*****Official Jan 6th Committee Hearing Thread*****

150,441 Views | 2038 Replies | Last: 6 mo ago by Funky Winkerbean
Aggies2009
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aginlakeway said:

So when will the prosecution of Trump being?

They've got him this time!

Really!

For real! They got him!

We've said this before, but this time is different!

I know I said THAT before too, but this time it's REALLY different!

Just you wait!
RAB91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Phatbob
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:

Phatbob said:

Carolin_Gallego said:

Bunk Moreland said:

BuddysBud said:

aginlakeway said:

larry culpepper said:

Gigem314 said:

larry culpepper said:

Gigem314 said:

GMaster0 said:

Trump throwing food against the wall in a rage, crazy.
He threw food! This changes everything!

Hard hitting evidence the committee is providing here. This time they really got him!
focusing on the least important part of today's hearings is certainly one way to downplay everything.
As opposed to pretending like they've had more than enough evidence to convict Trump of various crimes for years but can't do anything just yet...until at least after the next commercial break...
they can and should prosecute him. i'm irritated it's taking this long.

I understand you liked Trump and his policies but I think you just need to come to terms with the fact that he's a complete ****ing lunatic.

They why aren't they prosecuting him?



They prefer to persecute him. It gets better ratings.

It's all a show trial and it's completely 1-sided. I would attempt to have an open mind if they actually released to the public all the info from the depositions, etc and didn't so heavily edit the videos of him speaking etc.

Trump acted like an absolute buffoon on the days leading up to and including J6. Regardless of what he thought with the results of the election he came across as irrational and childish, and ultimately proved he lacks what it takes to be a good President by the continued poor choices
in who he chose to hire/believe/coordinate with in people like Powell, Rudy, Lin Wood etc.

That said, this is still just a ridiculous show trial worthy of maybe 5 minutes a day to check in on just to get a laugh in at Liz Cheney. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • President Trump engaged in a massive effort to knowingly spread false and fraudulent information to the American public claiming the 2020 election was stolen from him after his staff investigated the claims and had consistently told him his assertions were false.
  • President Trump then corruptly planned to replace the Acting Attorney General, so that the Department of Justice would support his fake election claims.
  • President Trump then corruptly pressured Vice President Pence to refuse to count certified electoral votes in violation of the US Constitution and the law, and that his lawyer, Eastman, admitted were illegal.
  • President Trump then corruptly pressured state election officials, and state legislators, to change election results.
  • President Trump then instructed his legal team and other Trump associates to have Republicans create false electoral slates and transmit those slates to Congress and the National Archives.
  • President Trump then summoned and assembled a mob in Washington and directed them to march on the US Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power, knowing they were armed (see today's testimony).
  • As the violence was underway, President Trump not only ignored multiple pleas for assistance, and failed to take immediate action to stop the violence, and failed instruct his supporters to leave the Capitol, but he targeted the U.S. Vice President.


LOL, you phrased things to sound as bad as you could possibly phrase it, and still nothing in there would last a half hour in court. There is NOTHING THERE. Trump is not likeable, but also STOP OBSESSING OVER HIM. There was nothing illegal in any of those things, even though you spin it as badly as it can sound.
Trump's own lawyer admitted that their actions were illegal (as seen in Greg Jacob's testimony).

You know there is a difference between legal strategy about procedures and "illegal", right? Those 2 aren't the same thing? Also, you assertions include a lot of "Trump planned to do this corrupt thing, very corruptly" ... it's ridiculous
Bunk Moreland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rockdoc said:

Bunk Moreland said:

Believe what? That he grabbed at a steering wheel? I don't care whether he did or didn't. It makes no difference as to anything in this show trial.

You said it added more credibility to her claim. Read your own post. There's no credibility there.

If he was in the back seat of a SUV vs in the way back of his limo, then he's physically closer to the steering wheel and would actually make sense that he could be in arm's reach or close to it.

