.

It seems the Pope is on board with that too, good for him.

270

Thanks for the link, interesting.

As for Gohmert, The article I linked shows he said this:

“can’t even lie to Congress or lie to an FBI agent or they’re coming after you.”

Was he misquoted? Anyway, still not the best representative of the people, that one.

271

Of the species, no.

272

I am sure the quote was right. One day while I was futzing around the house doing other stuff I saw the clip about six or seven times. Each time the cable news host pointed out the FBI angle and that another Republican was being charged with lying to the FBI (or already had been previously). If the lying to congress part was included in the clip, which I am sure it was, it went over my head. I was thinking of Michael Flynn each time I heard it or saw it and each time I wondered why Republicans never learn their lessons.

I did not read the article you had linked, but I did remember hearing him say “… even lie to the FBI i this political environment…” or close to it. I made a drive-by comment which I always regret because at most I was half right (and clearly at least half wrong!). I do apologize for the flippant remark. The good news is that between us we did get both entities politicians are not allowed to lie to at this time.

I do recall there was definitive implication that Gohmert believed that used to be okay at some time in the past – presumably when Trump was in office Again sorry for the misinformation…

273

No apologies needed, just wanted to make sure I got it right, that a current member of congress (Gohmert) is upset that he can’t lie to his collogues (worse, the FBI) without being persecuted.

How people continue to vote for these morally bankrupt animals is disappointing, but unfortunately, not surprising.

274

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Temporary_Name carries his soapbox to the public square once again, to hit that same note once (or twice) again - - - -

Each Hearing should have its own thread – but they should ALL have a similar TITLE format so if they were stacked they would read something like:

January 6th Follow along thread S2-E1 (Date);
January 6th Follow along thread S2-E2 (Date);
January 6th Follow along thread S2-E3 (Date);
(Etc. if needed)

Only after the thread has been open for at least four or five hours (once the proceedings have closed and a full hour for comments has passed), posters may be allowed to suggest a subtitle to follow the semicolon. The subtitle may be humorous or serious but must describe the content or purpose of that particular hearing. For example if I offered the following potential subtitles for past hearings, I am sure everyone would know which hearing it was referring to-
The DOJ one
The State Officials
The men in the Rotunda
Cassidy Hutchinson (Alternatively: The Brave Staffer, a view from inside, ketchup and lunging in D.C.)
Judicial review
Other Staffers Testify
The Thin Blue Line

I further suggest that Aspenglow and ThelmaLou confer privately and have the final say on what the subtitle is. The original thread was ThelmaLou’s, and we need the moderator to amend the title after the fact anyway. Beyond that, I trust the two of them to apply the right dynamic and sense of decorum to the matter as well or better than anyone else. Plus they will have the benefit of everyone’s input, of our suggestions before they reach a final decision.

I have been sitting on this for a little while now, and meant to wait until nearly September to post it. However, to give everyone a chance to consider the idea once again – to contemplate it, mull it over, ponder it at the deepest levels . . . I thought stating the idea again now was not such a horrible idea. In addition, once the Committee has published a date for the next hearing - - I would be very grateful if someone else would quote this dog (or even better, make their own impassioned plea for a similar solution!!!) and get it before the eyes of the teeming millions once more before Season Two of the Hearings officially starts. Or if anyone has a contrary view, I would like to hear that view as well.
Thank you for your time and attention. (Again)

An afterthought- If the Committee announces that there will only be one more Official Hearing, in that case this whole idea is moot and the existing thread will be sufficient for additional comments. I am presuming that with all the additional information they are reported to be gathering - well, that it was going to be far from a final catch-all Hearing.

275

Well his view seems to be that being prosecuted (for committing a felony) is persecution!(**)

Here is the clip I was talking about:

I had seen the part where Gohmert talks into the camera several times (or at least heard it if my back was turned at that moment). I believe sometimes it ran a bit longer and sometimes a bit shorter. Because this particular one Is Stephanie Ruhle, the horse has been flogged quite a bit (her show is the last broadcast of the East Coast day) Her panel seems flabbergasted by his comments (as we all are!) – but HE seems flabbergasted that those poor Republicans cannot exert special privileges while under oath.

That might be a distinction worth making. Congressmen and congresswomen CAN lie to each other in the hallways, but when they are under oath- not so much! I would further expect any American, especially a member of the Federal Congress to know that lying to law enforcement while being questioned . . . is a punishable offense.

Here is a clip (actually the same clip) of him discussing the matter with far right “news source” Newsmax. I believe that is where the footage originated.

I am with you on contempt for these “servants of the people”, awful, awful human beings and almost always so hypocritical! But the other tribe just love them and raise their kids to love them.

I have to admit that I love to watch the clip because it is So mockably insane, unhinged?? Not quite, I will go with profoundly stupid.

(**) The level of privilege these Republican expect reminds me of the religious right who want to strike down and outlaw Sharia Law, but are eager to have Christian prayer and the Ten Commandments in every public school and governmental office. Wonder how they would feel about school prayer if every prayer were addressed to Vishnu or Allah?

276

I don’t care one way or the other. I don’t feel that I own the thread.

277

Even still, your remarks as always, are appreciated.

278

Moderating:

After discussion in the mod loop, we’ve decided that the easiest way to moderate these hearings is to leave all hearings in one continuous thread, with notations at the beginning of each post where a new hearing begins as we have been doing.

The thread, together with this adjacent discussion thread, will be opened and closed as determined by P&E moderators deem appropriate. Thanks.

279

Special Guest Star: Alex Jones’ cell phone texts!

… cross posting from the Schadenfreude thread…

Gonna post this to two threads where this will be HIGHLY relevant:

Ben Collins of NBC is live-reporting that Alex Jones’ lawyers, 12 days ago, sent Alex Jones’ opposing lawyers an image of every text Alex made in a period of time covering years.

They are being played right now. Alex Jones himself called it a legitimate “Perry Mason” moment. :joy:

This also has potential J6 implications as well…

280

Tell me more! What’s Jones’ connection to any of the J6 players?