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.
Just because people aren't interested in the committee or that only left leaning people are the ones giving MSNBC good ratings for the hearing doesn't mean the committee isn't doing with worth while work. I think my best friend nailed it better.
I do think that because people could care less it's not going to amount to much in the end.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
5 minutes ago, Beerman said:
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?
Here's an example of partisan rhetoric that I disagree with;
Quote
Politics, of course, was the point, and from the Democrats’ point of view, that’s entirely understandable. The hearings helped Democrats keep voters focused on Trump and the events of Jan. 6.
Certainly when politicians abandon laws, rules and precedent in an attempt to retain lost power through violence and chaos, the following but necessary investigation will be characterized as political by politically motivated opinion. Politics rule the day for those conservatives... not patriotism, not truth, and the not rule of law as evidenced by their opinions and remarks. The crimes were based in conservative politics. The conservative opinions are also based in conservative politics, not the reality of the GOP candidate's attempt to overthrow our democratic republic because he lost his election.
FBI was warned agents were sympathetic to Capitol rioters – report
Gloria Oladipo
A top FBI official was warned that a large number of bureau employees were sympathetic to Capitol rioters who threatened the lives of law makers.
NBC News reported that Paul Abbate, number two at the FBI, was warned about agents within the bureau showing sympathy to 6 January participants.
The email, sent from an unnamed person, read:
There’s no good way to say it, so I’ll just be direct: from my first-hand and second-hand information from conversations since January 6th there is, at best, a sizable percentage of the employee population that felt sympathetic to the group that stormed the Capitol… Several also lamented that the only reason this violent activity is getting more attention is because of ‘political correctness.
The email also added that several agents felt that the Capitol riots were no different than racial justice protests that happened in Summer 2020.
Abbate responded to the email with: “Thank you [redacted] for sharing everything below.”
The FBI declined to comment on the email, reported NBC.
The email, recently disclosed publicly in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, reflects an issue that’s been hanging over the Jan. 6 investigation since it began: the notion that there are some in the bureau who weren’t, and aren’t, particularly driven to bring cases against the Capitol rioters.
Quote
The person also wrote that an official in one FBI office in a “red state” said that more than 70% of that office's counterterrorism squad and about three-quarters of its agent population disagreed with the violence, “but could understand where the frustration was coming from.”
The agents identify with the frustration that is fed and fomented by lies from Trump, Republican lawmakers and right wing commentators. They are so blinded by partisan feelings and beliefs that they cannot discern dangerous lies from reality and facts. This is likely why Pence was not willing to get into the limo with a driver unknown to him on the 6th and why the presidential protection team was changed out when Biden was elected... the agents guarding Trump couldn't be trusted.
Is there widespread lack of critical thought or deductive reasoning within our law enforcement ranks at all levels? What does this say about conservative media content that so many conservative Americans are so easily convinced by lies?
Is there widespread lack of critical thought or deductive reasoning within our law enforcement ranks at all levels? What does this say about conservative media content that so many conservative Americans are so easily convinced by lies?
Especially appalling to me because FBI officials in this red state should remember that a right wing militia supporter blew up their workplace and killed 168 people, including 19 children.
Just because people aren't interested in the committee or that only left leaning people are the ones giving MSNBC good ratings for the hearing doesn't mean the committee isn't doing with worth while work. I think my best friend nailed it better.
I do think that because people could care less it's not going to amount to much in the end.
Your friend stated the case against Trump was "inrefutable".
Has your friend given any consideration that there was no testimony or evidence allowed that might refute the case against him? Or that there was not even any cross-examination of witnesses?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
33 minutes ago, Beerman said:
Your friend stated the case against Trump was "inrefutable".
Has your friend given any consideration that there was no testimony or evidence allowed that might refute the case against him? Or that there was not even any cross-examination of witnesses?
What testimony or evidence can you imagine which might refute the solid evidence that we have seen? I haven't really heard even any speculation from right wing commentary about what that testimony or evidence might look or sound like. Maybe you've heard hint of some of the defensive testimony or evidence that Trump would present should he be indicted and that spikes your skepticism. Trump's teams aren't well known for keeping secrets very well, leaks were a huge problem in his administration and campaigns as I recall.
