- This topic has 166 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Morning. I only watched a few short segments, so trying not to have an opinion until I see. They said the 1st night was a preview on what to expect and that they’ll bring the evidence over the next 5 sessions. Any “rhetoric” will need to be backed up. Forgive me for being basic, but let’s all remember that evidence will likely be a mix of objective provable facts (for example proof of Proud Boy conspiracy to disrupt certification) and direct or circumstantial evidence (i.e. “stand by” + people warning him Proud Boys were interpreting his statements as encouragement, + if maybe Trump was on a group chat with these fellows), when taken all together could reasonably infer Trump conspired or at least knew he was inciting a coup. Or the fact that Ivanka and other inner-circle aides apparently testified that they believed there was no election fraud, we could reasonably infer Trump didn’t really believe he was cheated (especially if each allegation of fraud turned out to be a lie). Of course this isn’t a court of law and so they aren’t necessarily trying to prove a specific crime was committed. But if he’s a bad apple we should know about it even if no crime. Yes, the committee could throw mud. They wouldn’t go this far though unless things really looked bad on the whole. So they laid out a road map of 7 things Trump plotted to do, we shall see… Apologies for the length.
If police had done their jobs to protect citizens and property during the BLM riots, there would have been thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths. As it is, the BLM riota killed dozens and caused billions of dollars of damage, not to mention the storming and destruction of federal property.
The protestors in the capitol never had a chance to overthrow the government, and the overwhelming majority of them had no interest in doing so either. There were some activists in the proud boys and oath keepers who had such fantasies, but there were only a few dozen of them.
The rest were mad, and were protesting. The capitol had been breached at least 6 times in US history, and never had a congressional inquiry investigating it.
The media constantly calls the riot “deadly”, when only one person – a trump supporter – was killed by police. Had police shot a BLM supporter….that cop would be in jail or dead by now.
People committing suicide, i.e. murdering themselves, because they can’t handle their jobs as policemen, is not the fault of rioters. I’m sure many cops killed themselves as a result of 2020 riots and widespread hatred of police. Many police have been killed by BLM supporters too. Why is none of this being investigated? Why are the rich people at the head of the organization not being at least audited?
CS, please attempt to stay on topic. The convo was about the hearings and viewing the same.
I didn’t see any evidence that the stream I was watching was being edited while I viewed it. Or if there was some microsecond delay to accomplish such feats. I watched the hearing on a live stream, not a net work stream.
Certainly the video clips of the riot were edited. There has got to be hundred of hours of film of this devastation, it all cannot be played at a hearing or series of hearings. The committee did credit the sources of the videos and one documentarian was questioned. I’m sure there are complete transcripts of the hearing available online for those who wish to follow them without viewing the actual proceedings.
I’m not a die hard Trumpist, but at this point I’m convinced the only purpose of the hearings is to detract from Biden’s failures and the horrific economy. What, exactly, are they hoping to accomplish? All the evidence has been viewed and reviewed a thousands times over. Yes, people attacked the Capitol with intent to overturn the election. Yes, Trump rallied with them and may have said some things that provoked them. But is it enough to put the guilt on Trump? No, we’ve already established that. So what is this all about already?
Not video editing, sheesh.
When there is a hearing, there are people from both sides (whatever those sides may be) who listen to the evidence presented, ask questions about it, cross examine and clarify, and establish credibility. If I stood before a group and said (for example) “This doctor supports my work. I will now show you some of the letter he sent me and a clip of him giving his approbation” you would expect someone to ask further questions about it minimally, or perhaps for the rest of the letter or interview. If not, then I have presented an edited version of the evidence. And if there is no other side, who is to ask any questions to verify credibility? Im not trying to be anti democrat or argumentative, these are valid questions. Both sides were present at Watergate. It was mentioned to me by a lawyer friend that not having “the other side” is completely unprecedented. I don’t know if that is so. So reaching out was not something requiring snappy responses, it was a question. And it seems not one person who supports this process is able to explain how it is being carried out appropriately.
