I'm thinking about how reasonable doubt is the standard for judging criminal guilt.
I'm thinking about how George W. Bush used to be condemned for being incurious.
Why wouldn't you look into doubt? Why wouldn't you see doubt as inviting exploration and contemplation? Why would you think in terms of destroying doubt — like it's some cloddish block of stone and you've got a chisel and mallet?
Baker writes:
But for a man who famously avoids leaving emails or other trails of evidence of his unspoken motives, any doubts about what was really going through Mr. Trump’s mind on that day of violence seemed to have been eviscerated by testimony presented in recent weeks by the House committee investigating the Capitol attack....
The issue is what was Trump thinking. Did he know he'd lost the election and decide to hold onto power by leading an insurrection? I still don't see it. There's certainly reasonable doubt, but it doesn't even seem more likely than not.
"Doubts about what was really going through Mr. Trump’s mind... have been eviscerated"? Well, it says "seemed to have been eviscerated." The weasel word "seemed" gnaws away at the guts of "eviscerated."
Please, move on, Democrats. I don't want Trump coming back as a candidate either, but your one-sided hearing — your disregard for fair procedure, your predetermined outcome — are chipping away at and eviscerating your own reputation.
Posts
101 comments:
It's not doubt, it's skepticism. You can't live object-skepticism (how do I know it's a ball of wax, I don't see all of it, etc) but you can live other-minds skepticism.
It's not up to Shakespearean standards here though. It's just a dime novel plot that they can sell. Soap opera.
Peter Baker, “ More than perhaps any insider account that has emerged, the recollections of the aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, demolished the fiction of a president who had nothing to do with what happened. Each revelation was stunning on its own: Mr. Trump knew that weapons were in the crowd as he exhorted supporters to “fight like hell,” and even tried to stop anyone from disarming them. He was so determined to join the mob at the Capitol that he lashed out at his Secret Service detail for refusing to take him. And he was so nonchalant about the bedlam he had unleashed that he suggested Vice President Mike Pence might deserve to be executed for refusing to overturn the election.”
Cassidy is the hearsay liar. Her testimony is inadmissible.
Later in the Baker piece, he cites the Mooch. The guy who was fired after two days. Not credible.
Is this the NYT can do? Pathetic.
Althouse: "...but your one-sided hearing — your disregard for fair procedure, your predetermined outcome — are chipping away at and eviscerating your own reputation."
According to Gadfly The Hopeless, this Kafkaesque Kangaroo Kourt Schiffty Soviet Showtrial is every bit as fair and unassailable as the 2020 election!
Charity for Augustine was seeing the best in your enemies instead of the worst. That's why charity was soul-saving. Since then that's been lost and it became money, which worked out better for charities.
"But for a man who famously avoids leaving emails or other trails of evidence of his unspoken motives, any doubts about what was really going through Mr. Trump’s mind on that day of violence seemed to have been eviscerated by testimony presented in recent weeks by the House committee investigating the Capitol attack...."
So there is no direct evidence of Trump's thinking. But speculation, rumors and third hand knowledge "eviscerates this?
So many people speculated to run for POTUS if/when Biden fades (further). So many people telling us what was on Trump's mind.
There is one inevitable conclusion.... Carnac the Magnificent for President (D)2024.
So far the Representative whose reputation has taken a hit from the hearings is McCarthy. Is he still Speaker materia!?
The Democrats are making bricks without straw. Without anything more than hearsay (or worse) to hold it together, all you've got is mud.
I wonder if the Bakeroid remembers when it was human.
It's little hard to believe the doctors can successfully resuscitate the patient, when pieces start falling off the corpse as they work.
If there is anything that has been 'chipped away' it's the sanity of the Left and much of the right since Trump became President. He still lives rent-free in many peoples heads, all day and night. And he remains the focus of the Democratic Party even after they used threw everything but a MOAB at him over the last 5 years. He's still breathing, he's still striving, he's still looking ahead. And that just kills Democrats, or what we used to call "journalists".
more leftist mind reading.
when mind-crime and thought-crime are weapons the left use - they suddenly become experts and mind reading, don't they? Is mind-reading admissible in a court of law?
coming soon to a chi-com soviet(D) US court sometime soon.
Liz Cheney is trying to rewrite history by casting the (mostly) peaceful protesters who stood for democracy as insurrectionists.
But for a man who famously avoids leaving emails or other trails of evidence of his unspoken motives, any doubts about what was really going through Mr. Trump’s mind on that day of violence seemed to have been eviscerated by testimony presented in recent weeks by the House committee investigating the Capitol attack....
