 |
| Silverfiddle Rant! |
The emotional testimony of security officers adds nothing to any legal argument, but does provide drama and pathos to keep the easily-bored tuned in.
The quick-cut snippets of testimony and commentary from former Trump officials are damning, and they effectively contribute to the emotional appeal of the Democrat Party's huffed-up "hearings" slamming (without rebuttal) the former president. All that's missing from the well-polished production is whoots from the audience and shouted hoots of "sick burn!"
I give the Democrats props. Somebody within the party--probably a young staffer--realized DC tell-all books no longer have a bombshell impact, and impatient voters won't sit for hours of boring testimony waiting for the "at long last, sir, have you no shame!" payoff. So, they went for the well-staged Hollywood-style production. Bravo! It all looks so realistic and officious. (The FEC is criminally remiss if they are not counting the network coverage as in-kind political contributions)
NPR lists Six Takeaways from the hearings so far.
What say you?
Related Links:
Related Links:
I was upset when Januray 6th happened. I was also angry. However, unlike Liz Chaney I would never sit on a J6 Committe to villanize Trump. Mark Levin played what Trump said - compared to what Schumer threatened two years ago and there is no comparison. If there should be any committe (though it is all dung and a waste of taxpayer dollars and so much time) it should be Schumer, or better yet arresting him and Pelosi for encouraging people to break the law and protest in front of the justices homes. Furthermore, who leaked the opinion, second, who gave any of them the right to leak the SCOTUS's home addresses? Destroying this nation in ONE GENERATION. So much for the BOOMERS!
ReplyDeleteSilver stated... "The emotional testimony of security officers adds nothing to any legal argument, but does provide drama and pathos to keep the easily-bored tuned in."
ReplyDeleteSure it was emotional, but it also served another purpose. The very presence of those officers offered a counter weight to the people who argue no officers were injured, that in fact those "officers" were LARP's and that this was a "normal tourist visit.
As for your comment of "without rebuttal", the public witnesses so far have been mostly Republicans, Trump Amin insiders and cabinet members, Conservative lawyers, Trump family members, campaign managers, etc.
These are the people we would normally expect to be defending the president and pushing back against a false narrative, if they felt they could do so without lying or perjuring themselves.
Maybe there is no effective rebuttal to be had?
But it is not like the House Select Committee did not offer a voice to people who supposedly could rebut what we have seen.
Rather, those voices, of Minority Leader McCarthy, Bannon, Navarro, Donald Trump Jr, Jim Jordan and more have refused to step up under oath and testify.
Who are the LARP enablers.... and if Law Enforcement is getting hurt by "LARPers"... why are Law Enforcement their N0. 1 Agent Provocateurs? Remember the so-called Whitmer kidnapping attempt?
Delete-FJ
The Conflict of Interest hit parade amongst Government politicians and civil servants is both long and storied.
Delete"What the FBI did was unconscionable," Caserta's lawyer, Michael Hills, said outside the courthouse. He has long argued that his client and the others were entrapped by rogue FBI informants and agents, including one who ran a cybersecurity company while investigating the case.
"To me, this was a signal," Hills said of the verdict. "A rogue FBI agent trying to line his own pockets with his own cybersecurity company, pushing a conspiracy that just never was, never was going to be. Our governor was never in any danger. And I think the jury – they didn't get all of it – but they smelled enough of it."
-FJ... I don't think I used the term LARP enabler. I simply lumped people who believe the attack on the Capitol on Jan 6 was a result of LARP's in the same category with those who called it a "normal tourist visit", claim it was ANTIFA or even deny it happened.
DeleteDave, my problem is that the GOPe would LOVE to see Trump kicked off the ballot in '24 and is a willing participant in the January 6 Show Trials. What happened on 1/6 was no worse than what happened across the nation all summer with BLM. And nobody is looking to send any of those a-holes, Antifa included, to jail.
DeleteThe Pro-Trump rebuttal to the J6 committee findings is, will be, and always has been "Whatabout muh tu quoque fallacy?" There's no way out of how ineffectual and boring that is. They came to the chess match expecting their Candyland red card could cancel a checkmate.
DeleteSucks to suck.
I'm not overly concerned with audience reactions and even audience attempts at participation. My eye is upon what the Justice Department will do with any recommendations and referrals of criminal charges.
Trump, like Lyndon LaRouche, can always run for President from a prison cell if so inclined by his delusions.