Im more tired of this nastiness than I am of hearing about Trump. and that’s pretty tired.“Yes, Trump rallied with them and may have said some things that provoked them.”
So even if Trump provoked people to act violently and try to overthrow our government to suit his purposes, you’re OK with that????! Incredible. That passes muster for a leader of the U.S.? They are trying to present evidence to show you that not only his actions provoked this (which is itself unacceptable), but that it was part of an intentional effort on his part to subvert our system to keep him in power. Let’s watch the actually hearings and see if they make a convincing case. Good Shabbos“The capitol had been breached at least 6 times in US history, and never had a congressional inquiry investigating it…”
Agreed…and this wasn’t even a “breach” and there were no “rioters”. The police invited them all to climb in through the broken ground floor windows for guided “tours” of their capital building, to take some souvenirs from the Speaker’s office and erect and engage in mock combat with the uniformed security staff for a documentary they were preparing.
Syag: it is not a court of law, not that type of hearing. Yes, 1-sided because there’s no one defending Trump. At least there are 2 republicans participating who have every political incentive NOT to participate. The idea is to present what THEY found happened, and Trump’s level of participation. If there’s anything persuasive presented, we’ll have to examine further if you remain skeptical. If there’s credible evidence (i.e. texts, testimony of his inner circle, family, Barr) that establishes Trump was up to no good, that’s enough reason not to vote for him again. Who cares that they don’t prove it was “criminal,” or if certain testimony presented would not be admissible in court. As a poster said, you don’t need to read mein kampf to know Hitler was a rasha. The allegations are egregious, so worth finding out. Yes, this is also certainly “political.” Trump indicates he wants to run. He’s been supporting candidates who would bend the constitution for him, continuing to threaten democracy and the rule of law, if true. So it is of consequence and worth finding out.
“Syag: it is not a court of law, not that type of hearing”
That’s too bad. I would much rather have access to the texts, transcripts and testimonies of the witnesses than someone’s interpretations of them. If they decide to make it available i will read them myself. Time will tell.That should read ‘unchecked’ opinions.
>>>At least there are 2 republicans participating who have every political incentive NOT to participate
They were only selected to be on the commission they had both very clearly and strongly expressed their view that Trump is guilty.
Liz Cheney is making MILLIONS of millions dollars from liberal donors for being on the committee. Adam Kinzinger (who the Democrats gerrymandered out of future office) is a guy who no one ever would have heard of had he not joined the committee but now (along with Cheney) is getting an enormous amount of attention and kovod from the media.
They both have very bright future careers on MSNBC and other such sites bad mouthing the Republicans. Ever since they joined the committee they have both picked so many fights with other Republicans (about unrelated issues) that they are both clearly angling for those positions.
They are NOT people of principle (It’s possible they once were but once you join such corrupt commissions all principles and morals are out the window)
Smerel, so you’re fixed in your views: if they were all democrats, it must be a witch hunt. If there are any republicans then they must be sell-outs since there must be SOME potential gain. I am giving them benefit of doubt. If they have principals it’s that they are looking into corruption regardless of party affiliation. Yes, I have my notions that Trump is more liable than not liable, but trying to see for myself if they really make a case Trump was up to no good.
Syag clearly you don’t understand the purpose of these hearings or the process. Your unwillingness to access evidence (texts, transcripts prior testimony) tells me I’d rather be shaving my cat than trying to explain the functions and goals of the hearings. May you and yours have a good shabbos.
Wow. I’m sorry that your nature filled wholesome life out in the country hasn’t adequately left you enough at peace not to need to be hurtful to those less informed than you.
My apologies for getting in your way.The purpose of the dog and pony show is to score political points for the Democrats. Unfortunately for them, it isn’t succeeding.