In other words, Trump mind reading has famously been unsupported by objective fact and therefore unpersuasive, but this recent mind-reading will surely do the trick this time.
Doubts, inference, witch hunts, warlock trials, baby per chance granny abortions, ethics and prejudice.
As for Cassidy Hutchinson, she didn't even want to take part in this originally. When she was forced to do so, she went for the unsaid 'deal' and in the time it takes to heat up some Jiffy Pop, hired a Democratic law firm to help prep her lines, and turn herself into the star prosecutor's witness.
J6 Commission BS
If there's any validity to Hutchinson's testimony it goes to Trump's emotional state. It really doesn't go to what was going through his mind or what he was thinking or what plans, if any, he had.
"Goes to" - that's what lawyers say. Or so the movies tell me.
The democrats have become public clowns. If you are trying to get another bite at the impeachment apple can you at least clothe it in the image of honesty? No, they can’t.
readering: "So far the Representative whose reputation has taken a hit from the hearings is McCarthy. Is he still Speaker materia!?"
A truly pathetic gadfly-level misdirection effort.
Try again.
I think the January 6 riots will be a decisive turning point in our history. Our country is transitioning from a democratic superpower to an authoritarian one.
One must chip away at doubt of the righteousness of the cause, Ann. The party is always right, and doubts mark one as a dangerous potential traitor, unreliable when one is most needed.
Begley: "Cassidy is the hearsay liar. Her testimony is inadmissible."
Not in DC.
Blasey-Ford Hutchison's "testimony" has been completely internalized by the entire 98% DC democratical voting base and is already baked into any future proceeding as "the truth".
It is all resting on the gigantic lie that the protesters were insurrectionists. If they had wanted to gangrape and hang Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney, they could have done so easily. Instead, they took selfies and left when asked politely. Some of them are still in the D.C. gulag for doing so.
However, I will tell you this- when these protesters return to D.C. next time, they will burn the fucking place to ground and put heads on pikes. So, D.C. has been warned.
Shorter Baker: "My mind reading of Trump is supported by multiple accounts of other people who are mindreading Trump."
Yeah I am sure Peter Baker was waiting for all the evidence to come in.
Assuming Trump's in cahoots with Vlad to destroy NATO and the West, why would you give these existential threats the benefits of the doubt. We're at war with tyrants. Fuck legal niceties. Let's ask Achilles about the benefits of legal lawyer micromanaging combat rules of engagement.
Please, move on, Democrats. I don't want Trump coming back as a candidate either, but your one-sided hearing — your disregard for fair procedure, your predetermined outcome — are chipping away at and eviscerating your own reputation.
But when push comes to shove, you'll still vote for them, or at least refuse to vote against them.
Peter Baker is a frequent guest panelist on PBS’ Washington Week. He must hold the record for interjecting “you know” into virtually every sentence he utters. So if doubt is being chipped away, the next stage is that we know it must be true.
The J6 show trials have done the impossible - created sympathy for one of the most unsympathetic characters in American history. Well done Democrats. What a bunch of dumb asses.
Please, move on, Democrats.
They won't. They have no party unity without Trump to hate and blame for all their misfortunes and missteps.
Conservatives value loyalty and fear disorder. To make Trump unacceptable to conservatives, democrats have to make him disloyal and creator of chaos. The morons who on Jan 6th were baited into the capitol are designed to convince conservatives Trump is unfit for office. It’s largely worked. Many of the boomer conservative Trump supporters have said they wouldn’t vote for a second term. But, they’ve also experienced the aftermath of losing Trump - economic disaster - so maybe Trump’s still worth their vote. In any case, it’s easy to see what the Dems are trying to do and it is working to a degree. Can it work faster than Biden fucks things up is the real question.
"Why would you think in terms of destroying doubt — like it's some cloddish block of stone and you've got a chisel and mallet"?
If you think the "sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material."
Confirmation bias in action. The result is already known, therefore any doubts must be in error.
"your disregard for fair procedure, your predetermined outcome — are chipping away at and eviscerating your own reputation."
This reminds me of one of my favorite Tyrian Lannister quotes:
“I’m not questioning your honor, Lord Janos. I’m denying its existence."
You can't "chip away" and "eviscerate" a reputation that doesn't exist.
Howard: "Assuming Trump's in cahoots with Vlad to destroy NATO and the West..."
Leftism remains a mental disorder.
By the way, did you happen to catch the massive revenue increase to Vlad under Team Dem/NeverTrump and the ever expanding BRICS coalition as well as the ChiComs rapidly expanding Belt and Road deals and military base construction? Not to mention the acceleration of the Iranian nuke development?
