I no longer care if the hearings change peoples minds. I believe the indictments are coming.

[fightforfreedom]

Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2022, 07:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Garland /DOJ cannot and will not ignore the evidence presented the committee. If the Trump voters want to live the rest of their lives with their heads permanently up their asses, I don't care. I only care about the leaders, all those involved in the coup being indicted.

[CentralMass]

1. Time will tell. One guess os a good as another.

[Scrivener7]

21. Yes, but some will just keep stirring the shit till time does tell.

Multiple times a day.

With odd spelling and syntax.

[hamsterjill]

43. Right?

Every. Single. Day.

Same shit; new OP!

[onetexan]

2. Ditto. For those millions of RWers there's no mind-changing given they are head down in the Koolaid.

The point of these hearings is to lay bare the truth about what happened after the committee had fully investigated 1/6. Hopefully it will reach the independents and sensible, conscientious Americans, both left and right, who want to protect and preserve democracy, and motivate them enough that they will get off their butts and vote come November.

I have some ignorant siblings who are Faux News-obsessed & who deny it all and think this is a witch hunt as they hear the Con and his enablers call it. I can't and won't try to convince them of what happened as it would further strain our already fragile relationship. It is what it is.

[LuvLoogie]

22. They are like addicts addicted to their hate endorphins.

trump makes them feel superior, and they can't let that go. They know better, but they can't face their own weakness and the fact that they're dupes. The desperate, clinging, white-knuckle grip on their self-deception keeps them from plunging into the abyss that was their principles. Yet many were already at the bottom of that abyss and having a good ol' time.

[Prof. Toru Tanaka]

3. Well put and I agree.

Some people who supported Trump to this point may change their minds. The evidence is overwhelming and he needs to be indicted now. But there are others who will continue to be hard headed and close-minded.
There are plenty of co-conspirators I want to see get indicted along with Trump, starting with those assholes Peter Navarro and Mark Meadows. I agree with you that Garland and the DOJ cannot and will not ignore this evidence and there still is more to come.
In the end, I would love to see the big fish himself on the witness (or in Trump's case, witless) stand getting grilled by a prosecutor!

[Emile]

4. Justice is coming, judgement day is near!

[bucolic_frolic]

5. I'm not expecting a waterfall but I do think the long grind of justice will wear them down

It will change a small percent of them and soften twice that. Life goes on, for those who were living room supporters and spectators.

[Emile]

6. Washington Journal on now discussing the Jan 6 committee

opening statements.

[NanceGreggs]

7. It amazes me ...

... how many people still believe that after all the Jan-6 Committee has said and done - and will continue to say and do - Garland is going to ignore it all, do nothing, and pretend it never happened.

I'm just not seeing Garland saying, "Let's forget what happened - and try to get along from now on."

[greatauntoftriplets]

8. + 100,000.

[malaise]

9. Well said

Justice is coming

[Novara]

10. Especially because the J6 committee has the receipts.

It's one thing to suspect someone has committed a crime. It's a whole 'nother thing when you can bring the receipts and prove it.

There were a couple of surprise teasers last night, like the orange asshole saying Pence deserved to be hung, like Barr's testimony that he told him over and over that he lost and there was no fraud, like the pre-rally recon that the shameful boys did.

The committee painted a solid picture. So many people told him over and over that he lost and what he was doing was illegal; there is no plausible deniability now. People who have argued that he will never face prosecution have said, "What if he really believed he won? How can you prove he had evil intent if he really believed he won?" Sure, he's delusional, but in the face of eleventymillion people telling him that not only did he lose, but that the election was legitimate, over and over again, it simply isn't believable. So then continuing with his actions, knowing that he lost, knowing that his actions were illegal, he committed the most serious crime against the U.S. in its history.

The committee did a good job of laying the foundation for intent. I am looking forward to the remainder of the hearings to see them bring the receipts. They have them, I am sure. They would not have laid out such a solid foundation without them.

Then Garland will act.

[NanceGreggs]

18. Right on!

In order to establish that he truly believed that the election was "stolen", Trump would have to cite the "facts" upon which he relied to come to that conclusion.