@Amil, this is very much on topic, this is a collossal waste of time, let them focus on something pressing like reducing the highest inflation rate in 40 years or gas that is thru the roof and climbing thanks the these idiots killing domestic gas production
>>>Smerel, so you’re fixed in your views: if they were all democrats, it must be a witch hunt. If there are any republicans then they must be sell-outs
Totally not the case. Had Pelosi also picked Republicans who hadn’t very strongly expressed their opinion that Trump is guilty and whatever else the Democrats party line is before they were chosen then I would give the commission the benefit of the doubt. It’s current makeup is about as objective as a KKK lynch mob running after a black man accused of raping a white women. The black man may be guilty but they are still a lynch mob.
Now what did I say about you that was hurtful? It’s true that you resist looking up the very sources you need for information. Again, there are transcripts and primary documents available online. Read them or don’t.
Syag: Rural life has its benefits. More time to shave the cat, count the salmon at the Bonneville Dam fish ladder, climb the Redwoods, toivel in natural mikvahs and most importantly, read the House organizing resolution (H. Res 503) for the 1/6 Committee and objectives of the public hearings, including, inter alia:
“investigate and inform the public regarding the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol…”
A gutten shabbos.
“Smerel, so you’re fixed in your views: ”
er – I just want to interject here cuz this is a big thing that happens a lot. I totally hear you. That comment makes a lot of sense and there is SOOO much of people being fixed in their trump/anti trump views. But there are also times when it is actually a legit comment or complaint (or observation). What he said was true, not just fixed views, as evidenced by other issues that have played out with her over the months/year.
Honestly, if Yaakov’s questions aren’t answered, especially if they don’t even get asked, it will be very telling in regard to the depth and direction of this hearing. And I appreciate all you wrote about trump and getting to the bottom of his actions. I hadn’t even given that a thought in regard to wanting this unraveled. I want the rest of the story. Specifically the timeline, the lack of planned security, the refusal to set up security, the missing hours between the request for security and it showing up, the false report about officer siknik lasting so long, the videos of security staff opening doors and ushering people in. There are so many questions and I am under the impression by the subpoenas and witness list that these – which really are at the heart and core of the chaos – are not being addressed. If that is true, than isn’t that itself a curious question?
” It’s true that you resist looking up the very sources you need for information.”
totally false. I have said a hundred times that I always go there first. I said I don’t listen to talking heads or news reports because I prefer facts. Listening to hearings/trials start to finish without the arm chair spins.
” Again, there are transcripts and primary documents available online.”
I hope so. If they are I will find them.
GH – thank you! So nice to get an answer. Not to disappoint but I had heard the objectives of the hearings, I was looking for the testimonies and evidence.
For those who hope to convince the other side that there is fire behind these smoke signals, you are confronted with powerful psychological barriers: there were so many promising leads that most convincible people in the middle checked out already. We all worried about pings @ Alpha bank and read Mueller thriller, including footnotes (and I am skipping 100 stories in between). Most turned out to be untrue provocations or just disappeared from public view. Turns out Mueller could not even see that his sources were paid by Hillary and making “typos” on affidavits. This is not unusual for American politics, just more intense and one-sided with Trump. So, my free advise is to stop trying throwing more accusation and just wake us up in case you found something material. I am frankly shocked – shocked – that none of the unseemly claims about T were not proven yet. Given his middos and type of business he was involved in, there should be something. Look harder.
One simply has to google to get copies of testimony relating to these hearings and listings of evidence. Am I missing something?
You’re missing that Americans have better entertainment than tuning into this political theatre.
I don’t get it. The risk to the Constitution is real. Do you America want to be like a country in Africa Viet the ruling power keeps rewriting the rules to stay in power?
I don’t see how there was ever a risk to democracy or the government. People protest often in this country, whether they’re right or wrong. The only time the country came close to falling apart was during the civil war.
There was a plan – possibly many plans, to maintain power despite the Constitution. Those who were just protesting or rioting, are a secondary issue.
Those were a small continent; I’m sure many more took CHAZ seriously as a rebellion against the authority of the government, but it was celebrated. The ones who made it were guilty of treason, sedition, and more – it was the first time since the confederacy that a part of the union broke off.
