Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

January 6 Public Hearings

Options
1356721

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,991 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Nobody was 'plotting a coup', coups require guns, lots and lots of guns and taking control of strategic assets and players.

    Seizing a near empty building with no guns is not a coup, it's a bunch of special ed boomers on a day trip and it's kind of hilarious to watch the usual suspects try to make a Matterhorn out of the mole hill that even the aforementioned boomers managed to trip over while taking a selfie and land on their asses in jail.

    I'm sure none of this hysteria theatre pertains to the midterm elections, no, none at all.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,292 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Why do Americans call events after the date it was on?

    Everyone else saying Capitol Hill Riots, but even this thread has January 6th.

    Sigh.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Incompetence, hatred and abject stupidity do not disqualify this from being a coup.

    Historically, coups required a high degree of discipline, cohesion, courage and a ability to self-sacrifice. All qualities absent in the human refuse that stormed the Capitol as well as Trump's ardent support base.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,271 ✭✭✭✭Overheal



    taking control of strategic assets and players




  • Registered Users Posts: 82,271 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The Committee has pushed back the 3rd hearing by 1 day, it will now air on Thursday, as opposed to Wednesday.

    “I think we’re just firming up, there is no big deal,” she said. “But I’ll tell you that the putting together the video and exhibits is an exhausting exercise for our very small video staff. We were going to have one, two, three [hearings] in one week, and it is just too much to put it altogether. So we’re trying to give them a little room to do their technical work.”




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 60,508 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Will the Fox News cast be called to testify under oath about their text and whats app messages to Trump on January 6th?



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,991 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Well that explains the massive gun battle that broke out and the army storming the Capitol..... oh.. wait..

    Do tell me though, how many shots were fired that day, and by whom?

    Honestly, you're a bigger LARPer than those capitol clowns.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,991 ✭✭✭conorhal


    The left are so desperate for it to be their '9/11 the terrorists are attacking us!' that they want to portray it as a 'monumental date in history', which it decidedly was not. It's the same reason every scandal these days gets referred to as '-gate'.

    When everything is 'Watergate', nothing is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,271 ✭✭✭✭Overheal



    Well that explains the massive gun battle that broke out


    special ed boomers on a day trip

    (the last guy was even a retired Lt. Col for the USAF)


    How is it LARPing to rebut your falsehoods with evidence?



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,271 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Ironic about this statement is the fact that neither 9/11, nor the January 6 Insurrection are referred to as Scandalgates.

    If anything that, and your empty lashing out, evidences the contrary - that it was a day that will live in infamy.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,271 ✭✭✭✭Overheal




  • Registered Users Posts: 82,271 ✭✭✭✭Overheal



    Day 3 begins shortly

    The hearing will revolve around further evidencing Trump's designs to overturn the election with 2 key witnesses: Greg Jacob, an attorney for former Vice President Mike Pence, and Conservative lawyer and former federal judge Michael Luttig.

    CNN reportedly obtained a 12 page version of Luttig's opening remarks and they're pretty remarkable:

    The war on democracy instigated by the former president and his political party allies on January 6 was the natural and foreseeable culmination of the war for America. It was the final fateful day for the execution of a well-developed plan by the former president to overturn the 2020 presidential election at any cost, so that he could cling to power that the American People had decided to confer upon his successor, the next president of the United States instead. Knowing full well that he had lost the 2020 presidential election, the former president and his allies and supporters falsely claimed and proclaimed to the nation that he had won the election, and then he and they set about to overturn the election that he and they knew the former president had lost.


    The treacherous plan was no less ambitious than to steal America’s democracy.

    We're also hearing that the committee seeks to interview Ginni Thomas, wife of Clarence Thomas, after John Eastman emails reveal that Eastman had unusual inside knowledge or claims of knowledge to the thinking of the Supreme Court as it pertains to hearing election appeals. Eastman emails indicated that SCOTUS was in a heated argument about hearing a Wisconsin lawsuit, Eastman said the SCOTUS was being influenced by the looming threat of a 'wild and chaotic' day on January 6, following Trumps "will be wild!" tweet.

