Below is the long version of my column that ran in the Washington Times on the unusual offer made by the head of the Oath Keepers organization to testify despite his pending criminal trial for seditious conspiracy.
Here is the column:
With only one scheduled hearing remaining, the House’s Jan. 6 committee this week held a long-awaited hearing on the critical linkage between former President Trump and his aides to extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.
At the start of these hearings, committee members said there was evidence of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election through an insurrection on Capitol Hill. To establish a criminal conspiracy, the committee maintained that Trump and others in the White House colluded with these groups, who were to be the insurrection’s foot soldiers.
Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has insisted there is “ample evidence” to support criminal charges. His colleague, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), said the committee would show that Trump organized a “coup” on Jan. 6, 2021.
The hearings have succeeded in bringing to light much of what occurred in those critical days. The testimony has detailed extremely disturbing conduct and chilling proposals, but it has not established a clear criminal conspiracy. Indeed, much of the evidence has amplified what we already knew, rather than add significant new information on criminal conduct. If the committee is serious about such a referral to the Justice Department, it will have to make a quantum leap in evidence. Even former prosecutor and Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp said that the seventh hearing showed her “as a former prosecutor myself, everything that I’ve heard, I think it would be a very tough indictment to get.”
If the Committee seriously wants to convince Attorney General Merrick Garland to charge a former president, it must produce direct, unassailable evidence, not circumstantial evidence based on “will be wild” tweets or an anonymous former Twitter employee’s testimony that “It felt as if a mob was being organized.”
The seventh hearing spent a considerable amount of time on actions not taken by Trump — a curious way to build a criminal case. There was the draft tweet that was not sent and the executive order that was never signed.
Even more curious was the selection of the long-awaited witnesses from right-wing groups involved in the attack on the Capitol. One was Jason Van Tatenhove, a former Oath Keepers spokesman who quit the group years before the riot and had no involvement in any planning or protest on that day. Tatenhove called the head of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, as a dangerous militia leader. The other was Stephen Ayres, who illegally entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 and later pleaded guilty to a federal charge of disorderly conduct. Both offered insights into the extremism of these groups but not clear criminal linkages to Trump.
The Committee is now faced with a rather bizarre offer from Rhodes. Indeed, I cannot recall any situation quite like this one.
Despite being indicted for seditious conspiracy and facing up to 20 years in prison, he said he is willing to testify on his actions related to Jan. 6 on the condition that he does so in public, to avoid having his words edited or distorted.
The risks for Rhodes are enormous, and few defense attorneys would support such an offer. A Yale Law graduate, Rhodes knows he could not only incriminate himself on pending charges but could trigger additional charges for perjury or other crimes. It would effectively negate his right to remain silent at trial, since any committee testimony could be used at trial. It would give prosecutors not only an extensive examination of Rhodes free of limiting rules of evidence but it would expose Rhodes for any contradictions if he decides (as seems more likely given this offer) to testify at his trial.
For the committee, the potential risk of Rhodes testifying would be the loss of control and the possibility that he could hijack a hearing with extraneous, sensational or hateful statements. I can understand the reluctance to hold an open hearing. However, if Rhodes went rogue, the committee could always end the hearing.
The question now is whether the committee is willing to take the risk of an unscripted hearing to establish a criminal case against Trump. It has a witness who could confirm or refute such allegations — but that will require an unscripted, unpredictable public hearing. It would not be a controlled production by a former network executive — but the public would see an actual examination of a key player, and be able judge his credibility and culpability for themselves.
The committee has already laid the foundation for such an examination and has a long list of subjects. It could ask Rhodes about photographs with Trump associates like Roger Stone, or the storage of a weapons cache; it could secure sworn testimony on any coordination with the Proud Boys and other extreme groups.
Rhodes has maintained he believed that Trump would activate the Insurrection Act, and came prepared to be made part of a lawful militia. Witnesses have said Rhodes wanted Trump to deputize citizens under the Act but lacked contacts or “access points” in the White House. The committee would be able to ask him if anyone in the Trump campaign (or Trump himself) offered assurances or encouragement in that bizarre belief.
The committee has built a criminal conspiracy theory around these groups and Rhodes in particular. This is an opportunity to examine an alleged core conspirator in a no-holds-barred format. There are risks all around, of course, but the greatest risks would fall on Rhodes. The committee should take him up on his offer.
Jonathan: Most of us out here thought you would discuss important issues coming out of Tuesdays’ J.6 hearing. While you mention “extremely disturbing conduct and chilling proposals” you don’t elaborate–only that so far you find no evidence of “clear criminal conspiracy”–by anyone. So let’s discuss the last hearing so we can see how shocking is your conclusion.
