Jan. 6 sentencing...

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,828
471
713
Half of the public holds Trump responsible for the attack on the Capitol ap/norc

Overall, 48% of Americans think Trump should be charged with a crime for his role in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, while 31% say no, and 20% say they don’t know enough. Views are highly partisan with 86% of Democrats in support of criminal charges and 68% of Republicans against them.

Overall, 56% of Americans followed news about the Jan. 6 hearings, including 75% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans. Less than half the country watched or listened to the hearings, with Democrats more than twice as likely as Republicans to do so (58% vs. 27%).

Opinions about the culpability for the Jan. 6 uprising have changed very little since last December and are highly partisan. Large majorities of Democrats say the rioters themselves and Trump bear a great deal of responsibility for the insurrection, while few Republicans agree.
Overall, the public assigns less blame to either Republicans or Democrats in Congress. Still, nearly half of Democrats say Congressional Republicans bear a great deal of responsibility, up from 40% last December.
 
Feb 7, 2011
121
40
1,578
President Trump, Mark Meadows, Ornato, etc. can easily push back. Just come to the committee, be sworn in and testify. The idea that they cannot have representation is false. They can have their lawyers present. Most of the people testifying are Republicans. Several of the witnesses are from the Trump White House. There was opportunity to have Trump leaning Republicans on the committee. Just because Jim Jordan and Kevin McCarthy were not allowed to sit on the committee did not rule out other Republicans. It is just not accurate to state that there is no opportunity for President Trump’s interests to be represented in this investigation.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,885
10,908
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Funny. So what's the end game here? Does Trump go to jail? Lose his birthday? Does the DOJ file charges?
I'm betting a few Trump admin officials, maybe a state official or two, and maybe a Congressman or two up to about Rudy will get DOJ trials.

Some will end up with some charges sticking and other will be dropped. Those trials will be wild because then everyone can cross examine, have discovery etc etc.

Trump's core team will NOT be prosecuted and the J6 damage and committee findings will kill his political career and aspirations.
I think that is the Goal. Not 100% sure they will accomplish it but the end game of keeping Trump from running and limiting his influence seems to be working.
 
Feb 7, 2011
121
40
1,578
Clarity, truth, openness, knowledge, efforts towards justice, efforts towards accountability, public scrutiny of the administration. The list could go on. Just because a goal is not 100% obtainable does not mean we just quit and go home. Even if the committee does not recommend to the justice department that President Trump have charges brought it does not equal failure to me. I want the knowledge of the investigation for my own insight.
 

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,865
4,458
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
Clarity, truth, openness, knowledge, efforts towards justice, efforts towards accountability, public scrutiny of the administration. The list could go on. Just because a goal is not 100% obtainable does not mean we just quit and go home. Even if the committee does not recommend to the justice department that President Trump have charges brought it does not equal failure to me. I want the knowledge of the investigation for my own insight.
I think this is especially true given the efforts to craft a January 6 Lost Cause narrative, which has taken about 9 million different forms: Antifa dressed in MAGA gear, tourists (who, for some reason, were armed to the nines), etc.

Obviously some who choose to believe that will continue to, but just because there are still Civil War Lost Causers out there who may never step into reality doesn't mean you stop telling the real story. In fact, it probably makes it all the more important.
 
May 4, 2011
3,694
1,660
1,743
Charleston, SC
Americans learn the truth of what happened and realize how precious our democracy is, and use the ballot box to reject forever wannabe autocrats of all forms (D, R, I, whatever).
This. I'm an independent (admittedly an anti-Trump one) and before I largely thought Trump played with fire without understanding the consequences. These hearings have started to shift my opinion about what he knew and his intentions. I'm curious to learn more. I'm also developing respect for Liz Cheney, which is a disconcerting feeling.

Knowing how that's going to be read, I'll add that I don't think you should charge former presidents and try to send them to jail. That is not a road we want to go down.
 

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,865
4,458
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
This. I'm an independent (admittedly an anti-Trump one) and before I largely thought Trump played with fire without understanding the consequences. These hearings have started to shift my opinion about what he knew and his intentions. I'm curious to learn more. I'm also developing respect for Liz Cheney, which is a disconcerting feeling.

Knowing how that's going to be read, I'll add that I don't think you should charge former presidents and try to send them to jail. That is not a road we want to go down.
Exactly. I think the worst justice a narcissist - any narcissist - could taste is to have to stew forever in their own resentment of being rejected.

Edit: I've wondered if maybe we could just exile him to his own Island of Elba like Napolean (maybe we could buy Greenland after all) and let him play out his authoritarian fantasies there with whatever portion of the MAGA base wants to go with him. Bet it wouldn't be long before they find out how much he actually despises them deep down.

