ADVERTISEMENT

*****January 6th committee public hearings thread*****UPDATE: Transcripts released

Mo Brooks is now saying he will testify. He said he needs to see all documents ahead of time, and will only testify in public. Makes me wonder if he wants to stick it to Trump for knifing him in the back?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkMD
What was her "lie"?

At an earlier J6C hearing the clip of Barr describing how he told Trump all his fraud claims were bullshit was played. That was followed by a clip of Ivanka's J6C interview and this exchamge:

Q: “How did that affect your perspective about the election, when Attorney General Barr made that statement?”

A: “It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr, so I accepted what he was saying,” Ivanka Trump answered.

At this point, its best to just presume Trump family members will lie when put on the hot seat.... until proven BARD otherwise.
 
At an earlier J6C hearing the clip of Barr describing how he told Trump all his fraud claims were bullshit was played. That was followed by a clip of Ivanka's J6C interview and this exchamge:

Q: “How did that affect your perspective about the election, when Attorney General Barr made that statement?”

A: “It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr, so I accepted what he was saying,” Ivanka Trump answered.

At this point, its best to just presume Trump family members will lie when put on the hot seat.... until proven BARD otherwise.
Ah, yes.

Will be quite interesting to parse out any statements "on tape" to cross-ref with the "I accepted what he was saying" claim under oath.

I guess she could just say "I was lying to them back then, just to make Daddy feel better"
 
It’s the point I’m making Tom. The congress people care but their voters don’t.
Some voters don't.
Others care quite a bit.

Plato stated it best.
1722296-Plato-Quote-The-price-good-men-pay-for-indifference-to-public.jpg
 

The Department of Justice today announced that a grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment presented by the Special Counsel’s Office. The indictment charges twelve Russian nationals for committing federal crimes that were intended to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. All twelve defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian Federation intelligence agency within the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian military. These GRU officers, in their official capacities, engaged in a sustained effort to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and released that information on the internet under the names "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0" and through another entity.

“The Internet allows foreign adversaries to attack America in new and unexpected ways,” said Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. “Together with our law enforcement partners, the Department of Justice is resolute in its commitment to locate, identify and seek to bring to justice anyone who interferes with American elections. Free and fair elections are hard-fought and contentious, and there will always be adversaries who work to exacerbate domestic differences and try to confuse, divide, and conquer us. So long as we are united in our commitment to the shared values enshrined in the Constitution, they will not succeed.”

According to the allegations in the indictment, Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, Boris Alekseyevich Antonov, Dmitriy Sergeyevich Badin, Ivan Sergeyevich Yermakov, Aleksey Viktorovich Lukashev, Sergey Aleksandrovich Morgachev, Nikolay Yuryevich Kozachek, Pavel Vyacheslavovich Yershov, Artem Andreyevich Malyshev, Aleksandr Vladimirovich Osadchuk, Aleksey Aleksandrovich Potemkin, and Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev were officials in Unit 26165 and Unit 74455 of the Russian government’s Main Intelligence Directorate.

In 2016, officials in Unit 26165 began spearphishing volunteers and employees of the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, including the campaign’s chairman. Through that process, officials in this unit were able to steal the usernames and passwords for numerous individuals and use those credentials to steal email content and hack into other computers. They also were able to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) through these spearphishing techniques to steal emails and documents, covertly monitor the computer activity of dozens of employees, and implant hundreds of files of malicious computer code to steal passwords and maintain access to these networks.

The officials in Unit 26165 coordinated with officials in Unit 74455 to plan the release of the stolen documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 presidential election. Defendants registered the domain DCLeaks.com and later staged the release of thousands of stolen emails and documents through that website. On the website, defendants claimed to be “American hacktivists” and used Facebook accounts with fictitious names and Twitter accounts to promote the website. After public accusations that the Russian government was behind the hacking of DNC and DCCC computers, defendants created the fictitious persona Guccifer 2.0. On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and 4:56PM, defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of English words and phrases that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0’s first blog post falsely claiming to be a lone Romanian hacker responsible for the hacks in the hopes of undermining the allegations of Russian involvement.

Members of Unit 74455 also conspired to hack into the computers of state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and US companies that supplied software and other technology related to the administration of elections to steal voter data stored on those computers.