The tu quoque argument is best argument one can use to point out the hypocrisy of a politicized government bureaucracy that only prosecutes (or perhaps the better word would be persecutes) it's non-globalist outsiders and activley protects and dismisses charges against the UniParty establishment's members.
Delete-FJ
Just think of how many Impeachments you'll get to hold between 2025 and 2029 when Trump gets re-elected, beamish.
Delete-FJ
Dave, Rebuttal and cross-examination are cornerstones of our legal system. This is a stalinist show trial.
DeleteBeamish, I offer no defense of Trump. DOJ is doing the prosecutions. Democrats are running campaign propaganda cloaked in the robes of congressional committee.
DeleteMeh. I see it more like a grand jury proceeding where evidence is presented and weighed for merit to bring charges for prosecution.
DeleteAnd in case you didn't know, prosecutors hold grand jury proceedings everyday all over America, and the would-be defendant does not get to participate.
Just think of how many Impeachments you'll get to hold between 2025 and 2029 when Trump gets re-elected, beamish.
DeleteAs his attorney I'd advise him to slap a guard so he can stay in solitary confinement and away from any soap dropping incidents in the shower.
The DoJ AG can't appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and/or can't convene a Grand Jury to hear charges and render a True Bill? We need our Congressional Reps and their amateur staffs to do it instead of legislating? Who knew?
Delete-FJ
Ewww. You're one of those wants government to do stuff types.
DeleteDave, I wrote these two posts in the Jan 6 aftermath, and I stand by them.
Deletehttps://alwaysonwatch3.blogspot.com/2021/01/crowds.html
https://alwaysonwatch3.blogspot.com/2021/01/whats-going-on.html
@TC - The problems that led to the "insurrection" sure aren't going to legislate themselves "fixed"...unless the only thing wrong with the State of the nation is DJTs 2024 candidacy, given the depth and scope of the show trial "investigation".
DeleteWhat Trump and his supporters did was already illegal. Why would we need an additional "it's illegal to commit crimes even if you mistakelt or delusionally think you're on a moral plane above everyone else" law?
DeleteJan 6th happened, it's not reasonable to expect either the dems or the news media to ignore it. And to the extent that the republican party is still sucking up to Trump, they indict themselves. I don't think I could safely perform the mental yoga required to blame this on anyone but the GOP.
ReplyDeleteThe "at long last, have you left no sense of decency?" line is a tough one to beat. It's funny, everybody thought McCarthey was some unstoppable, irrepressible force of populism but in the end one prick was all it took to collapse him like a souffle. I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of Trump.
Were ir not for the DNC's pretzel position on the BLM Summer of Blue-Bashing, you might have had a point.
Delete-FJ
I don't even know what the party's position is on that.
Delete...e-r-r-r-r... "mostly peaceful.
DeleteRing a bell, now?
DeleteThe Democrat position was "Defund the police"
DeleteThey are now straining to convince voters they never said that, and when confronted with quotes, they claim it was only a euphemism. Our cities are awash in filth, drugs, crime and homeless addicts and criminals, so the Democrats aren't having much luck.
Progressive Seattle just elected a Republican prosecutor, and loony left San Francisco just recalled their pro-crime city prosecutor. Even people on the far left are sick of leftist policies.
SF,
DeleteEven people on the far left are sick of leftist policies.
Yes. It's about damn time!
I agree with you. I have been hearing how democrats are disgusted.
DeleteAs far as I can tell "Defund the police" was a stupid slogan for a completely reasonable adjustment to funding priorities.
DeleteI haven't investigated it heavily, but all the reports I read about the level of violence in response to George Floyd seemed partisan one way or the other. I don't know how far "mostly peaceful" is from the truth.
DeleteJez, Damages from BLM-related rioting is in the tens of billions of dollars, most of it done by professional troublemakers hijacking legitimate, peaceful protest, imo.
DeleteFirst, 'hearings' are to hear both sides....that's not happening. Second, every comment in a 'hearing' is not normally read off teleprompters. And, yes, when a 'hearing' is so one-sided toward one party, how could this NOT be acknowledge: "The FEC is criminally remiss if they are not counting the network coverage as in-kind political contributions)" It's one big DNC ad....time to bill them.
ReplyDeleteA Stalinist Show Trial, on the other hand, would appear exactly as these so-called "Hearings" appear...