    “[T]he odds are not based on the legal merits but an assessment of the justices’ spines, and I understand that there is a heated fight underway,” Eastman wrote, according to the Times. “For those willing to do their duty,” he added, “we should help them by giving them a Wisconsin cert petition to add into the mix.” That meant that Trump’s team should put a case before the court, allowing four justices to decide to hear the case.The “odds of action before Jan. 6 will become more favorable,” Chesebro reportedly responded, “if the justices start to fear that there will be ‘wild’ chaos on Jan. 6 unless they rule by then, either way.”



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,271 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Trump demands "equal time"

    The committee already has an open invitation for Trump to testify under oath for as long as he wants.




  • Registered Users Posts: 82,271 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    So he's not reading out the whole statement but here it is:

    He is currently (1:20-1:25 PM) responding to a question about remarks in this opening statement, and he is being very heavy with his delivery...



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,650 ✭✭✭✭briany


    I'd like to give Don lots of time. About 20 years should suffice.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,271 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Today's hearing was a lot to unpack, for how few points it focused on.

    One takeaway I got from Eastman's email afterward to Herschmann was, that they were trying to obstruct the 'sanctimony' of the 1887 Electoral Count Act. He had essentially argued that, because the Electoral Count had successfully been pushed into January 7th, that the Office of Legal Counsel should take the position that since some of it is 'not sacrosanct' then why not go in for a pound if in for a penny, and just finally relent to agreeing that Pence could solely overturn the count of certified electors as proscribed in the ECA and 12A. I imagine if Pence had actually been evacuated from the Capitol MAGA would have argued the process had been abdicated, without acknowledging the state of emergency.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,271 ✭✭✭✭Overheal




  • Registered Users Posts: 33,476 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Given the intelligence of most of the rioters, I'd say if they did actually get possession of Pence's Nuclear football, they would have started a game of shirts v skins.

    I had basically zero respect for Pence before this hearing. After this hearing though, I have just slightly above zero. He had plenty of opportunity before Jan 6th to publicly and definitively state that he did not have the ability to stop the proceedings, and that he wouldn't. He should have and could have done far more, far earlier, to cut the legs from Trump and Eastman's arguments.

    But at the very least, whether out of principle or because he was p*ssed Trump was clearly showing he didn't care if Pence was dragged out of the Capitol by force to stop him certifying the results, he did the right thing and helped avoid one of the most historically damaging situations in American democracy. He deserves the minimal amount of credit for that (his legal and personal advisors deserve more credit for making it clear to him that he couldn't & shouldn't do it).



  • Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭tooka


    Trump had every right just like a certain al gore to go to the courts and states to fight the result of the election

    nobody denies that and many demmies states before the election that he would do this, he had the right to do this and the system had to be changed to stop this happening again which it is currently is

    the demmies had such high hopes this hearing would damage trump and the republicans when it will do no such thing, people are so upset and angry over inflation and the recession coming they think this hearing is a complete sideshow, the red wave is coming and there will be a republican president in 2024, joe Bidens victory was the worst thing that happened the demmies, will set them back a generation



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,271 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    plotting to obstruct the counting of electors with a seditious riot is not something Gore had the right to do.

    On day 3 of the hearings, Al Gore and the 2000 race came up a lot: what everyone concluded is that Gore would have never had the authority to decide, after losing Bush v Gore at the Supreme Court, to simply on the 6th of January 2001 declare himself the next president of the United States. They were very specific on this point for anyone watching. Trumps lawyer, John Eastman, is clearly evidenced as acknowledging specifically that Gore didn’t have that legal authority and Harris on January 6, 2025 won’t have that legal authority - but he still pressed VP legal counsel to compel Pence to violate the law, 3 USC § 15, the 1887 electoral count act. No Vice President in the history of the congress has ever asserted such an authority.


