Jan 6 Committee Public Hearings

[SuperMatt]

The word bullshit has been said 3 times on PBS in the past hour

 

[Citysnaps]

The word bullshit has been said 3 times on PBS in the past hour

I noticed. Probably a first.

Also, flipping through the networks, PBS' presentation was better, not putting unnecessary and annoying borders around what was presented.

 

[SuperMatt]

That footage was tough to watch again. I don’t think people realize just how close our democracy came to collapsing that day. Sickening.

I remember watching it on TV from home, only about a mile away. The thing was, everybody in DC was warned the day before to stay home, not go to work, not go anywhere near the Capitol. I believe Trump intentionally prevented security such as the National Guard in order to let his goons get in and attempt to kill Pence.

I’ve been in the Capitol many times and to see those violent traitors in there like that still gave me a sick feeling in my stomach watching it today.

 

[SuperMatt]

Also, flipping through the networks, PBS' presentation was better, not putting unnecessary and annoying borders around what was presented.

I’m watching on PBS too.

 

[Runs For Fun]

still gave me a sick feeling in my stomach watching it today.

Exactly the same feeling I got.

 

[SuperMatt]

The documentarian is a master of understatement…

 

[Citysnaps]

The documentarian is a master of understatement…

Yeah, his description of the hotel he was forced to stay in as "less than satisfactory" was gold.

 

[SuperMatt]

The documentarian’s footage was so important to show that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers planned this. He was surprised when they didn’t seem interested in the President’s speech and instead went to Capitol around 10:30am!

When it comes to mob mentality, somebody taking down the initial barriers or “breaking the line” is critical. We can see that this break wasn’t something that just happened. It was planned and executed by these hate groups.

And the fact that members of Congress are still pushing the lies about election fraud? One could argue they are party to the attempted coup.

 

[Citysnaps]

And the fact that members of Congress are still pushing the lies about election fraud? One could argue they are party to the attempted coup.

Pish posh. Mere legitimate political discourse.

 

[GermanSuplex]

I think it was an effective narrative and a good groundwork to start, but they’ve got a long way to go. But… I think they know that, and I think this is barely the beginning. I’d be worried if I were republicans.

Like I said, they have a long way to go before they convince anyone who manages to be on the fence at this point. I question how anyone could be by now, but whatever. I hope this sways at least some minds.

I’m sure the cult will be yelling “that’s all?! Ahaha”, because it’s not about the next hearing, it’s about a victory right now, in the moment. When something is shown, they’ll deny it. It’s the classic Trump playbook.

 

[AG_PhamD]

I’m sure that despite Fox News not airing the live hearings, they will devote just as much time, probably more, bickering about the hearing and minimizing or the defending the indefensible actions taken by those on 1/6 and Trumps influence to incite this BS.

Frankly, I’m sure this hearing will change much in terms of public opinion. People already have their stance. Much of this was debated during the impeachment hearing in relation to Trump. Do you really think even a bombshell revelation would budge the MAGA crowd?

And so long as this is a partisan presentation, which for all intents and purposes I assume it is, it will only serve to entrench the stop the steal lunatics in their lunacy.

I do think there is value in finding out what exactly happened, who is responsible, and absolutely holding them accountable. Including politicians and their staff.

With that in mind, I think there is a reasonable question that doesn’t yet seem to even be remotely acknowledged- there is evidence groups were planning mayhem prior to 1/6, evidence intelligence agencies were aware of this, and evidence law enforcement and political powers were informed. So why was seemingly no effort made to reinforce security for 1/6? Allegedly, requests for this were made but denied.

I’m not much for conspiracy theories and I would hope there are reasonable answers for this. At the same time, the past several years have clearly demonstrated how pathologically sick some of our leaders are in their attempts to gain and/or maintain power.

For the record, I think Trump should have ideally resigned on 1/6. While he can say that in his 1/6 speech he asked for “peaceful protest”, which is 100% true, his statements leading up to the 1/6 events (and after) incited riot/insurrection based on an idea many/most told him was absolute nonsense. In that he did not resign, he should have been impeached.

 

[SuperMatt]

And so long as this is a partisan presentation, which for all intents and purposes I assume it is

Did you watch it? Liz Cheney (R) spoke almost as much as the Democratic chair. Just because Trump loyalists are trying to label her a traitor doesn’t change the fact that this is a bipartisan commission.

The above comment misses the mark because anything bad about Trump is automatically labeled “partisan” by his loyalists. Which is not true of this commission.

I hope one day that future Republicans will look back in shame at what their party members did in thrall to Trump.

Anybody calling this a partisan presentation is either not paying attention, or is still a Trump supporter.

