Jan. 6 Hearings: Trump's Rejected Scheme involving Mike Pence

The Jan. 6 hearings continue today. It will be in four parts and focus on Trump's failed plan to pressure Mike Pence into acting unilaterally to reject state electors and block the vote certification. The committee will try to make the case that Trump's pressure on Pence contributed to the violence at the capitol and put Pence at physical risk.

I hope people watching today's hearing don't forget that while Trump is the villain, there's no reason to make Pence into a victim or hero. Mike Pence is no friend to democracy. At a speech in Arizona on Monday, he called for a return to Trump's immigration policies and completion of Trump's ridiculous border wall. (I wonder if he also said Mexico would pay for it).

We need to keep our eye on the ball -- eviscerating any remaining support Trump has prior to the 2022 midterm elections.

< Dr. Fauci and Mick Jagger Have Covid-19 | Roe v. Wade Decision Fallout >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Trump, his allies (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 03:08:58 PM EST
    and supporters are a clear and present danger to our democracy--- final statement and, essentially, the summarization of this hearing by Judge MIchael Luttig.  

    This cohort, described by this conservative.judge infers the present day Republican Party, save but a very few.

    Some of the reporting seems to be that this hearing was slow and too legally " in the weeds".  I did not see it that way.  Rather, it was necessarily methodical, building up to a powerful look into the planning of the coup which damned the ringleader, Donald Trump.

    Judge Luttig, at first, was halting in his testimony but I found it to be compelling.  Mr. Jacobs, Pence's Counsel, was impressive in his recall and the clarity of the advice given to the Vice President, although I could have done without the prayerful parts.  

    Eastman came across as corrupt and should be considered for disbarment--and a for a reserved spot in prison.

    Pence, on the one hand, saved the day and country, on the other, is a sad case---political aspirations outdistancing his being on the vanguard of this investigation by being a star witness.

    His halting presentation (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jmacWA on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 03:12:05 PM EST
    was unnerving.  It almost seemed to me that he was having a hard time with what he was saying but felt he HAD to say it.

    His closing statement was especially powerful.


    A couple of times (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 03:28:54 PM EST
    I thought he might be having a stroke

    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 04:06:47 PM EST
    when he gets home, I think, he will say a prayer with his wife, kick back, and have a tumblerful of good bourbon.  And, a sigh of relief that it is over, after all, saying truth  about Republicans must have been stressful for him.

    He (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 04:24:09 PM EST
    did seem to have a hard time spitting it out.

    I couldn't help but think of (none / 0) (#33)
    by leap2 on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 06:04:59 PM EST
    this, who were funny. I found it painful trying to follow Luttig. It might be better to read the transcript.

    Also, to be fair, Eastman clerked for (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 04:45:25 PM EST
    Luttig prior to clerking for Thomas, IIRC. Judges often form very close personal bonds with their past law clerks, which can last for the rest of their respective lives. (That was my own experience.) It must have been very painful for him to have repeatedly advised Eastman confidentially that he was gravely wrong about such an important matter, only to be ignored. And then to have to talk about it publicly.

    Judge Lettig explained his presentation manner (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by leap2 on Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 10:54:51 PM EST
    in a tweet thread. I'm glad he wrote that, explaining his slow-talking. LOTS of people were puzzled, and/or worried about his health. Now I feel bad thinking of Bob and Ray.

    Honestly, the positions he has held for (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 04:37:35 PM EST
    many decades permit extensive deliberation and meticulous choice of words before putting out a position on any significant issue. My reaction was that Luttig is just not used to answering important questions in the moment. Nor is he used to appearing before an audience of millions.

    See comment (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 05:04:51 PM EST

    That is (none / 0) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    how Judge Luttig came across to me:  more comfortable as a writer were he can agonize over every word.  Verbally, that deliberateness seems faltering, even worringly so.  

    When the Committee counsel, a former clerk of his, tried to help him out by reducing his long answer to two points, the judge said he did not want that simplification to be his testimony before a Congressional committee, although his point was simple.


    isn't it law clerks (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 08:25:14 PM EST
    that write the bulk of the opinions?

    First drafts and revisions, sure (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 10:38:29 PM EST
    but in the end it's the judge's opinion, particularly for super-smart, intellectual (even though reactionary) judges like Luttig.

    One thing I did not like in the committee's (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 10:43:20 PM EST
    presentation, was dwelling on Eastman repeatedly invoking his Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination. The committee is positioning themselves as the defenders of the Constitution, against those who would twist and disregard it. Well, the Fifth Amendment privilege is a key component of the Bill of Rights, and is a protection for the innocent and wrongly accused, at least as much as for the guilty. So to casually suggest, as the committee did Thursday morning, that invoking the Fifth is tantamount to a confession of criminality is very wrong.

    Adverse inference is allowed in a civil case (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 07:57:06 AM EST
    so I would think it could be allowed in this setting as well.

    When a party invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a civil case, the court is permitted to instruct the jury that it may draw an adverse inference that the answer would have been against the party's interest.

    Yep (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 09:20:53 AM EST
    No adverse inference in a criminal trial against the accused.  

    Not so in other instances.


    In (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 11:29:24 AM EST
    the court of public opinion it screams guilty, guilty, guilty.

    That is exactly my point (none / 0) (#55)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    in criticizing the committee for not treating the video of Eastman as a teachable moment regarding constitutional principles.

    Purist (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 01:59:38 PM EST
    Actually, I have generally found the criminal defense bar to be sincerely committed to the constitutional principles in play.

    For the civil side, the rules are like the rules for a Game of Monopoly:  Need to know them, and use them to your advantage when you can, but nothing particularly sacred about one set of rules over another.  


    Yes, I am a purist, when it comes to (none / 0) (#57)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 02:08:08 PM EST
    the Bill of Rights. But even from a cynical point of view, doesn't it enhance the credibility of the committee process, against unfounded attacks of partisanship, to be seen publicly as defending the right to fair treatment of those under investigation, and to illustrate how following those rules and principles is practical and workable in the real world, in stark contrast to the behavior of those who tried for self-serving and utterly unprincipled reasons to subvert our democracy?

    A footnote (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 03:05:21 PM EST
    Often a judge will stay a civil lawsuit when a criminal proceeding is pending regarding the same person to avoid the squeeze play of having to invoke the Fifth Amendment during a deposition, etc.

    Invoking the Fifth Amendment during a civil proceeding is so very damaging.


    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 06:14:00 AM EST
    it would enhance their credibility among approx 0.01 of the population.

    Haven't congressional committees long been eliciting such testimony without "educating" anyone of the constitutional nuances?

    While I deeply respect your purism, now is not the time to sweat the details. The fascists are winning because they are shredding the Constitution and trashing the rule of law.

    IMO, any tactic short of directly infringing on constitutional rights or actually breaking the law can and most importantly should be used.


    I refuse to help the fascists win (none / 0) (#66)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    by joining them in either wholesale or selective disregard of legal and constitutional limits.

    Peter, did you read the recent article re (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 01:45:27 PM EST
    ACLU in HuffPost?  

    A friend sent me the link, but (none / 0) (#72)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 03:52:45 PM EST
    I have not read it yet. I plan to.

