January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1543587719300976642

[Inmate Trump]

Serious question:

What will it take for Republicans to openly admit Trump and others attempted a coup?

[Torie]

"Coup" is a tendentious term. What will it take for Republicans to admit that Biden won the election for reasons other than due to vote fraud, and Trump's behavior was wrong. Or what will it take for a majority of Republicans to not want Trump to be renominated again?

[riceowl]

https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1543587719300976642

If you’re team trump don’t you decide to become a witness and phone up the committee and provide false hearsay that can’t be easily disproven to muddy the waters?

[Inmate Trump]

"Coup" is a tendentious term. What will it take for Republicans to admit that Biden won the election for reasons other than due to vote fraud, and Trump's behavior was wrong. Or what will it take for a majority of Republicans to not want Trump to be renominated again?

Okay, yes. What will it take for Republicans to admit Biden won/Trump’s behavior was wrong, and also oppose his nomination in ‘24?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

"Coup" is a tendentious term. What will it take for Republicans to admit that Biden won the election for reasons other than due to vote fraud, and Trump's behavior was wrong. Or what will it take for a majority of Republicans to not want Trump to be renominated again?

No, it damned well is not. If our democracy is to have a non-violent future, it is incredibly important that the awful depths of the Trump-led Republican attempt to overthrow the 2020 election is widely understood, not minimized.

Donald Trump fought tooth and nail, to the limits of the law and well beyond, using threats, lies, criminal schemes, and ultimately violence in an organized attempt to overturn an election that he and his enablers all knew they had fairly, if closely, lost. That effort culminated with Donald Trump attempting to lead an armed mob in an attack on the United States Capitol in order to overturn what he knew to be the legitimate results of the legal and democratic elections he lost, solely in order to keep himself in power. That the is dictionary definition of a coup.

It Was an Attempted Coup: The Cline Center’s Coup D’état Project Categorizes the January 6, 2021 Assault on the US Capitol

Donald Trump's direct connections to the 1/6/2021 coup attempt have only become clearer and clearer as additional evidence has been uncovered. This is not a biased take. Neither is it partisan nor prejudical nor slanted. That is what happened and it has been extremely well documented. Trump's Republican Party (virtually all of it, now), which has enabled, supported, defended and excused the coup doesn't like acknowledging that, because it makes them look really awful.  So Trump supporters have launched a concerted effort to downplay what happened.  Attacking the accurate label of 'coup' is one facet of that effort.

If we fail to hold Trump and his Republicans responsible for this coup attempt, we make more such attempts inevitable, and condemn ourselves and our children to a violent future. And to have any accountability, we need to start with confront the truth, no matter how unpleasant or problematic it and its implications are. Donald Trump attempted a coup in order to remain in power. That he and his coup failed  failed (because he is mostly blinded and crippled by the same grave flaws that led him to attempt it in the first place) does not diminish what was attempted.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We have solved the insurrection problem we have security fences and if need be the Natl Guard right down the street at the Pentagon are always on call if there is an insurrection, as far as the insurrection itself 5 people died that is a tragedy but not a 911 event we will see in 150 days the verdict on the Election


But, no questions ask if it was a BLM insurrection the Rs would have Maxine Waters in jail they blamed her for the Chaveron guilty verdict


But, BLM did protest Trump election in 2016 it was a peaceful protest because there is always a future election just like if D's lose in 22 there is 24, and Biden our Prez with be more helpful on the ballot to Ds than 22, if D's lose but the Election isn't lost yet

[Progressive Pessimist]

Hutchinson's testimony was clearly always going to be the most discussed and circulated in the media. But I think the Trump hacks may have actually given it even more oxygen by prolonging its life in the media cycle with the whole Secret Service-"hearsay" assertions. And now it seems like it may be producing a ripple effect and may just get worse for them and their cult leader.

[Torie]

Hutchinson's testimony was clearly always going to be the most discussed and circulated in the media. But I think the Trump hacks may have actually given it even more oxygen by prolonging its life in the media cycle with the whole Secret Service-"hearsay" assertions. And now it seems like it may be producing a ripple effect and may just get worse for them and their cult leader.

If that happens, then I will have to revisit my leap of faith into atheism.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Hutchinson's testimony was clearly always going to be the most discussed and circulated in the media. But I think the Trump hacks may have actually given it even more oxygen by prolonging its life in the media cycle with the whole Secret Service-"hearsay" assertions. And now it seems like it may be producing a ripple effect and may just get worse for them and their cult leader.

If that happens, then I will have to revisit my leap of faith into atheism.

Well, I should clarify, I'm still not getting my hopes up for an indictment entirely because of this, but continued attention extrapolating from the Hutchinson testimony throughout the summer will not be good for perceptions of Trump, especially since some close to him are purportedly nervous about it.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Hutchinson's testimony was clearly always going to be the most discussed and circulated in the media. But I think the Trump hacks may have actually given it even more oxygen by prolonging its life in the media cycle with the whole Secret Service-"hearsay" assertions. And now it seems like it may be producing a ripple effect and may just get worse for them and their cult leader.

