|
Cranappleberry posted:I mean they should have subpoenaed Trump a year ago. In almost every investigation, the top target is the one you talk to last, preferably when you have everything you need and almost don't really even need to talk to him, just to see if he either confesses under the weight of the evidence you show him, or says something stupid you can use.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
Rigel posted:In almost every investigation, the top target is the one you talk to last, preferably when you have everything you need and almost don't really even need to talk to him, just to see if he either confesses under the weight of the evidence you show him, or says something stupid you can use. To respond to people on the last page, information gathering can be done in the interim while fighting the long legal battle, if they wanted him to testify before the end of the session. Trump may be worried, but it's unlikely he will have to testify unless the democrats maintain control of the House. If the democrats lose, the committee has 2 months to make him respond, much of which is vacation and may not lead anywhere without control The investigation does not seem to be swaying many voters, or at least, is not a high priority for then. For the DoJ, when Trump announces, they are not likely continue the investigation. Cranappleberry fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Nov 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:To respond to people on the last page, information gathering can be done in the interim while fighting the long legal battle, if they wanted him to testify before the end of the session. Trump may be worried, but it's unlikely he will have to testify unless the democrats maintain control on the House. Trump's testimony is not important at all. The committee's work is basically done and should probably be shut down soon even if the Dems retain the house. As for the DoJ, I think they are all but guaranteed to go after Trump at this point, and his announcement is not going to change that in any way whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Trump's testimony is not important at all. The committee's work is basically done and should probably be shut down soon even if the Dems retain the house. Agreed on all points. They wouldn't have added David Raskin a couple weeks ago if they weren't going to prosecute. I'd bet on before Thanksgiving but I've been catastrophically wrong many times before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
Rigel posted:As for the DoJ, I think they are all but guaranteed to go after Trump at this point, and his announcement is not going to change that in any way whatsoever. The DOJ is likely to spend the next 2 years answering questions in front of a GOP Congress
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Trump's testimony is not important at all. The committee's work is basically done and should probably be shut down soon even if the Dems retain the house. I don't share your confidence about the DoJ investigation because, seemingly, the DoJ's investigation had not unconvered what congress had and Garland doesn't want to seem political, but it's not like I have special information so I can't make a definitive statement. I don't think Trump's testimony matters. I think if the committee had the intention to get him to testify, they should have started much earlier. If they had the intention to use this to pressure the senate to start their own investigation and pass voting+election reform, ditto, but the whole investigation Obviously their intentions were to uncover more info, inform the public and the DoJ and use it to help swing the coming election. Whether that results in anything positive seems unlikely to me. Fart Amplifier posted:The DOJ is likely to spend the next 2 years answering questions in front of a GOP Congress Agreed. Cranappleberry fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Nov 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:The DOJ is likely to spend the next 2 years answering questions in front of a GOP Congress "Sorry congressman, we can not comment on this case." "Sorry congressman, we can not comment on our decision to prosecute this case." "Sorry congressman, we can not comment on our earlier investigation of this case."
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:I don't share your confidence about the DoJ investigation because, seemingly, the DoJ's investigation had not unconvered what congress had amd Garland doesn't want to seem political, but it's not like I have special information so I can't make a definitive statement. People have been able to piece together from travel logs overlapping with other things that the DC Grand Jury has interviewed pretty much all of Trumps circle. As many as 40 a week if you believe the Times. That they are working in secret, as they are required too, isn’t a sign that they aren’t working. I also wouldn’t put much stock in statements of what DoJ did or didn’t know that aren’t coming from the people involved who, again, are operating in secret.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
Rigel posted:"Sorry congressman, we can not comment on this case." And then they'd be held in contempt
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
Murgos posted:People have been able to piece together from travel logs overlapping with other things that the DC Grand Jury has interviewed pretty much all of Trumps circle. Just ignore. It’s another person rolling in, making broad pronouncements that show they haven’t been paying attention and in like 4 posts they’re gonna throw a fit about how we’re naive and they have the real understanding of politics and the justice system while casually doing things that make it clear they don’t know basic civics. If they say “cope”, take a drink. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:And then they'd be held in contempt On an active investigation and prosecution? No they wouldn't, unless the questions were so vague, so general, and so irrelevant to the specific case that they don't matter. Or unless the questioning was done behind closed doors with the members unable to say anything afterwards, in which case, ok.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Rigel posted:On an active investigation and prosecution? No they wouldn't, unless the questions were so vague, so general, and so irrelevant to the specific case that they don't matter. Or unless the questioning was done behind closed doors with the members unable to say anything afterwards, in which case, ok. I don't doubt that a Republican House would vote to hold them in contempt, but when it got to a judge the charges would be thrown out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:And then they'd be held in contempt Doesn't Contempt of Congress get referred to the DOJ for prosecution?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:The DOJ is likely to spend the next 2 years answering questions in front of a GOP Congress It's not really clear to me why this matters? The DoJ has lots of lawyers, they can afford to send one or two over for the House to posture at while the rest of the department works on putting together a solid case for prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
