Trumpist Insurrection in DC

[naraku360]

36 minutes ago, Ginguy said:

It isn't colloquial semantics. It is the distinction between calling something an "insurrection" when it is not, versus a conspiracy to use force to prevent the execution of Federal law. If they conspired to perpetrate an insurrection, why were they not charged with that crime?

It is precisely what she testified to, and here she is testifying to it.

This is a lie on its face. The two Secret Service agents are both willing to testify that this never happened. Even listening to the story any sane person would have serious doubts as to the validity of the story, hence the very real likelihood that Rep. Cheney subordinated perjury.

 

Sounds like a burger of the nothing variety. 🥱

[Sieg67]

Does it really matter what we call it?  What's important is that Trump and his allies tried to prevent the transition of power through various means including...

Tried using "Alternative electors."
Phoning people to try to get them to alter votes.
Filed numerous legal suites.
He told Mike Pence to override the vote and then called him a pussy when he refused.
Lied to his base to incite a mob. 

This mob tried hunting down Mike Pence and if Pence had left the capital, Trump may have succeeded.

Unless you're OK with all of this, I have no idea what the fuck your issue is.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Sieg67

[naraku360]

16 minutes ago, Sieg67 said:

Does it really matter what we call it?  What's important is that Trump and his allies tried to prevent the transition of power through various means including...

Tried using "Alternative electors."
Phoning people to try to get them to alter votes.
Filed numerous legal suites.
He told Mike Pence to override the vote and then called him a pussy when he refused.
Lied to his base to incite a mob. 

This mob tried hunting down Mike Pence and if Pence had left the capital, Trump may have succeeded.

Unless you're OK with all of this, I have no idea what the fuck your issue is.

Watch out, he has a thesaurus and maybe he'll figure out how to use it some day.

[Top Gun]

2 hours ago, PenguinBoss said:

 

That one lovely gentleman suuuure is obsessed with sucking cock.

[stilgar]

I wish the education system wouldn't have failed conservatives and they actually knew what words mean.

[naraku360]

1 hour ago, stilgar said:

I wish the education system wouldn't have failed conservatives and they actually knew what words mean.

There being conservatives will always be a societal failure.

[Doom Metal Alchemist]

12 hours ago, Ginguy said:

The two Secret Service agents are both willing to testify that this never happened. Even listening to the story any sane person would have serious doubts as to the validity of the story, 

Any sane person would have serious doubts of any validity of a story of Trump claiming electron fraud, inciting a mob to storm the capital with guns and bear mace in an effort to overturn a fair election..... Except we all know it happened through many pieces of evidence, so yeah, that's the kind of crazy Trump is.

[scoobdog]

6 hours ago, Doom Metal Alchemist said:

Any sane person would have serious doubts of any validity of a story of Trump claiming electron fraud, inciting a mob to storm the capital with guns and bear mace in an effort to overturn a fair election..... Except we all know it happened through many pieces of evidence, so yeah, that's the kind of crazy Trump is.

@Ginguyis so far in denial about Trump that it's questionable whether or not he is sane himself.  Joe Rogan of all people won't even have Trump on his podcast and we know that dude is nuts.

Edited July 6, 2022 by scoobdog

[naraku360]

3 hours ago, scoobdog said:

@Ginguyis so far in denial about Trump that it's questionable whether or not he is sane himself.  Joe Rogan of all people won't even have Trump on his podcast and we know that dude is nuts.

@Ginguy, you doing alright? It's okay, bud.

Accepting you've got a problem is the first step to recovery 

[scoobdog]

42 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

@Ginguy, you doing alright? It's okay, bud.

Accepting you've got a problem is the first step to recovery 

@Ginguy after seeing last weeks January 6 hearings, probably....

 

[Sawdy]

7 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

@Ginguy after seeing last weeks January 6 hearings, probably....

 

Achttttuuuallllly….

[scoobdog]

E.T. dressed as Jesus touching my pepe?

Yes, please!

