You don’t seem concerned that none of those people have been tried themselves but you presume they are guilty and disqualify them from constitutional duties.
Mao would be proud.
January 6 .. What happened
- Thread starter watu05
- Start date
Mao would be proud.
So, if you were at a bank robber where a person suspected of being a getaway driver for the same robbery had been seated on the jury, what would you think? Even if they hadn't been proven guilty. It's an exceptional conflict of interest. Especially when the defendant would be able to pardon the juror for any crimes so long as the defendant wasn't convicted.
Should we see congressional jury selection during impeachment trials? Each side gets 10 vetoes or so?
Along those lines, you also wouldn’t have jurors seated who had previously expressed they thought the defendant was guilty or expressed personal bias against said defendant. The procedure isn’t set up for an unbiased jury. Maybe something we should look into going forward.
I don't think that those biases (much like the biases of someone who might have campaigned for, or have publicly supported) the president is as severe as the bias of a person who could be a co-conspirator. I don't know if you will be able to get many people who have no personal biases for or against the president.
You completely skipped over the issue of having jurors who have previously expressed a belief that the defendant is guilty. Such a thing would never be allowed in a criminal proceeding. Hell…even a civil proceeding. There is no greater bias.
Having expressed an opinion of guilt on a previous accusation does not necessarily mean that one would not be able to separate the previous crime from this one; but your point on bias is valid. In any case... the system is very, very, very broken.
Like I was just looking into the glorious revolution last night, you know, Charles I .... Cromwell.... etc...
This system makes theirs' look good.
it time for a real trial, real charges, real evidence, a real judge, a real jury, a real cross examine, ...
If Trump hadn't committed his crime a few days before he was forced to leave office there would have been more time to do all of that.
Looking forward to seeing how many people the Jan 6 committee recommends to the Justice Dept for prosecution and the identities of the same.
We know there will be some related to the far right militant groups there. The real question is, does the Jan. 6th committee's investigation put enough pressure on the justice department to go after actual Trump campaign allies.
this will end just like the Mueller report. Lots of indictments for jwalking and "we cannot prove that Trump did not lead the protest", we also can not prove he did not have a ham sandwich for lunch.
I have no problem with the dems digging up dirt on Trump or any political opponent. I do have a problem with them using taxpayer money for their political follies.
maybe if they hadnt been so obcessed with trump, they could have created good gun laws or they could have helped fend off our current economic problems. Basically, do their job as congressmen. we have the fbi, doj and lots of other law enforcement groups
I have no problem with the dems digging up dirt on Trump or any political opponent. I do have a problem with them using taxpayer money for their political follies.
maybe if they hadnt been so obcessed with trump, they could have created good gun laws or they could have helped fend off our current economic problems. Basically, do their job as congressmen. we have the fbi, doj and lots of other law enforcement groups
Do you have a problem with Trump using taxpayer money when his mob damaged the Capitol building and he didn’t even ask them to stop? How about him wasting tax payer money with local governments having to defend against his bogus election fraud claims? How about him wasting taxpayer money on all of his golf trips?
Quit crying about taxpayer money when you let the guy get away with murder (figuratively) for years and still won’t denounce him.
No. The real question is what political actors are recommended to the Justice Dept by the committee for prosecution.
I was was wondering how many of the dems political enemies will be recommended for persec.. prosecution. They cant count on a virus to sway the public this time, but., if they can get indictments of all their opponents that might be as good as a truckload of mail in ballots.
the dems also want a commettee to investigate the Boston Tea Party, and would declare the signers of the DOI and Constitution as a radical extreamist terrorist group and Paul Rever for inciting a riot.
Fox News Will Not Carry Thursday’s Jan. 6 Hearing Live (Published 2022)
The network will keep its usual prime-time lineup instead. Its sister network, Fox Business, will air the hearing.
the congress has put a twist on the NYT moto "all the news that is Fit to Print." to "all the news that is Print to Fit"Some news station.
Fox News Will Not Carry Thursday’s Jan. 6 Hearing Live (Published 2022)
The network will keep its usual prime-time lineup instead. Its sister network, Fox Business, will air the hearing.www.nytimes.com
Wonder how much time they will spend on ways to bring down the inflation ?
I watch for five minutes last go around and some chick was testifying as to what some unidentified person had told her. Yep….hearsay. No one objected or even questioned as to why we’re allowing hearsay testimony. I was out.
I watch for five minutes last go around and some chick was testifying as to what some unidentified person had told her. Yep….hearsay. No one objected or even questioned as to why we’re allowing hearsay testimony. I was out.
Because the members of the panel knew in advance that the declarants were available and would deny they made those statements.
