January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[BG-NY]

Imagine being so much of a cuck that you can't accept that your cult leader lost an election and you try to overthrow the entire US government instead. Don't these people have jobs to go to, wives to hug and kiss, and children to raise? Do they really want to throw everything away for some megalomaniacal narcissist who couldn't give a single stinky wet shart about them?

I think we all agree that the Russiahoax that Clinton's campaign launched was bad, but what does that have to do with this topic?

[BG-NY]

Some of your posts had been winning me back lately...until now.

I replied to a troll post in a troll thread with a troll reply of my own. Relax.

That said, I opposed the Russia thing from day one. I am not unbiased (have donated to Wikileaks for over a decade), but I don't believe that the Russian government hacked the DNC.

[BG-NY]

Riley Williams feels similar to Reality Winner. Someone deluded into believing there were conspiracies where there weren't. While I am sympathetic to whistleblowers, I am not sympathetic to useful idiots being led astray by delusions.

[BG-NY]

You were doing fine with your response until you went off the deep end there.  (a) The election was not "fixed" by mail voting or any other method.  If there was a shred of real evidence and not just deluded fantasies and conspiracy theories, it would have come out in the numerous election challenges and court cases.  You do nothing but harm your credibility by perpetuating this lie.  (b) It was not just an "organic protest", as you would know if you had been watching the 1/6 committee hearings (which I strongly suspect you have not).  

Making sweeping changes to voter and election laws in the year of an election is nothing short of vote fixing. I am not a delusional person who believes in extensive ballot fraud. I don't believe these changes should have taken place in the same year as an election, and were tilted toward the democrats (i.e. in Pennsylvania, having VBM but not in-person early voting).

There were hundreds of thousands of people at the mall who were there for a rally as counterprogramming to the events at the Capitol. There were a handful of bad actors who let things get out of hand, and Trump vacating the crowd allowed things to get out of hand. Anybody who was in private groups on Twitter, Discord, IRC, or WhatsApp of people angry about the purported election outcome knew that a ton of voters they conversed with wanted their voices to be heard.

Believing that president advised people to invade the Capitol is as delusional as supporting the Russiahoax or a score of other conspiracies the neoliberal internationalist center-left has employed as distractions. This is Biden's "bread and circuses". I am considering voting for Biden in 2024 and am embarrassed for him.

[BG-NY]

Maybe you should take that up with the PA Legislature, which is controlled by…wait for it…Republicans.

Prior to 2020, mail voting has always favored Republicans, and they would have done just fine with it if Trump had not stupidly turned his voters against it. That has to be one of the most self-sabotaging actions in recent US politics.

Your point? Establishment scum like Kemp, Pence, and McConnell are as much an enemy of American people as are Harris, Crooked, and Pelosi. I'm an independent.

In the 2020 primaries and special elections, vote by mail CLEARLY benefitted democrats while in person early voting benefitted republicans. There was plenty of data prior to the changes.

I don't oppose vote by mail. I oppose vote by mail WITHOUT in person early voting, and oppose ANY ballot or registration laws in election years going into effect for that year's election.

I have no issue on the other hand with AVR in GA, since it occurred over a year prior to the election.

[BG-NY]

Grumps?

Fuzzy Bear?

Where y'all at?

All pro-1/6 posts are being deleted by a certain mod.

[BG-NY]

Grumps?

Fuzzy Bear?

Where y'all at?

All pro-1/6 posts are being deleted by a certain mod.

I've just checked, and there has been one (1) pro-1/6 post deleted from this board recently.

I didn’t mean you for the record, I have no issue with you. However I’ve had a handful deleted in the last week alone.

[BG-NY]

Grumps?

Fuzzy Bear?

Where y'all at?

All pro-1/6 posts are being deleted by a certain mod.

Imagine being pro January 6th..

I support BLM and 1/6. I think law enforcement is racist and classist arms of the corrupt establishment.