And Cheney and Kinzinger have both been very impressive.
 
Last edited:
Oct 7, 2008
1,787
439
1,713
This. I'm an independent (admittedly an anti-Trump one) and before I largely thought Trump played with fire without understanding the consequences. These hearings have started to shift my opinion about what he knew and his intentions. I'm curious to learn more. I'm also developing respect for Liz Cheney, which is a disconcerting feeling.

Knowing how that's going to be read, I'll add that I don't think you should charge former presidents and try to send them to jail. That is not a road we want to go down.
I hate that you're right about this part, especially since it cements the fact that we have an entire class of citizens who are above the law in this country. But perhaps the worst we can do to a narcissist like Trump is leave his legacy in tatters.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,872
2,550
1,743
This. I'm an independent (admittedly an anti-Trump one) and before I largely thought Trump played with fire without understanding the consequences. These hearings have started to shift my opinion about what he knew and his intentions. I'm curious to learn more. I'm also developing respect for Liz Cheney, which is a disconcerting feeling.

Knowing how that's going to be read, I'll add that I don't think you should charge former presidents and try to send them to jail. That is not a road we want to go down.
I respectfully disagree. This is what I mentioned earlier in the thread that I concerned the Dems politically want to do --- wound, but not kill him. I understand that is a political decision designed to help Dems keep the Presidency in 2024, but if Trump is found to have done something more than a misdemeanor then he needs to be charged and prosecuted strongly for a conviction.
 
Last edited:
This. I'm an independent (admittedly an anti-Trump one) and before I largely thought Trump played with fire without understanding the consequences. These hearings have started to shift my opinion about what he knew and his intentions. I'm curious to learn more. I'm also developing respect for Liz Cheney, which is a disconcerting feeling.

Knowing how that's going to be read, I'll add that I don't think you should charge former presidents and try to send them to jail. That is not a road we want to go down.
We’ve already started down the road of every president will be impeached over something during their term unless his/her party holds majorities in congress. The only question is how many times will they be impeached.
 
I have never understood the whole argument of the committee will send their findings to the DOJ and they will file charges. Is this really the path we want to go down? The DOJ relies on elected politicians to investigate and then make charges based on those findings? The DOJ should do their own investigation and use that as a basis for making charges. This is an extremely slippery slope.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,054
21,145
1,743
I have never understood the whole argument of the committee will send their findings to the DOJ and they will file charges. Is this really the path we want to go down? The DOJ relies on elected politicians to investigate and then make charges based on those findings? The DOJ should do their own investigation and use that as a basis for making charges. This is an extremely slippery slope.
It’s not a slippery slope at all and it’s been this way for decades….it’s how impeachments work as well, so for over a 100 years.

Congress has power to subpoena and enforce subpoenas. DOJ at the investigatory stage does not. DOJ isn’t limited to the findings of the investigation and are likely performing concurrent investigations.

Additionally, the investigative committee has a public hearing function and fact finding on issues related to potential future legislation well beyond any criminal functions.

Did you similarly express concern for a supposed slippery slope during the the Congressional Investigative hearings on Benghazi, Clinton’s e-mail servers, and the Clinton charitable foundation? Inquiring minds would like to know.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,872
2,550
1,743
You say potato, this leading (conservative) Constitutional expert says - under oath - "America’s democracy was almost stolen from us on January 6," and "Our democracy has never been tested like it was on that day," and "Today, America is in constitutional crisis."

https://www.thebulwark.com/a-stake-...-and-our-democracy-today-is-on-a-knifes-edge/

I would be interested to hear why you so strongly disagree with his assessment, beyond just stating it as fact. What is your basis other than saying that those who saw Trump's (and his associates) acts as a major threat are engaging in hyperbole? In your mind would Trump have actually had to succeed in his plan in order for the republic to be in danger? Is a person only in danger of being mugged if they actually get mugged?

FWIW, I understand Luttig to be saying that the Constitutionally delineated process for electing a president and validating the results of an election was stressed like never before, and while it may have held this time, to brush it off like it was no big deal is to basically whistle past the graveyard. I guess the other way of framing it is, if we brush this off and call reactions to it "hyperbole," are we saying we're willing to normalize and accept future extra-Constitutional efforts to gain and/or maintain the presidency? And, if so, how does that not already represent a sacrifice of what has made the republic what it is until now?

Regarding the rest. No one said the Raffensberger information was new, but that doesn't mean it isn't incredibly damning. I mean, do we have a lot (any?) examples of sitting presidents running for reelection using their office to strong arm local election officials and tell them to "find" 12,000 votes? Do we have a lot of examples of Chiefs of Staff bribing those same officials with campaign memorabilia (which is so comically vain it's almost unbelievable)? And those are just two examples.

