What the Jan. 6 Hearings Accomplished

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Source: Wall Street Journal (free link).

Two sentences summarize the editorial completely:

There is no evidence so far that Mr. Trump was communicating or coordinating with the Proud Boys or other nefarious elements in the runup to Jan. 6…

What the committee has accomplished, however, is to cement the facts surrounding Mr. Trump’s recklessness after Nov. 3 and his dereliction of duty on Jan. 6.

Well, if that’s all the committee has accomplished, so what?

Mr. Trump’s “recklessness” is as much a feature as a bug as far as I’m concerned; and when a president is guilty of “dereliction” the appropriate remedy is to lose the office, which has already happened.

The committee has done enough. It is time for it to dissolve.

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

62 thoughts on “What the Jan. 6 Hearings Accomplished”

    1. RE: “I would bet that you did not even watch the hearings.”

      You’d lose, but I’m flattered that you make me, personally, the issue.

      Like

      Reply

  2. The goal of the committee was to prove beyond any doubt that Trump not only lost the election, he knew he had lost the election and he was playing his cult for the fools they are in order to stay in power illegally.

    The committee presented witness after witness saying they had told Trump he lost the election and that doing things like trying to pressure state officials into “finding votes” and sending false electors to vote for him was illegal.

    A Congressional committee has no power to prosecute. That was never their goal. They will turn over the evidence they have found to the Department of Justice, but before the DOJ indicts a former President, the American people need to know it is not a political action.

    Trump broke the law. He got people killed for a lie. Cult members will never believe that but now they can’t say they haven’t been told.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    2. There being no cross examination nor rebuttal witnesses, the hearings are a show, not an investigation. In the absence of balance, nothing presented can be viewed as having any probative value.

      It is nothing but a staged campaign commercial no more trustworthy than a snake oil show.

      If they wanted to establish truth, the GOP would have been able to choose its own representatives and had equal subpoena power. As it is, it is meaningless, and isn’t fooling anybody outside the media bubble.

      Like

      Reply

      1. How would you know anything about it? You bragged about not watching. You obviously prefer the spin fed to you by lying liars rather than listening to the testimony of those who were there.

        Virtually every material witness was a Trump appointee who had been very loyal to him right up until he tried to overthrow the government. Many of them were interviewed live and had every opportunity to cry foul if that was called for. None did.

        In other words, your characterization of the work done is based on ignorance and hate. Not even close to an objective take.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Was there cross examination by representatives chosen by the GOP? Yes or no?

          Were there subpoenaed rebuttal witnesses? Yes or No?

          If not, the proceedings are a show, not an investigation, and of no value.

          There was no reason to watch a minute of it after Pelosi barred the GOP’s members of the committee and replaced them with her choices, Nothing after that could be valid.

          Like

          Reply

          1. So you admit that you did not watch it.

            If you had watched it you would know that there is very little evidence offered that would be subject to any kind of “rebuttal.”

            This hearing was one of the best public hearings ever done precisely because it was not sucked into meaninglessness and confusion by the partisan hacks that Never-gonna-be Speaker McCarthy tried to poison it with.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “If there was nothing to rebut, then why was no rebuttal allowed?”

            Because “alternative facts” have no place in a deadly serious investigation. The GOP was well-represented by two people who have demonstrated a very admirable amount of both patriotism and integrity. Neither of them would have stood still for any kind of presentation that was not truthful. But go ahead – say that Cheney and Kinzinger are “corrupt” or that they are not real Republicans because they did not obey the wishes of Dear Leader.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Cheney and KInzinger have been devoured by TDS, something their constituents recognized,

            They were both more partisan than the Democrats.

            That’s why Pelosi chose them,

            As soon as they rejected the GOP appointees, nothing else from the committee could be legitimate.

            Again, no cross examination, no rebuttal, no legitimacy.

            Like

          5. “Cheney and Kinzinger have been devoured by TDS”

            Utter nonsense. They simply had more respect for the truth and the Constitution than they had loyalty to this one sorry excuse for a man.