With that in mind, I think there is a reasonable question that doesn’t yet seem to even be remotely acknowledged- there is evidence groups were planning mayhem prior to 1/6, evidence intelligence agencies were aware of this, and evidence law enforcement and political powers were informed. So why was seemingly no effort made to reinforce security for 1/6? Allegedly, requests for this were made but denied.

Again, did you watch it? This was directly mentioned and is going to be addressed in more detail later in the proceedings. They played audio of General Milley talking about how the Trump administration wanted him to lie about things being stable, right after audio of him recounting the draconian response to the BLM protests ordered by Trump (as a contrast). A quick summary of that bit from Republican Liz Cheney:

• In a preview of some of the new information the committee has uncovered, Ms. Cheney said the committee would show how the White House had intelligence that the protests on Jan. 6 could turn violent but did nothing. Ms. Cheney played audio of General Milley testifying that in the aftermath of the attacks, the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, wanted him to push the false narrative that Mr. Trump was in charge and “things are steady or stable.”

 

[AG_PhamD]

Did you watch it? Liz Cheney (R) spoke almost as much as the Democratic chair. Just because Trump loyalists are trying to label her a traitor doesn’t change the fact that this is a bipartisan commission.

The above comment misses the mark because anything bad about Trump is automatically labeled “partisan” by his loyalists. Which is not true of this commission.

I hope one day that future Republicans will look back in shame at what their party members did in thrall to Trump.

Anybody calling this a partisan presentation is either not paying attention, or is still a Trump supporter.


Again, did you watch it? This was directly mentioned and is going to be addressed in more detail later in the proceedings. They played audio of General Milley talking about how the Trump administration wanted him to lie about things being stable, right after audio of him recounting the draconian response to the BLM protests ordered by Trump (as a contrast). A quick summary of that bit from Republican Liz Cheney:

Admittedly, I only saw bits and pieces. What percentage of republicans opposed impeaching Trump? All but two in the senate? 90%+ in polls. Sadly I’m not sure Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are representative of the overwhelming majority of republicans.

Regarding the preparation (and response to 1/6) I am aware Trump did not immediately order to quell the rioting/insurrection, which should have been more than enough to impeach him. But there’s a lot here that needs to be cleared up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-riot-dc-national-guard-memo/2021/03/16/80949750-82de-11eb-bb5a-ad9a91faa4ef_story.html

Ex-Capitol Police Chief Says Requests For National Guard Denied 6 Times In Riots

Steven Sund contradicts reports that help was not requested, saying security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed calls for assistance ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol.

www.npr.org

Trump admin was ready to deploy National Guard on Jan 6, Capitol Police timeline shows

A Capitol Police timeline of the days and weeks surrounding Jan. 6 shows former President Donald Trump’s Department of Defense (DOD) offered the National Guard’s assistance in the days leading up to the violent attack on the U. S. Capitol, validating claims from Trump administration officials...

thenationaldesk.com

Inside the Capitol Cops' Jan. 6 Blame Game

New documents and whistleblower claims describe critical intelligence failures ahead of the insurrection

www.rollingstone.com

This is why the National Guard didn’t respond to the attack on the Capitol

The response to the siege on the Capitol was mired in red tape.

www.militarytimes.com

There’s a lot of contradictory claims and finger pointing. Frankly, I don’t trust either side Congress to investigate this, nor accepting statements by people involved as irrefutable fact. The specific issue of why was there not extra police/NG on-site equipped to handle a riot deserves an independent investigation.

I trust the committee for the most part has/will identify Trump and the republicans responsibility on this and that’s where I presume most of the blame lies for inciting this crap in the first place. But there is an obvious political incentive to make this all about republicans when clearly there were others who seem to have some responsibility in terms of preparing for foreseen issues- or at least have their explanations scrutinized by an unbiased authority.

And why did the authorities who evidently had some idea of what the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were up to allow their actions to take place? What did they know and when and what could have been done to prevent these groups from at the very least exacerbating this situation?

It seems to me if you’re aware these groups are planning an insurrection- and I find it hard to believe they had not at least infiltrated the Proud Boys in some way considering Charlottesville, wouldn’t it be better to stop it before it starts? Or is it better to risk people getting hurt/killed- including other law enforcement officers, risking the safety of Congressmen/women, the VP, the security of the Capitol, the image of the US Government?

That’s not to take any blame away from Trump and his sycophants in government and other positions of power who perpetrated the “stop the steal” nonsense. I just think these are all questions worth answering and conflicts worth ironing out.

It very well be there is no political motive to some of these questions and the answer is simply incompetence and that’s fine. But it’s still worth getting to the bottom of. At the very least there seems to be a tremendous lack of communication between the various agencies.

