...the J6 Hearing's about the attack on our democracy ...

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s your cult, we know you take it

Another expected outburst. Stimulus/response. Trump has your hind brain by the balls.

 

[Chillicothe]

I've enjoyed reading the responses to this thread topic.

And, with the risk of being repetitive ----I again recommend that all posters watch the entirety of today's hearing (YouTube). This hearing is only about 75 minutes.

Most especially, pay attention to Liz Cheney's opening address. She's good. And she brings a well-gounded sense of righteousness to her remarks. I admire how she handled herself throughout all of these hearings. Her demeanor and tone and choice of words were effective. Cheney may have lost her Wyoming Congressional seat for her bravery.....but she elevated herself immensely in national stature. No one need worry about Cheney's future. IMHO

I'd also recommend posters here watch Jaimie Raskin's presentation of the criminal referrals. He's good....as you would expect a noted Constitutional lawyer to be. But he brought more than dry recitations of statutes or legal definitions, he also brought the righteous indignation of a prosecutor...appropriately, I might add. He didn't overplay his hand.

He was compelling.

For those who have contributed to this thread.....well, if any of you actually watched the hearing, what part did you find most credible? which most damning? What stood out for you? Anything you saw that would be exculpatory for Trump?

And why, to each. Thanx in advance.

ps....tonight's broadcast news reportage ought to be quite interesting. As will tomorrow's print coverage.

I like how print coverage ---be it paper & ink, or digital....has adopted the "take-aways format" for reporting on complicated developments.

So, I fully expect we will see something like "5 Takeaways from Monday's Hearing on the 'Attack On Democracy".....or similar.

 

[JWBooth]

The 'criminal referrals' have been now referred. Unanimously approved by the bi-partisan Committee.

We go to a new ball-game now.
So be it.

 

[WEATHER53]

Another expected outburst. Stimulus/response. Trump has your hind brain by the balls.

He has what identifies as an adult female directing his responses.

 

[WEATHER53]

I've enjoyed reading the responses to this thread topic.

And, with the risk of being repetitive ----I again recommend that all posters watch the entirety of today's hearing (YouTube). This hearing is only about 75 minutes.

Most especially, pay attention to Liz Cheney's opening address. She's good. And she brings a well-gounded sense of righteousness to her remarks. I admire how she handled herself throughout all of these hearings. Her demeanor and tone and choice of words were effective. Cheney may have lost her Wyoming Congressional seat for her bravery.....but she elevated herself immensely in national stature. No one need worry about Cheney's future. IMHO

I'd also recommend posters here watch Jaimie Raskin's presentation of the criminal referrals. He's good....as you would expect a noted Constitutional lawyer to be. But he brought more than dry recitations of statutes or legal definitions, he also brought the righteous indignation of a prosecutor...appropriately, I might add. He didn't overplay his hand.

He was compelling.

For those who have contributed to this thread.....well, if any of you actually watched the hearing, what part did you find most credible? which most damning? What stood out for you? Anything you saw that would be exculpatory for Trump?

And why, to each. Thanx in advance.

ps....tonight's broadcast news reportage ought to be quite interesting. As will tomorrow's print coverage.

I like how print coverage ---be it paper & ink, or digital....has adopted the "take-aways format" for reporting on complicated developments.

So, I fully expect we will see something like "5 Takeaways from Monday's Hearing on the 'Attack On Democracy".....or similar.

I’ve met Jamie Raskin 4 times. He is a liberal shill for the underclass and takers and Anything But Compelling

 

[Chillicothe]

Anything But Compelling

Watch his presentation today.
Likely you can get it on YouTube.

Good luck.

 

[jc456]

Another expected outburst. Stimulus/response. Trump has your hind brain by the balls.

Spoken like the cultist you are!!

 

[WEATHER53]

Watch his presentation today.
Likely you can get it on YouTube.

Good luck.

Emotive sap and innuendo is lousy public policy

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Emotive sap and innuendo is lousy public policy

So is public masturbation

 

[Chillicothe]

I thought tonight's reportage from The Hill boiled it down pretty well.

To wit:

"From a practical standpoint, the referrals are largely symbolic. The committee has no powers of prosecution, and the Justice Department is under no obligation to weigh the recommendations, let alone act on them.

Yet from a political perspective, the referrals are a remarkable escalation in advancing the investigators’ overarching case that Trump not only summoned supporters to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, to protest the results of the 2020 presidential contest, but also encouraged an armed crowd to march on the Capitol, then sat idle while the mob stormed into the building in a failed attempt to reverse Trump’s election defeat.

“This was an utter moral failure — and a clear dereliction of duty,” said Rep. Liz Cheney......"

 

[jc456]

I thought tonight's reportage from The Hill boiled it down pretty well.

To wit:

"From a practical standpoint, the referrals are largely symbolic. The committee has no powers of prosecution, and the Justice Department is under no obligation to weigh the recommendations, let alone act on them.

Yet from a political perspective, the referrals are a remarkable escalation in advancing the investigators’ overarching case that Trump not only summoned supporters to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, to protest the results of the 2020 presidential contest, but also encouraged an armed crowd to march on the Capitol, then sat idle while the mob stormed into the building in a failed attempt to reverse Trump’s election defeat.

“This was an utter moral failure — and a clear dereliction of duty,” said Rep. Liz Cheney......"

So, total bullshit

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I thought tonight's reportage from The Hill boiled it down pretty well.

To wit:

"From a practical standpoint, the referrals are largely symbolic. The committee has no powers of prosecution, and the Justice Department is under no obligation to weigh the recommendations, let alone act on them.