Isnt it amazing just how fast the Biden's Earpiece "presidency" paid off for our enemies and competitors while crushing average Americans?
It's well known that you can't polish a t#rd. And despite its best efforts, and for much the same reason, the Democrats just can't polish the reputation of the January Pelosi Schiff Cheney posse. Now it may be possible to "eviscerate" the reputation of the group--but you can't polish it. They are giving the 1937 Stalinist show trials a run for their money.
I know the Never Trump crowd keeps thinking this committee is going to keep Trump from running again, but I think the Dems are actually setting him up for a 2024 run. Because it's so shoddy and one sided, I want to see him succeed. I'm currently fighting that impulse because I'm done with Boomer presidents.
It's the New Journalism: start with the conclusion (Trump is guilty) then look for anything, anything at all to support that conclusion.
I have yet to see anything from any mainstream press outlet questioning the methods, means, or legitimacy of this "investigation." Just breathless statements of credulity and wonder whenever some nugget of truthiness falls out of it.
It could be argued that chipping away at doubt is how the crusades happened.
Not a journalist, but a science fiction writer.
To this guy, Trump not liking email is proof he's a super villain.
Scott Adams would like a word about mind-reading...
"Cassidy is the hearsay liar. Her testimony is inadmissible."
David Begley - and you are an attorney? How do you know for a fact that she is lying - because of media reports? Who has offered sworn testimony contradicting anything she said? I missed it.
Her testimony is inadmissible - First of all it obviously is admissible in a house oversight hearing because it was admitted. Second, are you saying that at a trial nothing she said is relevant non-hearsay or fall into a hearsay exception - eg excited utterance, statement against interest, not offered for the truth of the matter asserted? Did you watch her entire testimony? My recollection is you said it wasn't worth your time.
Even assuming that nothing she said would be admitted at a trial, what's your point? Does that mean that at this stage people should ignore her sworn testimony - or should it be a basis for further inquiry or investigation?
Finally, assuming everything she said is true, I assume that would not matter to you one iota. Your position on what happened on Jan 6 would be exactly the same. Right?
I don't really expect that you will answer any of these questions because that is your nature. But I'm sure others here will come to your defense. That's how things tend to work here.
This doesn’t chip away at or eviscerate their reputation, it reinforces it.
Some day in the future, Trump is going to pass on, from this earth perhaps to a Trump Tower penthouse apartment in the sky. The gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, and piteous wailing from the Left will be louder and more distraught than the lamentations of his supporters. They did it with Reagan. They did it with Nixon. They'll do it with Trump. To hell with them.
Thanks David Begley for bringing this up: 'Mr. Trump knew that weapons were in the crowd as he exhorted supporters to “fight like hell."'
I've been told all along that no weapons were found among the protestors. Has that changed? Has new information come to light? Or is it simply that since Cassidy testified that Trump knew there were weapons in the crowd, whether or not there actually were weapons in the crowd is not relevant?
So much wrong with Baker, with the Jan 6 committee, the left, the NYT, etc. The professor has said in the past that she thinks it's a cheap and easy to accuse your opponents of not caring, but what other conclusion is possible? Sure, they care--they care about power. But the don't care how they get it or what happens to everybody else once they have it.
readering said...
So far the Representative whose reputation has taken a hit from the hearings is McCarthy. Is he still Speaker materia!?
In your mind along with Trump living there, McCarthy's reputation has taken a "hit." I have my doubts about McCarthy as a professional politician. That has nothing to do with the "hearings." They are a clown show.
Democrats can't move away from J6. It's their forlorn chance of retaining power. When the Republicans take over, the reconstituted J6 committee will be asking Nancy Pelosi what she knew and when she knew it. They'll be grilling the FBI and will not be accepting the FBI's lame excuses about methods and agents. I look forward to FBI witnesses chained to the witness chairs until they are forthcoming with actual testimony. The new J6C will be asking who is Ray Epps and why wasn't he prosecuted.
Blogger Howard said...
Assuming Trump's in cahoots with Vlad to destroy NATO and the West, why would you give these existential threats the benefits of the doubt.
Howard used to hate warmongers back when he was in tie died shirts and Birkenstocks. Last year that was. Now he is one. The Democrats are doing fine at destroying NATO and the West without help from Trump.
I haven't watched the hearing, so someone who did, tell me: Have they asked the witnesses what Donald Trump thought? Did he believe in election fraud, or not? Did he listen when people told him it was coming to nothing, or did he insist on it harder and harder, more and more frustrated with the fools who didn't understand?
My impression is that the witnesses have not been asked; if they had I think I would have heard about it. The only explanation I can see for that is that they know that all the witnesses would be absolutely clear, and they don't want that known.
