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.
Here's what the four recommended charges against Donald Trump entail and why the committee has chosen them.
Obstruction of an official proceeding: This statute makes it a crime to "corruptly" obstruct, influence, or impede, any official proceeding, or to attempt to do so. The committee recommended this charge as they say Trump deliberately attempted to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election results.
Conspiracy to defraud the United States: This crime entails "two or more persons conspiring either to commit any offence against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof". The committee believes Trump worked with others to impede the function of the US government and mislead the public about the results.
Conspiracy to make a false statement: This statue makes it a crime for a government official to cover up a scheme, make materially false statements, or issue false statements or documents with the knowledge the information isn’t true. The committee claims Trump and his backers’ planned to submit a slate of false electors in key swing states who would have handed him the presidency in defiance of election results.
Insurrection: This crime relates to inciting, assisting, or engaging "in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States." The committee argues that Trump encouraged his supporters to come to Washington and cause havoc, and as the attack was going on, failed to take appropriate action to end the violence.
Are any of these conclusions untrue. Sounds conclusive to me in terms of the evidence. Dispiriting that everyone isn't on-board with physical evidence. Do you remember the book A Conspiracy of Dunces? That title is a great descriptor for where America us now.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
57 minutes ago, MaybeeRN said:
Still living in that glass house I see.
Really? How can you see that when you can't see what's been laid out neatly for your review? It's almost like you don't want to know the truth and project when confronted by truth inspite of your efforts to ignore it.
Are any of these conclusions untrue. Sounds conclusive to me in terms of the evidence. Dispiriting that everyone isn't on-board with physical evidence. Do you remember the book A Conspiracy of Dunces? That title is a great descriptor for where America us now.
Evidence from a partisan committee. Let's see how you like the investigations when Republicans run them.
Are any of these conclusions untrue. Sounds conclusive to me in terms of the evidence. Dispiriting that everyone isn't on-board with physical evidence. Do you remember the book A Conspiracy of Dunces? That title is a great descriptor for where America us now.
Without a dismissal and deflection like "Evidence from a partisan committee. Let's see how you like the investigations when Republicans run them." I find it difficult to believe they would spend all these hours, read all those documents, interview all those people and logically lay out their just for a made up partisan witch hunt and come up with false accusations, slander and libel. Whether any of them lead to legal charges that will hold up in a court, I don't know.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
7 hours ago, MaybeeRN said:
Evidence from a partisan committee. Let's see how you like the investigations when Republicans run them.
Oh, we've been on republican partisan witch hunts before, I'm guessing that you don't remember the Benghazi hearings that were held to damage Clinton in the public eye and damage her candidacy. In that case there were Republicans who actually said that part out loud. Congressional Republicans haven't demonstrated any improved judgement or interest in governing since then so we all know what to expect.
It's easy to understand that republican directed investigations into individuals isn't really about accountability because there's so much evidence that congressional Republicans aren't interested in actual accountability. If they were they might start with some internal accountability first. Instead they are preparing some very expensive political theater for you.
Oh, we've been on republican partisan witch hunts before, I'm guessing that you don't remember the Benghazi hearings that were held to damage Clinton in the public eye and damage her candidacy. In that case there were Republicans who actually said that part out loud. Congressional Republicans haven't demonstrated any improved judgement or interest in governing since then so we all know what to expect.
It's easy to understand that republican directed investigations into individuals isn't really about accountability because there's so much evidence that congressional Republicans aren't interested in actual accountability. If they were they might start with some internal accountability first. Instead they are preparing some very expensive political theater for you.
There’s an evil part of me that’s looking forward to it. Funniest show since Monty Python!
It's not like we haven't had to endure partisan investigations before..."but her emails...lock her up! lock her up! Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi". Or the many times Fauci faced a hostile congress.
Sometimes they lead somewhere, other times they won't. Like I said above, the Trump congressional investigation just may end there.
I’ve read that something like 30 Republican members of congress participated in trump’s pressure campaign. It will be interesting to see how many of them show up on these threatened “investigations”.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
24 minutes ago, MaybeeRN said:
Yet the Democrat clown show should be taken seriously.
Oh no... you are welcome to ignore it and not take it seriously. That would actually match your devotion to Trump and the extreme right wing rhetoric that you share. We actually enjoy your offerings here because they are such a clear representation of the indoctrinated beliefs of that subset of Trump loving Republicans.
Tweety, BSN, RN
36,273 Posts
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-63994477