Things seem to be unfolding rather quickly. Former White House aides and advisors are scrambling to cover themselves as they receive subpoenas to appear and produce documents.
It’s rare when lawyers — as opposed to their clients — take the Fifth Amendment. But Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department lawyer who reportedly tried to help Donald Trump overturn the 2020 presidential election, is now claiming the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He has just been joined in that posture by one of Trump’s main outside legal advisers, John Eastman.
The lawsuit comes after the committee signaled it would pursue a criminal contempt referral against Meadows because of his refusal to sit for a deposition in the investigation into the Capitol riot. Meadows alleges that the subpoenas are "overly broad and unduly burdensome," while claiming that the committee "lacks lawful authority to seek and to obtain" the information requested.
And apparently Mark Meadows had a power point outlining how to overturn election results.
The 38-page presentation, entitled "Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan," is dated one day before the Capitol riot. It's believed to have been submitted by Meadows after he was subpoenaed by the panel in connection with the insurrection.
As a very long term Delaware County, PA voter, these statements from the former President have been DEBUNKED proven FALSE in a court of law.
Donald Trump is incapable of accepting the TRUTH-- he lost: Biden got 7million more votes along with 306 Electorial count, yet he continues to SPEAK FALSEFOODS about my state and area.
U.S. Attorney Bill McSwain prior was District Attorney in Delaware County and was planning on running as GOP candidate for Governor in 2022 so curried favor with Trump. As a result, he only garnered 15% in 2022 Primary, placing third behind Mastriano.
Then how about “unsubstantiated by any evidence of any kind”?
But not proven. So I guess if the cases are so weak they are dismissed for lack of evidence you can cling to the idea that "oh well, nothing was actually proven false". Hurts my brain thinking about that kind of twist.
The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit asking a state appeals court to reject the Pennsylvania secretary of state's announcement that registered voters had until November 12 to provide proof of identity for mail-in ballots. Republicans believe the deadline should be November 9. This is the one case that Trump won, before the state Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision.
In a wide-ranging federal lawsuit, the Trump campaign sued over alleged irregularities in the way ballots were counted throughout the state. They've argued that 14,000 votes should be thrown out. The campaign submitted a revised version of the lawsuit days later that retracted many of its original allegations. A judge threw out the case, saying Trump's lawyers presented the court "with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpaid in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence." An appeal of the case also failed.
Another federal lawsuit brought by Republicans sought to delay the deadline for ballot requests. The judge rejected it.
A third federal lawsuit sought to stop the Montgomery County Board of Elections from allowing voters to "cure" their ballots — a process that allows people to fix clerical errors on their ballots to make sure their votes count. Republicans abandoned the lawsuit and withdrew from the case.
The campaign sued in yet another federal case to stop Philadelphia County from counting votes without Republicans present. The judge dismissed the case after Trump's lawyers said Republican election watchers were, in fact, present.
In another Montgomery County case, this one filed in a local court, Trump's lawyers sought to stop the county from counting mail-in ballots. The lawyers withdrew from the case.
A lawsuit in Bucks County filed by Republican congressional candidate Kathy Barnette on Election Day made a technical challenge on the county's method of organizing ballots before counting them. She withdrew the case two days later and lost the election
The Trump campaign appealed that Bucks County case soon afterward, but a judge rejected it and pointed out in his ruling that fraud wasn't an issue.
In a state court, Republicans challenged an instruction from the Secretary of State's office regarding provisional ballots. A state appellate court judge dismissed the request but ordered the secretary of state to segregate provisional ballots in case their validity becomes contested.
Local Republicans sought to stop Northampton County from revealing the identities of people whose ballots were canceled and lost the case.
A group of Pennsylvania Republicans lost at the state Supreme Court with a lawsuit trying to invalidate absentee voting after the voting period already ended, and trying to block the certification of election results.
Another group of Republicans filed a similar lawsuit and lost.
The Trump campaign filed a motion to intervene in a Supreme Court case brought by Republicans that centers on the deadline by which Pennsylvania officials are allowed to receive ballots. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled that officials could receive ballots until November 6 as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Republicans appealed the decision to the high court, which was deadlocked at 4-4 because Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate, leaving the lower court's ruling in place. The Supreme Court signaled it could hear the case again but has not granted the request to intervene.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar et al. is a lawsuit filed in the United States Supreme Court on December 20, 2020.[94] The suit asks the Court to evaluate the constitutionality of three Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions: In re November 3, 2020, Gen. Election, In re Canvassing Observation, and In re Canvass of Absentee & Mail-In Ballots of November 3, 2020, Gen. Election.[95] The Trump campaign also submitted a request to expedite proceedings,[95] but the Court ignored this and instead set the deadline for reply briefs from the respondents for January 22, 2021, two days after President Elect Biden's inauguration. It was dismissed without comment by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2021[96] ...
...
