He Hate Me said:

---

Here is one discussion between a President and his advisor in more sane times.

In one segment of about 500 hours of discussions released by the National Archives, Nixon is heard discussing an extension of bombing raids over North Vietnam with Henry Kissinger, the national security adviser. Then, rather abruptly, he says: "I'd rather use the nuclear bomb." Whether Nixon was serious or trying to provoke Mr Kissinger is not clear. In his baritone voice, his adviser replies: "That, I think, would just be too much." But Nixon then goes on: "The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you? I just want you to think big."

The fact that unorthodox or even illegal ideas are discussed is not unlawful. And the Executive Branch should retain privilege to have these discussions.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Actually there is a lot of evidence. It is not just testimony by a single White house aide. There is testimony by the previous Attorney General (Bill Barr), the Acting at the time Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the White House Counsel, and numerous others that corroborates each others story. There is also a tweet from Trump himself on Dec 18, 2020 asking other to come protest on Jan 6th. Stating it will be wild.

Have you listened to these testimonies?

---

Yes I have. Evidence to what? He was pissed? Yeah , he lost and thought he was cheated. Guilty. He wanted to demonstrate and piss off Comgress? Yeah, guilty. He is an asshlle that can be childish? Yeah.

He is guilty of planning a coup of the US Government? No.

---

Guy Noir said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Actually there is a lot of evidence. It is not just testimony by a single White house aide. There is testimony by the previous Attorney General (Bill Barr), the Acting at the time Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the White House Counsel, and numerous others that corroborates each others story. There is also a tweet from Trump himself on Dec 18, 2020 asking other to come protest on Jan 6th. Stating it will be wild.

Have you listened to these testimonies?

---

Yes I have. Evidence to what? He was pissed? Yeah , he lost and thought he was cheated. Guilty. He wanted to demonstrate and piss off Comgress? Yeah, guilty. He is an asshlle that can be childish? Yeah.

He is guilty of planning a coup of the US Government? No.

---

Um, what about asking the Vice President to nullify the vote record? Encouraging Jan 6 demonstrators to protest at the Capitol at that time. He stirred up the protestors, who just so happened to storm the building.

There is much evidence. I understand there is not absolute proof, but there is evidence.

My wife was making chicken and dumplings. She cooked 4 chicken breast and left them to cool on the counter. Two of the chicken breast disappeared. My daughter's dog was the only animal in the house that could have reached those chicken breast. We did not have absolute proof about what happened to the 2 lost chicken breast but we had a pretty good idea about where they went.

---

Guy Noir said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Actually there is a lot of evidence. It is not just testimony by a single White house aide. There is testimony by the previous Attorney General (Bill Barr), the Acting at the time Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the White House Counsel, and numerous others that corroborates each others story. There is also a tweet from Trump himself on Dec 18, 2020 asking other to come protest on Jan 6th. Stating it will be wild.

Have you listened to these testimonies?

---

Yes I have. Evidence to what? He was pissed? Yeah , he lost and thought he was cheated. Guilty. He wanted to demonstrate and piss off Comgress? Yeah, guilty. He is an asshlle that can be childish? Yeah.

He is guilty of planning a coup of the US Government? No.

---

Um, what about asking the Vice President to nullify the vote record? Encouraging Jan 6 demonstrators to protest at the Capitol at that time. He stirred up the protestors, who just so happened to storm the building.

There is much evidence. I understand there is not absolute proof, but there is evidence.

My wife was making chicken and dumplings. She cooked 4 chicken breast and left them to cool on the counter. Two of the chicken breast disappeared. My daughter's dog was the only animal in the house that could have reached those chicken breast. We did not have absolute proof about what happened to the 2 lost chicken breast but we had a pretty good idea about where they went.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Today, July 12, 2022 was another public hearing.
The focus was on the deposition of Whitehouse Council Pat Cipione, a Dec 16 tweet, and plans to overturn the election on Jan 6th.

---

Cipollone backed Cassidy Hutchinson's account of the Jan 6 events

---

Can you provide a link? I can't find his testimony. I have seen reports he didn't contradict, confirmed some points and took Executive Privilege. I am.lookinh for the questions on confirming what she said? Thanks

---

Sorry
https://www.newsweek.com/cipollone-corroborated-key-elements-hutchinsons-1-6-testimony-mulvey-1723225

---

What was corroborated? It didn't say?