Delete-FJ
No Z, hearings are not to hear "both sides." That was never the focus of the Watergate hearings, because there was no side apart from the efforts of the Nixon Admin to cover up their crimes. There were not two sides.
DeleteIn the Benghazi Hearings, the GOP never allowed whatever the other side would have put forward, apart from what witnesses said during their questioning. Because there was no other side. US Diplomats died as a result of the actions, or non actions of the Obama Admin.
This panel has offered to hear "both sides" in the exact same way that the GOP offered Hillary Clinton and other Dem witnesses during the Benghazi Hearings .
The difference here is that the people who maybe could spoken to the other side chose not to testify under oath.
The committee offered to let Jim Jordan, Jim Banks, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, his aide Dan Scavino and others who presumedly would have exculpatory evidence to testify, including a pre-question statement.
Exactly the same treatment accorded Hillary Clinton in the GOP run hearings.
They all refused. Plain and simple.
Yet Trump Campaign manager Bill Stepien [currently repping for Liz Cheney's opponent in Wyoming], former Atty Gen Bill Barr, former Chief Spokesman for the Trump Campaign Jason Miller, various Trump Campaign and Trump Admin lawyers, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner all testified.
And what you are hearing from the House Select Committee is largely drawn from those GOP sources, most of whom still support President Trump and who still work for his favored candidates.
Are you saying they are all lying, presenting a side of what happened during the elections and Jan 6 that is false?
Because if there is another side of what happened on Jan 6 and the election of 2020, then all of those witnesses are lying.
Each and every one of them.
Is that what you are saying? That everything they are saying is false and could be refuted if we heard "both sides"?
They're called "Hearings" not "Talkings" or "Lecturings".
DeleteAre you saying they are all lying, presenting a side of what happened during the elections and Jan 6 that is false?
Is all hyperbole "false"? Save us the histrionics.
Has the nation addressed the problem of voter fraud presented in 2000 Mules and the Arizona Audit and fixed the problem? It's not part of the "Hearings"? I rest my case.
Delete-FJ
Actually -FJ, as AG Barr and the former US Atty in GA testified, DOJ did investigate many of the claims of the 2000 Mules movie. And found them to be baseless.
DeleteIn Arizona as you should know, the GOP there announced the results of their audit of the 2020 elections and found that Joe Biden actually increased his lead.
AG Barr is not the AG... and anything he did in the 14 days after Jan 6 was CR*P!
Delete...and the AZ Audit found tens of thousands of suspect ballots that should NEVER been counted.
DeleteBarr, like Durham, is an Institutionalist. He would do ANYTHING to protect the Institution, even make false statements regarding the "depth" of his "investigation". People who don't look HARD for "flaws" in their institutions seldom find any.
DeleteDOJ did not investigate any of the 2000 mules leads. Barr dismissed it all out of hand.
DeleteDave,
DeleteThanks for bringing up Benghazi. There are similarities.
Hillary and Obama leaving those people to die was (unfortunately) not criminal, since they did it wearing the immune robes of government and so have official alibis.
We can't convict people (even putrid monsters like Hellary) for moral failings.
@Dave - If you can't see the fingerprints all over Gyge's cloak, I can't help you.
Delete-FJ
@-FJ... that's like me saying if you won't open your eyes, I can't help you.
DeleteBTW, justice, under AG Barr, investigated Trump's claims of voter fraud in November and December and found them to be baseless.
But, if the answer from you, and I've seen it on multiple sites, always leads back to institutionalists and the "Deep State" there's not much more to say.
OMG your right, the Deep State (DoJ) investigated itself and found not only "no wrong doing" but "perfection" personified. Justice has been served.
DeleteQuis custodiet ipsos custodes?
...and so once more around the rosy we go.
Why didn't AG Barr or Special Counsel Durham ever mention Perkins Coie's FBI Contracts (that would justify a secure workstation in their offices)? They just must not be relevant to any investigation...
Delete:P
DeleteWhen a partisan political fraudster can just waltz into FBI Headquarters because they have issued him a badge, you know the system is stinky.
DeleteThe telescreens report that the government has never had trouble setting up the Obamacare website, and the NSA will send their omnipotent data miners to get you if you say otherwise.
DeleteThe NSA doesn't need to launder data and perform parallel constructions to justify their use of intelligence intercepts, beamish. They just ship them directly to CIA/ DIA.
