Liz Cheney Warns
-
@George-K said in Liz Cheney Warns:
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
A former ABC executive who was brought in to help hone the THOUSANDS of hours of footage and evidence and interviews into something the press and public can actually understand and digest? Oh the horror. No, the committee should've just shown all the raw footage over the period of months.
As I said earlier, this was not a trial, it was a demonstration. This ABC executive showed the public what Cheney, Thompson et al, wanted them to see.
Edited footage, added sound effects.
Yeah, fair and balanced.
If this group had any legitimacy, they would have entered all the footage into evidence.
But they didn't.
Testimony would have been public.
But it wasn't.
Cross-examination would have been permitted.
But it wasn't.
GOP would have selected their representatives.
But they weren't permitted.
None of this justifies what happened on Jan 6, as I said earlier. But the obvious bias, selective rules, etc leaves a stink on this effort that can never be erased.
Not really buying it. Edited footage? Again, it's impossible to imagine them just playing 100,000 hours of CC TV footage. I think there's a stink because you're looking for a stink, when there's a triceratops-sized turd sitting behind the whole reason the committee is there.
Maybe as you are looking for a stink, I'm equally guilty of looking for why it doesn't matter. I'll admit that. From what I saw with Jan 6, it was a worthy committee and a necessary formal review of what happened that day and from what I could see, it was pretty darn accurate and a good summary.
-
@George-K said in Liz Cheney Warns:
But...returning to the topic thread:
"Liz Cheney warns that any lawyer who investigates members of the January 6th committee will be engaging in conduct subject to sanctions."
Why is Cheney afraid of any investigation?
Sunshine, you know.
When the president-elect says you ought to be in jail for destroying evidence, there is a threat for why an investigation is even held, so I get it. Further, read this full article (first thing I found when googling her 'sanctions' comment), including this part.
"Donald Trump knows his claims about the select committee are ridiculous and false, as has been detailed extensively, including by Chairman Thompson," she continued. Cheney cited a July 2023 letter from Thompson to Loudermilk, refuting claims that evidence was destroyed, detailing that the committee had called on the federal government regarding the "proper archiving of such sensitive material to protect witnesses’ safety, national security, and to safeguard law enforcement operations."
"There is no conceivably appropriate factual or constitutional basis for what Donald Trump is suggesting – a Justice Department investigation of the work of a congressional committee – and any lawyer who attempts to pursue that course would quickly find themselves engaged in sanctionable conduct," Cheney continued.
Cheney added that materials from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump and the 2020 election should be preserved and made public.
"The Justice Department should ensure that all that material is preserved and cannot be destroyed. As much of that information as possible should be disclosed in the special counsel’s upcoming report."
-
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
Not really buying it. Edited footage? Again, it's impossible to imagine them just playing 100,000 hours of CC TV footage.
Yes, you're right. But if this were in any way "fair," more than one side's perspective should have been shown. It wasn't.
I think there's a stink because you're looking for a stink, when there's a triceratops-sized turd sitting behind the whole reason the committee is there.
Yup. That turd is a desire to color the perception of what happened, regardless of the facts (see Hawley and added sound effects).
Maybe as you are looking for a stink, I'm equally guilty of looking for why it doesn't matter. I'll admit that. From what I saw with Jan 6, it was a worthy committee and a necessary formal review of what happened that day and from what I could see, it was pretty darn accurate and a good summary.
No. It was not formal. It was not bipartisan, well, it was only in the sense that members had a "R" after their names having been selected by the Democrat leadership.
"Summary" doesn't work in court. Present evidence, allow cross examination, make testimony public.
None of that happened.
Again, just to stress, I'm not condoning the riot.
I'm condemning the committee.
-
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/06/jan-6-committee-adviser-james-goldston
Is this what you're really talking about? A former ABC executive who was brought in to help hone the THOUSANDS of hours of footage and evidence and interviews into something the press and public can actually understand and digest? Oh the horror. No, the committee should've just shown all the raw footage over the period of months.
From your own cited article :
Goldston is busily producing Thursday's 8 p.m. ET hearing as if it were a blockbuster investigative special.
A. The Jan 6 hearing needed a primetime special?
B. It needed "honed" ( nice word for propaganda, isn't it?) video footage with added sound effects?
C. It needed a professional tv producer to correlate the hearing?I understand carrying water, but not when you're standing in ten feet of it.
-
What sound effects were added? At least, that changed the substance of the video? Just audio dubbed over what is an otherwise non-audio CCTV footage?
This committee was formed to investigate the attack on the capitol, not the peaceful loitering, the attack. Transcripts were released, people gave live sworn testimonies... I know, "PBS is bad" but here's a response from one of the Jan 6 investigators.
-
If the Jan 6 hearings had served their investigatory purpose, we'd all have a clear idea that it was an unruly mob rather than a planned attempt to overthrow our government. But since that was an inadmissible conclusion, all we got out of the hearings was a notion that deadly insurrection bad, and as deadly insurrections go, this was definitely a bad one. What questions were they trying to answer, in particular, when they began the investigation, and did they answer them? I recall everybody being really curious as to whether there was a mastermind, or any document detailing the plan, but somehow that question lost prominence when the answers became a clear no, to the investigators.
