Jan 6 Committee

[MiloMorai]

I see Ryan is doing his usual whataboutism, again.

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh, you mean the several times proven loose contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign, for which General Flynn was subsequently jailed for lying about it to the FBI?  

Still banging the hoax drum.  Flynn was never jailed and he was exonerated two years ago.

[17thfabn]

.............................

Edited June 29, 2022 by 17thfabn

[17thfabn]

.........................................................

Edited June 29, 2022 by 17thfabn

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

I see Ryan is doing his usual whataboutism, again.

No, I am asking for a consistent standard. 
 

Again, if its a high crime for a politician who makes contacts with foreign governments, Russia or otherwise, then by all means treat it like a crime. But if its an political tool to go after the members of the GOP but Democrats can don it with impunity AND collect money while doing so, I am going to have to see some better arguments from you. 

 

What the hell do you think the Clinton foundation was selling? 

Edited June 29, 2022 by rmgill

[MiloMorai]

A standard has to apply/start somewhere and it started with Trump.

The Repubs should have done something when they had the power to do so instead of crying after the fact

[seahawk]

On 6/26/2022 at 10:03 PM, rmgill said:

Humpty Dumpty sophistry.
 

Was it court packing that arrived at the original roe decision that was based on made up law predicated upon a case that was a fabrication? 

 

Is it only court packing when democrats swing the balance their way and get the results they want regardless of the legal concepts involved? See also Wickard v Filburn. 

So they were finally able to buy a slut to tell their lies?

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

A standard has to apply/start somewhere and it started with Trump.

So, it'll continue with Biden and his Son Hunter right? 

I won't hold my breath. 

 

[rmgill]

 

[MiloMorai]

LOL, is that the best you could come up with?

Why should she lie and risk going to jail for perjury?

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

LOL, is that the best you could come up with?

Why should she lie and risk going to jail for perjury?

Noone has ever lied in congressional testimony. 
 

[17thfabn]

Just now, rmgill said:

No one has ever lied in congressional testimony. 
 

Maybe she didn't lie, maybe she is just wrong?

Sounds like the Secret Service disagrees with much of her narrative, and is willing to testify before the committee. Of course since they are not backing the narrative the committee is pushing it is doubtful they will be called.

Has any one who is not backing the narrative of the Democrats been called to testify? 

Trump is not blameless. But there is plenty of blame to go around. Speaker Pelosi  and Mayor Bowser made their mistakes. Allowing one National Guard Engineer Battalion in to put up barricades and January 6th would have been just a noisy demonstration. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

16 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Still banging the hoax drum.  Flynn was never jailed and he was exonerated two years ago.

In your eyes, yes. In my eyes, he is just another 2 bit crook that served in the administration that tried to sell his country out to Russian thugs.

Of course, opinions vary...

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, rmgill said:

 

In fact, from what I was reading last night, the Secret Service guy whom made the claim to the witness, has been alleged to have lied before. And that he has made the allegations it was a complete fabrication, NOT having taken an oath before the committee, his testimony to this point must be in doubt.

In the end, he has not to my knowlege denied he claimed it. He is denying it happened, which is a rather different situation if its being used to cast doubt on Hutchinsons testimony. That testimony may well be a fraud, but that is different from the assumption she was the one lying about it.

TBH, I dont think it was even the most interesting testimony. The most interesting testimony, that Trump was aware there were guns in the crowd before winding them up and pointing them at the Capitol, was direct testimony. And once again, im not aware anyone has contradicted that, or the ketchup wall story.

There are also allegations Pence refused to take a secret service car to the capitol. His comments were something along the lines of 'If I get in a secret service car, they will drive me to Alaska'. Which raises some interesting questions about their perceived allegiance on January 6th, and also raises the question about how much they are to be trusted now.

https://www.joemygod.com/2021/07/book-pence-aides-feared-secret-service-would-fly-him-to-alaska-to-stop-him-from-certifying-election/

 

[DKTanker]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

TBH, I dont think it was even the most interesting testimony. The most interesting testimony, that Trump was aware there were guns in the crowd before winding them up and pointing them at the Capitol, was direct testimony. And once again, im not aware anyone has contradicted that, or the ketchup wall story.