(@Ginguy's inner child, most definitely)

Edited July 6, 2022 by scoobdog

[Sawdy]

On 6/11/2022 at 12:52 PM, 1pooh4u said:

He probably even had the same, Tucker Carlson stupid face, look as he typed that post

 

I’d say the feeling is more than mutual ya fuckin dink 

[1pooh4u]

39 minutes ago, Sawdy said:

I’d say the feeling is more than mutual ya fuckin dink 

Idt women of any stripe like this mother fucker right here. He takes zero responsibility for anything he says.  Shooters directly quote this walking shit stain, but he will swear it’s antifa, and he didn’t do nothing but ask some questions. 
 

piece of shit, liver bile, walking, brain dead strip of fuck that he is. 

[Sawdy]

Just now, 1pooh4u said:

Idt women of any stripe like this mother fucker right here. He takes zero responsibility for anything he says.  Shooters directly quote this walking shit stain, but he will swear it’s antifa, and he didn’t do nothing but ask some questions. 
 

piece of shit, liver bile, walking, brain dead strip of fuck that he is. 

O’Reilly leaves and they put this ass belonker in his place… and that cum bubble Jesse Watters too.

[1pooh4u]

Is Jesse Waters that dude that looks like Ross from friends….brb

yup that’s him. I hate that asshole too. He needs to go to the Central Perk and die. It’s no mistake that he looks like objectively Friends worst character. Which is saying something cuz they all sucked 

[Sawdy]

9 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Is Jesse Waters that dude that looks like Ross from friends….brb

yup that’s him. I hate that asshole too. He needs to go to the Central Perk and die. It’s no mistake that he looks like objectively Friends worst character. Which is saying something cuz they all sucked 

Yeah he is known for the gotcha questions to people that he thinks are beneath him… while popping his collar like a bro…. Dude would get rolled in any neighborhood besides nantucket

[Raptorpat]

On 7/5/2022 at 8:36 PM, Ginguy said:

It isn't colloquial semantics. It is the distinction between calling something an "insurrection" when it is not, versus a conspiracy to use force to prevent the execution of Federal law. If they conspired to perpetrate an insurrection, why were they not charged with that crime?

They were charged with seditious conspiracy because the ancient federal insurrection statute is virtually impossible to prove in court. Just like how bribery and nearly every other corruption statute are impossible to prove in court, but we all still know what it is.

Quote

Insurrection also falls under the same suite of federal laws as sedition, and the two can be difficult to distinguish. But it is charged by federal prosecutors far more rarely—almost never in American history. It means, essentially, to incite, assist in or engage in a full-on rebellion against the government: a step beyond just conspiring against it, and requiring that significant violence be involved.

Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher, mounted an armed standoff with the federal government in 2014—his son, Ammon Bundy, did the same in Oregon in 2016—on the basis of an explicitly anti-U.S. government philosophy. Still, prosecutors did not charge them with insurrection, which legal experts say is nearly impossible to prove in court.

Quote

Today, the U.S. criminal code defines sedition as part of a broad category that includes treason. The actual crime is called “seditious conspiracy.” This involves using—or planning to use—physical force against the U.S. government, as well as efforts to “seize, take, or possess” government property, or “delay the execution of any law of the United States” by force. The punishment can be up to 20 years in prison.

This law has been used in recent years to prosecute right-wing militia members like the Hutaree, a Michigan-based group that sought to kill police before they were arrested by the FBI in 2010.

Matthew Schneider, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, has already told the Detroit Free Press that more “seditious conspiracy” charges may result from the Capitol takeover, and legal experts told the newspaper that interrupting the counting of electoral votes clearly violated the ban on delaying the execution of U.S. law. Other federal prosecutors around the country have made similar statements.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-guide-to-insurrection-legalese (01.08.2021)

A competent prosecutor always goes for the highest crime they believe they can prove, so they don't go for the unprovable one. But the two statutes (insurrection and seditious conspiracy) are right next to each other in the book, cover the same issues, and the one being applied actually has double the maximum prison sentence. Yes, the federal law having been (temporarily) prevented from execution by force was the one governing the peaceful transfer of power (colloquially, an insurrection). But if the prosecutors know they can meet the elements of the parallel crime with a similar penalty and track record of success, they're not going to go for the unprovable one.

