January 6th Committee Broadcast

[iNow]

Double clicking on exchemists post above... what exactly do you wish to discuss here? This is being posted as if it were news, but nothing about it is really new

[toucana]

I posted this for additional context. I always think it is useful to know to whom remarks of this type were being addressed, and what sort of political  affiliations and backgrounds are involved.

You say that "nothing about this is really new" - Well I'd say that unless you are unusually well informed about the involvement of Bannon and other right-wing US political extremists with Far Eastern disinformation networks like G News, then you almost certainly don't know the full extent of the pernicious role these  groups have played (and continue to play)  in US politics, especially their role in pushing scientific falsehoods about COVID-19 during the pandemic.

My background is in Far Eastern Studies so I tend to take an interest in the activities of individuals like Guo Wengui.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, toucana said:

unless you are unusually well informed

I am 

8 hours ago, toucana said:

I always think it is useful to know to whom remarks of this type were being addressed, and what sort of political  affiliations and backgrounds are involved.

Good for you, but my core question remains unaddressed. What exactly do you wish to discuss about it?

This is a discussion forum, not a blog. 

[Phi for All]

20 hours ago, iNow said:

The US Secret Service deleted multiple txt messages sent on January 5 and January 6 AFTER they’d been requested by the January 6 probe, and I don’t buy their story that it was an “oopsie” during routine maintenance. 
 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-secret-service-deleted-emails-sought-jan-6-probe-watchdog-says-2022-07-15/

I'd be willing to bet those are the texts about when Trump ordered the driver to the Capitol, and tried to grab the wheel of the car. The overall impression I'm getting is that the conspirators had a plan to use fake electors after they forced Pence to announce that the count would be decided by the states, and when Pence didn't play ball, Trump sent the mob to the Capitol to kill him. Secret Service knows but has a code of silence. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

The overall impression I'm getting is that the conspirators had a plan to use fake electors after they forced Pence to announce that the count would be decided by the states, and when Pence didn't play ball, Trump sent the mob to the Capitol to kill him. Secret Service knows but has a code of silence. 

If silence is their code, then they shouldn’t have sent texts, and if their code involves deleting texts to hide attempted murders and related crimes, then I suggest their code needs to be updated to something more modern like that used under Hammurabi. 

[geordief]

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Trump sent the mob to the Capitol to kill him

Not just to coerce him?

The mob wanted to kill him but the puppeteers must have known that that would be counter productive.

 

(There is no real grass roots  movement for revolution in the States is there?- not just manipulators in apathy   ignorance and credulity?)

 

Edit: is Trump hoisted on his own petard with his ex-wife's  accidental death?

Will some suspect foul play after what he has got away with and his general mo?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62187716

Edited July 16, 2022 by geordief

[toucana]

On 7/15/2022 at 4:09 AM, iNow said:

The US Secret Service deleted multiple txt messages sent on January 5 and January 6 AFTER they’d been requested by the January 6 probe, and I don’t buy their story that it was an “oopsie” during routine maintenance. 
 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-secret-service-deleted-emails-sought-jan-6-probe-watchdog-says-2022-07-15/

 

MSNBC legal commentator Glenn Kirschner made an interesting point on this today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9vI23c0q5U

Kirschner says that during his 30 year stint as a federal prosecutor in Washington DC, the attorneys office there used the Secret Service forensic science divison rather than the Metropolitan police department, or the FBI lab at Quantico, to handle any criticially important data recovery from seized computers or cell phones. Kirschner says they did so because the USSS forensic science service had a stellar reputation for handling probative searches of cell phones in particular.

The idea that they somehow lost the critical text messages for just Jan 5th & 6th 2021 during a bungled device replacement process, and can’t now recover these from backups is beyond ridiculous. Small wonder that the head of the USSS James Murray abruptly resigned last week.

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, geordief said:

Not just to coerce him?

The mob wanted to kill him but the puppeteers must have known that that would be counter productive.

He wanted them rabid, wanted them armed, and wanted them to have access to the Capitol. Even a stupid puppeteer knows an armed mob shouting for a hanging isn't looking for mere coercion. The Proud Boys were set to kill him if they found him, according to informants.

[geordief]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

He wanted them rabid, wanted them armed, and wanted them to have access to the Capitol. Even a stupid puppeteer knows an armed mob shouting for a hanging isn't looking for mere coercion. The Proud Boys were set to kill him if they found him, according to informants.

If they had killed him would he have been unable to stop the certification of the election?

Would it have been Pelosi who took his place?

 

Was there some plan in place to protect  Pence from the mob  perhaps?

 

Yes I know what a group of clueless clowns they are but I am not sure if Trump wanted Pence actually killed.

[swansont]

Pence, as VP, was president of the senate and certified the election. In his absence, Chuck Grassley would have presided. In fact there were reports that Pence would not be present on Jan 6. Grassley said “we don't expect him to be there.”

https://www.stormlake.com/articles/editorial-what-did-grassley-mean/

The calls to hang the VP came after he showed up to certify the election, betraying the coup conspirators. Do you have any compelling argument that Trump didn’t want him dead? He knew Pence was in danger. Was there any overt act to stop the mob? 

