An editorial on the Jan 6th'd report.

I think that this is fair assessment on some of the details. There was much more evidence uncovered. Justification for charges or not, this is not how a President should act.



Letters from an American

December 19, 2022
Heather Cox Richardson




Today the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol held its final public hearing.

It reviewed the material establishing how former president Donald Trump planned even before the 2020 election to declare he had won even if he actually lost, and how he executed that plan. It then laid out how he maintained he had won even as his own lawyers and campaign advisors repeatedly assured him that the conspiracy theories on which he was relying were false. It showed how he contested Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s victories in court—losing 61 times—and then pressured state governments to “find” the votes he needed to win.

When those attempts to hand him the election all failed, he turned to trying to steal the election through pressuring state officials to create false slates of electors that chose him, rather than Biden, and then pressured the Department of Justice to get states to turn to those electors by alleging—falsely—that the department thought the election was fraudulent (its leaders had said repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that the election was not fraudulent). When Justice Department leaders refused, he tried to put a loyalist, Jeffrey Clark, at the head of the department to do as he wished. He was stopped only when the department leaders threatened to resign as a group.

That left him with a plan hatched by right-wing lawyer John Eastman. The plan hinged on the outrageous idea that the vice president, in his capacity as the person to oversee the counting of electoral ballots, could decide not to count the legitimate ballots for which Trump loyalists had submitted competing ballots, enabling him single-handedly to throw the election to Trump over the wishes of the American voters.

Eastman himself admitted this plan was illegal.

And yet it was Trump’s last hope to look like he was playing by the rules. When Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, refused to participate in the scheme, Trump went to his final card—his trump card, if you’ll forgive me—his base.

Exactly two years ago today, on December 19, 2020, when it became clear that his campaign lawyers had lost their legal challenges and the real electors had filed their electoral slates, Trump tweeted to his supporters to urge them to come to Washington, D.C., on January 6, the day those electoral votes would be counted and confirm Biden’s election to the White House. Falsely claiming what he knew to be untrue, that it was statistically impossible for him to have lost the election, he told his supporters: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild.”

The right-wing militias he had courted since the Charlottesville, Virginia, Unite the Right rally of August 2017 heard the message. Immediately, they interpreted his tweet as an order to come to Washington to keep him in office, with violence if necessary, and they planned accordingly. Trump appears to have seen their potential violence as a final way to force Pence to do as he wished. When the vice president continued to refuse, Trump whipped up the crowd against his vice president and sent them toward the Capitol, where both houses of Congress and the vice president were all, in an exceedingly rare occurrence, together.

For 187 minutes, as his supporters stormed the Capitol, Trump watched the chaos on television and did nothing to stop it, communicating only with those continuing to try to stop the counting of the electoral votes. Only when troops had been mobilized and it was clear the insurrection would not succeed did he tell his people that he loved them and they should go home. They promptly did, underscoring that he could have called them off whenever he wished.

He expressed no concern for those under siege that day, and he did nothing to stop the rioters.

After outlining the former president’s attempt to stay in power against the wishes of the American people, overturning the very foundation of our democracy, the committee members voted to refer Trump to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution for violating at least four laws:

The first law the committee says Trump broke was that he obstructed an official proceeding. Trump tried corruptly to stop the joint session of Congress counting electoral votes in a bunch of different ways, from gathering false electors, to trying to send a letter to state legislators from the Department of Justice lying that the department thought the election was suspect, to spurring on a mob. Under this charge, the committee also referred lawyer John Eastman “and certain other Trump associates.”

It noted that “multiple Republican Members of Congress, including Representative Scott Perry, likely have material facts regarding President Trump’s plans to overturn the election. For example, many Members of Congress attended a White House meeting on December 21, 2020, in which the plan to have the Vice President affect the outcome of the election was disclosed and discussed. Evidence indicates that certain of those Members unsuccessfully sought Presidential pardons from President Trump after January 6th…revealing their own clear consciousness of guilt.”

The second law Trump broke was conspiring to defraud the United States, in this case by stealing the election. Other conspirators the committee suggests the department should look at include Trump lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Rudolph Giuliani, and Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows.

The third was conspiracy to make a false statement, which the committee said described the false elector scheme. This conspiracy, too, might involve others, including Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel, who agreed to help Trump with the project.

The fourth law the committee says Trump broke was that he “Incited,” “Assisted,” or provided “Aid and Comfort” to an insurrection.