[Raptorpat]

On 7/5/2022 at 8:36 PM, Ginguy said:

It is precisely what she testified to, and here she is testifying to it.

This is a lie on its face. The two Secret Service agents are both willing to testify that this never happened. Even listening to the story any sane person would have serious doubts as to the validity of the story, hence the very real likelihood that Rep. Cheney subordinated perjury.

That what never happened? She's not testifying that any of that happened. She's testifying that one of them (Ornato) told her that this all happened, and that the other (Engel) was allegedly there during the event and listened to the whole story without disputing it.

Quote

Secret Service sources, and unidentified media sources said to be informed of its version of events, are signaling that the agency will dispute the version of events given by Hutchinson. Perhaps Secret Service will deny that any physical altercations occurred. It is not clear yet whether anyone has denied it under oath. It has been reported that Agent Engel has been deposed by the committee, but no video or transcript has been released, so we have no idea what he said, or even whether he was asked about what happened in the car.

Here is the salient point: Hutchinson never claimed to have seen any of this. She was neither in the car nor in a position to have viewed it from the outside. She was very clear that she was told this version of events, and that she was simply relating what she was told. If it turns out that Secret Service witnesses, in particular Engel and the unidentified driver, testify that it did not happen the way Hutchinson described it, that would not contradict her. Nor would it necessarily mean she was not told what she says she was told.

Now, about that. Some commentators are dismissing her description of what happened in the car as hearsay. That is part irrelevant and part inaccurate.

To begin with, the federal rules of evidence do not apply to congressional proceedings. They also never apply to investigations, which is what the committee says it is conducting. The point of an investigation is to search for reliable, admissible evidence. For that, hearsay is not only allowed but encouraged — it’s often how we find out who has a probative, firsthand account.

Furthermore, I am not even sure Hutchinson’s testimony in this regard would be inadmissible as hearsay if the rules of evidence did apply.

As I related in the column, Hutchinson said she was informed about what (allegedly) happened in the car only minutes later by Tony Ornato, who ran security at the White House. Ornato was not speaking idly. He was reporting what happened to a top aide (Hutchinson) of the White House chief of staff (Mark Meadows), Ornato’s superior. Most significantly, if Hutchinson’s version of events is correct, Engel was with Ornato as he described what happened.

If Engel was present, engaged, and listening to what Ornato said, and the circumstances were such that, if Ornato got details wrong, Engel would naturally be expected to correct him, then Ornato’s words were by implication Engel’s words, as if he had spoken them himself. It would not be simply a matter of someone telling Hutchinson what that person saw Trump do; it would essentially be Engel telling Hutchinson what Engel did with Trump.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-closer-look-at-the-hearsay-claims-surrounding-hutchinsons-trump-testimony/

[Top Gun]

Note that Jingo gives far more of a shit about what the charges were called than he ever did about the violent acts that led to them.

[Seight]

13 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

Is Jesse Waters that dude that looks like Ross from friends….brb

yup that’s him. I hate that asshole too. He needs to go to the Central Perk and die. It’s no mistake that he looks like objectively Friends worst character. Which is saying something cuz they all sucked 

Ah yes that's right, the guy who did "What if Billy On The Street, but not funny?" has a news show too.

[1pooh4u]

4 minutes ago, Seight said:

Ah yes that's right, the guy who did "What if Billy On The Street, but not funny?" has a news show too.

😑 his interviews on the streets of China town in nyc was all the cringe 😬

 

[1pooh4u]

Daily Show’s response to that😆

 

[1pooh4u]

And yes they did use that racist ass music to open the real piece 

[Raptorpat]

now I know what tim poole sounds like, because the committee played some of of his footage interspersed with other right wing "influencer" reactions to the 12/19 1:42am trump tweet calling for the "wild" protest

wait, I've already forgotten 

[Raptorpat]

so Liz Cheney said the lawyer for an upcoming witness reached out to the committee because DJT tried to call the witness directly at some point after the Hutchinson hearing. I think she said they referred it to DOJ.

