Decorating Cheney
-
- The Minority Leader was not permitted to select members of the committee - unprecedented.
- "Witnesses" were not permitted to be cross-examined.
- Testimony by Ms. Hutchinson was broadcast as though true, but when she admitted that she "misremembered" that was done in a closed hearing.
- Records were requested and destroyed.
- Testimony of US Capitol police chief was not permitted.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Assaulting cops and breaking into the Capitol was.
Agreed. Now, how about the folks who were escorted by US Capitol Police, who opened doors for them?
You used the word "evidence." In a real investigation, one which adhered to rules of evidence, etc., edited videos would not be permitted. Added sound effects would not be permitted. That stuff isn't "evidence" it's theater.
@George-K said in Decorating Cheney:
- The Minority Leader was not permitted to select members of the committee - unprecedented.
- "Witnesses" were not permitted to be cross-examined.
- Testimony by Ms. Hutchinson was broadcast as though true, but when she admitted that she "misremembered" that was done in a closed hearing.
- Records were requested and destroyed.
- Testimony of US Capitol police chief was not permitted.
Even if (a big if) I just accept your list as-is, that isn’t “criminal just like the rioters”. At worst it’s an imperfect process that could’ve been improved. Still a worthwhile cause and better than nothing.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Assaulting cops and breaking into the Capitol was.
Agreed. Now, how about the folks who were escorted by US Capitol Police, who opened doors for them?
Those folks are fine, if it’s as you say. Could’ve been me, had I gone down to see the rally.
You used the word "evidence." In a real investigation, one which adhered to rules of evidence, etc., edited videos would not be permitted. Added sound effects would not be permitted. That stuff isn't "evidences " it's theater.
The committee was transparent that they were stitching all the footage together for public consumption. The “edited video” and the “added voiceover” from what I’m aware had zero impact on the substance. It’s like playing for the jury a cop with a camera (no audio) going into a house while adding in audio from another cop’s walky talky.
Y’all act like they used CGI and created fake audio voiceovers via AI.
-
@George-K said in Decorating Cheney:
- The Minority Leader was not permitted to select members of the committee - unprecedented.
- "Witnesses" were not permitted to be cross-examined.
- Testimony by Ms. Hutchinson was broadcast as though true, but when she admitted that she "misremembered" that was done in a closed hearing.
- Records were requested and destroyed.
- Testimony of US Capitol police chief was not permitted.
Even if (a big if) I just accept your list as-is, that isn’t “criminal just like the rioters”. At worst it’s an imperfect process that could’ve been improved. Still a worthwhile cause and better than nothing.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Assaulting cops and breaking into the Capitol was.
Agreed. Now, how about the folks who were escorted by US Capitol Police, who opened doors for them?
Those folks are fine, if it’s as you say. Could’ve been me, had I gone down to see the rally.
You used the word "evidence." In a real investigation, one which adhered to rules of evidence, etc., edited videos would not be permitted. Added sound effects would not be permitted. That stuff isn't "evidences " it's theater.
The committee was transparent that they were stitching all the footage together for public consumption. The “edited video” and the “added voiceover” from what I’m aware had zero impact on the substance. It’s like playing for the jury a cop with a camera (no audio) going into a house while adding in audio from another cop’s walky talky.
Y’all act like they used CGI and created fake audio voiceovers via AI.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Y’all act like they used CGI and created fake audio voiceovers via AI.
Nope. The committee was presented as the definitive version of what happened on Jan 6. Evidence was altered, witnesses retracted testimony and more.
Your comment about "an imperfect process" is disingenuous - at best. It is damning at worst. This show was orchestrated to present one view of the riot on Jan 6, with dissenting witnesses suppressed and evidence doctored. This is the Congress of the United States, and you justify the errors by saying it's an "imperfect process?"
Really? That wouldn't even fly in traffic court.
But, to be clear, I'm not, by any means defending the rioters.
I'm condemning the people who presented this to the public as though it were the truth, with no ability to cross-examine witnesses and a biased panel.
"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.
-
And, in another thread, you said.
You see it as an exhibition. I see it as the judicial process
And that's your problem. It was NOT a judicial process. Look up the rules of evidence, the standard of adversarial law and get back to me.
None of that happened, as I said.
-
And, in another thread, you said.
You see it as an exhibition. I see it as the judicial process
And that's your problem. It was NOT a judicial process. Look up the rules of evidence, the standard of adversarial law and get back to me.