To avoid detection, defendants used false identities while using a network of computers located around the world, including the United States, paid for with cryptocurrency through mining bitcoin and other means intended to obscure the origin of the funds. This funding structure supported their efforts to buy key accounts, servers, and domains. For example, the same bitcoin mining operation that funded the registration payment for DCLeaks.com also funded the servers and domains used in the spearphishing campaign.

The indictment includes 11 criminal counts:

  • Count One alleges a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States through cyber operations by the GRU that involved the staged release of stolen documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 president election;
  • Counts Two through Nine charge aggravated identity theft for using identification belonging to eight victims to further their computer fraud scheme;
  • Count Ten alleges a conspiracy to launder money in which the defendants laundered the equivalent of more than $95,000 by transferring the money that they used to purchase servers and to fund other costs related to their hacking activities through cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin; and
  • Count Eleven charges conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States by attempting to hack into the computers of state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and US companies that supplied software and other technology related to the administration of elections.

There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity or knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the vote count or changed the outcome of the 2016 election.

Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens.

This case was investigated with the help of the FBI’s cyber teams in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco and the National Security Division. The Special Counsel's investigation is ongoing. There will be no comments from the Special Counsel at this time.
Okay Joe, Russia did things that Russia does, which are the same thing the US does to countries (Ukraine, perhaps?).

indictments against Russians was all theater. They knew it would accomplish nothing.

These actions speak nothing to the charges of collusion.

Sorry for the late response. Was on vacation and wasn’t going to argue politics. I’m back on the clock now though.

So you feel there was collusion, I don’t agree, Mueller doesn’t agree, Intel Committee doesn’t agree. But I don’t feel like arguing it any more.

Gotta get back to work so I can afford things that are now more expensive because of “Putin’s price hike”
 
Hey Chis, have you happened to look at the polling on Jan 6th? I think it’s safe to say it’s not having the effect they had hoped. Just heard a couple congressional democrats said no one gives a shit.

I’m curious what you think about the pro-choice people in Wisconsin that went into the Wisconsin Capitol and to a lesser degree Colberts people in federal building illegally.
 
Hey Chis, have you happened to look at the polling on Jan 6th? I think it’s safe to say it’s not having the effect they had hoped. Just heard a couple congressional democrats said no one gives a shit.

I’m curious what you think about the pro-choice people in Wisconsin that went into the Wisconsin Capitol and to a lesser degree Colberts people in federal building illegally.
Link to them being there illegally?
 
Link to them being there illegally?
Colberts people? They got arrested as far as I know. I’m sure they will drop any charges though.

I’m not passing any kind of judgement, I’m seeing where the line is with political discourse. Should we frown on these instances also? These instances show different levels of going into government buildings to accomplish political motives
 
Colberts people? They got arrested as far as I know. I’m sure they will drop any charges though.

I’m not passing any kind of judgement, I’m seeing where the line is with political discourse. Should we frown on these instances also? These instances show different levels of going into government buildings to accomplish political motives
On Friday, the US Capitol Police said in a statement that officers "observed seven individuals, unescorted and without Congressional ID, in a sixth-floor hallway" in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill.
The Capitol Police added that those individuals were charged with unlawful entry. CBS noted in a statement Friday that its production team's interviews with members of Congress had been "authorized and pre-arranged."

Colbert on Monday continued by saying that the US Capitol Police were just doing their jobs as was his staff, and that everyone was "very professional" and "very calm."
"A fairly simple story until the next night when a couple of the TV people started claiming that my puppet squad had 'committed insurrection at the US Capitol building,'" he said. "First of all... what? Second of all... huh?"
 
On Friday, the US Capitol Police said in a statement that officers "observed seven individuals, unescorted and without Congressional ID, in a sixth-floor hallway" in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill.
The Capitol Police added that those individuals were charged with unlawful entry. CBS noted in a statement Friday that its production team's interviews with members of Congress had been "authorized and pre-arranged."

Colbert on Monday continued by saying that the US Capitol Police were just doing their jobs as was his staff, and that everyone was "very professional" and "very calm."
"A fairly simple story until the next night when a couple of the TV people started claiming that my puppet squad had 'committed insurrection at the US Capitol building,'" he said. "First of all... what? Second of all... huh?"
So they were authorized but got arrested/charged. Does that make sense to you?