They want to be able to (pretend to) infer his state of mind, rather than just finding out what it was.
Maybe they did it before, but it wasn't until Trump was elected that I started noticing phrases such as according to "those familiar with his thinking" in news articles about the President. That phrase was often used without given context as HOW that person was familiar with his thinking. Thus, I began just substituting the phrase "someone who made this entire story up" says that......
Anyway, I so hope that the GOP takes over the House and Senate just so we can gave a one-sided committee to investigate the Biden family and their finances in order to learn exactly how they made their millions. The hearings can last for at two years with at least a full day of hearings devoted to who exactly purchased Hunter Biden's paintings. It can culminate with a fully televised committee report issued the first week of October 2024, with indictments being released at the end of that week.
5 1/2 years and counting
NYT.....lol
God forbid there be any doubt that Trump is guilty of something.
The word eviscerate reminded me of a scene in the Revenant. Hugh Glass eviscerates (removes the internal organs) his own horse and crawls inside the carcass to stay warm in a snowstorm.
This quote is being touted by The Atlantic today: Mitt Romney: "Joe Biden is a genuinely good man, but he has yet been unable to break through our national malady of denial, deceit, and distrust. A return of Donald Trump would feed the sickness, probably rendering it incurable."
That's almost guaranteeing solid Republican support. They know what they're doing, right?
It could be argued that chipping away at doubt is how the crusades happened.
Funny, I was taught that the Crusades happened because Islam started attacking Christian countries.
readering said...
So far the Representative whose reputation has taken a hit from the hearings is McCarthy. Is he still Speaker materia!?
============
thank you make good point.
is any cuurrent Representative on R speaker material
looks like R = reverse with parking brake on and wheels on blocks
The neocons spent five years demonizing Putin and anyone who wanted peaceful coexistence with Russia in preparation for this war we provoked, and now we are supposed to not look into any of it and blindly escalate to WW3.
Ukraine annexed by force an independent Russian speaking Crimea in 1993, and we are supposed to pretend that their occupation of it was sacrosanct and worth a large scale conventional war in Europe with nuclear risks, and is of vital interest to the United States. Obama didn’t think so, was he “Putin’s cock holster” too?
jim5301 said...
"Cassidy is the hearsay liar. Her testimony is inadmissible."
David Begley - and you are an attorney? How do you know for a fact that she is lying - because of media reports? Who has offered sworn testimony contradicting anything she said? I missed it.
The secret service agents she claims tussled with Trump say it never happened and they are prepared to testify that it never happened (they don't get to decide if they testify--the Jan 6 committee has to call them)
Her testimony is inadmissible - First of all it obviously is admissible in a house oversight hearing because it was admitted. Second, are you saying that at a trial nothing she said is relevant non-hearsay or fall into a hearsay exception
Inadmissible in court. Begley is correct. The problem with the exceptions you are citing is that she isn't a witness to anything she testified to--not even a hearsay witness. Her testimony is hearsay about hearsay. She says that people told her these things about Trump. Because she didn't hear them from Trump, none of the hearsay exceptions can apply to her testimony.
"Why are doubts something to "chip away" at? Why wouldn't you explore doubt?"
The TV news chips away at doubt, and has sustained the careers of Hillary, Joe, and many others.
tim maguire said...
Thanks David Begley for bringing this up: 'Mr. Trump knew that weapons were in the crowd as he exhorted supporters to “fight like hell."'
*************
I keep asking here: how does anyone know that Trump "knew"---AS A FACT?
Who told him? If he knew, then why didn't Pelosi and the Capitol Police know? If they all knew, then why allow the demonstration to continue?
Did Trump tell anyone to bring weapons?
If true, why were only two firearms confiscated outside the Capitol, but none inside?
Lurker21 said...
If there's any validity to Hutchinson's testimony it goes to Trump's emotional state. It really doesn't go to what was going through his mind or what he was thinking or what plans, if any, he had.
"Goes to" - that's what lawyers say. Or so the movies tell me.
***************
Cassidy offered hearsay about what others purportedly told her----she wasn't in the room with Trump and thus cannot offer ANYTHING "valid" about his emotional state. SHE wasn't there!!
David Begley - and you are an attorney? How do you know for a fact that she is lying - because of media reports? Who has offered sworn testimony contradicting anything she said? I missed it.
This seems to be the lefty line now. The "committee" won't invite the Secret Service agents who have volunteered to testify under oath that she is lying. The SS guys who were there have "offered sworn testimony' but you lefties prefer to hide.