None of that happened, as I said.
@George-K said in Decorating Cheney:
And, in another thread, you said.
You see it as an exhibition. I see it as the judicial process
And that's your problem. It was NOT a judicial process. Look up the rules of evidence, the standard of adversarial law and get back to me.
None of that happened, as I said.
Oh for that I was referring to Jack Smith’s investigation.
-
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Y’all act like they used CGI and created fake audio voiceovers via AI.
Nope. The committee was presented as the definitive version of what happened on Jan 6. Evidence was altered, witnesses retracted testimony and more.
Your comment about "an imperfect process" is disingenuous - at best. It is damning at worst. This show was orchestrated to present one view of the riot on Jan 6, with dissenting witnesses suppressed and evidence doctored. This is the Congress of the United States, and you justify the errors by saying it's an "imperfect process?"
Really? That wouldn't even fly in traffic court.
But, to be clear, I'm not, by any means defending the rioters.
I'm condemning the people who presented this to the public as though it were the truth, with no ability to cross-examine witnesses and a biased panel.
@George-K said in Decorating Cheney:
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Y’all act like they used CGI and created fake audio voiceovers via AI.
Nope. The committee was presented as the definitive version of what happened on Jan 6. Evidence was altered, witnesses retracted testimony and more.
Your comment about "an imperfect process" is disingenuous - at best. It is damning at worst. This show was orchestrated to present one view of the riot on Jan 6, with dissenting witnesses suppressed and evidence doctored. This is the Congress of the United States, and you justify the errors by saying it's an "imperfect process?"
Really? That wouldn't even fly in traffic court.
But, to be clear, I'm not, by any means defending the rioters.
I'm condemning the people who presented this to the public as though it were the truth, with no ability to cross-examine witnesses and a biased panel.
How close to the truth do you think the Jan 6th report was? Just curious.
-
@George-K said in Decorating Cheney:
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Y’all act like they used CGI and created fake audio voiceovers via AI.
Nope. The committee was presented as the definitive version of what happened on Jan 6. Evidence was altered, witnesses retracted testimony and more.
Your comment about "an imperfect process" is disingenuous - at best. It is damning at worst. This show was orchestrated to present one view of the riot on Jan 6, with dissenting witnesses suppressed and evidence doctored. This is the Congress of the United States, and you justify the errors by saying it's an "imperfect process?"
Really? That wouldn't even fly in traffic court.
But, to be clear, I'm not, by any means defending the rioters.
I'm condemning the people who presented this to the public as though it were the truth, with no ability to cross-examine witnesses and a biased panel.
How close to the truth do you think the Jan 6th report was? Just curious.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
How close to the truth do you think the Jan 6th report was? Just curious.
Was there violence? Yes.
Were police officers attacked? Yes.
Was there an effort (by a small minority) to overturn the election? Probably.
But, my thoughts are irrelevant when witnesses change their testimony in closed hearings, when cross-examination is not permitted, when the defense can't seat it's proponents, when evidence is altered, and other witnesses are not allowed to testify.
Until those faults are corrected, the Jan 6 committee is nothing more than a show trial.
Was a lot of the report true? Perhaps.
Was a lot of the report staged? Sure was.
Was a lot of the report dishonest? Yup that too.
The falsehoods taint the entire thing. This was not a report. This was a "Let us show you what we want you to see." To use the terms "evidence" and "judicial" is a smear on our system of adversarial representation.
"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.
-
Or, we could go back and look at the evidence.
Sorry, forgot the committee lost or destroyed some of it...
“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
-
- The Minority Leader was not permitted to select members of the committee - unprecedented.
- "Witnesses" were not permitted to be cross-examined.
- Testimony by Ms. Hutchinson was broadcast as though true, but when she admitted that she "misremembered" that was done in a closed hearing.
- Records were requested and destroyed.
- Testimony of US Capitol police chief was not permitted.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
Assaulting cops and breaking into the Capitol was.
Agreed. Now, how about the folks who were escorted by US Capitol Police, who opened doors for them?
You used the word "evidence." In a real investigation, one which adhered to rules of evidence, etc., edited videos would not be permitted. Added sound effects would not be permitted. That stuff isn't "evidence" it's theater.
-
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
How close to the truth do you think the Jan 6th report was? Just curious.