You could have discussed the bombshell dropped by Liz Cheney when she revealed that Trump himself tried to talk to a witness who is yet to testify. We know that other key witnesses were intimidated by people within Trump’s circle. Witness intimidation is a federal crime under 18USC Section 1512–even an “attempt” is punishable. There is an affirmative defense where the :defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce or cause the other person to testify truthfully”. Does anyone really think Trump was calling the witness to: “Just tell the truth. We have nothing to hide”? He wanted to tell the witness to remain “loyal” and a “team player”. No where do you discuss this important revelation.
Your column is almost entirely devoted to regurgitating your previous column where you urged the J.6 committee to allow Stewart Rhodes to testify “unscripted”. And what would that accomplish? Rhodes has already been deposed by the Committee and took the 5th in response to a number of key questions. Now Rhodes says he would waive the 5th if he were allowed to testify. That could prove disastrous when Rhodes goes to trial in September. There a number of reasons why Rhodes won’t testify:
(1) Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, puts it succinctly: “Whatever Stewart Rhodes says can only be used against him. Under the rules of evidence, specifically the hearsay rule, even if Rhodes testifies in his own defense at his criminal trial, he can’t use his previous statement [before the J.6 Committee]. That’s hearsay. However, the government can use statements of a party opponent. So it’s a win-win for the government whenever a criminal defendant speaks”. Rahmani adds: “This is like Defense Lawyering 101. The last thing you want is for your client to say anything”. And this is probably one reason Rhodes’ defense attorney is asking the court to allow him to withdraw from the case. Rhodes was a lawyer himself before he was disbarred by the Wyoming Supreme Court. He knows the J.6 Committee won’t accept his offer. It would just give Rhodes an opportunity to repeat his incendiary political statements that could be used against him in his trial. The Committee was actually doing Rhodes a favor by refusing his offer. As a criminal defense attorney yourself why in the world would you want Rhodes to testify?
(2) Neither Rhodes nor Steve Bannon, who has also offered to testify, have any relevant evidence to offer re Trump’s complicity in the Jan. 6 insurrection. Even you admit that Rhodes would engage in “extraneous, sensational or hateful statements”. Rhodes apparently tried to contact Trump directly but you admit again Rhodes “lacked contacts” or “access points” in the White House. And there is a good reason. A Mafia Don doesn’t want anyone to tie him directly when he decides to conduct a “hit” on someone he considers an enemy. He has his lieutenants plan and then hire someone to actually carry out the killing. It gives the Don plausible deniability. And this is why Trump’s close political conspirators wouldn’t allow the president anywhere near Rhodes.
You could also have discussed the little unhinged unauthorized meeting in the WH on the evening of Dec. 18 that dissolved into shouting match and almost came to fisticuffs between Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell and the “team normal”. That meeting was the centerpiece of Trump’s conspiracy to overturn the election. That meeting could come under “extremely disturbing conduct and chilling proposals”. But you intentionally refuse to discuss that seminal event. No, you would rather have us focus on for Rhodes. A distraction from the proof of conspiracy by Trump and those in his close circle. By refusing to discuss the important evidence it’s understandable why you conclude you can find no evidence of a criminal conspiracy. But acting like an ostrich doesn’t help us understand how Trump planned and executed the attempted coup!
I believe the present phrasing would center around your glowing. And indeed you do.
Adam Kinzinger has always been regarded as a low performing moron. Cheney was certainly more respected, but the MSM and Dummies making a hero out of an anti-abortion fanatic has been sickening. When the Fuhrerette scratched off the Repub choices for the committee she ensured it’s lack of credibility. That was a HUGE mistake.
McCarthy nominated 5 Republicans. Pelosi rejected 2 but accepted the other 3. McCarthy is the one who pulled the other 3.
And Republicans in the Senate filibustered a bicameral National Commission where they’d have controlled the choice of 1/2 the members with no possible veto by the Dems. So blame the Republicans for that.
Same garbage to defend garbage. If you are only going to release information you like, that is the equivalent of lying.
S Meyer the Troll Liar, you know all about lying.
ATS, don’t bore us. Be imaginative.
You get what you deserve: repetition. Your nickname is Meyer the Troll Liar because that’s what you are.
11/21. More noncitizen voters. The Gableman investigation in Wisconsin also found noncitizens had made it onto the state voters rolls in violation of state law. The Wisconsin Election Commission failed “to record non-citizens in the WisVote voter database, thereby permitting non-citizens to vote, even though Wisconsin law requires citizenship to vote — all in violation of the Help America Vote Act,” the investigator wrote.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/bombshells-belie-big-lie-21-confirmed-illegalities-irregularities-2020
Here’s some more ammunition, Allen. ATS will soon have his picture in the post office:
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/bombshells-belie-big-lie-21-confirmed-illegalities-irregularities-2020
Diogenes, as you know that is where the list comes from. I have 9 more to go. Then I can put up the picture of ATS which likely will not be accepted by the WordPress censor, so if you don’t see it you will know why.