They were removed from the building once and then were let in by a Democrat aide when they knew they weren’t supposed to be there.

You can tell me it’s not a big deal but they weren’t allowed to be there. They have court dates, people don’t get court dates if they were authorized to be where they were.
 
Okay Joe, Russia did things that Russia does, which are the same thing the US does to countries (Ukraine, perhaps?).

indictments against Russians was all theater.
You asked about "crimes"

Those indictments ARE your crimes. They aren't "theater", they are indictments handed down by a GJ.

Do you understand how the law works in this country, Komrade?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sob5
You asked about "crimes"

Those indictments ARE your crimes. They aren't "theater", they are indictments handed down by a GJ.

Do you understand how the law works in this country, Komrade?
You could make these indictments every election from most of the powerful countries every single election year.

I do understand how they work, which made me understand as soon as they released the indictments it was an empty gesture to get people like you to say “RuSsIa!”

They are my crimes? How does that work? Do we have any evidence that they were doing any cyber interference at the request of any political entity? If not, your collusion narrative is wrong.

I don’t know Joe, I’m still waiting to see the evidence of collusion or conspiracy. Russia doing things that Russia always does is not good enough and doesn’t suggest any grand scheme to steal elections or switch votes.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
So you feel there was collusion, I don’t agree, Mueller doesn’t agree, Intel Committee doesn’t agree. But I don’t feel like arguing it any more.

Huh?

Mueller AND the Senate Intel Committee reports ALL cited collusion by Russia w/ members of Trump's campaign. Weird take to claim they "don't agree" when those instances are literally cited in their reports.

And DOJ indicted a dozen Russians over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
Nope.

Meanwhile, you continue to deny the indictments against Russians and their DNC hacking.
I don’t deny any indictments Joe. They were indicted, but it means nothing. Action on those indictments were as likely as you admitting Russiagate was bullshit.

Colberts people got arrested. That is a fact. I don’t know how you can just say “nope”
 
Huh?

Mueller AND the Senate Intel Committee reports ALL cited collusion by Russia w/ members of Trump's campaign. Weird take to claim they "don't agree" when those instances are literally cited in their reports.

And DOJ indicted a dozen Russians over it.
Do I need to start quoting Muellers report again?
 
Huh?

Mueller AND the Senate Intel Committee reports ALL cited collusion by Russia w/ members of Trump's campaign. Weird take to claim they "don't agree" when those instances are literally cited in their reports.

And DOJ indicted a dozen Russians over it.


So NBC and AP are wrong, but you are right?
 
Hey Chis, have you happened to look at the polling on Jan 6th? I think it’s safe to say it’s not having the effect they had hoped. Just heard a couple congressional democrats said no one gives a shit.

I’m curious what you think about the pro-choice people in Wisconsin that went into the Wisconsin Capitol and to a lesser degree Colberts people in federal building illegally.
Why do you guys love false equivalencies so much? Why can’t you even realize neither of these were like 1/6? Yes democrats went into that Capitol. Where was the violence, destruction? Where was the gallows? Where was the poop? Who lead them there to overthrow a legal election? Now do Hunter’s laptop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place


So NBC and AP are wrong, but you are right
You’re cherry picking. We can too.
 
So they were authorized but got arrested/charged. Does that make sense to you?

They were removed from the building once and then were let in by a Democrat aide when they knew they weren’t supposed to be there.

You can tell me it’s not a big deal but they weren’t allowed to be there. They have court dates, people don’t get court dates if they were authorized to be where they were.
It doesn't make sense. They were authorized - they were filming bits for the show. They didn't just barge in and start filming. JFC. Think for a minute - who would want to have them kicked out?

Edited to add:

The production crew already had filmed for two days in congressional offices.

"They went through security clearance, shot all day Wednesday, all day Thursday, invited into the offices of the congresspeople they were interviewing," Colbert said.

After the interviews on Thursday, the crew was filming some "last-minute puppetry" in a hallway at the Longworth House Office Building when they were approached and detained by the Capitol Police. They were processed and later released.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sob5
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT