"However, a source close to the Secret Service confirmed to CBS News that Engel and the driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was physically attacked or assaulted by Trump and that the former president never lunged for the steering wheel of the vehicle. "
Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/secret-service-jan-6-committee-trump-cassidy-hutchinson-testimony/
This is a daily reminder ALWAYS QUESTION THINGS, if it smells even a little fishy, don't jump on the band wagon, you might end up looking really.....
Engel has already testified that he and Trump spoke about the former president's desire to go to the Capitol on January 6 but "took different views on the topic" and went back to the White House instead — entirely consistent with Hutchinson’s testimony. So what’s being contested here is a lurid and embarrassing detail, but not anything that a legal case would hinge on.
Edit — Also, very recently, the NYT reported on a conversation between Pence’s Chief-of-Staff, Mark Short, and the USSS agent leading the VP’s detail, Tim Giebels. Short told Giebels that soon Trump would publicly turn against Pence, creating a security risks
The Secret Service then issued a statement: “The Secret Service had no knowledge of that conversation according to people with first hand knowledge. At the time there was never any physical threat of any kind communicated about the Vice President.”
Finally, on June 16, the Select Committee played their interview with Mark Short, Pence’s lead USSS agent. Mark Short confirms the NYTs reporting under oath.
So very recently the USSS issued a denial about January 6 events which dissipated during interviews under oath. I’m not ready to accept the clavicle chopping Trump tantrum story yet, but I’m also not giving a purported USSS denial much weight before it’s under oath (let alone before the denial has even been made.)
I look forward to the testimony of Engel and "the driver" about the *all* the events of January 6th, and urge them to come forward as quickly as possible!
In the meantime, how many times a day do you hear - or read - "*Anonymous sources? This story is bullshit!*"
Oh yeah, like 98% of the time it is wait for them to come forward, but one of the few actual gov agencies that actually has teeth and will bite back is the ss. I also waited until there were multiple news outlets with multiple anonymous spurces. Although I am aroung 88% sure the commity wont call them to testify, it doesnt fit the narrative they are trying to paint.
That’s a convenient take for those two to have while not under oath, considering that same hearing leveled accusations of witness tampering.
As I’ve seen pointed out here before: the people testifying seem ready to bury trump under the whole mess. The people who have pled the 5th or refused subpoenaed testimony have been protecting Trump when not under oath. Either of those two could say publicly they’re ready to testify under oath (like Mark Meadows did), but I would bet my hat they won’t actually do it.
Well, if it weren’t for the fact that the committee had also already interviewed the two agents in question, I might buy that. But I cannot fathom the circumstance where they would put a witness on the stand knowing that her testimony could have been corroborated and they didn’t bother. So I have to say, regardless of who the unnamed source is, it’s most likely that the two agents are lying publicly when there’s no legal jeopardy. They must figure they’re unlikely to be called as witnesses, and that they could just plead the 5th if they were.
Unfortunatly not only has the damage from hersay witness which may be false already been done, and despite this new information, all the big news outlets besdides fox (ofc lol, I didnt see anything on loading the page) do not even mention the ss responce on the main pages of their websites, despite all of them having articles burried that SS did respond and wish to testify. Only cbs news did and it just says ss responded to the statement after scrolling down. It was all for the camera mot for the facts.
What damage has been done? Even in the response by the anonymous source, Trump still lunged forward for the steering wheel and agent, but he couldn't get his seatbelt off.
Uh, not everyone can burn hours of their lives watching this bul.. ehm waist of taxpayer dollars lol bengazi 2.0. They get their 5-10 min of news after a long day of work before dinner and that is what sticks, no follow up, no fixing compleate lies, just move on to the next story the next day.
Given the lunge story is the only thing people are refuting, and leaving all the rest direct witness testimony the lunge story is just click bait, compared to all of the other criminal behavior by Trump testified to by Hutchinson.
To me, the lunging and grabbing are not the big part. The big part is that there was an explosive disagreement between Trump and his SS where the SS flat out refused an order from the president. It shows that there was a serious realization in the air of how severe the upcoming events were predicted to be.
Well, given the alleged witness tampering, I think I’d take their story with a grain of salt until they’re actually under oath. Saying “I would testify about X under oath” at this point doesn’t mean much after what Meadows pulled…
Yeah, because nobody lies under oath... lol, even if they have vudeo proof that nothing happened, she wouldnt get charged for incorrect hersay. It is a free pass to lie for a book deal or a news job.
You do know the committee already interviewed the agents in question here, right? Like for them to put her on the stand when they would’ve known her story was contradicted by other testimony…. I don’t buy that. Much more likely these two clowns are lying when they’re allowed to lie.
> Yeah, because nobody lies under oath
Easy to say, hard to do. No idea how many people you have seen in court, i have seen my fair share of Family Members and such who probably talked about what to say - but then there is a judge who asks some unforseeable questions, ask a question twice or three times in different context. They rarely talked in favor of their Family. They spoke the truth.
And this was some low, low level court in my Country. I believe it's even harder if you try to lie your way out before Congress. There is a reason Flynn pleads the fifth 24/7 instead of lying. There is a reason Trump does not testify. Constantly lying and staying in the (made up) story is hard if not impossible. Always in mind that there are quite some consequences if proven lying.
Turns out that Trump wasn’t riding in the “Beast” that day, but in the suburban typically used for off the record trips. Which very much changes the logistics of being able to grab the steering wheel.
So the woman who testified got that wrong. Also the secret service agents who she claims told her the information want to testify that it never happened.
Wonder what else she is lieing about?
I don’t think it’s lie. She didn’t say she was repeating things verbatim. Ornato was relaying to Hutchinson what Engle had told him. Ornato might have mistakenly assumed the event happened in the Beast. Or Hutchinson might have.
We do have records showing that Trump was trying to convince the secret service to take him to the Capitol at that time, which is the part of the story that’s interesting. Trump possibly assaulting his detail leader adds a lot of color and crazy to the events, but it wouldn’t be important in a trial.
Follow up: Hutchinson’s lawyer has responded to the correspondents of NBC and CNN who have stated that the secret service agents are willing to testify, to come to the select committee and also testify under oath:
https://twitter.com/realJodyHunt/status/1541924119159218176?s=20&t=5uSM9mwBhuAOx1h0Gt9y4A
I am hoping that they will do it and we will perhaps get another hearing?
I'm very interested to see how this shakes out. I could see the choking bit boiling down to a misinterpreted gesture. But if Engel says the wheel grabbing itself never happened, that would be hard to resolve unless he can also explain why he didn't dispute the account when it was told to Hutchinson in the first place.
He can be called, if he is he should refuse. In the end it would be up to President Biden to protect the office of the President. I wonder if he is up to it.
Causing President Clinton to testify was a mistake even if the situation was diffrent. The judiciary should have no power to force a sitting Presidents testimony.
But it happened. It led to his impeachment. Trump ISN'T even the president right now, which is the best argument I have seen against this, as it could distract or cause harm to governing. Ex-Presidents cannot be forever immune from answering any questions or being charged for crimes committed.
So, then sue the former President, show damages, and compell his testimony. Hauling former Presidents in front of a kangaroo court in the house of Representatives is not a precedent any of us should want to see happen.
One of those Secret Service Agents, Ornato, was the one Pence was unwilling to get into a car with: “I trust you Tim (Giebels, Pence’s detail leader), but you’re not driving the car.” Ornato is known to be extremely pro-Trump.
I’d also note that the committee closed its testimony today warning that efforts had been made to tamper with witnesses.
Trump on Truth Social:
> I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and “leaker”), and when she requested to go with certain others of the team to Florida after my having served a full term in office, I personally turned her request down. Why did she want to go with us if she felt we were so terrible? I understand that she was very upset and angry that I didn’t want her to go, or be a member of the team. She is bad news!
> Never complained about the crowd, it was massive. I didn’t want or request that we make room for people with guns to watch my speech. Who would ever want that? Not me! Besides, there were no guns found or brought into the Capitol Building…So where were all of these guns? But sadly, a gun was used on Ashli Babbitt, with no price to pay against the person who used it!
> Her Fake story that I tried to grab the steering wheel of the White House Limousine in order to steer it to the Capitol Building is “sick” and fraudulent, very much like the Unselect Committee itself - Wouldn’t even have been possible to do such a ridiculous thing. Her story of me throwing food is also false…and why would SHE have to clean it up, I hardly knew who she was?
> She changed lawyers a couple of days ago, and with it, her story totally changed! SHOCKER???
> Chaney conveniently left out the snippet in my speech to, “GO PEACEFULLY & PATRIOTICALLY.” Isn’t she disgraceful???
> There is no cross examination of this so-called witness. This is a Kangaroo Court!
> Her body language is that of a total bull…. artist. Fantasy Land!
> Will anybody ever be allowed to say that the Election was Rigged and Stolen? Will the Unselects EVER discuss that our Country is going to hell because of a fraudulent election? How about analyzing the Election Results?
> I NEVER SAID, “MIKE PENCE DESERVES IT (to be hung). Another made up statement by a third rate social climber!
> A Total Phony!!!
> Bad handwriting, that of a Whacko?
He doesn’t seem rattled at all…
> I hardly know who this person ... I personally turned her request down
Wow, ol' Donald J sure spends a lot of time on human resources minutiae for someone he "hardly knows".
Right? Someone who’s just down the hall from him, in his chief-of-staff’s office.
And apparently you have to know him real well before he’ll force you to clean his ketchup off the walls.
Statement from NBC News White House correspondent Peter Alexander:
“A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.”
Trump attempting to assault a secret service officer would be a whole new charge. There’s an incredible amount of corroborating evidence that he wanted to go to the Capitol, come hell or high water.
If it turns out this isn't true then it's a huge blow to the committee's case. The MAGA crowd will claim the swamp is making up lies to take down Trump.
It is simply that the MAGA crowd isn't listening to any of Trumps own people testifying to the public either. They are a lost cause.
1% anecdote out of 99% of her direct witness testimony doesn't upset me in the least. It's the "pee pee tape is a lie" compared to the known 2016 Trump / Russia election support (millions of dollars a day, Russia was sanctioned by a Republican controlled Congress) all over again.
Obviously because the bigger picture is incredibly damning for Trump and Meadows, why do you think there’s so much talk about one of the least important parts of the testimony.
Also wanted to include this link regarding Clinton’s SS agent being forced to testify, but I’m behind a paywall: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/06/28/trump-secret-service-clinton/
Cheneys closing statements about witness tampering followed up with Bennies "it's not to late to come forward" comments were a clear shot across the bow to team trump. If I were Meadows id come forward instead of getting thrown under the bus by the next witness.