He doesn't have any such facts - and the crackpot ramblings of the Kraken lady, statements from a perpetually drunk Giuliani, and diatribes from Mike Pillow don't constitute "facts" by any stretch of the imagination.

[getagrip_already]

28. inaction speaks for itself unfortunately ....

The phrase "this is not how anything works" needs to be retired. It no longer applies. Yes, investigations can start at the bottom, but they never used to stay there.

And until one of the royal family is actually charged with something, I'm going to continue to say garland has no intentions of taking action on them. There is action to be sure, on external players. But not on the inner circle except to gather evidence to use against others.

I hope to be proven wrong. I am seriously doubting I will be.

[brooklynite]

11. "Cannot"

There was never proof that DOJ was ignoring the evidence.

[SoonerPride]

12. What if trump issued pocket pardons to all of them?

It is entirely possible and certainly plausible that before he left office he issued a flurry of pardons to all of them.

And the DOJ’s hands could be tied.

You don’t know indictments are coming.

You hope they are coming.

So do I.

But history shows me that my hopes rarely ever pan out.


https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-can-president-trump-issue-secret-pardons-1562790?amp=1

In his final full day in office, President Donald Trump is expected to issue a myriad of presidential pardons. Last week, CNN initially reported that Trump planned to pardon close to 100 people before leaving office.

[fightforfreedom]

15. I pardon you with my pocket pardon. LOL.

[Ohio Joe]

23. We know he did not pardon all of them...

We know Bannon did not get one, Navarro did not get one, Meadows did not get one, Scavino did not get one, Stone did not get one, none of the over 800 rioters got one and none of the now 16 seditious conspirators got one.

I find it very unlikely anyone who testified before the 1/6 committee got one... That includes Jared, Ivanka, Barr and many, many other less well known names. They would have no reason to keep it secret once they were called to testify and letting their testimony go on record to be broadcast just before the election... Well, that would be a wickedly stupid move even if they were free and clear. Far better if they claimed their immunity long ago and thumbed their nose at the committee.

[SoonerPride]

24. We know nothing of the kind.

Trump
Didn’t pardon the mob.

But Bannon and Scavino and Meadows et al could have secret pardons related to their insurrection crimes.

Those pardons wouldn’t cover subsequent crimes such as ignoring a Congressional subpoena which heretofore still haven’t shown to be a high priority for the DOJ.

But maybe you’re right. Maybe trump didn’t secretly pardon anyone.

But we don’t know that for a fact at all.

[Ohio Joe]

25. You miss the point...

So I'll say it again:

I find it very unlikely anyone who testified before the 1/6 committee got one... That includes Jared, Ivanka, Barr and many, many other less well known names. They would have no reason to keep it secret once they were called to testify and letting their testimony go on record to be broadcast just before the election... Well, that would be a wickedly stupid move even if they were free and clear. Far better if they claimed their immunity long ago and thumbed their nose at the committee.

But even continuing to ignore that... Pardons made up in the last days would be generic to anything and everything related to 1/6 and yes... That would include testifying about it. Barr may be an evil bastard but is not a moron when it comes to the law, he would have made sure.

[fightforfreedom]

26. Secret pardons? Do you also believe little green men are visiting earth?

I mean that's really out there.

[SoonerPride]

27. It's old news. Here try this:

Link to tweet

?s=21&t=CtYl-rbjtyLZ-4U2hKxT9A


https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-can-president-trump-issue-secret-pardons-1562790?amp=1

Some have speculated that Trump will attempt to issue a self-pardon or secret pardons for his family and other aides

So while you roll your eyes , legal scholars speculate trump did just that. Issue secret pardons to his coconspirators and no one but the DOJ would know about it.

[onetexan]

29. There has to be limits to this pardons get out of jail free cards

This is bullshit one can commit treasonous crimes & be pardoned.

[SoonerPride]

37. Unfortunately the Constitution is rather skimpy on the subject

There arw no limits besides impeachment

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Why would the DOJ keep them "secret" after Trump was no longer president?

