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.
It's is correct that the committee's recommendation is not the same as conviction. I wouldn't say "it means nothing". But it certainly is not a guilty verdict or even an indictment.
Obviously it's partisan. While I might find that reason to be skeptical, it also doesn't make me dismiss it either. After all two republicans sacrificed their careers over the committee's finding.
Not catty at all. Spellcheck is not an excuse. One CAN look at what they are texting. This person takes their cues from MTG.
It seems like the crowd who gives some slack to those who can't cut and paste could do the same for those who either misspoke or didn't catch spellchecker.
You seem to have some personal knowledge about Attorney General Garland. Did you go to school together at Harvard or work together in the courts? Perhaps you assisted with the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers. Are you just sore because he was nominated the SCOTUS, edging you out?
Nope. I couldn't afford the pay cut taking one of those jobs.
My name is attached to this post but I didn't send it:(
Interesting.
There was a time when we had a fair number of usernames posting uncharacteristic comments. They inspired a game I enjoy when AN gets too boring: Spot the Bot.
In the first part of Eastman's interview with Ingraham, which aired Tuesday night, Eastman doubled down on his allegations of fraud and pushed back against the suggestion that he advanced the fraud claims knowing they were false, telling Ingraham, "I challenge [prosecutors] to find a single email that supports that.” In fact, an email has already been cited in court as showing that, in which Eastman acknowledged that fraud claims made in a legal filing were untrue. Trump signed that legal complaint anyway despite Eastman saying Trump had been "made aware" the claims were false, and both the attorney and ex-president were charged in Georgia with filing false documents as a result.
Liars sometimes have trouble remembering their specific lies.
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?
I told you so.
"If I were a defense attorney and Ms. Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do was seek to preclude some of her testimony because it was hearsay, and I don't have the full range of her testimony in front of me right now, but I do remember that that was a decent part of it," Smith said.
Smith was also asked about specific claims Hutchinson had made, including that Trump was aware that some of his supporters would be armed at his rally and that Trump attempted to grab the steering wheel of his driver out of anger.
Hutchinson "was a second or even thirdhand witness," Smith said, adding that other witnesses gave "different perspectives" than her. "
"If I were a defense attorney and Ms. Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do was seek to preclude some of her testimony because it was hearsay, and I don't have the full range of her testimony in front of me right now, but I do remember that that was a decent part of it," Smith said.
Smith was also asked about specific claims Hutchinson had made, including that Trump was aware that some of his supporters would be armed at his rally and that Trump attempted to grab the steering wheel of his driver out of anger.
Hutchinson "was a second or even thirdhand witness," Smith said, adding that other witnesses gave "different perspectives" than her. "
Smith also said that without Trump the events of January 6th simply don't happen at all. He said that he believed he had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is the;
Quote
"most culpable and most responsible person" in the criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Smith said that Trump's messaging during the attack on the Capitol put his VPs life in danger. Smith built a case based upon Trump's political allies and their testimony or evidence. Smith said lots of things during that 8 hour video. One of the things that he said was that he understands that Trump has targeted him for retribution.
Do we think that the retribution will be private, or will some part of government be weaponized for that retribution? The legal team that worked the case already lost their jobs and security clearance as a thank you for their service and at AG Bondi's direction.
Quote
"The evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy. These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him. The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit," Smith said, bristling at a question about whether his investigations were meant to prevent Trump from reclaiming the presidency in 2024.
"So in terms of why we would pursue a case against him, I entirely disagree with any characterization that our work was in any way meant to hamper him in the presidential election," he added.
Quote
When it came to the Capitol riot itself, Smith said, the evidence showed that Trump "caused it and that he exploited it and that it was foreseeable to him."
Asked whether there was evidence that Trump had instructed supporters to riot at the Capitol, Smith said that Trump in the weeks leading to the insurrection got "people to believe fraud claims that weren't true."
"He made false statements to state legislatures, to his supporters in all sorts of contexts and was aware in the days leading up to Jan. 6th that his supporters were angry when he invited them and then he directed them to the Capitol," Smith said.
"Now, once they were at the Capitol and once the attack on the Capitol happened, he refused to stop it. He instead issued a tweet that without question in my mind endangered the life of his own vice president," he added. "And when the violence was going on, he had to be pushed repeatedly by his staff members to do anything to quell it."
Smith also said that without Trump the events of January 6th simply don't happen at all.
No kidding.
Mean Gramma said:
He said that he believed he had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is the;
It must not have been beyond a reasonable doubt as he didn't see fit to file charges, did he?
Mean Gramma said:
Smith said that Trump's messaging during the attack on the Capitol put his VPs life in danger.
Trump should have done more to stop the attack.
Mean Gramma said:
Smith built a case based upon Trump's political allies and their testimony or evidence. Smith said lots of things during that 8 hour video. One of the things that he said was that he understands that Trump has targeted him for retribution.
Do we think that the retribution will be private, or will some part of government be weaponized for that retribution?
Whatever case he built apparently wasnt strong enough that he thought he could win it.
subee, MSN, CRNA
1 Article; 6,263 Posts
Not catty at all. Spellcheck is not an excuse. One CAN look at what they are texting. This person takes their cues from MTG.