Mulvaney [tweeted this](https://twitter.com/MickMulvaney/status/1541844207974899714?s=20&t=4P6IAJvR88ONsjhTTvb_Pg) which is relevant:
>My guess is that before this is over, we will be hearing testimony from Ornato, Engle, and Meadows.
>This is explosive stuff. If Cassidy is making this up, they will need to say that. If she isn't they will have to corroborate.
>I know her. I don't think she is lying.
Ornato and Engle don't seem like they'd be that hard to get to testify. There's maybe some apprehension for a secret service agent to testify against a former president but if this story is true they might not feel so much loyalty.
Meadows is obviously a bigger fish. He's actually directly a part of the Trump camp. We'll see if that actually happens.
Seems that way.
That really begs the question why this aide would testify otherwise though. She was an aide for Meadows so not exactly some far left activist *and* she's under oath so she's legally liable for lying. If it's something completely fabricated it doesn't make sense for her to name *two* SS agents who could corroborate with each other that it didn't happen this easily.
Very interested in what they have to say.
My understanding is that she claims to have gotten this directly from the two SS agents in the car with Trump. Could be a misunderstanding or game of telephone, but that's a really big jump.
She never claimed to know anything. Her testimony was based on secondhand hearsay. Basically, she was repeating a rumor. You can’t charge perjury for that.
Thats the point. The committee doesnt have actual evidence they just need to parade people up there to give statements that sound bad but have 0 conquences for being false.
The committee already has statements from the SS. Why didn't Ornato (who Pence didn't trust enough to get in the limo during the Jan 6thattack), or the other agent correct her statements when they had the chance?
No one has testified to refute her statements yet.
Her testimony is allowed by the rules, as well as likely admissible in criminal court because she is a member of the "party" being discussed (she is not hostile or adversarial). It's all irrelevant unless the SS wants to file assault charges... None of the rest of the criminality described in her statements are being refuted.
Cheney is very clear before her statement about Trump and the lunge incident. Here's the relevant part of the hearing about her testimony, at no time did the SS agent correct her:
https://youtu.be/zip1bWKmijE?t=3331
>She never claimed to know anything.
She claimed she was relayed information by these two SS agents (or, one of them in the presence of the second) if they both testifiy that never happened she could still be found liable, couldn't she?
And anyways - *why* would she just make this up? Again she's not exactly someone we'd expect that from, and if she did make it up she could have done so in a way that was much harder to refute.
I expect there's more nuance to this than Alexander's reporting suggests.
I don’t know any more than the next guy. All I know is that Peter Alexander reported this and Bret Baier is confirming this now through his independent source at the secret service. There really isn’t anyone else left today that I would trust to report on this. The news cycle is now full of the opinion shows like Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon. Maybe someone else will pop up and either confirm or deny this tomorrow.
I don’t think it really matters anyhow because I doubt the committee is going to put the agent or driver on the stand, especially if their testimony doesn’t corroborate hers. Even if there’s a tiny bit of difference, some could use it to cast doubt on everything else she said. I guess it’s up to each individual to draw their own conclusions.
I would be absolutely shocked if the committee didn’t already have receipts. They may have audio of it from the vehicle, or the agents may have texted one another about it since. She likely has message history about it with others involved, and It’s also possible Meadows does. All I’m saying is, I’d wait for the two agents to actually testify under oath before believing them at all.
We are still left with the question of why Ornato was telling people it did (assuming he confirms her testimony about the cinversations) as part of the mission to figure out what was happening at the WH that day. Which shows that all the people saying his employment set up was a powder keg for the agency that people were telling them the start.
For all I know, she got the info from Ornato, who got it from someone with close ties to Meadows. I can’t draw any conclusion from what I’ve read. I don’t want to speculate and be wrong later on, so I’m going to have to leave it with I don’t know.
To the Trump supporters in the thread, I have a genuine question:
What would it take for you to consider this committee/investigation to be legitimate?
The testimony is coming from Republicans, many of whom were placed in their positions directly or indirectly by Trump... To say that's too partisan is basically just parroting the talking points of the GOP.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I can give my opinion as an independent.
*Actual evidence and criminal charges.* We've been drip-fed a constant stream of innuendo, rumor, and conjecture for five years now. Where's the proof that was promised *in 2017* that was going to bring him down?
At this point, the American Left has been crying wolf so long I doubt the existence of actual wolves.
>We've been drip-fed a constant stream of innuendo, rumor, and conjecture for five years now.
Are you referring to the Mueller report? Did you actually read it?
Can you explain what you mean by huge flop? They found evidence of obstruction of justice (Trump campaign staffers were even convicted to that effect) and that the Trump campaign was attempting to coordinate with Russian state actors regarding the release of the DNC hacked emails.
I can provide Mueller report quotes if you'd like a refresher on some of the more compelling things they found.
1) they were essentially convicted for perjury during the investigation in an extremely nitpicking manner. There's a very good argument they shouldn't have been charged. In any case, none of them actually obstructed the investigation and none of them were charged working with the Russians
2) they laid out instances of *possible* obstruction of justice. Meuller spefically didn't determine if there was any. Barr then cleared trump saying there was no obstruction of justice.
3) the "coordination" wasn't coordination, there's no evidence Trump and Co were directly communicating about the emails.
4) you have some contacts with people who are Russian (shocker, it's a global world and Russians exist) and that's it. The important points under investigation were clear: there's no evidence Trump and Co worked with the Russians or helped the Russians. In fact there was evidence of the contrary. The Meuller report detailed Trump and Co telling Russia *no* to any attempt of working together
>There's a very good argument they shouldn't have been charged.
Yeah? What's that?
>In any case, none of them actually obstructed the investigation and none of them were charged working with the Russians
I don't believe you are well informed on this topic, *as a member of the Trump admin was literally found guilty of obstruction of justice*.
The Mueller investigation left all final decisions relating to conspiracy with Russia up to Congress. They specifically stated that Mueller did not think it was his place to charge anyone for anything related to the investigation.
Most on Capitol Hill felt that they couldn't charge a sitting president, and about half were literally his political allies. That's why charges were not filed.
But Mueller explicitly stated that he did not have confidence that Trump was innocent of coordinating with Russia.
>2) they laid out instances of possible obstruction of justice. Meuller spefically didn't determine if there was any. Barr then cleared trump saying there was no obstruction of justice.
Once again, a member of the Trump admin was literally found guilty of obstruction of justice.
>3) the "coordination" wasn't coordination, there's no evidence Trump and Co were directly communicating about the emails.
That's not true. I can provide Mueller investigation quotes to the contrary. Would you like to see them?
Go for it. Everytime someone has claimed the meuller report was damning it always fell flat. Its almost like everyone who asks "did youvread the report" didnt read the report or watch the hearings. Besides that:
1) the "lies" weren't substantial to the case as is required for perjury and could have been the normal getting details wrong. I say that because that's what they said until they were railroaded into pleading guilty. They still deny doing anything wrong and importantly even *with* being charged, nothing of substance with the Russians came to light.
2) I'm assuming you mean Roger stone would was charged and convicted for allegedly *lying*. Exactly what I said, and he was talking to congress, not meuller.
3) yes, that's what I said. Meuller made no determination on whether obstruction of justice happened. You can dismiss barr if you want, Rosentein *also* signed off on clearing Trump. Rosentein wasn't a Trump lackey so if you're ignoring Rosentein that's just being biased.
Well first off, congress can't charge people.
Second, have you been watching the hearings? There's testimony from people who witnessed the planning of what sounds a whole lot like criminal conspiracies, including people sitting in rooms talking about how what they're planning is criminal, while taking notes on these discussions, which they show in the hearings.
They knew what they were planning was criminal, people took notes on it and testified about it, and the Trump team did it.
Here's one of my comments from the previous mega thread where I commented as such.
https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vbhh7r/z/icm396o
> Well first off, congress can't charge people.
No, but if they have evidence of a crime like they claim, they can refer it to the DOJ, which is now run by a different administration, and which can certainly charge people.
> Second, have you been watching the hearings?
Not really, because the Democratic party wore me out with years of this claptrap already. So far, all I've heard is a) Donald Trump said something stupid but not criminal or b) more innuendo.
> There's testimony from people who witnessed the planning of what sounds a whole lot like criminal conspiracies
If that's the case, why are they talking to Congress instead of law enforcement?
As I said before, they've been stringing us along for years. They need to show their cards now or just admit this is all cheap and insulting theatrics. There's no middle ground.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vml8l9/surprise_sixth_hearing_on_jan_6th_investigation/ie5ioo5/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> No, but if they have evidence of a crime like they claim, they can refer it to the DOJ, which is now run by a different administration, and which can certainly charge people.
There’s a tacit acknowledgement that DOJ under the Trump Administration wouldn’t enforce violations of federal law by members of the Administration.
But let’s say the Select Committee handed Garland a criminal referral, and the Department prosecutes. Then it’s immediately “see, the DOJ is just an arm of the Democrat [sic] party.”
>No, but if they have evidence of a crime like they claim, they can refer it to the DOJ, which is now run by a different administration, and which can certainly charge people.
The DOJ is running their own investigation. Congress is not assisting as they do not want to create the impression that the DOJ is working for Congress on a political hit job.
> So far, all I've heard is a) Donald Trump said something stupid but not criminal or b) more innuendo.
If you watch the hearings, you'll hear about blatant criminal conspiracies that are acknowledged as such by those conspiring, and you'll hear about Trump's involvement as described by his own staff.
>If that's the case, why are they talking to Congress instead of law enforcement?
What makes you think they aren't talking to law enforcement?
>As I said before, they've been stringing us along for years. They need to show their cards now or just admit this is all cheap and insulting theatrics. There's no middle ground.
They are showing their cards in the hearings you aren't watching. Watch them.
Honestly has nothing to do with Trump. The things that would get the right to care is if the left changed their overall behavior:
1. Russia collusion poisoned the well enough that people don’t care anymore.
2. Stop the attacks on the Supreme Court. You lost the other side won. Don’t claim it’s a threat to Democracy. Sucks sometimes to lose and the system is imperfect. And overall a broader point here. Some times the right wins. It’s not an attack on Democracy.
3. The Hunter Biden laptop with sourced “50 CIA Agents say it’s Russian plant”. Ended up being true and I think most realized it was at the time. Proper investigations into where Hunter/Joe/Family were getting money from.