Isnt it amazing just how fast the Biden's Earpiece "presidency" paid off for our enemies and competitors while crushing average Americans?
Remember the guy who said all the things Trump would do if he were a Putin stooge?
And remember who is doing them now? Whose the Putin stooge ?
Laundered money from the great Ukraine foreign aid scam has employed tens of thousands of actors in the USA to play white supremacists on tv. Trump should get credit for that. His threats to expose DC crimes has scared the crap out of everyone. And our economy is helped by desperation among the Democrats crime families.
Dems are pornoholics. First it was fear of Trump porn (he’s every type of monster imaginable), and now it is prosecute Trump porn (out of fear he’ll run and win which brings back the good old fear of Trump porn). I thought their psychotherapists took care of these problems. Apparently not. Liberalism really is a type of disease.
Is there reasonable doubt? Althouse, sitting now, as a juror, would find reasonable doubt--but before the investigation is complete, the charge has been framed, the admissible evidence marshalled, and before she is instructed on the law. I don't think that qualifies as neutrality.
The instructions will permit conviction for crimes requiring proof of actual knowledge on a showing that Trump intentionally turned a blind eye to the truth. The evidence is still coming in, but what we already have strongly indicates either that he did so or that he was out of touch with reality. Either would be disqualifying in a subsequent run.
And more evidence is coming...
Is this not worth a public investigation? That's a hard position to defend.
Is this the perfect mechanism? No, a bipartisan commission would have been better, but Republicans blocked it. A bipartisan committee would have been better too, but Republicans chose not to participate.
Was Pelosi wrong to exclude Jordan? Certainly she was within her legal right to do so. You can debate whether the hearings would have been better with Jordan on the committee, despite his apparent direct involvement in the President's efforts to prevent the count, but it is indisputable that the Republicans could have had a full roster of participants, including strong Trump supporters. Is this unfairness, or a self inflicted wound?
Republicans are also choosing not to present the evidence that is claimed to be exculpatory. If Trump is innocent, the folks who worked with him in connection with efforts to prevent Biden from taking office are the best witnesses. But they are refusing to cooperate or taking the Fifth. Unfairness, or a self inflicted wound?
“ Is there reasonable doubt? Althouse, sitting now, as a juror, would find reasonable doubt--but before the investigation is complete, the charge has been framed, the admissible evidence marshalled, and before she is instructed on the law. I don't think that qualifies as neutrality.”
In your view, is it non-neutral to adhere to the concept innocent until proven guilty?
So "turning a blind eye to truth" or being "out of touch with reality" disqualifies someone from even running for president? Shouldn't you have applied that to Biden last time around, Stephen? And next time around? Anyone who doesn't is a damned filthy hypocrite. And what Republicans are "choosing not to present" evidence? Pseudo-Republican fraud Liz Cheney?
Howard loved tyrants and warmongering Republicans when right after Reagan was elected he dropped out of college to enlist in the Marine Corpse. He didn't become a Birkenstock tie-dyed in the Cotton tee until after Ronaldus Magnus got the Beriut barracks blowed up sold the murdering fucks missiles and took the cash to pay death squads to murder nuns in Nicaragua and imported crack back to the hood under the watchful eye of Bubba Clinton via Mena Arkansas. That explains his votes for Ross Perot.
Is it non neutral to adhere to the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
Of course not, for a juror sitting at trial. It's the essence of neutrality and a requirement for being qualified to hear the case.
But when you say "Democrats please move on" I thought you were arguing that the matter should not be investigated further. Did I get that wrong?
In criminal matters, if defendants could invoke the presumption of innocence at the investigative stage then much wrongdoing would go uninvestigated and unpunished. Bill Barr said that the Hutchinson testimony gave prosecutors a lot to work with, and Andy McCarthy said that it strengthened the criminal case against Trump. What is your basis for believing otherwise?
Moreover, not every valuable outcome of this investigation depends on whether a criminal charge can be sustained at trial. Voters might judge the question of fitness for office or unacceptable risk to democracy under a preponderance or even a substantial likelihood standard. And Republican politicians might do the same. Shouldn't they have all the facts relevant to those determinations? And how can they get them without a public investigation?
'Mr. Trump knew that weapons were in the crowd as he exhorted supporters to “fight like hell."'
============
it is my impression that the rally crowd addressed by Trump is not same as 'crowd' that was invited into Capitol with open velvet rope
am I mistaken?
Professora asks : In your view, is it non-neutral to adhere to the concept innocent until proven guilty?
=========
objection for vagueness!
Q: whose innocence and guilt are we taling about
Professora asks : In your view, is it non-neutral to adhere to the concept innocent until proven guilty?
