Liz Cheney Warns
-
@George-K I am absolutely shocked the committee didn't show videos of the peaceful parts of the day.
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
@George-K I am absolutely shocked the committee didn't show videos of the peaceful parts of the day.
I'm sure you are.
Wanna talk about deleted text messages that the IG found? How about Cassidy Hutchinson's ever-changing wheelgate testimony?
-
I'm happy if they look into how the text messages were deleted. Odds are it was done as a device replacement program and not maliciously, but they should at least find out if they can. Honestly I'd be glad if Trump held his own Jan 6th investigation, but that might be a little awkward for him.
I'm appreciative there was a committee to investigate such a horrendous act against the law and constitution, in the first place. Get all the facts out there, let the sunlight be the disinfectant, let history have an accurate capture of what happened that day. If the committee was 98% accurate and 2% bad...better than nothing. Way better than nothing. You are focusing on the 2%, not the 98%. A similar theme of Walz vs Trump and misstatements (actually that is more like 0.03% to 99.97%.
Believe it or not I'm on your side, I want the truth to be known and documented. I see the forest whereas I think you see the one dead tree.
-
I suppose we get news from paraphrased tweets these days. If you look at Cheney's full statement, it reflects her point that a DOJ going after an Congressional investigation (which by the way, was looking into the assault on the Capitol) is unprecedented and such a political motivation could be subjected to sanctions (although I'm not sure how that would work... Congress punishing the DOJ?).
Anyway, Cheney and Thompson have led the effort to not destroy evidence, in fact they have called for the National Archives to properly preserve all content from the Jan 6 committee as well as Jack Smith's investigation. They are important historical records for the country after the assault on the Capitol and the Constitution. But again... "my team red, so no bad", but if the colors were reversed and it was Obama doing this...
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
Anyway, Cheney and Thompson have led the effort to not destroy evidence, in fact they have called for the National Archives to properly preserve all content from the Jan 6 committee as well as Jack Smith's investigation.
Has Loudermilk gotten the records which he requested?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
, I want the truth to be known and documented. I see the forest whereas I think you see the one dead tree.
Why was there no cross-examination of the "witnesses?"
Why was a Hollywood producer hired to make the video?
Why were "interviews" held in private?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
Anyway, Cheney and Thompson have led the effort to not destroy evidence, in fact they have called for the National Archives to properly preserve all content from the Jan 6 committee as well as Jack Smith's investigation.
Has Loudermilk gotten the records which he requested?
@George-K said in Liz Cheney Warns:
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
Anyway, Cheney and Thompson have led the effort to not destroy evidence, in fact they have called for the National Archives to properly preserve all content from the Jan 6 committee as well as Jack Smith's investigation.
Has Loudermilk gotten the records which he requested?
You have to do my research, I am not generally following this news (or most news, if I can help it). As far as I know, Loudermilk said records were deleted, the committee so no they weren't, and Loudermilk then researched what steps are needed to change your own last name.
-
, I want the truth to be known and documented. I see the forest whereas I think you see the one dead tree.
Why was there no cross-examination of the "witnesses?"
Why was a Hollywood producer hired to make the video?
Why were "interviews" held in private?
@George-K said in Liz Cheney Warns:
Why was a Hollywood producer hired to make the video?
Who was that? I heard they brought an ABC exec in to compile the footage into digestible chunks. I didn't see Christopher Nolan and Hans Zimmer involved or anything.
-
@George-K said in Liz Cheney Warns:
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
Anyway, Cheney and Thompson have led the effort to not destroy evidence, in fact they have called for the National Archives to properly preserve all content from the Jan 6 committee as well as Jack Smith's investigation.
Has Loudermilk gotten the records which he requested?
You have to do my research, I am not generally following this news (or most news, if I can help it). As far as I know, Loudermilk said records were deleted, the committee so no they weren't, and Loudermilk then researched what steps are needed to change your own last name.
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
@George-K said in Liz Cheney Warns:
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
Anyway, Cheney and Thompson have led the effort to not destroy evidence, in fact they have called for the National Archives to properly preserve all content from the Jan 6 committee as well as Jack Smith's investigation.
Has Loudermilk gotten the records which he requested?
You have to do my research, I am not generally following this news (or most news, if I can help it). As far as I know, Loudermilk said records were deleted, the committee so no they weren't, and Loudermilk then researched what steps are needed to change your own last name.
Apparently, you need to do a lot of research.
You could always talk to some of your buddies down at Biden's
GestapoFBI. I hear they're a bunch of fiendy, fact fools. -
@George-K said in Liz Cheney Warns:
Why was a Hollywood producer hired to make the video?
Who was that? I heard they brought an ABC exec in to compile the footage into digestible chunks. I didn't see Christopher Nolan and Hans Zimmer involved or anything.
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
@George-K said in Liz Cheney Warns:
Why was a Hollywood producer hired to make the video?
Who was that? I heard they brought an ABC exec in to compile the footage into digestible chunks. I didn't see Christopher Nolan and Hans Zimmer involved or anything.
Seriously, are you that damn ignorant or are you just playing silly booger for shits and grins?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@George-K said in Liz Cheney Warns:
Why was a Hollywood producer hired to make the video?
Who was that? I heard they brought an ABC exec in to compile the footage into digestible chunks. I didn't see Christopher Nolan and Hans Zimmer involved or anything.
-
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
@George-K said in Liz Cheney Warns:
Why was a Hollywood producer hired to make the video?
Who was that? I heard they brought an ABC exec in to compile the footage into digestible chunks. I didn't see Christopher Nolan and Hans Zimmer involved or anything.
Seriously, are you that damn ignorant or are you just playing silly booger for shits and grins?
@Jolly said in Liz Cheney Warns:
@89th said in Liz Cheney Warns:
@George-K said in Liz Cheney Warns:
Why was a Hollywood producer hired to make the video?
Who was that? I heard they brought an ABC exec in to compile the footage into digestible chunks. I didn't see Christopher Nolan and Hans Zimmer involved or anything.
Seriously, are you that damn ignorant or are you just playing silly booger for shits and grins?
I’m dead serious. I purposely try to avoid most news these days. If this is an overly dramatic claim by a biased website I’m not interested btw. So which Hollywood producer was brought in to spin the footage and what did they do that was misleading?
The “they used a Hollywood producer” is a nice sound bite. Or “they deleted text messages” or “they destroyed federal records”. Sounds nice, let’s see evidence and let’s talk objective details and impact to the hearing.
-
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.
-
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.
@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.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
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.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@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.
@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.
-
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.
@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."
-
@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.
@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.