[BG-NY]

Exactly. Trump’s defenders can presumably testify whenever they want to refute these claims. Why won’t they?

The obvious answer is they don't want to give legitimacy to what they perceive to be a sham investigation.

[BG-NY]

Hillary Clinton testified for hours about Benghazi for what Kevin McCarthy essentially admitted on the news to be a sham investigation.

The difference is the Democrats are the party of institutions, while the Republicans (at least the base) are the party that rejects institutions. Party of believing experts vs party of skepticism etc.

[BG-NY]

Still doesn't explain why they can't refute what's being offered in other informal ways.

Because there's nothing to gain from it. Same reason why Biden won't refute the Hunter allegations. From issue polling, J6 is a topic that moderate voters could not care less about. Why feed the flame of a circus sideshow?

Same reason Democrats didn't defend themselves on things like the Awan Brothers story, Hunter Biden laptop fiasco, Reverend Wright conspiracies.

[BG-NY]

There's hardly an equivalence between "Reverent Wright conspiracies" and the evidence against Donald Trump.

And the other problem with the "one-sided" argument is that one would have to believe that all these people in different places, occupying different roles--Cassidy Hutchinson, Rusty Bowers, Bill Stepien, Bill Barr etc.--people who were loyal aides/supporters of Trump up until his post-election behavior--suddenly have some sort of mysterious reason to lie and try to take him down.  To swallow that requires a suspension of disbelief easily on the level of that required to believe wild conspiracy theories. 

Bill Barr, George HW Bush's AG, and Bill Stepien, Christie's toadie who had the campaign triage Michigan, are now Trump loyalists. If this is the hill you want to die on, so be it.

[BG-NY]

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

[BG-NY]

Unlike the Benghazi hearings, the primary purpose of the J6 hearings is *not* to influence voters. Maybe they will and maybe they won’t, but that isn’t their point. The point is to establish what happened, and who did it, in an attack on one of the foundations of a democratic society: the peaceful and orderly transition of government as the result of an election.

And they’re doing an impressively good job of it so far.

Honest question, not trolling - How many people who supported the events of 1/6 *on 1/6* have had their minds changed from these hearings?

[BG-NY]

Watergate prosecutor says slapping Trump with a charge for rebellion or insurrection could prevent him from ever holding office again

"I think it would be horrible not to act on what is now blatantly obvious to anyone who has watched the hearings," Wine-Banks said.

She noted that, unlike a seditious conspiracy charge, a rebellion or insurrection charge would see the convicted offender barred from "ever holding federal office again."

Wine-Banks called the penalty a "more important goal than jailing the former president."

She added that Trump could face several other charges based on the testimonies presented at the January 6 hearings.

"There is, of course, obstruction of Congress, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, so many things just based on Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony," Wine-Banks said.

In April, Wine-Banks said she believed Trump's potentially criminal actions on January 6 could be "incalculably worse" than those of former President Richard Nixon.

I have to agree that simply barring Trump from ever holding any kind of office again would be preferable over jail time if I have to choose only one.

GWBFan, serious question.

Many people have suggested that Trump is a bad candidate, has no chance of winning, etc.

If this is the case, why do you want him barred from holding office? Surely if he can't win according to many, there's no chance he can hold office. No?

[BG-NY]

Some people don’t make decisions based purely on what maximizes their side’s chances of winning, but rather on this funky thing called beliefs and principles.

Two things:

(1) Beliefs and principles aren't objective.  You know this, obviously. But what makes one belief more morally justifiable? It's not about logical consistency, but rather about how closely another individual is aligned with one's own beliefs.
(2) There is nothing wrong with being transactional and results-oriented. I don't think Trump committed any crime on 1/6, but if I was guaranteed him going to jail would give us a president Tucker or JD Vance, I'd turn on him in a second.

[BG-NY]

The lesser reason is that you can never overestimate the stupidity of the American electorate.