If he was in the back of his limo that would make zero sense.
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bunk Moreland said:

Rockdoc said:

Bunk Moreland said:

Believe what? That he grabbed at a steering wheel? I don't care whether he did or didn't. It makes no difference as to anything in this show trial.

You said it added more credibility to her claim. Read your own post. There's no credibility there.

If he was in the back seat of a SUV vs in the way back of his limo, then he's physically closer to the steering wheel and would actually make sense that he could be in arm's reach or close to it.

If he was in the back of his limo that would make zero sense.

My point is, you just want to believe he did it. Not difficult.
RAB91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bunk Moreland said:

Rockdoc said:

Bunk Moreland said:

Believe what? That he grabbed at a steering wheel? I don't care whether he did or didn't. It makes no difference as to anything in this show trial.

You said it added more credibility to her claim. Read your own post. There's no credibility there.

If he was in the back seat of a SUV vs in the way back of his limo, then he's physically closer to the steering wheel and would actually make sense that he could be in arm's reach or close to it.

If he was in the back of his limo that would make zero sense.
What part of she said he was in the Beast don't you understand? That's not a small detail to get wrong (lie about).
etxag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggies2009 said:

aginlakeway said:

So when will the prosecution of Trump being?

They've got him this time!

Really!

For real! They got him!

We've said this before, but this time is different!

I know I said THAT before too, but this time it's REALLY different!

Just you wait!
Oh man this feels like 2012-2017.



Gigem314
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
larry culpepper said:

Gigem314 said:

Rockdoc said:

Tramp96 said:

larry culpepper said:

Gigem314 said:

larry culpepper said:

Gigem314 said:

GMaster0 said:

Trump throwing food against the wall in a rage, crazy.
He threw food! This changes everything!

Hard hitting evidence the committee is providing here. This time they really got him!
focusing on the least important part of today's hearings is certainly one way to downplay everything.
As opposed to pretending like they've had more than enough evidence to convict Trump of various crimes for years but can't do anything just yet...until at least after the next commercial break...
they can and should prosecute him. i'm irritated it's taking this long.

I understand you liked Trump and his policies but I think you just need to come to terms with the fact that he's a complete ****ing lunatic.

Prosecute him for what, exactly?

Poor Larry is gonna be disappointed when he realizes this is like an HBO special.
But wait...there's more! Season 2 is coming! Make sure you renew your subscription!
whatever copium you need to act like any of this **** is normal or acceptable
Just having a few laughs to keep it light-hearted. Why does it keep offending you?

Surely we could all at least agree that DC is a circus and both sides love to be in front of a mic.
Gigem314
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggies2009 said:

aginlakeway said:

So when will the prosecution of Trump being?

They've got him this time!

Really!

For real! They got him!

We've said this before, but this time is different!

I know I said THAT before too, but this time it's REALLY different!

Just you wait!
Walls are closing in...
Bunk Moreland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RAB91 said:

Bunk Moreland said:

Rockdoc said:

Bunk Moreland said:

Believe what? That he grabbed at a steering wheel? I don't care whether he did or didn't. It makes no difference as to anything in this show trial.

You said it added more credibility to her claim. Read your own post. There's no credibility there.

If he was in the back seat of a SUV vs in the way back of his limo, then he's physically closer to the steering wheel and would actually make sense that he could be in arm's reach or close to it.

If he was in the back of his limo that would make zero sense.
What part of she said he was in the Beast don't you understand? That's not a small detail to get wrong (lie about).

Read my original post:

Quote:

I didn't see the testimony...did she specifically say they were in the limo, or was that just speculated on by the Twitterati that was gleefully watching?

RAB91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bunk Moreland said:

RAB91 said:

Bunk Moreland said:

Rockdoc said:

Bunk Moreland said:

Believe what? That he grabbed at a steering wheel? I don't care whether he did or didn't. It makes no difference as to anything in this show trial.

You said it added more credibility to her claim. Read your own post. There's no credibility there.