    Most (none / 0) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 02:57:11 PM EST
    Americans are relatively un-teachble on the priniples of the constitution, they could have spent the whole session on it and everyone would have tuned out within minutes.

    Yes, just a better (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 02:23:47 PM EST
    understanding of the self-incrimination part of the 5th Amendment (nor shall any person... "be compelled to be a witness against himself...") would be a major undertaking.

    Perhaps, "taking the 5th" became part of the American DNA after the televised Kefauver Hearings in the 50s, with Frank Costello, Bugsy Siegel and other mobsters colorfully stumbling over the words of the 5th.

    Moreover, in my view, it is not the responsibility of the Jan6 Committee to explain the 5th Amendment or interpret its application to Eastman's 5th Amendment responses to assertions related to his plot to overthrow the government and retain in office the loser of the presidential election.  That would seem to be more the bailiwick of Eastman and his attorney. Or, maybe, his friend, Ginni could be trotted out for this purpose.

    Taking the 5th over 140 times appears to not only be Eastman's exercising his constitutional right for protection against self-incrimination, but also, displaying open contempt for a congressional hearing attempting to get to the bottom of the insurrection and take legislative steps intended to protect our democracy from a future fascist takeover.


    Taking the 5th more than 100 times (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 06:55:00 AM EST
    in a single interview does rather suggest something to hide.

    I don't see why they can't point that out.  As we keep hearing, this is not a trial.


    How about (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 07:03:07 AM EST
    "deciding he should be on the pardon list"

    Does that suggest criminality?


    I would say no to that one also (none / 0) (#62)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 07:27:33 PM EST
    but whether acceptance of a pardon implies an admission of guilt is a controversial issue; many would say it does (including one arguably errant Supreme Court decision). Posthumous pardons, for example, are often given for late-established exonerations. IOW, a pardon on grounds of innocence is definitely a "thing." Asserting the Fifth does not imply guilt, only that others may suspect or accuse you, rightly or wrongly; that is not, or should not be, controversial, imho.

    Ifyousayso (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM EST
    However (none / 0) (#64)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 05:35:25 AM EST
    preemptively asking for a pardon seems quite different than accepting one, at least from the consciousness of guilt angle.

    Again, I disagree. If (hypothetically) (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 10:55:28 AM EST
    someone were actually the target of a political witch hunt (by the House Un-American Activities Committee in the '50s, say) -- let's call this hypothetical target/victim "Pete Seeger" -- and a President opposed that committee's project and wished to protect its victims (who had been forced to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege to protect themselves from unfair and potentially unconstitutional prosecution for the "crime" (as then defined) of associating with the Communist Party), a pre-emptive pardon would be an effective defensive weapon. Sorry, but my (exceeding low) opinion of "Dr." Eastman does not affect my analysis of the procedural and constitutional issues.

    Eastman had the (none / 0) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 08:31:16 AM EST
    right to take the 5th, and did so plentifully, and I believe the Committee was right to report that he did.   If not, criticism would have been leveled at the Committee for not giving poor Eastman an opportunity to present his responses to allegations and assertions made about him and his plot.

    And, while no one should look to TFG for constitutional modeling, it is interesting to recall that Eastman's  scheme was intended to unlawfully install a president who is on record as stating "if you are innocent, why would you take the 5th?"


    A further example -- not that any more (none / 0) (#49)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 09:27:48 AM EST
    would be needed -- of how Tr*mp has no appreciation for or understanding of the Constitution. And that he therefore committed perjury when he took the oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." But his ignorance does not mean a thing relative to the legitimate rights of his corrupt, craven and dishonest cronies.

    Is His Self Incrimination Needed? (none / 0) (#58)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 02:44:49 PM EST
    We have credible witnesses who relate him confessing incriminating things to them.  If he wants to refute them, does he have other options than testifying?  If he is offered immunity in exchange for testimony against Trump, can he refuse?

    Yes, Congress has the power to ask (none / 0) (#61)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 04:02:13 PM EST
    a federal judge to confer "use and fruits" immunity on a witness who has properly claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege. The person must then testify before the Congressional committee or face contempt of court, and nothing the witness says (or any evidence derived from that testimony) can be used against the witness in a criminal case. Congress tried this with Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal during the George HW Bush (I) administration, and bungled it. They did not set up the process in a way that allowed prosecutors to demonstrate that their evidence was not derived from North's immunized (and televised) Congressional testimony. As a result, the criminal charges against North ultimately had to be dismissed.

    Ha ha ha (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    Trump say he want equal time.  And that it's "highly partisan"

    He's right about it being partisan.  The only people testifying against Trump are republicans.

    Best response to Trump (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 04:49:50 PM EST
    Come (none / 0) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 04:53:42 PM EST
    on Donny, think of the ratings!

    why would he need equal time when (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 08:26:53 PM EST
    he now has his own new social media site and Twitter competitor to carry his words? (snark)

    As (none / 0) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    I suspected there was a whole lot of praise for Pence.

    Pence/Cheney 2024!


    I will look forward to this as well (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 06:20:25 PM EST
    but I do not plan to hold my breath waiting for it to actually happen.


    Washington (CNN)House January 6 committee Chair Bennie Thompson on Thursday said the panel investigating the US Capitol attack has sent a letter to Virginia "Ginni" Thomas asking her to speak with them about her role in the effort to overturn the 2020 electoral results.
    Thomas, a conservative activist and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, appears open to speaking with the committee, telling conservative outlet The Daily Caller that she "can't wait to clear up misconceptions."
    "I look forward to talking to them," she said in the interview published Thursday.

    I was going to say (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 06:30:57 PM EST
    they should give her as much rope as it takes but I realized that might be offensive.

    I laughed (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 06:48:19 PM EST
    when I read this comment, but then felt about it.

    I'm going (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 06:40:43 PM EST
    to keep talking until I clear my name sounds like a defense lawyer's worst nightmare. From the emails/texts etc. she sounds like full blown Qanon.

    The Rusty Bowers testimony (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    was pretty stunning.

    All witnesses (none / 0) (#98)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 02:47:07 PM EST
    today gave powerful testimony.  The election workers, Shayne Moss and her mother, Lady Ruby, along  with Rusty Bowers, may register best among viewers.

    This could be something (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 03:09:32 PM EST
    From playbook

    The House select committee investigating Jan. 6 sent a subpoena last week to ALEX HOLDER, a documentary filmmaker who was granted extensive access to President DONALD TRUMP and his inner circle, and who shot interviews with the then-president both before and after Jan. 6. The existence of this footage is previously unreported.

    A source familiar with the project told Playbook on Monday night that Holder began filming on the campaign trail in September 2020 for a project on Trump's reelection campaign. Over the course of several months, Holder had substantial access to Trump, Trump's adult children and VP MIKE PENCE, both in the White House and on the campaign trail.

    According to the subpoena, which was obtained exclusively by Playbook, the committee wants three main things from Holder:

    (1) Raw footage from Jan. 6.

    (2) Raw footage of interviews from September 2020 to present with Trump, Pence, DONALD TRUMP JR., IVANKA TRUMP, ERIC TRUMP and JARED KUSHNER.

    (3) Raw footage "pertaining to discussions of election fraud or election integrity surrounding the November 2020 presidential election."

