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.
I agree that you've correctly identified "why some people would believe the election was stolen" and "why people don't buy this insurrection stuff", specifically that the facts which contradict your claims have been presented to you, yet rather than addressing them you simply completely ignore them. The technical term for that is delusional thinking.
What are you even þalking about? What facts contradict my claims? That the media completely falsified this claim about the police officer who actually wasn't beat to death by "Trump inserectionist"? I mean it wasn't even just a slight deviation from the truth like, "because the officer died several hours after the insurrection, it was first believed that it was caused by events that had been taken place earlier in the day, along with false reports of beating with a fire extiguisher. However this has been shown not to be the case"
No. Then they decided to furthervtheir propaganda by alluding that it was a allergic reaction to being bear sprayed... Then even with the autopsy it's still bring manipulated.
Officer Sicknick had a condition in which he was not aware of. Yes, stressful situation causing increase of blood pressure leading to the 2 strokes. Any high stress police interaction put him at great risk or any situation which his BP would increase. Getting into a minor car accident voted cause that. So is the other driver responsible for his death because the crash increased his BP then he suffered a stroke? What??? But but still it was because of the riot, it caused his BP to rise.
Instead of just correcting the story and moving on they could not just accept or let go of the political jewl that he died as a result somehow of Jan.6. Complete with an embarrassing flamboyant service at the Capital for the fallen officer.(he deserved his housed funeral but) Coming from the party of ACAB and defend the police.
Do you not find that a bit disturbing? Do you mean that there has been reports of the "facts" that I ignore because I'm delusional? Even Reuters reported it falsely so what's to say any of the "facts" we heard are actually the facts?
Same with Nick Sandman and Kyle Rittenhouse. Jussy Smoliet and the Nascar fake hate crime! All false reported "facts",.
When an average person see this with their own eyes year after year and so blatantly, can you wonder why there could be a conditioning of believing something misrepresented as a stolen election?
P.s: I never said that people believed something untruthful and committed crimes that day. However with the inflated BS I described above, can you blame me for thinking that this "inserection" may not be what these dishonest demagogues are saying it is? The FBI came out and said there wasn't a organized connection between Trump and his associates. But here we are having a enquiry. Just to keep up the BS narrative at all cost.
I think that the media reported what happened and related the two things...the intense struggle and the following death. I don't see that as an intentional misrepresentation of the facts as much as I see it as developing a clearer understanding after the post mortem is made public.
Yes, I agree, one could find examples of extremist rhetoric that used that language in mass media. Yes, I agree that we talk about fascists and nazis sometimes in these threads. Cclm mentions nazis frequently. My reference to Session's policy was an example of what I might label as evil. The term evil supposedly was used by liberals to describe the people who fought with the now dead officer on January 6...so it was a contrast of context for the word in a political discussion, I suppose.
I do not call people Nazis like you do. All In attempt to silence a person using the death of 6 million Jewish people to do it. Sounds kinda evil don't ya think?
Why do you even persist in addressing Trump as Mister? He has sorely lacked in any qualities that entitle him to an honorific. I appreciate that you noted that your sources didn't include "Nazi" or "evil." Describing people more petty than Hitler is an insult to those who suffered under him, including the American soldiers that were killed in the war.
Maybe because half of the country voted for him and he was the POTUS???
It seems that you've learned something that you think is evidence that the events of January 6 have been exaggerated. You apparently believe that the struggle prior to the officer's death was unrelated to his death and therefore that makes January 6 out to be nothing of concern. You apparently believe that it's "redicoulas" ( to use your word) to hold those rioters accountable, or the people who incited them, instead it's important to hold accountable the liberal legislators who were targeted by the mob, I guess.
No. We know that people believe that the election was stolen because Trump has told them lies about election integrity for more than a year now. They believe that lie because media outlets repeat the lie and elected officials reference the lie with regularity as if there were actual veracity to the claims. Those propagandists point to the beliefs of the indoctrinated as evidence of the the truth of the lie when we all know it's simply evidence that their lies were believed.
It sounds like you believe these lies about the election and about the events of January 6.
I think I posted evidence that this did get blown up and misrepresented. And you seem to not like it. This isn't the only example either. Even sources you, the propaganda detector and decider believe to be reputable. Including the tool you referenced me.
The struggle before his death really fid not have anything to do with it except his BP was raised. He could have drive home and got into a car accident and the same could have happened. Was it the car or the other drivers fault? (If the driver wasn't a Trump supporter of course".
Trump spouted off a bunch of egotistical comments that a SMALL group of people took too litterally. He did not incite an inserection. Those people were a disorganized mess. They didn't know what they were doing. Imo reading all different types of sourced which evidently are not 100% truthful proved by my source. If I saw 100% proof this was caused by Trump, I would denounce him right away. You would coddle Biden if he killed puppies.
Sounds like you believe anything that goes with your narrative, just like the dishonest people who reported this all wrong.
P.s: it's not large scale election fraud but can you with a straight face claim the democrats did not exploit covid and mail in voting at all? Looool. Nevermind you wouldn't be honest anyway.....
I agree that you've correctly identified "why some people would believe the election was stolen" and "why people don't buy this insurrection stuff", specifically that the facts which contradict your claims have been presented to you, yet rather than addressing them you simply completely ignore them. The technical term for that is delusional thinking.
I'm not sure why you think you should be so brash.