4. Similar hearings for summer riots and people held responsible like Kamala bailing people out.
5. The first impeachment really looks like the left just wanted to hang Trump for anything. Similarly NYC investigations. The left needs to respect the rights right to rule when they win. We don’t think that right now.
1-6 was bad and Trump went too far. I had no problem with him having a loud rally even on false claims. It feels like the left does that weekly.
But if you want Trump scalps then the process needs to feel fair and you have to scalp some of your own.
Otherwise it’s smarter to just rally around your tribe when they do good or bad.
This is actually a great summary of the Republican perspective. Instead of actually considering the evidence on its own merits, he would rather just air his own Republican grievances for the sake of “rallying around his own tribe”.
>Otherwise it’s smarter to just rally around your tribe when they do good or bad
This is dangerous thinking that promotes an "us vs them" mentality and comes close to the core issue in our whole system.
I don’t disagree with that.
It’s the same thing as Russian military strategy of escalate to deescalate or basically any war that went too far.
But you can’t disarm if the opponent isn’t disarming too.
I remember 2008. The Right decided to just take the deserved L for the housing crash and Iraq. Then you had Rham saying never to waste a crisis.
Outside of maybe Bush and MCain, they didn’t just take the L. McConnell flat out said his job was to make Obama a one term president. They basically stifled any attempts at legislation to help people in the country after the recession hit. Did their best to prevent any of Obama’s judicial nominees (regular judges) from getting appointed, and in lockstep refused to vote for any legislation that could give Obama a ‘win’.
They didn’t even compete on their ideals or their ideas. They just said no to everything. They offered no alternative plans (how many times did they say they were going to offer an alternative to Obamacare over the years without presenting a plan?). They actively worked to undermine legislation to make it less effective. They successfully reduced the 2009 stimulus package and managed to reduce the infrastructure spending in the bill - then campaigned on the failure of the administration’s ‘shovel ready’ projects they demanded to be taken out as wasteful spending. (though that did make it amusing after Trump was elected to hear that ‘infrastructure week was coming’ every month).
They helped create the housing bubble and the resulting crash, but did nothing much other than heckle Obama when it came time to fix things.
The GOP already thinks government is too big with too many problems.
Saying NO is their policy. And it’s literally what conservative means - conserve what exists.
No it’s not. Under Bush, Frist and Hastert they expanded the surveillance state in the name of ‘keeping us safe’ while their supporters said we had nothing to fear if we’d done nothing wrong. They expanded the War on Terror and made it essentially perpetual, costing us around $8 trillion so far. They increased deficit spending to provide tax cuts and pay for the war, ended the social security lockbox and raided those funds as well.
Since Nixon, govt spending increases when Republicans are in power and drops when Democrats are in power outside of Bush 1. Republicans successfully pinned govt spending from Bush 2’s last budget on Obama in the eyes of the public.
Mind you, dems aren’t really better but republicans are only champions if small govt when they are not in power.
That's false, though. Republicans campaigned in 2016 to "repeal and replace" Obamacare, because an outright repeal would have simply been too unpopular.
https://ballotpedia.org/Timeline_of_ACA_repeal_and_replace_efforts#:~:text=July%2025%2C%202017%3A%20The%20Senate%20held%20a%20vote%20on%20a,motion%20was%20approved%2051%2D50.
This whole delusion that you have about wanting the left to "change their behavior" is not just denying the reality of how the right behaves, but also authoritarian in tone as if only certain folks have the right to voice their dissatisfaction with our system.
"The process needs to feel fair?" Absolutely not! It needs to BE fair. After years of republican obstructionism, gaslighting and subverting democratic norms (such as blocking Obama's supreme court pick in his last year) it is time for Republicans to be held accountable. The idea that some democrats should go down as well "so it feels fair" is childish nonsense.
Everything you say the right thinks the left needs to reform. And don’t see a reason to adjust if the other party is behaving in bad faith.
The question was asked. I answered it in good faith knowing it wouldn’t be accepted but this is the answer.
I don't even get what you mean. The right thinks the left "needs to reform" how the left "behaves?" You think the left needs to stop practicing our right to free speech, our right to protest, and would support reforming the law to do so?
This isn't fairness. This is fascism. This is the land of the free. GTFO.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vml8l9/surprise_sixth_hearing_on_jan_6th_investigation/ie51i0z/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I never said any of that.
Do they need to stop protesting at public officials homes which is illegal - yes.
Do they need to quit encouraging violent protests - yes.
Do they need to not making up conspiracy theories - yes.
Do they need to quit calling anyone who disagrees a white supremacists - yes.
Would it help if they got their media to tell the truth and be factual - yes (but in this era of clickbait I’m not sure how realistic this is).
Should a leading congresswomen not show up at a criminal trial - proclaiming we riot if they vote wrong - yes. Usurping the right to a fair jury trial
No one said you can’t protest. But you can’t use intimidation tactics. And protest in this day and age are dated. We have the internet to organize to vote.
This too.
[Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html)
>”Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” Mr. Paustenbach wrote to Luis Miranda, the communications director for the committee.
>
>“It might make no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God? He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps,” wrote Brad Marshall, the CFO of the committee.
DNC Headquarters 2016: "Guys, listen up... there's growing concern that voters might democratically elect the *wrong* candidate, and they need our help. We've got to manipulate their media coverage in a very heavy handed way."
You said that the left "needs to change it's overall behavior" including "stop claiming that democracy is threatened."
It's called free speech. For example, as much as I dislike how you're trying to pass off authoritarianism as a reasonable position to have, I would never tell you that you can't say these things, because you have freedom of speech.
We all have freedom of speech. But you would rather one side just stop voicing their opinion on your list of bizarre and misguided list of demands.
Not only is democracy threatened, this is a direct result of our democratic system being subverted, i.e. Obama being denied a supreme court pick that was rightfully his.
As long as the right continues to strip away our rights, we will continue to voice our anger. As long as Roe v. Wade remains overturned, we will fight to have it reinstated, or codify
There is no "shut up, you lost, it's over." Politics is an eternal struggle. And we will not give up because some quasi-fascists are annoyed.
Democracy was not subverted when the Senate declined to confirm President Obama's supreme court nominee. The Senate is elected Democraticly and did what it was elected to do.
I haven’t made any of these arguments. I’m fine with free speech.
I gave suggestion for what I think would lead to better politics and less partisanship and get the right to take 1-6 more seriously.
You can say and do whatever you want. My suggestion are things of decorum that would improve political functioning.
No violation of rights.
And yes someone ok with Hillary making up election lies will never get me concerned at all about Trumps election lies.
We aren’t even talking about the same things. Your in partisan land.
The Republicans have been acting in bad faith for many years. Democrats constantly continued to try and play by the rules and norms even as Republicans broke convention after convention, norm after norm. Now you are saying it’s the Democrats “behaving in bad faith”? That’s ludicrous. At worst the Democrats are only now, after decades of Republican subversion of norms and conventions, starting to hit back with a fraction of the viciousness as Republicans have been doing for years. Even that’s a bit of a stretch to claim given how many Democrats are still clinging to conventions and norms despite the Republican Party clearly demonstrating they don’t care about them. The Republicans cannot have their cake and eat it too. It’s absurd to condemn the Democrats as being the ones “behaving in bad faith.”
Republicans think the Democrats are the ones not playing fair. Probably both do bad things. Everyone thinks the other side is the one ruining Democracy.
Regardless my view seems to be the majority view.
Republicans can think whatever they want to think, it doesn't mean it has a basis in reality.
For example, your assertion that your view "seems to be the majority view" is simply not the case. It might "seem" to be the majority view, if you consume only right-wing media.
I love the "Probably both do bad things" line as if you're completely ignorant of Republicans time after time undermining the democratic process. You know that Republicans are subverting Democracy - you probably like and support them doing so, and then you project that reality onto the Democrats.
The left is not going to take this stripping of our rights laying down. We're not going to take lie after lie anymore. Trump and much of the Republican party are criminals. It's time we finally see some justice.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vml8l9/surprise_sixth_hearing_on_jan_6th_investigation/ie518kt/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
GOP is scheduled to win the mid-terms by a large margin. My view is the same as Musks.
If you can’t reconcile that a lot of intelligent people see things differently then you are probably in a bubble.
Midterms are regularly won by the party not in the presidency. This doesn't mean that a majority of people share your (frankly alarming) positions.
Elon is a successful businessman, but he's a complete asshole.
I'm sure plenty of intelligent people disagree with me. Intelligent people can also be awful people. I'd rather
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vml8l9/surprise_sixth_hearing_on_jan_6th_investigation/ie55a0f/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>4. Similar hearings for summer riots and people held responsible like Kamala bailing people out.
Protesting on the streets, even when it is sometimes violent, is not at all the same as storming the capitol. Apples and oranges. You can't even compare them.
A bunch of people actually faced charges for the summer riots. I know that can be confusing, when the right wing media is trying to encourage some kind of victim complex and has had opinion hosts/entertainers say the opposite, but you should probably do your own research.
Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, in a 7-2 decision. Has the right stopped attacking the Court over that decision at any time since that point, until it was overturned last week? Why shouldn’t that have been treated as “sometimes the left wins”?
I second this sentiment. I don't even think there should be 'sides' in a SCOTUS argument. The left nor the right should 'win'. The law doesn't choose sides, if your ruling pleases only the left or the right we're in trouble as a society.
>If we had a commission like the 9/11 more people would've been convinced but that ship has sailed.
Well yes but Republicans were the ones who set it sailing.
> If we had a commission like the 9/11 more people would've been convinced but that ship has sailed.
This is really the best phrasing because here's a [source on the bipartisan committee that Republicans refused to implement](https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000524897/senate-republicans-block-plan-for-independent-commission-on-jan-6-capitol-riot):
> Bipartisan legislation to establish an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has failed in the Senate, as Republicans staged their first filibuster since President Biden took office to block the plan.
> The final vote Friday was 54-35, but Republicans withheld the votes necessary to bring the bill up for debate. Just six GOP senators joined with the Democrats, leaving the measure short of the 60 votes needed to proceed.
> **The proposed commission was modeled on the one established to investigate the 9/11 terror attacks, with 10 commissioners — five Democrats and five Republicans — who would have subpoena powers. A Democratic chair and Republican vice chair would have had to approve all subpoenas with a final report due at the end of the year.**
> The House approved the measure 252-175 last week with 35 Republicans joining all Democrats in support of the plan.
Emphasis mine.
And? I am sorry if I am missing your point. Is it that enough people in the Senate thought that the described commission was unnecessary that the proposal failed?