OK. Finally made it through 1st hearing. It was portrayed as an introduction, with more evidence to follow. But it was poignant to see the deposition testimony of Trump’s top campaign folks including their poll/numbers cruncher. They testified that:
1. They informed Trump that he was likely going to loose; and
2. They dug into the stats, irregularities, and allegations, and there was no fraud, and no irregularities, and they advised Trump on all of this. These guys would be the ones to really dig in to everything aggressively. Trump himself doesn’t dig through polls ad data; he relies on his campaign.
3. Barr, Trump’s appointee to the the top law enforcement position, who would know more than anyone about the fraud allegations, testified there was no fraud.Also in the weeks before the election, all polls showed Trump was in trouble (even Fox news polls). I saw him complaining at a rally that suburban women weren’t going to vote for him, and ‘please vote for me because it would be so embarrassing if sleepy Joe beat me.’
So the fact that he knew before the election that he may very well lose, the fact that his campaign heads told him in the days after the election that he was finished and there was no fraud, shows that he knowingly pushed a false narrative. And the ‘no fraud’ conclusion supports how the 50-something court cases fell flat and the numerous videos and allegations that surfaced were all proven to be hoaxes.
A couple extra notes to address people’s prior posts:
1. Apparently Pelosi initially pushed for a formal bipartisan investigation, which the republicans rejected. I don’t know the details, but that’s their explanation why they did this has a committee hearing. They wanted something more formal;
2. Smerel: you acknowledge Trump probably did lots of treif things. Yet you skewer and discredit all investigations as corrupt and political. They are working with a handicap because Trump and many of his top supporters have not cooperated.>>>Smerel: you acknowledge Trump probably did lots of treif things. Yet you skewer and discredit all investigations as corrupt and political. They are working with a handicap because Trump and many of his top supporters have not cooperated.
Only an idiot would cooperate with a investigation when he knows that those who are making it aren’t out for truth but are out to get him. There are plenty of things they could and would have done to work around such distrust if they were looking to do an honest investigation like (1)stress that we don’t know the outcome (2)appoint DEMOCRATS who weren’t long term passionate Trump enemies (3)have oversight and transparency which conducting the investigation (4) have this as an actual hearing with the Trump side being given the ability to be present and question the what is being presented etc.etc.etc.
The way things really were done I don’t think they were even TRYING to make a fair investigation, give accurate information or determine the causes of January in an effort to prevent them from happening again.
I’m being very charitable to both sides by saying Trump seems to have deluded himself into thinking that he really won the election and still thinks that way now. The January 6 committee seems to have deluded themselves into thinking they are impartial investigators honestly presenting an impeccable case against Trump for altruistic motives.
For the good of America’s future as a democracy cooler and more honest heads need to prevail.
Dear Smerel,
Idiots: Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama.
Not idiots: Nixon, Trump.
The partisanship is awful. Obama’s fault. But right now the Republican Party, is stuck on Trump adherence. The best result of these hearings would be if the Republicans would drop Trump and resume being the party of the people. Right now we have to parties looking out for the interests of the billionaires.
>>>Dear Smerel, etc
How many times do I have to repeat that I am NOT a Trump supporter?
My opposition to Trump however does not make me blind to the repeated wrongdoings and dishonesty of the other side. And right now they are the ones sounding off , not Trump.
Yes, in Joe Shmo’s criminal court case, it’s best to have jurors who’ve never heard of the guy and see the evidence with no preconceptions. Trump is a public figure and has said or tweeted controversial things. You yourself have suggested Trump has done wrong things, it’s unavoidable to have some kind of opinion from the get-go. This thread focuses on the most reliable of evidence presented. If this ever becomes a criminal case, Trump will have the chance to cross-examine. We haven’t see the entire depos to see context, but the statements I highlighted would be pretty hard to spin out of context. All democrats can’t stand him. There are more neutral republicans, but they are afraid to participate because it’ll cost them their jobs. There are only 2 willing to stand up to their chief.
