Georgia grand jury investigating Trump election interference subpoenas Sen. Graham, Giuliani, report says

[Man0in3Black]

Can you do that with GJ subpoenas without ending upon jail?

I don’t think so, this carried much more weight than a congressional subpoena, but I bet they sure try to get out of them

 

[year2late]

I don’t think so, this carried much more weight than a congressional subpoena, but I bet they sure try to get out of them

Any chance Alan Dershowitz is on speed dial?

 

[Plasmaball]

.... and that they're willing to testify before the commission, and the commission doesn't call them. Why wouldn't they have been called in the first place? You know? The ones who were there?

Yes youtube!

Man you guys have really latched onto this story.
The reason is because if you can prove they didn't relate this story you will use it as a jumping off point to discredit the whole panel.

Which is a dilemma...but hey you guys do you..

 

[Plasmaball]

Right - the story recounted in that article is different. That article says the anonymous sources report that Trump "angrily" wanted to go to the capital. Completely different story. No lunge. No assault.

Anonymous "sources tell CNN that stories circulated...." LOL Come on, man....

"While the details from those who heard the accounts differ...."

Right - that's why you don't play Chinese Whispers with hearsay on a matter this serious. You bring in the people with firsthand knowledge. Right? Or no? You want to give the ****ing Republicans this kind of precedent when they retake the majority? Think about it.

"one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as "demanding" and that the former President said something similar to: "I'm the f**king President of the United States, you can't tell me what to do.""

Again - no assault, no grabbing the wheel - being ****ing "demanding" is not "problematic," and he was the ****ing President and they did work for him, not vice versa. So what the ****, man?

And CNN refers to "that kind of language..." - lol, as if Trump is the first "demanding" President who expected his underlings to do what they were told, and the first one to use the "f" word. LOL. Come on! Cut it out!

Who ****ing cares....

 

[Plasmaball]

Well, the important issue is whether it happened.

And it wasn't the "same story." It was in part a similar story - where trump was angry, claimed to be the President and to demand obedience, etc., but NOT including the lunge and the assault. That "same story" is a big nothing, because a President demanding that his driver take him somewhere is not a problem, and a President getting angry or swearing is not a problem. It's normal. Shit, Lyndon Johnson cursed out everyone he dealt with and demand both obedience and success, and the guy would hold meetings while he was taking a shit on the toilet and he would hold meetings while standing there with his (reportedly generous) Johnson hanging out.

And Trump is somehow the worst because he got pissed off that his driver wouldn't go where Trump wanted him to go? I mean, the guy was the President at the time. The driver did work for him, not vice versa. Right?

It's not an important issue at all. It doesn't change anything.

You need it to be Important

 

[MrNiceGuy]

It's not an important issue at all. It doesn't change anything.

You need it to be Important

I'm not the one publicizing it. The Democrats and the January 6 Committee are - they called it "bombshell testimony." Hearsay bullshit to them about a President who got angry and said the F word, which they can't stop exaggerating into something it wasn't. That, to them, is an important story. What's important to me is whether the story they're telling actually happened. I know that nowadays truth is secondary to "narrative," but not to me.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Who ****ing cares....

Apparently the January 6 Committee and every Democrat media source, and all the anti-Trump factions, who thought this "story" was a "bombshell." I.e., your team cares. I care about the truth.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Yes youtube!

Man you guys have really latched onto this story.
The reason is because if you can prove they didn't relate this story you will use it as a jumping off point to discredit the whole panel.

Which is a dilemma...but hey you guys do you..

The whole panel is discredited, time and time again, this is just one more instance. The panel is a political joke.

And, your side is willing - as you are now - to ignore the fact that the panel orchestrated this bullshit "bombshell" testimony in order to push a false narrative. You don't care, because you don't care if anything in particular is true. You know the "narrative" is true, facts be damned.

That's your side, not mine.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The whole panel is discredited, time and time again, this is just one more instance. The panel is a political joke.

And, your side is willing - as you are now - to ignore the fact that the panel orchestrated this bullshit "bombshell" testimony in order to push a false narrative. You don't care, because you don't care if anything in particular is true. You know the "narrative" is true, facts be damned.

That's your side, not mine.

So discredited that 60% of the population thinks Trump should face criminal charges!

If that is your definition of discredited, then perhaps more things should be discredited.

 

[Callen]

I'm not the one publicizing it. The Democrats and the January 6 Committee are - they called it "bombshell testimony." Hearsay bullshit to them about a President who got angry and said the F word, which they can't stop exaggerating into something it wasn't. That, to them, is an important story. What's important to me is whether the story they're telling actually happened. I know that nowadays truth is secondary to "narrative," but not to me.

