Fishing expedition by 1/6 commission (1 Viewer)

[moke123]

How often do you see the person presiding over a "hearing" hugging the witnesses Cassidy is a nut job with an axe to grind. She was very excited about the possibility of working for Trump are Mar-a-largo. This is just an attempt to get back at him for not hiring her.



You did too

yes I do. I've spent 40 years+ evaluating the credibilty of witnesses and she's pretty credible.

 

[Pat Hartman]

You are doubling down on her credibility after she lied in her hearsay???

 

[piano_playr]

You are doubling down on her credibility after she lied in her hearsay???

Nobody lied. It's all true. Secret Service corroborated statements. Why are you having difficulty with the obvious?

 

[moke123]

You are doubling down on her credibility after she lied in her hearsay???

Yup. You dont put on evidence you cant corroborate.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Yup. You dont put on evidence you cant corroborate.

Well the committee is doing exactly that knowing full and well there can be no real cross examination. It's not a situation that any one of us would want to have to go through for any accusations of any kind.

This is not the first time we have seen a crime pinned on an innocent person. Let's go to a well known book we should all be familiar with.

Dinesh D'Souza has an interesting view that this is like the famous book "To Kill A Mockingbird" and is happening all over again only the script is flipped. Atticus is the two republicans on the committee of nine (Uh oh, that's a problem right there since they are not really representing him at all). The angry white racist town members are the democrats now in power and those that make up the majority of the committee. And of course we have the black man named Tom Robinson who was accused of raping a white woman even though he did no such thing. In this case Tom would be equivalent to Trump.

At least Tom had Atticus on his side to represent him faithfully and honestly to the best of his ability. Trumps Atticus is a woman who hates him to the bone and was hand picked by the prosecutors themselves and clearly is not representing him at all. I hope no one reading this finds themselves in that sort of dilemma for any reason. Keep in mind, you don't have to commit a crime to find yourself in this position.

In contrast to the book:

Atticus provides impressive evidence that the marks on Mayella’s face are from wounds that her father inflicted; upon discovering her with Tom, he called her a ***** and beat her. Yet, despite the significant evidence pointing to Tom’s innocence, the all-white jury convicts him. The innocent Tom later tries to escape from prison and is shot to death. In the aftermath of the trial, Jem’s faith in justice is badly shaken, and he lapses into despondency and doubt.

After the trial when the rage of the father (Bob Ewell) caused him to lash out against the black family and Jem and Scout for bringing details of his crime to light, Boo Radley decided to take action to protect the life of those innocent victims. I'll leave it up to you to determine who Boo Radley represents.

Despite the verdict, Bob Ewell feels that Atticus and the judge have made a fool out of him, and he vows revenge.

If you're not familiar with the story, here is a link to the summary of it for more context. It's a classic though. To Kill A Mocking Bird Summary

 

[moke123]

Well the committee is doing exactly that knowing full and well there can be no real cross examination. It's not a situation that any one of us would want to have to go through for any accusations of any kind.

This is not the first time we have seen a crime pinned on an innocent person. Let's go to a well known book we should all be familiar with.

Dinesh D'Souza has an interesting view that this is like the famous book "To Kill A Mockingbird" and is happening all over again only the script is flipped. Atticus is the two republicans on the committee of nine (Uh oh, that's a problem right there since they are not really representing him at all). The angry white racist town members are the democrats now in power and those that make up the majority of the committee. And of course we have the black man named Tom Robinson who was accused of raping a white woman even though he did no such thing. In this case Tom would be equivalent to Trump.

At least Tom had Atticus on his side to represent him faithfully and honestly to the best of his ability. Trumps Atticus is a woman who hates him to the bone and was hand picked by the prosecutors themselves and clearly is not representing him at all. I hope no one reading this finds themselves in that sort of dilemma for any reason. Keep in mind, you don't have to commit a crime to find yourself in this position.

In contrast to the book:


After the trial when the rage of the father (Bob Ewell) caused him to lash out against the black family and Jem and Scout for bringing details of his crime to light, Boo Radley decided to take action to protect the life of those innocent victims. I'll leave it up to you to determine who Boo Radley represents.



If you're not familiar with the story, here is a link to the summary of it for more context. It's a classic though. To Kill A Mocking Bird Summary

I don't understand why you're all equating a congressional hearing to a criminal trial. If you must at least pick a criminal proceeding which is more in line with the congressional hearing which is a Grand Jury. You do not have cross examination in a GJ. You may submit exculpatory evidence to be presented to the GJ and appear in your own defense if you so choose. Hearsay evidence is allowed in GJ proceedings.

At the end of the day, It's going to be what evidence the DOJ can gather in admissable form for any criminal charges to issue. Then the defendants will have every opportunity to cross examine witnesses and move to preclude any evidence they want.