 

[Edd]

That Jan 6th got to the level it did certainly surprised me, and I presume surprised virtually everyone. Yeah, Steve Bannon SAID all hell was going to break loose on his podcast but right wing media personalities are professional shit-talkers and Proud Boys-types mostly larp their way through life jerking off to race war fantasies but how much actually happens? If they had just protested outside the capitol everyone would have just said “Yeah, that figures, these idiots are all talk”.

So, that law enforcement got caught flat-footed doesn’t shock me much, but a plan B obviously should have been in place. Now we know.

 

[Roller]

Admittedly, I only saw bits and pieces. What percentage of republicans opposed impeaching Trump? All but two in the senate? 90%+ in polls. Sadly I’m not sure Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are representative of the overwhelming majority of republicans.

Regarding the preparation (and response to 1/6) I am aware Trump did not immediately order to quell the rioting/insurrection, which should have been more than enough to impeach him. But there’s a lot here that needs to be cleared up.

There’s a lot of contradictory claims and finger pointing. Frankly, I don’t trust either side Congress to investigate this, nor accepting statements by people involved as irrefutable fact. The specific issue of why was there not extra police/NG on-site equipped to handle a riot deserves an independent investigation.

It very well be there is no political motive to some of these questions and the answer is simply incompetence and that’s fine. But it’s still worth getting to the bottom of. At the very least there seems to be a tremendous lack of communication between the various agencies.

If you only saw "bits and pieces," on what are you basing your criticisms?

What the co-chairs, particularly Liz Cheney, outlined was that this was an orchestrated, premeditated plan to overturn the results of the election by multiple means, including disputing the vote in key states and sending alternate slates of electors. When that didn't work, the tactic shifted to sending a mob to the capitol to disrupt the proceedings and get Pence out of the way. One wonders if all the facts that have come to light since the 2nd impeachment trial had been known, would Trump have been found guilty.

If you don't trust either side of Congress to investigate this, what body would you accept? The committee is bi-partisan because of Liz Cheney's and Adam Kinzinger's participation. Additional Republicans were invited, but McCarthy deliberately chose people like Jim Jordan as an excuse to pull everyone and claim that the effort is partisan. As well, Senate Republicans blocked an independent commission.

As for accepting statements as irrefutable fact, under what circumstances does that ever apply? If witnesses say something under oath, they are at risk for perjuring themselves if they lie. Refuting them is a matter of presenting contrary physical evidence or testimony by other, more believable witnesses, but it's always an imperfect process because humans are involved.

Many Republican politicians and their supporters have already branded the committee's work as a partisan attempt to derail Trump — another witch hunt, to use words he often applies. As with their baseless stolen election claims, their intent is to de-legitimize the proceedings, conclusions, and recommendations. Are there as-yet unresolved questions about what agencies did or didn't do? Yes, but from what I've seen at least some of them will be answered during the hearings.

 

[SuperMatt]

It seems to me if you’re aware these groups are planning an insurrection- and I find it hard to believe they had not at least infiltrated the Proud Boys in some way considering Charlottesville, wouldn’t it be better to stop it before it starts?

You are missing the entire point. The committee is working to show that not only did Trump administration officials KNOW, they were working to make it happen. He blocked the National Guard for hours. His administration may have blocked requests for protection in the days leading up to Jan 6. Which is what the commission is working to show.

But you think it’s a partisan exercise? No, supporting a man who repeatedly tried to overturn a free and fair election and pretending Jan 6 was “legitimate political discourse” is a partisan exercise.

When most Republicans failed to support an independent commission to study Jan 6, this was the only option. And, having done that, they can claim it is a partisan exercise.

If you don’t see that, you aren’t paying attention…. Or else you support Trump and his coup attempt. If there’s a 3rd possibility, please let me know what it is.

And you really should be careful about using “The National Desk” as a source of anything other than entertainment.

 

[SuperMatt]

That Jan 6th got to the level it did certainly surprised me, and I presume surprised virtually everyone. Yeah, Steve Bannon SAID all hell was going to break loose on his podcast but right wing media personalities are professional shit-talkers and Proud Boys-types mostly larp their way through life jerking off to race war fantasies but how much actually happens? If they had just protested outside the capitol everyone would have just said “Yeah, that figures, these idiots are all talk”.

So, that law enforcement got caught flat-footed doesn’t shock me much, but a plan B obviously should have been in place. Now we know.

I believe the lack of security was intentional on the part of the Trump administration. The Proud Boys clearly had a plan to break past barricades based on the documentary evidence we saw yesterday. I believe we will find out that Trump officials knew and set it up for this to happen. So probably not an intelligence failure, but criminal behavior by Trump and his cabinet.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Sadly, because what took place was so obvious (Trump touting for months he would win unless there was fraud, the tweets, the Newsmax/OAN/MyPillow/Roger Stone/Steve Bannon/Rudy Colludy cretins pumping the far-right social circles full of totally made-up fiction)...