What you present as facts, aren't always so. Such as your claim the other day about Ashley Babbit was about to breach the room where Pence presently was.
Representative Scott Perry has denied the Jan 6 committee request for an interview with him, calling them illegitimate. Rep. Perry had a hand in trying to install Jeffrey Clark as attorney general, after Barr resigned. He also apparently encouraged the Justice Department to look into claims of voter fraud.
Congressman Perry met with Trump prior to the Jan 6 riot and would seem to have information about what the former president knew attempts to overturn the election.
Representative Scott Perry has denied the Jan 6 committee request for an interview with him, calling them illegitimate. Rep. Perry had a hand in trying to install Jeffrey Clark as attorney general, after Barr resigned. He also apparently encouraged the Justice Department to look into claims of voter fraud.
Congressman Perry met with Trump prior to the Jan 6 riot and would seem to have information about what the former president knew attempts to overturn the election.
The Repubkican nut job du jour. The Jim Jordan wannabe. While the Dems are dithering, the rest if us are still waiting for a little justice.
Now how can you say the "facts" you think are true about Jan.6 are indeed "facts"?.
Wapo (one of TMB favorites) seems to be a repeat offender. I never said my opinions were facts I just question what is considered facts. Not too comforting considering the BS I sourced above.
Please forgive my many typos and mistakes in previous post. Typing fast and edit function not working.
I'm not sure why you think you should be so brash.
What you present as facts, aren't always so. Such as your claim the other day about Ashley Babbit was about to breach the room where Pence presently was.
Let's drop the insulting dialog.
I don't really agree with the notion that matter-of-factly pointing out that someone's views or conclusions are incorrect is "insulting", it can be done in an insulting manner but pointing out that claims aren't correct is not by itself insulting, maybe you could be more specific about what you're referring to.
Speaking of which, you're correct my understanding of where Pence was at the time is outdated. There are still timelines that claim Pence was initially evacuated to the House side, likely in the Speaker's lobby before eventually being evacuated first to his ceremonial office for a short time and then to somewhere in the basement which wasn't until closer to 4:00, with Babbitt being shot at 2:45. But you're correct, that timeline appears contradicted by other firsthand accounts.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
14 hours ago, Cclm said:
I do not call people Nazis like you do. All In attempt to silence a person using the death of 6 million Jewish people to do it. Sounds kinda evil don't ya think?
You are making stuff up again. It seems to be a pattern of behavior.
Now how can you say the "facts" you think are true about Jan.6 are indeed "facts"?.
Wapo (one of TMB favorites) seems to be a repeat offender. I never said my opinions were facts I just question what is considered facts. Not too comforting considering the BS I sourced above.
Please forgive my many typos and mistakes in previous post. Typing fast and edit function not working.
Yes, the Washington Post is one of my preferred media outlets, I'm a long term subscriber. What is your favorite media outlet? Is it some religious outlet? Shapiro's platform?
Is interesting that you publish inaccurate and poorly informed opinions filled with grammatical and typographical errors with regularity. Even so, your credibility isn't supposed to be questioned even though you don't correct your errors or inaccuracies...you just get to apologize that you might have spelled some things wrong and made inaccurate claims and we're supposed to accept that. You have a different standard for the WAPO apparently.
Are you courageous enough to tell us what media outlet is your preferred source? Which sources do you think you have linked to in these threads most often?
Cclm, LPN
786 Posts
What are you even þalking about? What facts contradict my claims? That the media completely falsified this claim about the police officer who actually wasn't beat to death by "Trump inserectionist"? I mean it wasn't even just a slight deviation from the truth like, "because the officer died several hours after the insurrection, it was first believed that it was caused by events that had been taken place earlier in the day, along with false reports of beating with a fire extiguisher. However this has been shown not to be the case"
No. Then they decided to furthervtheir propaganda by alluding that it was a allergic reaction to being bear sprayed... Then even with the autopsy it's still bring manipulated.
Officer Sicknick had a condition in which he was not aware of. Yes, stressful situation causing increase of blood pressure leading to the 2 strokes. Any high stress police interaction put him at great risk or any situation which his BP would increase. Getting into a minor car accident voted cause that. So is the other driver responsible for his death because the crash increased his BP then he suffered a stroke? What??? But but still it was because of the riot, it caused his BP to rise.
Instead of just correcting the story and moving on they could not just accept or let go of the political jewl that he died as a result somehow of Jan.6. Complete with an embarrassing flamboyant service at the Capital for the fallen officer.(he deserved his housed funeral but) Coming from the party of ACAB and defend the police.
Do you not find that a bit disturbing? Do you mean that there has been reports of the "facts" that I ignore because I'm delusional? Even Reuters reported it falsely so what's to say any of the "facts" we heard are actually the facts?
Same with Nick Sandman and Kyle Rittenhouse. Jussy Smoliet and the Nascar fake hate crime! All false reported "facts",.
When an average person see this with their own eyes year after year and so blatantly, can you wonder why there could be a conditioning of believing something misrepresented as a stolen election?
P.s: I never said that people believed something untruthful and committed crimes that day. However with the inflated BS I described above, can you blame me for thinking that this "inserection" may not be what these dishonest demagogues are saying it is? The FBI came out and said there wasn't a organized connection between Trump and his associates. But here we are having a enquiry. Just to keep up the BS narrative at all cost.