    Holder is expected to fully cooperate with the committee in an interview scheduled for Thursday

    Like this (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 05:14:43 PM EST

    Ivanka Trump Expressed Different View to Filmmaker
    June 21, 2022 at 6:05 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 19 Comments

    Ivanka Trump, the elder daughter of former President Donald Trump, told a documentary film crew in the middle of December 2020 that her father should "continue to fight until every legal remedy is exhausted" because people were questioning "the sanctity of our elections," the New York Times reports.

    The video "was striking for how it shows Ms. Trump using a different tone in describing her father's efforts to overturn the outcome than she did in the portion of her deposition to the House committee that has been made public so far."

    Rusty Bowers (none / 0) (#113)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 22, 2022 at 03:47:40 PM EST
    made a great witness, and his testimony was damning It is unsurprising, but unfathomable in light of this testimony, that Bowers still claims that he would vote for Trump if he runs again, and if Biden is his opponent.

     He stated that Trump did so much good, if you do not count that Covid and insurrection part.  Apparently, his courage and dedication to oath of office does not apply to fascism. And, then there is all that socialism, no doubt.


    Saw this (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 22, 2022 at 03:52:36 PM EST
    Go figure.  Don't you imagine he is just trying to salvage some future in the republican party?

    Good luck with that Rusty.


    Every (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jun 22, 2022 at 05:08:41 PM EST
    time I think Republican's are learning I am quickly reminded that's impossible.

    "Don't be stupid, (none / 0) (#117)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 08:25:19 AM EST
    be a smarty, join the Nazi Party".   Mel Brooks, The Producers, from "Springtime"

    At least 7 (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 05:22:39 PM EST
    Maybe more

    January 6 Committee Adds Another Hearing
    June 21, 2022 at 5:10 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 47 Comments

    "The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol will have at least one more hearing than the six originally planned, and committee members are considering holding even more hearings beyond that," Time reports.

    Said a committee aide: "We continue to receive information via our tip line. This is an ongoing investigation. We continue to take on new evidence every day."

    Pausing hearings (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 22, 2022 at 05:14:15 PM EST
    after tomorrow because of new evidence and info pouring in.  This is good.

    Jan. 6 committee to pause hearings until July as new evidence pours in


    Jeffrey Rosen, Richard Donoghue, (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 09:44:27 PM EST
    and Steven Engel, all top DOJ officials, were excellent witnesses, providing information that all but clinches the criminal conspiracy to defraud the USA.

      They are owed a debt of gratitude for their courage and commitment to their oath of office and constitutional government.  And, of course, they surely did not want criminal exposure for themselves.  But, where were they earlier and, particularly, providing testimony during the impeachment trial?

    My husband had tears (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 03:15:25 AM EST
    On his face three different times.

    This is very true (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 07:32:56 AM EST

    GOP Won't Be Done with Trump Even If He Loses
    June 24, 2022 at 7:51 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 49 Comments

    Jeff Greenfield: "It is the fundamental belief -- or tropism -- of Trump that he is incapable of losing an election honestly. The loss itself is proof of fraud, and even a potential loss is grounds for rejecting the results. In one of the first debates of 2016, he was the only Republican candidate who would not pledge to back the party's ultimate nominee. When he lost the Iowa caucuses to Ted Cruz, he tweeted: `Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.' He claimed he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016 because of the `millions' of aliens who voted illegally."

    "Given this core character trait, what do you suppose will happen if Trump faces a serious competitor for the nomination in 2024? Is he likely to accept the vote count that shows him losing a primary or caucus? Is it likely he will forego the temptation to challenge every convention rule that poses a threat to him? (If you want to see what a genuinely contested GOP convention looks like, check out the Taft-Roosevelt fight in 1912, or the Eisenhower-Taft confrontation of 1952.)"

    "Most important, a Trump who is denied the nomination -- which, by his account, must have been the product of horrible, disgusting cheating the likes of which nobody has ever seen -- is a Trump with the inclination and the resources to run an independent campaign for president. And he'll have enough true believers to doom whoever the GOP nominee is."

    Watching today (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 06:17:12 PM EST
    I could not help thinking, how did this nice intelligent reasonable young lady ever end up in the service of Trump in the first place?

    Her youth (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 09:19:57 PM EST
    is a mitigating factor,  and I give some slack.  However, having been a staffer for Cruz, Scalise and Meadows shows the flaw of being on board with despicable Republicans policies and politicians.  

    Her testimony atones, to an extent, for her youthful indiscretions but the need for political purification and conversion continues.  Not a hero, but worthy of a cookie.


    So agree (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 07:25:21 AM EST
    Pence was hardly a profile in courage.

    He did the absolute minimum thing he was literally required to do based on his job.

    Thanks.  Now go away.

    I'm surprised how effective the hearings seem to be.  People are watching.

    I feel similarly (none / 0) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 09:07:29 AM EST
    about Liz Cheney.   Courageous as a Republican politician.  And, she is smart (a University of Chicago law graduate) and steeped in political strategy, and doing a great job on the Jan6 Committee.  But, still very conservative (voted with Trump about 95 percent and for acquittal in impeachment number one)and a Republican. No medals, but a cookie, maybe.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 09:46:04 AM EST
    a cookie.

    Good for the committee. Bad in any elected office.


    She's doing the honorable thing (none / 0) (#12)
    by jmacWA on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    which is RARE to see in today's Republican party.  She is, however, still a Republican.

    Same for (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    me on the effectiveness.

    Pence is a hard case (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 04:20:38 PM EST
    It was not just doing the right thing, which was a no-brainer.  He was under tremendous duress.  I will give him credit for what he did on Jan. 6, 2022.

    It was him not doing anything on the other days.....


    Hmm, Jan 6, 2021 (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 04:21:16 PM EST
    Yes, doing nothing on those (none / 0) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 01:48:05 PM EST
    other days, e.g., Impeachment Trial #2 and Jan6 Hearings.

    I guess Judge Putting (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 01:08:20 PM EST
    probably does a lot of lectures.

    Judge Luttig (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 01:08:53 PM EST
    that is

    competing with Bob and Ray? (none / 0) (#7)
    by leap2 on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 01:47:40 PM EST
    Couldn't watch (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 02:44:17 PM EST
    today but I am seeing that many people on social media are saying his testimony is very powerful.

    New DOJ letter today (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 01:49:18 PM EST

    not only "to our overall criminal investigations, but are likely relevant to specific prosecutions that have already commenced."

    House January 6 committee's 'failure' to turn over transcripts is hurting criminal investigations, Justice Department says

    I am hoping (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 02:43:44 PM EST
    that everything is turned over to the DOJ after the public hearings.

    Gee (none / 0) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 03:45:44 PM EST
    if only the DOJ had their own investigative assets.

    I call BS, either Kabuki between them or CYA from Garland pretending that his hands are tied.


    If the Orange mob boss (none / 0) (#11)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 02:47:33 PM EST
    is not indicted and convicted, I'm going into bank robbery. If he doesn't end up in an orange jumpsuit (to match his complexion), then there are obviously no rules anymore and we can all do what we want. Chaos is the rule of law. My defense, "I didn't know bank robbery was illegal."

