January 6 .. What happened

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,205
10,046
113
Even if they’re members of his party they don’t typically tend to be conspirators in the series of events that took place. How many Republican Senators in the Nixon trial were in on Watergate? How many people were in the room with Clinton during his deposition?

In this case there were more than a few members of Congress who helped the situation happen, and a few more who encouraged it.

Now, if you’re saying the Republican Party at large was responsible for the events then yes, maybe there is a problem with how the constitution sets out the proceedings.

None of the things you mention (evidence, witness examination, etc…) matter at all as long as the members of the jury are accomplices of the defendant in the crime he is standing trial for.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noble cane

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
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.
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?
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,477
5,761
113
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.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
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.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,477
5,761
113
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
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.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,238
649
113
la la land
it time for a real trial, real charges, real evidence, a real judge, a real jury, a real cross examine, ...
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
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.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,477
5,761
113
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.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
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.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,238
649
113
la la land
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
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
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
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,477
5,761
113
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.
No. The real question is what political actors are recommended to the Justice Dept by the committee for prosecution.
 

noble cane

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Feb 25, 2002
8,797
2,642
113
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.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,238
649
113
la la land
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.
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,048
181
63
hi-line-gift-garden-statues-68410-64_1000.jpg
Some news station.

 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,477
5,761
113
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.
 

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,205
10,046
113
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.
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.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,477
5,761
113
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.
 

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,188
5,322
113
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: URedskin54

HuffyCane

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 25, 2004
17,205
10,046
113
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.
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.
 

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,188
5,322
113
The most interesting thing is to hear these folks who were supporters but are embarrassed and angry at realizing how they had been supporting a lie.
 

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,188
5,322
113
+lots of stuff that isn't hearsay too. More of that really than the hearsay.

No doubt this is a political event and not a trial.

Cheney and Kinzinger get much props for me just like these staffers who resigned and are speaking up. Better late than never.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
+lots of stuff that isn't hearsay too. More of that really than the hearsay.

No doubt this is a political event and not a trial.

Cheney and Kinzinger get much props for me just like these staffers who resigned and are speaking up. Better late than never.
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:

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
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.
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:

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,188
5,322
113
All of those missing records when Trump was watching the riots is more than fishy too. Heads should roll.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,188
5,322
113
Kinzinger's closing statement was really strong. Agree 100%.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,477
5,761
113
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.
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 ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,188
5,322
113
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.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
23,176
8,869
113
The most interesting thing is to hear these folks who were supporters but are embarrassed and angry at realizing how they had been supporting a lie.
I can't believe people bought into him in late 2015, early 2016. I knew he was a fraud early on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
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 ?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,188
5,322
113
I can't believe people bought into him in late 2015, early 2016. I knew he was a fraud early on.
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.
 

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
10,188
5,322
113
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.
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.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
23,176
8,869
113
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.
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.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
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 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.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,522
5,537
113
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.)
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay

Latest posts