Is To Kill A Mockingbird one of the books republicans want to ban? You know, because of racism?

 

[Pat Hartman]

Yup. You dont put on evidence you cant corroborate.

So, the agents in the car don't count They were disputing her testimony before she left the building.

I don't understand why you're all equating a congressional hearing to a criminal trial

It's all about intention, isn't it? Their intention is to persecute Trump in a way that gives him no recourse. They can say whatever they want to say and he has no counter to their propaganda. Are any of the coopted media outlets going to show 2000 mules or the Mike Lindell video? No.

Why do you think judges place gag orders on participants in a contentious trial? I'll help you out. They don't want to pollute the jury pool and bias their opinion. And yet that is EXACTLY what the 1/6 committee "hearings" are intended to do. I can't believe you don't see that.

Is To Kill A Mockingbird one of the books republicans want to ban? You know, because of racism?

No, it is the Democrats who are the book burners and the ones who tear down statues in an attempt to erase history. I guess if you take down a stature of Lincoln or remove his name from a school, he never happened and 600,000 men didn't die so slavery would be abolished. Does that mean that we revert to pre-Lincoln America where slavery was practiced, mostly by southern Democrats, BTW.

Actually, slavery is alive and well in the US and being pushed by the Democrats. What? Do you really think that the poor people of the world can actually afford the $6,000-$8,000 the coyotes charge to sneak them across the border? They pay for their "passage" with indentured servitude which may as well be slavery.

 

[AccessBlaster]

At the end of the day, It's going to be what evidence the DOJ can gather in admissable form for any criminal charges to issue.

Isn't that what a grand jury is for?

 

[moke123]

So, the agents in the car don't count They were disputing her testimony before she left the building.

Two Secret Service sources told CNN that they heard about accounts similar to Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony in the months after Jan. 6—including from the driver himself.

Secret Service Have Been Gossiping About Trump’s SUV Outburst for a Year: CNN

Two Secret Service sources told CNN that they heard about accounts similar to Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony in the months after Jan. 6—including from the driver himself.

www.thedailybeast.com

Bottom line is what she said would not be admissable in a criminal trial, unless Ornato says something different and then she could be called as an impeachment witness with respect to his testimony. Then the jury gets to assess their credibility.

They can say whatever they want to say and he has no counter to their propaganda.

Pay attention Pat. He's been "Truthing" like a madman.

No, it is the Democrats who are the book burners

Tennessee Republicans hold a book burning to destroy Harry Potter, Twilight, and other "demonic" titles | Boing Boing

The simple banning of Maus from schools apparently wasn’t enough for Tennessee Republicans. The time has come to burn books that displease them. Global Vision Bible Church pastor Greg Locke, …

boingboing.net

Conservatives Are Just Openly Endorsing Book Burning Now

Book burning, as in the thing Nazis were into.

www.vanityfair.com

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/book-burning-in-america-the-theme-of-the-gop-cultural-war-opinion-687570

Could you point me to some links where democrats are burning books?

 

[moke123]

Isn't that what a grand jury is for?

Yes and No. A federal prosecutor can either indict through the grand jury process or file a criminal complaint or criminal information directly.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Yes and No. A federal prosecutor can either indict through the grand jury process or file a criminal complaint or criminal information directly.

In this case, it's no because they need a made-for-television spectacle. Otherwise, President Trump might get another bite of the apple.

Since this is meant to be a fact-finding mission, when do they stop omitting evidence? If the republicans get the majority back they will release the omitted video and testimony the dems will look even more silly than they do now.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The the "fact" that the book burners were Republican has nothing to do with why they burned the books or did you miss that part of the story because the "Republican's doing stupid stuff" fit your narrative? Maybe you think that all Republicans are religious nuts. Not that I am justifying book burning by religious nuts. I would classify these people with the Democrat nuts that tear down statues that represent history they don't approve of. You can't destroy an idea by destroying a physical representation of it.

Sexually explicit books have no place on the bookshelves of k-12 schools. They should be removed. But burning is an unnecessary statement. Just bury them with the rest of the garbage Sexualizing children is a sign of the disintegration of our society.

 

[piano_playr]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. It's easy to ascertain where each person's persuasions lie. I really like what Walter Lippmann promoted in the 1920s as good journalism.

"There can be no higher law in journalism than, to tell the truth, and shame the devil.” -- W. Lippmann

That quotation applies to all American citizens, not only journalists. We've experienced some real challenges over the past six years coming to terms with that elusive thing called the truth. Calling what happened on 1/6 anything other than an insurrection is an assault on the truth. If one is found to have contributed to the event or failed to contain it when they had the means and the opportunity, then they should be prosecuted for the appropriate crimes. I find it hard to understand why there is difficulty coming to terms with "shaming the devil."