Yet from a political perspective, the referrals are a remarkable escalation in advancing the investigators’ overarching case that Trump not only summoned supporters to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, to protest the results of the 2020 presidential contest, but also encouraged an armed crowd to march on the Capitol, then sat idle while the mob stormed into the building in a failed attempt to reverse Trump’s election defeat.

“This was an utter moral failure — and a clear dereliction of duty,” said Rep. Liz Cheney......"

And this puts pressure on the DOJ and special prosecutor. The will never admit it. But it does, all the same.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The 'criminal referrals' have been now referred. Unanimously approved by the bi-partisan Committee.

We go to a new ball-game now.
So be it.

There were no Republicans on that committee, so how could it be bi partisan?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There were no Republicans on that committee, so how could it be bi partisan?

So they were democrats who voted with Republicans 90%+ of the time. Uh...

Oh that's right... we use the cult definition of RINO, now.

 

[lantern2814]

Yep, aiding insurrection... meets the letter of the law to a 'T'. Thanks for bringing that up. It really puts the exclamation point on the criminal referrals.

And when those referrals get thrown in the trash where they belong, you’ll be crying about yet another loss. Now post that law this allegedly fits.

 

[lantern2814]

I don't think this feet stomping is going to help in court.

No, your crybaby tantrum won’t help you when you get laughed out of court. At least you finally admit you’re doing nothing but throwing a tantrum.

 

[BackAgain]

I see that none of your detractors seem able to form any sort of argument against your postings.
I wonder if there is a forum where intelligent cons go to post ? If there are any of course.

You post here, so it’s obvious intelligent libs is an oxymoron.

 

[BackAgain]

I've enjoyed reading the responses to this thread topic.

And, with the risk of being repetitive ----I again recommend that all posters watch the entirety of today's hearing (YouTube). This hearing is only about 75 minutes.

Most especially, pay attention to Liz Cheney's opening address. She's good. And she brings a well-gounded sense of righteousness to her remarks. I admire how she handled herself throughout all of these hearings. Her demeanor and tone and choice of words were effective. Cheney may have lost her Wyoming Congressional seat for her bravery.....but she elevated herself immensely in national stature. No one need worry about Cheney's future. IMHO

I'd also recommend posters here watch Jaimie Raskin's presentation of the criminal referrals. He's good....as you would expect a noted Constitutional lawyer to be. But he brought more than dry recitations of statutes or legal definitions, he also brought the righteous indignation of a prosecutor...appropriately, I might add. He didn't overplay his hand.

He was compelling.

For those who have contributed to this thread.....well, if any of you actually watched the hearing, what part did you find most credible? which most damning? What stood out for you? Anything you saw that would be exculpatory for Trump?

And why, to each. Thanx in advance.

ps....tonight's broadcast news reportage ought to be quite interesting. As will tomorrow's print coverage.

I like how print coverage ---be it paper & ink, or digital....has adopted the "take-aways format" for reporting on complicated developments.

So, I fully expect we will see something like "5 Takeaways from Monday's Hearing on the 'Attack On Democracy".....or similar.

Risk? Dude you’ve lapped that course innumerable times.

 

[Oddball]

I hope that much of America ...and maybe the world too.......will be watching today's J6 Committee hearing.
What I've seen now, after about an hour of presentations, is damning (again).

I hate to make predictions vis-a-vis Don Trump, but......but I am really believing there will be a recommendation for criminal indictment against Trump, against Eastman, against Giuliani, maybe against that bloke, Clark/

They haven't yet mentioned Meadows or Brooks. So maybe they will NOT get a recommendation for indictment. But, that's not to say the DOJ won't.

I'll say I have seen most of today's video clips in previous hearings. Nonetheless, it is riveting to seem them offered in a more linear and compact presentation.

BTW, if haven't seen it yet.....but maybe can bring it up online tonight....well, make sure you catch Cheney's opening statement.
I must say ..... that woman has gravitas.

 

[Chillicothe]

I had referenced in one post or another that the print media ofttimes does an enumerted list of "TakeAways' when reporting on big complicated events.

And they did so for yesterday's J6 Hearings. For a synopsis of what transpired yesterday you can go to the New York Times, Washington Post, and others and read their "Takeaways" treatments.

But, I did think that WaPo's treatment of this issue...about the 'armed insurrectionists' was traction-full:

"3. New details on hundreds of weapons​

Those who have cast doubt on whether the attack on the Capitol was truly an “insurrection” have argued that, if it were, there would have been more weapons. But that conceit ignored that most of the people who rioted weren’t apprehended at the time, so we didn’t really know how many people were armed.

And now the committee’s report reveals that plenty of weapons were indeed seized at the magnetometers outside Trump’s Jan. 6 speech on the Ellipse, before the riot.

Specifically, the report cites a November 2021 document produced by the Capitol Police and says: “Secret Service confiscated a haul of weapons from the 28,000 spectators who did pass through the magnetometers: 242 canisters of pepper spray, 269 knives or blades, 18 brass knuckles, 18 tasers, 6 pieces of body armor, 3 gas masks, 30 batons or blunt instruments, and 17 miscellaneous items like scissors, needles, or screwdrivers.”
And these were just the people who submitted to going through a magnetometer. The report adds: “And thousands of others purposely remained outside the magnetometers, or left their packs outside.”
As for firearms, the report notes six cases in which people were observed carrying guns or what looked like guns near the Capitol before Trump’s speech began.

Hutchinson had previously testified that Trump was told about weapons being seized at the magnetometers but didn’t care; indeed, he said he wanted the magnetometers gone because the security measure would keep out too many of his supporters. He still directed supporters to march to the Capitol."