Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:19 am
A couple of pages after The Big Testimony and it's still about...the steering wheel? Also, that was what was running in the news headlines...so I ask again. How is that in any way even problematic for Trump? He LITERALLY said "THEY LET ME GRAB THEM BY THE PUSSY" and it had no effect. Steering wheel>pussy?
It is actually important legally from what I've read. His grabbing the wheel would demonstrate intent. The alternative story is he was futilely protesting about going to the Capitol and then later can say...I didn't really mean it. However, grabbing the wheel (if true) would be evidence that he tried to take direct personal action to achieve it.
I will say it again, if we are hanging our hope on SteeringWheelGate, this is truly more nothing than I expected. I really would think his asking for them to remove the magnometers(sp?) would be a much bigger deal given the implications there.
Yes, that is why so many lawsplainers have said to put it aside. It's much tougher to get anyone to buy into the 'incitement to insurrection' charge. Instead, the efforts to commit fraud against the United States or interfere with the electoral vote counting are so much stronger.
stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:03 am
Ken with an explainer. (The House Judiciary GOP twitter is run by Jim Jordan)
Oh, that is fucking beautiful.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:30 amYes, that is why so many lawsplainers have said to put it aside. It's much tougher to get anyone to buy into the 'incitement to insurrection' charge. Instead, the efforts to commit fraud against the United States or interfere with the electoral vote counting are so much stronger.
Put which one aside, SteeringWheelGate or "let's make sure the mob can get their guns in"...gate?
malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:30 amYes, that is why so many lawsplainers have said to put it aside. It's much tougher to get anyone to buy into the 'incitement to insurrection' charge. Instead, the efforts to commit fraud against the United States or interfere with the electoral vote counting are so much stronger.
Put which one aside, SteeringWheelGate or "let's make sure the mob can get their guns in"...gate?
The steering wheel stuff. It's the least interesting thing that happened there. I was just saying there was a reason to talk about it that is not 100% dumb. More like 75% dumb. The media *always* focuses on the scandal element to the exclusion of the criminal one. Which is why I posted the evergreen Sarah Kendzior quote upthread.
It's possible that "what's going to happen" is that the Republicans are going to offer Trump up as a scapegoat and turn the narrative to an equally evil, but less chaotic strategy (IE - DeSantis.)
A better question is "what's going to happen that matters to anything but our sense of justice?"
I suppose I should offer an answer to my own question.
A few years ago I would have said that justice being satisfied mattered more. It would show that such behavior has consequences, and that fact alone - that such acts are not acceptable - is essential to the survival of the nation. Now? I think that the sense of satisfaction is the only thing we'd get out of it. I don't believe that the survival of 'the nation' (as the democratic republic we know and loved) is still a factor. It's largely been decided.
That doesn't mean that we should give up. We keep fighting, because even a slim chance is worth fighting for. But therein lies finger-crossing, not hope.
You have republican candidates now saying that democracy isn't the priority anymore. "Freedom" is. And that the founding fathers basically believed that the states have the power to override the peoples choice if it is "wrong".
This is because of there being no consequences to this riot.
waitingtoconnect wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:21 am
You have republican candidates now saying that democracy isn't the priority anymore. "Freedom" is. And that the founding fathers basically believed that the states have the power to override the peoples choice if it is "wrong".
This is because of there being no consequences to this riot.
I believe that. "Federalist" libertarians turned "federalist" conservatives always said that democracy is code for communism and socialism and then try to play sophistry game by claiming the US is a republic not a democracy.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 6:03 pm
Have we already done all of the originally scheduled hearings?
I don't think so. They were supposed to finish with another prime-time session -- presumably a Greatest Hits summary. I hope they keep the show running for as long as the new hits keep coming.
So...today's hearing. It has pretty much confirmed all the stories we heard about the craziness between the election and 1/6. We also saw a lot of good context about how Trump whipped up the masses including contemporaneous reactions to Trump's tweets that showed his message to riot was loud and clearly received and traces to what happens on 1/6. This should kill Trump and a lot of the GOP ... if the American people aren't completely checked out.
