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.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:
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.
You all have fun with that. I'm out.
Fun?
Those weren't criminal cases that Trump lost in those states. Trump and his team brought lawsuits which had no factual merit, they were unsupported in any credible fashion. That makes his claims wrong, false or otherwise untruthful. If they were true they would have prevailed on facts and evidence.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
42 minutes ago, MaybeeRN said:
Wonder where Trump supposedly learned how to try to usurp the electoral college? I know, from Democrats in 2016.
Really?
Can you point to the alternate electors that the democrats had lined up in that election that you are referencing? Which election was that again? Do you have pictures of the mob that stopped the transition of power in that imagined event? I'll look forward to your citations that will help us to understand that crazy projection...
Wonder where Trump supposedly learned how to try to usurp the electoral college? I know, from Democrats in 2016.
No … trump’s buddies forged those credentials all on their own. Classic false equivalence - a foundational gaslighting tactic.
Pressuring electors to change their votes is as old as the Electoral College itself. Forged credentials to install ringers not so much. I think trump learned his MO from watching gangsters fixing horse-races and pro boxing matches. Roy Cohn was his mentor, after all.
Rigged elections are endemic in this country and are historically bipartisan. But that doesn’t make it OK to keep trying.
Can you point to the alternate electors that the democrats had lined up in that election that you are referencing? Which election was that again? Do you have pictures of the mob that stopped the transition of power in that imagined event? I'll look forward to your citations that will help us to understand that crazy projection...
More recent efforts by Democrats to throw out electoral votes went nowhere in large part because the losing candidates — Mr. Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton — had conceded the election and did not encourage Congress to reject the vote. This election is different, of course: Mr. Trump continues to argue that the election was “stolen” and “rigged,” and that “ballot stuffing” took place, and Vice President Mike Pence has indicated support for efforts to challenge the election outcome in light of those claims.
But there is no evidence to support those claims. State officials have certified the election results. Without more evidence (and none seems likely to come out), the electoral votes from every state should be accepted by all members of Congress — including all Republicans.
Heading into Wednesday's joint session of Congress to tally the Electoral College vote results, lawmakers anticipated a long day peppered with objections hinged on baseless allegations of election fraud. More than a dozen Republican senators had said they would object to at least one state's election results.
They began with a debate over a challenge to Arizona's results. But after pro-Trump extremists brought violence and chaos to the Capitol, both chambers were forced into an emergency recess while the building was locked down
When lawmakers reconvened hours later, a number of Senate Republicans abandoned their plan to cast objections.
Only six senators, all Republicans, sustained the Arizona objection.
Josh Hawley, Missouri
Ted Cruz, Texas
Tommy Tuberville, Alabama
Roger Marshall, Kansas
John Kennedy, Louisiana
Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mississippi
The Senate rejected the Arizona challenge 93-6. The House rejected it 303-121.
House members also objected in the cases of Georgia, Michigan and Nevada, but no senator joined in the objection, thereby preventing debate.
The only other state disputed with support from both chambers was Pennsylvania; 138 House members, all Republicans, supported the objection, as did seven senators: Cruz, R-Texas; Hawley, R-Mo.; Hyde Smith, R-Miss.; Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.; Marshall, R-Kan.; Tuberville, R-Ala.; and Rick Scott, R-Fla.
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.
Thanks for mansplaining it to me but you might have noticed that I agreed with you. Not sure why you would feel the need to bring up such a point.
My first thought when cases were dismissed was there wasn't enough evidence and "nothing has been proven true about the election stolen". Saying "nothing has been proven false" would imply I think...well maybe it is true.
I've always said I would accept the fact that Trump won the election if it can be proven. I don't think the government is not corrupt and that coverups don't happen. But that after all this time people still think that democrats all across the country somehow rigged the election and that activists judges are in on the action and that after all this time there still isn't evidence to show this.
Yes, Republicans are probably going to take over again in a few weeks. Going to be a bitter pill to swallow but despite people believing the system is corrupt and Trump won, I still believe in it even when I lose which is often actually. LOL.
No … trump’s buddies forged those credentials all on their own. Classic false equivalence - a foundational gaslighting tactic.
Pressuring electors to change their votes is as old as the Electoral College itself. Forged credentials to install ringers not so much. I think trump learned his MO from watching gangsters fixing horse-races and pro boxing matches. Roy Cohn was his mentor, after all.
Rigged elections are endemic in this country and are historically bipartisan. But that doesn’t make it OK to keep trying.
Democrats have been trying usurp Republican presidents since 2000, 2004, and 2016. Can’t wait to make that popcorn in 2024 and see the kind of crap Dems pull when they lose the White House.
That opinion didn't support your contention...but thanks for the citation.
1 hour ago, MaybeeRN said:
Democrats have been trying usurp Republican presidents since 2000, 2004, and 2016. Can’t wait to make that popcorn in 2024 and see the kind of crap Dems pull when they lose the White House.
Yeah...we know that you believe that nonsense...but "see the kind of crap Dems pull when they lose" is clearly projection. We are, after all, commenting in a thread that is exclusively about what TRUMP SUPPORTERS DID on January 6 2021 when they were convinced (like you were convinced) by lies about the election. It's not even a good projection.
Abernathy's minority opinion seems to match yours... and that of most other Republicans who would vote for Trump again if he could get his name on the ballot. No surprise there.
I am not going to try to explain why a congressional investigation had to go forward quickly even though the corrupt House Republicans tried to shoot it down (to protect Trump and themselves). If American aren't capable of comprehending the ongoing threat that 010621 represents after more than a year of exposure to the growing pool of facts, evidence and detail about that treasonous plan to usurp our republic, then the USA will likely become something other than an actual democratic republic in this next election cycle. We're hoping, of course, that republican election deniers already in place at the state level will accept actual vote tallies in the upcoming elections...but... They've been busily making it possible for them to achieve now what Trump wanted in 2020.
We hope but they've sort of advertised their corrupt beliefs and intentions. Some pretty crazy people have associated themselves with republican politics and the voters seem not to care.
As the United States enters the final stretch to November’s midterm elections, Reuters documented multiple incidents of intimidation involving an expanding army of election observers, many of them recruited by prominent Republican Party figures and activists echoing Trump's false theories about election fraud. The widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election as alleged by Trump and his supporters was never proven.
Trump's apologists are like a poison to our form of government and civil society in general. It's almost impossible to live peacefully with people who are indoctrinated and agitated by media to find and elevate social divisions and to believe that violence is a type of legitimate political discourse. Look no further than Europe in the mid/late 1930s...those fascists also tried to put a happy face on their destruction of democracy using the Olympics...we weren't fooled by that were we? We know how those stories end, right? Franco? Mussolini? Papadopolous? Quisling? Hitler? There are plenty of recent fascists to study.
Abernathy's minority opinion seems to match yours... and that of most other Republicans who would vote for Trump again if he could get his name on the ballot. No surprise there.
Yes, it does match mine. What clued you in? Maybe that I said he "nailed it"?
Much of his opinion seems to align with yours. It seems you may not have even read it. What parts do you think is the opinion of the minority?
MaybeeRN
797 Posts
Wonder where Trump supposedly learned how to try to usurp the electoral college? I know, from Democrats in 2016.