There's no explicit rule or law for pardons to be kept secret - and, indeed, your post has people arguing that if they're secret, they have no force. So the DOJ is free to list all the pardons Trump attempted to give. Are you saying that these are hidden in a part of the DOJ that is secretly loyal to Trump rather than the USA? And that this conspiracy will be able to override the rest of the DOJ, and government, by asserting the pardons are valid?

[fightforfreedom]

34. Wouldn't the DOJ tell us there was pardons?

This makes no sense at all.

[SoonerPride]

36. Why would they?

They aren’t compelled to tell us anything.

[fightforfreedom]

39. What you are saying defies logic.

[SoonerPride]

44. Much about the last 5 years defies logic.

But here we are.

[hamsterjill]

46. In a normal world, it defies logic.

That’s the whole point here. We are dealing with Trump and in unchartered territory.

[Effete Snob]

77. Lawrence O'Donnell

Who explained for months that Trump was not going to run. And then convincingly proved that Trump would not win. And who finally triumphed in the fact that Michael Avenatti would have Trump exposed, impeached and jailed.

I wish I was as smart as Lawrence O’Donnell thinks he is.

[getagrip_already]

30. glen kerschner disagrees with you...

He cited the fact that kushner, and ivanka testified WITHOUT immunity, and WITHOUT taking the 5th, is indicative of having a pardon.

Meadows could also have one, but had no need to invoke it publicly since he wasn't facing any serious charges. It may even be why garland waved prosecution.

And then there is keyyann conway, who flat out stated that trump offered her one.

So it is likely they exist. And it would be a slog to challenge them.

[Ohio Joe]

35. OK...

"He cited the fact that kushner, and ivanka testified WITHOUT immunity, and WITHOUT taking the 5th, is indicative of having a pardon."

Could be... That still does not make it a smart move to go on tape knowing it would be presented just before the election. It would still have been far better to use it back when and give nothing to be shown on tape to the public. Legally, they may be able to do such and not face consequences, but it would be political suicide for the party.

"Meadows could also have one, but had no need to invoke it publicly since he wasn't facing any serious charges. It may even be why garland waved prosecution."

If Meadows used it with Garland to get out of contempt, Garland would have no reason to keep the secret, it would be out now.

"And then there is keyyann conway, who flat out stated that trump offered her one."

Not what I read at all. Conway said she was offered a pardon... She said nothing about it being a secret/pocket pardon.

[getagrip_already]

38. they can't have both.....

If they claimed the fifth, then that would have effectively nullified any pardon they might have. They had no choice. The only other avenue they had was to refuse to testify, which would have gotten them indicted and possibly have the pardons revealed.

The easiest path for them was just to testify and say as little as they could get away with.

Of course they may just have done that anyway without a pardon. But look at what we know about trump: he is a grifter and if there is something underhanded he could do, he would do it. Why wouldn't he give out pocket pardons to his inner circle and family? One more chance to play the system and own the story line. He probably gave the biggest one to himself. It cost him nothing and might save his arse later.

But until the doj takes some action against them, we won't know. If they know, they aren't saying.

[Ohio Joe]

41. If DOJ knows... And they would... Why keep it secret?

They have zero reason to do so at this point. It simply makes no sense.

[getagrip_already]

50. dunno, secret memo maybe? executive order?

but really I have no idea why they would keep them quiet.

Of course, there are likely several trump doj loyalists who would also have them, so maybe they are just trying to keep their involvement quiet so as not to shake public confidence.

Just knowing trump, I have to believe he issued them. But as others have pointed out, we don't know anything.

Could someone ask garland directly? He won't take my call.

[Ohio Joe]

57. Realize it or not... Now you implicate President Biden in helping TFG...

"dunno, secret memo maybe? executive order?"

President Biden would not repeal such an EO? President Biden and his DOJ would keep some secret memo to help TFG?

I don't buy it for one second.

To believe that the DOJ does not want to prosecute for any reason but would keep their ability to stop investigating secret (and pretend to keep investigating) make zero sense. This could only be kept secret for a short time... And Dem's doing such would end the party politically... You really think President Biden would kill the Democratic party to protect TFG?

Nope, not for a single second do I buy any of this.

[getagrip_already]

58. he would repeal one if it existed, but eo's can't just be negated...