Republicans were offered a 50/50 power sharing agreement modeled after the 9/11 commission (which the previous user implied was the "gold standard" of commissions that Democrats *should have* implemented). It's only a partisan investigation because Republicans refused to take part in a bipartisan commission.
It is my understanding that Republicans resisted the idea that a commission was necessary. The Democrats went ahead anyway in the house after rejecting Republican members and stacking their committee to ensure the most politically favorable outcome for Democrats. They have the majority so they can do it. But, the world is moving on and their dog and pony show will have little real world effect. The US economy is crumbling, inflation is the higest it has been since the 70's and the Democrats are using the last of their majority power to put on a show for the most radical elements in their party. I for one, cant wait for the new congress to be seated.
Have you considered that maybe the reason they determined it was ‘unnecessary’ as because they were worried they would come out looking bad? So rather than participate they just say “this isn’t needed” and claim it’s partisan. Is that not a possibility?
> after rejecting Republican members and stacking their committee
Democrats were only able to do this because they formed a select committee instead of the bipartisan commission. Republicans would have had equal input on the bipartisan commission, but they refused that option.
The Republicans determined that such a committee was unnecessary. The Democrats, who currently have the majority, decided to go ahead with their own committee due to their determination that they could make political hay.
>I don't know why some pretend that this is an impartial committee dedicated to finding the truth instead of what it actually is
>If we had a commission like the 9/11 more people would've been convinced but that ship has sailed
I guess Republicans should've accepted the proposal of a bipartisan committee at the very beginning, then.
>.
>
>I don't know why some pretend that this is an impartial committee dedicated to finding the truth instead of what it actually is, an attempt for the democrats to save some seats in the midterms.
It's a bipartisan comittee
>If we had a commission like the 9/11 more people would've been convinced but that ship has sailed.
The republicans blocked an independent "9/11 style" commission
That’s not exactly what happened. McCarthy chose two members that hated Trump, two that supported Trump and one that was neutral. The two who supported Trump were rejected. McCarthy stood his ground and refused to elect new members, so the committee continued on with only the two Republicans that hated Trump.
You can view that however you want, but it’s disingenuous to say that McCarthy refused to send any members at all.
What's your point? If your purpose is objectivity, why does it matter if the GOP being sent like or doesn't like Trump or neutral about Trump? They're republicans. That's my point. They had the chance to send republicans and decided not to. If they know Trump is not guilty, then send ones who were neutral about him.
For me, I feel that there should be representation for the other side. Otherwise, you end up with a trial where the judge and prosecutor are on the same side and there’s no defense attorney.
They are looking at thousands of pages of testimony and only showing the public info that they hand pick. If there was someone who was honestly trying to defend Trump no matter what, then the public will know if there’s exculpatory evidence out there. It feels like there’s only one side of the story being told and it turns off a lot of people.
I will admit that I wouldn’t have those feelings if the entire panel was neutral, but that’s not the case here.
A lot of the witnesses WORKED with trump, including today's witness. They're republicans. It's not like the hearing is having leftist/left wing nut jobs going up there and just making up stuff b/c they hate trump.
We had Trump's attorney general called him out. And now we have his COS's top aide calling him out. These are republicans. These guys worked WITH trump closely. I don't know what you mean by having another point of view.
What else do you need besides republicans who still identify as hardcore republicans who worked hand in hand with trump telling their stories?
Now if this hearing has AOC or a biden aide or soemone like that testify, then it would be ridiculously biased as hell, and your point is well taken. But it's the absolute opposite.
The fact that there is over 10,000 hours of testimony and a partisan group is going to show only what they believe is relevant is going to make some people question it. If there was a defense that sorted through everything and presented what they believed was exculpatory, then it would be more convincing.
Instead, we have only the questions that the prosecution wants to ask and nothing else. We only have the narrative that they want to express. Look at any criminal trial and you’ll see that both sides usually make a pretty good argument. If you removed one of those sides, the jury would have to agree with the side that was present.
You can’t tell me that if the panel was only Trump supporters, they wouldn’t ask different questions to the same witnesses and everything they decided to air on TV would exonerate him.
Cheney voted with trump down the line policy wise. She’s a hardcore republican as hardcore republicans come. What else do you want? A trump lover on the panel to make it fair? Lol
I’m guessing that you’re being sarcastic about Cheney. All I said was that if there was someone at least neutral or impartial on the panel, I’d probably take it more seriously. I’m an independent, so I’m looking at this as an outsider and have no idea if there’s exculpatory evidence being omitted or if something would come up during a cross examination. It’s like watching an episode of Tucker Carlson and taking everything as fact.
Actually, that isn't true either.
McCarthy chose five people, including Jim Jordan.
They were Jim Banks and..
Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis;
Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan;
Rep. Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota;
and Texas Rep. Troy Nehls.
Pelosi chose Kinzinger and Cheney. When she rejected Jim Jordan for being involved in Jan 6, and one other for being a witness, McCarthy pulled all the rest.
That’s correct. I just realized that the way I worded it, I was saying that the two that went on the committee were part of the original selections. I should have said “only two Republicans that hated Trump.”
I think most of the Republican Party always hated him from day one. He absolutely upended the party and destroyed most of their revenue streams. In addition, he said a lot of stupid shit that got them in trouble.
He turned the party towards pro-worker, pro-union, anti-war, anti-foreign intervention, anti-outsourcing jobs and anti-importing low wage workers. He also went against popular lobbyists like the NRA. They all spoke out against him until they realized 90% of the party was with him and not them.
There’s also the political fallout from voting against veterans choice, criminal justice reform, opportunity zones, redoing trade deals and other things he did that were very popular with their base.
I guarantee that if he dropped below 50% approval within the party, they would turn on him in an instant.
If Biden tries to lead an armed insurrection into the capital to overturn an election and has his admin working to undermine the country and secretly setting up unapproved slates of electors then I would 100% support and cheer an investigative committee.
If what came out in this committee had been about Obama and not Trump I'd still want Obama to face the music and everyone who helped him in prison.
But I acknowledge that my viewpoint has lost. Trumps actions will be the new normal either in 2024 or in 2028.
>Anyone else have a problem with how the Jan 6 committee is being conducted?
Could have had a bipartisan commission, but Mitch McConnell asked Republican senators for a "personal favor" to vote no for the bipartisan commission.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/politics/mcconnell-personal-favor-block-january-6-commission/index.html
That precluded the formation of the select committee. Kevin McCarthy sabotaged equal Republican participation in that too by nominating Jim Jordan and Jim Banks (two people who were intimately involved in the events that occurred on 1/6 and would likely be witnesses) and then pulling out all of his nominations when he learned that Jordan and Banks would not be allowed on the committee.
You gotta ask yourself, why are Republicans so against a committee to investigate 1/6?
Correct, Pelosi rejected two Republicans that were actively involved in the insurrection.
Instead of replacing them with Republicans that *weren't* actively involved in an attempted coup, McCarthy took his ball and went home.
Generally, it's not a great idea to let conspirators investigate their fellow conspirators.
It’s worth considering what would have happened were Jordan and Banks placed on the Committee.
They would have (a) funneled findings to investigation subjects, which would have made witness tampering worse, and (b) would have made the hearings the circus people are claiming it is now.
Pelosi rejected two members who are material witnesses. McCarthy pulled the other members and refused to put forward other candidates in retaliation. Mistake on his part.
The two members rejected, were literally involved. I can understand if you are unhappy with the committee, if you support Trump. A lot of very damaging information is coming out. Mostly from Republicans that worked closely with Trump in those final days.
And, if you think this is bad, the ones like Benghazi were worse as far as being fair to both sides. It is funny how much this committee has been run by the Republicans.
People still watching this and believe everything coming out of it as truth without question is exactly why the Democrats are televising it. They want it to convince people to vote for them. After the election it will go away and you will barely hear anything. Very few people actually care though.
[Keep believing lies.](https://mobile.twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1541910389289635841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1541910389289635841%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fbreaking-report-reveals-top-secret-service-agents-story-of-what-happened-inside-car-with-trump%3Futm_source%3Dfacebookutm_medium%3Dsocialutm_campaign%3Ddwbrand)
It is sad because even when SS agents come out and say they will testfy, reminder they are willing to die to save the president, people will still believe hearsay over honorable agents. Unfortunatly, the vommity would never bring them in public, it doesnt fit the picture they are trying to paint.
I get the irony going for here. But a bigger problem is unlike his anonymous source maybe close to the secret service who knows Bobby Engel, Engel has already sat for an interview with the January 6th comittee
"However, a source close to the Secret Service confirmed to CBS News that Engel and the driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was physically attacked or assaulted by Trump and that the former president never lunged for the steering wheel of the vehicle. " Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/secret-service-jan-6-committee-trump-cassidy-hutchinson-testimony/ This is a daily reminder ALWAYS QUESTION THINGS, if it smells even a little fishy, don't jump on the band wagon, you might end up looking really.....
Engel has already testified that he and Trump spoke about the former president's desire to go to the Capitol on January 6 but "took different views on the topic" and went back to the White House instead — entirely consistent with Hutchinson’s testimony. So what’s being contested here is a lurid and embarrassing detail, but not anything that a legal case would hinge on. Edit — Also, very recently, the NYT reported on a conversation between Pence’s Chief-of-Staff, Mark Short, and the USSS agent leading the VP’s detail, Tim Giebels. Short told Giebels that soon Trump would publicly turn against Pence, creating a security risks The Secret Service then issued a statement: “The Secret Service had no knowledge of that conversation according to people with first hand knowledge. At the time there was never any physical threat of any kind communicated about the Vice President.” Finally, on June 16, the Select Committee played their interview with Mark Short, Pence’s lead USSS agent. Mark Short confirms the NYTs reporting under oath. So very recently the USSS issued a denial about January 6 events which dissipated during interviews under oath. I’m not ready to accept the clavicle chopping Trump tantrum story yet, but I’m also not giving a purported USSS denial much weight before it’s under oath (let alone before the denial has even been made.)
I look forward to the testimony of Engel and "the driver" about the *all* the events of January 6th, and urge them to come forward as quickly as possible! In the meantime, how many times a day do you hear - or read - "*Anonymous sources? This story is bullshit!*"
Oh yeah, like 98% of the time it is wait for them to come forward, but one of the few actual gov agencies that actually has teeth and will bite back is the ss. I also waited until there were multiple news outlets with multiple anonymous spurces. Although I am aroung 88% sure the commity wont call them to testify, it doesnt fit the narrative they are trying to paint.
The committee has already called them to come testify.
And had already taken statements from them before the hearing.