---

The best I could deciper, is that he evoked executive priviledge on many of the questions where it was possible he could have disputed Hutchinson's account. So this is accounted as corroboration. Since it wasn't contradiction. I could be wrong here, as the article wasn't very clear and a bit contrived.

The reality is we had a weasly politico who didn't want to answer any questions, so he evoked executive priviledge on the most important stuff. I could tell by the commentary below the article most people didn't actually read the article. Or read it with far left progressive lenses. Since they were crowing that it's all over now. Again and again. This part of the questioning basically gave us nothing. They need to move on to actual eye witnesses of the encounter that happened. Not hersay evidence.

We need testimony from the SS guys and the driver of the car to ever know what the truth was. Since they were actually there.

---

Weasly because the former White House Counsel did not divulge what he and the President talked about? You expected him to tell the world the legal advice he gave the President, his client? Are you nuts? He runs the risk of disbarment and criminal prosecution. He can't tell the that information, no President would ever be safe, including Democrats, from fully discussing. It is his job to tell him if something is illegal, which based on what actually happened Trump listened.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Today, July 12, 2022 was another public hearing.
The focus was on the deposition of Whitehouse Council Pat Cipione, a Dec 16 tweet, and plans to overturn the election on Jan 6th.

---

Cipollone backed Cassidy Hutchinson's account of the Jan 6 events

---

Can you provide a link? I can't find his testimony. I have seen reports he didn't contradict, confirmed some points and took Executive Privilege. I am.lookinh for the questions on confirming what she said? Thanks

---

Sorry
https://www.newsweek.com/cipollone-corroborated-key-elements-hutchinsons-1-6-testimony-mulvey-1723225

---

What was corroborated? It didn't say?

---

The best I could deciper, is that he evoked executive priviledge on many of the questions where it was possible he could have disputed Hutchinson's account. So this is accounted as corroboration. Since it wasn't contradiction. I could be wrong here, as the article wasn't very clear and a bit contrived.

The reality is we had a weasly politico who didn't want to answer any questions, so he evoked executive priviledge on the most important stuff. I could tell by the commentary below the article most people didn't actually read the article. Or read it with far left progressive lenses. Since they were crowing that it's all over now. Again and again. This part of the questioning basically gave us nothing. They need to move on to actual eye witnesses of the encounter that happened. Not hersay evidence.

We need testimony from the SS guys and the driver of the car to ever know what the truth was. Since they were actually there.

---

Weasly because the former White House Counsel did not divulge what he and the President talked about? You expected him to tell the world the legal advice he gave the President, his client? Are you nuts? He runs the risk of disbarment and criminal prosecution. He can't tell the that information, no President would ever be safe, including Democrats, from fully discussing. It is his job to tell him if something is illegal, which based on what actually happened Trump listened.

---

I think this is a good point. I think attorney client privilege should apply, even to POTUS or former POTUS.
As I understand it, the privilege belongs to the office and cannot be invoked by a former POTUS. I think that is dangerous. I think Biden waived the privilege for Trump

---

LateSteak69 said:

---

And not one person has stepped up and said Trumps did nothing wrong, no one has stepped up and said ANY of the committee findings have been wrong.

---

LateSteak69 said:

---

And not one person has stepped up and said Trumps did nothing wrong, no one has stepped up and said ANY of the committee findings have been wrong.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

LateSteak69 said:

---

And not one person has stepped up and said Trumps did nothing wrong, no one has stepped up and said ANY of the committee findings have been wrong.

---

Nothing wrong?

To the point to be banned by Congressional action for holding elected office? To that point? With no direct proof? Is acting like a child or juvenile worthy of being banned? If so, we can really start looking at that?

Clinton - Not being able to keep his dick in his pants with WH interns. Is that juvenile enough to warrant this type of action, even after an impeachment where he was just censured?

Obama - Holding his breath on Garland and not finding a moderate to substitute? Losing a SCOTUS slot over not getting "his" guy childish enough?

Should Hillary be banned? - She broke security rules? Is that enough.

Let's go! If this is the new standard of banning with not enough evidence for court case, there is a treasure drove of candidates

---

LateSteak69 said:

---

And not one person has stepped up and said Trumps did nothing wrong, no one has stepped up and said ANY of the committee findings have been wrong.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Today, July 12, 2022 was another public hearing.
The focus was on the deposition of Whitehouse Council Pat Cipione, a Dec 16 tweet, and plans to overturn the election on Jan 6th.

