J6 Committee Votes to Subpoena Trump

5,463 Views | 231 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by 4th and Inches
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/with-time-running-out-us-capitol-riot-panel-keeps-focus-trump-2022-10-13/
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm all for getting to the bottom of it. Article says the zealots injured 140 police officers.

I'm also not convinced it's not a witch hunt. Trump hurt democracy the whole 4 years he was President. From the little I know, not having paid much attention to his Jan 6 speech, it was just more of the same.

There is the slim chance he actually communicated with the proud boys via proxy, in which case I'm all for his imprisonment. If he was just spewing his normal garbage to his normal zealots, we need to move on.
BornAgain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
epstein him
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm more interested in Pelosi's daughter's film that she made of that day. Interesting that she was there filming it and she had special access and this is the first we're hearing of it.

How much was Pelosi's daughter paid for her footage by CNN and by the J6 committee
BornAgain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I remember hearing somewhere that speaker of the house is in charge of White House security.
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Guy Noir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BornAgain said:

I remember hearing somewhere that speaker of the house is in charge of White House security.
What does this mean? I do not think it is relevant. The White House was not stormed on Jan 6th.
The Secret Service is in charge of security for the White House.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

I'm all for getting to the bottom of it. Article says the zealots injured 140 police officers.

I'm also not convinced it's not a witch hunt. Trump hurt democracy the whole 4 years he was President. From the little I know, not having paid much attention to his Jan 6 speech, it was just more of the same.

There is the slim chance he actually communicated with the proud boys via proxy, in which case I'm all for his imprisonment. If he was just spewing his normal garbage to his normal zealots, we need to move on.


140 officers hurt ?

I heard it was 1400 officers deported to Morocco.
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Former President Trump "loves the idea of testifying" before the House select committee investigating January 6th, a source close to Trump told Fox News Digital just after the panel unanimously voted to subpoena him. The source said that if Trump complied with the subpoena and testified, he would "talk about how corrupt the election was, how corrupt the committee was, and how Nancy Pelosi did not call up the National Guard that Trump strongly recommended for her to do three days earlier on January 3, 2021."
BornAgain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for catching my typo about the White House. I meant the Capitol.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BornAgain said:

Thanks for catching my typo about the White House. I meant the Capitol.
In that case…debunked.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/27/fact-check-nancy-pelosi-isnt-in-charge-capitol-police/8082088002/
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anything to distract from record inflation, surrendering to the Taliban, grooming kids, catalyzing nuclear war, destroying more wealth than 9/11, turning the border over to the cartels and China, etc.

Yawn. Maybe he'll bring the overdue library books and democracy will be restored!
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BornAgain said:

Thanks for catching my typo about the White House. I meant the Capitol.
In that case…debunked.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/27/fact-check-nancy-pelosi-isnt-in-charge-capitol-police/8082088002/
DEBUNKED!
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/25/facebook-posts/no-capitol-security-not-only-pelosis-responsibilit/
BornAgain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh no.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

BornAgain said:

Thanks for catching my typo about the White House. I meant the Capitol.
In that case…debunked.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/27/fact-check-nancy-pelosi-isnt-in-charge-capitol-police/8082088002/
DEBUNKED!
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/25/facebook-posts/no-capitol-security-not-only-pelosis-responsibilit/
Glad we agree!
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A differing view from Turley's:







J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/13/takeaways-jan6-hearing-trump-subpoena/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert

The House Jan. 6 select committee on Thursday held what is expected to be its final hearing focused on new evidence gleaned from its investigation.
Below are some takeaways about what we learned and how the committee closed its argument.

1. Trump's premature and premeditated declaration of victory
Much of Thursday's hearing was devoted to establishing Trump's mind-set leading up to Jan. 6, 2021. And a big part of that was the committee casting his false, election-night declaration of victory as part of a premeditated plan.

We've known that the likes of Roger Stone and Stephen K. Bannon were talking about this well before Election Day. And news outlets had reported at the time that Trump might do it. But on Thursday, the committee added to the publicly available evidence.

In taped testimony, a top aide to Vice President Mike Pence, Greg Jacob, acknowledged that the possibility had felt imminent enough that Pence's aides discussed how to deal with it.

Jacob said fellow aide Marc Short "was trying to figure out a way of avoiding the vice president being thrust into needing to opine on that."

The committee also shared an email from Tom Fitton, head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, to White House aides Dan Scavino and Molly Michael. The email was dated Oct. 31 days before Election Day and featured the words "We had an election today and I won." It suggested that Trump should claim that the ballots "counted by the Election Day deadline" showed he had won.

In a follow-up email, from Nov. 3, Fitton indicated he had spoken with Trump about the matter: "Just talked to him about the draft below."

The idea was ridiculous. There is no Election Day deadline for ballots to be counted. In fact, the ballot-counting process regularly takes much longer. But pretty much everyone knew that Trump's strength on in-person voting vs. President Biden's strength on later-counted mail-in votes would create a "red mirage" of Trump holding a lead on election night.