I’m sorry, Professor. I read partway and stopped. The same thing kept bothering me. When the “investigators” can veto one’s choice of defense, that’s not an investigation or even a prosecution. That’s a lynching (they hope).
I can understand Cheney being unhappy with Trump, but for her to legitimize these gaslighting Democrats as anybody’s moral arbiters is an absolute disgrace. Trump is already out of office. The Democrats, on the other hand, have the preponderance of influence in corporations and government. The Democrats want speech codes, show trials, campus inquisitions, cancel culture, mask mandates, injection mandates, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe she feels she has to side with Stalin to defeat Hitler, but this is like siding with Stalin even after the Soviet army is marching down the Champs Elysees. Who is she protecting from whom?
Maybe she’s protecting Skull & Bones from losing their white privilege in the Republican Party.
I cannot accept any of this as legitimate under these circumstances. I refuse to care.
In California the people (DEMOCRACY) are trying to recall a lunatic DA and have acquired about 750,000 signatures in order to comply with the necessary 550,000 legit signatures. HOWEVER, CA is checking signatures and so far has determined that about 28% of them fail for one reason or another and this is throwing the recall into doubt. No I ask you all, does anyone remember them checking signatures for the 2020 PRESIDENTIAL election? Did any state throw out 28% of mail in ballots in 2020? The fix is in and Gascon, the far left radical DA, will not be recalled in spite of the fact that a vast majority want him gone.
This is the left and the way they play hardball. Republicans need to lawyer up BEFORE elections and get into the game or else they will need to win by 10 points in order to prevail.
J6 panel shuns live testimony from Trump associates, prefers to slice and dice taped depositions
“The reason they do this is to make a television moment consistent with their narrative,” says
Steve Bannon’s attorney Robert Costello.
House Democrats’ Jan. 6 committee has been showing video clips at its hearings of previously recorded depositions from associates of former President Donald Trump rather than live public testimony.
Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon recently offered to testify in public, according to a letter written to the committee by his attorney Robert Costello. The committee has not yet responded to Bannon’s offer to testify publicly.
Costello told Just the News that the committee prefers to make a “television moment consistent with their narrative” rather than risk the surprises inherent in live testimony.
“They do not encourage live testimony,” Costello said in a statement. “Bernie Kerik was given a conditional waiver of attorney client privilege by President Trump if Kerik would be allowed to testify publicly. The Select Committee declined. The reason they do this is to make a television moment consistent with their narrative. This is not an investigation, this is propaganda for political theatre.”
In April, an attorney for former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik said the committee’s chair, Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, wouldn’t accept Kerik’s offer to testify publicly and had refused to make the transcript of his interview public.
“They want an appearance of noncompliance,” said attorney Timothy Parlatore at the time.
He told Just the News on Tuesday that the committee refused to allow Kerik to testify publicly and didn’t allow him to have a copy of the transcript.
“The committee clearly prefers taped depositions because they can edit them and remove sections that don’t match the fake narrative,” he said.
Now that the televised public hearings have begun, the committee has been playing video clips from taped depositions given by former Trump campaign officials, former Trump White House advisers, and other members of his inner circle, including Ivanka Trump; Marc Short, chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence; former Trump aide Jason Miller; and former Attorney General Bill Barr.
Bill Stepien, former Trump campaign manager, was scheduled to appear in person before the committee on June 13 but cancelled due to his wife being in the hospital giving birth to their child.
Cassidy Hutchinson, an ex-Trump White House aide, alleged that Trump wanted to join the protesters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Her appearance before the committee was a rare example of live testimony allowed during the public hearing.
Thompson’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Bannon’s recent offer to testify publicly and Kerik’s previous offer.
Oath Keepers vs. Oath Breakers
Related: in an amicus brief requested by Judge Nichols in Meadows v Pelosi, the DOJ concludes that the J6 Committee has justified its subpoena to Mark Meadows, despite his claims of immunity. The DOJ argues that an advisor to a former President is allowed qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, and that in this case, the Committee has adequately justified its subpoena for Meadows’ records and testimony.
The brief: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61603539/42/meadows-v-pelosi/
Your point?
A Supreme Court Justice appointed by the left doesn’t know what a woman is. So much for trust.
Democrat’s production of lies about everything Trump has been none stop for 6 years…denying Rhodes the opportunity to testify just confirms what total fascist clowns Democrats are….
Rhodes cannot be denied the opportunity to testify at his trial.
ATS is playing his usual games. The question is, will J6 refuse to let Rhodes testify before the committee. They have a hard choice because he wants it public so the testimony doesn’t become scripted. The J6 committee doesn’t want the public to hear the truth.
The J6 Committee cannot prevent Rhodes from telling the public whatever he wants.
Yes, but he is an important part of J6. As a leader who knows many of the parties and heard many things, his testimony could reveal things that few others can.
