January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[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?

[ProgressiveModerate]

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.

I was never a swing voter but with each passing hearing it def makes me angrier and angrier at Trump and his allies and really closes of the possibility of supporting anyone who hasn’t called it out for what it is.

Issue is most folks watching are already probably reliable 2022 voters who more of less have their minds made up, though I have seen both sides use snippets, usually out of context, of the hearings on social media to try and make a point and get folks angry

[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.

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?

No idea, and I don’t particularly care. As my previous post said, that’s not their purpose. 

[West_Midlander]

Unlike the Benghazi hearings, the primary purpose of the J6 hearings is *not* to influence voters.

Ha ha ha

[Inmate Trump]

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.

[jd7171]

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.

I would say there are some minds being changed. Looking at some polls the number of Independent voters thinking Trump should be charged or not run again for office seems to be increasing a little. I would say that if this is true and accurate then it makes it nearly impossible for him to win in 2024.

[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?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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?

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.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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?

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.  

[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?

[Inmate Trump]

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?

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.

[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?

[GeorgiaModerate]

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?

Probably the end of America as a functional democracy.  Best case?  Democrats sweep the '26 midterms, impeach Trump again and this time remove him, and keep his VP/successor on a short leash.  But even this would lead to irreparable damage to the country in the meantime.

[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?

[Inmate Trump]

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?

You’re not considered a traitor for initially supporting Trump. What makes one a traitor is continuing to support Trump despite his coup attempt. And a refusal to acknowledge what he did was wrong.

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.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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?

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.

To use your metaphor, choosing the Trump-dominated GOP is like watching Star Wars and taking away the message that the Empire should have taken firm early steps to wipe out the pesky rebels.

[Inmate Trump]

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?

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.

To use your metaphor, choosing the Trump-dominated GOP is like watching Star Wars and taking away the message that the Empire should have taken firm early steps to wipe out the pesky rebels.

He won’t get it, but this ^

[GeorgiaModerate]

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?

In 2016?  At that point it was not clear that Trump would be a danger to the country.  Incompetent, yes, but the country has survived incompetent presidents before.  I even had hopes after the 2016 election that Trump might turn out better than I feared, by some combination of the following scenarios:

1. Trump would surround himself with actually competent people.  That didn't happen.

2. Trump would be content to be a figurehead and enjoy the status of being President while leaving day-to-day governance to Pence and competent career officials.  That didn't happen.

3. The GOP leadership would rein in the worst of Trump's excesses.  Instead they enabled him.

But in 2016 nobody knew just how awful Trump would turn out to be, so I would not say that those voters in 2016 were necessarily putting party over country.

[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?

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.

Yes, but up to now, we've known that if the other party won, the country would survive and they would relinquish power when the time came that they lost an election, which inevitably happens.  Today's Republican Party can no longer be trusted to do this.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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?

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".

[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)?

[GeorgiaModerate]

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)?

(1) Yes.  Prior to the election and subsequent events, I thought Trump was merely a horrible and corrupt President, but I hoped that he would accept his loss (however grudgingly) and move on.  Afterward, I came to view him as a criminal who deliberately attempted to overthrow our constitutional democracy so that he could remain in power. 

(2 & 3) Yes to both.  A belief that one's actions are righteous or justified is not a defense to engaging in criminal activity.  For example, if you believe that a bank cheated you out of some money, you can sue and try to recover it in the courts; but if you lose there, that's the end of it.  You may still believe you were cheated, but that doesn't give you the right to rob the bank, no matter how much you may believe that you were right.