January 6 Select Committee

[Slim Cognito]

They really don't know how stupid "unselect committee" sounds do they?

[Frater I*I]

They really don't know how stupid "unselect committee" sounds do they?

A stupid phrase for their equally stupid base....who thinks they're owning the libs or some such...

[dan1100]

Cheney is turning into Columbo, "Just one more thing. Oh yeah, we have direct evidence of witness tampering this week by tfg. Just sayin'."

My baseless speculation and WAG:

Cheney said Trump called the witness but the witness didn't call back and instead informed the committee who informed the DOJ.

IMHO, that's not enough to make a case for witness tampering because you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt what he was going to say or why. If you want to make a case, she's got to take the call and ideally record it so you can prove Trump wasn't calling for some other reason.

WAG, the DOJ did have her call back and talk to Trump, he did try to convince to change her testimony, and "lordy, there's tapes".

[dan1100]

Hypothetical situation: Liz Cheney is the judge, Jaime Rasken is the prosecutor, and your defense attorney is Sidney Powel - now what?

Defendant hangs themselves in their cell.

[Dr. Ken]

[raison de arizona]

Drats. Imma be on an aeroplane. Perhaps they'll have WiFi.

[Reality Check]

The guy from Ohio was a real douchebag. He still cannot say for sure whether the election was stolen. Whatever happened to him was well deserved.

[neonzx]

The guy from Ohio was a real douchebag. He still cannot say for sure whether the election was stolen. Whatever happened to him was well deserved.

Cognitive dissonance is pretty powerful and he doesn't strike me as the sharpest tool in the shed. He did go to the J6 officers present in the hearing room and apologize, so I give him credit for that.

[SuzieC]

Watching Rachel. She keeps saying we have learned things for the first time today. NADA. I have already learned everything we have heard today on Fogbow. Including the draft Executive Order which seemed to come as a bombshell to everyone today but IIRC was published here MONTHS ago.

[RVInit]

Who’s the sneering woman behind Ayers? Ah, wife.

He not that bright.

He lost his job and they had to sell their house. He's lucky she's still his wife.

I actually thought she sneered and made faces mostly when she's hearing her husband denouncing TFG. I guess my take is way different than most here. She struck me as more of still buying into the Trump train and not impressed with her husband's awakening. Would be interesting to know which of us has the correct take, hard to tell in honesty.

I was touched that Ayers made a point to personally reach out to the Capitol police officers that were in attendance. He seems sincere to me, that he's really taken a hard look at his former beliefs and realizes some things. I bet this hearing and the powerful closing remarks by various committee members will help cement his new understanding of how he was bamboozled by all the crap he subjected himself to on social media. I hope his sneering wife decides to come around.

[RVInit]

One of my favorite parts of today's hearing:

[Gregg]

Hypothetical situation: Liz Cheney is the judge, Jaime Rasken is the prosecutor, and your defense attorney is Sidney Powel - now what?

Pack your toothbrush

[Kriselda Gray]

They really don't know how stupid "unselect committee" sounds do they?

I was thinking the same thing. It sounds so childish. Of course, most of what Trump says ends up sounding childish. That letter he wrote "releasing" Bannon from the burden of executive privilege was beyond pathetic. It read less like a letter and more like a list of his favorite insults. Ptooie!

[Jim]

Cheney is turning into Columbo, "Just one more thing. Oh yeah, we have direct evidence of witness tampering this week by tfg. Just sayin'."

My baseless speculation and WAG:

Cheney said Trump called the witness but the witness didn't call back and instead informed the committee who informed the DOJ.

IMHO, that's not enough to make a case for witness tampering because you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt what he was going to say or why. If you want to make a case, she's got to take the call and ideally record it so you can prove Trump wasn't calling for some other reason.

WAG, the DOJ did have her call back and talk to Trump, he did try to convince to change her testimony, and "lordy, there's tapes".

She's not the first one we've heard of getting inappropriate phone calls...establishes a pattern of attempting to influence.

[Kendra]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d1caa43d37

Multiple senior Trump officials and a person with first-hand knowledge told the Daily Caller that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows would not answer Hutchinson’s calls after she was subpoenaed. A Meadows spokesperson confirmed those claims to the Daily Caller, saying Meadows didn’t return those calls to avoid the appearance of improperly influencing any testimony.

The Daily Caller granted anonymity to people who have been subpoenaed by the committee.

