Former trump atty, just on CNN, said he was surprised that the govt had no DIRECT evidence

[Laura PourMeADrink]

of coordination between trump WH and insurrection groups. (Yet?)

ME TOO!!! Thought PBs? had recorded Roger Stone!??

They keep saying hearings are almost over. Trying to move from disappointment to good this is all now in history books mode
.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Did we ever get to see the Mueller Report? Direct evidence of what we know happened, working

with Putin?

SOMEONE in trump's orbit orchestrated with the militia, for sure.

[AkFemDem]

2. I think they've laid out pretty good groundwork that

Roger Stone is the go between here, with the allied fringe groups.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. But they didn't play any recording nor show any text

[emulatorloo]

9. The Jan 6th committee isn't done yet.

There is another hearing next week concerning what happened on the day of January 6th.

I

[WarGamer]

31. This is a misnomer...

The full unedited Mueller Report was available for any member of Congress to read... several went and examined it.

[SoCalDavidS]

3. This Was Always For The History Books

There are those of us who have thought, and still think, that TFG will NEVER be charged with a thing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. May never know how someone so ignorant can obviously

be so adept at skirting the law.

I would be very happy if the ptb went for " can never run again"

[SoCalDavidS]

20. The PTB Had That Chance During 2nd Impeachment Trial nt

[EndlessWire]

34. Yeah, I agree.

As much as I'd like to see him take that perp walk, I'd settle for him leaving the country. I think that DOJ has enough to get him on something. If we don't see something, I will be profoundly distressed.

[emulatorloo]

4. Sounds like the 'former Trump atty' is bullshitting or engaging in wishful thinking.

[unc70]

7. Ty Cobb was in full BS mode

CNN has had various people on who have attempted to minimize the evidence already presented. I was yelling at the TV/CNN when I heard Cobb on with Erin B

[in2herbs]

13. I heard this same comment from one of the legal commentators on

ABC news today.

My opinion still stands, whether or not a direct link can be found tfg needs to be prosecuted.

Substitute a black man to determine if the evidence needed to prosecute is enuf for tfg.

[GoCubsGo]

14. He's gaslighting.

The Cult will hear "there's no evidence," and that is what they'll continue to believe, even though they're being buried with evidence.

[emulatorloo]

19. 'Kill the messenger?' I don't understand. Why do you beleive it is a 'true statement' when it

comes from an unreliable source?

[TheBeam19]

36. Yep. He wasn't even speaking as an attorney.

He was obviously in spokesperson mode.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

6. Will any DOJ indictment lead to him being ineligible to run in 2024? That, or its a wash

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. +1,000,000

[Samrob]

8. WTF? No direct evidence for what?

Looks like they aren't willing to accept anything except Trump standing in the pit with his right hand raised saying, "I did it."

[brush]

17. Tweeting out come to DC on J6 as it will be wild...

along with speaking at the rally and telling the crowd, which he knew had weapons, to march on the Capitol and take their country back is nothing but direct evidence.

And then there is the testimony of several WH aides who told trump he lost yet he keep on with the Stop the Steal big lie.

And then planning meetings at the WH with Eastman and Guiliani and Powell.

Come on, are they trying to kid us?

[getagrip_already]

10. Very lawyerly wording there.....

They don't have direct evidence because trump never sent a memo to the proud idiots or the oaf keepers.

They have direct evidence that stone and Flynn had connections. They have direct evidence that stony flynski had contact with the wh.

And they can likely prove what each said to the others.

It's a tortured phrase. But not one you couldn't send an indictment right through.

That's if the doj has the will.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. I'm glad... But why didn't they display evidence today,?

[GoCubsGo]

12. Former Trump attorney has no fucking idea what evidence the government has.

And, they are sure as hell not going to tell him what they have.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. Probably true. But surely it would have come out today

when relevant subject was on agenda?


Unless it's some kind of three dimensional chess game we are always asked to believe ?

[emulatorloo]

21. there is another hearing next week concerning Trump's actions on Jan 6th. The committee is

building a case and they know what they are doing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. Mean this with all due respect... How can you unilaterally

Say that a group knows what they're doing? Do you work with them? I have NOTHING to doubt it - just personally never automatically say such things about ANYONE I don't know personally.

[emulatorloo]

26. How can you unilaterally believe Ty Cobb? Do you know him personally?

I will say the J6th committee has a good reputation for competence and truth telling. I’ll again reiterate the committee has more hearings on the schedule

Ty Cobb doesn’t have a reputation for truth telling. That is why I treat his statements with skepticism.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. ?? Has zero to do with Ty Cobb zero. I was thinking or wondering

About the exact same thing.

[Kingofalldems]

35. You posted the thoughts of a Trump lawyer you don't know personally.

[RockRaven]

23. The DOJ isn't going to find what the DOJ doesn't look for...

How hard are they really looking?

The historical record of the DOJ investigating and prosecuting criminality in the WH or executive branch in general is poor.

I don't know why everyone is so quick to be certain this time is different. The time to say it's different is when there's a different outcome. Still waiting on that...

[Mr.Bill]

24. This is a fact-finding committee.

It's not a prosecution or a trial. That's the job of the DoJ.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

27. So you're saying that if the fact that trump texted a PB

they wouldn't show that? It wouldn't be in their purview?

[Mr.Bill]

28. No, I did not say that.

That would be a fact, wouldn't it? They would then decide whether to release that information to the public or turn it over to the DoJ, or both. That's really all they can do. I think when this committee wraps up, there will be numerous criminal referals to the DoJ. Then it's up to Merrick Garland what to do about it.

There are probably many things they have found out that won't be revealed to the public for various reasons, such as national security or endangering the DoJ investigation. I think the two entities are working together more than we know of.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. Well let's just speculate. Let's just say there is a taped

Voice mail of Roger Stone saying "game on! enter capitol!" ( Which there must be). You are saying that something like that would be a DOJ matter. And the Committee wouldn't mention it.

[Mr.Bill]

30. I don't know enough about the DoJ investigation

to have an opinion on whether they should or would release that. It may be that the DoJ knows it already but doesn't want everyone to know that they know about it. Public knowledge of something like that could damage or hinder their investigation.

Think about it this way, if the DA in your county was investigating a murder, would they have a press conference every day to tell the public what evidence they have found? Or what a witness told them in an interview?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. Ya sounds like the same ole thing. We Dems have to hope and

Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2022, 11:51 PM - Edit history (1)

wonder and hypothesize. Frankly tired of that. If a human being who has betrayed the law infinite times can get away with it, and if we can't nail anything....

[Mr.Bill]

39. I agree. It will be very bad for the country

if he gets away with it.

[Kingofalldems]

33. Is he on the Committee?

Answer: No

So why are you posting speculation from some unnamed Trump attorney here on DU?

[Kingofalldems]

40. Here you go:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142942130

Hope this helps.