The committee suggested that this list was not exhaustive and that there might be other laws the former president has broken. Those included obstruction of justice, as the committee revealed that some of its witnesses suggested Trump loyalists had attempted to affect their testimony. The referrals create no legal obligation for the Justice Department to act but, along with the evidence the committee has compiled, will make it important for the department to explain why it disagrees that crimes have been committed if it decides not to charge the former president.

The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ). The incoming Republican House will likely ignore this referral, but that will make it hard for its members to enforce subpoenas themselves.

Along with the hearing, the committee released an introduction to its forthcoming report. At only 104 pages, the report is worth reading: it’s very clear and very fast paced, reading more like a 1940s thriller than a government report. And like an old-time novel, it has in it some eye-popping facts just waiting for more development.

Trump raised “raised roughly one quarter of a billion dollars…between the election and January 6th” by falsely claiming election fraud. The “Trump Campaign, along with the Republican National Committee, sent millions of emails to their supporters, with messaging claiming that the election was ‘rigged,’ that their donations could stop Democrats from ‘trying to steal the election,’ and that Vice President Biden would be an ‘illegitimate president’ if he took office.” That’s a lot of money raised fraudulently, and the RNC was involved. The RNC shows up again when chair McDaniel agrees to help Trump with the fake elector scheme.

The committee establishes that Trump fully intended to go with his supporters to the Capitol. This is a very big deal indeed: the president traditionally cannot go to the chambers of Congress without a formal invitation. Trump confidant Rudy Giuliani told Cassidy Hutchinson, top aide to Mark Meadows, that Trump intended to be with the members of Congress and to “look powerful.” A White House security official said, “[W]e were all in a state of shock…we all knew what that implicated and what that meant, that this was no longer a rally, that this was going to move to something else…. I—I don’t know if you want to use the word “insurrection,” “coup,” whatever.”

The committee generously attributes this plan to be part of Trump’s hope to pressure Pence, but historian of authoritarians Ruth Ben-Ghiat noted that a leader launching a new regime needs to be present at the front of his cheering troops to mark his success.

Fittingly, on December 15, the Coup d’État Project of theCline Center for Advanced Social Research at the University of Illinois, which maintains the world’s largest registry of coups, attempted coups, and coup conspiracies since World War II, reclassified the events of January 6 as an attempted “auto-coup.” According to its director, Scott Althaus, an auto-coup occurs when “the incumbent chief executive uses illegal or extra-legal means to assume extraordinary powers, seize the power of other branches of government, or render powerless other components of the government such as the legislature or judiciary.”

—

Notes:

https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...he-select-comm

Mitch Mcconnell, "The entire nation knows who is responsible for that day". Except for the extremist tRump supporters.

Anyone with any semblance of common sense knows the these Democrat hearings were all one big sham. The crazy ass libs comrade Lenin would be proud with the Soviet style show trial

And yet there are still people in America so ill-informed and foolish to believe this sham

Anyone with any semblance of common sense knows the these Democrat hearings were all one big sham. The crazy ass libs comrade Lenin would be proud with the Soviet style show trial

And yet there are still people in America so ill-informed and foolish to believe this sham

Originally Posted by berryberry

You're well in the minority here. Most Americans knew these charges were glaringly obvious before the January 6th committee ever came into existence. Only the extremism of the far-right and fake far-right news discounts the obvious.

If I am not mistaken, most all of the witnesses were all of his staff members that testified against him. So I guess all of them were untruthful. So I guess it is all of the GOP workers that are at fault for telling the truth.


Lindsey Graham, Kevin McCarthy did nothing but hold up the hearings, tell the truth one day when they feared there life, then lie like hell when they were out of danger.



Trump just used words to start a riot and most of his Klan on here want him to walk free. I want to see Sleepy Joe do that.

You're well in the minority here. Originally Posted by rmg_35

Minority where?

Here in the sandbox? Well perhaps currently but that is simply because it has become populated by a combination of far left radicals and ill informed leftists.

If you mean in America, the vast majority of people did not even watch or pay attention to the soviet style show trial fraud perpetrated by the crazy ass leftists

You really should get out of your DNC media bubble and learn the truth. Again, anyone with any semblance of common sense knows the these Democrat hearings were all one big sham.

Minority where?

Here in the sandbox? Well perhaps currently but that is simply because it has become populated by a combination of far left radicals and ill informed leftists.

