Calm down about the committee hearings

[j-mac]

Complete sham from day one….

 

[berg80]

Complete sham from day one….

Indeed.

The intelligence community told Trump there was no fraud. On November 12, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency announced that there was no evidence of fraud: “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history…. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised…. While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.”50 This DHS assessment was apparently backed by the Director of National Intelligence, who in December of 2020 gave a classified briefing to DOJ lawyer Jeffrey Clark, advising him that there was no evidence of foreign interference with the vote.51

The DOJ told Trump there was no fraud. On December 1, 2020, Attorney General William Barr acknowledged publicly that the DOJ had seen no evidence of fraud “on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”52 Reporting indicates that, in private meetings with Trump, Barr used stronger language. In one account, Barr told Trump on December 1 that the DOJ had investigated and debunked fraud claims: “We’ve looked into these things and they’re nonsense.”53 Another account has Barr telling Trump that his claims about election fraud were “bullshit.”54

 

[scruffy]

Things would have proceeded more quickly had Trumpleton's not obstructed the investigation by illegally refusing to testify and or provide evidence.

The "committee" is illegal in the first place.

Besides, doesn't that have a distinctly Stalinist ring to it?

"The committee".

lol

 

[marvin martian]

I've seen several comments from around the net about the importance of these hearings, and this board sure is crammed with threads trying to downplay them. So some facts, just for fun:

• This isn't a trial. There are some who appear to think it is.
• Some Dems, especially Jamie Raskin, sure have been pumping this sucker up at the risk of creating expectations that are too high.
• If these members launch into the standard politician showboating, preening and pontificating for the cameras, this thing is toast.
• If they start going beyond hard facts, hard evidence and solid testimony, people will tune out.
• If they provide hard facts, hard evidence and solid testimony, great, it will help to flesh out the historical record.
• Those who are saying this is a cynical ploy to grab the independents certainly have a fair point. Such is the condition of our politics.
• This committee can't convict anyone. They can't sentence anyone. What they're doing is separate from legal proceedings.
• I'd imagine there will be a lot of people like me who don't want to sit through it, and will just observe the fallout, where we can get views from both ends.
• What matters in this thing is what, if anything, Garland and the DOJ decide to do. I'd imagine they'll get the evidence the committee has found.

Jan. 6 committee adviser on public hearings: People will be ‘absolutely surprised’

Former GOP Rep. Denver Riggleman (Va.), a former adviser to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, said the panel’s upcoming public hearings wi…

thehill.com

None of this changes the fact that the candidate you voted for and the "president" you spend all day here supporting destroyed the economy. That's the ONLY thing people will be thinking about in November, and again in 2024.

 

[Mac1958]

Indeed.

The intelligence community told Trump there was no fraud. On November 12, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency announced that there was no evidence of fraud: “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history…. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised…. While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.”50 This DHS assessment was apparently backed by the Director of National Intelligence, who in December of 2020 gave a classified briefing to DOJ lawyer Jeffrey Clark, advising him that there was no evidence of foreign interference with the vote.51

The DOJ told Trump there was no fraud. On December 1, 2020, Attorney General William Barr acknowledged publicly that the DOJ had seen no evidence of fraud “on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”52 Reporting indicates that, in private meetings with Trump, Barr used stronger language. In one account, Barr told Trump on December 1 that the DOJ had investigated and debunked fraud claims: “We’ve looked into these things and they’re nonsense.”53 Another account has Barr telling Trump that his claims about election fraud were “bullshit.”54

We'll probably never know for sure if he knows he lost or if he's just talked himself into it due to his profound self esteem issues.

All this damage because one desperate man-child didn't want to be thought of as a loser. Absolutely fucking incredible.

 

[j-mac]

Indeed.

The intelligence community told Trump there was no fraud. On November 12, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency announced that there was no evidence of fraud: “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history…. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised…. While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.”50 This DHS assessment was apparently backed by the Director of National Intelligence, who in December of 2020 gave a classified briefing to DOJ lawyer Jeffrey Clark, advising him that there was no evidence of foreign interference with the vote.51

The DOJ told Trump there was no fraud. On December 1, 2020, Attorney General William Barr acknowledged publicly that the DOJ had seen no evidence of fraud “on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”52 Reporting indicates that, in private meetings with Trump, Barr used stronger language. In one account, Barr told Trump on December 1 that the DOJ had investigated and debunked fraud claims: “We’ve looked into these things and they’re nonsense.”53 Another account has Barr telling Trump that his claims about election fraud were “bullshit.”54

Yes, yes, And those residing in "the swamp" would never use their power to bury things that could point the finger of truth back at them, right?

Look Berg, I understand that you and other progressives are fully willing, and hoping to tear down our institutions in order to rebuild a model that you think will be better. However, forming a select committee with no input from the minority party, all hand selected by one party leadership, with no representation of both sides of the information available, and now bringing in an ABC executive to form a propuganda style of presentation for the masses is nothing more than a clown show...

 

[j-mac]

We'll probably never know for sure if he knows he lost or if he's just talked himself into it due to his profound self esteem issues.

All this damage because one desperate man-child didn't want to be thought of as a loser. Absolutely fucking incredible.