Murgos posted:People have been able to piece together from travel logs overlapping with other things that the DC Grand Jury has interviewed pretty much all of Trumps circle. I take any reported information about the ongoing process with a grain of salt but I also have a healthy skepticism that a powerful politician and a former/potentially future president will see real consequences (indictment, trial and maybe conviction or plea without a pardon). I'd be delighted to be surprised. Main Paineframe posted:It's not really clear to me why this matters? The DoJ has lots of lawyers, they can afford to send one or two over for the House to posture at while the rest of the department works on putting together a solid case for prosecution. If it's public, the goal would be to grandstand, collect soundbites and try to wheedle out information. Also putting beaureaucrats in public and then their names being said on a podcast/radio show will affect their lives personally. The GOP and right-wing benefit from extremists even as they disavow them. Anything they can to mess up the investigation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not really clear to me why this matters? The DoJ has lots of lawyers, they can afford to send one or two over for the House to posture at while the rest of the department works on putting together a solid case for prosecution. It really doesn't. Getting hauled in front of Congress is Garland's job. Deputy AG, or whoever else on the senior leadership team draws short straw. The investigative team will continue it's work, and given that they've investigated candidates in the past, Trump's declaration of his candidacy by no means kills the investigation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
I doubt Gym Jordan is going to squeeze any actual questions into his diatribes
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1590850314768375809 Trump lies about everything but that's an interesting choice of thing to lie about
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 02:18
|
|
|
When you’re lying through hell, keep lying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 14:06
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1590850314768375809 I'm sure the FBI is looking at their records and enjoying this morning's edition of "Trump: saying some bullshit or confessing a crime?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 16:47
|
|
|
He wasn't lying, he just sent in the other FBI
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
Buddy_Cthulhu posted:He wasn't lying, he just sent in the other FBI Fellow Band of Insurrectionists?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
Trump sues Jan. 6 committee to block subpoena for documents, testimonyquote:Former President Trump has sued to block the Jan. 6. committee subpoena for documents and testimony.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
It's a bold strategy, Cotton...
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 04:14
|
|
|
Well, he thought the committee would go away next year, now that there's a small possibility the dems keep the house, it makes sense to sue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 04:22
|
|
|
I'm not a lawyer and I don't mean this in a legal way, but that is sedition. That thing he just did is sedition by any sane use of the word.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 04:28
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I'm not a lawyer and I don't mean this in a legal way, but that is sedition. That thing he just did is sedition by any sane use of the word. Going through the courts is, I posit, by definition not sedition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Going through the courts is, I posit, by definition not sedition. What if you illegally stuffed the courts with seditionists first?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 07:31
|
|
|
KillHour posted:illegally Oh, you loaded your question. Well I guess that's on you to prove it, innit? AtraMorS fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Nov 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 07:42
|
|
|
KillHour posted:What if you illegally stuffed the courts with seditionists first? He did it legally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 07:43
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:He did it legally. yeah, exactly. Mitch McConnell holding up the appointment of Merrick Garland was completely legal. Trump, who was elected president, appointing the SC justices was also completely legal and the senate confirmed them, even if they lied under oath. Ditto for all the other judicial appointments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 10:11
|
|
|
That's loving Dog Playing Basketball bullshit and you all know it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
Goons in 2025 when the supreme court declares that Brown v Board of Education was improperly decided: "well at least they didn't break any laws"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Goons in 2025 when the supreme court declares that Brown v Board of Education was improperly decided: "well at least they didn't break any laws" Yes, that's exactly right. It's how democracy works. Sorry you'd rather live in a dictatorship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yes, that's exactly right. It's how democracy works. Man I'd love to think this is a parody post, but lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Man I'd love to think this is a parody post, but lol People get the government they vote for. If they vote a bunch of assholes into office, then of course bad poo poo's going to happen for a while. That's the system working as designed. People then get to vote the assholes out of office and fix the problems they created. That's also the system working as designed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Goons in 2025 when the supreme court declares that Brown v Board of Education was improperly decided: "well at least they didn't break any laws" You said Trump illegally stuffed the courts. I pointed out that it was legal, because it was. Now you're being a child.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:That's loving Dog Playing Basketball bullshit and you all know it. of course it is. my argument is that it isn't just the people voted into office that are doing the damage or failing to prevent it, but that the systems themselves are severely flawed, often anti-democratic and are working exactly as intended for a small group of people to maintain power and push their ideals. Someone else might have the perspective that the systems have been pushed to the point of breaking. It's all technically legal or quasi-legal (referring to the new laws in swing states and red states that allow legislatures to pick winners of elections).
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:People get the government they vote for. If they vote a bunch of assholes into office, then of course bad poo poo's going to happen for a while. That's the system working as designed. To an extent But 1/3 of our Supreme Court right now wasn't appointed by presidents who won the popular vote. Also, the representation % in congress does not align with the percentage of party votes nationwide either; or statewide for that matter. My point being that judicial, legislative and executive representation does not reflect how the majority of people in this country actually vote. Hell, there have only been 2 elected Republican presidents that won the popular vote since 1992. People are mostly voting AGAINST the assholes you cite and who you are blaming them for not voting for. We would have had Al Gore and Hillary Clinton terms for at least 8 years in there - and arguably 16 - plus the house and the senate would look far different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
FilthyImp posted:That's loving Dog Playing Basketball bullshit and you all know it. It’s legal but not moral. It’s not even a moderately fine distinction. Now, if you want to argue that the collusion (and actual conspiracy by Trump Jr regardless of what Mueller thought of his mens rea) to leverage a foreign power to defraud the United States of a fair election and thus Trump was illegally president and all his actions should be annulled I’m with you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 18:06
|
|