Was there violence? Yes.
Were police officers attacked? Yes.
Was there an effort (by a small minority) to overturn the election? Probably.
But, my thoughts are irrelevant when witnesses change their testimony in closed hearings, when cross-examination is not permitted, when the defense can't seat it's proponents, when evidence is altered, and other witnesses are not allowed to testify.
Until those faults are corrected, the Jan 6 committee is nothing more than a show trial.
Was a lot of the report true? Perhaps.
Was a lot of the report staged? Sure was.
Was a lot of the report dishonest? Yup that too.
The falsehoods taint the entire thing. This was not a report. This was a "Let us show you what we want you to see." To use the terms "evidence" and "judicial" is a smear on our system of adversarial representation.
@George-K said in Decorating Cheney:
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
How close to the truth do you think the Jan 6th report was? Just curious.
Was there violence? Yes.
Were police officers attacked? Yes.
Was there an effort (by a small minority) to overturn the election? Probably.
But, my thoughts are irrelevant when witnesses change their testimony in closed hearings, when cross-examination is not permitted, when the defense can't seat it's proponents, when evidence is altered, and other witnesses are not allowed to testify.
Until those faults are corrected, the Jan 6 committee is nothing more than a show trial.
Was a lot of the report true? Perhaps.
Was a lot of the report staged? Sure was.
Was a lot of the report dishonest? Yup that too.
The falsehoods taint the entire thing. This was not a report. This was a "Let us show you what we want you to see." To use the terms "evidence" and "judicial" is a smear on our system of adversarial representation.
Why would there be cross examination? It wasn't a criminal or civil trial. There is no "due process" being prevented from anyone. It was a fact-finding mission, and the facts were found, reported, and sent to the DOJ to handle.
You said "was a lot of the report true? perhaps". That is my question, if you had to just put a number on it, how much of the published report (which I'm sure none of us actually read) is an accurate summary of the events of the day? I have my number, what is yours?
-
Or, we could go back and look at the evidence.
Sorry, forgot the committee lost or destroyed some of it...
@Jolly said in Decorating Cheney:
Or, we could go back and look at the evidence.
Sorry, forgot the committee lost or destroyed some of it...
See this is where you lose credibility to me, in this matter. You claim "records were requested and destroyed". That is false. For example, the SS text messages they requested were not "deleted after they were requested" as you imply, they were found to already have been purged as part of the SS process of changing phones, a process that had LONG existed before this committee.
George says there was fake video, fake audio.... show me. Show me the actors, the fake audio, the CGI... If you're talking about the equivalent of playing one cop's radio as audio while showing a silent-cam footage from the another cop? That's not exactly a conspiracy. Seems like basic video editing you would see in even the most basic news reports at 5pm on local TV when you're showing a summary of an event.
-
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
How close to the truth do you think the Jan 6th report was? Just curious.
Was there violence? Yes.
Were police officers attacked? Yes.
Was there an effort (by a small minority) to overturn the election? Probably.
But, my thoughts are irrelevant when witnesses change their testimony in closed hearings, when cross-examination is not permitted, when the defense can't seat it's proponents, when evidence is altered, and other witnesses are not allowed to testify.
Until those faults are corrected, the Jan 6 committee is nothing more than a show trial.
Was a lot of the report true? Perhaps.
Was a lot of the report staged? Sure was.
Was a lot of the report dishonest? Yup that too.
The falsehoods taint the entire thing. This was not a report. This was a "Let us show you what we want you to see." To use the terms "evidence" and "judicial" is a smear on our system of adversarial representation.
-
Here's the report btw, PDF. Which page numbers have staged findings?
Not being sarcastic, I'm too lazy to look it up.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf
-
Haha I have no dog in the fight. I think what happened that day was atrocious (as was Trump lying and getting his ilk all riled up) and was glad there was some committee, ANY committee, that spent the time trying to collect all the facts for the day and publish them in a report. And when I see folks discount the whole thing claiming "fake video, staged, fake audio, destroyed evidence", I have to call it out. I couldn't care less which political party was involved.
-
And honestly, the claims that there was fake video, staged, fake audio, destroyed evidence is exactly WHY I think the committee was valuable. It provided (I'd say 95% accurate) summary of what happened that day instead of leaving the day's history to folks who make such claims as above.... Without the committee, in 20 years you'll have people say "the FBI planned and initiated the Capitol attack" and there wouldn't be a singular collection of findings to counter such claims. Then again, folks still don't think we landed on the moon.