[Jman]

2 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

now I know what tim poole sounds like, because the committee played some of of his footage interspersed with other right wing "influencer" reactions to the 12/19 1:42am trump tweet calling for the "wild" protest

wait, I've already forgotten 

GriftTube.  It’s this toxic cocktail of newspeak, insistent terminology constantly repeated, and LOUD NOISES.  You hear one of these people, you hear them all.

[Ginguy]

On 7/8/2022 at 8:16 PM, Raptorpat said:

Insurrection also falls under the same suite of federal laws as sedition, and the two can be difficult to distinguish. But it is charged by federal prosecutors far more rarely—almost never in American history. It means, essentially, to incite, assist in or engage in a full-on rebellion against the government: a step beyond just conspiring against it, and requiring that significant violence be involved.

So, calling the riot on 1/6 an insurrection is both factually and legally incorrect. If there is evidence that individuals conspired to use force to prevent the peaceful execution of Federal law, charge them and give them their day in court. To constantly call it an insurrection however is to propagandize the event and spread misinformation. It was not an insurrection, it did not meet the stated definition of an insurrection. It clearly lacks the requisite "significant violence" of an insurrection charge.

On 7/8/2022 at 8:36 PM, Raptorpat said:

That what never happened? She's not testifying that any of that happened. She's testifying that one of them (Ornato) told her that this all happened, and that the other (Engel) was allegedly there during the event and listened to the whole story without disputing it.

 

On 7/8/2022 at 8:36 PM, Raptorpat said:

As I related in the column, Hutchinson said she was informed about what (allegedly) happened in the car only minutes later by Tony Ornato, who ran security at the White House. Ornato was not speaking idly. He was reporting what happened to a top aide (Hutchinson) of the White House chief of staff (Mark Meadows), Ornato’s superior. Most significantly, if Hutchinson’s version of events is correct, Engel was with Ornato as he described what happened.

If Engel was present, engaged, and listening to what Ornato said, and the circumstances were such that, if Ornato got details wrong, Engel would naturally be expected to correct him, then Ornato’s words were by implication Engel’s words, as if he had spoken them himself. It would not be simply a matter of someone telling Hutchinson what that person saw Trump do; it would essentially be Engel telling Hutchinson what Engel did with Trump.

 

So, who is lying? Either both Agents are willing to lie under oath, and judging from the National Review article apparently Agent Engel already has testified, or Ms. Hutchinson has lied under oath. It is telling that if Agent Engel has testified his testimony hasn't been released. I'm certain that if he had corroborated Ms. Hutchinson it would be on every media outlet. So, given this, it is reasonable to presume that Ms. Hutchinson has either lied or "misremembered events" which she testified about.

[naraku360]

53 minutes ago, Ginguy said:

So, calling the riot on 1/6 an insurrection is both factually and legally incorrect. If there is evidence that individuals conspired to use force to prevent the peaceful execution of Federal law, charge them and give them their day in court. To constantly call it an insurrection however is to propagandize the event and spread misinformation. It was not an insurrection, it did not meet the stated definition of an insurrection. It clearly lacks the requisite "significant violence" of an insurrection charge.

 

 

So, who is lying? Either both Agents are willing to lie under oath, and judging from the National Review article apparently Agent Engel already has testified, or Ms. Hutchinson has lied under oath. It is telling that if Agent Engel has testified his testimony hasn't been released. I'm certain that if he had corroborated Ms. Hutchinson it would be on every media outlet. So, given this, it is reasonable to presume that Ms. Hutchinson has either lied or "misremembered events" which she testified about.

Mostly peaceful protest

 

[katt_goddess]

Riddle me this, why did Secret Service delete their texts from the day before and the day of despite being told those would be needed by the oversight committee? 

You can't claim that the word of the Secret Service detail is going to be considered of greater value than Hutchinson's report of a report given to her at the exact time of things when the Secret Service itself is now going to be getting the fine-toothed comb treatment for deliberately erasing info from the time of all this shit. She didn't delete shit, she reported what she heard at that time. But all the information that should at the very least of the least be stored in an archive somewhere regarding all official communications done on the tax payers dime...mysteriously disappearing. Deleted, erased, chewed up like a burger, torn into little bits, flushed down toilets, found in boxes at a f-ing golf resort.  