 

[geordief]

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

Pence, as VP, was president of the senate and certified the election. In his absence, Chuck Grassley would have presided. In fact there were reports that Pence would not be present on Jan 6. Grassley said “we don't expect him to be there.”

https://www.stormlake.com/articles/editorial-what-did-grassley-mean/

The calls to hang the VP came after he showed up to certify the election, betraying the coup conspirators. Do you have any compelling argument that Trump didn’t want him dead? He knew Pence was in danger. Was there any overt act to stop the mob? 

 

No he seems to have done nothing to protect Pence.

But I have a reluctance to believe anyone would  directly want someone murdered.

If there is a (strong)  suspicion that this may be the case  then  this has to be followed  up

 Whilst I accept that Trump is a classless, odious individual directly inciting a crowd to murder someone is a bar  I have yet to see him cross under

 

I think individuals of his ilk might  be more likely to get others to do their dirty work.

(I would love it to believe that Trump was guilty of the aspect of his larger crimes against the American Democracy but am not holding my breath)

[swansont]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

But I have a reluctance to believe anyone would  directly want someone murdered.

And yet there’s a fair amount of murder, some of which uses proxies. So the evidence is that it happens. One might consider if narcissists and/or sociopaths (descriptions that have been attached to TFG) are more prone to that.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Whilst I accept that Trump is a classless, odious individual directly inciting a crowd to murder someone is a bar  I have yet to see him cross under

 

I think individuals of his ilk might  be more likely to get others to do their dirty work.

But this is exactly what he did with his speech that morning, and is now hiding behind outlandish interpretations of what he said. He got them to do his dirty work using language that gave him weasel room to deny it later. And the plan was to have the military seize voting machines on the pretense of foreign manipulation, so if he can't get Pence to verify that, having the mob kill the VP and stop the count ensures that he gets little pushback when the military takes over. It's looking more and more like those magnetometers and the Capitol Police saved the democracy, for a while at least.

[geordief]

52 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But this is exactly what he did with his speech that morning, and is now hiding behind outlandish interpretations of what he said. He got them to do his dirty work using language that gave him weasel room to deny it later. And the plan was to have the military seize voting machines on the pretense of foreign manipulation, so if he can't get Pence to verify that, having the mob kill the VP and stop the count ensures that he gets little pushback when the military takes over. It's looking more and more like those magnetometers and the Capitol Police saved the democracy, for a while at least.

Does the mere fact of urging the crowd to march to the Capitol  constitute interference  in elections?

 

I know his interference in the Georgia count was clothed in the pretense of there being  electoral fraud but should  this call  to actually march on the Capitol  be an even clearer case of interfering in the election?(never mind whether or not he-indirectly? - incited  them to murder Pence)

 

What I mean  of course is could he be successfully prosecuted  over it?

 

[iNow]

4 hours ago, geordief said:

Would it have been Pelosi who took his place?

They were trying to find and kill her, too, but Iowa Senator Grassley would’ve had the role if Pence were absent (as swansont noted). 
 

 

19 minutes ago, geordief said:

could he be successfully prosecuted  over it?

Yes, the only real question is will he be / how the optics and politics will play out when/if the Justice Dept of a successor President seeks to prosecute a predecessor President after leaving office. See also: What’s happening right now in Sri Lanka. 

[Phi for All]

39 minutes ago, geordief said:

Does the mere fact of urging the crowd to march to the Capitol  constitute interference  in elections?

Are you serious? Have you read what he said to them? It's unbelievable to me that you could even question it at this point.

Quote

“When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do, and I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.”

Quote

 

“We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. …

“You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen. These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about it. …

“We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

 

Earlier, he told the crowd they have to "fight much harder" against "bad people" and "show strength" at the Capitol. What the hell do you think that means given he knew the crowd was already armed, and that he had Proud Boys who'd already committed to taking Pence out?

[Peterkin]

And after all these testimonies, and all the footage we witnessed live, and again in reruns, and all the tweets and speeches that have been recorded for all to see, the pro/con split is astonishing https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2022/06/23/jan-6-poll-trump-insurrection-capitol Only 64%! 

That tells us more about the conservative propaganda machine and wilful unreason than anybody should be forced to know about their fellow 'intelligent' life-forms.

[geordief]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

you serious? Have you read what he said to them? It's unbelievable to me that you could even question it at this point

I meant constitute in law

It may be obvious to an observer what his game was but unless  he can be brought down in the courts ( he should have been convicted in the impeachment trial) or  by force of public opinion (and opinion within the Republican  party) that is fairly academic  .

 

If he were to win a second term ,I cannot imagine the repercussions.

[uncool]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512#c_2

Quote

Whoever corruptly [...] obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

"Corruptly" isn't statutorily defined, as far as I can tell; there is some case law on the definition.

https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/732

Quote

the term "corruptly" must reflect some consciousness of wrongdoing.

Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States

If he urged people to the Capitol in an attempt to impede the counting of the electoral votes (which multiple courts have ruled is an official proceeding), and if he did so with some consciousness of wrongdoing (which is something that might be inferred), then yes, that is enough, if I've read it right.