Ethics sanctions
On June 25, 2021, a New York State appellate court suspended attorney Rudy Giuliani's New York law license. A few weeks later, a Washington D.C. court suspended his Washington D.C. law license.[109][110]
On July 12, 2021, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held a Zoom hearing and compelled the testimony of several lawyers that participated in post-election lawsuits, including Sidney Powell, L. Lin Wood, and others. The hearing is the first step in determining if lawyers that participated in post-election lawsuits should receive attorney misconduct sanctions or be referred to a regulatory body for disbarment proceedings, for violating the ethics of their profession.[111][112] Judge Parker issued sanctions against the attorneys in August 2021, ordering them to pay the legal fees incurred by Michigan authorities and to take legal education classes. Parker also referred the attorneys to the states where they are licensed to practice law for possible disciplinary action. She wrote the attorneys had "scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way."[113][114]
On August 3, 2021, Magistrate Judge for the District of Colorado N. Reid Neureiter sanctioned two lawyers, Gary D. Fielder and Ernest John Walker, for a "frivolous" election lawsuit that was filed "in bad faith", containing "highly disputed and inflammatory" allegations that the lawyers made no efforts to verify.[115][116] In November 2021, Neureiter ordered the two attorneys to pay the groups they sued $187,000 to defray their legal costs, and to deter similar frivolous suits.[117]
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
4 hours ago, MaybeeRN said:
Attempted coup. Hahaha seriously an attempted coup from a mostly peaceful protest who were let in by police and gassed while rallying peaceful outside the Capitol.
Your delusion is safe...
4 hours ago, Tweety said:
Truth and facts actually don't have rebuttal. That's the definition of a fact. You don't say "in your opinion", or you don't have a legitimate rebuttal. You might have doubt and might investigate but facts and truth are the same every time.
Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels stated that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. Kind of like Trump saying over and over again "THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2020 WAS RIGGED AND STOLEN!" (in all caps) with no proof and yet people believe him.
Yeah... my bad, arguments have rebuttals, not truths and facts. Doesn't that mean that MaybeeRN's remark didn't make sense?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:
I shouldn't have to explain how that is different then "proven false".
Hhhmmm...“unsubstantiated by any evidence of any kind”?...
If I take you to court to prove that you stole my [fill in the loss] but my claims are not substantiated by any evidence of any kind AND everyone in my immediate circle told me that the claims were baloney... would you consider my claims against you to be proven false?
Because in a courtroom situation, those claims are false until they are proven true, remember? Are you trying to be clever or pedantic or do you not understand where the burden of proof lies?
But not proven. So I guess if the cases are so weak they are dismissed for lack of evidence you can cling to the idea that "oh well, nothing was actually proven false". Hurts my brain thinking about that kind of twist.
No, not clinging to anything. Most of the time I ignore them, but once in awhile I have to point out an absurd statement. Didn't think it would get so many bent out of shape.
Courts saying you didn't provide evidence to support your case is not the same as saying your case was proven false. That's all. While the standard of proof required is different, everyone knows in criminal cases the court rules "not guilty". That doesn't mean it was proven that the person didn't do it.
The House Jan. 6 committee, which reconvenes on Thursday for its ninth and likely final hearing, has been assiduous in its research, artful in its cinematography and almost wholly ineffective in shifting views about the storming of the U.S. Capitol in 2021 by a pro-Trump crowd....
...They have set themselves up less as investigators than as defenders of America’s democracy. This is the wrong venue for such a mission. The committee has wound up too partisan to carry it out. You can blame Republicans for nominating Trump defenders to the committee or Democrats for freezing them out, but the fact is the committee has seven Democrats and two Republicans, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, both in open rebellion against their Trumpified party (and both now on their way out of Congress).
The almost complete removal of oppositional checks leaves the committee ill suited to what is really a very delicate task. The Jan. 6 march on the Capitol was both a protest questioning the integrity of the 2020 election (protected by the First Amendment) and a violent assault on the integrity of the 2020 election (punishable by law).....
On top of that, there are two different contexts for understanding the event: judicial and civic. In the judicial context, those judges who ruled against more than 60 Trump-initiated and Trump-linked lawsuits to reopen vote counts and reverse election results did exactly the right thing. A courtroom is the wrong place to reward doubts about the legitimacy of elections. Overruling elections from the bench would undermine democracy and provide tomorrow’s lawyers with incentives to undermine it further....
... This is to misunderstand the nature of the challenge to American democracy posed by Donald Trump. Any reader of Michael Wolff’s book “Landslide,” about the final days of the Trump presidency, will see that his unsuitability is a matter of psychology, not ideology — of character, not politics. ...
.... After his defeat in November 2020, Mr. Trump began working the last available pressure point in the system — the Electoral College, as it turned out — to see if he could somehow lawyer and cajole his way to an alternative outcome. That a president would try such a thing required not just effrontery but also a colossal collapse in standards, integrity and public trust. But the requisite collapse had already taken place, by 2016 at the latest.
Beerman, BSN
4,416 Posts
"Proven false in a court if law"? Um, no. Lawsuits have been dismissed for a variety of reasons. Nothing has been "proven false".