Delete-FJ
Z, today I heard on the news that the Democrats are now saying their will be a big bomb shell about Trump and that will upset the November mid-term elections. I don't believe it for one minute. Even if they had something with this ecconomy and all the other bad things, the border, Afghanistan etc, no one with even a bit of intelligence would ever vote for another idiot Democrat.
DeleteI'd say a "well staged Hollywood-style production" sums it up pretty well. Hell, according to Axios, the hearing committee even hired former ABC News president and "master documentary storyteller" James Goldston as an adviser.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that emotional statements from officers has nothing to with the legal issues of the hearing.
But in today's divided America, we don't have the audience we had during Watergate. Facts, evidence, and the cards face up on the table mean nothing when you have a brainwashing Fox News network along with a mesmerized cult with plenty of alternate facts ammo at their disposal.
Looks to me like the Dems learned something from the Mueller Report and the Ukraine extortion-that trump could shoot someone dead in the street or toss hand grenades into buses loaded with kindergarteners and still walk away unscathed with the full support of the basket.
I don't know if they'll actually convince anyone who want to believe it wasn't just a normal tourist guide but laying the facts on the table while putting on an inspiring show is about all they've got.
The Committee doesn't give a sh*t about January 6. They just want the Impeachment that they never got and Trump off their radar once and for all. To that I, and the 30% of the nation that support Trump say, "FU!"
Delete-FJ
Ron, will anyone be convinced? Like you, i don't know. I've heard people literally say "Evidence doesn't matter, I'll never change my mind."
DeleteI spoke to someone yesterday about the possibility of a criminal indictment for any of the top line folks in the Trump Admin, including the former president.
His response rings pretty accurate to me. He said let's say you have some real truth. Ironclad truth. Then he said this... remember, you only need one person to get an acquittal. One person.
I can't imagine in any group of 12 people in America that there wouldn't be at least one person who, no matter the evidence, would vote not guilty.
And that might explain the reticence of AG Garland. prosecutors don't like bringing cases they are not sure of winning.
" I've heard people literally say "Evidence doesn't matter, I'll never change my mind."
Deletehttps://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/jan-6-committee-asking-more-american-public/661269/
Tell us how you really feel, Ronnie... let all your Trump hate OUT! Oh wait, there'd have to be an end to it, but a year and a half after he left office, here we still are.
Delete*tsk-tsk*
-FJ
If I'm not mistaken, this entire thread and the hearing itself is about Trump, a year and a half later.
DeleteAnd if I'm further not mistaken, here you are a year and a half later openly supporting what most every credible historian group has deemed the 2nd wosrt president in U.S. history and the only reason of placing 2nd was due to his high scoring of an ability of persuasion.
Not my words and unsure of where it originated but:
Delete"Trump lost Republicans two easily winnable U.S. Senate seats, brutally gutted all their supposed “principles,” lost them control of the House, Senate, and White House in just four years, and looks like a spray-tanned beluga whale fetus being dry-humped by a tribble?
Supporting Trump at this point is a little like tucking into a platter of convenience store sushi, feeling it come back up on you, and then frantically shoveling more in because you can’t admit you’ve spent the last half-hour doing something this effing stupid.
Of course, some people have, rather late into their doomsday dinner, pushed away from the table, only to say, “I’ve had enough sketchy shrimp already. Say, how long has that egg salad been sitting in What are Republicans really thinking with their embrace of Donald Trump? How can they possibly be this enamored with a guy who incited a deadly insurrection against the government the sun? Looks delicious. Are those capers or flies?"
ps - Just know that I don't hate you, Ron. In fact I wear this ribbon to honor you every single day. THAT is how good and caring of a person I am. And when you see the ribbon yourself, you'll know it too. :)
Delete-FJ
Not sure what happened to that copy and paste but to clarify:
Delete"Trump lost Republicans two easily winnable U.S. Senate seats, brutally gutted all their supposed “principles,” lost them control of the House, Senate, and White House in just four years, and looks like a spray-tanned beluga whale fetus being dry-humped by a tribble?
Supporting Trump at this point is a little like tucking into a platter of convenience store sushi, feeling it come back up on you, and then frantically shoveling more in because you can’t admit you’ve spent the last half-hour doing something this effing stupid.
Of course, some people have, rather late into their doomsday dinner, pushed away from the table, only to say, “I’ve had enough sketchy shrimp already. Say, how long has that egg salad been sitting in the sun? Looks delicious. Are those capers or flies?"
Impeachment #2 was where Dems were supposed to bring the evidence.