---

Cipollone backed Cassidy Hutchinson's account of the Jan 6 events

---

Can you provide a link? I can't find his testimony. I have seen reports he didn't contradict, confirmed some points and took Executive Privilege. I am.lookinh for the questions on confirming what she said? Thanks

---

Sorry
https://www.newsweek.com/cipollone-corroborated-key-elements-hutchinsons-1-6-testimony-mulvey-1723225

---

What was corroborated? It didn't say?

---

The best I could deciper, is that he evoked executive priviledge on many of the questions where it was possible he could have disputed Hutchinson's account. So this is accounted as corroboration. Since it wasn't contradiction. I could be wrong here, as the article wasn't very clear and a bit contrived.

The reality is we had a weasly politico who didn't want to answer any questions, so he evoked executive priviledge on the most important stuff. I could tell by the commentary below the article most people didn't actually read the article. Or read it with far left progressive lenses. Since they were crowing that it's all over now. Again and again. This part of the questioning basically gave us nothing. They need to move on to actual eye witnesses of the encounter that happened. Not hersay evidence.

We need testimony from the SS guys and the driver of the car to ever know what the truth was. Since they were actually there.

---

Weasly because the former White House Counsel did not divulge what he and the President talked about? You expected him to tell the world the legal advice he gave the President, his client? Are you nuts? He runs the risk of disbarment and criminal prosecution. He can't tell the that information, no President would ever be safe, including Democrats, from fully discussing. It is his job to tell him if something is illegal, which based on what actually happened Trump listened.

---

I think this is a good point. I think attorney client privilege should apply, even to POTUS or former POTUS.
As I understand it, the privilege belongs to the office and cannot be invoked by a former POTUS. I think that is dangerous. I think Biden waived the privilege for Trump

---

I agree 100%. WH Counsel is for the President the Office, not the person. That is why I was so skeptical that he would call on Hutchinson to "save Democracy". If the Office of the President was going to be tainted or put in an illegal situation I would think Secret Service, US Marshalls would be called to make sure he did not go there, not an Assistant that cleaned up thrown lunch. For the severity of the implication, it seemed to not fit.

I think this is where the problem arose, Donald Trump's personal Attorney crossed into Policy and was telling him the VP can do that in contrast to WH General Counsel. That is a big NO-NO. Now, if they investigated that, I would be on board. That has real potential for problems. Luckily, Pence and Company followed Cippolone and saved Trump from Trump.

---

Guy Noir said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Actually there is a lot of evidence. It is not just testimony by a single White house aide. There is testimony by the previous Attorney General (Bill Barr), the Acting at the time Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the White House Counsel, and numerous others that corroborates each others story. There is also a tweet from Trump himself on Dec 18, 2020 asking other to come protest on Jan 6th. Stating it will be wild.

Have you listened to these testimonies?

---

Yes I have. Evidence to what? He was pissed? Yeah , he lost and thought he was cheated. Guilty. He wanted to demonstrate and piss off Comgress? Yeah, guilty. He is an asshlle that can be childish? Yeah.

He is guilty of planning a coup of the US Government? No.

---

Um, what about asking the Vice President to nullify the vote record? Encouraging Jan 6 demonstrators to protest at the Capitol at that time. He stirred up the protestors, who just so happened to storm the building.

There is much evidence. I understand there is not absolute proof, but there is evidence.

My wife was making chicken and dumplings. She cooked 4 chicken breast and left them to cool on the counter. Two of the chicken breast disappeared. My daughter's dog was the only animal in the house that could have reached those chicken breast. We did not have absolute proof about what happened to the 2 lost chicken breast but we had a pretty good idea about where they went.

---

whiterock said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"

The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.

For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html

---

Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.

---

A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.

Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html

---

almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.

We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.

You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.

One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Actually there is a lot of evidence. It is not just testimony by a single White house aide. There is testimony by the previous Attorney General (Bill Barr), the Acting at the time Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the White House Counsel, and numerous others that corroborates each others story. There is also a tweet from Trump himself on Dec 18, 2020 asking other to come protest on Jan 6th. Stating it will be wild.

Have you listened to these testimonies?

---

Yes I have. Evidence to what? He was pissed? Yeah , he lost and thought he was cheated. Guilty. He wanted to demonstrate and piss off Comgress? Yeah, guilty. He is an asshlle that can be childish? Yeah.

He is guilty of planning a coup of the US Government? No.

---

Um, what about asking the Vice President to nullify the vote record? Encouraging Jan 6 demonstrators to protest at the Capitol at that time. He stirred up the protestors, who just so happened to storm the building.

There is much evidence. I understand there is not absolute proof, but there is evidence.

My wife was making chicken and dumplings. She cooked 4 chicken breast and left them to cool on the counter. Two of the chicken breast disappeared. My daughter's dog was the only animal in the house that could have reached those chicken breast. We did not have absolute proof about what happened to the 2 lost chicken breast but we had a pretty good idea about where they went.

---

It appears that Mike Pence and White House lawyers and advisors did the absolute minimum they could to keep Trump from staging his coup, waiting until they had to fish or cut bait to refuse to go along with his scheme.

None of these people--Pence, Cippollone, Herschmann--are heros or patriots, and it's taken almost 2 years for the story of what really happened to come out thanks in large part for their obstruction and dissembling. None of them should ever serve in government positions or offices again.

And the members of Congress who supported and promoted this insurrection should be impeached.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

This post shows that, deep down, you know you've lost the argument and are hanging on to an insignificant detail.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Here's the facts:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/armed-insurrection-what-weapons-capitol-rioters-carry

10 months after J6, FBI still had not found any evidence that firearms were used in the J6 riot. Sure, time might have uncovered another gun or three in the general vicinity of the riot. Yet here you are, making the case that Trump was told someone was arrested with a gun and still wanted to go to the Capitol, thereby providing the conclusive turn in the case which makes him leader of an insurrectionist. The list of "weapons" noted at link is carried at almost any riot, so if we are to accept the premise of your argument, ANY riot is an insurrection.

If you are going to push the Reichstag Fire nonsense, you could do a much better job than you are doing here.

---

Deep down, I'm believing contemporaneous police observations. Armed demonstrators are a significant finding.

---

deep down I am believing that riots typically have armed demonstrators..

How many guns were fired at the capital that day? We all know the answer.. we all know the results.

Maybe, just maybe, those guns were not for what you think they were but what they are actually for..

---

The rioters were actually armed. Some had guns

What were the guns actually for?

---

Who knows, 2nd Amendment demonstration that they should be able to carry? As OldBear said, they did not use them even though Capitol Police did.

Once again, does actions (what they actually did) outweigh speculation or supposition?

---

Bannon to testify

Bannon, Facing Jail and Fines, Agrees to Testify to Jan. 6 Panel
Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump campaign manager and White House adviser, made the abrupt about-face after the former president authorized him to talk to investigators.


WASHINGTON With his criminal trial for contempt of Congress approaching, Stephen K. Bannon, an ally of former President Donald J. Trump's who was involved in his plans to overturn the 2020 election, has informed the House committee investigating the Capitol attack that he is now willing to testify, according to two letters obtained by The New York Times.
His decision is a remarkable about-face for Mr. Bannon, who until Saturday had been among the most obstinate and defiant of the committee's potential witnesses. He had promised to turn the criminal case against him into the "misdemeanor from hell" for the Justice Department.
But with the possibility of two years in jail and large fines looming on the horizon, Mr. Bannon has been authorized to testify by Mr. Trump, his lawyer told the committee late on Saturday in a letter, which was reported earlier by The Guardian.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/10/us/politics/bannon-jan-6-trump.html

---

….(yawn)…..

---

A federal judge on Monday refused to delay Stephen K. Bannon's trial next week after the Justice Department called an offer by the former Trump aide to testify before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection a "last-ditch attempt to avoid accountability" on charges of criminal contempt of Congress.

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

This post shows that, deep down, you know you've lost the argument and are hanging on to an insignificant detail.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Here's the facts:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/armed-insurrection-what-weapons-capitol-rioters-carry

10 months after J6, FBI still had not found any evidence that firearms were used in the J6 riot. Sure, time might have uncovered another gun or three in the general vicinity of the riot. Yet here you are, making the case that Trump was told someone was arrested with a gun and still wanted to go to the Capitol, thereby providing the conclusive turn in the case which makes him leader of an insurrectionist. The list of "weapons" noted at link is carried at almost any riot, so if we are to accept the premise of your argument, ANY riot is an insurrection.

If you are going to push the Reichstag Fire nonsense, you could do a much better job than you are doing here.

---

Deep down, I'm believing contemporaneous police observations. Armed demonstrators are a significant finding.

---

deep down I am believing that riots typically have armed demonstrators..