    BENNIE THOMPSON:

    Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. I now recognize myself for questions. In the United States, the people choose our Representatives, including the highest official in the land, the President of the United States. The American people did this on November 3rd, 2020, but President Trump did not like the outcome.

    He did everything he could to change the result of the election. He tried litigation, 62 cases in fact, and that failed. He tried to pressure state legislatures to reverse the results of the election in their states, but they refused. He tried to enlist the Department of Justice in his efforts to overturn election results, but officials leading the department refused to comply.

    So eventually, he latched on to a completely nonsensical and anti-democratic theory that one man, his own Vice President, could determine the outcome of the election. He wanted the Vice President to unilaterally select the President. This theory that the Vice President could unilaterally select the President runs completely contrary to our Constitution, our laws, and the entirety of our American experience.

    But that didn't stop — didn't matter to President Trump. I would now like to explore how President Trump came to latch on to this ridiculous legal theory that the Vice President can select the President of the United States. Mr. Jacob, how did this theory first come to your attention?

    GREG JACOB:

    The first time that I had a conversation with the Vice President about the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act was in early December, around December 7th. The Vice President called me over to his West Wing office and told me that he had been seeing and reading things that suggested that he had a significant role to play on January 6th in announcing the outcome of the election.

    He told me that he had been first elected to Congress in 2000 and that one of his earliest memories as a Congressman was sitting in on the 2001 certification and he recalled that Al Gore had gaveled down a number of objections that had been raised to Florida. And he asked me, mechanically how does this work at the joint session?

    What are the rules? And I told the Vice President that in fact I had a fairly good idea of how things work that actually there aren't rules that govern the joint session. But what there is, is a provision in the Constitution that's just one sentence long and then an electoral count act that had been passed in 1887. And I told the Vice President that I could put a memo together for him overnight that would explain the applicable rules.

    BENNIE THOMPSON:

    So Mr. Jacob, when you looked at this theory, what did you conclude?

    GREG JACOB:

    So we concluded that what you have is a sentence in the Constitution that is inartfully [ph] drafted. But the Vice President's — first instinct when he heard this theory was that there was no way that our framers, who [abhorred] concentrated power, who had broken away from the tyranny of George III, would ever have put one person, particularly not a person who had a direct interest in the outcome because they were on the ticket for the election, in a role to have decisive impact on the outcome of the election.

    And our review of text, history, and frankly just common sense all confirmed the Vice President's first instinct on that point. There is no justifiable basis to conclude that the Vice President has that kind of authority.

    BENNIE THOMPSON:

    Thank you, Mr. Jacobs. 


    Also this longform exchange is too long to quote and involves several pieces of recorded video of sworn testimony with Trump cabinet and campaign members and even texts from Sean Hannity, and also even has video evidence from Al Gore himself. but I have the timestamp here:


    GREG JACOB:

    So, you — you — as a lawyer who's analyzing a constitutional provision, you start with the constitutional text. You go to structure. You go to history. So, we started with the text. We do not think that the text was quite as unambiguous as Judge Luttig indicated. In part, we had a constitutional crisis in 1876 because in that year multiple slates of electors were certified by multiple slates.

    And when it came time to count those votes, the antecedent question of which ones had to be answered. That required the appointment of an independent commission. That commission had had to resolve that question, and the purpose of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 had been to resolve those latent ambiguities.

    Now, I am in complete agreement with Judge Luttig. It is unambiguous that the vice president does not have the authority to reject electors. There is no suggestion of any kind that it does. There is no mention of rejecting or objecting to electors anywhere in the 12th Amendment. And so, the notion that the vice president could do that certainly is not in the text.

    But the problem that we had and that John Eastman raised in our discussions was we had all seen that, in Congress in 2000, in 2004, in 2016, there had been objections raised to various states, and those had even been debated in 2004. And so, here you have an amendment that says nothing about objecting or rejecting, and yet we did have some recent practice of that happening within the terms of the Electoral Count Act. So, we started with that text.