DeleteDems have the same problem as Trump's Team Kraken trying to find voter fraud: They have nothing legally actionable.
@SF - Exactly. The current 'hearings' may so far be a farce (though it's interesting to know how Trump fleeced his supporters, as usual)......but thus far, just like the 'election fraud cultists'....there's no meat on the bone.
DeleteVegetarianism is being strictly enforced... so how can there be any meat on bones if it all get's confiscated and buried?
Delete-FJ
...buried under words like "debunked"... "investigated"... and then the video evidence "cleansed" by tech censors and supportive verbal elements shadow-banned?
DeleteWhy the need to censor and apply "misinformation" labels? Why the need to "punish" and "destroy" Trump?
-FJ
...or what the DNC did to Bernie (before he bent the knee)?
Delete-FJ
Very little news on the contents of the DNC server "hack" since 2016, huh? Anthony Weiner's laptop? Hunter Biden's laptop? Always rotting on some storage shelf at FBI HQ (or destroyed by Hillary's hammers), unexamined. Why does this "pattern" repeat and repeat?
Delete-FJ
As Marcellus, the lowly castle guard remarked, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark …“
DeleteSkakespeare, "Hamlet" (Act-I, Scene-IV)
What is the aim of the Jan 6 committee? What facts do they hope to establish?
DeleteThe full scope of Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election by lawfare and insurrection? He didn't just inspire the attack on Jan. 6th, he apparently was working other angles as well ( actual fraud of faked slates of electors, etc.)
DeleteWhat Trumpworld attempted, had it been successful, would have been far more damaging to our system of representative government than a popular and legitimate Electoral College majority cloosing the lesser of slimy turds has been so far.
*choosing
DeleteSince the Capitol coup was actually successful, and Trump's supporters actually seized the bldg and delayed the final EC vote... why isn't Trump president now? Who saved the Republic, beamish? Was it the Qanon Shaman going home because he got hungry, or the guy who stole Nancy's podium trying to secret it out the front door to sell for $20 on eBay?
Delete-FJ
Waaaah. Democrats are better at crime. It's not fair!
DeleteSupporting Trump at this point is a little like tucking into a platter of convenience store sushi, feeling it come back up on you, and then frantically shoveling more in because you can’t admit you’ve spent the last half-hour doing something this effing stupid.
DeleteThat's so vividly accurate it's almost 3D printer programming.
TC:
DeleteThe "faked slate of electors" is actionable by DOJ right now. There is probably more to that than the ant-Trump hysteria you're huffing.
What hysteria? I knew all along Trump was a scumbag Democrat trying to destroy the Republican Party. All I did was watch y'all let him.
DeleteThe "faked slate of electors" hysteria. Try to stay focused.
DeleteAll I see is focus on the violent aspects of Trump's multi-pronged coup attempt. I'll bet dollars to donuts that Trump supporters backing the blue with bicycle racks, fire extinguishers, and flagpoles upside their heads will remain the optics even when the TV is reporting said faked slates of electors and the efforts to get VP Mike Pence to count those instead. Unless they actually have film of Trump twirling the ends of a mustache to use instead. The attention spans of Trump supporters are indeed a tragedy, but still not my fault. How many "told ya so's" from me do you need before we can move on to shapes and colors?
DeleteYou comment has nothing to do with the "faked slater of electors" I keep bringing up and you keep ignoring. Speaking of attention spans...
DeleteIf the Left wants to Institute a new policy of legal ostracism, then do it via legislation. But don't pretend that these hearings are anything but a veiled attempt at implementing one, and that if successful will be used against your favorite demagogue next, to the detriment and shame of the entire government and its' legal system.
ReplyDelete-FJ
What if they just want to uncover and prosecute crimes committed in Trump's attempt to overthrow his solidly established election loss? Would that be okay?
DeleteTC - You're dealing with a completely different reality with the cultists.
DeleteIf Trump committed crimes, they need to bring the evidence. BTW, congress is not a prosecutorial arm.
DeleteApparently there is evidence, that the J6 committee had to go to court to acquire, and it is a certainty that charges based on the evidence collected will be recommended to Justice Department prosecutors.
DeleteCongress does have the power to expel members caught up in Trump's self-inflicted legal troubles. That's a real possibility as well. This "nothing burger" has lots of bacon and cheese and burger and bun to it.
(Team Trump is also certainly making a lot of noise for people who have nothing to worry about.)
