Jan 6 committee votes to subpoena Donald Trump

SIAP. The whole intent of the 1/6 commission was to prevent Trump from running for president again...Not much democratic intent coming from the 1/6 committee.

 

Specious comparison. You're comparison is misguided. It's not about quantity of damage and duration of the riots, it's about the significance of the event. The significance of the attack on the capitol, in which 6 people died and 140 were injured, was that it was instigated by a President of the United States in an effort to violently oppose the US Government from executing it's lawful duties for orderly change of power, and that is more significant than all the street riots of 2020 by many orders of magnitude. THe last time the capitol was under siege was in the war of 1812, some 210 years ago.

The street riots were instigated by cops shooting unarmed blacks and getting away with it, they weren't politically motivated, per se, they were retribution motivated, whereas the attack on the capitol was politically motivated, the motivation of which gave rise to a juggernaut of rage which erupted to the attack on the capitol on January 6 by non other than Donald J. Trump, the welling anger of which was the result of Trump telling his flock that 'Democrats stole the election' over and over and over and over again, on TV and at every rally and interview. .

All the evidence points to Trump, Stone, Bannon, Eastman, Eric, Flynn, Clark, and Jones, to name a few but Trump is at the center of the storm, and the evidence that points to him is irrefutable, inescapable, incontrovertible.

Now, those are just conclusions outside of a court of law, and, in law, one is innocent until proven guilty, so if and when Trump is indicted, he will have a chance to mount a defense, if he can find a decent lawyer who will represent him.

 

Just wow... 1/6 Committee = "Spanish Inquisitors"??

Normally, I'd say that is the dumbest ****ing thing I'll read all day, but it's not even noon and MAGA's abound....

 

While I'd counter to say that's the most (little D) democratic thing that can be done in America today, even as I disagree with your ridiculous claim about the whole intent of the committee...

 

There's no evidence of any of that.

 

You said his "plea" of the 5th amendment "would be on record". What did you mean?

 

This is a loon who is still lying about the great trespass. 1, not 6 people died during the trespass. And that was unarmed trespasser Ashli Babbitt.

 

Quote me.

 

LOL... Didja hear about the former WH aide telling the FBI T**** told him to move boxes out of the storage room to his personal residence after the document subpoena came in?? I gather OAN doesn't cover actual news

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-aide-caught-camera-moving-boxes-mar-a-lago-storage-2022-10

If you look in an online dictionary under Obstruction one day in the future, you'll see a link to this video....

 

Is that the evidence you have? Really?...lol

 

Last I heard, Babbitt is down in Hell playing Hearts with Hitler, Pol Pot, and Charlie Manson....

On the positive side, she's winning...

 

Only one person was killed, by the government and the place wasn't "swimming with arms" and there was never any attempt to "take over" the country.

 

Well, that's the evidence the DOJ has....amongst several other great usable pieces and witnesses...

 

Do you agree with Trump's comment?

 

It's hearsay. Please, tell us that isn't the best they have.

 

"Pleading the 5th" is a common colloquial, EXPRESSION, the operative words being 'common'. colloquial, and 'expression'.

Another term for these descriptors is the term 'slang'.

The other common form of this expression is 'Taking the 5th'. Both are common.

Do we really need to explain to you what the intended meaning is?





As a rule, pleading/taking the 5th is done under oath, either in a deposition, in a court of law, or in a congressional hearing.

Caveat: "IANAL". do your own research.

 

Joe's messages to Hunter are not real?
And the bank notifications to the DOJ have Joe Biden flagged as well.

Just because the Feds are not willing to pursue valid evidence of criminal activities doesn't clear Joe and Hunter of that very same criminal behavior.

Just like with Hillary, "no prosecutor would pursue charges" but Comey never said that she didn't break numerous laws.

 

There are several grades of hearsay evidence, and the kind that is allowed has been allowed at a hearing.

Moreover, the bar for the caliber of hearsay is a bit lower in a hearing over that in a court of law. however, even in a hearing, no one is going to rest on one singular testimony.. The strength of hearsay is in the corroboration. For example, regarding Hutchinson's claims about Trump wanting the 'mags taken down' and 'armed people to get through to the ellipse' is confirmed by Secret Service emails/texts. and noting that she is a direct witness on that count, it's acceptable as evidence in a hearing, especially if corroborated.


Caveat: "IANAL", do your own research.

 

Guess she should have just shut up, obeyed, gotten in the pods and eaten the bugs.

 

Yep, an unconstitutional use of Congressional authority.

 

Surprise, surprise, an all anti-Trump committee votes unanimously to subpoena Trump, just before the midterm elections.

 

But his dad did and placed him in position where "The Big guy" had influence and financially benefited from US policy... That makes it even worse!

Democrats control both houses and refuse to open an investigation. I assure you, once Republicans gain the house and potentially the Senate, there will be a proper investigation.

And no evidence... There is ample evidence..

 

No it isn't...

There are ONLY exceptions.

Uniform Rule of Evidence 63 does list this type of testimony as a valid exception and thus this testimony does not qualify for any exception within the January 6th forum.

 

It's all "hearsay"?

*LOFL*

 

He's up for election?