Recap of the 2nd Day of January 6th Hearings

[B-Man]

 

 

Recap of the 3rd Day of the January 6th Hearings

 

 

 

 

 

Postponed 

 

 

.

[ChiGoose]

11 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

So they're not blaming Trump at all during the Hearings?  And the panel isn't split on whether Garland should files charges at the end of it? 

 

And if they truly were interested in preventing it in the future, they'd explore why additional security wasn't provided.  They're not going to be doing that.  Any reason you can see why they aren't?

They are presenting evidence at the hearing, they cannot indict anyone for anything even if they believe someone to be responsible for a crime. So far, their referrals to the DoJ have been for contempt of Congress for people refusing the testify and not for any actions before or during Jan 6th. Chairman Benny Thompson said the other day that they were done sending referrals but Vice Chair Liz Cheney says she doesn’t think they are. So who knows?

 

The committee is divided into several teams. One of those teams has a specific remit to assess the law enforcement failures and why they happened (See Blue Team)

 

So far, we have had two hearings: one to give an overview of what we should expect and one that focused primarily on the election itself. Given that there are still several hearings to go and that one of the five teams is dedicated to figuring out why the security was not prepared, I would expect that they address that at some point. 

[Andy1]

Regarding the lack of security - one thing we do know is the Acting Secretary of Defense  Christopher Miller sent a memo on January 4th specifically prohibiting certain actions by the DC National Guard in response to the demonstrations on January 5-6, 2021. Prohibited actions included using weapons, ammo, batons, helmets or body armor. He prohibited interaction with the protestors, did not allow the sharing of equipment with other agencies, did not allow intelligence, surveillance or reconnaissance activities or incident awareness or assessment, banned the use of helicopters, prohibited searches, seizures or arrests. All of the above were specifically prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Acting Secretary of Defense. 
 

There were many facets to the lack of security that day. Why were demonstrators allowed to carry their weapons at the protest where Trump was speaking? Protestors are normally not even allowed to carry small wood sticks for signs yet that day, they carried all sorts of clubs, bats, hockey sticks, spears, flag poles, etc. that were used as weapons against the Capital police. 
 

Perhaps we will hear more of this in the future hearings. 

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Andy1

[SoCal Deek]

10 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

They are presenting evidence at the hearing, they cannot indict anyone for anything even if they believe someone to be responsible for a crime. So far, their referrals to the DoJ have been for contempt of Congress for people refusing the testify and not for any actions before or during Jan 6th. Chairman Benny Thompson said the other day that they were done sending referrals but Vice Chair Liz Cheney says she doesn’t think they are. So who knows?

 

The committee is divided into several teams. One of those teams has a specific remit to assess the law enforcement failures and why they happened (See Blue Team)

 

So far, we have had two hearings: one to give an overview of what we should expect and one that focused primarily on the election itself. Given that there are still several hearings to go and that one of the five teams is dedicated to figuring out why the security was not prepared, I would expect that they address that at some point. 

Once again….there is only one side presenting evidence here…so let’s not get too carried away with drawing conclusions. I know, I know, it’s not a trial! Tibs was closest when calling it a grand jury hearing, but I’ll caution him and others to remember that a grand jury is not televised and is not intended to taint the eventual national jury pool. So watch the hearings if you’d like, but don’t get drawn into making any statements of guilt. If you’ve ever been deposed in a court proceeding you’ll know why….I have.

[ChiGoose]

54 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Once again….there is only one side presenting evidence here…so let’s not get too carried away with drawing conclusions. I know, I know, it’s not a trial! Tibs was closest when calling it a grand jury hearing, but I’ll caution him and others to remember that a grand jury is not televised and is not intended to taint the eventual national jury pool. So watch the hearings if you’d like, but don’t get drawn into making any statements of guilt. If you’ve ever been deposed in a court proceeding you’ll know why….I have.

When we have sworn testimony from Trump’s inner circle that they knew he lost the election and told him constantly that the claims he made were false, I think it’s fair to draw the conclusion that those events did happen. These were people who were invested in Trump winning and they are testifying under oath. 
 

As to someone’s actual guilt, that’s something left to the judicial system. I try to be careful to state this in terms of “if it went to trial, a prosecutor would argue that…” or that something “might” satisfy the elements of a crime. 
 

I don’t think we have a smoking gun here that Trump organized a coup attempt yet. There is a lot of damning evidence about a lot of people, including Trump, but as I’ve stated, this isn’t a trial. 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Once again….there is only one side presenting evidence here…so let’s not get too carried away with drawing conclusions. I know, I know, it’s not a trial! Tibs was closest when calling it a grand jury hearing, but I’ll caution him and others to remember that a grand jury is not televised and is not intended to taint the eventual national jury pool. So watch the hearings if you’d like, but don’t get drawn into making any statements of guilt. If you’ve ever been deposed in a court proceeding you’ll know why….I have.

Well, when some people refuse to testify you don’t hear their side. 