To me it's just repeating what we already knew. It's good that it's all documented, but there's never going to be an ahah moment where any of this matters. And yes he opened Pandora's Box on nonsense and I don't think we will ever recover.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
My only hope is that in some small way it helps future generations to have all of this stuff on the record, well researched, and documented. I'd like to believe that some day we somehow crawl out of this hellscape.
The end of the hearing came with the revelation that Trump made direct calls to witnesses to the committee. This was referred to the DOJ which I'm sure is ready to take it seriously.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 4:01 pm
The end of the hearing came with the revelation that Trump made direct calls to witnesses to the committee. This was referred to the DOJ which I'm sure is ready to take it seriously.
Witness tampering is one major charge that's pretty easy to prove. In light of everything else trump is guilty of, this would seem comparatively minor...but it could be what does him in because there's not a lot of ambiguity. .
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 4:01 pm
The end of the hearing came with the revelation that Trump made direct calls to witnesses to the committee. This was referred to the DOJ which I'm sure is ready to take it seriously.
Witness tampering is one major charge that's pretty easy to prove. In light of everything else trump is guilty of, this would seem comparatively minor...but it could be what does him in because there's not a lot of ambiguity. .
Everyone is saying that but I'll believe it when I see it. I still have zero faith that it'll happen. As someone said today it feels like Trump needs the most evidence against him than any other person in history.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 4:01 pm
The end of the hearing came with the revelation that Trump made direct calls to witnesses to the committee. This was referred to the DOJ which I'm sure is ready to take it seriously.
Witness tampering is one major charge that's pretty easy to prove. In light of everything else trump is guilty of, this would seem comparatively minor...but it could be what does him in because there's not a lot of ambiguity. .
Everyone is saying that but I'll believe it when I see it. I still have zero faith that it'll happen. As someone said today it feels like Trump needs the most evidence against him than any other person in history.
Pretty much. There's zero doubt that they have more evidence than they will ever need, but nothing likely will be done. It's horrifying. If he were going to slink off into the darkness to never return I guess there would be some merit to that approach. But no he's the leading person to get back into office. I give up.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 4:01 pm
The end of the hearing came with the revelation that Trump made direct calls to witnesses to the committee. This was referred to the DOJ which I'm sure is ready to take it seriously.
Witness tampering is one major charge that's pretty easy to prove. In light of everything else trump is guilty of, this would seem comparatively minor...but it could be what does him in because there's not a lot of ambiguity. .
Without the witness in question actually taking the call, wouldn't it be as simple as, "I was just calling him/her to let them know the cake they baked for me on my last birthday was delicious"? I'm not sure how you prove what the intent of the call was if it didn't actually happen. I can't imagine the act of the call itself is illegal, but admit that I know absolutely nothing about the law on this.
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 4:45 pm
Lawful is harder to fight.
Sure about that? Because after watching Trump squirm his way out of literally every possible consequence for years and years, it sure doesn't feel like it.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 4:01 pm
The end of the hearing came with the revelation that Trump made direct calls to witnesses to the committee. This was referred to the DOJ which I'm sure is ready to take it seriously.
Witness tampering is one major charge that's pretty easy to prove. In light of everything else trump is guilty of, this would seem comparatively minor...but it could be what does him in because there's not a lot of ambiguity. .
Without the witness in question actually taking the call, wouldn't it be as simple as, "I was just calling him/her to let them know the cake they baked for me on my last birthday was delicious"? I'm not sure how you prove what the intent of the call was if it didn't actually happen. I can't imagine the act of the call itself is illegal, but admit that I know absolutely nothing about the law on this.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 4:01 pm
The end of the hearing came with the revelation that Trump made direct calls to witnesses to the committee. This was referred to the DOJ which I'm sure is ready to take it seriously.
Witness tampering is one major charge that's pretty easy to prove. In light of everything else trump is guilty of, this would seem comparatively minor...but it could be what does him in because there's not a lot of ambiguity. .
Everyone is saying that but I'll believe it when I see it. I still have zero faith that it'll happen. As someone said today it feels like Trump needs the most evidence against him than any other person in history.