J6 is afraid to have him testify live because then what he says, along with alternative information, cannot be suppressed by the committee. Suppression of the truth is what the J6 committee has done to date. It’s a kangaroo court, and you seem to like acting like a kangaroo.
But, telling it under oath, in front of the J6 committee, would not allow the media the opportunity to distort his comments.
They already interviewed him. Why do it again? Absolutely nothing stops him from releasing whatever public statement he wants, with no media control at all.
They interviewed him and believe if they interview him again, he might say things contrary to what the J6 wants released.
You like to lie and they like to twist the truth. You are a good match.
You are S Meyer the Troll Liar, and you know all about lying and twisting the truth.
You’re also Stupid. Rhodes can release whatever he wants, regardless of whether the J6 Committee recalls him. If Rhodes wants to “say things contrary to what the J6 wants released,” nothing is stopping him.
Rhodes wants to speak to the people that are listening to J6, though the numbers are low. He wants you to listen because he doesn’t yet know that you are Anonymous the Stupid.
Why would you pre-believe that the J6 committee would “distort” what Rhoades has to say? Other than the fact, of course, that you are a disciple.
If the Committee had any evidence that Trump or anyone in his administration conspired with the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers or anyone else to invade the Capitol and stop the process they would have revealed it by now. They have nothing, and the entire thing is a politically motivated effort to affect the 2022 and 2024 elections.
Daniel, I hope that you recognize that your conjecture is a conjecture and not a fact.
I also hope that you recognize that what occurred with the J6 rioters is only part of what’s being investigated. The Committee has already said that they’ll be having a hearing about the fake electors scheme, about which you’re silent. I hope that they’ll also have a hearing devoted to Trump’s effort to get Pence to act unconstitutionally. A reminder that Judge Carter already ruled in a civil case that “Based on the evidence, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”
If we simply wait, we will find out all of what they’re going to make public.
I hope that they’ll also have a hearing devoted to Trump’s effort to get Pence to act unconstitutionally
Isnt that the same as the Biden Administration, seeking and implementing constututional work a rounds?
One is crime, the other astute leadership.
If you clarify what “constututional work a rounds” you’re referring to, I’ll answer your question, but unless they involve Biden attempting to pressure Harris into acting unconstitutionally to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, then the answer is “no, it’s not the same.”
We’re going to have to wait and see whether Trump is charged with conspiracy to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress.
We also have to wait for Biden to be charged for a multiplicity of criminal charges, for him to be impeached, for him to go totally looney when he drops his instructions.
What more do you have to say?
iowans – your interpretation that Trump tried to get Pence to ‘act unconstitutionally’ is simply that… an interpretation… There is the other side that says Trump simply asked Pence to send the Electors back to their States to look into the results to find if there was any foul play, etc.(which Trump assumed there was…) and that request was NOT unconstitutional.
Judge Carter has already ruled that it was more likely than not a conspiracy to obstruct Congress, and as he also pointed out, “believing the Electoral Count Act was unconstitutional did not give President Trump license to violate it. Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process.”
No judge “on the other side” has said that what Trump did was constitutional.
Does Judge Carter know what a woman is?
Judge Carters. off the cuff musings about facts not in front of him, discredits his body of work
Carter’s written judicial opinion was not “off the cuff” and it absolutely was about the facts in front of him, which you’d know if you read the ruling: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62613089/260/john-c-eastman-v-bennie-g-thompson/
How do we know where his mind is at? If a Supreme Court Justice appointed by the left doesn’t know what a woman is, we have to recognize that justices on the left are no longer blind. They are political.
It is not Carter’s mind that is relevant.
Congress is constitutionally entitled to make its own rules for itself. But it must follow those rules to be legitimate.
The comparison to soviet era show trials is incredibly relevant, that Carter would make himself a part of that is disturbing.
What we increasingly see – this was true to the collusion delusion, it was true of the Trump impeachments, and it is true of the J6 committee, is the left looking for loopholes to get arround the requirements of the law – particularly criminal law, to go after those they hate politically.
It is NOW self evident to those people with working brains that there never should have been a Cross-Fire huricane or Mueller SC investigation. It was evident to the FBI at the start.
It was evident from the start that the house had jumper the shark in faux impeachment one.
And they did so even worse with faux impeachment II.
J6 is just the icing on the cake of democrats efforts at self destruction.
“J6 is just the icing on the cake of democrats efforts at self destruction.”
Self destruction of themselves or the nation, is the question.
Whether you like it or not it is at odds with prior standards both on privilege and on subpoena’s more generally.
The courts can decide the issue of executive privilege however they wish – so long as they do so consistently without political hypocracy.
With respect to the powers of congress and the general validity of a subpeona that is much narrower.
Each branch of government has its own domain. We repeatedly discuss here how the judiciary and executive may not act as legislators.
Nor may the legislature act as criminal investigators.