Well, no one likes that.....I mean this board considers you a loser everyday to which I am sure that when alone you grit your teeth to.....lol

 

[marvin martian]

We'll probably never know for sure if he knows he lost or if he's just talked himself into it due to his profound self esteem issues.

All this damage because one desperate man-child didn't want to be thought of as a loser. Absolutely fucking incredible.

It doesn't matter. Joe Biden destroyed our economy and started a war with Russia. That's all anyone voting this year and in 2024 cares about. Your distractions are irrelevant.

 

[blackhawk]

Other than the most partisan of the partisans the vast majority of Americans have moved on from this.

 

[berg80]

The "committee" is illegal in the first place.

Prove it.

 

[j-mac]

Other than the most partisan of the partisans the vast majority of Americans have moved on from this.

As long as we can put someone like Navarro in leg irons, while Sussman walks free, then the world is a better place in their minds.

 

[berg80]

Other than the most partisan of the partisans the vast majority of Americans have moved on from this.

And...........? Does that mean an attempted coup shouldn't be investigated.

I humbly suggest you, and the rest of Americans, read this damning report.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Trump-on-Trial.pdf

 

[berg80]

As long as we can put someone like Navarro in leg irons, while Sussman walks free, then the world is a better place in their minds.

Navarro was arrested and released pending a trial. Sussmann was acquitted. Your point?

 

[j-mac]

Prove it.

Watch at 2:20

 

[j-mac]

And...........? Does that mean an attempted coup shouldn't be investigated.

I humbly suggest you, and the rest of Americans, read this damning report.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Trump-on-Trial.pdf

Amazing you agree with a liberal progressive think tank....Shocking I tell ya....

 

[j-mac]

Navarro was arrested and released pending a trial. Sussmann was acquitted. Your point?

Jury nullification is not aquittal, its a sham as well...As for Navarro, the normal course is that the FBI would contact his lawyers and tell him when to surrender to them, NOT waiting until he about to board a plane to go to a conference, and shackle him in public for maximum embarrassment....Tell me when Holder was cited for contempt of Congress, was he treated like that?

 

[berg80]

Amazing you agree with a liberal progressive think tank....Shocking I tell ya....

Not surprising that you choose snark over a refutation of the facts.

2. Obstructing a Lawful Function of the Federal Government

This is why courts have largely brushed aside defendants’ claims that § 371 is unconstitutionally vague as applied for failure to give adequate notice that the charged conduct is illegal.288 The statutory standard for criminal intent—specific intent to obstruct or impede—and the requirement of deceit or dishonesty narrow the statute’s reach and protect against prosecution for innocuous conduct.289 A great deal of caselaw has given clarity to the statutory language and explained which government functions will—and which will not—be covered.290 Criminal intent would likely be the critical and most hotly contested element of a § 371 prosecution against Trump, Eastman, Clark, Meadows, and possibly other members of their circle. In his litigation resisting a subpoena from the January 6 Committee to turn over his email correspondence related to the assault on the U.S. Capitol, Eastman claimed that he and Trump did not deploy dishonest means because “t is not ‘deceit, craft or trickery’ for the President, based on counsel from trusted advisors, to have arrived at conclusions on various factual matters which the Select Committee does not share.”291 The argument was that the attempts to obstruct and impede Congress and the DOJ could not have been dishonest if Trump and his collaborators honestly believed their cause was just. But—as Judge Carter found in the Eastman v. Thompson litigation, in deciding that Trump and Eastman more than likely violated § 371—that argument cannot withstand scrutiny. There is strong circumstantial evidence showing that Trump, Eastman, Clark, and Meadows subjectively knew that Trump fairly lost a secure election. Regardless of their beliefs about the election outcome, these men also knew that the means by which they pursued their objective were deceptive and inconsistent with established law. And there is no end-justifies-the-means safe harbor under § 371 for conspirators who deceitfully obstruct a lawful government function, even if they subjectively believe that their cause is justified.

 

[berg80]

Jury nullification is not aquittal,

Unanimous acquittal is not jury nullification.

 

[scruffy]

And...........? Does that mean an attempted coup shouldn't be investigated.

Another dishonest question.

Not surprised. Not surprised at all.

 

[berg80]

Another dishonest question.

Not surprised. Not surprised at all.

a. Trump and His Allies Knew that Trump Fairly Lost a Secure Election

Donald Trump and his supporters defend his post-election schemes by pointing to his obsessively repeated claims of fraud, as though they are validated by repetition. In their telling, Trump was not trying to steal an election that he lost. He was simply trying to defend against a rigged electoral process and preserve a victory that he rightly won. He had, his defenders say, a legitimately held—even if incorrect—interpretation of the facts surrounding the election. As Trump lawyer John Eastman claimed in a legal filing: “The [January 6] Committee has presumably concluded that those who advised the President that no material fraud or illegality existed were correct and that those who offered the opposite advice were incorrect. The fact that former President Trump reached a different conclusion does not show ‘consciousness of wrongdoing.’ It merely shows that the President arrived at a view of various factual questions which the…Committee does not share.”292 To the contrary, the factual record, laid out in detail above, provides substantial basis to believe that Trump did know the truth.