    No, not "I didn't know that bank robbery (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 03:45:26 PM EST
    was illegal." It's, "My lawyer told me repeatedly that bank robbery is illegal but I chose without any reasonable basis not to believe him. Therefore, I didn't 'know' it was illegal."

    The difference Chuck (none / 0) (#14)
    by jmacWA on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 03:09:50 PM EST
    is you are not a REPUBLICAN, much less a Former President.  So while I share your outrage, I hope you don't do anything illegal.  However, if you do end up in jail in PA, let me know and I will be sure to visit.

    I doubt he ever sees the inside (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 03:27:45 PM EST
    of a jail cell.  If nothing else he will run out the clock and die before then.

    But he has to be at least charged.  The country needs him to be charged.


    I'd be happy to see him (none / 0) (#31)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    perp walked into a federal courthouse. Then read the following day of his painful demise.

    I think that's called (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 16, 2022 at 08:23:50 PM EST
    anarchy.  Where there are no rules of law and everyone can act as they want.

    Sounds good in some ways, but I wonder where you draw the line. Does it mean you don't have to stop a red light or a stop sign?


    50 years ago today (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 08:09:47 AM EST
    No Military Backing (none / 0) (#50)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    I don't of any successful coups anywhere at any time in the past century that didn't have the country's military behind them.  That is why it is so hard to believe that Trump thought his plan might work.  If Pence had declared Trump the winner on Jan 6, 2021, can you imagine what would have happened on Jan. 7?

    Out of curiosity (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 10:31:26 AM EST
    What do you think would have happened?

    You aren't through these hearings yet (none / 0) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 03:01:24 AM EST
    Chris Miller and Kash Patel

    Probably Some Serious Violence (none / 0) (#52)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 11:07:09 AM EST
    My original post should have started with "I don't know of any".  Now, out of curiosity, you tell me what you think would have happened. I can imagine Trump ordering Gen. Milley to have troops fire on demonstrators and Milley refusing.

    During the Jan 6 Committee Hearing, (none / 0) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 11:26:50 AM EST
    yesterday, Greg Jacobs, Pence's Counsel, testified that he warned Eastman that pursuit of his scheme would likely lead to violence in the streets.

    But, the plot included a contempt for the law, and, even, a curious attitude about what level of violence might be acceptable.

    As White House lawyer, Eric Herschman put it in his testimony, this was just fine with Eastman, who shrugged it off, saying "there's been violence in the history of the country."


    I've thought about this (none / 0) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 11:08:39 AM EST
    and I have some concern with the level of commitment of some members of the military and law enforcement to the rule of law.

    IMO, there are more nut jobs like Flynn in all branches of the military.

    We have seen that law enforcement has no problem inflicting violence on protesters although they have stopped short of firing on them.

    Members of the military and law enforcement were found among those storming the capital.

    What about members of the general public? Will those who support our type of government sacrifice to maintain it or hunker down and hope the problem goes away.

    IMO, we are in scary times.


    Lloyd Austin seems pretty serious about (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 04:12:14 PM EST
    Several years back (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 19, 2022 at 06:38:03 AM EST
    there was a scandal about Christian fanatics running the Air Force Academy and enforcing their beliefs on cadets. Don't know if they actually resolved that or if they just became better at hiding their agenda.

    The (none / 0) (#163)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 07:09:37 AM EST
    FBI also seems interested
    On Thursday, KWTX reported that the FBI has raided three churches across the South -- including a church in Killeen, Texas said to be targeting servicemembers from the nation's largest Army base.

    The Navy has a leading role in this admin (none / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 02:57:53 AM EST
    The slots for military liaisons at the White House gave Navy applications first shots. The terminations were all failures to lead and properly care for troops, and nobody at the White House feels sorry for them. Nor should they.

    There are more nutjobs like Flynn (none / 0) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 07:35:44 AM EST
    Within the DOD structure. It is strange to me that most are GS with past military service. Many civilian DOD personnel oddly get really authoritarian after they no longer are responsible for defending the democracy. They stay within DOD structure though and they run a lot of the cogs, troops still have to answer to them. Ft. Rucker in Alabama is full of them.

    I think assuming there is literally no middle (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 06:37:52 PM EST
    remaining in the electorate will turn out to be a miscalculation.
    It's pretty clear that's what they think.  It's just left and right and who's mad enough to show up.

    Texas Republicans Call Biden's Win `Illegitimate'
    June 18, 2022 at 6:30 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 143 Comments

    "Meeting at their first in-person convention since 2018, Texas Republicans on Saturday acted on a raft of resolutions and proposed platform changes to move their party even further to the right," the Texas Tribune reports.

    "They approved measures declaring that President Joe Biden `was not legitimately elected' and rebuking Sen. John Cornyn for taking part in bipartisan gun talks."

    "They also voted on a platform that declares homosexuality `an abnormal lifestyle choice' and calls for Texas schoolchildren should be taught `to learn about the Humanity of the Preborn Child.'"

    I've been reading the Dune series.  One thing I learned that I don't remember from the first book or the movies is that they call children born like Paul's sister with the knowledge of a reverend mother "preborn".

    If that 16 pages Trump and his associates just (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 19, 2022 at 03:36:02 PM EST
    churned out is his proposed defense, he's sunk.

    NY Times Reporters are not so Sure (none / 0) (#78)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 19, 2022 at 04:39:02 PM EST
    In a piece entitled "Despite Growing Evidence, a Prosecution of Trump Would Face Challenges", Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt discuss the difficulties in convincing a jury of Trump's criminal intent.

    Maggie (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 19, 2022 at 05:08:23 PM EST
    Haberman is a legal expert now?

    Neither of the writers (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 19, 2022 at 05:13:31 PM EST
    is an attorney, not to mention a criminal defense attorney.

    IMO (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 19, 2022 at 06:01:24 PM EST
    it's charitable to call them journalists.

    Hey, I still subscribe. (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 19, 2022 at 07:16:52 PM EST
    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Zorba on Sun Jun 19, 2022 at 07:33:48 PM EST
    Since Dean Baquet became editorial page editor, I gave up on it.

    At a NYTimes event, in July 2018, (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 20, 2022 at 11:17:25 AM EST
    Gary Secura, Dean of the UCLA School of Public Affairs, jarred the panel that included Maggie and several other NYTimes reporters, when he took them to task during his introduction for the event, chiding them for their reporting on the 2016 election and for the paper's "both sides" journalism.

    Dean Secura stated "During the campaign (2016) there were efforts to normalize Mr. Trump.  There was wildly imbalanced coverage between emails on the one hand an a history of corrupt behavior on the other.....

     And more recently the civility debate--the "both sides"--Looking at the chants of "Lock her up!" and equating them to "Please leave my restaurant" are actually damaging our civil discourse."

    Maggie was very happy about it, saying he was so nice backstage and he could have told her then about his opinion, rather than during his presentation.  Yes, that is the way to hold them accountable, right?



    And, (none / 0) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 20, 2022 at 09:34:08 AM EST
    Michael Schmidt (Nicole Wallace's new husband) has done some stenography when chiding Mueller and being a defender of AG Barr, e.g., since Mueller did not definitively state TFG obstructed justice or violated any specific crime, Barr was left with no choice but to exonerate him.  