Maybe he deluded himself, that’s a charitable way to put it. If he was really deluded and ignored data and his officials, then he is not fit to be president. If instead he KNEW the truth and evidence shows he got people to buy it, it’s worse.
In all, if there is reliable damning evidence, it doesn’t matter who obtains or presents it.>>>Maybe he deluded himself, that’s a charitable way to put it. If he was really deluded and ignored data and his officials, then he is not fit to be president.
And maybe the Democrats really have a lot of blame for this particularly with how easy it was for Trump to get his supporters to believe the election was stolen. Maye they have good reason for not trusting the government which the January 6 commission is only adding to
Let’s start from the beginning
What investigations were undertaken regarding claims of fraud in the election in 2020. Who was in charge? In what states? What types of fraud were looked at? When did these investigations begin? When did they end?
What investigative techniques were used? How many search warrants? Any grand juries empaneled? Where? Did any of them issue subpoenas? Was a final report issued? If so why hasn’t it been made public?
I have no idea about any of the questions above. But I do know that Mr Mueller toke a tremendous amount of time and effort with the full weight of the government and media behind him to investigate completely false allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Had he shot down those allegations as quickly as quickly and operating in as much secrecy as they were shot down in 2020 you would still have many Democrats saying and believing those allegations. More importantly were those involved ever punished for setting the precedent of questioning elections by falsely alleging fraud that Trump was following? Were there hearings then about how to prevent it in the future?
And again I’m anti-Trump but I don’t see the Democrats as being the pro Democracy good guys in the story.
To add to @smerel’s point:
Coming in to 2020 elections, there was plenty of bipartisan concern about election integrity.
Owing to varying COVID policies, numerous places changed their voting protocols- creating confusion and potential for abuse.Before COVID, a bipartisan committee found that mass mail-in ballots were risky.
and and already in 2018, democrats were very concerned about the integrity of electronic ballot machines.
Numerous big-name democrats testified in the Senate about their findings on just how easy it is to hack and manipulate the machines.Given all of these bipartisan concerns , all efforts should should have have been made to assuage any concerns.
yet this wasn’t exactly the approach taken…
Gefilte: please provide backup for your claims about bipartisan concern about mail-ins. And for democrats being concerned.
Smerel: Are you questioning whether anybody adequately investigated the claims of voter fraud? 1st answer: You can be sure Barr has the information and can assess whether an investigation has been adequate. Note he was still supportive of many Trump positions at the time and isn’t biased against Trump. Same can be said for Trump’s campaign officials. Same for 50 or 60 court cases, many of whom were conservative Trump-appointed judges. If that’s not enough, there’s plenty online that debunks each of the claims. That’s about as good as you can get. You seem to be saying, “yeah but there still MIGHT be something out there we don’t know about, we didn’t inspect the voting machines.” That’s like putting someone in jail even after allegations are proven false, because WHO KNOWS if there’s a tangible leads out there. Nothing was suspicious in the vote results. No reason to indulge in a conspiracy or seize machines.
Dear Smerel,
I’m not saying the Democrats are the heroes to Trump as villain. To uphold our democracy, this work has to be done. And it is being done. Why are you questioning how congressional committees work? They could change the rules anytime they want. Why does that matter here? The question is, how good the evidence is, what does it suggest, and of interest to most viewers whom does it implicate the most.
>>>You can be sure Barr has the information and can assess whether an investigation has been adequate.
This and the rest of your comment basically boils down to “you know how you can you know there was no fraud? Because they said so”
No surprise that people who don’t trust the government (with good reason if I may add) aren’t willing to accept it .
Thanks for clarifying. As for the persuassiveness of the evidence, that’s what I tried honing in on, excluding any testimony they showed that could reasonably be out of context had they showed the whole thing. I commented on what I thought was “good” evidence, and it suggested beyond doubt Trump knew (or should have known?) he lost and peddled claims anyway. I am satisfied. The next step is what evidence that he planned and tried to have a riot incited. I imagine it’s easier to show circumstantially that he was aware of should have been aware of the consequences of his rally (or that he certainly didn’t mind the riot), than any smoking gun. By the way, Sayag, I heard that Trump never did request national guard, that he claimed this after-the-fact. I would like to see what evidence there is (or would have been) to show he did.