In Iran Contra the courts found that when congress compelled testimony it essentially immunized those who testified from future prosecution – Is that what you want as an outcome ?
Further the courts hate pretexts. Congress may legitimately subpoena people and records for oversight, and for legislative purposes.
But it may not use the pretence of oversight and legislation to actually conduct criminal investigations.
The J6 committee has no legitimate power to issue subpeona’s.
Congress certainty can not investigate the legal activity of private actors.
We have been through Eastman over and over and over. The alleged conduct was prima fascia legal.
There is no foundation for further enquiry.
Just as I can not accuse you of being a pedophile as a means to get the law enforcement to investigate you.
I can not accuse you of being a truck driver to do so either.
An investigation requires a credible allegation of an illegal act.
The act must be illegal or the investigation is illegitimate.
Getting Trump and all his cronies is not a legitimate basis for an investigation.
If we simply wait, we will find out all of what they’re going to make public.
We spent 2+ years listening to the same fever dreams surrounding the Muller witch hunt.
There is nothing to the committee. Pelosi structured it to be a political star chamber. No defense, no challenge to statements made under oath. A scripted, tightly produced, piece of fictional drama.
Many Democrats have objected to electors in the past. if there was no possibility that a successful objection may necessitate the selection of alternate electors (with the parties standing up candidates to fill that potential role), what’s the point of allowing objections? Finally, when the remedy you seek is simply a hearing on your objections and a vote (i.e., POLITICAL remedies), where’s the “crime?”
As Judge Carter noted, “believing the Electoral Count Act was unconstitutional did not give President Trump license to violate it. Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process.”
No one is saying that members of Congress cannot object per their rules. But Trump’s effort to get Pence to unilaterally reject electors if very different. Do you understand the difference between the two?
*is very different, not “if”
Again, does Judge Carter know what a woman is?
Judge Carters words are not part of his officail findings of the case before him. They carry zero weight
You’re wrong, and I already linked to the ruling.
I think prior congressional objections and other election challenges such as those made in 2004 and 2016 were just background noice since the Presidential nominee had conceded the election the day after it. We just had a far more serious situation in 2020 — no concession, presidential powers, multi prong effort to change results, and Jan 6.
The hearing they just held was supposed to be the big reveal of Trump’s conspiracy with the extremest groups. There was no evidence of that. This is not conjecture, if is fact.
Daniel, I think the committee indicated in interviews that they could only briefly cover the extremist group topic in the hearing because they thought it was more important to provide testimony from the recent Cippilone testimony instead. Hope this helps.
“Supposed” according to whom? (You are clearly supposing it, but you don’t provide any evidence.)
At this point the only way for Democrats to win is the usual lie, cheat and steal.
Enough Kabuki Theater no one cares about J6. No one cares about Trump. It’s the economy stupid!
When we put gas in the car or go to the grocery store we’re not thing about Trump or J6. But we are thinking about the destruction by Biden, the “adults” in the WH and Democrats in general.
Inflation, Inflation, Inflation!!!
Lots of people care about J6.
Lots of people care about Trump.
Strange that you feel compelled to lie about these things.
It’s very strange when one lies. Anonymous the Stupid is famous for his lies, right?
That means anyone faced with Anonymous the Stupid must recognize that he is also faced with lies and act accordingly. Point it out when Anonymous the Stupid is lying. Make sure everyone knows when he is around.
Anomaly, I think you’re famous for your lies.
Is Anomaly and Anonymous the Stupid the same person? Right now Anonymous the Stupid is pretending.
I don’t lie, but Anonymous the Stupid does. Anomaly does as well at least when Anomaly is Anonymous the Stupid. One way of recognizing ATS is he has no imagination.
You’re Anomaly, and you’re also stupid, so perhaps they are the same person.
You lie like a rug.
Say what you will, Anonymous the Stupid, I will compare my reputation with yours and we will find that you are a liar and a trickster. I am not.
Anomaly, I will compare my reputation with yours and we will find that YOU are a liar and a trickster. You always insult people in ways that describe yourself.
Anonymous the Stupid, your lack of imagination is showing up again. I think people have already drawn their conclusions about you. It’s well documented even if you think they are talking about other anonymous posters.
The only people that care are about J6 and Trump are Norman Bates and the Clown Crew that infect the site with Actblue deflections.
So the people who show up to Trump rallies are Norman Bates and the Clown Crew?
Those are the leftists that have to be escorted out of the rallies. If they could, they would start a riot.
In election polls about the concerns of voters, Jan6 didn’t make the top ten.
zzclancy,
Right you are.
I do not care about the Jan6 hearing. I most certainly do not care about Trump.
What I do care about is the shock at the total of my weekly grocery store bill.
What I do care about is how much it costs to put fuel in my vehicles.
Just read an AP article about people are turning to food banks, again, to keep their families fed. One gentleman rode to the St. Mary’s food bank (Phoenix AZ) with a neighbor to share the cost of gas.