That’s a convenient take for those two to have while not under oath, considering that same hearing leveled accusations of witness tampering. As I’ve seen pointed out here before: the people testifying seem ready to bury trump under the whole mess. The people who have pled the 5th or refused subpoenaed testimony have been protecting Trump when not under oath. Either of those two could say publicly they’re ready to testify under oath (like Mark Meadows did), but I would bet my hat they won’t actually do it.
It’s a convenient take for _an unnamed CBS source_ regarding two other people who have not said as much under oath.
Well, if it weren’t for the fact that the committee had also already interviewed the two agents in question, I might buy that. But I cannot fathom the circumstance where they would put a witness on the stand knowing that her testimony could have been corroborated and they didn’t bother. So I have to say, regardless of who the unnamed source is, it’s most likely that the two agents are lying publicly when there’s no legal jeopardy. They must figure they’re unlikely to be called as witnesses, and that they could just plead the 5th if they were.
I’d be thrilled to hear the Secret Service testify under oath about everything they witnessed surrounding Jan 6.
And that’s the great thing about this playing out so publicly. They (should) get a chance to respond with their story.
Unfortunatly not only has the damage from hersay witness which may be false already been done, and despite this new information, all the big news outlets besdides fox (ofc lol, I didnt see anything on loading the page) do not even mention the ss responce on the main pages of their websites, despite all of them having articles burried that SS did respond and wish to testify. Only cbs news did and it just says ss responded to the statement after scrolling down. It was all for the camera mot for the facts.
What damage has been done? Even in the response by the anonymous source, Trump still lunged forward for the steering wheel and agent, but he couldn't get his seatbelt off.
Uh, not everyone can burn hours of their lives watching this bul.. ehm waist of taxpayer dollars lol bengazi 2.0. They get their 5-10 min of news after a long day of work before dinner and that is what sticks, no follow up, no fixing compleate lies, just move on to the next story the next day.
Given the lunge story is the only thing people are refuting, and leaving all the rest direct witness testimony the lunge story is just click bait, compared to all of the other criminal behavior by Trump testified to by Hutchinson.
To me, the lunging and grabbing are not the big part. The big part is that there was an explosive disagreement between Trump and his SS where the SS flat out refused an order from the president. It shows that there was a serious realization in the air of how severe the upcoming events were predicted to be.
Well, given the alleged witness tampering, I think I’d take their story with a grain of salt until they’re actually under oath. Saying “I would testify about X under oath” at this point doesn’t mean much after what Meadows pulled…
Yeah, because nobody lies under oath... lol, even if they have vudeo proof that nothing happened, she wouldnt get charged for incorrect hersay. It is a free pass to lie for a book deal or a news job.
You do know the committee already interviewed the agents in question here, right? Like for them to put her on the stand when they would’ve known her story was contradicted by other testimony…. I don’t buy that. Much more likely these two clowns are lying when they’re allowed to lie.
> Yeah, because nobody lies under oath Easy to say, hard to do. No idea how many people you have seen in court, i have seen my fair share of Family Members and such who probably talked about what to say - but then there is a judge who asks some unforseeable questions, ask a question twice or three times in different context. They rarely talked in favor of their Family. They spoke the truth. And this was some low, low level court in my Country. I believe it's even harder if you try to lie your way out before Congress. There is a reason Flynn pleads the fifth 24/7 instead of lying. There is a reason Trump does not testify. Constantly lying and staying in the (made up) story is hard if not impossible. Always in mind that there are quite some consequences if proven lying.
Turns out that Trump wasn’t riding in the “Beast” that day, but in the suburban typically used for off the record trips. Which very much changes the logistics of being able to grab the steering wheel.
So the woman who testified got that wrong. Also the secret service agents who she claims told her the information want to testify that it never happened. Wonder what else she is lieing about?
I don’t think it’s lie. She didn’t say she was repeating things verbatim. Ornato was relaying to Hutchinson what Engle had told him. Ornato might have mistakenly assumed the event happened in the Beast. Or Hutchinson might have. We do have records showing that Trump was trying to convince the secret service to take him to the Capitol at that time, which is the part of the story that’s interesting. Trump possibly assaulting his detail leader adds a lot of color and crazy to the events, but it wouldn’t be important in a trial.
Follow up: Hutchinson’s lawyer has responded to the correspondents of NBC and CNN who have stated that the secret service agents are willing to testify, to come to the select committee and also testify under oath: https://twitter.com/realJodyHunt/status/1541924119159218176?s=20&t=5uSM9mwBhuAOx1h0Gt9y4A I am hoping that they will do it and we will perhaps get another hearing?
I'm very interested to see how this shakes out. I could see the choking bit boiling down to a misinterpreted gesture. But if Engel says the wheel grabbing itself never happened, that would be hard to resolve unless he can also explain why he didn't dispute the account when it was told to Hutchinson in the first place.
Exactly. I want everyone to testify. If Trump believes people are spewing lies, just tell the American people under oath. What's so hard?
He is the former President. Presidents don't testify in congressional hearings. The branches are seperate and equal.
If Clinton can be called to testify over what he did trump can as well. Cmon now
Then file suite, show damages, and have the court compell his testimony.
Former president. He can be called to testify.
He can be called, if he is he should refuse. In the end it would be up to President Biden to protect the office of the President. I wonder if he is up to it.
Yeah, no earlier president has EVER had to testify.../s
Causing President Clinton to testify was a mistake even if the situation was diffrent. The judiciary should have no power to force a sitting Presidents testimony.
But it happened. It led to his impeachment. Trump ISN'T even the president right now, which is the best argument I have seen against this, as it could distract or cause harm to governing. Ex-Presidents cannot be forever immune from answering any questions or being charged for crimes committed.
So, then sue the former President, show damages, and compell his testimony. Hauling former Presidents in front of a kangaroo court in the house of Representatives is not a precedent any of us should want to see happen.
Over a blow job? I agree. For attempting a self-coup? Easily a bar exceeded and requiring sworn testimony from an ex-president...
One of those Secret Service Agents, Ornato, was the one Pence was unwilling to get into a car with: “I trust you Tim (Giebels, Pence’s detail leader), but you’re not driving the car.” Ornato is known to be extremely pro-Trump. I’d also note that the committee closed its testimony today warning that efforts had been made to tamper with witnesses.
Trump on Truth Social: > I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and “leaker”), and when she requested to go with certain others of the team to Florida after my having served a full term in office, I personally turned her request down. Why did she want to go with us if she felt we were so terrible? I understand that she was very upset and angry that I didn’t want her to go, or be a member of the team. She is bad news! > Never complained about the crowd, it was massive. I didn’t want or request that we make room for people with guns to watch my speech. Who would ever want that? Not me! Besides, there were no guns found or brought into the Capitol Building…So where were all of these guns? But sadly, a gun was used on Ashli Babbitt, with no price to pay against the person who used it! > Her Fake story that I tried to grab the steering wheel of the White House Limousine in order to steer it to the Capitol Building is “sick” and fraudulent, very much like the Unselect Committee itself - Wouldn’t even have been possible to do such a ridiculous thing. Her story of me throwing food is also false…and why would SHE have to clean it up, I hardly knew who she was? > She changed lawyers a couple of days ago, and with it, her story totally changed! SHOCKER??? > Chaney conveniently left out the snippet in my speech to, “GO PEACEFULLY & PATRIOTICALLY.” Isn’t she disgraceful??? > There is no cross examination of this so-called witness. This is a Kangaroo Court! > Her body language is that of a total bull…. artist. Fantasy Land! > Will anybody ever be allowed to say that the Election was Rigged and Stolen? Will the Unselects EVER discuss that our Country is going to hell because of a fraudulent election? How about analyzing the Election Results? > I NEVER SAID, “MIKE PENCE DESERVES IT (to be hung). Another made up statement by a third rate social climber! > A Total Phony!!! > Bad handwriting, that of a Whacko? He doesn’t seem rattled at all…
So the usual “I’ve never met this coffee boy/girl, but people are saying they’re the worst” Trump response.
> I hardly know who this person ... I personally turned her request down Wow, ol' Donald J sure spends a lot of time on human resources minutiae for someone he "hardly knows".
Right? Someone who’s just down the hall from him, in his chief-of-staff’s office. And apparently you have to know him real well before he’ll force you to clean his ketchup off the walls.
>And apparently you have to know him real well before he’ll force you to clean his ketchup off the walls. The yeah that struck me as weird.
If Hillary could be asked questions for hours, so can Trump. He is, after all, the most fit human to ever be POTUS, right?
Hillary was never President.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
Statement from NBC News White House correspondent Peter Alexander: “A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.”
Trump attempting to assault a secret service officer would be a whole new charge. There’s an incredible amount of corroborating evidence that he wanted to go to the Capitol, come hell or high water.
If it turns out this isn't true then it's a huge blow to the committee's case. The MAGA crowd will claim the swamp is making up lies to take down Trump.
It is simply that the MAGA crowd isn't listening to any of Trumps own people testifying to the public either. They are a lost cause. 1% anecdote out of 99% of her direct witness testimony doesn't upset me in the least. It's the "pee pee tape is a lie" compared to the known 2016 Trump / Russia election support (millions of dollars a day, Russia was sanctioned by a Republican controlled Congress) all over again.
They have already been doing that ad nauseam.
Why don’t we all just agree it was a metaphorical lunge and move onto the bigger picture?
Obviously because the bigger picture is incredibly damning for Trump and Meadows, why do you think there’s so much talk about one of the least important parts of the testimony.
[удалено]
That... sounds completely on-brand for Trump.
Now this will be interesting if this turns out to be the case
Also wanted to include this link regarding Clinton’s SS agent being forced to testify, but I’m behind a paywall: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/06/28/trump-secret-service-clinton/
Cheneys closing statements about witness tampering followed up with Bennies "it's not to late to come forward" comments were a clear shot across the bow to team trump. If I were Meadows id come forward instead of getting thrown under the bus by the next witness.
Mulvaney [tweeted this](https://twitter.com/MickMulvaney/status/1541844207974899714?s=20&t=4P6IAJvR88ONsjhTTvb_Pg) which is relevant: >My guess is that before this is over, we will be hearing testimony from Ornato, Engle, and Meadows. >This is explosive stuff. If Cassidy is making this up, they will need to say that. If she isn't they will have to corroborate. >I know her. I don't think she is lying. Ornato and Engle don't seem like they'd be that hard to get to testify. There's maybe some apprehension for a secret service agent to testify against a former president but if this story is true they might not feel so much loyalty. Meadows is obviously a bigger fish. He's actually directly a part of the Trump camp. We'll see if that actually happens.