There is a lengthy process to undoing them. And some are classified, so most never see them.

I don't think biden would keep it in place voluntarily if it exists. no.

[Ohio Joe]

60. Not true...

At any time, the president may revoke, modify or make exceptions from any executive order, whether the order was made by the current president or a predecessor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

He could do it with a pen stroke, no muss, no fuss, no problem.

[getagrip_already]

63. then one doesn't exist imho.... n/t

[bottomofthehill]

78. A pardon is not an executive order. It's a pardon Article 2 Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.[b]

[ReluctanceTango]

70. It's not about whether or not it's a smart move.

To “go on tape” & etc.

It’s about what acceptance of a pardon means in regards to Fifth Amendment rights. Which is that you lose them if you accept a pardon, because you have already confessed to a crime that is under investigation, and thus you can be compelled to testify.

If they have a pardon, there is no choice about testifying. You must do it, without immunity, or you will be charged with obstruction of justice.

It would make more sense for why the incest princess and her Ken doll testified without immunity and why she, especially was terrified in that deposition. She knew what rock and a hard place she had put herself between for accepting that pardon: Daddy-husband’s wrath for telling the truth v. certain prison for obstruction if she didn’t cooperate… and perjury, too if she lied.

Her worthless sperm donor might be too stupid to listen to an attorney, but she isn’t that dumb. Dumb, just not enough to ignore good legal advice.

[Ohio Joe]

71. That would be true if they were subpoenaed...

They went in on an ask, voluntarily.

[ReluctanceTango]

73. And it could still be true if they weren't subpoenaed.

If you know that you can either show up voluntarily or be compelled if you don’t, then going voluntarily isn’t that difficult a choice to make. Might save you some bad PR to look like you’re cooperating, and she’s the sort who would care about that.

[Ohio Joe]

74. Perhaps...

But not all who were asked and refused got a subpoena... A good number did not... I would expect they would wait for the subpoena before going in and doing something stupid that they did not have to.

[fightforfreedom]

40. Do you understand what you are saying?

It's nonsense.

[getagrip_already]

51. It's glens nonesense.... but how so?

Really, why is it nonsense? I'd love to hear how he is wrong with good reasons.

[ReluctanceTango]

72. Are you familiar with the legalities?

Because Burdick v. US would go a long way to explaining why Princess Sparkle Bits a) could very well have a pocket pardon, b) testified without immunity, and c) was terrified during that deposition.

Burdick means that if you accept a pardon, then you admit guilt for the applicable crime, and therefore forfeit your Fifth Amendment protections; ergo, you can be compelled to testify about what you know about a crime you’ve pleaded guilty to.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

75. Bannon got one

But it was for his build the wall shit,

[Ohio Joe]

76. True...

It was also not a secret pardon.

[ReluctanceTango]

68. If he did, it was a dumb move.

Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2022, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

IANAL, but I think pardons are not the free ride people think, because anyone who accepted a pardon for J6 matters would be compelled to testify about what they know regarding what happened. By accepting the pardon, they have acknowledged their guilt of the crime and have thus forfeited their Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy and self-incrimination.

If they don’t comply, then they can be charged with obstruction or, if they lie, perjury.

This is all tied up with, IIRC, the Burdick v US decision.

[SoonerPride]

69. Hence why Ivanka testified before the committee.

She had a pardon on file.

Can’t take the 5th

[Ferrets are Cool]

13. IF the indictments do not come, people will lose ALL faith in the DOJ and it will

severely and negatively affect the midterms. IMO

[fightforfreedom]

16. It would destroy the rule of law in America.

[edhopper]

14. How do you know?

Do you have inside info from the DOJ?
Or is this mere speculation?

[vlyons]

17. The white supremacists will just pick another false idol to worship after TFG is gone

nt

[randr]

19. Same here

I don't know what the media obsession is with this. WTF cares what the magats think?

[867-5309.]

20. There have been a LOT of indictments

Is there someone in particular? Serious question.

[getagrip_already]

32. seriously? all indictments have been against outsiders.....

NOBODY in trumps inner circle or family.

The closest they came was meadows, and the doj declined to prosecute him.