In Alameda County, people are showing up on foot.
The food banks noted cash, gift cards were not going as far as they did during the pandemic. Inflation.
That is what people care about. Things that impact them at home, everyday.
And I think it is going to get worse.
The Committee hasn’t said how many total public hearings it will have, and they are continuing to gather information. Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony seems to have prompted other potential witnesses to contact them, including the support staff whose lawyer reported that Trump had attempted to contact the person (and we don’t know enough about the actual contact to know whether it would constitute witness intimidation, which in any event is for the DOJ to determine).
The Committee has already said that they intend to devote a public hearing to the fake electors scheme.
I’m unsurprised that Turley is silent about that illegal scheme.
(and we don’t know enough about the actual contact to know whether it would constitute witness intimidation, which in any event is for the DOJ to determine).
Intimidation. Like subpoenaing a person that has pleaded guilty to Jan 6 charges, but is awaiting sentencing? Might that intimidation be real. Testitmoy show a judge the proper level of contrition? We know a judge has sentenced a 67 year old women battling cancer to jail time, for just walking into the Captal through an open door. Vs a phone call(not illegal) never answered?
Who are you referring to “that has pleaded guilty to Jan 6 charges, but is awaiting sentencing” and has been subpoenaed?
Ayres, who pleaded guilty in federal court last month to disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, which carries a potential sentence of one year of imprisonment and a fine of not more than $100,000. His sentencing is set for Sept. 13.
No intimidation to read from the Dem script…or else.
Again: your claim was about “subpoenaing a person that has pleaded guilty to Jan 6 charges, but is awaiting sentencing.”
You haven’t presented a shred of evidence that Ayres was subpoenaed by the Committee.
Try again.
I always thought the key thing for any attorney to adhere to in a trial was “Never ask a question if you don’t already know the answer”. I think the wisdom for that is obvious. If you’re just digging for mud or want to humiliate people or an industry and don’t care about the consequences then go for unscripted questions and answers but if you’re trying to to project a trial-like atmosphere (even in a farce like this committee) tying cause to effect and criminal actions then you definitely are risking a nuke going off in the committee hearing that might shower everyone in the room with all sorts of things that might be better left unseen or unsaid. When you go walking out in nature in blissful ignorance do you turn over every rock you encounter (especially if there is noise coming from that area) or do you just make sure your path is clear of threats and then move on. You just never know where that rattler is lying just waiting to be uncovered.
Bring of sound mind & body the Anti-American, Trump Haters such as. Raskin, Cheney, Pelosi, McConnell, etc., no doubt wish to assure all Americans their J6 Hearings/Illegal claims will be beyond reproach, Honoring the 1 Million plus People’s 1st Amd
Right Of the People for Redress of the Govt, & will be as Honesty as the 2020 Election!
LOL, Yeah Right!
That’s the reason it’s coming out with Facial Recognition will show all of the front row of J6 Trouble Makers that breached the Capital Polices Barricades were either Feds, Fed Agents of other US Govt Intel.
Like with JFK, the govt/mil will be releasing every bit of the info they have on the subject.
BTW: AOC wants to know who in govt opened the Mag Locked Doors without any possibility of extraneous, sensational or hateful statements.
Also AOC, if I was into big Azzes, you’d be the one, or the black gal twerking in the news last week with an Azz 4 times to big.
In the meantime everyone should remain calm, Biden’s people are on the Job Protecting You!!!! LOL;)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/bidens-transgender-assistant-health-secretary-rachel-levine-gender-fluid-pup-handler-sam-brinton-attend-french-ambassadors-bastille-day-party/
You’re deluded.
Sexist too. I don’t recall you complaining about Trump having “an Azz 4 times to big.”
The committee is a joke a dangerous joke to the American way of life. One man came to DC and frightened these corrupt people so badly that he would expose them that out of fear they exposed themselves. Consider that from the day President Trump announced his run for office right up to this day they have attacked him. Do you believe anything Schiff, Raskin, Cheney or Kinzinger offer??
I believe a great deal of the testimony under oath. I also believe a great deal of the evidence I’ve read from the J6 criminal prosecutions, from relevant documents that have been made public (including the fake electors documents), multiple judges’ rulings in various civil and criminal cases linked to J6, …
Why do you not believe any of this?
You believe in hearsay and lies as long as it agrees with your position.
—
#6/21: Ballot harvesting probe in the Peach State. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has announced he has opened a criminal investigation into allegations that liberal activists engaged in illegal ballot harvesting, collecting ballots from voters and delivering them in violation of state law. Raffensperger said he is planning to issue subpoenas to identify a whistleblower who admitted he engaged in the operation, and there could be prosecutions. The True the Vote election integrity group says in a formal state complaint that the man, identified as John Doe, admitted his role and identified nonprofits who funded it at $10 per ballot delivered. The watchdog group also claims it has assembled cell phone location records pinpointing the alleged harvesting by as many as 240 activists.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/bombshells-belie-big-lie-21-confirmed-illegalities-irregularities-2020
I don’t believe one word any democrat says.