Apparently the January 6 Committee and every Democrat media source, and all the anti-Trump factions, who thought this "story" was a "bombshell." I.e., your team cares. I care about the truth.

This "story" was not a bombshell. Trump throwing a hissy fit because he wasn't getting what he wanted is hardly newsworthy or even all that interesting. The Right are the ones trying to make this "story" a bombshell to distract from the really important part of the testimony and to discredit the witness.

The important thing is that Trump wanted to have the magnetometers taken down to allow for a larger crowd. The SS said that they could not do that because of weapons in the crowd. Trump insisted they take them down saying" the weapons aren't to hurt me''...or words to that effect. He then insisted angrily to be taken to the Capitol where a group was gathering illegally. A group he knew was potentially armed. When the SS refused and took him back to the WH he sat there for three hours angrily pouting and doing nothing, even when begged, to try and stop the mob.

That is what is important not his temper tantrum and that is what the right doesn't want to talk about.

 

[j brown's body]

I'm not the one publicizing it. The Democrats and the January 6 Committee are - they called it "bombshell testimony." Hearsay bullshit to them about a President who got angry and said the F word, which they can't stop exaggerating into something it wasn't. That, to them, is an important story. What's important to me is whether the story they're telling actually happened. I know that nowadays truth is secondary to "narrative," but not to me.

Pretty sure his support for the violent insurrection is the bomb shell part.

 

[j brown's body]

The whole panel is discredited, time and time again, this is just one more instance. The panel is a political joke.

And, your side is willing - as you are now - to ignore the fact that the panel orchestrated this bullshit "bombshell" testimony in order to push a false narrative. You don't care, because you don't care if anything in particular is true. You know the "narrative" is true, facts be damned.

That's your side, not mine.

The lack of party leaders coming to Trump's defense reveals the hollowness of this claim.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

This "story" was not a bombshell.

It was reported by the Democrat media as such, and the January 6 Commission thought it was.

Trump throwing a hissy fit because he wasn't getting what he wanted is hardly newsworthy or even all that interesting.

It was to the January 6 committee, and it was another "they got 'im now!" moment for the anti-Trump factions.

The Right are the ones trying to make this "story" a bombshell to distract from the really important part of the testimony and to discredit the witness.

When it's debunked it becomes "just a distraction," sure - that's the way of it all. Every bullshit "Russia Hoax" allegation that turned out to be manufactured horseshit also became "distractions." https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official-russia Whopper after whopper, and each new one becomes "the walls are closing in!"

The important thing is that Trump wanted to have the magnetometers taken down to allow for a larger crowd.

THAT'S the important thing? That Trump wanted something that didn't happen, and that he wanted to allow a larger crowd of his supporters? LOL.

The SS said that they could not do that because of weapons in the crowd.

The President doesn't work for the secret service. The secret service works for the President. He's allowed to tell them what to do. There are weapons in EVERY crowd of thousands of people.

There were weapons in the crowds of protesters in Wisconsin, remember? There were weapons in Portland and in Seattle, right? Every BLM and ANTIFA crowd in 2020 and 2021 had many weapons, yet the congregations were resoundingly encouraged by Democrats and the media - Leftist doctors even encouraged the protests (where everyone knew and could see there were some people there with weapons) in order to address the public health concern of racism.

Trump insisted they take them down saying" the weapons aren't to hurt me''...or words to that effect.

Yes, because the Secret SErvice's job is to protect the President. Their concern with Trump going there was with Trump's safety.

He then insisted angrily to be taken to the Capitol where a group was gathering illegally.

For the record, we don't know what he insisted. We know what Cassidy Hutchinson says someone else told her he insisted. And so what?

And, the gathering was not illegal. Gatherings are not illegal. They're ****ing protected by the Constitution - like the ones on the street about abortion, and like BLM protests and ANTIFA protests. The gatherings are legal.

A group he knew was potentially armed. When the SS refused and took him back to the WH he sat there for three hours angrily pouting and doing nothing, even when begged, to try and stop the mob.

All protests have people who are potentially armed.

He told everyone to stay peaceful. Literally. Multiple times.

That is what is important not his temper tantrum and that is what the right doesn't want to talk about.

The narrative is a lie. Trump at no time encouraged any violence, and he literally told people not to be violent.

In his speech that day he said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

That's what he said. He didn't tell them to do anything violent. The "narrative" painted by the Democrats and the January 6 committee is a political one designed to lie to the American people about what happened. That's why they focus on bullshit like grabbing steering wheels and assaults that did not happen. Because a President that told his Secret Service agents to take him somewhere and then got angry when they were insubordinate and didn't follow his instructions is not a scandal. That's why the Democrats and YOUR SIDE lies about what Trump said that day. They ignore that in his speech he said to peacefully and patriotically make voices heard, and they ignore his tweets that day saying the people should be peaceful. Instead, the January 6 committee and Democrats lie through their teeth and claim that what he was really doing was some sort of coded signal to engage in a revolution or coup.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

The lack of party leaders coming to Trump's defense reveals the hollowness of this claim.

