What does the Jan 6th Committee Seem To Know?

[soap box]

If that's the case, then why did they call in Patel? They obviously don't need his testimony. Why did they waste five hours of their...and his...time?


Patel didn't say anything about what other witnesses said. He talked about his own experience. He also didn't say anything about "what the committee already knows or doesn't know".

Seriously...where are you getting this stuff? Are you just making it up as you go along?

I'm wondering how we can trust Patel to portray his testimony truthfully.

They may have wanted his testimony to either confirm or deny what others have testified to. It wouldn't be necessary to discuss others' testimony, they may want to know if Patel has the same understanding of what others have said, without informing him about what has already been said. I wouldn't consider it a waste of time.

We are left simply trusting Patel that he portrayed his time with the committee accurately.

Is it possible that he wanted to send a message to the public that he was not divulging anything negative about trump?

 

[Mycroft]

They may have wanted his testimony to either confirm or deny what others have testified to. It wouldn't be necessary to discuss others' testimony, they may want to know if Patel has the same understanding of what others have said, without informing him about what has already been said. I wouldn't consider it a waste of time.

They spent about five minutes talking to him about 1/6. That's hardly enough time to confirm or deny what others said.

Then they spent the rest of the five hours talking about stuff that doesn't have to do with 1/6...in fact, doesn't have to do with Trump.

A colossal waste of everyone's time.

 

[The AntiDonald]

They spent about five minutes talking to him about 1/6. That's hardly enough time to confirm or deny what others said.

Then they spent the rest of the five hours talking about stuff that doesn't have to do with 1/6...in fact, doesn't have to do with Trump.

A colossal waste of everyone's time.

How do you know he didn't get full immunity from future prosecutions? You don't. You only know what he told a right-wing rag outlet. It could be that you're correct. It could also be that he broke the case wide open for the committee and will be testifying in public at a later date.

Considering the company that Trump has kept over the last 5 years, every single one of them have been caught in lies, charged, convicted, pardoned, had their law licenses suspended, etc. A real cast of honest characters. Add to that the 30,000 plus lies told by the Orange Moron himself and you ain't got much to brag about.

YOU ARE DISMISSED.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

There's no such thing as alternative facts. There are only facts and falsehoods.

Tell that to Kellyanne.

Now...you tell me whether the statements made by Patel are facts or falsehoods...and be sure to present the justification for your answer.

Without having a transcript of Patel’s meeting with the January 6 commission, it’s impossible to know if Patel lied or not.

How about you tell me why you believe Patel told the truth...and be sure to present the justification for your answer.

You should be aware that Patel is no stranger to controversy/scrutiny by federal agencies, and is currently being investigated by the DOJ.

“The Department of Justice is investigating whether Kashyap “Kash” Patel, a former high-ranking national security official in the Trump administration, improperly disclosed classified information in attempt to reveal that former President Donald Trump was being targeted by the alleged “deep state” within the federal government.

“The sources said the investigation resulted from a complaint made this year by an intelligence agency, but wouldn’t provide additional details,” Ignatius wrote, adding that Patel “repeatedly pressed intelligence agencies to release secrets that, in his view, showed that the president was being persecuted unfairly by critics.”

Patel was lionized by conservatives for authoring the infamous 2018 “Nunes Memo,” which alleged that the FBI intentionally misled a FISA court judge regarding the origins of the “Steele Dossier” in an effort to unlawfully surveil the Trump campaign and help Hillary Clinton win the 2016 presidential election.

The memo was roundly mocked by legal professionals and law enforcement officers. Even Trump’s hand-picked FBI director Christopher Wray issued a statement saying the bureau had “grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.” Some of the allegations regarding the FBI’s abuse of the FISA system were later proven true, but an exhaustive investigation by the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General concluded that the abuses were widespread throughout the Bureau and not motivated by any political bias.”

DOJ Investigating Whether Former National Security Official and Trump Loyalist Disclosed Classified Information: Report

The DOJ is reportedly investigating whether Kash Patel improperly disclosed classified information in attempt to prove that Donald Trump was being targeted by the alleged “deep state.”

lawandcrime.com

In any event, one fact remains: That news site honestly presents news of events that the mainstream media refuses to present.

Not remotely true.

 

[Mycroft]

How do you know he didn't get full immunity from future prosecutions? You don't. You only know what he told a right-wing rag outlet. It could be that you're correct. It could also be that he broke the case wide open for the committee and will be testifying in public at a later date.

And this is why we need these hearings to be fully transparent.

They should release a transcript, at the very least, of Patel's testimony...as he asks.

Then there would be no question.

btw, the House doesn't have the power to grant "full immunity from future prosecutions".

I really wish y'all would just stop making shit up. You make yourself look foolish.

 

[soap box]

They spent about five minutes talking to him about 1/6. That's hardly enough time to confirm or deny what others said.