Then you’re extremely biased.
Whether I believe what someone has said depends on what they say, not on their party affiliation.
And we’re supposed to believe that a guy who has been indicted for seditious conspiracy and facing up to 20 years in prison hasn’t already cut a deal with the Committee to give them Trump on a platter?
There is no cross examination, no hostile witnesses being allowed to state matters that the Committee agrees with or accedes to and not one member who is not in agreement with the prosecutorial side of the equation. We have all seen shows, movies or read books where the accused looks as guilty as sin during the prosecutions case only to do a 180 reversal after hearing the defense case being put on. In this “case” there is no opportunity for the “defense” to state their case. We don’t have anyone to ask Jamie Raskin if he in fact demanded that the Electors not be seated in 2016. Not one member that will ask about Ohio in 2004 and the claim that it was stolen. Not one member to ask about the claims that Trump was not elected in 2016.
Since when does a Committee not have people speak on the record in front of the nation? Did the Army-McCArthy hearings only have taped or filmed interviews? Did the Iran-Contra Hearings have practice rounds before RELEASING what was said? Did Sam Ervin not have live hearings? This was a learned experience after Adam Schiff held his secret hearings during the Russia probe, the Ukraine call and impeachment.
The Democrats cannot handle counter voices, live hearings or unscripted testimony because this is not a search for truth, the hearings are a partisan attempt to influence an election, the very same thing they are said to be worrying about.
The J6 Committee has interviewed over 1000 people. You think that’s all going to be televised?
Lots of committees have non-televised hearings. Next you’ll be complaining that that SSCI’s meetings weren’t all televised before they released their 5 volume report, right?
“The J6 Committee has interviewed over 1000 people. You think that’s all going to be televised?”
Of course not. They televise those portions that suit their conclusions with snippets that leave out the rest of the information. They are there to elicit a response produced for TV. Additionally, they use video snippets of old testimony and have people testifying about the snippets even though those people are saying nothing.
This is an orchestrated TV production using an actual TV producer to provide the desired spin based on hearsay and the like.
Your foolish argument is that other hearings aren’t televised as well. It is a meaningless statement that adds nothing to the discussion. We don’t televise you going to the bathroom. Such an activity generally isn’t political. This hearing is hyper-political controlled by one side using no cross and meant to provide a TV performance intended to prove the opposite of the truth.
Anomaly, you need to learn how to follow a discussion. Perhaps that wouldn’t be so hard for you if you didn’t rely on email responses.
I have the advantage of relying on both. You do not. Some on the blog refer to you as Anomaly, I am not that person as I have an identity. Most of the time they are referring to you, Anonymous the Stupid, not me. You now use the name others created for your own use. You have no imagination. You are a copy machine.
As long as you post anonymously, you’re Anomaly.
But, you know who I am and I know you are Anonymous the Stupid.
Nah, in your anonymous incarnation, you’re the original Anonymous the Stupid. You also post as Meyer the Troll Liar.
That is correct, I post as S. Meyer, but to you, Anonymous the Stupid, I don’t bother dignifying your Stupid posts with my name. You are a worthless leftist who is only interested in destruction. You are like those leftists I knew in my youth who would try to get an innocent young person to get his head bashed open for a headline. Your type is despicable even though you are only a couch hard-leftist, and a stupid one to boot.
Your name is Meyer the Troll Liar because that’s what you are.
ATS you don’t seem convinced. I think I’m in your head and you don’t know what to do. That is what imaginations are for.
On the contrary, Meyer the Troll Liar, I’m in *your* head. I responded to hullbobby, but because you’re obsessed with me, you had to respond. I responded to Daniel, and because you’re obsessed with me, you had to respond. Unless you respond to me (in which case I sometimes reply), I generally ignore you, whereas you cannot ignore me when I’m addressing other people. You’re obsessed.
Anonymous the Stupid, one can only laugh. You think people are obsessed with you. They are laughing at you and you don’t know.it. Look at how many times you were wrong on this blog. Flipping a coin would provide better results.
No, Meyer the Troll Liar, “people” aren’t obsessed with me. YOU, a single person, are obsessed with me.
Maybe I should modify your nickname: Meyer the Obsessed Troll Liar.
12/21. Election Machine Vulnerabilities: Immediately after the November 2020 elections, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security agency declared there was no hacking or machine vulnerabilities. The Iran hacking case put the lie to the first claim. And last month, the Homeland Security agency admitted in a new report that the popular Dominion Democracy Suite ImageCast X voting system had nine vulnerabilities, most of which include the ability to “install malicious code” on the machines. Federal officials say they don’t know of any efforts to exploit those vulnerabilities in 2020, but the reversal in stories has significantly shaken confidence in the bureaucracy’s assurances.