DJT is the UniParty's Emmanuel Goldstein... a scapegoat upon which to heap all its' own failings for a daily two-minute hate.
DeleteLike an inverse Stalin-Trotsky political rivalry, Trump has "dangerous ideas" that would nationalize the UniParty's already extant post-1945 global economic COMINTERN.
DeleteTrouble with that idea, of course, is that Emmanuel Goldstein is a neocon ;)
DeleteYou can't play with Orwell's parody of the "unpersoning" of Trotsky (Goldstein) and not extrapolate it forward to Jeane Kirkpatrick....
Anyone thinking a congressional committee is going to break open a case and get big prosecutions needs a serious dose of reality. Congress can only screw that up. If there are real crimes, DOJ needs to handle it.
DeleteThis is political kabuki
Hence the term "inverse".
Delete...extrapolate the Orwellian Goldstein analogy further to Liz Cheney.
DeleteBecause when you're trying to prove a "Stalinist show trial" exists, the first thing you do is start purging people that deny that premise ;)
Inverse, indeedly-doo.
Liz has a bright future in DC. She's a "made man."
DeleteMaybe. She's an actual conservative, which means the RNC will primary the shit out of her, and paratroop in a well-funded candidate from out-of-state to challenge her if they have to.
DeleteRepublican Party 101: Never squander an opportunity to lose badly to a Democrat.
Delete"...if they have to"? Cheney's <a href='https://www.rawstory.com/liz-cheney-primary/">almost 30 points under</a> in her primary now.
Delete-FJ
"...if they have to"? Cheney's almost 30 points under in her primary now.
Delete-FJ
And will her replacement beat the Democrat?.
Delete::Crickets::
TC: Looks like you don't know much about Wyoming, but keep blowing, its funny to watch.
DeleteYeah yeah. It would be "levels of voter fraud heretofore unseen" if Wyoming conservatives didn't obey the party diktats.
DeleteWhen a person serves as president and then is prosecuted as a criminal when he leaves office, you know you are not dealing with a democratic nation.
ReplyDeleteJayhawk... did you favor the Ford pardon of Nixon, or did you believe, as he did, that it was best to move on?
DeleteAnd no, it's not a snarky question? I thought it was a good idea, but your comment seems to say you don't think an ex-president can/should ever be prosecuted for criminal acts while in office.
I was in Ecuador when the former president had to be smuggled out in the trunk of a car to escape prosecution.
DeleteI have lived in many "third world" countries, and we are resembling them more and more, and I don't pin that all on any one party.
So Dave, do you think that Ken Starr should have pressed for a Clinton prosecution for lying under oath?
Delete-FJ
-FJ... I don't know on a Starr prosecution. I said then and I stand by my words that Clinton needed to resign because he sullied the office of the presidency.
DeleteThat, and the pulling of his license, would have helped us move forward.
What the Dems don't get today is that their inability to smack Clinton then made it almost impossible to whack Trump after what he did.
We agree. We need leaders with integrity, something we don't have today.
Delete-FJ
That includes the leaders of the House and Senate, btw.
DeleteFor the record, I think John Eastman's "legal theory" and the actions that issued forth under its aegis were crazy, dangerous, and if successful would have corroded our institutions. Unfortunately, there is no way they could have assembled all the legal evidence of fraud before Jan 6. They should have conducted targeted audits, taken their case to the American people, and continued the time-honored tradition of handing over power.
ReplyDeleteNow, Lindell, Giuliani, and Powell are being sued by Dominion, so its put up or shut up time. Mike Lindell will be wearing a barrel when this is all over, and none of them will have a pot to piss in.
None of that makes me happy, but they all went crazy in public and slandered Dominion and now they're going to pay for it.
The idiots who vandalized the Capitol and attacked cops are the least of it, and they are being prosecuted by DOJ.
ReplyDeleteCongress would do the nation a great service by holding a real committee with cross-examination and adversarial parties taking apart Team Kraken and John Eastman's "legal theories."
I want a complete examination, including timelines. Every election congressional members delay the certification to speechify on some aspect of the election. So, some of the actions were legitimate (voting to delay), while other actions (urging the VP refuse to certify) were crazy, dangerous and potentially corrosive to our electoral process.
I would like to see all that sorted out so we can all understand it, and more importantly, examine a legislative path forward to tighten up the process so another gang of clowns can't try the same idiotic gambit in the future.
