Jump to content

January 6th Committee Hearings Thread of Dominance


Longhorn_Fan68

Recommended Posts

If they were doing it only for when they lost to Democrats, then they could do it and get away with it.
But these clowns have no message discipline so they are turning on their own. It's going to become a meme at this rate. 

It's a dog eat dog world, eh The Dog?
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

right, i mean, doesn't the wolf eat the boy at the end of the story?  i can't remember, i suck at finishing books.

I think the boy ends up president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I would argue, and previously have, that Watergate is highly differentiable from this in that the crime at issue did not involve the larger interests of the American people or nation in any way, shape or form, but only revealed Nixon's corruption and unfitness for office.  Once his political career was destroyed and he resigned from office, that was enough.

On Iran-Contra, it was never proven that Reagan knew fully the extent of it, and he publicly came clean about what he did know (perhaps lies, who knows).  SoD Cap Weinberger was in fact indicted (and, of course pardoned) and NSA Poindexter convicted.  But probably more importantly, the sale of weapons to Iran, and even the diversion of funds to the Contras, while blatantly illegal, were not direct assaults on American democracy and institutions.  Moreover, I think the American people for the most part found the scheme to be somewhat within the ordinary course of CIA-type foreign/military relations skulduggery: unacceptable, but not a dire threat to our existence as a nation.

Donald J. Trump, on the other hand, concocted and led a direct assault on American democracy and institutions and continues to do so.

Maybe I should have chosen a different quote. For my goal was to entice folks to tead the essay. Allow me another shot:

I hear the lawyers cautioning me to patience. Slow, steady, build a case, ironclad, so Trump can't wiggle out. I got it. I hear you. 

I hear you. 

But you're not hearing me. 

Slow and steady won't win this race. 

And we've heard these promises before. 

There is literally no history you can point to in Trump's past to prove your case that this time, at long last, he'll finally get what's coming to him. None. 

The public has to believe that this time something will actually be done.

A firewalled, tightlipped DOJ might be good for Justice, but right now it's bad for Democracy

You can win the battle and lose the war.”

 

https://www.stonekettle.com/2022/06/when-good-men-do-nothing.html?m=1

 

 

 

I trust we can agree to disagree on Nixon and Reagan.

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Are lawyers allowed to ignore a subpoena? 

folks on cnn are saying the word is he would "not cooperate without a subpoena" which isn't to say he will cooperate now, but as a "working lawyer" (their words) he would be much more likely to appear than the others who have ignored it or strung it out for months. 

he has already given an interview with the committee apparently (without subpoena), which might be interesting as far as him claiming any type of privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

folks on cnn are saying the word is he would "not cooperate without a subpoena" which isn't to say he will cooperate now, but as a "working lawyer" (their words) he would be much more likely to appear than the others who have ignored it or strung it out for months. 

he has already given an interview with the committee apparently (without subpoena), which might be interesting as far as him claiming any type of privilege.

Privilege does not apply to crimes

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm going to take this opportunity to state on the record how much i dislike this expression (not ^ but the actual expression). 

slow doesn't win any races.

I’d like a word with that fucking Aesop about some other fables, too. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

does his earlier conversation with the committee affect his ability to assert privilege now?

Impossible to answer without the transcript and knowing what privileges were asserted and when. Also As Sawbonz mentioned, a federal judge already applied the crime/fraud exception to some of Eastman’s claims of privilege- and Cippolone reportedly admitted they’d be charged with every crime imaginable. So 🤷‍♂️

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

does his earlier conversation with the committee affect his ability to assert privilege now?

Isn’t it kind of up to the current President? He was WH counsel and not Toddler Don’s personal attorney, right? The client holds and can waive the privilege not the attorney. He’s bound by rules of ethics/professional conduct and isn’t the one to assert privilege per se.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

At what point does Cipollone's "client" cease being POTUS and starts to become . . . well, us?

I mean, I understand his role is to advise POTUS but he's certainly NOT a personal attorney.

Not an attorney, but I've always assumed his hesitancy was for any future clients, POTUS or other.  Career choice.

Seeing as he apparently did what he could to avoid the shitshow that eventually occurred, I'd give him a pass on his choice to not go in person.

I'd like to see him testify for the good of the country also, but he's an advocate, and would probably like to continue to do so and make a shitload of money.  If he'll do video I'm okay with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

At what point does Cipollone's "client" cease being POTUS and starts to become . . . well, us?

I mean, I understand his role is to advise POTUS but he's certainly NOT a personal attorney.

Attorney client privilege never really expires.  Donald Trump isn't his client, but the office of the President is and that's legally where his duty will always lie.

Also, the crime-fraud exception only applies to otherwise privileged communications in furtherance of a crime.  Because it seems that Cipollone always counseled against crime, the exception probably does not apply.

But again, that only applies to conversations seeking or providing legal advice.  Corroborating Hutchinson or others probably isn't privileged and I would suspect he'll play it that way, unlike, say, Eastman.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statements to him by Trump in furtherance of a crime would fall under the exception, isn't that the real point anyway? They're not trying to nail Pasquale. 

In other words, Trump kept saying he wanted to commit sedition and Cipollone kept telling him no

Edited by texastough
add second line
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, texastough said:

Statements to him by Trump in furtherance of a crime would fall under the exception, isn't that the real point anyway? They're not trying to nail Pasquale. 

In other words, Trump kept saying he wanted to commit sedition and Cipollone kept telling him no

Jada Pinkett Smith Interest GIF by Red Table Talk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, texastough said:

Statements to him by Trump in furtherance of a crime would fall under the exception, isn't that the real point anyway? They're not trying to nail Pasquale. 