There are literally thousands of charges that could be brought against them without much effort.

So lets reverse the question. Who has been indicted?

[867-5309.]

59. I agree, TFG's inner circle is pretty intact

I just wasn't certain who exactly the OP says is now going to be indicted. Since "the leaders" are referenced that's likely who the OP meant.

[Novara]

33. about pardons:

In the 1915 case of Burdick v. U.S., George Burdick refused a pre-emptive pardon issued by Woodrow Wilson because accepting it would have meant that he could not claim his Fifth Amendment privilege when called to give testimony relating to the pardoned crime before a grand jury. Herein lies the downside for President Trump in any pardons he might grant. Should Congress or the Justice Department seek to determine whether the president or any of his associates acted criminally before or during Trump’s term as president, pardoned individuals would be limited in their ability to dodge questions by claiming their Fifth Amendment privilege. The broader the pardon, the narrower the Fifth Amendment protection. Roger Stone, for example, after being pardoned for the crime of impeding a congressional investigation could not invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering narrowly focused questions regarding this illegal activity. His privilege would, however, remain with respect to other possible crimes, and he might even be able avoid answering questions about the lies he told Congress if his answers might help prosecutors prove him guilty of different crimes. By contrast, the terms of Michael Flynn’s pardon render him unable to claim the Fifth Amendment in any proceedings exploring Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election. If Trump issued similarly broad or broader pardons to members of his family or closest allies, they too could be required to tell more of what they did and know.

Although truthful testimony might shame a witness or open Trump or others up to suits for civil damages, these considerations cannot support Fifth Amendment claims. Also, with criminal prosecutions off the table, Congress or the Justice Department, perhaps acting through special counsel, might be more rather than less willing to explore the possible crimes and bad acts of Trump and his associates. Even if illegal behavior were uncovered, the DOJ would not be in a situation where it felt it had to bring charges that might unacceptably exacerbate political divisions or result in trials where juries did not convict. To a degree determined by the scope of Trump’s pardons, recipients could be required to flesh out details about crimes for which they had been pardoned, perhaps implicating others whose involvement had gone undetected. If they then lied to avoid shaming themselves or to protect others, they could be tried for that crime.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/01/17/presidential-pardons-settled-law-unsettled-issues-and-a-downside-for-trump/

[fightforfreedom]

45. Thank you for your post. Can we now stop talking about secret, magical pardons.

[SoonerPride]

52. lol. ok sure

Case closed.



This just further lends credence to why so many people testified before the committee and didn't invoke the 5th.

Ivanka
Jared

et al.

Seems like we could infer they do indeed have secret pardons. Which is what Kirchner said too.

[Chainfire]

42. I am certainly no attorney, but I would think that if Trump was convicted of a crime

That the pardons that he issued to protect himself would be invalid as they were part of a criminal conspiracy. If that is not the case, it should be. If a president can use blanket pardons preemptively, then he could hire hit men to go after his political enemies and they could operate with impunity. If a president can issue a preemptive blanket pardon to himself, then he is above any laws and becomes a super-citizen much like a king.

[LiberalFighter]

53. If I recall.. a person cannot pardon themselves

[Chainfire]

55. Like I say, I am no legal scholar, but I do not believe, from what I have read,

that that is certain. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject can respond.

[Hortensis]

56. Yes, pardons sure should be invalid if part of a crime, but they are not.

They can be cause for impeachment of the pardon-giver, but not revoked themselves.

Understandable that you're considering extreme worst cases while we're discussing tRump, but at least they haven't happened in over 200 years, even under tRump. So far. The institutions are cracked but have mostly constrained the anti-democracy infiltrators so far.

Btw, I've read that a standard pattern in other governments when a power-hungry authoritarian tests his power by pushing at its limits and is reelected is to successfully use that as support for pushing and smashing much farther. Experts looking at that believe tRump would likely be much bolder and more lawless in a second term, with his supporters in government and out doubling down on their own moral/real crimes to support their leader.

[Chainfire]

61. With preemptive get out of jail free cards, there is not restraint on the crimes one may

consider. Here is your pardon, go kill XXXXX and tell the legal system to kiss your arse. Let them take you to court, let them listen to you admit all of the gory details, and then walk away a free man.