Then they spent the rest of the five hours talking about stuff that doesn't have to do with 1/6...in fact, doesn't have to do with Trump.

A colossal waste of everyone's time.

You might be right about what he stated. But can we trust Patel ?

I can't rule out the possibility that he has alterior motives in what he stated.

I'm saying that even if other news sources interview him, it would still be his version of events , and that still leaves us guessing, but without facts.

Maybe it's true what he told the source, but maybe it's not.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I really wish y'all would just stop making shit up. You make yourself look foolish.

Says the Big Lie believer.

 

[less right]

They spent about five minutes talking to him about 1/6. That's hardly enough time to confirm or deny what others said.

Then they spent the rest of the five hours talking about stuff that doesn't have to do with 1/6...in fact, doesn't have to do with Trump.

A colossal waste of everyone's time.

They spent a couple of minutes talking about the timeline.

They spent more time talking about Afghanistan and less time talking about Jan 6 doesn't suggest a duration.

You conflate and nudge facts enough times and pretty soon the picture you've painted is not at all accurate.

 

[Mycroft]

They spent a couple of minutes talking about the timeline.

They spent more time talking about Afghanistan and less time talking about Jan 6 doesn't suggest a duration.

You conflate and nudge facts enough times and pretty soon the picture you've painted is not at all accurate.

I'm not painting any kind of picture. I'm simply stating facts.

 

[soap box]

I'm not painting any kind of picture. I'm simply stating facts.

But if the only version of the questions and answers that took place during his testimony is from Patel himself , how can we verify that his version is factual?

It may be some time before the transcripts are released. In the meantime, how can we be certain that his public version is accurate?

 

[less right]

I'm not painting any kind of picture. I'm simply stating facts.

You're not, you're conflating them. He spoke a couple of minutes about the timeline is what was reported. You turn that into a new fact that he talked a couple a minutes about Jan 6.

From that you try to paint the picture that there wasn't enough time to "confirm or deny" but that's not accurate because your facts aren't facts

 

[Mycroft]

But if the only version of the questions and answers that took place during his testimony is from Patel himself , how can we verify that his version is factual?

It may be some time before the transcripts are released. In the meantime, how can we be certain that his public version is accurate?

His transcript won't ever be released. Most of it is irrelevant to the purpose of the 1/6 committee and the rest doesn't support their desired narrative.

 

[soap box]

His transcript won't ever be released. Most of it is irrelevant to the purpose of the 1/6 committee and the rest doesn't support their desired narrative.

Your post brings up an interesting question- is the select committee obligated to release transcripts of witness testimony?

To be honest, I'm not sure, but I found this :

"In fact, the transcription of congressional committee hearings was not required until the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act in 1946."

Research Guides: Compiling a Federal Legislative History: A Beginner’s Guide: Unpublished Congressional Hearings

A comprehensive research guide on finding federal legislative history documents, including congressional committee reports and hearings, presidential signing statements, and the debates of Congress.

guides.loc.gov

Still, I think it's speculation to say that his testimony is irrelevant , simply because I don't know what really happened at the hearing or exactly what he testified about.

There might be a simple answer: You can trust Patel and I don't. If that's the case, I'm fine with that.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

"In fact, the transcription of congressional committee hearings was not required until the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act in 1946."

Research Guides: Compiling a Federal Legislative History: A Beginner’s Guide: Unpublished Congressional Hearings

A comprehensive research guide on finding federal legislative history documents, including congressional committee reports and hearings, presidential signing statements, and the debates of Congress.

guides.loc.gov

Thank you for providing this. I spent a little time googling around to see if all the transcripts will become available and found nothing. Looks like you did a better job. Kudos to you!

 

[Sandy Shanks]

This is the epitome of Trump's desperation involving the investigation being conducted by the Jan. 6 Select Committee.

Trump is saying the Supreme Court should not allow his White House documents to be given to the committee because it might lead to his criminal prosecution.

Yes, you heard that right.

"The Committee cannot make a mockery of Congress's constitutional mandate that its requests and investigation be supported by a 'valid legislative purpose,'" Trump's lawyers wrote. "It cannot embark on what is essentially a law enforcement investigation with the excuse that it might legislate based on information it turns up in the course of the exploration."

"When the case was before the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals, Trump raised similar comments from the committee members about the possibility their investigation would expose wrongdoing by Trump, CNN reports.

"The mere prospect that misconduct might be exposed does not make the Committee's request prosecutorial," the appeals court said earlier this month, rejecting the former President.

Surreal!

 

[poweRob]

Analysis: January 6 committee projects confidence. What does it know?

While Trump true-believers like former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows are loudly not cooperating with the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, a flurry of activity behind the scenes suggests progress for the inquiry.

www.cnn.com

Well we may find out because the 1/6 hearings are about to start being public hearins.