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.
subee, MSN, CRNA
1 Article; 6,118 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.