    And I recall, in my discussion with the vice president, he said I can't wait to go to heaven and meet the framers and tell them the work that you did in putting together our Constitution is a work of genius. Thank you. It was divinely inspired. There is one sentence that I would like to talk to you a little bit about.

    So, then we went to structure. And again, the vice president's first instinct here is so decisive on this question. There is just no way that the framers of the Constitution, who divided power and authority, who separated it out, who had broken away from George III and declared him to be a tyrant, there was no way that they would have put in the hands of one person the authority to determine who was going to be president of the United States.

    And then we went to history. We examined every single electoral vote count that had happened in Congress since the beginning of the country. We examined the Electoral Count Act. We examined practice under the Electoral Count Act. And critically, no vice president in 230 years of history had ever claimed to have that kind of authority, hadn't claimed authority to reject electoral votes, had not claimed authority to return electoral votes back to the states.

    In the entire history of the United States, not once had a joint session ever returned electoral votes back to the states to be counted. And in the crisis of 1876, Justice Bradley of the United States Supreme Court, who supplied the decisive final vote on that commission, had specifically looked at that question and said, first, the vice president clearly doesn't have authority to decide anything and, by the way, also does not have authority to conduct an investigation by sending things back out for a public look at things.

    So, the history was absolutely decisive. And again, part of my discussion with Mr. Eastman was, if you were right, don't you think Al Gore might have liked to have known in 2000 that he had authority to just declare himself president of the United States? Did you think that the Democrat lawyers just didn't think of this very obvious quirk that he could use to do that?

    And of course, he acknowledged Al Gore did not and should not have had that authority at that point in time. But — so, text, structure, history, I think what we had was some ambiguous text, that common sense and structure would tell you the answer cannot possibly be that the vice president has that authority.

    As the committee already played the vice president's remarks, there is almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person would choose the American president.

    And then, unbroken historical practice for 230 years that the vice president did not have such an authority.

    Post edited by Overheal on


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,476 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Also worth pointing out Trump did go to the courts and states to fight the results of the election. 60+ times if I remember right. They won one minor case to do with something procedural but it didn't change anything anyway.

    Bush V Gore got all the way to the Supreme Court because of how tight the margin was and how closely contested it was. Trump's cases were hugely derided and rejected (a large number of which by Republican or even a Trump-appointed judges) because they were based on spurious nonsense, devoid of substance or legal basis.

    When it came to Jan 6th, Trump and Eastman's plan to have Pence reject the electoral votes and send it back to States had no legal basis either, which Eastman was fully aware of.

    It was never about Trump going to the courts and states to fight the election results, it was about Trump trying to ignore and bypass the election results.

    None of that, is the "demmies" fault.



  • Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭tooka


    Your completely wrong , if pence had decided to back trump than trump had every legal right to go to the courts

    what don’t you and others on here get this ? The same reasons for gore bush to to the courts was also there for trump and Biden because trump would have sued over fraud

    there is a video on Google of Vance jones pre election stating the very legal reasons why trump could lose the election but sue through the courts and still win

    i read pence had to sign off the results , he did not have to sign sh1t. Pence and the leaders of the Republican Party all want trump gone , they hate trump



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,476 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Perhaps if you'd listened to the hearing the other day, you'd know that after heavy research into the legality of Pence refusing to certify the results, it was determined that the role of the Vice President in that situation is ceremonial at best. Pence not certifying the results would have violated the Electoral Count Act, would have been rejected by every court (including the Supreme Court likely 9-0) and wasn't being proposed so Trump could have further legal challenges, but to stop the certification of the results before Jan 20th at which point Trump would have regained the Presidency by default.

    Again, Trump brought 60+ legal challenges about the results, and 60+ of those challenges were dismissed because they were nonsense.

    Bush and Gore went to the courts because the margin in one state was so minimal that they were contesting if and how a recount should happen. Ultimately though, when Al Gore as Vice President had to certify the results and could have done the exact same thing you're saying Pence could have, he didn't. He could have made himself President. He didn't. Why?