In other words, claiming the deadline existed was a great way to mislead people and foment outrage.
Committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) summarized: "It was a plan concocted in advance to convince his supporters that he won."

2. Hutchinson adds to evidence Trump knew he lost

Previous hearings had focused on all the witnesses testifying that Trump was told his voter-fraud claims were false.

On Thursday, the committee made an additional argument: Trump occasionally, privately admitted that he lost the election and still pressed forward with publicly claiming it had been stolen.

The committee played a never-before-seen clip from one of its star witnesses, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson. She said that after the Supreme Court declined to overturn the election in December 2020, she witnessed a conversation in which Trump asked chief of staff Mark Meadows to do something.

According to Hutchinson, Trump said something to the effect of: "I don't want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing. Figure it out. We need to figure it out. I don't want people to know that we lost."
Hutchinson noted that this wasn't a verbatim quote, but she said twice that Trump had spoken in terms that indicated that he knew he'd lost.

She added that, at another point, Meadows told her of Trump: "He knows it's over. He knows he lost. But we're going to keep trying. There's some good options out there."

The committee also revealed that Trump had signed an order Nov. 11, 2020, requesting the immediate removal of troops from Somalia and Afghanistan and that the withdrawal be completed by Jan. 15, 2021, before Biden's inauguration. This was an acknowledgment, they said, that he knew the truth about his loss and was trying to conclude any unfinished business.

Former Trump White House aide Alyssa Farah Griffin also testified to this effect.

Committee member Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said at the outset of the hearing that nobody should accept that Trump was deluded and sincerely thought he won.

"Claims that President Trump actually thought the election was stolen are not supported by fact and are not a defense," Cheney said. "There is no defense that Donald Trump was duped or irrational."
3. More evidence Trump might've approved of rioters

Somewhat relatedly, the committee played new evidence corroborating the idea that Trump might have approved of what the rioters were doing or at least that he sought to use it as leverage.

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) has previously said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told people that, as he pleaded for Trump to call off the rioters, the president responded, "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are."

McCarthy has been tight-lipped about that conversation. But former Trump White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney testified to the committee that, shortly after Jan. 6, McCarthy personally recounted to him much the same exchange. "I had a conversation at some point in the day or week after the riot with Kevin McCarthy," Mulvaney said. "It was very similar to what Jamie had, the conversation she had retold."

The committee has presented other evidence that Trump might have liked the scenes at the Capitol, including former White House counsel Pat Cipollone awkwardly responding to questions about whether Trump actually wanted the rioters to go home. (The committee played that clip for the second time Thursday.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) has also said publicly that Trump was "walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren't as excited as he was."

4. The committee leans in on the Secret Service

Toward the end of the hearing, the committee focused on a trove of new information from the Secret Service that it had received since its last hearing.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) pointed to multiple documents showing that agents expressed concerns about the Jan. 6 rally more than a week before. In records of internal Secret Service chatter, there were discussions of social media posts in which rallygoers said they planned to bring weapons.

He said that this not only reinforces that Trump would've been informed of such threats and directed people to march to the Capitol anyway which Hutchinson testified to but that this called into question previous testimony from Secret Service and White House witnesses, who said that they hadn't received information suggesting that the officials under their protection were in danger.

"Evidence strongly suggests that this testimony is not credible," Schiff said.

Schiff didn't name names, but it seems possible the comments were aimed at then-Secret Service agent and Trump White House official Anthony M. Ornato. Sources close to Ornato had previously disputed testimony from former White House aide Hutchinson about what Ornato had told her about that day.

The committee also played video of Trump praising the Secret Service during his Jan. 6 speech on the Ellipse. The implication seemed to be that perhaps certain members of the Secret Service might have been too close to Trump. That's something Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has also gestured in the direction of particularly with regard to Pence's refusal to get into a Secret Service vehicle that day.

Later, Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) emphasized that the committee would continue to investigate matters related to the Secret Service documents it obtained.

5. The vote to subpoena Trump

At the start of the proceedings, Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) noted this would not technically be a hearing, but rather committee business. This committee intended to vote on taking further investigative action.

That action turned out to be a subpoena of Trump himself, which was approved unanimously by the committee.

The significance of that isn't clear. Some incumbent and former presidents have testified to Congress, but Trump will likely resist testifying, which would force the committee into a lengthy process of trying to compel his testimony. That kind of timeline wouldn't really comport with its intent to release a report before the end of the year. (That timeline is important, given that Republicans could retake the House after the midterm elections and shut down the committee.)