 

[Isaac]

How often do you see the person presiding over a "hearing" hugging the witnesses Cassidy is a nut job with an axe to grind. She was very excited about the possibility of working for Trump are Mar-a-largo. This is just an attempt to get back at him for not hiring her.



You did too

These hearings have turned into oceans of weepy estrogen women fawning over each other while moby dick captain liz cheney continues her glassy eyed vendetta that nobody cares about.
Like toddlers just let them tire themselves out instead of preparing for the election

 

[Isaac]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. It's easy to ascertain where each person's persuasions lie. I really like what Walter Lippmann promoted in the 1920s as good journalism.

"There can be no higher law in journalism than, to tell the truth, and shame the devil.” -- W. Lippmann

That quotation applies to all American citizens, not only journalists. We've experienced some real challenges over the past six years coming to terms with that elusive thing called the truth. Calling what happened on 1/6 anything other than an insurrection is an assault on the truth. If one is found to have contributed to the event or failed to contain it when they had the means and the opportunity, then they should be prosecuted for the appropriate crimes. I find it hard to understand why there is difficulty coming to terms with "shaming the devil."

I for one would be very surprised to see the most powerful country in the world being "almost"overthrown by 200 people armed with pepper spray and mason jars.

But sure, ok? If it makes you feel better

 

[Steve R.]

"There can be no higher law in journalism than, to tell the truth, and shame the devil.” -- W. Lippmann

Unbelievable that you would provide that citation. The media, much of it, has degenerated into being the propaganda arm of the Democratic party. Any news detrimental to the Democratic party is suppressed. Stories concerning Republicans are malingly twisted into presenting Republican viewpoints as anti-democratic, racist, xenophobic, etc. to demonize them. If Lippman could comment today, good journalism would not exist.

Calling what happened on 1/6 anything other than an insurrection is an assault on the truth.

To use the language of the left, it was a mostly peaceful rally. It was reported on June 2, 2020 that BlM/Antifa attempted to burn down historic St. John’s in Washington DC. Similarly, attempts were made in Portland to burn down federal buildings. Had that same "insurrectionist" energy been applied by BLM/Antifa; the Capital building today would have become a smoldering ruin.

Consider that Pelosi and Bowser refused to authorize improved security at the Capital building. To get into the conspiracy angel, recall the Reichstag fire. Unbelievable as it may appear for governmental leaders, did Pelosi and Bowser want an out of control "riot" to aggrandize the power of the Democratic party? The Democratic party is all about optics and melodramatic theater. There are also whispers that some of the people in attendance where actually government "provocateurs". For a Committee that truly seeks the truth, it would appear that these are questions that need to be investigated too.

Beginning with Trump's election, the Democrats began howling impeachment. They didn't even have the decency to wait until Trump actually did something wrong. The impeachments, Mueller Witch-Hunt, Russian hoax were all efforts by the Democrats to implement a soft coups. For the party that claims to believe in democracy, that is hypocritical not to mention that they were the ones who were really trying to overturn election results (the will of the people).

 

[Pat Hartman]

Calling what happened on 1/6 anything other than an insurrection is an assault on the truth.

What do you call the assault on the Arizona state house last week?
What do you call the assaults AND occupations of police stations and court houses in the summer of 2020?
What do you call the occupations in Seattle and Portland?
What do you call the attack on the White house in 2020?
What do you call the "incursion" into the Capitol building in 2016? or any of the other times it has happened?

 

[Pat Hartman]

There are also whispers that some of the people in attendance where actually government "provocateurs".

I think we can go with fact on that one. We have videos of Ray Epps trying to get people to assault the Capitol building. But the crowd was on to him and was chanting Fed, Fed, Fed. Clearly, he was attempting to foster an insurrection. Why is he not in jail? Why was he not even charged with anything? Why are there political prisoners' still being held one and a half years later for trespassing? If they committed a crime, charge them and be done with it. Every inch of the Capitol corroders was covered by surveillance cameras. The "investigators" have thousands of hours of video but we've seen NO video of crimes except that of people walking through the halls or sitting in Nancy's chair taking selfies.

If there was video of crimes, do you think we wouldn't be watching it 24/7?

 

[piano_playr]

We have videos of Ray Epps trying to get people to assault the Capitol building. But the crowd was on to him and was chanting Fed, Fed, Fed. Clearly, he was attempting to foster an insurrection.

This is a conspiracy theory that was debunked.

 

[moke123]

This is a conspiracy theory that was debunked.

But Tucker said it so it must be true.

New evidence further disproves FBI Jan. 6 conspiracy theory

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol dealt a fact-based blow to efforts to reb

www.politifact.com