Of course Trump would be worse in his second term. He has a lot of pent up hatred and plenty of vengeance to dish out. Trump, after learning that he is indeed invulnerable, operating without the constraints of the legal system, is a nightmare. This is the man who supported hanging the VP...

Trump's Brown Shirt wannabes would be in hog heaven.

[Hortensis]

64. Fortunately that didn't turn out to be true for tRump in his first term.

By far most restraints held. One reason tRump didn't test them farther is because he didn't know what he could get away with and was afraid of consequences.

The serious warning in what happens when voters give authoritarian power seekers a second term is not that the leaders comes to it angry, eager to act out, but that the voters have shown they will support much more smashing of restraints, breaking of laws. That the leader can get away with a lot more.

This matters of course because tRump is actively seeking a return.

[Chainfire]

65. If he walks away from his past crimes with impunity, and regained the White House,

There would be no limits on his second, third or fourth terms. If he gets away with sedition, it will have taught him that, in fact, there are no effective limits. If he has a Republican House, Senate and the Right wing court on his side, he would extend the powers of the "presidency" to levels we never dreamed of.

Of course, this is just thought experiment, I do not think that Trump can be elected again. I think that he has lost his mojo. But if he escapes justice, even without returning to Washington, it would also be a lesson to those that come after him. How do you think that a DeSantis would rule if he thought that there was no bridge too far. It is not only DeSantis, there are plenty of other "good" Republicans out there.

I think that it is critical to the survival of our Democratic Republic that Trump is convicted of his crimes, even if he never spends a day in jail, or home confinement. Anything else is a sure path to destruction. I hope that the Justice Dept. feels the same way and that he SC will not stand in the way of justice.

[Hortensis]

67. Yes, his attempted coup suggests he sets no limits on himself.

There would still be many limits to battle, though, from both internal and external forces, from government institutions he didn't have complete control of including the judicial system and the military, the Democratic Party and other political groups, diverse business and industry powers, the wealthy classes. Certainly not least (!) the 50 state governments, including their police and judicial powers and populaces.

He'd not only be constrained by those opposing him. By needing to satisfy his own followers, the ultimate source of his power. Very related, tRump can't survive without allying with very powerful Christian organizations, but their support comes with big price tags ceding a lot of control to them. And in turn they have to keep the support of those they get their power from -- again, their people.

Lots and lots of limits.

Apparently many democracies that break don't fall at once and may recover in the end; power seesaws back and forth for some years until one side gets enough definitively to stabilize control. Both scrabbling all the while for the support of a majority of the people, without which they usually cannot survive for long. Even with authoritarians in control they usually have to continue elections, can't just get rid of them as soon as they'd want.

[hamsterjill]

47. There is a BIG difference in the use of the words "know" and "believe".

To “know” something means you have proof. To “believe” something means you have a strong feeling.

Since you say you “know”, would you mind showing us your proof? Proof that Trump (himself) is going to be indicted by Merrick Garland.

Because I don’t “believe” that will happen and anything less than that is not going to satisfy me.

[fightforfreedom]

48. I agree with your post.

I should have used the word believe instead of know. However, I am extremely confident people at the top are going to be indicted. That's what caused me to use the word know.

[hamsterjill]

49. Thank you for that admission.

I trust you’ll accommodate my explanation in tomorrow’s post. Thank you. Much appreciated.

[kentuck]

54. At the very least, Trump should never be permitted to run for any public office again.

In my opinion.

[Hortensis]

66. Absolutely, and of course a huge goal of both impeachment efforts.

[Poiuyt]

62. I think the only area where Trump might be in trouble is the Georgia meddling case

"I need you to find me x number of votes." Anything else can be dismissed as not being specific enough. Michael Cohen told us how Trump would give directives in code. I think that will save him from inciting the coup attempt.

That said, I think these hearings are very important for future historians so they know the extent of Trump's criminal behavior. And I certainly hope they solidify Trump's standing as the worst president in US history. There's no way that James Buchanan is worse than Trump.