The party leaders have always hated Trump. That's why there was a Never Trump movement among THE PARTY LEADERS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

What folks forget - as you do - is that Trump was a DEPARTURE from the Republican Party. The Republican Party was part of the problem. Trump didn't follow traditional Republican policies of the previous four decades. He departed from them. That's why half the Republican Party hated Trump. The reason Trump got elected was popular support among the common voter, not because of "Party Leaders." And, that, literally, is why there was a such a monumental effort to unseat him by the Democrats, of course (who would naturally oppose any Republican) AND the Republican Establishment. You had the Bush families, the McCain families, the Romneys of the world, and half the Republican party actually calling for Republicans to vote for the Democrat in 2016 and 2020.

The fact that there is a lack of support from party leaders is par for the course. They're the reason we are stuck with Biden now, and our country is going to hell in a handbasket --- it's the Democrat and Republican parties that are the problem! It's like people are blind and they can't see this. The Party machines have been doing teh wrong things for 50 years. They are the warmongers. They are the grifters. They are the dishonest politicians. They make Trump look like an amateur at the grift and graft. The Republicans and Democrats have unseated governments and used entire countries as money laundering operations. They do the bidding of the military industrial complex and the intelligence communities. And, they won't let an outsider do what Trump did in 2016 again. You can lay a bet on that.

 

[jpevans]

Right - the story recounted in that article is different. That article says the anonymous sources report that Trump "angrily" wanted to go to the capital. Completely different story. No lunge. No assault.

Anonymous "sources tell CNN that stories circulated...." LOL Come on, man....

"While the details from those who heard the accounts differ...."

Right - that's why you don't play Chinese Whispers with hearsay on a matter this serious. You bring in the people with firsthand knowledge. Right? Or no? You want to give the ****ing Republicans this kind of precedent when they retake the majority? Think about it.

"one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as "demanding" and that the former President said something similar to: "I'm the f**king President of the United States, you can't tell me what to do.""

Again - no assault, no grabbing the wheel - being ****ing "demanding" is not "problematic," and he was the ****ing President and they did work for him, not vice versa. So what the ****, man?

And CNN refers to "that kind of language..." - lol, as if Trump is the first "demanding" President who expected his underlings to do what they were told, and the first one to use the "f" word. LOL. Come on! Cut it out!

Here's a plan, forget about the stories she wasn't a witness to & concentrate on the rest of her testimony.
Then when the SS agents are prepared to testify under oath, we can talk about their testimony. I know they through 3rd parties claim to be willing to testify, but the Drumpf was willing to talk to Mueller & Ginni Thomas couldn't wait to clear her name under oath, until she was invited to testify. Righties willing to go under oath is always a wait & see proposition.

 

[jpevans]

I thought the topic was government corruption. The Biden family has a lot to do with that. Congress needs to take a deep dive.

If you tried I'd bet you could find a short thread on that subject.

 

[Callen]

The whole panel is discredited, time and time again, this is just one more instance. The panel is a political joke.

And, your side is willing - as you are now - to ignore the fact that the panel orchestrated this bullshit "bombshell" testimony in order to push a false narrative. You don't care, because you don't care if anything in particular is true. You know the "narrative" is true, facts be damned.

That's your side, not mine.

McConnell and McCarthy deliberately forced the creation of a panel they could discredit. Apparently their political strategy is working with the base. Out of curiosity how much of the actual hearings have you watched in your pursuit of the truth?

 

[jpevans]

It amazes me how folks in the cult, sorry those on the right, rush into threads and work so hard to derail them with whataboutisms. This is about Graham and Rudy and Georgia i thought.

Any bets both try to ignore the subpoenas?

Geez I forgot, I thought it was about Nice guys hangup with how angry the Drumpf got when told he couldn't do somthing, he wanted to do.
So these are not subpoenas of the ignorable (J6 committee) kind, these are the slap the handcuffs on 'em & drag their asses to the hearing kind.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

McConnell and McCarthy deliberately forced the creation of a panel they could discredit. Apparently their political strategy is working with the base. Out of curiosity how much of the actual hearings have you watched in your pursuit of the truth?