            You are basically a sucker for Trump’s lies. There was going to be a non-partisan Commission to look into this unprecedented attack on our government. It was all agreed. Republicans got EVERYTHING they asked for including equal subpoena powers. But then Trump put the kibosh on it so that partisans like you could claim it was all a witch hunt. Sucker!

            Liked by 2 people

          6. There was plenty of rebuttal allowed in the bipartisan commission that both parties agreed to before the leaders spoke to Trump.

            Since the Republicans refused to cooperate, you would like them to gaslight 1/6?

            Liked by 2 people

          9. Trump has nothing to do with it.

            Pelosi rejected the members appointed by the minority leader and replaced them with token never-Trumpers. In doing so, regardless of anything Trump did or said, she made the committee a farce.

            Like

          10. “Trump has nothing to do with it.”

            He had everything to do with it. You don’t get to make up your own history. Pelosi proposed a non-partisan Commission to look into the events of January 6th. The details were negotiated with the GOP leadership. They got EVERYTHING they asked for. It was a done deal when McCarthy was summoned to Mar-a-Lago and came back with his tail between his legs and proceeded to kill the Commission.

            Killing the non-partisan Commission was not enough for Trump. McCarthy then tried to appoint to the Select Committee people who were part and parcel of the events to be investigated (Jordan) and people who declared it to be a partisan witch hunt before it even began(Banks). Pelosi rightly rejected those two nominees – but accepted the other three. McCarthy then decided to boycott the committee – something Trump later criticized him for. With that boycott decision, Pelosi then recruited Republicans that McCarthy did not nominate because it was important for the country that it not be a one party effort. That is what happened. Trump made it what it is so that his running dogs could whine that the investigation is a partisan attack.

            And you are obviously one of those.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. As usual, your “history” is partisan revisionism.

            Trump quite properly objected to a simultaneous political “investigation” alongside the FBI’s criminal probe. One or the other works. and any political inquiry should wait until the criminal investigation is done.

            You might remember how fouled up that became with Iran/Contra. Oliver North’s conviction was thrown out due to the conflict between political and legal objectives. Trump was entirely correct to object and the GOP would have no part in it, and blocked the Commission in the Senate.

            Pelosi, nevertheless decided to use a committee that did not require Senate approval.

            Pelosi cannot “rightly” reject the GOP’s choice for its representation on the committee. That is their choice to make, not hers.

            She went ahead, and thus NOTHING the committee does is legitimate, nor probative of anything. It is a pure, partisan witch hunt that cannot be redeemed.

            Like

          12. Partisan revisionism?
            Complete baloney. There is nothing “revisionist” in my post. Nothing. The Select Committee came about exactly as I described.

            Of course the insurrection had to be investigated by the House. Thanks to the filibuster it could not be done by legislation as Pelosi proposed. That was the mechanism by which allowed Trump to veto it by threatening the future of any Republican who would go against his wishes.

            If you REALLY think Trump killed the proposed non-partisan Commission to protect the prosecutorial process, then you are drunk on the Kool Aid. Actually, in spite of all the rubbish you post, I do not believe you are THAT silly. You are just grasping at straws to justify your absurd Trumpish characterization of the Select Committee and its vital work. Getting to the truth of the attempted coup is far more important than prosecutions of any foot soldiers which, by the way, have been proceeding apace as the Committee has done its work.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. I am confusing nothing. It isn’t much of a hunt to find the witch in this case. He lives in Florida, has VERY orange hair, and loves his backside to be kissed. And if you don’t, well, out you go.

            And the witch has been subpoenaed to testify. His response was a thirty-something page letter to the Chairman of the Committee, repeating his same bizarre lies and theories and has NO ANSWER for what he did, what was done on his behalf, and what he ordered to occur.