Pretty much. There's zero doubt that they have more evidence than they will ever need, but nothing likely will be done. It's horrifying. If he were going to slink off into the darkness to never return I guess there would be some merit to that approach. But no he's the leading person to get back into office. I give up.
the president’s lawyers did not defend Trump only on these constitutional grounds. They argued his innocence in more sweeping, factual terms, and this choice requires some examination of these claims in retrospect.
Trump’s lawyers asserted, for example, that the former president had no intention of inciting a riot or unleashing an angry mob on the Capitol to intimidate in its conduct of these duties....
...All this was false. And it was not, importantly, falsity of the kind often tolerated in lawyers who “spin” the facts well or crudely but within the conventions of the craft. It was flat-out false. The president’s entire premise was emphatically not that the proceedings of Congress should continue. He tried in innumerable ways to stop those proceedings, according to testimony from aides to Vice President Mike Pence, former senior Justice Department officials, and White House aides like Hutchinson....
...A skeptic might argue Trump had no obligation to refrain from falsehoods in his impeachment defense. And Congress, such a skeptic might suggest, took the willing risk of getting lied to when it initiated an impeachment process without taking the time to develop a factual record. It was, then, on Congress to make its case and to catch the president at his lies.
There is an important element of truth to this claim—one we shall address momentarily. That said, the public is entitled to expect that in mounting a defense in the constitutional process of impeachment, presidents—even former presidents—have a higher obligation than assumed by other types of “defendants.” The president swore an oath faithfully to execute the office and to preserve and protect the Constitution, including the constitutional process of impeachment. To the extent Trump wants to contend that he had no obligation to honor this oath, because he was no longer in office or because #lolnothingmatters, surely that is a legitimate prudential factor for criminal prosecutors to take into account when they consider prosecution for the crimes the impeachment was intended to adjudicate.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 4:01 pm
The end of the hearing came with the revelation that Trump made direct calls to witnesses to the committee. This was referred to the DOJ which I'm sure is ready to take it seriously.
Witness tampering is one major charge that's pretty easy to prove. In light of everything else trump is guilty of, this would seem comparatively minor...but it could be what does him in because there's not a lot of ambiguity. .
Without the witness in question actually taking the call, wouldn't it be as simple as, "I was just calling him/her to let them know the cake they baked for me on my last birthday was delicious"? I'm not sure how you prove what the intent of the call was if it didn't actually happen. I can't imagine the act of the call itself is illegal, but admit that I know absolutely nothing about the law on this.
So there is this thing called Voice Mail.
Also, I think they said texts as well?
I took it as “Trump called, witness didn’t answer, they let DOJ know”.
I figured that actually leaving a threatening VM would be monumentally stupid, even for Trump. But maybe I shouldn’t take that for granted.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 4:01 pm
The end of the hearing came with the revelation that Trump made direct calls to witnesses to the committee. This was referred to the DOJ which I'm sure is ready to take it seriously.
Witness tampering is one major charge that's pretty easy to prove. In light of everything else trump is guilty of, this would seem comparatively minor...but it could be what does him in because there's not a lot of ambiguity. .
Without the witness in question actually taking the call, wouldn't it be as simple as, "I was just calling him/her to let them know the cake they baked for me on my last birthday was delicious"? I'm not sure how you prove what the intent of the call was if it didn't actually happen. I can't imagine the act of the call itself is illegal, but admit that I know absolutely nothing about the law on this.
So there is this thing called Voice Mail.
Also, I think they said texts as well?
I took it as “Trump called, witness didn’t answer, they let DOJ know”.
I figured that actually leaving a threatening VM would be monumentally stupid, even for Trump. But maybe I shouldn’t take that for granted.
Actually, you are right. They really didn’t say anything beyond what you mentioned. So a VM or text is totally speculative.
But I also really hope they got more than a ‘missed call’, if they sent it to the DOJ.
No one of any significance to Trump will be put out or inconvenced in any way shape or form. The outcome is a foregone conclusion. The Democrats are concentrating on the wrong thing. They know Trump is teflon. Another fine example of kabuki theater.