    Because its a violation of the Electoral Count Act and would present a constitutional nightmare which would ultimately never hold up in court.

    Eastman himself knew what they were proposing wasn't legal. Everyone knew what they were proposing wasn't legal. Trump brought forward 60+ legal challenges already and lost all but one of them because they had nothing of any substance. Trump's own lawyers in some of the cases had to admit during the cases that even if they won the case it wouldn't be enough to change the result.

    Trump lost, and Pence had no right or legal ability to do anything to not certify the results.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,641 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Id agree that Pence could have cut the legs from the Trump legal strategy a lot sooner. But some of the details that have come out make me respect him a bit more than I did. Apart from him being only 40 feet away from a baying mob while he was aware that they had been chanting Hang Mike Pence he also stayed in the underground car park/bunker for 3.5 hours until everything had stopped and he could go back into the chamber to certify the election. Trumps strategy was basically to send a mob in to the Capitol and to force Pence to leave the building meaning the results couldnt be certified and the whole thing would have been thrown into a legal quagmire. Trumps lines about Pence 'not coming through for us' in his speech at the Elipse now make more sense than ever, it was a coded message to the crowd which was naming Pence as the target.

    I also saw a discussion on CNN where a contributor said that Trump had filled the Presidential and VP secret service details with lots of agents who were his own loyalists. So there is a fair chance that even the secret service agents assigned to Pence had a vested interest in getting him out of there so Trumo could declare the election results as null and void. Who is to know what went on but Id imagine Pence came under pressure from the secret service to extract him, like I would doubt leaving the VP in danger for 3.5 hours while a riot went on just 40 feet away was ever part of best practice for protecting the life a vice president. With the network of secret tunnels underneath the building there had to of been ways to get him out of there but he didnt budge. I think if its the case that he could have gotten out but refused to becasue he realised the consequences of not certifying the election then that took serious balls on Pences behalf.



  • Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭tooka


    First I work and so have no time to watch the full hearing

    secondly and more importantly it was determined by a democratic White House and congress and an impartial hearing that this could not be done

    demmies is a term I coined TM and it sums the members and their minions perfectly



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,271 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    That’s a Copout.

    You have (at least) 8 hours a day of free time. You have spent several hours of it already since the most recent hearing, talking about things you are misinformed about because you would rather not look at the facts on full display, or the sworn testimony?

    You were even provided a shortcut to the relevant 10 mins of hearing that thoroughly addresses your argument.

    if your only excuse now is “I am actively choosing ignorance” then why shouldn’t you be readily ignored per your design?



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,476 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Sorry, I just assumed that since you're commenting on a thread about the hearings and discussing points which occurred during the hearings, that you had at the very least read a summary of what happened at the hearing.

    If you had, you'd know it wasn't a democratic White House and Congress which determined Pence couldn't refuse to certify the elections results, it was several Republican lawyers, constitutional experts and general legal advisors who determined it could not be done, as well as Trump's own lawyer, John Eastman, who admitted it could not be done but along with Trump continued to pressure Pence to do it anyway. They all researched it thoroughly and all came to the same conclusion; that it would breach the Electoral Count Act, that a VP does not and should not have the authority to do it, and that it would never stand up in any court including the Supreme Court which would likely vote 9-0 against it.

    But Trump and Eastman kept pressuring Pence to do it anyway not so Trump could make more legal cases, but to try get the contested states to put forward different electors to vote for Trump, or at least kick the can down the road long enough that if the results weren't certified by Jan 20th, Trump would become President again by default.

    The people testifying to this during the last hearing were Republicans; an attorney for Pence, and a former judge and informal advisor to Pence, as well as video depositions from several Trump White House staff, legal advisors and experts.

    So again, Trump had no valid legal challenges to make, and Pence had no authority to not certify the election results.



  • Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭tooka




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭tooka


    when you see stories like this you know the jig is up, the average person will be angered by this story



Advertisement