Jan 6 thread

[JCTarheel82]

Nah, he knows better. He is instigating.

100%. Recreational contrarianism is Taco's entire MO. I really wish posters would stop engaging the board trolls.

 

[ZenMode]

Two questions for you:

1. If your focus was the SUV incident, why did you post the entirety of Loudermilk’s “findings” and ask a blanket question regarding which side was telling the truth?

This is the part that I decided to not get into. I'll just say that two things can be true here. A) Trump's lies played a role in the events of January 6th and he put no real effort into stopping it and b) the January 6th committee hearings, which were really just a "for TV" event because it has absolutely no legal authority, can not be operating completely honestly. That lack of honesty brings into question other claims that were not documented via text, Tweet, CCTV, etc.

You’re backpedaling because you got caught being a contrarian just to get a reaction.

Nope. I'm deciding to not go down the rabbit hole mentioned above, because it has no possibility for conclusion.

2. Let’s say that part about Trump grabbing the limo driver was wrong. Let’s say Ornoto didn’t correctly communicate what actually did or didn’t happen, and Hutchinson provided false info as a result. How does it change the narrative that Trump knowingly fomented an insurrection at the Capitol, and then sat back and allowed violence to take place?

Like I said above, two things can be true.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

This is the part that I decided to not get into. I'll just say that two things can be true here. A) Trump's lies played a role in the events of January 6th and he put no real effort into stopping it and b) the January 6th committee hearings, which were really just a "for TV" event because it has absolutely no legal authority, can not be operating completely honestly. That lack of honesty brings into question other claims that were not documented via text, Tweet, CCTV, etc.

Nope. I'm deciding to not go down the rabbit hole mentioned above, because it has no possibility for conclusion.

Like I said above, two things can be true.

So, a United States president foments an attack on our capitol to halt a democratic proceeding to count electoral votes in order to retain power. He then does nothing to stop the violence that ensues. People die as a result.

And you believe the ensuing investigation by the committee was nothing more than made-for-television propaganda? No substance to it? No reason for it? Just Dems and RINOS picking on poor Donnie?

Dumb people like you are why he’s been re-elected.

You know what he did was criminal. You just don’t give a fuck.

 

[ZenMode]

So, a United States president foments an attack on our capitol to halt a democratic proceeding to count electoral votes in order to retain power. He then does nothing to stop the violence that ensues. People die as a result.

A person died as a result.

And you believe the ensuing investigation by the committee was nothing more than made-for-television propaganda? No substance to it? No reason for it? Just Dems and RINOS picking on poor Donnie?

First, it wasn't an investigation, it was a Congressional hearing. There are entities who are authorized to conduct actual investigations. Congress has no authority to take action based on the findings of the hearing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "No substance to it" or "No reason for it".

Dumb people like you are why he’s been re-elected.

I'm not the one who thinks a hearing is an investigation.....

You know what he did was criminal.

I know that his years of lies and incitement on J6 was a significant cause of the riot. I don't think there's enough to criminally charge him, even if his actions were criminal.

You just don’t give a fuck.

I absolutely do, not that my feelings/opinion matter. I've expressed my disdain for Trump and his lies many times.

 

[ChileG]

This is the part that I decided to not get into. I'll just say that two things can be true here. A) Trump's lies played a role in the events of January 6th and he put no real effort into stopping it and b) the January 6th committee hearings, which were really just a "for TV" event because it has absolutely no legal authority, can not be operating completely honestly. That lack of honesty brings into question other claims that were not documented via text, Tweet, CCTV, etc.

Nope. I'm deciding to not go down the rabbit hole mentioned above, because it has no possibility for conclusion.

Like I said above, two things can be true.

It wasn’t just for TV. It was a way to bring to light what occurred and educate the public.
Some people learned a great deal from the committee’s findings. Some didn’t pay attention as much. I think that is evident, but you can only lead a horse to water.

 

[lawtig02]

A person died as a result. First, it wasn't an investigation, it was a Congressional hearing. There are entities who are authorized to conduct actual investigations. Congress has no authority to take action based on the findings of the hearing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "No substance to it" or "No reason for it". I'm not the one who thinks a hearing is an investigation.....I know that his years of lies and incitement on J6 was a significant cause of the riot. I don't think there's enough to criminally charge him, even if his actions were criminal.

