it’s up to the doj to decide whether or not they charge him
2021 American Civil War
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
I don't quite get this. If everybody is so convinced that laws were broken, what is there to decide? Shouldn't this be a slam dunk?
The DOJ is blatantly upholding double standards in criminal referrals (basically nothing against the rich). Moreover, they just don't have the stomach to go to war against domestic terrorism and white supremacists the same way war is waged against foreign terrorism.
I see users of Truth social getting banned for referencing these hearings…so much for a free speech platform.
The clue is in the name duh. It’s about troof. You can’t just say whatever you want on a private company’s platform and not expect them to censor it, that’s not what the first amendment is about.
All heil twufe!
So another great big nothing burger. Again showing the world that the system is us vs them and its basically a free pass to do what you want as long as your in the richer class.
did anyone actually read the article or, more importantly, find the actual quotes?
Thompson:
Cheney:
Luria
So all members of the committee interviewed agree that they can make referrals/recommendations to DOJ, the only disagreement being if it will be “formal” or not. Because of separation of powers between Legislative and Executive branches I don’t even know if a formal referral is a thing.
The first 2 sessions, and likely the remaining ones, are essentially a presentation to a grand jury (DOJ) of the case with the intent to show crimes have been committed and secure indictments. Now, whether Garland proceeds is another question, but I think the goal of the committee is to make it impossible for him not to.
Thompson:
Cheney:
Luria
So all members of the committee interviewed agree that they can make referrals/recommendations to DOJ, the only disagreement being if it will be “formal” or not. Because of separation of powers between Legislative and Executive branches I don’t even know if a formal referral is a thing.
The first 2 sessions, and likely the remaining ones, are essentially a presentation to a grand jury (DOJ) of the case with the intent to show crimes have been committed and secure indictments. Now, whether Garland proceeds is another question, but I think the goal of the committee is to make it impossible for him not to.
That bit at the end said everything about these hearing. The had a preview of the next episode, a fecking preview, this is all a show to entertain people.
Of course there’s an element of entertainment to it. They hired a producer from ABC to ensure there was some sensationalism & hook to the proceedings. That doesn’t negate their findings one iota.
After 2 hours of live and recorded testimony that was your takeaway? Of course they are trying to keep people interested. The normal attention span of a person tuning in to a congressional hearing would make a goldfish blush. The only way to prevent the narrative from being reduced to Twitter clips is to get people to watch the hearing and you do that by making it interesting.
Didn't say it did. In my view the whole tv show feeling just takes away from the seriousness of the event. If in the end they're not even going after people criminally, than it just feels like a mini-series on netflix.
See my previous post.
They have no ability to go after anyone criminally, that’s the DOJ’s job. They will hopefully put everything on enough enticing platters for the DOJ to sway them to go after those who need it.
That’s just it though, they can’t go after anyone criminally as far as I know. They are doing this for 2 reasons in my opinion:
1)to create a public record of all the evidence, laid out in a methodical manner.
2)by doing #1 they put immense pressure on DOJ to do something.
will it work? 50/50 for me, but that’s certainly better than if they had done nothing or had just published a report Mueller style.
edit: damnit Cal, quit posting the same thing literally 10 seconds before I hit post.
I know, but they can certainly press for it, no? Hasn't someone posted a tweet with the chair of the hearings saying they will not ask for it?
Honestly think that the underlying bipartisan issue here is that nobody wants to set a precedent for Politician’s being jailed for political activities. Even if said activities were ultimately criminal.
If Trump or his ilk get back into power and they run their own sham investigation into this investigation, you can bet your life that he will have an AG in place who will be looking to reciprocate with jail time for everyone on the J6 committee.
If Trump or his ilk get back into power and they run their own sham investigation into this investigation, you can bet your life that he will have an AG in place who will be looking to reciprocate with jail time for everyone on the J6 committee.
It was the whole tv show vibe that bothered me, the little clips, the ominous music, the gotcha moments, the previews... It just makes it look cheap given the seriousness of the matter.
See my reply to that post:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/2021-american-civil-war.460072/post-28988343
Fair enough, to each their own I guess. For me I think they are going about it perfectly if the goal is to get people to watch the actual hearing and not just the Tweet clips.
This is probably the biggest roadblock, not wanting to set a precedent.
The most recent hearings that were legitimate (not Benghazi) were Iran Contra. I was 12 & interested in the proceedings, but quickly grew bored with them (much to my father’s chagrin). The committee probably used IC as a model of what not to do.
Plus, we are dumber as a culture now.
Dumber now? Let me remind you that Iran-Contra happened under Reagan. And it's not like that had any lasting consequences either. Everyone got pardoned, and Oliver North is doing just fine for himself these days.
It gave us this though:
Yep, I remember when I/C was. Wasn’t really opining on the result(s), just that this committee obviously wanted a series of hearings which were opposite I/C from an entertainment perspective.
Yes, dumber now with shorter attention spans.
If that's the case, then better delete the country. We have seen strong democratic countries out there that have jailed former Presidents, Prime Ministers or even a Lieutenant-Governor (feck you, Lise Thibault) because that was the only way to maintain the rule of law. Justice is no job for cowards.
It looks legit, same format & all.
Masterful switch from first to third person, then back again.
I stand by my statement this is a parody. The mostly proper grammar, spelling, and proper use of commas should be a dead giveaway.
I agree with the numerous Twitter responses of “that’s gotta be fake but it says everything that we have to ask…”
The twelve page missive was the same, proper grammar. But it’s the inflection, the phrasing, & the rambling that leads me to think it’s Trump dictating it to someone with grammatical skills.
I've been watching the BBC Trump documentary the past couple of weeks (which is great by the way) and what it showcases is that Trump is a master of theatre, and this is in part how he managed to win the war against the mainstream media and establishment politicians.
This is very much a case of fighting fire with fire, and I think it is a smart move.
They have to capture public attention somehow. I too think it’s a smart move.
Kids being shot to pieces for giggles, authorities looking for 'evidence' of high treason, etc. There's something big going on in the States and I won't lie, I'm a little nervous.
Yeah. Something brewing and it's brewing fast. I dont think the US can sustain another 4 years of trump without any incident.
At best their politics would never be the same ever again. At worst... God knows
The more dangerous one is DeSantis. He is a Trump acolyte but he’s a much more savvy political despot.
I just don’t believe Trump will run again.
Hope this becomes public, I would love to see their ‘plans’ to take over the government…