All manner of interesting one sided stories can be told and repeated.  And that's the trick, isn't it, to keep the story one sided.  
 

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

TBH, I dont think it was even the most interesting testimony. The most interesting testimony, that Trump was aware there were guns in the crowd before winding them up and pointing them at the Capitol, was direct testimony. And once again, im not aware anyone has contradicted that, or the ketchup wall story.

To make a case for incitement, you have specific things that must be said and done. Simply "winding them up" and knowing they have guns this is the effing US, it's a good bet more than someone in the crowd has a gun. Even in DC, because DC is a dangerous shithole and people will STILL carry guns illegally for personal protection. 

As to the mealy mouthed incitement charge:

Quote

 

18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions
(b)

As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

 

What advocacy to go and riot did he make? How did he instigate and/or urge the crowd to go riot? 

This is clear law Stuart. You're going to make a charge it should be clear and straight forward. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by rmgill

[rmgill]

 

 

[MiloMorai]

The 2 SS guys were Trump 'yes men' so it is natural for them to say what they said.

 

[MiloMorai]

2 minutes ago, rmgill said:

 

 

The committee also hugged the 2 Georgia election poll workers. 

[sunday]

Ah, alternate realities...

[Wobbly Head]

34 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

The 2 SS guys were Trump 'yes men' so it is natural for them to say what they said.

 

SS guys talking about presidential protection would raise red flags for me. They are notorious for not releasing info regarding security arrangements. So notorious that they might not release info on weither an agent was on the protection detail on that day even to a Congress committee. I also have doubts that the president has access to driver of the presidential limousine.

[R011]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The most interesting testimony, that Trump was aware there were guns in the crowd before winding them up and pointing them at the Capitol, was direct testimony.
 

 

Guns in a crowd in America?  I bet some people were carrying dihydrogen monoxide, a known compenent of chemical weapons, and wearing hats and T-shirts with provocative slogans.

As it happened, the only people who seemed to have with firearms in the Capitol building and the only ones who used them were the security forces inside.

[R011]

4 minutes ago, Wobbly Head said:

SS guys talking about presidential protection would raise red flags for me. They are notorious for not releasing info regarding security arrangements. So notorious that they might not release info on weither an agent was on the protection detail on that day even to a Congress committee. I also have doubts that the president has access to driver of the presidential limousine.

Apparently, this was one of the presidential SUVs instead of the limo, but I doubt access to the driver is much easier.

[MiloMorai]

presidential suv

[rmgill]

That's a Secret Service DETAIL SUV. Not the presidential Suburban. It's probably lightly armored by comparison. It DOES have run flat tires in all likelihood. You can tell that from the type of rims in question. (divided disk rims that bolt together, aka combat rims). I don't know that armored window's typically are able to be rolled down like you have in the pictured one. The detail WOULD want to be able to roll down windows to accomplish firing back if they needed to. 

This is what you mean:


 Also, note the framework around the windows. That SUV is typically used for folks other than the President. The Beast is a specific vehicle type and is much more substantial with an armored capsule around the passenger compartment.

This is 'The Beast'. Note the tire size.  Indicative of overall Gross Vehicle Weight, armor, axle capacity, etc. You can bet those have run flat inserts. Note the testimony SPECIFICALLY refers to 'the Beast'. Which implies that he was in this vehicle. If there's some confusion over this issue then the Committee should be sure to refer to the correct vehicle in order to get their narrative correct. 

Note the door thickness. Clearly armored. note the added latching mechanism around the jamb too!

(and come on Milo, you're a regular on tank-net. You ought to be able to recognize an armored vehicle from a more bog standard vehicle. )

Edited June 30, 2022 by rmgill