Everything we will see in these hearings is only going to reaffirm the obvious. It needs to be seen, I think it will be effective and I certainly hope it will change minds, but I can already hear the arguments play out in my head;

-Whataboutism (Hillary, Hunter Biden, etc.)
-Deflection (Supreme Court leak, Biden should be investigated over his Afghanistan withdrawal, etc.)
-Denial ("Nope, election was rigged, what was he supposed to do?", "Of course the republicans needed pardons, they had the election stolen and knew crooked dems would try to wrongly prosecute them, just like they did with the Russia Hoax.")

The same people who have no problem calling young people who take advantage of protests to loot and riot "thugs" and "terrorists" just shrug their shoulders when these far-right folks engage in criminal conspiracy to help a president defy the results of the vote. People died, police were beaten, the collateral damage as a whole was far worse than any of the previous-summer's riots (I say that without mitigating any loss of property, life or health anyone endured during the riots - but clearly, those had less direct impact on the nation as a whole).

Trump has gotten away with so much for so long I don't see how its possible anyone's mind isn't already made up, but I suppose there could be enough people out there who don't follow politics all that much who may be swayed.

Another issue is this game of semantics republicans play. They NEVER concede or admit to anything, ever. If caught in a lie, they twist themselves in pretzels. Like McCarthy and McConnell's much tamer language that they use to discuss the riots than they did after January 6.

It's why they say Trump didn't incite anyone. If I say "It sure would be a shame if people showed up to the Capitol and incited violence to overturn the bogus election results while congress is counting the electoral votes. The election was rigged and stolen, and I can't imagine anyone taking having their vote stolen lightly. That's a just reason for war in a lot of countries."

Republicans would take that statement if Trump said it and say "What? He clearly said it would be a shame if it happened, what's the big deal?"

The democrat conclusion is simple - Trump is a lifelong grifter, conman, liar and white collar criminal. He didn't stop when he became president, he used the office as a tool to further his crooked activities. But republicans have a million and one theories as to why all of that is not true, and Trump is always right. I don't know if I see anything changing. The number one cable news network is barely even covering this, and offering sympathetic coverage to Trump when they do. McCarthy has already indicated he's willing to listen to the far-right flank of his base and retaliate against the committee and its members, and I would not be surprised if they drum up their own rigged "investigations". Going to be real entertaining seeing guys like Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan interrogating witnesses.

That Jan 6th got to the level it did certainly surprised me, and I presume surprised virtually everyone. Yeah, Steve Bannon SAID all hell was going to break loose on his podcast but right wing media personalities are professional shit-talkers and Proud Boys-types mostly larp their way through life jerking off to race war fantasies but how much actually happens? If they had just protested outside the capitol everyone would have just said “Yeah, that figures, these idiots are all talk”.

So, that law enforcement got caught flat-footed doesn’t shock me much, but a plan B obviously should have been in place. Now we know.

I was not surprised. I was watching that day - I didn't care about Trump giving his standard campaign speech full of lies. This was different - he had been frothing this lie up for months before the election, refused to concede, had encouraged white supremacist groups during a presidential debate when he was asked to condemn them, had been pressuring election officials around the country, had his goof troop like Rudy Colludy and Mr. Pillows running around spouting nonsense, there was turmoil in the administration and an exodus of people even before the 6th, he had been publicly pressuring his own VP to just throw out the votes...

So I was tuning in that day very anxious to see what happened. There's always an element of surprise when something like that happens, but it I was not surprised in the sense of not expecting it. Kind of like a severe storm warning - lots of times, its just some lightning, thunder and rain. But sometimes, it does turn severe, and even though you had the warning, its still surprising.

I think one would have to be dense to not think Trump was fully in the loop on a lot of this. I think one thing was very effective was mentioning that Trump had a private meeting with Mike Flynn, Rudy Colludy, Sydney Powell (can't remember if Mr. Pillows was there). It lasted into the early morning, and Trump first tweeted about the rally after that meeting. These were people promoting his bogus claims and filing false lawsuits.

 

[Citysnaps]

Best Liz Cheney Comment:

Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

 

[Edd]

Trump is guilty of treason, and he deserves the harshest possible punishment.

Penalty: Under U.S. Code Title 18, the penalty is death,[4] or not less than five years' imprisonment (with a minimum fine of $10,000, if not sentenced to death). Any person convicted of treason against the United States also forfeits the right to hold public office in the United States.[5]