=========
objection for deliberate vagueness! from qualified legal brainiac
Q: whose innocence and guilt are we taling about
“The neocons spent five years demonizing Putin and anyone who wanted peaceful coexistence with Russia in preparation for this war we provoked, and now we are supposed to not look into any of it and blindly escalate to WW3.
Ukraine annexed by force an independent Russian speaking Crimea in 1993, and we are supposed to pretend that their occupation of it was sacrosanct and worth a large scale conventional war in Europe with nuclear risks, and is of vital interest to the United States. Obama didn’t think so, was he “Putin’s cock holster” too?”
In my memory, the Hillary crowd was the one demonizing Putin over the past 6 years as a way to attack Trump. I don’t know who you mean specifically by neocons.
Here is the wiki version of the history of Crimea in the Ukraine. Not trying to argue, I just was trying to follow your statements, thanks.
“Website crimea.gov.ru
^ Note: The Republic of Crimea is legalized by the Russian law as a federal subject, but the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia (and, accordingly, very existence of the Republic) is not recognized by most countries (including Ukraine).
The Republic of Crimea (Russian: Республика Крым, romanized: Respublika Krym, Ukrainian: Республіка Крим, Crimean Tatar: Къырым Джумхуриети, romanized: Qırım Cumhuriyeti)[a] is a de facto federal subject (republic) of Russia. Its territory corresponds to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, a de jure subdivision of Ukraine.
The Crimean Peninsula, on which the de facto republic is located, became a part of post-Soviet Ukraine in 1991, upon the latter's independence, by virtue of Ukraine's uti possidetis inheritance of the territory from the Ukrainian SSR, of which Crimea was a part since 1954. In 2014, Russia annexed the peninsula and established two federal subjects there, the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol, but the territories are still internationally recognized as being part of Ukraine.[13]”
Stephen, is there reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt of what?
There has been no showing that an insurrection was planned and/or executed. Trying to prove Trump was in on it is like trying to prove that someone robbed a liquor store without showing that any liquor stores had been robbed. Trying to convict someone for participating in a conspiracy without bothering to show that there was a conspiracy. Seems like a big problem, no?
Stephen at 2:23 p.m.
Dude, you are fucking delusional. Get some help.
The hearings are not over.
’A return of Donald Trump would feed the sickness, probably rendering it incurable.’
Mitt still hasn’t recovered from being pegged by Candy Crowley…
its sad to lose a country, it's even worse when it's stolen from you, mark my words that's happened two novembers ago, the particular means don't matter, was it just the mail in ballots, or the digital backup, the collusion of the likes of kemp and ratzenberger, and their other enablers,
irches said...
I know the Never Trump crowd keeps thinking this committee is going to keep Trump from running again, but I think the Dems are actually setting him up for a 2024 run. Because it's so shoddy and one sided, I want to see him succeed. I'm currently fighting that impulse because I'm done with Boomer presidents.
7/4/22, 10:19 AM
The only path to a Democratic victory in 2024 is if Trump is the nominee.
Cecile's scalpel advises women by Nature to chip away cells until the baby... fetus a technical term of art for social distance... is a carbon cluster to be sequestered in whole as an organic hazard or redistributed in parts for-profit or non-profit profit.
"The issue is what was Trump thinking. Did he know he'd lost the election and decide to hold onto power by leading an insurrection? I still don't see it. There's certainly reasonable doubt, but it doesn't even seem more likely than not."
What's unlikely about the idea that Trump decided to take on the First Airborne with an unarmed rabble of undercover FBI agents in red hats? Trump is known for his complete divorce from reality, which is why he's never accomplished anything significant in his entire life. It seems completely in character that after weeks of not really giving the matter any thought, he would ask his staff to drive him over to the Capitol to see if he could raise an army from the crowd of puzzled tourists being assaulted by the Capitol Police who had invited them into the building. The evidence may be sketchy, but it just feels so right!
Readering said...
"The hearings are not over"
LOL! We are back to this years version of "You don't know what Mueller knows."
Readering- we have seen the very best evidence they ever had, and I suspect that even you know it.
Patience Yancey Ward. Mine has been rewarded.
Readering is still keeping hope alive that somehow, someone will find the magic Trump repellent. Keep hope alive, readering. There must be a pony in there.
What's unlikely about the idea that Trump decided to take on the First Airborne with an unarmed rabble of undercover FBI agents in red hats? Trump is known for his complete divorce from reality, which is why he's never accomplished anything significant in his entire life. It seems completely in character that after weeks of not really giving the matter any thought, he would ask his staff to drive him over to the Capitol to see if he could raise an army from the crowd of puzzled tourists being assaulted by the Capitol Police who had invited them into the building. The evidence may be sketchy, but it just feels so right!