    NYTimes (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 20, 2022 at 03:49:45 PM EST

    Garland's Decision on Trump Is Complicated
    June 20, 2022 at 2:00 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 199 Comments

    Jack Goldsmith: "If Mr. Garland decides that a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump is warranted, Justice Department regulations require him to appoint a special counsel if the investigation presents a conflict of interest for the department and if Mr. Garland believes such an appointment would be in the public interest."

    "The department arguably faces a conflict of interest. Mr. Trump is a political adversary of Mr. Garland's boss, President Biden. Mr. Trump is also Mr. Biden's likeliest political opponent in the 2024 presidential election. Mr. Garland's judgments impact the political fate of Mr. Biden and his own possible tenure in office. The appearance of a conflict sharpened when Mr. Biden reportedly told his inner circle that Mr. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, and complained about Mr. Garland's dawdling on the matter."

    "Even if conflicted, Mr. Garland could keep full control over Mr. Trump's legal fate if he believes that a special counsel would not serve the public interest


    As a non professional observer (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 20, 2022 at 03:57:41 PM EST
    about this I would just ask how the F is there not already "a criminal investigation of Mr Trump"?

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 20, 2022 at 04:25:53 PM EST
    we are a failed state.

    I really hope (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 20, 2022 at 05:00:02 PM EST
    we are wrong and it is revealed there is, and has been, an long ongoing investigation of Trump.

    That one thing would restore a lot of faith in the system.


    Wouldn't (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 20, 2022 at 05:04:42 PM EST
    we all love to be wrong about this. I understand the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow but darn it this is like molasses.

    Even an indictment of Rudy, who has none of these so called "protections" or Eastman would go a long way.


    So maybe (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 20, 2022 at 05:20:41 PM EST
    rather than a failed state we just have a bunch of failed bureaucrats.

    Same outcome I guess.


    I am (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 20, 2022 at 06:15:10 PM EST
    so frustrated but what do you do? I mean I went to a party meeting and they had record turnout. People are activated but if you're outnumbered by people who vote for Marge I'm not sure what the next step is. I mean I can keep on working to change things but it's a long haul and we're looking at fascism right now. I have dark days when I think we're just going to have to fall into fascism to learn our lesson.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 20, 2022 at 05:03:07 PM EST
    if we can't hold a criminal president accountable then we might as well hang it up and go into full blown fascism.

    I expect an indictment from Fani Willis though. As a black woman living in the state of Georgia she knows exactly what is at stake.


    Appointment (none / 0) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 20, 2022 at 08:37:54 PM EST
    of a special counsel is unlikely to avoid a perception of a conflict of interest by Republicans.  Even a well-regarded Republican special counsel would not escape charges of  "treason".   And death treats.

    One of the objectives, it seems, of the Jan6 hearings is to strengthen the anti-insurrection wing of the Republican Party, but that may prove a  futile effort In the pursuit of a criminal case against TFG  Those  Republican Party members who are not fascist or fascist-adjacent now seem to be labeled as RINOs.   An endangered species made more so by the campaign tactics of former Missouri Governor, Eric Greitens,  and current candidate for US senate.

    A Greitens campaign video presents the candidate dressed up in tactical gear, holding a long gun and proclaiming a hunt for Rinos. He urges supporters to get a hunting license for Republicans, he considers, to be so in name only. In the video, Greitens  claims there is no "bagging limit".

    It seems to me that prosecution of TGF, if that is the course followed, should be by the DOJ, a branch of the executive, by senate confirmed officers and their associates.


    Last poll I saw (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 01:44:22 PM EST
    Greitens was in the lead. To be fair, he is getting a lots of pushback from Republican politicians in the state. Probably not because they are against gun violence but they are afraid they may be a target and of a McCaskill/Todd Akin repeat.

    Nevada GOP attorney general nominee said Democrat 'should be hanging from a f*cking crane'

    Republican voters in Nevada on Tuesday picked a nominee for attorney general who once called for the lynching of the state's current attorney general, who is Black.

    Not to worry it is just her culture to hang people from a crane.

    She said later that the comment was "tongue-in-cheek" and had no racial overtones. Chattah, who immigrated to the United States from Israel at the age of 14, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal in February, "When I say to my friends, 'I'm going to hang you from a crane,' I don't literally mean I'm going to hang you from a crane. ... I would never attribute a racial context to hanging from a crane. ... That is my culture. That's what is done to people in the Middle East, to traitors. And that's just part of my vernacular."

    Moms for Liberty leader threatens gun violence against librarians

    Then in GA the polls are showing Walker tied with Warnock. Ok, I know it is Georgia but Walker has a history of violence and probably chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Every day revelations about his past and his lies about himself are in the news.

    These are the stars of the Republican Party and have a good chance of being elected.


    Rick Wilson (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 05:08:48 PM EST
    seems to think that the GOP coming down on Greitens is enough to get him the nomination since he's "owning the libs and rinos" in one shot.

    The GOP here in GA said that Walker couldn't win the senate seat because of all this craziness in his background. It doesn't matter what they say because they are stuck with him now.


    If (none / 0) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 05:48:34 PM EST
    there is a bottom to the Republican party, they haven't found it yet.

    Where are all the "team normal" Republicans who should be calling this sht out in real time.

    Yeah, yeah Pence is a "hero" cause he stopped the insurrection but he is still too cowardly to call out tRump or tRumpism or the rest of the sickness that infects his party.

    The Republicans who have testified seem to be honorable men (sorry Barr) but virtually every Republican politician is a bottom dweller or an apologist.  


    There is no (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 06:20:42 PM EST
    bottom. So there apparently are a few decent Republicans but they are a minority. Even the ones that are "decent" a lot of them aren't really "decent". The fact that Brian Kemp didn't do what Trump wanted him to do had more to do with Kemp not wanting to go to jail himself, i.e. self preservation, than any real sense of ethics.

    These people will lie, cheat & steal to keep their greasy paws on the levers of power.


    If not for a handful of republicans (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 08:04:27 PM EST
    Trump might still be president.

    People risked actual danger to themselves and their families.

    Let try for a little perspective?


    Yes (none / 0) (#109)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jun 22, 2022 at 05:40:35 AM EST
    but this handful are the exceptions that proves the rule.

    Meanwhile the insanity spreads(I assume you have seen Texas GOP platform) spreads, the handful screams "clear and present danger" while the real or wannabe powers in the GOP either join in or cower in fear.


    Bill Stephen did not (none / 0) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 12:03:15 PM EST
    testify in person at the June 13 Jan6 hearing bowing out because he reported his wife was in labor.  Has his wife delivered the baby?

    I think I'm discerning (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 05:15:54 PM EST
    a pattern here..

    Nixon skated, Reagan skated, the neocon slime, including TL heartthrob Victoria Nuland, all skated..and Sonja Henie and Maurice "The Rocket" Richard are still skating somewhere..

    The power structure and the attention deficient public allowing well-connected miscreants to blithely bid adieu to their culpability being the overriding theme here.

    The trend prolly ain't gonna change anytime soon.

    "Johnny" (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2022 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    Yes, that was (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 22, 2022 at 04:42:44 AM EST
    the thought until the hearing today. Eastman had nothing to do with the election workers here in GA being chased out of their homes and assorted other things that went down.

    I have to say Giuliani is even worse than I ever imagined.


    I don't remember seeing the video (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 22, 2022 at 06:23:56 AM EST
    of Rudy calling the two black women hustlers passing thumb drives around like heroin.  Or what ever he said.

    Rudy must go to jail.  If he doesn't Garland should go to jail.


    Was there video? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 09:15:03 AM EST
    I honestly don't remember. There was so much information to take in. I do know that Rudy testified to the GA legislature about all this. I don't remember it being heavily covered by the local media at the time but maybe since it was all lies they didn't want to make it worse for the poll workers.

    It's good Trump keeps saying this (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 22, 2022 at 07:45:22 AM EST
    It helps get the word out to the mouth breathers that the committee has no republicans(Trump cult members) because they refused to participate.

    One small lie Trump is calling out for us.

    Trump Stews About January 6 Committee
    June 22, 2022 at 7:06 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 54 Comments

    Former President Donald Trump told Punchbowl News that there's "not even a question" that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) should have put Republicans on the January 6 Committee.

    Said Trump: "The Republicans don't have a voice. They don't even have anything to say."

    I read somewhere (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 22, 2022 at 08:48:44 AM EST
    that only 23% of Republicans were watching the January 6th proceedings. Not sure if anything can get through to most Republicans choice to be totally uninformed, delusional and ignorant. They love their kool aide.

    I saw (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 09:19:56 AM EST
    where 19% of Republicans supported criminally charging Trump. That must be the same ones that are watching the hearings.

    Conservatism is a cult and people are starting to realize that.


    Can't you imagine (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    the clown show the hearings would have been with Jim Jordan on the committee.

    Great decision on Pelosi's part to ban him and Banks from the panel. McCarthy's decision was a huge mistake for Republicans and a great benefit to American citizens.

    Republicans have a lot of voices in the hearings from the two Republican members of the committee and from all the Republicans testifying.


    Liz said (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 02:23:13 PM EST
    today at the end they are going to name names of some members of Congress who were involved.

    JJ could totally be on the list.

    Seems like a great cliffhanger for the end of the June hearings.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 05:18:18 AM EST
    find it interesting that one way or another pardons have come up in every hearing. The first one out of Jared's mouth (why would he be dealing with pardons anyway).

    Maybe even more interesting is that Liz Cheney was questioning Kushner not a staffer.

    I don't think Kushner has any exposure on the coup attempt but it would be sweet if he is nailed on something else...say a pay to play pardon scheme.


    That would be (none / 0) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    So sweet.

    Quote of the day (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    "No. And don't ask me again."

    Jeffery Rosen


    I realized that the end of the hearing (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 03:37:46 PM EST
    will be about 5pm.  Good timing for nightly news.

    Good time (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 03:56:08 PM EST
    For a Gentleman Jack on the rocks.

    So grating (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 05:05:13 PM EST
    every time  one of the witnesses refer to this crime boss as "Mr. President".   Yes, we all need that Gentleman Jack--maybe straight up.

    Not being a whiskey drinker, (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 07:28:53 PM EST
    I had to google Gentleman Jack. For what it's worth, a whiskey expert rated it better than Old No. 7.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 04:00:40 PM EST
    I think the announcement might be the congress members who asked for pardons.

    The list (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 05:01:00 PM EST
    Mo Brooks
    Matt Gaetz
    Andy Biggs
    Louie Gohmert
    Scott Perry
    Marjorie Taylor Greene


    Also the FBI conducted a predawn search of Clarks home today.


    So hoping that his constituents (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 05:09:36 PM EST
    finally have had enough of Perry.

    Gaetz (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 05:02:12 PM EST
    reportedly was looking for a "very broad" pardon.

    Well, hey, if you're angling for a pardon (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 05:13:38 PM EST
    for conspiring to defraud the United States and commit sedition, why not throw in (re Gaetz) your potential child predator charges at the same time? You wouldn't want to waste the President's valuable time by having to go back a second time for the additional charges.

    Well, trying to be efficient (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    Need to avoid going back for another ask....

    But think about it:  Gaetz is trying to avoid liability for other issues by wrapping himself in the flag of the coup plotters.....How sick is that?


    An early morning search under a warrant (none / 0) (#137)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 05:17:56 PM EST
    suggests two things: (1) that a US Magistrate Judge has agreed with an FBI agent's and a US Attorney's assessment that there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found in that location, and (2) that the subject of the search cannot be trusted to produce the same evidence voluntarily, complete and intact, pursuant to a grand jury subpoena addressed to the subject and their lawyer.

    The degrees of separation (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 05:23:13 PM EST
    from Trump are shrinking

    And now the same as to "Dr." John (none / 0) (#178)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 27, 2022 at 08:39:15 PM EST
    (Eastman -- not the real Dr. John). On the same day that the search warrant was executed at Clark's home, FBI agents confronted Eastman on the street and seized his cell phone under a warrant. And apparently tricked him into unlocking it for them, even though the warrant said he didn't have to. The warrant was issued in an investigation by the US DoJ Office of Inspector General, indicating that the focus of the investigation is probably former Acting Asst AG Jeffrey Clark. All as revealed in a motion to return the phone filed today (Mon., 6/27) by Eastman's lawyer.

    Yesterday (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 05:20:35 PM EST
    The search was yesterday.  He was said to be put out on the street in his PJs for a long while.

    This seems important.  


    That's also a tell, since the owner of (none / 0) (#141)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 07:01:50 PM EST
    the premises subject to search is ordinarily allowed to remain present and to observe the execution of the warrant ... unless there are specific grounds to believe they cannot be trusted not to interfere, such as by destroying evidence that is subject to seizure under the warrant.

    MTG (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 07:25:57 PM EST
    This was the first time I have heard her name come up on the pardon list. I still think she is the one that placed the bombs.

    Maybe I misheard, but I thought (none / 0) (#147)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 07:56:45 PM EST
    the White House lawyer whose videotaped testimony was used to present that list of pardon-seekers mentioned Greene and then immediately retracted it, saying no, that's a mistake, MTG wasn't one of those who sought a pardon (at least not through that witness).

    Her denial (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 08:08:40 PM EST
    said they were spreading "rumors".

    She is being included in every list.  So....


    AJC (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 08:11:01 PM EST

    WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene contacted the White House to request a pardon after the deadly riot on Jan. 6, 2021, according to a former White House aide.



    So I was almost right (none / 0) (#154)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 09:28:06 PM EST
    The aide to Meadows (not lawyer) who listed the members of Congress who used her as a channel to request pardons said MTG was not among those (like Perry and Gaetz) who requested a pardon through her and Meadows. But she "heard" that Greene solicited a pardon through White House counsel's office (a different channel). So I would have to say, so far, not having heard testimony from Cippolone or any of his minions on it, nor from Kushner, that I have not heard anything I would consider "evidence" that MTG sought a pardon.

    Placing bombs (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 08:43:29 PM EST
    MTG is so stupid she would have probably blown herself up.  So, because she is that stupid, I would say it could not have been her.

    Agree (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 08:47:33 PM EST
    To stupid to plant bombs.  Even ones that did not work.

    Mo Brooks feels betrayed (none / 0) (#168)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 09:25:12 AM EST
    and evidently wants to help burn the house down.

