The longer public waits for Jan6 hearings the closer to election they'll be

[blm]

and the more likely they will be dismissed as an election year stunt dramatized for the campaign. No matter how serious the revelations, even casual voters are becoming more cynical about timing and motives. The media is NOT on democracy’s side.

Congressional Dems are notoriously slow-paced. Please, Dems, don’t slow down….. not this time.

[cilla4progress]

1. On the other hand -

with the public's notoriously short memory, would it not be beneficial to have it in the public's ear when we go to vote in November?

I have had a theory all along that the J6 committee is drawing it out for this very purpose.

I also believe DOJ is waiting for "all the evidence to come in" via the committee. It gives them cover.

[lagomorph777]

6. DOJ at this point needs cover for not prosecuting.

[blm]

7. I wish I trusted media enough to combat the revisionism

that is sure to follow. Instead, they seem to want to give added weight to the RightWing rebuttals, aka lies.

[RKP5637]

2. Extremely well said! Listen up Dems, get it together asap! n/t

[mopinko]

3. i think it could go either way.

the sooner we put the findings out, the more time the truth termites have to chew it to bits.

i think toward the end of spring is good. ppl still inside, for the most part. they digest it, then talk about it all summer. i think these things need time to brew.

[blm]

9. "truth termites"

that’s SO good, mo.

[mopinko]

14. i just now made that up, but imma keep it.

[blm]

16. 😁

[exboyfil]

4. Your best messaging would be to get it on streaming

in a dramatic format. Might be too late for that. That is how people absorb history.

[blm]

5. You can bet the revisionists prepared their edited version to stream

immediately and through to Election Day.

[Grasswire2]

8. Likely there a DoJ OLC memo written by Federalist Society member prohibiting hearings.

Wait and see.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Absolute nonsense

A DOJ memo would have no impact on the legislative branch.

[inthewind21]

28. You think not

It's a DOJ memo that says you can't bring criminal charges against a sitting president. And then there's that "no investigation discussions before an election because it's not fair". Unless your Hillary Clinton, then it's fair. Remember, Comey held a press conference about a Hillary investigation 10/28/2016, 8 days before the election, yet he said not a peep about the Trump campaign investigation or Mike Flynn. So, still think a DOJ memo has no impact?

[Grasswire2]

32. this

Well said.

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. So, give a past example of when DOJ restricted congress from holding hearings.

You can’t because it never happened because they don’t have that power.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. DOJ is part of the executive branch, Congress is the legislative branch- separate and co-equal

An executive branch memo has no authority or bearing over congress, just as congressional rules have no effect on the executive branch.

Now, DOJ could prosecute anyone in congress breaking the law, and congress could make laws affecting the structure and funding of DOJ, but that’s it.

DOJ can’t tell congress who they can or can’t investigate, and when they can or can’t investigate.

It’s all spelled out in the Constitution.

[Hoyt]

10. Lots of folks will see it as a stunt, especially if they don't have any hard evidence.

The Select Committee should have continued with the momentum created last summer when they had the Capitol Police testify, showed videos of violence, etc. For some reason they dropped the ball, took time off, and are back with a bunch of hype.

It's time to issue a report and any criminal referrals. The longer it takes, the more it looks like a "stunt" or whatever people want to call it. The Committee either has the evidence they need to convict trump, or they never will.

I'm still going to vote for Democrats no matter what. But if all they have is more evidence that trump is unfit to hold office, but nothing clearly criminal, the 5% or so who determine today's election results might not be so inclined.

[Novara]

12. No, they're not even close to issuing a report yet

IMO, doing the hearings in May and June is neither too early or too late. That's still 5-6 months ahead of the midterms. And think of this: the hearings can give Democrats campaign advertising fodder.

In a just world, they'd make the Sedition caucuses in both the House and Senate testify, and the Dems can use video of them squirming and stuttering through invoking the 5th because they're going to self-incriminate. That would make a good campaign ad.

It would be a shame to have the hearings too close to the midterms in case more evidence is unearthed during the hearings. It's possible to have a second set of hearings if the evidence warrants it.

It's also possible - likely - that they won't have the criminals held in contempt yet, because Merrick Garland is dragging his feet. They need to have those ducks in a row and haul their asses in forcibly.

No matter what, the other side is going to whine about it. Fuck 'em.

[Hoyt]

13. Yeah, because they don't have anything, just a bunch of unconnectable dots and evidence that hardly

anyone disputed-- trump is unfit for office.

If they aren't ready now, they never will be ready. Sorry.