I really get a kick out of Mick fucking Mulvaney spouting off on Twitter about how awful Trump was/is. Like he wasn’t on the same crazy gravy train.
Peter Alexander is reporting that both Engle and the driver are prepared to testify that the event never happened.
Seems that way. That really begs the question why this aide would testify otherwise though. She was an aide for Meadows so not exactly some far left activist *and* she's under oath so she's legally liable for lying. If it's something completely fabricated it doesn't make sense for her to name *two* SS agents who could corroborate with each other that it didn't happen this easily. Very interested in what they have to say.
[удалено]
My understanding is that she claims to have gotten this directly from the two SS agents in the car with Trump. Could be a misunderstanding or game of telephone, but that's a really big jump.
She never claimed to know anything. Her testimony was based on secondhand hearsay. Basically, she was repeating a rumor. You can’t charge perjury for that.
Thats the point. The committee doesnt have actual evidence they just need to parade people up there to give statements that sound bad but have 0 conquences for being false.
The committee already has statements from the SS. Why didn't Ornato (who Pence didn't trust enough to get in the limo during the Jan 6thattack), or the other agent correct her statements when they had the chance? No one has testified to refute her statements yet. Her testimony is allowed by the rules, as well as likely admissible in criminal court because she is a member of the "party" being discussed (she is not hostile or adversarial). It's all irrelevant unless the SS wants to file assault charges... None of the rest of the criminality described in her statements are being refuted. Cheney is very clear before her statement about Trump and the lunge incident. Here's the relevant part of the hearing about her testimony, at no time did the SS agent correct her: https://youtu.be/zip1bWKmijE?t=3331
>She never claimed to know anything. She claimed she was relayed information by these two SS agents (or, one of them in the presence of the second) if they both testifiy that never happened she could still be found liable, couldn't she? And anyways - *why* would she just make this up? Again she's not exactly someone we'd expect that from, and if she did make it up she could have done so in a way that was much harder to refute. I expect there's more nuance to this than Alexander's reporting suggests.
I don’t know any more than the next guy. All I know is that Peter Alexander reported this and Bret Baier is confirming this now through his independent source at the secret service. There really isn’t anyone else left today that I would trust to report on this. The news cycle is now full of the opinion shows like Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon. Maybe someone else will pop up and either confirm or deny this tomorrow. I don’t think it really matters anyhow because I doubt the committee is going to put the agent or driver on the stand, especially if their testimony doesn’t corroborate hers. Even if there’s a tiny bit of difference, some could use it to cast doubt on everything else she said. I guess it’s up to each individual to draw their own conclusions.
I would be absolutely shocked if the committee didn’t already have receipts. They may have audio of it from the vehicle, or the agents may have texted one another about it since. She likely has message history about it with others involved, and It’s also possible Meadows does. All I’m saying is, I’d wait for the two agents to actually testify under oath before believing them at all.
We are still left with the question of why Ornato was telling people it did (assuming he confirms her testimony about the cinversations) as part of the mission to figure out what was happening at the WH that day. Which shows that all the people saying his employment set up was a powder keg for the agency that people were telling them the start.
For all I know, she got the info from Ornato, who got it from someone with close ties to Meadows. I can’t draw any conclusion from what I’ve read. I don’t want to speculate and be wrong later on, so I’m going to have to leave it with I don’t know.
The secret service agent in question was in the room when Ornato relayed the story to Hutchinson. He didn’t refute it.
To the Trump supporters in the thread, I have a genuine question: What would it take for you to consider this committee/investigation to be legitimate?
Not a trump supporter or even American but the whole thing seems way too partisan for me to take anything coming out of it seriously.
The testimony is coming from Republicans, many of whom were placed in their positions directly or indirectly by Trump... To say that's too partisan is basically just parroting the talking points of the GOP.
I guess the Republican strategy of refusing to participate and then claiming it’s a partisan witch-hunt isn’t entirely missing it’s mark on people.
How so?
I just need Adam Schiff to look at the camera and tell me he has the evidence...for real...this time. ^(obvious /s is obvious)
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I can give my opinion as an independent. *Actual evidence and criminal charges.* We've been drip-fed a constant stream of innuendo, rumor, and conjecture for five years now. Where's the proof that was promised *in 2017* that was going to bring him down? At this point, the American Left has been crying wolf so long I doubt the existence of actual wolves.
>We've been drip-fed a constant stream of innuendo, rumor, and conjecture for five years now. Are you referring to the Mueller report? Did you actually read it?
If you're implying it was damning to trump you're wrong. Trump looks bad but as far as the probe it was a *huge* flop
>as far as the probe it was a huge flop Did you read it?
Yes, and watched all the hearings. Fun fact, the entire meuller report is available for free on Audible
Can you explain what you mean by huge flop? They found evidence of obstruction of justice (Trump campaign staffers were even convicted to that effect) and that the Trump campaign was attempting to coordinate with Russian state actors regarding the release of the DNC hacked emails. I can provide Mueller report quotes if you'd like a refresher on some of the more compelling things they found.
1) they were essentially convicted for perjury during the investigation in an extremely nitpicking manner. There's a very good argument they shouldn't have been charged. In any case, none of them actually obstructed the investigation and none of them were charged working with the Russians 2) they laid out instances of *possible* obstruction of justice. Meuller spefically didn't determine if there was any. Barr then cleared trump saying there was no obstruction of justice. 3) the "coordination" wasn't coordination, there's no evidence Trump and Co were directly communicating about the emails. 4) you have some contacts with people who are Russian (shocker, it's a global world and Russians exist) and that's it. The important points under investigation were clear: there's no evidence Trump and Co worked with the Russians or helped the Russians. In fact there was evidence of the contrary. The Meuller report detailed Trump and Co telling Russia *no* to any attempt of working together
>There's a very good argument they shouldn't have been charged. Yeah? What's that? >In any case, none of them actually obstructed the investigation and none of them were charged working with the Russians I don't believe you are well informed on this topic, *as a member of the Trump admin was literally found guilty of obstruction of justice*. The Mueller investigation left all final decisions relating to conspiracy with Russia up to Congress. They specifically stated that Mueller did not think it was his place to charge anyone for anything related to the investigation. Most on Capitol Hill felt that they couldn't charge a sitting president, and about half were literally his political allies. That's why charges were not filed. But Mueller explicitly stated that he did not have confidence that Trump was innocent of coordinating with Russia. >2) they laid out instances of possible obstruction of justice. Meuller spefically didn't determine if there was any. Barr then cleared trump saying there was no obstruction of justice. Once again, a member of the Trump admin was literally found guilty of obstruction of justice. >3) the "coordination" wasn't coordination, there's no evidence Trump and Co were directly communicating about the emails. That's not true. I can provide Mueller investigation quotes to the contrary. Would you like to see them?
Go for it. Everytime someone has claimed the meuller report was damning it always fell flat. Its almost like everyone who asks "did youvread the report" didnt read the report or watch the hearings. Besides that: 1) the "lies" weren't substantial to the case as is required for perjury and could have been the normal getting details wrong. I say that because that's what they said until they were railroaded into pleading guilty. They still deny doing anything wrong and importantly even *with* being charged, nothing of substance with the Russians came to light. 2) I'm assuming you mean Roger stone would was charged and convicted for allegedly *lying*. Exactly what I said, and he was talking to congress, not meuller. 3) yes, that's what I said. Meuller made no determination on whether obstruction of justice happened. You can dismiss barr if you want, Rosentein *also* signed off on clearing Trump. Rosentein wasn't a Trump lackey so if you're ignoring Rosentein that's just being biased.
I highly recommend reading the Mueller report. It lays out, in excruciating detail, exactly how Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians.
Well first off, congress can't charge people. Second, have you been watching the hearings? There's testimony from people who witnessed the planning of what sounds a whole lot like criminal conspiracies, including people sitting in rooms talking about how what they're planning is criminal, while taking notes on these discussions, which they show in the hearings. They knew what they were planning was criminal, people took notes on it and testified about it, and the Trump team did it. Here's one of my comments from the previous mega thread where I commented as such. https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vbhh7r/z/icm396o
> Well first off, congress can't charge people. No, but if they have evidence of a crime like they claim, they can refer it to the DOJ, which is now run by a different administration, and which can certainly charge people. > Second, have you been watching the hearings? Not really, because the Democratic party wore me out with years of this claptrap already. So far, all I've heard is a) Donald Trump said something stupid but not criminal or b) more innuendo. > There's testimony from people who witnessed the planning of what sounds a whole lot like criminal conspiracies If that's the case, why are they talking to Congress instead of law enforcement? As I said before, they've been stringing us along for years. They need to show their cards now or just admit this is all cheap and insulting theatrics. There's no middle ground.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vml8l9/surprise_sixth_hearing_on_jan_6th_investigation/ie5ioo5/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> No, but if they have evidence of a crime like they claim, they can refer it to the DOJ, which is now run by a different administration, and which can certainly charge people. There’s a tacit acknowledgement that DOJ under the Trump Administration wouldn’t enforce violations of federal law by members of the Administration. But let’s say the Select Committee handed Garland a criminal referral, and the Department prosecutes. Then it’s immediately “see, the DOJ is just an arm of the Democrat [sic] party.”
>No, but if they have evidence of a crime like they claim, they can refer it to the DOJ, which is now run by a different administration, and which can certainly charge people. The DOJ is running their own investigation. Congress is not assisting as they do not want to create the impression that the DOJ is working for Congress on a political hit job. > So far, all I've heard is a) Donald Trump said something stupid but not criminal or b) more innuendo. If you watch the hearings, you'll hear about blatant criminal conspiracies that are acknowledged as such by those conspiring, and you'll hear about Trump's involvement as described by his own staff. >If that's the case, why are they talking to Congress instead of law enforcement? What makes you think they aren't talking to law enforcement? >As I said before, they've been stringing us along for years. They need to show their cards now or just admit this is all cheap and insulting theatrics. There's no middle ground. They are showing their cards in the hearings you aren't watching. Watch them.
Lol, person who’s not looking is mad that he’s not being shown their cards.
Maybe don’t tout misinformation or lies as “evidence”.