    Rep. Mo Brooks just texted this document to @CBSNews

    Letter to Molly Michael regarding request for pardons.

    "President Trump asked me to send you this letter. This letter is also pursuant to a request from Matt Gretzky."

    Read it all. Summary: Protect us from the Socialists Democrats and give us all general all purpose pardons for any and all actions.


    I don't trust him (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 11:13:28 AM EST
    And IMO a hard no to live testimony.  It would turn the next hearing into Mo Brooks Day.

    Side benefits (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 02:13:44 PM EST
    However, as The New York Times now reports, pro-Trump Republicans have discovered that since McCarthy cut them out off the committee, they have, shockingly, been cut out of the committee. That is, they haven't been privy to the inner workings of the investigation or had any clarity on how the committee staff was building the case against Trump and his supporters. That's left them open to surprises in terms of documents and testimony turned up in the investigation.


    Another benefit: Trump and Republicans' heads are exploding.


    Eric news (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 03:42:09 PM EST

    Republicans Launch Super PAC to Stop Eric Greitens
    June 23, 2022 at 2:18 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 36 Comments

    "Republicans are launching a well-funded outside group to stop disgraced former Gov. Eric Greitens from winning their upcoming Missouri Senate primary," Politico reports.

    "The group, called Show Me Values, is set to start running TV advertisements targeting Greitens, beginning Friday

    Yep (none / 0) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 05:01:57 PM EST
    The Rinos have decided to put Greitens in the crosshairs. The Hunter has now become the hunted.

    It would be nice if the Republicans did so much damage to each other that the Dem squeaks through. Long odds for that but I can hope.


    My friend in Springfield says (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 05:09:24 PM EST
    he thinks Greitens wins.  Anyway.

    That's good.  I think.


    I think there is a (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 07:19:56 PM EST
    good chance that your friend is right and Greitens wins. If he wins, there is an equally good chance he will be the next Senator from Missouri. Missouri has crossed so far over to the dark side, that they might elect the devil himself if he had a R after his name.

    Too many in the state are like the Republicans who testified that Trump tried to overthrow the 2020 election and is a danger to our democracy but if he is the candidate they will vote for him in 2024.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 08:48:54 PM EST
    they would be going to this much trouble if they liked his chances.

    I mean (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 08:51:43 PM EST
    obviously they could care less that he is a bottom feeding d-bag.  They care about one thing, winning.

    I think there are a couple of old time (none / 0) (#157)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 09:53:29 PM EST
    GOP heavy weights that may actually care that he is a bottom feeding d-bag. John Danforth who is one of main players behind organizing the PAC and is trying to get a higher caliber candidate to run as an independent, comes to mind.

    He could just throw his weight behind one of the other gawd awful candidates rather than trying to get John Wood to run as an independent. If he succeeds in this, the Dems have a chance. If not, I definitely wouldn't bet against Greitens winning.


    Whoops (none / 0) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 10:09:28 PM EST
    should be Jack Danforth.

    I would like to believe (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 07:51:20 AM EST
    the Danforths of the world have the ability to take some power back from the fascists.  Not sure I do.  Particularly in states like yours and mine.

    Also, it might be cynical but when you get right down to it how different would the policies and voting record be between Greitens and any random republican that might replace him?

    In some ways having the Greitens and MTGs and Gomerts of the world as the face of the republican party could be the better option long run.

    I think that is at least part of what Danforth is worried about.


    I don't believe the Danforths' of the world (none / 0) (#167)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 09:09:01 AM EST
    have the power to take back control from the fascists now in our states. Our only real hope, is that they create enough chaos within their party that the fascists don't take complete control over the country for decades. If they do, it will IMO be a very long road back.

    While Danforth and his like minded colleagues support horrible policies (they are after all Republicans), I do believe they are honorable men who want to maintain our republic. Will they or we be able to do so? Right now it is a crap shoot.


    Apparently, America (none / 0) (#169)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 09:53:45 AM EST
    Is down to pinning its hopes on Danforth---infamous for his senate sponsorship of Clarence Thomas' SC nomination.  Maybe a photo of Danforth scowling as he sat next to Clarence above every fireplace mantle.

    Yes, (5.00 / 4) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 02:18:29 PM EST
    he has a horrible track record on people he supports which also includes Josh Hawley. And yes, we may well be down to people like Danforth, Chaney, George Conway, Kinzinger etc.  to create enough chaos for our republic to survive.

    H£ll, even Biden bears some responsibility for Thomas not to mention the Democrats who voted to confirm him. If all Democrats voted against him, he would not have been confirmed.

    The Senate voted 52-48 on October 15, 1991, to confirm Thomas as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. In all, Thomas won with the support of 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats, while 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted to reject his nomination.


    Yes, Biden, as chair (none / 0) (#177)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 03:03:33 PM EST
    of judiciary, could have done more (e.g.,called more witnesses), but (not an excuse, but maybe an explanation) the idea of sexual harassment in the workplace was just coming into the fore, at the time, even though the Thomas harassment was one on steroids. But, it sure would have been a good time, for the senate to set the example.

     And, Thomas likely lied when he said he did not ever talk about the Roe v.Wade decision of 1973.  Thomas graduated from Yale Law in 1974--hard to believe that never came up in discussion, somewhere, someplace. It was the "talk of the town." after all.

    Joe Biden did vote against Thomas' confirmation. A deciding vote was Alan Dixon (D.IL), who learned the hard way about sexual harassment, being challenged in the Democratic primary and, subsequently losing to Carol Mosley Braun, the first Black woman elected from Illinois. I always suspected that Daddy Bush promised Dixon something such as a non-entity Republican opponent that year. It did not work.


    Thomas (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 10:23:50 AM EST
    who has written in a concurring opinion that the right to contraception, personal privacy in sexual matters, (e.g,. Lawrence), and marriage equality.

    And, no, it just not going back to the States. The current GOP will try to pass national legislation to  ban abortion nationwide.  And perhaps marriage equality will be the subject of national legislation  too.


    Your state (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 10:19:25 AM EST
    What will your state, in your opinion, now that Roe is formally overturned, do with fertility clinics and frozen embryos, etc.?

    Don't have the slightest idea (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 11:16:08 AM EST
    And they probably don't either.  If your question assumes some problem with the "party of life" flushing frozen embryos down the toilet I would not count on that.

    Not flushing (none / 0) (#174)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    but closing fertility clinics.  No IVF in Arkansas?

    No idea (none / 0) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 24, 2022 at 12:53:18 PM EST
    I am (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 07:29:05 PM EST
    sure the rinos "hunting" Greitens probably makes him more popular with GOP primary voters. I thought GA would never go blue so you never know. MO could surprise you. I noticed a few candidates on twitter that looked like decent people. Maybe the powers that be in the MO GOP will sit on their hands and not help Greitens.

    The powers that be (heavy hitters) (none / 0) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 09:47:40 PM EST
    in the MO GOP will try very hard to make sure Greitens is not the candidate in November. They don't control the rank and file GOP voters, especially rural voters, who may well ensure he gets the nomination. Also, in MO we do not register by party and are free to vote for any candidate of either party in the primary. It is more than possible that we will have some "clever" Dems voting for him thinking he will be easily defeated in the general. I do not share this opinion. IMO, if Greitens is the candidate, he may well win the general.

