Would we have discussed Watergate hearings here?

[SB]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3LscOPqCr0I

[Cono Este]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3LscOPqCr0I

This one is worth noting.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[jono]

It's also how they do it in a grand jury. So...expect an indictment?

[dunfree]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3LscOPqCr0I

still a moron that hasn’t gotten the help you need, eh Scotty b?

its not a trial dipshit.

[Meadow Skipper]

The election case SCOTUS is hearing next year has the potential to make everything that Trump et al tried to do legal. The Constitution says that state legislatures determine "the time, place and manner of elections". To me and to every court that has considered the issue (including SCOTUS is Bush v Gore) this is limited to determining the mechanics of elections--the hours the polls are open, where you can vote, whether the ballots have bamboo in them, etc. To the plaintiffs, and to at least 3 Justices, it means everything having to do with elections--in the NC case redistricting but potentially certification of the vote, selection of electors--regardless of what the US Constitution says in other parts, regardless of what the state's constitution says, regardless of what the state courts or governor says. Given the number of state legislatures permanently controlled by the GOP due to gerrymandering, including in states Biden won, if the Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs there will be permanent control of both houses of Congress, the POTUS and the SCOTUS. And with no prospect of a Democratic majority say goodbye to the filibuster. We are well on the way to one party rule and a theocracy in this country.

You’re scaring me.

This one is worth noting.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

You know that Kevin McCarthy declined to seat (constructive) GOP on the committee, right?

And it’s not a trial, they aren’t a jury, so cross-examination and ‘witnesses for the defense’ are moot points. But hey, other than that…

What color is the sun on your planet?

[frorider]

This one is worth noting.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Are you being sarcastic? In May, Trump made it clear he didn’t want the bipartisan Jan 6 committee to move fwd & the GOP senate dutifully killed that bill. Of course, weeks later when he saw the TeeVee, Trump turned around and blamed McCarthy for following his orders.

[Cono Este]

It's also how they do it in a grand jury. So...expect an indictment?

Do they ask that every major broadcast network televise a Grand Jury?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Ted Striker]

Aside from being so asinine, why is a supposed meme compilation devoid of humor and originality?

[highangle]

Do they ask that every major broadcast network televise a Grand Jury?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

They televised the coup attempt too! Those fuckers!!

[jono]

Do they ask that every major broadcast network televise a Grand Jury?

I see a lot of taped depositions, which seems pretty normal. Have you noticed how they've also talked to people off the record?

The purpose of the commission is to find out what happened. All the relevant happenings. So literally everyone who has any info has been invited to testify. They reiterated that at the close of the last session. You figure that's going to create a stampede of "defense" witnesses, or are they all gonna keep pleading the 5th and claiming some illegitimate privilege?

[skaredshtles]

JHFC cono is a moran.

[highangle]

I see a lot of taped depositions, which seems pretty normal. Have you noticed how they've also talked to people off the record?

The purpose of the commission is to find out what happened. All the relevant happenings. So literally everyone who has any info has been invited to testify. They reiterated that at the close of the last session. You figure that's going to create a stampede of "defense" witnesses, or are they all gonna keep pleading the 5th and claiming some illegitimate privilege?

The privilege to subvert the very Constitution you take refuge behind is one Steve Bannon, Disgraced General Michael Flynn, Vladimir Putin and Donald T*&^% hold to be self-evident. Neener neener!

[highangle]

JHFC cono is a moran.

Take it easy on cono fetal alcohol syndromeste...It was only 6 years ago that a large chunk of us thought having email was an ethical disqualifier to the Presidency.

[Dantheman]

You’re scaring me.

You should be scared.

[bodywhomper]

TWSS

[Skistack]

This one is worth noting.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Republicans could’ve been there, they chose to sit this one out. Probably the not their smartest decision, huh?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[old goat]

The point of the hearings, like all public hearings, is to inform the public. As such they are designed to convey information understandably, not to present a legal case. (Notice how much of Hutchinson's testimony was hearsay.) While the 1/9 hearings are obviously more prominent I'm sure you can watch other hearings on one of the cspan channels, if that sort of thing amuses you. Pelosi rejected 2 Republican members of 5 submitted by McCarthy--because they were subjects of the investigation, having participated in the Big Lie, and Jordan appears to have participated in the coup attempt. Perhaps my memory is failing but I don't recall a lot of opposition pushback in the Watergate hearings either. They may not have been as slick as the 1/6 hearings but their intent was the same, to build a case against the President. And they were being presented to a public with perhaps a little longer attention span and a little more tolerance of low production values than today's public.

It is important to build a public case around the failed coup because if Trump and other elected officials are tried there has to be strong public support for the trials. Trying and convicting an ex-President would be an extraordinary event in American history (although no more extraordinary than Trump himself), an event generally associated with less democratic regimes. My guess, although I would hope otherwise, is that Trump will not be tried--for the same reason Ford pardoned Nixon. A trial for Trump would be destabilizing for the country, if the country can be destabilized any further. Maybe the best one could hope for would be some kind of deal where Trump is prevented from running again. His associates will probably not be so lucky. Giuliani is of course low hanging fruit, but the man belongs in a memory care facility, not a prison.