If you mean in America, the vast majority of people did not even watch or pay attention to the soviet style show trial fraud perpetrated by the crazy ass leftists

You really should get out of your DNC media bubble and learn the truth. Again, anyone with any semblance of common sense knows the these Democrat hearings were all one big sham. Originally Posted by berryberry

This is the truth getting out that the radical extreme right is trying to avoid talking about to protect dear leader. That's the only sham. Over 960 people have been charged with crimes around January 6 that even Mitch Mcconnell stated that everybody is America knows who cause it, but you are still trying to defend his actions. The last election, your supposed red tsunami you were predicting should tell you how this is in the minority. The extremism of tRump and the radical right-wing media is in the minority and is why their was so many winnable elections that were lost.

You can really learn what is going on if you get out of the radical far-right extremism bubble.

I'd argue the truth here is somewhere in the middle between your points

The testimony that the Jan 6 committee gathered were from those who were in the room, and experienced seeing what happened.

They were either truthful or they are all lying. Some may say the testimony is out of context. The latter has not been asserted so we should take these people at their word.

All was under oath.

Seems pretty damning, but there is always the defense that Trump can reply with if / when he's charged.

Anyone who disbelieves the testimony of EVERY witness is likely living in a state of denial.

Left or right, the truth should set you free. It always does. It usually even favors the ppl who have been guilty since we only convict with the caveat, "beyond A reasonable doubt".

Can't beat that system. So I'm wondering how the far right will reply when the DOJ acts on the referrals?

Is it a witch hunt?
Is it a conspiracy?
Even if he did do it- so what?
Whataboutisms...


Or -All of the above.

The testimony that the Jan 6 committee gathered were from those who were in the room, and experienced seeing what happened.

They were either truthful or they are all lying. Some may say the testimony is out of context. The latter has not been asserted so we should take these people at their word.

All was under oath.

Seems pretty damning, but there is always the defense that Trump can reply with if / when he's charged.

Anyone who disbelieves the testimony of EVERY witness is likely living in a state of denial.

Left or right, the truth should set you free. It always does. It usually even favors the ppl who have been guilty since we only convict with the caveat, "beyond A reasonable doubt".

Can't beat that system. So I'm wondering how the far right will reply when the DOJ acts on the referrals?

Is it a witch hunt?
Is it a conspiracy?
Even if he did do it- so what?
Whataboutisms...


Or -All of the above. Originally Posted by eyecu2

Cassidy Hutchinson wasn't in the room. or the limo. her testimony is hearsay. but since this isn't actually a real court, what's the difference?


yet her testimony was hailed as "BOMBSHELL" material. this cunt wasn't even there.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...estifies-video


what's the point? the obvious one, the press eats this stuff up. they go for the sensational headlines without caring one iota if it's true or not. do you think her "testimony" is true? i guess we'll never know since the secret service agents who were there refuted it and volunteered to appear but of course the committee's agenda wasn't about that was it?

Cassidy Hutchinson wasn't in the room. or the limo. her testimony is hearsay. but since this isn't actually a real court, what's the difference?


yet her testimony was hailed as "BOMBSHELL" material. this cunt wasn't even there.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...estifies-video


what's the point? the obvious one, the press eats this stuff up. they go for the sensational headlines without caring one iota if it's true or not. do you think her "testimony" is true? i guess we'll never know since the secret service agents who were there refuted it and volunteered to appear but of course the committee's agenda wasn't about that was it? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

This 1000%

That was the whole purpose of the soviet style sham show trial.

The corrupt libs in DC knew their mouthpieces in the media would eat this all up. Breathlessly report on fake testimony knowing it is not true with sensational headlines all to sway the very dumb, leftist voting base who are the only ones stupid enough to fall for this bullshit

It's laughable

Why is it acceptable to call Cassidy Hutchinson a cunt?

It's a rhetorical question because it's not.

Why is it acceptable to call Cassidy Hutchinson a cunt?

It's a rhetorical question because it's not. Originally Posted by HDGristle

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...tiny-rcna35994


Hutchinson testified that she did not directly witness the alleged altercation and was clear that her knowledge was second-hand. Instead, she told the panel that after Trump’s Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally, she returned to the White House where Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato relayed an account from Bobby Engel, Trump’s head of security, who was also in the room.

Which is a great argument against eye's claim, but provides zero basis for you calling her a cunt... or Berry giving you a pass on it and tacitly agreeing.

This is the toxic rancor that no one needs

Which is a great argument against eye's claim, but provides zero basis for you calling her a cunt... or Berry giving you a pass on it and tacitly agreeing.

This is the toxic rancor that no one needs Originally Posted by HDGristle

would you feel better about it if i called her a milf cunt?


was it toxic rancor the press declared her secondhand testimony "BOMBSHELL" evidence?