Education is extremely important.
-
You can look up the full report here, but just as they showed summary videos of what happened that day, I don't expect anyone will open this link and read through the thousands of pages.
Here is a summary of what was found by the committee.
Now, whether you or I or anyone else agree or disagree or condemn or simply wish the committee was run in a different matter... ask yourselves this: Prior to the committee, when we just had youtube highlights, and people on both sides claiming different narratives, resulting in a very muddy picture for the historical record... isn't it important to have a mostly-complete investigation and recreation of all of the events, statements, actions prior, during, and after the Capitol attack so that there is at least a chance of history having a clear record of what happened? In that light, I say the committee was very much was worthwhile.
-
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
You can look up the full report here, but just as they showed summary videos of what happened that day, I don't expect anyone will open this link and read through the thousands of pages.
Here is a summary of what was found by the committee.
Now, whether you or I or anyone else agree or disagree or condemn or simply wish the committee was run in a different matter... ask yourselves this: Prior to the committee, when we just had youtube highlights, and people on both sides claiming different narratives, resulting in a very muddy picture for the historical record... isn't it important to have a mostly-complete investigation and recreation of all of the events, statements, actions prior, during, and after the Capitol attack so that there is at least a chance of history having a clear record of what happened? In that light, I say the committee was very much was worthwhile.
I'm sure nobody is denying that they went over everything with a fine toothed comb and framed every detail in the worst light to make it look like a planned insurrection. Of course the only jury this evidence was put before, was the hand-picked committee of politicians. How many people read this point about "a slate of false electors" and think to themselves that a president can just submit some paperwork that runs counter to the votes, and he stays president for life? The fact that that's not how it works, is an important detail that is inevitably overlooked in these framings of Jan 6 and Trump's post-election shenanigans in general. There was never any real danger of the government being overturned by either paperwork or violence, and that is something your side of the argument studiously denies.
-
I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't think the threat was real enough to change the outcome of the election, certainly, but it was an absolute assault on <insert words here>, our norms, our peaceful transfer of power, our precedents, the Capitol, the members of congress, and so forth. Was the constitution the final defense that would've prevented anyone with bullhorns (worn or spoken into) an actual chance to change the election results? Yes. But as I like to do here, to repeat myself... prior to the committee, it was all muddy "he said she said" and youtube clips. I think the committee at least brought clarity and evidence throughout the day into the light and organized it well so there's less ambiguity on what happened that day.
-
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't think the threat was real enough to change the outcome of the election, certainly, but it was an absolute assault on <insert words here>, our norms, our peaceful transfer of power, our precedents, the Capitol, the members of congress, and so forth. Was the constitution the final defense that would've prevented anyone with bullhorns (worn or spoken into) an actual chance to change the election results? Yes. But as I like to do here, to repeat myself... prior to the committee, it was all muddy "he said she said" and youtube clips. I think the committee at least brought clarity and evidence throughout the day into the light and organized it well so there's less ambiguity on what happened that day.
Or, it was an official proceeding that was motivated to present Jan 6 in the most severe light possible, and that motivation resonated with you. But you also must realize that Jan 6 provided no clarity for those without that motivation. Again, just going over those summary points you linked to, one would not be blamed for thinking our Democracy hung on the brink that day. And of course that's what millions of people still think. And they are all wrong. And the "clarity" of the Jan 6 committee contributes to their error.
-
FFS, @89th there has already been posted a glaring example of selective editing to try and embarrass Josh Hawley. We’ve discussed ad nauseum the refusal to allow the Republicans to appoint their own members (which is a huge breach of standards and practices), and then the outright refusal to allow rebuttal or even cross examination.
These steps on the part of the the committee are frigging egregious as hell, but IF January 6th was the absolute worst attack on American Democracy since the Civil War, that makes these actions by the committee not just egregious, but flat out a criminal dereliction of duty. If you believe the American people deserve to know the truth about January 6th, then that means a rigorous investigation, and a rigorous investigation must be able to stand up to cross examination, scrutiny, and debate.
The January 6th committee was a bigger show than the Circus I’m taking Finley too over Christmas….
-
Ya'll make good points. I don't think it was as corrupt or condemnable as you, and I think the net value output of the investigation and all of the interviews, documents, footage, and analysis is very much important for the historical record, and substantially better than the muddy he-said, she-said beforehand.
-
I think you have to examine the context in which this happened, which is a scorched earth effort to destroy Trump as a candidate. No stone was left unturned to try to find something, anything, to prosecute or sue him on, anything to present to make him look bad. There is plenty of reason to assume bad intent. To try to judge the Jan 6 committee's actions as an isolated event is to be one of the blind men and the elephant.
-
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
isn't it important to have a mostly-complete investigation and recreation of all of the events, statements, actions prior, during, and after the Capitol attack so that there is at least a chance of history having a clear record of what happened?
So, when do we get that?
-
-
I thought that Rep. Johnson, when he became speaker said he was going to release ALL of the Jan 6 footage.
Has that been done?