[J. Barron DeJong]

The point of the hearings, like all public hearings, is to inform the public. As such they are designed to convey information understandably, not to present a legal case. (Notice how much of Hutchinson's testimony was hearsay.) While the 1/9 hearings are obviously more prominent I'm sure you can watch other hearings on one of the cspan channels, if that sort of thing amuses you. Pelosi rejected 2 Republican members of 5 submitted by McCarthy--because they were subjects of the investigation, having participated in the Big Lie, and Jordan appears to have participated in the coup attempt.

It is important to build a public case around the failed coup because if Trump and other elected officials are tried there has to be strong public support for the trials. Trying and convicting an ex-President would be an extraordinary event in American history (although no more extraordinary than Trump himself), an event generally associated with less democratic regimes. My guess, although I would hope otherwise, is that Trump will not be tried--for the same reason Ford pardoned Nixon. A trial for Trump would be destabilizing for the country, if the country can be destabilized any further. Maybe the best one could hope for would be some kind of deal where Trump is prevented from running again. His associates will probably not be so lucky. Giuliani is of course low hanging fruit, but the man belongs in a memory care facility, not a prison.

They had the chance for even more influence prior to that:



https://twitter.com/steventdennis/st...Rpcz_zXgJODAtg

They didn’t take it because they have no interest in the truth being revealed. (Sorry, guess that’s probably crossing into polyass).

[CarlMega]

Do they ask that every major broadcast network televise a Grand Jury?

Public hearing... meant to inform the public. I served on a grand jury, you have no fucking clue.

Further, what part of what they presented isn't compelling? what part of what we witnessed, live.....wasn't damning?

I'd argue Jan 6th was the most alarming thing I've ever seen in the US and you want to argue about format.

[yeahman]

Republicans could’ve been there, they chose to sit this one out. Probably the not their smartest decision, huh?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Hard to defend the indefensible

[old goat]

Public hearing... meant to inform the public. I served on a grand jury, you have no fucking clue.

Further, what part of what they presented isn't compelling? what part of what we witnessed, live.....wasn't damning?

I'd argue Jan 6th was the most alarming thing I've ever seen in the US and you want to argue about format.

A lot of people are arguing about format. Because they have nothing else to argue about. Except for the two poll workers and perhaps the Capitol Policewoman and filmmaker the witnesses have all been Republicans. And of the ones that were asked they all voted for Trump.

One thing I can promise about this hearing--the GOP is going to beat up the woman. Just like they beat up Anita Hill. Just like they beat up Christine Blasey Ford. It's already started.

[Cono Este]

A lot of people are arguing about format. Because they have nothing else to argue about. Except for the two poll workers and perhaps the Capitol Policewoman and filmmaker the witnesses have all been Republicans. And of the ones that were asked they all voted for Trump.

One thing I can promise about this hearing--the GOP is going to beat up the woman. Just like they beat up Anita Hill. Just like they beat up Christine Blasey Ford. It's already started.

That is your opinion.

I look at it as how does the rest of the world see this? And how will history look at it? It matters.

My opinion, Since 2016, the reaction to Trump, (basically throwing a temper tantrum everyday for now going on 6 yrs),has been as destructive as Trump himself.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[jono]

My opinion, Since 2016, the reaction to Trump, (basically throwing a temper tantrum everyday for now going on 6 yrs),has been as destructive as Trump himself.

I agree with you. In fact I'd take it further and say that Trump himself has never been the issue. The temper tantrums he's been throwing for now going on 6 years are almost the entire problem.

[ötzi]

One thing I can promise about this hearing--the GOP is going to beat up the woman. Just like they beat up Anita Hill. Just like they beat up Christine Blasey Ford. It's already started.

We have a few (well, four) young people here in the house with us right now and maybe it's a biased sample but they are uniform in admiration for her and disgust at old bastards who would mess with her for having the courage to speak out. So maybe that plan will backfire on the traitors.

[old goat]

That is your opinion.

I look at it as how does the rest of the world see this? And how will history look at it? It matters.

My opinion, Since 2016, the reaction to Trump, (basically throwing a temper tantrum everyday for now going on 6 yrs),has been as destructive as Trump himself.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I don't give a fuck how history will see it. I'll be dead. I give a fuck about what's happening to my country now and what, if anything, can be done to stop it.
And I certainly don't care how the rest of the world sees it. We're the ones living with it.

I agree Trump is not THE problem. He didn't create the divisions in this country that led a lot of people to vote for him. He just exploited the divisions and made them worse. But if you don't think that his trying to steal an election is worth having a tantrum over--that's scary to me. What he did after the election was of a different order of magnitude and qualitatively different than pussy grabbing or drinking bleach. And certainly far far worse than breaking into the Democrat's headquarters and paying hush money to cover it up.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to the Republicans testifying against him--people who thought his policies were good for the country, who were willing to ignore all of his bullshit and vote for him again, but who drew the line at planning a coup.