January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1541904855295483917

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-15/trump-plans-to-live-at-mar-a-lago-and-employ-some-current-aides?srnd=premium

Yeah she hated Trump.

So just come out and say it Grumps. Are you saying she perjured herself? Any particular reason or......?

If it's not perjury she's just spewing what she heard from so and so.  I wonder why she was considering going to Mar A Lago if Orange Man was that evil.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The Secret Service will refute her testimony.  #Liar

One side is lying, the other is not.

One side is under oath, the other is not.

How are you deciding the side NOT under oath is the one telling the truth?

If the Secret Service even released a statement, not under oath, that it is true, I will believe them.  No doubt.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

The bolded part.

Grumps, read that dude. Then read it again.

If you want him indicted, this isn't the kind of testimony that's going to get you there.  "Someone told me" doesn't cut it.  Haul in the people who witnessed it.  Now I do believe he whipped some dinner plates around, but that's not a crime.  Using ketchup is.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

The bolded part.

Grumps, read that dude. Then read it again.

If you want him indicted, this isn't the kind of testimony that's going to get you there.  "Someone told me" doesn't cut it.  Haul in the people who witnessed it.  Now I do believe he whipped some dinner plates around, but that's not a crime.  Using ketchup is.

You called Hutchinson a liar, when all she's guilty of is repeating what someone else told her. That doesn't make her a liar.

And I agree, bring in the Secret Service agents to testify under oath. At this point, her testimony is all we've got. An agent refuting it, not under oath, does not "trump" her testimony.

I did. I appear to be correct.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

The bolded part.

Grumps, read that dude. Then read it again.

If you want him indicted, this isn't the kind of testimony that's going to get you there.  "Someone told me" doesn't cut it.  Haul in the people who witnessed it.  Now I do believe he whipped some dinner plates around, but that's not a crime.  Using ketchup is.

You called Hutchinson a liar, when all she's guilty of is repeating what someone else told her. That doesn't make her a liar.

And I agree, bring in the Secret Service agents to testify under oath. At this point, her testimony is all we've got. An agent refuting it, not under oath, does not "trump" her testimony.

I did. I appear to be correct.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

he can come and testify it under oath then.

I agree.  He must.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

The bolded part.

Grumps, read that dude. Then read it again.

If you want him indicted, this isn't the kind of testimony that's going to get you there.  "Someone told me" doesn't cut it.  Haul in the people who witnessed it.  Now I do believe he whipped some dinner plates around, but that's not a crime.  Using ketchup is.

You called Hutchinson a liar, when all she's guilty of is repeating what someone else told her. That doesn't make her a liar.

And I agree, bring in the Secret Service agents to testify under oath. At this point, her testimony is all we've got. An agent refuting it, not under oath, does not "trump" her testimony.

I did. I appear to be correct.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

he can come and testify it under oath then.

I agree.  He must.

And until he does, Hutchinson’s testimony is the best yet source we have.

A flimsy source IMO.  But there's time.  Let's haul this guy in, the Secret Service in, hell bring them all in.  Then let's see what kind of hand they have to play with.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Didn’t Lindsey call officials in GA trying to pressure them similar to Trump?

Or am I remembering wrong?

From the AJC article:

Graham separately called Raffensperger in the days following the November 2020 elections and allegedly questioned whether the secretary of state had the power to reject more legally cast absentee ballots to help Trump narrow his deficit in Georgia. Graham denied the allegation.

This won't be hard to prove either way.  No one's phone records are untouchable.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Didn’t Lindsey call officials in GA trying to pressure them similar to Trump?

Or am I remembering wrong?

From the AJC article:

Graham separately called Raffensperger in the days following the November 2020 elections and allegedly questioned whether the secretary of state had the power to reject more legally cast absentee ballots to help Trump narrow his deficit in Georgia. Graham denied the allegation.

This won't be hard to prove either way.  No one's phone records are untouchable.

I don't think Graham is denying he made the calls, just their characterization as to their content. Just why out of state politicians think it appropriate to hit on those charged with counting the votes escapes me. Just why such calls are picked up by the vote counters also escapes me.

I thought he denied the call, but yeah, the characterization of the content will clearly be different between both parties.  Graham will be just fine.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

How about having a bunch of these agents testify under oath about who was doing what to whom when?

They've subpoenaed everyone but you and me so yep, haul 'em in and make them testify under oath.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Jesse Binnall is a good lawyer.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Dark Brandon's DOJ should make a deal with Clarence Thomas to drop all potential charges against Ginni in exchange for him resigning.

What potential charges?  If there were any, no way she agrees to go to the Joke6 Committee without a subpoena.  Even if subpoenaed she's take the fifth if there were potential charges.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Tomorrow's hearing is postponed because of the hurricane. Not sure why that matters though.

They want people in the pub state to see Orange Man Really Bad and they can't without power.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Voluntarily met with the committee.  Commendable.  Ignoring a CNN reporter.  Understandable.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Voluntarily met with the committee.  Commendable.  Ignoring a CNN reporter.  Understandable.

Let me guess: You believe she's done no wrong, and you think Justice Thomas shouldn't recuse himself from 2020-election/Jan 6/election interference related matters.

I think her refusing to talk to the press about her testimony was totally appropriate myself. God bless Grumps's perspicacity. She shall speak through and only through her testimony, and not the press. She is not running for office, and thus has no need to reside in spin city. Be patient. In due course you will be able to read her testimony under oath, word for word. I suspect you will find it underwhelming, because she is far from the center of the Machiavellian legal storm, but we shall see. She just suffers from the MAGA syndrome perhaps.

Agreed.  It will take literally one day for any bombshell testimony to leak, and none has, as of yet.  Also, no, her husband need not recuse himself.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

https://twitter.com/alivitali/status/1580619891815874561

Going for a big TV moment, huh?

They might as well.  Let's face it, Bears v. Commanders isn't compelling Thursday Night Football.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

So they want him there after the mid-terms, eh?  I'm going to grab some popcorn and enjoy this.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/01/01/steven-sund-capitol-police-book-jan6/

The former Capitol police chief is publishing a book.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

A huge terrorist threat was averted at the Capitol today.  Good work, fellas!

https://twitter.com/RealMattCouch/status/1611444970635857922