It seems more likely that this is more a matter of course. It's the committee saying, "We gave the former president the chance to defend himself" ahead of its final report, and emphasizing that he declined to do so.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One piece of significant info was that the Secret Service was well aware of the plans to attack the Capitol. And that they tried to cover up this knowledge. Since they had a mission to protect Pence at the Capitol, this was a dereliction of duty and worse.
He Hate Me
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cobretti said:






Turkey is right
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Cobretti said:






Turkey is right
Turley, a noted Democrat constitutional lawyer, is indeed correct but failed (as have most commentators) to highlight one key detail that most people are not aware of: the subpoena expires when the current Congressional session ends. So running the clock out on the subpoena does not require the GOP to recapture the house. It ends when the 117th Congress is sworn into session, no matter who controls the house. The new house will have to issue a new subpoena.

Another wrinkle. The enforcement arm for a Congressional subpoena is the US marshall service and/or FBI. I think Herr Garland would comply with a request to enforce a subpoena on Trump issued by the 116th Congress.

But would he comply with a request from the 117th GOP controlled Congress to arrest Hunter Biden, or any of the BLM honchos to be subpoena'd by the 117th? of course not. Holder did not enforce subpoenas for a GOP congress either.

but it is an important part of the charade. MAKE the DOJ enforce the subpoena, so the hypocrisy can be on display in the next session.

(all drama to occur after 9 Nov, of course).
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

BornAgain said:

Thanks for catching my typo about the White House. I meant the Capitol.
In that case…debunked.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/27/fact-check-nancy-pelosi-isnt-in-charge-capitol-police/8082088002/
DEBUNKED!
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/25/facebook-posts/no-capitol-security-not-only-pelosis-responsibilit/
Glad we agree!


Sweetie. Bless your heart. Your masks are fogging your readers.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cobretti said:


if they had any.. people would care
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cobretti said:




You mean people care more about making ends meet than morons' idiotic fever dreams about Trump grabbing the gun of a secret service agent and forcing the car to the Capitol to lead an unarmed insurrection and THE GREATEST THREAT TO DEMOCRACY EVER!

The only ones who care watch this Idiocracy are mouth breathers and Emmy voters.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm surprised there isn't more enthusiasm. Trump has had to sit quietly all these months, wanting to defend himself, but they wouldn't let him. Now he finally gets a chance to make his case. This is what we've all been waiting for, right?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

I'm surprised there isn't more enthusiasm. Trump has had to sit quietly all these months, wanting to defend himself, but they wouldn't let him. Now he finally gets a chance to make his case. This is what we've all been waiting for, right?


There is a lot of enthusiasm for Liz Cheney to get a best actress Emmy.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

I'm surprised there isn't more enthusiasm. Trump has had to sit quietly all these months, wanting to defend himself, but they wouldn't let him. Now he finally gets a chance to make his case. This is what we've all been waiting for, right?


There is a lot of enthusiasm for Liz Cheney to get a best actress Emmy.
You're not voting for Rhea Seehorn?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

I'm surprised there isn't more enthusiasm. Trump has had to sit quietly all these months, wanting to defend himself, but they wouldn't let him. Now he finally gets a chance to make his case. This is what we've all been waiting for, right?


There is a lot of enthusiasm for Liz Cheney to get a best actress Emmy.
You're not voting for Rhea Seehorn?


I think Hollywood b.s will give it to Cheney.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is this still going on?
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

I'm surprised there isn't more enthusiasm. Trump has had to sit quietly all these months, wanting to defend himself, but they wouldn't let him. Now he finally gets a chance to make his case. This is what we've all been waiting for, right?
Trump said its about time on Truth Social.. why wait so long?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If he could maintain discipline, he could use his responses to enter into the House Record all the pertinent details the J6 Cmee has worked so hard to bury.

He could even subpoena the FBI to provide copies of all the documents they seized in the MAL raid, on grounds that they would corroborate his testimony. (knowing FBI would not do so, thereby making the whole thing appear to be one big abuse of power by Democrats).

What a circus it would be.
Finally, the J6 Cmee would be worth watching.

But, alas, I am preparing myself to be disappointed, for no such appearance is likely to occur.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

I'm surprised there isn't more enthusiasm. Trump has had to sit quietly all these months, wanting to defend himself, but they wouldn't let him. Now he finally gets a chance to make his case. This is what we've all been waiting for, right?
Trump said its about time on Truth Social.. why wait so long?
It makes sense to gather information from as many sources as possible before confronting Trump. It's the one way they might get some semblance of truth from him.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

I'm surprised there isn't more enthusiasm. Trump has had to sit quietly all these months, wanting to defend himself, but they wouldn't let him. Now he finally gets a chance to make his case. This is what we've all been waiting for, right?
Trump said its about time on Truth Social.. why wait so long?
It makes sense to gather information from as many sources as possible before confronting Trump. It's the one way they might get some semblance of truth from him.
It'll never happen. I just found out Republicans are a new party, i.e. a wholly owned subsidiary of Trump International.
The Dear Leader is in total control. You must bend the knee or be gone. I'm gone
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.