[Doc]

11 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

They are presenting evidence at the hearing, they cannot indict anyone for anything even if they believe someone to be responsible for a crime. So far, their referrals to the DoJ have been for contempt of Congress for people refusing the testify and not for any actions before or during Jan 6th. Chairman Benny Thompson said the other day that they were done sending referrals but Vice Chair Liz Cheney says she doesn’t think they are. So who knows?

 

The committee is divided into several teams. One of those teams has a specific remit to assess the law enforcement failures and why they happened (See Blue Team)

 

So far, we have had two hearings: one to give an overview of what we should expect and one that focused primarily on the election itself. Given that there are still several hearings to go and that one of the five teams is dedicated to figuring out why the security was not prepared, I would expect that they address that at some point. 

 

Yeah, I know they can't indict anyone.  But you're kidding yourself if you don't think that they're presenting evidence for any reason other than to make their case to Garland.  Some just don't want to publicly admit it.

 

What happened at the Capitol won't happen ever again because security is tighter than ever and additional security will be provided in the future, especially now that the "defend the police" stupidity has passed (not that the long-term damage hasn't already been done).  So if they're telling you that's why they're doing it, they're lying.

 

I hope they do address the lack of security that day.  I remain skeptical they will because it will implicate a certain Dem...

[ChiGoose]

17 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah, I know they can't indict anyone.  But you're kidding yourself if you don't think that they're presenting evidence for any reason other than to make their case to Garland.  Some just don't want to publicly admit it.

 

What happened at the Capitol won't happen ever again because security is tighter than ever and additional security will be provided in the future, especially now that the "defend the police" stupidity has passed (not that the long-term damage hasn't already been done).  So if they're telling you that's why they're doing it, they're lying.

 

I hope they do address the lack of security that day.  I remain skeptical they will because it will implicate a certain Dem...

 

I agree that they are hoping Garland is watching, but also if Garland needs this committee to bring him information, then that speaks very poorly of his DoJ. While there may be some additional details through the testimony, the DoJ should be able to investigate this stuff on its own. Personally, I also think it's good to get this information on the public record. Millions of Americans still wrongly believe the election was stolen and while I don't think this convinces all of them, maybe some people will begin to reconsider their position. At the very least, we can point to Trump's people, who were working to get him re-elected, testifying under oath that he lost.

 

As to the security, I agree that I hope they go into it and given that they have a team specifically for that, we should expect that they do and call them out if they don't.

 

I have seen a lot of speculation that they won't because it would make Nancy Pelosi look bad but as far as I can tell, the Speaker of the House does not manage or deploy the Capitol Police. They have a board for oversight (https://www.uscp.gov/the-department/oversight) and an executive team (https://www.uscp.gov/the-department/executive-team), and while the legislature appoints the board, I cannot find any info about the legislature having day-to-day management of the Capitol Police. I'll admit I could be completely wrong on this, I had no knowledge of how the Capitol Police are managed before looking into this so I definitely could be missing something.

 

Just doing a quick Wikipedia check, here is who was on the board on Jan 6th:

• Paul D Irving - House Sergeant at Arms (Jan 17, 2012 - Jan 7, 2021)
• Michael C Stenger - Senate Sergeant at Arms (April 16, 2018 - Jan 7, 2021)
• Brett Blanton - Architect of the Capitol (Since Jan 16, 2020)

I find it telling that the Sergeants at Arms left their positions the next day, which seems to imply that at least some blame was placed on them.

[SoCal Deek]

5 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Well, when some people refuse to testify you don’t hear their side. 

Tibs....have you ever been deposed? 

[BillsFanNC]

On 6/14/2022 at 11:59 AM, ChiGoose said:

 

When evaluating the testimony, I think it’s important to remember that the witnesses here were sworn in prior to testifying. Which means that if they lie, they expose themselves to perjury charges. I would keep that in mind when comparing it to people on Twitter or podcasts who have no penalty for lying.

 

 

What about the committee deleting evidence King?

 

Maybe we should worry less about "testimony under oath" when said testimony is being given to criminals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

On 6/14/2022 at 10:36 PM, ChiGoose said:

This is a congressional fact finding committee with sworn testimony from witnesses speaking under the penalty of perjury. 

 

Please, take a moment and try to recognize that. I know not everybody is familiar with these nuances but it’s not *that* hard to understand. 

 

 

Because a congressional "fact finding committee" always deletes friggin evidence before handing it over to the other side.

 

Just the facts, Jack!

 

The friggin King!

[Doc]

So over a terrabytwe of data erased?  Yeah, nothing corrupt there...

[BillsFanNC]

On 1/23/2024 at 6:15 AM, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

What about the committee deleting evidence King?

 

Maybe we should worry less about "testimony under oath" when said testimony is being given to criminals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

King?

[Doc]

Probably stuff talking about wedding plans and grandkids...

[BillsFanNC]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

Probably stuff talking about wedding plans and grandkids...

 

Did they wipe those terabytes off the hard drive with a cloth?

[BillsFanNC]

Imagine hanging on every word of these corrupt propagandists and giving a "recap" here...

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Gregg]

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[BillsFanNC]

6 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

 

 

Sir, I can't answer that.