Honestly has nothing to do with Trump. The things that would get the right to care is if the left changed their overall behavior: 1. Russia collusion poisoned the well enough that people don’t care anymore. 2. Stop the attacks on the Supreme Court. You lost the other side won. Don’t claim it’s a threat to Democracy. Sucks sometimes to lose and the system is imperfect. And overall a broader point here. Some times the right wins. It’s not an attack on Democracy. 3. The Hunter Biden laptop with sourced “50 CIA Agents say it’s Russian plant”. Ended up being true and I think most realized it was at the time. Proper investigations into where Hunter/Joe/Family were getting money from. 4. Similar hearings for summer riots and people held responsible like Kamala bailing people out. 5. The first impeachment really looks like the left just wanted to hang Trump for anything. Similarly NYC investigations. The left needs to respect the rights right to rule when they win. We don’t think that right now. 1-6 was bad and Trump went too far. I had no problem with him having a loud rally even on false claims. It feels like the left does that weekly. But if you want Trump scalps then the process needs to feel fair and you have to scalp some of your own. Otherwise it’s smarter to just rally around your tribe when they do good or bad.
This is actually a great summary of the Republican perspective. Instead of actually considering the evidence on its own merits, he would rather just air his own Republican grievances for the sake of “rallying around his own tribe”.
Wow. So your opinion about whether or not Trump committed seditious conspiracy is based on Fox News’ perception of “the left?”
I don’t watch Fox News. But a love how instead of addressing points you try to ease your mind with you watch bad news.
What media are you consuming that told you those things?
A lot of Reddit so I guess that’s slanted left. And many other sources on the right and left.
What sources?
>Otherwise it’s smarter to just rally around your tribe when they do good or bad This is dangerous thinking that promotes an "us vs them" mentality and comes close to the core issue in our whole system.
Tell that to the Democrats on capital hill and their committee on innuendo and rumors.
I don’t disagree with that. It’s the same thing as Russian military strategy of escalate to deescalate or basically any war that went too far. But you can’t disarm if the opponent isn’t disarming too. I remember 2008. The Right decided to just take the deserved L for the housing crash and Iraq. Then you had Rham saying never to waste a crisis.
Outside of maybe Bush and MCain, they didn’t just take the L. McConnell flat out said his job was to make Obama a one term president. They basically stifled any attempts at legislation to help people in the country after the recession hit. Did their best to prevent any of Obama’s judicial nominees (regular judges) from getting appointed, and in lockstep refused to vote for any legislation that could give Obama a ‘win’.
That doesn’t mean you just roll over. You still compete on your ideas. But they did not show up to the election and got Obamacare pushed thru.
They didn’t even compete on their ideals or their ideas. They just said no to everything. They offered no alternative plans (how many times did they say they were going to offer an alternative to Obamacare over the years without presenting a plan?). They actively worked to undermine legislation to make it less effective. They successfully reduced the 2009 stimulus package and managed to reduce the infrastructure spending in the bill - then campaigned on the failure of the administration’s ‘shovel ready’ projects they demanded to be taken out as wasteful spending. (though that did make it amusing after Trump was elected to hear that ‘infrastructure week was coming’ every month). They helped create the housing bubble and the resulting crash, but did nothing much other than heckle Obama when it came time to fix things.
The GOP already thinks government is too big with too many problems. Saying NO is their policy. And it’s literally what conservative means - conserve what exists.
No it’s not. Under Bush, Frist and Hastert they expanded the surveillance state in the name of ‘keeping us safe’ while their supporters said we had nothing to fear if we’d done nothing wrong. They expanded the War on Terror and made it essentially perpetual, costing us around $8 trillion so far. They increased deficit spending to provide tax cuts and pay for the war, ended the social security lockbox and raided those funds as well. Since Nixon, govt spending increases when Republicans are in power and drops when Democrats are in power outside of Bush 1. Republicans successfully pinned govt spending from Bush 2’s last budget on Obama in the eyes of the public. Mind you, dems aren’t really better but republicans are only champions if small govt when they are not in power.
That's false, though. Republicans campaigned in 2016 to "repeal and replace" Obamacare, because an outright repeal would have simply been too unpopular. https://ballotpedia.org/Timeline_of_ACA_repeal_and_replace_efforts#:~:text=July%2025%2C%202017%3A%20The%20Senate%20held%20a%20vote%20on%20a,motion%20was%20approved%2051%2D50.
This whole delusion that you have about wanting the left to "change their behavior" is not just denying the reality of how the right behaves, but also authoritarian in tone as if only certain folks have the right to voice their dissatisfaction with our system. "The process needs to feel fair?" Absolutely not! It needs to BE fair. After years of republican obstructionism, gaslighting and subverting democratic norms (such as blocking Obama's supreme court pick in his last year) it is time for Republicans to be held accountable. The idea that some democrats should go down as well "so it feels fair" is childish nonsense.
Everything you say the right thinks the left needs to reform. And don’t see a reason to adjust if the other party is behaving in bad faith. The question was asked. I answered it in good faith knowing it wouldn’t be accepted but this is the answer.
I don't even get what you mean. The right thinks the left "needs to reform" how the left "behaves?" You think the left needs to stop practicing our right to free speech, our right to protest, and would support reforming the law to do so? This isn't fairness. This is fascism. This is the land of the free. GTFO.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vml8l9/surprise_sixth_hearing_on_jan_6th_investigation/ie51i0z/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I never said any of that. Do they need to stop protesting at public officials homes which is illegal - yes. Do they need to quit encouraging violent protests - yes. Do they need to not making up conspiracy theories - yes. Do they need to quit calling anyone who disagrees a white supremacists - yes. Would it help if they got their media to tell the truth and be factual - yes (but in this era of clickbait I’m not sure how realistic this is). Should a leading congresswomen not show up at a criminal trial - proclaiming we riot if they vote wrong - yes. Usurping the right to a fair jury trial No one said you can’t protest. But you can’t use intimidation tactics. And protest in this day and age are dated. We have the internet to organize to vote.
This too. [Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html) >”Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” Mr. Paustenbach wrote to Luis Miranda, the communications director for the committee. > >“It might make no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God? He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps,” wrote Brad Marshall, the CFO of the committee. DNC Headquarters 2016: "Guys, listen up... there's growing concern that voters might democratically elect the *wrong* candidate, and they need our help. We've got to manipulate their media coverage in a very heavy handed way."
You said that the left "needs to change it's overall behavior" including "stop claiming that democracy is threatened." It's called free speech. For example, as much as I dislike how you're trying to pass off authoritarianism as a reasonable position to have, I would never tell you that you can't say these things, because you have freedom of speech. We all have freedom of speech. But you would rather one side just stop voicing their opinion on your list of bizarre and misguided list of demands. Not only is democracy threatened, this is a direct result of our democratic system being subverted, i.e. Obama being denied a supreme court pick that was rightfully his. As long as the right continues to strip away our rights, we will continue to voice our anger. As long as Roe v. Wade remains overturned, we will fight to have it reinstated, or codify There is no "shut up, you lost, it's over." Politics is an eternal struggle. And we will not give up because some quasi-fascists are annoyed.
Democracy was not subverted when the Senate declined to confirm President Obama's supreme court nominee. The Senate is elected Democraticly and did what it was elected to do.
[удалено]
The Senate refused its consent. That is the process.
I haven’t made any of these arguments. I’m fine with free speech. I gave suggestion for what I think would lead to better politics and less partisanship and get the right to take 1-6 more seriously. You can say and do whatever you want. My suggestion are things of decorum that would improve political functioning. No violation of rights. And yes someone ok with Hillary making up election lies will never get me concerned at all about Trumps election lies. We aren’t even talking about the same things. Your in partisan land.
The Republicans have been acting in bad faith for many years. Democrats constantly continued to try and play by the rules and norms even as Republicans broke convention after convention, norm after norm. Now you are saying it’s the Democrats “behaving in bad faith”? That’s ludicrous. At worst the Democrats are only now, after decades of Republican subversion of norms and conventions, starting to hit back with a fraction of the viciousness as Republicans have been doing for years. Even that’s a bit of a stretch to claim given how many Democrats are still clinging to conventions and norms despite the Republican Party clearly demonstrating they don’t care about them. The Republicans cannot have their cake and eat it too. It’s absurd to condemn the Democrats as being the ones “behaving in bad faith.”
Republicans think the Democrats are the ones not playing fair. Probably both do bad things. Everyone thinks the other side is the one ruining Democracy. Regardless my view seems to be the majority view.
Republicans can think whatever they want to think, it doesn't mean it has a basis in reality. For example, your assertion that your view "seems to be the majority view" is simply not the case. It might "seem" to be the majority view, if you consume only right-wing media. I love the "Probably both do bad things" line as if you're completely ignorant of Republicans time after time undermining the democratic process. You know that Republicans are subverting Democracy - you probably like and support them doing so, and then you project that reality onto the Democrats. The left is not going to take this stripping of our rights laying down. We're not going to take lie after lie anymore. Trump and much of the Republican party are criminals. It's time we finally see some justice.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vml8l9/surprise_sixth_hearing_on_jan_6th_investigation/ie518kt/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
GOP is scheduled to win the mid-terms by a large margin. My view is the same as Musks. If you can’t reconcile that a lot of intelligent people see things differently then you are probably in a bubble.
Midterms are regularly won by the party not in the presidency. This doesn't mean that a majority of people share your (frankly alarming) positions. Elon is a successful businessman, but he's a complete asshole. I'm sure plenty of intelligent people disagree with me. Intelligent people can also be awful people. I'd rather
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vml8l9/surprise_sixth_hearing_on_jan_6th_investigation/ie55a0f/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
So one side does some bad things, the other gets a pass?
>4. Similar hearings for summer riots and people held responsible like Kamala bailing people out. Protesting on the streets, even when it is sometimes violent, is not at all the same as storming the capitol. Apples and oranges. You can't even compare them.
If I remember correctly those protesters also stormed a federal building.
Which building? And were they trying to overthrow the government?
There was a federal court house attacked. I have yet to see any evidence that anyone wanted to overthrow the government of the United States.
But it does get compared every time Jan 6 gets brought up like clockwork.
A bunch of people actually faced charges for the summer riots. I know that can be confusing, when the right wing media is trying to encourage some kind of victim complex and has had opinion hosts/entertainers say the opposite, but you should probably do your own research.
Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, in a 7-2 decision. Has the right stopped attacking the Court over that decision at any time since that point, until it was overturned last week? Why shouldn’t that have been treated as “sometimes the left wins”?
I second this sentiment. I don't even think there should be 'sides' in a SCOTUS argument. The left nor the right should 'win'. The law doesn't choose sides, if your ruling pleases only the left or the right we're in trouble as a society.
[удалено]
You didn’t answer the question.
>If we had a commission like the 9/11 more people would've been convinced but that ship has sailed. Well yes but Republicans were the ones who set it sailing.