The all Democrat selected committee, never showed any intention to gather information to better write legislation. It was always a search for anything to smear to hurt Trump. That’s why there are almost daily leaks of information. Substantive congressional investigations, do the work. Write a report. Release the Report.
We will see if it is OK for the govt to investigate a person running for President. President Trump was told such investigations violated all sorts of stuff, and the Biden Family had immunity from such an investigation into Biden
If the Committee seriously wants to convince Attorney General Merrick Garland …..
Merrick Garland = Lonely Goatherd Marionette
This whole J6 insanity has been a carnival barking snake oil sales event orchestrated by the dems and their couple RINO lackeys from the start. The whole orwellian dystopia of this farce and it’s comedic attempt to be bi-partisan in any manner is truly a joke to behold on the taxpayer funding this one way kabuki theater of the absurd. This is scorched earth failed politics of the left…as they have nothing else coming into the mid term bloodbath they know they face. Actions have consequences dems…and it’s long overdue for “you”.
let the people who organized and funded the terrorists organization Antifa, BLM, etc aren’t even investigated!
The Bidens which TOOK millions selling our government to Ukraine, Mexico, China, etc….are NEVER investigated, even though witnesses to their crimes and their CRIMES ARE KNOWN
Russian Hoax is a documented conspiracy against a sitting president…by Democrat government and their Media!
Nancy Pelosi son…was Indicted
…all I hear are crickets…..as the DOJ/FBI etc are 100% CORRUPT
The deep state of goobermint apparatchiks is a cancer upon American politics in the DC swamp. Unionized govt sloth “labor”. Myraids of faucis that can not ever be held accountable or minimally fired. No merit and a bloated bureaucracy of untouchable grifters.
Guyventner’s comment was spot on…and he never even got to Hunter!
No way that the Star Chamber takes a risk on something not heavily scripted. They are only interested in the politics of personal destruction, not truth or fact finding
According to you, what has been said in the hearings so far that’s false?
This nutcase is asking for proof to rebut hearsay.
—
#5/21.
Illegal ballot harvesting in Wisconsin. Gableman also exposed an extensive vote collection operation, known as ballot harvesting, in nursing homes in which third-party activists illegally collected the ballots of vulnerable residents, some of whom lacked the mental or physical capacity to vote or were forbidden from voting by guardianship agreements. State election regulators “unlawfully directed the municipal clerks not to send out the legally required special voting deputies to nursing homes, resulting in many nursing homes’ registered residents voting at 100% rates and many ineligible residents voting, despite a guardianship order or incapacity,” Gableman wrote in his explosive report.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/bombshells-belie-big-lie-21-confirmed-illegalities-irregularities-2020
Anomaly, if you watched the hearings, you’d know that most of the testimony isn’t hearsay.
What isn’t hearsay hasn’t been exciting. That is why the hearsay of Hutchinson got a whole day and continues to get press. No evidence of criminal activity was produced by that hearsay or elsewhere.
But below we see 1/21 of evidence that the election was fraudulent.
—
#7/21. Bad voter signatures? A review of Maricopa County’s mail-in ballots in Arizona’s 2020 presidential election estimated that more than 200,000 ballots with signatures that did not match voter files were counted without being reviewed, more than eight times the number the county acknowledged.
Alan Dershowitz: Shunned for defending the ‘Constitution on behalf of a president I didn’t vote for’
Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz discusses the pushback he has recevied from his own party for “sticking to principle refusing to become a partisan,” saying that it has cost him and his family “tremendously,” after he was a member of former President Trump’s legal team during his first impeachment trial. Dershowitz also discusses his new book, “The Price of Principle: Why Integrity is Worth the Consequences.”
https://justthenews.com/podcasts/john-solomon-reports/alan-dershowitz-shunned-defending-constitution-behalf-president-i?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Lets just say, wide swaths of testimony is pure opinion. Reading the minds of various people. More “testimony” lacked coroboration. We know the committee has “leaked” information that was edited to change the tone and tenor. Not evidence presented under oath, but smears leaked to the media. Because Congressional committees serious about getting the facts, always leak corrupted evidence.
You can convince me with evidence, but you present none.
J6 panel shuns live testimony from Trump associates, prefers to slice and dice taped depositions
“The reason they do this is to make a television moment consistent with their narrative,” says
Steve Bannon’s attorney Robert Costello.
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/jan-6-committee-relying-clips-videotaped-depositions-rather-live-public?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Bannon had his chance to testify. Instead he’s facing a trial for contempt of Congress. He STILL hasn’t produced the documents that were subpoenaed, so no one should treat his offer as anything other than an attempt to get out of his trial. I hope he’s convicted.
We know the edited text messages. It changed the entire message.