The panel is bullshit in the first place, because it's entire premise - that the jack-a-lopes of January 6 were staging a friggin' revolution -- is completedly fabricated and manufactured. It's just the next step in the unending process to (a) destroy Donald Trump so he cannot be reelected, and (b) to make sure every other would-be Donald Trump (non-club-member) doesn't try 2016 again. The nation is on notice of what happens to you if you are not accepted by the military industrial complex and the intelligence community. What happened the last 5 years should scare everyone, and not because Trump was scary - but because the Democrat and Republican party Establishments have shown themselves to be far scarier.

I've watched quite a bit of the hearings. How 'bout you? And, what "truth" do you think is the most damning? The steering wheel in the Beast incident has been shown to be bullshit, most likely, since the Committee still has not called or suggested they will call the actual witnesses to the alleged incident in question. So, what's another piece of evidence you find credible and persuasive and what do you think it proves? Shall we take them one by one? Or are you going to say that the individual things presented at the hearing aren't important, it's the overarching "narrative" that is important?

 

[Callen]

It was reported by the Democrat media as such, and the January 6 Commission thought it was

Her testimony in it's entirety not this single element.

THAT'S the important thing? That Trump wanted something that didn't happen, and that he wanted to allow a larger crowd of his supporters? LOL.

No, that he was wanted the magnetometers removed so more people would come into the Elipses. People the SS believed had weapons

The President doesn't work for the secret service. The secret service works for the President. He's allowed to tell them what to do. There are weapons in EVERY crowd of thousands of people.

That is not true. The SS work for the people. Their job is to protect him against all dangers. The SS are the ones who decide of safety measures for the President

And, the gathering was not illegal. Gatherings are not illegal. They're ****ing protected by the Constitution - like the ones on the street about abortion, and like BLM protests and ANTIFA protests. The gatherings are legal.

Wrong again. There has to be a permit. The organizers obtained one for the Ellipses but not the Capitol building.

The narrative is a lie. Trump at no time encouraged any violence, and he literally told people not to be violent.

He did nothing, nothing to stop them nothing even when begged to by his inner circle. It is clear that although. You say you want the truth you have done nothing to find the truth but rather have bought every bit of the RW media narrative hook line and sinker.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Why are we discussing the Jan 6 committee when this thread is about Georgia's investigation?

 

[Callen]

The panel is bullshit in the first place, because it's entire premise - that the jack-a-lopes of January 6 were staging a friggin' revolution -- is completedly fabricated and manufactured. It's just the next step in the unending process to (a) destroy Donald Trump so he cannot be reelected, and (b) to make sure every other would-be Donald Trump (non-club-member) doesn't try 2016 again. The nation is on notice of what happens to you if you are not accepted by the military industrial complex and the intelligence community. What happened the last 5 years should scare everyone, and not because Trump was scary - but because the Democrat and Republican party Establishments have shown themselves to be far scarier.

I've watched quite a bit of the hearings. How 'bout you? And, what "truth" do you think is the most damning? The steering wheel in the Beast incident has been shown to be bullshit, most likely, since the Committee still has not called or suggested they will call the actual witnesses to the alleged incident in question. So, what's another piece of evidence you find credible and persuasive and what do you think it proves? Shall we take them one by one? Or are you going to say that the individual things presented at the hearing aren't important, it's the overarching "narrative" that is important?

Guess you forgot the part about McConnell and McCarthy deliberately blocking the Independent Commission because they knew the testimony would be damning and could not be discredited so they forced a Select Committee and immediately set out to discredit them. It was a political strategy on their part.

I have watched all of the hearings and this incident in the SUV is without a doubt the least consequential. FYI the committee has been in touch with the SS and the two in the vehicle will testify under oath. Remember though Hutchinson never said it happened she said that Ornado told her it happened. Interestingly Ornado has not offered to testify under oath.

Define " quite a bit" and specifically which witnesses you have heard the actual testimony yourself. I am not interested in debating the evidence with someone who got their information third-hand.

 

[jpevans]

Why are we discussing the Jan 6 committee when this thread is about Georgia's investigation?

It's a tactical maneuver designed to change the subject to something the right can dispute.
Something that I told my wife, as we watched it, the right will grab on that as hearsay. I must be physic.

 

[element94]

One of the most predictable things in this world is that if you act on behalf of Trump, you're eventually going to need a lawyer, and maybe a pardon. You'd think people would wise up.

I believe they all thought the coup was going to be successful. Think about that!
Trump probably told all of them that if things didn't go their way he would just pardon them. But as we saw, once again, you have to be loyal to Trump but he doesn't have to be loyal to you.

 

[j brown's body]

I believe they all thought the coup was going to be successful. Think about that!
Trump probably told all of them that if things didn't go their way he would just pardon them. But as we saw, once again, you have to be loyal to Trump but he doesn't have to be loyal to you.

Yeah, the violence was a feature, not an aberration.