-
I am open to hearing damning evidence of how bad the committee was.
I’ve heard “Hollywood produced videos” but no one showed me anything egregious other than a montage and compilation of the “bad bits” from the thousands of hours of tape, a necessary job to make it digestible. Or that at one point there was dubbed audio (over an otherwise silent CCTV feed) that didn’t change the substance. I’m open to objective and empirical facts if Cheney was sooooo criminal.
From what I can tell, and said this before, the committee played a crucial role in investigating, compiling evidence, and publishing the findings in public and on paper. Prior it was ALL he said she said guessing games and fake news to support your own side. Were the dems happy to see the evidence mount in an effort to “get” Trump? Sure. The evidence was collected, produced, and it was not enough to “get” Trump but it did produce an important historical picture of what happened. And even IF it was 98% accurate, that’s not terribly criminal to me. Assaulting cops and breaking into the Capitol was.
@89th said in Decorating Cheney:
I am open to hearing damning evidence of how bad the committee was.
I’ve heard “Hollywood produced videos” but no one showed me anything egregious other than a montage and compilation of the “bad bits” from the thousands of hours of tape, a necessary job to make it digestible. Or that at one point there was dubbed audio (over an otherwise silent CCTV feed) that didn’t change the substance. I’m open to objective and empirical facts if Cheney was sooooo criminal.
From what I can tell, and said this before, the committee played a crucial role in investigating, compiling evidence, and publishing the findings in public and on paper. Prior it was ALL he said she said guessing games and fake news to support your own side. Were the dems happy to see the evidence mount in an effort to “get” Trump? Sure. The evidence was collected, produced, and it was not enough to “get” Trump but it did produce an important historical picture of what happened. And even IF it was 98% accurate, that’s not terribly criminal to me. Assaulting cops and breaking into the Capitol was.
Cheney wanted to be the figure-head of a Never-Trump political advance, this one fueled by outrage and self-righteousness against Jan 6. Obviously that was a meaningful, relatable, and totally mainstream perspective. There is more than one person on this board totally on board with that perspective. Way more than that who would never contemplate participating or so much as reading here, for the emotional violence they would feel after having been exposed to certain ideas. Cheney thought she might ride it. I mean, I don't want to pre-judge a person, but if she's already ran for office, if she's already a pro, if it's her family business, I'll go ahead and evaluate her motivations based on what works best in her particular industry. Yeah, people who pretend to care super deeply about character and various other ethical issues, will be met with some skepticism. But that's not to say principle doesn't exist. I believe Pence wouldn't have dinner with a lady who wasn't his wife, I believe that was one of his principles, and I actually respect it. I believe Bernie Sanders has principles, which he will actively maintain without regard to electability. I respect that too. As for Cheney, I see it as mostly cynical, because I don't actually believe any genuinely sane person thought of the Jan 6 riot as a genuine threat to our democracy, nor as a reasonably planned attempt on that democracy.
-
Did anyone think the riot would actual prevent the election from being certified? No.
But when a riot breaks into the Capitol building and temporarily stops constitutional procedures, I think it's more than warranted for there to be a congressional investigation into the facts, circumstances, and causes of such an event, to include the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, as well as a review of the preparedness of law enforcement authorities who were involved.
I'm not terribly concerned with whether it was Cheney or her motivations. One could argue she knew she was committing political suicide by doing this.
-
January 6th is a separate issue from the January 6th committee. Even the Jack Smith investigation is a separate issue. This is not a conversation about what Trump did or did not do, it’s not a conversation about what the rioters and protesters did or did not do. It is a conversation about what the committee did.
If we are debating prosecutorial misconduct, we are not discussing the actual original crime that took place, we are addressing the manner in which that case was investigated, charged, and prosecuted. It is independent of actual guilt or innocence. Just ask Alec Baldwin.
-
Totally and I haven't seen any major malpractice with how the committee did things. Like I said, the results were probably 95% accurate with how things went down (i.e., the facts, circumstances, and causes of the assault and attempt to interfere with the election process). The claims of edited video, added sound, and destroyed documents have not held up with any substantial proof (at least that I have seen yet). I haven't seen any page in the published report referenced as a place with staged information. And the desire for cross examination doesn't make sense since this isn't a court case.