The real question to be asking is why transcripts of the depositions aren’t public records but we keep getting 60 minutes style edits in their made for tv hearings. If you’ve got evidence, let’s see it, all of it.
It’s one of the more bizarre things I’ve ever seen. You put on these elaborate made for TV hearings and then have people testify to hearsay instead of calling the declarant. Then no one is allowed to call them out for the hearsay or demand the declarant support the hearsay testimony.
I think we overanalyze this event.
When it was happening I was with my parents to watch a TU basketball game. Said that Trump's silence showed he was good with what was happening and was disgraceful. He should have been removed from office simply on the basis of his negligence.
All the rest is kind of irrelevant and unsurprising. Really who cares about what he did in a limo?
When it was happening I was with my parents to watch a TU basketball game. Said that Trump's silence showed he was good with what was happening and was disgraceful. He should have been removed from office simply on the basis of his negligence.
All the rest is kind of irrelevant and unsurprising. Really who cares about what he did in a limo?
Not to mention failing to disclose for the record, and only reluctantly admitting after the fact once it leaked, that the presiding officer located the lawyer for the witness and someone other than either of them, we dont know who, is paying for him.
It's a hearing. Not a trial. Congress is regularly testified to about hearsay. Probably 50% of what congress hears in testimony everyday is hearsay barring some opinions given by expert witnesses.
Last edited:
Is this a trial? It's tantamount to a public investigation, and in investigations, hearsay is not only admissible, it's critical to finding facts for a trial.
Now, I can understand annoyances about this kind of thing happening in impeachment trials in the Senate.... but not investigatory hearings in the house which has no policing power other than bringing charges against elected officials or recommending action to the DOJ.
The purpose and role of the committee is literally in its name: The U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
Would you fault any investigator for accounting for believable hearsay in their line of questioning during an investigation?
Last edited:
There’s no reason to have hearsay. We are spending millions of dollars to air these made for TV events. There is zero reason not to have the declarants present to testify. Especially if we want to hear the truth as to what occurred. There is also zero reason not to have the witnesses answer questions. All of which are critical to the finding of facts. The entire setup gives the impression of political theater opposed to a real effort to uncover the truth. Which unfortunately this is.
When can we expect the Justice Dept file charges against the politicians involved ?
Sometimes lawyers frustrate me
Is anyone refuting that Trump stood by for hours while the mob attacked? That speaks volumes to his dereliction. His communications were scrubbed by somebody. His aides do not dispute this account.
I don't believe this is necessarily evidence of a crime but rather his unfitness for office. You don't need a trial to come to these conclusions.
Is anyone refuting that Trump stood by for hours while the mob attacked? That speaks volumes to his dereliction. His communications were scrubbed by somebody. His aides do not dispute this account.
I don't believe this is necessarily evidence of a crime but rather his unfitness for office. You don't need a trial to come to these conclusions.
I can't believe people bought into him in late 2015, early 2016. I knew he was a fraud early on.
So you're saying we should conduct an investigation where there will be no hearsay. You would be the world's worst detective. Sorting through the sea of hearsay for the truth is kind of the point of any investigation.
It still shocks me. In a lot of ways it was a deal with the devil. You give us our wall and justices. We give you the power that satiates your thirst. Amoral bargain.
However the ends DO NOT justify the means. Extreme damage has been done to our society and system and we are not out of the woods yet.
Most of the Republican lawmakers are feckless self promoters who will say anything to cling to power. Very sad.
To me the main value of these hearings is to harm Trump’s credibility should he run again. Cheney and Kinzinger feel that is more important than keeping their job and thank God for that. I don't use the almighty's name in vain here either.
Hopefully there will be lots of great video clips that PACs can use if Trump runs again.
It made me vote for a crook.(in my book) Anytime this century, if a friend had asked me if I would ever vote for her, I'd have looked at them like they were crazy. Tons of voters and republican politicians made that deal with the devil. How did they think that was going to end? His campaign and all it's missteps should have been a red flashing warning sign. All they could read was MAGA. I misread it as MAGATT.(atufan spelled this for me.)
It will be interesting to see Cheney on a primary podium against Trump with Cheney (who is very right wing) as a 'centrist'.
She's going to lose her seat in Congress for sure, but she will probably pick up broader support to run against Trump + Biden. I might consider voting for her vs. Biden if she did win the Republican nod. Even if I disagreed with her on many issues, I would know she's not inherently malicious towards our nation.
I wish we could get away from these 'lesser of two evils' style contests. I wish we could go back to the 2008 election. The candidates on both sides had class, and ethics, and both would have probably been competent leaders.
Similar threads