Edited July 16, 2022 by uncool

[TheVat]

Well they didn't call him Teflon Don for nothing.  In a legal proceeding, establishing mens rea is the tricky part, and Trump and his ilk are good at weaseling out of their own words.  Trump will argue all day (or get lawyers to do the arguing for him) on what "fight" means, or what "will be wild" means in a given context.  He will feign naivete on what the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers are about.  He will say his remarks about what Pence "deserves" are venting, that they are metaphorical, that any gibbet he saw on the Capitol lawn was taken as purely symbolic.  

 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

Well they didn't call him Teflon Don for nothing.  In a legal proceeding, establishing mens rea is the tricky part, and Trump and his ilk are good at weaseling out of their own words.  Trump will argue all day (or get lawyers to do the arguing for him) on what "fight" means, or what "will be wild" means in a given context.  He will feign naivete on what the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers are about.  He will say his remarks about what Pence "deserves" are venting, that they are metaphorical, that any gibbet he saw on the Capitol lawn was taken as purely symbolic.  

 

He knew they were armed, wanted the magnetometers taken down so the crowd would be bigger, and said he wasn’t in danger.

“I don’t f---ing care that they have weapons,” Trump fumed in urging aides to take down magnetometers near the White House before he addressed a “Stop the Steal” rally, Hutchinson testified. “They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f---ing mags away.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-panel-looks-trump-white-house-cassidy-hutchinson-testimony-rcna35550

[geordief]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

He knew they were armed, wanted the magnetometers taken down so the crowd would be bigger, and said he wasn’t in danger.

“I don’t f---ing care that they have weapons,” Trump fumed in urging aides to take down magnetometers near the White House before he addressed a “Stop the Steal” rally, Hutchinson testified. “They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f---ing mags away.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-panel-looks-trump-white-house-cassidy-hutchinson-testimony-rcna35550

Is the apparent destruction  of phone records by the Secret  Services an indication  of the likely veracity of Cassidy's testimony? (that would hold up in court as well as public opinion)

 

Esp if they do not refute it on oath

Will the US  still vote in large enough numbers for a former president  who is prosecuted for interfering  with the electoral process?

 

The way polls are at present I would say no ,but give the Repubs 2  years in charge of Congress and the Senate and I don't know.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, geordief said:

Is the apparent destruction  of phone records by the Secret  Services an indication  of the likely veracity of Cassidy's testimony? (that would hold up in court as well as public opinion)

It was apparently corroborated by Cippolone’s testimony.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/cipollone-corroborated-virtually-everything-hutchinson-jan-6-panel-mem-rcna37742

The alleged destruction of phone records (there are conflicting reports as to whether the records still exist) sounds like obstruction, and you generally don’t do that unless there’s something to hide

[TheVat]

About halfway down this lengthy recap of all the findings by the Jan. 6 special committee (addressing seven points of malfeasance), point #4 is about efforts of Trump and his staff to convince state lawmakers and election officials to  alter the election results.  I find these actions to be the most fertile grounds for prosecution by the DOJ and various states.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/evaluating-jan-6-committees-evidence

In her opening statement, Vice Chair Cheney asserted that Trump, Giuliani, and Eastman each had a direct role in pressuring state and local election officials to change outcomes in the 2020 election. “Each of these efforts to overturn the election is independently serious [and] each deserves attention both by Congress and by our Department of Justice,” Cheney said. Cheney reminded the audience that while Trump was calling election officials (and often stoking public threats against them), he had already been repeatedly informed by his own campaign staff and the Justice Department that his claims of election fraud were baseless....

 

I would think the only defense Trump would have here would be one predicated on his own emotional incapacity to hear true reports of his loss of the election.  And a defense of incompetency is probably not a good one for a president, especially one with Trump's narcissism.  And such a defense would hurt his political future, perhaps deal a decisive blow to his chances in the GOP primary, as well as undermine his future endorsement of other candidates.

[toucana]

On 7/15/2022 at 11:22 PM, iNow said:

Good for you, but my core question remains unaddressed. What exactly do you wish to discuss about it?

This is a discussion forum, not a blog. 

So - Liz Cheney the Deputy Chair of the Jan 6 Committee just used the very same Steve Bannon video clip posted by MotherJones - and cited at the start of this thread -  as the centrepiece of her scathing peroration during her closing address to the eighth and final public hearing of the Jan 6 committee tonight.

She made three powerful points in doing so - First she cited Bannon’s remarks as supporting evidence of Donald Trump’s own manifest premeditation in concocting the big lie about the election being ‘stolen’, and instigating the violent assault the Capitol of Jan 6th 2021.

Second - Liz Cheney made a strong gender-mark contrast between the cowardice of “Sixty and seventy  year-old men who hide behind executive privilege” -  and the courage shown by a number of young women such as Cassidy Hutchinson and Sara Matthews who had the integrity to step forward and testifty under oath in front of a television audience of millions, and did so in spite of the certain knowledge that they would be viciously demeaned and attacked by followers of the Trump and Bannon cult for having done so.

Her third and final point was that no-one who predicates their political agenda on mendacity of this magnitude should ever again be entrusted with any position of authority in the country.