If he was in the back seat of a SUV vs in the way back of his limo, then he's physically closer to the steering wheel and would actually make sense that he could be in arm's reach or close to it.

If he was in the back of his limo that would make zero sense.
What part of she said he was in the Beast don't you understand? That's not a small detail to get wrong (lie about).

Read my original post:

Quote:

I didn't see the testimony...did she specifically say they were in the limo, or was that just speculated on by the Twitterati that was gleefully watching?


And read the posts after yours that showed you what she said.
Bunk Moreland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I saw that. My initial post was just asking for the clarification, which you provided.

After that I was only discussing the semantics of why being in a SUV or the limo would matter because apparently "i want to believe" something something Trump bad.

CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
larry culpepper said:

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

larry culpepper said:

Gigem314 said:

larry culpepper said:

Gigem314 said:

GMaster0 said:

Trump throwing food against the wall in a rage, crazy.
He threw food! This changes everything!

Hard hitting evidence the committee is providing here. This time they really got him!
focusing on the least important part of today's hearings is certainly one way to downplay everything.
As opposed to pretending like they've had more than enough evidence to convict Trump of various crimes for years but can't do anything just yet...until at least after the next commercial break...
they can and should prosecute him. i'm irritated it's taking this long.

I understand you liked Trump and his policies but I think you just need to come to terms with the fact that he's a complete ****ing lunatic.

funny meme. whatever copium you need to make yourself better for supporting, and continuing to support, a completely deranged lunatic with no respect for the laws of the United States.
Hillary?
annie88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So even if they did, just shows they were responsible gun owners, right? Kinda defeats the committee's purpose

I mean no-one was shot except Ashly Babbitt.

Currently a happy listless vessel and deplorable. #FDEMS TRUMP 2024.
Fight Fight Fight.
annie88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Amazing al the time and money they are wasting on this BS.

We all know what they're going to say happened regardless of what is said.

Just a lot of lies, says, rumors and worthless information.

"was told"
"heard from"

Just pure bs.
Currently a happy listless vessel and deplorable. #FDEMS TRUMP 2024.
Fight Fight Fight.
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FriscoKid said:

larry culpepper said:

Gigem314 said:

Rockdoc said:

Tramp96 said:

larry culpepper said:

Gigem314 said:

larry culpepper said:

Gigem314 said:

GMaster0 said:

Trump throwing food against the wall in a rage, crazy.
He threw food! This changes everything!

Hard hitting evidence the committee is providing here. This time they really got him!
focusing on the least important part of today's hearings is certainly one way to downplay everything.
As opposed to pretending like they've had more than enough evidence to convict Trump of various crimes for years but can't do anything just yet...until at least after the next commercial break...
they can and should prosecute him. i'm irritated it's taking this long.

I understand you liked Trump and his policies but I think you just need to come to terms with the fact that he's a complete ****ing lunatic.

Prosecute him for what, exactly?

Poor Larry is gonna be disappointed when he realizes this is like an HBO special.
But wait...there's more! Season 2 is coming! Make sure you renew your subscription!
whatever copium you need to act like any of this **** is normal or acceptable
It's not normal. It's never happened before. The House has never had a committee hearing where the minority party didn't get to appoint their own members. We've also never hada trial where the defense wasn't allowed to present evidence or question the witnesses.

You should feel bad that you believe this is anything close to the truth or what actually happened on Jan 6th. Stop with the pearl clutching. You are watching a production with very limited truths.


The funniest thing about all of this is that larry claims to be a lawyer. Makes his posts that much more laughable.
Tramp96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
annie88 said:

So even if they did, just shows they were responsible gun owners, right? Kinda defeats the committee's purpose

I mean no-one was shot except Ashly Babbitt.


The only people with guns during the Jan. 6th riot were the undercover FBI agents and the Capitol Police.
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
annie88 said:

Amazing al the time and money they are wasting on this BS.