Most transparent administration my cat's black asshole. 

[Sawdy]

[Raptorpat]

 

[PenguinBoss]

 

[PenguinBoss]

 

[Raptorpat]

On 7/14/2022 at 8:20 PM, Ginguy said:

So, calling the riot on 1/6 an insurrection is both factually and legally incorrect. If there is evidence that individuals conspired to use force to prevent the peaceful execution of Federal law, charge them and give them their day in court. To constantly call it an insurrection however is to propagandize the event and spread misinformation. It was not an insurrection, it did not meet the stated definition of an insurrection. It clearly lacks the requisite "significant violence" of an insurrection charge.

From this vantage point, given the federal law being executed was of the peaceful transfer of power, the practical difference between the one charge and the other (notwithstanding everything I previously explained about the complexities of proving the requisite elements of an outdated penal statute and how some crimes as written are unprovable) is the degree of violence necessary for a court to entertain insurrection. And because the violence of storming barricades, fighting and injuring security, breaking into the US Capitol, etc. did not rise to a high enough degree of violence, I can only really say that the best argument that it wasn't an insurrection was because the Congress and Vice President successfully evacuated before the rioters, including people with zip ties, weapons, walkie-talkies, and a makeshift gallows outside reached them. Which is to say that you're right to the extent that technically it was a failed insurrection.

On 7/14/2022 at 8:20 PM, Ginguy said:

So, who is lying? Either both Agents are willing to lie under oath, and judging from the National Review article apparently Agent Engel already has testified, or Ms. Hutchinson has lied under oath. It is telling that if Agent Engel has testified his testimony hasn't been released. I'm certain that if he had corroborated Ms. Hutchinson it would be on every media outlet. So, given this, it is reasonable to presume that Ms. Hutchinson has either lied or "misremembered events" which she testified about.

As far as this, well the committee answered this directly in the five minutes beginning at the time stamp:

Not only did multiple witnesses corroborate the gist of the story Hutchinson relayed (that there was a heated dispute between Trump wanting to go to the Capitol and the detail refusing to take him), but the Secret Service is finally beginning to play ball with more to come down the road.

[Raptorpat]

But man, imagine how much less video there probably would have been plastering McCarthy's hypocrisy across the wall if only he didn't pull his five appointments to the commission from consideration.

[Master-Debater131]

So like, did the Secret Service try and kidnap Pence?  It sure looks like they may have been trying to "secure" him by taking him as far away from Congress as possible to prevent the certification of the election.

Pence flatly refused to get in a car driven by an SS agent because he thought they would make him disappear.

 

We're really going to need someone to find those missing text messages. No way does something fully disappear in the modern world.

[Seight]

This is a VERY IMPORTANT JOURNALISM ZOMG:

https://www.sbnation.com/2022/7/22/23274106/josh-hawley-january-6-capitol-run-40-time

Spoiler

Josh Hawley ran a 7.2 in the 40 at the Capitol Building on January 6th, 2021.

 

[Sieg67]

On 7/22/2022 at 9:11 AM, Master-Debater131 said:

So like, did the Secret Service try and kidnap Pence?  It sure looks like they may have been trying to "secure" him by taking him as far away from Congress as possible to prevent the certification of the election.

Pence flatly refused to get in a car driven by an SS agent because he thought they would make him disappear.

 

We're really going to need someone to find those missing text messages. No way does something fully disappear in the modern world.

That's the theory.  Scare him out and put in a substitution.

[Sawdy]

[Master-Debater131]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-committee-deepens-probe-trump-cabinet-sources/story?id=87547851&cid=social_twitter_abcn

 

Jan. 6 committee interviews Mnuchin as probe expands into Trump Cabinet: Sources

 

This is worth keeping an eye on.  Sounds like the committee is getting some of the cabinet members to cooperate now.

[Top Gun]

I thought that was a typo but no, that is his honest-to-God real name.

