Liz Cheney Warns

[89th]

@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]

@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.

[Jolly]

@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 Gestapo FBI. I hear they're a bunch of fiendy, fact fools.

[Jolly]

@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?

[Renauda]

@89th

I didn't see Christopher Nolan and Hans Zimmer involved or anything.

I heard it was actually an anonymous Coen Brothers production under pseudonyms.

[89th]

@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.

[89th]

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.

[George K]

@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]

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.

[89th]

@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]

@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.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ridiculous-cheney-responds-trump-floating-jail-time-j6-committee-members

"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]

@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.

[Jolly]

@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.

[89th]

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.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/fox-news-uses-selective-capitol-security-footage-to-spread-misinformation-on-jan-6

[89th]

You'd love this committee had it been against Obama and BLM, all other facts remaining the same, but since it's Trump and MAGA, you condemn the committee. I wouldn't change my view. Respectfully, I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

[Horace]

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.

[Mik]

@Horace well said.

[89th]

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.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-key-findings-and-criminal-referrals-from-the-jan-6-committee-report-summary

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.

[Horace]

@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.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-key-findings-and-criminal-referrals-from-the-jan-6-committee-report-summary

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.

[89th]

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.