            But since you don’t pay attention, except to what you are fed by the EXTREME pro-Trump elements of society, there is zero chance of you ever considering the truth.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. If the “hearings” are one sided, political theater, then they are campaign commercials, and coverage by the networks should be reported as in-kind donation.

            Like

          3. Witch hunt?

            Maybe you missed it. There was an unprecedented violent attack on the Constitutional processes of our government on January 6th, 2021. It was carried out by thousands of people incited and summoned by the clear loser of the 2020 election. These events DEMAND full exposure in the public square. The Republicans had every opportunity to participate in the process but chose instead to make it political. And you play along – a truly laughable posture for someone who styles himself a defender of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

            Like

  3. Of course, lying to ignoramuses eager to believe bullshit is not in and of itself a crime. However, his behavior went will past just lying.

    Federal crimes. . .
    Obstructing an official proceeding
    Conspiracy to defraud the government
    Wire Fraud
    Witness tampering
    Inciting a rebellion
    Dereliction of official duty

    State & DC laws
    Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud.
    Inciting to riot.
    Accessory to murder

    And this in not including his crimes with respect to sensitive information stolen and removed from the White House.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. WSJ says, as quoted, “There is no evidence so far that Mr. Trump was communicating or coordinating with the Proud Boys or other nefarious elements in the runup to Jan. 6.”

      Do you not believe the assertion?

      Like

      Reply

      1. “Do you not believe the assertion?”

        I am willing to believe that Trump used go betweens such as Roger Stone, Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, and several moronic members of Congress. Something like 25 people in Trump’s orbit have invoked the Fifth. They have also asked for pardons and that is prima facie evidence that they have consciousness of guilt for what transpired.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. TDS is not evidence.

          Asking for a pardon is not evidence of anything other than not wanting to be bankrupted defending yourself in court against the bottomless resources of the government.

          Like

          Reply

      2. RE: “I am willing to believe that Trump used go betweens”

        Then we have established that you are willing to believe in speculations you cannot prove. One man’s unsupported beliefs are insufficient to allege a crime.

        Like

        Reply

        1. No speculation needed. Stone and Bannon have well documented relationships with the gangs. Stone even became a member.

          So the links are there. But like a mafia chief, Trumps knows how to avoid direct relationships. He lets his “flunkies” deal with them.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. So, quote to us the communications that occurred and describe the actions that represented coordination. If you can’t, all you have is speculation.

            Like

        3. “Then we have established that you are willing to believe in speculations you cannot prove. One man’s unsupported beliefs are insufficient to allege a crime.”

          You brought up seditious conspiracy. Not me. The evidence of crimes that I DID list is in the public record.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. RE: “You brought up seditious conspiracy. Not me.”

            I asked, “Do you not believe the [WSJ’s] assertion?” You said you believed in speculations you can’t prove.

            Like

          2. Once again, YOU brought up seditious conspiracy. Not me. I did not include it in the list of crimes committed in response to your earlier demand for specifics. You asked what I believed on this subject and I told you. I will say it again. I believe that Trump worked through cutouts like Roger Stone to get these pinhead militias involved in the planned violence.

            Liked by 1 person

      3. The Proud Boys and other nefarious elements were standing in the audience on January 6 when Trump told them to go “fight like hell” and he sent them off to the Capitol. This is “communicating” with nefarious elements who committed crimes.

        Then he watched the rioters on FOX as they destroyed the Capitol, attacked police, and threatened the life of the Vice President. And, despite pleas from multiple people, he did nothing because, he said, they “weren’t doing anything wrong.”

        You and a few million other people watched him communicating with nefarious elements as it happened live on TV. But who are you going to believe, the WSJ or your lying eyes?

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. RE: “But who are you going to believe, the WSJ or your lying eyes?”

          My eyes are not lying. I believe WSJ is correct when it says, “There is no evidence so far that Mr. Trump was communicating or coordinating with the Proud Boys or other nefarious elements in the runup to Jan. 6.”