[matrixman124]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Ginguy]

On 7/22/2022 at 12:07 AM, Raptorpat said:

From this vantage point, given the federal law being executed was of the peaceful transfer of power, the practical difference between the one charge and the other (notwithstanding everything I previously explained about the complexities of proving the requisite elements of an outdated penal statute and how some crimes as written are unprovable) is the degree of violence necessary for a court to entertain insurrection. And because the violence of storming barricades, fighting and injuring security, breaking into the US Capitol, etc. did not rise to a high enough degree of violence, I can only really say that the best argument that it wasn't an insurrection was because the Congress and Vice President successfully evacuated before the rioters, including people with zip ties, weapons, walkie-talkies, and a makeshift gallows outside reached them. Which is to say that you're right to the extent that technically it was a failed insurrection.

If they need to clean up the law books (and they certainly do) then by all means they should do so. That aside, the fact remains that it was not an insurrection. It was, allegedly, a seditious conspiracy, and I agree that there could certainly have been individuals conspiring to prevent the lawful execution of Federal law, such as Ray Epps. Those individuals should be investigated and prosecuted as appropriate. The grandmas who were let into the building by Capitol police and wandered aimlessly should not be charged with anything, let alone be held without access to counsel, medical, or family in solitary confinement for months on end.

On 7/22/2022 at 12:07 AM, Raptorpat said:

Not only did multiple witnesses corroborate the gist of the story Hutchinson relayed (that there was a heated dispute between Trump wanting to go to the Capitol and the detail refusing to take him), but the Secret Service is finally beginning to play ball with more to come down the road.

So, we have gone from "Hutchinson told the truth" to "the gist of the story"? Hutchinson lied under oath, (criminal offense btw but we all know that doesn't matter) and therefore it is reasonable to hold her testimony as suspect. A "heated exchange" could be anything from "Take me to the Capitol" "No" "C'mon do it" "No" to "*bleep* take me there now *bleep* "No" "Take me there or you're fired" "No" *pouting in back seat*. In either scenario at no point was that scurrilous portion of the testimony corroborated. It was however run by all the media because the goal is to discredit President Trump.

[Raptorpat]

She did not testify that Donald Trump choked out his driver.

She testified that she was told a story, and no one has refuted that she was told that story under oath. The facts of the story don't speak to the honesty of the witness, it's a secondhand retelling. It doesn't matter whether the story she was told that she is retelling was presented to her literally or hyperbolically, what matters is that she said she was told a story by one firsthand witness as to his state of mind (that he intended to go and was upset that he was stopped) and that a second firsthand witness did not dispute it at the time of the telling. The literal facts of the story are irrelevant, the corroborated facts about his known state of mind are what's important, given he went back and sat in the dining room alone watching it on TV for the next two hours with no phone records while Mike Pence and all of Congress were evacuated, some evading "seditious conspirators who hadn't met the necessary triggers yet to be labeled insurrectionists" by meters or seconds (aka why it's just a failed insurrection/seditious conspiracy).

The materially relevant aspects of the story she retold (i.e. his state of mind, his intent, and the denial) were corroborated by multiple more witnesses per the last committee hearing, and we've also discovered the Secret Service mysteriously lost all their records of that specific timeframe.

[katt_goddess]

Take this for what it is

https://www.salon.com/2022/07/25/secret-agents-tried-to-torpedo-hutchinson-testimony-lawyer-up-refuse-to-testify-panel/

[Raptorpat]

"An oil-field worker and alleged recruiter for the far-right Three Percenters militia, Reffitt is said to have driven from Texas to Washington DC and led fellow Three Percenters up the main staircase to the Capitol building.

"According to court papers, he had told fellow members of the militia that he planned to drag US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi out of the Capitol building by her ankles, "with her head hitting every step on the way down".

totally not a failed insurrection (***colloquially speaking) though

[Sawdy]

Cool cool cool… but let’s get dem emails out here… and whatttttabout that laptop?!?

[rpgamer]

I had the misfortune of hearing some of the local political ads here the other day, and damn, they all still sound like they're pushing for insurrection or secession or something.

"I stood up to Biden. Vote for me and we can keep DC out of our state."

Ya huh. So, you just, like, don't want to participate in the country, then? But when it comes to federal aid programs....?

If they wanna "kick DC out of the state" then DC oughtta be kicking them out of the process.

[Sawdy]

Oh…no….

anyways…