kentuck
kentuck's JournalThe subpoena is an historical document.
A couple of folks on Nicolle Wallace's show today made similar comments. Jackie Alemany, a reporter for the Washington Post, commented that 6 former presidents, including Gerald Ford, Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, William Howard Taft, John Tyler, all the way back to John Quincy Adams, all had testified in front of the Congress after they were former presidents.
It was useful to note that Trump would not be a precedent of any kind, in that respect.
There's a useful quote from the movie, Apocalypse Now, where Chef and one of his buddies get off the boat to look for mangoes and come eye-to-eye with a tiger in the jungle.
Freaked and shaken, Chef is screaming as he scrambles to get back on the boat. "Never get off the boat! Never get off the boat!"...
And then the voice of Martin Sheen, "Never get off the boat....unless you're willing to take it all the way."
If Trump does not show up as scheduled...?
Should the Committee send a criminal referral to the DOJ?
Since it is after the election, but before the new Congress is sworn in, it would go to the DOJ.
In my opinion, this would give more leverage to AG Garland if he makes the decision to indict.
If they do not send a criminal referral, the right-wing noise machine will more easily portray the Attorney General as reckless and incompetent.
If Trump does not show up, then a criminal referral is in order, in my opinion.
Is it fair to call the former president "Traitor Trump"?
Could that create some sort of bias toward him that might prevent him from getting a fair hearing?
After all, we haven't heard his side of the story since he was accused of stealing secret documents and hiding them at his mansion in Florida. How do we know that he took them to his mansion and hid them in his office? How do we know the FBI didn't plant those? And all those empty "classified" folders? How do we know they had anything in them?
To call someone a "traitor" suggests he has betrayed our country. He has done something so vile to be called "Traitor Trump"? Is that really fair to him?
Also, how do we know what he was doing as the mob of his supporters were attacking and ransacking our Capitol? Do we really know if he threatened the lives of Vice-President Mike Pence and Speaker Pelosi? Could that just be "fake news"?
It's hard to believe that someone in such a high position would betray our country in such a way. We really need to hear what he has to say in his defense before we jump to conclusions and start calling him names like "Traitor Trump".
Don't you agree? 
Vote for Anarchy
Vote against law and order.
Reprimand those that would criticize the criminals.
Ignore the rules of common society.
Practice individual freedom and attack those that would impose on your rights.
Tear down the institutions and disrupt the state.
Disavow government in all its forms.
Promote the survival of the fittest.
Is that the path we are headed?
If BoJo can come back, then why can't DoTrum do the same?
They seem to be in similar orbits?
Out of desperation, Britain seems to be prepared to accept the incompetent boob back into their good graces.
Can the US be far behind?
Should Trump be subpoenaed before or after the election?
Does it make any difference?
Would it affect the election one way or the other?
That may be one of the questions the Committee is asking itself as they ready the subpoena for the former disgraced, criminal president?
Both Parties are probably waiting to see what direction the voters are going? Regardless, the Democrats will be in charge until the 3rd of January.
They can continue to hope that the Republicans will awaken from their political nightmare and do what is required by the law and the Constitution, and in the process, save our democracy. Or they can accept the reality that a violent attempted coup to overthrow our government is no big deal. That a conspiracy of sedition can be ignored and swept under the rug. That espionage, and the theft of America's secrets by a criminal former president, can simply be forgotten.
Or they can continue to investigate and expose the crimes of the other Party, in hopes that they or their supporters will awaken from their nightmare, and do what is best for our country?
Trump now offers the FBI a "free search" of Mar-a-Lago...
Reported on the cable networks, Trump is offering to let the FBI do another search of his Mar-a-lago mansion.
Surely if there was anything still there, he would have moved it by now?
Why would he make such a stupid offer?
So he could tell his "people" that he had nothing to hide? In fact, he offered to let them come into his place and search it. They didn't have to "break into" his home while he was away. Is he really making the offer so that he can have a story to spin to his followers? He knows that they are not smart enough to know the difference?
He knows what lies will work with his cult.
Will you be disappointed if Trump is not indicted?
How much so?
What will you do if he is not indicted?
Will you work doubly hard to make sure Republicans do not win?
What will be your reaction?
Have you thought of this possibility?
The Committee must subpoena Trump.
And if he refuses to show up, then they should make a criminal referral to the DOJ.
The Justice Dept needs the support of the Congress. Otherwise, it would give the other side the opportunity to attack Merrick Garland as an incompetent and reckless Attorney General.
If there is to be a "war", then it can be a battlefield for politics or for actual violence. We prefer that we resolve our differences on the political battlefield.
If Garland then makes the decision to indict Trump for various crimes, then he has the imprimatur of the people behind him, in the name of the Congress of the United States.
In my opinion, it is important that the Committee give its full support to the Department of Justice, in this instance.
It will go to the full Congress for a vote, and it will be up to each Congress person to decide which way they wish to go?
(on edit) Furthermore, they should invite him to do it publicly, but under oath. He should explain to the people his role in the attack upon our Capitol. As a former president, he should volunteer to come in and answer all questions. That is not asking too much from a former president.
Michael Schmidt ?
He was just on the Nicolle Wallace show and made a very dumb argument, in my opinion.
He said the January 6 Committee set a "very high bar" by looking for "criminality" from the beginning of their investigation?
What the hell were they supposed to be looking for? Was there no criminality in the attack upon our Capitol? We now know there was a deep criminality.
The Committee knew there was criminality, as did every other American that had their eyes open on that day.
Their task was to find out who was behind the "criminality"? How deep did it go? There was never a question about "criminality", as Michael Schmidt suggested in his comments.
The Committee has succeeded in uncovering the degree of criminality, in my opinion.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 111,111