          I invite you again to show where WSJ is wrong. Your evidence so far is pretty weak. For example, Trump may have used the phrase “fight like hell” in his speech, but he also called for a non-violent protest.

          Like

          Reply

  6. “ The Jan. 6 committee probably won’t get Mr. Trump under oath, but the evidence of his bad behavior is now so convincing that political accountability hardly requires it.”

    That is the crux and Murdoch, through his flagship news organization, has apparently heard, read and seen enough to vent his outrage.

    That the plotting started months before the election is now very clear. And that the Big Lie was all part of the effort destroy credibility in our election, not based just on Trump’s inability to accept loss or mental instability.

    The committee may be dissolved depending upon election results. But DOJ will have referrals for indictments by then.

    These would be along with Georgia, NY, the slander deposition, his absconding with government papers and secrets…Trump might regret all the past loyalists that he trashed, insulted and humiliated. He needs friends, real ones, not just sycophants.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Murdoch didn’t write the editorial. Apart from that, given there is no evidence of communication or coordination between Trump and the nefarious elements of the protest, what, exactly is the provable conspiracy you are alleging?

      Like

      Reply

      1. Pay attention and you can learn a lot.

        “Stand by” was an order to the gangs. And if you did in fact watch the hearing, you would have seen and heard the reaction by the gang and insurrectionists when Trump finally, after over three hours of him watching the violence and doing nothing to stop it, he tell his folks to go home. They did and they said he told them to leave.

        I am sure Trump did not contact the leaders directly through official channels. He used to borrow other peoples cell phones to make calls. He probably used burners too, and flushed them down the toilet with his memos.

        But, go ahead and stay comfortable in the bubble.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

      2. RE: “‘Stand by’ was an order to the gangs. ”

        Is that a fact?

        RE: “He probably used burners too, and flushed them down the toilet with his memos.”

        Are we supposed to believe “probably”?

        Like

        Reply

  7. The unselect committee’s purpose is not to fact find but to blow sensationalized “insurrection” nonsense against the wall and see what sticks in order to make talking points for midterms. That is the phony story Pelosi ordered the cabal to hang their hats on. I see it as complete failure and waste of time, money and resources. You can bet it will be dissolved or at least begin to on Nov 9.

    Like

    Reply

  8. So far, the only defense you have offered is ‘HOAX!” and “WITCH HUNT!” If things didn’t go as the Committee has said, what actually happened?

    Did Joe Biden call the Proud Boys to D.C.? Who held a rally just before the attack? Who watched it happen and said the rioters weren’t doing anything wrong? Were the Proud Boys there, flying their Trump flags, chanting “HANG MIKE PENCE” in order to support Joe Biden? Or do you think nothing at all happened on January 6? It was just a bunch of tourists who did millions of dollars worth of damage to our Capitol, who shit on the floors and smeared it on the walls, and who took down the American flag and replaced it with a Trump flag?

    From things I’ve seen on the forum, there are those here who think democracy is a bad system. But you need to be careful what you wish for. If any of those “patriots” who invaded our Capitol on January 6 had pulled such a stunt in Russia, every single one of them would be dead right now. No hearings or trials necessary.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. RE: ” If things didn’t go as the Committee has said, what actually happened?”

      My first reaction to seeing the riot on TV was to describe it here in the Forum as a “big bungle.” I have since become open to the idea that Federal provocateurs were in the crowd.

      RE: “there are those here who think democracy is a bad system.”

      Plato thought democracy is a bad system. The idea has a good pedigree.

      Like

      Reply

      1. A “big bungle?” What an innocent little thing to call it. It must make you feel so much better about the shit on the Capitol walls and hospitalized cops.

        “Federal provocateurs in the crowd??” For what reason? What did the feds have to gain by trashing the Capitol? To make Trump look bad? He’d already lost. He was about to be kicked out of office. Why bother?

        Plato was right. Democracy is a bad system. It’s just the best system flawed human beings have been able to come up with. If you don’t like it, try marching on Moscow chanting “HANG PUTIN” and see what happens.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. RE: “Plato was right. Democracy is a bad system. It’s just the best system flawed human beings have been able to come up with.”