    This kind of thinking (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 07:32:46 PM EST
    and resentment keeps happening and McCarthy's career is pretty much over. Stefanik will run him over on the way to the speaker-ship. McCarthy literally trying to be a troll over the J-6 committee has blown up in his face and the rest of the GOP. It couldn't happen to nicer people.

    well (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 23, 2022 at 09:18:54 AM EST
    not completely true. there are 2 Republicans but what I think he means is there is no one there defending him which is true.

    Some of the never Trumpers are saying that this 1 stupid decision will probably end any chance McCarthy has of being speaker if the house changes hands.


    Cassidy Hutchinsons testimony (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 12:31:49 PM EST
    is pretty gob smacking.

    The opening was interesting. First thing they showed photos meant to show how close she was to the Oval.

    Fun to speculate why that will be important.    

    ketchup (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    dripping down the walls.

    Ketchup on the walls is the least of it (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 01:11:12 PM EST
    trying to physically wrestle the steering wheel from the secret service guy?

    It's ok they have guns.  They are not here to hurt ME?



    It (none / 0) (#183)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 01:46:33 PM EST
    works as a metaphor, last bombshell Rudy and meadows asked for pardons.

    Wow (none / 0) (#184)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 01:48:47 PM EST
    and evidence of witness tampering!

    The best moment (none / 0) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 02:01:04 PM EST
    was Mike Flynn taking the 5th when asked if he "believed in the peaceful transition of power".

    Doesn't seem like a difficult or nuanced answer.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#186)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 02:08:57 PM EST
    also notable it was Liz herself doing the questioning. Roger Stone got a mention but not much follow up except for associating him with the oaf keepers.

    I appreciated the way (none / 0) (#187)
    by leap2 on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 02:56:00 PM EST
    the Committee not-so-subtly shamed Flynn and Meadows, and Roger Stone, showing them to be the cowards they are compared to Ms Hutchinson doing the right and difficult thing by testifying. But those creeps are incapable of shame.

    more (none / 0) (#188)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 04:42:30 PM EST
    importantly the is the first evidence of connections between tRump and the plotters in the "warroom", that they teased earlier, they didn't elaborate but I am sure there is more.

    And every session with the pardons, the Rudy and Mark begs this time, different characters same recurring story line.

    The implications of witness tampering was also a new bombshell, maybe the impetus for them to speed the hearings back up.

    My general feeling is that they have several witnesses who are on the fence and felt that now was the time to play one of their strongest cards to rachet up the pressure.


    Yes (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 04:46:53 PM EST
    seems likely others in the loop will come forward if for no other reason than to give there version.

    But it seems clear where this is going with the DOJ activity.

    There are going to be charges.  People are going to jail.  The train is leaving the station.  Etc.


    Define "lunge" (none / 0) (#194)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 07:03:50 PM EST

    The Secret Service will push back against bombshell testimony by former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, according to reports by NBC News and ABC News.

    "A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel," NBC News chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander reported.

    I guess the means (none / 0) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 07:06:37 PM EST
    these guys have to testify

    Hutchinson testified about a conversation with Trump Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato and Robert Engel, who ran Trump's Secret Service detail.

    This reminds (none / 0) (#198)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2022 at 06:25:49 AM EST
    me of Scott Perry screaming he didn't ask for a pardon. I would imagine that the committee already has had those people testify before going public with these accounts.

    It was mentioned last night (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 29, 2022 at 06:35:18 AM EST
    These two are blindly loyal to Trump.  To the point they were the people driving the car Pence refused to get into on the 6th because he feared they would kidnap him and take him someplace "safe".

    Cassie's lawyer said in response she has giver her version under oath.  They need to do the same.?

    I agree.


    Standard Republican (none / 0) (#200)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 29, 2022 at 08:41:43 AM EST
    operative operating procedure:  Gini stories about being up to her eyeballs in Jan6:  "I can't wait to come before the Committee and set the record straight."    After the news cycle:  Ginni's lawyer can't understand why Mrs. Thomas' testimony is relevant.

    That's (none / 0) (#201)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jun 29, 2022 at 09:16:13 AM EST
    pretty much the same line the Committee has ben using when asked if they have corroboration.

    As I mentioned before I think that the main reason for "rushing" this hearing was to ratchet up the pressure on potential witnesses and the closing arguments also seemed to throw some shade on previous witnesses.

    Previous witnesses including  

    both Ornato and Engel have appeared before the committee on the record and behind closed doors, at the committee's request. Those sessions were recorded, but not used in Tuesday's hearing.
    on the record but not under oath? For some reason I think they may have been a tad short of complete honesty.


    The Secret Service officials do not dispute that Trump was irate or that he demanded to be taken to the Capitol, in the language that Hutchinson related to the committee.
    Sure come on down and set the record straight on his(non physical) profanity laced tirade demanding to be taken to the capitol, and while you are we have several other questions for you.



    But you know (none / 0) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 01:13:14 PM EST
    the only thing MAGATs will hear is that he really REALLY did want to go to the riot.

    And the deep state wouldn't let him.


    Erick Erickson (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 04:55:44 PM EST
    says the GOP is going to privately start backing away from Trump. WTF cares if they don't have the guts to go public with whatever their issue is. For years they have been saying this crap "off the record", "privately" or anonymously.

    They all have their talking points about Hutchinson's testimony and the main one is it is all hearsay. So maybe Jeralyn or Peter can chime in as to whether her testimony met that standard.


    Renato Mariotti explaining heresay (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 06:23:26 PM EST
    to Jim Jordan on Twitter

    "So if a player comes up to you and says 'hey coach I went to the team doctor for a bloody nose and he grabbed my genitals instead,' that's not hearsay because he's not repeating an out-of-court statement, it's something that person perceived," White said, appearing to refer to allegations against Jordan by former OSU wrestler Tito Vazquez.

    Now, say you were being sued for something -- say, some sort of grotesque dereliction of duty for failing to report or stop the serial sexual abuse of people under your care -- and a witness said 'I told coach about it and he said 'I have nothing to do with this.'' That's not hearsay either, because in that case you're a party opponent and a statement of a party opponent is not hearsay. Just like first-hand witness testimony about what Trump said would be a statement of a party opponent in, say, a prosecution of Trump," White explained.

    Oops, that was (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 06:25:28 PM EST
    Attorney Ken White, a partner at Brown, White & Osborn, who blogs under the popular "Popehat" handle on Twitter

    Hearsay is not inherently less reliable (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 28, 2022 at 09:46:47 PM EST
    than direct testimony. Hearsay is used in the investigative process all the time. The committee hearings are not a trial, where the rules of evidence would apply; there are the public face of an investigation. When a credible and reliable person says she heard a credible and reliable person recount something he saw, and her testimony is offered to establish the truth of what the other person said, that is hearsay, but it is useful information, and probably true. The silence of SS agent Engel in the face of another person's account of what Tr*mp did and said to Engel in the car can be taken as an admission by him that the account was true only if a person in his position would be expected to speak up and deny it, were it untrue. I'm not sure that proviso applies to the Secret Service, which is probably very deeply committed to a tradition or culture of saying nothing about what they saw and heard while guarding a President.