Dear Smerel,
As I read more of your posts from other threads some from years ago, I see what troubles you.
It does not matter to me what specific congressmen seek to gain personally from various proceedings. As long as Congress functions, it’s okay that there is power struggles and avarice. The point of these hearings is to get a better understanding of the threats to our country.
The 16 election hearings, were about tied threat of Russian meddling.
These hearings are about all the different characters and what they intended to achieve on Jan 6.
These are matters of national importance. Trump is not the main target because there isn’t any real target. The goal is to assess the situation honestly and react accordingly.The Ukraine hearings was all about Trump. The ultimate goal was to indict and then impeach. Still, the hearings were necessary to first assess all the information they had.
n0mesorah: well said.
“By the way, Sayag, I heard that Trump never did request national guard, that he claimed this after-the-fact. I would like to see what evidence there is (or would have been) to show he did.”
that’s interesting. And if he did (I’ll leave that up in the air) are you thinking that they would bring that evidence forward? I have no problem with you taking their word for everything they say but I do take issue with you thinking that this is actually a fair display of how things went down. Nobody holds a one sided hearing objectively. It’s beyond naive to think that.
I have done quite a bit of digging and I still have not found the complete transcripts, documents or depositions. Nor can I find anyone other than Amil claiming that there are complete copies out there. If anyone has google suggestions please share them. I was able to get nonpartisan information from academics, real life individuals and other non media sources that are trustworthy and my take away is this:
If I say that some of the evidence is less then credible, I get called a narrow minded trump loving tucker carlson junkie. If I say that I found that there are several key issues that are being ignored, I am told I watch too much fox news and have fixed opinions. And if I ask, in return, for some sources that verify some of the not quite sensical testimony, I am informed ““you know how you can you know there was no fraud? Because they said so” (to quote smerel). So really it’s agree with the majority party or be called a fool. Not much of an opportunity for dialogue.
er said Apparently Pelosi initially pushed for a formal bipartisan investigation, which the republicans rejected. I don’t know the details, but that’s their explanation why they did this has a committee hearing.
don’t you find that troubling? Or at least odd? The lack of bipartisanship is a HUGE issue in this hearing – resulting in the lack of cross examining, verification of facts, presentation of some things that seemed to have gotten overlooked etc. So you are given an “explanation” but somehow are still missing the details. right.
@er:
There was a bipartisan commission established a few years ago to examine the security of mass mail-in voting (as opposed to absentee voting which requires requesting a ballot etc.)
I remember that former president Carter was one of the leads.
(I think the other was Jim baker but I don’t remember).The commission found that mass mail in voting was a generally unsafe way of voting, and made some recommendations on how to improve it.
I believe- though I don’t remember for sure- that the democrats had made an issue of it in a prior election (Maybe when Stacy Adams lost in Georgia?)
TherWhen I vote in person, my signature is being compared so is it done for mail in voting.
“The lack of bipartisanship is a HUGE issue in this hearing”
Well, if the republicans agreed to a formal investigation it would have been bipartisan. If they refused, the democrats will have to do it themselves. At least 2 republicans are on the committee. Also see reply #2096254 from N0mesorah. For example, a criminal prosecutor is definitely “biased” and is doing his best to prove a crime. That’s OK: the job has to get done. If his evidence doesn’t hold up, the defendant goes free. While the hearing doesn’t have the same rules or objectives of a trial, it’s the same: the burden of proof is on the committee to make their case. Did you find the deposition testimony presented credible?For all of cnn’s biases, isn’t disturbing that I went to foxnews.com yesterday and this morning and saw 0 articles on the hearing? Given the testimony substantiated that Trump knew he lost and peddled lie, that should be newsworthy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.