January 6 Public Hearings

It's not illegal to attend a rally. People travel to them all the time. "Surely" and "Presumably" don't work as evidence - have you got evidence the Oath Keepers you believe committed conspiracy to overthrow the government prior to Jan 6, were at the Jan 6 riot? Your claim, back it up.

Again, this isn't an episode of '24' or whatever. FBI agents need warrants for arrests like any other law enforcement in the US.

Seeing complaints about not enough arrests in the US on an Irish board is pretty amusing, takes an enormous effort to be arrested for anything in this country and even if you are, the likelihood of sentencing is miniscule.

No I don't know that the FBI could have definitely arrested someone.

I find it extremely odd that their agents inadvertently took part in a 'fascist coup attempt' to overthrow the US government because they couldn't obtain any evidence to stop it, so they just ran with it.

Would love to know what happened there.

'Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act'

These are organised far-right groups. Co-ordinating their actions is part of their raison d'etre no?

But hey whatever, it's all in a day's work I guess.

FBI have protected their confidential sources so I guess we'll never know.

Could you read the thread please before jumping in to comment?

First, I linked the document showing that several confidential FBI assets were being protected within PB/OK.

Then I linked to a Washington Post story showing that a paramilitary leader of OK, Caldwell, was an FBI agent and fake/inadvertent rioter. He had been a FBI section chief previously.

None of us have evidence. Evidence is something presented in a court of law (not just public opinion.) The FBI got the indictment in Michigan as the conspirators were very obliging in their chatting, were well infiltrated and gave a fair bit of notice as I can see from the indictment.

AFAIK the Michiganders were found guilty of conspiracy and various things presented into evidence.

WRT to the suppositions you're making about about the Oathkeepers, I agree they're very suspicious. I expect that if the DOJ and FBI thought they could get an indictment, they would have. You'd have to ask Trump's DOJ why they didn't move forward if in fact suspicions were raised via the FBI, they'd have been the ones overseeing investigations in 2020 and prior to Jan 21.

The FBI had credible information that there were trainees in Michigan (as I recall) who were learning to fly jumbo jets but not land them prior to 9/11 and failed to act on that information as well.

The wife of a Supreme Court judge…nothing odd about that at all.

Will be tuning in for this one, could be spicy given the amount of new witnesses they have deposed over the summer recess period, starts at 6pm

aw man this is delicious, its a methodical takedown of everything he did after the election until Jan 6th. And all his staff telling him he had lost but him then going doing speeches saying it was stolen

So are they going to show stuff from the danish filmmakers ?

Wait, didn't we hear on one of the Trump Presidency threads that there were no guns in DC at the insurrection?

Did they ? Ah okay I only started watching it properly at 7pm.

And the video of Pelosi in a military base on Jan 6th trying to organise a National Guard response is a classic example of the phrase 'a lie gets half way around the world before the truth has even put its boots on' - iRepublicans have told the lie that Pelosi was to blame for Jan 6th because she refused Trumps authorisation to send the National Guard in.

As laid bare by Sean Hannity on Fox News-

Doesnt stack up very well now against actual video of her and Schummer trying to organise a National Guard response when Trump himself did nothing. Captiol Police intelligence even suggested that the National Guard be there on the day on Jan 3rd as they had got wind of online threats of violence and guns but the response back from Trumps office was that the National Guard thought that 'the optics woudnt look good'if they were there, yeah right

Just because they subpoenaed Trump for testimony doesn't mean that even if Trump agreed to testify, that he'd do so publicly. If anything, the testimony and questioning would likely be several hours and with some stuff even the Committee wouldn't want made public (as it may affect other legal proceedings).

Trump's not going to testify under oath publicly (if at all). The Committee wouldn't allow him to speak at a Hearing unless it was under oath (to avoid him just rambling, grandstanding and soapboxing).

I doubt there'll be another Hearing. If the GOP take control of House or Senate, the whole Committee and subpoena might never see the light of day again.

But, it's now public that he's been subpoenaed, and the Committee have carefully, thoroughly and publicly demonstrated why they did.