And whether any of that is illegal, it seems part of the constant issue is whether or not a POTUS should or even can be prosecuted. And, again, I'm no legal expert, but I guess I'd assume that pressuring and bribing local election officials to "find" votes, and falsifying documents that purport to be official slates of electors would swing more in the direction of illegal vs. merely unethical. (I'd assume that if anyone else conducted themselves in this way, they'd be liable to prosecution.)

As for the Committee, I think expecting them to turn up something(s) illegal is possibly too big of an ask (even though they may have done it already). For one, what are they going to do about it anyway? Isn't it DOJ's (or the state justice departments) job to decide what's potentially illegal and prosecute?

What I understand the Committee to be saying about their job is that it is to get on the historical and public record what happened and why, which may be vitally important going forward given the attempts to reframe all of this as a "tourist visit gone awry" or "a humble president just trying to make sure everything was fair." (And certainly, one can say that getting this on the record isn't vitally important because Jan 6th and everything else really wasn't a big deal, but, if they do, don't they basically have to either: (a) say that any future attempts to usurp rather than win the presidency are kosher; or (b) admit that they're willing to accept such attempts by their guy but not the other?)

Regarding the documentary, I'm in complete agreement that folks would be wise to keep their powder dry until they've actually seen it. But the flipside of that argument is that we probably also shouldn't preemptively declare it a nothingburger. The media constantly gets out over their skis, but, IMO, the Committee hasn't really had a misstep yet. (I suspect Cheney and Kinzinger have had a lot to do with that). I don't really see them using the video unless there's something in it.
@Takeout Slide Sorry for taking a week to respond. I did read the article from Judge Luttig. It is hard to argue with what he wrote. It is also interesting that Trump’s attorney, Eastman, clerked for Luttig. I appreciate you linking.

But it doesn’t change my opinion. My opinion is that we were never in danger of losing our Republic. I certainly agree that there were attacks on our Republic, but an attack or threat is a large leap from “close to losing our Republic”.

There were really four threats.
1) Congress voting against certification: I hated that some Republicans, including Sen Lankford, voted against certification. But this unfortunately has become commonplace over past Presidential elections. We didn’t come close to losing our Republic then so I don’t think it qualifies to the level of losing our Republic.
2) People saying vote was fraudulent: I hate that people made claims that the vote was rigged. I also hate that prominent Dems say not only are SCOTUS decisions wrong, but that SCOTUS is illegitimate. Both are attacks and our dangerous overtime diminishing faith in our systems, but neither cause our Republic real danger.
3) Rioting: Glad that many rioters are getting jail time. As mentioned several times, the look of people breaking into the Capitol will for a long-time be a massive stain on our country. But even how ugly that was, I doubt people believe that the riot would cause us to lose our Republic (I hope everyone can agree with that).

So that brings us to what the hearing have been so far:
4) Trump’s actions on Jan 6th and days leading up: The hearings have shown us that Trump’s actions were horrible and not only unbecoming of a President, but unbecoming of a citizen. There is no doubt IMO that the huge narcissist wanted to do everything in his power to retain power. However, at least so far, I think they also show that even among his close advisors that Trump was not able to influence what he wanted most.

Conclusion, 100% agree that Trump acted horribly to keep power unlike any President in history, and potentially did something illegal, but our Republic is strong. I don’t at all believe we were remotely close to losing our Republic.

PS I do feel that there is one item that is the biggest threat to our Republic. It is not a new item, but one that has grown significantly as a threat. Our national debt.
 
It’s not a slippery slope at all and it’s been this way for decades….it’s how impeachments work as well, so for over a 100 years.

Congress has power to subpoena and enforce subpoenas. DOJ at the investigatory stage does not. DOJ isn’t limited to the findings of the investigation and are likely performing concurrent investigations.

Additionally, the investigative committee has a public hearing function and fact finding on issues related to potential future legislation well beyond any criminal functions.

Did you similarly express concern for a supposed slippery slope during the the Congressional Investigative hearings on Benghazi, Clinton’s e-mail servers, and the Clinton charitable foundation? Inquiring minds would like to know.
How many charges were filed by the AG on any of those investigations? They were all politically motivated investigations also. Is that really the path we want to go down? The AG filing charges based investigations out of congress when supposedly we have one of the premier investigatory agencies in the world? They are just going to sit back and wait on congress?
I fully believe the DOJ is running or has ran their own investigation. There is a reason they haven’t filed any charges. It’s been a year and a half. They’re not waiting on congress. At least for the sake of the country I hope that’s not the case. If Schiff and Cheney are that much smarter than the FBI and they have to wait on them we are royally screwed as a country.