Easily explained 7 hour gaps in phone logs, tweets to Meadows about exhausting all legal/constitutional means to protest election results, Junior texting about the many "paths to victory" they have while votes are still being counted, etc., ain't enough.

[Novara]

15. and you know they "don't have anything" for a fact exactly how?

[Hoyt]

19. Same way you know they have the evidence that will convince 12 jurors trump planned out a coup.

I learned my lesson with Fitzmas after waking up every night hoping they handcuffed bush.

And, I'm listening to what the Committee members are saying -- which is nothing but "stay tuned we have a bunch of bombshells."

Plus, there are thousands of investigative reporters looking for a career break, and they haven't found much hard criminal evidence.

You are hoping, which is fine because I hope you are right. Will be glad to eat crow dung if trump is convicted.

[Novara]

20. did I say anything about possible convictions?

No, I am not hoping. Hope is something I can't afford. I learned that long ago.

I am waiting and seeing without making any proclamations regarding what they have and what they don't have.

It's clear there is still a lot to uncover, given the frequent bombshells we have privy to. Just last Friday we learned of Mike Lee's involvement. It's obvious with the continual drip drip drip of new information that there's no way they've uncovered all there is.

I've watched this play out sooooo agonizingly slowly, just as you have. At times I've been utterly frustrated and felt the same thing you said - if they had something we'd know. But that's just an opinion. NONE OF US really know what they have or don't have.

So maybe it's not a bad idea to step back and wait and see. But if you can't stand doing nothing, then call the members of the committee, write emails, beg them to hold these motherfuckers responsible. It wouldn't be a bad thing for them to know that the public REALLY wants to see some perp walks.

[Hoyt]

21. Mike Lee, is he one who said, "Exhaust all LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL means" of contesting election?

That's hardly damning. Did you hear what Lee said, "exhaust all legal and constitutional means." That is really going to get people riled up.

[Novara]

23. Lee also said:

"If a very small handful of states were to have their legislatures appoint alternative slates of delegates, there could be a path.”

Also:

"We need something from state legislatures to make this legitimate and to have any hope of winning. Even if they can’t convene, it might be enough if a majority of them are willing to sign a statement indicating how they would vote."

So he's working on manufacturing a way to override the American people's votes. AND he's violating his oath to the Constitution.

I dunno about you, but that riles me up. The committee must call him in to testify.

[Hoyt]

24. It is not illegal to contest Elec votes. In fact, at least 7 Democratic reps tried it on 01/06/2017.

Reps Raskin, Jayapal, McGovern, Shelia Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee, Grijalva, and Waters forced Biden to shut them down trying to stop the election of trump. Of course, there was no storming of the Capitol in 2017, but there was an attempt to overturn Electoral votes. (Honestly, wish they had been successful in stopping trump.)

"Vice President Joe Biden presided over a joint session of Congress Friday, where members officially tallied electoral votes from the 2016 presidential election. President-elect Donald Trump’s 304 electoral votes weren’t counted without incident, however. During the course of the certification, House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiples states, with Biden gaveling them down for failure to follow the rules."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html

[Novara]

25. That isn't what he did.

[Hoyt]

26. Pretty much the same.

[Novara]

29. Not at all. Choosing electors to override the voters isn't the same thing.

And when push came to shove, Lee did not contest the certification of the election.

[Novara]

30. He did not contest the electoral votes

He actually voted to certify the election.

What he did was to pursue replacing electors with Trump electors, overriding the election. That is not the same thing as contesting the legitimate electoral votes during certification. He tried to find an illegal way to override the election, which is much worse than contesting the legitimate electoral votes. It is sedition.

And we're now going back and forth in two threads about this.

[Hoyt]

31. I believe the words were essentially, if state electors are denied, here's a group of

replacements to consider. They weren’t touted as the official electors, they were called replacement electors from gitgo.

I despise trump, but we are wasting time on that POS, allowing him to control sticking it to us. He continues to win.

[gab13by13]

11. I can find absolutely no fault with the select committee,

Thank goodness it has revealed all of the crimes that DOJ could be investigating.

Day 124 since the Meadows criminal referral. Hopefully DOJ is holding back to prosecute Meadows for something bigger.

[Grasswire2]

33. Didn't you see?

There's a secret memo written by OLC (a Federalist Society member appointed by Trump wrote it) that is keeping DoJ from prosecuting Meadows.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. Hearings start next month and will likely run to early summer

Don’t know if that fits with your preferred timetable of not.

[spanone]

22. republicons will do everything they can to frame this as political regardless of when.

That's what they do.

[kacekwl]

27. Yep.

Delay delay causes lost interest. Mark my words.