If that happens, then I will have to revisit my leap of faith into atheism.

Well, I should clarify, I'm still not getting my hopes up for an indictment entirely because of this, but continued attention extrapolating from the Hutchinson testimony throughout the summer will not be good for perceptions of Trump, especially since some close to him are purportedly nervous about it.

What’ll really matter most of all is who steps forward to testify as a result, as we’re apparently already seeing, and what they say - to the committee and to the Justice Department.

[LBJer]

"Coup" is a tendentious term. What will it take for Republicans to admit that Biden won the election for reasons other than due to vote fraud, and Trump's behavior was wrong. Or what will it take for a majority of Republicans to not want Trump to be renominated again?

No, it damned well is not. If our democracy is to have a non-violent future, it is incredibly important that the awful depths of the Trump-led Republican attempt to overthrow the 2020 election is widely understood, not minimized.

Donald Trump fought tooth and nail, to the limits of the law and well beyond, using threats, lies, criminal schemes, and ultimately violence in an organized attempt to overturn an election that he and his enablers all knew they had fairly, if closely, lost. That effort culminated with Donald Trump attempting to lead an armed mob in an attack on the United States Capitol in order to overturn what he knew to be the legitimate results of the legal and democratic elections he lost, solely in order to keep himself in power. That the is dictionary definition of a coup.

It Was an Attempted Coup: The Cline Center’s Coup D’état Project Categorizes the January 6, 2021 Assault on the US Capitol

Donald Trump's direct connections to the 1/6/2021 coup attempt have only become clearer and clearer as additional evidence has been uncovered. This is not a biased take. Neither is it partisan nor prejudical nor slanted. That is what happened and it has been extremely well documented. Trump's Republican Party (virtually all of it, now), which has enabled, supported, defended and excused the coup doesn't like acknowledging that, because it makes them look really awful.  So Trump supporters have launched a concerted effort to downplay what happened.  Attacking the accurate label of 'coup' is one facet of that effort.

If we fail to hold Trump and his Republicans responsible for this coup attempt, we make more such attempts inevitable, and condemn ourselves and our children to a violent future. And to have any accountability, we need to start with confront the truth, no matter how unpleasant or problematic it and its implications are. Donald Trump attempted a coup in order to remain in power. That he and his coup failed  failed (because he is mostly blinded and crippled by the same grave flaws that led him to attempt it in the first place) does not diminish what was attempted.

Exactly.  That's why I'm sick to death of people saying that the hearings are "one-sided" and that we aren't getting the other side of the story.  Alan Dershowitz, for example, says that watching them is like watching a basketball game where only one team can go on the field.  What a load of BS!  That analogy would only work if there was a significant "other side" to speak of.  Where is it?  These are virtually all either Trump's own people or other conservative Republicans testifying to what he did.  If there's really an "other side,"  why aren't others coming forward and presenting a different picture?  The excuse that we'll hear them if and when the defense makes their case at Trump's trial doesn't convince at all.  Why wouldn't they come forward now and say: "Wait a minute!  The picture of President Trump being presented is grossly inaccurate and unfair.  Here's what really happened."  What is stopping them?  With the semi-exception of the "steering wheel" incident (and at least one person supposedly disputing that has major credibility issues himself), this is not happening.  The paucity of credible voices on the supposed "other side" is deafening. 

It doesn't matter if one only hears one side of the story if the "other side" has nothing substantive to offer.  If John Wilkes Booth had stood trial for killing Lincoln, there would have been nothing Booth's lawyer(s) could have offered, including on cross-examination, that would have saved him. Ditto for Lee Oswald and the JFK assassination.  There would have been nothing Nixon's lawyers could have said or done, had he not been pardoned and stood trial for Watergate, that would have gotten him off the hook.  And there's nothing to be said for Donald Trump either. 

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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

[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.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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.

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

[LBJer]

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

And even if the commitee really was biased and wouldn't let them testify, or if they just didn't want to testify, why couldn't they make their voices heard through the media?  Even if what they said wouldn't be under oath, it would still provide an important alternative perspective.  Why aren't they doing that?  

[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.

[LBJer]

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.

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

[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.

[LBJer]

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.

There's hardly an equivalence between "Reverent Wright conspiracies" and the evidence against Donald Trump.  Why wouldn't at least some of them want to defend someone they supported so fervently if they really felt he was being so unfairly maligned? 

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.  

[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.

[LBJer]

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.

For the purposes of this discussion, yes they were Trump loyalists.  Deal with it. 

[BG-NY]

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

[LBJer]

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

There's nothing I've said here that's factually untrue.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.