          I disagree. I think a democratic republic with constitutional protection of natural rights is the best system flawed human beings have been able to come up with.

          Like

          Reply

  9. “Trump may have used the phrase “fight like hell” in his speech, but he also called for a non-violent protest.”

    First of all, by Jan 6, Trump knew beyond any doubt there was nothing to protest. He had lost the election fair and square. Period. The ONLY reason to hold a rally was to stop the certification of what he knew was a fair election!

    Second of all, if Trump wanted non-violence, why didn’t he tell the crowd to stop when he saw violence happening? Why did he have the metal detectors taken down? When he was told there were people in the crowd with guns, his response was “they’re not here to hurt me.” Trump’s only concern was, the crowd didn’t turn violent enough. They didn’t kill Pence and stop the certification of the election he lost.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. RE: “The ONLY reason to hold a rally was to stop the certification of what he knew was a fair election!”

      Maybe you think so, but the people at the rally have their own brains.

      RE: “Second of all, if Trump wanted non-violence, why didn’t he tell the crowd to stop when he saw violence happening?”

      I don’t know. I just try not to make assumptions based on mind reading.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Trump’s lies were tried in court after court, some with judges Trump himself had appointed, and EVERY SINGLE COURT said his accusations were false. Trump lost the election and he knew it. He tried to get Mike Pence to stop the certification of the election. Pence refused because Pence knew Trump was lying. At that point, Trump had tried everything from pressuring state officials to “find votes,” to sending in false electors, to threatening his Vice President. His only recourse was to call a rally and lie to the sheeple. If Pence wouldn’t stop the certification, maybe a riotous mob would. And, unfortunately, Trump’s cult did not think he was lying. If they had brains, they were not using them!

        Think about this for a minute. Trump knew there were armed men in that crowd. He knew there was a possibility violence would break out. His own security team refused to take him to the Capitol because they told him it was too dangerous, they could not protect him there. And yet… and yet he sent Fred and Martha, average middle aged voters, into that hell pit. They could have been shot. One of them was trampled to death. Trump did not give a crap! He knew what he was doing and he did not care! All he wanted was to stop the certification of the election. If innocent people died, so what.

        You don’t have to read Trump’s mind to know why he didn’t call off the violence. He told you so himself. He said, with witnesses, “they weren’t doing anything wrong.”

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

        1. RE: “EVERY SINGLE COURT said his accusations were false.”

          That’s not true. Courts rejected the Trump election lawsuits as matters of law, not matters of truth. I find this highly regrettable.

          RE: “Pence refused because Pence knew Trump was lying.”

          You don’t know that. Or if you do, tell us how you are able to read Pence’s mind.

          And so on.

          I’d say it is hard to tell who the real sheeple are — those who supported Trump, or those who believe what they learned from the J6 hearings.

          Like

          Reply

          1. You find it “highly regrettable” that the courts followed the law rather than complying with Trump’s law suits? That tells me all I need to know about your ability to discern truth. The law suits were bogus. That’s why they were kicked out of court.

            I did not have to “read Pence’s” mind. He himself told how Donald Trump insisted that the Vice President had the power to refuse to certify the election, but Pence called other sources, like Vice President Dan Quayle and was told the truth. Therefore, Pence knew what Trump had told him was false — aka A LIE.

            If you are having trouble telling who a con man is conning… it’s you.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. ” Courts rejected the Trump election lawsuits as matters of law, not matters of truth.”

            BZZZZ! WRONG!! Courts rejected the suits due to lack of evidence. When asked to produce evidence, Trump’s attorneys offered up a plethora of Coast Guard salutes, statements like Rudy’s …”we have theories, just no proof.”

            If “lack of evidence” does not fall under “matters of truth” but evidence does, then your theory is severely lacking in anything remotely resembling anything but FERTILIZER.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment