[W:5949][W:1030]***Official January 6 Public Hearings Thread***

[soap box]

A lot of the time you libs are just posting ridiculous stuff among yourselves, that is not worthy of a response, so don't sweat it.
You want a citation for my opinion? Wouldn't that just be someone else's opinion?

I noticed you didnt post any facts. at all.

 

[Anthony60]

I noticed you didnt post any facts. at all.

I noticed that you are stuck, like a scratched record.

 

[soap box]

I noticed that you are stuck, like a scratched record.

You still didn't post any facts.

 

[Credence]

Secret Service hands agents' phone numbers to Jan. 6 committee: Sources

The U.S. Secret Service has given the House Jan. 6 committee a listing of all personal cell phone numbers belonging to agents based in Washington, D.C., for the period the panel is investigating, according to sources familiar with the matter -- an unusual step amid heightened scrutiny of the agency's cooperation with the congressional panel investigating last year's insurrection and the role then-President Donald Trump played in it.

The committee can now determine which agents' call records they may want to review and, if they decide to do so, could either request records from the agents directly or conceivably issue subpoenas to their cell phone providers, an official familiar with the situation explained.

The Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the agency, have faced criticism in recent weeks for wiping text messages belonging to agents on and around Jan. 6, 2021. Congressional Democrats have accused the Homeland Security inspector general of abandoning efforts to collect text and phone records from that day.

Seeking and obtaining information from personal devices from federal workers is a "highly unusual" step by the committee, according to Don Mihalek, a retired senior Secret Service agent, and could reflect a renewed effort by the agency to further demonstrate its cooperation with congressional investigators.

Secret Service hands agents' phone numbers to Jan. 6 committee: Sources

The agency has given the committee a list of personal cell phone numbers belonging to agents based in D.C. for the period the panel is probing, sources familiar said.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Anthony60]

You still didn't post any facts.

I was right! Thanks.

 

[Credence]

 

[Credence]

Exclusive: Jan. 6 Committee Prepares to Subpoena Alex Jones' Texts, Emails

The January 6th House committee is preparing to request the trove of Alex Jones’s text messages and emails revealed Wednesday in a defamation lawsuit filed by victims of the Sandy Hook massacre, Rolling Stone has learned.

On Wednesday, Sandy Hook victims’ attorney Mark Bankston told Jones that his attorney had mistakenly sent Bankston three years worth of the conspiracy theorist’s emails and text messages copied from his phone.

Now — a source familiar with the matter and another person briefed on it tell Rolling Stone — the January 6th committee is preparing to request that data from the plaintiff attorneys in order to aid its investigation of the insurrection. These internal deliberations among the committee, which is probing former President Donald Trump’s role in causing the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot, began within minutes of the lawyer’s revelation being heard on the trial’s livestream on Wednesday afternoon.

Jones has already featured prominently in the panel’s investigation for his role in whipping up public support for the insurrection and for his close ties to alleged conspirator Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia. Jones frequently hosted Rhodes as a guest on his InfoWars channel and his militia provided security for the Texas-based conspiracist.

Exclusive: Jan. 6 Committee Prepares to Subpoena Alex Jones' Texts, Emails

The committee would like to know more about any contact between Alex Jones and Donald Trump's team ahead of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Anthony60]

Exclusive: Jan. 6 Committee Prepares to Subpoena Alex Jones' Texts, Emails

The January 6th House committee is preparing to request the trove of Alex Jones’s text messages and emails revealed Wednesday in a defamation lawsuit filed by victims of the Sandy Hook massacre, Rolling Stone has learned.

You are posting this to show how obsessed and out of control this political attack committee has gotten, obviously. What will their next target be? Or who? You better watch out, if you have been speaking in ways they don't like, you might be on the list. They will destroy your lives.

 

[Threegoofs]

You are posting this to show how obsessed and out of control this political attack committee has gotten, obviously. What will their next target be? Or who? You better watch out, if you have been speaking in ways they don't like, you might be on the list. They will destroy your lives.

LOL.the guy took the 5th a hundred times to avoid implicating himself. Now they can see why he was doing that.

I think the obsessed and out of control one is the desperate defender here - you - who only has whining as an argument.

 

[Galactic Spin]

What number of videos, audios, texts, and emails that they've paraded around means that someone is guilty of something?

A pretty stupid question. It's not the number of videos, it's the content. Obviously. Time wasting red herring. And, apparently, the best you could come up with.

Show us one piece of direct evidence that indicates Trump is guilty of a crime.

His inaction for 3 hours is definitive evidence of a high crime by Trump. He violated his oath and was derelict.

So none of the videos, audio, texts, emails,or testimony under oath are fake. I.E., the entire content of the hearings.

But the hearings are a farce.

Okay.

 

[TomFitz]

You are posting this to show how obsessed and out of control this political attack committee has gotten, obviously. What will their next target be? Or who? You better watch out, if you have been speaking in ways they don't like, you might be on the list. They will destroy your lives.

Empty mindless blather.

 

[LostInSeattle]

You are posting this to show how obsessed and out of control this political attack committee has gotten, obviously. What will their next target be? Or who? You better watch out, if you have been speaking in ways they don't like, you might be on the list. They will destroy your lives.

@Anthony60. You have cast aspersions and vitriol on the Committee and its work since you entered this thread way back. But your criticisms have touched on nothing more than process - that the members are mostly democrats. You have never discussed any of the actual information they have presented, in context; in fact, I believe you've said that you haven't watched the proceedings at all. So either, you really don't know anything that they're doing or you're relying on clips and summaries from some news source. I'm sorry, but the Cliff's Notes version is not the same.

Why do you spend so much time trying to debunk something that you're actually not that familiar with in the first place? Wouldn't that energy be more productively invested first in actually familiarizing yourself with the testimony and the overall narrative? Then if you have substantive criticism you could present a persuasive argument to the people on this thread and perhaps change some minds. Instead, you snipe from the sidelines with distractions like the Patel article. No one is going to take you seriously, because you just don't know what you're talking about. You're like a guy pontificating on baseball who's never actually been to a game.

To understand what you think is true, and why, it's always good to question one's assumptions. I have tried to do this during the proceedings. For me, the narrative the committee has constructed has very closely followed what I already understood to have happened. Early in this thread I referenced an Axios podcast, made in Feb-Apr 2021, that laid out many of the same events. The committee's work has filled in a lot of details, but the timelines and motivations are the same.

Therefore, I have had to consciously take note that I am receptive to the committee's findings because they corroborate a narrative that I already thought to be correct. But I have yet to find any witness to be uncredible. Pretty much everyone political is a Republican. Their respective testimonies haven't contradicted each other; everyone seems more or less to be on the page. The closest anyone has come was Cipollone not confirming some of the things that Hutchinson said; but even then, he did not directly contradict them. More telling is that key actors - Trump, Meadows, Giuliani, Flynn, Eastman, Navarro, Scavino, Bannon - have either refused to testify or have pleaded the fifth. Pence did not testify but he allowed his counsel to, which is good enough.

You apparently decided going in that you know the truth and that nothing would sway your opinion, and that therefore you didn't need to actually watch the hearings. Have you found yourself infallible in the past? I certainly haven't. The only way to know whether one's preconceptions are correct is to gather information and challenge them. Otherwise, you're just living in a closed mind, and a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[CaughtInThe]

They attempted a coup and now we find out that Trump wanted our military guys to act like a Nazi generals.

I said this years ago on another board and I continue to say it today. The Republican party will go much, much, much lower.

 

[TomFitz]

I noticed you didnt post any facts. at all.

He never does.

But he always claims he does.

 

[Anthony60]

A pretty stupid question. It's not the number of videos, it's the content. Obviously. Time wasting red herring. And, apparently, the best you could come up with.


His inaction for 3 hours is definitive evidence of a high crime by Trump. He violated his oath and was derelict.

So none of the videos, audio, texts, emails,or testimony under oath are fake. I.E., the entire content of the hearings.

But the hearings are a farce.

Okay.

So, you've got nothing, as I thought.
Is it dereliction of duty to open the boarder and allow drugs, such as fentanyl, to come in and kill our people? I think it's been more than 3 hours.

 

[Anthony60]

@Anthony60. You have cast aspersions and vitriol on the Committee and its work since you entered this thread way back.

Oh, it's been longer than that. Ever since they went corrupt and became a one sided posse trying to get Trump. There has not been a moment yet where they have proven me wrong.

I believe you've said that you haven't watched the proceedings at all.

Never said that, and it isn't true.

Why do you spend so much time trying to debunk something that you're actually not that familiar with in the first place?

Don't worry, I'm a quick study.

Wouldn't that energy be more productively invested first in actually familiarizing yourself with the testimony and the overall narrative? Then if you have substantive criticism you could present a persuasive argument to the people on this thread and perhaps change some minds. Instead, you snipe from the sidelines with distractions like the Patel article. No one is going to take you seriously, because you just don't know what you're talking about. You're like a guy pontificating on baseball who's never actually been to a game.

To understand what you think is true, and why, it's always good to question one's assumptions. I have tried to do this during the proceedings. For me, the narrative the committee has constructed has very closely followed what I already understood to have happened. Early in this thread I referenced an Axios podcast, made in Feb-Apr 2021, that laid out many of the same events. The committee's work has filled in a lot of details, but the timelines and motivations are the same.

Therefore, I have had to consciously take note that I am receptive to the committee's findings because they corroborate a narrative that I already thought to be correct. But I have yet to find any witness to be uncredible. Pretty much everyone political is a Republican. Their respective testimonies haven't contradicted each other; everyone seems more or less to be on the page. The closest anyone has come was Cipollone not confirming some of the things that Hutchinson said; but even then, he did not directly contradict them. More telling is that key actors - Trump, Meadows, Giuliani, Flynn, Eastman, Navarro, Scavino, Bannon - have either refused to testify or have pleaded the fifth. Pence did not testify but he allowed his counsel to, which is good enough.

You apparently decided going in that you know the truth and that nothing would sway your opinion, and that therefore you didn't need to actually watch the hearings. Have you found yourself infallible in the past? I certainly haven't. The only way to know whether one's preconceptions are correct is to gather information and challenge them. Otherwise, you're just living in a closed mind, and a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

See, you do this thinking that they are honest, even though they proved that they wouldn't be right off the bat. Having a committee full of Trump haters, and you didn't see a problem with that? They release only information that fits their agenda. People testifying for 8 hours, and they show you 30 seconds? Hello? But, no problem, right?

 

[LostInSeattle]

Never said that, and it isn't true.

Ok my mistake. So you have watched the hearings? How much?

See, you do this thinking that they are honest, even though they proved that they wouldn't be right off the bat. Having a committee full of Trump haters, and you didn't see a problem with that?

If by "honesty", you mean "in good faith", I can answer. This point has been addressed ad nauseam, but I'll recap. The House, including 35 Republican representatives, wanted an independent, bi-partisan commission to investigate Jan 6th. Republican senators killed that idea. They did this to lessen the perceived integrity and credibility of any eventual investigation, precisely so that it would be easier for some people - like yourself - to impugn the process. Congratulations on rewarding their obstruction.
Good faith score: Dems 1, GOP 0.

Senate Republicans Block A Plan For An Independent Commission On Jan. 6 Capitol Riot

The bipartisan measure, approved by the House, failed to win enough votes to overcome a GOP filibuster. The plan called for an independent body styled on the one that investigated the 9/11 attacks.

www.npr.org

Then Pelosi said, ok, let's create a House Select Committee to investigate, the members of whom are initially nominated by their respective party leadership. McCarthy proposed:

• Indiana Rep. Jim Banks
• Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis
• Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan
• Rep. Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota
• Texas Rep. Troy Nehls

Banks, Jordan and Nehls all voted not to certify the election results. They are uncritical and unabashed Trump supporters. Jordan, in particular, is one of the people under investigation for Jan 6th. This is where it really went off the rails. You can't put people on a committee who are being investigated, or who likely complicit in the actions being investigated and are almost certain to disrupt the proceedings through grandstanding and irrelevant questioning (think Lindsay Graham in the Kavanaugh hearings). McCarthy knew that and knew that Pelosi would have to reject his nominees or weaken the ability of the committee to investigate. So once again the GOP engaged in obstruction. Despite that, the Committee was still able to get the third ranking GOP House member in Cheney, so making the best of a bad situation.
Good faith score: Dems 2, GOP 0.

They release only information that fits their agenda. People testifying for 8 hours, and they show you 30 seconds? Hello? But, no problem, right?

First off, you don't know that to be true. You are just assuming, unless you have access to unreleased testimony. Second, it's my understanding that all the testimony will be included in the final report, so nothing will be hidden from public view.

As for appointing people who dislike Trump, what's the problem? The FBI doesn't like criminals; that doesn't make them unsuited to investigating criminal activity. Given that Trump supporters tend to be uncritical of everything he does, do you believe that if they led an investigation they would dig deep, ask hard questions, really search for the truth? Do you?

In any case, you are still critisizing process not content. I don't have anything more on the process question. Do you have any substantive criticism of the content of the hearings? I keep asking that question and not getting an answer.

 

[Galactic Spin]

So, you've got nothing, as I thought.

Except for the direct, substantive answer to your question that you just quoted in your post.

That you ignored in favor of pathetic whataboutism.

Very childish of you. Noted.

 

[Credence]

Alex Jones' texts have been turned over to the January 6 committee, source says

(CNN)Approximately two years' worth of text messages sent and received by right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones have been turned over to the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, a person familiar with the matter told CNN on Monday.

The messages were handed over to the committee by Mark Bankston, the attorney who represented two Sandy Hook parents who successfully sued Jones in Texas and won nearly $50 million in a civil trial that concluded last week.

Bankston would only tell CNN that he is "cooperating with the committee." The select committee declined to comment.

During the trial, Bankston revealed that one of Jones' lawyers had "messed up" and inadvertently sent him the two years of text messages. Bankston also said during the trial that the January 6 committee had expressed interest in the material.

Jones' attorney Federico Andino Reynal asked the judge in the case to order Bankston to destroy the material and not transmit it to the House committee, but the judge declined.
"I'm not standing between you and Congress," Judge Maya Guerra Gamble told Bankston when asked about sending Jones' texts to the committee. "That is not my job. I'm not going to do that."

The source wouldn't provide details of the exact timeframe of when Jones sent and received the texts in question.

Jones was a central player on January 6. He was on restricted US Capitol grounds that day, riling up protesters, though he did not enter the building itself. He has rejected any suggestion that he was involved in the planning of violence, and claims he tried to prevent people at the Capitol from breaking the law.

Jones testified before the January 6 committee earlier this year, but he later said on his show that he repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during the closed-door deposition.

First on CNN: Alex Jones' texts have been turned over to the January 6 committee, source says | CNN Politics

Approximately two years' worth of text messages sent and received by Jones have been turned over to the House panel investigating the January 6 insurrection

www.cnn.com

 

[LostInSeattle]

So, you've got nothing, as I thought.
Is it dereliction of duty to open the boarder and allow drugs, such as fentanyl, to come in and kill our people? I think it's been more than 3 hours.

Where's the equivalency? If it were possible to stop the flow of drugs with a simple phone call, then yes that would be dereliction of duty.

Are you arguing that Trump's refusal to send in the NG, despite pleas from those around him, was the right call?

 

[Anthony60]

Ok my mistake. So you have watched the hearings? How much?

If by "honesty", you mean "in good faith", I can answer.

Wow, you could not be more brain washed. There is no way that Pelosi should have pulled that stunt. But, she knew exactly what she was doing. She didn't want a committee that would even think about asking questions about her. Solution? Let Nancy pick everyone! And, of course, they have been very obedient The Democrats wouldn't know good faith if it hit them in the face.

Kind of funny that you think Jordan and Banks can't be on the committee, but you are okay with a filthy liar like Schiff, and a committee of 100% biased Trump haters. The worst option possible for this committee. They've completely lived up to their Trump hating backgrounds. There is no way they can whitewash history on this and make the committee look like anything but a corrupt political attack.

 

[Anthony60]

Except for the direct, substantive answer to your question that you just quoted in your post.

That you ignored in favor of pathetic whataboutism.

Very childish of you. Noted.

Your ignorance of the fact that there is not a single piece of direct evidence that Trump committed a crime is noted. You did not supply any.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Your ignorance of the fact that there is not a single piece of direct evidence that Trump committed a crime is noted.

That's two lies in one. Long way to go to impress the orange pile...

And I directly answered your question with the high crime and the definitive evidence of it. Then you ignored my answer. Very rude and childish.

 

[Anthony60]

Where's the equivalency? If it were possible to stop the flow of drugs with a simple phone call, then yes that would be dereliction of duty.

Are you arguing that Trump's refusal to send in the NG, despite pleas from those around him, was the right call?

Biden is willfully ignoring our immigration laws and knows it is getting people killed. So, when are the impeachment hearings starting?

 

[LostInSeattle]

Wow, you could not be more brain washed.

Stuff your personal insults and behave like an adult.

There is no way that Pelosi should have pulled that stunt. But, she knew exactly what she was doing. She didn't want a committee that would even think about asking questions about her. Solution? Let Nancy pick everyone! And, of course, they have been very obedient The Democrats wouldn't know good faith if it hit them in the face.

Your opinion does not rebut any of the facts I laid out. The GOP Senate torpedoed an independent, bipartisan commission.

Kind of funny that you think Jordan and Banks can't be on the committee,

Please explain how it would work to have people being investigated on the investigating committee.

And still, you have not answered a single question regarding substantive, rather than procedural, criticism.