I absolutely do, not that my feelings/opinion matter. I've expressed my disdain for Trump and his lies many times.

Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection

www.govinfo.gov

“The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol released their final report on December 22, 2022.”

 

[ChileG]

In addition, Ornato was invited to testify under oath to refute her claims. He declined.

But who to believe? The person who testified under oath with no reason to lie, or the guy who refused to answer the question under oath, who also has many reasons to lie?
I’m just asking questions, and playing devil’s advocate against people who point out the obvious answer.

 

[ZenMode]

Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection

www.govinfo.gov

“The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol released their final report on December 22, 2022.”

Right. That's the name they gave themselves: "House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack".

 

[ChileG]

Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection

www.govinfo.gov

“The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol released their final report on December 22, 2022.”

This is where this particular poster presents a new, narrower definition of “investigation” that doesn’t exist anywhere else.

 

[lawtig02]

Right. That's the name they gave themselves: "House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack".

I genuinely have no idea why you think House committees lack the power to investigate. Especially ones that are specially formed to, you know, investigate.

United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The investigation commenced with a public hearing on July 27, 2021, at which four police officers testified. As of the end of 2021, it had interviewed more than 300 witnesses and obtained more than 35,000 documents, and those totals continued to rise. By May 2022, it had interviewed over 1,000 witnesses; some of those interviews were recorded.

By October 2022, it had obtained over 1,000,000 documents and reviewed hundreds of hours of videos (such as security camera and documentary footage). During the pendency of the investigation, the select committee publicly communicated some of its information.

The select committee split its multi-pronged investigation into multiple color-coded teams, each focusing on a specific topic like funding, individuals' motivations, organizational coalitions, and how Trump may have pressured other politicians. These were:

• Green Team investigated the money trail to determine whether Trump and Republican allies, knowing they were spreading false claims and misinformation about the 2020 presidential election, defrauded their own supporters.
• Gold Team investigated whether members of Congress participated or assisted in Trump's attempted to overturn the election. They also examined Trump's pressure campaign on local and state officials and on executive departments — like the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and others — to try to keep himself in power.
• Purple Team investigated the involvement of domestic violent extremist groups — such as the QAnon movement, militia groups, Oath Keepers, and Proud Boys — and how they used social media including Facebook, Gab, and Discord.
• Red Team investigated the planners of the January 6th rally and other "Stop the Steal" organizers and whether they knew the rally participants intended violence.
• Blue Team researched the threats leading up to the attack and how law enforcement shared intelligence and prepared (or didn't). Blue Team had access to thousands of documents from more than a dozen agencies.

The select committee's investigation and its findings were multi-faceted.

 

[farce©]

 

[superrific]

Clearly I wasn't specific enough with original post and there seems to be a high level of sensitivity to any perceived questioning of Trump's role in January 6th.

There really isn't much in question regarding the events of January 6th except the SS/SUV claim and who wrote the note. Cassidy was told something, Ornato apparently doesn't remember (which is ridiculous in itself) and It was reported that the driver of the SUV also disputed the claim. Putting aside general oddness of relaying hearsay in a Congressional hearing, it seems reasonable to wonder who is telling the truth.

cassidy is telling the truth. ornato may have told her that. maybe what he told her is not true. maybe it is, and he refuses to testify now for that reason. maybe she misunderstood. there is absolutely no reason for her to lie about that.

what does cassidy hutchinson have to gain by telling congress that tony ornato told her that trump grabbed the wheel of the suv? it makes no sense at all.

the rules of evidence do not apply in congressional hearings, and that's for good reason, and it would majorly suck if they did. hearsay is excluded from court by a rule of procedure. court is not the same as congress.

 

[ZenMode]

I genuinely have no idea why you think House committees lack the power to investigate. Especially ones that are specially formed to, you know, investigate.

United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The investigation commenced with a public hearing on July 27, 2021, at which four police officers testified. As of the end of 2021, it had interviewed more than 300 witnesses and obtained more than 35,000 documents, and those totals continued to rise. By May 2022, it had interviewed over 1,000 witnesses; some of those interviews were recorded.

By October 2022, it had obtained over 1,000,000 documents and reviewed hundreds of hours of videos (such as security camera and documentary footage). During the pendency of the investigation, the select committee publicly communicated some of its information.