Yes, it's clear that Trump has a defense and a perspective in this matter. His most recent communication to the Select Committee more or less outlined his defense strategy; a. The election was stolen from him. b. This is just another partisan witchhunt. c. Trump's debunked claims of election fraud apparently are proof of Trump's claims of election fraud. d. The Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on his behalf to stop the peaceful transition of power was large, devoted to him and he is still proud of them.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 hours ago, Ado Annie said:
Especially appalling to me because FBI officials in this red state should remember that a right wing militia supporter blew up their workplace and killed 168 people, including 19 children.
Yep.
We remember that. We remember the right wing ideology that inspired that act of terrorism. Why don't they?
Right wing extremism has been a growing threat in the USA for decades.
Quote
Abstract
The left-wing groups arose during the late 1960's, whereas right-wing groups have been a problem throughout much of the Nation's history. Left-wing groups emphasize class struggle and support for people in the Third World, whereas right-wing groups often believe in-white supremacy, extremes of Christianity and patriotism, and involvement in the survivalist movement. Both extremes are antidemocratic, see their mission as bringing about the revolution, and blame all the Nation's problems on a particular group. Leftists usually have urban backgrounds, are highly educated, and include blacks. Extreme right-wing groups consist entirely of white Christians and are often blue-collar and poorly educated. Both types of groups exploit legitimate political issues to attract members. They both also recruit from the military and prison populations. Their criminal offenses are similar and include bombings, murder of law enforcement officers, and attacks on government installations. Both types of groups pose a danger to the United States and need to be monitored. However, right-wing groups have greater potential for mounting a significant effort because they espouse traditional American values. 3 notes and 22 references.
Your friend stated the case against Trump was "inrefutable".
Has your friend given any consideration that there was no testimony or evidence allowed that might refute the case against him? Or that there was not even any cross-examination of witnesses?
This is not a trial. They are presenting their conclusions based on many hours of investigation with many pleading the fifth. The committee is not making this stuff up. Too bad it's a waste of time and falling on deaf ears.
I can't speak for my friend but I respect what he's said. Personally I really don't want to believe that Trump participated in anything regarding trying to overturn the election his way but given his insistence that the election was fraudulent and stolen, I also find it hard not to believe. We'll never know.
This is not a trial. They are presenting their conclusions based on many hours of investigation with many pleading the fifth. The committee is not making this stuff up. Too bad it's a waste of time and falling on deaf ears.
I can't speak for my friend but I respect what he's said. Personally I really don't want to believe that Trump participated in anything regarding trying to overturn the election his way but given his insistence that the election was fraudulent and stolen, I also find it hard not to believe. We'll never know.
No, it's not a trial. It's a show, and we're only seeing what the committee wants us to see.
The most glaring example is Cassidy Hutchinson testifying that she heard about Trump pushing a Secret Service agent out of the way. But, we didn't get to hear from the people who would have actually witnessed the incident, did we?
No, it's not a trial. It's a show, and we're only seeing what the committee wants us to see.
The most glaring example is Cassidy Hutchinson testifying that she heard about Trump pushing a Secret Service agent out of the way. But, we didn't get to hear from the people who would have actually witnessed the incident, did we?
If course it’s a show! The purpose of the committee is to investigate the roots of the insurrection, informthepublic of what they find out and report their findings to congress along with recommendations for action. They wouldn’t be doing their job if it wasn’t a show.
Criminal investigation and indictment are DOJ’s job, which is when legal standards of testimony and evidence are required. Meanwhile, given that magaphile representatives pitched a fit and refused to participate in the work of the committee, the constant complaints about process come across as cynically disingenuous. There will be plenty of opportunity to even the score if/when a criminal referral is made to DOJ or Republicans take back the House. Meanwhile, youse guys made your bed, now you’re stuck in it for at least a couple of months more.
So … do you have any reason to believe that the people who “actually witnessed the incident” were trying to testify to the committee and were, somehow, silenced? It’s not like the secret service has a sterling record of whole-hearted cooperation with the committee.
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...
Yes, your delusion is safe indeed.
It’s only delusional when Republicans try and usurp a duly elected President. Got it.
Tweety, BSN, RN
36,273 Posts
Just because people aren't interested in the committee or that only left leaning people are the ones giving MSNBC good ratings for the hearing doesn't mean the committee isn't doing with worth while work. I think my best friend nailed it better.
I do think that because people could care less it's not going to amount to much in the end.