“Cassidy Hutchinson reached out to various people in Trump world asking for both financial assistance and help finding a lawyer. She told us she was in significant financial distress, had no family that could help, and couldn’t even afford food. She also told us Mark Meadows wouldn’t return her calls. To our knowledge, she spoke with multiple lawyers and chose Stefan Passantino to represent her,” a person with first-hand knowledge told the Daily Caller.

The person with first-hand knowledge also said that Trump officials were sympathetic because of her age and lack of employment and said at her request, Trump’s PAC agreed to help her financially and, at her request, suggested attorneys she could interview. The person also said Hutchinson made derogatory comments about the Jan. 6 committee to multiple people in Trump world.

A former senior Trump official also mentioned Meadows not returning Hutchinson’s calls and said she reached out to Trump’s circle and asked for help.

“She reached out to Trump world and was like, ‘Hey. The committee reached out to me. I really need help.’ She didn’t have a job. She didn’t have money to pay a lawyer. Trump has been trying to be really helpful, especially with young people who weren’t like bad actors on J6, like get you a lawyer. Pay for it. Meadows wasn’t returning her phone calls and like her circle of people, weren’t, like, helpful,” a former senior Trump official told the Caller.

How many times have we heard Fox News peeps and their elk complaining about using unnamed sources like that?

[MN-Skeptic]

Cheney is turning into Columbo, "Just one more thing. Oh yeah, we have direct evidence of witness tampering this week by tfg. Just sayin'."

My baseless speculation and WAG:

Cheney said Trump called the witness but the witness didn't call back and instead informed the committee who informed the DOJ.

IMHO, that's not enough to make a case for witness tampering because you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt what he was going to say or why. If you want to make a case, she's got to take the call and ideally record it so you can prove Trump wasn't calling for some other reason.

WAG, the DOJ did have her call back and talk to Trump, he did try to convince to change her testimony, and "lordy, there's tapes".

I see two possibilities - 1) Trump left a message which may have sounded intimidating, or 2) Cheney is just putting Trump and others on notice that they are watching and will not take interference lightly.

[Fiascoist]

I think Chaney is setting TFG up by calling him out. No one tells him what he can or cannot do. It's an invitation that hopefully he can't resist.

[Kendra]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... y-1382261/

As she opened the House Jan. 6 committee hearing Tuesday, Republican Rep. Liz Cheney ticked through a list of names of people Donald Trump’s legal team have attempted to pin the blame for the Capitol attack, naming the president’s lawyers, MAGA-friend lawmakers, and others.

Mark Meadows, Trump’s former White House chief of staff, didn’t make the list — yet.

Trump’s inner circle increasingly views Meadows as a likely fall guy for the former president’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Members of Trump’s legal team are actively planning certain strategies around Meadows’ downfall — including possible criminal charges. Trump has himself begun the process of distancing himself from some of his onetime senior aide’s alleged actions around Jan. 6.

Meadows’ already bleak legal prospects could get even worse. Rolling Stone has learned that the Jan. 6 committee has been quietly probing his financial dealings, and any new revelations would add to an already long list of unethical and potential illegal actions he’s accused of taking on behalf of Donald Trump.

“Everyone is strategizing around the likelihood that Mark is in a lot of trouble,” says a lawyer close to the former president. “Everyone who knows what they’re doing, anyway.”

Coffee boy in 5...4...3...2...1...

[Kendra]

Heidi Stirrup — a Trump White House liaison to DOJ who was reportedly banned from the department after improperly trying to obtain details of voter fraud probes — testified to the Jan. 6 select committee in April, per a court filing tonight.

[Jim]

When will Meadows figure out that Trump-world is preparing to cut his throat and toss him out a 9th story window?

Some people just can't separate themselves from a cult.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

[Slim Cognito]

No good (?) deed goes unpunished.

[raison de arizona]

Multiple senior Trump officials and a person with first-hand knowledge told the Daily Caller that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows would not answer Hutchinson’s calls after she was subpoenaed. A Meadows spokesperson confirmed those claims to the Daily Caller, saying Meadows didn’t return those calls to avoid the appearance of improperly influencing any testimony.

The Daily Caller granted anonymity to people who have been subpoenaed by the committee. ,” a former senior Trump official told the Caller.

How many times have we heard Fox News peeps and their elk complaining about using unnamed sources like that?

To be clear, The Daily Caller is Tucker Carlson. I believe zero percent of anything written there unless it has supported sources elsewhere.

[Kendra]

Thanks, I thought that was the case, thanks for pointing it out.

[pipistrelle]

Unhinged’: The White House meeting that preceded Trump’s ‘will be wild’ tweet

https://wapo.st/3yA4vrr

Not sure where this goes.