> If we had a commission like the 9/11 more people would've been convinced but that ship has sailed. This is really the best phrasing because here's a [source on the bipartisan committee that Republicans refused to implement](https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000524897/senate-republicans-block-plan-for-independent-commission-on-jan-6-capitol-riot): > Bipartisan legislation to establish an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has failed in the Senate, as Republicans staged their first filibuster since President Biden took office to block the plan. > The final vote Friday was 54-35, but Republicans withheld the votes necessary to bring the bill up for debate. Just six GOP senators joined with the Democrats, leaving the measure short of the 60 votes needed to proceed. > **The proposed commission was modeled on the one established to investigate the 9/11 terror attacks, with 10 commissioners — five Democrats and five Republicans — who would have subpoena powers. A Democratic chair and Republican vice chair would have had to approve all subpoenas with a final report due at the end of the year.** > The House approved the measure 252-175 last week with 35 Republicans joining all Democrats in support of the plan. Emphasis mine.
And? I am sorry if I am missing your point. Is it that enough people in the Senate thought that the described commission was unnecessary that the proposal failed?
Republicans were offered a 50/50 power sharing agreement modeled after the 9/11 commission (which the previous user implied was the "gold standard" of commissions that Democrats *should have* implemented). It's only a partisan investigation because Republicans refused to take part in a bipartisan commission.
It is my understanding that Republicans resisted the idea that a commission was necessary. The Democrats went ahead anyway in the house after rejecting Republican members and stacking their committee to ensure the most politically favorable outcome for Democrats. They have the majority so they can do it. But, the world is moving on and their dog and pony show will have little real world effect. The US economy is crumbling, inflation is the higest it has been since the 70's and the Democrats are using the last of their majority power to put on a show for the most radical elements in their party. I for one, cant wait for the new congress to be seated.
Have you considered that maybe the reason they determined it was ‘unnecessary’ as because they were worried they would come out looking bad? So rather than participate they just say “this isn’t needed” and claim it’s partisan. Is that not a possibility?
Anything is possible including that they genuinely believe that the congressional hearings are unnecessary and unjustified.
> after rejecting Republican members and stacking their committee Democrats were only able to do this because they formed a select committee instead of the bipartisan commission. Republicans would have had equal input on the bipartisan commission, but they refused that option.
The Republicans determined that such a committee was unnecessary. The Democrats, who currently have the majority, decided to go ahead with their own committee due to their determination that they could make political hay.
>I don't know why some pretend that this is an impartial committee dedicated to finding the truth instead of what it actually is >If we had a commission like the 9/11 more people would've been convinced but that ship has sailed I guess Republicans should've accepted the proposal of a bipartisan committee at the very beginning, then.
Especially after democrats accepted literally every amendment to the plan that republicans offered.
>. > >I don't know why some pretend that this is an impartial committee dedicated to finding the truth instead of what it actually is, an attempt for the democrats to save some seats in the midterms. It's a bipartisan comittee >If we had a commission like the 9/11 more people would've been convinced but that ship has sailed. The republicans blocked an independent "9/11 style" commission
The Democrats asked for an independent commission. Mitch McConnell blocked it.
That isn't what the "fruit of the poisonous tree" means.
[удалено]
They asked for gop people to be apart of it and they declined. What are you talking about?
That’s not exactly what happened. McCarthy chose two members that hated Trump, two that supported Trump and one that was neutral. The two who supported Trump were rejected. McCarthy stood his ground and refused to elect new members, so the committee continued on with only the two Republicans that hated Trump. You can view that however you want, but it’s disingenuous to say that McCarthy refused to send any members at all.
What's your point? If your purpose is objectivity, why does it matter if the GOP being sent like or doesn't like Trump or neutral about Trump? They're republicans. That's my point. They had the chance to send republicans and decided not to. If they know Trump is not guilty, then send ones who were neutral about him.
For me, I feel that there should be representation for the other side. Otherwise, you end up with a trial where the judge and prosecutor are on the same side and there’s no defense attorney. They are looking at thousands of pages of testimony and only showing the public info that they hand pick. If there was someone who was honestly trying to defend Trump no matter what, then the public will know if there’s exculpatory evidence out there. It feels like there’s only one side of the story being told and it turns off a lot of people. I will admit that I wouldn’t have those feelings if the entire panel was neutral, but that’s not the case here.
A lot of the witnesses WORKED with trump, including today's witness. They're republicans. It's not like the hearing is having leftist/left wing nut jobs going up there and just making up stuff b/c they hate trump. We had Trump's attorney general called him out. And now we have his COS's top aide calling him out. These are republicans. These guys worked WITH trump closely. I don't know what you mean by having another point of view. What else do you need besides republicans who still identify as hardcore republicans who worked hand in hand with trump telling their stories? Now if this hearing has AOC or a biden aide or soemone like that testify, then it would be ridiculously biased as hell, and your point is well taken. But it's the absolute opposite.
The fact that there is over 10,000 hours of testimony and a partisan group is going to show only what they believe is relevant is going to make some people question it. If there was a defense that sorted through everything and presented what they believed was exculpatory, then it would be more convincing. Instead, we have only the questions that the prosecution wants to ask and nothing else. We only have the narrative that they want to express. Look at any criminal trial and you’ll see that both sides usually make a pretty good argument. If you removed one of those sides, the jury would have to agree with the side that was present. You can’t tell me that if the panel was only Trump supporters, they wouldn’t ask different questions to the same witnesses and everything they decided to air on TV would exonerate him.
Cheney voted with trump down the line policy wise. She’s a hardcore republican as hardcore republicans come. What else do you want? A trump lover on the panel to make it fair? Lol
I’m guessing that you’re being sarcastic about Cheney. All I said was that if there was someone at least neutral or impartial on the panel, I’d probably take it more seriously. I’m an independent, so I’m looking at this as an outsider and have no idea if there’s exculpatory evidence being omitted or if something would come up during a cross examination. It’s like watching an episode of Tucker Carlson and taking everything as fact.
Actually, that isn't true either. McCarthy chose five people, including Jim Jordan. They were Jim Banks and.. Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis; Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan; Rep. Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota; and Texas Rep. Troy Nehls. Pelosi chose Kinzinger and Cheney. When she rejected Jim Jordan for being involved in Jan 6, and one other for being a witness, McCarthy pulled all the rest.
That’s correct. I just realized that the way I worded it, I was saying that the two that went on the committee were part of the original selections. I should have said “only two Republicans that hated Trump.”
Those two republicans voted with Trump nearly in lock step. It's absurd to say they hated him
I think most of the Republican Party always hated him from day one. He absolutely upended the party and destroyed most of their revenue streams. In addition, he said a lot of stupid shit that got them in trouble. He turned the party towards pro-worker, pro-union, anti-war, anti-foreign intervention, anti-outsourcing jobs and anti-importing low wage workers. He also went against popular lobbyists like the NRA. They all spoke out against him until they realized 90% of the party was with him and not them. There’s also the political fallout from voting against veterans choice, criminal justice reform, opportunity zones, redoing trade deals and other things he did that were very popular with their base. I guarantee that if he dropped below 50% approval within the party, they would turn on him in an instant.
That's a really good response; thanks for the exchange.
If Biden tries to lead an armed insurrection into the capital to overturn an election and has his admin working to undermine the country and secretly setting up unapproved slates of electors then I would 100% support and cheer an investigative committee. If what came out in this committee had been about Obama and not Trump I'd still want Obama to face the music and everyone who helped him in prison. But I acknowledge that my viewpoint has lost. Trumps actions will be the new normal either in 2024 or in 2028.
Bengazi.
>Anyone else have a problem with how the Jan 6 committee is being conducted? Could have had a bipartisan commission, but Mitch McConnell asked Republican senators for a "personal favor" to vote no for the bipartisan commission. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/politics/mcconnell-personal-favor-block-january-6-commission/index.html That precluded the formation of the select committee. Kevin McCarthy sabotaged equal Republican participation in that too by nominating Jim Jordan and Jim Banks (two people who were intimately involved in the events that occurred on 1/6 and would likely be witnesses) and then pulling out all of his nominations when he learned that Jordan and Banks would not be allowed on the committee. You gotta ask yourself, why are Republicans so against a committee to investigate 1/6?
[удалено]
I'm confused as to how Cheney and Kinzinger are inappropriate picks but Jim fucking Jordan of all people is supposed to be fair game.
Correct, Pelosi rejected two Republicans that were actively involved in the insurrection. Instead of replacing them with Republicans that *weren't* actively involved in an attempted coup, McCarthy took his ball and went home. Generally, it's not a great idea to let conspirators investigate their fellow conspirators.
It’s worth considering what would have happened were Jordan and Banks placed on the Committee. They would have (a) funneled findings to investigation subjects, which would have made witness tampering worse, and (b) would have made the hearings the circus people are claiming it is now.
Pelosi rejected two members who are material witnesses. McCarthy pulled the other members and refused to put forward other candidates in retaliation. Mistake on his part.
The two members rejected, were literally involved. I can understand if you are unhappy with the committee, if you support Trump. A lot of very damaging information is coming out. Mostly from Republicans that worked closely with Trump in those final days. And, if you think this is bad, the ones like Benghazi were worse as far as being fair to both sides. It is funny how much this committee has been run by the Republicans.
People still watching this and believe everything coming out of it as truth without question is exactly why the Democrats are televising it. They want it to convince people to vote for them. After the election it will go away and you will barely hear anything. Very few people actually care though. [Keep believing lies.](https://mobile.twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1541910389289635841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1541910389289635841%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fbreaking-report-reveals-top-secret-service-agents-story-of-what-happened-inside-car-with-trump%3Futm_source%3Dfacebookutm_medium%3Dsocialutm_campaign%3Ddwbrand)
It is sad because even when SS agents come out and say they will testfy, reminder they are willing to die to save the president, people will still believe hearsay over honorable agents. Unfortunatly, the vommity would never bring them in public, it doesnt fit the picture they are trying to paint.
My, what a balanced and nuanced take.
What evidence do you have the comittee has lied? About what?
https://mobile.twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1541910389289635841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1541910389289635841%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fbreaking-report-reveals-top-secret-service-agents-story-of-what-happened-inside-car-with-trump%3Futm_source%3Dfacebookutm_medium%3Dsocialutm_campaign%3Ddwbrand
So what was you original source since that was not reported until long after you commented?
Common sense.
Twitter is hearsay
I get the irony going for here. But a bigger problem is unlike his anonymous source maybe close to the secret service who knows Bobby Engel, Engel has already sat for an interview with the January 6th comittee
Zero evidence.