We all know what they're going to say happened regardless of what is said.

Just a lot of lies, says, rumors and worthless information.

"was told"
"heard from"

Just pure bs.

The scripts were written before it started. It's just a TV production of a persecution.
GMaster0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"I'M THE FiNG PRESIDENT! TAKE ME UP TO THE CAPITOL NOW!" Trump yelled at the Secret Service.

He then tried to grab the steering wheel, physically attacking the Secret Service to try to stop them from taking him to the White House.

When he got back, he got mad and threw a hamburger against the wall, leaving a drip of ketchup running down the wall. It was a rough day for many.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RAB91 said:

Bunk Moreland said:

Rockdoc said:

Bunk Moreland said:

Believe what? That he grabbed at a steering wheel? I don't care whether he did or didn't. It makes no difference as to anything in this show trial.

You said it added more credibility to her claim. Read your own post. There's no credibility there.

If he was in the back seat of a SUV vs in the way back of his limo, then he's physically closer to the steering wheel and would actually make sense that he could be in arm's reach or close to it.

If he was in the back of his limo that would make zero sense.
What part of she said he was in the Beast don't you understand? That's not a small detail to get wrong (lie about).


She was testifying as to what she was told.


So it begs the question: will we hear from Tony Ornato?

I'm Gipper
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bunk Moreland said:

I saw that. My initial post was just asking for the clarification, which you provided.

After that I was only discussing the semantics of why being in a SUV or the limo would matter because apparently "i want to believe" something something Trump bad

Bottom line: If Trump was in a SUV, it made it slightly more plausible that he grabbed the wheel. And I say slightly, because even from the back seat of a Suburban, how in Hades are you going to reach from the RR seat to the LF seat, over the back of the front row, and control an SUV in any shape, matter, or form?

If Trump was in the Beast, her story is bullcrap, because the 9 foot gap between the driver and the President, and the possibility that the glass partition was closed.

If Trump was in a SUV, and she said he was in the Beast, it throws doubt on her story, because a very crucial detail was incorrect.

So, not a smoking gun that she's lying, but it leaves her open to that suspicion.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
annie88 said:

Amazing al the time and money they are wasting on this BS.

We all know what they're going to say happened regardless of what is said.

Just a lot of lies, says, rumors and worthless information.

"was told"
"heard from"

Just pure bs.
Remember the first Trump impeachment? One guy told another guy that he heard Sondland on the phone with someone he assumed was Trump but couldn't hear the other side of the conversation but based on what Sondland said during the call Trump was doing something bad.

Jim Jordan had a field day with that one.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

She was testifying as to what she was told.
So, it's hearsay evidence, inadmissible in any court not connected with kangaroos?
PA24
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Russia Russia Russia
Ukraine. Ukraine
January 6

Never has one guy had so many powerful enemies swing and miss as DJT. Seriously, since 2016 it has been nonstop.

Wait until he wins in 2024, revenge will be served.
Tramp96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I love the fact that most of the testimony in these hearings is hearsay.

You know, something that is completely unreliable and thus not allowed in court hearings. But in Congress? Bring it on!
annie88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
IslanderAg04 said:

LMCane said:

RAB91 said:


Posobiec is a huge conservative and formerly a Trump guy

if he has turned (which he has from that post proving Trump is either lying or incorrect about being in the Beast at the Rally)

then that is VERY bad news for Donald.


Stop being triggered, evidence is evidence, no matter what side it comes from.
Saying "you heard" isn't evidence. It's hearsay.

Should be regardless of party, but we know that's not true now.
Currently a happy listless vessel and deplorable. #FDEMS TRUMP 2024.
Fight Fight Fight.
I Sold DeSantis Lifts
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RAB91 said:




Many of you on here are becoming the NPCs.
akm91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This "investigation" is a giant pile of dung. This is nothing but a naked political attack under the guise of an "investigation" to hamper the next Republican administration.