Silver posted... "Congress would do the nation a great service by holding a real committee with cross-examination and adversarial parties taking apart Team Kraken and John Eastman's 'legal theories.' "
DeleteI for one, or with TC, two, heartily agree. In fact the House approved a non, or bi-partisan committee, along the lines of the 9/11 committee to investigate the events of Jan 6 and make recommendations of changes needed.
It got overwhelming support from the Dems and even 35 GOP members.
It died in the Senate when the GOP refused to approve it.
As for your statement of "all the legal evidence of fraud", the GOP couldn't produce any evidence of fraud at the level that could sway an election.
Isn't it possible there just wasn't enough fraud so as to sway the election?
And if that is true, what evidence do you think could sway the doubters?
The Senate "not investigating" is what lead to the House witch-hunt and the first-in-history-ever kicking of Republican appointed members off a House Committee? Who knew?
Delete-FJ
Doesn't sound like the House had any concerns about "swaying doubters". It was more like insisting on a third swing at a ball they failed to hit twice before. And in 2022, the voting public is going to call the Democrats for their 3rd Strike and "Out" at the plate for good.
Delete-FJ
-FJ
Congress would do the nation a great service by holding a real committee with cross-examination and adversarial parties taking apart Team Kraken and John Eastman's "legal theories."
DeleteCompletely agree. If that isn't conducted, the lying charade is just going to continue each election cycle.
Remember, it really started in the 2016 election, that Trump claimed was 'rigged' [which calls into question his legitimacy as POTUS, but he's not smart enough to realize that]......and the 'Election Czar' Kris Kobach found no evidence of widespread fraud. Wash, rinse, repeat....
Dave,
DeleteI have seen not convincing evidence the election was stolen. There are theories out there, but theories are not legally actionable.
If the election was stolen, it was done by churning out mail in ballots and having people fill them in. Team Kraken was too stupid to pursue that line, and instead demanded recounts, which--if there was fraud--just recounted fraudulent ballots.
As I've already said, Trump was unhinged, and the entire stop the steal enterprise was crazy and potentially destructive to our institutions.
I want congress to tighten/clarify the election laws to make sure this dangerous bullshittery can't happen again.
Silver... I know you, like me are a partisan and we are not always going to agree. But on this we do.
DeleteNo evidence = not good.
As for future elections, I think there are fixes to be had, but they'd have to be done on a national basis to get blue votes because many of us do not trust the state politicians in red states who have a history, to this day, of working to limit the franchise to vote.
Witness Florida where the state GOP broke a largly black district into 4 majority white districts, in as one GOP state senator called, a nakedly blatant attempt to dilute black political power. Eventually the courts forced them to redraw it.
All that being said, the GOP and Red State people, I think, will pretty much resist a national solution on the "one size does not fit all" reasoning.
But I do think most of us could agree to a set of reasonable solutions to help red staters feel safe with the vote, help blue staters feel the same and move past this.
But I feel like immigration, neither party really wants a solution, because the status quo is better for their campaigns.
CI... thanks for the reminder of Kris Kobach. We could also go to the Heritage Foundation list of actual voter fraud in the last 20 years. That's where we'd find that the great majority of actual voter fraud has been perpetrated over the years by GOP voters.
DeleteThis push to "solve voter fraud" is really a solution in search of a problem.
Dave, I'm murky on the details, but there is some 1800's law about counting electors, etc, that left some loopholes for this kind of political shenanigans. They need to tighten that up.
DeleteElections belong to the states, and state legislatures make the rules. That's in the constitution, so it ain't gonna change.
Gerrymandering? Oh Noes!!!
Yahoogle New York Gerrymandering. Democrats overreached. Bigly, and judges are handing them their asses.
I'm not so sure about the loopholes. Aside from the initial lie of electoral fraud....it seems pretty clear that the authors of the fraudulent notion that the Vice President could dismiss electors out of hand and decide an election unilaterally....admitted was also illegal. Seeking a pardon after that scheme didn't help any look of innocence about 'loopholes' either.
DeleteI wasn't excusing anyone by making that comment, I just remember hearing a short discussion about it, and something about that law.
Delete+2 (for both posts above)
ReplyDeleteThe J6 Committee is now going to publicly shame Ginni Thomas.
ReplyDelete"Vengeance is mine," sayeth the Democrats!
-FJ
more
DeleteHow can one distinguish an honest investigation from a sham one? Well, perhaps the easiest method is by the leaks...
Delete-FJ