I assume this is satire. For a moment, I wondered. It sounds do much like jim1234 and Readering.
Blogger Josephbleau said...
“The neocons spent five years demonizing Putin and anyone who wanted peaceful coexistence with Russia in preparation for this war we provoked, and now we are supposed to not look into any of it and blindly escalate to WW3.
This is completely true. It reminds me of 1914. Biden seems to be playing the role of the Kaiser.
The only thing that has been chipped away at over the last 5 years is the brain cells of The Trump Cultists. Denials of the truth of Trumpism will get have even more creative as the weeks and days go by. How sad to see fellow Americans in such a sad state.
AMDG: "The only path to a Democratic victory in 2024 is if Trump is the nominee."
ALEX, I'll take "Things said in 2016" for $500.
Stephen said: Is this the perfect mechanism? No, a bipartisan commission would have been better, but Republicans blocked it. A bipartisan committee would have been better too, but Republicans chose not to participate.
******************
Stephen's usual utter fatuity. Here's what McCarthy said:
Washington, D.C. — House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) issued the following statement about Speaker Pelosi’s illegitimate select committee:
“This committee is not conducting a legitimate investigation as Speaker Pelosi took the unprecedented action of rejecting the Republican members I named to serve on the committee.
It is not serving any legislative purpose. The committee’s only objective is to attempt to damage its political opponents – acting like the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee one day and the DOJ the next.
“The committee has demanded testimony from staffers who applied for First Amendment permits. It has subpoenaed the call records of private citizens and their financial records from banks while demanding secrecy not supported by law. It has lied about the contents of documents it has received. It has held individuals in contempt of Congress for exercising their Constitutional right to avail themselves of judicial proceedings. And now it wants to interview me about public statements that have been shared with the world, and private conversations not remotely related to the violence that unfolded at the Capitol. I have nothing else to add."
“As a representative and the leader of the minority party, it is with neither regret nor satisfaction that I have concluded to not participate with this select committee’s abuse of power that stains this institution today and will harm it going forward.”
********
If it were truly bipartisan, Pelosi would NOT have had the ability to veto every member nominated by GOP House leadership.
Instead she rejected the GOP leadership's choices and chose two notorious RINO Trump-haters.
“If it were truly bipartisan, Pelosi would NOT have had the ability to veto every member nominated by GOP House leadership.”
Except she didn’t. She vetoed Jorden and Banks. Then McCarty withdrew his entire 5 picks the committee.
“Pelosi said in the statement that she had accepted McCarthy’s three other picks — Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, North Dakota Rep. Kelly Armstrong and Texas Rep. Troy Nehls. But McCarthy said that all or none would participate.”
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/pelosi-rejects-two-from-being-on-jan-6-insurrection-investigation-panel-jim-jordan-and-jim-banks-01626896725
“ Her testimony is inadmissible - First of all it obviously is admissible in a house oversight hearing because it was admitted. Second, are you saying that at a trial nothing she said is relevant non-hearsay or fall into a hearsay exception - eg excited utterance, statement against interest, not offered for the truth of the matter asserted? Did you watch her entire testimony? My recollection is you said it wasn't worth your time. ”
Yes, but it would still be inadmissible IN a court of law, because it violates Due Process. Hearsay doesn’t give the other side a chance to actually challenge the original statements. The exceptions mostly involve situations where the original speakers, or those with first hand knowledge are somehow unavailable. They are available, and willing to testify, but won’t be called, because her unchallenged (by design) double hearsay proves what Schiff and Pelosi want “proven”. But then, it’s a political show trial, and not a hearing dedicated to finding the truth.
If you think tat it falls into one of te exceptions, list it and defend it. I seriously doubt if you will.
Oh, and BTW, statements not offered for the truth of the matter asserted are not Exceptions to the exclusion of hearsay, but rather are Not Hearsay. You never get to the hearsay exceptions, when the statement isn’t hearsay. But, here, it was hearsay, because it was introduced to prove the matter asserted - that Trump, sitting in the backseat, likely behind a bulletproof divider, tried to rest the steering wheel away from his driver.
But for a man who famously avoids leaving emails or other trails of evidence of his unspoken motives
"Famously" - asserted without evidence, according to this very statement. Her point appears to be that because Trump didn't leave a nice record of his nefarious plan, that in itself is inferential of that nefarious plan's existence.
An interesting perspective!
Maybe we have a metaphorical issue whose definition isn't clear.