Quote:

The Federalist contacted Cheney's office to inquire whether the committee would release the full transcript of Klukowski's deposition testimony, as requested, or if not, why not. The Federalist also asked whether she disputed any aspect of Klukowski's statement, which when compared to the Jan. 6 Committee's Thursday proceedings leaves but one conclusion: The committee fraudulently portrayed an innocent DOJ attorney as complicit in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, and did so with malice.

Jan 6th Committee should be labeled traitors
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

She was testifying as to what she was told.
So, it's hearsay evidence, inadmissible in any court not connected with kangaroos?


Correct grasshopper! Hearsay, unless it meets an exception, is not admissible in court. This is not court.

Cassidy could not say this at trial unless Ornato "unavailable". Otnato would need to be the witness to say this at trial. Will he testify? If not, then maybe it's true, maybe it's not, maybe he exaggerated. Maybe he was messing with her.

I should note, Cassidy could say this to a grand jury, during a deposition in a civil case or at a congressional hearing where the hearsay rule does not apply.

I'm Gipper
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
annie88 said:

IslanderAg04 said:

LMCane said:

RAB91 said:


Posobiec is a huge conservative and formerly a Trump guy

if he has turned (which he has from that post proving Trump is either lying or incorrect about being in the Beast at the Rally)

then that is VERY bad news for Donald.


Stop being triggered, evidence is evidence, no matter what side it comes from.
Saying "you heard" isn't evidence. It's hearsay.

Should be regardless of party, but we know that's not true now.
And in the White House, rumor and speculation run rampant even on a good day. Everyone wants to make themselves out to be "in the know" and thus more important than they are.

ETA: Exhibit A-
Gigem314
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Im Gipper said:

This is not court.
Exactly. So what's the point, other than trying to put on a show?

If they've really got evidence, then do something about it or move on.

But they won't move on, because this is nothing but a political distraction.
GeorgiAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
annie88 said:

IslanderAg04 said:

LMCane said:

RAB91 said:


Posobiec is a huge conservative and formerly a Trump guy

if he has turned (which he has from that post proving Trump is either lying or incorrect about being in the Beast at the Rally)

then that is VERY bad news for Donald.


Stop being triggered, evidence is evidence, no matter what side it comes from.
Saying "you heard" isn't evidence. It's hearsay.

Should be regardless of party, but we know that's not true now.
Agreed. But it now puts pressure on those mentioned to come forward, take an oath and say it's not true. If they don't, it tells you what you need to know about the statement. Also, this is not a criminal trial, it's a congressional hearing.

And there are exceptions to hearsay when it may be brought into evidence. Present sense impression and res gestae are examples of exceptions.
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It doesn't put pressure on anybody. Everybody knows the difference between hearsay and just flat out lies. Not hard.
annie88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bunk Moreland said:

Rockdoc said:

Bunk Moreland said:

Believe what? That he grabbed at a steering wheel? I don't care whether he did or didn't. It makes no difference as to anything in this show trial.

You said it added more credibility to her claim. Read your own post. There's no credibility there.

If he was in the back seat of a SUV vs in the way back of his limo, then he's physically closer to the steering wheel and would actually make sense that he could be in arm's reach or close to it.

If he was in the back of his limo that would make zero sense.
But that wasn't the story. She said "she was told" he was in the Beast, he wasn't. Lie 1

"She was told" he grabbed the wheel, still pretty hard to do from the back seat in an SUV too, easier but not easy. Again didn't see with her own eyes.

What is her motivation? Why her? Wasn't she going to have a job with him around this time?

Possible bribery or was she threatened?

Why don't they ask her who told her and get that person up there?
Currently a happy listless vessel and deplorable. #FDEMS TRUMP 2024.
Fight Fight Fight.
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

But it now puts pressure on those mentioned to come forward, take an oath and say it's not true. If they don't, it tells you what you need to know about the statement.


Having a real hard time believing you and larry are actual attorneys after reading this thread. Good grief.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.