In other words, Trump kept saying he wanted to commit sedition and Cipollone kept telling him no

yeah, but so far, we don't even know if cipollone knew they were committing crimes. 

except for the times he said, "they're going to charge us with all these crimes".

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Attorney client privilege never really expires.  Donald Trump isn't his client, but the office of the President is and that's legally where his duty will always lie.

Also, the crime-fraud exception only applies to otherwise privileged communications in furtherance of a crime.  Because it seems that Cipollone always counseled against crime, the exception probably does not apply.

But again, that only applies to conversations seeking or providing legal advice.  Corroborating Hutchinson or others probably isn't privileged and I would suspect he'll play it that way, unlike, say, Eastman.

What are the odds that Cipollone has already been granted a pardon?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

What are the odds that Cipollone has already been granted a pardon?  

I'd guess zero.  First, he's smart enough not to involve himself in such shit, second, I'm pretty sure he was not teh Donald's favorite person by the end of this.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

What are the odds that Cipollone has already been granted a pardon?  

I'd guess zero.  First, he's smart enough not to involve himself in such shit, second, I'm pretty sure he was not teh Donald's favorite person by the end of this.

 

2 hours ago, texastough said:

Statements to him by Trump in furtherance of a crime would fall under the exception, isn't that the real point anyway? They're not trying to nail Pasquale. 

In other words, Trump kept saying he wanted to commit sedition and Cipollone kept telling him no

Well, statements from Trump about intention to commit a crime, not seeking legal advice probably aren't privileged.  But that's kind of a law school ethics dilemma:   your client tells you where a body is buried or that she intends to commit a crime, can you tell anyone?  But that would only be a consideration where it was Trump and the lawyer(s).  If there were a bunch of other people around, that's not privileged; it's waived.

Because Trump isn't a nuanced individual, I suspect he rarely had conversations with lawyers during his presidency that were privileged; he was always running his mouth before other people and never seeking advice.

I doubt very much that Cipollone will claim privilege for anything old thing Trump said to him or that he overheard, regardless of circumstance, content, or context, unlike some of these clowns.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

Probably because they were thrown some bone that the SS guy was going to expose her as a fraud and destroy her credibility.  Then whatever she reported to have heard first hand is in doubt.   

I just don't see the committee not having thought that out well before hand, and they've got some strong support from others for her statements.    

Might just be tossing out bait.  

While some people seem to think they are wasting time, I am with gandorf and others and say they had to do something, they couldn't just let it slide.   They have exceeded and continue to exceed my expectations on the strategy and production of this.  Not sure where it's going to end up, but they're doing a pretty damn good job laying it all out.

i'm 24 hours behind so if this has been postulated apologies......

what if.....  meadows told multiple people about the beast incident, and they got a 2nd corroboration in writing or on tape, from another witness, which then put them in position to put her on the record in front of the world.   bait.

/trap specialist

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Cipollone is probably going to play it pretty straight. He may assert some pretty legit attorney-client privilege, though.

IIRC, CH testified that he said something like, "We're going to get charged with every crime imaginable."

For some reason, that gives me optimism that he's going to spill his guts and make a bigger impact than CH.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

Unless they want to get those SS agents under oath to ask them about more than the beast incident.

yep, big talk coming from unnamed spox from usss but haven’t heard of anybody coming forward. big surprise.

did somebody say his main protection guy became his deputy chief of staff?  because that sounds super normal and that guy is probably pretty impartial and reliable. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, but so far, we don't even know if cipollone knew they were committing crimes. 
except for the times he said, "they're going to charge us with all these crimes".
Yeah but so far in this matter, I was stoked to learn his legal first name was Pasquale, only to learn I have fucking zero jokes for said name, none, including zero Pasquale lame dad jokes. I got dickaroo over here, I disappoint myself. Nada, zip. Ol pat can skate and I can't do shit to even make it uncomfortable. I hope his yard is unhealthy at least. Maybe underwatered....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Born to Run said:
1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:
yeah, but so far, we don't even know if cipollone knew they were committing crimes. 
except for the times he said, "they're going to charge us with all these crimes".

Yeah but so far in this matter, I was stoked to learn his legal first name was Pasquale, only to learn I have fucking zero jokes for said name, none, including zero Pasquale lame dad jokes. I got dickaroo over here, I disappoint myself. Nada, zip. Ol pat can skate and I can't do shit to even make it uncomfortable. I hope his yard is unhealthy at least. Maybe underwatered....

i am workshopping some material. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

meadows told hutchinson about the beast incident

hutchinson testified about what meadows told her

hutchinson didn't testify that the beast incident is true

it's scenery and bait for something else

maybe it’s bait to get pasquale to come in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Born to Run said:
2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:
yeah, but so far, we don't even know if cipollone knew they were committing crimes. 
except for the times he said, "they're going to charge us with all these crimes".

Yeah but so far in this matter, I was stoked to learn his legal first name was Pasquale, only to learn I have fucking zero jokes for said name, none, including zero Pasquale lame dad jokes. I got dickaroo over here, I disappoint myself. Nada, zip. Ol pat can skate and I can't do shit to even make it uncomfortable. I hope his yard is unhealthy at least. Maybe underwatered....

Well, there is the whole Grubhub/DoorDash Chuck E. Cheese pizza scam.

 

chuck-e-cheese-pizza-01.jpg?quality=75&s

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...