The select committee split its multi-pronged investigation into multiple color-coded teams, each focusing on a specific topic like funding, individuals' motivations, organizational coalitions, and how Trump may have pressured other politicians. These were:

• Green Team investigated the money trail to determine whether Trump and Republican allies, knowing they were spreading false claims and misinformation about the 2020 presidential election, defrauded their own supporters.
• Gold Team investigated whether members of Congress participated or assisted in Trump's attempted to overturn the election. They also examined Trump's pressure campaign on local and state officials and on executive departments — like the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and others — to try to keep himself in power.
• Purple Team investigated the involvement of domestic violent extremist groups — such as the QAnon movement, militia groups, Oath Keepers, and Proud Boys — and how they used social media including Facebook, Gab, and Discord.
• Red Team investigated the planners of the January 6th rally and other "Stop the Steal" organizers and whether they knew the rally participants intended violence.
• Blue Team researched the threats leading up to the attack and how law enforcement shared intelligence and prepared (or didn't). Blue Team had access to thousands of documents from more than a dozen agencies.

The select committee's investigation and its findings were multi-faceted.

Ok, since it was brought up, I'll acknowledge that, by definition, they did an investigation. Technically, anyone could conduct an investigation on anything.

The hearing was a made-for-tv event as evidenced by the fact that they allowed someone to testify about hearsay as though it was factual.

 

[ChileG]

This is where this particular poster presents a new, narrower definition of “investigation” that doesn’t exist anywhere else.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

A person died as a result.

Bullshit, 7 people died as a result of what happened that day.

Two MAGA scum, one of which supposedly had methamphetamines in her system and OD’d in the middle of the attack, one police officer that died of coronary failure a day after the riot, and four more cops that committed suicide within days or months of the attack, including one that was misdiagnosed with a severe concussion that occurred during the attack.

Stop downplaying the events that day.

 

[superrific]

The hearing was a made-for-tv event as evidenced by the fact that they allowed someone to testify about hearsay as though it was factual.

it might blow your mind that virtually the rest of the world allows hearsay evidence to be admitted even in court. hearsay was an obscure rule inherited from british common law. it is such a bad rule that it has twenty-four exceptions, plus some other loopholes that don't technically count as exceptions.

even the uk now allows hearsay in civil proceedings. only canada and the us, I think, disallow hearsay in civil procedings.

i am not aware of a single country anywhere in the world that disallows hearsay during legislative hearings.

 

[superrific]

Ok, since it was brought up, I'll acknowledge that, by definition, they did an investigation. Technically, anyone could conduct an investigation on anything.

technically, can anyone get access to millions of documents and hundreds of hours of video? technically, does anyone have a subpoena power to obtain such materials? i think the investigation was a bit more than what you do when you can't find your car keys.

 

[ZenMode]

Bullshit, 7 people died as a result of what happened that day.

Two MAGA scum, one of which supposedly had methamphetamines in her system and OD’d in the middle of the attack, one police officer that died of coronary failure a day after the riot, and four more cops that committed suicide within days or months of the attack, including one that was misdiagnosed with a severe concussion that occurred during the attack.

Stop downplaying the events that day.

If you're going to attribute to the riot, among other non-related deaths, an accidental overdose death the next day, then there's absolutely no chance we're going to agree or even come close.

 

[ZenMode]

cassidy is telling the truth. ornato may have told her that. maybe what he told her is not true. maybe it is, and he refuses to testify now for that reason. maybe she misunderstood. there is absolutely no reason for her to lie about that.

what does cassidy hutchinson have to gain by telling congress that tony ornato told her that trump grabbed the wheel of the suv? it makes no sense at all.

the rules of evidence do not apply in congressional hearings, and that's for good reason, and it would majorly suck if they did. hearsay is excluded from court by a rule of procedure. court is not the same as congress.

It is likely that CH was telling the truth as she understood it or was told. The people who disputed her version of the the events declined to testify. The committee also, unless things have changed, declined to comment on the interviewing of those two people - Ornato and Engel. The committee also declined to subpoena the two people who disputed her story, right?

 

[WaynetheDrain]

If you're going to attribute to the riot, among other non-related deaths, an accidental overdose death the next day, then there's absolutely no chance we're going to agree or even come close.

We’re not even going to come close to an agreement because you have an agenda to downplay what happened. I can’t help that.

And Roseanne Boyland died during the attack, not the next day.