How many guns were fired at the capital that day? We all know the answer.. we all know the results.

Maybe, just maybe, those guns were not for what you think they were but what they are actually for..

---

The rioters were actually armed. Some had guns

What were the guns actually for?

---

Who knows, 2nd Amendment demonstration that they should be able to carry? As OldBear said, they did not use them even though Capitol Police did.

Once again, does actions (what they actually did) outweigh speculation or supposition?

---

Bannon to testify

Bannon, Facing Jail and Fines, Agrees to Testify to Jan. 6 Panel
Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump campaign manager and White House adviser, made the abrupt about-face after the former president authorized him to talk to investigators.


WASHINGTON With his criminal trial for contempt of Congress approaching, Stephen K. Bannon, an ally of former President Donald J. Trump's who was involved in his plans to overturn the 2020 election, has informed the House committee investigating the Capitol attack that he is now willing to testify, according to two letters obtained by The New York Times.
His decision is a remarkable about-face for Mr. Bannon, who until Saturday had been among the most obstinate and defiant of the committee's potential witnesses. He had promised to turn the criminal case against him into the "misdemeanor from hell" for the Justice Department.
But with the possibility of two years in jail and large fines looming on the horizon, Mr. Bannon has been authorized to testify by Mr. Trump, his lawyer told the committee late on Saturday in a letter, which was reported earlier by The Guardian.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/10/us/politics/bannon-jan-6-trump.html

---

….(yawn)…..

---

A federal judge on Monday refused to delay Stephen K. Bannon's trial next week after the Justice Department called an offer by the former Trump aide to testify before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection a "last-ditch attempt to avoid accountability" on charges of criminal contempt of Congress.

---

So which is it? Is Bannon's testimony a momentous turn in the case against Trump, or meaningless stunt by Bannon to delay his trial?

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"

The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.

For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html

---

Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.

---

A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.

Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html

---

almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.

We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.

You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.

One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"

The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.

For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html

---

Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.

---

A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.

Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html

---

almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.

We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.

You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.

One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

---

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Actually there is a lot of evidence. It is not just testimony by a single White house aide. There is testimony by the previous Attorney General (Bill Barr), the Acting at the time Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the White House Counsel, and numerous others that corroborates each others story. There is also a tweet from Trump himself on Dec 18, 2020 asking other to come protest on Jan 6th. Stating it will be wild.

Have you listened to these testimonies?

---

Yes I have. Evidence to what? He was pissed? Yeah , he lost and thought he was cheated. Guilty. He wanted to demonstrate and piss off Comgress? Yeah, guilty. He is an asshlle that can be childish? Yeah.

He is guilty of planning a coup of the US Government? No.

---

Um, what about asking the Vice President to nullify the vote record? Encouraging Jan 6 demonstrators to protest at the Capitol at that time. He stirred up the protestors, who just so happened to storm the building.

There is much evidence. I understand there is not absolute proof, but there is evidence.

My wife was making chicken and dumplings. She cooked 4 chicken breast and left them to cool on the counter. Two of the chicken breast disappeared. My daughter's dog was the only animal in the house that could have reached those chicken breast. We did not have absolute proof about what happened to the 2 lost chicken breast but we had a pretty good idea about where they went.

---

It appears that Mike Pence and White House lawyers and advisors did the absolute minimum they could to keep Trump from staging his coup, waiting until they had to fish or cut bait to refuse to go along with his scheme.

None of these people--Pence, Cippollone, Herschmann--are heros or patriots, and it's taken almost 2 years for the story of what really happened to come out thanks in large part for their obstruction and dissembling. None of them should ever serve in government positions or offices again.

And the members of Congress who supported and promoted this insurrection should be impeached.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"

The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.

For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html

---

Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.

---

A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.

Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html

---

almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.

We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.

You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.

One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

AOC admits Capitol Police held the doors open on Jan 6 pic.twitter.com/CIql9rlbvE

— Jack Posobic 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 14, 2022

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Ask yourselves a very simple question. What did they hope to prove? What if they were actually able to confront Pelosi or Pence? What did they intend to do?

The answer is pretty simple but it goes over a lot of empty heads. They were not breaking and entering to shake hands.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"

The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.

For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html

---

Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.

---

A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.

Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html

---

almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.

We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.

You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.

One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.

If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.

Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.

If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I'm not asking the DOJ. I'm asking those on here who defend the idiotic invasion. I guess you vote they would shake hands if I'm reading your reply correctly.

---