Instead of chipping away at doubt, leaving a pile of chips and no doubt, we're trying ot understand doubt and looking at the various small pieces helps to understand.
The hearings are not over.
7/4/22, 4:48 PM
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
I could have sworn that Trump has rather famously tweeted, and spoken, his thoughts to an excessive level.
But never mind...now he is famously secretive. Whatever.
Please, move on, Democrats. I don't want Trump coming back as a candidate either, but your one-sided hearing — your disregard for fair procedure, your predetermined outcome — are chipping away at and eviscerating your own reputation.
Not just Democrats, but their media enablers.
Viewers are fleeing and going to places like Joe Rogan, who have the fascinating character trait of being open-minded.
The love of narrative -- and disregard of facts -- can bring down parties (of course) as people realize what the truth is. But what will happen a lot quicker is that the people whose job is to speak about facts and truth ("journalists") lose their jobs when they lose sight of their mission and/or principles.
You'd think lawyers would be embarrassed about hearsay evidence, lack of due process, avoidance of the confrontation clause, and in general a really embarrassing non-judicial event that is designed for spectators, not fact-finding.
Journalists have long ago lost their reputation. They ignored that for too long. Now they're finding they are losing their viewers as well.
You're not just unreliable fact-finders -- you're boring us. And you're boring us because your news "events" are so predictable that we don't have to watch. We already know what you're going to say.
Jamie said...
But for a man who famously avoids leaving emails or other trails of evidence of his unspoken motives t
This reminds me of two other truisms we "knew" at different times of the Trump presidency.
1. Donald Trump takes on the opinion of the last person he talked to. Remember that? It was written about all the time that we knew that about him. There was no evidence of it ever, and eventually this famous behavior of his was never mentioned again
2. It is never ok for the President of the United States to meet privately or personally with the head of the FBI or the Attorney General. Remember? It's why Comey had to "hide" in the curtains for a picture! Of course, this thing we always knew to be true for a short period of time wasn't true before that moment, and it hasn't been true since.
There was always a problem attributing deeper thoughts, plots, and schemes to Trump. He lives on two levels. There's his immediate reaction to things and the gratification of his craving for attention, and there are a few important practical tasks he has to attend to, but the media assume that he also has a third level full of grandiose plans to achieve total power.
Trump loves sparring with the media. It's fun and his fans like it. That doesn't mean that he has some dark plan to control the media. He was actually less interested in doing that than other recent presidents. He wasn't familiar enough with Washington politics and the mechanisms of the bureaucracy and could easily be dissuaded from trying to put passing ideas into practice, but more importantly, he wasn't that interested in imposing control. Trump didn't want to meddle in Russia's back yard. It didn't mean that he was a Russian agent or Putin's puppet. It just meant that he wisely didn't see the need to poke the bear unnecessarily.
I wonder if Plato misled Trump's academic haters. The idea of the tyrant as the man who cannot control his impulses underlies books like Stephen Greenblatt's or Timothy Snyder's. That may have made sense in ancient times, but in today's world, plenty of people have problems with impulse control and rampant egoism. They aren't all tyrants by any means.
Trump’s attempt to go with them virtually amounts to proof that he did not encourage an attack – he wanted to go there to speak to them, and then go inside and lobby Congress.
He did not expect a riot. To argue otherwise is to make a number of strange assumptions about Donald Trump (and Mark Meadows and possibly others as well) that the Jan 6 committee is either not willing, or doesn’t have the consensus, to make explicit, and that I can’t even quite figure out what they are.
The main reveal of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony is settling the question of whether Trump was telling the truth when he told the crowd he would be at the Capitol -- he was. She also revealed that Mark Meadows was very worried and was lying to Trump in letting him believe he would go there, while telling Kevin McCarthy he would not. And Meadows was also lying later when he wrote in a book that Trump was never serious about going there. It has probably greatly confused DOJ.
AND he was the one who tried to tamper with Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony – not Trump.
Meadows is still getting or rather recently got – money Trump controls so he doesn't want to take credit for preventing Trump frpm carryng out his worst impulses.
Russian Collusion Truther and Hillary Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Inga makes an appearance to lecture others on "truth"!
Its been beyond parody for years now.
Btw, did Inga ever apologize to Althouse for calling her a c***?
Its never too late to apologize Inga. Give it a shot. Or are you too busy coming up with reasons for why Joe Biden showering with his daughter is perfectly normal and commendable as you done in the recent past?
"Joe Biden is a genuinely good man -- and if you don't think so, you're nothing but a dog-faced pony soldier -- but he has yet been unable to break through our national malady...
FIFY, Birches.
Post a Comment