Jan 6 Committee: New Bombshell Testimony and Evidence (6/28, 1pm)

Thats all interesting stuff but none of it comes anything close to the ridiculousness of 2020.

- 2000 was a crazy election. GWB wins FL by about 400 votes or something. While GWB legitimately won by the rules, it’s clear by any reasonable measure of voters intent Gore should have won. You had liberal Jews in Palm Beach who inadvertently voted for Pat Buchanan. Seems like there were other minority votes that didn’t get counted (legitimately) that favored Gore. Plus Gore winning the popular vote. It is understandable that Democrats would want to exhaust any and all reasonable possibilities.

For the record I was a GWB supporter in 2000

In 2004 Ohio was very close even though GWB won the popular vote overall. I don’t recall the allegations of voter fraud that you found.

2016 was totally unexpected. It is absolutely true that Putin wanted Trump to win, and Russia intervened by infiltrating social media and hacking DNC servers. That doesn’t make the election illegitimate, but it isn’t as if there wasn’t anything there.

In 2020 there was no evidence of any particular fraud or anything in particular and Biden won fairly convincingly, although a couple of states were very close. Any allegations of malfeasance were completely made up by Trump, and unlike prior examples he would not concede and give up his claims.

 

These were just protest objections to soothe the Dem base mad about the outcomes. Nothing burger.

 

Exactly. But, but, but…..the pretzel logic in these posts is incredible.

 

Soggy pretzel logic at that

 

But but but the defense doesn't get a say, is actually a pretty big deal.

It makes the whole thing a circus joke. A kangaroo court to the tee.

Pretzel logic is the horse manure that seeks to dignify such a clown show as anything more than cheap entertainment for ppl who think the View is intelligent discussion.

 

All excellent points. Previous objections were largely symbolic. And, in the end, the election results were accepted. None were contested violently.

That's far different from a massive effort by the LOSER to disgracefully lie, cheat and steal his way into retaining power, despite LOSING the election by 8 million votes. And, to top it off, the proven LOSER refused to accept the election results and violently interfered with the transfer of power to his opponent, who won fair and square, as determined by his own AG, his own election security official, his own party in several swing states, and federal courts. All of this is unprecedented in U.S. history.

 

From a couple of people that know Ornato.

 

Blah, blah. This isn’t a trial, genius. If Trump loyalists want to testify in defense of Mango Mussolini, they can waltz right through that door. They’re not, though. I wonder why that is?

Anyone that believed ANYTHING in 2000 Mules shouldn’t be commenting on anyone else’s intelligence.

 

Come on man! A bombshell witness that uses, something to the effect of, 27 times in her testimony did not sway you to her position? Amazing.

 

Whether or not the attempted insurrection would have succeeded is a matter of speculation. What is very possible is that had the crowd ginned up by Trump and other speakers and already prone to violence had the opportunity they may very well have lynched the Speaker of the House, the sitting Vice President and several other members of Congress. They violently attacked Capitol and DC police officers and there are multiple videos of said attacks although I guess you can always choose not believe what you are actually seeing or just refuse to view the videos at all. Although it's also matter of speculation, there is the real possibility that Trump could have invoked the Insurrection Act although that probably also wouldn't have happened thanks to a military that places loyal to the Constitution above loyalty to an authoritarian Dear Leader.

 

Trump scammed money from the gullible who believed what he knew was false: that the election was fraudulent and he was the real winner. There were enough easily led people that trump was able to raise $250m. He gave Meadows $1m and Meadows suddenly stopped cooperating with the J6 committee. Other funds went to pay for lawyers for J6 witnesses (who is the client there) and pressure was put on them to “limit” their testimony. The committee revealed a couple of emails sent to witnesses to let them know trump was watching and knew they were loyal - one of those was sent to Hutchingson herself. Is that witness tampering or close to it?

 

There is no “defense” because this is not a trial, it is akin to an investigation, a fact finding exercise to get people on the record and under oath. Most investigations don’t allow the criminals to “aid” in undermining or distracting from the active investigation. Unfortunately this is what the Republicans in the house wanted, less the 2 actual loyal patriot Republicans who were willing to put country over party and keep the investigation on a serious track. It’s unfortunate there are only 2 patriots in the entire House GOP.

If any trials result from any of this, a defense would of course be allowed to present a case. Think “ReLeAsE tHe KrAkeN!!!” holds up in that format? Of course not. The right wing clowns just wanted to muddy the waters in public opinion, where there are no standards of evidence, and where they know facts don’t matter to their rubes.

 

In all seriousness, that’s why I said I think you have to separate the other actions on January 6th from the Congressional objections and legal maneuvering - because one of those things is unprecedented, while the other is not.

If you want to focus on the mob at the Capitol and what politicians may have done to help them, I think that’s a fair criticism.

But if you want to say that Republicans in Congress are un-American and tried to overthrow the government by making formal objections to the electoral vote count, that’s somewhat rich when the January 6th Committee itself has at least two Democratic members who have previously done the same thing.

 

Making formal objections to the electoral vote count is allowed as you mention. In my view many of them did so to delay the count long enough that some premise was found to seat the slates of false electors from swing states or to somehow throw those elections back to the Republican led state legislatures to negate the votes of citizens.
This may be the source of unease that has caused so many Republican congressmen to have asked for pardons related to that day.

 

You can say this (and it’s being generous) for those who ONLY voted to object and had no other direct involvement. Although even if we wanted to say “to object is not unprecedented”, suggesting this is rather misleading in its own right as the scope of the objections were definitely unprecedented.

I have not seen anyone suggest the vote to object is in itself treasonous behavior (not in a serious sense), but maybe try to remember there are those who both objected AND were involved in spreading election lies as well as in the planning of the 1/6 events. For those individuals, it was all part of the same conspiracy (and if it’s shown they knew they were operating on false pretenses, it damn sure needs to be criminal). While I would say only a dozen or so Republican congressmen seemed engaged in actual criminal conduct here (the usual characters), among the remaining 100+ Republicans who voted this way even after the attempted coup, how many do you think actually believed “the Kraken” stories not just one state but MULTIPLE states? Even for those individuals who didn’t take actions crossing over the threshold of criminality, what does this say about them? About the entire party?

 

Her use of the phrase "something to the effect of" is more honest than trying to remember dozens of quotes from months ago precisely and getting them wrong.

 

It's flatly unconstitutional to refuse to count the votes of a state's lawful electors.

The 12th amendment is abundantly clear:

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed
​

There's no room for discretion. There is no fraudulent election exception. The states submit the votes, and the person with the majority becomes president.

The idea that this purported "legal maneuvering" is in any way lawful is banana republic shit.

 

Defense of whom. And defense if what? The witnesses who won’t show up and tell their stories?

 

McCarthy tried to install complicit members of Congress. The subjects don’t get to investigate themselves. The GOP strategy at the start was to shift the focus of this from the attempted coup to the inadequate security and to blame Pelosi. They have been silenced due to the prior investigations and the overwhelming testimony that Trump knew about the violence and chose to do nothing.