The greater reason is that it doesn't matter whether Trump has any chance to win or not; he's unfit to even have the opportunity to try.  This is about protecting the U.S. and ensuring that the culprits (of whom Trump is the primary one, but not the only one) suffer the consequences of their actions, and never again have the chance to attempt a similar subversion.  Trump, by his actions in attempting to subvert an election, has forfeited the right to hold any office of trust in this country ever again.  

Well let me ask you this question then.

If Trump is elected in 2024, what will it mean for America, in your opinion? And what is the best case scenario for a second term?

[BG-NY]

What an odd question, but sure I’ll bite.

Trump can absolutely win in 2024 so your question is moot.

But that’s not why I want him to be punished. He should be in jail. His actions demand that and justice SHOULD be served. And if you placed country before party you’d see it too. But that won’t happen. Instead, a good alternative is that he should never be allowed near the presidency again. You should not be allowed to do what he did and just get away with it, and even have a chance to do it again.

See here's what I don't understand, GWBFan. I left the democrats, and joined the GOP because of Trump. That is considered being a traitor by yourself, and others.

You leave the GOP (presumably because of Trump, but other figures), and view it as a moral evolution.

Why is one considered putting country over party, and why is the other considered something else? Isn't it just possible different people can watch the same movie and take away a different message?

[BG-NY]

Here is an open question for all three of you, actually. GWBFan, Georgia Moderate, Alfred F. Jones.

According to the VA Center for Politics, between 6.5 and 9 million people who voted for Romney in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016.

If you include all people who voted for Obama at least once, and who voted for Trump in 2020, let's call call it 10 million.

What is your opinion of this group of individuals? Did they not put country over party?

[BG-NY]

And for the record, I left the GOP for many reasons. My views on a lot of issues have changed as I’ve gotten older. But, yes, Trump was a big part of my decision to leave. I voted third party in 2012 though, so my drift began before him.

Right, but here's the thing. Other people also change their positions on issues as they grow older. And yes, parties change too. It goes both ways.

[BG-NY]

Because the two parties are no longer symmetrical in this respect.  I never had a problem with the other side winning an election before Trump.  He demonstrably doesn't put the country over the Republican Party, and he puts himself over both of them.

Prior to Trump, the republicans opposed bans on sodomy and went to war in Iraq. The republicans with Trump are worse than that because they disagree on the outcome of an election?

[BG-NY]

No.  They're worse because they actually tried to overturn the outcome of an election.  Calling it just a disagreement is facile and a deliberate attempt to minimize the seriousness of the offense.  It's like those who called the Civil War "the recent unpleasantness".

Here are three questions I have for you, and then I'll be on my way and wish you a happy Independence Day:

(1) Did your support or opposition to Trump and Trumpism change in nature or in degree following election day in 2020 versus your outlook from 2015-early November 2020?
(2) Is it consciously attempting to overturn an election if individual supporters believe the election was stolen (whether or not it actually was in practice)?
(3) Is it consciously attempting to overturn an election if Trump himself believed the election was stolen (whether or not it actually was in practice)?

[BG-NY]

Yes.

But my problem with your side is not your stances on the issues. I don’t agree but Americans should be able to work around that.

My problem with your side is you *refuse* to examine Trump’s post-election actions (including but not limited to Jan. 6) with anything resembling logic. My problem is that you put Trump, the party, and yourselves above your country. That has nothing to do with the issues; it has to do with your integrity and your patriotism…which you have none if you continue to support a man who tried to take down the entire nation.

I would have supported Al Gore marching on the Capitol in 2000 as well.

My issue with your argument, GWBFan, is it suggests that if Trump wins in 2024, that the country has no integrity or patriotism.

[BG-NY]

1948. 1960. 2000. 2016. 2020.

We have had five elections in the modern era in which the tipping point state was settled by <1%.

Numbers speak for themselves.

[BG-NY]

There's got to be some reason for it though. It seems like Bannon wants to make a deal and he needs an excuse to testify.

lol